4 ms·

Please don't be petty and don't me give me the gray treatment because we don't share tastes (I really am looking for some explanations of what might I have miss

Please don't be petty and don't me give me the gray treatment because we don't share tastes (I really am looking for some explanations of what might I have missed) but... I have to be dead-serious and honest here: I had huge trouble going through the 5 books at all. It was torturous 95% of the time. Only the first book was kinda sorta nice fantasy book, it dragged a bit but was full of promise and the world-building was nice. Sadly the ending I saw a mile away but was still semi-enjoyable until we got there. From then on though, it was just downhill, with each book getting harder and harder to read. Especially book 4 could basically be summarized as "the dark thoughts of an old woman, mixed once every 50 pages with the name 'Ged', the word 'garden' and the description of a disfigured girl". :( Like, don't crucify me please, but I could probably compress that book in 20 pages, easily, without skipping a single plot element. Book 5 was a slight improvement, all the underworld / dead people descriptions were pretty eerie and I managed to get some immersion. Was okay, though still very watered down and prolonged and sadly again, the ending was easy to guess. Books 2 and 3? I don't even remember them now. I only remember how extremely excruciatingly slow they were. In any case, I know there is always the universal will-never-go-anywhere cop-out of "it's just not for you, man" but I would still be interested if anybody can elaborate what made the book click for them. TL;DR I found the books extremely watered down, full of dark thoughts and rather meaningless stoicism, and Ged was basically a burned out veteran before he hits 30 years old which is a bit disappointing, isn't it? Not to mention, again, too much focus on the mental struggles of old people. And there isn't even any revelation or motivation anywhere, it's basically "life sucks man, what can you do". Before you ask or claim: I really like reading fantasy and I picked these books several years ago due to their reputation. And I was -- and I still am -- legitimately confused what's so great about them.

