Discussion:
What I read in 2017
(too old to reply)
David Goldfarb
2018-01-02 04:05:23 UTC
Permalink
This is down a bit from last year. I blame Andrew "Zarf" Plotkin for
turning me on to a game called FTL that sucked up a fair amount of
my reading time. There is also the fact that I went full-time at my
job in mid-year, and starting commuting by car instead of bus, which
meant that I no longer had an enforced two hours a day of reading.

I note that I am counting a number of novellas / short novels published
as single volumes; otherwise my total would be even lower. On the other
hand, some people count graphic novel collections, and I don't.

In addition to all of these, there were subscriptions to Asimov's,
Uncanny, The Bridge World, and the ACBL Bridge Bulletin.


January

The Lost Child of Lychford, Paul Cornell
Who Killed Sherlock Holmes? Paul Cornell
Comrade Grandmother, Naomi Kritzer
League of Dragons, Naomi Novik
Dusk or Dark or Dawn or Day, Seanan McGuire
The Invisible Library, Genevieve Cogman

February

All the Birds in the Sky, Charlie Jane Anders
Norse Mythology, Neil Gaiman
Infomocracy, Malka Older
A Closed and Common Orbit, Becky Chambers
Snapshot, Brandon Sanderson
Big Deal, Augie Boehm

March

Cold Forged Flame, Marie Brennan
Too Like the Lightning, Ada Palmer
Seven Surrenders, Ada Palmer

If you're looking closely, you might see where I got turned on to the game.

April

Making Conversation, Teresa Nielsen Hayden
Gift of the Winter King and Other Stories, Naomi Kritzer

This one was obviously earlier work than Comrade Grandmother, and I
suggest that the other is the place to start.

The Bug, Ellen Ullman

A mainstream fiction novel about software testing. Since I work as a
tester, I picked it up. It was well-written, but suffered from the
problem that the two protagonists are both kind of horrible people.
(One of them does eventually get over herself a bit.) I was worried
that the titular Bug, which for most of the book served as a metaphor,
would just be left as that and never have a satisfying explanation;
I was pleased to be wrong.

May

New York 2140, Kim Stanley Robinson
The Sorcerer of the Wildeeps, Kai Ashante Wilson
Chalk, Paul Cornell

June

Death's End, Cixin Liu
A Taste of Honey, Kai Ashante Wilson
The Jewel and Her Lapidary, Fran Wilde
The Ballad of Black Tom, Victor Lavalle
This Census-Taker, China Mieville

Can you tell that I was voting for the Hugos this year?

July

Tournament Bridge: An Uncensored Memoir, Jerry Machlin
On Ordeal: Ronan Nolan, Jr., Diane Duane
The Refrigerator Monologues, Catherynne M. Valente
The Delirium Brief, Charles Stross
Down Among the Sticks and Bones, Seanan McGuire
Every Heart a Doorway, Seanan McGuire

I was so impressed by "Sticks and Bones" that I was inspired to
re-read its predecessor. (Do we have a word for the work that a
given work is a prequel to...?)

August

Ninefox Gambit, Yoon Ha Lee
Raven Stratagem, Yoon Ha Lee
Penric's Fox, Lois McMaster Bujold
The Obelisk Gate, N.K. Jemisin
The Stone Sky, N.K. Jemisin

September

The Gates of Tagmeth, P.C. Hodgell
The Brightest Fell, Seanan McGuire
You're Never Weird on the Internet (Almost), Felicia Day
Full Fathom Five, Max Gladstone

October

The Ruin of Angels, Max Gladstone
Envy of Angels, Matt Wallace

I admit I couldn't resist putting these two together on the list.

Provenance, Ann Leckie
Challenges of the Deeps, Ryk E. Spoor
Vallista, Steven Brust

November

A Long Day in Lychford, Paul Cornell
The Prisoner of Limnos, Lois McMaster Bujold
Oathbringer, Brandon Sanderson
A Key, an Egg, an Unfortunate Remark, Harry Connolly

December

The Incrementalists, Steven Brust and Skyler White
The Skill of our Hands, Steven Brust and Skyler White

Total: 52. 47 SF or Fantasy, 4 non-fiction of one sort or another,
just 1 mundane or literary fiction.

26 items out of 52 by women (counting the two collaborations as 1 each).
--
David Goldfarb |"Regrets by definition come too late.
***@gmail.com | Say what you mean. Bear witness. Iterate."
***@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- John M. Ford
Robert Carnegie
2018-01-02 10:18:09 UTC
Permalink
I'm actually not sure if you want us to read _Gift of the Winter King_
or _Comrade Grandmother_ first. Which is "the other"?
David Goldfarb
2018-01-02 22:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
I'm actually not sure if you want us to read _Gift of the Winter King_
or _Comrade Grandmother_ first. Which is "the other"?
_Gift of the Winter King_ is earlier, not as good work.
_Comrade Grandmother_, by contrast, is delightful.
--
David Goldfarb |From the fortune cookie file:
***@gmail.com |
***@ocf.berkeley.edu |"You have at your command the wisdom of the ages."
Default User
2018-01-02 20:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goldfarb
A Closed and Common Orbit, Becky Chambers
The Delirium Brief, Charles Stross
Provenance, Ann Leckie
These are where we overlap. That's better than last year, when we had but one (another Chambers).


