The Sword and Laser discussion

This book definitely feels very standard fantasy, and I find myself wishing it wasn't so standard. I'm reminded of the first time I read a Raymond Chandler detective novel. I remember thinking it wasn't very original, until I realized he pretty much invented the hardboiled subgenre (with Hammet). Chandler WAS original, everyone else is riffing on his theme.

I don't know why I'm not so lit up by an OG of the genre this time.

‘82 is not the old days. Even back then we would’ve called it derivative. Or as we used to say, Extruded Fantasy Product.

One might make the argument that Fantasy books of the 1960s (particularly the New Wave) were foundational because they were trying new things (Farmer, Le Guin, Moorcock, et al), but by the late 70s and early 80s we were settling into tropes, with Shannara and such.

The real innovation of the early 80s was grimdark Fantasy, with writers like Glen Cook, Stephen Donaldson and Stephen King getting gritty.

Nicholas wrote: "I remember thinking it wasn't very original, until I realized he pretty much invented the hardboiled subgenre (with Hammet). Chandler WAS original, everyone else is riffing on his theme."

That reminds me of the joke that the problem with Shakespeare's plays is they're full of cliches.

Very little of any genre is original. Even Tolkien was borrowing from older European mythology. Sci-Fi for all it's "modern" roots is borrowing from older literature for its themes and subject matter.

Magician does have some epic fantasy originality with space-time continuum rips, aliens and cross dimensional evil villains.

I can absolutely see how its comfort food, especially if you came across it in your teens and you're revisiting it now. And it's not as if similar bland fantasy isn't published today. There's always market for escapism that isn't heavy on the themes or difficult to process (see also Agatha Christie et al., for post-war cosy escapism reads, even though they're literally full of murder). In May 2020 I think it's the perfect read for a lot of us.

My wish in Magician is not for less-'standard' fantasy, it's for characters with more than one dimension. That's completely a reflection on me - I'll read a character-based story over action any day.

Elizabeth wrote: "There's always market for escapism that isn't heavy on the themes or difficult to process (see also Agatha Christie et al., for post-war cosy escapism reads, even though they're literally full of murder)"

And racism. Hoo-boy, the racism. For instance, And Then There Were None was, in my youth, titled Ten Little Indians, which is bad enough, but the original title... ouch.

Gotta say, I do not find this kind of stuff comforting. If I want a comfort read, I’ll go for something with better-realised characters and less sexism, thanks.

Elizabeth - I totally agree with you, I’ll read a character-based story over action any day. If I don’t care about the characters, I don’t care about the action. There are a few exceptions to this- I really enjoyed Liu Cixin’s Remembrance of Earth’s Past series despite its generally paper-thin characters- but that’s very much at the opposite end of the scale from Magician.

A more recent book which uses some ‘standard fantasy’ tropes in a fun way and has plenty of humour and appealing characters is Kings of the Wyld, which I would regard as a modern version of this kind of boys’ adventure fantasy.

And Then There Were None was actually published with a title so controversial that they had to change it to Indians because that was less offensive than the ultimate American slur for African Americans. yeah that one! funny that the publishing solution was also deemed too be controversial. so they change the title to And then there were none. and the last word of the poem to Soldier and acted like it never happened. Guess that's progress. but I bet there is still some purest saying they should not have change the original work and left it as the author intended.

Ruth wrote: "If I don’t care about the characters, I don’t care about the action."

I'm not too far into this one, but I think your complaints with it might make it more of a comfort read for me. If I don't really care if a character dies, then I'm much more likely to enjoy the action. I certainly feel the suspense more if a character I like is in danger, but that's the opposite of being comforting.

of course I am just backing up the statement by Trike!

as for the Magician: Apprentice i'm with Elizabeth and Ruth i'm a character reader. that's where interest starts with me. Then worldbuilding and plot.

on the sexism and racism front which being mostly Native American I am sensitive to. I only get offended when it is taken out of historical context. leave it in and I am uncomfortable like in tom sawyer but am not offended. I can accept that times were different. although that does not make me happy. And this being set in medieval setting make sense that it would "reflex the times represented" although this being fantasy would be nice to see a female knight at a Arthurian round table. just saying that would sell well!

