187 replies to this topic

[Werthead]

Except that Kearney's terseness more or less works, aside from the final volume of Monarchies of God, which was resolved so quickly you nearly tripped over the ending (and he acknowledges this and is even planning to rewrite the final book so it works better). Based on the superb The Mark of Ran (a far superior novel to The Bonehunters or House of Chains, IMO, but nowhere near the level of DHG or MoI), however, his less-is-more approach is paying dividends on that score.

I think Martin may have made a slight error in his decision to 'fill in' the gap. When I talked to Bakker at the signing last week, Bakker pondered that maybe you just have to slap your characters around and make the plot work the way you want it to, rather than adding another novel and three years to the writing time for the whole series just to avoid having to have a dozen flashbacks. But maybe GRRM felt he couldn't do that and honestly make the story work.

[Arakasi]

I disagree. Many people have posted they liked the fact that Kearney's series was terse. From those I have talked to in real and who have also read it, it just doesn't work with an epic series. Kearney tried to write an epic series of 300ish page books. I feel it failed because there was only a very minor amount of POVs. I was never drawn into the series other than Corfe's parts. Also didn't help that the main villian in the series was lamo. I felt the series had strengths, but it was not epic and fell short on many occasions. Maybe this Mark of Ran is better, but I feel no need to try him again after Monarchies (especially the dissapointing last book).

Yeah I feel Martin erred wrong too. I would have much rather had a 5 year break with a 100 pagish prologue. Well as long as in the book the story moved along. I never felt AFFC really did anything. In his previous books there was substantial plot/character movement in all of them. AFFC had some character movement, but not plot. At least not enough for a 600-700 page hardcover. But who knows if he had skipped the 5 years would the next book have moved faster? I guess we'll see when ADWD comes out. God I hope its better. I really want it to be, but who knows.

[Durckad]

Infidel, on Jul 24 2006, 13.53, said:

Why does premeditation enter into the analysis?

Because there was no way to know whether the series would be popular enough to publish it all at the beginning. GRRM and Jordan, otoh, seemingly keep changing direction every time a new book is released.

"Yeah, it's gonna be 3 books."

"No, I realized 3 books would be inadequate to tell my story, 4 tops."

"Okay, the last book covered far too little ground, it's gonna be 6 now."

Etc., etc.

Not that I don't think Erikson is super-perfect or anything, most of his books are a tad bloated and overlong and even with all that extra space, some shit still fails to make any sense and some characters are still vapid, cardboard cut-outs. Yet, I don't buy the cash-cow argument. If Erikson suddenly becomes hugely popular and starts extending the series without an end in sight, then you'd have proof, but right now, it looks to me as if he just had a story to tell and he knows how long it's going to take (weird idea, I know!).

[Chataya de Fleury]

Dackad, on Jul 24 2006, 18.58, said:

Not that I don't think Erikson is super-perfect or anything, most of his books are a tad bloated and overlong and even with all that extra space, some shit still fails to make any sense and some characters are still vapid, cardboard cut-outs. Yet, I don't buy the cash-cow argument....

What about the argument that vapid, filler characters are expanding what should have been a 5 book series negotiated to a ten book series?  What if the filler were PLANNED?  

I say it's more intellectually honest to NOT KNOW how long your series is going to be, rather than plan for a magic number and then get there by any means attainable.  (It's why I gave Jordan the benefit of the doubt until book 8.  Then it became pretty clear).

Anyone remember the set-page length term paper?  Any filler in there?  Could you have made your point in 10 pages rather than 20...and done so with better writing - but 20 pages was what the professor ordered?

Erikson and Jordan are just cash cows of a different breed.

Moo.  :lol:

[MeanMrMustard]

The best part of that kind of class is that you know the professor isn't reading 200 20-page papers a semester.

[Ebenstone]

Chataya, on Jul 24 2006, 19.49, said:

Anyone remember the set-page length term paper?  Any filler in there?  Could you have made your point in 10 pages rather than 20...and done so with better writing - but 20 pages was what the professor ordered?

Erikson and Jordan are just cash cows of a different breed.

Moo.  :lol:

Thank God for charts, graphs and Work Cited pages!

