Eriksons writing style

[Phantasm]

Now I may be a little drunk (ok, I am a little drunk), but reading through some of the quotation posts here, it seems to me that the outstanding thing about his writing is the attention to detail about conversations that "normal people" would have, which include heavy doses of irony and scepticism.

Maybe it's only me ( I work in a prison), but these type of conversations happen on a daily basis in the environment I work in. Maybe it's the "dryness" of the writing which impresses me most, but I get the feeling that Erikson has studied human behaviour and realises that writing about it in a way that the average (is there such a thing) person in the street will identify with it will sell more books.

Thoughts please

[aliantha]

I think you've summed it up rather well.

[Farm Ur-Ted]

I agree; the dude is amazing at writing conversations, or just regular banter. I can't think of any other sff writer who does what he does.

[Darujhistan]

He's certainly managed to portray convincing conversations, the sarcasm and p*** taking that goes on between the Bridgeburners being a notable example.

[Phantasm]

He's certainly managed to portray convincing conversations, the sarcasm and p*** taking that goes on between the Bridgeburners being a notable example.

That's exactly what I was focusing on.

It's the same as what I experience at work. Maybe that's why I identify with it so much.

(Elephant skins'r'us )

[Mr. Broken]

This conversation seems to have cooled somewhat, so I see no harm in reheating it. Being rather new to the Book of the Fallen (I just started House of Chains), and having had limited opportunity to gush like the idiot fan I have become, I could not resist. Eriksons style of writing in my opinion thrives on the near physical reaction it provokes in the reader . A gentle kiss to the lips, followed by a cheap shot in the gut. Chapters finished with a roar of triumph, or a wail of anguish. Any one of which fraught with potential for a surprise belly laugh. The rereads have been easier than the initials , since your spared the near anxiety attack, and can pay more attention to detail. All that said Eriksons writing often leaves me feeling like Ive been bit in the face by a horse, and I love it.

[Orlion]

I find there are still moments when Erikson and Esselmont both surprise me greatly. The events I'm currently thinking of are in future books, though, so I'll spoiler them and state which one.

From Bonehunters:

Spoiler

When the jade giants crashed into the earth! Holy crap, that was awesome! That's kinda how disasters happen, you're walking along and BAM! You're staring at annihilation! Now, seeing how people call this a Dues ex machina and frown upon it as if they could do better, there actually was foreshadowing with changes in the moon... but I just loved how Paran is essentially talking life when this happens:
"So I says to the man, that is my- ooohhh..... shiiiit...."

From Return of the Crimson Guard

Spoiler

When the Guard lands in Unta and nobody seems to care, everyone is just carrying on with their routine. Of course, it was a trap, but it really brought the Guard from their heights down to earth and was kinda humorous.

[Tenara]

Wow, it's a long time since I've been on this forum. (I've been trying to stay away to wait for the whole of the Last Chronicles to be out before I read it, but I couldn't resist a discussion about my current favourite books.)

I'm only halfway through Deadhouse Gates at the moment, but I'm loving Erikson's writing style. I love the way every word adds something to the character development, story, history, etc, and there's no filler. I love the way he writes so well from different viewpoints .... for example, Kalam realised the man who had arrived beside him unnoticed was only "a knife's thrust away" .... only an assassin would put it like that.

I know what you mean, Mr. Broken, about feeling like you're been hit in the face by a horse. I described it as "chewed up and spat out," and it's exactly the same feeling as I get reading SRD's books. I never thought I'd find another writer who can do that.

With most of the fantasy I've read recently, you're aware that you're reading a story most of the time. With Erikson, you're there, in the middle of whatever's happening.

I can't find any faults with his writing style so far, and that's saying a lot for me.

[Avatar]

Wow, you've got a long way to go and lots to experience, if you're only on DHG.

Welcome back to the Watch.

--A

[Cameraman Jenn]

Not to be nitpicky but "Return of the Crimson Guard" is actually Esselmont....

[Avatar]

He did say Erikson and Esselmont...

--A

[Orlion]

Yeah!

[Mr. Broken]

Im open for discussion on Esselmonts style, or even a comparison of his work with Erikson's. I dont believe starting another thread should be necessary. In fact it seems appropriate since I actually started with Esselmont. I read NOK before GOTM, and then 3 Bachelain, and Korbal Broach stories ( I hear there are more now, well at least one). Then DHG, then MOI, then ROTCG ( Chronological error, and overwhelming curiosity), and now Im currently reading Midnight Tides.
So I have at least some familiarity with both.

[Orlion]

Ok, I'm over three hundred pages into Dust of Dreams, and I am still boogled that people think Erikson writes slow beginnings. I mean, such revelations as

Spoiler

The Frokul Assail sacrificing blood to awaken the Otaral Dragon in an attempt to bring justice to the world

Is pretty damn exciting. We don't need constant battles to have an interesting story...

[Avatar]

Yeah, but you do need context. Which takes time too. If you read that in the opening chapter of the series, it wouldn't be exciting, would it?

--A

[Orlion]

Yeah, but you do need context. Which takes time too. If you read that in the opening chapter of the series, it wouldn't be exciting, would it?

--A

Maybe so, but how can you go through eight books of this stuff and not get context?

Also, here's my rebuttal for people who say Erikson "starts his books slow":

You're slow

That is all