Culture shock
Michael Stemper
Monday. Thanks to all of you who kept discussing this series here,
and piquing my interest!
Initial reactions:
The story pulled me in from the first page. The prison cell scene,
while a little gross, was also engrossing. Banks' writing carried
me along effortlessly.
He reminds me slightly of a mix of Mervyn Peake and Douglas Adams.
The descriptions, if not the events, in the chapter "Eaters" seemed
straight out of Peake's style guide. The drone ship, on the other
hand, reminded me of "Eddie" on the Heart of Gold. The reporter
covering the Damage game also seemed like somebody out of tHHGttG.
I'm about halfway through, but just received a big shock. I had
found this at my local library, under intense pressure from posters
here (you know who you are!). Unfortunately, I just checked their
on-line catalog, and found that they have neither _Use of Weapons_
nor _Player of Games_, which are the two books most highly recommended
for reading after _Consider Phlebas_. I might have to break down
and have a bookstore order copies for me -- something that I've
always refrained from doing.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
The FAQ for rec.arts.sf.written is at:
http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper/sf-written.htm
Please read it before posting.
Niall McAuley
> Unfortunately, I just checked their
> on-line catalog, and found that they have neither _Use of Weapons_
> nor _Player of Games_, which are the two books most highly recommended
> for reading after _Consider Phlebas_.
The only reading order suggestions I'd give for the Culture novels
are to try _Consider Phlebas_ first, and even if you don't like it,
try _Use of Weapons_ anyhow, but you're there already.
OK, a much more diffident suggestion would be to save _Inversions_
until after you've read _Use of Weapons_, since some hints will be
easier to spot if you are more familiar with Special Circumstances.
You can safely read _Look to Windward_ or _Excession_ right away.
--
Niall [real address ends in se, not es.invalid]
GSV Three Minds in a Can
wonderful person Michael Stemper <mste...@siemens-emis.com> said
<SNIP>
>I'm about halfway through, but just received a big shock. I had
>found this at my local library, under intense pressure from posters
>here (you know who you are!). Unfortunately, I just checked their
>on-line catalog, and found that they have neither _Use of Weapons_
>nor _Player of Games_, which are the two books most highly recommended
>for reading after _Consider Phlebas_. I might have to break down
>and have a bookstore order copies for me -- something that I've
>always refrained from doing.
If you really liked _CP_ then you might want to leap to _Excession_,
and/or _Look to Windward_. _UoW_ and _PoG_ are more branch lines ..
different flavour (but still good).
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
t...@localhost.localdomain
> I finally started reading my first Culture book, _Consider Phlebas_,
> Monday. Thanks to all of you who kept discussing this series here,
> and piquing my interest!
>
> Initial reactions:
>
> The story pulled me in from the first page. The prison cell scene,
> while a little gross, was also engrossing. Banks' writing carried
> me along effortlessly.
Banks has this habit of inserting some extreme grossness to his
products. One might call it even a mild authorial obsession.
The whole concept behind the beginning prison cell and it's use were
(IMHO) pure literary genius. Along the Chairmaker in _Use of Weapons_.
I find it entertaining,though. He doesn't overdo it.
--
Tapio Erola (t...@tols17.oulu.fi) No mail to t...@rak061.oulu.fi please!
"I hope I die before I get old"
--The Who, My Generation
David Bilek
>Michael Stemper <mste...@siemens-emis.com> writes:
>
>> I finally started reading my first Culture book, _Consider Phlebas_,
>> Monday. Thanks to all of you who kept discussing this series here,
>> and piquing my interest!
>>
>> Initial reactions:
>>
>> The story pulled me in from the first page. The prison cell scene,
>> while a little gross, was also engrossing. Banks' writing carried
>> me along effortlessly.
>
>Banks has this habit of inserting some extreme grossness to his
>products. One might call it even a mild authorial obsession.
>
>The whole concept behind the beginning prison cell and it's use were
>(IMHO) pure literary genius. Along the Chairmaker in _Use of Weapons_.
>
>I find it entertaining,though. He doesn't overdo it.
Have you read _The Wasp Factory_?
-David
Elf M. Sternberg
> You can safely read _Look to Windward_ or _Excession_ right away.
Heh. I would strongly suggest _The Also People_ between
_Consider Phlebas_ and _Look To Windward_, just to keep the events in
chronological order.
Elf, with a completely straight face.
David Bilek
>"Niall McAuley" <Niall....@eei.ericsson.es.invalid> writes:
>
>> You can safely read _Look to Windward_ or _Excession_ right away.
>
> Heh. I would strongly suggest _The Also People_ between
>_Consider Phlebas_ and _Look To Windward_, just to keep the events in
>chronological order.
>
What have you done with Mark Atwood?!?
I've read the synopsis of _The Also People_, and it sure does seem
like Aaronivitch (sp?) is a Banks fan.
-David
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
>t...@localhost.localdomain wrote:
>>
>>Banks has this habit of inserting some extreme grossness to his
>>products. One might call it even a mild authorial obsession.
>>
>>The whole concept behind the beginning prison cell and it's use were
>>(IMHO) pure literary genius. Along the Chairmaker in _Use of Weapons_.
>>
>>I find it entertaining,though. He doesn't overdo it.
>
>Have you read _The Wasp Factory_?
Oooo yeah baby.
Tangetially, have y'all seen *this*?
(Warning! Extreme grossness, possibly to non-worksafe levels.
Also by association a minor spoiler for _The Wasp Factory_.
Do not proceed unless you know what you're doing. If it's on
a web page it must be real, right? Well, maybe when that web
page is snopes. I love snopes.)
http://www.snopes.com/photos/maggots.asp
--
Leif Kjønnøy, Geek of a Few Trades. http://www.pvv.org/~leifmk
Disclaimer: Do not try this at home.
Void where prohibited by law.
Batteries not included.
Elf M. Sternberg
> What have you done with Mark Atwood?!?
"Nothing, yet. Why, do you think I should?"
Actually, the first copy of Also People he had was one I loaned
to him. I still keep meaning to scan it in; the paper format is
fragile.
> I've read the synopsis of _The Also People_, and it sure does seem
> like Aaronivitch (sp?) is a Banks fan.
Aaronovitch.
Oh, it's more than mere fandom. It's a whole-hog
ripoff^H^H^H^H^H^Hhomage to The Culture. And, I agree; it's better
written in that it's actually a meaningful adventure story with sound,
well-crafted characters and none of Bank's insufferable literary
pretensions.
Elf
Elf M. Sternberg
> (Warning! Extreme grossness, possibly to non-worksafe levels.
> Also by association a minor spoiler for _The Wasp Factory_.
I did not look at the photo. The URL was enough. And having
read _The Wasp Factory_, damn but if I don't have to scrub my brain out
*again*.
Elf
d...@tao.merseine.nu
Fan, nothing.
Having heard about it here, I borrowed it from MITSFS and then bought a
copy from half.com.
It's a Banks Culture novel that wasn't written by Banks and has an odd
nonCulture (nyekulturni?) Doctor wandering through.
-dsr-
--
Network engineer / pre-sales engineer available in the Boston area.
http://tao.merseine.nu/~dsr
raycun
(The Also People)
none of Bank's insufferable literary
> pretensions.
Its the literary pretensions that make him enjoyable. Writers should
at least aspire to literature some of the time.
And to the OP -
you can go on to any of the other Culture novels without any harm
done, but I'd recommend using interlibrary loan to read them in
publication order. And don't stop at the 'M' books, or the Culture
books - everything by Iain Banks (except Song of Stone) is worth
reading.
Ray
Jens Kilian
- David Silberstein
--
mailto:j...@acm.org phone:+49-7031-464-7698 (TELNET 778-7698)
http://www.bawue.de/~jjk/ fax:+49-7031-464-7351
As the air to a bird, or the sea to a fish,
so is contempt to the contemptible. [Blake]
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Jens Kilian <Jens_...@agilent.com> wrote:
> Memo to self: It's a bad idea to follow any URL which has "maggots" in it.
Y'all was *warned*.
Elf M. Sternberg
> Elf M. Sternberg <e...@drizzle.com> wrote in message news:<m3llx8x...@drizzle.com>...
> (The Also People)
> none of Bank's insufferable literary
>> pretensions.
> Its the literary pretensions that make him enjoyable. Writers should
> at least aspire to literature some of the time.
The problem is that where Banks is being "literary," he is
neither fun nor interesting. Where his work is fun or interesting, he
is not being literary.
And remember, unlike many people here, I really like Clute's
_Appleseed_, which is nothing but literary pretension masquerading as
clever SF.
Elf
David Bilek
>ray...@hotmail.com (raycun) writes:
>
>> Elf M. Sternberg <e...@drizzle.com> wrote in message news:<m3llx8x...@drizzle.com>...
>> (The Also People)
>
>> none of Bank's insufferable literary
>>> pretensions.
>
>> Its the literary pretensions that make him enjoyable. Writers should
>> at least aspire to literature some of the time.
>
> The problem is that where Banks is being "literary," he is
>neither fun nor interesting. Where his work is fun or interesting, he
>is not being literary.
>
How, then, do you explain that _Use of Weapons_ is widely (on RASFW at
least) considered Banks' best SF work? It's arguably the most overtly
literary of his "M" books.
-David
Andrew Wheeler
No, no. _Appleseed_ is Clute trying to write a Delany novel as if done
by Lionel Fanthorpe with a really *immense* thesaurus and a stench fetish.
To the other point -- it's only "pretense" if you don't achieve it, so I
wouldn't call *Banks's* work pretentious. I think he delivers the real goods.
--
Andrew Wheeler
--
People tell me one thing and out the other. I feel as much like I did
yesterday as I did today. I never liked room temperature. My throat is
closer than it seems. Likes and dislikes are among my favorites. No
napkin is sanitary enough for me. I don't like any of my loved ones.
--from a brain damage reading test by Daniel M. Wegner
Jeroen
> And remember, unlike many people here, I really like Clute's
> _Appleseed_, which is nothing but literary pretension masquerading as
> clever SF.
>
> Elf
I like _Appleseed_!
And _Use of Weapons_ is my favourite book!
Clute's clearly been at the acid bottle, but then so's Banks (and so have
I, which is how I can tell) and that's no bad thing anyway!
Off to reread Grant Morrison's _Invisibles_,
Jeroen
--
Jeroen
> as if done by Lionel Fanthorpe
You know, that's possibly the most vicious thing I've _ever_ seen anyone
say on Usenet ;-)
OWK
> I'm about halfway through, but just received a big shock. I had
> found this at my local library, under intense pressure from posters
> here (you know who you are!). Unfortunately, I just checked their
> on-line catalog, and found that they have neither _Use of Weapons_
> nor _Player of Games_, which are the two books most highly recommended
> for reading after _Consider Phlebas_. I might have to break down
> and have a bookstore order copies for me -- something that I've
> always refrained from doing.
[aside]
I ended up reading these two *last* due to roughly the same reasons.
I eventually picked them both up used from England at a bit or a
premium due to shipping costs. I don't regret it - and I also like
the British cover art better.
My copy of "Consider Phlebas" (actually I have two) was a UK printing
purchased in the US with a little sticker over the part that says it's
not allowed to be sold in the US...
- Kurt
OWK
I think the main thing I liked about "The Wasp Factory" was how the
island's geography had picked up names and accompanying symbology from
the activities and features that took place there. The hill with all
the rodents for instance... Gave me a direct connection when browsing
lists of English place names that included translations of their
etymology.
This, however, was but a minor thing. I found the book a quick read
that was just engrossing in how it sucked you in. I could imagine a
child growing in somewhat similar circumstances and doing many of the
same things (so to speak.) [And based upon friends in high school who
specialized in building pipe bombs and blowing trees over simply
because they could - and they developed some serious technical
know-how in developing their weapons of arboreal destruction.]
