S. Stewart's _Mockingbird_ -- Wonderful!
Scott Beeler
novels (_Nobody's Son_ somewhat less so) up through _The Night Watch_.
I hadn't read _Mockingbird_ yet, and frankly was looking forward to
_Galveston_ much more -- the cover blurb to _Mockingbird_ just wasn't
grabbing me that much. But I had a couple plane rides last week, so I
decided on the paperback M over the bulky hardback G.
Why didn't I read this sooner?! I loved it. It's got a load of
excellent characters and plot lines packed into a relatively small
(~275 page) package. Plus some very funny stuff in amidst the more
serious events, and an *excellently* readable prose style that really
dropped me into the protagonist's head.
It's got so much great stuff in it. The basic sort-of "Texas Voodoo
Magic Realism" concept is really nifty, plus I loved Carlos's
character, and just all the character dynamics. I totally recommend
it, especially to any magic realism fans.
--
Scott Beeler scbe...@mindspring.com
Kate Nepveu
> I've been a fan of Sean Stewart for a while, and enjoyed all of his
> novels (_Nobody's Son_ somewhat less so) up through _The Night Watch_.
> I hadn't read _Mockingbird_ yet, and frankly was looking forward to
> _Galveston_ much more -- the cover blurb to _Mockingbird_ just wasn't
> grabbing me that much. But I had a couple plane rides last week, so I
> decided on the paperback M over the bulky hardback G.
Plus _Galveston_, while quite good, is not what's usually thought of
as airplane reading. (I read it on a train.) It's rather darker than
_Mockingbird_. (Review coming, sometime--hey, I haven't finished the
_Lord of Emperors_ one until just now...)
> Why didn't I read this sooner?! I loved it. It's got a load of
> excellent characters and plot lines packed into a relatively small
> (~275 page) package. Plus some very funny stuff in amidst the more
> serious events, and an *excellently* readable prose style that really
> dropped me into the protagonist's head.
It's great fun, and I agree: the characters were terrific. (And the
morning sickness in the revolving restaurant made *me* want to lie
down on a cold floor...)
> It's got so much great stuff in it. The basic sort-of "Texas Voodoo
> Magic Realism" concept is really nifty, plus I loved Carlos's
> character, and just all the character dynamics. I totally recommend
> it, especially to any magic realism fans.
I don't know why "urban/contemporary fantasy" springs to mind more
readily than "magic realism" as a descriptor; I certainly can't pin
down anything that leads me to that conclusion. I think I just
associate magic realism with things that feel more ethereal.
Kate
--
http://lynx.neu.edu/k/knepveu/ -- The Paired Reading Page; Reviews
"I want peace on earth and goodwill toward men."
"*We are the United States Government*. We don't _do_ that sort of
thing." --_Sneakers_
Scott Beeler
>scbe...@mindspring.com (Scott Beeler) wrote:
>
>> I've been a fan of Sean Stewart for a while, and enjoyed all of his
>> novels (_Nobody's Son_ somewhat less so) up through _The Night Watch_.
>> I hadn't read _Mockingbird_ yet, and frankly was looking forward to
>> _Galveston_ much more -- the cover blurb to _Mockingbird_ just wasn't
>> grabbing me that much. But I had a couple plane rides last week, so I
>> decided on the paperback M over the bulky hardback G.
>
>Plus _Galveston_, while quite good, is not what's usually thought of
>as airplane reading. (I read it on a train.) It's rather darker than
>_Mockingbird_. (Review coming, sometime--hey, I haven't finished the
>_Lord of Emperors_ one until just now...)
I don't really have a strong need for sticking to nice light "airplane
reading" while I'm traveling. Heck, I read _The Black Dahlia_ on a
plane, and it don't get much more dark and depressing than that.
>> It's got so much great stuff in it. The basic sort-of "Texas Voodoo
>> Magic Realism" concept is really nifty, plus I loved Carlos's
>> character, and just all the character dynamics. I totally recommend
>> it, especially to any magic realism fans.
>
>I don't know why "urban/contemporary fantasy" springs to mind more
>readily than "magic realism" as a descriptor; I certainly can't pin
>down anything that leads me to that conclusion. I think I just
>associate magic realism with things that feel more ethereal.
