Rediscovering Secrets: Revisiting The Way of Kings by Brandon Sanderson [Review Time]

The wait for Words of Radiance was a perfect opportunity to re-read The Way of Kings, a bulky, epic fantasy premiere that I remembered to be awesome, but couldn't remember why. In those thousand pages, some of which were slow and plodding, there ended up being a number of fantastically complicated and hard to remember twists and turns, and secrets worth re-discovering.

I'll divulge those secrets momentarily, because chances are if you're Googling The Way of Kings right now it’s because you're too lazy to re-read it yourself? And if not, just take this as a spoiler warning and go away :) In the meantime, there are a few other reflections that have come to me after a revisit of Brandon Sanderson’s debut to the Stormlight series.

Classic fantasy can be slow, long, boring and out of touch. Why start a traditional high fantasy these days? The question can be posed to both readers and authors — to authors, why plod over well trodden territory yet again, and to readers, what’s in it to read another Lord of the Rings-esque epic series that just isn't going to be as good as Tolkien?

That was my response to the initial announcement that Brandon Sanderson was moving away from the short, single contemporary fantasy novel that was Elantris and, after finishing another huge, epic, traditional fantasy (The Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan) was going to start his own damn multi-volume huge epic. I mean, come on. I just finished reading WOT, I’m not caught up on A Song of Ice and Fire by George R. R. Martin, there are a dozen other series that have been recommended to me that I've never even touched (Discworld by Terry Pratchett, Stephen King’s Dark Tower, anything by Guy Gavriel Kay, Ursula K. LeGuin, Terry Goodkind, R. A. Salvatore, the list goes on) — does this sound like any other avid fantasy reader’s life? We've got catching up to do! Why are you giving us more?!

Surprisingly, The Way of Kings has a lot to offer the genre and grapples with incredibly modern themes. Like how to turn a war-torn world into a peaceful one. Instead of trying to eradicate all of the Lannisters — sorry, enemies — characters like Dalinar Kholin, The Blackthorn for his battle prowess and mercilessness, are starting to lose the Thrill of battle and doubting the cause of revenge for the murder of the Alethi king, his brother Gavilar. Then there are the ideas that build up Sanderson’s world, like Shadesmar, the cognitive shadow world made up of signifiers that represent the signified of the physical world (sorry to descend into literary criticism-ese, that’s just the most concise way to put it). I also like how in response to Tolkien’s world of fading magic and an emphasis on legend and the past, Stormlight sees a return of long-lost abilities and the discovery of new ones, and while history features prominently, it is like the scholar and atheist heretic Jasnah Kholin puts it: the point is future-oriented, using the truth found in the past to decide present action (paraphrasing).

Also fairly modern is its treatment of religion. It’s very easy to forget that Sanderson is Mormon because he treats characters like Jasnah with such respect and gives her incredible wisdom while she tears down the idea of faith in favor of science. It’s the mark of a genius to not only be able to see the reason of the arguments made by your opponents, but to be able to represent them with dignity, with so little bias that they might as well have been written by the atheist his or herself, and not a bitter, mean one like Gregory House but the kind that might be sitting next to you in your college philosophy class. In The Way of Kings it might be Vorinism and The Almighty that Jasnah repudiates, but it’s an easy stand-in for any major religion + God.

The secrets I mentioned are key to what to look forward to in Words of Radiance, out March 4. It’s easy to forget, for example, that not only is Shallan secretly a Shardbearer, she also admitted to murdering her father (at least that's how I read it, and I'm too scared of WoR spoilers to google other interpretations). Which begs the question of whether she took the Blade from him, or from someone else. Another open mystery to recall is that Kabsal, the ardent who flirted with Shallan and eventually revealed his only purpose was to assassinate Jasnah, resulting only in his own death, is a member of a secret society called the Ghostbloods, to which Shallan’s father also belonged. We still don't know where Daddy Davar got his Soulcaster, either, and you can bet we'll learn more about how Shallan and Jasnah can Soulcast without a real fabrial.

All of this are why I've argued in the past that Shallan is a much more interesting character than Kaladin and I raced through the pages dedicated to him to get back to the lady's many mysteries. Still, keep in mind that Kaladin successfully freed all of the bridgemen from Sadeas's army, making Bridge Four Dalinar's personal guard in exchange for his Blade (holy crap, I'll never get over that.) So in addition to Kaladin learning how to become a Radiant, that’s where he is, entering book two — free.

Dalinar was betrayed by Sadeas, losing a huge portion of his army and the faith that Alethkar can ever be united. This feels like another incredibly modern theme to me as well. I don’t see Sadeas as a villain, but a product of Alethi society that, as Dalinar put it, finds rivalry justified always.

The last two humungous twists are the following: Szeth was has been sent to kill Dalinar Kholin (good luck, Dalinar, or should I say RIP?) by King Taravangian, and the Parshendi turn out to be the Voidbringers. Amazing. I love this book.

All of that’s what makes it worth reading. Plus, it’s less daunting to tackle when it’s just coming out now. You’ve only got two to read! There are fricking dozens of Discworld books.

Let me know what you think of the mysteries of The Way of Kings — did you remember them all? Did I miss any? Will you help me find and string Brandon Sanderson up in a highstorm if he doesn't answer all of our questions before book 3? Cool. Thanks.

The Desolation of Smaug Indeed:

The Hobbit Part 2 review time

I did not come to steal from you, O Smaug the Unassessably Wealthy. I merely wanted to gaze upon your magnificence, to see if you were as great as the old tales say.

Starring Martin Freeman, Benedict Cumberbatch as the voice of Smaug, Stephen Fry, Stephen Colbert (kind of) and Evangeline Lilly, plus the old familiars (Ian McKellan, Orlando Bloom, Cate Blanchett), what could go wrong?

Not much, to be fair. It exceeded most of the expectations in terms of pacing and following the books closely enough without adding too much unnecessary garbage. Remember, as soon as Peter Jackson announced that The Hobbit would be broken into THREE freaking parts, we all jumped in with the criticism that they would be three dragging, slow movies bogged down by excess material. Instead, the length of the series let Jackson (and screenplay writers Guillermo Del Toro et al) keep just about every scene from the book, while adding Legolas in (what would a LOTR movie be without his ridiculous facial expressions?) and keeping things from feeling too rushed.

In fact, I didn’t feel that there was too much Legolas and Tauriel. Maybe it all comes down to whether you love Evangeline Lilly and want as much screen time as possible devoted to close-ups of her face, or whether you don’t know who she is (which is the only reasonable explanation for not loving her. Just saying.) I’ve said many times that I fall asleep during your average fight scene (or car chase, great battle, anything with action really) but who could fall asleep watching Legolas play hop scotch over dwarves floating down river in barrels while shooting orcs (without missing)? Not me.

And despite the backlash, I stand by my tweet that Tauriel's hair color is an ugly shade of orange unworthy of framing Evangeline Lilly's luminous visage.

Did anyone else hate the shade of orange they dyed #Tauriel's hair in #TheHobbit? Such an ugly color, for screen in particular.

— Starlight (@Musingsby) January 13, 2014

Ahem.

We couldn't have asked for a better Bard. Luke Evans stood up to the role of Middle Earth man-hero, upholding Boromir's glower, the harshness of Eomer, and the compassion of Faramir (sometimes), without Denethor’s anything. A job well done, sir.

You have no right to enter that mountain!

Meanwhile, Stephen Fry was hardly recognizable, which is awesome. I mean, it’s not awesome if you didn’t realize it was him, in which case you need to watch again, but it’s awesome that he transformed so fully into such a dislikable character. For me, Fry will always be Deitrich, that gay comedian and talk show host in V for Vendetta. But there’s none of Deitrich’s graceful dignity in the Master of Lake-town. Instead there’s a revolting, greedy, brutish little man.

What did go wrong was the handling of source material. I’m not complaining here about the inclusion of scenes that didn’t occur in The Hobbit; I said I’m happy with Tauriel (and no one complained when Liv Tyler got oh so much more screen time proportional to the all of 60 words devoted to Arwen in the entire Lord of the Rings Trilogy.) The length of the three installments ensures that nothing important need get cut, which keeps us devotees sated, so that’s not the problem either. But what made Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings series utterly flawless wasn’t the choices of what to include and what to remove, (Team Bombidil forevs!!) it was how heavily it relied on the foundation of Tolkien’s powerful writing, particularly the use of his exact wording. The deviation from that established standard is the only reason I can point to as to why Bilbo’s conversations with the dragon, Smaug the Magnificent, fell flat, despite the opportunity there for the chemistry and mastery of actors Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch.

"You have nice manners for a thief and a liar."