- Kurt
Brett O'Callaghan
>"Niall McAuley" <Niall....@eei.ericsson.es.invalid> writes:
>> You can safely read _Look to Windward_ or _Excession_ right away.
> Heh. I would strongly suggest _The Also People_ between
>_Consider Phlebas_ and _Look To Windward_, just to keep the events in
>chronological order.
... But only if you want to read a third-rate photocopy written by a
talentless hack, of course.
Byeeeee.
--
Gadzooks - here comes the Harbourmaster!
http://www.geocities.com/brettocallaghan - Newsgroup Stats for Agent
Jeroen
> http://www.snopes.com/photos/maggots.asp
>
Just flashed on what that must be. *Not* going to go and check, coz even if
I'm wrong, I just recalled possibly the nastiest urban legend I ever
heard...a memory I've been keeping buried these last ten years, which is
going right back in the box!
--
"Man will become better when you show him what he is like." - Chekhov
phil hunt
>>
>>Banks has this habit of inserting some extreme grossness to his
>>products. One might call it even a mild authorial obsession.
>>
>>The whole concept behind the beginning prison cell and it's use were
>>(IMHO) pure literary genius. Along the Chairmaker in _Use of Weapons_.
>>
>>I find it entertaining,though. He doesn't overdo it.
>
>Have you read _The Wasp Factory_?
Banks was interviewed on the radio about that a few years ago, and
the interviewer said she had to physically put the book down.
--
Philip Hunt <ph...@cabalamat.org>
Interested in adventure holidays in Spain?
Look at: <http://www.cabalamat.org/advcon/>
Eric Walker
> . . .
>
>[_Use of Weapons_ is] arguably the most overtly literary of
>his "M" books.
Sorry, I'm late joining the thread. Would someone want to
refresh me on what literary-ness is and how we quantify it?
I had always thought that all books were literary, "of, having
the nature of, or dealing with literature" or "of, or having to
do with, books", which seem hard things to quantify.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, webmaster
Great Science-Fiction & Fantasy Works
http://greatsfandf.com
Doug Palmer
> Banks was interviewed on the radio about that a few years ago, and the
> interviewer said she had to physically put the book down.
As opposed to mentally putting it down by telekinesis, I suppose. Or it
attaching to her hand like a parasite vampire book from space.
Banks' SF must be very powerful.
--
Doug Palmer http://www.charvolant.org/~doug do...@charvolant.org
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>On Sun, 18 May 2003 04:38:34 +0100, phil hunt wrote:
>
>> Banks was interviewed on the radio about that a few years ago, and the
>> interviewer said she had to physically put the book down.
>
>As opposed to mentally putting it down by telekinesis, I suppose. Or it
>attaching to her hand like a parasite vampire book from space.
As opposed to having a veterinarian put it down for her. "Doc, this
poor ol' book, it's just too sick to live . . ."
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Andrew Wheeler
>
> On Fri, 16 May 2003 17:34:12 GMT, David Bilek wrote:
>
> > . . .
> >
> >[_Use of Weapons_ is] arguably the most overtly literary of
> >his "M" books.
>
> Sorry, I'm late joining the thread. Would someone want to
> refresh me on what literary-ness is and how we quantify it?
>
> I had always thought that all books were literary, "of, having
> the nature of, or dealing with literature" or "of, or having to
> do with, books", which seem hard things to quantify.
Literary-ness is that which makes skiffy readers go, "Ick! Big Words!"
when they accidentally stumble over it. Fancy structure also enters into
it, but skiffy readers are less likely to notice that.
Andrew Wheeler
>
> On Thu, 15 May 2003 18:21:42 GMT, David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>Banks has this habit of inserting some extreme grossness to his
> >>products. One might call it even a mild authorial obsession.
> >>
> >>The whole concept behind the beginning prison cell and it's use were
> >>(IMHO) pure literary genius. Along the Chairmaker in _Use of Weapons_.
> >>
> >>I find it entertaining,though. He doesn't overdo it.
> >
> >Have you read _The Wasp Factory_?
>
> Banks was interviewed on the radio about that a few years ago, and
> the interviewer said she had to physically put the book down.
As opposed to mentally putting it down? I'm not still holding it myself,
so I suppose I, too, "had to physically put it down."
David Dyer-Bennet
> Eric Walker wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 16 May 2003 17:34:12 GMT, David Bilek wrote:
> >
> > > . . .
> > >
> > >[_Use of Weapons_ is] arguably the most overtly literary of
> > >his "M" books.
> >
> > Sorry, I'm late joining the thread. Would someone want to
> > refresh me on what literary-ness is and how we quantify it?
> >
> > I had always thought that all books were literary, "of, having
> > the nature of, or dealing with literature" or "of, or having to
> > do with, books", which seem hard things to quantify.
>
> Literary-ness is that which makes skiffy readers go, "Ick! Big Words!"
> when they accidentally stumble over it. Fancy structure also enters into
> it, but skiffy readers are less likely to notice that.
Big words don't bother me as such; I loved Gene Wolfe's use of
language in the New Sun books, for example (and hated Donaldson's in
the first Covenant book).
"Fancy" (that is, gratuitously confusing) structure does bother me
fairly often when I encounter it -- Pulp Fiction, or Lord of Light,
come to mind as egregious examples. Oh; Dhalgren, too, of course; but
I disliked *most* things about that book, wheras only the structure
was bothersome in the first two examples. I was a *big* fan of
Delany before Dhalgren; he was one of my favorite authors. He never
really recovered, though Triton was a bit better, and I gave up
somewhat after that.
Rampant obscurantism bothers me. Refusing to reveal what's going on
bothers me. Making the reader play silly guessing games bothers me.
Couldn't *stand* Use of Weapons; it made me say the Eight Deadly Words
very early on, and never gave me any slightest temptation to change my
mind.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd...@dd-b.net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
David Dyer-Bennet
> phil hunt wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 15 May 2003 18:21:42 GMT, David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>Banks has this habit of inserting some extreme grossness to his
> > >>products. One might call it even a mild authorial obsession.
> > >>
> > >>The whole concept behind the beginning prison cell and it's use were
> > >>(IMHO) pure literary genius. Along the Chairmaker in _Use of Weapons_.
> > >>
> > >>I find it entertaining,though. He doesn't overdo it.
> > >
> > >Have you read _The Wasp Factory_?
> >
> > Banks was interviewed on the radio about that a few years ago, and
> > the interviewer said she had to physically put the book down.
>
> As opposed to mentally putting it down? I'm not still holding it myself,
> so I suppose I, too, "had to physically put it down."
And as opposed to verbally putting it down.
Martin Wisse
<ra...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 May 2003 17:34:12 GMT, David Bilek wrote:
>
>> . . .
>>
>>[_Use of Weapons_ is] arguably the most overtly literary of
>>his "M" books.
>
>Sorry, I'm late joining the thread. Would someone want to
>refresh me on what literary-ness is and how we quantify it?
Literary in this context means "like that there mainstream stuff over
yonder", i.e. too much emphasis on character, setting and mood for the
"science fiction is about killing aliens with sensawunda, dammit" crowd.
Martin Wisse
Kings and lords come and go and leave nothing but
statues in a desert, while a couple of young men
tinkering in a workshop change the way the world works.
-Terry Prachett, _The Truth_
David Bilek
>Eric Walker wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2003 17:34:12 GMT, David Bilek wrote:
>>
>> > . . .
>> >
>> >[_Use of Weapons_ is] arguably the most overtly literary of
>> >his "M" books.
>>
>> Sorry, I'm late joining the thread. Would someone want to
>> refresh me on what literary-ness is and how we quantify it?
>>
>> I had always thought that all books were literary, "of, having
>> the nature of, or dealing with literature" or "of, or having to
>> do with, books", which seem hard things to quantify.
>
>Literary-ness is that which makes skiffy readers go, "Ick! Big Words!"
>when they accidentally stumble over it. Fancy structure also enters into
>it, but skiffy readers are less likely to notice that.
>
I don't think so... Banks, for example, doesn't use particularly large
words. My classification of _Use of Weapons_ as the most overtly
literary of his "M" works is based entirely on its experimental
structure.
-David
David Bilek
>On Sun, 18 May 2003 02:08:07 -0700 (PDT), "Eric Walker"
><ra...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 May 2003 17:34:12 GMT, David Bilek wrote:
>>
>>> . . .
>>>
>>>[_Use of Weapons_ is] arguably the most overtly literary of
>>>his "M" books.
>>
>>Sorry, I'm late joining the thread. Would someone want to
>>refresh me on what literary-ness is and how we quantify it?
>
>Literary in this context means "like that there mainstream stuff over
>yonder", i.e. too much emphasis on character, setting and mood for the
>"science fiction is about killing aliens with sensawunda, dammit" crowd.
>
Oh, really?
"In this context" must refer to my words, as I'm the one who used the
word literary. Care to back up that I think _Use of Weapons_ has too
much emphasis on character, setting, and mood?
In doing so, you might note that I am on record in RASFW as
considering _Use of Weapons_ my favorite novel and one of the greatest
works of SF of the past couple of decades.
-David
Elf M. Sternberg
> Literary-ness is that which makes skiffy readers go, "Ick! Big Words!"
> when they accidentally stumble over it. Fancy structure also enters into
> it, but skiffy readers are less likely to notice that.
On the contrary, it is the "fancy structure" which Banks
attempts that annoys me, precisely because it is so obvious. The axes
which some authors, such as Weber or LeGuin, grind so loudly have
nothing on the size of Banks's "I'm so clever" fountain pen.
This doesn't mean I don't like Banks. I just think he's not as
as clever as other people seem to believe.
ELf
Jeroen
> As opposed to having a veterinarian put it down for her. "Doc, this
> poor ol' book, it's just too sick to live . . ."
>
Have you ever read _The Mad Man_ by Delaney?
If you have, you'll know what I mean.
If you haven't, don't. Really don't. Unless you habitually wear a yellow
hanky in your back right trouser pocket...
-Jeroen
Jeroen
> Kings and lords come and go and leave nothing but
> statues in a desert, while a couple of young men
> tinkering in a workshop change the way the world works.
> -Terry Prachett, _The Truth_
>
Bloody hell...that's a pretty good sig!
phil hunt
>phil hunt wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 15 May 2003 18:21:42 GMT, David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>Banks has this habit of inserting some extreme grossness to his
>> >>products. One might call it even a mild authorial obsession.
>> >>
>> >>The whole concept behind the beginning prison cell and it's use were
>> >>(IMHO) pure literary genius. Along the Chairmaker in _Use of Weapons_.
>> >>
>> >>I find it entertaining,though. He doesn't overdo it.
>> >
>> >Have you read _The Wasp Factory_?
>>
>> Banks was interviewed on the radio about that a few years ago, and
>> the interviewer said she had to physically put the book down.
>
>As opposed to mentally putting it down?
Hey, I'm just repeating what the interviewer said. (as I remember
it).
John
"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:m2el2wi...@gw.dd-b.net...snip
>
> Rampant obscurantism bothers me. Refusing to reveal what's going on
> bothers me. Making the reader play silly guessing games bothers me.
>
> Couldn't *stand* Use of Weapons; it made me say the Eight Deadly Words
> very early on, and never gave me any slightest temptation to change my
> mind.
> --
I thought those words might be "Bugger This For A Game Of Soldiers", but
it's too short.
Josh Kaderlan
> Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.com> writes:
>
>> Literary-ness is that which makes skiffy readers go, "Ick! Big Words!"
>> when they accidentally stumble over it. Fancy structure also enters into
>> it, but skiffy readers are less likely to notice that.
>
> On the contrary, it is the "fancy structure" which Banks
> attempts that annoys me, precisely because it is so obvious. The axes
> which some authors, such as Weber or LeGuin, grind so loudly have
> nothing on the size of Banks's "I'm so clever" fountain pen.
