MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 196 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Anne McCaffrey by Heather Mina 2) Rosemary Sutcliff (was Re: Anne McCaffrey) by Jean Morrill 3) books'n'such by Hollie Virgin 4) Re: SEXISM by gjuka-+AT+-cnw.com (Gjuka) 5) Re: books'n'such by Catherine Osborne 6) Re: Tepper by Mat Timmerman 7) Re: Tremane by dstorrs-+AT+-crossover.com (David K. Storrs) 8) Poll Time, Da Results are In! by Gyrfalcon 9) Re: books'n'such by Mat Timmerman 10) RE: A new book to recommend by Saverte 11) Re: Poll Time, Da Results are In! by Erica Neely 12) Re: A new book to recommend by dstorrs-+AT+-crossover.com (David K. Storrs) 13) Re: Poll Time, Da Results are In! by "Sandy Haas" 14) Re: books'n'such by David 15) Re: Tremane by John Oliver 16) Re: Too Dim Villains(Robert Jordan) by dstorrs-+AT+-crossover.com (David K. Storrs) 17) Re: Tremane by Heather Mina 18) Re: Tepper by CHONNI 19) Re: Poll Time, Da Results are In! by Gyrfalcon 20) Re: Tepper by Amy Mason 21) Re: books'n'such by Rich Crawford 22) Re: A new book to recommend by dstorrs-+AT+-crossover.com (David K. Storrs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 09:13:42 GMT+0000 From: Heather Mina To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Anne McCaffrey Message-ID: <9510301414.AA02387-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk> > Catherine Osborne ---> >I liked the Menolly books, but have been able to get through no other >McCaffrey. I feel the same way. Actually, I loved _Dragonsinger_, _Dragonsong_, and _Dragondrums_, but could not read any of the other Pern novels. I have, however, enjoyed her _Crystal_Singer_ books, as well as the _Rowan_ series. But my mother and some of my friends just can't understand why I don't like the Pern books... As far as the Tolkien books go, I think you really have to be in the right frame of mind to appreciate them. There have been times when I just have not been in the mood for his extensive description and metaphors, and I have to put the book down. For what its worth, there's my two cents. Heather Mina <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> < The time has come, the walrus said > < to talk of many things, > < Of shoes and ships and sealing wax, > < of cabbages and kings. > < --- Lewis Carroll > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heather L. Mina hlmina-+AT+-vwc.edu heamin-+AT+-sunshine.vab.unisysgsg.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 09:33:20 -0700 From: Jean Morrill To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Rosemary Sutcliff (was Re: Anne McCaffrey) Message-ID: <199510301633.JAA08392-+AT+-rain.hwr.arizona.edu> > > Owl, my favorite Rosemary Sutcliff is "Brother Dusty-Feet" but I've never > read one of her books I didn't like. People who still get "Cricket" even > though they're grown-up will know that she wrote the story "The Minstrel > and the Dragon Pup" a recent serial. I was so upset to learn that she had > died; her books got me interested in Romano-Celtic history and myth. > Wonderful! The three Rosemary Sutcliff books I liked the best (of the ones that were written at least 10 years ago) were a) the one about the one-armed boy who is supposed to kill a wolf to enter adulthood. I want to say it's "The Scarlet something" because if the red cape the warriors wear, but I couldn't swear to it. b) The Witch's Brat. c) Young Roman Centurion (or some other officer rank) is banished to a remote fort when he messes up a military assignment. Eventually he learns to deal with his men and his situation. These people are into wolf-skin capes, too, I think. I think "Wolf" may be in the title. Does anyone remember names for a) and c) ? Maybe I should go read some more Rosemary Sutcliff. I don't think I have read anything of hers in at least 10 years. What have I missed? Jean ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 11:43:13 -0500 (EST) From: Hollie Virgin To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: books'n'such Message-ID: <199510301643.LAA24677-+AT+-service1.cc.uky.edu> Responding to many different threads...so have patience... :) 1) On Fri, 27 Oct 1995, Susan R. Dewey wrote: > Here is another author that I have not seen mentioned: > Tamora Pierce and her Song of the Lioness quartet. Ah! Someone else who still frequents the "Young Adult" section of the library! *grin* Yes, Song of the Lioness was incredible, though I liked the first two books much, much better than the last two. Another wonderful author, who I've just realised is not the same person as Tamora, is Meredith-Ann Pierce, who wrote the _Darkangel_ trilogy (_The Darkangel,_ _A Gathering of Gargoyles,_ _The Pearl of the Soul of the World_) and _Birth of the Firebringer,_ all of which are amazing. I think she's also the one who wrote _The Woman who Loved Reindeer,_ but I could be mistaken. That's a good one too. :) 2) On Sun, 29 Oct 1995, Adrienne York wrote: >Oh, Vivian, don't be ashamed to admit you never finished the Hobbit. I >have never read one Tolkien book. runs away from the crazed villagers carrying torches.> I couldn't get >through all the description in the Hobbit, which I tried to start. *raises hand hesitantly* add me to the list of heretics... though I've actually read all but _Return of the King._ I could never get through the first part with Merry and Pippin...they're not nearly as interesting as Sam and Frodo. It really bugs me when an author just abandons main characters for half a book...(or a whole book, damn you Robert Jordan, I wanted to hear about Perrin!!) Plus I could never quite get past the language...although the Entspeech is lovely... :) 3) On Mon, 30 Oct 1995, Catherine Osborne wrote: >Robin Wood did a set of tarot cards that I will be obtaining as soon as I >have the cash and have bought "Lovers, Legends" (my Firebird catalogue >arrived Saturday.) I agree, his pictures are lovely. Oh? What's the name of the deck? I seem to very vaguely remember hearing about them... (*scans her long message and sighs* This is what you get when you're on digest and suddenly want to talk a lot... *grin* sorry if that was completely confusing!) Hollie Virgin ehvirg00-+AT+-pop.uky.edu "She will remember your heart when men are fairytales in books written by rabbits." -The Last Unicorn ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 09:12:53 -0800 From: gjuka-+AT+-cnw.com (Gjuka) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: SEXISM Message-ID: <9510301702.AA03370-+AT+-baker> > >> It's not natural, >> but neither are earrings, nice clothes, reading or pizza- but I'm not >> giving them up. Humankind does a lot of things to "improve " their >> appearance or attractiveness, including bathing, breathmints, haircuts, >> clothing, ext... > >True. But that concept of attractiveness is based on artificial >models. A woman shouldn't look like a barbie - our skin isn't >plastic, our waist has to accommodate all our internal organs, our >feet should be suitable for walking. A healthy, clean, fit homo >sapiens (the same as any animal) is beautiful even stark naked and >without any make- up. All the clothing and cosmetics are just >additions. > Yes, I agree. I find that my asthetics are quite diffrent from the "norm". And though I do like occational rubber (leather is really much better) I don't think I'm alone in saying that Barbie doesn't do a thing for me. Ken's even worse. Most Models are pretty boring, their features don't allow variation, and that's what is beautiful. Crooked teeth (David Bowie, Jerremy Irons, the old cher) and large noses (Trent Reznor) are two of my favorite features. And the figures of 50's pin ups were a lot less skinny/boney and who would you rather look at? M Monroe, or Cindy Crawford? Don't get me wrong, everyone is beautiful, even super models. Course, it probibly helped that I didn't have much exposure to fashion till I was at boarding school in 7th grade. Till then I'd been isolated on an island, and just didn't have any intrest. Any way, my point is- Barbie ain't so hot. As for victims- arn't we all? -Colette gjuka-+AT+-cnw.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 12:13:39 -0500 (EST) From: Catherine Osborne To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: books'n'such Message-ID: On Mon, 30 Oct 1995, Hollie Virgin wrote: > Ah! Someone else who still frequents the "Young Adult" section of the > library! Tis the best part, IMHO. > Another wonderful author, who I've just realised is not the same person as > Tamora, is Meredith-Ann Pierce, who wrote the _Darkangel_ trilogy (_The > Darkangel,_ _A Gathering of Gargoyles,_ _The Pearl of the Soul of the I liked *The Darkangel* best. Also, the first Alanna book was the best; the second was second-best; they went downhill from there. > >Robin Wood did a set of tarot cards that I will be obtaining as soon as I > >have the cash and have bought "Lovers, Legends" (my Firebird catalogue > >arrived Saturday.) I agree, his pictures are lovely. I think its called "The Robin Wood Tarot Deck" actually ;) I\/ Catherine Osborne "After great pain, I\/ Sundancer a formal feeling comes." I cosborne-+AT+-sidwell.edu --Emily Dickinson I http://www.sidwell.edu/~cosborne/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 13:03:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Mat Timmerman To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Tepper Message-ID: <01HX1VPKXNAQ935RQW-+AT+-vaxc.hofstra.edu> From: Sanna Koulu >Mat Timmerman wrote: > >> From: Vivian Choh >> > >> > To date, the only spec. fiction book that I've >> >never finished (usually, I'll just finish it no matter how bad it is) is >> >the Hobbit. It took me years and years before I read the Lord of the Rings >> >trilogy. I finally did, at the urging of a friend who insisted that >> >trilogy was nothing like the Hobbit. Is that true BTW? Maybe one day, >> >I'll try the Hobbit again... >> >> BLASPHEMER!!! ;> >> >> Just, kidding. LotR is really nothing like The Hobbit. In fact, >> originally, Tolkien didn't even intend for them to be related. >> The Hobbit was intended to be a children's book, based on bedtime >> stories he told to _his_ children. The only reason that Frodo (the > >Bilbo, you mean? > >> main Hobbit character in LotR) is related to Frodo was that there ^^^^^ Actually, this one should have been Bilbo (hey, give me a break, I typed this at 11:30 PM :) ) >> was a huge demand for a sequel to the Hobbit. Therefore, he just >> kind of changed a few things around in the LotR (which he was >> already writing) and tada, instant sequel. > >I thought the point was that LotR was the hybrid of Silmarillion + >the rest of the history on one hand and the popularity of the hobbits >on the other. As such, I think LotR is both warmer and more easily >likable than Quenta Silmarillion, say, and deeper and more epic than >the Hobbit. Actually. the Silmarillion was a posthumous work. IIRC, Tolkien either didn't think that it was ready, or never planned to release it (can't remember which). After he died, his son Christopher collected all the parts (Ainurindale (I know that I misspelled that one), Valaquenta, Quenta Silmarillion, Akallabeth, and Of the Third Age and the Rings of Power) into one book. They were originally separate works. The Silmarillion is really like a history book. It's kind of dry and impersonal. The Hobbit is on the other end of the spectrum. It's meant to be interesting and to entice children. tLotR kind of blends the two styles, giving us an epic story, with characters that we can get to know and like. All this is not to say that I don't think that Tolkein is long winded and overly descriptive at times. In fact, I haven't been able to read the Silmarillion more than once (and I _have_ tried to reread it). I also read LotR quite infrequently and have to be in exactly the right mood to do so. I haven't read the Hobbit since the first time in the sixth grade. Mat -- Mat Timmerman accmjt-+AT+-vaxc.hofstra.edu "I don't care what you smell, just get in there." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 12:11:19 -0500 From: dstorrs-+AT+-crossover.com (David K. Storrs) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Tremane Message-ID: <199510301711.MAA30582-+AT+-prague.crossover.com> > >My main question is, are villains 1) neccessary to a good story and 2) do they have to be largely "cartoon" characters? > >David. > > > (sorry, I'm a little behind on reading my mail) No, "villains" are not necessary to a story: _conflict_ is necessary, but it can perfectly well be a conflict between people, all of whom are trying to do the best they can in bad circumstances, but they all have mutually exclusive requirements and goals. The American Congress is a reasonably good example of this. If you want to have an out and out evil person in a story, it's difficult to do -- most 20th century people have never encountered true evil (I know I haven't) and would have trouble believing that anyone could be so bad. Therefore, it is easier to portray villains as insane, or misunderstood, or *something* in order to give a "justification" for the behavior of the character. Dave ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 13:25:45 -0500 (EST) From: Gyrfalcon To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Poll Time, Da Results are In! Message-ID: Well 'ere we go. Poll results: It seems the general consensus is a Stylish, Subtle, Intelligent villian who loves their work. A few asked for villians who were "Grey", and in touch with reality. Examples quoted were Jordan's Forsaken, Rice's Lestat, and Darth Vader. Spin off Poll results: Colette, Lyssa, Stacy, and jenneke like Harrison Ford's butt, although jenneke believes it comes in second place