Erikson's series is my favourite, though I still have half of The Crippled God to finish. He wrote the most consistently good stories from start to finish. Where Martin lost his way a little bit and Jordan had a 3-4 book 'hiatus', Erikson remained at the same level for the entire series.
GRRM is "low", dark, gritty fantasy with little magic and realistic characters, politics, sex, etc. (as well as Lynch, Abercrombie etc.)
Erikson is uncompromising "adjusted" high fantasy (no elves or dwarves but magic, gods, ascendants all over the place), with the same core feature for character GRRM has - realistic personalities, uncertain future, realistic consequnces). Similar writers would be Bakker, for example, though Bakker delves deep into philosophy as well.
Jordan is much more akin to Tolkien that the other guys (similar to Tad Williams), in that it features a central character or group of characters that are more or less divided onto good and bad, despite some obvious character struggles and conflicts.
Depends on tastes, though from what I've heard and gathered, Martin's the most critically acclaimed of the three and his series is basically the reason "grown-up" fantasy has become big recently, and is still growing.
No more peasant boy becomes king, bearded wizard helps him, ultimate evil threatens the world and is destroyed etc.
A Song of Ice and Fire is the best series I've ever come across, any genre, but based on the first 3 books (books 4 and 5, as good as they are, are NOT on par with how utterly amazing the first 3 were).
Erikson I loved, it's wonderful and epic and uncompromising and certain events had me literally in tears, other events I read through with that stupid happy grin on my face.
Jordan?
Most of my friends love it, I enjoy it, but not more than that.
For me, it doesn't compare to either GRRM or Erikson, there's still that Rand Al Thor Uberman Born Peasant thing always present, characters that seem to live through everything etc.
Somehow it doesn't feel as "grown-up" as GRRM or Erikson.
(so yeah, depends on tastes too I guess, but I'd place Jordan behind GRRM, Abercrombie, Bakker and Erikson)
...
With all that said, I highly recommend Abercrombie's "The First Law" trilogy and Bakker's "Prince of Nothing" trilogy to anyone who likes either of GRRM, Erikson or Jordan.
Apparently there is a huge democgraphic shift towards adult fantasy right now, as the kids who grew up with Harry Potter graduate to more mature literature. JK Rowling made fantasy more socially acceptable, less associated with overweight man boys playing D&D in their parents basement. GRRM is seing the benefit as millions are just now discovering the books.
Why would Dinklage be considered for best actor? He'll win supporting
Tyrion did have a greater role this season, but this is where Arya will become a fan favourite much like what Tyrion already is and had done in season 1
When it comes to awards, it doesn't matter whether the actor is really a lead or supporting player -- the studios decide what category they'll submit the actor in and they'll usually take the path of least resistance.
Happens all the time with the Emmys and especially the Oscars which are really bad at it.
Ensembles give you flexibility to pick your category.
With all that said, I highly recommend Abercrombie's "The First Law" trilogy and Bakker's "Prince of Nothing" trilogy to anyone who likes either of GRRM, Erikson or Jordan.
I haven't read Bakker, but The First Law is my favourite fantasy trilogy.
__________________
I deride your truth handling abilities
Jordan is much more akin to Tolkien that the other guys (similar to Tad Williams), in that it features a central character or group of characters that are more or less divided onto good and bad, despite some obvious character struggles and conflicts.
I'm a huge fan of Tad Williams, I perfer him to Jordan even though WOT is great.
Apparently there is a huge democgraphic shift towards adult fantasy right now, as the kids who grew up with Harry Potter graduate to more mature literature. JK Rowling made fantasy more socially acceptable, less associated with overweight man boys playing D&D in their parents basement. GRRM is seing the benefit as millions are just now discovering the books.
I am looking to get into this series for pretty much the reasons you stated above. I grew up with Potter and currently am a teacher. I have off in the summers and usually just lay around outside and read. I am running out of interesting material and I have picked up the series more than a few times in Barnes and Noble just to put the books down before I leave the store.
Question is, how in depth are the books? Basically how deep and complex does the world go? I watched season one on HBO and it seemed like a lot of characters, settings, plots, subplots, and back stories. The books themselves seem pretty thick too. I feel like I would need a spread sheet, family tree, and flow chart to follow what is going on throughout the books.
I want to read them, but I am just concerned that it would end up being too much work. Is it worth it?
I am looking to get into this series for pretty much the reasons you stated above. I grew up with Potter and currently am a teacher. I have off in the summers and usually just lay around outside and read. I am running out of interesting material and I have picked up the series more than a few times in Barnes and Noble just to put the books down before I leave the store.
Question is, how in depth are the books? Basically how deep and complex does the world go? I watched season one on HBO and it seemed like a lot of characters, settings, plots, subplots, and back stories. The books themselves seem pretty thick too. I feel like I would need a spread sheet, family tree, and flow chart to follow what is going on throughout the books.
I want to read them, but I am just concerned that it would end up being too much work. Is it worth it?
Well, one things for sure stay clear of Stephen Erikson's Malazan series
It really isn't that complex once you start reading it though. There's a lot of characters, but each chapter is written from an individual point of view, and rarely do they overlap, so you tend to learn them quickly. For example, the events that cover the first episode of Game of Thrones in the book, you start out from Bran's POV going to the beheading, then the rest of the events in Winterfell you get a chapter from Catelyn, Ned, Jon, Arya and finally back to Bran for the fall. Daenerys fits one in there too. Later on you'll branch into POV's from Tyrion and Sansa as well.
If you've already watched the first season, following along in the books should be no problem at all.
Apparently there is a huge democgraphic shift towards adult fantasy right now, as the kids who grew up with Harry Potter graduate to more mature literature. JK Rowling made fantasy more socially acceptable, less associated with overweight man boys playing D&D in their parents basement. GRRM is seing the benefit as millions are just now discovering the books.
But the overweight man boys playing D&D in their parents basement read Harry Potter.
I am looking to get into this series for pretty much the reasons you stated above. I grew up with Potter and currently am a teacher. I have off in the summers and usually just lay around outside and read. I am running out of interesting material and I have picked up the series more than a few times in Barnes and Noble just to put the books down before I leave the store.
Question is, how in depth are the books? Basically how deep and complex does the world go? I watched season one on HBO and it seemed like a lot of characters, settings, plots, subplots, and back stories. The books themselves seem pretty thick too. I feel like I would need a spread sheet, family tree, and flow chart to follow what is going on throughout the books.
I want to read them, but I am just concerned that it would end up being too much work. Is it worth it?
Your in luck, Martin has lists at the end of each book, more or less outlining family trees. Even characters that aren't in the books.
I think my biggest gripe about the HBO series is that the Direwolves seem like they are just these dogs that occasionally pop up when needed. You really don't get the sense that there is anything mythical about them, or that there is any sort of mystical connection to the stark children. That and the hound, one of my favorite characters, is portrayed as this quiet but sensitive good guy rather than the angry f-the-world bad-ass from the book.
I think my biggest gripe about the HBO series is that the Direwolves seem like they are just these dogs that occasionally pop up when needed. You really don't get the sense that there is anything mythical about them, or that there is any sort of mystical connection to the stark children. That and the hound, one of my favorite characters, is portrayed as this quiet but sensitive good guy rather than the angry f-the-world bad-ass from the book.
direwolves in season 2 are gonna be much better. They are using CGI or whatever.
I think my biggest gripe about the HBO series is that the Direwolves seem like they are just these dogs that occasionally pop up when needed. You really don't get the sense that there is anything mythical about them, or that there is any sort of mystical connection to the stark children. That and the hound, one of my favorite characters, is portrayed as this quiet but sensitive good guy rather than the angry f-the-world bad-ass from the book.
They take care of that subtlety, hard to do it when they're using real dogs but the cues are there.
Like when Bran wakes up right as Ned kills Sansa's direwolf...that's the only specific one I can think of.
you really don't start seeing the true connection with the direwolves until Brans pov in Clash anyway. Can't wait to see how they handle the warging and what not. Sucks the Reeds weren't cast cause they play a huge part in explaining all that to Bran.
I never really found them to be that annoying but I can definitely understand why some people were annoyed by them. I saw them as giving Bran hope, knowledge, and a "family" after he was pretty much abandoned by all of the Starks either by death or separation.
I never really found them to be that annoying but I can definitely understand why some people were annoyed by them. I saw them as giving Bran hope, knowledge, and a "family" after he was pretty much abandoned by all of the Starks either by death or separation.
Yeah but maybe in the series they'll turn him into a more badass character because of it, rather than a whiny little kid.
Martin has a soft spot for weak characters. Maybe 'cause he's fat.
