Good usurper vs. evil rightful heir?
Ailsa Ek
heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
quite what I mean.)
--
What can you do with your days but work and hope, Ailsa C. Ek
Let your dreams bind your work to your play? ail...@mac.com
What can you do with every moment of your life Sharon, MA
But love 'til you love it away? - Bob Franke http://pages.ivillage.com/ailsaek
Mark Atwood
> and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
> the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
> to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
> a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
> around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
SPOILER
PTerry's _Wyrd Sisters_ ends that way.
--
Mark Atwood | Well done is better than well said.
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Lee Ann Rucker
<ail...@mac.com> wrote:
> I've been meaning to write a fantasy novel one of these days where the
> heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
> and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
> the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
> to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
> a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
> around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
> quite what I mean.)
Hard to answer without spoilers! Terry Pratchett plays with the
"rightful heir" theme in several books, never the way you'd expect.
Dumas did not write a book about replacing the wicked king with his
good twin brother, despite what Hollywood would have you believe.
Dorothy J Heydt
>heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
>and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
>the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
>to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
>a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
>around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
>quite what I mean.)
Well, in European history there's the point at which the
Carolingians, traditional mayors of the palace, took
over from the Merovingians, traditional occupiers of the
throne, on the grounds that they were doing the King's
job anyway, and got the Pope to approve it. In history
it was pretty much a fait accompli, but you could play
with it.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
JoatSimeon
European tradition.
Dynastic legitimacy -- the right of the eldest to take the throne -- was the
alternative to having a civil war every time a king died.
And usurpers must necessarily be extremely power-hungry and ruthless, if
they're prepared to plunge the realm into war to take the throne.
So generally speaking, it was important for the welfare of the kingdom that
everyone accept the legitimate succession.
The pre-Christian Norse had a different setup; the throne belonged to a certain
family (the descendants of Harald Fairhair) but any son, whether by a queen or
a mistress or a servant girl, had an equal right to the throne.
To be king, he need only be "hailed as king" by the Thing, the regiona
assemblies of freemen.
In practice, this meant that you got hailed as king when you had enough
bullyboys with axes standing around the Thing-stone, and fratricide became the
royal family's favorite indoor and outdoor sport.
Read about the career of Eric Blood-Axe and his sons, and shudder!
raycun
> I've been meaning to write a fantasy novel one of these days where the
> heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
> and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
> the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
> to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
> a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
> around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
> quite what I mean.)
The Prince in Waiting series isn't quite what you're looking for, but
close enough to be worth mentioning...
They're juveniles by John Christopher (who also wrote the Tripods
books). The 'hero' of the novel is the heir to the throne, ousted by
some upstart peasant. The three books of the series are about him
losing his throne and trying to get it back. Thing is, he's pretty
clearly the 'bad guy'.
Havn't read it in a long, long time, but ISTR its pretty good...
Ray
mike stone
>
>I've been meaning to write a fantasy novel one of these days where the
>heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
>and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
>the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
>to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
>a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
>around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
>quite what I mean.)
>
Not quite what you have in mind, but Vaughan Wilkins "A King Reluctant" has an
analogous theme
It focuses on the Dauphin "Louis XVII", supposedly escaped to England, who for
various reasons eventually abdicates and goes to live with his Welsh "foster
family" leaving his uncle to claim the throne if he wants it so badly
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England
The gap between genius and insanity is measured in success.
Mike Schilling
> heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
> and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
> the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
> to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
> a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
> around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
> quite what I mean.)
>
In Shakespeare's "Richard II", Henry IV was a good usurper.
Frenchy
> heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
> and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
> the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
> to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
> a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
> around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
> quite what I mean.)
Shakespeare. I think that's in the background in Macbeth. I mean, the
story of an usurpator who is a really good king but has to be replaced
because he's not the rightful one.
Frenchy
Peter Meilinger
The only thing that comes to mind is the last few books of the
Sten series, by Cole and Bunch. It's not an exact match by any
means, but it has the possible virtue of being Space Opera instead
of historical or fantasy.
Pete
Prestorjon
usurper who's better than the rightful heir. There's a couple of people
contending for the throne or for independence most of whom have dubious legal
claims but would be better than the guy who takes over when the King dies.
-----------------
He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things
We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do,
The fears of years, like a biting whip,
Had cut deep bloody grooves
Across our backs.
-Etheridge Knight
Konrad Gaertner
>
> Ailsa Ek <ail...@mac.com> writes:
> > and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
> > the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
> > to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
> > a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
> > around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
>
> SPOILER
>
> PTerry's _Wyrd Sisters_ ends that way.
Not really; the usurper was evil, and both heirs were good. We just
don't know about the elder heir until the end.
--KG
Jo Walton
> The Prince in Waiting series isn't quite what you're looking for, but
> close enough to be worth mentioning...
> They're juveniles by John Christopher (who also wrote the Tripods
> books). The 'hero' of the novel is the heir to the throne, ousted by
> some upstart peasant. The three books of the series are about him
> losing his throne and trying to get it back. Thing is, he's pretty
> clearly the 'bad guy'.
>
> Havn't read it in a long, long time, but ISTR its pretty good...
They are pretty good, but what you've forgotten is SPOILERS
It's more twisted than that.
The hero's father is a usurper, and the hero is his second son, and he's
therefore a usurper's heir and only heir (instead of his brother) by a
trick of the Seers.
The usurper who takes his throne is actually the son of the rightful
king that his father usurped it from. He's his best friend as well.
I really liked those books, I'm almost afraid to re-read them in case
they're not as good as they used to be.
--
Jo I kissed a kif at Kefk blu...@vif.com
THE KING'S PEACE paperback available now from Tor Books!
THE KING'S NAME hardback still available
THE PRIZE IN THE GAME coming in November http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk
David Allsopp
>I've been meaning to write a fantasy novel one of these days where the
>heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
>and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
>the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
>to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
>a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
>around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
>quite what I mean.)
"Blood And Honour" by Simon Green is pretty close, although no usurpers
are involved. Not-very-spoilerish summary: an actor/stage magician is
hired to impersonate one of the contending princes, who range from bad
to worse. I'd recommend it.
--
David Allsopp Houston, this is Tranquillity Base.
Remove SPAM to email me The Eagle has landed.
Tony Zbaraschuk
> heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
> and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
> the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
> to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
> a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
> around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
> quite what I mean.)
There's some stuff about this in Diane Duane's _Door_ books, where
the Evil Usurper of _Door into Fire_ turns out to be a considerably
more complex figure in _Door into Sunset_, trying to do his best
in a kingdom where the True Heir has run away from his job.
Robert Shaw
> There's an excellent reason why it's usually the "rightful heir" in
> the European tradition.
>
> Dynastic legitimacy -- the right of the eldest to take the throne --
> was the alternative to having a civil war every time a king died.
>
> And usurpers must necessarily be extremely power-hungry and ruthless,
> if they're prepared to plunge the realm into war to take the throne.
>
has already discredited himself.
Three generations later the heirs of the usurpers may be good
kings and the rightful heir a would-be tyrant.
Henry IV was an usurper, his son was considered a good
king, and his grandson was removed for incompetence by
people who claimed to be the rightful heirs of Richard II.
In such circumstances countries can end up with two
'legitmate' dynasties.
Aragorn was a rightful heir, but his forebears hadn't sat on
the throne of Gondor for 3000 years. If Denethor hadn't
died Aragorn's coronation wouldn't have been uncontested,
--
Matter is fundamentally lazy:- It always takes the path of least effort
Matter is fundamentally stupid:- It tries every other path first.
That is the heart of physics - The rest is details.- Robert Shaw
David E. Siegel
> heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
> and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
> the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
> to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
> a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
> around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
> quite what I mean.)
_The prisoner of Zenda_ is perhaps the prototypical 'Restore the
rightful king' story, but by the end of the sequel (I can't quite
recall the title, was it "Rudolf Rasssendyl" or "Rupert of Hentzau")
whiole the evil usurper is vanquished there is at lest a strong
suggestion that the benevolant imposer would make a better king and
should replace the legit king.
The idea of the imposter being a better king than the "rightful" king
is played with in one of Asprin's Myth books.
In Lackey's _Oathbreakers_ there is a dispute between two brothers as
to which would make the better king, and the answer is not at first
clear.
in R/L inc ould well be argued tyht Napoleon I was a much better
ruler than those he replaced, eithr the bourtbons or Robspierre and
co.
-DES
Daphne Brinkerhoff
> heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
> and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
> the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
> to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
> a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
> around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
> quite what I mean.)
*Some* elements of this in Guy Gavriel Kay's _A Song for Arbonne_,
which I just reread a couple of weeks ago. That's an excellent book.
