[Dag]

Werthead, on Oct 21 2008, 08:26 PM, said:

Having said that, Bilsborough's The Wanderer's Tale seems to be catching up with it fast.

lord of tragedy, on Oct 21 2008, 08:43 PM, said:

any opinions on the annals of lindhorm?

The writing style and plot in one sentence:

A group of character-sheet heroes on a quest against the Ancient Evil Rising in the East - getting from one boring fight into another and going up a level or two - telling jokes that fail to be funny - sound of dice rolling in the background - all told in the usual "You and your companions enter a dark chamber; on your left, you see..." style.

That's why I nominated "The Wanderer's Tale" (Book 1 of Annals of Lyndormyn) for the Worst Book in the old purgatory forums. And no - I will not be reading the sequels.

[Abyss]

Terez, on Oct 15 2008, 11:40 AM, said:

It was RJ's quote that made me read GRRM.

I can't quite explain why, but this made me LOL.


If i haven't mentioned it earlier in the thread. Van Lustbader's RING OF DRAGONS NOT APPEARING IN THIS NOVEL is absolute shitehouse. Awful. Just awful. I liked his Ninja stuff back in the day, but this was an affront to the genre.


- Abyss, ...should also mention Goodkind makes my eyes bleed...

[lord of tragedy]

abyss i read the prologue. something about a fat priestess and a jewel. tug my braid it was awful.
only book i've ever done that too. no wait, i did it with david drake too. really really low points in my fantasy reading experiences.

[Lisheo]

The shadow god by Aaron Rayburne. Look it up on amazon.com for the sheer humour of how bad it is; read the first review.

[iscariot]

Werthead, on Oct 22 2008, 07:26 AM, said:

iscariot, on Oct 20 2008, 07:50 PM, said:

exaggeration for effect

Even then, I have spoken to several people here - in NZ, not list members, obviously, who agree...YMMV

What's viewpoint got to do with it? Fact, far more major protagonists have died in Malazan than in ASoIaF, even discounting the tedious resurrections.

Maybe so - I just get a different feel from GRRM than I do from Erikson - this is, of course, assuming that you're allowing individual response to literature, I'd hate to transgress some sort of standing clone response to literature that I wasn't aware of...

Personally, I find Martin's deaths more...ummm...impersonal...cold...cursory; that's it, cursory and, as a result the resonance that created for me with respect to my response to the book magnified my distaste...

meh, it's an opinion.

This post has been edited by iscariot: 21 October 2008 - 08:21 PM

[globish rip]

any opinions on the annals of lindhorm?

its basically fetch quest: the novel but i still kinda liked it. diff tack then a lot of fantasy ive read in that it takes v. uninteresting chars and fucks w/them until they become interesting. some similar themes/concerns to erikson too. world is lame and video game-y but i thought the prose was decent, if a little exposition heavy. serviceable, i guess.

borderline trolling but wheel of time series >>>> erkison u dont have to like it but lets be real here

[caladanbrood]

The only thing Jordan has going for him over Erikson is a significantly larger fan-base... nothing in the actual books is superior to Erikson. But hey, you're allowed your opinion, even if you have a spammer's username...

[iscariot]

Jordan's a much easier read though, which would account for the larger fan-base..nand there is an argument (not one I would consider valid, mind) that espouses simple English as superior to more complex locutions. Readibiliy does presuppose greater popularity - I've never actually seen a <15 teenager reading Erikson, which is Fantasy's entry point...

...and .[bah f@@#$%%ing PC],

This post has been edited by iscariot: 21 October 2008 - 09:34 PM

[globish rip]

thanks for yr permission!!! wot has the better story and in some ways better chars also the world-building is tighter and the magic system is better. so much is a matter of perspective i ack that i was semi-trolling just reading this thread all at once was o_O

hating on jordan is really boring and played imo. i honestly think dude would've been better served as a film or tv writer he has a good ear for dialouge and maybe the structure would've helped w/his pacing. altho a couple of subplots aside most of the books are actually really well constructed.

[globish rip]

Jordan's a much easier read though, which would account for the larger fan-base

ugh see reading this on a fan-site forum for a not particularly popular fantasy author is what is making me want to troll like way to pack in a bunch of shitty and unsupported assumptions into yr critical outlook. like this isnt exactly the type of thing that most ppl use to dismiss all fantasy even erikson!!