to Val Kilmer's. Colette than voted to put Ford in black rubber... (Hold it! I'm not getting into any more of this.) Catherine has stated that Denzel Washington's is the best. Fair winds and skies, --Gyrfalcon This is the absolutely last time I hold a poll! =======================msowers-+AT+-menger.eecs.stevens-tech.edu=================== Magic still exists. We have only to reach out and touch it, it is a part of the very fabric of the world. When our belief of magic completely dies this universe shall die. Because that magic; Hope, Dreams, Love, Beauty, Wonder, Belief, and Discovery are what make us a people. They are all part of a great Art whose workings are still a mystery but whose applications can be seen every day. If we ever lose the Art mankind shall not last the day. Let the magic that is in us roam free in our work, play, in each other, and most of all in ourselves. Let it roam free or it will die. ============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 13:14:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Mat Timmerman To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: books'n'such Message-ID: <01HX1W5EV1QW935RQW-+AT+-vaxc.hofstra.edu> From: Hollie Virgin > >1) On Fri, 27 Oct 1995, Susan R. Dewey wrote: > >> Here is another author that I have not seen mentioned: >> Tamora Pierce and her Song of the Lioness quartet. > >Ah! Someone else who still frequents the "Young Adult" section of the >library! *grin* Yes, Song of the Lioness was incredible, though I liked >the first two books much, much better than the last two. > Well, I haven't read these books, but there's another good reason to read "Young Adult" books. It's Diane Duane's Young Wizards series. It's about two preteen kids who find wizards manuals (or the manuals find them actually). I won't spoil them anymore, but they're very good. The series so far is: _So You Want To Be A Wizard ?_, _Deep Wizardry_, _High Wizardry_, _Wizards Abroad_ (I think), and _The Cats of Grand Central_ (forthcomming). So far, _Wizzards Abroad_ is available only in Britain. Us poor deprived souls here in the States have to get it by mail order or something. I got my copy from the Future Fantasy On-line Bookstore. It only costs me about six or seven dollars, after S&H. > >2) On Sun, 29 Oct 1995, Adrienne York wrote: > >>Oh, Vivian, don't be ashamed to admit you never finished the Hobbit. I >>have never read one Tolkien book. >runs away from the crazed villagers carrying torches.> I couldn't get >>through all the description in the Hobbit, which I tried to start. > >*raises hand hesitantly* add me to the list of heretics... though I've >actually read all but _Return of the King._ I could never get through the >first part with Merry and Pippin...they're not nearly as interesting as Sam >and Frodo. It really bugs me when an author just abandons main characters >for half a book...(or a whole book, damn you Robert Jordan, I wanted to hear >about Perrin!!) Plus I could never quite get past the language...although >the Entspeech is lovely... :) > Did you know that tLotR was intended to be _six_ books long? Tolkien was mighty pissed when his publishers crammed two books into each volume. That's why each book has two books in it (Fellowship has 1 & 2, Towers has 3&4, Return has 5&6). The titles of the existing books were kind of made up on the spot. Mat -- Mat Timmerman accmjt-+AT+-vaxc.hofstra.edu "I don't care what you smell, just get in there." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 20:15:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Saverte To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: RE: A new book to recommend Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Oct 1995, Gjuka wrote: > > Patricia Mckillip is also excellent! I recomend her Riddle Master Trillogy > highly. The books are- The Riddle Master of Hed, Heir of Sea and Fire, and .. Absolutely, I could not agree more. I don't know what it was about that series, but to this day, I can keep resding and reading and reading... it. Few authors can do that too me, Misty is one, Andre Norton is another, some early Mccaffrey books, as well as some other SF authors. Scott ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 19:31:21 +0000 (GMT) From: Erica Neely To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Poll Time, Da Results are In! Message-ID: > Well 'ere we go. > > Poll results: > Fair winds and skies, > > --Gyrfalcon > This is the absolutely last time I hold a poll! Anyone want to hold a poll on who thinks this is true? All right, all right - it was