[Arakasi]

Meh. Your argument is pretty weak Chataya. Expected better of you. The difference is that its clear from someone who has read both Jordan and Erikson fully at this point that Erikson's books are heading to a conclusion. They always have. Jordan spent 4-5 books with no progression on plot for the most part. I don't see how taking what you called filler vapid characters out would condense Erikson's series. His books are each fairly self contained. Other than the last one none of them have had any cliffhangers at all. There is also a fair amount of non linearity. So while Erikson maybe could have made each book shorter, I don't see how he could have possible condensed any 2 books into 1. (or 3 into 2 or whatnot) The books have a definate beginning, buildup and end. All of his books follow that same format. Your way would just lead to smaller books, not less books.

Edit: And not to echo Os, but geez don't go throwing around cash cow comments that try to tarnish an author unless you have something to back it up. At least with Jordan there is. You can look at the series as a whole and come to the conclusion that 1) the series kept getting longer and 2) there was a decline in quality/plot progression in the later books to at least merit the cash cow comments. But for Erikson his series was always like that, was written that way from day 1 and still is. There is nothing to suggest that Erikson has changed his modus operandi from the beginning. It just seems you do not like the type of series Erikson writes and feel it could be written in 5, not 10. Just come out and say the series suck. Don't try to make Erikson look like some cash hungry putz who is trying to milk his fans.

Edited by Arakasi, 24 July 2006 - 07:56 PM.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

The other thing to keep in mind, is that fantasy authors are now using Jordan as an example of losing  track with your fantasy. Jordan didn't really have that prior example or fan scrutiny, Erikson does, and his fans will hold it to him.

[Azmure]

I don't think Erikson's series is a cash-cow.  

Are the books bloated?   Certainly.   Could they have done with some serious chopping in order to clean up all those myriad plotlines?   Yes, IMHO.   But that's not to say he's writing these doorstoppers the way he is just to fleece poor unsuspecting fantasy fans of their hard-earned cash.

I think Erikson subscribes to the "bigger is better" philosophy of artistic creation, and just doesn't know when to shut up.   This is a similar problem to Peter F. Hamilton (the sf version of Erikson, or vice versa) who thinks that by piling tons of words on top of each idea he can somehow give an illusion of depth or realism.

Midnight Tides is probably the only Erikson book that I would say was pretty much unnecessary.   900 pages later and it all amounted to something which could have been done in a couple of flashbacks and a bit of pointed conversation.

[Chataya de Fleury]

[quote name='Arakasi' post='388156' date='Jul 24 2006, 20.49']The difference is that its clear from someone who has read both Jordan and Erikson fully at this point...[/quote]

I have tortured myself by reading Jordan about 10 times over, both backwards and forwards.  Yes, I have read the series backwards - not each word; each book, for those of you being literal-minded!

I have only read Erikson through HoC about 5 times each, I confess.  But after HoC, I just refuse to order Midnight Tides or Bonehunters from Canada at exorbitant prices.  I'll wait until I can buy them from Kalbear or Rhelle...until then, I'll be content re-hashing the nutritional content on the back of my cereal box.  (yes, I am a compulsive reader).


[QUOTE "Azmure Posted Today, 21.09
I don't think Erikson's series is a cash-cow.

Are the books bloated? Certainly. Could they have done with some serious chopping in order to clean up all those myriad plotlines? Yes, IMHO. But that's not to say he's writing these doorstoppers the way he is just to fleece poor unsuspecting fantasy fans of their hard-earned cash.

I think Erikson subscribes to the "bigger is better" philosophy of artistic creation, and just doesn't know when to shut up."]

OK, this is indeed what I was trying to describe when I said "cash cow" - in all fairness, I would assume that Jordan has more integrity than to just try and "fleece the reader" as well, and has lost track of his story...only to amazingly sell more books, whereas Erikson just lacks an editor (as does Jordan), or never got one assigned to him, and just won't shut up.

In both cases, it leads to much sales volume, and lacks much artistic merit, while leaving us readers strangling along on the tidbits of Good Stuff that is tossed our way.  Kind of like chumming along sharks.  You know they'll bite.  And it's so much fun to keep them happy.

Edited by Chataya, 24 July 2006 - 09:26 PM.

[Arakasi]

I don't see how Erikson not shutting up leads to more sales volume. If anything if it was as bad as you say, it would be hurting his sales volume. I would also think that a 450 page fantasy novel series would probably appeal to more people than 750+ page fantasy novels. I'm still not getting you at all. How does having bloated books have anything to do with sales? Do bigger books sell better?

I could see artistic merit in having shorter books, but thats coming down to personal opinions. Some people like brevity in books, some don't. I won't presume to say which is superior. You feel Erikson could do well cutting 50% out of his books. I feel the number is maybe 5-15% (MOI in a couple places is imo bloated). But from what you're saying you seem to think Erikson/Jordan write bigger novels to enhance sales. Please show some proof that those are in any way linked.

Now in Jordan's case I think he could have written fewer books, and that would obviously have been less sales. But I can't see Erikson doing anything similar, since all his books are basically self contained (other than TBH).

[Sariel]

Just on a side note, Reaper's Gale -Erikson's next book- takes place on the lether continent, thus integrating the MT story line more clearly into the series as a whole..  Besides, without MT we would have no idea about where the Edur suddenly came from to raid, why they act as they do and why they have humans with them..

The problem with Erikson as far as I see is a question of taste rather than quality mostly, or so it seems from this discussion. I enjoy his complex plots, his use of sub caracters and sub plots. It's not an artistic flaw, but rather a matter of taste as I think most should be able to realise. And the cash cow argument, as Arakasi pointed out, make no sense at all.

As to the sex scenes: If you so desperatly need the author to describe the sex scenes, instead of just hinting at them happening, then there's a whole genre of litterature for you to read instead.. I mean, why is graphic sex scenes in any way a requirement? It's not like they are necessary to the plot in any way, so basically, you'd just get more pages which people seem to dislike already.

I'm curious though, what sub-plot was unecessary for the series?

[Eurytus]

Sariel, on Jul 25 2006, 09.59, said:

I'm curious though, what sub-plot was unecessary for the series?

The mhybe (or however it was spelt). I don't care if its vital for the conclusion of the whole thing, that still wouldn't excuse the most boring plotline I have ever had the misfortune to read in the whole of fantasy fiction. In fact perhaps in the whole of fiction. Even the worst Robert Jordan plotlines don't really compare.

[Werthead]

Arakasi, on Jul 25 2006, 03.57, said:

I don't see how Erikson not shutting up leads to more sales volume. If anything if it was as bad as you say, it would be hurting his sales volume. I would also think that a 450 page fantasy novel series would probably appeal to more people than 750+ page fantasy novels. I'm still not getting you at all. How does having bloated books have anything to do with sales? Do bigger books sell better?

Absolutely yes. Bigger books sell better because readers like value for money, and publishers in their infinite wisdom now sell novels for the same price, whether the book is 350 pages long or 1100 pages long. Paul Kearney has actually said he's been told (presumably by Gollancz, ACE and Bantam) that his books would sell more if they were longer.

Quote

7- Fashion seems to be for very large 900 pages books. By comparison, your books are fairly short. Is it a deliberate choice?  
  
I like a good fat read as much as anyone else, but I don’t go in for pages of description. Nor do I like to have characters standing around talking for more than is necessary - fun though that can sometimes be. I hate ‘wordiness.’ If my style has developed in any way over the last decade or so, I would say that I pare down what I write far more now that I used to. I like to tell a story - to tell it straight and unfussy and to make it march along at a decent pace. To do that, I have no need of digressions or myriad sub-plots. It’s just my personality I guess. I’ve been told my sales suffer for it, as many fantasy readers pick their next read by the thickness of its spine. I wish that were not true, but have a sneaking suspicion there’s something to it - the darker legacy of Tolkien.

[Chataya de Fleury]

Sariel, on Jul 25 2006, 04.59, said:

As to the sex scenes: If you so desperatly need the author to describe the sex scenes, instead of just hinting at them happening, then there's a whole genre of litterature for you to read instead.. I mean, why is graphic sex scenes in any way a requirement? It's not like they are necessary to the plot in any way, so basically, you'd just get more pages which people seem to dislike already.

I'm curious though, what sub-plot was unecessary for the series?

As far as the sex scenes go - no, sex scenes are not necessary for a book to have.  In fact, many fine fantasy novels stand without sex scenes, and indeed, such a scene would be gratuitous in those novels (The Hobbit, the entire LotR trilogy, Tad William's "Memory, Sorrow and Thorn", and I can certainly name more if required).  

