By nature of the genre, the premise of every fantasy novel asks “what if” questions. What if magic was real? What if children went to school to learn it? What if a pantheon of gods walked among us? As an archeologist and anthropologist, Steven Erikson asked questions about the clashing of cultures and classes, about climate and capitalism, about the relationship between gods and mortals—and not just if magic existed, but if it was available to anyone. What if magical abilities could be learned by anyone, regardless of age, gender, intelligence or skill? As Erikson states, “It occurred to us that it would create a culture without gender bias so there would be no gender-based hierarchies of power. It became a world without sexism and that was very interesting to explore.”
In the same matter-of-fact, almost mundane way that magic simply exists in the Malazan universe, so too does equality among the sexes. It just is—and that’s refreshing.
With an egalitarian magic system as the foundation to the Malazan universe, the subsequent worldbuilding blocks logically fall into place, building upon each other and supporting that central idea. The definition of power extends beyond male physical strength, equalizing roles of authority. The availability of magical healing means less women and children dying in childbirth, and more opportunity for women to contribute to a society without medical or technological advancements. This creates an even playing field in the realm of power and influence, granting equal opportunity for everyone.
The very first magic user we meet in Gardens of the Moon is a woman. Another woman, Tattersail, is a respected sorceress who, although aged and overweight (“The fat lady with the spells” in her own words), enters a romantic relationship with the traditionally attractive male hero of the story. The Malazan Empire is ruled by Empress Laseen. Both her Adjuncts in the course of the series are women and one, Tavore Paran, is in a relationship with another woman. Throughout the books are storylines following sisters and female friendships, matriarchal societies, countless goddesses and queens, female assassins unmatched by their male peers, female pirate captains and several other women in high-ranking positions in different societies. And in a minor but fascinating detail, all military superiors in the series are addressed as “sir” regardless of gender. Erikson could have easily created a gendered honorific but he instead chose to keep “sir”, solidifying that, whether male or female, whoever holds the position is equally deserving of respect. And despite various cultural divisions that arise, these women in positions of power are never questioned by their male subordinates on the basis of their gender. Being female never equates with being seen as weak.
But this is the Book of the Fallen, after all. And though it’s a world of equality and diversity, it sure as Hood isn’t a utopia. Erikson presents his readers with some of the most reprehensible qualities of human nature—acts sometimes so degrading that it’s tempting to turn away. Horrible things happen to these characters, but it’s never driven by discrimination. Gender and sexual orientation are never used purely as plot devices. Of course Adjunct Tavore Paran is questioned and even resented by some of her soldiers, but using her gender or sexual orientation against her would never even cross their minds.
Neither would a common Malazan soldier hate her enemy simply because of their skin colour. Racism and blind hate certainly do exist within the series but it’s most often used as a foil to the diverse Malazan Empire, supporting the theme that diversity is strength. Inspired by the Roman Empire, Erikson explores themes of cultural and ethnic identity with his Malazans. The Malazan Empire doesn’t completely wipe out subjugated cultures, but incorporates them into their own (for better or worse). The Malazan armies are thus made of dozens of races, both human and non-human alike who, for the most part, manage to get along with each other. There’s significant effort made to show the racial diversity of the Malazan Empire, and the main themes of the series overwhelmingly express the idea that diversity is empowering.
Buy the Book
The Complete Malazan Book of the Fallen
“Diversity is worth celebrating,” says Malazan Imperial Historian, Duiker, “for it is the birthplace of wisdom.”
Diversity in a society brings wisdom and representation brings compassion. And this is what separates Malazan Book of the Fallen from the rest of fantasy. Steven Erikson has spoken at length about compassion being the main theme of his series. To feel compassionate to those who are suffering, we must first be made aware of their suffering. And throughout history, these suffering voices are always the ones least heard by the rest of the world—the forgotten, the outcast, the other. With a cast of characters diverse in their gender, culture and class, Erikson brings many of these unheard voices to the forefront of his work, challenging the reader’s worldview. How do we respond to suffering? How do we maintain cultural diversity while united under one country? How, in a world without Malazan’s magic, do we address the sexism of our own? For while fantasy often begins with a “what if” question, it usually ends with “what now?”
As far as representing every unheard voice in our society, these books aren’t perfect. Gender identity isn’t explored beyond a god who changes their biological sex at will (but with the thin lines dividing male and female roles in many of Erikson’s societies, there’s surely a place for those whose identity doesn’t perfectly align with one or the other). And while the gay male characters are few, their sexual orientation never puts them at a societal disadvantage. So often fantasy presents a perfectly reflective portrait of our own society to address its flaws rather than exploring an alternative. And while many of their contemporaries continue to write epic magic battles and fire-breathing dragons while defaulting to overtly sexist, heteronormative societies because of “historical accuracy”, Erikson has proved that worldbuilding that steps outside of a Eurocentric, patriarchal system can be used as a tool to promote and explore inherent diversity and equality—to show us what reality could look like. It’s a question that’s been asked before, but it’s worth repeating: if fantasy readers can suspend their disbelief to accept the existence of dragons, magic and zombies, shouldn’t they be able to stretch their imaginations far enough to embrace a world where women and minorities exist as active, accepted, and truly equal members of society?
Matt Bandstra is a writer and designer whose poetry collection, Birds in Aquariums, was published in 2018. He can be found sharing art on Instagram and talking about music and the environment on Twitter.
I’m hoping we’re nearly done with “historical accuracy” being used as an excuse to avoid fully-realizing a fantasy world. Media that leans on escapism for suspension of disbelief need not be blandly “real” for the sake of giving us an easily swallowed pill of familiarity. Worldbuilding should extend to all facets of fantastical writing — especially those that actively mirror their readers — as many look to these types books to find an ideal world to begin building outside its pages. Great work, Matt! Can’t wait to read more from you!
This is one of my all time favorite series because it breaks many boundaries philosophically, and goes so deep. The gender neutral aspect of this world is SO refreshing!!!
Nice reminder of what makes this series great, I really enjoyed the diversity of the cast.
As a side effect of it being so well realized (yes I realize I am odd, and strange things get into my head), your use of “it sure as Hood isn’t a utopia” got into my head because it didn’t fit. Hood was usually used as a curse (“Hood’s balls”, “Hood’s breath”, etc.) but “sure as Hood” I don’t think ever was. This series produced so many wonderful, colorful, curses and that was also part of what made it fun.
The best suggestion I have is “it sure as the Abyss isn’t a utopia”
This seems to be a rehash of some of the key themes in this two-year-old post:
https://thecriticaldragon.com/2016/03/22/worldbuilding-and-the-malazan-book-of-the-feminist/
Perhaps Matt Bandstra on Tor.com is also RibaldRemark on The Critical Dragon?
@TedThePenguin
If you follow the logic of Malazan curses, you should probably go with “sure as Oponn”…
The best sci-fi is a reflection of our society, while the best fantasy tends to play with the same themes and tropes. The foreign invader orcs fought back by a noble white guy is all too appealing to those that see their fellow human beings as animals. Erikson paints every ”other” as complex and fully realized – it’s so hard to find archetype villains in this series. Erikson doesn’t dehumanize the enemies and give us an easy hero to root for. Empires leave pain and death in their wake, and often are replaced by another. The only thing I’d wish Erikson had tackled a bit more was top down politics vs Democratic forms of rule. Rule is top down versus Democratic, but maybe that is the point – society ruled by a few inevitably turns to war, while good people pay the price. Ultimately it is hard to find fantasy that embraces democracy and collectivism, and even scratches the surface of financial hardships as a result of political hegemony.
@TedThePenguin I knew there was a reason “sure as Hood” was in my head and a quick search on searchofthefallen.com gave three uses – though I still applaud your knowledge and respect of Malazan curses
what I love about the books is, if you’re an a-hole, your an a-hole…not because of gender, wealth, color, rank, race or religion…none of the things that people use to seperate themselves from others…skin color, like beauty, is only skin deep…a-hole goes to the bone
I’ve long considered reading this series, but what little reading time I have these days coupled with how daunting the series seems (and how daunting most articles make it seem) has kept me from doing so. This is the first time an article has made me want to.
@shiznatikus I honestly consider the Malazan series to be the ‘master class’ of reading in the epic fantasy genre. There will always be a place in my heart for series like The Wheel of Time or the Stormlight Archives, but The Book of the Fallen just blows them out of the water for complexity and “realness” and sheer value (imo). Every character is engaging (even when their lives are short), every viewpoint is worth seeing (even if they are often horrific), every story is fully realized (even if it isn’t impactful in the grand scheme of things). To me it reads more like a true history of another world seen through the eyes of a fallible and prolific observer than any other entry in the same category to date.
Magic would certainly be a great equalizer.
Huh. I’m a huge Malazan fan, but in hindsight I feel pretty stupid. I didn’t actually notice most of this when reading the story! Still, that’s probably the sign that it was done right. It was just so blindingly obvious that it became invisible: of course things can work like that!
Great job Erickson & Co, again. Representation isn’t what grabbed me into the series (for all the novelty of starting book one with a sexy fat witch as a main narrator, the cover art of Anomander Rake got me reading Gardens of the Moon) but it’s nice to see a series you like get some credit for unexpected reasons. Although I must say that not all representation is positive: Karsa Orlong was my favorite character, but imagining him as “representing” some real colonized culture isn’t very flattering for anyone involved! But that’s realistic too I suppose, and it does break stereotypes in its own interesting way.
To the other commenters: Of course “historical accuracy” is a terrible reason to avoid representing certain groups. Better to just be honest and say ‘I didn’t think of it” or “I didn’t want to bother trying when I risked being torn to shreds by angry activists”, because “historical accuracy” is a terrible argument! At the very least ethnic and religious diversity was already a thing in Middle Ages Europe, especially in centers of power. Less so than today of course, but not nonexistent.
Fear of angry activists is a very valid concern these days. No white European or American can dare write a fantasy world that isn’t based on Medieval Europe without risking accusations of cultural appropriation or ‘Orientalism’.
My son is the one who turned me onto Malazan. I pretty agree with @10 Elijah. On top of all the worldbuilding,diversity,and equality the humor is off the charts.
Is it a coincidence that Erikson is Canadian? While not perfect, the country strives to be tolerant, if not accepting of differences.
Foundational concepts? WHAT!! fundamental concepts, or imperative but foundational…..
I’m working on a fantasy world drawing on North American traditions that doesn’t rely on invasion, colonization, or disease epidemics.
I doubt a novel will ever result from it, but the exploration is invaluable.
How do you have a warrior culture that doesn’t use walls or prisons?
It’s kind of cringe-worthy to think that anything remotely like the Roman Empire could be a model of diversity and acceptance. Spoken as someone who did 5 years of classics, Romans were as imperialistic and as invested in their own “manifest destiny” ansd cultural superiority as the USA or the British Empire ever were.
Just a few cases in point:
– They either destroyed or displaced all the Gaulish populations of Northern Italy. Everybody else was assimilated.
– They destroyed Carthago and its culture just to prove a point. Publius Terentius Afer (playwright), was originally Carthaginian before he was enslaved. Not that you could tell.
– They did the same trick to the Lusitanos in Portugal. Numantia was razed to the ground.
– I don’t really have to tell you what they did to the Jewish people under Vespasian and Titus, do I?
– They went hunting for the droids in Gaul so that the Gaulish tribes will have no spiritual recourse to continue the fight
– Any piece of Late Republican/Early Imperial poetry of satire ever written about Egypt portrayed it as barbarous and backwards and deluded and illogical. The Gauls were “drunkards and cowards”, the Greeks “weak and effemminate”, the Carthaginians “perfidous liars”. This doesn’t read like acceptance of cultural differences.
And yes, they accepted you no matter what colour you might be, as long as you became a Roman and assimilated to the Empire’s culture. Sure, you could have a “local flavour”, but you had to ascribe to its values and sacrifice to the Emperor, etc… They accepted any culture, as long as it was theirs.
TBH, the malazan Empire might be the least worst of the factions of the Malazan verse, but they are not your diverse/accepting utopia. They are an imperialistic war machine that is made of people of various subjugated populations.
Diverse imperialism is still imperialism.
>15 @Pat, that seems like a good hypothesis. I have read neither the series nor the criticism surrounding it, so I don’t know of my own personal knowledge whether Erikson has been asked this, do you?
>18 @EV1, aaannnd the Etruscans were their first victims!
To this day, the Malazan Book of the Fallen, even with its flaws, remains the best fantasy series, IMHO. I still have found memories of its characters. Still have goosebumps thinking back on several scenes.
>18 @EV1 “They went hunting for the droids in Gaul”
Were these truly the droids they were looking for?
I have never been in love with this series. I get what makes it good, and I’m on board with lots of it. The world is inventive, the characters can be great, often the individual stories are captivating, and yeah the diversity of characters is something that caught my attention right away. But I’m usually only good for one book, then I just find the overly convoluted plot threads just turn me off.
