What should I read first?

[Werthead]

C'mon, not even the most rabid Erikson fans can claim his characters are 'deeper' than Martin's. They're larger-than-life, swashbuckling figures which are fun, and some of them are very well characterised (such as Rake, Karsa Orlong, Whiskeyjack etc) but do any of them match Tyrion, Jaime or Jon Snow in believability or convincing development? Nope.

Plus the question was about Erikson comparied to Bakker. If you're on a GRRM website, the assumption would be you've read GRRM already

[Arakasi]

I wouldn't call Jon Snow particularily deep, although Jaime and Tyrion imo are. Martin does use a lot of archetypes. Of course so does Erikson. Difference is Martin takes the archetypes and developes the characters off of them while Erikson well either just leaves them as archetypes or developes characters that don't really fit any (like Trull or Felisin) I will admit that Martin's characters in general are deeper, but not all. I think Karsa, Trull, Itkovian or Felisin are as well written or deep as anyone in Martin's world (not saying they're all better characters, just that they're well developed and to me deep characters). I wouldn't call Rake a deep character though. He's pretty similar imo to Moorcock's Elric. He's cool and I really like him, but he certainly ain't deep to me. Imo Felisin is the best written character of the two series, although not my favorite.

I'm not sure who I would say is Martin's best character. Ned was pretty up there. Jaime probably right now would be who I'd think is the best written character of Martin. But I wouldn't use convincability/believability as a good comparison between Martin and most other fantasy authors. Reason being is Martin has created a world much much more similar to our world. Thus people there should behave in what we'd call a more human fashion. Afterall they don't have to deal with things like immortality, magical power, interaction with the gods and so on.

[Guest Raidne]

Yeah, Erikson characters are really not all that developed and multidimensional. I thought he did the best job with Tattersail, so far. Duiker is a pretty believable character as well, but he seems to serve as the voice of the author (historian/anthropologist) , so maybe he shouldn't count.

I, predictably, like Martin much, much better, but I used to be obsessed with medieval history, so I like stuff that's not as far out there a lot better. And of course Martin's characters are better. Martin's characters are more believable than other other fantasy author I have ever read, but I'd be surprised if there's anyone on this site who would disagree with that. I mean, Jon Snow might be boring, but he's still believable.

[Larry.]

If after 5 pages you haven't decided which author to read, let me give you a very good facetious reason to read Bakker over Erikson first:

My SN is in the Acknowledgements section of Bakker's third book. Therefore, it must be better than that of Erikson, who has yet to put me into the Acknowledgements section of any of his books

Note: Although what I said was true in regards to the mention, I'm not being all that serious. I enjoyed both authors greatly. If you want to take me seriously on that point, go screw yourself

[Guest Raidne]

If after 5 pages you haven't decided which author to read, let me give you a very good facetious reason to read Bakker over Erikson first:

My SN is in the Acknowledgements section of Bakker's third book. Therefore, it must be better than that of Erikson, who has yet to put me into the Acknowledgements section of any of his books

That's great! Although, unfortunately, I already decided that Bakker kind of sucks...sorry.

However, your second sig line is making me have second thoughts....

Still, though, the warring schools of sorcerers kind of turned me off, and I didn't like Kelhas (whose name I can't remember how to spell now), who I assume is the main character....I'm going to go back to it anyway sooner or later, so if you'd like to suggest a better mindset from which to approach the books I'm all ears.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Just curious - do people who really like tDtCB also think that Thus Spoke Zarathustra was one of Nietschze's best works? For me, a lot of western thinkers get really cheesy when they try to integrate eastern philosophy. Like Jesus, for instance.

No, Beyond Good & Evil is the best.

Still, though, the warring schools of sorcerers kind of turned me off

Why?

and I didn't like Kelhas (whose name I can't remember how to spell now), who I assume is the main character....

It's about him, but the real protagonist is probably Achamian. Kellhus is the center of attention, but the story is about how these people interact with this messiah-like ubermensch figure.

I'm going to go back to it anyway sooner or later, so if you'd like to suggest a better mindset from which to approach the books I'm all ears.

History of the Crusades & Philosophy 101 meets Frank Herbert's Dune & Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good & Evil.

[Doppelganger]

Still, though, the warring schools of sorcerers kind of turned me off

I can't understand that. I think the warring of the schools is one of the greatest aspects of the book. One of my favourite parts so far is where

SPOILER: warrior prophet

Achamian kills that whole lot of Scarlet Spires in the Warrior Prophet.

Sorcery battles kick ass in The Prince of Nothing series. I haven't really found another series where I enjoy reading Sorcery battles, besides this one.

