Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

Curious if you... posted 07 February 2004 in Author Q & ACurious if you... by DrBloodmoney1, Commoner

... saw this yet. Congratulations!!

DrB

[url=http://www.locusmag.com/2004/Issues/02RecommendedReading.html:2ngrlr8x]Locus[/url:2ngrlr8x] view post


Curious if you... posted 07 February 2004 in Author Q & ACurious if you... by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

A couple of days back - thank you Dr.B! Totally unexpected, particularly since the only real negative review I received for TDTCB was from Locus (back last August). Second thoughts, perhaps? Or maybe a second read. I've always thought t myself that I wrote TDTCB to be read twice... view post


Curious if you... posted 07 February 2004 in Author Q & ACurious if you... by Mithfânion, Didact

Alternatively, this book has had a lot of buzz on certain Fantasy forums. In case Locus actually gave it a bad review a few months ago, they may have yielded to the overwhelming amount of positive reviews by many readers, and listed it here. If they had wanted to fully endorse the book they could have listed it in the "Best Fantasy" category as well.

Not that I want to dampen any enthusiasm btw <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) --> view post


Curious if you... posted 07 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

When the galleys of TDTCB first came out, Penguin made a mistake and double shipped the box they were supposed to give me, so, hat in hand, I went on a web safari searching for interested reviewers, several of whom emailed me back to say they 'don't do High Fantasy,' or even worse, that if I sent them TDTCB that I should brace myself because they hated the subgenre. Despite my oh-so witty 'don't judge a book by its genre' reply, this pretty much convinced me (as the insecure author I still am) that I was going to be murdered when it came to reviews because of some kind of Jordan or Goodkind backlash. I just assumed this was the case with Locus. I'm glad to be mistaken! and I wouldn't be suprised if the MB 'buzz' played a hand.

It's strange the way the dialectic of popularity and scarcity plays itself out in all the different media. Radio, film, television, literature: you see the formation of the same kinds of cliques - from mainstream mania to iconoclastic chic. I'm amazed, for instance, by how many people suddenly seem to have a hate on for tLotR. I've heard everything from the standard 'PC checklist' complaints to the 'trials and tribulations of a band of lawn ornaments.' Outright dismissals always make me suspicious... view post


Curious if you... posted 08 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by Mithfânion, Didact

I'm amazed, for instance, by how many people suddenly seem to have a hate on for tLotR.

It's the popularity, as you say. Some people seem to have an automatically negative response to things that quickly become popular. As an Orthodox Tolkienite ( <!-- s:oops: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_redface.gif" alt=":oops:" title="Embarassed" /><!-- s:oops: --> ) I can't say I'm too pleased with all the LoTR marketing and publicizing either, all coming forth from the dreaded New Line Hype Machine (LoTR dolls, cups, spoons, plates, action figures, medallions and perhaps worst of all, fake The One Rings), but I don't see why I should dislike the original for it.

But that happens often. Something becomes big with the masses and there are always people who will want to distinguish themselves by immediately assuming their contrarian opinions. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many of the sudden LoTR-naysayers hadn't even read the book (though I can see why they would dislike the films after having seen them). view post


Curious if you... posted 09 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

I think the films should be taken separately from the books as tributes to the books. They should not be mistaken for replacements for the books or even good summaries, but as an artistic work inspired by the books and with a merit apart from their connection. view post


Curious if you... posted 09 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by DrBloodmoney1, Commoner

That was me before btw.

I agree with Locus maybe being influenced by the amount of support for TDTCB on the MB's. That's certainly where I heard about it. On the small number of boards that I visit, there are a handful of very well-read fantasy fans whose opinion I trust very much. A few of them have very similar tastes to me. One of them is Fitz (Rob) a moderator over at SFF world. He's who I heard about it first from, so he gets the credit.

I trust the opinions of them much more so than I would the critics, even at Locus.

I find it appalling that the literati have so much prejudice against fantasy. Especially when there is so much to be found in it besides Tolkien-clones, Jordan, and Goodkind.

