[JRMurdock]

So I took a trip recently and took along three books.

Gary Wassner's The Awakening.
Kevin Radthorne's The Road to Kotaishi part I.
Scott Bakker(Back-er or Bake-er?)'s The Darkness that comes before.

All three have extremely different writing styles.

I read the first two. But with the names and locations having such odd names, I wasn't able to read your book as quickly. Also, I noticed that nearly the first 150 pages of the book was dialogue and inner-narration. I didn't notice until some action actually happened. This is more an observation than a criticism.

I'm curious why you delved so deeply into the inner psyche of each character. You set up the world so intimately through dialogue and not action or description. Why? This makes for a different book.

I'm enjoying the trip. The only part that caught me off guard and hasn't really been explained yet was the Faggot part. Mayhap I missed something. I'll persevere.

I'm only now 200 pages in. I'm reading faster now that I can pick up the names easier. Just thought I'd post.

[Scott Bakker]

Yeah, those first 200 pages are real humdinger's. The problem I had was that the story turns so intimately on the details of the world, so the reader finds him or herself in the dilemma of having to know the world to follow the story, and having to follow the story in order to know the world. There's a number of reason why I stumbled into this trap, which I'm perfectly willing to discuss if you like. As for the reference you refer to, I'm afraid you're going to have to read on (and on, and on, and on), maus99!

Addendum: Just realized I forgot to answer your original question regarding the balance of action and introspection in the book. First and foremost, I'm a big fan of narrative introspection: I used to get caught up in these debates on the old DROWW (now the Online Writer's Workshop - which I highly recommend checking out!). Lot's of people seem to think novels should be written like a screenplays. To me this is like saying pickup trucks should have trunks! The great advantage novels have over cinema is that they can take readers where no camera can go, so why not take advantage of all it's strengths?

[JRMurdock]

why not take advantage of all it's strengths?


I couldn't agree more. And I plan on reading...


I meant to ask, which came first: The Prince of Nothing, or King Nothing(the Metallica song)? Just curious where you get your inspiration.

[Holbrook]

: I used to get caught up in these debates on the old DROWW (now the Online Writer's Workshop - which I highly recommend checking out!).?

I knew it! Sorry, but I had a bit of an argument with some one recently. I swore you were a member, but they said no....never.... I thought you were as I have been a member for years... though I haven't stumped up the money this year fast enough and they zapped my submissions *grin*

[Scott Bakker]

Yeah, I was a member back in the days when Del Rey sponsored them and it was free. How long were you with them, Holbrook? How much are they charging now?

As for Metallica (or as I call them now, 'Metaleeka'), maus, I think 'The Prince of Nothing' had to come first, since I came up with the title back in '88, if I remember aright. But I have pilfered lines here and there from other bands. For my master's thesis, I started each chapter with epigraphs from Sabbath and Monster Magnet.

[Holbrook]

Yeah, I was a member back in the days when Del Rey sponsored them and it was free. How long were you with them, Holbrook? How much are they charging now?


Hi; I was there for about the last six months they were free and ever since....Though of late all I seem to get are grammar nit picks and folks that tell me I am not writing fantasy because I don't have dragons, wizards, elves and people/things going on quests. *sigh* LOTR has a lot to answer for.... ;)

Though I managed to get the Editor's choice 12 months ago for a piece that had none of the above in :eek:

It is £26 that's about $50. It is a lot of money to shell out as well as having to do the critiques to earn the right to put up a piece. Though I did learn a lot there at first, these days I am finding it harder to agree with the bashings I am getting. Maybe I have made up my mind about what I want to write and how I am going to write it. Either that or just got stubborn in my old age.

[Gary Wassner]

It's interesting to me to hear how many authors of fantasy seem to always have to explain why the beginning chapters of the beginning books are often so descriptive. It seems that to an extent it should be understood that when you are introducing a world other than the one we are all familiar with, there's just a lot to explain in order for the story to begin. I also think that often we have this world in our minds that we feel we need to describe, that is fully formed and already in existence for us, and we want to lay it out for the reader, to talk about our surroundings, as quickly as we can so that we can get on with the story. But Maus, I fully understand what you are saying, because I too almost apologize for the need to do the same thing in my own books.

I absolutely, without reservation, unconditionally loved TDTCB. It was one of the best things I have read in a very very long time. And I am certain that when I read it for the second time, I will enjoy it as much if not more.

Holbrook - Don't knock those elves and dwarves on quests! I've known many of them my whole life. What would our world be like without them anyway?

[JRMurdock]

By no means am I complaining about the extensive dialogue in the begining of TDTCB. In fact, with the extensive dialogue it was hard to notice that exerything was being explained as I was sucked into the character's POV. Bloody brilliant.

Where your's, Gary, did a beautiful job of laying out the world in narrative fashion which also required no defense. In both cases it slowed the reading to a crawl, but once past, the world unfolds. In both cases, brilliantly. I just wish I had more time to read. :)

[Holbrook]

Holbrook - Don't knock those elves and dwarves on quests! I've known many of them my whole life. What would our world be like without them anyway?


:D :D Gary, I don't mind them going off, just don't want to write about them ;) It's just I feel fantasy is when you have created something different, something that is one step away from this world.

Just so many think that unless you include them the work does not count as fantasy and they try to stick your work into a box it won't fit into.

I always keep in mind when I read a book or a section of work to critique that I am entering the author's world. It is not my world, it is theirs, they created it and that world obeys their rules, not mine.

What ever suggestions I make when doing a critique, I try and word them so I am not re-writing the work for the person. Same as when I read for pleasure. I don't start comparing the work to any pre-conceived idea of what a fantasy world should, or should not contain. The only time I will put a book down is if it is so badly written it makes reading it hard work.

[Gary Wassner]

Holbrook, what's funny is that I almost feel the opposite. I am always finding myself in defensive positions because I do use some of the traditional fantasy characterizations. It's what and how I choose to write. Isn't it more how we write it and what we have to say that should matter? Either way, I do agree with you. It's odd that we always have to be pigeonholed regardless of what we choose to use to express our imaginations. Yes, fantasy is of the mind, and it expresses another reality. That's what makes it fantasy to a degree. It's not intended to be real or, like sci/fi, to potentially be real. So if what you are writing is a product of your imagination in those terms, and unless it fits clearly into another literary category for marketing purposes, then I don't understand why anyone would criticize you for it.