[Dr Trouble]

I respect your opinion, but I have to say a few things. And there may be spoilers, so those who have not read it, be careful.


Believable characters: 5 humans from our world are shown magic and are thrust into another world where all kinds of strange things are happening, and they all go through some radical "Change" (As with Paul and The Summer Tree) and they all just roll with it.
Now I don't know about you, but I would have been freaking out. No way in hell would I, or anyone I know, have reacted the way these 5 "Believable characters" did.

As for the world, I have problems with that too, but not so much as I did with the characters. Mainly being that it was very un-original. I won't go into it though as I can't really explain what I mean.

[Werthead]

Fionavar Tapestry blows. Some great ideas, but pulled together very clumsily. Given how utterly brilliant Tigana, A Song for Arbonne, The Lions of Al-Rassan and The Last Light of the Sun were (Sarantine was okay), it is hard to conceive they were written by the same guy as FT.

Quote

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, 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.

GRRM has many 'significant' characters. Thus: Tyrion, Cersei, Jaime, Tywin & Kevan Lannister; Catelyn, Eddard, Benjen, Jon, Bran, Sansa & Arya Stark; Jon Snow; Jeor, Jorah & Maege Mormont; Doran, Arianne & Oberyn Martell; Asha, Aeron, Euron, Victarion, Baelon & Theon Greyjoy; Edmure & Brynden Tully; Lysa Arryn; Mace, Loras, Margaery & Garlan Tyrell; Stannis, Renly, Robert, Joffrey, Tommen & Myrcella Baratheon; Daenerys, Aemon & Viserys Targaryen; Littlefinger, Varys, Gregor & Sandor Clegane, Beric Dondarrion, Thoros of Myr, Barristan Selmy, Samwell and Randyll Tarly (RT! RT! RT!), Davos Seaworth, Melisandre, Gendry, Janos Slynt, Edric Storm, Mya Stone... I lose count. And that's not even counting the BwBers, the Night's Watch etc.

There are nine main families, seven of whom are central to the story (Stark, Lannister, Tyrell, Baratheon, Greyjoy, Targaryen and Martell) and probably about two dozen that have had an impact on the story so far, ranging from the major (Frey, Bolton) to the minor (Dayne, Dondarrion) to the in-betweens (Mormont, Umber).

A Storm of Swords has an exceptionally strong conclusion that nicely rounds off the first three books (there was supposed to be a lengthy in-narrative gap before the fourth book started). The other books did end on semi-cliffhangers (or actual cliffhangers in AFFC's case) though.

Quote

barely any plot developments coming from sources other than the character's whim or reactions to other character's actions

And this differs to MBF exactly how? There is also the relentless timetable of nature (the arrival of winter) which drives characters actions, as well as their own guilt over past wrongs that have not been righted (namely Ned's guilt over Lyanna, but also Jaime's repentence in the last two books).

For me, a novel lives and dies by its characters. The characters in Malaz are pretty awesome, but in the main they are superheroes or high-level RPG characters who, in the unlikely event they die, come back to life shortly afterwards and quite happily continue the fight. In ASoIaF people die and stay dead and it hurts those who live on. The depth of characterisation in ASoIF is beyond that of MBF (this coming from a major MBF fan), giving us realistic people painted in shades of grey. MBF makes great strides in this direction but often falls short (the very similar characters given to various military personnel, the fatal mistake of having the characters speak in the author's voice too often etc).

[Cold Iron]

Out of all the characters you just named, only a few are what i would call significant, in that they have a major impact on the story. And they are mostly Stark or Lannister.

MBF has masses of plot developments from a variety of sources, pretty much all the characters do is react to grander scale events, rather then driving the events themselves, which to me is what makes his unrealistic scenarios realistic.

