Are Tad Williams' books good?
Melissa A. Horn
wondering if it's worth it to buy signed copies.
--
Melissa A. Horn
mh...@library.welch.jhu.edu
Laura
Signed copies could be potentially valuable one day, IMHO.
Laura Lance / All that is gold does not glitter.
Food Science Dept., UGA / Not all those who wander are lost.
Athens, GA 30602 / --- J.R.R. Tolkien
har...@uga.cc.uga.edu /
*******************************************************************
Yield to temptation; it might not pass your way again.
--- Lazuras Long
Kent Worsnop
>
>But I've met people who like the books better than I like the Wheel
>of Time, so obviously "Tastes Vary", to borrow a phrase.
>
Well I have read both series and must say that yes the difference between
TW and RJ is quite wide. Since I don't want to start another Jordan thread
(aren't there enough already.) I think I'll restrict my thoughts to Williams.
When I started the books it was (IMO) boring. The first book dragged until
about the last 100 pages when they got out the fishing gear and I got hooked.
Williams' world isn't as intricate as others I have read but still I got the
feeling it was complete. The many different races and how they play off
against each other I found quite intriguing. Williams use of the super-
natural seemed to me like that of Guy Gavriel Kay. Although he did
emphasize magic more than Kay he didn't explain it in such detail so that
it would lose its mystery. I could go on and on about the books. However
what I suggest is if you can get the first book, the Dragonbone Chair,
out from your library. If you aren't hooked by the end you never will be.
--
The Gold Dragon (ke...@chem.queensu.ca) [Remember: This is my first non-Jordan
discussion I've been in. Its refreshing. ]
Joe Uno Shaw
> He's coming to a book signing here in Baltimore on Wednesday, and I'm
> wondering if it's worth it to buy signed copies.
I'm halfway through Stone of Farewell (the second of his MS&T trilogy)
right now, and I have to rate them just as 'not bad'. They are
interesting enough to keep me reading, but not enough to keep me from
falling asleep and creasing the cover when I roll on top of it. They
seem to drag on quite a bit, like he's trying to make every minor
event have the utmost suspense to it. I don't think I'll regret
having read them as a waste of time, but I also don't think I'll be
rereading them.
But I've met people who like the books better than I like the Wheel
of Time, so obviously "Tastes Vary", to borrow a phrase.
As for signed hardcovers... *shrug*
- Joe
--
IHMO, he's no Robert Jordan. But then, who is? :-)
John Angus
In a previous article, mh...@library.welch.jhu.edu (Melissa A. Horn) says:
>He's coming to a book signing here in Baltimore on Wednesday, and I'm
>wondering if it's worth it to buy signed copies.
>
Book one was okay. Actually, the begining dragged, but the rest was
terrific. The second book was one of the worst I've ever read. The third
was just okay. Nothing particularly exciting.
If I was going to meet Tad Williams I'd ask him how in hell he managed
to get the first book published, given that it's incredibly boring
for the first hundred and fifty pages or so.
JA
--
John D Angus| This life is just a first draft. |
Ottawa, | I'll do better with the next one. | an...@freenet.carleton.ca
C A N A D A | | es...@cleveland.freenet.edu
=============================================================================
John J. Palmer
mh...@library.welch.jhu.edu (Melissa A. Horn) wrote:
I liked the trilogy alot, the main charactor is not your usual hero. Tad
did a good job in really showing his growth. The setting is kind of gloomy
but I thought it was much more realistic than many of the genre. I have
reread them a couple times and would recommend getting signed ones for
your collection. Not your average quest. Slow but satisfying, a nice
change.
--
John J. Palmer - MDA-SSD M&P pal...@ssdgwy.mdc.com
Metallurgist for International Space Station Alpha
>My file, How to Brew Your First Beer, containing info on equipment,
terms, brewing processes and troubleshooting, is available via FTP
from Homebrew/Docs at sierra.stanford.edu or via WWW on Spencer's
Beer Page at http://guraldi.itn.med.umich.edu/Beer/
Charles Jackson
>In a previous article, mh...@library.welch.jhu.edu (Melissa A. Horn) says:
>>He's coming to a book signing here in Baltimore on Wednesday, and I'm
>>wondering if it's worth it to buy signed copies.
>>
>Book one was okay. Actually, the begining dragged, but the rest was
>terrific. The second book was one of the worst I've ever read. The third
>was just okay. Nothing particularly exciting.
>If I was going to meet Tad Williams I'd ask him how in hell he managed
>to get the first book published, given that it's incredibly boring
>for the first hundred and fifty pages or so.
O.K. Actually, I LOVED the first book. I don't know, at first I thought
it was boring because I had read it after Jordan who is very fast-paced.
But, once I settled down, I really enjoyed the easygoing pace, and the
BEAUTIFUL language. I think if you love beautiful flowing language, that
you would really like TDC. I thought the plot, however, to be quite
sparse, until it picked up after about halfway through. The ending is one
of the best I've ever read.
SoF was surprisingly kind of uninteresting... I mean, the various plots
were kind of "sparkless"... Qanuc, Aspitis, Skodi, Thrithings... all the
plots seemed to be filler to stretch the series out... I only stuck it
out because of the huge third volume... (although, I liked the Sancellan
A. plot and the finale somewhat... but the whole book felt like Part I of
an entire novel or something...)
Now, TGAT is much better than SoF. I'm a little over halfway through
because it feels as though I've been reading this series forever, and I
sort of in the meandering middle section of the book. I loved the first
part, but I want to save the rest for later because I've sort of lost
interest mainly to overexposure... Very reminiscent of watching "Wyatt
Earp"... :)
Anyway, I think on the whole, the series is all right. The first book is
beautifully written, but I think he sort of loses his poetic style in the
second and third books. TGAT is almost TOO MUCH! Some of it should have
been at the end of SoF to even out the series a bit more!!!
Anyway, just my thoughts. Verdict? Uneven, but all right.
Charley Jackson
Joe Uno Shaw
> joe...@csgrad.cs.vt.edu (Joe "Uno" Shaw) writes:
> >But I've met people who like the books better than I like the Wheel
> >of Time, so obviously "Tastes Vary", to borrow a phrase.
> Well I have read both series and must say that yes the difference between
> TW and RJ is quite wide. Since I don't want to start another Jordan thread
> (aren't there enough already.) I think I'll restrict my thoughts to Williams.
First, let me point out that I was not intentionally trying to compare
Tad Williams with Robert Jordan. I was simply attempting to point out
that there are people who think the MS&T trilogy is really, really great.
I didn't intend to sound like a "Jordan-snob". That said,...
You're right, of course. There are great differences between the two
series. Both have good and bad points. But I don't think it's fair of
me to argue too much about it until I finish, no?
> When I started the books it was (IMO) boring. The first book dragged until
> about the last 100 pages when they got out the fishing gear and I got hooked.
Ok. I admit I was 'hooked' at the end of The Dragonbone Chair. But
Williams left too much slack in the line and I released the bait (to
continue the metaphor). In other words, Stone of Farewell looks likes
it's going to be the same type of book, in that most of it drags until
the end. I'm assuming (hoping) here that Stone of Farewell gets
exciting in the last hundred pages as well. From what I've heard on
the net about To Green Angel Tower, it sounds the same. I think this
is the major complaint people have about the books, if I remember the
previous threads on this.
There are many good points to the books, they're not quite as bad as I
made them sound. They're not horrible by any means. I've just had lots
of people tell me they're great, so perhaps my expectations were too high.
- Joe
Kent Worsnop
>ke...@chem.queensu.ca (Kent Worsnop) wrote:
>> Well I have read both series and must say that yes the difference between
>> TW and RJ is quite wide. Since I don't want to start another Jordan thread
>> (aren't there enough already.) I think I'll restrict my thoughts to Williams.
>
>First, let me point out that I was not intentionally trying to compare
>Tad Williams with Robert Jordan. I was simply attempting to point out
for the other Jordanites who wish to read TW the differences are enormous.
>You're right, of course. There are great differences between the two
>series. Both have good and bad points. But I don't think it's fair of
>me to argue too much about it until I finish, no?
Again I extend my apologies.
>Ok. I admit I was 'hooked' at the end of The Dragonbone Chair. But
>Williams left too much slack in the line and I released the bait (to
>continue the metaphor). In other words, Stone of Farewell looks likes
>it's going to be the same type of book, in that most of it drags until
>the end. I'm assuming (hoping) here that Stone of Farewell gets
>exciting in the last hundred pages as well. From what I've heard on
>the net about To Green Angel Tower, it sounds the same. I think this
>is the major complaint people have about the books, if I remember the
>previous threads on this.
Yes many people have found them boring. However except for the
beggining of The Dragonbone Chair I was never bored. I liked the Stone
of Farewell and really didn't think it dragged. (I actually bought the
hardcover.) As to The Green Angel Tower if you are bored and hope it
gets interesting in the last 100 pages I must point out that you will
be bored for at least 900 pages. The Green Angel Tower could constitute
a trilogy in itself.
>There are many good points to the books, they're not quite as bad as I
>made them sound. They're not horrible by any means. I've just had lots
>of people tell me they're great, so perhaps my expectations were too high.
Could be. I felt that way with the Brooks' Sword of Shannarra etc. I
liked them but wasn't as fascinated as most with them. I thought they were
just ordinary fantasy.
Thomas Bagwell
(Dragonbone Chair.) The pacing and narrative was just how I like books
to start out, leisurely and taking time to put things in perspective and
explore the setting.
The second book seemed to go off in too many different directions at
once... I found it somewhat frustrating. I haven't read the third book yet.
Tom B.
Bill Garrett
|> mh...@library.welch.jhu.edu (Melissa A. Horn) writes:
|> >
|> >He's coming to a book signing here in Baltimore on Wednesday, and I'm
|> >wondering if it's worth it to buy signed copies.
|>
|> Signed copies could be potentially valuable one day, IMHO.
Potentially valuable one day... as expensive doorstops. (DOH!!)
Seriously, I wasn't thrilled by Tad Williams' _Memory, Sorrow, Thorn_
trilogy. The books had their good points, but I'm glad I borrowed rather
than bought them.
--
Bill Garrett Hardware, n.: the parts of a computer
gar...@cs.unc.edu system that can be kicked.
Thieron
I am currently reading Dragonbone Chair. I have never read Jordan so I
cannot compare him and Williams. I started the Dragonbone chair on the
recomendation of a friend. So far I think Williams is good, but not great.
I have spent the last week or more just getting through the first 150 pages.
This is very very slow reading for me and I've only read this slow when I
read Terry Brook's Sword of Shannara. I hope, like Sword that the
Dragonbone Chair picks up. So far, IMHO Williams is a typical epic fantasy
author and not great (like my friend thinks), but this is only a first
impression. Once I've read the Dragonbone chair I can make a more informed
statement. Personally however IMHO Raymond Fiest is the best epic fantasy
author around and I am dying to read the new book (the posts on which I have
been ignoring so as not to spoil the story).
______Thieron the immortal master of the Timberlands____________
* "Sir I protest I am NOT a merry man!" -Worf *
* pbk...@psuvm.psu.edu Paul Bryan Kwitkin *
*--------------------------------------------------------------*
Paul D Droubie
People have been commenting how slow the Dragonbone Chair is. Well, it is
kinda slow in the beginning, but one nice thing about it is that you get
to know the characters. In most novels, you're instantly into the action and
you get slowly caught up on the characters. In William's books, you watch
the characters (mostly Simon) grow up and change. I personally liked it. It
was a bit slow, but every author has a different style. Think back to the
Hobbit. That also started out slow, as did Fellowship of the Ring. So to
condemn an author for slow starts seems a folly. Tolkien seemed to fine
with them!
The Mad Giggler (Hee!Hee!Hee!)
drou...@gold.tc.umn.edu
aka Paul Droubie
TroyNeer
Droubie) writes:
Just thought I'd throw my $.02 for whatever it is worth. I would have to
agree that Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn does move a little slow at times, but
I never found it painful like Brooks' work. I sort of put Williams in the
same vein as Guy Gavriel Kay. To me, they both seem to put out works that
have the feel and texture of solid classical literature particulary
classic tragedies. So if you hated English Lit, you might not like
Williams' work.
Wombat's Revenge
people have thought of Tailchaser's Song? I am reading it at the moment and
definitly enjoying it. While I will agree that MSW got slow at times, there
usually was a reason behind it. As someone pointed out, you really get to
know Simon, and get a feel of what life was like when Prester John was king,
and just how much has changed since Elias took the throne. The beginning
also introduces us to characters who don't really become important until
much later in the series, not to mention all the little tidbits that are
hinted at in the first couple hundred pages of The Dragonbone Chair.
Back to Tailchaiser's song, while I have only read about a quarter of it so
far, I can honestly say that I haven't been able to put it down (besides to
logon :) ). This book has started quickly, probably because it isn't a
2500 page epic fantasy, and has been enjoyable so far. If it starts going
down hill, I'll let you know in the next couple days at this rate. If
anyone has any comments about this book or MSW feel free to coment.
Maura :)
--
Wombat's Revenge * Watch
a.k.a. Maura Brown * Out
mb009b * For
@uhura.cc.rochester.edu * WOMBATS!!!
Laura
Value is in the eye of the beholder. If you don't like his work, of
course they wouldn't be valuable to YOU!! (DOH!!)
Michael P Urban
TroyNeer <troy...@aol.com> wrote:
>I sort of put Williams in the
>same vein as Guy Gavriel Kay. To me, they both seem to put out works that
>have the feel and texture of solid classical literature particulary
>classic tragedies.
I may be remembering incorrectly -- can someone help? -- but I seem to
recall Guy Gavriel Kay on a panel about `Tolkien's influence on
fantasy literature' at Worldcon in 1990, and he expressed a strong
dislike of Williams's work. I have not read anything by Tad Williams,
and this may be why. If someone can confirm or correct my
recollection, I would be grateful.
Mike Urban
Nina Takahashi
Hi there,
I read Tailchaser's Song for the 1st time many years ago when it first
came out. I really liked it, & thought that some of the cat's thoughts
were pretty neat (like skinny upright hairless things called M'an!). I
read it again this past year & still liked it. The style is quite
different from MST obviously, so I don't think that people who either
hate/love MST will feel the same way about TS.
Anyway, it's a nice *short* read, & great if you love cats! (I think I
want to name my cat Fritti if I ever get one!)
Happy reading & let me know what you think of the book,
Nina
P.S. I liked MST also, long-windedness aside.
Juvena@kcbbs.gen.nz (Scott Davies (Juvena)
> Book one was okay. Actually, the begining dragged, but the rest was
> terrific. The second book was one of the worst I've ever read. The
> third was just okay. Nothing particularly exciting.
IMHO, "The Dragonbone Chair" was brilliant, and so was "Stone of
Farewell". I've read them both twice, and intend to read them again. But
"To Green Angel Tower" was rather unnerving and incongruous, for its
size if nothing else. Suffering from an amazing case of bloat, the book
was also let down in some areas like pacing, revelations that are just
not _interesting_, villains (Aspitis) that remind you of the "baddies" out
of soap operas, and journeys through places already visited.
For all those comparing Williams' M,S&T to Jordan, therein lies a major
point: both have overwritten. However, I must jump on the Jordan-bashing
bandwagon, because he is of course, the inferior writer (by a large
gap). All these (mainly American) Jordanites writing in to puff WOT
books have fallen into sentimentality, buy books just because of the
author's name, and couldn't tell what a good book was anyway because it
would have words too big for them. And the devotion of these people!
Sickening. Narrow-minded semi-literates all.
Are there any brain-washed Jordan fans out there who realize the scorn
with which they are treated? The global trend in literary decadence is
strengthened with every book you people buy.
Juvenal.
sem...@alpha.hendrix.edu
This is my first post, so I'm not sure that it is going to work. I've
read all of the Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn trilogy, and I thought that it
was fairly good. He also seems to be setting up for a new series, maybe
10, 20 years into the future. anyway, I hope this helps
Lars Seme
<sem...@alpha.hendrix.edu>
Kent Worsnop
>
>IMHO, "The Dragonbone Chair" was brilliant, and so was "Stone of
>Farewell". I've read them both twice, and intend to read them again. But
>"To Green Angel Tower" was rather unnerving and incongruous, for its
>size if nothing else. Suffering from an amazing case of bloat, the book
However I also agree with your assessment of the first 2 books. They were
wonderfully written and gave a good view of the true characters.
>gap). All these (mainly American) Jordanites writing in to puff WOT
>books have fallen into sentimentality, buy books just because of the
>author's name, and couldn't tell what a good book was anyway because it
>would have words too big for them. And the devotion of these people!
>Sickening. Narrow-minded semi-literates all.
Now first of all why post so obvious flame-bait. The Jordanites will
be out of your hair (as long as everyone has voted.) and into r.a.sf.w.rj
by the end of the month. I (who am Canadian.) have enjoyed the WOT books
however for many different reasons than I enjoyed the Tad Williams books.
While Tad Williams puts most of his emphasis on his characters and their
interrelations Jordan puts most of his effort into building his world.
The styles are so different that to compare them is like comparing apples
and oranges. (I know I did this before but it was a mistake on my part.)
Also I have read many different threads on this newsgroup and have found
that alot of people are devoted to different authors. It happens. Just
because someone is devoted to a series doesn't mean they are semi-literate.
I believe myself to be quite literate but will still buy the next Jordan
book the minute it comes out. However this is not my point. If you don't
like a book tell us why. Don't call all those who read it idiots. Anyway
we could all do with some *rational* discussion about fantasy books here
on r.a.sf.w so I would like to ask, to those who would answer rationaly,
what it is about Jordan that is disliked and if they can suggest another
fantasy author which could help prove your point.
>Juvenal.
I could say the name says it all but I won't.
Kyle Dippery
to admit that I was sorely disappointed in the ending. It seemed too,
I don't know, fairy-tale-ish, or something. Too sicky-sweet for all the
hell the characters supposedly went through.
While I don't regret having read the trilogy, I much preferred Kay's
Fionavar Tapestry (to compare to another trilogy)...
Just my opinions...
Kyle
kd...@engr.uky.edu
Kent Worsnop
>Fionavar Tapestry (to compare to another trilogy)...
I have read both Tigana and A Song to Arbonne. Actually I could have had
a signed copy of the second but alas I didn't have the money for the HC.
Anyway I have heard both good and bad about the Tapestry. Could someone
please elaborate on what they thought of the trilogy. Oh yea and some
discussion on Tigana or A Song to Arbonne wouldn't hurt either.
--
The Gold Dragon (ke...@chem.queensu.ca) [Remember: It could be Song of Arbonne
but I can't remember right now.]
Phil Blower
> with which they are treated? The global trend in literary decadence is
> strengthened with every book you people buy.
Stick it in your ear! I have enjoyed TWOT series by Jordan immensely. It's a great
way to relax and I find his story very interesting. There is alway action and there
is a wide variety of characters.
I have also read the first three books of MST by Tad Williams. I thought the first
book was good and it had lots of potential. I thought the second book wasn't as
good but I was still interested enough to continue reading the series. I thought the
third book was the biggest let down possible. The book was so slow and boring, I'm
surprised there wasn't moss growing on it. Reading about a whinny kid stuck in the
dark for 800 pages doesn't make interesting reading. Williams could have spent a
quarter of the time with Seoman in the caves and tunnels and it would have made better
reading. Say about 200 pages rather than 800.
Anyways, I think anyone reading SF is doing it for fun and if that's the case it
doesn't matter who the author is - it's whether you enjoy the story.
P. Blower
finn
Phil Blower <pbl...@nofc.forestry.ca> wrote:
>In article 16...@kcbbs.gen.nz, Scott_Davies_(Juv...@kcbbs.gen.nz (Scott Davies >(Juvena) > Are there any brain-washed Jordan fans out there who realize the scorn
>> with which they are treated? The global trend in literary decadence is
>> strengthened with every book you people buy.
>
>Stick it in your ear! I have enjoyed TWOT series by Jordan immensely. It's a great
>way to relax and I find his story very interesting. There is alway action and there
>is a wide variety of characters.
>
>I have also read the first three books of MST by Tad Williams. I thought the first
>book was good and it had lots of potential. I thought the second book wasn't as
>good but I was still interested enough to continue reading the series. I thought the
>third book was the biggest let down possible. The book was so slow and boring, I'm
>surprised there wasn't moss growing on it. Reading about a whinny
Bela?!
>dark for 800 pages doesn't make interesting reading. Williams could have spent a
>quarter of the time with Seoman in the caves and tunnels and it would have made better
>reading. Say about 200 pages rather than 800.
>
>Anyways, I think anyone reading SF is doing it for fun and if that's the case it
>doesn't matter who the author is - it's whether you enjoy the story.
>
>P. Blower
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it."
-- Jack Handey
Chad R Orzel
Juv...@kcbbs.gen.nz (Scott Davies (Juvena <Scott_Davies_> wrote:
>
{blah, blah, blah...}
>For all those comparing Williams' M,S&T to Jordan, therein lies a major
>point: both have overwritten. However, I must jump on the Jordan-bashing
>bandwagon, because he is of course, the inferior writer (by a large
>gap). All these (mainly American) Jordanites writing in to puff WOT
>books have fallen into sentimentality, buy books just because of the
>author's name, and couldn't tell what a good book was anyway because it
>would have words too big for them. And the devotion of these people!
>Sickening. Narrow-minded semi-literates all.
>
>Are there any brain-washed Jordan fans out there who realize the scorn
>with which they are treated? The global trend in literary decadence is
>strengthened with every book you people buy.
>
This is an honest question, to anyone and everyone out there. Maybe it's
just 'cause I'm a "narrow-minded semi-literate," but I honestly don't
understand this.
Can someone explain to me what the preceding post is intended to
accomplish? I mean, if it were anyone else, I'd assume it was pointless,
juvenile (no pun intended) flamebait, meant only to draw some cheap
thrills out of the r.a.s.w crowd by inciting a flamewar. But clearly, any
person as erudite as "Juvenal" would _have_ to be above such petty,
childish displays. So what gives?
Are there subliminal messages in there that are supposed to convince me
that Jordan is actually the worst writer in the world, and I should
despise him? Is the realization that I am contributing to the "global
trend in literary decadence" supposed to drive me to stick a shotgun in
my mouth a la Hemingway (or Kurt Cobain, for those caught up in this
Generation X rebel-without-a-clue horseshit...)? Is my self-esteem meant
to be hurt by knowing that I am scorned? Is this supposed to convince me
that _Tigana_ sucks too?
I could keep this up, but I'll restrict it to two more questions:
1) What "global trend in literary decadence?"
2) What does "mostly American" have do do with anything else in the above
posting? Is this some sort of liberal PC guilt-trip, the continual "America
is involved, so it must be bad" theme?
Well, okay, make it three:
3) Don't you have something better to do?
Later,
OilCan
Morguesa
Worsnop) writes:
>elaborate on what they thought of the trilogy
I really enjoyed the trilogy, although I had misgivings during and even
after the first book. I continued on the recommendation of someone
online, and I'm glad I did. It incorporates many of the Western
mythologies, and provides a rather interesting take on the
Arthur/Guinever/Lancelot triangle (I still haven't decided whether it was
cheesy or not).
All in all, worth reading, IMHO.
Lisa M. Krepel
Bill Garrett
|>
|> IMHO, "The Dragonbone Chair" was brilliant, and so was "Stone of
|> Farewell". I've read them both twice, and intend to read them again.
I read Tad Williams' series last winter and I absolutely hated the way it
tended to move so slowly. The first 500 pages of "The Dragonbone Chair"
were mostly worthless: there was little plot to speak of, and really no
description. I've seen good authors say more in 50 pages (rather than 500).
|> But
|> "To Green Angel Tower" was rather unnerving and incongruous, for its
|> size if nothing else. Suffering from an amazing case of bloat, the book
|> was also let down in some areas like pacing, revelations that are just
|> not _interesting_, villains (Aspitis) that remind you of the "baddies" out
|> of soap operas, and journeys through places already visited.
We agree here. Williams' editor should have sent back TGAT with a note
asking him to trim 300 pages. The thing that bothered me most about TGAT
was that the point of view kept switching between about 15 semi-defined
characters all going through personal crises, and they blurred together
(not to mention, got on my nerves) by halfway through the book.
|> For all those comparing Williams' M,S&T to Jordan, therein lies a major
|> point: both have overwritten. However, I must jump on the Jordan-bashing
|> bandwagon, because he is of course, the inferior writer (by a large
|> gap).
I prefer Jordan to Williams because Jordan has better characterisation and
detail. Jordan's series has a certain _tightness_ in that dreams, visions,
thoughts, hopes, rumors, omens, etc. all have meaning. By contrast,
Williams' series struck me as having superfluous and irrelevant symbolism.
Some people criticize Jordan for describing every hill and valley that the
characters pass as they travel on the road. That's true of the series in a
few parts, but by the same scale I'd have to say that Williams' writing
describes every damn boring identical tree that the characters walk past.
Overwritten? Jordan's writing appeals to a certain crowd: people who like
lots of *detail* and are willing to read to get it. I'm one of those people.
But I don't consider Williams one of those writers. His nonhuman cultures
were well done, but the human cultures were hackneyed stereotypes and his
Aedonite church was a lame rip-off of Christianity.
|> All these (mainly American) Jordanites writing in to puff WOT
|> books have fallen into sentimentality, buy books just because of the
|> author's name, and couldn't tell what a good book was anyway because it
|> would have words too big for them. And the devotion of these people!
|> Sickening. Narrow-minded semi-literates all.
|>
|> Are there any brain-washed Jordan fans out there who realize the scorn
|> with which they are treated? The global trend in literary decadence is
|> strengthened with every book you people buy.
Mmmm, flames. Any other faux-intellectual ravings you'd like to purge from
your system?
Joe Uno Shaw
> Are there any brain-washed Jordan fans out there who realize the scorn
> with which they are treated?
Why, yes, there are.
But frankly, my dear, we don't give a damn.
- Joe
popetz marcus robert
>Why, yes, there are.
Not to continue this stupid thread but....
People who read Jordan are secure enough not to care what
insecure people say.
*chuckle*
-mp
The Wandering Jew
*supposed* to provoke response from the anti-Jordanites. If you are
Jordan-apathetic, hit 'n' now.
Chad R Orzel (oil...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: In article <13294195.3...@kcbbs.gen.nz>,
: Juv...@kcbbs.gen.nz (Scott Davies (Juvena <Scott_Davies_> wrote: [snip]
: > All these (mainly American) Jordanites writing in to puff WOT
: >books have fallen into sentimentality, buy books just because of the
: >author's name, and couldn't tell what a good book was anyway because it
: >would have words too big for them. And the devotion of these people!
: >Sickening. Narrow-minded semi-literates all.
: >
: >Are there any brain-washed Jordan fans out there who realize the scorn
: >with which they are treated? The global trend in literary decadence is
: >strengthened with every book you people buy. [snip]
: Can someone explain to me what the preceding post is intended to
: accomplish? [snip]
Good question. I tried reading the first two paragraphs of WOT when
somebody posted them on the net, shuddered and said: "Definitely not my
cup of tea" and never regretted that I had JORDAN in my killfile. Then
again, I enjoyed Tolkien, but only moderately.
However, I still do not understand why some people are so implacably
opposed to Jordan and all things Jordanian. I mean, narrow-minded
brain-washed semi-literates strengthening literary decadence?! AFAIK,
Jordan isn't a mass murderer, is he? And nobody can claim that he used to
write differently (read: better) a la Anthony, at least I have not heard
anybody suggesting that his Conan books are better than WOT. So why not
live and let live?
: [snip] 3) Don't you have something better to do?
Obviously, some people hate Jordan with a passion. Would anybody care to
explain where they are coming from or give some examples, like "If you
hate Bunch/Vonnegut/Delany/Pournelle/Anthony, you are likely to hate
Jordan"? Or complete the fllowing sentence: "I hate Jordan because..."?
--
Ahasuerus
"...and the truth shall make you free"
Chad R Orzel
The Wandering Jew <aha...@clark.net> wrote:
>Chad R Orzel (oil...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>: Can someone explain to me what the preceding post is intended to
>: accomplish? [snip]
>
>opposed to Jordan and all things Jordanian. I mean, narrow-minded
>brain-washed semi-literates strengthening literary decadence?! AFAIK,
>Jordan isn't a mass murderer, is he? And nobody can claim that he used to
>write differently (read: better) a la Anthony, at least I have not heard
>anybody suggesting that his Conan books are better than WOT. So why not
>live and let live?
>
Jordan, or even hating him, with the white-hot passion of a thousand
burning suns. There are books that give me the same basic reaction. Some
of them even have a net.following. This doesn't bother me: either I kill
file the lot of them, or I just ignore the threads. No problem.
What mystifies me is people posting preposterous flamebait like that which
spawned this thread. You're not going to win any converts that way. You're
not likely to convince TOR to stop printing Jordan's books (repeat after
me, kiddies: cash cow). All it can really accomplish is to draw you the
net.equivalent of a good swift kick in the teeth. And I can't understand
why anyone would want that.
This is not specific to Jordan, either- the same is true for almost any
author with a following.
>: [snip] 3) Don't you have something better to do?
>
>Obviously, some people hate Jordan with a passion. Would anybody care to
>explain where they are coming from or give some examples, like "If you
>hate Bunch/Vonnegut/Delany/Pournelle/Anthony, you are likely to hate
>Jordan"? Or complete the fllowing sentence: "I hate Jordan because..."?
>
See, this, I can cope with. A reasonable discussion, with specific
complaints about the books, I can handle- I can either try to argue against
that position in a rational manner, or agree to disagree, and things don't
need to become nasty.
But I have a problem with the fixed percentage of response you will get
to the above requests which will be of the form: "If you hate dreck, you'll
hate Jordan" or "I hate Jordan because he sucks." If you don't have
anything more worthwhile than that to offer, don't waste the hundreds if
not thousands of dollars it will cost the Net for you to irritate me.
> "...and the truth shall make you free"
Is this meant to complete your last sentence?
Later,
OilCan
(Smileys? We don't need no steenking smileys...)
Kristin Ruhle
: I read Tad Williams' series last winter and I absolutely hated the way it
: tended to move so slowly. The first 500 pages of "The Dragonbone Chair"
: were mostly worthless: there was little plot to speak of, and really no
: description. I've seen good authors say more in 50 pages (rather than 500).
I couldn't get more than halfway into the first book. My copy is now buried
somewhere in a box and has yellowing pages.
: We agree here. Williams' editor should have sent back TGAT with a note
: asking him to trim 300 pages. The thing that bothered me most about TGAT
: was that the point of view kept switching between about 15 semi-defined
: characters all going through personal crises, and they blurred together
: (not to mention, got on my nerves) by halfway through the book.
: |> For all those comparing Williams' M,S&T to Jordan, therein lies a major
: |> point: both have overwritten. However, I must jump on the Jordan-bashing
: |> bandwagon, because he is of course, the inferior writer (by a large
: |> gap).
(lengthy discussion of Jordan deleted)
I don't hate Jordan, but I have never read him, and I killfiled Jordan
threads after I noticed how much they were cluttering up r.a.sf.w.
(Probably won't be a problem once he has his own group. If I ever *do*
decide to read Jordan, I could subscribe to that. QED).
BTW: In Science Fiction Age (I think it was) some months back, Norman
Spinrad wrote an article on how/why "good" speculative literature has
gone down the tubes in his opinion ( at least I think that was the gist
of it), and that some of the crappiest stuff is the most commercially
successful. He mentioned Tad Williams (along with Terry Brooks) as an
example of one of the many authors who write "generic fantasy," i.e. more
ripoffs of Tolkein was what I took him to mean, and mentioned that such
writers sell well precisely *because* their work is not very original and
demands no skull-sweat on the reader's part. People want stories that
are all essentially set in the same universe with the same plot.
_____
Kristin
kru...@netcom.com
dold...@fox.nstn.ns.ca
>In article <13294195.3...@kcbbs.gen.nz>,
>Juv...@kcbbs.gen.nz (Scott Davies (Juvena <Scott_Davies_> wrote:
>>
>{blah, blah, blah...}
>
>>For all those comparing Williams' M,S&T to Jordan, therein lies a major
>>point: both have overwritten. However, I must jump on the Jordan-bashing
[more stuff deleted]
>>Are there any brain-washed Jordan fans out there who realize the scorn
>>with which they are treated? The global trend in literary decadence is
>>strengthened with every book you people buy.
>>
>This is an honest question, to anyone and everyone out there. Maybe it's
>just 'cause I'm a "narrow-minded semi-literate," but I honestly don't
>understand this.
>
>Can someone explain to me what the preceding post is intended to
>accomplish? I mean, if it were anyone else, I'd assume it was pointless,
It looks like a deliberate flame troll to me!
>person as erudite as "Juvenal" would _have_ to be above such petty,
>childish displays. So what gives?
I think the net.subversives are getting smarter and researching their
trolls a bit.
>I could keep this up, but I'll restrict it to two more questions:
>1) What "global trend in literary decadence?"
>2) What does "mostly American" have do do with anything else in the above
>posting? Is this some sort of liberal PC guilt-trip, the continual "America
>is involved, so it must be bad" theme?
>
>Well, okay, make it three:
>
>3) Don't you have something better to do?
I think number 3 pretty well says it all!
--
Dave Oldridge
dold...@fox.nstn.ns.ca
Jo Walton
Now, it's much easier to criticise good books than bad books, because quite
often all you can say about a bad book is that it was rotton but you liked
it/didn't like it. With good books the I liked it but... can get into proper
depth so that it comes out sounding like a dislike. Having said that I have
enjoyed all Kay's work to date and I think they are all good books.
The Fionavar Tapestry might as well be one book -don't start reading one of
them without the others near at hand. My local SF shop will sell the trilogy on
the understanding that if you don't like book 1 he'll give you full money back
unread on the other 2 - he was sick of being woken up late at night by people
*desperate* for the other volumes. To my knowledge this is the only series he
does that with.
I really like the Tapestry. There are things wrong with it, specific things and
general things, but on the whole it seems to me to be an excellent attempt to
build on the strengths of _Lord of the Rings_ without copying Tolkien. I loved
_LotR_ when I was ten and I still do. I loved Fionavar when I was 22 and I
still do. But I let him get away with things in those books that I would never
admit to letting anyone get away with. He does things I regard as total non-nos
of fantasy. If I told you what they were it might well put you off - but
probably other people will be less reticent so here goes anyway. SORT OF
SPOILERS IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH.
SPOILER WARNING
He brings a major character back from the dead.
He introduces King Arthur - and Guinevere, and Lancelot, and Taliessin.
The Wild Hunt is important to the plot.
END OF SPOILERS
But - he does this with such excellent panache and timing that I forgive him
because IMO he makes it work. YMMV.
People have said that Fionavar is not original, and have cited things it is
derived from. It is so much more original than almost all other fantasy around
that I don't care too much - it doesn't seem to me that he deliberately
copied anything, but he was trying to be archetypal within a genre (The genre
being sub-Tolkien fantasy). Anyway, it is not as original as his other stuff.
But it is more heartfelt, IMHO. I think it is better than 90% of other fantasy
and well worth reading, especially if you liked his other stuff.
_Tigana_, again IMHO, suffered badly from cutting, so that there are a few
minor niggling details that are not explained. And one plot strand seems to be
building up to a climax all the way through and then fizzles out in anticlimax
right at the end. But the world is stunning.
It also has the character of the perfectly successful prince who always has
everything planned to a hairbreath, knows what is going on but does not
explain any of it to his friends or the humble reader. One of Kay's
acknowledged influences is the historical writer Dorothy Dunnett and she always
has heroes like this. I'm not sure that (in either case) this is my thing. But
bear in mind what I said at the beginning, this is a book I *like*, I'm not
picking at it! Oh, BTW is you like the background of _Tigana_ a lot you might
well enjoy _Swordspoint_ by Ellen Kushner. You know how reviewers always
compare everything to Tolkien, well this is the one book it is actually
profitable to compare _Tigana_ too - similar sort of background, different sort
of plot. Belongs on the same shelf, too, whatever your criteria...
Song for Arbonne I've only read once so I don't feel qualified to comment,
really, except that the coincidence revealed at the end did something awful to
my suspension of disbelief. But a brilliant world. Brilliant.
Hope this is some help.
(Oh, "my only gateway to the net is very expensive" so I can only afford
rec.arts.sf.written at weekends so anything after Monday will not reach me
except via email until next Saturday. So if I don't respond it is not because I
don't disagree :))
Jo
--
----------------------------------------------------------
....Still it was amazing how the black ripples under the
children's long oars on the underground waterway were lit,
this reading, by torchlight of such a different gold.....
Reading:_The Robber Bride_ Margaret Atwood
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt McIrvin
Chad R Orzel <oil...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>What mystifies me is people posting preposterous flamebait like that which
>spawned this thread. You're not going to win any converts that way. You're
>not likely to convince TOR to stop printing Jordan's books (repeat after
>me, kiddies: cash cow). All it can really accomplish is to draw you the
>net.equivalent of a good swift kick in the teeth. And I can't understand
>why anyone would want that.
The reason has *nothing* to do with Jordan or the perceived quality of
his novels; it's just that the phenomenal popularity of Jordan's books
has caused an astonishing flood of traffic on rec.arts.sf.written,
usually amounting to somewhere between a third and half of the group's
volume. Personally it doesn't bother me at all; the Jordan fans are
mostly behaving very nicely, putting the JORDAN: prefix on their
subject lines, and my killfile quietly eliminates it all. Unfortunately
not everyone who doesn't want to read Jordan posts is capable of killing
the messages, and some of them get perhaps unreasonably angry. The
animosity carries over to Jordan's books.
--
Matt 01234567 <-- Indent-o-Meter
McIrvin ^ Harnessing tab damage for peaceful ends!
S. Kayande
:
: BTW: In Science Fiction Age (I think it was) some months back, Norman
: gone down the tubes in his opinion ( at least I think that was the gist
: of it), and that some of the crappiest stuff is the most commercially
: successful. He mentioned Tad Williams (along with Terry Brooks) as an
: example of one of the many authors who write "generic fantasy," i.e. more
: ripoffs of Tolkein was what I took him to mean, and mentioned that such
: writers sell well precisely *because* their work is not very original and
: demands no skull-sweat on the reader's part. People want stories that
: are all essentially set in the same universe with the same plot.
:
: _____
an outpouring of "Tolkien rip-off" novels. Which is fine if the author wants
to add things to fantasy which Tolkien missed (such as real women characters).
On the other hand, it's really dull reading the same type of quest novel time
after time.
I'm not suggesting that Tad Williams is a direct rip-off from Tolkien, but I
don't think that he has added anything to fantasy as a whole. Unlike most
people (it seems), I found Williams characterization wooden. The incidents and
settings are rich in detail, but it seems that it is detail with no purpose
(like that horrible "popular" _Clan of the Cave Bear_ series, but not as bad).
I thought, when I read the first two books of the series (I haven't read the
third) that Williams was trying to create a Tolkien-like universe without
improving on it at all (if that makes any sense).
Oh, and as for that Jordan flamebait. It seems to me, from people that I have
talked to, that you either like Jordan and hate Williams, like Williams and
hate Jordan, or hate both. I haven't met anyone who likes both authors. I
was addicted to Jordan 10 pages into _The Eye of the World_. I really don't
know why. And I don't think much of Tad Williams. I suppose that I really
don't know why, either.
--
Samir Kayande
Unemployed nobody
UofA
Ruchira Datta
S. Kayande <skay...@comet.eche.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>Oh, and as for that Jordan flamebait. It seems to me, from people that I have
>talked to, that you either like Jordan and hate Williams, like Williams and
>hate Jordan, or hate both. I haven't met anyone who likes both authors.
Let me be your first counterexample.
Ruchira Datta
da...@math.berkeley.edu
Tom Talley
I also like both authors.
Tom Talley
grey...@ecst.csuchico.edu
finn
And I as well enjoy reading both authors, for different reasons.
Jordan writes in an extremely formulaic manner (scenes, conversations,
and even whole sentances are often repeated over and over), however,
he does have a remarkably engaging story to tell- I tend to equate the
pleasure I get from Jordan with the pleasure that my mother used to
get from her soap operas. Williams on the other hand, is a much
better writer, on almost ALL counts- of course he is also quite
long-winded, and seems to concentrate far too much on needless detail.
However, the story he tells is just as fascinating- someone on an
earlier thread mentioned that he thought that William's Sithi were far
more interesting than any elf Tolkein ever created (I tend to agree,
but Williams does have the benefit of 'improving' an idea, rather
than 'creating' it.)
Which brings me to the meaningless tendency to discount an author
simply because he or she is 'derivative' of Tolkein. This is a
ridiculous complaint to make. On one level EVERYTHING is in some way
derivative of Tolkein, and on another, NOTHING is. Everything is
derivative of something. Heck, I could say that Tolkein should be
discounted, because he stole his ideas from Shakespeare, who did it
MUCH better in _Midsummer Night's Dream_ (I won't say this, but you
get my point).
I read SF/Fantasy for PLEASURE. I grew up with _The Lord of the
Rings_, why wouldn't I want to read other books which pay homage to it
(superficially or otherwise)?
And as for Norman Spinrad, If I wanted to make my brain sweat, I'd
go back to reading textbooks.
>Tom Talley
>grey...@ecst.csuchico.edu
finn
Ivis Reed Bohlen
da...@ragu.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <30e7h6$p...@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
>S. Kayande <skay...@comet.eche.ualberta.ca> wrote:
I have
>>talked to, that you either like Jordan and hate Williams, like Williams
and
>>hate Jordan, or hate both. I haven't met anyone who likes both authors.
>
>
And me your second, although we haven't actually met :) Since I bought
To Green Angel Tower in hardback and have all the Jordan books in
hardback, I guess I qualify. Of course, I don't put either of these
authors in the same category as Tolkien...
Ivis Reed Bohlen
irbo...@med.unc.edu
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
*opinions mine*
Paul D Droubie
Me too!
The Mad Giggler (Hee!Hee!Hee!)
drou...@gold.tc.umn.edu
aka Paul Droubie, who's always wanted to post a meaningless "Me too!" post!
Laura
skay...@comet.eche.ualberta.ca (S. Kayande) writes:
>
>Oh, and as for that Jordan flamebait. It seems to me, from people that I have
>talked to, that you either like Jordan and hate Williams, like Williams and
>hate Jordan, or hate both. I haven't met anyone who likes both authors. I
>was addicted to Jordan 10 pages into _The Eye of the World_. I really don't
>know why. And I don't think much of Tad Williams. I suppose that I really
>don't know why, either.
