deborah deborah at
Thu Feb 19 01:57:25 EST 2004

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Robyn Starkey wrote:

|>In her later books, I always feel that she's come up with the same
|>details, only hundreds and hundreds more, and she doesn't edit out any
|>of them.  So reading _Spindle's End_, any given sentence is some lovely
|>detail about a character, or the land's metaphysics, or someone's hair
|>ribbons.  Yet there are so many that, after two readings, my impression
|>of the book is one big muddle.  I can't remember it, because the details
|>are gems settled in an enhancing a narrative, but are one big bag o'
|>diamonds drowning the narrative and obscuring one another.  I don't know
|>what I'd cut, but I'd cut *something*.
|See now, I had the impression that the detail and confusion in that book
|was *deliberate*. I mean, it fit thematically with the plot, and the whole
|idea of confusion of identity in the final magic.

Fair enough.  It didn't work for me, though.  :)

I mean, I came away from her first few books with moments to treasure,
and I didn't from SE or RD.  But I'm willing to buy that I'm just not on
the train that's her stylistic shift, rather than my first inclination
was that it was more of a stylistic crash.  Taste instead of quality.

"Buffy, duck."
"What duck?  There's a duck?"

To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at

More information about the Dwj mailing list