# The current state of fantasy literature



## nikolai (Jan 28, 2004)

I've been reading the Fifth Sorceress "fan" site. Fifth Sorceress is becoming a bit of obsession for me. It's almost like some-one decided to take all that's wrong with the worst fantasy and distil it into a single book. The site contains a very intelligent look at the state of play of modern fantasy, which I've quoted in full below. Any opinions?



> Greeting, and welcome to the anti-Fifth Sorceress site, a set of pages dedicated to the worst book of all time. Here you'll find reviews and discussion, as well as pointers to better fantasy authors. But first, you might be asking why I'm bothering to spend time on such a website. Surely my effort would be better spent praising the best authors rather than trashing the worst ones, right? Well, let me explain.
> 
> I am a fantasy fan. Actually, I read all kinds of books ranging from classic literature to nonfiction to mysteries to science fiction. But ever since I first discovered the field of high fantasy, it's been a favorite of mine. One critic described fantasy as "the novel given wings", and to me there's no better way to express it. In this genre, authors are free to create any world that they can concieve, to populate it with any characters that they can imagine, and to tell stories that go beyond what is possible in books that are confined to the real world.
> 
> ...




http://fifthsorceress.tripod.com/explain.htm


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 28, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> I've been reading the Fifth Sorceress "fan" site. Fifth Sorceress is becoming a bit of obsession for me. It's almost like some-one decided to take all that's wrong with the worst fantasy and distil it into a single book. The site contains a very intelligent look at the state of play of modern fantasy, which I've quoted in full below. Any opinions?



A few.  First, this person has obviously never heard of the "Slush Pile".  If he thinks the editors at major publishing houses were examining every submission, he obviously doesn't know much about the publishing industry.  I'm no insider, but I've certainly talked with plenty of editors at cons over the years, and it's usually the interns who are assigned the task of separating the wheat from the chaff, and then the editors prune further.  

His assumption that the writers should create new worlds each time they write a book seems odd to me, but I'm assuming he doesn't actually mean that literally.  I notice his list is as conspicious for the names that are absent from it as it for those that are actually present.  Unless I'm sorely mistaken, the staggering of hardback releases prior to paperback releases is a long-standing tradition in the publishing industry.

The only reason this didn't always apply to fantasy was because it was a consider a publishing ghetto, where only lousy books with little value to the publisher were produced.  Never mind that some of us WANT hard bound copies of the books, as paperbacks don't survive the test of twenty years and multiple re-readings as well as their hardback counterparts.  Authors _graduate_ to hardback releases, not the other way around.

Multi-book series are hardly new to the genre, either.  Unless you count the 70s are new, at the very least.  Authors like David Eddings, Anne McCaffery, Gene Wolfe, Terry Brooks, Raymond Feist and others have been churning out works of fiction like this for decades.  The difference is that, for many years, the trilogy was considered the standard form for the genre, regardless of need.  A book was a stand-alone or a trilogy, but nothing in between.

My main contention with such series is that they could use a better standard of editing.  Jordan has long since lost any real editor, and his wrinting reflects this.  Stephen King fell victim to this for years, and they're not alone.  Jordan, in fact, is a poster child for another problem in the fantasy genre, being a victim of success.  He now feels the pressure of trying to deliver success after success, especially after setting such high sales marks in the past.  In trying to please his fans, he's actually done the opposite for many of them, and must feel like he's painted himself in a corner.

I've never even heard of this book he's lamenting, but I wonder how bad it truly is?  I've read some truly horrible stuff over the years.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 28, 2004)

It's boring, I've read worse but I put down the 5th Sorceress after trying for a month to get into it.  There is no way it's the worst fantasy novel ever though.   Ed Greenwood has written that book.   I'd say it's on par with RPG based fantasy novels, Rose Estes, and Dean Koontz.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 28, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> It's boring, I've read worse but I put down the 5th Sorceress after trying for a month to get into it. There is no way it's the worst fantasy novel ever though. Ed Greenwood has written that book. I'd say it's on par with RPG based fantasy novels, Rose Estes, and Dean Koontz.



Well, if these statements are anything to judge by, it certainly has generated its share of negative criticism.  However, most of the negative criticism has nothing to do with the rant linked to above.  Things like perceived racism, misogyny and homophobia, as well as being poorly written and derivative, are what apparently set it apart.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 28, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> AUnless I'm sorely mistaken, the staggering of hardback releases prior to paperback releases is a long-standing tradition in the publishing industry.




About a year ago, Baen Books sent a couple of people to the Arisia Science Fiction Convention here in Boston.  If I recall what they said correctly, this is partly because the profit margins on paperbacks are pretty darned small.  You need to print and sell about 15,000 paperbacks before it becomes really worth the effort, due to the setup costs.  So, the higher-margin hardcovers are used as a sort of testing ground before trying to make the thing fly in a format that requires higher volume sales.


----------



## nikolai (Jan 28, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Well, if these statements are anything to judge by, it certainly has generated its share of negative criticism.  However, most of the negative criticism has nothing to do with the rant linked to above.  Things like perceived racism, misogyny and homophobia, as well as being poorly written and derivative, are what apparently set it apart.




For the record, I don't think the book is racist. However, this is just about the only thing it isn't.

I do think the book is uniquely bad. It is bad in terms of the design of the setting, the characterisation, the plot and the writing. I also think the points in the rant do stand when leveled again it; it's part of a three book series and the guy has just signed a contract to deliver another three books. Parts of the book are just bloated descriptions where nothing much happens. There was a big marketing campaign "epic fantasy of the year" around it. And there's a totally crass use of "adult" themes.

*Flexor*, I don't know how far you read. This is far worse than Greenwood ever was.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jan 28, 2004)

> There hasn't been a single decent romance novel written for fifty years. The same thing has happened to the Western genre and the horror genre.



Hmmm. Someone should tell Danielle Steele and Barbara Taylor Bradford that. "Sorry, mum, we need to go back to using logs in the fireplace, instead of the stacks of money you're using now."

Western I have no knowledge of. Horror? Horror has never been big business and probably never will be, discounting early Stephen King. Yes, there was a lot of shlock horror published after he became successful, but it never approached the intensity of the romance and western releases. Or the mystery releases. 



> The final worrisome problem is the use of pervasive and graphic sex in fantasy novels. Of course, this is hardly a new development. Almost since the genre's origins, there have been authors who basically used the fantasy label as a thin excuse for writing pornography.



I'd like some names, please. (*whap* No, not for that reason). I certainly don't pretend I read every fantasy book that comes on the shelves but apart from some of Anne Bishop's stuff and part of the Anita Blake / Merry Gentry (?) books, I'd be hard-pressed to think of a fantasy book (esp. a series) where sex was 'pervasive and graphic'. 

I don't really think FIfth Sorceress points to a system that's broken but rather that sometimes crap gets made regardless what you do.


----------



## myrdden (Jan 28, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> About a year ago, Baen Books sent a couple of people to the Arisia Science Fiction Convention here in Boston.  If I recall what they said correctly, this is partly because the profit margins on paperbacks are pretty darned small.  You need to print and sell about 15,000 paperbacks before it becomes really worth the effort, due to the setup costs.  So, the higher-margin hardcovers are used as a sort of testing ground before trying to make the thing fly in a format that requires higher volume sales.




Huh...interesting, while at the same time a tad ironic for me.  I generally do not  buy hardcover books and prefer to wait for the paperback.  I wonder how common that is?

Myrdden


----------



## nikolai (Jan 28, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Multi-book series are hardly new to the genre, either.  Unless you count the 70s are new, at the very least.  Authors like David Eddings, Anne McCaffery, Gene Wolfe, Terry Brooks, Raymond Feist and others have been churning out works of fiction like this for decades.  The difference is that, for many years, the trilogy was considered the standard form for the genre, regardless of need.  A book was a stand-alone or a trilogy, but nothing in between.




Yeah, you've a point. Obviously multi-book series aren't new (The Once and Future King, Gormenghast & EarthSea obviously spring to mind), but I have the impression that in the 90s they became more dominant than they were before. Multi-book series just dominate the fantasy section, with the huge open-ended series being a natural development. I'd say the authors you name trail-blazed the way, and "epics" automatically spanning books became the norm. It's not just apeing Lord of the Rings either, LotR is short compared to a lot of the stuff out there.

It's obviously hard to prove this one way of the other though, or to date the moment it happened. Though I heard the rot started with _The Sword of Shannara_. John Rateliff, dates it to the "the 1980s and '90s"

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=books/main/classicswizardearthsea


----------



## Umbran (Jan 28, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> It's obviously hard to prove this one way of the other though, or to date the moment it happened. Though I heard the rot started with _The Sword of Shannara_. John Rateliff, dates it to the "the 1980s and '90s"




Without trying to pin it down exactly...

Asimov's Foundation books date back to the 1950s.  Katherine Kurtz started her Deryni series in 1970.  Moorcock's Elric books date back to 1972.  I think Aspirin's Myth books go back to 1974.  Varley's Gaea Trilogy started in 1979.  Same for Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide.  The TSR fantasy trilogies are 1980's vintage as well.

Along with all the stuff others have mentioned - mostly stuff from the 1970s and 1980s - the trend towards multi-book series started long before 1990.  Mr. Rateliff seems to be off by about a decade


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 28, 2004)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Western I have no knowledge of. Horror?



Louis L'amour and Larry McMurtry have been selling huge numbers for decades.  Maybe you've heard of 'Lonesome Dove' or "The Sacketts'?  Not exactly starving, either, the western genre.



			
				WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I'd be hard-pressed to think of a fantasy book (esp. a series) where sex was 'pervasive and graphic'.



The Sword of Truth series, at least the second one, had some fairly graphic demon sex and borderline BSDM material in it that I could have done without, frankly.  I stopped reading Thomas Covenant after the rape scene in the first book (and No, I'd rather not discuss that series merits).  But I don't know that I'd call it pervasive in that series.  GRRM's "Song of Ice and Fire" has some graphic scenes, but I wouldn't call them gratuitious (although Daenrys gets plenty of sex scenes, early on).  By and large, pervasive isn't really what I'd use to describe them, though. 



			
				nikolai said:
			
		

> It's obviously hard to prove this one way of the other though, or to date the moment it happened. Though I heard the rot started with _The Sword of Shannara_. John Rateliff, dates it to the "the 1980s and '90s"



Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun: 4 books, 1980-1982
Robert Silverberg's Lord Valentine's Castle, 3 books,  1980-1983
Terry Brook's Shanara Series, 3 books, 1977-1985
Eric Van Lustbaders Sunset Warrior, 5 books, 1977-1980

and you mention a few of the tons of others.  But you're right, in the 1980s, it did get more pervasive.  But that has primarily to do with one factor, IMHO....D&D.  In 1980-1982, D&D was white-hot, and gamers suddenly made fantasy a hot literary topic.  And young fans wanted more of the same, so suddenly we got lots of not always subtle knockoffs...and many books based on people's D&D campaigns! (Joel Rosenberg, Steven Brust, etc.)  [_side note: some D&D games should be as good as Brust's earlier books  ]_

I just think this guy overstates his case.  He forgets Sturgeon's Law.


----------



## Pants (Jan 28, 2004)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Hmmm. Someone should tell Danielle Steele and Barbara Taylor Bradford that. "Sorry, mum, we need to go back to using logs in the fireplace, instead of the stacks of money you're using now."



Money does not equate quality, as can be seen by Robert Jordan's 'Bestselling' Crossroads of Twilight which has one of the lowest scores on Amazon. Ever.
Also I think that this is exactly what the article was arguing against; producing low quality schlock that will sell millions.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 28, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> Also I think that this is exactly what the article was arguing against; producing low quality schlock that will sell millions.




"Quality" is a highly subjective thing.  I know plenty of folks who absolutely love those "schlock" romance novels, and who hate those things I'd call "quality" literature.

Ultimately, how good a thing is is merely a matter of how much you like it.  If lots and lots of people like it, that's a measure of "quality".  The critics hate such popular measures, but denying it exists doesn't make it go away.


----------



## nikolai (Jan 28, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Ultimately, how good a thing is is merely a matter of how much you like it.  If lots and lots of people like it, that's a measure of "quality".  The critics hate such popular measures, but denying it exists doesn't make it go away.




I'm not entirely sure. Lots of trashy fantasy novels regularly get rave reviews (Eragon? maybe) and are really enjoyed by large numbers of people. This is happening more and more, particularly - I think - with the recent fantasy explosion in children's literature.

I think you could make a case that the reason these book are considered "good", when some people would argue they're objectively not, is because their readers haven't been exposed to fantasy tropes and standards the way jaded cynics like myself have. If you haven't read Tolkien you may think _Sword of Shannara_ or Eddings - for example - is breathtakingly imaginative and innovative. People think these books are good because they don't know any better, lots of decent fantasy is tricky to find and buried under mountains of rubbish. Fantasy isn't reviews or criticised very well - I find it very hard to separate the wheat from the chaff and really have to look long and hard before I find something good.

I think people make be reading one or two books of questionable value because of sophisticated mass-marketing campaigns. They may love them, but that doesn't mean they're good. In fact they may be a pale shadow the the stuff they're being cloned from - people just like them because they like fantasy and that's all they've been exposed to.


----------



## nikolai (Jan 28, 2004)

Double post, my apologies.


----------



## CCamfield (Jan 28, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Eric Van Lustbaders Sunset Warrior, 5 books, 1977-1980




That's interesting... I didn't know he'd written anything else fantasyesque.  I picked up, for some reason, a recent book of his (I think Pearl was in the title) and... gahhh.  I thought it was awful, and stopped reading after a few chapters.  Fortunately it was a library book, so I could return it without any loss other than my disappointment.

It's true that multi-book series are not new, but the used to be a bit more closed - trilogies or series of five - _and_ each volume was shorter.  Looking at my copy of the Great Book of Amber (a mistake to buy it, since I had the single books already):  the five books of the first Amber series totalled 577 pages, and the second series of five books totalled about 700.  That's, what, less than the size of a _single_ Robert Jordan book?  Less than two, I'm sure.


----------



## CCamfield (Jan 28, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> "Now for those of us who follow fantasy literature, the last ten years or so have been a very exciting time. We've seen the emergence of very talented new authors such as Robin Hobb, Martha Wells, James Stoddard, and Elizabeth Haydon."




Actually, Robin Hobb is not a "new" author.  She previously published quite a few novels under her real name, or another pseudonym, Megan Lindholm.

I tried following the link to inform the site owner of that, but (even trying to guess the root address by changing the URL) I can't actually find the main site, just the explanation.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 28, 2004)

I didn't get that far to find all the 'isms that are attributed to it.  But there was nothing in there as bad as the writing in Spellfire.   Worst Book Of Any Genre Ever!


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 29, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> WAsimov's Foundation books date back to the 1950s.  Katherine Kurtz started her Deryni series in 1970.  Moorcock's Elric books date back to 1972.  I think Aspirin's Myth books go back to 1974.  Varley's Gaea Trilogy started in 1979.  Same for Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide.  The TSR fantasy trilogies are 1980's vintage as well.



I think what would be an interesting study is to look at what sort of contracts were offered these writers. I would be surprised, for example, to hear that Michael Moorcock received a 5-book deal for Elric, or that Asimov received a multi-book deal for the Foundation trilogy.

