[I] Green Rider, Magic, and Fantasy as a genre
isw...@trollinger-fe.chocolate.rz.uni-frankfurt.de
or suchlike.
As it happens, I mused about fantasy once again.
As usual I was examining the question "Is there still readable fantasy?",
but ended up with asking myself whether the answer to the question
"Do I like fantasy?" hadn't finally and definitely switched from
"Basically yes" to "Basically no".
[spark] Green Rider.
In an attempt to find an answer to question #1 I often drag home
some new fantasy from my public library, if I can get hand on it (1)
Which recently left me with Kristen Britain's "Green Rider".
The quarter or so I read left me irritated once more. I didn't
like it very much, but had to wonder all the time whether it is
Ms. Britain's or the translator's fault.
I'd like to get some opinions on this book, maybe concerning the
style too, so anyone got some?
[bridge]
There were a couple of times when I thought "Aw, no." Or "Not again".
"Why do they have to keep on using this theme/plot etc...?"
Actually, I've read a couple of books (besides TLOTR, I mean) where
things like that happened/were used, and I didn't mind ... so why
am I annoyed, say, at the invisibility device of one book but not the
other? I suppose partly it has to do with the writing style of the
author (there you go, what do you think makes a good writing style?)
Partly though, I think it has to do with the magic.
[magic]
Although Magic is not necessary for Fantasy, a good deal of Fantasy
uses magic or is about magic ...
I am not opposed to magic as such, else I would never have bothered
to read fantasy ... but the magic often leaves me annoyed.
Again, in some books the magic doesn't bother me, but in others it
does.
So, how do you think magic ought to be used? (by the author, that is).
How important is it, are there kinds of magic that you don't like
[being used by the author] or don't you care and the plot's the thing?
(well, personally, I'm tired of evil mages (probably already deceased) who
have taken over somebody else's body or mind; too many demons that have
to be banned; wizards mumbling spells in languages unknown to the Dr.
Watson; and some more).
I prefer magic used rather sparingly .... rather like special effects ...
if it's necessary that the store house explodes, fine, let it explode,
but I don't like car chases that aren't there to have a car chase, but
only to have lots and lots of destruction.
Or, on the other hand, magic's just there, without too much oh-my-does-
the-guy-have-mighty-magic-power.
Basically, I enjoy a pre-industrial setting (or suchlike) and I actually
wouldn't care too much whether it is fantasy or a historical novel
...
so ...
[Fantasy as a genre]
"Why do you read fantasy?"
I have to say, I'm not sure about my answer to this one. Habit?
Besides the magic, I'm tired about the same themes used over and over
again ... or it seems to me they are. And I simply don't want to
bother with trilogies and the like anymore (which is why I was pleased
to get hold of Green Rider, which, at least, was just one book.
So is there a hope for fantasy as a genre?
I'd appreciate someone else's opinions about the stuff, so feel
free to snip and change the header accordingly.
(1) I seldom can, but that's beside the point for now
isw. (if urged to reply remove any chocolate)
--
Il felino piu piccolo e un capolavoro (Leonardo da Vinci)
Eric Jarvis
>
> [Fantasy as a genre]
>
> "Why do you read fantasy?"
> I have to say, I'm not sure about my answer to this one. Habit?
> Besides the magic, I'm tired about the same themes used over and over
> again ... or it seems to me they are. And I simply don't want to
> bother with trilogies and the like anymore (which is why I was pleased
> to get hold of Green Rider, which, at least, was just one book.
> So is there a hope for fantasy as a genre?
>
I don't read fantasy
well, I do, but only in the same way I read everything else...I'm
not big on genres
I read a lot of SF...I read it because one of the things I want
from a book is for it to make me think something new...obviously
SF has a slight advantage in that...an advantage that plenty of
authors completely fail to make use of...fantasy could have a
similar advantage, but it's even more likely to be hackneyed and
dull than SF (though less so than whodunits)...I just want
something new and unique to happen in a book
the whole problem with fantasy AFAIAC is that it is a genre...a
writer can get a reasonable number of readers simply by sticking
to the rules and getting a decent picture on the front of the
book
above all, the biggest problem I have with fantasy novels is 22
years of playing RPGs...I know the basics of the milieu...I know
a lot of the options the characters have...and if the writer
can't do better than I or my RPGing friends could have then I get
damn bored damn fast...and I've been playing these RPGs with some
very sick, devious and intelligent people [1]
so the only hope for fantasy, for me, is that writers try
harder...Pterry does, Fritz Lieber could do it, Mary Gentle has
managed it, Anne McCaffery and Ursula Le Guin also on
occasions...Craig Shore Gardner, Piers Anthony, Stephen Donaldson
and David Eddings have all missed by a mile
I'm not trying to escape from this world...I read books so I can
understand it better
[1] halfling baseball...or more accurately basehalfling (sick)
6 hours of playing before we realised the entire party had
been
shrunk to 1 twentieth normal size and had never left the room
we started in (devious)
flooding an entire set of catacombs to make a dungeon
entirely safe
before starting (intelligent)
--
eric - afplanning to elope with pia and Thom, eventually
"I like my coffee the way I like my women...sweet, strong,
intelligent and with a mind and career of it's own"
Richard Bos
> As it happens, I mused about fantasy once again.
> As usual I was examining the question "Is there still readable fantasy?",
> but ended up with asking myself whether the answer to the question
> "Do I like fantasy?" hadn't finally and definitely switched from
> "Basically yes" to "Basically no".
I find myself switching back and forth on this one (and on related ones
like "Do I like science fiction?" and "Do I like detectives"). I have
times when I read quite a lot of fantasy, and after a while I'll find
their interest waning. When that happens, I drop the genre for several
months, after which I find a fantasy book and think "hey, this looks
interesting" and start reading fantasy again.
> [spark] Green Rider.
Don't know this one, so shan't comment.
> [bridge]
>
> There were a couple of times when I thought "Aw, no." Or "Not again".
> "Why do they have to keep on using this theme/plot etc...?"
> Actually, I've read a couple of books (besides TLOTR, I mean) where
> things like that happened/were used, and I didn't mind ... so why
> am I annoyed, say, at the invisibility device of one book but not the
> other? I suppose partly it has to do with the writing style of the
> author (there you go, what do you think makes a good writing style?)
> Partly though, I think it has to do with the magic.
I think it mostly has to do with how the standard themes are handled.
Rings of Invisibility are all very well, but unless you add something to
what Tolkien and the usual mythology have already done, it doesn't make
for a very good book. Ditto for Big Bad Dragon, Damsel in Distress, and
Brave Youngest Son on White Charger. Unless the book treats these themes
in an interesting way, it's not going to be an interesting book;
certainly not merely because it has Standard Fantasy Elements in it.
And the same is true for...
> [magic]
>
> Although Magic is not necessary for Fantasy, a good deal of Fantasy
> uses magic or is about magic ...
> I am not opposed to magic as such, else I would never have bothered
> to read fantasy ... but the magic often leaves me annoyed.
> Again, in some books the magic doesn't bother me, but in others it
> does.
> So, how do you think magic ought to be used? (by the author, that is).
> How important is it, are there kinds of magic that you don't like
> [being used by the author] or don't you care and the plot's the thing?
> (well, personally, I'm tired of evil mages (probably already deceased) who
> have taken over somebody else's body or mind; too many demons that have
> to be banned; wizards mumbling spells in languages unknown to the Dr.
> Watson; and some more).
...because there are standard ways of using magic, including the above,
and unless you treat them somewhat differently, you're not going to have
a readable book. Sure, have an evil mage summoning a demon that has to
be banished by a mumbling wizard; but don't rely on them alone to make a
good book, 'cause they don't.
I think Tolkien is a good example here. TLotR has all the standard
features of a fantasy book (mainly, of course, because it is _the_
standard fantasy book), but it is still very much a good book even now;
it has a Big Bad Dragon (albeit in the background, as a threat-that-
might-have-been-had-there-not-been-The-Hobbit), an Evil Overlord who is
Not To Be Seen, a Ring of Invisibility, a True Heir (though the Damsel
is not in Distress but very much takes matters into her own hands), a
Diminutive Hero, a Land of Despair, a Folk of Elven living in a Land of
Eternal Spring that is now Threatened by the Evil Overlord, an Evil
People of Ugly, Uncivilised Creatures, a Good Mage and a Corrupted
one... but it does not treat all these elements as the substance of the
story; rather, it uses them as basic blocks to build the story around,
and it is a good story to begin with, and well-written.
> I prefer magic used rather sparingly .... rather like special effects ...
> if it's necessary that the store house explodes, fine, let it explode,
> but I don't like car chases that aren't there to have a car chase, but
> only to have lots and lots of destruction.
> Or, on the other hand, magic's just there, without too much oh-my-does-
> the-guy-have-mighty-magic-power.
What always gets my goat is when writers use magic as a deus ex machina.
I mean, yeah, with full magic powers you could do anything. Nevertheless
that is no excuse to trek all the way to the Bad Guy's Evil Island,
across miles upon miles of dangerous terrain, fighting monsters every
step of the way, depending on your Trusty Barbaerian Companion to
protect you from them using nothing but his bare hands and a sword he
found stuck in a stone somewhere, crossing the turbulent waters
surrounding the island in a rowing-boat and almost drowning in the
process, only to, when finally there, pull out your Magic Wand and
unleash Marbalahs Extreme Prejudice on the baddie and everything within
twenty miles of him without even flinching.
Magic is a tool. Magic is either part of the background of the universe,
or it isn't; in the first case, it should be used whenever necessary,
not just as a cop-out; in the latter case, it should not be used at all,
certainly not for the Big Final Set Piece, unless the writer can come up
with a damn good explanation of why it should.
> So is there a hope for fantasy as a genre?
Sure. If only because of PTerry <g>. But also because, well, 90% of
fantasy is crud; but it has always been the good stuff that attracted
me, and it will be the 10% of good stuff that I'll enjoy for some time
to come. Just because a lot of it is unpalatable doesn't mean that
fantasy is a bad thing as such, or that it is dead or dying.
Richard
Jens Ayton
>
> I find myself switching back and forth on this one (and on related ones
> like "Do I like science fiction?" and "Do I like detectives").
Personally I enjoy watching the detectives, but as for reading about
them, well, I'd frankly rather go to Chelsea.
/me wibbles of to work for peace, love and understanding while listening
to the radio radio.
--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/ PGP key: http://home4.swipnet.se/~w-49116/stuff/jens_ayton.pgp
Relieve hunger and guilt in one fell swoop: http://www.thehungersite.com
Daniel Goldsmith
>
>As it happens, I mused about fantasy once again.
>As usual I was examining the question "Is there still readable fantasy?",
>but ended up with asking myself whether the answer to the question
>"Do I like fantasy?" hadn't finally and definitely switched from
>"Basically yes" to "Basically no".
>
<snip>
Shirley one of the most important questions about fantasy is how many
more alternative worlds there can possibly be where there is always
one little place, cut off from the rest of the world, where the most
important person ever always grows up in twee rustic fashion, hearing
all tales of past glories as myffic and somtimes meeting what seem
like perfectly ordinary/slightly interesting outsiders who turn out to
change their existence?
>
>Basically, I enjoy a pre-industrial setting (or suchlike) and I actually
>wouldn't care too much whether it is fantasy or a historical novel
>...
>so ...
>
>[Fantasy as a genre]
>
>"Why do you read fantasy?"
>I have to say, I'm not sure about my answer to this one. Habit?
>Besides the magic, I'm tired about the same themes used over and over
>again ... or it seems to me they are. And I simply don't want to
>bother with trilogies and the like anymore (which is why I was pleased
>to get hold of Green Rider, which, at least, was just one book.
{NOTE: Opinions ahead which may upset Eddings Fans}
Why I read fantasy? Don't really know. So very often I end up utterly
disgusted at the cheap evasions used by the author and the formulaic
'background.' In this respect I *really* hate David Eddings' style.
When looking at his books all that is required to discern the plot is
to look at Map, read first four chapters, identify whcih characters
represent the characters from the Belgariad and work it out from
there. Result: Five books and a whole lot of aggro avoided. It is just
such a complete con, none of his books show any originality beyond the
setting and the naming. It reminds me of Colin Forbes so-called
thrillers. Forbes just types about seven words into his WP, uses a
customised spell-checker and -voila- a chapter emerges fully formed.
I don't really know if it qualifies as fantasy or s.f. but I did,
once, enjoy the (series name forgotted - Unborn King, whole thing set
on other side of time-gate with alien exotics and psi-powers) Julian
May books, because the entire concept was so very different. At moment
I'm mid-way through the 3rd in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time saga and
have to say that I'm enjoying it pretty much, although it does conform
to the point made at the start here.
>So is there a hope for fantasy as a genre?
Yes, i think there is. (all following is personal opinion, YMMV and I
welcome any other opinions) Consider: Crime writing had basically
become enmeshed is a stale formula in or around the mid-eighties,
self-reflective and plodding. An un-aligned group of newer writers,
many who had worked in different areas and quite a few of whom had
Deep Dark Secrets began working in that genre and it, IMO, took off
again. I don't know (obviously) about any one else, but writers like
James Ellroy[1], Carl Hiassen[2] and James Lee Burke[3] just brought
something very different to crime writing in general, leading to a
revitalisation of the genre as a path out of the formulaic becam
available. Of course, there still are many of the old formulaic
writers out there, and latterly Burke, for one, has been churning
rather than writing, but I feel the comparison holds for Fantasy. All
that is needed is fresh fles^h^h^h^hblood, bringing new ideas to the
genre.
<presents 2d for examination>
Daniel.
[1] I'd recommend _The Black Dahlia_ or _American Tabloid_, nb - not
for the squeamish.
[2] I know kost consider him to be just a comedy writer but I think
his writing is crime genre with heaps of surrealist humour thrown in.
I read his stuff from end-to-end not for the funnies, but for the
exposition.
[3] If you want, I'd recommend _Confederate Ghosts in the Electric
Mist_
--
"Happy the man, and happy he alone, he who can call today his own.
He who secure within can say, tomorrow do thy worst, for I have lived today."
Patrick Allan
<clip>
In this respect I *really* hate David Eddings' style.
When looking at his books all that is required to discern the plot is
to look at Map, read first four chapters, identify whcih characters
represent the characters from the Belgariad and work it out from
there. Result: Five books and a whole lot of aggro avoided. It is just
such a complete con, none of his books show any originality beyond the
setting and the naming.
<clip>
sure, you know the ending, but is that all you read the books for (mind you,
i am biased, cos i like Eddings)?? You expect that most of the fantasy
books - indeed, books of most genres - have expected endings. Mr Pratchett
included. The ending is not what interests me so much as the plot, the way
things interweave, the characters and the way they interact (ie.
Perrin/Mat/Rand with women in Jordan), etc and surprises which come out of
nowhere. Raymond E. Feist is an author noone has criticised or applauded
yet, but i'd like to (applaud, that is). Great characters, great plot,
unexpected endings, even.
Regarding the rest (magic, etc) i don't have much to say.
Neways, cheers
Azrael
-------------
"Alright, Joe, I need to ask your advice...now, I know you kow a lot about
love and women and all that sort of thing."--AJ
"Oh yeah, my wife left me for another woman and my girlfriend forced me to
leave at gunpoint...does this qualify me?"--Joe
----- Empire Records
Daniel Goldsmith
> <ahem, quoting me in a prior post>
>Just to add my two cents worth in here...
>
><clip>
>> In this respect I *really* hate David Eddings' style.
>>When looking at his books all that is required to discern the plot is
>>to look at Map, read first four chapters, identify whcih characters
>>represent the characters from the Belgariad and work it out from
>>there. Result: Five books and a whole lot of aggro avoided. It is just
>>such a complete con, none of his books show any originality beyond the
>>setting and the naming.
><clip>
>
>sure, you know the ending, but is that all you read the books for (mind you,
>i am biased, cos i like Eddings)??
>The ending is not what interests me so much as the plot, the way
>things interweave, the characters and the way they interact
That's my point Patrick, the entire plot is a re-hash of what has gone
before. I don't read books just to know the ending, I don't think
anyone gets past primary school treating books just to know the end.
IMO Eddings' books are a re-hash of what Eddings has done before. I
know you could say that something similar could and probably would be
said by a lot of people on the subject of fantasy in general, but I
just think that in Eddings it is far too overt.
If an Eddings map had a spot saying Tower of Smells, you just *know*
that the Tower wil feature in the book for one chapter, when the
inevitable group has formed (inc. Child-God, Earnest Goodman, Wise One
and Hero) and set off on their inevitable journey to all the places
named on the map. There will be little or no further development of
the Tower at any other point in the book, the narrative possibilities
of the place (e.g. The Maragor in Beleriad) will remain completely
unexplored save for that one chapter. My earlier post may have seemed
flippant, but I do think that Eddings' books are all completely
predictable, down to the exposition of and interaction between the
characters and even the details of emotions flashing across their
faces.
>You expect that most of the fantasy
>books - indeed, books of most genres - have expected endings.
