Crannogman

On Song for Arbonne: I used to think it was one of the weaker of Kay's post-Fionavar offerings. Ran claimed it grew stronger on re-reading. I gave it another shot. I would have to second him now. Of all Kay's works, I think Arbonne has the strongest and most interesting characters, even as someone mentioned earlier a villain who is actually competent. (as well as the usual run of mustache-twirling caricatures.) The de Garsenc family certainly gives the Lannisters a run for their money for the title of "most screwed up" and I think Blaise the most interesting of Kay's protagonists now. Even the troubadour stuff grew on me, though no further than it did on Blaise. ;-)

The manipulation around Jon's parentage is subtle because I read the book the first two times without being aware the question even existed. Whilst with Kay, I think "Ooh, he is trying to make me feel this way. And now he's trying to make me think that thing happened!" Kay's manipulation is too obvious. And that is more my issue than the fairness of it, I suppose. Even when I read that passage the first time, I could see how Kay meant for me to feel here written in letters of fire in the sky, as it were. And I rebelled against that. I still did on the re-read. Same for the epilogue. "Ooh, here he avoided using the name. There he changed the subject at the last minute." With Martin, that is not so. Not even on re-reads knowing the question is there, I do not read Ned's PoV thinking of all the things he deliberately isn't saying. Yes, the passage isn't that long. But it is jarring because it takes me from being immersed in a fantasy world to watching a writer practice his craft ham-fistedly. It's like suddenly seeing the strings at a puppet show and the leg of the performer sticking out from behind the stage. So to summarise: manipulation isn't bad. But I don't want to notice I'm being manipulated. Edit: I've just read Kay's explanation. If it is not meant as a manipulation of emotion but as a theme of blurred identity... well, then I just think that theme doesn't really work, isn't really interesting, at least not the way Kay is handling it here. And all the foreshadowing of the resolution was too ham-fisted and too blatant as well, I felt. And I did not have this feeling with any of Kay's other work, be it earlier or later.

Ran: Fair enough, manipulation is often needed to keep the plot exiting. But stranger's right too... the issue here is that Kay is so... obvious about it. Paraphrasing: "She walked down the street, saw the dead body and cried." Then three different scenes setting up all kinds of characters who could possibly be dead. That feels... cheap. I do not see any emotional fidelety to the narrative here. Ned just not thinking about Jon's parentage doesn't, because it's more subtle. On the other hand, having Ammar realise an assassination plot is afoot and then switching to the prospective victim knowing as reader the assassination is coming but having to guess at the outcome and seeing the events unfold helplessly... that too is manipulation of the readers' emotions, but a fair one I think.

I recently re-read Lions. I first read it years ago and didn't like it that much. Then I read most of Kay's other work and thought it mostly brilliant... except Song for Arbonne which I thought was average when I first read it but found to be excellent on a re-read. So I tried Lions again. But unfortunately, here my opinion has not changed. In Lions, much more than in any other of his books, Kay is manipulating the reader. Not once but several times entire sequences are constructed so as to artificially play with the reader's emotions by holding back information the characters themselves do have. Also, here the excellence and wonderfulness of the characters that is just kep within believable bounds in the other books is over the top, no longer believable to me.

I personally liked the "enlightened dictator" character in Tigana best. Sure, his grudge against Tigana was above and beyond all reasonableness, but other than that he was actually becoming a good ruler, someone who was improving the lot of the people, something which Allessan by no means was certain to do. Of course, the other dictator, what's his name, was a cardboard-cutout-villain, like I referred to above. But yeah, the melodramatic patriottism in Tigana was a bit much. I wanted to hit many of the main characters for it. Still loved the book.

Well put, Werthead. That's more or less what I was skirting around without managing quite to get it down to the essentials.

I agree with the majority. Kay is great. Upon reading his books for a second time, I've discovered I love them all, even the ones I thought slightly less good the first time. (excepting Fionavar, which I've only half-read, and Ysabel, which I haven't read.) However, I would also state that Kay is just about the anti-Bakker. Seriously, it is hard to imagine how much further apart two writers can get whilst staying in more or less the same genre. Bakker's world is dark, huge, very gritty, filled with unpleasant characters most of whom are ineffectual and moved by circumstances beyond their control. (unless their name is Kelhus.) It deals with massive wars, world-spanning plots, the death of millions, has graphic violence and sex and psychological cruelty and torture as well. Kay's worlds are smaller, melancholy, filled with tons of very smart and sensible and reasonable and sympathetic characters (even the more ruthless ones) and a small handful of cardboard cutout villains, all of whom are the driving force of the books: even if there does happen to be a war going on, it's about how these few characters affect the war and are affected by it, rather than the war itself meaning anything. Kay's work has violence, isn't sanitised, doesn't pull punches, and if anything has some sex scenes in his oeuvre that appear gratuitous in that they seem completely unlinked to the plot at hand. But nonetheless, it is not at all gritty. Definitely not dark. Even when the protagonist dies or a story arch end unhappily the defining tone is melancholy rather than despair. No Akka going off into the desert here. Both writers are very good, but I would say that Kay's work is beautiful, whilst Bakker's is thought-provoking and disturbing.