Martin, Erikson, Jordan..Am I missing something??

[Evil Agent]

On the point of tastes differing, my favourite Radiohead album is The Bends and I think their best song is 'Street Spirit'. I feel they peaked at that moment, although OK Computer was very nearly as good.

As soon as I wrote my post, I knew someone would step in to defend The Bends!

Personally, I like the Bends but I find it far less interesting than everything that comes after. I listen to it very rarely. It's definitely a good album... but IMO it's just good, while the albums after it are great. My favourite by far is Kid A.

Although Planet Telex is a pretty awesome opener... <puts on The Bends>

(music rant):
As for your comment about not wanting to have to listen to something 10 times... I'm a huge music fan and a musician myself, and I firmly believe that all good music requires repeated listenings, with focus and concentration. Every single one of my favourite groups took me quite a while to get into, and all of my very favourite albums required multiple listens (at least 10) before I could even begin to appreciate the complexity and layers. Also, based on brain science research relating to music, it does apparently take multiple listens for your brain to truly begin to understand and appreciate a piece of music. This is particularly true for the complex music I like to listen to, such as some classical (e.g. Beethoven's symphonies) and progressive rock (Tool, King Crimson). Initial listens are only surface level, which only really works for super catchy pop music. This is why I have no respect for music critics who review an album after a single listen. Also, this is why I strongly disagree with your statement that it's a failure on the part of the artist, if the music requires multiple listens.

 

[End Of Disc One]

The longer an album takes to grow on you, the more lasting power it has. It my experience this has always been the case.

 

[Werthead]

A book or album that requires two or three reads/listens to start appreciating (and that's only a 'start') is one thing. I've read The Book of the New Sun twice and know I'll pick up much more next time around. I've read the first four Malazan books twice and know that more will become apparent next time around as well. I had to watch Mulholland Drive twice to realise Lynch's genius in that movie. I took a while to 'get' Joy Division and now they are one of my favourite bands (if not the #1) whom I still listen to on a regular basis.

I just think that ten times is a bit extreme. All of the above examples had things that engaged my attention first time through, even if the full effect wasn't experienced at first. Although listening to an album ten times through is probably less time-consuming than reading the entire Malazan series twice

 

[Evil Agent]

I just think that ten times is a bit extreme. All of the above examples had things that engaged my attention first time through, even if the full effect wasn't experienced at first. Although listening to an album ten times through is probably less time-consuming than reading the entire Malazan series twice

Yeah, it's hard to compare books and albums this way, because of the length of time required. Also, I don't mean that it takes 10 listens to find anything engaging in an album... but it often takes multiple listens before the songs really sink into your brain and start revealing their layers. Things become apparent that just aren't there on the first few listens. But I would say I think most albums require at least three full listens before even preliminary judgment can be passed.

 

[Third Eye]

(music rant):
As for your comment about not wanting to have to listen to something 10 times... I'm a huge music fan and a musician myself, and I firmly believe that all good music requires repeated listenings, with focus and concentration. Every single one of my favourite groups took me quite a while to get into, and all of my very favourite albums required multiple listens (at least 10) before I could even begin to appreciate the complexity and layers. Also, based on brain science research relating to music, it does apparently take multiple listens for your brain to truly begin to understand and appreciate a piece of music. This is particularly true for the complex music I like to listen to, such as some classical (e.g. Beethoven's symphonies) and progressive rock (Tool, King Crimson). Initial listens are only surface level, which only really works for super catchy pop music. This is why I have no respect for music critics who review an album after a single listen. Also, this is why I strongly disagree with your statement that it's a failure on the part of the artist, if the music requires multiple listens.

Agreed on every level. Although some albums resonate from the very first listen. I play guitar (not very well) and do understand music theory and like you I absolutely love dissecting an album piece by piece. For me listening to music is both an entertaining and intellectual pursuit.

What you expressed I think was most evident when Tool released 10,000 Days. I was one of the ones that loved it from the beginning but many Tool fans were disappointed at first. Many of those same fans have since come to love the album. After coming off Lateralus 10,000 Days was a completely different animal. Technically brilliant but I do not think it was what much of the fan base was expecting. I can see how it might take a number of listens to a song like Rosetta Stoned for example before one can really appreciate just how remarkable a composition it is.

I think it is difficult to compare the process of listening to and appreciating a musical composition to reading a work of literature. With a book the author has far more time to develop the story and the reader usually will wait it out hoping for a proper pay off and with the good authors the pay off is almost always worth it. It might take 100 pages or even 200 before things start to come into focus and really grab the reader.

In music that luxury is not there. You don't have half the album to try to get it right. It is an interesting discussion.

Some of the very best authors are the ones that grab the reader immediately. Something about the narrative resonates from page one. As this topic referenced George R.R. Martin in particular I think Martin falls into this category. A Game of Thrones was so good I was pulled into the story almost immediately. I have since grown disenchanted with Martin himself but there is no denying he is one of the very best.

 

[Bond]

The longer an album takes to grow on you, the more lasting power it has. It my experience this has always been the case.

But is this really because you found something more there or, because due to the amount of investment, you are obliged to find something more? Is Van Gogh a better painter than Cezanne because he's a better painter or because his paintings sell for more? If you paid the extra, naturally there is a built in confirmation bias to say the extra was justified.

 

[Pvt]

Not to mention that when all these people around you are saying how brilliant something is you naturally feel compelled to agree.

 

[Khale]

I think some of the comments that the OP is perhaps not quite ready for Erikson and Martin (and to some extent Jordan) have some merit.

People new to fantasy and discovering Harry Potter and Shannara are going to get a very enjoyable experience in my opinion. But they are fantasy-lite. Ultimately you will find yourself little by little looking for something a bit deeper. When that happens, try for Jordan and since you liked Dresden, go to Butcher's Codex Alera series.

Once you get your appetite up, jump into Martin and perhaps even Abercrombie's First Law Trilogy.

Once you feel you're ready for something challenging and extensive, pick up Erikson. But to be honest, I can't imagine someone new to fantasy starting with Erikson.

 

[barfly]

I think some of the comments that the OP is perhaps not quite ready for Erikson and Martin (and to some extent Jordan) have some merit.

fwiw, i've been reading fantasy for a few decades now and i haven't found Martin or Erikson nearly as engaging as other folks seem to. i know this doesn't prove anything. my point is just that the "not ready for" hypothesis may be a non-starter. i guess i'm saying that the problems people often have with certain authors is because of their writing, not because of the preparedness of the reader.

because i can i'll use myself as an example. i abandoned Martin's SOIAF for two reasons: firstly it was beginning to look endless and i want to read other things before i die, and secondly it was beginning to feel like "printed television" which is to say rambling on merely for the sake of rambling on.

i freely admit that many things about the SOIAF series were excellent and it deserves much of the praise it gets. but it's not perfect either and certainly not the brightest light in the fantasy heavens as it's often made out to be. i think it deserves some criticism and much praise, no more and no less.

as to Erikson i suppose the best way to put it is that i found the writing style of GOTM to not suit my tastes. in fact there are certain stylistic habits of his that i find quite off-putting and for those reasons i dropped it pretty quickly. i've sampled other stuff of his, short stories, and felt the same way.

by contrast i pretty much have adored other contemporaries like Abercrombie and Wooding, not to mention the oldies like Elric, Leiber's F&GM, Wagner's Kane etc etc.

i'm not suggesting that my thoughts on these authors, as examples, are significant or even worth noting. what i am saying is that i, for one, have found what i think are valid reasons for walking away from these guys other than simply being too wet behind the ears to understand or appreciate them.

 

[First Sword]

I understand most of the complains about Jordan and Erickson, even though I still love their series.

But I really think GRRM is in a class of his own. The only valid criticism imo is the time frame of when/if he will ever finish. Even if he were to somehow never finish I would still not regret reading ASOIAF as I feel it is just that good. It essentially added a new wing to the genre for lack of a better term.

 

[Pvt]

I understand most of the complains about Jordan and Erickson, even though I still love their series.

But I really think GRRM is in a class of his own. The only valid criticism imo is the time frame of when/if he will ever finish. Even if he were to somehow never finish I would still not regret reading ASOIAF as I feel it is just that good. It essentially added a new wing to the genre for lack of a better term.

ASOIAF has a ton of problems, it's just that ppl tend to ignore all the faults and exaggerate all the positives.

 

[barfly]

ASOIAF has a ton of problems, it's just that ppl tend to ignore all the faults and exaggerate all the positives.

+1 vote on that, though there are a lot of positives to exaggerate.

 

[Rob B]

Not to mention that when all these people around you are saying how brilliant something is you naturally feel compelled to agree.

Or quite the opposite. For example, the vast majority of people I know in real life (family, close friends, acquaintances, co-workers) enjoy the sitcom Two and a Half Men. I can't stand the damned thing. I tried watching a couple of times, episodes friends specifically said were the best of the series and I cringed through every minute waiting to laugh.

 

[chris777]

ASOIAF has a ton of problems, it's just that ppl tend to ignore all the faults and exaggerate all the positives.

Agreed. Who can say Crows was not terrible? Probably the worst book in any series I have read. Including some boring WOT books, or different series`. The first 3 are really good though. Point being, people normally judge a series as a whole, and so far it's pretty freakin good.

Or quite the opposite. For example, the vast majority of people I know in real life (family, close friends, acquaintances, co-workers) enjoy the sitcom Two and a Half Men. I can't stand the damned thing. I tried watching a couple of times, episodes friends specifically said were the best of the series and I cringed through every minute waiting to laugh.

Same. I hate that show. I watch A LOT of shows. And A LOT of comedy. And that show is simply...NOT FUNNY. You want some funny shows?

Always sunny in Phil....best comedy on tv right now.
The office..of course...great show.
30rock
modern family/community/eastbound n down/curb your enthusiasm
=)

 

[BreakLater]

It's NOT dumb to try to make it through a book you find dull at first, or go back and read a book you originally didn't like, or listen to an album ten times until you feel you've understood it. Yes, part of your enjoyment WILL be because you've invested time in it but, hell, you got to invest time in trying to enjoy art!! Even if your final review of the work is "it sucks" you surely had fun coming to that conclusion, right? Right?? I mean, I hope so! You're basically indulging a hobby and hobbies should be fun!

I stick with a new book or album as long as I can, trying to understand it, see what's great about it. Sometimes I come away hating it but I always think it's time well spent. Our tastes and expectations about art change every minute we're alive! Sticking with new experiences is crucial to evolving your tastes!

 

[ChrisW]

listen to an album ten times until you feel you've understood it.

one needs to understand an album? Music sound good, I like. End of story for me. Though in general music tends to grow on you. I've rArely heard a song for the first time and thought that it was great. With books one generally needs to understand it to enjoy it.

 

[Third Eye]

one needs to understand an album? Music sound good, I like. End of story for me. Though in general music tends to grow on you. I've rArely heard a song for the first time and thought that it was great. With books one generally needs to understand it to enjoy it.

In my opinion Understanding an album is vital to the listening experience. Something can sound good but still be rubbish. A catchy riff for example might sound good, but the rest of the song may be a horribly constructed mess. I play guitar. I have training in music theory. How a piece of music is constructed is extremely important. The majority of what I would call "good" music is extremely well constructed. Not the same three chords or some heavy distortion and repeating power chords. Not 4 minute long 4/4 forays into the mundane.

My opinion certainly not doctrine.

 

[Third Eye]

Agreed. Who can say Crows was not terrible? Probably the worst book in any series I have read. Including some boring WOT books, or different series`. The first 3 are really good though. Point being, people normally judge a series as a whole, and so far it's pretty freakin good.

Same. I hate that show. I watch A LOT of shows. And A LOT of comedy. And that show is simply...NOT FUNNY. You want some funny shows?

Always sunny in Phil....best comedy on tv right now.
The office..of course...great show.
30rock
modern family/community/eastbound n down/curb your enthusiasm
=)

Eastbound n Down heck ya! :daps:

Chapelle Show for life! I love comedy. When George Carlin died I was extremely bummed. We lost a great one.

Agreed A Feast for Crows was horrible. The unraveling of ASOIAF. Maybe Martin pulls it back together with ADWD.

 

[N.S. Barrett]

I admit, I have only recently started reading fantasy. I had read Harry Potter and LOTR, but never really bothered to look further in to the genre. I also read a couple Dresden books and thought they were fun. Upon looking at these boards, I noticed that the series that seem to be the most integral, or essential are George Martin's Song of Ice and Fire, Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time (mixed reviews but still essential) and Steven Erikson's Malazan series.

I haven't been able to make it through the first 100 pages of any of these first books without losing interest, yet I find myself devouring Terry Brooks' Shannara series without being able to put them down. Am I missing something? Is it just a matter of taste? I feel like the music fan that doesn't get modern Radiohead while the rest of the world is calling them brilliant and perfect.

Well contrary to what others are saying, having read LOTR means that you've enjoyed something other than Fantasy-lite fare. So trust me when I say that Brooks is not the end of what the genre has to offer you.

What you have to realize is that Martin, and to a lesser extent Erikson, triumphed by remedying a lot of historical fantasy's traditional weaknesses. Fantasy was originally pretty thin on plot, with just a bunch of questing, running from the Orcs, trying not to get lost in the mountains, etc. In Martin/Erikson, you have compelling plots, while losing little of the setting that Fantasy has been valued for.

This isn't to say that their writing is perfect, or even anything more than good. I enjoyed GRRM's Game of Thrones, but going back and reading the first chapter, it was excrutiatingly telly in terms of how the setting was exposited, the dialogue was canned and the characterization cliche. The prologue was also horrible. I honestly think that GRRM's secret to writing children is to just write lazy. No introspection and no complex sentence structure. Erikson's style I also find very bothersome, and likewise I often think that his secret to exposition is to just not put forward any effort at all to keep the reader informed. I'm not trying to dissuade you, it's just something to be aware of that all the praise comes from people who have just as much criticism to offer. What these authors did well were plot twists, unexpected endings and constantly reshaping the vision of the outcome the reader wants in the wake of character death. But you might not like that.

You might like running away from the Orcs. If you do, Jordan might be one to give another shot (the first book, at least). Like Brooks, Jordan was originally very derivative of Tolkein (Trollocs instead of Orcs, sorry). It's just that it takes the hobbits about 200 pages to get outside the shire and to know what's going on with "the ring". This is a weakness, no excuses about it, but any "better" version of Jordan is sitting in a publisher's slush pile because the era has passed when this "community of fanatics" were avid about that kind of stuff. It looks like what you see is what you get as far as that material goes. I personally wish there were contemporary bands like Metallica and Megadeth, but everywhere I go people are talking about Radiohead. The fashion is gone.

I should just mention that just because you start a series, doesn't mean you have to finish it. I think very few people who have read all 15,000 pages of Jordan could say that they wouldn't rather have a law degree instead for the amount of time they put into it. However, the first book is very much The Fellowship of the Ring. I say give it another shot.

 

[Snowy]

Interesting point as to whether a reader is 'ready' for a particular author. I initially read it and thought that it was a patronising viewpoint to take, but the more I mull it over the more I think it is correct, and actually not patronising at all.

Music has been used as an example, and resulted in a bunch of off-topic posts about the merits of bands, styles etc, so I will take a different tack - cheese If you had never eaten a piece of cheese, and were given a ripe gorgonzola, the chances are you would not get on with it at all. Your palate has not become accustomed to the milder, 'easier' cheeses. So it is I think with certain authors.

Another point I would make to the OP is that all three of the authors mentioned (in respect of their respective magnum opus series') is that none are a light undertaking, so quitting at 100 pages in may be admitting defeat early on, as in the overall scheme of things you are barely past the opening credits.

Jordans WOT and Eriksons Malazan both use a similar mechanism in that they begin writing as if you know everything that is going on within their respective worlds. I remember (distantly) starting WOT and constantly having to flick to the glossary at the back to try and make some sense of what was being written about, and even then struggling to do so, but as it comes together and you start to 'get' it, so the story begins to unfurl and away you go. As they say, nothing worthwhile comes easy.

Eriksons first is similar in that the characters, events, and world are kinda already in place before you as the reader arrive, and there is no exposition to help you along. Martin is a little more forgiving, but has a cast of thousands to introduce as he sets the stage before they all start to tie together.

Of course that is not to say that anyone should like any of them as authors, they wont be to everyones tastes. Not everyone likes cheese after all Erikson is my personal stumbling block - I have read 6 of his books, and while there are elements that I liked, I found persevering with them hard work and they do not hold up as classic stories to me.

My recommendation to the OP though would be, go back and try again and at least persevere to the end of the first book of each series, and see if your opinion hasn’t changed by that point.