Gormenghast: More reasons to read it
Mike McCormick
>From: jako...@sentex.net (Joe Kovacs)
>Subject: Re: Gormenghast: More reasons to read it
>Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 13:09:55 -0400
>No one should read the Gormenghast trilogy, and no one
>should ever recommend that anyone read it. It's a stupid
>destructive exercise and it's empty.
No. Anyone who appreciates outstanding writing, particularly in its use of
the English language. unforgettable visual images, quirky interesting
characters, amazing settings, unusal plot development . . . should definitely
read at least the first two books of the Gormghast trilogy.
I do agree the third book is weak and the trilogy's ending is unsatisfying,
therefore I recommend people either skip the third book (Titus Alone) or at
least be forewarned.
>The author tears the reader apart by building up a scenario
>and then concluding it with an improbable twist, leaving the
>reader unfulfilled and empty. He *means to do that, and he
>does it again and again. Every scenario, every plot line in
>the trilogy is like this etc. on and on and on....
This reader was uplifted, not "torn apart".
>I think that Peake demonstrates insanity.
Funny, I was thinking something similar, but not regarding Mervyn Peake, who
is one of the most gifted writers I have ever come across.
>But normal people should be protected
>from that thing, and it's criminal to recommend it without
>reservations. [comparison of Mervyn Peake to Jeffrey Dahmer snipped]
I really hope your post is some kind of sick joke.
>Years ago, I read the Tolkien trilogy, and twice. I'm a
>reader. Then I went looking for similar books,
>and found the Gormenghast trilogy in the library. It took
>three tries , and I worked through it. I read the last
>paragraph several times. I couldn't believe it. It
>bothered me and, over time, for that I pretty well quit
>reading fiction. I might run into another one of them.
Yes, I agree you should not read any more fiction. This was a wise decision.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike McCormick
mt...@rsvl.unisys.com
m.mcco...@genie.geis.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
While you're out surfing the internet...
I'm back on the beach blowing my little lifeguard whistle.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Samsel
: In article <jJLPwoCK...@sentex.net> jako...@sentex.net (Joe Kovacs) writes:
: >From: jako...@sentex.net (Joe Kovacs)
: >Subject: Re: Gormenghast: More reasons to read it
: >Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 13:09:55 -0400
: >No one should read the Gormenghast trilogy, and no one
: >should ever recommend that anyone read it. It's a stupid
: >destructive exercise and it's empty.
: No. Anyone who appreciates outstanding writing, particularly in its use of
: the English language. unforgettable visual images, quirky interesting
: characters, amazing settings, unusal plot development . . . should definitely
: read at least the first two books of the Gormghast trilogy.
: I do agree the third book is weak and the trilogy's ending is unsatisfying,
: therefore I recommend people either skip the third book (Titus Alone) or at
: least be forewarned.
: >The author tears the reader apart by building up a scenario
: >and then concluding it with an improbable twist, leaving the
: >reader unfulfilled and empty. He *means to do that, and he
: >does it again and again. Every scenario, every plot line in
: >the trilogy is like this etc. on and on and on....
Gee, we could be talking about Stephen R Donaldson here... (;-)
--
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net
"driving a Hudson Hornet on the disinformation triple bypass:
cruising for burgers & garage sales. Hooks baited, lines en-
tangled, roadkill cooked"
John Carey
Funny, I was thinking exactly the same thing. I like both Donaldson and
Peake, but they are writers that turn off a lot of people simply by their
subject matter and / or plot structure. Yes, they drag you through a lot
of very unpleasant emotions; their characters are often unlikable, and
these writers really push their characters harder than almost any body else
in fantasy and science fiction, far beyond their endurance, to the limits
of their sanity.
Well, if you don't enjoy this, I can understand that, but to suggest that
nobody should read it (I wouldn't say that about any book, personally)
simply because you found it disagreeable--well, that's a silly point of view.
Actually, your tirade against Peake suggests to me that the books actually
worked. The fact that you remember the close of Titus Groan (which is a weak,
unfinished book with some interesting ideas) indicates that you read all
three books, and they obviously exerted some power over you to make you so
bitter about them. If I were going to say that you shouldn't read a book (and
I would be loath to do so), I would say it on esthetic grounds--sloppy
writing, poor character development, or simply boring. A book that you dislike
that intensely must have been working on you at some level; you were
uncomfortable with that, but I think it's absurd (and clearly WRONG) for you
to suggest that other people won't enjoy it.
John
Woodhams
>In article <jJLPwoCK...@sentex.net> jako...@sentex.net (Joe Kovacs) writes:
>>No one should read the Gormenghast trilogy, and no one
>>should ever recommend that anyone read it. It's a stupid
>>destructive exercise and it's empty.
>No. Anyone who appreciates outstanding writing, particularly in its use of
>the English language. unforgettable visual images, quirky interesting
Titus Groan and Gormenghast are perhaps my favourite books of all
time. Having said that, even while reading them for the first time, I
could see that many people would loathe them.
I recommend starting to read Titus Groan. If after 1/4 of the book it
seems pointless, give up - you aren't the right type to enjoy it. (But
don't give up earlier - it takes a while to get into it.)
Jim_...@transarc.com
> Titus Groan and Gormenghast are perhaps my favourite books of all
> time. Having said that, even while reading them for the first time, I
> could see that many people would loathe them.
>
> I recommend starting to read Titus Groan. If after 1/4 of the book it
> seems pointless, give up - you aren't the right type to enjoy it. (But
> don't give up earlier - it takes a while to get into it.)
Good advice. Though I'd also add "And if you are now rather young, try
again in 15-20 years." When I tried Titus Groan as a teenager, I
didn't like it. When I tried again in my early thirties, I loved it.
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 338-4442
WWW Homepage: http://www.transarc.com/~jmann/Home.html
Corin Gurr
[criticisms of Gormenghast trilogy deleted]
>Titus Groan and Gormenghast are perhaps my favourite books of all
>time. Having said that, even while reading them for the first time, I
>could see that many people would loathe them.
>I recommend starting to read Titus Groan. If after 1/4 of the book it
>seems pointless, give up - you aren't the right type to enjoy it. (But
>don't give up earlier - it takes a while to get into it.)
A quarter? You did better than me. I had to get nearly half-way
through until it stopped being a struggle. But after that I couldn't
put it down. Amazing stuff, although (following fairly unanimous
advice) I have not read Titus Alone yet - and am still not sure
whether I should or not.
Corin
--
Corin Gurr
Human Communication Research Centre Tel.: +41 31 650 4448
Edinburgh University Email: co...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
Scotland FAX: +41 31 650 4587
ERIC S. ANDERSON
>From: te...@news.infi.net (Ted Samsel)
>Subject: Re: Gormenghast: More reasons to read it
>Mike McCormick (MT...@rsvl.unisys.com) wrote:
>: In article <jJLPwoCK...@sentex.net> jako...@sentex.net (Joe Kovacs) writes:
>: >From: jako...@sentex.net (Joe Kovacs)
>: >Subject: Re: Gormenghast: More reasons to read it
>: >Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 13:09:55 -0400
>
>: >should ever recommend that anyone read it. It's a stupid
>: >destructive exercise and it's empty.
>
>: No. Anyone who appreciates outstanding writing, particularly in its use of
>: the English language. unforgettable visual images, quirky interesting
>: read at least the first two books of the Gormghast trilogy.
>
>: I do agree the third book is weak and the trilogy's ending is unsatisfying,
>: therefore I recommend people either skip the third book (Titus Alone) or at
>: least be forewarned.
>
>: >The author tears the reader apart by building up a scenario
>: >and then concluding it with an improbable twist, leaving the
>: >reader unfulfilled and empty. He *means to do that, and he
>: >does it again and again. Every scenario, every plot line in
>: >the trilogy is like this etc. on and on and on....
>
>Gee, we could be talking about Stephen R Donaldson here... (;-)
>
>--
>Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net
> "driving a Hudson Hornet on the disinformation triple bypass:
> cruising for burgers & garage sales. Hooks baited, lines en-
> tangled, roadkill cooked"
>
studies, and to my, much deligted, suprise folks are discussing the late and
gargantuanly wonderful Mervyn Lawerence Peake. Before my sojourn came to an
end in the Spring session of school, no-one upon these newsgroups seemed to
have heard of Peake. But things seem more enlightened now.
I, for one, greatly enjoyed the Titus books, and I do believe that
every one should read them. And to the question of Peake's sanity? Well,
perhaps he was near the walls of madness, but insanity and genius walk hand
in hand. The books were such a literary triumph, the only thing Peake could
truly be criticized for was dying before he finished the series, and his
love and employment of extreme romanticism.
And, in criticism of the much over-looked third volume, Titus Alone,
remember Peake was in his final stages of life when it was finished. Yet
recently an individual, whose name at this time escapes me, found a more
updated version of Titus Alone in Peake's own hand and combined it with
corrections Peake made on a earlier press draft to release a more complete,
longer, coherent version. So, perhaps you should pick up one of those new
copies from Overlook Press.
As, for the poor misguided soul who said that Peake tore apart his
reading audience by building upon a scene only to let it crumble through a
improbable resolve, let me say this: Not true. Well, not true about
betraying the reader, but he did use improbable resolves periodically; but
remember this was a gothic exercise of romanticism that he was writing. And
I found this exercise to be amongst the greatest works of the English
language. This series left me infinately sad though, first of all because it
had to end, and I knew that I would never read anything that good again. And
secondly because it was the greatest of all themes: mans journey for freedom
from himself, in Titus's case escaping the decadence of ritual.
Unfortunately, I am a very orderly person, following the decadent rituals of
life everyday, therefore the ending saddened me greatly. You can only
criticize Peake for dying, for he denied us his greatness. Can you not see
that. Read Tolkien, believe the lies, live and experience the conformity. I
live in the conformity of ritual, but at least through Peake I found that
out, many of you are living in the ignorance of your own conform. [Forgive
any grammatical or spelling mistakes, but I've been away from a keyboard for
awhile, and I have not overlooked my own writing for needs of time.]
Gwynddydd
>Funny, I was thinking exactly the same thing. I like both Donaldson and
>Peake, but they are writers that turn off a lot of people simply by their
>subject matter and / or plot structure. Yes, they drag you through a lot
>of very unpleasant emotions; their characters are often unlikable, and
>these writers really push their characters harder than almost any body else
>in fantasy and science fiction, far beyond their endurance, to the limits
>of their sanity.
I don't agree with that one. Donaldson might "drag you through a
lot of very unpleasant emotions" as you put it, Peake only writes about it.
In Donaldson's books the reader becomes a participant, in Gormenghast, you
never become more than an observer. Donaldson's caracters "feel" real,
while the same can't be said for Peake. The people Donaldson creates
have real personalities and even when you really hate them, at least you're
feeling something. Peake creates images of people, not real personalities,
rather two dimensional caracters. And the Gormenghast trilogy is probably
one of the most boring stories I've ever read.
There, I've said it, I will now sit back and watch people tear my taste,
caracter and anchestry to pieces ...
It's only my opinion, I wouldn't presume to tell anyone what they should/
shouldn't read.
Gwyn
VSilence
certainly strange, though, and I don't count it as a character flaw if you
don't appreciate it (compared with, say, Pooh, where not liking it is
almost imvariably a grave personality defect).
What I want to know is if anybody but me is convinced that Gormenghast was
the real inspiration for Goldman's _The Princess Bride_. I'd read _The
Princess Bride_ many years (and many times) before I discovered Peake, and
about halfway through _Titus Groan_ an absolute certainty suddenly came
over me that this was the work that Goldman had abridged to him as a
child. Anybody else feel this?
glenn
Emmet O'Brien
>I loved the Gormenghast series (all two amazing books of it).
Well, two and a half, depending on what you think of _Titus Alone_..
> It's certainly strange, though, and I don't count it as a character flaw if
> you don't appreciate it
Hmmm.. that depends. I think Gormenghast is one of those rare books it is
really possible to appreciate without enjoying, if that makes any sense, and
I think I know more people who would appreciate it than would enjoy it.
>What I want to know is if anybody but me is convinced that Gormenghast was
>the real inspiration for Goldman's _The Princess Bride_. I'd read _The
>Princess Bride_ many years (and many times) before I discovered Peake, and
>about halfway through _Titus Groan_ an absolute certainty suddenly came
>over me that this was the work that Goldman had abridged to him as a
>child. Anybody else feel this?
You know, that sounds really plausible..
Emmet
--
Have you change of a penny ?
Ken Moore
s904...@babel.ee.up.ac.za "Gwynddydd" writes:
>In Donaldson's books the reader becomes a participant, [ ... ]
Not this reader.
--
Ken (totally turned off by "The Illearth War" and "The Power that
Preserves") Moore (K...@hpsl.demon.co.uk)
Keith Turner
On 7 Sep 1995, VSilence wrote:
> I loved the Gormenghast series (all two amazing books of it).
There is a third book, but it wasn't complete at the time of Peakes death
and takes place away from the castle. There's alos "Mr. Pye" which is
set on the channel island of Sark, and some books of poetry.
> What I want to know is if anybody but me is convinced that Gormenghast was
> the real inspiration for Goldman's _The Princess Bride_. I'd read _The
> Princess Bride_ many years (and many times) before I discovered Peake, and
> about halfway through _Titus Groan_ an absolute certainty suddenly came
> over me that this was the work that Goldman had abridged to him as a
> child. Anybody else feel this?
>
> glenn
>
>
Not strongly, though there are parallels. A book that was definitely
written in homage to Gormenghast is "Gloriana, or the Unfulfill'd Queen"
by Michael Moorcock.
Graham Head
K...@hpsl.demon.co.uk "Ken Moore" writes:
Nor this one. Donaldson merely evoke mild incredulity that someone who so
mangles the language can get published.
Peake evokes the same intensity and sense of challenge in me that Beckett's
novels do. Well worth it (but best in relatively short bursts)
--
Graham
Lisa Aaronson
[snip]
>What I want to know is if anybody but me is convinced that Gormenghast was
>the real inspiration for Goldman's _The Princess Bride_. I'd read _The
>Princess Bride_ many years (and many times) before I discovered Peake, and
>about halfway through _Titus Groan_ an absolute certainty suddenly came
>over me that this was the work that Goldman had abridged to him as a
>child. Anybody else feel this?
You know, I never thought anyone could ever say anything that'd get me to read
Gormenghast. But I think you just did it. That wasn't very nice.
Lisa (still looking for her Man in Black)
-------------------------------------
I still believe in all my dreams
And all that I can be
I'll learn from mistakes, do all that it takes
To make it eventually
'Cause I still believe in me.
- from the TV show "Fame"
SubGenius
: I don't agree with that one. Donaldson might "drag you through a
: lot of very unpleasant emotions" as you put it, Peake only writes about it.
: In Donaldson's books the reader becomes a participant, in Gormenghast, you
: never become more than an observer. Donaldson's caracters "feel" real,
: while the same can't be said for Peake. The people Donaldson creates
: have real personalities and even when you really hate them, at least you're
: feeling something. Peake creates images of people, not real personalities,
: rather two dimensional caracters. And the Gormenghast trilogy is probably
: one of the most boring stories I've ever read.
+---------------------------------SubG------------------------------------+
On the other hand, Peake is (or was) a fairly inventive and original
writer whereas Donaldson writes formulaic, derivative crap which only
faintly echoes the grandeur of the betters which are its antecedent,
and which does not even have the courtesy to be---like the piles
to which its consistency, composition and the regularity with which it
is produced can best be likened---through and done with in short order.
Yours etc.,
SubGenius
Richard Brisbourne
[snips]
>in Gormenghast, you
>never become more than an observer.
Certainly Mervyn Peake was a very _visual_ writer; he studied and
later taught visual arts and had a parallel career as an illustrator.
I hope the editions of the trilogy everyone is reading have his own
illustrations included. To me one of his strengths was his ability to
colour in every detail of a scene, like a Hieronymous Bosch painting.
[more snips, sorry I don't know Donaldson]
>Peake creates images of people, not real personalities,
>rather two dimensional caracters.
Sure there's an element of caricature (see the illustrations referred
to above). However the main characters (Titus, Fuchsia, Steerpike)
_do_ develop, and tensions between them can engage the readers
interest. A lot of the tensions are unspoken, and the significance
may be different in the context in which the work is set than that of
the reader (ie: the "Will Steerpike screw Fuschia?" stuff in
"Gormenghast). The reader is required to accept/understand what the
world of Gormenghast is all about.
>And the Gormenghast trilogy is probably
>one of the most boring stories I've ever read.
Wash your mouth out with soap :-). And if you _still_ read it to the
end I admire your persistence.
>There, I've said it, I will now sit back and watch people tear my taste,
>caracter and anchestry to pieces ...
>It's only my opinion, I wouldn't presume to tell anyone what they should/
>shouldn't read.
Fair enough!
--
Richard Brisbourne | | |
+--+- -Soar the big sky- +--+- +--+-
Bury, Lancs, UK | | |
Michael Richard
latest of them. The 1st three I enjoyed. People tend to
express their opinion based on his earlier work. Since I am
unfamiliar with them, I don't know how to apply these thoughts
to what I know.
Are they equally despicable or wonderful? This perhaps
is an unanswerable question, if those who don't care for the
Thomas Covenant books have not read the newer books, but I
hope someone from both camps might comment.
veg
Peter Kendell
says...
I've not read the _GAP_ stuff, but I thought THE MIRROR OF HER DREAMS
and A HORSEMAN RIDES THROUGH (?) were a vast improvement on the Covenant
saga. Much tighter, better directed and with (gasp!) traces of a sense
of humour.
Peter
--
<P.Ke...@bra0119.wins.icl.co.uk>
Scott Shepherd
>In article <DEqsy...@oasis.icl.co.uk>, P.Ke...@bra0119.wins.icl.co.uk>More wonderful, but not quite as despicable (the characters, that is).
>Definitely worth the read. The last three books can be awfully slow going
>at times, but Donaldson is one of the only writers I can forgive on that
>account because what he does write is so very good.
>
<snip>
>
>While Mordant's Need reads much faster than the Covenant Books (especially
>the last three) it has less depth. It is more of a mystery story with
>engaging characters and countless plot-twists. Mordant's Need raises some
>very interesting questions -- are other people in control of whom you are?
>is it moral to force other people or beings to pay for the consequences of
>your actions (ie, translate water from a different world because you've
>run out)? -- but unfortunately, the end of the story doesn't measure up to
>the promise of the rest of the book.
>
>
>Maybe I am just spoiled by the Covenant series. White Gold Wielder had the
>most satisfying, profound, ultimate ending of any series I have ever read.
>The ending of Mordant's Need was trite in comparison. The Gap series, on
>the other hand, looks like it has some real promise in that department.
Of course, at the beginning of Mordant's Need, Donaldson makes it pretty clear
that what follows is basically a fairy tale: imprisoned princess rescued by
our hero the prince, so I wasn't really expecting a profound ending.
I thought it was interesting that in _MN_, Donaldson takes the premise of
the Covenant books and turns it on its head: instead of a protagonist that
doesn't believe in the world he's been transported to, we have the opposite
situation - the people of Mordant don't think that Teresa is real.
As for the Gap Series, well, I'm really having a hard time waiting for the
last book....
Scott
hv...@cln.etc.bc.ca
> In article <42vm06$f...@pith.uoregon.edu>, mric...@cie-2.uoregon.edu
> says...
> >
> > I have only read Donaldson's Gap series, and not the
> >latest of them. The 1st three I enjoyed. People tend to
> >express their opinion based on his earlier work. Since I am
> >unfamiliar with them, I don't know how to apply these thoughts
> >to what I know.
> > Are they equally despicable or wonderful? This perhaps
> >is an unanswerable question, if those who don't care for the
> >Thomas Covenant books have not read the newer books, but I
> >hope someone from both camps might comment.
> >
> > veg
> >
More wonderful, but not quite as despicable (the characters, that is).
Definitely worth the read. The last three books can be awfully slow going
at times, but Donaldson is one of the only writers I can forgive on that
account because what he does write is so very good.
> I've not read the _GAP_ stuff, but I thought THE MIRROR OF HER DREAMS
> and A HORSEMAN RIDES THROUGH (?) were a vast improvement on the Covenant
> saga. Much tighter, better directed and with (gasp!) traces of a sense
> of humour.
>
> Peter
While Mordant's Need reads much faster than the Covenant Books (especially
the last three) it has less depth. It is more of a mystery story with
engaging characters and countless plot-twists. Mordant's Need raises some
very interesting questions -- are other people in control of whom you are?
is it moral to force other people or beings to pay for the consequences of
your actions (ie, translate water from a different world because you've
run out)? -- but unfortunately, the end of the story doesn't measure up to
the promise of the rest of the book.
Maybe I am just spoiled by the Covenant series. White Gold Wielder had the
most satisfying, profound, ultimate ending of any series I have ever read.
The ending of Mordant's Need was trite in comparison. The Gap series, on
the other hand, looks like it has some real promise in that department.
David Voth (hv...@clt.etc.bc.ca)
Minuteman
Aaronson) writes:
>In article <hvoth-12099...@dialip164.gov.bc.ca> hv...@cln.etc.bc.ca
>writes:
>>Maybe I am just spoiled by the Covenant series. White Gold Wielder had the
>>most satisfying, profound, ultimate ending of any series I have ever read.
>>The ending of Mordant's Need was trite in comparison. The Gap series, on
>>the other hand, looks like it has some real promise in that department.
>Eek! Ultimate? Are you kidding? (please say you're kidding) The Power That
>Preserves was sewn up 1000% tighter than White Gold Wielder, no? What's the
>Land going to be like with the new Staff? What are Sunder and Hollian's kids
>going to be like? What the hell did Donaldson mean by calling it her wedding
>ring? Is Covenant going to be around in the Land? Ultimate?
I think we will get a chance to find out more about what happened after White
Gold Wielder when Donaldson finishes up with the Gap series. I really tried
to like the Gap books, but after the first one and 1/2 of the second, I was so
thoroughly depressed and alienated by the unlikeable characters in the book
that I quit reading and have no plans to finish the series. I think a lot of
Donaldson fans probably felt the same way. Anyway, I think that Donaldson may
be more willing to return to the Land now that he has been away from it for a
number of years.
Torbj|rn Andersson
[Lines slightly shortened, but otherwise unchanged]
> I think we will get a chance to find out more about what happened
> after White Gold Wielder when Donaldson finishes up with the Gap series.
> I really tried to like the Gap books, but after the first one and 1/2 of
> the second, I was so thoroughly depressed and alienated by the
> unlikeable characters in the book that I quit reading and have no plans
> to finish the series. I think a lot of Donaldson fans probably felt the
> same way.
