[Dragaera] Steven Erikson (was: Reading series)

[Eugene Zaretskiy]

-- On Wed, Jan 21, 2009, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
> Date: Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Dragaera] Steven Erikson (was: Reading series)
> To: Eugene Zaretskiy <eugene.zar at gmail.com>
>
>
> --- On Tue, 1/20/09, Eugene Zaretskiy <eugene.zar at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 19 Jan 2009, Konrad Gaertner wrote:
>> >
>> >> Erikson does have some similarities to Brust:
>> he's also a follower of the
>> >> Cool Stuff Theory of Literature, and his
>> >>  characters are very good at what they do.
>
> Philip Hart wrote:
>
>> > Not sure whether I've argued the following here
>> before and been refuted,
>> > but I don't think Brust actually is a CSTOL
>> writer.  Gene Wolfe is if I
>> > understand correctly the founder or anyway leading
>> practitioner of that
>> > school, and his construction of large works (since say
>> _The Fifth Head of
>> > Cerberus_) tends more to the kitchen sink than the
>> extreme economy of most
>> > of SKZB's novels.  Wonderful as say _The Book of
>> the New Sun_ is,
>> > there are big stretches which are of questionable
>> necessity to the
>> > overall plot.
>
> <snip TBotLS even more so>
>
>> Disclosure: Wolfe is my favorite writer.
>>
>> I'm pretty new to this concept of CSTOL but I think
>> this list is the
>> only place I've read about it. I always thought it was
>> an appropriate
>> joke about the approach Brust takes to his books. I've
>> never thought
>> of it as a legitimate "school" which is what you
>> appear to be saying
>> here (possibly in jest?). So if I'm reading you right,
>> the school of
>> CSTOL, real or hypothetical, involves inserting cool stuff
>> that doesn't further the story. That's never what I
>> imagined the theory to encompass.
>
> I don't agree with Konrad's definition either.  The CSTOL
> says a good book is one with a lot of cool stuff.  I don't
> think it says anything about furthering the plot.  A writer's
> or reader's definition of "cool" may include a fast-moving
> story.

A better way to say what I was trying to say, thanks.

>
> An example of Brust's "cool stuff" may be how Sethra and
> Morrolan recruit Vlad in /Taltos/.  It's essential to the
> plot, and it has the cool bits of Vlad and Morrolan almost
> fighting on the stairs and then Vlad finding out about
> Sethra's and Morrolan's plan and getting mad.  Of course it's
> silly--we know from /Jhereg/, without anything being given
> away, that Kiera is an unremarkable guest at Castle Black and
> knows Sethra, so M. and S. could just have had Kiera tell
> Vlad that some Dragonlords wanted to hire him.  But Steve
> saw more Cool Stuff he could get in the story with the
> ridiculous method they used, so he went with that.
>
> Possibly Cool Stuff foregone:
>
> "But... Sethra Lavode!  I mean..."
>
> There might have been compassion in Kiera's eyes.  "They're
> not setting you up.  Either of them might kill you for
> looking at them cross-eyed, but they won't hire you to
> betray you."
>
> "Uh... okay."
>
> [Exchange between Vlad and Loiosh]
>
> <snip smelling-like-blood incident from TBotNS.>
>
>> On the other hand, every time Vlad needs to get out of a
>> scrape, we
>> get some cool description of the situation. For example, if
>> I recall
>> correctly, he nearly gets cornered one time in Phoenix and
>> ends up
>> doing some cool-sounding manuevers involving throwing
>> several daggers
>> in a single breath. Not to mention Vlad goes on long
>> monologues about effective assassination and so on.
>>
>> Neither of these passages are fluff, in my opinion, but
>> Wolfe isn't
>> trying to do anything cool, he's trying to build a
>> compelling character.
>
> Building a compelling character is cool!

Okay, if something so fundemental to good books/stories is cool, then
why do we use the word at all? A book with compelling character(s),
despite other faults, isn't cool, it's just a quality work. So must we
equate coolness with quality? Seems to me like you can (easily) be
cool without actually writing anything meaningful... or vice versa. If
anyone who wrote a compelling character was writing cool books, then
Wolfe is hardly the originator of this school.

>
>> I completely agree that TBOTNS, or any Wolfe
>> book, in fact,
>> features entire chapters that can probably be removed
>> without
>> affecting the story. In that sense, I don't think
>> he's much of a
>> storyteller, but those chapters/sections/threads do
>> contribute to some
>> emotional picture he is building. They are there for a
>> reason, even if
>> that reason isn't to further the story. Does that make
>> him less
>> economical? If so, I hardly think economy matters.
>
> Then you're a subscriber to the CSTOL.

And a proud one, once I can nail down what it is, exactly. ;)

>
>> To me, CSTOL means writing something with a shiny coat on
>> top just
>> because it creates something that's larger-than-life.
>> The Vlad books,
>> with all their assassinations, teleporting, and floating
>> castles,
>> seems rich in Cool Factor. Severian's tale, while
>> certainly whimsical,
>> I can't really name much that I would use the word
>> "cool" to describe.
>> He carries a thorn that randomly generates miricles?
>
> Yes.
>
>> He sleeps with a
>> time-frozen version of his own mother?
>
> Yes, or at least his figuring it out and ours is fun.
>
> Grandmother, I think.  Dorcas is Ouen's mother and Ouen
> is Severian's father.

Embarrasing mistake for a Wolfe fan to make, you're right,
grandmother. He's intimate with both of his grandmothers, actually,
now that you mention it.

>
>> He unwittingly "back into the throne" of his nation?
>
> Yes.  I think you're seeing "Cool" as something for kids.
> But I think Wolfe and Steve see it as just what they like.

I want to say "yes, actually, for the kids is fine with me" but that's
an oversimplification. I think just saying compelling characters are
cool is an oversimplification, too.

>
> By the way, Wolfe's starting point for TBotNS was apparently
> wanting his hero's clothes to be fun to wear at a con.

That's just it -- somehow hearing something like that seems to
downplay the *uncoolness* of TBotNS. I guess I might be getting worked
up over details here, or maybe putting TBotNS up on some sort of
pedestal, but, really, my earlier e-mail was a poor attempt to try and
put into words the gut feeling I got when Philip said TBotNS shares
what seems like such a simple philosophy with the Vlad books. They
couldn't be farther apart in my mind. At this point, either CSTOL is
generic enough to encompass many more books than I thought it did,
which is fine, but not what I had in mind when I first heard of the
theory. Brust's writing has a sense of fun, and a sense of style,
that, at least to me, are the cornerstones of "CSTOL." Wolfe certainly
has that quality in many of his books (The Knight and Pirate Freedom
probably being the best two examples) so I can see why he would be
seen as the originator of that school of thought, but TBotNS doesn't
seem to share any of those qualities, that's all. I actually feel it's
a quality missing from all the solar cycle books.

>
> [Back to Philip]
>
>> > I can't recall any filler in the Vladiad
>
> Spenser-esque descriptions of food?
>
>> > and
>> > hardly any in the early Paarfiad,
> ...
>
> Histories of inn names?  More food descriptions?
>
> Jerry Friedman
>