March 2013 - Mod's Choice - The Key of the Keplian

[Becky]

Sonja, that's a good question... I don't know what the point was, except that she was just feeling so very vengeful at the moment. But you're right, she couldn't have possibly known it worked. *shrug*

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Berries? I'm lost.

[Becky]

MrsJoseph wrote: "Berries? I'm lost."

Huh?

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Becky wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "Berries? I'm lost."

Huh?"

Sorry, fruit. I'm still lost.

[Snarktastic Sonja]

MrsJoseph wrote: "Sorry, fruit. I'm still lost."

My reference to fruit was made in regard to her thoughts of strychnine, not actual fruit. :) but fruits of the thoughts. If that makes sense. I am falling asleep . . . so I may make less sense than normal.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

lol!

I'm slow tonight myself, lol.

Yeah, that really made no real sense to me. IMO, I think I would attribute it to Lyn - it seems more current than most Norton stuff.

[carol. , Senor Crabbypants]

Snarktastic Sonja wrote: "I adored the writing style. It was so lyrical in nature - it just flowed. Almost like music. It reminded me of the feel of the early Pern books by Anne McCaffrey."

Funny that occurred to you. I thought the same thing--thinking about how her, Bradley and Norton seemed to be on the cutting edge of the sci-fi/fantasy gentre and how much I enjoy their books compared to the Thomas Covenant chronicles or Niven's Ringworld.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Carol wrote: "Funny that occurred to you. I thought the same thing--thinking about how her, Bradley and Norton seemed to be on the cutting edge of the sci-fi/fantasy gentre and how much I enjoy their books compared to the Thomas Covenant chronicles or Niven's Ringworld. "

I agree. With the exception of (some of) the books those ladies wrote in concert with others...I really enjoyed them much, much more than things like Convenant or Alvin the Maker. Especially (for me), Norton and McCaffrey. I gorged myself on Bradley back in HS and haven't been able to get back into her since. But I still remember those books fondly (and I collect them).

[Snarktastic Sonja]

Disclaimer: rambling ahead.

I find this fascinating. It really brings to mind the books I read earlier in my fantasy life cycle. McCaffrey, Eddings, Stasheff, Lackey and others and makes me wonder - people, today, seem to want to classify all of these as YA. (And, as you may or may not know, this tends to irritate me.) I enjoyed all of these as an adult, mostly as they were written before the Jordans and the Martins stepped in with longer tomes of grayer fantasy. They were a simpler, friendlier type of fantasy. I *like* that. I *like* the 'light' vs. the 'dark' with the hero(ine) that fights the good fight because it is 'right' and damn the consequences. Does that make my reading choices immature? (As I feel the YA label portrays them?) I enjoy being left with the warm fuzzies rather than the sorrow and tears. Maybe because some of the people coming up were actually able to read this novels as teens - I wasn't. Maybe that is why.

I think it just makes me older. So, maybe instead of YA, these titles should be SA - Senior Adult. :D

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Snarktastic Sonja wrote: "Snarktastic Sonja G (SnowNSew) | 97 comments Disclaimer: rambling ahead.

I find this fascinating. It really brings to mind the books I read earlier in my fantasy life cycle. McCaffrey, Eddings, Stasheff, Lackey and others and makes me wonder - people, today, seem to want to classify all of these as YA. (And, as you may or may not know, this tends to irritate me.) I enjoyed all of these as an adult, mostly as they were written before the Jordans and the Martins stepped in with longer tomes of grayer fantasy. They were a simpler, friendlier type of fantasy. I *like* that. I *like* the 'light' vs. the 'dark' with the hero(ine) that fights the good fight because it is 'right' and damn the consequences. Does that make my reading choices immature? (As I feel the YA label portrays them?) I enjoy being left with the warm fuzzies rather than the sorrow and tears. Maybe because some of the people coming up were actually able to read this novels as teens - I wasn't. Maybe that is why.

I think it just makes me older. So, maybe instead of YA, these titles should be SA - Senior Adult. :D"

I totally agree! I really dislike the "gritty fantasy" books. As if I need to be depressed in my escapism, too.

The authors you mentioned are a big reason why I started reading fantasy. If my choices had have been GRRM or Abercombie...I would have never read fantasy at all.

I'm slowly getting my husband into reading and fantasy. He's recently read The First Law trilogy (starting with The Blade Itself) and King's Dark Tower series.

As he got to the end of The First Law series...he started complaining. He hates all the characters and wants someone to come in and kill them all. He has no one to sympathize with and he's getting a little tired of the whole "real life" aspect of it all. As he said, "its...too real. Bad guys win, good guys are punished (or tortured and punished) and no one is ever held accountable.

When we started talking about what he would read next, Ala suggested Best Served Cold. Hubby looked at it (and the rest of Abercombie's stuff) for a minute...he was hoping it would be the book where everyone got their just deserts. Instead he read the part of the blurb that said, "But can he even tell what that is with the world burning down around him? Over three bloody days of battle, the fate of the North will be decided. But with both sides riddled by intrigues, follies, feuds, and petty jealousies, it is unlikely to be the noblest hearts or even the strongest arms that prevail. Three men. One battle. No Heroes."

He looked at me and said, I'm really tired of this. I can't read more of that in a row.

So, I hooked him up with some Kate. *nods* Kate is great, a definite palate cleanser. The good guys are the good guys and their fighting for good. The bad guys are the bad guys...and the vamps get staked.

[Snarktastic Sonja]

OK, so, Taking *that* series off of my to-read list. I am with your hubby - If I don't have someone for whom to root, what is the point?

I find it hysterical that he likes Kate. My hubby does not read much - and wonders how he ever sired a family of readers. :D We have all tried to get him to read. My sons finally convinced him, as he was going on a trip, that he would enjoy David Weber's Honor Harrington. He came home with his nose in the air and the response, "You didn't tell me it was about a *girl*."

[Snarktastic Sonja]

PS - Your hubby might like my Mercy!

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Snarktastic Sonja wrote: "OK, so, Taking *that* series off of my to-read list. I am with your hubby - If I don't have someone for whom to root, what is the point?

I find it hysterical that he likes Kate. My hubby does not..."

Hubby has only read a little bit of it. But, he likes heroes, lol. So far, he's not complained. He normally does have a problem with the girls but I think Curran might throw him off. *fingers crossed*

[Chris]

Started this today, though I didn't have time to get more than a few pages read. Interesting though, so far.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Chris wrote: "Started this today, though I didn't have time to get more than a few pages read. Interesting though, so far."

:-D

[Sharon]

Snarktastic Sonja wrote: "
I think it just makes me older. So, maybe instead of YA, these titles should be SA - Senior Adult. :D "

Well, I'd qualify, certainly, but I read for entertainment and I've always tended to prefer good guys that win in the end and bad guys that don't. With very few exceptions, I have never found grim, noir and 'nobody wins' anything but depressing.

My favorites I keep to re-read and many of the ones on my bookshelves are ones you've mentioned, McCaffrey, Lackey, Robin McKinley, Bujold ... and my tastes run along similar lines in mysteries.

I'm not sure if I just never grew up enough to appreciate that kind of writing, but if so, I have no intention of changing.

[Becky]

So, I'm still really struggling with this one. I have something like 40-50 pages left (hard to tell on my ipod), and the last 10 have been "planning" for their mission - wherein lots of things were said to have been planned, but the reader isn't actually privy to them. But we got to see the entire extended conversation in which Mayrin tells Jerrany she's going along, too, as if it wasn't clear why when Eleeri realized it. This book keeps reiterating things that I don't think need to be spelled out to the reader, but the things that I want to know are just skimmed over and told later.

Like when Eleeri went home, and "did what was called upon her", AKA did something that apparently neither she or the reader understood, but will apparently be important soon. O_o

And then there's little things, like Mayrin telling Eleeri about the burrower joke she shared with Jarrany. I guess it was supposed to be funny to the reader too, but it was AFTER the joke that it was explained that "burrower" is the name of a specific animal, not just anything that burrows. A man can be a burrower too, so a "burrower with a man's face" isn't nearly as funny as an animal with a man's face would be.

So then I thought back to the other kinds of things that could be animals, like leapers. No idea what kind of animal this is now. I'd assumed that they were a kind of big cat, like a leopard, based on the name (similar but different to our world names) - but now it could be a mountain goat, or a monkey, or a rabbit, or... anything that jumps.

And, if the description of the action the animal does is supposed to be their name, why not explain that to the reader as Eleeri learns it? Or use Burrower, or Leaper, so that we know it's more than just the kind of thing they do?

I'm finding reading this to be incredibly frustrating, because between the repetitiveness, the coincidence of things just happening that will make Eleeri's attempts easier, and the and the assumption that the reader will just know what the hell is going on... I keep rolling my eyes and thinking things like "Of COURSE that would happen." I just don't really care what happens at this point, I just want to be done. =\

[Snarktastic Sonja]

Becky wrote: " This book keeps reiterating things that I don't think need to be spelled out to the reader, but the things that I want to know are just skimmed over and told later. "

I feel your pain. Really, I do. I am, however, exactly the opposite. I get really frustrated with in depth detail. I actually enjoy building my own world with the little detail available. The world in my head is rich with detail and vibrant with color. When authors spend pages and chapters describing things, my ADD kicks in and my world becomes misty and shrouded. Although I can certainly understand an author wanting to 'control' his own world, when I read a book, I like it to become *mine*. This is why books are typically so much better than movies. *I* create the world in a book - I have to rely on the production team in a movie. Rarely is my view of a world going to coincide with another's.

Yet again, this book touches on why people call things YA. *They* (the ones I like to call the literature elite) want to say that the really long tomes with rich detail and world building are the *best* books. The ones with less are . . . YA. To *me*, all that detail removes me from the book. I lose my part in the world's creation.

I dunno if that makes any sense at all. I really respect people who can build those worlds in their own imaginations. I just really struggle.

I just don't really care what happens at this point, I just want to be done. =\

I really, *really* hate that feeling. But, again, I feel your pain.

Oh yea - when it comes to the leepers . . . so funny how our world view attaches itself to our books. I spent 2 weeks with my dad and his dog bounces through the yard like a gazelle . . . In my head, the leapers were some amalgamation of dad's dog, a gazelle and a bunny rabbit. :)

[Becky]

It's not so much the world I want to be described, though. It's the things that happen in it. I've had no trouble filling in the world, though I'm kind of in the middle-ground on wanting setting descriptions. I love when authors can really make me see their vision of a place (Like Tolkien and George R.R. Martin), but I hate when there's a shitton of unnecessary details. That's one of the reasons I can't stand Anne Rice - I don't need to know what wood a door is made of, or how many blades of grass there are outside the door, or how many times someone blinked, etc. It's so annoying. >_<

Anyway, more to the point - I want to know what's going on in the story, not necessarily what the world looks like. At this point, I feel like I'm missing so much story that it feels more like a rough outline than a finished product.

I kind of feel bad saying that, because I'm not a Witch World fan, and I know that these books are loved... But that being said, if this is supposed to be an introduction to Witch World, or even Andre Norton's writing, it's not doing a good job. I don't know anything about anything - I've just been told a lot of things, but I'm not even interested in learning more anymore because I'm finding the style so tedious. I was interested in the beginning, when I thought that it would smooth out, but now I'm just frustrated with it. :(

[Snarktastic Sonja]

Becky wrote: "Anyway, more to the point - I want to know what's going on in the story, not necessarily what the world looks like. At this point, I feel like I'm missing so much story that it feels more like a rough outline than a finished product."

MrsJ can probably answer this question better . . . But, I, too, felt something was missing - but I thought I was just missing the parts that had gone before. In the earlier books. That I cannot find to read.

But, the writing drew me in so well, and I adored the strength that was Eleeri - even when she doubted - I let it slide. :)

I hate it when I feel that frustrated. That is when I A) toss the book aside to come to at a later point, B) toss the book aside because I just can't stand it any longer or C) read the last chapter. :) Depends on how much I care.

[Snarktastic Sonja]

Or . . . are you having the feeling of . . . Why don't I *like* this? It is so beloved by so many people, I *should* like it? That kind of moment?

[Becky]

Snarktastic Sonja wrote: "Yet again, this book touches on why people call things YA. *They* (the ones I like to call the literature elite) want to say that the really long tomes with rich detail and world building are the *best* books. The ones with less are . . . YA. To *me*, all that detail removes me from the book. I lose my part in the world's creation."

I just wanted to come back to talk about this a bit, because I don't know if I necessarily agree that this is a YA vs Adult thing. To me, YA has more to do with the intended audience than how detailed the worldbuilding is. I love YA, and I think that they can be just as richly detailed and amazing as any "adult" book written. (Though I've been avoiding recent YA because I'm SO tired of recent YAPNR trends.)

I wouldn't have thought that this book was YA at all, because in my mind, Witch World is not YA - but now that you mention it, and now that I've read most of this one I CAN kind of see why it'd be labeled that way. It has s simpler writing style, not a very complex plot, not very complex characters, etc, and I can see why that would equate to YA for some. It doesn't necessarily mean that to me, but I do want more from the story. I want more depth, I want to experience it, not just be told about it, you know what I mean?

But there's nothing wrong with YA, and saying that a book is YA isn't an insult to me. It just means that it will appeal to an audience who has different needs in their reading. *shrug* I don't think there's anything wrong with that - it's just preference. :)

[Becky]

Snarktastic Sonja wrote: "Or . . . are you having the feeling of . . . Why don't I *like* this? It is so beloved by so many people, I *should* like it? That kind of moment?"

Not so much this. I don't really do that. LOL I'm OK with not liking books that everyone else loves. I do it all the time. Just check out my reviews of The Night Circus, or The Time Traveler's Wife, or Kushiel's Dart, or Beloved, or... Many many others. ;)

This book just isn't working for me. It's not meeting my needs as a reader.

