![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
edenfalling'Tis raining. However, 'tis also oddly warm, probably in the lower sixties (Fahrenheit), so I didn't mind the walk from my apartment nearly as much as I thought I might when I heard raindrops committing suicide against my windows this morning.
I've been reading Guy Gavriel Kay's Sarantine Mosaic duology -- Sailing to Sarantium and Lord of Emperors, that is -- and so far (about 70-odd pages into book 2) I like it very much. He has an interesting style, very understated in a way. It's the sort of style where you're on page 60 or so, and nothing terribly exciting is happening but the story has a quiet interest, and then you blink and you're on page 250 and it's still not terribly exciting and yet you haven't put the book down and you feel you've really gotten to know the characters as people, and you'd rather like to know what happens next. It's a deceptive sort of storytelling. (This is not to say he can't do exciting when he needs to -- his chariot races are quite gripping.) There's something about his use of fragmentary sentences that I find slightly jarring, but I don't know if that's something he always does or if it's part of the stylistic effect he's going for in these two books, the sort of careful division into pieces that mimics the visual effect of a mosaic.
He hardly uses any magic. He's interested in people, and in cultures and things like that. So it's not just Ursula LeGuin who can write things of that sort and get published. There is hope.
I always worry about that, because a lot of my original stories clearly don't fit in any genre but fantasy, and yet they're not particularly 'fantastic,' so to speak. If I let the magic in at all, it's quiet and humdrum and not terribly reliable. I'm much more interested in technology, if anything, and more than that I like to construct societies. They're sort of thought experiments -- along the lines of "Let's set up a group of people with this sort of religion, that sort of physical environment, this sort of political system, those external problems, these internal problems, these centuries of history (and this common view of that history), this language, that economic system, this view of justice and punishment, etc., and see what happens" -- out of which I pick a person here and a person there, poke them, and see what they do.
"The Sum of Things" has a more complex plot than I usually go for, but it's still fundamentally the same thing. I set up a country within a region, built other nations around it, gave them all a long and fractured history, played around with three great religions (which reminds me: I really must get around to defining at least two others at some point, as well as the remnants of a sixth religion that was subsumed by Rosaism), set up some interesting metaphysical truths that do not correspond to objective reality as we know it on Earth, picked out two people who are both victims and drivers of events in a turbulent period, and am watching with interest to see how it all plays out. I know the rough outlines, but the characters (or my subconscious, pick whichever you like better) fills in the details as I get there.
The trouble with magic is that once you open the door and let it in, you have to be honest about its effects... and they are wide-ranging and strange in ways that are hard to imagine, in the same way that the internet or recycled soda cans would be hard to imagine for someone a hundred years ago. Magic becomes a system, and has spillover effects. It can't just exist when you want it to and conveniently be ignored all other times. That's hard to work into a world, so I tend to keep it muted, make it too big and fucking dangerous to be of much practical use, or leave it out altogether. (Why yes, I am lazy.)
Hmrph. I seem to have completely wandered away from my original topic, whatever it was, so I think I shall close by saying that it's still raining, and I still don't much mind. Unless, you know, I step into a giant puddle on my way home later. I'll mind that, if it happens. :-)
I've been reading Guy Gavriel Kay's Sarantine Mosaic duology -- Sailing to Sarantium and Lord of Emperors, that is -- and so far (about 70-odd pages into book 2) I like it very much. He has an interesting style, very understated in a way. It's the sort of style where you're on page 60 or so, and nothing terribly exciting is happening but the story has a quiet interest, and then you blink and you're on page 250 and it's still not terribly exciting and yet you haven't put the book down and you feel you've really gotten to know the characters as people, and you'd rather like to know what happens next. It's a deceptive sort of storytelling. (This is not to say he can't do exciting when he needs to -- his chariot races are quite gripping.) There's something about his use of fragmentary sentences that I find slightly jarring, but I don't know if that's something he always does or if it's part of the stylistic effect he's going for in these two books, the sort of careful division into pieces that mimics the visual effect of a mosaic.
He hardly uses any magic. He's interested in people, and in cultures and things like that. So it's not just Ursula LeGuin who can write things of that sort and get published. There is hope.
I always worry about that, because a lot of my original stories clearly don't fit in any genre but fantasy, and yet they're not particularly 'fantastic,' so to speak. If I let the magic in at all, it's quiet and humdrum and not terribly reliable. I'm much more interested in technology, if anything, and more than that I like to construct societies. They're sort of thought experiments -- along the lines of "Let's set up a group of people with this sort of religion, that sort of physical environment, this sort of political system, those external problems, these internal problems, these centuries of history (and this common view of that history), this language, that economic system, this view of justice and punishment, etc., and see what happens" -- out of which I pick a person here and a person there, poke them, and see what they do.
"The Sum of Things" has a more complex plot than I usually go for, but it's still fundamentally the same thing. I set up a country within a region, built other nations around it, gave them all a long and fractured history, played around with three great religions (which reminds me: I really must get around to defining at least two others at some point, as well as the remnants of a sixth religion that was subsumed by Rosaism), set up some interesting metaphysical truths that do not correspond to objective reality as we know it on Earth, picked out two people who are both victims and drivers of events in a turbulent period, and am watching with interest to see how it all plays out. I know the rough outlines, but the characters (or my subconscious, pick whichever you like better) fills in the details as I get there.
The trouble with magic is that once you open the door and let it in, you have to be honest about its effects... and they are wide-ranging and strange in ways that are hard to imagine, in the same way that the internet or recycled soda cans would be hard to imagine for someone a hundred years ago. Magic becomes a system, and has spillover effects. It can't just exist when you want it to and conveniently be ignored all other times. That's hard to work into a world, so I tend to keep it muted, make it too big and fucking dangerous to be of much practical use, or leave it out altogether. (Why yes, I am lazy.)
Hmrph. I seem to have completely wandered away from my original topic, whatever it was, so I think I shall close by saying that it's still raining, and I still don't much mind. Unless, you know, I step into a giant puddle on my way home later. I'll mind that, if it happens. :-)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-17 08:42 am (UTC)thanks for the extra tip o nteh gavriel kay boks .I'vehad moe pointers to read some of histuff.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-17 10:17 am (UTC)If you don't mind reading a looooong series, I'd recomment the Wheel of Time. The "magical" aspect of it is really quite worth it; RJ has just made it so real that to me, the One Power is in a class of it's own. I haven't actually read many fantasy novels, to be honest; I just latch onto a series and hold on tight, but out of them all, WoT is one of two series that has just made things real. I think part of what makes it so good is that the One Power reflects men and women. For example, male channlers (channlers being the ones who access the One Power) are generally far stronger in the One Power than women, just as men are generally far stronger physically. However, a woman is more deft when it comes to weaving, and so, the strongest woman can do the same thing as the strongest man. (^^;; the example I always use because it's the easier)
People complain that RJ drags on his story. I suppose it's true, seeing as the series is 11 books long, now, and still rolling, but your description of
Guy Gavriel Kay's writing I think is suitable for him as well; nothing exciting happens, but it's still interesting; it's all the minor details that make a plot realistic.
Anyway, sorry about that. ^^;;
^^ Good luck with the world building.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-18 12:16 am (UTC)There is no intermediary language between his old tongue and whatever passes for the common language in Rand's time. People from all over the main continent, however isolated they are, still speak the same damn language.
Look. This is how it should work: when the Roman empire began to disintegrate, Latin was already splitting into regional dialects -- in other words, Latin as spoken by natives of Spain was not the same as Latin spoken by natives of, say, Romania. The process sped up when there wasn't political, military, and trade unity to keep the empire together. And then other peoples who spoke other languages swept in and further muddled the situation until you got things like French, which is a bastard mix of old Germanic languages smashed together with degenerated Latin. Take this process another few steps and you get languages like English. And then there are things like Basque, which has hung on as a remnant language and has no known relationship to any other language on Earth, and Hungarian, which is related to Finnish, Estonian, and languages from the central Mongolian steppe.
You can take almost any aspect of Jordan's worldbuilding and deconstruct it the same way. He just does not have the depth to stand up to detailed scrutiny. He'll make token gestures toward things, like mentioning a couple times that there's a food shortage due to the muddled seasons, but it doesn't become a dominating, grinding reality the way it should.
Plus, I dislike Ultimate Evils on principle. Dude, why does the Dark One want to rule the world? Has anyone ever even asked that question? How do people know that reincarnation is real? When was that discovered? After all, Jordan has hinted that this world is two Ages on from our world, and we sure as hell don't have a universal belief in reincarnation, let alone knowledge of reincarnation. Why do all the Darkfriends and Forsaken call themselves by evil names? Wouldn't you expect them to believe (some of them, anyway), that they're doing the right thing, that the 'common' metaphysical knowledge is mistaken and Shai'tan isn't actually the enemy?