Hmm.... suppose that is true of lots of authors - didn't foresee the
end of _Midnight's Chldren_, _Foucault's Pendulum_ or _Name of the
Rose_ though, not that it mattered in any case. I _did_ foresee the
end of _Finnegan's Wake_[1] very accurately.
Daniel.
[1] Quote me, about two weeks ago "If I haven't understood a word of
this book after three more pages then its going in the Bin[2]" And do
you know what, boys and girls, it did!
[2] Bin as in box which regularly finds its way to local second hand
Bookshoppe. [3]
[3] When I did bring it in, finally, fully 1/4 of the books I
bought/swapped for were books I had dropped in about a year
previously. Sad.
isw...@trollinger-fe.rz.uni-chocolate.frankfurt.de
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Eric Jarvis wrote:
> isw...@trollinger-fe.chocolate.rz.uni-frankfurt.de wrote:
> >
> > [Fantasy as a genre]
> >
> > "Why do you read fantasy?"
> > I have to say, I'm not sure about my answer to this one. Habit?
> > Besides the magic, I'm tired about the same themes used over and over
> > again ... or it seems to me they are. And I simply don't want to
> > bother with trilogies and the like anymore (which is why I was pleased
> > to get hold of Green Rider, which, at least, was just one book.
> > So is there a hope for fantasy as a genre?
> >
>
> I don't read fantasy
>
> well, I do, but only in the same way I read everything else...I'm
> not big on genres
Well, I couldn't seriously say I *read* fantasy as a genre, since
I hardly ever find something readable .... But there's still a
spark of interest (1) in the "genre", whatever I mean with this, though
it's about to die away.
> I read a lot of SF...I read it because one of the things I want
> from a book is for it to make me think something new...obviously
> SF has a slight advantage in that...an advantage that plenty of
> authors completely fail to make use of...fantasy could have a
> similar advantage, but it's even more likely to be hackneyed and
> dull than SF (though less so than whodunits)...I just want
> something new and unique to happen in a book
From time to time my interest in SF is renewed and I try to get
a bit more of it ... the last attempt left me with Lois McMaster
Bujold and Iain (M.) Banks only, though. (2)
Normally I prefer SF short stories ... some ideas may be original,
but I find them better dealt with not too lenghty.
"Something new and unique" is a good idea, but actually, I've
often enjoyed books who weren't new and unique ... to me it's
important how things are dealt with, the style or whatever.
I think there are three things important (for me anyway),
1. an original plot
2. good characterization of, erm, characters
3. "good writing", good narrative style
I'm totally unsure what makes point 3, I might be able to do
a long list that contains things that work against it, though.
These points work together ... I don't need all three of them
fulfilled to enjoy a book ... but I suppose it takes two of them.
Actually, I find whodunits not as bad as fantasy. The authors can
put a lot in the setting that make things different ... of course,
fantasy authors could do so to, if they wanted ... but few seem
to. And if I have liked one novel of an author I usually can enjoy
some more of hir ... and mysteries (3) go on more about human
motivations and the like ... which often are rather stereotyped in
fantasy. (the evil lord who wants to rule, rule, rule! and the loyal
whatsover fighting for the king)
Let alone human relationships and the like. Stuff like this doesn't
need much of an actual plot with non-fantasy novels ... but few
sf/f authors bother with it ....
What with the tensions between a man and his in-laws when he and his
family have to move in with them after the dragon burnt down their hut?
Well no, I probably wouldn't really want to read this book ...
> the whole problem with fantasy AFAIAC is that it is a genre...a
> writer can get a reasonable number of readers simply by sticking
> to the rules and getting a decent picture on the front of the
> book
>
> above all, the biggest problem I have with fantasy novels is 22
> years of playing RPGs...I know the basics of the milieu...I know
> a lot of the options the characters have...and if the writer
> can't do better than I or my RPGing friends could have then I get
> damn bored damn fast...and I've been playing these RPGs with some
> very sick, devious and intelligent people [1]
I have only a hazy notion of RPGs ... what I find rather dubious
is people turning the games into novels ... extremely annoying I
find that most of the German fantasy novels seem to be based on
RPGs (4) ... and no, they didn't seem to be interesting to me.
>
> so the only hope for fantasy, for me, is that writers try
> harder...Pterry does, Fritz Lieber could do it, Mary Gentle has
> managed it, Anne McCaffery and Ursula Le Guin also on
> occasions...Craig Shore Gardner, Piers Anthony, Stephen Donaldson
> and David Eddings have all missed by a mile
I like Pterry, cause he parodied the cliches of the genre at a
time I started getting annoyed about traditional fantasy.
I'd really like the authors to have a further look around ...
there's heaps of mythology they could use instead of writing
just another King-Arthur-novel. I'd really like to get
aquainted with myths unknown to me now ... but do they bother?
> I'm not trying to escape from this world...I read books so I can
> understand it better
Nah, sometimes I just want to be entertained with a book ...
if it's serious about something else, I don't mind.
It's nice if an author has to say something, but if he can't
write I don't want to bother with a novel ... then I'll go
to non-fiction.
(1) well, taking the fantasy "catalogues" of the publishers along
from the book shop and having a look what's new, or so
(2) after Bujold I thought "Hey, so space opera can be great" and I
looked for some more to read. Unfortunately the next best thing that
came to my mind for doing so was "Ensign Flandry". And I gave up
this sub-genre.
(3) how do you actually distinguish "mystery" between the whodunit
sort and the x-files? Or is that the reason people use "whodunit"?
(4) the stuff published by the main few publishers, and besides
Wolfgang Hohlbein
isw...@trollinger-fe.rz.unichocolate-frankfurt.de
<snip>
>
> >So is there a hope for fantasy as a genre?
> welcome any other opinions) Consider: Crime writing had basically
> become enmeshed is a stale formula in or around the mid-eighties,
> self-reflective and plodding. An un-aligned group of newer writers,
> many who had worked in different areas and quite a few of whom had
> Deep Dark Secrets began working in that genre and it, IMO, took off
> again.
<snip>
Hm, I have to say, since I learned that one of my favourite mystery
writers had been in prison for accessory to murder, and another one
writes gay porn, there isn't much left that really shocks me.
Leila Fetter
isw...@trollinger-fe.chocolate.rz.uni-frankfurt.de wrote:
<some stuff I snipped.>
> Although Magic is not necessary for Fantasy, a good deal of Fantasy
> uses magic or is about magic ...
> I am not opposed to magic as such, else I would never have bothered
> to read fantasy ... but the magic often leaves me annoyed.
> Again, in some books the magic doesn't bother me, but in others it
> does.
> So, how do you think magic ought to be used? (by the author, that is).
> How important is it, are there kinds of magic that you don't like
> [being used by the author] or don't you care and the plot's the thing?
> (well, personally, I'm tired of evil mages (probably already deceased) who
> have taken over somebody else's body or mind; too many demons that have
> to be banned; wizards mumbling spells in languages unknown to the Dr.
> Watson; and some more).
> I prefer magic used rather sparingly .... rather like special effects ...
> if it's necessary that the store house explodes, fine, let it explode,
> but I don't like car chases that aren't there to have a car chase, but
> only to have lots and lots of destruction.
> Or, on the other hand, magic's just there, without too much oh-my-does-
> the-guy-have-mighty-magic-power.
Often, the writer has to go to extraordinary lengths to provide good reasons
why the Magic-Person can't just zap the Plot Complication into seventeen
million separate pieces. In this respect, Pterry has done a wonderful job of
producing magic in a semi-scientific context (I'm still reading TSoD, so am
not fully qualified to comment) whhich gives it legitimacy in the reader's
mind, and also explains why it isn't always so useful.With most fantasy,
unfortunately, most of the time magic turns into the age old adage, that
Superman actually *needs* the Kryptonite. Without the single over-riding plot
element to screw up the omnipotent magic dude, the book would be a paragraph
long.
> "Why do you read fantasy?"
To many people, the question really must be put 'why do you *write* fantasy?'
because a helluva lot of the writers of this genre are pretty shithouse. And
it's sad to say, but I think a lot of them do it for an easy buck, because
there are many gullible 14-yr old people out there who'll buy anything with a
dragon or scantily clad warrior chick on the cover.[1]
> I have to say, I'm not sure about my answer to this one. Habit?
> Besides the magic, I'm tired about the same themes used over and over
> again ... or it seems to me they are. And I simply don't want to
> bother with trilogies and the like anymore (which is why I was pleased
> to get hold of Green Rider, which, at least, was just one book.
> So is there a hope for fantasy as a genre?
Probably. The very fact that we're not content to sit in silence and accept
the millions of LoTR facsimiles which are poured into the market seems to
indicate to me that there's still life in the readership.
I think a lot of writers get flustered in a fantasy setting. The misconception
seems to be that only ImportantTM people (kings, princesses, aged wizards) are
worth writing about. But worlds don't work like that, and I think the
subconscious knowledge that it's not that simple makes me a little skeptical.
In order for a world to be realistic and interesting, there have to be real
people, who get up, go to work, put the bins out, feed the cat, read the
paper, etc etc. Although this is probably very dull, it's still a reality
which is normally ignored, and it's within this kind of grass-roots reality
where originality and entertainment lies. Well, that's what I think, anyway.
Everyone is free to disagree.
-L.
[1] This is *not* intended to be offensive to any of the intelligent 14-yr
olds out there who are sensible enough to have found this ng.
Medusa
>Raymond E. Feist is an author noone has criticised or applauded
>yet, but i'd like to (applaud, that is). Great characters, great plot,
>unexpected endings, even.
Ooo! Someone I've heard of <G>
Yep - seconded [1] - Feist is superb. Particularly like the Serpentwar
series.
[1] thirded, fourthded, whatever
--
Medusa, Sister of Vetinari, and afprelated to two who seem to post no more
From Wales, where men are men and sheep are nervous
ICQ 68029514
Miq
wrote
>On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Eric Jarvis wrote:
>> I don't read fantasy
>>
>> well, I do, but only in the same way I read everything else...I'm
>> not big on genres
I don't believe in 'em meself. I wouldn't base a decision on whether or
not to read a book on whether it's classed as 'fantasy', 'SF', 'horror'
or anything else.
>I think there are three things important (for me anyway),
>1. an original plot
>2. good characterization of, erm, characters
>3. "good writing", good narrative style
Pretty good list... and I notice that all three of these points apply to
all kinds of fiction, from historical to whodunits to fantasy. Genre is
irrelevant.
The trouble with fantasy and SF, in particular, is that too many authors
think that all you need is a neat idea for a setting and some purple
adjectives, and then you can populate it with stock characters and write
a formulaic story and call it part one of a trilogy. There's no way
that reading any number of books like that is going to tell me anything
relevant to my life, except that I'm wasting it.
>Actually, I find whodunits not as bad as fantasy.
In a whodunit, characterisation is very important: you can't get away
with one-dimensional characters, because they need a collection of
motives and some sort of interaction - it's central to the plot. So
there's less temptation to put all the imagination into the setting and
the adjectives.
>> above all, the biggest problem I have with fantasy novels is 22
>> years of playing RPGs...I know the basics of the milieu...I know
>> a lot of the options the characters have...and if the writer
>> can't do better than I or my RPGing friends could have then I get
>> damn bored damn fast...and I've been playing these RPGs with some
>> very sick, devious and intelligent people [1]
Ditto.
>I have only a hazy notion of RPGs ...
They can be a vast amount of fun.
>what I find rather dubious
>is people turning the games into novels ...
Those are burdened by the need to spread the play out between the
characters, even if they're basically fairly boring characters... and
they probably weren't the best games to start with.
>I like Pterry, cause he parodied the cliches of the genre at a
>time I started getting annoyed about traditional fantasy.
I like Terry because he doesn't write "fantasy". He writes satire and
more general fiction that just happens to have a fantasy setting.
--
Miq
New to afp/abp? check http://www.lspace.org/
Still stuck? Mail the Clue Fairies at afp-...@lspace.org
afp welcome message: http://www.lspace.org/fandom/afp/welcome.html
Leo Breebaart
> Actually, I find whodunits not as bad as fantasy. The authors can put a
> lot in the setting that make things different ... of course, fantasy
> authors could do so to, if they wanted ... but few seem to.
You keep making these sweeping, grand pronouncements, but so far you're not
doing a very good job of convincing me that you actually speak out of any
kind of real knowledge or experience, as opposed to vague prejudices and
skimpy anecdotal evidence.
90 % of everything is crud, we already know that. If you just try
semi-random samples of fantasy (or any other genre) based on publishers'
catalogues or what your library offers (as your articles suggest), then of
*course* you're not going to end up with a very high success rate. Have you
tried *actively seeking out* the 10 % you might like, instead of just
analysing and bemoaning the lack of quality in the 90 % ?
Anyways. If you like whodunits/mystery fiction, I've got a suggestion you
might want to try: Glen Cook's "Garrett P.I." series. It consists of 9
books so far, starting with _Sweet Silver Blues_ and ending with _Faded
Steal Heat_. It chronicles the adventures of Garrett, private eye in the
fantasy world of TunFaire.
The books can be read stand-alone, but I would strongly recommend reading
them in order -- the background setting of the stories (war, politics,
etc.) evolves as the series goes along, and eventually becomes more and
more important to the actual plots. The style is fairly gritty and
realistic, but with lots of sardonic humour as well -- Raymond Chandler is
probably not a bad reference point.
I am not saying this is my favourite fantasy series of all times, but I
think it's definitely worth a shot, especially if you don't care much for
generic Tolkienesque cookie-cutter fantasy.
(And along the same lines, those looking for 'realistic' fantasy may also
be interested in Cook's "Annals of the Black Company" series -- I tried the
first three novels, and found them too unrelentingly bleak and depressing
for my taste: but they *are* excellent fantasy.)
> Let alone human relationships and the like. Stuff like this doesn't need
> much of an actual plot with non-fantasy novels ... but few sf/f authors
> bother with it ....
Oh, for heaven's sake, there you go again. I have read my share of science
fiction and meta-sf over the years, and I not-so-humbly submit that making
claims to the effect that only 'few' authors in the genre ever bother with
human relationships, merely tells us that you haven't been looking very
hard.
> I have only a hazy notion of RPGs ... what I find rather dubious is
> people turning the games into novels
Well, *I* think it's dubious to make public judgments on entire categories
of things one only has a hazy notion of. Even on Usenet. But never mind me
-- I'm funny that way.
> I'd really like the authors to have a further look around ... there's
> heaps of mythology they could use instead of writing just another
> King-Arthur-novel. I'd really like to get aquainted with myths unknown to
> me now ... but do they bother?
I think "they" do. I'm by no means very well-read in the fantasy field, but
even I can list several examples of mythology-based non-Arthurian fiction
from the top of my head (Sprague de Camp/Pratt's _Enchanter_, Silverberg's
_Gilgamesh_, Wolfe's _Soldier_ books, heck, even Holt's _Expecting Someone
Taller_ :-)).
If you'd ask an actual expert (or a more appropriate newsgroup than afp), I
am sure you'd get enough suggestions and pointers to fill all your reading
time for the next three years, at least.
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
pia
<Mi...@kew1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In a whodunit, characterisation is very important: you can't get
> away with one-dimensional characters
Agatha Christie could...
pia
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
imalone
Medusa <med...@euryale.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1r1U6KA1...@euryale.demon.co.uk...
> Patrick Allan <nat...@alphalink.com.au> scribed to the masses:
> >Raymond E. Feist is an author noone has criticised or applauded
> >yet, but i'd like to (applaud, that is). Great characters, great
plot,
> >unexpected endings, even.
>
>
> Ooo! Someone I've heard of <G>
>
> Yep - seconded [1] - Feist is superb. Particularly like the
Serpentwar
> series.
>
> [1] thirded, fourthded, whatever
I like Feist (though having only read the full version of The Magician
I'm prbly not qualified to make a judgement). What do people think of
David Gemmel? I've read three of his books so far, some of the
characters are similar, but he uses them in different ways. Mind you,
Gemmel is worth reading just for Dark Moon.[A]
[A] There are going to be people who disagree with this, I'm near
certain.
--
"You have viruses, but I have resistance, and I am alive, and you -
are dead"
Ken MacLeod, The Star Fraction
Notice anything? No? Good.
Laurabelle
something to the effect that:
>isw...@trollinger-fe.chocolate.rz.uni-frankfurt.de wrote:
><some stuff I snipped.>
>> Although Magic is not necessary for Fantasy, a good deal of Fantasy
>> uses magic or is about magic ...
>> I am not opposed to magic as such, else I would never have bothered
>> to read fantasy ... but the magic often leaves me annoyed.
>> Again, in some books the magic doesn't bother me, but in others it
>> does.
>> So, how do you think magic ought to be used? (by the author, that is).
<snip>
>Often, the writer has to go to extraordinary lengths to provide good reasons
>why the Magic-Person can't just zap the Plot Complication into seventeen
>million separate pieces. In this respect, Pterry has done a wonderful job of
>producing magic in a semi-scientific context (I'm still reading TSoD, so am
>not fully qualified to comment) whhich gives it legitimacy in the reader's
>mind, and also explains why it isn't always so useful.
<snip>
Leila has sort of edged on my thoughts about this, and I
think we have the same point of view.
