The Sword and Laser discussion

I like this book. I enjoyed the characters, I thought the plot was engaging, the characters likable, and the world interesting. I absolutely loved the structure; the italicized history-sections were always excellent. I most especially loved the way they would just so slightly allude to the wider mythology of the world that we didn't quite get to see in this narrative (viz "Of course the fool isn't part fae. He hasn't got webbed fingers!")

But all of that said, I almost put it down. A few times, actually. And this was simply due to the prose style. Or often, the lack of one.

Tomorrow I will look through the book for specific examples, but sentences were often incredibly clunky. There was a lack of, for want of better descriptors, smoothness. It was just not clean. But I pressed on anyway, because again, I was enjoying the plot.

This made me recall a conversation I had recently with a friend. He had recommended me a certain series in DC's new 52 line up, with the caveat "the plot is really great, but the dialogue, [that is, the prose of the comic] is awful." And then we began thinking about comics in general, and how awful dialogue isn't universal, but regardless is still accepted as a necessary evil. The attitude seems to be: "don't expect the words to be intelligent. It's a comic book. You're lucky to be getting an intelligent plot or three dimensional characters." We seem to often settle, as mainstream comic fans, for something less.

Which is a completely nonsensical attitude, as less mainstream comics have shown us time and time again that they're a medium capable of achieving great literary heights, both stylistically and thematically.

What I wonder now, given my reaction to Assassin's Apprentice, is whether genre fiction fans don't have a similar attitude towards prose style- it's ok if the writing is bad if the plot and characters are great.

So what do you guys think? Is this an attitude that's actually prevalent? If so, is it really a bad thing, or do you think that plot and characterization are so much more important than style that such an attitude is in fact healthy? And am I being overly critical of Robin Hobb? (This last one may very well be a YES IN ALL CAPS since prior to AA I had just finished The Big Sleep and a bunch of Jeeves short stories, and Chandler and Wodehouse could make something as simple as the description of a grapefruit on a table the most badass or hilarious thing you had ever read, respectively).

I disagree both with your specific observations here and your general conclusion about the genre. En garde!

While I grant that SFF tend to be genres which emphasize plot and event over characterization and rhetorical style, there are simply too many counter examples to suggest the genre as a whole is tone-deaf. Tolkien, Pratchett, Heinlein, Bradbury, Shirley Jackson, China Mieville...give a random sample of any of those to a well-read genre fan and they could be named by style alone.

And I, for one, would be willing to count Hobb in that company. I've always found her one of the field's best stylists in terms of her complex characterizations alone, a strength which I think excuses a relative *lack* of event in her novels. The plot precis of Assassin's Apprentice wouldn't fill a sheet of paper, but a complete reading of each character's motivations would require an essay. If you want plot-strong, style-light fare in these genres, it's certainly possible to find plenty. But Hobb?

Weren't we all just complaining that for a novel about assassins, there aren't many - or any - assassinations going on? That we read on anyway is testament to the novel's stylistic strengths.

I don't think it matters what genre your talking about. If the plot and characters are good, we'll read it.

Ouch. I knew my comments on Tigana would come back to haunt me. Touche'.

But I eventually came around to appreciate the setting of Tigana enough that I excused a style that seemed, to me, clumsy. That certainly wasn't others' experience of that novel. Just because I didn't care for Kay's redundancy doesn't mean he is style-free, just that his style wasn't to my tastes. Non gustibus disputandem est.

Lovecraft provides another cogent example. I happen to adore the prolix old duffer. You - and many others - do not.

Every year, there are literary contests asking writers to imitate the distinctive voice of Hemingway. He too has become a caricature of himself. But surely you wouldn't suggest that he is without a style.

Doesn't the very fact that you can identify what irks you in Hobbs' writing suggest that she does have a distinct narrative voice?

I've been unhappy with the style of the contemporary fantasy I've read, so I switched over to the classic Ballantine stories. I finished The Man Who Was Thursday and was satisfied with that. I have not read Assassin's because I'm afraid it's going to be more of the mediocre style that is sacrificed for the action and plot. I have not found the plotting and ideas of the current fantasies as intriguing as the SFs, and not enough to make up for the mediocre style.

