Wizard of Karres: surprisingly good
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
come off of re-reading _Witches_, and the segue was nearly seamless. I wonder
if Freer did the bulk of the writing, as I've read a fair bit of Flint and
have noticed some distinguishing traits in his prose which weren't here, and
the Lackey I've read has been very angsty which doesn't fit the Schmitz
tone at all.
I could quibble that the origin of The Leewit's name is a bit too
pat, or that I'm not sure Sedmon's six lives were what I expected,
or what Schmitz would have written, but the book is a delightful
romp, and maintains the original's lightness of tone very well,
despite the high body count.
Ted
Steve Smoot
> just come off of re-reading _Witches_, and the segue was nearly seamless.
Oh good, I just finished it, but didn't reread Witches - it seemed like a
bit of a jump to me, but clearly it had been too long.
> or what Schmitz would have written, but the book is a delightful
> romp, and maintains the original's lightness of tone very well,
> despite the high body count.
Exactly, it was a fun romp, which is one of the Schmitz reasons-to-read!
My quibbles were that there weren't enough unexpected yet retroactively
clear twists - there were a bunch of "twists for the protags" which were
announced ahead of time for the readers, and a couple of things that might
have been intended to be twists, but which were too obvious.
but fun.
-s
Eric Flint
"Ted Nolan <tednolan>" <t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote in message
news:cteWc.9939$N11....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Just finished this, and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. I had
just
> come off of re-reading _Witches_, and the segue was nearly seamless. I
wonder
> if Freer did the bulk of the writing, as I've read a fair bit of Flint and
> have noticed some distinguishing traits in his prose which weren't here,
and
> the Lackey I've read has been very angsty which doesn't fit the Schmitz
> tone at all.
At a rough estimate, I'd say that Dave Freer wrote about 65% of the first
draft, Misty Lackey about 25%, and I wrote the remaining 10%. My
contribution was mostly editing and a lot of rewriting and polishing all
through the text in the later drafts. That's become the standard method
that Dave and Misty and I use whenever we collaborate together, and it seems
to work well. Basically, the way we work is that after having developed an
outline together, Dave writes the first draft leaving aside certain chapters
or sections which we agreed ahead of time that Misty would write. In the
case of WIZARD OF KARRES, the main part Misty wrote in first draft was most
of the section regarding the circus (except for the fight scene toward the
end, which I wrote). Then the text comes to me and I do a lot of editing, a
lot of rewriting, and some expanding of scenes or sub-plots that seem to
need it.
Before Dave started, he typed out the first thirty or so pages of WITCHES OF
KARRES, to try to get Schmitz's style and word use down as well as he could.
A lot of what I did in the polishing during the second and third drafts was
much the same thing, based on several years of editing Schmitz. It's not
"perfect," of course, but all in all I think we did quite a good of keeping
the tone and spirit of Schmitz's novel, and kept fairly close to the actual
writing style as well.
We also kept all the plot ingredients that Schmitz had already set forth in
the last part of WITCHES, aside from some additions we had to make for the
story to work.
Eric
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Eric Flint <efl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>We also kept all the plot ingredients that Schmitz had already set forth in
>the last part of WITCHES, aside from some additions we had to make for the
>story to work.
>
>Eric
>
>
Yes, I noticed and appreciated that all the major characters (down to the
vatch introduced at the end of Witches) were Schmitz's. I also appreciate
that you "brought it all home" in one. I was about 20 pages from the end
and started thinking "they'll never wrap it up, and I'll have to wait a
year for the third book".
So, is this the end, or is more in the offing if sales hold up?
Ted
Harry Erwin
They actually worked better (imo) than Karres Venture (which was
basically a chase story all the way through, with Pausert getting
powered up).
--
Harry Erwin <http://www.theworld.com/~herwin>
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our
country and our people, and neither do we."--George W. Bush
Eric Flint
All three of us would certainly enjoy writing more books in the setting.
The setting and the characters are a lot of fun to work with, and the truth
is that the hardest part is behind us because we wrapped up just about all
the loose threads that Schmitz left hanging from WITCHES. The one major
exception, of course, being the ongoing quasi-romance between Goth and
Pausert. From here on, we'd be less constrained in terms of plot elements,
and while we'd obviously not want to introduce elements which were out of
key with Schmitz's setting, the setting is more than loose enough to give us
plenty of leeway.
That said, it will all depend on sales. Such is the cold reality of
commercial fiction. Until we have some sense of how the book is doing,
there's just no point in even raising it with the publisher. And we won't
know that for at least six months, since the distributors are still using
monks with quill pens to report sales downstream to the publishers and
authors. (Amazing how that works. I _know_ the big chain bookstores and
big distributors have computers to record their sales. But try prying the
information out of them if you're the one who wrote the book or published
it.)
Eric
Christopher Pound
I'm surprised Baen doesn't have paid access to Nielsen's BookScan service
(http://www.bookscan.com), which supposedly records 70-75% of all new book
sales instantly, including sales at many independent bookstores
(http://news.bookweb.org/news/1250.html). But given the trouble I'm having
in googling for it, I'm guessing the cost of access is outrageous.
Has anyone here seen their "proprietary website" or any of the "specialty
ad-hoc reports" they provide? How rich is the info?
Ha T. Nguyen
Wow, different strokes for different folks. I had been
planning to post a review rather different. I had severe problems
with this book. I love _Witches of Karres_ and I found this book
to be nothing like _Witches_. I found the characters superficially
similiar, but plot-wise, rather mediocre. Outside of the circus
section, the rest of the story was pretty boring to me. Lots of
things happening, but by the 5th possible catastrophe in 5 scenes,
I was thinking, yeah, yeah, yeah, enough of this already! I mean,
it was like a new catastrophe kept happening every minute. It
burned out my suspension of disbelief.
