![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
baleanoptera....blended together with a dose of general fantasy meta.
Sometime ago I wrote about Sarah Monette’s book Melusine, but was left with the feeling that what I wrote didn’t fully articulate what I liked about the book. Now I’ve read her other book The Virtu, and the feeling has increased. So instead on chewing further on this problem I decided to do something about it. This is that something. It’s not so much a proper review as me wandering into the jungle of fantasy meta, leaving my machete behind.
I think one of the reasons I really like these books is that I get the feeling Monette knows her fantasy literature, but is trying to do something new with the conventions of said literature. She isn’t just trying to create her own world and its story, but also to challenge the way fantasy generally is written. But to get to my points I need to delve into spoiler territory. So if you wish to read these books completely unspoiled please stop here.
1. The world building and the lack of a quest structure
Fantasy is one of the most restricted genres I know. Rather strange considering that fantasy in its essence implies something fantastical. Regardless many fantasy books have the same plot structure – usually you can call this the quest structure. For instance in Tolkien the main structure is the ring-quest. (Now Tolkien was one, if not the first, to use the quest structure – so no quarrel with him. It’s just an example.) This quest motive is also present in for example Feist’s Midkemia series, Robin Hobb’s series, Peter Beagles The Last Unicorn etc.
In Monette’s books the quest structure is only partially there. It’s presence is felt more lurking in the background than being a centre stage motif. Instead the focus is one the two main characters, Felix and Mildmay, and their interaction with each other and the world at large. The characters are primary; the quest (if you can call it that) is secondary. This took me a while to get into – mostly because I’m used to reading fantasy that follows the genre convictions. So when a book comes along that doesn’t follow them my mind needs a slight readjustment. But when I stopped reading it as a fantasy book and more as a book it became mush easier.
Monette doesn’t necessarily make it easy for her readers. She has some fairly complex timekeeping- and numbering systems that she doesn’t all together explain. Instead the systems remain foreign and demands that the readers immerse themselves enough in the world that they interpret it on their own. Thankfully that isn’t that hard, as there are hints. For instance, a form of Latin is slang language in the lower city. The lower city’s counting system revolves around the unit septad – septad day, Great septad. And sept is seven in Latin, so septad day would be the seventh day in the week. After that it’s just a question of doing the math.
The same complexity is present in her system of magic –as a reader you are never explained in detail what this school of magic means, about the other schools, or if magic is a science and/or a belief system. Perhaps it is both. It appears not even the characters in the story are sure.
I must say – I love that! Yes, this lack of a straight definition makes it slightly difficult for the reader, but it also makes the world more believable. For in real life when have you ever witnessed the collected body of an academic discipline or followers of a belief system agree about absolutely everything? Enough to give a straight definition? I never have. Instead something like religion means different things to different people, and if you ask 40 Christians to define what it means to be Christian I suspect you would get 40 different answers. Some answers would be more in agreement than others and some would differ greatly. (Especially if the people asked are from lets say Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and Etiopian denominations.) Therefore it makes sense to me that Monette’s characertes both argue and agree with each other about what magic is. If I’m allowed to channel my inner Kenobi – it all depends on a certain point of view.
2. The characters
Like I said, I feel the characters are the main focus of this story. There is Felix, who is a wizard, gay and rather arrogant. He also spends the better part of Melusine being mad. Then there is Mildmay who is a thief and a former assassin, but is actually a rather nice guy. He doesn’t realize this however, as he has some serious self esteem issues.
Now here is a slight spoiler – these two turn out to be half brothers. Due to certain genre conventions I was rather expecting this as finding long lost family is something of a fantasy trademark. But my hat of to Monette as she handles the build up and exposition of the lost sibling scenario well. The brothers meet only after everything else in their lives has gone to hell, and they don’t really have anything else. In the beginning they therefore cling to each other more out of desperation and loneliness than anything else. They become each others lifelines. It also helps that Felix is raving mad at the time and his opinion on the matter are rather..in a flux?
The handling of the lost sibling scenario can also illustrate another thing I like – how Monette deals with the fantasy trademarks she chooses to use. Noted she avoids most of them (no telepathic companion animals, no elves, no dragons etc.), but she uses others. For instance she delves into the trademark of the soul-bond. It isn’t called that in the book, but for simplicity I’ll call it that here.
What saves Monette when she uses a trademark are two things. First she tweaks them, and twists them and turns them into her own creations. Secondly when a trademark is used - lost sibling, soul-bond etc – her concern seems more what effect this has on the characters and their interaction, than as a railroading plot device. This for me is one of the most interesting aspects of her story, in that is shows what living in a fantasy world does to a character and his personality, rather than what a world with magic does with world structure. Monette drags the fantasy focus away from the world building and over to the individual. The result is frankly fascinating.
As mentioned Felix is gay, and the books are therefore sometimes listed on things like an Amazon list of queer fiction. This is good, but I would advise against reading the books and expecting Felix to say, comment or symbolize something akin to a queer manifesto. Felix is not a symbol and I suspect he would be rather peeved at being interpreted as a symbol. This brings me to another point. Monette’s characters are not stereotypes. There is no dumb, but strong barbarian, no wise old wizard. But neither are they symbols masquerading as characters. There is no oppressed girl who through the fulfilment of her quest learns something about her own strength/about the meaning of friendship/about the necessity of cooperation. No farmboy turned king who learns to be a wise ruler/the meaning of fairness and mercy etc. As far as I can tell Monette has no symbolic agenda. Instead she tells the story about two people who find themselves to be brothers, who kind of like each other, who help each other and who sometimes f**ks up spectacularly. They try to learn and they try to change, but most of the time they fall back into the patterns imbedded in their personality. Rather like real people.
3. The non-medieval and the tangibility of history
Reading fantasy the following is common: There will be swords and a pseudo-medieval setting, and there will be a map at the beginning or end of the book. Monette has no map, no swords and as far as I can tell no pseudo-medieval setting. To be honest I’m not sure she has based her world on any specific period in history. She doesn’t mention gunpowder or guns, so the setting is probably not that modern. Personally I picture something late Renaissance-ish, but that is only because the largest church mentioned has a dome. Now as an Art Historian when I hear “dome” I think Brunelleschi, Florence and the Renaissance. But this could easily just be me.
What she does have is a sense of historical development and this I truly adore. When I read fantasy and the author’s premises is that this world has been medieval-ish for hundreds, nearly thousands of years my suspension of disbelief is stretched thin. Sometimes it even snaps.
In Monette’s world history and a sense of historical progress is very present. Buildings decay, and organizations and belief systems are not stagnant. Time and again we are shown ruins, abandoned places or places that people have just stopped using. In one small scene a character walks in the slum district “The Arcane”, and realises that what he is walking along is an old riverwalk that has been forgotten, fallen into decline and turned into something else. Just like it would in the real world. By giving her world these little episodes of tangent history she also makes it seem more believable.
Then there is the exposition of historical facts. Monette doesn’t info-dump. Bless her for that. When the reader is given a historical fact it is usually through Mildmay. He knows an impressive amount of history, but doesn’t truly realise this. (like I said – self esteem issues). He might mentioned a fact, like this crest belong to king so and so, and if he mentions it to Felix he will usually reply. Oh, I see. Much like I would if a friend told me some fact about lets say the Thirty Years war. What the Thirty Years War was would be known, and further remark on my part would be redundant. But in fantasy literature a mentioned historical fact is usually followed up with a reply along the lines of: “Ah you mean king so and so, who did this and that – and who I now will mention en excessive detail as part of the author’s desire to flesh out the worlds back story.”
This latter approach is usually a big mistake, and often makes me groan out loud – because nobody talks like that! For me one of the signs of a competent and good fantasy author is how well he/she manages to weave in the fantasy world’s historical background, and to let the exposition of the historical background be present in a way that feels natural. From where I’m standing Monette manages this task in an engaging and believable manner.
All in all I really like the books. I highly recommend them, and I’m very much looking forward to reading the Monette’s other works. She has a fascinating thing going.
As small explanation – I keep referring to “the story” when there are two books. From what I gather Melusine and The Virtu was intended as one book. Some editor divided them, and I cannot for the life of me understand why. If you choose to read Monette then get both books, glue them together or whatever. Because it’s together they tell a complete story.
*reads through* Yep – that’s slightly more coherent, and a better explanation of why I like the books. I’m satisfied now. Off to watch The Wire.
Sometime ago I wrote about Sarah Monette’s book Melusine, but was left with the feeling that what I wrote didn’t fully articulate what I liked about the book. Now I’ve read her other book The Virtu, and the feeling has increased. So instead on chewing further on this problem I decided to do something about it. This is that something. It’s not so much a proper review as me wandering into the jungle of fantasy meta, leaving my machete behind.
I think one of the reasons I really like these books is that I get the feeling Monette knows her fantasy literature, but is trying to do something new with the conventions of said literature. She isn’t just trying to create her own world and its story, but also to challenge the way fantasy generally is written. But to get to my points I need to delve into spoiler territory. So if you wish to read these books completely unspoiled please stop here.
1. The world building and the lack of a quest structure
Fantasy is one of the most restricted genres I know. Rather strange considering that fantasy in its essence implies something fantastical. Regardless many fantasy books have the same plot structure – usually you can call this the quest structure. For instance in Tolkien the main structure is the ring-quest. (Now Tolkien was one, if not the first, to use the quest structure – so no quarrel with him. It’s just an example.) This quest motive is also present in for example Feist’s Midkemia series, Robin Hobb’s series, Peter Beagles The Last Unicorn etc.
In Monette’s books the quest structure is only partially there. It’s presence is felt more lurking in the background than being a centre stage motif. Instead the focus is one the two main characters, Felix and Mildmay, and their interaction with each other and the world at large. The characters are primary; the quest (if you can call it that) is secondary. This took me a while to get into – mostly because I’m used to reading fantasy that follows the genre convictions. So when a book comes along that doesn’t follow them my mind needs a slight readjustment. But when I stopped reading it as a fantasy book and more as a book it became mush easier.
Monette doesn’t necessarily make it easy for her readers. She has some fairly complex timekeeping- and numbering systems that she doesn’t all together explain. Instead the systems remain foreign and demands that the readers immerse themselves enough in the world that they interpret it on their own. Thankfully that isn’t that hard, as there are hints. For instance, a form of Latin is slang language in the lower city. The lower city’s counting system revolves around the unit septad – septad day, Great septad. And sept is seven in Latin, so septad day would be the seventh day in the week. After that it’s just a question of doing the math.
The same complexity is present in her system of magic –as a reader you are never explained in detail what this school of magic means, about the other schools, or if magic is a science and/or a belief system. Perhaps it is both. It appears not even the characters in the story are sure.
I must say – I love that! Yes, this lack of a straight definition makes it slightly difficult for the reader, but it also makes the world more believable. For in real life when have you ever witnessed the collected body of an academic discipline or followers of a belief system agree about absolutely everything? Enough to give a straight definition? I never have. Instead something like religion means different things to different people, and if you ask 40 Christians to define what it means to be Christian I suspect you would get 40 different answers. Some answers would be more in agreement than others and some would differ greatly. (Especially if the people asked are from lets say Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and Etiopian denominations.) Therefore it makes sense to me that Monette’s characertes both argue and agree with each other about what magic is. If I’m allowed to channel my inner Kenobi – it all depends on a certain point of view.
2. The characters
Like I said, I feel the characters are the main focus of this story. There is Felix, who is a wizard, gay and rather arrogant. He also spends the better part of Melusine being mad. Then there is Mildmay who is a thief and a former assassin, but is actually a rather nice guy. He doesn’t realize this however, as he has some serious self esteem issues.
Now here is a slight spoiler – these two turn out to be half brothers. Due to certain genre conventions I was rather expecting this as finding long lost family is something of a fantasy trademark. But my hat of to Monette as she handles the build up and exposition of the lost sibling scenario well. The brothers meet only after everything else in their lives has gone to hell, and they don’t really have anything else. In the beginning they therefore cling to each other more out of desperation and loneliness than anything else. They become each others lifelines. It also helps that Felix is raving mad at the time and his opinion on the matter are rather..in a flux?
The handling of the lost sibling scenario can also illustrate another thing I like – how Monette deals with the fantasy trademarks she chooses to use. Noted she avoids most of them (no telepathic companion animals, no elves, no dragons etc.), but she uses others. For instance she delves into the trademark of the soul-bond. It isn’t called that in the book, but for simplicity I’ll call it that here.
What saves Monette when she uses a trademark are two things. First she tweaks them, and twists them and turns them into her own creations. Secondly when a trademark is used - lost sibling, soul-bond etc – her concern seems more what effect this has on the characters and their interaction, than as a railroading plot device. This for me is one of the most interesting aspects of her story, in that is shows what living in a fantasy world does to a character and his personality, rather than what a world with magic does with world structure. Monette drags the fantasy focus away from the world building and over to the individual. The result is frankly fascinating.
As mentioned Felix is gay, and the books are therefore sometimes listed on things like an Amazon list of queer fiction. This is good, but I would advise against reading the books and expecting Felix to say, comment or symbolize something akin to a queer manifesto. Felix is not a symbol and I suspect he would be rather peeved at being interpreted as a symbol. This brings me to another point. Monette’s characters are not stereotypes. There is no dumb, but strong barbarian, no wise old wizard. But neither are they symbols masquerading as characters. There is no oppressed girl who through the fulfilment of her quest learns something about her own strength/about the meaning of friendship/about the necessity of cooperation. No farmboy turned king who learns to be a wise ruler/the meaning of fairness and mercy etc. As far as I can tell Monette has no symbolic agenda. Instead she tells the story about two people who find themselves to be brothers, who kind of like each other, who help each other and who sometimes f**ks up spectacularly. They try to learn and they try to change, but most of the time they fall back into the patterns imbedded in their personality. Rather like real people.
3. The non-medieval and the tangibility of history
Reading fantasy the following is common: There will be swords and a pseudo-medieval setting, and there will be a map at the beginning or end of the book. Monette has no map, no swords and as far as I can tell no pseudo-medieval setting. To be honest I’m not sure she has based her world on any specific period in history. She doesn’t mention gunpowder or guns, so the setting is probably not that modern. Personally I picture something late Renaissance-ish, but that is only because the largest church mentioned has a dome. Now as an Art Historian when I hear “dome” I think Brunelleschi, Florence and the Renaissance. But this could easily just be me.
What she does have is a sense of historical development and this I truly adore. When I read fantasy and the author’s premises is that this world has been medieval-ish for hundreds, nearly thousands of years my suspension of disbelief is stretched thin. Sometimes it even snaps.
In Monette’s world history and a sense of historical progress is very present. Buildings decay, and organizations and belief systems are not stagnant. Time and again we are shown ruins, abandoned places or places that people have just stopped using. In one small scene a character walks in the slum district “The Arcane”, and realises that what he is walking along is an old riverwalk that has been forgotten, fallen into decline and turned into something else. Just like it would in the real world. By giving her world these little episodes of tangent history she also makes it seem more believable.
Then there is the exposition of historical facts. Monette doesn’t info-dump. Bless her for that. When the reader is given a historical fact it is usually through Mildmay. He knows an impressive amount of history, but doesn’t truly realise this. (like I said – self esteem issues). He might mentioned a fact, like this crest belong to king so and so, and if he mentions it to Felix he will usually reply. Oh, I see. Much like I would if a friend told me some fact about lets say the Thirty Years war. What the Thirty Years War was would be known, and further remark on my part would be redundant. But in fantasy literature a mentioned historical fact is usually followed up with a reply along the lines of: “Ah you mean king so and so, who did this and that – and who I now will mention en excessive detail as part of the author’s desire to flesh out the worlds back story.”
This latter approach is usually a big mistake, and often makes me groan out loud – because nobody talks like that! For me one of the signs of a competent and good fantasy author is how well he/she manages to weave in the fantasy world’s historical background, and to let the exposition of the historical background be present in a way that feels natural. From where I’m standing Monette manages this task in an engaging and believable manner.
All in all I really like the books. I highly recommend them, and I’m very much looking forward to reading the Monette’s other works. She has a fascinating thing going.
As small explanation – I keep referring to “the story” when there are two books. From what I gather Melusine and The Virtu was intended as one book. Some editor divided them, and I cannot for the life of me understand why. If you choose to read Monette then get both books, glue them together or whatever. Because it’s together they tell a complete story.
*reads through* Yep – that’s slightly more coherent, and a better explanation of why I like the books. I’m satisfied now. Off to watch The Wire.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-08 07:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-08 08:51 pm (UTC)And Felix is..interesting. It took me some time to like him, but now I really appreciate him. I kind of lost my heart to Mildmay, mostly because the character voice Monette has given him is very unique and oddly poetic.
As for the dome. I suppose it could be akin to the dome on Hagia Sophia, or the Dome on the Rock in Jerusalem (which was built around year 700 IIRC). But I think Western Art History is just to drilled into me. I read dome and automatically thought; Brunelleschi, Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence. :)