Page 2 of 2
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:31 am
by ninjaboy
No - I was joking about the Springwine and Diamondraught. Put your hands in the air if you're gullible, and I will take notes.
How funny would if be if Vain actually WAS blue.. Picture a 6 - foot tall, completely naked, shaven.. smurf.
Hilarity ensues.
Actually I started reading the books again last night, and do you know who else wore blue? Lena and Atarian.
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:44 pm
by AjK
ninjaboy wrote:Put your hands in the air if you're gullible, and I will take notes.
LOL, I was joking, sorry. That's why I put the wink at the end. Having said that, however...
*raises hand*
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:08 pm
by jacob Raver, sinTempter
I haven't read FR yet, but...
...why's Gandalf on the cover?
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:13 pm
by thewormoftheworld'send
jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote:I haven't read FR yet, but...
...why's Gandalf on the cover?
After the fall of Sauron, Gandalf has nothing better to do than to pose for book covers. White Wizards these days gotta make a living somehow!
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:33 pm
by StevieG
This thread has been such an entertaining read - topic to topic, tangent to tangent that I felt I just HAD to join in!
Perhaps the long build up in RoTE reflects the significance of the series - being the LAST chronicles. SRD seemed to do this more regularly after the 2nd Chrons - Mordant's Need kept us in the dark with fragments of enlightenment well into the 2nd book (from memory).
And the 1st two books of the Gap Sequence laid a very solid, lengthy foundation - preparation for the mind-blowing story to follow.
FR has definitely increased in pace and action. The more frustrating/agonising the start, the more satisfying/amazing the end. Hopefully! [/quote]
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:45 am
by jacob Raver, sinTempter
I doubt it. I think it's been too long for him to write this.
I think one of the big problems with RotE especially is that SRD began writing series of books, instead of novels or trilogies. They're fundementally different, and I think it shows.
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:25 am
by thewormoftheworld'send
There's a problem with RoTE?
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:03 am
by rdhopeca
jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote:I doubt it. I think it's been too long for him to write this.
I think one of the big problems with RotE especially is that SRD began writing series of books, instead of novels or trilogies. They're fundementally different, and I think it shows.
Explain to me the fundamental difference between a "series" and a "trilogy".
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:01 pm
by Zarathustra
Jay makes an excellent point about Linden not knowing, and characters not telling.
This bugged me, too. It's obviously contrived for the point of providing suspense. Sight of the "author's hand" takes me out of the story a little . . . but then again, I analyze *everything* I read in terms of craft, so I'm always taken out of the story when I read. Why should I pick on this technique?
Besides, Donaldson shows absolute mastery in the way he handles it. It *does* provide suspense, frustration, and a need to keep reading to find out. If you don't know what the mysteries are, you won't wonder how they'll be revealed.
Donaldson presents entirely plausible reasons for the characters to withhold knowledge from Linden. Esmer is damn near perfect, in this respect. I've tried to pry it apart and find the cracks in SRD's method, but it's airtight. I've got to give him props.
Oh, and a trilogy is a collection of related, though self-contained independent books (like the First Chronicles), while a "series" (if you want to call it that) is a continuous story told over several volumes. And then there are books like LOTR, which is one novel broken down in parts merely for publishing convenience.
Donaldson has only ever written one trilogy (1st Chrons). Everything else is a continuous story told over several novels which are each constructed in a way to be minimally self-contained, but more like a giant chapter in the same story. I feel that the 1st Chrons resist this definition because they aren't continuous stories told in the same time frame. They are each separated substantially in time between each novel.
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:45 pm
by jacob Raver, sinTempter
Malik23 is da skeleton!
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:47 pm
by jacob Raver, sinTempter
TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote:I haven't read FR yet, but...
...why's Gandalf on the cover?
After the fall of Sauron, Gandalf has nothing better to do than to pose for book covers. White Wizards these days gotta make a living somehow!
Every time I read it!
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:48 pm
by StevieG
Oh, and a trilogy is a collection of related, though self-contained independent books (like the First Chronicles), while a "series" (if you want to call it that) is a continuous story told over several volumes. And then there are books like LOTR, which is one novel broken down in parts merely for publishing convenience.
Thank you for that explanation - I have never known... (learn something new everyday on this site). The 'technique' used to frustrate the reader works on me - in the past it turned me off continuing with the story, but now I just want to find out what happens....
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:12 am
by Zarathustra
StevieG wrote:Oh, and a trilogy is a collection of related, though self-contained independent books (like the First Chronicles), while a "series" (if you want to call it that) is a continuous story told over several volumes. And then there are books like LOTR, which is one novel broken down in parts merely for publishing convenience.
Thank you for that explanation - I have never known... (learn something new everyday on this site). The 'technique' used to frustrate the reader works on me - in the past it turned me off continuing with the story, but now I just want to find out what happens....
I should have said that was just my opinion!
But I think it makes sense.
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:18 am
by rdhopeca
Malik23 wrote:StevieG wrote:Oh, and a trilogy is a collection of related, though self-contained independent books (like the First Chronicles), while a "series" (if you want to call it that) is a continuous story told over several volumes. And then there are books like LOTR, which is one novel broken down in parts merely for publishing convenience.
Thank you for that explanation - I have never known... (learn something new everyday on this site). The 'technique' used to frustrate the reader works on me - in the past it turned me off continuing with the story, but now I just want to find out what happens....
I should have said that was just my opinion!
But I think it makes sense.
I guess the reason I asked is I was wondering why it made such a difference in SRD's writing that "it shows" that he's writing a series rather than a trilogy. The 2nd Chrons would then be considered a series...
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:36 am
by StevieG
I should have said that was just my opinion! But I think it makes sense.
It makes sense to me, so I'm happy to run with it
I guess the reason I asked is I was wondering why it made such a difference in SRD's writing that "it shows" that he's writing a series rather than a trilogy. The 2nd Chrons would then be considered a series...
I wondered that too - personally, it doesn't make any difference to my enjoyment of the story...
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:15 pm
by thewormoftheworld'send
Malik23 wrote:Jay makes an excellent point about Linden not knowing, and characters not telling.
This bugged me, too. It's obviously contrived for the point of providing suspense. Sight of the "author's hand" takes me out of the story a little . . . but then again, I analyze *everything* I read in terms of craft, so I'm always taken out of the story when I read. Why should I pick on this technique?
Does SRD provide lessons through his characters? Aren't they crafted, not contrived, in order to provide lessons?
What then could be the lesson in Linden's not knowing? Perhaps, that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, especially in powerful hands. I have stated here before that LA tends to act on very little evidence and with little forethought.
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:31 pm
by thewormoftheworld'send
rdhopeca wrote:Malik23 wrote:StevieG wrote:
A series of works is separate, more-or-less related, but not necessarily considered the same piece or even written by the same author. A trilogy (or duology or quaternary) is a series considered a single work (designated by theme or plot-line) set forth in separate volumes usually by the same author. (Or as in the case of the Dune series, carried on by the children of the author.)
An example of a series would be Reader's Digest condensed books. An example of a trilogy or quaternary would be the Covenant books. A series is usually published one after the other. The first Chronicles was a trilogy published all at the same time.
A trilogy or quaternary is also a series of works, but a series is not necessarily like a trilogy. The Dune series has grown so vast in quantities that it is more easily called a series. But how many books are there now, perhaps ten? That would make that series a decenary.
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:43 am
by jacob Raver, sinTempter
With a series, you can write a setup book like Runes that really doesn't have an all-encompasing story arc (like say Matrix 1). Even LFB had the Quest for the Staff being achieved, which was a full story arc within a larger story arc...Runes doesn't have this, we don't even know where the heck the story is going, and still don't at the end of the book: series vs. novel/trilogy
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:06 am
by thewormoftheworld'send
As I've said once too many times, The Real Story can be appreciated as a stand-alone novella. Yet it is still part of a series.
The First Chronicles hinges around TC returning to the "real" world at the end of each book. So that would explain why each book has a beginning and an ending like separate stories. But yes, it is a different form of trilogy than the next one.