[Gruntle2213]

Aptorian, on Jul 15 2009, 08:45 PM, said:

Generally when people put a smily behind a statement it is implied that you shouldn't take the reply entirely serious

Cool, thanks for the info, im not familiar with computer lingo or etiquette.

[redJAKO]

I think Erikson's strength lies in the full depth of his world, which can lead to confusion due to lack of explanation (ism's, one-liners etc) in certain aspects. It is a huge world of incredible history.

I beleive a weakness lies in character development: sometimes a character emerges incredibly powerful (I think specifically of Whiskey Jack, a lowly seargant, who turns out to be someone who has held his own against Daseem, which is never alluded to nor noted in skirmishes until the second book, Deadhouse Gates).

It seems the "theme" or writing style of characters switches, where the voice of characters alternates heavily.

Other then that, he is an incredible fantasy writer.

[amphibian]

redJAKO, on Jul 19 2009, 11:51 PM, said:

I beleive a weakness lies in character development: sometimes a character emerges incredibly powerful (I think specifically of Whiskey Jack, a lowly seargant, who turns out to be someone who has held his own against Daseem, which is never alluded to nor noted in skirmishes until the second book, Deadhouse Gates).

It seems the "theme" or writing style of characters switches, where the voice of characters alternates heavily.

With the information we have about Whiskeyjack (Old Guard, big high muckety muck in the miltary, revered by everyone), the swordsmanship makes sense by the time we see it. Plus, we never saw Whiskeyjack in direct combat until then.

I'll accept that character development has been uneven in the Erikson world. It seems like every marine is a super-soldier blessed with wisdom beyond that of a normal person a little too often for me. But Whiskeyjack was done well.

The stylistic changes I actually like. Just like Quick Ben stretching himself against Icarium, Erikson is stretching and improving his writing abilities. I hate the "lass" thing though. Too many people say it for it to be truly authentic.

[T'renn]

I still think SE is best, in my reading experience definetly

[koryk]

I hate (well not actually hate, more find a mild irritance) people who try to compare things that cannot be compared, e.g. would that team of 19canteen beat the present line-up. Different times, different cultures, different expectations, etc.

I think the important thing about Erikson in this regard is the (and please don't come up with counterexamples) scale of the interest in his writing reflected by the size of this forum. The true measure of a person (or their deeds) is reflected in the responses of others, and Erikson seems to stimulate his readers more than most.

I have never been a reader of literary fiction, in the sense of those whose names are put forward for literary prizes. I have always thought that there is a degree of arrogance and condescension amongst those who have decided that this type of fiction, be it inspirational, cathartic, heart-breaking, awash with emotional depths, accurate in its depiction of historic settings, or just plain odd, is superior to all others. I in no way seek to denigrate great literature where it exists, but each to his own, and the list of adjectives I have just given can be found in the best of fantasy & SF just as much as in the more overtly literary novels of McCarthy et al.

If I were ever to consider dipping my toe in the water of literary fiction, I would much prefer to ask the opinions of readers of this forum than those of some book club, since your (combined) perspective is more in line with my predilections, and ultimately more worthwhile.

[Impirion]

In my view, Erikson has some great talents, but in recent books, I feel he has become a little formulaic and sometimes it feels like he is stretching for the end of the book.
To clarify, Erikson has built a world with a huge scope brilliantly, and even though he jumps from place to place between books, and sometimes within, the sense of the world at large is conveyed very well. In addition, I feel that he has conjured up some amazing characters, and the variety in them is brilliant, from the barbaric but wise Karsa to the rather comic and nonsensical Iskaral Pust. I also really enjoyed the development of Ganoes Paran in the first few books, as he comes to terms with the duty that has been put upon his shoulders.

However, I do feel in recent books, some things have become a little formulaic, like the inclusion of some bit of tragedy in virtually every storyline, which was great in its impact in the first few books, but when almost every storyline goes the same way, it becomes a bit like the Hollywood ending, rather expected, which quite spoils it. Furhermore, to me at least, it feels in the last few books that Erikson is taking a much more leisurely pace in the middle of the book and that less seems to be happening. It all seems to be striving a little more obviously towards the climax.

Anyway, this is just my feeling upon reading the books... feel free to curse me, disagree with me

[redJAKO]

Hrm, I won't curse you, but perhaps like me, you were / are getting sick of the similarities of some of the plot lines..

I'm a talking about the Convergences, and how they seemed, instead of naturally occuring between stories, to be more forced together, where the sub-plots don't seem like they really Need to converge on that X or Y location / city or whatever.

I do like the post two above how Erikson certainly stimulates the conversation And their is definitely power on par with literary classics in emotion, depravity and joy.

[Gruntle2213]

koryk, on Jul 31 2009, 05:15 PM, said:

I hate (well not actually hate, more find a mild irritance) people who try to compare things that cannot be compared, e.g. would that team of 19canteen beat the present line-up. Different times, different cultures, different expectations, etc.

I think the important thing about Erikson in this regard is the (and please don't come up with counterexamples) scale of the interest in his writing reflected by the size of this forum. The true measure of a person (or their deeds) is reflected in the responses of others, and Erikson seems to stimulate his readers more than most.

I have never been a reader of literary fiction, in the sense of those whose names are put forward for literary prizes. I have always thought that there is a degree of arrogance and condescension amongst those who have decided that this type of fiction, be it inspirational, cathartic, heart-breaking, awash with emotional depths, accurate in its depiction of historic settings, or just plain odd, is superior to all others. I in no way seek to denigrate great literature where it exists, but each to his own, and the list of adjectives I have just given can be found in the best of fantasy & SF just as much as in the more overtly literary novels of McCarthy et al.

If I were ever to consider dipping my toe in the water of literary fiction, I would much prefer to ask the opinions of readers of this forum than those of some book club, since your (combined) perspective is more in line with my predilections, and ultimately more worthwhile.

Well, I was just curious on what people think, i certainly didn't intend to annoy anybody or be condescending. It just so happens that all those authors i mentioned including Erickson are my favorite. Forgive me for actually mentioning literary authors. I just don't limit myself to just SF& F. In fact i find most SF&F to be quite lame and redundant. But when I do find a series or novel that is unique in that genre I find it to be some of my favorite reading experiences. I mean the reason I read Erikson is because he doesn't conform to the usual stereotypes of the genre. But I do agree with you that the truly great SF&F does not get its fair share of applause from the literary community and that yes all those adjectives can be said about a certain few pieces of work. But you should definitely try some regular fiction sometime, you might be surprised.

[Epiph]

Cold Iron, on Jul 14 2009, 07:12 AM, said:

Looks like an Americocentric list...

I would call a Postmodern-centric list. A list of premier Modernist writers would be equally UK-centric.

amphibian, on Jul 14 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

In my opinion, Erikson doesn't quite stack up alongside them (note: this is NOT a dissing of SF or the area in which he chooses to write). I'd consider him one level lower, because there are more moments that go "clunk" in his work and it's taking him much longer to say what he wants to say than it took any of the others on the original list. Right now, I'd consider him at the level of or slightly above that of Neil Gaiman - despite the latter's greater success.

I would almost agree. As far as craft goes, I think Erikson is superior to Gaiman, as Gaiman's prose can fall a little flat. But I find Gaiman's ideas infinitely more fascinating that Erikson's, and that may just be a by product of the huge time commitment Erikson has had to invest in the Malazan world by virtue of writing epic fiction, whereas, aside from Sandman, Gaiman tends more toward one-off ideas.

Icarium Kalam, on Jul 14 2009, 09:22 PM, said:

i suppose so, yet I think its the history that make his world building more impressive than anyone i have ever read.

Worldbuilding as a part of literature can only really be admired in the SF/Fantasy genre, and as such, should probably be left out of comparison to literary fiction.

Excellence, on Jul 15 2009, 05:11 AM, said:

The fact that I have not heard of those names and widely read as I am means they cannot be that exemplar.

