The Sword and Laser discussion

Some have described Kay's writing as "literate" fantasy, whether as a compliment or a criticism, and I am wondering what this means, exactly, and what is it in contrast to?

His style is either "rich, poetic and complex" (if you like it) or "wordy, pretentious and self-indulgent" (if you don't), and his plot moves more slowly than, say, a First Law series book. Does he deal with higher concepts than someone like Kay or Abercrombie or Rothfuss? Or are all of those guys "literate" compared to a genre series like Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms?

Do we put him more in the category of Moorcock, Wolf, Peake, Tolkein, etc?

It seems that we have yet another polarizing book, with many absolutely loving the book, and Veronica saying that it is one of her favorite S&L picks, and others struggling just to get through it. So, I am wondering whether it is just a "style" issue, more than anything else.

Darren wrote: "I love that anyone would use "wordy" as an insult of a book."

Ha! Ironic, that is.

I like books that illustrate a theme in an exciting way. I was a little disappointed in Tigana. Because of the accolades given it, I was expecting something that would either move me, intrigue me, or get my adrenaline going. I find it poetic, but not significantly complex or rich. What I do like the best about Tigana is the characterization, in that they have multiple dimensions. There is no flat bad guy or good guy. Brandin did very, very bad things, but you see his reasons, even if they're warped. Dianora is another character that you can't decide whether to call her a traitor or feel sorry for her, or both.

A fiction falls under literature for me when it shows complexity in meaning, ideas or characterization that can leave me thinking about it for a long time. I'm not sure Tigana is literate with the exception that his prose is beautiful, and his characters are grey instead of black and white. His illustration of the "memory" theme did not have that much of an impact on me. For me, it's "so what?", I've read better stories on that. I think he has a lot of potential to write "literate" fantasy, under my definition of it.

This for me is one of the few SFF books I have read where the prose is something that stuck with me, the only other is Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun. Does that make it literate ? For me it does but I have read very few literary books

Seamus wrote: "This for me is one of the few SFF books I have read where the prose is something that stuck with me, the only other is Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun. Does that make it literate ? For me it does ..."

Well, that may be as good of a definition as "literate" as any I have heard.

Seamus wrote: "This for me is one of the few SFF books I have read where the prose is something that stuck with me, the only other is Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun. Does that make it literate ? For me it does ..."

The prose stuck with me as well, but in a bad way. Kay is definitely overly-wordy. His writing meanders and is entirely too full of exposition. I like Tolkien, but have problems with his writing for similar reasons. I like conciseness. I like reading scenes presented in the here and now. For me, the best "literary" authors are F. Scott Fitzgerald (I have read The Great Gatsbyseveral times), and Cormac McCarthy. I feel like both of these authors tell a story without a single wasted word.

I am currently re-reading The Great Gatsby and Fitzgerald is definitely a better "literary" writer but I find GKK to be a nice break from most of the SFF I read. I never found Tolkein too wordy either though.

I find Tolkien wordy in the landscape parts, but overall the story is great. Tigana doesn't have as interesting of a story as LOTR.

Vance wrote: "His style is either "rich, poetic and complex" (if you like it) or "wordy, pretentious and self-indulgent" (if you don't), and his plot moves more slowly than, say, a First Law series book."

I'm trying to understand where this criticism comes from. Kay resolves a nation-spanning plotline with a half-dozen major characters and about a dozen important supporting characters in a single 700-page book. To my reckoning, that makes him far more concise than 90% of epic fantasy authors of the last 35 years.

Joe wrote: "I'm trying to understand where this criticism comes from. Kay resolves a nation-spanning plotline with a half-dozen major characters and about a dozen important supporting characters in a single 700-page book. To my reckoning, that makes him far more concise than 90% of epic fantasy authors of the last 35 years. "

Though I don't agree with the "wordy, pretentious, and self-indulgent" criticism, I think the complaint is based on a sentence or paragraph level. That is to say, any given sentence or paragraph might take quite a while to get to its point stopping for some floral language and possibly an extra dose of description along the way.

Joe, you are right that he actually covers a lot of ground within one book, but it never feels as if it is moving at breakneck speed. Maybe it is the ratio of action to description, maybe it is the style of the prose.

Aloha wrote: "I find Tolkien wordy in the landscape parts, but overall the story is great. Tigana doesn't have as interesting of a story as LOTR."

Tigana has got me thinking that perhaps oThe Silmarillion is difficult to read because Kay had his fingers in it :)

LOL. I'm scared, too.

Sam wrote: I think the complaint is based on a sentence or paragraph level. That is to say, any given sentence or paragraph might take quite a while to get to its point stopping for some floral language and possibly an extra dose of description along the way. "

Exactly what I'm saying.

For the most part, I really enjoyed Kay's flowery language. Sometimes it added to the emotional punch of a scene. Sometimes it dragged the flow down a bit.
Ultimately, I enjoy a book where I have to look up the meaning of a few words.

Joe wrote: "I'm trying to understand where this criticism comes from. Kay resolves a nation-spanning plotline with a half-dozen major characters and about a dozen important supporting characters in a single 700-page book. To my reckoning, that makes him far more concise than 90% of epic fantasy authors of the last 35 years."

I'm right there with you. I was looking for a Dramatis Personae after a while. But I did struggle with his prose, at times, after all. I wonder if it's possible to both dislike and like his style of writing at the same time?

Joe wrote: "Kay resolves a nation-spanning plotline with a half-dozen major characters and about a dozen important supporting characters in a single 700-page book. To my reckoning, that makes him far more concise than 90% of epic fantasy authors of the last 35 years. "

I agree completely. I believe this was a beautifully written book and the way he slowly exposed each element of the plot was, to me anyway, quite enjoyable. There wasn't a moment that I felt compelled to put the book down. Quite the opposite actually.

As for whether or not Kay is a "literate" author or not is only a matter of opinion and depends strongly on what a person's current definition of literate is. For me the bottom line is defined by one question. Did I find the book enjoyable?

The answer to that question is yes. I thought that the flowery language and the slow pacing suited the story he wanted to tell.

Travis wrote: As for whether or not Kay is a "literate" author or not..."

"or not, or not"... jeez, maybe I'm wordy too! LOL

AndrewP wrote: "Tigana has got me thinking that perhaps oThe Silmarillion is difficult to read because Kay had his fingers in it :) "

I had never noticed that he had his fingers in The Silmarillion. That is the only book I've ever read that I almost lemmed (in fact I only made it to the end because I jumped a junk, I just cannot get those Dwarves over the mountains, every time I try).

I'm wondering about the parallel of some fantasy to soap operas. They both appeal to people who like the trials and tribulations of the characters, and their likability. I like my share of soap operas, too, as long as there is some compelling ideas behind them. I didn't really join in the Tigana discussion because there really was nothing compelling for me to want to talk about. I like the memory idea, but the execution is not that special to me.

Joe wrote: "I'm trying to understand where this criticism comes from. Kay resolves a nation-spanning plotline with a half-dozen major characters and about a dozen important supporting characters in a single 700-page book. To my reckoning, that makes him far more concise than 90% of epic fantasy authors of the last 35 years. "

What Kay does that a lot of fantasy authors don't do, is limit his story arcs. There are really only 2 major story arcs in Tigana. Which means he can write a shorter book but devote more attention expounding the plot. As a consequence his main story/s are given more attention than is done in some larger books. I thought this was great but if you are struggling with the book and/or the prose then I understand its going to feel like a long book.