I would say that "reason" and "legitimacy" are the key
concepts. I don't like magic (or technology) as a deux ex
machina plot device; it has to make sense in its context.
It doesn't have to make sense on a scientific basis, because
magic inherently disobeys normal physical rules. However,
it does have to be consistent in its world.
For example (to usurp Leila's), Discworld magic doesn't make
*our* type of sense; however it does make consistent
Discworld sense. Most importantly, there are reasons that
things happen the way they do, and magic is an inherent part
of the world, not a special effect stuck in at the end
because the writer can't figure out how to get the hero out
of the Black Pit of Doom without having the Sacred Flying
Armadillo bring him the Magic Bermuda Grass Rope with which
he can climb to the top (and then go on to save the heroine,
yadda yadda yadda).
In essence, a world which allows magic is no excuse for bad
plot construction.
>> "Why do you read fantasy?"
>
>To many people, the question really must be put 'why do you *write* fantasy?'
>because a helluva lot of the writers of this genre are pretty shithouse.
As Leo said before me, 90% of *everything* is bad.
> And
>it's sad to say, but I think a lot of them do it for an easy buck, because
>there are many gullible 14-yr old people out there who'll buy anything with a
>dragon or scantily clad warrior chick on the cover.[1]
A couple of points.
"Easy buck" it is not. It's not easy to get published, and
it's not easy to support oneself by writing. Last March I
attended an informal lecture by Jane Yolen in which she said
that she can now support herself by writing because she has
on the order of 100 books out, and if each one brings in
$1,000/year, that's $100,000/year. But for over 20 years
her husband worked, and she had at least a part-time job,
and that's how they supported themselves. Nope, writers
don't do it for the money. I think they do it for fun,
really. No, you may not think that these people are any
good, and there's a chance they're not, but I like to think
that they enjoy writing, and surely that's why they write.
I can't think of any other sane reason.
Secondly, the ranks of the gullible are not confined to
14-year-olds, or even the under-20 set. Look at all the
books that are sold in grocery stores. <blech> I wouldn't
touch those with a 20-foot pole, yet some people buy them.
And as has been said repeatedly, 90% of everything is crap,
and not all of that is aimed at one sector of the buying
population.
>> I have to say, I'm not sure about my answer to this one. Habit?
This may be a factor for me.
>> Besides the magic, I'm tired about the same themes used over and over
>> again ... or it seems to me they are.
<snip>
I haven't found a problem with this, or at least I haven't
noticed - except for one author, L.E. Modesitt. I read one
book of his and liked it, and kept reading. Big mistake.
Every single book is the same. Boy has special ability.
Evil person/group gain power and do mean things. Boy
(+sidekick/heroine/toadies/etc.) use ability to beat up evil
people. Boy agonizes about having to be mean in order to
make the bad guys stop. Boy beats up more mean people.
Agonize. Beat up. Agonize. Repeat until all bad guys are
dead and world goes back to normal. Repeat whole sequence
until you want to rip the whole series to shreds.
The thing I really hate is that I think it's an interesting
issue; how can a good guy fight the bad guys without using
nasty destructive force which really doesn't make him feel
good at all? However, the same cycle just kept going on,
and nothing was ever solved, and I just got really sick of
it. Thus, a prime example of bad fantasy.
The reason I started reading fantasy is that I've always had
a vivid imagination and enjoyed fairy tales (particularly
princess ones), so I guess I had that sort of a bent in me.
And then when I was 13 or so a friend gave me Anne
McCaffrey's Harper Hall trilogy (_Dragonsong_,
_Dragonsinger_, and _Dragondrums_), which I think got me
into fantasy as a genre. Oh, and my brother read fantasy,
so I stole his books. :-)
The reason I read fantasy is that I've managed to find some
*really* good authors [2], and I haven't soured on the
genre. What can I say? I enjoy it.
>> So is there a hope for fantasy as a genre?
I don't have a real answer for this question, but I think
it's pretty pessimistic. I think that the genre will
change, but as long as people are reading and enjoying it,
yes, there is life in it.
<snip>
>I think a lot of writers get flustered in a fantasy setting. The misconception
>seems to be that only ImportantTM people (kings, princesses, aged wizards) are
>worth writing about. But worlds don't work like that, and I think the
>subconscious knowledge that it's not that simple makes me a little skeptical.
>In order for a world to be realistic and interesting, there have to be real
>people, who get up, go to work, put the bins out, feed the cat, read the
>paper, etc etc. Although this is probably very dull, it's still a reality
>which is normally ignored, and it's within this kind of grass-roots reality
>where originality and entertainment lies. Well, that's what I think, anyway.
>Everyone is free to disagree.
I think that fantasy != unrealistic. Yes, I know that
doesn't really make sense, but it does to me. Just bend
your brain sideways and fit the square peg into the round
hole. :-)
I'm going to play my old tune again and mention one of my
all-time favorite books, _Deerskin_ by Robin McKinley.
Despite being a rewritten fairy tale and about royalty, with
a good bit of magic on the side, it feels thoroughly
realistic. The magic is seamlessly woven into the
characters and emotions, so although magic helps things
along a bit, it doesn't solve all the tangles in one flash
and puff of smoke. In fact, it doesn't solve anything,
though it does make things possible.
Anyway, my point is that a fantasy world can still feel
humanly real and possible. For example, though Discworld
doesn't strike such a chord with me as _Deerskin_, it still
feels consistent and tangible to me.
Laurabelle, feeling the limitations of words - like trying
to fit 3-dimensional ideas into 2-dimensional squiggles
>[1] This is *not* intended to be offensive to any of the intelligent 14-yr
>olds out there who are sensible enough to have found this ng.
[2] On my shelf are books by Marion Zimmer Bradley, Neil
Gaiman, Tanith Lee [3], Ursula K. LeGuin [3], Robin
McKinley, Pterry, Robert Silverberg, Judith Tarr, Sheri S.
Tepper, Joan D. Vinge, Jane Yolen, and others
[3] I must admit that I have not read these books yet,
though I'm sure that when I do, they'll be good.
--
(Remove YOUR PANTS or use reply-to)
Mount Holyoke College:
The world's most prestigious
non-denominational convent of over-achievers.
Mary Messall
<snip>
> Secondly, the ranks of the gullible are not confined to
> 14-year-olds, or even the under-20 set. Look at all the
> books that are sold in grocery stores. <blech> I wouldn't
> touch those with a 20-foot pole, yet some people buy them.
FWIW, I discovered Terry Pratchett in a supermarket.
No, really. When I'm sufficiently desperate for reading material (all
too often) I walk down there (I don't have a car, and there aren't too
many places I can get too on foot and get back within an hour) and
examine the SF section. First I filter all the TV tie-ins out, and that
cuts away 75%. The pickings were slim that day (lessee, five years ago?)
and this book called Good Omens 1) lacked a scantily clad warrior chick
on the cover 2) was compared to the Hitchhiker's Guide, which meant at
least a stab at humor...
They also stock the Writers of the Future volumes, which are of varying
quality, but one of which happened to be my introduction to SF, and
really, to physics as well. I owe a lot to supermarket book shelves.
-Mary (and night before last, I bought _Legends vol. 3_ featuring new
short novels by Terry Pratchett, Robert Jordan, Ursula LeGuin, and Tad
Williams...)
Mary Messall
> Richard Bos:
> > I find myself switching back and forth on this one (and on related ones
> > like "Do I like science fiction?" and "Do I like detectives").
> them, well, I'd frankly rather go to Chelsea.
> /me wibbles of to work for peace, love and understanding while listening
> to the radio radio.
Yer lucky. I don't get leisure time... I have to punch the clock all
day... Shipbuilding, you know, for Oliver's army. It's not as if they're
even at war. What shall they do with all this useless beauty?
-Mary (Just remember you'll only be the boss so long as you pay my
wage.)
Mary Messall
> >I think there are three things important (for me anyway),
> >1. an original plot
> >2. good characterization of, erm, characters
> >3. "good writing", good narrative style
> all kinds of fiction, from historical to whodunits to fantasy. Genre is
> irrelevant.
<snerp>
For me, the list is a little different. On it somewhere, for instance,
is:
<self quote> "A fierce intelligence and a imagination capacious enough
to hold whole worlds, down the the last grain of sand. And a voice I
believe in." </self>
The voice isn't limited by genre, although too often modern "literary"
works adopt a tone of superiority "look at these pathetic people and
their miserable lives" that I don't care for. Genre fiction, less likely
to take itself so seriously, often has an original idiom, a sense of
humor, a sympathetic POV character.
The worlds, OTOH, are something that F&SF specializes in. Historical
fiction too, sometimes (cf "I, Claudius" which I just read) and the rare
"mainstream" novel that evokes the inner city or the rural village with
well-placed details and recognizably human touches, but most of the
time, this is all just background. F&SF makes it foreground, and that is
probably most of what attracts me (along with my fondness for the absurd
or surreal).
I think the reason you're not liking fantasy is that you're defining
fantasy as the things you don't like, a mistake I made until a short
time ago. The following things are fantasy: Zelazny's Amber series,
Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Gormenghast (no magic at all, IIRC), Terry
Pratchett, Star Wars.
-Mary (See what you get for asking?)
Charles A Lieberman
isw...@trollinger-fe.rz.unichocolate-frankfurt.de
>I have to say, since I learned that one of my favourite mystery
>writers had been in prison for accessory to murder, and another one
>writes gay porn
Which are these?
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "This will never feel like home/Too much neon
Brooklyn, New York, USA | and chrome" --Drebin
http://members.tripod.com/~calieber/home.html
Aquarion
beware.
T'was a dark and stormy night when danielg...@eircom.net (Daniel
Goldsmith) declaimed...:
*de'snipity*
>{NOTE: Opinions ahead which may upset Eddings Fans}
>
>Why I read fantasy? Don't really know. So very often I end up utterly
>disgusted at the cheap evasions used by the author and the formulaic
>'background.' In this respect I *really* hate David Eddings' style.
>When looking at his books all that is required to discern the plot is
>to look at Map, read first four chapters, identify whcih characters
>represent the characters from the Belgariad and work it out from
>there. Result: Five books and a whole lot of aggro avoided. It is just
>such a complete con, none of his books show any originality beyond the
>setting and the naming.
*de'snipity*
How many series of David Eddings books are there that fit that
descrtiption... aha, Two.
There is the Belgariad/Mallorian, and the Elenian/Tamul (hereinafter
refered to bel/mal and el/tam, because I have been on AFE too long)
There are similarties between the books, there is the Main Quest Guy,
who has a Destiny, there is the Loyal Commener, there is the Strange
And Stubbon Female[1] Magic User.
You have a Blue Stone of Great Power, a Death of a God, and an
Interpid Band Of Happy Wanderers Who Will Not Die. Even if someone
*does* die, they are either replaced by a duplicate (Khalid) or were
not important anyway (Toth).
Within that, the stories are differant. El/tam is darker, more
political, blunter. Bel/mal is lighter, more magical, more academic.
The plots, I agree, are similer. But I defy anyone to tell me that
Garion and Sparhawk react in the same way. That Silk and Kalten, or
Seph and Pol, would deal with the situation the same way.
Think of them as What If's, the same events in a differant timeline,
Or don't. Watch the writing, the charectors, the interplay, the depth,
the vocab, the wit, the puzzles and crytic hints of the future.
And don't judge an entire author by two of his serie'
Find High Hunt, or The Losers, or wait a few days and get the
Redemtion of Atheus.
DE isn't perfect, he has a tendancy to ebb and flow with the script,
drowning you in the plot (in a good way) and then throwing away a line
in the narration that looses the lot, and dumps you cold in reality
again. He is inconstant to the point of moronity sometimes, and then
blames a mistake spoken in omniscient third person on "Differant
people will see differant things". A tangent I am not going to follow
this time, but as far as world creation goes, he is amoung the best.
Yours in total sincerity,
Aquarion
--
Web: http://www.Aquarionics.com EMail: Aqua...@Aquarionics.Com
AFPiance to the Vanished Ssirienna, Wise man of Jeh's Court,
Unnumbered AFDA Froupie, Blogger, and resident of Alt.fan.eddings
[1] <zip mouth, obviously :-)>
Eric Jarvis
>
> In article <LpxB6KAF...@kew1.demon.co.uk>, Miq
> <Mi...@kew1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In a whodunit, characterisation is very important: you can't get
> > away with one-dimensional characters
>
> Agatha Christie could...
>
> pia
>
on a good day
whocareswhodunits
I have so far discovered only two famous authors that I find
completely unreadable...Agatha Christie and Charles Dickens...in
the latter case I just can't face the effort after a few pages,
in the former case I can't see any reason I should make the
effort after a few pages...and I love James Joyce so don't give
me any nonsense about looking for complexity or subscripts or not
reading carefully enough...I just plain and simple got nothing
from the three attempts I've made at reading an Agatha Christie
book (my mum has loads of them)
eric - afplanning to elope with pia and Thom, eventually
"all characters portrayed in this post are entirely fictional and
should not be confused"
Laurabelle
the effect that:
>FWIW, I discovered Terry Pratchett in a supermarket.
<snip>
I'm really impressed. You must have a really classy
supermarket.
All there is in mine is tiny little display of cheesy
romances, tv/movie tie-ins, and "Sweet Valley Junior High"
books. Bottom-feeders, the lot of them.
Laurabelle
Kathryn Shapero
Diana Wynne Jones' _The Tough Guide to Fantasyland_. The more familiar you
are with the cliches and traditions of modern fantasy, the funnier it gets.
And I think I'll just cheat and post a copy of the review I did for it for
the LASFS awhile back:
The cover describes this book as "An uproarious comprehensive guide for
anyone daring to venture into the unknown realms of Fantasyland", which is
pretty much the case. The Tough Guide consists of two parts - a 3 page
intro on how to use the book, complete with map (read it carefully - your
tour will require you to visit every named feature and some that aren't) and
the rest of the book which consists of useful information about things you
are likely to find on your tour. Or not, as in the case of: socks:"SOCKS
are never worn in Fantasyland. People thrust their feet, usually unwashed,
straight into BOOTS." Mostly because knitting has not been discovered by
mortals, and in fact the ability to knit usually indicates the person you're
talking to is a GODDESS in disguise.
Want to know what you might meet? There is a list of CONFRONTATION types to
be expected, ranging from 1. Small, Friendly Confrontations to 9. The Final
Confrontation which only happens at the end of your third tour. Curious
about their intentions? The section on COLOR CODING will help you to
discern it from the color of their clothing, hair, eyes, and perhaps
complexion (black in the first three and pale in the fourth is a Bad Omen).
How do you plan to travel? A complete description of CARAVANS and how to
join them, along with how long you can expect to wait before being attacked
by BANDITS and stranded in the middle of nowhere for the next part of your
tour (exactly why Caravans exist since they almost never make it to where
they are going is, alas, as much a puzzle to the writer as to anybody else).
How about your traveling companions? These are chosen for you by the
managment from among such types as the BARD, FEMALE MERCENARY, GAY MAGE
(easily depressed but gives great backrubs), IMPERIOUS FEMALE (usually
guarded by the SERIOUS SOLDIER), UNPLEASANT STRANGER (who will either prove
a traitor or the Long Lost King In Exile) and so forth.
In short, if you're at all fond of the high fantasy genre this book will
have you laughing your pointy ears off. (And if you're writing one, maybe
help you stay off the Same Old Thing.) Enjoy!
Kathryn Shapero
Patrick Allan <nat...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:395a...@news.alphalink.com.au...
> sure, you know the ending, but is that all you read the books for (mind
you,
> i am biased, cos i like Eddings)??
I read Eddings because I enjoy the company of his characters. If he got
right to the point I wouldn't see nearly enough of them, which is probably
why his version of the grand tour of the map doesn't bother me as much as
you'd think it would. (He IS the first author I thought of when reading the
Tough Guide reference to the MAP... :->)
Kathryn Shapero
Laurabelle <lbme...@mtholyoke.YOUR.PANTS.edu> wrote in message
news:50ED7EE378953F8F.4BE8C205...@lp.airnews.net...
> >To many people, the question really must be put 'why do you *write*
fantasy?'
> >because a helluva lot of the writers of this genre are pretty shithouse.
>
> As Leo said before me, 90% of *everything* is bad.
>
And other people before him - this is known as "Sturgeon's Law", from when
Theodore Sturgeon started a talk with something like (sorry - I've heard
several versions and don't know which is correct) "90% of science fiction is
crud... of course 90% of *everything* is crud."
Leo Breebaart
> > As Leo said before me, 90% of *everything* is bad.
>
> And other people before him - this is known as "Sturgeon's Law", from
> when Theodore Sturgeon started a talk with something like (sorry - I've
> heard several versions and don't know which is correct)
The earliest appearance of the Law (originally called Sturgeon's
Revelation) in print is in a 1958 issue of _Venture Science Fiction_. Full
story at:
<http://glinda.lrsm.upenn.edu/~weeks/misc/faq.html>
> "90% of science fiction is crud... of course 90% of *everything* is
> crud."
Just for the record: I was in fact referring to Sturgeon's famous quote.
