Are Tad Williams' books good?

27 views
Skip to first unread message

Melissa A. Horn

unread,
Jul 11, 1994, 6:54:06 AM7/11/94
to
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.

--
Melissa A. Horn
mh...@library.welch.jhu.edu

Laura

unread,
Jul 11, 1994, 12:46:33 PM7/11/94
to
In article <mhorn-110...@irc-fps-1.welch.jhu.edu>
I throughly enjoyed William's "Memory, Sorrow and Thorn" trilogy.
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

unread,
Jul 11, 1994, 3:50:43 PM7/11/94
to
In article <2vs1c7$k...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> 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.

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

unread,
Jul 11, 1994, 2:00:39 PM7/11/94
to
mh...@library.welch.jhu.edu (Melissa A. Horn) wrote:
> 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

unread,
Jul 11, 1994, 4:50:22 PM7/11/94
to

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

unread,
Jul 11, 1994, 3:40:26 PM7/11/94
to
In article <mhorn-110...@irc-fps-1.welch.jhu.edu>,

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

unread,
Jul 11, 1994, 6:46:54 PM7/11/94
to

>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

unread,
Jul 11, 1994, 5:30:59 PM7/11/94
to
ke...@chem.queensu.ca (Kent Worsnop) wrote:
> 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

unread,
Jul 12, 1994, 9:58:16 AM7/12/94
to
In article <2vsdmj$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> joe...@csgrad.cs.vt.edu (Joe "Uno" Shaw) writes:

>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
I'm sorry but I worded that incorrectly. I was trying to point out that
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

unread,
Jul 12, 1994, 3:30:59 PM7/12/94
to
Hmmm... I got quickly hooked and really enjoyed the first book
(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.

--
tbag...@netcom.com

Bill Garrett

unread,
Jul 12, 1994, 10:40:28 PM7/12/94
to
HAR...@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (Laura) writes:
|> 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.
|>
|> I throughly enjoyed William's "Memory, Sorrow and Thorn" trilogy.
|> 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

unread,
Jul 13, 1994, 12:59:36 PM7/13/94
to

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

unread,
Jul 13, 1994, 3:10:42 PM7/13/94
to

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

unread,
Jul 13, 1994, 9:40:10 PM7/13/94
to
In article <drou0002.774126642@gold>, drou...@gold.tc.umn.edu (Paul D
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

unread,
Jul 14, 1994, 11:33:48 AM7/14/94
to
After all this talk about Memory Sorrow and Thorn, I was wondering what
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

unread,
Jul 14, 1994, 12:27:50 PM7/14/94
to
In article <2vvk6s$a...@ashe.cs.unc.edu>
"Potentially valuable one day" to those who enjoy Tad Williams' work.
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

unread,
Jul 14, 1994, 12:53:07 PM7/14/94
to
In article <30251q$m...@search01.news.aol.com>,
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

ur...@cobra.jpl.nasa.gov

Nina Takahashi

unread,
Jul 14, 1994, 4:16:18 PM7/14/94
to

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)

unread,
Jul 15, 1994, 6:50:17 AM7/15/94
to
A long time ago, John Angus wrote:
> 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

unread,
Jul 15, 1994, 1:59:18 PM7/15/94
to

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

unread,
Jul 15, 1994, 1:45:16 PM7/15/94
to
In article <13294195.3...@kcbbs.gen.nz> Scott_Davies_(Juv...@kcbbs.gen.nz (Scott Davies (Juvena) writes:
>
>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
Thinking it over again I must agree about the bloating of the last 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

unread,
Jul 15, 1994, 1:53:26 PM7/15/94
to
I've read all of the Memory, Sorrow and Thorn trilogy, as well. I have
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

unread,
Jul 15, 1994, 2:50:11 PM7/15/94
to
>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.

--
The Gold Dragon (ke...@chem.queensu.ca) [Remember: It could be Song of Arbonne
but I can't remember right now.]

Phil Blower

unread,
Jul 15, 1994, 4:35:58 PM7/15/94
to
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 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

unread,
Jul 15, 1994, 5:04:06 PM7/15/94
to
In article <306rve$e...@pan.nofc.forestry.ca>,

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
kid stuck in the ^^^^^^^


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

unread,
Jul 15, 1994, 7:00:23 PM7/15/94
to
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
>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

unread,
Jul 15, 1994, 8:09:01 PM7/15/94
to
In article <306lp4$n...@knot.queensu.ca>, ke...@chem.queensu.ca (Kent
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

unread,
Jul 15, 1994, 10:47:59 PM7/15/94
to
In article <13294195.3...@kcbbs.gen.nz>, Scott_Davies_(Juv...@kcbbs.gen.nz (Scott Davies (Juvena) writes:
|>
|> 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

unread,
Jul 16, 1994, 3:39:55 AM7/16/94
to
Scott_Davies_(Juv...@kcbbs.gen.nz (Scott Davies (Juvena) wrote:
> 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

unread,
Jul 16, 1994, 4:26:01 PM7/16/94
to

>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

unread,
Jul 16, 1994, 5:37:45 PM7/16/94
to
Sorry there is no JORDAN in the header, but it's a metametathread which is
*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

unread,
Jul 16, 1994, 10:46:13 PM7/16/94
to
In article <309jv9$k...@clarknet.clark.net>,

