Dragaera

book by its

Tue Oct 7 16:27:48 PDT 2003


On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Chris Olson - SunPS wrote:

> Philip Hart wrote:
> > I'm not making my point very clearly.  Once again - aren't the big buyers
> > aware that this is book 3 of a trilogy or book 5 really or book 17
> > perhaps?  Won't they be much more concerned with sales of books 1&2 and
> > SKZB's track record?  And isn't any residual concern with the packaging
> > connected to the behaviour of individual purchasers, who I imagine will
> > definitely buy the book upon seeing "Brust" on the cover if they read 1&2
> > but not otherwise.  Certainly this cover wouldn't have moved me to buy the
> > third book of a trilogy at random - the only cover art that might have
> > done so was that of Heinlein's _Friday_ back when I was 13.
>
> It may seem like your theory would be the case, but if
> it were, we would never see trilogies in print, much less
> a series.  Unless they reprinted books 1&2 along with 3.

What?  I'm saying book 3 buyers are already hooked.  Also I imagine when
book n comes out book n-1 gets pushed too.  As with the LoTR movies - this
xmas they're showing all three.



>
> In the case of Brust's books, the idea rarely applies.
> One could pick up any of the Vlad books and read it, without ever
> having read the others, and not get lost.

One wouldn't be lost, but a lot of the pleasure would be lost.  I think
_Taltos_, _Athyra_, _Orca_, _Phoenix_, etc would have been much less
likely to hook me than the earlier novels, and might have left me with an
"ehh, maybe I'll try some Yolen or Dean now" feeling.  Not to imply I
don't enjoy the later Vladiad as much as the beginning, I just think the
later work dispenses with some of the short-term rewards needed as hooks
to start series.


> Granted, if a Brust-Fan-to-be picked up _Lord of Castle Black_, they
> might not have all of the information they *could* have if they'd have
> read _Viscount_, but thanks to the invention of the "literary summary"
> now found in many multi-volume works (for which, I think, Paarfi
> deserves sycophantic applause for the handling of *his* summary in
> _LoCB_:), it's often not required to have read the prior volume.


As an aside or an analogue or a contrast, my brother gave me Zindell's
_The War in Heaven_ a while back.  Lots of good blurbage - but it's #4
(or #3, depending on POV).  I picked up a copy of _Neverness_ (#1) and
found it to be a very strong first novel.  Having a sense that the
material was played out, I started lightly reading _TWiH_ to get a feel
for the shape of the series, and found that it begins with a lengthy recap
(a la the council of Elrond) of books 2&3, to the extent that I would have
been very annoyed if I'd read the earlier volumes.  In fact the book
continues as a less-interesting rehash of the _Neverness_ material, and
the main character has the most infuriating speaking style since, oh,
Thomas Covenant.  _Neverness_ however is well worth reading.