"The Runelords", "Game of Thrones" and the Problem of Endings
Wednesday, August 10, 2011 at 9:12PM Longtime readers know that Nathaniel has a wee problem with addiction to fantasy literature. This proclivity is more masochistic curse than pleasureable blessing since fantasy literature is allergic to endings and there are few things Nathaniel likes more in storytelling than a brilliant finale.
So last night I finished the first book of the The Runelords series "The Sum of All Men" by David Farland. I had heard that it would eventually be a movie so when my brother suggested I read it last month on my vacation, I gladly grabbed it for the airplane time. [Note: turns out the movie option ran out last year and Farland has the rights again.] The book concerns the young naive prince Gaborn whose quest to win the heart of a neighboring kingdom's progressive idealistic princess Iome is interrupted by an invading army of the Runelord Raj Athan who seeks to become "The Sum of All Men".
The conceit of The Runelords world is that, through magic rituals, people can gift their best attributes to others creating a stratified world where those in power are granted more and more of it as people sell their most economically viable asset to them be that beauty, strength, vision, intelligence, stamina (and everything else). It's sort of like the vampire economy that the USA is dealing with now as the rich and powerful decimate the weaker middle class in order to gain more and more and more (to infinity and beyond) for themselves to feed their insatiable greed and misplaced sense of entitlement. Never mind that once a Runelord has the strength of 1000 men, it hardly makes a difference to him if he has the strength of 1001... but it sure as hell matters to the weakling 1,001st man he's left behind in his greedy conquest.
But let's not get into the ever-miserable discussion of the downward spiral of the actual world we live in. We're talking books and movies, the fake world we prefer to dream of!
Gandalf the Grey... no, WHITE. Most of the major characters in the book are those who have received "endowments" from others so they're all amazingly beautiful or super strong or what not; superheroes in medieval frocks and cloaks if you will. If they're not runelords they're wizards. The major wizard Binneman is basically Gandalf since he's very powerful, very wise, very old and his hair and wardrobe changes colors once he moves to the next stage of his power. But then, what wizard isn't Gandalf? He casts a long long shadow on fantasy literature.
As I was reading The Runelords I was actually thinking it would make a spectacular movie as it's quite visual and breathlessly paced with interesting but organic plot twists. There's also enough meat for subtext and acting (the socioeconomic imbalances of the world are not invisible to the heroes even as they benefit from it) to suggest that some sly filmmaker or television creator could really play with it, provided they had the stones. The biggest problem in adaptation, beyond the visual effects challenge or increasing or decreasing someone's beauty, musculature and vocal power or whatever both exponentially or incrementally from time to time throughout the narrative, would be the danger of exposition. The book is filled with it as the conceit is actually rather complicated and occassionally The Runelords errs on the side of feeling like a roleplaying character building game 'this person has two endowments of wit, this person has four of brawn, and only two of metabolism after losing a dedicate' etcetera.
But I fear in our post Harry Potter fan-based world, people who choose to adapt bestsellers are no longer brave enough to make their own decisions about what would suit the material and characters in a new medium.
So I'm reading and enjoying and totally caught up in it until I realize I'm about 75-100 pages from the end. And there will be no ending. It was a crushing blow. I'm so tired of books (and movies) without endings. While it doesn't exactly end on a cliffhanger, the hero's nemesis retreats and a quick internet search tells me that they keep battling out for the next few volumes of the series before new characters take over. As I was ranting to The Boyfriend about this "I can't believe I read 600 pages and I don't even get a resolution and I won't get one even if I read another 600!!!" he brings up Game of Thrones again.
He was frustrated about the Arya storyline -- he says it's on a loop, treading water (which it was already doing when I quit reading) -- in the George RR Martin's insanely popular Game of Thrones series. He'd just finished reading A Dance With Dragons. The Boyfriend knows how I feel about Game of Thrones as do readers (I get complaints about not joining the worshipful throngs) and he tells me I was very wise to quit when I did 2 ½ books in because the things I was angry about (the death of major characters which hurt my heart and the constantly busy but actually static plot which hurt my brain: how can that much happen but nothing ever actually happens?) only become more prominent as the series continues.
And then I asked what I thought was a casual silly question 'what's going on with Daenerys?' assuming that she would have attacked the Seven Kingdoms by now, that being her driving goal from the first pages of the first book and now Martin is FIVE BOOKS INTO THE SERIES.
