Cordian! Cordian Druid!

[triadruid]

So I finally finished The Illuminatus! Trilogy last night (technically, I finished the book proper Saturday night, but hadn't worked through the Appendices). Since this was started on recommendation of featherynscale, I can safely say we were both disappointed: I didn't throw it across the room in the first 50 pages like she expected, but neither did I find it to have the impact I was expecting/hoping for from a novel of such cult status. So I began to wonder why I was unimpressed in either direction. I'm not really trying to start any fights (I think I've done enough of that for today), but this is as much musing out loud as it is the start of a discussion:

• First off, I don't usually read books on suggestion. I tend not to necessarily agree with the end result, and I'm going to trust that featherynscale (and kittenpants, and zylch, and all the others who recommended it after her) will understand that this all comes from a difference of opinion, not a value judgement.


• I didn't want to throw the book after 50 pages; that took more like 250, when I was slightly into the second book. By that point I'd already decided it was going to be a meta-referential story where the characters are aware of their literary existence, and I wasn't disappointed (in that sense) in the end. I was proud of myself though for not peeking at the last page, which is often a bad habit of mine when I'm confronted with fluff, and yet can't put the book down.


• I hate not finishing books; there's really only been one author that I can't finish, and that is Donald M. Kingsbury. I was first exposed to him via The Moon Goddess and the Son, which is an awful Cold War-era sci-fi book with one redeeming feature: it introduced me to games theory. That one took about 9 months to finish though, because I chucked it back at the library with as much force as I could manage when I first attempted it back in 1995 or so. About a year later I picked it back up and suffered through the rest, which gave me more information about games theory but no other redeeming features. Problems with it? Dated material, incoherent storyline, and one-dimensional characters. Earlier this year I started Psycohistorical Crisis, unaware that it was by the same author (that's how thoroughly I'd blocked out the earlier travesty), until I got disgusted with it and put it down. Something made me wonder if this was his first novel, and I Googled the name...uh oh! So that explained that. I have no intention of ever finishing that one, even though we own it.


• That last point may seem like a rambling aside, but it feeds into one of my problems with Illuminatus!; the storyline makes no sense. Yes, I understand it's supposed to be non-linear and based more in the mythical realities of the characters than the objective reality. In the end, though, we are told who the narrator is, and let's just say subjective reality isn't really in it. It's not the rambling non-linearity of the storyline that irks me; it's the fact that it doesn't hang together in the end. Why is Hagbard allowed to be what he really is? Where does he actually get his resources from? What does Leviathan have to do with anything that came previously? There's 17 different theories presented and none of them hang with the rest of it, unless you're on acid, apparently.


• Then there's the 'realistic-fiction' angle that upsets me: I tend not to like novels that are set in the 'real world' if they're going to mess with the basic motivational structure of the world to suit the storyline. Illuminatus! is a good example of this, but so is Sheri Tepper, for example. Both modify basic human behavior (sheep in the one, misogyny and feminine purity in the other) to suit their storylines. A brief example: If the Illuminatus (as in the Saures) are so powerful, then the Discordian/Erisian groups should never have been able to manage what they did. Of course, they're not by the points made in the end of the book, so they and most of the other people are just sheep of different colors... which is not quite so true as all of that. But without it, the series falls apart.


• More of the same: Dated material bugs the ever-loving hell out of me. RAW may be a fricking genius, but he bases a lot of Illuminatus! on bogus theories. The Minoans were a goddess-worshipping egalitarian proto-society? Robert Graves unlocked the secret to the ancient matriarchies? The Egyptian myth cycles cited were flawed as well but I can't recall the specific instances now. By relying so 'heavily' (which I still can't quite believe, based on how disconnected most of the rest of the series is from 'reality') on ancient truths, then when those truths fall apart, so does your basis for your theories.

There; I don't expect it'll make much sense to anyone but myself, but I did give it a fair shot. And I do have one plus to all of this: I suspect I'm going to have to reread Ishmael by Daniel Quinn again to see what makes that hang together differently, since essentially the two stories have similar histories. Maybe it won't, after all.

Comments

Dated material

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

I will never again recommend anything to you that was written more than 10 years ago :-P

(Impossible! No one was alive then!)

And, um...er....fiction. Yes.

Re: Dated material

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

That's the thing. Fiction that bases itself in the real world is pseudofiction, for lack of a better invented word. When the details of the story no longer mesh with the details of the world "as known at the time", then it becomes discordant to me. YMMV.

FYI, this seems to bother me most in stories I can actually place a time to, i.e. Cold War-era political stories, Revolution of Society stories from the 60's and 70's, Cyberpunk books of the 80's (can you say, Neuromancer?), and the like. Go back to the 1860's, like the "Alternate History" Civil War books by Harry Turtledove that I keep meaning to try, and it ceases to bother me. Or maybe it's just that my lack of detailed knowledge about the Civil War prevents me from catching the missteps, although I hear Mr. Turtledove really knows his stuff. I have no great desire to pick up a Patricia Kennealy Morrison book, either...

I think the book is a fascinating experiment, but unfulfilling for me personally. I'm sure if I tried to recommend something to you I'd stand a good chance of the same reaction. C'est la vie.

Re: Dated material

[saffronhare.livejournal.com]

Hey. I happen to love Patricia Kennealy Morrison's books. (Celts...in...Space!) Of course, I have to alternate them with stuff that has lots of footnotes...sort of like Druid porn.

Remind me never to discuss literature with you, ya cranky bastard.

cranky, cranky, cranky

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

Bah - I'd probably actually enjoy PK-M's books, since they're far enough removed from reality that my snobbery would become irrelevant. And I can read Morgan Llywelyn with barely a flinch, which seems to amuse featherynscale to no end.

What, I'm not good enough to discuss literature with you? Feh. :P

Re: cranky, cranky, cranky

[saffronhare.livejournal.com]

No, you're too smart. I might have to resort to physical violence to win an argument -- which means, ironically, that I'd automatically lose. I'm all about winning and losing, remember? Hence the avoidance.

It makes me all hot when you say, "Feh." Wait. Was that my outside voice?

too smart?

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

This is the part where I refer back to the idea that each of us feels 'inferior' in some way to others in the group, despite the fact that we are all Confident, Sexy Bitches.

I have no idea who would win a literature argument between us - but I'm quite certain featherynscale would tie us both up and beat us.

In the discussion, of course; figuratively speaking... ::humming::

Re: Dated material

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

I think that the difference here is that I tend to do some really heavy suspension of disbelief with this sort of fiction (to a certain degree- I am willing to allow a lot more leeway on the history of secret societies, as that's 99.9% bullshit regardless of who's spinning it, than I am on more technical things) - I tend to accept the writer's premises as given for hir world. So I'm more cranky about ludicrous things that proceed from sound premises than about ludicrous premises, as a rule, if that makes any sense.

I'm not at all offended that you didn't like the book - it's just that this particular reason why is sort of alien to my way of thinking/reading, so I wanted to pick at it a bit for further understanding.

I wouldn't have posted 'out loud' if I didn't want you to comment

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

I just didn't want to start getting into a win-lose argument, because I have very strong suspicions on who would succumb in that matchup..(see above)

Re: I wouldn't have posted 'out loud' if I didn't want you to comment

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

Feh. (It's the word of the day, apparently.)

As previously noted, I don't much get into win-lose arguments... or at least I don't take much note of who wins and who loses. Process-oriented, remember? I just want to argue for the sake of arguing. I'll even switch sides if it helps :)

further pondering

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

I just thought of two other books that I'm unable to finish in a timely manner: A Canticle for Liebowitz and Catch-22. Both are 'classics' that I'm having the devil's own time wading through... in the latter, I know it has to do with the ludicrous premise/situation, not so sure about the first.. though I have suspicions that it gives me the same 'shaggy dog' vibe as Illuminatus!... I mean, it is based around an ancient shopping list.

Hmmm. Maybe my worldview is more mechanistic than I'd like to think... or that may not be the correct term. Reciprocity, resistance to magic, traditionalist, non-Discordian....

More processing is needed. ;)

Re: further pondering

[zylch.livejournal.com]

Catch-22 is amusing, but IMHO not nearly all it's cracked up to be. It makes a few good points, but nothing that was news to me. Of course, the whole world is pretty ludicrous when you think about it. It's just that some books are a little more open about pointing that fact out.

