“I too want to kill the Dark Lord who is ruling over this land!” I’m using that line in the opening tavern scene of my next book. You’re an inspiration, A.P.! 😁

This is one of the things I like about Erikson. I love picking up hints about worldbuilding through dialogue, and it helps to make the world in the novel come alive. It's why I also like science fiction so much. The "cognitive estrangement" factor is my bread and butter. But your video goes beyond cognitive estrangement doesn't it? it's also about seeing the relation between characters. By the way, I hope you and Philip will still discuss Dust of Dreams. I'm catching up with you two!

This kind of information is impossible to relay without a dialogue presented and analyzed like you did. Yet it's the only kind that does Erikson's style of writing justice. I'm glad it's out there. The way he provides information, so natural, so realistic, forcing the reader to put two and two together and pushing the reader into noticing every little detail is one of the main reasons why I fell in love with this series. I believe Fiddler was portrayed to be at some 15 years old in this scene (but I'm not entirely sure anymore). We can see his teenage, wreckless excitement in the way he talks to Whiskeyjack, pushing and pushing where Whiskeyjack clearly doesn't want to talk about it. But the cherry on the cake is Paran, chiming in and doing to poor WJ the exact same thing that Fiddler had been doing. I can almost imagine WJ rolling his eyes in his head at the foolishness of kids these days :))) All while Erikson is using Paran to deliver the information to us. Two in one in a stroke of genius. I swear, if it was humanly possible, I would sit with you and perhaps a few choice other people and dissect like this each and every dialogue and scene in the series. Fortunately for everyone, such an endeavour is impossible :))) In lieu, I am torturing Steve during our interviews with overly detailed questions😁

I enjoyed Fiddler saying "Its just a feeling"

Great analysis! I want to write dialogues now! I'd also add that Erikson's dialogues benefit a lot from his overall aproach to information. He does not hesitate to mention key world elements such as continents, characters etc. without explaining what they are or why they are important. This makes the book much harder to get into initially (TELL ME WHAT WARRENS ARE I NEED TO KNOW!) but gives him so much freedom to free his dialogue from exposition. I feel like many sci-fi/fantasy writters sacrifice their dialogues to setup their world. It also provides a feeling of inscreasing familiarity with the world and the characters. I feel like a stranger in a strange world at first, listening to people laughing at jokes i don't fully understand, referecing events i don't know. But as you learn more you begin to be more in tune with what people say. Its a great feeling when two characters speak and you suddenly realize "hey, i got that reference!".

It really can't be overstated how well written this is. It's a tiny sliver of just one book, and it feels wholly natural in style. Yet it involves all of our senses with the smell and taste of the burning, the feel of the wind, the sound of their voices and the visual of him turning. And aside from the political information, and an understanding of the relationship between the two soldiers, we learn about characters. Surly/Laseen is subtle and ambitious, and has multiple masks. Whiskeyjack is near the top of political power, yet he cares not for those games. While Fiddler seems to prefer WJ as a competitor for the throne. Ganoes meanwhile is well educated, but not yet mature enough to understand the deeper layers - but he is stubborn enough to stay, listen, and jump into a conversation between soldiers despite just being told to let go of that dream. And 'lucky' enough to be present at that moment at all. Throw in some foreshadowing. And yeah, easy to talk half an hour about a twenty line conversation. Both it and your dissection of it are wonderful, thanks AP. 🤓

Absolutely beautiful analysis. All those people who claim Erikson doesn't do great characterisation, or that the books are difficult to follow, are simply not used to have to pay attention to their fantasy. Most of the more mainstream popular titles just literally spoonfeed you all the conclusions to the detriment of the dialogue, at best, after a short delay to let the more attentive readers feel a sense of "I got it." Malazan simply doesn't, for the most part, do this.

Thanks for this video. Just found your channel and have subscribed. I’d never considered how limiting yourself to only using “said” could open up so much more in terms of creativity. Setting limits is definitely something I’m going to play with. I share your passion for Erikson’s writing. Just nearing the close of Toll the Hounds at the moment. There are only a few writers who manage to elevate fantasy from pulp stories to something more artful, and Erikson is certainly one of them. I love immersing myself in the Malazan Empire and it’s great to find someone with a similar enthusiasm and appreciation. 🤓

Just starting part 2 of Gardens of the Moon. This was so helpful. And it was cool to see you pick apart the dialogue because I think it will help me understand it better as I read on :)

I feel like this relates really well to your video about the short story style of writing in one of your previous videos. You have to sort of read between the lines and you can find this deeper level of information in the text. And it just blows my mind that Erikson was able to do this throughout a lengthy series. That's true talent.

Such a great video. Thanks for sharing this, AP!

I love your videos and analyses. =)

As a book translator, I've sometimes struggled with the "said, said, said" in English. It's almost the other way round in Russian - using only "said" is seen as bad writing! Writers tend to use "asked, replied, responded" and so on (preferably not things like "yelled angrily" though, for similar reasons to what you said).

Thank you for the video. I remember i was kind of overwhelmed in the prolog. It was interesting but not so easy to digest as other fantasy. I am pleased i finished GOTM and now im hooked to the series.

Thank you, for the beautiful, educational content. I've missed this :)

this is great work. I don't have anything to add but I want to contribute to the KZfaq algorithm of my favorite channel. You been killing it as always but your stuff sometimes so good I ain't got nothing original to say. Good job, mate

Loved the video! The 'Well, Bob..' moment made me laugh out loud reminding me of an interview with Jim Butcher where he said he introduced Bob specifically to annoy his teachers (or something along those lines)

WJ's reactions to Fid's revelations are all the more meaningful when we remember Fiddler's later revealed penchant for accurately predicting future events. Even if it was unknown to WJ that Fid is an adept, he cannot have missed the pattern of "lucky guesses" that Fid had to have made over the course of his time as a Bridgeburner.

This was a fun video. Definitely makes me want to go read this book.

I cannot wait to reread this series one day. I'm not even done with my first read. I wish I had this video in Jan 2021 when I first started reading Malazan.

I’d like to add. I’ve always loved, the way Surly’s motivations are implied through her taking a new name. Rake himself, is another really good example of hearing about a character before seeing him. At least up close. His main reveal is so much more intense due to Ericksons mastery of that.

I love these breakdowns! While reading, I feel like I usually have a vague grasp at the underlying messages, but I am not able to really explain all of the nuances that I subconsciously pick up when I try to talk about the book with someone who's not reading it... my poor husband - hahaha!

Great video! I especially loved your lackluster, exposition-heavy dialogue example towards the end. You drove home your point with that contrast! 😁 It makes me wonder how much longer the book would have to be to explain everything in such a way in addition to the loss of tonal richness and characterization. I'm now wondering whether the dialogue has the same effect on those who read the Malazan books in other languages. Just a curiosity. Thanks for these videos!

I think I like "Well, Bob..." better than "Maid and butler" ^^ Also, as I'm working my way through the Witcher books, Sapkowsky uses a lot of dialogue extremely well. Even more enjoyable in the well-narrated audio books.

Another incredible video. Know that we appreciate your time and effort. I wish this kind of thing was more prominent. Instead of internet celebrities, and Twitch streamers. We will get there one day! Right?….

Come on, confess A.P., you've only read the prologues and the poems of the Malazan books. But then, they're probably the best and juicy bits anyway.😁 Thanks for the video A.P! Also I'll be away as I'm attending the unicorn steeplechase races. So you will be safe from my comments for a while.😁

This can be applied to dialogue in films and television as well. For instance in the show Gargoyles a character named Demona often drops hints when she interacts with two characters, Owen and Puck, that long before we even learn is the same person by referring to his other identity. For instance in Puck's first appearance she mentions how he works for a human and he replies that he finds him interesting. Another time she mentions that Owen was 'tricky'. This was an amazing foreshadow since the revelation isn't made until near the end of the season, nearly 30 to 40 episodes later.

Finally started reading this quite liking it so far, the world clearly is deeply imagined and thought out, dialogue as well is pretty fun so far as well, ya tried years ago to read this but couldn't get through it, very much interested to see how it paces out

Good vid.

It seems that this style of dialogue is more accepted in movies to some degree. I suspect because of the visual people tend to be more patient with following and a willingness to see how it unfolds?

Great discussion of dialogue and of this passage. I read Gardens of the Moon last year, and it was one of the best reading experiences I've had in years. But although many plot details have faded from memory, I distinctly recall that this passage was quite annoying to me. I say that even though I agree with most of what you say about it; clearly it does show skill. But I think it's also needlessly obscure, at least sometimes, and to me the prose style feels a bit clumsy. If the whole book was like this, I probably would not have finished it. I think Erikson got much better at creating a naturalistic feeling to his dialogue, while also engaging in the dance of offering and withholding information in a more graceful way. Once you catch the rhythm, it really works. But when the soldier says "Maybe all of us before too long" I struggled just to figure out the grammar of what he was saying. Is he saying "all of us will be the concern of the emperor" or "Sully will be the concern of all of us"? I think it Erikson had allowed the line to be a bit clearer, it would not have detracted from the naturalism, but also would not have been so confusing. Also, you interpret "The man shrugged" (and what follows) differently from how I hear it. To me it feels not like an emotional retreat so much as the soldier's tactical shift in tone in order to defend himself from the commander's implicit -- but mild -- challenge. By the way, regarding this style, the flip slide of the coin is that it seems to be more and more common for writers to use naturalism as an excuse for writing dialogue that doesn't communicate information even when it needs to. I've seen it especially in film and tv. Characters will have a conversation that's all emotion, but if they just stated some essential fact, the plot would quickly be resolved. So no one says it, and no good reason is given. Maddening. Finally, I think it would be interesting to contrast Erikson's style of dialogue to that of other good writers. Tolkien, Le Guin, and Kay have different philosophies that inform their dialogue, equally valid in their way.

Well, I still have no idea whether any of them wants to to kill the Dark Lord ruling over the land.

Another great discussion. I usually don’t pay attention when men are speaking. I will now (but only if they are fictional). 😬

Maybe one day some one truly talented will turn the malazan saga into the greatest 10 part movie ever screened 😁😁👍 this series has around 100 of the greatest charachters ever concieved 😆😆👍🙏

Oh grand and wise dragon of the squirrel tail I have a question for thee! Recently there was a kerfuffle in twitter over the depiction of violence(not presented gratuitously) in the manga/comic Berserk. Violence has been an element used in art since days inmemorial, the end being varied as the ways it is depicted. From the Marquis de Sade to westerns, the use of it is just another tool in the "tool box" of the artist. There is nothing wrong with it since one would not think the artist is promoting these acts, so what could cause a negative reaction to the presentation of it? I doubt that using it is morally wrong? Just like dialogue, violence can add to the narrative and the world, even to the characters. What would separate a good use of violent acts vs a poor one in a story? (I must add that the setting of Berserk is one of medieval Europe and set through the eyes of a lone mercenary and the mercenary company he has joined). Thank you so much.