[net.books] Tepper/McKillip/women_authors/reposting_of_mutilated_article

dim@cbuxc.UUCP (Dennis McKiernan) (08/08/85)

_________________________________________________

Sheri Tepper has a wonderful gift:
with a few sketches of her authorial pen
she draws an entire culture/civilization.
The world of the *True Game* is drawn so.
And I cannot but admire her "chasm"
civilization that Mavin visited in
book 2 of the Mavin Manyshaped saga.
God!  Bridgers, Maintainers, etc.;
giant roots reaching down past
the Lost Bridge, all the way to the
bottom; cutting roots on each side
just the right length to reach one another
and be grafted together to form a span;
she has a wonderful imagination!

But description alone is not sufficient to tell
a great tale (Isn't it interesting that
some of the pioneering SF stories were
nothing more than descriptions of the
strange, with little if any character
development).
Sheri also has the gift to show some
of the internal motive/drive/development
of her characters.

In recent discussions on the net,
several have pointed out that many
of their favorite authors are women.
Risking being called a male chauvanist,
I believe that women *in general* are better at
describing/understanding the internals
of a character, and of showing character growth,
whereas men are better at detailing action
and describing how-things-work.

Sheri delves into the inner workings of
her characters very well, and so does
Patrica McKillip.

McKillip in her Hed trilogy *and* in her Forgotten
Beasts of Eld manages to evoke the most haunting
scenes of solitude that I've ever read:
i.e., the protagonist in "Hed" shapechanged into
an elk-like creature and spent a winter in the
mountain valleys, and I could *taste* the
solitude of his existence (nought but the
vast silence of the empty wind);
and in "Eld" the sorceress spent long days
alone atop her mountain in the airy quiet.

Perhaps some day my characters will grow and
change to the same degree as theirs do...
it's not that my characters don't develop
throughout my tales (action is my forte), it's just that
Tepper and McKillip are so very good at what they do.

Perhaps my collegue Brust would care to comment.

Dennis L. McKiernan
ihnp4!cbuxc!dim
_________________________________________________

mte@busch.UUCP (Moshe Eliovson) (08/09/85)

In article <309@cbuxc.UUCP>, dim@cbuxc.UUCP (Dennis McKiernan) writes:
> _________________________________________________
> 
> Sheri Tepper has a wonderful gift:
> with a few sketches of her authorial pen
> she draws an entire culture/civilization.
> The world of the *True Game* is drawn so.

	Ok, so far.

> And I cannot but admire her "chasm"
> civilization that Mavin visited in
> book 2 of the Mavin Manyshaped saga.
> God!  Bridgers, Maintainers, etc.;
> giant roots reaching down past
> the Lost Bridge, all the way to the
> bottom; cutting roots on each side
> just the right length to reach one another
> and be grafted together to form a span;
> she has a wonderful imagination!

FLAME ON:
	As far as I know, this is very similar to
	them common Ant Farm or Bee's nest.  For
	all we know, it could be! (Think about it...)
FLAME OFF.

	Now, it was decent description and the mystery 
	of the fallen level was cool, but the goo-goo
	ga-ga stuff was really carried away.

> 
> In recent discussions on the net,
> several have pointed out that many
> of their favorite authors are women.
> Risking being called a male chauvanist,
> I believe that women *in general* are better at
> describing/understanding the internals
> of a character, and of showing character growth,
> whereas men are better at detailing action
> and describing how-things-work.

	My main complaint about some women authors
	is that they sometimes get carried away with
	a particular notion:

	Example 1) Marion Zimmer Bradley who is perhaps
	 	   the greatest FEMALE chauvanist I have
		   ever read!  (Although I did like a few
		   of her books and Darkover collections).

	Example 2)) I love magic.  MacAvoy describes 
		    witchery unbelieveably well in Damiano.
		    But then she makes him mundane, and 
		    then Raphael too?!  In the Book of Kells
		    she gets this great time/dimension door
		    idea with the cross, but that's it.
		    I asked her at an SF convention why she
		    strays away from the magic, and her reply
		    was that basically, she has a zen kind of
		    approach and considers man alone, without
		    magic and powers, to be enough of a topic.

	Unfortunately, sf & fantasy in my opinion deal in out
	of the norm. power so I have ceased to read her works,		
	although I will grab the sequel to Tea when it comes
	out.

	Moshe Eliovson
	{allegra, ihnp4}!we53!busch!mte