This writing... thing

Okay, I admit it.

This book... this book. ::sigh:: It's gone and become complicated on me. I've -sort of - figured out the dragon* and what part he has to play, but now I have to figure out how to maneouvre my main character through a tangle of political intrigue whilst figuring out who her enemies are, and what her relationship with her one friend might become.

I don't really understand these characters. Of course, that's half the fun, because they might do a couple of really wild things without informing my conscious mind beforehand, but... I wish I knew who was on who's side, y'know?

Also, conflict? I need it, but it's coming out all soggy, like a damp blanket.

--------

Tristan and Isolde isn't a bad film. It's not a good one, either: the dialogue at times descends into the ludicrous, and wow, the Expositing! But tragic love story, betrayal, bad historical detail and recognisably non-period buildings (the 'Roman bridge' looks a hell of a lot more like a nineteenth century one, and trust me, I do know the difference), in addition to guys running around with swords? Not a bad waste of two hours.

Also, at least the accents of the Irish in the film weren't cod-Irish. For which it gets definite Points.


--------

*Ssh. Keep it secret. You know dragons. Worse than cats.

This writing... thing

Okay, I admit it.

This book... this book. ::sigh:: It's gone and become complicated on me. I've -sort of - figured out the dragon* and what part he has to play, but now I have to figure out how to maneouvre my main character through a tangle of political intrigue whilst figuring out who her enemies are, and what her relationship with her one friend might become.

I don't really understand these characters. Of course, that's half the fun, because they might do a couple of really wild things without informing my conscious mind beforehand, but... I wish I knew who was on who's side, y'know?

Also, conflict? I need it, but it's coming out all soggy, like a damp blanket.

--------

Tristan and Isolde isn't a bad film. It's not a good one, either: the dialogue at times descends into the ludicrous, and wow, the Expositing! But tragic love story, betrayal, bad historical detail and recognisably non-period buildings (the 'Roman bridge' looks a hell of a lot more like a nineteenth century one, and trust me, I do know the difference), in addition to guys running around with swords? Not a bad waste of two hours.

Also, at least the accents of the Irish in the film weren't cod-Irish. For which it gets definite Points.


--------

*Ssh. Keep it secret. You know dragons. Worse than cats.

Furies of Calderon, an addendum

Okay, so a couple of posts back I was talking about Jim Butcher's Furies of Calderon and how I liked it enough that I want to read the next in the series, even though I feel Furies might have had a few irritating flaws.

I think I figured out why I both like it/find it good reading and am irritated by it. Something, by the way, that's been puzzling me.

It's written like a thriller.

No, wait. It is.

Set aside the (really good) worldbuilding, and you have a book with a large cast of rather shallowly (though one or two hint at further depths) sketched characters, flung headlong into some seriously threatening events. And the threat builds and builds and builds, faster and faster and faster. Because of the (almost breathless) pacing, you* can forgive shallow (though mostly sympathetic) characterisation, because you're caught up in the pace of events, so it stays enjoyable even though you never get deeper than a surface-level view of anything.

(This is also why I was annoyed at the sections from the antag's POV, because they slowed things down. Basically they seemed to be there for the sake of expositing (although it wasn't bad expositing), rather than because the story needed them.

Also, fundamentally? The antag(s) really don't seem that interesting or complicated. So. Those sections are boring already.)

That's what a thriller is. So Furies of Calderon is a bit of a fantasy thriller.

Thoughts, anyone? I'd be interested to here if anyone else who's read it has had similar (or different) thoughts.


------

*For you, read 'I' here, okay?

Furies of Calderon, an addendum

Okay, so a couple of posts back I was talking about Jim Butcher's Furies of Calderon and how I liked it enough that I want to read the next in the series, even though I feel Furies might have had a few irritating flaws.

I think I figured out why I both like it/find it good reading and am irritated by it. Something, by the way, that's been puzzling me.

It's written like a thriller.

No, wait. It is.

Set aside the (really good) worldbuilding, and you have a book with a large cast of rather shallowly (though one or two hint at further depths) sketched characters, flung headlong into some seriously threatening events. And the threat builds and builds and builds, faster and faster and faster. Because of the (almost breathless) pacing, you* can forgive shallow (though mostly sympathetic) characterisation, because you're caught up in the pace of events, so it stays enjoyable even though you never get deeper than a surface-level view of anything.

(This is also why I was annoyed at the sections from the antag's POV, because they slowed things down. Basically they seemed to be there for the sake of expositing (although it wasn't bad expositing), rather than because the story needed them.

Also, fundamentally? The antag(s) really don't seem that interesting or complicated. So. Those sections are boring already.)

That's what a thriller is. So Furies of Calderon is a bit of a fantasy thriller.

Thoughts, anyone? I'd be interested to here if anyone else who's read it has had similar (or different) thoughts.


------

*For you, read 'I' here, okay?