Best Book Recommended by Folks Who Haven't Read It

[drcpunk]

It looked like just another Volume One of a Hack Fantasy Series. But, agrumer and womzilla both recommended The Last Guardian of Everness. They've not read it, but they like other books by the author, John C. Wright. I third the recommendation, and I'm 2/3rds through.

The blurb by the author does give me giggles. Hm, I'm not sure how much of it is the author quoting a third party, as all but the first few words are in quotations. In any case, the blurb says the book is "for readers weary of nostalgic pastoral setting and who object to the threadbare fantasy themes that technology is wicked and democracy is folly."

The book has nostalgic pastoral scenes, and quite good ones. And I was tempted to shout, "These counter-themes are not as original as you think!" But hey, drawing from a deep well is not a bad thing, and if the book is good, originality or lack thereof is not a problem. Besides, the book is original; it's just the counter-themes that aren't.

The blurb continues, "Neil Gaiman's Sandman and Roger Zelazny's Nine Princes in Amber won wide audiences because their characters talk and act like contemporaries and express the values in which modern readers believe."

Hm. Okay, first of all, most of the characters in Wright's book do not talk and act like contemporaries. He uses language wonderfully, both for the lyrical speech and the rare, down to earth, "contemporary" speech.

Second, several of Gaiman's characters also do not talk and act like contemporaries, and that's part of what makes Sandman work, just as it's part of what makes Wright's book work. Third, yes, Zelazny's characters in Nine Princes do talk and act like contemporaries, and, IMAO, that's at least as much a weakness as a strength. One of the things I loved about The Courts of Chaos was that it got lyrical. One of the big problems of the Merlin Amber books, again IMAO, was that they did not.

Fourth, "express the values in which modern readers believe" is an interesting phrase, but I'm not sure what's meant by it. I'm going to rant anyway, but take this with the knowledge that I don't actually know what the author means.

I'll grant that Lord of the Rings has some values I do not believe in, but also many that I do (fr'ex, loyalty, bravery, commitment to doing the right thing regardless of cost). Same for Malory and other Arthurian works, of which folks know I've read many. Given the continuing popularity of King Arthur and of Lord of the Rings, I'd say that older works don't necessarily not have values suitable for modern readers. I love the consideration of temptations and why good, intelligent people fall.

Spiderman II has similar values. So does The Last Guardian of Everness. This is part of what makes the book good. I have found that, for all I think I should be a moral relativist, the works I like best are fantasy novels with a strong moral core. It feels positively archaic, but there I am.

I'm really not sure what values the author of the phrase I quote -- whether it's Wright or someone Wright's quoting -- means. What are these values in which modern readers believe? What, if anything, makes them modern? How are they lacking from earlier works which share the same strengths as The Last Guardian of Everness?

No, Wright's novel fits into a line of books that are, IMAO, old fashioned, not at all repetitive, and damned good. Go and read. Who cares if the author -- of the novel or the blurb -- knows why it's good, so long as it is good?

Comments

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

Technology -- yes, actually, in one heavy handed way (which would not have struck me as at all heavy handed were it not for the blurb, actually), and in another way that just ocurred to me now.

Not original, at least not within this century. (Various Arthurian books, other fantasy novels.)

Democracy -- Nothing either way yet.

Not original. Again, King Arthur and his Round Table. Despite the tragedy, it was considered a Good Thing that the king and queen were bound by laws, the same as bound the meanest peasant.

Equal rights -- Not sure. There's one good woman, one ambiguous woman, and no other women I'd consider even minor characters. No gays have yet materialized.

Far from original, praise the ghods. See Guy Gavriel Kay, Diane Duane, and plenty of others I could name.

But interesting food for thought.

You're the expert , but

[acrobatty.livejournal.com]

Equality among comrades (the Round Table) was certainly a traditional Arthurian theme (altho even then, there was always an understanding that Lancelot, Gawain , Galahad, Bors, Parsifal were the mightiest/saintliest of them all). But democracy?

I never saw a suggestion in ANY Arthurian novel, particularly not Malory, that Arthur himself was answerable to anyone. Well, fate, in the sense that he got his karmic comeuppance for incest. But that's just one rule, and the sort that always applies to heroes. And Guinevere's offense seems generally to be against Arthur (and maybe G-d), not against common law or somesuch.

So I really don't know where you're coming from on this one.

Re: You're the expert , but

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

Well, as agrumer pointed out, rule of law is not the same as democracy anyway. But I'll recheck Malory. It does say, specifically, that the queen is subject to the same laws as any poor lady, and I don't recall what it says about the king.

Also, as far as the blurb goes, and agrumer's guess about it, the closest to a modern theme involving democracy in this book, which is part one of at least two, is a small speech one of the villains gives against democracy. We're talking a paragraph from someone who seems relatively minor. Thus far, what I have seen in the book are the ancient and archaic values of loyalty, decency, courage, and stuff like that. And, naturally, I find that just fine.

Re: You're the expert , but

[(Anonymous)]

What kind of publishing house lets the author write the blurb anyhow? I note that Wright's blurb does not describe his story. If the events described in the blurb take place at all, they are not in Volume One. I wonder if he did that on purpose to distinguish between the good reviewers and the bad. I've already come upon two reviewers who reviewed the blurb instead of the book.
(Okay, he probably didn't do it on purpose. Rather, the blurb was probably taken from some promotional letter where the author was trying to sell the idea, and so portrayed it simply and thus inaccurately. Happens all the time in publishing, but they usually don't put it on the book!)