I generally spend more time thinking about the story and it's quality rather than the quality of writing.

For me if the story/characters are good enough the only time I give a lot of thought to bad writing is when it starts getting in the way of the story.

I really haven't found anything negative about the writing of Hobb's books so far, but I'm not that critical of writing when I'm enjoying the book.

I will say that as I've read more "good fantasy" (in quotes because this is entirely subjective) other stuff I used to think was good has become almost unbearable to read *cough* Eragon *cough*

P. Aaron wrote: "I disagree both with your specific observations here and your general conclusion about the genre. En garde!

While I grant that SFF tend to be genres which emphasize plot and event over characteri..."

I definitely do not think that the genre is devoid of authors with an admirable style! You listed some of my favorite stylists. I just wonder if we are more forgiving of bad prose within these genres.

I disagree with the Lovecraft comparison. Lovecraft often has horrible prose, but it's because he has a very specific style that goes insane. Purple prose on steroids. Tolkien is the same for some people. But both of these author's styles are, when they work, in service to the work as a whole.

Hobb's ungrammatical sentences and sometimes-clunky info-dump dialogue seem like they could have been fixed by another edit or two.

So maybe poor prose is more palatable when it seems at least to be distinctive prose, rather than generic bad prose? Or when it seems like the poor prose is trying to be used in a way that is in service to the work?

And aloha, The Man Who Was Thursday is incredible. Gk Chesterton's prose and fiction are both awesome. I found an old copy of The Flying Inn I'm really excited to start soon.

Rob wrote: "I definitely do not think that the genre is devoid of authors with an admirable style! You listed some of my favorite stylists. I just wonder if we are more forgiving of bad prose within these genres."
I think most avid SSF readers are more forgiving of bad prose within these genres.
They are even more forgiving when it comes to characterisation and character development.
I really like Isaac Asimov's books but his female characters are dreadful. Neverwhere is one of my favorite books but even Nail Gaiman acknowledges that his character lack depth.
I moved my SFF reading to audiobooks and I think a good narrator can cover up weak prose or causes me not to pay too much attention to it. (That said this drove me crazy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkyy57...)
Recently I complained about the prose of Cloud Atlas because it was too sophisticated in places, which made listening to it rather demanding.
To the best of my recollection, I listened to Assassin's Apprentice over a year ago, the prose didn't bother me. I found it thrilling at the time. In hindsight I remember it more for the typical fantasy tropes than for bad prose.

Hobb can be clumsy at times, but does that lack of stylistic pretense help in a story written by a tired old man about his long remembered youth?

The Old Fitz who is supposedly putting pen to paper, speaks of his own difficulty in writing, so this lends veracity to the kind of meta narrative of the book.

As for Lovecraft, I usually cut him some stylistic slack for the following reasons:

1. Lovecraft wrote for magazines (Weird tales, et.al.) who's target audience was 14 year old boys in the 20's and 30's not people with English degrees, and that informs his stylistic choices as well as those of Howard and others in his circle that all wrote for similar publications. Is it any wonder that he does not hold up when judged through a different lens.

If Hemmingway had written for teenagers in the pulps he probably would have had stylistic problems too.

2. Lovecraft has had every piece he ever wrote, good or bad, meant for publication or not pulled out and exposed for all to see (hello The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath).

Now, the man layers on thick description, and it was a strength and a weakness especially when he went crazy on it, but his most successful passages were not models of Spartan wordsmithing.

I think some of the issues that some folk seem to be having with the prose in Assassin's Apprentice are possibly more stylistic choices on Hobb's part rather than a deficiency or failing. Admittedly, I don't know much about Hobb or what her thought process may have been while writing, but based on the characters that she's created and the fact that these carry the entire book, I'd be willing to bet that there was some higher thought gone into the sometimes awkward and clumsy feeling language as a way of making it feel more as though it's written by an old man as memories of his childhood/teenage years.

As for the prose vs plot question, I'd have to say that I'd be more willing to read something that has a fantastic plot or intriguing and captivating characters but had rather unambitious or unsophisticated prose as opposed to something which presents great prose but nothing really worth holding onto in terms of plot or characters. I mean, it's all well and good if you can derive pleasure simply from the words but I'd much rather have something that was perhaps a bit clunky and awkward but had an enthralling story or fantastically developed characters.

Jonathon wrote: "as opposed to something which presents great prose but nothing really worth holding onto in terms of plot or characters. I mean, it's all well and good if you can derive pleasure simply from the words but I'd much rather have something that was perhaps a bit clunky and awkward but had an enthralling story or fantastically developed characters."

Yeah, it's funny the other big thing I've been trying to get through this past month is Ulysses, and at this point I've given up on enjoying it like any other novel whatsoever, and just hunting for awesome sentences/phrases as I go along, and picking up plot whenever I can. (A big problem, other than the fact that what is actually going on is usually incomprehensible, is that the characters are all just really hate-able.)

The "pleasure from the words" is (barely) pulling me along, just like the plot pulled me along AA. Well, that and the fact that if I'm going to complain about the wreck that a lot of people for some reason believe is the greatest novel ever written, I need to have at least finished it.

I finished reading this a while ago so could you provide the examples you said you were going to provide?
If I remember correctly the style fits the book well and I think it fits well with the point of view of the book.

Aloha, you are going to miss out on a lot of good books if you judge all fantasy on a few you've read. It is human nature to do so but your missing out on some great books.

Rob wrote: "And then we began thinking about comics in general, and how awful dialogue isn't universal, but regardless is still accepted as a necessary evil. "

Comics have the added advantage of being able to communicate the story through pictures. So perhaps the prose is not as critical if the message is still getting through.

Its probably not enough to simply distinguish between plot and prose. Add in characterization, world building, style ie first person, third person, multiple POVs.

I read Lovecraft's The Dunwich Horror (thanks to Aaron's whiteboard review) and actually liked the prose and the plot - but in the end, I didn't care for the story being told almost exclusively from the Narrator's POV. It felt like I had read a news story. Which sort of makes sense if he wrote for magazines as Nathan just pointed out.

I didn't have a problem at all with Hobb's style or grammar. That doesn't mean it wasn't bad. It just means I didn't notice if it was and so there was no obstruction to the story. But then I got a C in English so don't listen to me.

Hmmm, there were a few sentence that struck me as being a little awkward, ones I would have altered the wording for slightly, but mostly her words did their job of tossing me into the world she created, among so many entertaining and interesting characters, so that I wasn't looking at the page for any further errors. I see that as good writing.

I think most avid SSF readers are more forgiving of bad prose within these genres.

I agree with this, but I'm not sure SFF fans are different in this regard than any other genre - I'm sure fans of mysteries or romance novels or westerns will put up with less-than-stellar writing within their favored genres too, if the book has enough good points to balance it out.

So far, I like Hobb's writing. Fitz has a clear and distinctive voice, and she seems to be avoiding the main pitfall of first-person narration which is too much telling and not enough showing. (As opposed to Tigana, for example, where I literally had to force myself to read more than a few pages at a time - it just couldn't hold my attention.)

For what it's worth, I will read a book with a bad plot if the writing captivates me but I can't read a book with a great plot when the writing is river-rock flat.

Interesting conversation. I'd have to agree that Hobb's writing was clunky. What particularly caught me was her use of the same descriptive word twice in the same sentence, which happened several times. I blame sloppy editing and I'd guess this is one of Hobb's early books, perhaps? Or did she write for children?

Kiska wrote: I'd guess this is one of Hobb's early books, perhaps? Or did she write for children? "

I believe I remember hearing it said that this book was the first she write as Robin Hobb (I may be wrong though so don't hold me to that) and if so that's a fair comment.

However, I'm interested what you meant by did she write for children? I am a firm believer that children's literature is something to be considered on a level with adult literature (in terms of looking at it's quality) and so I don't think it fair to imply that a children's author would have a lesser grasp of language. This may not have been what you were implying but it's what I read from it.