EdwardCoffin 3y ago
“If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.” —Louis Armstrong.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  I hate to contradict such an authority as Louis Armstrong, but as a general matter, he was wrong. There are plenty of people who consider themselves to play jazz, but are told by others that they do not. There are even a few people who don't consider themselves to play jazz, but are told by others that they do. The nature of "what jazz is" is (and likely always will be) an ongoing debate, just like its corrollary "what is jazz". If Louis had lived until the 2000s, I suspect he might have rephrased this: "If you care about what jazz is, you'll probably never know; you're not much likelier to know even if you don't care".
  - WaxProlix 3y ago
    That's a lot less quippy, though, and I think the essence of it is still contained in the original.
    - pdimitar 3y ago
      It's also pretty elitist. Reads like "you are not part of the club so you don't get it".
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        Not sure if mean you my version or Armstrong's original. Mine was specifically intended to be anti-elitist, by making it clear that the problem comes from even feeling a need to define jazz. Armstrong's does strike me as potentially elitist, though I don't know his actual intent (obviously).
        pdimitar 3y ago
        Apologies for my negative assumption. And thanks for clarifying.
  - screye 3y ago
    But that isn't the point he was making. Some concepts are grounded in language and others are grounded in higher order ephemeral ideas. It's like trying to plot an exponential curve with a polynomial equation. It's futile. Jazz is one of those ideas. Jazz is felt. Jazz is expressed. Jazz is in the air. When Jazz happens, you know it. And that's enough. The second you put words to Jazz, you suffocate it, you put in a box. It's like trying to explain the beauty of the Sagrada Familia by counting the number of minarets and sculptures on it. No, you take it in whole, with all your senses, and you 'get' it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Throw6away 3y ago
  Jazz is a Duende - an act that can only be understood in its own terms.
justonrteplh 3y ago
Created a one time account just to reply to this. You don’t like the books, that’s all. They don’t speak to you. Nothing unusual here, there’s plenty of books I don’t like either that are apparently brilliant (The Vorrh comes to mind). Being confused doesn’t make sense. You didn’t like them, other people do.
- pdimitar 3y ago
  Being confused does make some sense IMO. Good readers are able to articulate the elements from a book that spoke to them, and roughly how. I don't know if I am a good reader (likely not) but I can do it. Interested in feedback from other such people. I don't intend to argue with them however, just wanna hear what is it that drew them in and kept them in.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > You didn’t like them, other people do. I think some people like to dig a little deeper than this.
at_a_remove 3y ago
I will endeavor to answer honestly. Part of the answer, not all, but part, lies your complaint: "I could probably compress that book in 20 pages, easily" ... "excruciatingly slow." It has been many, many years since I touched the first three, but sometimes it is the space between the notes which provides contrast to the notes themselves. Think of music and compare the Phil Spector "Wall of Sound" versus something sparser. "Only in silence the word, only in dark the light ..." Earthsea is not about action or events or predictable plot beats. It's about the space between such things. Rather than the mastery of magic being D&D's verbal, somatic, and material components, instead lean toward how Vance's Dying Earth series required a wizard to hold an abstract concept in their mind. Here, magic is about the deep understanding created by observation and contemplation, rather than reaction and dissection, and that this is created over long periods. Imagine a cup. What is ... cupness? Go over the cups you have seen in your mind. Some have handles, some do not, so a handle is not the essence of cupness, but ... an ability to be in hand is. A cup the size of a mountain is not a cup to you, you may not take it in hand. A cup the size of a dust mite is not a cup to you, you may not take it in hand. And so the cup relates to you, and your ability to handle it. Consider it further. Topologically, with a handle, it might as well be a donut (torus). Topologically, without a handle, it might as well be a ball (sphere). And so mere topology is not the essence of cupness. But shape somehow is. You recognize cupness whether the color or the texture, but by shape. You must explore this further. Cups are fashioned, although one might see them inadvertently created by nature. This goes with their ability to be taken in hand. To fashion something may be art or it may be of utility, so that is insufficient. Consider that your cup has an orientation, such that there is a bottom and there is a top. You have seen inverted cups and from your memory you know when one is upside down. Cupness has an orientation to it. A cup is almost a sleeve, almost a hole, but for that bottom. Which again you discern, is not the place for a hole; if a thing is to be a cup to be taken in hand, that hold belongs on the side to make a handle. Consider that utility of a cup, fashioned again and again, all over the world. From the thinness of the sides springing up from the "bottom," one is conserving matter, but also maximizing another thing, which is the space that the cup almost contains. It almost contains, but does not contain. It may partially hold. As it almost contains, it means that something may go into and out of the cup. With the orientation you have discovered upon contemplation, you now might see that gravity plays into the almost-containment. A cup is a handle-able thing which almost contains, which holds due to gravity. We now ask what. The cup is not handcuffs or manacles, to hold a person. The cup is not a cage, to hold an animal or a marble. It has flatness across the top, most often, and one might reason that the thing held is always flat on top, held by gravity. What is held by gravity in an indention, with always a level top? It cannot be a solid object. It cannot be a gas. It could almost be grains of sand, but those form a pile. Ah, then a liquid. This cup is to be handled, to have a liquid go in and go out, at hand and at rest with its flat bottom, such that it does not tip. It is the size of an adult hand or two child's hands, fashioned. By examination, I reach forth with my hand and may refill it or drink from it. In Earthsea, wizardry is, in part, to allow yourself enough emptiness to observe a thing in wholeness, to derive all that might be known about it in your own mind, and thereby give yourself a power over it, but not for something so simple as the cup, but as a flower or a shadow or a person. And so in the novels, emptiness provides space for the reader to contemplate and hold what they have read in their mind.
