posts on 1/25/2006 6:26:32 PM
quick question: if the story takes place in a sort of alternate, time-warpy Earth, then how can there be an Archimedes and his principle? (you know the scene in The Thief, by the river) not to be too sci fi-y, but it seems that they're in a parallel universe or something, and everything in history just conveniently happened without any relation to how things really happened. and I know about the note at the back about nothing being accurate, it just doesn't make sense to me...or maybe i'm just picking things apart again, I tend to do that a lot.
posts on 1/24/2006 12:22:03 PM
the book was tottaly cool man i like tottaly loved it man diddnt you
posts on 1/17/2006 7:46:42 AM
that's very true burrahobbit. i wouldn't say that i would want every book to be written with MWT's style... that would get boring. but i'm just saying that when you put them side by side, i tend to like people with MWT's style best. Robin McKinley comes to mind, in the blue sword. i don't know how many times i've read that book, but i love it how she sets up Harry's character. she leaves you to figure her out for yourself. but yes, C.S. Lewis succeeded in his side notes, and Lemony Snicket, honestly, if he hadn't made himself present, the books wouldn't have been NEARLY so good.
posts on 12/30/2005 6:42:13 PM
I like other writing styles just as much as I like MWT's. Hers is the only one we're discussing here, though, so hers is the only one I mentioned. I love Stephen King's style of adding small stories or unknown facts into the big story, like talking about how there are less passengers on planes and trains that crash because people have 'gut feelings' about something bad happening. It's hard to prove, but it's something to think about. So maybe I should have said ONE mark of literary genius... I do love MASH. And Lemony Snickett is hilarious in a dry way. I can't comment on Lewis though, having read the Narnia series too long ago to remember much about it. But I certainly understand what you're saying.
posts on 12/30/2005 6:20:15 PM
Hey! Profound me watches MASH. that's cool. I never thought it any stranger to call Eddis Helen or Attolia Irene and more than the other way around, but I supose I'm just used to people having multiple names belonging to them. As for Megan Whelan Turner's writing style. Yes it is genius, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is the ONLY writting style that works. it's just the one that she's best at. I mean you have Lewis and his saying random true things that the reader can relate to ("never shut yourself in a wardrobe" "one gets sore after sleeping on the ground" etc.) or Snecket's (yes I know juvelile inteligence level, but the guy is funny) talking about everything but the story and constantly repeating himself. And of course Tolkien's detailed discriptions of every single thing that could posible be involved. Or Patricia McKillip's beautiful swirly poetry and... well I'd better stop while I can, but there is more than one way of writing a book "right". At least in my opinion.
posts on 12/29/2005 1:41:21 PM
I do apologize for throwing a wrench into the workings of this cite by calling Eddis and Attolia Helen and Irene. Familiarity with someone often leads to familiarity in speaking of them, in this case, calling them by their first names.
"Hello, Mrs. Cleaver."
"Oh, do call me June."
"Good afternoon, Mr. Flinstone."
"Please Nurse, call me 'yours'."
Call me crazy, but I assumed since y'all are so familiar with the characters (you are obviously very well learned in the machinations of MWT's characters) you would be comfortable hearing them called by their real (or supposedly real) names.
I really enjoy hearing what everyone has to say about the books. The general concensus in that multiple readings of the books have revealed the subtleties that make them so extraordinary. The true mark of a literary genius is that the readers find something new with each reading. Maybe other people just haven't read the books enough to really savor the greatness of them, like the people who down a glass of fine wine with a McDonald's hamburger.
Anyway, sorry again.
posts on 12/27/2005 7:48:22 PM
Whooo! Glad to see this palce active again! Totally agree with everyone, its much better to figure out an ending yourself than be spoon-fed the answer. It IS kinda weird calling them Helen and Irene (I'm not even sure Helen is Eddis's real name, wasn't that a joke?) but I think thats what their going to be known as in the Koa, or Attolia anyway, because her and Gen are on a more intimate level now that their married. (ppl with the book can correct me)I want to see more of Sophos too, and yeah, hes definitely in love with Eddis, it was implied in both books!
posts on 12/24/2005 6:13:24 AM
It's a bit odd calling them Irene and Helen, in the books they're always Eddis and Attolia, but it does stop us getting confused between the people and the countries. I think you said it perfectly in your last sentance Lady, MWT really does slide into the background, you're hardly aware of her presence because her characters are powerful enough to really carry the whole story. It's as if she's just writing down something that's actualy happened. About the countries, it'd be nice if they were to remain seperate, but MWT does seem to have lined everything up a possible mesh. But it could just be a firm alliance that's in store. :) Maybe I'm just reading into it too much.
posts on 12/23/2005 10:25:59 PM
I agree with Lady's philosophy...I feel like I know MWT's characters better because I've gotten to know them like they're like real people. In real life you don't have a narrator explaining how other people are feeling or what they're thinking; you get to know them through how they act an what they say, not because the author comes right out and gives a bland character description. MWT presents us with the story and lets us read between the lines and make up our own minds about what the characters are like.
posts on 12/23/2005 5:47:23 PM
i don't think the three countries should be combined. i like them being separate. just because they're allied doesn't mean they have to mesh. (side note: why are you calling them irene and helen? i like eddis and attolia so much better...) one of my favorite things about megan whalen turner is her subtleties. I love books where you could read SO much deeper into what everyone is saying. where the real meaning isn't SAID, it's implied, because, is it just me, or doesn't it seem as though when you SAY someone is, say, courageous, it's more powerful to come up with that yourself? (it's the same way in real life. sure, someone tells you mary is smart, but it means more to you if you SEE it) it's along the same principle as my favorite fiction philosophy. the reader makes the book, not the writer. the writer only prods the imagination and sends it in the right direction. i hate it when the writer GETS IN THE WAY and SAYS everything. megan whalen turner has a dandy way of sidling into the background and letting you float in the story by yourself.
Click here to post a message to this forum
Note: the views expressed here are only those of the posters.
Use our site!
Search for your favorite town
Trade Links with Us!
Most recent discussions:
General Book Talk
Book writing discussion
Off-topic message board
Aline Countess of Romanones
Mark C. Ross
David R. Palmer
Graham D. Watson
More message boards
Our Chief Librarian