|
Ah yes, the "make your book intentionally lovely and boring so that it is a relief when you finally break the Groundhog Day-esque cycle and can finally loving move on" method.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:07 |
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:Malazan has a very rich world, with a ridiculous amount of thought and effort put into it's history and cultures. It's magic system is interesting with it's own history behind it give it's nature. quote:It is magic system is interesting with it is own history behind it give it is nature.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
I have to throw my voice in whenever possible that I find the First Law Trilogy really terrible and a waste of time to read.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
systran posted:I have to throw my voice in whenever possible that I find the First Law Trilogy really terrible and a waste of time to read. Why do you think so? Above Our Own fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Feb 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
The First Law trilogy is good, but Abercrombie doesn't come into his own until the follow up books. Best Served Cold and the Heroes are both fantastic, and Red Country is pretty good. I don't think you'll find a single fantasy series that everyone will agree is good. The closest would have been Song of Ice and Fire pre-A Feast for Crows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
I posted a longer list of reasons in the thread for Abercrombie... I don't remember what page it was on so I can't c/p it. After I posted it, I had a few people concede a few points to me but basically tell me they like it so I should just stop arguing about it. I will admit that while I was reading it I felt pretty into it and I found it quite entertaining. However, further in I read, the more sense I had of "Does he really know where he is going with this at all?" Especially when I had started the third book and nothing was really resolving or being explained at all I began to feel that the whole trilogy felt mostly like a book version of a video game or anime. It even had "boss battles" that served no real plot point. Think about the big monster they run into while underground. The most egregious example of this was the Tattooed guy they built up over three books and whose entire purpose was to just fight once in an anti-climactic battle. Many of the characters felt like paper thin parodies of real characters; the nobles and arguing generals being the best examples. You can do characters as parodies if you do it well, but Abercrombie did not do it well. He basically had unrealistic characters running around like NPC's in a somewhat real world. The pacing was in general extremely off and made no sense. If you really enjoyed the extremely long battles, which were admittedly pretty well done even if super long battles are not your thing, I can see how that would allow you to look past the other problems that I found with the books. If you didn't care for the extremely long battles and if Logan going into a rage and killing a bunch of poo poo over and over didn't do anything for you, you were left kind of scratching your head at why Abercrombie seemed to hint at some really interesting world-building and not follow through on it at all. Think over how the plot developed and the completely irrelevant fetch quest they went on. Think about the build up of the final villain who never even shows up, he just sends in a bunch of ridiculous ghost armies . Think about how poorly done and rushed the final battle was compared to some of the better battles such as the siege or the one in the woods. I've heard that A Dish Best Served Cold goes into more detail about Eaters, but seriously how did he do so little to flesh them out in the space of three entire books? To bring it back to Rothfuss, I ended up giving up on Rothfuss' series in the middle of the second book and I finished the First Law Trilogy (but didn't go beyond that). I had a really good time reading the first Rothfuss book and have much better memories of that book even though I haven't felt like finishing the series. There were some really nice scenes and he does a great job creating tension and making you care about the main character without non-stop fighting scenes or gruff, likeable Viking tropes. Rothfuss makes a lot of other mistakes that ultimately made me not want to finish, but I still think he's doing a better job than Abercrombie did in his trilogy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
i really do think you guys would enjoy Scott Lynch. just sayin
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
systran posted:I posted a longer list of reasons in the thread for Abercrombie... If you like characters with intricate motivations and a narrative that flows naturally from the conflict between that, Abercrombie is a good read. I don't think it's a good idea to skip the trilogy because it has some of his strongest characterization and most interesting characters, and it also sets up the world really well if you want to keep reading in his universe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
Bantaras posted:i really do think you guys would enjoy Scott Lynch. I haven't read Red Seas Under Red Skies yet, but Lies of Locke Lamora is a loving blast.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 02:35
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:Alternate viewpoint: There's a middle ground. I mostly agree with the world-building aspect, but Erikson's characterization is pretty bad and his story is, at times, rambling and incoherent. A few of Erikson's characters are interesting, but most of his cast is bland. He gives a name to every single mook, and most of those names are terrible and the characters are uninteresting. Erikson falls into telling and not showing; why are certain characters like Whiskeyjack or Rake a big deal? Well, because Erikson says so. They never really do anything 'on-screen' to suggest that they should be considered interesting. Erikson would have benefited greatly from an editor who would have been willing to just say no to entire chunks of the books, many of which go nowhere. I still like Malazan, though. Its scope is unmatched in modern fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:There's a middle ground. I mostly agree with the world-building aspect, but Erikson's characterization is pretty bad and his story is, at times, rambling and incoherent. A few of Erikson's characters are interesting, but most of his cast is bland. He gives a name to every single mook, and most of those names are terrible and the characters are uninteresting. Erikson falls into telling and not showing; why are certain characters like Whiskeyjack or Rake a big deal? Well, because Erikson says so. They never really do anything 'on-screen' to suggest that they should be considered interesting. Erikson would have benefited greatly from an editor who would have been willing to just say no to entire chunks of the books, many of which go nowhere. Whiskeyjack is a big deal because he used to be a Fist in the Malazan army and was a high up devotee of Hood before the 'coup' and shakeup in the Empire? That all becomes clear by the end of the series.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
Danhenge posted:Whiskeyjack is a big deal because he used to be a Fist in the Malazan army and was a high up devotee of Hood before the 'coup' and shakeup in the Empire? That all becomes clear by the end of the series. None of that is on-screen, though. We're told this character is a big deal, we never see him do anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:None of that is on-screen, though. We're told this character is a big deal, we never see him do anything. Ultimately if you have to have every detail explained to you then I suppose Malazan is not for you. I'd argue that, in fact, what makes Malazan better written than most fantasy is that it treats you like an adult as opposed to a child that has to be spoon fed every last detail.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
Danhenge posted:Ultimately if you have to have every detail explained to you then I suppose Malazan is not for you. I'd argue that, in fact, what makes Malazan better written than most fantasy is that it treats you like an adult as opposed to a child that has to be spoon fed every last detail. I read the first book all the way through, had no loving idea what I had just read, and put the series down. Then, a few years later, I went back and thought "well, maybe it will make sense the second time through!", and read it again. Nope. I thought at that point, "this series comes so well recommended by so many people, it must be me. Maybe if I read the second book, it'll start to make sense!", so I did. At the end of the second book, I had no loving clue what happened in either book, so I gave up. I don't mind not having every single detail explained to me in a big expository infodump, but I do mind having nothing explained to me at all and leaving me to try to untangle a bunch of made-up words, locations, races, and historical figures.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
100% honest moment here: at no point in reading the Malazan books did I feel particularly confused and any time anyone says they were confused I genuinely assume they're just stupid or such a slow reader that they forget facts that came before that make everything clear. Mostly that they're stupid. That said it's fine just to not like them. I feel like nerds have always got to have a reason not to like something, otherwise it's "not logical" so they reach for whatever's nearest as opposed to just shrugging and saying "not for me."
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
Danhenge posted:Ultimately if you have to have every detail explained to you then I suppose Malazan is not for you. I'd argue that, in fact, what makes Malazan better written than most fantasy is that it treats you like an adult as opposed to a child that has to be spoon fed every last detail. I've avoided any wiki info about Malazan while I'm reading the series because I know I'm likely to spoil something in future books. The time-line of the ten books jumps around a bit. I think book 5/6 take place 10,000 years before 1-4, and 7 is some other time, while 8,9,10 continue the 'present day' plot progression. There is a lot of minor references to major events and mythos that makes no sense at first but pays off later. Back to Rothfuss, I'm really hoping that's the case with the first 2 books. All the dropped hints about the mystical orders, faerie magic, king-killing etc. are set-up for a wonderfully rich and complex conclusion to the story.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
edit: weird nevermind, the thread didnt' refresh right and I responded to something that'd already been clarified.
coyo7e fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Feb 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Danhenge posted:Ultimately if you have to have every detail explained to you then I suppose Malazan is not for you. I'd argue that, in fact, what makes Malazan better written than most fantasy is that it treats you like an adult as opposed to a child that has to be spoon fed every last detail. I've read all, what, 16 books in the universe published so far and have enjoyed most of them. That said, there's nothing particularly adult about Malazan as opposed to any other fantasy series, it's just less tightly edited than most others and it can definitely be confusing. Erikson's stupendously awful naming conventions don't help, either. But being shown and not told how important certain characters occurs even in Forge of Darkness: I expected to find out why Captain Emo Anomander Rake is so cool and important like we're told he is throughout Book of the Fallen, only to discover in the first few pages that people in his original time period consider him exactly as cool and important as later people do despite no particular reason that should be the case. It's like Erikson's writing about his favorite D&D character and just expects that everyone else understands why he's so cool... which is pretty much exactly what it is, so that's not surprising. Speaking of Rothfuss, though, is there any chance of the third book being completed?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:Speaking of Rothfuss, though, is there any chance of the third book being completed?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
Like a mini-GRRM, then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
He's waaaay younger and not incredibly fat so the chances of him dropping dead suddenly are way lower. GRRM could die suddenly if force to traverse too many stairs in an emergency.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
I thought the 2nd and 3rd books were written in tandem and it was simple publishing economics that is holding it up?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
I think, like book two, he's going nuts with editing, to the point where he's almost rewriting the prose of the whole book.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