Erikson has this habit of introducing characters in a scene, having them do something crazy, then having them exit, and they are never brought up in that book again. It’ll bug me for a whole book, then I’ll think, “Oh they must be in the next book!” But they aren’t, or if they are its under some pseudonym and so many layers of disguise that it’s lost on anybody but a devoted scholar of Malazan. Also the next book is probably not in temporal chronological order, so even if you do see them again, it might be before they did whatever makes them someone you want to see. And people are always changing identities, and the magic system is cool, but weirdly confusing, and super integral to everything that happens in every book. You’re also meeting so many different people per book, with such a horde of names and identifiers flying at you like bullets, that it would make George R.R. Martin blush. Which is also what makes them awesome. It adds to that verisimilitude that makes the world feel like a living, breathing, messy, place. It’s just infuriating at times to try and piece it together.
On the lack of sexism, I can’t fully comment, it’s been long enough since I took a stab at them that I can’t remember if Malazan characters just ignored gender in general when thinking about a person’s quality or not. Though I can say Erikson’s statement, “It became a world without sexism and that was very interesting to explore.” rings false from the amount of rapes, and abusive relationships I remember. Though it could be he just meant the power structure of the empire itself. Though I have to say that seems odd too. Not because of it not being “historical”, though realism enters into it. Human nature often finds itself picking at people’s differences, like nails clawing at a stone wall, looking for something to dig into to, so they can pull it apart. It doesn’t feel real to me that they just wouldn’t try to use this difference to be self destructive. Meaning, at least some of those soldiers should be sexist, some of Tavore Paran’s people should question if her sex or her orientation are negatives, or use them to explain their dislike, if only because people are always looking for some difference to use as a weapon, and bigotry is an easy target. Not because they are right, but because people are so often wrong, and wrong headed.
@18 EV1
Yeah people like to throw around that, “The Roman’s assimilated rather than destroyed” point a lot, without realizing that’s only marginally better. Being enslaved and assimilated is only better when the alternative is obliteration, and even then, culturally that obliteration still happens, it just happens slow enough you get to witness it. The Romans weren’t better than any other conqueror’s in any moral sense, they, and many other conqueror’s to come after them (see Tamerlane, Genghis Khan, The Ottomans) were just practical, and realized they could bully people’s into not only allowing themselves to be conquered if they made the deal sweet enough, but also running themselves as a client state and adopting Roman customs, which reduced Roman overhead immensely. But they were always ready to turn on their provincial brethren in favor of a “true Roman”, especially if they were from one of the more “barbarous” provinces. There was even bias against Romans who spent too much time in those places, like they could be infected with some kind of cultural disease.
Basically the Romans were great at everything, and that includes being huge racists. It’s just their racism was of a completely different nature than much of what we understand of it today. These people thought the Scythian’s “are red, flabby, unhealthy, and filled with water because they live in a cold, wet climate”, and “that people from hot, dry climates, such as the Ethiopians, are long-lived and healthy, dark skinned (because of sunburn), intelligent, and cowardly because they don’t have a lot of blood to spare — the heat dries it up.”, while German’s ” Germans, on the other hand, had red hair and were pale because of cold burn, dull-witted, and courageous — wet climate means more blood, which means they didn’t worry about losing it in a fight.”, and far from not being interested in race they were obsessed with it. They just also believed your culture informed your race, and that Roman culture was the best. If you failed in Roman culture, than it was because it hadn’t got to you soon enough, and/or your vestigial culture was too weak, or barbarous.
It’s been awhile since I read the Malazan books, but unless they had some of their Malazan peoples thinking the commanding officer was messing things up, because they have too much blood, are too “Germanic”(or whatever culture group applies) or aren’t Malazan enough, it doesn’t sound like an empire modeled on Rome. Also rampant slavery. Like, Rome was a bad place, and I don’t think I’d want to live in Malazan either (also because it seems like the world is an hour from ending at any given moment, and psychotic gods walk around giving little speeches all the time. I’m stressed out by having to take the train downtown, and talk to people in the shops.)
( Roman quotes from https://eidolon.pub/why-i-teach-about-race-and-ethnicity-in-the-classical-world-ade379722170)
Sorry, but Tattersail is not the first magic user in the book. That would be Rigga. Cotillion and Ammanas are in the same chapter. Tavore Paran has to be one of the most bland and boring characters ever. Loved the books, but hated her parts. Way too much telling and no showing at all.
I love ICE’s series in the world too. Seems more coherent than Erikson’s.
