Brent Weeks burst onto the fantasy scene in 2008 in a big way. The three books comprising his Night Angel Trilogy (The Way of Shadows, Shadow's Edge, and Beyond the Shadows) was one of the great reads of the year, netting him Best Debut author in my 2008 Bloodies. Recently Brent sat down and was kind enough to answer some questions.
Now that The Way of Shadows, Shadow's Edge and Beyond the Shadows have all been released to widespread critical acclaim--many, including myself, thinking it the debut of the year--and people know Brent Weeks, do you feel more pressure writing your next novel now that you've set the bar so high? What can you do to avoid the dreaded sophomore slump?
Brent Weeks: For me, the pressure to write a great book comes from myself. When a lame second book follows an amazing first book, I feel ripped off. That's why I worked hard to make Shadow's Edge awesome. (I consider that my sophomore effort, but I understand what you mean. My first three books can be considered one outing since they arrived so fast, so I'll play ball with your question.) But I think every book is hard in its own way. First books are hard to lay the groundwork and be original but fast-paced. Second books are hard because you have to expand the conflicts and reveal more of the world in interesting ways, and finales are hard because you have to tie up lots of loose ends in ways that matter. But regardless of what I write, I want my next book to be better. I have some confidence that this will happen because I'm young, and I still have a lot to learn.
What new trick did you learn in writing the Night Angel trilogy that you'll use in your next book?
Brent Weeks: Verbing. I swore not to verb again, but I screwed that. Nah, honestly, I learned to relax enough to use humor. Natural comedians use humor when they're nervous. Me, I have to be comfortable. If you're going to punish your characters a lot like I do, a book can get really depressing. Humor lightens that and also sort of slingshots you, making the highs higher and the lows lower.
In the series, the main character Kylar Stern works as a wetboy, a type of magical assassin. Assassins can miss their targets, wetboys never do. He's like half-Jedi, half assassin. Why distinguish between a wetboy and an assassin? Was it ever a concern that Kylar--who eventually becomes immortal--would be too powerful? And this would lessen the dramatic impact of the story?
Brent Weeks: The distinction is mostly for pride. Like if you're published, and someone says, "Oh, did you self-publish?" Retch. Or you're a professional musician who plays half a dozen instruments, and you meet some guy, and he's like, "Oh, I'm a musician too, do you want to hear my song?"
The concern that Kylar would become too powerful is a huge danger. Take Matrix 2. Neo and Agent Smith fight. Cool fight, amazing choreography. I was wowed, until halfway through the fight, I had this realization: Neo can come back from death, and Agent Smith can copy himself. In other words, they could bash each other senseless for a million years, and it wouldn't change anything. They might just as well sit and chat over tea. There's nothing at stake. So yes, the danger of a too-powerful protagonist is huge, and I tried to take it on in some different ways than the classic oh-I-inexplicably-lost-my-powers-but-they'll-come-back-in-time-for-the-finale.
Being a wetboy, Kylar has tons of super cool abilities: immortality, invisibility, being a kick-ass fighter. If you could have any one of Kylar's abilities, which one would it be? How would this ability help you as a writer?
Brent Weeks: I had to cut the scene in which we saw this because of space considerations, but as a matter of fact, Kylar is also quite talented at charades. Immortality, charades. Crap, I think I'd have to go with charades.
The majority of characters in The Way of Shadows are not exactly who they seem to be, having at some point in the past assumed a different identity. And their mysterious pasts eventually all find their way to light, revealing the real person behind the shadow. What is the significance of shadows in the trilogy? How does one go beyond the shadows?
Brent Weeks: Oh, now you're talking about fantasy like it's literature. Don't you know they'll reject your reviewer's license if you do that? As a writer, I see myself as an architect. I make the plans, but a reader builds the story. So, good catch, and no, it wasn't accidental, but I'm going to leave it at that.
If you had to hire one of your wetboys to perform a hit, who would it be? Why would you pick them as opposed to another character?
Brent Weeks: As long as the deader deserved it, Durzo Blint. If it was just some random guy, Scarred Wrable. Hu is too sick: I don't trust people who truly glory in killing; it's not professional. And as an evil overlord who orders people killed, I'd be a bit suspicious of Kylar. Too young, too new, too many questions.
Clichés and epic fantasy go together like chocolate and peanut butter. There are so many bad clichés out there that writers continually abuse when telling a story. If there was one fantasy cliché you could eliminate from the world, what would it be? Is there a cliché you absolutely love?
Brent Weeks: The cliché that I hate would be the hero who gets horrendously wounded, and still manages to run a marathon--with his best friend on his back. Did I mention the wound was losing a leg? Cliché I love would have to be the young person who finds out that what they've suspected for their whole life is true: they really are special.
You've mentioned in another interview that one of your weak points as a writer is that you suck at names. What's the worst name for a character you've ever come up with?
Brent Weeks: Oh, I see. Anything I say can and will be used against me in a court of public opinion, huh? Fine. Anything with an apostrophe. I will, unfortunately, be chained to using the word "Sa'kagé" and a few others whenever I write in Midcyru for the rest of my life, but I've had it with apostrophes. The worst though would be a slave named Tobby. How'd that happen? Sounds like Dobby the house elf. Free Tobby!
Many--including myself--have pointed out the lack of detailed worldbuilding in the Night Angel trilogy. Do you feel detailed worldbuilding is necessary in an epic fantasy novel? Do you love it or hate it? It seems you sacrifice worldbuilding for pacing. Is pacing something that comes more naturally for you?
Brent Weeks: It all depends what you mean by worldbuilding. Do you mean that the politics have to make sense, that there needs to be a history between nations and between peoples, that there are prejudices against certain groups for good reasons and bad, that there is a mythology and geography to the world and that it matters, that the people in one country remember a war differently than people in another country remember it? Then yes, I agree. If you mean do you need long descriptive paragraphs about the buttons on some woman's dress at a party, no. Is it really necessary to describe the exotic garnishes on each of four courses in a meal five or ten times in a novel? I can see doing that one time, to impress us with how lavish or outlandish a meal is, but after that… why does this matter?
I write intentionally with at least two levels. (Compared to Dante, who deliberately wrote on four.) I think this really confused some people. I wanted anyone to be able to follow the plot, the conflicts, the motivations, the rising stakes, the high tension. So some critics saw that the story isn't very demanding on that level and decided that the world was simplistic. But I do worldbuilding a little like Steven Erikson does everything--I throw you in and make you figure it out on the fly. I had a reader ask recently why I didn't have a religious structure, despite that there was religious belief. The answer? There is a religious structure. It doesn't make it into the novels because the structure of the various churches didn't matter to the characters and didn't affect the plot. It's there, and it's alluded to, but my stories aren't a guided tour in a zoo bus. They're a chase scene with Z4's and McLarens. I'm not going to stop to describe a flower by the side of the road unless it's about to get run over.
I write with a modern reader in mind. How many of us skim the long descriptive paragraphs, searching for an action verb or some dialogue? You know why we do that? Because action verbs and quotation marks tell us when something is happening. It's not that we've got short attention spans, it's that we're smart. You know what, the pattern of the embroidery on that lady's blouse really doesn't matter! It might be interesting to you; you might want to learn about Victorian fashion. There's nothing wrong with that. The more of that you have, however, the less story you're going to have. It's that simple. Every page of description is a page where nothing happens. I'm oversimplifying--description can be used artfully to deepen tension or emotional investment, but so often it's not.
The payoff of my style is that there's always something happening. The pace is fast, and it rewards second and third readings. The tradeoff is that it demands imagination and flexibility. When I mention that Ladeshians have black skin, you might imagine Zulus. But then, in passing, you'll hear about the silk monopoly or the Civil Service examinations. We never go to Ladesh, so in one way, it's not important, but if you do notice it, you might see that the "Africans" you imagined are culturally more similar to the Chinese of antiquity. If we ever go to Ladesh, you'll see again that this isn't just China with black-skinned people. So I require flexibility of my readers, and I guess I demand their trust: I'll fill it in when it's important. It's a storytelling compromise, but at the other end of the spectrum is Dickens: I'm going to tell you the story of a boy, but before I do that, you need to know the sad history of his parents, who in turn were descended from… That style demands patience but not flexibility. I'm the MTV generation. I do the opposite. If it doesn't work for you, go try Wuthering Heights. Just kidding. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
Twenty years from now where do you see yourself as a novelist?
Brent Weeks: In front of my computer? My dream has always been just to do what I do--which I find meaningful--and make enough money doing it to support my family. So I'm living the dream now. There are no assurances in life generally, but especially not in this line of work. Even saying I'll be writing in twenty years is an expression of a hope, a dream. To take that for granted seems ungrateful for this incredible gift: I'm getting to write for a living right now. You know how many people want to do that and never get to?
I guess one thing that I would love would be to see a whole shelf of my books in the bookstore.
Thanks Brent.
If you haven't picked up Brent's Night Angel series yet, I highly recommend you do. It's fantastic. And I'm sure the beginning of big things for him.
Related Posts:
"The Way of Shadows" by Brent Weeks (Orbit)
"Shadow's Edge" by Brent Weeks (Orbit)
"Beyond the Shadow's" by Brent Weeks (Orbit)
