[foolio]

jitsukerr, on 09 March 2010 - 11:26 AM, said:

Utter nonsense. TTH is a demonstration of masterful narrative writing. RotCG is a mess. Saying NoK is equivalent in quality to GotM is claptrap. GotM's structure, pacing, character realisation, dialogue, humour, and complexity, are all streets ahead of NoK.

While it's true that SE can try some things in his writing that may not work for all readers, ICE can't even conceive that trying those things is possible. Because, for him, they are not. He is clearly riding on the coattails of the affection for the series, or Bantam would never have gambled on him.

Well said, my man..

[Terez]

I haven't even read RotCG yet because the writing in NoK was so disappointing to me.

[foolio]

Terez, on 09 March 2010 - 05:01 PM, said:

I haven't even read RotCG yet because the writing in NoK was so disappointing to me.

I would advise you not to read RotCG if you did not like NoK...I kind of wish I had not read it. And I certainly wish I had not spent the roughly 45-50$ to order it to the US. And I thought NoK was bearable.
This is just one morons opinion but i feel like he kept the scope of Nok small and therefore something he could handle, i thought RotCg was too big for him and it showed.

[polishgenius]

Terez, on 09 March 2010 - 05:01 PM, said:

I haven't even read RotCG yet because the writing in NoK was so disappointing to me.

Going directly contradictory to the other guy, it's better in NoK. He's not as good a writer in terms of prose as Erikson and likely never will be, but he certainly grows in confidence in RotCG and it serves the story well enough.


That thread you linked to, jtsukker... well, I've got to disagree with most of that. Okay, Kyle was a whining bitch - Esslemont's Crokus is about right- but other than that I found the character work fine, for the most part better than Eriksons, and Nait pretty much went in one book to being probably my second favourite character in the series (after Fiddler).
The best example of how I think his characters are better painted is in the comparison of the relationship between the two soldiers (who's name escapes me now), which I found moving in a quiet way, and any of Eriksons, which are thuddingly unsubtle and often outright cringeworthy. He managed to make Lasseen work as a character too, who Erikson never convinced me on.

[Salt-Man Z]

I agree with PG. I didn't really like NoK (2.5/5 stars), but thoroughly enjoyed RotCG (4/5 stars).

[caladanbrood]

SO basically, there's every single possible combination of opinions on NoK/RotCG... so try it yourself whenever possible because it seems to be completely down to personal taste

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Hey you, don't go spoiling a perfectly good nerd-off with your logic.

[Terez]

Salt-Man Z, on 09 March 2010 - 05:44 PM, said:

I agree with PG. I didn't really like NoK (2.5/5 stars), but thoroughly enjoyed RotCG (4/5 stars).

Is it possible that this has more to do with what happened in the story than the writing itself? Because I have been spoiled on some details of RotCG, and I could see that. It's essentially the same sort of thing that happened in NoK, but we already knew about the events of NoK before reading, at least in a general sense.

And of course, I will eventually read it. Maybe not till I do my pre-tCG re-read. Which I should probably start soon . . .

[Salt-Man Z]

Terez, on 09 March 2010 - 09:31 PM, said:

Is it possible that this has more to do with what happened in the story than the writing itself? Because I have been spoiled on some details of RotCG, and I could see that. It's essentially the same sort of thing that happened in NoK, but we already knew about the events of NoK before reading, at least in a general sense.

I'm not quite sure I get what you're driving at. Are you saying that the stories of NoK and RotCG are basically the same? Or that they're completely different?

NoK took place in a short timeframe, had only a handful of characters, and very little actually happened. RotCG is the polar opposite of that, on an epic scale with dozens (if not hundreds) of characters, and huge, Wu-shattering events. My biggest complaint with NoK is that, from beginning to end, I could never quite decipher what was happening; it was either intentionally obtuse, or poorly written, take your pick. Esslemont's writing was much clearer in RotCG, and while he still occasionally insisted on obscuring characters or revelations, I was never (or rarely) left scratching my head trying to figure out what I just read.

[Terez]

Salt-Man Z, on 09 March 2010 - 10:12 PM, said:

Terez, on 09 March 2010 - 09:31 PM, said:

Is it possible that this has more to do with what happened in the story than the writing itself? Because I have been spoiled on some details of RotCG, and I could see that. It's essentially the same sort of thing that happened in NoK, but we already knew about the events of NoK before reading, at least in a general sense.

I'm not quite sure I get what you're driving at. Are you saying that the stories of NoK and RotCG are basically the same? Or that they're completely different?

Both?

Spoiler

The same in that they both involve the throne changing hands, but different in that we already knew at least the general details on what happened in NoK before reading. So the Mallick Rel becoming emperor thing makes for a good action scenario that would be really, really hard to screw up. And that's the only spoiler from the book I know...I'm sure there are other exciting plot things in the book.

I have heard so many conflicting opinions on whether NoK is worse or better, even before this thread. Oh well....I will have my own opinion eventually. My main problem with NoK was that the characters were shallow and the action kinda flat. It read very much like YA to me.

