George R.R. Martin/Robert Jordan [Brandon Sanderson]/Terry Goodkind/Steven Erikson

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I assume that refers to writers who simply regurgitate words onto virtual paper with no rhyme or reason.

Mainly that's true.

I imagine there's rhyme and reason, but some may need the ol' rolling pin on the head to knock some sense into them to stop.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by Geralt

Sanderson and Erikson are relatively new writers...so if he thinks they are of that kind I dont get why he is asking about their books.

Anyhow even that idea that there are there are writers who regurgitate words bugs me. Just read the first book and decide if you like it well enough to continue. That's 100x more efficient than asking for recommendations...
You may not like something, but to say you know writer's motivation for writing something in some particular way is silly.

A common criticism amongst all the writers mentioned is that these individual series go on....and on....and on, and that some should have been terminated earlier. Also, that they are unduly [unnecessarily?] complicated.

When I stop and think about it rationally, I can't help but laugh to think that some of these writers have 15 to 20 and more volumes in a series.

I Do find this somewhat funny.

If you wish to examine the height of diarrhea[ic] madness, look toward Kenneth Bulmer's series of Dray Prescott. Am I the only one who thinks 50+ volumes in a Fantasy series is a bit on the ludicrous side?

Hello.....[sound of crickets...ribbbbetttt.]

[dickloraine]

You really can't compare them to pulp. I think you have some misconceptions about these authors.
Maybe you should now decide which to read and simply read. You may like it, you may not, but at least you will know it and know why.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

You really can't compare them to pulp. I think you have some misconceptions about these authors.
Maybe you should now decide which to read and simply read. You may like it, you may not, but at least you will know it and know why.

I will decide, but I enjoy the comments and thoughts.

[dickloraine]

That's what a forum is for. If you start reading fantasy again, this is the perfect time. There is so much good fantasy out there now. Gone are the days of only a handful of good fantasy and plenty of pulp. There are of course still easy to read adventure stories out there, and they are often fun to read, but if you want to read in different directions, today you can Just a few of the better known authors: Abercrombie (darker fantasy, with some humor and traditional elements), Sanderson (somewhat lighter fantasy, traditional themes), Rothfuss (a coming of age novel as fantasy), Lynch (tarantino meets fantasy), Lawrence (psychopath as the protagonist), Gladstone (magic like investment banking and legal thrillers), Addison (no violence fantasy) and many more.
It's the best of times for the genre

[Geralt]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

You really can't compare them to pulp. I think you have some misconceptions about these authors.
Maybe you should now decide which to read and simply read. You may like it, you may not, but at least you will know it and know why.

Agreed.

Dr Drib, you haven't even read a single book by these authors so any of your assumptions about their work is unfounded. I never heard of this Kenneth Bulmer guy. I have no idea what kinda books you read, but Erikson, Martin, Sanderson and Jordan are all well known, well read authors.
You can prefer one over the other (I favor Erikson and Martin over Sanderson and Jordan) but none of them are pulp.

Point being, pick a book, read it and figure it out if it's for you or not.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by Geralt

Agreed.

Dr Drib, you haven't even read a single book by these authors so any of your assumptions about their work is unfounded. I never heard of this Kenneth Bulmer guy. I have no idea what kinda books you read, but Erikson, Martin, Sanderson and Jordan are all well known, well read authors.
You can prefer one over the other (I favor Erikson and Martin over Sanderson and Jordan) but none of them are pulp.

Point being, pick a book, read it and figure it out if it's for you or not.

True, but I've read 100s of reviews from Amazon and Goodreads, opinions as viable as (respectfully) yours.

I enjoy reading what people think about books.


Kenneth Bulmer (Alan Burt Akers):

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_bylin...=relevancerank

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by Geralt

Agreed.

Dr Drib, you haven't even read a single book by these authors so any of your assumptions about their work is unfounded. I never heard of this Kenneth Bulmer guy. I have no idea what kinda books you read, but Erikson, Martin, Sanderson and Jordan are all well known, well read authors.
You can prefer one over the other (I favor Erikson and Martin over Sanderson and Jordan) but none of them are pulp.

Point being, pick a book, read it and figure it out if it's for you or not.

Thank you.

Actually, I've decided to read volume one from each series. I think, soon, I'll decide which one (from whichever series) I'll read first.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

Mainly that's true.

I imagine there's rhyme and reason, but some may need the ol' rolling pin on the head to knock some sense into them to stop.

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

A common criticism amongst all the writers mentioned is that these individual series go on....and on....and on, and that some should have been terminated earlier. Also, that they are unduly [unnecessarily?] complicated.

When I stop and think about it rationally, I can't help but laugh to think that some of these writers have 15 to 20 and more volumes in a series.

I Do find this somewhat funny.

If you wish to examine the height of diarrhea[ic] madness, look toward Kenneth Bulmer's series of Dray Prescott. Am I the only one who thinks 50+ volumes in a Fantasy series is a bit on the ludicrous side?

Hello.....[sound of crickets...ribbbbetttt.]

I quite like lengthy series' actually -- it makes me feel like it's worth it to commit to reading, since the author will stick around feeding my imagination.


Of course, this assumes the author writes books I enjoy, and I don't feel like the author is merely droning on (regurgitating words).
Happily, I have seen mostly stuff I enjoyed and thought fit the length.
(Terry Pratchett wrote over 40 books, and my only regret is he didn't live long enough for a few hundred more. Every one was golden.)


GRRM isn't too long, the complaint I have is the author is (taking) too long!

Haven't read the rest, though:
WoT is on my TBR (still )
Goodkind -- I've heard lots of things about both him and his books, and I figure my time is better spent elsewhere.
Erikson -- Maybe. I have nothing for or against him

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

Thank you.

Actually, I've decided to read volume one from each series. I think, soon, I'll decide which one (from whichever series) I'll read first.

I'd hold off on A Game of Thrones. Not because it's a bad book -- just because you could instead read a finished series, rather than being left hanging for a decade. GRRM is in no rush, apparently.

[dickloraine]

On the one hand it is nice to read a whole series at once. On the other hand, it is nice (and frustating) to look forward to the next book, some series could keep you company for some time. Granted, the time between martins books is to long, even for that, but malazan and harry potter (and Pratchett but thats no a series like the others) did that for me. It's a love/hate thing, but as a fan of that kind of series I have learned to live with it. But if something is only a trilogy, I normally wait till it's finished

[eschwartz]

I don't mind starting a series and waiting a bit. But I'm not waiting 10+ years for two measly books.

It only really started bothering me after seeing GRRM take it to an excess. I blame him for it.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I'd hold off on A Game of Thrones. Not because it's a bad book -- just because you could instead read a finished series, rather than being left hanging for a decade. GRRM is in no rush, apparently.

Is there an estimate on when he might be finished?

(I'm going to die in 17-20 years, but my mind will be gone in 18 years and 2 months from now.)

[dickloraine]

Nobody knows. The TV-Series will most likely finish first. It's only two books left, but he did need for each of the last three books longer than for the three first combined. I was hoping he would increase his output after the two unplanned books, but it doesn't seem so.

[Geralt]

The producers of the TV series have been told the ending by Martin. So it's some consolation that we will have the knots untied in some form of the other. If for any reason the book series ends up being unfinished it will at least have some conclusion in the TV series.