Help
In Vaiski's link wasn't mentioned Robin Hobb's Farseer and Tawnyman-series. Try them for a more 'realistic' style. Then there is Peter S. Beagle's The Last Unicorn, which I concider maybe the best fantasy-novel there is. Then of course LeGuin's Earthsea (the first three books). LeGuin and Beagle write in a more 'fairy-tale'-style, but that does not make them less enjoyable.
Asking for something similar to Erikson
#2 Guest_Sorknes_*
Posted 13 February 2005 - 03:57 PM
Thanks. 
I actually have some of the ones mentioned. But there was several I haven't read.
I actually have some of the ones mentioned. But there was several I haven't read.
#3
Tiste Simeon 
- Faith, Heavy Metal & Bacon
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 12,315
- Joined: 08-October 04
- Location:T'North
Posted 09 March 2005 - 08:27 AM
I don't think you'll find something so good as MBOTF... GRRM is good, if he ever actually finishes the flipping books. I personally (though I'll probably get flamed for this by someone like Fool..) found that the Tyrants and Kings trilogy by John Marco was pretty good, and also the Otherland Saga by Tad Williams (this one is Sci-Fi but it is still pretty good!)
A Haunting Poem
I Scream
You Scream
We all Scream
For I Scream.
I Scream
You Scream
We all Scream
For I Scream.
#4 Guest_Sorknes_*
Posted 13 February 2005 - 03:29 PM
Well, I knew it was less than likely to get anything close, but I went into a store I love that's specializing in fantasy and sci-fi, the weight on fantasy.
The "bookkeeper" there (the one ordering every darn book himself, and reading them all), was very helpful..... I wanted suggestions for what to read, and said that I loved the Malazan series by Erikson. Of course he said nothing else would come up to it, but this was what he suggested for a reader that loves Erikson:
George R. R. Martin - Song of Ice and Fire series
Orson Scott Card - the Alvin Maker series
China Mièville books
I've read George R. R. Martins serie, and Orson Scott Cards.
Just for curiousity. What's your opinion on his suggestions?
And, if getting the chance yourself, what would you suggest for someone asking the same question?
The "bookkeeper" there (the one ordering every darn book himself, and reading them all), was very helpful..... I wanted suggestions for what to read, and said that I loved the Malazan series by Erikson. Of course he said nothing else would come up to it, but this was what he suggested for a reader that loves Erikson:
George R. R. Martin - Song of Ice and Fire series
Orson Scott Card - the Alvin Maker series
China Mièville books
I've read George R. R. Martins serie, and Orson Scott Cards.
Just for curiousity. What's your opinion on his suggestions?
And, if getting the chance yourself, what would you suggest for someone asking the same question?
you know you want to ....
#6
caladanbrood
- Ugly on the Inside
-
- Group: Team Quick Ben
- Posts: 10,819
- Joined: 07-January 03
- Location:Manchester, UK
Posted 10 March 2005 - 01:39 AM
Just Bakker really. Nothing else gets anywhere near the quality of Erikson's writing, except GRRM, and his books are a very different kind of fantasy to Erikson's...
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde; keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.
#8 Guest_johnturing_*
Posted 16 April 2005 - 08:24 AM
Bakker, GRRM, Mieville (though very different in style) and Glen Cook are as close to Erikson as you'll get, but there is no one really on the same scale as Erikson. You'll probably have more luck on the writing forum - a lot of members have closer writing styles to Erikson than many published authors.
#9 Guest_Jay Tomio_*
Posted 14 April 2005 - 09:14 AM
I don't want anyone to get me wrong, I really enjoy Erikson's Malazan work, however I simply don't think he is in the same league as some mentioned above. I thank Erikson for writing a a fun fantasy series, that doesn't shy away from standard fantasy elements and at the same time delivering a work that is at least sligthly more readable by an older audience while doing it. He is among one of my favorite authors, but he just IMHO doesn't stack up in any way to some names being mentioned like Vance and Wolfe. Wolfe's 'Book of the New Sun' is on a complete other level of quality than Erikson achieves or perhaps even attempts to achieve. In regards to Donaldson (who I also enjoy) he is mostly lauded for his vocabualry and strength in alnguage, a quality that Mieville I think surpasses him in and also delivers a more compelling, unique and relevant story.
Th difference in all four of those mentioned (Donaldson, Mieville, Vance and Wolfe) compared to Erikson is the fact that those 4 (well particulary Wolfe, Mieville, and Vance) are gifted with amongst the greatest prose in the genre, something that is essentially a weakness with Erikson.
I would agree that the bulk of the genre is junk, but one should read present works by author's Zivkovic, VanderMeer, Wright, Swainston, Hughes, Rossi, Bishop, of course Mieville, Harrison, Joyce, Powers, Swanwick, Ford, Clarke, among others. These are IMHO the genre's elite in regards to actual talent/creativity and by no means write anything near junk which generally is displayed most prevalently within epic fantasy novels/series IMHO. Erikson shines, no doubt but IMHO there aren't many current epic series that are that good to be competeing against.
I like Erikson, but he is by no means Vance or Wolfe IMHO, nor close to it thus far (which may change in the future)
Th difference in all four of those mentioned (Donaldson, Mieville, Vance and Wolfe) compared to Erikson is the fact that those 4 (well particulary Wolfe, Mieville, and Vance) are gifted with amongst the greatest prose in the genre, something that is essentially a weakness with Erikson.
I would agree that the bulk of the genre is junk, but one should read present works by author's Zivkovic, VanderMeer, Wright, Swainston, Hughes, Rossi, Bishop, of course Mieville, Harrison, Joyce, Powers, Swanwick, Ford, Clarke, among others. These are IMHO the genre's elite in regards to actual talent/creativity and by no means write anything near junk which generally is displayed most prevalently within epic fantasy novels/series IMHO. Erikson shines, no doubt but IMHO there aren't many current epic series that are that good to be competeing against.
I like Erikson, but he is by no means Vance or Wolfe IMHO, nor close to it thus far (which may change in the future)
#10 Guest_Jay Tomio_*
Posted 16 April 2005 - 12:22 AM
quote:@Aimulindale:
Post the first names of the authors in your read list.
Hey Dark Daze
Most of them can be found in a list (with corresponding works) Here
The list of 101 series/novels includes works from all branches and Sci-fi as well.
Fantasybookspot.com
#11 Guest_Dark Daze_*
Posted 16 April 2005 - 05:55 PM
@Ain:
For awhile I thought you meant Ann Bishop. I was very confused on why you thought she was better than Erikson.
John M Ford? Jeffery Ford?
Almost every fantasy and science book I own is on your list (I only keep my favorites), and in the cases where the books aren't there, you have different works by the same author. The only two exceptions are you don't have David Brin's Uplift series or David B. Coe's Winds of the Forelands series (of course, I'm the only one who reads the latter.)
I don't see how you can make a comment like you did about Erikson without making a similar comment about Tad Williams who in my opinion is a lesser writer.
I have no idea how you got through Worm of Ourobouros. I found the style inpenetrable and annoying.
For awhile I thought you meant Ann Bishop. I was very confused on why you thought she was better than Erikson.
John M Ford? Jeffery Ford?
Almost every fantasy and science book I own is on your list (I only keep my favorites), and in the cases where the books aren't there, you have different works by the same author. The only two exceptions are you don't have David Brin's Uplift series or David B. Coe's Winds of the Forelands series (of course, I'm the only one who reads the latter.)
I don't see how you can make a comment like you did about Erikson without making a similar comment about Tad Williams who in my opinion is a lesser writer.
I have no idea how you got through Worm of Ourobouros. I found the style inpenetrable and annoying.
#12 Guest_Fool_*
Posted 14 April 2005 - 11:46 PM
I've got to say that i have never been especially impressed with any fantasy/SF writer's style (except maybe pratchett's dialogue and conciseness). Its either way to functional ("I'll just describe whatever is there to describe even if its not really important!") or it seems like its different for the sake of being different like mieville's gratuitous (*wink* *wink*) use of high-level diction. Fantasy writing seems to be either decent or awful.
None (or very little) of it stacks up to the genre fiction/literature greats.
Especially the book of the new sun is a big mystery to me. I read the first two installments and i couldnt find anything literary about it. Plus it was boring as hell.
Duiker>> "Other pro's for GRRM: subtle magic, the Others, great tragedies."