What bothered me the most was how Captain Pausert was treated
as The Hero. Unlike, _Witches_, where conflicts were resolved
using female and male interaction, in _Wizard_, everything is
resolved by Captain Pausert. The females in the story only exist to
admire/adore Captain Pausert. In _Witches_, for instance, Hillel
shoots the Agandar, Goth takes care of the female viper (I forget
her name - the one she turned to a pig), and The Leewit takes
care of Moandar.
In the _Wizard_, however, no female takes any independent action.
Instead, they're kidnapped by various groups and they're always
rescued by that hero of heroes, Captain Pausert, the Heroic Man
of Destiny. They even have one female character thinking how
admirable this man is for caring about The Leewit so much.
Bah, humbug! What's even worse is the implication about
Captain Pausert being a Wizard of Karres. He's not just a witch,
he's a Wizard!
Another problem I had with the plot, is in _Witch_, one of the throw
away lines is that the Empire is being affected by Moandar to be
against Karres. However, in this book, you find out that the Empire
is also being manipulated by yet another entity to be hostile to
Karres.
Poor Empire! Always being manipulated by evil, outside forces! They
just can't get a break from those nasty, invading, telepathic hordes.
Character-wise, The Leewit, although, initially starting out as The
Leewit, by the end, was pretty childish and as "cute" as a button and
such a "good" little girl. Which is so not like my impression of The
Leewit. Also, Goth is no longer a major, competent witch. She is
merely a jealous, incompetent teenage girl.
Again, bah, humbug! My recommendation? Get the book from the library
or wait for the paperback. Or, better yet, re-read _The Witches of
Karres_, and let your imagination work.
Eric Flint
"Christopher Pound" <po...@is.rice.edu> wrote in message
news:cgdtr4$grb$1...@joe.rice.edu...
The cost is indeed very high. Also, keep in mind that BookScan can say
whatever it wants. While this is nice information, it isn't "official"
until the book chain and/or distributor says it is, and until it is neither
the publisher nor the author gets any money.
From what I've been able to tell after some seven years of being published,
here's how it works:
1) Megabucks Books records all sales in their stores that day all over the
world instantaneously using modern computer technology.
2) The information, after being recorded in THEIR books, is then printed
out.
3) Once a month or so, the accumulated print-outs are shipped via cargo
container on the slowest freight ship available to Buenos Aires.
4) They are then packed via burro across the spine of the Andes and taken to
a small monastery on the slopes of Mt. Aconcagua.
5) Here, a handful of octogenarian monks incribe the information into
illuminated manuscripts. ONLY THEN DOES THE INFORMATION BECOME "OFFICIAL."
6) Of course, it still has to be sent back using the same methods of
transport before Megabucks Books will finally announce "official sales" and
cut a check.
If the above seems sarcastic, it is. This is an industry which, when it's
convenient to those high up in the food chain, is cheerfully prepared to
maintain medieval methods of accounting. It's a real pain in the butt for
authors, and not much better for publishers.
Eric
Eric Flint
news:7c5f2d3b.04082...@posting.google.com...
I normally don't respond to criticisms of my novels, because I figure people
have the inalienable right to dislike my writing (and me, for that matter)
and it's pointless to argue matters of opinion. I do make a few exceptions,
however, when the "reviewer" is guilty of either lying or tendentious
distortions which are so gross that they amount to lying. And that's the
case here. The person who posted this, Ha T. Nguyen, has been one of my
sharpest critics for years with regard to the way I edit Schmitz, and it's
blindingly obvious that his "review" is just about as objective and faithful
to the facts as you'd expect from someone with an ax to grind. So let's get
to it:
1) First of all, the character who shoots the Agandar is Hulik do Eldel, not
"Hillel" - a fact I raise because it gives a pretty good idea of how shoddy
the reviewer's memory is concerning Schmitz's novel. (I really get a kick
out of people who swear how much they love a novel and can't abide a poor
sequel - but can't even remember such basic facts as the names of major
characters.)
As for the rest of the above, in reverse order:
2) While it is true that The Leewit "takes care" of Moandar, Nguyen
conveniently neglects to mention that it is Pausert who takes care of the
Worm World and the Lyrd-Hyrier. And it is _that_ action - by Pausert, not
The Leewit - that completely scrambles the giant vatch's plans.
3) Yes, Goth takes care of Sunnat - but, again, Nguyen conveniently neglects
to mention that in the entire next episode of the novel, which comprises
about 1/3 of its length, she is effectively comatose the entire time and
plays no role whatsoever.
4) Furthermore, during that same episode - the Agandar adventure - it is
characteristic of his "review" that he isolates out only _one_ element of
it: Hulik's shooting of the Agandar. He conveniently neglects to mention
that throughout that adventure it is consistently Pausert who leads the way.
Hulik, in contrast, is morose and despairing to the point of being almost
non-functional at times. It is true that she manages to summon up her
marksmanship at a critical moment, but the fact remains that without Pausert
to lead her she'd have been dead meat.
> In the _Wizard_, however, no female takes any independent action.
