|
Masonity posted:It's going to be written in first person, from the perspective of a single mote of dust, floating around Kharkanas, witnessing what winds will. And that mote of dust is in-fact a part of a T'Lan Imass who's attempted to submit to oblivion by spreading itself out as far as possible across Kharkanas.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 04:36 |
|
|
I think Rake roaming the earth with his buddies doing stuff would be cool, but the Andii and Kharkanas are very boring to me in general so I wonder how these books will turn out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
Lunchtray posted:And that mote of dust is in-fact a part of a T'Lan Imass who's attempted to submit to oblivion by spreading itself out as far as possible across Kharkanas. Now that would be cool. Unfortunately, I'm banking that Abalieno co-wrote the Kharkanas trilogy so it's going to be 100% philosophizing and post-modern defiance of genre tropes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
BananaNutkins posted:The third book was so bad that I will probably never read another book in the series. I couldnt care about any of the characters, the magic system got out of hand, too many side plots were presented, and resurrections get handed out like candy, long winded meeting scenes where nothing happens are followed up by long winded meeting scenes where nothing happens, every viewpoint character spends the first half of the chapter giving an introspective monologue, etc. There really are a lot of things I can't stand about this book, but take my opinion as subjective, of course. Lots of people have said Memories of Ice is their favorite book. I won't argue this point by point but I'll just say that enjoying MoI and really the series at large requires you to really enjoy the world and its lore and history. The story that eventually plays out (I'm assuming a bit; I haven't made it to the latter half of the series) is only just beginning in MoI. And yea, if you're looking for great characters I don't think you're going to find a lot of them in Malazan. Some, but not a lot. The only characters I really liked in MoI were Picker and Blend, Quick Ben to a point, Stonny, Lady Envy (goddamn I wish there had been more of her in the book or even a series of her own like the Korbal Broach/Bauchelain books), Crone, and Kruppe to a point. Other characters have interesting storylines (Paran, Toc, Gruntle) or are funny (most of the Bridgeburners) or just kinda cool but aren't really that great otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
I just hope that Erikson's promised shift in tone means that we don't have to read the musings of more world-weary soldiers. I've had enough of that to last a lifetime after DoD and TCG. I finally got around to picking up Orb, Sceptre, Throne today. I'm glad I took some time away from this series, as I'm enjoying it much more than I expected to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 03:26
|
|
|
There's a reference to Malazan in ME3. :3 An alliance war asset called the Bridge Burners, an engineer corp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 16:13
|
|
|
Conduit for Sale! posted:I won't argue this point by point but I'll just say that enjoying MoI and really the series at large requires you to really enjoy the world and its lore and history. The story that eventually plays out (I'm assuming a bit; I haven't made it to the latter half of the series) is only just beginning in MoI.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
I wrote a thing about Erikson writing style compared to Martin if someone's interested: http://loopingworld.com/2012/03/12/two-styles-of-writing/ But it covers most stuff, like why Erikson's style is not so friendly and why some readers can't get into it and so on. Lots of these issues come up regularly, so this is my take.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 05:09
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:I wrote a thing about Erikson writing style compared to Martin if someone's interested: http://loopingworld.com/2012/03/12/two-styles-of-writing/ It's not very good, I hope this helps. Seriously: quote:Going to read Erikson (notice that I’ll dramatize a lot to draw out these differences) is like being offered a plate of bones. You crunch noisily bones with your teeth and is not exactly as pleasant and gratifying (fulfilling) as sinking those teeth in juicy meat, grease dripping down your chin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:I wrote a thing about Erikson writing style compared to Martin if someone's interested: http://loopingworld.com/2012/03/12/two-styles-of-writing/ Analyzing on your own at this point in your career is probably not the best idea. It would probably be more beneficial to you to read a few good books on writing, like Steve King's On Writing, Strunk and Whites Elements of Style, and Orson