[polishgenius]

Oh, found a decent translator for him...

The particular fragment in this, under Cyberiad, is a little off key mainly thanks to the guy not realising that Zits are something, not particularly nice, to some people, but it's a good translation nonetheless, and I'm told he's the way to go.

http://www.lem.pl/cy...iela/dziela.htm

Though it still seems a little clumsy at parts compared to the Polish. Oh well.

[Brys]

To me that's more a reflection on the state of heroic fantasy today than on the quality of Gemmell. He's not a bad writer, but IMO nowhere near to Erikson - and arguably, Erikson has a number of heroic/sword and sorcery fantasy elements to his Malazan series, and his battles are done a lot better than Gemmell's in my mind. Anyway, Gemmell I don't think can compare to his predecessors (Robert Howard, Fritz Leiber, Michael Moorcock in particular). He's certainly better than some of the fatasy out there, but I can't recommend him over Erikson.

[Agraba]

Is Stanislaw Lem's work a comedy? It's the reason I compared Good Omens to HHG.

I can't find Reality Dysfunction anywhere. And now my stepmother is hassling me to read a certain book called "Angels and Demons". Written by the same guy as Davinci Code (is he good, btw?). But if I wanted to get something from a bookstore before getting something off amazon (namely reality dysfunciton), I'm thinking between American Gods and Neverwhere (both by the same author). Which one should I pick? They both got good ratings.

[Werthead]

Gemmell is very uneven and frequently very weak, although his Jon Shannow books were pretty good. He simply isn't consistently strong enough to stand up to Erikson, Howard, Leiber or, frankly, even Feist.

It's too early to say that Scott Lynch is better than Erikson (1 book vs 6 does not make for a good comparison), but certainly The Lies of Locke Lamora is a stronger, much more readable and entertaining book than Gardens of the Moon. And I rate GotM.

[polishgenius]

Agraba said:

Is Stanislaw Lem's work a comedy? It's the reason I compared Good Omens to HHG.

I can't find Reality Dysfunction anywhere. And now my stepmother is hassling me to read a certain book called "Angels and Demons". Written by the same guy as Davinci Code (is he good, btw?). But if I wanted to get something from a bookstore before getting something off amazon (namely reality dysfunciton), I'm thinking between American Gods and Neverwhere (both by the same author). Which one should I pick? They both got good ratings.

Lem isn't a comedian as such - not on the level of laugh out loudness of Adams - he's more clever funny. Especially in the extract of the translation of Cyberiad up there. Some books he writes aren't comedies at all - like Solaris.
Cyberiad and Star Diaries, that I've read, are funny works though.

Gaiman's books that I've read go for me, in order of quality, American Gods, Anansi Boys, Neverwhere. Though they're all good. Anansi Boys is maybe more accessible than AG. They're more different to the HHG style than Good Omens.

Dan Brown (DVC, A&G) is crap. IMNVHO.

[Werthead]

Agraba said:

Is Stanislaw Lem's work a comedy? It's the reason I compared Good Omens to HHG.

I can't find Reality Dysfunction anywhere. And now my stepmother is hassling me to read a certain book called "Angels and Demons". Written by the same guy as Davinci Code (is he good, btw?). But if I wanted to get something from a bookstore before getting something off amazon (namely reality dysfunciton), I'm thinking between American Gods and Neverwhere (both by the same author). Which one should I pick? They both got good ratings.

Neverwhere is the shortest and easiest to read. It's also a bloody good book and if you enjoy it, it may be worth tracking down the original TV series on DVD (Gaiman wrote it as a TV show for the BBC, got irritated by what they had to cut out, then adapted it as a novel). Reality Dysfunction Part 1 should be easily findable on Amazon. Dan Brown is a bad writer. Not as bad as Goodkind, but pretty poor.

[Agraba]

*sigh*, oh well. Then why's he so damn popular? I've seen at least 40 people so far reading the Davinci Code in the last month, on buses.

Anyways, it's either waiting a week for Dysfunction, or stopping by Indigo tomorrow and getting Neverwhere (found a bit more about American Gods, decided it's more heavily weighed on philosophical tangeants than on characterization and plot). Maybe I should get both, but order dysfunction today, buy neverwhere tomorrow, and try and finish it before Hamilton's arrives.

[Werthead]

I wouldn't say American Gods is weighed down by philosophical issues but yeah it's certainly a bit more demanding than Neverwhere. It's not exactly going to leave your brain a smouldering ruin like Wolfe or Peake delight in doing though.