The Postmoderns don't really get taught before college, so unless you studied literature in college or read literary fiction on your own time, I'm not surprised you haven't heard of them. Literary fiction is not a broadly read genre, because it generally aschews plot.

koryk, on Jul 31 2009, 12:15 PM, said:

I hate (well not actually hate, more find a mild irritance) people who try to compare things that cannot be compared, e.g. would that team of 19canteen beat the present line-up. Different times, different cultures, different expectations, etc.

I could not disagree more. And I think that this attitude, that you can't compare genre fiction to literary fiction, is why genre fiction, even deep, well crafted genre fiction, is rarely taken seriously in literary circles. I know of some Creative Writing MFAs who don't let you write genre fiction in your workshops, and I find that appalling.

Quote

I think the important thing about Erikson in this regard is the (and please don't come up with counterexamples) scale of the interest in his writing reflected by the size of this forum. The true measure of a person (or their deeds) is reflected in the responses of others, and Erikson seems to stimulate his readers more than most.

I think the scale of interest in Erikson's writing as evidenced by this forum is miniscule. Consider that there are multiple forums and websites dedicated to Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time, all with more posters and faster moving discussions that can be found here, on the one forum devoted to the MBotF. But, likewise, you can't really use a book's internet presence as a guide--MBotF is so much better than WoT that it is impossible to compare the two. Likewise, you won't find much in the way of forums dedicated to the work of Thomas Pyncheon, but he is highly highly regarded in the world of literary fiction.

Quote

I have never been a reader of literary fiction, in the sense of those whose names are put forward for literary prizes. I have always thought that there is a degree of arrogance and condescension amongst those who have decided that this type of fiction, be it inspirational, cathartic, heart-breaking, awash with emotional depths, accurate in its depiction of historic settings, or just plain odd, is superior to all others. I in no way seek to denigrate great literature where it exists, but each to his own, and the list of adjectives I have just given can be found in the best of fantasy & SF just as much as in the more overtly literary novels of McCarthy et al.

But it is exactly that attitude you showed at the beginning of your post (that you can't compare single books within different genres) that propagates the attitude that literary fiction is better! Though, honestly, most of the time, literary fiction IS better than genre fiction. There is more attention paid to innovative use of language, more time spent experimenting with ideas and theories, deeper and more meaningful symbolism. Craft is generally the focus of literary fiction, while plot is generally the focus of genre fiction. There's no crime in preferring the plot, but you have to understand that as far as literature (not story-telling) goes, literary fiction is generally going to be better. This is not to say that you can't find the level of craft and the depth of literary fiction in genre fiction, which is why one CAN compare Erikson to authors of the literary canon.

All that said, Erikson FTW.

This post has been edited by Epiph: 01 September 2009 - 04:24 PM

[Gruntle2213]

Epiph, on Sep 1 2009, 04:23 PM, said:

Cold Iron, on Jul 14 2009, 07:12 AM, said:

Looks like an Americocentric list...

I would call a Postmodern-centric list. A list of premier Modernist writers would be equally UK-centric.

amphibian, on Jul 14 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

In my opinion, Erikson doesn't quite stack up alongside them (note: this is NOT a dissing of SF or the area in which he chooses to write). I'd consider him one level lower, because there are more moments that go "clunk" in his work and it's taking him much longer to say what he wants to say than it took any of the others on the original list. Right now, I'd consider him at the level of or slightly above that of Neil Gaiman - despite the latter's greater success.

I would almost agree. As far as craft goes, I think Erikson is superior to Gaiman, as Gaiman's prose can fall a little flat. But I find Gaiman's ideas infinitely more fascinating that Erikson's, and that may just be a by product of the huge time commitment Erikson has had to invest in the Malazan world by virtue of writing epic fiction, whereas, aside from Sandman, Gaiman tends more toward one-off ideas.

Icarium Kalam, on Jul 14 2009, 09:22 PM, said:

i suppose so, yet I think its the history that make his world building more impressive than anyone i have ever read.

Worldbuilding as a part of literature can only really be admired in the SF/Fantasy genre, and as such, should probably be left out of comparison to literary fiction.

Excellence, on Jul 15 2009, 05:11 AM, said:

The fact that I have not heard of those names and widely read as I am means they cannot be that exemplar.

The Postmoderns don't really get taught before college, so unless you studied literature in college or read literary fiction on your own time, I'm not surprised you haven't heard of them. Literary fiction is not a broadly read genre, because it generally aschews plot.

koryk, on Jul 31 2009, 12:15 PM, said:

I hate (well not actually hate, more find a mild irritance) people who try to compare things that cannot be compared, e.g. would that team of 19canteen beat the present line-up. Different times, different cultures, different expectations, etc.

I could not disagree more. And I think that this attitude, that you can't compare genre fiction to literary fiction, is why genre fiction, even deep, well crafted genre fiction, is rarely taken seriously in literary circles. I know of some Creative Writing MFAs who don't let you write genre fiction in your workshops, and I find that appalling.

Quote

I think the important thing about Erikson in this regard is the (and please don't come up with counterexamples) scale of the interest in his writing reflected by the size of this forum. The true measure of a person (or their deeds) is reflected in the responses of others, and Erikson seems to stimulate his readers more than most.

I think the scale of interest in Erikson's writing as evidenced by this forum is miniscule. Consider that there are multiple forums and websites dedicated to Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time, all with more posters and faster moving discussions that can be found here, on the one forum devoted to the MBotF. But, likewise, you can't really use a book's internet presence as a guide--MBotF is so much better than WoT that it is impossible to compare the two. Likewise, you won't find much in the way of forums dedicated to the work of Thomas Pyncheon, but he is highly highly regarded in the world of literary fiction.

Quote

I have never been a reader of literary fiction, in the sense of those whose names are put forward for literary prizes. I have always thought that there is a degree of arrogance and condescension amongst those who have decided that this type of fiction, be it inspirational, cathartic, heart-breaking, awash with emotional depths, accurate in its depiction of historic settings, or just plain odd, is superior to all others. I in no way seek to denigrate great literature where it exists, but each to his own, and the list of adjectives I have just given can be found in the best of fantasy & SF just as much as in the more overtly literary novels of McCarthy et al.

But it is exactly that attitude you showed at the beginning of your post (that you can't compare single books within different genres) that propagates the attitude that literary fiction is better! Though, honestly, most of the time, literary fiction IS better than genre fiction. There is more attention paid to innovative use of language, more time spent experimenting with ideas and theories, deeper and more meaningful symbolism. Craft is generally the focus of literary fiction, while plot is generally the focus of genre fiction. There's no crime in preferring the plot, but you have to understand that as far as literature (not story-telling) goes, literary fiction is generally going to be better. This is not to say that you can't find the level of craft and the depth of literary fiction in genre fiction, which is why one CAN compare Erikson to authors of the literary canon.

All that said, Erikson FTW.

I agree with most of everything you said. The purpose of me starting this post was to get the discussion started. I never understood why you can't compare great literature works to great genre works. I think both are valid and important. I just couldn't get my point across as well as you.

[Epiph]

Gruntle2213, on Sep 1 2009, 09:21 PM, said:

I agree with most of everything you said. The purpose of me starting this post was to get the discussion started. I never understood why you can't compare great literature works to great genre works. I think both are valid and important. I just couldn't get my point across as well as you.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about it

[koryk]

Epiph, on Sep 1 2009, 05:23 PM, said:

Cold Iron, on Jul 14 2009, 07:12 AM, said:

Looks like an Americocentric list...

I would call a Postmodern-centric list. A list of premier Modernist writers would be equally UK-centric.

amphibian, on Jul 14 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

In my opinion, Erikson doesn't quite stack up alongside them (note: this is NOT a dissing of SF or the area in which he chooses to write). I'd consider him one level lower, because there are more moments that go "clunk" in his work and it's taking him much longer to say what he wants to say than it took any of the others on the original list. Right now, I'd consider him at the level of or slightly above that of Neil Gaiman - despite the latter's greater success.

I would almost agree. As far as craft goes, I think Erikson is superior to Gaiman, as Gaiman's prose can fall a little flat. But I find Gaiman's ideas infinitely more fascinating that Erikson's, and that may just be a by product of the huge time commitment Erikson has had to invest in the Malazan world by virtue of writing epic fiction, whereas, aside from Sandman, Gaiman tends more toward one-off ideas.

Icarium Kalam, on Jul 14 2009, 09:22 PM, said:

i suppose so, yet I think its the history that make his world building more impressive than anyone i have ever read.

Worldbuilding as a part of literature can only really be admired in the SF/Fantasy genre, and as such, should probably be left out of comparison to literary fiction.

Excellence, on Jul 15 2009, 05:11 AM, said:

The fact that I have not heard of those names and widely read as I am means they cannot be that exemplar.

The Postmoderns don't really get taught before college, so unless you studied literature in college or read literary fiction on your own time, I'm not surprised you haven't heard of them. Literary fiction is not a broadly read genre, because it generally aschews plot.

koryk, on Jul 31 2009, 12:15 PM, said:

I hate (well not actually hate, more find a mild irritance) people who try to compare things that cannot be compared, e.g. would that team of 19canteen beat the present line-up. Different times, different cultures, different expectations, etc.

I could not disagree more. And I think that this attitude, that you can't compare genre fiction to literary fiction, is why genre fiction, even deep, well crafted genre fiction, is rarely taken seriously in literary circles. I know of some Creative Writing MFAs who don't let you write genre fiction in your workshops, and I find that appalling.

Quote

I think the important thing about Erikson in this regard is the (and please don't come up with counterexamples) scale of the interest in his writing reflected by the size of this forum. The true measure of a person (or their deeds) is reflected in the responses of others, and Erikson seems to stimulate his readers more than most.

I think the scale of interest in Erikson's writing as evidenced by this forum is miniscule. Consider that there are multiple forums and websites dedicated to Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time, all with more posters and faster moving discussions that can be found here, on the one forum devoted to the MBotF. But, likewise, you can't really use a book's internet presence as a guide--MBotF is so much better than WoT that it is impossible to compare the two. Likewise, you won't find much in the way of forums dedicated to the work of Thomas Pyncheon, but he is highly highly regarded in the world of literary fiction.

Quote

I have never been a reader of literary fiction, in the sense of those whose names are put forward for literary prizes. I have always thought that there is a degree of arrogance and condescension amongst those who have decided that this type of fiction, be it inspirational, cathartic, heart-breaking, awash with emotional depths, accurate in its depiction of historic settings, or just plain odd, is superior to all others. I in no way seek to denigrate great literature where it exists, but each to his own, and the list of adjectives I have just given can be found in the best of fantasy & SF just as much as in the more overtly literary novels of McCarthy et al.

But it is exactly that attitude you showed at the beginning of your post (that you can't compare single books within different genres) that propagates the attitude that literary fiction is better! Though, honestly, most of the time, literary fiction IS better than genre fiction. There is more attention paid to innovative use of language, more time spent experimenting with ideas and theories, deeper and more meaningful symbolism. Craft is generally the focus of literary fiction, while plot is generally the focus of genre fiction. There's no crime in preferring the plot, but you have to understand that as far as literature (not story-telling) goes, literary fiction is generally going to be better. This is not to say that you can't find the level of craft and the depth of literary fiction in genre fiction, which is why one CAN compare Erikson to authors of the literary canon.

All that said, Erikson FTW.

I don't see how my point that it is unhelpful to try to compare unlike with unlike propagates any arguments in support of literary fiction. My point is that they are so different they should not be compared, and a byproduct of this is that one should not be considered superior to the other.
I also disagree with the distinction that literary fiction focuses on craft and genre fiction on plot. Either a book is well written or it is not. Poorly crafted genre fiction is obvious and unacceptable and poorly plotted literary fiction is flaccid and self-indulgent.
I can see that there is probably little real agreement between our points of view, so I won't labour things to much. However, if I understand e-speak, FTW indeed. We used to say "rocks".

[Epiph]

koryk, on 03 September 2009 - 10:39 PM, said:

I don't see how my point that it is unhelpful to try to compare unlike with unlike propagates any arguments in support of literary fiction. My point is that they are so different they should not be compared, and a byproduct of this is that one should not be considered superior to the other.

Yeah, I just disagree with this statement. By separating genre fiction from literary fiction, by maintaining that they are too unlike to be comparable, it propagates attitudes amongst literati that genre fiction can't or shouldn't be taken seriously.

Quote

I also disagree with the distinction that literary fiction focuses on craft and genre fiction on plot. Either a book is well written or it is not.

That is the truth of it. Either a book is well written or it isn't. Which is why literary and genre fiction ARE comparable. A good book is a good book. But nevertheless, raising craft and theme above plot is essentially what defines literary fiction (think of Mrs. Dalloway and Ulysses, which are more interested in the narrator's stream of consciousness than what they are doing, or The Crying of Lot 49, which is more concerned with what the plot action signifies than the plot itself). Because genre fiction is generally read by people (myself included) who want to read a good, exciting, escapist story, plot and character are much more important than craft. This isn't to say that craft is lacking from genre fiction (although, in most cases, it is middling at best, although that's true of literary fiction too--there's just little plot to support a bad literary novel, so it doesn't generate a publisher or a following), just that it isn't considered paramount. And I think it should be considered just as paramount as it is to literary fiction, and I think the dismissal of a plot's relevance from literary fiction is limiting (although it is a lovely culling device).

Quote

Poorly crafted genre fiction is obvious and unacceptable and poorly plotted literary fiction is flaccid and self-indulgent.

While I agree with you about poorly plotted literary fiction to a point, there are definitely some exceptions. The previously mentioned stream of consciousness novels, for instance, or The Incredible Lightness of Being, in which basically nothing happens but the boring progressions of people's lives over a lifetime, but Kundera uses that to distill something beautiful and ephemeral. It all depends on the skill of the author, in either case, but I think it is easier for bad genre fiction to gain a following *cough*Goodkind*cough* because of the primacy of plot than it is for bad literary fiction to gain a following. Hell, it's hard enough for GOOD literary fiction to gain a following.

[zenMichael]

So in an attempt to answer the original question, I guess I'd have to say that while I've never actually read any of those particular authors (tried reading both McCarthy & Pynchon & just couldn't do it), I've had friends who were into all of them at one point or another (as a friend of mine in college said, he'd never recommend Infinite Jest to someone unless he was trying to kill them. 'It's very rewarding, but it is so engrossing and so gigantic that it's not worth it,' or words to that effect. IJ became a kind of weird meta in-joke for us after that), and I believe most of them are known for a bit of magic realism, aren't they? Similar to Gaiman or Tim Powers, they write about worlds where crazy stuff can be lurking just under the surface, right? (Didn't Pynchon do a short story or novella about an alternate system of mail through trash cans? I always loved that idea. Whenever people throw away important notes in movies I always wonder if they're sending it through that postal system...) So in that sense I think Erikson is very similar. I mean, let's face it, with all the crazy shit in his world at this point I don't think anybody would be shocked if some totally new & different type of magic showed up, or if suddenly the Autobots crash landed on Burn & began fighting. OK, maybe shocked, but it would work pretty much just fine along with the DEATH STAR-FLYING DINOSAURS and so forth.

Stylistically I think of Erikson as being a lot like Faulkner. Faulkner had a kind of big metaplot (tho obviously not with a grand goal in mind like SE/ICE) and did some really wild things with prose and structure and a lot of different words that sound basically the same when you haven't had an english class in over a decade (my last english class was called "Metonymy and The Novel," tho, so we DID talk a lot about that kind of stuff ...). motivations and histories become clear at varying points throughout the narrative; people talk realistically so the reader has to pay attention (or go on forums and ask other people with better memories); large casts and sometimes glaring timeline discrepancies, etc. etc.

Not sure if this helps or says anything worthwhile, but that's my 2 cents. (My favorite Faulkner, btw, is Sound & the Fury. WOW is it tough, but wow is it good.)