Brian
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2018-01-02 23:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goldfarb
Challenges of the Deeps, Ryk E. Spoor
Hey, I know that guy!
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
Dimensional Traveler
2018-01-03 00:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goldfarb
Challenges of the Deeps, Ryk E. Spoor
    Hey, I know that guy!
Isn't he the guy who keeps mimicking you backwards in the mirror?
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Default User
2018-01-03 16:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Goldfarb
Challenges of the Deeps, Ryk E. Spoor
    Hey, I know that guy!
Isn't he the guy who keeps mimicking you backwards in the mirror?
Take a lesson from BMO in Adventure Time. If the guy in the mirror wants to swap places for a little while, say no!


Brian
David Goldfarb
2018-01-03 01:34:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by David Goldfarb
Challenges of the Deeps, Ryk E. Spoor
Hey, I know that guy!
Heh.

I thought it was odd that Baen called this one "the climax of the
Arenaverse series" (or something along those lines) when it seemed
like there were definite hooks for things to continue.

One thing I'll say, and I apologize if it offends:

Your ideas are large-scale and fun. Your prose is workmanlike, if not
masterful; it flows well and tells the story. Your characters are
interesting and enjoyable to read about...despite their foot-thick
adamantium plot armor.

What I mean is, when one of the greatest factions in the Arena declares
war on Humanity, it should be an occasion for some suspense. But we
know that nobody we care about will lose anything that matters to them.

Do you read Sanderson? You might study how he sets up the climax
of _Oathbringer_, to have some real uncertainty to it.

(If you don't read Sanderson, I'm surprised: I'd think he'd be
right up your alley.)
--
David Goldfarb | "You can't do only one thing."
***@gmail.com |
***@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- John W. Campbell, Jr.
m***@sky.com
2018-01-03 18:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by David Goldfarb
Challenges of the Deeps, Ryk E. Spoor
Hey, I know that guy!
Heh.
I thought it was odd that Baen called this one "the climax of the
Arenaverse series" (or something along those lines) when it seemed
like there were definite hooks for things to continue.
Your ideas are large-scale and fun. Your prose is workmanlike, if not
masterful; it flows well and tells the story. Your characters are
interesting and enjoyable to read about...despite their foot-thick
adamantium plot armor.
What I mean is, when one of the greatest factions in the Arena declares
war on Humanity, it should be an occasion for some suspense. But we
know that nobody we care about will lose anything that matters to them.
Do you read Sanderson? You might study how he sets up the climax
of _Oathbringer_, to have some real uncertainty to it.
(If you don't read Sanderson, I'm surprised: I'd think he'd be
right up your alley.)
--
David Goldfarb | "You can't do only one thing."
Just don't kill off any of the characters I care about! :-)
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2018-01-04 03:00:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by David Goldfarb
Challenges of the Deeps, Ryk E. Spoor
Hey, I know that guy!
Heh.
I thought it was odd that Baen called this one "the climax of the
Arenaverse series" (or something along those lines) when it seemed
like there were definite hooks for things to continue.
Your ideas are large-scale and fun. Your prose is workmanlike, if not
masterful; it flows well and tells the story. Your characters are
interesting and enjoyable to read about...despite their foot-thick
adamantium plot armor.
What I mean is, when one of the greatest factions in the Arena declares
war on Humanity, it should be an occasion for some suspense. But we
know that nobody we care about will lose anything that matters to them.
Do you read Sanderson? You might study how he sets up the climax
of _Oathbringer_, to have some real uncertainty to it.
I don't think I've read Sanderson, but I see no way to set up
uncertainty unless you're willing to believe there IS uncertainty.

If you don't believe there is any, then there's nothing I could write
that would make you uncertain.

Does Sanderson set it up by having, previously, killed off people you
wouldn't have expected to die? That'll do it.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
David Goldfarb
2018-01-08 04:12:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
I don't think I've read Sanderson,
He's really very good, and I think you'd like his books a lot.
Try _Mistborn_.

but I see no way to set up
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
uncertainty unless you're willing to believe there IS uncertainty.
If you don't believe there is any, then there's nothing I could write
that would make you uncertain.
Does Sanderson set it up by having, previously, killed off people you
wouldn't have expected to die? That'll do it.
If you mean nothing you could write in a Usenet post, then yeah.
In terms of something you could write in one of your books, you
just put it right there: give us an ensemble cast, and partway through
kill off important members of it. I can think of a couple of
places where Sanderson does just that.

Less drastically, have your characters *lose* sometimes. I've read
_Digital Knight_ in its first release, I've read the Balanced Sword
trilogy, and I've read the three Arena books, as well as some of the
shorter stuff. In all of them, your characters move from triumph to
triumph. No challenge is ever too great to overcome, no temptation
is impossible to resist, no foe too strong to defeat whenever they're
encountered; if winning requires taking a thousand-to-one shot, well
hey, we all know that thousand-to-one shots are sure things.
The third Arena book hangs a lampshade on it, for Pete's sake.
Some characters have tragic losses that drive them, but these are
always safely confined to backstory.

Your characters never lose a battle, never suffer a major setback,
never have to face serious adversity. I'm *not* arguing that things
have to be grim. Sanderson has bad things happen occasionally, but he's
rarely grim; but he knows when and how to let adversity reveal character.
--
David Goldfarb |"Thanks for the Dadaist pep talk. I feel
***@gmail.com | much more abstract now."
***@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2018-01-10 04:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
I don't think I've read Sanderson,
He's really very good, and I think you'd like his books a lot.
Try _Mistborn_.
but I see no way to set up
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
uncertainty unless you're willing to believe there IS uncertainty.
If you don't believe there is any, then there's nothing I could write
that would make you uncertain.
Does Sanderson set it up by having, previously, killed off people you
wouldn't have expected to die? That'll do it.
If you mean nothing you could write in a Usenet post, then yeah.
In terms of something you could write in one of your books, you
just put it right there: give us an ensemble cast, and partway through
kill off important members of it.
If they're important, I can't kill them 'til the end. (Demons of the
Past, final volume, one of the major characters dies).

I killed off a significant, if secondary, character in Phoenix
Ascendant, early on. But yes, I don't generally kill off the people I
like. If I create a character I like with the knowledge I'm gonna kill
them off just to tell people "yes, nice people can die here" it feels so
utterly fake that I lose the thread of the story. The closest to that I
got was Jason's friend Renee, who got whacked by Virigar and substituted
with a Werewolf who almost got the drop on Jason.
Post by David Goldfarb
Less drastically, have your characters *lose* sometimes. I've read
_Digital Knight_ in its first release, I've read the Balanced Sword
trilogy, and I've read the three Arena books, as well as some of the
shorter stuff. In all of them, your characters move from triumph to
triumph. No challenge is ever too great to overcome, no temptation
is impossible to resist, no foe too strong to defeat whenever they're
encountered; if winning requires taking a thousand-to-one shot, well
hey, we all know that thousand-to-one shots are sure things.
MILLION to one. Not thousand. Odds have to be bigger to make them sure
things.
Post by David Goldfarb
The third Arena book hangs a lampshade on it, for Pete's sake.
Some characters have tragic losses that drive them, but these are
always safely confined to backstory.
Your characters never lose a battle, never suffer a major setback,
never have to face serious adversity. I'm *not* arguing that things
have to be grim. Sanderson has bad things happen occasionally, but he's
rarely grim; but he knows when and how to let adversity reveal character.
I don't know about the latter; adversity mostly reveals adversity.
Phoenix had plenty of adversity from my point of view. Her brother dies
in front of her -- not backstory, we're THERE -- despite everything she
could do, for instance. She got suckered by Thornfalcon, and that
would've been the absolute end for her if Tobimar and Poplock hadn't
happened by JUST in time -- and even then, THEY almost got killed before
she got free. Once the three of them got together, they didn't suffer
absolute disasters but as far as I could tell they still worked for
their living.

A lot of the time it's also because what I set them against is
something where "lose = dead". The stakes are usually too HIGH for them
to afford a loss, at least in anything but trivial matters.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
Dimensional Traveler
2018-01-10 05:12:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goldfarb
    I don't think I've read Sanderson,
He's really very good, and I think you'd like his books a lot.
Try _Mistborn_.
but I see no way to set up
uncertainty unless you're willing to believe there IS uncertainty.
    If you don't believe there is any, then there's nothing I could
write
that would make you uncertain.
    Does Sanderson set it up by having, previously, killed off people
you
wouldn't have expected to die? That'll do it.
If you mean nothing you could write in a Usenet post, then yeah.
In terms of something you could write in one of your books, you
just put it right there: give us an ensemble cast, and partway through
kill off important members of it.
    If they're important, I can't kill them 'til the end. (Demons of
the Past, final volume, one of the major characters dies).
    I killed off a significant, if secondary, character in Phoenix
Ascendant, early on. But yes, I don't generally kill off the people I
like. If I create a character I like with the knowledge I'm gonna kill
them off just to tell people "yes, nice people can die here" it feels so
utterly fake that I lose the thread of the story. The closest to that I
got was Jason's friend Renee, who got whacked by Virigar and substituted
with a Werewolf who almost got the drop on Jason.
Post by David Goldfarb
Less drastically, have your characters *lose* sometimes. I've read
_Digital Knight_ in its first release, I've read the Balanced Sword
trilogy, and I've read the three Arena books, as well as some of the
shorter stuff. In all of them, your characters move from triumph to
triumph. No challenge is ever too great to overcome, no temptation
is impossible to resist, no foe too strong to defeat whenever they're
encountered; if winning requires taking a thousand-to-one shot, well
hey, we all know that thousand-to-one shots are sure things.
    MILLION to one. Not thousand. Odds have to be bigger to make them
sure things.
Heh. I remember the GURPS Discworld source book had a rule that if the
odds were _exactly_ one million to one the player would always succeed.
But it had to be EXACTLY one million to one, 999,999 to 1 or 1,000,001
to 1 you roll the dice. Because on Discworld everyone knows million to
one shots always succeed. :)
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2018-01-10 05:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Goldfarb
    I don't think I've read Sanderson,
He's really very good, and I think you'd like his books a lot.
Try _Mistborn_.
but I see no way to set up
uncertainty unless you're willing to believe there IS uncertainty.
    If you don't believe there is any, then there's nothing I could
write
that would make you uncertain.
    Does Sanderson set it up by having, previously, killed off people
you
wouldn't have expected to die? That'll do it.
If you mean nothing you could write in a Usenet post, then yeah.
In terms of something you could write in one of your books, you
just put it right there: give us an ensemble cast, and partway through
kill off important members of it.
    If they're important, I can't kill them 'til the end. (Demons of
the Past, final volume, one of the major characters dies).
    I killed off a significant, if secondary, character in Phoenix
Ascendant, early on. But yes, I don't generally kill off the people I
like. If I create a character I like with the knowledge I'm gonna kill
them off just to tell people "yes, nice people can die here" it feels so
utterly fake that I lose the thread of the story. The closest to that I
got was Jason's friend Renee, who got whacked by Virigar and substituted
with a Werewolf who almost got the drop on Jason.
Post by David Goldfarb
Less drastically, have your characters *lose* sometimes. I've read
_Digital Knight_ in its first release, I've read the Balanced Sword
trilogy, and I've read the three Arena books, as well as some of the
shorter stuff. In all of them, your characters move from triumph to
triumph. No challenge is ever too great to overcome, no temptation
is impossible to resist, no foe too strong to defeat whenever they're
encountered; if winning requires taking a thousand-to-one shot, well
hey, we all know that thousand-to-one shots are sure things.
    MILLION to one. Not thousand. Odds have to be bigger to make them
sure things.
Heh. I remember the GURPS Discworld source book had a rule that if the
odds were _exactly_ one million to one the player would always succeed.
But it had to be EXACTLY one million to one, 999,999 to 1 or 1,000,001
to 1 you roll the dice. Because on Discworld everyone knows million to
one shots always succeed. :)
That comes from one of the City Guard books.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Dimensional Traveler
2018-01-10 17:05:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Goldfarb
    I don't think I've read Sanderson,
He's really very good, and I think you'd like his books a lot.
Try _Mistborn_.
but I see no way to set up
uncertainty unless you're willing to believe there IS uncertainty.
    If you don't believe there is any, then there's nothing I could
write
that would make you uncertain.
    Does Sanderson set it up by having, previously, killed off people
you
wouldn't have expected to die? That'll do it.
If you mean nothing you could write in a Usenet post, then yeah.
In terms of something you could write in one of your books, you
just put it right there: give us an ensemble cast, and partway through
kill off important members of it.
    If they're important, I can't kill them 'til the end. (Demons of
the Past, final volume, one of the major characters dies).
    I killed off a significant, if secondary, character in Phoenix
Ascendant, early on. But yes, I don't generally kill off the people I
like. If I create a character I like with the knowledge I'm gonna kill
them off just to tell people "yes, nice people can die here" it feels so
utterly fake that I lose the thread of the story. The closest to that I
got was Jason's friend Renee, who got whacked by Virigar and substituted
with a Werewolf who almost got the drop on Jason.
Post by David Goldfarb
Less drastically, have your characters *lose* sometimes. I've read
_Digital Knight_ in its first release, I've read the Balanced Sword
trilogy, and I've read the three Arena books, as well as some of the
shorter stuff. In all of them, your characters move from triumph to
triumph. No challenge is ever too great to overcome, no temptation
is impossible to resist, no foe too strong to defeat whenever they're
encountered; if winning requires taking a thousand-to-one shot, well
hey, we all know that thousand-to-one shots are sure things.
    MILLION to one. Not thousand. Odds have to be bigger to make them
sure things.
Heh. I remember the GURPS Discworld source book had a rule that if the
odds were _exactly_ one million to one the player would always succeed.
But it had to be EXACTLY one million to one, 999,999 to 1 or 1,000,001
to 1 you roll the dice. Because on Discworld everyone knows million to
one shots always succeed. :)
That comes from one of the City Guard books.
Since it also explains some of Rincewind's adventures, can we call it a
ret-con? :)
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2018-01-10 17:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Goldfarb
    I don't think I've read Sanderson,
He's really very good, and I think you'd like his books a lot.
Try _Mistborn_.
but I see no way to set up
uncertainty unless you're willing to believe there IS uncertainty.
    If you don't believe there is any, then there's
nothing I could
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Goldfarb
write
that would make you uncertain.
    Does Sanderson set it up by having, previously,
killed off people
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Goldfarb
you
wouldn't have expected to die? That'll do it.
If you mean nothing you could write in a Usenet post, then yeah.
In terms of something you could write in one of your books, you
just put it right there: give us an ensemble cast, and partway through
kill off important members of it.
    If they're important, I can't kill them 'til the
end. (Demons of
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Dimensional Traveler
the Past, final volume, one of the major characters dies).
    I killed off a significant, if secondary,
character in Phoenix
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Ascendant, early on. But yes, I don't generally kill off the people I
like. If I create a character I like with the knowledge I'm gonna kill
them off just to tell people "yes, nice people can die here" it feels so
utterly fake that I lose the thread of the story. The closest to that I
got was Jason's friend Renee, who got whacked by Virigar and substituted
with a Werewolf who almost got the drop on Jason.
Post by David Goldfarb
Less drastically, have your characters *lose* sometimes. I've read
_Digital Knight_ in its first release, I've read the Balanced Sword
trilogy, and I've read the three Arena books, as well as some of the
shorter stuff. In all of them, your characters move from triumph to
triumph. No challenge is ever too great to overcome, no temptation
is impossible to resist, no foe too strong to defeat whenever they're
encountered; if winning requires taking a thousand-to-one shot, well
hey, we all know that thousand-to-one shots are sure things.
    MILLION to one. Not thousand. Odds have to be
bigger to make them
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Dimensional Traveler
sure things.
Heh. I remember the GURPS Discworld source book had a rule that if the
odds were _exactly_ one million to one the player would always succeed.
But it had to be EXACTLY one million to one, 999,999 to 1 or 1,000,001
to 1 you roll the dice. Because on Discworld everyone knows million to
one shots always succeed. :)
That comes from one of the City Guard books.
Since it also explains some of Rincewind's adventures, can we call it a
ret-con? :)
Describes a *lot* of stuff on Discworld doesn't it? :-)
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Robert Carnegie
2018-01-10 22:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Goldfarb
    I don't think I've read Sanderson,
He's really very good, and I think you'd like his books a lot.
Try _Mistborn_.
but I see no way to set up
uncertainty unless you're willing to believe there IS uncertainty.
    If you don't believe there is any, then there's nothing I could
write
that would make you uncertain.
    Does Sanderson set it up by having, previously, killed off people
you
wouldn't have expected to die? That'll do it.
If you mean nothing you could write in a Usenet post, then yeah.
In terms of something you could write in one of your books, you
just put it right there: give us an ensemble cast, and partway through
kill off important members of it.
    If they're important, I can't kill them 'til the end. (Demons of
the Past, final volume, one of the major characters dies).
    I killed off a significant, if secondary, character in Phoenix
Ascendant, early on. But yes, I don't generally kill off the people I
like. If I create a character I like with the knowledge I'm gonna kill
them off just to tell people "yes, nice people can die here" it feels so
utterly fake that I lose the thread of the story. The closest to that I
got was Jason's friend Renee, who got whacked by Virigar and substituted
with a Werewolf who almost got the drop on Jason.
Post by David Goldfarb
Less drastically, have your characters *lose* sometimes. I've read
_Digital Knight_ in its first release, I've read the Balanced Sword
trilogy, and I've read the three Arena books, as well as some of the
shorter stuff. In all of them, your characters move from triumph to
triumph. No challenge is ever too great to overcome, no temptation
is impossible to resist, no foe too strong to defeat whenever they're
encountered; if winning requires taking a thousand-to-one shot, well
hey, we all know that thousand-to-one shots are sure things.
    MILLION to one. Not thousand. Odds have to be bigger to make them
sure things.
Heh. I remember the GURPS Discworld source book had a rule that if the
odds were _exactly_ one million to one the player would always succeed.
But it had to be EXACTLY one million to one, 999,999 to 1 or 1,000,001
to 1 you roll the dice. Because on Discworld everyone knows million to
one shots always succeed. :)
That comes from one of the City Guard books.
Since it also explains some of Rincewind's adventures, can we call it a
ret-con? :)
Not to jinx Rincewind - or myself - but book one establishes
that someone is watching him. And that someone is rolling dice.

_The Carpet People_ is a very early non-Discworld novel entirely
retconned by Terry Pratchett when he was older; as far as I remember
from reading only the later edition, in that one there's a
strange cult of people with probability-ordering powers, who
can both see alternative futures and choose between them.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-01-10 23:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Goldfarb
    I don't think I've read Sanderson,
He's really very good, and I think you'd like his books a lot.
Try _Mistborn_.
but I see no way to set up
uncertainty unless you're willing to believe there IS uncertainty.
    If you don't believe there is any, then there's nothing I could
write
that would make you uncertain.
    Does Sanderson set it up by having, previously, killed off people
you
wouldn't have expected to die? That'll do it.
If you mean nothing you could write in a Usenet post, then yeah.
In terms of something you could write in one of your books, you
just put it right there: give us an ensemble cast, and partway through
kill off important members of it.
    If they're important, I can't kill them 'til the end. (Demons of
the Past, final volume, one of the major characters dies).
    I killed off a significant, if secondary, character in Phoenix
Ascendant, early on. But yes, I don't generally kill off the people I
like. If I create a character I like with the knowledge I'm gonna kill
them off just to tell people "yes, nice people can die here" it feels so
utterly fake that I lose the thread of the story. The closest to that I
got was Jason's friend Renee, who got whacked by Virigar and substituted
with a Werewolf who almost got the drop on Jason.
Post by David Goldfarb
Less drastically, have your characters *lose* sometimes. I've read
_Digital Knight_ in its first release, I've read the Balanced Sword
trilogy, and I've read the three Arena books, as well as some of the
shorter stuff. In all of them, your characters move from triumph to
triumph. No challenge is ever too great to overcome, no temptation
is impossible to resist, no foe too strong to defeat whenever they're
encountered; if winning requires taking a thousand-to-one shot, well
hey, we all know that thousand-to-one shots are sure things.
    MILLION to one. Not thousand. Odds have to be bigger to make them
sure things.
Heh. I remember the GURPS Discworld source book had a rule that if the
odds were _exactly_ one million to one the player would always succeed.
But it had to be EXACTLY one million to one, 999,999 to 1 or 1,000,001
to 1 you roll the dice. Because on Discworld everyone knows million to
one shots always succeed. :)
That comes from one of the City Guard books.
Since it also explains some of Rincewind's adventures, can we call it a
ret-con? :)
Not to jinx Rincewind - or myself - but book one establishes
that someone is watching him. And that someone is rolling dice.
Many of the Discworld Gods live in an Olympus analogue and consider the
beings living Discworld to be a kind of live action MMO, including
rolling dice (and other things). Pratchett mentions this in several of
the later books.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-01-10 05:01:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
I killed off a significant, if secondary, character in Phoenix
Ascendant, early on. But yes, I don't generally kill off the people I
like. If I create a character I like with the knowledge I'm gonna kill
them off just to tell people "yes, nice people can die here" it feels so
utterly fake that I lose the thread of the story. The closest to that I
got was Jason's friend Renee, who got whacked by Virigar and substituted
with a Werewolf who almost got the drop on Jason.
I killed off an important character midway through the Cynthia
stories. The problem was, I *knew* he was going to die as soon
as I laid eyes on him, and if I'd let the plot take its course he
would've died in the second story he appeared in. But I dug my
heels in (kind of difficult, digging your heels into the
Mediterranean Sea) and let him live through one more story, which
had the additional advantage of introducing a character who was
going to be very important in the last story but one.

