[Eurytus]

I have to admit that much as I love ASOIAF I no longer have much, if any, faith that it will ever be complete.
The degree to which the releases are slowing down is extremely worrying. I mean supposedly Feast of Crows was the real problem one taking 5 years to complete and when it was complete, since it was originally one book that was split, we were led to believe that a lot of work on A Dance With Dragons had already been done. Despite that it looks as if ADWD will take as long or perhaps even longer than FOC to come out.
We might hope that because both these novels cover this problematic 5 year gap that later novels will come out faster but with the way Martin adds on side projects and with the TV series I see no reason to hope that. Probably in the best case scenario we will have waited 20 years from beginning to end to read the whole story and that's pretty damned long. It could easily be more than that.

Assuming the TV series does well and is commissioned quite possibly the TV series will catch up with the novels, and what will happen then?

[Werthead]

Eurytus, on Oct 24 2009, 02.04, said:

Assuming the TV series does well and is commissioned quite possibly the TV series will catch up with the novels, and what will happen then?

This has been debated, ad nauseum, in the TV show forum, which is where it can continue.

However, the simple and I'd have thought rather obvious answer is that GRRM gives the TV writers an outline and we see the end of the series on TV before it appears in print. Ideal? No. But I really don't see how else it would be handled. The aging of the younger actors would seem to preclude simply waiting several years between seasons. But as I said, if you want to get into that discussion, take it over to the TV General Discussion forum.

We also still have at least one (if not more) Erikson versus GRRM threads which is really not what this specific topic is all about, so it might be an idea to resurrect that than continue to take this one off-topic.

This post has been edited by Werthead: 23 October 2009 - 08:24 PM

[Jurble]

Let's try something different: Bakker, he pumps books out fairly quick, and quality doesn't drop.

[Gormenghast]

Werthead, on Oct 24 2009, 02.11, said:

In another 12+ years when all 22 books are out and all the story arcs begun back in Gardens of the Moon, Memories of Ice and House of Chains are finally completed (some of them by another writer, mind), sure.



And so does Malazan. There's a hell of a long way to go yet.

You still don't think the series finishes with The Crippled God though, do you?

Yes, I do. The series is over. It is 10 volumes.

In the same way LotR is complete and realized without The Hobbit or The Silmarillion.
In the same way The Prince of Nothing is complete and realized without The Aspect-Emperor.
In the same way The First Law is complete and realized without Best Served Cold.
In the same way the Night's Dawn trilogy is complete and realized even if one day Hamilton may write a sequel.

If Erikson starts a new trilogy and doesn't finish it, it will be that trilogy to not be realized, not everything else.

And no, I don't believe in your largely guessed reconstruction of history.

[Paxter]

Gormenghast, on Oct 24 2009, 11.43, said:

In the same way The Prince of Nothing is complete and realized without The Aspect-Emperor.

I can't speak for the some of the other series mentioned, but I don't think anyone could really say that Bakker's story is "complete and realised" by the end of the Prince of Nothing. The story that Bakker is weaving is the Second Apocalypse. Kellhus' seizing of the Three Seas is merely a precursor to greater events. Much in the same way that Ned's death in AGoT is a precursor to the War of the Five Kings that unfolds in later books.

It is simplistic to say that an author's work is "complete and realised" simply because a trilogy or named series of books is over. Substance should prevail over form.

This post has been edited by Paxter: 23 October 2009 - 10:51 PM

[keithweed]

End of Disc One, on Oct 22 2009, 10.01, said:

You're right I shouldn't have gone there, considering what board I'm on. I'm definitely not going to convince anyone here.

I was convinced a long time ago.
I'd rather have a book in a long series come out fast than not come out at all.
Erikson is a fantasy author,he's not trying to get in the New Yorker and hang out with literati,if the original poster likes epic sword & sorcery fantasy,they'll love Erkson imo.

[Arthmail]

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?

This is what i heard. Martin caught the CEO of the production company with another man's dick in his mouth in an airport in New Jersey, and said: "I've got you by the balls, motherfucker, i've got you by the balls."

True story.

