Erikson or Bakker

[nobodymN]

Now you're arguing The Prince of Nothing is not a series? If you take that stance, this is a debate I can win without need to say anymore.

For all the children out there:

The Prince of Nothing is a trilogy, a 3-part series, which is indeed part of a bigger sequence chronicling the second apocalypse. Like all trilogies, it ends after the third book, completeing the series called The Prince of Nothing, the first of Bakker's series'.

This does not mean Bakker will never write in the setting again, this does not mean we will never see the characters again, this does not mean anything - except The Prince of Nothing is finished - which is the only fact that maters in this discussion, and the next books won't be called The Prince of Nothing.

These are all facts - they are no disuptable. Without mentioning any other series, hypothesis, authors or anything else - what exactly are you disputing?

My definition of 'series'? If you're debating the difference in the veracity bewteeen me saying this is the best trilogy I have ever read inepic fantasy instead of the best series, you're arguing simply for the sake of arguing.

The Prince of Nothing is completed - this is fact. Are you disputing that? What are you disputing except the fact that you're wrong?

If anybody notices any relevant proof offered that The Prince of Nothing i s not a series, or not finished, please PM me as I will come back to fully apologize, otherwise, I'm not interested in championing the obvious - it's neither amusing or offering any insight I don't already have about the series.

I apologize to the thread starter for playing role in sidetracking a worthy thread discussing what are IMHO 2 outstanding authors and won't participate in doing so any longer nor even follow the thread.

[Calibandar]

Arak,

Bakker has said that Prince of Nothing is a trilogy. Three books are now just about released, which theoretically completes the trilogy. On this we should at least agree, unless you feel that a trilogy is in fact not a series of three books.

How about in practicality? Your argument is that, since he had introduced the subplot (or grand, overarching threat) of Mog Pharau and that isn't resolved within PoN, the trilogy is not a completed series.

Prince of Nothing does stand on its own as a series, however it is the first trilogy in what may turn out to be three trilogies. The overarching plot of Mog Pharau will be played out in those later books, since in this trilogy it's role is that of a background factor. However, many of the plotlines started in "The Darkness" will supposedly be resolved by the end of TTT, so why does the fact that the overarching threat of the No God is not resolved mean that the trilogy as a whole is not a conlcued trilogy?

After all, PON is largely about Kellhus journeying to find his father, is it not? Tied in to that is the grand story of the Holy War. As we have gathered, these two main storylines will be resolved.

Aren't you in fact saying , that if a series does not tie up all its plotlines, it is never a concluded series?

So if Jordan finishes book XII of the Wheel of Time, but leaves one or two plotlines unresolved, which he may or may not resolve in a later novella, Wheel of Time is also unfinished? This seems like a very confused way of thinking to me.

I think the more accurate description for PoN is that of a finished trilogy which leaves room for sequels. You know, like so many finished trilogies written by Feist, or Tad Williams, or Robin Hobb. Hobb's Tawny Man is a finished series, but clearly there is room for a sequel if she decides to write one. For many readers, that prospect is very tantalizing.

[Eurytus]

This argument is a waste of time. Bakkers trilogy will be finished when the next book is released. End of story.

Whether you class other books set within the same world as connected to it is totally and utterly irrelevant. That series will be finished.

And since this point originally came up because Bakker's series was recommended as something that could be read as a finished work by the original poster your picking apart of terminology is not relevant in the slightest.

The original poster can soon read Bakker's trilogy as a finished work. There is no argument about this whatsoever.

The same cannot be said of Erikson. And I find it interesting that the people who defend plot holes and inconsistencies in Erikson's works by saying "you have to read the later books, it will all be revealed in the end" etc, are now claiming that they can be read as stand alone works.

Talk about having your cake and eating it.

[Rhaco]

PON is obviously finished; no one is arguing that it isn't.

However, PON is, as Bakker himself says, merely the expanded first book in a greater trilogy. This greater trilogy is obviously unfinished -- that which PON is a part of is unfinished. Bakker's great story is only begun by PON. This is all some of us are arguing.

It's not a big deal and it's certainly no slight to Bakker.

[Werthead]

On this we should at least agree, unless you feel that a trilogy is in fact not a series of three books.

Well, Douglas Adams ('a trilogy in five parts') and Robert Rankin ('a trilogy in seven parts') would argue with you there

This seems like a fairly nonsensical debate. Quoting Star Wars doesn't really help either (Lucas has said that the theme of Star Wars is the rise, fall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker, which only takes place when the six instalments are viewed as one).

From the Bakker quotes above, it seems that he is flat-out saying that The Darkness That Comes Before, The Warrior-Prophet and The Thousandfold Thought comprise Books 1-3 of the 3-volume trilogy, The Prince of Nothing. They also comprise Books 1-3 of the 7-volume series, The Second Apocalypse. What will be interesting (and may effect the position taken by Jay and others) is whether The Aspect-Emperor will stand alone, or if you will need to have read The Prince of Nothing to understand it fully. I think in an interview he flat-out said that The Prince of Nothing is needed to understand the second series (I'm sure I've even seen someone with a sig which is a quote from the books, "To understand what is to come, you need to know what has gone before" or somesuch).

I'm sure that PoN is complete in and of itself, in the same way you don't need to read Lord of the Rings after reading The Silmarillion, although there are a few loose ends left dangling. However, equally saying that PoN is part of a much larger overarcing series seems to be valid, as we know there are 4 more books to come in the same setting. IF the No-God is the principal villain or opponent of the series, than the story is not over until the No-God storyline is concluded. If the No-God storyline doesn't even begin in PoN (in the same way the Mad God storyline which arguably is the driving force behind Feist's Midkemian Saga doesn't begin until the third volume of the second trilogy and the eighth book in the series overall), then PoN can be said to stand alone.

And I haven't even read the PoN!

[Arakasi]

Werthead said it better than I could. The overall series is not complete. Thus this work is not a completed work. Simple as that. Werthead is right. The first 3 books will be needed to understand the last 4. With Farseer thats not even the case.

As for Eurytus's comment, yes the little mysteries of the world are explained and revealed as the series goes on. However for all intents and purposes each book is self contained. Lets look at DG. The Chain of Dogs story is complete and no cliffhangers there. So is the Icarium and Mappo storyline. So is Kalam searching for the Empress. This is much different from someone like Martin, who constantly ends his books with cliffhangers. The fact that Erikson has been able to jump around the world from book to book and do it successfully shows that the books are mostly self contained. Just like Cali and Jay and others have been arguing here, the fight against the Crippled God goes on, but in MOI for example the battle against the Pannin Domin is completely over. Just like in Bakker the struggle against the No God continues, but the story of Kelhus and the crusade is over.

How about in practicality? Your argument is that, since he had introduced the subplot (or grand, overarching threat) of Mog Pharau and that isn't resolved within PoN, the trilogy is not a completed series.

Nope what I'm saying is that Bakker said he comes up with a series idea. Its about the Second Apocalypse. This completed trilogy is the first part of that series. Bakker has said that. What you guys are getting confused is story with arcs. This arc of the story is done, and yes many parts of it are self contained. The story itself isn't done. And to differentiate why this is so much different from Feist, Hobb, etc. Those authors just continued writing in the same world. (Feist to the detriment of it imo). Bakker himself has said that his story will be 7 books, of which this 3 is the first arc of it. Thus I'm boggled how one can say this is the greatest epic completed? Its not complete! Bakker himself has said so! And Werthead is right. I extemely doubt the next duology will be standalone. You'll need to read the first three to comprehend whats going on.

Aren't you in fact saying , that if a series does not tie up all its plotlines, it is never a concluded series?

Nope I'm not saying that Cali. Please don't put words in my mouth. In epic fantasy quite often books have the main villian. The evil baddies. Even more non conventional ones like Martin have it in the Others. Tolkien had Sauron, Williams had his evil elfie dude (forgot his name), Jordan the Dark One, Fionavar with Rakoth (sp?), Erikson the Crippled God, Bakker the No God and so on. Usually this villian is behind the scenes causing all sorts of threats and issues for the world and the protagonists. Now this doesn't have to be the only villian, and its true there are plenty of others in all these works. But I've yet to see a work finish without resolving the conflict with the bad guy, whether it is defeat, imprisonment, banishment or heck just a change of mind from the bad guy. For these series to be complete that needs to be done. So sure Jordan can leave a lot of stuff unfinished, and I'm fine with that. Too often worlds just tie everything up so it looks like everything of any consequence has been done and from now til the end of time there will be no more villians and just happy rosy times. But for an epic fantasy series to finish without resolving the evil godlike baddie just won't work. In fact I've never even seen it attempted, and I've read tons of books.

