Jan '06 Fantasy BOTM: The Riddlemaster Trilogy by Patricia McKillip

[Erfael]

Discussion is open for The Riddlemaster Trilogy.

 

[Yobmod]

I've read this 3 times and its one of my very favourite books. I love the use of language, which is beautiful without ever feeling like Mckillip was trying too hard, or trying to be clever. Based on this series, along with Forgotten Beasts of Eld, and Ombria in Shadow, Mckillip is my second favourite SFF author. (Although I've not been as impressed with quite a few of her other books, so she may have slipped a few places.) I haven't reread yet, so wont comment on the plot.

This paraphrased is from Clute's entry in the encyclopedia of fantasy:

The Riddlemaster Trilogy is an orthodox but stylish heroic fantasy and is similarly well wrought [as ForgottenBeasts of Eld]. The intellectual and emotional maturation of its mild-mannered hero and independant-minded heroine are handles with scrupulous delicacy.

It has been argued by Peter Nicholls that the trilogy is a work of classic stature; the intricate narrative of its quest story echoes a moral complexity almost unheard-of in fantasy trilogies; Mckillips protagonist has a special skill at unravelling riddles and, through a series of strategies (including subliminal hints as little obvious as leaves in a forest) not unlike those adopted by Gene Wolfe in his Book of the New Sun series, she forces the reader also to become a decipherer of codes. Thus the book's meaning is enacted by the way it must be read.

While in no way resembling SF, the trilogy contains one of the most sophisticated uses of the shapeshifter theme to be found anywhere in SF or fantasy.

Mckillip is one of the most accomplished prose stylists working in the fantasy genre; she always brings a keen and refreshingly idiosyncratic intelligence to her employment of its motifs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I had never thought of Wolfe and Mckillip being similar, but maybe this is why they are my 2 favourite authors?

btw, there was a thread on this series a while back in the main forum, which i guess might be useful to spark discusion or quote from, although mostly ppl just said they loved it.

 

[FicusFan]

I have just started the book (the Omnibus edition with all 3 stories) and am at about page 85 and have about 100 to go to finish the first story.

At this point I can say the Introduction was extremely well written and interesting, too bad it had to end because the first book is neither. Bad idea to put something so good up against something so pedestrian.

Hopefully the other 2 stories will show some improvement. I know McKillip's writing does improve at some point because I have read a book of hers written after this, that was exquisitely written.

 

[Wigum]

I had mixed feelings about this trilogy. First of all, I tend to like, long, drawn out books, which this certainly was not. These are small books, and I thought it would feel rushed at parts. McKillip did a remarkably good job getting all of her story in with so few pages. For the most part, it did not feel rushed at all. However I did have a few hiccups. It seemed like she would start off a journey, have a few events happen and then skip to the end. Now I know she doesn't have to go step by step on a one month hike, but it just seemed kind of choppy at times.

Spoilers coming;



Overall I was happy with the pacing of these books. I liked the underlying concept of the land rule being an actual manifested connection with the king/ruler of a particular land. McKillip doesn't seem to spend a lot of time explaining these things though, and it almost seems like a slip when she does finally let you know a chunk of information about it.

The ending of the trilogy is a bit anticlimatic as well. There really is no battle, and it doesn't seem to take too much effort to defeat the shapeshifters.

I did enjoy the characters, and the story line. Deth was probably one of my favorite characters even with the betrayals etc. I definately think it is a good trilogy, I just had some issues with the style. I do however feel that these books will become much much better on the re-read.

 

[Yobmod]

The ending of the trilogy is a bit anticlimatic as well. There really is no battle, and it doesn't seem to take too much effort to defeat the shapeshifters.

I always think of this as a typical (although good) fantasy, but there are differences from the rest of the bunch - especially the lack of large battles. I didn't find this anticlimactic tho, probably cos i'm not a fan of battles and wasn't really expecting one. I really liked that the conclusion resulted purely from the growth of the characters, and gaining a bit of knowledge. I think that personal growth and learning are a much more realistic method of solving problems, battles mostly seem to cause further conflict in the real world.

If a book ends in a huge battle in which evil is defeated i think 'well, the next generation are going to hate the good guys even more' (making a poor followup series more likely eg Eddings Belgariad / Maloreon or Feists Riftwar /Serpentwar)

I like the pacing to. On my last reread i remember thinking that the cliched beginning didn't bode well. It was slow, and the whole pastoral farming comunity where everyone bickers but actually loves each other could easily have been annoying. Luckily it doesn't last long, and after the shipwreck i thought it moved along at just the right speed for the story. I didn't feel i was missing any important events, and it didn't dwell on what the characters ate in each inn

What did people think of the use of magic? Its one of my favourites. Nowaday everyone talks about coherent magic systems with rules as though they are a plus point. But i prefer magic to be a bit more mysterious; so i liked then lack of set rituals and effects, that managed to avoid being completely random or including unrelated magical effect. Cf. WoT, where weaving fire can make a fireball, but healing is air and water.
Its similar to the magic in Earthsea, but we get to see a bit more, and it doesn't have the taoist angst associated with it.

 

[farnés]

I started reading the Riddlemaster Trilogy a couple of days ago, but somehow I just didn't make it past the first chapter (allthough I tried). Right from the first page I felt it was extremely bad written. I even re-read whole sentences and paragraphs to make sure if I wasn't missing something. I never put books aside before I've finished them. This is the first time. I think wat annoyed me most were the descriptions that in my opinion didn't make sense at all. And when I think about it; the dialogues didn't make any sense to me too.
I only had a couple of minutes each day to pick up the book and everytime I opened it I got more annoyed. I finally decided to put it aside. Now I'm wondering if the writing gets any better later on.

 

[Yobmod]

I started reading the Riddlemaster Trilogy a couple of days ago, but somehow I just didn't make it past the first chapter (allthough I tried). Right from the first page I felt it was extremely bad written. I even re-read whole sentences and paragraphs to make sure if I wasn't missing something. I never put books aside before I've finished them. This is the first time. I think wat annoyed me most were the descriptions that in my opinion didn't make sense at all. And when I think about it; the dialogues didn't make any sense to me too.

Would you (or anyone else who's not liking it) care to post some of the examples of bad writing. I know its all subjective, but it would be nice to see exactly what puts people off.

Off hand all i can think of is Mckillips use of lots of imagery in her descriptions. So a horse wont be dun, it will be the colour of buttermilk etc - i guess this could put ppl off

For balance i'll see if i can find a good example of why i loved the writing.

 

[Severn]

Wow - bad writing eh? I adore her writing. I've read two other books from McKillip so far: The Winter Rose and The Book of Astrix Wolf and I just fell in love with her writing. It's like drifting, and dreaming, almost surreal in places but not quite. It's writing that suits a fantastical world because of the mysterious, not-quite-rooted quality it possesses.

So here's an example of language that I think is wonderful, rather than the reverse:

"Morgon was silent. The flame snapped twigs like small bones in front of him. He felt cold suddenly, even in the warm air, and he shifted closer to the fire. Some animal drawn from the brush turned lucent, burning eyes toward him, then blinked and vanished. The silence around him was haunted with a thousand riddles he knew he should ask, and he knew the harpist would only answer them with other riddles. He rested a moment in the void of the silence, cupping light in his hands."

I've noticed McKillip's fascination with light, and with objects disappearing and reappearing - as if they belong to the realm of faerie. There's one particular part where Raederle is with the pig-woman as riders 'flicker in and out' of the trees, and this reminds me very much of the legend of Rhiannon as Pwyll watches her flicker in and out of the trees as he chases her, gaining no ground no matter how fast he goes.

It's enchanting - how light becomes its own entity and things are half in the world, and half not. This technique uprooted me from my own solid world and planted me firmly in Morgon's haunted world.

So, I too, would be fascinated to have an example of bad writing just so I could see it from another perspective.

 

[Yobmod]

Wow - bad writing eh? I adore her writing. I've read two other books from McKillip so far: The Winter Rose and The Book of Astrix Wolf and I just fell in love with her writing. It's like drifting, and dreaming, almost surreal in places but not quite. It's writing that suits a fantastical world because of the mysterious, not-quite-rooted quality it possesses.

My feelings exactly. Mckillip isn't perfect - i sometimes have problems with her plots, and occasionaly her characters are a bit flat or obvious - but her prose is something special IMO.

Its rare to read anyone in (epic) fantasy that has an identifiable style.

Book of Atrix Wolfe is one of hers i didn't like. I kept noticing the repeated use of the same imagery and colours, and it pulled me out of the story. But i didn't see this is Riddlemaster.

I noticed that a couple of ppl mentioned Riddlemaster in the worst fantasy names thread. Has anyone here had any problems with them? Deth gets mentioned, but i didn't think there was enything wrong with it. Its not a pun (as Deth isn't a killer / doesn't die etc), and sounds a bit like death, but not unrealistly so. Also I knew someone whose surname was D'eath

 

[FicusFan]

I started reading the Riddlemaster Trilogy a couple of days ago, but somehow I just didn't make it past the first chapter (allthough I tried). Right from the first page I felt it was extremely bad written. I even re-read whole sentences and paragraphs to make sure if I wasn't missing something. I never put books aside before I've finished them. This is the first time. I think wat annoyed me most were the descriptions that in my opinion didn't make sense at all. And when I think about it; the dialogues didn't make any sense to me too.
I only had a couple of minutes each day to pick up the book and everytime I opened it I got more annoyed. I finally decided to put it aside. Now I'm wondering if the writing gets any better later on.

I know exactly what you mean, though I haven't stopped reading. If you can get past page 50 or so it starts to get readable. The first couple of pages I read several times to figure out who they were, who was talking and what their relationships were.

Then at some point before the journey there is some type of discussion between Morgon and Deth I think, and it has something to do with the stars on his head (Hello we're a good way into the story and have spent it with Morgon and his family and it just now comes up that he has 'stars'), and some riddle, but it makes no sense, and I read it several times. I finally just gave up and kept going. Its like the knitting in a long scarf, you can follow the story, like the neatly knitted rows up to that point, and then there is a tangle and it makes no sense, and comes out the other side and goes off into rows again.

 

[Yobmod]

Erm - just like to point out that i've never understood any of the riddles. I don't think they are actually riddles in the sense of the word normal people use. They seem to be purely memorised answers - no logic is needed. I think there purpose is supposed to be as parables, and you are supposed to pull some advice or moral from them - maybe Parablemaster was too silly a name for the series?

I'd like to say its intentional, but who knows? Maybe Mckillip is just confused about riddles? I wouldn't like to try a crossword she compiled

 

[FicusFan]

Erm - just like to point out that i've never understood any of the riddles. I don't think they are actually riddles in the sense of the word normal people use. They seem to be purely memorised answers - no logic is needed. I think there purpose is supposed to be as parables, and you are supposed to pull some advice or moral from them - maybe Parablemaster was too silly a name for the series?

I'd like to say its intentional, but who knows? Maybe Mckillip is just confused about riddles? I wouldn't like to try a crossword she compiled

No I don't mean I don't underdstand the riddle, there is no riddle. There is just some terribly confusing conversation that makes no sense, and he runs into the water. When he comes out he mentions the fact of some riddle, as though its out there hanging over his head, but it is never mentioned in the conversation. Then Deth picks the idea up and encourages him to go for it, but nothing is said about what the riddle is, how he knows its there, or how it relates to anything.

 

[Yobmod]

oh, ok - i don't remember that from the description, but i'll keep my eye out for it on my reread

 

[farnés]

I've tried to find some short examples of what exactly it is that I think bothered me or stopped me from getting drawn into the story.

On page 3 (of the omnibus edition):

""What," Morgon said, " about the grain still in Wyndon Amory's storage barn in east Hed? Someone has to bring it to Tol for the traders. Why doesn't anything ever get done around here?""