[RaceBannon42]

I can't understand that. I think the warring of the schools is one of the greatest aspects of the book. One of my favourite parts so far is where

SPOILER: warrior prophet

Achamian kills that whole lot of Scarlet Spires in the Warrior Prophet.

Sorcery battles kick ass in The Prince of Nothing series. I haven't really found another series where I enjoy reading Sorcery battles, besides this one.

I totally agree Conphas.. The scenes when Akka struts his stuff are great.

[Guest Raidne]

It's about him, but the real protagonist is probably Achamian. Kellhus is the center of attention, but the story is about how these people interact with this messiah-like ubermensch figure.

Ah, see, but in case you didn't pick it up from my earlier post, I'm not a big fan of messiah-like ubermensch figures in my fiction, e.g. I'm not a big Dany fan. Rand al'Thor gets on my nerves too. And Paul Atreides. What I love about Tolkein is that he gave that role to a hobbit.

I have yet to find any characters like that in the Malazan series so far (just finished DG), so maybe that's one of the reasons I like it.

I don't know why an overload of sorcery turns me off - maybe I'm just not much a pure fantasy reader. I actually like it when authors try to make a point about the real world.

[Zadok]

Ah, see, but in case you didn't pick it up from my earlier post, I'm not a big fan of messiah-like ubermensch figures in my fiction, e.g. I'm not a big Dany fan. Rand al'Thor gets on my nerves too. And Paul Atreides. What I love about Tolkein is that he gave that role to a hobbit.

I have yet to find any characters like that in the Malazan series so far (just finished DG), so maybe that's one of the reasons I like it.

I don't know why an overload of sorcery turns me off - maybe I'm just not much a pure fantasy reader. I actually like it when authors try to make a point about the real world.

Well, Erikson certainly trumps Bakker in terms of sorcery, and it's not even close. There are a few big sorcerous confrontations in the PoN, but magic is pretty much involved with everything in Malazan.

[Werthead]

That's great! Although, unfortunately, I already decided that Bakker kind of sucks...sorry.

However, your second sig line is making me have second thoughts....

Still, though, the warring schools of sorcerers kind of turned me off, and I didn't like Kelhas (whose name I can't remember how to spell now), who I assume is the main character....I'm going to go back to it anyway sooner or later, so if you'd like to suggest a better mindset from which to approach the books I'm all ears.

Yep, as others said, Kellhus is the antihero. Achamian is the closest thing we have to a conventional, sympathetic protagonist.

[Arakasi]

Achiamen is the window through which we see the story. The story is about Kelhus, not Achi though.

[Guest Raidne]

Well, Erikson certainly trumps Bakker in terms of sorcery, and it's not even close. There are a few big sorcerous confrontations in the PoN, but magic is pretty much involved with everything in Malazan.

Yes, I see your point in that the actual use of sorcery is ever-present in Erikson. Nevertheless, I still think it's different somehow. Something about the warring between the schools of sorcercy bothers me. I don't think I would like Erikson if each country had its own warren or whatever either. The sorcery crosses political affiliations. And besides, Erikson's books don't take themselves too seriously anyway, so I'm a just more likely to put up with factors that would otherwise bother me.

[DecayingExponentials]

I just started reading GoTM. I'm about 80 pages in so far, and the one thing that has been getting to me is the dialogue. It sounds like everyone is so angry at each other. Angry and also threatening. The way Paran, Topper, and the Adjunct talk to each other really annoyed me. I don't think Erikson's strength lies in his dialogue because it just sounds so D&Dish so far.

Besides the dialogue I like GoTM. I enjoy wars and large-scale battles and I have a feeling Erikson is going to deliver in that respect.

I also have the first two books by Bakker and I am going to get to them soon.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

I don't think I would like Erikson if each country had its own warren or whatever either. The sorcery crosses political affiliations.

The sorcery also crosses political affiliations in Bakker's world, for the most part. There are different schools, but they are merely different organizations playing the same sport. The only exceptions to the rule are the Mandate and the Cishaurim. And the Mandate really are a very minor political affiliation at best since they consider themselves neutral in the political wars (although there is some natural animosity with the Scarlet-controlled High Ainon.

There are really only the analogic schools, the one gnostic school, and the sorcerer-priests. The Imperial Saik are fiercely devoted to the Empire. Then you have the Scarlet Spires who are political sorcerers who rule a nation through puppet rulers, but they want more power. And the mercenary school, whose name escapes me. All of these are analogic schools (three different brands of vanilla ice cream), so their method crosses political affiliations.

The Mandate, the gnostic school (chocolate ice cream), has more power, but have less numbers and are thought to be a joke by the Three Seas. The struggles between the Mandate and the Scarlet Spires are really the only warring schools presented in the books outside of the Cishaurim sorcerer-priests (whipped cream).

Understanding the differences between the Analogic, the Gnostic, and Psuske methods are vital to understanding the world. And the differences are not truly revealed until the second half of book 3. If it wasn't for the warring schools of sorcery (to have as examples of different methods), I can assure you that it would be even harder to understand Bakker's cosmology.

[Guest Raidne]

The sorcery also crosses political affiliations in Bakker's world, for the most part. There are different schools, but they are merely different organizations playing the same sport. The only exceptions to the rule are the Mandate and the Cishaurim. And the Mandate really are a very minor political affiliation at best since they consider themselves neutral in the political wars (although there is some natural animosity with the Scarlet-controlled High Ainon.

There are really only the analogic schools, the one gnostic school, and the sorcerer-priests. The Imperial Saik are fiercely devoted to the Empire. Then you have the Scarlet Spires who are political sorcerers who rule a nation through puppet rulers, but they want more power. And the mercenary school, whose name escapes me. All of these are analogic schools (three different brands of vanilla ice cream), so their method crosses political affiliations.

The Mandate, the gnostic school (chocolate ice cream), has more power, but have less numbers and are thought to be a joke by the Three Seas. The struggles between the Mandate and the Scarlet Spires are really the only warring schools presented in the books outside of the Cishaurim sorcerer-priests (whipped cream).

Understanding the differences between the Analogic, the Gnostic, and Psuske methods are vital to understanding the world. And the differences are not truly revealed until the second half of book 3. If it wasn't for the warring schools of sorcery (to have as examples of different methods), I can assure you that it would be even harder to understand Bakker's cosmology.

I think I caught most of the first three paragraphs of your post from the 250 pages or so I read, and it just didn't spark my interest when I was reading the book. As for the rest...

Could you possibly be convinced to do a big favor and just tell me what the difference is before I go any further? If it seems interesting to me, I'd be more likely to read it. You should probably spoiler it, I guess. If it would take so long as to be a pain in the ass, don't worry about, but otherwise I'd appreciate it.

[Kalbear]

The main differences:

SPOILER: sorcery wackiness

Gnosis is pure magic, intellectual magic. It is like the mathematics of magic, metamagic. Anagogic magic is by comparison based on analogies - instead of making flame, you summon a dragon's head that produces flame. Instead of having wards that protect you against physical harm, you create artificial stone wards thta do the same. The analogies aren't as good as the real deal.

The Cishaurim and the pshuke (or however the hell you spell it) is based on passion, and isn't well-understood. The important thing is that the more passionate and determined you are, the more powerful you are. This is probably why the strongest Cishaurim are the ones that are also the most devout.

[snake]

Was thinking about reading both of these guys but am now reconsidering because there seems to be a lot of magic in the books.

Now I don't mind a lot of magic if it's handled the way LeGuin handled it in the Earthsea trilogy, but I'm concerned that such is not the case with these two authors.

Would someone please inform me on how they handle magic?

[Kalbear]

Bakker:There actually isn't that much magic in the books, all told. The magic that is used is used logically, reasonably, with a fairly good metaphysics behind it that makes sense and that fits in well with the general society and philosophy. The questions I usually ask - things like 'if wizards are so powerful, why aren't they ruling?' and 'why can't they make society better?' were answered early on.

I'll put it this way: magic as a focus in the world is fairly important; one of the lead characters is a sorceror, there's a big war between schools of sorcerors, etc. But in terms of actually influencing what really happens, or what the book is truly about? Oh, that's all too human. And kind of sick, sometimes.

Erikson: Magic is all around. Everywhere. Everything and almost everyone is magical in some way - either actually using magic or influenced by gods or what have you. Doesn't really matter. It's magic, all the way down.

[DisFunctional]

Was thinking about reading both of these guys but am now reconsidering because there seems to be a lot of magic in the books.

Now I don't mind a lot of magic if it's handled the way LeGuin handled it in the Earthsea trilogy, but I'm concerned that such is not the case with these two authors.

Would someone please inform me on how they handle magic?

I haven't read Erikson, but just finished The Thousandfold Thought. Bakker's magic does indeed seem to belong to "the few", and isn't commonplace in his world. That said, the sorcerers are MUCH too powerful for my taste.

All in all, the series was worth reading...that's about it.