![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Rider duology, Cherryh
This post is for ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ase, who refused my protestations that I did not like Cherryh's novels but did like her short stories, and convinced me to read Rider at the Gate and Cloud's Rider by telling me that there were proto-sentient black horses (well, horse types) that liked bacon.
So... I'd been complaining for a while that there was nothing else Bujold-like to read, but... this is almost it. (The "almost" will come in a bit.) Weber doesn't count; he's nothing like Bujold except that they have both written books that take place in space and sometimes contain space battles. But ahem. The Rider books did several things for me:
-it sucked me into the action to where I forgot who I was and was totally immersed in the story. This is neither a necessary (e.g., John M. Ford, even Megan Whalen Turner, who writes in a slightly distant style) nor sufficient (Mercedes Lackey...at least before she got really silly) condition for me to love a book, but there is a really really high correlation there. And the absence of this in the other Cherryh books I'd tried was a huge barrier.
-The world was actually pretty well imagined, though the first book in particular suffered a bit from a heavy-handed religion (though this was greatly mitigated in the second). There seemed to be actual thoughts about economy and ecology! wow!
-there were sympathetic characters. This is a necessary condition for me. I was also happy that some of the unsympathetic characters in both books turned out to be more complex and sympathetic, just like in real life. (When I first met the people who are now my best friend and husband, I didn't think much of them, and they didn't think much of me. This changed.)
-you were given enough insight into the villains' heads that you could understand why they acted as they did, even if you thought they were kind of lame. Bujold is pretty good at this. Orson Scott Card used to be the king of this (Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, the Call of Earth series, Pastwatch), before he got old and maudlin and started inventing psycho supervillains (yes, Shadow series, I am looking at you). I really think this is a good thing, because in real life? No one actually thinks s/he is a supervillain; everyone feels justified in his/her actions.
Now for the almost: this differed from Bujold in that Bujold has a penchant, which I share, for world- and universe-shattering events (and people-shattering events) to happen in her books. I feel kind of like the world has been put back together in a different way when I'm at the end. Cherryh is much quieter. The inside of one or two people's heads is maybe shifted around, hardened in some places, softened in others, cracked in a couple of places, opened up in others. The world is explained, but not necessarily obviously changed or split open. This is, of course, a perfectly valid mode of telling stories, probably with some advantages over the shattering kind in its subtlety-- it's just that I wasn't expecting it, so it threw me a bit in the first book, and then I was much happier with it in the second.
Also, the nighthorses were brilliant. They are like Valdemarian Companions on crack.
ase, who refused my protestations that I did not like Cherryh's novels but did like her short stories, and convinced me to read Rider at the Gate and Cloud's Rider by telling me that there were proto-sentient black horses (well, horse types) that liked bacon.So... I'd been complaining for a while that there was nothing else Bujold-like to read, but... this is almost it. (The "almost" will come in a bit.) Weber doesn't count; he's nothing like Bujold except that they have both written books that take place in space and sometimes contain space battles. But ahem. The Rider books did several things for me:
-it sucked me into the action to where I forgot who I was and was totally immersed in the story. This is neither a necessary (e.g., John M. Ford, even Megan Whalen Turner, who writes in a slightly distant style) nor sufficient (Mercedes Lackey...at least before she got really silly) condition for me to love a book, but there is a really really high correlation there. And the absence of this in the other Cherryh books I'd tried was a huge barrier.
-The world was actually pretty well imagined, though the first book in particular suffered a bit from a heavy-handed religion (though this was greatly mitigated in the second). There seemed to be actual thoughts about economy and ecology! wow!
-there were sympathetic characters. This is a necessary condition for me. I was also happy that some of the unsympathetic characters in both books turned out to be more complex and sympathetic, just like in real life. (When I first met the people who are now my best friend and husband, I didn't think much of them, and they didn't think much of me. This changed.)
-you were given enough insight into the villains' heads that you could understand why they acted as they did, even if you thought they were kind of lame. Bujold is pretty good at this. Orson Scott Card used to be the king of this (Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, the Call of Earth series, Pastwatch), before he got old and maudlin and started inventing psycho supervillains (yes, Shadow series, I am looking at you). I really think this is a good thing, because in real life? No one actually thinks s/he is a supervillain; everyone feels justified in his/her actions.
Now for the almost: this differed from Bujold in that Bujold has a penchant, which I share, for world- and universe-shattering events (and people-shattering events) to happen in her books. I feel kind of like the world has been put back together in a different way when I'm at the end. Cherryh is much quieter. The inside of one or two people's heads is maybe shifted around, hardened in some places, softened in others, cracked in a couple of places, opened up in others. The world is explained, but not necessarily obviously changed or split open. This is, of course, a perfectly valid mode of telling stories, probably with some advantages over the shattering kind in its subtlety-- it's just that I wasn't expecting it, so it threw me a bit in the first book, and then I was much happier with it in the second.
Also, the nighthorses were brilliant. They are like Valdemarian Companions on crack.
no subject
Haven't done Downbelow Station myself. Also she has two trilogies (to which she is adding a seventh) starting with Foreigner. I had trouble getting into those.
I liked her contributions (and her main character) to the Thieves' World series.
Both
A couple of related recent books: Hammerfall and Forge of Heaven. Interesting setting. I have seen Hammerfall panned as a bit derivative, but I think it is simply a chosen setting. The story and the characters I found interesting. The second is a sequel in which some major characters in the first are secondary characters, but the main action takes place on a totally different stage, again, with well-imagined, different characters and culture.
The trouble with Thieves' World was runaway character power inflation. Cherryh ran her own series, Merovingen Nights, the first of which was wholly hers: Angel with a Sword. I liked it and the series, and it was much better managed.
Oh, well, better stop blathering. I agree, there is some Cherryh that is hard to wade through - takes some experimentation. Enjoy the rest!
no subject
Gosh, it's been forever since I read Thieves' World... I remember some of the early stuff being interesting, and some of it just not, but it was a really long time ago now. I did like the shared world Liavek (which to the best of my knowledge Cherryh was not involved in, but Pamela Dean and John M. Ford were).
no subject
http://james-nicoll.livejournal.com/989155.html
no subject
no subject
Point of reference: I find the Foreigner series impossibly repetitive. Bren angsts about the human/atevi divide, stuff happens, Bren angsts, stuff happens... etc. So that's a dis-rec from me. I don't know if the fifth Chanur book is sufficiently standalone to be read independently, but I would rec the first and the fifth, and tell you to skip the middle trilogy. (To my eye, the trilogy essentially expands the troubles of The Pride of Chanur without saying anything new. The fifth book, Chanur's Legacy, is as close to comedy as Cherryh gets.) I love the Morgaine novels for a lot of reasons. I haven't read any of her shared-world stories, unless they were in the short story collection. Anyway, shutting up now.
no subject
I very much enjoyed The Paladin, a stand-alone set in a medieval oriental setting.
Had to slog through Russalka, but did and got the sequels, which I have not attacked yet.
If you haven't seen the Morgaine graphics, you can get them from her site, or at least you could a while ago. Just the first part of Ivrel, but the art was reasonable, and, of course, very enjoyable for a fan. Apologies if that is a repeat; I forget where I've made recs; I expect you know her site.