Erikson or Bakker

[Rhaco]

Yes, there are a few open ends that will carry on into The Aspect-Emperor, but the story will stand (mostly) on its own, as The Hobbit does in relation to LotR. In fact, that's the exact analogy Bakker has used for comparing PoN to the coming novels.

See, I think of The Hobbit and LOTR as being the same series. I think of Janny Wurts' Wars of Light & Shadow as one big series, not half a dozen separate series. I think of Erikson's Blood Follows, The Healthy Dead, and Midnight Tides as being a part of the same series, even though character crossover and even in some instances plot carryover with the other books is minimal. Etc.

[Myrddin]

I was going to pick up Erickson, until I heard that he planned 10 books in the series. I'll wait until all 10 are out. Glad to hear Bakker is doing his books in trilogy arcs. Much more manageable. I liked how Hobbs did that (a "series" of trilogies). And Terry Brooks, for that matter. Then I can read the book in 3-4 book chunks with satisfying stopping points if I don't want to continue indefinitely (I've read Brooks' original trilogy and following quadralogy, but none of the new ones).

After being strung out by Jordan for nearly 15 years (and to some extent Martin, though I don't mind as much), I'm sticking to finished series or confirmed trilogies or quadralogies.

If the last of Bakker's first "trilogy" is coming out soon, then I'll pick up PoN.

[Durckad]

I'd say Bakker... he's a better writer than Erikson in every way, his characters have much more depth, and his plots are all fairly complex (or involve complex motivations). He also incorporates a lot of the qualities of Erikson and Martin. His characters and plots are reminiscent of Martin, while his usage of magic (which, while rare, is a lot more plentiful than Martin, and more of the 'flash-bang' that Erikson uses a lot) and world-building reminds me a lot of Erikson.

If you get a chance, read them both as they offer the reader very different styles of storytelling, but read Bakker first. By the time you get done with the Prince of Nothing trilogy, Erikson will have 6 books out.

[Larry.]

I'll add one other thing about Bakker: His magic system is based on the philosophy of Martin Heidegger. The things authors tell reviewer/fans to get others to ponder even more!

But it actually is and it makes sense - there is some explanation of the gnosis in TTT, if I remember correctly, but I doubt just stating this is going to spoil anything, right?

[Arakasi]

I've not read the third book in the Bakker series yet, but has the no god been defeated yet? If not then the story isn't over. So what if he breaks it into arcs. Erikson does that too. Comparing it to something like Hobb is disengenious. You could take the Assassin's series and have it be completely standalone. From what I know of Bakker's trilogy, it isn't the same thing.

[Larry.]

But has the No-God even arisen? It just depends on how things are defined. The PoN sequence is over, end of question there. Are there other stories within that universe to come? Yes, most certainly. And why are we continuing to quibble? That's what I'd like to know.

[nobodymN]

I've not read the third book in the Bakker series yet, but has the no god been defeated yet?

I didn't receive any information that states that this series ends with defeat of the No-God. It's making up an ending to suits ones argument. It's like me saying the series doesn't end until, Kelhuss gives up his pursuits to focus on mastering SU DO KU. It's irrelevant. I could easily just say The Holy War is over - thus the series is over. I have no grounds to make that claim just like no one else has one to say the defeat of the No-God signifies the ensing of the series called The Prince of Nothing, which is 3 books long, and thus is over. This is checkers not chess.

Are all of the Stephen King's books that contain some form of Flagg, part of Dark Tower? Your debating what you think and what is fact - The Prince of Nothing, as a series is completed - there is no argument. Bring on The Aspect Emperor.

F You could take the Assassin's series and have it be completely standalone. From what I know of Bakker's trilogy, it isn't the same thing.

