I just finished her Tawny Man trilogy. And I'm afraid I have to say I'm a bit disappointed.
She seems to have fallen into the same trap that Robert Jordan did. She lingered too much in the character's psyche. The character's self evaluation, and evaluation by others was punctuated by action, rather than having action made more meaningful by characterization.
Just to give an example, in the last book, the climax occured around page 650. The book ended at page 912 (if I remember correctly). I will admit that important things happened, but it simply took too long to get us to those things. And there were events that, if left out, I believe would not have hurt the story in any way.
Robin Hobb taught me something very important in epic story telling: that there are three levels of social creation to be developed to make a truly meaningful story. There is the individual, the local community, and the world. I fell in love with all of these in the first trilogy of hers I read, The Liveship Traders and was amazed at the delicate interaction of all these elements. This is still a strength of hers.
But now she has taught me something else, or perhaps reinforced it. We don't like our characters to mope. We also get very irritated when our characters, presented with exactly the same information we have (through their own eyes, no less) fail to make connections, and that failure leads to complications. This happened far to often for my comfort in Fool's Fate.
She covers up by having Fitz say that he isn't a wise man (again, the self evaluation). And yet he is the one always responsible for the most important and remarkable insights. He has also been highly trained in observation and making connections. It makes his overlooking important information for no apparent reason all the more frustrating.
So, I guess I've learned a bit more from her. Never let your character wallow too much, and (as if I haven't heard and seen this a thousand times) stay consistent. A writer can't afford to ignore any piece of information she's given the audience, or pretend the character who showed it to you is stupider than you are. I just wish it hadn't been learning from others mistakes.
There is something I really liked, though. One of her main characters, named Thick, has Down's Syndrome. I don't know much about how the disease manifests, but I was very pleased with how she handled a person with mental handicaps and very strong magic.
[ January 18, 2005, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I disagree, strongly. I loved the Fitz books, adn thought they were FAR superior to the LST books. The story was more compelling, and I liked how she wrapped them up.
I think that the reason the Tawney Man ran a bit long at the end...not that I minded....was that she was wrapping up not just that series but the trilogy before that, as well as tying it in more tightly wiht the LST books.
Did you read the series before the Tawney Man stuff? A lot of what she did at the end was closure form the first series. The Tawney Man wasn't a stand alone series, you know....
Kwea
Posted by gingerjam (Member # 7113) on :
haven't read Tawny man but I read the Farseer/assassin trilogy (is that what it's called? too log ago) before Liveship, enjoyed it, but it was a bit too much of the same generic fantasy stuff...Liveship I fell in love with...
quote:One of her main characters, named Thick, has Down's Syndrome.
This makes me want to read Tawny man now just for that character! Not many fantasy writers have disabled characters in their books that are still powerful...
has anyone read the books written by Robin Hobb under her real name?
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
You mean Megan Lindholm ? I read "Wolf's brother". It was great. But of all I read (The Liveship traders, the Royal assassin, Wolf's brother) I prefer the Liveship Traders too.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I'm with Kwea - I enjoyed the whole series. And Hobb provided "closure" in terms of saying goodbye to characters people like me had really grown attached to. Things didn't necessarily turn out the way I thought they would, but they turned out well - and in a way that makes me believe her when she says she's probably done with this series.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
I thought Robin Hobb was fine - a good example of the genre. I won't reread them, though, and they doesn't transcend the genre, like great books do.
Posted by dawnmaria (Member # 4142) on :
I agree that she tied it all up well. I didn't mind that she went a little long since I was dreading the end of the series. I am now reading the LST series and while I am enjoying it, I haven't connected with any of the charaters as intensely as I did with Fitz & the Fool. I actually dreamt about this series!
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
There might be some spoilers here, but I think I've kept it vague enough.
I know it isn't stand alone. I read it after the assassin series and was well acquainted with Fitz. I was willing to allow quite a bit to wrap it up, but I think it could have been done in a hundred pages, especially if certain events were wrapped up before the climax. And especially if Fitz didn't ignore some very good advice that he had precedent experience to back up.
I guess another part of my problem was that I knew by the middle of the second book how the main problem would be resolved. It was pretty obvious from the facts presented. So the tension became, when are they going to finally figure this out? But they had all the same info I did. Part of the problem is that they believed a rumor far too much, and then didn't even show much suprise when it turned out to be untrue. So Hobb then worked up the complicating factors that were based mostly around this tension, rather than around any harrowing the antagonist did. There is very little the antagonist did other than wait for them to come and try an act of sabotage.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think this particular trilogy was a failure. I just don't think it was as good as the other two.
Yeah, kat. That is pretty much how I feel.
So here is a question. What fantasy books, if any, do you think has transcended the genre? I might say Tolkien, because there was fantasy before, and he elevated the level of it to beyond adventuring. But after that?
