Steven Erikson: "Memories of Ice"<A critique, and a thread on style and criticism>

[jester47]

I have read all four of Erikson's series at least 3 time each... in the last year. It would be safe to say I am a fan .

One thing that struck me was how much I missed in each reading, yet after each reading I thought it was one of the best books I had read. To be fair, I think the sublty and detail may be too much for anyone to fully grasp in a single reading, but that doesn't prevent the books from being extremely entertaining.

See, this is somthing that writers and critics and "word people" have fought over for a long time (probably since the invention of writing down stories). If having a lot of details and keeping track of them to where they don't contradict is good writing, is presenting those details in such a way to where they are never missed the first time reading better writing?

My opinion on this is a resounding yes. But that is because I have a background in history, computer networking and information science. In my opinion good writing is like powerful compression. If you can put more detail and subtlety into less words than the next guy and what you have written can be understood by most in fewer readings than the next guy congratulations, you are the better writer.

Now to be clear- writing should never be confused with storytelling. I find the two to be different (if somewhat related). Storytelling is making up what happens, world building, characterisation. Writing is simply the art of conveying that image to paper in such a way that a reader can understand the vision you have created. I think Erikson is half as good a writer as he is a good storyteller.

On long multy book series, there was a time when I didn't even consider buying a novel unless it had at least 500 pages, because there was too much trash out there and my funds were limited. I read fast, and want more than a couple of hours of reading out of any book I spend money on.

Say what you want about Erikson's books, but I do not think that any other author has developed as deep and detailed world as his, and I hate to say it, but I think that includes Tolkien.

I hope it is clear that it is not the world building I have a problem with. I think his world is very detailed. And he has done a good job of it. I WILL say it, and I would love to say it: Erikson's world is far more intricate and detailed than the one presented in the Lord of the Rings. However take this to note: Tolkein himself is quoted as saying that he thought Lord of the Rings was not written as well as it could have been and that its biggest flaw was that it was too short. And that backs up my argument above. Tolkein realised that he could have done a better job with more words because he was not the level of writer that it would take to sufficiently put the story into 1000 pages. He realised that his writing talent was not up to the task he had taken on. He was trying to compress too much into too small a space to fit his talent. Erikson has exactly the opposite problem in my opinion.

Its the same issue that you find in the prologue of the Princess Bride. The "original" book was supposed to be this long drawn out romance, and his writing is the "good parts version." That is S. Morgenstern's Princess Bride was supposed to be a book that was too big for its story.

The same happens with movies... There is not enough space to tell the bigger stories, so you need 3 3hr movies to do any justice for the longer ones. The stories are too big for the space given.

And that is one of the things that makes a good writer and storyteller: The story fits the space you are taking to write it.

Aaron.

 

[takyris]

The problem with this interpretation, jester, is that one could just as well say, "I am better than Homer, because I can tell the Odyssey in fewer words: Warrior irritates god, warrior wanders, warrior gets home after long adventures and reclaims throne and wife." Nobody (I think) would argue that this makes me better as a storyteller than Homer. Why? Because I did not put in the same level of richness and detail.

You say, "If it's the same story but shorter, it's better." I agree with you, but I sense that I have a much different definition of what makes it "the same story". If it's richer, deeper, and more fully realized, then it's not the same story -- it's a better story. And I wouldn't argue, and don't think you would, either, that "tells a duller story in fewer words" is the mark of greatness. Therefore, it's a matter of interpretation. It's too much detail for you. That's fine, but it is only your opinion, and attempting to state your opinion as an objective standard will cause people to disagree with you.

I am not a computer science major. I am a writer. Good writing is powerful compression if I am trying to explain how to hook up a DSL modem in a tech document. Good writing is rich and evocative if I'm reading a story. That doesn't always mean that it should be long, but it doesn't always mean that it should be short, either.

 

[Liminal Syzygy]

having read FIVE I think I can safely say the evidence weighs against your interpretation rather clearly).

Wha? Wha? What?

Oh, I see... You are counting Blood Follows...