Scott Card's Character and Viewpoint. You lack the ability to put your nebulous feelings into words. I read your entire post and had no idea what you were talking about most of the time. Martin is a master of limited PoV and uses description, setting, and plot to tell you what the characters are thinking and feeling. Martin also has set rooms on how much he can show--as far as I can remember, the camera never pans back. Erikson takes the easy way out most of the time and has the viewpoint deliver an introspective monologue. When the characters arent monologuing, Erikson's style is more akin to watching a movie take place--you aren't in any single characters head for many of the scenes. MartingaleJack fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Mar 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 08:15
|
|
|
I love the series so far, I'm on Reaper's Gale, but as a stoner I have to hit that glossary 10 million times. So many characters to keep track of and major details are revealed very subtly sometimes. But we've all had those TV series/movies/books that take effort but are worth it in the end. The first book by far is the hardest to get through, unfortunately, but if you keep at it you will be rewarded.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 14:27
|
|
|
the least weasel posted:There's a reference to Malazan in ME3. :3 An alliance war asset called the Bridge Burners, an engineer corp. I just came to post the same thing. I have a pic if people want to see the entry but I'm afraid of spoilering.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 15:33
|
|
|
BananaNutkins posted:The third book was so bad that I will probably never read another book in the series. I couldnt care about any of the characters, the magic system got out of hand, too many side plots were presented, and resurrections get handed out like candy, long winded meeting scenes where nothing happens are followed up by long winded meeting scenes where nothing happens, every viewpoint character spends the first half of the chapter giving an introspective monologue, etc. There really are a lot of things I can't stand about this book, but take my opinion as subjective, of course. Lots of people have said Memories of Ice is their favorite book. There's a few major things here. As far as the magic system goes, it's more complete than you might think. People have actually managed to figure out plot points ahead of time based on the logic of the magic system he has. He does some weird things with it but it all flows together very consistently. Resurrection is featured pretty often, but it's usually not taken lightly. Characters who come back resurrected don't just fall back into their old positions, they tend to be broken or changed in some way. The pacing issues are real and they get worse, but it's generally not enough to really detract from the book.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 16:19
|
|
|
BananaNutkins posted:I read your entire post and had no idea what you were talking about most of the time. Well, that's weird because I avoided technical language and mostly used obvious examples. I guess certain levels were missed. I disguised a review of Midnight Tides within that analysis. If you notice I described the whole argument by evoking the Lether/Tiste Edur conflict. Bright light versus shadow/darkness. Right in the covers I used. A Clash of Kings in white, Midnight Tide in blue/black. This definitely reflects in a cultural perspective that often has the tendency to "blot out" different voices. Or smaller cultural identities. The idea of progress, Lether. But also the Oscars, if you think about it, follow a similar pattern. They self-celebrate. It's not that Hollywood makes the best movie in the world, but it definitely makes movies that are culturally dominant, whose language becomes more universal. Subtler languages are considered less effective, merely because they aren't properly aligned with a more powerful canon. Martin's prose is evidently descriptive and vivid. So it's really natural to compare his writing style to a rich meal. I don't think everyone would disagree. It's pleasant, flowing prose. Evokes a sense of abundance. This is why if you compare another writer to Martin it always feel "lacking". It's not limited to Erikson. Even the new wave of Rothfuss, Lynch, Abercrombie, Sanderson, Bakker, just can't match up Martin's writing. And for many readers those aren't even options, because Martin's writing is "top tier". In my opinion because Martin has an "abundant" style that, like a bright sun, tends to "blot out" everything else. It's a dominating language. But this creates a kind of asymmetric perception, because, in truth, Martin also "lacks" certain parts. It's only that you notice it less, since the sense of abundance disguises it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
Don't use all those "quotes".
