Malazan Vs. ASOIAF

[polishgenius]

I recently got some friends into Erikson by saying, "It's the closest you'll ever read to anime in book form, except with less gender confusion comedy". Maybe a bit brought a comparison but I think it works.

I tend to go with 'it's like the DCU' myself- sadly complete with retcons, inexplicable character transformations and revolving-door-afterlife, but also with the sense of iconic mythmaking that makes me like the DCU.

[Gormenghast]

I'll copy here what I wrote in the other thread since it was about Erikson vs Martin. To summarize my opinion I'd say that Martin is a great storyteller and narrator, while Erikson is a great writer:

I'm 100 pages from the end of my first go with A Game of Thrones. I hope to finish by the end of next week (and go back to Erikson).

I'm enjoying it, but I don't understand many of the critics toward Erikson that used Martin as a staple. Martin has a perfect execution, but he's also rather predictable, not so original and a use of characters that is comparable to Erikson's deux ex machina (meaning that, instead of plot-bending, Martin simply creates and places characters exactly where he needs them, and it feels all a bit too carefully placed and convenient, and without misdirection you can see too clearly where it all is going if you are a bit aware of this type of plotting. Hint: hollywood).

Also: while Martin characters are well defined and complete (and he stays in their head far more than Erikson), he relies A LOT on a conscious and continuous "pulling on emotional heart strings". He mostly succeed, but stylistically I like much more Erikson "hands-off" approach. With Martin there's moral ambiguity in the characters, but there's NONE in the writing. This irks me a bit.

--

Martin creates characters that are ambiguous and well defined, but he leaves absolutely nothing to the reader. Nothing is open to interpretation.

With Erikson the moral ambiguity is both on the characters AND the writing especially. The writer isn't rooting for anyone. Martin is unidirectional in the way he writes. While the characters are ambiguous the writing is unidirectional and functional. Characters are themselves plot devices meant to pull the emotional heart strings. They are meant to drive the reader's opinion in a very specific way and for a very specific purpose.

He wants you to feel worried for someone, have sympathy for another, despise another again, and all of this in specific points of the book. There's really nothing that is truly ambiguous in the writing. There's nothing that requires the reader to think and makes his own opinion because the writer has already planned with exact precision what the reader should think and feel.

--

Take Tyrion as the most obvious example. He starts as ambiguous and arrogant. But then he also provokes pity due to his condition, then he is accused unjustly and becomes a victim, says only the truth in a world of lies. At every step Martin writes the character to draw very specific emotions. He know exactly the way you should feel at a specific point.

The moral ambiguity isn't in the interpretation or the writing. The moral ambiguity happens instead through development. Characters change, they reveal new aspects, react in different way. There's progress.

Progress leads to character's complexity and moral ambiguity, but once again, the path is strictly codified and meant to have a precise outcome and provoke specific feelings in the reader.

Sandor Clegane is presented as a "villain" in the beginning of the book. Everything about him is meant to provoke negative feelings toward him. Then in one chapter about Sansa his story is better explained and you are meant to feel some pity for him and see everything under a slightly different light.

[Zach H]

I really like both. Martin's better at precise, steady characterization and plotting, while with Erikson I love the scope of the world and the constant sense of mythic import. Oftentimes when I read other names working within the epic subgenre (and even out of it for that matter), it's not uncommon for me to think to myself "This is decent enough, but it's no Ice and Fire or Malazan."

[PetrusOctavianus]

I'll copy here what I wrote in the other thread since it was about Erikson vs Martin. To summarize my opinion I'd say that Martin is a great storyteller and narrator, while Erikson is a great writer:

Erikson a great writer? I beg to differ.

Much of his writing reads more like a screen play instead of proper prose, while Martin's writing is comparable to food that just melts on your tongue.

And Erikson not able to make *this* reader feel anything.

So what *if* Martin has no "moral ambiguity" in his writing?

As Roger Waters once said "in the end the only thing that matters is whether or not the music moves you...", which can also be said about literature.

Martin creates characters that are ambiguous and well defined, but he leaves absolutely nothing to the reader. Nothing is open to interpretation.

I don't agree. Since the story is not told from the POV of an omniscient writer, but from different characters' POV, there is lots open to interpretation, since his characters are only mortal and often gets things wrong.

And if nothing was open to interpretation, then what would be the point of this board? :)

[kungtotte]

Martin creates characters that are ambiguous and well defined, but he leaves absolutely nothing to the reader. Nothing is open to interpretation.

Holy pop-culture reference, Batman!

I offer you one solid piece of evidence contrary to your statement: R + L = J.

[Gormenghast]

Erikson a great writer? I beg to differ.

Much of his writing reads more like a screen play instead of proper prose, while Martin's writing is comparable to food that just melts on your tongue.

And Erikson not able to make *this* reader feel anything.

What you say doesn't deny what I say.

Martin will always be much more appreciated. Even I a few weeks back I recommended to a friend to read Martin. I'd never EVER recommend her to read Erikson. She'd throw the book back at me.

I've said in other occasions that Erikson is not for a broad public and that a lot of the backlash on him is about him being more popular that what is fitting for the series.

The way Martin portrays characters is FAR more effective to draw emotions compared to Erikson. Even the writing is 100% focused to obtain that result. And the way he writes surely gives more pleasure of reading. Martin is again far more accessible and so able to reach a broad public.

But why?

Because Martin is weaving together so many writers before him. He reads like a classic. But he also doesn't have an original voice or intent.

Martin doesn't write anything I didn't know already, his characters are well known types, his plot twists predictable and well codified in the genre.

In literature and other fictional forms there are plenty of Eddards, Aryas, Sansas, Catelyns and so on. Plenty. They are all characters that you know well enough, established parts of our culture. And this is not a flaw as it creates familiarity in the reader. Familiarity leads to understand the characters, and so to identification, and so emotions.

One of the latest masterful "plot twists" I read was Master Aemon being revealed as a Targaryen. If it wasn't for the fact that I saw this coming 500 pages ago. With the funny habit of all Targaryen of having "ae" in the name. And then this old guy whose current group has the peculiar trait of having lost their former life, that leads to mysteries, and so plot devices. Wanna bet that this old blind man is to be revealed as a great warrior of the past that is now jaded but still so sage and will help our hero to take the right path and not repeat his own mistakes?

I was groaning when I read that.

The last time I've seen this exact plot device being used was in Disney's Cars. There's nothing wrong with that. It's good writing anyway. But it is writing so well codified and honed that it really has nothing new to say. It's good execution of trite plots. Seen millions of times in every form of narration, from books to movies. Always the same.

It's filled with deja-vu. Want to read something that brings back the pleasure of writing? Want to lose yourself in a fantastical medieval world filled with grandeur and richness? Martin is perfect. But there's nothing new to be found, there's nothing to learn, there's nothing challenging or truly enriching. You will be the same when you've finished the book. Pleased, but unchanged.

Erikson is no pied piper of Hamelin. He won't look back to check if you follow, he won't take you by hand or waste words, or worry if you are not pleased. He is not interested to write a story that has already been written, or say things that have already being said, or provoke thoughts that have already been thought. If anything he will twist all that to prove that you're always wrong. He writes to break convictions and show you that what you believe is flawed. He pokes holes into certainty, he has fun breaking expectations. All his characters are poor blinds, the reader thinks he knows better, and Erikson proves how limited you are as a reader as well.

Sleight of hand.

Martin has a writing that lulls the reader, Erikson has a writing that shakes the reader. Martin will never do anything wrong because he doesn't try anything that has already been done millions of times and honed to perfection in the literary genre as a whole. Erikson is ambitious, experiments, fails and succeeds in unpredictable ways. He switches style of writing often, annoying the reader, surprising the reader. Martin keeps you pleased with what you know and want, Erikson teaches to think and keep the mind alert. Martin is reassuring, Erikson is subversive. Martin plays within the rules and knows them to perfection, Erikson plays with the rules and makes mistakes.

The friend to which I recommended Martin was baffled when I told her I wouldn't start with book 2 after I finished the first. The point is that while I enjoyed reading it and think it's a wonderful story masterly written, it doesn't tell me anything new and I'm much more eager to read other writers who have an original voice.

Even Abercrombie intrigues me more than Martin and writes in a way that isn't so "scholar".

[Shryke]

I think I'm beginning to understand why you like Erikson so much. His writing, like yours, is capable of taking up tons of space, and yet conveying no information.

Erikson's writing is most often an obstacle to be overcome in order to simply understand wtf is going on.

I still have no idea why you like Erikson's writing though, beyond it's similarity to your non-communicative posting style.

[Gormenghast]

I think I'm beginning to understand why you like Erikson so much. His writing, like yours, is capable of taking up tons of space, and yet conveying no information.

Well, the difference is that instead of saying Martin is great, Erikson is shit, I actually motivate my opinions.

For example in the other thread they are saying how Toll the Hounds ad Reaper's Gale were so bad that they lost interest in the series. It would be interesting to know why. I know that TTH is another shift of style that won't please anyone and that slowed down considerably, but RG moved the plot a lot so I don't know what makes it so bad in the eyes of some readers.

I've explained why I like Erikson's writing and why I recognize Martin as flawless, but also doesn't interest me. I've brought practical examples of what I was saying. There are plenty of arguments in what I said. Opinions will differ but there are some factual elements that can't be argued.

For example I consider rather silly saying that Erikson wastes words when in A Game of Thrones the plot moved really, really slow. The pacing can't even be compared. And again that this doesn't mean that Erikson is better, just that the argument has no contact with the reality.

[Errant Bard]

Gormenghast,

I can see where you're coming from, and I somehow agree partially with what you say, except for the "thoughts that haven't been thought", that made me laugh, but moving on... I think you are wrong with you assessment of ASOIAF as a whole.

Without revealing much, while AGOT is clearly what you say, a book planting the scenery, with mostly classic tropes used, if shockingling more brutally and visibly than usual, and it has indeed a pretty distinct "hollywood" feel, I feel the story and characters differ, in later books, more and more from what you could expect and does challenge your habits as a reader.

You are wrong about your Aemon prediction, for example, and I think you would be with others. I sincerely hope you will be too about the overall story, even though with Jon and Dany so far, I'm sad to be seeing it like you do.

Yet, I'm convinced there is an undercurrent totally at odds with your vision in ASOIAF, that you didn't see, and that having our "emotional strings" pulled by being in the head of the (current) Point of View guy makes it that more thought worthy and interesting to examine the situation critically. That's a difference between Erikson and Martin here, Erikson's themes presentation and processing is clinical with indeed, characters we don't care about, they might as well be wooden pawns, subsequently it becomes very academical, Martin's approach I concede is harder to see through but it presents you with a more exhaustive set of things to think about precisely because there is emotion involved, and this is what happens in reality, unless you don't have emotions. This might lend itself to two levels of reading, but I know for sure and for example that Tyrion is indeed a jerk, despite knowing where he comes from, and that that PoV character killed by a zombie in ASOS, despite having popular favour, did deserve her fate and was an appropriate conduct to channel the question of what justice is.

Of course, it doesn't help that Erikson is not recounting history, which is fascinating and does teach you a lot, but his own version of what history is or should be, which only makes you think and orient your reflection on ideas the author approves, like any fiction writer, but without the internal consistency, storytelling, and, yes, realistic behaviours that you can find elsewhere. This is mainly what pisses me off with Malazan, that idea that you have to shut down totally your critical sense and pretend that the situation/characters/themes are relevant to our reality instead of being rotten strawmen, and that if you choose to ignore that all that's left is a subpar storytelling with big battles and superpowers, what Wert and others above extol with their comparisons to DCU or anime. (I don't know DCU, but I have to say at this point that anime, like any media, is used by a very varied array of works, and quality does vary from shit to masterpiece, and so shouldn't be stereotyped as being about superpowers with explosions every ten seconds and sucky plot)

Way to go with the subtle insult to all those who are not as much of a fanboy of Malazan than you are by the way. Did you read midnight tides yet?

[Werthead]

I'll copy here what I wrote in the other thread since it was about Erikson vs Martin. To summarize my opinion I'd say that Martin is a great storyteller and narrator, while Erikson is a great writer:

I'm 100 pages from the end of my first go with A Game of Thrones. I hope to finish by the end of next week (and go back to Erikson).

Would it be at all possible for you to wait until you've read the books before you go off on some lofty comparison of the two authors? It was weird enough when you were proclaiming Erikson the Second Coming when you'd read up to halfway through the first book, it's now even weirder you're condemning ASoIaF after getting less than one-quarter through the series.

Martin creates characters that are ambiguous and well defined, but he leaves absolutely nothing to the reader. Nothing is open to interpretation.

I think the existence of this forum proves otherwise.

He wants you to feel worried for someone, have sympathy for another, despise another again, and all of this in specific points of the book. There's really nothing that is truly ambiguous in the writing. There's nothing that requires the reader to think and makes his own opinion because the writer has already planned with exact precision what the reader should think and feel.

So what was GRRM trying to make the reader feel when Ned was executed?

Sorrow and anger that a good and just man had been betrayed and murdered?

or

Approval, since him being so stupid and then signing a false confession meant he had it coming?

Your argument says that only one answer is possible. I've seen literally hundreds of people instead falling between the two above categories and every shading inbetween. And the same is true of every other major story movement in the whole series.

Sandor Clegane is presented as a "villain" in the beginning of the book. Everything about him is meant to provoke negative feelings toward him. Then in one chapter about Sansa his story is better explained and you are meant to feel some pity for him and see everything under a slightly different light

Except you aren't, as at the end of the chapter all that development goes out the window. He has a reason for being the way he is, but that doesn't change him. He does end that chapter threatening to kill Sansa. Later on he continues to do some very unpleasent and horrible things. The reader 'understands' him better, but that doesn't change things from where they'd be if GRRM had never done that at all.

On the flipside, Erikson doesn't bother with much in the way of characterization, beyond a very select few like Crokus and Felisin. Tavore is an enigma. She can say and do literally anything Erikson wants as she is a grey cypher with no real character or personality of her own. As a result, Erikson is free to do anything he wants without it having to make any sense or be set up ahead of time.

Because Martin is weaving together so many writers before him. He reads like a classic. But he also doesn't have an original voice or intent.

Martin doesn't write anything I didn't know already, his characters are well known types, his plot twists predictable and well codified in the genre.

In literature and other fictional forms there are plenty of Eddards, Aryas, Sansas, Catelyns and so on. Plenty. They are all characters that you know well enough, established parts of our culture. And this is not a flaw as it creates familiarity in the reader. Familiarity leads to understand the characters, and so to identification, and so emotions.

And Erikson doesn't do this? I think Misters Moorcock, Howard and Cook would beg to disagree.

One of the latest masterful "plot twists" I read was Master Aemon being revealed as a Targaryen. If it wasn't for the fact that I saw this coming 500 pages ago. With the funny habit of all Targaryen of having "ae" in the name. And then this old guy whose current group has the peculiar trait of having lost their former life, that leads to mysteries, and so plot devices. Wanna bet that this old blind man is to be revealed as a great warrior of the past that is now jaded but still so sage and will help our hero to take the right path and not repeat his own mistakes?

That was a reasonable conclusion, but at the same time the reader was invited to figure that out. It's not a monstrously hard deduction. Although the fact you think Aemon was a 'great warrior' suggests your reading of the book wasn't quite as deep as you think.

Erikson is no pied piper of Hamelin. He won't look back to check if you follow, he won't take you by hand or waste words, or worry if you are not pleased. He is not interested to write a story that has already been written, or say things that have already being said, or provoke thoughts that have already been thought. If anything he will twist all that to prove that you're always wrong. He writes to break convictions and show you that what you believe is flawed. He pokes holes into certainty, he has fun breaking expectations. All his characters are poor blinds, the reader thinks he knows better, and Erikson proves how limited you are as a reader as well. Sleight of hand.

But this just another way of saying that Erikson doesn't have to set things up so they make sense, he doesn't have to build characters in a way so that their past informs their future actions, he doesn't need to indulge in foreshadowing or exposition, he doesn't have to adhere to basic storytelling techniques. Effectively you are saying that the author can say or write what he wants when he wants and it does not have to be backed up with logic, character or world history or any kind of rationale.

You are basically saying that Erikson can pull any old deus ex machina out of his backside with no preamble and that's good writing.

No, it isn't.

Martin has a writing that lulls the reader, Erikson has a writing that shakes the reader. Martin will never do anything wrong because he doesn't try anything that has already been done millions of times and honed to perfection in the literary genre as a whole. Erikson is ambitious, experiments, fails and succeeds in unpredictable ways. He switches style of writing often, annoying the reader, surprising the reader. Martin keeps you pleased with what you know and want, Erikson teaches to think and keep the mind alert. Martin is reassuring, Erikson is subversive. Martin plays within the rules and knows them to perfection, Erikson plays with the rules and makes mistakes.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you'd think Dragonball Z is better than The Wire.

Erikson writes good, cheesy, above-average swords 'n' sorcery with a really interesting structural approach to how to overcome the weaknesses of the mega-long fantasy series (which has, in the end, not really paid off, but good idea anyway). He shot his load when it came to true originality somewhere around Book 3 and since then has been descending more into self-parody (especially with characters like Karsa Orlong and Anomander Rake's behaviour in the last book) and pulling more and more deus ex machina out of nowhere to solve his problems.

Why do the Bonehunters go to Lether? Why do the Perish show up to help them with no questions asked? Because that's what Erikson needs to happen for the story to make sense. GRRM or most other writers would find a character rationale to explain their actions whilst Erikson just needs someone to mutter something about 'chains' and 'convergences' and then they'll happily go off round the world on a three-month trip. Even Jordan's ta'veren plot device makes more sense and is far more original than that.

Whilst reading Erikson, particularly the later books, I don't emotionally engage with the characters because nothing is at stake. We don't know what they are doing or why they are doing it and half the time we don't give a shit about them anyway. And it's all virtually meaningless because at the moment of crisis some random soldier will be revealed to be possessed by some demon from the Ka'bollox Warren (but is actually the Elder God Nagrul in disguise) who just luckily has a magical spell that can defeat all the bad guys immediately. Yeah, maybe a few other soldiers will die, but they'll be resurrected two books later so that's fine.

As a result, there are no substantive consequences in Erikson's world, and in the end that makes reading it a hollow experience.

[kungtotte]

Steven Erikson is the Michael Bay of authorship. ¬_¬

[Shryke]

Well, the difference is that instead of saying Martin is great, Erikson is shit, I actually motivate my opinions.

For example in the other thread they are saying how Toll the Hounds ad Reaper's Gale were so bad that they lost interest in the series. It would be interesting to know why. I know that TTH is another shift of style that won't please anyone and that slowed down considerably, but RG moved the plot a lot so I don't know what makes it so bad in the eyes of some readers.

I've explained why I like Erikson's writing and why I recognize Martin as flawless, but also doesn't interest me. I've brought practical examples of what I was saying. There are plenty of arguments in what I said. Opinions will differ but there are some factual elements that can't be argued.

For example I consider rather silly saying that Erikson wastes words when in A Game of Thrones the plot moved really, really slow. The pacing can't even be compared. And again that this doesn't mean that Erikson is better, just that the argument has no contact with the reality.

Except your "reasons" have been poorly explained. Your examples confusing. Your conclusions just there with no support. Alot like Erikson. :) All you've done is throw out alot of "Martin drives like this, but Erikson drives like this." statements.

All I can gather is the same thing that Wert did. That you enjoy the bombast and ignore the poor characterization, liberal deus ex machina and extremely unpolished writing.

Erikson is ambitious and has lots of ideas, but his writing is is unpolished and needs more editing. The same with his plots, which lack resonance or support from the rest of the text. Shit just ... happens. It's not built up to.

[Lord of Rhinos]

You're right, Martin is always in control of his story and is very aware of his audience and their reactions. Martin is a master storyteller.

The writer's job is to lead the reader where the writer wants them to go. This may be an ambiguous or a concrete place, but the writer is always trying to get you to that place. If the writer fails to get the reader there it is someones fault, either the writer's or the reader's, or a combination of the two. In Erikson's case, I feel that it is very much his fault. Let me be clear on something: yes Erikson likes to experiment, yes he takes risk, but he is writing for the audience. If he wasn't then there would be no need for him to put plot twists in his work, or be purposely ambiguous, or put in transitions. Erikson is writing with the intention of being read. To try and pretend that he isn't is one of the flimsiest excuses for poor writing I've ever seen. So both Martin and Erikson are responsible for their writing.

In general, I find Martin far more ambiguous than Erikson. Take for example Eddard vs. Whiskeyjack. Erikson does not support alternative interpretations of Whiskeyjack. Whiskeyjack is an excellent swordsman, the best friend, the most caring commander, an awesome lover, and the most honorable man alive. He's the coolest dude in town and everyone loves him. Which creates a weird cognitive dissonance for me because I really don't think Whiskeyjack is all that. I mean Kalam and Quick Ben both think Sorry is being possessed by a god and they let Whiskeyjack know. His response? Yeah, sure she's a seventeen year old from a fishing village, with mad knife skills that puts Kalam to shame, whose personality bares no resemblance to a young fisher girl, but I'm sure there is nothing at all unusually about her. At this point, I labeled Whiskeyjack a moron. When one of the best assassin's in the world and one of the best wizards tells you someone is a possessed god you should pay attention. Of course, the book does not support my moron interpretation. Instead Whiskeyjack is awesome because he sees the best in people. :rolleyes:

Then we get to Memories of Ice. Where the immortal Korlat, who hasn't been stirred to passion in 100,000 years, gets all hot and bothered about Whiskeyjack and jumps his bones because he is the best thing ever. And then Anomander Rake, half a million year old demigod, is all like "I've never had any friends, and I've never cared about that..but you're so awesome Whiskeyjack that you can totally be my friend". And then Whiskeyjack dies. He dies protecting an innocent girl from an attack by the Kallor, the Hitler of Malazan world. But even though Hitler is 120,000 years old and has spent most of his life fighting wars he can't take Whiskeyjack (cause the Jack has mad skills). Whiskeyjack has him dead to rights but then are beloved Sergeant's leg breaks. Why does it break? Because Whiskeyjack has been so busy caring for his men that's he's never gotten it properly healed, he's just put up with the pain because he's awesome like that. Of course, later on we find out that the Death God was responsible for breaking the leg, because losing to Hitler only wouldn't befit Whiskeyjack's level of awesome so it must have been due to Hitler+Deathgod. But fear not, noble reader, thanks to Whiskeyjack's heroic sacrifice Hitler was unable to kill the girl. His death was not in vain.

Meanwhile, over in ASOIAF land we have Eddard Stark. Who is pretty awesome but his strict code of honor gets him killed. He's cool but he behaves like a moron and gets killed for it, but before he dies Martin makes sure to have him compromise his honor. Then instead of giving him a noble death, he dies because a 12 year old was playing power politics.

[Lord of Rhinos]

But this just another way of saying that Erikson doesn't have to set things up so they make sense, he doesn't have to build characters in a way so that their past informs their future actions, he doesn't need to indulge in foreshadowing or exposition, he doesn't have to adhere to basic storytelling techniques. Effectively you are saying that the author can say or write what he wants when he wants and it does not have to be backed up with logic, character or world history or any kind of rationale.

You are basically saying that Erikson can pull any old deus ex machina out of his backside with no preamble and that's good writing.

No, it isn't.

I love Werthead's post as a whole, but this part pretty much sums up my feelings.

[Myshkin]

Gormenghast,

How far into the MBotF are you? I recall the last time you made these arguments you'd only finished 2 1/2 books.

[Werthead]

But fear not, noble reader, thanks to Whiskeyjack's heroic sacrifice Hitler was unable to kill the girl. His death was not in vain.

And of course:

SPOILER: Malazan

Whiskeyjack comes back from the dead four books later and seems to be okay with how everything turned out. And the girl turns out not to have been all that either as Erikson discarded her so his mate could maybe write a book about her five years down the line or something.

This is pretty much par for the course with Malazan.

And I actually like the series overall.

[polishgenius]

Oh, ffs, this thread managed to go quite a while without turning into a competition between the two authors. Ah well.

It's such a pointless argument.

What Martin does is this:

Nuanced, shades-of-grey characters.

Slow story and world-building.

Grim-and-gritty.

Subtle prose and realistic dialogue.

What Erikson does is this:

Icons and archetypes.

Epic, head-on story and world-building.

Bombast and style.

Showy prose and stylised dialogue.

Both have their highpoints, and both have their flaws. Which one likes more than the other depends on what one prefers, and saying that one preference is 'better' than another would come down to snobbery.

[Werthead]

Oh, ffs, this thread managed to go quite a while without turning into a competition between the two authors. Ah well.

It's such a pointless argument.

What Martin does is this:

Nuanced, shades-of-grey characters.

Slow story and world-building.

Grim-and-gritty.

Subtle prose and realistic dialogue.

What Erikson does is this:

Icons and archetypes.

Epic, head-on story and world-building.

Bombast and style.

Showy prose and stylised dialogue.

Both have their highpoints, and both have their flaws. Which one likes more than the other depends on what one prefers, and saying that one preference is 'better' than another would come down to snobbery.

This is a reasonable summary and I think an excellent summation of the situation. GRRM, for all the grittiness, sex and swearing, is operating in more of the vein of high and epic fantasy and immediately draws comparisons to the likes of Tolkien and Jordan etc, whilst Erikson is much more in the sword 'n' sorcery tradition of Moorcock's Elric, Lieber's Lankhamar duo and Cook's Black Company. The two approaches are very different and indeed the strongest elements of one will not appeal to an appreciator of the other style to such an extent that to the biggest fans of one the idea that people would prefer the author is almost inconceivable.

[Gormenghast]

Would it be at all possible for you to wait until you've read the books before you go off on some lofty comparison of the two authors? It was weird enough when you were proclaiming Erikson the Second Coming when you'd read up to halfway through the first book, it's now even weirder you're condemning ASoIaF after getting less than one-quarter through the series.

Here you are plain wrong, and trying to polarize what I said.

To begin with, I don't think there's any need to read all the books to qualify for an opinion. If you look back to my comments when I was 160 pages into the book you'd see that they are the same now that I'm 700 pages into it. The thoughts are more defined, but they didn't change. In all the cases, no matter of the writer, I don't need more than 100 pages to have an idea of the style of a book and what are his strengths. Sometimes you need more to get used to it, but that's about it.

I judge Erikson after having read three books, I judge Martin after reading one. They aren't even small books.

Secondly, I'm not condemning ASoIaF. In fact I'll say again that it is flawless and that I enjoyed reading the book. It's a book that I recommended and would recommend again. It's also a book that represents perfectly the "pleasure of reading". I said that Martin is an exceptional narrator/storyteller. I'm not saying that Martin is crap and Erikson the better writer. Other people here would say that, I'm not.

What I said is that I'm not so interested in the type of story Martin writes. I'm not "eager" to read it and move right to the second book. This because, even if masterfully written, it's a story, structure and type of writing well honed but already seen. And it's not moving me emotionally because I don't feel it's authentic for how driven and directed it is. I see the strings that move the puppets all too clearly because I know well this type of show that Martin makes.

So I think that Martin and Erikson couldn't be more different, and telling who's better than the other rather silly. I love much more Erikson personally because I love what he does, the type of writing, the structures he uses. This doesn't make Erikson "better", but makes him what I want to read compared to Martin.

Without revealing much, while AGOT is clearly what you say, a book planting the scenery, with mostly classic tropes used, if shockingling more brutally and visibly than usual, and it has indeed a pretty distinct "hollywood" feel, I feel the story and characters differ, in later books, more and more from what you could expect and does challenge your habits as a reader.

Okay, I'll keep this into consideration, but I also remember very well a blog of Abercrombie where he was discussing Martin and said that he thought that book 2 and 3 didn't add anything that book 1 didn't have already. A standard of quality that stays high through the books, but without any sharp turns.

I also never read anywhere that book 2 and 3 did something different. I read that book 3 is the fan favorite, but it was more about the plot being spectacular and moving more quickly than things being done differently or the books moving to a new, different levels. So while I expect the plot to continue to be well executed, I don't expect any shifts of styles or any significant evolutions. And this typical argument of "the best" being always beyond the next corner never convinced me.

So what was GRRM trying to make the reader feel when Ned was executed?

Sorrow and anger that a good and just man had been betrayed and murdered?

or

Approval, since him being so stupid and then signing a false confession meant he had it coming?

Your argument says that only one answer is possible. I've seen literally hundreds of people instead falling between the two above categories and every shading inbetween. And the same is true of every other major story movement in the whole series.