Mahlertov Cocktail posted:I think, like book two, he's going nuts with editing, to the point where he's almost rewriting the prose of the whole book. I'd assume this is the case as last week he posted a photo of the manuscript for Doors of Stone  https://plus.google.com/106388983874370865380/posts
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
ControlledBurn posted:I'd assume this is the case as last week he posted a photo of the manuscript for Doors of Stone Whoah-there. Before you get your hopes up when you try to read it, the top page of the manuscript is just a letter to his reading team (I think). What a cock tease.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Im pretty unfamiliar with the book writing process so here's a dumb question: How large are reading teams for something like this, and what are they made up of? Friends and family? Other authors? Guinea pigs at the publisher?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
On his blog Patrick Rothfuss talks about his "Beta Readers" occasionally, but I imagine that the publisher also has an editing team that does the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
Also important to note that there have been some delays due to family matters (IIRC he mentioned one of his relatives had cancer). It's a rather understandable reason for a delay, especially in comparison to say, being really sad that your favorite football team lost a game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
ControlledBurn posted:I'd assume this is the case as last week he posted a photo of the manuscript for Doors of Stone Nice, the post right before that was a youtube video of him about "10 tips for fantastic sex" specifically, writing fantastic sex.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 05:58
|
|
|
Well to be fair he was only the host of the show, which had 3 guests, so maybe he was the cautionary tale for what happens when you cram about 6 times as much sex into your book as it needs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
Srice posted:Also important to note that there have been some delays due to family matters (IIRC he mentioned one of his relatives had cancer). The thing with Rothfuss was that part of his original pitch was that the series was already written so there wouldn't be any lengthy delays between books. I certainly don't disagree that having one parent pass away and the other go through a cancer recurrence would gently caress anyone up, but it shouldn't have had much effect on the publication schedule outside of minor delays to any signing tours that were being planned. Instead he decided to turn that into a complete rewrite of the second and third books, causing massive delays. And really, that's fine. It's his work and apparently his publisher doesn't mind too much. As a fan of epic fantasy, I kind of expect to wait years between books in a series, but I'd be lying if I told you I wasn't disappointed with the whole thing. The Name of the Wind was a damned fine book and believing I'd see the end of the series within a few years was pretty awesome at the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 06:46
|
|
|
People would be more patient if Wise Man's Fear had been something more than a bunch of random adventures and sex scenes designed to pad out Kvothe's resume.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 11:18
|
|
|
This whole 3-7 years for each book release is horseshit. At some point, diminishing returns mean you're either adding in completely new stuff to the book or constantly rewriting the same scene over and over for dramatic perspective. I blame GRRM for making people think it's acceptable or reasonable for a 700-800 page novel to take more then a year or 2 to write. There are many great authors that do the same is a year or less. Joe Ambercrombie, Glen Cook, Steve Erickson all wrote their epic series at a rate of about 1 book a year. It must be the convention circuit mentality, where these authors travel all over meeting and greeting like celebrities and not having to write because they get appearance fees and advances from their editors. GRRM hit it massively big with the GoT HBO show and has 6 years till they'll need a new book to continue and 8-10 for him to finish the entire series to stay ahead of the TV show, but he should be the exception and not the rule new writers aspire to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
Basically more authors should do the Sanderson method where they take breaks from writing the big books to write smaller books on airplane rides and things. As long as the quality doesn't drop off that is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
I blame Jordan for starting that trend. Then again, I guess he paid the ultimate price for it. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
I'm ok with an author taking as long a they need to take to finish a book. There's enough out there to read to keep me entertained in the interim.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
pentyne posted:I blame GRRM for making people think it's acceptable or reasonable for a 700-800 page novel to take more then a year or 2 to write. Not everyone writes at the same speed, and to paraphrase Neil Gaiman, authors don't exist solely to funnel you the content you want at the rate you want it. If someone wants to take 7 years to write a novel, let them. It's their book, not yours.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Not everyone writes at the same speed, and to paraphrase Neil Gaiman, authors don't exist solely to funnel you the content you want at the rate you want it. If someone wants to take 7 years to write a novel, let them. It's their book, not yours.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Not everyone writes at the same speed, and to paraphrase Neil Gaiman, authors don't exist solely to funnel you the content you want at the rate you want it. If someone wants to take 7 years to write a novel, let them. It's their book, not yours. Fans don't exist solely to lavish endlessly praise on authors. If someone wants to call a previously productive author slow, let them. It's their opinion and they're entitled to it. Seriously though, while I would love it if every author had the demonic work ethic of Sanderson, quality is more important than quantity. The last 3 books in the Dark Tower series pretty clearly showed what can happen if a series' conclusion is rushed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:07 |
|
|
I personally feel that there's a bit of a difference between expressing frustration at a delay or particularly long wait, and more or less calling out a particular author for being "too slow".
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 06:23
|
|