Help
The actual work I was referring to with the "Meandering" comment was A HUNDRED YEARS OF SOLITUDE. A writing professor in one of my graduate classes--upon hearing that I wrote fantasy--told me I should read this book if I wanted to see what "Good fantasy should be like."
The book is a perfect example of what I think causes the disconnect between the lit community and the genre community. I did not enjoy the book. I enjoyed the prose, but the novel itself lacked a solid plot or characters. Yet, in their minds, this novel was superior to an excellent translucent work, such as a Card novel. (Who I think does Orwellian prose quite well.)
People like Wolfe are caught in the middle, trying--and in some cases succeeding--to do both beautiful prose and a compelling story. However, I get this strange feeling from the literary community that as long as fantasy writers have strong plots, they'll be dismissed.
Elantris by Brandon Sanderson
#2 Guest_johnturing_*
Posted 22 June 2005 - 02:11 PM
quote:Originally posted by Lady Atheilen:
REALLY? That's hilarious! I've never seen a thread like that, though.
Well, not usually here, but if you go somewhere else - especially to a non-book forum, it's almost a miracle for people to have even heard of Mieville or read his books. Eg on the Elder Scrolls forums, where there are often threads about favourite fantasy author, was Tolkien the best, who was the best, was Jordan bettter than Tolkien,and occasionally, was Martin better than Tolkien. That forum has 60,000 members (compared to the 1500 or so here) - though probably only 6 - 7000 post regularly, and I think that two other people than myself have read Mieville, none heard of him except from what I have said. There are also only 4 others or so who have read anything by Erikson, and about another 10 who've heard of him. Usually the Jordan supporters are in the minority, though.
Here's an example for you (from sffworld.com, though Mieville is better known here, still not widely read) - Tolkien v Jordan
#3 Guest_Jay Tomio_*
Posted 10 June 2005 - 12:23 AM
quote:I thought Brandon was attacking the pervasiveness of certain aspects of Middle Earth e.g. the racial distribution: dwarves, elves, ogres, humans. Maybe, Brandon's article was self serving and obvious, but to say he has no idea what he is talking about is off base
I agree and recant, a poor choice of words; he knows what he is talking, he just didn't add anything we haven't heard before much more eloquently stated and well thought out - in fact rather sub-par from what I expect out of a published author counciously writing something to post online.
I mention in my posts at FBS, that I actually agree with what he is saying, I was just a bit surprised at the lack of creativiy or quality of thedepth of article coming from a published author who as we both agree it seems is using it as a self serving promotional tool - I just thought it not very uninspiring in execution.
quote:I enjoyed reading the Moorcock article again
I love that article
If you don't have it already I higly recommend 'Wizardry and Wild Romance: A Study of Epic Fantasy by Michael Moorcock'.
#4
gyrehead 
- Corporal
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 39
- Joined: 11-May 05
Posted 01 July 2005 - 02:56 PM
I made the mistake of reading Love in the Time of Cholera before reading A Hundred Years of Solitude. Thinking the latter would be was wonderful as the former; if not better due to it being the more noteworthy of his works. Was I wrong.
Do people find Mieville's words difficult? I find it is his structure and the gross overuse of twelve adjectives when two will do for the average person and five for the average romance novel or Jackie Collins tripe waiting to be a movie of the week. The words i understand. The actual use by Mieville produces cringes or loud guffaws. I confess. I think the latter is why I bothered reading Iron Council. That and it was free.
Do people find Mieville's words difficult? I find it is his structure and the gross overuse of twelve adjectives when two will do for the average person and five for the average romance novel or Jackie Collins tripe waiting to be a movie of the week. The words i understand. The actual use by Mieville produces cringes or loud guffaws. I confess. I think the latter is why I bothered reading Iron Council. That and it was free.
#5 Guest_Izz_*
Posted 24 June 2005 - 11:43 AM
Oh dear . . . another one of those Tolkien articles. Read about one paragraph and couldn't go on. Oh dear, indeed.
#6 Guest_Dark Daze_*
Posted 24 June 2005 - 10:03 AM
Peake's descriptions are much more original and poetic than the descriptive passages of Mieville, but I like Mieville's style as well. Of course, that Wolfe guy is probably better.
It's strange for me to see Mieville and Tolkien described as having the same strengths. I really hate the way Tolkien uses language. Why should someone get credit for being adept at a boring, lulling, and long winded style?
It's strange for me to see Mieville and Tolkien described as having the same strengths. I really hate the way Tolkien uses language. Why should someone get credit for being adept at a boring, lulling, and long winded style?
#7 Guest_johnturing_*
Posted 29 June 2005 - 01:50 PM
There were occasions I liked Tolkien's writing style - but they were rare. Most of the time it seemed too self-indulgent, as if Tolkien thought he really was writing the next Bible. I know this wasn't the case, but it often reads like that. Maybe I just don't like archaic language that much - I'll find out when I get around to reading the Worm Ouroborous by ER Eddison and the King of Elfland's Daughter by Lord Dunsany.
I think you're right about not trying to do prose like Mieville or Wolfe if it doesn't come naturally. I think that with them, this is pretty much how they wrote it the first time, they didn't think specially about it, and maybe they changed a few words when they were looking over it, but the style was more or less the same. For myself,I just try and write what comes naturally, which means that generally the prose is pretty simplistic for the majority of it. For some reason though, I find I can write much better prose and description in first person (one of many reasons that I have first person sections in the novel I'm writing). I agree that the story should come first and foremost - excellent prose is a bonus, so long as it doesn't detract from the story. What I don't like though is authors trying deliberately to make it simplistic and easy to read so that it will sell better (David Eddings, Robert Jordan etc), which really isn't helped when the story isn't that good either.
@Dark Daze - I agree with what you say there. I knew pretty much all the words Mieville used, and while I had to look up "psoriatic" in Perdido Street Station, I could have guessed it from the context. I'm not one of those people who can easily define words, but I can usually have a pretty good understanding of them from context. Donaldson's language was nothing special, I thought, because there wasn't really much point to it - unlike Mieville's description of New Crobuzon, where the description really adds to a place you know very little about and is very original, Donaldson's world was so traditional that those descriptions were generally unnecessary. The complaints I really don't understand about the Covenant series though is about the character of Thomas Covenant himself - I think that Thomas Covenant is one of the best done characters in fantasy, and I wouldn't say that he was particularly depressing (I've just finished a book of Elric stories, who is a much more depressing character, I think), yet people say that he is just a whingy annoying character, which I would say isn't really the case.
I think you're right about not trying to do prose like Mieville or Wolfe if it doesn't come naturally. I think that with them, this is pretty much how they wrote it the first time, they didn't think specially about it, and maybe they changed a few words when they were looking over it, but the style was more or less the same. For myself,I just try and write what comes naturally, which means that generally the prose is pretty simplistic for the majority of it. For some reason though, I find I can write much better prose and description in first person (one of many reasons that I have first person sections in the novel I'm writing). I agree that the story should come first and foremost - excellent prose is a bonus, so long as it doesn't detract from the story. What I don't like though is authors trying deliberately to make it simplistic and easy to read so that it will sell better (David Eddings, Robert Jordan etc), which really isn't helped when the story isn't that good either.
@Dark Daze - I agree with what you say there. I knew pretty much all the words Mieville used, and while I had to look up "psoriatic" in Perdido Street Station, I could have guessed it from the context. I'm not one of those people who can easily define words, but I can usually have a pretty good understanding of them from context. Donaldson's language was nothing special, I thought, because there wasn't really much point to it - unlike Mieville's description of New Crobuzon, where the description really adds to a place you know very little about and is very original, Donaldson's world was so traditional that those descriptions were generally unnecessary. The complaints I really don't understand about the Covenant series though is about the character of Thomas Covenant himself - I think that Thomas Covenant is one of the best done characters in fantasy, and I wouldn't say that he was particularly depressing (I've just finished a book of Elric stories, who is a much more depressing character, I think), yet people say that he is just a whingy annoying character, which I would say isn't really the case.
#8 Guest_johnturing_*
Posted 24 June 2005 - 08:06 AM
quote:Originally posted by euol:
I once had a friend who read Tolkien and then complained that it was just a cheap Terry Brooks ripoff.
No kidding.
