Yefim’s comment > Likes and Comments
1 like · Like
Nailed it in the last sentence.
I don't think Erikson could have gone into any more depth than what he has managed in his 10 books spanning sequence... Every landscape is sculpted by the elements of time, and he describes that perfectly. He has experience as an Archeologist after all. Every city and area has a history, which he also discloses. Depth and detail are highly evident throughout the entire series, I suspect you've attempted to read one book and copped out like most people do due to his loquacious idiolect. Upon looking through your 'Abandoned' shelf, I see I was write.
I have to agree with Bo on this one. Whilst I have yet to read The Darkness that Comes Before (and having read over the comments section I am now less inclined to read it given all the key negative feedback) and am unable to compare the two books, I can comment on the merit of the Malazan series. Your final sentence stating that the only distinguishing thing about a lot of Erikson's characters is their names only shows that you have not given then series the attention it deserves. Many people find Erikson's style of writing too expectant - he expects his readers to be clever enough to put the pieces together without the need for him to spoon feed them. As such, many people find it hard to enjoy his books, but to say that his characters lack depth is laughable.
Havc, thank you for the concurrence. Don't let the negative feedback for Prince of Nothing sway you, just as a denigrating criticism of Malazan is grossly uninformed, negative reviews for PoN are of the same ignorance. It is a great series, and if you like Malazan, definitely give it a try. It's darkly poetic and nihilistic in the same respects and undertones of Malazan.
"Don't let the negative feedback for Prince of Nothing sway you, just as a denigrating criticism of Malazan is grossly uninformed, negative reviews for PoN are of the same ignorance." LoL! It's something they call subjective opinion.
But I agree, one shouldn't be swayed as both series are great as far as general opinion is concerned.
Some things transcend the realm of subjectivity. Sure, taste is a very strong factor, but there are other things to take into account that strongly outweigh any chance for a subjective judgement. Elements such as utilization of rhetorical devices and intelligent idiolect are just a few factors that can't be subjected to the 'subjective opinion' argument. Would you liken a modern computer to an outdated system for the sake of subjectivity and taste?
Why not? For example, I like older computer games from DOS era, modern computer can't run those, and I like them in 4:3 rather than 16:9. You can't attach objective factors to enjoyment.
That is true. :)
Enjoyment is definitely subjective. But quality is not so. I do believe it would be appropriate to say: 'I don't like this for this reason,' but not aphoristically: 'this is done wrong,' or, 'this is terrible,' in regards to something that displays obvious standards of literary quality. Which is what I derive my enjoyment from.
I have to disagree with the statement that quality is not subjective. What one group considers excellent another may well consider dreck and dross! oftentimes what we consider to be enjoyable is dependent upon the apparent quality of the thing. But whatever, each mind is its own reality.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Goran
(new)
Jan 21, 2012 06:21PM
Nailed it in the last sentence.
reply
|
flag
I don't think Erikson could have gone into any more depth than what he has managed in his 10 books spanning sequence... Every landscape is sculpted by the elements of time, and he describes that perfectly. He has experience as an Archeologist after all. Every city and area has a history, which he also discloses. Depth and detail are highly evident throughout the entire series, I suspect you've attempted to read one book and copped out like most people do due to his loquacious idiolect. Upon looking through your 'Abandoned' shelf, I see I was write.
I have to agree with Bo on this one. Whilst I have yet to read The Darkness that Comes Before (and having read over the comments section I am now less inclined to read it given all the key negative feedback) and am unable to compare the two books, I can comment on the merit of the Malazan series. Your final sentence stating that the only distinguishing thing about a lot of Erikson's characters is their names only shows that you have not given then series the attention it deserves. Many people find Erikson's style of writing too expectant - he expects his readers to be clever enough to put the pieces together without the need for him to spoon feed them. As such, many people find it hard to enjoy his books, but to say that his characters lack depth is laughable.
Havc, thank you for the concurrence. Don't let the negative feedback for Prince of Nothing sway you, just as a denigrating criticism of Malazan is grossly uninformed, negative reviews for PoN are of the same ignorance. It is a great series, and if you like Malazan, definitely give it a try. It's darkly poetic and nihilistic in the same respects and undertones of Malazan.
"Don't let the negative feedback for Prince of Nothing sway you, just as a denigrating criticism of Malazan is grossly uninformed, negative reviews for PoN are of the same ignorance." LoL! It's something they call subjective opinion.But I agree, one shouldn't be swayed as both series are great as far as general opinion is concerned.
Some things transcend the realm of subjectivity. Sure, taste is a very strong factor, but there are other things to take into account that strongly outweigh any chance for a subjective judgement. Elements such as utilization of rhetorical devices and intelligent idiolect are just a few factors that can't be subjected to the 'subjective opinion' argument. Would you liken a modern computer to an outdated system for the sake of subjectivity and taste?
Why not? For example, I like older computer games from DOS era, modern computer can't run those, and I like them in 4:3 rather than 16:9. You can't attach objective factors to enjoyment.
That is true. :) Enjoyment is definitely subjective. But quality is not so. I do believe it would be appropriate to say: 'I don't like this for this reason,' but not aphoristically: 'this is done wrong,' or, 'this is terrible,' in regards to something that displays obvious standards of literary quality. Which is what I derive my enjoyment from.
I have to disagree with the statement that quality is not subjective. What one group considers excellent another may well consider dreck and dross! oftentimes what we consider to be enjoyable is dependent upon the apparent quality of the thing. But whatever, each mind is its own reality.