[ January 18, 2005, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by Homestarrunner (Member # 5090) on :
I always thought Fitz was a bit of a whiner. That, and the autobiographical style of writing got tiresome to me after a while. But the Assassin trilogy is still really good. I started the Tawny Man but I stopped after the first book. Too much of the same author gives me a headache.
I'll have to second everyone who liked Liveship Traders the best.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: What fantasy books, if any, do you think have transcended the genre?
Martin's Song of Ice and Fire Brust's Taltos Cycle LeGuin's Earthsea Trilogy Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia Card's Tales of Alvin Maker Williams' Memory, Sorrow and Thorn Donaldson's Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever Alexander's Chronicles of Prydain King's Dark Tower Cycle Duncan's A Man of His Word Pullman's His Dark Materials Leiber's Fafhrd and Mouser novels
All of these series, I think, managed in their time to address some traditional fantasy tropes in new and intriguing ways.
[ January 18, 2005, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by gingerjam (Member # 7113) on :
yep Megan Lindholm...i knew it was megan something...
it's easier to think of books that give the genre a bad name - Shannara, Mists of Avalon, rather than transcends...personally i'd include Liveship since it's so very different (btw i totally connected with the characters), OSC's Alvin Maker and Katharine Kerr's Deverry/Westlands series's...i like 'realistic' fantasy...though some people say that's an oxymoron... obviously Tolkien but i do admit i find his writing style both beautiful but very hard to atually get in to.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
*copies TomD's list for future reference*
In addition, Robin McKinley's The Hero and the Crown and The Blue Sword
I have a different criteria for them, though. I count those books that transcend the genre as being good even for people who are not fans of the genre - books I would reccomend for a non-fantasy-reading friend.
Why it does so delves into the question of what makes a great book, but I think it needs to have the following: 1. clear voice 2. excellent chracterization 3. plotting that is tight and appropriate for the story Ideally, 4. Teaches something about human nature/society/destiny, so there is a point beyond a fun story with swords and elves.
[ January 18, 2005, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: Williams' Memory, Sorrow and Thorn
Tom, how would you compare this to his Otherland series? I just finished that recently. I really enjoyed most of it, but felt he could have done it in fewer pages. I felt like I was wading through a tar pit to get through the last book.
Posted by Homestarrunner (Member # 5090) on :
I thought Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn was a bit too close to LOTR to really feel like groundbreaking fantasy. It was still enjoyable, though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Tom, how would you compare this to his Otherland series?
I think it's slightly better; it's certainly more consistently satisfying, because one's appreciation of Otherland depends largely on how novel you find the concept of alien AI and/or each funky little sub-world, and these could vary dramatically in quality from book to book (and from reader to reader).
Some people find the first hundred or so pages of The Dragonbone Chair hard going, because -- like the first two or three hundred pages of Fellowship of the Ring -- it's mostly setup. I personally think the setup makes what follows into one of the more interesting (and harrowing) fantasy wars ever, but then I'm the kind of person who wishes Martin would put in more characters.
HS's point -- that the plot in broad strokes is close to LotR -- is in fact entirely deliberate. *grin* Unlike many other books that use a similar narrative structure (like, say, Brooks' crap), these are Tad's deliberate response to what he felt was the heavy-handed allegory and casual racism of LotR. So while you can say "Oh, this race is like Tolkien's elves," and Williams certainly intends certain readers to make that connection, it's worth noting that the differences between his Sidhe and the Noldor are in fact one of the reasons he wrote the book. (Sadly, I can't get into many other specific examples of this without major spoilers.)
[ January 18, 2005, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
*deep sigh* Confession time.
I can't finish The Dragonbone Chair . I loved the beginning, I loved the middle, and I'm hating the end to the point where I haven't picked the book up for about a month - which is very unusual for me. Will I be sorry if I don't press on?
space opera
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Will I be sorry if I don't press on?"
Well, I think so, but that's just me. But then again, you're the first person I've ever talked to who loved the beginning of The Dragonbone Chair but has had trouble finishing the book.
What about the end of the book is causing you trouble?
Posted by Homestarrunner (Member # 5090) on :
Huh, I didn't know it was deliberate. Maybe that's why I couldn't stop comparing.
If I were as good a writer as Williams, I wouldn't have wasted time on an LOTR update/response. Williams has proved he can think outside the box with the Otherland series. I bet he can write a really rip-roaring fantasy series completely on his own terms.
[ January 18, 2005, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Homestarrunner ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Tom, I think for me it's the influx of more characters without a lot to tell them apart (I'm talking about the warrior guys - I'm at the part where the castle is being attacked). I'm not a big name person; usually I connect book characters with their actions and characteristics. To give an example, the little guy (Binibak?) who travels with Simon I identify in my head as "the troll, etc., who has a wolf and throws bones."
Yes, I realize that sounds insane. But that's how I do it for some reason. I can vividly recall books I read several years ago and can easily tell you about the main characters - but I can never remember their names.
So that's my problem - I can't keep these warrior guys straight - including the son who apparantly killed his father on the battlefield.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)