Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 5655805" data-attributes="member: 54707">I'm gonna disagree to an extent with Dan on this&nbsp; one. I leek the pacing of the Nordic Sagas and enjoyed the Silmarillion much&nbsp; more than the LOTR precisely it was like a Saga. In the Sagas things happen more&nbsp; like real life. &nbsp; &nbsp;I find such forms very refreshing from the modern&nbsp; obsession with quick, tight, formulaic, there must be a big explosion or a&nbsp; calculated something every &quot;X&quot; number of seconds or scenes. Modern writing is in&nbsp; my opinion far to &quot;calculating,&quot;, far too &quot;calculated&quot; and far too impatient and&nbsp; artificially and unrealistically structured.&nbsp; &nbsp;I think this comes from modern people's obsession&nbsp; with films and television where everything solved in an hour and life itself (or&nbsp; big chunks of it) is compressed to a two hour film. And that can lead to some&nbsp; awful exciting writing, taking that view of story-telling, but it also leads to&nbsp; an artificial view of storytelling and a contrived view of viewing life. So,&nbsp; depending on what I'm reading, I like long night watches and periods of time in&nbsp; my book where you can't really guess what is gonna happen til you get there, and&nbsp; you might not get there until you've hiked the whole hundred miles. Then again I&nbsp; like the Russian writers too. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;On the other hand, and although it doesn't make me&nbsp; stop reading it, one American who I think has mastered the &quot;Wandering around&nbsp; Saga&quot; is GRR Martin. He is often an extremely good writer, sometimes he is&nbsp; excellent. But two things bother me about some of his writings.&nbsp; &nbsp;First all his characters are more like modern&nbsp; people than from the age I or he envisions them arising. Except Dany (in some&nbsp; respects). But that's okay, I understand. Martin is writing for modern audiences&nbsp; who think that everyone from every age of history has had their outlook on life,&nbsp; a cynical and sort of hopeless one, their mode of speech and so forth and so on.&nbsp; So he wants to appeal to us, but he still does so by writing in modern&nbsp; characters (for the most part) into settings and time periods that would not&nbsp; have produced modern people. Or even semi-modern people.&nbsp; &nbsp;Secondly his stories go nowhere. He has mastered&nbsp; the Saga, and Eddas style of &quot;wandering around&quot; but he actually never goes&nbsp; anywhere. He just keeps wandering around endlessly with no real point or end. I&nbsp; don't really mean to compare him to Tolkien, and he shouldn't be (I've heard a&nbsp; lot of people draw comparisons, but really, I don't see how they are similar&nbsp; except in the most general of ways), but the LOTR had a point. There was a&nbsp; purpose and a goal to the story and to what the characters were actually trying&nbsp; to achieve. The good characters and the bad characters.&nbsp; &nbsp;A lot of characters in Martin's books want the&nbsp; Iron Throne. But none of them seem to have any idea why (other than power) and&nbsp; tradition (that's what you're supposed to want), or what to do with it once they&nbsp; get it. They just want it but couldn't really tell ya why, what they will do&nbsp; with it, or what the point of it all would be. Again, a lot like the viewpoint&nbsp; of modern life to me. Do things, but don't know why, or where you're going, or&nbsp; what it means. You just do things because that's what ya do. But there is no&nbsp; good or high or noble end for most of them. (Maybe that's not true of Dany.) But&nbsp; most of them are consumed with that typical modern outlook of &quot;it is better to&nbsp; be complex and complicated and self-absorbed&quot; than have a real point to your&nbsp; life. Which to me is more of the same old tiresome same old tiresome.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;I like his books. They are often well written, the&nbsp; characters are sometimes fascinating even if pointless, the stories interesting,&nbsp; sometimes he borders on High Art or even creates some liens of it, but his books&nbsp; never really go anywhere. They just sort of wander around without any real&nbsp; purpose to them.&nbsp; &nbsp;So instead of ending up Epic Fantasy his books end&nbsp; up being a &quot;wander around the frontiers of modern life without knowing where&nbsp; you're going or why.&quot; I call that &quot;Fantasy Modernity&quot; (or fantasy post-modernity&nbsp; or post-post-new modernity or whatever the current en vogue terminology of the&nbsp; moment du jour is) rather than Epic Fantasy. &nbsp; &nbsp;Again, I like his books. I just wish they had a&nbsp; point to them, or actually went somewhere.&nbsp; &nbsp;There Mouse. That oughtta get ya a few arguments&nbsp; and exchanges. &nbsp;(Though that's not why I wrote what I said. I&nbsp; meant every word.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jack7, post: 5655805, member: 54707"] [FONT=Verdana]I'm gonna disagree to an extent with Dan on this one. I leek the pacing of the Nordic Sagas and enjoyed the Silmarillion much more than the LOTR precisely it was like a Saga. In the Sagas things happen more like real life. [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana] [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]I find such forms very refreshing from the modern obsession with quick, tight, formulaic, there must be a big explosion or a calculated something every "X" number of seconds or scenes. Modern writing is in my opinion far to "calculating,", far too "calculated" and far too impatient and artificially and unrealistically structured.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana] [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]I think this comes from modern people's obsession with films and television where everything solved in an hour and life itself (or big chunks of it) is compressed to a two hour film. And that can lead to some awful exciting writing, taking that view of story-telling, but it also leads to an artificial view of storytelling and a contrived view of viewing life. So, depending on what I'm reading, I like long night watches and periods of time in my book where you can't really guess what is gonna happen til you get there, and you might not get there until you've hiked the whole hundred miles. Then again I like the Russian writers too. [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana] [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana] [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]On the other hand, and although it doesn't make me stop reading it, one American who I think has mastered the "Wandering around Saga" is GRR Martin. He is often an extremely good writer, sometimes he is excellent. But two things bother me about some of his writings.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana] [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]First all his characters are more like modern people than from the age I or he envisions them arising. Except Dany (in some respects). But that's okay, I understand. Martin is writing for modern audiences who think that everyone from every age of history has had their outlook on life, a cynical and sort of hopeless one, their mode of speech and so forth and so on. So he wants to appeal to us, but he still does so by writing in modern characters (for the most part) into settings and time periods that would not have produced modern people. Or even semi-modern people.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana] [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]Secondly his stories go nowhere. He has mastered the Saga, and Eddas style of "wandering around" but he actually never goes anywhere. He just keeps wandering around endlessly with no real point or end. I don't really mean to compare him to Tolkien, and he shouldn't be (I've heard a lot of people draw comparisons, but really, I don't see how they are similar except in the most general of ways), but the LOTR had a point. There was a purpose and a goal to the story and to what the characters were actually trying to achieve. The good characters and the bad characters.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana] [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]A lot of characters in Martin's books want the Iron Throne. But none of them seem to have any idea why (other than power) and tradition (that's what you're supposed to want), or what to do with it once they get it. They just want it but couldn't really tell ya why, what they will do with it, or what the point of it all would be. Again, a lot like the viewpoint of modern life to me. Do things, but don't know why, or where you're going, or what it means. You just do things because that's what ya do. But there is no good or high or noble end for most of them. (Maybe that's not true of Dany.) But most of them are consumed with that typical modern outlook of "it is better to be complex and complicated and self-absorbed" than have a real point to your life. Which to me is more of the same old tiresome same old tiresome. [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana] [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]I like his books. They are often well written, the characters are sometimes fascinating even if pointless, the stories interesting, sometimes he borders on High Art or even creates some liens of it, but his books never really go anywhere. They just sort of wander around without any real purpose to them.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana] [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]So instead of ending up Epic Fantasy his books end up being a "wander around the frontiers of modern life without knowing where you're going or why." I call that "Fantasy Modernity" (or fantasy post-modernity or post-post-new modernity or whatever the current en vogue terminology of the moment du jour is) rather than Epic Fantasy. [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana] [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]Again, I like his books. I just wish they had a point to them, or actually went somewhere.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana] [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]There Mouse. That oughtta get ya a few arguments and exchanges. [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana](Though that's not why I wrote what I said. I meant every word.)[/FONT] [/QUOTE]

Verification