I have an editor that sits in the front of my head and proofreads things for me as I read it, so clumsy or overwrought prose is rarely a problem for me, as it just gets adjusted in my head as the other part of my brain adds the lines into the unfolding story. Anyone else have this compartmentalized system going on, or am I stranger than I thought?

Darren wrote: "Aaron did a whiteboard review of the Dunwich Horror? I'd like to see that."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tWg7L...

4 and a half minutes in.

Megan Lindholm and Robin Hobb are both pseudonyms; Lindholm wrote about ten books, mostly fantasy, before she started the Hobb brand. If you check out her collection The Inheritance, you can see how her style changes between the two personas.

For what it's worth, Hobb is the author I credit with my Page 50 rule...before purchase, open to around page 50. If you want to see how the characters got to that point, buy the book.

Casey wrote: "For what it's worth, I will read a book with a bad plot if the writing captivates me but I can't read a book with a great plot when the writing is river-rock flat."


I'll second that! Worse yet is prose that is not flat, but rocky. Like the sentence I just typed! :)

kvon wrote: "...before purchase, open to around page 50. If you want to see how the characters got to that point, buy the book.."

What an interesting rule! How has it worked out for you? I'm not sure if I could do it, but it's intriguing. (I very rarely read anything that hasn't been recommended by a trusted source.)

Can someone who doesn't like the prose please give an example. I find it quite lovely.

Repeat after me: Style is not equivalent to quality. Just because I don't like the style an author chooses doesn't mean the writing is actually bad.

I've seen here and there claims of bad writing (not just in AA) and what most people on GR seem to mean is that they either don't like the style at all or they don't like the style as used in the current book. Neither, however, means that the writing is bad. It just means you don't like that style of writing. However, let's call those out as what they are - styles that don't work for us or that we feel make it harder to get into the story, not actual bad writing.

Personally, I can't deal with actual bad writing - poor grammar, plot jumps that make no sense, etc. Related to that, but different, is that I expect the style of writing used to fit the kind of story being told. A florid, impassioned style coupled with a straightforward adventure story is probably going to strike me as silly. Just as silly would be a dry, descriptive style mated with a story about a passionate story of politics and romance.

As for what do like... I want the language to draw me in and immerse me in the world being imagined. I want the plot to be invisible to me so that everything that happens feels like a natural outcome of what I've read so far. Characters should be believable as someone who's a real person. I should feel like I could converse with them if I was dropped into the story for real. Regarding the language, don't use obscure words or sentence construction just to show off how erudite you are as an author. If your character would use arcane terms that most people wouldn't use then by all means use those terms but recognize that you're pulling the reader out of the world of the book. You can alleviate this if the gist of the term is able to be inferred from the context.

Finally, the idea that SFF readers are somehow more tolerant of poor writing (and... more tolerant that who?) is offensive. It stinks of the old "genre is a lesser cousin of literary fiction" which is an argument that needs to be taken out back of the barn and put down.

Rick wrote: "Repeat after me: Style is not equivalent to quality. Just because I don't like the style an author chooses doesn't mean the writing is actually bad.
."

+1

This is kind of a funny thread to me, as I absolutely can't stomach bad writing and have dropped many a book over it. But I was thrilled to find little to irritate me in Assassin's Apprentice! So I don't know, I suppose we can chalk it up to differences in what writing sins irritate us.

The biggest chips in my shoulder are for stating things that were described (ie "He sighed, weary after a long day's work"), the over-use of the same simple words (ie Brandon Sanderson and his limited vocabulary of verbs), and sentences that endlessly catalog every pointless little thing the character does ( ie "He sighed, then shrugged, then sat down in the chair).

I didn't notice any of those particular faults in this book, and if they are there I usually can't help but notice them.

As to whether a plot could make me more forgiving of poor prose, I'd have to say that the real clincher for me is characterization. I can't think of an example of a book with wimpy prose that didn't also have wimpy characterization. Fatal flaws usually come in twos. :)

For my fellow writing snobs: what errors aggravate you the most?

I disagree that AA was either faulty in prose or plot, however I do see what point you are trying to make as far as Prose vs Plot. I have read books where the plot isn't all that great, but the authors style of writing was so engaging I finished it anyway and wondered why afterwards. Likewise, I have read books where the plot and characters were so well thought out that a less engaging writing style has been overlooked. While both need to be good, they don't both necessarily need to be both engaging. Having one engrossing enough be able to cover the other is sometimes enough to carry a book.

Darren wrote: "Hobb writes clunky, sometimes ungrammatical sentences."

I really can't let that slide without some examples. Generally, professionally edited and published novels will not have "ungrammatical" sentences (essentially, sentences that violate the grammar of the language). People my think of them that way because they violate grade-school English teacher rules -- but many of those prescriptive rules are, in fact, wrong and do not reflect how English works.

Rob wrote: "What I wonder now, given my reaction to Assassin's Apprentice, is whether genre fiction fans don't have a similar attitude towards prose style- it's ok if the writing is bad if the plot and characters are great."

Well yes, I've read books where the writing wasn't great but the plot or characters or world-building was excellent. But I've also read at least a few books in the genre where the plot or characters or world-building were uninspired, unoriginal or even irritating, but the quality of the writing kept me going to the end. I'll be honest and note that I generally seek out books based on their premise or setting, with the writing being a secondary consideration, but I can appreciate the difference between good writing and bad.

P. Aaron wrote: "Every year, there are literary contests asking writers to imitate the distinctive voice of Hemingway. He too has become a caricature of himself. But surely you wouldn't suggest that he is without a style."

It's interesting you mention Hemingway. I remember reading an article years ago claiming that his no-nonsense, unflowery writing was the catalyst for the "no-style style" prose that dominates American fiction. Basically the article writer claimed you could take the best-selling authors at the time, like Stephen King, Tom Clancy, Anne Rice and Danielle Steele, and if you didn't know which you were reading and couldn't pick out the genre from a writing sample, you wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

I don't think Hobb falls into that camp. She definitely has her own literary voice. I can appreciate that it's not to everyone's taste, but for what it's worth, I like it.

A couple more points...

If you don't like the writing style used in a book ask yourself if it's the book or if it's you. For example, some people didn't like the rather passive voice feel of AA, esp in the beginning. But after I finished, it occurred to me that this might well have been a deliberate choice on Hobb's part to reinforce Fitz' passivity throughout the book. After all, for most of the book he lets things happen to him. Coming to the attention of Shrewd and all that falls out of that isn't part of a scheme... he was in the hall to scavenge some food. He's a deliberate contrast to the typical Chosen One hero who rises to the occasion and overcomes all. Fitz, at least in this book, drifts along. A passive voice style very much reinforces that feeling of drifting along.

Second, fiction requires cooperation from the reader. Yes, we can ask that it immerse us in a believable world, but we also have to be willing to be immersed. If we're consciously standing outside of it always holding back, that's on us. Reading along thinking "That's not how I'd have written that!" is a form of holding back, similar to reading a mystery and trying to figure out whodunnit.

P. Aaron wrote: "I disagree both with your specific observations here and your general conclusion about the genre. En garde!

While I grant that SFF tend to be genres which emphasize plot and event over characteri..."

Rob wrote: "I like this book. I enjoyed the characters, I thought the plot was engaging, the characters likable, and the world interesting. I absolutely loved the structure; the italicized history-sections wer..."

I'd add C. J. Cherryh to the list of master craftsmen too.

I actually thought part of the charm of the text was the narrative style. It posed as a memoir and I tolerated some awkwardness as a choice in style.

The hardest sections for me were expository. I hate feeling like the writer has hit fast forward. It disrupts my immersion.

Nathan wrote: "Hobb can be clumsy at times, but does that lack of stylistic pretense help in a story written by a tired old man about his long remembered youth?... "

I 100% agree with you. If my grandpa had been writing his childhood down from some tower someplace decades later... who knows what kind of fragmented sentences would actually be put to paper. It's not for everyone, but for me it gives a unique voice.

The question is whether it's FitzChivalry's Style or if it's Hobb's. One would be an intentional plot device while the other a writer's quirk. Either way I like it, and don't feel it's actually low quality.

I think many go into any SF craving popcorn. Hobb is more like steak and potatoes.