"Chris Olson - SunPS" <Chrisf.Olson at Sun.COM> wrote: > 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.). They're difficult to compare, largely because Zelazny was so prolific and his stories so diverse. Brust is IMO a much more consistent author. Although obviously some of his books are better than others, all of them are still very good. I find Zelazny to be much more hit and miss. Some are fantastic, unmatched in fantasy fiction, and some are, um, less so (2nd Amber series anyone?). Brust has a more flexible authorial voice. Most of Zelazny's book are written in a single, very distinctive style of writing, wheras Brust is much more flexible or experimental. Vlad's books are written in a very different voice than, say, the Phoneix Guards, and both are very well done. When you toss in books like Freedom and Neccessity and the Gypsy, this flexibility and authorial creativity can be even more strongly seen. I agree that Zelazny had a tremendous imagination for concepts that Brust hasn't even tried to match. I also think that Zelazny's use of language had more of a poetic quality than Brust's (with the exception of The Gypsy). However, Brust's plotting and storytelling is generally stronger. Zelazny at his best, such as in the 5 Amber novels, could be a great plotter and storyteller, but many of his others books weren't as strong in that regard. I guess what I'm saying is that they're difficult to compare. - Michael "Lady, I'm your WORST NIGHTMARE--a pumpkin with a gun." -Mervyn Pumpkinhead (in The Sandman, by Neil Gaiman)