Dragaera

basic question about SKZB's approach to form

Mon Feb 23 15:30:38 PST 2004




> So it seems to me that my other favorite SF/F novelists (Wolfe, John M
> Ford, Willis, Swanwick, Beagle, Tolkien, Zelazny) have significant short
> story oeuvres.  I thought John Crowley (H. Bloom: "only Philip Roth
> consistently writes on Crowley's level") was an exception, perhaps because
> _Novelties_ left no impression on me, but he's coming out with his third
> collection of shorter works this year (and Ford and Wolfe have collections
> on the way soon).  So why is it that SKZB has so few short works?

not sure, i know other authors (george rr martin, for example) started doing
only short stories, and some so short they didn't even qualify as that.
martin was asked why his little novellas graduated to the point where his
*first* book in the fire and ice series was longer than the entire lord of
the rings trilogy, and he said (very close to a quote, can't remember
exact), i don't know, they just seemed to write themselves that way.

imho (very very very humble, extremely humble-- go with your strengths, mom
said), mr. brust seems to have such fun developing 'character' in his
characters, and enjoys telling a story SO much, that doing shorts just
doesn't float his boat.  he needs a bigger tale to tell to get what he feels
the story is.

of course, i'm most likely wrong, but i'll be wrong in a pararectal way!

andy