Poll: Please help me decide between two fantasy series.

[Jolly Co-operator]

As the title suggests, I'm interested in two different series, but am unable to make up my mind. The two series are the "Malazan Book of the Fallen" (written by Steven Erikson), and "The First Law" trilogy (written by Joe Abercrombie).

What are your general thoughts on each series (without spoilers, please), and which do you recommend? Feel free to offer other recommendations as well, but my priority is choosing between these two. Thanks to all who share their opinions.

 

[pidgerii]

I started trying to read the Malazan series, but as the author states the first book dumps you into the world after the story has begun and that for me made it a bit frustrating and obtuse.

Haven't the First Law series but they sound interesting

 

[LiberalSquirrel]

I haven't personally read either... my old roommate adored the First Law trilogy, though. Adored it to epic proportions. She nearly exploded when she found out that there's a loosely connected sequel series. So if you want to go by "an Escapist's friend's recommendation," then go for the First Law trilogy.

 

[M K Ultra]

As a third option I suggest Glen Cook's "The Black Company [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Company]" series. Think of 'Nam but in a fantasy setting.

 

[Jolly Co-operator]

As a third option I suggest Glen Cook's "The Black Company [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Company]" series. Think of 'Nam but in a fantasy setting.

That actually sounds really interesting, thanks. I think I've heard of it before, but I'd forgotten about it up until now. I'll give it a look.

 

[Estelindis]

I have read both. They're gritty fantasy with a relative absence of traditional heroic figures and a lot of black humour.

They are both good, but the First Law is easier to read. It presents its world and context in a more traditional and understandable way. Like Pidgerii said, Erikson just dumps you into the world with little explanation. Also, the Malazan Book of the Fallen is a much longer series; whether that's a plus or a minus is up to you.

In my opinion, the best of the Malazan Book of the Fallen is much better than the best of the First Law. But there are also times when I feel like a lot of stuff that's pretty boring gets included in the Malazan series and Erikson gives a lot of time to these dull plot threads without ever resolving stuff that I was interested in and wanted to know more about. So the Malazan series is ultimately great but can be extremely frustrating. It's amazing world building... and realistic in the sense that in real life lots of things don't get resolved neatly... but by the end I still felt kinda "played" as a reader for having become very invested in some characters and unresolved plots and having them totally disappear a few books before the end without ever resurfacing in any form.

Accordingly, I'd start with the First Law and go on to read the Malazan books if you liked the First Law.

 

[FalloutJack]

I don't know either of these series, so obligatory Sword of Truth novels plug?

They start out kinda' slow with Wizard's First Rule, but you start to get a good feel for things in the novels thanks to it, and then the series just has one helluva momentum on its own.

 

[The Funslinger]

I don't know either of these series, so obligatory Sword of Truth novels plug?

They start out kinda' slow with Wizard's First Rule, but you start to get a good feel for things in the novels thanks to it, and then the series just has one helluva momentum on its own.

While I do like the series, I'm somewhat conflicted, because (as many people on this site will tell you) after the first couple of books, Richard could be perceived as a fairly obtuse, sociopathic bastard.

 

[FalloutJack]

I don't know either of these series, so obligatory Sword of Truth novels plug?

They start out kinda' slow with Wizard's First Rule, but you start to get a good feel for things in the novels thanks to it, and then the series just has one helluva momentum on its own.

While I do like the series, I'm somewhat conflicted, because (as many people on this site will tell you) after the first couple of books, Richard could be perceived as a fairly obtuse, sociopathic bastard.

Well, not by ME. Granted, going through what he has changes a man - and don't spoil it for the OP if he gets interested - but I never thought he became jaded on the matter.

 

[The Funslinger]

I don't know either of these series, so obligatory Sword of Truth novels plug?

They start out kinda' slow with Wizard's First Rule, but you start to get a good feel for things in the novels thanks to it, and then the series just has one helluva momentum on its own.

While I do like the series, I'm somewhat conflicted, because (as many people on this site will tell you) after the first couple of books, Richard could be perceived as a fairly obtuse, sociopathic bastard.

Well, not by ME. Granted, going through what he has changes a man - and don't spoil it for the OP if he gets interested - but I never thought he became jaded on the matter.

Spoiler: Sword of Truth spoilers

Well what I meant is the whole 'you disagree with my morals. I shall launch a campaign to destroy your way of life from the inside! thing. And it always culminates in 'oh my god, you're right. You're so wonderful!

To reaffirm, I am enjoying the series (recently finished Naked Empire); it's just something I've noticed in the books, and in people's opinions.

 

[FalloutJack]

Boink

Spoiler: Well...

We're talking about the Imperial Order, right? It doesn't help that the IO was more-or-less modeled after Persia's melting pot of the conquered and the conquering, led by an unscrupulous man who was, in fact, a forged wizard weapon and a bit of a nutter. (Bear in mind, it HAS been a while for me.) Of COURSE there's some slippery slope involved. You don't suddenly become ruler of a country that MUST obey you that you aren't really trained to lead with powers you don't fully understand without some problems. Nevertheless, I must remind you that war is hell and even the best of us will be driven to darkness in times of desperation.

 

[ElectroJosh]

From someone who has read both: The First Law trilogy is the one I would recommend to most people.

Not to say the Malazan series is bad - I love them - but they aren't for everyone. For one reason they just start with little to no explanation of whats going on and it takes until the middle of the first book to start understanding the story. The second book does it as well (because its set in a different place with new characters). Even then it takes until about book 4 to actually understand what the main plot is and how these characters relate to each other and even then a lot of the motivations and histories are only slowly revealed. So it isn't for everyone. If you think that sounds intriguing (and you are persistent) then the Malazan series is for you.

The First Law Trilogy, on the other hand, is easier to get into as it focuses on a group of specific characters whose motivations, while often changing, are quite clear. The plot and character arcs are easy to follow in the books without them sacrificing good writing, structure and development. They are entertaining and even, at parts, thought provoking.
In truth the fans of both the series overlap quite a bit (and also do with Glen Cook) so it?s down to whether Malazan sounds like it will be irritating for you to get into.