What's REALLY happened is that the market has grown enough that the profits to be made are getting significant. Thus, the publishers naturally want to maximize their returns. They've discovered that if one fantasy book sells, multiple books based on that premise will produce predictable sales. So if a writer comes out with one book that does well (or gives the appearance of being likely to do well), the publisher wants to sign that writer to multi-book deal, hoping that they can generate another _Wheel of Time_ and realise immense profits, with very little risk to them.

The downside is that a writer who might have produced disparate good ideas gets strongly encouraged to instead keep all their ideas inside the "series sandbox" -- reducing the originality and quality of their ideas. In addition, writers who maybe only had one or two good books in them end up with 10-book deals that they just don't have the ability to create, thus diluting the market with  crap.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 29, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> I think you could make a case that the reason these book are considered "good", when some people would argue they're objectively not...




Some people might argue that they are objectively not good books, yes.  But you know what?  Those people would be talking through their hats, because there's no such thing as an objective measure of literary quality!  This is art we are talking about - it's value and effect are subjective, not objective.


----------



## cidak (Jan 29, 2004)

The first three books of the Foundation Series by Asimov were originally written for a SCI FI magazine and then later published as a three book series.  The rest of the books then followed as interest grew.  

No doubt there is pressure for authors to publish books following a series and continuing the series on and on (like the Sword of Truth).  A friend of mine went to a book signing by Feist where he lamented the fact that no one would buy books he wrote outside of the Magician series.  How many read Fairy Tale?  Or High Hunt or The Losers by David Eddings?

As usual, for all types of writing, there is good and bad, you just have to sort them out, and with more and more books being published there is more sorting to be done.  Same for music, movies and television.  How many Sit Coms have you sat down to watch and wondered who signed off on the production? (especially Australian ones! ).

I don’t think the Fantasy Sci Fi world is coming to an end, if anything it is expanding and, I think, is better for it.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 29, 2004)

While I agree Fifth Sorceress is tripe, it's not the harshest tripe out there. I still favor Pynchon for that along with some other modern writers. In any case modern fantasy does take a beating now and again with some bad books but overall it's a lot better than the romance or western genre in my view. But that's just me.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 29, 2004)

Lo said:
			
		

> The first three books of the Foundation Series by Asimov were originally written for a SCI FI magazine and then later published as a three book series.  The rest of the books then followed as interest grew.




Not even written as books - they were written as short stories. They got longer as they went along.



			
				original rant said:
			
		

> So the bottom line is that while good fantasy authors are proliferating, we're also seeing a tidal wave of bad works hitting the shelf. Unfortunately, there's so much poor fantasy out there that one cannot takes up arms against all of it simultaneously.




It might surprise that person, but such has always occurred, in every field, since time began. You have one Mozart amongst a bunch of hacks - the hacks were popular at the time, but disappear as more time goes by. We look back at Asimov now, but there were plenty of poor writers being published at the same time.

Does that "bottom line" sound like what's happening in the d20 System market at the moment? Sure does to me. Oh, it's also happening in film - for every "Lord of the Rings", there are 10 "Dungeons & Dragons"!

Cheers!


----------



## ctate (Jan 29, 2004)

Other notable SF series from pre-1980 that folks have missed, while we're cataloguing:

Roger Zelazny's Amber books:  first series of five novels dated 1970-1978.

Frank Herbert's Dune books:  1965, 1969, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1985

Jack Vance's "Dying Earth" stories and novels first appeared in 1950 (!), and were continued intermittently in the 60s through 80s.  As another example, his four Planet of Adventure novels were published in 1968-1970.

And who could forget E. E. Smith, PhD, who brought us the Lensman series:  1934, 1937-8, 1939, 1941-2, 1947-8, 1950?​
There's a long, long history of SF being published in a succession of sequels, firmly rooted in the pulp-serial publishing days.  It's ironic that _The Lord of the Rings_ has become the poster child for the trilogy format:  it is one novel, not three, and Tolkien vigorously objected to its being split into multiple volumes.  His publisher, Allen and Unwin, insisted and got their way.


----------



## The Mirrorball Man (Jan 29, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Some people might argue that they are objectively not good books, yes.  But you know what?  Those people would be talking through their hats, because there's no such thing as an objective measure of literary quality!  This is art we are talking about - it's value and effect are subjective, not objective.



That's not entirely true. The overall scope and ambition of a novel is an objective way to gauge, not its quality, but its potential to be good. Even a very cleverly written Pokèmon tie-in novel will never have a chance to rise above the level of futile and pointless fluff. If your main ambition as a writer is to determine if Captain Marvel is stronger than Superman or not (he is, by the way    ), you're limiting your literary options so much that the end result will almost certainly be less interesting than any attempt at writing the Great American Novel.


----------



## Selvarin (Jan 29, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I didn't get that far to find all the 'isms that are attributed to it.  But there was nothing in there as bad as the writing in Spellfire.   Worst Book Of Any Genre Ever!





Spellfire? The one by Ed Greenwood? I actually liked the book, despite a fair number of editing goofs/cuts ( go here http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Castle/2566/ed-novels.htm for a better explanation). Not that I liked the other two books, mind you (way too much lore-dropping, etc., cluttered them up), and from what I've seen a lot of people were disappointed with the novel Silverfall because...Oh well, I won't get into that. 

Generally speaking, I don't buy many books from 'unknowns' these days because it's too easy to get burned. With the exception of a few WotC series (such as War of the Spider Queen), I've been turning back to some older 'classic' or semi-classic books. And you know what Robert Jordan's real problem is? Middlism. No real beginning, no real end. By the time I got the first book from the Wheel of Time series, he was already on the 5th novel. It's like the Friday the 13th/ Halloween film franchise. When Mr. Jordan decides to wrap things up, *maybe* I'll attempt to read the rest. I just don't have time for the Series That Never Ends.

P.S. Two good authors whose trilogies I thoroughly enjoyed:

C.S. Freidman (Black Sun Rising, True Night Falls, Crown of Shadows)
Tad Williams (The Dragonbone Chair, Stone of Farewell, To Green Angel Tower Pts. 1 & 2)


----------



## MerricB (Jan 29, 2004)

Selvarin said:
			
		

> And you know what Robert Jordan's real problem is? Middlism. No real beginning, no real end.




You should have known that from the start.

"There are no beginnings or ends on the Wheel of Time..." 

I like Terry Goodkind a great deal; one reason is simply because his books could stand alone if necessary - they have beginnings and ends.

But my all-time favourite living author is Steven Brust. (Favourite dead author: Roger Zelazny).

Cheers!


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 29, 2004)

My list was, by no means, meant to be exhaustive. 

I specifically avoided referencing things like Andre Norton, Moorcock, Asimov, Howard, Leiber and others for the specific reason that either some weren't purely fantasy (as Asimov) and that their contributing works (seminal as they are) were published in magazine form as short stories first.

Take Norton's Witch World series...they are almost serial like in nature, bound by a thematic premise and world location, but only some stories connect with others directly.  Collectively, they can make a pseudo-novel...but they really aren't.  They are an arc of stories with an overlying theme and premise.  They were published semi-regularly in a magazine, back when the market was completely different.  Remember, newstands used to be the way most folks got lots of their reading material, and comics and magazines used to have much bigger distributions.  Magazine sales have declined steadily for decades, even as more specialty magazines have appeared.  Back in the 30s through the 60s, you built your world and setting piece by piece, revealing a little more each time through a short story.  It doesn't work that way any more.  The distribution system is different, and so is the publishing culture.

Others, like Vance and Herbert, weren't writing series per se...they wrote a book.  Afterwards, they might write another in the same setting...but it wasn't a trilogy or pentology or Jordanology.  It was a book, and then a sequel.  They weren't conceived at the same time, and the sequel, in some cases, wasn't even considered when the first novel was written.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 29, 2004)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I'd like some names, please. (*whap* No, not for that reason). I certainly don't pretend I read every fantasy book that comes on the shelves but apart from some of Anne Bishop's stuff and part of the Anita Blake / Merry Gentry (?) books, I'd be hard-pressed to think of a fantasy book (esp. a series) where sex was 'pervasive and graphic'.




Have you read any of the _Gor_ books?


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Jan 29, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Have you read any of the _Gor_ books?




Eric's grandmother _definitely_ doesn't want to hear about the Gor books.


----------



## Emueyes (Jan 29, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Some people might argue that they are objectively not good books, yes.  But you know what?  Those people would be talking through their hats, because there's no such thing as an objective measure of literary quality!  This is art we are talking about - it's value and effect are subjective, not objective.




I'm going to be talking through my hat, here.

Objectivity is subjectivity that withstands the test of reality. James Joyce's _Ulysses_ is objectively better than _The Rats of Nimh_ even if I like it less. I have no problem saying that the best book I've ever read was Gabriel Garcia Marquez's _ One Hunded Years of Solitude_, but also that my favorite book I've ever read was _Watership Down_. I can distinguish between personal appeal and quality. Can you?

There are books that are more sophisticated than others. Gene Wolfe, though arguably not fantasy, is certainly more sophisticated with his religious themes and depth of story than Robert Jordan and his poorly masked cold war drivel. Still, kids need something to read.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 29, 2004)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> Eric's grandmother _definitely_ doesn't want to hear about the Gor books.



I've never heard that the Gor books have anything approaching graphic sex in them.  I even read the first one once, back when I just assumed that Gor was a John Carter of Mars knock-off.


----------



## hwoolsey (Jan 29, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Eric Van Lustbaders Sunset Warrior, 5 books, 1977-1980




I can only think of four - the original trilogy and one of the sequels - the title of which escapes me at the moment. What were the two sequels?

Hank


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 29, 2004)

hwoolsey said:
			
		

> I can only think of four - the original trilogy and one of the sequels - the title of which escapes me at the moment. What were the two sequels?



*Sunset Warrior*1. The Sunset Warrior[size=-1] (1977)[/size]2. Shallows of Night[size=-1] (1978)[/size]3. Dai-San[size=-1] (1978)[/size]4. Beneath an Opal Moon[size=-1] (1980)[/size]5. Dragons on the Sea of Night[size=-1] (1997)[/size] 

As for the Gor series, other than hearing that they were pretty bad (although Ihear that Perry Rhodan was worse), they were, as far as I know, rife with sexual content.

For example, check out the things like this: "_In the fifth book in the Gorean Series, the deadly assassin Kuurus is intent on a bloody mission of vengeance. His adventure takes him from the caste of the pleasure-slaves, which are rigorously trained in the rules and techniques of sexual ecstasy, to the brutal arenas where humans participate in deadly hand-to-hand combat_."

or this: "_In this seventh book in the Gorean Series, beautiful and headstrong Elinor Brinton of Earth finds herself thrust into the savage world of Counter-Earth, also known as Gor. Brinton must relinquish her earthly position as a beautiful, wealthy and powerful woman when she finds herself a part of the harsh Gorean society. She is powerless as a female pleasure slave in the camp of Targo the slave-merchant. Forced to learn the arts of providing pleasure to any man who buys her, Elinor is determined to escape. Nevertheless, she is sold for a high price, and her master is determined to get his money's worth_?"

Oh yeah, baby. Va-va-va-voom! 


Click on the image to party like it's 1969. 

How about this?: "_On Gor, there are three different kinds of beings that are labeled beasts: there are the Kurii, a monster alien race that is preparing to invade Gor from space; the Gorean warriors, who fight with viciousness almost primitive in its blood lust' and then there are the slave girls of Gor, lowly beasts for men to do with as they see fit, be it as objects of labor or desire_."


And let not forget this one: "_Former Earthman Tarl Cabot is now a powerful Tarnsman of the brutal and caste-bound planet of Gor, also known as Counter-Earth. He embarks on an adventure in the dangerous and mysterious wilderness of Gor, pitting his warrior's skills against treacherous outlaws, bandits and fighters. Three different women are working to bring change to Tarl's far-from-peaceful life on Gor: Talena, his one-time queen and first love; Elizabeth, his brave fighting partner; and the Amazonian Verna, chief of the fierce and wild panther women. As Tarl journeys through the wilderness, the fates of these three remarkable women will finally be decided_." 
Click on the image to really appreciate the woman's pose, there.


----------



## Michael Sorensen (Jan 29, 2004)

How many read Fairy Tale?  Or High Hunt or The Losers by David Eddings?

Me.  Well, at least Fairy Tale and The Losers.


----------



## Null Boundry (Jan 29, 2004)

Michael Sorensen said:
			
		

> How many read Fairy Tale?  Or High Hunt or The Losers by David Eddings?
> 
> Me.  Well, at least Fairy Tale and The Losers.




I've read the first two not sure about the thirs, it sounds familiar but I may just have seen it in the shop.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 29, 2004)

Null Boundry said:
			
		

> I've read the first two not sure about the thirs, it sounds familiar but I may just have seen it in the shop.



I read Faery Tale.  It was OK, but not really great.  It wasn't really a fantasy, more of a magic realism book.  It ventured closer to modern horror than fantasy, in many cases, and really wasn't what I was interested in reading at the time.  And for the record, I haven't read much by Feist since, Midkemia books or otherwise.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 29, 2004)

The Mirrorball Man said:
			
		

> Even a very cleverly written Pokèmon tie-in novel will never have a chance to rise above the level of futile and pointless fluff.



Even it were written by someone like Donald Barthelme or David Foster Wallace [a 1000 page Pokemon novel... can you picture how much cuteness it would contain?!]??


> If your main ambition as a writer is to determine if Captain Marvel is stronger than Superman or not (he is, by the way    ), you're limiting your literary options so much that the end result will almost certainly be less interesting than any attempt at writing the Great American Novel.



That's a bloody great point MB, one that I haven't heard stated often enough in discussions of lit. around here. What a literary work attempts to _do_ counts. Almost as much as how well it _succeeds_ at doing it. Or perhaps more. I usually respond better to ambitious and audacious failures than to unambitious but well-crafted works [except in the case of Raymond E. Fiest].


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 29, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I've never heard that the Gor books have anything approaching graphic sex in them.  I even read the first one once, back when I just assumed that Gor was a John Carter of Mars knock-off.




They get worse as you go. I gave up when the topic of the books degenrated to women learning to have "slave orgasms" while they are being whipped.


----------



## Krellic (Jan 29, 2004)

No discussion of fantasy could be complete in my opinion without mentioning David Gemmell whose books are never bloated and whose series not too long.

Every time my gaming group get together just to have a few beers and shoot the breeze you can guarantee his name will be mentioned at least once!

Now there's an author who really knows how to kill off his heroes!


----------



## Umbran (Jan 29, 2004)

In an attempt to keep the hijack localized, I'll reply to two people at once here.



			
				Emueyes said:
			
		

> Objectivity is subjectivity that withstands the test of reality.




You might want to go check a dictionary.  Objectivity is what you get when you remove the opinions and feelings of people from your measurements.  The speed of light in a vacuum is an objective thing.  The quality or value of literature is not.

A great many people tend to claim that consensus equals objectivity.  This is simply untrue.  Consensus is mutually agreeable subjectivity.  We may occasionally attempt to use consensus as a way to get our measure closer to objectivity.  However, when those coming to the consensus are like-minded people with similar educations (if they are all literary academics and critics, for example) the attempt is of little value.

Artworks are not tested against "reality".  They are tested against the human mind.  Then, by definition, the results of those tests are not objective.



> James Joyce's _Ulysses_ is objectively better than _The Rats of Nimh_ even if I like it less.




If _Ulysses_ were actually objectively better than _The Rats of NIMH_, then I could give both books to any person on the planet (_Any_ person, regardless of age or cultural background.  Heck, I could give them to a space alien!) and get the same answer about which is better.  

I am quite sure that my 10 year old nephew would not agree with your assessment, which indicates that your assessment is based upon what you value, rather than upon some universal truth with which my nephew cannot disagree.



> I can distinguish between personal appeal and quality. Can you?




Hm.  Questioning my mental faculties is effectively an attack upon my person, rather than upon my position.  Aside from being rude, it's a fairly weak rhetorical device.  But, since you asked the question...

Yes.  "Personal appeal" is a reasonably well defined but subjective measure of value based upon the opinions of a specific individual.  "Quality" is a poorly defined measure.  In this context it probably refers to the collective opinions of academicians, critics, and/or the mass market, none of which are objective observers.

Now, to return the favor - I can distinguish between objectivity and collective opinion.  Can you?



> There are books that are more sophisticated than others.




Sophistication does not equate to quality, except in the minds of those who happen to personally value or prefer sophistication.  Thus, sophistication is a subjective measure.

[quote = The Mirrorball Man]That's not entirely true. The overall scope and ambition of a novel is an objective way to gauge, not its quality, but its potential to be good.[/quote]

See the above discussion of the term "objectivity".  The scope and ambition of a work may be a vague measure of how likely it is to appeal to critics, or even to a large audience.  That doesn't make it an objective measure or universal truth.

After all that nigh-scientific consideration, though, I think I can best sum up with a literary reference.  Shakespeare, in fact - "There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so."


----------



## Particle_Man (Jan 29, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> If _Ulysses_ were actually objectively better than _The Rats of NIMH_, then I could give both books to any person on the planet (_Any_ person, regardless of age or cultural background.  Heck, I could give them to a space alien!) and get the same answer about which is better.
> 
> I am quite sure that my 10 year old nephew would not agree with your assessment, which indicates that your assessment is based upon what you value, rather than upon some universal truth with which my nephew cannot disagree.




I disagree.  The fact that some people cannot recognize one book as objectively superior to the other does not make it fail to be objectively superior, just as the fact that some people think that the moon landing was faked does not mean that it fails to be an objective fact that earth people have walked on the moon.

It may be that there are no objective aesthetic facts, but the above argument does not make the case.


----------



## Merova (Jan 29, 2004)

*On the Beautiful Blue Danube*



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> What a literary work attempts to _do_ counts. Almost as much as how well it _succeeds_ at doing it. Or perhaps more. I usually respond better to ambitious and audacious failures than to unambitious but well-crafted works [except in the case of Raymond E. Fiest].




Hi all!

I'm in disagreement with this "art vs. craft" thing. The whole concept of "High Art" with it's lofty creative premises as superior to "Low Art" with it's focus towards entertainment is false. Let's shift our focus towards the subject of Classical music for an example.

In social functions of the 18th century, incidental music played a significant role in the proceedings, be it for a courtly function or a night of "fireworks" in the park. Today we'd call such compositions "background" music, like to stuff you'd hear in elevators. However, back then, it was a vital part of a composer's trade. From this genre of music, we have such masterpieces as Handel's "Water Music" and Mozart's Serenade #13 in G major, "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik."

In mid-19th century Vienna, the waltz was all the rage in dance music. Yes, the maestros in their symphony halls looked down upon the "pop music" of the period, but in following generations the gems of the Vienna "waltz scene" were recognized as classics alongside their more "sophisticated" symphonic peers. Works such as Johann Strauss Jr.'s "Blue Danube" or "Vienna Blood"  now receive the same reverence in regards to underlying artistry as the Grand Opera's of Richard Wagner.

So, here I've listed two types of music that are normally disparaged in terms of artistic quality, incidental music and dance music. Yet, the works of genius undertaken within these music subtypes have transcended their confines. Anybody who claims that Beethoven's 5th Symphony or Stravinsky's Ballet "Rite of Spring" are objectively superior because of their more lofty premises needs to take a music appreciation class. 

I think this comparison is relevant to fiction as well. There is a bias against genre fiction, be it fantasy, romance or westerns. Yes, there is a lot of bad being produced in each of these genres, but that's just a reflection of Sturgeon's Law. The genius of each genre will transcend their restrictions, even if they are a Pokemon novel or Superhero bashfest.

Thanks for reading.

---Olivia


----------



## nikolai (Jan 29, 2004)

*Umbran*, I really didn't want to kick off this "can we say that some books are better than others" row that periodically ignites on book threads. I think you can strike _objective_ from my post, and the arguement that publishers are using mass marketing campaigns to push rubbish on people who don't know any better still stands.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 29, 2004)

Emueyes said:
			
		

> I'm going to be talking through my hat, here.



You'll fit right in, then! 

I'm still treating the bruises left over from my scrap with reapersaurus on all these issues. Ouch. Reaper's got a mean left cross.

K. Objectivity vs. Subjectivity.

The simple fact is that there are NO objective standards of art. Sorry, folks, but no matter how obvious you may think it is that work X is superior to work Y, you can't claim objective superiority.

Just to take the example provided, I would argue that _Mrs. Frisby and the Secret of NIMH_ is in fact a better book than _Ulysses_. But then I think Joyce is crap that's been foisted off on us by a bunch of jaded critics who wouldn't know a good story if it kicked them in their Gor-required anatomical regions.

Here's the thing. If I say it is an objective fact that the speed of light is constant throughout the universe, the only way people will agree that it's objective (leaving aside the question of whether or not it's true) is if it is possible to devise tests that will only produce a particular result if that fact happens to be true. If it's not possible to devise such tests, then it is not true that the idea is an objective fact.

Just because everyone agrees on a point of view doesn't make it objective. Just because it's TRUE doesn't make it objective.

It is not possible to devise such tests against works of art. Philosophers have been trying for all of human civilization and believe me, you are not smarter than their collective brainpower. If they can't do it, you can't do it.

One of the more amusing things about the objective/subjective arguments in art discussion is how both sides get used in order to weasel out of supporting one's opinion. I can claim that all opinion is subjective anyway, so why should I defend my position, or I can claim that the superiority of work X is an objective fact, and spare myself the effort of explaining why.

Forget about all that. State your opinion about the work, and explain why. The words "subjective" and "objective" are just red herrings in all this -- they don't add any value to anyone's opinions. You have to support your ideas if you want others to accept them. No support, no acceptance, and saying they're objective truths or subjective opinions won't change that.

On another topic entirely, I love how these threads spiral out into a hundred different conversations. More hijacks!


----------



## buzz (Jan 29, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Those people would be talking through their hats, because there's no such thing as an objective measure of literary quality!



I would disagree wholeheartedly with this. It would be impossible to teach writing courses or do any sort of editing if this were true.

The lines between good art and bad art may be blurry, and they may even shift on occasion, but they're still there, IMHO.


----------



## Emueyes (Jan 29, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Artworks are not tested against "reality".  They are tested against the human mind.  Then, by definition, the results of those tests are not objective.
> 
> If _Ulysses_ were actually objectively better than _The Rats of NIMH_, then I could give both books to any person on the planet (_Any_ person, regardless of age or cultural background.  Heck, I could give them to a space alien!) and get the same answer about which is better.
> 
> ...





Even physics is subjective, much of the time. But that's way off-topic instead of moderately off-topic.

Artworks are tested chiefly by how well they capture the imaginations of large amounts of people, and -more importantly- by the test of time. Tom Clancy may spin a good yarn about the Soviets, but a hundred years from now when people have forgotten what the world was like during the cold way do you think his themes and characters will be indelible and timeless enough to still be popular and relevant? Will Shakespeare or Bram Stoker?

If you gave Ulyesses to your nephew, I think it more likely that he would concede that he did not understand it, than that he did not like it. Even if Ulysses was objectively better than Nimh, some people might dislike books, or even specifically good books. Someone might dislike books in english, or fiction altogether.

According to my subjective value-judgment, since we both live in the objectively rudest part of the country, we're allowed to question  each others' mental faculties all we like. But I was actually asking if you frequently DO separate quality from appreciation, not if you were capable. Many people just don't. I frequently lament that I like something that's in poor taste.

Back on topic: the state of pop fantasy literature is deplorable, and it always has and shall be. This is because whatever makes the most money will garner the most attention. Since the more distinct a novel is, the further it is from popular tastes, such books will continue to dominate the genre. I hope in Gene Wolfe for salvation of the genre.


----------



## Emueyes (Jan 29, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Artworks are not tested against "reality".  They are tested against the human mind.  Then, by definition, the results of those tests are not objective.
> 
> If _Ulysses_ were actually objectively better than _The Rats of NIMH_, then I could give both books to any person on the planet (_Any_ person, regardless of age or cultural background.  Heck, I could give them to a space alien!) and get the same answer about which is better.
> 
> ...





Even physics is subjective, much of the time. But that's way off-topic instead of moderately off-topic.

Artworks are tested chiefly by how well they capture the imaginations of large amounts of people, and -more importantly- by the test of time. Tom Clancy may spin a good yarn about the Soviets, but a hundred years from now when people have forgotten what the world was like during the cold way do you think his themes and characters will be indelible and timeless enough to still be popular and relevant? Will Shakespeare or Bram Stoker?

If you gave Ulyesses to your nephew, I think it more likely that he would concede that he did not understand it, than that he did not like it. Even if Ulysses was objectively better than Nimh, some people might dislike books, or even specifically good books. Someone might dislike books in english, or fiction altogether.

According to my subjective value-judgment, since we both live in the objectively rudest part of the country, we're allowed to question  each others' mental faculties all we like. But I was actually asking if you frequently DO separate quality from appreciation, not if you were capable. Many people just don't. I frequently lament that I like something that's in poor taste.

Back on topic: the state of pop fantasy literature is deplorable, and it always has and shall be. This is because whatever makes the most money will garner the most attention. Since the more distinct a novel is, the further it is from popular tastes, such books will continue to dominate the genre. I hope in Gene Wolfe for salvation of the genre.


----------



## Emueyes (Jan 29, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Artworks are not tested against "reality".  They are tested against the human mind.  Then, by definition, the results of those tests are not objective.
> 
> If _Ulysses_ were actually objectively better than _The Rats of NIMH_, then I could give both books to any person on the planet (_Any_ person, regardless of age or cultural background.  Heck, I could give them to a space alien!) and get the same answer about which is better.
> 
> ...





Even physics is subjective, much of the time. But that's way off-topic instead of moderately off-topic.

Artworks are tested chiefly by how well they capture the imaginations of large amounts of people, and -more importantly- by the test of time. Tom Clancy may spin a good yarn about the Soviets, but a hundred years from now when people have forgotten what the world was like during the cold way do you think his themes and characters will be indelible and timeless enough to still be popular and relevant? Will Shakespeare or Bram Stoker?

If you gave Ulyesses to your nephew, I think it more likely that he would concede that he did not understand it, than that he did not like it. Even if Ulysses was objectively better than Nimh, some people might dislike books, or even specifically good books. Someone might dislike books in english, or fiction altogether.

According to my subjective value-judgment, since we both live in the objectively rudest part of the country, we're allowed to question  each others' mental faculties all we like. But I was actually asking if you frequently DO separate quality from appreciation, not if you were capable. Many people just don't. I frequently lament that I like something that's in poor taste.

Back on topic: the state of pop fantasy literature is deplorable, and it always has and shall be. This is because whatever makes the most money will garner the most attention. Since the more distinct a novel is, the further it is from popular tastes, such books will continue to dominate the genre. I hope in Gene Wolfe for salvation of the genre..


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 29, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> I would disagree wholeheartedly with this. It would be impossible to teach writing courses or do any sort of editing if this were true.
> 
> The lines between good art and bad art may be blurry, and they may even shift on occasion, but they're still there, IMHO.



You are confusing DEFENSIBILITY with OBJECTIVITY.

Subjective opinions still require defense, if they're to carry any "convincibility" -- if you want me to agree with your opinion you have to provide support and evidence and all that. Do that well enough and I will agree with you.

That doesn't make your opinion objective. It's still subjective. I just happen to agree with it.

It is possible to teach all sorts of things that do not possess objective criteria (martial arts, for example). It is possible to alter objects (edit a story, for example) so that it better conforms to local standards without needing objective criteria.

Get used to this idea: there are no objective standards in art. Your opinions on art have to stand or fall on their own merits, and if you want anyone to agree with you, you'll have to convince them yourself.


----------



## Merova (Jan 29, 2004)

*A Comedy of Manners*



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Forget about all that. State your opinion about the work, and explain why. The words "subjective" and "objective" are just red herrings in all this -- they don't add any value to anyone's opinions. You have to support your ideas if you want others to accept them. No support, no acceptance, and saying they're objective truths or subjective opinions won't change that.




Hi all!

I totally agree with your post. However, it is fair to make a distinction regarding the premise of a work of art, then extrapolate it's potential value in terms of entertainment and/or intellectual stimulation of a given audience. For instance, the romance genre oftentimes features elements of Comedy of Manners and Comedy of Errors, with the "alls well that ends well" stipulation.

It's fair game to say that comedy of this sort is less of a valued intellectual commodity in the current viewpoint of mainstream fiction. Therefore the works of such writers as Jo Beverley or Stef Ann Holm will probably not address the aesthetic interests of non-romance readers. Yes, this isn't saying that they are _objectively_ inferior to the latest hot "mainstream" novelist, but that their aesthetic focus is appealing to a "limited" audience.

The same holds true for the fantasy genre. The focus on exploration of setting over prolonged situational "adventures" is a huge interest to those people that buy fantasy fiction. It doesn't matter if it's derivative of JRRT's work. What matters is that new fiction fulfills the interests in the buying readership, at least from the publisher's point of view. A "quality" writer can meet the marketplace needs while creating a distinct work of fiction.

However, by focusing on the prolonged explorative style of story framing, the writer does run the risk of rehashing well-explored territory. A good writer will not, but there's still Sturgeon's Law. 

Thanks for reading.

---Olivia


----------



## takyris (Jan 29, 2004)

Okay, in no particular order:

*Objective versus Subjective*: If we try really hard, we can prove that it's impossible to know anything for certain, at which point the best thing for you to do is to bang your head against the wall a few times to make sure it's solid and not just a construct of your imagination.  Failing that, you can reword your arguments to say that your objective judgment of a book's merits is based on an agreed-upon system, and that's about as objective as one can be within that system, and people are still gonna argue, but at least the argument is about specific aspects of a book as opposed to whether or not a tree makes a noise if it falls in the forest while we're out complaining about objectivity being impossible and secretly trying to figure out how to work our _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_ quote in.