I'll admit to your two last points about se's characters, but i suggest that while grrm spends a lot more TIME developing his characters, he failed to build any, to my mind, that are anywhere near as affective as Whiskeyjack, Fiddler, Kalam, Quick Ben, Gruntle, Tehol Beddict, Trull Sengar, Felisin Paran, Toc the Younger, Anomander Rake, Karsa Orlong and yes, even Kruppe. I challenge anyone to say that they do not have a real emotional reaction to just the sight of those names, despite the fact that se didn't waste chapter after chapter just telling you about them. We feel a connection by virtue of the events we share with the character, not just because we know about their sisters and brothers and pet wolves and uncles and what kind of town they were born in and how they always wanted to be a knight when they grew up...

[Brys]

All of those characters are great, but I don't think any of them are comparable to Tyrion or Jaime or Jon Snow or Margaery Tyrell or Cersei, or Theon. I prefer the Malazan series, but Martin for me manages to achieve much better characterisation, though with a smaller cast.

Quote

but in the main they are superheroes or high-level RPG characters who, in the unlikely event they die, come back to life shortly afterwards and quite happily continue the fight

That's not really a fair criticism - first of all, they do die, often. And then, very few of them come back to life. Ok, I think Erikson made a mistake with Duiker, but most of the other criticisms of them coming back to life are far-fetched, because they either don't come back in a form at all similar to what they were before or for all intents and purposes they are dead. The deaths at the end of MoI for example - they don't come back to life. The main death of DG - its only implied he comes back to life, at some future stage, as a different person. It's no more than Martin bringing certain characters back to life, with the exception I noted above. The major death at the end of HoC - doesn't come back to life.

[Cold Iron]

Wow looks like i might be fighting a losing battle here. Am I the only one who finds grrm's characters annoyingly one-dimensional? They all seem to play the typical roles without any variations or surprises. Once you meet a character, you know exactly what they're going to do, why martin introduced them into the story. Even Tyrion, probably the most interesting and unpredictable character has the 'token mischiefous cripple' feel. Theres just no mystery about them. No delicious suspence or trepidation. No wondering what's his story or whats his motivation.

The true value in his characters for me comes not from their personalities or depth but rather from the knights in shining armour arthurian type world martin has created, which for what it is, is quite well done. The battles are enjoyable and the conversations often amusing but these enjoyable moments are sadly too few and far between.

[drinksinbars]

no i understand where you are coming from, when i read grrm i could clearly see the characters and tell them by their actions. becuase they always acted the same way. but in some respects thats like real life, people are as deep as we like to make out, put in general have a depth we dont care to know. in regards to grrm's characters, alot of them are trapped by the earlier stuff, its not that they dont do anything strange its that they dont seem to evolve. tyrion occassionally did something odd, but most of the starks and others just acted as they did in the first one.

one way i have of telling how much i like an author is how many times i can read a book. i have read erikson alot, maybe five or six times the whole way through. i only ever managed grrm once, i enjoyed it, but i didnt feel like i missed anything. it was all on the surface for me to read and it didnt have as much heart. Maybe becuase he is more callous with the characters, or maybe because i felt his books were too samey. but se and gemmell and even feist if i am bored, can be revisited. not sure why, its just a quality they have when at their best that can still surprise and delight even after a sitting.

[Cold Iron]

Thanks drinksinbars, i thought noone was ever going to agree with me.

By the way, speaking of Feist, does anyone know of any books other than prince of the blood where all the chicks walk around naked? You'd think it'd be all over the genre considering it's primary demographic but alas, i've never seen it anywhere else.

[Werthead]

Riiiiiiiight. So you think Martin's characters are one-dimensional and predictable? That's one criticism I don't think I've ever heard before (well, I did once, but that was from a Eddings fan, so could be safely disregarded).

Quote

most of the starks and others just acted as they did in the first one

Yes because, Sansa acts the same in AFFC as she did in AGoT. And so does Jaime and Arya and Jon...erm, no, they've significantly grown and changed and evolved over the course of the series, notably Jaime whose path is now fundamentally different from the one he was on in AGoT.

Quote

i didnt feel like i missed anything. it was all on the surface for me to read

Really? So you caught the inherent paradox in the stories about Jon's birth on the first read-through? And Renly's sexuality? And the significance of Dany's visions in the House of the Undying? ASoIaF is noteworthy for how straightforward it seems (especially compared to Erikson's obviously complex world) at first glance, but a second look will reveal significant layers and mysteries beyond the obvious.

But MBF vs ASoIaF arguments are excruciatingly pointless. Both to me are great fantasy series which complement one another very well. MBF is high-magic, ASoIaF is low-magic. MBF is more swashbuckling, sword-&-sorcery, realism-be-damned; ASoIaF is more gritty, realistic and bittersweet. MBF has tons of gods interfering with mortal affairs, in ASoIaF the very existence of the gods is in question. And so on.

And yeah, I was being slightly facetious towards the resurrections. Duiker is more or less the only one who's come back as he was and Coltaine has been reincarnated, but won't be doing anything for decades. And quite a few of the characters introduced in MT bit the dust permanantly, as did Felisin (pops the champagne). But GRRM hasn't really brought back any characters at all (and UnCat seems to be a fundamentally different entity to Cat). Both SE and GRRM are guilty of putting their characters in fatal situations and then having them evade death at the last minute, usually through slightly implausible means. But then Tolkien did that even more, so them's the breaks of the genre.

[Morgoth]

I believe your argument about.. UnCat is just as appliable to Duiker. The only true resurection in Erikson's world, as fa as I can think of, is Paran..

When it comes to DIB's and Cold Iron's arguments regarding ASoIaF, I tend to agree, though I did more so before the release of the last book. The last book developed both Jaimie and Cersei in ways which were truly impressive. Don't much agree with neither Arya, nor to an extent Sansa though. There's very little about Sansa's development that ever suprised me, and Arya really don't seem -to my mind- to have changed much. She's grown obviously, but not in any way I couldn't have guessed after the first book.

I also think Tyrion is a good character as such, and look forwards to seeing more of him. His development, as with that of Jaimie and Cersei are what I consider truly excellent in the series.

I'm not claiming Erikson does much better, in most cases he do not, however, his story is not as character driven as that of GRRM, and so I do not consider that as important.

[Werthead]

Morgoth said:

I believe your argument about.. UnCat is just as appliable to Duiker. The only true resurection in Erikson's world, as fa as I can think of, is Paran..

Well, we ain't really seen Duiker Reborn yet. But that tidbit at the end of MoI would seem to indicate he is the same person as before he perished, just haunted by the Chain of Dogs and his own 'death'.

Quote

When it comes to DIB's and Cold Iron's arguments regarding ASoIaF, I tend to agree, though I did more so before the release of the last book. The last book developed both Jaimie and Cersei in ways which were truly impressive. Don't much agree with neither Arya, nor to an extent Sansa though. There's very little about Sansa's development that ever suprised me, and Arya really don't seem -to my mind- to have changed much. She's grown obviously, but not in any way I couldn't have guessed after the first book.

Well, the fact that Arya has developed from a headstrong girl into a borderline psychopath has been quite interesting, if not unpredictable. Sansa's direction was more logical, that she'd grow up, become more cynical and suspicious after everything she's seen, and once in Littlefinger's hands she'd start learning the Game of Thrones. Both characters are in a rather different place now than they were in the first book.

Quote

I also think Tyrion is a good character as such, and look forwards to seeing more of him. His development, as with that of Jaimie and Cersei are what I consider truly excellent in the series.

I'm not claiming Erikson does much better, in most cases he do not, however, his story is not as character driven as that of GRRM, and so I do not consider that as important.

Tyrion is awesome. His new spoiler chapter on GRRM's website

Spoiler

wherein he trades insults with Ilyrio Mopatis in Pentos and finds out that Daenerys is still alive and in need of his help.

is superb.

[drinksinbars]

well it probably matters then that i havent gotten round to AFFC. perhaps that more than anything shows how much i rank GRRM when compared to Erikson. hint i always preorder SE

[caladanbrood]

I'm not sure it matters vastly. aFfC is weaker than the rest of the series, I think.

[Agraba]

Well I was too lazy to order Hamilton's book off amazon, and maybe I'll do that in the future. But today I bought Bakker's The Darkness that Comes Before, and I heard that he's even harder to read than Erikson. Any tips on things I should remember, and things I shouldn't? Because I'll be damned if I remember all these names of places and organizations etc... that he constatly brings up.