And then I hung fire for months, trying to delay the character's
death somehow or other for one more story, and got nowhere; and
finally Hal said, "Just kill him." So I did.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
David Goldfarb
2018-01-10 06:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by David Goldfarb
In terms of something you could write in one of your books, you
just put it right there: give us an ensemble cast, and partway through
kill off important members of it.
If they're important, I can't kill them 'til the end. (Demons of the
Past, final volume, one of the major characters dies).
Depends on the story. Some stories need characters to die in the middle.

We the readers need to not *know* that we're not reading one of those.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by David Goldfarb
if winning requires taking a thousand-to-one shot, well
hey, we all know that thousand-to-one shots are sure things.
MILLION to one. Not thousand. Odds have to be bigger to make them sure
things.
Well, that's my point: *your* characters get a break there. And I
can tell that you're cutting them breaks.
--
David Goldfarb |"A non-running computer produces fewer errors."
***@gmail.com |
***@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Onur Hosten
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2018-01-10 12:14:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by David Goldfarb
In terms of something you could write in one of your books, you
just put it right there: give us an ensemble cast, and partway through
kill off important members of it.
If they're important, I can't kill them 'til the end. (Demons of the
Past, final volume, one of the major characters dies).
Depends on the story. Some stories need characters to die in the middle.
We the readers need to not *know* that we're not reading one of those.
I-the-reader prefer to *know* that I'm not reading one of those.
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by David Goldfarb
if winning requires taking a thousand-to-one shot, well
hey, we all know that thousand-to-one shots are sure things.
MILLION to one. Not thousand. Odds have to be bigger to make them sure
things.
Well, that's my point: *your* characters get a break there. And I
can tell that you're cutting them breaks.
I look at it more as "yes, there's a thousand (or more) universes in
which they died here, but I prefer to watch the universe where they didn't."
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2018-01-10 12:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by David Goldfarb
In terms of something you could write in one of your books, you
just put it right there: give us an ensemble cast, and partway through
kill off important members of it.
If they're important, I can't kill them 'til the end. (Demons of the
Past, final volume, one of the major characters dies).
Depends on the story. Some stories need characters to die in the middle.
We the readers need to not *know* that we're not reading one of those.
I-the-reader prefer to *know* that I'm not reading one of those.
And now with this thread if at any time I think about whether a
character's gonna die, I'll end up wondering if I'm doing it just to
prove the point that people can die. And that will mean I CAN'T do it
because that's no reason to kill a character. It's like using
out-of-game knowledge to play a game, it's just WRONG.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
-dsr-
2018-01-10 16:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by David Goldfarb
In terms of something you could write in one of your books, you
just put it right there: give us an ensemble cast, and partway through
kill off important members of it.
If they're important, I can't kill them 'til the end. (Demons of the
Past, final volume, one of the major characters dies).
Depends on the story. Some stories need characters to die in the middle.
We the readers need to not *know* that we're not reading one of those.
I-the-reader prefer to *know* that I'm not reading one of those.
And now with this thread if at any time I think about whether a
character's gonna die, I'll end up wondering if I'm doing it just to
prove the point that people can die. And that will mean I CAN'T do it
because that's no reason to kill a character. It's like using
out-of-game knowledge to play a game, it's just WRONG.
Even if you're committed to not killing off characters: they should
still face setbacks, outright losses, and getting away by the skin of
their teeth.

E.g.: the bad guys can kidnap a viewpoint character. Capture them in
battle. Attack them in a way which leaves a smoking crater and so it
*looks* like they are dead. Force the good guys to abandon them in order
to survive. Drop them into a cold-sleep capsule and launch them into
a fifty year orbit. Trap them in the event horizon of a black hole.
Have them arrested. Brainwash them and send them back as a double agent.

In some of your settings, you could kill them and resurrect or reincarnate
them.

-dsr-
Robert Carnegie
2018-01-10 21:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by David Goldfarb
In terms of something you could write in one of your books, you
just put it right there: give us an ensemble cast, and partway through
kill off important members of it.
If they're important, I can't kill them 'til the end. (Demons of the
Past, final volume, one of the major characters dies).
Depends on the story. Some stories need characters to die in the middle.
We the readers need to not *know* that we're not reading one of those.
I-the-reader prefer to *know* that I'm not reading one of those.
And now with this thread if at any time I think about whether a
character's gonna die, I'll end up wondering if I'm doing it just to
prove the point that people can die. And that will mean I CAN'T do it
because that's no reason to kill a character. It's like using
out-of-game knowledge to play a game, it's just WRONG.
"So what I'll do is, I'll chop bits off"
- Rincewind when not entirely wielding a magic sword.

Although I don't want to encourage that either...
David Goldfarb
2018-01-11 06:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
And now with this thread if at any time I think about whether a
character's gonna die, I'll end up wondering if I'm doing it just to
prove the point that people can die. And that will mean I CAN'T do it
because that's no reason to kill a character. It's like using
out-of-game knowledge to play a game, it's just WRONG.
Well, sorry. Perhaps the antidote is to think about what best serves
the *story*, and concentrate on doing that.
--
David Goldfarb |"Backward, turn backward, O time in your flight!
***@gmail.com | I've thought of a comeback I needed last night."
***@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Dorothy Parker
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2018-01-11 08:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
And now with this thread if at any time I think about whether a
character's gonna die, I'll end up wondering if I'm doing it just to
prove the point that people can die. And that will mean I CAN'T do it
because that's no reason to kill a character. It's like using
out-of-game knowledge to play a game, it's just WRONG.
Well, sorry. Perhaps the antidote is to think about what best serves
the *story*, and concentrate on doing that.
(FX: Jaimie gets out popcorn as more non-authors team up to tell Wasp
how to do his job. There is a rustling and a munching)

Cheers - Jaimie
--
There are no normal people--only people you don't know very much about.
-- Nancy Lebovitz, rasfw
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2018-01-11 12:24:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
And now with this thread if at any time I think about whether a
character's gonna die, I'll end up wondering if I'm doing it just to
prove the point that people can die. And that will mean I CAN'T do it
because that's no reason to kill a character. It's like using
out-of-game knowledge to play a game, it's just WRONG.
Well, sorry. Perhaps the antidote is to think about what best serves
the *story*, and concentrate on doing that.
Well, yes, that's what I've been doing all along, at least as far as I
could tell.

NOTE: The following is in no way arguing that your point of view on
this is wrong, just that I have a somewhat different view of the matter.

From my point of view, the characters don't *know* they're going to
survive, so the threats retain their tension. When I read any book, or
watch a TV show, I *assume* the characters are going to win, and that
any apparent defeats are merely setbacks. I recognize that sometimes
I'll have the unpleasant jolt that this isn't the case because some
authors have a preference for actually doing people in along the way,
but if it's a main viewpoint character I can be pretty well assured that
no matter what happens to them, they'll be fine until the end of the
series. (so I'll be somewhat less certain of their survival if I know
it's the end of the series).

This attitude is also very useful to allow me to enjoy re-reads and
re-watches, when not only do I know they'll survive, I know HOW. Yet I
can still feel the tension because I put myself INTO the place of the
characters, and I know THEY have no way of knowing they're the main
characters of a generally upbeat series.


So it seems to me that I put my characters through plenty. Yes, they
survive it, but it's not easy for them. Kyri loses her brother, right in
front of her, despite trying to rescue him; she also has to literally
BURN HERSELF ALIVE at one point. Her battles are neither fast nor easy,
and several times hinge on someone doing EXACTLY the right thing at
EXACTLY the right time, and during those battles she and her friends
CERTAINLY experience serious reversals and losses, including the False
Justiciars who we had come to know and who had ultimately chosen the
right side (some of the poor bastards having died TWICE).

Jason Wood loses his friend Renee, has to kill a former friend (Elias
Klein) in a pretty horrid way, gets badly injured numerous times, barely
survives his first full encounter with the shadow-creature and has to
run off for help, and so on.

The crew of Boundary go through a LOT, including crash landings, one
battle, and having to escape a radiation-soaked moon AFTER a crash, and
this in a hard-SF universe that's a lot less forgiving. The follow-on
Castaway books, well, the first thing I do to them is deprive them of
everyone else, then crash-land them, and then after they've crash-landed
I take away the ship and all the equipment in it. In the second book, I
start the same way, then give them more problems with their equipment,
including one apparent victory that turns out to not be so good, then
have the entire island they landed on destroyed and one of the
characters apparently die at first, and that's not even all.

It is true that in the Arenaverse the characters have found out that in
a sense they DO have charmed lives -- their whole SPECIES -- but even
there (A) they're in no way assuming it covers all things at all times,
(B) they find it rather sinister and mysterious (WHY is the Arena doing
this? It must have a purpose, and something as big as the Arena would
have to have something really huge as a purpose, too), and (C) they're
still sort of in the introduction of the whole universe. Only about now
can the main plot start moving.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2018-01-11 12:49:38 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 07:24:28 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
From my point of view, the characters don't *know* they're going to
survive, so the threats retain their tension.
How does your writing work - are the characters under your control and
you write the story exactly as you wish it, or do you set up the
situation, put the gun on the wall over the mantlepiece, and let them
work it out themselves - then write the novelisation of the
all-in-your-head one man RPG session?

(I'm almost certain I've read your thoughts on it before on your blog,
but I read a lot of author blogs and can't go trawling while I'm at
work...)

Cheers - Jaimie
--
When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.
- Steve Haflich
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2018-01-12 03:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 07:24:28 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
From my point of view, the characters don't *know* they're going to
survive, so the threats retain their tension.
How does your writing work - are the characters under your control and
you write the story exactly as you wish it, or do you set up the
situation, put the gun on the wall over the mantlepiece, and let them
work it out themselves - then write the novelisation of the
all-in-your-head one man RPG session?
(I'm almost certain I've read your thoughts on it before on your blog,
but I read a lot of author blogs and can't go trawling while I'm at
work...)
It's sorta both. I have events that I *know* are going to happen, and I
may even have an outline, but the outline doesn't control me; in fact I
posted two old outlines to my Patreon as rewards in the last couple of
months, showing how things changed, sometimes subtly, sometimes
drastically from the original.

So I'm usually "writing toward the next necessary scene". Everything
has to serve to get me to the key events, so what parts of my heroes'
adventures I write depends to a great extent on how well it serves to
get me to the key event in a reasonable and hopefully entertaining way.

This means that the characters can do lots of stuff I didn't originally
plan on, but nothing they do can change them or events in such a way
that the next key event wouldn't happen. So they're sorta roleplayed in
my head, but directed as well; a PLAYER might, for instance, have
decided "No, sorry, I don't care HOW convincing this guy is, it CAN'T be
Rion and we're gonna have it out right here and now", but for my plot
that wasn't gonna happen; Kyri would be idealist enough to believe that
maybe her brother was still there.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2018-01-12 13:01:06 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:56:43 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 07:24:28 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
From my point of view, the characters don't *know* they're going to
survive, so the threats retain their tension.
How does your writing work - are the characters under your control and
you write the story exactly as you wish it, or do you set up the
situation, put the gun on the wall over the mantlepiece, and let them
work it out themselves - then write the novelisation of the
all-in-your-head one man RPG session?
(I'm almost certain I've read your thoughts on it before on your blog,
but I read a lot of author blogs and can't go trawling while I'm at
work...)
It's sorta both. I have events that I *know* are going to happen, and I
may even have an outline, but the outline doesn't control me; in fact I
posted two old outlines to my Patreon as rewards in the last couple of
months, showing how things changed, sometimes subtly, sometimes
drastically from the original.
... I need to dig through my Patreon folder, clearly.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
So I'm usually "writing toward the next necessary scene". Everything
has to serve to get me to the key events, so what parts of my heroes'
adventures I write depends to a great extent on how well it serves to
get me to the key event in a reasonable and hopefully entertaining way.
This means that the characters can do lots of stuff I didn't originally
plan on, but nothing they do can change them or events in such a way
that the next key event wouldn't happen. So they're sorta roleplayed in
my head, but directed as well; a PLAYER might, for instance, have
decided "No, sorry, I don't care HOW convincing this guy is, it CAN'T be
Rion and we're gonna have it out right here and now", but for my plot
that wasn't gonna happen; Kyri would be idealist enough to believe that
maybe her brother was still there.
DMing without players to throw the scenario into disarray! Such a
familiar thing...

Thanks, I do appreciate you opening up your head for us.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
Nothing is so good that somebody, somewhere will not hate it.
-- Frederik Pohl
Greg Goss
2018-01-11 16:02:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Only about now
can the main plot start moving.
... and the publisher cancels.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Ahasuerus
2018-01-10 16:30:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goldfarb
On 1/7/18 11:12 PM, David Goldfarb wrote: [snip]
Post by David Goldfarb
if winning requires taking a thousand-to-one shot, well
hey, we all know that thousand-to-one shots are sure things.
MILLION to one. Not thousand. Odds have to be bigger to make them
sure things.
Well, that's my point: *your* characters get a break there. And I
can tell that you're cutting them breaks.
I guess in certain types of stories it's a feature rather than a bug.
Philip Jose Farmer even tried to rationalize it in _A Feast Unknown_:
the laws of probability bend and twist for certain characters.

Whether it's a feature that the reader wants depends on the reader and
on the reader's mood, of course.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2018-01-04 03:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by David Goldfarb
Challenges of the Deeps, Ryk E. Spoor
Hey, I know that guy!
Heh.
I thought it was odd that Baen called this one "the climax of the
Arenaverse series" (or something along those lines) when it seemed
like there were definite hooks for things to continue.
For "Climax" read "This is the last one we're publishing so we hope you
like it."
Post by David Goldfarb
Your ideas are large-scale and fun. Your prose is workmanlike, if not
masterful; it flows well and tells the story. Your characters are
interesting and enjoyable to read about...despite their foot-thick
adamantium plot armor.
What I mean is, when one of the greatest factions in the Arena declares
war on Humanity, it should be an occasion for some suspense. But we
know that nobody we care about will lose anything that matters to them.
I don't expect the heroes to lose in any book I read. But since THE
CHARACTERS don't know they're immortal, I can lose myself in THEIR
points of view and have all the tension I want. It's like roleplaying;
sure, the player may know X about the world, but the character doesn't,
and it's a betrayal of the entire game to act as though the character does.

I'd only lose the tension if I thought the characters themselves
thought they were invincible.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2018-01-04 11:24:46 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 22:03:12 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by David Goldfarb
Challenges of the Deeps, Ryk E. Spoor
Hey, I know that guy!
Heh.
I thought it was odd that Baen called this one "the climax of the
Arenaverse series" (or something along those lines) when it seemed
like there were definite hooks for things to continue.
For "Climax" read "This is the last one we're publishing so we hope you
like it."
Ah, that sucks. I assume you already had the "oh, go on!" discussion
with them, so... fancy trying crowdfunding?

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"The dumbest people I know are those who know it all." -- Malcolm Forbes
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2018-01-04 12:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 22:03:12 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by David Goldfarb
Challenges of the Deeps, Ryk E. Spoor
Hey, I know that guy!
Heh.
I thought it was odd that Baen called this one "the climax of the
Arenaverse series" (or something along those lines) when it seemed
like there were definite hooks for things to continue.
For "Climax" read "This is the last one we're publishing so we hope you
like it."
Ah, that sucks. I assume you already had the "oh, go on!" discussion
with them, so... fancy trying crowdfunding?
I'll probably do more -- it's my best-selling series (which obviously
isn't saying much or Baen would be doing more of them) -- but I have to
find the time to do so. Which is harder if no one's paying up-front for it.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
Loading...