Help
I will have to try Mieville...
I still haven't read anything as good as Erikson, in any genre... I still also think that Tad Williams come a close second...
Asking for something similar to Erikson
#21
Tiste Simeon 
- Faith, Heavy Metal & Bacon
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 12,317
- Joined: 08-October 04
- Location:T'North
Posted 14 April 2005 - 08:08 AM
A Haunting Poem
I Scream
You Scream
We all Scream
For I Scream.
I Scream
You Scream
We all Scream
For I Scream.
#22 Guest_Jay Tomio_*
Posted 14 April 2005 - 05:24 AM
ALthough there are many authors who I feel are superior to Erikson in Fantasy (many dozens), not many write in the same vein as Erikson, which is decidedly epic fantasy, with sword/sorcery elements present. Regarding epic fantasy I still prefer Martin and Bakker more than I do Erikson, and I think much less of Erikson in comparison into writers like Mieville, who he (nor many others for that matter) simply doesn't stack up with in terms of quality of prose, and command of the language. Mieville's work is vastly different fantasy, he has coined it New Weird (ala Ashton Clark Smith).
Fantasybookspot.com
Fantasybookspot.com
#23
thadus
- Corporal
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 36
- Joined: 05-July 05
Posted 13 July 2005 - 01:59 PM
I am pretty sure that Erikson read Zelazny's Amber - the characters (especially these powerfull ones) share the same flaws here, in Malazan Empire and there, in the root of the Order.
It's worth reading. All 10 tomes
It's worth reading. All 10 tomes
#24 Guest_Choronzon_*
Posted 13 April 2005 - 12:42 PM
Alvin Maker?
Huh?
I mean, they're good, but...huh?
Huh?
I mean, they're good, but...huh?
#25 Guest_Duiker_*
Posted 14 April 2005 - 02:43 PM
For the sake of plurality let me add my comments to this late onslaught of Donaldson and Wolfe.
I read the first half of Book of the New Sun by Wolfe and damn it is boooo-ring. Oh, and also there's no plot and the world, well it is convoluted for the sake of confusion and not for the sake of adding suspense. the absolute "high"-point was this theatre play that rambled on and on. And in the end nothing was resolved nor explained so I basically just ditched the series.
And don't get me started on Donaldson. His Thomas Covenant stuff is original becasue it uses a anti-hero instead of the monarchist Tolkien Aragorn-stereotypes, granted. But that does not make the books good. If anything, they make them worse because instead of a story we get whining. Lots of it, in constant repitition. The interesting bits - battles, history, cool Land-stuff (in short, the stuff why I read the friggin' book in the first place) - get relayed as asides by other characters.
To say that this all is deep and psychological; okay, leper refuses to accept his dream because he wouldn't be able to cope with it when he wakes up. Okay got it, now give me a story please! No, not a repition of non-arguments and lots of whining. Maybe the 'depth'comes later in the series, but I read up to book 3 and didn't find it. So off with Mr. Covenant.
In "The Mirror of her Dreams/Mordna't Need" Donaldson does basically the same thing. Whiner goes to fantasy land, blah blah. Not interested, though I really tried.
The Gap Cycle was cool, granted, and well-writtend but mainly this is because he added more viewpoints. The "whiner" is still there - Morn Hylands chapters are really skipable - but luckily we got a cool host of other viewpoints: Nick, Angus, Milos, etc. And maybe I'm prejudiced too SF, could be.
If you enjoy either Wolfe or Donaldson, good for you. By all means enjoy yourself. But for me they didn't really do it.
To answer the question:
- George R. R. Martin is the guy you want to read. Intelligent writing, nice plot(ting), fleshed-out world (but not too exotic). It's all a "knights in shiny armour-rescue-damsels in distress" kind of fairy world BUT with the bonus of brutal violence, rape, all kinds of -cide and ruthless scheming. But the icing on the cake are the characters. they do not have the ubercool of Rake and Kallor and other Eriksonites, but there are a real likeable and hateable bunch of them. Especially the Lannisters rock. Other pro's for GRRM: subtle magic, the Others, great tragedies. And don't whine about the fact he takes a lot of time for his books: personally I want a quality book than a quantity book, so if he needs time for it by all means take it. There are sooooooo many others books in the world I want to read, I got no problem waiting a few years. (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.)
- R. Scott Bakker is somewhat simpler in terms of scope (o.k. at least in the first installment) but he manages to have a real fresh feel to it. He only uses 5 or so viewpoint characters which is a big pro over the countless in Erikson and Martin because he can spend much more time with each one of them. Which makes for even better fleshing-out of the backgrounds, motivations etc. Also, Bakker introduces philosphy in fantasy in a lot more subtle - and complex - way than others have done. Maybe his degree in the subject has something to do with it. Plus Bakker's book seem more concise and to the point, around 500p, which is something more writers - and editors- in the genre should go for.
Only con's to Bakker are that his world is a tad to much "hey how cool I take Earth Crusader-era but I add MAGIC to it" but maybe that is a bit too harsh.
For me, Erikson, Martin, Bakker & good ol' Tolkien work fine indeed. Now I gotta check-out Mieville
(who lingers on my to-read pile for almost a year now).
I read the first half of Book of the New Sun by Wolfe and damn it is boooo-ring. Oh, and also there's no plot and the world, well it is convoluted for the sake of confusion and not for the sake of adding suspense. the absolute "high"-point was this theatre play that rambled on and on. And in the end nothing was resolved nor explained so I basically just ditched the series.
And don't get me started on Donaldson. His Thomas Covenant stuff is original becasue it uses a anti-hero instead of the monarchist Tolkien Aragorn-stereotypes, granted. But that does not make the books good. If anything, they make them worse because instead of a story we get whining. Lots of it, in constant repitition. The interesting bits - battles, history, cool Land-stuff (in short, the stuff why I read the friggin' book in the first place) - get relayed as asides by other characters.
To say that this all is deep and psychological; okay, leper refuses to accept his dream because he wouldn't be able to cope with it when he wakes up. Okay got it, now give me a story please! No, not a repition of non-arguments and lots of whining. Maybe the 'depth'comes later in the series, but I read up to book 3 and didn't find it. So off with Mr. Covenant.
In "The Mirror of her Dreams/Mordna't Need" Donaldson does basically the same thing. Whiner goes to fantasy land, blah blah. Not interested, though I really tried.
The Gap Cycle was cool, granted, and well-writtend but mainly this is because he added more viewpoints. The "whiner" is still there - Morn Hylands chapters are really skipable - but luckily we got a cool host of other viewpoints: Nick, Angus, Milos, etc. And maybe I'm prejudiced too SF, could be.
If you enjoy either Wolfe or Donaldson, good for you. By all means enjoy yourself. But for me they didn't really do it.
To answer the question:
- George R. R. Martin is the guy you want to read. Intelligent writing, nice plot(ting), fleshed-out world (but not too exotic). It's all a "knights in shiny armour-rescue-damsels in distress" kind of fairy world BUT with the bonus of brutal violence, rape, all kinds of -cide and ruthless scheming. But the icing on the cake are the characters. they do not have the ubercool of Rake and Kallor and other Eriksonites, but there are a real likeable and hateable bunch of them. Especially the Lannisters rock. Other pro's for GRRM: subtle magic, the Others, great tragedies. And don't whine about the fact he takes a lot of time for his books: personally I want a quality book than a quantity book, so if he needs time for it by all means take it. There are sooooooo many others books in the world I want to read, I got no problem waiting a few years. (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.)
- R. Scott Bakker is somewhat simpler in terms of scope (o.k. at least in the first installment) but he manages to have a real fresh feel to it. He only uses 5 or so viewpoint characters which is a big pro over the countless in Erikson and Martin because he can spend much more time with each one of them. Which makes for even better fleshing-out of the backgrounds, motivations etc. Also, Bakker introduces philosphy in fantasy in a lot more subtle - and complex - way than others have done. Maybe his degree in the subject has something to do with it. Plus Bakker's book seem more concise and to the point, around 500p, which is something more writers - and editors- in the genre should go for.
Only con's to Bakker are that his world is a tad to much "hey how cool I take Earth Crusader-era but I add MAGIC to it" but maybe that is a bit too harsh.
For me, Erikson, Martin, Bakker & good ol' Tolkien work fine indeed. Now I gotta check-out Mieville
(who lingers on my to-read pile for almost a year now).
#26 Guest_bluesman_*
Posted 04 May 2005 - 12:09 PM
I think any reading is better than no reading. They had this debate here on TV where more "Serious" authors claimed the increasingly popular crime-novels are dumbed down and "poor litterature". What they of course wanted was for people to buy their more "serious" books, mostly collecting dust in the bookshelfs 
. I found that statement stupid since reading ANYTHING AT ALL is better than watching dumbed down reality shows like Big Brother on TV. Now that makes people stupid. I'd rather read Barbara Cartland than watch that garbage.
I read just about everything. I can consume Proust as well as Erikson or Elizabeth George, all depending on what mood I am in. The important thing for me is that I want something to read. It helps me sleep better if nothing else.
Bottom line. Reading anything is better than watching tv.
BM
. I found that statement stupid since reading ANYTHING AT ALL is better than watching dumbed down reality shows like Big Brother on TV. Now that makes people stupid. I'd rather read Barbara Cartland than watch that garbage.I read just about everything. I can consume Proust as well as Erikson or Elizabeth George, all depending on what mood I am in. The important thing for me is that I want something to read. It helps me sleep better if nothing else
.Bottom line. Reading anything is better than watching tv.
BM
#27 Guest_Dark Daze_*
Posted 14 April 2005 - 08:26 AM
In terms of world building, the Malazan books are somewhat unique because the Malazan universe was conceived by archaeologists. However, Martin does build a comparably complex world out of typical medieval fodder.
Science Fiction is probably a better place to find unique worlds comparable to the Malazan universe. The Uplift books by David Brin, Lord Valentines Castle by Roger Silverberg, Big Planet by Jack Vance, and the New Crobuzun books by China Mieville all remind me of the multi-peopled worlds of the Malazan books more than standard fantasy fare.
For interaction with the gods, Lord of Light by Roger Zelazny, God Stalk by PC Hodgell, and Incarnations of Immortality by Piers Anthony are the only books I have seen that are remotely close.
As for the contemporary military treatment, the Black Company books by Glen Cook and the Deeds of Paksenarrion by Elizabeth Moon are the closest I have seen.
For complex war politics, I like Erikson but prefer Martin. The Winds of the Forelands books by David B Coe are also strong in this respect. (I am probably the only one on the forum reading this series.)
Donaldson, Wolfe, and Moorcock are all comparably dark and gritty in style to Erikson.
In some respects Donaldson seems like a polar opposite to Erikson. The Covenant books are not that impressive when it comes to unique world building. The Malazan books are. Donaldson has a vast vocabulary at his disposal. Erikson is rather straightforward when it comes to language. The Covenant books are rather conventional when it comes to plot. The Malazan books are uniquely convoluted. The Covenant books focus on the psychological struggle of one man. The characters in the Malazan books are fairly obvious and less heavy when it comes to character.
Science Fiction is probably a better place to find unique worlds comparable to the Malazan universe. The Uplift books by David Brin, Lord Valentines Castle by Roger Silverberg, Big Planet by Jack Vance, and the New Crobuzun books by China Mieville all remind me of the multi-peopled worlds of the Malazan books more than standard fantasy fare.
For interaction with the gods, Lord of Light by Roger Zelazny, God Stalk by PC Hodgell, and Incarnations of Immortality by Piers Anthony are the only books I have seen that are remotely close.
As for the contemporary military treatment, the Black Company books by Glen Cook and the Deeds of Paksenarrion by Elizabeth Moon are the closest I have seen.
For complex war politics, I like Erikson but prefer Martin. The Winds of the Forelands books by David B Coe are also strong in this respect. (I am probably the only one on the forum reading this series.)
Donaldson, Wolfe, and Moorcock are all comparably dark and gritty in style to Erikson.
In some respects Donaldson seems like a polar opposite to Erikson. The Covenant books are not that impressive when it comes to unique world building. The Malazan books are. Donaldson has a vast vocabulary at his disposal. Erikson is rather straightforward when it comes to language. The Covenant books are rather conventional when it comes to plot. The Malazan books are uniquely convoluted. The Covenant books focus on the psychological struggle of one man. The characters in the Malazan books are fairly obvious and less heavy when it comes to character.
#28 Guest_Jay Tomio_*
Posted 15 April 2005 - 10:11 AM
Greetings Mithfanion Certainly without doubt any reply not just my own reflects personal opinion However I have never had any noticeable incliantion not to be objective. I like Epic fantasy just as much as I like the New Weird, or those inspired by Moorcockian thougth. There are soem quality epic reads, as I have mentioned before, and others have also, Martin, Bakker, and Keyes are writing exceptioanal current epic series, however I don't think a statement referring to a dramatic drop off is off the mark after the first few. Brooks? Goodkind? Lackey? Newcomb? Dire IMHO.
I don't personally prefer any sepcific branch of fantasy I prefer what I believe to be well written, thougthful reads, some of these are epic reads, and some are not.
EDITED - just wanted to add
To be clear I think there are some great epic reads currently (just not a surplus) and I believe there are certainly terrific past such series like Mckillip's Riddle Master, and Hobb's body of work, and to a lesser extent various works by JV Jones, and Lynn Flewelling's Tamir Trilogy, and of course legends like Tolkien and Eddison etc. It has little to do with branch as I enjo Wolfe whetehr he is writing his magnum Opus The Book of the New Sun or his high/epic offering The Wizard/Knight Duology.
Fantasybookspot.com
Certainly without doubt any reply not just my own reflects personal opinion However I have never had any noticeable incliantion not to be objective. I like Epic fantasy just as much as I like the New Weird, or those inspired by Moorcockian thougth. There are soem quality epic reads, as I have mentioned before, and others have also, Martin, Bakker, and Keyes are writing exceptioanal current epic series, however I don't think a statement referring to a dramatic drop off is off the mark after the first few. Brooks? Goodkind? Lackey? Newcomb? Dire IMHO.I don't personally prefer any sepcific branch of fantasy I prefer what I believe to be well written, thougthful reads, some of these are epic reads, and some are not.
EDITED - just wanted to add
To be clear I think there are some great epic reads currently (just not a surplus) and I believe there are certainly terrific past such series like Mckillip's Riddle Master, and Hobb's body of work, and to a lesser extent various works by JV Jones, and Lynn Flewelling's Tamir Trilogy, and of course legends like Tolkien and Eddison etc. It has little to do with branch as I enjo Wolfe whetehr he is writing his magnum Opus The Book of the New Sun or his high/epic offering The Wizard/Knight Duology.
Fantasybookspot.com
#29 Guest_Mithfânion_*
Posted 16 April 2005 - 08:30 AM
Ain
Due to the fact that the vast list of authors that you mentioned all fall (wholly or partly) in the New Weird category, it seemed to me that you were saying to the original poster, "check out a different subgenre if you want good Fantasy, because Epic Fantasy won't do it".
Fortunately you too agree there are a couple of good new series coming up, even as I would agree that most of new epic Fantasy isn't worth our time.
Due to the fact that the vast list of authors that you mentioned all fall (wholly or partly) in the New Weird category, it seemed to me that you were saying to the original poster, "check out a different subgenre if you want good Fantasy, because Epic Fantasy won't do it".
Fortunately you too agree there are a couple of good new series coming up, even as I would agree that most of new epic Fantasy isn't worth our time.
#30 Guest_Itkovian84_*
Posted 19 May 2005 - 04:37 PM
i would also say Donaldson's Covenant series. I also will recommend Greg Keyes Kingdoms of Thorn and Bone. The Briar King and Charnal prince are quite good.
Itkovian
Itkovian
#31 Guest_bluesman_*
Posted 14 April 2005 - 11:22 AM
Btw I like Mieville too but Iron Council was not my favourite so far.
Donaldson got a question why he liked Erikson and made a fairly accurate description of the difference between the two.
"For me, the interlocking complexities of Erikson's story(s), the extreme sympathy of some of his characters and situations, and the fact that his work is not just another truckload of recycled elves and dwarves, give his work a unique power. But clearly what we might call his "appeal to the reader" is less, well, *personal* than mine. He doesn't ask you to open your heart the way I do.
"
I think it fits well with my own opinions.
BM
Donaldson got a question why he liked Erikson and made a fairly accurate description of the difference between the two.
"For me, the interlocking complexities of Erikson's story(s), the extreme sympathy of some of his characters and situations, and the fact that his work is not just another truckload of recycled elves and dwarves, give his work a unique power. But clearly what we might call his "appeal to the reader" is less, well, *personal* than mine. He doesn't ask you to open your heart the way I do.
"
I think it fits well with my own opinions.
BM
#32 Guest_Dark Daze_*
Posted 15 April 2005 - 08:46 PM
@Aimulindale:
Post the first names of the authors in your read list.
Post the first names of the authors in your read list.
#33 Guest_Binadas_*
Posted 17 June 2005 - 12:10 PM
I just feel the need to add there are many well crafted complex fantsy pieces beyond the reading level of what I believe most Americans tend to read.
ZZZZZZZZZ-Chief
ZZZZZZZZZ-Chief
