Posted by Rob Swiatek on February 18, 1998 at 11:58:32:
In Reply to: Re: Lyonesse Trilogy posted by Gabriel Stein on February 10, 1998 at 02:54:10:
: I have also encountered this strange attitude and find myself equally puzzled. I very much enjoyed Lyonesse, in fact more so than the Cugel books (good as they are). But I think onepoint made in an earlier comment regarding the characters (the differences between Adam Reith and Kirth Gersen)still has some truth. Why do we read Vance? As for myself, I see three reasons: 1) His superb writing style, in particular his way of writing conversation. 2) His descriptions of strange cultures. In contrast to other writers, Vance never needs to postulate a disaster/war/plague to explain how a certain society came about (To Live Forever is the exception to this rule). He basically says, if we continue to be as we are, one day this kind of society might well develop. 3)His "mood settings". However, his description of characters is much less strong - but that doesn't detract from the pleasure of reading him.
I agree with your points 1-3 above. However, I think I'd add a fourth: 4) His characters. SF writers, e.g., Arthur C. Clarke, are routinely criticized for concentrating on plots, settings, new technology et al. at the expense of characterization. But I find many of Jack Vance's characters to be sensitively drawn, quiet types who don't intentionally begin as iconoclasts but are pushed in that direction by events or situations. Once their tasks are complete, they retire to their deck chair, or country wanderings or some such. No lofty aspirations to rule the universe. I kind of like that.
--Rob Swiatek