(I have issues with the "persona ex machina", or whatever the phrase
would be for a character who's important to the plot but whom we don't
see until 15 pages before the end [figures not checked for
accuracy]--but it's still a good book.)
--
Daphne Brinkerhoff
Peter Bruells
> I've been meaning to write a fantasy novel one of these days where the
> heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
> and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
> the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
> to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
> a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
> around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
> quite what I mean.)
Partly in the first Xanth book "A Spell for Chameleon" by Piers
Anthony. Two of the heroes ally themselves with the "Evil Magician"
returning from forced exile because they need his survival
skills. They are against his plans to ursurp the throne - even though
he has some pretty good arguments.
He later ascends to the throne and turns out to be a quite good ruler.
Ailsa Ek
<d...@tqSPAMbase.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Blood And Honour" by Simon Green is pretty close, although no usurpers
> are involved. Not-very-spoilerish summary: an actor/stage magician is
> hired to impersonate one of the contending princes, who range from bad
> to worse. I'd recommend it.
Is this another one of his detective novels? I read the one about the
street of gods and quite liked it, but somehow have never gotten around
to reading more of his work.
Brenda W. Clough
>I've been meaning to write a fantasy novel one of these days where the
>heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
>and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
>the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
>to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
>a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
>around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
>quite what I mean.
>
You could look at Susan Cooper's THE DARK IS RISING series, in which
after five volumes of adventure the anointed heir blows off the mystical
kingdom.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
Read my novella "May Be Some Time"
Complete at http://www.analogsf.com/0202/maybesometime.html
My web page is at http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Joe Mason
>> And usurpers must necessarily be extremely power-hungry and ruthless,
>> if they're prepared to plunge the realm into war to take the throne.
>>
> The usurper himself normally is, except when the legitimate heir
> has already discredited himself.
>
> Three generations later the heirs of the usurpers may be good
> kings and the rightful heir a would-be tyrant.
Duh. _Song of Ice and Fire_, of course.
I knew there was a book on the tip of my tongue when this thread
started.
Joe
Peter H. Granzeau
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I've been meaning to write a fantasy novel one of these days where the
>> heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
>> and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
>> the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
>> to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
>> a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
>> around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
>> quite what I mean.)
>>
>
>In Shakespeare's "Richard II", Henry IV was a good usurper.
And in Shakespeare's "Richard III", Henry VII was also a good
usurper--but it would have been politically impossible for Shakespeare
to write that story any other way, regardless.
Richard R. Hershberger
And the Ricardian crowd will tell you the same thing about Richard
III. (Their version, that is: not Shakespeare's.)
Richard R. Hershberger
not a Ricardian, despite my name
David Bilek
> I've been meaning to write a fantasy novel one of these days where the
> heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
> and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
> the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
> to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
> a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
> around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
> quite what I mean.)
Go for it, but George R. R. Martin has already done it in _A Song of
Ice and Fire_.
-David
Robert Sneddon
>heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
>and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
>the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
>to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
>a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
>around?
I'm trying to write a short story on just such a theme, but from the
Evil Usurper's POV. The surviving heir has gained support from a couple
of local kings and is riding out to battle (with their support) for his
crown. The Foul Fiend would quite happily hand the crown back to the kid
but he's got a good idea the two "friendly" kings would eat the naive
young fool for breakfast and then divvy up his kingdom for afters.
--
Robert Sneddon nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
Old Toby
Except that
1) The usurper isn't that good
2) The person who eventually ends up as the rightful heir is much
better
3) The usurper's heir is as bad as the old king (who was pretty bad)
4) If the story follows the most likely path, it will end up as a
"Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne" story.
Old Toby
Least Known Dog on the Net
Old Toby
No because
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
Neither of the "heirs" is the old king's son, so whatever you
think of him killing his brother, the "usurper" was actually
the rightful heir.
Michael Ikeda
>I've been meaning to write a fantasy novel one of these days where the
>heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
>the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
>to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
>a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
>around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
>
One of Mercedes Lackey's "Bardic Voices" novels approaches this theme
(don't recall the title offhand), except that the rightful heir never
seriously tries to gain the throne.
Basically the ruler of the kingdom overthrew his brother when the
brother was about to run the kingdom into the ground.
The problem is that the brother's son is still alive (although he
doesn't know he's the heir at first). The son doesn't particularly
WANT the throne. He rather quickly figures out (once he learns his
true identity) that the uncle is a better ruler than he's likely to
be. The problem is that, just by being alive, he's a potential threat
to his uncle. So he has to figure out a way that he can stay alive
but not be a threat.
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
Konrad Gaertner
Okay, but Felmet believed he was a usurper and that Tomjon was the
rightful heir. And the old Queen (what happened to her anyway?)
may have had more royal blood than Felmet.
--KG
Damien Sullivan
>to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
>a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
>around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
>quite what I mean.)
Pratchett, as people have said.
Not quite the same, but related: in Dark of the Moon a changer usurps a
prince. It is later pointed out he was a much better war leader than the
prince would have been.
Katherine Kurtz's Deryni novels can be read either way, by a creative reader.
The Haldanes ruled, then the Festils took over for 80 years, then the Haldanes
got power back. 200 years later the Festils still complained about the
Haldane usurpers. The Haldanes naturally saw things differently.
What's interesting is how much both suck. The Haldane Restoration was
followed a bit later by massacres and religious tyranny. The overthrown
Festils were supposed to be tyrannical themselves, but I forget what was
involved. I suspect fewer people were being killed arbitrarily. Imre and
Ariella were probably not great rulers -- decadent young adults. Consorting
siblings. Which was probably half the offense, if we're honest -- they were
icky.
(And hey, how'd young decadent Ariella know a spell which stumped Camber and
his colleagues? Okay, he figured it out, and she hadn't cast it right (with a
sword run through her) but that she knew it at all...)
Personally I always had a soft spot for the Festils.
-xx- Damien X-)
Timothy McDaniel
Damien Sullivan <pho...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>Imre and Ariella were probably not great rulers -- decadent young
>adults. Consorting siblings. Which was probably half the offense,
>if we're honest -- they were icky.
Imre enacted the Great Tariff to build an extravagant new capital at
Nyford, and it was heavy in mediaeval terms. Anyone who couldn't pay,
or didn't get their lord to pay, was dragged off to Nyford to labor on
it, except that they didn't get enough food, clothing, or shelter, so
many died.
Imre daggered someone on little evidence. (Turned out to be very much
the wrong someone, in two senses of "wrong".)
The Law of Hostages was nasty, but inherited from Festil I: if one
Deryni was killed and no murder was found, fifty non-Deryni were
executed. The way Cathal was dragged into the issue was particularly
nasty.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com; tm...@us.ibm.com is my work address
JoatSimeon
>The Law of Hostages was nasty, but inherited from Festil I: if one
>Deryni was killed and no murder was found, fifty non-Deryni were
>executed. The way Cathal was dragged into the issue was particularly
>nasty.
-- incidentally, this was taken from an actual Norman law, the "Statute of
Englishery". If a body was found, the nearest community had to prove it was an
Englishman, not a Norman, or reprisals would be taken.
Christopher Henrich
R. Hershberger <rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
_The Dragon Waiting_, by John M. Ford, is a fantasy/alternate history
in which Richard III is (spoiler evasion) given an even more compelling
motive to usurp than he had in our timeline.
--
Chris Henrich
Richard Horton
>_The prisoner of Zenda_ is perhaps the prototypical 'Restore the
>rightful king' story, but by the end of the sequel (I can't quite
>recall the title, was it "Rudolf Rasssendyl" or "Rupert of Hentzau")
>whiole the evil usurper is vanquished there is at lest a strong
>suggestion that the benevolant imposer would make a better king and
>should replace the legit king.
The sequel is _Rupert of Hentzau_. The pair of books end up rather
dark. As you say, the "rightful" king is not much of a king -- not
only would Rudolf almost certainly be better, but one might conclude
that Rupert, though he is certainly not a good guy, might also be
better.
--
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)
JoatSimeon
> As you say, the "rightful" king is not much of a king -- not
>only would Rudolf almost certainly be better, but one might conclude
>that Rupert, though he is certainly not a good guy, might also be
>better.
-- good point.
Note how reluctant the hero is to overset the 'legitimate' line of inheritance,
though. His friends want it, the woman he loves wants it, and the good of the
country demands it -- but he still finds it intolerably dishonorable.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>I've been meaning to write a fantasy novel one of these days where the
>heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
>and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
>the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
>to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
>a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
>around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
>quite what I mean.)
Robert Howard's Conan, usurper king of Aquilonia.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 4/15/02
My latest novel is THE DRAGON SOCIETY, published by Tor.
Frenchy
Showboat World, in wich neither the usurpator nor the rightful heir
his very convincing in the leader role.
Frenchy
David Allsopp
<ail...@mac.com> writes
>In article <dXo5rSBa...@tqbase.demon.co.uk>, David Allsopp
><d...@tqSPAMbase.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Blood And Honour" by Simon Green is pretty close, although no usurpers
>> are involved. Not-very-spoilerish summary: an actor/stage magician is
>> hired to impersonate one of the contending princes, who range from bad
>> to worse. I'd recommend it.
>
>Is this another one of his detective novels? I read the one about the
>street of gods and quite liked it, but somehow have never gotten around
>to reading more of his work.
As far as I know it's a standalone. I've heard of the detective stuff,
which sounds interesting, but never actually seen any to buy/read. I
have read all his "Deathstalker" books, which are violent wide-screen
violent space opera. Did I mention that they're violent? I quite
enjoyed them, but gave them away after finishing them, having no desire
whatsoever to read them again.
Jens Kilian
> There's an excellent reason why it's usually the "rightful heir" in the
> European tradition.
>
> Dynastic legitimacy -- the right of the eldest to take the throne -- was the
> alternative to having a civil war every time a king died.
The (medieval) German empire had a different system, where the emperor was
chosen by the Electors; as a result, the emperors were never allowed to
become strong enough to threaten the Electors' privileges, and Germany
as a whole never became an absolute monarchy like, e.g., France.
And yes, there were civil wars (and episodes with multiple emperors etc.)
--
mailto:j...@acm.org phone:+49-7031-464-7698 (TELNET 778-7698)
http://www.bawue.de/~jjk/ fax:+49-7031-464-7351
PGP: 06 04 1C 35 7B DC 1F 26 As the air to a bird, or the sea to a fish,
0x555DA8B5 BB A2 F0 66 77 75 E1 08 so is contempt to the contemptible. [Blake]
Justin Fang
>>to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
>>a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
>>around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
>>quite what I mean.)
>Katherine Kurtz's Deryni novels can be read either way, by a creative reader.
>The Haldanes ruled, then the Festils took over for 80 years, then the Haldanes
>got power back. 200 years later the Festils still complained about the
>Haldane usurpers. The Haldanes naturally saw things differently.
>
>What's interesting is how much both suck.
What I'd like to know is if there are any books where a country eventually
gets tired of constant struggles over who is the Rightful Heir and who is
the Foul Usurper and kicks the whole sorry lot out.
--
Justin Fang (jus...@panix.com)
Htn963
>What I'd like to know is if there are any books where a country eventually
>gets tired of constant struggles over who is the Rightful Heir and who is
>the Foul Usurper and kicks the whole sorry lot out.
Er...Dickens' _A Tale of Two Cities_.
Don't know of an example in fantasy though. This genre (or the bloated
and repetitive portion of it) can't seem to make do without royalty.
--
Ht
|Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore
never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
--John Donne, "Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions"|
David Johnston
>
> In article <ailsaek-34C966...@netnews.attbi.com>, Ailsa Ek
> <ail...@mac.com> writes
> >In article <dXo5rSBa...@tqbase.demon.co.uk>, David Allsopp
> ><d...@tqSPAMbase.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> "Blood And Honour" by Simon Green is pretty close, although no usurpers
> >> are involved. Not-very-spoilerish summary: an actor/stage magician is
> >> hired to impersonate one of the contending princes, who range from bad
> >> to worse. I'd recommend it.
> >
> >Is this another one of his detective novels? I read the one about the
> >street of gods and quite liked it, but somehow have never gotten around
> >to reading more of his work.
>
> As far as I know it's a standalone.
More or less but he did put it in the same world as Blue Moon and Hawk and
Fisher. Blood and Honour was a cross between The Chronicles of Amber and
Double Star.
Jim Cambias
cru...@club-internet.fr (Frenchy) wrote:
> Ailsa Ek <ail...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:<ailsaek-63BC2E...@netnews.attbi.com>...
> > I've been meaning to write a fantasy novel one of these days where the
> > heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
> > and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
> > the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
> > to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
> > a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
> > around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
> > quite what I mean.)
>
> Shakespeare. I think that's in the background in Macbeth. I mean, the
> story of an usurpator who is a really good king but has to be replaced
> because he's not the rightful one.
>
Well, maybe. The historical Macbeth was apparently a decent enough king
-- felt secure enough to make a pilgrimage to Rome. The whole murdering
Duncan and then getting offed by Duncan's heir was essentially standard
Scottish succession at that point. Shakespeare's Macbeth isn't shown as
being either good or bad as king. The fact that he sees ghosts at
official banquets could be considered a possible negative, job
performance-wise. And simply the fact that lots of people are willing to
take arms to oppose him is another strike against him in the good king
department.
Cambias
Rob
Roses before starting his series.
Robert Shaw
> In article <ailsaek-34C966...@netnews.attbi.com>, Ailsa Ek
> <ail...@mac.com> writes
>> In article <dXo5rSBa...@tqbase.demon.co.uk>, David Allsopp
>> <d...@tqSPAMbase.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> "Blood And Honour" by Simon Green is pretty close, although no
>>> usurpers are involved. Not-very-spoilerish summary: an actor/stage
>>> magician is hired to impersonate one of the contending princes, who
>>> range from bad to worse. I'd recommend it.
>>
>> Is this another one of his detective novels? I read the one about
>> the street of gods and quite liked it, but somehow have never gotten
>> around to reading more of his work.
>
> As far as I know it's a standalone. I've heard of the detective
> stuff, which sounds interesting, but never actually seen any to
> buy/read. I
They take place on the same world, but the connection is
remote.
'Blood and Honour' refers in passing to a war with demons
a few years earlier. That war happened in 'Blue Moon Rising',
two of the heroes of which are the detectives in the Haven
books. However, Green carefully avoided explicitly saying
that the detectives were the same characters in those books.
'Blood and Honour' also mentions transient beings, who also
appeared in the Haven books and play a larger role in Green's
latest book, which confirms the identity of the detectives but only
after they've stopped being detectives permanently.
--
Matter is fundamentally lazy:- It always takes the path of least effort
Matter is fundamentally stupid:- It tries every other path first.
That is the heart of physics - The rest is details.- Robert Shaw
David E. Siegel
Which was the start of the proceduree now known as the coroner's
inquest. Interesting how uses change while forms stay at least
soemwhat in place.
Actually many of Imre's methods of ruling are adapted from those
acutally used by the less popular english kings, while his personal
habits seem to recall those to Emperor Caligula, although toned down
quite a bit.
-DES
David E. Siegel
Well it depends which usurper you mean. Remember that the "good" king
who was on the throne at the start of the story was himself a usurper
who overthreww an established (albiet decadent) dynasty about 20 years
before the story opens. The Last Heir of that dynasty is the lady
with the dragon eggs, who does not exactly seem like man ideal queen
(although she might be better than some of the contenters). Frankly,
this story is (in part) a lesson in what happens when the aura of
Rightful Kingship is dispelled -- every powerful nobel thinks he has
as good a claim as anyone else, and most of the less powerful ones are
schemeing about which potential king to support, and the common people
are enduring misery while war overwhelms the land.
This story makes it clear why much of the middle ages prefered any
king, even a very bad one, to dispute over who should be king.
(It is also a very good tale, with much more than that in it, IMO).
-DES
David E. Siegel
> In article <ao1lk1$kck$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, Robert Shaw wrote:
> >> And usurpers must necessarily be extremely power-hungry and ruthless,
> >> if they're prepared to plunge the realm into war to take the throne.
> >>
> > The usurper himself normally is, except when the legitimate heir
> > has already discredited himself.
> >
> > Three generations later the heirs of the usurpers may be good
> > kings and the rightful heir a would-be tyrant.
>
> Duh. _Song of Ice and Fire_, of course.
>
> I knew there was a book on the tip of my tongue when this thread
> started.
>
Ther Deryni books play with this theme also, the heirs of Festil claim
to be the legit rulers, althogh their ancestor was a conqueror if not
a usurper. The haldanes are now generally recognized to be legit, but
Cinhil and Co did overthrow an established dynasty. Then ther is the
Mearen situation, with multiple dynastic and nationalistic claims.
-DES
erilar
<ail...@mac.com> wrote:
> I've been meaning to write a fantasy novel one of these days where the
> heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
> and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
> the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
> to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
> a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
> around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
> quite what I mean.)
In Janny Wurts' _War of Light and Shadow_ that "light" brother is pretty
nasty compared to the brother he's trying to wipe out.
--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
Timothy McDaniel
It appears that Canute started it, and it was a fine of 40 marks
on the nearest vill:
http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:IK8PhxdpIUMC:www.lectlaw.com/def2/m151.htm+murdrum
says
MURDRUM - old Engl. law. During the times of the Danes, and
afterwards till the reign of Edward III, murdrum was the killing
of a man in a secret manner, and in that it differed from simple
homicide.
When a man was thus killed, and he was unknown, by the laws of
Canute he was presumed to be a Dane, and the vill was compelled to
pay forty marks for his death. After the conquest, a similar law
was made in favor of Frenchmen, which was abolished by 3 Edw. III.
Timothy McDaniel
>Yes, I thought Martin must have had a look at the history of the Wars
>of the Roses before starting his series.
If you look at individual bits of Martin's series, I get strong
impressions of English history references, but like an Escher drawing,
the whole thing doesn't line up neatly with any particular situation.
Or it's sort of like a serious-minded PDQ Bach tune, if there were
such a thing: I keep hearing a few bars of a familiar theme before the
tune goes its own way, and then there's a different familiar theme.
SPOILER WARNINGS ...
The backstory, a decadent ruler being stomped out after a long civil
war, has no English equivalent that I can think of. A ruler percieved
as decadent being deposed looks something like Richard II and Henry
IV. A king who used to be powerful who is sinking into dotage looks
rather like Edward III and Edward IV. A king who has gotten fat 'n'
lazy, dies suddenly, has two brothers, two sons, at least one
daughter, and an unpopular wife with baggage of a family, looks very
much like Edward IV, Clarence, Glouchester, Edward V, Richard of York,
Elizabeth, Elizabeth Woodville, and the Woodvilles, respectively. In
the book's case, though, "Clarence" was still alive when "Edward IV"
died; a loyal man found out about illegitimacy of the princes and was
killed (coming from the North was like "Richard III", but not the
rest); the Woodvilles essentially won; there's a standoff at the
moment between "Richard of York" and "Richard of Glouchester".
The flavor in high poltiical levels of the mainland at present has
aspects of the Wars of the Roses: feuding nobles and Devil take the
hindmost.
Wossername off in the steppes and wherever has no analogue I can think
of: scheming exiled sibling of a deposed monarch ... can't think of
any in British history. Also, the Scots may be a bad lot, but I
wouldn't go so far as to call them shambling icy inhumans!
jennifer
> heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
> and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
> the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
> to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
> a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
> around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
> quite what I mean.)
What about Dave Duncan's 'Shadow'?
JoatSimeon
> Frankly,
>this story is (in part) a lesson in what happens when the aura of
>Rightful Kingship is dispelled -- every powerful nobel thinks he has
>as good a claim as anyone else, and most of the less powerful ones are
>schemeing about which potential king to support, and the common people
>are enduring misery while war overwhelms the land.
-- yup. Wars of the Roses territory, only worse.
Feudal politics was a snakepit at the best of times, but the inheritance laws
usually prevented it from slagging down completely. When people started
ignoring them, all hell lit out for noon.
Frenchy
> In article <9b8ca0e.02100...@posting.google.com>,
> cru...@club-internet.fr (Frenchy) wrote:
>
> > Ailsa Ek <ail...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:<ailsaek-63BC2E...@netnews.attbi.com>...
> > > I've been meaning to write a fantasy novel one of these days where the
> > > heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
> > > and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
> > > the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler. It occurred to me
> > > to wonder, though - the Putting the Rightful Heir on the Throne is such
> > > a common theme in fantasy. Has anyone ever done it the other way
> > > around? (Leaving out Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series, as that's not
> > > quite what I mean.)
> >
> > Shakespeare. I think that's in the background in Macbeth. I mean, the
> > story of an usurpator who is a really good king but has to be replaced
> > because he's not the rightful one.
> >
> Well, maybe. The historical Macbeth was apparently a decent enough king
> -- felt secure enough to make a pilgrimage to Rome. The whole murdering
> Duncan and then getting offed by Duncan's heir was essentially standard
> Scottish succession at that point. Shakespeare's Macbeth isn't shown as
> being either good or bad as king.
Granted. I made a confusion between historic character and fictional
one. What I was pointing at is, in the play, IIRC (If I recall
correctly, that's it ?), there's nothing to say against Macbeth as a
king, apart the way he seized the crown. Like being king is not a
matter of being a good or a bad one, but more an affair of divine
grāce.
The fact that he sees ghosts at
> official banquets could be considered a possible negative, job
> performance-wise.
I think the problem Banquo's ghost has with Macbeth is more in the
personal sphere than in the mundane, way-of-ruling one. Granted, just
the fact he can appears at all hints rather strongly at a divine
desapproval of Macbeth...
And simply the fact that lots of people are willing to
> take arms to oppose him is another strike against him in the good king
> department.
Well, I don't know about that. Macbeth still retain the loyalty of his
men. He isn't thrown down by a popular insurrection but by a coalition
of foreign leaders. Seems to me the righful heir has a lot more
influent friends than the bloody usurpator, is all. Mix with more than
a little opportunism,
I-scratch-your-back-and-we'll-find-an-opportunity-for-you
-to-scratch-mine-style... Point is, I don't recall the rightful heir
making any promises nor showing any sign of being a better, more
enlightened ruler than the usurpator. Again, the whole affair is just
a matter of being legitimate or not and that's what I find so tragical
in this tragedy : no matter what you do with power, no even matter how
bloody you get your hands to grab it ; if you weren't meant to have it
in the first place, you're dubed evil and doomed. A rightful heir will
come, and God will be in his side. Like there is a righftul order of
things, and man cannot go against it and do any good.
Frenchy
Justin Fang
Htn963 <htn...@cs.com> wrote:
>Justin Fang wrote:
>>What I'd like to know is if there are any books where a country eventually
>>gets tired of constant struggles over who is the Rightful Heir and who is
>>the Foul Usurper and kicks the whole sorry lot out.
> Er...Dickens' _A Tale of Two Cities_.
>
> Don't know of an example in fantasy though. This genre (or the bloated
>and repetitive portion of it) can't seem to make do without royalty.
Well, I'd even settle for a fantasy novel where the people pick a new
monarch, hand him/her a set of rules, and make it clear that breaking them
will result in a new new monarch being chosen, possibly after the old new
monarch gets several inches trimmed off the top.
--
Justin Fang (jus...@panix.com)
Louann Miller
We're back to Pratchett again. There are passing references to
unwritten ground rules in the kingdom of Lancre where the populace
agrees to respect the King as King and the King agrees to respect them
as people who (a) vastly outnumber him and (b) own lots of pointy
agricultural implements.
--
Mozilla 1.1 is free and has a built in pop-up killer.
Just uncheck "open unrequested windows" under "advanced" under preferences.
http://www.mozilla.org
James Nicoll
Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>On 11 Oct 2002 10:15:54 -0400, jus...@panix.com (Justin Fang) wrote:
>
>>In article <20021010091613...@mb-df.news.cs.com>,
>>Htn963 <htn...@cs.com> wrote:
>>>Justin Fang wrote:
>>>>What I'd like to know is if there are any books where a country eventually
>>>>gets tired of constant struggles over who is the Rightful Heir and who is
>>>>the Foul Usurper and kicks the whole sorry lot out.
>>
>>> Er...Dickens' _A Tale of Two Cities_.
>>>
>>> Don't know of an example in fantasy though. This genre (or the bloated
>>>and repetitive portion of it) can't seem to make do without royalty.
>>
>>Well, I'd even settle for a fantasy novel where the people pick a new
>>monarch, hand him/her a set of rules, and make it clear that breaking them
>>will result in a new new monarch being chosen, possibly after the old new
>>monarch gets several inches trimmed off the top.
>
>We're back to Pratchett again. There are passing references to
>unwritten ground rules in the kingdom of Lancre where the populace
>agrees to respect the King as King and the King agrees to respect them
>as people who (a) vastly outnumber him and (b) own lots of pointy
>agricultural implements.
And thus Parliamentary Democracy was born. Pick a fertile line of
kings as you may have to chop a few to get the lesson across.
--
"Frankly, Captain, I feel interstellar diplomacy is out of our
depth."
"Ah, hence the nuclear weapons."
Peter Meilinger
>On 11 Oct 2002 10:15:54 -0400, jus...@panix.com (Justin Fang) wrote:
>>Well, I'd even settle for a fantasy novel where the people pick a new
>>monarch, hand him/her a set of rules, and make it clear that breaking them
>>will result in a new new monarch being chosen, possibly after the old new
>>monarch gets several inches trimmed off the top.
>We're back to Pratchett again. There are passing references to
>unwritten ground rules in the kingdom of Lancre where the populace
>agrees to respect the King as King and the King agrees to respect them
>as people who (a) vastly outnumber him and (b) own lots of pointy
>agricultural implements.
There's also the book set in Ankh-Morpork, was it Men At Arms?
No, Feet of Clay, where various people wanted to replace the
Patrician with the proper heir to the throne. Or at least a
pliable sort they could pretend was the proper heir. A chat
with Sam Vimes in one of the meeting halls at the palace sorted
them out.
Pete
Christopher Henrich
<jus...@panix.com> wrote:
Would you settle for a history of England in the seventeenth century?
--
Chris Henrich
Robert Sneddon
<mell...@bu.edu> writes
>
>There's also the book set in Ankh-Morpork, was it Men At Arms?
>No, Feet of Clay, where various people wanted to replace the
>Patrician with the proper heir to the throne. Or at least a
>pliable sort they could pretend was the proper heir. A chat
>with Sam Vimes in one of the meeting halls at the palace sorted
>them out.
The Rats Chamber, the one with the bloody great axe embedded in the
middle of the table? So much like the axe Sam Vimes' ancestor used to
behead the last king of Ankh-Morkpork (the one that was so kind to
children)? That meeting hall?
--
Robert Sneddon nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
Konrad Gaertner
And don't forget the dialog accompanying it:
"It would be a terrible thing, would it not, if people thought they
could take the law into their own hands..."
"Oh, no fear of that, sir. I'm holding on tightly to it."
--KG
David E. Siegel
> On 11 Oct 2002 10:15:54 -0400, jus...@panix.com (Justin Fang) wrote:
>
> >In article <20021010091613...@mb-df.news.cs.com>,
> >Htn963 <htn...@cs.com> wrote:
> >>Justin Fang wrote:
> >>>What I'd like to know is if there are any books where a country eventually
> >>>gets tired of constant struggles over who is the Rightful Heir and who is
> >>>the Foul Usurper and kicks the whole sorry lot out.
>
> >> Er...Dickens' _A Tale of Two Cities_.
> >>
> >> Don't know of an example in fantasy though. This genre (or the bloated
> >>and repetitive portion of it) can't seem to make do without royalty.
> >
> >Well, I'd even settle for a fantasy novel where the people pick a new
> >monarch, hand him/her a set of rules, and make it clear that breaking them
> >will result in a new new monarch being chosen, possibly after the old new
> >monarch gets several inches trimmed off the top.
>
> We're back to Pratchett again. There are passing references to
> unwritten ground rules in the kingdom of Lancre where the populace
> agrees to respect the King as King and the King agrees to respect them
> as people who (a) vastly outnumber him and (b) own lots of pointy
> agricultural implements.
L.S. de Camp' sseries, "The Reluctant king" involves a kingdom which
has a rather unusual law of succession. After five years of rule the
king is beheaded and hishead is toosed into the waiting crowd like a
bridal boquet. If you catch it -- you're *it* -- the next king. We
follow the latest (and eventually last) king as he escapes this fate,
only to tour quite a number of realms, with disparate governments and
methods of handling the succession. Eventually the original country
becomes a republic and Jorian, the "unbeheaded king" settels down to
the peaceful life he wants. It is a fun series, but the last book
more or less satisfies the above.
-DES
Justin Fang
Yes, that's what I was thinking of as an inspiration. But what fantasy
novels (other than Pratchett's) feature the creation of constitutional
monarchies?
--
Justin Fang (jus...@panix.com)
David E. Siegel
> In article <H3ruB...@leeds.ac.uk>, Rob <R...@somewhere.dot.com> wrote:
> >Yes, I thought Martin must have had a look at the history of the Wars
> >of the Roses before starting his series.
>
> If you look at individual bits of Martin's series, I get strong
> impressions of English history references, but like an Escher drawing,
> the whole thing doesn't line up neatly with any particular situation.
> Or it's sort of like a serious-minded PDQ Bach tune, if there were
> such a thing:
Well, ther is Schickley's serious music.
>I keep hearing a few bars of a familiar theme before the
> tune goes its own way, and then there's a different familiar theme.
>
> SPOILER WARNINGS ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The backstory, a decadent ruler being stomped out after a long civil
> war, has no English equivalent that I can think of.
The "anarchy of Stephan" comes to mind. He was, what the 3rd, or 4th
king after Willima the Bastard (aka the norman). He was corrupt and
ineffective and put down after a minor civil war.
>A ruler percieved
> as decadent being deposed looks something like Richard II and Henry
> IV. A king who used to be powerful who is sinking into dotage looks
> rather like Edward III and Edward IV. A king who has gotten fat 'n'
> lazy, dies suddenly, has two brothers, two sons, at least one
> daughter, and an unpopular wife with baggage of a family, looks very
> much like Edward IV, Clarence, Glouchester, Edward V, Richard of York,
> Elizabeth, Elizabeth Woodville, and the Woodvilles, respectively. In
> the book's case, though, "Clarence" was still alive when "Edward IV"
> died; a loyal man found out about illegitimacy of the princes and was
> killed (coming from the North was like "Richard III", but not the
> rest); the Woodvilles essentially won; there's a standoff at the
> moment between "Richard of York" and "Richard of Glouchester".
>
> The flavor in high poltiical levels of the mainland at present has
> aspects of the Wars of the Roses: feuding nobles and Devil take the
> hindmost.
>
> Wossername off in the steppes and wherever has no analogue I can think
> of: scheming exiled sibling of a deposed monarch ... can't think of
> any in British history.
Bonnie Prince Charlie and the exiled Stuarts coem to mind. And she is
the sibling of the son of the deposed monarch, IIRC.
> Also, the Scots may be a bad lot, but I
> wouldn't go so far as to call them shambling icy inhumans!
No but the english sometimes acted and perhaps thought of them that
way.
-DES
Robert Sneddon
<jus...@panix.com> writes
>
>Yes, that's what I was thinking of as an inspiration. But what fantasy
>novels (other than Pratchett's) feature the creation of constitutional
>monarchies?
>
David Eddings _Malloreon_ Juggern^W epic series had the King of Sendar
chosen by popular vote. The elections went on for so long that the
eventual winner had forgotten he had put himself forward as a candidate
and was out hoeing turnips when the messengers arrived in his field and
kneeled before him to acclaim him King.
After that it was hereditary, I think.
David Johnston
I've seen a couple of fantasy novels where monarchs are magically compelled
to serve the kingdome rather than exploit it. Functionally those are consitutional
monarchies albeit with an unreal method of restricting the king's authority.
Timothy McDaniel
David E. Siegel <sie...@acm.org> wrote:
>tm...@panix.com (Timothy McDaniel) wrote in message
>news:<ao4njm$khq$1...@reader1.panix.com>...
>> In article <H3ruB...@leeds.ac.uk>, Rob <R...@somewhere.dot.com> wrote:
>> >Yes, I thought Martin must have had a look at the history of the Wars
>> >of the Roses before starting his series.
>>
>> If you look at individual bits of Martin's series, I get strong
>> impressions of English history references, but like an Escher drawing,
>> the whole thing doesn't line up neatly with any particular situation.
>> Or it's sort of like a serious-minded PDQ Bach tune, if there were
>> such a thing:
>
>Well, ther is Schickley's serious music.
>
>>I keep hearing a few bars of a familiar theme before the
>> tune goes its own way, and then there's a different familiar theme.
>>
>> SPOILER WARNINGS ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The backstory, a decadent ruler being stomped out after a long civil
>> war, has no English equivalent that I can think of.
>
>The "anarchy of Stephan" comes to mind. He was, what the 3rd, or 4th
>ineffective and put down after a minor civil war.
William, William Rufus, Henry I, Stephen ... third after. He was
pretty ineffective and lax, but the rest of your characterization was
not correct. He wasn't corrupt. He was actually moderately popular
as a person with the baronage, because he was a good-times Charlie and
had the right views on huntin' and such. Twenty years of off-and-on
civil war, with the almost complete wreckage of the royal
administration, was not minor. Also, he reigned to the end of his
life. A few years before his death, the baronage forced a settlement
where Stephen reigned for life but his cousin, the future Henry II,
got to succeed him.
>> Wossername off in the steppes and wherever has no analogue I can
>> think of: scheming exiled sibling of a deposed monarch ... can't
>> think of any in British history.
>
>Bonnie Prince Charlie and the exiled Stuarts come to mind. And she
>is the sibling of the son of the deposed monarch, IIRC.
Yes, but
- they didn't succeed, and had only one major invasion (1745)
- James II wasn't corrupt or scheming, just somewhat nuts,
and wasn't the sibling of any other pretender (except Charles II,
who was already dead and had gotten the throne back from Tumbledown
Dick after Cromwell).
>> Also, the Scots may be a bad lot, but I wouldn't go so far as to
>> call them shambling icy inhumans!
>
>No, but the English sometimes acted and perhaps thought of them that
>way.
To quote _Evita_, "it's an easy mistake".
Dave Empey
news:ao1lk1$kck$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk:
> Aragorn was a rightful heir, but his forebears hadn't sat on
> the throne of Gondor for 3000 years.
Not quite that long, iirc. I believe he was also a descendant
in the female line of one of the last kings of Gondor, who
ruled ca. 2000.
--
Dave Empey
wth...@godzilla6.acpub.duke.edu
> tm...@panix.com (Timothy McDaniel) wrote in message news:<ao4njm$khq$1...@reader1.panix.com>...
> > In article <H3ruB...@leeds.ac.uk>, Rob <R...@somewhere.dot.com> wrote:
> > >Yes, I thought Martin must have had a look at the history of the Wars
> > >of the Roses before starting his series.
> >
> > If you look at individual bits of Martin's series, I get strong
> > impressions of English history references, but like an Escher drawing,
> > the whole thing doesn't line up neatly with any particular situation.
> > Or it's sort of like a serious-minded PDQ Bach tune, if there were
> > such a thing:
>
> Well, ther is Schickley's serious music.
>
> >I keep hearing a few bars of a familiar theme before the
> > tune goes its own way, and then there's a different familiar theme.
> >
> > SPOILER WARNINGS ...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The backstory, a decadent ruler being stomped out after a long civil
> > war, has no English equivalent that I can think of.
>
> The "anarchy of Stephan" comes to mind. He was, what the 3rd, or 4th
> king after Willima the Bastard (aka the norman).
Henry I (William's youngest son) wanted his daughter to
succeed him. Stephen was a grandson of William who had
been raised by Uncle Henry and was the richest man in
the country. He didn't want to be ruled by a woman and
claimed the throne. He gained it (with papal support)
and ruled without serious opposition for a time, but not well.
He was corrupt and
> ineffective and put down after a minor civil war.
A 19 year reign is pretty good for someone who
is "corrupt and ineffective", not to mention
faced with powerful enemies. I don't think
the civil war was minor, and Stephen didn't
lose it, dying a natural death while still
king (see below).
I don't know that he was any more corrupt than other
rulers of his day. The state was more or less
the personal property of the ruler at that time.
He was fairly effective militarily, but much too
easygoing with both enemies and lawbreakers in
general. Effective general, ineffective king.
His elder son and heir died of natural causes, so
a deal was reached in which Stephen would remain king
but be succeeded by his opponent's son (the future
Henry II). The younger son (who remained count of
of Boulogne and earl of Surrey, after all) died not
long after, perhaps his health was already bad enough
that he decided not to contest the kingship.
I know of no reason to regard Stephen as "decadent".
You could make a case for "lazy", perhaps.
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
JoatSimeon
legitimate Stuart heir in the direct line survived, even among people who
supported the Hanoverians.
Louann Miller
>sie...@acm.org (David E. Siegel) writes:
>> tm...@panix.com (Timothy McDaniel) wrote in message news:<ao4njm$khq$1...@reader1.panix.com>...
>> > The backstory, a decadent ruler being stomped out after a long civil
>> > war, has no English equivalent that I can think of.
>>
>> The "anarchy of Stephan" comes to mind. He was, what the 3rd, or 4th
>> king after Willima the Bastard (aka the norman).
>
> Henry I (William's youngest son) wanted his daughter to
> succeed him. Stephen was a grandson of William who had
> been raised by Uncle Henry and was the richest man in
> the country. He didn't want to be ruled by a woman and
> claimed the throne. He gained it (with papal support)
> and ruled without serious opposition for a time, but not well.
Which provided the setting for an excellent series of whodunnits by
Ellis Peters, later made into t.v. movies with Derek Jacobi as a monk.
dave
mike stone
>From: jus...@panix.com (Justin Fang)
>
>Well, I'd even settle for a fantasy novel where the people pick a new
>monarch, hand him/her a set of rules, and make it clear that breaking them
>will result in a new new monarch being chosen, possibly after the old new
>monarch gets several inches trimmed off the top.
Sounds like the "constitution" of Tsarist Russia (and also of the Roman Empire
for much of its history) "Despotism tempered by assassination"
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England
The gap between genius and insanity is measured in success.
Russell Wallace
'A Song of Ice and Fire'
>(It is also a very good tale, with much more than that in it, IMO).
Mmmf.
I'm not sure whether it's good or bad.
It sucks in that nearly all the characters are either coldly
sociopathic mass murders, gleefully psychotic mass murderers, or 'good
guys' who are so mindbogglingly stupid that they end up doing as much
damage as the bad guys.
On the other hand, it is written with extraordinary skill, and the
world is beautifully presented.
I think you really need to be able to enjoy watching people die
horribly for its own sake to enjoy the series - which I can, if the
people in question deserve it enough, so I'll read the next one in the
hope of seeing some more bad guys get their comeuppance.
If he keeps up this business of bringing the dead ones back to life,
though, I won't bother with the book after that.
(I think it'll go the way of 'The Wheel of Time' anyway, given the way
plot threads are multiplying like Tribbles on speed.)
--
"Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent."
Remove killer rodent from address to reply.
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace
Russell Wallace
>There's an excellent reason why it's usually the "rightful heir" in the
>European tradition.
>
>Dynastic legitimacy -- the right of the eldest to take the throne -- was the
>alternative to having a civil war every time a king died.
Yep.
I read 'King Richard II' in school, and found the king was way
overdone - he's one of those few literary villains who have _no
virtues whatsover_, not even the conviction to be able to manage a
gleeful laugh about their evil plans. So _obviously_ Bolingbroke
should bump off the old fart and take the throne; where was the moral
conflict?
Later I learned the reason we should still have doubts. Of course, to
Shakespeare's original audience, this would still have immediate
emotional impact. I wish they'd explained that to us in school.
Mike Schilling
"mike stone" <mws...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021012095640...@mb-bj.aol.com...
> >rightful heir?
> >From: jus...@panix.com (Justin Fang)
> >
>
> >Well, I'd even settle for a fantasy novel where the people pick a new
> >monarch, hand him/her a set of rules, and make it clear that breaking
them
> >will result in a new new monarch being chosen, possibly after the old new
> >monarch gets several inches trimmed off the top.
>
> Sounds like the "constitution" of Tsarist Russia (and also of the Roman
Empire
> for much of its history) "Despotism tempered by assassination"
The only assassinated Czar I can think of offhand was Alexander II. He was
a liberal modernizer, for a Czar, anyway. He was succeeded by his son
Alexander III, who was as ruthless a tyrant as ever lived.
JoatSimeon
>
>Later I learned the reason we should still have doubts.
-- it's extraordinarily difficult to get modern Westerners in general, and
Americans in particular, to internalize the _emotional_ patterns of a monarchic
society where hereditary right is a broadly accepted principle.
But without this, a monarchy makes no sense.
Tina Hall
> 'A Song of Ice and Fire'
[...]
> I'm not sure whether it's good or bad.
>
> It sucks in that nearly all the characters are either coldly
> sociopathic mass murders, gleefully psychotic mass murderers,
You know, this sounded interesting enough to give the story in
'Legends' a try (after staying away from it since the description
sounded too much like only politics and intrigues), and barely
after starting it, it bored me with listings of what colors tents
have and some silly heralds I also didn't want to know about.
Would it make any sense even to continue reading that little
story? Is the actual series full of that stuff too?
> or 'good guys' who are so mindbogglingly stupid that they end
> up doing as much damage as the bad guys.
Stupid 'good guys' don't sound too interesting either, but your
perception might differ from mine...
> On the other hand, it is written with extraordinary skill, and
> the world is beautifully presented.
That makes me wonder what exactly you mean by it. (Opinions vary
and all that... :) )
> I think you really need to be able to enjoy watching people
> die horribly for its own sake to enjoy the series
Another point that got me interested... Some things can only be
enjoyed in fiction. If it's done well I rather like such stuff in
stories.
> (I think it'll go the way of 'The Wheel of Time' anyway, given
> the way plot threads are multiplying like Tribbles on speed.)
Ouch. <g>
That had more bad parts than just multiplying plot threads,
though. (Boring descriptions, except the interesting bits didn't
get them, not a single brain cell among the entire cast, dragging
pace...)
--
Tina
- An alien, obviously; nothing else makes any sense.
____________________________________________________
Emails: <Tina...@railroad.robin.de> only.
Mike Schilling
"Tina Hall" <ti...@typhoon.kruemel.org> wrote in message
news:MSGID_2=3A2433=2F888.111=40fidonet...@fidonet.org...
> Russell Wallace wrote:
>
> > 'A Song of Ice and Fire'
> [...]
> > I'm not sure whether it's good or bad.
> >
> > It sucks in that nearly all the characters are either coldly
> > sociopathic mass murders, gleefully psychotic mass murderers,
>
> You know, this sounded interesting enough to give the story in
> 'Legends' a try (after staying away from it since the description
> sounded too much like only politics and intrigues), and barely
> after starting it, it bored me with listings of what colors tents
> have and some silly heralds I also didn't want to know about.
>
> Would it make any sense even to continue reading that little
> story? Is the actual series full of that stuff too?
I wouldn't start there. The Legends story will seem (I'm guessing) fluffy
and trivial without the background the novels give. My recommendation would
be to get hold of "A Game of Thrones" and read 100 pages or so. If you're
not hooked by then, stop.
Ross TenEyck
>"Tina Hall" <ti...@typhoon.kruemel.org> wrote in message
>news:MSGID_2=3A2433=2F888.111=40fidonet...@fidonet.org...
[Song of Ice and Fire]
>> Would it make any sense even to continue reading that little
>> story? Is the actual series full of that stuff too?
>I wouldn't start there. The Legends story will seem (I'm guessing) fluffy
>and trivial without the background the novels give. My recommendation would
>be to get hold of "A Game of Thrones" and read 100 pages or so. If you're
>not hooked by then, stop.
Although be warned that the series is not at all the kind of
thing it seems to be in the first hundred pages. It's good;
but it suckers you in by pretending to be merely very well-
done Epic-Flavored Extruded Fantasy Product. In fact, it's
nothing of the kind.
(Personally, I gave up partway into the second book. Not
because I didn't think it was very good, but because I just
couldn't handle how brutal he was being to my favorite
characters.)
--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
JoatSimeon
>(Personally, I gave up partway into the second book. Not
>because I didn't think it was very good, but because I just
>couldn't handle how brutal he was being to my favorite
>characters.)
-- you should try hearing it chapter by chapter at our writer's group... 8-).
But it's extremely good writing.
Ross TenEyck
Oh, certainly, yes. I'm not disputing that.
I'm just not man enough to take it :)
Joe Mason
> You know, this sounded interesting enough to give the story in
> 'Legends' a try (after staying away from it since the description
> sounded too much like only politics and intrigues), and barely
> after starting it, it bored me with listings of what colors tents
> have and some silly heralds I also didn't want to know about.
>
> Would it make any sense even to continue reading that little
> story? Is the actual series full of that stuff too?
Yeah, you should skip it (the Legends story).
The series itself is roughly one-third heraldry and noble alliances and
such, which from the sounds of things you despise, one-third war and
battles, and one-third the coolest fantasy adventure I've read in a long
time. I happen to like all three parts, and whether you like the series
as a whole depends on how well you can skim the heraldry and still keep
up on who murdered who.
Joe
Joe Mason
>> You know, this sounded interesting enough to give the story in
>> 'Legends' a try (after staying away from it since the description
>> sounded too much like only politics and intrigues), and barely
>> after starting it, it bored me with listings of what colors tents
>> have and some silly heralds I also didn't want to know about.
>>
>> Would it make any sense even to continue reading that little
>> story? Is the actual series full of that stuff too?
>
> I wouldn't start there. The Legends story will seem (I'm guessing) fluffy
> and trivial without the background the novels give. My recommendation would
> be to get hold of "A Game of Thrones" and read 100 pages or so. If you're
> not hooked by then, stop.
I thought the Legends story was okay, but not great. I had the luck to
pick up a copy of Asimov's for 50c that had a few chapters of Clash of
Kings in it (the ones with the Unsullied), which is what hooked me in.
For a while I thought that was the 'short story' that Tina was talking
about, and I boggled at how she could find it boring.
Joe
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
:(Personally, I gave up partway into the second book. Not
:because I didn't think it was very good, but because I just
:couldn't handle how brutal he was being to my favorite
:characters.)
That almost happened to me, I ran through AGOT quickly, then got
partway into ACOK and decided to put it down for a while for the same
reasons as you, and reread The Phoenix Guards for something different.
I'm back to reading ACOK now, but trying to stay at a more emotional
distance from the characters.
--
Ian Galbraith
Email: igalb...@removeozonline.com.au
'I'm not an adult!'' he says, shaking his head. ''I don't want
to create responsible shows with lawyers in them. I want to invade
people's dreams.'' -Joss Whedon
erilar
(Ross TenEyck) wrote:
> joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) writes:
> >>From: ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck)
>
> >>(Personally, I gave up partway into the second book. Not
> >>because I didn't think it was very good, but because I just
> >>couldn't handle how brutal he was being to my favorite
> >>characters.)
>
> >-- you should try hearing it chapter by chapter at our writer's group...
> >8-).
>
> >But it's extremely good writing.
>
> Oh, certainly, yes. I'm not disputing that.
>
> I'm just not man enough to take it :)
Comment on such reactions: It usually takes a good writer to make you
CARE that much about the characters. As a long-ago English major, I read
a lot of "great literature" and often got upset at what the author was
doing. I also once read _Brothers Karamazov_, almost throwing the book
across the room more than once because it got me so upset; this does not
happen with weak writing. It also doesn't mean I'm going to want to read
more books by an author, no matter how great, whose characters ALL upset
me 8-)
--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
wth...@godzilla6.acpub.duke.edu
> On 11 Oct 2002 18:00:44 -0400, wth...@godzilla6.acpub.duke.edu wrote:
> >sie...@acm.org (David E. Siegel) writes:
> >> tm...@panix.com (Timothy McDaniel) wrote in message news:<ao4njm$khq$1...@reader1.panix.com>...
>
> >> > The backstory, a decadent ruler being stomped out after a long civil
> >> > war, has no English equivalent that I can think of.
> >>
> >> The "anarchy of Stephan" comes to mind. He was, what the 3rd, or 4th
> >> king after Willima the Bastard (aka the norman).
> >
> > Henry I (William's youngest son) wanted his daughter to
> > succeed him. Stephen was a grandson of William who had
> > been raised by Uncle Henry and was the richest man in
> > the country. He didn't want to be ruled by a woman and
> > claimed the throne. He gained it (with papal support)
> > and ruled without serious opposition for a time, but not well.
>
> Which provided the setting for an excellent series of whodunnits by
> Ellis Peters, later made into t.v. movies with Derek Jacobi as a monk.
>
A guilty pleasure of mine. I eventually had to give
them away so I would stop rereading them. Very pleasantly
done, though Cadfael is a bit too 20th century.
I do wish they'd made more of the TV series. There are
twenty books, after all.
The period is a popular one for writers.
Cecilia Holland visits the tail end of this anarchy
in one of her books. I think the US title was "The
Earl". It starts in the brief period between the
end of the wars and Steven's death. Ken Follett's
"The pillars of the earth" also takes place in
large part during the anarchy, starting not long
after the white ship sinking. There's also "Knight in
Anarchy" by George Shipway (and how proud of myself I am
for remembering that name before my first coffee has hit
the bloodstream!).
Htn963
>Comment on such reactions: It usually takes a good writer to make you
>CARE that much about the characters. As a long-ago English major, I read
>a lot of "great literature" and often got upset at what the author was
>doing. I also once read _Brothers Karamazov_, almost throwing the book
>across the room more than once because it got me so upset; this does not
>happen with weak writing. It also doesn't mean I'm going to want to read
>more books by an author, no matter how great, whose characters ALL upset
>me 8-)
Another great but depressing writer that I'm careful not to overdose on is
Thomas Hardy. His books (esp. _Jude the Obscure_) are compelling, but I
recall they usually make me gloomy for days afterwards. At least for the
tortured characters of Dostoyevsky, there _is_ a faint hope for redemption.
ObSF: Philip K. Dick
--
Ht
|Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore
never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
--John Donne, "Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions"|
Ethan Merritt
Daphne Brinkerhoff <cen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ailsa Ek <ail...@mac.com> wrote in message news:<ailsaek-63BC2E...@netnews.attbi.com>...
>> I've been meaning to write a fantasy novel one of these days where the
>> heroes get enlisted to help put the rightful heir back on the throne,
>> and realize by the end of the book that the heir is better off _not_ on
>> the throne, and the usurper is a much better ruler.
>
>*Some* elements of this in Guy Gavriel Kay's _A Song for Arbonne_,
[dons fire-resistant regalia].
Much more so in _Tigana_. The right and future king (Alessan) is not one
I'd much care for; too obsessed with his past. The usurper Brandin was
the better ruler by far. He also was obsessed, but his obsession was of
the same cloth as Alessan's, so in a choice between the two doesn't count
for much.
>which I just reread a couple of weeks ago. That's an excellent book.
>(I have issues with the "persona ex machina", or whatever the phrase
>would be for a character who's important to the plot but whom we don't
>see until 15 pages before the end [figures not checked for
Hmm. You might want to skim the first section again. Your 'ex machina'
character was in there right from the start. 'Tis true that we didn't
see much of him in between the start and the end, though.
--
Ethan A Merritt
Daphne Brinkerhoff
mer...@u.washington.edu (Ethan Merritt) wrote in message news:<aog8ao$fkr$1...@brogar.bmsc.washington.edu>...
> In article <1a80bb93.02100...@posting.google.com>,
> Daphne Brinkerhoff <cen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >*Some* elements of this in Guy Gavriel Kay's _A Song for Arbonne_,
>
> [dons fire-resistant regalia].
> Much more so in _Tigana_. The right and future king (Alessan) is not one
> I'd much care for; too obsessed with his past. The usurper Brandin was
> the better ruler by far. He also was obsessed, but his obsession was of
> the same cloth as Alessan's, so in a choice between the two doesn't count
> for much.
Yeah, except for the whole vendetta thing. I mean, I'd be obsessed
with my past too, if someone did what Brandin did to my "country"...
Well, I don't want to spoil much. I liked Brandin too, but it
wouldn't have been much of a book if I didn't.
> >which I just reread a couple of weeks ago. That's an excellent book.
> >(I have issues with the "persona ex machina", or whatever the phrase
> >would be for a character who's important to the plot but whom we don't
> >see until 15 pages before the end [figures not checked for
>
> Hmm. You might want to skim the first section again. Your 'ex machina'
> character was in there right from the start. 'Tis true that we didn't
> see much of him in between the start and the end, though.
We're thinking of different "personae ex machina" then, for mine is
female. (Hint: I was really mad that a certain man didn't end up with
Lisseut, because he ended up with...? epilogues notwithstanding)
I don't want to be too hard on the book; I liked it. I liked all of
Kay's work, but progressively less so -- I mean, I liked newer books
less well than older ones. I skimmed the first Sailing to Sarantium
book, but didn't even bother with the next. Whatever happened to
magic and fantastical elements?
--Daphne
Joe Mason
> I don't want to be too hard on the book; I liked it. I liked all of
> Kay's work, but progressively less so -- I mean, I liked newer books
> less well than older ones. I skimmed the first Sailing to Sarantium
> book, but didn't even bother with the next. Whatever happened to
> magic and fantastical elements?
He was steadily putting less in per book, up until Sarantium - which
actually had quite a few.
Joe
erilar
cen...@hotmail.com (Daphne Brinkerhoff) wrote:
> I don't want to be too hard on the book; I liked it. I liked all of
> Kay's work, but progressively less so -- I mean, I liked newer books
> less well than older ones. I skimmed the first Sailing to Sarantium
> book, but didn't even bother with the next.
I did that, too, though I don't remember exactly why. I liked other
ones.
erilar
htn...@cs.com (Htn963) wrote:
> Another great but depressing writer that I'm careful not to overdose
> on is
> Thomas Hardy. His books (esp. _Jude the Obscure_) are compelling, but
> I
> recall they usually make me gloomy for days afterwards. At least for
> the
> tortured characters of Dostoyevsky, there _is_ a faint hope for
> redemption.
Oh, yes! Hardy is enough to thrust almost anyone into depression!
Tina Hall
> In article <MSGID_2=3A2433=2F888.111=40fidonet_1161cd4e@fidone
> t.org>, Tina Hall wrote:
>> You know, this sounded interesting enough to give the story in
>> 'Legends' a try (after staying away from it since the
>> description sounded too much like only politics and
>> intrigues), and barely after starting it, it bored me with
>> listings of what colors tents have and some silly heralds I
>> also didn't want to know about.
> >
> > Would it make any sense even to continue reading that little
> > story? Is the actual series full of that stuff too?
>
> Yeah, you should skip it (the Legends story).
Ok. (What a shame, I'm still looking for new authors that write
interesting stuff.)
> The series itself is roughly one-third heraldry and noble
> alliances and such, which from the sounds of things you
> despise, one-third war and battles, and one-third the coolest
> fantasy adventure I've read in a long time.
I'm not sure I want to read about any of that.
Mentioning heralds would be ok if the descriptions were left out,
a third of a book full of descriptions though, seems like a waste
of time.
Large scale battles (whether with armies or just one against one
sword fights) are also not something I'm particularly fond of.
I'd just think, ok, when's the interesting bit going to start?
'Fantasy adventure' itself is too broad to really tell anything.
> I happen to like all three parts, and whether you like the
> series as a whole depends on how well you can skim the heraldry
> and still keep up on who murdered who.
The murders themselves sound more interesting. :)
--
Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of an insane mind!!!!
(Apologies to Terry Pratchett.)
________________________________________________________________
Emails: <Tina...@railroad.robin.de> only.
Daphne Brinkerhoff
This is true. I had been forgetting especially about the religious
stuff, which included some magic/fantasy. But it's also true what you
said--less in each succeeding book. I think this is why I found them
less satisfying. (Plus some stylistic tics: I wrote at the time how I
was getting irritated with "later he was to look back and think, if
only he had known, he never would have walked through the door" and
things like that.) Still, I'd definitely try whatever he does next.
About the topic line again: even Fionavar Tapestry flirts with the
idea of "not-so-rightful heir".
--Daphne
Joe Mason
>> alliances and such, which from the sounds of things you
>> despise, one-third war and battles, and one-third the coolest
>> fantasy adventure I've read in a long time.
>
> I'm not sure I want to read about any of that.
>
> Mentioning heralds would be ok if the descriptions were left out,
> a third of a book full of descriptions though, seems like a waste
> of time.
No, no, he's not that bad of a writer...
I meant that quite a bit of the plot involves this house being pitted
against that house, which naturally means you have to keep straight who
all the houses are. He doesn't spend a lot of time lingering on the
heraldry or anything, it's just that whenever there's a large crowd he
lists off the banners present.
> Large scale battles (whether with armies or just one against one
> sword fights) are also not something I'm particularly fond of.
> I'd just think, ok, when's the interesting bit going to start?
I think I've given you the wrong impression. My 'one-third' meant
amount of plot space, not number of pages. There are really about
three plot threads: a war (and what happens to various people caught up
in it), intrigue between fueding nobles (and the effects on their
houses), and Evil Things That Must Be Killed. (Actually I just realized
I forgot a plot thread, but let's keep this simple.)
There are only a couple of large-scale battles; most of the progress of
the war happens off screen. I still class it as 'one-third' of the
story because it's so important to the plot. But mostly it picks a
handful - er, a doz - well, a fair number of important characters and
follows their personal battles around.
> The murders themselves sound more interesting. :)
Oh, there are a couple of really nice ones. I can't go into much detail
without spoilers, though.
Joe
David E. Siegel
I would say that all of it is about a snakepit of politics and
ambitions. Part of this is who is allied to who, and why, which
includes who is mad at who for stuff doen 2+ years ago, and who
married whose cousin. it is in here that the heraldry part comes in,
as this is used to symbolize the various noble families and their
connections. Battles and betrayals are soem of the ways in which
various characters try to forward their variuous ambitions and goals.
The "fantasy" happens when people encounter strange things in this
world, and try to survive them or, more often, use them to forward
their personal or family or tribal ambitions. This is very much a
series about the "war of all against all" or what happens when the
social order stsarts to break down in a pesudo-feudal setting. It is
very well written, IMO.
-DES
David E. Siegel
I was under the impression that several of them were deposed, (aka
abdicated under threat) and later murdered, but not actually
assisanited while on the throne. But I don't know russian history well
enough to say this with assurance.
-DES
David E. Siegel
The main point of the Legands story, IMO is to show how arrogant and
decadant and unworthy the then reighning family was (this is the
family who was overthrown by the usurper who was ruling at the start
of the first book) and to give us a number of brief sketches of the
"this is what so-and-so was like as a youth" type. These can be useful
once you know so-and-so as a major character in the main story.
Since the story occured at a torunement, and part of the point was the
strong impression that the displays made on the viewpoint character,
and the contrast btween the gaudy finery and the evil or uncaring
wearers thereof, describing the tents, banners, etc in some detail was
important IMO.
-DES