 

[barsoomcore]

See, this is somthing that writers and critics and "word people" have fought over for a long time (probably since the invention of writing down stories). If having a lot of details and keeping track of them to where they don't contradict is good writing, is presenting those details in such a way to where they are never missed the first time reading better writing?

See, the fact that people have been fighting over this for a long time suggests (not to say makes clear) that this is not an issue of fact -- it is purely, simply and completely an issue of taste.

Some people like terse writing. Some people like lavish writing. Some people like both.

Some very few writers (that is, Steven Brust) can do both effortlessly, entertainingly and enthusiastically.

But there is simply no objective reason to prefer either. If there were, the fight would have been over long ago. In story-telling, being able to "compress" information does not under ANY circumstances mean telling a necessarily better story.

Take for example your average "shaggy-dog" story, where the narrator circles around and around and around, never really getting anywhere, just spinning things out, adding little virtuouso flourishes here and there, making parenthetical comments right, left, center and topwise as he goes along, as they occur to him, without rhyme or reason except as the dictates of his whimsy (interacting as it does with the random notions that pop up in his imagination) guide him, until finally, once he's starting to run out of coincidences to pile on top of coincidences, jokes to follow jokes, ad libs after ad libs, lists upon lists, and decides at last to bring the whole winding edifice to a somehow spontaneous yet irresistible conclusion.

Is "compressing" such an edifice the same as "improving" it?

My opinion on this is a resounding no. Great writing can be confusing. It can be redundant. It can be so overloaded with information that no one can draw out all its possibilities in one pass.

Think of Eliot's achievements even in something as simple as "Prufrock". Or consider what Byron accomplishes in the sprawl that is "Don Juan". Read Dumas. Read Dickens.

If you like, read Joyce, but don't say I didn't warn you.

Tolkein himself is quoted as saying that he thought Lord of the Rings was not written as well as it could have been and that its biggest flaw was that it was too short. And that backs up my argument above.

It does no such thing. It only means that the good Professor would have liked to have spent more time writing the story and putting in more details. Given that the most common charge levelled against LotR is that it's TOO LONG, it's not at all clear that it would have improved with the addition of more pages.

I could just as easily say that your quote backs up the notion that "over-writing" is a good thing -- that terseness is not in and of itself a virtue, since clearly large portions of LotR are too dull for many people to read, and yet it is considered a masterpiece by many others. Ergo, the fact that some people (like yourself) find Erikson too dull to read in no way means it is not a masterpiece.

Its the same issue that you find in the prologue of the Princess Bride. The "original" book was supposed to be this long drawn out romance, and his writing is the "good parts version." That is S. Morgenstern's Princess Bride was supposed to be a book that was too big for its story.

S. Morgenstern of course is an invention of William Goldman's, so the example proves nothing at all.

 

[barsoomcore]

I guess, jes, that what I'm saying is I think it's perfectly acceptable to say in a review, "I didn't care for this book because the writer takes forever to say anything." A review ought to reflect the taste of the reader -- indeed, a review IS the taste of the reader, expressed in an essay-like form.

I'm not arguing that masses of gooey prose are good OR bad -- I'm just saying that if you try to claim that gooeyness (?) is an objectively Bad Thing, your readers will be less inclined to listen to you. Because they know that's not true. If you say, "Erikson writes a whole mess of words and I don't much care for that," then you've given them a clear picture of the work, an honest position statement of your own, and they can draw their own conclusions.

I would warn anyone looking to jump into Erikson that he is NOT a writer of easily read novels. I agree that the pacing is slow, sometimes glacially so (that's pun, for those of you who have read Memories of Ice). I agree that there are many, many characters and that it is oftentimes hard to keep track of who's doing what to who. And why, where and with what. People who don't like that stuff aren't going to like these books, and I wouldn't want someone to come to these books with unrealistic expectations.

But I LIKE it for those very reasons. These books really reward careful re-readings -- there's always something new in them pages for me to discover. I don't agree that they would be better books if everything was up front, easy to reference and found the first time through. I like it better this way -- it encourages me to re-read the books, since I know there's more to be savoured in there.

The best reviews, the ones I get the most out of, aren't ones that I agree with -- they're personal ones. Ones that reveal as much about the reviewer as they do about the work under review. Whether witty, insightful, savage, or full of wonder and admiration, great reviews are great pieces of writing and as such ought to be eery bit as personal as the works themselves. Put more of yourself into the review, and worry less about trying to claim correctness for your opinions, and even less than that about trying to second-guess the author's motivations. You're more interesting than any of that stuff.

 

[Liminal Syzygy]

I have to say, I couldn't get into them. That doesn't mean I have totally given up. However, I made an honest and serious attempt to read the first book, and it bored me to death to the point where it was torture just to pick it back up again.

I had problems getting into GotM as well. Erikson's refusal to explain his world and the profusion of names, races, and places can be off putting. But it picked up for me in the second half and since I had already bought Deadhouse Gates I moved on to read it.

I'm glad because DG absolutely blew me away. It's better than MoI no matter what BC says. And hey BC, Neal Asher at sfsite says HoC is "the best yet". Oh here are some other reviews for interested people: http://www.sfsite.com/revus/revuerikson.htm

Anyway, having read the later books I've now gone back to read GotM and it is very different book once you understand the structure of the world. (Yep, I am following through with the reread thing despite my huge "to be read" pile.)

 

[jester47]

Takyris, what I am talking about is NOT summary, you left out thepart about the island of calypso, his journey into hell, the part about the suitors and the bow and a bunch of other subtleties and subplots that are essential to the story.

Warrior irritates god, warrior wanders, warrior gets home after long adventures and reclaims throne and wife.

thats sixteen words. If you could get all the detail and subtlety of the odessey into 16 words, you WOULD be a better writer than homer.

THAT is my point.

BC, I really think you completely misunderstood what I was saying. I am not saying that shorter summary is better. Your quotes are drawing my words out of context and leaving out important points I make so you waste your time responding to somthing I am not saying.

You quoted this part:

If having a lot of details and keeping track of them to where they don't contradict is good writing, is presenting those details in such a way to where they are never missed the first time reading better writing?

But you ignored this part (between the two is a reason as to why I might be prone to believe what I do):

If you can put more detail and subtlety into less words than the next guy and what you have written can be understood by most in fewer readings than the next guy congratulations, you are the better writer.

My point is, if you have to give up detail and subtlety, IT IS NOT BETTER, to put it in a shorter form.

let me illustrate...

How about this.

Story 1-

The warrior squinted from the reflection of the sun in his sword as he pulled it from its sheath. As the open wagon rolled down the road the sun was bright and hot. Sweat drenched his clothes while dirt settled on his skin.

43 words

Story 2-

The open wagon seemed to attact the heat and dust from the road. Wiping the dirt and sweat from his brow the warrior squinted as he unsheathed his sword which gleamed in the sun.

34 words

now if you take this and apply it over a whole novel, you can see how that will put the same story, AND the same amount of detail into a lesser space (over 100,000 words thats a large number of pages!) and allow the reader to move through the story faster.

Here, lets try it with a quote from Memories of Ice:

Unsheathing his cutlass, Gruntle nodded. Harllo moved to the captain's left, his two handed sword held steady before him. Stonny stood to Gruntle's right, rapier and sticker readied.

He feared for her the most. Her weapons were too light for what was coming- He recalled the chop marks on Bauchelain's carriage, this would be brutal strength at play here, not finesse

62 words

My turn. (I hope you fans forgive me!)

Unsheathing his cutlass, Gruntle nodded. Harllo, his two handed sword steady before him, and Stonny, rapier and sticker ready, flanked him. Gruntle feared that the woman to his right was underprepared for this fight. If the chop marks on Bauchelain's carriage were any indication this would be a contest of brute strength, not finesse.

43 words
same details, description, emotion and information.

I hope this illustrates the point I am trying to make.

Aaron.

 

[jester47]

BC, I know Goldman made up S. Morgenstern. thats why the word [/I]original is in quotes, and I use the word supposed twice. What I am trying to say there is that Goldman was trying to illustrate a point. His point in making up S. Morgenstern was to say that there are a lot of great stories out there in bad books. And that is my point here.

Here is what I said about tolkein in its entirity:

Tolkein himself is quoted as saying that he thought Lord of the Rings was not written as well as it could have been and that its biggest flaw was that it was too short. And that backs up my argument above. Tolkein realised that he could have done a better job with more words because he was not the level of writer that it would take to sufficiently put the story into 1000 pages. He realised that his writing talent was not up to the task he had taken on. He was trying to compress too much into too small a space to fit his talent.

you replied:

It does no such thing. It only means that the good Professor would have liked to have spent more time writing the story and putting in more details. Given that the most common charge levelled against LotR is that it's TOO LONG, it's not at all clear that it would have improved with the addition of more pages.

How am I disagreeing with you here? I think we are both saying that he was saying he needed more room to tell the story to his liking...

Aaron

 

[jester47]

I guess, jes, that what I'm saying is I think it's perfectly acceptable to say in a review, "I didn't care for this book because the writer takes forever to say anything." A review ought to reflect the taste of the reader -- indeed, a review IS the taste of the reader, expressed in an essay-like form.

That is a good point. But I think that is sort of an oversimplificatrion of my main criticism. I think it is simply that his word usage could be better. When I can read a book and find better ways of saying somthing than the author (at least in my own opoinion) it really puts me off. But I think you are right. If I say that, then it will make my review more understandable.

I'm not arguing that masses of gooey prose are good OR bad -- I'm just saying that if you try to claim that gooeyness (?) is an objectively Bad Thing, your readers will be less inclined to listen to you. Because they know that's not true. If you say, "Erikson writes a whole mess of words and I don't much care for that," then you've given them a clear picture of the work, an honest position statement of your own, and they can draw their own conclusions.

I would warn anyone looking to jump into Erikson that he is NOT a writer of easily read novels. I agree that the pacing is slow, sometimes glacially so (that's pun, for those of you who have read Memories of Ice). I agree that there are many, many characters and that it is oftentimes hard to keep track of who's doing what to who. And why, where and with what. People who don't like that stuff aren't going to like these books, and I wouldn't want someone to come to these books with unrealistic expectations.

I guess Gooey is ok, I just prefer it to be a dense sort of gooey. I like many, many characters and stories where its hard to keep track of who's doing what to who. And why, where and with what, (Take a look at my FR campaign binder some time!) but I did come to them with unrealistic (or maybe simply unprepared) expectations.

But I LIKE it for those very reasons. These books really reward careful re-readings -- there's always something new in them pages for me to discover. I don't agree that they would be better books if everything was up front, easy to reference and found the first time through. I like it better this way -- it encourages me to re-read the books, since I know there's more to be savoured in there.

The best reviews, the ones I get the most out of, aren't ones that I agree with -- they're personal ones. Ones that reveal as much about the reviewer as they do about the work under review. Whether witty, insightful, savage, or full of wonder and admiration, great reviews are great pieces of writing and as such ought to be eery bit as personal as the works themselves. Put more of yourself into the review, and worry less about trying to claim correctness for your opinions, and even less than that about trying to second-guess the author's motivations. You're more interesting than any of that stuff.

That is sort of bad form on my part. Most people don't write as carefully as I would expect or want them to. If they did, nothing would get written. Ok, Kurt Vonnegut does, but I don't like his stories all that much... go figure.

Aaron.

 

[CCamfield]

Sorry, Aaron, I have to disagree with you a bit.

In the passage from MoI that you condensed, a bit of detail has been lost. Are both Harllo and Stonny to one side of Gruntle? In your version, that's a possible interpretation because "flanked" is vague. In Erikson's passage you can picture exactly how the three are standing.

Also, I perceive a distinction between between fearing for someone, and fearing someone is unprepared. Even if they ultimately amount to the same thing, fearing for someone puts a direct emphasis on their physical being, as opposed to an indirect concern because of her lack of preparedness. ("underprepared? Ugh.)