Pity ... IMHO, the Gap series keep getting better and better as the
story unfolds. If I had stopped halfway through the second book, I
would probably have agreed with you, though. The characters *are*
unlikeable, and the story plods along rather slowly at times. (I
could say this about a lot of Donaldson's books, really, but I still
like them :-).
Personally, I thought both the third and the fourth books were very
good, and I'm eagerly awaiting the fifth one. But your mileage may
vary.
_
Torbjorn Andersson
Dave Platt
>ring?
I think he phrased it this way as a final acknowledgement of the degree
of commitment which had developed between Covenant and Linden Avery.
Although they never formally took marriage vows, they were more
"married" than a lot of folks I've known. And, after all, Covenant
_did_ offer the ring to Linden (on a couple of occasions), and she did
finally accept it as her own.
To me, the real "kicker" in this scene is the very fact that she _had_
the ring in her hand. She had been holding it when she faded out in
Kiril Threndor, and still had it when she awoke in the "real" world.
She couldn't simply have taken the ring off of Covenant's dead body,
sprawled over by the fire - there was no opportunity (in the scene as
written) for her to have done so. The ring could only have come with
her, back from The Land.
This is the first time, in the entire double trilogy, in which there is
unambiguous _physical_ evidence that The Land is actually real. In
every other case, the results of peoples' time in The Land (as seen in
the "real world") were either psychological/spiritual (major personality
changes), or could have been coincidental (Covenant's recovery from
antivenin allergic shock at the end of The Power That Preserves).
At the end of TPtP, the Creator offered to prove to Covenant that his
experiences in The Land had been real. Covenant refused, saying "I
couldn't bear it" - he still needed that ambiguity (was it / wasn't it)
in order to bear the moral weight of the evil things that he had done.
Both he, and we, were left wondering whether The Land was simply
something he imagined.
[I understand that a desire to preserve this degree of ambuguity was the
reason that Donaldson decided to omit a chapter from The Illearth War,
which told the story of the Lord's journey towards Seareach from the
point of view of one of the Lords (or a Bloodguard - I forget which).]
Avery was "cleaner" in that respect, and perhaps fundamentally stronger.
She had not done evil in The Land. She had developed/regained the
strength of personality to accept that what had happened was real, that
her love for Covenant was real, that her _loss_ of him was real, and
still go on with her life as a healthier person than she was before. In
fact, given the way her character was written, I think it was probably
_necessary_ for her own health that she know that The Land and her
accomplishments there were real... this knowledge was what would
validate and confirm her breaking free from the depression and dispair
which had dogged her life.
Having the ring come back in her hand was, I think, the Creator's way of
proving this to her, and saying "Thank you" as well.
--
Dave Platt dpl...@3do.com
USNAIL: The 3DO Company, Systems Software group
600 Galveston Drive
Redwood City, CA 94063
Lisa Aaronson
>Maybe I am just spoiled by the Covenant series. White Gold Wielder had the
>most satisfying, profound, ultimate ending of any series I have ever read.
>The ending of Mordant's Need was trite in comparison. The Gap series, on
>the other hand, looks like it has some real promise in that department.
Eek! Ultimate? Are you kidding? (please say you're kidding) The Power That
Preserves was sewn up 1000% tighter than White Gold Wielder, no? What's the
Land going to be like with the new Staff? What are Sunder and Hollian's kids
going to be like? What the hell did Donaldson mean by calling it her wedding
ring? Is Covenant going to be around in the Land? Ultimate?
Lisa
Peter Hunt
|>I thought it was interesting that in _MN_, Donaldson takes the premise of
|>the Covenant books and turns it on its head: instead of a protagonist that
|>doesn't believe in the world he's been transported to, we have the opposite
|>situation - the people of Mordant don't think that Teresa is real.
Furthermore, the protagonist herself has doubts of her own existence, which
adds an interesting twist. The plot twists again when the person in Mordant
who reinformces her feeling of reality, himself doesn't believe she's real
(and I'm not talking about Geraden).
|>As for the Gap Series, well, I'm really having a hard time waiting for the
|>last book....
Neither can I. It gnaws at me to know that the book's been written, it exists,
it can be read. But we have to wait for it to be edited and published. I've
no doubt the editing and revision is necessary, but I'd pay real money to
read the typescript as it stands ...
--
Peter Hunt (hu...@ozy.dec.com) | On the Internet,
Networks Engineering (Aust) | nobody knows you're nude.
Digital Equipment Corporation |
Emmet O'Brien
>I wonder if he will return to The Land. I can't imagine what the next
>series would be like. Covenant is gone. Who would the story be about?
Linden ? I think she could be pregnant at the end of _WGW_, which is a
possible hook for continuation..
>I, for one, would love some pre-Covenant Land books. The stories of the
>original lords, the fall of Kevin, etc.
Donaldson has said quite firmly that he doesn't have any interest in doing
prequels.
Emmet
--
He's dead, Jim. Ensign Dahmer, what _are_ you doing ?
Jim_...@transarc.com
> In article <lisa.50....@interport.net> li...@interport.net (Lisa
> Gold Wielder when Donaldson finishes up with the Gap series. I really tried
> o
> thoroughly depressed and alienated by the unlikeable characters in the book
> that I quit reading and have no plans to finish the series.
I was also depressed and alienated by the characters. But that is part
of the point of the Gap books. Much of SF contains characters that SF
readers can relate to, characters that act like many readers like to
think they would--thinking their way through things, solving problems
via logic and skill. These typical SF characters are "deep" in that
they use their minds (though often not "deep" in the sense of well
developed or believable). Donaldson's characters, on the other
hand. live on the surface. They don't think; they react. They are
driven by anger, terror, or other emotions. Angus Thermopyle is sort
of the anti-Kimball Kinnison. I have very much liked what Donaldson's
is doing here (even if it has made me more uncomfortable than just
about any books I've ever read) and I'm looking forward to the final
book.
ERIC S. ANDERSON
>From: li...@interport.net (Lisa Aaronson)
>Subject: Re: Gormenghast / The Princess Bride
>Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 20:41:41
>In article <42n8sg$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> vsil...@aol.com (VSilence)
>writes:
>
>[snip]
>
>>What I want to know is if anybody but me is convinced that Gormenghast was
>>the real inspiration for Goldman's _The Princess Bride_. I'd read _The
>>Princess Bride_ many years (and many times) before I discovered Peake, and
>>about halfway through _Titus Groan_ an absolute certainty suddenly came
>>over me that this was the work that Goldman had abridged to him as a
>>child. Anybody else feel this?
>
>You know, I never thought anyone could ever say anything that'd get me to read
>Gormenghast. But I think you just did it. That wasn't very nice.
>
>Lisa (still looking for her Man in Black)
>
>I still believe in all my dreams
>And all that I can be
>I'll learn from mistakes, do all that it takes
>To make it eventually
>'Cause I still believe in me.
> - from the TV show "Fame"
Gormenghast?
hv...@cln.etc.bc.ca
desp...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Minuteman) wrote:
> In article <lisa.50....@interport.net> li...@interport.net (Lisa
> Aaronson) writes:
>
> >In article <hvoth-12099...@dialip164.gov.bc.ca> hv...@cln.etc.bc.ca
> >writes:
>
> >>Maybe I am just spoiled by the Covenant series. White Gold Wielder had the
> >>most satisfying, profound, ultimate ending of any series I have ever read.
> >>The ending of Mordant's Need was trite in comparison. The Gap series, on
> >>the other hand, looks like it has some real promise in that department.
>
> >Eek! Ultimate? Are you kidding? (please say you're kidding) The
Power That
> >Preserves was sewn up 1000% tighter than White Gold Wielder, no? What's the
> >Land going to be like with the new Staff? What are Sunder and
Hollian's kids
> >going to be like? What the hell did Donaldson mean by calling it her
wedding
> >ring? Is Covenant going to be around in the Land? Ultimate?
>
'Fraid I'm not kidding. If you are talking about whether the story
Donaldson created was so real that it seemed like it could go onward even
after you read the last page, then I wouldn't call that a flaw, but rather
an endorsement of his ability to draw his readers into his world.
However, these 'loose ends' aren't what I am talking about anyway. I'm
referring to how neatly Donaldson tied together the themes of his books in
the final chapters. One of these themes (among many) was sacrifice -- how
life has meaning when you believe in something so strongly that you are
willing to give up your life for it. Another paradox, just like the White
Gold, which Covenant found to be true.
But even that was not the most interesting theme. What made the ending of
the story so very satisfying was that Donaldson did not resort to trickery
or circumstances to have Foul defeated for the obligatory happy ending.
Rather, he allowed Foul to defeat himself -- the seeds of defeat must lie
within a character for him to be truly evil, or else he would not be evil
at all (just on the other side.)
Are you inferring that The Power that Preserves *did* have an ultimate
ending while White Gold Wielder didn't? Hmmm. By your definition, it
couldn't have because another book came afterward!
David Voth (hv...@cln.etc.bc.ca)
Gwynddydd
Ken Moore <K...@hpsl.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <s9046569....@babel.ee.up.ac.za>
> s904...@babel.ee.up.ac.za "Gwynddydd" writes:
>>In Donaldson's books the reader becomes a participant, [ ... ]
>Not this reader.
>--
>Ken (totally turned off by "The Illearth War" and "The Power that
>Preserves") Moore (K...@hpsl.demon.co.uk)
*grin* oh well, life would be really boring if we all agreed on things like
this. Say, which fantasy/SF books would qualify as worthwhile in your
opinion?
Gwyn (who will never stop being a Donaldson fan ...)
Peter Hunt
|>I think we will get a chance to find out more about what happened after White
|>Gold Wielder when Donaldson finishes up with the Gap series.
I have mixed feelings about a third Land series. While there's a lot of
unexplored implications of the last few pages of White Gold Wielder, the
conflict between Foul and Covenant has been resolved.
Donaldson has said that he may return to the Land, but the more he feels
pressured to do so, the less likely it is that he will. I'd like to think
from this that he'll only write another Land series if there's something
more to to be told, rather than just to return to a popular series. But
I still have qualms; the story has ended, IMHO.
Of course, if he does write another TC series, I'll buy it on sight :->.
Benedict Walmisley
dm...@columbia.edu "D. Riedy" writes:
> I wonder if he will return to The Land. I can't imagine what the next
> series would be like. Covenant is gone. Who would the story be about?
> I, for one, would love some pre-Covenant Land books. The stories of the
> original lords, the fall of Kevin, etc.
He could easily produce books titled like <The Adventures of Lord Mhoram> and
we would all happily lap them up. I like the Land books BUT the biggest problem
was ... Thomas Covenant... There is just SOOO much material in those books. You
could cheerfully have one or more books on:
The Giants coming to the Land
The forming of those chest things...
The Haruchai.
etc
Hmmm, looks like a zillion books in the Lord Kelvin trilogy doesn't it?
--
Benedict Walmisley
Roy Navarre
<very good post deleted>
I really enjoyed your post Dave. You had lots of good points and
insights. Furthermore you obviously picked up on the complexities
of Covenant and the series. I'm afraid most of this type of insight
just flys over the head of the Anti-Donaldson crowd. I fully accept
the opinions of those who have trouble with the series for stylistic
reasons. I disagree but see the merit of their objections. The
clueless dismissing the series as shallow or refusing to read past
the rape....now they get my goat. I guess I have a low tolerance
for willful ignorance.
Once again, great analysis.
Roy
A^3
: In article <lisa.50....@interport.net> li...@interport.net (Lisa
: Aaronson) writes:
: >In article <hvoth-12099...@dialip164.gov.bc.ca> hv...@cln.etc.bc.ca
: >writes:
: >>Maybe I am just spoiled by the Covenant series. White Gold Wielder had the
: >>most satisfying, profound, ultimate ending of any series I have ever read.
: >>The ending of Mordant's Need was trite in comparison. The Gap series, on
: >>the other hand, looks like it has some real promise in that department.
: >Eek! Ultimate? Are you kidding? (please say you're kidding) The Power That
: >Preserves was sewn up 1000% tighter than White Gold Wielder, no? What's the
: >Land going to be like with the new Staff? What are Sunder and Hollian's kids
: >going to be like? What the hell did Donaldson mean by calling it her wedding
: >ring? Is Covenant going to be around in the Land? Ultimate?
: I think we will get a chance to find out more about what happened after White
: Gold Wielder when Donaldson finishes up with the Gap series. I really tried
: to like the Gap books, but after the first one and 1/2 of the second, I was so
: thoroughly depressed and alienated by the unlikeable characters in the book
: that I quit reading and have no plans to finish the series. I think a lot of
: Donaldson fans probably felt the same way. Anyway, I think that Donaldson may
: be more willing to return to the Land now that he has been away from it for a
: number of years.
Maybe, maybe not. He does have an idea on how to write a followup,
but he amy not do it. I quote from an interview with him in 1991:
That obviously begs the question: Are you going to write The
Third Chronicles?
I don't know if I'm going to write it or not. I am a naturally
born stubborn person ad the more people push me to write it the
less likely I am to do it. I want to be able to make my writing
decisions from conviction and strength, not from pressure and
need. If my writing career collapses and the only way I can feed
my children is by writing Covenant books then I will go become a
plumber because I do not want to write on that basis. I have a
very pure idea of what story-telling is about, and I want to
preserve that. For me, whenever I am going to start a new pro-
ject the main question is: would I write the same story if I
could never find a publisher? If the answer is yes then I write
it. If the answer is that I am writing it because they want to
publish it then I don't write it.
--
TTFN, A^3 ***************E-mail*a...@dcs.st-and.ac.uk*****************
***Mundus Vult Decipi****S-mail*45 Fife Park, St Andrews KY16 9UE****
****************************Tel*+44-1334-463268***+44-589-464141*****
********Home Page: <http://www-theory.cs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaa/>*********
Keith Turner
On 13 Sep 1995, ERIC S. ANDERSON wrote:
> Behind Peake,
> Michael Moorcock is my favorite authour, and yes, I have read "Gloriana, or
> the Unfulfill'd Queene, A Romance". And it is well known that Peake is
> Moorcock's favorite, or rather was, contemporary authour. And "Gloriana" was
> a homage to him, in the grand Peake style. But since I find it odd that you
> have read two of my three favorites, Peake and Moorcock, I must ask, have
> you read any Harlan Ellison as well?
>
At one point I had most of the Pyramid books he published in the '70's.
The Glass Teat books are great bits of political and cultural writing,
better than anything that Hunter Thompson wrote (but not as amusing)
Have you read Moorcock's "Letters From Hollywood" book (That may only be
an aproximation of the title) It began as letters written to JG Ballard
when Moorcock was writing a script in LA. He describes being a
houseguest of Ellison's at his very strange mansion.
There's another tribute (actually closer to steal) in Moorcock of Peake.
In the Dancers at the end of time books, Jherek Carnelian's friend
Morgrave (SP?) is an echo of Titus's depressed friend in Titus Alone.
Keith Turner
> >
William D. Moore
wrote:
> Hey, there are numerous ways in which Covenant could play a role.
> He could be resurrected for one. He is the white gold after all.
> He never was bound by the same laws as everyone else. (natural
> laws, not moral laws). His body may have passed on but his mind
> certainly didnt. The dead played a big role in the second trilogy,
> so why couldnt they play an even bigger one in the third? Kevin
> has established a precident after all. You dont think the earth is
> so grateful to Covenant that it doesnt have the power to resurrect
> him? Earthpower incarnate? The Elohim? To atone for their big mistake
> and moral wrong against Covenant? Surely they would be eager to make
> amends. Lord Foul keeps being reborn, why couldn't Covenant?
> Furthermore, I've always suspected that Covenant is the reincarnation
> of Berek Halfhand. The parallels are unmistakable.
> The story could also explore the early lords--Berek (ie Covenant).
> We could finally see how it all began. That would be a fascinating
> story!
>
Personally I think that Covenant should only play a secondary role in any
possible third trilogy. He's gone through his personal crisis and has
attained his final resolution. IMHO resurrecting him from the dead would
cheapen everything that happened in the second trilogy. Linden will probably
be the main focus of the books.
One thing I *would* like to see in a new trilogy is exploration of a group
that we've heard about but never seen: the Demondim. They created the
ur-viles and the Waynhim, so they must be pretty powerful. I've always
pictured them as dark mirror images of the Elohim.
> > Donaldson has said quite firmly that he doesn't have any interest in doing
> > prequels.
>
> Perhaps he'll change his mind.
>
No way. I've seen a couple of interviews with him. He's stated without a
doubt that he would do no stories about Berek or Kevin. Any such stories
would ruin
the ambiguity concerning the Land's reality that runs through both trilogies,
and that's something he doesn't want to do. And believe me, he seems like
quite the stubborn individual. He's even openly stated that the more fans
and publishing companies press him for a new Covenant series the less he wants
to do one.
--
[*] William D. Moore "Spoon!!! SPOOOOOOOON!!!!" [*]
[*] Systems Analyst [*]
[*] 734 LRDC [*]
[*] University of Pittsburgh - The Tick [*]
Ken Moore
s904...@babel.ee.up.ac.za "Gwynddydd" writes:
>*grin* oh well, life would be really boring if we all agreed on things like
>this.
Indeed.
>Say, which fantasy/SF books would qualify as worthwhile in your
>opinion?
Well, "worthwhile" is not a word I use much for books, but my favourite
SF & fantasy authors are Card, Vance, Niven, both with and without
Pournelle, Octavia Butler, Leguin, Tolkien, Asimov, Clarke, Walter
Miller Jr, Blish, Jonathan Swift, Wells, Kipling and Lewis Carroll.
Of many of these I own too many volumes to put them in a pecking order.
I wouldn't suggest that Donaldson's books are not worthwhile. They
make him money and give pleasure to lots of people.
--
Ken Moore (K...@hpsl.demon.co.uk)
D. Riedy
> Personally I think that Covenant should only play a secondary role in any
> possible third trilogy. He's gone through his personal crisis and has
> attained his final resolution. IMHO resurrecting him from the dead would
> cheapen everything that happened in the second trilogy. Linden will probably
> be the main focus of the books.
I completely agree with your thoughts on Covenant. However, I don't
think that Linden will be the main focus for the next books. I think
she'll be a character, perhaps.
> One thing I *would* like to see in a new trilogy is exploration of a group
> that we've heard about but never seen: the Demondim. They created the
> ur-viles and the Waynhim, so they must be pretty powerful. I've always
> pictured them as dark mirror images of the Elohim.
I think this is probably the more likely subject of the new books: from a
completely different perspective, be it a different race, perhaps in a
few more hundred years. Question is, will he be tired with the split
world idea, or will he need another person from the "real" world? (In
that case, maybe I'm wrong and he will use Linden.)
> No way. I've seen a couple of interviews with him. He's stated without a
> doubt that he would do no stories about Berek or Kevin. Any such stories
> would ruin
> the ambiguity concerning the Land's reality that runs through both trilogies,
> and that's something he doesn't want to do. And believe me, he seems like
> quite the stubborn individual. He's even openly stated that the more fans
> and publishing companies press him for a new Covenant series the less he wants
> to do one.
Sounds like he'd want to keep the ambiguity for the next series as well
which requires a "real" person.
So:
Linden? or someone new?
and then
When in time -- immediately following the second series? or years ahead
in time?
(I vote for the years ahead in time. Give the Land some time to heal a
bit, then hit it with some more evil.)
dave
^^^^
Emmet O'Brien
> I have only read Donaldson's Gap series, and not the
>latest of them. The 1st three I enjoyed. People tend to
>express their opinion based on his earlier work. Since I am
>unfamiliar with them, I don't know how to apply these thoughts
>to what I know.
Gap books, and certainly by comparison with the first few Gap books the
first Covenant trilogy takes a lot longer to get the significant issues
set up.. most of the first book is set up, with a quest fitted around it,
IMHO.
The Mordant books are quite a bit lighter, though equally complex and
intriguing.. I don't like them as much, they're enthralling first time
through but not something I would go back to again and again.
Emmet
--
culture media for a media culture.
Neil McGann
In the beginning Tolkein wrote Lord of the Rings, this book was of
such quality that it both _defined_ and _completed_ the fantasy genre.
Now, this is a deliberately contentious statement, but how many times
have the dread words ".... equalling Tolkein's best ....." (etc. ad.
nauseum) appeared on the back cover of a fantasy novel? Needless to
say the book in question is not up to Tolkein standard and invariably
parades a similar, but sub-standard, cast of characters and
situations.
The accompanying fantasy curses appear to be book-bloat and the
trilogy (or more). Every author seems to be vying to produce an even
fatter book and to stretch their plot over ever more thick volumes.
The natural result of this is that any original ideas are spread
really thinly, one good book has become three mediocre books.
Personally I mostly only read "Hard" science fiction these days (not
immune to bloat and trilogies itself) since only this seems to retain
the capacity to surprise.
What does everyone else think? (duck and grin at this point!)
Neil
[PS: So you can categorise me, Favourite authors: Ian M Banks, William
Gibson, Larry Niven (but not recently), Orson Scott Card, Roger
Zelazny]
--
Neil McGann
webste...@bbcnc.org.uk
Frank Scrooby
McGann) wrote:
> My Assertion: Fantasy is dead, it just won't lie down.
>
> In the beginning Tolkein wrote Lord of the Rings, this book was of
> such quality that it both _defined_ and _completed_ the fantasy genre.
I think it would be unfair to say Tolkien COMPLETED the fantasy genre. He
certainly perfected the technique of portraying his story as a real history with
real cultures. No one can seriously hope to equal Tolkien because no one has
even tried. I've never seen another 'Mythology' so complete or enormous. There
has been some orginal work done since then. Please note I said SOME. The flood
of TSR spin off novels in the last few years have made me plain sick. Thats PULP
fantasy. _GRUNTS_ by I forget who (Mary somebody I think) was highly orginal but
extremely disappointing. Eddings' Balgariad while not terribly orginal was well
written and interesting. Tolkien could not have produced these works. They're
different aspects of fantasy (crude comedy and person orientated as opposed to a
Mythology.)
> Now, this is a deliberately contentious statement, but how many times
> have the dread words ".... equalling Tolkein's best ....." (etc. ad.
> nauseum) appeared on the back cover of a fantasy novel? Needless to
> say the book in question is not up to Tolkein standard and invariably
> parades a similar, but sub-standard, cast of characters and
> situations.
Most often this is true.