The Da Vinci Code follows the HP route of success. It's a book that's written in such a clear, pre-school manner that non-regular readers can get into it with the minimum of fuss. It's also a very shallow book that reads like a screenplay with a bit of added description, to people can visualise the story easily. The key difference between Brown and Rowling is that Rowling eventually darkens the story and takes it to (slightly) unexpected places, whilst Brown's story is utterly predictable, unless you're not a regular reader in which case you may be surprised by it.

[Dagger]

FrankandWalter said:

It seems obvious to me that all ye on the other side of the water have never heard of a man called Druss - conceived by "David Gemmell - probably the greatest living writer of heroic fantasy alive"

Hmm, first post, praising another writer, what's that I smell...something frying in a pan...it's meatlike in appearance...oh I know, IT'S SPAM!!!!!!!!

[Whelp]

Werthead said:

The Da Vinci Code follows the HP route of success. It's a book that's written in such a clear, pre-school manner that non-regular readers can get into it with the minimum of fuss. It's also a very shallow book that reads like a screenplay with a bit of added description, to people can visualise the story easily. The key difference between Brown and Rowling is that Rowling eventually darkens the story and takes it to (slightly) unexpected places, whilst Brown's story is utterly predictable, unless you're not a regular reader in which case you may be surprised by it.

Plus, it draws on popular conspiracies, and two predecessors (Pynchon's Crying of Lot 49 and Eco's The Foucault-pendulum).

[Cold Iron]

umm... did you forget about holy blood holy grail? the whole story is copy pasted straight outta there. it even copies the detective story type theme. there was even a law suit. Foucault's pendulum is not very similar, other than the templar myths, eco is more taking the piss out of people like dan brown and how the whole occult-templar thing is peddled. guess brown got the last laugh tho.

oh and by the way, to all those people who have said grrm is as good as or better than se on this thread. are you out of your minds??? four books later and still less has happened than in each se book. and he writes even slower than his books move. ugh!

[Brahm_K]

Cold Iron said:

oh and by the way, to all those people who have said grrm is as good as or better than se on this thread. are you out of your minds??? four books later and still less has happened than in each se book. and he writes even slower than his books move. ugh!

Umm... I really would contest that claim. And even if it were true, since when has "how many events one can pack in a book" become the defining factor for how good a writer someone is?

[Cold Iron]

Not much of a contest, although, perhaps it wasn't much of a claim. Allow me to elaborate, and perhaps clarify. The "defining factor" of what i feel makes a good writer is how much a book moves me. To move me, I must be involved in the story, pulled into it so to speak. The two things that i complained about in my previous post, ie the slow moving plot and the long wait between books both severely hinder this from happening.

While I do appreciate some things about grrm, like his dry humour (which se does not lack) and his hand-to-hand duels (which se seems to avoid), these strengths fall a long way short of making up for what i see as his weaknesses. These include the way only a few individuals seem to have any significance in his world, two families in particular with another 2 or 3 minor ones, the lack of strong resolution at the close of his novels, a lack of complexity or involvement of the physical world and metaphysical - with barely any plot developments coming from sources other than the character's whim or reactions to other character's actions, and his distinct lack of ability to overlap the different story arcs, while action is happening to one character, the chapters that follow the others just drag.

I appreciate erikson's expectation of the reader to juggle several simultaneous stories, each offering multi-layers of complexity and i certainly don't see this as packing as many events into one book as possible.

[Dr Trouble]

Darkmere said:

The best single fantasy series that probably ranks higher than Erikson is the Fionavar Tapestry by Guy Gavriel Kay, beautifully written series. As a stand alone novel, and people here might not agree it is a fantasy, The Talisman by Stephen King and Peter Straub is an absolute masterpiece of storytelling.

The Finovar Tapestry better than Eriksons stories?

That is a very, very bold claim. How long has it been since you last read FT? I read it a couple of weeks ago and I can say that it dosn't even deserve to be placed in the same catergory as Steven Erikson.

Not that I don't like Guy Gavriel Kay. Tigana is a great book.

[drinksinbars]

i dont see how you can compare erikson to gemmell. Honestly like they write at the opposite ends of the spectrum. Gemmell writes good old fashioned black and white fantasy with a great flair and technique to make you quickly care for characters. erikson develops a complicated tapestry that rewards repeat reading with subtle hints that are guessed at but never truly revealed (unless he panders to the forum wihes and adds in obvious fanboy moments;)). i would guess gemmell well outsells erikson and i have to say he mightened be as good a writer (much like dan brown, whos style is atrocious) but hes a damn fine author and storyteller! anyone who tries to write a novel knows how hard it can be, for an author to consistenly produce is very rare. i have only read a few moorcock novels but i honestly didnt like them!!