Well, to call things by their right name, that is simply a lie. Examples:
(Since we're now going to talk about WIZARD, I'll put it in a spoiler
warning space here)
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
W
A
R
N
I
N
G
To begin with, I need to dispel Nguyen's assiduously cultivated myth that in
WITCHES OF KARRES the female characters were supposedly acting independently
on frequent occasions. In point of fact, they do not. For all that
Schmitz usually wrote stories with female characters as the heroines, he was
quite capable of writing stories with male heroes. ("Lion Loose," to give
just one example.) Whichever way he went, however, one of the reasons he
was an excellent writer is because he kept the story focused on the lead
character, instead of letting it dissolve. Pausert and no one else is
_also_ the hero of WITCHES OF KARRES. Almost everything revolves around
him, and even in those (few) instances where female characters take
important action - such as Goth's witching of Sunnat, Hulik's shooting of
the Agandar, or The Leewit's shriek-busting of Moandar's setup - they are
(with the partial exception of Goth's foiling of Sunnat's plan) acting
directly as Pausert's sidekicks.
That said, here are instances in our sequel where female characters take
independent action - and, be it said, action which in several instances is
more independent than anything that takes place in WITCHES:
a) When Pausert gets accidentally thrown off the moonlet where they are
trying to hide, it is Goth who rescues him, not the other way around.
b) Hulik do Eldel independently works out the scheme that _would_ have
rescued Pausert from the jail in Gerota Town, except that Pausert gets out
himself (with the two witches) and lands in a trap. So far from it being
Pausert who "rescues the damsel," he's the one who screws up.
c) In the scene which follows, while Pausert protects Goth and The Leewit
with his magic, it is Hulik again - still acting independently - who starts
shooting the mercenaries. In short, SHE rescues HIM, not the other way
around. Be it noted that throughout this episode, Hulik is acting far more
independently than she did in the equivalent Agandar episode in WITCHES OF
KARRES.
d) No sooner do they get back to the ship than they discover that Hantis has
_also_ been acting independently, and she and Pul have already secured the
ship from the ISS agents.
e) That done, they make their escape using the Sheewash Drive - which is
done by the two girl witches, not Pausert. In fact, as the reader
eventually discovers, the reason the Sheewash Drive has been so erratic is
because Pausert has been screwing it up by interfering with them.
f) It is Hulik, not Pausert, who comes up with the plan to hide themselves
aboard the lattice ship.
g) When they try to talk their way into the circus ship's company, it is
Goth who initially demonstrates their abilities. When Pausert follows her
example, he partially screws up.
All right, I'm going to stop here because this gets tedious. Keep in mind
that all of the examples I've given above - no fewer than seven of them -
take place in the first third of the novel. In later parts of the novel,
the independent action of the female characters increases considerably. To
give just two examples, the entire episode on Nartheby revolves around
Hantis, not Pausert - and the next most important character acting
independently in that episode is The Leewit.
In short, Nguyen's "review" on this issue is simply a tendentious piece of
bunkum. Frankly, I don't think he even finished the sequel, if he read it
at all. And if he did read it all the way thorugh, he obviously did so with
an ax to grind - and his depiction of Schmitz's original novel is every bit
as shoddy.
> Instead, they're kidnapped by various groups and they're always
> rescued by that hero of heroes, Captain Pausert, the Heroic Man
> of Destiny.
Well, again, that's simply a lie. I've already given examples above, but I
will add that nobody has to "rescue" The Leewit after she's captured by the
three agents of Delaron on Nartheby. She does a very fine job of rescuing
herself, thank you. (See below.) Just as Hantis saves herself from murder
at the hands of Lord Nalin. Pausert is nowhere around in that scene either.
Leaving aside all the above, Nguyen's yapping on this issue also illustrates
the fact that - as I've found is consistently true of the big majority of
self-appointed "defenders of James Schmitz" who attack me - his own
knowledge of Schmitz's writings is abysmal everywhere except in his own
self-opinion.
I say that because only someone whose knowledge of Schmitz is as spotty and
self-serving as Nguyen's could fail to note that the theme of female
characters getting rescued by males is hardly alien to Schmitz. He did it
all the time, in his writings. Just to name some examples, even leaving
WITCHES OF KARRES aside:
-- Quillan rescues Trigger no fewer than four separate times in LEGACY: from
assassins early in the novel, from the fake catassin aboard the space liner,
from the Ermetyne's torturers, and from the giant bat. (Okay, granted, the
bat turned out to be harmless - but neither of them knew it at the time.)
-- Quillan also rescues Deetal Restone from torture in "Lion Loose."
-- Young Cord rescues Grayan Mahoney and the Regent Dane from the
transformed raft in "Grandpa."
-- Frazer rescues Lane Rawlings from the Nachief of Frome in "Blood of
Nalakia." Granted, Frazer later turns out to be a villain and Lane does him
in herself. My point is certainly not that Schmitz's female characters were
"helpless." They most certainly weren't -- but that doesn't mean that they
didn't need to be rescued by males any number of times. And return the
favor, of course -- BOTH of which happen in our sequel to WITCHES OF KARRES,
which is exactly how Schmitz handled the matter.
-- Wellan Dasinger rescues Duomart Mines from a beating at the beginning of
"The Star Hyacinths." True enough, she intervenes in the ensuing fight
between Dasinger and the villain and conks him with a wrench -- but if
Dasinger hadn't rescued her in the first place, she'd have been in no
position to do so. THAT is the real "tradition" of James Schmitz.
Oh, bah. I could go on and on but, as I said, it gets tedious. The
independence and capabilities of female characters in Schmitz's work is
certainly real enough, but it's light years removed from the sort of
politically correct macho-in-reverse fake-feminism that Nguyen is trying to
foist on him. I might mention, in this regard, that while Schmitz is
well-known for having been one of the few authors of his day to use heroines
as the central characters in action stories, one of his _other_
characteristics is that there is no other writer in the history of SF - with
the obvious exception of John Norman, if you want to consider him an "SF"
writer instead of a porn writer - who so regularly and frequently placed
female characters in situations of bondage, often enough either naked or
half-naked. Guy Gordon and I once, out of amusement, counted up the number
of times that happens in his writings. Thirteen, as I recall. Yet I can
guarantee you that if Dave Freer and Misty Lackey and I had put such a
bondage scene in WIZARD OF KARRES, self-appointed "defenders of Schmitz"
like Nguyen would scream bloody murder and claim we were "untrue to the
master."
>They even have one female character thinking how
> admirable this man is for caring about The Leewit so much.
And... this is a problem how?
>
> Bah, humbug! What's even worse is the implication about
> Captain Pausert being a Wizard of Karres. He's not just a witch,
> he's a Wizard!
Well, this is just silly. The logic of the distinction is explained in the
novel.
> Another problem I had with the plot, is in _Witch_, one of the throw
> away lines is that the Empire is being affected by Moandar to be
> against Karres. However, in this book, you find out that the Empire
> is also being manipulated by yet another entity to be hostile to
> Karres.
>
> Poor Empire! Always being manipulated by evil, outside forces! They
> just can't get a break from those nasty, invading, telepathic hordes.
This criticism I will leave aside, since it falls in the category of
personal opinion rather than fact. I will simply point out that a supremely
powerful and always-competent Empire would... not make for really good
stories, now would it?
> Character-wise, The Leewit, although, initially starting out as The
> Leewit, by the end, was pretty childish and as "cute" as a button and
> such a "good" little girl. Which is so not like my impression of The
> Leewit.
My reaction to this remark is to wonder if Nguyen even read the book at all.
As I said above, I doubt it very much - or, if he did, he read it with such
an ax to grind that he was blind to what was on the pages right in front of
him. Here's an example of The Leewit's attitude taken from a passage almost
at the very end of the book - by which time, according to Nguyen, she is
acting "cute" and like a "good" little girl:
"Who are you?" demanded the Leewit, looking around the room.
It had a very high ceiling and was full of beautiful and delicate ornaments.
The Sprite's slanted eyebrows went up. "I would have thought
it was quite obvious, small alien. We are spies from Delaron. We want to
know what you're doing here, and just where you're from."
The Leewit rolled her eyes. "Clumping stupid!" She gave the
Sprite an accusing glare. He seemed a bit befuddled.
That mollified the Leewit. A bit.
Of course, it didn't mollify her enough to be cooperative.
She was the Leewit, after all.
So she did what she normally did when she was in trouble.
Went straight up. She still weighed a lot less than the Sprites, and she'd
spotted a high shelf full of obviously very precious bric-a-bracs. Before
her three captors knew quite what was going on, she was on the shelf. Of
course, most Sprites could levitate also. But there wasn't going to be any
of that fragile glass and crystal stuff left by the time they caught her.
"Hey! Come down! Come down or you'll be sorry!" said the one
with the bitten fingers. "Here, Wellpo. Make her come down before she bumps
anything off there."
The Leewit shaped her lips into a whistle. One of her best
and favorite.
It worked even better on the Sprites than on the people she'd
tried it on before. Bones in the ears weren't... what was the word-flexible.
They wouldn't shatter in there, but they did hurt.
The three doubled up, holding their ears. Just to keep in
practice, she blew a beautiful shatterer at a display of rose and amethyst
crystals on the table. It exploded very nicely.
But when the Leewit saw the look of fury on the face of the
one who had threatened to stick a knife into her, she realized she wasn't
high enough. There was a narrow chimney-like opening in one corner of the
ceiling. It was made up of mirrors and had a skylight, and there was a small
sill at the top that she could perch on. Best of all, even if they could
levitate, none of the Sprites were going to fit into the mirror-chimney.
The Leewit scooted up. It was a tight fit even for her and it
wasn't very comfortable. But then, from the angry sounds the Sprites were
making, it would be a lot less comfortable down there.
A questing arm came feeling upward. When it found the ledge,
the Leewit stepped on the fingers as hard as she could.
"Oww!" The fingers vanished.
"Leave her, Luwis," said one of the other kidnapers. "She'll
have to come down sooner or later."
"That's well enough for you, Wellpo. Why did we not take her
to your chambers? You don't have skylighting."
"For two reasons, as I already explained to you. First, it's
too far away. Secondly, it is near that stiff-necked old Laar's chambers.
Given what that ass Nalin accused Laar of, that area of Aloorn is almost
bound to be searched."
"But she has smashed my precious crystal sculpture-work.
Smashed it!"
"She'll come down in time."
"I'll murder her!"
The Leewit giggled and whistled again. It was hard to be
directional from here, but by the howl of anguish... she'd gotten lucky. And
once the howl died away, she could hear the tinkling sounds of a glass
ornament raining little pieces of its former self onto the floor.
Still, they were quite right. She couldn't stay up here
forever. She was pretty tired, and starting to get hungry. She looked at the
tiny chimney-like space she was wedged in. It was nothing more than a long
tube with a window at the top. She peered out the window, but there wasn't
much that she could see. It was dark out there.
But she knew they must be high up. Going out, this high off
the ground, was scary. But... not as scary as going down, or trying to stay
here until she fell.
So she whistled at the window.
All that did was make her ears ring. Angrily, the Leewit
struck the window with her little fist.
The skylight opened right up, as neatly as you please. She
must have hit a release of some kind that she hadn't even noticed.
Sticking her head out, she could see much better. It was less
dark outside than she'd thought. The window must have been filtered. Best of
all, this wasn't an opening over a sheer drop to the ground below-the window
opened onto the roof. In an scrambling instant, the Leewit was out of the
hole and onto the rooftops.
Someone else would have started their escape immediately. Not
the Leewit. She turned, stuck her face back though the skylight window, and
sent a real crystal-shattering whistle down into the chamber. Then, her
shrill and powerful voice overrode the howls and splintering sounds below.
The Leewit bestowed upon the Sprites any number of descriptions of
themselves, using terms she'd picked up since their voyage began. Most of
them were in the Sprites' own language, selected from the terms Hantis had
bestowed on the little Sprite Muck-a-Muck. But the term beelzit was
scattered freely throughout.
Then she closed the skylight and started crawling away across
the steep rooftops.
"Boy, I hope the captain doesn't find out," she muttered. "I'
ll be eating soap for a clumping year."
I rest my case. I will add that it is certainly true that, in our sequel,
we often portray The Leewit in softer and more child-like colors than
Schmitz did. (Her unabashed pleasure in being a clown in the circus, for
instance.) The reason is simple. The Leewit, in the original novel, is a
minor character. In the sequel, she develops into a major secondary
character. (Just to give one example, in our sequel The Leewit has a long
independent adventure of her own - something which never happens in Schmitz'
s original novel.) The one-dimensional, charming-nasty characteristics of
The Leewit as portrayed in WITCHES work just fine, given her short time on
stage in that novel. But it would start wearing awfully thin if we'd
maintained it as is in the sequel.
Now, Nguyen is certainly entitled to dislike our portrait of The Leewit.
What he is not entitled to do is lie about it. Whatever _other_ colors we
chose to paint The Leewit in, it is simply a damn lie to claim that we
eliminated the characteristics Schmitz gave her - as the long passage I
cited above from our novel should make clear to anyone who is prepared to be
evenly remotely objective about it.
>Also, Goth is no longer a major, competent witch. She is
> merely a jealous, incompetent teenage girl.
To describe Goth as a "major, competent witch" in WITCHES OF KARRES is
another example of Nguyen's tendentious distortion of that novel to make it
fit his bias. In point of fact, the Goth's track record in Schmitz's novel
is a very mixed bag. At _some_ points, she is indeed extremely capable. At
others, however, she is very much a girl who needs to be rescued or helped
along. (So is The Leewit.)
For Pete's sake. The WHOLE DAMN NOVEL starts with Goth and The Leewit
needing to be rescued by Pausert from slavery. Is it too much to ask Nguyen
to remember _that_ much about a novel he "loves"? I'd like him to explain
how, if Goth is "a major, competent witch," she would need to be rescued at
all. Her mother Toll certainly wouldn't have needed to be rescued by
Pausert. Nor is that the only instance of Goth's on-and-off competence
(which is exactly what you'd expect in a witch as young as she is). By far
the longest adventure in WITCHES OF KARRES is the fight with the Agandar -
during most of which Goth is completely incapacitated.
As far as Nguyen's depiction of our portrayal of Goth in the sequel goes, it
is every bit as tendentious. Yes, we certainly did, at times, portray Goth
as being insecure and jealous regarding Pausert. If we hadn't, that whole
odd relationship which Schmitz _began_ to develop in WITCHES but never
continued would have just gotten to be a stale Johnny-one-note business.
But the rest of it is simply another lie. There are any number of instances
in WIZARD OF KARRES where Goth acts independently and effectively. And not
just as a witch, either. Just to give one example, Goth has become the
effective manager of the whole Venture enterprise and negotiates their
contracts, even though she's still only twelve years old.
I'd start listing all the examples, but enough is enough.
Nguyen, like anybody, is entitled to his low opinion of our sequel. Given
his long-standing hostility to my editing of Schmitz - which he's expressed
here any number of times over a period of years - I'm simply puzzled why he
bothered to read it at all. (If he did. For the reasons explained above, I
have my doubts.)
What he is not entitled to do is lie about it.
Eric
aRJay
<efl...@comcast.net> writes
not it's predecessor but it does not do harm to it's origins. However I
was slightly disappointed in the portrayal of Goth, I don't know what it
was it just felt as if she was slightly short changed.
Possibly it was that all the other characters surrounding Pausert were
developed more.
I am despite this quibble most impressed by how well the three of you
did with what was always going to be a controversial project.
--
aRJay
"In this great and creatorless universe, where so much beautiful has
come to be out of the chance interactions of the basic properties of
matter, it seems so important that we love one another."
- Lucy Kemnitzer
Ha T. Nguyen
> "Ha T. Nguyen" <htn...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
> news:7c5f2d3b.04082...@posting.google.com...
> >
You are being silly. I have never, ever criticized your earlier Schmitz
books. I have bought and read all your books until you turned me off
your writing with your inappropiate responses to valid
criticisms in this group. I did criticize another of your books, _1632_,
which, considering, the amount of people who had trouble with it, I am
just amazed that you can manage to remember my one or two posts.
I have no ax to grind with you about Schmitz. I just love _Witches_, and
so I read _Wizard_ with high hopes that it would be good. However,
the story pissed me off.
>
>
> 1) First of all, the character who shoots the Agandar is Hulik do Eldel, not
> "Hillel" - a fact I raise because it gives a pretty good idea of how shoddy
> the reviewer's memory is concerning Schmitz's novel. (I really get a kick
> out of people who swear how much they love a novel and can't abide a poor
> sequel - but can't even remember such basic facts as the names of major
> characters.)
