ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/glencook-fans/archive/v01.n163

Internet Message Format | 2002-01-30 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (glencook-fans-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: glencook-fans-digest V1 #163
Reply-To: glencook-fans-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


glencook-fans-digest    Thursday, January 31 2002    Volume 01 : Number 163




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:32:56 -0400
From: Richard Chilton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) David Drake <--> Glen Cook

A Turner wrote:
>
> SPOILERS (Shadows Linger)



























> I certainly haven't seen another fantasy writer who manages to change both
> form and characterization of the people narrating like Glen does in the BC
> series. I'm just rereading Shadows Linger, and right from the start of the
> second book you can see people changing. Raven becomes as morally black as
> the Dominator and his creatures, all in order to protect Darling, while
> Croaker and co. start to question what they're doing more and more, even
> though they keep on doing it (until the end that is). I don't think you
> could get that broader moral perspective in the straight first person
> narration of the original book - you really need to look at characters like
> Marron Shed and Asa in their grubby surroundings in order to understand why
> they act like they do.
>

I think one of the best parts of Cook's writings is he uses normal
people.  His characters aren't the "I'll never fail" heroes, the souless
villians, nor any other stock characters but normal people.

One of my favorite scenes from Shadows Linger has to do with the murder
of the second moneylender.  The waitress (Lisa) was tough as nails in
theory - willing and able to do whatever it took to get out of the
wretched life she lived.  Let's kill the moneylender and maybe some
homeless folk this winter - in theory there was nothing she wouldn't do.

In theory - but the first murder she was involved in shook her to the
bone.  OK, the circumstances of that killing were bad for her but even
if it had happened the way she'd planned I think the reality of death,
of murder, would have made an impression.  She'd thought she was ready
to do anything but death shook her - because she was just a normal
person in a bad situation.  She wasn't a blackhearted villian, just
someone who didn't want to die poor.

When normal people are the characters it's easy to fit inside their skin
- - which makes the book more plausible, more real.

Richard

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:09:31 -0400
From: Richard Chilton <[e-mail]>
Subject: (glencook-fans) Trilogy....

Been away from emails fro a few days, so someone might have already
pointed this out, but...

> I feel obliged to give a countervailing opinion.  No, it does not get
> better. In fact, in at least one significant respect, it gets worse: It has
> no ending.  Like the worst of the rest of the giant fantasy trilogies
> Martin is consciously emulating, the end of volume I is not the end of a
> story, it's just the place where he hit his contractually-mandated wordcount.
>
> That's something that Cook's original Black Company series got right: each
> book of the trilogy ended a story, even as threads continued on.

Calling something a trilogy means it is one story told in three parts.
The books of the North (first 3 Black company novels) weren't  a trilory
- - they were a series of three books.  You could throw in _The Silver
Spike_ and call it a four book series, but while a single thread ran
through the books there was more than one ending and one beginning.

One story - three books.

Why are some many fantasy authors involved in trilogies or works billed
as trilogies?  Lord of the Rings - which is a bit irronic in that LotR
is told as 6 books in three volumes.  The story I've heard about why
LotR was published as a trilogy is the publishers weren't sure it would
sell (or paper rationing was an issue - I've heard both) so to reduce
the risk they published it in three parts.

Sales worries is also why the original dragonlance series isn't a
trilogy: was talking to Margaret Wies at a convention years ago when she
pointed out that the first book had a definate ending and its reason -
TSR wasn't sure if the books would sell and if the sales figures were
low they wouldn't finish the series.  The ending was so the readers
wouldn't be left hanging.

After the above rant I guess I should point out that I have nothing
against three volume serieses - just wish they weren't called trilogies.

Richard

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:18:20 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Steve Chew)
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Trilogy....

>
>Calling something a trilogy means it is one story told in three parts.
>The books of the North (first 3 Black company novels) weren't  a trilory
>- they were a series of three books.  You could throw in _The Silver
>Spike_ and call it a four book series, but while a single thread ran
>through the books there was more than one ending and one beginning.
>
>One story - three books.
>
    An interesting distinction.  It would sometimes be nice to know
ahead of time which books were independent parts of a series and which
were one story told across multiple books.  I'm finding that I prefer
to wait for all the books to be published if it's going to be a single
story told across multiple books.
    I'm not sure that most people care enough to start making the
distiction though.  Plus "trilogies" seem to be a marketing method and are
pretty popular with readers.  It could get tricky in some circumstances.
For example, the latest two books by Elizabeth Moon (Change of Command
and Against the Odds) are really a duology -- one story in two books.
But they are part of a bigger series.  What would they be called?  :)
I would like to have known that those two were a duology since as I
was reading the first one I was not happy with the development of
the characters/plot since I thought it was going to end in one book.
    Other series have this "middle duology" type of issue too,
like the BC.


>Why are some many fantasy authors involved in trilogies or works billed
>as trilogies?  Lord of the Rings - which is a bit irronic in that LotR
>is told as 6 books in three volumes.  The story I've heard about why
>LotR was published as a trilogy is the publishers weren't sure it would
>sell (or paper rationing was an issue - I've heard both) so to reduce
>the risk they published it in three parts.
>
    Paper rationing?  That seems rather unlikely in 1954, especially
considering that there were probably very few books in the original
publishing run.  The Korean war was over by then -- were they still
rationing things?  It seems more likely that the publishers thought that
no one would buy a 1000+ page book that they'd never heard of.


>Sales worries is also why the original dragonlance series isn't a
>trilogy: was talking to Margaret Wies at a convention years ago when she
>pointed out that the first book had a definate ending and its reason -
>TSR wasn't sure if the books would sell and if the sales figures were
>low they wouldn't finish the series.  The ending was so the readers
>wouldn't be left hanging.
>
    There are a number of "trilogies" that have a definitive end
to the first book, probably for that reason.  Is it more useful to
refer to them as a single book followed by a duology?  Probably not for
most people.  If it were that useful, some terminology would have come
into existence to deal with it.

                Steve


- --
Steve Chew - [e-mail] - http://www.interzone.com
"I hate people who make generalizations."

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:31:27 -0700
From: Eric Herrmann <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Trilogy....

> There are a number of "trilogies" that have a definitive end
> to the first book, probably for that reason.  Is it more useful to
> refer to them as a single book followed by a duology?  Probably not for
> most people.  If it were that useful, some terminology would have come
> into existence to deal with it.

I think the Dread Empire and StarFishers certainly fall into this category.

- --
Eric Herrmann
<[e-mail]>


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:40:23 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (glencook-fans) Shadows Linger Source

I was reading a book on the Regency period in England (c. 1800-1820) and came across a section on Resurrection Men. It seems that anatomists and medical schools couldn't get enough cadavers, so people started digging up dead bodies and selling them to the schools.

It turns out that a Burke in Scotland decided it was too much work digging up the bodies (getting the out of the Catacombs, so to speak) so he started suffocating people staying at an inn.

At one point, the discussion sounds very much like Cook as an anatomist comments about how nice the bodies are and to "come back soon."

Win

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:13:58 -0600
From: "Horky, Roger" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: (glencook-fans) Trilogy....


The great grandaddy of "trilogies" in science fiction/fantasy is
Tolkien's LORD OF THE RINGS; however, it is not a true trilogy, being
one story broken into three parts.

Tolkien submitted a 1000+ page manuscript and his publisher (wisely)
decided to release it as three separate books, believing it would not
have sold as a single volume. But LotR is very distictly a single
narrative; the three books do not stand alone as stories witht their own
begiining, middles, and ends. The breaks were determined by volume size,
not narrative necessity.

Try explaining to a non-Tolkien fan why the first movie ended where it
did.

Sadly, later writers, having the success of LotR to emulate, created
their own so-called "trilogies" which were, in fact, one story in three
volumes. I hate this format; it is the refuge of a undisciplined and
uninformed writer and/or editor.

A true trilogy is a trio of works that each stand alone as narratives
yet are connected ("developing a single theme" as so many online
dictionaries describe them).  Elizabeth Lynn wrote a trilogy in which
several hundred years pass between each story/book; Sophocles' Oedipus
trilogy and Shakespeare's Henry VI trilogy are each three plays, each of
which stand alone with a beginning, a middle, and an end. The
willingness to tolerate a trilogy that is just one story in three parts
is a relatively recent development.

However, given that the public has decided that a 'trilogy' is any three
books with the same characters... why don't we make the same distinction
hockey fans make for "hat tricks?" A 'hat trick' is a three-goal game by
a single player. A "'true' hat trick" is three goals in a game
uninterrupted by an other scoring. A 'trilogy' would be a ny three-part
story. A "true trilogy" would be three independent but linked stories.




=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:03:29 -0600
From: "PrimalChrome" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Trilogy....

Two irritations that come to mind reading this....

1.  LotR was to have been six books, not three.  It is/was published in
three volumes.
2.  The term trilogy has no real application when discussing Cook, Martin,
Jordan, or Brust.  None of the series being discussed are trilogies, in
either method of interpretation listed.
...and a third just for good measure...
3.  Why the hell is it that anyone writing something that won't fit in the
bindings of a single book is always trying to emulate Tolkien?  It's almost
a prerequisite that in any discussion of fantasy articles they *MUST* be
likened to the demigod Tolkien...even if the speaker has to reach so far as
to compare the length of the tale being told.



- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Horky, Roger" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:13 PM
Subject: FW: (glencook-fans) Trilogy....


>
> The great grandaddy of "trilogies" in science fiction/fantasy is
> Tolkien's LORD OF THE RINGS; however, it is not a true trilogy, being
> one story broken into three parts.
>
> Tolkien submitted a 1000+ page manuscript and his publisher (wisely)
> decided to release it as three separate books, believing it would not
> have sold as a single volume. But LotR is very distictly a single
> narrative; the three books do not stand alone as stories witht their own
> begiining, middles, and ends. The breaks were determined by volume size,
> not narrative necessity.
>
> Try explaining to a non-Tolkien fan why the first movie ended where it
> did.
>
> Sadly, later writers, having the success of LotR to emulate, created
> their own so-called "trilogies" which were, in fact, one story in three
> volumes. I hate this format; it is the refuge of a undisciplined and
> uninformed writer and/or editor.
>
> A true trilogy is a trio of works that each stand alone as narratives
> yet are connected ("developing a single theme" as so many online
> dictionaries describe them).  Elizabeth Lynn wrote a trilogy in which
> several hundred years pass between each story/book; Sophocles' Oedipus
> trilogy and Shakespeare's Henry VI trilogy are each three plays, each of
> which stand alone with a beginning, a middle, and an end. The
> willingness to tolerate a trilogy that is just one story in three parts
> is a relatively recent development.
>
> However, given that the public has decided that a 'trilogy' is any three
> books with the same characters... why don't we make the same distinction
> hockey fans make for "hat tricks?" A 'hat trick' is a three-goal game by
> a single player. A "'true' hat trick" is three goals in a game
> uninterrupted by an other scoring. A 'trilogy' would be a ny three-part
> story. A "true trilogy" would be three independent but linked stories.
>
>
>
>
> =======================================================================
>  To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
>  visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.
>


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:07:00 -0600
From: Steve Harris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Shadows Linger Source

Win,

The Resurrection Man (htting people on the head to get bodies for
anatomical dissection) is one of the more memorable characters in
Dickens' _Tale of Two Cities_.

Steve

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:29:36 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Steve Chew)
Subject: Re: FW: (glencook-fans) Trilogy....

>
>Sadly, later writers, having the success of LotR to emulate, created
>their own so-called "trilogies" which were, in fact, one story in three
>volumes. I hate this format; it is the refuge of a undisciplined and
>uninformed writer and/or editor.
>
    Why?  Would you consider the later Black Company books, some
of which did not have "endings" undisciplined?  It seems to me that
sometimes an author has more to say than can be said in a reasonably
sized book.  Or, are you just against the idea of releasing the first
part before the others are completed since the first part cannot then
be revised?


>A true trilogy is a trio of works that each stand alone as narratives
>yet are connected ("developing a single theme" as so many online
>dictionaries describe them).
>
    This is the opposite of what I think of as a trilogy.  I
think of a trilogy as 3 books that tell one story (see earlier email).
    Wouldn't it make more sense to call a set of books that are
related a "series"?  That way you're not restricted to only talking
about series of length 3 (or 2 for duology).  What would you call
the Black Company if we only had the terms "trilogy" or "true trilogy"?
Calling them a series is more convenient.


>
>However, given that the public has decided that a 'trilogy' is any three
>books with the same characters... why don't we make the same distinction
>A 'hat trick' is a three-goal game by a single player. A "'true' hat trick"
>is three goals in a game uninterrupted by an other scoring.
>
    I've always heard this called a "natural hat trick."  :)

                Steve

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:22:12 -0600
From: "Lawrence Jenab" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) David Drake <--> Glen Cook

I really agree with that, Richard.  Oddly enough, Cook's fantasy books have
more genuine human nature in them than a dozen books of the supposed
"psychological realism" school.

Larry

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Chilton" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) David Drake <--> Glen Cook


> A Turner wrote:
> >
> > SPOILERS (Shadows Linger)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I certainly haven't seen another fantasy writer who manages to change
both
> > form and characterization of the people narrating like Glen does in the
BC
> > series. I'm just rereading Shadows Linger, and right from the start of
the
> > second book you can see people changing. Raven becomes as morally black
as
> > the Dominator and his creatures, all in order to protect Darling, while
> > Croaker and co. start to question what they're doing more and more, even
> > though they keep on doing it (until the end that is). I don't think you
> > could get that broader moral perspective in the straight first person
> > narration of the original book - you really need to look at characters
like
> > Marron Shed and Asa in their grubby surroundings in order to understand
why
> > they act like they do.
> >
>
> I think one of the best parts of Cook's writings is he uses normal
> people.  His characters aren't the "I'll never fail" heroes, the souless
> villians, nor any other stock characters but normal people.
>
> One of my favorite scenes from Shadows Linger has to do with the murder
> of the second moneylender.  The waitress (Lisa) was tough as nails in
> theory - willing and able to do whatever it took to get out of the
> wretched life she lived.  Let's kill the moneylender and maybe some
> homeless folk this winter - in theory there was nothing she wouldn't do.
>
> In theory - but the first murder she was involved in shook her to the
> bone.  OK, the circumstances of that killing were bad for her but even
> if it had happened the way she'd planned I think the reality of death,
> of murder, would have made an impression.  She'd thought she was ready
> to do anything but death shook her - because she was just a normal
> person in a bad situation.  She wasn't a blackhearted villian, just
> someone who didn't want to die poor.
>
> When normal people are the characters it's easy to fit inside their skin
> - which makes the book more plausible, more real.
>
> Richard
>
> =======================================================================
>  To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
>  visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.
>



=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 21:40:52 -0500
From: "C.L. Yona" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FW: (glencook-fans) Trilogy....

>
>The great grandaddy of "trilogies" in science fiction/fantasy is
>Tolkien's LORD OF THE RINGS; however, it is not a true trilogy, being
>one story broken into three parts.


Actually, Tolkien considered it one book in six parts, not three.

yer dog

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 21:07:20 -0800
From: Michael Llaneza <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) David Drake <--> Glen Cook

Cook asks a unique question in several of his books. What turned a happy
smiling child into a destructive megalomaniacal psychopath ? This comes
up in the BC books, Dread Empire novels, and in Swordbearer.

