[caladanbrood]

I have not even finished a single Hobb book that I have tried. And I have tried very hard. I guess it's just not meant to be...

[Ratatoskr]

As others have said, try Patricia McKillip's 'Riddlemaster'-Trilogy. I first read it at age eleven, more than twenty years ago. Didn't quite grasp what was going on, but was hooked nonetheless. I don't know how often I've read it since then (must be upwards of twelve times), but I do know that I've taken in more understanding and uncovered more details with every re-read. I thought those books to be magical.

[Tattooed Hand]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;118260 said:

I read a book when young about a girl who hunted dragons, and she had some sort of greasy paste she rubbed on herself, which protected her from dragon fire. I think it was by a woman. That's all I really remmeber of it. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

Yes, That's The Hero and the Crown by Robin McKinley. One of my favorites since I was ten, which was a long time ago.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Tattooed Hand;120966 said:

Yes, That's The Hero and the Crown by Robin McKinley. One of my favorites since I was ten, which was a long time ago.

Good call. I've been trying to remember that for a while. I hate it when I can almost remember something, but not quite. Very frustrating. Thanks. If I remember correctly, it was a pretty good book, but I was wuite young when I read it.

[Rakov]

Janny Wurts and J V Jones are both superb stylists and they understand plot and characterisation and thematic content, and sub-text. They write meaty, literary reads that many other fantasy writers do not and the genre needs that sort of intelligence. Likewise Robin Hobb. She doesn't excite me with her actual writing the way the other two do, but other fantasy writers ought to study her to learn how to create truly deep, rounded characters and not mere ciphers with mannerisms that pass for personality. That's just sloppy art.

When I read the clan meeting chapter early on in Book One of Jones's Sword of Shadows series, I almost threw it aside in despair - not because it was bad - far, far from it - but because I almost wanted to give up writing myself. It was so stunningly well structured, actions credibly motivated by character (and understanding of it) and extremely well-written and ended with a perfect natural feel to it that seemed effortless, but was clearly anything but to do as a writer. She has developed from her YA-skirting Book of Words series into a consummate stylist.

It has been gone over many times before that female fantasy writers tended to dominate the genre in the 90s and concentrated more on character than labyrinthine plot. I think it was Greg Keyes who stated recently that the emphasis has shifted since the turn of the century and it is plot and reworked mythical layering that is becoming more dominant, mostly penned by male writers. I don't necessarily think that there is any gender connection but it is an interesting side-debate. That many of these male writers hail from a scientific or left-brain dominant professions is also another interesting side-debate, that they focus on the tangibility of plot more than the more intuitive realm of character...which may lead dangerously into sexual stereo-typing, I know.

Now to maintain that balance between great characterisation and surpassing plot is a very difficult thing to do. It seems the longer a series becomes the more difficult it is to do (Jordan long ago got into bother and even as surpassingly professional and adept a writer as Martin has come a bit of a cropper, too, recently - to have to leave out half of your main cast in a 800+ books is at the level of art, to be regarded as a failure - it wasn't an experiment, Martin himself said he had written himself into a corner - which is another interesting side-debate: whether a narrative can sustain itself beyond a certain length, I'm not so sure it can, but putting a number of words or pages on that is nigh on impossible to do; you would have to analyse it at the level of plot components to get close to doing so. But when you get Martin, Jordan and indeed Erikson who even their most die-hard fans will admit here and there do not pull it off, often for hundreds of pages, it begs the question - and for me a book isn't just an entertainment if it has pretensions towards anything else; yes it's that, but it is also a work and art and ultimately stands or falls by that - whether a narrative and the components within it can sustain itself if it goes beyond a certain point? The evidence seems to be that it cannot. That includes Janny Wurts' ongoing mammoth series, too.

Perhaps because with many of the characters their life arcs - even given the presence of magic - are multiple, repetitive, and even given the realm of magic being present, simply strains credulity beyond breaking point. And so many of them seem remarkably unscathed by those multiple life arcs they live through. Martin may have seemed to have solved that problem by killing off major characters, but I think it was pointed out in Westeros that the body count of major characters after thousands of pages isn't actually very high. So far there are two major and two other minor ones who have been croaked by Martin. Whether there is a blooodfest before the end of the series we must wait and see!

I think there are many fantasy writers out there (not pointing at any of those I have mentioned, BTW) that if they had half the intelligence and literary skill of Jones, Wurts and Hobb - that 'whole enchilada' holistic skill as a writer - the genre would be much the better for it.

[Werthead]

Very interesting points there.

Quote

Janny Wurts and J V Jones are both superb stylists and they understand plot and characterisation and thematic content, and sub-text. They write meaty, literary reads that many other fantasy writers do not and the genre needs that sort of intelligence. Likewise Robin Hobb. She doesn't excite me with her actual writing the way the other two do, but other fantasy writers ought to study her to learn how to create truly deep, rounded characters and not mere ciphers with mannerisms that pass for personality. That's just sloppy art.

When I read the clan meeting chapter early on in Book One of Jones's Sword of Shadows series, I almost threw it aside in despair - not because it was bad - far, far from it - but because I almost wanted to give up writing myself. It was so stunningly well structured, actions credibly motivated by character (and understanding of it) and extremely well-written and ended with a perfect natural feel to it that seemed effortless, but was clearly anything but to do as a writer. She has developed from her YA-skirting Book of Words series into a consummate stylist.

Agreed. Jones' first series was readable, but nothing exciting. Sword of Shadows, on the other hand, is a deeply impressive series, although it is suffering from the extremely large gaps between volumes at the moment.

Quote

Now to maintain that balance between great characterisation and surpassing plot is a very difficult thing to do. It seems the longer a series becomes the more difficult it is to do (Jordan long ago got into bother and even as surpassingly professional and adept a writer as Martin has come a bit of a cropper, too, recently - to have to leave out half of your main cast in a 800+ books is at the level of art, to be regarded as a failure - it wasn't an experiment, Martin himself said he had written himself into a corner - which is another interesting side-debate: whether a narrative can sustain itself beyond a certain length, I'm not so sure it can, but putting a number of words or pages on that is nigh on impossible to do; you would have to analyse it at the level of plot components to get close to doing so. But when you get Martin, Jordan and indeed Erikson who even their most die-hard fans will admit here and there do not pull it off, often for hundreds of pages, it begs the question - and for me a book isn't just an entertainment if it has pretensions towards anything else; yes it's that, but it is also a work and art and ultimately stands or falls by that - whether a narrative and the components within it can sustain itself if it goes beyond a certain point? The evidence seems to be that it cannot. That includes Janny Wurts' ongoing mammoth series, too.

Another good point. This cropped up on Westeros and SFX a while back and I think I concluded that very long series can sustain themselves when split into sub-arcs, such as Bakker's massive Second Apocalypse series being split into a trilogy (Prince of Nothing and two duologies (forthcoming), and Feist's huge saga of the Riftwars being split into five trilogies, a quartet and two single novels (although Feist has gone off the boil as well, which kind of scuppers that theory). I think Martin was aiming for this as well, with ASoIaF being effectively split into two trilogies split by a large gap, but he decided to insert an extra book into the middle, which caused him enormous problems, most of which he overcame in AFFC but certain ones remained. That said, I have a certain faith that Martin and indeed Erikson (I found TBH disappointing) can turn their series around. Jordan I am less confident of.

Quote

Perhaps because with many of the characters their life arcs - even given the presence of magic - are multiple, repetitive, and even given the realm of magic being present, simply strains credulity beyond breaking point. And so many of them seem remarkably unscathed by those multiple life arcs they live through. Martin may have seemed to have solved that problem by killing off major characters, but I think it was pointed out in Westeros that the body count of major characters after thousands of pages isn't actually very high. So far there are two major and two other minor ones who have been croaked by Martin. Whether there is a blooodfest before the end of the series we must wait and see!

Rather more than that.

Spoiler

Major: Eddard, Catelyn & Robb Stark, Tywin & Joffrey Lannister,
Intermediate: Oberyn Martell, Balon Greyjoy, Viserys Targaryen, Khal Drogo (borderline minor character though), probably more I'm forgetting
Minor: Too many to count (but including Arys Oakheart, Dacey Mormont, Smalljon Umber, Hoster Tully & Shae).

Quote

I think there are many fantasy writers out there (not pointing at any of those I have mentioned, BTW) that if they had half the intelligence and literary skill of Jones, Wurts and Hobb - that 'whole enchilada' holistic skill as a writer - the genre would be much the better for it.

Hmm. I'd add Paul Kearney and Scott Lynch to that list. Kate Elliott, Tad Williams and Peter F. Hamilton I also think have written very long series and successfully brought them to a conclusion without sacrificing quality (with the caveat I haven't quite finished Elliott's series yet).

[Dr Trouble]

You might want to spoiler warn that little death list Werthead. Highly unlikely, but some people might not have known

[Rakov]

Great stuff, Werthead. And I stand corrected on the body count in ASoIaF!

One thought about sub-arcs. (this sub-thread belongs in one of its own, I guess!) I suppose it is a virtually insoluble question but just how many of those sub-arcs were pre-planned by the authors or the whole thing simply ran away from them? I know it has been stated that Erikson was clear in his intent from the beginning, but even thent the message seems somewhat garbled about that, from various threads I've followed in the past.