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
Don't worry, because George R. R. Martin will probably die with the series unfinished and the bright sun will snuffed out in an instant. It will take a few years for the last of the light to reach us, but afterwards we will be able to pay attention to works that use less abundantly descriptive language, and judge works on their own merits and not in the fat shadow of Master Martin. Edit: Also, I hate defending GRRM and this isn't really the thread for it, but have you considered that perhaps religion not being a powerful focus in Westeros is actually intentional? That the institution lacks power? Not to spoil things but it also becomes more of a focus in later books. I do agree with you when you say that Erikson tends to be more inwardly focused. I just think its disingenuous to say that ASOIAF is somehow "blotting out" other fantasy writers and hiding them away in the bowels of the genre. They are also quite popular, if not with the general population (HBO helped here). bigmcgaffney fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Mar 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
I wish there wasn't so much "abundance" in Martin's writing, maybe then he'd stop talking about food so goddamn much. And heraldry! His descriptions of characters, for instance, are formulaic, repetitive, and hardly inspiring. I think you're overstating his technical ability. Martin's writing is pretty good, but the real draw of his books is the story and characters - his characterisation is probably better than Erikson's (but not as good as say, Abercrombie, in my opinion), and I'm certainly invested in finding out what happens to his cast. His writing is fairly easy to read, which is a skill in it's own right, but I don't think it's that evocative. Erikson's appeal is different - for me it's more in the sense of world and history and depth to everything. Oddly, of those other authors you've listed, I think Rothfuss has probably the nicest prose (out of those I've read), but he's probably my least favourite writer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
bigmcgaffney posted:Don't worry, because George R. R. Martin will probably die with the series unfinished and the bright sun will snuffed out in an instant. But I DO worry, because I actually like reading Martin and hope the series will be finished (see my rant down the blog page). quote:Edit: Also, I hate defending GRRM and this isn't really the thread for it, but have you considered that perhaps religion not being a powerful focus in Westeros is actually intentional? In fact I do believe it's intentional. But I also believe that Martin starts to get more clumsy and less effective whenever he moves away from earthly, visceral themes. As I said, mystery either works when he channels classical approach, or gets awkward and clumsy. HBO helped, but the point is that Martin was ready for the large public. The qualities are already there. I'm not complaining that Martin gets the attention. I'm saying that there's something in Martin's writing that is powerful and that draws readers in. He totally deserves the popularity, and that's why I compare him to other writers to see what's "missing".
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:But I DO worry, because I actually like reading Martin and hope the series will be finished (see my rant down the blog page). I see what you are saying. Martin's writing stems from years as a writer in television, which shows when you see how easily it was adapted for HBO. He draws you in with compelling characters, both shocking and badass moments, witty one-liners, and cliffhangers (until they become overused at least) that makes you want to keep reading at a feverish pace. Yet there is also technical competence as well, and you really don't start seeing the flaws until later in the series (not including GotM, I think this happens to Malazan as well). It might be less overtly introspective than Malazan, but I think you also get a better sense of what is going on in the characters head. Character is probably the most obvious difference. When you look at Jaime's arc side by side with, say, Crokus or Nimander or someone, it just doesn't compare. That being said, I think it is important to compare authors to be able to appreciate them more, not in order to depreciate one or the other, which I think is the point of your article. Also a caveat I have to add is that I rarely re-read anything. The moment I start I remember the entire plot and I become disinterested, and the motivation to finish is gone. So much of my analysis is based on that first read where I was absorbed in "what will happen next" which was probably years ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 23:33
|
|
|
bigmcgaffney posted:It might be less overtly introspective than Malazan, but I think you also get a better sense of what is going on in the characters head. And that's why I said even Martin's characterization is "outward". The characters have no shadows. It's like a light shining within them, at least the main PoVs, that casts out all darkness. I'm reading these days non-fiction about consciousness and the unconscious, so I particularly notice that Martin's characters are outward in a way that admits no complexity within. They act plainly accordingly to immediate needs and personal histories. So, when I say that religion is banished, I also mean that the characters themselves lack spirituality or inwardness. It's really that obvious if you look carefully. But since the prose style is so eschew and moved toward the outside, you just don't notice. You don't feel like something is lacking in characters or description because Martin is overly abundant. The bright sun blots out starlight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
bigmcgaffney posted:
