Kevin's Watch

Could someone please compare SRDs writing with/to Martin's, Erickson's, and maybe Zindell's, too...contrast 'em, etc. I'm interested, but I don't usually read fantasy, having only read SRD, Tolkien and Lewis.

Would love your opinions...

- Plot and Pacing
- Characters and Arc
- Logical followthrough on ideas
- Story writing capabilities
- Mystery and Suspense
- etc.

That's exactly right -- everybody's hiding from you!

I think maybe your question is too broad. But let me see if I can just give you a flavor for the folks on your list whom you haven't read. I mean, they all write boatloads of big honkin' thick books -- it kind of depends on what you're looking for.

Martin: Probably the most readable. He cut his teeth writing scripts for TV dramas ("Beauty and the Beast", for one), so his prose is clean and clear. Good world-builder, good plot lines. Doesn't mind knocking off main characters when it suits his purpose. Takes for*ever* between books.

Zindell: He mostly writes sci-fi, doesn't he? The Neverness books are set in a world that I haven't seen the like of anywhere else -- *very* cool concept. I like the way he wraps Eastern mysticism into space travel. Like SRD, he uses language to set the tone, but unlike SRD, he doesn't use big words so much. Instead, his prose leans toward the poetic. (Is that a fair description, danlo?)

Erikson: Two striking things about Erikson are a) the sheer scope of the damn thing; and b) his "in media res" technique, which is to say that he drops you right in the middle of the action on page 1, with almost no back story, or even much of a frame of reference. You will likely spend the first hundred pages or so going "wtf?" But then you find you can't put it down. Expect that process to be repeated with nearly every book in the series. "Malazan" started out as an RPG, so there's *lots* of action. Some folks have complained that the characters are relatively shallow; I find that many of the soldiers are interchangeable to me, but the main characters are really pretty well drawn -- even unforgettable.

Zindell, actually, writes fantasy as well-his 4 book The Ea Cycle is quite good and rewarding, and while it's not all that ground breaking it's a decent epic on it's own. It does rip off bits and pieces from the Neverness books. As far as his sci-fi is concerned I think at times he rivals some of Donaldson's expressions, inner penetration and especially color. TC is easily my favorite fantasy character and Danlo is my fav sci-fi character.

Can't really speak for Erikson since I've only read Gardens of the Moon-I was thoroughly absorbed by it, but puzzled in one or two spots. Worth persueing.

I'm absolutely in "flame-boy" love with A Song of Fire and Ice-so much that I even gave A Feast For Crows a very positive review.

I'd rank them all up there together-they have all taken fantasy and sci-fi to a different level...read some Gene Wolfe while you're at it...

danlo wrote:
I'm absolutely in "flame-boy" love with A Song of Fire and Ice-so much that I even gave A Feast For Crows a very positive review.

Urm...if you love it, and others do, why's giving it a positive review so special ...maybe I missed sumpin hur...

AFFC is the 4th book ripped out of the symbiotic birth of AFFC and parts of (the yet to be released) Dances With Dragons... a lot of reviewers wrote pansy-assed critiques since a few of the "larger" characters weren't accounted for. I didn't think it was the best book by any means but it instilled a new way of looking at that world.

Aaaaah, defending the different and unique...valiant...

...kinda like that time I defended Rosanne Arnold from that band of ravaging Sudanese...

i never was able to get into neverness. just didn't hook me.

i would say of donaldson, erikson, and martin that for me, comparing them is apples and oranges.
three different types of stories told in three compellingly different ways.
all three possess elements of the hero journey (in martin and erikson, who have twice as many characters as donaldson) repeated over and over again throughout different threads and plot lines.
thomas covenant often reminds me of roland of gilead...or...roland reminds me of TC. they're gunslingers.
their stories are about them.
coventant came first...then the worlds he inhabited.

i think its opposite for erikson and, to a lesser degree, martin.
world then characters that inhabit it.

if that makes any sense at all.


i am malazan-inclined.
it speaks to me.

lucimay wrote: i am malazan-inclined.
it speaks to me.

(whispers in ear) ...and what does it say? ...

it says:

"Now these ashes have grown cold, we open the old book.
These oil-stained pages recount the tales of the Fallen,
a frayed empire, words without warmth. The hearth
has ebbed, its gleam and life's sparks are but memories
against dimming eyes--what cast my mind, what hue my
thoughts as I open the Book of the Fallen
and breathe deep the scent of history?
Listen, then, to these words carried on that breath.
These tales are the tales of us all, again yet again.
We are history relived and that is all, without end that is all."

Neverness, by itself, is a very testosterone driven piece that does a grand job of creating a multifaceted universe. It's primitive and raw in the vein of LFB or The Real Story. It doesn't click with many women, but I does provide a hay maker in the face of any male who doesn't have the balls to attempt to transcend the alpha and ego driven self. It explores male roles from Victorina, Depression, WWII/Vietnam eras up to our, man the 4th generation. Mallory is the fucked up 4th generation, but Danlo, in the ensuing trilogy, takes a leap.

lol...now I get why no one said anything...I have no idea what you just mean, with that last sentence...lol

don't feel like the lone ranger there jr!

...it is intriguing that two of you's UltraWatchers/old foggies have named your avatars after those two characters...

huh?

danlo wrote:...read some Gene Wolfe while you're at it...

Gene Wolfe is potentially really good, but I've never actually finished any of his books because his language is so dense. People who find SRD too wordy would have a heart attack over Wolfe.

jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote:lol...now I get why no one said anything...I have no idea what you just mean, with that last sentence...lol

Having read Neverness, I do get it....

Luci's right, btw. Comparing SRD, Martin, Erikson and Zindell is comparing apples to oranges. Or maybe apples to oranges to mangos to kiwifruit. (I'll let y'all sort out which is which. )

The last sentence was simply to get you interested with out really spoiling-that's why it was obtuse-that and my 7th glass of wine...

lokll...

...actually, I woke up and had too last night round 5am...not sure what did it though....