(no subject)

[fajrdrako]

Last night I did the exercise that's been going around of picking certain sentences from different books and putting them together. rivier suggested that I should do it with the Lymond books only and see what came out - whether it would make sense or not. So I ask myself: should I then do the books in order, or at random? Since the whole point of the exercise is to be random, I'll do it that way.

The rules, again:
1. Take five books off your bookshelf.
2. Book #1 -- first sentence
3. Book #2 -- last sentence on page fifty
4. Book #3 -- second sentence on page one hundred
5. Book #4 -- next to the last sentence on page one hundred fifty
6. Book #5 -- final sentence of the book
7. Make the five sentences into a paragraph

So, picking the Lymond books with my eyes closed:

On the day that his grannie was killed by the English, Sir William Scott the Younger of Buccleuch was at Melrose Abbey, marrying his aunt. On the cobbles beside it, newly unloaded, were lodged half a dozen deep wooden boxes and a group of arguing servants. And came savagely towards and past Jerott with the swift, easy walk which was one of his attributes; tailored shoulders outlined against a new, orange light, freshly born, which flickered, gained strength, pounced and weaved its way up from the floor of the kiosk and finally fastened, sparkling and avid, on its food. There was nothing to say. She saw her son's eyes, and flung open her arms.

An interesting trivia quiz, to guess where the sentences came from. The first and last lines are easy - I've always loved both. The second and third lines are at least vivid scenes; the word "kiosk" should be a giveaway in the third, especially in the context of fire. I kept wanting to sneak words in to make sense of it: "And Lymond came savagely towards and past Jerott..." The fourth sentence ("There was nothing to say") is pretty nondescript and could come from any of the books.

Does it make sense? No, because the subject of each line is different, and each sentence (except the first and the innocuous fourth) depends on another sentence for its references. Fun, though.

Comments

[acampbell.livejournal.com]

This looks marvelously entertaining. Remind me to try it when I get home!

Of course, I know we'll both be otherwise engaged this evening...

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Alison? Try it when you get home.

It is fun, really. I've always loved doing this - going for first sentences, of the first sentence on random pages - in the past, it's always been just a game I play with myself. A variation which I've come across in some books is where you get a list of first sentences - we may have talked about this - and have to guess what they're from. Examples: "Who's there?" and "There was no possibility of taking a walk that day."

It's cheating to do really obvious stuff like "In the beginning...." or "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" or even "Boil, boil, toil and trouble".

Yup, we'll both be in front of our televisions this evening. I can hardly wait!

[rosiespark.livejournal.com]

#1 is DK, #2 is Checkmate (Philippa in disguise as Annibal, with the boxes of documents from the Schiatti being delivered to Lymond at the Marechale's), #3 is obviously PiF (as you point out!), #5 is unmistakably GoK.

So #4 is either QP or RC. It's the sort of chilly sentence that ould come from either.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Quite right! #4 is actually QP; it's Tom Erskine's point of view.