I think the more accurate description for PoN is that of a finished trilogy which leaves room for sequels. You know, like so many finished trilogies written by Feist, or Tad Williams, or Robin Hobb. Hobb's Tawny Man is a finished series, but clearly there is room for a sequel if she decides to write one. For many readers, that prospect is very tantalizing.

Do you have any proof that any of these authors in form of interviews or notes that they ever considered their first trilogy to be part of a greater series? Like we have with Bakker here? I don't think so. I'd like to see a Hobb interview from time she was writing Assasins where she says that its part of an overreaching series with Tawny Man and Farseer. However it doesn't exist I'm sure. I think all of these cases you mention Cali fall into the thing every author falls into it seems. Or most everyone. They can't freaking let go of their world. They just have to write again and again in it. Fiest, McCaffery, Eddings, etc are all examples of authors who have done the same thing over and over again, with diminishing returns. Hobb does it but its more debatable whether she has hit diminishing returns with it. From reviews of Tawny Man I've read, the verdict seems rather split. Werthead makes the point about Feist, but I would find it laughable if he had this nameless god as a bad guy from the very start. To me that part always smacked of trying to make a bigger villian for Pug and Tomas to defeat. I can not believe that the god was considered even in Feist's mind at the time he wrote the original trilogy, of which the Valheru were clearly the villians. I do enjoy a lot of Serpentwar, but that part isn't one I enjoy.

There is something very different from a completed series and then writing more in the same world versus finishing the first part of the story when there is clearly more of the story still to come. And I have no idea why people are being so fucking defensive about it. I never said Bakker was a bad writer. In fact he is a very good writer, and one of my favorite authors. But to say this work is completed, when the author has said this is part of a greater series and there is 4 books yet to go is false. Only reason I see why people are saying that is they're trying to convince the earlier poster that the story is done by saying the series is over. But as Bakker said, it's not.

[Werthead]

Well, I suppose the second series could be stand-alone (in the same way you could read Feist's The Serpentwar Saga without having read The Riftwar Saga or The King's Buccaneer first), but presumably it wouldn't make as much sense without having read the first one (same with Feist). Also, if the second series does work divorced from the first one, why have the first one? Why not just have the second series and flashback to the earlier events when required (as with Martin in ASoIF, flashing back to the War of the Usurper when necessary)?

However, I think we do need to wait until the series is complete to see how valid this argument is. And I need to go out and read the damned PoN

Hey, the TTT UK cover is up on Amazon.co.uk. Nice.

[Rhaco]

Hey, the TTT UK cover is up on Amazon.co.uk. Nice.

The Penguin Canada covers are much nicer, IMO.

[Larry.]

*shrug* And it all boils down to semantics, it seems. Never said the story was complete-complete at the end of TTT, but that the Holy War arc was. And the Star Wars analogy was to refer to the connections/time issue between the various books/trilogies/duologies (long gap, few characters in common, different focus, etc.). And although I seriously doubt Scott would recommend it, I wouldn't be too surprised if the Aspect-Emperor duology/trilogy might read like watching the 'original' SW trilogy first - yes, there'd be a lot of backstory that wouldn't be known, but that the story would be comprehensible without it. Oh, and considering how much detail Scott puts into his synopses, there likely won't be that much of a need for a re-read/read of any sort to follow the basics of 'what has come before.'

But being one of two people here (Jay being the other) that has actually read TTT, it is safe to say that a person starting with the PoN trilogy will have a complete story of the Holy War - no loose ends there. In fact, the title of the second series in the Eärwa story is actually a major spoiler. But I'll let y'all ponder that for a while

Oh, and a different Bakker question for those who've read at least the first two books: Wanna guess what the metaphysics are behind the Cishaurim's Psûkhe (sp.)? The answer in TTT is quite interesting, but I'd like to see some guessing first.