As for Mieville, I'm afraid I haven't read him. I really feel that I should, though--I even have a copy of Perdido Street Station.
Yes, you really should read Mieville. The language in his novels is amazing - many of the words I'd never seen used before, and I think that he's probably the best writer in fantasy, in terms of the language he uses (I haven't read any Mervyn Peake yet, though).
#9 Guest_Dark Daze_*
Posted 27 June 2005 - 02:34 PM
Mieville's vocabulary in Perdido Street Station didn't strike me as elusive. (Maybe, I picked up a lot of the words through context.) I just don't think lyrical styles automatically trump economical ones.
On the other hand, Donaldson's vocab really did fail to impress me that he was as great a writer as his fans often claim. He uses a lot strange and unnecessary words e.g. overly precise topographical words in the Covenant books.
On the other hand, Donaldson's vocab really did fail to impress me that he was as great a writer as his fans often claim. He uses a lot strange and unnecessary words e.g. overly precise topographical words in the Covenant books.
#10 Guest_Jay Tomio_*
Posted 08 June 2005 - 08:43 AM
quote:*groan*
Can we just STOP that debate already? It was boring the first 17987426631 times I've heard it.
I crtainly hope the novel is of quality; as if not, not a good way to start a career in fantasy. I got to get me a copy of 'Elantris', as I have been hearing very mixed reviews.
#11
gyrehead
- Corporal
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 39
- Joined: 11-May 05
Posted 24 June 2005 - 10:53 AM
Mieville does use words I have never seen used before -- at least in that context. Sadly so does Cecilia Dart-Thornton. Both have a tendency in my view of writing like the "Word-A-Day" 365 desk calendar is their pride and joy.
Love is a battlefield.* Prose should not be.
*Pat Benatar.
Love is a battlefield.* Prose should not be.
*Pat Benatar.
#12
gyrehead
- Corporal
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 39
- Joined: 11-May 05
Posted 15 June 2005 - 04:25 PM
I enjoyed Elantris. It was kind of light but I think designed that way. A bit too simplistic world-building to sustain any more than it did, but once again, that's okay being a standalone. There were some fresh takes and it was definitely a product of Mr. Sanderson's own imagination as opposed to much of the fanboy re-writing that seems to be the norm for half the new writers coming out. A bit raw at times and it would ahve been interesting to see both of the lead characters be a bit more flawed than them just thinking they are flawed when in truth they are just normal humans. The whole time this humility seems a bit saccharine.
Certainly the work was good enough that I will definitely be picking up his next work. Particularly as I understand it will be a series and it will interesting to see how he handles that.
Certainly the work was good enough that I will definitely be picking up his next work. Particularly as I understand it will be a series and it will interesting to see how he handles that.
#13 Guest_Dark Daze_*
Posted 14 June 2005 - 08:39 PM
Brandon, your point about the medium of the essay is not only valid, it's a strong argument that should be apparent to most people. (If you submitted the article to a literary magazine, Jay/Ainulindale would have had a more palpable case.)
Jay probably overlooked the medium because he is biased. He writes articles and reviews on the internet on sites that don't have the same weight as hard copy science fiction and fantasy journals.
However, you can't blame him. After all, you called yourself the new kid on the block rather than a new kid...
I hope your book is good. As soon as I have some time I'll probably read it (hell, I might even buy it!)
Jay probably overlooked the medium because he is biased. He writes articles and reviews on the internet on sites that don't have the same weight as hard copy science fiction and fantasy journals.
However, you can't blame him. After all, you called yourself the new kid on the block rather than a new kid...
I hope your book is good. As soon as I have some time I'll probably read it (hell, I might even buy it!)
#14 Guest_Dark Daze_*
Posted 06 June 2005 - 06:33 PM
Orson Scott Card recommends this fantasy debut so I might have to buy it. Of course, if some of the people here with more discerning taste give it the thumbs down, I'll wait a while. It has something to with the disempowerment of a once powerful race or people.
#15
gyrehead
- Corporal
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 39
- Joined: 11-May 05
Posted 22 June 2005 - 06:36 PM
I only lurk at SFFworld but Mieville is one of their idols of clay over there. Erikson is a huge favorite as well from what I have seen considering that he only has two books published in the U.S. and those rather recent and there is a large U.S. membership.
