[aidan]

I haven't been able to get my hands on Night of Knives, but I'm curious from those who've read it how Cam's writing style and prose differs from Erikson's. Is the tone similar? Can you tell the novels are written by two different people? Erikson has a very distinct style of writing and I'm wondering whether Cam has tried to emulate that or whether he has put his own voice into the work.

[Dolorous Menhir]

ICE doesn't say "must needs" as much.

[ch'arlz]

IMHO, ICE's NoK is on a par with SE's shorter works such as _Lees of Laughter's End_. Very enjoyable story, adds to the knowledge base, but it's still not MBotF.

[Karsa Orlong]

I think that he succeeds in capturing the malazan-vibe/flavour . And that is the most important thing for me. He does not have as intricate a writing-style as Erikson does (at least atm. SE didn't have such an intricate prose in GotM either...so ICE can still develop in that area) but he is good. I will definitely read all his malazan-works.

[aidan]

Thanks, guys. I'm hoping to pick up ICE's novel on monday, so at that point I can check it out for myself. It's always interesting to see two authors writing in the same world, especially when their writing styles differ. From the sounds of it, though, they both write in a somewhat similar manner.

[Aptorian]

my 2 cents seeing as just finished the books yesterday.

It was AWESOME!!!

I'd been hearing differing opinions on the forum. ICE not having the same style, the story being lacking, ICE just not being advanced/experienced enough.

Not true.

It's just as good as SE's work. It's got the tension of the Malazan Books and the same mechanics of telling one story and letting characters memories tell older stories. Thus dropping the good stuff on the fall of Y'ghathan and the Sword. It's riddled with all kinds of hints, and it drops perhaps the best info on Jaghuts and the Azath as of yet.

It's just as gritty and I couldn't find any difference in his protrail of the typical Malazan creature or environment.

What it doesn't have on the other hand, and I don't think this necessarily is a negative (rather possitive), is Eriksons (long winded) poetic/philosofical mussing on anything from architecture, human nature to history, etc. Erikson sometimes get almost achedemic in his analyzes of things, making a degree in philosophy or social econmy a must to get the full understanding of what he's rambling on about.

If there is a difference it's cause of the size. 300 pages against 700-1100 pages of story. 24 hours storyline as opposed to half a year to a year. This creates obvious differences in how the story is told and how generous ICE is able to be.

I loved it, can't wait for RotCG.

[Svaran]

Esselmont's style is more focused, as his book concentrates on less characters than Erikson. The most fascinating aspect of the book is the insight into Dassem, his first sword, Temper, Tays, his two body guards and the link between the storm riders and Jaghut.

I'd describe his style as being more fluid but you can see similarities between he and Erikson when historical events are mentioned. Easy book to read I look forward to his next book.

[Traveller]

Just finished it thought it was way better than i expected. maybe because i thought that nobody would really be able to capture the mood and the characters. I was a bit sceptical for the first few pages; it's definitely not SE writing, but I soon became absorbed as the story unfolded... good pace, description (but not overly so) and a brilliant slow build of tension. Although, the very deliberate device of not-naming-anyone so-you have-to-work-it-out was a little overused - it's nice to have some idea what's going on in the first read!
Loved it though. More please!

[Salt-Man Z]

I found NoK to be decent, but Esslemont's style bugged me throughout. Besides trying (successfully!) to be intentionally confusing, his biggest offense, in my mind, is what seems a tendancy to eliminate as many small "unnecessary" words as possible: that, which, etc. Basically, he tried too hard to trim his sentences down, and in doing so made making sense of his narration more difficult. There were far too many times where I would have to stop in mid-sentence and start over because my mind was parsing the sentence differently than ICE intended -- because he left out key words that would have indicated otherwise.* Other times, I found myself having to reread entire sentences to make sense of what he was actually trying to say.

But just from the preview of RotCG, it looks like he's improved over the past couple years. So I'm anxiously anticipating that book's MMPB release next year.

*I have a perfect example of this that I will look up when I get home.

[Salt-Man Z]

Here's that sentence I was talking about. It highlights a couple of the issues I have with ICE's writing; in fact, I commited this page number to memory when I first read it because this single sentence jumped out at me as being indicative of his writing overall:

"NoK MMPB p242" said:

The instant vapour burst from the iceberg's leading spur the Riders plunged beneath the ice-mulched surface.