That's why I explicitly used the word 'crud' instead of 'bad'. I assumed
everyone here would recognise the reference.
Theodore Sturgeon, incidentally, was a writer who used fantasy and sf
settings to investigate "human relationship" issues in great detail. I
highly recommend his work -- although I am aware that some of it has not
dated very well. Start with _More Than Human_ and you should have a pretty
good idea of whether or not you're going to like his work.
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
Richard Bos
> pia wrote:
> >
> > In article <LpxB6KAF...@kew1.demon.co.uk>, Miq
> > <Mi...@kew1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In a whodunit, characterisation is very important: you can't get
> > > away with one-dimensional characters
> >
> > Agatha Christie could...
>
> I have so far discovered only two famous authors that I find
> completely unreadable...Agatha Christie and Charles Dickens...in
> the latter case I just can't face the effort after a few pages,
> in the former case I can't see any reason I should make the
> effort after a few pages...
Maybe you've got the wrong Christies; the one-dimensionality is
definitely true for the Miss Marple ones and for many of the Poirot
ones, but usually not for the non-series ones, nor for the Tommy and
Tuppence ones, nor for all of the Poirots.
> I just plain and simple got nothing from the three attempts I've
> made at reading an Agatha Christie book (my mum has loads of them)
That's not a very big sample, though. Try the following:
- The Murder of Roger Ackroyd
- Partners in Crime or whatever it's officially called
- Murder on the Orient Express
- Ten Little Niggers
- Curtain
Richard
Richard Bos
> For me, the list is a little different. On it somewhere, for instance,
> is:
>
> <self quote> "A fierce intelligence and a imagination capacious enough
> to hold whole worlds, down the the last grain of sand. And a voice I
> believe in." </self>
Intelligence and imagination, yes. Voice, yes. But the "whole world" bit
is not necessary to make good fantasy, IMO. It's often an added bonus,
but one of the bits I enjoy about Tolkien's Middle Earth is that even
after you've read everything up to the Unfinished Tales, there is still
that feeling of having visited only part of the world, that there is
more behind the horizon... that this is only part of a whole world, and
that there are interactions with Foreign Parts that we don't know of,
that go on in the background... it is the _lack_ of definition of the
world, the knowledge that not even the narrator knows all about it, that
adds a bit of realism.
> I think the reason you're not liking fantasy is that you're defining
> fantasy as the things you don't like, a mistake I made until a short
> time ago. The following things are fantasy: Zelazny's Amber series,
> Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Gormenghast (no magic at all, IIRC), Terry
> Pratchett, Star Wars.
I would exclude Star Wars. It's SF. Cheesy SF, often, but SF.
Richard
Daniel Goldsmith
>Supersized spoilers for many David Eddings books contained within,
>beware.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>T'was a dark and stormy night when danielg...@eircom.net (Daniel
>Goldsmith) declaimed...:
>*de'snipity*
>>{NOTE: Opinions ahead which may upset Eddings Fans}
>>
>>Why I read fantasy? Don't really know. So very often I end up utterly
>>disgusted at the cheap evasions used by the author and the formulaic
>>'background.' In this respect I *really* hate David Eddings' style.
>>When looking at his books all that is required to discern the plot is
>>to look at Map, read first four chapters, identify whcih characters
>>represent the characters from the Belgariad and work it out from
>>there. Result: Five books and a whole lot of aggro avoided. It is just
>>such a complete con, none of his books show any originality beyond the
>>setting and the naming.
>*de'snipity*
>
>How many series of David Eddings books are there that fit that
>descrtiption... aha, Two.
>
>There is the Belgariad/Mallorian, and the Elenian/Tamul (hereinafter
>refered to bel/mal and el/tam, because I have been on AFE too long)
>
<snip>
>Within that, the stories are differant. El/tam is darker, more
>political, blunter. Bel/mal is lighter, more magical, more academic.
>
>The plots, I agree, are similer. But I defy anyone to tell me that
>Garion and Sparhawk react in the same way. That Silk and Kalten, or
>Seph and Pol, would deal with the situation the same way.
The problem for me is that DE puts Garion/Sparhawk and Silk/Kalten in
*exactly* the same situations. You can safely say, as you have above
that they don't react identically bacause we have seen how they act
when given the exact same scenario. The Bel/mal and El/tam series are
like playing with a simulation - call it a Tamulation. The only
variables that have been changed are the character definitions, and
these only but slightly. That's not what i regard as good fantasy
writing, bacause I don't enjoy it.
>Think of them as What If's, the same events in a differant timeline,
>Or don't. Watch the writing, the charectors, the interplay, the depth,
>the vocab, the wit, the puzzles and crytic hints of the future.
No. ;)
>And don't judge an entire author by two of his serie'
>Find High Hunt, or The Losers, or wait a few days and get the
>Redemtion of Atheus.
Saving the last, and may the gods forgive me, I have read High Hunt
and The Losers. Didn't like them much either. Sorry Aq, I think that
this particular cranium is closed to anymore Eddingsisms. I'll prolly,
in deference to your well-argued ...err...umm... argument[1], take a
look at the newest book after I've completed the fourth WoT book, if I
can ever find a copy that is.
Daniel
Sigridir
>
> Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> wrote:
> > I think the reason you're not liking fantasy is that you're defining
> > fantasy as the things you don't like, a mistake I made until a short
> > time ago. The following things are fantasy: Zelazny's Amber series,
> > Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Gormenghast (no magic at all, IIRC), Terry
> > Pratchett, Star Wars.
>
> I would exclude Star Wars. It's SF. Cheesy SF, often, but SF.
No, Star Wars is a fantasy story set in space. Come on, you've got
your standard fantasy characters; farmboy-turns-warrior-hero,
princess-in-distress, smuggler/pirate, loyal sidekick, comedy
'peasant' duo, wizards who wield magic, evil wizard-king, hissable
villain, the mystic warrior-mentor who needs to hand on the secret of
an ancient religion, mysterious prophecies, elves, magic swords,
trusty steeds, scaly monsters and Good triumphing over Evil. The
storyline is a classic fantasy tale. The fact that they call the
swords lightsabres, the steed is a spaceship, the wizards' magic is an
'energy field' called the Force and the legions of darkness use
blasters not crossbows doesn't make it SF. All that's changed is the
setting, rather than a pseudo-mediaeval or Tolkeinesque land.
Lucas consciously used fantasy. He created a modern fairy tale and did
it very well.
I mean, it starts 'A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...'.
*shrug* I like fantasy. A lot of fantasy is rubbish but not all of it,
but then the same goes for SF and every other genre.
Anna
isw...@trollinger-fe.rz.chocolateuni-frankfurt.de
> isw...@trollinger-fe.rz.uni-chocolate.frankfurt.de writes:
> > Actually, I find whodunits not as bad as fantasy. The authors can put a
> > lot in the setting that make things different ... of course, fantasy
> > authors could do so to, if they wanted ... but few seem to.
>
> You keep making these sweeping, grand pronouncements, but so far you're not
> doing a very good job of convincing me that you actually speak out of any
> kind of real knowledge or experience, as opposed to vague prejudices and
> skimpy anecdotal evidence.
Ah, no, it wasn't correct to generalize as I did ... or I should have
been careful with phrasing ... no, it is not the whole of fantasy I should
have criticized .... what I was generalizing was the mainstream of it,
I suppose ... there's not much sense in entangling in these
definitions now ...
(I apologize, guilty on improperly generalizing "fantasy", following
defence concerns the "mainstream fantasy", a term I might be using
wrongly)
And, no, I can't always say why I like a book ... since probably it's
depending on several factors I don't necessarily judge consiously ..
It's far easier for me to say why I did *not* like a book, there may be
several factors as well, but I'm able to name one or to.
Whodnunits simply leave me less often annoyed as fantasy.
Someone is murdered and someone else is looking for and finding the
murderer.
Or a second person who tries to blackmail the murderer, is murdered too.
Or several persons are murdered.
(well, the times the crime *is* murder, as it often is.)
The traditional situation (well, yeah, I'm more into the classic mystery).
In a way astonishing that they can use this over and over again. But
they get away with it.
Fantasy has, on the other hand, a couple of themes, as people
mentioned ... bad dragon, damsel in distress, evil overlord, whatever
was mentioned ... no, there are not really many plots in *any*
literature, it boils down to 10 or so, or whatever someone else said.
You should be able to do something with it, shouldn't you.
Well, I'm not sure why the recycling of mystery does not annoy me
but "mainstream fantasy" does.
Yes, there are a lot of Sherlock Holmes' & Doctor Watsons, a lot of Miss
Marples, a lot of Sam Spades, I suppose ...
There *are* bad copies, too, I suppose.
But most, or a lot authors manage to shuffle the stereotypes around,
put them in new surroundings .... that's not enough?
Well, certainly, for some it isn't, but I don't mind, if it is
done .... skillfully? Caringly?
What I'm left with is, that I can find readable mysteries but
not fantasy. (more easily, that is)
> 90 % of everything is crud, we already know that. If you just try
> semi-random samples of fantasy (or any other genre) based on publishers'
> catalogues or what your library offers (as your articles suggest), then of
> *course* you're not going to end up with a very high success rate. Have you
> tried *actively seeking out* the 10 % you might like, instead of just
> analysing and bemoaning the lack of quality in the 90 % ?
Yes, I forgot that 90 % is crud anyway. I probably do because it's
a depressing thought.
I have a glance at the publisher's catalogue to see what's new ...
the majority of fantasy is concentrated with a few publishers. A library
should offer a good selection of books of various sorts ... if they don't
have it's it doesn't mean there are no good books ... it might be the
library's fault, and yes, my library has an odd acquisition policy.
"actively seeking out the 10 %" is a good reminder.
Unfortunately I've got some problems there, that a big amount of people
here doesn't have (how to get English books in Germany), and I simply
don't want to spend money on random books, 90 % of which is crud.
(I could go into details on my problems with English books
and German fantasy, but I'm not too sure how relevant they are ...)
Seriously, any suggestions *how* to look for the 10 %?
(silly question? oh, well)
> Anyways. If you like whodunits/mystery fiction, I've got a suggestion you
> might want to try: Glen Cook's "Garrett P.I." series. It consists of 9
> books so far, starting with _Sweet Silver Blues_ and ending with _Faded
> Steal Heat_. It chronicles the adventures of Garrett, private eye in the
> fantasy world of TunFaire.
Oh, I wanted to try ... I got one of the books and read one of
the stories .... it didn't hit quite the right nerve but the book's
still around to be read eventually.
<snip>
> > Let alone human relationships and the like. Stuff like this doesn't need
> > much of an actual plot with non-fantasy novels ... but few sf/f authors
> > bother with it ....
>
> Oh, for heaven's sake, there you go again. I have read my share of science
> fiction and meta-sf over the years, and I not-so-humbly submit that making
> claims to the effect that only 'few' authors in the genre ever bother with
> human relationships, merely tells us that you haven't been looking very
> hard.
In this case I'm guilty of not checking my posting properly ... I didn't
mean sf (which I read only occasionally), apologies to fantasy as above.
> > I have only a hazy notion of RPGs ... what I find rather dubious is
> > people turning the games into novels
>
> Well, *I* think it's dubious to make public judgments on entire categories
> of things one only has a hazy notion of. Even on Usenet. But never mind me
> -- I'm funny that way.
Now *please*, I didn't say "I hardly know RPGs but I don't like them
turned into novels" ... I *tried* not to judge things I don't know,
(this time) therefore I said I find them dubious. "I feel dubious about
it" or "it seems dubious to me" if this is better ... just as I might
say "Eating raw fish? Sounds dubious to me." If my choice of words
didn't convey this, I'm sorry.
Of course, you're free to find this dubious.
Anyone being able to judge novelizations of RPGs and willing to
tell me is welcome.
> > I'd really like the authors to have a further look around ... there's
> > heaps of mythology they could use instead of writing just another
> > King-Arthur-novel. I'd really like to get aquainted with myths unknown to
> > me now ... but do they bother?
>
> I think "they" do. I'm by no means very well-read in the fantasy field, but
> even I can list several examples of mythology-based non-Arthurian fiction
> from the top of my head (Sprague de Camp/Pratt's _Enchanter_, Silverberg's
> _Gilgamesh_, Wolfe's _Soldier_ books, heck, even Holt's _Expecting Someone
> Taller_ :-)).
Oh, usually my generalized standard exclamation is about "King Arthur,
Celtic and Norse myth".
Seriously, thanks for suggestions, further ones welcome.
> If you'd ask an actual expert (or a more appropriate newsgroup than afp), I
> am sure you'd get enough suggestions and pointers to fill all your reading
> time for the next three years, at least.
Unfortunately my acquaintances aren't too fond of fantasy.
There are a few not too important reasons why I exclaimed my
frustration here ... and some of the more appropriate newsgroups might
tell me to go read Terry Goodkind ....
Aquarion
Goldsmith) declaimed...:
> Aquarion <aqua...@aquarionics.com> said:
>
>>Supersized spoilers for many David Eddings books contained within,
>>beware.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>T'was a dark and stormy night when danielg...@eircom.net (Daniel
>>Goldsmith) declaimed...:
*Truna^WTranu^WSniped*
>> In this respect I *really* hate David Eddings'
*snip* [because]
>> none of his books show any originality beyond the
>>>setting and the naming.
>>*de'snipity*
*de'snip my de'fence*
>>The plots, I agree, are similer. But I defy anyone to tell me that
>>Garion and Sparhawk react in the same way. That Silk and Kalten, or
>>Seph and Pol, would deal with the situation the same way.
>
>The problem for me is that DE puts Garion/Sparhawk and Silk/Kalten in
>*exactly* the same situations. You can safely say, as you have above
>that they don't react identically bacause we have seen how they act
>when given the exact same scenario. The Bel/mal and El/tam series are
>like playing with a simulation - call it a Tamulation. The only
>variables that have been changed are the character definitions, and
>these only but slightly. That's not what i regard as good fantasy
>writing, bacause I don't enjoy it.
"There is nothing new under the sun"
I fell out with RJ because of a nice plot, but some bad charectors,
and now am defending DE because of bad plots but nice charectors.
Whatever bites your biscuit.
>>Think of them as What If's, the same events in a differant timeline,
>>Or don't. Watch the writing, the charectors, the interplay, the depth,
>>the vocab, the wit, the puzzles and crytic hints of the future.
>
>No. ;)
*stamps foot*
Be like that then :-P
>>And don't judge an entire author by two of his serie'
>>Find High Hunt, or The Losers, or wait a few days and get the
>>Redemtion of Atheus.
>
>Saving the last, and may the gods forgive me, I have read High Hunt
>and The Losers. Didn't like them much either. Sorry Aq, I think that
>this particular cranium is closed to anymore Eddingsisms. I'll prolly,
>in deference to your well-argued ...err...umm... argument[1], take a
>look at the newest book after I've completed the fourth WoT book, if I
>can ever find a copy that is.
Comments of WoT as previous, and the new book is out soonish :-)
--
Aq
isw...@trollinger-fe.rz.unichocolate-frankfurt.de
> Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> wrote:
>
> > For me, the list is a little different. On it somewhere, for instance,
> > is:
> >
> > <self quote> "A fierce intelligence and a imagination capacious enough
> > to hold whole worlds, down the the last grain of sand. And a voice I
> > believe in." </self>
>
> Intelligence and imagination, yes. Voice, yes. But the "whole world" bit
> is not necessary to make good fantasy, IMO. It's often an added bonus,
> but one of the bits I enjoy about Tolkien's Middle Earth is that even
> after you've read everything up to the Unfinished Tales, there is still
> that feeling of having visited only part of the world, that there is
> more behind the horizon... that this is only part of a whole world, and
> that there are interactions with Foreign Parts that we don't know of,
> that go on in the background... it is the _lack_ of definition of the
> world, the knowledge that not even the narrator knows all about it, that
> adds a bit of realism.
I like the author showing me a different world.
I think that's a reason why I'm not too concerned about whether I read
fantasy or historical novels.
I appreciate being shown 14th century Venice or 9th century Scotland ...
with a historical novel I want to rely on the author having researched
the subject, though I can only hope s/he has. With a historical novel
I can, if it's important to me, go and try check whether some points
are true. ("Did they really have rubber boats in 19th century America?").
The fantasy author, of course, can do with his world as s/he pleases.
Though, I'd like the setting to make sense ... is this invention in that
society plausible? If an author mentions something about, say, weaving,
I'd like it to be something that'd actually work. (well, as far as non-
magic things are concerned).
I don't care whether the author nicks 13th century France to write his
novel or whether s/he makes up hir own world ...
With some fantasy novels I find some things irritating ... and no, I
can't say "Nonsense, in this society that couldn't have existed because
...", but well, it may leave me .... not convinced of the world?
Of course, I might be wrong, and exactly the thing *was* used in
5th century China. Then the writing style (that no, I'm not able
to define) is important ... if a novel is written well, I don't
realize as many odds as otherwise.
(do I have to give examples?)
This, of course, is my personal view, etc., someone else won't mind
what I do and I don't mind some things that others don't like.
