I didn't like how Erikson pulled his punches, though. Yeah, a main dude dies, but some birds resurrect his soul or some shit... and magical healing crops up later in the series to ill effect.
I read the prologue to Abercrombie's first book and did not dig it whatsoever. Admittedly, prologues often suck (see George R.R. Martin...), but Abercrombie's "ACTION!" scene thing was just very lame. I hear good things in general about the man, though.
Glen Cook is entertaining. He's the king of weird-ass pacing, but I find it kind of charming (at one point in his first Black Company novel, after the characters have been marching for pages, they take a city in a sentence). There's also an obnoxious antihero protagonist guy with a dumb name, but fortunately he is not the main character/narrator.
Erikson is fun, but his world is full of so much flamboyant magical stuff and ridiculous names that it's difficult to ever take it seriously, at least for me. He also breaks out some pretty overwrought prose on occasion.
One of Martin's best traits is that he keeps all the intrigue rooted in a mostly realistic, albeit medieval, setting; his most stereotypical fantasy moments (the stuff with the invading ice dudes, particularly) are his weakest- although I do like the Dani storyline, dragons or no. He's not perfect, either, though- at least shit happens in Erikson's fiction, A Feast For Crows was the fictional equivalent of water-treading.
That's why I suggested Ian Irvine a few pages back. There's no cliches, no swashbuckling dungeons and dragons (though I get in the mood for a book like this at times) He is a very detail-oriented writer, whose good characters have many flaws, some bordering on morally corrupt. His antagonists, or evil/bad characters, are many times misunderstood, and many times finding you sympathetic to them. The books don't usually have a happy ending. Or at least, have a realistic ending. His last trilogy was science fiction, with a touch of fantasy. In these books, when magic or necromancy is used, it's rare, and has a more realistic consequense for employing the arts. In most cases, the main characters aren't "on a quest", but rather running from some oppressive actions that they find appalling, and are just running for their lives, finding a solution "on the fly". There's just so much detail in his books, but fast paced action as well.
I almost bought this book, but some creepy bearded guy appeared behind me in the bookstore and whispered "Don't waste your money..." while I was debating whether or not I should. I opted to follow his advice on the grounds that he was a creepy bearded guy.
Even though Martin falls victim to cliches, I think he does a good job of uprooting many of them. In my opinion he begins the series in a somewhat stereotypical fashion, but by A Storm of Swords he's overturning them all over. There's so much shock and surprise to the way he pulls his punches, it's so much fun to read.
But A Feast For Crows was definitely a let-down after A Storm of Swords.
Been reading Bakker and Martin (The Erikson is still checked out by somebody). Bakker has an unusual sort of pacing, but his stuff kinda reminds me of Dune with its overall style. Of course, if you know me, Dune is my alltime favorite book, and so Bakker's doing very well for me.
Just got "Juliette" by de Sade in the mail today.
Yes. I started with 120 Days of Sodom last year, with it being his most famous then read Justine after that. I need to re-read 120 Days after I get through Juliette.de Sade was a genius. Have you read any more of his works?