The great tragedies bit isnt necessarily a pro...
"(And the criticsm "GRRM is just retelling The War of the Roses in a fantasy setting" is really unreasonable because the War of the Roses-inspired events end in book 1.)"
But he coulda at least chosen different names for the families, no? I mean stark/york and lancaster/lannister? Come on!
None (or very little) of it stacks up to the genre fiction/literature greats.
Especially the book of the new sun is a big mystery to me. I read the first two installments and i couldnt find anything literary about it. Plus it was boring as hell.
Duiker>> "Other pro's for GRRM: subtle magic, the Others, great tragedies."
The great tragedies bit isnt necessarily a pro...
"(And the criticsm "GRRM is just retelling The War of the Roses in a fantasy setting" is really unreasonable because the War of the Roses-inspired events end in book 1.)"
But he coulda at least chosen different names for the families, no? I mean stark/york and lancaster/lannister? Come on!
#13 Guest_Dark Daze_*
Posted 14 April 2005 - 03:26 PM
I still haven't tried Bakker, but Choronozon, Aimulindale, and Duiker speak for me as well.
More something similars:
Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan is similar in scope and multi-POV to the Malazan books (though notably more cartoonish.)
If you like Erikson because of the humor, Jack Vance's books and A Princess by Bride by William Goldman are must reads. I guess Terry Pratchett's books are too, but I've only read Color of Magic so I'm not sure (ie the first book in that series isn't that funny.) Piers Anthony is hilarious, but the trick is you have to be a 13 years old and probably a boy.
For complexity and maturity, I think you have to leave the fantasy genre. Mario Puzo's mafia novels are particularly satisfying. Here's a quote from an Erikson interview which indicate some influences:
"Summer reading for me always included Ludlum, Clancy and the like, and these are vigorously complicated in their plots, and I found that fun. Reversals, twists and abiding mysteries, they're all classic devices so what's so complicated about that? I seem to get that observation a lot, and all I can do is shrug. If you want complexity, read Byzantine history. Read Chinese history. Read about the rise and fall of Venice, or the First Crusade. Yeesh, my writing's simplistic compared to all that -- as fiction has to be, come to think of it."
More something similars:
Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan is similar in scope and multi-POV to the Malazan books (though notably more cartoonish.)
If you like Erikson because of the humor, Jack Vance's books and A Princess by Bride by William Goldman are must reads. I guess Terry Pratchett's books are too, but I've only read Color of Magic so I'm not sure (ie the first book in that series isn't that funny.) Piers Anthony is hilarious, but the trick is you have to be a 13 years old and probably a boy.
For complexity and maturity, I think you have to leave the fantasy genre. Mario Puzo's mafia novels are particularly satisfying. Here's a quote from an Erikson interview which indicate some influences:
"Summer reading for me always included Ludlum, Clancy and the like, and these are vigorously complicated in their plots, and I found that fun. Reversals, twists and abiding mysteries, they're all classic devices so what's so complicated about that? I seem to get that observation a lot, and all I can do is shrug. If you want complexity, read Byzantine history. Read Chinese history. Read about the rise and fall of Venice, or the First Crusade. Yeesh, my writing's simplistic compared to all that -- as fiction has to be, come to think of it."
#14 Guest_Dark Daze_*
Posted 15 April 2005 - 12:27 AM
Mervyn Peake's style is impressive, but the Gormeghast books only seem to be classified as fantasy for lack of a better place to put them. You also might need a bottle of Ridelin to finish them.
more similars:
Paul Kearney's books are worth a try. They seem to better grounded in reality than most fantasy because they are dark and borrow heavily from a real world historical context. (I quit reading Hawkwood's Voyage after a few chapters but I may try another Kearney series in the distant future.)
Edith Hamilton's collection of Greek Mythology stories.
more similars:
Paul Kearney's books are worth a try. They seem to better grounded in reality than most fantasy because they are dark and borrow heavily from a real world historical context. (I quit reading Hawkwood's Voyage after a few chapters but I may try another Kearney series in the distant future.)
Edith Hamilton's collection of Greek Mythology stories.
#15 Guest_Jay Tomio_*
Posted 17 April 2005 - 06:55 AM
quote:The buying public for fantasy revels in reading novels well below the adult reading level. A lot of fantasy readers aren't adults
I agree with this of course, however it not imho exclusive to fantasy. Many adults love such recent mainstream works like Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code which is mildy entertaining, however not to the extent to make up for it's absurd popularity IMHO in light of it's sophmoric quality of prose, and the fact that most of the issues in the novel have been read about in past works which were infinitely better written IMHO.
quote:Robert Jordan well below the adult reading level? Perhaps well below the adult intellectual or emotional level...
Not speaking of standard reading habits but merely my own, those aspects are synonymous IMHO in terms of reading.
EDIT:
In the end people just enjoy reading things in terms of subjects and percieved quality, as it should be
Fantasybookspot.com
#16 Guest_bluesman_*
Posted 14 April 2005 - 06:33 AM
As I said in a previous thread. Only 2 authors I know of compares with Erikson. Those are Donaldson and GRRM. Hobb and Jones etc are pretty decent too. Most other fantasy is in fact junk as I see it and makes good for it's reputation .
I hardly ever read fantasy before I discovered GRRM and then Erikson. Normally I read regular fiction or Sci Fi. GRRM however made me interested in the genre and Erikson improved it. Now I put Erikson above GRRM because his setting is more compelling and interesting than GRRM:s. GRRM:s world is the standard mideaval clone whileas Erikson has created something else altogether, a world which is entirelly alien and interesting at the same time. Donaldson is one of the few who has succeeded in mastering both the fantasy and sci fi setting. His stories are as gritty and dark as GRRM/Erikson but with the added bonus that he writes like a minor god.
BM
.I hardly ever read fantasy before I discovered GRRM and then Erikson. Normally I read regular fiction or Sci Fi. GRRM however made me interested in the genre and Erikson improved it. Now I put Erikson above GRRM because his setting is more compelling and interesting than GRRM:s. GRRM:s world is the standard mideaval clone whileas Erikson has created something else altogether, a world which is entirelly alien and interesting at the same time. Donaldson is one of the few who has succeeded in mastering both the fantasy and sci fi setting. His stories are as gritty and dark as GRRM/Erikson but with the added bonus that he writes like a minor god
.BM
#17 Guest_Jay Tomio_*
Posted 16 April 2005 - 11:30 PM
quote:John M Ford? Jeffery Ford?
Their reputations are tremendous, however I won't list what I haven't read. The most I have read from either are forwards to other novels (like VanderMeer's Secret Life). I recently interviewed KJ Bishop, and in the conversations asscoiated with the interview she higly recommeneded Jeff Ford to me and I have since ordered some of his work and awaiting it.
quote:don't see how you can make a comment like you did about Erikson without making a similar comment about Tad Williams who in my opinion is a lesser writer
For oone reason only. If I was choosing between them on who had the work I liked the most out of both bodies fo work I would choose Erikson, however I have only read Malazan novels from Erikson and I have always respected Williams for participating in projects not i nthe same vein as his others (the exception being MSaT and Shadowmarch both epic fantasies whose style seems very similar to me thus far). I grant I like Erikson's work bettern and by the time he is done with teh Malazan series proibably substantially more, but as of right now I respect Williams for his variety, which may not be top shelf quality, but IMHO is above par (which isn't saying a whole lot I admit) for there time, like Otherland, War of Flowers, Tailchasers, Shadowmarch, MsaT.
quote:I have no idea how you got through Worm of Ourobouros. I found the style inpenetrable and annoying.
Probably just a example of different taste at the time, I think the same of Terry Brooks, Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind, Christopher Paolini, David Eddings, Mercedes Lackey, Piers Anthony, and many more authors who make a living on the Best Seller charts when IMHO the quality of their works would suggest that either bad taste is the norm or the buying public revels in reading novels well below adult reading level. Of course these are just my opinions, as there seems to be many who actually thought Eragon was good, and not the joke I thought it was
Fantasybookspot.com
#18 Guest_Mithfânion_*
Posted 15 April 2005 - 08:30 AM
I would agree that the bulk of the genre is junk, but one should read present works by author's Zivkovic, VanderMeer, Wright, Swainston, Hughes, Rossi, Bishop, of course Mieville, Harrison, Joyce, Powers, Swanwick, Ford, Clarke, among others
Obviously we're all talking about personal opinions here, but I think it's clear from that list that you simply have a very strong preference for "New Weird" writers. Virtually all of them fall into that (narrow) New Weird subgenre, in fact you've listed almost all the New Weird authors that I know of at all, and a few more.