bediger4000 3y ago
I respect your opinion on this. I have the same reaction to a great deal of the other fantasy and science fiction I've read. Which fantasy books do you like?
- pdimitar 3y ago
  "The magic goes away" series so far is one of the best I actually encountered (for me). I like the more realistic and honest nature of the characters, and the sense of impending doom and how does it modify the characters' behaviour. I find it pretty engaging so far. I did enjoy the beginning of one of Alistair Reynolds' books but haven't gotten around to read it in full yet. "Stormlight Archive" so far I find a bit prolonged as well but Sanderson is very good at literally everything else so I'll keep going (2 out of the 4 books down so far). Read a few short stories in the Witcher universe and loved them but haven't read the books themselves yet. But I have a feeling that I'll love them too. Gart Nix's "Old kingdom" (the original 3 books) were okay, I loved their world-building but didn't like truly love them. 7/10 though, solid books. Haven't tried to read anything from the expanded universe yet. And of course LOTR, though I have to admit I never managed to read it more than twice for my entire life.
  - CodesInChaos 3y ago
    > I did enjoy the beginning of one of Alistair Reynolds' books Which one?
    - pdimitar 3y ago
      You made me look. :) "House of Suns", 2008 I really liked the intro. I should get back to it and read it in full.
eszed 3y ago
They're just not for you, man. :-) No, but seriously, if I'm accurately reading between the lines of what you wrote, you're looking for an engaging plot, and expecting world-building and character to work in service of that. I'd argue that LeGuin (at least here: a few of her other stories are different) prioritizes philosophical / moral inquiry, and world-building (in that order), with character and (especially) plot acting in service of those. All of which is fine, of course: not judging or crucifying you at all. (I'm reading and enjoying an entirely plot-driven book right now.) My love for the Earthsea books (especially the first three) is wrapped up in the thoughts it makes me think, and the vistas it makes me see - for me, each of those have indelible feelings attached - none of which can be condensed into a bare recounting of "here's what happened". To be honest with you, I can't even recall how any of the books end (though I also probably foresaw the endings as I last read them), but the dryness of Tenar's life, her fascination with the hidden emissary from beyond, and her moral delimma about helping him or not, stick with me as vividly as I'd lived them myself.
- pdimitar 3y ago
  Thank you, those comments are helpful! And yes you are very likely correct that the entire sub-genre of this fantasy is not for me (as in, I really would like plot and world-building and some character development, not 99% philosophy). We are all tuned to different frequencies, and sometimes we change frequencies during our lives (or during a single year even) so I get it but for some reason I can't tune to LeGuin's frequency at all. Oh well.
  - eszed 3y ago
    I suggest you try a couple of her other books before you give up on her entirely. Rocannon's World, for instance, is far more plot-driven, and serves as an introduction to her Hainish Cycle, which is a masterpiece of world building, presented across multiple (only loosely-interlinked) books and short stories. Overall, however, LeGuin is almost entirely unconcerned with technology - which, to the extent that they find that to be a significant draw of the genre, may drive away some "science-fiction" fans. (I've always thought the original name, "speculative fiction", is preferable.) LeGuin's speculations run more to the anthropological than the technological, which shouldn't be surprising, given her family background.
norir 3y ago
It is interesting to me that you read all of the books even though the first one didn't speak to you. Maybe the more important question to ask is why you felt compelled to continue reading in spite of your dislike of the works? Perhaps there is something that you don't want to admit was compelling and worth slogging through or maybe you are a masochist? No matter the reason, it seems that the books have something to teach you even if you still dislike them upon further reflection.
- pdimitar 3y ago
  I lean more to being a masochist simply because I really wanted to know why are these classics loved so I figured even if it's hard to do, I'll read them in full. Plus I am a patient reader and I kept thinking there will be bigger plot / action payoffs further ahead. Sadly that didn't happen. So you are not very off-mark, yeah. Still though: these books in particular taught me to be a less patient reader.
creer 3y ago
I loved these books precisely because they were a refreshing look at fantasy. But yes that makes them completely different reading and there's no problem with not liking them. They are not about plot, they are about the emotions of the characters and the mood of the landscape. And I find these extremely emotional to read because of how much they engage us into the emotions and surroundings of the characters. Also really, the mage has found a direction where not doing anything or much is the way. That doesn't help on plot :-) I loved that the books powerfully evoke the emotions of stages of life: A Wizard of Earthsea, the young wizard The Tombs of Atuan, the adventure (not about the adventure but about the wizard) The Farthest Shore, mage at the end of failing magic Tehanu, retirement, ex-wizard, reconciliation Tales from Earthsea, short stories of wizards in the field The Other Wind, more retirement, old wizards, settling accounts And considering how long apart they are written, I marvel at how well they keep to this effort on emotion and mood.
- pdimitar 3y ago
  > the mage has found a direction where not doing anything or much is the way That is completely fine in the real life and it also happens to many people. I just don't find it engaging in a book, you know? It's like you expect an action movie when going to the cinema and you get two characters smoking and drinking and discussing life during the entire length of the movie. Maybe in certain moods you will love that but you have expected action that evening and everything else comes across as weird (or even dumb). Or you have an awesome date with a lady, you are so ready for sex 3 hours later, she seems that she wants it too and then she invites you to her place and dead-seriously asks you to play chess for a few hours with her and expects you to go back to your home after. Things like that. It's a disconnect of expectations, sure, but even recognizing that didn't help me appreciate the books.
Exoristos 3y ago
LeGuin's writing, fiction or otherwise, was perpetually juvenilia. But this was not unusual in her generation.
- pdimitar 3y ago
  Is that really true though? Some of them are written quite late in her life. Maybe she kept dreaming to be her younger self?