It's a psychological insight very few authors have. I'd like to see him
trace a protagonist from childhood to the darkside. And I'll bet he
outdoes Lucas.

Lawrence Jenab wrote:

>I really agree with that, Richard.  Oddly enough, Cook's fantasy books have
>more genuine human nature in them than a dozen books of the supposed
>"psychological realism" school.
>
>Larry
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Richard Chilton" <[e-mail]>
>To: <[e-mail]>
>Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 1:32 PM
>Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) David Drake <--> Glen Cook
>
>
>>A Turner wrote:
>>
>>>SPOILERS (Shadows Linger)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I certainly haven't seen another fantasy writer who manages to change
>>>
>both
>
>>>form and characterization of the people narrating like Glen does in the
>>>
>BC
>
>>>series. I'm just rereading Shadows Linger, and right from the start of
>>>
>the
>
>>>second book you can see people changing. Raven becomes as morally black
>>>
>as
>
>>>the Dominator and his creatures, all in order to protect Darling, while
>>>Croaker and co. start to question what they're doing more and more, even
>>>though they keep on doing it (until the end that is). I don't think you
>>>could get that broader moral perspective in the straight first person
>>>narration of the original book - you really need to look at characters
>>>
>like
>
>>>Marron Shed and Asa in their grubby surroundings in order to understand
>>>
>why
>
>>>they act like they do.
>>>
>>I think one of the best parts of Cook's writings is he uses normal
>>people.  His characters aren't the "I'll never fail" heroes, the souless
>>villians, nor any other stock characters but normal people.
>>
>>One of my favorite scenes from Shadows Linger has to do with the murder
>>of the second moneylender.  The waitress (Lisa) was tough as nails in
>>theory - willing and able to do whatever it took to get out of the
>>wretched life she lived.  Let's kill the moneylender and maybe some
>>homeless folk this winter - in theory there was nothing she wouldn't do.
>>
>>In theory - but the first murder she was involved in shook her to the
>>bone.  OK, the circumstances of that killing were bad for her but even
>>if it had happened the way she'd planned I think the reality of death,
>>of murder, would have made an impression.  She'd thought she was ready
>>to do anything but death shook her - because she was just a normal
>>person in a bad situation.  She wasn't a blackhearted villian, just
>>someone who didn't want to die poor.
>>
>>When normal people are the characters it's easy to fit inside their skin
>>- which makes the book more plausible, more real.
>>
>>Richard
>>
>>=======================================================================
>> To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
>> visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.
>>
>
>
>
>=======================================================================
> To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
> visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.
>
>



=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 04:08:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Dutton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Trilogy....

- --- PrimalChrome <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Two irritations that come to mind reading this....
>
> 1.  LotR was to have been six books, not three.  It is/was published in
> three volumes.

LotR [a written-to-order sequel to the Hobbit, which Tolkien produced only in
order to gain publisher approval for his magnum opus the Silmarillion] is one
long novel.  It was originally published in 3 parts, denoting six books.  It is
currently published in 1, 3, or 7 volumes (the final volume being, presumably,
the appendixes).

> 2.  The term trilogy has no real application when discussing Cook, Martin,
> Jordan, or Brust.  None of the series being discussed are trilogies, in
> either method of interpretation listed.

Point.
> ...and a third just for good measure...
> 3.  Why the hell is it that anyone writing something that won't fit in the
> bindings of a single book is always trying to emulate Tolkien?  It's almost
> a prerequisite that in any discussion of fantasy articles they *MUST* be
> likened to the demigod Tolkien...even if the speaker has to reach so far as
> to compare the length of the tale being told.

Indeed.  However, Tolkien is notable within the genre for providing the proof
that multi-volume novels would sell.  This is also helped along by the
publishers, who sometimes push whatever fantasy authour they want to push as
'if you like Tolkien, try X'...


