What is This I Don't Even

[Mindfire]

"For gray-eyed Destiny now weaves apace, the first resounding note of war echoes across the land."

Um, what?

"Movement flickered through it, like the swish of a bird across a clouded moon."

Huh?

"The songs of the dead are the lamentations of the living."

Okay... But what does this MEAN?

(Rep points for whoever can guess the writer and/or book these are from.)


Perhaps one of the most spectacular abuses of this trope in existence.

 

[MadMadys]

Eldest - Christopher Paolini

Also, thank you google.

 

[Ireth]

Argh, I recognize those quotes, especially the last one... can't remember the author's naaame. Grawr.

 

[tlbodine]

This put a smile on my face. Once upon a time, I used to roleplay online (ok, I still do that part) on Neopets. From the age of, oh, 12 to 16, I would spend all of my free time RPing with other kids. And one of the unspoken "rules" of RPing was that you had to use the most bombastic, overwrought language possible in order to show how "literate" you were. So you'd end up writing stupid drivel like "Cerulean optics swiveled forward as a smile twitched up the lupine's maw, auds folding back toward its cranial lobe" and everyone would ooh and aah over how clever you were.

Fortunately, I grew out of that habit, but seeing people talk in that sort of "wolfspeak" still cracks me up.

 

[Anders Ämting]

"For gray-eyed Destiny now weaves apace, the first resounding note of war echoes across the land."

Um, what?

It means that circumstances that will eventually lead to war have been swiftly set in motion.

"Movement flickered through it, like the swish of a bird across a clouded moon."

Huh?

Something moved in a flickering way.

"The songs of the dead are the lamentations of the living."

Okay... But what does this MEAN?

Depends on the context, I guess.

Also, this reminds of reading Patricia A. McKillip. I don't know if it was our translation or something, but her Cygnet books were so insanely poetic that half the time I had no idea what was going on. (But they were still awesome.)

Perhaps one of the most spectacular abuses of this trope in existence.

This put a smile on my face. Once upon a time, I used to roleplay online (ok, I still do that part) on Neopets. From the age of, oh, 12 to 16, I would spend all of my free time RPing with other kids. And one of the unspoken "rules" of RPing was that you had to use the most bombastic, overwrought language possible in order to show how "literate" you were. So you'd end up writing stupid drivel like "Cerulean optics swiveled forward as a smile twitched up the lupine's maw, auds folding back toward its cranial lobe" and everyone would ooh and aah over how clever you were.

See also: Purple Prose.

 

[Mindfire]

My point is that the writing is extremely overwrought and that no one should write like this unless they're intentionally trying to outdo the best of the worst of the worst of fantasy writing, like Eye of Argon or R_b_rt St_n_k.

 

[Devor]

The middle one wasn't too bad. It created an image, a bird flying with the moon behind it. I assume he's describing the "orb" and that imagery kind of sounds appropriate.

That said, the other two you've posted are horrible, like somebody trying and failing to remember the wording of a bad cliche, and I couldn't get past the first chapter of that book.

 

[CupofJoe]

They sound almost Aural - as if someone was writing down a story they heard around a fire late at night.
It might be difficult/intense to read but I think it would sound great spoken by a good story-teller.

 

[Rullenzar]

Honestly, there is nothing wrong with these. It's nice to switch it up from time to time so your not reading the same crap all the time. It isn't very hard to understand either if your into that sort of thing.

Mind you this is coming from someone who had to study Shakespeare in school so....

 

[saellys]

The "gray-eyed Destiny" line has a certain Homeric poetry to it, and the other two are understandable with a little intellectual effort. Altogether these really don't bother me and they're not half as elaborate as some things I've read. If I hadn't seen the author name earlier in the thread, I probably would have guessed it to be Kay. It may not be the voice you want for your work, but I don't see the point of knocking it.

 

[Chilari]

The "gray-eyed Destiny" line has a certain Homeric poetry to it, and the other two are understandable with a little intellectual effort. Altogether these really don't bother me and they're not half as elaborate as some things I've read. If I hadn't seen the author name earlier in the thread, I probably would have guessed it to be Kay. It may not be the voice you want for your work, but I don't see the point of knocking it.

Don't you think it sounds incredibly pretentious, though? As if the author is trying too hard to sound smart and sophisticated? As if trying to say, "look, I deserve to be recognised as a writer of classical literature, give me a Nobel prize." I can see things like "grey-eyed Destiny" working in a novel set in the Trojan War, or the flitting moon thing working in a Mills & Boon romance, where pretentious language isn't so out of place, but in fantasy it doesn't feel right. All it is is showing off what an impressive vocabulary the author has.