*High art versus Low art*: In some recent high-falootin' critics' circle thing, _Ulysses_ was the number-one English-language novel of all time. The best part about it was that most of the critics voted it into that spot without having read it.  It's a classic in the modern cynical sense -- a book that it's more fun to say you have read than it is to actually read.  I've read it, and I loved it, but that was because I got to spend an entire college quarter going through it with a fine-toothed, comb, figuring out all the cool things Joyce did.

In another thread, somebody mentioned that _Ulysses_ was a turning point in literature, the point where high art separated from low art -- where something became only critically good if it was hard to read and generally unenjoyable for the common folks, such that only the cultural elite could understand it.  Before that, there was little or no distinction made along those lines, and books could be accepted as literary classics *and* as good entertainment.  Which I, as a writer, find annoying, because I try to write stuff that, you know, has a point, but is also entertaining as heck.

*The Fantasy Market*:  Sure, it's more complex than it was portrayed in that post, but as somebody submitting to it and trying to figure out how to make my splash, I can say that it's most definitely geared toward series right now.  Whereas before, you had standalones and trilogies, new writers today are being explicitly told that trilogies (or, you know, heptologies, or duodecologies) are what the market wants, so that is, by and large, what's going to get accepted.  This is bad for the writers, who find themselves limited in scope to ideas that can be done for eight or nine books; for readers, who don't get to read good tight novels very often anymore because of what the publishers have decided we want; and for the publishers themselves, who are going to beat the horse until it stops moving and a "market correction" sends things into a tailspin.

Exceptions exist, as always.  There are good single-book stories out there.  There are authors who have become powerful enough to do what they want and know that it will sell.  There are always folks who beat the odds.  I'm not saying that any of that isn't true.  What I *am* saying is that the message is being clearly delivered to new authors, implicitly through the shelves at Borders and explicitly on author's contracts -- "Do not write about new things each book.  Stick with what worked in the last book.  Keep the series going for as long as possible."

My plan as a writer is to try and play it both ways.  If I write eight books that are all in one series, I can only try and sell the first one, because few people buy the fourth book in a series (Star Wars being the exception that proves the rule).  But if I write eight books, each in their own world, then I can try and sell all eight -- and if I leave each book open-ended enough to give me possible sequels, I've got a possible series to sell, even if I have to make a deal with the editors: every even-numbered book will be a book in the popular series, and every odd-numbered book will be a book in an original world that might possibly 
be popular to spin off a series of its own (like Modessit seems to do).


----------



## Emueyes (Jan 29, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Artworks are not tested against "reality".  They are tested against the human mind.  Then, by definition, the results of those tests are not objective.
> 
> If _Ulysses_ were actually objectively better than _The Rats of NIMH_, then I could give both books to any person on the planet (_Any_ person, regardless of age or cultural background.  Heck, I could give them to a space alien!) and get the same answer about which is better.
> 
> ...




Even physics is subjective, much of the time. But that's way off-topic (instead of moderately).

Artworks are tested chiefly by how well they capture the imaginations of large amounts of people, and -more importantly- by the test of time. Tom Clancy may spin a good yarn about the Soviets, but a hundred years from now when people have forgotten what the world was like during the cold way do you think his themes and characters will be indelible and timeless enough to still be popular and relevant? Will Shakespeare or Bram Stoker?

If you gave Ulyesses to your nephew, I think it more likely that he would concede that he did not understand it, than that he did not like it. Even if Ulysses was objectively better than Nimh, some people might dislike books, or even specifically good books. Someone might dislike books in english, or fiction altogether.

According to my subjective value-judgment, since we both live in the objectively rudest part of the country, we're allowed to question  each others' mental faculties all we like. But I was actually asking if you frequently DO separate quality from appreciation, not if you were capable. Many people just don't. I frequently lament that I like something that's in poor taste.

Back on topic: the state of pop fantasy literature is deplorable, and it always has and shall be. This is because whatever makes the most money will garner the most attention. Since the more distinct a novel is, the further it is from popular tastes, such books will continue to dominate the genre. I hope in Gene Wolfe for salvation of the genre..


----------



## CCamfield (Jan 29, 2004)

Merova, how are we supposed build this argumentative thread into a flamewar when you keep making reasonable posts like that?


----------



## Mallus (Jan 29, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Forget about all that. State your opinion about the work, and explain why. The words "subjective" and "objective" are just red herrings in all this -- they don't add any value to anyone's opinions.



Hey BC, nicely put. The real point of criticism isn't to establish a given works value and place it in some kind of absolute hierarchy of "good" to "bad" [thought it can seem like exactly that].

Criticism, that is, any serious discussion of art [anything from Joyce --yes, I like him-- to Star Trek --yes I like most of them] is all about gaining another person's experience of the work. Catching a glimpse into how another individual arranges the world around themselves --which is pretty much why we read/view/take in art in the first place, right?. Art [from low to high and every stop in-between] is a way in which we escape, temporarily, from the prison of our own subjective experience [into the prison of someone else's]. 

It about the best we can hope for, as far as I can tell.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 29, 2004)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Art [from low to high and every stop in-between] is a way in which we escape, temporarily, from the prison of our own subjective experience [into the prison of someone else's].



And what THAT allows us is the opportunity to expand the bounds of our prison. 

Though I prefer to think of it as a back yard. Either way, it is the route to wisdom. And THAT'S what art is for -- producing wisdom. We experience, study, think about and analyse art in order to acquire wisdom. A wise person is one whose back yard encompasses many people's back yards, where whole neighborhoods play, trees grow and creeks bubble, well-kept lawns lie next to tangled bushes, birds sing and the occasional wild jungle cat prowls through.

Want a big back yard in your imagination? Learn about other peoples' back yards.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 29, 2004)

takyris said:
			
		

> I can say that it's most definitely geared toward series right now. Whereas before, you had standalones and trilogies, new writers today are being explicitly told that trilogies (or, you know, heptologies, or duodecologies) are what the market wants, so that is, by and large, what's going to get accepted. This is bad for the writers, who find themselves limited in scope to ideas that can be done for eight or nine books; for readers, who don't get to read good tight novels very often anymore because of what the publishers have decided we want; and for the publishers themselves, who are going to beat the horse until it stops moving and a "market correction" sends things into a tailspin.



The publishers haven't decided anything...they're just responding to market forces.  No one has a gun to their head, forcing them to buy those books.  By and large, fantasy fans enjoy multi-books series.  This is not new and since the early 80s, has been the standard in the genre.  The problem lately has been in the open-ended nature of those series, often written without the whole plat having been worked out.  A better point would be that publishers are trying to manipulate content to make each book in those series more interdependent.  It used to be that each book had a clear beginning and ending, as part of a larger story.  Now, you need to read a FAQ before starting the next Jordan book.  (_At least, *I* did_).

There is plenty of fantasy fiction coming out that is standalone, it just doesn't sell as well.  I hadn't even heard of "Ombria in Shadow" until it won the World Fantasy Award, or Greg Frost's "Fitcher's Brides" or Tad Williams new book or any of a host of others.  Not to mention that we're actually talking about a sub-genre here....D&D-like Swords & Sorcery-esque fantasy, not just plain fantasy.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jan 29, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> And what THAT allows us is the opportunity to expand the bounds of our prison.
> 
> Though I prefer to think of it as a back yard. Either way, it is the route to wisdom. And THAT'S what art is for -- producing wisdom. We experience, study, think about and analyse art in order to acquire wisdom. A wise person is one whose back yard encompasses many people's back yards, where whole neighborhoods play, trees grow and creeks bubble, well-kept lawns lie next to tangled bushes, birds sing and the occasional wild jungle cat prowls through.
> 
> Want a big back yard in your imagination? Learn about other peoples' back yards.



I love that analogy.  But personally, I always thought of it more as a house.  Little ideas just add a knick-knack to a room, or maybe a painting on the wall.  Big ideas knock down a wall or stick another doorway into the hall, giving you a whole 'nother room to fill up with mental brick-a-brac.


----------



## The_Universe (Jan 29, 2004)

*back on topic!*

In order to get the discussion back on the topic of fantasy/sci fi entertainment and literature, as opposed to the merits of subjective or objective quality of entertainment, I just want everyone to know that I like Star Trek.

I mention it because it has spawned several very good books in the genre (so many that it might be considered its own genre) and several reaking piles of dung masquerading as paperbacks.

Why?  Because it's popular, and people who like the "genre" enough will buy anything, regardless of quality.  I bought the ENTIRE New Jedi Order series of Star Wars books over the past few years, despite the fact that I vehemently despised what the series did to what was (for me) a beloved mythology.  They fill my bookshelf, but I can only point to the Stackpole and Allston books in the series as ones that I actually enjoyed.  I bought them because I love Star Wars, and I felt some NEED to stay abreast of what was happening in the genre-within-a-genre.  

The same is true of the genre as a whole.  Despite the fact that I thought Piers Anthony books were great when I was in Middle School and early High School, I now find most of them to be vaguely disturbing masks for commentary about various sexual deviancies, most involving very young girls.  Did the value of the work change?  No.  Did my appreciation of it? 
Heck yes!  

Although my reading in the genre started in around 1987 (relatively recently, I know) I haven't noticed any decline in quality--just an increase in quantity in general.  There are just MORE books, so there are more good AND bad ones.  Heck, even the "masters" let some stinkers go (the aforementioned Crossroads of Twilight rings a bell).  

Additionally, I think that the early '90s ushered in a sort of grand experiment with unending epic fantasy.  The same heroes, slogging through what is essentially the SAME story until the author gets tired and ends it.  Martin's Song of Ice and Fire and Jordan's Wheel of Time are great examples of this.  I predict that both will just sputter into oblivion, ending eventually, but satisfying none.  Why?  Because they are not written with the "end" in mind.  It's all build, and no climax.  I love both series, but I'd rather have some resolution, and a new story from a good author.

Am I going to get my wish?  Probably not from Martin and Jordan.  However, the popularization of the genre means that someone is going to get it right due to the sheer volume of publishing.  

When they do, I'll be there.

PS--SM Stirling, please write another book set in the alternate earth of the Peshawar Lancers.  Make a whole unending series of it (despite what I just complained about!)


----------



## Mallus (Jan 29, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> And what THAT allows us is the opportunity to expand the bounds of our prison.
> 
> Though I prefer to think of it as a back yard. Either way, it is the route to wisdom. And THAT'S what art is for -- producing wisdom.



Hmmm, yes, the backyard metaphor is a bit nicer than my use of 'prison'... Apparently I'm in a bad mood.

And the purpose of art is wisdom? I thought you were from Canada, not ancient Greece  And here I was getting the impression that you didn't harbor those kinds of romantic notions about art... 

Back to Mrs. Frisby vs. Leopold Bloom for a second... I like it when people try and make a case for the objective value of work of art. I don't hear such attempts as critical arguments, rather as proffessions of faith. Ones that for some reason, don't bother me at all.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jan 29, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> The publishers haven't decided anything...they're just responding to market forces.



Bull.  Read a marketing report, ANY marketing report, and see if it gives a really, really solid idea of the appropriate course of action.  In the rare case that the report does lead to one, solid, inescapable conclusion, I can guarantee you that your average company will run in exactly the opposite direction.

Marketing departments are the bane of all logic and reason in the universe.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 29, 2004)

Emueyes said:
			
		

> But I was actually asking if you frequently DO separate quality from appreciation, not if you were capable. Many people just don't. I frequently lament that I like something that's in poor taste.



I never lament that I like something that's in poor taste.

If I like something, that's because it's good. It's got some value in it that I appreciate. I like Edgar Rice Burroughs, with all his faults, because he can write sentences like:


			
				ERB said:
			
		

> I cannot explain the phenomena;I can only set down here in the words of an ordinary soldier of fortune a chronicle of the strange events that befell me during the ten years that my dead body lay undiscovered in an Arizona cave.



That pleases me and I recognize the literary value such writing possesses. It is less than Shakespeare, certainly, but it is not crap. It offers its own joys.

If people want to argue that ERB is a crappy writer, bring it on. I'll happily defend his value to all comers.

But I won't pretend that I like crap. I don't. I like good writing. Frequently I see value in works that are dismissed by others -- I don't care. I have my reasons and can defend my choices.

In another thread on a similar topic, I wrote: "Sometimes everybody else IS wrong. If you can't believe that, you're not capable of original thought."

Separating what you like from what you approve of only means you're not bothering to analyse your tastes. If you like something it must possess value, and I think it's interesting to investigate WHY we find value in things other people don't. They may be idiosyncratic reasons, they may reveal general truths about ourselves or our history, or they may uncover values many people share but have never acknowledged. Unless we investigate this stuff, we'll never know.

Okay, I'm ranting a lot here, aren't I?

Art really really really matters to me. Storytelling is the most important thing in my life -- even though I'm not super great at it. I think about this stuff a lot and obviously I have a lot to say about it. Sorry if  I'm going on and on.

Feel free to slap me. Especially if you're Maggie Cheung.


----------



## takyris (Jan 29, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> The publishers haven't decided anything...they're just responding to market forces.  No one has a gun to their head, forcing them to buy those books.




As I said above, I was coming at it from the point of view of the writer.  As the writer, I don't really care why the publishers are doing what they're doing.  Maybe they are being controlled by the marketing departments rather than the editors.  Maybe the bean-counters are in charge now instead.  Maybe the editors are actually trying really hard to make the coolest story ever, and this is honestly how they think it will go.  I don't care about any of it.  All that matters to me personally is the fact that selling a standalone fantasy novel is a lot harder these days.   Not impossible -- nobody's gonna turn down greatness if it smacks them in the face -- but harder.

Or, to put it another way, if somebody is kicking me in the shins, I don't care if he's doing it because his friend told him to, because the school bully forced him to, or because I offended him in some way without realizing it.  Mainly, I just care about the fact that some pinhead is kicking me in the shins.



> By and large, fantasy fans enjoy multi-books series.  This is not new and since the early 80s, has been the standard in the genre.




I don't believe that was in question.  I like multi-book series as well.  I've also read and enjoyed a number of standalones.  Those are hurting these days.



> There is plenty of fantasy fiction coming out that is standalone, it just doesn't sell as well.




Which is at least in part due to the lack of support from the publishing houses for standalone fiction.  

They seem to be following ABC's example for media success: Take something popular ("Who Wants to be a Millionaire"), pump it up with all the publicity you can, spin off a bunch of new cloned products with the same basic premise, overexpose it until people are sick of it, and then pull the plug and declare that it has "run its course".


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 29, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> Marketing departments are the bane of all logic and reason in the universe.



On the other hand, they are an excellent source of protein.


----------



## buzz (Jan 29, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Subjective opinions still require defense, if they're to carry any "convincibility" -- if you want me to agree with your opinion you have to provide support and evidence and all that. Do that well enough and I will agree with you.
> 
> That doesn't make your opinion objective. It's still subjective. I just happen to agree with it.



I was all ready to put on my asbestos underoos and start flaming all you Subjectivists... but then you had to go and post somehting really intelligent, like this. Your opinion has good "concinvibility". 

Still... I have to say that I tend to think of good and bad art along the lines of the old adage about pornography, i.e., "You know it when you see it." This gut feeling I get makes me want to believe in some ultimate truth, i.e., objective criteria. I mean, I've been palying guitar for getting close to 20 years now, and I can tell you within minutes whether I think another player is good nor not. I feel like I've learned something about what it meas to be a good player, and thus can spot it in others pretty readily. This *feels* objective to me.

But I guess that's the rub. It's a *feeling*... and that's my only proof.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> And THAT'S what art is for -- producing wisdom. We experience, study, think about and analyse art in order to acquire wisdom. A wise person is one whose back yard encompasses many people's back yards, where whole neighborhoods play, trees grow and creeks bubble, well-kept lawns lie next to tangled bushes, birds sing and the occasional wild jungle cat prowls through.




Post of the Year!


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 29, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> Post of the Year!



Man, I slave over my story hour entries, make Mrs. Barsoom review them before posting them, take up valuable hours of work time crafting them, and I win Post of the Year for this? What I ripped off from Harold Bloom? Who I haven't even read but only had Mrs. Barsoom summarize for me?

Oh well.


----------



## buzz (Jan 29, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Separating what you like from what you approve of only means you're not bothering to analyse your tastes. If you like something it must possess value, and I think it's interesting to investigate WHY we find value in things other people don't. They may be idiosyncratic reasons, they may reveal general truths about ourselves or our history, or they may uncover values many people share but have never acknowledged. Unless we investigate this stuff, we'll never know.



If ENWorld had a thread rating system like RPG.net, I'd give this thread 87 stars.

Barsoomcore is now officially The Man, and thus I bow down to him. I'll now start taking collections for the "Relocate barsoomcore to my town and make him join my game group" Fund.


----------



## buzz (Jan 29, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Man, I slave over my story hour entries, make Mrs. Barsoom review them before posting them, take up valuable hours of work time crafting them, and I win Post of the Year for this?



Well, if you want me to take it back...


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 29, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> Well, if you want me to take it back...



Hell, no! I want you to go post sycophantic murmurings on  my Story Hour thread and get my view count ahead of Piratecat's!


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 29, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> Bull. Read a marketing report, ANY marketing report, and see if it gives a really, really solid idea of the appropriate course of action. In the rare case that the report does lead to one, solid, inescapable conclusion, I can guarantee you that your average company will run in exactly the opposite direction.
> 
> Marketing departments are the bane of all logic and reason in the universe.



And anyone who plays D&D is a fat loser who's never kissed a girl and lives in their parent's basement with no social skills whatsoever, right?  If you honestly believe that all marketers everywhere always do the wrong thing and have no benefit, then I can only assume you were personally kicked by a marketer as a small child.  I've met plenty of stupid marketers in my time, to be sure...but then we come back to Sturgeon's law, and the stupid net admins, CEOs, managers, receptionists, carpenters, accountants, engineers, bellhops, pharmacists and everybody else.



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> I don't believe that was in question. I like multi-book series as well. I've also read and enjoyed a number of standalones. Those are hurting these days.



Actually, I thought that you were saying that publishers had arbitrarily decided to switch to multibook series for no particuar reason, when it's clearly not the case.  Fantasy fans have voted with their dollars.  If they wanted more standalone books, they'd buy them.  



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> Which is at least in part due to the lack of support from the publishing houses for standalone fiction.
> 
> They seem to be following ABC's example for media success: Take something popular ("Who Wants to be a Millionaire"), pump it up with all the publicity you can, spin off a bunch of new cloned products with the same basic premise, overexpose it until people are sick of it, and then pull the plug and declare that it has "run its course".



Well, maybe for fantasy fiction.  Tons and tons of standalone SF novels come out every month.  And as for it being some sort of fad that's run it's course...well, if it hasn't burned out over the course of 25 years, I don't think it's really a fad, do you?  SF, Mystery, Horror, Romance and military ficiton has equal amounts of stand-alone and series work...because the buying public reinforces that.  Fantasy readers, by and large, don't.

The Universe, above, says as much.  And I'm the same way.  I prefer a nice long series to sink my teeth into.  And I'll keep buying Jordan's books, even though I'm not very happy with his work right now.  A big problem you face, as a writer, is that it is much easier to produce a manuscript for submission than it was 25 years ago, when computers weren't in most homes, and word processors and typewriters were expensive.  Which stinks, but there it is.


----------



## CarlZog (Jan 29, 2004)

So the question was, "Is fantasy literature going down the toilet?"

I don't think so. Any creative media can seem to be going through a slump if you take a short enough view.

"Things were better in the old days," is the common lament, with "...before everything was commercialized" often tacked on.

The simple problem, I suspect, is that most bad stuff fades from our memory (and our bookshelves), while good stuff sticks around. In 10 years, the Fifth Sorceress will likely be forgotten like thousands of other bad books published in every genre every year. The Gor books several people mentioned only scratch the surface of bad fantasy published in the '60s and '70s. God knows I read my share of it growing up!

A friend of mine has an old summer house in New England that's been in the family for nearly a hundred years. Scattered on the bookshelves in one corner of the library are piles of lightweight summer "trash" reading from the first couple decades of the 1900s. These are titles that have never been reprinted or archived in any library. The authors are unknown. You'd have a very hard time finding other copies of this stuff if you wanted to, but you wouldn't want to. It's mostly bad writing; shallow stories designed to meet public appetites of the time. And it's been forgotten. I like thumbing through them when I visit, and occasionally reading them, because they remind me that the publishing business has always been driven by commercial expectations, which aren't necessarily the best predictors of lasting literature.

I'm certainly no expert on the history of fantasy literature, but I know Tolkien didn't invent "Once upon a time..." Stories of fantastic creatures, brave knights and cunning wizards are nothing new to this century or the last. And neither are bad writers or profit-seeking publishers.

I think there are some great fantasy books being written and published these days -- books we may still be reading and talking about 50 years from now. The rest of them will be forgotten and any trends they may represent will only be preserved by academics and collectors writing history books. Similarly, few of the "pulps" from the first half of this century are still widely circulated or read, but there are plenty of books still being written that analyze the pulp industry and the pop culture phenomenon they represented.

Carl


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 29, 2004)

Perhaps I'm old before my time, but I find that it really doesn't matter what the "latest and greatest" new fantasy series is when I still haven't read a fraction of the wonderful, time-tested genre classics out there.

As far as the state of the fantasy-lit market goes, I'm just [peeved] that Howard, ERB, etc. go out of print -- at all, let alone regularly.


----------



## takyris (Jan 29, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Actually, I thought that you were saying that publishers had arbitrarily decided to switch to multibook series for no particuar reason, when it's clearly not the case.  Fantasy fans have voted with their dollars.  If they wanted more standalone books, they'd buy them.




Yup. No argument there.  My point was that the ratio of standalones to series, which used to be relatively balanced, is now skewed toward series -- to the point where, to paraphrase what you said earlier, authors are writing first novels that don't stand on their own *at all*.  I like all of the first Star Wars movies, but I also like the fact that you can watch the first one on its own and not feel like there's a gigantic cliffhanger.

Or, on the opposite end of the spectrum, I dislike Terry Goodkind's writing, but at least he made some effort to provide a bit of closure at the end of his first book.



> Well, maybe for fantasy fiction.  Tons and tons of standalone SF novels come out every month.  And as for it being some sort of fad that's run it's course...well, if it hasn't burned out over the course of 25 years, I don't think it's really a fad, do you?




Based on your earlier post, I was holding things to fantasy.  That's where my points were aimed.  Yeah, SF is relatively balanced right now -- some popular series, but not so many that it's any harder to get a standalone published than a new series.

As for fad-dom, I wasn't arguing that big fat fantasy has suddenly appeared on the scene -- just that it's now working to the exlusion of standalone fantasy novels, instead of as an equally enjoyable complementary form.



> The Universe, above, says as much.  And I'm the same way.  I prefer a nice long series to sink my teeth into.  And I'll keep buying Jordan's books, even though I'm not very happy with his work right now.




Interesting.  I suppose this is an "agree to disagree" area.  I like both, and would be sad to see standalones, loosely connected books set in the same world, or directly connected fantasy series monopolize the fantasy market.



> A big problem you face, as a writer, is that it is much easier to produce a manuscript for submission than it was 25 years ago, when computers weren't in most homes, and word processors and typewriters were expensive.  Which stinks, but there it is.




Entirely different thread. 

But yeah.  Very very much.  I've got multiple pro short story sales, but I'm still nowhere near published enough to distinguish myself in the Great American Slush Pile.  And while it's relatively easy to weed out the "I read Terry Goodkind/Robert Jordan and nothing else and now want to write my own novel" person who didn't even spellcheck his beautiful art, there are a lot of simply mediocre wannabes out there clogging up the submission process.  (For all I know, I might very well be one of them.  I mean, no wannabe thinks that he's one of the wannabes, and I don't think I'm one of the wannabes, which means, logically, that I could very well be one of them.  And isn't THAT depressing?)

But yes.  A different problem, and one that does stink.  But from the publishing web pages, the author contract stories, and so forth, I do see a lot of "if you're writing fantasy, you should aim for a series" advice.  This change-of-ratio isn't just something I'm making up -- they weren't always saying that.  Series fantasy has gone from "sure, we're good with that" to "that's really pretty much all we're interested in (although, as noted, we aren't going to pass up greatness if we see it)" over the past decade or so.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Jan 29, 2004)

This is a fascinating thread. I just have two things to say before revering to lurker mode.

(1) Some books that are considered great, in any genre, were written haphazardly or in fits and starts. My favorite example: Doestoyevsky's _Crime and Punishment_. If you ponder this too much, it will make your head explode.

(2) Marketers and marketing departments are not useless. Good ones can help guide a company into investing its resources wisely -- whether the company sells books or widgets or professional services.


----------



## jester47 (Jan 29, 2004)

I have come to loathe serial (as in series of books) fantasy.  I have not read any Jordan, or Martin however I do have plans to try- that way I can dis them all the better.  But since I have not read them, I cant really say anything at this juncture.  

I also hate big long fantasy novels that are not self contained.  I am of the firm belief that the better writer can WRITE LESS and get MORE STORY into the book than the others.  One project that I fantasise about is ripping off Wheel of Time but doing it in a thousand pages.  Who is going to get read more?  Me or Jordan?  Its S. Morgenstern Vs. William Goldman all over again.  (both are the same guy, but if you understand what Goldman is saying in the Princess Bride you understand that really great stories can be contained in very long and boring books.)

I am a big fan however of linked short stories and shared worlds.  Ala Conan, Fafhrd and The Grey Mouser, The structure Dennis McKiernan employs (I recently finished dragondoom (and well, that was when I realised that the only really good book of his was Eye of the Hunter all the other books seem to exist to answer questions about the background) Peter S. Beagle is my hero when it comes to the fight against the series mania.  The Last Unicorn is self contained.  Giant Bones is a series of short stories that take place in the world of The Inkeeper's Song.  Still both of those are kept corralled.  Which brings me to what I think is the greatest fantasy book of all time-

The Hobbit.  Heres why-

The story is epic in scope.  It CAN stand alone, one does not have to go and read the lord of the rings to completely enjoy it.  It is amasingly influential, more so I would say than LotR.  And it is quite readable.  None of the criticisms that bog down the Lord of the Rings really aply to it, and it is open and enjoyable for all ages.  and guess what?  Its only 300 some odd pages long.  Its a standard novel length.  Sure we get more of tolkiens vision in LotR, but the Hobbit is the grand daddy of them all.  The Last Unicorn makes for a close second IMO, but thats just my O.

I think that in general, big epics should be contained in about a thousand pages, adventure should fit into a third of that.  If its longer than that, you need to find better ways of telling the story.  Then support your world with short stories, poems, songs etc.  You will be much more appreciated.  Oh, and Tolkein published using his own name and did not have to borrow one from a Hemmingway novel (For Whom the Bell Tolls) like Mr. James Oliver Rigney, Jr. 

The reason I think (I was told this) that the Jordanology is becoming more and more prevalent is that people use these books to fill time.  While they are riding the bus, waiting in a waiting room, and in those small mooments where you really are not doing anything.  Thus a bigger book and ongoing story the more economical the purchase.  Basicly a soap opera in book form.  The Three Musketeers were published with the same thing in mind.  These were long serials published over days and years.  Basicly with Rigney (Jordan) you are getting more at once.  

Ok that should feed the thread for a while... 

Aaron.


----------



## jester47 (Jan 29, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Perhaps I'm old before my time, but I find that it really doesn't matter what the "latest and greatest" new fantasy series is when I still haven't read a fraction of the wonderful, time-tested genre classics out there.
> 
> As far as the state of the fantasy-lit market goes, I'm just [peeved] that Howard, ERB, etc. go out of print -- at all, let alone regularly.




Me too to both counts.  Conan should be back in for a while now with the new Hardbacks and DELREY paperbacks with BAEN doing the rest.  But could someone please get a decent 1 volume edition reminiscent of the White Wolf editions of the Lankhmar stories?  Thank you.  Fantasy Masterworks, while providing the service does it in a bare bones no fun sort of way, and getting them can be difficult.

Aaron.


----------



## jester47 (Jan 29, 2004)

Actually now that I just thought about it- I don't think there are all that many single volume works out there that are just really Last Unicorn/Hobbit good.  Everything else is a series or was a series of some sort at one time... 

Also, to further my point, taking a look at scifi (which if you are not really careful is just cleverly disguised fantasy, don't get me started...) Dune was great.  As it became more of a Series, it got worse.  Enders game was great, but same thing.  As it progressed into "sequals" it became less and less of a good thing.  Neuromancer was the same way... 

What does this tell us?  That when you have a good novel that there is a market for followups, but that those followups are typically not as good as the first.  However, it seems to be that the short story is a great way to tie up loose ends and also introduce the novel in the first place.  Take Neuromancer- We have Burning Chrome that had two short stories (or was it 3) that had to deal with the novel.  Take Eye of the Hunter- Before that we had Tales of Mithgar, which had two or three "preamble" stories.  And then there is the Inkeepers Tale which has Giant Bones, a series of concurrent stories set in the same world.  So it seems that (at least what I would like to see) is the advent of the "Advent Collection" "Novel" "Concurrence Collection" "Wrap Up Collection" format to writing fantasy stories rather than huge serials.  This would not necessarily mean that you had to have one novel, but rather you could have several, but dont make them "rounds in a clip" so to speak.  Use old characters in new situations, or use completely different characters.  I think this would be far more apprciated and still would generate the volume that the publishers are looking for. 

I am really finished this time.  

Aaron


----------



## buzz (Jan 29, 2004)

jester47 said:
			
		

> Which brings me to what I think is the greatest fantasy book of all time-
> 
> The Hobbit.



No argument here.



			
				jester47 said:
			
		

> I think that in general, big epics should be contained in about a thousand pages, adventure should fit into a third of that.



IMHO, a story should take as long as it needs to take... which seems to be the real problem here, i.e., the need to stretch any given story idea into a multi-volume epic. It's not that there aren't stories that work well as multi-volume epics, it's just that there aren't nearly as many as there are ones that don't.

As for where to place the blame...

I think that media industries generally tend to be reactionary, i.e., they don't drive the market so much as react to it. If the fantasty lit market is being flooded with multi-volume epics, it may very well be, as others have said, becasue that's what people want to buy, and who are publishers to challenge this? Eventually, people will get sick of them (as the mediocrity reaches critical mass), and the pendulum will swing the other way.

