In the last couple of weeks I joined an heated discussion on Martin’s board about the
Hulk Vs The Thing Martin Vs Erikson endless debate.
I always try to prove what I say and explain my point of view the best I can. My final purpose is that if we have to disagree we’ll disagree on some concrete opinions and not on misunderstanding or manipulation of opinions to win an argument. In fact, and even in this case, I participate in the discussion not to “prevail”, but because I find it interesting and enriching in a way. Confrontation.
Problem is when your opinion clashes with the one of a moderator, whose opinion in this particular case is completely biased and unreliable (axe to grind). I actually read and appreciate his blog a lot. Just not about Erikson.
This was the last exchange put in context.
i’ve only read gardens of the moon, but the impression i got from the book is that erikson writes like an anthropologist rather than an author. does that make any sense? regardless, i found gardens of the moon to be an extremely dry read and i highly doubt i’ll continue on with the series.
that said, i thought the book was filled with wonderful ideas that were simply poorly executed (IMO) and i can see why this series is very popular, it’s simply not for me.
End of disk one:
If your main problem was the writing, anyone will tell you that the writing in the first book is much different than in the rest of the series. It was written about 15 years before the rest.
Werthead (the moderator):
GotM was written about 8 years before DHG, but yes, a fair bit before.
Personally I always thought GotM was quite representative of the writing in the other MBF books (and superior to the last two, perhaps the last four, books), the only difference with the others is that you get used to it by the time you reach them.
I won’t get again in the discussion but your revisionism is becoming just unbelievable.
Again, it’s all a matter of taste and preference, but saying that the writing in the first book is the same of the writing of the other books is plain wrong.
I’m not saying plotting, characters, ideas and so on. Just the writing. If you think the writing is the same then I can’t even believe anymore that you are being honest here.
I started reading Deadhouse Gates a day after the end of Gardens of the Moon and the difference was immense.
(about me saying it’s false that the writing of the first book is the same of the other books) Possibly. In many ways, it is superior.
(about my comment on his revisionism) Sorry, I’m being lectured to on my opinions on this series by someone who hasn’t read the damn thing?
We’ll talk again when you know what the hell you are blathering about.
My reply to the last two lines Werthead wrote:
We were discussing the difference in the writing between the first and the second book. I read those. There’s significant progress between the books that may or may not be appreciated. But it is there and it is undeniable.
Werthead’s assertion was that the writing in GotM is superior to the last two (and perhaps four) books of the series, not DH or MoI.
My reply to kuenjato, that was deleted for “trolling”:
Nope, you have to put that in context. Someone said that he didn’t like the writing of the first book. Someone else replied that many years passed between the books and that Erikson improved as a writer. Then Werthead chimed in to say that it is true that years passed (but less) but that there wasn’t any improvement in the writing, actually it got worse.
In fact he said that there wasn’t any improvement and that “the only difference” is that us readers became used to it. This is just false.
I didn’t notice a significant improvement between the first and the second book because I suddenly “got used” to the writing in the few days that passed before I started reading the second. I noticed it because it is there and it is undeniable even by those who do not like the way Erikson writes.
This part of a long forum thread where for everything thing that was said Werth came to say the opposite just for fun. Constantly and without any motivation. Even on those points that both Erikson’s fans and haters agree.
That’s what I call trolling. Coming to a discussion and say “no” to everything, without bothering to motivate anything. Then when someone opposes you, you tell him “you aren’t qualified to speak” (because I only read four books), and then finally deleting my posts because his axe to grind was just becoming too obvious and his position indefensible.
About the actual debate, it’s a proven fact that Erikson improves as a writer as the series goes on. Again, it doesn’t mean that one who dislikes the first book will then obligatorily like the second, but everything is done much better and there have been many readers who said that they only started to like Erikson after the second book or the third, so this is often brought up when someone asks for suggestions like in this case. Opinions, sure. But denying progress in the writing is about denying something everyone else noticed and agreed upon. It’s the most frequent comment you can read everywhere, in reviews or across different forums that don’t have a particular bias.
For example, this is from Q23 (that is not a dedicated author’s forum, and so less prone to bias), and it’s not me writing it:
I’d also say that his writing generally improves as the series continues on; the biggest jump is indeed between Gardens of the Moon and the rest, but you can still kind of see it happening from book to book following.
Just one of many.
There can only be a discussion if we speak the same language. If one just wants to disrupt everything that is being said, disagreeing just to hinder the discussion, then I’ll call that trolling.