But Mieville is hardly the esoteric or obscure and pretty much occupies the position for poster child of self-involved fantasy on any of the boards I frequent.
Not sure what the Elder Scrolls forums are though. 60000 members who don't know about Mieville, or perhaps more likely, couldn't care less, doesn't sound half bad.
But Mieville is hardly the esoteric or obscure and pretty much occupies the position for poster child of self-involved fantasy on any of the boards I frequent.
Not sure what the Elder Scrolls forums are though. 60000 members who don't know about Mieville, or perhaps more likely, couldn't care less, doesn't sound half bad.
#16 Guest_Jay Tomio_*
Posted 30 June 2005 - 03:44 AM
I think that people are talking about 2 different things. Although saying someone has excellent prose can be said to mean he/she is a stylist, it's not limited to that.
Athough Wolfe undoubtely is both gifted with is prose and a stylist, I consider Peake to be perhaps he ultimate stylist, and Mieville greater than Wolfe in regards to style (ie descritpive nature etc), but no where near him in what is Mieville's ultimate weakness, his structure.
Wolfe's subtleties is his prose what sets him a part, his stlye of narration and what he gets out of it, is perhaps unequalled.
Another stlylist would be someone like Patricia Mckillip, more contemporary would be Cathryne M. Valente. Somone with great prose being someone like a Jonathan Carroll or Jack Vance (who each are talented stlyists as well)
I'm not saything the words cannot be correctly used synonymously at times, but in this case it seems 2 different aspects are being discussed.
Your statement is only apt because you added a subtle difference making the two unequal. Why does the poetic prose work have to be meandering, yet the the translucent prose is excellent in this comparison?
The truth IMHO, is most of the translucent nonesense is also meandering. Perhaps not aimless due to it can be understood by even the densest Paoulini or Brooks fan, but aimless in regards to being thought provoking or worthwhile to anyone harboring an education above the Mcdonalds Happy meal consuming segment of the population.
That, said am I saying there is not room for works like that? No. am I saying they should write to placate there fans? No. Am I saying they don't make up the most successful segment in fantasy? No.
But lets nots sit here and wonder why people think Gene Wolfe is a a more talented writer than someone like Terry Brooks. Some things are obvious.
Regarding Mieville, and his word choice. I don't know what to say, I never thought of his work as being hard to read, or requiring a dictionary in hand - and I'm not a English speaker originally.
Athough Wolfe undoubtely is both gifted with is prose and a stylist, I consider Peake to be perhaps he ultimate stylist, and Mieville greater than Wolfe in regards to style (ie descritpive nature etc), but no where near him in what is Mieville's ultimate weakness, his structure.
Wolfe's subtleties is his prose what sets him a part, his stlye of narration and what he gets out of it, is perhaps unequalled.
Another stlylist would be someone like Patricia Mckillip, more contemporary would be Cathryne M. Valente. Somone with great prose being someone like a Jonathan Carroll or Jack Vance (who each are talented stlyists as well)
I'm not saything the words cannot be correctly used synonymously at times, but in this case it seems 2 different aspects are being discussed.
quote:I think, by the way, this is where genre fiction runs into so much trouble with the literary community. Many of them refuse to acknowledge that an excellent story with intentionally translucent prose can be as great a work of art as a meandering story with poetic prose.
Your statement is only apt because you added a subtle difference making the two unequal. Why does the poetic prose work have to be meandering, yet the the translucent prose is excellent in this comparison?
The truth IMHO, is most of the translucent nonesense is also meandering. Perhaps not aimless due to it can be understood by even the densest Paoulini or Brooks fan, but aimless in regards to being thought provoking or worthwhile to anyone harboring an education above the Mcdonalds Happy meal consuming segment of the population.
That, said am I saying there is not room for works like that? No. am I saying they should write to placate there fans? No. Am I saying they don't make up the most successful segment in fantasy? No.
But lets nots sit here and wonder why people think Gene Wolfe is a a more talented writer than someone like Terry Brooks. Some things are obvious.
