Log in

No account? Create an account
bear by san

March 2017



Powered by LiveJournal.com
bear by san

via elaine_andraste:

The Celtic Twilight online.


Thank you for pointing at this book, and through it, this website. I've got reading material for months now.
Public domain good!
God yes. The Breton stuff alone has been a brilliant resource.
How cool!
O sacred text archive, sucker-out of a thousand "spare" moments. Woo!

And a sidenote: Madame Bear, do you happen to have seen a monograph published by the Journal of Indo-European Studies called The One-eyed God: Odin and the (Indo-)Germanic Männerbünde? I just received a copy in the mail and tore through it in an evening -- and my first thought after I read the table of contents was that you really must see it. It's a synthesist's dream.
nope. *g* Sounds fantastic, though!
Eep. Situation must be remedied. If you're comfortable handing out a mailing address to random LJ people, please send it to a.red.plum at gmail.com and I'll have one of my robot minions drop a copy in the mail to you. Otherwise, perhaps there's a publisher's address where you have stranger-mail sent and held for you?
re: Odin

That sounds very much like my kind of thing, but what's a synthesist (in this context)?
I tend to think of a synthesist as one whose primary creative technique rests on collecting a diverse group of ideas, considering the possible connections between them, and creating from them a larger whole. There's a more formal definition having to do with proceeding from general theories to specific instances, but it's the idea of creative stringing-together that appeals to me.

I should step aside now for ebear to outline her own definition, which is probably a bit different. I seem to remember it coming up here in relation to fabulism vs. synthesis sometime last year...
*g* Oh, no. You're the one throwing the term around: you get to define it.
Well, OK then. To expand slightly on my above comment, when I use the term, I'm usually talking about writers who do wide-ranging and fairly hardcore research (even/especially when they're not writing historical fiction) as a fundamental part of their creative process. Not all of it (or even most) is scholarly research, but it's still research of a kind. William Gibson's a synthesist, by that measure -- and as far as I can tell, so is our gracious host. She may disagree with my assessment.

I hesitate to talk much about my own fiction (I lack the standing to do so) but I'm an information omnivore and and a research nut; I'm more explorer than dictator when I'm working out a story. Even when I'm writing fiction, the connections I make feel *found* rather than chosen, though obviously I *have* chosen them. For that reason, I feel a kinship with conspiracy nuts. The only real difference is that I know I'm writing fiction and I'm uninterested in the usual conspiracy tropes -- the excitement of "discovering" new links is probably very similar, though.

This is all just me, though. I don't know if ebear means anything like that when she calls herself a synthesist.
Yep. *g* Pretty much.

Especially the conspiracy theory thing. (Tim Powers talks about that too--the "I'm not making this up!" factor.) Me, if there weren't elves in The Stratford Man, I'd think I was on to something.