posted
I don't know if any of you have read this particular author, but I would like to comment generally on his novels. The very first one I read - which was the second of his published novels - I thought was brilliant. It's called Chasm City. Its funny, entertaining, a great read with some original and interesting ideas. After that, I had to read all of his work. Next, I read Revelation Space and Redemption Ark, all set in the same universe. I beleive Revelation Space was his first published novel, and I enjoyed this story too, and Revelation Space wasn't so bad.
Then came Pushing Ice, and I noticed a decline in his story telling. I read it, but wasn't impressed. Last night, I began reading Century Rain. The first paragraph alone put me off, and its doesn't get any better. I'll probably read on, to see if it does improve, but I'm not sure how much I'll read - and I've only ever put one novel down part way through.
Here's the first sentance, it made me groan:
The river flowing sluggishly under Pont de la Concorde was flat and grey, like worn-out linoleum.
It it just me, am I expecting a lot from this writer, based on his first two novels, or do writers in general decline in style once they have become successful?
posted
"It it just me, am I expecting a lot from this writer, based on his first two novels, or do writers in general decline in style once they have become successful?"
I don't know about Alastair Reynolds, I read Revelation Space a while ago and don't remember much of it, which I suppose says a lot :-(
I don't think Heinlein or Asimov declined. Nor did Brian Aldiss although for me he did become rather inaccessible with his move towards being literary. But Herbert did decline IMHO, not in style, but because I just got bored with Dune's endless saga. The first two or three books said it all for me.
I think the key is new ideas. Perhaps JKR knows that too, having closed off HP from more than its seven-book plan.
"The river flowing sluggishly under Pont de la Concorde was flat and grey, like worn-out linoleum." Sorry, I like this first sentence because even though it's a bit, er, sluggish, it paints a very clear picture quite unlike one's usual mental image of Paris. Might have to check the book out now ...
posted
First to Revelation Space, Redemption Ark and what not.
My first Reynolds books was Redemption Ark and I loved it. I've since gone back and read all of his books from this universe and while they've been enjoyable, I've had a small (very small)problem with the lack of continuity. I don't ask for endless sagas about the same group of characters but Reynolds does such a fine job at milieu creation that in every book, I feel like I'm in a completely different universe even though technically these novels all take place in the same universe. It may be a large galaxy but still it feels like Reynolds took advantage of my interest in his universe to write completely unrelated stories in the same "universe."
That being said, I have found that if I take each story on its own they're pretty good. Its only when I try to treat his stories as true "sequels" that I have any problem with them.
Secondly....
quote:I don't think Heinlein or Asimov declined. Nor did Brian Aldiss although for me he did become rather inaccessible with his move towards being literary. But Herbert did decline IMHO, not in style, but because I just got bored with Dune's endless saga. The first two or three books said it all for me.
The part I've bolded makes the difference. While I'd give you that both Heinlein and Asimov didn't "decline" what they did do and what I think Herbert never did was "evolve" as an author. Take the three parts of Heinlein's work. His early juveniles are nothing like his more "Hard SFs" which in turn are nothing like his later more Spec Fiction pieces (namely his future history series).
Many people who read and loved RAH's juvies can not enjoy books like the Cat who walked through walls or Time Enough for love while others who love RAH's later stuff cannot enjoy his early stuff.
It does serve to note that RAH was heavily edited (or censored depending on your point of view) by his editor at Scribner. See Space.com Article on Heinlein It would seem that this particular editor both trained and restrained RAH until he burst out with novels (Future history) radically different than his juvies.
Thus an artistic decline can be seen in one of two ways: Change in voice or Perpetuation of voice.
Or it could be sales...Does change or lack thereof lead to better or worse sales? But this is not an artistic assignation of quality.
posted
I can't say much about Alastair Reynolds...but I can about Asimov, Heinlein, and Herbert. Certainly I feel the off-topic urge to say something.
Asimov grew as an SF writer up till the end of the fifties---thereafter, his interest lay in non-fiction, and I think his later novels reflected that.
Heinlein shifted around practically from novel to novel---I don't think his imagination flagged, but I thought the concerns of the later novels tended to be, well, slightly perverse.
Frank Herbert, I think, evolved up to Dune---ever read his Under Pressure?---and then stuck with that style for most of the rest of his career.
I think all three wrote novels I'd just as soon they hadn't written---sales aside. I think Herbert was saddled with the Dune saga in later years, and Asimov was saddled with SF novels in general---that neither would have written if left to their own devices. Heinlein seemed to take "write what you want" more seriously---I enjoyed some of his later works, but I don't think he wrote anything of importance after the sixties.
Do writers, or any creative types, drop off in ability as they age? Perhaps...I can't think of any SF writers who got better as they got older, except maybe some who got started (i. e. "published") late in life. (I'm concerned 'cause at my age, I may have passed my peak, and not be able to lift myself to any higher level in my work. And since I haven't been published, where does that leave me?)
posted
I've read both (and only) REVELATION SPACE and PUSHING ICE. The first, while I read through it, seemed to lack something in the story. I can't recall what but it put me off and I haven't picked up another until PUSHING ICE.
ICE seemed to be three different stories shoved together. None of them really satisfying me. I would really have loved to read a novel about pushing ice, the idea itself.
It seemed as if all the components were there for a great novel -- neat ideas, interesting characters, workman like writing -- and didn't gel.
There's another author I've read who has some fabulous ideas and yet the books are hard to get through because of the writing itself -- Karl Schroeder! His latest, LADY OF MAZES, had some really great ideas. But I had to push hard to read through to the end and after that I still didn't understand some of what happened. I never did quite grasp the horizon locks and the whole first world's concepts. The problem with the writing was elusive. I can't pin down why it wasn't pleasant read. The same has been true -- for me -- of all his other books.
posted
I can't speak for Alastair Reynolds, I haven't read anything of the aforementioned books.