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]
>
>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?
>
This is my exactly my point: I have no problem with people not liking
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

unread,
Jul 17, 1994, 2:40:21 AM7/17/94
to
Bill Garrett (gar...@cs.unc.edu) wrote:

: 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

unread,
Jul 17, 1994, 5:35:51 AM7/17/94
to
On 15 Jul 1994 23:00:23 GMT,
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:
>>

>{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

unread,
Jul 17, 1994, 4:19:11 PM7/17/94
to
In article <306lp4$n...@knot.queensu.ca>
It's _Song FOR Arbonne_ :)

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

unread,
Jul 17, 1994, 5:58:49 PM7/17/94
to
In article <30a61l$p...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>,

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

unread,
Jul 18, 1994, 11:36:06 AM7/18/94
to
kru...@netcom.com (Kristin Ruhle) writes:
:
: 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.
:
: _____
This is my criticism of Tad Williams. It seems that lately there has been
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

unread,
Jul 18, 1994, 11:45:05 AM7/18/94
to
In article <30e7h6$p...@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>,

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

unread,
Jul 18, 1994, 11:56:37 AM7/18/94
to
In article <30e821$f...@agate.berkeley.edu>,

I also like both authors.

Tom Talley
grey...@ecst.csuchico.edu

finn

unread,
Jul 18, 1994, 12:58:11 PM7/18/94
to
In article <30e8nl$o...@charnel.ecst.CSUChico.EDU>,

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

unread,
Jul 18, 1994, 1:14:15 PM7/18/94
to
In article <30e821$f...@agate.berkeley.edu> Ruchira Datta,
>>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

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

unread,
Jul 18, 1994, 1:43:59 PM7/18/94
to

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

unread,
Jul 18, 1994, 1:51:05 PM7/18/94
to
In article <30e7h6$p...@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>

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

Well, let me deny your assumption that no one likes both Williams and
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

unread,
Jul 18, 1994, 2:31:36 PM7/18/94
to
In article <774476...@kenjo.demon.co.uk> J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk writes:
>It's _Song FOR Arbonne_ :)
I knew it sounded wrong and couldn't remember it. My books are packed
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

unread,
Jul 18, 1994, 3:19:44 PM7/18/94
to
In article n...@knot.queensu.ca, ke...@chem.queensu.ca (Kent Worsnop) writes:
> >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

unread,
Jul 18, 1994, 5:30:49 PM7/18/94
to
Kent Worsnop (ke...@chem.queensu.ca) wrote:
: 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
: >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.

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

unread,
Jul 18, 1994, 4:41:20 PM7/18/94
to
drou...@gold.tc.umn.edu (Paul D Droubie) writes:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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

unread,
Jul 18, 1994, 4:08:25 PM7/18/94
to
In article <kruhleCt...@netcom.com>,
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

unread,
Jul 18, 1994, 11:59:13 PM7/18/94
to
skay...@ravana.eche.ualberta.ca (S. Kayande) writes:

>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

unread,
Jul 19, 1994, 3:54:20 AM7/19/94
to

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

unread,
Jul 19, 1994, 5:01:35 AM7/19/94
to
pbl...@nofc.forestry.ca (Phil Blower) writes:
>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

unread,
Jul 19, 1994, 10:14:42 AM7/19/94
to
In article <774476...@kenjo.demon.co.uk>,

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

unread,
Jul 19, 1994, 10:13:14 AM7/19/94
to
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

>>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

unread,
Jul 19, 1994, 10:39:43 AM7/19/94
to
In article <30e7h6$p...@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
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 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

unread,
Jul 19, 1994, 10:54:40 AM7/19/94
to
In article <30gn1q$p...@knot.queensu.ca>,

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.

Kyle
kd...@engr.uky.edu

Dylan

unread,
Jul 19, 1994, 10:53:23 AM7/19/94
to
I'd always felt that, underneath it all, GGK was taking a sly poke at
'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

unread,
Jul 19, 1994, 12:47:26 PM7/19/94
to
Matt McIrvin (mci...@scws31.harvard.edu) wrote:

: 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

>

unread,
Jul 19, 1994, 12:38:36 PM7/19/94
to
In article <30e7h6$p...@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca> skay...@comet.eche.ualberta.ca (S. Kayande) writes:
>kru...@netcom.com (Kristin Ruhle) writes:

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

unread,
Jul 19, 1994, 1:07:29 PM7/19/94
to
In article <30gn1q$p...@knot.queensu.ca>,
Kent Worsnop <ke...@chem.queensu.ca> wrote:
>In article <30g0rc$k...@pith.uoregon.edu> twy...@cie-2.uoregon.edu (Theresa Wymer) writes:
[I'm quoting out of order]

> 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

unread,
Jul 19, 1994, 12:49:33 PM7/19/94