Malazan Vs. ASOIAF

[fionwe1987]

The Wheel of Time may have foreshadowing and whatnot, but it doesn't seem to have them as a central theme (I read 2 books, yes, I'll read more, no, I'm not willingly to read 'x' books before I get to what I like).

Ummm...no. Foreshadowing is not a theme, since a tachnique of writing cannot be the theme of a story. but it is a very often used device by Jordan, and some of the foreshadowing done in the first book is still unfolding, logically and beleivably, in the final books of the series.

Incidentally, while I don't care to address at large your contention that reading one book of a series is enough to make a judgement on the rest, surely in the area of foreshadowing, reading one book or two is not enought to make a decision on how well this is done. Unless you beleive foreshadowing should be heavy-handed and obvious.

I'm seriously asking the last question, since you're shown yourself to have some... unique... ideas.

In The Book of the New Sun there are plenty of hidden layers, but I consider them not featuring prominently (one could stick to a weird plot and never get anything else). The unreliable narrator seems to affect more nuances rather than being central and affecting things in a major way. Wolfe is also a lot more symbolic rather than having an actual plot, and often he relies on external knowledge to be able to understand some aspects, with the risk that everything can go above your head. The style is so dreamlike that the risk of reading without understanding is very high. And the way the reader is expected to "use" the text is undermined by the fact that a lot of it is abstract, and so very hard to manipulate.

Not having read these books, I will not comment on their quality or lack thereof, no matter the very favorable opinions of certain reviewers I place a lot of trust on.

By the way, the book is an example of the criticism you all made about Erikson. We don't get to know the motivations of many of the characters. All of them are rather mysterious and not at all revealed and well defined. And the unreliable narrator can be used as an excuse for a lack of consistency since you can't trust the text and mistakes may or may not be intended by the author.

To your first point, I must ask if there are any contradictions along the lines of the one I pointed out about Tayschrenn's motives, and which you so casually ignored. If not, then it is self evident that Wolfe has succeeded more than Erikson, and since Erikson is not by any means the first to use such a technique, he deserves no special kudos.

Now, to your second point that unreliable narrators can excuse a lack of consistency. I'm sorry, but no. Sure, different people view and react to the same situation in different ways. But the view of one cannot be transposed to another to serve as a motive for the other's unbelievable and inconsistent actions. Using multiple PoVs, an author is forced to lay the foundation for the actions of his PoV characters, or else have a very inconsistent story.

From my experience of reading all of Martin's and ordan's books, I can state that both have managed to do so with remarkable success.

Do we think that Wolfe did all that so that potential mistakes would be justified and he could get away more easily by throwing smoke in the eyes? Nope, in fact I think that writing with that style is even harder to pull well than a more traditional one. We can argue that Wolfe is much better than Erikson, but on that aspect they aren't all that different. The difference is that Wolfe is even less accessible than Erikson and Erikson uses some structures in a less mystified way.

Are there any mistakes in wolfe's works? Maybe the absence of any inconsistencies is why Wolfe is considered a master in the art of storytelling while many will, at best, say that Erikson is flawed.

I also consider Wolfe a bit too ornate, and sometimes he writes simple concepts in complicated ways (so a writing that is too narcissist).

But Erikson can be accused of the same, with the difference that Erikson's attempts at ornateness translate to purple prose on paper.

I used the Lost example because the satisfaction I get from Lost is similar with the one I get from reading Erikson. The sense of escalation, from the first series to when the whole mythology is revealed, isn't easy to find in other fictional forms. Battlestar Galactica may be another example.

But the whole mythology is not revealed in MBotF. Not even after eight of the propsed ten books in this series are out.

"Retconning" is a wonderful narrative technique when well executed and planned from the beginning. It means that a central pillar of your convictions has been undermined and acquires a totally new dimension. You've been cheated and have to reconsider the whole thing. The more you dig the less things are as simple as you thought. This is central in Erikson's way of plotting and it is extremely rewarding. Sometimes it's done superbly, sometimes it's flawed.

Retconning, by defenition, cannot occur that often in a body of work that uses foreshadowing as exclusively as you claim MBotF does.

Many authors turn things on their heads at crucial moments to add to the plot. Showing that the story is deeper and forcing the reader to reevaluate her/his opinion of past events on this basis is hardly unique to Erikson. J.K. Rowling famously did the same in Deathly Hallows.

The difference between that and retcons (which Erikson is so fond of using) is that minor pieces of foreshadowing and seemingly insignificant details are used to build up to these moments of revelation. Thus, when Snape is shown to have been in love with Harry's mother all along, a reread of the books shows that in all interactions between Harry and Snape, it is Harry's perspective that leaves us with the impression that Snape doesn't care for him at all, that Harry is expendable to him.

In the hands of Erikson, no such hints would have been present, and Snape would have started handing out sweets for Christmas because Harry did well in a potions test. Forget that this is inconsistent with the story. Forget that, more importantly, this is inconsistent with the character. Erikson would have done what he wanted, because the plot currently demands it, and characterization and consistency can be damned.

But again, I don't know other fictional forms that make that the central theme and do it better.

Retconning as a central theme? I should hope not.

[Horza]

This has to be an elaborate joke. It just has to.

But I can't look away!

[Gormenghast]

Continue manipulating my words.

I didn't say "retconning" in the traditional use you do of the word. I intend retconning when it was planned from the beginning. Now you focus of the negative connotation of a word I used while dismissing the reason why I used it in that context. I'm saying that what you consider retconning isn't always so.

It is retconning for the reader (since something you believed is proven wrong, so you have to go back and re-check), but it isn't for a writer who planned it from the start. It's just a revelation to shuffles the cards on the table once again. Do you have a better word that lacks the negative connotation?

Now, to your second point that unreliable narrators can excuse a lack of consistency. I'm sorry, but no.

You are wrong here, probably because you didn't read Wolfe.

Some inconsistencies and "errors" are used actively to separate the "truth" from the biased narrator. Sometimes you can do this because the narrator isn't telling the truth and some inconsistencies and mistakes he made let you see past these lies.

By the way, there ARE inconsistencies in the text. I don't doubt that their are intentional, though.

Once again this works only if those errors are planned and well executed by the writer. Failing that the text wouldn't be reliable in any way, so working to find a truth would be a wasted effort. You have to "trust" that Wolfe put some thought there.

The problem isn't really in the use of retconning or how the hell you want to call it. The point is deciding if the writer did something intentionally or used the retconning to cover a mistake.

If for you: retconning = not intentional

then my use of the word was not correct. But I intend something that the writer did intentionally.

[Gormenghast]

Maybe the absence of any inconsistencies is why Wolfe is considered a master in the art of storytelling while many will, at best, say that Erikson is flawed.

Wolfe a master storyteller?

If here for "storyteller" we intend a grand story with characters that you care for and that draw emotions, then I wouldn't classify Wolfe as a storyteller.

The Book of the New Sun is intriguing, but I find hard to believe that someone really "cared" for Severian or was turning pages to know what happened to the characters.

The pleasure of reading those books is elsewhere, as they also do not follow a traditional type of narration and don't favor identification.

But Erikson can be accused of the same, with the difference that Erikson's attempts at ornateness translate to purple prose on paper.

I simply don't feel Erikson being ornate beyond purpose (Kruppe is an exception, but when done well it's multi layered).

[Gormenghast]

By the way, one more thing about Kruppe.

In the first book Kruppe appears as a fool because that's what he wants. In the first book Kruppe is manipulating things behind the scenes, so his attitude is a way he uses to let others underestimate him. Underestimation is his weapon to have his hands free. Often what he says have deeper layers of truth hidden by one that looks superficial and not worth of notice, because he's more than what he appears.

In the third book Kruppe finds himself in a completely different situation. Instead of being around his friends, he finds himself around Brood, Rake and so on. He isn't anymore in Darujhistan where he is in control, so he needs to come out of his role so that the major players will listen to him instead of just considering him an fool. For his purposes he needs to buy the consideration he didn't have before and that was convenient for him not to have. While in the first book he needed to hide, in the third he needs to come out and hint at what he truly is.

It's in the third book that I don't think Erikson used the character to his full potential, since he was used mostly as a comical interlude. But in the first book all that his ornate about his way of speaking was actually quite meaningful and not wasteful.

[polishgenius]

Continue manipulating my words.

I didn't say "retconning" in the traditional use you do of the word. I intend retconning when it was planned from the beginning. Now you focus of the negative connotation of a word I used while dismissing the reason why I used it in that context. I'm saying that what you consider retconning isn't always so.

It is retconning for the reader (since something you believed is proven wrong, so you have to go back and re-check), but it isn't for a writer who planned it from the start. It's just a revelation to shuffles the cards on the table once again. Do you have a better word that lacks the negative connotation?

So you didn't mean retconning.. You meant plot twist.

[Gabriele]

Don't know about demographics, but I'm 27 and I like both authors.

I'm 47 and like both. :)

But they are so different that it's like comparing apples and oranges. Both are sorta round (epic Fantasy), but the peel, texture of flesh and taste are vastly different.

I happen to find Bakker interesting, too, but I fight to get into Jordan. I'm going to finish the first book before I make a final decision whether or not to continue the series - maybe it's an apple with a particular thick peel I need to get through, but maybe it turns out to be an apricot, and I don't like those. Nothing wrong with liking them, though.

Wizard's First Rule is another matter. I gave up on that halfway through. Easy to recognise a rotten tomato once you've bitten into it. :D

[Gormenghast]

Plot twist can also mean an unexpected turn in the plot in present times.

Retconning in the way I intended it is about a revelation that makes you consider something in retrospect under a new light. "Reconsider" in general. Something that happened in the past reflects in present times.

The example made by Fionwe about Harry Potter seems a good one. But I believe that Erikson has plenty of those, some better executed than others.

[fionwe1987]

Continue manipulating my words.

That'd be a criticism you could level if you ever did respond point by point to my posts. As it is, you ignore what you want and respond selectively to what you feel comfortable with. In other words, you're the one who'd manipulating.

I didn't say "retconning" in the traditional use you do of the word. I intend retconning when it was planned from the beginning. Now you focus of the negative connotation of a word I used while dismissing the reason why I used it in that context. I'm saying that what you consider retconning isn't always so.

By its very definition, a retcon cannot be planned. You're defence is silly, since it's similar to me claiming that I actually meant you were a genious when I called you a moron.

If you think a piece of retconning was not retconnning, do the normal thing and say it isn't retconning. Don't call it retconning and expect me to infer that you use a unique definition of the term.

It is retconning for the reader (since something you believed is proven wrong, so you have to go back and re-check), but it isn't for a writer who planned it from the start. It's just a revelation to shuffles the cards on the table once again. Do you have a better word that lacks the negative connotation?

If the author planned it from the beginning, then he can leave discreet hints beforehand. That is why foreshadowing is traditionally used, as I pointed out before. And you claim Erikson uses foreshadowing very heavily...

As for words that can mean the same with no negetive connotations... what about sudden revelation, or standing things on their head?

You are wrong here, probably because you didn't read Wolfe.

I may be wrong about wolfe, but reading Wolfe has nothing to do with the concept of unreliable narration, except that he uses it a lot.

Now, it is true that an unreliable narrator can indeed lie about something, make the reader believe in his view of an event, and then later revelations can change the reader's whole conception of these events. But in such a book, the unreliability of the narrator is something the reader can at some point in the narrative, and hence, the reader can reasonably be expected to question the narrators version of events. Also, once this is established, an author can use subtle hints, alternative perspectives and statements from other characters to prepare the reader for the final revelation where the narration of an event is proved to be false, and making it possible for the reader to reassess his view of the consequences.

Some inconsistencies and "errors" are used actively to separate the "truth" from the biased narrator. Sometimes you can do this because the narrator isn't telling the truth and some inconsistencies and mistakes he made let you see past these lies.

Yup. Which is why, in these techniques, while the narrative itself may have inconsistencies, characters and their motives are not inconsistent. Once you are aware that certain events were misrepresented, a re read of those sections of the story throws up many hints that the narrative there was false. The same is not the case with Erikson's books, showing that the final revelation was not intentional, as the author never bothered to set it up.

By the way, there ARE inconsistencies in the text. I don't doubt that their are intentional, though.

What, in the writing, makes you say that? Because that is where Wolfe probably differs from Erikson. Erikson has never managed to make me believe that his inconsistencies are intentional.

Once again this works only if those errors are planned and well executed by the writer. Failing that the text wouldn't be reliable in any way, so working to find a truth would be a wasted effort. You have to "trust" that Wolfe put some thought there.

Right. And that trust is precisely what I cannot give Erikson. Because if he planned for all his inconsistencies, he planned to have all these major characters be buffoons, which he directly contradicts in his text.

The problem isn't really in the use of retconning or how the hell you want to call it. The point is deciding if the writer did something intentionally or used the retconning to cover a mistake.

It is rarely the former with Erikson. Especially not in the case I mentioned before.

