home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
ftp.xmission.com
/
2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar
/
ftp.xmission.com
/
pub
/
lists
/
glencook-fans
/
archive
/
v01.n279
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
2004-02-27
|
5KB
From: owner-glencook-fans-digest@lists.xmission.com (glencook-fans-digest)
To: glencook-fans-digest@lists.xmission.com
Subject: glencook-fans-digest V1 #279
Reply-To: glencook-fans-digest
Sender: owner-glencook-fans-digest@lists.xmission.com
Errors-To: owner-glencook-fans-digest@lists.xmission.com
Precedence: bulk
glencook-fans-digest Saturday, February 28 2004 Volume 01 : Number 279
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:00:47 -0600
From: David Ainsworth <dbainswo@students.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Another thought
At 11:56 PM 2/26/2004 -0400, Richard Chilton wrote:
>I hate to break people into two groups, but there are different styles
>of writing fantasy. One is to write the story and ignore the backstory
>while the other is to have thousands of notes the public will never
>see. Tolkien's Middle Earth, Rowling's Harry Potter - both these have
>countless little details that the readers never see.
>Cook isn't someone who builds a huge world with countless details - he
>writes the story. I'm basing this on his response to the "Which were
>the female Taken" question.
Basically true, I think, and he does very well at it. Personally, I find
it adds a sense of realism of a different but related order to the realism
"feel" of the "major backstory" texts.
Most of us could name dozens of cities we've heard mentioned but know
basically nothing about. Life is full of casual unknowns which we simply
accept and move on. People tend to adapt, grow accustomed, and then take
things for granted. Or they have lots of legends which bear little or no
resemblence to actual events. And most of the time, people aren't very
coherent when referencing such things.
That said, Cook does manage a bunch of details quite well, though I'd
concur that over the decades it took him to write the BC series many of
those details blurred or realigned.
I also suspect he does what I think most great writers do--he adapts his
plans to the direction the story leads him. Something he himself may not
have planned to be important can suddenly become vital, and that's OK with him.
Interesting to compare with writers like David Eddings, though...
David
=======================================================================
To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 12:45:10 -0500
From: Mike H. <welly.rook@verizon.net>
Subject: (glencook-fans) Soulcatcher's name
I believe that Rich is absolutely correct about the name of Soulcatcher. His
explanation makes perfect sense.
To summarize it: the Dominator undeniably knew Soulcatcher's true name. But he
did not know the name of the Lady, which is why he guessed Ardath, then Sylith.
For these reasons, Soulcatcher's name cannot be any of those two. That narrows
it down to Credence and Dorotea.
The Lady turned out to be Dorotea. ...It's really is a no-brainer at this
point. Soulcatcher must be Credence. And to cement this theory into a "law",
recall the scene where the Limper tried to name the Lady as Credence, and
failed.
- -Welly
=======================================================================
To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:02:15 -0400
From: Richard Chilton <rchilton@auracom.com>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Soulcatcher's name
You know, I think this might be a good thing to add to the FAQ. OK, it
hasn't been asked often, but it will save time researching Soulcatcher's
name the next time it is asked.
Richard
"Mike H." wrote:
>
> I believe that Rich is absolutely correct about the name of Soulcatcher. His
> explanation makes perfect sense.
>
> To summarize it: the Dominator undeniably knew Soulcatcher's true name. But he
> did not know the name of the Lady, which is why he guessed Ardath, then Sylith.
> For these reasons, Soulcatcher's name cannot be any of those two. That narrows
> it down to Credence and Dorotea.
>
> The Lady turned out to be Dorotea. ...It's really is a no-brainer at this
> point. Soulcatcher must be Credence. And to cement this theory into a "law",
> recall the scene where the Limper tried to name the Lady as Credence, and
> failed.
>
> -Welly
>
> =======================================================================
> 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 #279
***********************************
=======================================================================
To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.