I'd give it 3 out 5 stars. The world Erikson creates is great. I did enjoy how he slowly gives you hints here and there about what's going on and doesn't try to explain it all at once.

The biggest flaw is in the character develpment and the magic system. As I read, I was continually reminded of a cheesy Final Fantasy video game or Japanese anime cartoon.

Overall entertaining, but by no means great fantasy.

So in your best twenty five fantasy total you have Lord of the Rings at fourth and the Malazan books second and then you have Lord of the Rings second and Malazan third in your best epic fantasy. How does that work?

I was a big fan of the series, having started at book 3, so for those complaining about the steep curve in book 1, spare a thought huh? My feeling towards the series, due to my expectation from book 3, gradually changed. I loved book 3, then resumed book 1 and concluded it is not as good. Book 2 was compelling and book 4 very refreshing, but I'm starting to see some recycled ideas and imperfections. By book 5-7 wandered and 8-9 really disappointed. I'm not even sure if I care enough to read book 10 to be honest due to the bad taste from 9.

Erikson fall into a trap of his own making - epicness has to be bested every book, new characters introduced, but as the mystery diminished, and some plot development verged on indifference, so did my interest. Eventually some characters started to take on too many aspects they are no longer distinct. On the other hand the bridge burners in general becomes a plot object rather than actual characters, one and same, one-dimensional secret weapon. Whilst I take comfort in some of the sub plots such as the fate of the andii, as a novel it fails when the reader can no longer emphasise with the key characters and rather become fascinated with inconsequential minor characters.

I am a lifelong LOTR fan, who read it some 12 times in a row and used to be able to quote vast swathes of the books, punctuation and all, from memory. Years later I came upon Game of Thrones, and was genuinely interested in this fantasy writing for the first time in years (having read dozens of other authors in the meantime). A friend advised that I give this a go.. 20 pages in to Gardens of the Moon.. not feeling it, but liking an author unafraid to stretch the lexicon.. 100 pages in, hooked. This is cleverer, more inventive and bolder than Game of Thrones (imaging GOT without your favourite 3 characters, it would drop from a 10/10 to a long-winded 7, I think Malazan would stand it), and I love that I have found an author with the talent to entertain me (I find 99% of writings boring, tedious and hugely dumbed down).

I don't want to offend anyone, but my reading of the demographic who love this book is that most of my friends that do are PhDs in Roman history or similar, which is to say you need a brain that is happy to be challenged to appreciate this awesome series.

I have always preferered my fantasy as complex and detailed as possible and having just finished this series and I have to say overall I am very disappointed.

The first 4 were beyond good, possible some of the finest most enjoyable fantasy i have ever read, with lots of unique and likeable characters. Memories of Ice for me was just incredible.

Sadly this was not the way the series continued. Too many poorly written, fairly monotonous story arcs and characters were introduced, the writing was far too unnecessarily embelished and the ending for me was tragically weak and ill thought out.

Huge swathes of introduced plot threads were just ignored and the reader to ponder the outcome. I would not have had an issue with this had the ending been up to scratch as the author has more stories to tell and books to sell but I didnt finish this story thinking "I hope xxx's story is published next, i really want to find out what happened", i finished it thinking "phhht, what a cop out, not sure I would buy any more of this authors books"

This series could have been almost perfect if it simply hadn't tried too hard. In my view books 1-4 were great but 5-10 should have been told in at least 2 less books probably 3. Some of the poorer arcs should have been cut and others narrated in a less meandering and sometimes tedious manner. The ending needed to be magnitudes better as it felt like SE got close, didn't really know how to finish and just scribbled something on an napkin and submitteed that.

I think I will limit my future reading to the first 4, after that it becomes such a chore. Such a pity

Books one to seven seemed to drag on and ceaselessly dribble meaningless junk. Nonetheless, parts were well written, witty, interesting. These parts kept me going.
At the moment I am into book 8 and more and more cheesed off by Ericson's endless location and character switches, by interminable pseudo-philocophical musings and deeply depressing povs.
The books would need some thorough editing and trimming to become really readable, enjoyable fantasy.
As it stands, I could not say these books are inspiring or in any way even average reading.
Even so I will finish reading the whole series, be it just to torture myself a bit more.