Seth wrote: "Ruth wrote: "If I don’t care about the characters, I don’t care about the action."

I'm not too far into this one, but I think your complaints with it might make it more of a comfort read for me. I..."

You make a really interesting point here, which is something I'd never really considered before. For me, if I don't care about the characters, I generally find the story boring (or rather, I suppose, the less interesting the characters, the more exciting the story has to be in order to hold my attention). I'd never really thought about the idea that being relatively less bothered about the characters helps to make the story feel lower-stakes and hence more comforting. This simply isn't how my reading brain works and it's always very interesting to see how differently someone else's reading brain works. Thanks for sharing that!

I think my longtime aversion to romance was the HEA, but now I sometimes am in the mood for it. Most of the time, though, I want bad behavior and consequences, for people to end up bitter and alone, and the literary writing that goes along with it. :)

For science fiction I prefer high stakes, I think, but then again I still haven't touched the sequel to The Sparrow.... But I don't go to SFF for feel-good. Even Harry Potter, there were times when I would have preferred that Harry died over some of the characters who died protecting him! Argh!

^ How did you like Wuthering Heights? The Kate Bush song sent me to the book and then a Bronte Sisters binge. Anyhoo, it's not exactly HEA, unless we shoehorn that into Happily Ever Afterlife.

^preference goes to Jane Eyre!

Talking about this at the UK virtual meet-up it occurred to me that one of the features of the trilogy is that the characters are constant. There is no personal growth or change in the books.

Pug is essentially the same person at the end of the three books (more powerful, but essentially the same) despite going through an enormous amount of trauma. (Even Thomas is the same essentially which is more astonishing).

They seem to be more like D&D character sheets than real people. This was something the 15/16 year old me did not notice but the 50+ year old me certainly did.

Iain wrote: "They seem to be more like D&D character sheets than real people."

I like this way of thinking about them. I'm nearly done with M:M and despite the things that happen to Pug and Tomas over the nine years since the end of M:A, there is a fair amount of handwavium going on to have them not grow and develop very much at all.

(spoilers for M:M):(view spoiler)[literally handwavium, there's magic happening for both of them - the Great Ones wiping Pug's memory so he can learn to be The Most Powerful Mage Ever, and Macros keeping Tomas alive, but his Ashen-Shugar/bloodlust memories are dimmed, so he can be The Most Powerful Warrior Ever (hide spoiler)]

These are actually really interesting points when you also consider how the whole Riftwar Cycle is setup. Although it looks like it's different trilogies and quadrilogies, my recollection is that if you read them, they are actually set up as pairs of books.

Every two books a new set of 2 (usually young) characters is introduced, who then grow into their powers in the second book, and are then added to the growing cast of characters for the next set of 2 characters to interact with. That's part of why I stopped reading it, maybe around Rides a Dread Legion? Just too many characters following the same arc and same tropes.

I wonder if it's something that Feist just isn't very good at, which is constructing satisfying long term arcs for central characters, and so he falls back on the mechanism of relentless character introduction so that he never has to deal with it?

I think there are some characters over the whole set of books where he does manage at least some semblance of it (view spoiler)[Pug and Jimmy he at least has had a decent go at (hide spoiler)], but not too many.

Like Tim I gave up with the main Midkemia books at some point and do not feel the need to reread them, but every few years I come back to the Empire Trilogy written with Janny Wurts.

The Complete Empire Trilogy: Daughter of the Empire, Mistress of the Empire, Servant of the Empire

My reaction is similar to most here. It was decent. A fun, simple fantasy adventure that suffered from thin characters and some pacing issues in the middle. I may read the next book but it's unlikely I'll go further than that.

I'm glad we read it though. Feist is a big name that I hadn't read yet and despite its shortcomings I can see its charm.

Glad to see a few people here still recommending the Empire trilogy. I had remembered it fondly, and as a better read than the Feist books, so I'm glad it seems to mostly hold up :)