Hahaha

[petronia]

Your result for Which fantasy writer are you?

Lian Hearn (b. 1942)

-13 High-Brow, 1 Violent, 17 Experimental and 23 Cynical!

Congratulations! You are Low-Brow, Violent, Experimental and Cynical! These concepts are defined below.

Lian Hearn is the pen name used by Australian author Gillian Rubinstein when writing theTale of the Otori series, beginning with Across the Nightingale Floor (2002). The trilogy (which has spawned a sequel and a prequel) was a great success, becoming bestsellers world-wide and being published in more than thirty countries. Part of the reason for the series' success is probably that it is traditional fantasy but with a twist: The books are set in a country resembling feudal Japan, rather than some vaguely European environment. This setting gives Hearn a great opportunity to explore themes such as war, revenge, power hunger and clashes between cultures, all of which makes for an occasionally very violent tale, where nothing is ever coated in sugar. The books also feature at least one strong and very believable female character. While there have been japanese-style fantasy written by Westerners earlier (such as the Book of Years series by Peter Morwood), Hearn uses the brilliant technique of describing her world from inside, calling typical japanese phenomena by generic names rather than exoticising Japanese terms. Thus, swords are called swords, not katanas, we hear of wrestlers and realize that they are sumo wrestlers, characters eat bean curd rather than tofu, etc. All in all, Hearn has succesfully expanded the borders of what can be done within the genre, while still writing for a mass audience!

 You are also a lot like C S Lewis.

If you want something more gentle, try Orson Scott Card.

If you'd like a challenge, try your exact opposite, Susan Cooper.

Your score

This is how to interpret your score: Your attitudes have been measured on four different scales, called 1) High-Brow vs. Low-Brow, 2) Violent vs. Peaceful, 3) Experimental vs. Traditional and 4) Cynical vs. Romantic. Imagine that when you were born, you were in a state of innocence, a tabula rasa who would have scored zero on each scale. Since then, a number of circumstances (including genetical, cultural and environmental factors) have pushed you towards either end of these scales. If you're at 45 or -45 you would be almost entirely cynical, low-brow or whatever. The closer to zero you are, the less extreme your attitude. However, you should always be more of either (eg more romantic than cynical). Please note that even though High-Brow, Violent, Experimental and Cynical have positive numbers (1 through 45) and their opposites negative numbers (-1 through -45), this doesn't mean that either quality is better. All attitudes have their positive and negative sides, as explained below.

High-Brow vs. Low-Brow

You received -13 points, making you more Low-Brow than High-Brow. Being high-browed in this context refers to being more fascinated with the sort of art that critics and scholars tend to favour, while a typical low-brow would favour the best-selling kind. At their best, low-brows are honest enough to read what they like, regardless of what "experts" and academics say is good for them. At their worst, they are more likely to read what their neighbours like than what they would choose themselves.

Violent vs. Peaceful

You received 1 points, making you more Violent than Peaceful. Please note that violent in this context does not mean that you, personally, are prone to violence. This scale is a measurement of a) if you are tolerant to violence in fiction and b) whether you see violence as a means that can be used to achieve a good end. If you are, and you do, then you are violent as defined here. At their best, violent people are the heroes who don't hesitate to stop the villain threatening innocents by means of a good kick. At their worst, they are the villains themselves.

Experimental vs. Traditional

You received 17 points, making you more Experimental than Traditional. Your position on this scale indicates if you're more likely to seek out the new and unexpected or if you are more comfortable with the familiar, especially in regards to culture. Note that traditional as defined here does not equal conservative, in the political sense. At their best, experimental people are the ones who show humanity the way forward. At their worst, they provoke for the sake of provocation only.

Cynical vs. Romantic

You received 23 points, making you more Cynical than Romantic. Your position on this scale indicates if you are more likely to be wary, suspicious and skeptical to people around you and the world at large, or if you are more likely to believe in grand schemes, happy endings and the basic goodness of humankind. It is by far the most vaguely defined scale, which is why you'll find the sentence "you are also a lot like x" above. If you feel that your position on this scale is wrong, then you are probably more like author x. At their best, cynical people are able to see through lies and spot crucial flaws in plans and schemes. At their worst, they are overly negative, bringing everybody else down.

I've never read these books - there was a reason for that, but I can't remember what it was. This could just as well be Brust though, I think? Brust is the closest writer I can think of to my fallback position in fantasy (i.e. where I would end up if I weren't intentionally going elsewhere).

Oh, and I'm back from Ottawa obv. XD I had a backlog of canned posts when I left so there is stuff to come.

Comments

[fromastudio]

*rueful* I actually dislike these books (or at least the half of one that I read) so much I have no mechanism of explaining why; I can hardly think of a series that lacks Brust's wit more. (In fact the only real things I can remember about the book was that the descriptions were pretty and the characterisation was rather poor; I'm not sure how those books are meant to be experimental in any way. Violent and cynical I assume comes with the job of writing anything vaguely Japanese history-inspired.

[prototypical]

Including an interesting quiz without a link to it isn't fair! :P

[petronia.livejournal.com]

Whoops - fixed! ^^;

[petronia.livejournal.com]

The quiz text seems to indicate Lian Hearn is experimental because she calls katanas swords. XD;;;

I am more lowbrow than 95% of quiz takers, apparently! I am indeed not at all highbrow but (being also highly cynical) this makes me think other quiz takers were not entirely honest. XD

I quite enjoy all three of the other writers listed, although I've never read Card's fantasy and don't plan to.

[prototypical]

Took it and got Philip Pullman, which reminds me that I need to reread the His Dark Materials trilogy at some point.

[fromastudio]

I think the quiz-maker may have been stumped by being insufficiently read in low-brow, experimental fantasy literature in general. (also possibly low-brow cynical literature, since the romantic high-brows in general strike me as much more depressing writers than the cynical low-brows).

~Lynn, who has been wasting a great deal of time playing with this test.

Incidentally Making Light has this post here about the What SF Writer are You Quiz, where among other things, Neil Gaiman tests as Delany.

[woodburner.livejournal.com]

It matched me to Ursula K. Le Guin. IT TOLD ME I WAS HIGHBROW. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

wheeze

[petronia.livejournal.com]

I got Stanislav Lem, which is reasonable, but TNH ruined the Bill Gibson answers for me. XD;

[dipping_sauce]

I've never read these books - there was a reason for that, but I can't remember what it was.

Probably because I read them and told you they weren't worth it?

[fromastudio]

I tested as Wells and was ouraged. >_<

I keep wondering why R.R. Martin wasn't used as the example of Low-Brow, Violent, Experimental, and Cynical, but I suppose in the end Martin's work might prove to be romantic in nature. Once he stops killing off the people I think are the protagonists.

[kuroraka.livejournal.com]

Philip Pullman. Apparently i am High-Brow, Peaceful, Experimental and Cynical...and my exact opposite is J R R Tolkien! Pffff...XDD

[luckykitty.livejournal.com]

I CAN'T FINISH THE QUIZ BECAUSE THERE ARE TOO MANY TYPOS D: D: D: D: D:

*giggling*

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

...I got the same match. UMMMM. (And LeGuin is apparently the polar opposite of CS Lewis. Because of the religious element, I suppose?)

I also scored 31 on cynical, even though I answered "I prefer happy endings"...

[canis-m.livejournal.com]

Haha we are polar opposites XD

Not sure how I wound up on the high-brow side, though, sheesh, I answered "Beer!" to the drink question.

[sub-divided.livejournal.com]

-1 High-Brow, -21 Violent, 5 Experimental and 21 Cynical!

Orson Scott Card (b.1951)

Congratulations! You are Low-Brow, Peaceful, Experimental and Cynical! These concepts are defined below.

Although primarily known for his science fiction novels, Orson Scott Card is also a prominent fantasy writer. His suite of books known as The Tales of Alvin Maker are among the finest examples of how fantasy can combine page-turning narration with a discussion of deeper moral messages. The books are set in an alternate world where, among other things, the French Revolution never happened, which has made America look quite different than in the world we're familiar with. Apart from showing a different political map, the world of The Tales of Alvin Maker features functioning magic, the European settlers of North America bringing various forms of folk-magic with them to their new home. Here they confront Native Americans, who also use magic, but of a slightly different type. The protagonist, Alvin, is a seventh son of a seventh son and as such has great magic powers at his disposal. Much of the series comes forth as an attempt to discuss the birth of the US and celebrating its virtues without shunning away from the mistakes that have been made.

