[Lacedaemonian]

True true. I guess when you have a wealth of reference material at your disposal it makes it a lot easier to produce a novel every twelve months. George does not have this luxury.

[blackzoid]

Wry, on Apr 16 2009, 06:44 PM, said:

blackzoid, on Apr 16 2009, 06:10 PM, said:

Wry, on Apr 12 2009, 11:56 PM, said:

And to everyone who holds up Erickson as an argument as to how it should be done... well just look at the dropping standard in the last few books for an explanation as to why most authors don't do a book in a year.

OT

You know, I'm real tired of that argument been trotted out against Erikson.
Can people please in the future put a disclaimer in front of statements like that, to say that it is their opinion only and NOT an objective fact that the last "few" (I assume you mean last 3?) books were of lower quality.
Because I loved TBH and TTH and was only mildly disappointed with RG. In my opinion, TTH was up there with MOI and the siege of Y'ghatan was the best scene in the entire series.

On topic you forget that GoTM, DG,MOI and HOC were all published on consecutive years. So it was possible for Erikson to work on a tight schedule for his "better" books.
However, I don't expect Martin to have to do this. He can proceed at his own pace. I'm used to Dark Tower waits after all.

And really what was wrong with A Feast for Crows? I liked that book. It broadened the story. Maybe it's because I read all the ASOFAI books in one go, but I saw no dip in quality.

So i should qualify any negative post i make about Erikson by saying it's just my opinion? How about you just asume i'm expressing my opinion when ever i post unless i start referencing scientific studies about how mule POVs vastly improve reading experiences?

How can a comment on writing standard be anything but subjective anyway?

And i note you didn't apply the same disclaimer when it's your opinion and it's positive about SE.


I feel better now, this is good. i think we're bonding

You are absolutely right! We are bonding.
And did you notice that I didn't put any disclaimer about it being my opinion when I expressed positive feelings about Martin's latest as well?
Yet you didn't rip me on that. Why not? Martin gets the pass but Erikson doesn't?

As for what I said about Erikson....

"Because I loved TBH and TTH and was only mildly disappointed with RG. In my opinion, TTH was up there with MOI and the siege of Y'ghatan was the best scene in the entire series."

I think thats obvious that thats all my opinion only. the words " I loved" and "In my opinion" would kidna give someone the impression that I was speaking in a subjective fashion.


My problem with your original statement was that it seemed to me, the phrase "...dropping standard in the last few books for an explanation as to why most authors don't do a book in a year" seemed (in my opinion) to go from the area of subjective opinion to objective reality. Perhaps I read too much into it, but it implied (to me) that you were analysing the standard of Erikson's work in some sort of professional manner. Something like using a correlation of reviews from critics or something. A lot of people seem to be assuming (here and on Westros) that everyone agrees that the last 3-4 Erikson books were bad. Perhaps I acted in a knee-jerk fashion in trying to correct that.
No need for any scientific studies on how mule POV increases the reading experience. Everyone takes that as a given anyway.

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 16 April 2009 - 08:23 PM

[Wry]

Quote

My problem with your original statement was that it seemed to me, the phrase "...dropping standard in the last few books for an explanation as to why most authors don't do a book in a year" seemed (in my opinion) to go from the area of subjective opinion to objective reality. Perhaps I read too much into it, but it implied (to me) that you were analysing the standard of Erikson's work in some sort of professional manner. Something like using a correlation of reviews from critics or something. A lot of people seem to be assuming (here and on Westros) that everyone agrees that the last 3-4 Erikson books were bad. Perhaps I acted in a knee-jerk fashion in correcting that.

Ok, i was a bit snarky with you, and i do get what you're saying. I really don't want this to turn into a fanboy site where we willfully ignore weaknesses in books cause they're written by SE. I also assumed people know i really love the books because i'm here and not on any other book site.

As regards the last 3-4 books there are quite a lot of posts saying the same thing... that they (esp TtH) are weaker. So if we're looking for and objective way to view the thing that would really be a good indication - there was never so many negative posts with the earlier books. But it is still my opinion lol

[polishgenius]

blackzoid, on Apr 16 2009, 09:16 PM, said:

A lot of people seem to be assuming (here and on Westros) that everyone agrees that the last 3-4 Erikson books were bad.

If the general consensus on the fan forums of the author concerned is that the last three books have dropped in quality, surely that's a fairly good indication that this is a majority opinion? Every opinion on art and fiction is subjective and I honestly don't see why that ever needs to be qualified, and there'll always be dissenting opinion, that's why art is great. If he'd actually said 'everybody thinks this' you'd have a point, but I think you're simply reading too much into a lack of qualifiers in what he said.

[blackzoid]

polishgenius, on Apr 16 2009, 09:33 PM, said:

blackzoid, on Apr 16 2009, 09:16 PM, said:

A lot of people seem to be assuming (here and on Westros) that everyone agrees that the last 3-4 Erikson books were bad.

If the general consensus on the fan forums of the author concerned is that the last three books have dropped in quality, surely that's a fairly good indication that this is a majority opinion? Every opinion on art and fiction is subjective and I honestly don't see why that ever needs to be qualified, and there'll always be dissenting opinion, that's why art is great. If he'd actually said 'everybody thinks this' you'd have a point, but I think you're simply reading too much into a lack of qualifiers in what he said.

Ya, I may have been reading too much into it based on the lack of qualifers as you say. I don't know, the phrase "standards have dropped" gave the impression that there was an objective standard for fantasy.
And not to get too nitpicky but I did say "a lot of people" not "general consensus of who actually posted". Have to leave some wriggle room after all.

[blackzoid]

Wry, on Apr 16 2009, 09:28 PM, said:

Quote

My problem with your original statement was that it seemed to me, the phrase "...dropping standard in the last few books for an explanation as to why most authors don't do a book in a year" seemed (in my opinion) to go from the area of subjective opinion to objective reality. Perhaps I read too much into it, but it implied (to me) that you were analysing the standard of Erikson's work in some sort of professional manner. Something like using a correlation of reviews from critics or something. A lot of people seem to be assuming (here and on Westros) that everyone agrees that the last 3-4 Erikson books were bad. Perhaps I acted in a knee-jerk fashion in correcting that.

Ok, i was a bit snarky with you, and i do get what you're saying. I really don't want this to turn into a fanboy site where we willfully ignore weaknesses in books cause they're written by SE. I also assumed people know i really love the books because i'm here and not on any other book site.

As regards the last 3-4 books there are quite a lot of posts saying the same thing... that they (esp TtH) are weaker. So if we're looking for and objective way to view the thing that would really be a good indication - there was never so many negative posts with the earlier books. But it is still my opinion lol

If as everyone agree, art is subjective, then there are no "weaknesses" in books.
Are we compareing them all to the earlier books and if the book , for example, uses a different structure, more inner monologue, Kruppe narration etc, we decry it as weakness if some of us don't like it? Isn't a writer allowed to experiment? Thats one of the advantages of writing a book a year. More spontaneity.
Because Martin releases a book so slowly, there is more pressure on him to conform to the tried and tested method. He can't allow for as much experimentation as Erikson has done because he is probably constrained by his reader's demands. Now maybe some of Erikson's experiments were failures, parts of (but not all of) Kruppe's narration in TTH comes to mind, but some of his experiments were successful (Y'ghatan being just one huge chapter, the 14th not appearing at all at the start of RG, Karsa prologue being one huge section etc). Martin's books while brilliant, have little change in structure throughout. After book 4, I know that a climax of sorts will appear at the end of every POV. Its a bit predictable (the structure, not the plot itself which is excellent)

In forming an objective opinion, we really need some sort of metacritic/rotten tomatoes list of critics to rate the books objectively or as close to objective as we can get, we cannot rely on forum posts, because (in my opinion) most people are likely to post negative criticism rather then positive feedback. No proof for this, but its my gut feeling. Either that or someone needs to go counting all the different opinions of the books that are out there.
But its all good.

