pjknibbs wrote: ↑Wed, 31. Oct 18, 08:21
It's worth noting that the Silmarillion was essentially reconstructed from Tolkien's notes by Christopher after his death. He even mentions in one of the "history of Middle Earth" books that he regrets some of the editorial decisions he made at the time, since he thinks he would have chosen differently with his current knowledge of the legendarium.
He mentions some of that in the "Children of Hurin." But, it's also true that the focus of the Silmarillion is still correct. It wouldn't have been possible, for instance, to add some of the other material to the book, like the Gondolin tales or what's in The Children of Hurin or the various bits in Unfinished Tales, which was originally intended to be it's own "book." So, the Silmarillion stands "as is" and, IMO, it's good the way it is. Though, strictly speaking, Turin and Neinor/Niniel might not have been appropriate in the Silmarillion. But, their tale is mixed up in with the Noldor et al, so it was probably unavoidable.
Aye Capn wrote: ↑Wed, 31. Oct 18, 21:33
Glen Cook has this amazing ability to show through Croaker's moral lens that when he says some version of, "They had it coming," you know damn well Croaker knows he's lying.
^--- THIS! And, all the other stuff you posted!
When you're reading Cook's "Black Company" you "feel" the moral relativism that he develops with this band of mercenaries. No matter who the "Annalist" is, you can see that there are two sets of rules: One for the members of The Black Company and who the F cares about anyone else?
And, Cook doesn't point this out for readers... No, nothing so simple. Cook relies on the reader being drawn in by the narrator to see through their eyes, adopt their view, and realize that in order to make sense of some of what is written, the reader must understand that The Black Company does not operate under the same ethical or moral codes that one uses when going to the grocery store. The Narrator's are not "Unreliable Narrators." They are moral relativists and that's part-and-parcel to what he's creating. He's not making any moral or social statements, either - He's simply telling a tale at the Company/Platoon level of a band of mercenaries.
I love this series. It's definitely in the top three of my favorites, perhaps even my most favorite due to how its written. People that don't like it often point out things that other stories with other writers would have included in it.
"It's a fantasy story about a bunch of guys fighting stuff and so why isn't there a big battle scene with somebody writing about how swords were being swung by warriors with mighty thews?"
That's NOT what the series is about, even though The Black Company is, deservedly and undoubtedly, the most feared Mercenary Company in the land.
Yes, you're absolutely right - The reader absolutely knows, or should, what's going on in a character's head and what they're basing decisions on, even though, or actually because of, Cook not plainly writing it in.
There was one passage towards the end of the series (So far! There is supposed to be one very last book that takes place at the "end" of the Black Company series.) where the Black Company was preparing for a big battle. There was quite a bit of buildup. And then, when another writer writing a different sort of story would have embellished a big battle sequence into the story, the "climax" was something like "Yeah, so there was this big battle an' stuff and we won."
At first, I was taken aback and felt let down. Then, seconds later, I cheered.
I realized that a narrator who's a merc in a mercenary company isn't going to sit there and "bore" some anonymous reader with the stuff that they do every day, which is killing people and breaking stuff. They're going to get right to the point, cover the big highlights, and then get to the stuff that is interesting to
them. It was a brilliant decision and if he had written out some long battle sequence, at that point, it would have been the wrong decision.
Yeah, so I love me some Black Company!