I didn't bring up Hobb at all, but I would say you would be wrong. The Prince of Nothing tells the story of Holy War. It's over. The Saga of the Second Apocalypse isn't over, but The Prince of Nothing certainly is. Am I making this up? Scott's own words:

- Many moons ago, I had conceived ‘The Prince of Nothing’ as the first book in a greater trilogy called ‘The Second Apocalyps’e. It quickly became apparent that it needed to be a trilogy itself - and given the fact that some twenty years pass between it and the events of ‘The Aspect-Emperor’, it stands quite well on its own,

Thanks for participating. That's too flippant thus I take it back for the sake of healthy discussion and with apologies.

[Calibandar]

Arakasi

Jay and Dylan are right, when TTT comes out, Bakker's Prince of Nothing series is finished. Unlike Erikson, who has one big series of ten books called "The Malazan book of the Fallen", The Prince of Nothing trilogy stands on its own, does not require further books to be read.

If Erikson were to stop now, five books in, we'd have a dozen major plotlines left unfinished. Clearly there is a far bigger difference between the "finished state" of Bakker's and Erikson's books than what you would have us believe, which is that it is supposedly just a matter of naming.

Yes, Bakker may do further series in the future. But Prince of Nothing is only part of that in the greater sense of being set in the same world. It is not the same series. Hence, the first new duology that Bakker plans to write has a totally different name, that being "Aspect Emperor".

Unless of course your definition of a series differs from what is commonly accepted, and you feel that everything written about a certain world is one big series?

[Crannogman]

I'll add another vote for Bakker.

Erikson is fun, but for me it never became believable. Even his much-lauded battles were so over the top I never did really become immersed. Still, I think it makes a nice change from all the magic-lite stuff I read.

Bakker is one of the greats as far as I'm concerned. His characters are intruiging. (and frequently disturbing.) His world isn't as vast as Erikson's, nor as original, but it's more comprehensible and more believable. Bakker's prose is better too. Erikson's skill is uneven, though it improves in later books.

Most importantly, Bakker succeeds in making me care about his world and characters. I want to know whether Shimeh will fall, whether Kellhus will succeed, what Moengus' plans are. Erikson only rarely does this to me... I cared about Felisin, but Whiskeyjack and company leave me lukewarm, and I never ever want to read about Kruppe again.

Finally, Bakker's work is the more thought provoking. It was written by a philosopher after all... his interviews are also highly recommended reading. The ones on Wotmania are particularly excellent.

[Larry.]

Thanks for the plug for those interviews we've done! I would recommend any interview that Scott's done, as he's the one that makes them go. There was one recently done where he bags on Goodkind. I copy/pasted it in a response near the end of the Goodkind thread still active here. Great reading!

[nobodymN]

here was one recently done where he bags on Goodkind.

I have to check that out!

[Larry.]

Here's the link to the interview. I think it's close to halfway down.

[Arakasi]

Well considering that the no god and his minions were set up from the start of the first book as the main bad guys, then yeah I think its quite valid that saying until they're taken care of the series isn't over. Back before Martin changed his 5 year gap thing would you have said that the series was complete? So what of the others that were still around. The rebellion was over, the battles of the kings were over. Thus the series was complete by teh same logic. That is obviously false.

I feel the Hobb ones are self contained series because they do wrap everything up. So is Eddings work, or Feists works. But if the No God and his minions who have been setup since book 1 page 1 as the main villian aren't taken care of, then the series isn't over, no matter how Bakker subdivides it. It is just like Martin's works aren't over even though originally the 5 year gap would have done the same exact thing as Bakker. Finished a lot of plotlines and left things for further down the road.

Edit:

I didn't receive any information that states that this series ends with defeat of the No-God. It's making up an ending to suits ones argument. It's like me saying the series doesn't end until, Kelhuss gives up his pursuits to focus on mastering SU DO KU. It's irrelevant. I could easily just say The Holy War is over - thus the series is over. I have no grounds to make that claim just like no one else has one to say the defeat of the No-God signifies the ensing of the series called The Prince of Nothing, which is 3 books long, and thus is over. This is checkers not chess.

Of course the series doesn't have to end with the defeat of the No-God. Just like Martin's series doesn't have to end with the defeat of the Others and Erikson's with the defeat of the Crippled God. But your argument you're using here is ridiculous. No need to get in to silly arguments like that. I think it is fairly easy to see though that the series can't end until the main villian is defeated or handled in some way. Thus while a series can end way after the villian is defeated (Dunnett is a great example here as the villian dies in book 4 but the series goes 2 more books), the villian must be defeated/handled before the series can end. If Martin finished ASOIAF leaving the Others not taken care of I'd be pissed. Just like if similarily it happened with teh No-God or the Crippled God. I can use your exact same argument to argue that Martin's series is over after book 3 because the battle of the kings is over and Westeros is mostly united. Obviously its not and obviously Bakker's isn't either.

[Werthead]

Not too sure about the Feist comparison. The Mad God is revealed as the main villain behind the whole Midkemian saga in Rage of a Demon King, yet here we are two-and-a-half series later (Serpentwar, Conclave, Darkwar) and he's still undefeated. On the other hand, Feist does have books that are set in the same world with absolutely no involvement with the 'main' storyline (the Mad God etc).

Can't comment (yet) on Bakker, but I'll take Dylanfanatic and co.'s word that the PoN is self-contained enough to read without worrying about the sequel series.

[Rhaco]

- Many moons ago, I had conceived ‘The Prince of Nothing’ as the first book in a greater trilogy called ‘The Second Apocalyps’e. It quickly became apparent that it needed to be a trilogy itself - and given the fact that some twenty years pass between it and the events of ‘The Aspect-Emperor’, it stands quite well on its own,

Doesn't this support both positions, though? I mean, the first sentence says PON is the first part of a greater series. I fully expect PON to be mostly self-contained, sure, but it's still part of something greater, which is all some of us are saying.

[Arakasi]

Pretty much. And it was fully intended in both the writing and by interviews with the author that it was so. Its very clear there will be more stuff. While in stuff like Hobb, you can't really say at the end of the Assasin's book that there was stuff left to do. She continued by the books by introducing new threats and plots.

[Larry.]

I'll clarify a bit:

The Eärwa novels appear to be set up to be akin to that of the two Star Wars trilogies. There's a similar difference in time elapsed (around 20-25 years), the main enemy floating between the two, a bit of open-endedness at the end of one as to what will happen next in the following installment. A few characters are in common, but the basic theme differs somewhat. So PoN is complete - its purpose has been achieved. It is complete.

Or perhaps Tolkien provides another example with the relationships between the Silmarillion stories, The Hobbit, and LotR. All parts of a greater story, yet mostly self-contained, yet with a few links in-between. But The Hobbit is complete into itself and so is LotR. In a similar fashion, PoN is complete into itself. While the ending will serve to provide a launch into The Aspect-Emperor, PoN's momentum is complete, its story has been told.

[nobodymN]

Well considering that the no god and his minions were set up from the start of the first book as the main bad guys, then yeah I think its quite valid that saying until they're taken care of the series isn't over. Back before Martin changed his 5 year gap thing would you have said that the series was complete? So what of the others that were still around. The rebellion was over, the battles of the kings were over. Thus the series was complete by teh same logic. That is obviously false.

I can't believe this is an argument. The Prince of Nothing is completed - period. Any debate otherwise is personal fancy. It's a trilogy, it's called The Prince of Nothing, 3 books have been written that traditionaly make up a trilogy by every definition I'm aware of - this is open and shut.

Bakker would no have to write another book in this setting to finalize the conflcit in this book. The fact that he chooses to write another series in the same setting doesn't change the fact that his first series is over, and is complete.

Doesn't this support both positions, though? I mean, the first sentence says PON is the first part of a greater series. I

The greater series which isn't called The Prince of Nothing - which is complete - which is IMHO the greatest completed series in epic fantasy. I'm still not seeing how the idea of a trilogy ending after 3 books, one that is self contained, and according to the author and the only people who have read the final book is even being debated. My quote offered cements the fact that Bakker states the Prince of Nothing is stand-alone. Any other opinion, particularly from those who haven't even finished The Prince of Nothing is at the very least, complete conjecture.