[Abyss]

iscariot, on Oct 21 2008, 05:28 PM, said:

Jordan's a much easier read though, which would account for the larger fan-base..nand there is an argument (not one I would consider valid, mind) that espouses simple English as superior to more complex locutions. Readibiliy does presuppose greater popularity - I've never actually seen a <15 teenager reading Erikson, which is Fantasy's entry point...

...and .[bah f@@#$%%ing PC],

I agree. It boils down to the fact that Jordan is more approachable and easier on the thinkymeatz than SE. The things that make SE better than RJ to many of the fantics here are the same thing that means RJ makes all kinds of bestseller lists with 800 pages of descriptions of dresses and maybe one unresolved swordfight.

SE challenges the reader, but the great unwashed don't want a challenge from their elf-porn.
Generalizing hugely, when you come to EYE OF THE WORLD a fantasy virgin with maybe the LotR and Narnia movies behind you, Randland's farmboy-becomes-supermagesworddudehero-saves-the-world-and-shags-chicks rocks. Now think about those ever so important first 200 pages of GotM... the sheer complexity of it, the lack of explanation, the sense that hell, the big fight happened before you even opened the book, the same things that pulled so many of us in are the very thing that throws the noobs out, allowing for exceptions.

- Abyss, ....yes, elf-porn.... what?

[caladanbrood]

I enjoy wot, and I don't hate jordan. I hated his wife/editor for a while for making him string the damn thing out to scrape more money out of us, but overall it aint bad. I just think Erikson is better in every facet

Incidently, iscariot, I started reading Erikson in 2000, which would have made me 12 or 13... ah well, I've never been accused of normality.

This post has been edited by caladanbrood: 21 October 2008 - 09:51 PM

[Terez]

caladanbrood, on Oct 21 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

The only thing Jordan has going for him over Erikson is a significantly larger fan-base... nothing in the actual books is superior to Erikson. But hey, you're allowed your opinion, even if you have a spammer's username...

As for my opinion, one thing I think RJ has going over Erikson is the intricate framework of the plot, especially in how he uses his prophecies and other various tidbits to outline mysteries that can be figured out by the reader with some effort (some with little effort, some that we're still working on figuring out after years of trying). Erikson has those but I think most of his details are just that - details. You're not supposed to be able to figure out how his magic system works, exactly; it's a mystery that will probably never be solved. There's a certain amount of value in that but I like the breadcrumb trails of WoT. I also prefer RJ's prose - SE is more attached to obscure vocabulary but I don't think that makes his prose any more artful.

Also...I don't think it was Harriet that made RJ "string out" WoT - you can blame that on his hard core fans (like me!):

RJ said:

Letter to Tom McCormick from RJ - December 1993

One thing -- don't think you've reached bottom in your digging. I tried to make the books fairly simple on the surface, and quite complex underneath. You've dug up a number of points that I thought I had buried well enough that they wouldn't come to light for some time yet (don't expect me to say which ones), and you've also dug up one or two that I never buried in the first place (no hints there, either). Jordan's Law, I think, can better be stated along these lines: "Ah, you think you know how the game goes now? Very good, gentlemen. what say we increase the bets just to make it interesting?"

[globish rip]

As for my opinion, one thing I think RJ has going over Erikson is the intricate framework of the plot

i agree but will admit there's a perspective issue here. i do think that the strong sense of continuity between books is an asset for wot but understand those that perfer the looser style of malaz. having such a strong overarcing story helps make up for the admittedly boring stuff like faile's kidnapping. whereas boring parts of erkison books weigh heavier, somehow, since they seem to count for more.

also lol the whole "wot is too long books X to KOD-1 were soooo useless" is equal to like the "ppl only like jordan becuz he uses small wordz" cliche. real talk winter's heart is the best book jordan ever wrote and the key to the whole series: thematically, structurally and morally. what ppl here seem to be glossing over is that jordan's books are a v. moral work they operate on a really basic v. primal level. also his characters are way, way more likeable and i think, knowable than erikson's. in part yes becuz they are shallower. its those two things way more than the prose that made the books popular.

also p.s. i can change my scrn name just tell me how

[iscariot]

¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶, on Oct 22 2008, 10:43 AM, said:

Jordan's a much easier read though, which would account for the larger fan-base

ugh see reading this on a fan-site forum for a not particularly popular fantasy author is what is making me want to troll like way to pack in a bunch of shitty and unsupported assumptions into yr critical outlook. like this isnt exactly the type of thing that most ppl use to dismiss all fantasy even erikson!!

Even acknowledging that I am operating on a largely incoherent basis myself today I'm still not sure what you meant.

The fact that the language and tropes of Jordan are more simplistic in usage than Erikson is in no way a criticism of Jordan, simply an observation. It is also a logical continuance that a more easily approachable level of reading will attract mroe people through simple demographic analysis.

Caladan B: exception proving the rule? Or, you're a freak...I'll generously let you choose... :snigger:

[caladanbrood]

¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶, on Oct 21 2008, 11:40 PM, said:

As for my opinion, one thing I think RJ has going over Erikson is the intricate framework of the plot

i agree but will admit there's a perspective issue here. i do think that the strong sense of continuity between books is an asset for wot but understand those that perfer the looser style of malaz. having such a strong overarcing story helps make up for the admittedly boring stuff like faile's kidnapping. whereas boring parts of erkison books weigh heavier, somehow, since they seem to count for more.

also lol the whole "wot is too long books X to KOD-1 were soooo useless" is equal to like the "ppl only like jordan becuz he uses small wordz" cliche. real talk winter's heart is the best book jordan ever wrote and the key to the whole series: thematically, structurally and morally. what ppl here seem to be glossing over is that jordan's books are a v. moral work they operate on a really basic v. primal level. also his characters are way, way more likeable and i think, knowable than erikson's. in part yes becuz they are shallower. its those two things way more than the prose that made the books popular.

also p.s. i can change my scrn name just tell me how

Sorry, to continue this conversation, you're really going to have to stop using txt spk and try english instead... I don't have a clue what you're trying to say. There's an option somewhere in your user controls to change your display name...

[Lisheo]

Go to "My controls" in the toolbar up top, then scroll down the side controll to change display name. Should be about four options beneath change personal profile info.

[globish rip]

The fact that the language and tropes of Jordan are more simplistic in usage than Erikson is in no way a criticism of Jordan, simply an observation. It is also a logical continuance that a more easily approachable level of reading will attract mroe people through simple demographic analysis.

well simple esp in context implies some value judgement. i also think yr logic is a little flawed but i dont care about that. my irritation is with the assumption (a) that ppl and that particularly ppl reading jordan BECAUSE it was 'easy' ( b ) that 'simple' or what i called primal themes and tropes are lesser a priori

This post has been edited by txt speak is so english ask the new: 21 October 2008 - 10:56 PM

[iscariot]

¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶, on Oct 22 2008, 11:52 AM, said:

well simple esp in context implies some value judgement. i also think yr logic is a little flawed but i dont care about that. my irritation is with the assumption (a) that ppl and that particularly ppl reading jordan BECAUSE it was 'easy' ( b ) that 'simple' or what i called primal themes and tropes are lesser a priori

I think we have a difference in definition over simple/ simplistic: I am talking per language used + construction [run Erikson and Jordan through something like Flesch-Kinkaid [sp?] and Jordan will come out with a better readability level.

That makes it neither better, nor worse, than Erikson - simple a reflection of an established standard.

I stand by the argument that perceived ease of reading will presuppose a potentially larger fanbase. To me, that is a valid inference, is something is accessible to more people simlpe through langauage accessibility, then the core potential audience is simply larger by definition. Note: I don't consider that a criticism though, of Jordan, or 'simplistic' writing in general, some of my favourite writing is simple - in terms of construction - and it is 'superior' writing.

I don't recall, BTW, bagging Jordan in any shape or form. Actually, I didn't comment on his stories at all, only on the ostensible radability vis-a-vis Erikson and the potentiality for base popularoty established on that - I think you are reading things into stuff I simly didn't say.

[globish rip]

yah dude in yr o.g. post you sd that simple > complex was not vaild. that's where im getting that from.

I stand by the argument that perceived ease of reading will presuppose a potentially larger fanbase.

sure "potentially" but u sd that being easier to read "accounts for" wot's larger fanbase. i tried in my posts to point out some fairly obv reasons aside from the language that ppl would prefer jordan to erikson.

im sry i read yr posts incorrectly by context above i simply meant context of this thread which is/was pretty hostile. the "you" i was reacting to wasnt "you" but everyone on the thread, really.

btw richard d. james dude consider my posting steez an experiment in the relationship between ease of reading, complexity and readership. or just go listen to druqks