As for Martin, I'll say it again, I liked AFFC! He doesn't need to wow my world with ADWD. I don't need another ASOS, I'll take AFFC part 2.

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 16 April 2009 - 09:55 PM

[Wry]

I think things can be written well, or not so well. therefore there are weaknesses.

I'm not criticising experimentation, i am criticising poor witting, which i think is the result of not spending enough time on ewach book. I believe it's taking it's toll now.

[Grief]

Actually, there isn't a general consensus about that on the forum.
Poll:

1. Memories of Ice
2. Deadhouse Gates
3. Midnight Tides
4. The Bonehunters
5. Toll the Hounds
6. Reaper's Gale
7. Gardens of the Moon
8. House of Chains

Source:

http://www.malazanempire.com/IPBforum/inde...t=0&start=0

[blackzoid]

Wry, on Apr 16 2009, 10:58 PM, said:

I think things can be written well, or not so well. therefore there are weaknesses.

I'm not criticising experimentation, i am criticising poor witting, which i think is the result of not spending enough time on ewach book. I believe it's taking it's toll now.

Ya, poor witting is the main problem with Erikson at the moment. Martin's witting is of a much higher standard!
Sorry, a very cheap shot I know.

And Grief, I had totally forgotten all about the poll thread. The most scientific we can get I guess.

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 16 April 2009 - 10:14 PM

[Aptorian]

Eriksons writting becomming poorer? Wut?

I'd say its quite the opposite, he's evolving and perhaps getting a bit... too good, if there is such a thing. With that I mean that Erikson is sort of going over board in his narrative, vocabulary, descriptions of, pretty much EVERYTHING, etc.

My criticism of the last two books has been that they don't feel like they properly convey the notion of a series working towards the grand stand. Its like he's doing anything but telling the story of the Crippled Gods game and this so called Pantheon War.

Calling Eriksons writting poor is... well... that just doesn't make sense at all.

GRRM is boring and tedious compared to Erikson.

[Wry]

Quote

Ya, poor witting is the main problem with Erikson at the moment. Martin's witting is of a much higher standard!

I actually think Martin is technically a much better writer, What Erikson excelled at was drama, pathos, tragedy, excellent pacing, hinting at a huge world. In the last few books some of those elements have been poorer than in the first.

Quote

GRRM is boring and tedious compared to Erikson.

Where's the disclaimer, that's not objective!

This post has been edited by Wry: 16 April 2009 - 10:46 PM

[Salt-Man Z]

Along the lines of what Apt said: I think that technically Erikson's writing skills are improving, but at the same time he's losing a bit of his narrative focus. I also think that part of the blame lies with the editing, not the actual writing; as the books get longer (while still being published at the same pace) the time allowed for editing, I imagine, decreases.

[Aptorian]

Wry, on Apr 17 2009, 12:45 AM, said:

Quote

GRRM is boring and tedious compared to Erikson.

Where's the disclaimer, that's not objective!

I've read GRRM and I've read Erikson. I'd much prefer reading Erikson over GRRM. Better characters, better narrative, better story, more action.

[Traveller]

Aptorian, on Apr 17 2009, 08:01 AM, said:

Wry, on Apr 17 2009, 12:45 AM, said:

Quote

GRRM is boring and tedious compared to Erikson.

Where's the disclaimer, that's not objective!

I've read GRRM and I've read Erikson. I'd much prefer reading Erikson over GRRM. Better characters, better narrative, better story, more action.

...better sense of purpose, too.

I think because Erikson knows where his story is going, he can afford to try slightly different writing styles, and spend time on characters and incidents not vital to the wider picture.

Changing and developing styles of narrative means that his books all differ slightly and don't become stale. I like the way they are all distinct, and don't all blend in to one long, repetitive series that becomes tedious as each book is just 'more of the same.'

[Aptorian]

Yesh, let me also clarify, I've read the first 3 books in the SOIAF and I really liked them, GRRM is a great writer and those three books were a good read, some of the first fantasy I read.

At his best I'd give GRRM a top score, 9-10 out of 10 but Erikson gets 11 simply because he continues to produce fantasy of a caliber and scope that I don't see anyone else achieving (in my humble opinion).

Of course this is not an objective opinion, I'm writting this on the Malazan Forums, if I thought GRRM was the king I'd be posting on Westeros.

[Traveller]

Me too, I only first read GRRM a couple of years ago, and the first 3 really blew me away. Doesn't matter what else i read though, there's still nothing that comes close to SE for sheer scale, depth and quality of writing.

[Tsundoku]

Salt-Man Z, on Apr 17 2009, 12:57 PM, said:

Along the lines of what Apt said: I think that technically Erikson's writing skills are improving, but at the same time he's losing a bit of his narrative focus. I also think that part of the blame lies with the editing, not the actual writing; as the books get longer (while still being published at the same pace) the time allowed for editing, I imagine, decreases.

Definitely agreed. I think I'd characterise it as saying his direct narrative pacing has slowed, while his expository text (is that the correct term?) has increased. While I love knowing background, side issues and what's going on in a characters' head and I especially love a good balance of both pace and exposition, I think TTH did perhaps skew it a little toward the latter. Not that I hated it, but I do admit it took me a little while longer than the others to get into the proper headspace that worked for me.

Traveller, on Apr 17 2009, 05:10 PM, said:

I think because Erikson knows where his story is going, he can afford to try slightly different writing styles, and spend time on characters and incidents not vital to the wider picture.

Changing and developing styles of narrative means that his books all differ slightly and don't become stale. I like the way they are all distinct, and don't all blend in to one long, repetitive series that becomes tedious as each book is just 'more of the same.'

True, and I'd also agree that each book, not just first 4 versus last 4, has it's own unique flavour. Think about it.
Part 1
a. GotM is almost an ICE book (and I loved it and Cams' writing for that reason);
b. then you had the massive shift of DHG (my personal favourite);
the high drama and multiple climaxes (yes, I said it) of MoI;
the duality of HoC, here we see the first of the extensive flashback sequences, elevating what was a minor character in DHG to something a lot more;
Part 2
a. the massive shift (again, echoing DHG) in style, location, characters, narrative voice etc of MT;
back to 7 cities with TBH, but a totally new story and setting, building on HoC, building towards
b. RG, where the elements of 2 whole story arcs intersect, and any other points I can make on this would have to be spoilered
c. TTH, a further tilting of the balance as I said earlier between pace/action and extensive characterisation/internal monologue/multiple "tier 2" story arcs that build towards the climax of the series, not just that book. Convergences of convergences later on, perhaps?

Well, that's the way I see it, anyway. Sorry if it sounds a bit waffly, I really had problems expressing my thoughts (yes, I can has them occasionally) this time.

But ...

I liked AFFC. Was it worth a massive wait? Hmmm ... in comparison with the "second half" of WoT - hell yes! I liked what was done with the POVs. It's one thing both GRRM and SE do that so very few others IMHO and limited literary experience come close to. I liked that it didn't give easy answers, and I knew it was a "buildup" novel - hell, I'm bloody well used to them by now, and I love series that do that - if they do it WELL. I don't think we lost anything with AFFC, and I believe we gained something from the exposure to some of those POVs, even the oft-lambasted Brienne (hey, I liked her story, so sue me).
OTOH, it DOES set the bar higher for GRRM with ADWD, as anything less than either an "OMFG THAT WAS SO KEWL!" or a beautifully crafted "buildup" novel that shows PROGRESS in the story at a pace that is anything faster than glacial (something the late, lamented Robert Jordan forgot about) is going to just add fuel to the fire that this thread draws from.