On Herbert, (though I am likely the rare fan) I disagree that the last of the Dune novels didn't evolve. Admittedly, God Emperor of Dune nearly turned me off to the saga, but his entire milieu evolved, and that book was the turning point. It explained why the next two (and planned third) had to happen.
Robert Nowall have you read Dreamer of Dune by Brian Herbert? (I haven't yet, but I have it.) I have read a number of accounts that refer to Dune in Frank Herbert's mind. I'm hoping this will shed more light on this.
As to the question:
quote: It it just me, am I expecting a lot from this writer, based on his first two novels, or do writers in general decline in style once they have become successful?
I think that it is not a "decline in style", but a lack of concern in the "rules". Multiple successful publications allow for the freedom to slip-in the adverbs and flowery prose -- Stephen King calls them "darlings" -- that beginners are taught to so diligently abstain from.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited August 31, 2007).]
quote:Robert Nowall have you read Dreamer of Dune by Brian Herbert?
Yup. It shed a little light on it, though my comments are more from observation rather than from reading that biography. After Dune, Herbert's novels tended to resemble each other stylistically, if not in content. Multiple viewpoints, leaping into different character's heads within single scenes, extreme length of the works...
posted
Robert, I figured that you had Dreamer of Dune. I've noticed that you tend to read biographies. And, I wasn't trying to dispute your overall observations. I loved the Dune series (except for the painfully necessary God Emperor of Dune), but have not delved much into his other works.
I only have a couple of books by Frank Herbert that aren't in the Dune saga. I have the Dosadi Experiment, The Santaroga Barrier, and The Lazarus Effect. Though, I must confess I have yet to read them all. I'm reading so many thing, right now. I wish I read faster.
Not to hijack the thread or anything.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited August 30, 2007).]
posted
There are other possibilities besides decline.
1--The first few books could have been polished more because newer writers are more likely to have time to polish their work while they wait for it to sell. Once they start having a career, there is pressure to write faster and not polish for as long.
2--As a writer develops a readership and becomes a consistent seller for the publisher, editors may not spend as much time on editing the writer's work. The bigger the author is as a best-seller, the more probable this can be--why pay someone to edit a book that people will buy anyway?
3--As a writer becomes a better seller, the writer may also want editors to do less editing--possibly because the writer begins to believe he or she doesn't need editing any more.
The last two possibilities boil down to complacency at best and laziness at worst, and I submit that writers with true integrity struggle to avoid this kind of thing.
quote:why pay someone to edit a book that people will buy anyway?
I know I'm not rushing out to buy his novels these days. Maybe I'm in the minority. Maybe because I'm studying writing, write myself, that I've noticed it more.
[This message has been edited by darklight (edited August 31, 2007).]
posted
I have to disagree with you, Tale Spinner. The following 3 Dune books after Children are great, but Herbert's style is difficult to read as well as cryptic. The strange thing though was that once his style 'clicked' in my head it was like jumping into a new tier. I could understand a lot better what he was trying to say. You should give God Emperor, Heretics, and Chapterhouse their due. While your at it, read Hunters of Dune and Sandworms of Dune. The culimination of it all is really amazing. The most interesting part of all of this Dune crap is Duncan Idaho.
I'd offer commentary on Reynolds but I've never read him, but on the subject of authors I think may have changed due to success? Terry Goodkind and his Sword of Bullcrap series. What he intended to write could have been said in 3 books (of standard Terry Goodkind length, of course. 3000 pages paperback should have been more than enough!)
Lord of the Rings as an enjoyable story would have to take the backseat to The Hobbit, for me. LotR was often dry, archaic, and depressing. As a tale it certainly is epic, but as a story... it should have been treated better. If it were written to be as approachable as The Chronicles of Narnia, for instance, Tolkien would probably be even MORE well remembered than he is now.
I think Tolkien lost his head in his own creation. Too much world building, too much emphasis on writing it in its own language and then translating it into something unpalatable. At least his buddy CS Lewis never lost his flair, though he is mostly remembered in the shadow of JRR like an unremarkable footnote.
posted
Thanks folks for the insights on Heinlein, Asimov and Herbert, most enlightening.
Sorry, Darklight, if I highjacked the thread from a more specific discussion of Reynolds, which was not intended. I had focused on the 'do writers in general decline in style' question.
posted
I haven't read Reynolds, but my opinion doesn't have anything to do with his writing, so :P.
What I think is that people grow, people change. That is the first half of the 'problem'. The other half is that there truly is nothing new, so to allow for change, genres must be stretched and possibly combined to allow for the growth and change of the people who enjoy those genres. I.E. With Dune, for example, you have 'hard scifi' combined with an almost Arthurian type story. Not only that, you have an almost spiritual side to those stories which takes away from the 'hard scifi' aspects while breathing life into the genre by changing it and adding to it.
When we fail to do this, we fail to create. We simply copy or clone.
posted
I have to agree about the Dune books. Dune and Messiah are one type of story and have a very similar style. Children, God Emperor, Heretics and Chapterhouse are completely different. It took me awhile to read them, but once I got into them, I honestly like them better than the original Dune and Messiah.
As to Hunters and Sandworms (haven't read Sandworms yet) Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson are not Frank Herbert, but Hunter was definately worth reading just to see where Frank was going with the story. My problem with the Brian/Kevin books is there writing style and tone is far more like the original Dune than the later books and there are times when it doesn't work.
I saw the Reynolds books at the library the other day, might pick them up after I finish the 2-3 books I'm working on at the moment.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
