[FicusFan]

I agree there were threads that were not finished in Swordspoint , and it was part of why I thought it was too short.

I always thought that Kushner didn't use woman-woman relationships because she didn't want people to think it was stuff from her and her partner that she was writing about. But she has never said that, it is just my idea.

She has been working on the next book for a while now (2-3 years), I just wish she would write faster.

[hell1991]

wots swordspoint about? with all of the reviews u guys hav given it it sounds really gud but i kind of want a blurb like explanation 4 it so i no wot its basiclly about! Dus any1 mind tellin me about it?

[Jacquin]

The Book club is a place where we get together and pick a book to discuss. Sometimes they're great, sometime's they're not too good. Opinions often vary wildy. The thing with the book club is that if you decide to take part you are taking a risk. You might love the book, you might hate it. Either way the idea is to tell others and explain why.

If you just want recommendations there are threads specifically for that.

Hope this helps

J

[hell1991]

ok, thanks!

[Eventine]

I didn't particularly like this novel. Some of it was in the writing, most of it was in the characterisation.

The only character I showed any real interest in was the young noble learning to sword fight - Michael. Richard and Alex just did non interest me at all - Alec seemed to be a pretty detestable character with no likeable qualities whatsoever. Richard's arrogance and adherence to his code of only fighting the cream of the crop could have made him slightly admirable except for the fact that he'd then proceed to fight anyone who his boyfriend picked a fight with. This double standard just didn't really seem to fit as a character trait for me.

I don't believe that characters have to be likeable to be well written, but these characters just didn't grab me.


A recent re-read of the Last Herald Mage by Lackey reinded me how annoying a gay protagonist can be with the constant whinig about homophobia. In contrast Richard and Alec seemed like normal social-malajusted people who's sexuality was a very minor issue.

Isn't that more due to the culture the world is set in rather than author talent?



I know the copy I have has a great huge quote from GRRM on the front, but before I even noticed this I felt Kushner's and Martin's writing had some flair in common. Did anyone else feel this? The high politicking reminded me in places of the manoevrings of aSoIaF, as did the masterful character building...of course, on a much smaller scale.

Actually, I felt the politics in this novel was pretty clumsy and contrived. What's that? The hero's boyfriend just happens to have the sway to step into court and come up with an obscure rule from the past that lets them play out the politics in the view of all the nobles?



I also felt that the book wasn't the best written / edited. For example, after the Michael character is sent out of town there is no need for him to appear in the novel, yet we get the chapter disrupting the narrative with him considering poisoning Richard later in the novel. Also, if his viewpoint was to be dropped halfway through the novel why spend so much time on his characterisation?
The tendency of Kushner to switch the viewpoint between paragraphs is frustrating also. One example is one of the meetings between Katherine and Richard, with the chapter starting from the viewpoint of one and switching to the other on their arrival - it made me feel the technique was clumsy.


Magic wasn't an issue for me. I've never felt a piece of fiction has to have a fantasy/magical element to be strong. The sex scenes didn't bother me either - they were more suggestive than descriptive.

Overall I felt it was a pretty forgetable book and I'd be hesitant to pick up Kushner again.

[Yobmod]

Isn't that more due to the culture the world is set in rather than author talent?

Of course a great author can make anything work, but considering that we're reading fantasy i think the ability to imagine societies that aren't just copies of our own (Now: with added elves!) is part of what makes a talented author.

The comparison with Lackey's novel was really about the whiny character tho. If anything the society was less homophobic than our own (none of the other gay characters had any problems) but Vanyel was obsessed with the idea that everyone found him disgusting. I wouldn't have a problem with that except its so overdone in literature / films. Hence i found Kushners treatment refreshing.

On a slightly diferent note:
If anything the treatment of sexuality was one of the things that made Swordspoint a fantasy. Not because everyone was accepting, but because everone seemed to be Bi. In the real world the majority of people identify as straight or gay. Its comparable to a fantasy story in which everyone is one of twins - sure twins are real, but they are not common.