Other than Smaug’s opening lines, “Well, thief, I smell you. I hear your breath. I feel your air,” and the odd “barrel rider” epithet, the screenplay writers free styled this one, and worse yet, they did that thing that makes this particular member of the audience take a little doze: they turned the encounter from a “conversation” with the great dragon into a damn action scene. And a boring, slow paced one at that. We’re long past being impressed by CGI dragons skating across millions of coins, I don’t care how detailed and individual each gold coin is. Because I’m sleeping.

The dialogue between them is closest to its source material when they are actually interacting, but in between the snippets of conversation, Smaug just chases Bilbo around the mounds of treasure blowing fire at him. Snore. Only about a third of the dialogue is verbatim from Tolkien, which might not sound so bad, but when I go back and re-read Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King, almost all of the spoken passages are familiar, because they appeared in the movies word for word (which, as I’ve mentioned, makes a re-read a much bigger treat than you think).

Ponies take some catching, I believe, after a long start. And so do burglars!

The wording might even be close enough, but the pacing is entirely off. Reading the chapter “Inside Information,” there’s nothing but movement in the talk between Bilbo and Smaug, and the plot as it unfolds, due to Bilbo seeing the Arkenstone and Smaug deducing (Sherlock!) that Bilbo is working with the dwarves and has been to Lake-town, where he may have allies.

By my count, the scene of just talk with Bilbo and Smaug is about 12 minutes total of screen time, which is kind of a lot, but maybe it should have been longer and had more of the tangents and side conversations that made it so compelling in the first place. And for sure the scene deserves that much time, except that it was ever so much less clever and intriguing than the ten minutes it takes to read the brilliantly composed chapter. The scene that I most looked forward to, given its perfection in the original composition and the casting of Sherlock and Watson (yep), was one of the weakest in the film, and the series thus far.

And after that we get little mess there’s the snooze-inducing battle in Lake-town, the visually stunning yet dreadfully boring molten gold attack on the dragon, and all that nonsense with Tauriel and the kingsfoil. Haven’t we done that routine twice before, Tolkien? Oh wait, eagles. Right. The rule of LOTR is that everything happens twice. See Arwen (and Aragorn) saving Frodo with kingsfoil. Hobbit, dwarf, same thing.

“She is far, far away from here, and she walks in starlight in another world.” And what was up with Kili and his “Do you think she could have loved me?”

He's quite tall for a Dwarf. Do you not think?

Sorry if that was a harsh review. Keep in mind, I did start with lots of nice things to say. Plus, the voice acting really was quite masterful. Any disagreements? Feel free to air your grievances; that’s what the comment board is for.

Game of Thrones Season 3 Premiere: Valar Dohaeris

The most pirated and anticipated, ratings record breaking premiere got off to a steady start. Did some good old catching up with all our old friends, a minute or two north of the wall, a little check-in with the surviving Baratheon "licking his wounds" back in Dragonstone, and a peak at the carnage the Starks come across at Harrenhal while they bide their time, have a few pints before they get around to taking King's Landing.

I know this is the time for rising action, but start killing each other already! Two seasons and Joffrey's head is still on his body. What's with that? At least Stannis gave it a shot; what are those Starks doing? Dany has an excuse. Her dragons are too small to kill even the puniest of kings, and she doesn't have much of an army. Yet.

Thanks to the books we can just read ahead to the action, but Valar Dohaeris did start a few things off. The great ethical dilemma of Daenerys' completely dehumanized slave army, Jon Snow climbing up the wildlong ranks from prisoner to... not prisoner, and Sansa's opportunity for escape, and in fact, even wanting to escape King's Landing, or outwardly admitting that she does, is a new and very welcome development. I haven't figured out why I feel fiercely protective over this arguably very weak, sad character, but just think how much room there is for development when you're a complete crybaby and a coward. If she kills Joffrey one day it'll be the best thing a woman has done since the Witch King (okay not really), but she'll have to both beat Arya to it, and humble herself enough to her sister to ask for fencing lessons.

It's difficult to tell to what extent Stannis is still in the game, particularly when he's burning his own soldiers and generals at the stake, and he's not looking too hot. It would be a shame to lose another contender for the throne; the more the merrier. The more to take it from the damn Lannisters. 

