Did Brooks Plagarize Tolkien?
ldfo...@webtv.net
I, unlike most, actually read Brooks' book (The Sword of Shannara)
first. But I've noticed a remarkable similarity between the two
regarding lead characters, bare bones structure, plot events, etc. Has
anyone else noticed this? If so; how does it affect your opinion of
Brooks' work? Also, do you think it was intentional?
Jay Random
Brooks himself has openly admitted (in an interview in _Locus_) that he
patterned roughly the first half of _Sword Of Shannara_ after LotR. Most
people I know who have read both consider that SoS, while not an
outright plagiarism of LotR, is painfully derivative all the way to the
end. Deponent saith not.....
--J. Random Locus-Eater, D.G.F.V.
Elisabeth Carey
ldfo...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> I, unlike most, actually read Brooks' book (The Sword of Shannara)
> first. But I've noticed a remarkable similarity between the two
> regarding lead characters, bare bones structure, plot events, etc. Has
> anyone else noticed this? If so; how does it affect your opinion of
> Brooks' work? Also, do you think it was intentional?
It's a similarity which has been widely and rather caustically
commented upon. I would not dream of speculating about Mr. Brooks'
intentions, but the remarkable similarity between the books is a bit
hard to overlook. And yes, it has encouraged me to believe that I do
not need to expend effort reading his work, especially the other
Shannara books.
Lis Carey
Sea Wasp
ldfo...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> I, unlike most, actually read Brooks' book (The Sword of Shannara)
> first. But I've noticed a remarkable similarity between the two
> regarding lead characters, bare bones structure, plot events, etc. Has
> anyone else noticed this? If so; how does it affect your opinion of
> Brooks' work? Also, do you think it was intentional?
Terry openly stated that he felt that Tolkien had, in effect, created
the perfect archetypal epic fantasy. As such, he would have been a fool
to mess with perfection. While this means that there is a strong
similarity in surface structure and underlying theme between it and
LotR, Terry's overall story is quite different and the characters in it
diverge, in some cases quite widely, from their putative counterparts.
Some important points (spoilers, in case anyone hasn't read either
LotR or the Shannara books):
1) While in both cases the focus of the action is a single ancient
artifact, the artifact in question is precisely opposite in both power
and usage. The One Ring can only be used for evil, or if used for good
will eventually corrupt the user into evil. Its power is not dependent
on anyone or anything else; anyone can use it, though the power
immediately available to the user does depend on their will and
inherent power (possibly also on acclimatization; there's some reason
to believe that had Frodo continued using and wearing the Ring for a
number of years as he did in LotR he might have become quite a
formidable Dark Lord). The Sword of Shannara, on the other hand, had
only one power: the power to reveal Truth. It cannot be used by anyone
save a lineal descendant of one Elven family (and this is due to a
mistake on the part of the Sword's creator!). The Sword depends on the
strength of its wielder to be useful at all, and it can destroy its
wielder in the moment said wielder picks it up. It's the one weapon
which can destroy the Warlock Lord, yet it is so dangerous to its own
side that it's a 50/50 proposition as to whether your hero will come
out of it with his mind intact. And, of course, the Ring must be
utterly destroyed, while the Sword must not only be found and wielded,
but preserved.
2) Gandalf and Allanon are NOT the same person. At best, they share
the common archetype of the Wise Man who tries to help our heroes
through their trials. Other than that, they would have a hard time
being more different. Gandalf is a Maia, what amounts to a lesser deity
or angel depending on how you interpret the mythology; he's only
assuming mortal guise because of the directives of the Valar that
govern how their people can and cannot intervene in Middle-Earth.
Physically he appears to be an old Human, quite spry and apparently
fairly tall (though with his penchant for high hats his height may be
somewhat overestimated by those first seeing him), but otherwise
unremarkable in appearance; he's as capable as a young human
physically, however, and wields a sword well. Gandalf knows a great
deal about what is going on, and imparts most or all of his knowledge
whenever asked. He's always willing to answer questions, assuming the
time is reasonably convenient (and in the case of an insistent hobbit,
even when it's inconvenient). He rarely, if ever, holds back
information that's relevant to the characters in question. Gandalf
keeps a strong rein on his temper, and if he loses it momentarily, will
cut you down to size with a few choice words. He is approachable.
Allanon, by contrast, is purely human, a man who has access to powers
which have unnaturally prolonged his lifespan, but still human.
Physically Allanon is a towering presence; while we never get an actual
measurement, the descriptions of the Last Druid always emphasize his
titanic stature, and I doubt that Allanon is less than seven feet tall;
even the tallest other humans we ever meet are dwarfed by Allanon. His
strength is a thing out of legend; it's arguable whether we ever meet
anything stronger than Allanon except for supernatural beings and
Trolls, and even some of them have a hard time of it. This combination
of physical presence and physical power affects everything about
Allanon. He uses this presence to unnerve and intimidate. His temper is
short and he is given to physical displays of that temper; he may not
beat you senseless, but he'll certainly grab you and hold you dangling
while he tells you in no uncertain terms just how pissed off he is.
Allanon tells absolutely NOTHING that he does not have to tell you. He
conceals information constantly, and the information he DOES tell you
can be very misleading -- not in terms of what it drives you to do, but
in terms of precisely what the cost or end result of your actions will
be. Allanon makes mistakes -- sometimes big ones -- while Gandalf
rarely makes major errors, and the errors that Gandalf makes are
usually based on ethical grounds which most characters would agree
upon. Allanon's major oopsies are based purely in his attempts to
control all the actions of the characters through manipulation of
information. Allanon's powers can be directly used for combat, and
liberally so; Gandalf *might* have impressive potential power in combat
but either cannot or will not use it save against truly mighty
opponents like the Nazgul. On the other hand, there's no indication
that using his power will eventually kill Gandalf, while Allanon makes
himself weaker every time he uses a major portion of his Druidic powers
-- burning his life-force, in effect, in exchange for major power.
Allanon is too afraid of entanglements to ever form friendships; he may
be your ally, but even though he'd like to be, he'll never be your
friend. Gandalf can be friends to people, though he's always a busy
man. Paradoxically, Gandalf acts more human though he is in essence
inhuman, while Allanon behaves more inhumanly despite being human.
3) The Four Lands is not Middle-Earth. The distinction becomes more
clear with each successive book, but even in _Sword_ it's extremely
plain that the Four Lands only draw their mythic "feel" from
Middle-Earth; everything else is different. The different races are all
human, with the singular exception of the Elves; Trolls, Dwarves,
Goblins, and Humans are all one species, split due to mutation and
selective breeding immediately after a thermonuclear war. Shannara
takes place in a post-apocalyptic world where Magic returned after
everything else was destroyed. There are still a number of remnants of
that old world still lingering even in the days of Sword -- the
cybernetic monster that nearly kills Shea, for instance. Magic doesn't
work the same way as it does in Middle-Earth, either. Even more
importantly for the overall "feel" of the setting, the Four Lands do
NOT have some background of vast, all-powerful beings that have any
interest in their well-being. While Gandalf and his fellow wizards were
limited in what they were permitted to do, they still represented the
direct interest of the Valar in the affairs of Middle-Earth. By
contrast, the Four Lands are on their own; they make their own problems
and they must make their own solutions.
4) Many of the other characters, like Gandalf and Allanon, can only be
equated to each other by a very long stretch of association. Flick and
Sam may serve similar purposes, but Flick's constant argument and
baiting Allanon (Baiting **ALLANON?!** That's a deathwish, boy!) are
about as far from Sam's hero-worshipping behavior as you can get.
Panamon Creel has no real good parallel in LotR; the real parallel is
in Star Wars; Panamon is Han Solo, while Keltset is, of course,
Chewbacca. The Skull Bearers, while seeming similar to the Nazgul in
some ways, are quite different -- animalistic, sly and clever but not
intelligent in many ways, and nowhere do they seem to cling to the
trappings of humanity as do the Nazgul. Nor is there a good parallel to
the Prince of Leah in LotR. There's a good equivalent to Grima
Wormtongue, but none really for Gollum unless you count the very
short-lived lunatic goblin, and then it's only a minor parallel.
There are more points I could make about the differences between the
two, but I think these suffice for a basic overview. A long time ago I
promised this group I'd give this analysis, and I finally delivered
some of it.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;;
_Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at http://www.hyperbooks.com
ORAC
In article <6k87j4$6ms$1...@newsd-144.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
ldfo...@webtv.net wrote:
>I, unlike most, actually read Brooks' book (The Sword of Shannara)
>first. But I've noticed a remarkable similarity between the two
>regarding lead characters, bare bones structure, plot events, etc. Has
>anyone else noticed this? If so; how does it affect your opinion of
>Brooks' work? Also, do you think it was intentional?
The only Brooks book I've read was THE SWORD OF SHANNARA, and although it
was several years ago, I do remember that the one thought that constantly
went through my mind as I read the book was "This is warmed-over Tolkien."
To me, at least, it was that blatant.
--
ORA...@aol.com ACCEPTS MAIL ONLY FROM FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
TO REPLY TO ME BY E-MAIL, USE dgorski(at)xsite(dot)net!
ORAC |"A statement of fact cannot be
a.k.a. | insolent." ORAC
David H. Gorski |
Pinochet
ldfo...@webtv.net wrote in message
<6k87j4$6ms$1...@newsd-144.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>I, unlike most, actually read Brooks' book (The Sword of Shannara)
>first. But I've noticed a remarkable similarity between the two
>regarding lead characters, bare bones structure, plot events, etc. Has
>anyone else noticed this?
Yes, they have, however many of the similarities are shall we say
not Tolkien's original creation.. Gandalf is basically just another
Merlin, Bilbo and Frodo the reluctant hero type, Mordor the stronghold
of evil much like say the Unseelie court, perhaps? So while the bare
bones are mostly the same, the things that really count, the flesh so to
speak, well that's different enough that I certainly wouldn't use
"plagarize"
to describe Terry Brooks.
>If so; how does it affect your opinion of Brooks' work?
Not in the slightest...I find him creative if a little boring at times..
I'll read his books, but I won't really look for them. Robert Jordan
who is certainly in a similar position, however, is my first choice
in the matter..
> Also, do you think it was intentional?
I don't think I know.
Leg...@webtv.net
Let me start by stating that I have not read much fantasy in the Tolkien
vein. This is a result of having read Tolkien first. Everything after
Tolkien has seemed a pale imitation. Now, can anyone suggest a book
(preferably a single book and not a trilogy, though I'm flexible) that
will disprove this to me?
Robert A. Woodward
> ldfo...@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> > I, unlike most, actually read Brooks' book (The Sword of Shannara)
> > first. But I've noticed a remarkable similarity between the two
> > regarding lead characters, bare bones structure, plot events, etc. Has
> > anyone else noticed this? If so; how does it affect your opinion of
> > Brooks' work? Also, do you think it was intentional?
>
> Terry openly stated that he felt that Tolkien had, in effect, created
> the perfect archetypal epic fantasy. As such, he would have been a fool
> to mess with perfection. While this means that there is a strong
> similarity in surface structure and underlying theme between it and
> LotR, Terry's overall story is quite different and the characters in it
> diverge, in some cases quite widely, from their putative counterparts.
>
> Some important points (spoilers, in case anyone hasn't read either
> LotR or the Shannara books):
<SNIP>
>
> 4) Many of the other characters, like Gandalf and Allanon, can
only be
> equated to each other by a very long stretch of association. Flick and
> Sam may serve similar purposes, but Flick's constant argument and
> baiting Allanon (Baiting **ALLANON?!** That's a deathwish, boy!) are
> about as far from Sam's hero-worshipping behavior as you can get.
> Panamon Creel has no real good parallel in LotR; the real parallel is
> in Star Wars; Panamon is Han Solo, while Keltset is, of course,
> Chewbacca.
You noticed that coincidental resemblence too (for those who haven't
checked copyright dates, _Sword of Shannara_ came out a month or two
BEFORE the original release of "Star Wars"). I had seen that movie before
reading _Sword..._ and was surprised when Panamon popped up and (almost)
took over the plot line.
<snip>
> There are more points I could make about the differences between the
> two, but I think these suffice for a basic overview. A long time ago I
> promised this group I'd give this analysis, and I finally delivered
> some of it.
>
Karen Robinson
Elisabeth Carey wrote:
>
> It's a similarity [between _Sword of Shannara_ by Terry Brooks
> and J.R.R. Tolkien's books] which has been widely and rather
> about Mr. Brooks' intentions, but the remarkable similarity
> between the books is a bit hard to overlook. And yes, it has
> encouraged me to believe that I do not need to expend effort
> reading his work, especially the other Shannara books.
Actually, the second Shannara book, _Elfstones of Shannara_, was not
particularly derivative of Tolkien, and had some very original
elements. I enjoyed that one a great deal. The later ones were also
not Tolkien clones, but I didn't like them as much - I just never got
attached to the characters in them, even when I had liked that same
character from an earlier book. I always figured that Brooks
deliberately used Tolkien's books as a sort of lifejacket for the first
Shannara book, until he learned to swim on his own. Not admirable,
perhaps, but at least he did a workmanlike job of it, which is more than
I can say for a lot of fantasy I've read over the years.
YMMV, of course.
Karen Robinson
Bjorn Tore Sund
Disprove? Any book can be constructed to be a plagiate of
some earlier work, if you're just sufficiently flexible
in your definition of "plagiate", and sufficiently eager
to discover similarities. If you open any book with swords,
dragons and magic as certified components with the attitude
that it'll probably be a Tolkien imitation, you'll conclude
that you were right more often than not. Not necessarily
because you are, but because of what you expected.
I don't read much fantasy myself, but among the books I
have enjoyed and which I found quite distinct from Tolkien
both in story and mood, were:
Elizabeth Moon: "The deed of Paksenarrion" (a trilogy)
Stephen Donaldson: "The mirror of her dreams" and "A man rides through"
Ursula Le Guin: "Earthsea" (a quartet)
Larry Niven: "The magic goes away" (not his best book, but OK)
Writers like Katharine Kerr, Maggie Furey and Jennifer
Roberson all write fantasy of a high quality, without
ever imitating Tolkien in any way - IMNSHO of course.
Bjoern
--
Bjoern Tore Sund
"I am an evil man-cub, and my stomach
bjo...@infotek.no is sad in me."
http://www.ii.uib.no/~bjornts/ - R. Kipling, 'The Jungle Book'
Steve Moss
On Sun, 24 May 1998 18:26:55 -0700, Leg...@webtv.net wrote:
>Let me start by stating that I have not read much fantasy in the Tolkien
>vein. This is a result of having read Tolkien first. Everything after
>Tolkien has seemed a pale imitation. Now, can anyone suggest a book
>(preferably a single book and not a trilogy, though I'm flexible) that
>will disprove this to me?
