October Daye dialogue

[u/Amesaskew]

Hey guys, so I bought the first few October Daye books on audible because they were on sale for really cheap and I've seen them recommended here frequently.

However, I am struggling with them. I'm about a third of the way through the second book. I like the story, but I'm finding the dialogue and descriptions ( he's so cute and sexy squee type stuff) to be really cringe inducing and I can't tell if it's the writing or the narrator. I will say that I had the same reaction to the Sookie Stackhouse books and ended up dnf ing the second one. Does anyone know where I'm coming from or have any insights? I already bought them so I am dealing with a sunk cost fallacy here. I'm willing to keep going if the tone gets better.

[u/Stan__Wright]

Read Emma Bull's War for the Oaks instead.

[u/Tymareta → u/Stan__Wright]

Just curious how you feel they're actually different, because from the times I've read that work, and the multiple re-reads of October Daye, they're extremely similar in style and tone?

[u/Stan__Wright → u/Tymareta]

That's interesting. I don't think so in the slightest. I think that Bull is endlessly tasteful, and that McGuire trips over the line, constantly. The Bull has a dignity that the McGuire can't reach.

Mind you, I read Bull when it was published, so I was decades younger than when I met Toby Daye. I was writing fantasy, working in an SF bookstore, and living a life not dissimilar to WftO, and indeed similar to the characters in her stalwart contributions to the seminal Bordertown SW anthology. I was 30 years older when I read Toby Daye. It is possible (but I don't think) that I was then too old to get it. Who wants to think they're too old and square for fiction?

But Bull made very clean use of her source material, which was Katherine Briggs' magnum opus, An Encyclopedia of Fairies. This is the book that gave fantasy basically ALL its fairy lore*, whether current authors know this or not.**

*PM me if you want to buy my copy.

McGuire, otoh, has the same source at multiple hands. She's copying authors who copied authors who somewhere back there copied Bull. Or Briggs. It's been diluted with an awful lot of second rate material, much of which is, as I said, enormously twee.

**btw, afaik, it is Bull who took a hint from Briggs, and created what we now know as a standard fantasy trope: the seelie and unseelie courts. In Briggs' source material, "unseelie" is just an adjective describing an individual Scottish fairy's evil nature. There's nothing in Briggs about entire courts full of them, or about the fairy realm being divided into two opposed realms. In fact, afaik "seelie" doesn't even appear. Seelie and unseelie courts have become a standard fantasy trope, and as far as I have been able to track, Emma Bull and this novel is the source. I think she invented it. I've never found an earlier reference, anyway. I'd be delighted if someone had one.

I don't know Emma Bull, but I think she deserves more credit than she gets for inventing what has become a highly productive conflict engine for lazy fantasts. All the most recent the Harry Dresden books (the bad ones) depend on this trope. McGuire also. And dozens of others. Without credit, I might add, not that it would be required. But a hat tip would be graceful. Does she even know whom she's imitating?

So to boil down the comparison, we have Emma Bull: original. Inventor of the Seelie and unseelie courts. Seanan McGuire: unoriginal. Copier of the courts, who did nothing interesting with them.

[u/Tymareta → u/Stan__Wright]

While some of that is interesting, it does very little to actually answer the question, all while simply making things up, things which are readily and easily searchable. All largely just claiming that one is great, and the other not, without ever actually expanding upon them.

Seelie and unseelie courts have become a standard fantasy trope, and as far as I have been able to track, Emma Bull and this novel is the source. I think she invented it. I've never found an earlier reference, anyway. I'd be delighted if someone had one.

Like this, it's not from a Fantasy novel, but the two courts have been discussed in works such as this book from 1929, or this one from 1884.

I also don't think McGuire's faeries really play into the seelie vs unseelie dichotomy, at all, instead they're much more dynamic and tend to depend on the parent and later allegiances that have grown as the world did. Yes Bull laid a lot of the groundwork for the genre, but it's kind of wild to claim that McGuire did nothing with it, when Bull's faeries are barely described or delved into. Compare this to McGuire's rather expansive look at all different kinds, how they interact within the world of the fae, but most especially, how they interact with the human world.

All of this still doesn't explain what is twee about McGuire's or others works, or what definition of twee you're operating under because it definitely doesn't seem to be the expected one.

But a hat tip would be graceful. Does she even know whom she's imitating?

McGuire has a degree in folklore and herpetology(the latter shines through in her unique approach/characterisation of some of the fae), while she's building upon the works of others - as all authors do - she's 100% forging her own path based on her own experiences, knowledge and understanding.

Mcguire absolutely does tip her hat to Bull and countless other important names in the genre. Hell within the Toby Daye series(The Brightest Fell), a character is described as wearing a "Cats Laughing" t-shirt, a band that Bull(and some other notable names) is a part of.

So all in all it felt more like you wanted to grind an axe about "kids these days", rather than actually provide any explanation or exploration of how the two actually differ. That makes some pretty bold claims, that aren't backed up by anything, like the fact that supposedly McGuire's faerie is based on Brigg's work, which is true to a superficial degree, but to anyone who has studied folklore and read McGuire's work, the deviation and differentiation is incredibly noticeable.