 

[Rullenzar]

I think your just looking too far into this. As long as it's readable and helps us to paint a picture then I don't see a problem with it. The way you make it sound is that you have more of a problem with the author then the actual text.

 

[saellys]

I can see things like "grey-eyed Destiny" working in a novel set in the Trojan War, or the flitting moon thing working in a Mills & Boon romance, where pretentious language isn't so out of place, but in fantasy it doesn't feel right.

I actually got turned off of fantasy years ago because of pretentious language. Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion were major offenders, but I can excuse them given their mythic scope. Kay's purple prose made The Summer Tree an interminable slog for me. Seriously though, almost every fantasy novel I've read does it to some degree--turns a phrase a certain way to sound more poetic and less easily digestible. It's more tolerable and less noticeable in character dialogue, and can be chalked up to inserting realistic medievalisms/fantasyisms, but it still happens.

A Song of Ice and Fire and The Prince of Nothing were my reintroductions to fantasy, and both series are almost completely devoid of such embroidery, which is why they're still among my favorites even as my tastes have broadened. On the extreme far end of the spectrum, The Steel Remains doesn't bother with anything approaching purple prose in narration or dialogue, and that stuck out to me after reading so much of it elsewhere.

 

[Mindfire]

Yes, but you see, the difference between Tolkien and Paolini is that Tolkien was good at using archaic language because he was a scholar. Paolini not so much, especially when his prose sometimes takes a jarring turn into modernity for no good reason. He's not being poetic. THE WORDS. MEAN. NOTHING. Read LeGuin's essay "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie". She criticizes this kind of nonsense while praising those who do it right.

 

[Steerpike]

A Song of Ice and Fire and The Prince of Nothing were my reintroductions to fantasy, and both series are almost completely devoid of such embroidery, which is why they're still among my favorites even as my tastes have broadened. On the extreme far end of the spectrum, The Steel Remains doesn't bother with anything approaching purple prose in narration or dialogue, and that stuck out to me after reading so much of it elsewhere.

This sort of narrow range of aesthetic taste always puzzles me to some degree. If you look at the breadth and depth of literature, you can find any number of examples of excellent work across all styles of presentation. Whether the words themselves become playful and part of the story (Nabokov, for example), or whether you have dense, richly-textured prose, or whether you move to a very lean, spare style of writing, there are many excellent works out there.

I like Martin and Bakker, but it would be a sad state of affairs if works written in those styles were the only things to read. Similarly, I like Kay (whom you can't have read much of, if you mistook the prior passages; and whom I should point out only adopted that style for certain works) or, for more descriptive writers, Peake. But again, it wouldn't be good if those styles of writing were the only ones out there. There are so many great works across various styles that I really think people who shut themselves off to the diversity of literature are missing out.

It's like only wanting to eat red beans and rice. I love red beans and rice, but it would suck if that's all you could eat. I like punk rock, but if that's the only kind of music there was, I'd go nuts. There's also jazz, opera, industrial, metal, folk, and so on. Instead of just Hollywood summer blockbusters, we luckily get independent films, foreign movies, &c.

Although as I write this, perhaps I should be less surprised in the end, because most people I know seem to like very limited music and movies, and they stay in their comfort zone. They're a bit more adventurous with foods, but not much. People are free to like what they like, of course, but when it comes down to being able to 'grok' this sort of outlook, especially on artistic endeavors, I just can't

People also don't know the definition of 'purple prose,' as the phrase is erroneously applied to any kind of highly-descriptive writing. I think the better view is to limit it to situations where the prose doesn't work because of its overly-ornate character.

 

[Rullenzar]

The prince of Nothing series was great. I enjoyed how far into each characters mind he brought me. It was lacking in the action for me personally but everything else he did made up for it ten fold.

 

[Steerpike]

Yes, but you see, thesis difference between Tolkien and Paolini is that Tolkien was GOOD at using archaic language because he was a scholar. Paolini not so much, especially when his prose sometimes takes a jarring turn into modernity for no good reason. He's not being poetic. THE WORDS. MEAN. NOTHING. Read LeGuin's essay "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie". She criticizes this kind of nonsense while praising those who do it right.

Yep. Kay is very good at it as well, though he's only chosen to do it in a few works. His recent work, particularly, lacks it altogether. There's no way you can confuse Kay with Paolini.

 

[saellys]

THE WORDS. MEAN. NOTHING.

I had no trouble figuring out what they meant.

This sort of narrow range of aesthetic taste always puzzles me to some degree. If you look at the breadth and depth of literature, you can find any number of examples of excellent work across all styles of presentation. Whether the words themselves become playful and part of the story (Nabokov, for example), or whether you have dense, richly-textured prose, or whether you move to a very lean, spare style of writing, there are many excellent works out there.

I can see how you could take a "narrow range of aesthetic taste" away from my previous post, because I didn't specify that once I started reading fantasy again and branched out beyond Martin and Bakker, I find richer prose a lot more enjoyable now. Hence my defending the maligned passages earlier in this thread.

I like Martin and Bakker, but it would be a sad state of affairs if works written in those styles were the only things to read.

No argument here.

Similarly, I like Kay (whom you can't have read much of, if you mistook the prior passages; and whom I should point out only adopted that style for certain works)

You're right. I've only read The Summer Tree.

or, for more descriptive writers, Peake. But again, it wouldn't be good if those styles of writing were the only ones out there. There are so many great works across various styles that I really think people who shut themselves off to the diversity of literature are missing out.

I think so too.

Although as I write this, perhaps I should be less surprised in the end, because most people I know seem to like very limited music and movies, and they stay in their comfort zone. They're a bit more adventurous with foods, but not much. People are free to like what they like, of course, but when it comes down to being able to 'grok' this sort of outlook, especially on artistic endeavors, I just can't

Like I said, I don't think this way, but I will take a minute to defend that outlook. There is absolutely nothing wrong with limiting one's entertainment intake to media that does not challenge one in the slightest. A lot of people in the world are not voracious readers, and/or do not take the time to engage with media beyond the surface level. While that unfortunately sometimes leads to the admonishment that those of us who do think critically about what we consume should just "enjoy it for what it is," there is nevertheless nothing at all wrong with dropping ten bucks to see Avengers and turning off your brain for a couple hours. We who like our content deep and our analysis deeper are prone to a superiority complex, which gets expressed in benign ways for the most part, but is no less troubling and unhealthy. If someone doesn't feel like decoding The Dragon Waiting, absolutely nobody at all is hurt by that, not even the person who prefers not to intellectually engage with their media.

The prince of Nothing series was great. I enjoyed how far into each characters mind he brought me. It was lacking in the action for me personally but everything else he did made up for it ten fold.

What I loved the most was that so much of the cultural development happened through Kellhus's eyes, in realtime as he figured out how to manipulate everyone around him. Bakker's level of insight, and the seamless way he incorporated it in the narrative with almost no exposition, is a huge influence on my writing now.

There's no way you can confuse Kay with Paolini.

I did, so I guess it's possible.

 

[Steerpike]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with limiting one's entertainment intake to media that does not challenge one in the slightest.

I'm not saying it is wrong, however I don't understand the mindset, honestly, and I'm glad we're not limited to such offerings when it comes to finding things to enjoy.

I did, so I guess it's possible.

Let me revise: no person who is reasonably familiar with both authors is likely to make that mistake. Even if all you'd read was Fionavar Tapestry, which is the work of Kay's that is written in a more mythical/poetic style, I don't think the mistake is likely if you've looked seriously at both that work and Paolini. Kay actually makes it work. If you don't like the style to begin with and aren't open to it no matter whether it is done well or poorly, then I can see the lines blurring. It's similar to what you commonly hear a person say when confronted with a new style of music: all X sounds the same (X being jazz, metal, pop, rap, or whatever). When you delve into it you find they're not the same at all, but those who aren't receptive to the style aren't likely to develop the 'ear' to determine what within that style is good and what is bad.

As noted above, Kay's other works don't follow that style and become increasingly more like what is currently popular, in terms of style, as you move through his bibliography (though still better written than most).

 

[tlbodine]

Yes, but you see, the difference between Tolkien and Paolini is that Tolkien was good at using archaic language because he was a scholar. Paolini not so much, especially when his prose sometimes takes a jarring turn into modernity for no good reason. He's not being poetic. THE WORDS. MEAN. NOTHING. Read LeGuin's essay "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie". She criticizes this kind of nonsense while praising those who do it right.

This.

I haven't read any of the Paolini books myself, so maybe I'm missing some context, but the quoted passages ring hollow. They feel vague, which is exactly the opposite of what you want in a poetic description.