Allthough there is a possibility that the writer meant to have a pause after "What", at the beginning of this sentence, I don't believe she did and at first this puts Morgon's words in a whole other perspective, until you finisch the sentence and understand it was not meant that way at all.

Also on page 3:

", and ran up the coast from Tol to Akren, the house of Morgon, Prince of Hed."

Akren is the house of Morgon and we know that Morgon is the Prince of Hed, but aren't these words (and I could be wrong) technically saying that the Prince of Hed is Morgon's house?

"who had a shock of hair gray as a grindstone and.. "

I think there should be a "," ( is it called a komma in english?) after the word "hair".

On page 3 and page 7 things are described as being "like a sack of grain".
I think it might have bothered me reading the same description so soon.

On page 16 Morgon asks the harpist :

" Do you know how my parents died?"

"Yes."

" My mother wanted to ...."

And then Morgon tells the harpist the whole story anyway.

I loved the example Severn gave but especialy the descriptions in the following sentences I found anything but beautifull:

Page 14: "In the distance, the fishing boats from Tol rose and dipped like ducks in the water; far beyond them, a dark thread along the horizon, lay the vast, sprawling mainland, the realm of the High One."

Page 18: "The uncertainty ended in him like a song's ending."

By now I feel like some schoolteacher, by pointing out all these examples of why I might have been put off at my attempt to read the Riddelmaster Trilogy. At least I hope I've explained myself clearly somehow.

 

[Severn]

I ended up thinking of McKillip's riddles as things synonymous with mere questions much of the time. To me the whole concept of needing answers ties into the realm of faerie yet again. It's as if the world isn't solid (and in places it isn't) so the denizens need concrete facts, and since these don't exist all the time, much effort is put into the chase of facts. That extended to everyday life, to the extent that their culture revolves around riddle-chasing; a sometimes elusive hunt for answers to all things. So what we typically think of as a riddle just doesn't apply here.

Again, another reason that I loved the books so much.

Farnes - thank you for your examples. I have to say none of them bother me, and I quite like the last two. Playing with the language has always fascinated me and I like it when authors break the rules with flair, which is something I think McKillip excels in. I think this is perhaps a clear case of to each her own tastes...

 

[Yobmod]

Yes, thanks for making the effort Farnes.

""What," Morgon said, " about the grain still in Wyndon Amory's storage barn in east Hed? Someone has to bring it to Tol for the traders. Why doesn't anything ever get done around here?""

From what i know of grammar, the comma here after 'what' doesn't indicate a pause, it justs an artifact of how we indicate dialogue. But why she put the 'Morgan said' in the middle of the speech instead of before it i don't know. It doesn't bother me tho, i guess its just a stylistic thing, so some ppl will find it annoying .

", and ran up the coast from Tol to Akren, the house of Morgon, Prince of Hed."

This i liked too. I don't think its wrong grammaticaly - it reads as though Arken is the house, and Morgan is the prince of Hed to me.

I know i usually get annoyed by reuse of similies (ie like a sack of grain), so would probably agree with that, although i didn't notice it. I remember the last time i reread Chronicles of TC, noticing the reuse of 'like a stranglers' to describe hands and shoulders. It sort of ruined the sentences it was used in, but i still loved the book overall.

Like Severn, i also liked the description from Pg 14. So I think this is completely a case personal preferences.

I guess some of the problem some readers have is that Mckillip chooses to employ lots of stylistic arrangments, which can seem strange and incorrect. I always find that after a couple of chapters i can get used to any stylistic quirks - but i can see how they could hinder immersion in a story (especially when reading in a second language).

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I can understand a reader not liking a writer's style -- there is certainly no arguing with that -- but all of these examples of "bad writing" are technically quite clear and correct. However, rather than set off arguments that would turn this thread into a symposium on English grammar and punctuation, I won't go any further into that.

Anyway, I'm one of those who love the books, and more than anything I love McKillip's language. Though relatively simple, it's eloquent, vivid, poetic, and full of surprises. Her dialogue always strikes me as perfectly natural, while still carrying a distinct flavor of a different time and place (the downside: no matter the setting, it always sounds like the same time and place, a sort of McKillip's Universal Fantasy Dialect), and it conveys her characters' emotions without ever lapsing into melodrama. She's also very good at revealing the emotional landscape through body language, and a deceptively simple but actually very sophisticated and subtle technique (to my mind anyway) of placing the emphasis in a sentence.

But you have to get into the rhythms of her language to truly appreciate it, and that might be difficult for anyone who is used to English that flows in a very different way. She seems to have grown up in the same part of the country as I did, we have the same accent (I've heard her speak), so that probably contributes to my impression that the dialogue sounds so natural.

And like Yobmod (and for much the same reason) I love the magic in these books. For me, McKillip strikes just the right balance between keeping it all a bit mysterious, and yet giving the impression that there is an underlying logic. The magic feels unpredictable and even a little wayward, but the manner in which it operates always feels intuitively right.

Her plots and characters are the same way. If I try to mentally diagram everything out, it's easy to get lost and frustrated. But if I just go along with the flow, ultimately things begin to connect up, and if things still don't make sense in a coldly logical way by the end, they do make perfect sense emotionally and aesthetically.

So that's my reaction and experience of McKillip in general, and the Riddlemaster trilogy in particular, if anything I have said makes any sense.

 

[starry-eyed]

I first read the Riddle-Master books about 15+ years ago. The scene where Morgon meets the shapeshifter/Eriel in a dreamlike sequence is so evocative. Even after all those years, I could recall that scene like I had read the book yesterday. This is really the best testament to how well McKillip can write.

That said, I can agree with some of her detractors. I had recently (re)read In the Forests of Serre and Winter Rose before the Riddle-Master became Book-of-the-Month. The degree to which McKillip's writing has developed and strengthened over time was quite evident. At times the Riddle-Master felt like I was reading a rough draft. I won't bother with examples- I hate dredging them up and we already have plenty. Most of the choppiness was in the first book of the trilogy, though, so that by the end McKillip was in her stride. And even the "worst" parts were never so bad that they disrupted my ability enjoy the books.

All in all, it was such a joy to revisit an old favorite. And despite its faults I find that it still holds up after all these years.

 

[Lani]

I have finished reading the first story in the trilogy and I have to say my feelings about it are mixed. On one hand, I did enjoy reading the story and didn't particularly dislike anything about the book, but I also didn't find anything special in it that would signficantly offset it from your average fantasy story.

The writing seems to be targeted towards a juvenile audience. The sentences are mostly short, vocabulary limited. But it does flow well and I found it very easy to read. The characters in the story are definitely the stock ones with enough variation to make the book decent, but without pronounced enough personalities to make them three dimensional to me.

I found the plot was a little jumpy; it sounds a bit like D&D game where all of a sudden the story gets thrown in a totally new direction a little too abruptly. The plot is interesting to follow but doesn't make you wait breathlessly for what will happen next mostly because you get used to it jumping from one thing to another so much. A young male on a quest to find who he really is also isn't particularly original.

There are some interesting elements in the book with the shapeshiftes, riddles, and landrule and some decent conversations but I'd have to say the story is rather mediocre as far as fantasy goes and I have to say I am not quite sure I will pick up the next story in the series.

 

[Yobmod]

Anyway, I'm one of those who love the books, and more than anything I love McKillip's language. Though relatively simple, it's eloquent, vivid, poetic, and full of surprises. Her dialogue always strikes me as perfectly natural, while still carrying a distinct flavor of a different time and place (the downside: no matter the setting, it always sounds like the same time and place, a sort of McKillip's Universal Fantasy Dialect), and it conveys her characters' emotions without ever lapsing into melodrama.

I suspect this is why i've been less impressed by some of her later books. Althought, as Starry-eyed says, she may have become a techiquely better writer, they can feel very samey.

Lani - I love the books, so obviously recommend continuing, but particularly because the main character of the second book princess Raderele (sp?) instead of Morgan, so you may find it easier to connect with.

What did ppl think about the change in POV for the second book? Did it add to the story? or feel too discontinuous?