@23
I don’t agree. Tavore is not bland. She is stoic. She bears the weight of the world on her shoulders, yet she never complains and shuts everyone off in fear that they see how fragile she really is. She’s a complex character. But I do agree that Erikson, on a few occasions, tells us how Tavore is so charismatic that everyone just follows her naturally instead of letting us feel it. That is something that could have been improved.
@23 K D
That is exactly what the author of this article wrote… He mentions that the first magic user is a woman (Rigga, though her name is not mentioned) and that ANOTHER woman, Tattersail, is a respected sorcerress.
As for Tavore:
Tavore is no POI character and we get very little information about her. That is obviously an intentional choice by Erikson which I found very interesting. Tavore remains a mystery, which is a challenge to the reader to figure her out. I liked that, espeacially in contrast to the current tendency to explain every character to the last detail.
Just write good books. Writing diversity, inclusion and gender neutrality (whatever that is) for the sake of doing so does not a good story make. Just tell your story. There are and have always been good stories that have characters of all types without being agenda driven or just because.
Erikson’s a big fan of Glen Cook, and you’ll find these concepts of power and equality in his BLACK COMPANY series, in which the world is so riddled with magic that even cities use aliases and the most dire of the wizards is known only as The Lady.
1. Tattersail was young. Physically. Maybe a bit round, but definitely not old. Technically, she may well have a few centuries behind her. But remember, Anomander is about a thousand times older than her, and looks like 30. Age doesn’t affect powerful mages. Tattersail was young and pretty, perfectly fitting the young n pretty girl stereotype.
2. Empress Larseen may be female, but that’s nothing special. Having a male king is touching the male king stereotype, having a female one is succumbing to the female queen stereotype. You can’t evade stereotypes. Then again, she is all but PERFECT. She is brutal, ruthless, incompetent and a bit paranoid. More than that, her successor Rel is a male guy (who is slightly more cunning but far more the asshole).
Tavore is gay because having her fused with a male guy is just … eerie.
3. Apsalar is the deadliest assassin ever. Yes. Unmatched by her peers. Well, she has no peers. (She killed everyone and is a loner) She is not truly human anymore, after absorbing so much of cotillion. And yes, Cotillion is still superior. He is the freakin Rope.
4. About matriarchal societies. (My phone just corrected matriarchal to patriarchal, is that a bad sign?) Not all of Steven eriksons world is egalitarian. Many seven cities tribes seem to be patriarchal. Kallors empire was patriarchal (that’s a joke). The teblor are massively patriarchal, but then again, they are savages without much magic. All in all, I don’t remember a single matriarchal society beside one primitive hominid tribe visited through Trake’s eyes. Here, females were simply bigger, which is unrealistic given that one of the defining features of hominids is sexual dimorphism between male and female, in short, male are always bigger. This sexual dimorphism may vary between species up to the point when both are same sized. Women are just never the bigger guys.
5. It’s all but feminist work. Keep that in mind when reading. Otherwise you’d be surprised how much violence against women takes place here, acts also executed be cool povs. You won’t enjoy the greatest character of the whole epic, the humble Mr Karsa. (He raped all the women of a whole village, once, later he changed, at least on the surface)
6. I never believed gender equality to be something too special about this series. Well, I haven’t read much beside this, so what am I to tell? Either you portray a world mirroring historical and contemporary patriarchy and do it right, as GRR Martin or J. Abercrombie did, which fits just the historically feeling worlds of those two authors above, or you make an egalitarian one, which fits a world feeling much more apart from our own, like malazan. It was nothing special for me and I never thought about it much, it just was as it was. Up until I noticed how many soldiers were female. That was unrealistic. Female mages? Ok. Female commanders? Ok. Female scouts? Ok. Female soldiers with crossbows and projectile weapons and guns etc? Ok. Female soldiers with swords? Someone like Khrughava, sure, and maybe those napan women who seem to be all gigantic, ok, but like every second infantrist? And the heavies, too? That’s getting out of hand.
7. Finally, it must be noted that Steven Erikson did manage to do a lot of great egalitarian things in his work. But what he did not manage to achieve was creating an egalitarian prevalence of protagonists which are fan favourites. Anomander, mappo and Icarium, coltaine, duiker, Quick Ben, Kruppe, Itkovian, Tool, Trull, Karsa, Tehol and Bugg, the list is endless… I may have included people like Tattersail, Hellian and Apsalar, but then I didnt mention Kalam, Whiskeyjack and Paran, Shadowthrone and fucking Fiddler. Most of the greatest characters he creates are male. Meaning that he focused primarily on male characters, and the female ones just weren’t so epic.