Raymond E. Feist

[Nakmeister]

Are there any Raymond E. Feist fans on here? I'm currently waiting for his new book, which was supposedly released on Monday (5th Sept) in the UK, but has yet to surface in the shops and none of the shop assistants know what's happened to it. Furthermore Amazon.co.uk have changed the availability from 2-3 days to 4-6 weeks, always a worrying sign! Anyone know what's happening with this?

The book is 'Flight of the Nighthawks' by Raymond E. Feist, Book One of the Darkwar saga.

Thanks!

Nakmeister

 

[Self]

Hey!
I think you'll find a few Feist fans on the board - I didn't know about the new book. We still haven't got the full Conclave of Shadows trilogy out in paperback yet! Always happy for more Feist though.

 

[Jemima Aslana]

Well after much urging by a 'bestest' friend of mine I'm reading Magician - he bought it for me And after being halfways through, I must declare myself a fan indeed.

Feist writes very well. People can say what they like about the length of his stories - I don't mind, as long as the writing is as good as it is. I find myself enjoying the language I will definitely be reading more of him when I'm done with Magician.

 

[Self]

Hey Jemima,
In my opinion, Magician is Feist's defining work. While I'm a fan of his other material, I don't think it gets any better than Magician.

 

[Jemima Aslana]

We'll see if I agree with you once I've read other of his works.

I like the writing and the language, but I also spot mistakes that go into my notebook as things I shall have to avoid in my own writings.

Feist's most prominent mistake is characters that are too flat. After having spent 3 or 4 chapters at Crydee during the siege, I found when matters turned to Pug's situation that I till did not 'know' the besieged people at Crydee - and I was moderately disappointed. Arutha had the potential to become an engaging character, but all I know after that entire siege is that he'll fight alongside his men if he has to. He's brave and kind, and has a rather wry mocking humour - that's it. Nothing more. What I know of Carline and Roland is that their 'relationship' is very very clichéed and otherwise non-descript.

I am just over halfways through the book and I'm really hoping I'll get to know Pug better seeing as he is in fact a main character. Tomas who is also a main character I know next to nothing about spite of having spent quite a bit of time with him alone in the darkness of the dwarven mines. I find myself wanting to know more, and the information doesn't seem to be forthcoming so far, but I will postpone final judgment till I'm done with the book.

I'm still a fan of Feist. His writing is still considerably better than many other authors I've been bogged down with, but I miss getting to know a main character like I've done in so many other books.

 

[Nakmeister]

It's interesting to hear you say that you don't know the main characters very well. I feel like Feist's characters are very good friends, and each new book is like meeting up with old friends after a long absence. I agree with the comments that Magician is Feist's best book, his 'defining work' however it has quite a few important characters. The narrative switches between the viewpoints of several main characters, and there's also a lot of other characters you've got to get to know, making it difficult to get to know them really well. I think you'll find later on in the book you'll get to know the main characters better (particularly Pug, Tomas and Arutha), but it is a very plot intensive book. Many of his later books have only one or two main characters, and not having to introduce the whole setup can concentrate more on character development.

All but one of Raymond E. Feist's books follow on in some way from Magician, set in the same world(s), and many of the characters recur in book after book. Most of the characters from Magician aren't around in his recent books (there's maybe 150 years between his first book and his latest). Some remain though, and there's lots of new characters, some completely new and some are the children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren etc. of his early characters. So if you like Magician but didn't think you got to know the characters too well, all I can suggest is read on. The more you read the more you get to know and love the characters.

Nakmeister

 

[Jemima Aslana]

Indeed, I do know Pug a little better now that I have about 230 pages left - still not impressed though.

And it has simply made me revise my own plans for my novel project. I should be forbidden to introduce a setting so huge that it steals page-space from characters and their personalities. It's a balance that has to be maintained, and while Feist's writing is considerably more entertaining than that of Tolkien he falls into the same trap, there's so much History, Lore, Theory, etc etc that he wants to impart that he sometimes forgets to tell us about the people who are experiencing it all. He doesn't fall as deeply into this as Tolkien did, but it is still noticable - ah well, as long as I'm enjoying the books I'll keep reading.

 

[Self]

Perhaps there is a gender perspective conflict here? I am presuming that Nakmeister is male, as am I, and we were both more than satisfied with the character development in Magician.
For myself, I don't need to know every thought and feeling the character has - indeed, sometimes knowing the character too well can lower my opinion of them. Robin Hobb springs to mind. I enjoyed the books, but at times wanted to slap certain characters because I knew too much about them and didn;t like what I discovered.
Perhaps not going into extreme detail allows me to fill in the blanks myself, allocate to the character to some extent what I think they are thinking and feeling, and thus connect with them better as they are now MY creation also to a degree.
Hope you understand what I'm trying to say - don't know if you'll agree.

 

[Billy]

I'm a bit confused when you say gender perspective, Self. Do you mean that because Jem is female and you are male the difference in appreciation of character development occurs or do you mean that female writers tend to explore their characters more than male writers? I enjoyed Feist's books. I wasn't disappointed with the lack of character development as it is plot centred, as Nakmeister already pointed out. I felt that I had come to know the main characters fairly well, especially Tomas and Pug, of course. Arutha, well, I don't think I really warmed to him as much as I did to Pug and Tomas, but I felt that was more because of who he was and how he was depicted. Of all the characters, it was Jimmy the hand I liked most.

Btw, I'm female, which is why I asked the question about gender perspectives. As you can see his character development, or lack of, did not bother me at all, but then again, if you give me a good plot, I'll overlook the problems in other areas.

 

[Nakmeister]

Yes I'm male I do like to get to know the characters to some extent, but not to the extent that it interferes with the story. The setting is also important, it's the canvas that the characters move about in. From hearing Feist speak, and from interviews I've read, I know he set out to tell a story, 'a ripping good yarn' as he put it, not an in depth exploration of character. I think there are two main types of novel, ones where the story centres around the plot, and ones where the story centres around the characters and their journey. Most people like the novels they read to be somewhere between the two, but we all have a different opinion as to where in between is ideal for us. I like a balance but would choose slightly greater emphasis on plot rather than greater emphasis on character. Imagine a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being all plot with wooden two dimensional characters, and 10 being very little plot, but (usually one) main character, well developed with a good understanding of his/her thoughts, motives, emotions etc. On that scale I'd probably be a 3 or 4.

 

[Jemima Aslana]

A good observation, Nakmeister.

It is quite obvious that Magician is plot centered, but (and I think his major mistake is this) it also has a HUGE setting. Feist has to introduce so many concepts, and aspects of History and political relations in not one but two worlds that it actually gets a bit too Tolkien'esque. I wouldn't want the plot to take up any less than it does, but starting out with establishing a huge setting as well as a fairly broad character gallery is not an easy undertaking. I'd say, rather establish the characters in a smaller story, and then later we can (of we so desire) take on the epic saga when the setting is applied on a larger scale. Think of it as adding the Silmarrilion sometime later, with all the History, myths and legends.

The only one of the main chars of Magician I feel drawn to atm is actually Arutha I wonder why I'm different that way... Perhaps because there's nothing special about him. He's a normal human being, without any of the manipulating magics everyone else seems to run into in greater or lesser degree. But why does he do things the way he does? ehhhhhhhm, because he was raised to? Sry, but that answer is not good enough for me. I want to know what a main character thinks and feels. While I agree that it can be nice to fill in blanks yourself, I am also expecting the author to present me with a complete enough image. Feist wrote the story - not me. If he expects me to write the personalities I want my money back, I'm not paying for a book I have to write myself. My other argument for it is this: the author must surely know why his characters do this and that, if he knows these things and base their decisions upon them without ever informing the reader, I can reach some entirely different conclusions and end up beign very confused.

Arutha was like that. He looks cruel at times. His humour is sharp sometimes mocking. He's prone to introspection. But since we're never told anything about him from a clsoer perspective my conclusion was clear. Yummy, here's a bad guy in the making, he'll be a wonderful traitor, everyone will realise that they should've seen it coming. But then he turns out to be somethign entirely different, and I had to completely and totally revise my mental image of Arutha - and that is in fact hard to do, because once I have an image I place every action said char does into it and it fits - and suddenly I have to go back through the entire History of that char and adjust my opinion on everything.

I don't mind if an author deceives the reader thusly on purpose - it can be a very good effect in a book. But when it happens with nearly every character I get somewhat annoyed.

I'll be the first to say that a book that deals mostly with the omphaloskepsis of one single character will bore me out of my skull. I too want plot, but to me a plot won't work unless I understand the people acting out said plot.

Robin Hobb springs to mind. I enjoyed the books, but at times wanted to slap certain characters because I knew too much about them and didn;t like what I discovered.

This is what i like about a book. When I know the characters so well that I can frustrated with them, that I can smack my head and Doh! because they're being stupid and that I can cheer along with them when things work out. I may not like what I discovered - welcome to real life - that makes it so much more realistic and convincing in my eyes. See if an author leaves out blanks for me to fill in, I can fill in the good guys which will make them predictable and I will never grow to reallt root for them, and I can fill in the bad guys and they'll be predicatable and I frankly won't give a damn about how they're defeated. The good books are those where I actyally end up caring about how it ends. Right now I could put down Magician and never pick it up again and I wouldn't feel I was missing anything, because no characters have really come to mean anything to me - maybe except for Arutha who's getting there.

I dunno if I'm making any sense to anyone I think I may just go add Arutha to my fictional crushes though lol

 

[Nakmeister]

Have you gone on the ship to Krondor with Arutha and Amos yet? You get to learn a lot about Arutha then, that's when his character really starts to develop quite a bit from memory.

Although Magician is often considered Feist's best book by many readers, it is a matter of opinion - it was his first book, and he readily admits he didn't know much about writing novels when he started it. Later books are different (And mostly shorter) and I think you get to know the characters a lot better. In the second and third books (Silverthorn and A Darkness at Sethanon) you really get to know Arutha a lot better, and also Jimmy the Hand who you may or may not have met yet. Other books are similar - the world and the backplot have already been set up in Magician so it leaves much more scope for getting to know the characters.

 

[Jemima Aslana]

Yep, I've gotten to know Arutha much better now. Laurie and Kasumi have arrived in Krondor by now.

Now I just find ti very ironic that the two people termed main characters, Pug and Tomas, I still know very little about. Pug - or Milamber has become so relatively detached that he is now harder to get to know than before, and Tomas... well, he hasn't been himself for quite some time, so there was no Tomas to get to know, only I didn't really know the Tomas that was disappearing either...

Ah well. I'm liking Arutha a lot atm Milamber reminds me of myself.... which is scary. Tomas returned to his true self sounds like I'll be hating him in no time - we shall see

Regardless, with your words in mind I shall most likely be reading the following books as well. After all, now that the setting has been established Feist can't keep spending time on that. I will gladly admit that after the first half of Magician I wasn't too enthusiastic about reading the next books - but the prospect may not be all that discouraging now. I still think that it's a mite late to grab the reader, here around page 400 and something. A less stubborn person than myself (with the same criteria for a novel) would have put the book down.

 

[Self]

I'm a bit confused when you say gender perspective, Self. Do you mean that because Jem is female and you are male the difference in appreciation of character development occurs or do you mean that female writers tend to explore their characters more than male writers?

Hey Billy,

Actually that was my theory - which you have proved incorrect it would appear, in relation to yourself anyway. Speaking with others, I was of the opinion that women rated character development as being as important as plot.

The second point you raise about women authors tending to explore their characters more than male authors - I wasn't saying it, but upon reflection, I would have to agree with the statement but with a qualification. Not so much that they develope characters in greater depth, but I think they may tend to focus more on a characters feelings whereas male authors focus more on thoughts. I would expect some argument on this theory also, and have to say that I AM generalising.

Hey Nakmeister -
I agree totally with what you were saying about the balance between character & plot. I would err slightly on the side of plot, but not to the detriment of character.

And Jemima,
I must be a slight control freak I guess - I DO like to allocate my personal touches to character, and not be totally dictated to. As for characters being like real life people with real life flaws - I agree totally. But as in life, I don't actually LIKE some people, and some characters fall into this category when I know too much about them. Others with their flaws I do like. Being able to fill in SOME blacks allows me to like more characters. Just my preferences and opinion, and understand yours will differ.

 

[Billy]

Yes I'm male I do like to get to know the characters to some extent, but not to the extent that it interferes with the story. The setting is also important, it's the canvas that the characters move about in. From hearing Feist speak, and from interviews I've read, I know he set out to tell a story, 'a ripping good yarn' as he put it, not an in depth exploration of character. I think there are two main types of novel, ones where the story centres around the plot, and ones where the story centres around the characters and their journey. Most people like the novels they read to be somewhere between the two, but we all have a different opinion as to where in between is ideal for us. I like a balance but would choose slightly greater emphasis on plot rather than greater emphasis on character. Imagine a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being all plot with wooden two dimensional characters, and 10 being very little plot, but (usually one) main character, well developed with a good understanding of his/her thoughts, motives, emotions etc. On that scale I'd probably be a 3 or 4.

I agree with you here, I think I would probably be about a 4 as well.

Arutha was like that. He looks cruel at times. His humour is sharp sometimes mocking. He's prone to introspection. But since we're never told anything about him from a clsoer perspective my conclusion was clear. Yummy, here's a bad guy in the making, he'll be a wonderful traitor, everyone will realise that they should've seen it coming. But then he turns out to be somethign entirely different, and I had to completely and totally revise my mental image of Arutha - and that is in fact hard to do, because once I have an image I place every action said char does into it and it fits - and suddenly I have to go back through the entire History of that char and adjust my opinion on everything.

As I was reading this I wondered why I had never had Arutha pegged as a bad guy then I remembered. I read A Darkness at Sethanon first. Yes, I know it's backwards, but at the time I didn't know it was the last book. Someone gave it to me and told me it was a good book, so I read it. I had never read a lot of fantasy before this. A year or two later someone else gave me Magician and when I relaised it was the first book of the Darkness at Sethanon one, I suppose I read it with a different perspective.

Now I just find ti very ironic that the two people termed main characters, Pug and Tomas, I still know very little about. Pug - or Milamber has become so relatively detached that he is now harder to get to know than before, and Tomas... well, he hasn't been himself for quite some time, so there was no Tomas to get to know, only I didn't really know the Tomas that was disappearing either...

Pug is a strange character. You can get to know him a little better in The Empire series, but I think that we were never really meant to know him too well. He is a major player, but not one I feel we are ever meant to truly understand.

Hey Billy,

Actually that was my theory - which you have proved incorrect it would appear, in relation to yourself anyway. Speaking with others, I was of the opinion that women rated character development as being as important as plot.

The second point you raise about women authors tending to explore their characters more than male authors - I wasn't saying it, but upon reflection, I would have to agree with the statement but with a qualification. Not so much that they develope characters in greater depth, but I think they may tend to focus more on a characters feelings whereas male authors focus more on thoughts. I would expect some argument on this theory also, and have to say that I AM generalising.

I agree with your generalisation.

Jem, I'm glad you will continue reading Feist. He would have to be my second favourite fantasy author. Katherine Kerr is my favourite, of course.

 

[direstraits]

I'm enjoying this thread more than I had expected. I didn't really like Magician, and I've not read anything from Feist since. But it was interesting to see fans discussing the book with good points...

Now I just find ti very ironic that the two people termed main characters, Pug and Tomas, I still know very little about. Pug - or Milamber has become so relatively detached that he is now harder to get to know than before, and Tomas... well, he hasn't been himself for quite some time, so there was no Tomas to get to know, only I didn't really know the Tomas that was disappearing either...

This is one of the main reasons I don't like Magician. To me, at least, it seemed that Feist wanted to concentrate on Pug, and develop his story. The book is called Magician, after all. Somewhere along the lines he worked it such that Tomas is part of a dynamic duo story. But the trouble is Tomas was never conscientiously part of the big picture - his importance seemed to be tacked on as an afterthought. The early part of the book was all Pug, but by the end you get the impression that Feist is telling us that Pug is the magician half and Tomas is the warrior half of the story.

My humble impressions.

ds

 

[Bookwyrm]

I am a great fan of Feist's work , magician being my favorite, and I agree with most of the comments saying it was more plot based. The characters could really have been nameless warriors, magicians, and priests, and the story still would've worked. Now don't get me wrong, I lvoe the characters in his books (My favorite is Nakor, "Want an orange?") and I to think that every new book is like getting back together with old friends, but any characters would have worked for this style of writing. I hope Feist keeps it up and throws out a lot more books like Magician

 

[Sell Sword]

I really enjoyed his older stuff (Original Riftwar saga) but I feel he isn't pouring as much effort and passion into the newer books like Talon of the Silver Hawk.

 

[Bookwyrm]

I really enjoyed his older stuff (Original Riftwar saga) but I feel he isn't pouring as much effort and passion into the newer books like Talon of the Silver Hawk.

Talon never really interested me. It just wasnt as good as his other works. So I agree with you whole hearted on that.

 

[Fistandantilus]

R. E. Fiest is my favourite authour. I prefer thr Riftwar, The Riftwar Legacy and all of the older stuff. I liked Talon Of The Silver Hawk, but it does not compare to the others.