[Roland]

And I never said such a thing. They just have some things in common... like the general feeling of some scenes in Erikson's books, the humour in some places or Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment...

[Roland]

I agree But point stands - there are similaities

[Tiste Simeon]

You really like to battle a point don't you?
Fool, just wondering what Prattchet has over Erikson? Just curious to hear your thoughts, though I will probably regret it...

[Roland]

Well, I'm not Fool (pun intended) but I think it is a matter of perspective. Right down to it Erikson gives you epics and Pratchett - laughter (though his point is a bit different I believe in his last books). Depeneds on what a reader is looking for in a book.

And yes, I do like to battle a point

[Roland]

I don't think it's appropriate for this topic to be turned into "Let's compare Pratchett and Erikson" but I just can't stop myself...

Quote

Well for one thing pratchett has a LOT more variety in characters, settings and plots

First, Pratchett almost NEVER has a decent plot and plots have never been the point of his books anyway. Second, his settings are somewhere around four. Third, I agree about the variety of characters but let's have in mind that while Erikson's Malazan is still in its fifth book, the Discworld series numbers 30+, ok?

Quote

He is also a lot more intellectually engaging

He doesn't write what I call "plot-literature" (thus the not so great plots in his books). His point it to make fun (most of the time bitter) of things of the real life and world. To say he is more intellectually engaging is the same as saying that a train is REALLY not so colorful and artistic as Mona Lisa. It's point is not to be colorful or artistic but to move. That doesn't mean I compare any of the authors with a train, mind you I just want to point out it is stupid to compare authors with totaly different purpose of writing on equal terms.

Quote

Erikson's prose is rather pedestrian

Duh!

Quote

Pratchett often goes beyond simply describing whats there

Care to translate that one for non-english speakers? I somewhat failed to grasp its meaning...

Quote

His character are also a lot more realistic ie. you could imagine meeting someone just like that on the street.

Now on that one I totally don't agree. His characters are archetypes one and all. They are all twisted mirrors of humanity's strongest traits and to say they are reallistic is totally opposite to Pratchett's purpose. In my oppinion he WANTS them to be unrealistic, so that their qualities are easier to recognize.

Quote

And of course he's funnier.

Again, it's like saying that "Scary Movie" is funnier than "Scream". Yunno, they write different type of literature. To compare that is plain idiotic (no offense meant)... Personal oppinion of course...

[Morgoth]

I'll have to agree with Roland here... Apart from Vimes, all of Pratchett's characters are archtypes, to claim them to be more realistic than Erikson's is in my eyes almost ridiculous. I'm a big fan if pratchett, and own every single book he's published, but in my opinion Erikson is the better writer.. But then again, comparing those two is somewhat pointless as they write so very differently.

[Roland]

Ok I had this VERY big post written and I accidentally closed the window before posting it... So I'm gonna try and repeat it as much as I can...

Quote

What exactly is not decent about pratchett plots?

Well, they plain suck You always know that whatever happens in the books, in the end there will be mighty Deus Ex Machina or a character will step forward and say "Yunno, I know all there is to know about stuff and will generously explain everything to you now". It's silly but it's understandable since Pratchett focuses mainly on philosphy, psychology or morals and these do not need a strong plot to thrive. I think it's pointless to try and find strong sides everywhere when they just aren't needed. I mean, Pratchett is one of my two favourite authors yunno (the other is Roger Zelazny).

Quote

In terms of pages per character pratchett is still way ahead. I mean every book has a set of characters where not one character is like another.

Pages per character? Excuse me? Are we making statistics here or are we discussing literature? First, that is just not true if we look at just one of Pratchett's books and one of Erikson's. And second, Erikson has literarry hundreds of characters and although they have depth unequaled by any other in the epic fantasy genre, it is not their purpose in life yunno. Besides, page-count doesn't matter, it matters what you put in the pages.

Quote

If thats the only point you noticed, then maybe you should read them again. There's a lot more going on than that.

Oh please, don't think me more simple than I am anyway. I do know Pratchett is a lot more than humor. I already said he uses psichology, philosphy and a lot of criticism in his books (must be the journalist in him...) but it's all twisted through the satiric mirror of the Discworld (that is if we compare only the Malazan Book of the Fallen and the Discworld since both TP and SE have other books as well). And the whole point is for you to be able to laugh in the end, even if it is forced and sad laughter. That is what I meant and not that Pratchett is all about jokes...

Quote

They both write books.

Yea, rrrrrright... And Bionce and Paganini both write music

Quote

Now regardless of what genre you are writing in there are some things you have to get right.

True enough, but those you have stated are not. Let's take a closer look:

Quote

You need a plot, well-written prose, characters, setting etc. And you can very well compare them across genres.