As for the LOTR controversy: I have five very well-worn sets of LOTR on my shelves for more or less my whole life. I find a certain justification in the mass-approval. Now if only every person who saw the films and liked them decided to read the books. Then went and picked up another fantasy book. Then we'd be getting somewhere.

DrB view post


Curious if you... posted 09 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

What do you guys think of the way the Penguin edition 'blurs' Tolkien? You know, with the script on the covers, the maps (which my editor asked me to make 'Tolkienesque'), even the over-the-top blurb on the back, suggesting that TCTCB 'out-Tolkiens Tolkien' (as if such a thing were possible). It's something I'm still uncomfortable with, even though I don't think it necessarily counts as 'deceptive advertising.' view post


Curious if you... posted 09 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by Mithfânion, Didact

As I must have said before, I think the design is just tres cool. I simply don't exaggerate when I say that in terms of feel and design this is the best Fantasy book I own (and I own many). The script in particular is very nice. I have two editions of the LoTR, one of them is my favorite of all the many editions and has the Gandalf cover (of him arriving at Hobbiton, drawn by Howe), but even that doesn't rival TDTCB.

Having said that, I dislike quotes like the one you mentioned (out-Tolkiening Tolkien being pretty poor). I realize the boasting is all part of the marketing and books need to have some blurbs, but perhaps it's better not to reference to other authors and instead comment on the book's genre strengths. view post


Curious if you... posted 09 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by banditski, Candidate

yeah, i agree... it's one thing for a bunch of schmucks like us here to compare darkness to lotr, but it's quite another for the publisher to do it. i would think that it is just setting the reader up to look for faults with it - ie. reasons why it doesn't out-tolkien tolkien.

you can easily say many great things about darkness. i think it's a little cheesy to try to suck people in with such a loaded statement as that.

and to say "me too" again, i love the cover and the feel of the book. i have little to no trouble with the 'elvin script' on the cover. paying homage (if that is indeed the intent) is a far cry from a direct comparison.

all this being said, i think the book is strong enough by itself that i wouldn't think that a blurb like that will make *or* break the book. i just think it's a bit cheap and unnecessary. of course in this time of lotr mania, i suppose it's hard to resist...

*after* writing this, i decided to read what exactly was on the book. <!-- s:wink: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=":wink:" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: --> i see that the quote in question isn't from penguin, but from a third party. i guess this lessens the cheese a little, but i'd still say it's not needed. of course, i know nothing about publishing books, so.... view post


Curious if you... posted 09 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

If only there was a clear way to distinguish an homage from a knock-off. It's just one of many distinctions that marketers are making meaningless.

But that's the rub, I guess. Without revealing my bias, I recently polled my pop culture class asking them which cover they preferred, the S&amp;S or the Penguin one. To my surprise, they favoured the S&amp;S cover by an easy 2-1 margin - pretty much the opposite of what I expected! (There won't be too many people passing that course... <!-- s:wink: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=":wink:" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: --> )

I guess there's a good reason why they don't give authors much say when it comes to covers. We don't know squat when it comes to the 'buying public.' view post


Curious if you... posted 09 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

Is there anywhere we can see the S&amp;S cover? view post


Curious if you... posted 10 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by Wil, Head Moderator

I think it's the one on amazon.co.uk, but I may be wrong view post


Curious if you... posted 10 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by LooseCannon, Peralogue

I find it interesting that so many chose the S&amp;S cover yet the clear choice from all the people I've seen online is the Penguin cover.

Anyway, the first thing I usually do when I'm looking at a book in a store is to see if there is a map of the world. The moment I saw yours I thought 'hey, this looks like the map of Middle Earth from Tolkien's work'. But I thought that in a good way <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) -->. It comes across as familar by the way it is drawn and also, to me, made Earwa more credible because I was comparing it to such an amazingly realized world.

Funny how you mentioned the Tolkien quote on the back there, I didn't even notice that. I remember when I first picked up Jordan's Eye of the World off a library shelf about ten years ago I read that blurb on the front about Jordan being the next Tolkien. It seems like every new, promising fantasy book these days gets that same Tolkien comparison placed on the cover. I have to admit that it is a good marketing tool as it made me interested in Jordan's series which I knew nothing about at the time. However, the Steven Erikson quote is what made me buy your book. And he didn't let me down I might add <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) -->. view post


Curious if you... posted 10 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by banditski, Candidate

Quote: &quot;Sovin Nai&quot;:q1r9qot8
Is there anywhere we can see the S&amp;S cover?[/quote:q1r9qot8]

yeah, right [url=http&#58;//images-eu&#46;amazon&#46;com/images/P/0743256689&#46;02&#46;LZZZZZZZ&#46;jpg:q1r9qot8]here[/url:q1r9qot8].

and the canadian one is way better, but the british one is pretty okay too. view post


Curious if you... posted 10 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I think that's because Overlook (my US publisher) is a class act.

In the marketing discussions I've been privy to, the emphasis has been on marketing PoN as 'upscale,' as something that readily identifies itself as genre fiction with a literary bent. I think my marketing argument (which is that there's many, many readers out there (people like me!) who love the 'epic form,' but have become disenchanted with the sanitized, almost Y&amp;A content of some fantasies) has had some impact on the choices that have been made so far. Epic fantasy need not be something many readers 'outgrow.'

But then I always overestimate the impact of my arguments! Makes me feel rational... view post


Curious if you... posted 10 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by Mithfânion, Didact

In the marketing discussions I've been privy to, the emphasis has been on marketing PoN as 'upscale,' as something that readily identifies itself as genre fiction with a literary bent.

A correct assessment from the publisher I think.

I also agree that much of Epic Fantasy's ridicule comes from the sanitized content which makes even hardcore fans of Epic High Fantasy squirm and stutter. Authors who are able to step away from the extremely formulaic story and are able to provide a grittier story while still maintaining fantastic elements and a vast sense of wonder have the future imo (so as not the make the story simply bleak). I don't think Tolkienesque Fantasy needs to be abandoned (as New Weird writers like Mieville, Vandermeer, Ford, Cockayne etc do), but it needs to change. view post


Curious if you... posted 10 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I agree entirely, though I took quite a thrashing for suggesting as much on a Talkback forum some time ago - by none other than M. John Harrison, no less!

Some seem to think that novelty and artistic merit consists in overturning conventions. The problem is that such moves tend to only be interesting once. I'm much more intrigued by the notion of making old machines do new things, to put preexisting conventions through their paces to see what they can do, and more importantly, what they mean. This is especially true of those conventions (like epic fantasy) that arise out of unreflective culture. Think of the popularity of the genre! It's obviously touching something very deep. And yet for so many literati, the question 'Why do people read that drivel?' is rhetorical, the implication being that people are morons (in comparison to themselves)...

This is probably a horrible over-generalization, but fantasy, it seems to me, is presently caught between two different Orthodoxies, one which defines itself by it's continuity with the past, another which defines itself by its dismissive opposition to the past (all the while claiming to be open and heterodox). Outright dismissal of the old is too easy - and far too flattering - to be trusted. It smacks of fashion.

I dunno. Maybe I'm just feeling defensive. No one wants to be a moron. view post


Curious if you... posted 10 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by Mithfânion, Didact

I agree entirely, though I took quite a thrashing for suggesting as much on a Talkback forum some time ago - by none other than M. John Harrison, no less!

An M. John Harrison btw, whose dreary Urban Fantasy/New Weird books I find utterly uncompelling.

I'll just say that I am not at all surprised you would find yourself at odds with him. He is one of the prime writers of the New Weird style and that category dismisses quite a lot which you yourself seem to like. These are precisely the people who are entertaining themselves with being different, changing for the sake of change. It is no surprise to me that writers such as Harrison and China Mieville are dismissive of Tolkienesque Fantasy, it is precisely what they are trying to get away from. Ever heard Mieville go off on Tolkien? He really can't stand him, there are two or three "essays" of his on Tolkien, here's a snippet I dug up through Google:

"Tolkien is the wen on the arse of fantasy literature. His oeuvre is massive and contagious - you can't ignore it, so don't even try. The best you can do is consciously try to lance the boil. And there's a lot to dislike - his cod-Wagnerian pomposity, his boys-own-adventure glorying in war, his small-minded and reactionary love for hierarchical status-quos, his belief in absolute morality that blurs moral and political complexity. Tolkien's clichés - elves 'n' dwarfs 'n' magic rings - have spread like viruses. He wrote that the function of fantasy was 'consolation', thereby making it an article of policy that a fantasy writer should mollycoddle the reader..............Tolkien’s worldview was resolutely rural, petty bourgeois, conservative, anti-modernist, misanthropically Christian and anti-intellectual."

Of course, his political views are diametrically opposed to Tolkiens, which has everything to do with it.

Personally I really dislike the Urban Fantasy stuff they write. Why? Because it endeavours to be grotesque, to be bizarre, and everything is so horribly blurry, instead of inspiring a sense of true etherealness. The world feels dreamish, sometimes even having different blurry planes about which nothing at all is explained, perhaps even entered by whimsical magic mirrors and portals. It's translucent. I like decent worldbuilding with proper detailed and vast history, a world which takes me back to a different time. Also magic never works for me in Urban Fantasy. And I have yet to read a more overwritten book than Mervyn Peake's ghastly Gormenghast.

Anyway, I think that it is correct to say that Fantasy has arrived at something of a crossroads, perhaps it's even passed and made it's decision. There are those who will continue writing Tolkien clones, there are those who will try to re-invent Epich High Fantasy within the established context and there are those who will veer off into entirely different directions. view post


Curious if you... posted 11 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

See. This is where I hang my head in shame. I haven't even read any Urban Fantasy... I came out of years and years of full-on school where all I read was primary texts into full-on teaching and writing. I'm horribly under-read (in both senses!). One of the things I've been trying to understand is the lay of the land.

Tolkien-trashing, though, I'll never understand. CM's list seems to apply to lots of literature it would be obviously absurd to dismiss. Certainly Tolkien is a throwback in many ways, but that's the very thing that makes him so damn interesting - and almost mesmerizing to some (which is probably partly what troubles CM). Look at Middle-earth: it's a condensation of the fantasy world so many live in, and a photographic negative of our times, a shadow existence for all those values (good and bad) that industrial life has rendered irrelevant. view post


Curious if you... posted 11 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by Fade, Commoner

I don't have much of an opinion about Tolkien, because I never bothered to read all the books. I think Harrison is overeacting at Tolkien. It's like hatemail how he wrote about the books. It's a little difficult to take him serious like this.

Quote: &quot;Mithfânion&quot;:3h7v4jnn
The world feels dreamish, sometimes even having different blurry planes about which nothing at all is explained, perhaps even entered by whimsical magic mirrors and portals. It's translucent.[/quote:3h7v4jnn] I haven't read any fantasy that I was like that (or perhaps I am easy satisfied..?). Not everything has to be described thorough or explained. In real life you can't come up with a explantion for everything either. Also, fantasy is fantasy. The degree of realism may vary and because it is fantasy, there is a license to give your imagination a free run without giving everything s scientific reason. That would break off the story and the fantasy feeling. If I got you wrong, my apology.

I like decent worldbuilding with proper detailed and vast history, a world which takes me back to a different time. Also magic never works for me in Urban Fantasy.
A large amount of history is not needed in my opinion, unless it does the story good. I can find it sometimes tedious to read pages of history, when if you don't read it, it wouldn't make much of a difference. I do like description though. It shouldn't always be to descriptive, but it does help to get into the story and world the author created.

Magic.. Hmm. I don't mind magic..But I think I prefer fantasy with a limited amount of magic, or practical none. Magic is often done to easy. The characters don't seem to have any problem with it, don't get tired, not any side effect and can do all amazing things with keen control. That is too much, it's beyond realism, if you want your book to have a degree of realism within the fantasy world.

And I have yet to read a more overwritten book than Mervyn Peake's ghastly Gormenghast.
I never got complete understanding why it was considered as a classic and masterpiece. It isn't very bad, but it is long and for me a bit of a drag. If you like the writing style, not much of a plot and to follow the characters for years as a hidden camera inside their heads, these are your books. Fuschia and Steerpike were pretty much the only characters that interested me. It did not had the "I want to keep reading to see what happens" value to me. But the third book should never been written. That was the book of "psychologic crisis, the trip of a mental confused teenager".

Just my opinion on things. May sound a little vague, but my mind is foggy. view post


Curious if you... posted 11 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by Mithfânion, Didact



Well you're talking about the magic in Dungeons &amp; Dragons games and novels. I don't like that either, for a variety of reasons. Having said that, unlike you I prefer High Fantasy with greater amounts of magic to low amounts, for instance I prefer the use of magic in Steven Erikson's books to George RR Martin's.

I see what you mean about magic going overboard, but I think that the problem doesn't lie with large amounts of magic but rather with not showing the consquences of such abilities in a realistic manner. When you *do* show that, large amounts of magic are all the more impressive for it.

It's the same with fighters in for instance the RA Salvatore Forgotten Realms novels or Martial arts films in which warriors take twenty blows to the head and two knives in their chest and still don't go down.



view post


Curious if you... posted 11 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by LooseCannon, Peralogue

I have read Mieville's Perdido Street Station and the Scar and must say I quite enjoyed both. I like tasting different flavours of fantasy writing and Mieville is definitely at the top of the so-called Speculative Fantasy genre. I believe he is a self-proclaimed socialist and a lot of that reflects in his writing, but if the reader decides to ignore it you can easily enjoy his stories (well, at least I can). His comments on Tolkien are nothing more than a rant. When I read Tolkien I don't sit back and think "gee, this guy is ultra-conservative", I think "wow, what a great world and storyline he has created". Mieville is too political sometimes I think. view post


Curious if you... posted 11 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by DrBloodmoney1, Commoner

That was me again. I always forget to sign in to the board before I post. view post


Curious if you... posted 11 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by Mithfânion, Didact

As far as Urban fantasy with more magical/mystical elements, I like de Lint for that

Can you give any examples? I've encountered him a couple of times but the combination of him writing Urban Fantasy and the fact that he only writes books with a signifcantly female-dominated cast have put me off sofar. view post


Curious if you... posted 11 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

de Lint is also someone high on my to read list, just below Meiville, in fact. I typically have problems with so-called post-modern works (and from what I've heard of the New Weird, it sounds like it self-consciously adopts many old po-mo saws) because of all the po-mo reading I had to do for my English degree way back when. I was a Branch Derridean (note, not 'Davidian') for a time, but became quickly disaffected once it started striking me as a technique for never having to say you were wrong (and when I started studying philosophy as opposed to literary criticism). All these notions of the carnivalesque, ontologically subversive doubling, the 'decentred self,' aesthetics of fragmentation, and so on, just strike me as trite. They MAY seem new within the confines of the SFF genre, but they're not.

What you say about the TTA forum is true, Dr.B - but that's one of the reasons I was excited about it, being the institutionalized academic I am. I'm still scratching my head over the whole episode. At one point, I was actually taken to task for using the term 'sci-fi' (the implication being that I was being intentionally insulting (?)). It started with obvious misreadings of my points: anyone can knockdown a cartoon of another's views. When I brought up the principle of charity (which states that you give your opponent's arguments the kindest interpretation possible, so that when you knock them down, you really knock them down) I was accused of trying to manipulate everyone's interpretations (!!). Then things just deteriorated into character attacks - despite my continual apologizing for possible misunderstandings. I hung on for a bit, then just gave up. I realize now that they just wanted me the hell off their board. I'm sure it's up there still for anyone to check out - an epic fantasy thread in Claude Lalumiere's forum, I think. Who know's, maybe I was the ass...

