Reaper's Gale and Malazan in general... I don't get it.
I really just don't get it. I'm very well read in the genre, and his books are the most confusing out there. Even Scott Baker's books, which were a bit confusing, made sense at the end of the chapter. Baker tied up the loose strings of thought each chapter. Erikson just throws dozens of random characters at you, with no context, and writes like 85% "telling" without any showing as well as no deep pov/characterization. Just tell, tell with no explanation. And almost every book it's a new continent with new characters/culture/history. I love the ambition, but the execution is grueling.
I just don't understand how these books are "popular"? Really. I mean, am I supposed to re-read them a few times, drink 10 cups of coffee, and have quantum physics-learning-level attention to struggle to understand WTF is going on?
So far, only Memory of Ice was enjoyable and understandable. And scenes with Karsa Orlong (misspelled likely) b/c he kicks ass.
Who's with me?
And yes, nobody is forcing me to read this. I'm slogging through b/c it's well known in the genre, and maybe there are gems somewhere...
Edit update: thanks for all the comments. I've crystallized my thinking. The core issue is the storytelling style choices Erikson makes, makes it impossible to emotionally invest in any character. Most fantasy books have a few POVs and you follow them through the sequels. In Malazan, according to subreddit: series features over 400 unique point-of-view (POV) characters, scaling heavily from around 33 in the first book (Gardens of the Moon) to over 140 individual POVs in the final book (The Crippled God). More details can be explored via community breakdowns on the r/Malazan Subreddit.
That is a ridiculous amount of POVs. Plus you have chapters with dozens of scenes, each with a different POV, plot, etc, it is impossible to relate and invest in a character. What happens is a blur of activity washing over you. What I'm saying is generally true. Yes, there are a few exceptions.