just a thought... Erica Say it out and say it loud: I'm sad and proud ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 13:20:43 -0500 From: dstorrs-+AT+-crossover.com (David K. Storrs) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: A new book to recommend Message-ID: <199510301820.NAA30677-+AT+-prague.crossover.com> >On Thu, 26 Oct 1995, Tarja Rainio wrote: > >> P.S. Just out of curiosity: has anyone read any of the Mageworlds novels by >> Debra Doyle & James D. Macdonald? These are fun. They remind me a lot of >> the Star Wars universe, but not too much. The feel is the same: good space >> opera with royals and magic etc. =) (It's not as bad as it sounds). My only >> complaint is that the writing is a bit jumpy at times and the third book >> especially ends too abruptly. > Yes, I read these -- they were recommended to me by a coworker. I liked them a lot, although I found myself getting frustrated by several things. [ACTUALLY, THIS TURNED INTO A RATHER LONG RANT WITH A HUGE MESS OF SPOILER STUFF...SORRY ABOUT THAT.) If you don't want any info, then don't read past this p l e a s i n g l y p l u m p s p o i l e r s p a c e There are two sects of magic-wielders, the Adepts of the Republic and the Mages of the Mageworlds. IMHO, they are very similar to the Light Side Jedi and the Dark Side Jedi, the main difference being that they fight with staves of wood or ebony instead of sabres of light. We never manage to get a very coherent view of how the magic works, though -- the Adept who is in the camera's view the most, Llannat Hyffid, seems to consider herself a not-very-talented Adept, yet she keeps popping up with these incredible stunts like levitating an entire aircar vertically...granted, this may be simply her own low self-esteem showing, but if so, the characterization failed because the attitude never changed across the books, while her skills obviously did. The Master of the Adepts Guild, Errec Ransome, is a vitally important character, as it turns out, yet we are given no real insight into his thoughts or motives, and little chance to empathize with him. At the end, there is an almost-literal deus-ex-machina in order to redeem his spirit in the reader's eyes, but personally it left me more confused than anything else. To top all this off, we see virtually no examples of his power, other than a little bit of personal invisibility and one or two other tricks which, evidentally, any Adept can do. Now, this may be a case like Gandalf the Grey or Ingold Inglorion, where you have a wizard so powerful that he does things in more low-key ways just because he feels like it, but with those two, you KNEW that they were powerful, important people (you also knew that they had their heads screwed on right, something that I was not at all certain of re: Errec by the end of the last book), which was never something I felt about Errec; I just felt that he was an evil, underhanded weakling that I would honestly have preferred to see dead because he annoyed me. The fact that he was given no redeeming qualities makes him something of a failed characterization in my eyes; even evil people can be interesting. The Professor, the copilot of the heroine of the books, is later revealed to be a renegade Mage Lord who has been manipulating events for hundreds of years. To me, he was the most fascinating character in the book (with the heroine trailing by a whisker), but he dies off partway through the first book! Granted, we see his influence a lot thereafter, and even encounter his spirit once or twice, but not HIM. He was a beautifully drawn, fascinating character, and he had to go and die! Bekka Rosselin-Metadi is the heroine of the book, with her brother Ari close in her orbit. I liked Bekka's character as the independent, smart, tough, highly successful female character who doesn't have to act mannish to be all those things. Ari was also well done, although I must admit that both he and his sister are drawn much larger than life (in Ari's case, literally so :> ), which detracts a bit from their reality. Still, they screw up often enough to keep me believing in them. Despite all the ranting I've done, and a few minor annoyances that I haven't mentioned, I really did enjoy these books -- they are well done and deserve a read...even comparatively minor characters, like Gil Jervas, kept my attention throughout. Dave ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 15:35:47 EDT From: "Sandy Haas" To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Poll Time, Da Results are In! Message-ID: <3991425B2-+AT+-rackham.umich.edu> > > --Gyrfalcon > This is the absolutely last time I hold a poll! Isn't it horrible to hold a poll and not have anyone come?? Well, that sounds suggestive--take it as you will :} Sandy Haas ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 19:42:01 GMT From: David To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: books'n'such Message-ID: On Mon, 30 Oct 1995 17:03:15 GMT Hollie Virgin wrote: > 2) On Sun, 29 Oct 1995, Adrienne York wrote: > > >Oh, Vivian, don't be ashamed to admit you never finished the Hobbit. I > >have never read one Tolkien book. > > *raises hand hesitantly* add me to the list of heretics... though I've > actually read all but _Return of the King._ I read the Hobbit when I was about 17/18, didn't particularly like it and kept clear of TLOTR, until my mother bought it for me when I was ill and _needed_ something new to read. It took a day to read and, when I finished it, I _knew_ why I had left it. David. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 06:43:15 +1100 From: John Oliver To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Tremane Message-ID: <199510301943.GAA20527-+AT+-gass.cc.uow.edu.au> >From: dstorrs-+AT+-crossover.com (David K. Storrs) > Subject: Re: Tremane > > No, "villains" are not necessary to a story: _conflict_ is > necessary, but it can perfectly well be a conflict between people, all of > whom are trying to do the best they can in bad circumstances, but they all > have mutually exclusive requirements and goals. The American Congress is a > reasonably good example of this. I have read stories with no villain except nature. Forest fires, hurricanes, plagues etc. John ******************************************************** * _--_|\ | jdo-+AT+-uow.edu.au * * / \ | That's the University of Wollongong * * \_.--\_* <-- Wollongong is a city of 200,000 about * * v | 100 km south of Sydney, Australia * ******************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 13:38:21 -0500 From: dstorrs-+AT+-crossover.com (David K. Storrs) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Too Dim Villains(Robert Jordan) Message-ID: <199510301838.NAA30700-+AT+-prague.crossover.com> > >I only read the Belgariad and the Malorian before I quit reading (ok, i >admit i read a bit of his saphire rose book but when reading it gave away >stuff in his other unrelated series i stopped.) his books for that very >reason. At first, the fact that the Malorean and Belgariad have the same >plot makes sence (ie it's explained), but after that he should have come up >with a new book and some new charecters to be in it. > >-Colette > > >gjuka-+AT+-cnw.com The fact that it was explained doesn't mean that it wasn't a literary cheat. He took the same five books, edited a few names, and resold them as a new series. He HAD to explain it -- it was so blazingly obvious, drinking a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster ("the effects of which are rather like having your brains smashed out by a large gold brick with a twist of lemon around it" :> )would have been a subtle experience in comparison. Dave ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 15:30:02 GMT+0000 From: Heather Mina To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Tremane Message-ID: <9510302030.AA13067-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk> > If you want to have an out and out evil person in a story, it's >difficult to do -- most 20th century people have never encountered true evil >(I know I haven't) and would have trouble believing that anyone could be so >bad. Therefore, it is easier to portray villains as insane, or >misunderstood, or *something* in order to give a "justification" for the >behavior of the character. > > Dave > There has been a major trend in literature of the 20th century, which parallels a major trend in psychology in the 20th century. Basically, with Freud and Jung and others, we started looking at a person's past as an integral part of who they are today. This was a =major= revolution in thought processes. Nowadays, we take this point of view for granted, and so we look for it in the literature we read and enjoy. However, the history of a villain, and why he is the way he is (Not to say that all villains are necessarily "he"s; I'm trying to be simple here, not sexist), never came into focus in literature prior to the 20th century. This is not to say that all villains are portrayed as insane or misunderstood, simply that authors of the 20th century give us more insight into the background of villains, so that we see how they became