Tolkien simply created a world that I'm willing to take, but then.
he spent a lot more time creating it than normal authors can afford.
Medusa
>That's not a very big sample, though. Try the following:
>
>- The Murder of Roger Ackroyd
>- Partners in Crime or whatever it's officially called
>- Murder on the Orient Express
>- Ten Little Niggers
>- Curtain
Could somebody please clarify something for me?
I used to own [1] an Agatha Christie novel I was convinced was called
Sparkling Cyanide, but I have not since seen a book of this title
anywhere in stores. Any idea what it could possibly be called?
[1] until a schoolfriend borrowed it and never returned it, before I's
read it I might add
David Chapman
> Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> allegedly said something to
> the effect that:
>
> >FWIW, I discovered Terry Pratchett in a supermarket.
> <snip>
>
> I'm really impressed. You must have a really classy
> supermarket.
>
> All there is in mine is tiny little display of cheesy
> romances, tv/movie tie-ins, and "Sweet Valley Junior High"
> books. Bottom-feeders, the lot of them.
That's what you get for living in America. In the UK, most supermarkets
have the top 10 fiction paperbacks and the top 20 p/bs. Pterry often
features in those charts.
--
I do wish you wouldn't keep on about how easier
life would be if we killed everyone who poses the
slightest inconvenience.
Leo Breebaart
> Could somebody please clarify something for me?
>
> I used to own [1] an Agatha Christie novel I was convinced was called
> Sparkling Cyanide, but I have not since seen a book of this title
> anywhere in stores. Any idea what it could possibly be called?
I own a copy of that one. It *is*, in fact, called _Sparkling Cyanide_. It
has always been published under that title in the UK, but was initially
published as _Remembered Death_ in the USA.
Incidentally, searching Google <http://www.google.com/> for '"Agatha
Christie" "sparkling cyanide"' yields 208 hits, and Amazon.co.uk lists 5
versions currently in print and available.
For extensive Agatha Christie bibliographic info, see:
> [1] until a schoolfriend borrowed it and never returned it, before I's
> read it I might add
It's one of my least favourite Agatha Christie novels, but your mileage may
of course vary. (Frame of reference: as a rule I enjoy Miss Marple / Tommy
and Tuppence much, *much* more than the insufferable Hercule Poirot).
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
Andy Davison
<med...@euryale.demon.co.uk> said ...
> Could somebody please clarify something for me?
>
> I used to own [1] an Agatha Christie novel I was convinced was called
> Sparkling Cyanide, but I have not since seen a book of this title
> anywhere in stores. Any idea what it could possibly be called?
>
> [1] until a schoolfriend borrowed it and never returned it, before I's
> read it I might add
It's called Sparkling Cyanide. Abebooks (http://www.abebooks.com/) have a
number of copies including a 1st edition at £350 (the rest are cheaper)
--
Andy Davison
andy.d...@btinternet.com
Martyn Clapham
<med...@euryale.demon.co.uk> writes
[ hack ]
>I used to own [1] an Agatha Christie novel I was convinced was called
>Sparkling Cyanide, but I have not since seen a book of this title
>anywhere in stores. Any idea what it could possibly be called?
>
>[1] until a schoolfriend borrowed it and never returned it, before I's
>read it I might add
Being a good little boy, I shot off to the Amazon UK site to get ISBNs
etc.
Comes back and finds that Leo got there first.
However, I now have a question. Isn't the title of the new Harry Potter
book supposed to be embargoed until publication on July 8th? It's just
that it's the main item on the front page of the Amazon web-site!
Name, cover picture and a bit of blurb by an Amazon staff writer.
BTW, the cover picture features a dragon ( nobilis, not vulgaris ) so it
will be interesting to see if Harry ends up fighting it using the Watch
method ( an arrow in the 'voonerables' ).
Mart.
--
Everything you wanted to know about afp, but were afraid to ask, is at
http://www.lspace.org/
My own website is http://www.mclapham.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Having fun on afp since 1996 Afpurity = 49% old test, 37% new test.
David Chapman
> Richard Bos <r...@fdhoekstra.nl> scribed to the masses:
> >That's not a very big sample, though. Try the following:
> >
> >- The Murder of Roger Ackroyd
> >- Partners in Crime or whatever it's officially called
> >- Murder on the Orient Express
> >- Ten Little Niggers
> >- Curtain
>
>
> Sparkling Cyanide, but I have not since seen a book of this title
> anywhere in stores. Any idea what it could possibly be called?
Sparkling Cyanide. My mother, who has read every Christie novel, is certain
that Christie wrote one of that name. Remember that Christie wrote 80+
novels; not all of them will remain in print.
David Chapman
news:395B3E24...@bibliophage.demon.co.uk...
> No, Star Wars is a fantasy story set in space.
No, it's a Western set in space. Lucas has said so himself on numerous
occasions.
Come on, you've got
> your standard fantasy characters; farmboy-turns-warrior-hero
Novice gunslinger.
> princess-in-distress,
Damsel in distress. All that's lacking are railway lines to tie her to.
> smuggler/pirate
In Civil War army trousers, no less...
> loyal sidekick,
Who?
> comedy
> 'peasant' duo,
Actually lifted from Kurosawa movies, and also a staple of the Western
genre.
> wizards who wield magic,
Men who wield guns well when the majority of people don't.
> evil wizard-king, hissable
> villain,
The Bad Guy. If Darth Vader can't twirl his moustaches, it's only because
he ain't got any.
> the mystic warrior-mentor who needs to hand on the secret of
> an ancient religion,
The aging gunslinger passing on his skills.
> mysterious prophecies,
No.
> elves,
No.
> magic swords,
I'll sort of concede this, but the lightsabre is still analogous to a Colt.
> trusty steeds,
Hi-yo Silver, *away*!
> scaly monsters
To justifiably quote Douglas Adams, "the things are also people."
> and Good triumphing over Evil.
A constant in more genres than fantasy.
> Lucas consciously used fantasy. He created a modern fairy tale and did
> it very well.
Bullshit. If you can draw analogues between technology and fantasy then
that's just Clarke's Axiom at work, but Lucas was *not* "consciously using
fantasy".
Medusa
>No, it's a Western set in space. Lucas has said so himself on numerous
>occasions.
So, as you used this to justify SW not being fantasy, you're implying
that westerns are factual? <G>
--
Medusa, Sister of Vetinari
karen
In article <3959C7F4...@nettaxi.com>, Jens Ayton
<jAyton_...@nettaxi.com> writes
>Richard Bos:
>>
>> I find myself switching back and forth on this one (and on related ones
>> like "Do I like science fiction?" and "Do I like detectives").
Try Science Friction.
>
>Personally I enjoy watching the detectives, but as for reading about
>them, well, I'd frankly rather go to Chelsea.
>
>/me wibbles of to work for peace, love and understanding while listening
>to the radio radio.
Sweating blood to earn chocolate?
But as a keen radio fan you could enjoy watching the karma police and go
to Planet Telex instead. And hope that you didn't end up as a homesick
alien.
ttfn
--
Karen/hypatia Ka...@lspace.org
New? Check http://www.lspace.org
Confused? Mail the Clue Fairies at afp-...@lspace.org
AFP Welcome Message: http://www.lspace.org/fandom/afp/welcome.html
karen
>On 28 Jun 2000, Leo Breebaart wrote:
>> isw...@trollinger-fe.rz.uni-chocolate.frankfurt.de writes:
>
>> > Actually, I find whodunits not as bad as fantasy.
>> doing a very good job of convincing me that you actually speak out of any
>> kind of real knowledge or experience, as opposed to vague prejudices and
>> skimpy anecdotal evidence.
>
>Ah, no, it wasn't correct to generalize as I did
>(I apologize, guilty on improperly generalizing "fantasy", following
>defence concerns the "mainstream fantasy", a term I might be using
>wrongly)
>
>And, no, I can't always say why I like a book ... since probably it's
>depending on several factors I don't necessarily judge consiously ..
And the way they combine, plus a couple of irrational factors which
misfires your jewel.
>It's far easier for me to say why I did *not* like a book, there may be
>several factors as well, but I'm able to name one or to.
>
>Whodnunits simply leave me less often annoyed as fantasy.
>
>Someone is murdered and someone else is looking for and finding the
>murderer.
>Or a second person who tries to blackmail the murderer, is murdered too.
>Or several persons are murdered.
>(well, the times the crime *is* murder, as it often is.)
>The traditional situation (well, yeah, I'm more into the classic mystery).
>In a way astonishing that they can use this over and over again. But
>they get away with it.
>
In 10 percent of the cases...
The structure of the 'traditional' whodunnit is probably perceived as
'cleaner' and simply better defined (more formulaic?) with its 'event-
suspects-investigation-resolution' pattern. Of course we could go on to
define which books constitute a real whodunnit and which contain
whodunnit elements within an altogether more complex and less clearly
resolved novel.
One might say the same for a straight 'romance' novel. It could be an
ingredient in a more complex novel or a simple story in its own right.
Both are themes involving familiar human experiences/events, often in a
more extreme form, with the story revolving about the characters and
their reactions to the situation, and their motivations. The focus can
be on the analytical puzzle challenging the reader to guess the outcome
or the analysis of the characters themselves. The latter is more
significant these days. Lord knows, no one reads Christie for her in
depth characterisation, and that wouldn't have been in the bestseller
fashion of the day. On the other hand the relatively predictable and
cosy Miss Marple is a vehicle for some interesting observations at times
[shrug]. If Christie had been targetting the bestseller lists of the
'90s I suspect her characterisation would have been a lot stronger and
more interesting.
>Well, I'm not sure why the recycling of mystery does not annoy me
>but "mainstream fantasy" does.
>Yes, there are a lot of Sherlock Holmes' & Doctor Watsons, a lot of Miss
>Marples, a lot of Sam Spades, I suppose ...
>There *are* bad copies, too, I suppose.
>But most, or a lot authors manage to shuffle the stereotypes around,
>put them in new surroundings .... that's not enough?
>Well, certainly, for some it isn't, but I don't mind, if it is
>done .... skillfully? Caringly?
So you are saying the 'quality of writing' component can compensate to
some degree for a weaker underlying story? I can actually buy that to a
large extent because I know there are writers I enjoy mostly for the
style and flow of the writing and with whom I will forgive a great deal
on other measures:]
Of course when both come together it is kind of nice.
[go forth and seek the 10%]
>Yes, I forgot that 90 % is crud anyway. I probably do because it's
>a depressing thought.
>
Look upon it as an opportunity...
>I have a glance at the publisher's catalogue to see what's new ...
>the majority of fantasy is concentrated with a few publishers. A library
>should offer a good selection of books of various sorts ... if they don't
>have it's it doesn't mean there are no good books ... it might be the
>library's fault, and yes, my library has an odd acquisition policy.
Here too many now focus on the best seller lists.
>"actively seeking out the 10 %" is a good reminder.
>Unfortunately I've got some problems there, that a big amount of people
>here doesn't have (how to get English books in Germany), and I simply
>don't want to spend money on random books, 90 % of which is crud.
>(I could go into details on my problems with English books
>and German fantasy, but I'm not too sure how relevant they are ...)
>
>Seriously, any suggestions *how* to look for the 10 %?
>(silly question? oh, well)
>
Yes - find web based reviews, fandom sites, personal recommendations
whether from experts or not. pick what you can from libraries to get a
view on the value of their opinions as much as the books themselves...
Cheap second hand shops and boot sales can be a great place to take a
chance on something you don't know well. Lend and borrow and swap,
download older stuff from project Gutenberg for free...
[..]
>> > I'd really like the authors to have a further look around ... there's
>> > heaps of mythology they could use instead of writing just another
>> > King-Arthur-novel. I'd really like to get aquainted with myths unknown to
>> > me now ... but do they bother?
>>
>> I think "they" do. I'm by no means very well-read in the fantasy field, but
>> even I can list several examples of mythology-based non-Arthurian fiction
>> from the top of my head (Sprague de Camp/Pratt's _Enchanter_, Silverberg's
>> _Gilgamesh_, Wolfe's _Soldier_ books, heck, even Holt's _Expecting Someone
>> Taller_ :-)).
>
>Oh, usually my generalized standard exclamation is about "King Arthur,
>Celtic and Norse myth".
>
>Seriously, thanks for suggestions, further ones welcome.
If you want to spread your wings further afield from fantasy per se, you
can delve into the more historical writers, sometimes dealing with the
overlap between myth and history - Mary Renault, Rosemary Sutcliff et
al.
But it can be tricky to find a good retelling of myth and legend. So
much so that you might ultimately be reduced to going to the section in
the library marked 'myths and legends' (aka philosophy and religion
under the Dewey system I think) and reading the various retellings
without the benefit of a fantasy setting...:^]
The big plus to this approach is that being reasonably well versed in
the 'originals' gives you a much more authoritative stance from which to
carp about the crud fantasy. And that's before you even get to the
quality of the actual writing:] It also gives you a background from
which you can better appreciate the good stuff. A win win situation in
fact...
>
>> If you'd ask an actual expert (or a more appropriate newsgroup than afp), I
>> am sure you'd get enough suggestions and pointers to fill all your reading
>> time for the next three years, at least.
>
>Unfortunately my acquaintances aren't too fond of fantasy.
>There are a few not too important reasons why I exclaimed my
>frustration here ... and some of the more appropriate newsgroups might
>tell me to go read Terry Goodkind ....
There is one way to find out... live dangerously...lurk a little...I
promise I won't tell them you are lurking there;] Then when you have
read go back and post an Opinion back into the group. Find who shares
likes with you and swap other Opinions - you all win.
Anyways you may have been a little vague in your early terminology, but
I am glad you started this thread. I invariably pick up at least a
couple of new titles for the TODO list from them. Of course I then have
to find time to read them...
ttfn,
Leo Breebaart
> > You keep making these sweeping, grand pronouncements, [...]
>
> [...] no, it is not the whole of fantasy I should have criticized ....
> what I was generalizing was the mainstream of it,
Okay, if you quantify it like that, I retract my objections to your
statements.
> I have a glance at the publisher's catalogue to see what's new ... the
> majority of fantasy is concentrated with a few publishers. A library
> should offer a good selection of books of various sorts
Nevertheless, I would never rely too much on publisher's blurbs to stock my
reading list. They need to hype what they think will sell -- and what
publishers think will sell often has little overlap with what I'd consider
to be worth reading. Libraries have the problem that the people in charge
of buying what little f&sf they usually have, tend not to be knowledgeable
fans themselves, so they, too, have to rely on things like publishers'
catalogues and mainstream review magazines to steer their acquisitions.
> ... if they don't have it's it doesn't mean there are no good books
Exactly my point. :-)
> "actively seeking out the 10 %" is a good reminder. Unfortunately I've
> got some problems there, that a big amount of people here doesn't have
> (how to get English books in Germany), and I simply don't want to spend
> money on random books, 90 % of which is crud.
I've been in the same situation -- I know exactly how you feel, trust me.
Still, you've got one wonderful tool right here at your disposal: Usenet.
We're already seeing plenty of suggestions in this and other recent book
threads, and over the years I have lost count of how many favourite books
and series I have discovered through simply lurking on rec.arts.sf.written
(or sf-lovers as it was called way back when), and paying attention to what
people were saying, or sometimes asking an explicit question or two myself.
Even if that leaves the problem of actually getting your hands on these
books, you will end up with lists of things to try (*and* of things to
avoid!) that may yield a much higher success rate than solely relying on
information coming to you from the sellers' world.
Another great tool is the World Wide Web, of course. There are sites
dedicated to entire genres or to specific authors within a genre. There are
an increasing number of home pages maintained by authors themselves, with
entire short stories and chapters/excerpts from novels available for free,
as well as tons of other interesting material. The publishers' and the big
magazine's sites (such as e.g. Asimov's: <www.asimovs.com>) are putting up
more and more stories and excerpts as well. The SF Site ("Home Page for
Science Fiction and Fantasy") is a wonderful resource that contains amongst
many other things the ISFDB: the SF&F version of the Internet Movie
Database. Etcetera, etcetera.
> > > I have only a hazy notion of RPGs ... what I find rather dubious is
> > > people turning the games into novels
> >
> > Well, *I* think it's dubious to make public judgments on entire categories
> > of things one only has a hazy notion of. Even on Usenet. But never mind me
>
> Now *please*, I didn't say "I hardly know RPGs but I don't like them
> turned into novels" ... I *tried* not to judge things I don't know,
> (this time) therefore I said I find them dubious.
Okay -- apologies for misinterpreting you. To me, the word 'dubious'
definitely has very negative connotations. "Dubious business practices"
does not mean "could be good, could be bad" -- it means *bad*. But I'm not
a native English speaker myself, and I may well be getting the nuances of
the word wrong; I often have that problem.
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
Orjan Westin
news:w0Lg8DA2...@mclapham.demon.co.uk...
> However, I now have a question. Isn't the title of the new Harry Potter
> book supposed to be embargoed until publication on July 8th? It's just
> that it's the main item on the front page of the Amazon web-site!
Yes, but since they've pre-ordered 250.000 copies they probably can set
their own terms. They will abide by the embargo, but with the caveat that
they won't release it until the 8th; by that they mean that if you order a
copy, you'll get it delivered the 8th, whereas other bookstores won't send
them out until that date.
Me, I'm waiting for the movie, so I can ignore that too. <g>
Orjan
karen
<l...@lspace.org> writes
>isw...@trollinger-fe.rz.chocolateuni-frankfurt.de writes:
>> Now *please*, I didn't say "I hardly know RPGs but I don't like them
>> turned into novels" ... I *tried* not to judge things I don't know,
>> (this time) therefore I said I find them dubious.
>
>definitely has very negative connotations. "Dubious business practices"
>does not mean "could be good, could be bad" -- it means *bad*.
Whereas I read it in the sense of being doubtful as to how it could
produce a good novel. Improbable, uncertain maybe. I have a vague
feeling [pedants ahoy] that it is the very association of the word
'dubious' with 'business practice' which caused it to take on the
'disreputable' connotation.
> But I'm not
>a native English speaker myself, and I may well be getting the nuances of
>the word wrong; I often have that problem.
Indeed... :P
You can consume and regurgitate Websters all you like, you can study a
language in great depth. It's a real bugger though, that when it comes
down to it you end up having to give way to any semi literate who has
spent a lifetime actually crucifying it :] :]
And although I'd love to give you the opportunity to respond likewise
dear but [ahem] my throat is currently in perfect working order, and
there is no gravel nearby. O:]
Mary Messall
> "Laurabelle" <lbme...@mtholyoke.YOUR.PANTS.edu> wrote in message
> news:3AE01001323276A4.F99FAA53...@lp.airnews.net...
> > Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> allegedly said something to
> > the effect that:
> > >FWIW, I discovered Terry Pratchett in a supermarket.
> > <snip>
> > I'm really impressed. You must have a really classy
> > supermarket.
Definitely not. Nope. I've worked their twice. I've cleaned their deep
fat friars. Classy is *not* the word.
> > All there is in mine is tiny little display of cheesy
> > romances, tv/movie tie-ins, and "Sweet Valley Junior High"
> > books. Bottom-feeders, the lot of them.
All those as well. I have no idea how the Pterry has got in the mix
*twice* now, in ten years. Subversive on the ordering staff? There's
usually at least one hard SF novel on the shelf, and they used to carry
Analog and Asimovs (not to mention Ellery Queen and Alfred Hitchcock's
Mystery). Regrettably, no more...
> That's what you get for living in America. In the UK, most supermarkets
> have the top 10 fiction paperbacks and the top 20 p/bs. Pterry often
> features in those charts.
I'm in the Heart of America (TM) myself, y'know.
-Mary
David Chapman
news:w0Lg8DA2...@mclapham.demon.co.uk...
> However, I now have a question. Isn't the title of the new Harry Potter
> book supposed to be embargoed until publication on July 8th?
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, you mean? <grin>
It's just
> that it's the main item on the front page of the Amazon web-site!
>
> Name, cover picture and a bit of blurb by an Amazon staff writer.
>
> BTW, the cover picture features a dragon ( nobilis, not vulgaris ) so it
> will be interesting to see if Harry ends up fighting it using the Watch
> method ( an arrow in the 'voonerables' ).
And the Scottish Daily Record have reviewed it today, although they
diligently kept all plot details secret.
BTW, there are apparently going to be *seven* Harry Potter movies released
annually from 2001-2007.
Jens Ayton
> Sigridir:
>>
>> No, Star Wars is a fantasy story set in space.
>
> occasions.
But Westerns are fantasy set in the US...
<snip evidence>
--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/ PGP key: http://home4.swipnet.se/~w-49116/stuff/jens_ayton.pgp
Relieve hunger and guilt in one fell swoop: http://www.thehungersite.com
Quantum Moth
Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> wrote in message news:395BFA...@ups.edu...
>
> I've cleaned their deep fat friars.
>
--#
thom willis-"Nattie's Reputation" afpianced to Peter, Mary M and Bryony
afplotting to elope with pia and eric. afprepared to settle for April.
afpJames to Melody's AfpJesse. "It ain't over until the brass section
have bought their second round." - eric, the afpiance.
Eric Jarvis
>
> Eric Jarvis <er...@last.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I just plain and simple got nothing from the three attempts I've
> > made at reading an Agatha Christie book (my mum has loads of them)
>
>
> - The Murder of Roger Ackroyd
> - Partners in Crime or whatever it's officially called
> - Murder on the Orient Express
> - Ten Little Niggers
> - Curtain
>
included two out of the three I tried on that list...I got quite
a way into Murder On The Orient Express before deciding that on
the whole I'd much rather read yesterday's newspaper...so it may
well be one of her "best" books
--
eric - afplanning to elope with pia and Thom, eventually
"if a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing to excess"
Richard Bos
> David Chapman:
> > Sigridir:
> >>
> >> No, Star Wars is a fantasy story set in space.
> >
> > No, it's a Western set in space. Lucas has said so himself on numerous
> > occasions.
>
> But Westerns are fantasy set in the US...
No, Westerns are not fantasy, unless you define fantasy as "lack of
realism", in which case railway timetables are fantasy as well. There is
nothing super- or para-natural in Westerns, there are no other species
that talk, there are no buildings that serve both as an impenetrable
fortress and a luxury palace, there is no Hye Kinge.
With a big stretch of good will I could allow Westerns to be fantastic
fiction; but only if you will allow Richard III in as well, and for the
same reasons.
Richard
Yannick Larvor
> Jens Ayton <jAyton_...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
>> David Chapman:
>> > Sigridir:
>> >>
>> >> No, Star Wars is a fantasy story set in space.
>> >
>> > No, it's a Western set in space. Lucas has said so himself on
>> > numerous occasions.
>>
>> But Westerns are fantasy set in the US...
> No, Westerns are not fantasy,
AOL. Westerns are chivalry stories, which may or may not qualify as
fantasy, depending on which particular story, whether there is magic or
not and - as usual, the more important - the eye of the beholder.
> There is nothing super- or para-natural in Westerns,
Mind you, I believe I've seen at least one and maybe two with
supernatural involved ('twas with Clint Eastwood both times, but can't
remember much of the stories. There were guns, IIRC ;-)
> there are no other species that talk, there are no buildings that
> serve both as an impenetrable fortress and a luxury palace, there is
> no Hye Kinge.
So, you do think Star Wars is not a Western.
--
Yannick
David Chapman
> >occasions.
>
> that westerns are factual? <G>
They have a basis in fact, and they don't contain fantastical situations.
Star Wars is made SF by the setting and adaptation, but in spirit it's a
Western. This applies just as much to the Dark Tower novels, which are
still Westerns even though they have a fantasy setting.
Sigridir
>
> "Sigridir" <sigr...@bibliophage.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:395B3E24...@bibliophage.demon.co.uk...
>
>
> occasions.
Lucas is a student of mythology. He has said that he derived many of
his ideas from the concept of the Hero's Journey Joseph Campbell's
'Hero with a Thousand Faces', a study of mythology and how the same
common themes occur cross-culturally. He may well have compared it to
a Western, but he's also described it as a modern fairy-tale and
fantasy as well. And some scenes, like the cantina scene in the
original, are lifted straight from a Western but the bar-room brawl is
hardly unique to the Western.
Now, 'Battle Beyond The Stars' is a Western set in space.
>
> Come on, you've got
> > your standard fantasy characters; farmboy-turns-warrior-hero
>
> Novice gunslinger.
Luke isn't a novice gunslinger. By far the more common theme in
Westerns is the young man who wants to be a famous fighter, but then
comes to realise how shallow such a life is and returns to a solid
life raising cattle and children. Luke is on a spiritual quest, not a
rescue mission.
>
> > princess-in-distress,
>
> Damsel in distress. All that's lacking are railway lines to tie her to.
No, it's quite important that she is a princess. The story deals with
aristocracy and power, not the dealings of ordinary people unlike the
Western. The grand theme of Star Wars has much, much more in common
with fantasy than Westerns.
>
> > smuggler/pirate
>
> In Civil War army trousers, no less...
Or addidas leggings... :>
>
> > loyal sidekick,
>
> Who?
Chewbacca
>
> > comedy
> > 'peasant' duo,
>
> Actually lifted from Kurosawa movies, and also a staple of the Western
> genre.
The comedy duo is used by Shakespeare long before Akira Kurosawa. And
I disagree that it is a Western staple, or perhaps I simply watch the
wrong Westerns. Being British, I've really only been exposed to the
bigger films and small doses of 'Bonanza' as a child.
>
> > wizards who wield magic,
>
> Men who wield guns well when the majority of people don't.
Sorry, I disagree. Jedi and Sith wielding the Force is entirely
different to non-combatant citizens.
>
> > evil wizard-king, hissable
> > villain,
>
> The Bad Guy. If Darth Vader can't twirl his moustaches, it's only because
> he ain't got any.
Actually, I was thinking of the Emperor who doesn't have a Western
counterpart.
>
> > the mystic warrior-mentor who needs to hand on the secret of
> > an ancient religion,
>
> The aging gunslinger passing on his skills.
Sorry, I disagree that this is a staple of Westerns. Usually aging
gunslingers are portrayed as either unsympathetic bullies or as trying
to teach brash young gung-ho men that the life of a gunslinger is
miserable and he'll be much happier finding the right girl and
settling down...
>
> > mysterious prophecies,
>
> No.
No what? No, not in Star Wars or no not in Westerns? 'The one who will
bring balance to the Force'?
>
> > elves,
>
> No.
Ok, maybe I was strtching this one, but that's how I've always seen
Yoda.
>
> > magic swords,
>
> I'll sort of concede this, but the lightsabre is still analogous to a Colt.
And I'll still disagree. In one or two Westerns the Winchester rifle
gains a near-mythic status and could perhaps be considered in this
light. However the Colt is nearer to a blaster in the way it is used.
>
> > trusty steeds,
>
> Hi-yo Silver, *away*!
>
> > scaly monsters
>
> To justifiably quote Douglas Adams, "the things are also people."
Umm, sorry no. Certain of the 'things' are, but you're really
stretching it calling the asteroid slug or the Sarlacc pit-thing
people. There are also the traditional bad people around in various
guises. A better Western analogy ight be a duststorm or tornado.
>
> > and Good triumphing over Evil.
>
> A constant in more genres than fantasy.
Absolutely. However, I don't think you have demonstrated that Star
Wars isn't a fantasy so much as shown that some Westerns are pretty
much fantasy in a pseudo-historical setting.
>
> > Lucas consciously used fantasy. He created a modern fairy tale and did
> > it very well.
>
> Bullshit. If you can draw analogues between technology and fantasy then
> that's just Clarke's Axiom at work, but Lucas was *not* "consciously using
> fantasy".
I'd appreciate a bit of politeness, thanks. I beg to differ, I'm
saying that fantasy doesn't have to be set in some mock-mediaeval
world. It can be set in the future, in the past, now or in another
galaxy. It's the elements of the story that make it fantasy not the
setting. The line between genres is blurred, but in my opinion SW
falls much closer to fantasy than scifi. It's got more in common with
King Arthur than Jules Verne. However, I suspect that our definitions
of fantasy are different enough for us not to agree on this.
Anna
Natalie Mayer
David Chapman <da...@sentinel.globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>BTW, there are apparently going to be *seven* Harry Potter movies released
>annually from 2001-2007.
Ooh, I don't know whether to be really happy (yes, I like the Harry Potter
books, and yes I'm very much still a child at heart on occasion) or rather
worried. Casting the wrong person as Harry (or for that matter any other
character) could just ruin it for me, because I do basically see a film
running through my head when I read the books.
Er, *wibble*. This has been your daily/weekly/whatever bit of incoherence
from
nattie (i reckon i'm Hermione, by the way)
--
Natalie Mayer, language geek and cute little chambermaid (?!)
Completely incomplete: http://www.zzumbouk.demon.co.uk/soubrette/
(Feel free to *vom*)
I have no pithy quote at the moment.
Sigridir
>
> Richard Bos wrote:
>
> > Jens Ayton <jAyton_...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
> >> David Chapman:
> >> > Sigridir:
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > No, it's a Western set in space. Lucas has said so himself on
> >> > numerous occasions.
> >>
>
> > No, Westerns are not fantasy,
>
> AOL. Westerns are chivalry stories, which may or may not qualify as
> fantasy, depending on which particular story, whether there is magic or
> not and - as usual, the more important - the eye of the beholder.
>
> > There is nothing super- or para-natural in Westerns,
>
> Mind you, I believe I've seen at least one and maybe two with
> supernatural involved ('twas with Clint Eastwood both times, but can't
> remember much of the stories. There were guns, IIRC ;-)
I believe you're referring to 'Pale Rider', where Eastwood is actually
Death (to quote Revelations 'and I beheld a pale rider on a pale horse
and his name was Death').
>
> > there are no other species that talk, there are no buildings that
> > serve both as an impenetrable fortress and a luxury palace, there is
> > no Hye Kinge.
>
> So, you do think Star Wars is not a Western.
*grin*
Anna
Yannick Larvor
> Yannick Larvor wrote:
>>
>> Richard Bos wrote:
>> > There is nothing super- or para-natural in Westerns,
>>
>> Mind you, I believe I've seen at least one and maybe two with
>> supernatural involved ('twas with Clint Eastwood both times, but
>> can't remember much of the stories. There were guns, IIRC ;-)
> I believe you're referring to 'Pale Rider',
Yes, thank you. Actually, that's the second one I was thinking about :-)
I've gone to the IMDB (should have done that before) and I believe the
first one to be 'High Plains Drifter'. Someday, I'll have to have them
and watch them again.
> where Eastwood is actually Death
Dammit, I always thought Eastwood was Vimes!
--
Yannick
Matt Pumplin
[snip lots of stuff]
> it's sad to say, but I think a lot of them do it for an easy buck, because
> there are many gullible 14-yr old people out there who'll buy anything with a
> dragon or scantily clad warrior chick on the cover.[1]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> [1] This is *not* intended to be offensive to any of the intelligent 14-yr
> olds out there who are sensible enough to have found this ng.
Blast, that was two years ago. And anyway, i hadn't read The Light
Fantastic until last year (at about 15). Oh well.
--
Matt
AFP Code 2.0 APA>$/Mu d-@ s++: a--- U++ R++ F++ h- P- OSM:++ C+++ L+
B- PT--- Pu75- e>++ r++ y- end
Mary Messall
> "Medusa" <med...@euryale.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3kZk5BAE...@euryale.demon.co.uk...
> > David Chapman <anti...@sentinel.globalnet.co.uk> scribed to the masses:
> > >occasions.
> > that westerns are factual? <G>
> They have a basis in fact, and they don't contain fantastical situations.
> Star Wars is made SF by the setting and adaptation, but in spirit it's a
> Western. This applies just as much to the Dark Tower novels, which are
> still Westerns even though they have a fantasy setting.
The definition of "quibbling over semantics"? I think so.
Why in the galaxy can't it be a spaghetti western, a campy sci-fi flick,
a modern mythology, a comedy, a drama, a children's story, a special
effects demo-reel, and a classic high fantasy all at once?
I'm reading Lord of the Rings for the first time, incidentally. Out
loud, the whole thing (we finished _Fellowship_ last night) to my
nine-year-old sister. Half the fun is doing the voices, and there are
good reasons Gandalf sounds a lot like Alek Guinness, and Frodo a lot
like Mark Hamill... I'm pretty sure Star Wars is fantasy if anything is,
but I'm equally sure that it's all the rest as well.
-Mary
Mary Messall
> Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> wrote in message news:395BFA...@ups.edu...
> > I've cleaned their deep fat friars.
> And I'm sure Mr. Tuck and company *sparkled*...
You could see yourself in their scalps. Not that it lasted long, of
course. People *will* put fingerprints on things...
-Mary
Aaron Dick
Daniel Goldsmith wrote in message <3959c039...@news.indigo.ie>...
> isw...@trollinger-fe.chocolate.rz.uni-frankfurt.de said:
>At moment
>I'm mid-way through the 3rd in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time saga and
>have to say that I'm enjoying it pretty much, although it does conform
>to the point made at the start here.
Warning, the task you have undertaken is a long an arduous one that would be
suited as a mission for Ethan Hunt.
Mr. Hunt, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to complete the
entire Wheel of Time series. At current count there are eight books with at
least three in the works. Good Luck, this message will self-destruct in 5
seconds.
<cue mindlessly tedous slow-motion footage of anything and everything agent
does. Insert stunts and gunfire and explosions.>
Mr. Aaron Dick, DiHI (Raven)
Aaron Dick
Medusa wrote in message <1r1U6KA1...@euryale.demon.co.uk>...
>Patrick Allan <nat...@alphalink.com.au> scribed to the masses:
>>Raymond E. Feist is an author noone has criticised or applauded
>>yet, but i'd like to (applaud, that is). Great characters, great plot,
>>unexpected endings, even.
>
>
>Ooo! Someone I've heard of <G>
>
>Yep - seconded [1] - Feist is superb. Particularly like the Serpentwar
>series.
Yes, I think Feist is a good writer, but I have only finished Magician and
barely scratched any of the others. I personally really enjoy David Gemmel,
although his tyle is rather repetitive after the first few books too. i
still enjoy reading it but I'm finding it less engaging due to less
surprises...
Any other authors worth mentioning?
Laurabelle
the effect that:
>Medusa <med...@euryale.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Could somebody please clarify something for me?
>>
>> I used to own [1] an Agatha Christie novel I was convinced was called
>> Sparkling Cyanide, but I have not since seen a book of this title
>> anywhere in stores. Any idea what it could possibly be called?
>
>I own a copy of that one. It *is*, in fact, called _Sparkling Cyanide_. It
>has always been published under that title in the UK, but was initially
>published as _Remembered Death_ in the USA.
<snip>
My mother reads a lot of mysteries and often finds that
she'll pick up an Agatha Christie book whose title she
doesn't recognize, and then start reading and realize that
she has read the story before. The explanation is that
Agatha Christie novels are often reprinted with different
titles.
Laurabelle
--
(Remove YOUR PANTS or use reply-to)
Mount Holyoke College:
The world's most prestigious
non-denominational convent of over-achievers.
Isis
Aaron Dick <the...@free.net.nz> wrote in message
news:96241085...@mx4.ix.net.nz...
> Yes, I think Feist is a good writer, but I have only finished Magician and
> barely scratched any of the others. I personally really enjoy David
Gemmel,
> although his tyle is rather repetitive after the first few books too. i
> still enjoy reading it but I'm finding it less engaging due to less
> surprises...
>
> Any other authors worth mentioning?
>
> Mr. Aaron Dick, DiHI (Raven)
You certainly know how to keep a thread going <g>
Lessee... Margaret Weis wrote some quite good stuff in amongst the junk.
It's called the Star of the Guardians series, three books and an addon.
The series I liked most of hers (and the one I actually meant to mention)
was actually set in the same universe but with a much more hard-core SF feel
to it. It's called The Knights of the Black Earth trilogy and its absolutely
*incredible*. She co-wrote it with someone IIRC. Very funny, with just the
right amount of depth and excellent pace. Enjoy!
Isis
Isis
Yannick Larvor <ylsp...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:yrcg0pv...@mail.dotcom.fr...
<snip>
> > where Eastwood is actually Death
>
> Dammit, I always thought Eastwood was Vimes!
>
> --
> Yannick
<mode=derail/wibble>
Nah, Sam Neill for sure ;-)
</mode>
Isis
Julia Jones
fe.rz.uni-frankfurt.de>, isw...@trollinger-fe.rz.unichocolate-
frankfurt.de writes
>Hm, I have to say, since I learned that one of my favourite mystery
>writers had been in prison for accessory to murder, and another one
>writes gay porn, there isn't much left that really shocks me.
Given the number of professional writers I know through a mutual
interest in fanfic, and a specific branch of fanfic, the latter does not
surprise me in the least...
--
Julia Jones
Redemption 01 - The Blakes 7/Babylon 5 convention
23-25 February 2001, Ashford International Hotel, Kent
http://www.smof.com/redemption/
Katherine F.
<jajon...@nospam.demon.co.uk> typed into his/her/its computer
the following:
>fe.rz.uni-frankfurt.de>, isw...@trollinger-fe.rz.unichocolate-
>frankfurt.de writes
>>Hm, I have to say, since I learned that one of my favourite mystery
>>writers had been in prison for accessory to murder, and another one
>>writes gay porn, there isn't much left that really shocks me.
>
>Given the number of professional writers I know through a mutual
>interest in fanfic, and a specific branch of fanfic, the latter does not
>surprise me in the least...
<feigning innocence>Now, I *wonder* what Julia could be
talking about?</feigning>
I must admit, though, I was a *tad* taken aback when I
discovered that Marion Zimmer Bradley used to write lesbian pulp
novels in the '50s. Not quite on the "gay porn" level, but a bit
odd nevertheless...
Katherine F. (email kathe...@softhome.net for a fast response)
--
Website (fanfiction): http://netdump.com/users/purity_brown/purity.htm
"We love you lots, in a safe non-threatening non-stalker way. ;)"
-- "Garrett", during an unmoderated chat with the GvsE cast and crew
Katherine F.
<mmes...@ups.edu> typed into his/her/its computer the following:
<snip is Star Wars a western in space?>
>Why in the galaxy can't it be a spaghetti western, a campy sci-fi flick,
>a modern mythology, a comedy, a drama, a children's story, a special
>effects demo-reel, and a classic high fantasy all at once?
>
>I'm reading Lord of the Rings for the first time, incidentally. Out
>loud, the whole thing (we finished _Fellowship_ last night) to my
>nine-year-old sister. Half the fun is doing the voices, and there are
>good reasons Gandalf sounds a lot like Alek Guinness, and Frodo a lot
>like Mark Hamill... I'm pretty sure Star Wars is fantasy if anything is,
>but I'm equally sure that it's all the rest as well.
I think the reason SW feels like fantasy is partly
because of the lack of any attempt to rationalise the Force
(until TPM, and the "midichlorian" rubbish is transparent
ad-hoccery), and partly the political set-up: Lords, Princesses,
Emperors...it's not so much that the set-up is monarchist as that
the monarchism is totally taken for granted. Which is one of the
things that annoys me about a lot of high fantasy, but that's
another rant...
Adam Sampson
> David Chapman:
> >> No, Star Wars is a fantasy story set in space.
> >
> > No, it's a Western set in space. Lucas has said so himself on numerous
> > occasions.
>
> But Westerns are fantasy set in the US...
Perhaps the original poster was thinking of Star "It's ``Wagon Train''
to the stars!" Trek rather than Star Wars?
--
Adam Sampson
a...@gnu.org
Julia Jones
<purit...@ihateclowns.com> writes
> <feigning innocence>Now, I *wonder* what Julia could be
>talking about?</feigning>
Now why did I think you were the most likely to respond to that one?
You obviously haven't read the blatant BUARA scene in a pro novel by one
of my favourite mystery writers. Although I suspect she threw it in to
please the Avon Without Guilt Gang, rather than because it's her
personal taste.
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
isw...@trollinger-fe.rz.chocolateuni-frankfurt.de
> Wed, 28 Jun 2000 14:38:11 +0200
> isw...@trollinger-fe.rz.unichocolate-frankfurt.de
> >I have to say, since I learned that one of my favourite mystery
> >writers had been in prison for accessory to murder, and another one
> >writes gay porn
>
> Which are these?
I was somewhat unsure how polite it would be to name them, but,
checking, the knowledge is quite publicly available, and, of course,
since I couldn't resist to make the comment in the first place ...
Anne Perry and Steven Saylor.
isw. (if urged to reply remove any chocolate)
--
Il felino piu piccolo e un capolavoro (Leonardo da Vinci)
Richard Bos
> Any other authors worth mentioning?
Eddison, if you like the bizarre. Ouroboros (sp?) is High Fantasy with
the highness turned up until the meter peaked. I get the impression
Eddison was being serious, too, which is a pity, because when taken as
an example of how humourously highfaluting fantasy can get, it's really
an amusing read.
Richard
BrianL
<the...@free.net.nz> wrote:
I personally really enjoy David Gemmel,
>although his tyle is rather repetitive after the first few books too. i
>still enjoy reading it but I'm finding it less engaging due to less
>surprises...
Have you tried "The Lion of Macedon" & "The Dark Prince" by David
Gemmel - having found his other books good but very similar, I
really enjoyed these. BTW does anyone who has read these know how
they relate to RL history (They're about Alexander the Great for
those who haven't read them) In particular was Parmenion anything
like he is portrayed?
BrianL
Life is a bed of roses.
Just try jumping into a bed
of roses and you'll know what I mean.
isw...@trollinger-fe.rz.chocolateuni-frankfurt.de
<snip for sake of shortness>
> I've been in the same situation -- I know exactly how you feel, trust me.
> Still, you've got one wonderful tool right here at your disposal: Usenet.
> We're already seeing plenty of suggestions in this and other recent book
> threads, and over the years I have lost count of how many favourite books
> and series I have discovered through simply lurking on rec.arts.sf.written
> (or sf-lovers as it was called way back when), and paying attention to what
> people were saying, or sometimes asking an explicit question or two myself.
rasfw *is* a very interesting newsgroup, my problem with it is that
there's too much traffic to decently cope with for me. I've caught a hint
at the one or other interesting author there, but often even trying to
follow one interesting thread there can get a bit difficult.
<snip>
> Another great tool is the World Wide Web, of course. There are sites
> dedicated to entire genres or to specific authors within a genre. There are
> an increasing number of home pages maintained by authors themselves, with
> entire short stories and chapters/excerpts from novels available for free,
> as well as tons of other interesting material. The publishers' and the big
> magazine's sites (such as e.g. Asimov's: <www.asimovs.com>) are putting up
> more and more stories and excerpts as well. The SF Site ("Home Page for
> Science Fiction and Fantasy") is a wonderful resource that contains amongst
> many other things the ISFDB: the SF&F version of the Internet Movie
> Database. Etcetera, etcetera.
Ah, the world wibe web, an amazing place.
My problem there (again) is, that I haven't too much time to spend on the
web. (which, in some respects is probably not quite that bad). Though I've
stumbled across some interesting things now and then.
Well, the lack of time is my private problem.
Hmm, how useful do people here actually find those first-chapters-
excerpts? I have to say, it's still very different to me from having the
book in hand, which I find far more comfortable.
Rather more efficient I find the occasional short story the author has
generously allowed to be put online (or so I hope), or a fan bothering
with a bit more detailed reviews .... but there you can get lost.
> Okay -- apologies for misinterpreting you. To me, the word 'dubious'
> definitely has very negative connotations. "Dubious business practices"
> does not mean "could be good, could be bad" -- it means *bad*. But I'm not
> a native English speaker myself, and I may well be getting the nuances of
> the word wrong; I often have that problem.
Lost in the labyrinth of language <g>
I wasn't sure whether the word meant exactly what I wanted to say,
but the thought that it might be used in a negative context only did not
cross my mind. Maybe "questionable" would have been a better choice,
but unfortunately that day's brain configuration denied access
to that subset of my vocabulary containing it. (all this switching
on and off the English mode seems to have a negative effect on the
circuitry)
isw...@trollinger-fe.rz.chocolateuni-frankfurt.de
> isw...@trollinger-fe.rz.chocolateuni-frankfurt.de writes
<snip a lot for sake of shortness>
> >Whodnunits simply leave me less often annoyed as fantasy.
> The structure of the 'traditional' whodunnit is probably perceived as
> 'cleaner' and simply better defined (more formulaic?) with its 'event-
> suspects-investigation-resolution' pattern. Of course we could go on to
> define which books constitute a real whodunnit and which contain
> whodunnit elements within an altogether more complex and less clearly
> resolved novel.
>
<snip>
> >Well, I'm not sure why the recycling of mystery does not annoy me
> >but "mainstream fantasy" does.
> >Yes, there are a lot of Sherlock Holmes' & Doctor Watsons, a lot of Miss
> >Marples, a lot of Sam Spades, I suppose ...
> >There *are* bad copies, too, I suppose.
> >But most, or a lot authors manage to shuffle the stereotypes around,
> >put them in new surroundings .... that's not enough?
> >Well, certainly, for some it isn't, but I don't mind, if it is
> >done .... skillfully? Caringly?
>
> So you are saying the 'quality of writing' component can compensate to
> some degree for a weaker underlying story? I can actually buy that to a
> large extent because I know there are writers I enjoy mostly for the
> style and flow of the writing and with whom I will forgive a great deal
> on other measures:]
If the plot is bare of any logic, of cause no writing can save it.
I appreciate an original plot, but I don't mind a conventional one.
Agatha Christie, for example, used the second-victim-tried-to-blackmail-
the-murderer a lot ... but on the other hand she came forth with
- everyone is the murderer
- one of the victims just pretended and is the murderer
- first victim was just a trial run and of no further importance as
a motive
- the narrator is the murderer
And whatever.
The investigator is looking for the murderer ... he may find some
clues, he may find a witness ... the fact that he does isn't sur-
prising, so I'm not expecting something novel.
I'm not one of those people who try to solve the mystery themselves,
I just enjoy reading about the protagonists trying to.
(There are a lot of things I find annoying with mysteries, too.
I don't like the ones which after chapter 2 go "this evening's events
had already shown the motive for the coming murder, as Gerald was
to realize afterwards" or suchlike. Which leaves me with a feeling
of "now you were told in chapter two, silly you not to notice")
As long as the actions are vaguely believable (well, inside a novel)
I may just lay back and enjoy the setting (well, depending)
Not being much of a patriot, a lot of the mysteries I read are
set in Britain or Merkia.
Whether the setting is rural Berkshire or downtown Washington may
not make too much difference to the plot, but one of the books
shows me (I hope) a bit of British culture and the other one a bit
of American culture, which may come in handy to understand Britain
and Merkia better ... to understand other books better, occasionally
even get one of Pterry's jokes.
Whereas a similar plot in two different fantasy worlds may not be
quite as educating.
(Well, no, I don't read mysteries for education ... except for use
of brushing up some forn lingo ... and some are rather the screwball
sort ... but never mind)
With historical mysteries, of course, I enjoy learning a bit about
history.
(a subgenre that, alas, is especially flooded with anything the
publishers can get their hands on)
With a fantasy novel, I expect the Evil Overlord will be overthrown,
I expect the hero gets his sweetheart ... (I will expect this ...
but I quite appreciate it when she runs off with his foster-father for
various good reasons) ...
I expect the investigator to find out who's the murderer, too, but
somehow there are more surprises left to me. (well, I get the feeling
that with some authors you just have to think what's the weirdest
solution still possible, but never mind) In the beginning *anybody*
can be the murderer.
And, oh, the murderers of the mysteries I read are comparatively normal
people (not being into the manic serial killer sort) ... while a lot
of fantasy authors ("mainstream, mainstream") think they need an
Evil, Evil, utterly Evil Overlord.
Well, maybe a very simple reason why I prefer mysteries (or rather think
they aren't as bad as fantasy) is that they are shorter. 200-300 pages
sounds reasonable, maybe a bit more, but it possibly takes the bestseller
author to deliver 600 or 700 pages to a mystery. (leaving aside things
like "the name of the rose", that being different)
I can manage to read 300 pages ... only few mysteries I've abondoned
soon after starting ... afterwards I can decide to like or dislike the
author, or maybe read something more of him ...
Mystery writers may heavily indulge in series, but no harm done when
I've read only one of the books.
Some fantasy authors expect me to read 1200 pages (and easily more),
there was a time I enjoyed a nice long epic, but, well, that was.
Being disappointed after 300 pages isn't as bad as after 1200 or the whole
trilogy.
Of course, it's possible that deep down inside I've never liked fantasy
at all and just thought I did because I came upon some good books ...
so, back to Tom Sharpe <g>
<snip some more good advice>
> Anyways you may have been a little vague in your early terminology, but
> I am glad you started this thread. I invariably pick up at least a
> couple of new titles for the TODO list from them. Of course I then have
> to find time to read them...
Sure, I as well found some interesting points being made.
Leo Breebaart
> rasfw *is* a very interesting newsgroup, my problem with it is that
> there's too much traffic to decently cope with for me.
A newsreader with a good killfile or scoring capability can do wonders
here. On the whole the rasfw subjects are fairly descriptive. Begin by
killing subjects containing names of authors or series you are definitely
not interested in, and autoselecting articles containing names and phrases
you are interested in. That gives you a solid base to start from.
> I've caught a hint at the one or other interesting author there, but
> often even trying to follow one interesting thread there can get a bit
> difficult.
Well, "seeking out the 10 %" is going to require *some* amount of time and
effort on your part. Personally, I don't see that much of a difference
between following discussions on rasfw and following discussions on afp but
obviously your mileage may vary.
> Hmm, how useful do people here actually find those first-chapters-
> excerpts? I have to say, it's still very different to me from having the
> book in hand, which I find far more comfortable.
Yes, of course real books are better. But this was proposed in response to
your particular complaint, which was *hardly having access* to real books
at all, remember?
And chapters on the web can be downloaded and printed out, improving their
feel no end (as well as shortening your on-line time).
> Rather more efficient I find the occasional short story the author has
> generously allowed to be put online (or so I hope), or a fan bothering
> with a bit more detailed reviews .... but there you can get lost.
I don't want to sound too exasperated here, but I am beginning to feel a
bit as if you're determined to find a problem for every suggestion being
put forward to help you.
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
isw...@trollinger-fe.rz.chocolateuni-frankfurt.de
<snip, about my complaints>
> I don't want to sound too exasperated here, but I am beginning to feel a
> bit as if you're determined to find a problem for every suggestion being
> put forward to help you.
Sometimes other people have this problem with me as well. <g>. Sorry.
The comments weren't intended as critique, they were (partly) more of
idle ponderings (and maybe drifting away from the main point).
I can see they may sound differently when put beside
someone's suggestions.
I do appreciate your help (and any else offered here), and thanks again
for your suggestions.
David Chapman
news:39605b68...@nntp.onyx.net...
> Have you tried "The Lion of Macedon" & "The Dark Prince" by David
> Gemmel - having found his other books good but very similar, I
> really enjoyed these. BTW does anyone who has read these know how
> they relate to RL history (They're about Alexander the Great for
> those who haven't read them) In particular was Parmenion anything
> like he is portrayed?
If you'd read the forward to Lion of Macedon, you'd know that very little is
actually known about Parmenion. That's why Gemmell picked him as a focus;
he was a major player in the events, yet he could readily be fictionalised.
Sarah S.
>
>
>[spark] Green Rider.
>
>In an attempt to find an answer to question #1 I often drag home
>some new fantasy from my public library, if I can get hand on it (1)
>Which recently left me with Kristen Britain's "Green Rider".
>The quarter or so I read left me irritated once more. I didn't
>like it very much, but had to wonder all the time whether it is
>Ms. Britain's or the translator's fault.
>I'd like to get some opinions on this book, maybe concerning the
>style too, so anyone got some?
>
<chop>
Opps, I wasn't aware that the book was translated, Perhaps I should
have read the "about the author" more carefully.
I read it too, but it was the plot that turned me off. Like you, I
read about a 1/4th of the book. It wasn't anything new.... I skipped
ahead to the ending, (I do that a lot) (1)
and I discovered that it continues along the same theme, hero saves
world, although the ending was slightly original. I won't spoil it
for anyone, that is if you bother to read it, I wouldn't, if you don't
have time to waste on books you really don't like.
whew.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but am not willing to
re-state it all since it's all ready been said so well.
Upon saying that, I wonder why I even bothered to say that bit.
I'll get the hang of this newsgroup jive yet.
Sarah S.
Sarah S.
<kaysh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>If there's anybody on this thread that hasn't seen it, I heartily recommend
>Diana Wynne Jones' _The Tough Guide to Fantasyland_. The more familiar you
>are with the cliches and traditions of modern fantasy, the funnier it gets.
I read it too, terrific. (thank god for SFBC, it really keeps me
ahead)
I just thought I'd share this interesting bit:
A friend at the bookstore told me about a drinking game he can play
with his nerdy SF-loving friends..
but I think they play it with the Robert Jorden series.
the game is, you take a drink every time a chacter does something that
is characterestic to them. (1)
Come to think of it, it is increadibly nerdy.
What would happen to the really fast readers?
(1) they must have been very drunk already to even consider something
this goofy.
Sarah S., who is not old enough to drink ..... legally.....
Sarah S.
Alright, I've just chopped off the whole message line, it was getting
.... extragavent.....
I'm refering to the debate between westerns and fantasy, starwars,
science fiction...
it appears to my simple mind that many stories have those same
elements... good vs bad, little guy helps the big one.... You can see
them, in little ways, in real life, which fiction, even fantasy, often
mirrors in some respect.
Opps, and I think the loyal sidekick in Star Wars was Chewie.
those new Star Wars books, though, really, um, lack..
Sarah S.
isw...@chocolate.amalia-atm.rz.uni-frankfurt.de
> >[spark] Green Rider.
<snip>
> Opps, I wasn't aware that the book was translated, Perhaps I should
> have read the "about the author" more carefully.
Ah, it was the translation from English into German I tried to read, so
it probably needn't bother you <g>.
Thanks for the opinion.
Charles A Lieberman
This thread reminds me...I was looking for GG in the library -- it's in
the YA section for some reason -- and right before Pterry's books were
the Harry Potter books. I looked under D.
--
Charles A. Lieberman Brooklyn, NY, USA
AFP Code 2.0 AGo/Li-US d(--) s: a-- U++>+ R F++ h- P! OS--:- C++ M-
!pp L(+) Ia W- c B Cn CC? PT--->++ Pu78 !5 !X MT++ e+>++ r y+* end
http://calieber.tripod.com/home.html
David Chapman
news:2b28mskh5isil2qn9...@4ax.com...
> [Piggybacking on Orjan Westin]
>
> This thread reminds me...I was looking for GG in the library -- it's in
> the YA section for some reason -- and right before Pterry's books were
> the Harry Potter books. I looked under D.
This may be a silly question, but what were the Harry Potter books doing
under "D"? Did it stand for "drivel", perhaps?
Charles A Lieberman
David Chapman
>> This thread reminds me...I was looking for GG in the library -- it's in
>> the YA section for some reason -- and right before Pterry's books were
>> the Harry Potter books. I looked under D.
>This may be a silly question, but what were the Harry Potter books doing
>under "D"? Did it stand for "drivel", perhaps?
On the assumption that you're serious: I found Potter before Pratchett
when I looked under "P." Whereupon I decided to look for Pratchett under
"D," as in [D]iscworld.
Sarah S.
<anti...@sentinel.globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>And the Scottish Daily Record have reviewed it today, although they
>diligently kept all plot details secret.
>
>BTW, there are apparently going to be *seven* Harry Potter movies released
>annually from 2001-2007.
>
Ok, I finished it this morning, one of the perks of working in a
bookstore is making SURE they save a copy for you...
It was smashing, I truly enjoyed it... I've always liked Harry
Potter... some of the rumors I've heard were true but I'm not saying
which ones or how so. I think what I love about about Harry Potter,
partly, is how Rowling manages to bring the plot together in a
fantastic ending, showing that everything clicks...
it's the same with this book, I just loved the way I puzzled as I read
with harry for 750 pages, to have it dawn on me. "of course! makes
sense!"
at anyrate, she's also set the pace for more, darker novels coming,
perhaps. I'm afraid they might not be suitable to read to children,
but perhaps they will.
Check it out, if you feel like it.
and if anyone dosn't like him, just please don't yell at me...
sarah s.
Stuart Harvie
Sarah S. <Dragon...@netmail.com> wrote in message
news:39681248...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 21:47:36 +0100, "David Chapman"
> <anti...@sentinel.globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >And the Scottish Daily Record have reviewed it today, although they
> >diligently kept all plot details secret.
Did they like it?
> >BTW, there are apparently going to be *seven* Harry Potter movies
released
> >annually from 2001-2007.
Goody goody, as long as they let other directors than Columbus have a go
BTW did you know Robbie coltrane is Gonna be Hagrid? and Maggie Smith as Mc
Gonnagall?
>
> Ok, I finished it this morning, one of the perks of working in a
> bookstore is making SURE they save a copy for you...
You lucky bugger..
> It was smashing, I truly enjoyed it... I've always liked Harry
> Potter... some of the rumors I've heard were true but I'm not saying
> which ones or how so. I think what I love about about Harry Potter,
> partly, is how Rowling manages to bring the plot together in a
> fantastic ending, showing that everything clicks...
> it's the same with this book, I just loved the way I puzzled as I read
> with harry for 750 pages, to have it dawn on me. "of course! makes
> sense!"
> at anyrate, she's also set the pace for more, darker novels coming,
> perhaps. I'm afraid they might not be suitable to read to children,
> but perhaps they will.
Actually, this is the real point of my post, I reckon Kids can take VERY
dark things, as long as there is a real resolution to them, not necessarily
a happy ending, just a resolution of events to show that there is a moral
framework that they can take away and chew over.
EG when I was a kid, mrs Shi - I mean Mrs Whitehouse[1] got all hot and
bothered about Dr Who, in particular a story called Genesis of the Daleks,
which involved: Trench warfare, genetic engineering, treachery, murder,
Genocide, chemical and atomic weapons.
she called it "teatime brutality for tots.." I call it a morality play. I
didnt at the time, I mostly thought it was just top adventure with daleks
in, and pretty horrific warfare, but the bit where the Doctor, given the
oportunity of eradicating an entire race (the daleks) really hit me hard,
and made me think: is that sort of action justified? The story scared me,
showed me people being at their worst and best, and had a moral framework
that is at least arguably solid.
She missed the point completely 'cos all she saw was violence.
I and most other kids at least got the hint that heroism is not necessarily
linked to blowing things up.
Hence, I think that Harry Potter will do fine as he gets darker...the
morality in the books, and the love evidently poured into them will help
kids get through the really scary stuff. There were bits in "Chamber of
secrets" that scared me!
(never been able to deal with spiders...)
> Check it out, if you feel like it.
> and if anyone dosn't like him, just please don't yell at me...
> sarah s.
Certanly will...
Cheers
--
"Fragile as blown glass we are, even under the best of conditions.To kill
each other with gas and electricity,and in cold blood? The folly, the
horror..."
-Stephen King.The Green Mile.
Stu,
Afpfianced to St Mary.
Hur Hur.
Stuart Harvie
news:8k9nl6$d5b$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<snip long post from above...see prev post in thread.....>>>>
Errr, bit embarrassing really, I forgot to clarify [1]
*ahem*
[1] Mary Whitehouse, leader of the National Viewers and Listeners
Association.
A media lobbying group who claimed that tv was too violent/pervy/left wing
etc.
In short, a woman with too much time on her hands...
Charles A Lieberman
Sarah S.
>she's also set the pace for more, darker novels coming,
>perhaps. I'm afraid they might not be suitable to read to children,
Why wouldn't it be? What else does one read to kids?
>Check it out, if you feel like it.
>and if anyone dosn't like him, just please don't yell at me...
I'm still mad about the cross-Atlantic title change in the 1st (?) book,
a topic on which I have ranted here previously.
Mary Messall
> Sarah S. <Dragon...@netmail.com> wrote in message
> news:39681248...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> > >BTW, there are apparently going to be *seven* Harry Potter movies released
> > >annually from 2001-2007.
> Goody goody, as long as they let other directors than Columbus have a go
> BTW did you know Robbie coltrane is Gonna be Hagrid? and Maggie Smith as Mc
> Gonnagall?
Do you think Rowling will actually have the self discipline to stop at
seven books, as she's announced? It would be a terrible temptation.
Just think of it: between now and 2007, the final two Star Wars movies,
Harry Potter on the big screen, all three Lord of the The Rings movies
(which look stunning, from the trailers). I'm not comfortable with my
ghettos going mainstream. Is this fabulous or frightening?
-Mary (Steven Speilberg doing Kubrick's adaption of a Brian Aldiss story
staring Haley Joel Osment...)
AFPSaint Mary
wrote:
[snip]
>Check it out, if you feel like it.
>and if anyone dosn't like him, just please don't yell at me...
Ok Sarah - just read the first couple of chapters of the first Harry
Potter book. First impression? great! Looks like it'll give me the
same sort of pleasure as reading R.Dahl books does. I'll update my
impression for you once I've finished the book, so watch this space :)
Mary.
AFP Saint Mary
AFPfiancee to Stuart Harvie
Now officially his girlfriend in real life - aren't I lucky?
Martyn Clapham
writes
>Stuart Harvie wrote:
>> Sarah S. <Dragon...@netmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:39681248...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
><snip>
>> > >BTW, there are apparently going to be *seven* Harry Potter movies released
>> > >annually from 2001-2007.
>> Goody goody, as long as they let other directors than Columbus have a go
>> BTW did you know Robbie coltrane is Gonna be Hagrid? and Maggie Smith as Mc
>> Gonnagall?
>
>Do you think Rowling will actually have the self discipline to stop at
>seven books, as she's announced? It would be a terrible temptation.
>
>Just think of it: between now and 2007, the final two Star Wars movies,
>Harry Potter on the big screen, all three Lord of the The Rings movies
>(which look stunning, from the trailers). I'm not comfortable with my
>ghettos going mainstream. Is this fabulous or frightening?
Don't worry. If the film-makers try the same tricks with the HP books as
they appear to have tried with DW, you won't recognise them.
Hopefully, JK Rowling will take as much care with her characters as
Pterry does, although I'm not optimistic given the film appears to be
going ahead so quickly.
Mart.
--
Everything you wanted to know about afp, but were afraid to ask, is at
http://www.lspace.org/
My own website is http://www.mclapham.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Having fun on afp since 1996 Afpurity = 49% old test, 37% new test.
imalone
>
> I just thought I'd share this interesting bit:
>
> A friend at the bookstore told me about a drinking game he can play
> with his nerdy SF-loving friends..
> but I think they play it with the Robert Jorden series.
> the game is, you take a drink every time a chacter does something that
> is characterestic to them. (1)
>
> Come to think of it, it is increadibly nerdy.
> What would happen to the really fast readers?
>
<snipped>
I wouldn't worry about them, it'll be a negative feedback loop, kind
of the opposite of that _other_ drinking game, in that _other_ book,
by that _other_ author.
Do I hear any fines? No? Good, I'll bid you good day then.
--
"You have viruses, but I have resistance, and I am alive, and you -
are dead"
Ken MacLeod, The Star Fraction | imalone is a member of LATD/LARD
ABEND due to discovery of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.
Sarah S.
wrote:
>Do you think Rowling will actually have the self discipline to stop at
>seven books, as she's announced? It would be a terrible temptation.
>
>Just think of it: between now and 2007, the final two Star Wars movies,
>Harry Potter on the big screen, all three Lord of the The Rings movies
>(which look stunning, from the trailers). I'm not comfortable with my
>ghettos going mainstream. Is this fabulous or frightening?
>
>-Mary (Steven Speilberg doing Kubrick's adaption of a Brian Aldiss story
>staring Haley Joel Osment...)
well, I can understand why you are not comfortable. For me,
personally, they have been a refuge, i'm sure at least some of you
would say the same...
Will J.K. Rowlings stop? Well, I just read an article where she said
she's had the entire series plotted out since before she started
writing the first book, so I think, yes, she will stop, because she's
merely telling one story.
She said that she was a story teller, and that there was no difference
between (good) stories, whether they be for children or adults. She
said that she'd write any story she felt like, because she writes for
herself.
Interesting views.
Aquarion
interesting thing was Martyn Clapham <mar...@mclapham.demon.co.uk>
informing us that:
>><snip>
>>> > >BTW, there are apparently going to be *seven* Harry Potter movies released
>>> > >annually from 2001-2007.
>>> Goody goody, as long as they let other directors than Columbus have a go
>>> BTW did you know Robbie coltrane is Gonna be Hagrid? and Maggie Smith as Mc
>>> Gonnagall?
>>
>>seven books, as she's announced? It would be a terrible temptation.
>>
>>Just think of it: between now and 2007, the final two Star Wars movies,
>>Harry Potter on the big screen, all three Lord of the The Rings movies
>>(which look stunning, from the trailers). I'm not comfortable with my
>>ghettos going mainstream. Is this fabulous or frightening?
>
>they appear to have tried with DW, you won't recognise them.
>
>Hopefully, JK Rowling will take as much care with her characters as
>Pterry does, although I'm not optimistic given the film appears to be
>going ahead so quickly.
>
>Mart.
The casting director has apparently left, due to the fact that the
director has reject all the (and heres the important part) English
little people recommended for the title role.
Yours in total sincerity,
Aquarion
--
Web: http://www.Aquarionics.com EMail: Aqua...@Aquarionics.Com
AFPiance to Ssirienna * Wise man of Jeh's Court * AFDA Froupie
The mystical divinity of unashamed felinity
Chris Naden
>>>seven books, as she's announced? It would be a terrible temptation.
>>>
advance, and has been writing to a pre-definied 7-year plotline
throughout, I'd have to day, 'Yes.'
>>Hopefully, JK Rowling will take as much care with her characters as
>>Pterry does, although I'm not optimistic given the film appears to be
>>going ahead so quickly.
>>
>>Mart.
>
>The casting director has apparently left, due to the fact that the
>director has reject all the (and heres the important part) English
>little people recommended for the title role.
According to Joanne Rowling in a recent interview in the Times, Stephen
Spielberg (the original director in teh project) has left the project
as a result of JK Rowling's insistence that eh cast and the feel of
the film be british. A new director has been selected, Christopher
Columbus (you heard) who appears not to have a problem with this. Ms
Rowling denys that she had a confrontation or fight with Mr. Spielberg.
SHe intends to continue a very close association with the project.
Personally, I have no take on the possible quality of the film as I do
not have anything lik sufficient data to draw any conclusion.
'ttfn
~cHris (~Kheldar and ~Gwydion in the past)
Oh yes, and I'm back btw.
--
Chris Naden - chris at gwydion dot net
" Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee... "
- Bruno Baldwin
Natalie Mayer
Catrin Alun <catri...@virgin.net> wrote:
>(1) I once tried that with the bible. I didn't get around to reading the
>rest, so...did Eve eat the apple?
No, she did make a nice apple crumble out of it. The snake deemed it not
sinful enough, so he gave her chocolate body paint. Only *then* did Adam
fall.
nattie
--
Natalie Mayer, language geek and cute little chambermaid (?!)
Completely incomplete: http://www.zzumbouk.demon.co.uk/soubrette/
(Feel free to *vom*)
I have no pithy quote at the moment.
Catrin Alun
> I read it too, but it was the plot that turned me off. Like you, I
> read about a 1/4th of the book. It wasn't anything new.... I skipped
> ahead to the ending, (I do that a lot) (1)
> and I discovered that it continues along the same theme, hero saves
> world, although the ending was slightly original. I won't spoil it
> for anyone, that is if you bother to read it, I wouldn't, if you don't
> have time to waste on books you really don't like.
Here - have a footnote. It's on the house :)