If you want to start with a single book, though a sequel is due out in
the indefinite future, I HIGHLY recommend George R. R. Martin's "A
Game of Thrones".
Steve Moss
ste...@ctaz.com
http://www.ctaz.com/~stevem/
If replying, remove NOSPAM from email address
Celia Malm
ldfo...@webtv.net penned the following:
>I, unlike most, actually read Brooks' book (The Sword of Shannara)
>first. But I've noticed a remarkable similarity between the two
>regarding lead characters, bare bones structure, plot events, etc. Has
>anyone else noticed this? If so; how does it affect your opinion of
>Brooks' work? Also, do you think it was intentional?
Ooooo, my favorite topic! SeaWasp gave an excellent analysis of the
subject, though, so I'll let you read that.
Some of my own thoughts on the subject...
The similarities between Brooks and Tolkien are certainly there, in
_The Sword of Shannara_ anyway. Even the rabid Brooks fan that I am, I
can't deny it. And I *do* think that it was intentional. Brooks
discovered in Tolkien the kind of world where he could tell the
stories he wanted to. Brooks was also heavily influenced by classic
adventure novels, and THAT is actually the type of story he wanted to
tell. Fantasy ala Tolkien was the answer to where to set such a story.
You can actually see the adventure elements more clearly in the second
half of Sword.
Whether it bothers any individual reader is, obviously, a factor of
the reader themself. It doesn't bother me. And not because I haven't
read Tolkien (I actually read Tolkien first,) or because I am stupid
and have no taste. I just found things of merit in Sword that
transcended any similarities. I don't expect everyone to find those
things.
Brooks really does shed the trappings of Tolkien to a large degree as
you get into the second half of Sword, and his later books. One thing
that many don't know is that Brooks wrote Sword primarily for his own
amusement during a period of about 10 years or so. And even Lester
Delrey's editing couldn't erase all traces of that fact.
There are doubtless some who STILL don't like Brooks in his later
books. But judging Brooks on Sword alone is not particularly fair,
unless you happen to also dislike the things that make Brooks unique
from Tolkien.
Cee
--------------------
Half the world talks
with half a mind on what they're saying.
Half the world walks
with half a mind to run away.
---"Half the World" on Rush's Test For Echo
Anne's Shannara Page
http://pw2.netcom.com/~permalm/shannara.html
Linda Antonsson
Steve Moss wrote:
> If you want to start with a single book, though a sequel is due out in
> the indefinite future, I HIGHLY recommend George R. R. Martin's "A
> Game of Thrones".
Actually, just before the Nebula awards Martin participated in an IRC
chat hosted by the Sci-Fi Channel. He announced there that the
manuscript for _A Clash of Kings_ had been completed. If I recall
correctly, he said that the publishing date would be somewhere around
Christmas (in the U.S, I've seen a November date for the UK though).
There's a transcript at
http://www.scifi.com/transcripts/GeorgeRRMartin.html.
On top of that, Martin has written a short novel to be part of Robert
Silverberg's _Legends_ anthology, which I believe also will include
contributions from for example Le Guin and Jordan. I think it is
scheduled for sometime this autumn as well, but I am not sure.
Linda
John R. Snead
Leg...@webtv.net wrote:
: Let me start by stating that I have not read much fantasy in the Tolkien
: vein. This is a result of having read Tolkien first. Everything after
: Tolkien has seemed a pale imitation. Now, can anyone suggest a book
: (preferably a single book and not a trilogy, though I'm flexible) that
: will disprove this to me?
_Godstalk_ by P.C. Hodgell, it is *nothing* like Tolkien (which is a big
selling pint for me, given I don't much like his stuff) set on an
incredibly rich and detailed world with great characters. However, it
is arguably High Fantasy (vast quests to change the world type stuff),
however, it is *not* set in the generic fantasy world used by *far*
to many modern High Fantasy authors.
Godstalk is a trilogy (with hopefully more books coming someday) with
Dark of the Moon, and Seeker's Mask being the other two.
-John Snead jsn...@netcom.com
Niall McAuley
Of course not, Allanon is Gandalf and Aragorn rolled into one.
--
Niall [real address ends in se, not es]
jonathan dale mccall
Leg...@webtv.net wrote:
>Let me start by stating that I have not read much fantasy in the Tolkien
>vein. This is a result of having read Tolkien first. Everything after
>Tolkien has seemed a pale imitation. Now, can anyone suggest a book
>(preferably a single book and not a trilogy, though I'm flexible) that
>will disprove this to me?
<Tigana>, by Guy Gavriel Kay. Anything by Robin McKinley. Anything
by Ursula LeGuin. <A Game of Thrones>, George R.R. Martin.
--
Jonathan McCall
sula...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6kahcv$8j2$1...@newsd-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Leg...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> Let me start by stating that I have not read much fantasy in the Tolkien
> vein. This is a result of having read Tolkien first. Everything after
> Tolkien has seemed a pale imitation. Now, can anyone suggest a book
> (preferably a single book and not a trilogy, though I'm flexible) that
> will disprove this to me?
>
No actually I cannot. As much as I love fantasy and enjoy the genre, for the
life of me I cannot think of _how_ anyone could possibly provide such a
service. My advice is browse your local library, online lists and the online
bookstores. No one can meet your expectations but yourself. That way the blame
for disappointment rests squarely on the one person responsible. you have st
Tolkien on a pedestal. Something I and probably most others do with our
favorite authors. Far be it for me to try to either knock him off or try to
shove another one up there with him.
However, fantasy has grown adn improved incredibly in the last ten years. The
diversity is almost overwhelming at times. So go looking. Who knows what you
will find.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Aznin
Friends, gather round and lend me your ears. It so happened that on
Mon, 25 May 1998 04:48:39 GMT ste...@NOSPAMctaz.com (Steve Moss) put
pen to paper and wrote ...
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 18:26:55 -0700, Leg...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>>Let me start by stating that I have not read much fantasy in the Tolkien
>>vein. This is a result of having read Tolkien first. Everything after
>>Tolkien has seemed a pale imitation. Now, can anyone suggest a book
>>(preferably a single book and not a trilogy, though I'm flexible) that
>>will disprove this to me?
>
>If you want to start with a single book, though a sequel is due out in
>the indefinite future, I HIGHLY recommend George R. R. Martin's "A
>Game of Thrones".
>
..which is by now, I believe, the most recommended and praised fantasy
novel in this group. I can't remember any new novel that receive so
much positive feedback. Have we ever said anything negative about it?
But to get back to the matter at hand: some good fantasy which isn't
too derivative of Sir Tolkien :
- Stephen Donaldson: the Covenant books and Mordant's Need
- Michael Moorcock: well, too much to list here, but Elric and Corum
would be a good choice to start.
- Robin Hobb: more recent, but I really admire her Assassin books
(the characterization is simply brilliant). Her new series The
Liveship Traders looks promising too, but part 1 didn't pack the punch
that Assassin's Apprentice had.
I agree there is a lot of fantasy which is knock-off Tolkien (I call
it the elfy-welfy stuff), but there's a lot of very creative stuff
happening in the genre as well.
Aznin
**************************************************************
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile. (Sting)
**************************************************************
az...@NOSPAMerols.com
Remove the spamblocker for personal replies.
p...@globalreach.net
In article <6kahcv$8j2$1...@newsd-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Leg...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> Let me start by stating that I have not read much fantasy in the Tolkien
> vein. This is a result of having read Tolkien first. Everything after
> Tolkien has seemed a pale imitation. Now, can anyone suggest a book
> (preferably a single book and not a trilogy, though I'm flexible) that
> will disprove this to me?
If you want a trilogy, I'd suggest McKillip's Riddle Master books.
If you want a single book, I'd suggest her _The Forgotten Beasts of Eld_.
If you want to see something outside "mainstream" fantasy, I'd suggest
Mark Helprin's _Winter's Tale_.
Now that I think about it, I have one suggestion: read _Winter's Tale_
before trying anything else. Then come back here and ask for something
else.
Phil
Georyn
>- Michael Moorcock: well, too much to list here, but Elric and Corum
>would be a good choice to start.
Yeech! Perhaps not knock-off Tolkien, but hardly original. I've found his
stuff to be unreadable pulp, on a sub-Marvel Comics reading/writing level (all
right, perhaps slightly higher, but *only* slightly). I'm told "Gloriana" might
float my boat, but I'm waiting to see if I can find a copy in a librrary. Lord
knows I'm never going to actually pay *money* for a Moorcock book ever again.
:-{P>
MIKE (a.k.a. "Progbear")
NOTE: The above screen name is for newsgroup postings only. For E-mail, send
to: Prog...@aol.com. Do NOT hit reply!
"The only completely consistent people are dead" --Aldous Huxley
N.P.:"Inside Straight"- G r i t s / R a r e B i r d s
Joe Slater
Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>The One Ring can only be used for evil, or if used for good
>will eventually corrupt the user into evil. Its power is not dependent
>on anyone or anything else; anyone can use it, though the power
>immediately available to the user does depend on their will and
>inherent power (possibly also on acclimatization; there's some reason
>to believe that had Frodo continued using and wearing the Ring for a
>number of years as he did in LotR he might have become quite a
>formidable Dark Lord).
Surely not. Frodo would have turned into another Gollum. Not only is
Gollum of the same race, but we see the process's start in Bilbo - he
doesn't start getting powerful; he starts feeling tired. This is just
logic, but I have a better argument.
It is necessary for dramatic reasons that Frodo and Gollum be related.
Gollum is hated by Frodo precisely because they are so similar: they
are short and childlike; they each live in caves; each is obsessed
with food. Frodo pictures himself among the Big Folk although he is
only a caricature of them (he dances amusingly for their benefit, he
wears a tiny sword and set of mail) but Gollum reminds him that he is
small and weak. Because Frodo can see himself in the way Gollum acts
he hates him for it. Frodo has started to lust after the ring and, as
with many addicts, he is repulsed at the sight of this lust in
another.
This is why the story demanded that Frodo not kill Gollum. That would
have been just another example of Frodo denying the truth about
himself. Gollum died because of his own intrinsic weakness as a slave
to the desire to possess the ring, a weakness which Frodo also
possessed. Gollum died at the moment that Frodo's desire matured into
a desire to rule with the ring; it's a symbolic death of childhood.
jds
Joe Slater
ste...@NOSPAMctaz.com (Steve Moss) wrote:
>If you want to start with a single book, though a sequel is due out in
>the indefinite future, I HIGHLY recommend George R. R. Martin's "A
>Game of Thrones".
I bought this book in hardcover. I wanted to buy one of GRRM's books
in hardcover, because his earlier books were so good. I was appalled.
I have never willingly read such a pathetic, derivative, lame,
poorly-structured, boring, silly fantasy as _A Game of Thrones_. I
think it was written in order to excuse the author from a contract;
surely no editor would buy any sequels to it. If you are going to
avoid one book this decade, let it be that.
jds
Jeremy Goldberg
>Now that I think about it, I have one suggestion: read _Winter's Tale_
>before trying anything else. Then come back here and ask for something
>else.
Yes - I sometimes think that's the best book I've ever read, actually...
even though it's not what people consider 'fantasy' as much. I'm not even
sure what it is I like about it, save the fairy-tale quality that runs
through it all...
Sea Wasp
Niall McAuley wrote:
Not really even close. Both Gandalf and Aragorn demonstrate far more
self-control than Allanon does, and one of Allanon's major features is
his legendary temper. I don't have time to go into it right now, but
there's a LOT of differences. Of course, if you TRY hard enough, you
can probably find SOME combination of characters that might work
(Gandalf and Boromir?) but I think then you're getting pretty silly.
Lawrence Person
I can't even believe this is a thread. It's like asking "Gee, do you think
the people who made THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN had ever seen Akira Kurosawa's
THE SEVEN SAMURAI?" The answer in both cases is "Duh." It's universally
acknowledged (not least by Brooks himself) that THE SWORD OF SHANNARA rips
off THE LORD OF THE RINGS plot point for plot point. C'mon, I picked up on
this in 7th grade, as would anyone who read THE LORD OF THE RINGS before
SHANNARA and all the other 3rd and 4th generation ripoffs it inspired.
Didn't you think the scene where the Gandalf characater is fighting the
demon-thing over the flaming chasm was a bit, ah, familier?
--
- Lawrence Person
lawr...@bga.com
Visit the Nova Express Web Site at:
http://www.delphi.com/sflit/novaexpress/
"Crucifixion Variations" in the May 1998 Asimov's
Lame Excuse Books Catalog #3 Now Available!
D. Gascoyne
Leg...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> Let me start by stating that I have not read much fantasy in the Tolkien
> vein. This is a result of having read Tolkien first. Everything after
> Tolkien has seemed a pale imitation. Now, can anyone suggest a book
> (preferably a single book and not a trilogy, though I'm flexible) that
> will disprove this to me?
Try Guy Gavriel Kay's :Tigana:. It's unique. It's wonderful. What
more can I say? Though some - many, probably - will argue, I wouldn't
read his :Fionavar Tapestry: first. It has no relationship to :Tigana:
and is, IMHO, greatly inferior, a first sequence of novels in which a
"new" writer had to get a lot of influences out of his system. In
:Tigana: he comes into his full power as a writer. His later books
aren't so dusty, either, and each one is a stand-alone.
- Debbie
Pinochet
Lawrence Person wrote in message ...
>Didn't you think the scene where the Gandalf characater is fighting the
>demon-thing over the flaming chasm was a bit, ah, familier?
Yeah, reminded me of Beowulf, or maybe something from the
Norse eddas. I might even be able to connect it with the Tale of
Gilgamesh...
Mitch Hagmaier
Joe Slater wrote:
>
> ste...@NOSPAMctaz.com (Steve Moss) wrote:
> >If you want to start with a single book, though a sequel is due out
> >in the indefinite future, I HIGHLY recommend George R. R. Martin's "A
> >Game of Thrones".
>
> I bought this book in hardcover. I wanted to buy one of GRRM's books
> in hardcover, because his earlier books were so good. I was appalled.
In a way that you weren't appalled by _Armageddon Rag_?
> I have never willingly read such a pathetic, derivative, lame,
> poorly-structured, boring, silly fantasy as _A Game of Thrones_.
Poorly structured how? Do you dislike multiple viewpoints? Were
you angered by the serial cliffhanger ending? Does the whole
interweaved plot thread Don Passos style irritate you? For a
novel of its kind, I thought the pacing was fairly fine - better
than most examples, and certainly better than Brin's recent
serial novel. (Don't get me wrong, I like Brin's work, but
sometimes he gets a tad strobelike in his pacing)
As for derivative - it felt no more derivative than any other
high fantasy of the last 15 years, and far more original than
most. The politics & military segments struck me as far more
realistic and mature than anything the Brooks & Eddings crowd
has ever attempted. Characters don't engage in mutual orgies
of respect and adoration - flawed, likable characters despise
each other for perfectly tenable, consistent reasons.
It isn't particularly phatic in content - is this what is
irritating you?
Mitch Hagmaier
Quest Labs
David Goldfarb
In article <356A28...@bc.sympatico.ca>,
D. Gascoyne <d...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
)I wouldn't read his :Fionavar Tapestry: first.
In particular I wouldn't recommend "The Fionavar Tapestry"
to someone who wants it proven to him that modern fantasy is
not pale imitations of Tolkien...
David Goldfarb <*>|From the fortune cookie file:
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |
aste...@slip.net |"You have at your command the wisdom of the ages."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |
Brt Ommundsen
well if you want meaningful.serious (but still entertaining) fantasy you
can't do better than CHARLES DE LINT -he taps into the elvish otherworld
like no other living
author I know of.
Jeremy Goldberg
>As for derivative - it felt no more derivative than any other
>high fantasy of the last 15 years, and far more original than
>most. The politics & military segments struck me as far more
>realistic and mature than anything the Brooks & Eddings crowd
>has ever attempted. Characters don't engage in mutual orgies
>of respect and adoration - flawed, likable characters despise
>each other for perfectly tenable, consistent reasons.
Don't forget that being more 'realistic and mature' - it could be argued
that it's just 'darker' (well, I didn't much like it either, to be honest) -
than Brooks and Eddings, is only relative - there's a LOT of novels that the
same could be said about... it doesn't make them wonderful books by
definition.
Diana Hamilton
In article <6k87j4$6ms$1...@newsd-144.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
<ldfo...@webtv.net> wrote:
>I, unlike most, actually read Brooks' book (The Sword of Shannara)
>first. But I've noticed a remarkable similarity between the two
>regarding lead characters, bare bones structure, plot events, etc. Has
<chuckle> When The Sword of Shannara came out, the nickname for it in our
house was "The Similarillion."
--
Diana Hamilton -- hami...@umbc.edu -- Baltimore, MD USA
Brenda Clough
Leg...@webtv.net wrote:
> Let me start by stating that I have not read much fantasy in the Tolkien
> vein. This is a result of having read Tolkien first. Everything after
> Tolkien has seemed a pale imitation. Now, can anyone suggest a book
> (preferably a single book and not a trilogy, though I'm flexible) that
> will disprove this to me?
In the Tolkien vein, but good in its own right, is that it? How about some
of Joy Chant's books, maybe GREY MANE OF MORNING? Or Phyllis Eisenstein's
SORCEROR'S SON?
Brenda
--
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD from Tor Books
<clo...@erols.com> http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda
Jay Random
David Goldfarb wrote:
>
> In article <356A28...@bc.sympatico.ca>,
> D. Gascoyne <d...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> )I wouldn't read his :Fionavar Tapestry: first.
>
> In particular I wouldn't recommend "The Fionavar Tapestry"
> to someone who wants it proven to him that modern fantasy is
> not pale imitations of Tolkien...
Ah! A man who knows pale when he sees it! Where were you a couple of
months ago, when I was roasted by pretty much this entire newsgroup for
maintaining that _Fionavar_ is derivative of LotR?
--J. Random Sighs & Wanders Off Into The Distance, Muttering, D.G.F.V.
Joe Slater
>Joe Slater wrote:
>> I bought this book in hardcover. I wanted to buy one of GRRM's books
>> in hardcover, because his earlier books were so good. I was appalled.
Mitch Hagmaier <kyo...@csrlink.net> wrote:
>In a way that you weren't appalled by _Armageddon Rag_?
Yes, I liked AR although it's not his best book. It was original,
atmospheric, and made sense.
>Poorly structured how? Do you dislike multiple viewpoints? Were
>you angered by the serial cliffhanger ending? Does the whole
>interweaved plot thread Don Passos style irritate you?
Yes, yes, and yes. It's been a while since I read it, and I would not
willingly re-read it, but that's my recollection. As soon as I became
interested he would jump to another character (of whom there were far
too many) and not return until I had forgotten what was going on. I
started deliberately reading the chapters out of order in order to
follow the plot, but all that did was show how trite and derivative
the whole thing is.
I strongly recommend that you read Diana Wynne Jones' _The Tough Guide
to Fantasyland_, written as a humorous encyclopedia of fastastic
cliches. I read that shortly after _A Game of Thrones_ and was
astonished at her perspicacity. Here's a synopsis of GRRM's world
using her categorisation:
"_A Game of Thrones_ is set in a *Vestigial Empire* protected from the
*Dark Lord* of the *Snowbound North* by an *Ancient Engineering
Project*. "
That really tells you all you need to know, doesn't it? When you start
running into characters like her *Small Man* ("very funny or very
tiresome ... he gambles, he drinks too much and he always runs away
... Physically he is stunted and not at all handsome, although he
usually dresses flamboyantly") you know that GRRM has nothing original
to say. Note that _The Tough Guide to Fantasyland_ was written before
_A Game of Thrones_ was published.
>Characters don't engage in mutual orgies
>of respect and adoration - flawed, likable characters despise
>each other for perfectly tenable, consistent reasons.
Characters are defined by their race and physical attributes, just as
in Eddings. You know exactly what anyone will do as soon as they are
introduced. It is very useful to read about hair and eye color in _The
Tough Guide to Fantasyland_, as it gives you an astonishing amount of
insight into personalities.
>It isn't particularly phatic in content - is this what is
>irritating you?
I have no idea what phatic means and no interest in finding out. I am
irritated because I bought a first edition hardcover as tribute to a
great author, only to find that it's just like the Belgariad with
knobs on.
jds
William George Ferguson
On Sun, 24 May 1998 18:26:55 -0700, Leg...@webtv.net wrote:
>Let me start by stating that I have not read much fantasy in the Tolkien
>vein. This is a result of having read Tolkien first. Everything after
>Tolkien has seemed a pale imitation. Now, can anyone suggest a book
>(preferably a single book and not a trilogy, though I'm flexible) that
>will disprove this to me?
Umm, do you want books that don't resonate with Tolkein? That would
be very difficult since Tolkien very deliberately tapped into certain
memes and archetypes, and any good occidental high fantasy is very
likely to pluck some of the same strings.
For high fantasies that don't copy Tolkien:
Patricia McKillip. The Forgotten Beasts of Eld is a standalone, there
is also a trilogy, The Riddle of the Stars (Riddlemaster of Hed, Heir
of Sea and Fire, and Harpist in the Wind). McKillip writes lyrical
prose, and has an incredible ability to make minor throwaway
characters come alive in just a few sentences (anyone who's read the
Riddlemaster books will remember Cannon Master and Goh vividly.
Between them they don't have twenty sentences of dialogue in the three
books).
Robin McKinley. The Blue Sword is high fantasy, it is absolutely
nothing like Tolkien (well, it's written in words that form sentences,
so 'absolutely nothing' may be too strong), and it is just plain fun.
There is a prequel, The Hero and the Crown, which is quite different
from The Blue Sword, and just as much fun, but both books work well
enough as standalones.
Elizabeth Moon. The Deed of Paksenarrion (Sheepfarmer's Daughter,
Divided Allegiance, and Oath of Gold). There are people who have some
problems with it, especially with one scene in Oath of Gold, but these
are massively good. The end of Divided Allegiance is one of the most
heart-wrenching things I've ever read.
Someone mentioned Charles de Lint. He generally writes urban fantasy
rather than high fantasy, but I've read the two Jack of Kinrowan
novels (Jack the Giant-Killer and Drink Down the Moon) probably a
dozen times, and also strongly recommend Greenmantle, if you want to
look at urban fantasy.
Patricia Wrede. Her Lyra novels are all pretty much standalone,
although there is a historical overlay in which they are taking place.
There are also several Oriental fantasy works which very little to
Tolkien (well, maybe the current popularity of fantasy)
Brenda Clough
Joe Slater wrote: I am
> irritated because I bought a first edition hardcover as tribute to a
> great author, only to find that it's just like the Belgariad with
> knobs on.
>
> jds
After following this thread for some time, I'm not any more interested in
reading GAME OF THRONES. But I must get my hot little hands on TOUGH GUIDE
TO FANTASY. It sounds like a dynamite work!
John Adcox
>I, unlike most, actually read Brooks' book (The Sword of Shannara)
>first. But I've noticed a remarkable similarity between the two
>regarding lead characters, bare bones structure, plot events, etc. Has
>anyone else noticed this? If so; how does it affect your opinion of
>Brooks' work? Also, do you think it was intentional?
When I was in the 5th Grade, I discovered and fell in love with "The Lord
of the Rings." I wished someone would write another book just like it in
the worst way. That's when I learned to be careful what you wish for.
Someone did. In the worst way.
JA
--
John Adcox
Visit My Web Site!
http://jadcox.home.mindspring.com
King Arthur, Mythology and Folklore,
Books and literature, resources for writers,
Entertainment, the Arts, Music,
Religion, Philosophy, fantasy and more!
Ewan Villiers
Joe Slater wrote in message <357241fb....@newsserver.cc.monash.edu.au>...
>>Joe Slater wrote:
{Sinp}
>
>Yes, yes, and yes. It's been a while since I read it, and I would not
>willingly re-read it, but that's my recollection. As soon as I became
>interested he would jump to another character (of whom there were far
>too many) and not return until I had forgotten what was going on. I
>started deliberately reading the chapters out of order in order to
>follow the plot, but all that did was show how trite and derivative
>the whole thing is.
>
Have you ever read the Cornelius Chronicles?
Go out and buy them now! Read them, take notes and study until you
understand them thoroughly. Then send Michael Moorcock a note
explaining what happened.
As soon as your soul has crawled back from the realms of chaos re-read
any book that previously caused you problems and laugh at the trivial
complexity of the plot.
BTW is The Tough Guide to Fantasyland in print in the UK, it sounds good.
Ewan
--
Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!
Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!
Spam! Spam! Wonderful Spam!
Spam! Spam! Lovely Spam!
Brenda Clough
Aznin wrote:
> >
>
> I've started looking for this "The Tough guide to Fantasyland" now.
> It seems to be out of print according to Amazon, but I *will* look for
> this. Does anyone have any more valuable info on this
> author/monograph ?
>
It was written by Diana Wynn Jones, and so far as I know was never published
in the United States. It should be readily available in Britain, however, or
through British book dealers.
Aznin
On Wed, 27 May 1998 04:59:35 GMT ,
j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au.DELETETHIS (Joe Slater) wrote this message:
>>Joe Slater wrote:
>>> I bought this book in hardcover. I wanted to buy one of GRRM's books
>>> in hardcover, because his earlier books were so good. I was appalled.
>
>Mitch Hagmaier <kyo...@csrlink.net> wrote:
>>In a way that you weren't appalled by _Armageddon Rag_?
>
>Yes, I liked AR although it's not his best book. It was original,
>atmospheric, and made sense.
>
>>Poorly structured how? Do you dislike multiple viewpoints? Were
>>you angered by the serial cliffhanger ending? Does the whole
>>interweaved plot thread Don Passos style irritate you?
>
>Yes, yes, and yes. It's been a while since I read it, and I would not
>willingly re-read it, but that's my recollection. As soon as I became
>interested he would jump to another character (of whom there were far
>too many) and not return until I had forgotten what was going on. I
>started deliberately reading the chapters out of order in order to
>follow the plot, but all that did was show how trite and derivative
>the whole thing is.
>
>I have no idea what phatic means and no interest in finding out. I am
>irritated because I bought a first edition hardcover as tribute to a
>great author, only to find that it's just like the Belgariad with
>knobs on.
>
I've started looking for this "The Tough guide to Fantasyland" now.
It seems to be out of print according to Amazon, but I *will* look for
this. Does anyone have any more valuable info on this
author/monograph ?
Aznin
Joe Slater
>Joe Slater (j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au.DELETETHIS) wrote:
>> I strongly recommend that you read Diana Wynne Jones' _The Tough Guide
>> to Fantasyland_, written as a humorous encyclopedia of fastastic
>> cliches.
erky...@netcom.com (Andrew Plotkin) wrote:
>The thing that makes me uneasy about _Tough Guide_ -- brilliant and funny
>as it is -- is that it deliberately extracts the worst of the fantasy
>genre. And thus it's *equally* applicable to good stuff and bad stuff. The
>whole point of the trick is to ignore any element that people might enjoy
>(whether there's a lot of that or a little.)
I agree. _Tough Guide_ is too much in large doses; people should dip
into it at random. However it *does* make one sensitive to careless
cliches. After you read it you can easily distinguish cliche-ridden
works like _Shannera_ and _Belgariad_ from innovative ones like
_Earthsea_.
>You can write a Tough Guide categorization of Tolkien, McKillip, Eddings,
>Brooks, and Michael Scott Rohan, and the blind-taste-test audience will be
>utterly unable to tell which of the five summaries are about good books
>and which are about schlock. So your post doesn't (IMHO) prove anything
>about GRRMartin at all.
I haven't read McKillip, and I'm not sure which books by Rohan you
mean - do you mean that rather derivative one about the winter of the
world or his _Spiral_ ones? Tolkein fails the _Tough Guide_ test only
because all the bad writers cribbed from him.
Here are some boks/series which can't be _Tough Guided_:
_Earthsea_ by Ursula K LeGuin - it's original and hasn't been
excessively imitated.
_Prydain_ by Lloyd Alexander - it's based on the Celtic myths, but its
plotis different and it subverts them.
_Narnia_ by C S Lewis. Who would dare?
_Tough Guide_ has great moments if you don't try to read it at a
sitting. I particularly recommend her entry on *Horses* - "it
therefore seems probable that they breed by pollination."
jds
Magnus Olsson
In article <356AC4...@shaw.wave.ca>,
Jay Random <jra...@shaw.wave.ca> wrote:
>David Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>> In article <356A28...@bc.sympatico.ca>,
>> D. Gascoyne <d...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> )I wouldn't read his :Fionavar Tapestry: first.
>>
>> In particular I wouldn't recommend "The Fionavar Tapestry"
>> to someone who wants it proven to him that modern fantasy is
>> not pale imitations of Tolkien...
"Pale"? You can say a lot of "Fionavar", and people do tend to say it,
but I wouldn't really call it "pale"...
>Ah! A man who knows pale when he sees it! Where were you a couple of
>months ago, when I was roasted by pretty much this entire newsgroup for
>maintaining that _Fionavar_ is derivative of LotR?
Well, IIRC you were roasted not for maintaining that _Fionavar_
derives quite a lot from LotR (which it does, and which I think GGK
has admitted himself), but for maintaining that _Fionavar_ is an
imitation of LoTR *and nothing else*, i.e. that GGK added nothing of
value. This is a much stronger, and much more controversial statement, to
say the least.
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se, zeb...@pobox.com)
------ http://www.pobox.com/~zebulon ------
Mitch Hagmaier
Joe Slater wrote:
>
> >Joe Slater wrote:
> >> I bought this book in hardcover. I wanted to buy one of GRRM's
> >> books in hardcover, because his earlier books were so good. I was
> >> appalled.
>
> Mitch Hagmaier <kyo...@csrlink.net> wrote:
> >In a way that you weren't appalled by _Armageddon Rag_?
>
> Yes, I liked AR although it's not his best book. It was original,
> atmospheric, and made sense.
>
Have I gone around the tree with you on this before, or was it
someone else? I thought _Armageddon Rag_ was the worst piece of
tripe GRRM ever wrote, a palid echo of countless snide simple
dualistic columns, short stories, and newsmagazine essays from
the same period. Oh, hate us, we're materialistic. Oh, weep
for our lost innocence, we were flower children and now we're
suited sharks. Please. There was a much better-written
variant on the theme by some guy whose name escapes me - I
believe it was called _Glimpses_.
> >Poorly structured how? Do you dislike multiple viewpoints? Were
> >you angered by the serial cliffhanger ending? Does the whole
> >interweaved plot thread Don Passos style irritate you?
>
> Yes, yes, and yes. It's been a while since I read it, and I would not
> willingly re-read it, but that's my recollection. As soon as I became
> interested he would jump to another character (of whom there were far
> too many) and not return until I had forgotten what was going on. I
> started deliberately reading the chapters out of order in order to
> follow the plot, but all that did was show how trite and derivative
> the whole thing is.
>
So you just hate the Don Passos style. Boy, that really limits
the range of work you'll like. Most Brunner, Brin... anyone
ever notice how many good SF writers end up filed in the "B"s?
> I strongly recommend that you read Diana Wynne Jones' _The Tough Guide
> to Fantasyland_, written as a humorous encyclopedia of fastastic
> cliches. I read that shortly after _A Game of Thrones_ and was
> astonished at her perspicacity. Here's a synopsis of GRRM's world
> using her categorisation:
>
It's always easy to be a smartass by screwing around with
simplified archtypes.
> "_A Game of Thrones_ is set in a *Vestigial Empire* protected from the
> *Dark Lord* of the *Snowbound North* by an *Ancient Engineering
> Project*. "
>
Except for the fact that there is no Dark Lord, not bad. Did you
forget the entire subplot with the Noble Nomads & the lost Princess With
Secret Powers?
Your point?
> That really tells you all you need to know, doesn't it?
No, not really.
> When you start
> running into characters like her *Small Man* ("very funny or very
> tiresome ... he gambles, he drinks too much and he always runs away
> ... Physically he is stunted and not at all handsome, although he
> usually dresses flamboyantly")
Welp, there goes the whole of Bujold, doesn't it? Because that
description covers Miles Vorkosigan as much as it does Tyrion Halfman.
> you know that GRRM has nothing original to say. Note that _The Tough
> Guide to Fantasyland_ was written before _A Game of Thrones_ was
> published.
It's sad, what the discovery of a tool of analysis, however simple
or misguided, can do to a superficially clever person. Pendant
in a Box.
>
> I have no idea what phatic means and no interest in finding out. I am
> irritated because I bought a first edition hardcover as tribute to a
> great author, only to find that it's just like the Belgariad with
> knobs on.
>
Was my little Pendant in a Box experience, actually. Eluki bes
Shakar had this wonderful little rant on what she calls "phatic
novels", less about the windowdressing you're blowing on about
and more about character-reader & narrative-reader interactions.
It isn't the be-all and end-all of Understanding Literature
but it is interesting. Basically, a phatic novel is one in which
there is no conflict between opposing ideas, but rather a
one proper idea that the good elements all embrace, sooner or
later. The difference between listening to a duet and a choral
performance. A lot of fantasy is strongly phatic, but I'd say that
_Game of Thrones_ has a lower phatic content than normal.
Mitch Hagmaier
Quest Labs
Kristopher/EOS
Well, personally, I can't read Tolkien. It's the mental equivalent of trying
to eat hard tack. I normally read quite fast...and run through more pages
than I think I should have been able to. Whenever I tried to read The
Hobbit, for example, I would look up at the clock, look down at the book, and
think "What the heck? Only 10 pages in half-an-hour? Bleah." My vision of
hell is to spend eternity in a library...with everything written by Tolkien.
Now I guess I can sit back and watch the flames fly, since I smacked the Icon
of Fantasy in the face.
But, on the up side, no one can accuse me of taking anything from his
works...I don't read them.
Kristopher/EOS
Celia Malm
Jay Random <jra...@shaw.wave.ca> penned the following:
>David Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>> In article <356A28...@bc.sympatico.ca>,
>> D. Gascoyne <d...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> )I wouldn't read his :Fionavar Tapestry: first.
>>
>> In particular I wouldn't recommend "The Fionavar Tapestry"
>> to someone who wants it proven to him that modern fantasy is
>> not pale imitations of Tolkien...
>Ah! A man who knows pale when he sees it! Where were you a couple of
>months ago, when I was roasted by pretty much this entire newsgroup for
>maintaining that _Fionavar_ is derivative of LotR?
_The Summer Tree_ is one of the few books that I made a conscious
decision not to bother finishing, even though I was within a 100 pages
of the end. I really wanted to like the book, but it just didn't do
anything (good) for me. (It did a few unpleasant things.) Not sure if
I'd call it an imitation of Tolkien, but it certainly seemed an
unsucessful attempt to try on the mold of modern fantasy.
Cee
--------------------
Half the world talks
with half a mind on what they're saying.
Half the world walks
with half a mind to run away.
---"Half the World" on Rush's Test For Echo
Anne's Shannara Page
http://pw2.netcom.com/~permalm/shannara.html
jonathan dale mccall
per...@ix.REMOVESPAMnetcom.com (Celia Malm) wrote:
(Snip)
>
>_The Summer Tree_ is one of the few books that I made a conscious
>decision not to bother finishing, even though I was within a 100 pages
>of the end. I really wanted to like the book, but it just didn't do
>anything (good) for me. (It did a few unpleasant things.) Not sure if
>I'd call it an imitation of Tolkien, but it certainly seemed an
>unsucessful attempt to try on the mold of modern fantasy.
>
>Cee
>
>--------------------
>Half the world talks
>with half a mind on what they're saying.
>Half the world walks
>with half a mind to run away.
> ---"Half the World" on Rush's Test For Echo
>
>Anne's Shannara Page
>http://pw2.netcom.com/~permalm/shannara.html
>
Much as it pains me to disagree with a fellow Rush fan ; ) I have to
come to the defense of <Fionavar> here. I'll admit that the book is
derivative of Tolkien - I think consciously so. I'll also admit that
it is not as strong as GGK's later works (I'm reading <Song for
Arbonne> right now). Still, I see it more as an homage, or inspired
pastiche, than slavish imitation. Kay brings his own particular
strengths (strong characterization, tight, fast-moving plotting,
distinctive narrative voice) to the Tolkien-cum-Mabinogion-cum-Celtic
Arthurian mix.
What's more, I have a (half-baked) theory that in some ways,
<Fionavar> is a discussion about Tolkien's <LOTR> and <Silmarillion>,
disguised as an adventure novel. Perhaps I just need to cut back on
the cough syrup ; ) but I seem to have gotten hints that Kay considers
Fionavar and Middle-Earth to both be a sort of Platonic reflection of
the Prime Fantasy.
Hey, I said it was half-baked ; )
--
Jonathan McCall
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <3569f43b....@newsserver.cc.monash.edu.au>,
Joe Slater <j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au.DELETETHIS> wrote:
>Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>>The One Ring can only be used for evil, or if used for good
>>will eventually corrupt the user into evil. Its power is not dependent
>>on anyone or anything else; anyone can use it, though the power
>>immediately available to the user does depend on their will and
>>inherent power (possibly also on acclimatization; there's some reason
>>to believe that had Frodo continued using and wearing the Ring for a
>>number of years as he did in LotR he might have become quite a
>>formidable Dark Lord).
>
>Surely not. Frodo would have turned into another Gollum. Not only is
>Gollum of the same race, but we see the process's start in Bilbo - he
>doesn't start getting powerful; he starts feeling tired. This is just
>logic, but I have a better argument.
>
On the other hand, Bilbo just used the Ring for invisibility rather
than for more aggressive mind control. It's also plausible that
Frodo was tougher than Bilbo--he was able to carry the Ring for
a long time while refraining from using it.
The best argument that I can see for Frodo not being capable
of becoming much of a Dark Lord is that he doesn't seem to
have much taste for power or dominance. Left to himself,
he lives quietly and comfortably in his hole.
Who knows what might have happened if Lobelia had gotten the
Ring? (OK, Sauron would squashed her like a bug, but it's
amusing to think about what she might have done if she'd had
a free hand.)
>It is necessary for dramatic reasons that Frodo and Gollum be related.
>Gollum is hated by Frodo precisely because they are so similar: they
>are short and childlike; they each live in caves; each is obsessed
>with food. Frodo pictures himself among the Big Folk although he is
>only a caricature of them (he dances amusingly for their benefit, he
>wears a tiny sword and set of mail) but Gollum reminds him that he is
He's not *that* small, and very rarely plays the fool.
>small and weak. Because Frodo can see himself in the way Gollum acts
>he hates him for it. Frodo has started to lust after the ring and, as
>with many addicts, he is repulsed at the sight of this lust in
>another.
Being repulsed at Gollum might just be another example of good
Hobbit-sense.
>
>This is why the story demanded that Frodo not kill Gollum. That would
>have been just another example of Frodo denying the truth about
>himself. Gollum died because of his own intrinsic weakness as a slave
>to the desire to possess the ring, a weakness which Frodo also
>possessed. Gollum died at the moment that Frodo's desire matured into
>a desire to rule with the ring; it's a symbolic death of childhood.
>
Why not believe that Frodo refraining from killing Gollum is actually
generosity and mercy? That's what Tolkien seems to have thought.
--
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
May '98 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <6kahcv$8j2$1...@newsd-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
<Leg...@webtv.net> wrote:
>Let me start by stating that I have not read much fantasy in the Tolkien
>vein. This is a result of having read Tolkien first. Everything after
>Tolkien has seemed a pale imitation. Now, can anyone suggest a book
>(preferably a single book and not a trilogy, though I'm flexible) that
>will disprove this to me?
Try McKillip's _Riddle Master of Hed_, _Heir of Sea and Fire_, _Harpist
in the Wind_ trilogy. (The three of them together are no longer than
the first volume of a lot of current trilogies.)
I can't think of anything else much like them. The writing is restrained
but vivid. The characters are mostly intelligent, quarrelsome, passionate,
and loyal, and extremely stubborn. The background is smaller than the
background in LOTR, but has a lot of variety and strong forces moving
beneath the surface and nicely interelated details.
The shape-changing scenes are wonderful.
Check it out.
It isn't much like Tolkien, but if you want something that isn't
like Tolkien at all, try Peake's Gormenghast books.
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <35690859...@mbox321.swipnet.se>,
Linda Antonsson <li...@mbox321.swipnet.se> wrote:
>
>Actually, just before the Nebula awards Martin participated in an IRC
>chat hosted by the Sci-Fi Channel. He announced there that the
>manuscript for _A Clash of Kings_ had been completed. If I recall
>correctly, he said that the publishing date would be somewhere around
>Christmas (in the U.S, I've seen a November date for the UK though).
>There's a transcript at
>http://www.scifi.com/transcripts/GeorgeRRMartin.html.
>
Huzzah! Thanks *very* much for passing this on. Now all I have to
do is wait it out till December, and then keep waiting till books
3 and 4 come along, and hope that it will actually finish in four
books. Still, this is much better than not even having book 2
in the pipeline.
Joy Haftel
In article <356D738C...@net-link.net>,
Kristopher/EOS <eosl...@net-link.net> wrote:
>Well, personally, I can't read Tolkien. It's the mental equivalent of trying
>to eat hard tack. I normally read quite fast...and run through more pages
>than I think I should have been able to. Whenever I tried to read The
>Hobbit, for example, I would look up at the clock, look down at the book, and
>think "What the heck? Only 10 pages in half-an-hour? Bleah." My vision of
>hell is to spend eternity in a library...with everything written by Tolkien.
>Now I guess I can sit back and watch the flames fly, since I smacked the Icon
>of Fantasy in the face.
I'm developing a theory that _The Lord of the Rings_ presents certain
problems to people who read very fast. I have been trying, off and on,
for 16 years, to finish _The Lord of the Rings_.
Tolkien contains in abundance the kinds of things I usually notice the
second time through a book. I don't mind reading a book slowly as long as
I already know I like it. :-) Tolkien throws more events, characters,
poetry, and subsidiary mythology at you in less space that most authors.
He's very dense, and when you go fast through that, you get lost. You
forget who (or what species) the characters are.
You have to force yourself to s-l-o-w down. It's like sitting in a
traffic jam when you're impatient to go 60 mph. You can do it, it's just
not *fun*, and you're reading for fun.
There are so many other very good books which can be read fast. It's too
much of a temptation to pick another up and never look at the Tolkien again.
>But, on the up side, no one can accuse me of taking anything from his
>works...I don't read them.
You've undoubtedly read works which derive from his, though. I was
surprised, on my most recent attempt, to notice so many familiar things
before I quit.
_The Hobbit_ on the other hand, I found easily readable and fun.
Joseph Poulin
Jay Random (jra...@shaw.wave.ca) wrote:
: > In particular I wouldn't recommend "The Fionavar Tapestry"
: > to someone who wants it proven to him that modern fantasy is
: > not pale imitations of Tolkien...
: Ah! A man who knows pale when he sees it! Where were you a couple of
: months ago, when I was roasted by pretty much this entire newsgroup for
: maintaining that _Fionavar_ is derivative of LotR?
I don't know if I would call it a *pale* imitation, but it was
certainly derivative.
Note, however, that I loved 'TFT'. Sticking the Arthur legend in
actually worked, and there aren't many authors who could have done that
without making the reader throw up. :)
Joe
Rimrunner
In article <jkh107Et...@netcom.com>, Joy Haftel <jkh...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <356D738C...@net-link.net>,
>Kristopher/EOS <eosl...@net-link.net> wrote:
>>Well, personally, I can't read Tolkien. It's the mental equivalent of trying
>>to eat hard tack. I normally read quite fast...and run through more pages
>>than I think I should have been able to. Whenever I tried to read The
>>Hobbit, for example, I would look up at the clock, look down at the book, and
>>think "What the heck? Only 10 pages in half-an-hour? Bleah." My vision of
>>hell is to spend eternity in a library...with everything written by Tolkien.
>
>>Now I guess I can sit back and watch the flames fly, since I smacked the Icon
>>of Fantasy in the face.
>
>I'm developing a theory that _The Lord of the Rings_ presents certain
>problems to people who read very fast. I have been trying, off and on,
>for 16 years, to finish _The Lord of the Rings_.
You know, you might have something there. While I did finish the whole
thing the first time I read it, I missed a lot, as I found on subsequent
readings. And I do read fast, having been known to finish one of Robert
Jordan's 600+ page opuses (opi?) in a single night. (It's my guilty
pleasure, sort of like some women and romance novels.)
>Tolkien contains in abundance the kinds of things I usually notice the
>second time through a book. I don't mind reading a book slowly as long as
>I already know I like it. :-) Tolkien throws more events, characters,
>poetry, and subsidiary mythology at you in less space that most authors.
>He's very dense, and when you go fast through that, you get lost. You
>forget who (or what species) the characters are.
I had the same problem with The Reality Dysfunction/The Neutronium
Alchemist, and, I suspect, for a similar reason. Hamilton tosses so much
description, history, etc. in there that I found myself skipping entire
pages of text to get on with the story. I'm sure I missed a lot of
setting, but I got really impatient.
[snip]
>_The Hobbit_ on the other hand, I found easily readable and fun.
Likewise. I didn't actually read it until late in my high school years,
when someone donated one of those nice green-imitation-leather-bound ones
to the library where I worked. They couldn't use it--the library system
already owning several dozen copies of The Hobbit--so they gave it to me.
I got a lot of books that way. A nice perk.
Rimrunner
these days i get cds for free, but i don't get to keep them
--
Murder of Crows official web site: http://www.nwlink.com/~noah/
Force This!: http://www.shavenwookie.com/rimrun
Pop-Culture Corn: http://www.pccmag.com
--
"Look, I don't know how they do things on your home planet, spaceman...but
here in Mayberry, we just don't talk to gun-toting, redneck, amphetamine
freaks that way." -- Milkman Dan, "Red Meat"
--
Joe Slater
az...@NOSPAMerols.com (Aznin) wrote:
>I've started looking for this "The Tough guide to Fantasyland" now.
>It seems to be out of print according to Amazon, but I *will* look for
>this. Does anyone have any more valuable info on this
>author/monograph ?
Diana Wynne Jones is a very good author, although I haven't cared for
her last few books. Most of her stories are technically juveniles
(youngish characters, no sex) but I think they can be read by anyone
who has been a child. I'd especially recommend:
_Eight Days of Luke_
_The Ogre Downstairs_
_Charmed Life_
_Dogsbody_
_The Power of Three_
jds
Thomas Womack
Joy Haftel <jkh...@netcom.com> wrote:
: In article <356D738C...@net-link.net>,
: Kristopher/EOS <eosl...@net-link.net> wrote:
: >Well, personally, I can't read Tolkien. It's the mental equivalent of trying
: >to eat hard tack. I normally read quite fast...and run through more pages
: >than I think I should have been able to. Whenever I tried to read The
: >Hobbit, for example, I would look up at the clock, look down at the book, and
: >think "What the heck? Only 10 pages in half-an-hour? Bleah." My vision of
: >hell is to spend eternity in a library...with everything written by Tolkien.
: >Now I guess I can sit back and watch the flames fly, since I smacked the Icon
: >of Fantasy in the face.
: I'm developing a theory that _The Lord of the Rings_ presents certain
: problems to people who read very fast. I have been trying, off and on,
: for 16 years, to finish _The Lord of the Rings_.
Read it very fast, not minding too much that you are missing
things. Then think of some theme you noticed and found interesting,
and read it again looking for that theme ... lather, rinse, repeat.
I reckon on reading LOTR roughly annually. It takes a lazy Sunday
afternoon. It probably helps to have a version in three volumes, so
that you can have the chronology at the end of volume 3 immediately
accessible if you get completely lost in mythology.
Tom
Sea Wasp
Joy Haftel wrote:
>
> In article <356D738C...@net-link.net>,
> Kristopher/EOS <eosl...@net-link.net> wrote:
> >Well, personally, I can't read Tolkien. It's the mental equivalent of trying
> >to eat hard tack. I normally read quite fast...and run through more pages
> >than I think I should have been able to. Whenever I tried to read The
> >Hobbit, for example, I would look up at the clock, look down at the book, and
> >think "What the heck? Only 10 pages in half-an-hour? Bleah."
> I'm developing a theory that _The Lord of the Rings_ presents certain
> problems to people who read very fast. I have been trying, off and on,
> for 16 years, to finish _The Lord of the Rings_.
No problem for me. And depending on the content of the books involved,
I've been known to go as high as 280 pages per hour. And I remember all
of it.
LotR I read at about 100 pages per hour.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;;
_Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at http://www.hyperbooks.com
Kristopher/EOS
Joe Slater wrote:
> gk...@nospam.inforamp.net (G Kay) wrote:
> >One could go further than the above poster and note
> >that it is easy to play this sort of game with something like -War and
> >Peace- too. (The Philosopher Aristocrat, the Burdened General, the
> >Impetuous Young Man, inter alia.) Tropes are inherent in any literary form.
> >The test, surely, is what is DONE with them (or added to them in terms of
> >nuance).
>
> I don't think you've read _Tough Guide_, and therefore don't realise
> what the author did. You've taken characters from a particular book
> and capitalised them. She stuck her neck out and said that the
> companions in a fantasy "are picked from among the following: BARD,
> FEMALE MERCENARY, GAY MAGE, IMPERIOUS FEMALE, LARGE MAN, SERIOUS
> SOLDIER, SLENDER YOUTH, SMALL MAN, TALENTED GIRL, TEENAGE BOY,
> UNPLEASANT STRANGER and WISE OLD STRANGER".
>
> She has encyclopedia entries describing each one of these - the
> UNPLEASANT STRANGER is either a spy for the DARK LORD or is the
> long-lost KING. You can tell by looking at his hair; if it's greasy
> he's a spy, but if it's *unkempt* or *greying* then he's on the side
> of GOOD. The SLENDER YOUTH will turn out to be the lost prince or
> princess; if the latter then she'll turn out to have magical TALENT
> somewhere in the second book.
>
> The way she skewers cliches, not just in characters but in
> descriptions, is utterly amazing. There are plenty of fantasies about
> which she can say nothing, but I'd say that 90% of modern fantasies
> can be given brief descriptions using the headings from her entries.
>
> jds
I guess I don't read enough bad fantasy novels. I stick to what I consider good
stuff, such as Judith Tarr.
On the other hand, I'm gald i've never studied writing on a formal basis. I
think knowing "tropes" and such stuff would make me entirely too self-conscious
to ever actual write anything.
Kristopher/EOS
Kristopher/EOS
That should be glad, not gald...whatever.
Kristopher/EOS
Graydon
>>
>> In article <356A28...@bc.sympatico.ca>,
>> D. Gascoyne <d...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> )I wouldn't read his :Fionavar Tapestry: first.
>>
>> to someone who wants it proven to him that modern fantasy is
>> not pale imitations of Tolkien...
>
>Ah! A man who knows pale when he sees it! Where were you a couple of
>months ago, when I was roasted by pretty much this entire newsgroup for
>maintaining that _Fionavar_ is derivative of LotR?
Once or twice, yeah, but it's more derivative of the Maginogion and
Mallory.
Fionavar is a deliberate attempt to get most of the significant Western
myths reflected in the place they (in the fiction) originate in; there is
overlap with the selection of significant Western Myths in Tolkein's
Middle Earth, certainly, but structurally? Pfft.
--
goo...@interlog.com | "However many ways there may be of being alive, it
--> mail to Graydon | is certain that there are vastly more ways of being
dead." - Richard Dawkins, :The Blind Watchmaker:
Phil Fraering
j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au.DELETETHIS (Joe Slater) writes:
> I think Bujold would have been better if she hadn't resorted to this
> cliche. I think that like many authors she was constrained by the bad
> choices she made at the beginning of her career, although she's
> certainly improved since then. The big difference, though, is that
> _Tough Guide_ is written for a different genre - it's designed for
> Tolkeinesque fantasies where you have a bunch of characters in a band
> which will have to perform some sort of quest.
I think the way Charlie Stross put it was they had to wander around
collecting plot coupons until they can trade them in for an evil
overlord more to their liking. I wish I had the exact quote.
> jds
--
Phil Fraering "You will cooperate with Microsoft, for the
p...@globalreach.net good of Microsoft and for your own survival."
/Will work for *tape*/ - Navindra Umanee
Joe Slater
jds
The execution. God in the details.
>
>Diana's witty exercise does serve to underscore the commercialization of
>fantasy and the -ease- with which various elements can be (and are) cloned,
>but I'd agree that it is of limited use in evaluating a given book.
>
>GGK
Joe Slater
Mitch Hagmaier <kyo...@csrlink.net> wrote:
>I thought _Armageddon Rag_ was the worst piece of
>tripe GRRM ever wrote, a palid echo of countless snide simple
>dualistic columns, short stories, and newsmagazine essays from
>the same period. Oh, hate us, we're materialistic. Oh, weep
>for our lost innocence, we were flower children and now we're
>suited sharks.
Yes, that was the background for the story, but the whole point was
how the story grew out of that - the dark forces, the magic and so
forth.
>So you just hate the Don Passos style. Boy, that really limits
>the range of work you'll like. Most Brunner, Brin... anyone
>ever notice how many good SF writers end up filed in the "B"s?
Brin's latest work has been bad. Self indulgent, loose, poorly written
and slow. I like his earlier books, though. It's not the jump between
viewpoints that annoys me, but the way it's done. _Thrones_ never lets
anything happen; as soon as something even looks like happening we
jump to another viewpoint. I couldn't keep track of the separate
stories, or even care about the characters. _Thrones_ is a bunch of
very ordinary fantasies chopped up and dealt into a single pile.
>> "_A Game of Thrones_ is set in a *Vestigial Empire* protected from the
>> *Dark Lord* of the *Snowbound North* by an *Ancient Engineering
>> Project*. "
>Except for the fact that there is no Dark Lord, not bad. Did you
>forget the entire subplot with the Noble Nomads & the lost Princess With
>Secret Powers?
I wasn't sure about the Dark Lord, but I assumed it had to have one. I
bet he'll crop up in the next book or two, anyway. It's been two years
since I read _Thrones_ and I've tried to put it out of my memory.
Regarding the Noble Nomads and the Princess, there are entries which
sum it up rather well: the TALENTED GIRL with MINDSPEECH is captured
among the CLANS of the DESERT NOMADS.
>> When you start
>> running into characters like her *Small Man* ("very funny or very
>> tiresome ... he gambles, he drinks too much and he always runs away
>> ... Physically he is stunted and not at all handsome, although he
>> usually dresses flamboyantly")
>Welp, there goes the whole of Bujold, doesn't it? Because that
>description covers Miles Vorkosigan as much as it does Tyrion Halfman.
I think Bujold would have been better if she hadn't resorted to this
cliche. I think that like many authors she was constrained by the bad
choices she made at the beginning of her career, although she's
certainly improved since then. The big difference, though, is that
_Tough Guide_ is written for a different genre - it's designed for
Tolkeinesque fantasies where you have a bunch of characters in a band
which will have to perform some sort of quest. That sort of story is
now so stereotyped that she can poke fun at it by listing the cliches
that these fantasies all subscribe to; she describes the readers as a
tourist, calls the quest a tour, calls the books "brochures",
speculates about what the Management is doing behind the scenes and so
forth.
jds
Elio M. Garcia, Jr.
Joe Slater wrote:
> Here are some boks/series which can't be _Tough Guided_:
> _Earthsea_ by Ursula K LeGuin - it's original and hasn't been
> excessively imitated.
A young boy of common heritage comes from obscurity to turn the world
on its ear. He goes on many quests. He becomes wise and powerful.
Meanwhile, a young boy of a high lineage (whose ancestral empire is no
longer what it once was) is led through various quests by a wise and
powerful old man in which the boy learns all he needs to know about how
to become a wise ruler. The boy re-establishes the ancient empire.
> _Prydain_ by Lloyd Alexander - it's based on the Celtic myths, but its
> plotis different and it subverts them.
A young boy raised basely stumbles upon a great threat. He goes on
quests. He reveals himself to be a great hero in the making, and very
wise; why, he'd be a great king even. He has an wise old man as a
mentor, and a funny creature who follows him about and helps him. He
defeats the forces of evil and becomes a great king. The previous
caretakers of the land, a magical and beautiful folk, travel away West
over Water. His queen is of these magic folk, but forsakes the magic to
live with him.
> _Narnia_ by C S Lewis. Who would dare?
A bunch of protagonists learn that they are in fact descended of a
great and high lineage, and fight to re-establish a good kingdom against
the forces of evil. They go upon many adventures. The ones who seem
worst suited to it all (ugly, mean-spirited, too short, too cowardly)
reveal themselves to be among the best. In the end, a great battle takes
place. Then everyone dies, and they go to heaven.
Two Tolkienian derivatives and one that's pretty close, plus the
Biblical bit at the end. How unoriginal! The only reason I ever read
them was that they were superbly enjoyable, they were great fun, they
were well-written, and they made one think. But otherwise, they're
tripe, because, yeah, sure, there's a little bit of the new here or
there (in the ordering and twists and turns of the plots, histories,
characters, etc.), but mostly they just have nothing original to say at
all.
[Satire off]
I haven't read this _Tough Guide_. No doubt it's witty, and I'll
probably seek it out to take a look at it when I can. However, the
method of it doesn't really matter -- you've taken an author's amusing
look at the genre and used it to characterize a book in three tropes of
said genre (one of them wrong at the moment; two maybe -- I don't
remember any vestigal empire. The Seven Kingdoms have never been larger
than they were at the opening of the books) and shouting, 'Hah! Look!
There's nothing original about it! It has nothing to say!' I suspect if
I had this _Tough Guide_ handy, I could very easily put all works of
fantasy to that particular test, and it'll all seem pointless.
But I won't. ;) It's quite all right if you find it unoriginal and
horrible -- people have differences of opinion -- but avoiding
labelling a book as having nothing to say by pointing any one particular
part of it, because there's no successful book ever written that can't
be said to be derivative in part or in whole of prior works. None. In
truth, I'll go so far as to say there _isn't_ anything original left in
fantasy in the 'elements' that can be used successfully -- what has been
untried should be left untried because they will jarr and will seem
forced, unnatural.
The art of the writer is to take all he knows, and come up with
something that is different, enjoyable, and perhaps does have something
to say -- in their own voice; and if that may seem familiar, little
wonder: everyone speaks with the same voice which their ancestors
(whether by blood, or by spirit, or by thought) spoke with long before
they were ever born, and they all grew up listening and reading the same
stories, and living them too. The world doesn't change when it comes to
the most basic elements of human experience, whatever the trappings, so
why should the stories change any more than is necessary to reveal
something from a different viewpoint?
--
Elio M. Garcia, Jr. <who expects to be flamed ;P> --
ran...@bellsouth.net
"He is gone, he is gone,
And we cast away moan.
God 'a' mercy on his soul."
-- William Shakespeare
Graydon
In article <6kkm9j$1lm$1...@halcyon.com>, Rimrunner <rim...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>In article <jkh107Et...@netcom.com>, Joy Haftel <jkh...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>problems to people who read very fast. I have been trying, off and on,
>>for 16 years, to finish _The Lord of the Rings_.
>
>thing the first time I read it, I missed a lot, as I found on subsequent
>readings. And I do read fast, having been known to finish one of Robert
Really good prose has to be read with speaking rhythms and something like
speaking rates. Tolkein is not the only author with this property, by any
means, just possibly the best known among sf readers.
I don't think there is any way to read that stuff fast; the brain can only
add connections so fast, and the hardwiring for that only has so much
flexibility.
Camille Bacon-Smith
I remember hearing Oprah Winfrey say something very similar to Toni
Morrison. Toni Morrison answered, "That's why they call it reading."
The really good stuff can't be read like so much beach fodder. It has to
be lingered over. Read a second and third time too, but definitely read
carefully--actively, in relationship with the text rather than just
passing through. The complaint is sort of like not liking single malt
scotch because you can't chug it down like a Bud. Well, that's true.
But then, you don't NEED to chug it down, either .
Camille (too long an English teacher!)
In article <jkh107Et...@netcom.com> Joy Haftel, jkh...@netcom.com
writes:
>Tolkien throws more events, characters,
>poetry, and subsidiary mythology at you in less space that most authors.
>He's very dense, and when you go fast through that, you get lost. You
>forget who (or what species) the characters are.
>
David Goldfarb
In article <6kjksq$8bj$1...@bartlet.df.lth.se>,
Magnus Olsson <m...@bartlet.df.lth.se> wrote:
)>David Goldfarb wrote:
)>>
)>> In particular I wouldn't recommend "The Fionavar Tapestry"
)>> to someone who wants it proven to him that modern fantasy is
)>> not pale imitations of Tolkien...
)
)"Pale"? You can say a lot of "Fionavar", and people do tend to say it,
)but I wouldn't really call it "pale"...
I was quoting the root article of this subthread, someone
who said that after Tolkien everything else seemed like pale imitations.
I rather liked "Fionavar" myself, but preferred the later parts where
other mythologies got mixed in.
David Goldfarb <*>|"Newsgroups trimmed back to rec.arts.sf.written,
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | in the hope of subverting society's traditional
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | values in a more focussed, netiquette-aware
aste...@slip.net | fashion." -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <6klejv$e...@excalibur.gooroos.com>,
Graydon <goo...@interlog.com> wrote:
>Really good prose has to be read with speaking rhythms and something like
>speaking rates. Tolkein is not the only author with this property, by any
>means, just possibly the best known among sf readers.
I read _Lord of the Rings_ to my little sister some years back (it
took about nine months, as bedtime installments). It reads aloud
*brilliantly*--despite having read it a dozen or so times myself, I
found a lot of stuff I'd missed. Parts that worked particularly
well: the Orcs taking Merry and Legolas across Rohan; the trek
through the Dead Marshes.
The battle scenes were trouble, though, because they're quite long,
and she would *not* let me stop in the middle.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Edward Gieskes
Joe Slater (j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au.DELETETHIS) wrote:
: "_A Game of Thrones_ is set in a *Vestigial Empire* protected from the
: *Dark Lord* of the *Snowbound North* by an *Ancient Engineering
: Project*. "
: That really tells you all you need to know, doesn't it? When you start
: running into characters like her *Small Man* ("very funny or very
: tiresome ... he gambles, he drinks too much and he always runs away
: ... Physically he is stunted and not at all handsome, although he
: usually dresses flamboyantly") you know that GRRM has nothing original
: to say. Note that _The Tough Guide to Fantasyland_ was written before
: _A Game of Thrones_ was published.
Did you miss the (to me, at least) very interesting treatment
of politics in a fantasy universe? There is a nice conflict
set up between radically different models of government and of
political activity. It makes me think of the _The Prince_.
It also seems to me that the above summary does the novel an
injustice simply because the *threat from the north* is only
one of many plot elements.
It's far too easy to condemn a work for being part of a genre--
it's a fantasy novel, yes, but it also *does things* with the
conventions that are interesting.
my two cents,
Ed
--
________________________________________________________________________
Ed Gieskes
egie...@bu.edu
PGP Key fingerprint = 04 8A 21 42 62 BD 36 D0 56 F0 1C 64 CB FA 43 52
________________________________________________________________________
Jay Random
Camille Bacon-Smith wrote:
>
> I remember hearing Oprah Winfrey say something very similar to Toni
> Morrison. Toni Morrison answered, "That's why they call it reading."
> The really good stuff can't be read like so much beach fodder. It has to
> be lingered over. Read a second and third time too, but definitely read
> carefully--actively, in relationship with the text rather than just
> passing through. The complaint is sort of like not liking single malt
> scotch because you can't chug it down like a Bud. Well, that's true.
> But then, you don't NEED to chug it down, either .
Hear, hear!
There's a reason why nine-tenths of so-called epic fantasy series are so
much easier to read than LotR: Padding. Brooks pads, Williams pads,
Feist pads, Eddings pads shamelessly -- Jordan's umpteenalogy is the
definitive exercise in padding -- Goodkind pads with long, sickly
voluptuous torture scenes -- And then there's Tolkien. He didn't write
LotR to fulfill a three-book contract; he simply wrote a story as long
as it had to be. He cut some tens of thousands of words from the draft
of LotR before it was published, something that would never occur to
most of his imitators, or, I fancy, to their editors. (Hence the truly
ludicrous spectacle of Tad Williams' trilogy, _Memory, Sorrow, & Thorn_,
being published in _four_ paperback volumes -- with _To Green Angel
Tower_ being a two-book book!)
Now, some folk will differ with me; they'll cite the poetry, the
snatches of history & legends of the Elder Days, & above all the
appendices, as examples of padding by Tolkien; but that's not the same
thing at all, at all. These elements are not repetitive; each is
carefully & individually crafted -- & each plays its part in building
the enormously rich texture of Middle-earth, which, after all, is at
least as important to the story as any of the characters. When Gandalf
explains to Pippin that the Númenóreans brought over Sea with them the
Palantíri, the handiwork of Fëanor, he is not just taking up space; he
is setting the stage for Aragorn's use of the Palantir to reveal himself
to Sauron, which set the whole War of the Ring in motion. Contrast with,
say, Eddings: When Brill waylays Belgarath & company for about the third
time (doesn't he ever learn?), gets royally kicked in the teeth, Barak
remarks again to Hettar that it was a good little fight, Silk makes yet
another snide remark, & Polgara pretends to be shocked -- THAT'S
padding. Add to that Eddings' highly tautological & slipshod prose
style*, & you've got a recipe for Miraculous Oyster Stew -- serves a
multitude, only one oyster required.
As for me, I prefer to slow down, read the stories that really need to
take the space they do -- & for the rest, let the trees keep their pulp.
--J. Random Prefers A Good Tree To A Bad Book, D.G.F.V.
*As a finger exercise, I once scanned the first two chapters of _The
Belgariad_, & set out to see how many words I could remove without
altering either the sense or the phrasing in any identifiable way. I cut
16% of the published text in a couple of hours. I could have cut twice
as much by using better word-choices, omitting repetitive description,
auctorial editorializing, etc., etc.; but I specifically restricted
myself to matters of sentence structure & outright verbatim repetition,
on the model of Mark Twain's `The Literary Offences of Fenimore Cooper'.
_The Belgariad_ could easily have fit in three volumes instead of five,
& been a better story for it; millions of people have paid the price of
two paperbacks for the privilege of watching the author spout hot air.
--J.R. etc.
Joy Haftel
>>In article <jkh107Et...@netcom.com>, Joy Haftel <jkh...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>I'm developing a theory that _The Lord of the Rings_ presents certain
>>>problems to people who read very fast. I have been trying, off and on,
>>>for 16 years, to finish _The Lord of the Rings_.
>>You know, you might have something there. While I did finish the whole
>>thing the first time I read it, I missed a lot, as I found on subsequent
>>readings. And I do read fast, having been known to finish one of Robert
>Really good prose has to be read with speaking rhythms and something like
>speaking rates. Tolkein is not the only author with this property, by any
>means, just possibly the best known among sf readers.
I've thought about that. I don't think that's the case. I can zip away
through *most* books, regardless of the quality of the prose, although
bestseller-style books do go the fastest for me. To a certain extent I
probably subconsciously adjust my reading speed to the appropriate pace
for the book, but LOTR seemed to come in under some sort of lower barrier
where I had to *consciously* slow myself down. The only other author I've
had to do that for was Alexander Pope. Unless you want to tell me that in
the course of 4 years studying English Lit I didn't read any good prose!
(Well, OK, most of it was poetry and drama, but *still*!)
Also, LOTR also is full of interspersed poetry. The temptation to skip
the poems completely and get on with the story (ha!) was almost
overwhelming.
I really think it's the density of the prose--by which I mean the order
and frequency with which new concepts/characters/etc. are introduced or
mentioned--which presents problems. If you zip through LOTR the first
time, you get confused. Fast. (Is this guy an Elf or a Man? What the
heck is Aragorn--he's part-Elf, right?--and why does he have so freakin'
many names? etc.) I think it ties in with what you say here:
>I don't think there is any way to read that stuff fast; the brain can only
>add connections so fast, and the hardwiring for that only has so much
>flexibility.
And I have an internal drive to be *fast*. My music teachers have
remarked on it.
Graydon
In article <librik.8...@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu>,
Dave Librik <lib...@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>gra...@gooroos.com (Graydon) writes:
>>Once or twice, yeah, but it's more derivative of the Maginogion
>>and Mallory.
>
>_Fionavar Tapestry_ and the Mabinogion. I hadn't noticed that.
Funky cauldrons; magically attack geographical areas; peculiar
treacheries; mystical signicance of number; the Gods presented being
rather more pre-Celt/German split than the Valar, and heavily tied with
forests and blood.
Joy Haftel
In article <356E25...@wizvax.net>, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>Joy Haftel wrote:
>> I'm developing a theory that _The Lord of the Rings_ presents certain
>> problems to people who read very fast. I have been trying, off and on,
>> for 16 years, to finish _The Lord of the Rings_.
(By the way, I meant by my statement above that every couple of years I
restart the thing, not that I've been chugging away at the opus for that
long)
> No problem for me. And depending on the content of the books involved,
>I've been known to go as high as 280 pages per hour. And I remember all
>of it.
> LotR I read at about 100 pages per hour.
So, you had to slow yourself down by almost 2/3. I think, in a weird
way, that was my point.
Sea Wasp
It wasn't what was implied, though. You were implying that fast
readers would have difficulty with the text itself. It's natural to
slow down or speed up depending on the material; I do close to 300
pages per hour on books that are very simple and direct -- my old Danny
Dunn books, for instance, I read at 140 pages each in under half an
hour -- but for something like Tolkien or Hamilton, I drag down to 100
because there's a lot more to think about and digest. Things like my
old physics textbooks are down to 10 - 15 pages an hour, and my recent
textbooks in Unsolvability were in the single digit range; tough stuff
for me.
Sea Wasp
j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au.DELETETHIS (Joe Slater) did write on ancient
parchment:
> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
> >The One Ring can only be used for evil, or if used for good
> >will eventually corrupt the user into evil. Its power is not dependent
> >on anyone or anything else; anyone can use it, though the power
> >immediately available to the user does depend on their will and
> >inherent power (possibly also on acclimatization; there's some reason
> >to believe that had Frodo continued using and wearing the Ring for a
> >number of years as he did in LotR he might have become quite a
> >formidable Dark Lord).
>
> Surely not. Frodo would have turned into another Gollum. Not only is
> Gollum of the same race, but we see the process's start in Bilbo - he
> doesn't start getting powerful; he starts feeling tired. This is just
> logic, but I have a better argument.
Actually, you have a worse one. I'll get to that in a moment.
In the first case, it's not at all clear that Bilbo was going the
Gollum route. Tired and stretched out is not the way that Gollum would
have described himself. Only after he began to remember being a Hobbit
did he occasionally have those thoughts -- note that he might have been
redeemed had Sam not reacted in just the wrong way at the wrong time.
Gollum became what he was because he WAS a sneak -- a murdering,
lying, treacherous bastard -- even BEFORE he got the Ring. So the Ring,
in effect, made him more of what he had been, in a dark way. Following
the same process of corruption, Frodo would have become a resolute,
methodical Dark Lord -- deciding on a course of action, and continuing
on it. Frodo and Bilbo are far different, both from each other and from
Smeagol, and the Ring's end result on them would have been different.
>
> It is necessary for dramatic reasons that Frodo and Gollum be related.
Not at all.
> Gollum is hated by Frodo precisely because they are so similar: they
> are short and childlike; they each live in caves; each is obsessed
> with food.
They're both hobbits, to which these descriptions apply (though
"childlike" is debatable)
Frodo pictures himself among the Big Folk although he is
> only a caricature of them (he dances amusingly for their benefit, he
> wears a tiny sword and set of mail) but Gollum reminds him that he is
> small and weak. Because Frodo can see himself in the way Gollum acts
> he hates him for it. Frodo has started to lust after the ring and, as
> with many addicts, he is repulsed at the sight of this lust in
> another.
>
> This is why the story demanded that Frodo not kill Gollum. That would
> have been just another example of Frodo denying the truth about
> himself. Gollum died because of his own intrinsic weakness as a slave
> to the desire to possess the ring, a weakness which Frodo also
> possessed. Gollum died at the moment that Frodo's desire matured into
> a desire to rule with the ring; it's a symbolic death of childhood.
Twaddle. Tolkien particularly disliked this kind of analysis of LotR,
and in the immortal words of Freud, "sometimes a cigar is just a
cigar". Frodo spared Gollum precisely because he pitied him -- he felt
sorry for the wretched thing. It was a direct illustration of how Frodo
*was* different from Gollum, and in some ways had been influenced by
the Big People (specifically Gandalf) far more than other Hobbits. Most
Hobbits would take the direct route: Gollum's a problem, he's killed
before, well, messy though it is we'd better hang 'im now! Frodo is
unwilling to do that, because he knows that nasty though Smeagol was,
the Ring is to blame for making him infinitely worse. The Ring must be
destroyed. Frodo has no "weakness" over the Ring. It's made pretty
clear in the text that Frodo and Bilbo are FAR stronger in this area
that just about anyone -- enough to overawe people like Gandalf and
Aragorn. Frodo carries the Ring for months, while the Power of Sauron
is growing and feeding the Ring. He uses it liberally. Nonetheless, he
resists its corruption all the way up to the very end, and even at that
point still retains much of his basic humanity, realizing what he's
doing. The Ring is like a chunk of radioactive waste; it will kill you
eventually. How long it takes is a measure of your strength. Gollum
fell to its lure (in a time when it was far weaker in effect, due to
Sauron's weakness) essentially instantly. Bilbo never really noticed it
much, only encountering difficulty in handing it over (and note that
this is the Ring's very FIRST effect, to make sure that you cannot give
it away), and only rarely thinking of it afterwards. Frodo, as I said,
used it extensively and carried it for months, into the heart of the
Enemy's power... and still remained himself. Comparing him with Gollum
is foolish.
Joy Haftel
>Camille Bacon-Smith wrote:
>>
>> I remember hearing Oprah Winfrey say something very similar to Toni
>> Morrison. Toni Morrison answered, "That's why they call it reading."
>> The really good stuff can't be read like so much beach fodder. It has to
>> be lingered over. Read a second and third time too, but definitely read
>> carefully--actively, in relationship with the text rather than just
>> passing through. The complaint is sort of like not liking single malt
>> scotch because you can't chug it down like a Bud. Well, that's true.
>> But then, you don't NEED to chug it down, either .
Hm, maybe that's why I don't like Scotch. I can only stand to take about
a sip an hour. :->
In article <356ED8...@shaw.wave.ca>,
Jay Random <jra...@shaw.wave.ca> wrote:
>Hear, hear!
[Tolkien doesn't pad. Too many other authors do.]
True. But there are authors who do not pad--Bujold comes to mind as
a mistress of both excellent and tightly written prose--who can also
easily be read fast.
I think it has something to do with the frequency with which new
characters/concepts/backstory/infodump/whateveryouwanttocallit are
introduced. Tolkien is amazingly dense with this; he also is unique in
having one of the most fully developed imaginary worlds out there.
Bujold, on the other hand, uses her sf universe as background, pulling in
details from it only as long as they directly affect her characters, who,
by the way, are NOT introduced about 10 at a time as Tolkien's sometimes
are.
You have to slow down to digest this. Some (apparently not all) very
fast readers find this annoying.
Joy Haftel
In article <356EE9...@wizvax.net>, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>Joy Haftel wrote:
>> So, you had to slow yourself down by almost 2/3. I think, in a weird
>> way, that was my point.
> It wasn't what was implied, though. You were implying that fast
>readers would have difficulty with the text itself.
I'm sorry; that is not what I meant. I meant that fast readers may find
it frustrating to hold themselves back long enough to digest it. I
originally wrote in response to another poster who disliked Tolkien for
the same reason.
>It's natural to
>slow down or speed up depending on the material; I do close to 300
>pages per hour on books that are very simple and direct -- my old Danny
>Dunn books, for instance, I read at 140 pages each in under half an
>hour -- but for something like Tolkien or Hamilton, I drag down to 100
>because there's a lot more to think about and digest. Things like my
>old physics textbooks are down to 10 - 15 pages an hour, and my recent
>textbooks in Unsolvability were in the single digit range; tough stuff
>for me.
Well, yeah. But you're making Tolkien sound more and more like
schoolwork, which has become my attitude towards reading him. I'm
getting to the point where my only motivations for finishing it are:
1. I'll finally understand what everyone else is talking about.
2. I'll know who *really* ripped JRRT off.
3. It'll be good for me. Sort of like eating liver.
(This past time I quit about halfway through the 2nd book. I now half
understand what everyone else is talking about)
Brenda Clough
Jay Random wrote:
>
>
> *As a finger exercise, I once scanned the first two chapters of _The
> Belgariad_, & set out to see how many words I could remove without
> altering either the sense or the phrasing in any identifiable way. I cut
> 16% of the published text in a couple of hours. I could have cut twice
> as much by using better word-choices, omitting repetitive description,
> auctorial editorializing, etc., etc.; but I specifically restricted
> myself to matters of sentence structure & outright verbatim repetition,
> on the model of Mark Twain's `The Literary Offences of Fenimore Cooper'.
> _The Belgariad_ could easily have fit in three volumes instead of five,
> & been a better story for it; millions of people have paid the price of
> two paperbacks for the privilege of watching the author spout hot air.
> --J.R. etc.
Wow! Good for you! Readers of the world, rise up and cast off your chains!
(I once thought about taking a red flair pen to a Gor book, to tidy up the
prose. But then I realized I preferred to keep my bodily fluids pure.)
Brenda
--
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD from Tor Books
<clo...@erols.com> http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda
Brenda Clough
Joy Haftel wrote:
And I have an internal drive to be *fast*. My music teachers have
> remarked on it.
>
Joy, you spiritual sister! My piano teachers have complained of the same thing.
(And the books I have read, snapping my fingers impatiently and muttering, "C'mon,
get this thing moving, it's page 59 already!")
Graydon
In article <jkh107Et...@netcom.com>, Joy Haftel <jkh...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <6klejv$e...@excalibur.gooroos.com>,
>Graydon <goo...@interlog.com> wrote:
>>Really good prose has to be read with speaking rhythms and something like
>>speaking rates. Tolkein is not the only author with this property, by any
>>means, just possibly the best known among sf readers.
>
>I've thought about that. I don't think that's the case. I can zip away
>through *most* books, regardless of the quality of the prose, although
Sure. Very few books have really good prose, prose which has actual
metrical rigour. It's not easy, and it's not, strictly, _necessary_; one
can tell a very good story without doing so.
But if you want images that people can't get out of their brains with a
brillo pad, well, not many options; you can either go for unique resonance
(an inherently limited technique) or go for metrical rigour.
>bestseller-style books do go the fastest for me. To a certain extent I
>probably subconsciously adjust my reading speed to the appropriate pace
>for the book, but LOTR seemed to come in under some sort of lower barrier
>where I had to *consciously* slow myself down. The only other author I've
>had to do that for was Alexander Pope. Unless you want to tell me that in
>the course of 4 years studying English Lit I didn't read any good prose!
>(Well, OK, most of it was poetry and drama, but *still*!)
Very little of what gets studied in English lit is really good prose; it
tends to be significant prose, instead. There just _isn't_ much really
good prose; one of the things that makes :Lord of the Rings: significant
is that it's really good prose and it's that blessed long.
>Also, LOTR also is full of interspersed poetry. The temptation to skip
>the poems completely and get on with the story (ha!) was almost
>overwhelming.
Why?
It's not _bad_ poetry by any means, it is nowhere very long, and it is
always doing at least three things to further the story.
>I really think it's the density of the prose--by which I mean the order
>and frequency with which new concepts/characters/etc. are introduced or
>mentioned--which presents problems. If you zip through LOTR the first
>time, you get confused. Fast.
I think it is a mistake to suppose that everyone reads the same way.
There's the relate-to-known-tropes way, and there's the internal-logic
way. The former is much better for studying empirical subjects with; the
later is sometimes required for really good prose, and I would argue
helpful for dealing with anything of primarily artistic merit.
>(Is this guy an Elf or a Man? What the
>heck is Aragorn--he's part-Elf, right?--and why does he have so freakin'
Some of his distant ancestors were elves; more importantly, one of them
was divine.
>many names? etc.) I think it ties in with what you say here:
>
>>I don't think there is any way to read that stuff fast; the brain can only
>>add connections so fast, and the hardwiring for that only has so much
>>flexibility.
>
>And I have an internal drive to be *fast*. My music teachers have
>remarked on it.
You might wish to consider that this limits what you can do, and to set it
aside from time to time.
Andrew Plotkin
Brenda Clough (clo...@erols.com) wrote:
> Joy Haftel wrote:
> > And I have an internal drive to be *fast*. My music teachers have
> > remarked on it.
> Joy, you spiritual sister! My piano teachers have complained of the
> same thing.
> (And the books I have read, snapping my fingers impatiently and
> muttering, "C'mon,
> get this thing moving, it's page 59 already!")
Hm. If a dozen important things have happened by page 10, is that a
*fast* book or a *slow* one?
I think of _The Sorceress and the Cygnet_ as the canonical example... by
the first chapter, there's a world in your head (which has been there for
years); by the second, two things have happened which are *wrong*, and
you know how wrong they are because you know the world. Fantastically
dense writing. Now, does that satisfy your desire for speed? Because it
makes me feel very slow and deliberate... it took me half an hour to read
those first ten pages, the first time I read the book.
I agree it's a good thing, but I think we're attributing opposite
sensations to it. Heh.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Joy Haftel
In article <356F1474...@erols.com>,
Brenda Clough <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>Joy Haftel wrote:
>> And I have an internal drive to be *fast*. My music teachers have
>> remarked on it.
>Joy, you spiritual sister! My piano teachers have complained of the same
>thing. (And the books I have read, snapping my fingers impatiently and
>muttering, "C'mon, get this thing moving, it's page 59 already!")
Heh. I had a clarinet teacher who nicknamed me "Speedy Gonzalez."
The drive works well for me in some areas--typing, knitting/crocheting,
making boring tasks interesting ("How quickly can I wash these dishes?"),
etc. I also fidget a lot and like needlework because it gives me
something to do with my hands.
In reading, it's been a mixed blessing. I give up on perfectly good books
too soon. I used to fail "Reading Comprehension" tests, not because I
couldn't understand the material, but because I was reading too
quickly--racing to be done with the test so I could get on with the real
book I was reading. After slowing down I could get perfect scores. (I used
to fail "Listening Comprehension" tests too, but they didn't take into
account the fact that I was reading something half-hidden in my desk and
not paying attention at all.)
Glad to find others in the same boat. :-)
David G. Bell
> Camille Bacon-Smith wrote:
> >
> > I remember hearing Oprah Winfrey say something very similar to Toni
> > Morrison. Toni Morrison answered, "That's why they call it reading."
> > The really good stuff can't be read like so much beach fodder. It has to
> > be lingered over. Read a second and third time too, but definitely read
> > carefully--actively, in relationship with the text rather than just
> > passing through. The complaint is sort of like not liking single malt
> > scotch because you can't chug it down like a Bud. Well, that's true.
> > But then, you don't NEED to chug it down, either .
>
> Hear, hear!
>
> There's a reason why nine-tenths of so-called epic fantasy series are so
> much easier to read than LotR: Padding. Brooks pads, Williams pads,
> Feist pads, Eddings pads shamelessly -- Jordan's umpteenalogy is the
> definitive exercise in padding -- Goodkind pads with long, sickly
> voluptuous torture scenes -- And then there's Tolkien. He didn't write
> LotR to fulfill a three-book contract; he simply wrote a story as long
> as it had to be. He cut some tens of thousands of words from the draft
> of LotR before it was published, something that would never occur to
> most of his imitators, or, I fancy, to their editors. (Hence the truly
> ludicrous spectacle of Tad Williams' trilogy, _Memory, Sorrow, & Thorn_,
> being published in _four_ paperback volumes -- with _To Green Angel
> Tower_ being a two-book book!)
I can't quite find it in my heart to blame the author for wanting to
write at length. I don't suppose that these books are paid for by the
word, but I recall hearing that Dumas was paid by the _line_, which
goes some way to explain the way his characters talk. But sometimes
that sort of extended style works.
> Now, some folk will differ with me; they'll cite the poetry, the
> snatches of history & legends of the Elder Days, & above all the
> appendices, as examples of padding by Tolkien; but that's not the same
> thing at all, at all. These elements are not repetitive; each is
> carefully & individually crafted -- & each plays its part in building
> the enormously rich texture of Middle-earth, which, after all, is at
> least as important to the story as any of the characters. When Gandalf
> explains to Pippin that the Númenóreans brought over Sea with them the
> Palantíri, the handiwork of Fëanor, he is not just taking up space; he
> is setting the stage for Aragorn's use of the Palantir to reveal himself
> to Sauron, which set the whole War of the Ring in motion. Contrast with,
> say, Eddings: When Brill waylays Belgarath & company for about the third
> time (doesn't he ever learn?), gets royally kicked in the teeth, Barak
> remarks again to Hettar that it was a good little fight, Silk makes yet
> another snide remark, & Polgara pretends to be shocked -- THAT'S
> padding. Add to that Eddings' highly tautological & slipshod prose
> style*, & you've got a recipe for Miraculous Oyster Stew -- serves a
> multitude, only one oyster required.
And maybe people do carry on like that, saying the same things, and
being boringly repetitive. And, yes, I do think that Eddings can carry
that too far. His characters are almost catchphrases. And yet
sometimes I can find that sort of thing to be fun to read.
> As for me, I prefer to slow down, read the stories that really need to
> take the space they do -- & for the rest, let the trees keep their pulp.
>
>
> --J. Random Prefers A Good Tree To A Bad Book, D.G.F.V.
>
>
> *As a finger exercise, I once scanned the first two chapters of _The
> Belgariad_, & set out to see how many words I could remove without
> altering either the sense or the phrasing in any identifiable way. I cut
> 16% of the published text in a couple of hours. I could have cut twice
> as much by using better word-choices, omitting repetitive description,
> auctorial editorializing, etc., etc.; but I specifically restricted
> myself to matters of sentence structure & outright verbatim repetition,
> on the model of Mark Twain's `The Literary Offences of Fenimore Cooper'.
> _The Belgariad_ could easily have fit in three volumes instead of five,
> & been a better story for it; millions of people have paid the price of
> two paperbacks for the privilege of watching the author spout hot air.
But do tastes change?
How does the long-windedness of some modern authors compare to that of
some Victorian novelists?
Heck, look at how long-winded some medieval literature can be, and how
repetitive. But the stories of King Arthur, and of the Holy Grail, and
of knights Questing in all directions, were for people who wanted long,
time-filling, entertainment. It took some of the part that TV plays in
modern culture.
And then think of the real kicker in all this. Look at the price for
one of the books of twenty years ago, shorter and sweeter, and compare
it to the contemporary equivalent. "The Riddle-Master of Hed" and a
recently-written paperback of twice the thickness.
Those wads of paper do look like more value for money, and they do fill
the idle hours. But I'd rather see that paper used for a book which
doesn't waste words.
--
Cheap Food \
Safe Food > Pick any two of three.
Healthy Food /
Brenda Clough
Joy Haftel wrote:
> I
> The drive works well for me in some areas--typing, knitting/crocheting,
> making boring tasks interesting ("How quickly can I wash these dishes?"),
> etc. I also fidget a lot and like needlework because it gives me
> something to do with my hands.
>
I knit for the same reason. And a speedy expectation is actually useful in
writing. I can't bear to be bored with what I'm writing. So my books tend to
have rather a lot of action, a good deal going on in every scene. None of
this slow building up to a crisis, no sir.
one side of moebius
Aznin wrote:
>
> I've started looking for this "The Tough guide to Fantasyland" now.
> It seems to be out of print according to Amazon, but I *will* look for
> this. Does anyone have any more valuable info on this
> author/monograph ?
Diana Wynne Jones is a prolific author who has consistently turned out
intriguing and original plots with interesting characters and good
prose. Her work is usually classified as "juvenile", but you certainly
shouldn't let that stop you.
Try in particular:
Hexwood
Power of Three
Dogsbody
Homeward Bounders
Tale of Time City
Howl's Moving Castle
Archer's Goon
jessie
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
one side of moebius jessie shelton
shelton(AT)princeton.edu http://www.princeton.edu/~shelton
"The first thing to learn is that one cannot learn
everything. The second thing to learn is that this must not
prevent one from trying." --Starandrahi, the Book of Sam
---------------------------------------------------------------
one side of moebius
Piggybacking here; the original post seems to have gotten lost somewhere
in my server.
> >>In article <jkh107Et...@netcom.com>, Joy Haftel <jkh...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >>>I'm developing a theory that _The Lord of the Rings_ presents certain
> >>>problems to people who read very fast. I have been trying, off and on,
> >>>for 16 years, to finish _The Lord of the Rings_.
I read extremely quickly and always have, faster than any other person I
know in person. (Probably several of you could say the same thing. :)
For reference: Game of Thrones in about six hours, and this was
*reading*, not skimming. I was first given LOTR when I was in third
grade, and I proceeded to vanish into Middle-Earth for a full week. My
parents had to pry me away from the book to eat. I loved the book then
and still do. I have never, ever had any trouble reading it or getting
through it. Nor did I find that I had to mentally adjust my reading
speed to cope with the prose, any time that I've read it (and I've
reread it several times since I first discovered it). I'm sure that my
reading speed slows down when confronted with the depth of the prose,
but I don't have to consciously adapt it.
So, chalk me up as a counterexample.
Paul Clarke
On Wed, 27 May 1998 05:02:59 GMT, fr...@primenet.com (William George
Ferguson) wrote:
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 18:26:55 -0700, Leg...@webtv.net wrote:
>>Let me start by stating that I have not read much fantasy in the Tolkien
>>vein. This is a result of having read Tolkien first. Everything after
>>Tolkien has seemed a pale imitation. Now, can anyone suggest a book
>>(preferably a single book and not a trilogy, though I'm flexible) that
>>will disprove this to me?
>
>Umm, do you want books that don't resonate with Tolkein? That would
>be very difficult since Tolkien very deliberately tapped into certain
>memes and archetypes, and any good occidental high fantasy is very
>likely to pluck some of the same strings.
>
>For high fantasies that don't copy Tolkien:
>
>Patricia McKillip. The Forgotten Beasts of Eld is a standalone, there
>is also a trilogy, The Riddle of the Stars (Riddlemaster of Hed, Heir
>of Sea and Fire, and Harpist in the Wind). McKillip writes lyrical
>prose, and has an incredible ability to make minor throwaway
>characters come alive in just a few sentences (anyone who's read the
>Riddlemaster books will remember Cannon Master and Goh vividly.
>Between them they don't have twenty sentences of dialogue in the three
>books).
"No generalisation is every completely true, not even this one." I
can't remember anything about either character. The Riddle Master
books just don't resonate with me, despite the quality of the prose.
I'll second the recommendation for _The Forgotten Beasts of Eld_
though.
Another couple of suggestions: Peter S. Beagle's _The Last Unicorn_
and _The Inkeeper's Song_ (any maybe _A Fine and Private Place_ too,
but I haven't read that). High fantasy plots but with a very intimate
feel, and nothing like Tolkien.
There's also _The Book of the Dun Cow_ by, err, Wagnerin? Some of the
language made me cringe, but overall it's a good book.
Paul Clarke
On Tue, 26 May 1998 13:32:25 GMT, Jay Random <jra...@shaw.wave.ca>
wrote:
>David Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>> In article <356A28...@bc.sympatico.ca>,
>> D. Gascoyne <d...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> )I wouldn't read his :Fionavar Tapestry: first.
>>
>> In particular I wouldn't recommend "The Fionavar Tapestry"
>> to someone who wants it proven to him that modern fantasy is
>> not pale imitations of Tolkien...
>
>Ah! A man who knows pale when he sees it! Where were you a couple of
>months ago, when I was roasted by pretty much this entire newsgroup for
>maintaining that _Fionavar_ is derivative of LotR?
>
I'll grant you that there are elements of _Fionavar_ derived from
Tolkien (though rather more from Irish, Welsh, Norse and Arthurian
myths), but I can't imagine describing it as 'pale'.
Dan Goodman
In article <356F7DC4...@princetonspamblock.edu>,
one side of moebius <she...@princetonspamblock.edu> wrote:
>Piggybacking here; the original post seems to have gotten lost somewhere
>in my server.
>
>> >>In article <jkh107Et...@netcom.com>, Joy Haftel <jkh...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> >>>I'm developing a theory that _The Lord of the Rings_ presents certain
>> >>>problems to people who read very fast. I have been trying, off and on,
>> >>>for 16 years, to finish _The Lord of the Rings_.
>
>I read extremely quickly and always have, faster than any other person I
>know in person. (Probably several of you could say the same thing. :)
>For reference: Game of Thrones in about six hours, and this was
>*reading*, not skimming. I was first given LOTR when I was in third
>grade, and I proceeded to vanish into Middle-Earth for a full week. My
>parents had to pry me away from the book to eat. I loved the book then
>and still do. I have never, ever had any trouble reading it or getting
>through it. Nor did I find that I had to mentally adjust my reading
>speed to cope with the prose, any time that I've read it (and I've
>reread it several times since I first discovered it). I'm sure that my
>reading speed slows down when confronted with the depth of the prose,
>but I don't have to consciously adapt it.
>
>So, chalk me up as a counterexample.
Me as another counter-example. I'm a fast reader; at one point in my
life, I averaged three sf books a day without much cutting into my time
for other things. And I had no problems with Lord of the Rings.
I read it the same month I also read: the Kama Sutra, _Atlas Shrugged_,
and half a shelf of James Branch Cabell books. I sometimes wonder what
effect that mixture had on my mind.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Pinochet
Graydon wrote in message <6kn2nr$k...@excalibur.gooroos.com>...
>>Also, LOTR also is full of interspersed poetry. The temptation to skip
>>the poems completely and get on with the story (ha!) was almost
>>overwhelming.
>
>Why?
>
>It's not _bad_ poetry by any means, it is nowhere very long, and it is
>always doing at least three things to further the story.
Well, me personally, because I just don't like reading it...perhaps
because of the switch in writing, perhaps just because I don't like
reading poetry...something about the presentation just jars me
wrong I guess. Sure, I know I miss out on a lot sometimes, but
getting on with the story just seems more important..
Sea Wasp
Joy Haftel wrote:
> In reading, it's been a mixed blessing. I give up on perfectly good books
> too soon. I used to fail "Reading Comprehension" tests, not because I
> couldn't understand the material, but because I was reading too
> quickly--racing to be done with the test so I could get on with the real
> book I was reading. After slowing down I could get perfect scores. (I used
> to fail "Listening Comprehension" tests too, but they didn't take into
> account the fact that I was reading something half-hidden in my desk and
> not paying attention at all.)
You're using a completely different definition of "reading", then. I
aced any test having to do with reading comprehension (my GRE Verbal
score was 800, as an example) and I read that stuff FAST; I was always
done with any test that involved reading very nearly as fast as one
could mark the sheet.
It appears that what you're calling "reading fast" is what I call
"skimming" -- grabbing the basic ideas out of the text by reading every
third word or so. That is NOT "reading" from my PoV. If you read it,
even the smallest incident should be there in your mind, ready to be
accessed, immediately after reading. (after some time elapses, one
expects to lose detail). Important or just plain "neat lines" should
stick in your mind well enough for you to quote verbatim or near
verbatim immediately afterwards. Long-term retention will of course be
less, and vary depending on the person, but immediately after reading
that's the kind of result I'd expect if they were really READING the
material rather than skimming it.
Sea Wasp
Brenda Clough wrote:
>
> Joy Haftel wrote:
> And I have an internal drive to be *fast*. My music teachers have
>
> > remarked on it.
> >
>
> Joy, you spiritual sister! My piano teachers have complained of the same thing.
> (And the books I have read, snapping my fingers impatiently and muttering, "C'mon,
> get this thing moving, it's page 59 already!")
This seems to be a philosophical and habitual difference.
Someone mentioned "having to consciously slow myself down".
Under NO circumstances have I ever consciously slowed my "enjoyment"
reading speed. It's completely subconscious. I slow down when I'm
digesting a new idea, appreciating some particularly neat turn of
phrase, etc.. What this means is that books which slow me down have
generally given me more Kool Stuff to chew on. Weber's Honor Harrington
books do that, at least so far.
Non-enjoyment reading, like physics textbooks, yeah. I have to slow
down. But that's because I will start skimming and my mind will glaze
out after a while, since there's nothing in them to keep me interested.
The Blue Rose
j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au.DELETETHIS (Joe Slater) wrote:
*snip*
>_Tough Guide_ has great moments if you don't try to read it at a
>sitting. I particularly recommend her entry on *Horses* - "it
>therefore seems probable that they breed by pollination."
*breathes a sigh of relief* so my feeling of total inadequacy at not
being able to read Tough Guide in one go is not warranted then. Good
:-)
The horses bit - is that the bit about them all being stallions and
stuff?
Stacey - who loved the Cloak description and will never eat stew!
Stacey Hill (note 2 spambusters in my address if replying by e-mail)
"How do I set my Laser Printer to Stun?"
Check out my Gardening and Rose website at
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/9544/index.html
Theresa Ann Wymer
Pinochet (!noSpamGray!me!home@sprint!hatespame!mail.com) wrote:
[Skipping poetry in Tolkien]
: Well, me personally, because I just don't like reading it...perhaps
: because of the switch in writing, perhaps just because I don't like
: reading poetry...something about the presentation just jars me
: wrong I guess. Sure, I know I miss out on a lot sometimes, but
: getting on with the story just seems more important..
Reading the poetry is the best part, because you get to set it to music
and sing it *really loudly* in the shower and annoy the grownups. I came
up with some elaborate setting of "From dark Dunharrow" while waiting in
line for _Return of the Jedi_ when I first read LOTR. Unfortunately I
immediately forgot all but the last line, but most of the other stuff I
composed has stayed in my head (and stayed and STAYED).
I think the (admittedly not as good) poetry in _The Chronicles of Thomas
Covenant_ was my main reason for sticking with the series. Though
singing a line like "Sap and bough are grief and grim to me, engrievement
fell," can be problematic at times.
Didn't anybody else set fantasy poetry to music as they read it, or am I
the only one? *sniff* Unfortunately, I completely lost the knack after
the age of fifteen or so. Frustrating.
--
Theresa Ann Wymer twy...@efn.org Can also sing Longfellow's "Skeleton
in Armor", but forgets the verses after Hildebrand's challenge.
Catja Pafort
Karen wrote:
>Actually, the second Shannara book, _Elfstones of Shannara_, was not
>particularly derivative of Tolkien, and had some very original
>elements. I enjoyed that one a great deal.
>I always figured that Brooks
>deliberately used Tolkien's books as a sort of lifejacket for the first
>Shannara book, until he learned to swim on his own.
I never got around to number two, and number one is on my list of
books I won't keep, which is extremely short.
I liked the first chapter or so, bought it, and read the rest.
Unfortunately, I had just read Tolkien. After a short while I would
know *exactly* what happened and how the characters would react. Far
too transparent.
I'll give the next one a chance, though, when I feel particularly
bored <G>
Catja
--
Catja Pafort
<http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cap96>
"There are 2 pathways to wealth: acquire more,
or desire less." (Anon)
John Van Sickle
Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>
> In article <3569f43b....@newsserver.cc.monash.edu.au>,
> Joe Slater <j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au.DELETETHIS> wrote:
>
> >This is why the story demanded that Frodo not kill Gollum. That would
> >have been just another example of Frodo denying the truth about
> >himself. Gollum died because of his own intrinsic weakness as a slave
> >to the desire to possess the ring, a weakness which Frodo also
> >possessed. Gollum died at the moment that Frodo's desire matured into
> >a desire to rule with the ring; it's a symbolic death of childhood.
> >
> generosity and mercy? That's what Tolkien seems to have thought.
BZZZT! The First Rule of Deconstruction: What the writer thinks is not
important when trying to understand his/her work.
Regards,
John
PMccutc103
Brenda Clough <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>I knit for the same reason. And a speedy expectation is actually useful in
>writing. I can't bear to be bored with what I'm writing. So my books tend
>to
>have rather a lot of action, a good deal going on in every scene. None of
>this slow building up to a crisis, no sir.
You have just sold one book, Ms. Clough.
--
Pete McCutchen