June 05 BOTM: Swordspoint by Ellen Kushner

[Nimea]

Still 14 minutes to go - at least where I live.

But since I am in the mood to post a bit now and have a little time before going to bed . . .

Well, discuss!

[FicusFan]

I have read this book 2 or 3 times, though not just last month. I love the 2 main characters, Richard St. Vier, and Alec and their relationship. I like that Richard is the steady one, though he is an assassin. I like Alec, though he is a spoiled brat. He still has something that makes you forgive his annoying behavior. I love his Grandmother and how calm she is about all the stuff going on. I love the Duchy they live in with no 'head aristocrat'. The politics that it engenders, the idea of manners and silk over steel. I like how there are class divisions, from a story point of view, and the city setting that seems to be a warren. The lacy frilly top of society and the dank underbelly - the characters inhabit both regions. The idea of a realistic town and gown in a medieval fantasy.

My only complaint is the book is too short, and that Kushner doesn't write more about Alec and Richard in her next book.
I have both the older stand alone version, and the reprint with the 3 extra stories. The extra stories are ok, but one is about the death of Alec as an old man, and while it explains what happened to Richard, and hints at what happens at Alec's death -- it is still sad.

[Duanawitch]

My copy of Swordspoint finally arrived this morning, and as soon as I've polished off my Caitlin Sweet I'll get reading. Unfortunately, my dog got to the post before I did this morning, so the cover and first few pages got a wee bit shredded; tooth marks, tooth marks everywhere. *weeps*

Evil dog. Doesn't know good literature when he chews on it.

Still, nothing a bit of sticky tape can't fix.

[Duanawitch]

Just finished Swordpoint and loved it (Haven't read the three extra stories yet...I think I'll save them for another day.)

Reading through some of the reviews on Amazon and elsewhere I'm struck by how many people felt that this wasn't a fantasy novel...that, despite the alternate world setting, it was more like a Regency period drama than a fantastical fiction. Certainly there isn't any magic as such, and no quest or long-haul adventure, but I think it's the detail of Kushner's world building that makes it seem real-world, rather than historical recognition. IMHO this has everything good fantasy should have: a convincing setting and excellent world-building, well-shaded characters and intricate motivations, twisting, plotting, intelligence. I loved the way it bent and recreated boundaries...sets up a world where great distinction is made between the Upper and Lower city, noble, swordsmen and Riversider but where sexual orientation and gendered identity is acceptably blurred.

One of the highlights for me was the dialogue: fast-paced, witty and acerbic, even gentle and affectionate (less often). Alec and Richard's relationship felt real in its up and downs because of it, and I appreciated the way in which each was beholden to the other's special "power", either as swordsman or haughty noble. Both men, apparently self-possessed, somehow dependent on each other...

I don't have time to write more at the moment, but I was wondering what other people thought of the sex scenes in the novel? I've read some pretty scandalised responses (of course, this always happens to some extent when homosexual characters are involved), but I thought the sex writing was actually relatively reserved and loved the ease with which Kushner wrote about apparently taboo relationships.

[madeline howard]

I loved the prose in this book, but wasn't so fond of the characters, particularly Alec. This wouldn't have been a problem, but I received the impression that I was supposed to adore him and Richard, individually and as a couple. The worldbuilding, however, was excellent and meticulous, the dialogue entertaining. I keep thinking I want to reread this book, to see if a second reading softens my reaction to the characters, but my copy is never anywhere to hand (the husband disappeared it for several months last year) when the urge is on me.

[Yobmod]

This is one of th best fantasy books in my colletion, although i read it a while ago and have not had time to reread yet. I liked that as a self confessed 'literary' fantasy the language was sophisicated without having to deal with all the puzzles and games that normally go with a literary novel. I felt i would get a good response from lending it to friends who only read Booker winners (who would be dismissive of most fantasy) but it wasn't obtuse as say a Gene Wolfe book can become, so never felt like an effort.

I liked the characters a lot, and thought there relationship was very well illustrated. It seemed to be presented as just another fact without bashing you over the head with how there permissive society is compared to the real world. 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.

The scenes and flashbacks that showed Richards temper made his attachment to alec entirely plausible. It was also nice to see that Richard wasn't regarded as being a hero or punisher type anti-hero and that the slums were not romanticised. He killed people for money, and killed his girlfriend in a fit of rage, and the slums were a dirty sink-hole that forced its inhabitants into vice and crime.

Strangely i hardly noticed the lack of magic, which goes to show my love of fantasy must be rooted in something other than some geeky desire to be a wizard or barbarian hero

Finally for now, i've read the 3 extra stories. The one in which alec dies was good, and it hought made a good epilogue. The fact that Richard had died long ago made much more sense than most books inwhich swordfights never kill the hero.

However i thought the other 2 were pretty bad. The one with the man in the red cloak and buring eyes (some sort of demon?) seemed to be a random episode in their lives and felt like fan-fiction to me. Also the obvious inclusion of magic didn't fit with the rest of the book.
And the story of the girl / boy who want to be a swordfighter to avoid marriage could have been good, but didn't gain anything from the inclusion of Richard and Alec. It also seemed like half-hearted attempt at making some sort of gender-role comment - this sort of thing requires more thought (ala Le guin or Tiptree) to not be annoying for me.

Anyway, i'll read the sequel eventually but have heard its a bit hit and miss. If the rest of you liked it i would recomend Thomas the Rhymer also by the same author (winner of the WFA too).

[FicusFan]

The second book is not really a sequel . It is set in the same world and the main character is the son of Alec, who was born in the year his father died I think. So that there is something like 60 years between books. I liked it, but really wanted to read more about Richard and Alec.

in The Fall of The Kings it is interesting to see how the society has changed over the years, and to see Alec's family again. There son is part of another male couple who are lovers, and it has more explicit sex scenes (though still basically non-existant) than Swordspoint , which didn't really have any - it just faded to black.

The story involves the college more deeply and the origins of the Duchy. I think there are hints of magic, and the idea that real magic existed in the past. I read it a while ago, and while I liked it, and thought the writing was fabulous, it never grabbed me enough to read it more than once.

It is interesting to hear Ellen Kushner talk about Richard -- she describes him as a psychopath, because he kills people. Yet he comes across as the most realistic person in the book I think. The book she is working on now is supposed to go between the two that are published and will be about Richard and Alec.

[Duanawitch]

It is interesting to hear Ellen Kushner talk about Richard -- she describes him as a psychopath, because he kills people. Yet he comes across as the most realistic person in the book I think.

LoL! It is interesting to hear that. My feelings about Richard were very rich and confused by the end of the novel: would I run away from this killing maniac? Or engage in banter and a pint?...which I suppose is what makes him such a fascinating character.

First, you absorb a sense of his skill, and his own code of swordsmen's honour, which is also a kind of vanity (I loved the "No weddings, no women, no demonstrations" )...second comes his utter arrogance and dry humour...third his willingness to kill anyone on contract or showing off for Alec...(this was the point where I pulled up short thinking: no you really wouldn't want to meet this man in the street. But still, you don't want him to ever be punished. I suppose it doesn't feel like murder when its done with such style?)...then comes the revelation that he killed his girlfriend, Jessamyn, in a fit of temper (is this perhaps why he doesn't contract on women?)...then his strange desire to protect Katherine Blount, the Riversider in cohorts with Lord Ferris...

I liked the fact that all these attributes - psychopathic killer/weeping lover, girlfriend-murderer/Katherine's protector - are simultaneous in him. There's no sense that Richard has been *reformed*...he doesn't have the typical "dark past"; his dark past is still running alongside in a dark present and Alec, far from being a calming, peaceful influence, is as wicked as he is. He eggs him on, provokes him to kill. Yum.

The story involves the college more deeply and the origins of the Duchy. I think there are hints of magic, and the idea that real magic existed in the past. I read it a while ago, and while I liked it, and thought the writing was fabulous, it never grabbed me enough to read it more than once.

I'm almost disappointed that magic comes into the sequel novel. Because I thought the lack of magical or fantastical elements was what gave Swordspoint its refreshing difference. Without supernatural elements the fantasy genre was stretched and played with, and character took a front seat; the world of the novel could feel very close to our own, while being completely other-worldly and emphasising the gaping differences between our cultures.

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.

[Nimea]

Interesting, the question whether or not this book is fantasy because it lacks the fantastical element came up in another thread in the Fantasy forum, didn't it?

Strange, for me it was fantasy even though nothing magical etc. happened. Then again I could have been influenced by both the believe that there was magic in Fall of the Kings (did not read it) or just plainly because it is labeled fantasy.
Anyway, I also somehow felt like there was a hint that there once had been magic. Can't five an example right now, maybe there is not even one and it is really only me.

By the way, I did like the book. The beginning conjured a really nice (in the sense of interesting, fascinating) picture in my head, but then I needed to read some more pages to get into the writing style. When that happened I really liked to read and read and read. I agree, very good dialogue.

I also think the characters are interesting and feel real somehow. Then again, there were hardly any characters that I really liked.
Both Alex and Richard are good developed, they are convincing as well as their relationship - you also feel for that. But both are troubled - again, it makes them interesting, but I didn't come to like them too much.

Alex is a deeply troubled soul whether this comes from the circumstances of his upbringing (which spoilt him) or his experience at the university. I felt pity for him to a point and then somehow glad that he had Richard.

Thinking about it, Richard really comes across as a psychopath - he seems not to worry, he almost seems to lack fear. With his story of having killed his girlfriend in a fit of rage and his way with Alex he gets a side that is both likeable and again to be pitied.

That said: it made me read the book with great curiousity. But I didn't get to love them. The one is whining a bit much, the other is a murderer.

I actually liked Michael rather well. The way he suddenly discovered something else in his life. But that storyline was kind of dropped, not out of the air but I thought it was a bit sad to have to leave him - his infatuation with the Duchess made him on one hand almost a blind man, easily manipulated, on the other hand I would like to know how he developes and if he really stays like that.

That's for now about Swordspoint.
Now to the three short stories: the one in which Alex dies is said and I don't know if I liked it to be there, at that point, right after finishing the novel. The other two were . . . nice? The one with the woman was more interesting than the one with the magical fighter.

Mmh, leaves me with the question: do I want to read Fall of the Kings or not? I am really not sure.

Oh, okay, something else about Swordspoint: the sex scenes. Duanawitch, you asked about it, didn't you?
There is really no reason to be scandalised by those scenes - at least if you are not already having a nervous breakdown because of a homosexual relationship in a (fantasy) novel. They were well done and really not very graphic. Kushner included them very well, they fit well into the overall style.

[Duanawitch]

Originally Posted by Nimea

I actually liked Michael rather well. The way he suddenly discovered something else in his life. But that storyline was kind of dropped, not out of the air but I thought it was a bit sad to have to leave him - his infatuation with the Duchess made him on one hand almost a blind man, easily manipulated, on the other hand I would like to know how he developes and if he really stays like that.

Yes! I forgot to mention Michael. I really enjoyed his storyline: the moments of self-discovery, his training in swordsplay, his bisexual adventures, his emotional revelations. I was sorry that we left him engaged in wool trading with narry a nod to his future...I would like to have known what happened to him. I'm disappointed that Fall of Kings doesn't deal with his antics (I thought it might).

Originally Posted by Nimea

There is really no reason to be scandalised by those scenes - at least if you are not already having a nervous breakdown because of a homosexual relationship in a (fantasy) novel. They were well done and really not very graphic. Kushner included them very well, they fit well into the overall style.

I agree, and, like Yobmod, admired the way Kushner made very little scandal out of homosexuality and bisexuality. The naturalness of both was pleasantly unusual, and perhaps offers a model for our own cultural readjustment! The only thing I noted was: no woman-woman relationships (I believe Kushner herself is a lesbian, and her partner co-wrote Fall of Kings).

I thought Kushner's women were an interesting feature in the novel. Ginnie Vandell (sp?) and Diane, Duchess of Tremontaine offer portraits of intelligent, scheming females, giving as good as they get. But generally it was evident that women were either subservient, even abused - like Katherine Blount, like the Riverside prostitutes, or absorbed by domestic life. I noticed there were lots of references to sisters in the novel...especially being teased, their independence somewhat belittled. The only healthy marriage seemed to be that between Lord Basil Halliday and his meek wife (I had hoped she would emerge as a rock...even that she had hired St. Vier for the garden party duel at the beginning...alas she never got past the crutch stage despite early promise. )
Kusher herself notes the "unpleasant role of women in their [Alec and Richard's] society", and perhaps it's this she's trying to deal with (a little clumsily) in one of the short stories at the end. Doesn't Fall of Kings have a swordswoman as one of its protagonists?

All in all I think there are huge cultural depths to be plumbed by any sequels. The City and its customs are extremely vivid, and I keep being shocked by how much I start remembering. It seems like I skip and jump from one thought down a series of others.

[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.