I don't think I've ever really thought about what differentiates
"magic realism" from "contemporary fantasy" for me. Maybe, as you
say, MR is more ethereal or "wild", or less structured and understood,
and CF has a world with magical elements but ones which fit a certain
set of rules. The stuff in _Mockingbird_ *is* generally
well-understood by the characters and is considered not really
unusual, so by that standard it would be more CF.
--
Scott Beeler scbe...@mindspring.com
Jesper Svedberg
(scbe...@mindspring.com) says...
I think the difference lies in how the fantastic is treated. In MR it's
treated as an everyday occerence, something not worth raising an eyebrow
for.
Gabriel Garcia Marquez said in an interview that one of the things he
though was different about his books were that he could describe magical
events with a straight face.
// Jesper Svedberg
Allan Harris
"Scott Beeler" <scbe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:398753f...@news.mindspring.com...
> >> novels (_Nobody's Son_ somewhat less so) up through _The Night Watch_.
> >> I hadn't read _Mockingbird_ yet, and frankly was looking forward to
> >> _Galveston_ much more -- the cover blurb to _Mockingbird_ just wasn't
> >> grabbing me that much. But I had a couple plane rides last week, so I
> >> decided on the paperback M over the bulky hardback G.
> >
> >Plus _Galveston_, while quite good, is not what's usually thought of
> >as airplane reading. (I read it on a train.) It's rather darker than
> >_Mockingbird_. (Review coming, sometime--hey, I haven't finished the
> >_Lord of Emperors_ one until just now...)
>
> I don't really have a strong need for sticking to nice light "airplane
> reading" while I'm traveling. Heck, I read _The Black Dahlia_ on a
> plane, and it don't get much more dark and depressing than that.
>
> >> Magic Realism" concept is really nifty, plus I loved Carlos's
> >> character, and just all the character dynamics. I totally recommend
> >> it, especially to any magic realism fans.
> >
> >I don't know why "urban/contemporary fantasy" springs to mind more
> >readily than "magic realism" as a descriptor; I certainly can't pin
> >down anything that leads me to that conclusion. I think I just
> >associate magic realism with things that feel more ethereal.
>
> I don't think I've ever really thought about what differentiates
> "magic realism" from "contemporary fantasy" for me. Maybe, as you
> say, MR is more ethereal or "wild", or less structured and understood,
> and CF has a world with magical elements but ones which fit a certain
> set of rules.
i think i agree.
i like to call what you're calling MR, 'Reality Bashing' (or Reality
Basher?).
MR it doesn't seem to follow any 'rules'. (i would probably put damon
knight's _humpty dumpty: an oval_ into this category, although it's been
awhile since i read it)
whereas CF seems to have certain people or places which have fantastic
powers but everyone else is 'normal'...(ex: 'jeffty is five')
with that said the difference is trivial.
The stuff in _Mockingbird_ *is* generally
> well-understood by the characters and is considered not really
> unusual, so by that standard it would be more CF.
>
> --
> Scott Beeler scbe...@mindspring.com
Scott Beeler
>In article <398753f...@news.mindspring.com>, Scott Beeler
>(scbe...@mindspring.com) says...
>> >scbe...@mindspring.com (Scott Beeler) wrote:
>> >> It's got so much great stuff in it. The basic sort-of "Texas Voodoo
>> >> Magic Realism" concept is really nifty, plus I loved Carlos's
>> >> character, and just all the character dynamics. I totally recommend
>> >> it, especially to any magic realism fans.
>> >
>> >I don't know why "urban/contemporary fantasy" springs to mind more
>> >readily than "magic realism" as a descriptor; I certainly can't pin
>> >down anything that leads me to that conclusion. I think I just
>> >associate magic realism with things that feel more ethereal.
>>
>> I don't think I've ever really thought about what differentiates
>> "magic realism" from "contemporary fantasy" for me. Maybe, as you
>> say, MR is more ethereal or "wild", or less structured and understood,
>> and CF has a world with magical elements but ones which fit a certain
>> well-understood by the characters and is considered not really
>> unusual, so by that standard it would be more CF.
>
>treated as an everyday occerence, something not worth raising an eyebrow
>for.