Nope. Turns out she still has not crossed the ocean, she still has never faced off against the Houses Barantheon, Lannister or Stark who are constantly worrrying about her. Can you fucking believe that? So if the HBO show doesn't dare do their own thing Daenerys, a major major character to those of you watching the show that haven't read the books she will remain the red herring that George R R Martin has essentially written her to be FOR FIVE YEARS ON TELEVISION. I'm sorry but that is gross misconduct on the part of the author. Red herrings can be fun but RED HERRINGS FOR THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF PAGES... FOR YEARS? That's just sloppy and, well, unkind.
Writers... FINISH YOUR STORIES! The absence of endings is getting worse and worse and worse in popular culture as if all genres would rather be a daytime soap than a well crafted STORY. Whether it's the superhero movies with their ellipses beginnings as endings or fantasy books without end or movies that don't even pretend to be anything other than filler, it's getting worse and worse.
At this point I would like to beg any of you who enjoy genre fiction to clue me in to some books I might enjoy that actually wrap themselves up. I don't need "Happily Ever After" or pretty all inclusive plot string bows but I sure as hell need "The End."
Reader Comments (29)
You should read 'The Laws of Magic'. Though that will take some time, but it's addicting, believe me.
Not bad, go ahead~
Have you stopped "Oscars Outside in" completely?
partisan -- yes. just too hard to do a long term project between three different schedules.
NIna -- but the point is i want books that end. not long term reading projects that maybe won't. how many volumes is that?
I know exactly what you mean about game of thrones. I stopped reading a Dance With Dragons about 200 pages in because I realized how little was actually happening with almost every character. It feels like 90% of the story is filler, and then only about 5 percent is relevant to the overall plot. I'd love to also find some books with proper endings.
Nat, do you watch the HBO show by any chance. I haven't read the books, but I watched the first season and I did think it was quite fascinating (if a little too mercilessly bloody for my sensibilities), but if they really are going to keep Dany as a red herring for five seasons I'll probably lose interest, particularly because I found her to be a fascinating character (as played by Emilia Clarke). I also really like Arya (another great character). Now, please tell me Joffrey gets his head chopped off at some point! I don't know how long I'll be able to stand that tyrant...
It's more a young adult series, but the Bartimaeus Trilogy (three books! All finished now!) is quite excellent- creative, hilarious, and heartbreaking.
Nat, did you actually read Tolkien's "The Lord Of The Rings"? I'd be surprised about that, because you constantly praise Peter Jackson's movie trilogy and, as far as adaptations go, this was one of the all time great travesties.
And if you did read Tolkien: Do you really consider the Jackson films to be a well done example for making "own decisions about what woul suit the material and charcters in a new medium"?
Good point. I have read the first and half of the second book of the Martin's books and I must say - with every chapter I get more and more bored. You enlisted the issues I have with the books too. I am still waiting for something to happen.
I know for sure that I am not buying another book....
I totally agree, I loved Book 1 of Game of Thrones but lost heart and interest as characters were killed off. I am enjoying the tv series though. Another great series is the Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan. Unfortuanately 10 books into the series Jordan died. Someone else is continuing the series but who knows how that will go????? So far the latest book doesn't disappoint.
Nathaniel -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dresden_Files
hmm maybe then it isn't really something for you. I actually hate when a book I love ends. I can't get myself to start reading a new book unless I've read previous books and I want to know how it continues. I love other fantasy trilogies too, for example Eragon and Inkheart (though I don't like the movies)
One single book that comes to mind is a Dutch book: 'Letter for the King'
In Martin's defense, the entire point of his series is actually the undercutting of our urge for revenge and war and destruction, so stretching things out like this is kind of entirely what he's writing for. Dany is being shown to be a better leader and worthy of ruling because she takes her time and doesn't shirk the responsibilities she's confronted with along the way, as opposed to the idiots who plunge headfirst into bloodbaths. From the very start of the series it's been this way - battles are often kept off-screen and we're only given a view of their horrible aftermaths. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he ends the entire series with all the main figures coming together to broker peace instead of everybody killing everybody else. But then I loved ADWD and it's where all of this has come entirely into focus for me - the diversions seem to me to be the point. It's reminding me of Oliver Assayas' Carlos now that I think of it - the length of that film eventually became its master-stroke, in that it allowed us to experience the repetitive nature of Carlos' life and see it chip and chip away at who he was. I mean sure, GRRM's got loads of incentive to keep this super lucrative series going, I think he's gotten to the point of justifying it.
i just started the song of fire & ice series, and its extremely well written, but its so clear that the end game is so far off, anything that happens early on doesn't seem relevant. which makes sense given that martin is a tv writer by trade, where early plot and series conclusion often have little to do with each other (thank you lost). i'm determined to see it through, but fully expect it to leave sour tastes throughout with out-of-nowhere deaths and stagnant plots.
one series that i've fallen in love with is n.k. jemisin's inheritance trilogy, starting with the hundred thousand kingdoms. no clue about the end game, but like martin, a richly defined world that grows organically. HIGHLY recommended,. and the second book took my breath away four different times with chills.
