Gaertk at aol.com Gaertk at aol.com
Tue Mar 25 17:27:01 PST 2003

pddb at demesne.com writes:

> Gaertk at aol.com wrote:
>> pddb at demesne.com writes:
> [snip, I hope not too far]
>> Hmm, I'm not sure we're understanding each other.  (Or 
>> maybe I need to reread the books.)
> I did just reread them (I'm writing a Liavek novel, a day
> late and a dollar short as usual), so perhaps I have an
> advantage.

Yeah, I really should reread, and I'm been meaning to, but...
there are a couple stories I won't reread (definately the 
ones by Longyear and Moore, though for nearly opposite 
reasons), and there are some I really don't know if I want to
reread (I have *seriously* mixed feelings about Ford's
stories).  I will certainly reread the ones by Scribblies.

>> My opinion is that the series should have stopped at book 
>> 4.  At that point, everything that needed wrapping up was. 
>> Then book 5 tried to add on, and it seemed that the 
>> authors tried to surprise the readers, and in so doing, 
>> damaged their characters.
> I can't, of course, argue that this is how it seemed to 
> you.  However, that is really not the way writing it felt. 
> What we did have was a pause for reflection, and to 
> consider the implications of what we had written, and 
> whether to bring them out or deepen them or bring 
> ambiguities or hidden assumptions or logical conclusions 
> not yet detailed, to the fore.

I don't mind characters changing, but authors need to decide
before the second story whether a given character will 
change.  Dashif and the kids in Liavek clearly were intended
to change, but I expected most eveyone else to stay the same.
And my biggest gripe is that these changes happened when I 
wasn't looking.  Yes, being restricted to short stories 
doesn't give you much choice, but it still doesn't seem fair.

>> _Liavek: Festival Week_ spoilers:
>> S
>> P
>> O
>> I
>> L
>> E
>> R
>> S
>> [I'm picking on Pamela solely because she responded; I've 
>> a much bigger gripe with Shetterly's story.]
> I adored that story.  I think it follows very logically the
> implications of The Magician's life and flaws, and takes up
> issues raised in, for example, Ford's "Riding the Hammer"
> in Volume IV.  This discussion is reminding me of many I 
> had after TECKLA was published, oddly enough.

I can see that; I'd probably have a similar reaction if I
couldn't read anything written after _Teckla_.  But that's
another point: Brust could (and did) write more to show how
those changes were logical, reasonable, and (in the long run)
good for Vlad.  Even the novel you're writing can't do much, because you killed your character.

>> I just can't imagine Dialos killing himself like this. 
>> This is his idea of acting responsibly?  Yes, he's making 
>> a point, but look at the cost, especially to Nerissa.
> The effect to Nerissa is exactly what was intended.  She's
> ready to take up her life.  She has to live anyway, you 
> know, because of the cat, and now she has a means to do so, 
> outside the stressful orbit of her family. 

Umm, he faked his own bloody murder to make things less 
stressful for her?  And how much of this would not be
accomplished through his originally intended death, the one
he described in the note to the Guard Captain?