While in stuff like Hobb, you can't really say at the end of the Assasin's book that there was stuff left to do. She continued by the books by introducing new threats and plots.

The plot in Bakker's existing series revolves around the Holy War and Kelhuss' quest to find his father. That story has been told. That is the story, that is the conflict - The Thousandfold Thought brings those storylines to an end. It's over.

If any don't believe trilogy is 3 books, or an author doesn't have the right to write a seperate series in the same setting, or feel the need to refuse the opinion of people who have actually finsihed the series, or think they decide themsevles - contrary to the author - what resolved conflict brings a series to an end, they are more than welcome to do so and whatever optimizes their reading enjoyment. We can call it a difference of opinion for the sake of forum edicate. I really have nothing else to offer, so the discussion can continue without any of my crazy leaps of faith.

[Brys]

The best way to see it is probably similar to Mieville's Bas-Lag books. The PON trilogy is one of those books, set in Earwa, equivalent to Perdido Street Station. The Aspect Emperor is another, equivalent to the Scar. The two are slightly interlinked, but you can easily read one without the other. If there is a sensible conclusion (even if it isn't the conclusion you want - remember that Bakker is writing this, not you), then the series is over. Like Feist's Riftwar series was clearly complete after a Darkness at Sethanon. There were some plotlines which could still be explored, but no one doubts that it's a series in itself and that the other books don't have to be read.

[Arakasi]

I can't believe this is an argument. The Prince of Nothing is completed - period

No actually the author has said the series is not complete. This part of it is, but its an artificial division he made. Look at Rhaco's quote. So your argument is that if its called something by the author thats what it is? It was a trilogy (which you call a series) which he said in his own words that one book wasn't enough to tell the first part of the trilogy. Thus he made it 3 books and gave it its own trilogy name. All the while you continue to ignore the fact that the author himself said it was a trilogy. Last time I checked a trilogy was a series, so by your very own logic you lose. What is different between Bakker saying that this trilogy or his needed to be expanded in the first book to 3 there compared to what Martin has done with his where similarily the books have expanded. The only difference is that Bakker labelled his a trilogy. Maybe ADWD and AFFC should be a duology, but that still doesn't mean its not part of the overall asoiaf storyline, just as Bakker's are with his.

Bakker would no have to write another book in this setting to finalize the conflcit in this book. The fact that he chooses to write another series in the same setting doesn't change the fact that his first series is over, and is complete.

Once again you're wrong by Bakker's own very words. He said he originally planned a trilogy. He then says that the first book of the trilogy needed to be one itself. He never chose to write more books after this like Hobb did. He intended from the very beginning to write this overall series. All he did was expand the first book into 3 books. When Hobb first wrote her stuff, did she plan the 3 trilogy story of Assasins, Farseer and Tawny Man? No she didn't. She wrote the first and then so on. Just because the original trilogy is mostly self contained doesn't say much. Plenty of series have self contained parts. Even Midnight Tides is pretty much self contained. Bujold is another author who does that, as the Cordelia stuff is different from the Miles but still in the same series.

If any don't believe trilogy is 3 books, or an author doesn't have the right to write a seperate series in the same setting, or feel the need to refuse the opinion of people who have actually finsihed the series, or think they decide themsevles - contrary to the author - what resolved conflict brings a series to an end, they are more than welcome to do so and whatever optimizes their reading enjoyment.

Once again the same tired thing. There is something completely different from writing series in the same setting as compared to artificially breaking down a series into components. And what is this contrary to the author stuff you talk about? Did you miss the part where Bakker himself said he thought of the idea to write a trilogy (the overall trilogy which has since been broken into 7 books) and then decided to break it down? Or have you completely missed the point where he talked about this?

As for Brys's point, I've read Mieville and I'd have to disagree. There is no overarching world villian in his work like the No God, which impacts the overall things. Sure the two books share the same world, but they were never envisioned as a series by the writer, just as standalones. And Bakker unlike China told us in an interview that he thought of an original trilogy, 2 of which parts of have not been revealed yet.