As for series/related novels, I tend to classify them as follows...

- - Multivolume novels.  Pretty much have to be read in sequence.  Follow a
direct storyline from one to the other with no significant gaps in the
narrative.  Examples are the Fat Fantasy genre and its SF equivalents.
- - Sequel(s).  Stories which build from one to the other, where reading them in
order may be advantageous but is not essential.  Characters usually carry over,
but the main individual storyline often differs.  Think Garrett.
- - 'One universe' Series.  Stories related by being set in the same
background/'universe'; individual stories may have little to no crossover of
plot or characters with the other novels.

Some series, for example Discworld, are 'one universe' series that have sequel
series [Witches, Guards, Rincewind] within them.  Others [The Eternal Champion]
have multivolume novels within the shared universe.

This doesn't include marketing-driven variations such as the 'crossover series'.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:33:44 -0600
From: "Horky, Roger" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (glencook-fans) trilogies II

know that the the editor/writer/publisher left me hanging instead of
delivering to me a complete work.

consider: the first book in the Horatio Hornblower series by C.S. Forester
was originally released in one volume. This single book told a single story;
however, it was divided into three parts, each of which was complete in and
of itself. In subsequent editions, these three stories were

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:36:06 -0600
From: "Horky, Roger" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (glencook-fans) trilogies III

released as stand-alone volumes, three separate books. The single-volume
book is about 'normal' thickness; the stand-alone books are fairly thin. All
i can think of to explain the change is greed: somebody figured, 'why sell
one book at a bean a copy when we can sell three books at a bean each?'

Those of you in the 'one stories, three parts' school will no doubt see
nothing unusual in this message; to those of you who, like me, want each
work to stand alone,   I apologise.

(aside: an uninterrupted three-goal sequence can also be called  a 'pure'
hat trick)

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:38:37 -0600
From: "Horky, Roger" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (glencook-fans) FW: trilogies I

(i put the wrong address on this one and totally screwed up the point i was
trying to make)


I think the thing that bothers me the most about 'trilogies' is that I
hate reading a book that doesn't stand alone. No matter how good it is,
and no matter how excited I am about reading the next one, I feel ripped
off, because I

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:01:30 -0600
From: "PrimalChrome" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) trilogies III

This is a childish comparison as you well know.  Please keep such bullshit
posts to your Harry Potter mailing list.


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Horky, Roger" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 8:36 AM
Subject: (glencook-fans) trilogies III


> Those of you in the 'one stories, three parts' school will no doubt see
> nothing unusual in this message; to those of you who, like me, want each
> work to stand alone,   I apologise.



=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:04:58 -0600
From: "PrimalChrome" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Trilogy....

Good breakdown.  Now for the kicker....  How do you classify The Black
Company and the Books of the South?  Based on your breakdown I would think
Series would fit the best, but I'm curious as to your viewpoint.



- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Dutton" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Trilogy....


> As for series/related novels, I tend to classify them as follows...
>
> - Multivolume novels.  Pretty much have to be read in sequence.  Follow a
> direct storyline from one to the other with no significant gaps in the
> narrative.  Examples are the Fat Fantasy genre and its SF equivalents.
> - Sequel(s).  Stories which build from one to the other, where reading
them in
> order may be advantageous but is not essential.  Characters usually carry
over,
> but the main individual storyline often differs.  Think Garrett.
> - 'One universe' Series.  Stories related by being set in the same
> background/'universe'; individual stories may have little to no crossover
of
> plot or characters with the other novels.
>
> Some series, for example Discworld, are 'one universe' series that have
sequel
> series [Witches, Guards, Rincewind] within them.  Others [The Eternal
Champion]
> have multivolume novels within the shared universe.
>
> This doesn't include marketing-driven variations such as the 'crossover
series'.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
> http://auctions.yahoo.com
>
> =======================================================================
>  To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
>  visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.
>


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 07:35:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Dutton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Trilogy....

