Authors Peter Orullian, Robin Hobb, Patrick Rothfuss, Peter V. Brett, and Steven Erikson gathered at the 2015 Emerald City Comicon (Seattle, WA) to answer the question, "What is epic fantasy?"
Lol Patrick rothfuss critiquing Superman as an adolescent power fantasy is a bit rich...considering his main character reads like a hard -on of a sensitive author type. Perfect memory, extensively read, amazing student, writer, warrior, oh guess what, he's an AWESOME LOVER too. Trust me guys
+Weasel3001 I tried the first book, but I only got about 80 pages in before I gave up. The world seemed far too confusing to me, but I'll try to read it again some day.
I'm intrigued but very hesitant to read it. I've heard it's very confusing and that there are a lot of elements that are introduced and then never go anywhere so it ends up feeling kinda needlessly complex and pointless. Would you say that's accurate? I really hate books/series that seem to be setting up for something big but then those elements never get tied back together. Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials series drove me crazy. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. I've heard some people say it's great so maybe I should give it a shot
When I first found this video, I was 100-pages into Gardens of the Moon. Now, I'm 80-pages into Memories of Ice. No turning back. In a way, this very comment helped me stay with it. Thanks for that. It's awesome.
Once i got to MOI i was in for the long run. It really does take some patience to understand how massively large and old the Malazan Universe is. Amazing work.
Strange how Patrick Rothfuss spoke the most on the panel but has written the least Steven Erikson spoke the least but said the more profound things, whilst having written one of the most epic and profound fantasy series ever
All good authors and stuff... but Erikson is on a different level: he is amazingly deep in every sentence, like he has already given so much thought on everything.
I've read some of his work and all of Rothfuss's, and I've got to say I find Rothfuss the stronger storyteller and literary artist. Surprisingly, even though Rothfuss's world is amazing imo, Erikson does have a greater scope and politics (Martin's politics is stronger still). I would rank them about even, though I personally like Rothfuss more, and Slow Regard marks him as versatile in a way I have not yet encountered in Erikson (Gaiman is more versatile still).
You may like Rothfuss more than Erikson, that's fine. But matters of artistry and literariness are not all that subjective, and in that comparison Rothfuss doesn't stand a chance against Erikson (and neither does Gaiman). The intricate poetry of Erikson's later novels approaches the lofty heights of the Genre's greats like Tolkien and LeGuin.
@UnwrittenNoise: Artistry isn't all that subjective? The very *concept* of art is defined by its subjectivity and that of the abstract tastes and preferences of its audience. If a reader/viewer doesn't find quality or a state of artful execution in the work, then to them, it is *not* art. I would never consider _"Fifty shades of Grey"_ art, no matter how persuasive one might argue in favor of its virtues. To me, it lacks everything that characterizes "art." Now, if you're talking about writing craft, then there is something more concrete to be said about quality, but even *that* is arguably subjective because narrative styling, story structure, characterization, and genre are all preferential or partial to the consumer. You appreciate lyrical prose, for instance, but another reader might find Leguin or Martin too "purple" for their taste. I mean, with all of that "kissing of steel" it's "small wonder" that some readers might be put off by pretentious, pseudo-medieval figurative language. But I agree in terms of Rothfuss' work compared to Erikson's.
Alnertts right. Story telling is subjective but Erikson is dosteovsky and Rothfuss is twilight. Rothfuss writes well... when he writes at all. Nowadays hes in twitch playing video games asking for donations while Erikson is spitting out books every other year of a much higher literary standard. Rothfuss books are great but on a psychological level Erikson just goes far deeper and more original. When you read Erikson you have the sense he could write any genre and excel at it while Rothfuss is writing a single persons story and hardly at even that nowadays. Erikson is for the fantasy lovers and Rothfuss is for the casuals. Best way i can describe it with 700+ books under my belt with a solid 300+ being fantasy.
