So, I'd be interested in hearing what other people thought of The Diamond Warriors.

Me, I've been a Zindell fan since whenever it was that I first read Neverness, back in my early teenage days, but it wasn't until I read The Broken God many years later that my mind truly got to soar and see him as perhaps the finest author alive. And so, for the first three books of the series, even though fantasy wasn't really my genre of choice anymore, I've been giving the Ea Cycle all the benefit of the doubt, enjoying the carefully crafted world, the scattered bits of prose that rang out in truth, the way he masterfully wove all the trite old story elements into a fascinating new whole in The Lightstone... and feeling hollow inside all the while, wondering if perhaps it was just me, or if Zindell had really lost his touch, creating flawed copies of remembered greatness rather than blazing forth. Black Jade in particular felt like quite a disappointment. (All the while acknowledging that by itself it was most certainly still a good book.)

And then there was The Diamond Warriors. Not available in hardcover (not counting the library edition), only in trade paperback. Uh-oh. Not good that...
And so I started reading it. And... wow. Just wow. The magic was back. The prose, the story, the inherent cadence of it all - starting off quietly unassumingly beautiful, and swelling to sublime majesty. Blazing forth brightly enough to hide from view the flaws I was otherwise still acknowledging.

As I wrote on my own forum in the minutes after finishing the book :

Quote :

This is the Zindell I am a fan of above all others. Feelings that can touch me straight to the heart, words that shine with poetry, and the whole so infused with power and depth that it leaves me exhausted afterward.

But I haven't yet heard from anyone else who knows Zindell as I do. There's a dozen fans on my forum, but none who've even picked up the book yet that I've heard.
So, please, someone here tell me I'm not alone in seeing the book like this? I know better than to go and read reviews on Amazon, but I seriously would like some idea of what other people are thinking of the book.

I started reading The Diamond Warriors about two weeks ago, and although my current work leaves me marginally adequate time for leisure in the form of reading, there is but one way to read Zindell, and this is where our interests converge, I presume - namely, reading with one's whole heart; leaving both precepts and sentiments of real-life well outside the realm of pure philosophy and poetry that is Zindell. Neverness is the best book I have ever known, and though Tolkien's Silmarillion is formidable in its marvellous grandeur and myths of epic proportions and consequence, I have yet to see an author render a "fictional" reality as beautiful and complex and comprehensive as our own[as does Zindell].. In this sense, and in my beliefs, Zindell understands more of the human situation and the human spirit, than does the vast legion of sci-fi pop-authors.

Hmm.. c_c  I feel his fantasy litterature is getting a lot of criticism(and believe it or not, I think the larger part of it is due to a mispredisposition in the American fanbase.. because of the horrible cover-art(!!) ), and I admit myself in taking a larger liking to the - in my opinion - nobler art of futuristic fictional renderings..
Nevertheless, I feel that the Ea universe gives room for stronger relational analysis than does the futuristic one, insomuch as it involves humans from an age closer to ours. This is but a petty argument in my opinion, though.
Rather, I like to focus on the ideal of simplicity, scope and composition:
The Ea Cycle is Zindell's - I believe - attempt to reestablish his strong eastern philosophy-inspired ethical ideals unto a world in which exactly spirituality is so firmly rooted. .. and from this building a story much less comprehensive, but still epic and glorious enough to heft the aesthetical sense of even a troll.  

Following this, I now criticize Zindell's fantasy thusly: His science-fiction blazes outwards with ambitions and grandiosity like no other.. but in his fantasy I see a more refined humility, where the beauty of the little man is made known to be nobler in nature than that of even the angels; where his creativity, originality and vigor shines in its manifestation of simple, beautiful storytelling; and where his archeypical characters(and I believe this to be fully intentional) from earlier litterature is presented in a slightly smaller scope, so as to simplify things without leaving them bereft of nobility and beauty.


To conclude in clarity: The science-fiction genre is one that is immensely variable, and Zindell's version of it is the one that I find most noble.. However - although fictional in nature also - the fantasy genre should not too easily be juxtaposed in this sense. Granted, it's penned by the very same author, but the fact that his fantasy outshines that of nearly every other fantasy author these days is more a proof of his passion and comprehension, than it is of his inaptitude of mastering several genres.. I don't know, though, how he himself really relates to this.  


I'll post again as soon as I have finished the book, and I hitherto agree on it being the climax both in tension, scenario and deep, ringing, terrible beauty. Thank you for renewing my inspiration!!  

--Last edited by Zephon on 2007-10-03 14:59:40 --

Don't judge a book by it's cover. I don't think Americans judge this series very harshly, in large part because they can't find Zindell books in the bookstores, and thus have never been exposed.  The Requiem trilogy and Neverness are out of print (Darn you Bantam Spectra) and the EA cycle always has to be special ordered. (Darn you, TOR publishers.)  I just read "The Lightstone" a few days ago.  Disappointed, no, not really. Zindell is an amazing read at any time. I just wish it didn't have the feel of an author deciding to write fantasy after finishing a glorious sci fi epic and using the same shoebox full of notes for both series.  perhaps I judge too harshly and too soon, after all I still haven't read the rest of his fantasy series. "how do you capture a beautiful bird...by becoming the sky." please. spare me.  10 riddles in the alaloi song of life, and he burps up the same one.  My theory is perhaps he finished writing "requiem," fell down, got ammnesia, decided to write a fantasy series and discoved some amazing notes (from requiem) stashed away somewhere and used them. I'll be open minded and save any further comments on this series until after I read them all.  

It is an excellent book (The Lightstone) on its own merits.  The only problem I have with it is the blatant copying of phrases from his earlier sci-fi works, not the stuff that is similar-I realize and understand that the similarities are deliberate. Reincarnation anyone?  

--Last edited by Ryan Foster on 2008-04-26 02:26:51 --

Hmm, I would never judge a book by its cover. Yet I can't deny the factual effect the cover-design has on people looking for new books. As much as I'd like otherwise, people are drawn towards cover-designs congruent with the first-impression gained from both title and synopsis. In this, I favour minimalistic designs, and a succinct synopsis conveying some of the overall mood and atmosphere of the book, instead of focusing so much on the concrete story.

It's too bad that Zindell isn't more prevalent in American bookstores, though.

Personally, I find the similarities between the Ea Cycle and A Requiem vastly more interesting than the differences, seeing as how A Requiem is meant for sci-fi readers, and Ea Cycle for fantasy readers. I read The Lightstone before I read Neverness, and thus -- unaffected by the vast similarities to his sci-fi -- saw his fantasy works for what it really was meant to be; not a spiritual continuation of Neverness and A Requiem, but a parallel meant for a different audience altogether.
Why don't use elements from the same shoebox if the elements coincide with the author's philosophy and ideals so perfectly?  
The eloquent lyrical parallels in his fantasy and sci-fi are the reason I love him as an author, but the spiritual, philosophical and perspicacious parallels, as well as the vivid idealism, are the reason I admire him as a person. o_o

Zephon, Lucky you, perhaps I would say the same had I read Zindell's works in reverse order.
The similarities are wonderful and I love the parallels as much as you, but I can see that the "EA Cycle" predates the "Requiem for Homo Sapiens," they are linked, even though thousands, perhaps millions of years separate the two series.
A would-be prince forshadows a would-be pilot, and a womanizing drunken would-be priest forshadows the womanizing, drunken would-be master of novices. I admire and applaud Zindell's daring for creating characters and philosophies similar too, but different from, the characters and philosophies in "Requiem." What I do not condone, is his use of phrases and sentences in "Requiem" cut directly from the fabric of "Requiem" and grafted into "The Lightstone" with nary a change.
I've spent a great deal of time considering this, and while I deplore this "cutting" as I call it (no pun intended) I begin to wonder if Zindell didn't do it deliberatly. I can't see Zindell, the Master Cutter, (pun intended) making such an elementary mistake.  Is the glass half empty or half full? I guess it just depends on a person's point of view.

I've said it once and I'll say it again, what I've read of the "EA Cycle" is far superior to the vast majority of popular fantasy that I've read.

Hmm, I similarly wondered about a possible deliberation concerning phrases, and even ideals, appearing in both works, but attributed the latter to a homogenous(yet vastly developed) philosophical perspective, and the former to the difficulty of conveying such simple examples through differing statements. o_o

I would ask him whether he deliberately meant for the "Ea Cycle" to convey the same ideals on which he based his sci-fi, only to a different audience.
Thus, we who admire his work so, would find that we admire something deeper than sheer circumstantial tint of genre.
(Heh, now that we have means of contacting him, perhaps we should ask him such.)

I've yet to pinpoint why, but to be subjective, I must say I find his sci-fi more realistic than his fantasy, and that it sets chords of hope and awe for mankind chiming in me that seems lost in the hopelessly far-away universe that is Ea.
(That is, I love his sci-fi(particularly Neverness, which is my favourite) more than anything else.)

I once saw a video interview with Zindell where he explained that he conceived of Ea as a kind of alternate universe to Requiem, similar to how Moorcock does his alternate universes.
Re-using elements and phrases and personalities is thus quite deliberate; "This is what the story would've been like if the universe was ...".
Unfortunately the strength of such alternate universes only become apparent after having read the third or fourth, and I don't think they really quite work on the scale that Zindell does. I think he realized this after the first book, and mostly abandoned the concept.

Still... Can you imagine? Next up, David Zindell writing cyberpunk, or post-apocalyptic science fiction, or urban fantasy - with the same themes coming back once more... *g* I'd totally buy it! (But then, I'll buy anything which includes David Zindell. "Within the Stone" is awesome.)

I really stirred up the hornet's nest when I wondered if Zindell was copying himself, (after reading "The Lightstone") thanks to Sander for clearing up that issue.
I finally ordered the rest of the Ea Cycle today, so I hope to be discussing "The Diamond Warriors" with the rest of you in a few weeks.  

--Last edited by Ryan Foster on 2008-04-26 02:29:46 --

Just finished "The Diamond Warriors" about two minutes ago.  David Zindell has recovered from the slump he got into after finishing "The Wild."  An author can write beautiful prose and still have his novel fall flat on it's face if the story is not there. The Ea Cycle is based on a framework a thousand years old, even young children in western societies know grail legends abound. Who has not heard of Aurthur and the knights of the round table? Zindell has draped these old bones with new flesh. This is Zindell at the peak of his form. Unique. Optimistic. Full of wonder. This is how a good story is told- like the best classical concerts, it builds to a rousing cresendo and a glorious finish and sends you to bed with stars in your eyes. Bravo, Mr. Zindell. Bravo.

I'm so glad you liked it!  I wondered myself whilst reading it as to what ending the book would have, and how Zindell would wrap it all up. I worried the end of the saga would be yet another wild-swing attempt at artistic originality; something wholly unforeseen, which would baffle the reader as his assumptions based on classical tales crumbled. Allwhile I believed, however, that Zindell was not this kind of author, but the kind that told tales the way they were meant to be told, thus ending the book with a plain, final, majestic and thorough .. period, so to speak. As tales are meant to end, when they truly do.

And I love your classical concert allegory! Like a concert, the story is full of wonder, and it leaves you with the sense that although you would relive the sensations felt in experiencing it, you know that it is at an end, and rightfully, thoroughly, wonderfully so.  

--Last edited by Zephon on 2008-05-18 14:30:32 --