[FicusFan]

You see it as straight HF? What about the identical snowflakes/turds? And the divination?

There are more things, Horatio ....

I don't see strange happenings that people believed in at the time, or odd practices as being incompatable with HF. Not everything is mundane or explainable. Just like there are people today who practice and believe in things that are not true (astrology, channelling the dead, major religions like christianity etc ..) but that doesn't make a story about them or those topics automatically SF or Fantasy.

People have a great capacity to fool themselves, and there are often coincidences, and who knows what at that very moment is true or untrue. When reading HF you need to accept the people in the text at their level and values, not try to impose modern day sensibilities on them. The writer himself also needs to treat the situation as real to the people involved, he can't write it as though he is going wink, wink, nudge, nudge to the more sophisticated modern audience. If he does then he isn't a good writer and the story isn't any good. I never said either thing about this book/author, it just didn't work for me.

I also wouldn't automatically assume that the snowflake thing or the turd thing was made up. There was a huge occult craze that was part of Victorian times. Not that I think they were identical, but then you have to look at the technology they had to view the snowflakes, and whether in fact they all just melted slightly into a similar form.

Anyway if you want to see it as Fantasy, that is ok too. I just didn't find enough of that element to blott out the HF aspect. As I said in my first post it is HF with a bit of fantasy, and a bit of suspense.

[Luke_B]

Ficus - sure, I agree to a certain extent (and I appreciate the sly dig at Christianity ;) ), but what gives this book its veneer of fantasy is that the science of divination is not only believed in by the characters, but also Ford hints that they might actually work. It is a true science within the world he creates. In the end, it's left open for the reader to interpret, but I think most readers would find this uncertainty means that the novel moves away from realism into fantasy. Also, Ford's writing has a fairy-tale quality as opposed to the documentary-style prose that historicals quite often adopt, again lending to the surrealism. It's not only the characters that are asked to suspend belief, but also the reader. I guess this highlights another thing I like about the book - that readers can come to it without expectations, something you can say about too few fantasy books.

[FicusFan]

Ficus - sure, I agree to a certain extent (and I appreciate the sly dig at Christianity ;) ), but what gives this book its veneer of fantasy is that the science of divination is not only believed in by the characters, but also Ford hints that they might actually work. It is a true science within the world he creates. In the end, it's left open for the reader to interpret, but I think most readers would find this uncertainty means that the novel moves away from realism into fantasy. Also, Ford's writing has a fairy-tale quality as opposed to the documentary-style prose that historicals quite often adopt, again lending to the surrealism. It's not only the characters that are asked to suspend belief, but also the reader. I guess this highlights another thing I like about the book - that readers can come to it without expectations, something you can say about too few fantasy books.

But to the characters the divination does work, and so it is part of their worldview. He couldn't possibly write the same story and say by the way, it doesn't work, or even hint it . They believe which is the whole point that faith is as much a part of science as it is a part of religion. You have to believe that what you are seeing is true, and it is important. It seems the whole book revolves around the idea of perception versus reality -- with the artists trying to paint the reality beyond their perception, a true portrait of Mrs. C without ever seeing her. An act of truth and faith. The artists who failed and shriveled up and died did so because they had to come face to face with their lack of faith in their own abilities, they froze and painted the fake perception. Then they could no longer be artists and their whole life had to change, and their past was also fake, it was like they had been kicked out of the garden of eden.

I also think the stuff that was killing people was part of it. Not sure if it was real stuff, or one of those myths that people pass on and think might be real. But did the victims die of the stuff, or was there some way that they ended up with knowledge of the stuff and died of the belief ?

Anyway for me none of that is really in the realm of fantasy. There are interesting themes in the book and stuff to wonder about, I just wish the story and writing had been better (for me).

Not all HF writers are engaged in documentary style writing. Although their styles are very different, Morgan Llywelyn writes HF, mostly about the Celts. She uses their beliefs and religion and accords it the status of reality, because the people of the time acted that way and they in it believed.

And it wasn't just a dig at christianity - it is to remind people today that in the past people held beliefs just as strong, with just as much certainty of being right, even if we look at it today and say it is untrue, or wacky.

[Eventine]

Interesting take on the HF/Fantasy boundary. Not one I'd necessarily agree with, but it does help me know where you're coming from.

It seems the whole book revolves around the idea of perception versus reality -- with the artists trying to paint the reality beyond their perception, a true portrait of Mrs. C without ever seeing her. An act of truth and faith. The artists who failed and shriveled up and died did so because they had to come face to face with their lack of faith in their own abilities, they froze and painted the fake perception.

It sort of me brings me back to something I raised before:

It was an interesting idea that each painter had painted, as Piambo speculated, the ideal woman they wanted to see. Does this mean, that by succeeding in his task, that Piambo's ideal vision was Charbuque?


As each artist failed they replaced the "true" portrait of Charbuque with their own idealised version. I still wonder if Piambo succeeded not because of his faith in himself, but beause his own vision matched that of Charbuques appearance. I'm not sure which is the greater miracle.

And to top it off, some quotes on art and truth:


The stupid believe that to be truthful is easy; only the artist, the great artist, knows how difficult it is ~ Willa Cather


We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth, at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies ~ Pablo Picasso


An artist worthy of the name should express all the truth of nature, not only the exterior truth, but also, and above all, the inner truth ~ Auguste Rodin

[Shehzad]

As each artist failed they replaced the "true" portrait of Charbuque with their own idealised version. I still wonder if Piambo succeeded not because of his faith in himself, but beause his own vision matched that of Charbuques appearance. I'm not sure which is the greater miracle.

Hmmm.... interesting. Will have to think on that.

The HF/fantasy debate seems to be about the core identity of the book: I also read it as fantasy more because of the style of the writing rather than the fantasy elements (of which there are admittedly few).