Add new comment

I agree with most of what you say, and am gladly surprised to find that someone else decided to make a comparison between these two authors. My own bias is for Erikson's style, which emulates (for me) the feel of an archaeological dig: The reader begins a stranger on an unfamiliar landscape with very little fore-knowledge of where they stand, only growing aware of the implication and meaning of the place after they've scratched at the surface and examined the artifacts beneath. They are guided to delve, have moments of epiphany, and look back constantly with new understanding. As Erikson's training was in the field of archaeology, I am rightly impressed by his ability to simulate the experience. Given that I was trained in the same field, I'm in the precarious position of finding Erikson's style more natural than Martin's (which I find wholly uncompromising).

That isn't what I wanted to mention, though. My purpose here is to contest your statement that Erikson is afraid to meet his readers. This is not the case. Erikson actually has amazing rapport with his readership. He communicates (albeit infrequently) with his fans via representatives on forums, even going so far as to candidly reply to the long list of questions compiled about his work and work style. Also, when I went to a book signing and talk by him during a tour for Deadhouse Gates, Erikson invited everyone present to go to the pub with him after the presentation. I have never seen a writer willing to put forward such an invitation, and both that and Erikson's easy atmosphere endeared him to me far more than his books (and their compatibility with my reading desires) ever could.

I don't believe Erikson writes with conscious intention to rebuke or twist current mores of fiction; instead, I feel that he is simply writing ambitiously in order to properly represent his vision and version of fantasy that establish modules (such as the one employed by Martin) simply won't allow for. He isn't breaking convention, but rather creating/continuing a new one that simply has a different focus than what most readers are accustomed to.

As a heavy reader, it is my belief that the flaw for being considered a niche writer doesn't lie with the author, but rather the reading public as a whole. Erikson writes at the level most expect to see only in traditional fiction, through authors such as Kafka, Pears, and Atwood. He writes with heavy subtext, using devices primarily studied in literature courses, and often unemployed by the majority of Sci-Fi/Fantasy. The flaw is that Sci-Fi/Fantasy isn't a genre of fiction taken seriously by many, including its own readership, and thus a genre unprepared to be taken seriously and challenged by an author like Erikson.