I find it hard to believe that Feist had any grand scheme of things when he began Magician, even given that the world of Midkemia existed more or less independent of him in the first place (in fact, I heard it from his own mouth at the BFS Fcon this year that he didn't quite know what he was doing as a writer when he wrote Magician). And anyway, how the extended series came about, whether pre-planned or not - the tale growing in the telling as Tolkien said, and as Martin himself quoted in relation to his own work in a recent Podcast - tangential sub-arcs intended or not - Does it really matter? Maybe it doesn't, so long as the author and the reader are having fun. So long as it continues to be fun. My contention is, that fairly large swathes of epic series, are not fun, the writing falls down, the components that make up a novel are hamfisted - a clear disparity between length and consistent quality.

I think a lot of readers might not care as long as it generally entertains them and takes them away from the mundane drudgery of life, and will forgive the aberrations.

I look for layers and gain fun and satisfaction from seeing a writer meshing those layers together with consistent and consummate skill. Or, I'll consciously read rollicking good more-or-less one dimensional romp fiction for nothing beyond itself from time to time. but on the whole, I still can't remove that poker from me proverbial as a reader!

[QuickTidal]

Tattooed Hand;120966 said:

Yes, That's The Hero and the Crown by Robin McKinley. One of my favorites since I was ten, which was a long time ago.

Not to mention the sequel to it called "The Blue Sword", which I read first actually....but I think it takes place first. So maybe it's a prequel....dunno.

[fan_83]

bah.,.. feist did not plan for the trilogies that came out from midkemia.. one can see from the way and the focus of the books that the later books are all addons.. like what brooks shannara series is doing...

but one of my top 3 fav female writer is melanie rawn and her still to be written final book of the ambrai series

[Werthead]

Rakov;124526 said:

One thought about sub-arcs. (this sub-thread belongs in one of its own, I guess!) I suppose it is a virtually insoluble question but just how many of those sub-arcs were pre-planned by the authors or the whole thing simply ran away from them? I know it has been stated that Erikson was clear in his intent from the beginning, but even thent the message seems somewhat garbled about that, from various threads I've followed in the past.

I find it hard to believe that Feist had any grand scheme of things when he began Magician, even given that the world of Midkemia existed more or less independent of him in the first place (in fact, I heard it from his own mouth at the BFS Fcon this year that he didn't quite know what he was doing as a writer when he wrote Magician).

Well, Feist has said in interviews that he had a vague idea about covering the history of Midkemia from roughly 500 years before the 'present' in his friends RPG campaign up to the present day, and this includes the five Great Riftwars (of which the Darkwar in the current series is the third), so that was planned from the start. However, did he exactly know what was going to happen and how many books he'd need? No. In fact, whilst he was writing Magician his editor didn't think it'd even be successful enough to warrant a sequel.

With Bakker, he definitely knew ahead of time what was going to happen. That's why so much stuff is unresolved in Prince of Nothing (annoyingly so), since although billed as a trilogy, more books will follow.

As for Martin, again once he'd extended series to six books and decided to bring in magical elements (which originally would not have appeared in the books at all), then the natural division into two trilogies took place.

Erikson has planned ten and Esslemont five books in the Malazan world from the beginning and, to be fair, they do seem to be sticking to the plan. Erikson has said he'll probably write additional books set in the Malazan universe, but they'll just be one-offs.

[Master Prudent]

Skipping back to Wurts. While she is indeed a good stylist who pays attention to characters but I found that her Wars of Light and Shadow and Alliance of Light suffered from bloat and recurring themes/plot elements. The last two books of WoLaS had very similar plots that resulted in similar outcomes. Then AoL comes along promises and hints at a change of direction and then it just makes its characters suffer hideously and continuously for the next 300 pages without so much as a hint of driving the overall plot along. I'll admit that the suffering was unusual and involving to start with but then it just bores one to a similarly hideous fate. Also her magic scenes are drawn out with way too much mumbo jumbo.

LeGuin, for me, is a perfect example of balancing plot with character development.

And a quick mention of Irving. For some reason - and I'm not sure why - his books (or what I"ve read of his books) read in a way that seems distinctly feminine.

[fan_83]

the problem with rowling is not that shes isn;t a good writer but her work is not the kind of thats on par with hobbs and irving..

that means that her focus is not on great writing but on it being approachable...

[Sir Thursday]

I guess that question boils down to what you consider being a good writer is. Personally, I think that anyone who can draw you in and keep you engrossed in a storyline has produced a good piece of writing...so I would definately classify Rowling as a good author. I think sometimes people are too quite to equate 'popular' with 'mediocre'...


Sir Thursday