Staying out of the rest of this mess because I have a deep hatred for Martin's series on several levels and don't want to beat on that drum yet again, but I really don't see how anyone can say Malazan's character arcs don't compare to Martin's. Martin never really breaks any new ground in his character arcs (frankly, I find his characters extremely hard to relate to on any meaningful level, though this may be because Martin doesn't write any characters I like to read about). That said, Martin somehow managed to pull something decent out of his rear end with Jaime's to make it into a legitimately good character arc, enough so that I consider it uneven to compare it to Nimander or Crokus (though not by much, and I think the progress Nimander and Crokus go through bests anything else in ASoIaF). If I were to pick one character arc out of Malazan to showcase, it'd have to be either Mappo or Karsa's. Erikson really hit on something wonderful with both of those, enough so that I feel spoiled by them when reading other works.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
Karsa would be much more applicable since the arc was actually present and not boring as poo poo (Nimander) or random and forced (Cutter, the second Darkest Star). Karsa rules. When you have 250 viewpoint characters in a series you are probably going to get some good ones. Along those lines you probably are going to have a few that are underwhelming for certain people. Since I like both series quite a bit, I don't know why I feel compelled to try and knock Malazan down a few pegs while "defending" a fat gently caress I loathe and losing my edgy Bad Thread street cred. Its just something about this thread; I guess I understand how HoTR feels. The concept of outward vs. inward focus is interesting though, I just don't agree that Martin is solely outward focused while Erikson is focused inward. I feel like there is plenty of moments where the line blurs. Tyrion, especially later, has internal conflict where his personal convictions clash with external societal pressures; I'd say his character looks inward to make a statement about the external world. Similarly there are many characters in Malazan that are swept along with the currents of the ascendents and gods, pawns to external forces. If one of those characyers has a philosophical internal monologue, I wouldn't say they are inward looking. I just don't think its as black/white a dichotomy as you do. Edit: basically, its not "really that obvious" bigmcgaffney fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Mar 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 01:03
|
|
|
I think the characterization in Malazan is one of the series' strongest points. Erikson does a fantastic job showing, not telling, who characters are. It's one of the strengths of the books that often I'll read one character's opinion of another and think to myself "that's not who he/she is like at all." Even the individual Malazan marines all have their own personalities. Martin certainly does a fantastic job of getting into the heads of his POV characters, but as far as the entire cast is concerned I have a better impression of all of Erikson's characters as individuals, and I think it would be hard for me to narrow it down to even my top ten favorites in the Malazan series. They're sort of tough to compare just because of narrative style. Erikson is more focused on events and will jump from viewpoint to viewpoint to give a bunch of different characters' perspectives on the happenings (and usually some insight into the mind of that character) but tends not to reuse the same point of view within each chapter. He likes to alternate chapters by location and ery rarely will he end one on a cliffhanger or otherwise leave something happening unresolved. Martin on the other hand is very focused on his characters but will happily cut out on an event at its most dramatic, leaving it unresolved until either he returns to the POV character later or has some other character comment offhand about what happened. There are only a few instances I can think of in the series where we get to read about something happening from beginning to end. So I think it just comes down to focus really. Erikson knows the story he wants to tell and uses his characters as a vehicle to tell it. Martin knows the characters he wants to examine and uses the story as a vehicle to make us want to see what happens to them next.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
The Ninth Layer posted:I think the characterization in Malazan is one of the series' strongest points. Erikson does a fantastic job showing, not telling, who characters are. It's one of the strengths of the books that often I'll read one character's opinion of another and think to myself "that's not who he/she is like at all." Even the individual Malazan marines all have their own personalities. Martin certainly does a fantastic job of getting into the heads of his POV characters, but as far as the entire cast is concerned I have a better impression of all of Erikson's characters as individuals, and I think it would be hard for me to narrow it down to even my top ten favorites in the Malazan series. I agree with this post right here. The focus is different.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 01:30
|
|
|
bigmcgaffney posted:Karsa would be much more applicable since the arc was actually present and not boring as poo poo (Nimander) or random and forced (Cutter, the second Darkest Star). Karsa rules. There are quite a few other characters with good arcs. The fanatic that is betrayed at the burning city and joins the Bonehunters, pretty much all of the Sengar brothers, Tool and many others. The main difference between Martin and Erickson is that Martin breaks his characters and watches them try to rebuild themselves while Erickson sets events in motion and sees how people react. The other major difference is that Erickson tends to see his characters as having already developed. Rake, Stormy and Geslar, Dassem etc all had a definite personalities and life histories. They had a character arc, but it's almost over.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 08:04
|
|
|
One character of Erikson's that I think is just as well written as any of Martin's is Kallor. He has an arc that's similar to Jamie's in that I hated him with a passion and thought he was the biggest lowlife rear end in a top hat until I got to know him in later books and see things from his viewpoint, after that he became one of my favorites.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 08:31
|
|
|
The Ninth Layer posted:So I think it just comes down to focus really. Erikson knows the story he wants to tell and uses his characters as a vehicle to tell it. Martin knows the characters he wants to examine and uses the story as a vehicle to make us want to see what happens to them next. I agree with this, mostly. The "inward/outward" difference is more a function of the perspective used than either author's abilities. Erikson's characters all exist to help characterize the world he's writing about and the plot going on within it, and Martin is writing a pure character drama. They're not really similar outside of falling in the same genre. I'm not sure how a character is supposed to have unknowable motivations when their thoughts are exposed, outside of unreliable narrator shenanigans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 13:37
|
|
|
savinhill posted:One character of Erikson's that I think is just as well written as any of Martin's is Kallor. He has an arc that's similar to Jamie's in that I hated him with a passion and thought he was the biggest lowlife rear end in a top hat until I got to know him in later books and see things from his viewpoint, after that he became one of my favorites. And both of them are found, in flashbacks, kicking back and relaxing on thrones at inappropriate times - Jaime after he killed the mad king, and Kallor after he slaughtered his whole kingdom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 08:29
|
|
|
savinhill posted:One character of Erikson's that I think is just as well written as any of Martin's is Kallor. He has an arc that's similar to Jamie's in that I hated him with a passion and thought he was the biggest lowlife rear end in a top hat until I got to know him in later books and see things from his viewpoint, after that he became one of my favorites.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
Finished Orb Sceptre Throne today, and oddly enough, I think it could have been longer. ICE is definitely improving as a writer, but he seems to rush his books to their conclusions; Stonewielder had the same problem. Aside from the lack of resolution at the end, however, I'd say OST is his best book yet. Almost all of the returning characters from Erikson's books felt right to me, and the interactions ICE creates for them are all really great. There were some great surprises too. Bauchelain and Broach! Chaur returns! Madrun, Lazan and Studlock continue to be highlights as well. I'm a bit confused about the Seguleh First's mask, though. Where did that thing come from? I can't remember anyone finding it during the course of the book, and I also don't recall it being mentioned anywhere else in the series, unless it's what the Seguleh who captured Iron Bars were looking for. EDIT: Oh wait, did Oru come from the Spawns with Antsy? That would explain it. Also, Oru is the male Seguleh 11th, but I thought the 11th was the female Seguleh who was scheduled to fight Rhulad in RG? Am I misremembering this? Juaguocio fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Mar 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
Marketing blurb for the forge of darkness: It’s a conflicted time in Kurald Galain, the warren of Darkness, where Mother Dark reigns. But this ancient land was once home to many a power… and even death is not quite eternal. The commoners’ great hero, Vatha Urusander, longs for ascendency and Mother Dark’s hand in marriage, but she has taken another Consort, Lord Draconus, from the faraway Dracon Hold. The idea of this union sends fissures throughout the realm, and as the rumors of civil war burn through the masses, an ancient power emerges from the long dead seas. Caught in the middle of it all are the Sons of Darkness, Anomander, Adarist, and Silchas Ruin of the Purake Hold. Sounds political :iamafag:
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 16:21
|
|
|
Sons of Darkness. That blurb sounds so silly, if I hadn't read Malazan and gotten interested with Erikson I would've not given a book with that kind of description a second glance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
I chuckled because you missed to quote a part that is quite fitting the latest discussions here: Steven Erikson brings to life this ancient and important tale set in the world he introduced in the Malazan Book of the Fallen in a way that should appeal to fans of George R. R. Martin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:I chuckled because you missed to quote a part that is quite fitting the latest discussions here: Yeah that part pissed me off. Books are long? Large list of characters? Labeled as Fantasy? Fiction? Well of course they'll appeal to the same fans!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:Yeah that part pissed me off. Books are long? Large list of characters? Labeled as Fantasy? Fiction? Well of course they'll appeal to the same fans! They kind of do? Compare the two fan bases and you'll find more fans in common than people who have read both and dislike one or the other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 13:53
|
|
|
Eh in my experience trying to convince someone to try the malazan series by comparing it with Martin is rarely successful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
I've noticed that as well, mostly because part of Martin's appeal is to people who don't actually like fantasy but like the medieval soap opera aspect of the series. Whenever something fantastical actually does happen in ASoIaF, there's typically a decent amount of bitching about it because the lack of things like that is what got people into the series to begin with. Compare to Malazan where there are mages, gods, dragons, shapeshifters, and basically just ~magic~ everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 20:52
|
|
|
Whoever posted about the undead space raptors in Memories of Ice, haha oh man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
Monolith. posted:Whoever posted about the undead space raptors in Memories of Ice, haha oh man. Yeah I'm about 300 pages in with MoI and I'm loving it. Unlike the first two this one had me gripped from the start, probably because it wasn't introducing 40 new characters, just like 15.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 04:36 |
|
|
FlyingCowOfDoom posted:Yeah I'm about 300 pages in with MoI and I'm loving it. Unlike the first two this one had me gripped from the start, probably because it wasn't introducing 40 new characters, just like 15. You could say you are enraptored by the book.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2012 00:07
|
|