Jurble: Hard to compare Bakker to either author. Martin has a number of projects on the go, while Erikson pushes out a collasal 1000 pages nearly every book.

Side note, anyone know if in his contract Erikson was forced to write his novels so fucking long? I think a number of problems that he had could have been cleared up by cutting the books in half and doing careful redrafts. There are simply too many threads.

If Erikson starts a new trilogy and doesn't finish it, it will be that trilogy to not be realized, not everything else.
And no, I don't believe in your largely guessed reconstruction of history.

How can it be over, when there are so many plot points remaining? (As a side note, i've always thought that Erikson's "this is a war, and i'm putting the reader right in the middle of it", is a bit of a failure, story wise. Failing to explain half of what is going on in the book, in that book, and waiting for a number of subsequent books to do so is retarded. Creating a coherent backbone to his books is something that Erikson has failed at, in my opinion, and i find alot of people that defend the book go through some pretty intense mental gymnastics to justify certain plot threads)
Also, from what i have been able to gleen over the last few years, Werthead is somehow and mysteriously connected with some of what is going on...in other words, he knows STUFF. Hang around a bit, get a sense of that perhaps, before you start spewing shit. I mean, yea, you can't take everyone's word on things, but putting your head up your ass and then asking the question rarely works. Everything just ends up tasting like poo.


I like both authors. But Erikson has burned me out, for a number of reasons. His endless badass characters, some truly monumentally boring plot threads, constant theme and story changes, sometimes even during the middle of a book. His inability to even partly explain some of what the hell is going on, instead just assuming that the reader is going to remember relevant plot points from six books back. I'll give his books another chance, for sure...sometime.

As for Martin, he too has burned me out. Glacial publishing pace has left me cold, while his last book in the series contained almost none of the characters that i like, and the book, for whatever reason, felt subpar. I have all but given up on Martin getting the next book published...but that being said, i'll still buy his books. Whenever they get out.

Both authors have their failings, and their strengths. Both suck compared to Gemmell.

Sigh, i miss you Gemmell.

This post has been edited by Arthmail: 24 October 2009 - 02:42 AM

[polishgenius]

Why do people still argue with Gormenghast? I thought it was established that he hasn't close to finished either series and therefore doesn't actually know what he's talking about.

[Arthmail]

I wasn't aware that he hadn't read either series. Now i know.


But sometimes i just want to argue.

[kungtotte]

So does Gormenghast.

You should've seen the previous threads about Malazan, ASOIAF, Erikson or GRRM (or any combination of those four topics)... :)

[Guy Kilmore]

polishgenius, on Oct 24 2009, 03.04, said:

Why do people still argue with Gormenghast? I thought it was established that he hasn't close to finished either series and therefore doesn't actually know what he's talking about.

If I remember correctly he never finished a Game of Thrones nor has he gotten past book 3, if I am wrong on this I will cry mea culpa, so at this point his opinion, while passionate, is rather dubious and uneducated.

[Werthead]

Gormenghast, on Oct 24 2009, 04.43, said:

Yes, I do. The series is over. It is 10 volumes.

No, it is not.

Facts are stubborn things. They do not change because you hiss and stamp your feet like a petulent child.

The Malazan Book of the Fallen, the ten-book series, is one story arc in the history of this world. That history has now been extended by the six-volume Novels of the Malazan Empire series by Ian Cameron Esslemont, the three-volume Kharkanas Trilogy by Steven Erikson and the three-volume Toblakai Trilogy by Steven Erikson. These together form one inarguable 22-volume story.

There will be closure in The Crippled God for the Crippled God storyline and I'm guessing the Bonehunters. Pretty much everything else will be left unresolved, unless the book comes in at three thousand pages in length or something. There is simply not enough time for all the other major storylines to be resolved. And we have already seen major, core storylines from the series, including ones that began in Gardens of the Moon, developed and resolved in Return of the Crimson Guard, a book by a different author in a different sub-series.

Quote

In the same way The Prince of Nothing is complete and realized without The Aspect-Emperor.

As in, not at all?

Excellent! We are on the same page after all and you are not a crazed troll as everyone previously thought! Hallaleujah!