1) Plot - Erich Maia Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front" and "The Road Back" have no plot. Erich From's books seem to be missing their plot too and I seem to recall Notes from the Underground, which you mentioned (if we're talking about the same thing - Dostoevski's novelette, right?), didn't have a plot either. Oh, they have *something* but it's not a plot. And they don't need it. Just like Pratchett doesn't need his plots and as such they are far weaker than Erikson's.

2) Well-written prose - It's hard for me to argue on that one but still, books like "Les Miserables" and "Dangerous Liasons" don't really have much to show in that departament... But still I can't say SE or TP could possibly compare. I mean, they are all too different in style and purpose. I'm quite positive SE could never manage the puns Pratchett uses but the latter would be quite pathetic if he tries to write epic. Thus the score settled and winner – nonexistent...

3) Characters - Hmm, I can give you example with Science-Rulz-Sci-Fi like Steven Baxter's where science is the main hero and characters are just background. Does this keep his books from being great? Nope, don't think so.

4) Setting - Do you know this genious czech author - Milan Kundera? I suppose not. But in his books the setting is almost nonexistent. I mean, what do you need a setting for, when the characters make the books fantastic by simply talking to each other?

I didn't write all this because I want to say SE and TP are that much apart. But I find their purposes too different to really compare and mostly wanted to show you that even if there are things you can judge outside the genre, those are not among them. What you've described is plot-driven fiction which really needs all of these. Yet there milions of books that are not plot-driven (Pratchett's being among them). So you can't really compare every author based on such things.

Quote

mean, say you compare Notes from Underground (picking a book of literature at random) and Terry Goodkind. Sure, comparing who has the better battles is meaningless, and they might both do what theyre supposed to do (ok, goodkind might not be the best example) but you can definitely say that notes from underground is the better (or more valuable) book.

I talked about this before so I'll just add that indeed, I can that Notes from the Underground (if we're talking about the same book) is the better book. But that is not because it is better in its genre than Goodkind's s*it is in his, but just because I find Dostoevski's writings focusing on far deeper and harder to comprehend topics. Besides, Goodkind writes for money and his books are commersial product while Dostoevski's aren't and were never written to just sell. He is not an author for the masses and he wants to actually say something and not just entertain. And this matters.
SE and TP on the other hand both write commersial literature. And even if we've already accepted they write in different genres (which I assume we did and we very well should)m that doesn't make them much different. I'm sorry to say it, but as much as I like Steven Erikson's books, they don't really open unknown paths in my mind, don't make me think about stuff. They make me live stuff and that is the best way an author could entertain an audience. That is also SE's purpose in writing the way I see it.
Terry Pratchett is different but in his way - the same. He doesn't really tell me anything I don't know, he doesn't "open my eyes" for something profound or deep. He just makes me realise or think again about things I already know. But his main purpose is again to entertain me and to sell me his books, not to really show me "the truth of the world".
So the profound difference that we find betwen "Notes from the Underground" and Goodkind can't be found betwen SE and TP. And they remain too different to compare but still in one... how do I put it... sphere of literature genres. And thus it is imposible to say for any of them "he writes this kind of literature, so he's the better writer".

Quote

First of all, not all of them are like that. Take for instance the main character of Moving Pictures. Whats he an archetype of? Secondly by virtue of being archetypes they HAVE to exist in the real world at least in a less extreme form. I mean i am sure there are characters in the real world similar to nanny ogg, or granny, or vimes, or whoever. They might not be quite as archetypical as those, but they are still similar. However, do you know anyone similar to anomander rake? Unlikely. And if pratchett's character were so unrealistic (or if he set out to make them unrealistic) they wouldnt be recognizable at all.

Erm... you contradict yourself. First you say

Quote

His character are also a lot more realistic ie. you could imagine meeting someone just like that on the street.

... and now this? Of course I can't imagine Anomander Rake walking down the street but I can't imagine Nanny neither. Now which one is it? They are believable, or they are extremities of real people? Because no one disagrees with the latter. But it doesn't make them believable. It makes them easier to use for Pratchett's ideas and the points he wants to make in his books.
And if we look at Erikson's characters, we will notice they don't really have the same role as Pratchett's. They are here to tell a story, not to make a point. And they still make points at times, just like Pratchett's tell stories.
But although I can't imagine Manny Rake in the real life, I have no troubles imagine Crocus or Paran. AND none of Pratchett's heroes is more believeable to me than Kruppe...



Jeez... Now isn't that long for a non-english speaker?

P.S. Sorry, my post was full of smiles and winks but the forum didn't allow me to post it like this :/ Hence the darker mood. Isn't there anything that could be done about that? I mean, I don't want to post seven smilies in a line, but in such a long post I just need more than 3-4...

[Roland]

You've taken most of my words out of their context in your last quotes :/

Quote

Regarding pratchett not having good plots. Can you maybe give some examples of your deus ex machinas? And i mean of the more serious books (ie. not the rincewind or the early ones). Yes sometimes people get saved at the end of the book, but not implausibly (which is what deus ex machina means). For instance the main character in The Truth gets saved by the vampire at the end but there is nothing implausible about that save.

The turtle on Vorbis' head and Om's show in the end of Small Gods is one good example of Deus Ex Machina. I don't say it happens easy all the time, but it DOES happen every time.

Quote

Its called catharsis. The whole idea is that the character at the end realizes whats going on (after having gone through the whole story). That does not make the plot weak. And its not like its implausible that the character should gain that knowledge. Ie. there are no holes in the character development.

And Jackrum in Monstrous Regiment is the all-knowing-guy (ok... guy... anyway). This is NOT catharsis, this is "ok, I just need a know-it-all character" kind of writing. Furthermore, even if it WAS catharsis, we don't really need the character going on the stage and saying in front of the teachers what he's learned in the course of the book...

Quote

The differences between say brood, anomander, quick ben, the tiste andii, etc. etc. isnt very big. Wheras again if you look at small gods for instance. Om, friit, brutha, vorbis, didactylos, the science dude... theyre all different. Whats more even the real minor characters have some depth.

Well, on this I simply don't agree. First, the differences betwen QB, AR or Brood are tremendous, and second, most of Pratchett's characters fall in few verys trict and define-able stereotypes. The smart cynical guy, the innocent and almost plain stupid but in the end all-knowing of life... etc. And btw, many of his characters (the forementioned didactylos for example) don't have even half the depth even Kalam has...

Quote

And i find pratchett focusing on deeper issues than erikson and from reading your post it seems like you do, too. I used dostoevsky and goodkind as an extreme example to illustrate my point.

Well, after all, I did explain why I don't find them writing in different levels of literature... Here:

Quote

SE and TP on the other hand both write commersial literature. And even if we've already accepted they write in different genres (which I assume we did and we very well should)m that doesn't make them much different. I'm sorry to say it, but as much as I like Steven Erikson's books, they don't really open unknown paths in my mind, don't make me think about stuff. They make me live stuff and that is the best way an author could entertain an audience. That is also SE's purpose in writing the way I see it.

And for me Pratchett is too shallow in philosophy or psichology (not lacking, just not "serious" enough and by that I mean "deep") and Erikson is too deep in fantasy to really separate them in matter of "meaningfulness".

Quote

No, i dont. Try reading what i wrote again.

Doch, you did. First you say they are all believable and like real people you can meet on the street, and next thing you say they are extremities of reality. They are either real, or extreme. Even if they are the extreme of real, that doesn't make them real.

Quote

You cant imagine Nanny? You kidding me?

I can. Just like I can imagine Kotillion or Kruppe. NOT in real life.


Edit: I hadn't read your last post:

Quote

For me there are two qualities a book can have. It can be A) entertaining and/or intellectually challenging.

Or C) Imagination-boost. You may find this as purely a part of A) but I can be entertained with Dan Braun (or however his name is written) without my imagination even flinching a finger. Erikson creates a world in your imagination. And not the dry and lifeless way Tolkien's endless lists of names, words and places does it, but with his, yeah, PROSE. With his style of writing, his characters and dialogues. And you feel for those characters, feel for the world. You feel like you live in this world, and since nothing there is purely black or white, you can BELIEVE it.
Pratchett couldn't give you any of that. Of course his Discworld is (or rather was) colorful and original, sure it's fun. But it doesn't capture the imagination the way the Malazan world does it, it has never heard of realism and you could never really believe it. I don't say this as a flaw, mind you But I look for more than those two things (I liked the and/or part betwen A) & - it shows inteligence).

And all that said, I can always tell you Dostoevsky, Kundera, Remark or Thomas Mann are far greater authors than both Terry Pratchett and Steven Erikson. But when I compare the two of them, reading their books gives me equal pleasure in totally different but uncomparable way. I just can't tell you "this one is better than the other".
And since this is just a feeling which you obviously don't share, I think we should just end this argument Besides, it's pointless anyway since we both obviously love the two geeks very much...


P.S. Besides, it's 1 AM in Bulgaria and I really need to get to bed

[Roland]

Yeah, blame Cannada

But I just can't help but answering this one:

Quote

As i said, they give me both equal pleasure, too. I just feel like my brain is working more when i read pratchett.

I put everything I experience while reading a book in this word "pleasure". It could be anything that does it. And yes, your mind works more when you read Pratchett but your imagination and, say, emotions work more while reading Erikson. Now which one is better? None, Roland proclaims, and thus the conversation is ended by his humble self, mighty his logic, convincing his arguments and worthy his opponent though might be

[Tiste Simeon]

Fool said:

And of course he's funnier.

Fair enough, but I don't read Fantasy to be amused...