261 replies to this topic

[Shryke]

End of Disc One, on Oct 22 2009, 09.34, said:

I find it hilarious that any fan of GRRM can accuse Erikson for lack of discipline.

Why?

Martin is the poster-boy for this kind of discipline. He rewrites, re-edits and re-polishes over and over till the end result is coherent. And that's why his books are WAY better then anything Erikson has put out.

Quality takes TIME. Erikson pumps out a book a year because he just spews stuff from the top of his head onto the page and does minimal, at best, rewriting and editing. And it shows. The timeline issues are just the most obvious place.

Quote

He is one of the most "deliberate" of writers I know. And I think this is quite a contrast on what most consider "ramblings". I think Erikson always have a point and strong control.

Maybe in individual books, but he's writing a series. And from one book to another, he has no control.

Edited by Shryke, 22 October 2009 - 02:06 PM.

[Shryke]

Jurble, on Oct 22 2009, 14.50, said:

So I finally decided to pick up my copy of Bauchelain and Korrbal Broach, and you know, for all his faults, I still really enjoy Erikson.

Aye, I still like the guy. I really enjoyed many of the books. But as the series goes on and on, his bad qualities are increasing instead of decreasing. Instead of maturing as a writer, he's composting.

HoC was the first one that was a bit "That was kinda dumb" and was a disappointment after MoI, but Midnight Tides I thought was one of the best in the series. And the Bonehunters was pretty good, if a bit random seeming at times. And then came Reaper's Gale, which was ok but not great and had alot of little things that annoyed me.

And then he just took a dump straight on my face with TtH. One of the worst books I've read in the past decade. I was was close to straight out giving up on the series (something I've only ever done before with Goodkind and Eddings), but RotCG reminded me of why I liked the world and the story (even if the writing wasn't quite as good as Erikson usually is).

I'm gonna read Dust of Dreams because apparently it's not bad and then finish up the series. But if he keeps on like this, I'm close to just dropping him off my "List of Author's to Buy".

[kungtotte]

I'm about half-way through Dust of Dreams now, and it's good. Don't worry about another Toll the Hounds hate-shit landing on your face.

[williamjm]

Zach H, on Oct 22 2009, 17.40, said:

Haven't noticed any  blatant timeline/continuity screw-ups yet, but admittedly I'm not the type of reader who's always going to pick up on that stuff.

It was only really in Toll The Hounds that I felt the timeline/continuity errors were getting glaringly obvious. In the earlier books I didn't notice that many inconsistencies when I was reading, although having read various threads over the years people have pointed out quite a few.

Quote

, but RotCG reminded me of why I liked the world and the story (even if the writing wasn't quite as good as Erikson usually is

I agree with that, I wouldn't necessarily say Esslemont is a better writer than Erikson overall, and Return of the Crimson Guard does have some typical Malazan flaws, but I thought it was more entertaining and better paced than any other Malazan book since Memories of Ice. I'm probably looking forward to reading Esslemont's next Malazan book more than Erikson's (actually, maybe that's not quite true since I'm curious to see how the series ends).

Edited by williamjm, 22 October 2009 - 05:38 PM.

[Arthmail]

I like Erickson, but i've had to take a break. Memories of Ice was the last i read. Aside from story threads that diverge from the main story and are never properly revealed, or take 6 books to reveal (which is fucking ludicrous and a serious miscalculation on his part), my only real problem is that there are too many badasses. Everyone is fucking awesome, and all are in the midst of trying to out awesome each other. To the point that it seems unrealistic, now.

And after Coltaine, and the Chain of Dogs, there is no more awesome left.

[Werthead]

Getting into yet another GRRM versus Erikson debate is a bit tiresome and it's been done to death quite a few times.

But saying Erikson is more 'disciplined' than GRRM is just plain laughable. He pumps out a book a year because that was in his contract and he needed to hit those dates to earn the full amount of his (absolutely frigging, then-record-setting enormous) advance. Now that is done, he's said he's going to slow down and put more care and attention into the six follow-up Malazan books, with the result that they will take between half again and twice as long as the existing Malazan books to write, with much more time for editing and redrafting. This is good news.

'Discipline' in art is only relevant where it means delivering a superior work, since the time of production is irrelevant once it is available. In this case, Malazan is not only a failure, but a particularly annoying failure because its potential for greatness is absolutely gigantic. This series really could have buried every other fantasy work on the market, including ASoIaF, but instead it collapsed under the weight of various pressures and we're now left with the thought of what might have been if Erikson had had more time to write the series, and perhaps more discipline to write shorter books when it was needed. DHG and MoI are the only books in the series that really needed to be as big as they are (MoI is the only one that feels rushed towards the end because he has too much plot for even 1,200 pages) . Every other single one could have had hundreds of pages shaved off, whilst TTH could have been maybe 300 pages long maximum and still achieved all that it did.

Arakasi, on Oct 22 2009, 04.45, said:

There I find is a compulsive need for science-fiction/fantasy fans to have a "this must all be wrapped up in the story" thing going on. I remember when Babylon 5 neared its conclusion the epic whining that went on about how certain things weren't wrapped up to their satisfaction. JMS' (and Erikson's) point is that life goes on, this is only a slice of the world, and to get the rest you need to shell out more money for the follow-up books, some of them written by someone else.

Fixed that for you ;)

[Shryke]

To be fair re: B5, after watching the series, you knew enough about what happened to get the gist of it. The books fill in the specifics (in a slightly annoying way imo), but aren't necessary.

[Seak]

Arthmail, on Oct 22 2009, 17.23, said:

my only real problem is that there are too many badasses. Everyone is fucking awesome, and all are in the midst of trying to out awesome each other. To the point that it seems unrealistic, now.

That's what I think's so great about Erikson. His characters are not only good at something, they're amazingly, insanely good at what they do. His work is what I consider the most fantastical as opposed to Martin, whom I also love. I think that's needed in the fantasy genre just as much as a less magical-intensive story.

I honestly wouldn't say I enjoy one over the other; they're both great, but on opposite ends of the spectrum. They're really not comparable.

[Werthead]

Shryke, on Oct 23 2009, 01.51, said:

To be fair re: B5, after watching the series, you knew enough about what happened to get the gist of it. The books fill in the specifics (in a slightly annoying way imo), but aren't necessary.

True, although if you really want to know how Morden survived the nuclear blast on Z'ha'dum or how Centauri Prime got from where it was in Season 5 to where it was in the flash-forwards in War Without End you needed to read the books, which was a bit annoying. But the series gives you enough info to be going on with.

Malazan won't have this, not unless you count

SPOILER: Malazan

the fate of Karsa, one of several candidates for the role of  series main character, to be completely irrelevant to the story. Or Tattersail/Silverfox's story arc that began right at the start of Book 1. Or the fate of Darujhistan, where several books took place. Or several other things.

[Zach H]

Seak, on Oct 22 2009, 20.57, said:

That's what I think's so great about Erikson. His characters are not only good at something, they're amazingly, insanely good at what they do. His work is what I consider the most fantastical as opposed to Martin, whom I also love. I think that's needed in the fantasy genre just as much as a less magical-intensive story.

Right on.  I like all type of stories.  I like Martin-style grit.  I like Lethem and how he writes genre for the mainstream.  And, yes, I like that Erikson's characters are often stylized and/or over the top.  I think that his ability to write what some call "D&D on steroids" is actually a strength.  I believe it was Jay Tomio at BookSpotCentral who said (and I'm paraphrasing) that Malazan is what something like Forgotten Realms could have been if it had been allowed to develop on its own terms.

[Tarant]

You know what I'd like to see in Malazan?  Characters that have believable motivations.  So many characters in these books are complete cyphers when it comes to motivations, that I have no idea why they do what they do.  Kalam, despite being a POV character in several books, doesn't seem to have any goals, ambitions or heck, even much of a personality.

[Twelve Angry Nonmen]

What I never got was, is that everyone seems to be a badass, or an ascendant, but it might just be skewed by the PoV's we have, surely the common folk in the towns and villages don't see an Ascendant or a God every other hour?

[Gormenghast]

Werthead, on Oct 23 2009, 01.37, said:

'Discipline' in art is only relevant where it means delivering a superior work, since the time of production is irrelevant once it is available.

First: it is relevant for all the readers who followed you and see you not deliver the goods. It's plenty relevant for readers that wait for years and are following a story since 1996.

Second: Martin isn't realistically finishing the job. I'm sorry to say, but time and age are relevant even if you don't want to think they are. A series that is planned to go on for like 25 years is not something that makes sense, no matter how old and healthy you are. Martin isn't struggling to write the last book. He's struggling with the one barely halfway through. And this 13 years after the first, with another 10 years before we could see the end.

Third: time of production and the production itself is VERY RELEVANT. I don't think anyone can maintain an even quality doing "art" stretched over a period of 20 years. People change, writers change. Hopefully they improve, but they are still the product of their own time. Even if you write a book that is disconnected from your own time, your own time has an impact. All literature reflect its own time, even in the case it lasts its time.

Four: my idea about Erikson, again, is that his commitment improved the quality (not the timeline, but timeline != quality for me). Because it forced him to stay extremely focused in a kind of obsessive, totalizing, draining way. Which is why I say that a series of 10 books with the scope of the one Erikson made could only be done /that way/. Now Erikson isn't going to write another series of 10 books in 20 years instead of 10. He's writing a trilogy. Why? Because you can't write a 10-book series in 20 years. It won't work. It gets out of hand. There's NO writer in history out there who could keep a steady quality and intent throughout a long series. Surely not on a ten-book series. And even Martin, who wrote 4 books, has still to prove that the next 3 won't suck or derail all over the place (like some readers already think about the 4 book).

We have YET to see if all these delays are really bringing more quality. It's the hope of everyone, and the first excuse for things taking too long. But still completely unproven as a matter of facts.

An odd example I can make here is the japanese series Evangelion. Another extremely ambitious project deeply flawed and yet unique. They also ran out of time, they also worked fiendishly. Yet the kind of focus and deliberateness in what they did is unprecedented, and even now that they are trying to redo the whole thing with a lot of time&money they are failing to recapture the same kind of inspiration. Because what it is hard is not working for 10 years on something to make it look nice, what is hard is to find your focus and not exit your own mind for that time.

Werthead, on Oct 23 2009, 01.37, said:

In this case, Malazan is not only a failure, but a particularly annoying failure because its potential for greatness is absolutely gigantic.

The difference is that it is a "failure" in *your own opinion*. It's not a failure as a project. He planned the thing, and had it go in the way he wanted it to go. There's nothing "failing" in there beside what is subjective. You don't like it, fine.

ASoIaF is a failure as a project, outside of everything you can say about Martin as a writer. It's a project that went out of hand and that was poorly conceived in the first place.

[wolverine]

Shryke, on Oct 22 2009, 14.21, said:

HoC was the first one that was a bit "That was kinda dumb" and was a disappointment after MoI, but Midnight Tides I thought was one of the best in the series. And the Bonehunters was pretty good, if a bit random seeming at times. And then came Reaper's Gale, which was ok but not great and had alot of little things that annoyed me.

I also think that Midnight Tides was one of the best.  It seems like many Malazan diehards were not fans of that installment.  Many people talk about the series dropping off at the end, but I think the later books are fine, EXCEPT Toll the Hounds.

[End of Disc One]

wolverine, on Oct 23 2009, 09.42, said:

I also think that Midnight Tides was one of the best.  It seems like many Malazan diehards were not fans of that installment.

I've spent quite a bit of time on the Malazan forums, and I would say that MT is the third most popular book.  At least before DoD came out.  It's too early to tell how it will stand in the rankings.

[Twelve Angry Nonmen]

MoI is my favorite by far, you realize a whole lot more, how screwed over the Bridgeburners are, like how elite they are compared to other units, and how much iunno fate screwed them over, you realize how powerful Quick Ben really is, and you also start to get a sense of the whole story.

[Zach H]

I love Midnight Tides.  I think it might be one of my favorite Weird City stories along with Perdido and Shriek.

[Shryke]

Gormenghast, on Oct 23 2009, 10.38, said:

First: it is relevant for all the readers who followed you and see you not deliver the goods. It's plenty relevant for readers that wait for years and are following a story since 1996.

Second: Martin isn't realistically finishing the job. I'm sorry to say, but time and age are relevant even if you don't want to think they are. A series that is planned to go on for like 25 years is not something that makes sense, no matter how old and healthy you are. Martin isn't struggling to write the last book. He's struggling with the one barely halfway through. And this 13 years after the first, with another 10 years before we could see the end.

Third: time of production and the production itself is VERY RELEVANT. I don't think anyone can maintain an even quality doing "art" stretched over a period of 20 years. People change, writers change. Hopefully they improve, but they are still the product of their own time. Even if you write a book that is disconnected from your own time, your own time has an impact. All literature reflect its own time, even in the case it lasts its time.

Four: my idea about Erikson, again, is that his commitment improved the quality (not the timeline, but timeline != quality for me). Because it forced him to stay extremely focused in a kind of obsessive, totalizing, draining way. Which is why I say that a series of 10 books with the scope of the one Erikson made could only be done /that way/. Now Erikson isn't going to write another series of 10 books in 20 years instead of 10. He's writing a trilogy. Why? Because you can't write a 10-book series in 20 years. It won't work. It gets out of hand. There's NO writer in history out there who could keep a steady quality and intent throughout a long series. Surely not on a ten-book series. And even Martin, who wrote 4 books, has still to prove that the next 3 won't suck or derail all over the place (like some readers already think about the 4 book).

We have YET to see if all these delays are really bringing more quality. It's the hope of everyone, and the first excuse for things taking too long. But still completely unproven as a matter of facts.

An odd example I can make here is the japanese series Evangelion. Another extremely ambitious project deeply flawed and yet unique. They also ran out of time, they also worked fiendishly. Yet the kind of focus and deliberateness in what they did is unprecedented, and even now that they are trying to redo the whole thing with a lot of time&money they are failing to recapture the same kind of inspiration. Because what it is hard is not working for 10 years on something to make it look nice, what is hard is to find your focus and not exit your own mind for that time.


The difference is that it is a "failure" in *your own opinion*. It's not a failure as a project. He planned the thing, and had it go in the way he wanted it to go. There's nothing "failing" in there beside what is subjective. You don't like it, fine.

ASoIaF is a failure as a project, outside of everything you can say about Martin as a writer. It's a project that went out of hand and that was poorly conceived in the first place.

:lol:

That many words and all you said was "GRRM is taking to long. WAAAAHHH!!!".

[Guy Kilmore]

Shryke, on Oct 23 2009, 12.05, said:

:lol:

That many words and all you said was "GRRM is taking to long. WAAAAHHH!!!".

I am still amused that he is offering a critique on books that I do not think he has even read yet.

[Werthead]

Quote

Third: time of production and the production itself is VERY RELEVANT.

Really?

Does anyone care now, in 2009, that Lord of the Rings took 18 years to come out?

Quote

The difference is that it is a "failure" in *your own opinion*. It's not a failure as a project. He planned the thing, and had it go in the way he wanted it to go. There's nothing "failing" in there beside what is subjective. You don't like it, fine.

The Malazan Book of the Fallen was a project deliberately solicited to be a money-making series for Bantam UK. It was, literally, picked up to do the business for them that Wheel of Time did for Tor and Orbit. That's why they asked for 10 books when Erikson wasn't thinking about anywhere near that many and that's why they offered him such a colossal sum of money for it.

And, on that basis, it failed. It took until 2006 for the advance to be paid back, as far as can be told. It's now making money, it's doing okay. It's selling numbers most authors would kill for but, nevertheless, it's not doing anything even remotely like it was commissioned to do. Other authors and series launching just a couple of years ago have outsold Malazan in a far shorter period of time with far fewer books.

Artistically, Erikson failed when he agreed to do 10 books rather than however many he was first thinking of (three concentrating on Genabackis, I believe). Financially, the series has not hit its targets in the timespan preferred by Bantam.

Erikson was lucky in that Bantam doggedly stuck with him although it took significantly longer than expected for the series to make any money.

You also fail at reading comprehension. I like Malazan. I just don't think it's the second coming of epic fantasy like some others do, and I find the weaknesses and problems with the series have now reached the point where they cannot be swept under the rug as they could be with the earlier books because all the 'good stuff' was just so good. With the 'good stuff' now becoming increasingly rare and less coherently presented, the weak elements are simply standing up to scrutiny more and more, and cannot be easily ignored.

Quote

ASoIaF is a failure as a project, outside of everything you can say about Martin as a writer. It's a project that went out of hand and that was poorly conceived in the first place.

:lol:

Right.

Sorry, why is the most respected television company in the world pouring tens of millions of dollars into this poorly-conceived failure of a project then?