On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 6:06:41 AM UTC+11, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:snip
[Hal Heydt]
Graydon Saunders, in his _Commonweal_ books, is good at that sort
of world building.
I tried to get into those, mostly because they were recommended by others here, including Dorothy. Not for me.
On 29/01/24 10:18, Moriarty wrote:
On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 6:06:41 AM UTC+11, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:snip
[Hal Heydt]
Graydon Saunders, in his _Commonweal_ books, is good at that sort
of world building.
I tried to get into those, mostly because they were recommended by others here, including Dorothy. Not for me.
I read them for the same reason but stopped after the first three books. Whilst the world building was original and weirder than most, my
interest waned with the continuing difficulty in figuring out the
environment and what was happening due to the assumption of the author
that his reader would be from his galaxy rather than Earth's. This
became my main purpose in reading as success was rewarding sometimes in moments approaching epiphany. But I was not amused by the ridiculous appearances of some entities as Dorothy was and formed no interest in characters. However I would definitely recommend reading the first book
if only for the novelty and, to me, originality of Saunders world
building. You will soon know if you will like it or not.
I persevered because of the positive discussions here but book three was
a struggle to finish.
It's OK. I'm an atheist catholic.- deKay and Gareth Halfacree, ugvm
So you just feel guilty for /no readily apparent reason/.
Hm. I generally recommend them to people with "read 2 and 3 first, then
go back to 1 now you have a grounding in how the world actually works,
then 4+". I found 1 to be extremely difficult to parse for basic world >building, took me three tries to get into it as I read them in order
first time.
In article <l1pkh7F2bdU1@mid.individual.net>,
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
Hm. I generally recommend them to people with "read 2 and 3 first, then
go back to 1 now you have a grounding in how the world actually works,
then 4+". I found 1 to be extremely difficult to parse for basic world
building, took me three tries to get into it as I read them in order
first time.
I *love* these books and I will freely admit that nearly all of the criticisms are, if not entirely valid, at least justifiable. THE
MARCH NORTH took me two or three tries to get into as well, but by the
end of book three (which is my personal favorite of the bunch) it was
clear that Saunders didn't have everything settled in his mind when he started, and there were some large holes that were left that don't
quite fit the later books' kit of pegs. But what first-time author
can say otherwise?
They're definitely not for everyone; these books are more about
exploring a theory of social organization than they are about Our
Plucky Heroes Joining Forces to Defeat the Big Bad or insert your
favorite fantasy tropes here. That Saunders finds a way to do this
that's not didactic -- indeed, that is positively entertaining -- is a triumph. But it's reasonable to argue that in avoiding didacticism he
may have leaned too far into "readers are geniuses".
On 29/01/24 10:18, Moriarty wrote:
On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 6:06:41 AM UTC+11, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:snip
[Hal Heydt]
Graydon Saunders, in his _Commonweal_ books, is good at that sort
of world building.
I tried to get into those, mostly because they were recommended by others here, including Dorothy. Not for me.
I read them for the same reason but stopped after the first three books.
Whilst the world building was original and weirder than most, my
interest waned with the continuing difficulty in figuring out the
environment and what was happening due to the assumption of the author
that his reader would be from his galaxy rather than Earth's.
This
became my main purpose in reading as success was rewarding sometimes in moments approaching epiphany. But I was not amused by the ridiculous appearances of some entities as Dorothy was and formed no interest in characters.
However I would definitely recommend reading the first book
if only for the novelty and, to me, originality of Saunders world
building. You will soon know if you will like it or not.
I persevered because of the positive discussions here but book three was
a struggle to finish.
On 1/28/2024 21:13, Titus G wrote:
On 29/01/24 10:18, Moriarty wrote:
On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 6:06:41 AM UTC+11, Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >> snip
[Hal Heydt]
Graydon Saunders, in his _Commonweal_ books, is good at that sort
of world building.
I tried to get into those, mostly because they were recommended by
others here, including Dorothy. Not for me.
I read them for the same reason but stopped after the first three books.
I knew Graydon, and tracked them down when I heard (not so promptly)
that they existed.
And dived in and have loved them. They went instantly on the heavy
re-read loop (which I do way too much of).
Whilst the world building was original and weirder than most, my
interest waned with the continuing difficulty in figuring out the
environment and what was happening due to the assumption of the author
that his reader would be from his galaxy rather than Earth's.
Original and weirder than most is entirely fair, yeah.
But I never had any trouble figuring out the environment. I mean, I
don't actually know whether that's a far-future Earth, or an unrelated
planet (or, in between, I suppose it could be a colony planet), but I
don't think I'm supposed to know, and I don't care, it doesn't matter.
I don't think that was the thing you were complaining about; but I'm not
sure what it *was*.
This
became my main purpose in reading as success was rewarding sometimes in
moments approaching epiphany. But I was not amused by the ridiculous
appearances of some entities as Dorothy was and formed no interest in
characters.
Is this ophidiform graul? Otherwise I haven't the faintest clue. Those bothered me, seemed a weird intrusion to no real purpose.
I'm deeply invested in the 4 main students and the 3 main teachers as characters, though. And then the wizard without power from book 4.
However I would definitely recommend reading the first book
if only for the novelty and, to me, originality of Saunders world
building. You will soon know if you will like it or not.
I persevered because of the positive discussions here but book three was
a struggle to finish.
Books 1 and 2 are an interesting decision about where to start. When in
doubt I recommend publication order, so that's what I recommend in this
case.
Pretty clearly we see the world changing, yeah. Certainly the
characters' understanding of it, but pretty sure the actual world too.
Once I found them I just tore through them. I think 2 & 4 are my
favorites, but I like 1 & 3 a lot also. Even liked 5 better last re-read.
This world has another distinction -- it's the nastiest world (lots of
sudden death around! Not much long-term security, either) that I would seriously consider living in if given the option.
On 30/01/2024 23:55, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Pretty clearly we see the world changing, yeah. Certainly the
characters' understanding of it, but pretty sure the actual world too.
Did someone say recently that characters
in these books can edit past events? I mean.
On 1/29/2024 10:35, Garrett Wollman wrote:
In article <l1pkh7F2bdU1@mid.individual.net>,
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
Hm. I generally recommend them to people with "read 2 and 3 first, then
go back to 1 now you have a grounding in how the world actually works,
then 4+". I found 1 to be extremely difficult to parse for basic world
building, took me three tries to get into it as I read them in order
first time.
I *love* these books and I will freely admit that nearly all of the
criticisms are, if not entirely valid, at least justifiable. THE
MARCH NORTH took me two or three tries to get into as well, but by the
end of book three (which is my personal favorite of the bunch) it was
clear that Saunders didn't have everything settled in his mind when he
started, and there were some large holes that were left that don't
quite fit the later books' kit of pegs. But what first-time author
can say otherwise?
Pretty clearly we see the world changing, yeah. Certainly the
characters' understanding of it, but pretty sure the actual world too.
Once I found them I just tore through them. I think 2 & 4 are my
favorites, but I like 1 & 3 a lot also. Even liked 5 better last re-read.
They're definitely not for everyone; these books are more about
exploring a theory of social organization than they are about Our
Plucky Heroes Joining Forces to Defeat the Big Bad or insert your
favorite fantasy tropes here. That Saunders finds a way to do this
that's not didactic -- indeed, that is positively entertaining -- is a
triumph. But it's reasonable to argue that in avoiding didacticism he
may have leaned too far into "readers are geniuses".
I don't think I'm a genius, but I've had everyone else I've pushed these
on say they were hard to get into.
This world has another distinction -- it's the nastiest world (lots of
sudden death around! Not much long-term security, either) that I would >seriously consider living in if given the option.
They are definitely a cure for too much "As you know, Bob...".
Switching to the palces you see being in the Southern Hemisphere
is kind of nice. (I *still* don't have a good feel for the
layout of the geography. Wish Saunders--or somebody--would do a
map.)
My vague memory recalls a principal character having the appearance of a >knitting needle wielding sheep.
My references to book numbers were to order of publication.
Perhaps you meant 'Books 2 and 3 are an interesting decision about where
to start" as recommended elsewhere?
On 2/16/2024 11:55 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On 1/31/2024 18:36, Titus G wrote:Is this one of those "read in published order" vs "read in internal chronological order" situations?
My references to book numbers were to order of publication.
Perhaps you meant 'Books 2 and 3 are an interesting decision about where >>> to start" as recommended elsewhere?
Wait, were they published out of order? I didn't know, if that's so. I
think of them in the order that they're numbered on Google Play Gooks,
which is Going North, A Succession of Bad Days, Safely you Deliver,
Under One Banner, and A Mist of Grit and Splinters.
One couldn't possibly start with Safely You Deliver!
On 1/31/2024 18:36, Titus G wrote:
My references to book numbers were to order of publication.
Perhaps you meant 'Books 2 and 3 are an interesting decision about where
to start" as recommended elsewhere?
Wait, were they published out of order? I didn't know, if that's so. I
think of them in the order that they're numbered on Google Play Gooks,
which is Going North, A Succession of Bad Days, Safely you Deliver,
Under One Banner, and A Mist of Grit and Splinters.
One couldn't possibly start with Safely You Deliver!
On 2/16/2024 11:55 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Wait, were they published out of order? I didn't know, if that's so. IIs this one of those "read in published order" vs "read in internal >chronological order" situations?
think of them in the order that they're numbered on Google Play Gooks,
which is Going North, A Succession of Bad Days, Safely you Deliver,
Under One Banner, and A Mist of Grit and Splinters.
One couldn't possibly start with Safely You Deliver!
On 2/16/2024 11:55 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On 1/31/2024 18:36, Titus G wrote:Is this one of those "read in published order" vs "read in internal >chronological order" situations?
My references to book numbers were to order of publication.
Perhaps you meant 'Books 2 and 3 are an interesting decision about where >>> to start" as recommended elsewhere?
Wait, were they published out of order? I didn't know, if that's so. I
think of them in the order that they're numbered on Google Play Gooks,
which is Going North, A Succession of Bad Days, Safely you Deliver,
Under One Banner, and A Mist of Grit and Splinters.
One couldn't possibly start with Safely You Deliver!
In article <uqoqu1$2jot$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 2/16/2024 11:55 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On 1/31/2024 18:36, Titus G wrote:Is this one of those "read in published order" vs "read in internal
My references to book numbers were to order of publication.
Perhaps you meant 'Books 2 and 3 are an interesting decision about where >>>> to start" as recommended elsewhere?
Wait, were they published out of order? I didn't know, if that's so. I
think of them in the order that they're numbered on Google Play Gooks,
which is Going North, A Succession of Bad Days, Safely you Deliver,
Under One Banner, and A Mist of Grit and Splinters.
One couldn't possibly start with Safely You Deliver!
chronological order" situations?
IMHO, publication order is *always* the order in which to read a series. (Except that sometimes skipping the first published book helps).
On 1/31/2024 18:36, Titus G wrote:
My references to book numbers were to order of publication.
Perhaps you meant 'Books 2 and 3 are an interesting decision about where
to start" as recommended elsewhere?
Wait, were they published out of order? I didn't know, if that's so. I
think of them in the order that they're numbered on Google Play Gooks,
which is Going North, A Succession of Bad Days, Safely you Deliver,
Under One Banner, and A Mist of Grit and Splinters.
One couldn't possibly start with Safely You Deliver!
No, it's that 2&3 are really one story over two volumes, so starting
with 3 (Safely You Deliver) would be hard work.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 79:14:17 |
| Calls: | 6,762 |
| Files: | 12,289 |
| Messages: | 5,378,154 |