Malazan

[Zach H]

However, it's kind of sad that he makes no allowances for the fact that some people really just don't like the way he writes. And what he's writing about.

Seems like he admits as much right here:

A virtue or a flaw in my writing? Maybe both.

[Blaine]

Seems like he admits as much right here:

Really? It sounds to me like he's turning a legitimate complaint into a way to kiss his own ass, but YMMV.

[End of Disc One]

When I see a thread about an author or series I don't care for, I simply don't click on it. I don't know why people on this board put so much energy into bashing books they don't like.

[Gormenghast]

It's nice to know Erikson seems to understand that quite a few people don't like his books and he wants them to trust him. However, it's kind of sad that he makes no allowances for the fact that some people really just don't like the way he writes.

That's my fault. He didn't write that piece for people on THIS forum. It's me who pasted it here.

I doubt he has much to say about the people who just don't like the way he writes. They are unaddressed because that message was in a specific discuss WITH US, who love the writer and were discussing why OTHER readers had problems or didn't like the books.

The fact that he makes no allowances is your own assumption. That's outside the context of the discussion that message was taken from.

In any case no one seems to want to discuss the merit of what he writes in those two messages, and that is sad. You are just arguing the legitimacy of his words instead of what they say.

[Eurytus]

It would appear that Erikson gets ever more like Goodkind, only with a dictionary.

And some his supporters ever more like Mystar.

[Blaine]

That's my fault. He didn't write that piece for people on THIS forum. It's me who pasted it here.

Yeah, I got that. It's pretty clear since it's a quote from a piece you linked to.

I doubt he has much to say about the people who just don't like the way he writes. They are unaddressed because that message was in a specific discuss WITH US, who love the writer and were discussing why OTHER readers had problems or didn't like the books.

The fact that he makes no allowances is your own assumption. That's outside the context of the discussion that message was taken from.

In any case no one seems to want to discuss the merit of what he writes in those two messages, and that is sad. You are just arguing the legitimacy of his words instead of what they say.

Well, you clearly state that the message is only for "us, who love the writer." And yet it's discussing those who don't like the books. I'm in the latter group. Regardless of where it's posted, it's posted publically and therefore up for discussion.

So my assumption is that he's blathering on to his fans about how great they are because they like his books. And everyone else just doesn't trust his genius. It's sort of creepy, to be honest.

If there's a bunch of merit in what he's saying, I don't see it. Which is even sadder.

[Horza]

It would appear that Erikson gets ever more like Goodkind, only with a dictionary.

And some his supporters ever more like Mystar.

Hey hey hey, lets not say things we can't take back.

Erikson has tickets on himself, sure. And Gormy here is strident. Much as you or I might choose to make merry at them for these foibles neither of those things put them anywhere near the Goodkind/Mystar Plane of Whiny Douchebag Sadcasery.

[Eurytus]

Hey hey hey, lets not say things we can't take back.

Erikson has tickets on himself, sure. And Gormy here is strident. Mch as you or I might choose to make merry at them for this neither of those things put them anywhere near the Goodkind/Mystar Plane of Creepy Whiny Weird.

I'd say Erikson's introduction to GotM was pretty much the sort of thing we'd see from Goodkind.

[Horza]

It's pitiable, sure, but Goodkind is obnoxious and pitiable. Erikson is trying so hard to dance around his failings it's comical whereas the Yeard is incapable of failure and all errors are merely failures of the death-choosing reader to comprehend his awesomeness.

[End of Disc One]

I'd say Erikson's introduction to GotM was pretty much the sort of thing we'd see from Goodkind.

Why do people always bring up this introduction? I wish I had a link to it because it's not douchey at all.

[Zach H]

Really? It sounds to me like he's turning a legitimate complaint into a way to kiss his own ass, but YMMV.

Sounds to me like he's saying different writers/readers can have different ideas of what makes a text work.

[Gormenghast]

Well, you clearly state that the message is only for "us, who love the writer." And yet it's discussing those who don't like the books. I'm in the latter group. Regardless of where it's posted, it's posted publically and therefore up for discussion.

So my assumption is that he's blathering on to his fans about how great they are because they like his books. And everyone else just doesn't trust his genius. It's sort of creepy, to be honest.

If there's a bunch of merit in what he's saying, I don't see it. Which is even sadder.

That the Malazan series is less popular in the world than The Wheel of Time is a fact. The discussion was about the *reasons* why it is so.

Stating: the Malazan series is bad. Is not stating a motivation, it is stating a consequence. Sometimes people try to analyze more why things are the way they are.

The debated born there, and is universal as all books are more or less popular than other books. In the same way one can analyze why Harry Potter or Twilight or aSoIaF are popular one can also analyze why the Prince of Nothing or Malazan are less so. Bakker on his own blog was also on this argument, he also called his books:

too damn dense, too damn difficult

and:

even if White-Luck manages to meet or even exceed my expectations, the overall series will never rise above the cult status it presently enjoys

Obviously EVERY writer who ever existed on the planet questions the process of his own writing and tries to improve. Stating "I suck" isn't really useful, so one tries to delve on the reason why one can meet a certain niche, or a popular success, or nothing at all.

