Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jester47" data-source="post: 1390450" data-attributes="member: 2238">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.  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.</blockquote>

Verification