Promise in Merry Gentry?

[raging-muse.livejournal.com]

Hi guys!

The recent posts I've seen about the new Merry book Swallowing Darkness has got me thinking on an old disappointment.  I remember when i first read the first Merry book. I admit somewhat embaressingly now that I liked the first book, it had promise and I liked it alot better then the Anita series which I'd been reading through at the time.  I remember thinking that more then the ANita series, the Merry one had alot of promise and looked to be a really good series.

Back when I first read it there weren't any other books around about Faeries, bar a few young adult/teen aimed ones.  Not sure if any of you can remember any Faerie based books out at the same time but please advise me if you know of any. SO to me Laurell was the first author i got to to do Faeries in the way she's done them - the 2 courts and all. I keep thinking ot myself that under the hands of a different author that whole series could be been really well done. The idea of the 2 seperate courts  of Unseelie and Seelie wasn't new but 2 mad monarchs at the helm and the problem of a dying race due ot infertility was interesting. But alas like the Anita series it bombed and died a horrible death as all the sex and bad writing got in the way. Does anyone else think under a different author or if Laurell had done it right it could ahve gone on to be quite good? And does anyone know of any really good Faerie books? The ones i find these days are all the awful paranormal type ones and i find myself insulted to see powerful Faeries treated as sex toys.

 

Comments

[easol.livejournal.com]

I actually find that the more the author tries to explain everything about faeries/elves, the more they resemble funny-looking humans. Benevolent or selfish, explaining too much drains the mystery.

This is a problem in books like Dennis McKiernan's, where he tries to make the elves noble and ethereal, but then goes into intricate detail about their kitchen hierarchy and mundane stuff like that.

And the selfish, casual attitude of Clarke's fairies sets them apart, to my mind -- they're not just humans with odd characteristics, but something really different.

[pastygothchick.livejournal.com]

I think the balance is knowing what not to commit to the page. The author has to know and understand the motivations of the mystical creatures so there is a coherency to their actions. The reader doesn't need to know every detail. I think some authors feel that if they did the work then they want to put it on the page so everyone can bask in the light of their genius (that's extrapolation based on feeling I don't actually know why some authors decide to write details down).

I feel it's like showing a magic trick and then walking through and explaining how it works. It sucks the "magic" out.

[wonderbink.livejournal.com]

Benevolent or selfish, explaining too much drains the mystery.

Exactly! That's one thing that kinda bugs me about a lot of fantasy out there. There is something to be said for leaving things unsaid.

[marumae.livejournal.com]

And the selfish, casual attitude of Clarke's fairies sets them apart, to my mind -- they're not just humans with odd characteristics, but something really different.

Thank you~! I loved Clarke's fae. But I see this that you're referring to all the time with fey, they're just humans who look funny for the most part and that irritates me. I saw it all the TIME in the Labyrinth fandom and now I see it in popular fiction. These aren't the creatures of mythology, the ones who peasant folk had to tread lightly around to make sure their lives weren't ruined by offending them. These are Renn Faire wannabes who wear shiny clothes and are eerie reminiscent of Lord of the Rings.