> The accompanying fantasy curses appear to be book-bloat and the
> trilogy (or more). Every author seems to be vying to produce an even
> fatter book and to stretch their plot over ever more thick volumes.
> The natural result of this is that any original ideas are spread
> really thinly, one good book has become three mediocre books.
The above meantioned Mr Eddings is particularly guilty of this. There was no
need for second series of the Belgariad. It was second rate compared to the
first and really spoilt some of the characters for me.
> Personally I mostly only read "Hard" science fiction these days (not
> immune to bloat and trilogies itself) since only this seems to retain
> the capacity to surprise.
Sorry I've gotten all my surprises out of 'hard' sci-fi. The only remarkable
works (to me) in resent years have been the _Neuromancer_ trilogy and _Red
Mars_. Everything else well ... yawn.. been there, seen it, got the paperback.
> What does everyone else think? (duck and grin at this point!)
To a large extent too many people have been allowed into writing fantasy and
sci-fi. As readers with something approaching taste we should refuse to buy the
crap, read the crap and talk about the crap. Perhaps they'll get the message? If
we can convince the talented authors to keep writing (by buying and reading
their books and sending them encounraging E-mail) we might convince the
publishers to stop backing these miserable imitators and start supporting the
real authors.
> [PS: So you can categorise me, Favourite authors: Ian M Banks, William
> Gibson, Larry Niven (but not recently), Orson Scott Card, Roger
> Zelazny]
Gibson yes! Larry Niven ? I don't think so..., rather you than me.... Category?
Let me think ....
FrankS - aspirant author nowhere near publishing yet....
David Wren-Hardin
Neil McGann <webste...@bbcnc.org.uk> wrote:
>My Assertion: Fantasy is dead, it just won't lie down.
>
>In the beginning Tolkein wrote Lord of the Rings, this book was of
>such quality that it both _defined_ and _completed_ the fantasy genre.
>
I disagree that fantasy is dead. Remember, 90% of everything is
crap (to paraphrase and probably misquote). There _is_ a lot of
good fantasy out there, as good or better than Tolkien in some
respects. Kay and Brust spring immediatly to mind.
>
>
>Personally I mostly only read "Hard" science fiction these days (not
>immune to bloat and trilogies itself) since only this seems to retain
>the capacity to surprise.
>
>[PS: So you can categorise me, Favourite authors: Ian M Banks, William
>Gibson, Larry Niven (but not recently), Orson Scott Card, Roger
>Zelazny]
Huh. Do you define all of these as Hard-SF ? About the only
one I'd catagorize that way is Niven. And Card would be another
example of an excellent fantasy writer.
--
David Wren-Hardin | Support Darwinian evolution --
bd...@quads.uchicago.edu | Squash a weakling today.
da...@data.uchicago.edu |
http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/bdh4/
Aaron Bergman
:My Assertion: Fantasy is dead, it just won't lie down.
:
:In the beginning Tolkein wrote Lord of the Rings, this book was of
:such quality that it both _defined_ and _completed_ the fantasy genre.
Oh god no.
:
:Now, this is a deliberately contentious statement, but how many times
:have the dread words ".... equalling Tolkein's best ....." (etc. ad.
:nauseum) appeared on the back cover of a fantasy novel? Needless to
:say the book in question is not up to Tolkein standard and invariably
:parades a similar, but sub-standard, cast of characters and
:situations.
A lot of the mass-market stuff does, but there is good stuff out there....
:
:The accompanying fantasy curses appear to be book-bloat and the
:trilogy (or more). Every author seems to be vying to produce an even
:fatter book and to stretch their plot over ever more thick volumes.
:The natural result of this is that any original ideas are spread
:really thinly, one good book has become three mediocre books.
Not necessarily. I think somethings do very well in a series. Take
Foundation, for example. If you want stuff in the Fantasy genre, try
Patricia McKillip's Riddle-Master of Hed series. I'll also mention Jordan
with the caveat that a large number of people disagree with me.
:
:Personally I mostly only read "Hard" science fiction these days (not
:immune to bloat and trilogies itself) since only this seems to retain
:the capacity to surprise.
:
:What does everyone else think? (duck and grin at this point!)
OK. Some non-Tolkien fantasy.
Patricia McKillip
Teresa Edgarton
Barbara Hambly
Guy Gavriel Kay
Louise Cooper
That's just from glancing at the bookshelf next to me. And not an elf to
be seen anywhere.
Aaron
--------
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://minerva.cis.yale.edu/~abergman/abergman.html>
--A flag burning amendment would burn the flag--
Melissa Jan
: In article <43rmub$2...@auntie.bbcnc.org.uk>, webste...@bbcnc.org.uk (Neil
: McGann) wrote:
: > My Assertion: Fantasy is dead, it just won't lie down.
: >
: > In the beginning Tolkein wrote Lord of the Rings, this book was of
: > such quality that it both _defined_ and _completed_ the fantasy genre.
:I think it would be unfair to say Tolkien COMPLETED the fantasy genre. He
:certainly perfected the technq of portraying his story as a real history with
:real cultures. No one can seriously hope to equal Tolkien because no one has
:even tried. I've never seen another 'Mythology' so complete or enormous. There
:has been some orginal work done since then. Please note I said SOME. The flood
[complaints about TSR books and Eddings]
:Tolkien could not have produced these works. They're different aspects
:of fantasy(crude comedy and person orientated as opposed to a Mythology.)
OK, I'll take up the gauntlet.
I maostly agree with Frank's comments that no one else has written
anything like Tolkien's Middle Earth, fantasy fiction presented as
*history*, although quite a few have tried. But those books are
generally pretty boring, predictable hacks, which is why fantasy
which heads off in new directions is quite a welcome relief.
I also agree with the endless TSR spinoffs gripe, but you can read
my opinions of that under the subject of "New TSR dark elf book"
Now to cite some examples of quality (IMHO) fantasy. If you've
read these, do come and argue with me some more...
1) Mary Stewart: (Merlin Trilogy) _The Crystal Caves_, _The Hollow
Hills_, and _The Last Enchantment_, also _The Wicked Day_
IMHO, the best fantasy series out there. I back up this claim
by arguing that Stewart is the absolute best writer of modern
fiction--she has an immense background in the "classical
literature" which gives her writing a depth and complexity
really not found anywhere else but with absolute readability
to a modern person. Some passages are so beautiful that I
have them memorized. As a second supporting claim, I've
possessed those four books for about the past decade, re-
read them once or usually twice+ per year, and am still
utterly enthralled (usually to the point of not even
being aware that I'm reading--I'm that far gone from the
world--unless I particularly stop to savor the wording of
some passage).
2) Tad Williams: (Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn) _The Dragonbone
Chair_, _The Stone of Farewell_, and _To Green Angel Tower_
I've heard mixed opinions of this series on the group, but
I recommend it b/c Williams is again a very impressive
writer, who has come up with some very fascinating characters,
and a consistent and coherent story line with a most unex-
pected twist at the end. Some folks seem to find that his
books really drag in places; I found a few slow-downs, but
nothing so severe as to impair my overall enjoyment.
3) Ursula K LeGuin: (Earthsea series) _A Wizard of Earthsea_,
_The Tombs of Atuan_, _The Farthest Shore_ and _Tehanu_.
Again high literary quality (notice a trend here?). Also
a very fascinating world and compelling main character.
One of my favorite scenes is when Sparrowhawk (main char)
puts a geis on a bad-guy that "You will not speak again
until you have found something worth saying."
4) C. J. Cherryh: _Fortress in the Eye of Time_, _The Goblin
Mirror_, _The Dreamstone_, _ The Tree of Swords and Jewels_,
etc. Some truly unique situations and characters. Also
I quite enjoy Cherryh's writing style, which some folks find
very confusing, though I'll admit it was an acquired taste
(I'll typically read a sentence, ponder it, re-read it,
ponder some more, then move on). I once compared LeGuin's
writing style to being held under water for hours on end,
Cherryh's is similar, but not quite the same (maybe being
held under in a tub of vodka?).
5) Parke Godwin: _Firelord_, _Beloved Exile_, _Rainbow's End_,
_Sherwood_, and _Robin and the King_. Once again, excellent
writing, good plots, and some of the most realistic and
compelling characters out there. Godwin's one of the most
amazingly versatile writers of whom I know as well-- check
out his sf _Waiting for the Galactic Bus_ and _The Snake
Oil Wars_ for a great read.
6) Terry Brooks: Shannara series. OK, I'll admit the 2nd
Shannara series got rather wavery at times (and wow did
Brooks make a blooper at the very end of it!), but his
very first book _The Sword of Shannara_ is utterly charming
and his second _The Elfstones of Shannara_ is among the
best. Plot problems and occasional character lapses aside,
Brooks' writing ability is second only to Stewart's in
being able to completely draw one into his books. Also,
while _Magic Kingdom for Sale_ was again quite charming,
the later books of that series are most definately a case
of publisher's making $$$ (as I will gripe about below).
7) Robin McKinley: _The Door in the Hedge_, _Beauty_, _Deerskin_,
_The Hero and the Crown_, and _The Blue Sword_. The first
three are retellings of classic fairy tales (considerably
improving them I might add!) and _Deerskin_ is one of the
most absorbing books I've read--leaves you feeling sorta
turned inside-out at the end. The last two are set in
McKinley's own fantasy world; THATC is excellent while
TBS is rather weaker.
8) Orson Scott Card: Alvin Maker series _Seventh Son_, _Red
Prophet_, _Prentice Alvin_, _Alvin Journeyman_, so far
Great books. Love the alternate history/fantasy America
concept. Gotta get the money to buy AJ. <sigh>
9) Eve Forward: _Villains by Necessity_ Her first solo book
in the fantasy category (last name not a coincidence, she's
the daughter of hard sf writer Robert Forward). While I
found her writing to be weaker than the above mentioned,
it did take the unique stance of telling the story from the
bad guys' point of view and of having them win! Also, there's
an immense amount of subtle mockery of the "usual" fantasy
story present (you have to be quite well read to get a lot
of it-- a few not so subtle make fun of Tolkien!) and it
contains such great lines as "People usually don't trust an
assassin to make breakfast." Lots 'o fun.
10)Robert Jordan: Wheel of Time. Yep, I'm a fan and no listing
of fantasy would be complete with him. I will admit that
I've found his books to be juvenile on occasion and he has
tangled himself up more than once, but I still have to admire
the scope and depth of his world-- frankly, I think he's
gone beyond Tolkien in that aspect. I'll withhold a final
opinion until he finishes the series, but I've liked it so
far. (This is probably one of the people about whom you
are complaining, yes?)
BTW, I think 'most any of the above beat Tolkien hands down...
(Respond as you will :) )
: > Now, this is a deliberately contentious statement, but how many times
: > have the dread words ".... equalling Tolkein's best ....." (etc. ad.
: > nauseum) appeared on the back cover of a fantasy novel? Needless to
I think this is the case b/c publishers are for the most part, IMHO,
quite dumb, ie, their main goal is not to produce high quality
works, but to make $$$$$. Since Tolkien is quite well known, even
outside of the general run of fantasy-fandom, the quote is there
to get people to buy. That Tolkien citation usually makes me less
likely to get the book, however.
: > The accompanying fantasy curses appear to be book-bloat and the
: > trilogy (or more). Every author seems to be vying to produce an even
[Frank cites Eddings as example]
Again, the comment of publishers out to make $$$ applies. But then,
didn't the same thing happen to Tolkien as well-- what about _The
Shillmarillion_ (spelling probably wrong) and the other such
extensions of MidEarth that got tossed out by JRR's son?
: > Personally I mostly only read "Hard" science fiction these days (not
: > immune to bloat and trilogies itself) since only this seems to retain
: > the capacity to surprise.
: Sorry I've gotten all my surprises out of 'hard' sci-fi. The only remarkable
: works (to me) in resent years have been the _Neuromancer_ trilogy and _Red
: Mars_. Everything else well ... yawn.. been there, seen it, got the paperback.
: > [PS: So you can categorise me, Favourite authors: Ian M Banks, William
: > Gibson, Larry Niven (but not recently), Orson Scott Card, Roger
: > Zelazny]
Really? Depends on what you've read, of course... :) I've caught all
of the above except for Banks. So you'll know what's in my reading
repertoire, I've read everything of AC Clarke (except that last Rama
book with G. Lee--haven't found a used copy for <$0.20 which is all
I'd be willing to pay just so that I can have finished the series),
lots of Asimov, Heinlein, Niven, Niven-Pournell, Brin, Forward, Card,
Harrison, P. Anderson, Cordwainer Smith, Herbert, LeGuin, Cherryh,
McCaffrey, Dan Simmons, Harry Turtledove, Zelazny, James Blish, and
Turtledove. <whew!> Also for calibration, my description of Gibson's
writing style is impressionistic (like the school of painting) b/c
when reading, I "see" all these bright and colorful blobs which if
squinted at properly, form a picture (heck that sounds like those
darn magic eye things!).
Now on to more of my (seemingly endless) opinions. Of the "hard" sf
authors, Clarke is the best (as long as you cut off at 1978); of
the recent ones, David Brin rules--what I mean is that he's the *ONLY*
one who can write well and create convincing characters and stories.
Simmon's _Hyperion_ books were also great, but I think that may be
getting out of the hard sf category. Of the above, I probably like
Asimov and Niven (solo) the least. McCaffrey is possibly the worst
case of publisher $$$$ syndrome in existence (and even her very best
wasn't so great).
(We're finally getting to the climax of the sf part....)
There's one author whom I've not mentioned so far, who has actually
managed to claim the place of my absolute favorite (above and
beyond all others, and this is remarkable as one of the most
hated questions of mine used to be name your favorite book/author,
as I always wanted to list about 20+) is C. S. Friedman. Five
books so far, _In Conquest Born_, _The Madness Season_, and
(Coldfire trilogy) _Black Sun Rising_, _When True Night Falls_,
and _Crown of Shadows_, and I'm just boggled. I've already run
out of superlatives, so I'll just say Go Read Them! You may be
surprised, Frank. (BTW, don't be fooled by the idiot publisher
slapping "Fantasy" on the covers of the Coldfire Trilogy, they're
definately sf, as I've argued elsewhere on this group...)
In a final aside, another great author in recent sf is Joan D.
Vinge. I'll limit myself to saying that in The Snow Queen
Cycle, she has an AI that completely blows away anything Gibson's
created.
In conclusion (at last 8) ), fantasy is definately NOT dead.
As in all other aspects of life, you've just gotta be selective.
Cheers and I look forward to continuing this discussion,
Melissa
Daniel Lemberg
posts than this group does?
Andy Raibeck
> On Thu, 21 Sep 1995 12:50:42 GMT, <43rmub$2...@auntie.bbcnc.org.uk>,
> from webste...@bbcnc.org.uk (Neil McGann) was:
>
> >My Assertion: Fantasy is dead, it just won't lie down.
>
> >In the beginning Tolkein wrote Lord of the Rings, this book was of
> >such quality that it both _defined_ and _completed_ the fantasy genre.
[ snip snip snip ]
Are you talking about Sword & Sorcery type of fantasy? In that sense, I have
to agree that Tolkein's LOTR is still the definitive work in this genre IMHO.
However, there are others who do different things with the genre, putting
their own twist to it - Guy Kavriel Kay comes to mind, although the only thing
I read by him was "Tigana". Another possibility is Stephen R. Donaldson's
"Thomas Covenant" series, which on one level seem derivative (some of the
names like "Foamfollower" seem kind of trite) but on the other hand offers a kind
of anti-hero in Thomas Covenant (he really isn't very likable). Tad Williams' work
also looks interesting, but I haven't got to his "Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn"
trilogy yet.
Of course, the market is also flooded with a bunch of pure product (Piers Anthony
turns me off - no flames please, just expressing my personal opinion).
But there is a lot more to fantasy than just the Sword & Sorcery stuff. Charles DeLint
and Emma Bull come to mind. Also there are a lot of other authors who normally
don't get lumped into this category, but whose work (or a good portion of it) is
ostensibly fantasy: Stephen King and Clive Barker easily come to mind.
To say that "fantasy is dead" is a pretty broad statement that really isn't true. You just
need to weed through the "junk food" to find the "gourmet".
Andy (rai...@tiac.net)
Timothy O Riley
RROGOFF (rro...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: On Thu, 21 Sep 1995 12:50:42 GMT, <43rmub$2...@auntie.bbcnc.org.uk>,
: from webste...@bbcnc.org.uk (Neil McGann) was:
: >My Assertion: Fantasy is dead, it just won't lie down.
: >In the beginning Tolkein wrote Lord of the Rings, this book was of
: >such quality that it both _defined_ and _completed_ the fantasy genre.
: That's like saying Lee DeForrest and David Sarnoff invented
: television, so home entertainment is now defined and completed.
: It may come as a shock to some here, but there are more _kinds_ of
: fantasy than high fantasy, especially in the short fiction form. To
: ease into it, try one of the Datlow/Windling _Year's Best Fantasy_
: anthos, or something by de Lint.
Actually I would rephrase that to read ANYTHING by de Lint? There is also
Marquez,Le Guin, Vonarburg..even Mercede Lackey at times,,although she
does tend to fall into the multivolume category
the biggest thing i have against multi volume epics,pseudo or otherwise,
is the length of time between. If you start at the beginning you have
forgotten half of it by the time the next comes out. And if you start
with the middle the first is already out of print!! Unless you are Tolkien
(in which case you are dead and don't care)or Card or Jordan..in which
case they all sell well enough to keep in stock!!
slainte
himself
Carl Henderson
fra...@vironix.co.za (Frank Scrooby) wrote:
>To a large extent too many people have been allowed into writing fantasy and
>sci-fi. As readers with something approaching taste we should refuse to
>buy the crap, read the crap and talk about the crap. Perhaps they'll get the
>message? If we can convince the talented authors to keep writing (by buying
>and reading their books and sending them encounraging E-mail) we might
>convince the publishers to stop backing these miserable imitators and start
>supporting the real authors.
The problem with this of course, is identifying the crap... As obvious as this
may seem, everyone's tastes are different. If we are going to define "crap" by
majority rule (i.e., sales) then Robert Jordan, David Eddings, Piers Anthony,
and the T$R Human Word Processor Machine are the greatest fantasy writers
working in the field today. If we are going to define "crap" by critical
acclaim, then they are writing crap. If we are going to define "crap" by the
moral standards of the Christian Coalition, then they are all writing
satanically-inspired filth...
The trouble is, all these viewpoints are equally right and equally wrong. Art
(the opposite of "crap") is a matter of opinion and fashion--at least until we
have the perspective of a century or two.
I would never want to put myself in the position of selecting the "real
authors" for anyone else. The rule of the marketplace may have its problems,
but at least most of the people, get some books they like, most of the time.
And as things in life go, that's not bad.
The Cutest Man on The Net
>In article <43rmub$2...@auntie.bbcnc.org.uk>, webste...@bbcnc.org.uk (Neil
>McGann) wrote:
>> In the beginning Tolkein wrote Lord of the Rings, this book was of
>> such quality that it both _defined_ and _completed_ the fantasy genre.
genre_ before him I will grant. That Tolkien defined fantasy per se is a load
of rubbish: there is a hell of a lot more to fantasy than the tradition
leading from Tolkien, examples that spring to mind are _Gormenghast_ and
_Little, Big_, and I'm sure there are many more examples that will come to
mind. And that Tolkien completed the genre, said all there was to say in it ?
There is a great deal more to talk about using fantasy tropes than what
Tolkien did: meaningful gender relations, for a start.
>I think it would be unfair to say Tolkien COMPLETED the fantasy genre. He
>certainly perfected the technique of portraying his story as a real history
>with real cultures. No one can seriously hope to equal Tolkien because no one
>has even tried. I've never seen another 'Mythology' so complete or enormous.
Agreed.
>Please note I said SOME. The flood
>of TSR spin off novels in the last few years have made me plain sick. Thats
>PULP fantasy. _GRUNTS_ by I forget who (Mary somebody I think) was highly
>original but extremely disappointing. Eddings' Balgariad while not terribly
>original was well written and interesting. Tolkien could not have produced
>these works. They're different aspects of fantasy (crude comedy and person
>orientated as opposed to a Mythology.)
I know, but you're neglecting to mention many authors who put a great
amount of effort into world-building and deserve to stand at least
alongside Tolkien: Guy Kay, C.S. Friedman, Stephen Donaldson, Clive
Barker's more recent work..
>> Now, this is a deliberately contentious statement, but how many times
>> have the dread words ".... equalling Tolkein's best ....." (etc. ad.
>> nauseum) appeared on the back cover of a fantasy novel? Needless to
>> say the book in question is not up to Tolkein standard and invariably
>> parades a similar, but sub-standard, cast of characters and
>> situations.
Have to say, that if the characterisation is being compared to Tolkien,
it's not the most complimentary comparison I could imagine..
>> The accompanying fantasy curses appear to be book-bloat and the
>> trilogy (or more). Every author seems to be vying to produce an even
>> fatter book and to stretch their plot over ever more thick volumes.
But if you've got a big interesting detailed world, there's a limit to how
much of it you can fit in a short novel. I don't think Donaldson's Land
could be portrayed in 150 pages.
>> Personally I mostly only read "Hard" science fiction these days (not
>> immune to bloat and trilogies itself) since only this seems to retain
>> the capacity to surprise.
>Sorry I've gotten all my surprises out of 'hard' sci-fi. The only remarkable
>works (to me) in recent years have been the _Neuromancer_ trilogy and _Red
>Mars_. Everything else well ... yawn.. been there, seen it, got the paperback.
I suggest you read Peake's _Titus Groan_, Kay's _Tigana_ and Barker's
_Imajica_ at least, to show you what fantasy can be without being in the mold
of JRRT. And if hard SF hasn't surprised you since _Red Mars_, go read
_Permutation City_ right now.
>To a large extent too many people have been allowed into writing fantasy and
>sci-fi.
This is really obnoxious. There's a hell of a lot of variety among readers'
tastes, and good luck to anyone who can get along by making some group of
readers happy.
>> [PS: So you can categorise me, Favourite authors: Ian M Banks, William
>> Gibson, Larry Niven (but not recently), Orson Scott Card, Roger
>> Zelazny]
And Zelazny doesn't count as showing what can be done with fantasy tropes
outside the Tolkien-modelled genre ?
[ Hell, "tropes" twice in one post. I'll be talking about paradigms next.. ]
Emmet
--
Hello, can you help me ? I'm a spy.
**/**
>My Assertion: Fantasy is dead, it just won't lie down.
>
>such quality that it both _defined_ and _completed_ the fantasy genre.