I once heard an anecdote that David Eddings, seeing that his first novel wasn't selling very well, said to himself, "I bet if I write one of those multi-volume fantasy epics, I'd sell some books." Voila! The Belgariad was born, Eddings got rich, and your truly was forced to read his work by my at-the-time girlfriend. Now, *there's* a story that could have been told in a single short novel... and said manuscript then thrown in an incinerator.*

*A wholly subjective opinion, as I now realize.


----------



## janos (Jan 30, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> I once heard an anecdote that David Eddings, seeing that his first novel wasn't selling very well, said to himself, "I bet if I write one of those multi-volume fantasy epics, I'd sell some books." Voila! The Belgariad was born, Eddings got rich, and your truly was forced to read his work by my at-the-time girlfriend. Now, *there's* a story that could have been told in a single short novel... and said manuscript then thrown in an incinerator.*
> 
> *A wholly subjective opinion, as I now realize.




Although interestingly enough all the 5 Belgariad together is still somewhat less then a single Jordan book, one and a half at the very outside. I just found that I breezed through them.

Hmmm. I was going to post a response to "there haven't been any really great standalone fantasy novels recently" but I've been racking my brain and desperately searching my bookshelves...but all I see is series. Almost all the fantasy books I have read in the last two or three years have been part of series. I'm desperately trying to remember a single standalone that I've read and enjoyed since the Hobbit and Last Unicorn (never get tired of running into other people that like that one). Incidentally one of my favourite authors (Mercedes Lackey) has refused to write any more books in her popular series, citing burnout I believe - not interested in writing any more in that series despite the market pressures.

Ah. Gemmel. I've got to agree with earlier posters - I realy enjoy his books. Plus he writes standalone books - even going so far as to kill off some of his heros after just one book if that suits the story.Yep I think those are the only single books I've read and enjoyed for a bit.

"People are using books to fill in time...such as in ques and on busses" (Sorry - not quite together with this quoting thing yet so I'll just paraphrase) 

It's true,though I think a lot of people always did. I know it's when I do most of my reading as I don't really have as much time to devote to just sitting down with a book as I would like.

However I don't think to myself 'well I need something to fill my time, this author is writting a lot of words in big ole books so that will give me the best page per £1 ratio so I'll read him'. I want to fill my time with reading good books that I enjoy. In fact I'd ideally like to fill my time with small standalone books that I can actually carry around in a pocket, but that's by the by.

Ummm I'm going to stop before I ramble right on over the cliff edge. If I look at this in the cold light of day and see nothing but pointless meandering, then you have my appologies.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 30, 2004)

I greatly enjoyed "The Golden Key", by Roberson, Elliott and Rawn, but that's a few years ago now. 

Guy Gavriel Kay occasionally writes stand-alone novels as well, though his last was a 2-book series.

Cheers!


----------



## takyris (Jan 30, 2004)

Well, it's also a matter of continuum debate.

Is Pratchett's "Guards, Guards" part of a series?  It was written in the Discworld, which already existed, but involved new characters and stood alone just fine.

Was "Men at Arms" part of a series?  It used the characters from "Guards, Guards", but you could also pick it up and read it without reading any of the books before it, and you'd still be fine.

What about a book intended to sit on its own that the author later writes a followup for?  I disliked the Ender series, but I liked Ender's Game just fine on its own.  Or Modessit's "Of Tangible Ghosts" or something, which seemed to be pretty obviously intended as a single novel, but then turned into a series?

Or novels that take place in the same world as other novels, but are generations apart, featuring the old heroes' grandchildren facing new threats?

My answer, helpfully enough, is "It depends on how they do it?"  The first Shannara trilogy is just that, a trilogy, despite the fact that it involves new generations each time and even new villains.  It's the same basic premise: hero has a power he doesn't entirely know what to do with, hero goes off because the druid named after the alcoholism support group tells him to, hero eventually learns that the true power was inside him the whole time, villain blows up.

On the other hand, the Pratchett books stand well enough on their own that, though they exist in the same world, I don't consider them a series.  You can read them *as* a series, but if you read a recent "Sam Vimes" book and then follow it with an early "Sam Vimes" book, you aren't screwed, because you can tell what's going on in both books.  It's self-contained.

Pointlessly yours,


----------



## Ratenef (Jan 30, 2004)

Has anyone considered the possibility that the format of a series fits this genre best?

Take horror, it is best served as a short story. As a novel, or series of novels, it cannot maintain the horror needed to thrill the reader.

Since Fantasy is in itself an epic story telling genre, could it not very well be that the genre itself leans towards long stories that cannot be contained in one 300 - 400 page (standard trade paperback size) book?

Just a thought.


----------



## Essafah (Jan 30, 2004)

Hello Everyone:

First off good discussion.  I have to agree with the post made by mmmadsen about perhaps feeling old before my time.  I'm thirty years old, and I have been reading speculative fiction for a significant portion of my life.  I have a degree in creative writing and have studied genre literature however, it was not until the early 90's that I read and became more familiar with the classic authors of fantasy and speculative fiction, in particularly, sword and sorcery literature.   I am referring to people such as my favorite author Robert E. Howard (considered the father of the sword and sorcery genre and whom preceded Tolkien), Fritz Leiber (who I believe may have been the first person to coin the term sword and sorcery), A. Merritt, Edgar Rice Burroughs, etc.  Since, I read the books of these authors my reading of more modern fantasy has decreased dramatically. 

 I went from reading say 2-3 fantasy novels a month from authors like David Eddings, the various TSR novels, and others to spending my time in used bookstores searching for works of older writers of speculative fiction, whose works were penned from primarily the 1930's-1970's.  I like the writings of Karl Edward Wagner, Charles R. Saunders (I love the _Imaro_ series of books), Gardner F. Fox's _Kothar _ and _Kyrik_ series, Clark Ashton Smith, H. Rider Haggard, Lord Dunsany, Micheal Moorcock, and other old school authors.  I even like the works of Lin Carter, even if he is considered by many people just to be a rip off artist of writers like Howard and Burroughs.  I thought his _Callisto_ series was great.

There are several reasons why I find modern fantasy writings unappealing to read.  First, the initial problem I have with the modern fantasy novel is that they are predominately an exercise in verbosity.  If you look at the writings of the older authors their books are very brisk and tight in style without losing their narrative content, or their ability to pull the reader into the fantasy world the author has created.  Robert E. Howard's _Conan_ short stories and Micheal Moorcock's _Elric_ novels are great examples of this.  Where as modern authors tend to write long passages describing the same things ad infinum.  Robert Jordan, whose series I struggled through and gave up on after I read the _Path of Daggers_, is a good example of this.  In Jordon's _Wheel of Time _ series every time Rand uses the Source we have to have this long expository clump explaining how he is feeling and what he is doing.  While inner exploration of a character is crucial to good fiction a reader does not need to know exactly how a character is feeling everytime he does the same repetitive action.

I also find the highly moralistic characters in modern fantasy to be somewhat annoying.  In the pulp era of sword & sorcery/herioc fantasy the heroes were more amoralistic in nature.  They were heroic because they wanted something and someone who was more evil than them stood in their way, and in order for the neutral protagonist to acheive their objective they had to eliminate the more evil antagonist.  In some cases the protagonist of older fantasy fiction could even be categorized as blatantly evil.  Micheal Moorcock's Elric character, and Karl Edward Wagner's Kane character spring instantly to mind.  In short the characters of classical fantasy literature were good by default as opposed to being good because they possessed an inherent sense of goodness.  Again, Robert E. Howard's Conan character, as well as Fritz Leiber's two rogues Fafhrd and The Gray Mouser are excellent examples  of this.  While in modern fantasy if the heroes are not good because they actively seek to save the world or kingdom from some evil threat, they are good because they are  good average down home people put into extraordinary situations, who later become do gooders out to save the world once the inner powers they possess have become developed ala Robert Jordan's three main characters in the Wheel of Time series.  I'm truly not trying to sound cynical when I state that often when I was trudging through Jordan's _Wheel of Time _ series and read about Perrin, Matt (the least good of the trio though still fairly innocous in his larcenies),and Rand I felt like I was reading the Dukes of Hazard put into a fantasy world.  "Just a good ole boys/never meaning no harm...".  Give me the larger than life, hyper-masculine, but more morally humanistic heroes of yesteryear  who enjoyed whoring, fighting, drinking to fault, thieving, and acquiring personal wealth/power to the do-gooder heroes of modern fantasy anyday .

Secondly, the problem I have with modern fantasy authors  is related to setting.  I am African American and while I know many critics of literature accuse early fantasy novels of being racist, because of their depictions of Black and African people, such as Robert E. Howard's Conan short story the _Vale of Lost Women_, and ERB's _Tarzan_ series (the greatest great white hope story of all time) I can say atleast these authors had their characters adventure in many different non-occidental based settings.  For example, the majority of the Conan short stories happened in a plethora of non-occidental cultural milieus ranging from African to East Indian to Semitic/Arabic to Far Eastern.  While the majority of modern fantasy stays in a traditional qausi-medieval to-qausi-renaissance setting.

The last thing that comes to mind that bothers this reader concerning modern fantasy is actually the lack of sex and sexually, as opposed to (as some people claim) the graitutous amount of sexuality found in modern fantasy.  While, there are some exceptions, like the qausi-S&M and bestiality scenes in Terry Goodkind's _Sword of Truth _ series, I find most modern fantasy to be completely lacking in sexuality or only displaying sexuality in an arguably perverse manner (like the aforementioned scenes found in Mr. Goodkind's work).  While, I would not want a return to the sexually themes found in say the Gor series, I like my heroes to be characters who are sexually active even though I don't want sexual escapades to be the main theme of the book.  An example of what I'm talking about is the latent sexuality found in the Conan books by Howard, or the sexual escapades which created so much (often hysterical) trouble for characters like Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, or even the libido of epic characters from various ethnic legends such as Zeus and Hercules in Greek mythology, or Gilgamesh of Babylonian mythology.  Some of you may label me a sexist, chauvinistic pig, but as a healthy heterosexual male I also greatly miss the sensual images by artist like Frank Frazetta or Boris Vallejo that use to grace the cover of myriad fantasy novels.  I'll take those covers over the bland drawings of Daryll K. Sweet that graces the covers of Robert Jordan's _Wheel of Time_ and L.E. Modest's books anyday of the week.

Thank you for taking time to read this.  It ended up being a bit longer than I intended, but this is a subject I'm passionate about.  I think that there a good number of people out there who feel like me, and are not enjoying modern fantasy over older authors.  One of the reasons I think more traditional sword & sorcery style books is not produced is because of the bias of editors.  I think a great many editors, who grew up reading authors like Howard, Burroughs, etc tired of reading it in their youth, called the style of writing cliche and began searching for other styles of fantasy writings like what is present today.  What I think these editors fail to realize is is that while the old school sword & sorcery style of writing may have been cliche to many of them, because it was what they grew up with in their youth (and was admittedly overdone at one point as evidenced by the number of Howard and Burroughs clones that existed) I would say this style of writing and even many of the authors I mentioned are totally alien to the average fantasy and speculative fiction reader of today, and can therefore by virtue of obscurity not be cliche.  I also think a good number of editors are afraid to publish more traditional fantasy novels, because of political correctness like for example, if they publish a novel with a typical erotic Vallejo cover they are afraid they might be accused of promoting sexism by feminist who read fantasy literature.

A good example of what I'm talking about is present in the field of science-fiction.  In his guide to creating a fantasy universe published by Writer's Digest books author Dr. Ben Bova states that a science-fiction audience likes books based on plausible scientific concepts, and that he receives thousands of _Star Wars_ or _Aliens_ type manuscripts, which as an editor he sends to the slush pile everyday.  Now, while I am not a big fan of science-fiction, I am a fan of the more fantastical genre of science-fiction known as "space opera" which works like _Star Wars_, _Aliens_, the _Dorsai_ books, etcetera falls into and this is what frequently sells in the science-fiction market place at large.  Now, if I didn't like a genre of science-fiction, but everytime I looked on a bookshelf or a magazine or on the movie screen the genre I didn't like was selling out, I would re-evaluate my opinion, and be more open about publishing SOME of the materials that I didn't like.  It's kind of like if I grew up on chocolate ice cream, and later on in life opened an ice cream shop and said, "Okay, since I grew up on chocolate I'm sick of chocolate so I'm only going to sell strawberry and vanilla ice cream." Yet, Joe Blow opens an ice cream parlor down the street and sells everything I sell plus chocolate and chocolate always seems to sell out.  I would say to myself, "Damn! I'm really sick of chocolate, but some people seem to like it because it sells constantly so, maybe I'll keep selling the flavors I like but make chocolate available to them at my store too."  

The problem is as I stated earlier the publishing companies are not doing that.  They are only publishing one style/genre of fantasy.  If they published and promoted more traditional style fantasy books I think the fantasy market would see an even bigger boom in sells than even that, which we have seen in the last decade or so.

Sincerely,

Essafah

P.S.  The one more modern author that I found that I do really enjoy is David Gemmell.  Mr. Gemmell's work in my opinion combines the brutal, barbaric, amoral, low (but still extremely offensively powerful) magic, and dark world of authors like Robert E. Howard with the epic world building present today.  His characters are larger than life, masculine, but still very human and often have the same fatalistic aura as Howard's heroes.  Indeed, unlike Howard Mr. Gemmell frequently kills off his heroes, and while his books while they can be read as series are each written as stand alone novels dependent of other novels in their relative series.   If anyone has not Mr. Gemmell's work I would highly recommend them to do so.  Also, if anyone (who is a fan of old school sword & sorcery/herioc fantasy) knows of any modern authors they have read whose style you think I might like please let me know.


----------



## Essafah (Jan 30, 2004)

RATENEF:

I think fantasy novels could easily be written in novels of shorter format than today (see my previous post).  In Micheal Moorcock's Elric series hardly any of the books reached 200 pages in length and the print was not small. The same thing goes for the Fafhrd the and The Gray Mouser and the Conan series by Leiber and Howard respectively.

Essafah


----------



## buzz (Jan 30, 2004)

Essafah said:
			
		

> P.S.  The one more modern author that I found that I do really enjoy is David Gemmell.



This thread is the first I've heard of Gemmell, and quite a few people here seem to be reccomending him. What books of his would people reccomend?


----------



## buzz (Jan 30, 2004)

Ratenef said:
			
		

> Take horror, it is best served as a short story. As a novel, or series of novels, it cannot maintain the horror needed to thrill the reader.



Well, somebody better tell Stephen King that. 



			
				Ratenef said:
			
		

> Since Fantasy is in itself an epic story telling genre, could it not very well be that the genre itself leans towards long stories that cannot be contained in one 300 - 400 page (standard trade paperback size) book?



I think the existence of masterworks such as The Hobbit or A Wizard of Earthsea prove otherwise. The whole idea of fantasy always being equated with multi-volume epics is exactly the misconception we seem to be talking about. If you look at a good swath of the history of the genre, I'd think the evidence points in the other direction, i.e., the myriad of short works by Howard, Leiber, Moorcock, et al which make up the bulk of classic S&S.