>
Name, name, what is name? Just 'cause I love a book doesn't mean I
remember names. I've always wished that I could be telepathetic so
I could just reference a person with a picture rather than a name.
>
> As for the rest of the above, in reverse order:
>
>
>
> 2) While it is true that The Leewit "takes care" of Moandar, Nguyen
> conveniently neglects to mention that it is Pausert who takes care of the
> Worm World and the Lyrd-Hyrier. And it is _that_ action - by Pausert, not
> The Leewit - that completely scrambles the giant vatch's plans.
>
>
I did say, did I not, that _Witches_ was solved with FEMALE and MALE
interaction? Not just male. Damn it, read what I wrote!
>
> 3) Yes, Goth takes care of Sunnat - but, again, Nguyen conveniently neglects
> to mention that in the entire next episode of the novel, which comprises
> about 1/3 of its length, she is effectively comatose the entire time and
> plays no role whatsoever.
>
She still did more stuff in that one section than she did in the entire
book of _Wizard_.
>
>
> 4) Furthermore, during that same episode - the Agandar adventure - it is
> characteristic of his "review" that he isolates out only _one_ element of
> it: Hulik's shooting of the Agandar. He conveniently neglects to mention
> that throughout that adventure it is consistently Pausert who leads the way.
> Hulik, in contrast, is morose and despairing to the point of being almost
> non-functional at times. It is true that she manages to summon up her
> marksmanship at a critical moment, but the fact remains that without Pausert
> to lead her she'd have been dead meat.
>
Again, FEMALE and MALE interaction.
>
>
> > In the _Wizard_, however, no female takes any independent action.
>
>
>
> Well, to call things by their right name, that is simply a lie. Examples:
>
>
>
> (Since we're now going to talk about WIZARD, I'll put it in a spoiler
> warning space here)
>
>
>
>
>
> S
>
> P
>
> O
>
> I
>
> L
>
> E
>
> R
>
>
>
> W
>
> A
>
> R
>
> N
>
> I
>
> N
>
> G
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To begin with, I need to dispel Nguyen's assiduously cultivated myth that in
> WITCHES OF KARRES the female characters were supposedly acting independently
> on frequent occasions. In point of fact, they do not. For all that
> Schmitz usually wrote stories with female characters as the heroines, he was
> quite capable of writing stories with male heroes.
Yes, that is why I like Schmitz, and I feel that your writing group
seriously failed in this endeavour.
>
>
>
> That said, here are instances in our sequel where female characters take
> independent action - and, be it said, action which in several instances is
> more independent than anything that takes place in WITCHES:
>
>
>
> a) When Pausert gets accidentally thrown off the moonlet where they are
> trying to hide, it is Goth who rescues him, not the other way around.
>
Right after Pausert AGAIN heroically saves the crew. Goth just saved Pausert.
>
>
> b) Hulik do Eldel independently works out the scheme that _would_ have
> rescued Pausert from the jail in Gerota Town, except that Pausert gets out
> himself (with the two witches) and lands in a trap. So far from it being
> Pausert who "rescues the damsel," he's the one who screws up.
>
>
Again, that proves my point. Hulik was useless because Pausert again
manages to save the day without her aid. Nothing she did helped
rescue Pausert, Goth and The Leewit. Pausert did that.
>
> c) In the scene which follows, while Pausert protects Goth and The Leewit
> with his magic, it is Hulik again - still acting independently - who starts
> shooting the mercenaries. In short, SHE rescues HIM, not the other way
> around. Be it noted that throughout this episode, Hulik is acting far more
> independently than she did in the equivalent Agandar episode in WITCHES OF
> KARRES.
>
And, who killed the main pirate? Pausert in a dazzling fencing duel.
Who managed to outfight the 2nd in command of that most fearsome
pirate, Agandar, by a bar room brawling feat that any experienced
fighter should have been able to counter. This was a stupid fight
that Pausert only won with the aid of visible deus ex machina. The
pirates were defeated only AFTER Pausert killed the main pirate. So,
what Hulik did, was again, pretty fricking useless.
>
>
> d) No sooner do they get back to the ship than they discover that Hantis has
> _also_ been acting independently, and she and Pul have already secured the
> ship from the ISS agents.
>
IN AN ASIDE?! YOU CALL THIS BEING PART OF THE STORY?! We did not follow
Hantis and Pul in their story. I cry foul. You cannot use them as an
example.
>
>
> e) That done, they make their escape using the Sheewash Drive - which is
> done by the two girl witches, not Pausert. In fact, as the reader
> eventually discovers, the reason the Sheewash Drive has been so erratic is
> because Pausert has been screwing it up by interfering with them.
>
>
You know, I never said that Pausert never screwed up. I just said, the
this book makes Pausert to be the Heroic Man of Destiny. Even Heroic
Men of Destiny have small flaws.
Now, this is really where you people screwed up. Yes, The Leewit rescues
herself by a pair of bumbling fools only to be put in danger later by
the real bad guys from whom she HAD to be rescued by that Heroic Man of
Destiny. This whole setup seemed to drive toward piling admiration and
glory upon Pausert while making out The Leewit to be a pathetic, little
child.
The littlest Witch, sleeping all alone in the dark, scared, frightened?
Bah, humbug. That is not The Leewit.
>
> Leaving aside all the above, Nguyen's yapping on this issue also illustrates
> the fact that - as I've found is consistently true of the big majority of
> self-appointed "defenders of James Schmitz" who attack me - his own
> knowledge of Schmitz's writings is abysmal everywhere except in his own
> self-opinion.
>
>
>
I'm going to snip a lot, because, you definitely did not read what I
wrote.
BTW, I am an avid female Sci-Fi reader who doesn't have a problem with
male heros. For instance, I've just read and enjoyed Neal Asher books
which, while having kick-ass heros, don't do too well in the female
heroics department.
However, when I read Schmitz Karres universe, I want a balance of
male and female competence.
I did not get this balance in _The Wizard of Karres_.
You know, it's very tiring talking to you. You really suck at
reading comprehension and you like to insult people.
>
>
> >They even have one female character thinking how
> > admirable this man is for caring about The Leewit so much.
>
>
>
> And... this is a problem how?
>
This is not how Schmitz writes. He is not sentimental. Unfortunately,
your writing group is.
[snip]
--
Ha
Eric Flint
"aRJay" <aR...@escore.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:K1H2nt+M...@escore.demon.co.uk...
Well, that's part of it, certainly -- although there may well remain a
residue, if you will, of something about our characterization of Goth that
you didn't like or thought was weak. I've now gotten responses from a lot
of people since the novel came out, and what I've found is that while most
people seem to like the novel there's always _something_ about it that
strikes them as a bit off. :) This is actually a good sign for a novelist,
because it's true of any novel -- and the key is that the specific things
which Person A thinks is weak is the same thing that Person B thought was
very good. In short, we've now entered the realm of personal taste, which
is not something any author can affect. What would bother me would be if a
lot of people had the same criticism. That's usually an indication that
there's a real problem with the book which goes beyond personal taste.
I'd agree with you that Goth is not as central in the sequel as she was in
WITCHES, but that's due to the fact that WITCHES has basically two main
characters and our sequel has half a dozen: Pausert, Goth, The Leewit,
Hantis, Hulik and Sedmon. And the reason for that was not any arbitrary
decision on our part, it was simply that that's the adventure that _Schmitz_
left us with at the end of WITCHES. Well... okay, not quite. I admit that
Schmitz didn't give any indication at the end of his novel that Hulik and
Sedmon would be major characters in the ensuing adventure. But he left so
many loose ends regarding those two characters that we felt we really ought
to include them in the story.
By the way, by far the biggest source of criticisms of our novel -- well,
more in the way of mild grumbling than harsh criticism -- was the solution
we adopted for the "Sedmon of the Six Lives" business. Just about
everybody, it seems, has their own favorite answer to that question. :) We
considered several of them before finally adopting the one we did.
> I am despite this quibble most impressed by how well the three of you
> did with what was always going to be a controversial project.
I think we did a good job, myself. So far, at least, Nguyen is the only
person I've seen -- either here or anywhere else -- who expresses a sharply
hostile attitude toward the novel. (And I already said what I had to say
about that, and I'm not going to bother continuing the discussion with him
because it's a pure waste of time to argue with somebody grinding an ax.) I
think a lot of people were expecting a travesty, or at least worrying about
it, and were pleasantly surprised to discover that the sequel was both
faithful to the spirit of Schmitz's story and was an enjoyable story in its
own right. From there, of course, mileage varies. Some people thinks it's
okay, others like it a lot.
This is not typical, certainly. The truth is that _I_ think most
written-by-somebody-else sequels to an original novel are pretty lame.
Sometimes it's because the writer wasn't up to snuff, but mostly it's
because writing such a sequel poses a special challenge which is not easy to
deal with. On the one hand, the natural inclination of any writer is to
shape a story to suit his or her skills and interests, because that normally
produces the best kind of story for them. On the other hand, if they do
that in such an instance they run the risk of diverging so far from the
original story that readers are unhappy about it. It's... tricky. When I
wrote THE TYRANT, I had to finish a story that was begun by Steve Stirling
and wrestled with the problem. In that instance, I decided to solve it by
telling the sequel from a 90 degree angle, so to speak: I made Demansk the
central character of the sequel instead of Adrian. That enabled me to
sidestep the problem fairly neatly. But, of course, some readers were
unhappy about it.
I think the key is to make sure you pick the right story in the first place.
I was confident, given who the three authors were and the way we worked
together, that we could handle a sequel to WITCHES OF KARRES and do a good
job of it. On the other, I wouldn't have even considered trying to write a
novel-length sequel to the Telzey adventures. Why? It's hard to say,
exactly. It's just that I knew we'd be comfortable in the Karres setting
and working with the Karres characters, being able to tell our own story
without mangling Schmitz, whereas I don't think that would be true in any
Telzey sequel.
Eric
Harry Erwin
>
> I think the key is to make sure you pick the right story in the first place.
> I was confident, given who the three authors were and the way we worked
> together, that we could handle a sequel to WITCHES OF KARRES and do a good
> job of it. On the other, I wouldn't have even considered trying to write a
> novel-length sequel to the Telzey adventures. Why? It's hard to say,
> exactly. It's just that I knew we'd be comfortable in the Karres setting
> and working with the Karres characters, being able to tell our own story
> without mangling Schmitz, whereas I don't think that would be true in any
> Telzey sequel.
>
> Eric
1. I think both Goth and the Leewit come across as too old. I suspect
JHS had specific children in mind who he used as the models for those
characters.
2. I think your general plot was better than what Gharlane told me about
Karres Venture.
3. I think JHS was aware that he tended to overpower his protagonists,
and that tension is apparent in his Telzey stories. Also, I suspect he
had a model in mind for Telzey.
4. Take someone you know who is really competent, put them in the Hub
universe, and write about how they cope--I suspect you will get a good
original story.
Frank O'Donnell
Some offbeat oddities from the new novel The Witch of Greenwich
Village:
 Meditation, acclaimed for its ability to clear the mind and
promote creativity was, in primitive times, used for revolting
purposes and is still employed by obscure cults for obscene rituals.
 There are sixteen chapters in the Old Testament that mention
dreams. Overall there are about seventy references to drams in the
Bible.
 Plato and Aristotle thought dreams prophetic; Cicero was a
skeptic.
 The oldest dream book extant is an Egyptian papyrus by
Medineth, dated 2000,BC.
 There are eight documented cases of people who dreamed of the
sinking of the Titanic before it happened.
 The night before it took place Lincoln dreamed he was going
to be assassinated.
 Dickens dreamed he was going to meet a lady named Miss Napier
and that she would be wearing a red shawl. Who shows up the very next
evening, red shawl and all? – you got it – good old Miss Napier.
 In 1929 Edgar Cayce dreamed beforehand that the stock market
would crash.
 The renowned psychiatrist Carl Jung believed that dreams
foretold the future and put people in touch with "the collective
unconscious of the human species." Adler emphasized the "anticipatory
and compensatory function of dreams."
If you found the above interesting please forward to your address
book, and if you liked Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist, The Other and
Burnt Offerings please visit www.thewitchofgreenwichvillage.com for a
synopsis and an excerpt from The Witch of Greenwich Village, by Frank
O'Donnell The book is also available on line as an E Book.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
So how about the name "Himbo Peety"? (That's close, I don't have the book
with me).
Was that a "tribute" to the old circus comic strip "P.T. Bimbo"? (And of
course, the P.T. in that was a tribute to P.T. Barnum..)
Ted
aRJay
<efl...@comcast.net> writes
>By the way, by far the biggest source of criticisms of our novel -- well,
>more in the way of mild grumbling than harsh criticism -- was the solution
>we adopted for the "Sedmon of the Six Lives" business. Just about
>everybody, it seems, has their own favorite answer to that question. :) We
>considered several of them before finally adopting the one we did.
My take on this was (Rot13) gung Frqzba gur Fvkgu (bs gur Fvk Yvirf) jnf
gur fnzr crefba nf uvf 5 cerqrprffbef, rvgure ol vzzbegnyvgl be
fbzrguvat zber zntvpnl.
Thinking about this there was one comment about the surgeons Sedmon used
to arrange things that would allow my take to be partially true while
still fitting in with your version.
N anfgl gubhtug whfg bppheerq gb zr, vs gur guerr bs lbh jnagrq gb
fjvgpu traer (gb 'Nqhyg') gurer jbhyq or fbzr zvyrntr va fgbevrf nobhg
Frqzba naq Uhyvx.
Larry Caldwell
t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) says...
> I could quibble that the origin of The Leewit's name is a bit too
> pat,
Leewit/Looit/Luhwit is the Indian name for Mt. St. Helens, with her
lover across the river, Wy'east (Mt. Hood).
http://www.nps.gov/whmi/educate/ortrtg/legends.htm
Siwash is Chinook trade jargon for "people", and also the title of a
story by Jack London.
Siwash - man, a male
From the French "sauvage", but widely used by natives in frontier times
as a self-descriptive. Generally an Indian male, although could refer
to men as a general concept. Technically a male human, in the sense of
"human being" as an identity, as common in other native languages.
Potentially (even usually) derisive in modern usage (although only old-
timers would know the word), this was originally a neutral descriptive
despite its context in the original French. Its best-known use today is
in the name of Siwash Rock in Vancouver's Stanley Park, which legend
attributes as a man turned to immortal stone in reward for his virtue.
Eric Flint
I don't know, to be honest. Misty Lackey came up with the name and both
Dave and I liked it and we never asked her where or by what mental process
she came up with it. If I remember, I'll ask her the next time I talk to
her. My own favorite new name from the book was Vonard Kleesp, which Misty
also came up with.
Eric
PS. "Himbo Peety" is almost right. The spelling's just a bit off: it's
Himbo Petey.
Tom
Ha T. Nguyen (ha.t....@boeing.com)
Subject: Re: 1632 - a couple of random thoughts
View: Complete Thread (257 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Date: 2002-03-15 14:35:54 PST
Pete McCutchen wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:57:03 GMT, "Ha T. Nguyen"
> <ha.t....@boeing.com> wrote:
>
> >I do know that I used to buy and love Eric Flint's books UNTIL
> >his postings here. After his constant sneers and snide comments
> >about the "elites" and "out-of-touch-of-reality liars" who
> >frequent this milieu of which I happen to be one, pissed me off
> >so much that now I will never, ever buy or read any of his books
> >again.
>
> Why do you care that much?
>
> My own view is that, in life, you take people as the come. So Eric is
> opinionated, and sometimes he goes of half-cocked. So what? Why take
> it so seriously, or get all huffy about it? And even if you don't
> like him, what difference does it make, if his books deliver good
> value?
> --
>
Sorry to take so long to get back to you, but I was away for a
week. I take this seriously because I value my intelligence and
honesty. I'm a bit of a prig that way. If I feel that someone is
dissing either, I get hostile. Flint seriously
insults me when he calls this group a bunch of stupid liars. So,
he is now my sworn enemy. Well, may be not sworn, but if he got
dropped from the Baen list and had to stop writing for a living
and, instead, had to become a yes-man to Kenneth Lay, well, I
won't complain.
--
Ha