[Arakasi]

Well, I suppose the second series could be stand-alone (in the same way you could read Feist's The Serpentwar Saga without having read The Riftwar Saga or The King's Buccaneer first), but presumably it wouldn't make as much sense without having read the first one (same with Feist). Also, if the second series does work divorced from the first one, why have the first one? Why not just have the second series and flashback to the earlier events when required (as with Martin in ASoIF, flashing back to the War of the Usurper when necessary)?

However, I think we do need to wait until the series is complete to see how valid this argument is. And I need to go out and read the damned PoN

Hey, the TTT UK cover is up on Amazon.co.uk. Nice.

I think one would be confused reading Serpentwar without Riftwar, but the difference between the two imo is that in the last book of riftwar they supposedly end the thread from the Valheru. Thus at the end of Darkness I'm not sure how one cay say the story with the main villian of the series is complete. Macros flat out tells us that the Valheru are driven from the universe and Midkemia is safe. Now I've not read TTT, but I'm pretty sure from what I've read that the No God and his threat are not dealt with.

As for why not tell it in a flashback, well like Martin did with removing the 5 year gap or Erikson with having a whole book be a prequel its obvious because he wanted to tell the story (in greater detail especially). I don't think this says anything about it being divorced. Writing (and heck even history) is built on eachother. The first series is the first main arc of the overall series about the second apocalypse.

[DannyBoy]

In just about 2 months, I'm going to be finally leaving my day job in pursuit of self-employment. One of the (very very few) joys of the day job for the past few years has been the daily commute, when I am able to do all of my 'entertainment' reading. Knowing that my time is limited (no way am I going to be able to justify the amount of time necessary reading for entertainment without the commute) - I'm looking for a really really good fantasy series to read over the next 8 weeks. I've browsed through all of the recommended reading links here, and it looks like a pretty good consensus on Erikson & Bakker's series' being the next-best-things to ASOIAF.

So I'll be running by B&N this evening to pick up what may well be the last fantasy series I really get to dive into for who-knows-how-long. Which one should I buy?

PS - Friday I picked up 'A Shadow in Summer' by Abraham - just finished it on the ride in this morning - it's a pretty decent read, should be a good series.

[Galactus]

Bakker. Eriksson lasts longer, but Bakker is, IMHO, of slightly higher quality.

[Xray the Enforcer]

PS - Friday I picked up 'A Shadow in Summer' by Abraham - just finished it on the ride in this morning - it's a pretty decent read, should be a good series.

Drop some of your thoughts in this thread. Right now, it's just me and Jay talking to ourselves.

Also -- only read snippets of Erikson, but he's next on the list. There's a whole thread somewhere around here dedicated to this topic. On the recs of that thread, I chose Bakker. I really love the PoN series (n00b tears notwithstanding ).

[RaceBannon42]

Bakker is #2 on my list right now

Erickson is somewhere down in double digits if I wanted to ranked that far down.

I loved Bakker, althought it did take me about halfway into The Darkness that Come Before to really get into it. TWP and TTT are amazing books.

Erickson to me is interchangable with any of half a dozen authors who write WOTC novels.

I gave him two full novels to impress me, and he didn't Its not that I think he sucks, because he doesn't but I was expecting so much more, than what I got. Everyones tastes differ of course.

[Xray the Enforcer]

I think we've discovered a fundamental constant of the Universe: The Bakker-Erikson Exclusion Principle.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

If I had to chose, Erikson, who is currently my favorite epic fantasy author, but Bakker also is excellent. Erikson also has more books out, so he may last you longer.

[Palsgraf's Scales]

I would choose Erikson. Just finished The Thousandfold Thought last night and enjoyed it for the most part. But damn does Bakker get a little self indulgent in his dialogue.

[Blaine]

Big surprise vote from Blaine: Bakker

Erikson is pretty far down my list. But nowhere near the bottom level of Goodkind, so he's got that going for him.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Bakker. I like my epic fantasy to be more personal and I love the messiah-complex in the story.

[Arakasi]

Erikson. I don't like the messiah concept, which turned me off the most about that series. Not fun to me reading about someone who is perfect. (well not exactly perfect, but he certainly is the best at everything)