Mneh. I liked Jordan when I first ran across him when I was about thirteen. However, the older I get, the more I read, and (especially important!) the more I write, the more I realize how fundamentally flawed his work is.
Plus, I think all his women are blithering idiots, and his men are too. I do not accept that differences between genders are as inviolable as he seems to think they are. And I miss the Nynaeve of the first book, who seemed to be in her mid-thirties and a sensible woman. Somewhere between books 2 and 3, she was killed and replaced by Pod!Nynaeve, who's only 24 and as much of a hissing, spitting, harridan as all Jordan's other female characters.
Um. Sorry to go on like that, but Jordan has become one of my primary "This is what NOT to do" authors, and I can get a little worked up when people hold him up as an example of good writing. Because damnit, he isn't! He takes some interesting ideas and a few good characters and murders them in their cradles, and I could cry at the waste.
Worldbuilding!
Date: 2005-11-18 02:46 am (UTC)*pimp* You might like the Liaden Universe (http://www.korval.com/liad.htm), if you enjoy a well worked-out background. Personally, I disagree a little with the 'accepted' reading order, preferring to put them in internal chronological order rather than order written - that is, Local Custom, Scout's Progress, and Conflict of Honors before the others and in that order - but Lee and Miller have buried so many nifty little details in the background and narration of each book that really getting the most out of them requires reading everything at least twice so it doesn't matter as much as it might.
Which, I assure you, is a joy rather than a chore. */pimp*
And anyway, I never liked Jordan - the man's writing would be a thousand times improved if someone just took away his word processor and made him actually -think- about whether or not a given sentance helps the story. I barely got halfway through... lord, I can't even remember the title... the first one before I got so bored I had to give up.
I can think of, like, -one- other book I've ever done that with.
And, yeah, the whole 'Inscrutiable Objects of Power' and 'Inherently Corrupting Influences' schtick sticks in my craw sideways, too.
Ja, -n
(and that's even without my hanging around long enough to notice people's most common complaint about him...)
Long rant ahead, sorry! ^^;;
Date: 2005-11-18 12:28 pm (UTC)Plus, I dislike Ultimate Evils on principle. Dude, why does the Dark One want to rule the world? ...
I have to disagree with that. First of all, the Dark One wants to http://www.darkfriends.net/wheel/1_dark/1.2_forsaken2/1.2.3_moridin.html">DESTROY the world. Which brings us to the question as to why the Dark One wants to stomp on Randland. I look at it this way; the Dark One is a God, as is the Creator. They're on a whole different level to your average Randlander. The WHYs of what they do are unexplainable. e.g. many people think, "What is the meaning of life/Why did God create us?" Failing that, they just accept it. The same can be applied to the Creator and the Dark One: WHY did the Creator create the world, and why does the Dark One want to destroy it? In general, I get the feeling that some people acknowledge the existence of the Dark One, the Creator and the Forsaken, but don't necessarily believe in it. Some people don't even believe in the existence of snow. That same character scoffed at the existence of Darkfriends. Others scoffed at the claim of the Forsaken being loose. The people all acknowledge the so-called existences of the Dark One and the Creator, but they've been raised to believe in that their whole lives; they're superstitious, but half the stories they wave around about the Forsaken and all of their ilk are just to righten their children into what they want them to do.
On Reincarnation: there is a shortlist of people who believe in it. In fact, reincarnation in Randland is connected pretty much to the Heroes of the Horn, and that's it.
Ishamael, who was an insane philosopher (whose ideas were "too esotoric for wide popularity).
Nynaeve, Elayne, and Egwene, due to the presence of Birgitte and Gaidal Cain. The three seemed to treat it as myths before they actually met Birgitte.
Min, Thom and Juilin, again because of Birgitte.
Moghedian. Moghedion, however, knows Tel'aran'rhiod pretty darn well. It stands to reason that she'd know about the Heroes of the Horn hanging around there when they're not gallivanting about the world.
The Heroes of the horn. Birgitte and Gaidal Cain are aware of the fact that they are reborn time and time again, they're only aware of that knowledge when they're in Tel'aran'rhiod, in between rebirths.
If you're thinking of the Horn of Valere, well, the HoV basically summons back Heroes from beyond the grave to fight for whoever summoned them. People believe that these heroes are bound to the Wheel and called back when necessary, NOT actually reincarnated. Nynaeve does at one point think of what being bound to the Wheel means, but this is after she's met Birgitte and having those myths of the Horn being confirmed. I would compare it to the Quest for the Holy Grail, or of King Arthur and his return. In that time, people just believed in those types of things.
Just like the idea of heaven and hell is accepted, some people believe in Angels, while others believe in reincarnation, certain religious ideas are merely ACCEPTED in Randland because it's religion and it's Just Not Questioned. The Catholic Church, in one point in time, had a strict control on people's beliefs. Randland has similar circumstances to that; the general belief in the Dark One, the existence of the White Cloaks, the fact that Randland itself is like something from the Middle Ages (or whatever part of history it's borrowed from). As to how these beliefs came about and how certain ideas came about, just look to the bible as an example.
Re: Long rant ahead, sorry! ^^;;
Date: 2005-11-18 12:28 pm (UTC)Ingtar of House Shinowa, book 2 Though not for the reason that you stated, he deviates from the usual "YAY POWAA!!11!!!" that many other darkfriends take on; he did it to try and prevent Shiener from being swallowed up by the Blight. Perhaps, "If I do a good job, the Dark One will reward me be letting Shienar live."
A severing of their former lives, much like what the White Tower does, I suppose. Their names probably have something to do with what they did; "Ishamael" means "Betrayer of Hope". Likewise, "Lanfear" means "Daughter of the Night" (probably her Queening over Tel'aran'rhoid).
And... ^^;; I think that wanting to rule the world is a perfectly valid reason.
Plus, I think all his women are blithering idiots, and his men are too. ...
I agree about Nynaeve; she was Very Cool in the first book. I liked her in the next book as well. But her character took a huge dive in book 5 and onwards. I never got the idea that she was so arrogant and full of herself, prone to throwing temper tantrums left and right. Egwene... I hate her, but at the same time, I can almost see why she was developed in such a way, what with her "I'm so right" attitude. It DOES get tiresome when the majority of the female cast adopts it though. In fact, the Forsaken women were the only who went without that.
^^;; Sorry about my rant as well. But you've raised some really good points.
responses
Date: 2005-11-19 08:45 pm (UTC)Second, I don't care if the Dark One is on the same level as the Creator. It/he should still have motives, damn it. Otherwise that's just sloppy storytelling, like answering "Why?" with "Because I say so." People say Tolkien originated the faceless evil adversary, but if you read the Silmarillion you realize that Sauron A) wasn't always evil and B) has motives other than just "I do bad things because I'm bad, yo!"
If the Creator and the Dark One are merely superstitions at this point, then why have no other religions risen to compete? That rings totally, totally false to me. (Why yes, I have studied comparative religions, why do you ask...?) If there isn't an organized 'church' structure, what gives the Whitecloaks their authority? In other words, why don't people just run them out of town? Because they come off sort of like the worst of the Catholic Inquisition, but there is no structure around to justify and support them.
I can see the Forsaken taking new names as a renunciation of their previous lives. That's fine. Having all the names (except Lanfear's, okay, I'll grant you that one) be 'EVOL!!!' is not fine. Besides, they didn't choose the names (again, with the exception of Lanfear), so why would they let their enemies define the terms of the debate, so to speak? Why not take names that suggest a tearing away of veils and superstitions, the discovery of new truths, greatness and hope, etcetera?
Wanting to rule the world... I very rarely like that as a motive. Seriously, do you know how much work that would be? And how much time and effort it would take to stay in control once you've gained power? Again, too many villains want to rule the world for the same reason they want to destroy the world: just 'because.' And that is never a good reason.
Also, I don't like the One Power. This is because I hate and despise 'elemental' magical systems with the burning passion of a thousand fiery suns, particularly when authors try to modify the ancient Greek four by adding something like 'heart' or 'spirit.' If you want five elements, for god's sake go research Chinese alchemy or something! (Well, okay, I can let elemental magic roll off my back in lighter stories, but when you ask me to take that sort of system seriously, you'd better do something pretty damn amazing with it. Jordan doesn't.)
And if you're going to give women and men separate sources of magical power, I would expect there to be a lot more corresponding gender divisions in other walks of life, because hey, it's like, divinely justified, yeah? *growls* And yet this doesn't happen. Jordan's women sort of dangle in the chasm between actual sexual equality and stereotypical fantasy 'medieval' gender restrictions. It drives me up the wall.
Again, I'm sorry. Jordan... look, he just irritates me. You're not going to convince me that he's cool, and I should stop trying to make you dislike him. That's not a good sort of thing to do. Let's just leave it at this: you like him and I acknowledge that he has some good points, but I think that he's only a decent writer and he'd need to be a really good writer to pull off the breadth and depth of story and world that he's trying to work with.
Re: responses
Date: 2005-11-20 12:55 am (UTC)You made some really good points; his world is pretty big, and the plot encompasses a lot of things, but to the point that he's forced to spread himself thin and merely dabble in many aspects.
What other authors would you recommend (other than Dianna Wynne Jones and Ursula Leguin)?
Re: responses
Date: 2005-11-20 02:26 am (UTC)I like most of Robin McKinley's stuff. It leans toward YA, but I don't see why stories that work for people of all ages are automatically deemed 'lesser' because children can enjoy them. Deerskin, The Hero and the Crown, and The Blue Sword are particular favorites. (Warning: Deerskin contains some disturbing content, but the details are handled very delicately, since the protagonist is not exactly in a state to understand and remember exactly what happens to her, not until she looks back much later.)
I like Patricia McKillip, though your mileage may vary -- she's heavily stylistic and reading her later books is like entering a state of lucid dreaming. Her Riddle-Master trilogy is quite approachable, though: The Riddle-Master of Hed, Heir to Sea and Fire, and Harpist in the Wind. She's particularly good at keeping magic MAGICAL.
Roger Zelazny is... it can be hard to draw a line between aspects of fantasy and aspects of science fiction in his works, and I don't like his more flippant stuff, but Lord of Light is one of my favorite books EVER. The ending never fails to make me sniffle. I'm fond of This Immortal as well, and his Amber series is pretty cool. (It starts with Nine Princes in Amber and goes on for 9 more books, though it really divides into two sets of 5 books each. Corwin of Amber is THE example of how to write a ridiculously overpowered main character and make it WORK.)
Richard Adams is cool -- it may come as a surprise, but he did write more than Watership Down, though I still like that best. (Now THERE is an example of world-building -- he creates a genuine society among anthropomorphized rabbits who are nevertheless unmistakeably RABBITS, and writes prophetic dreams, quests, wars, etc., without ever giving readers a chance to stop suspending belief.)
I still kind of like Wizard's First Rule, even though it has SERIOUS world-building issues (come on, an entire nation forgets their origins and magic in TWENTY YEARS? Gimme a break!), villains who are evil just 'because,' OMG-the-hero-is-cool-because-I-SAY-SO syndrome, and the soulmates-by-any-other-name variety of TWU WUV. But I have a kink for torture scenes and Goodkind seems to have a thing for torture. *shrug* We all have our dark sides.
Janny Wurts annoys the hell out of me because she can't write a non-convoluted sentence to save her life... but I like her anyway. Maybe it's her characters. Maybe it's the imagery (when it works). Someday I will figure out exactly what draws me to her stories, and I will hopefully be able to use that in my own writing. Anyway, she has two series I've read/am reading: The Cycle of Fire (Stormwarden's... something, Keeper of the Keys, Shadowfane) and The Wars of Light and Shadow.
TBC...
Re: responses
Date: 2005-11-20 02:27 am (UTC)I like Andre Norton, but with serious reservations. Her writing is very... dry, I think is the best word. Distanced, maybe. She's almost invariably better when she's collaborating with someone else who can bring a spark to her ideas. She has a lot of really cool ideas, and like Zelazny, she often blurs the line between fantasy and science fiction. She understands the sense of OTHERNESS that many fantasy writers don't convey very well at all. She's most famous for her Witch World series, of which I am most fond of The Crystal Gryphon, Gryphon in Glory, and Gryphon's Eyrie. (Or is that Gryphon's Aerie? I can never remember which spelling she uses.) Anyway, she wrote a LOT, and over the past few years publishers have been releasing a lot of her older books in omnibus editions.
And there are always the Oz books. L. Frank Baum was far from the world's greatest writer, but I will always have a soft spot for Oz. Ruth Plumly Thompson wrote some marvelous sequels -- in fact, I think they're better than Baum's, because she had a better sense of humor. The world-building there is not at all to be taken seriously, but that's okay -- the authors aren't terribly serious about it either.
If you want an epic, I would advise George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, which is currently at 4 books: A Game of Thrones, A Clash of Kings, A Storm of Swords, and the just-published (YAY!!!) A Feast for Crows. The magic's pretty understated so far, and it's mostly bloody, tangled wars and politics so far, but I love it to pieces because the characters are living, breathing PEOPLE and Martin does not pull his punches. Ever. And he makes everyone understandable -- there is no 'just because.' I went through two books despising one character, and then in the third book Martin gave him some POV sections and suddenly I couldn't hate him anymore. There are no 'bad guys,' not really, just people with opposing goals and human flaws.
Um. I have Issues with L.E. Modesitt, Jr. (oh, I could go on for PAGES...), but when he gives his protagonists actual jobs -- you know, in addition to Saving the World, TM -- he's really good with details. I have a bizarrely great love for the woodworking scenes in The Magic of Recluce and The Death of Chaos.
I've recently started reading Guy Gavriel Kay, and so far I like him a lot. His style is slightly disjointed, but he doesn't seem to pull punches either (though he's less gory than Martin -- he's not writing the same sort of thing) and he also believes in conflict driven by real people who simply want different things -- you know, the way our world works. *grin* His characters feel real to me as well.
...
There are certainly others, but I've gone blank. Hope that helps!
Re: responses
Date: 2005-11-22 10:17 am (UTC)I tried reading Terry Pratchett; he's alright, it's not really my type of thing, I just like the more serious novels. In that same respect, though, Good Omens had me laughing hysterically.
Definitely checkout G. R. R. Martin; I love reading about politics in fantasy (in nothing else for some reason ^^;;).
Just out of curiosity; have you read Robin Hobb, or Phillip Pullman, or Garth Nix?
responses, and a couple more authors
Date: 2005-11-23 03:37 am (UTC)I've read Pullman's His Dark Materials (or whatever they call that trilogy in places that aren't America), and... the world-building is good, but I found it VERY hard to warm up to Lyra, and I kept feeling like I was reading a polemical against the Catholic Church. I liked Will, though, and a lot of the minor characters, and the ending was very well done. Especially the way he didn't cheat. I was quite impressed by that.
As for Garth Nix, I think his Abhorsen trilogy is great fun, but the world-building leaves me oddly unsatisfied. I simply never got a good sense of how his Old Kingdom and the rest of the world fit together. I've been reading his day-of-the-week series, which makes equally little sense if I think about it too much, but is, again, quite fun. But he feels lighter to me, not as much depth as I need to really love a particular book or author.
If you like Good Omens but not Discworld, you might try some of Neil Gaiman's stuff. (He's the other guy who wrote Good Omens.) He has two modern fantasies that are sort of companion novels, though not in any strict relationship to each other: American Gods and Anansi Boys. I liked Anansi Boys much better -- it felt more alive to me, whereas I have always thought there was something vaguely hollow about American Gods -- but many people seem to prefer American Gods, so... They're very rich in mythology, and they have funny parts, but Gaiman's humor is not quite the same as Pratchett's humor. He's also written an urban fantasy set in London (Neverwhere) and a sort of original fairy-tale (Stardust) which I like, but not to the point of buying them in hardcover.
Hmm. Orson Scott Card writes fantasy as well as science fiction. Most of it's kind of... well-constructed, but not terribly engaging for me... but I am in LOVE with Hart's Hope. That book has one of the WEIRDEST narrative structures I've read, but it all makes perfect sense by the end. And the ending is another that works perfectly for me, so much so that I simply cannot imagine any other way. I also like his recent Magic Street, which has a very strong sense of place and community, and satisfyingly otherworldly magic. (His alternative America fantasies -- the Tales of Alvin Maker -- are a good example of well done world-building. You might want to read them for that even if they don't otherwise grab you.)
Re: responses, and a couple more authors
Date: 2005-11-24 12:43 pm (UTC)XD I have one author for you; Isobelle Carmody (Aussie author). The Obernewtyn Chronicles, to be specific. The series consists of 4 books, Obernewtyn, The Farseekers, Ashling, The Keeping Place, with one more to come out. It's more scifi than fantasy, set in a post-apocolyptic world after humans accidentally blew themselves up with nuclear weapons. The result of this are tainted lands, and... mutants. Some are just mentally disabled, others are mentally enhanced (i.e. some can communicate long distance via the mind, others can coerce people, others can beastspeak). The world building, I think is done fairly well and the powers are fun too.
If you've read it already, sorries, but I wouldn't be surprised, since you've read Garth Nix (though he seems to be fairly more popular than Carmody).
Re: responses, and a couple more authors
Date: 2005-11-24 05:15 pm (UTC)Happy Thanksgiving!