A few notable characters didn't appear in this first episode. Where's Arya? Last we saw her she had escaped Harrenhal, and good timing based on what Robb and Lady Stark found there. Hopefully she's near enough for a reunion but probably not. There are also the little stark boys, Bran and Rickon, whom Maester Luwin urged to flee north to the fricking wall in the season finale. Yeah, wish them luck. Osha and a couple direwolves should be able to protect them from the army of white walker things we got a glimpse of up north. Okay, those are on the other side of the wall, but we've seen what kinds of things can happen to children in this show, and at this point, nothing would surprise me.

Don't forget about Jaime Lannister, either. We should expect an update on where he is very soon.

Last season ended with Margaery Tyrell asking King Joffrey to marry her, which made me angry even though the new arrangement saves Sansa having to marry him. Still, what a strumpet. I guess I was most concerned over Sansa's safety if Joffrey is done with her, but that doesn't seem to concern anyone. I guess Cersei has forgotten about the Stark in their midst. Still, if there's one thing that makes me tear my hair out, it's when I don't like a character from the start, and the storyteller flips them on their ass to redeem them. Margaery Tyrell works with the poor in the city and isn't afraid to get shit on her boots in the process. How honourable. I'm running out of villainous characters to dislike.

I hear it's going to be a good season. Winter's coming, and all that. Well get on with it then!

So you think Star Wars is Science Fiction, do you?

Could Star Wars Really be Fantasy?

If it looks like science fiction, is that the end of the story? Is the entire genre of sci-fi really only defined by the presence of props like spaceships, robots and laser-gun technology? By intergalactic travel and alien life forms?

The genre of sci-fi is a bit more complicated than you might think and is commonly misinterpreted, even by authors such as Margaret Atwood, who said one of her novels is not science fiction because “It contains no intergalactic space travel, no teleportation, no Martians." I would like to argue that the elements Atwood is talking about are central to aesthetic, not genre. But why would I call Star Wars fantasy? Here are some good reasons:

1. The definition

Sci-fi and fantasy are so similar that they go under one umbrella genre called Speculative Fiction. (Sadly they can also go under the category of formula fiction, but I digress). Science fiction is future-oriented and presents a world that is speculated to be possible, and is presented as within the realm of scientific possibility, where fantasy presents the purely impossible.

Star Wars takes place “A long, long time ago.” It takes place in the past. You could argue that it’s still the past in our universe, just in a galaxy “far, far away,” but there’s one problem. The Force is not in any way possible in our universe’s past or future.

2. What is The Force?

Magic gets called a lot of things in the world of Fantasy. In The Wheel of Time, it’s the One Power, the source, saidin or saidar (it’s called a lot of things in The Wheel of Time). I’m sure if you look at some of your favourite fantasy tomes, some of them will use the term magic, and others won’t. It’s ‘power’ or ‘energy’ or um ... 'the Force'.

The Force doesn’t even look like technology. The only counter-argument to this that I could think of is that the Force could be considered physics with different rules, which would make it somewhat scientific... but then isn’t that what magic is? Only certain people can use it, some people don’t even believe in it, and it’s a way of manipulating the world around you according to certain rules. And if Star Wars takes place “in a galaxy far, far away...” then it’s supposed to be in our Universe, so how would there be different rules of physics? (and how would there be magic that doesn’t exist in our world... oh shit.)

3. Conventions:

Star Wars, unlike most science fiction, isn’t about the effects of a new technology on a given society.

Star Wars is a story with a hero on a personal quest, facing a personal battle. It’s about said hero's struggles, relationships and accomplishments. The war here is basically good vs. evil. How is this so different from Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings?

I can tell you what it’s not similar to. It’s not similar to sci-fi staples such as The Matrix, Terminator, Donnie Darko, or Bladerunner. Is the evil a person or an entity? That’s a pretty good hint as to what genre it belongs to. In Minority Report the antagonist is the software that tries to predict whether someone is going to commit murder. In Terminator, like in A.I. or I Robot, it’s artificial life. Same with Battlestar Galactica. Click the "sci fi" label at the bottom of this post for more examples (including new flicks like In Time, Timer and Limitless). On the other hand, I've heard the same argument I'm making about Star Wars used against Dune by Frank Herbert.

The enemies in Star Wars include the Empire (an organisation of people), Darth Vader, and Emperor Palpatine. Harry Potter has Lord Voldemort and Lord of the Rings has Sauron. Tolkien was very anti-industrial revolution (late as he was to the game), and rampant deforestation was one of the evils Sauron threatened, but it wasn’t the development of chainsaws that Frodo journeyed to Mount Doom to counter. It was a person. Kind of like Darth Vader.

Fantasy conventions also tend to include, sadly, archetypes. Obi Wan Kenobi is Luke’s Dumbledore/Gandalf. Name a Fantasy that doesn’t have the magical guide. Now name a sci-fi that does. On my comment board. Go!

Why you should re-read The Lord of the Rings [review of The Two Towers]

Where now are the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing?
Where is the helm and the hauberk, and the bright hair flowing?
Where is the hand on the harpstring, and the red fir glowing?
Where is the spring an the harvest and the tall corn growing?

They have passed like rain on the mountain, like a wind in the meadow;
The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow.
Who shall gather the smoke of the dead wood burning,
Or behold the flowing years from the Sea returning?

It's time to read The Lord of the Rings again. I know it, you know it, so get on it. What's it been, five years? Ten? I know why you're avoiding this. You love these books, you watch the movies all the time, but it just seems so daunting, reading all one thousand pages, paying attention to all those characters, places, the history, the scenery. I know it seems like a lot of work, but you've done it once before. And today I'm going to tell you why it only get easier - if you've watched the films 50 times like a good citizen of the 21st century.

Kender Stew and a bit of a rant about Fantasy... again. [review and musing time]

So here's my problem with the Fantasy genre, and why I think it has a bad reputation. You can define the genre by it's setting and plot. In a medieval-style world, a powerless man has to overcome a great evil to save his people. This is a genre where anything is possible, and somehow writers have managed to retell the same story in the same place with the same characters hundreds of times. Even some of my favourite books fall into this category. I still read them because I feel they have something new to add to the tradition, but really, why does Fantasy have to be about world-changing events and good conquering evil? Why does it always take place in the same aesthetic time?

Ok, yeah, this is an essay for a class I'm taking... On J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the RINGS! [review time]

The Fellowship of the Ring, and the Lord of the Rings as a whole, develops the theme of loss and mortality through the decline of magic in a fantastical world. There is a sense of inevitability throughout the text as the reader is constantly reminded that Middle Earth will never be the same. The time of Man is coming, the elves are leaving, magic is fading and the hobbits are in hiding. This is a major theme of the text, but the central plot and quest have nothing to do with it, thus emphasizing the inevitability of this loss. Sauron is considered nearly invincible and the quest seems impossible, but that does not stop Gandalf and Frodo from facing dangers and dark forces when they have no other choice. They do not, however, go on a grand quest to save the magic of Middle Earth and make the elves stay. Tolkien seems to be suggesting that while it is possible to conquer evil, it is not possible to stop the wheels of time from turning – mortality cannot be stopped. Although magic is fading, the world will go on without it, and there is no solution.

The Way of Kings Initial Reaction [review time]

I have awaited this book with excited anticipation since I read the single volume Elantris. Brandon Sanderson has incredible creativity – something that is ironically lacking in the fantasy genre for the most part. If we take him to be a protégé, or at least a contemporary of Robert Jordan, having taken on the task of completing the epic Wheel of Time series, I would argue that Sanderson is perfecting the imaginative genre and taking it a step further. This is an important step towards what the fantasy genre was always meant to be.

About Hobbits

Various current dietary theories give evidence that Hobbits should be quite physically fit. Although the stars of the film version were quite thin, Tolkien described the race as "fattish in the stomach", which is really quite unlikely given their lifestyle. It seems the movie-makers may have inadvertently corrected the mistake. The Hobbits' tendency to eat seven meals every day, according to current weight loss claims, should keep their metabolism going all day to burn off all of those calories. That plump little misses seen at the end of Return of the King should be quite a lot thinner if she enjoys all of the Hobbits' daily meals: breakfast, second breakfast, elevensies, luncheon, afternoon tea, dinner and supper.

Another factor that should lighten the weight is their drinkage of tea instead of coffee, and with most meals. Many weight-loss diets recommend drinking tea with every meal to fill up the tummy with a low-carb treat, making it difficult to fill up on the more fattening foods.

Hobbits are also known for eating simple foods such as bread, cheese, taters and meat. In my own humble opinion, foods such as these are not so fattening, and the major cause of the obesity epidemic in modern North America is fast food and trans fat, not red meat and starch. Accompanied by a day of farming, before industrial technology, the Hobbits' diet really should earn them a thinner stomach.