Gee, that was a nicely mixed metaphor, don't you think?

In sum though, GRRM is his own worst enemy because the longer we wait, the more the expectation grows. It's like that truly hot girl making you jump through all sorts of crazy hoops for ages so you can get the payoff - but she's a starfish, and high-maintenance, and in the end the reality definitely does not come even close to meeting either the fantasy or the expectation generated by game-playing, let alone both.
He throws out tidbits to the starving masses, who devour, regurgitate and redevour them all ad nauseam (hope you liked that one), generating nothing but - frankly - dissatisfaction in a growing element. Sometimes it seems like it's all foreplay or heavy petting and no hope of a payoff in a realistic timeframe. Then again, define "realistic" when applied to a timeframe, definitely a subjective thing.

I do have faith however, that he is a great writer and will deliver something worthy with ADWD. Worthy of what - who knows? Worthy of a very long wait? Well, that's for the individual to decide, because only each one of us can define what is "worth it" for ourselves and what is not.

Cheers,

La Sombra, has everything crossed and is learning to really hate yoga

PS - let us also not forget that this is supposedly a "history", and as we all know, sometimes it doesn't go the way you want it to. It's like by doing this there is an illusion of the story taking a life of it's own, and the writer is merely "relating" or maybe "embellishing", rather than "creating", and as such who knows where it will go?

Well, the author obviously since it IS after all a fantasy creation.

Unless in the infinite universe this story has already happened, or will some day, if time is linear ... my head hurts.

I suggest you look at Colleen McCulloughs' Masters of Rome series for the definitive version of how to do a novelisation of "epic, real" history. If you can make yourself forget you know the outcome of that story (ok besides the obvious "Caesar dies and Augustus wins" part), then it's truly an awesome read. A bit hard to keep all those Roman names straight though.

This post has been edited by Sombra: 17 April 2009 - 11:08 AM

[Werthead]

blackzoid, on Apr 16 2009, 06:10 PM, said:

On topic you forget that GoTM, DG,MOI and HOC were all published on consecutive years. So it was possible for Erikson to work on a tight schedule for his "better" books.

GotM was written a lot earlier than the other books. I think it took 1-2 years to write in the early 1990s with absolutely no publisher pressure whatsoever.

SE subsequently started writing MoI but suffered the total loss of the book when he was about halfway through writing it due to a computer problem. He was so dispirited by this he couldn't face starting it again and wrote DHG instead. So by the time he came back to write MoI for publication he was effectively writing a second draft of the book and was fired up by the enthusiasm gained from his experience writing DHG (which I believe he has said was the most fun book in the series to write). Maybe Hetan or Malacalypse know when this occurred, but I believe it was between GotM being written and SE getting his Bantam contract in 1998.

As a result, GotM and MoI were both written over a longer period of time and under less restrictions than some of the other books in the series. He also started writing DHG some time before publication, and had more time to write it than some of the other books. HoC was, I believe, the first book written completely under the tight year-long deadlines to Bantam, and maybe not coincidentally was the first book to be criticised sharply by fans when it came out (over the expectation-shattering ending and the character of Karsa).

[wolverine]

How did this turn into a "does Toll the Hounds suck/Is Martin better than Erikson/Is Erikson's work declining" thread?

[wolverine]

Grief, on Apr 16 2009, 05:01 PM, said:

Actually, there isn't a general consensus about that on the forum.
Poll:

1. Memories of Ice
2. Deadhouse Gates
3. Midnight Tides
4. The Bonehunters
5. Toll the Hounds
6. Reaper's Gale
7. Gardens of the Moon
8. House of Chains

Source:

http://www.malazanempire.com/IPBforum/inde...t=0&start=0

Sorry to debunk your stats but most of the people who voted in that thread are die hards with thousands of posts on this forum. My point, I don't think that even remotely accurately reflects the average readers opinion.