There are some awesome books that are also epic Fantasy in the style of Tolkien. If you want to avoid junk, you don't have to revert to reading entirely different books.
Personally I find much of what I read from the New Weird authors overly stylized, literate and too bizarre and outlandish for my taste, offering us "quest type" stories in a baroque setting that borders the horror genre.
Anyway, to the question at hand, more like Erikson?
As mentioned, Martin and Bakker. Hobb and Williams are epic Fantasy but little like Erikson. Try Glen Cook, though his work isn't on the same level. Paul Kearney perhaps.
Obviously we're all talking about personal opinions here, but I think it's clear from that list that you simply have a very strong preference for "New Weird" writers. Virtually all of them fall into that (narrow) New Weird subgenre, in fact you've listed almost all the New Weird authors that I know of at all, and a few more.
There are some awesome books that are also epic Fantasy in the style of Tolkien. If you want to avoid junk, you don't have to revert to reading entirely different books.
Personally I find much of what I read from the New Weird authors overly stylized, literate and too bizarre and outlandish for my taste, offering us "quest type" stories in a baroque setting that borders the horror genre.
Anyway, to the question at hand, more like Erikson?
As mentioned, Martin and Bakker. Hobb and Williams are epic Fantasy but little like Erikson. Try Glen Cook, though his work isn't on the same level. Paul Kearney perhaps.
#19 Guest_Dark Daze_*
Posted 17 April 2005 - 06:33 AM
@Ain:
Robert Jordan well below the adult reading level? Perhaps well below the adult intellectual or emotional level...
The buying public for fantasy revels in reading novels well below the adult reading level. A lot of fantasy readers aren't adults. I used to love the accessibility of Piers Anthony's writing. Also, most conventional fantasy isn't high quality and other types of fantasy do not hold the same (perhaps any) attraction. If Vandermeer wrote epic fantasy, I would probably read it. I read Saints and Madmen and have little interest in reading more of his work, even though I respected the quality of the writing.
Robert Jordan well below the adult reading level? Perhaps well below the adult intellectual or emotional level...
The buying public for fantasy revels in reading novels well below the adult reading level. A lot of fantasy readers aren't adults. I used to love the accessibility of Piers Anthony's writing. Also, most conventional fantasy isn't high quality and other types of fantasy do not hold the same (perhaps any) attraction. If Vandermeer wrote epic fantasy, I would probably read it. I read Saints and Madmen and have little interest in reading more of his work, even though I respected the quality of the writing.
#20 Guest_stonesnake_*
Posted 04 May 2005 - 11:38 AM
quote:Robert Jordan well below the adult reading level...
The buying public for fantasy revels in reading novels well below the adult reading level.
I think you may be vastly overestimating the reading level of the average adult. At least, in America, the majority of the young adults I know (say, 20-30 years of age) don't read much at all; perhaps one or two books a year.
As for the minority of adults that do read books at a more respectable rate, well, most of them read what I consider popcorn books; light on substance, easy to consume, not particularly filling.
This week, the New York Times bestseller list has True Believer, by Nicholas Sparks at the top of the fiction list. The DaVinci Code is ranked third. Jane Fonda's autobiography tops the nonfiction list.
And perhaps most telling: immediately under fiction and nonfiction, the Times lists the third most popular book category -Hardcover "Advice" books.
The average American adult doesn't read. He watches TV. A rarer breed of adult reads fairly frequently, but reads James Patterson, or Danielle Steele, or How to Lose 30 Pounds by Eating Ding-Dongs.
In my experience, sci-fi/fantasy readers tend to read more often, and read more complex, intricate books than 95% of the rest of the human race.
There is, indeed, a very, very small minority of readers who routinely consume works like Edward Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, or the works of Tacitus, or Plato.
THOSE readers read at a higher level than most fantasy reader (though some of them are fantasy readers themselves). But there aren't a whole lot of them... maybe 1 in every couple thousand adults.
I'm really not sure where you're getting the idea that fantasy readers read at a lower level than the average adult...