The four other authors: *Talks for ten minutes each, speaking and having on the fly conversations and responses* Erikson: *Says something about the topic that he's been mulling over and considering for the past thirty minutes* The four other authors: *Go silent*
Hobb is by far my favorite author up there, followed by Rothfuss, but just seeing P. Rothfuss go on and on about his hatred for prophecy while while sitting next to ROBIN FUCKING HOBB was so very awkward, especially if you look at the expression on her face the entire time he's going on about it. She clearly wants to fight him on it, but doesn't know how to go about without seeming self-righteous about her books. Hobb is such a masterful storyteller, in a class above everyone else up there, and her use of prophecy (not certain as to the level of difference and certainty of outcome between premonition and prophecy, but I'm going to consider premonition as a loose form of prophecy) is so interesting and character connected that it isn't at all like the things Rothfuss said he disliked about fantasy, and I wished some one would have called him out on that, if only to see himself try to disentangle himself from that awkward situation. Although, like Rothfuss, I not a big fan of prophecy, like for example in Harry Potter, the prophecy just seems like a plot device that allows Harry to confront Voldemort, ultimately leading to the rest of the world acknowledging his return and thus "progressing" the story, but Hobb's use of "prophecy" is so much more than that. You can see the same expression on her face when he's talking about superman not being a compelling character, and I also agree with Rothfuss on this one too, based on the versions of SM I've seen, but I pretty sure Hobb is somewhat of a comic book fan, and she clearly doesn't agree (at least not totally) on this point either. I wish she'd just say what was on her fucking ingenious mind.
I'm a huge fan of Rothfuss, but even he is a child when sitting next to Erikson. It's odd how many times the other make assertions for the genre that Erikson's books completely contradict. Someone else already commented it, but it seems like none of them have read his work. There other authors are telling stories. Erikson is teaching us all about life.
I swear, none of these authors have (yet) anything on Erikson on "Epic". Looking at you, Rothfuss! Stop being a perfectionist, and just write one perfect book a year, so we can enjoy your marvellous prose.
Stick to it.. and don't worry if you don't understand what's going on.. no one does the first time through. You'll be 3, 4 books in before things start to gel for you.. but there are little mini-convergences here and there before the big finale. 'Epic' doesn't do MBotF justice.. enjoy.
First book is rough. I liked parts of it but it is very flawed, it was never intended to be a book in the first place. Just go push through it. Second one is much better, in fact I think I fell in love with Malazan at the end of the prologue of the Deadhouse gates.
Erikson is the Grand Wizard of this panel. Rothfuss talks too much, you get the feeling he is always tying to look to impress with his "wise words". Erikson is on another level compared to all of these other authors. I truly believe he has tapped into something "other" with is books.
Erikson knows his books did his talking years ago. If you have to ask what epic fantasy is, then you haven't read Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen series.
Based on the last question, Erikson could have held an entire panel on legend/myth/folklore and their uses and nuances. Wow. He must be feeling modest... or disintersted. XD
I love Erikson but I do wish he at least pretended to give a shit about being on this panel. On the other hand, I love how he bides his time and really thinks deeply before answering anything. Man's a genius.
He's that.. introverted genius that only talks when he really has something important to say. I can appreciate that. Rothfuss on the other hand, is the opposite. Not that he doesn't have his own 'genius' but he is that guy you want at the party, so you don't have to talk incessantly to keep things interesting. The two, IMO, balance each other out really well.
@@zaknefain100 I don't think Erikson is entirely someone that does not WANT to talk per se, but he is more enthusiastic talking to people intrested in his work or in philisophical or literary talks rather than a general fantasy panal. The fact that erikson gives 2 hour talks with channels with 200 subscribers talks volumes of his character
Erikson is a God. After finishing his series all other fantasy I came across felt stale. I think all the other authors in this panel secretly acknowledge this. He thinks so deeply about a lot of things and it reflects in how deep his writing is, as well as in how thought out his responses are in this panel. Like all the others are talking and giggling and he just drops an answer and they all go like pooof....mind-blown.
