Guy Gavriel Kay

[Calibandar]

It is not meant to be Young Adult.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

It is not meant to be Young Adult.

ok, I had read a previous comment* and since it is primarily about a 15 yr old who the actual adults can't do anything without it made since when I saw that comment. Plus the ending had me raising my eyebrows a bit...but if the target audiance was 15 yr old boys, it makes sense and is a little less creepy.

*

I also didn't think Ysabel was special, as young adult urban fantasy goes. His prose felt awkward when transported to modern day, and the character development was weak.

[Multaniette]

what's creepy about it?

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

what's creepy about it?

SPOILER: It is a matter of perspective and my one major hang up

When Melanie and Ned spend the night together and Melanie pretty much tells Ned she is willing to have sex with him. Sorry, but a woman in her mid 20's coming on to a 15 yr old boy is creey in my book. Had he been 18 or nealy so, it would have been ok. Underaged sex is a major hang up of mine when adults are involved. I loved how she was willing to wait to his 16th birthday...still not ok in my book.

there are two ways to look at this...that the target audience is young boys or, and I felt this at the time

SPOILER: that

she is still channelling Ysabel a little at that time...but I really wasn't sure she was as she said she had his birthday in her PDA

Edited November 28, 2007 by Lany Cassandra

[Multaniette]

Ah okay, that's yer personal prespective, which I guess is fair enough.

[Ran]

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.

In fact, re-reading it, I see I was wrong about something. The question is not whether Rodrigo dies, but whether it's Alvar, basically. There's approximately three paragraphs before you go from being presented with a dying man (who is not Ammar, who is mentioned as being present) to knowing that it is also not Rodrigo. Then the scene does indeed flashback to show you what happened, and sets up the possibility that it's Alvar. Then it's to the attack itself, and within seven pages you know it's not actually Alvar, either.

I don't know. The complaints keep making me recall the passage as far more misleading, and that the passage was very extended, but it's a tight little piece of writing. The whole "emotionally manipulative" sequence lasts a bare eight pages. Personally, I think it's a testament to Kay's writing that the reaction against it is so strong -- clearly readers were heavily invested in the question of who was dying, and probably in large part because of his authorial decision to make it an obscure point and leave them hanging for a few pages.

Ned just not thinking about Jon's parentage doesn't, because it's more subtle.

Well, no, it's not really more subtle. It's one of _the_ major questions of the series, and the reason it's a question because in the dozen or so chapters we had of Ned, we are repeatedly prevented from getting the particular thoughts that would reveal Jon's mother quite clearly. It's not that Ned doesn't know, or that we weren't inside his head when he thought about Jon and the past on any number of occasions in AGoT. It's purely GRRM's authorial decision to make that piece of information a secret. It's "subtle" only because readers are willing to accept such conventions when it touches on the plot.

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 personally don't believe there's any such thing as "unfair manipulation" in literature. There can be bad manipulation -- creating a cliffhanger, say, and then resolving it with a deus ex machina that wasn't even hinted at -- but so long as it's well-constructed in terms of narrative logic, the manipulation is always reasonable.

Kay shared (quite reticently, I should note, because he generally hates the sense of tainting discussions when he offers his opinions) some thoughts that touches incidentally on the Velaz matter, as part of a larger discussion of the way he dealt with identity in The Lions of Al-Rassan. You can find it here, if interested.

[Guest]

In fact, re-reading it, I see I was wrong about something. The question is not whether Rodrigo dies, but whether it's Alvar, basically. There's approximately three paragraphs before you go from being presented with a dying man (who is not Ammar, who is mentioned as being present) to knowing that it is also not Rodrigo. Then the scene does indeed flashback to show you what happened, and sets up the possibility that it's Alvar. Then it's to the attack itself, and within seven pages you know it's not actually Alvar, either.

I don't know. The complaints keep making me recall the passage as far more misleading, and that the passage was very extended, but it's a tight little piece of writing. The whole "emotionally manipulative" sequence lasts a bare eight pages. Personally, I think it's a testament to Kay's writing that the reaction against it is so strong -- clearly readers were heavily invested in the question of who was dying, and probably in large part because of his authorial decision to make it an obscure point and leave them hanging for a few pages.

