Rarely have I been so disappointed with a book. This was a complete let down of the Malazan series on a whole. Esselmont's level of writing is nowhere near that of his co-creator of the Malazan word. This was very poorly written. It was a jumble of characters, very little plot development, and lacked direction. At times is was a struggle to continue reading it. Many of the old guard characters, who've been built up and alluded to by Erickson made brief appearances not really worthy of the fame they have inspired. Unfortunately many of them were killed off as well, making it seem like a complete mis-use of the characters themselves. I felt this was horribly mishandled, not sure if this is a product of bad editing or just the author himself. It could have had half the characters and half the storylines but been a much better book. Esselmont has managed to cram a ton of storylines and characters into one book, yet taken it nowhere, and leaves the reader confused. Tons of questions after reading this book and not in a positive way. If this had been the first Malazan book I'd read, it would easily have out me off of reading any others. Hoping for more from his next release. ( )

The tone and writing style of this book is very different from Night of Knives, much closer to Erikson's style. It is as if some extensive overwriting took place. The way in which it was structured also closely resembled Toll the Hounds, with the point of view (POV) jumping between characters on average every three pages. So much for continuity. . .

There is alot about this book that bothered me. It is very difficult to explain exactly what without giving spoilers, but I'll try my best.

First, it lacked authenticity. Although I know that Esslemont is the co-creator of the Malazan concept, he (obviously) did not write the other Malazan books. Erikson did. So while they might have shared the same concept, Erikson's portrayal and understanding of the world is different from that of Esslemont. The result is that Esslemont feels like an intruder into Erikson's realm, and one who did not do sufficient research at that. One example is that Esslement seems to have a much more elemental take on the magic system than Erikson (Mother Earth?! What happened to Burn?)

Which lead me to my second issue: Discrepancies. Esslemont made no attempt to reconcile his book with events that took place in Erikson's books. It is as if he did not even bother to read them except for a cursory glance. This despite the fact that he high-jacked Erikson's characters left, right and centre. K'azz and members of the Sixth Blade are prime examples of this. What we know of them from Gardens of the Moon and what Esslemont says in this book, is not the same. Discrepancies also occur with Kallor and Traveller, the nature of the Crimson Guard, Assail, Osserc, ... the list goes on, I won't bore you with the full extend thereof. It is also unclear from the book whether it predates events from Toll the Hounds or comes after. There are problems with either interpretation.

Thirdly, the characters seemed flat, without any distinctive personality. A lot of veterans seemed like exactly the same personality, just with different names. Only Nait seemed to develop a personality in the second half of the book. The fact that the POV jumped around so much also destroyed any possibility of one caring what happened to the characters much, as you are to busy struggling to keep track of who is who. The book is no page-turner. Halfway through, I was wondering why I bothered to read it. It does pick up somewhat towards the end, though.

Fourth, there was a lot of build-up of certain story lines, making them feel central to the main story, only to see them unravel into insignificance before the end of the book.

In summary, I don't mind that Esslemont writes about the Malazan Empire. I had no problem with Night of Knives, for example. As long as events predate or postdate events in Erikson's books. Or happens somewhere else between Esslemont's own characters. But Esslemont should stay off Erikson's turf and not try to write concurrent with Erikson and try and tie in with his stories and characters. Leave that to Erikson. He does a better job of it. ( )

Much better than his first novel. I'll be watching for the next. ( )

Gotta say I enjoyed this one a lot more than I thought I would. Another solid entry in the history of the Malazan world, and (in my opinion) loads better than Night of Knives. I didn't have the issues with characterizations that a lot of other people apparently did, and found most of the plot threads quite enjoyable. Still, the book has its issues: Individual plots (or entire prologues) that didn't seem to relate to the rest of the book, and sections (like in NoK) that were far too vague, even if intentionally so. It appears that some of these threads will continue through subsequent books, which, though acceptable, is slightly disappointing, as I was hoping these entries would be mostly "one-shots" like NoK. Still, I'm continually amazed at the creativity and coordination between Erikson and Esslemont in fashioning and presenting this completely made-up world. ( )

This book feels a bit off. The nearest way I can think of to describe it is that it's like meeting the nearly similar sister of a lover. Your lover is gorgeous (of course), and this person is clearly closely related and similar, but the sum of those parts just doesn't work, and this sister is plain.

Steven Erikson writes the "gorgeous sister/lover" books that mess with your head, twist your expectations and yet deliver wonderful stories in an incredibly attractive fashion. Ian Esslemont's first, short book, was a great addition to the mix. This book, however, is the plain sister...

Structurally this book has lots of threads that eventually mesh together to give a final, massive climax. But there are so many threads that it is, at times, an effort to turn the page and wait to see where we're jumping off to next. The climax, rather than coming together like a beautifully crafted tapestry, comes together like a knot in long hair.

This gets three stars because despite these faults there are some excellent parts, without those parts it could be a 2 or even 1 star read.

And, really, there should be two massive conclusions to round this book off. One passes with barely a mention. No, that's not true, it is mentioned over several pages, but it has the impact of a balloon popping in a howling gale - next to none. The other climax doesn't really come, but dribbles off in bits, some here, some there.

A totally unexpected climax arrives and is dealt with. Sadly, because of the fact it comes out of nowhere, it feels like an extra, it helps tangle the knot in the hair rather than smoothing the threads into a tapestry and it steals the impact from the conclusion that was there.

I will doubtless read the next one too, but with much lower expectations than I approached this one. ( )