Having before read R.R. Martin, Hobb and Rothfuss, in that order. I recently began on the Malazan series and i am on page 50 in Gardens of the Moon. I have great focus and visualization ability so even though it is a heavy read which requires you to pick up all the little details, i feel like i can really appreciate it. I am starting to realize now that i have some great reading in front of me. The only other fantasy author I am curious about after Erikson is Brandon Sanderson with his Mistborn and Stormlight Archives series, those having recieved great praise from fans and other authors alike. What's your take on Sanderson, if you have read anything of his?
@@Avendesora322 Stormlight is way up there from Sanderson. If you like sort of bright vivid fantasy in an alien world with superhero-like characters, then yeah, read it.
If you like Erikson try R. Scott Bakker. The Darkness that Comes Before, The Warrior Prophet, The Thousandfold Thought, The Judging Eye, The White-Luck Warrior, The Great Ordeal, The Unholy Consult. As much as I loved the Malazan Book of the Fallen I think Bakker is the best fantasy I've ever read.
Well the Malazan Empire comes from Malaz island. The last a should be short, but the emphasis for the first 2 could be wherever you want, MAL-az or ma-LAZ island.
I also noticed that. I think everyone tries to seek some sort of validation whether they are consciously doing it or not. But Rothfuss definitely knows he's in the company of a master writer.
Erikson knows what he's about. "What is epic fantasy?" Erikson could honestly say, "Just read my series and see for yourself." and he wouldn't be wrong at all.
The thing about Erickson is he's a considerate speaker. He doesn't speak unless he has something significant to contribute to the discussion. We should all be more like Erickson.
johnytopinka Erikson pronounces it in fashion typical to north america, whereas someone pronouncing it in british english would put the emphasis on the first syllable as in MAL-a-zan
It's hard to say. They have that respect for him that makes it seem as though they have. But at the same time, I'm sure it would make writing their own stories much much harder to have read a far superior author's work. I have a feeling that MBotF has informed and affected the continuing works of many fantasy authors, including GRR Martin
OMG, somebody likes to listen to his own voice... Whereas the most quiet guy outshines them all, not to mention how his words actually have meaning and are not just filling empty space or time... Hats off, mr. Erikson!
Just dropping by to remind everyone it's 2018 and Patrick Rothfuss still hasn't even revealed a release date for Doors of Stone. So, I don't know what he was doing sitting on a panel with Steven Erikson. Brandon Sanderson should have been in his place.
@@doublaich5990 His point was he doesn't know what a writer was doing on a panel with other writers 3yrs ago? Y'all are really fucking stupid. If Brandon Sanderson's conveyer belt work is so much better, go read all 75k pages of it and shut the fuck up.
@jackson pine Now there's apparently rumors suggesting August 2020 but *mimes blowing load* I've heard a bunch of "rumors" in my day. I'll believe it when I see it.
I've always thought the distinction between fantasy and science fiction is the reflection of who we were in the past and who we will be in the future. For fantasy it's a reflection on medieval society with aspects like swords, kings, princesses, heavy importance on religion, and everything we weren't able to explain were passed off as magic. A lot of our world was still undiscovered so you see grand maps and sprawling adventure. For science fiction it's a speculation on how our society will be changed with technology with aspects of space travelling, discovering alien life, and how exploring outside of our planet would change us moving forward.
Erikson is bored of the Tolkien praise. You can tell. He's already said not to compare him to Tolkien because his work is more in line with Donaldson and the classic Sword and Sorcery writers.