Clearly, Nathaniel, you are addicted to the wrong genre (but then again, perhaps all "genre" is like that? I'm not a genre reader myself.)
This is why I don't read fantasy. I'll happily read 600+ pages if I know I'm getting a whole story, but these writers feel the need to write trilogies and quadralogies and tetralogies. What it ends up being is padding--there's about 200 pages of story for each huge volume, padded with 400 pages of subpar writing.
Willy, LOTR, both the movies and the books, are wonderful, epic, but separate things. The books are great for their originality and scope, but they're plagued by the trilogy problem of being a lot of padding. The films are among the greatest achievements of filmmaking on a grand scale, but they have their own problems as well. But it is possible to love both the novels and the films for different reasons. Literature and film are different things, and if you want the same elements from both, or if you want to-the-letter faithfulness in your adaptations, it's kind of a shame--you end up with the first two Harry Potter films.
It's too bad about he Outside In series. I didn't realize it was officially dead.
Mike P -- well, i didn't want it to die but nobody ever had time at the same time. i've started feeling that we're just being mean to readers.
Janice -- maybe so. It is telling that i asked for suggestions and nobody has any that don't involve several books. (sigh)
JA -- an interesting perspective surely (the red herrings being the point) but we'll see. You'd think when a writer was entering his sixties he'd be eager to finish his grand opus! I mean what if he gets sick?
re not ending: I was reading Black Out by Connie Willis (To Say Nothing of the Dog - which does end by the way) and I thought at page 500, how is she going to wrap this up in the last 100 pages? Aggravatingly, it was to be continued in a not yet published sequel.
When I grumblingly read All Clear, the sequel, I forgave her. I think the reason she couldn't edit herself down was the respect she had for the ordinary people of the London Blitz where her time travelers were stranded. Nurses, air wardens, ambulance drivers, shop clerks. It was beautifully researched, and refreshing to see regular people of a historical era accorded respect. It had a satisfying ending, a rarity in the genre. There was a sweetness to the suitability and completeness of the ending - that love was the thread that never gave up.
Another genre convention I'm sick of is chapters told by alternating characters. If I was an editor I would advise (insist on):
1) Pick ONE character
2) Tell that character's story in a brisk narrative
3) FINISH the story in one book
Books that I have liked recently are The Name of The Wind, by Patrick Rothfuss, which I came late to. It got excellent reviews. One character, good narrative. It does have another book, but I found the ending satisfying. I don't have to read another book to finish the story off.
Also, Midnight Riot by Ben Aaronovitch. Clever snappy tale. This writer has the gift of place, it's not a generic urban fantasy. There's another book in this too, but the story finishes.
Adri -- oh i liked The Name of the Wind too. I don't mind novels that continue so long as they tell complete stories. It's kind of like the first Star Wars really. YES, there are things left over which could show up for sequels (hence a whole franchise born) but it is complete in and of itself despite the chapter four designation.
Unfortunately storytellers have forgotten this art of complete stories that are still continuable.
and thanks for the suggestion. a two book series is fine. :)
Mike P, the TLOTR movies and the books are separate things? You can say that again.
What you call "padding", is probably what I love most about the novels. But maybe that's the main problem, because Tolkien's books are an action adventure in the same way as the James Bond novels are pornographic.
I do not want to-the-letter faithfulness. But when I see the adaptation of a great book, I expect the movie to stay true to at least the most fundamental themes and characterizations, because I value directors who preserve the spirit of their source materials.
Sometimes, the same elements in both, book and film, could even make for a better film, and we would not have to love them for different reasons in the first place. Why does Frodo have to dangle in the enormous cobweb like a marionette, when he's confronting Shelob in the novel? How much more tense and cinematic this could have been on the big screen.
I don't read many novels of any genre, but I think I can second Nina's suggestion of the Dresden books. Yes, there are numerous ones, and they do tie together, but if I'm not mistaken (it's been a while since I last read one, so I may not be remembering well), you can put the series down after any given book without necessarily wondering 'How does this play out?' That is to say, it's fairly episodic.
http://www.jim-butcher.com/books/dresden
I think I read the first five or six or so. Considering that I left off somewhere in the middle of the series, and I don't feel any lack of resolution, I think these books probably suit your request.