>
>--
>Samir Kayande
>Unemployed nobody
>UofA
Jordan. I like them both, but I do like the Jordan books a LOT more than
Williams' trilogy.
I really don't think the two render a good foundation for comparison.
The style of writing is, IMHO, very different, and the two authors are
not focusing on the same "message/goal".
Laura Lance / All that is gold does not glitter.
Food Science Dept., UGA / Not all those who wander are lost.
Athens, GA 30602 / --- J.R.R. Tolkien
har...@uga.cc.uga.edu /
*******************************************************************
Yield to temptation; it might not pass your way again.
--- Lazuras Long
Kent Worsnop
and about 900 km to the east of where I am now so I couldn't look it
up. Boy did it bother me.
>it/didn't like it. With good books the I liked it but... can get into proper
>depth so that it comes out sounding like a dislike.
I agree whole heartedly. Usually though it is easy to seperate criticism
from tearing a book apart.
[Story about SF bookstor, and the Fionavar Tapestry]
Well I have never heard of anything like this. However since I am a slow
reader I think I can go one book at a time.
[comments about the Tapestry and comparison to Tolkein]
Thanks for the comments. I will think them over before I decide whether
or not to buy the books. However it does look like I will read them.
[Originality questioned.]
>But it is more heartfelt, IMHO. I think it is better than 90% of other fantasy
>and well worth reading, especially if you liked his other stuff.
Well if I couldn't read unoriginal books I would never have finished all
of Brook's Shannara series. ;)
>_Tigana_, again IMHO, suffered badly from cutting, so that there are a few
>minor niggling details that are not explained. And one plot strand seems to be
>building up to a climax all the way through and then fizzles out in anticlimax
>right at the end. But the world is stunning.
Which strand would this be? I have only read Tigana once, since I got it
out of the library, and thus have missed some things. I do agree though
that the world is stunning. Also that damn epilogue has me wondering if there
will be another book based in this world.
>picking at it! Oh, BTW is you like the background of _Tigana_ a lot you might
>well enjoy _Swordspoint_ by Ellen Kushner. You know how reviewers always
Thanks I'll check it out.
>Song for Arbonne I've only read once so I don't feel qualified to comment,
>really, except that the coincidence revealed at the end did something awful to
>my suspension of disbelief. But a brilliant world. Brilliant.
Actually I liked the few coincidences at the end. It might not have made
for a magical end but then the world really didn't have any magic.
[about the cost of Netting (living?)]
Well then I guess I'll see your response later.
Phil Blower
> >While I don't regret having read the trilogy, I much preferred Kay's
> >Fionavar Tapestry (to compare to another trilogy)...
>
> I have read both Tigana and A Song to Arbonne. Actually I could have had
> a signed copy of the second but alas I didn't have the money for the HC.
> Anyway I have heard both good and bad about the Tapestry. Could someone
> please elaborate on what they thought of the trilogy. Oh yea and some
> discussion on Tigana or A Song to Arbonne wouldn't hurt either.
I have read Kay's works as well. I thoroughly enjoyed Fionavar. I have to admit that
I read for enjoyment and don't analyse books with a microscope. I usually judge it
by how I felt throughout the book and at the end. I found the story gripping through
out, yet I was slightly dissatisfied at the end. I don't really like having the main
characters getting knocked off. And when the one fellow was sacrificed himself to the
goddess, I was dissappointed. On the whole tho', it was quite a good yarn.
I was impressed with Fionavar enough to read Tigana. I found Tigana only OK.
Again I was dissappointed with the ending. It seemed that I was always waiting with
anticipation for something spectacular to happen, but it never did. I kept thinking
that the brother and sister would meet again but it didnt' happen - very dissappointing.
I think that A Song for Arbonne is the best that Kay has written. I
thought the story was fresh and the characters really came to life for me. And I
was happy with the ending. From my previous experience with Kay's stories, I was
ready for an ending that had half the characters dead and the country in ruin. As it
happens, the ending was complete but left a fair bit of room for the reader to draw
his/her own conclusions as to how everything ends up. I'm sure that I will buy his
next novel whenever it comes out.
Ray Li
: In article <774476...@kenjo.demon.co.uk> J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk writes:
: >_Tigana_, again IMHO, suffered badly from cutting, so that there are a few
: >to be building up to a climax all the way through and then fizzles out in
: >anticlimax right at the end. But the world is stunning.
: Which strand would this be? I have only read Tigana once, since I got it
: out of the library, and thus have missed some things. I do agree though
: that the world is stunning. Also that damn epilogue has me wondering if
: there will be another book based in this world.
What's the deal with that epilogue, anyway?
SPOILERS BELOW
Right after the obligatory boat-load of marriages come down the pike,
Devin, Baerd, and Sandre see a riselka. According to the saying, if three
men see a riselka, one will die, one will be blessed, and one's path will
fork. Why did GGK do this? Just as I was hitting cruise control to get
to the end of a good book, he suddenly does this. Does this mean that
there will be a sequel? Or is this just GGK's way of saying that there
are no endings (or something else profound). Any theories as to which
fate (death, blessing, fork) applies to which person?
--
Ray Li
r...@crl.com
S. Kayande
I'd rather that you not . . . :-)
I just said that I'd never _met_ anyone who liked both books, not that they didn't
exist. Sheesh!
Obviously I need to get out more. And stop making unfounded
generalizations.
Matt McIrvin
Kristin Ruhle <kru...@netcom.com> wrote:
>BTW: In Science Fiction Age (I think it was) some months back, Norman
>Spinrad wrote an article on how/why "good" speculative literature has
>gone down the tubes in his opinion ( at least I think that was the gist
>of it), and that some of the crappiest stuff is the most commercially
>successful.
In Gardner Dozois' yearly summation at the beginning of his 1992
best-of-year anthology, he points out that people have been writing
anguished essays about why SF is now moribund since the 1940s. They
arise particularly copiously after a major "movement" seems to have
worn itself out. Thus we had people lamenting the imminent death of
the genre at the death of the early pulps, of the Golden Age of
Campbellian SF, of the New Wave, and now of the cyberpunk phenomenon
(which seems to have been suddenly picked up by mainstream popular
media over the last couple of years, even as it seems relatively
spent in the SF subculture). Writers until then known as SF authors
announced that they were "getting out," only to get back in a little
while later. Dozois points out that in all of these interregna, terribly
interesting stuff was going on, and things we now consider materpieces
were being produced.
Dozois' yearly summaries usually tend to be pretty gloomy, and it's
nice to see him sounding a note of optimism.
The modern era is sort of unique, though, in that there's such an
enormous *volume* of SF being produced, and so many weird phenomena
like endless series, novels set in universes cooked up by more famous
authors, and TV tie-ins. It would seem to bear out Spinrad's
contention that readers are not looking for challenging material,
though I am not sure that this is a new phenomenon at all; it's just
that more of them now read SF when they might previously have read
low-grade mystery, romance, or western novels.
Kojiro Sasaki
>I just said that I'd never _met_ anyone who liked both books, not that they didn't
>exist. Sheesh!
Well then, I believe we should meet fellow UofA student :)
I also like both authors and both of their works...but hey! who am I to
say who's a good writer or not, I'm not an English major after
all :)
>Samir Kayande
>Unemployed nobody
>UofA
Luke Nguyen
Theresa Wymer
Heh. I thought that final sentence was marvellous. I dont' think it's
setting up for a sequel, but that the story is never *really* over.
Happy, final endings don't happen in real life, and it's nice to see a
novel reflecting that for a change.
Lessee...I think I decided that Sandre would die, Devin's path would
fork, and Baerd would be blessed. But that's just me.
I love that last sentence. I get this wonderful shiver down my spine
when I finish _Tigana_. BTW, I don't think it was a copout that the
siblings didn't meet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Ann Wymer twy...@cie-2.uoregon.edu "If I threw popcorn
into the blue sky
and made it snow/
Oh, would you think
it was wonderful?"
Nils Weinander,7430,000446
>I was impressed with Fionavar enough to read Tigana. I found Tigana only OK.
>Again I was dissappointed with the ending. It seemed that I was always waiting with
>anticipation for something spectacular to happen, but it never did. I kept thinking
>that the brother and sister would meet again but it didnt' happen - very dissappointing.
Spoilers coming
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I too expected Baerd and Dianora to meet in the end. The only other disappointment
I found was that GGK wimped out and didn't let Catriana die in her self-sacrifice.
IMO it would have been more in tone with the rest of the book if she had died.
Anyway, as far as spectacular goes, isn't the revelation in the end that Brandin's
fool is actually prince Valentin of Tigana spectacular?
/Nils W
Chad R Orzel
Jo Walton <J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Now, it's much easier to criticise good books than bad books, because quite
>often all you can say about a bad book is that it was rotton but you liked
>it/didn't like it. With good books the I liked it but... can get into proper
>depth so that it comes out sounding like a dislike.
You'd be surprised- if you're willing (for some bizarre reason) to take the
time, you can crank out pages of in-depth Literary Criticism regarding
really bad books... (Some people, IMHO, have gotten PhD's out of this, but
that's a whole different flamewar...) It's harder to take it _seriously_,
but it can be done...
>I really like the Tapestry. There are things wrong with it, specific things and
>general things, but on the whole it seems to me to be an excellent attempt to
>build on the strengths of _Lord of the Rings_ without copying Tolkien. I loved
>_LotR_ when I was ten and I still do. I loved Fionavar when I was 22 and I
>still do.
I'll agree with that assessment- he takes the same basic tack as Tolkien,
using mythological archetypes, and all that, but (IMHO) pays more attention
to character- which is more Kay's strength, IMHO. (And, of course, Tolkien
was trying to do something different (i.e. write mythology), so the two works
aren't really directly comparable, but that's never stopped anyone else...)
But I let him get away with things in those books that I would never
>admit to letting anyone get away with. He does things I regard as total non-nos
>of fantasy. If I told you what they were it might well put you off - but
>probably other people will be less reticent so here goes anyway. SORT OF
>SPOILERS IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH.
>
Original spoiler munched: my complaint here:
Personally, I've never been all that wild about "20th Century College Types
Get Tossed Into Middle-Earth" as a plot point. Very few people handle this
well, and those who do manage to make it acceptable usually do it through
some other means- that is, the book succeeds in spite of the "crossover"
tactic. YMMV.
>But - he does this with such excellent panache and timing that I forgive him
>because IMO he makes it work. YMMV.
>
I'll second that, though I was less offended by the appearance of the Wild
Hunt than you were- he handles it differenlty enough from the vast majority
of cases that it wasn't annoying to me. And I liked the reason given for the
Hunt's existence...
>People have said that Fionavar is not original, and have cited things it is
>derived from. It is so much more original than almost all other fantasy around
>that I don't care too much - it doesn't seem to me that he deliberately
>copied anything, but he was trying to be archetypal within a genre (The genre
>being sub-Tolkien fantasy). Anyway, it is not as original as his other stuff.
>
Well, nothing in the genre is _completely_ original...
>But it is more heartfelt, IMHO. I think it is better than 90% of other fantasy
>and well worth reading, especially if you liked his other stuff.
>
I'll second the recommendation, but with the caveat that it _is_ awfully
close to what Tolkien was doing. So if you tend to start twitching
uncontrollably when an author uses elves and dwarves that resemble Gimli and
Legolas, be warned.
>_Tigana_, again IMHO, suffered badly from cutting, so that there are a few
>minor niggling details that are not explained. And one plot strand seems to be
>building up to a climax all the way through and then fizzles out in anticlimax
>right at the end. But the world is stunning.
>
Funny- my original thoughts on _Tigana_ were that it hadn't been editied
_enough_- it's a bit loose, and a few things could have been taken out, or
tightened up, without noticeably harming the plot. I think he did this with
_Arbonne_- what effect this has on the book is open to debate. More on this
later. But first, a few specific comments:
MASSIVE SPOILERS FOLLOW!
You've been warned...
I'm going to take a wild guess here, and say that the plot thread that
"fizzles out in anticlimax" is the whole Dianora-Baerd thing. The reader is
led to believe that they'll be reunited, then she takes a long swim, and the
eunuch refuses to tell Alessan the story. The End.
When first I read _Tigana_, I had the same basic reaction- I felt I'd been
cheated out of a Big Reunion Scene. And the ending (with the riselka) also
stuck me as being somewhat annoying- a deliberate opening for a sequel. But
on further reflection, and a couple of re-reads, to see if I'd missed
something, I started to see a twisted genius in it.
_Tigana_ isn't your ordinary fairy tale- Kay takes great pains to keep it
from becoming an ordinary tale. The good guys use some questionable tactics,
and at times seem to be unsure that they're even doing the right thing. The
bad guys are all too human (well, Alberico is a true SOB, but...)- we can
see Brandin's pain, his love for Dianora, and so on. It's a lot more like
life than your ordinary fairy tale, and Kay uses the ending to reflect that:
Nobody _really_ lives Happily Ever After- Prince Charming became a rotten
king, and Cinderella cheats on him with the stablehands...
That's the point of the thwarted reunion- it's like lfe: people die, leaving
Big Issues left unresolved, and while justice may have triumphed, nobody
ever knows the true story. YMMV, as to how well this works for you.
As for the bit with the riselka, that's Kay's three-page version of Steven
Brust's line (lifted from Hungarian fairy tales): And if they haven't died,
they're still alive today. Life goes on, there are neither beginnings nor
endings,.... and so forth. Again, YMMV.
>Song for Arbonne I've only read once so I don't feel qualified to comment,
>really, except that the coincidence revealed at the end did something awful to
>my suspension of disbelief. But a brilliant world. Brilliant.
>
Which coincidence? The bit with Luth de Baud? (The archer guy, who was left
behind in the raid that opens the book...) Personally, I thought that was
brilliant...
Later,
OilCan
Kent Worsnop
>>there will be a sequel? Or is this just GGK's way of saying that there
>>are no endings (or something else profound). Any theories as to which
>>fate (death, blessing, fork) applies to which person?
>
>Happy, final endings don't happen in real life, and it's nice to see a
>novel reflecting that for a change.
>
>Lessee...I think I decided that Sandre would die, Devin's path would
>fork, and Baerd would be blessed. But that's just me.
>
>I love that last sentence. I get this wonderful shiver down my spine
>when I finish _Tigana_. BTW, I don't think it was a copout that the
>siblings didn't meet.
Okay as I have said before I have only read the book once. Once is enough
to get a good feel for the novel and also memorize the plot but it isn't
enough to do much of an indepth survey of it. So as to the risselka I can't
say. However as to the siblings never meeting I must also agree it wasn't
a copout. We had already seen that she was willing to kill herself once
and then when she saw what had happened to her father do you actually
think she could face her brother?
Anyway this brings me to another little story I know about GGK work.
I was talking with a friend of mine who had also read Tiganna and we
came up with a little advice for anyone wishing to read his work. Make
sure you lock up all sharp instruments etc. since you will not be happy
after you finish reading his stuff. Heck you'll be downright depressed.
One last thing about the epilogue. Yes I know real endings are not
happy etc. However I think they could have ended off the book after the
sister goes and kills herself. This would have given closure to the book.
As it stands now though I feel the book is unfinished. Well maybe there
will be a sequel but I hope not.
Christian M Gadeken
>talked to, that you either like Jordan and hate Williams, like Williams and
>hate Jordan, or hate both. I haven't met anyone who likes both authors. I
>was addicted to Jordan 10 pages into _The Eye of the World_. I really don't
>know why. And I don't think much of Tad Williams. I suppose that I really
>don't know why, either.
Well, I don't quite qualify as a counterexample: I am a Jordan fanatic
(After I buy one of his books I sit down and read it five or six times.)
but I also think Williams is pretty good. I got _Tailchaser's Song_
and _MS&T_ from the library and enjoyed them a lot, but not enough
to buy them. (The Wheel of Time books I buy the day they come out.)
--
Christian Gadeken While Luna was on the phone and Tuxedo
Otaku-Atama Kamen was reading the paper, Kunzite and
Captain No-Life Zoisite were watching televisions(six of them).
Math Teaching-Accessory -Sailor Moon, Act 6(manga).
Kyle Dippery
Kent Worsnop <ke...@chem.queensu.ca> wrote:
>In article <30g0rc$k...@pith.uoregon.edu> twy...@cie-2.uoregon.edu (Theresa Wymer) writes:
>>Ray Li (r...@crl.com) wrote:
>>>What's the deal with that epilogue, anyway?
>>>SPOILERS BELOW
>a copout. We had already seen that she was willing to kill herself once
>and then when she saw what had happened to her father do you actually
>think she could face her brother?
>
For the record, Valentin wasn't Dianora's father. Saevar was, and he
apparently did die by the River.
I agree, though. Somehow, it was more touching that Baerd didn't catch
her.
Dylan
'traditional' fantasy epics of the last 20/30 years. All the old cliches
seemed to be turned on their heads. It didn't end, fullstop, happily
ever after. The farmboy out to find his way in the world was just, in
the end, a farmboy, without a mysterious heritage in sight. The evil
sorceror king had his own motives and was easy to sympathise with. The
white bearded wizard wasn't a meddling old man who knew the entire plot
in advance, he was just this guy.
Tigana is, I think, the best post-JRRT fantasy I've come across as yet.
--
Dylan aka Graham Reilly g...@uk.ac.st-andrews
-----------------------------------------------------
"It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing."
-----------------------------------------------------
The Wandering Jew
: In Gardner Dozois' yearly summation at the beginning of his 1992
: best-of-year anthology, he points out that people have been writing
: anguished essays about why SF is now moribund since the 1940s. They
: arise particularly copiously after a major "movement" seems to have
: worn itself out. Thus we had people lamenting the imminent death of
: the genre at the death of the early pulps,
_Argosy_ and Co did not actually die, but their peculiar brand of SF did.
It was sort of reanimated and zombied around for a while in the 40's -
early 50's. Fairly enjoyable, actually, if you can get in the right mood.
: of the Golden Age of Campbellian SF, of the New Wave,
Yes, but you forgot to mention 1960! The genre was officially dead (at
least commercially - Silverberg had a good reason to 'leave' :-) and look
who was competing for the Hugo award: _Rogue Moon_, _Canticle for
Leibowitz_, _The High Crusade_ and [draws a blank :-(].
: and now of the cyberpunk phenomenon
: (which seems to have been suddenly picked up by mainstream popular
: media over the last couple of years, even as it seems relatively
: spent in the SF subculture).
The usual time lag. If you recall, there was a bunch of non-genre SF
novels in the late 50's-early 60's about the Bomb, Space and Everything.
They came and go. SF is still around.
: The modern era is sort of unique, though, in that there's such an
: enormous *volume* of SF being produced, and so many weird phenomena
: like endless series, novels set in universes cooked up by more famous
: authors, and TV tie-ins.
Seriesitis is nothing new as has been pointed out before. Although it
does seem to be more vicious and less curable nowadays :-( TV tie-ins
have been around for 30 years+. Shared words have been around since 1952
but they are also getting more rack space lately (in case you haven't
noticed :-)
: It would seem to bear out Spinrad's
: contention that readers are not looking for challenging material,
: though I am not sure that this is a new phenomenon at all; it's just
: that more of them now read SF when they might previously have read
: low-grade mystery, romance, or western novels.
Every time you increase your readership by an order of magnitude you are
liable to run into this phenomenon. The big question is whether the new
arrivals are going to 'graduate' to something a bit more serious.
Personally, I doubt it. Ray Palmer tried it in the 40's and failed. Star
Trek has essentially created its own parallel universe and has precious
few things in commom with the rest of the genre. Ditto Star Wars. Fantasy
has brought in throngs of people but they seem to be going down the same
path.
Nevertheless, all of these phenomena have contributed to the tremendous
growth in the genre over the last 20 years. So much the better! But
don't expect miracles...
--
Ahasuerus
>
Munched aside on Williams
>Oh, and as for that Jordan flamebait. It seems to me, from people that I have
>talked to, that you either like Jordan and hate Williams, like Williams and
>hate Jordan, or hate both. I haven't met anyone who likes both authors. I
>was addicted to Jordan 10 pages into _The Eye of the World_. I really don't
>know why. And I don't think much of Tad Williams. I suppose that I really
>don't know why, either.
>
Are you sure that you don't mean Jordan and Eddings? Personally, I find both
Williams and Jordan a little wordy, but when it comes to good ol'fashioned
escapism, there are none better (IMHO of course).
-mike-
**********************************************************************
Dottie: It just got too hard.
Jimmy: It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard everyone would do it.
The hard is what makes it great!
(from "A League of Their Own")
Ruchira Datta
> Anyway this brings me to another little story I know about GGK work.
>I was talking with a friend of mine who had also read Tiganna and we
>came up with a little advice for anyone wishing to read his work. Make
>sure you lock up all sharp instruments etc. since you will not be happy
>after you finish reading his stuff. Heck you'll be downright depressed.
I don't think Kay can begin to compare to Rawn in this regard. It is arguable
whether what happens to her characters is worse, but her characterization is
so much deeper and more thorough that one feels it more. This is not
necessarily a criticism of Kay; after all, it may not be his goal to put his
readers through an emotional wringer, and besides, his stories are much
shorter.
SPOILERS
>However as to the siblings never meeting I must also agree it wasn't
>a copout. We had already seen that she was willing to kill herself once
>and then when she saw what had happened to her father do you actually
>think she could face her brother?
As someone else pointed out, it wasn't her father but her king. Another
contribution to the lack of closure was that, if I recall correctly, she
died thinking that Valentin must despise her, whereas Valentin understood not
only her, but even Brandin, and he was glad of her happiness. One wishes
they had at least talked for five minutes before killing their respective
selves.
Ruchira Datta
da...@math.berkeley.edu
Judy Ghirardelli
In article <13294195.3...@kcbbs.gen.nz>,
Juv...@kcbbs.gen.nz (Scott Davies (Juvena <Scott_Davies_> wrote:
>
>
> For all those comparing Williams' M,S&T to Jordan, therein lies a major
> point: both have overwritten. However, I must jump on the Jordan-bashing
> bandwagon, because he is of course, the inferior writer (by a large
> gap). All these (mainly American) Jordanites writing in to puff WOT
> books have fallen into sentimentality, buy books just because of the
> author's name, and couldn't tell what a good book was anyway because it
> would have words too big for them. And the devotion of these people!
> Sickening. Narrow-minded semi-literates all.
>
> Are there any brain-washed Jordan fans out there who realize the scorn
> with which they are treated? The global trend in literary decadence is
> strengthened with every book you people buy.
>
"Narrow-minded semi-literates"? You know, it does not take much intellect
to call people names, you pigeon-gutted dirt-grubber! (see?) Blood and
bloody ashes but I can't understand goat-kissing flame-trollers like
you. Do *you* realize the scorn with which *you* are treated, you
sheep-headed light-blinded Fool? I know one thing: we will remember
you, so when the Jordan group gets started, stay away - you are NOT
invited to our reindeer games. Peace! Your flaming post got me SOOO
riled up. I must have sniffed 10 times in a row! My Warder had to
run out and buy more kleenex! Burn me if that do no be the truth!
Whether Jordan writes dreck or not is a matter of opinion, but
it is *my* opinion that goat-headed ninnyhammers like you
most certainly do write dreck, yes? (see the above quoted material
as evidence) Light, your wit could not even outmatch those barmaids
in Ebou Dar - you know the ones, the ones who eat Illianers and spit
Whitecloaks for lunch! Go lay down and think about Roy, so *there*!
(boy, did I tell him, or WHAT!?!)
Ok, on a serious note. Why in a world too full of hatred and racism
(and other forms of ignorance and stupidity) do you feel it
necessary "bash" (your word) some people who are gettting
entertainment from reading some harmless fun books. Dreck or not.
That is irrelevant. I don't care if you hate Jordan's writing;
I *do* take offense when you attack people just for enjoying his
writing. Lighten up. You've been spending too much time around
your neo-nazi friends or something. Get a grip. There's enough
hatred in the world - we don't need yours here on r.a.sf.w.
Judy G.
(my thanks for fair Uno)
--
Judy Ghirardelli || Love is Always , Me is Life
ghir...@oraac.gsfc.nasa.gov || Forever is just another Smile
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"It's hard to be brave when you're a Very Small Animal." - Piglet
Judy Ghirardelli
> In article <30g0rc$k...@pith.uoregon.edu> twy...@cie-2.uoregon.edu (Theresa Wymer) writes:
> >Ray Li (r...@crl.com) wrote:
> >>What's the deal with that epilogue, anyway?
> >>SPOILERS BELOW
>
>
>
>
major spoilers below for Tigana. Read at your own risk (or riskela)
>
>
>
>
>
> >>there will be a sequel? Or is this just GGK's way of saying that there
> >>are no endings (or something else profound). Any theories as to which
> >>fate (death, blessing, fork) applies to which person?
> >
> >Happy, final endings don't happen in real life, and it's nice to see a
> >novel reflecting that for a change.
> >
> >Lessee...I think I decided that Sandre would die, Devin's path would
> >fork, and Baerd would be blessed. But that's just me.
> >
> >I love that last sentence. I get this wonderful shiver down my spine
> >when I finish _Tigana_. BTW, I don't think it was a copout that the
> >siblings didn't meet.
> Okay as I have said before I have only read the book once. Once is enough
> to get a good feel for the novel and also memorize the plot but it isn't
> enough to do much of an indepth survey of it. So as to the risselka I can't
> say. However as to the siblings never meeting I must also agree it wasn't
> a copout. We had already seen that she was willing to kill herself once
> and then when she saw what had happened to her father do you actually
> think she could face her brother?
>
> Anyway this brings me to another little story I know about GGK work.
> I was talking with a friend of mine who had also read Tiganna and we
> came up with a little advice for anyone wishing to read his work. Make
> sure you lock up all sharp instruments etc. since you will not be happy
> after you finish reading his stuff. Heck you'll be downright depressed.
Ahah!!! I see your problem right away! I felt exactly the way you
describe after my first reading. But then I re-read it, and my eyes
opened (it made the reading easier). Really, I was mad that Dianora
was not the one to take out Brandin, that she fell in love with him,
that she did not drown herself when she went for the ring dive. I
was so MAD!!! It would have been great. But in re-reading, I realized
that that would not have been too great. It all goes back to Dianora's
father, who died in the battle by the river. He thinks that it is
hard to hate the enemy soldiers across the river, whose singing he
can hear. Then he thinks something like "But I'm not really a soldier,
and I never was any good at hating". Neither was Dianora. Brandin was
not as terrible as the other guy. He did one terrible thing - took
Tigana's name away, and he did that because Tigana killed his son. Yes,
he should not have invaded in the first place, but that was not the
wound that killed Tigana - it was that no one remembered them. The whole
point here is that Dianora in the end was just like her father. It was
probably good she and beard did not meet - he would not have understood,
as I did not, and probably you did not. He was too young when his
father died to probably know that he was not a hater.
So my advice - read it again. After I did, I loved it, and I now consider
it one of my favorite books.
And if Catriana had really died, we never would have heard Alessan tell
her that she was the harbor of his soul's jouneying. Ah, that was
beautiful.
>
> One last thing about the epilogue. Yes I know real endings are not
> happy etc. However I think they could have ended off the book after the
> sister goes and kills herself. This would have given closure to the book.
> As it stands now though I feel the book is unfinished. Well maybe there
> will be a sequel but I hope not.
I agree with the others who think it was Kay's way to tell us that the
story goes on, and is never ending, even though we won't ever hear it.
Judy G.
Bill Garrett
|>
|> Oh, and as for that Jordan flamebait. It seems to me, from people that I have
|> talked to, that you either like Jordan and hate Williams, like Williams and
|> hate Jordan, or hate both. I haven't met anyone who likes both authors. I
|> was addicted to Jordan 10 pages into _The Eye of the World_. I really don't
|> know why. And I don't think much of Tad Williams. I suppose that I really
|> don't know why, either.
I think you've received ample proof that plenty of Jordan fans like Tad
Williams. I'm the only person I've heard of who likes Jordan but has gripes
against Williams. His writings have been discussed three times in the past
year on rasfw and I've said approximately the same things each time: the
series drags in too many parts, certain major elements of the setting are
poorly handled, and the ending was too abrupt.
Heck, I'm almost the only person I've heard of who didn't think that _Memory,
Sorrow, Thorn_ embodied the Second Coming of Christ.
--
yrt, gnihtemos dnatsrednu uoy kniht uoy fI" tterraG lliB
".evitcepsrep tnereffid a morf ti ta gnikool ude.cnu.sc@tterrag
Kent Worsnop
>> >>SPOILERS BELOW
>major spoilers below for Tigana. Read at your own risk (or riskela)
>> a copout. We had already seen that she was willing to kill herself once
>> and then when she saw what had happened to her father do you actually
>> think she could face her brother?
Okay before anyone else corrects me it was here King not her father.
>> after you finish reading his stuff. Heck you'll be downright depressed.
>
>Ahah!!! I see your problem right away! I felt exactly the way you
>describe after my first reading. But then I re-read it, and my eyes
>opened (it made the reading easier). Really, I was mad that Dianora
>was not the one to take out Brandin, that she fell in love with him,
>that she did not drown herself when she went for the ring dive. I
Actually in the first reading I didn't want her to kill herself. I
have always thought that suicide is a copout even though it might
have gotten her country back was it truly worth it. As for the one
to take out Brandin I must agree up until the point she realizes her
love for him. After that I would have been very depressed if she had
killed him. (You know killing true love and all that. Kind of gets to
me.)
>that that would not have been too great. It all goes back to Dianora's
>father, who died in the battle by the river. He thinks that it is
>hard to hate the enemy soldiers across the river, whose singing he
>can hear. Then he thinks something like "But I'm not really a soldier,
>and I never was any good at hating". Neither was Dianora. Brandin was
>not as terrible as the other guy.
Brandin was definitely very human (except for the magic thing.) and
I sympathized with him. However the vengance he took over Tiganna wasn't
just and thus I cannot say I grieve over his loss. However I did grieve
over Dianora's loss which I think was a big selling point. I think
GGK shows us that even with magic, mythical creatures and the like
war is still hell.
>point here is that Dianora in the end was just like her father. It was
>probably good she and beard did not meet - he would not have understood,
>as I did not, and probably you did not. He was too young when his
>father died to probably know that he was not a hater.
Yes I do believe she found out she could not hate but still she
had problems living with the shame that she loved the man who destroyed
her people. Even though she wasn't a hater I thought the shame might
drive her to kill Brandin.
>So my advice - read it again. After I did, I loved it, and I now consider
>it one of my favorite books.
I intend to. Actually I loved the book. It was very depressing and I
believe will always be depressing to me but I will still love the book.
>And if Catriana had really died, we never would have heard Alessan tell
>her that she was the harbor of his soul's jouneying. Ah, that was
>beautiful.
This is just one of many parts of the beauty of this book. However this
part is also balanced by his mother. She dies thinking her son is worthless
and tells him so.
>I agree with the others who think it was Kay's way to tell us that the
>story goes on, and is never ending, even though we won't ever hear it.
I must agree that it was a way to tell us the story goes on but I have
read better endings that show this yet still give closure around the story
that was told. The epilogue, IMHO, didn't do this it was like a symphony
that built up to the final chord and then silence. I hate that.
Meng Weng Wong
book-signing, I spoke to him briefly (the high point of my entire summer
:) ) and asked him who died, who forked, who was blessed. He wouldn't
tell me because (he explained) he meant the epilogue to show that life
continues and that we only followed part of the characters' lives. IMHO,
the entire book was brilliant, but the end just left me with chills up
and down my spine. I had to know what happened to who and then I
realised that the whole idea was we weren't meant to know. I think any
kind of sequel would be degrading and I would lose respect for Mr. Kay if
he let himself be pressured into writing one.
Kalev
This is Kalev. This is not Meng. I am just borrowing his account.
I can be reached at KAL...@paradigm.bc.ca
Juvena@kcbbs.gen.nz (Scott Davies (Juvena)
> I read Tad Williams' series last winter and I absolutely hated the
> way it tended to move so slowly. The first 500 pages of "The
> Dragonbone Chair" were mostly worthless: there was little plot to
> speak of, and really no description. I've seen good authors say
> more in 50 pages (rather than 500).
Little plot? There was definitely a series of events going on in
concurrent fashion. Some may have given up reading the books because of
their cautious, savouring pace; but as to myself I think it was one of
the attractive features (though not for TGAT). But look to Jordan, and
one gets the impression he has a stack of notes lying next to him. All
unfolds as if to a plan, _as if_ he could write good drama.
> Williams' editor should have sent back TGAT with a note
> asking him to trim 300 pages. The thing that bothered me most
> about TGAT was that the point of view kept switching between about
> 15 semi-defined characters all going through personal crises, and
> they blurred together (not to mention, got on my nerves) by halfway
> through the book.
I've got to agree here all right, this actually lets down the book
rather than keeps interest as in the earlier two novels. Yes, I've got
to agree, even though I realize you're being exclusively negative about
Williams.
> I prefer Jordan to Williams because Jordan has better
> characterisation and detail. Jordan's series has a certain
> _tightness_ in that dreams, visions, thoughts, hopes, rumors,
> omens, etc. all have meaning. By contrast,
Bleccch. What a load of naieve perception. I'd add to your list: . . .
and sentiment ladled in by the bucketfull, snivelling women, climaxes so
sleep-inducing you don't recall them, "wimpy" heroes, etc.
> Williams' series struck me as having superfluous and irrelevant
> symbolism.
Well, I can say you've really struck a difference there since I reckon
they are some of the most profound parts exposed. Simon dreaming of
being caught up in a wheel and dragged towards an unknown fate, etc, how
can you say an image like that is unnecessary?
> His nonhuman cultures
> were well done, but the human cultures were hackneyed stereotypes
> and his Aedonite church was a lame rip-off of Christianity.
No kidding, give the man a cupie doll. But lame the representation was
not. As a mirror medieval world, Osten Ard could not succeed without
Christianity. Tolkien did it, but there have been accusations of
parralells between his mythology and the Bible.
Minor quibble:
> The first 500 pages of "The Dragonbone Chair"
> were mostly worthless: there was little plot to speak of, and
> really no description.
> Some people criticize Jordan for describing every hill and valley
> that the characters pass as they travel on the road. That's true
> of the series in a few parts, but by the same scale I'd have to say
> that Williams' writing describes every damn boring identical tree
> that the characters walk past.
You're saying TW doesn't spend much time in description, then you say he
writes so expressively it's boring?
> |> Are there any brain-washed Jordan fans out there who realize the
> |> with which they are treated? The global trend in literary decaden
> |> strengthened with every book you people buy.
>
> Mmmm, flames. Any other faux-intellectual ravings you'd like to
> purge from your system?
God-knows-what "faux-intellectual" means. But you've got to someone
infested with it, using words like that.
Juvenal.
Currently reading: "Sword & Sorceress vol. I" ed. by MZB
"See the flames/higher and higher" - U2
Matt McIrvin
The Wandering Jew <aha...@clark.net> wrote:
>Every time you increase your readership by an order of magnitude you are
>liable to run into this phenomenon. The big question is whether the new
>arrivals are going to 'graduate' to something a bit more serious.
>
>Personally, I doubt it. Ray Palmer tried it in the 40's and failed. Star
>Trek has essentially created its own parallel universe and has precious
>few things in commom with the rest of the genre. Ditto Star Wars. Fantasy
>has brought in throngs of people but they seem to be going down the same
>path.
Dozois in fact says the same thing about TV, and I agree too; there
are inveterate Star Trek viewers who have experienced *no* SF outside
Star Trek, and think that many of the genre's oldest and creakiest
cliches were invented on Star Trek: The Next Generation in 1989.
I see the current version of the Star Trek universe as basically
what happens if you take SF from the 1930s and attempt to transplant
it into modern pop culture with modern societal attitudes, ignoring
most of what happened in SF in the meantime. The technological
toys and the universe are very Doc Smithian. Star Wars is the same
thing combined with World War II movies and overt mythmaking. Babylon 5
similarly transplants forties and fifties SF. There are common roots,
but not much connection in the branches.
On the other hand, authors like James Blish, Diane Duane, Greg Bear, and
Vonda McIntyre have all written Star Trek novels, and it's possible that
the people who read those could be drawn to their non-Star Trek books.
I certainly heard of Blish first in connection with his Star Trek
stories when I was rather young.
Kyle Dippery
Kent Worsnop <ke...@chem.queensu.ca> wrote:
>>> >>SPOILERS BELOW
>
>
>
>
>
>>major spoilers below for Tigana. Read at your own risk (or riskela)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ah, but that's half the fun of a list like this... ;)
>
> I intend to. Actually I loved the book. It was very depressing and I
>believe will always be depressing to me but I will still love the book.
>
Most of my favorite books (and songs, come to think of it) are
depressing... Wonder if that means something...
>
> This is just one of many parts of the beauty of this book. However this
>part is also balanced by his mother. She dies thinking her son is worthless
>and tells him so.
>
Does she really? Didn't she do something right at the end that made
Alessan think she'd forgiven, or at least come to understand, him?
I seem to remember that she let him take her hand, just before she
died, and he attached a world of importance to the act.
Kyle Dippery
Ruchira Datta <da...@durban.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>SPOILERS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>As someone else pointed out, it wasn't her father but her king. Another
>contribution to the lack of closure was that, if I recall correctly, she
>died thinking that Valentin must despise her, whereas Valentin understood not
>only her, but even Brandin, and he was glad of her happiness. One wishes
>they had at least talked for five minutes before killing their respective
>selves.
>
But doesn't that just make it all the more poignant? I think that scene
works (for me, anyway) precisely BECAUSE she dies not knowing... Not
knowing what Valentin thinks, not knowing that her brother is just on
his way over from the next hill, etc.
Just my opinions...
Kyle
Kyle Dippery
Chad R Orzel <oil...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
[a lot of stuff I'm gonna skip]
>
>>But it is more heartfelt, IMHO. I think it is better than 90% of other fantasy
>>and well worth reading, especially if you liked his other stuff.
Only 90%? I'd rank it higher, myself...
>king, and Cinderella cheats on him with the stablehands...
What, has she forgotten the dwarves so quickly?
MINOR SPOILER FOR ARBONNE:
>
>>Song for Arbonne I've only read once so I don't feel qualified to comment,
>>really, except that the coincidence revealed at the end did something awful to
>>my suspension of disbelief. But a brilliant world. Brilliant.
>>
>Which coincidence? The bit with Luth de Baud? (The archer guy, who was left
>behind in the raid that opens the book...) Personally, I thought that was
>brilliant...
>
Yeah, it was a nicely-planned incident, at the least. I must admit I'd
forgotten about him (just like I was supposed to, I guess). But was
that really a makeable shot? How did he manage to account for the wind?
(Or, once the arrow was loosed, did the Goddess's hand guide it home? I
rather hope not...)
And what was it the Priestess said to Blaise, "We'll eat his brain at
the dark of the moon", or something (only read the book once, so I don't
have all the conversations memorized yet)... I thought that bit was
hilarious... Imagine a high priestess with a sense of humor... Doesn't
happen very often, that I've noticed...
Cheers!
Kyle
kd...@engr.uky.edu
David DeLaney
>Oh, and as for that Jordan flamebait. It seems to me, from people that I have
>talked to, that you either like Jordan and hate Williams, like Williams and
>hate Jordan, or hate both. I haven't met anyone who likes both authors. I
>was addicted to Jordan 10 pages into _The Eye of the World_. I really don't
>know why. And I don't think much of Tad Williams. I suppose that I really
>don't know why, either.
I like Jordan and do not hate Williams; I liked Tailchaser's Song very much,
and thought the Trilogy was rather slow, but eminently readable.
Dave "Jordan addiction is caused by an odorless gas impregnated into the pages,
which also unfortunately makes the covers fall off eventually" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney: d...@utkux.utcc.utk.edu; "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. Disclaimer: IMHO; VRbeableFUTPLEX
http://enigma.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ for net.legends FAQ+miniFAQs; ftp: cathouse.org
Kyle Dippery
>In article <30gn4i$q...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>,
>Chad R Orzel <oil...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>
>[a lot of stuff I'm gonna skip]
>
>>
>>>But it is more heartfelt, IMHO. I think it is better than 90% of other fantasy
>>>and well worth reading, especially if you liked his other stuff.
>
>Only 90%? I'd rank it higher, myself...
>
>>king, and Cinderella cheats on him with the stablehands...
>
>What, has she forgotten the dwarves so quickly?
Oops. I had my stories crossed. I must have been thinking of
Snow White, if I was thinking at all...
So Sorry...
Mike Arnautov
_Tigana_ irritating -- a deeply flawed masterpiece. (For one thing I
couldn't make the major magical premise of the book work sensibly within
its own terms, but that's a separate subject.) OTOH, I loved the
"coincidence" at the end of _A Song for Arbonne_, which retrospectively
casts a magical sheen over the whole book.
So why write this, you may well ask? Well, I simply wanted to say that
IMHO, Kay is by far the best *writer* SF has and, arguably, has ever
had. Forget for the moment the plots and their settings and just enjoy
the sheer skill, the craftsmanship of writing and characterisation.
Every time I immerse myself in one of his books (even in _Tigana_), I am
awed and bewitched by the beauty of his writing. It does not matter
that I know all the plot twists -- he grabs my attention and holds it
anyway.
Only McKillip's Hed trilogy has ever come close to this for me. I wish
I could do _anything_ half as well as Kay can write.
--
Mike Arnautov
mla...@ggr.co.uk
Chad R Orzel
>Chad R Orzel <oil...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>
>[a lot of stuff I'm gonna skip]
>
>>
>>>But it is more heartfelt, IMHO. I think it is better than 90% of other fantasy
>>>and well worth reading, especially if you liked his other stuff.
>
>Only 90%? I'd rank it higher, myself...
>
Walton? I think that was the name...). But I'd say 90% is about right- I'd
rank his other books slightly higher, and a couple of other people creep in
there... (and, also, there are some godawfulbad books that I won't admit
to having read, so all my %ages are a bit inflated...).
>>king, and Cinderella cheats on him with the stablehands...
>
>What, has she forgotten the dwarves so quickly?
>
That was Snow White. She got divorced, and serves as a social worker with
the American Association for the Vertically Challenged...
>
>MINOR SPOILER FOR ARBONNE:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Which coincidence? The bit with Luth de Baud? (The archer guy, who was left
>>behind in the raid that opens the book...) Personally, I thought that was
>>brilliant...
