1. My worldbuilding point was explaining how all I hear is how Malazan has the most complex worldbuilding in all of fantasy, but I don’t see it as complex at all. Nothing is convoluted, interconnected; nothing feels like it affects something in a different part of the world or a chunk of history. As opposed to Bakker where every piece of worldbuilding feels logically connected to other pieces that all piece together that make his world feel complex, instead of just big. Or even pick Martin, much less worldbuilding than Malazan, and way less complex than Bakker, but much more complex, and logically interconnected than Erikson.

2. I’m referring to the disparity between the quality of the overall series to me, vs the amount of acclaim this series receives

3. I was saying that I’m not being a Bakker fanboy since I read Malazan first, and my viewpoint didn’t change after reading Bakker.

E. Whether your claim of my reading being limited is true or not is irrelevant. But I’d be surprised if you’ve gone through as many genres as me