Regarding Mieville, and his word choice. I don't know what to say, I never thought of his work as being hard to read, or requiring a dictionary in hand - and I'm not a English speaker originally.
#17 Guest_Jay Tomio_*
Posted 09 June 2005 - 10:34 PM
I don't need a link to the article, I own the book it is derived from but thanks
At any rate, I linked the entire Moorcock article in my original post.
My comment is based on a negative stance against Tolkien, which has become somewhat in vogue as of late, not specifically what the rant is about, and despite your opinion I think they are based on similar feelings it's just that what you say here is probably true:
I think the implication is the same it's just Sanderson has no idea what he is talking about, and doen't have Moorcock's understanding/knowledge of not only the genre but literary trends as a whole.
My post isn't intended to be as much of a comparison as it is discussing whether Sanderson has any idea what he is talking about, a question born from his fairly inarticulate essay - the Epic Pooh link was just a reference.
It seems IMHO, being a new author he is trying to drum up attention (ie Like Mieville did), but in all probablity (I do not know I haven't read Elantris) doesn't have the genius of a 'Perdido Street Station' behind him to give him any credibility.
I htink that although harsh and perhaps not popular, Moorcock's essay is articulate, and written by someone who has a point to make; and moreover someone who knoes that he is talking about, someone invested into the genre. where as Sanderson is perhaps only doing it to draw attention to himself, and in this case (in regards to the depth of the article and especially regarding it is a play at Tolkien) I think it casts a more lackluster light then anything else.
That is only my perspective on it, others may feel it's the work of a genius
At any rate, I linked the entire Moorcock article in my original post.
My comment is based on a negative stance against Tolkien, which has become somewhat in vogue as of late, not specifically what the rant is about, and despite your opinion I think they are based on similar feelings it's just that what you say here is probably true:
.quote:Moreover, Moorcock might dismiss Brandon's rant as superficial and irrelevant.
I think the implication is the same it's just Sanderson has no idea what he is talking about, and doen't have Moorcock's understanding/knowledge of not only the genre but literary trends as a whole.
My post isn't intended to be as much of a comparison as it is discussing whether Sanderson has any idea what he is talking about, a question born from his fairly inarticulate essay - the Epic Pooh link was just a reference.
It seems IMHO, being a new author he is trying to drum up attention (ie Like Mieville did), but in all probablity (I do not know I haven't read Elantris) doesn't have the genius of a 'Perdido Street Station' behind him to give him any credibility.
I htink that although harsh and perhaps not popular, Moorcock's essay is articulate, and written by someone who has a point to make; and moreover someone who knoes that he is talking about, someone invested into the genre. where as Sanderson is perhaps only doing it to draw attention to himself, and in this case (in regards to the depth of the article and especially regarding it is a play at Tolkien) I think it casts a more lackluster light then anything else.
That is only my perspective on it, others may feel it's the work of a genius
#18 Guest_Dark Daze_*
Posted 01 July 2005 - 09:45 AM
This is no fun. I agree with that too.
#19
Lady Atheilen
- Emerging from the Warrens
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 151
- Joined: 31-December 02
- Location:Toronto, ON, Canada
- Interests:Bullshitting (aka grad school), writing, music, theatre, food
- The forum's original obnoxious baby sister.
Posted 22 June 2005 - 04:29 PM
Poor, poor souls...
#20 Guest_johnturing_*
Posted 26 June 2005 - 12:47 AM
quote:Originally posted by Dark Daze:
Peake's descriptions are much more original and poetic than the descriptive passages of Mieville, but I like Mieville's style as well. Of course, that Wolfe guy is probably better.
It's strange for me to see Mieville and Tolkien described as having the same strengths. I really hate the way Tolkien uses language. Why should someone get credit for being adept at a boring, lulling, and long winded style?
In the Book of the New Sun, at least, Wolfe doesn't write anywhere near the level of Mieville. His skill is of a very different style - in how he manages to make it seem like this is what Severian said and thought, and it's how someone in his position would react etc, rather than the language being astounding. It certainly isn't bad, but it isn't particularly special either.
I agree about Tolkien though - his prose wasn't very good, just longwinded and written as if he was writing the bible at times, but the description itself was usually described by the use of archaic, but simplistic, language.