Solid discussion. Easy to see why Rothfuss is polarizing with some people. He definitely took a majority of the time here but I also didn’t feel like the other panelists cared, in fact most of the time I think they were enjoying listening to his takes. He’s definitely a scholar of the genre and an entertaining, intelligent guy. But in doing so does he maybe give off a little bit of a Simpsons Comic Book Guy vibe? Yeah, maybe a little. As for Erickson? Yeah probably a class above the others imo (though if Pat ever finishes his series we can revisit that lol), but I I have no doubt he could have talked more if he wanted to. I enjoyed it when he did but he isn’t giving off a vibe of people frustrated or anything. He’s just listening and chiming in when he has something to add. Just don’t agree with this weird taring down of Rothfuss in the comments. You can be mad at how he may act or remark in other instances or take issues with his lack of progress, but at face value he added a lot to the discussion and it wasn’t like he was just talking out of his ass. The guy knows a bit
One looks for baby names in a book, and another goes the opposite, to death, in obituaries to find names... xD I loved Rothfuss ranting about prophecies, lmfao.
I think writer's have to be careful. If you create so many villains that you can empathize with, it's dilutes the power of success for your protagonist which leaves a lack of satisfaction.
+Jay Paul III Not if there's an internal struggle/growth/arch to those characters, it doesn't. When you have two morally ambiguous characters struggling against each other for opposite results and both of them are relatable and empathetic, it can increase the story's tension and the overall satisfaction because the personal trials of each character heightened the stakes for each of them and the reader might now be at the point where he doesn't know who he wants to win, so either outcome will emotionally manipulate the reader: making them feel the elation of one's success and the resounding failure of the other's defeat, bringing the story full circle. If you're writing strictly heroic fantasy with moral polarities between protagonist and antagonist (black/white, evil/good), then you want your hero to be more active and empathetic than the villain so that the outcome justifies the hero's journey and the antagonist's antics don't overshadow the hero's actions. But that has more to do with the hero's behavior more so than the reader's ability to empathize with the villain. Naturally, all readers find the character that makes the decisions and acts on them, the most interesting in the story. If your hero is a reactionary character and your villain runs the show, then this will quickly undermine the hero's prowess and will make the hero's success feel contrived and unearned.
I wonder if Peter Orullian, Robin Hobb, Patrick Rothfuss and Peter V. Brett really read Erikson books...many of the things they discuss are ripped off in Malaz.
Rothfuss talks too much and says almost nothing. He just has the need to impress like the narcissist he is. Kingkiller Chronicle is an amazingly crafted piece of art, but that's the truth about its father and creator. Like other people already said here on the comment section, geniuses like Erikson don't have the need of impressing people. They just do.
Rothfuss says a lot of interesting stuff tho, he's always my favourite on these panels tbh. I shouldn't come down the comments and read these rude things. Sigh.
I see that everyone in the comments here talks about Steven Erikson, and yes, he is the best of them all. Above him in my opinion is just J.R.R. Tolkien.
Fitzchivalry's kills in book oneFirst bookTrials by forged- 3First summer bread poisoning- 17Lordling outside of turlake- 1Loaned skill to verity- 1 boatBotched mountain poisoning- 1Kills- 22 and 1 boat
Well, yeah, but we're talking about modern/contemporary fantasy here. I don't think anyone would include ancient works in a discussion pertaining to fantasy plot vehicles today. Completely different sphere of storytelling.
So Rothfuss got me thinking on 'props'. In Wheel of Time, the 'props' from the Age of Legends include spaceships (of sorts)/ technology. So Wheel of Time isn't fantasy, it's sci-fi. Kill me.
Dancers Lament is stellar. Easily very comparable to Erikson. I strongly recommend reading his books for all of the information, but DL is where he really hits his stride
Actually i think i saw somewhere that NoK and RotCG were written like 20-30 years ago, before MBotF even came as a thing, so that's why i think are worse than the others.
Erikson looks bored. I'm not even sure he appreciates those other authors that much, other than Hobb ofc , which I know for a fact he admires a lot and has written an entire article praising her. But yeah, it's pretty evident that these two have the most profound things to say
@@Severian1 magic doesn’t have to be a performative act in my opinion. It could simply be an essential characteristic of the world. Thomas Covenant and the Land comes to mind minus LotR ring rip off
Peter v Brett gets on my nerves. I love Patrick Rothfuss I really felt for him when Brett just says "I just use a babies names book and change the letters" bc Rothfuss puts so much work into his characters names.