Catch-22

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

I have a feeling Catch-22 was a lot more revolutionary in 1947 or whenever it was printed, than it is now; the 1/3 or so that I've read so far has been mostly 'yes, it's absurdist, I get it, stop beating me over the head with it'. The story seems to repeat the same situations over and over again, but I've also been reading it in 20-page chunks every month or so.

In my defense, I love things like HHGTTG, Clockwork Orange, etc, so I'm not completely anti-absurdist...

Re: further pondering

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

Of course, I loved Catch-22.
I haven't read Canticle for Leibowitz, but I think I might have to, now.

Re: further pondering

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

We've got CfL at home somewhere... the copy's not in great shape, but...

As for Catch-22, I'd like to see if you have any comments on the above analysis. I will say that I've been reading it (and read most of Illuminatus! that way) not just because I've had little time, but because they didn't engage me the way other books do. Illuminatus! had me hooked for the first 60-90 pages or so.. would have to go back and see where the disagreement started.

Re: Dated material

[zylch.livejournal.com]

Having read several of his books, I can attest that Mr Turtledove indeed "really knows his stuff." Just remember that Guns of the South is in *no way* related to his other books about the period, and you'll be fine. (GotS assumes the use of time travel, the other series assumes that someone didn't lose Lee's orders for the Army of NoVa).

If you want some incredibly well-researched historical fiction and you're at all interested in the late Roman Republic, I recommend Colleen McCullough's "Masters of Rome" series. She does an excellent job of creating a possible rationale for the occassionally baffling events of the first century BCE, and I have yet to find a glaring misstep in the roughly 5,000 pages she's written. The only issue I have is that she occassionally makes a big deal of how well-researched it is by doing things like putting in obscure, unnecessary details just to show them off, but I can forgive that because I like random details. Much as I love I, Claudius, I could wish that more authors erred towards too much accuracy and detail.

Mmmmm, random details

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

I loves me some random details. I'll add it to The List - once I find it again.

Oh, and..

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the tip about GotS, I didn't know that; I was actually referring more to the American Empire/Worldwar series(es?).

Re: Oh, and..

[saffronhare.livejournal.com]

I find it difficult to take seriously anyone named Mr. Turtledove.

Re: Oh, and..

[zylch.livejournal.com]

He puts a note at the beginning of How Few Remain (prequel/first book of the Great War/American Empire series) that it has nothing to do with GotS, but it's quite easy to miss and get confused. Worldwar is a completely different series of his, I think, with no relation to the "Southern victory" books (I've only read the first couple of those, so I'm not certain.) I myself rather liked GotS, but then any book that has Gen Lee holding an AK-47 on the cover is going to pique my interest :)

[capriciouslass.livejournal.com]

I'd have to agree with you on giving up on books; I hate just giving up in the middle. Usually I want to know what happens.
I can think of 3 off the top of my head that I've just plain given up on: The Silmarillion (can't read it if you can't manage to stay awake), Lancelot Du Lethe (the title is better than the book was), and the aforementioned Illuminatus! (I just couldn't get it to make sense).

*blink*

[naiadea.livejournal.com]

*sits in the corner feeling dumb*

*poke*

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

If you sit in the corner, someone's going to come over and poke and prod you until you say something smart.

The Only Way Out is Through. :)

*poke*

Re: *poke*

[naiadea.livejournal.com]

*perk*
poke and prod me with what?

Oh you know...

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

Whatever's on hand. ;)

Re: Oh you know...

[naiadea.livejournal.com]

well, as long as you have the situation well in hand....
i guess i just don't think that deeply about what i'm reading. it's either interesting, entertaining, and/or useful or it's not. if it's not, i forget it and go on to the next book. if i like it, i read it again a few times and decide what i like. i guess i just don't dwell on the things i dislike. it's interesting to listen to other people talk about books since my (negative) opinions are rarely very strong, but it makes me feel like i'm dumb or missing something because i tend to focus more on the things i like than the things i don't and i rarely dissect books (however, i'm pretty picky about movies... you should hear me bitch about forrest gump).
as for the illuminatus trilogy itself, i refuse to read it on the grounds that my father seems to have adopted it as his bible. it scares me.
there. i've met my smartness quota for whole week. i hope you're happy. :P