villains. To use Ms. Lackey's texts as an example, she does not, in general, tend to give us much history on the villains that she presents. For example, we do not really know much about the origin and childhood of Ma'ar/Leareth/Mornelithe Falconsbane, just that he is a blood-sorceror. (We do, however, know about the childhood of one of the young men that Ma'ar/Leareth/Falconsbane possessed). in general, I tend to see her villains pretty far down on the dark side of evil. However, in many speculative fiction (and other genres), we see villains who are explained. In Orson Scott Card's _Lost_Boys_, we see an old man who was abused as a child, which resulted in the development of a second personality which kills young boys. In Anne McCaffery's _Killashandra_, the Optherian government has become preoccupied with the concept of living in harmony with nature, to the extent of inhibiting the rights of its citizens, and even manipulating their thoughts via subliminal messages. If we did not know how Card's killer or McCaffery's government became so decadent, we would probably condemn them as evil. Instead, we see their current actions as part of the whole person (or entity, in the case of the government), which began in early childhood. And now I'll get down off my soapbox and dust off my feet. Sorry for the lengthy commentary, but the mood just hit me... --- Heather Mina <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> < The time has come, the walrus said > < to talk of many things, > < Of shoes and ships and sealing wax, > < of cabbages and kings. > < --- Lewis Carroll > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heather L. Mina hlmina-+AT+-vwc.edu heamin-+AT+-sunshine.vab.unisysgsg.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 12:36:43 -0800 (PST) From: CHONNI To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Tepper Message-ID: On Mon, 30 Oct 1995, Gjuka wrote: > If you think Lord of The Rings is bad, try the Simarillion (sp?)! Not only > is it long winded, but dry as unbuttered toast! I've been trying for years > and can't get past page 50. I read Hobbit and the trillogy when I was > eleven and loved it, but have never managed to get through it again. I > havn't given up yet though. One day I'll get determined and do it. > > -Colette Strangly enough, the Simarillion was the first Tolkien I ever read, and though it took me weeks to read it, it's still the only one I really like! Ok, so I'm a little weird! I just liked how it covered EVERYTHING; LoTR and the Hobbit were just details to me. short tolkien anecdote as told to me by an english prof: When Tolkien was at Exeter College at Oxford, he belonged to a writer's group. He was putting together the Lord of the Rings, and reading each chapter to the group. On one particular night, when one of his collegues was indulging in some wine, and feeling quite relaxed, Tolkien eagerly pulled out his next chapter. The fellow listened for a while before moaning, "Oh God, not another f**king elf!" -Chonni Brightwolf, who accidentally erased her sig. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 15:42:27 -0500 (EST) From: Gyrfalcon To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Poll Time, Da Results are In! Message-ID: On Mon, 30 Oct 1995, Erica Neely wrote: > > --Gyrfalcon > > This is the absolutely last time I hold a poll! > > Anyone want to hold a poll on who thinks this is true? > Erica Alright Erica you're elected... My vote is yes. --Gyrfalcon =======================msowers-+AT+-menger.eecs.stevens-tech.edu=================== Magic still exists. We have only to reach out and touch it, it is a part of the very fabric of the world. When our belief of magic completely dies this universe shall die. Because that magic; Hope, Dreams, Love, Beauty, Wonder, Belief, and Discovery are what make us a people. They are all part of a great Art whose workings are still a mystery but whose applications can be seen every day. If we ever lose the Art mankind shall not last the day. Let the magic that is in us roam free in our work, play, in each other, and most of all in ourselves. Let it roam free or it will die. ============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 13:48:07 -0800 (PST) From: Amy Mason To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Tepper Message-ID: On Sun, 29 Oct 1995, Adrienne York wrote: > On Sun, 29 Oct 1995, Vivian Choh wrote: > > > To date, the only spec. fiction book that I've > > never finished (usually, I'll just finish it no matter how bad it is) is > > the Hobbit. It took me years and years before I read the Lord of the Rings > > trilogy. I finally did, at the urging of a friend who insisted that > > trilogy was nothing like the Hobbit. Is that true BTW? Maybe one day, > > I'll try the Hobbit again... > > > Oh, Vivian, don't be ashamed to admit you never finished the Hobbit. I > have never read one Tolkien book. runs away from the crazed villagers carrying torches.> I couldn't get > through all the description in the Hobbit, which I tried to start. Well, > I was much younger then, though. Maybe I'll try to read it during > Intersession. I should hope I have a bigger attention span now. > > Adrienne > Who accidentally deleted the sig. I second the motion of not being ashamed of reading the Hobbit. I tried to read the Hobbit, but could never get through it, though it's a different story for the Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is what got me started on Sci Fi/Fantasy. I thoroughly enjoyed the Lord of the Rings, but found the Hobbit dragging in most places, anyone else agree? Amy :) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 14:10:29 -0800 From: Rich Crawford To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: books'n'such Message-ID: <199510302210.OAA07764-+AT+-franc.ucdavis.edu> At 09:08 PM 10/30/95 GMT, you wrote: >On Mon, 30 Oct 1995 17:03:15 GMT Hollie Virgin wrote: > >> 2) On Sun, 29 Oct 1995, Adrienne York wrote: >> >> >Oh, Vivian, don't be ashamed to admit you never finished the Hobbit. I >> >have never read one Tolkien book. >> >> *raises hand hesitantly* add me to the list of heretics... though I've >> actually read all but _Return of the King._ > >I read the Hobbit when I was about 17/18, didn't particularly like it and >kept clear of TLOTR, until my mother bought it for me when I was ill and >_needed_ something new to read. > >It took a day to read and, when I finished it, I _knew_ why I had left it. > >David. > I've read "The Hobbit" about five times in my life; the first time was when I was eight or so. The rest of the series I finally got around to reading when I was 17. It was rough, but I finally was able to get through it (_The Two Towers_ is the hardest book to get through). I've tried to read it since, but have gotten bogged down in the middle of _Fellowship_ each time. I like the books; I guess that reading them is a feat that can only be done once in a lifetime. Did anyone else enjoy Tad Williams' series "Memory, Sorrow and Thorn" (_The Dragonbone Chair_, _Stone of Farewell_, and _To Green Angel Tower_)? I often feel like I'm the only one. ............................................................................ ................................ Zhai'helleva Rich ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 16:35:32 -0500 From: dstorrs-+AT+-crossover.com (David K. Storrs) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: A new book to recommend Message-ID: <199510302135.QAA31063-+AT+-prague.crossover.com> >Snip: >> >>I also didn't like more than first book of the SwordSingers books. The >>short stories and the first book make it look like the woman is the main >>character and she's just using an interesting storytelling device by >>using the pov of the male character, but in the second book, she kills >>the female character off, because, after all, she wasn't a Good Woman >>because she dared to go off and leave her child behind to avenge her >>family and then want to come back and have some part in the kid's life, >>instead of resigning herself properly to being asexual because she chose >>a non-stereotypical role for herself. > >Loving almost everything Jennifer Roberson has written, I definitely suggest >reading both Sword Maker and Sword Breaker! The story doesn't quite go the >way you think when you finish Sword Singer; it literally transforms before >your eyes. Please try it and tell me what you think! :) > >Peace > >Firefly >ristuben-+AT+-webstar.net > > I'm afraid I come down on the "con" side on this one, Firefly...it's been several years since I read them, but I believe I read all four of the "Sword" books, and my only comment is: ugh Sorry, but the treatment of the female characters, the way in which she is almost-but-never-quite-as good as the male at anything...and then she is...and then she isn't...sorry, but it just drove me bananas. I did finish the books, hoping that Sandtiger would reform, but there didn't seem to be any real character movement at all over the course of four books. Dave ------------------------------ End of MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 196 *********************************