I am not yet knowledgeable enough to really give a sound proclamation but i will indulge and say that i am absolutely in awe of Malazan book of the fallen (compared to the fantasy literature i read before this).

I have not read a lot of fantasy themed books yet (i read all the fire and ice books, all Tolkins work numerous times,the legend of Drizzt books more children orientated stuff like, blasphemy the Eragon saga and more classical stuff like his dark materials trilogy and the chronicles of naria plus all of Conan adventures) though i fortunately have stacked up on a lot of them (Abercromie,Cook ,Hobbs etc).

Anyways i am an absolute song of fire and ice fanboy but the richness,complexity and mystery found in the Malazan series in on another level. I read through the first three books in two weeks. I am certain that Erickson really comes closes to laying claim to Tolkins legacy in terms of shaping a complex and wholly original world. Is a song of fire and ice perhaps slightly more fun to read,yes. Does its pace itself better,yes. But even though some passages are more drawn out nothing i read before comes close to approaching the complexity and originality of the world Erickson has shaped apart from Tolkien. I personally feel like reading Malazan book of the fallen in more akin to research at times then reading fiction but if you stick with it the world that open up to you is intensely rewarding and wholly epic in scale. It is also more bleak and melancholic then song of fire and ice (could not imagine it possible) which might be a turn of for some but sweet bliss for myself.

The jury is still out but i might have to declare these books as my favorite among fantasy literature yet (i also think there is,so far,more consistency in the quality of the books compared to the song of fire and ice sage....which really contained at least one episode that was kind of lacking (feast for crows).

I couldn't make it through Gardens of the Moon. Just tell the dang story without the flowery fluff!! I was looking forward to the rest of the series based on all the excellent reviews, but my eyes started bleeding about half way into Garden.

I finished Sanderson's last book before tackeling Gardens. I read Rothfuss before that. I found both authors to be excellent. I guess I need a hook to grab my attention and keep me involved in the story. Erikson focuses too much on pointless facts, unbelievable banter between characters & way too much description. Get on with the story already!!

I actually really liked book one, though many seem to not care for it compared to the later books. I'm up through Memories of Ice, and all the books are very good. I just wish Erikson would have stuck with one group of characters and followed them, instead of jumping back and forth between different groups.

This is now my favourite fantasy series (although admittedly my reading within the genre is somewhat limited). I love how the realism of the world (which I credit in part to the authors' anthropology / archaeology backgrounds) mixes with absurd fantasy and humour. I would even hazard that in terms of depth of world, Erikson has far outdone Tolkien. To me, Tolkien's work (excluding the Hobbit) feels like a world that was created from the origin myth onwards, and as a result it's relatively simple, tidy and linear (not that this is a bad thing). Alternatively, the Malazan world feels more organic, you explore it with the different characters (as someone else mentioned), and the different peoples give meaning and power to the various myths, gods, histories, etc.

A sure sign that I truly enjoy a book is that I overlook or even deny most of its flaws (so in that tradition):

1. There were points in the series I found confusing - I would struggle to remember characters or plot points after taking a break in between books, and new sub-plots are constantly being added throughout the series. I would recommend reading the books in quick succession to avoid confusion. However, I found re-reading the books very rewarding for this reason, and was delighted to see how various plot points I had forgotten were brought back into the series.

2. Yes, there are a lot of characters, which sometimes suffer from under-development, amazing vocabularies, and archetypal personalities (e.g. the marines). I don't really care - I enjoy the characters and I'm engrossed in the world, so I don't need to see every character grow and develop (and frankly, many novels suffer from the over / unrealistic development of characters). Personally I like the large number of characters, it makes exploring the world more rewarding, and I never get stuck reading a character I find uninteresting for very long.

3. I appreciate the philosophical rants and musings of the different characters, which at their best I find both interesting and insightful. Of course, at times the philosophy can be dull and repetitive (as most of Erikson's character's are either deep philosophical thinkers or accidentally profound, and there's lots of over-lap). I generally find myself feeling at home with Erikson's pluralism and political theology (as I see it, anyway). At the same time, I never found the book preachy - while characters regurgitate history, philosophy, theology, etc. they are often delusional and don't appear to speak for the author.