[Valgard]

Th advice I give you for bakker is to read it once for the story immerse yourself in the world don't mind if you forget who is who as it will be obvious after a bit. It is definately a book to re-read as then you can pick up all the subtle nuances from the story and gain a much greater understanding of the story. Hope this helps.

[Brys]

I wouldn't say Bakker's harder to read - the story itself is a lot more straightforward, but it might be harder to get into because the names are more exotic (and probably more realistic) and there aren't as many likeable characters and the philosophy aspect is quite a lot more detailed than Erikson's. But just treat the Darkness that Comes Before a bit like you would Gardens of the Moon - expect it to be dark, complex fantasy and its ultimately just a novel setting the scene more than anything else, while Bakker builds off that greatly in the sequel. (Bakker also helpfully does a section at the beginning of the second and third novels entitled "What comes before" with a decent plot summary of the previous book).

[Werthead]

I found the actual writing in Bakker far easier to get into than Erikson: Bakker's prose is simply far more streamlined and poetic. However, the story is much darker and the world somewhat grimmer than either Erikson or GRRM (neither of which are exactly light worlds). It's still a great story, just not one that has many rays of sunshine illuminating its grey depths.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

For sci-fi, read The Gap series by Stephen R. Donaldson. It's dark and gritty, and you have a hard time deciding who are the heroes and who are the villians. The heroes have plenty of bad to them, the villains have redeeming features. Good read.

[Agraba]

[Spoilers for Darkness that Comes Before (Book 1 Prince of Nothing)]

I'm about 3/4 through Book 1 Prince of Nothing (slow, I know). It seems that he's even more thorough in stating the theme of morality being only relative, and showing the degredation and evil of all sides. I must say that the events have been slow. It makes it a little less than Erikson in my eyes (thus far), but it's not slow like RJ is slow. Where RJ actually gives us nothing during the slow moments, Bakker gives us something. Every thought of characters that span pages actually give a lot to think about.

But the only events that have happened thus far are two encounters with The Consult (the ones I know; I'm not sure if Geshrunni's encounter, or Kellhus's at the beginning were with Consult) and a battle (and another battle that was only mentioned in news, but not viewed by us).

As I suspected from the moment I met Cnaiur, his scenes are the most exciting. I am now in Serwe's PoV while she, Cnaiur and Kellhus are travelling together (and it's so funny and sad to see how ensnared she is by Kellhus).

May I make a prediction? Knowing the nature of Kellhus' power over other people, I am reminded of Maithanet, and how this man just suddenly came to where he was, with devoted followers that are in love with him. So I'm guessing that he is an ex-Dunyain monk. Perhaps Moehngus (just for drama, but that would involve the twist of him not being in Shimeh after all).

But to be honest, Kellhus doesn't seem all that brilliant to me. I mean, in Cnaiur's point of view, he's completely resistant to Kellhus's snares, and skeptical of everything he says, and I'm thinking "gee, Kellhus is probably using Cnaiur's skepticism to his own advantage". Then, several pages later in Kellhus's PoV, he's getting aggrivated over the futility of capturing his charm, and then thinks, "gasp! Maybe I should use his skepticism to my advantage!" I mean c'mon... I'm a step ahead of him. Maybe I'm just a natural Dunyain.

[Ogma]

I'm still mind-blown from how good SE is. I've reread WoT a couple of times and like it like the soap it is. Long gone is the thrill. I'm only up to MoI as far as aMBotF is concerned and right now the Mortal Sword is charging for the Thrall.

As I was telling this to my friend at www.sfbok.se he told me I absolutely must read Mark Anthony's series The Last Rune. And it is great. Nice world, wonderful language. Try it!

Sure Lovecraft is essentially horror, but there are some jolly good fantasy elements in there.

[Whelp]

Ogma said:

Sure Lovecraft is essentially horror, but there are some jolly good fantasy elements in there.

Imho, the old tentacle-lover is not that good - then rather Clark Ashton Smith.