Hmm, I'm definitely with you on the need for fantasy authors to plot with an ending in mind rather than meander around their created worlds for book after drawn-out book. One particular series that I've been reading since I was in primary school (American: elementary schl) had its first book published in 1986 and it's still 2 as-yet unpublished books away from completion. So frustrating! I blame Harry Potter for making editors so lax about authors' desire for "world-building" filler.
I think if you want some epic fantasy that's not a series, you might want to look into Guy Gavriel Kay? Aside from his first trilogy (which you can overlook because it pays a bit too much homage to Tolkien-esque tropes and Kay is clearly still figuring out what his own niche take on the fantasy genre will be), all his books have either been standalones or two-part series. I personally lovelovelove The Lions of Al-Rassan, but that's more alterna-history fantasy with very little magic (set during the last days of Moorish Spain!) so it might not fit perfectly to your masochistic epic fantasy tastes? His other book Tigana contains more fantastical elements and is also fantastically intrigue-y!
Nathaniel, have you read The Magicians?
I just finished it on the advice of what felt like everyone, and I'm frankly bewildered by the whole thing. I'm glad that I read it and there's a lot to appreciate, but I am completely baffled by its pacing and strucutre. I may still end up reading "The Magician King" but I feel extremely disconnected from the hype.
i just realized that i didn't answer the LOTR question. I prefer the movies to the books. but yes, have experienced them both.
i really don't like overly faithful adaptations but the place that it's even worse is when movies move to the stage. They almost always try to just go scene for scene but that is SO distracting on stage with the set changing every 4 minutes. Plays are meant to have longer scenes and move differently.
to stop being longwinded i will say this. ANYONE UNWILLING TO "ADAPT" SHOULD NOT BE ADAPTING ANYTHING. XEROXES ARE DUMB IN ENTERTAINMENT.
I'd say that about 90% of A Dance of Dragons was a waste of time, but I will defend most of the characters' deaths in the series, though. Much of ASOIAF's premise is based off the War of the Roses, and all the political intrigue stuff is top-notch. What I like so much about it is that none of the deaths are meaningless or cop-outs. You can trace the downfall of a certain character through multiple foreshadowings and embedded clues, see how most characters sealed their own fates, watch cause and consequence reverberate, and you understand why this character died and how a single death can affect others and often dramatically shift the direction of the story. It's pretty awesome. I mean, it's freaking BRUTAL and that certain event in that later book (other readers know what I'm talking about) ripped my heart to freaking pieces, but talk about a gamechanger. I just hope it doesn't take him another five years to release the next book.
Nat, I'm stunned. Usually, you prefer the coherent characterizations and not the interminable action sequences. You're acting out of character, when it comes to TLOTR. Did Peter Jackson make you wrong to yourself, just as he turned Tolkien's characters into something else?
Preferring the films, when you probably did not like the books as much as I did, is perfectly fine, because the screenwriters were not "adapting" anymore. They took the basic plot line and then changed virtually every character and completely erased Tolkien's noble and heroic spirit. The TLOTR movies are even more unlike their books than James Whale's "Frankenstein" is to Mary Shelley's novel. That's exactly why it's so extremely difficult to love the Jackson films and the Tolkien novels at the same time - even for entirely different reasons. You have to prefer the one or the other, because their genuinely good and attractive qualities have almost nothing to do with each other. I think that's a shame for a motion picture adaptation.
Just to give some context: i love A song of ice and fire (and I agree with JA) and Lord of the Rings, and have problem finding other fantasy books i like as well. (I love these books so much that i haven't watched the HBO series and the LOTR movies, and don't want to watch them.)
Excluding long series, all I can think of is Robin Hobb's Liveship Traders Trilogy (it is linked to other books but stands alone i think).
You could try fantasy short stories, like what they publish in the Legends / Warriors books. (I haven't tried it yet so I have no idea if that's good.)
Do you really want to stick to fantasy? There are so many books out there that can be satisfying but that i'm not sure are fantasy (Tales of the Otori? ignore the prequel and the fourth book, which are not interesting, start with Across the nightingale floor and you have a trilogy of reasonable length, with a real ending) or books that are definitely not in that genre but still have adventure going on in an interesting setting, historical or other: Victor Hugo's Hunchback of Notre-Dame for instance (i think Les Misérables is better but it's really long), or novels by Alexandre Dumas (The Count of Monte Cristo).
I realize i am now answering a different question...
Steven Ericsson - Malazan book of the fallen.
acorns - is that a suggestion for something with an actual ending?