> 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. Oh, don't get me wrong: I think Zelazny is a top-scale artist, and the comparison between him and Brust is difficult to argue. It's more a matter of opinion. And, of course, I've read more of Brust's work than Zelazny's. For me, the debate over which is better is very close. They're both a coupla geniuses. And I agree, they are both fun to analyze, not to mention read. Chris "Life is the nightmare that leaves its mark upon you in order to prove that it is, in fact, real." -Thomas Ligotti- 'The Sect of the Idiot'