Well, no, it's not really more subtle. It's one of _the_ major questions of the series, and the reason it's a question because in the dozen or so chapters we had of Ned, we are repeatedly prevented from getting the particular thoughts that would reveal Jon's mother quite clearly. It's not that Ned doesn't know, or that we weren't inside his head when he thought about Jon and the past on any number of occasions in AGoT. It's purely GRRM's authorial decision to make that piece of information a secret. It's "subtle" only because readers are willing to accept such conventions when it touches on the plot.

I personally don't believe there's any such thing as "unfair manipulation" in literature. There can be bad manipulation -- creating a cliffhanger, say, and then resolving it with a deus ex machina that wasn't even hinted at -- but so long as it's well-constructed in terms of narrative logic, the manipulation is always reasonable.

Kay shared (quite reticently, I should note, because he generally hates the sense of tainting discussions when he offers his opinions) some thoughts that touches incidentally on the Velaz matter, as part of a larger discussion of the way he dealt with identity in The Lions of Al-Rassan. You can find it here, if interested.

Ouch, I think I just got spoilered big time on a thread I started. Ran, you must make this up for my by never letting the board go down again. I need this little board you started! I am going to go into diabetic shock the next time it goes down.

[delete this account pls]

Ahh, that's a shame hear me roar, the ending of Al Rassan is a really good cliffhanger, one of Kay's best finales I thought.

[Ran]

Whoops. Sorry there. Hard to remember to spoiler protect something that's been out 10 years.

It's not a book that depends on being shocked by plot developments, IMO. Read it anyways.

[Errant Bard]

Not to mention, you only spoilered who did not die in a relatively minor scene. No real damage done.

[Padraig]

It's "subtle" only because readers are willing to accept such conventions when it touches on the plot.

In some ways it really is a mystery hidden in an enigma, wrapped by a puzzle. That's probably the main difference between it and what Kay did. GRRM set up this puzzle about who Ned fathered Jon with. But of course, inside that puzzle is the real mystery. And that's the subtle part.

[Crannogman]

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.

Edited November 28, 2007 by Crannogman

[Guest]

Not to mention, you only spoilered who did not die in a relatively minor scene. No real damage done.

At first I ws reading Ran's thread, saw something I didin't think I wanted to see, and looked away. but then I went back and read it and it looks much more like what you're mentioning here. Not too worried.

[diabloblanco18]

For the most part, I liked Lions. Didn't mind the ending, didn't mind the "emotional manipulation." I was even able to put up with those "But little did he know..." lines that Kay inserted on occasion.

There was one scene, though, that had me groaning all the way through. I saw it coming, said to myself, "Hell no. He wouldn't. He wouldn't do that." But he did, and in what was probably the silliest cop-out I had seen in a long while,

SPOILER: Lions of Al-Rassan

had Jehane's father save one of those two brothers by performing radical brain surgery to remove the fragments of his shattered skull.

It was like Ned's death for shock value. I really couldn't believe that an author of Kay's caliber (I loved Tigana) would write something so ridiculous. Silly me.

[Serious Callers Only]

SPOILER: Lions of Al-Rassan

had Jehane's father save one of those two brothers by performing radical brain surgery to remove the fragments of his shattered skull.

Well those iberian muslims doctors were pretty radical/innovative in their approaches. It could have happened. Of course the silly bugger would probably die afterwards.

[Calibandar]

Yeah, but wasn't Jehane's father blind as well? Bit too much I'd say

So many superb characters in Lions btw.

[Guest]

Spoilers

Hello all. Just finished Lions of al-Rassan. I really enjoyed it. Since discovering GRRM, I've read two things from recs from the board, that and the PoN series by Bakker. Loved both. I get what some of you are saying about the manipulation of the reader by Kay.

Like, in the epilogue where you think Jehane and Alvar are married for a few pages, or where you think Belmonte has retaken al-Rassan, therefore ibn Khairan is gone. But it certainly didn't ruin the book for me.

I thought things started off OK, and then really picked up in the 2nd half of the book when we got to Ragosa and Carnival.

I will definitely ready Kay again although not immidiately.

[Guest]

Whoops. Sorry there. Hard to remember to spoiler protect something that's been out 10 years.

It's not a book that depends on being shocked by plot developments, IMO. Read it anyways.

For the record, nothing got spoiled for me.

[Guest]

If I don't get a response I will be forced to start a thread. Don't make me do it.

[salinea]

Yes.