Steven Erikson says....

Remove all ads!

What get under my skin is not the fact that you criticise Erikson it is your arrogant and condenscending attitude which often shines through your posts. At least in my perception.

As for your criticism, I have no problem with it. I even generally agree, the later books have been of poorer quality compared to the first ones. My point was that even Erikson bad is better than most fiction out there and that it is poor only in comparison to his own work. Kinda like Pratchett, some of his books are a lot better than others that does not mean that his his less good books are bad. At least not in my book. I reread Jordan this summer for the first time in a long while and even with him I must say that despite all his flaws his "poor" work is still only poor in comparison to his own highlights. Compared to the average book I read I found even his worst pieces to be quite readable.

What I do disagree with is in how you perceive Erikson wants us to view Kallor. I see little tragedy in him except for the fact that he is an immortal a-hole. I think Erikson has made a good job of defining Kallor as an irredeemable villain and bastard and still keeping human. You can somewhat see where Kallor is coming from and he can be kinda cool at times but he is still an evil bastard deserving of everything he gets. My point is, I don't feel Erikson is telling us to feel sympathy for Kallor but I guess this is the beauty of all kinds of art. Interpretation lie in the eye of the beholder. It wasn't the fact that you were criticising Erikson that made me reply here, I replied because I personally think it is unfair to sink an author after two books who were weaker than his other and which in my opinion are only weak in comparison to previous Erikson books and this is something I have seen with many authors. They write a book that is extremely good and everyone loves them and when they write one that is only good they get thrashed.

 

I'm sorry that your problem is personal with me. But often our own faults, which we don't see in ourselves and makes us appear perfectly acceptable to ourselves, we often object to and are offended by in others - 'nuff said, in that regards.

 

I thank you for so clearly giving me an example to support my point.

 

Oh, NP, there. I'm sure you can supply many examples of your own..

 

Chandos, there actually is a SFF author named Steve Erickson, so careful with the spelling there

 

Point is that when a writer has plans for a large serie, over 10 books for example, it always last longer than anticipated. Sometimes they die. Our great example is the wheel of time. O boy, how happy I was to find it in the library and read all nine in a row. I bought the tenth, an now i just am sick and tired of it. Some stories do have and end, and there is a reason for it.

Make ten books if you like, nice, but after 3 or 4 tie up all the loose ends and end it in a way that you can put that part of the story behind.

I picked up feast of crows and cannot remember who is who anymore.

 

It also depends on what you are looking for in Erikson's books , when I read a book I mostly read it for the little things that make me turn back the page and read it again and for the characters , the little things are still there in his last books , at least for me.

 

I thought Toll the Hounds was pretty awesome. I was kind of tearing towards the end. Although I REALLY, really disliked it everytime it went to the 3rd-person omniscient view. It's been a while since I read any of the others but I don't ever recall it ever... trying too hard.

 

Me too. I was overjoyed at making it to the end.