Kevin's Watch

I've noticed something about my reading habits over the last few years... I expect more from my books than I used to. No longer can I read escapist fantasy like Jordan's Wheel of Time series (though I never read that one; got halfway through the first book and put it down; Eddings is a much more appropriate example, as I loved his writing when younger, but don't see the point of it anymore). I love reading, but the mere fact that it takes more effort on my part to read a book means I want to get more out of it.

That's why I love Donaldson's writing. His works are so much more emotionally satisfying; not only that, but they're edifying. I come away from them feeling like I've really learned something about life, love, and myself.

If I'm reading something for "pure entertainment," I find myself wondering why I don't just watch TV instead. Immensely easier, and when all you're looking for is to waste a bit of time, it serves the purpose just as well.

That's why I like light TV and heavy reading; the effort involved corresponds to what I want to get out of it. There are exceptions, of course... I read a few web-comics without expecting anything serious out of them (such as TMI, Order of the Stick and CAD), and I enjoy more serious TV such as Homeland and Game of Thrones (I know, I know, it's a book... but I haven't read the book, and I have seen the series! So the example holds!). But in general, the rule stands.

===

On a side note, I'm halfway through Memories of Ice, and starting to wonder about it... On the one hand, Erikson's a very capable writer, and I'm enjoying the Malazan books immensely, especially now that the full scope of the struggle is coming into view. On the other hand (and please don't take this the wrong way, Erikson lovers of the world)... it appears to be "just entertainment." A thrilling epic story... but just a story.

Of course, it could be that I'm just in "battle fatigue" right now. The Chain of Dogs was incredible; but the struggle of the Grey Swords in Capustan seems to repeat earlier motifs.

Rigel wrote: Of course, it could be that I'm just in "battle fatigue" right now. The Chain of Dogs was incredible; but the struggle of the Grey Swords in Capustan seems to repeat earlier motifs.

I just realized, something like that doesn't happen to me with Donaldson's books because he's so efficient with his writing. He includes just what is needed for the emotional journey, and nothing more.

At least until the Last Chronicles... now he seems to be all about beating you over the head with drama.

Could've sworn I've seen this exact topic before, but I can't find it.

Anyhow: No. Donaldson is Donaldson, other authors are other authors, some are good, some are bad, most are good at some things and bad at others, and Donaldson is nothing special in that regard.

Rigel wrote:On a side note, I'm halfway through Memories of Ice, and starting to wonder about it... On the one hand, Erikson's a very capable writer, and I'm enjoying the Malazan books immensely, especially now that the full scope of the struggle is coming into view. On the other hand (and please don't take this the wrong way, Erikson lovers of the world)... it appears to be "just entertainment." A thrilling epic story... but just a story.

Of course, it could be that I'm just in "battle fatigue" right now. The Chain of Dogs was incredible; but the struggle of the Grey Swords in Capustan seems to repeat earlier motifs.

I think you've hit on something there. And I think that's why, when I finished TCG, I said I didn't feel compelled to read any more Malazan. Thrilling story, amazing world, but it wasn't the life-changer for me that Covenant's saga has been.

But I don't totally blame SRD for that. For me, it came after grad school. Having spent several semesters reading books that weren't just time-wasters, I expect something more from my reading now than just eye candy. I mean, chick lit makes me break out in hives....

It's all a 'waste of time', it's all 'entertainment'. If you didn't like, you wouldn't do it, correct? Bodybuilders do not lift weights merely to get muscle, they enjoy building them and the competition of it. I think that's where you're at, Rigel: you like to read books that challenge you (intellectually, morally, and emotionally, as it were).

Me? I can read trash books just because they're trash books. There's something about interspersing my readings of Dostoevsky and Ford Maddox Ford with Harry Potter and Christopher Moore that's enjoyable to me. TV and movies are different for me, I currently almost always avoid them. It just doesn't do it for me.

But, to the question: No, Donaldson has allowed me to enjoy most other authors more or even for the first time (I could have never read Crime and Punishment with glee if it wasn't for Donaldson). Very few authors I've enjoyed before I can not enjoy now, but that seems to be due to changing tastes, not in that they fail compared to Donaldson (I use to love the Narnia books and the Martian Chronicles. Now, not so much... actually, not at all).

I have to say both yes and no to this question.

No, because I really enjoy all kinds of books for what they are. It takes a really badly written or really boring book for me to put it down, unfinished. It has happened, but it's rare. (Instances that come to mind are Le Guin's Always Coming Home, and Martin's A Game of Thrones. I see no logic in this myself.)

But yes, I am finicky when it comes to choosing books to read (where I am not when once I begin reading it). I try to choose top-shelf books if I can, or at least novels that are, well, actually novel. (I cannot tell you how many "so-and-so, just a simple so-and-so, must defeat an ancient evil so-and-so that rises again" stories I passed on. Or military-centric science fiction stories.) And in that sense, Donaldson has raised my standards significantly. I used to enjoy Tolkien rip-offs, now I mostly look down my nose at them. I used to devour books like Belgariad or Deryni, now I cannot even stand them. I expect more than swords and sorcery from a book these days.

A Game of Thrones.

Glad to see someone besides me couldn't finish this book.

dlbpharmd wrote:

A Game of Thrones.

Glad to see someone besides me couldn't finish this book.

Ditto!

I guess in a way, after some thought, I'm mostly with O...I can read light, or even bad stuff sometimes, without SRD e/affecting anything.

But it has strongly influenced standards/picks for "great" or "top ten" lists.

Agreed. I'm *really* picky about what I give 5 stars to on Goodreads.

wayfriend wrote:

dlbpharmd wrote:

A Game of Thrones.

Glad to see someone besides me couldn't finish this book.

Ditto!

It was one of my light readings

Wait...didn't Drew have a topic about this or something? Weird...

Anyway, no. It's all different.

--A

I know! In my first reply, I was like, "Not to hijack drew's thread..." and then realized I was in a new thread that Rigel had started. So I went back and edited it.

no this is drew's thread,

Are Other Authors Ruining Covenant For You?

so it's kind of exactly the opposite of this thread.

and once again, i'll say what i said in that thread,

different authors, different stories.

people prefer the writer that "speaks" to them.

if i were reading "critically" i might compare writers and say something like, "well writer A does this kind of plot device well whereas writer B is not so good at that or doesn't use that specific plot device at all and i prefer writer A" or sh*t of that nature. and, in fact, i think that is what a couple of people in this thread AND drew's thread are sort of saying.
but bottom line is that considering the writers that most of us are talking about (martin, erikson, donaldson, etc) comparisons of that nature are pretty much moot because these writers have all been at their craft for a long long time and are fairly equal in that regard. it then comes down to the actual story and what kind of stories and style of telling stories that people prefer.
some people have a preferance for the way erikson tells a story, others have a preference for the way martin tells a story, and yet others prefer the way donaldson tells a story.

you can unpack a writer's writing all you want and make a case for the writer you prefer or a case against the writer you don't care for but it's not really going to sway someone from liking what they like, right?

i mean, for example, i think zarathustra is a very smart man, very analytical, very well-read, and a very good writer in his own right. i respect his opinion very much. same with Syl, i highly respect Syl's writing, his intellect, his critical eye, but both these guys have very justifiably critical things to say about writers that i enjoy a great deal (erikson, martin.) their opinions (which both have presented well in many posts on the subjects) don't change the way i experience either of the writers in question. i experience the work differently than either syl or zar. nor does reading a different author change how i experience another author.

ok i've blathered enough.

Blathering's good, tho.

I see Martin's and Erikson's writing styles as more similar than either of them are to Donaldson. Especially when you compare the initial volumes in each of their best-known series. Martin and Erikson are both extremely visceral; there's less visceral violence in Donaldson, Lena's rape notwithstanding. Part of that, I think, is because of the 20- or 30-year span between them; the Last Chrons are grittier, in some ways, than the first two chrons were. But still, SRD doesn't give you the graphic descriptions of bodies being carved up in wartime like Erikson does, or the thorough degradation of certain characters like Martin does.

aliantha wrote:Blathering's good, tho.

I see Martin's and Erikson's writing styles as more similar than either of them are to Donaldson. Especially when you compare the initial volumes in each of their best-known series. Martin and Erikson are both extremely visceral; there's less visceral violence in Donaldson, Lena's rape notwithstanding. Part of that, I think, is because of the 20- or 30-year span between them; the Last Chrons are grittier, in some ways, than the first two chrons were. But still, SRD doesn't give you the graphic descriptions of bodies being carved up in wartime like Erikson does, or the thorough degradation of certain characters like Martin does.

ok so the bolded part of your text is my point. subjectivity. this is your assessment of the differences between the authors we're speaking about currently.
sort of makes my point. this is how YOU experience these authors. your opinion doesn't do anything to change my experience of reading these authors.

i will say, however, that to slightly amend my previous post, i suppose it IS possible that you or zar or syl or avatar or wayfriend or drew or DLB or whoever could say something that might make me see an author's work from a different perspective and thereby influence how i experience a writer. i mean, i might now not be able to forget you talked about the visceral violence of erikson and therefore it may stand out to me the next time i read it. it could, i suppose, have an effect on my reading experience.
thus far that has not occurred for me with criticisms or opinions on authors i like or dislike and is not usual for me, personally. most usually i just plod on my way, reading what i like and not reading what i don't like regardless of criticism or the opinions of others.

best example i can think of as far as something influencing something i sort of liked is dean koontz. decent writer, gained some prominent popularity, obvious comparisons to stephen king's work led me to read a couple of his books. they didn't knock me out but they were okay. then i began to read interviews koontz gave, saw a couple of tv interviews, heard him speak about writing and about his work and about the work of other writers. i found him to be obnoxious and arrogant. i didn't like him. that didn't stop me picking up another one of his books to read (don't remember which one, this was long ago) but i couldn't stomach it. it was, i thought at the time, HORRIBLE writing, crappy derrivitive plot. just crap.
i knew, at the time, that what was, prior to me hearing him speak, only "meh" writing had become really crap writing because of having heard how he talks and some of his opinions. so yeah, it was dean koontz who influenced me in the negative about his writing.

anyways...there i go again, blathering. i'm off work today, can you tell? hee.

Regarding the comparison of Erikson and Martin, I'd say that Erikson's violent scenes come and go, and are used to create an impression in some parts of the work but are absnet in others, which fits the more varied tone of his work; while I find Martin has much more command of his style and his use of violence blends in pretty seamlessly with the rest of his setting.

Right, Murrin, but there are more deaths per capita in either authors' work than you'd find in a book by SRD.

And luci, yes, of course it's all my opinion. Anyhow, I don't mean to be offering criticism; I'm just comparing and contrasting.

Ah, I was taking visceral to mean how it was protrayed rather than just its occurence. (There's a pretty grisly scene in The Crippled God involving Sinn, for example, and the descriptions of a couple of deaths in that novel also seem a little more detailed than necessary.)

Anyhoo, Erikson: Talented and entertaining; Martin: Master at work.

aliantha wrote:And luci, yes, of course it's all my opinion. Anyhow, I don't mean to be offering criticism; I'm just comparing and contrasting.

i knew that. i was just using your post to blather on further! i didn't think you were offering criticism. no need for tongue poking!