EdwardCoffin 3y ago

“If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.” —Louis Armstrong.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
I hate to contradict such an authority as Louis Armstrong, but as a general matter, he was wrong. There are plenty of people who consider themselves to play jazz, but are told by others that they do not. There are even a few people who don't consider themselves to play jazz, but are told by others that they do. The nature of "what jazz is" is (and likely always will be) an ongoing debate, just like its corrollary "what is jazz". If Louis had lived until the 2000s, I suspect he might have rephrased this: "If you care about what jazz is, you'll probably never know; you're not much likelier to know even if you don't care".
- WaxProlix 3y ago
  That's a lot less quippy, though, and I think the essence of it is still contained in the original.
  - pdimitar 3y ago
    It's also pretty elitist. Reads like "you are not part of the club so you don't get it".
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      Not sure if mean you my version or Armstrong's original. Mine was specifically intended to be anti-elitist, by making it clear that the problem comes from even feeling a need to define jazz. Armstrong's does strike me as potentially elitist, though I don't know his actual intent (obviously).
      - pdimitar 3y ago
        Apologies for my negative assumption. And thanks for clarifying.
- screye 3y ago
  But that isn't the point he was making. Some concepts are grounded in language and others are grounded in higher order ephemeral ideas. It's like trying to plot an exponential curve with a polynomial equation. It's futile. Jazz is one of those ideas. Jazz is felt. Jazz is expressed. Jazz is in the air. When Jazz happens, you know it. And that's enough. The second you put words to Jazz, you suffocate it, you put in a box. It's like trying to explain the beauty of the Sagrada Familia by counting the number of minarets and sculptures on it. No, you take it in whole, with all your senses, and you 'get' it.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Throw6away 3y ago
Jazz is a Duende - an act that can only be understood in its own terms.

justonrteplh 3y ago

Created a one time account just to reply to this. You don’t like the books, that’s all. They don’t speak to you. Nothing unusual here, there’s plenty of books I don’t like either that are apparently brilliant (The Vorrh comes to mind). Being confused doesn’t make sense. You didn’t like them, other people do.

pdimitar 3y ago
Being confused does make some sense IMO. Good readers are able to articulate the elements from a book that spoke to them, and roughly how. I don't know if I am a good reader (likely not) but I can do it. Interested in feedback from other such people. I don't intend to argue with them however, just wanna hear what is it that drew them in and kept them in.
robertlagrant 3y ago
> You didn’t like them, other people do. I think some people like to dig a little deeper than this.

at_a_remove 3y ago

I will endeavor to answer honestly. Part of the answer, not all, but part, lies your complaint: "I could probably compress that book in 20 pages, easily" ... "excruciatingly slow." It has been many, many years since I touched the first three, but sometimes it is the space between the notes which provides contrast to the notes themselves. Think of music and compare the Phil Spector "Wall of Sound" versus something sparser. "Only in silence the word, only in dark the light ..." Earthsea is not about action or events or predictable plot beats. It's about the space between such things. Rather than the mastery of magic being D&D's verbal, somatic, and material components, instead lean toward how Vance's Dying Earth series required a wizard to hold an abstract concept in their mind. Here, magic is about the deep understanding created by observation and contemplation, rather than reaction and dissection, and that this is created over long periods. Imagine a cup. What is ... cupness? Go over the cups you have seen in your mind. Some have handles, some do not, so a handle is not the essence of cupness, but ... an ability to be in hand is. A cup the size of a mountain is not a cup to you, you may not take it in hand. A cup the size of a dust mite is not a cup to you, you may not take it in hand. And so the cup relates to you, and your ability to handle it. Consider it further. Topologically, with a handle, it might as well be a donut (torus). Topologically, without a handle, it might as well be a ball (sphere). And so mere topology is not the essence of cupness. But shape somehow is. You recognize cupness whether the color or the texture, but by shape. You must explore this further. Cups are fashioned, although one might see them inadvertently created by nature. This goes with their ability to be taken in hand. To fashion something may be art or it may be of utility, so that is insufficient. Consider that your cup has an orientation, such that there is a bottom and there is a top. You have seen inverted cups and from your memory you know when one is upside down. Cupness has an orientation to it. A cup is almost a sleeve, almost a hole, but for that bottom. Which again you discern, is not the place for a hole; if a thing is to be a cup to be taken in hand, that hold belongs on the side to make a handle. Consider that utility of a cup, fashioned again and again, all over the world. From the thinness of the sides springing up from the "bottom," one is conserving matter, but also maximizing another thing, which is the space that the cup almost contains. It almost contains, but does not contain. It may partially hold. As it almost contains, it means that something may go into and out of the cup. With the orientation you have discovered upon contemplation, you now might see that gravity plays into the almost-containment. A cup is a handle-able thing which almost contains, which holds due to gravity. We now ask what. The cup is not handcuffs or manacles, to hold a person. The cup is not a cage, to hold an animal or a marble. It has flatness across the top, most often, and one might reason that the thing held is always flat on top, held by gravity. What is held by gravity in an indention, with always a level top? It cannot be a solid object. It cannot be a gas. It could almost be grains of sand, but those form a pile. Ah, then a liquid. This cup is to be handled, to have a liquid go in and go out, at hand and at rest with its flat bottom, such that it does not tip. It is the size of an adult hand or two child's hands, fashioned. By examination, I reach forth with my hand and may refill it or drink from it. In Earthsea, wizardry is, in part, to allow yourself enough emptiness to observe a thing in wholeness, to derive all that might be known about it in your own mind, and thereby give yourself a power over it, but not for something so simple as the cup, but as a flower or a shadow or a person. And so in the novels, emptiness provides space for the reader to contemplate and hold what they have read in their mind.

bediger4000 3y ago

I respect your opinion on this. I have the same reaction to a great deal of the other fantasy and science fiction I've read. Which fantasy books do you like?

pdimitar 3y ago
"The magic goes away" series so far is one of the best I actually encountered (for me). I like the more realistic and honest nature of the characters, and the sense of impending doom and how does it modify the characters' behaviour. I find it pretty engaging so far. I did enjoy the beginning of one of Alistair Reynolds' books but haven't gotten around to read it in full yet. "Stormlight Archive" so far I find a bit prolonged as well but Sanderson is very good at literally everything else so I'll keep going (2 out of the 4 books down so far). Read a few short stories in the Witcher universe and loved them but haven't read the books themselves yet. But I have a feeling that I'll love them too. Gart Nix's "Old kingdom" (the original 3 books) were okay, I loved their world-building but didn't like truly love them. 7/10 though, solid books. Haven't tried to read anything from the expanded universe yet. And of course LOTR, though I have to admit I never managed to read it more than twice for my entire life.
- CodesInChaos 3y ago
  > I did enjoy the beginning of one of Alistair Reynolds' books Which one?
  - pdimitar 3y ago
    You made me look. :) "House of Suns", 2008 I really liked the intro. I should get back to it and read it in full.

eszed 3y ago

They're just not for you, man. :-) No, but seriously, if I'm accurately reading between the lines of what you wrote, you're looking for an engaging plot, and expecting world-building and character to work in service of that. I'd argue that LeGuin (at least here: a few of her other stories are different) prioritizes philosophical / moral inquiry, and world-building (in that order), with character and (especially) plot acting in service of those. All of which is fine, of course: not judging or crucifying you at all. (I'm reading and enjoying an entirely plot-driven book right now.) My love for the Earthsea books (especially the first three) is wrapped up in the thoughts it makes me think, and the vistas it makes me see - for me, each of those have indelible feelings attached - none of which can be condensed into a bare recounting of "here's what happened". To be honest with you, I can't even recall how any of the books end (though I also probably foresaw the endings as I last read them), but the dryness of Tenar's life, her fascination with the hidden emissary from beyond, and her moral delimma about helping him or not, stick with me as vividly as I'd lived them myself.

pdimitar 3y ago
Thank you, those comments are helpful! And yes you are very likely correct that the entire sub-genre of this fantasy is not for me (as in, I really would like plot and world-building and some character development, not 99% philosophy). We are all tuned to different frequencies, and sometimes we change frequencies during our lives (or during a single year even) so I get it but for some reason I can't tune to LeGuin's frequency at all. Oh well.
- eszed 3y ago
  I suggest you try a couple of her other books before you give up on her entirely. Rocannon's World, for instance, is far more plot-driven, and serves as an introduction to her Hainish Cycle, which is a masterpiece of world building, presented across multiple (only loosely-interlinked) books and short stories. Overall, however, LeGuin is almost entirely unconcerned with technology - which, to the extent that they find that to be a significant draw of the genre, may drive away some "science-fiction" fans. (I've always thought the original name, "speculative fiction", is preferable.) LeGuin's speculations run more to the anthropological than the technological, which shouldn't be surprising, given her family background.

norir 3y ago

It is interesting to me that you read all of the books even though the first one didn't speak to you. Maybe the more important question to ask is why you felt compelled to continue reading in spite of your dislike of the works? Perhaps there is something that you don't want to admit was compelling and worth slogging through or maybe you are a masochist? No matter the reason, it seems that the books have something to teach you even if you still dislike them upon further reflection.

pdimitar 3y ago
I lean more to being a masochist simply because I really wanted to know why are these classics loved so I figured even if it's hard to do, I'll read them in full. Plus I am a patient reader and I kept thinking there will be bigger plot / action payoffs further ahead. Sadly that didn't happen. So you are not very off-mark, yeah. Still though: these books in particular taught me to be a less patient reader.

creer 3y ago

I loved these books precisely because they were a refreshing look at fantasy. But yes that makes them completely different reading and there's no problem with not liking them. They are not about plot, they are about the emotions of the characters and the mood of the landscape. And I find these extremely emotional to read because of how much they engage us into the emotions and surroundings of the characters. Also really, the mage has found a direction where not doing anything or much is the way. That doesn't help on plot :-) I loved that the books powerfully evoke the emotions of stages of life: A Wizard of Earthsea, the young wizard The Tombs of Atuan, the adventure (not about the adventure but about the wizard) The Farthest Shore, mage at the end of failing magic Tehanu, retirement, ex-wizard, reconciliation Tales from Earthsea, short stories of wizards in the field The Other Wind, more retirement, old wizards, settling accounts And considering how long apart they are written, I marvel at how well they keep to this effort on emotion and mood.

pdimitar 3y ago
> the mage has found a direction where not doing anything or much is the way That is completely fine in the real life and it also happens to many people. I just don't find it engaging in a book, you know? It's like you expect an action movie when going to the cinema and you get two characters smoking and drinking and discussing life during the entire length of the movie. Maybe in certain moods you will love that but you have expected action that evening and everything else comes across as weird (or even dumb). Or you have an awesome date with a lady, you are so ready for sex 3 hours later, she seems that she wants it too and then she invites you to her place and dead-seriously asks you to play chess for a few hours with her and expects you to go back to your home after. Things like that. It's a disconnect of expectations, sure, but even recognizing that didn't help me appreciate the books.

Exoristos 3y ago

LeGuin's writing, fiction or otherwise, was perpetually juvenilia. But this was not unusual in her generation.

pdimitar 3y ago
Is that really true though? Some of them are written quite late in her life. Maybe she kept dreaming to be her younger self?