>>No, I don't think so. Personaly, I really like Zelazny, but >>I also have to agree with my ex who said that Brust is, overall, >>the better writer (taking into account plot, diction, character >>development, style, etc.). >> > >Really? I totally disagree. I think Zelazny is the better "writer" taking >into account syntax, diction, grammar, word usage, illustration, sentence >structure, etc. But, I think Brust the better "story-teller" (though >Zelazny is good, I just don't think as good as Brust) taking into account >plot, character development, thematic development, illusion, allegory, >symbolism, and visualization. I think Brust also has better style and >voice. Each are fun to read and analyze on their different merits. I think that Brust and Zelazny are so comparable, in most of these catagories, that it really is a matter of personal preference. Where I think Zelazny does outshine Brust is in terms of sheer imaginativeness and creativity of concept. I say that with the understanding that I think that Brust is one of the most creative and imaginative authors that I have ever encountered. I just think that, when you take a look at the full bredth of his work, Zelazny was simply incomparable when it came to dreaming up startlingly new and interesting concepts again and again and again. Even in his works that were nominally similar to each other (Creatures of Light and Darkness vs. Lord of Light), the execution and ideas that he implemented were brilliantly divergent and fascinating. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail