![[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}
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!