That was my experience with the proponents of the New Weird. Defensiveness like that's gotta make you wonder (I sometimes think I freaked them out because they don't often run into people who have a strong grasp of their assumptions (which I have because I was a 'postie' once myself)). Even still, I can't really say anything about the movement until I actually read the stuff.

And as for politics - I've been called a 'commie' in my day. I just think turning what's called 'ideological critique' into aesthetic critique, or using politics as THE yardstick for art, throws far too much wheat out with the chaff. And I think that if I pressed CM on this issue, he would likely agree. Are TS Eliot and Ezra Pound goiters on the ass of poetry because of their political views? Of course not. Making plain ideological assumptions is a TOOL of criticism, nothing more. Only a dogmatist would make it the point.

There's so much that JRRT does that is so damn interesting. Any work that can move so many, not simply to delight, but to a sense of AWE, is more than simply significant. I really think he's the Mallory of our age. view post


Curious if you... posted 11 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by DrBloodmoney1, Commoner

Since I tend to be very much apolitical, I wasn't passing judgement on Mieville. Just making an observation that he aligns himself with a particular ideology.

de Lint's writing is largely urban fantasy (although Subterranean is releasing some his early stories which have a epic fantasy setting) but much different from Harrison or Ford. He does write female characters very well, and seems to populate his books with strong female characters and heroines. I don't find that this bothers me, because he is a great storyteller. He definetly places magical elements and the characters usually possess some type of power, as opposed to Harrison or Ford who usually rely on the mysterious qualities of the situation or setting to give their stories the 'magical' feel.

If you aren't a big short-story reader, a good introduction to de Lint would be Moonheart, which was one his earliest successes and is a novel. It's pretty good and it is separate from his major setting, Newford. Newford is a fictional city that he places a lot of his later stories in, and the majority of his work that you can find in-print deals with it.

DrB view post


Curious if you... posted 11 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by Mithfânion, Didact

All these notions of the carnivalesque, ontologically subversive doubling, the 'decentred self,' aesthetics of fragmentation, and so on, just strike me as trite.

I must admit, you've finally lost me there <!-- s:? --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_confused.gif" alt=":?" title="Confused" /><!-- s:? --> view post


Curious if you... posted 11 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Moonheart is on the list! Thanks Dr.B.

And please forgive the theory-speak, Mith. They're just a bunch of philosophically motivated tropes common to much po-mo writing. You know how when it comes to fixing, say, historical periods you can pretty much interpret a break or a continuity anywhere (which is why periodization and classification debates are never-ending)? Poststructuralist philosophers and postmodernist writers pretty much do the same: they read discontinuities where the tradition assumes continuities, only in things like selfhood, story, and so on.

The tradition assumes a 'unified self' so 'oh ho!' we must dismantle that... You end up with bizarre, disjointed characters without a consistent motivational frame, and dreamlike, disjointed worlds, governed by the 'logic of desire' or some such, continually calling attention to their 'constructedness,' and so on. These things can be interesting when they're not employed for their own sake (they're too formal (which is why they become formulaic so fast)), or for the sake of scoring worn out philosophical points.

Now admittedly I explore a few similar things in my writing, but certainly not for their own sake, and through the lense of ancient concepts of selfhood, story, and so on. I like to think I have a point - now if I can just figure out what it is!

Jeez, I can really tell I've finished the book! It's like I MUST keep writing or something... view post


Curious if you... posted 12 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; ACurious if you... by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

By all means, feel free to do it here!

I am actually quite invigorated and intllectually interested with these discussions, it is a rare opportunity to "chat" with such a studied person.

What exactly is the TTY forum? view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown