Talk:Malazan Book of the Fallen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Fantasy task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments

I just redirected the effectively empty stubs for the individual books and merged the content from the separate article on 'warrens'. But the latter article carries a note saying that content was taken from[[1]]. This site has no copyright notice, nor any indication of authorship, and soem of its contet looks like it has been taken from an author's web site. Do we have a copyright problem here? DES 21:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am recreating the individual novel pages and am going to put some more info on them (and hopefully attempt plot summaries because this is one series that really needs them) to bring them in line with other pages about books. I could do with a hand getting images from the UK covers up though as I don't really know how to do this. Cheers.--Werthead 13:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I split the House and Hold unaligned as both House of Chains and Midnight Tides do not seem to pack them together and most likely the change from Hold to House also altered the Unaligned to the current state from the old one. --asmodai 10:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. I quite liked the page as it was before, but I felt that a general overview of the MBF series required some more entries, so I put in some stuff about the origin of the series, Ian Cameron Esslemont's role, the updated release dates for the next few books and some notes on the geography and history of the Malazan world. I also plan to put in individual entries (including plot synopsis, which seem to be lacking for the MBF world) for the individual books in the series. I can be found under the same name on the Other Authors pages at both http://www.wotmania.com/fantasymessageboard.asp and http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?act=idx. I'm also on the forum at http://www.malazanempire.com/forums/ for those who want to chew the fat over the series. - Werthead, 00:19 GMT 8 January 2006

The GURPS page says GURPS was created in 1986, Authorship says the Malazan universe was created in 1982 for GURPS.

IIRC it was originally AD&D, changing to GURPS later. - FlyingOrca 23:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll be seeing Steven tomorrow, I'll try to remember to ask him about this. - FlyingOrca 00:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, that's confirmed and changes made (citation: personal communication with Steven Erikson, 20 April 2006). Also changed the name of the world in the "Authorship" section; Malaz is a city, the Malazan Empire is an empire, but the world is not "Malaz". Cheers! - FlyingOrca 17:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Some minor changes confirming that Poliel and D'Rek are not the same god and confirming that Lether is on a seperate continent to any of the other landmasses. --Werthead 22:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I decided to be so bold as to remove the Otataral Dragon from the position of consort in the Dragon Hold.. Surely, since the Otataral dragon is female, it can hardly be the consort to Tiam? 62.231.141.214

Contents

[edit] Opinions on a seperate article

The last few subsections (houses, holds, people, gods and places) occupy a large amount of space and do not really provide information that is critical to the understanding of the series. I would suggest that they be split off into a separate article to keep the main Malazan page more concise. They are useful sources of information, but do they need to be part of the main article?

Just wondering what other peoples thoughts are on the matter? -- Derf noxid 15:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think they are fancruft and don't belong on the encyclopedia at all--and I say this as a fanatical Malazan fan. They would be great on another Malazan site, but are too much detail about a fictional world, and they invite fannish speculation, which is too much fun not to have somewhere, ideally a wiki, but is really out of place at Wikipedia. · rodii · 16:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I put up some information on geography as it is something first-time readers get confused about (the books leap about from location to location, sometimes many thousands of miles apart). Agreed that the information on magic, houses and holds is unnecessary in this article. A Malazan Wiki is actually in the works with people from the Malazanempire site working on it, and that would be the more logical place for detailed information. I will remove the detailed Hold and House information.--Werthead 13:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job. I look forward to the wiki--where is it? Also, off-topic, your work on the map is excellent--kudos. · rodii · 13:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The Malazan wiki is currently under construction through the forum at Malazanempire. Due to some problems, it's strictly a 'sign-up-to-access' deal at the moment. Due to time constraints, I'm not involved with it.--Werthead 23:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Comparisons to Glen Cook

I seem to recall Steven saying that the Black Company novels were an inspiration to him, along with some of the realistic war writing that came out of the Viet Nam conflict. Furthermore, I think Steven told me that Glen Cook told him that Steve's stuff is what he (Cook) wanted the Black Company books to be... but the time was wrong.

Not suggesting any particular edits to the article here, but if anyone thinks these things should be included, I could always talk to Steve about them. Cheers! FlyingOrca 21:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. There's actually been some furious debating about the validity of using authors' opinions on Wikipedia page, with the conclusion that we can only do this with published sources, either magazine interviews or online ones (better, since they can be linked). We can't use, 'Personal Comments by Steven Erikson' as a source, unfortunately (due to World War III breaking out on the Terry Goodkind page because his best friend's edits were largely deleted or reverted because he didn't have any other source other than, "What Terry told me last night on the phone,"). However, I am pretty certain that Steven has mentioned the Cook inspiration in interviews online, so we can use them as a source, once I can track these interviews down. Thanks for the information. If Glen Cook's comments on the MBF are online anywhere, or in a print magazine, that would be a great quote to add to the section. Sorry if I'm sounding like a killjoy, but as I said there've been problems on other pages with 'friend-sourced' comments and we have to try and avoid that here. Are you on the Malazaempire forum at all?--Werthead 18:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense. I'm visiting Steve tomorrow night, actually (vacation, wooo!), so I can ask him if he knows of any online quotes we can use. Or I could even get him to create some, maybe. As for the forum, I have visited on occasion, but I don't really have time for it. I am friends with the usual suspects there, though (the Winnipeg contingent, I'm sure you know who they are). Other than that, well, see page x of The Bonehunters... or you can just call me Smiles. ;-) - FlyingOrca 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice. Creating articles or interviews specifically designed so they can go on Wikipedia is a bit of a loophole, but not against the rules as far as I can tell, so that would be great. I know Steve did an interview with Locus recently which I'm hoping might appear online as that had some good stuff in it. I'm not high up on the forum hierarchy (although I am the guy who created the World Map, which Steven had a few positive comments on) but I've had a few talks with Malacalypse and Kallor before, who I believe are the contingent you're talking about. :-) --Werthead 23:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, no it was Interzone, not Locus.--Werthead 23:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King of Chains

Is that now considered The Crippled God???Krmarshall (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure and AGF-ed it. I thought it was Rhuald (never figured out if that's how you spell it), it's possible some fan is inserting speculation. Technically I think the throne would be empty with the death of Rhuald, and TCG was outside of the House despite essentially creating it. One of the difficulties in working with fiction, the only real reliable sources we have are the glossary and cast of characters barring Erikson giving an interview. If you're sufficiently convinced it's incorrect, you can legitemately remove it as unsourced. WLU (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organizing MBotF

I think seperate articles should be created for the Geography and History in the Malazan Book of the Fallen. Anyone have any thoughts on how much should be kept on this article?Jeffsul (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Geography and history both could be spun out to main articles, the remainder is probably OK to stay since it touches on very broad aspects of the whole series, or has its own page. WLU (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Very Large Cast of Characters?

quote: "It is an epic fantasy, wide in scope and encompassing the stories of a very large cast of characters." I have only read the first two books, but as far as i can see there are only a dozen or so main characters. Large but not very large. as compared to Robert Jordan's (May he rest in peace) "Wheel of Time" series (which had scores (1 score = 20) of characters, so many i lost track) it has comparatively few characters. however wheel of time did only start out with a few character and gained more as the series continues so maybe similar happens in this series. although to back up the current (Very large) i have read it described with the above sentence ("It is an epic fantasy, wide in scope and encompassing the stories of a very large cast of characters.") elsewhere. Oxinabox (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There gets to be more in succeeding books. Midnight tides adds an entire continent's worth, Memories of Ice a whole new army, that of the Pannion Domin, House of Chains adds the Teblor, greatly expands the characters in the army of Sha'ik, each book expands the cast, sometimes greatly. I'd say very large is appropriate, but Jeffsul and Kmarshall might have something else to say - if you're only on book 2, you've got a lot of good books to go and if you're inclined to trust my opinion, I'd say 'very large' is apt particularly considering the detail given to many of the characters, major and minor. WLU (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
There are definitely a very large cast of characters - I am creating a page to list them all (List of Malazan Book of the Fallen Characters) and I am still going through the second book's Dramatis Personae. I have also read all of the books released (as well as the Wheel of Time) and know there are many more important ones to come.
Jeffsul (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am inclided to trust you, WLU. I'm currently reading "House of chains" (and loving it). However the cast, seems to remain the same in terms of active characters, per book. While many new characters are appearing, the Karsa (sp?) ect. Characters are leaving at similar rate at the end of the books (it really is a book of the fallen).

      • SPOILER Ahead

.Eg we lost most of the Torbal Cabal at the end of the first book . We lost basically Colatian's whole army in the second. In the third We lost almost all the bridge burners, and Moons spawn (note technically a character? but it got "wounds" in pale, and seems to heal some in Darustan (or was theat just my wishful thinking?) it felt alive to me. and i felt the same sense of lost with it's death as i felt for WiskeyJack.

The very large cast comment is appropriate. The cast of this series is enormous, easily comparable to WoT if not moreso. True, quite a few have been killed off (which is less the case with Jordan), but many of them also come back in one form or another and unlike Jordan there are no characters which appear in every book, but in terms of people who have an important impact on the story, there are dozens, maybe over a hundred, of them. And that's even without factoring in ICE's books as well.--Werthead (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page on Demons

We need a page on Demons, theres a good explaination in the book third book when Quick Ben speaks of AraL Gral before going to see the necromancers in capustan. but there is npthing that good anywhere on the net that i've found. Oxinabox (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


The problem is that the demons in the books have not been a major force in the series. They're there and some of them are players, but compared to the other nonhuman races they are a very minor faction indeed.--Werthead (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ICE's Books

With the publication of Return of the Crimson Guard, I think the issue of how to treat ICE's books needs to be examined. Whilst Night of Knives was a somewhat unnecessary-but-interesting side-novel, Return seems to be a much more important and integeral part of the series. It expands on numerous characters from Erikson's earlier novels (inclding Mallick Rel, Korbolo Dom, Tayschrenn, Shadowthrone & Cotillion, Nil & Nether, the Crimson Guard members we met before, Traveller, Laseen etc), it explains background plot detail that Erikson skimmed over in The Bonehunters and picks up on the pretty major storyline elements left hanging from that novel. If Erikson's later novels do return to the Empire, or at least recount news from the Empire, then the events of Return will directly impact on them. From the sound of it, Stonewielder will also feature major storyline developments for the series as a whole related to Korelri, whilst the fourth book (presumably the Assail one) will resolve plot-threads stretching back as far as Memories of Ice. The question is, do we integrate the two series together more closely than we have been? That is, to reclassify the series (i.e. "The Malazan Book of the Fallen is an epic fantasy by Steven Erikson and Ian Cameron Esslemont spanning fifteen novels")? Officially, Bantam seem to be treating the two as seperate (The Malazan Book of the Fallen versus Novels of the Malazan Empire), but Erikson and ICE in their interviews seem to suggest a much closer relationship between the two is intended. Or do we continue treating the two as semi-seperate entities? Or wait and see if the authors offer further statements as to how the series should be treated?--Werthead (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)