[Roland]

Morgoth said:

@Roland - That would be monsterous regiment.. I mean, the cheesemongers have as a motto; first in, last out. Theire standard is a burning cheese depiced more or less exactly like the bridgeburners burning bridge. Their sergant is named Jackrum and is a hardy veteran known and feared by next to all and so on and so forth. (similar to Whiskeyjack no?) .. I thought you realised since you mentioned Nuggan..

I wonder if I'm blind or just very, VERY dumb! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Could it have been more obvious? And I wondered why I liked MR so much...

Quote

Anyways, my impression of the typical Erikson fan is that he/she read a lot meaning they have a wider range of reading experience to base their opinion on.. GRRM and especially Goodkind fans often seem to read nothing but that particular author.

I agree absolutely. I think that to like Erikson, you need a bit higher level of reading than ordinary fantasy suggests...

[McLovin]

You gotta like your casts big and your plots complicated, that's for sure...

[Roland]

Are you... being funny?

[McLovin]

Uh...no. SE's cast is big and his plots are complicated. Which people of a lower level of reading would tend not to like...

[Roland]

Izz said:

Please, don't bunch up the GRRM fans with the Goodkind fans. That just ain't right. Myself, I enjoy Erikson, but he can't lay a finger on Martin in my eyes. I love all the twists and betrayals and the great characters like Tyrion. I also enjoy that Martin isn't afraid to get a little gratuitous with sex.

Now, I might not be the average Martin fan. In fact, I doubt I am. But statements like these are a little radical, especially rearing the GRRM fans with the Goodkind fans. That's just disgusting.

Well, in my experience there is no difference betwen Martin, Goodkind or even Jordan fans (ok, the last are somewhere far beyond ). They all think they've found The Greatest, Mightiest and Most Inteligent and Complicated Badass of Fantasy and Steel® and speak of him as The One And Only. And I'm sorry if I sound a little snob but I do believe SE's fans are different in that even the most zealous of them never discard other authors just because they aren't SE.

[Roland]

He is the exception that confirms the rule (if that's how you say it in english ).

Quote

You sound exactly like the people you are describing. Decent.

Do I now?

[Brys]

Fool said:

Have you ever read any of tiste's post?

Lol - Tiste may be possibly the most fanatical reader of Erikson, ever - but he has (I think) admitted to liking other authors!

Actually, GRRM fans, Jordan fans, Goodkind fans aren't always that bad - quite a few of them actually except skill in other authors, even those that GRRM himself didn't recommend. (It was quite amusing when someone said he didn't like Jack Vance's book because it was too derivative - Jack Vance was published those novels in 1950!)

[werewolfv2]

Brys said:

Actually, GRRM fans, Jordan fans, Goodkind fans aren't always that bad - quite a few of them actually except skill in other authors, even those that GRRM himself didn't recommend.

hey now, Im a fan of the above mentioned authors (I just rant on some of their newer books that seem to...suck) and I still like many many others

[Matrim]

Roland said:

Well, in my experience there is no difference betwen Martin, Goodkind or even Jordan fans (ok, the last are somewhere far beyond ). They all think they've found The Greatest, Mightiest and Most Inteligent and Complicated Badass of Fantasy and Steel® and speak of him as The One And Only. And I'm sorry if I sound a little snob but I do believe SE's fans are different in that even the most zealous of them never discard other authors just because they aren't SE.

That depends on what do you mean by Jordan fans. If you mean the members of sites like wotmania and other WoT forums, from what I have seen a lot of them are disillusioned about WoT's quality and praise freely other authors (Eriskons and Martin are practically worshipped on some WoT message boards:)). The most obsessed fans behave basically in the same (stupid:)) way, nevermind whether they happen to be Martin, Jordan, Erikson or whoever's fans. Probably SE has a smaller number of really obsessed fans than Jordan or Martin but then again these two have a lot more fans.

[Roland]

Ok, I didn't make my point clear but Matrim has done it for me. I mean his last sentence. The majority of Jordan, Martin etc. fans (and by "fans" I mean hardcore ones) are the type I've described. The majority of SE's aren't. There are "bad apples" everywhere but it's their quantity that marks the whole.

[opiate taylor]

I don't know about you guys, but for me, mood determines what I read to some extent. I like Erikson, Martin, Cook, Vance, Lieber, Hobb, JV Jones, King, G. Wolfe, Kay, Zelazny, and too many more to name. They all have their own stregnths and weaknesses, of course. None of them are perfect.

Erikson- Negatives: can be too damn philosophical. 1200 pages? He's not very economical with words. Another thing is confusing writing. Doesn't have to be so damn verbose. Positives: excellent sense of history, depth. great chars., great sense of the malazan military. I esp. love the way he handles sorcery.

Martin- N: Plot is put together too tight. Things happen that are very convenient. Goes on and on about damn heraldry too much. damn the incest!
P: great, concise prose. awesome dialogue. epic plot with personal chars.

Cook- N: ok, so he is my fav of the bunch. I love his spare style, but at times it is a little TOO spare. later BC books bland in comparison to the 1st three.
P: his chars rock, the black company is interesting, his books won't throw your back out if you pick them up off the floor. good variety (Garrett is very good. Dread Empire, and some hard sci-fi)

Vance- The only thing I can think of is that the language in his older books seems a bit dated. otherwise, he is one of the best. all around

Hobb- N: I loved the Farseer books. That being said, her endings leave a lot to be desired.
P: her chars are very real, she's not afraid to hurt them (A lot).

King- N:same as Hobb. Many of his endings are blah. His plots are sometimes a bit contrived.
P: cool, original ideas and chars. his voice in instantly recognizable (as are many of the authors above).

anyway, it's all a matter of opinion. Without bad books, there would be no good books.

[Roland]

Yup, I don't think he is particularly philosophical I mean... his characters like to brood about what they feel and think, it is normal, not some kind of philosophy...

[Matrim]

I think it's a valid criticism. Nothing against philosophy per se but Erikson overdoes it sometimes, especially in MT. And sometimes it seems out of place when a character seemingly out of nowhere and for no particular reason starts to think about the complexities of the human soul or something like that. But enough about that, it's the other fantasy forum, after all.

[opiate taylor]

Fool said:

"can be too damn philosophical."

What? :eek3: Thats the sort of criticism you reserve for Umberto Eco.

Well, I reserved it for SE. If you took out all the useless philosophising, most of the Malazan books would be about three hundred pages shorter. IMO, it wouldn't hurt the story a bit.