Well, this still didn't happen in the book, but I already fell for the spoiler before, so I know Ned fate anyway.

I'm not saying that only one answer is possible, I'm saying that Martin is always in control and that you won't have emotions or thoughts that he didn't plan you to have. In fact I said that the lack of moral ambiguity and ambiguity in general IS NOT in the characters, it is in the writing itself. Martin in that part probably wanted to provoke BOTH those thoughts, but he wouldn't let you stray from the path he defined, you just follow thoughts that he prepackaged for you.

And Erikson doesn't do this? I think Misters Moorcock, Howard and Cook would beg to disagree.

The difference is that when Erikson borrows ideas he then goes to use them in unexpected and original ways. He isn't repeating. He has his own voice, doesn't give me deja-vu, he doesn't tell me stories that I know already or well codified or that I know how they end or where they lead. Whatever he tries to do in a book doesn't follow a predetermined pattern that you know already.

That was a reasonable conclusion, but at the same time the reader was invited to figure that out. It's not a monstrously hard deduction. Although the fact you think Aemon was a 'great warrior' suggests your reading of the book wasn't quite as deep as you think.

I wasn't pretending to be deep, I just wrote my thoughts at that time, that revealed to be near to the truth.

What made me groaning there wasn't the predictable revelation, but how he spent time presenting the character as one who went already through a similar situation and now is wise enough to help the hero to make a better choice. The same happens in Cars (and again, the Pixar example isn't to say Martin is childish, but to say that Pixar also have very good writing, but whose style is well codified to the point that it won't say anything new or original). The same even happens between Luke and Yoda. Jon even gets the sword.

But this just another way of saying that Erikson doesn't have to set things up so they make sense, he doesn't have to build characters in a way so that their past informs their future actions, he doesn't need to indulge in foreshadowing or exposition, he doesn't have to adhere to basic storytelling techniques. Effectively you are saying that the author can say or write what he wants when he wants and it does not have to be backed up with logic, character or world history or any kind of rationale.

Nope, you say that.

Surely there's a sense of frustration in the reader when reading Erikson because you have very little under control. But saying that Erikson lacks foreshadowing is laughable. The books are FILLED with foreshadowing. To insane levels, with foreshadowing that is realized across thousands of pages. Foreshadowing that some characters do about themselves. Minor details that you read in a book that have links you discover much later (and often totally miss, like the captain of Kalam's ship in the second book being the uncle of Toc the Younger).

More often than not what Erikson does with the "mindfucks" happens within a few pages. I'm reading House of Chains now, in the first 10 pages there's already plenty of reversal. In fact I'd say that he wastes some ideas there, because he builds up mysteries only to reveal them in the next page.

You have an escalation of quick POVs, Karsa, his father, the faces in the rock, the sacrificed children. With every one of these POVs he subverts what he told you in the previous, like an escalation of partial truths. He does this in less than 10 pages and does it consistently and coherently.

And beside that, the scene between Karsa's father and grandfather is exceptional. With awesome dialogues and some of the best characterization I've ever seen. He does this, with perfectly defined and deep characters in 1 page and half. Erikson doesn't waste words.

[Gormenghast]

This is a reasonable summary and I think an excellent summation of the situation. GRRM, for all the grittiness, sex and swearing, is operating in more of the vein of high and epic fantasy and immediately draws comparisons to the likes of Tolkien and Jordan etc

I don't agree even here.

Martin doesn't even vaguely resemble to Jordan or Tolkien. Really, couldn't be more far away from Tolkien. The derivation of his writing is more broad than that and borrows from literary genres that are different from fantasy.

Martin plot devices and characterization are "modern" in a way. In the sense that it's a type of writing that developed with movies and television. I know that Martin wrote for Hollywood for a while, this shows a lot in the book I read. Not in a bad way, but the writing comes from there. That's his root and culture. Not Tolkien, not Jordan.

The two approaches are very different and indeed the strongest elements of one will not appeal to an appreciator of the other style to such an extent that to the biggest fans of one the idea that people would prefer the author is almost inconceivable.

I beg to differ. I see very well why the most readers prefer Martin.

It's obvious that Martin has much more mass appeal than Erikson.