Er, you do know that when Banks wrote *Use of Weapons*, it was done in straight
chronological order, right? It was Ken MacLeod's suggestion to re-order the
chronology, after the book had been rejected multiple times. So I don't think
you can put the structure of that book, at least, down to Banks going "I'm so
clever".
-Josh
Josh Kaderlan
> Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.com> writes:
>
>> when they accidentally stumble over it. Fancy structure also enters into
>> it, but skiffy readers are less likely to notice that.
>
> Big words don't bother me as such; I loved Gene Wolfe's use of
> language in the New Sun books, for example (and hated Donaldson's in
> the first Covenant book).
>
> "Fancy" (that is, gratuitously confusing) structure does bother me
> fairly often when I encounter it -- Pulp Fiction, or Lord of Light,
> come to mind as egregious examples. Oh; Dhalgren, too, of course; but
> I disliked *most* things about that book, wheras only the structure
> was bothersome in the first two examples.
What distinction do you draw between gratuitously confusing and non-gratuitously
confusing structure? The chronological re-ordering in PULP FICTION doesn't seem
gratuitous to me at all; in fact, I think it makes the story better than it
would be otherwise.
-Josh
David Dyer-Bennet
> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
> news:m2el2wi...@gw.dd-b.net...
> > Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.com> writes:
> >
> > > Eric Walker wrote:
> > > >
> snip
> >
> > Rampant obscurantism bothers me. Refusing to reveal what's going on
> > bothers me. Making the reader play silly guessing games bothers me.
> >
> > Couldn't *stand* Use of Weapons; it made me say the Eight Deadly Words
> > very early on, and never gave me any slightest temptation to change my
> > mind.
>
> I thought those words might be "Bugger This For A Game Of Soldiers", but
> it's too short.
More specific, but coming to the same thing in the end:
"I don't care what happens to these people".
David Dyer-Bennet
Wheras to me it doesn't at all; it simply serves to add confusion to a
story that's already quite complex.
Elf M. Sternberg
>> On the contrary, it is the "fancy structure" which Banks
>> attempts that annoys me, precisely because it is so obvious. The axes
>> which some authors, such as Weber or LeGuin, grind so loudly have
>> nothing on the size of Banks's "I'm so clever" fountain pen.
> Er, you do know that when Banks wrote *Use of Weapons*, it was done in straight
> chronological order, right? It was Ken MacLeod's suggestion to re-order the
> chronology, after the book had been rejected multiple times. So I don't think
> you can put the structure of that book, at least, down to Banks going "I'm so
> clever".
Since I haven't read _Use of Weapons_, I wasn't commenting on
it, nor am I sure why you decided that that was the particular book that
I was targeting. Banks does "clever" things with structure in _Look to
Windward_ as well, and I found his interwoven and temporally unreliable
placement annoying there as well.
I like Banks the way I like open source software. It has the
perpetual feel of being in beta, and not quite ready for release.
Elf
raycun
> On Fri, 16 May 2003 17:34:12 GMT, David Bilek wrote:
>
> > . . .
> >
> >[_Use of Weapons_ is] arguably the most overtly literary of
> >his "M" books.
>
> Sorry, I'm late joining the thread. Would someone want to
> refresh me on what literary-ness is and how we quantify it?
That's easy.
Literature is what we point to when we say, "That is literature", and
you quantify it by counting the number of people pointing.
Or you could talk about non-linear structures, experimental uses of
language, central characters that are not stereotypically 'heroic',
plots that are about the relationships of the central characters
rather than a battle against some external enemy, all and none of the
above...
Pointing is much easier.
Ray
Jens Kilian
> Just flashed on what that must be. *Not* going to go and check, coz even if
> I'm wrong, I just recalled possibly the nastiest urban legend I ever
> heard...a memory I've been keeping buried these last ten years, which is
> going right back in the box!
Have you read _The Wasp Factory_ yet?
--
mailto:j...@acm.org phone:+49-7031-464-7698 (TELNET 778-7698)
http://www.bawue.de/~jjk/ fax:+49-7031-464-7351
As the air to a bird, or the sea to a fish,
so is contempt to the contemptible. [Blake]
Richard Horton
wrote:
>Er, you do know that when Banks wrote *Use of Weapons*, it was done in straight
>chronological order, right? It was Ken MacLeod's suggestion to re-order the
>chronology, after the book had been rejected multiple times. So I don't think
>you can put the structure of that book, at least, down to Banks going "I'm so
>clever".
Actually, I seem to recall Ken saying once that it was originally in
an even weirder order -- maybe something like Christopher Priest's
_Darkening Island_, with seemingly random snippets all over the place.
However, I don't think the order of narration in _Use of Weapons_ is
at all "pretentious", and certainly not "too clever". It's essential
for the impact of the book, and it has considerable internal logic.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
Ben
> David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> writes:
>
> > What have you done with Mark Atwood?!?
>
> "Nothing, yet. Why, do you think I should?"
>
> Actually, the first copy of Also People he had was one I loaned
> to him. I still keep meaning to scan it in; the paper format is
> fragile.
>
> > I've read the synopsis of _The Also People_, and it sure does seem
> > like Aaronivitch (sp?) is a Banks fan.
>
> Aaronovitch.
>
> Oh, it's more than mere fandom. It's a whole-hog
> ripoff^H^H^H^H^H^Hhomage to The Culture. And, I agree; it's better
> written in that it's actually a meaningful adventure story with sound,
> well-crafted characters and none of Bank's insufferable literary
> pretensions.
>
The word we're looking for here is steal - I stole the whole Culture as
a background for a Doctor Who story.
It says so in the preface.
Ben
Ben
> In article <rmo7cvclp49q0t294...@4ax.com>, David Bilek wrote:
> > Elf M. Sternberg <e...@drizzle.com> wrote:
> >>"Niall McAuley" <Niall....@eei.ericsson.es.invalid> writes:
> >>
> >>> You can safely read _Look to Windward_ or _Excession_ right away.
> >>
> >> Heh. I would strongly suggest _The Also People_ between
> >>_Consider Phlebas_ and _Look To Windward_, just to keep the events in
> >>chronological order.
> >>
> >
> > What have you done with Mark Atwood?!?
> >
> > like Aaronivitch (sp?) is a Banks fan.
>
>
> Having heard about it here, I borrowed it from MITSFS and then bought a
> copy from half.com.
>
> It's a Banks Culture novel that wasn't written by Banks and has an odd
> nonCulture (nyekulturni?) Doctor wandering through.
>
You think?
Ben
Josh Kaderlan
> Josh Kaderlan <j...@zer0.org> writes:
>
>> In article <m2el2wi...@gw.dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> > Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> Literary-ness is that which makes skiffy readers go, "Ick! Big Words!"
>> >> when they accidentally stumble over it. Fancy structure also enters into
>> >> it, but skiffy readers are less likely to notice that.
>> >
>> > Big words don't bother me as such; I loved Gene Wolfe's use of
>> > language in the New Sun books, for example (and hated Donaldson's in
>> > the first Covenant book).
>> >
>> > "Fancy" (that is, gratuitously confusing) structure does bother me
>> > fairly often when I encounter it -- Pulp Fiction, or Lord of Light,
>> > come to mind as egregious examples. Oh; Dhalgren, too, of course; but
>> > I disliked *most* things about that book, wheras only the structure
>> > was bothersome in the first two examples.
>>
>> What distinction do you draw between gratuitously confusing and
>> non-gratuitously confusing structure? The chronological re-ordering in
>> PULP FICTION doesn't seem gratuitous to me at all; in fact, I think it makes
>> the story better than it would be otherwise.
>
> Wheras to me it doesn't at all; it simply serves to add confusion to a
> story that's already quite complex.
So as I asked, what's the difference between gratuitously confusing structure
and complex structure that you don't find gratuitously confusing?
(Personally, I didn't find the structure of PULP FICTION confusing at all.)
-Josh
Josh Kaderlan
> Josh Kaderlan <j...@zer0.org> writes:
>
>>> On the contrary, it is the "fancy structure" which Banks
>>> attempts that annoys me, precisely because it is so obvious. The axes
>>> which some authors, such as Weber or LeGuin, grind so loudly have
>>> nothing on the size of Banks's "I'm so clever" fountain pen.
>
>> Er, you do know that when Banks wrote *Use of Weapons*, it was done in
>> straight chronological order, right? It was Ken MacLeod's suggestion to
>> re-order the chronology, after the book had been rejected multiple times.
>> So I don't think you can put the structure of that book, at least, down to
>> Banks going "I'm so clever".
>
> Since I haven't read _Use of Weapons_, I wasn't commenting on
> it, nor am I sure why you decided that that was the particular book that
> I was targeting.
Sorry, I jumped to conclusions there. Most of the complaints I've heard
about Banks' structure have been with respect to *Use of Weapons*.
> Banks does "clever" things with structure in _Look to Windward_ as well,
> and I found his interwoven and temporally unreliable placement annoying there
> as well.
So do you find all interwoven narrative structure annoying, or is there
something about the way Banks does it that particularly bothers you?
> I like Banks the way I like open source software. It has the
> perpetual feel of being in beta, and not quite ready for release.
Is that down to the structure, or something else?
-Josh
David Dyer-Bennet
Jeroen
> Have you read _The Wasp Factory_ yet?
I have indeed, around when it came out. I loved it but it warped my
innocent young mind forever and doubtless played a part in making me the
twisted, evil bastard I am today.
"Pomiss, Fwank?"
And, No! Eric! Stay *away* from that metal plate! Nooooooooooooo!
;-}
David Bilek
>Josh Kaderlan <j...@zer0.org> writes:
>> In article <m2llx3l...@gw.dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> > Josh Kaderlan <j...@zer0.org> writes:
>> >
>> >> What distinction do you draw between gratuitously confusing and
>> >> non-gratuitously confusing structure? The chronological re-ordering in
>> >> PULP FICTION doesn't seem gratuitous to me at all; in fact, I think it makes
>> >> the story better than it would be otherwise.
>> >
>> > Wheras to me it doesn't at all; it simply serves to add confusion to a
>> > story that's already quite complex.
>>
>> So as I asked, what's the difference between gratuitously confusing structure
>> and complex structure that you don't find gratuitously confusing?
>>
>> (Personally, I didn't find the structure of PULP FICTION confusing at all.)
>
>Nothing is added by the time travel.
I thought PULP FICTION had the narrative stream out of order, not
actual time travel?
-David
David Dyer-Bennet
Yes. But since we *see* it out of order, it feels like time travel
from the viewer position. To me, anyway.
Didn't mean to confuse the issue!
Moriarty
> Josh Kaderlan <j...@zer0.org> writes:
<snips>
> > >> What distinction do you draw between gratuitously confusing and
> > >> non-gratuitously confusing structure? The chronological re-ordering in
> > >> PULP FICTION doesn't seem gratuitous to me at all; in fact, I think it makes
> > >> the story better than it would be otherwise.
> > >
> > > Wheras to me it doesn't at all; it simply serves to add confusion to a
> > > story that's already quite complex.
> >
> > So as I asked, what's the difference between gratuitously confusing structure
> > and complex structure that you don't find gratuitously confusing?
> >
> > (Personally, I didn't find the structure of PULP FICTION confusing at all.)
>
> Nothing is added by the time travel.
I think it makes it better. At the end of the movie we see one hitman
make a decision based on previous events to give up his hitman life
and do, well, something else. The other makes no such decision and
the impact of the whole scene is enhanced by the knowledge that his
choice will lead to his death.
ObSF: I had the same response to the end of Vinge's "A Deepness in
the Sky" when you *know* that Pham Nuwen's expedition to the centre of
the galaxy will end in futile disaster, due to the nature of the
galaxy. If you later read of the expedition's fortunes in AFutD the
impact wouldn't be anywhere near as great. For that reason alone, I
recommend anyone who asks to read AFutD before ADinS.
-Moriarty
John Hill
> My copy of "Consider Phlebas" (actually I have two) was a UK
> printing purchased in the US with a little sticker over the
> part that says it's not allowed to be sold in the US...
Same here. I pointed this out to the book store clerk, but
my attempt at small talk did not brighten his day.
I'm assuming you also bought your copy new, and that your
edition was also 2000, from Orbit Books. I wonder what the
deal was with that batch.
--
John Hill
Josh Kaderlan
> On Mon, 19 May 2003 04:06:06 -0000, Josh Kaderlan <j...@zer0.org>
> wrote:
>
>>Er, you do know that when Banks wrote *Use of Weapons*, it was done in
>>straight chronological order, right? It was Ken MacLeod's suggestion to
>>re-order the chronology, after the book had been rejected multiple times.
>>So I don't think you can put the structure of that book, at least, down to
>>Banks going "I'm so clever".
>
> Actually, I seem to recall Ken saying once that it was originally in
> an even weirder order -- maybe something like Christopher Priest's
> _Darkening Island_, with seemingly random snippets all over the place.
Really? All the posts I could find on Google Groups indicated that the
structure was far more conventional... I'll have to go back and look some more.
> However, I don't think the order of narration in _Use of Weapons_ is
> at all "pretentious", and certainly not "too clever". It's essential
> for the impact of the book, and it has considerable internal logic.
No argument from me. I'm frankly baffled by people who think the structure's
pretentious. It also reminds me of a comment I recall hearing about John
Brunner and Dos Passos, that it took 30 years for SF to incorporate innovations
in narrative structure. Kind of ironic, really, for a genre that prides itself
on being "the literature of ideas".
-Josh
Ross Fraser
news:slrnbcj8v...@localhost.zer0.org...
> In article <Tz4ya.508$cS7...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>, Richard
Horton wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 May 2003 04:06:06 -0000, Josh Kaderlan <j...@zer0.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Er, you do know that when Banks wrote *Use of Weapons*, it was done in
> >>straight chronological order, right? It was Ken MacLeod's suggestion
to
> >>re-order the chronology, after the book had been rejected multiple
times.
> >>So I don't think you can put the structure of that book, at least,
down to
> >>Banks going "I'm so clever".
> >
> > Actually, I seem to recall Ken saying once that it was originally in
> > an even weirder order -- maybe something like Christopher Priest's
> > _Darkening Island_, with seemingly random snippets all over the place.
>
> Really? All the posts I could find on Google Groups indicated that the
> structure was far more conventional... I'll have to go back and look
some more.
Have a look at:
Cheers
Ross
Scott Beeler
[Re: "Literariness" of Iain Banks]
> "Fancy" (that is, gratuitously confusing) structure does bother me
> fairly often when I encounter it -- Pulp Fiction, or Lord of Light,
> come to mind as egregious examples. Oh; Dhalgren, too, of course; but
> I disliked *most* things about that book, wheras only the structure
> was bothersome in the first two examples. I was a *big* fan of
> Delany before Dhalgren; he was one of my favorite authors. He never
> really recovered, though Triton was a bit better, and I gave up
> somewhat after that.
>
> Rampant obscurantism bothers me. Refusing to reveal what's going on
> bothers me. Making the reader play silly guessing games bothers me.
>
> Couldn't *stand* Use of Weapons; it made me say the Eight Deadly Words
> very early on, and never gave me any slightest temptation to change my
> mind.
There are types of books for which not explaining everything right off
is an integral part of them. _Use of Weapons_ would be just stupid if
Banks had just gone over everyone's backgrounds and motivations at the
start. The book's all about the slow revelation of the main
character's past and the guilt he carries from it. The structure of
the book is used as part of the means of expressing this, by depicting
episodes progressively further back in his history.
For an extreme example, any sort of mystery plot (whether in a
"Mystery" book or SF or whatever) is going to involve a lot of waiting
before the full revelation of what happened. To a lesser degree, tons
of books, maybe the majority, involve some sort of subplot or element
involving hidden secrets, or out-of-time flashbacks, or other aspect
divergent from a straightforward connect-the-dots plot, which very
often is used to improve their quality in my view.
--
Scott C. Beeler scott...@home.com
Scott Beeler
> mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl (Martin Wisse) wrote:
> >On Sun, 18 May 2003 02:08:07 -0700 (PDT), "Eric Walker"
> ><ra...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> >>On Fri, 16 May 2003 17:34:12 GMT, David Bilek wrote:
> >>
> >>>[_Use of Weapons_ is] arguably the most overtly literary of
> >>>his "M" books.
> >>
> >>Sorry, I'm late joining the thread. Would someone want to
> >>refresh me on what literary-ness is and how we quantify it?
> >
> >yonder", i.e. too much emphasis on character, setting and mood for the
> >"science fiction is about killing aliens with sensawunda, dammit" crowd.
>
> Oh, really?
>
> "In this context" must refer to my words, as I'm the one who used the
> word literary. Care to back up that I think _Use of Weapons_ has too
> much emphasis on character, setting, and mood?
I don't think Martin's putting those words in your mouth, unless you
consider yourself part of the above-mentioned "science fiction is
about killing aliens with sensawunda, dammit" crowd. He's contrasting
two types of story with each other, not implying that you're
necessarily a fan of either.
> In doing so, you might note that I am on record in RASFW as
> considering _Use of Weapons_ my favorite novel and one of the greatest
> works of SF of the past couple of decades.
I agree with you. And I concur with your earlier post that quite a
large swath of RASFW is not put off by Banks's "literary" aspects in
UoW, as it's generally highly regarded here. Though there are of
course some who don't like those and dislike the book because of it
(some who have posted in this thread).
Martin Wisse
>mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl (Martin Wisse) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 May 2003 02:08:07 -0700 (PDT), "Eric Walker"
>><ra...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 May 2003 17:34:12 GMT, David Bilek wrote:
>>>
>>>> . . .
>>>>
>>>>[_Use of Weapons_ is] arguably the most overtly literary of
>>>>his "M" books.
>>>
>>>Sorry, I'm late joining the thread. Would someone want to
>>>refresh me on what literary-ness is and how we quantify it?
>>
>>Literary in this context means "like that there mainstream stuff over
>>yonder", i.e. too much emphasis on character, setting and mood for the
>>"science fiction is about killing aliens with sensawunda, dammit" crowd.
>>
>
>Oh, really?
Yep.
>"In this context" must refer to my words, as I'm the one who used the
>word literary. Care to back up that I think _Use of Weapons_ has too
>much emphasis on character, setting, and mood?
No, with "in this context" I actually meant in the context of the thread
and in general in this newsgroup, when people complain about something
being literary. A bit unclear, sorry. Wasn't meant to slag you off.
>In doing so, you might note that I am on record in RASFW as
>considering _Use of Weapons_ my favorite novel and one of the greatest
>works of SF of the past couple of decades.
Hmmm... I wouldn't go that far.
Martin Wisse
Behaviorism is like insisting that the surface is the
pond and the ripples are the fish.
-Kristopher, rasseff
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> [Re: "Literariness" of Iain Banks]
> > "Fancy" (that is, gratuitously confusing) structure does bother me
> > fairly often when I encounter it -- Pulp Fiction, or Lord of Light,
> > come to mind as egregious examples. Oh; Dhalgren, too, of course; but
> > I disliked *most* things about that book, wheras only the structure
> > was bothersome in the first two examples. I was a *big* fan of
> > Delany before Dhalgren; he was one of my favorite authors. He never
> > really recovered, though Triton was a bit better, and I gave up
> > somewhat after that.
> >
> > Rampant obscurantism bothers me. Refusing to reveal what's going on
> > bothers me. Making the reader play silly guessing games bothers me.
> >
> > Couldn't *stand* Use of Weapons; it made me say the Eight Deadly Words
> > very early on, and never gave me any slightest temptation to change my
> > mind.
>
> There are types of books for which not explaining everything right off
> is an integral part of them. _Use of Weapons_ would be just stupid if
> Banks had just gone over everyone's backgrounds and motivations at the
> start. The book's all about the slow revelation of the main
> character's past and the guilt he carries from it. The structure of
> the book is used as part of the means of expressing this, by depicting
> episodes progressively further back in his history.
It's just stupid as it is; possibly it's irremediably stupid, or
possibly some other arrangement of the characters and events could
help. Not my skill set.
If the events portrayed are in a consistent historical order, it's not
made clear in the book.
> For an extreme example, any sort of mystery plot (whether in a
> "Mystery" book or SF or whatever) is going to involve a lot of waiting
> before the full revelation of what happened. To a lesser degree, tons
> of books, maybe the majority, involve some sort of subplot or element
> involving hidden secrets, or out-of-time flashbacks, or other aspect
> divergent from a straightforward connect-the-dots plot, which very
> often is used to improve their quality in my view.
One classic mystery plot, really an entire sub-genre, starts by
showing the commission of the crime. The rest of the story is then
watching people try to work out what you-the-reader already know.
And one of the most *annoying* mystery habits, thankfully out of
fashion, but still visible in considerable Rex Stout and one Dorothy
Sayers, is to explicitly tell the reader you're skipping over giving
him the key clue on this page.
Certainly mystery and revelation are important parts of the tool-set
of the author.
David Bilek
Of course it is. There are two main narrative streams. One runs
forward in time from the "present", while the other runs backward.
It's made quite clear in the book.
-David
Richard Horton
wrote:
>It's just stupid as it is; possibly it's irremediably stupid, or
>possibly some other arrangement of the characters and events could
>help. Not my skill set.
>
>If the events portrayed are in a consistent historical order, it's not
>made clear in the book.
I'm not sure I get what you're saying here -- in _Use of Weapons_ the
events portrayed are in a consistent historical order (modulo the
prologue and epilogue and a couple of flashbacks) that is clearly
signalled by the chapter numbering. It's really not confusing -- it's
just not montonically increasing in time order.
David Dyer-Bennet
> On 20 May 2003 19:11:06 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
> >It's just stupid as it is; possibly it's irremediably stupid, or
> >possibly some other arrangement of the characters and events could
> >help. Not my skill set.
> >
> >If the events portrayed are in a consistent historical order, it's not
> >made clear in the book.
>
> I'm not sure I get what you're saying here -- in _Use of Weapons_ the
> events portrayed are in a consistent historical order (modulo the
> prologue and epilogue and a couple of flashbacks) that is clearly
> signalled by the chapter numbering. It's really not confusing -- it's
> just not montonically increasing in time order.
Well, it confused me. I knew it was out of order, but I didn't know
anything other than that. If there's something funny with the chapter
numbering, I never noticed.
David Eppstein
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Well, it confused me. I knew it was out of order, but I didn't know
> anything other than that. If there's something funny with the chapter
> numbering, I never noticed.
I suppose you also didn't notice the chapter numbers in Zelazny's
_Roadmarks_?
--
David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science
Mike Schilling
"David Eppstein" <epps...@ics.uci.edu> wrote in message
news:eppstein-3D8A14...@news.service.uci.edu...
> In article <m2vfw4x...@gw.dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> > Well, it confused me. I knew it was out of order, but I didn't know
> > anything other than that. If there's something funny with the chapter
> > numbering, I never noticed.
>
> I suppose you also didn't notice the chapter numbers in Zelazny's
> _Roadmarks_?
>
Or Asimov's _The Gods Themselves_, though Asimov specifically warns about
them in the book's introduction.
Brandon Ray
Eric Walker wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2003 17:34:12 GMT, David Bilek wrote:
>
> > . . .
> >
> >[_Use of Weapons_ is] arguably the most overtly literary of
> >his "M" books.
>
> Sorry, I'm late joining the thread. Would someone want to
> refresh me on what literary-ness is and how we quantify it?
literary-ness means that someone who is not known for writing
science fiction has written some science fiction, but doesn't want
to be recognized as having slummed among the peasants.
David Johnston
> >
> > Banks was interviewed on the radio about that a few years ago, and
> > the interviewer said she had to physically put the book down.
>
> As opposed to mentally putting it down?
She had to put it down to avoid puking on it.