Quote

And no, I don't believe in your largely guessed reconstruction of history.

That would be the largely guessed reconstruction backed up by the link I gave above? And backed up by five years spent debating the series on Malazanempire, and a discussion with Steven Erikson himself? And by interviewing him along with Pat and Larry for our blogs? And by constructing the semi-official Malazan world map on the official website which met with his approval?

And by, you know, actually reading all nine books, six of them twice, plus the two by Esslemont, and not basically making up arguments based purely on internet hearsay?

Right.

The author has, in his own words, said many times that major, integral storylines in his series will not be resolved by him in this series, but by Esslemont in future books, or by himself in the future sequel trilogy. The 10-book arc is solely about the Crippled God and that is it. Everything else, including major storylines established in Gardens of the Moon like Tattersail, Laseen, Tayschrenn and the ultimate fate of the T'lan Imass, is up for grabs in future books and future series.

This isn't even a hypothesis. This has happened already on a huge scale, as shown in Return of the Crimson Guard which picked up on major storylines, brought about huge geopolitical changes in the world and developed major characters - and in some cases killed them off - from the existing Erikson novels.

Quote

Why do people still argue with Gormenghast?

Because I am an eternal optimist who is incapable of honestly believing that people actually persist in believing inaccurate information purely out of stubborness. You'd have thought that years of dealing with the BS people make up about ADWD would have taught me otherwise, but I guess not.

This post has been edited by Werthead: 24 October 2009 - 11:53 AM

[kungtotte]

As long as it doesn't devolve into a flame-fest, it's good that someone points out the things you do, Werthead. I'm pretty sure most people on this forum have a clue, but you never know when a new face will show up and they might end up believing Gormenghast's version of things unless someone puts the facts on the table.


Also: Oh snap!

[Errant Bard]

Werthead, on Oct 24 2009, 18.50, said:

The Malazan Book of the Fallen, the ten-book series, is one story arc in the history of this world. That history has now been extended

Not that I agree with Gormenghast, but I think that his stance is mirroring that of Erikson's on history, that is that it has no beginning and no end, and you can only recount what happened in selected space/time slices, kinda like if you cover world's history during 1929, it ties with both world wars, but you won't be saying anything about that. Thus, if the author says the series is complete at the ten books mark, it is complete, because it can never be complete in the sense you, Wert, mean anyway, no matter the number of books on the subject.

Seeing that on top of that Gormenghast has explicitly expressed the view that plot, consistency or worldbuilding were totally accessory and irrelevant compared to theme exploration, the arguments you offer do not seem to be able to ever convince him.

[Werthead]

Errant Bard, on Oct 24 2009, 18.41, said:

Not that I agree with Gormenghast, but I think that his stance is mirroring that of Erikson's on history, that is that it has no beginning and no end, and you can only recount what happened in selected space/time slices, kinda like if you cover world's history during 1929, it ties with both world wars, but you won't be saying anything about that. Thus, if the author says the series is complete at the ten books mark, it is complete, because it can never be complete in the sense you, Wert, mean anyway, no matter the number of books on the subject.

Yes and no. If you sat down and wrote WWII as a story, you could start in September 1939 or at Munich or at Hitler's coming to power in 1933 or in the failed Munich revolution or before WWI. All would be equally valid, and you'd have to explain some of the backstory whatever you did.

What I'm talking about is if someone started writing a series of books in WWII, developed say Stalin as a major character for five books, and then completely dropped him in mid-stream, with no plot or thematic resolution, and said the series was complete, but there was going to be more books later featuring him and what he got up to later on, and tried to sell the remaining story as 'complete' although a major protagonist's story arc, begun and thoroughly developed already, was missing its thematic or plot resolution. That would be, to put it kindly, bullshit.