However, if you're going to attempt a sex scene, *write it well*.  Humor before every single encounter (a la Erikson) is just juvenile.  Just don't even bother.

Same thing with Jordan and his view of "Mat saw Rand and Elayne kissing!  Without any clothes!"  And Mat is supposed to be a rake?  :P Again, we just don't need to know, if it's going to be written for 10 year olds.

Better to leave it out entirely.  

Unnecessary?

For Erikson:  every scene with Icarium and Mappo.  Iskaral Pust and his "wife".  The Mhybe (maybe).  Two-thirds of the beginning of HoC.  GET AN EDITOR WHO CARES!  I would like to hear X-ray's opinions on this, btw, if she's read Erikson.  I don't believe it's a matter of taste, as 75% of the time, I enjoy Erikson.  I truly believe it's bad editing, and a keen understanding of the market in that fantasy fans WANT bloated books right now - as Werthead pointed out.  

For Jordan:  the typical braid-pulling, skirt smoothing, non-plot advancing leads-to-nowhere filler.

[Arakasi]

Iskaral and his wife I agree to an extent, but that is a very small part of the books. 20-30 pages in two books. The Mhybe, yeah her part went on a bit too long. Icarium/Mappo? I completely disagree. The start of HoC. Again I disagree. The last two to me are vital and important parts of the series. How can you say for certain that your opinion is the truth? If someone disagrees with you are they just wrong? Or is it just a matter of taste and Erikson is not to yours?

[Chataya de Fleury]

Arakasi, on Jul 25 2006, 17.51, said:

Iskaral and his wife I agree to an extent, but that is a very small part of the books. 20-30 pages in two books. The Mhybe, yeah her part went on a bit too long. Icarium/Mappo? I completely disagree. The start of HoC. Again I disagree. The last two to me are vital and important parts of the series. How can you say for certain that your opinion is the truth? If someone disagrees with you are they just wrong? Or is it just a matter of taste and Erikson is not to yours?

I just gave my opinion.  I am hardly presuming to state "truth".  I am also not a professional editor.  But even so, IMO, Erikson could use one.

You must have missed my last reply in which I did say that Erikson's work is indeed to my taste, about 75% of the time.  I just find it extremely frustrating to read something (mostly) enjoyable, which has such large gaping flaws that it's beginning to get unenjoyable.

I recognize what's not to my taste, such as Bakker, and just don't read further because I get no enjoyment out of the series.  However, I do know that Bakker - even though I didn't enjoy what I was reading - is a good author...who has a good editor.

Edited by Chataya, 25 July 2006 - 05:20 PM.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Quote

How can you say for certain that your opinion is the truth? If someone disagrees with you are they just wrong? Or is it just a matter of taste and Erikson is not to yours?

Just to warn you now, this is how most of Os's Jordan posts begin, just with misspelled words instead.

[Sariel]

Well, as pointed out Pust and his wife take up a total of perhaps twenty pages in two or three volumes.. The Mhybe I agree with, to an extent.

I very much disagree with the whole Mappo & Icarium part though. They are both integral to the storyline as a whole, not to mention the informatio they bring, as well as the things they set in motion. The path of hands and Tremolor was surely not irrelevant? Icarium's meeting with Karsa and their eventual battle. Icarium's travel to lether and so on and so forth. I just don't see how this is not important to the story as a whole..

[kalbear]

They don't seem important so far. They're at least a bit interesting, but I don't understand the relevance of their quest or what they're doing, or why it's at all important that they encounter Karsa. Like, I understood Felisin's tale, and Whiskeyjack & the soldiers and pretty much everyone in MoI. I understood the Paran's. Coltaine's is clear, and Kalam's wasn't that hard to figure out. But those two? Not a clue why they're around. So far, the relevant portion of their story to me is "Icarium is a powerful Jaghut who somehow created or altered one of the Warrens". I don't understand why it took two books and a few hundred pages to tell us that.

And Arakasi? I'm very tempted to start calling Erikson a hack and a sellout to see if I can get you to start frothing at the mouth. :)

Edited by Kalbear, 25 July 2006 - 06:51 PM.