Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jester47" data-source="post: 1386822" data-attributes="member: 2238">Look at my review without the flippant opener.&nbsp; And yes my introduction of the review is supposed to be flippant.&nbsp; My review I think is fair.&nbsp; I do not look at the actual story I don't say his ideas suck and that he is not creative.&nbsp; I am writing my review from the perspective of someone who looks at how the writing is done.&nbsp; I appreciate his world (even though this particular continent looks like a cucumber) I have picked up on many of the subtleties of the world and characters. I really like some of the characters.&nbsp; Quick Ben and Whiskyjack are well done believable chaacters.&nbsp; Gruntle comes off as well developed also.&nbsp; But that was not the problem with the presentation of his world.&nbsp; As I stated it was his use of naming conventions and language. But that is not my point.&nbsp; You vaccine is useless if you have a shoddy way of delivering it, and that is my criticism of Erikson.&nbsp; His delivery is sloppy and shoddy. He took 890 pages to tell a story that could have been told just as well in half that, IMO, and to better effect.&nbsp; That is my criticism.&nbsp; I look at the technical side of his writing, because that is how you judge a writer.&nbsp; From what I have read he has the potential to be a great storyteller but his writing needs work.&nbsp; If anything, keeping the complexities straight is what gets him some redemption.&nbsp; Aaron.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jester47, post: 1386822, member: 2238"] Look at my review without the flippant opener. And yes my introduction of the review is supposed to be flippant. My review I think is fair. I do not look at the actual story I don't say his ideas suck and that he is not creative. I am writing my review from the perspective of someone who looks at how the writing is done. I appreciate his world (even though this particular continent looks like a cucumber) I have picked up on many of the subtleties of the world and characters. I really like some of the characters. Quick Ben and Whiskyjack are well done believable chaacters. Gruntle comes off as well developed also. But that was not the problem with the presentation of his world. As I stated it was his use of naming conventions and language. But that is not my point. You vaccine is useless if you have a shoddy way of delivering it, and that is my criticism of Erikson. His delivery is sloppy and shoddy. He took 890 pages to tell a story that could have been told just as well in half that, IMO, and to better effect. That is my criticism. I look at the technical side of his writing, because that is how you judge a writer. From what I have read he has the potential to be a great storyteller but his writing needs work. If anything, keeping the complexities straight is what gets him some redemption. Aaron. [/QUOTE]

Verification