When I started reading this sentence, I immediately parsed "instant" as an adjective, thus essentially "The instant burst of vapor from the iceberg's leading spur..." and then stumbled when I hit "the Riders". Which leads me to another issue I have with Esslemont, and that's the elusive comma. I know it's suddenly become fashionable to do away with the things -- and Esslemont surely seems intent on stripping them away whenever possible -- but we have them for a reason, and one situated at "leading spur, the Riders" would have done wonders for comprehension.

Quote

The instant that vapour burst from the iceberg's leading spur, the Riders plunged beneath the ice-mulched surface.

The above reads much more easily, don't you think?

[Traveller]

Yes, i noticed that in several cases the writing doesn't flow well... you've picked a good example! I thought this happened more so at the beginning of the book, as I found that i was noticing the text rather than getting into the story. I got the impression that this improved as the book went on, but I may have just got used to having to re-read a few lines. (Some of the action sequences could have done with a bit more clarity, as it was somtimes difficult to tell what was going on or why... eg. Dassem's wounding.) I'd still rather have a few writing structure problems, than a writing style that was technically perfect but didn't capture the essence of the MBoTF, which ICE does overall.

[Salt-Man Z]

I agree, I didn't notice as many issues as the book went on, but that may just be because I was more wrapped up in the story by that point, I don't know.

I will say that following what was actually happening never got any easier throughout the book. That scene at the Deadhouse, and figuring when people were inside the grounds or outside the walls and when, or who was fighting who...still all has me a bit confused.

[Traveller]

That's what interrupts the flow... if you have to keep checking back to see who's actually doing what's being described, or who is saying a particular line, it's hard to read straight through. The Deadhouse bit was confusing.. not helped by no clear definition who was there. Having to guess, and waiting to find out later isn't always good.

[megaphage]

I think ICE's style is much better for fast paced story like NoK. Erikson can get really bogged down in detailed description and I think he tries to be too clever sometimes. Erikson does the epic really well, undulating between thoughtful moments and fast paced action, but from the evidence of NoK Esslemont is more focused and more direct.

In comparison to Erikson's most recent novels I prefer ICE, but I'm not sure if Esslemont will ever write as well as Erikson did in Deadhouse Gates. Saying that, I'm not sure if Erikson ever will either.

[Quick~]

ICEs style is rather less flowery and instead a bit more to the point, which I think works as a nice compliment to SEs prose. I also think his particular style is going to lend itself well to writing about soldiers and war in general.

The real test will come in RotCG and I think then we'll get some better answers as to just how good a writer he is.

oh and I think he could do with a different editor.

[Terez]

I found ICE's style in this book to be in many ways rather unconvincing. It was similar to the problems I had reading GGK's Ysabel, for those who read my comments on that. He focused mainly on two characters - Kiska and Temper - and neither one of them was really developed well, though the development of Temper's character did improve as the book went along. Kiska remained shallow until the end. There was also a great deal of random, pointless action in the book that, in my opinion, took up a lot of space that could have been used for character development - or at least, the action could have been woven into the plot a little better. As it is, much of it seems arbitrary. Also, Kiska's involvement in the action required too much suspension of disbelief.

[aidan]

I haven't been able to get my hands on Night of Knives, but I'm curious from those who've read it how Cam's writing style and prose differs from Erikson's. Is the tone similar? Can you tell the novels are written by two different people? Erikson has a very distinct style of writing and I'm wondering whether Cam has tried to emulate that or whether he has put his own voice into the work.

[Dolorous Menhir]

ICE doesn't say "must needs" as much.

[ch'arlz]

IMHO, ICE's NoK is on a par with SE's shorter works such as _Lees of Laughter's End_. Very enjoyable story, adds to the knowledge base, but it's still not MBotF.

[Karsa Orlong]

I think that he succeeds in capturing the malazan-vibe/flavour . And that is the most important thing for me. He does not have as intricate a writing-style as Erikson does (at least atm. SE didn't have such an intricate prose in GotM either...so ICE can still develop in that area) but he is good. I will definitely read all his malazan-works.