>Gabriel Garcia Marquez said in an interview that one of the things he
>though was different about his books were that he could describe magical
>events with a straight face.
Hmm, that's a different categorization. By that standard,
_Mockingbird_ seems kind of in the middle. The characters know that
the fantastic events *are* unusual, but they seem so used to them that
the events are portrayed as and considered not that unusual.
Anyone else have opinions on what the different aspects of "magic
realism" and "contemporary fantasy" are? I'm not someone who usually
gets hung up on subgenres and categories, but this has piqued my
interest, especially since it was sparked by the book I just read
(Sean Stewart's _Mockingbird_).
--
Scott Beeler scbe...@mindspring.com
Mike Kozlowski
Chad R. Orzel <orz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I think it's partly a question of control. In fantasy, magic is a tool
>you can use to do things with- the heroine of _Mockingbird_ can call
>on one of the spirits to make a bunch of money in the stock market,
>for example. She can bend the magic to her will, however imperfectly,
>and actually use it to accomplisha definite objective (though possibly
>with unintended side effects). In books that I think of more as magic
>realism, the magic is just something that happens to the main
>characters- it's possible that someone in the book is able to control
>things, but how it's done is never clear to the main characters, and
>for the most part, ghosts, demons, and spirits have the upper hand in
>interacting with the characters.
I can buy that, and it's actually useful. After reading Powers' _Last
Call_, I sort of idly wondered in my mind if it was fantasy or magic
realism, and couldn't come to any conclusion. But based on your
description, the first part of the book is magic realism, and the last
part is fantasy. That works quite well for me.
--
Mike Kozlowski
http://www.klio.org/mlk/
Chad R. Orzel
Beeler) wrote:
>Kate Nepveu <kate....@yale.edu> wrote:
>>Plus _Galveston_, while quite good, is not what's usually thought of
>>as airplane reading. (I read it on a train.) It's rather darker than
>>_Mockingbird_. (Review coming, sometime--hey, I haven't finished the
>>_Lord of Emperors_ one until just now...)
>I don't really have a strong need for sticking to nice light "airplane
>reading" while I'm traveling. Heck, I read _The Black Dahlia_ on a
>plane, and it don't get much more dark and depressing than that.
It's not so much a matter of not wanting to read depressing stuff,
it's a question of what can stand the near-constant interruptions and
distractions of airline travel. I can't read Gene Wolfe on a plane,
because every time I start to get into the flow of the language and
pick up the nuances of the story, the stewardess comes by with the
drink cart, or the baby on the other side of the aisle starts wailing,
or the man in front of me decides to recine his seat and drill the
tray table hinges into my kneecaps, etc.
>>I don't know why "urban/contemporary fantasy" springs to mind more
>>readily than "magic realism" as a descriptor; I certainly can't pin
>>down anything that leads me to that conclusion. I think I just
>>associate magic realism with things that feel more ethereal.
>I don't think I've ever really thought about what differentiates
>"magic realism" from "contemporary fantasy" for me. Maybe, as you
>say, MR is more ethereal or "wild", or less structured and understood,
>and CF has a world with magical elements but ones which fit a certain
>set of rules. The stuff in _Mockingbird_ *is* generally
>well-understood by the characters and is considered not really
>unusual, so by that standard it would be more CF.
I think it's partly a question of control. In fantasy, magic is a tool
you can use to do things with- the heroine of _Mockingbird_ can call
on one of the spirits to make a bunch of money in the stock market,
for example. She can bend the magic to her will, however imperfectly,
and actually use it to accomplisha definite objective (though possibly
with unintended side effects). In books that I think of more as magic
realism, the magic is just something that happens to the main
characters- it's possible that someone in the book is able to control
things, but how it's done is never clear to the main characters, and
for the most part, ghosts, demons, and spirits have the upper hand in
interacting with the characters. _Little, Big_ has a magic realist
kind of feel to it, as does most of Jonathan Carroll's work. Lisa
Goldstein's _Tourists_ is probably as good an example as you'll find.
The other major component is that in magic realist works, the magic
tends to go largely unnoticed. A few characters may note that it's
unusual, but for the most part, it's accepted as a normal part of the
world- that's just the way things work. _Mockingbird_ has a little of
this, but the coming of the magic is a little too traumatic for the
narrator (and too contested by her) for it to really fit.
Later,
OilCan
Evelyn C. Leeper
Scott Beeler <scbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> jesper....@mailbox.swipnet.se (Jesper Svedberg) wrote:
> >In article <398753f...@news.mindspring.com>, Scott Beeler
> >(scbe...@mindspring.com) says...
> >> Kate Nepveu <kate....@yale.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> "magic realism" from "contemporary fantasy" for me. Maybe, as you
> >> say, MR is more ethereal or "wild", or less structured and understood,
> >> and CF has a world with magical elements but ones which fit a certain
> >> set of rules. The stuff in _Mockingbird_ *is* generally
> >> well-understood by the characters and is considered not really
> >> unusual, so by that standard it would be more CF.
> >
> >treated as an everyday occerence, something not worth raising an eyebrow
> >for.
> >Gabriel Garcia Marquez said in an interview that one of the things he
> >though was different about his books were that he could describe magical
> >events with a straight face.
>
> Hmm, that's a different categorization. By that standard,
> _Mockingbird_ seems kind of in the middle. The characters know that
> the fantastic events *are* unusual, but they seem so used to them that
> the events are portrayed as and considered not that unusual.
>
> Anyone else have opinions on what the different aspects of "magic
> realism" and "contemporary fantasy" are? I'm not someone who usually
> gets hung up on subgenres and categories, but this has piqued my
> interest, especially since it was sparked by the book I just read
> (Sean Stewart's _Mockingbird_).
I've collected various people's comments about magical realism at
http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper/magreal.htm
--
Evelyn C. Leeper, http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
I do not try to dance better than anyone else. I only try to dance
better than myself. --Mikhail Baryshnikov
Kate Nepveu
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 22:56:45 GMT, scbe...@mindspring.com (Scott
> Beeler) wrote:
> >Kate Nepveu <kate....@yale.edu> wrote:
> >>Plus _Galveston_, while quite good, is not what's usually thought of
> >>as airplane reading. (I read it on a train.) It's rather darker than
> >>_Mockingbird_. (Review coming, sometime--hey, I haven't finished the
> >>_Lord of Emperors_ one until just now...)
> >I don't really have a strong need for sticking to nice light "airplane
> >reading" while I'm traveling. Heck, I read _The Black Dahlia_ on a
> >plane, and it don't get much more dark and depressing than that.
> It's not so much a matter of not wanting to read depressing stuff,
> it's a question of what can stand the near-constant interruptions and
> distractions of airline travel.
For me, it's that, but I also tend to be tired/cold/cramped/otherwise
slightly unhappy when I'm traveling (plane or train), so while I can
read fairly dark stuff (I plowed through most of _Deepness in the Sky_
to and from Vegas, for instance), it's not my preference (or maybe
it's a particular kind of dark, one with cleaner edges, I suppose).
Kate Nepveu
> In article <3988d722...@news.earthlink.net>,
> Chad R. Orzel <orz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >you can use to do things with- the heroine of _Mockingbird_ can call
> >on one of the spirits to make a bunch of money in the stock market,
> >for example. She can bend the magic to her will, however imperfectly,
> >and actually use it to accomplisha definite objective (though possibly
> >with unintended side effects). In books that I think of more as magic
> >realism, the magic is just something that happens to the main
> >characters- it's possible that someone in the book is able to control
> >things, but how it's done is never clear to the main characters, and
> >for the most part, ghosts, demons, and spirits have the upper hand in
> >interacting with the characters.
> Call_, I sort of idly wondered in my mind if it was fantasy or magic
> realism, and couldn't come to any conclusion. But based on your
> description, the first part of the book is magic realism, and the last
> part is fantasy. That works quite well for me.
What'd you think, btw?
I think of _Last Call_ as fantasy all the way through, because the
beginning sets the tone for me and, as I recall it, quite clearly
indicates that there are rules to this magic, there is a purpose and a
structure and a logic that pervades it which is well-understood among
initiates.
Mike Kozlowski
Kate Nepveu <kate....@yale.edu> wrote:
>m...@klio.org (Mike Kozlowski) wrote:
>> I can buy that, and it's actually useful. After reading Powers' _Last
>> Call_, I sort of idly wondered in my mind if it was fantasy or magic
>> realism, and couldn't come to any conclusion. But based on your
>> description, the first part of the book is magic realism, and the last
>> part is fantasy. That works quite well for me.
>
>What'd you think, btw?
I thought it was damn good. I liked _The Anubis Gates_ better, largely
because I prefer historical England to modern Las Vegas as a setting; but
I suspect _Last Call_ is the objectively better book. I gather that the
sequels aren't as good, though?
The thing that impresses me the most about Powers is how he's able to
start out a book with ominous portents and mysterious plots, build it all
up, and then have it actually make sense. Most books that start with
foreshadowing and intimations fall apart hard when they actually have to
show what's really going on, but Powers' books handle that very well.
>I think of _Last Call_ as fantasy all the way through, because the
>beginning sets the tone for me and, as I recall it, quite clearly
>indicates that there are rules to this magic, there is a purpose and a
>structure and a logic that pervades it which is well-understood among
>initiates.
I could buy that, too; I think my feeling of inexplicable magic at the
start is based on a) the fact that I hadn't a clue what the rules (if any)
were, and b) the overall atmosphere and tone.
Scott Beeler
>On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 22:56:45 GMT, scbe...@mindspring.com (Scott
>Beeler) wrote:
>
>>I don't really have a strong need for sticking to nice light "airplane
>>reading" while I'm traveling. Heck, I read _The Black Dahlia_ on a
>>plane, and it don't get much more dark and depressing than that.
>
>It's not so much a matter of not wanting to read depressing stuff,
>it's a question of what can stand the near-constant interruptions and
>because every time I start to get into the flow of the language and
>pick up the nuances of the story, the stewardess comes by with the
>drink cart, or the baby on the other side of the aisle starts wailing,
>or the man in front of me decides to recine his seat and drill the
>tray table hinges into my kneecaps, etc.
Yeah, that can be a annoying, but I'm kind of used to that too -- my
normal reading pattern involves a lot of short chunks here and there
(on the bus, while eating lunch, whatever). _The Black Dahlia_ serves
for an example of this too -- with many many plot threads and tons of
clues to keep in your head, it's a tough one to put down and pick up
again too often. It's one of very few books that I find actually has
*too much* all-really-good stuff going on at once. :-) But even so,
I didn't really mind reading it in spots over a plane trip.
--
Scott Beeler scbe...@mindspring.com
Kate Nepveu
> In article <tbtjos4jots4i9mva...@4ax.com>,
> Kate Nepveu <kate....@yale.edu> wrote:
> >m...@klio.org (Mike Kozlowski) wrote:
> >> I can buy that, and it's actually useful. After reading Powers' _Last
> >> Call_, I sort of idly wondered in my mind if it was fantasy or magic
> >> realism, and couldn't come to any conclusion. But based on your
> >> description, the first part of the book is magic realism, and the last
> >> part is fantasy. That works quite well for me.
> >What'd you think, btw?
> I thought it was damn good. I liked _The Anubis Gates_ better, largely
> because I prefer historical England to modern Las Vegas as a setting; but
> I suspect _Last Call_ is the objectively better book. I gather that the
> sequels aren't as good, though?
_Expiration Date_ is not-really a sequel, though a few characters are
the same; it suffers from lack of urgency, basically. The stakes are
much more personal and therefore lower, the cool ideas not _quite_ as
cool, and the book longer-feeling (I can't swear it's actually longer,
but it did feel like it).
_Earthquake Weather_ is vaguely unsatisfying in a way that I can't
quite articulate right now because it's been a while since I read it.
I liked it better than _ED_, certainly.
> The thing that impresses me the most about Powers is how he's able to
> start out a book with ominous portents and mysterious plots, build it all
> up, and then have it actually make sense. Most books that start with
> foreshadowing and intimations fall apart hard when they actually have to
> show what's really going on, but Powers' books handle that very well.
I wonder if _Last Call_ counts as hard fantasy?
That is one of the reasons I like it so much; I also like the
characters and the ideas and conceits themselves, not just the way
they fit together.
(And it made for a lot of obvious, bad jokes going out to Hoover Dam
for the Vegas National DFS...)
> >I think of _Last Call_ as fantasy all the way through, because the
> >beginning sets the tone for me and, as I recall it, quite clearly
> >indicates that there are rules to this magic, there is a purpose and a
> >structure and a logic that pervades it which is well-understood among
> >initiates.
> I could buy that, too; I think my feeling of inexplicable magic at the
> start is based on a) the fact that I hadn't a clue what the rules (if any)
> were, and b) the overall atmosphere and tone.
You want inexplicable magic in a lighter tone, try Blaylock. I do
think _The Paper Grail_ was kind of ruined for me in that some of the
subject matter is similar to _Last Call_, but it and _The Last Coin_
were still pretty enjoyable. Though I do have a bias for things that
end up making some sort of sense, though, I admit it...
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
Kate Nepveu <kate....@yale.edu> writes:
> _Expiration Date_ is not-really a sequel, though a few characters are
> the same; it suffers from lack of urgency, basically. The stakes are
> much more personal and therefore lower, the cool ideas not _quite_ as
> cool, and the book longer-feeling (I can't swear it's actually longer,
> but it did feel like it).
>
> _Earthquake Weather_ is vaguely unsatisfying in a way that I can't
> quite articulate right now because it's been a while since I read it.
> I liked it better than _ED_, certainly.
Interesting. For me it was the reverse. I've read E.D.
twice (once to shore up my memory before starting E.W.,
but I enjoyed it the second time as well) but I simply
stopped reading E.W. about 3/4 of the way through.
I've never failed to finish one of his novels before,
or even had the slightest urge to put one aside,
but this one just didn't hold my interest at all.
> You want inexplicable magic in a lighter tone, try Blaylock. I do
> think _The Paper Grail_ was kind of ruined for me in that some of the
> subject matter is similar to _Last Call_, but it and _The Last Coin_
> were still pretty enjoyable.
I second the recommendation of "The Last Coin".
Nowadays it seems to me that Blaylock has decided to
get a few bucks for his work (and who can blame him for
that?). He now writes very polished horror. Worth a read
though I miss the tone and strange eccentric consistency
of the earlier novels.
William Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Texas A&M University
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
J Greely
>Interesting. For me it was the reverse. I've read E.D.
>twice (once to shore up my memory before starting E.W.,
>but I enjoyed it the second time as well) but I simply
>stopped reading E.W. about 3/4 of the way through.
I finished it, but I didn't enjoy it. Even though he'd clearly planned
to bring the first two books together, the result felt very clumsy.
More to the point, I didn't think there was any *need* to continue the
story of _Last Call_, especially without any interesting character
growth.
>I second the recommendation of "The Last Coin".
Left me a bit cold, actually. I think the biggest problem was the
cover blurb that claimed it was supposed to be funny.
-j
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
J Greely <jgr...@corp.webtv.net> writes:
> growth.
>
>>I second the recommendation of "The Last Coin".
>
> Left me a bit cold, actually. I think the biggest problem was the
> cover blurb that claimed it was supposed to be funny.
I did find it to be funny. It seems to me that all
of Blaylock's work of that period is funny, just
that the humor is not the whole point of the book(s).
"Lord Kelvin's Machine", on the other hand, did leave
me cold. The humor struck me as a bit obvious for
Blaylock, and I didn't see much else in the first
half of the book (didn't read the second half - that
is the only Blaylock I haven't enjoyed).
The humor is generally situational, as opposed to gag
related, but I like it. His new horror-ish books no
longer have this aspect, naturally. Or if they do I
missed it.
I'd like to thank the originators of this thread for
reminding me that it is time to read some more Blaylock.
Michael Tice
> In article <ynvya2d...@corp.webtv.net>,
> J Greely <jgr...@corp.webtv.net> writes:
> > growth.
> >
> >>I second the recommendation of "The Last Coin".
> >
> > Left me a bit cold, actually. I think the biggest problem was the
> > cover blurb that claimed it was supposed to be funny.
>
> I did find it to be funny. It seems to me that all
> of Blaylock's work of that period is funny, just
> that the humor is not the whole point of the book(s).
I find The Last Coin to be absolutely hysterically funny in parts. It
is my favorite humorous fantasy novel of all time. I own several copies,
so that I am never far from one. Well, not really.
> "Lord Kelvin's Machine", on the other hand, did leave
> me cold. The humor struck me as a bit obvious for
> Blaylock, and I didn't see much else in the first
> half of the book (didn't read the second half - that
> is the only Blaylock I haven't enjoyed).
>
> The humor is generally situational, as opposed to gag
> related, but I like it. His new horror-ish books no
> longer have this aspect, naturally. Or if they do I
> missed it.
All the Bells of Earth has some Last-Coin-y humor to it. The main
characters strike me as having similar personalities to each other ....
and perhaps to Jim himself? If the Paper Grail is a bad Last Coin
rip-off, AtBoE is a good one, with plenty of novelty in it as well.
--Mike
"The cosmos contains nothing of greater importance for the negligible
atoms called human beings than the condition of being elegantly amused."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Elizabeth Toldridge 9/3/29
Sharon Goetz
says...
> hy...@rossby.tamu.edu writes:
> >I second the recommendation of "The Last Coin".
>
> Left me a bit cold, actually. I think the biggest problem was the
> cover blurb that claimed it was supposed to be funny.
I think I wouldn't have found it as funny as I did if I hadn't gone to
high school a few miles north of the Leisure World globe. Another poster
commented that the humor is generally situational; I'd agree with that.
The introductory setup, frex, is so exaggerated that it would seem
much too far over the top if one didn't know the town it depicts (or the
towns across America more or less like it). Rum Runners was gone the last
time I drove along PCH, but Glide'er Inn is still there.
sharon
kjhNO...@tsoft.net
> J Greely <jgr...@corp.webtv.net> writes:
>>>I second the recommendation of "The Last Coin".
>>
>> Left me a bit cold, actually. I think the biggest problem was the
>> cover blurb that claimed it was supposed to be funny.
> I did find it to be funny. It seems to me that all
> of Blaylock's work of that period is funny, just
> that the humor is not the whole point of the book(s).
> "Lord Kelvin's Machine", on the other hand, did leave
> me cold. The humor struck me as a bit obvious for
> Blaylock, and I didn't see much else in the first
> half of the book (didn't read the second half - that
> is the only Blaylock I haven't enjoyed).
> The humor is generally situational, as opposed to gag
> related, but I like it. His new horror-ish books no
> longer have this aspect, naturally. Or if they do I
> missed it.
I started losing track of Blaylock when his novels stopped being shelved
in the Science Fiction/Fantasy section. Nearly missed the first one, and
to this day I need to look at my bookshelf to remember how many there are
and which I've read. This is in contrast to other writers such as Powers
and Wolfe, whose bibliographies I can rattle off with commentary, and in
contrast to Blaylock's earlier work, which had a lot more appeal to me.
I recall that his earlier books -- _The Digging Leviathan_, _Homunculus_,
etc. -- always grabbed me with their bizarre covers and the promise of
gonzo plot elements. TDL in particular, with its Danny Dunn-like digging
contrabulation on the cover, promised a kind of wacky fun that the
novel... didn't quite deliver. I recall always being a bit, well, not
disappointed, but aware of a disconnect between the covers and the
contents (a feeling also brought on by Jonathan Carroll's books).
By _The Last Coin_ and _The Paper Grail_, I had a better idea of what to
expect, and maybe the fantastic elements of the covers matched the
contents better... If I had to name favorites, those two would come to
mind first (although I haven't read the others in a long time).
His new novels have such subdued covers that I think I've experienced the
opposite effect -- they promise Blaylock with the fantastic dial turned
all the way down. I've only read one, the first "non-SF" one (something
about the ghost of a drowned woman?), and it was indeed very down-to-earth
for Blaylock, a bit dry for my tastes. Maybe I am again judging by
covers... Ironically, what got me reading Blaylock in the first place is
now sapping my interest.
Anyone care to compare the most recent Blaylock novels (the ones I haven't
read yet) to his earlier stuff?
--
KarlHiller [] Systems Librarian, INTP
"The Harry Potter books are cool, 'cause they teach you all about magic
and how you can use it to control people and get revenge on your enemies,"
said Hartland, WI, 10-year-old Craig Nowell, a recent convert to the New
Satanic Order Of The Black Circle. (The Onion)
hy...@tamu.edu
kjhNO...@tsoft.net writes:
[re blaylock]
You've reminded me of how many of his books I have
missed. Thanks.
> His new novels have such subdued covers that I think I've experienced the
> opposite effect -- they promise Blaylock with the fantastic dial turned
> all the way down. I've only read one, the first "non-SF" one (something
> about the ghost of a drowned woman?), and it was indeed very down-to-earth
> for Blaylock, a bit dry for my tastes.
That is one of the horror novels I mentioned. About half
the length, twice the complexity, and five times the writing
style of the average horror novel, but recognizably in the
genre.
I'm probably being unfair to other horror novelists,
but I long ago found that most works in that genre
passed my boredom threshold by page 50. And I have
read "report on probability A"!
Benjamin Adams
news:59dcos4r873i9psn1...@4ax.com...
>
> I don't know why "urban/contemporary fantasy" springs to mind more
> readily than "magic realism" as a descriptor; I certainly can't pin
> down anything that leads me to that conclusion. I think I just
> associate magic realism with things that feel more ethereal.
Well, for me the key difference between contemporary fantasy and
magic realism is that fantasy takes the magic more seriously on its
own terms, rather than simply using it as a literary device.
Magic realism is to fantasy as science fiction is to slipstream.
-Ben Adams
disemb...@ix.netcom.com
Richard Horton
>Magic realism is to fantasy as science fiction is to slipstream.
That seems backward to me.
Anyway IMO in magic realism the fantastical elements are a) real, b)
but used for metaphorical or symbolic effect, and c) not internally
consistent.
In genre fantasy, the fantastical elements are a) real, b) while they
may be used for a metaphorical or symbolic purpose, they also are
levers of the story and plot devices and local color and so on, and c)
they are intended to be internally consistent (though depending on how
poorly the story is done, they might not be).
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.sfsite.com/tangent)
William December Starr
kjhNO...@tsoft.net said:
> I recall that his earlier books -- _The Digging Leviathan_,
> _Homunculus_, etc. -- always grabbed me with their bizarre covers and
> the promise of gonzo plot elements. TDL in particular, with its Danny
> Dunn-like digging contrabulation on the cover, promised a kind of
> wacky fun that the novel... didn't quite deliver. I recall always
> being a bit, well, not disappointed, but aware of a disconnect between
> the covers and the contents (a feeling also brought on by Jonathan
> Carroll's books).
The only Blaylock I've ever read was _Homunculus_ (I think). It was
inhabited by a number of entities who moved about, performed actions and
spoke words all without showing any signs of belonging to the human or
any other self-aware race. Bleah.
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Benjamin Adams
news:8mrja3$stq$3...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...
>
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 01:23:48 -0700, "Benjamin Adams"
> <disemb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Magic realism is to fantasy as science fiction is to slipstream.
>
> That seems backward to me.
Ack! You're right.
I meant to say, magic realism is to fantasy as slipstream is to
science fiction.
> Anyway IMO in magic realism the fantastical elements are a) real, b)
> but used for metaphorical or symbolic effect, and c) not internally
> consistent.
>
> In genre fantasy, the fantastical elements are a) real, b) while they
> may be used for a metaphorical or symbolic purpose, they also are
> levers of the story and plot devices and local color and so on, and c)
> they are intended to be internally consistent (though depending on how
> poorly the story is done, they might not be).
This is pretty much what I meant to say.
-Ben Adams
Paul Andinach
> "Lord Kelvin's Machine", on the other hand, did leave
> me cold. The humor struck me as a bit obvious for
> Blaylock, and I didn't see much else in the first
> half of the book (didn't read the second half - that
> is the only Blaylock I haven't enjoyed).
The final third of _Lord Kelvin's Machine_ isn't bad, actually;
certainly it is better than the first two thirds. However, I'd have to
think carefully before saying that it's worth ploughing through the
first two-thirds for; I don't think I'd have made it that far if I
hadn't been determined to hang on until the book started resembling
the plot description on the back cover.
Paul
--
The Pink Pedanther