The Kharkanas trilogy, a prequel focusing on Rake and Kharkanas, would seem to fit this goal of an optional extra story just set in the same world (aside from the fact that significant chunks of TBH, RG, TTH and DoD, not to mention almost all of Nimander's storyline, are used to set it up, which clouds the issue). Night of Knives is definitely in that bracket as well. The Toblakai trilogy is not, and neither are Esslemont's later books based on the information we have at the moment. They are as integeral to the story and the series as any of the ten 'main' books. Return of the Crimson Guard is a much more significant book in exploring and furthering character, story and themes from the events of Deadhouse Gates, House of Chains and The Bonehunters than any of Erikson's later books. It is a more important and integral volume of the over-arcing storyline than Toll the Hounds (which, one event aside, seems to solely exist to set up this other material), that is certain.

[Errant Bard]

Werthead, on Oct 24 2009, 20.21, said:

Yes and no. If you sat down and wrote WWII as a story, you could start in September 1939 or at Munich or at Hitler's coming to power in 1933 or in the failed Munich revolution or before WWI. All would be equally valid, and you'd have to explain some of the backstory whatever you did.

What I'm talking about is if someone started writing a series of books in WWII, developed say Stalin as a major character for five books, and then completely dropped him in mid-stream, with no plot or thematic resolution, and said the series was complete

I don't know about any need to explain anything, as it's definitely not Erikson's style. Backstory, what backstory? The characters and the world are about one inch deep and the most beloved of them all is actually loved because of things Erikson didn't write. I actually think he said in an interview that plunging in the action without backstory and showing that history wasn't a single thread you could tie at the end is what he aimed for. Maybe I misremember.

You are asserting he has to do certain things for it to make sense, and I think it's that idea that doesn't jive. I'm actually surprised that after all these books, you still think Erikson is willing to write a story that ties everything up, that he will do it or that he thinks a real story should have all plotlines tied. If he was able to do that, MBOTF would be like, 4 books long, each about 300 pages long. I mean, you're talking as if, I don't know, Buffy needed Angel to be considered complete, or X-Men could be complete with some story about Magneto written on the side... (I get that you consider these side stories to be integral to what you see as the central plot of the ten books crippled god storyline, but there is so much stuff in these ten books, can they not stand on their own? Not like the books don't run on stuff happening for no reason without explanation to begin with, or that any sequel is going to change that)

Moving on, I think Gormenghast would argue there is thematic resolution, since each book is pretty standalone in its central thematic (or at least that's what he argued last time), and that, once again, plot doesn't matter (didn't he say it in this very thread, in response to criticism about it?).

If you manage to demonstrate that there will be some unclosed thematic after the tenth book, I suppose you might have his ear, but hammering about plot or character arcs? He doesn't even care about internal consistency, why should an argument relying on continuity hold any meaning for him?


Well, whatever, not like you can convince a fanatic who hasn't read the scriptures that you interpretation of them is correct anyway.

This post has been edited by Errant Bard: 24 October 2009 - 04:22 PM

[Guy Kilmore]

Errant Bard, on Oct 24 2009, 16.07, said:

Well, whatever, not like you can convince a fanatic who hasn't read the scriptures that you interpretation of them is correct anyway.

But, but, but windmills are fun to tilt at!

[keithweed]

IMO Erikson is an excellent world builder so I enjoy the long series and long books.His characters aren't on the level of Martin's,but are still good.If you compare his series to Jordan's(seeing they both have about the same number of books and long page counts)I'd say Erikson's have a lot less filler and are better paced and plotted,while being written in much less time.

This post has been edited by keithweed: 25 October 2009 - 03:19 AM

[Werthead]

Well that went exactly as I thought it was going to.

1) Gormenghast makes a battery of dubious claims which are thoroughly refuted with evidence.
2) Gormenghast then claims the sky is green and becomes irate when others do not accept this.
3) Gormenghast abandons any attempt at reasoned debate and launches a furious and unacceptable tirade of personal abuse against a moderator.

I am now predicting 4) Gormeghast plays the martyr and whines about moderators abusing their powers or something.

It's like Groundhog Day. Only much stupider and less entertaining.

[Nerdanel]

Re: themes, I think Erikson's cycling of themes is a good thing. If he had stuck to a single theme for ten thousand pages it would have been a nightmare to avoid it getting repetitive, like Gemmell. Instead, Erikson has been mostly exploring different aspects of the greater "family" theme, or more broadly the aspects of the "ingroup/outgroup" theme as seen on different scales of society.