Re: The great big Erikson vs. Martin thread
Erikson's stuff is good but it's just glorified D&D.
Anomander Rake is an onyx skinned guy with white hair. Where have I seen that before...where...ah yes, I remember...Drow Elves.
He has a sword that traps souls. Where have I seen that before...where...ah yes, I remember...God's Bane. The sentient soul trapping sword in the Avatar Trilogy set in the Forgotten Realms D&D setting.
As I read the Malazan books I keep seeing it as a D&D novel with more pages and on a larger scale. Fun read though.
Martin's series is just tighter. He doesn't waste words. His characters seem more alive.
Re: The great big Erikson vs. Martin thread
When I was reading them, I did actually prefer Erikson maybe a little bit more. The big battles, the scope, the relationship between the Gods and the mortals, etc.
Then when I finished I went back and read A Game of Thrones, starting on the first Jon chapter. Immediately I realised something Erikson's books simply didn't have: people (Felisin one of the only exceptions). There was one line in particular, something like when Jon is thinking that being a bastard is a good thing because he can sit at the lower table and drink as much as he can, and then comes the line to the effect of, "He tried to tell himself the tears in his eyes were because of the smoke" And I was like, holy crap. Something that subtle takes skill. I can't remember I single incident in Erikson's books that have had he feel like that, but hey, the night is young in both series.
Since then they've gone down in my estimation. Some of the scenes are still brilliant but with no deep characters (lol, stupid Seguleh) or deep politics it will always be second place I think (though the Farseer Trilogy is rapidly making strides).
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies