Book Thoughts: McKillip's THE TOWER AT STONY WOOD
P. Korda
PATRICIA MCKILLIP
This is a typical McKillip outing: not so much a fantasy novel as a
novel-length fairy tale. This is an important distinction, I think.
Modern fantasy novels generally feature a lot of concrete world-building,
complete with geography, politics, natural philosophy (a "magic system" and
such), and all sorts of bumps and warts. A fairy-tale, on the other hand,
just suggests such things, or smooths them over altogether. Fairy tales
strip out all the extraneous bits, and focus on the essential elements,
resulting in something which is simultaneously less realistic and more
fundamental than a regular novel. All of McKillip's books (or at least all
the ones I've read) have this quality, even her scifi-esque FOOL'S RUN.
THE TOWER AT STONY WOOD is no exception: you've got your enchanted Lady in
a tower, a king, a loyal knight, and a kingdom with just the barest sketch
of geography. In a standard novel, such features would be serious
detriments: one-dimensional characters, confusing geography. But, for
McKillip's style, it works.
The strengths of this book are the characters and the prose. After BORED
OF THE RINGS and THE EYES OF THE OVERWORLD, I was really happy to read a
book with likeable protagonists. They're not perfect, but they're
well-intentioned, and I really wanted to see them succeed, even when their
individual goals were in conflict. And, as usual with McKillip, the prose
itself is excellent. One very nifty thing is the description of magic. As
is often the case in McKillip, it's really MAGICAL magic: an art, not a
science. I was very taken by the whole embroidery-magic business.
But, despite all the good bits, I was disappointed in the book as a whole.
The problem was the plot. Not only are the twists and turns kind of
confusing, the ultimate explanation of what's been going on is deeply
unsatisfying. (Explained below the spoiler warning.)
Overall, its not a bad book, and certainly not my least favorite McKillip,
but I didn't like it nearly as much as her other recent works (_Song for
the Basilisk_, _Winter Rose_ and _The Book of Atrix Wolfe_).
Now for the bit I didn't like:
SPOILERS
At the end, it turns out that everything was set up by the mystical Three
Sisters, and that the characters were all pawns acting to bring about the
Sisters' goal. It's a good goal, and everything turns out for the best,
but I just didn't appreciate the likable characters being manipulated by
this mysterious force. I prefer characters who bring about plot resolution
through their own volition, not because the Mastermind was able to control
her pawns well.
--
Pam Korda
kor2 @ midway .uchicago .edu
Htn963
> THE TOWER AT STONY WOOD
> PATRICIA MCKILLIP
>
> This is a typical McKillip outing: not so much a fantasy novel as a
> novel-length fairy tale. This is an important distinction, I think.
> Modern fantasy novels generally feature a lot of concrete world-building,
> complete with geography, politics, natural philosophy (a "magic system" and
> such), and all sorts of bumps and warts. A fairy-tale, on the other hand,
> just suggests such things, or smooths them over altogether. Fairy tales
> strip out all the extraneous bits, and focus on the essential elements,
> resulting in something which is simultaneously less realistic and more
> fundamental than a regular novel. All of McKillip's books (or at least all
> the ones I've read) have this quality, even her scifi-esque FOOL'S RUN.
Now, I'm not a heavy fantasy reader and I haven't read any of
Mckillip's books, but aren't fantasies all fairy-tales in the sense
that they share the same mythic tropes? I'm thinking one of the main
reasons fantasies consistently sell well is that they cater to the
need of their readers to reexperience the wonder and joy of the
fairy-tales they've heard or read in childhood.
> THE TOWER AT STONY WOOD is no exception: you've got your enchanted Lady in
> a tower, a king, a loyal knight, and a kingdom with just the barest sketch
> of geography. In a standard novel, such features would be serious
> detriments: one-dimensional characters, confusing geography. But, for
> McKillip's style, it works.
One Amazon review said it was inspired by Tennyson's "Lady of
Shallot," but another said Rapunzel. Which is it, or is it both (or
more), eh?:)
> The strengths of this book are the characters and the prose. After BORED
> OF THE RINGS and THE EYES OF THE OVERWORLD, I was really happy to read a
> book with likeable protagonists. They're not perfect, but they're
> well-intentioned, and I really wanted to see them succeed, even when their
> individual goals were in conflict. And, as usual with McKillip, the prose
> itself is excellent.
Pluses for me.
> One very nifty thing is the description of magic. As
> is often the case in McKillip, it's really MAGICAL magic: an art, not a
> science. I was very taken by the whole embroidery-magic business.
I'm not sure about this, however: do you mean there is no
cumbersome attempt to explain the magic that would result in
diminishing its awe and mystique, or that there is no sense or
consistency at all to the magic? The former is OK.
> But, despite all the good bits, I was disappointed in the book as a whole.
> The problem was the plot. Not only are the twists and turns kind of
> confusing, the ultimate explanation of what's been going on is deeply
> unsatisfying. (Explained below the spoiler warning.)
>
> Overall, its not a bad book, and certainly not my least favorite McKillip,
> but I didn't like it nearly as much as her other recent works (_Song for
> the Basilisk_, _Winter Rose_ and _The Book of Atrix Wolfe_).
I might try _Wolfe_ since I dig werewolves and shapeshifters (but
no, before anyone suggests them, I don't ever plan to read Hamilton's
Anita Blake series, which I gathered have degenerated into porn.)
BTW, have you read McKillip's Riddle Master trilogy? I've heard
that that is as good a work as any to start with her.
--
Ht
P. Korda
Htn963 <Htn...@cs.com> wrote:
>ko...@midway.uchicago.edu (P. Korda) wrote in message
>news:<F8AQ7.284$t4.1...@news.uchicago.edu>...
>> THE TOWER AT STONY WOOD
>> PATRICIA MCKILLIP
[Fairy Tales vs. Fantasy literature]
> Now, I'm not a heavy fantasy reader and I haven't read any of
>Mckillip's books, but aren't fantasies all fairy-tales in the sense
>that they share the same mythic tropes? I'm thinking one of the main
They don't really, though. Modern fantasy literature tends to draw on
myths and legends, whereas fairy tales come out of folklore. Of
course, there are exceptions and overlaps; I'm just talking in the
most general terms.
>> THE TOWER AT STONY WOOD is no exception: you've got your enchanted Lady in
>> a tower, a king, a loyal knight, and a kingdom with just the barest sketch
> One Amazon review said it was inspired by Tennyson's "Lady of
>Shallot," but another said Rapunzel. Which is it, or is it both (or
>more), eh?:)
"The Lady of Shallot" is definitely referenced, but the plot doesn't
really follow that of Tennyson's poem, or of "Rapunzel." There's a few
other standard tales, as well, and I'm sure there are more references
which I didn't get.
>> One very nifty thing is the description of magic. As
>> is often the case in McKillip, it's really MAGICAL magic: an art, not a
>> science. I was very taken by the whole embroidery-magic business.
>
> I'm not sure about this, however: do you mean there is no
>cumbersome attempt to explain the magic that would result in
>diminishing its awe and mystique, or that there is no sense or
>consistency at all to the magic? The former is OK.
The former. Often in modern fantasy, magic is more scientific than
magical: you get "Frobenius directed 2 parts Fire Power and 1 part Air
Power at the Lurking Awfulness, and it exploded in a most satisfying
fashion." In TTASW (as in most of McKillip's work), the magic isn't
mechanical like that. Clearly SOME of the characters understand how it
works, but it's not something that's explained to the reader.
>> Overall, its not a bad book, and certainly not my least favorite McKillip,
>> but I didn't like it nearly as much as her other recent works (_Song for
>> the Basilisk_, _Winter Rose_ and _The Book of Atrix Wolfe_).
>
> I might try _Wolfe_ since I dig werewolves and shapeshifters (but
>no, before anyone suggests them, I don't ever plan to read Hamilton's
>Anita Blake series, which I gathered have degenerated into porn.)
Heh. I have yet to hear anybody whose tastes I trust to say anything
about them better than, "Well, the series starts out okay, but...."
I'm occasionally tempted, just to see if they're really all that bad...
> BTW, have you read McKillip's Riddle Master trilogy? I've heard
>that that is as good a work as any to start with her.
I have read it. It's not terrible, but she's become a much better
writer in the years since she wrote it. It's my least favorite of her
works. I'd recommend one of the three recent ones I mentioned above, or
_The Forgotten Beasts of Eld_.
-pam
David Eppstein
ko...@midway.uchicago.edu (P. Korda) wrote:
> > BTW, have you read McKillip's Riddle Master trilogy? I've heard
> >that that is as good a work as any to start with her.
>
> I have read it. It's not terrible, but she's become a much better
> writer in the years since she wrote it. It's my least favorite of her
> works. I'd recommend one of the three recent ones I mentioned above, or
> _The Forgotten Beasts of Eld_.
I've read it many times, and love it. I had to stop rereading it, though,
more than once every few years, because otherwise I memorize too much of it
and it becomes less pleasant to read. It has a different feel to the
recent books like Atrix Wolfe or Stony Wood -- those are jewelboxes, the
riddle master trilogy is big and sloppier but somehow also more ambitious.
--
David Eppstein UC Irvine Dept. of Information & Computer Science
epps...@ics.uci.edu http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
Ethan Merritt
P. Korda <ko...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>THE TOWER AT STONY WOOD
>PATRICIA MCKILLIP
>
>This is a typical McKillip outing: not so much a fantasy novel as a
>novel-length fairy tale. This is an important distinction, I think.
>Modern fantasy novels generally feature a lot of concrete world-building,
>complete with geography, politics, natural philosophy (a "magic system" and
>such), and all sorts of bumps and warts. A fairy-tale, on the other hand,
>just suggests such things, or smooths them over altogether. Fairy tales
>strip out all the extraneous bits, and focus on the essential elements,
>resulting in something which is simultaneously less realistic and more
>fundamental than a regular novel. All of McKillip's books (or at least all
>the ones I've read) have this quality, even her scifi-esque FOOL'S RUN.
"Scifi-esque"? I'm generally opposed to any attempt to draw lines between
scifi and fantasy, but I cannot think of any definition yet proposed that
would leave _Fool's Run_ anywhere but solidly inside the scifi border.
But other than that minor quibble, I agree.
>Overall, its not a bad book, and certainly not my least favorite McKillip,
>but I didn't like it nearly as much as her other recent works (_Song for
>the Basilisk_, _Winter Rose_ and _The Book of Atrix Wolfe_).
Are you judging on first reactions, or have you re-read these?
Of the set of four, I found _Atrix Wolfe_ to be unsatisfying. It felt to
me like a practice sketch for a more polished work. The rhapsodic descriptions
of castle food were marvelous bits of prose but ultimately distracting,
not quite up to the more visual flights of fancy in McKillip's other books.
_Winter Rose_, on the other hand, I took to immediately. It revisits some
of the themes in _Atrix Wolfe_, particularly the ambiguity of place as the
characters enter or leave Faerie, but it tells a much more coherent tale.
_Song for the Basilisk_ is, I think, my current favorite, but that may well
be because I just finished re-reading it. It has a tightly woven plot, the
beautiful McKillip prose, and moreso than the others a sense of humor.
I considered adding it to the recent thread "funniest scene in SF" -
the scenes in which Caladrius gives music lessons to a tone-deaf princess
are priceless.
>Now for the bit I didn't like:
>
>SPOILERS
>
>At the end, it turns out that everything was set up by the mystical Three
>Sisters, and that the characters were all pawns acting to bring about the
>Sisters' goal. It's a good goal, and everything turns out for the best,
>but I just didn't appreciate the likable characters being manipulated by
>this mysterious force. I prefer characters who bring about plot resolution
>through their own volition, not because the Mastermind was able to control
>her pawns well.
Well, but isn't that fairy-tale like? Often the hero of a fairy tale
does little more than stick resolutely to the task that has been set.
He follows the instructions of the ogre's wife in order to best the ogre,
or he steps through an odd set of directions given him by a mysterious
but grateful stranger whose life he saved, or he discovers a series of magic
gimcracks, each of which provides explicit instructions for finding the
next. Clever innovation seems much rarer than good heart and steadfast
constitution.
Still I agree with you to some extent. I didn't find that the connections
revealed at the very end made the ending any tidier. If McKillip felt that
the 3 sisters aspect was important, she should have woven it more deeply
into the plot so that by the end any such revelation was superfluous.
It's been a year and a half since _The Tower at Stony Wood_. Do you
suppose McKillip and Ace have another of these fantasies in the works?
--
Ethan A Merritt
Aaron Bergman
<mer...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> _Song for the Basilisk_ is, I think, my current favorite, but that may well
> be because I just finished re-reading it. It has a tightly woven plot, the
> beautiful McKillip prose, and moreso than the others a sense of humor.
It's easily my most favorite of her more recent stuff. My personal
favorite is still _The Changeling Sea_, however. None of her recent
works seem to capture the sheer magicalness of that work.
Aaron
Elaine Thompson
(Ethan Merritt) wrote:
SNIP
>
>It's been a year and a half since _The Tower at Stony Wood_. Do you
>suppose McKillip and Ace have another of these fantasies in the works?
Locus and Amazon say she has OMBRIA IN SHADOW coming in January.
--
Elaine Thompson <Ela...@KEThompson.org>
P. Korda
Ethan Merritt <mer...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>P. Korda <ko...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>THE TOWER AT STONY WOOD
>>PATRICIA MCKILLIP
>>fundamental than a regular novel. All of McKillip's books (or at least all
>>the ones I've read) have this quality, even her scifi-esque FOOL'S RUN.
>
>"Scifi-esque"? I'm generally opposed to any attempt to draw lines between
>scifi and fantasy, but I cannot think of any definition yet proposed that
>would leave _Fool's Run_ anywhere but solidly inside the scifi border.
It's been a while since I read _Fool's Run_, but what I recall of the
plot and setting was indeed science fiction. But, McKilliip's approach
to it: the writing style, the way she described things, and so forth,
was definitely coming from the fantasy side. In my mind, it's a
fantasy in a scifi setting. But obviously, YSFMV.
>>Overall, its not a bad book, and certainly not my least favorite McKillip,
>>but I didn't like it nearly as much as her other recent works (_Song for
>>the Basilisk_, _Winter Rose_ and _The Book of Atrix Wolfe_).
>
>Are you judging on first reactions, or have you re-read these?
I have not reread them (trying to finish grad school has left me with
little chance to read at all, let alone reread...), I am just
remembering how much I liked them when I read them.
I do remember liking _Atrix Wolfe_ more than a lot of other people
did, I guess it just struck a chord with me in some way.
>>Now for the bit I didn't like:
>>
>>SPOILERS
>>
>>At the end, it turns out that everything was set up by the mystical Three
>>Sisters, and that the characters were all pawns acting to bring about the
>>Sisters' goal. It's a good goal, and everything turns out for the best,
>>but I just didn't appreciate the likable characters being manipulated by
>>this mysterious force. I prefer characters who bring about plot resolution
>>through their own volition, not because the Mastermind was able to control
>>her pawns well.
>
>Well, but isn't that fairy-tale like? Often the hero of a fairy tale
>does little more than stick resolutely to the task that has been set.
That is true, but most of the heros set out to fulfil their tasks
willingly, and with some idea of WHY they're doing their tasks. The
thing which bothered me in tTaSW was the way the characters were
completely deceived about what was going on, and manipulated into
playing their parts in the master plan. It made the story less
interesting, to me.
-pam
Ethan Merritt
P. Korda <ko...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>In article <9v48er$rhr$1...@brogar.bmsc.washington.edu>,
>Ethan Merritt <mer...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>In article <F8AQ7.284$t4.1...@news.uchicago.edu>,
>>P. Korda <ko...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>>THE TOWER AT STONY WOOD
>>>PATRICIA MCKILLIP
>
>>>
>>>At the end, it turns out that everything was set up by the mystical Three
>>>Sisters, and that the characters were all pawns acting to bring about the
>>>Sisters' goal. It's a good goal, and everything turns out for the best,
>>>but I just didn't appreciate the likable characters being manipulated by
>>>this mysterious force. I prefer characters who bring about plot resolution
>>>through their own volition, not because the Mastermind was able to control
>>>her pawns well.
>>
>>Well, but isn't that fairy-tale like? Often the hero of a fairy tale
>>does little more than stick resolutely to the task that has been set.
>
>That is true, but most of the heros set out to fulfil their tasks
>willingly, and with some idea of WHY they're doing their tasks.
That is one class of fairy tales. But then there is also the large number
that start out "Once upon a time the youngest son of a poor couple found
himself alone in the world, and set out to make his fortune with only a
loaf of bread and pack full of rags." By the second or third paragraph
he has generally either given his loaf of bread to an old woman by the
wayside, or found that the second rag from the left causes a magical
camel to pop out of nowhere. Whichever, he is now fed a set of instructions
to follow that have little to do with his own cleverness.
But I understand your point.
--
Ethan A Merritt