>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. > Ahh, this is true. His works were/are very original, and I think he was a master at creation and thus, originality and imagination. However, I still think Brust is better at plot, etc., and to me, his stories are more engaging. I love to read Zelazny when I want to read something carefully, take time to truly understand what I am reading and be fascinated by it, by ideas and concepts and word usage; also when I want to "see something new"...I love to read Brust when I want to be engulfed into story and style, "notice something different" (a slight distinction from the above, but still a distinction), and everything around me disappears except words on a page and pictures and thoughts in my mind. Pending my moods on a particular day, (I am a very moody person), I might be interested in one or the other or both. Obviously, I think both are fascinating. ~Holly~ _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail