Gardens isn't incredible - that's the problem I think a lot of people have. It's decent, competent epic fantasy. But the next few books in the series are incredible . Consequently, a lot of people are dissapointed by GotM, as they assume it will be amazing. There's a general consensus that Deadhouse Gates is a huge improvement on Gardens of the Moon (there's an 8 year gap between the writing of the two novels)
I think that's intentional, and it has mixed success. For example, I don't like his overuse of the word "uh..", but I think the military dialogue tends to be pretty authentic. He was trying to create something different to
Quick Ben was pretty simplistic in Gardens of the Moon IMO. He really comes into his own in Memories of Ice. I think that characterisation is perhaps Erikson's weakest aspect initially, but it's because the world has to be established, and there just isn't enough room to do tons of character development and worldbuilding. He does have much more fleshing out of characters in the later books. It's quite difficult to think of how much was done in just Gardens, but iirc, there wasn't too much there. Most of the Bridgeburners develop quite a bit as it goes on. Whiskeyjack's history is hinted at throughout and continues to develop, there's quite a bit of attention on Kalam and Fiddler, Paran's very important - there's more on him later, but it's probably best to be a bit confused about him at the moment, the other Bridgeburners don't have a huge amount of depth to them (at least the ones you've seen so far), and they all have an element of the grotesque to them, but I don't think it's feasible for Erikson to do in-depth characterisation for over three hundred characters (roughly).
The important thing to remember is Gardens of the Moon is an introduction. It's not entirely representative of his style, and it allows the later books to be much better. (Gardens of the Moon I think's an enjoyable read, but not great fantasy. Deadhouse Gates and Memories of Ice are two of the best installments of epic fantasy ever written.)
If you'd got that from Gardens of the Moon, you'd have been more impressed than me by it, and I'm a pretty big fan of Erikson. I think in the later books, Erikson manages to surpass Martin, just, but Gardens is definitely the weakest, and I wouldn't be surprised if you did get that effect from the next two. Still, I don't want to get your hopes up too much, and then be disappointed - Deadhouse Gates starts off a bit slow, but slightly better and slightly more imaginative (though the almost entirely new cast puts some people off), but it's much more tightly written and it's much more focused - allowing for some proper character development and some really moving scenes. If there's one flaw above all I find with Gardens of the Moon, it's that it isn't very powerful (emotionally). The ending's too deus ex machina style, it's too weak, mildly anti-climactic. That isn't the case in any of the other books, which have incredibly powerful endings.
I think that's intentional, and it has mixed success. For example, I don't like his overuse of the word "uh..", but I think the military dialogue tends to be pretty authentic. He was trying to create something different to
Quick Ben was pretty simplistic in Gardens of the Moon IMO. He really comes into his own in Memories of Ice. I think that characterisation is perhaps Erikson's weakest aspect initially, but it's because the world has to be established, and there just isn't enough room to do tons of character development and worldbuilding. He does have much more fleshing out of characters in the later books. It's quite difficult to think of how much was done in just Gardens, but iirc, there wasn't too much there. Most of the Bridgeburners develop quite a bit as it goes on. Whiskeyjack's history is hinted at throughout and continues to develop, there's quite a bit of attention on Kalam and Fiddler, Paran's very important - there's more on him later, but it's probably best to be a bit confused about him at the moment, the other Bridgeburners don't have a huge amount of depth to them (at least the ones you've seen so far), and they all have an element of the grotesque to them, but I don't think it's feasible for Erikson to do in-depth characterisation for over three hundred characters (roughly).
The important thing to remember is Gardens of the Moon is an introduction. It's not entirely representative of his style, and it allows the later books to be much better. (Gardens of the Moon I think's an enjoyable read, but not great fantasy. Deadhouse Gates and Memories of Ice are two of the best installments of epic fantasy ever written.)
If you'd got that from Gardens of the Moon, you'd have been more impressed than me by it, and I'm a pretty big fan of Erikson. I think in the later books, Erikson manages to surpass Martin, just, but Gardens is definitely the weakest, and I wouldn't be surprised if you did get that effect from the next two. Still, I don't want to get your hopes up too much, and then be disappointed - Deadhouse Gates starts off a bit slow, but slightly better and slightly more imaginative (though the almost entirely new cast puts some people off), but it's much more tightly written and it's much more focused - allowing for some proper character development and some really moving scenes. If there's one flaw above all I find with Gardens of the Moon, it's that it isn't very powerful (emotionally). The ending's too deus ex machina style, it's too weak, mildly anti-climactic. That isn't the case in any of the other books, which have incredibly powerful endings.
)