Poul Anderson uses his inn between the worlds as the setting of two short stories and an interlude and an epilogue in one novel whereas Neil Gaiman uses his inter-cosmic inn as the framing device for a series of stories, as in Geoffrey Chaucer's
The Canterbury Tales. Gaiman's approach works well especially since the author and his successive artists ensure that their readers remain continuously conscious both of each new story and of the inn where the stories are told. One difference is that Anderson's Old Phoenix as described remains a single small stable indoors place whereas the Inn of the Worlds' End sometimes abruptly alters its size and shape.
An Anderson collection with Old Phoenix-based introductions to original stories could have featured characters from different series each introducing an new addition to his or her particular narrative. Thus, such a collection would belong not to one series but to all and would unite them into a mega-series.
13 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Truthfully, I'm glad Anderson never assembled a collection of his stories using the Old Phoenix inn to attempt a unifying framework. My view is many of his works and series are too different from each other for that to succeed. E.g., could the Hoka stories (co-authored with Gordon Dickson) be shoe horned into such a framework?
As far as club/inn stories goes, I have read with pleasure Sterling Lanier's Brigadier Ffellowes stories and L. Sprague de Camp/Fletcher Pratt's TALES FROM GAVAGAN'S BAR. And Sir Arthur Clark's stories set in the White Hart pub.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
These series are discrete narratives in different genres and their distinctiveness should not be compromised but at the same time they are supposed to coexist and an author like PA would be able to find ways of showing that coexistence without compromise. He already has the oddity of van Rijn drinking with Sancho Panza and Erik the Red. Van Rijn could, e.g., describe his last voyage outside known space which does not impact the later Technic History.
Paul.
"assembled a collection of his stories using the Old Phoenix inn to attempt a unifying framework"
It might have been as much of a travesty as the end of Heinlein's "The Number of the Beast".
Sean: I like more of Heinlein's later work than you do, but that was definitely a failure.
Anderson would do it right or not at all.
Note that Heinlein's later work wasn't as different from his earlier stuff as most people think -- not as different as they appear in published form.
The difference was largely -editing-. Early Heinlein is mostly heavily cut and somewhat changed by his editors at the publishing companies. After STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND they didn't dare, and oh boy, does it show!
I've seen some manuscript stuff of his from the 50's, and it's much more like the later stuff than the published texts.
Yeah, you've mentioned this before. I still find it totally amazing that we owe the good Heinlein stuff to editors.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I've read GRUMBLES FROM THE GRAVE, selections from Heinlein's letters, and he complains about the criticisms from his editors and their demands for revisions. But it was precisely because of those editors that his works up till 1959 were so good.
E.g., DOUBLE STAR is much better than STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND!
Ad astra! Sean
With Heinlein's work, it's like there's this muscular, fit, good-looking person inside a flab-suit. After 1960, the editors could no longer enforce an exercise program.
Incidentally, this is one reason I use 'first readers', consider their feedback carefully, and listen (but do not always agree) with editors.
You can get too close to your own work; you may mistake errors for the ideal version in your head, and you may also fall in love with "good bits" which nevertheless detract from the overall structure.
I never believed in the Romantic's vision of the solitary, misunderstood genius.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
An all too apt metaphor! RAH, alas, became a flabby writer after 1959.
And I respect the measures you take to guard against being too wedded to flawed writing or mistaken plot lines.
What, writers are never brooding, scorned, misunderstood geniuses??? (Laughs)
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: they are... in their own minds, sometimes... 8-).
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Ha, ha!!! I thought so!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment