Comparing and Contrasting The Black Company and The Malazan Book of the Fallen

My University Historiography professor once said, “Never do a compare and contrast essay about history.” He said that no 2 events in history can or should be compared to each other because there are so many alternate mitigating factors that to try and explain all the causes and effects would be impossible. He said that no historical event is in a vacuum. He has a good point, but I’m going to ignore his advice simply because I will be comparing and contrasting two fantasy books and hoping that they are self contained in a vacuum enough for me to properly convey their similarities and differences. The two books I choose to discuss are The Black Company series, written by Glen Cook, and The Malazan Book of the Fallen, written by Steven Erikson.

The reason I am choosing to write about these two books is because of their connectedness in the fantasy community. On the popular aggregate news site Reddit.com, in the fantasy subreddit, these two series are paired together quite often. Many people say that one is like the other, or you will like one if you like the other. I even purchased The Black Company trilogy because it came so recommended by the people who recommended and praised the Malazan series. However after starting the first book in the trilogy I realized many differences in the two series and found myself wondering why they were connected. I believe that on the surface these books are different, and it takes time and a deeper understanding of both series to see their connectedness and similarities. The differences are very shallow, and the similarities run deep, which is why people pair them quite often, because of the possible subconscious or undercurrent themes that run throughout each of these series.

I’ll first talk about their differences because after reading The Black Company trilogy (here on referred to as BC) I found fewer differences than I did similarities. The most jarring difference that you will stumble across while reading these two series are the format. The BC is written in first person limited, with the POV being a medic in the company who is also designated as the annalist. It is his job to observe and document the company’s history. The feeling of the book is that we are reading his diary and his personal thoughts about the other members of the company and as a result we get an inside look into the relationships, interworkings, politics, and various other plotlines through his opinion. It has a slight similarity to the way Heroditus wrote his histories. He, like Croaker (The BC medic/annalist), observed a group or groups of people, described their way of life, and also added his own opinion on different situations or historical events in order for us to understand what he thought of them, which is vastly different than how history is taught today (for better or for worse).

The Malazan series is told in a 3rd person limited format. The author picks a character in which to follow for a short section and we the reader are limited to their personal POV, occasionally sharing in their thought process. Erikson makes a point not to give us too much information, so we are left in the dark scrambling to figure out what is happening a lot of the time. This format allows for Erikson to switch POV’s at will and tell a very big story involving characters that number in the hundreds and spanning different continents, and in some cases, worlds, which leads me to the second difference.

Scope. The scope of these two series is vastly different. The BC trilogy follows one character and his interactions with his mercenary company. This does make for an interesting story but has its limitations. One thing I really like about this style of storytelling is the diary format. We get a personal glimpse into the personal life of a Black Company soldier/medic on their contract missions. We get to see what he thinks about the politics of the world he lives in. We get to feel the emotion he has and share in his passions. We also get a bit of a skewed look at the world. We only see the world and the other characters through his viewpoint, which could be slightly deceptive. We hear only his opinions on the different characters and therefore make them our own, if we so choose.

The Malazan books’ scope is vast. As I mentioned about it involves hundreds of different characters, a storyline spanning different continents, worlds, and planes of existence. The format Erikson writes in allows for his story to be told from the viewpoint of many different characters which gives us a vaster and more open world feeling to it. Because of this, his story is not limited to just one group, but many groups, and not only one mission, but many different over arcing missions, and not only at one time, but over different times, sometimes thousands of years apart. One thing I like about this writing style is that we can really feel the epicness (I hate using that word) in his books, and how big of a world that is actually taking place.

Those are where the major differences stop. There are other minor technical differences, but those were the ones that stood out to me the most. Now I want to focus on the similarities and parallels in the different series’. Throughout each series the biggest similarities that the reader will come across is the grittiness and the ‘grey-area’ style of storytelling.