- --- PrimalChrome <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Good breakdown.  Now for the kicker....  How do you classify The Black
> Company and the Books of the South?  Based on your breakdown I would think
> Series would fit the best, but I'm curious as to your viewpoint.

Depends on which books.

They definitely don't fit into the most general category of shared universe.
I'd tend to classify the books of the North as sequels, whereas the books of
the South are closer to a multivolume novel.

Reason being that while the books of the north carry over characters, some
plot, and history [making them more than just novels in the same universe] they
each represent a distinct story that happens to the characters over time, as
opposed to a continuous narrative.  Whereas the Books of the South are much
more of a coherent whole, where the narrative and storyline are more
continuous.  You could argue for a break between She is the Darkness and Water
Sleeps, as the narrative [temporally at least] stops and resumes at a later
point.

A better example of "shared universe series" in the way I mean would be Passage
at arms and the Starfishers books.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:07:23 -0600
From: "Horky, Roger" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: (glencook-fans) Trilogy....

The first three books are a trilogy, by my definition, but with the addition
of the rest, I think it's easier just to call it a 'series' and have done
with it. THE SILVER SPIKE stands alone, The Books of the South are a
duology, but all together, 'series' is probably the best word.

Piers Anthony's Xanth series started out as a trilogy (and a damn good one,
I might add) but quickly devolved into the mess it is today. Same with
LeGuin's Earthsea trilogy--now it's a series.

Somebody asked me earlier if, based on my expressed desire for books that
stand alone, if I liked the later BC books (which didn't have internal
resolutions). No, not really (the format, not the content)--I really like my
books to be complete--but I am willing to accept just about anything from
Glen Cook. Similarly, I don't read science fiction much, preferring fantasy,
but enjoy Cook's SF work very much.

- -----Original Message-----
From: PrimalChrome [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 9:05 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Trilogy....


Good breakdown.  Now for the kicker....  How do you classify The Black
Company and the Books of the South?  Based on your breakdown I would think
Series would fit the best, but I'm curious as to your viewpoint.



- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Dutton" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Trilogy....


> As for series/related novels, I tend to classify them as follows...
>
> - Multivolume novels.  Pretty much have to be read in sequence.  Follow a
> direct storyline from one to the other with no significant gaps in the
> narrative.  Examples are the Fat Fantasy genre and its SF equivalents.
> - Sequel(s).  Stories which build from one to the other, where reading
them in
> order may be advantageous but is not essential.  Characters usually carry
over,
> but the main individual storyline often differs.  Think Garrett.
> - 'One universe' Series.  Stories related by being set in the same
> background/'universe'; individual stories may have little to no crossover
of
> plot or characters with the other novels.
>
> Some series, for example Discworld, are 'one universe' series that have
sequel
> series [Witches, Guards, Rincewind] within them.  Others [The Eternal
Champion]
> have multivolume novels within the shared universe.
>
> This doesn't include marketing-driven variations such as the 'crossover
series'.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
> http://auctions.yahoo.com
>
> =======================================================================
>  To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
>  visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.
>


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:09:55 -0600
From: "Horky, Roger" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: (glencook-fans) trilogies III

You express displeasure at my unitary narrative broken up into three
parts--so do I. We are in agreement. Just thought I'd create  an extreme
example to demonstrate precisely WHY they're so annoying. Thank you for
demonstrating my point.

- -----Original Message-----
From: PrimalChrome [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 9:01 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) trilogies III


This is a childish comparison as you well know.  Please keep such bullshit
posts to your Harry Potter mailing list.


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Horky, Roger" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 8:36 AM
Subject: (glencook-fans) trilogies III


> Those of you in the 'one stories, three parts' school will no doubt see
> nothing unusual in this message; to those of you who, like me, want each
> work to stand alone,   I apologise.



=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

------------------------------

End of glencook-fans-digest V1 #163
***********************************

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.