Zachary

Well, for good horror movies, forgive me if it's been mentioned but [REC] was damn good

I wouldn't have a problem with focusing on the smaller characters if they were interesting, but Erikson has, to put it charitably, difficulty with characters. They're mostly caricatures or, at worst, so cliched and impossible to take seriously. Paran, Whiskeyjack, Rake, Karsa, Felisin...Erikson gets too wrapped up in way too many subplots and can't pin down the story or the characters as it'd take time away from those subplots and the world. I can't CARE about the 'smaller' characters is the problem...the Chain of Dogs is a great example: Brilliantly done, harrowing...but Erikson spends way too much time on 'miraculous, sudden escape again and again and again!' And then you consider something: What do we know about Coltaine that makes him tragic in the end? Well...he's tough. He's badass...how do we know? We get so few scenes where Coltaine even features...and the rest is people telling us how awesome he is. That sort of thing hurts the drama for me, honestly.

 

And Kruppe. May he burn. May he burn forever. May his sufferings reach the heavens and may he rot in his grave.

 

My opinion alone here, obviously, but there are some authors today who're much better than Erikson with epic fantasy, definitely George RR Martin. If Erikson took time to tighten and edit, he'd be incredible. As it is, he's got too many flaws for me to really enjoy him as the best fantasy today

 

I'm sorry, but I'd rate Erikson much higher than George RR Martin. the last two books of Ice and Fire were not that great.

Last two? While Feast for Crows wasn't up to the usual standard, it was still a very good book. And Storm of Swords was nothing short of incredible. Erikson's had a disappointing string for about three-four books now, though.

And Red: That's a fair point, but the issue would be it deadens any emotional impact, especially when it happens so many times throughout the series. Even when we're supposed to get to know the guys who die, just change a name and oftentimes they're hard to tell apart

I wouldn't have a problem with focusing on the smaller characters if they were interesting, but Erikson has, to put it charitably, difficulty with characters. They're mostly caricatures or, at worst, so cliched and impossible to take seriously. Paran, Whiskeyjack, Rake, Karsa, Felisin...Erikson gets too wrapped up in way too many subplots and can't pin down the story or the characters as it'd take time away from those subplots and the world. I can't CARE about the 'smaller' characters is the problem...the Chain of Dogs is a great example: Brilliantly done, harrowing...but Erikson spends way too much time on 'miraculous, sudden escape again and again and again!' And then you consider something: What do we know about Coltaine that makes him tragic in the end? Well...he's tough. He's badass...how do we know? We get so few scenes where Coltaine even features...and the rest is people telling us how awesome he is. That sort of thing hurts the drama for me, honestly.

And Kruppe. May he burn. May he burn forever. May his sufferings reach the heavens and may he rot in his grave.

My opinion alone here, obviously, but there are some authors today who're much better than Erikson with epic fantasy, definitely George RR Martin. If Erikson took time to tighten and edit, he'd be incredible. As it is, he's got too many flaws for me to really enjoy him as the best fantasy today

Lynch is just terrific...the best Fantasy author now though is unquestionably Martin. I like Malazan, I do, but Erikson has so many flaws that make the series a drag sometimes:

-His continuity errors...numerous. The timeline has no consistency. Example: In Toll the Hounds, a character who was raped in Memories of Ice has a child...the child is five when MoI was 1-2 years ago. Seriously now!

- His lack of characters: Malazan has some really, REALLY bad characters...I can't think of any who're actually good characters, or really that developed beyond getting constant power ups

-Filler and padding. I love great endings. Stop making me wade through dry tediousness 0f an 800 page bore before I see them. This isn't even a joke, even Erikson admits he does this.

Erikson is better than say, Terry "Total Hack" Goodkind, for one, but he'd be superb if he took the time to tighten, trim and edit. It'd turn the series from a real good one to an amazing one

The Wire kicks ass indeed.

Just went to London for the first time yesterday

well, sure glad to see Davros back....though I doubt Tennant is leaving until the end of Moffat's first season.

What'd everyone think of issue 50?

Nice development for poor Carl.

I'm going to England in two days for a three week trip.

Maybe not that minor, but hey, bragging's fun!

I'm curious....can anyone tell me if Dean Koontz's Intensity is worth a read?

Did a reread of A Song of Ice and Fire...currently working through some of Bernard Cornwell and Haruki Murakami

Strange thing is, I've warmed to Ennis when he's not clogging his comic up with the puerile gross-out humor and same tropes that really brought down Preacher for me. After reading his Hellblazer, Hitman and Punisher MAX, I enjoyed them FAR more than I did Preacher...just some of the things Ennis tends to put in (Like in The Boys, which I find to be one of the worst comics out)...it's like...yes, we get it, religion sucks and superheroes suck. After a while his commentary just gets...old. It's much nicer when he focuses on telling the story because he can do that very well.