4. I found the book unpredictable, and appreciate that Erikson was willing to kill off characters (it's the book of the fallen after all). Erikson may have been a little too willing to bring characters back to life as well. In any case, I'm glad some of my favourite characters made it through to the end.

Look, I know Malazan has a horde of rabid fans out there proclaiming it the greatest thing ever through their sobs of rapture. I'm...not among them.

I think it's a good series, I think it's fun, but it's not the best ever. It has some good points and some bad points. On the good side, the whole thing feels very epic and striking. No one does fantasy on the scale of Erikson. It's also very clever, with a very broad world, and a lot of interesting characters.

Unfortunately, there is not a book in this series that does not suffer from at least a few fairly sizable plot holes, and it only gets worse as it goes. Erikson also (as has been mentioned) writes too many characters, making it difficult for any of them to get the kind of in-depth attention they could really use. Finally, Gardens of the Moon blows.

Oh, whine whine. Yes, it does. It sucks. It wouldn't have turned off so MANY readers if it didn't. Gardens of the Moon is muddled, overwritten, and pretentious. The protagonists aren't characterized particularly well, and though the book gets better as it goes, it starts off as slow as molasses and twice as tedious.

Happily the series gets better after Gardens of the Moon. It gets very fun. But not better than A Song of Ice and Fire. Not better than Lord of the Rings.

Don't get me wrong, Malazan is great fantasy. But it's been praised too much and too often.

I've read Game of Ice and Fire (have not read Dance with Dragons yet), and I'm getting ready to start House of Chains in the Malazan series. Never thought I'd say this, but my personal preference is Malazan. I'm still a die hard Game of Ice and Fire fan, but Erikson's wild, endlessly deep imagination appeals kind of nudges him into the #1 spot for me. Don't miss this series. You might have a hard time getting started, like I did, but it should click by the end of Gardens of the Moon (book 1). By the middle of book two you'll be completely hooked. One great thing about Erikson's (Martin is a master of this too) world building is his organic process of drawing you in. It's like you are a part of the world, discovering it with the characters. Not all authors are good at this, and for me "catch ups" - where characters continually provide a brief history of what has happened, and explanations of things seemingly aimed at children can ruin a story for me. Martin and Erikson are masters of letting adults discover things for themselves.

I finished the 10th and final volume of this massive series about a month ago, and let me put it out there: this is the probably the best fantasy series I've ever read. The only other series that can compare imo is Bakker's Prince of Nothing.

Erikson's writing, while difficult to get accustomed to at first, is top-notch - arguably the best in the genre along with R. Scott Bakker. In fact, it is his writing prowess that allows him to get away with some of the most ridiculous things: like giant crows shooting magical bolts out of their beaks (Condors from the third book of the series: Memories of Ice), intelligent dinosaurs flying around in upside down mountains (K'Chain Che'malle), and an entire race of human-like people undergoing a ritual that turned them undead solely to improve their ability to wage war against an enemy race (T'lan Imass), just to name a few. Amazingly, none of these things sounds corny or unbelievable because of the vague, poetic way in which they are described. The thing about Steven Erikson is that he has the ability to make virtually anything sound cool and epic.

The problem with this series is that there are too many POV characters. The constant jumping around between different perspectives leaves the reader feeling lost at times, and the character development suffers because minor characters are given too much screen time. Nowhere is this more apparent than with the Malazans - the marines at the heart of the story. There are so many of them, and Erikson seems to feel the need to give each and every one his/her moment in the spotlight. The constant shifting of perspective becomes tiresome after several novels.

That major gripe aside, the Malazan Book of the Fallen contains some of the most creative, mind-expanding ideas ever written. It's amazing that Erikson could churn out a 1000 page book pretty much every year for the past decade or so while still keeping the story fresh and exciting.

One more thing to note is that the series doesn't really get going until book 3, which is, many agree, the best of the bunch. It is here that many of the major plot points are revealed, so if you find you like the first two books, you will be in for a real treat with Memories of Ice. After that, it doesn't really decline, it stays more or less even in quality.