they will probably publish it as two or more novels
Two or more volumes I could see, and it would be very appropriately eighteenth-century of them. It is, however, one novel.
And I do think that Lymond is idealized, with romanticized faults, and receives the excessive attention (whether loving or hating) of characters who ought by rights of character-integrity be more concerned with their own lives
Yes, that's true. He has the Mary Sue characteristic of "everyone falls in love with him" - or, if they don't, they still obsess over him - and despite the fact that he is the hero of the series and deserves to be the readers' focal point, Dunnett went way too far with making him the focal point of the other characters. (I started an essay at one point about how she does POV - the story is almost never seen from inside Lymond's head and when it is seems to have a peculiar objective quality - but never finished it, and I'm sure the point's been made over and over anyway.)
But I see "Mary Sue" being used as a stick to beat authors who otherwise write beautifully, particularly female authors, and it just seems to have been taken too far too often. (Though I have to admit doing frequent Mary-Sue-checks myself, just to make sure I haven't.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re:
Date: 2004-02-18 06:31 am (UTC)Two or more volumes I could see, and it would be very appropriately eighteenth-century of them. It is, however, one novel.
And I do think that Lymond is idealized, with romanticized faults, and receives the excessive attention (whether loving or hating) of characters who ought by rights of character-integrity be more concerned with their own lives
Yes, that's true. He has the Mary Sue characteristic of "everyone falls in love with him" - or, if they don't, they still obsess over him - and despite the fact that he is the hero of the series and deserves to be the readers' focal point, Dunnett went way too far with making him the focal point of the other characters. (I started an essay at one point about how she does POV - the story is almost never seen from inside Lymond's head and when it is seems to have a peculiar objective quality - but never finished it, and I'm sure the point's been made over and over anyway.)
But I see "Mary Sue" being used as a stick to beat authors who otherwise write beautifully, particularly female authors, and it just seems to have been taken too far too often. (Though I have to admit doing frequent Mary-Sue-checks myself, just to make sure I haven't.)