Card is one of the most appealing story-tellers alive today and has the ability to combine his light and easy prose with experimenting with what fantasy can be, by bringing up subjects such as racism and slavery, by using alternate world settings and last but not least by letting the "small world" of family-life (complete with sibling envy from those who weren't born with the ability to do magic) have a prominent place in his stories.

Card is also one to propagate against violence, but without falling into the trap of being unrealistic or romantically pacifist. The question of who should be reading Card, those who want to be entertained or those who want to be challenged is easily answered: They all should!

You are also a lot like Katharine Kerr.

If you want some action, try Lian Hearn.

If you'd like a challenge, try your exact opposite, China Miéville.

[sub-divided.livejournal.com]

Card is one of the most appealing story-tellers alive today and has the ability to combine his light and easy prose with experimenting with what fantasy can be, by bringing up subjects such as racism and slavery, by using alternate world settings

That part sounds good but I really didn't like Card's fantasy novels. XD;

[marej.livejournal.com]

OMG DUDE, i read those book (you know how i can't drop a series) they are LOATHSOME! horrid, terrible, no good, crap. with pseudo-Japan as a pretty exotic backdrop. ughhhh.

[flemmings.livejournal.com]

Ditto, which enrages me. And I am so high-brow, the constant spelling and grammar mistakes in that test almost stopped me half way.

[cynic-in-charge.livejournal.com]

Yeah, this quiz has a tendency to make each author sound uber appealing when they are more likely not. I am also annoyed by the whole, "high brow/low brow" distinction, which I think is sort of narrow. Fantasy isn't going to be accepted by academics at large. Neither is most genre literature.

Also, grouping Eddings and Tolkien together makes it obvious that it's skewed since Eddings is the very definition of "low-brow, not academic in most ways" whereas Tolkien's very "high brow, super academic." The only thing they really had in common was the sheer epik of their stories.

[petronia.livejournal.com]

R.R. Martin is actually too Low-Brow, Violent, Experimental and Cynical for me - somebody gave me the first book, I read the prologue which had, like, unnecessary child rape that made me feel barfy, and so I stopped. ^^;

[petronia.livejournal.com]

Haha I've had people telling me this all day! I know people who like them, though... but yeah not hugely tempted or anything. XD

[petronia.livejournal.com]

Given this system, I actually would classify your writing as High-Brow, Peaceful, Experimental and Cynical, but the weakness of this quiz is that one can very well be all those things without being Philip Pullman. XD;

[star-flare.livejournal.com]

I read Lian Hearn's Across the Nightingale Floor some years ago, but I can't remember what happened in the rest of the trilogy. Except for one of the characters revealing that he was canonically gay or smth. BUT HEY, I LIKED IT (the first book anyway).

I haven't read any of Card's novels apart from Ender's Game, but has this awesome short story collection that I really, really like. I think I have text versions somewhere and can probably send/upload you some selections if you're interested?

[canis-m.livejournal.com]

I...didn't hate them, somehow. Whoops. There may have been character moe involved.

[sub-divided.livejournal.com]

I'm annoyed by Violent/Peaceful! Because I think that what it's really getting at is how much you like protags who work within the established order, compared to how much you like protags who take matters into their own hands. I don't really believe in the fairness/rightness of the Status Quo, but it never did anything to me personally so I guess I lack the kind of deep-seated suspicion that would make me want to write about like a rebel lone gunman type. (In other words I think this question boils down to: How middle class are you?)

I liked Card's SF, just not his fantasy. So I'm still going to take it as a compliment. China Mieville as my nemesis is spot-on ahaha.

Low-brow/high-brow probably has less to do with how other people read you, and more to do with your goals as a writer? I thought Eddings wrote fun hack fantasy based on tropes established by Tolkien. So putting them together makes sense to me. (But I haven't read either one.)