>
>have the dread words ".... equalling Tolkein's best ....." (etc. ad.
>nauseum) appeared on the back cover of a fantasy novel? Needless to
>say the book in question is not up to Tolkein standard and invariably
>parades a similar, but sub-standard, cast of characters and
>situations.
>
>trilogy (or more). Every author seems to be vying to produce an even
>fatter book and to stretch their plot over ever more thick volumes.
>really thinly, one good book has become three mediocre books.
>
bad stuff) long after you and I both are buried. Any criteria aside
from the marketplace is perceptual, and ultimately moot.
That said, you raise an interesting point. And I agree, the Tolkien
mythology has been explored to death. After _Wizards First Rule_ I've decided
never again to purchase a work alluding to Tolkein on the cover. But fantasy
comes in many flavors, varied as the human imagination spawning it. You listed
Zelazny as a favorite author. His Amber books remain contemporary and unique.
They aren't fat, and don't come in threes. Stephen Brust is currently in the
process of drawing a new fantasy paradigm with his Dragheera novels. I've
recently enjoyed Will Shetterly's two novels _Elsewhere_ and _Nevernever_, in
which he doesn't merely change the setting of elves, but their entire purpose
as a literary device.
Tolkein is dead. Fantasy is alive, kicking, and evolving.>
>
______________________________________________________________________
Obe...@uwyo.edu |"Your mouth, is your religion, you |
GIS Technician to the Stars | put your faith in a hole like that?"|
Past, Present, and Future | Frank Zappa |************************
**********************************************
Vicke Dovheden
>In article <43rmub$2...@auntie.bbcnc.org.uk>, webste...@bbcnc.org.uk (Neil
>McGann) wrote:
>> My Assertion: Fantasy is dead, it just won't lie down.
[snip]
> _GRUNTS_ by I forget who (Mary somebody I think) was highly orginal but
>extremely disappointing.
_GRUNTS_ by Mary Gentle, ISBN 0-552-13629-8 (Corgi Books)
Disappointing in what respect, if I may ask? I found it hilarious on all
accounts, though I never really figured out what the _real_ Marine had
to do with the whole thing.
[snip]
>To a large extent too many people have been allowed into writing fantasy and
>sci-fi.
Say What!? "Allowed into writing..". Who would have the right to stop
them?
Where else would all the *new* talent come form, if not from people just
starting their writing career?
> As readers with something approaching taste we should refuse to buy the
>crap, read the crap and talk about the crap. Perhaps they'll get the message?
Yup, might work.
>If we can convince the talented authors to keep writing (by buying and
>reading their books and sending them encounraging E-mail) we might convince
>the publishers to stop backing these miserable imitators and start supporting
>the real authors.
Now, that's more constructive!
[snip]
>
>FrankS - aspirant author nowhere near publishing yet....
Well, sure do hope they let you publish when the day comes ;-).
Vicke
Andrew C. Plotkin
>
>such quality that it both _defined_ and _completed_ the fantasy
>genre.
I can't for the life of me see the point of this discussion. If you
believe the assertion, what does it mean? You stop reading books that
have "fantasy" printed on the spine just below the publisher's
imprint. Well, go ahead.
Fantasy will be dead the day no more good fantasy books will be
printed for the rest of eternity. Have fun proving that that's
happened.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
Graham Head
webste...@bbcnc.org.uk "Neil McGann" writes:
> My Assertion: Fantasy is dead, it just won't lie down.
>
> In the beginning Tolkein wrote Lord of the Rings, this book was of
> such quality that it both _defined_ and _completed_ the fantasy genre.
>
I _think_ I agree with you in the main if you are only talking about the
'fantasy genre'. However, this is far from being all fantasy - and that
is where I take issue...
Now a statement like tha relies heavily on a common agreement about the
boundaries of 'genre' fantasy. I think this exists broadly, in just the
same way that even if we can't readily come up with a watertight definition
of, say, 'chair' that covers all items in the category we are still most of
us reasonably confident that - 99% of the time - if we were asked to point to
a chair in a general collection of furniture we'd get it right.
Having got so far...
I'm not _terrifically_ well read in genre fantasy, but what I have read is
- to my mind - pretty poor fare (Donaldson, Terry Brookes, etc). Mostly very
dependent upon the conventions, narrative structures, formulae that Tolkien
brought together (_not_ 'invented') for LotR. And - despite arguments
elsewhere - the absence of elves doesn't prove a lack of indebtedness to
Tolkien.
There are exceptions, of course. Leiber and Moorcock spring to mind. However
for the main (and from what I've read) I accept the argument.
Even so, I'm not sure that this would necessarily be a problem. That's
partly because I'm not convinced that fantasy of value has to be judged on
criteria of 'originality'. I'm sure that, while remaining in debt to
LotR it's possible to write well, and interestingly (and it's probably being
done a genre writer somewhere and I just don't know about it). In this sense
JRRT having 'completed' the fantasy genre may be both true and totally
unproblemmatic... it just requires work of sufficient quality.
However. The assertion that 'Fantasy is dead' - if intended to apply to all
fantasy fiction and not just that written for the genre market - seems
almost wholly wrong.
Firstly, there is the children's and young adult fiction market. This offers
many rich and rewarding fantasies. For example: Le Guin's _Earthsea_ tetralogy,
Alan Garner's novels (eg _Red Shift_, The Weirdstone of Brisingamen_, _Elidor_,
_The Owl Service_), a proportion of Russell Hoban's output (eg _The Mouse and
His Child_). Others I'm sure can extend this list.
Equally, there is a strong fantasy element in much contemporary fiction.
Obvious examples are Hoban again, Angela Carter (especially the short stories
in _The Bloody Chamber_, _The Infernal Desire Machines of Doctor Hoffman_,
_Nights at the Circus_), Alasdair Gray (notably _Lanark_), Rushdie
(_Midnight's Children_, _The Satanic Verses_ and the excellent collection
_East, West_), Julian Barnes (_The History of the World in 10 and 1/2 chapters_)
Italo Calvino (many, notably _Cosmicomics_), Ian Banks (no 'M') (eg _Walking
on Glass_ and _The Bridge_ - much more fun than his SF). Again, a list to
which much could be added.
- Arguably, this latter list could be challenged on a number of grounds. For
example, Carter, Gray and Hoban at least have attended and enjoyed (??) SF
conventions - so we may be talking only about publishing conventions, which we
should ignore, and treat these authors as genre writers. To which
I'd answer that 'genre fantasy' is just such a convention also, surely the
debate is about the status of different categories of writing as 'given'
by the market?? And I'll assume I(M)Banks has two heads...
Alternatively, literary critics often claim the above writers as 'magic
realists'. Several answers here. (I) I'd assert that magic realism is just
another form of fantasy (II) I don't believe its a real publisher's category
in the main, merely a critical term used to (III) establish some _political_
credibility for the work (with both a small and a large 'P').
And yet (again!)... How do I answer those who'd point to _Mythago Wood_ and
_Aegypt_? Super fantasies... and (broadly) genre publications.
Grin and shrug. I didn't claim 100% accuracy! :)
Actually, I suspect I'd agree with you womehat more if you replaced the word
'fantasy' with 'SF' or even 'Hard SF' in your original post ;)
> The accompanying fantasy curses appear to be book-bloat and the
> trilogy (or more). Every author seems to be vying to produce an even
> fatter book and to stretch their plot over ever more thick volumes.
> The natural result of this is that any original ideas are spread
> really thinly, one good book has become three mediocre books.
>
Yup, that sounds like a lot of recent hard SF....
(my turn to duck and run, I think..)
--
Graham
Peter Hickman
In article <okN37dS00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Andrew C. Plotkin" <erky...@CMU.EDU> writes:
|> >My Assertion: Fantasy is dead, it just won't lie down.
|> >
|> >In the beginning Tolkein wrote Lord of the Rings, this book was of
|> >such quality that it both _defined_ and _completed_ the fantasy
|> >genre.
|>
|> I can't for the life of me see the point of this discussion. If you
|> believe the assertion, what does it mean? You stop reading books that
|> have "fantasy" printed on the spine just below the publisher's
|> imprint. Well, go ahead.
|>
|> Fantasy will be dead the day no more good fantasy books will be
|> printed for the rest of eternity. Have fun proving that that's
|> happened.
|>
I think there is something to the idea that
Fantasy after Tolkien is a bit overshadowed by Tolkien.
It seems to be very tough for people to evoke a fantasy atmosphere
without evoking Tolkien in some distorted form or other.
Even the bare words "elf" and "dwarf"
and "dark" (for example) have been completely altered.
These days I think it would be fair to say that the subgenre
only prospers or lives to the degree that it comes to terms
with Tolkien and yet escapes from the shadow of Tolkien.
I have to go smoke some pipeweed.......................Pete
Benedict Walmisley
You have got a point there is an awful lot of travelling stories. There are
no stories that I am aware of where the evil/problem comes TO THE HEROES.
Another point - fantasy does not need evil. Almost all the fantasy Ive seen
have the typical good vs evil. What about have two 'good' guys but opposed?
What I WOULD like to see is some stuff like this:
A book describing the problems some Aes Sedai have trying to build
another WhiteBridge. [ This would parallel Clarke's _Fountains_OP. ]
--
Benedict Walmisley
Graham Head
tor...@freenet.columbus.oh.us "Timothy O Riley" writes:
> RROGOFF (rro...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : I would tend to disagree Le Guin is a fantasy writer, because I
> : consider what I have read of hers to be world-building based on sound
> : sociological, anthropological, and historical hard facts extrapolated
> : into an alternate setting. But to include Marquez, then you open up
> : the field to not just high or contemporary fantasy but also Magical
> : Realists or related writers, for example Gogol (everyone should be
> : required to read the short story "The Nose") or Kafka.
>
> But that is the epitome of fantasy to me..such as the Earthsea series,etc.
> The problem with many authors of fantasy is that they do not comprehend
> that Fantasy is at least as pragmatic as sf. As for Magic Realism..it
> sounds like a phrase used by academics who were afraid to admit they liked
> fantasy? [snip]
Well said.
> I am a firm believer in library cards for reading series of books. As to
> the latter, that could lead us into an entirely different discussion of
> what constitutes one or the other,eh?
>
I am a firm believer in not reading (very many :)) series of books. It
isn't the money, it's the time....
--
Graham
Graham Head
ca...@conline.com "Carl Henderson" writes:
>
> I would never want to put myself in the position of selecting the "real
> authors" for anyone else. The rule of the marketplace may have its problems,
> but at least most of the people, get some books they like, most of the time.
> And as things in life go, that's not bad.
>
Hmmm... why does this make me nervous? I supect because we are (I think)
currently in a marketplace with a reducing number of suppliers (takeovers,
increasingly corporate publishers, bookshops and other channels becoming
amalgamated). In such an environment, it is probably harder for the
writer with a more specialised audience to get published. Or who is not
_expected_ to have a large audience.
Is this a problem? I think so.
As an example, Unwins seem to have spent some time coaxing LotR out of Tolkien.
And it wasn't exactly the book they'd asked for. (They'd suggested a simple
sequel to _The Hobbit_.) At the time, it wasn't expected to be a best seller;
it was thought its appeal would be limited, specialised. There was no genre
fantasy market then, of course. I suspect that in today's publishing climate,
and without such a readymade market, it would never have seen the light of
day.
Either way, while not proposing the selection of the 'real authors', I do
think there is a real point in drawing reader's attention to writers of whom
they might not have heard, particularly if you have enjoyed them yourself.
Also, teaching people to read (books, filnm, adverts, speeches) _critically_
is a way of helping ensure the robustness of democracy. IMHO :)
--
Graham
Geoff Steckel
>> rro...@ix.netcom.com (RROGOFF) writes:
>> On Thu, 21 Sep 1995 12:50:42 GMT, <43rmub$2...@auntie.bbcnc.org.uk>,
>> from webste...@bbcnc.org.uk (Neil McGann) was:
>>
>>
>> >such quality that it both _defined_ and _completed_ the fantasy genre.
>
>
>Are you talking about Sword & Sorcery type of fantasy? In that sense, I have
>to agree that Tolkein's LOTR is still the definitive work in this genre IMHO.
IMnsHO, there are other `classic' authors in that sub-genre: Fritz Leiber
(chess fantasies theatre fantasies, and Fafhrd & Grey Mouser !!!!!!!!!! ),
the Worm Ouroboros series, et multi cetera.
>However, there are others who do different things with the genre, putting
>their own twist to it - Guy Kavriel Kay comes to mind, although the only thing
As well as Mervyn Peake, and 101 other fantasists. What the heck, most of
Ray Bradbury is fantasy (and good too).
Other posters have pointed out CJ Cherryh. She has a new one out with a grimier
and less shiny version of elves (:-).
Don't restrict yourself to self-proclaimed epics. There's a lot of territory
to cover. Fantasy (by my and many definitions) _includes_ hard SF.
--
I own the company. Opinions worth what you paid for them.
Geoff Steckel gw...@oat.com
Omnivore Technology
127 Cornell St. Newton, MA 02162 (617) 332-9252
Timothy O Riley
: On 22 Sep 1995 01:26:50 -0400,
: <43theq$q...@acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us>, from
: tor...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Timothy O Riley) was:
: >Actually I would rephrase that to read ANYTHING by de Lint? There is also
: >Marquez,Le Guin, Vonarburg..even Mercede Lackey at times,,although she
: >does tend to fall into the multivolume category
: I would tend to disagree Le Guin is a fantasy writer, because I
: consider what I have read of hers to be world-building based on sound
: sociological, anthropological, and historical hard facts extrapolated
: into an alternate setting. But to include Marquez, then you open up
: the field to not just high or contemporary fantasy but also Magical
: Realists or related writers, for example Gogol (everyone should be
: required to read the short story "The Nose") or Kafka.
But that is the epitome of fantasy to me..such as the Earthsea series,etc.
The problem with many authors of fantasy is that they do not comprehend
that Fantasy is at least as pragmatic as sf. As for Magic Realism..it
sounds like a phrase used by academics who were afraid to admit they liked
fantasy? My own poor efforts at writing prose have been labeled by some
as magic realism and i hate it. Just because there are few supernatural
creatures in a tale does not mean it does not deserve the title of fantasy.
: >the biggest thing i have against multi volume epics,pseudo or otherwise,
: >is the length of time between. If you start at the beginning you have
: >forgotten half of it by the time the next comes out. And if you start
: >with the middle the first is already out of print!! Unless you are Tolkien
: >(in which case you are dead and don't care)or Card or Jordan..in which
: >case they all sell well enough to keep in stock!!
: This is just a personal quirk on my part, but if I own the first
: (second, third, etc.) book in a series in mass paperback, I'm less
: inclined to buy the others until available in mass; if I buy it in
: trade or hardcover the same holds true.
: I started reading Jeffrey A. Carver but was told the book I started
: with wasn't the best one for understanding The Dragon Rigger series.
: So I tracked down the first one. Except now I'm reading other stuff,
: & the Dragon Rigger stuff will have to wait. I don't know if it would
: be considered fantasy though, maybe cross-genre sf/f.
I am a firm believer in library cards for reading series of books. As to
the latter, that could lead us into an entirely different discussion of
what constitutes one or the other,eh?
slainte
himself
ARTHUR WOHLWILL
I have similar tastes in science fiction authors as you (Card, Gibson, etc) and
I had not read fantasy for quite a while when I (luckily) stumbled across Tim
Power's LAST CALL. I really enjoyed this novel as well as his latest novel EX
PIRATION DATE. Give them a try, I think you will find that Fantasy is not dead.
I have also liked novels by James Blaylock who has written similar sorts of F
antasy-horror novels. I would also appreciate any recommendations from readers
who have found authors who write in the same vein as these two.
Andy Raibeck
> In article <43t8i0$l...@sundog.tiac.net> rai...@tiac.net (Andy Raibeck) writes:
> >Are you talking about Sword & Sorcery type of fantasy? In that sense, I have
> >to agree that Tolkein's LOTR is still the definitive work in this genre IMHO.
>
> IMnsHO, there are other `classic' authors in that sub-genre: Fritz Leiber
> (chess fantasies theatre fantasies, and Fafhrd & Grey Mouser !!!!!!!!!! ),
> the Worm Ouroboros series, et multi cetera.
Absolutely!
> >However, there are others who do different things with the genre, putting
> >their own twist to it - Guy Kavriel Kay comes to mind, although the only thing
>
> As well as Mervyn Peake, and 101 other fantasists. What the heck, most of
> Ray Bradbury is fantasy (and good too).
Absolutely, again!!
> Other posters have pointed out CJ Cherryh. She has a new one out with a grimier
> and less shiny version of elves (:-).
I've never read any Cherryh.
> Don't restrict yourself to self-proclaimed epics. There's a lot of territory
> to cover. Fantasy (by my and many definitions) _includes_ hard SF.
I'm not sure, but I think you missed the point of my reply to the original post which
stated that Fantasy was dead. Although I agree (again, my own opinion) that LOTR
is the definitive work (and of course this is very subjective), I was trying to point
out that there are other great fantasy works out there, and that they all aren't of
the sword & sorcery type. What I was getting at is that Fantasy is *not* dead.
Regarding hard SF as fantasy: actually, I consider *any* work of fiction in *any* genre
to be fantasy (I think of "fantasy" as any work of the imagination). But for the purposes
of this discussion, I would exclude hard SF since I don't think the original assertion had
hard SF in mind.
> I own the company. Opinions worth what you paid for them.
Yes, but they do make for interesting discussion! (8*>
> Geoff Steckel gw...@oat.com
> Omnivore Technology
> 127 Cornell St. Newton, MA 02162 (617) 332-9252
>
>>>>
Andy (rai...@tiac.net)
Mr. Tines
On Thu, 21 Sep 1995 12:50:42 GMT, in <43rmub$2...@auntie.bbcnc.org.uk>
webste...@bbcnc.org.uk (Neil McGann) wrote.....
> My Assertion: Fantasy is dead, it just won't lie down.
>
> In the beginning Tolkein wrote Lord of the Rings, this book was of
> such quality that it both _defined_ and _completed_ the fantasy genre.
>
> Now, this is a deliberately contentious statement, but how many times
> have the dread words ".... equalling Tolkein's best ....." (etc. ad.
> nauseum) appeared on the back cover of a fantasy novel? Needless to
Enough to make it a sure diagnostic for a book that shoulf be avoided at
all costs, at least during the seventies and early eighties. I fear that
the practise having fallen into dis-use signals the rise of a generation
who don't know who Tolkien was, being only familiar with the monstrous get
of Dungeons and Dragons upon such earlier works - such as I dissected in a
thread a month or so back.
> Personally I mostly only read "Hard" science fiction these days (not
> immune to bloat and trilogies itself) since only this seems to retain
> the capacity to surprise.
Me too.
- --
_______ PGP fingerprint: BC 01 55 27 B4 93 7C 9B 3C 54 D1 B7 24 8C 08 BC
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< "So. Who is the real Mr. Tines?"
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk (PGP preferred on principle)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Public key available from keyservers
iQCVAgUBMGVQSIoUd45Z7dNFAQEXgwQApjQ/Uuw6vh3p2AFjGIZlpMTmMXUWeg/2
1X3LF/QJ8RpFVR4GP+iJzsCD6W/BEAtGury8tuIWhOFGb3cNAheWSC2LERLSnoBd
euCVIQZwkHaanS0V46T7oEEcK9MNVzbJP99pePgPHGbHeE4qnnO9T/Y728105HOo
2yujKPKY/cg=
=sRQL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mr. Tines
On Fri, 22 Sep 1995 16:17:04 GMT, in <DFBEK...@ebi.ac.uk>
eaob...@ebi.ac.uk (The Cutest Man on The Net) wrote.....
[snip -damn! lost the attribution for this bit]
> >Please note I said SOME. The flood
> >of TSR spin off novels in the last few years have made me plain sick.
Thats
Even before TSR started to pour out pulp fantasy books directly, the
expansion of the popularity of D&D style games since their inception in the
mid 70s coincided with an enormous rise in the number of fantasy books
being published.
> >PULP fantasy. _GRUNTS_ by I forget who (Mary somebody I think) was
highly
> >original but extremely disappointing. Eddings' Balgariad while not
terribly
> >original was well written and interesting. Tolkien could not have
produced
> >these works. They're different aspects of fantasy (crude comedy and
person
> >orientated as opposed to a Mythology.)
>
> I know, but you're neglecting to mention many authors who put a great
> amount of effort into world-building and deserve to stand at least
> alongside Tolkien: Guy Kay, C.S. Friedman, Stephen Donaldson, Clive
> Barker's more recent work..
As someone earlier on the record as detesting fantasy, I think I need to
distinguish between the sub-Tolkien pseudo-mediaeval fantasy, which is what
irks me, and material which doesn't hamstring itself with genre cliches.
Barker's _Weaveworld_ or _Imajica_ (which I read and enjoyed) stand in a
different field to tedious crap like Donaldson's Thomas the Whiner stuff,
which I would only compare with Tolkien for contrast. [The other named
authors suffer from guilt-by-association.]
>
> >Sorry I've gotten all my surprises out of 'hard' sci-fi. The only
remarkable
> >works (to me) in recent years have been the _Neuromancer_ trilogy and
_Red
> >Mars_. Everything else well ... yawn.. been there, seen it, got the
paperback.
>
> I suggest you read Peake's _Titus Groan_, Kay's _Tigana_ and Barker's
> _Imajica_ at least, to show you what fantasy can be without being in the
mold
> of JRRT. And if hard SF hasn't surprised you since _Red Mars_, go read
> _Permutation City_ right now.
Now this I do agree with
- --
_______ PGP fingerprint: BC 01 55 27 B4 93 7C 9B 3C 54 D1 B7 24 8C 08 BC
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< "So. Who is the real Mr. Tines?"
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk (PGP preferred on principle)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Public key available from keyservers
iQCVAgUBMGVTX4oUd45Z7dNFAQE1SQQAioZzG19JUdCDcMOwaa7F4uQv9jz6BsYI
9odlfrnm8o/TSqW8k7HCoJTcz5SsbzBxO4V5A57AR0cLs7ca6PJpfs74hs3neBJ+
6pmPSBwTCyDnnnLEMXEzr9sKgOKKqKWxZkWplzm0iQWMcVlxvCCry7OzzgX96mQs
98V8N1hl/eE=
=Uskz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mr. Tines
On 21 Sep 1995 22:55:32 GMT, in <43sqh4$d...@news.jhu.edu>
me...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Melissa Jan) wrote.....
>
> Now to cite some examples of quality (IMHO) fantasy. If you've
> read these, do come and argue with me some more...
I've read very few of these, but I'll give some reasons as to why.
> 1) Mary Stewart: (Merlin Trilogy) _The Crystal Caves_, _The Hollow
I guess whichever version of the Matter of Britain one finds first probably
has a strong influence on ones ratings of other takes on the same subject.
Having read Mallory, I see no need to look out for retakes.
> 2) Tad Williams: (Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn) _The Dragonbone
> Chair_, _The Stone of Farewell_, and _To Green Angel Tower_
Urk! Big fat-volume of trilogy => classic warning sign. Blurb no great
encouragement either. It looked identikit fantasy from the outside.
> 3) Ursula K LeGuin: (Earthsea series) _A Wizard of Earthsea_,
> _The Tombs of Atuan_, _The Farthest Shore_ and _Tehanu_.
The first 3 I read, long ago, when a lot less cynical about the genre
(partly because these predate the need to be cynical about the genre).
Tehanu I haven't dared read, because I don't want to spoil my memories of
the other books.
> 4) C. J. Cherryh: _Fortress in the Eye of Time_, _The Goblin
> Mirror_, _The Dreamstone_, _ The Tree of Swords and Jewels_,
I'm sorry, I have this abreaction to elves, and see no reason to work at
Cherryh's dense prose style simply to expose myself to this.
> 5) Parke Godwin: _Firelord_, _Beloved Exile_, _Rainbow's End_,
I've never noticed his fantasy but I have seen his "sf" books and not been
inspired - they struck me as the sort of stuff that gives Sf a bad name.
> 6) Terry Brooks: Shannara series. OK, I'll admit the 2nd
> Shannara series got rather wavery at times (and wow did
> Brooks make a blooper at the very end of it!), but his
> very first book _The Sword of Shannara_ is utterly charming
You cannot be serious. That book was "for all the people who enjoyed
reading _Fellowship of the Ring_, here it is again". Whatever he has done
since, that alone is unforgivable.
> 7) Robin McKinley: _The Door in the Hedge_, _Beauty_, _Deerskin_,
> _The Hero and the Crown_, and _The Blue Sword_. The first
Read one of the latter two. "Mostly harmless"
> 8) Orson Scott Card: Alvin Maker series _Seventh Son_, _Red
I've not cared for what little of his SF I've written, so see no reason to
expect to care for these.
> 9) Eve Forward: _Villains by Necessity_ Her first solo book
I suppose her style can't be any worse than her father's
> 10)Robert Jordan: Wheel of Time. Yep, I'm a fan and no listing
Just one look at the blurb on the back of the first volume (which I looked
at given the vast amount of traffic here on the subject before it got a
group of its own) was enough to make me put the book down, and walk away.
Subsequent postings here have confirmed my correctness.
>
> BTW, I think 'most any of the above beat Tolkien hands down...
Well, de gustibus non disputandum est, I guess.
> Really? Depends on what you've read, of course... :) I've caught all
> of the above except for Banks. So you'll know what's in my reading
> repertoire, I've read everything of AC Clarke (except that last Rama
Sincve we're comparing these sorts of thing
> book with G. Lee--haven't found a used copy for <$0.20 which is all
> I'd be willing to pay just so that I can have finished the series),
> lots of Asimov, Heinlein,
gave them up 25 years abo
>Niven,
20 years ago
> Niven-Pournell,
With the exception of _Inferno_ I don't care for their fascist rants
> Brin
Mostly
>, Forward,
Dragons's Egg was enough for me - aliens like that acting like contemporary
USAns - blech!
> Card,
Read the novella of _Ender's Game_, didn't care for it. Tried _A planet
called Treason_, never managed to get started. Gave up.
> Harrison, P. Anderson,
Fun at age 12 only
> Cordwainer Smith,
A classic
> Herbert,
Everything but the first few Dune books was dreadful
> LeGuin,
Never found any of her SF when I might have been omnivorous enough to read
it. Never felt inspired to when I've been able to
> Cherryh,
In moderation only
> McCaffrey,
Fun at age 12 only
>Dan Simmons,
If we restrict this to Hyperion
> Harry Turtledove,
His books such as I have seen have never inspired
> Zelazny
cutting off about 1975
>, James Blish, and
Yes!
I feel that a list of authors requires classification into classics, old
favourites, and current hot writers. Restricting to the latter I'd put
Greg Egan, Vernor Vinge, Greg Bear, and Peter Hamilton[*], and then start
having to scrape around - Greg Benford has slid from this list with
_Furious Gulf_, for example, Brin I almost forget about since _Glory
Season_ was another of his books I couldn't be bothered to read (along with
_the Postman_ and _the Practise Effect_).
[*] the only one on this list who I'd not categorise as cutting-edge hard
SF
> There's one author whom I've not mentioned so far, who has actually
[snip]
> as I always wanted to list about 20+) is C. S. Friedman. Five
> books so far, _In Conquest Born_, _The Madness Season_, and
I'll have a look at these if I can find them in a store locally, and I can
remember to.
> In conclusion (at last 8) ), fantasy is definately NOT dead.
If not dead, then merely cancerous.
- --
_______ PGP fingerprint: BC 01 55 27 B4 93 7C 9B 3C 54 D1 B7 24 8C 08 BC
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< "So. Who is the real Mr. Tines?"
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk (PGP preferred on principle)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Public key available from keyservers
iQCVAgUBMGVbtooUd45Z7dNFAQGXUgP9FUyJJT5/aM5WRbV1qiaA7KPbTXFr/V5c
y8JKbx32FmH8AlpptdM1Wq+C0ZTMnHtIwatxRU4yzybDYXeGO11bWP7XeOmgaa0F
3HoxOMnwo3lJXeuhjllLcRx5nhUU9piQ0pMZFwQel8WU4/qVphJiZ0M0ScVD8Bv0
INNw64q2Nu8=
=ROFN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Scrooby
wrote:
> In article <43rqvr$h...@hermes.is.co.za>,
> fra...@vironix.co.za (Frank Scrooby) wrote:
>
> >In article <43rmub$2...@auntie.bbcnc.org.uk>, webste...@bbcnc.org.uk (Neil
> >McGann) wrote:
> > _GRUNTS_ by I forget who (Mary somebody I think) was highly orginal but
> >extremely disappointing.
> _GRUNTS_ by Mary Gentle, ISBN 0-552-13629-8 (Corgi Books)
> Disappointing in what respect, if I may ask? I found it hilarious on all
> accounts, though I never really figured out what the _real_ Marine had
> to do with the whole thing.
That is part of it. Who was this Marine, how did he get to the alternative
reality fantasy world? Didn't quite get that. AS for the disappointment - The
dust cover boasted 'Fantasy with Attitude' I waited for nearly a year to get
hold of a copy (this was when I didn't have money to buy books and had to depend
on public libaries) then the book falls flat with this really crummy
introduction of gun growing aliens and a body snatching Evil Emporer. If you
enjoyed I'm happy for you. I did not. I was expecting more.
> >To a large extent too many people have been allowed into writing fantasy and
> >sci-fi. Say What!? "Allowed into writing..". Who would have the right to stop
> them? Where else would all the *new* talent come form, if not from people just
> starting their writing career?
Editors see big dollar signs every time a fantasy manuscript is pushing in front
of them. Stick a big hairy chested, long haired dude with a gigantic sword and
very little clothing on the cover, and maybe a big dead lizard and a great babe
with even less clothing and its a novel. And somebody says 'This is comparible
with Tolkien' or ' The long awaited successor of Tolkien' or some crap like
that. A lot of fantasy (and SF for that matter ) isn't be writen anymore. Its
being manufactured. Fantasy is becoming like action movies, more bangs and bang
per page.
> >If we can convince the talented authors to keep writing (by buying and
> >reading their books and sending them encounraging E-mail) we might convince
> >the publishers to stop backing these miserable imitators and start supporting
> >the real authors.
> Now, that's more constructive!
Any body got E-mail addresses ?
> >FrankS - aspirant author nowhere near publishing yet....
>
> Well, sure do hope they let you publish when the day comes ;-).
I'd rather sink into eternal obscurity than write some really crappy novel and
sell fifty million copies and have to write another ten sequels of the same crap
and know all the time its NOT good.
FrankS - aspirant author nowhere near publishing yet....
(BTW I'm presently rewriting two novels of mine so I know exactly how soul
destroying it can be. That is no excuse for lousy work)
Vicke Dovheden
lem...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Daniel Lemberg) wrote:
>If fantasy is dead, how come rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jorden get more
>posts than this group does?
Necrophilia?
/Vicke
Graham Head
ti...@windsong.demon.co.uk "Mr. Tines" writes:
>
> > 8) Orson Scott Card: Alvin Maker series _Seventh Son_, _Red
>
> I've not cared for what little of his SF I've written, so see no reason to
> expect to care for these.
^^^^^^^
'Mr Tines' stands revealed!!!!
--
Graham
Doom's Shadow
>first two books (the first book isn't for everyone) and then form an
>opinion.
Try the first THREE books. TGH is the worst IMO.
Melissa Jan
: On 21 Sep 1995 22:55:32 GMT, in <43sqh4$d...@news.jhu.edu>
: me...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Melissa Jan) wrote.....
: > Now to cite some examples of quality (IMHO) fantasy. If you've
: > read these, do come and argue with me some more...
: I've read very few of these, but I'll give some reasons as to why.
^^^^ ^^^
A single comment: if you haven't actually read them, how can you
judge?
I believe my challenge was *IF* you've read these...
: > 1) Mary Stewart: (Merlin Trilogy) _The Crystal Caves_, _The Hollow
: I guess whichever version of the Matter of Britain one finds first probably
: has a strong influence on ones ratings of other takes on the same subject.
: Having read Mallory, I see no need to look out for retakes.
Mallory?!?!?! (uh oh, I can feel a tirade coming on...)
Point 1: I believe I actually read TH White's _The Once and Future King_
and Tennyson's _Idylls of the King_ prior to Stewart's. After Stewart
came Marion Z. Bradley's _The Mists of Avalon_ (one of the only two good
books she has written, IMHO), then Malory, then Parke Godwin's _Firelord_,
then Rosemary Sutcliff's _Sword at Sunset_, and quite a few others (which
won't be mentioned b/c I think I've got the main ones covered... <duck>).
Stewart remains my favorite. (And I'll still stand by my comment about
her being the best writer.)
Point 2: Now how can one be satisfied with Mallory? First, there're all
the logical gaps in his version. eg., There's the matter of Niniane
(or Nimue, whatever spelling) becoming Arthur's advisor *after* she
locks Merlin (Arthur's mentor, best friend, supporter, etc) away? How
dumb, errr forgiving(?), can we believe Arthur to be? Then there's also
the question of why Mordred is so evil, why he hates Arthur so much.
Again, unless we presume Arthur to be an utter moron, why does he make
Mordred into one of his knights and then leave him in charge of the
kingdom when Arthur goes overseas? Furthermore, why does Mordred then
forge the message about Arthur's death and attempt to seize the kingdom?
He's pretty much Arthur's heir by default at that point... Of course, I
also have the gripe with all the knights wearing plate armor. If such
a person as Arthur (or someone Arthur-like) actually existed, then the
best historical "fit" is in about 500 AD. Plate armor didn't exist
until about 8 centuries later. So satisfied with Mallory? Nope.
: > 2) Tad Williams: (Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn) _The Dragonbone
: > Chair_, _The Stone of Farewell_, and _To Green Angel Tower_
: Urk! Big fat-volume of trilogy => classic warning sign. Blurb no great
: encouragement either. It looked identikit fantasy from the outside.
Again, how can you tell without having read the books? Besides, the
books (esp. the hardcovers) are most cool looking from the outside--
they have Michael Whelan covers! :)
: > 3) Ursula K LeGuin: (Earthsea series) _A Wizard of Earthsea_,
: > _The Tombs of Atuan_, _The Farthest Shore_ and _Tehanu_.
: The first 3 I read, long ago, when a lot less cynical about the genre
: (partly because these predate the need to be cynical about the genre).
: Tehanu I haven't dared read, because I don't want to spoil my memories of
: the other books.
In some aspects, I found _Tehanu_ better than the first three. LeGuin
ventured into almost unexplored territory here: she dares go into what
happened *after* the "happily ever after" of the first three books,
and does a most insightful job.
: > 4) C. J. Cherryh: _Fortress in the Eye of Time_, _The Goblin
: > Mirror_, _The Dreamstone_, _ The Tree of Swords and Jewels_,
: I'm sorry, I have this abreaction to elves, and see no reason to work at
: Cherryh's dense prose style simply to expose myself to this.
If one can read LeGuin's writing, Cherryh shouldn't be a problem.
Besides which, as I said in the snipped-off part, her complexity is
a definate part of her charm.
Dunno what's wrong with elves... Do you also dislike Tolkien's?
But the first two books listed above have zero, count 'em, zero
elves. (_The Goblin Mirror has, as one may infer from the title,
goblins, but not at all the usual run of the mill type. One
goblin's such a personality that, a few months after reading the
book, I can still remember his name, Azdra'ik ng'Saeich--quite a
mouthfull, and none of the other characters' which are more typical.)
As for the last two, they take "elves" in the form of the earlier
Celtic mythology, the "pure" form which are the origins of many such
types in later fantasy. IMO, Tolkien took his elves from these
Celtic versions, the Daoine Sidhe, but sanitized them-- kinder and
gentler and more human...
: > 5) Parke Godwin: _Firelord_, _Beloved Exile_, _Rainbow's End_,
: I've never noticed his fantasy but I have seen his "sf" books and not been
: inspired - they struck me as the sort of stuff that gives Sf a bad name.
Haven't read _Waiting for the Galactic Bus_ and _The Sanke Oil Wars_
either, hummm? Just glance at the cover blurbs? Well, of course one
can mistake them. They're *satire*, you know, that respected, ancient
form developed by the Greeks...
: > 6) Terry Brooks: Shannara series. OK, I'll admit the 2nd
: > Shannara series got rather wavery at times (and wow did
: > Brooks make a blooper at the very end of it!), but his
: > very first book _The Sword of Shannara_ is utterly charming
: You cannot be serious. That book was "for all the people who enjoyed
: reading _Fellowship of the Ring_, here it is again". Whatever he has done
: since, that alone is unforgivable.
Case in point of doing "Tolkien" better than JRR...
Brooks also manages a few original ideas (at least I haven't seen
them elsewhere...), my favorite of which is the explanation of why
only Shea can work the Sword. That's quite a nice departure from
the usual person A has special powers b/c, and only b/c, he's a
descendent of B...
: > 7) Robin McKinley: _The Door in the Hedge_, _Beauty_, _Deerskin_,
: > _The Hero and the Crown_, and _The Blue Sword_. The first
: Read one of the latter two. "Mostly harmless"
Try _Deerskin_. Real eye-opener.
: > 8) Orson Scott Card: Alvin Maker series _Seventh Son_, _Red
: I've not cared for what little of his SF I've written, so see no reason to
: expect to care for these.
Your opinion...again without actually reading.
: > 9) Eve Forward: _Villains by Necessity_ Her first solo book
: I suppose her style can't be any worse than her father's
Her writing's considerably superior. Besides which, she makes
fun of many of these other authors you profess to dislike, so
you may actually enjoy her book. Of course, you many miss many
of the references...
: > 10)Robert Jordan: Wheel of Time. Yep, I'm a fan and no listing
: Just one look at the blurb on the back of the first volume (which I looked
: at given the vast amount of traffic here on the subject before it got a
: group of its own) was enough to make me put the book down, and walk away.
: Subsequent postings here have confirmed my correctness.
I believe another person in a later post in this thread has already
recommended that you actually read them for yourself.
Anyway, what subsequent postings? The vast majority I've seen are
by people who fanatically love the books. Besides which, I'd always
rather form my *own* opinions rather than believe without testing
someone else's.
: > BTW, I think 'most any of the above beat Tolkien hands down...
: Well, de gustibus non disputandum est, I guess.
It's the argument that's the fun.... :)
[now getting into the sf part of the argument... following was a list
of my reading repertoire, ie, WHAT I have read, which is not the same
as what I have liked]
: Sincve we're comparing these sorts of thing
[list of Clarke, Asimov, Heinlein...]
: gave them up 25 years abo
: >Niven,
: 20 years ago
[snipping out some neutrals]
: > Cordwainer Smith,
: A classic
[more snips]
: > LeGuin,
: Never found any of her SF when I might have been omnivorous enough to read
: it. Never felt inspired to when I've been able to
[more snips]
: > Zelazny
: cutting off about 1975
: >, James Blish, and
: Yes!
: I feel that a list of authors requires classification into classics, old
: favourites, and current hot writers. Restricting to the latter I'd put
: Greg Egan, Vernor Vinge, Greg Bear, and Peter Hamilton[*], and then start
: having to scrape around - Greg Benford has slid from this list with
: _Furious Gulf_, for example, Brin I almost forget about since _Glory
: Season_ was another of his books I couldn't be bothered to read (along with
: _the Postman_ and _the Practise Effect_).
: [*] the only one on this list who I'd not categorise as cutting-edge hard
: SF
In looking through your remarks, I can't help but notice a trend--
many authors you stopped reading about 2 decades ago, and the ones
whom you do mention as liking (eg. Blish and Cordwainer Smith)
haven't published in roughly the past 20 years, and furthermore
the only thing of LeGuin's you liked, Earthsea, was in 1968.
This begs the question:
****** Was it the books/authors that changed, or YOU? ******
[comment about C. S. Friedman as my favorite author and recommendation
of her books]
: I'll have a look at these if I can find them in a store locally, and I can
: remember to.
Don't stress yourself on it... You may not be able to enjoy Freidman's
stuff either.
BTW, Mary Stewart published her Arthur books back in 1970, too bad
you didn't catch them then.
: > In conclusion (at last 8) ), fantasy is definately NOT dead.
: If not dead, then merely cancerous.
When hasn't roughly 95% of everything produced by the human race
been rubbish? But then, how can you find out if you don't at
least try?
Regards,
Melissa
--
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
-- Winston Churchilll
Chad R Orzel
Mr. Tines <ti...@windsong.demon.co.uk> wrote:
{Authors and works deleted- this is just a list of criticisms}
>Having read Mallory, I see no need to look out for retakes.
>
>Urk! Big fat-volume of trilogy => classic warning sign. Blurb no great
>encouragement either. It looked identikit fantasy from the outside.
>
>I'm sorry, I have this abreaction to elves, and see no reason to work at
>Cherryh's dense prose style simply to expose myself to this.
>
>I've never noticed his fantasy but I have seen his "sf" books and not been
>inspired - they struck me as the sort of stuff that gives Sf a bad name.
>
>You cannot be serious. That book was "for all the people who enjoyed
>reading _Fellowship of the Ring_, here it is again". Whatever he has done
>since, that alone is unforgivable.
>
>Read one of the latter two. "Mostly harmless"
>
>I've not cared for what little of his SF I've written, so see no reason to
>expect to care for these.
>
>I suppose her style can't be any worse than her father's
>
>Just one look at the blurb on the back of the first volume (which I looked
>at given the vast amount of traffic here on the subject before it got a
>group of its own) was enough to make me put the book down, and walk away.
>Subsequent postings here have confirmed my correctness.
>
So, I'm left with two questions:
1) Have you ever read anything that you _liked?_ There was one lukewarm
comment on LeGuin in there (which I deleted), and the rest was all this
smug self-congratulatory character assassination. This reminds me of an
English prof I once had, who never seemed to advance any actual _ideas,_
but spent hours coming up with clever ways to shoot down student papers
("This would have been a passable first draft of a paper had you put any
thought into it at all.")
2) Why do you bother? Buy yourself a nice, leatherbound copy of Tolkien's
works, and just write the genre off completely. Evidently, the continued
existence of fantasy publishing is causing you pain, so stop looking on
those shelves, and leave us brainwashed semiliterates in peace with our
derivative trash.
Later,
OilCan
Andy Raibeck
Just my two cents here: whatever folks think of Robert Jordan, he
certainly isn't brief! I'd be hard-pressed to wade through two, much
less three of his tomes before passing judgement. If he hasn't grabbed
me in the first few pages (I'll even give the benefit of the doubt, and
say the first book!), what would compel the me to read the second
and third volumes!
Andy (rai...@connix.com)
Mr. Tines
On 26 Sep 1995 21:42:00 GMT, in <449s38$5...@news.jhu.edu>
me...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Melissa Jan) wrote.....
> Mr. Tines (ti...@windsong.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : On 21 Sep 1995 22:55:32 GMT, in <43sqh4$d...@news.jhu.edu>
> : me...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Melissa Jan) wrote.....
> Point 2: Now how can one be satisfied with Mallory? First, there're all
> the logical gaps in his version. eg., There's the matter of Niniane
The tradition of realism in literature is of comparatively recent origin.
Myself I would rather go as close to the original as I have the linguistics
for, rather than settle for a re-make with some slant or other, be it
virtuous Christian, virtuous Pagan, authentic post-Roman anthropology or
whatever.
> also have the gripe with all the knights wearing plate armor. If such
> a person as Arthur (or someone Arthur-like) actually existed, then the
> best historical "fit" is in about 500 AD. Plate armor didn't exist
> until about 8 centuries later. So satisfied with Mallory? Nope.
Writing about the past with the conventions of the present is a widely used
mannerism - Ming dynasty Chinese literature (roughly contemporary with
plate armoured knights in the West), for example, would describe heroes of
T'ang dynasty times (7th century) in Ming rather than T'ang fashions.
Mr. Tines
On 26 Sep 1995 21:42:00 GMT, in <449s38$5...@news.jhu.edu>
me...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Melissa Jan) wrote.....
> Mr. Tines (ti...@windsong.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : On 21 Sep 1995 22:55:32 GMT, in <43sqh4$d...@news.jhu.edu>
> : me...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Melissa Jan) wrote.....
>
> : > Now to cite some examples of quality (IMHO) fantasy. If you've
> : > read these, do come and argue with me some more...
>
> : I've read very few of these, but I'll give some reasons as to why.
> ^^^^ ^^^
> A single comment: if you haven't actually read them, how can you
> judge?
I still believe it is valid to comment as to *why* I haven't. If the books
are as good as you suggest, it will still shed some light on the point of
view that the genre just hasn't realised that it is dead.
My feeling is that the swords'n'spells type of fantasy - much like science
fiction in the mid 1960s or late 1970s - has gotten itself into a
self-consuming rut. SF had the "New Wave" in the first, and cyberpunk in
the second which threw out genre cliches and did something completely
different for a few years. Fantasy is waiting for the equivalent to
happen. Until then, the lack of anything materially new bespeaks a
non-vital genre.
