[Dawnstorm]

I'm not sure what "Moorcock's anti-Tolkien, anti-romanticism rhetoric" is, but it doesn't sound good. I'm a big fan of Papa-T, and 'rhetoric' suggests the deceptive use of words.

No argument, just clarification.

For 'rhetoric', I'd substitute polemics (often ironic in tone). Take him serious at your own peril.

For 'anti-romanticism', substitute 'anti-sentimentalism' (I think). Moorcock's collected some of his essays in a book entitled Wizardry and Wild Romance, because he enjoys lots of the forms "romance/romanticism" takes. Moorcock isn't very systematic in his thoughts, though.

'Anti-Tolkien' seems about right. He detects a sentimental/conservative tone in the prose of LotR, which doesn't agree with his left-wing politics.

Erfael started a thread about it some time ago; it's here (http://www.sffworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11847).

This isn't so common in epic fantasy, I think. And as I mentioned above, I'm interested in knowing whether anybody previously not accustomed to it found themselves partial to it.

Sadly, I'm not a convert. I've always been partial to that kind of method. It forces you to read between the lines and keeps you from falling asleep. Lots of little reversals (like the Mandate-PoV change from Akka to... forgot his name... the mandate schoolman Akka doesn't like much).

Interestingly, the most capable character (Khellus), appeared to have the most naive PoV. ;)

[Scott Bakker]

Oh, It's Kellhus I hate with a passion....

I never cease to be amazed by the way readers seem to be so divided when it comes to characters they like and dislike in my books. It seems far more fractured than what you find with Martin readers, for instance. I like to think it's because my books force readers to decide who they like or dislike, rather than attempting to make that decision for them.

It troubles me that some readers don't like having to make that decision.

'Anti-Tolkien' seems about right. He detects a sentimental/conservative tone in the prose of LotR, which doesn't agree with his left-wing politics.

I'm more interested in the why's and wherefore's of the appeal that these tones hold for readers. I think it obvious that explanation should precede condemnation. The psychic footprint of modern life, I think, is clearest in those forms of cultural expression that seem focussed on what we've lost (like the supernatural and organic social contexts).

[BarVybe]

I'm more interested in the why's and wherefore's of the appeal that these tones hold for readers.

Perhaps the obvious attraction of readers to fiction as escapism. Why struggle through the same maze of truth vs. POV and perspective of life in the real world when you are picking up a book for purposes of entertainment as opposed to intellectual stimulation?

Not to say that people's motivation for reading is that black and white, but I think *most* people don't warm easily to works that require so much thoughtful participation because they are picking it up before bed, on the train, etc.

If you get past these casual readers to those who have the time / patience / desire for challenging material you're talking about a different and smaller audience.

That's not to say that readers of "popular" fiction can't deal with shades of meaning, depth of characterization, metaphor, etc. (LoTR is full of all of these), but at the end of the day I would think they like to come away from a book with a clear notion of - what it means, what was resolved, which character(s) are the heros and villains, etc.

None of this being a criticism of TDTCB, but just a response to the appeal of those tones.

More interesting to me, in terms of the technique of your writing (as opposed to the themes, etc.) is how you decide what the correct quantity of interior analysis by a character is? How many character's perspectives you want on a given situation, etc. For me, i found it all ultimately somewhat tedious and repetitive - meaning that much of Akka's or Esmi's or the Emperor's perspectives / thoughts / responses didn't need to be spelled out so directly for me - i could intuit a fair number of them from their earlier musings by the time i'd reached the middle of the book. The technique would have been more effective for me if used more selectively. (btw i feel that you did do this in TWP which for me was a more enjoyable read).

- Pete

[Scott Bakker]

For me, i found it all ultimately somewhat tedious and repetitive - meaning that much of Akka's or Esmi's or the Emperor's perspectives / thoughts / responses didn't need to be spelled out so directly for me - i could intuit a fair number of them from their earlier musings by the time i'd reached the middle of the book. The technique would have been more effective for me if used more selectively. (btw i feel that you did do this in TWP which for me was a more enjoyable read).

It's funny, because the most common complaint I receive about TWP is precisely that there is too much repetitive reflection. (On the other side of the coin, I've had people tell me that I spend too much time on the action!)

We have a powerful psychological propensity to not differentiate those things that don't interest us. This is why, for instance, music we don't like tends to all 'sound the same.' This is why, whenever I read Arya chapters in Martin, it just seems like more of the same old crap. I know intellectually that there's alot going on, but I just can't summon the interest to see it. And I blame it on Martin... :D

My writing style is very premeditated. I tend to spend a lot of time thinking about what I'm writing and why. (The last word on my list of reminders I have hanging over my monitor is 'PONDER.') If I seem to be repeating something, I assure you it's probably not out of laziness or lack of inspiration (I rewrote TDTCB in its entirety no less than three times). In some cases, it might simply be to reinforce some crucial fact, but in others, say where characters return to problems that obsess them, their development is tracked in the various, often subtle ways that their interpretations of self and others evolve. This focus on the small revelations of soul is what I meant by 'particularity' above. The drama, in this kind of writing, lies in the details. And I fully acknowledge that it isn't everybody's bag.

If anything, I actually do more of this in TWP. The difference you perceive, I think, is that I learned a couple important lessons about storytelling in the course of writing TWP. That, for me, is the biggest weakness of TDTCB: for many readers, I don't generate enough suspense or narrative momentum to sustain their interest in the evolving details of my character's hearts and souls. As a result it starts seeming like 'the same old crap.'

[Dawnstorm]

If anything, I actually do more of this in TWP. The difference you perceive, I think, is that I learned a couple important lessons about storytelling in the course of writing TWP. That, for me, is the biggest weakness of TDTCB: for many readers, I don't generate enough suspense or narrative momentum to sustain their interest in the evolving details of my character's hearts and souls. As a result it starts seeming like 'the same old crap.'

Hehe, I'm one of those who liked TDTCB better than TWP.

I did get the feeling of "repetitiveness" in TWP; but I think that's not so much the problem. I think it's more about structure. In TDTCB you jump across the map to draw threads together. TWP pretty much moves in one direction (with very little sidetracking).

That's why repetitions (of themes, obsessions, etc.) in TDTCB take on the experience of "recognition", whereas in TWP it takes on the experience of "continuity". (At least, I think so.)

Even though the repetitiveness of TWP stood out for me, I don't actually disagree with Pete's description of the text. Evaluation depends on how you're reading, though.

TDTCB has potentially too much recursion; TWP has potentially too much linearity. Or, the same in a positive take, TDTCB keeps your reading-mind more active, while TWP tends to by-pass your reading-mind in favour of story-imaging.

Incidentally, I linked the more streamlined structure of TWP with the Holy-War-Theme (or more abstract: momentum), in my mind. ;)

(I would have liked to be more specific, but that would be risking spoilers...)

[Scott Bakker]

TDTCB has potentially too much recursion; TWP has potentially too much linearity. Or, the same in a positive take, TDTCB keeps your reading-mind more active, while TWP tends to by-pass your reading-mind in favour of story-imaging.

But. I. Want. It. All!

*stomps up and down in sandbox*

[Dawnstorm]

But. I. Want. It. All!

*stomps up and down in sandbox*

Ah, you see, that's where "potentially" comes into play... ;)

[BarVybe]

If anything, I actually do more of this in TWP. The difference you perceive, I think, is that I learned a couple important lessons about storytelling in the course of writing TWP. That, for me, is the biggest weakness of TDTCB: for many readers, I don't generate enough suspense or narrative momentum to sustain their interest in the evolving details of my character's hearts and souls. As a result it starts seeming like 'the same old crap.'

Yes I can see that now...perhaps the introspection seems less of an aside and more part of the action so to speak. Not that either extreme is evident in either book...but for example (and I don't have the books with me as i'm mid move right now) Cnaiur's thoughts are tightly woven with the action during...well i don't want to spoil anything...but lets say the scenes in the field in which he is most prominent.

Or perhaps that all the "pondering" you did is more transparent :)

[Scott Bakker]

Well, I gotta say, I do love pitching camp in a character's heart. For me, sorting through the confusions that make us human is what writing is all about. I know with Neuropath, for instance, I realized that the screenplay sensibilities of the psychothriller genre simply couldn't sustain that kind of focussed attention on character interiors, so I found myself forced to radically retool my style in a way that jarred my tastes. Though I love the story, premise - everything about the book - I can't say I enjoyed writing it.

I really think epic fantasy has one up on other genres in this respect: I think it's capable of absorbing many, many mutations that would make other genres unrecognizable.

[Jack]

I guess it's okay that the Great Names and such are so articulate, but I wonder about people like Esmi or Cnaiur. Their articulation does seem to be a little out of place for their upbringing or station, though it was never something that bumped me when reading.

I think you have to take Esmi and Cnaiur "as is". They obviously have some degree of intelligence or "street smarts" that kept them alive and prospering as long as they have in their "upbringing or station"; this sort of flair for the perceptive no doubt aids them in absorbing the vocabulary and rhetoric they encounter anywhere in their lives. This really is more applicable to Esmi, considering that she has probably entertained clients on all socio-economic levels, but I would argue the same could be said for Cnaiur, unless us as readers would like to also consider his people purely barbaric. Certainly a healthy knowledge and skill in rhetoric will assist any leader in any culture during a time of war (which is always for Cnauir), and would be picked up accordingly from the leaders that came before.