Both of the series’ have characters that are riddled with character flaws. They are human beings and they are written as such. You would be hard pressed to find a character in either series that is either wholly good or wholly evil. This becomes especially true when you focus on the main characters of each series. Many of the characters are out for self interest, or what they think is righteous according to them. They make choices that have both a positive and a negative effect on others, and sometimes they don’t try to explain the reasons they choose those actions. You will find some of the behavior of the characters morally reprehensible while still being intrigued and slightly understanding of their reasoning (if and when they provide it). Another slight similarity in the characters is the names of the characters. In the BC each person has a nickname, and we are usually not given their real names. The nicknames are given to the company soldiers based on a character trait they convey, which is the same for the bridgeburner squad in the Malazan world. One character even shares the same name (the medic/annalist from the BC, and a prominent character from Malazan).

It’s also easy to compare the Magic system that is used in both books. I know many fans of one series but not the other would get upset at me even attempting to compare such a complex magic system in each book to the other. But the similarity that I discovered is that in both series, it is overwhelmingly unexplained, and purposefully in most instances. The magic system and magic users are relatively mysterious, not fully understood by many, and incredibly dangerous. Both series’ have cagey magic users, and the wizards never fully delve into the reasons behind their actions, leaving the reader trying to piece together what their intentions are.

The powerful magic also lends itself to powerful people/creatures, usually creating a Deus ex Machina trope. Many times in the Malazan world there will be a character that will decimate their opponent and be more powerful than anyone else around. In a few cases, there are characters and creatures who have the potential to destroy cities, countries, continents, and possibly worlds. This is displayed, on a slightly smaller scale, in the BC trilogy as well; a wizard who is much more powerful than anyone else, coming in and cleaning up or assisting in a mission.

I mentioned before that the wizards and magic users are not keen on explaining their actions or reasons behind their actions. The author shows that they are brooding or thinking about something, but when a character presses them for an explanation, the magic user/wizard just gives a smile, or a wink, or a, ‘you’ll see’ type answer. This happens a lot in both books, and right from the start for each series. We as a reader are thrown into the world without any preface or introduction. We start in the middle of a heated battle, or the aftermath of one, and we are constantly trying to figure out what’s going on. The author does not cater to the reader, but instead uses our confusion as a way to establish the unstable and constantly changing world in which the characters live in, where nothing is predicted or understood as an absolute. These are worlds where anything can happen. Characters will become injured, gravely, and in some cases die. There will be shocking and life altering events and we will get to see the aftermath of such events and how they change people and make them grow into something better or something worse.

There is one more comparison I can make in the two series’ and that is the atmosphere, and the feeling. With all the other similarities, the overall feeling you have while you are reading is one of uncertainty. You feel the gritty, realistically conveyed world in which the characters live in. You start to understand that no one is safe, and therefore have a slight worried feeling when things are getting rough for the characters. The world feels dirty and war torn, which it is. And the author does a good job conveying that world through their own formats. An overall dark atmosphere resonates in each reader very well. This makes for a great read and one that will keep you guessing till the end.

These books aren’t for everyone. And there are a lot of readers who like one series, but not the other. They both take time, energy, and commitment. The Malazan series is about 3 million words long, it took me almost a year to read (I took some time off to read some other books just to change up the pace a little bit). The vastly different writing styles might throw off some readers as well. The BC is a first person narrative that does not go into great detail when describing conflicts, while Malazan has a sometimes overwhelming load of detail to battles and philosophical ramblings from different characters that can leave the reader feeling overwhelmed. Each series did interest me and leave me wanting more. I was impressed with what both authors did with their characters and their worlds. I would recommend reading both series if you are not a beginner to the fantasy genre, and if you have read one but not the other, pick up a copy for yourself.

I have only read each series once, and understand the depth and vastness of these series, so I’m sure I have missed some things and possibly mistook a similarity for a difference or vice versa. If you have other things to add or subtract feel free to continue the discussion.

Share this: Twitter

Facebook

Like this: Like Loading... Related

Posted in Uncategorized