>>
>
>Yeah, it was a nicely-planned incident, at the least. I must admit I'd
>forgotten about him (just like I was supposed to, I guess). But was
>that really a makeable shot? How did he manage to account for the wind?
>(Or, once the arrow was loosed, did the Goddess's hand guide it home? I
>rather hope not...)
>
I don't think it makes a difference, one way or the other (and I'm not at
all sure how one could sort out which it was...). I just like the world-view
embodied in that scenario- "The Goddess is willing to help us, but we've got
to do most of the work ourselves." I thought that was a nice touch- and the
overall lack of powerful magic was, on some level, refreshing.
>And what was it the Priestess said to Blaise, "We'll eat his brain at
>the dark of the moon", or something (only read the book once, so I don't
>have all the conversations memorized yet)... I thought that bit was
>hilarious... Imagine a high priestess with a sense of humor... Doesn't
>happen very often, that I've noticed...
>
I dunno- I just think you're hanging out with the wrong High Preistesses...
That was likewise a nice touch- tweaking the genre conventions again, just
a little bit...
Later,
OilCan
Chad R Orzel
Mike Arnautov <mla...@ggr.co.uk> wrote:
>I agree with practically everything said so far, except that I found
>_Tigana_ irritating -- a deeply flawed masterpiece. (For one thing I
>couldn't make the major magical premise of the book work sensibly within
>its own terms, but that's a separate subject.)
The taking away of the name? (It doesn't need a spoiler heading, it's in
the cover copy...) I dunno. It's hard to make it make sense, I guess, but
if you can manage to suspend disbelief for a while, it's a pretty
disturbing fate for a nation... (I'm tired of typing- make up your own
pseudo-intellectual ramblings about the parallels between this and the Cold
War, and pretend I said it...).
I wouldn't say "deeply flawed," though- it has some rough edges, to be sure,
but it actually works better (in terms of emotional impact) than the more
polished _Arbonne_. YMMV.
OTOH, I loved the
>"coincidence" at the end of _A Song for Arbonne_, which retrospectively
>casts a magical sheen over the whole book.
>
This I'll agree with...
>So why write this, you may well ask? Well, I simply wanted to say that
>IMHO, Kay is by far the best *writer* SF has and, arguably, has ever
>had. Forget for the moment the plots and their settings and just enjoy
>the sheer skill, the craftsmanship of writing and characterisation.
>Every time I immerse myself in one of his books (even in _Tigana_), I am
>awed and bewitched by the beauty of his writing. It does not matter
>that I know all the plot twists -- he grabs my attention and holds it
>anyway.
>
It's definitely a short list of authors who can do that. The only one who
leaps to mind at the moment (aside from GGKay) is Peter S. Beagle, and he
writes so damn _slowly_ that all of his books are out of print, despite the
fact that he's still writing...
But he's another one, in terms of craftsmanship, and the stunningly...
appropriate use of the language (every word seems, at times, to be chosen to
maximize the effect of what is being said... he's one of the few authors
that consistently turn out paragraphs that make me stop and say "Wow. That's
the _perfect_ way to describe that.").
>Only McKillip's Hed trilogy has ever come close to this for me. I wish
>I could do _anything_ half as well as Kay can write.
>
It's like the kiss-up speech James Spader has in the early parts of the movie
_Wolf_:
{paraphrasing somewhat}
"Your book changed my life."
"Let me guess. It made you go out and pursue your dream to be a writer."
"No- it made me give up on writing altogether, because I realized I could
_never_ write anything that beautiful..."
Later,
OilCan
David Serduke
>>While I don't regret having read the trilogy, I much preferred Kay's
>>Fionavar Tapestry (to compare to another trilogy)...
>
>Anyway I have heard both good and bad about the Tapestry. Could someone
>please elaborate on what they thought of the trilogy. Oh yea and some
>discussion on Tigana or A Song to Arbonne wouldn't hurt either.
Personally I enjoyed all five books. I read the Tapestry books first
and thought they had excellent characterization as well as being a good
story. Later I read the other two and REALLY enjoyed them. I found
the Tapestry books to be a bit morose. The others had a very good
blend of "good" and "bad."
--
--
David Serduke ser...@netcom.com
Bill Garrett
|> Little plot? There was definitely a series of events going on in
|> concurrent fashion. Some may have given up reading the books because of
|> their cautious, savouring pace;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And I'd call it "banal, laborious" in the first 500 pages (and in other
parts, too). You say toe-MAY-toe, I say toe-MAH-toe. Yes, I know that
there were things going on in the first 500 pages, but I stand by my
earlier statement: I have seen other authors say more in 50 or 100 pages.
[Regarding slow movement in TGAT:]
|> Yes, I've got
|> to agree, even though I realize you're being exclusively negative about
|> Williams.
I'm not exclusively negative about Williams, although I often sound that
way because I find a lot of people in rasfw who talk as though _Memory,
Sorrow, Thorn_ embodies the Second Coming.
To be sure, the craft of writing is subtle. Errors and shortcomings usually
cry out their presence, but success manifests itself quietly in anxious
turning of pages. Williams does enough things right -- something kept me
reading the series, albeit slowly at time -- but those right things are
harder to describe than the things I think he's done wrong. The MST trilogy
were Williams' first books, and I give him a lot of credit for that. But I
still wouldn't recommend them to anyone.
Again, I often sound negative about TW because so many people here seem
to drool all over him. One thing that really tickles me is that these
"droolers" are the sort who most loudly ridicule people who drool over
other authors such as Jordan, Eddings, etc. As I see it, we're all
entitled to our own standards for salivation. ;)
|> > his Aedonite church was a lame rip-off of Christianity.
|>
|> No kidding, give the man a cupie doll. But lame the representation was
|> not. As a mirror medieval world, Osten Ard could not succeed without
|> Christianity. Tolkien did it, but there have been accusations of
|> parralells between his mythology and the Bible.
I know something of the legends of "King John Presbyter" that Williams
drew from, and I understand their relation to medieval Christianity, but I
maintain my point that the Aedonite church was poorly done, that it was a
cheap, quick knockoff of the Christian church. If you went through the
book and made substitutions Usires/Jesus, Aedon/Christ, Tree/Cross, etc.,
you'd have nearly an EXACT portrayal of the Christian church in a fantasy
setting. For that lack of effort, why bother changing the names? Sure,
his story would probably be condemned by the Catholic church, but that
would just boost his sales.
JLBrown23
skay...@comet.eche.ualberta.ca (S. Kayande) writes:
It seems to me, from people that I have
talked to, that you either like Jordan and hate Williams, like Williams
and
hate Jordan, or hate both. I haven't met anyone who likes both authors.
Actually, I like both. I would easily recommend Jordan's books first &
consider them the best fantasy I've read; but I also enjoyed Williams'
series. In my opinion, once youve read Tolkien, Eddings(Belgariad) and
Jordan, you aren't going to find anything that compares to the quality of
these series; but Williams books are still good and worth the read(just
don't plan on getting through TGAT quickly, the damn thing's thicker than
Atlas Shrugged!)
COLIN MA
Bill Garrett <gar...@cs.unc.edu> wrote:
>To be sure, the craft of writing is subtle. Errors and shortcomings usually
>cry out their presence, but success manifests itself quietly in anxious
>turning of pages. Williams does enough things right -- something kept me
>reading the series, albeit slowly at time -- but those right things are
>harder to describe than the things I think he's done wrong. The MST trilogy
>were Williams' first books, and I give him a lot of credit for that. But I
>still wouldn't recommend them to anyone.
Didn't Williams come out with _Watership Down_ and _Tailchaser's Song_
prior to publishing the Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn Trilogy?
Matthew Crosby
>Chad R Orzel <oil...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>
>[a lot of stuff I'm gonna skip]
>
>>
>>>But it is more heartfelt, IMHO. I think it is better than 90% of other fantasy
>>>and well worth reading, especially if you liked his other stuff.
>
>Only 90%? I'd rank it higher, myself...
MHO is that GGK is one of the best fantasy authors writing today.
>
>>king, and Cinderella cheats on him with the stablehands...
>
>What, has she forgotten the dwarves so quickly?
>
>
>
>MINOR SPOILER FOR ARBONNE:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>Song for Arbonne I've only read once so I don't feel qualified to comment,
>>>really, except that the coincidence revealed at the end did something awful to
>>>my suspension of disbelief. But a brilliant world. Brilliant.
>>Which coincidence? The bit with Luth de Baud? (The archer guy, who was left
>>behind in the raid that opens the book...) Personally, I thought that was
>>brilliant...
I agree. Up until that very end you thing that the arrow thing was indeed
the goddess or some other weird deux-ex-machina. Just another example of
how well ggk twists conventional fantasy around.
>Yeah, it was a nicely-planned incident, at the least. I must admit I'd
>forgotten about him (just like I was supposed to, I guess). But was
>that really a makeable shot? How did he manage to account for the wind?
Don't forget he had been practicing a lot. I don't have my copy here, and
I don't recall if Kay gave a distance for it, but I don't recall being
struck that it was unreasonable.
>(Or, once the arrow was loosed, did the Goddess's hand guide it home? I
>rather hope not...)
Possible. The goddess definitely existed and did things, as evidenced
by the foresight of the priestesses if nothing else.
Anyone know if GGK has a new book on the drawing board? He's probably one
of the very few who I would buy in hardcover without reservation.
--
-Matt cro...@cs.colorado.edu
"Power corrupts; boycot electricity companies!"
Linda M Arbuckle
I've read with interest the discussion on GGKay's works as it was for just
this sort of debate I subscribed to this newsgroup. I'm fascinated by the
differing opinions.
For myself, I read Tigana first and thoroughly enjoyed it - I don't read a
lot of fantasy and I prefer it to be recommended to me before I buy it.
But Tigana was a present. After that I had to search 2nd-hand bookshops
to find FT. I loved it - leaving aside the corny crossing over from
contemporary times into the fantasy world (I haven't found this work for
me ever - in film or book but I'm open to any suggestions) - FT is my
favourite series.
Arbonne, however, I was disappointed with. It was excellently written and
a well put-together story but the coincidences at the end were too much
for me, maybe I'm too cynical.
I don't have time for much more, but I hope this dicussion continues.
Lind.a
Ruchira Datta
Linda M Arbuckle <L.M.Ar...@bradford.ac.uk> wrote:
>But Tigana was a present. After that I had to search 2nd-hand bookshops
>to find FT. I loved it - leaving aside the corny crossing over from
>contemporary times into the fantasy world (I haven't found this work for
>me ever - in film or book but I'm open to any suggestions) - FT is my
>favourite series.
I also often find this annoying. I found it irritating in _The Fionovar
Tapestry_, Terry Brooks's _Magic Kingdom For Sale: Sold_ trilogy, and
Jack Chalker's _River of the Dancing Gods_ trilogy. However, it
worked for me in Barbara Hambly's Windrose Chronicles trilogy. Her
mistakes about computers didn't bother me that much, and I think the
crossover itself worked. (For the record, I think "CP/M pixels"
was obviously a typo; it should have been "CP/M, pixels". There were
lots of typos in that book.) Also, _The Little Country_, by Charles
de Lint, has the magical coexisting within our own world, so it's
not precisely a crossover book, but anyway it too was well-done. Although
I dislike C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia for other reasons, that's
another case in which the crossover was not annoying.
Ruchira Datta
da...@math.berkeley.edu
N. Vivienne Shen
Williams didn't write _Watership Down_. Robert (?) Adams wrote that book.
Joe Uno Shaw
> Mike Arnautov <mla...@ggr.co.uk> wrote:
> >I agree with practically everything said so far, except that I found
> >_Tigana_ irritating -- a deeply flawed masterpiece. (For one thing I
> >couldn't make the major magical premise of the book work sensibly within
> >its own terms, but that's a separate subject.)
> The taking away of the name? (It doesn't need a spoiler heading, it's in
> the cover copy...) I dunno. It's hard to make it make sense, I guess, but
> if you can manage to suspend disbelief for a while, it's a pretty
> disturbing fate for a nation...
I have to agree with Mike on this. The basic premise was my biggest
problem with the book, which I quit reading after a couple hundred
pages because I ran out of sympathy for the characters and their
plights. I'm not saying the book is bad, just that I didn't like it.
I can understand why so many love the book, though. At times his
writing is simply beautiful; the prologue was wonderful. But for
me, it wasn't enough to keep me reading.
As you're so fond of saying, Oilcan, "Tastes Vary."
- Joe
Helmut Geyer
:>Williams didn't write _Watership Down_. Robert (?) Adams wrote that book.
Richard Adams. He did some other fantasy books, too, but I wouldn't recommend
them too much. While Watership Down was really a very good book, the other
books are only average fantasy (Shardik and Maia).
Helmut
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helmut Geyer Helmut...@iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Judy Ghirardelli
Well, since I have not heard my complaint about FT expressed here, I
guess I will tell it now.
I read Tigana first. I loved it. It sings. I then read FT. This is
what I did not like :
spoilers for the Fionavar Tapestry: (minor)
I just did not buy that all these people bought into the "I've been
sent to another world" so easily. I think Dave fought alittle, but
they don't really *think* much about it. "Oh, I'm in another world.
Ok, where do I get some weapons?" It was too accepted - I felt that
was very unbelievable. There is a realistic compromise between how
these people reacted and how Covenant reacts (I think Covenant's
disbelief is more believable than FT's people quick acceptance).
It annoyed me, but I got over it.
Then came Arthur. I thought that was kinda cool. I could deal with
that. Then came Lancelot. ... Ok, stretching it a bit, but I was
still enjoying it. Then when it turns out that Jennifer was Guinevere,
I just said "Oh, come ON!". That was too much for me.
Over all, I like the books okay. But I felt that they were less well done
than Tigana, and it was apparent that they were written before Tigana.
But I LOVE Tigana. I really liked Arbonne, but have only read it
once so far. My only complaint about that was that I saw some of the
surprises coming (not all though). maybe by then I was accustomed
to Kay's writing to be able to guess what would happen, but I was
a little disaapointed that I saw stuff coming.
I do agree that he is one of the best writers out there. I will
definitely buy whatever he writes next. But FT is my lest favorite
of his works. I think that if I had read it first, I might feel
different. Tigana spoiled me I think in that my expectations were
raised after reading it.
All in my opinion, of course.
Pam Korda
>I think you've received ample proof that plenty of Jordan fans like Tad
>Williams. I'm the only person I've heard of who likes Jordan but has gripes
>against Williams. His writings have been discussed three times in the past
>year on rasfw and I've said approximately the same things each time: the
>series drags in too many parts, certain major elements of the setting are
>poorly handled, and the ending was too abrupt.
>
>Heck, I'm almost the only person I've heard of who didn't think that _Memory,
>Sorrow, Thorn_ embodied the Second Coming of Christ.
Oh, was that what it was about? :) Seriously, I read MS&T this past
winter. I thought it was okay. Not the greatest books I've ever read,
in terms of EITHER 1) enjoyment gleaned from reading, or 2)
well-crafted literature, in fact, they weren't even up there. But they
weren't the worst by far. After all, I did read the whole series.
However, it did not inspire me to stay up reading, nor did it impress
me with the author's skill in worldbuilding/characterization/writing
style. I repeat what I've said before; they are worth reading once, if
you can't think of anything better to read, but I will not be
re-reading them. My problems with the series were:
1) Boring. There were a few parts that kept me reading, but they were
few and far between. Often, I'd put the book down, and not pick it up
again for days. The beginning of _Dragonbone Chair_ was the worst; if
the entire book had been like that, I never would have picked up the
sequel.
2) Williams showed very little imagination in cobbling together the
world of Osten Ard. So far as I could tell, he took Vikings, Medeival
Rome, Generic Medeivaloid Culture (Prester John's land), the Rohan
from Tolkein and plopped them all down in different parts of a map.
I'm sure he had some point in doing this, but I missed it, and I don't
want to go back and read all that again, just to try to figure it out.
The exception was the Elves, who I thought were very well done. I'm
sure my unappreciation of Williams worldbuilding will brand me as a
brainwashed heathen in the eyes of Scott "Juvenile" Davies, but oh
well. YMMV, to cop a phrase. (Oh, btw, I am NOT "semi-literate." In
fact, my awareness of history and legend is what made Williams'
world-cut-n-pasting so annoying to me. I just wanted to let y'all know
where I was coming from.)
3) The worst, for me, was the uneven characterization. Williams went
to a lot of trouble to create very three-dimensional characters, ones
that I really felt I knew. Then, he would have the characters act
completely opposite to what I would expect from them, simply to move
the plot along towards Williams' final goal. Example: Up until she got
on Aspitis' boat, Miriamele never acted like a pampered princess.
Rather, she was very practical and level-headed. Then, all of a
sudden, she was a complete wimp who couldn't cope for herself, landing
up as Aspitis' mistress because she felt "lost." Example 2: All those
Wise Guys couldn't figure out what the prophecy meant, when it was
apparent to me from the first time I read it. I could go on but I won't.
Pam "brainwashed, contempible, heathen, but I know what I like" Korda
ko...@kimbark.uchicago.edu
Dana Crom
I had seen _FT_ for sale in the bookshops, picked it up, read the blurbs and
a few pages from the middle, and said "Mph. Another Tolkien/Arthurian rip-
off." Totally wrote Kay off.
A year or so ago, I checked _A_Song_for_Arbonne_ out of my local branch
library. Read it, loved it - his writing has a poetry and sense of place
that is rare in writers of any genre.
Went down to my local bookshop and grabbed a copy of _Tigana_ (and bought
my own copy of _ASFA_, too) - again, I loved it. OK, maybe _FT_ *is* worth
reading - went and bought the trilogy.
The strange thing was, all my earlier feelings about _FT_ were true - but
it was *still* worth reading. Hidden in the mish-mosh of sources, and the
rather clumsy "crossover" theme, were the roots of the craft he would later
show in _Tigana_ and _ASFA_.
I view _FT_ as his test piece, the necessary practice that he needed to hone
his skills. Fortunately, he managed to get most of the dross out of his
system with _FT_ and find his own voice with _Tigana_.
--
-----------------------+------------------------+------------------------------
Dana Crom DoD #0679 | Silicon Graphics, Inc. | Smile - let them *WONDER*
da...@morc.mfg.sgi.com | (415) 390-1449 | what you've been up to . . .
A Adams
>> > One last thing about the epilogue. Yes I know real endings are not
>> > happy etc. However I think they could have ended off the book after the
>> > sister goes and kills herself. This would have given closure to the book.
>> > As it stands now though I feel the book is unfinished. Well maybe there
>> > will be a sequel but I hope not.
>> I agree with the others who think it was Kay's way to tell us that the
>> story goes on, and is never ending, even though we won't ever hear it.
If you think about it, he does a similar thing in The Fionovar
Tapestry, though in a less overt way. One of the last scenes
(the last? it's been a while since I read it) the two characters
who are returning to our Earth are talking about what to do when
they get back - as I recall
SPOILERS
Dave asks Kimberley for a date on Saturday, and Kim replies that she
doesn't even know when Saturday will be. Their lives will go on
in the real world, with many complications to do with the
disappearence of their friends.
--
TTFN, A^3 *************************E-mail*a...@scs.leeds.ac.uk********
************************************snail*Flat 18,26 Brudenell Road**
**"If you're not here to kick *******mail*Leeds,LS6 1BD,UK***********
**ass, get out." - jms ***************Tel*UK-0532 789237*************
Laura B. Geyer
to add my own $.02 about Memory, Sorrow and Thorn. Usually I just lurk about
and don't say much but this was both one of my favorite series recently and
at the same time the one that disappointed me the most.
A number of people have commented that they thought that _The Dragonbone
Chair_ dragged so much that they were bored and couldn't get into it. I felt
exactly the opposite. I was glad that Williams took his time and introduced
each of his characters slowly and let them develop. I didn't think it dragged
at all. In fact through the whole series I could barely put the books down.
That is also the reason that I was so pissed about _Towards Green Angel Tower_.
The thing was so huge that it did indeed begin to drag-mostly because he tried
to include too much. But even that could have bee justified with a sufficient-
ly grand and epic ending. What I was pissed about was that he put us through
all of that stuff and he wound it up into the most saccharine sweet, everyone
is happy and married, ending that I wanted to throw up. Plus the huge fore-
shadowing hint about Seoman's destiny was so obvious that I was sure that he
would have to put some twist on it- he couldn't possibly give away the end in
the first few chapters of the first book could he? Yep. He did.
My only problem with Memory Sorrow and Thorn was that it seemed like he tacked
that ending on to the story because he had gotten through three books and had
so many plotlines going that he didn't know how to resolve everything, so he
took the easiest way out. I could almost believe that if he didn't tell us
the ending in the first few chapters!
Any way, I needed to get that out. Sorry to add another, not too articulate
post to this already gargantuan thread, but it struck a sore spot.
Back to lurk mode-----
Sincerely,
Laura Geyer
lge...@bach.udel.edu
Don Harlow
>
>Didn't Williams come out with _Watership Down_ and _Tailchaser's Song_
I think that Richard Adams will be surprised when he hears this...
>prior to publishing the Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn Trilogy?
--
Don Harlow do...@netcom.com
Esperanto League for N.A. el...@netcom.com (800) 828-5944
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/elna/elna.html Esperanto
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/donh/donh.html
Pam Korda
>Didn't Williams come out with _Watership Down_ and _Tailchaser's Song_
>prior to publishing the Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn Trilogy?
ARGH! _Watership Down_ was NOT written by Tad Williams. That was my
favorite book when I was about 12; it was written by Richard Adams.
Pam Korda
ko...@kimbark.uchicago.edu
peter huebner
> I've read all of the Memory, Sorrow and Thorn trilogy, as well. I have
> [stuff deleted]
> While I don't regret having read the trilogy, I much preferred Kay's
> Fionavar Tapestry (to compare to another trilogy)...
>
Hmmm - I haven't finished M.S.&T. yet, but read all of the 'Fionawar'(sp!)
ones . . . first I was captivated by Kay's writing, style,
archetypes . . . when he started pulling Lance and Archie out of a
hat, though, I got _seriously_ turned off. Hope Williams doesn't
resort to such dubious devices in books 2&3 of M.S.&T.?!?!?
cheers, P.
From PlaNet: Public Terminal Hokianga
at Wekaweka Community Trust - PO Box Waimamaku, Northland, New Zealand.
ph +64-9-4058168
Soren Petersen
S. Kayande <skay...@comet.eche.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>Oh, and as for that Jordan flamebait. It seems to me, from people that I have
>talked to, that you either like Jordan and hate Williams, like Williams and
>hate Jordan, or hate both. I haven't met anyone who likes both authors. I
>was addicted to Jordan 10 pages into _The Eye of the World_. I really don't
>know why. And I don't think much of Tad Williams.
I like both. These days, I like Williams a bit moer than Jordan, but that
may be because the last Jordan was a little weak. I'm also the only person
in the world who thinks that *Memory, Sorrow and Thorn* was paced just fine,
with little or no padding, but that's a slightly different part of the
thread...
--
(I whispered that Word on the roof of the Trans-Satellite Power Station,
and caused my hirelings to commit two murders. And you know? I didn't
feel a thing.):
sope...@reed.edu
Soren Petersen
Pam Korda <ko...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>3) The worst, for me, was the uneven characterization. Williams went
>to a lot of trouble to create very three-dimensional characters, ones
>that I really felt I knew. Then, he would have the characters act
>completely opposite to what I would expect from them, simply to move
>the plot along towards Williams' final goal.
>Example: Up until she got
>on Aspitis' boat, Miriamele never acted like a pampered princess.
>Rather, she was very practical and level-headed. Then, all of a
>sudden, she was a complete wimp who couldn't cope for herself, landing
>up as Aspitis' mistress because she felt "lost."
I disagree, and thought that was well handled: sure she's practical
and level-headed. She's also seen her whole world collapse, she's
on the run, exhausted and has had to deal with a chronically unreliable
travelling companion. Enter Aspitis: a sexually attractive slimeball
who knows exactly how to play on her weakness, and voila!
She doesn't arbitrarily turn into a wimp--Aspitis quite deliberately turns
her into one. Big difference.
>Example 2: All those
>Wise Guys couldn't figure out what the prophecy meant, when it was
>apparent to me from the first time I read it. I could go on but I won't.
I didn't figure it out either, although I clearly should have...
David Serduke
>>>hate Jordan, or hate both. I haven't met anyone who likes both authors.
>>
>
>I also like both authors.
>
I thought they were both excellent (although I prefer Jordan). I tend to
like big books I can whiz through and then later read again.
ZarehHoneyLangridge
I too think that they're both excellent authors though I admit that I
prefer Jordan slightly. Williams' books can drag on a bit and the ending
to the whole Memory, Sorrow and Thorn series seemed a bit of an
anti-climax. Still, that aside, he writes well.
There aren't that many fantasy writers who can write as well as these
two (with the exception of Guy Gavriel Kay and Louise Cooper).
za...@Smallworld.co.uk (Zareh Langridge)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Dip me in honey and throw me to the lesbians
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The opinions expressed above are purely personal and not those of my employer
David Serduke
>pbl...@nofc.forestry.ca (Phil Blower) writes:
>
>Spoilers coming
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>I found was that GGK wimped out and didn't let Catriana die in her self-sacrifice.
>IMO it would have been more in tone with the rest of the book if she had died.
I disagree. I have found that GGK seems to feel free to kill of his
characters (within limits) and I really thought she was dead. So when
I found she wasn't I was really excited. I do agree that many fantasy
authors "kill" their characters only to come back later and still be
alive, but with GGK I find when one dies, I never know.
BTW, it did drive me crazy that no one would know that Valentine killed
Brandon!
--
David Serduke ser...@netcom.com
Juvena@kcbbs.gen.nz (Scott Davies (Juvena)
IR> >>Oh, and as for that Jordan flamebait.
Well, I have to thank whoever described my post in that scintillating
way. The only point is, they also lack the ability to discern when
something is set up as a _sitting duck_. The number of follow-on replies
has been enormous.
IR> >>talked to, that you either like Jordan and hate Williams, like W
IR> and
IR> >>hate Jordan, or hate both. I haven't met anyone who likes both
IR> >
IR> >Let me be your first counterexample.
IR> >Ruchira Datta
IR> And me your second, although we haven't actually met :)
I knew it. Along with all those people who say, "don't put down what I
read because I enjoyed it", we are also getting a lot of people who
can't decide and say they liked both RJ and TW. Stop sitting on the
fence! Even four-year-olds can discriminate in their reading.
There is definitely a disproportionate number of people who like both
authors, and a nasty bias of Jordan preferred to Williams. Come on M,S&T
fans, decry Jordan and win back your self-respect.
Juvenal
Kat Feline
Chronicles of Narnia, but if you want to read a bad example, try _The Woods Out
Back_ by R.A. Salvatore. It was so bad it was funny. I loved the part about
the wild hairy haggis (haggis is Scottish sausage (go watch Highlander)). I
I made my non-sf friend (she only watches mainstream SF shows (ST, Highlander
and QL (past-tense) read the passage and couldn't help myself. I said "if the
haggis is hairy, better throw it out." I thought she'd have a hernia.
Kat
Kent Worsnop
>read because I enjoyed it", we are also getting a lot of people who
>can't decide and say they liked both RJ and TW. Stop sitting on the
>fence! Even four-year-olds can discriminate in their reading.
I am older than 4 I can say that this is the truth. Let me make an analogy
for you. I like music many types. Now I don't truly have a favourite
group however I do like The Skydiggers and Harry Conick Jr. equally. Now
noone is going to say that these two people have any style in common. So
from what you just posted you're saying I can't like them equally and
am just being indecisive. It is the differences that attract me to both
these peoples music. This is just like why I like RJ and TW equally.
You see TW writes fluently, even beautifully. I get caught up in his
many descriptions. I get caught up in the many personalities and
philosophies of the characters. I get caught up in the blood feud going
on and the sorrow that has been brought. However I don't get caught
up in his world building. I don't get caught up in any intrigue.
I don't get caught up in wondering who someone is and what they will do.
However with RJ it is quite the opposite. I get caught up in the intrigue,
the world building and the mystery. However the descriptions, philosophies
and the sorrow might not be there. Now I like all aspects that I have
mentioned and thus I like both RJ and TW and get extremely different
views from both authors. Now I assume you are going to also tell me
that I can't like L.E. Moddesitt Jr. as well as RJ and TW. Well maybe
you should expand your views. The landscape looks better that way.
--
The Gold Dragon (ke...@chem.queensu.ca)