[discussing the Matter of Britain]
> Point 2: Now how can one be satisfied with Mallory? First, there're all
> the logical gaps in his version. eg., There's the matter of Niniane
The tradition of realism in literature is of comparatively recent origin.
Myself I would rather go as close to the original as I have the linguistics
for, rather than settle for a re-make with some slant or other, be it
virtuous Christian, virtuous Pagan, authentic post-Roman anthropology or
whatever.
> also have the gripe with all the knights wearing plate armor. If such
> a person as Arthur (or someone Arthur-like) actually existed, then the
> best historical "fit" is in about 500 AD. Plate armor didn't exist
> until about 8 centuries later. So satisfied with Mallory? Nope.
Writing about the past with the conventions of the present is a widely used
mannerism - Ming dynasty Chinese literature (roughly contemporary with
plate armoured knights in the West), for example, would describe heroes of
T'ang dynasty times (7th century) in Ming rather than T'ang fashions.
I suppose that would cause you to discard the body of Chinese classical
literature out of hand, when in fact the main reason to balk are lists of
Dramatis Personae which make those in Wingrove's _Chung Kuo_ look short;
and include far more intricate extended family relationships.
> : > 2) Tad Williams: (Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn) _The Dragonbone
> : > Chair_, _The Stone of Farewell_, and _To Green Angel Tower_
> : Urk! Big fat-volume of trilogy => classic warning sign. Blurb no great
> : encouragement either. It looked identikit fantasy from the outside.
>
> Again, how can you tell without having read the books? Besides, the
> books (esp. the hardcovers) are most cool looking from the outside--
> they have Michael Whelan covers! :)
Don't they all. That adds to the identikit nature. However the point I'm
trying to make is that the books do not sell themselves to me. This may be
because they successfully target themselves to a hard core by adopting a
"this is another fantasy book with this selection of standard cliches that
is just like all the other ones you enjoyed" marketing strategy. Playing
safe, in other words.
I have tried highly recommended fantasy works (ones that lodge in my memory
are Donaldson's first Thomas Covenant books - where I bogged down in the
middle of vol2 bemoaning the novella which had been bloated into the
fat-trilogy Procrustean bed - and Edding's _Belgariad_ - where I, even at a
time when I was desperate for text [I was consuming over a book per day,
commuting to work, and had descended to some pretty trashy stuff], could
not get past the first 100 pages, for reasons too numerous to list here)
and found that I did not consider itself worth my time finishing them.
These other books look no different from the outside; they have the same
recommendations from followers. I cannot distinguish them from books I
could not read. Why should I spend time and money trying to find the gold
amongst the dross, if the gold does not distinguish itself?
[snip]
> In some aspects, I found _Tehanu_ better than the first three. LeGuin
> ventured into almost unexplored territory here: she dares go into what
> happened *after* the "happily ever after" of the first three books,
> and does a most insightful job.
I will defer to your judgement; however, I would not have called the
conclusion - while not an outright tragedy on the lines of Hamlet - of the
original trilogy a "happily ever after".
The much later addition of _Tehanu_ to a concluded tale smacks - from what
I have heard of the book - of someone coming to the setting with an
entirely different agenda (given the lapse of time between the books,
almost an entirely different person). My wife - who went out and bought
the hardback - agrees that it would not be my sort of book.
> If one can read LeGuin's writing, Cherryh shouldn't be a problem.
The only LeGuin I've read is the Earthsea trilogy, and _Rocannon's world_
(by the time I could get hold of her "classics", the idea of reading them
"because I ought" didn't appeal). These did not hold a candle to the
solidity of Cherryh's prose style, which can drive me to thinking "Oh, get
on with it!" as it takes forever to get from A to B without even the appeal
of the gothic. She may not take as many words as Peake did to describe
actions, it just feels like more.
>
> : > 5) Parke Godwin: _Firelord_, _Beloved Exile_, _Rainbow's End_,
> : I've never noticed his fantasy but I have seen his "sf" books and not
been
> : inspired - they struck me as the sort of stuff that gives Sf a bad
name.
>
> Haven't read _Waiting for the Galactic Bus_ and _The Sanke Oil Wars_
> either, hummm? Just glance at the cover blurbs? Well, of course one
Is one supposed to simply buy books by the yard? I suppose if one has the
time, and an amenable book shop, one could always read the book there in
the store.
> can mistake them. They're *satire*, you know, that respected, ancient
> form developed by the Greeks...
Satire merely dressed up in SF trappings *is* the sort of stuff that gives
Sf a bad name.
> : > 6) Terry Brooks: Shannara series. OK, I'll admit the 2nd
[snip]
> : > very first book _The Sword of Shannara_ is utterly charming
> : You cannot be serious. That book was "for all the people who enjoyed
> : reading _Fellowship of the Ring_, here it is again". Whatever he has
done
> : since, that alone is unforgivable.
>
> Case in point of doing "Tolkien" better than JRR...
You *aren't* serious. This was more than just trotting out the cliches for
those who don't want anything too unsettling, it verged on plagiarism. If
it was "better" in any respect, it was a pigmy standing on a giant's
shoulder.
> : > 8) Orson Scott Card: Alvin Maker series _Seventh Son_, _Red
> : I've not cared for what little of his SF I've written, so see no reason
^^^^
Er, that should have been "read"
> : > 9) Eve Forward: _Villains by Necessity_ Her first solo book
> Her writing's considerably superior. Besides which, she makes
> fun of many of these other authors you profess to dislike, so
This makes me wary - my sense of humour is not easily engaged.
> you may actually enjoy her book. Of course, you many miss many
> of the references...
So unless I've wasted my time previously, I might as well not waste my time
on this, I guess.
> : > 10)Robert Jordan: Wheel of Time. Yep, I'm a fan and no listing
> : Just one look at the blurb on the back of the first volume (which I
looked
> : at given the vast amount of traffic here on the subject before it got a
> : group of its own) was enough to make me put the book down, and walk
away.
> : Subsequent postings here have confirmed my correctness.
>
> I believe another person in a later post in this thread has already
> recommended that you actually read them for yourself.
> Anyway, what subsequent postings? The vast majority I've seen are
This was another thread here on r.a.sf.w a few months back, which discussed
the WoT books. These did discuss the first volume in some detail, and were
not always by worshippers - and were sufficient to indicate to me that I
would not have any patience with the characters to enjoy finishing even one
so fat volume - and I see no virtue in simply stubborning my way through.
> by people who fanatically love the books. Besides which, I'd always
> rather form my *own* opinions rather than believe without testing
> someone else's.
I don't believe the opinions of others uncritically - otherwise I would be
a Jordan-worshipper w/o needing to go to the effort of reading the books.
Rather I look to what has been said about the book and ask "so, what new
things do I get out of reading it?". And all too often there isn't
anything - which is as good an operative definition of a dead genre as any.
[snip]
> : Since we're comparing these sorts of thing
> [list of Clarke, Asimov, Heinlein...]
[snip]
>
> In looking through your remarks, I can't help but notice a trend--
> many authors you stopped reading about 2 decades ago, and the ones
> whom you do mention as liking (eg. Blish and Cordwainer Smith)
> haven't published in roughly the past 20 years, and furthermore
Perhaps because they've been spending the interim dead for tax purposes...
> the only thing of LeGuin's you liked, Earthsea, was in 1968.
> This begs the question:
> ****** Was it the books/authors that changed, or YOU? ******
In some cases (Clarke, Asimov) the bulk of their oeuvre predated 1975, and
I had essentially read the set by then, and from a perspective of 1995 I
feel that many of their works have not aged well (how many other writers
from the 40s and 50s can you still find on the shelves?); in some cases
(Clarke, Asimov, Heinlein, Zelazny) there is some widespread agreement that
their later works are not in the same league as their early ones. In a few
cases, I changed enough to be unable to read the books because I started
noticing the politics (Heinlein).
However, there is some merit in your highlit point - I was 18 in 1975, so
there is perhaps an element of separation of adolescent tastes from later
tastes.
Before that point, I had the good fortune to have an acquaintance who
passed on his f/sf collection, and I read omnivorously from an ecelectic
collection dating from the 1930s. Perhaps I had a surfeit of classic stuff
then, since I've not been motivated since to go out and pick up any of the
acknowledged classics I missed during that time (such as LeGuin's writing).
After, I moved away to university and had to acquire books with my own
money. At that time, SF had descended into post-Vietnam trauma, and
fantasy was showing the first rancid growth of the D&D era. For a long
time it was not budgetary constraints but lack of things seeming worth
buying that restricted my purchasing. SF showed some recovery after about
10 years [though the military SF which seemed to explode after 'Nam is
still going strong as was shown by this year's Hugo novel]; ten years
further on, fantasy still shows no signs.
> : > In conclusion (at last 8) ), fantasy is definately NOT dead.
> : If not dead, then merely cancerous.
>
> When hasn't roughly 95% of everything produced by the human race
> been rubbish? But then, how can you find out if you don't at
> least try?
I don't have the time to waste wading through 19 bad books for the one
good, if the good one doesn't make itself plain. However, if I were to
follow your suggestion [snipped] and don't even look at Friedmann's books,
how am I ever going to find out?
- --
_______ PGP fingerprint: BC 01 55 27 B4 93 7C 9B 3C 54 D1 B7 24 8C 08 BC
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< "So. Who is the real Mr. Tines?"
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk (PGP preferred on
principle)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Public key available from keyservers
iQCVAgUBMGkNP4oUd45Z7dNFAQHdZQQAjAkR+DnjIKKEM/OsXlISjJQ8mdjLMOGq
yX3uS1GWjWo6P2Sivu5d00IVnKRv0RRxO7rcbMk9e2FTGzba10yxCiUH2nFD/bNv
9EAzKAA4gVK0NbKB03eFjasAkGG/MKxeO26usyym7akoN92NvIvwtw3sbauAX+WS
SG7nnqe3lyk=
=nCIB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Itamar Shtull-Trauring
>What I WOULD like to see is some stuff like this:
> A book describing the problems some Aes Sedai have trying to build
> another WhiteBridge. [ This would parallel Clarke's _Fountains_OP. ]
>
>--
>Benedict Walmisley
Well, I can certainly imagine a book like that. After 300 pages of
"Blood and Ashes, that didin't work!" people might get a bit discouraged
by such a book. And of course, bored to death.
Anyway, fantasy quest/travel books are DEAD! What new thing can you say
after Lord of the Rings? There has to be some alternative.
Itamar S.-T.
Trystero...
>On 21 Sep 1995 22:55:32 GMT, in <43sqh4$d...@news.jhu.edu>
> me...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Melissa Jan) wrote.....
[re: suggestions of "quality" fantasy]
>> 1) Mary Stewart: (Merlin Trilogy) _The Crystal Caves_, _The Hollow
>
>I guess whichever version of the Matter of Britain one finds first probably
>has a strong influence on ones ratings of other takes on the same subject.
>Having read Mallory, I see no need to look out for retakes.
You're missing out. Stewart's Arthur cycle is a great example of a retelling
that doesn't compete with the popular one (Malory) as much as amplify it. Parke
Godwin (below) writes in similar vein. I think they're both wonderful. And as
far as "retakes" go, Malory is a rewrite of the Vulgate anyway... (okay, cheap
point, but worth making, I think).
>> 2) Tad Williams: (Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn) _The Dragonbone
>> Chair_, _The Stone of Farewell_, and _To Green Angel Tower_
>
>Urk! Big fat-volume of trilogy => classic warning sign. Blurb no great
>encouragement either. It looked identikit fantasy from the outside.
So you're judging the book by its cover (and size). Far be it from me to correct
you. Many people who actually read this series disliked it intensely. OTOH, I
(and many others) thought it was absolutely wonderful. Your decision; I just
think you might want to try a bit of book one at a library and judge for
yourself.
>> 3) Ursula K LeGuin: (Earthsea series) _A Wizard of Earthsea_,
>> _The Tombs of Atuan_, _The Farthest Shore_ and _Tehanu_.
>
>Tehanu I haven't dared read, because I don't want to spoil my memories of
>the other books.
I'm with you, but I'm going on the more specific recommendation of my sister (a
LeGuin fan), who tells me _Tehanu_ was shit.
[I've skipped C.J. Cherryh 'cos I've never read so much as a word of her
writing.]
>> 5) Parke Godwin: _Firelord_, _Beloved Exile_, _Rainbow's End_,
>
>I've never noticed his fantasy but I have seen his "sf" books and not been
>inspired - they struck me as the sort of stuff that gives Sf a bad name.
I've never seen his SF books, but I think that if you're at all interested in
fresh reinterpretations of English myths, Godwin is your writer. He did a very
interesting Arthur (I know, you don't like modern Arthur, but...) in _Firelord_,
and came up with easily the most compelling Robin Hood I've ever read in
_Sherwood_ and _Robin And The King_. I've not yet read his new hardback, but
it's Beowulf, and I'm really looking forward to it...
[Terry Brooks, Robin McKinley, Orson Scott Card and Eve Forward skipped, again
'cos I've never read them.]
>> 10)Robert Jordan: Wheel of Time.
>
>Just one look at the blurb on the back of the first volume (which I looked
>at given the vast amount of traffic here on the subject before it got a
>group of its own) was enough to make me put the book down, and walk away.
>Subsequent postings here have confirmed my correctness.
Again, I won't assure you that you'd enjoy these books. I myself think they're
fun, but not great literature. But I do think you'd do better to at least try
the book yourself, rather than relying on blurbs...after all, it's not Jordan's
fault that Piers Anthony likes his work :).
>> BTW, I think 'most any of the above beat Tolkien hands down...
>
>Well, de gustibus non disputandum est, I guess.
I don't know; I don't really "rank" authors. My favorite author, as a general
rule, is the one I'm reading; if not, I abandon the book... I think Tolkien is
wonderful for epic tone and world-creation, but I also find him to be a
patronising writer with little real affection for his characters; I think _The
Silmarillion_ is *way* better than _The Lord Of The Rings_, because that epic
tone is all he needs (the storytelling doesn't require empathy). I'll probably
get flamed for that, but it's still my opinion...
Just my $0.02,
doug
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
douglas .s. bailey - wi...@trystero.iii.net - http://www.iii.net/users/wire/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
don't call her at home, she's fucking with a slip of a man...
Chris Camfield
RROGOFF <rro...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>It may come as a shock to some here, but there are more _kinds_ of
>fantasy than high fantasy, especially in the short fiction form. To
>ease into it, try one of the Datlow/Windling _Year's Best Fantasy_
>anthos, or something by de Lint.
HEAR HEAR!
I would also suggest:
Bridge of Birds (Barry Hughart)
Mythago Wood (Robert Holdstock)
Great Work of Time (John Crowley)
both are non-high-fantasy, or at least non-"Western" high fantasy
(I would call Bridge of Birds a comedic detective fantasy novel set
in ancient China)
Surprisingly enough :) all three of these books won the World Fantasy
Award...
--
Christopher Camfield ccam...@uwaterloo.ca
1996 BMath Joint CS/C&O [1998 BA Classical Studies]
Nancy Lebovitz
Mr. Tines <ti...@windsong.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 26 Sep 1995 21:42:00 GMT, in <449s38$5...@news.jhu.edu>
> me...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Melissa Jan) wrote.....
>> Mr. Tines (ti...@windsong.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>> : On 21 Sep 1995 22:55:32 GMT, in <43sqh4$d...@news.jhu.edu>
>> : me...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Melissa Jan) wrote.....
>>
>> : > Now to cite some examples of quality (IMHO) fantasy. If you've
>> : > read these, do come and argue with me some more...
>>
>> : I've read very few of these, but I'll give some reasons as to why.
>> ^^^^ ^^^
>> A single comment: if you haven't actually read them, how can you
>> judge?
>
>I still believe it is valid to comment as to *why* I haven't. If the books
>are as good as you suggest, it will still shed some light on the point of
>view that the genre just hasn't realised that it is dead.
>
>My feeling is that the swords'n'spells type of fantasy - much like science
>fiction in the mid 1960s or late 1970s - has gotten itself into a
>self-consuming rut. SF had the "New Wave" in the first, and cyberpunk in
>the second which threw out genre cliches and did something completely
>different for a few years. Fantasy is waiting for the equivalent to
>happen. Until then, the lack of anything materially new bespeaks a
>non-vital genre.
There hasn't been a big noisy revolution, but there's a moderate amount
of literary and modern-setting fantasy.
I don't have a strong opinion about whether the New Wave and cyberpunk
have freshened up mainstream sf. Does anyone have evidence or ideas
on this?
>
>[discussing the Matter of Britain]
>> Point 2: Now how can one be satisfied with Mallory? First, there're all
>> the logical gaps in his version. eg., There's the matter of Niniane
>
>The tradition of realism in literature is of comparatively recent origin.
>Myself I would rather go as close to the original as I have the linguistics
>for, rather than settle for a re-make with some slant or other, be it
>virtuous Christian, virtuous Pagan, authentic post-Roman anthropology or
>whatever.
A matter of taste--though I'd be curious about why you prefer the oldest
version. Is it that you assume that it's the purest? (And, if so, why
is that important?) The best way of getting in contact with a somewhat
alien culture?
>> also have the gripe with all the knights wearing plate armor. If such
>> a person as Arthur (or someone Arthur-like) actually existed, then the
>> best historical "fit" is in about 500 AD. Plate armor didn't exist
>> until about 8 centuries later. So satisfied with Mallory? Nope.
>
>Writing about the past with the conventions of the present is a widely used
>mannerism - Ming dynasty Chinese literature (roughly contemporary with
>plate armoured knights in the West), for example, would describe heroes of
>T'ang dynasty times (7th century) in Ming rather than T'ang fashions.
>
And still going on, of course....THE MISTS OF AVALON has pagans which
I suspect are a great deal more like modern neo-pagans than like any
pagans which existed back then.
>> Again, how can you tell without having read the books? Besides, the
>> books (esp. the hardcovers) are most cool looking from the outside--
>> they have Michael Whelan covers! :)
>
>Don't they all. That adds to the identikit nature. However the point I'm
>trying to make is that the books do not sell themselves to me. This may be
>because they successfully target themselves to a hard core by adopting a
>"this is another fantasy book with this selection of standard cliches that
>is just like all the other ones you enjoyed" marketing strategy. Playing
>safe, in other words.
Indeed--I recently discovered Margaret Ball, whose work I like a great
deal, because I enjoyed her short story in CHICKS IN CHAINMAIL. Her
novels snuck right past me because they'd been packaged just like
every other fantasy.
>I have tried highly recommended fantasy works (ones that lodge in my memory
>are Donaldson's first Thomas Covenant books - where I bogged down in the
>middle of vol2 bemoaning the novella which had been bloated into the
>fat-trilogy Procrustean bed - and Edding's _Belgariad_ - where I, even at a
>time when I was desperate for text [I was consuming over a book per day,
>commuting to work, and had descended to some pretty trashy stuff], could
>not get past the first 100 pages, for reasons too numerous to list here)
>and found that I did not consider itself worth my time finishing them.
>
Eddings is pretty minor--I'd call Stephenson rather better than that.
If you like efficiently written fantasy, you may be stuck with some
of the older books. It's amazing how concise 20-year old writing is.
>These other books look no different from the outside; they have the same
>recommendations from followers. I cannot distinguish them from books I
>could not read. Why should I spend time and money trying to find the gold
>amongst the dross, if the gold does not distinguish itself?
>
It depends on how much you want the gold. If you aren't willing to
sort through the books in the bookstore, then you're dependent on
reviews and recommendations.
I do recommend reading at least the first few pages of a book that
looks promising. That way, you'll know if you can stand the writing,
and if you're at all interested in what happens to the characters.
>[snip]
>> In some aspects, I found _Tehanu_ better than the first three. LeGuin
>> ventured into almost unexplored territory here: she dares go into what
>> happened *after* the "happily ever after" of the first three books,
>> and does a most insightful job.
>
>I will defer to your judgement; however, I would not have called the
>conclusion - while not an outright tragedy on the lines of Hamlet - of the
>original trilogy a "happily ever after".
>The much later addition of _Tehanu_ to a concluded tale smacks - from what
>I have heard of the book - of someone coming to the setting with an
>entirely different agenda (given the lapse of time between the books,
>almost an entirely different person). My wife - who went out and bought
>the hardback - agrees that it would not be my sort of book.
>
Tehanu was quite sideways to the earlier books--and has an ending that
seemed to come from a completely different universe, possibly one by
Doris Lessing.
>> If one can read LeGuin's writing, Cherryh shouldn't be a problem.
>
>The only LeGuin I've read is the Earthsea trilogy, and _Rocannon's world_
>(by the time I could get hold of her "classics", the idea of reading them
>"because I ought" didn't appeal). These did not hold a candle to the
>solidity of Cherryh's prose style, which can drive me to thinking "Oh, get
>on with it!" as it takes forever to get from A to B without even the appeal
>of the gothic. She may not take as many words as Peake did to describe
>actions, it just feels like more.
>
I agree that Cherryh's writing style is unattractive for the most part--
except in her first, THE GATE OF IVREL.
>> : > 5) Parke Godwin: _Firelord_, _Beloved Exile_, _Rainbow's End_,
>> : I've never noticed his fantasy but I have seen his "sf" books and not
>been
>> : inspired - they struck me as the sort of stuff that gives Sf a bad
>name.
>>
>> Haven't read _Waiting for the Galactic Bus_ and _The Sanke Oil Wars_
>> either, hummm? Just glance at the cover blurbs? Well, of course one
>
>Is one supposed to simply buy books by the yard? I suppose if one has the
>time, and an amenable book shop, one could always read the book there in
>the store.
>
You might try finding a used book store with a good sf section--you end
up spending somewhat more time, but a good bit less money.
I don't know if you'd like the Godwin books--I'm tired of the obvious
attacks on religion they engage in, but you may not be.
>> can mistake them. They're *satire*, you know, that respected, ancient
>> form developed by the Greeks...
>
>Satire merely dressed up in SF trappings *is* the sort of stuff that gives
>Sf a bad name.
>
I don't think so. Most of the people who attack sf have never seen sf
satire, and have no idea how awful much of it is.
>> : > 6) Terry Brooks: Shannara series. OK, I'll admit the 2nd
>[snip]
>> : > very first book _The Sword of Shannara_ is utterly charming
>> : You cannot be serious. That book was "for all the people who enjoyed
>> : reading _Fellowship of the Ring_, here it is again". Whatever he has
>done
>> : since, that alone is unforgivable.
>>
>> Case in point of doing "Tolkien" better than JRR...
>
>You *aren't* serious. This was more than just trotting out the cliches for
>those who don't want anything too unsettling, it verged on plagiarism. If
>it was "better" in any respect, it was a pigmy standing on a giant's
>shoulder.
For once, I agree with you. I found THE SWORD OF SHANNARA unreadably
awful, and I love LOTR.
>> : Since we're comparing these sorts of thing
>> [list of Clarke, Asimov, Heinlein...]
>[snip]
>>
>> In looking through your remarks, I can't help but notice a trend--
>> many authors you stopped reading about 2 decades ago, and the ones
>> whom you do mention as liking (eg. Blish and Cordwainer Smith)
>> haven't published in roughly the past 20 years, and furthermore
>
>Perhaps because they've been spending the interim dead for tax purposes...
>
>> the only thing of LeGuin's you liked, Earthsea, was in 1968.
>> This begs the question:
>> ****** Was it the books/authors that changed, or YOU? ******
>
I think there's been at least one objective change--the typical book
has gotten a lot longer, and those longer books are frequently part
of series of unspecified length.
If you prefer concise fantasy, you're completely out of luck. (Actually,
I can think of one relatively recent tightly written fantasy--TEA WITH
THE BLACK DRAGON, by R.A. MacAvoy.)
>> When hasn't roughly 95% of everything produced by the human race
>> been rubbish? But then, how can you find out if you don't at
>> least try?
>
>I don't have the time to waste wading through 19 bad books for the one
>good, if the good one doesn't make itself plain. However, if I were to
>follow your suggestion [snipped] and don't even look at Friedmann's books,
>how am I ever going to find out?
>
Good question. The best ways I can think of to limit your investments
of time and money are to buy the books used or borrow them, and to
give up on any book if it doesn't look good after 100 pages, even
if you've paid for it and other people like it.
You might check out Lin Carter's Ballentine Adult Fantasy series, if
you haven't already.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
NEW EDITION of the calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Jo Walton
Patrick Adkins _Lord of the Crooked Paths_ and sequels
Poul Anderson _The Broken Sword_
John Brunner _Traveller in Black_
Stephen Brust _Jhereg_, _Gypsy_, _The Phoenix Guards_, others.
Emma Bull _War For the Oaks_
C.J. Cherryh _The Paladin_, _Chronicles of Morgaine_
Grania Davis _The Rainbow Annals_
Samuel Delany _Tales of Neveryon_ and sequels
Peter Dickinson _The Blue Hawk_
Diane Duane _The Door into Fire_ and sequels
Lord Dunsany _The King of Elfland's Daughter_, _Men, Gods & Ghosts_ etc.
Lisa Goldstein _Tourists_
Barbara Hambly _The Rainbow Annals_, _The Silent Tower_, others
Keri Hulme, _The Bone People_
Guy Gavriel Kay _Tigana_
Katherine Kerr _Daggerspell_ (and sequels, but with slightly less enthusiasm)
Ursula Le Guin _Earthsea_
Megan Lindholm _Wizard of the Pigeons_
Ian MacDonald _King of Morning, Queen of Day_
R.A. MacAvoy _The Book of Kells_
Robin McKinley _Deerskin_, _The Door in the Hedge_, _The Blue Sword_
George R.R. Martin _The Armageddon Rag_
Melissa Scott and Lisa V. Barrett _The Armor of Light_
J.R.R. Tolkien _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord of the Rings_
Jane Yolen _Sister Light, Sister Dark_, _White Jenna_
I already know Mr. Tines hates some of these. However, I would contend that
none of these are formula, they are all well-written and readable, with
excellent characterisation and original plots and worlds. I would say that
all of these are gold among the dross, things I have found that make fantasy
worth reading. Many of these have been published in wuch a way as to make
them indistinguishable from the Eddings/Feist/Gemmell/Brooks/AD&D formulaic
novels which are all some people want to read. I didn't read _Daggerspell_
for *years* because it looked so awful - it is actually very original and
different. Indeed, only two of these books have attractive covers that suit
the books - the Tor _Tourists_ and the Bantam _King of Morning, Queen of Day_.
I appreciate this is a real problem. But there is original and interesting
work still being done in Fantasy, and it is important that it is not buried
in the dross, or perceived to be buried in the dross, because if it is not
appreciated people will stop bothering to write it. And I think that the
world would be a poorer place without the books I've listed, but it could
well do without another ten-volume inferior re-write of _The Two Towers_.
--
Jo
***************************************************
- - I kissed a kif at Kefk - -
***************************************************
Daniel Tropea
In article written by Ken Moore he stated that Donaldson (I am assuming Stephen
Donaldson) is not worthwhile but later on he stated that Donaldson books give people pleasure. Is pleasure not one of the main reasons people read. I personally believe that Donaldson is a boring writer ie his stories are common and not very interesting. There are much better writers in the fantasy field such as Piers Anthony, Robert Jordan and David Eddings.
SciGuy1061
>My feeling is that the swords'n'spells type of fantasy - much like
science
>fiction in the mid 1960s or late 1970s - has gotten itself into a
>self-consuming rut. SF had the "New Wave" in the first, and cyberpunk in
>the second which threw out genre cliches and did something completely
>different for a few years. Fantasy is waiting for the equivalent to
>happen. Until then, the lack of anything materially new bespeaks a
>non-vital genre.
I think you're just not looking hard enough. Take a look at _Nobody's
Son_ by Sean Stewart for a completely new take on traditional fantasy.
There are new authors out there doing wonderful things in fantasy, but
they don't get anywhere near the attention of Eddings, Fiest, etc. You'll
have to work to find them, but it's worth it!
Jim
Andrew P Carter
: >If fantasy is dead, how come rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jorden get more
: >posts than this group does?
Because people are attracted to nice, glossy covers. I think it's
pathetic that Robert Jordan has his own newsgroup, while I've never
seen a Robert Silverberg or Fritz Leiber one...Just another sympton
of the mass-market of the genre, where for every good book produced there
are a hundred bad ones...
Andy Raibeck
[ snipped question on why r.a.s.w.r-j gets more posts ]
>...Just another sympton
>of the mass-market of the genre, where for every good book produced there
>are a hundred bad ones...
You are so abso-fraggin-lutely RIGHT ON!
I feel very strongly that the limited rack space for Sf/Fantasy is being
consumed more & more by the literary equivalent of junk food. Most of
the good stuff goes in & out of print so fast, if you blink, you'll miss
it. Try finding a copy of T. J. Bass' "The Godwhale" - your used book-
store or specialty shop might have it, but don't expect to find it at
B. Daltons or Waldonbooks. No, no, no.....we must make way for the
205th volume in the "Sword of the Enchanter" series. *sheesh*, Star
Trek books alone take up an entire rack in the SF shelves.
I don't really mean to belittle these types of books, or the people who
read them. They certainly have their place, and I'd rather see someone
spend their time reading a Star Trek book than not read at all. But I
don't want to see great works by other authors pushed out of the way
for this stuff. Put another way: how would readers of general (non-genre)
fiction if the general fiction racks were all filled with the works of
Judith Krantz, Jackie Collins, Harold Robbins, and their ilk?
The foregoing was all IMHO, of course.
Stepping down from the soapbox,
Andy (rai...@connix.com)
Mr. Tines
On 26 Sep 1995 16:42:15 GMT, in <449ah7$8...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>
oil...@wam.umd.edu (Chad R Orzel) wrote.....
> 1) Have you ever read anything that you _liked?_
Yes; as to specifics, it depends how tightly we're restricting our field of
discussion.
I suspect that my recommendations of mysteries, historical novels, SF, and
other genres probably don't count as germane to the discussion. I would
also rule out of play things that I would count only as "train-journey
reading". JRRT's completed works (as opposed to the collections of notes
and rough drafts) are a given for this thread.
Contemplating my bookshelves I see Barry Hughart's Number Ten Ox stories,
Clive Barker's _Weaveworld_ and _Imajica_, Lisa Goldstein's _the Dream
Years_, Elizabeth Hand's _Waking the Moon_, Peake's _Titus Groan_ and
_Gormenghast_ (if counted as fantasy), Zelazny's _Nine Princes in Amber_,
Colin Greenland's _Other Voices_, Geoff Ryman's _the Warrior who carried
Life_, Michael Moorcock's _the Warhound and the World's Pain_ as fantasy
books I'd recommend (along with a number of stories teetering on the brink
of SF, like Blish's _Black Easter_/_the Day after Judgement_ and Melissa
Scott's Silence Leigh trilogy, or which are primarily vampire tales, like
Newman's _Anno Dracula_), with an honourable mention for John Whitbourn's
_To build Jerusalem_ (in which finally he starts to actually tell something
recognisable from its structure as a story, rather than a biography).
Note that mentioning one work by an author doesn't imply that all the rest
of his/her oeuvre is of the same quality, nor that those works are bad in
any absolute sense.
Note also that these all differentiate themselves from the middle ages as
per D&D which has become a dominating cliche. The thesis of the original
poster, at least as I understood it, centred on this latter type of books,
derivative of LotR either directly or through D&D, which have established
an overwhelming numerical dominance in the field, and which I agree area
monster that just doesn't know it's dead yet.
> 2) Why do you bother? Buy yourself a nice, leatherbound copy of Tolkien's
> works, and just write the genre off completely.
Because I read voraciously, I keep looking for new sources to feed my text
addiction. While I have pretty much written the genre off, the books tend
to be filed in alphabetical order of author along with the SF, so the new
stuff gets the same going-over.
- --
_______ PGP fingerprint: BC 01 55 27 B4 93 7C 9B 3C 54 D1 B7 24 8C 08 BC
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< "So. Who is the real Mr. Tines?"
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk (PGP preferred on principle)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Public key available from keyservers
iQCVAgUBMGsTb4oUd45Z7dNFAQGZ3QP/Y2JKdRVGAcenaPE74Jo7JFTjfBbqXypQ
2J+RxcA8J5B5TEDfGHgZv0aljCss5v2RRxRKjmEtVpHoVa2ceT/rHfRAphx08Kl9
pq0I/L49aY2UrUfK65cjrQv4wnNywvMNIgNGSItExxZRGyKnSPeHqLDl26wpxCR5
kHZMjGiq7sE=
=TzAu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Graham Head
ti...@windsong.demon.co.uk "Mr. Tines" writes:
> > Again, how can you tell without having read the books? Besides, the
> > books (esp. the hardcovers) are most cool looking from the outside--
> > they have Michael Whelan covers! :)
>
> Don't they all. That adds to the identikit nature. However the point I'm
> trying to make is that the books do not sell themselves to me. This may be
> because they successfully target themselves to a hard core by adopting a
> "this is another fantasy book with this selection of standard cliches that
> is just like all the other ones you enjoyed" marketing strategy. Playing
> safe, in other words.
>
[criticism of Donaldson's & Eddings' horribly fat books as pretty unreadable]
> These other books look no different from the outside; they have the same
> recommendations from followers. I cannot distinguish them from books I
> could not read. Why should I spend time and money trying to find the gold
> amongst the dross, if the gold does not distinguish itself?
>
I _strongly_ sympathise with this. I am not in the target market, either,
for most of these books - at least as far as I can determine from how the
publishers are packaging them - so why should I put myself through the
likely unpleasantness of reading them? Lif is too short..
[Snip]
> > : > very first book _The Sword of Shannara_ is utterly charming
> > : You cannot be serious. That book was "for all the people who enjoyed
> > : reading _Fellowship of the Ring_, here it is again". Whatever he has
> done
> > : since, that alone is unforgivable.
> >
> > Case in point of doing "Tolkien" better than JRR...
>
> You *aren't* serious. This was more than just trotting out the cliches for
> those who don't want anything too unsettling, it verged on plagiarism. If
> it was "better" in any respect, it was a pigmy standing on a giant's
> shoulder.
>
I can't help feeling that Mr Tines is being overly kind to _The Sword of
Shannara_ here. It was appalling.
> in some cases
> (Clarke, Asimov, Heinlein, Zelazny) there is some widespread agreement that
> their later works are not in the same league as their early ones. In a few
> cases, I changed enough to be unable to read the books because I started
> noticing the politics (Heinlein).
>
Actually, one of the authors I would have hoped to see in the list, whose
work (IMHO) has improved in that timeframe, is Fred Pohl.
[Snip]
> > When hasn't roughly 95% of everything produced by the human race
> > been rubbish? But then, how can you find out if you don't at
> > least try?
>
> I don't have the time to waste wading through 19 bad books for the one
> good, if the good one doesn't make itself plain. However, if I were to
> follow your suggestion [snipped] and don't even look at Friedmann's books,
> how am I ever going to find out?
>
There are other suggestions in this thread which _are_ worth looking at also,
I suspect....
--
Graham
Graham Head
scigu...@aol.com "SciGuy1061" writes:
> Mr. Tines says:
> >My feeling is that the swords'n'spells type of fantasy - much like
> science
> >fiction in the mid 1960s or late 1970s - has gotten itself into a
> >self-consuming rut. SF had the "New Wave" in the first, and cyberpunk in
> >the second which threw out genre cliches and did something completely
> >different for a few years. Fantasy is waiting for the equivalent to
> >happen. Until then, the lack of anything materially new bespeaks a
> >non-vital genre.
>
Actually, I think it did happen, but not in the fantasy _genre_. Instead
the literary mainstream got itself all interested and renamed it, amongst
other things, 'magic realism'. All of which left genre fantasy pretty
moribund, however. (IMHO;))
--
Graham
Graham Head
nan...@universe.digex.net "Nancy Lebovitz" writes:
> In article <09271995...@windsong.demon.co.uk>,
> Mr. Tines <ti...@windsong.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[Snipped]
> >
> >My feeling is that the swords'n'spells type of fantasy - much like science
> >fiction in the mid 1960s or late 1970s - has gotten itself into a
> >self-consuming rut. SF had the "New Wave" in the first, and cyberpunk in
> >the second which threw out genre cliches and did something completely
> >different for a few years. Fantasy is waiting for the equivalent to
> >happen. Until then, the lack of anything materially new bespeaks a
> >non-vital genre.
>
> There hasn't been a big noisy revolution, but there's a moderate amount
> of literary and modern-setting fantasy.
Yup!
>
> I don't have a strong opinion about whether the New Wave and cyberpunk
> have freshened up mainstream sf. Does anyone have evidence or ideas
> on this?
Actually, I'd suggest three periods of 'refreshment' after the so-called
Golden Age of Astounding.
1) The arrival of F&SF and Galaxy in the early fifties
2) New Wave
3) Cyberpunk
Of these, to my mind, the first two were more important than the last.
Not least because of the greater interest in formal issues (style, 'quality
of prose', etc) _as well_ as the introduction of new subject matter.
(Pardon me for introducing the form/content fallacy - it was just easier
to describe what I meant that way ;))
Cyberpunk _seems_ a smaller and less important movement, at least as far as
SF alone is concerned. However, like New Wave and unlike my first proposed
'refreshment' it has greater links and connections with other social
and cultural trends.
> >
> >[discussing the Matter of Britain]
>
> A matter of taste--though I'd be curious about why you prefer the oldest
> version. Is it that you assume that it's the purest? (And, if so, why
> is that important?) The best way of getting in contact with a somewhat
> alien culture?
>
A small point, but Malory was re-writing and attempting to integrate the
metrical romances of France on Lancelot, Arthur, etc. Certainly not
the 'oldest version' in that sense.
[Snipped]
--
Graham
Mr. Tines
On 28 Sep 1995 21:44 +0100, in <09281995...@windsong.demon.co.uk>
Mr. Tines <ti...@windsong.demon.co.uk> wrote.....
>
> On 26 Sep 1995 16:42:15 GMT, in <449ah7$8...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>
> oil...@wam.umd.edu (Chad R Orzel) wrote.....
>
> > 1) Have you ever read anything that you _liked?_
>
[snip]
>
> Contemplating my bookshelves I see Barry Hughart's Number Ten Ox stories,
[list snipped]
Hmm, I seem to have managed to forget Glen Cook's _the Black Company_,
which I would add to that list.
- --
_______ PGP fingerprint: BC 01 55 27 B4 93 7C 9B 3C 54 D1 B7 24 8C 08 BC
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< "So. Who is the real Mr. Tines?"
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk (PGP preferred on principle)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Public key available from keyservers
iQCVAgUBMGwhfYoUd45Z7dNFAQGbswQAn3ZkPrZ/rtFF5e1gnGq5Liwhy4SRJkXm
TUa9zL4tGoY7mFR1HJLv2aH8CnCo+tdYsAykys5yNduAYvIO+3eZJCFDMWHWNS0r
+Cbn6u2G288dMZsfczwcqHXWqgDjXDKR3alWJSCgquysHSX25a7kqmmL/gbdeGH5
sxXhn/dT/iY=
=+1FG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Peter Shor
|> In <44flcm$u...@portal.gmu.edu>, acar...@osf1.gmu.edu (Andrew P Carter) writes:
|>
|> [ snipped question on why r.a.s.w.r-j gets more posts ]
|>
|> >...Just another sympton
|> >of the mass-market of the genre, where for every good book produced there
|> >are a hundred bad ones...
|>
|> RIGHT ON!
|>
|> I feel very strongly that the limited rack space for Sf/Fantasy is being
|> consumed more & more by the literary equivalent of junk food. Most of
|> the good stuff goes in & out of print so fast, if you blink, you'll miss
|> it. Try finding a copy of T. J. Bass' "The Godwhale" - your used book-
|> store or specialty shop might have it, but don't expect to find it at
|> B. Daltons or Waldonbooks. No, no, no.....we must make way for the
|> 205th volume in the "Sword of the Enchanter" series. *sheesh*, Star
|> Trek books alone take up an entire rack in the SF shelves.
|>
...
|>
|> The foregoing was all IMHO, of course.
|>
|> Stepping down from the soapbox,
|> Andy (rai...@connix.com)
I can't help but feel that this is why several of the best fantasies
written in the last year or two (IMHO, of course) were marketed as
mainstream novels ... namely, Bishop's "Brittle Innings," Delia
Sherman's "The Porcelain Dove," and Tim Power's "Last Call." How come
when Brooks and Jordan regularly make the best-seller list, publishers
think these gems have to go to the mainstream shelves to find an audience,
where I can only find them by recommendations, author recognition, or
pure luck?
Peter Shor
Andy Raibeck
[ snippage ]
>I can't help but feel that this is why several of the best fantasies
>written in the last year or two (IMHO, of course) were marketed as
>mainstream novels ... namely, Bishop's "Brittle Innings," Delia
>Sherman's "The Porcelain Dove," and Tim Power's "Last Call." How come
>when Brooks and Jordan regularly make the best-seller list, publishers
>think these gems have to go to the mainstream shelves to find an audience,
>where I can only find them by recommendations, author recognition, or
>pure luck?
Because these are the books that the publishers know will bring in all
dollareenies. They are series. Get the public hooked, and they'll buy
as many volumes in that series as you can churn out. You've read all
the Xanth novels, right? Well here's another one for you! Volume 98
in the "Wheel of Time" series comes out; you've read volumes 1-97,
so of course you need to find out what happens in 98! The publishers
have a built-in audience for these books, so they know it'll be a sure-
file bestseller.
This is why Jordan, Anthony, Brooks, etc., get all the heavy exposure:
the cardboard dumps at the front of the store, big articles in the
bookstore's newsletters, etc.
Meanwhile, I go looking in several stores for Bishop's "Brittle Innings",
and only one has it: two copies, one of which is beat all to hell, and
another one which is passable (hey, for $5.99 plus tax, I want the thing
in mint condition!). And what are the odds they will restock? Meanwhile,
I can still find "A Spell for Chameleon" anywhere I go! It's really
disgusting.
Again, all IMHO.
Andy (rai...@connix.com)
Andrea Lynn Leistra
Thomas Petersen <pete...@fys-hp-1.risoe.dk> wrote:
>Itamar Shtull-Trauring (max...@netvision.net.il) wrote:
>Dead is a strong word even if there's a lot of crud out there. And
>of course there are alternatives - just take a look at the shelves
>in your friendly local book-peddler. If you're looking for something
>without any quests in you should look at John Crowley, Stephen Brust,
>Tim Powers, Mervyn Peake, Michael Bishop and... well... a lot of other
>people.
Peake?
_Titus Groan_ was published in 1946: almost a decade before _The
Fellowship of the Ring_.
While it is great fantasy, it hardly fits into a discussion of
post-Tolkein writing.
I agree with most of the rest of what you write, particularly about
Freidman and Williams.
Andrea
Thomas Petersen
> Anyway, fantasy quest/travel books are DEAD! What new thing can you say
> after Lord of the Rings? There has to be some alternative.
Dead is a strong word even if there's a lot of crud out there. And
of course there are alternatives - just take a look at the shelves
in your friendly local book-peddler. If you're looking for something
without any quests in you should look at John Crowley, Stephen Brust,
Tim Powers, Mervyn Peake, Michael Bishop and... well... a lot of other
people.
If however you would actually like to read some questy fantasy with
something new to say here's some suggestions:
C.S. Friedman's _Coldfire Trilogy_ is definitely proof that you can write
new improved quest books. I have so far not known anyone who didn't
think this one is fantastic. It succesfully manages to relativize
the Evil we've come to know as a stock fantasy cliche without making
it become Good. This may not sound terribly new, but Friedman does
it better combining it with the traditional theme of the quest as
the means for moral growth.
Also Tad Williams' _Swords Trilogy_ is a fine read even if it isn't
perfect. It's a pretty traditional fantasy trilogy on the surface,
but the traditional fantasy elements of Good vs. Evil, duty handed
down from ancestors and so forth vaporizes on closer inspection.
What seems to be fate turns out to be random circumstance, the
friendly local King Arthur archetype is the product of sound business
sense and good public relations and in the end we're in doubt
whether to feel more sorry for the plight of the forces of evil
or good. Tad Williams quietly subverts the expectations we have
to the traditional quest fantasy trilogy, and still catches the
excitement of these adventure stories. I quite like it.
Of course there's Wolfe's _Books of the New Sun_. I would have
sworn you couldn't combine Borges with Tolkien, but Wolfe did it,
and it rocks. So there.
Thomas
Leonid Taycher
: : lem...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Daniel Lemberg) wrote:
: : >If fantasy is dead, how come rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jorden get more
: : >posts than this group does?
: Because people are attracted to nice, glossy covers. I think it's
: pathetic that Robert Jordan has his own newsgroup, while I've never
: seen a Robert Silverberg or Fritz Leiber one...Just another sympton
: of the mass-market of the genre, where for every good book produced there
: are a hundred bad ones...
Eeeeeeexcuse me.......if WoT was judged by its "glossy" covers, no would buy
those books.....
Lodrion
Stewart Robert Hinsley
a...@csi.compuserve.com "Alan Kaiser" writes:
>
> On a different angle to your premise, I think what you say illustrates one
> of my main gripes about book stores. It seems Fantasy is always thrown
> in with Sci-Fi or Horror, but is rarely by itself. Odd. You do not see
> Westerns and Sci-Fi thrown together. Yet they share some of the same
> similarities the bookstores state when they explain why they lump fantasy
> with another group.
>
> Alan
>
Some libraries do separate science fiction from fantasy. However they
don't always get the classification right; I've seen books from a
single series split between the science fiction and fantasy sections in
a single library.
I've always thought that the reason for keeping science fiction and
fantasy together was pragmatic; the indistinct boundary between the
two, and the commonality of readership, means that it's more effort
than it's worth to separate them.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley Managers are the servants of their staff
Nancy Lebovitz
>sworn you couldn't combine Borges with Tolkien, but Wolfe did it,
>and it rocks. So there.
>
worth, I can't see a Tolkien influence in it.
Melissa Jan
: In <DFosB...@research.att.com>, sh...@research.att.com (Peter Shor) writes:
: This is why Jordan, Anthony, Brooks, etc., get all the heavy exposure:
: the cardboard dumps at the front of the store, big articles in the
: bookstore's newsletters, etc.
Ouch! Jordan and Brooks in the same category as Anthony. Well,
no, IMHO, as Jordan and Brooks can actually write decently,
manage to develop good to excellent characters, come up with
reasonable story lines....
Admittedly (as I said in my original post), Brooks badly needs
to take a break; he's descended into the fringes of hack-work,
but even his worst is still far above Anthony, who can be said
to be the definition of hack.
All IMHO of course,
Melissa
--
There cannot be a crisis today; my schedule is already full.
Melissa Jan
: Itamar Shtull-Trauring (max...@netvision.net.il) wrote:
: > Anyway, fantasy quest/travel books are DEAD! What new thing can you say
: > after Lord of the Rings? There has to be some alternative.
: Dead is a strong word even if there's a lot of crud out there. And
: of course there are alternatives - just take a look at the shelves
: in your friendly local book-peddler. If you're looking for something
: without any quests in you should look at John Crowley, Stephen Brust,
: Tim Powers, Mervyn Peake, Michael Bishop and... well... a lot of other
: people.
: If however you would actually like to read some questy fantasy with
: something new to say here's some suggestions:
: C.S. Friedman's _Coldfire Trilogy_ is definitely proof that you can write
: new improved quest books. I have so far not known anyone who didn't
: think this one is fantastic. It succesfully manages to relativize
: the Evil we've come to know as a stock fantasy cliche without making
: it become Good. This may not sound terribly new, but Friedman does
: it better combining it with the traditional theme of the quest as
: the means for moral growth.
I am not disagreeing that those are great, excelllent, superb, etc
books. But they're *not* fantasy (despite what the idiot publisher
pasted on the cover <sputter, sputter>). I've argued this elsewhere
on the group, so I'll just put down my main point which is that Erna
is a macroscopic quantum mechanical world, and the entire development
is not that of fantasy.
Do like your comments.
: Also Tad Williams' _Swords Trilogy_ is a fine read even if it isn't
: perfect. It's a pretty traditional fantasy trilogy on the surface,
: but the traditional fantasy elements of Good vs. Evil, duty handed
: down from ancestors and so forth vaporizes on closer inspection.
: What seems to be fate turns out to be random circumstance, the
: friendly local King Arthur archetype is the product of sound business
: sense and good public relations and in the end we're in doubt
: whether to feel more sorry for the plight of the forces of evil
: or good. Tad Williams quietly subverts the expectations we have
: to the traditional quest fantasy trilogy, and still catches the
: excitement of these adventure stories. I quite like it.
Yes, that's almost exactly the point I was trying to make earlier!
Those were most impressive books.
: Of course there's Wolfe's _Books of the New Sun_. I would have
: sworn you couldn't combine Borges with Tolkien, but Wolfe did it,
: and it rocks. So there.
Hummm, something more it seems I must read!
Melissa Jan
me...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Melissa Jan) wrote.....
>> Mr. Tines (ti...@windsong.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>> : On 21 Sep 1995 22:55:32 GMT, in <43sqh4$d...@news.jhu.edu>
>> : me...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Melissa Jan) wrote.....
>>
>> : > Now to cite some examples of quality (IMHO) fantasy. If you've
>> : > read these, do come and argue with me some more...
>>
>> : I've read very few of these, but I'll give some reasons as to why.
>> ^^^^ ^^^
>> A single comment: if you haven't actually read them, how can you
>> judge?
>I still believe it is valid to comment as to *why* I haven't. If the books
>are as good as you suggest, it will still shed some light on the point of
>view that the genre just hasn't realised that it is dead.
Forgive my bluntness (this is the rudest thing I'll say in this post,
I promise), but the "why" seems to mainly be impatience, laziness,
intolerance... Down below, you mentioned some books you at least tried
by starting, that's OK, if you've read a hundred pages I'd say you're
entitled to an opinion (although I'll admit, I've read some really
awful things all the way through just out of stubbornness and sheer
disbelief that the thing could be this godawful and still be published,
but I don't expect anyone else to submit themselves to that sort of
suffering... <grin, shrug>).
As long as someone enjoys some of the works, no matter what others might
think of the works' quality, then the genre can scarcely be counted as
finished... But then the term "enjoys" is highly subjective is it not?
I first read JRRT and T. Brooks at about the age of 13.... Since then,
both have dropped in my estimation. Brooks' stories I now find rather
juvenile, but I still admire his writing abilities. JRRT, however, has
fallen much further: his partronizing and elliptical writing style really
annoys me now, and I can't find much any sympathy remaining for his
characters (mainly because JRRT puts forth little effort to develop them,
they're not at all complex, they don't grow/change, and they're quite
sterotypical). Nonetheless, who would deny some younger readers the
joy of discovering these authors? (I have some of my fiance's younger
siblings reading those books and they're having a great time--tho
they're liking Brooks more as he's easier to read...)
[snip]
>[discussing the Matter of Britain]
>> Point 2: Now how can one be satisfied with Mallory? First, there're all
>> the logical gaps in his version. eg., There's the matter of Niniane
>The tradition of realism in literature is of comparatively recent origin.
>Myself I would rather go as close to the original as I have the linguistics
>for, rather than settle for a re-make with some slant or other, be it
>virtuous Christian, virtuous Pagan, authentic post-Roman anthropology or
>whatever.
I would scarcely call Malory that close to the original. His _Morte
d'Arthur_ came along in the 14th century and was extremely heavily
based upon some 12th century works: Geoffrey of Monmouth's _Historia
Regnum Brittaniae_ and _Vita Merlini_ and Chretien de Troyes _Lancelot_.
As for the linguistic ability, you read Malory's work in the early
Gallo-French in which it was written? <skeptical shrug> or the later
translation into English? The 12th century works were similarly
translated. BTW, they're also based upon a 9th century _Historia
Brittinum_ by Nennius (a Christian monk who gave the Arthurian ledgend
it's heavily Christian slant--had Arthur carrying an image of Saint
Maria into battle on his shoulders and posed the whole struggle as
devout Christains against the pagan hordes; whereas Gildas, another
monk, wrote _The Loss and Conquest of Britian_ even earlier in about
540 AD, and who never mentions any "Arthur" by name though he talks
about the Battle of Badon Hill and later Camlann, an omission which
is seen by some scholars as a sign of disapproval, at the least, of
a king who was not particularly Christian). So you see, by the time
Malory comes along with his retelling, the story has *already* gone
thru several re-makes.....
Thus some of the modern re-works, most notably Rosemary Sutcliff's,
may indeed be returning closer to the "original" than Malory's by far.
>> also have the gripe with all the knights wearing plate armor. If such
>> a person as Arthur (or someone Arthur-like) actually existed, then the
>> best historical "fit" is in about 500 AD. Plate armor didn't exist
>> until about 8 centuries later. So satisfied with Mallory? Nope.
>Writing about the past with the conventions of the present is a widely used
>mannerism - Ming dynasty Chinese literature (roughly contemporary with
>plate armoured knights in the West), for example, would describe heroes of
>T'ang dynasty times (7th century) in Ming rather than T'ang fashions.
>I suppose that would cause you to discard the body of Chinese classical
>literature out of hand, when in fact the main reason to balk are lists of
>Dramatis Personae which make those in Wingrove's _Chung Kuo_ look short;
>and include far more intricate extended family relationships.
My gripe with Malory is far more with the plot inconsistancies I
pointed out in my previous post, which were snipped, than in the
plate armor business. If the rest of his story had panned out, I'd
be fine with taking his remake as a 14th century tale...
Back to the linguistics--you can read Ming dynasty characters as
well as early Gallo-French? Heck, I'll be impressed (that's not
sarcastic, despite how it sounds... I've studied modern Chinese,
Mandarin, for quite a bit of my life on and off, and still have
trouble with reading it). I can't say, however, that I've ever
made a point of specifically looking up Chinese lit, despite my
half-Chinese heritage (or perhaps because of it, my dad recites
Chinese poetry, in Chinese of course, and my mom, who is American,
got her PhD in Asian Humanities, so while I picked up a good bit
via osmosis I may have been oversaturated early on...)
Also, as said above, if the story is good, anachorisms are OK.
Anyway, isn't about the last 7th of _The Return of the King_ a
huge mass of Appendicies, genology charts, etc.....
> : > 2) Tad Williams: (Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn) _The Dragonbone
> : > Chair_, _The Stone of Farewell_, and _To Green Angel Tower_
> : Urk! Big fat-volume of trilogy => classic warning sign. Blurb no great
> : encouragement either. It looked identikit fantasy from the outside.
> Again, how can you tell without having read the books? Besides, the
> books (esp. the hardcovers) are most cool looking from the outside--
> they have Michael Whelan covers! :)
>Don't they all. That adds to the identikit nature. However the point I'm
>trying to make is that the books do not sell themselves to me. This may be
>because they successfully target themselves to a hard core by adopting a
>"this is another fantasy book with this selection of standard cliches that
>is just like all the other ones you enjoyed" marketing strategy. Playing
>safe, in other words.
Of course publishers want to play it safe, they're out to make $$$$, not
publish quality (again, very subjective term) literature.
Have to disagree, though, about Whelan's artwork looking like everyone
else's. His covers are quite distinct, once you start looking. Eg, one
you may have seen is the cover to Clarke's _2010_, that's the one with
Jupiter in the background as the womb for the Starchild, with the ship
Discovery in the foreground and the monolith in between as a bridge.
Regardless of what is thought of the story, that cover does present
a marvelous visual rendition of the major concepts in the book.
Furthermore, the fact that a book has a Whelan cover has several time
been the final deciding factor in my descision on whether or not to
fork out the $$$. Picked up C. S. Friedman's books and Joan D. Vinge's
via this method, and those two authors alone are enough to justify it.
>I have tried highly recommended fantasy works (ones that lodge in my memory
>are Donaldson's first Thomas Covenant books - where I bogged down in the
>middle of vol2 bemoaning the novella which had been bloated into the
>fat-trilogy Procrustean bed - and Edding's _Belgariad_ - where I, even at a
>time when I was desperate for text [I was consuming over a book per day,
>commuting to work, and had descended to some pretty trashy stuff], could
>not get past the first 100 pages, for reasons too numerous to list here)
>and found that I did not consider itself worth my time finishing them.
I still intend to pick up Donaldson's Covenant books, simply because
I want to see for myself how they are. Really wish I knew someone
who had them so that I could borrow them first...
Believe it or not, I'm actually going to agree with you <stand back and
wait for the world to end, grin>. I have read *all* of Eddings. While
I won't say that reading them once was a complete, utter, and absolute
waste of time, I'm certainly not going to be re-reading them (unlike
Mary Stewart and C. S. Friedman....). Eddings is prime example of
doing "Tolkien" far, far worse... Then again, the afore mentioned
younger siblings think Eddings is pretty good <shrug>.
>These other books look no different from the outside; they have the same
>recommendations from followers. I cannot distinguish them from books I
>could not read. Why should I spend time and money trying to find the gold
>amongst the dross, if the gold does not distinguish itself?
How, how, HOW is the gold supposed to go about doing this? I sincerely
wish the good (definition, what I like) books would so distinguish
themselves, and immediately appear on my bookshelves with no effort
or expenditure on my part, and...
[snip--re _Tehanu_]
>almost an entirely different person). My wife - who went out and bought
>the hardback - agrees that it would not be my sort of book.
OK, having someone who knows you well recommend/un-recommend books
is a good way to go. As your wife knows you far better than, I, I'll
defer to her judgement. My problem is, no one, absolutely no one,
who knows me well reads more than I.
[snip]
>>:> 5) Parke Godwin: _Firelord_, _Beloved Exile_, _Rainbow's End_,
>>:I've never noticed his fantasy but I have seen his "sf" books and not been
>>:inspired - they struck me as the sort of stuff that gives Sf a bad name.
>> Haven't read _Waiting for the Galactic Bus_ and _The Sanke Oil Wars_
>> either, hummm? Just glance at the cover blurbs? Well, of course one
>Is one supposed to simply buy books by the yard? I suppose if one has the
>time, and an amenable book shop, one could always read the book there in
>the store.
Libraries, friends collections, used books... As a matter of fact, I
have read books right in the bookstore. In my case, I often end up
buying anyway (limitations of the above three suggestions) and I re-read
often enough that the investment is worthwhile, but I have traded in
used books to get credit for more (a great local sf/f bookstore "Tales
From the White Hart" is very nice about this).
>> can mistake them. They're *satire*, you know, that respected, ancient
>> form developed by the Greeks...
>Satire merely dressed up in SF trappings *is* the sort of stuff that gives
>Sf a bad name.
Really? How so? Some of the most widely know sf, that I've actually
seen classified as literature, is arguably satire. I'm referring to
Orwell's _Animal Farm_ (sorta sf-ish) and _1984_ and Huxley's _Brave
New World_. In those cases, the authors are taking trends that they
saw in society and commenting (warning) on where they are headed, which
is effectively satire (at least as I see it, no doubt we'll be arguing
this more).
>> : > 6) Terry Brooks: Shannara series. OK, I'll admit the 2nd
[snip]
>> Case in point of doing "Tolkien" better than JRR...
>those who don't want anything too unsettling, it verged on plagiarism. If
>it was "better" in any respect, it was a pigmy standing on a giant's
>shoulder.
Discussed above. Writing and characterization, IMHO, still better.
Nor do I even now see his story as close to plagiarism...
[snip]
>> : > 9) Eve Forward: _Villains by Necessity_ Her first solo book
>> Her writing's considerably superior. Besides which, she makes
>> fun of many of these other authors you profess to dislike, so
>This makes me wary - my sense of humour is not easily engaged.
>> you may actually enjoy her book. Of course, you many miss many
>> of the references...
>So unless I've wasted my time previously, I might as well not waste my time
>on this, I guess.
Nah, she's still pretty funny, but the references make it funnier.
You'd certainly catch the JRRT ones. If you see the book in a store,
read the first two pages, if it hasn't caught you interest by then,
then it probably never will. But at least, the first two pages is
*all* you need to check to see if you'll like the book.
> : > 10)Robert Jordan: Wheel of Time.
[snip]
>> by people who fanatically love the books. Besides which, I'd always
>> rather form my *own* opinions rather than believe without testing
>> someone else's.
>I don't believe the opinions of others uncritically - otherwise I would be
>a Jordan-worshipper w/o needing to go to the effort of reading the books.
That inverse doesn't work. I wouldn't want to form a definitive opinion,
either favorable or dis-, without checking for myself.
>Rather I look to what has been said about the book and ask "so, what new
>things do I get out of reading it?". And all too often there isn't
>anything - which is as good an operative definition of a dead genre as any.
Another person on this thread has argued that nothing is actually original
and if one demands something new, then that person would have to stop
reading with the Epic of Gilgamesh. I find that statement both true and
not. True in the sense that, until we meet aliens, we won't find anything
that humans haven't said before, but not true in that something can't be
looked at from a new viewpoint [I think that this rather follows the other
person's argument, sorry no attrib].
Now, this is exactly why I enjoy reading all the different versions of
the Matter of Britian. The "new" comes from taking other viewpoints,
finding sympathy for different characters (Mary Stewart for instance,
actually deals with Mordred sympathetically, and in the end, one's
crying as much for him as for Arthur), and watching events through
different eyes. I doubt I could ever be satisfied with only one way
of looking at anything. I think this tendency started in part because
of my dual heritage--I can see the world either in the context of my
Chinese background or my American, and I can also see what's funny
(in the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip sense: "If we couldn't laugh,
we wouldn't be able to react to a lot of life.") about both viewpoints.
This attitude was driven home when I read a Canadian elementary school
history textbook--it portrayed the Americans as the bad guys! What a
lovely turn around. Besides which, many of humanity's greatest
advances have occurred when someone has seen the world in a different
way, eg, Copernicus saying that the Earth goes around the sun, Newton
making the connection that the same "force" which makes an apple fall
is also what causes the moon to circle the earth, Einstein tossing
the notion of forces and reexplaining events via relativity, and
Heisenburg, Planck, Schrodinger, et al (reluctantly) going past the
concept of the mechanistic universe and developing quantum mechanics
to name just a few.
(OK, getting back off the soapbox and more towards the subject...)
[snip]
>> In looking through your remarks, I can't help but notice a trend--
>> many authors you stopped reading about 2 decades ago, and the ones
>> whom you do mention as liking (eg. Blish and Cordwainer Smith)
>> haven't published in roughly the past 20 years, and furthermore
>Perhaps because they've been spending the interim dead for tax purposes...
Or perhaps because they realized they didn't have anything "new" to
say and had the good taste and manners to be quiet. :)
>> the only thing of LeGuin's you liked, Earthsea, was in 1968.
>> This begs the question:
>> ****** Was it the books/authors that changed, or YOU? ******
>
>In some cases (Clarke, Asimov) the bulk of their oeuvre predated 1975, and
>I had essentially read the set by then, and from a perspective of 1995 I
>feel that many of their works have not aged well (how many other writers
>from the 40s and 50s can you still find on the shelves?); in some cases
>(Clarke, Asimov, Heinlein, Zelazny) there is some widespread agreement that
>their later works are not in the same league as their early ones. In a few
>cases, I changed enough to be unable to read the books because I started
>noticing the politics (Heinlein).
>However, there is some merit in your highlit point - I was 18 in 1975, so
>there is perhaps an element of separation of adolescent tastes from later
>tastes.
I completely agree <think it's safe now, the world didn't end last time>.
When even a single person can go through enough changes to find things
which once appealed have now soured, there can certainly be no absolute
standard of what's "good" or "new." Like I said before, the younger
siblings are now enjoying the stuff I found good at a similar age
(though some of them even like Piers Anthony, sheesh! <grin>), and their
tastes will probably change as they get older.
[snip]
>> : > In conclusion (at last 8) ), fantasy is definately NOT dead.
>> : If not dead, then merely cancerous.
>> When hasn't roughly 95% of everything produced by the human race
>> been rubbish? But then, how can you find out if you don't at
>> least try?
>I don't have the time to waste wading through 19 bad books for the one
>good, if the good one doesn't make itself plain. However, if I were to
>follow your suggestion [snipped] and don't even look at Friedmann's books,
>how am I ever going to find out?
As said above, how is the good one supposed to make itself plain?
Considering some of the books you listed on a later post, you may
like Friedman's (one "n"). Apologies if I got too carried away
towards the end, by no means did I intend to say don't try; I
certainly think one should try as much as is humanly possible.
(Heck, I'm supposed to be doing my quantum and complex analysis
homework, revising a computer program, etc right now...)
But you do seem to become impatient very quickly, and Friedman's
books tend to take very careful reading, and a couple of re-readings
possibly to fully appreciate. Anyway, I'd never call a try a
waste of time.
Talk to you later,
Melissa
---
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger,
who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapt in awe, is as good as
dead. --Albert Einstein
Scott Jeter
> >of the mass-market of the genre, where for every good book produced there
> >are a hundred bad ones...
>
> You are so abso-fraggin-lutely RIGHT ON!
>
> I feel very strongly that the limited rack space for Sf/Fantasy is being
> consumed more & more by the literary equivalent of junk food. Most of
> the good stuff goes in & out of print so fast, if you blink, you'll miss
> it. Try finding a copy of T. J. Bass' "The Godwhale" - your used book-
> store or specialty shop might have it, but don't expect to find it at
> B. Daltons or Waldonbooks. No, no, no.....we must make way for the
> 205th volume in the "Sword of the Enchanter" series. *sheesh*, Star
> Trek books alone take up an entire rack in the SF shelves.
SF/Fantasy sections of bookstores are growing. And the reson that your
book is not there is twofold: a) it wasn't popular and b) the buyer for
your bookstore is not a SF/Fantasy reader.
> I don't really mean to belittle these types of books, or the people who
> read them. They certainly have their place, and I'd rather see someone
> spend their time reading a Star Trek book than not read at all. But I
> don't want to see great works by other authors pushed out of the way
> for this stuff. Put another way: how would readers of general (non-genre)
> fiction if the general fiction racks were all filled with the works of
> Judith Krantz, Jackie Collins, Harold Robbins, and their ilk?
That is all well and good. You are however comparing Robert Jordan to
PULP series.
Some would be very angered by this.
Hmmm.... Literature, Craft, Pulp.
I think Jordan fits somewhere between literature and craft.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Scott Jeter ::
:: sje...@odin.cbu.edu ::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
Scott Jeter
> Yet this seems to happen with other writers...Michael Crichton writes
> science fiction but sells from a non-genre marketing stance.
Most of Crichton's works are actually only thinly disguised non-fiction.
Andromeda Strain was speculative. The others are probably best described as
techno-thrillers. Actually Crichton defies categorization. He belongs
equally in techno-thriller and sf and adventure and suspense/horror/ dark
fantasy. Where do they put him? In popular fiction of course, where
everyone can find him.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Scott Jeter ::
:: sje...@odin.cbu.edu ::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
Scott Jeter
>
> Eeeeeeexcuse me.......if WoT was judged by its "glossy" covers, no would buy
> those books.....
Yeah, cause the covers suck.