(no subject)
In the aerobics class today, there was only half the usual eye-candy (The instructor was my favourite, as far as both the actual class substance and the eye candy factors -- a Russian ex-dancer whose classes are much more like dance routines than aerobics -- but the graceful girl who usually sets up her step right behind him was missing.) and there's none at home to make up for it....
Colin is in Florida until Saturday. I'm all on my lonesome - if, that is, by lonesome you mean with two demanding cats at home, a fair number of friendly co-workers and classmates during my day, and friends at archery last night.
I started into lies of Locke Lamora again. I mentioned that i started reading this book and bounced off it, nort for being bad, but for being a book I wasn't in the mood for. This time, i was in the right mood; I wanted something withing a recognizeable distance of traditional fantasy, but harder edged.
I keep being terribly amused by the fact that at least one person has used Lies of Locke Lamora, and Sarah Monette's Doctrine of Labyrinths series (starting with Melusine) as the basis to complain that all fantasy these days is derivative and predictable and boringly copy-cattish. Because OMG! they use wizards or thieves as their protagonists, and those are the most common jobs of the heroes in any fantasy series, and therefore the moment they appear, you must know you're in something that will be utterly hackneyed and cliched from end to end.
WHA??
It never, apparantly, occurred to this person that using a wizard or a thief could be the very basis of the subversion. Monette's wizard is, she's commented, the sort who would in any other world be the villain, not one of the heroes. Her thief is a little bit of the traditional fantasy underworld character, complete with the heart of gold -- at the beginning. But that very fact, along with the other "Traditional elements" she introduces -- are there because you can't turn a thing upside-down and inside-out if it's not present. Can you say subversion? How about undermining assumptions? I knew you could.
Lynch isn't doing quite the same. But his swashbuckling and bloodthirsty take on the thieves' guild is first, not a guild, second, a serious look at what such an underground organization would really look like. This isn't a prettified group of rakes; these are con men and mobsters. They swear, they kill in inventive ways, they don't have hearts of gold. They get tied and trapped by loyalties and betrayals. This is a fantasy that would appeal to fans of the Sopranos - or of the Sting if they can take the bloodiness and the cussing.
And both set up such exquisitely weird and atypical worlds, in both cases with great care applied to the central city and the ramifications of magic. In Lynch's case, there's clearly a good sense of how economic factors come into the situation; the lifeblood of thieves is money, after all, and for every good con.
________________________
I meant to discuss the church meeting this week, as it was a doozy. I guess next time I'm on the computer. Time for class.
Colin is in Florida until Saturday. I'm all on my lonesome - if, that is, by lonesome you mean with two demanding cats at home, a fair number of friendly co-workers and classmates during my day, and friends at archery last night.
I started into lies of Locke Lamora again. I mentioned that i started reading this book and bounced off it, nort for being bad, but for being a book I wasn't in the mood for. This time, i was in the right mood; I wanted something withing a recognizeable distance of traditional fantasy, but harder edged.
I keep being terribly amused by the fact that at least one person has used Lies of Locke Lamora, and Sarah Monette's Doctrine of Labyrinths series (starting with Melusine) as the basis to complain that all fantasy these days is derivative and predictable and boringly copy-cattish. Because OMG! they use wizards or thieves as their protagonists, and those are the most common jobs of the heroes in any fantasy series, and therefore the moment they appear, you must know you're in something that will be utterly hackneyed and cliched from end to end.
WHA??
It never, apparantly, occurred to this person that using a wizard or a thief could be the very basis of the subversion. Monette's wizard is, she's commented, the sort who would in any other world be the villain, not one of the heroes. Her thief is a little bit of the traditional fantasy underworld character, complete with the heart of gold -- at the beginning. But that very fact, along with the other "Traditional elements" she introduces -- are there because you can't turn a thing upside-down and inside-out if it's not present. Can you say subversion? How about undermining assumptions? I knew you could.
Lynch isn't doing quite the same. But his swashbuckling and bloodthirsty take on the thieves' guild is first, not a guild, second, a serious look at what such an underground organization would really look like. This isn't a prettified group of rakes; these are con men and mobsters. They swear, they kill in inventive ways, they don't have hearts of gold. They get tied and trapped by loyalties and betrayals. This is a fantasy that would appeal to fans of the Sopranos - or of the Sting if they can take the bloodiness and the cussing.
And both set up such exquisitely weird and atypical worlds, in both cases with great care applied to the central city and the ramifications of magic. In Lynch's case, there's clearly a good sense of how economic factors come into the situation; the lifeblood of thieves is money, after all, and for every good con.
________________________
I meant to discuss the church meeting this week, as it was a doozy. I guess next time I'm on the computer. Time for class.