Originally posted by kater
I disagree, Legend being a prime example, despite the huge amount of 'back-story' that could have easily been insinuated into the text (assuming DG had it all planned out rather than making up First Chronicles afterwards) yet the narrative is rarely if at all hindered by flashbacks.Likewise Waylander or more recently Midnight Falcon, both had a lot of back-story into which more time could have been taken but other than the occasional anecdotal flashback the narrative flows forward and is not split between 'then and now' such that it disrupts the progression of the narrative.
Clearly flasbacks as a technique allow a more sophisticated staggering of events within a story. Gemmell was able, in White Wolf, to control the release of information in a way that is simply impossible without flashbacks.
A good example of an even more sophisticated writing style based around flashbacks and control of information would be Iain M. Banks'
Inversions and
Use of Weapons.
You say they disrupt the progression of the narrative. But that's such a broad statement Kater... disrupted in what sense? The narrative isn't inherently screwed just because it doesn't progress in a basic, linear fashion. I think what you meant to say was that for whatever reason you found the story more confusing with flashbacks, or you prefer his older, simpler style? This is a different thing from there being an inherent flaw in Gemmell's use of an established literary device.
There was no suspense imo, it was as obvious as the nose on my face, hell having read the first few chapters I could just about have told you exactly how it would finish. I dislike the method because it is an attempt to cram a book and a half into a book and in the end does neither justice.
Again... this is different from which Gemmell novels exactly? They're practically archetypal myths. The stuff is written in stone before you get past the first ten pages.
Possibly true but each had idiosyncracies and personality traits that defined them as different, Shannow's obsession with Jerusalem, Waylander's ruthlessness and Druss's sheer charismatic power - Skilgannon has none of this, he is a cardboard cut-out of a character convincing neither as a tortured soul nor as a star-crossed lover.p
The things you list are not actually 'deep' character features. In what sense is Skilgannon less ruthless than Waylander? In what way is his love of the Witch Queen less obsessive than Shannon's doomed pursuit of Jerusalem.
Skilgannon's character in WW is illuminated against that of Druss. Where Druss is a well of Gemmell's positive emotions, a romantic- Skilgannon is waiting to enter this state of grace, he is like the unreformed Waylander.
Obviously I can't, seeing as you obviously do and have conveniently encapsulated and narrowed all his works down to one simple point would you care to enlighten this lost soul?
What that saying about many men coming upon the truth, stumbling over it and falling, and then picking themselves up and carrying on oblivious?
If you're a fan of Gemmell's work, Kater, then I can't imagine you've missed the commentaries he has offered quite openly on his work, which are pretty obvious in an of themselves anyway, if you read the books.
Not really, in Legend he shows the same characteristics, being much older than in First Chronicles or even Legend of Deathwalker Druss uses his experience as much as his axe which was done well in White Wolf as it shows clear linear progression of a character that fans would expect for him to be who he was in Legend.
Sure, we've seen Druss dispensing advice as earthy veteran compaigner. But part of his character has always been the fact that he steers clear of philosophical debate. And yet he offers pseudo-mystical advice to the boy and indirectly to Skilgannon in WW. Also telling is less what he does say, than what he
doesn't say, in given situations.
As to the characters I disagree again, if you look at Pagan, Bowman, Durmast, Bar Britan etc they all add to the book - that kid and the wannabe priest amongst others didn't add anything, they were just filler. The characterisation I'm looking for is one of overview, that pictured as an actual event you would have certain people doing things with purpose outside of being centred around the main protagonist/s.
'Add to the book' is a bit of an open phrase. Pagan was, by Gemmell's own admission, a message by the fact of his inclusion- he was not in any way central to the development of the plot. Bowman, it could be argued, was just a second Rek. Durmast.. oh come on.... again, a mirror of the main character- bad guy redeemed.
The various supporting characters in WW were no more or less bland than any others. In fact, they fit perfectly on the pantheon of Gemmell's fellowships. A strong but simple man (Druss). A gifted but limited soldier (the drenai who fought with Druss at Skeln) to contrast with Skilgannon and Druss. The token archer... The oprhaned boy who will become a warrior- Kiall, countless other Gemmell teenagers...
No this a false assumption, the Thirty and source priests serve different roles in different books, in Legend they are prominent in others not so and therein lies the problem with your desire to group everything conveniently together, each book should be viewed on its own basis not through some generic theory you've devised,
Sorry man, you keep telling yourself that.
If you actually ask David Gemmell he will tell you clearly that he has only one story to tell, he is not abashed about that. He has only one cast of characters. They are based on one group of people. And he says that as long as people want to hear that story told well, then he will keep telling it.
Gemmell deals in archetypes, in pantheons and arranges his novels almost ritualistically to bring out the sacrifices, morality plays and message that is central to the story.
Obviously we've been reading different books
You might appreciate it more the second time around. No booze this time, right?
*edit: Only joking. But seriously, it's probably less an issue of how you read this book, and more how you read Gemmell's work as a whole, and what your expectations of him as a writer are.