There are reasons, as there are proofs that a number of readers find Malazan confusing and too dense, with a too high learning curve.

But this even goes beyond the discussion I wanted to prompt. The reason why I posted the second link because it is specifically about characterization and dialogue and I wanted to read some comments/reactions to those. They are interesting not because Erikson wrote them, but in general as pertinent to the writing process at large.

[Jussi]

I'd say Erikson's introduction to GotM was pretty much the sort of thing we'd see from Goodkind.

I don't have any problems with the new introduction, I agree with what Erikson is saying. It can be read over here.

By the way, Erikson is nowadays a New York Times bestselling author.

http://media.us.macmillan.com/jackets/500H/9780765348869.jpg

[Eurytus]

I don't have any problems with the new introduction, I agree with what Erikson is saying. It can be read over here.

By the way, Erikson is nowadays a New York Times bestselling author.

http://media.us.macm...80765348869.jpg

So is Goodkind.

[Jussi]

So is Goodkind.

He is vastly more popular than Erikson and a Number One New York Times bestseller... I didn't mean that Erikson is a good writer because of the sales. It was a reply to Gormenghast's post, I wanted to show that Erikson is actually quite popular and you can't directly compare him with Bakker.

And I don't recall Goodkind being a finalist for best novel World Fantasy Award. This whole Erikson=Goodkind argument is really strange in my opinion.

[Blaine]

Obviously EVERY writer who ever existed on the planet questions the process of his own writing and tries to improve. Stating "I suck" isn't really useful, so one tries to delve on the reason why one can meet a certain niche, or a popular success, or nothing at all.

There are reasons, as there are proofs that a number of readers find Malazan confusing and too dense, with a too high learning curve.

Yeah. There are reasons that don't sound like him learning yoga to pat his own back too.

Erikson's reason why people don't love him as they loved Jordan - "I am simply too complex and they must learn to study my shadowy complexly engineered ways of recreating fiction as you know it"

My reason why people don't love him as they loved Jordan - Because for all his faults, Jordan knew how to write characters and story. Period. No more bullshit rationalization needed.

[Gormenghast]

This recent discussion strikes me a very good parallel of what I recently read in Bakker:

Esmenet scowled. She turned to Inrau. "Does he do this to you?"

"You mean fault the question rather than answer?" Inrau said wryly. "All the time."

In this case the whole effort is trying to prove Erikson is an ass, so that whatever he may say can be dismissed in one big swoop. If he's another Goodkind then whatever he says or write must be idiotic or self-centered.

My reason why people don't love him as they loved Jordan - Because for all his faults, Jordan knew how to write characters and story. Period. No more bullshit rationalization needed.

"Jordan knew how to write characters and story" is another kind of tautology, like saying that a book is successful and the other is not.

Where are the *reasons*? If it's even true that Jordan knows how to write characters and story then there are reasons that explain this claim.

Stating things isn't the same of explaining them.

[Blaine]

"Jordan knew how to write characters and story" is another kind of tautology, like saying that a book is successful and the other is not.

Where are the *reasons*? If it's even true that Jordan knows how to write characters and story then there are reasons that explain this claim.

Stating things isn't the same of explaining them.

How many times in this thread have people explained why they didn't like Erikson's poor characterization skills? Faceless marines and superduperpowered uber wizards are *reasons*.

You might disagree with them, and that's fine. But don't act as though this is the first time you've heard that complaint. How much more explanation do you need?

[Gormenghast]

How many times in this thread have people explained why they didn't like Erikson's poor characterization skills? Faceless marines and superduperpowered uber wizards are *reasons*.

You might disagree with them, and that's fine. But don't act as though this is the first time you've heard that complaint. How much more explanation do you need?

The thread was basically closed and exhausted. You're forgetting that I reopened it by posting that last link. I wanted/wished discussion ON IT. ;)

But instead of a discussion on those themes we got a discussion about whether or not Erikson is an ass.

Then, since people were questioning the context, I began to explain the context of the FIRST message from Erikson. Explaining that it was OUR discussion where we were delving on the reason why Erikson's writing wasn't as popular as Jordan's writing.

[Blaine]

The thread was basically closed and exhausted. You're forgetting that I reopened it by posting that last link. I wanted/wished discussion ON IT. ;)

But instead of a discussion on those themes we got a discussion about whether or not Erikson is an ass.

Sorry Gormenghast, but I honestly read that piece and I thought the guy sounded like an ass. I apologize if that wasn't the discussion you wanted to have, but life is like that. ;)

Then, since people were questioning the context, I began to explain the context of the FIRST message from Erikson. Explaining that it was OUR discussion where we were delving on the reason why Erikson's writing wasn't as popular as Jordan's writing.

I give up.