If for you: retconning = not intentional

then my use of the word was not correct. But I intend something that the writer did intentionally.

Thank you for admitiing one mistake on your part.

[fionwe1987]

Wolfe a master storyteller?

If here for "storyteller" we intend a grand story with characters that you care for and that draw emotions, then I wouldn't classify Wolfe as a storyteller.

Who said that was the definition of a good storyteller? A good storyteller, IMO, is one who writes an interesting story that keeps me hooked. There are many who have been such and yet written characters who are impossible to care for.

I simply don't feel Erikson being ornate beyond purpose (Kruppe is an exception, but when done well it's multi layered).

The multiple page philosophising by random soldiers is not ornate beyond purpose?

[gero]

@ fionwe:

Just for the record: You haven't read "The Book of the New Sun" but you try to make statements how Wolfe uses his unreliable narrator? :stunned:

[Gormenghast]

That'd be a criticism you could level if you ever did respond point by point to my posts. As it is, you ignore what you want and respond selectively to what you feel comfortable with. In other words, you're the one who'd manipulating.

One thing is to take a line out of context, another is to reply to one argument between many.

The discussion is all over the place and hard to follow, so I tend to focus on a few aspects at once.

If the author planned it from the beginning, then he can leave discreet hints beforehand.

He can. There's plenty of stuff, plenty, that makes more sense on a second read. For as many flaws GotM has, there's a lot that is better understood on a second reading.

Sometimes it is foreshadowing, sometimes is just a dialogue that you overlooked the first time and that on a second reading acquires a different substance.

I wouldn't read and enjoy Erikson if I didn't think he was doing a good work there. There are flaws, but they don't prevent me to enjoy what he does and there's a lot that is wonderfully executed.

As for words that can mean the same with no negetive connotations... what about sudden revelation, or standing things on their head?

They aren't exactly the same and are too generic for the use I wanted to make.

But in such a book, the unreliability of the narrator is something the reader can at some point in the narrative, and hence, the reader can reasonably be expected to question the narrators version of events. Also, once this is established, an author can use subtle hints, alternative perspectives and statements from other characters to prepare the reader for the final revelation where the narration of an event is proved to be false, and making it possible for the reader to reassess his view of the consequences.

Yes, but there's no "final revelation". Wolfe is only subtle. Either you work to notice some stuff, or it stays in the book. He doesn't care if you notice it or not, nor he does any effort to help you understanding.

Yup. Which is why, in these techniques, while the narrative itself may have inconsistencies, characters and their motives are not inconsistent. Once you are aware that certain events were misrepresented, a re read of those sections of the story throws up many hints that the narrative there was false. The same is not the case with Erikson's books, showing that the final revelation was not intentional, as the author never bothered to set it up.

There's nothing else to say but: I don't agree.

The author bothers to set up a lot and in fact this is one of the major satisfactions in reading this series. There are certain problems related and mostly limited with the first book that are indeed true "retconning", seeing all the books as just that means having a partial and biased view.

Who said that was the definition of a good storyteller? A good storyteller, IMO, is one who writes an interesting story that keeps me hooked. There are many who have been such and yet written characters who are impossible to care for.

David Foster Wallace is a great writer, but I wouldn't call him a storyteller.

The multiple page philosophising by random soldiers is not ornate beyond purpose?

May be seen as heavy handed, but it isn't "ornate".

[fionwe1987]

@ fionwe:

Just for the record: You haven't read "The Book of the New Sun" but you try to make statements how Wolfe uses his unreliable narrator? :stunned:

Just where did I do this?

[Cuchulain]

Who said that was the definition of a good storyteller? A good storyteller, IMO, is one who writes an interesting story that keeps me hooked. There are many who have been such and yet written characters who are impossible to care for.

I think that one of the most important aspects of a good storyteller is the ability to immerse the reader in the story. I've read TBotNS and, while I believe Wolfe to be a very talented author, I felt that no immersion was achieved. This is probably just me, though.

[fionwe1987]

One thing is to take a line out of context, another is to reply to one argument between many.

And you claim doing one cannot lead to the other?

He can. There's plenty of stuff, plenty, that makes more sense on a second read. For as many flaws GotM has, there's a lot that is better understood on a second reading.

Sometimes it is foreshadowing, sometimes is just a dialogue that you overlooked the first time and that on a second reading acquires a different substance.

I wouldn't read and enjoy Erikson if I didn't think he was doing a good work there. There are flaws, but they don't prevent me to enjoy what he does and there's a lot that is wonderfully executed.

I ask again. Can you quote a specific example? Or explain how this is true with the example I provided?

They aren't exactly the same and are too generic for the use I wanted to make.

"Retconning" is not generic?

And of course they aren't exactly the same as a retcon! But a revelation is exactly the same in meaning as your altered version of retconning.

Yes, but there's no "final revelation". Wolfe is only subtle. Either you work to notice some stuff, or it stays in the book. He doesn't care if you notice it or not, nor he does any effort to help you understanding.

Well, since this discussion has already confused someone into beleiving that I'm making comments on Wolfe's works without reading them, I'll only say that as long as the stuff is there to be seen, no matter how subtly hidden, the author has passed the test of writing a beleivable revelation.

There's nothing else to say but: I don't agree.

The author bothers to set up a lot and in fact this is one of the major satisfactions in reading this series. There are certain problems related and mostly limited with the first book that are indeed true "retconning", seeing all the books as just that means having a partial and biased view.

Of the three books you have read, you claim that the first does indeed have some retcon moments. Yet you're disbeleiving me when I state from my experience of reading all of Erikson's main series work that there are many instances of retconning? In short, it is okay for you to extrapolate from one book to the whole series but not for me to make a statement after reading all the books? Its like the pot calling the kettle blacker! :rolleyes:

David Foster Wallace is a great writer, but I wouldn't call him a storyteller.

Okay... So? Did I say that a good storyteller has to be a good writer? Or did you read the first word, read some review of my sentence somewhere, then decide that my sentence meant what you thought it would mean after the first word? Since it works for a series it works for a sentence too?

May be seen as heavy handed, but it isn't "ornate".

In entirely too many instances, soldeirs spout "high" philosophy, displaying a diction it would take years of education to achieve. However, these soldiers have always lived rough and are usually born in some hell hole alley in some crazy city. If that isn't unnecessarily ornate, I don' know what is.

[Guy Kilmore]

Its like black calling the kettle blacker! :rolleyes:

Fixed that for ya. :)

[fionwe1987]

I think that one of the most important aspects of a good storyteller is the ability to immerse the reader in the story. I've read TBotNS and, while I believe Wolfe to be a very talented author, I felt that no immersion was achieved. This is probably just me, though.

I have to say that it was a little silly to say Wolfe is a good story teller without reading him. Like I said in my definition, if he keeps me hooked, I'll call him a good story teller.

However, I don't know if I can agree that immersion is necessary to make a good storyteller. Many authors work to create a dissonance so that the reader cannot immerse themselves, and such stories are by no means inferior to those that allow for easy immersion.

[Gormenghast]

I've only time for a quick comment, but I think it may explain better my point of view.

I've just reached page 90 of House of Chains. I read that this is considered one of the worse book, and especially the beginning focus on Karsa was particularly bad.

Well, let's focus on these few pages. In 90 pages there are all the ingredients that make me love Erikson. Filled with surprises that make you reconsider everything you've just read. Reversal, revelations. "Retconning" in the way I intended it (since you have to look back at history and reconsider all that happened). You don't need to follow links across thousands of pages or read 10 books with 1000 pages each, Erikson realizes it fully in those pages. You like it, then read more. You find it empty, then Erikson is not for you.

The way the Teblor worship the faces on the rock, that are then revealed as no gods at all, that aren't even worth of worship but buried in shame as a punishment, that aren't even dead, and are actively manipulating the Teblor for their own purposes. Then the travel east that instead of blood filled is wise filled. They learn how they weren't even a great tribe, but they born of defeat. And now the gods they worship are in truth their eternal enemies. With the icing on he cake that even Karsa's grandfather may be just a big fraud (foreshadowed by the scenes in the village with the women).

Everything is a lie. And I'm not even convinced that it's all of it. I'm laughing in satisfaction.

Well, for me these 90 pages are grandiose. Even if Karsa's and his friends way of speaking is incredibly annoying.

This is what I love and what I don't easily find in other fantasy I've read.

[Lord of Rhinos]

I loved Karsa's section in HoC. To bad the rest of the book doesn't measure up.

[Gormenghast]

What's the consensus there (since I remember how the majority of the readers rank HoC at the bottom)? That Karsa's part is the good or the bad one of the book?

I think that what I read is that most complained that the sustained POV was a change of style that readers didn't like.