Fantasy Literature Poll - Group E

[Ocicat]

I had said I was very interested in who came in second place last week, and it was indeed interesting.  Discworld came in first, surprising no one.  Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIHM took an early lead though (even holding first for awhile).  The Jungle Book then came up to tie NIHM at second.  Eventually The Crystal Cave caught up as well, and we ended up with a three way tie for second.  All three will be in a runoff after the last group.  If any other groups have ties for second, those books will be included as well.

The contestants this week include the prince of an astroid, an immortal civil war veteran dating the princess of Barsoom, an orphan wizard raised on two worlds, a little girl with two mothers, an albino sorcerer king, a junior tempter from Hell, a much maligned wicked witch, and a city with a fungus problem.

[eytanz]

I voted for three entries this time, but this grouping is interesting in that it has two entries I actively dislike, as opposed to just don't like that much - and one of them (The Little Prince) is a story I despise with a passion.

[CryptoMe]

Eytanz, I'd be curious to hear why you despise The Little Prince. It's always been one of my favourites. More allegory than fantasy, though.

[eytanz]

Eytanz, I'd be curious to hear why you despise The Little Prince. It's always been one of my favourites. More allegory than fantasy, though.

I honestly can't give reasons. I first read the Little Prince when I was around 7 or 8, and I formed an instant dislike to it. I've re-read it several times in my childhood and teens, mostly because quite a few of my friends adored it, and each time I discovered I liked it less. But why? I don't really know, it's a purely emotional response and it's too deeply established by this point to trace back the causes of it.

[Ocicat]

I voted for three entries this time, but this grouping is interesting in that it has two entries I actively dislike, as opposed to just don't like that much - and one of them (The Little Prince) is a story I despise with a passion.

So what's the other entry you actively dislike?

[eytanz]

I voted for three entries this time, but this grouping is interesting in that it has two entries I actively dislike, as opposed to just don't like that much - and one of them (The Little Prince) is a story I despise with a passion.

So what's the other entry you actively dislike?

Wicked. I don't like how it set itself in an established world, but totally ignored all aspects of the source material that weren't convenient to its story. Mostly because it was unnecessary. There was an opportunity here to tell the same story while keeping it consistent - or at least mostly consistent - with the original Oz. Wicked is a well-written book, but it read to me as exploitative and lazy.

[Fenrix]

So what's the other entry you actively dislike?

Wicked. I don't like how it set itself in an established world, but totally ignored all aspects of the source material that weren't convenient to its story. Mostly because it was unnecessary. There was an opportunity here to tell the same story while keeping it consistent - or at least mostly consistent - with the original Oz. Wicked is a well-written book, but it read to me as exploitative and lazy.

I agree with eytanz, and will be disillusioned about the taste of the people on these boards if it gets more votes than the source material.

[Anarkey]

I wish Ambergris were getting more love. 

[Ocicat]

Wicked. I don't like how it set itself in an established world, but totally ignored all aspects of the source material that weren't convenient to its story. Mostly because it was unnecessary. There was an opportunity here to tell the same story while keeping it consistent - or at least mostly consistent - with the original Oz. Wicked is a well-written book, but it read to me as exploitative and lazy.

I completely agree as well.  The inconstancies drove me to distraction as I as reading this.  As a fan of Oz, I just couldn't get into it.  Wicked used *some* aspects, mostly things people would be familiar with from the movies, but ignored most of Baum's worldbuilding.  Because including accurate details would have made Wicked's whole plot impossible.  

[eytanz]

I wish Ambergris were getting more love. 

Me too.

[eytanz]

Wicked. I don't like how it set itself in an established world, but totally ignored all aspects of the source material that weren't convenient to its story. Mostly because it was unnecessary. There was an opportunity here to tell the same story while keeping it consistent - or at least mostly consistent - with the original Oz. Wicked is a well-written book, but it read to me as exploitative and lazy.

I completely agree as well.  The inconstancies drove me to distraction as I as reading this.  As a fan of Oz, I just couldn't get into it.  Wicked used *some* aspects, mostly things people would be familiar with from the movies, but ignored most of Baum's worldbuilding.  Because including accurate details would have made Wicked's whole plot impossible.  

The thing is, that if you just take the original Wizard of Oz, and ignore the sequels, Wicked's plot could have been told more or less unchanged. That's what bugs me the most - not that the plot itself contradicted the books, but that it felt like it wasn't even trying. Heck, after reading wicked, I have no idea whether Maguire even read the book.

[Scattercat]

I think "Wicked" is just sort of Oz-flavored.

Frankly, given that Baum was making crap up as he went along and wasn't consistent himself with things like, oh, death or money, I'm not personally bothered overmuch if derivative works don't hew to the whatever-is-convenient-at-the-moment world of Oz.  ;-)

[Talia]

I think "Wicked" is just sort of Oz-flavored.

Frankly, given that Baum was making crap up as he went along and wasn't consistent himself with things like, oh, death or money, I'm not personally bothered overmuch if derivative works don't hew to the whatever-is-convenient-at-the-moment world of Oz.  ;-)

Yes, this.

Wicked was not meant to be something "well in accordance" with the original books. Its a retelling.

Consider also its a retelling from a different point of view, and the original books were written from the "good guy" point of view.

I thought it was brilliant.

[Swamp]

Like John Carter, my heart longs for Barsoom.  I know its limitations, but I like it anyway.

Also, Screwtape Letters.

[eytanz]

I think "Wicked" is just sort of Oz-flavored.

Frankly, given that Baum was making crap up as he went along and wasn't consistent himself with things like, oh, death or money, I'm not personally bothered overmuch if derivative works don't hew to the whatever-is-convenient-at-the-moment world of Oz.  ;-)

Yes, this.

Wicked was not meant to be something "well in accordance" with the original books. Its a retelling.

Consider also its a retelling from a different point of view, and the original books were written from the "good guy" point of view.

I thought it was brilliant.

Ah, but see - the difference between what you're saying and what Scattercat is saying is where the problem lies for me. Scattercat's description is accurate. It is an "oz-flavored" story, that really has nothing to do with the original books and just gives things the same names. And it is a pretty good novel if it is viewed as that.

It is a crappy retelling. And it is even worse as a retelling from the bad guys view. Not because it adds stuff, but because it removes stuff. It doesn't give a different point of view to the events in the Wizard of Oz, because it makes it clear that the events of the Wizard of Oz never happened, what happened was totally unrelated to it except for the names of the characters and their outside appearance.

I think what bothers me most about the book is the way it was marketed. It was marketed as "now you will see the other side of the events in Oz" - that was an exciting promise. But it's about as effective at that as a retelling of Star Wars from Darth Vader's point of view that describes how Alderon blew itself up by experimenting with black-hole research, and the space-based weapon platform that the rebels destroyed was the size of a small asteroid. It wouldn't give me any insight into the villians of the original story.

[Talia]

I think "Wicked" is just sort of Oz-flavored.

Frankly, given that Baum was making crap up as he went along and wasn't consistent himself with things like, oh, death or money, I'm not personally bothered overmuch if derivative works don't hew to the whatever-is-convenient-at-the-moment world of Oz.  ;-)

Yes, this.

Wicked was not meant to be something "well in accordance" with the original books. Its a retelling.

Consider also its a retelling from a different point of view, and the original books were written from the "good guy" point of view.

I thought it was brilliant.

Ah, but see - the difference between what you're saying and what Scattercat is saying is where the problem lies for me. Scattercat's description is accurate. It is an "oz-flavored" story, that really has nothing to do with the original books and just gives things the same names. And it is a pretty good novel if it is viewed as that.

It is a crappy retelling. And it is even worse as a retelling from the bad guys view. Not because it adds stuff, but because it removes stuff. It doesn't give a different point of view to the events in the Wizard of Oz, because it makes it clear that the events of the Wizard of Oz never happened, what happened was totally unrelated to it except for the names of the characters and their outside appearance.

I think what bothers me most about the book is the way it was marketed. It was marketed as "now you will see the other side of the events in Oz" - that was an exciting promise. But it's about as effective at that as a retelling of Star Wars from Darth Vader's point of view that describes how Alderon blew itself up by experimenting with black-hole research, and the space-based weapon platform that the rebels destroyed was the size of a small asteroid. It wouldn't give me any insight into the villians of the original story.

Yeah, I guess you're right in that my point is different.

I guess I just feel Maguire was suggesting that, for the purposes of his book, the original work should be considered a heavily modified press release of sorts. The "official" story propigated by the government of Oz. Prettied up. All the stuff they don't want you to hear glossed over. Candy coated. And events as portrayed in 'Wicked' are what happens if you remove the sugar coating and re-add the excised parts of the story.

There is a saying, 'History is always written by the winners,' which implies the winners get to tell it how they want to tell it, not necesarily how it happened. Maguire's book at least makes it pretty clear who the "winners" end up being. Not Elphaba.

Anyway that's how I feel. Differences from the original manuscripts are in my mind largely irrelevant, because IMHO the implication is there that the original tale is a pack of lies made up by the "good" guys.

[Father Beast]

I'm surprised that Magician isn't doing better. It's one of my favorite series.

[Ocicat]

One day left to vote, and we currently have a tie for first place and four other entries that are just a vote or two away from the top two.