[Snarktastic Sonja]

Becky wrote: "I wouldn't have thought that this book was YA at all, because in my mind, Witch World is not YA"

Ya know, after I thought about what I wrote, I feared you would be - or thought I was - offended. I was actually just thinking aloud (or as I typed . . .) and what you said made me think of it - not because I thought you thought that - it is just where my brain went. I am very happy that you didn't take it the way I didn't mean it. :)

I totally agree with you on YA.

I wish I could help you with your frustration level. :( the good news is you are almost done with this book. :D

[Becky]

Snarktastic Sonja wrote: "I am very happy that you didn't take it the way I didn't mean it. :) "

LOL. Good, because I was thinking the same thing about my comment. ;)

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

I feel bad. :-(

Maybe this wasn't a good book as an introduction. I think there are a lot of things that happen in the book that I glance right past because I'm familar with the series and I've run into it before.

:-( I'm sorry.

Leapers (sp?) are little squirrel-like creatures, they are often found in high grassy areas. Travelers often eat them.

Another thing that is normal in WW are geas. People of power can lay a geas on others - especially those within their bloodline or who might owe kinship ties of some sort to them. The Old Ones and the power-filled areas of the Old Ones can also lay geas. These are avoided as much as possible because Old Ones can be Dark or Light. Sometimes the geas is explained to the person who has had the geas laid on them, sometimes they get no explanation and are just compelled to do as the geas requires. The character can fight the geas but that could lead to some type of destruction for the character. The only time I *remember* a character having a geas explained to them was when the character had a geas laid on them via a "true dream." The character also had access to an Adept who described to them what had happened. Otherwise...the reader finds out when the character finds out.

As for the Burrowers, I can't remember...I've always thought of them as furry moles or something.


:-(

I'm sorry you're so frustrated, Becks.

[Chris]

It seems like furry moles would have bad geas.

[Becky]

Don't feel bad... I read it because you chose it, but you're not responsible for my liking or disliking it it. :)

I completely understand that it will be very different reading experience for those who haven't read other Witch World books than it will for those who already know the series and the world.

Reading it as a standalone, it just felt like there was a lot missing. And on top of that, I didn't like the writing. It just didn't work for me. *shrug*

I'm finished now, though I admit to skimming a lot of the searching the tower bits, which were really repetitive. And I expected a lot more from the final showdown - again things just happened and it was far too easy.

I didn't enjoy it overall, but I don't regret reading it - at least now I have tried a Witch World book. :)

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Chris wrote: "It seems like furry moles would have bad geas."

lol

[carol. , Senor Crabbypants]

finished last night! It definitely captured Witch World's flavor. I can see where it would be a comfort read, MrsJ--there's a lot there that reminded me of The Blue Sword and Lackey's Valdemer series.

It would be very interesting to know if Norton has any influence on the actual book/editing, or was it just because it was set in the Witch World universe?

One thing I found interesting--which Norton rarely did--is that Eleeri got an explanation of the history of the land, the different politics, the witches, the Falconmen, the Sulcar (might be butchering names here).

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Carol wrote: "finished last night! It definitely captured Witch World's flavor. I can see where it would be a comfort read, MrsJ--there's a lot there that reminded me of The Blue Sword and Lackey's Valdemer seri..."

*gasp* The Blue Sword!

So about to read that! :)

Yeah, I did wonder how much input Norton had in this book - and the entire Secrets of the Witch World series as a whole. [I really attribute the section with the strychnine to Lyn (NZ has a lot of sheep) - it was really out of place. Plus, the entire series completely turns some WW norms on its head. [book:The Magestone|462462] has a Daleswoman in kinship with an Alizonder. O_O That was odd, too.] The explanations that Eleeri gets is rather odd.

[Chris]

So..what you're saying is that Norton did the James Patterson here? That is, putting her name on it but getting someone else to actually write the book?

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Chris wrote: "So..what you're saying is that Norton did the James Patterson here? That is, putting her name on it but getting someone else to actually write the book?"

Somewhat but not really. She was pretty old by the time these (the "current" books) came out - and from what I recall she had a lot of short stories and "kernels" written that she hadn't published. So (and I'm guessing here) a lot of WW fans who were also writers started popping up near the end of her life. The beginnings of the books are classic Norton...but then suddenly things change. Or odd pieces would pop up that weren't classic Norton. There's one book where I can totally tell where the short story ended and the rest of the book began.

It made me think that some of it was due to either her desire to finish up WW before she died (the last WW book actually has her sealing WW off entirely, so no one can come in and write more WW books- especially that deviates from cannon) or her publisher/agent/family wanting to get a few more books out of her before she died.

But I'm guessing here. She didn't do a lot of co-written books.

[Chris]

That makes sense...