[Yellow]

Terez, on 10 March 2010 - 04:23 AM, said:

It read very much like YA to me.

You hit the nail on the head. Little depth, not enough space for any real intrigue or foreshadowing, and the writer's ability was a little below-par for adult readers of epic fantasy.

I definitely think RotCG was better, but the writing was still not as developed as you'd like.

This post has been edited by Yellow: 10 March 2010 - 08:12 AM

[Terez]

One advantage to ICE's style is that it is easy to read, so I figure it won't take me long to plow through RotCG when the time comes. NoK was read in one day I think. Erikson's writing can often be a slog...but this is what I like.

[Tsundoku]

I prefer ICE's writing style (direct), but SE's plotting is far better. ICE had some plot threads in RotCG sort of ... peter ... out ... or just stop with a whimper.
While SE has many oranges in the air, I have faith in his ability to provide closure or at least enough info for extrapolation. I still love his complexity.

[foolio]

Terez, on 09 March 2010 - 09:31 PM, said:

Salt-Man Z, on 09 March 2010 - 05:44 PM, said:

I agree with PG. I didn't really like NoK (2.5/5 stars), but thoroughly enjoyed RotCG (4/5 stars).

Is it possible that this has more to do with what happened in the story than the writing itself? Because I have been spoiled on some details of RotCG, and I could see that. It's essentially the same sort of thing that happened in NoK, but we already knew about the events of NoK before reading, at least in a general sense.

And of course, I will eventually read it. Maybe not till I do my pre-tCG re-read. Which I should probably start soon . . .

I think you make a great point. There was much more to work with RotCG that with NoK. I mean, by the time I read NoK I kind of knew what happened. RotCG had a veritable storehouse of cool topics to start off with. I personally think there are people on this site that could have done better than ICE with what he had to work with; the Crimson Guard, a premade Villain in Mallick, Old Guard, and of course Laseen. Man, what a table setting.

Of course I guess that knife cuts both ways, this could also be the reason why I hated the book so much, because I expected too much, and maybe anticipated things working out differently.

This post has been edited by foolio: 10 March 2010 - 01:55 PM

[Paran]

Werthead, on 09 March 2010 - 11:04 AM, said:

It remains to be seen if ICE will reach the heights of writing ability Erikson demonstrated in DHG, MoI and perhaps MT (although MT does have a purple prose overload at the start that does lessen its quality, but right now, comparing RotCG to TTH and DoD, they're pretty much on a par. ICE is writing like Erikson with the fat trimmed away.

Really can't agree with TTH being on par with RotCG - one is the best example of writing in the series, the other the worst. Prior to my almost complete reread of TTH, my favourite book was MoI, but I completed a reread of that about a month ago then went on to reread TTH. I have to say that while I still enjoyed MoI, it paled in comparison to TTH. The storylines are all there for a specific reason, all are important, all have significance to this book - it all fits. SE uses Kruppe's voice well and keeps everything true. The characters work consistently and remain true to their motivations throughout. It is extremely well written, and wonderfully ambitious. As a reread, you know the beginning, middle and end, know the high points and low points, so I think this allowed me to enjoy the ride a lot more, and I found I really admired what SE accomplished. There was no impatience for action and conflict as per my previous read, and I allowed the story to lead the way, and thus found that it all fit and there was no waste in the book.

I'd ask that you take an opportunity for a reread and see if you don't change your mind.

[Salamander Cake]

Personally, I don't see it as a big deal that Jordan is considered "cliché". I mean, The hero/quest myth has existed for eons across all cultures. The way I see it, Erikson is doing the exact same thing on a smaller level, usually book scope. Look at the Felisin/Herboric and Baudin crossing the desert. Karsa Orlong, Mappo and Icarium are other examples. I could name others as well.

Martin is basically doing the same thing with Jon, Dany, Arya, Bran.

[globish rip]

If I had to put my finger on it, I'd say that Esslemont can structure a book better, while Erikson can flat-out write better. Frankly, I'd love to see them truly co-author a book. That could be amazing.

lol id say the exact opposite. erkison is one of the worst fantasy writers working today from a strict prose perspective. like even beyond arguing over aesthetics or intent or affect or w/e there are just kinda obv technical flaws. iirc esslemonts a lot better at avoiding cliche & redundancy than erikson is, and his sentences are rarely as ugly as erkisons (intentionally?) are. but erkison has a better knack for structure partic foreshadowing creating tension, distancing, multiple narratives.

fwiw i really liked night of knives - its a lot slighter and unambitious but it works really well.

[Salt-Man Z]

Are you kidding? NoK had some of the ugliest sentences I've ever read; to the point of rereading 3-4 times to try and parse exactly what he was trying to say. I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

[globish rip]

haha i havent read it since it very 1st came out & could well be misremembering - maybe conflating the generally short and to the point plot w/ the language?

[Use Of Weapons]

I'm tempted to shout 'troll!' at this point.