[Duanawitch]

Not because everyone was accepting, but because everone seemed to be Bi. In the real world the majority of people identify as straight or gay.

I think Kushner would probably disagree with you and say: Almost every human individual is bisexual, or is capable of developing bisexual feelings towards another human individual. Sex studies tend to show that socio-cultural rather than personal/sexual feelings and desires prohibit bisexual identities. I'm with Kinsey's 1-5 scale to some extent...most of us tend towards our preferences (as do the characters in Kushner's book...isn't Michael's friend Bertram almost exclusively homosexual?), either male or female, but with a capacity for both. :) I noted that various characters had very different attitude towards their homosexual relationships. While Michael had a preference for women, his interludes with men were periods of comfort: comradeship and conviviality. He finds his escape in the arms of his male friends, his excitement in his courtly intrigues. Whereas Alec and Richard's relationship was characterised by its distressingly passionate neediness. I liked this difference...homosexuality, and bisexuality, was a many-faceted choice...and both a social and a personal trend.

Actually, I felt the politics in this novel was pretty clumsy and contrived. What's that? The hero's boyfriend just happens to have the sway to step into court and come up with an obscure rule from the past that lets them play out the politics in the view of all the nobles?

To an extent, I agree on the "melodrama" of the ending and I think its a sure sign of Swordspoint being Kushner's novel-length debut. All her previous work took the form of short stories and the ending has some of the over-neatness of that form. On the otherhand I enjoyed the relative small-scale of the final situation; you get the feeling that Swordspoint is indeed just a short story, an isolated episode that would open out onto a far larger, more complicated narrative.

[Erfael]

You folks seem to be hitting on most of the points I found notable in this one. I really liked the city and the general atmosphere of the book. I especially liked the drop of blood setup at the beginning, and wish that tone had carried further into the book. I didn't really like many of the characters at all. Michael was about the only one. Richard I found to be sort of flat, really, without too much insight into his workings. Alec I found pretty detestable, all around. Hated him most of the time I had to read about him. People don't have to be good for me to like them, but I found his constant moping and stirring up of trouble to be just a bit much for me. I wasn't very convinced of their relationship, really. I didn't feel like I was ever showed anything convincing on what they were really all about.

Even given all that, I quite liked the book even though none of the characters really did it for me. I can't really place my finger on what it is I did like about it, but I didn't coming away disliking the book. I am somewhat curious to hear how Fall of Kings compares, as I liked the writing style here enough to possibly check it out. I also already own a copy of Thomas the Rhymer, so I will try to get that in in the near future to see how her voice matures.

One thing I found interesting was how little overt sex there was. Based on some comments at Amazon, I was expecting a full-fledged gay sex-fest, full-contact, full-description, something I've never read, but wasn't going to pass on the book on just that basis. I was quite surprised that almost everything was a fade to black, or at least a shift of the camera to other issues at hand, given the comments I had read. Some people are way too uptight about what they're reading, I guess. I thought it was all handled very well.

[FicusFan]

I agree that some people are just way too uptight.

Were you reading recent comments though ? The book was first published in the end of the 80's when people were even more uptight and not that many fantasies had gay characters (Lackey ?). The book went out of print until the 'sequel' was published in the 2000s, and then it was re-issued in 2003. They may have just combined the 2 entries at amazon.

The second book is good but for me lacks the magic of Alec and Richard. The sex it a bit more explicit, but not much.

[Erfael]

I agree that some people are just way too uptight.

Were you reading recent comments though ? The book was first published in the end of the 80's when people were even more uptight and not that many fantasies had gay characters (Lackey ?). The book went out of print until the 'sequel' was published in the 2000s, and then it was re-issued in 2003. They may have just combined the 2 entries at amazon.

The second book is good but for me lacks the magic of Alec and Richard. The sex it a bit more explicit, but not much.

Yeah, I had a look back through, and most of those comments are from the 2003/2004 range. There aren't many of them, but they do talk about how explicit all of the gay sex is and how they can't stand that and how the book would be much better with straight relationships. I guess maybe I received the censored copy, given what they all had to say.