Though I guess I'm lumping S&S in with fantasy, which many would consider distinct.


----------



## Essafah (Jan 30, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> This thread is the first I've heard of Gemmell, and quite a few people here seem to be reccomending him. What books of his would people reccomend?




BUZZ:

The most popular series of his is the _DRENAI_ saga, which begins with the book _Legend_.  There are currently I believe 9 books in the series but again, each book is written as a stand alone novel so you don't have to be familiar with the preceding novels to enjoy his books, though you will I believe appreciate his works more if you read them in order.  Also, his _Rigante_ series which end up set in a more Renaissance style setting complete with pistols and muskets is also good.  Mr. Gemmell has also written several very good non-series stand alone books.  My favorite of the latter category is entitled _Dark Moon_, and features a heroe with two souls i.e., multiple personalities one "good" and one "evil".

Peace,
Essafah


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 30, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> This thread is the first I've heard of Gemmell, and quite a few people here seem to be reccomending him. What books of his would people reccomend?



Before you get your hopes up, buzz, I too heard Gemmell described as a modern Robert E. Howard -- I even read a wonderful interview with him on Amazon UK that reaffirmed my hopes -- and I ran out (on-line) and bought _Legend_.  I hated it.  _Hated_ it.  

It felt thoroughly modern -- the main character was starting his day with a glass of orange juice, fer chrissake -- and that ruined it for me.  Howard's Conan stories, while far from historical, _feel_ historical; they certainly don't feel modern and civilized -- and they don't feel like they're _trying_ to be politically incorrect either.

(Also, I'd like to apologize if it sounds like I'm raining on Essafah's parade.  That's not my intention.)


----------



## Essafah (Jan 30, 2004)

Mmadeson:

Actually, the opening scene of Legend begins with a noble waiting to meet with the head of a barbarian horde like a Roman emissary going to meet with Atilla the Hun, but hey you like what you like.  I think Gemmell is as close as you're going to get to Robert E. Howard in modern fantasy.  Does that mean that he is as good as Howard?  Hell no!  Howard was a natural great, but Gemmell is still good, and _Legend_ is not the best book in the series nor is Druss necesarilly the most popular character in the series.  The assassin Waylander closely mirrors him in popularity.  I would encourage you to give the other books a try.  I personally, liked the novels _King Beyond the Gate_, _Waylander_, _Quest For Lost Heroes_, and _Winter Warriors _ better than _Legend_, but to each their own.

Peace,
Essafah


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 30, 2004)

Essafah said:
			
		

> Actually, the opening scene of Legend begins with a noble waiting to meet with the head of a barbarian horde like a Roman emissary going to meet with Atilla the Hun, but hey you like what you like.



Actually, I was referring to the scene, ten pages in, of Rek waking up with the innkeepers daughter, having a _very_ modern conversation about their (lack of) relationship, then getting served orange juice with his breakfast -- by her father.


			
				Essafah said:
			
		

> I think Gemmell is as close as you're going to get to Robert E. Howard in modern fantasy.



When I tried to think of modern alternatives to Howard, I couldn't think of any -- in _fantasy_.  In historical fiction though, Steven Pressfield's historical fiction might qualify.  I highly recommend _Gates of Fire_, about the battle of Thermopylae.


----------



## Ratenef (Jan 30, 2004)

Elric - 9 books and counting

Fafryd and the Grey Mouser - 7 books

Conan - dozens of stories by Howard and countless more by others

Good examples of stand alone fantasy

Lieber is the only one who didn't sell out (not that Howard did but his copyright holders did).

The Elric saga was best with the first 6 books and Conan is best done by Howard.

(and if you give me Stephen King's number I'll certainly tell him what a hack he is for novels, he writes excellent short stories tho')

(please note the above is just me being devil's advocate....no flame war here...please)


----------



## Essafah (Jan 30, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Actually, I was referring to the scene, ten pages in, of Rek waking up with the innkeepers daughter, having a _very_ modern conversation about their (lack of) relationship, then getting served orange juice with his breakfast -- by her father.
> 
> When I tried to think of modern alternatives to Howard, I couldn't think of any -- in _fantasy_.  In historical fiction though, Steven Pressfield's historical fiction might qualify.  I highly recommend _Gates of Fire_, about the battle of Thermopylae.





I read all types of fiction, though I predominately read fantasy and horror, but still I will check out the books you recommended _Gates of Fire_, especially since I'm fond of Greek history and mythology.

Peace,
Essafah


----------



## Essafah (Jan 30, 2004)

Ratenef said:
			
		

> Elric - 9 books and counting
> 
> Fafryd and the Grey Mouser - 7 books
> 
> ...





Ratenef:

When you state, as you did in your previous post, that horror lends itself better to the short story format, I am curious as to know if you are included the genre of horror known as the "occult thriller" into that format as well?

For example, I am not a huge fan of Stephen King style horror, though I do feel Stephen King is a genius as what he does, but rather I am a fan of the aforementioned occult thriller genre of horror.  This is a genre the frequently features somebody like a cop or say a private investigator, who begins investigated a string of crimes or bizarre occurrences that eventually end up taken on an occult or supernatural twist.  The movie with Denzel Washington called _Fallen_ or the _X-files _ would be a good example of what I am talking about.  In terms of authors and books the Repairman Jack novels by F. Paul Wilson, which features a private investigator/problem solver who on record doesn't exist (no social security number, no legit driver's license, etc.,) who battles against a demonical preternatural force called the Otherness.  I also like the books _Beyond Belief _ by Roy Johanson, _Ghosts_ and _Cemetary of Angels_ by Noel Hynd, all of which are cop thrillers, also the dark fantasy writings of Charles De Lint (writing as Samuel M. Keys) novels _Mulengro_, _Angel of Darkness_, and _From a Whisper To Scream _ are all very good horror novels as opposed to short stories, and I think this genre of horror does better in the novel format than standard horror.

Peace,
Essafah


----------



## Ratenef (Jan 30, 2004)

Gang,

If our concern is that there are no good stand alone fantasy novels, then we need to define stand alone.

To me ANY book that is 1) part of a series, 2) occurs in the same author's world, and/or 3) continues the adventures of the characters regardless of if it was written as a) short stories and then strung together, b) written as a single book and then added to OR c) Jordanized (written with the intent of dying before it was finished), then it is disqualified as a stand alone fantasy novel.

A stand alone fantasy novel that fits this bill (that I can quickly recollect) is Roger Zelazny's Jack of Shadows (good book by the way).

Now is the reason that there are no stand alone books of any quality:

1) demand is such that stand alone's will not sell
2) supply of series is forced upon us
3) the genre is such that a good idea is frequently beaten to death
4) other

I think that is what we need to discuss.

Personally, I think it is because of 1 and 2 (noted above). We the readers, by majority, desire/buy books that are serial in nature (See how David Eddings and Anne McCaffery have beaten their series to death....does anyone care about the doings of Belgaraths cousins/nephews/great uncle or one more go at the Dragon series by Anne!!). And the genre is such that unless you kill the character, or yourself die, you can just keep going and going and going (a al Jordan or Salvatore)

Thanks,


----------



## Ratenef (Jan 30, 2004)

Essafah,

Let's not turn this thread into a personal conversation, so if you wish to continue this email me at ratenef@hotmail.com

As for your question, I usually stick to short story collections of horror preferably containing Edgar Allen Poe, H.P. Lovecraft and their peers or mentors.

I find that horror is best if you get one really good thrill from the story.

Novels tend to either have too many shocks so as to 'desensitize' you by the end or drag on so the 'big thrill' at the end is effective but anticlimatic. It is rare to find a novel that maintains an atmosphere of eerie throughout without being melodramatic.

I have read F. Paul Wilson's The Tomb and found it entertaining but not of the calibre of The Tell Tale Heart or The Whisperer in the Woods.

Send me a personal email and we can further discuss this out of forum.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 30, 2004)

> Actually, I thought that you were saying that publishers had arbitrarily decided to switch to multibook series for no particuar reason, when it's clearly not the case. Fantasy fans have voted with their dollars. If they wanted more standalone books, they'd buy them.




I'd argue that, actually. I want more standalone fantasy books. I want a _lot_ more good standalone fantasy books. If I could find them, I'd buy them.

But because 90%* of everything I find on the shelf these days is book 12 of 274, I don't buy. I've bought fewer fantasy novels in the past five years then I did during some _single_ years in high school or college, because I refuse to buy a fantasy novel unless it:

A) Stands alone (or at least stands _somewhat_ alone, such as most of Brust's "Taltos" books), or...

B) The series of which it is a part is fully complete and published.

Sometimes, I'm not in the mood for a 2,000 word opus. Sometimes I just want to read a book.

(* This number is an estimate based on my own experience. I don't pretend to have any factual data to back it up.)


----------



## Dr. Talos (Jan 30, 2004)

An even older fantasy series(though not necessarily "fantasy" at the time they were written) were the works of Alexander Dumas.  _The Three Musketeers_,_The Count of Monte Cristo_, _Twenty Years After_, and _The Vicomte Bragelonne_ (AKA The Man in the Iron Mask) were all stories about the continuing adventures of the Musketeers.  As these books were written in the mid 1800s, the idea of the serial novels in romantic/fantastic literature is not a new one.

If you want a great fantasy novel that was only recently published, try _The Knight_ by Gene Wolfe.  It is not as difficult to read as some of his earlier stuff and manages to turn out an extremely fresh and exciting take on what at first seem to be stanadard fantasy themes.

Another book I recently read that turned out to be pretty good was _Shadow_ by K.J. Parker.  Parts of the book make your brain do somersaults and unfortunately the book is the first in a series, but on the whole it turned out to be halfway decent.

As for the crud out there, I have to throw in _The Ring of Five Dragons _ as terrible along with _The Fifth Sorceress._

I am learning to never read any book advertised within the pages of Dragon.


----------



## Orius (Jan 30, 2004)

> First of all, there's the insistance on producing series that appear to go on forever, and of making each book extremely long. The business rationale for this is simple; the more text you produce, the more money you get. The problem is also simple; authors who work on carrying out just one story for one volume after another frequently reach a limit to what they can do in the one scenario that they have created, and don't have the chance to exercise their imagination by creating entirely new worlds. Furthermore, they have a tendency to bloat their books with filler material just to make them longer.




Why didn't the writer of this say "Robert Jordan" and be done with it?  It's fairly evident who "authors" is reffering to.

Not that I dislike the WoT as a series.  But when the last book has 3 chapters of that airhead Elayne taking a bath, while leaving out the  details of Rand meeting Logain for the first time, I felt unsatified.



> The final worrisome problem is the use of pervasive and graphic sex in fantasy novels. Of course, this is hardly a new development. Almost since the genre's origins, there have been authors who basically used the fantasy label as a thin excuse for writing pornography. Whether this has actually increased in recent years is tough to say. But we certainly see sex used more and more in marketing campaigns, and more and more claims that erotic scenes are necessary to make a fantays novel adult and realistic. In point of fact, most good adult fantasy doesn't contain any sex at all (some of you may have heard of a novel called Lord of the Rings, for instance), and too often the sex scenes in today's fantasy novels seem to be tossed in just to appease a horny teenage audience.




I'd generally agree here.  I don't need graphic sex to enjoy a fantasy novel.  If I want that I know where to get it.  I wouldn't say that it's confined to te fantasy genre, I'd say authors are doing all over the place, and saying it's "art".  Unless it's an important part of the story, it's not necessary, and even then, it doesn't have to be graphic.


----------



## CCamfield (Jan 30, 2004)

Essafah said:
			
		

> I also find the highly moralistic characters in modern fantasy to be somewhat annoying.




Gah.  Well, while those sorts of characters aren't always what I want to read about, I thought of a few authors that might interest you.  Have you read any of:

- Glen Cook (I'm thinking of the Black Company series; then again, you might enjoy the skirt-chasing fantasy P.I. Garrett although the first bunch of books are out of print)
- Steven Erickson
- George R. R. Martin
- K. J. Parker
- come to think of it, Steven Brust (the Vlad Taltos books)

Chris


----------



## Essafah (Jan 30, 2004)

CCamfield said:
			
		

> Gah.  Well, while those sorts of characters aren't always what I want to read about, I thought of a few authors that might interest you.  Have you read any of:
> 
> - Glen Cook (I'm thinking of the Black Company series; then again, you might enjoy the skirt-chasing fantasy P.I. Garrett although the first bunch of books are out of print)
> - Steven Erickson
> ...




I read a Black Company novel a long, long time ago and I remember not liking it all that much.  I have been wanting to revisit some of Glen Cook's works now that I am older and seeing what I think of them.  Steven Erickson I haven't read nor have a read any of George R. R. Martin, but just from what I have read of his books in the stores I don't remember any of them leaping out at me.  K.j. Parker I haven't read nor do I know anything about really so, I will look into this author.  The Vlad Talto books I have read several of, and while I found them entertaining and unique I did not enjoy them as much I did David Gemmell's books, but I would definately say Brust's works are some of the best more modern fantasy works available today.  Roger Zelazny Amber series I did think was incredible.

Peace,
Essafah


----------



## jester47 (Jan 30, 2004)

A word about King- he is more (IMO) a suspense writer.  I personally think he is at his best when he is not writing about the supernatural.  Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption comes to mind.  

About the three musketeers- The Count of Monte Cristo is not about them.  It is a self contained story.  The books of the Three Musketeers are:

The Three Musketeers, Ten Years Later, Twenty Years After.  The man in the iron mask is part of Twenty Years After.  

I think a stand alone novel is one where a person can pick it up, read it, and not have key story elements in another physical book.  Thus you can have several stand alone novels about discworld.  Another good example are the Chronicles of Narnia.  Each one (with one or two exceptions) works great as a stand alone novel.  The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe is really great.  Gemmel is another good example.  Also, think of the number of series that have been coming out lately IN ONE VOLUME.  Dying Earth, Lots of the TSR/WotC stuff, Eddings, Brooks, LotR etc.  Essentially, the idea is resurfacing that one story = one book.  

To find out what works best for Fantasy, lets take a look at other types of Genre fiction.  Most notably Mystery and Western.  Horror too.  The statementwas made that Horror works best as a short story.  We have Dracula, Lovecrafts 2 novels, and some stuff king wrote as greatexamples of Horror novels.  We get the same with Macarthy, McMurtry and L'Amor in Westerns.  Westerns are having a hard time right now.

Hold on a sec-  

If you read one thing outside the genre of fantasy For Gods Sake Pick Up Louie L'Amor's "The Collected Short Stories of Louis L'Amour : The Frontier Stories: Volume One"  These are some of the best short stories I have ever read and the writing is descriptive, effective and very well done.  Furthermore, it is susinct.  

Ok, back at it- 

Mystery, the largest selling genre in the US does not have huge long serials.  And yet the genre was hugely developed by Arthur Conan Doyle (another greatly underrated author BTW) with Sherlock holmes.  Mystery works as novels, short stories (less so) and among those we have Self contained novels that reuse regular characters (the world being our own).  Hillerman, Christie, Braun, all come to mind.  Where horror lacks in novels, Mystery makes up and where mystery lacks in short stories, horror makes up.  Westerns follow the same pattern.  Fantasy is the only one where we see the Jordanology really taking hold.  And in truth this is an anaomoly.  A more successful model is the one shared by Robert E. Howard, Agatha Christie, Fritz Leiber, Terry Pratchet, David Gemmel, Loius L'Amour and H.P. Lovecraft (did occasionally reuse characters and he had an over riding theme in all his stories).  

The model looks like this:  There is somthing that runs through all the books.  Be that a world, a character, a concept, a combination of two or all three.  Each story is contained within one book.  Shortstories abound.   For Agatha Christie, its Marples.  Pratchett its discworld.  For  Lovecraft its the Cthulu mythos.  

Thats all.

Aaron.


----------



## nikolai (Jan 30, 2004)

jester47 said:
			
		

> I have come to loathe serial (as in series of books) fantasy.  I have not read any Jordan, or Martin however I do have plans to try- that way I can dis them all the better.  But since I have not read them, I cant really say anything at this juncture.
> 
> I also hate big long fantasy novels that are not self contained.  I am of the firm belief that the better writer can WRITE LESS and get MORE STORY into the book than the others.




I'm willing to excuse Martin. I think what he's doing is interesting and narratively clever. There's a definite series arc, each book has a clear story arc and each chapter also has a clear progression. I'm not opposed to all serial fantasy, just it's dominance and I think Martin does it better than anyone else.

I agree that serials are just too common. I'm not sure that their dominance is totally due to popular demand; if Pratchett can do stand alone books that also work as a set, why can't others. Part of the reason may be that quests to save the world can only be done once, so you may as well drag it out.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 30, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'd argue that, actually. I want more standalone fantasy books. I want a _lot_ more good standalone fantasy books. If I could find them, I'd buy them.
> 
> But because 90%* of everything I find on the shelf these days is book 12 of 274, I don't buy. I've bought fewer fantasy novels in the past five years then I did during some _single_ years in high school or college, because I refuse to buy a fantasy novel unless it:
> 
> ...



Ari, did you mean 2000 PAGE opus, there?

Anyhow, I'm not saying that people don't want standalone books.  I do, too.  What I'm saying is that they just plain don't sell as well, and really haven't for a long time, in the narrow S&S sub-genre of Fantasy.  I think one thing that's occured is the assumption that if a story spans several books, it must be good, since it must be popular.  For example, when I picked up the first volume of "Age of Unreason", I knew that it would have several books to it, and that obviously someone had a good deal of faith in it.

I tend to wait until a series has several books out, as well.  But what I've seen happen is that a new book in a series will come out, and someone who's interested in it will pick it and it's predecesors up, simulataneously.  A standalone book doesn't generate those kind of spontaneous sales with each new release.  

But really, what we're discussing here is the emphasis on novels that aren't self-contained.  When I picked up one of Saberhagen's Book of Swords, I knew each was self-contained.  If I skipped a book, I would have missed some of the movement of the meta-plot, but each book, for the most part, could exist whole unto itself.  The beginning of the book might have some quick summaries for new readers, but then we're off.  (_quick aside: one of my favorite Swords & Sorcery trilogies is Saberhagen's Empire of the East (1968-1973) which is still mostly self-contained, and Saberhagen's terse, succint style is a direct counter to Jordan's verbose prose_).

Unfortunately, most new series don't do this.  I wasn't joking about needing to review a FAQ file to try and remember what had gone before with Jordan.  More importantly, Jordan has so many viewpoint characters (most of whom don't actually contribute to the narrative significantly enough) and so much going on , I think even he's lost track.  There are no significant 'jump-on' points for such books, and that acts, as Ari says, as a significant turn-off to picking up the material.

I can count on one hand the number of fantasy novels that I've purchased in the last three years or so.

Let me think:  All 3 GRRM "Song of Ice and Fire" Books.  Jordan's "Crossroads of Twilight".

....


Well, if you count the Harry Potter books and Keyes' "Empire of Unreason", both of which I would consider fantasy, but not D&D-esque fantasy, then that would increase the number, somewhat.

I tried Gemmel...but I was put off by his prose style, somehow.  I may try Legend again (which I got for free at Worldcon a few years back), but it just didn't click with me, somehow.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 30, 2004)

Speaking of Harry Potter, that's a good example of standalone, yet also serialized novels.  If I were to write fantasy novels (not likely, but it'd be fun, assuming I had the talent and the craft to pull it off) that's how I'd do it.


----------



## RiggsWolfe (Jan 30, 2004)

I really think alot of this debate boils down to two different types of readers. Readers who do so for some kind of intellectual stimulation and those who do it for enjoyment. 

I belong to the second type. I will read any book I enjoy. If I enjoy it enough I will read it more than once. I have my preferences of course. Terry Brooks bores me for instance. I found Thomas Covenant hard to struggle through and depressing. I was frustrated with some of the writing in the Lord of the Rings. I find most "classics" utterly boring and hard to read, though I appreciate the underlying themes of books such as A Tale of Two Cities. Give me a good Runelords or Honor Harrington anyday. 

I used to work with this guy who would give me these long lectures about how Hemingway would move him to moments of awe and intellectual bliss. This came about when I asked him if he enjoyed the DaVinci Code by Dan Brown. He sort of curled his lip and told me it was ok for the masses but not good literature. During this entire monologue I was basically feeling sorry for the poor man. Somewhere along the way he lost track of reading for pleasure and turned it into some kind of critical journey.

I'll be honest, the Fifth Sorceress sounds kind of interesting to me. Sounds like the guy decided to take a chance and not write a politically correct fantasy novel. I may pay my $8 and see. I read the reviews on Amazon.com and my big thought was "I bet if it was the Wizards who were evil and the Sorceresses were the pure heroes these people would be raving about this book."

I should say, I read the website that was part of the subject of this post and it made me sick. Nothing but a bunch of judgemental tripe. Just another person who has decided his opinion has more intrinsic value than others.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Jan 30, 2004)

> have no problem saying that the best book I've ever read was Gabriel Garcia Marquez's One Hunded Years of Solitude, but also that my favorite book I've ever read was Watership Down. I can distinguish between personal appeal and quality. Can you?




I actually prefer "Love in the Time of Cholera" to "One Hundred Years of Solitude", but that's neither here nor there.
To chime in, though, "Doctor Zhivago" (or perhaps "Death in Venice") is the _best_ book I've ever read, while Janny Wurts' "War of Light and Shadow" are my _favorite_ book(s).

With that said, due to he new "coolness" of JRRT, there's lots of great fantasy currently out there being published, such as Tad Williams, Laura Resnick, etc. (Of course, YMMV.)

Unfortuantely,  though many current writers fall into the "Let's Drag it out forever" camp (Jordan, Brooks, Goodkind, et al.)

Personally, I've atually recently returned to the "roots" of fantasy, and re-read "Gormenghast", the "Gray Mouser" series, the "Elric of Melnibone" saga, "The Lord of the Rings", and "the Coming of Conan" (a reprint of the first 13 Conan adventures published.), and found myself pleasantly surprised at how well they stand the test of time: not only that, it also renewed my love of the fantasy genre.



> Why? Because it's popular, and people who like the "genre" enough will buy anything, regardless of quality. I bought the ENTIRE New Jedi Order series of Star Wars books over the past few years, despite the fact that I vehemently despised what the series did to what was (for me) a beloved mythology. They fill my bookshelf, but I can only point to the Stackpole and Allston books in the series as ones that I actually enjoyed. I bought them because I love Star Wars, and I felt some NEED to stay abreast of what was happening in the genre-within-a-genre.




That's a blatant generalization. There are plenty of people out there (like me) who are discerning readers, even in the element of their fandom.  I am rabid Buffy-phile, but I feel no compunction to go out and but every Buffy novel out there. Indeed some of the novel's I have read (like "The Book of Fours") are complete garbage.  And, as an aside, I actually liked the "New Jedi Order" series. 



> In Jordon's Wheel of Time series every time Rand uses the Source we have to have this long expository clump explaining how he is feeling and what he is doing. While inner exploration of a character is crucial to good fiction a reader does not need to know exactly how a character is feeling everytime he does the same repetitive action.




That actually doesn't bother me as much as his tendency to describe things in _excruciatingly_ boring detail. I don't really need to read three pages on "how green Nynaeve's dress was" (or whatever.)


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 30, 2004)

RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> I should say, I read the website that was part of the subject of this post and it made me sick. Nothing but a bunch of judgemental tripe. Just another person who has decided his opinion has more intrinsic value than others.



Oh, I dunno.  That's one of the good(?) things about the Internet, it gives a potential audience to anyone who wants to spout off about any subject.  That doesn't mean he thinks his opinion is better than anyone else's, merely that he has a strong opinion.

I think you've also hit a crucial point.  I like some of the "classics" of the genre, but have little interest in pursuing some others.  I have a really good friend who considers R.A. Salvatore to be an incredibly talented writer (which, I guess, from a certain point of view I can't argue with), and I read and enjoy plenty of things that don't have the kind of "intrinsic" value that some seem to want to require.  I read books that entertain me.  It helps that I'm entertained by a lot of history, biography, astrophysics, etc. as well.

In my case, I've somehow found it very difficult to read anymore.  I've probably just got too much going on in my life; four kids, will do that to you I suppose.  So I've become very picky.  Books that don't just reach up, grab me by the throat and demand that I finish them tend to not get read, unfortunately.  When I was younger I read mediocre books by the truckload and didn't really think twice about it.


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 30, 2004)

RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> I really think alot of this debate boils down to two different types of readers. Readers who do so for some kind of intellectual stimulation and those who do it for enjoyment.



I believe you've drawn a false dichotomy.


> I find most "classics" utterly boring and hard to read...



If you find pulp swords & sorcery "classics" like Robert E. Howard's Conan stories "utterly boring and hard to read," something's wrong.


----------



## buzz (Jan 30, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> In my case, I've somehow found it very difficult to read anymore.  I've probably just got too much going on in my life; four kids, will do that to you I suppose.  So I've become very picky.  Books that don't just reach up, grab me by the throat and demand that I finish them tend to not get read, unfortunately.  When I was younger I read mediocre books by the truckload and didn't really think twice about it.



I've found myself in this situation as well. My free time is so precious to me now that I have a hard time committing to anything (reading, gaming, music, social activities, movies, TV) that doesn't absolutely knock my socks off. In turn, this has me focused more on exploring classics of various genres than taking chances on new things that haven't been reccomended to me by what I consider extremely reliable sources. Ergo, I haven't browsed for fantasy or SF books in years (or, for that matter, CD stores or movie theaters).

I suppose this could be a bad thing, actually. Still, there's no harm in being discering; given the massive book-o-plexes, cineramas, and 500 channels of satellite TV, it's become a necessary skill.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 30, 2004)

This all has nothing to do with 'high art' vs. 'low art', 'intellectual' vs. 'popular'. People read for all kinds of reasons, and derive all kinds of different pleasures from the books they read. Its possible to go from Borges and Nabokov one week to King and Clancy [well, not me...] the next. Different kinds of writing, different pleasures.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jan 30, 2004)

I would like to chim in and throw in the name Neil Gaiman. American Gods, Neverwhere and Stardust are fine work of contemp. fantasty fiction, and each is a standalone. Smoke and Mirrors is much the same, except it is all short-stories.

I read somewhere that something like 80 percent of all new technology fails, for one reason or another. I think the same is true for literature - 80 percent of what is on the shelves is not worth the money to buy it and not worth the time to read it.

Gaiman, among others, falls into that 20 percent that is worth reading.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 30, 2004)

RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> I really think alot of this debate boils down to two different types of readers. Readers who do so for some kind of intellectual stimulation and those who do it for enjoyment.



Just to hook in with mmadsen -- you have most definitely invented a contrast that doesn't exist.

I read purely for enjoyment. One of the things I enjoy in a book is having it provide me with intellectual stimulation. It's not the only enjoyment reading can provide me with, but it's definitely one of them. But even when I enjoy a book because it provides me with intellectual stimulation, I am still reading for enjoyment.

These things aren't complicated. Different people enjoy different things. Hurrah!

What's frustrating in these sorts of debates is when people get hung up trying to shield their opinions from criticism (objective/subjective rants, "everybody else thinks" defenses, "I'm such an iconclast" attacks) instead of just throwing their ideas out into the ring and seeing how they fare.

It's human nature to want to be right. And of course, most of us are lazy buggers, so we'd rather be right without having to figure out the truth. And finally, we've learned all our life that it's bad to be wrong. All that adds up to people digging in and insisting that their position is correct -- while trying to prevent debate, or shout down opposing points of view, or find tactics that seem to nullify the need for debate and analysis.

I do it all the time. Cause basically I'm an insecure dork.

I run film sets and I run software development teams and I teach martial arts and in all these enterprises one thing is always true -- if people feel comfortable with being wrong, they will be right more often. Because when you can be wrong, you can enter into real debate on your positions and come out with an answer that is closer to the truth -- INSTEAD of trying to defend your position beyond the point of rationality.

It's very difficult to hear what other people are saying unless you're willing to consider the idea that you might be wrong.

Which neatly contrasts my previous notion that "Sometimes everybody else IS wrong." Life's like that a lot, I find.


----------



## RiggsWolfe (Jan 30, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Oh, I dunno.  That's one of the good(?) things about the Internet, it gives a potential audience to anyone who wants to spout off about any subject.  That doesn't mean he thinks his opinion is better than anyone else's, merely that he has a strong opinion.




It was something about the tone of the website that I found offensive. I have trouble putting it into words, I just felt he came across as feeling like he was superior to those with "less discerning taste". Just a gut feeling really.



> I think you've also hit a crucial point.  I like some of the "classics" of the genre, but have little interest in pursuing some others.  I have a really good friend who considers R.A. Salvatore to be an incredibly talented writer (which, I guess, from a certain point of view I can't argue with), and I read and enjoy plenty of things that don't have the kind of "intrinsic" value that some seem to want to require.  I read books that entertain me.  It helps that I'm entertained by a lot of history, biography, astrophysics, etc. as well.[\qupte]
> 
> Oh don't get me wrong. I read stuff like a "Brief History of Time", various computer programming books, stuff like that. As for the classics of the genre, even Tolkien I find to be hard to read at times. It just...moves slow. I have a similiar problem with Jordan. Especially in the later novels. I've taken to skipping any chapter that has Egwene, Nynaeve, or Elayne in it. (Bad I know, but those three drive me nuts. )
> 
> ...


----------



## RiggsWolfe (Jan 30, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> I believe you've drawn a false dichotomy.
> 
> If you find pulp swords & sorcery "classics" like Robert E. Howard's Conan stories "utterly boring and hard to read," something's wrong.




To answer your first sentence. Why? Why is it a false dichotomy? Admittedly, there are those who read for both reasons. But I have been around long enough to notice that more often the two camps don't meet. For instance, those who do it for some kind of intellectual stimulation tend to be somewhat arrogant and condescending about the "mainstream". The ones who do it purely for enjoyment tend to find the others elitist and snobby. These are of course generalizations, but I see it alot. Especially on college campuses.

As for the Conan stories I've never read them. I will say that most of the older fantasy and sci-fi I've read I disliked. I have that reaction to alot of "classics" across boundaries. (The only exception being movies, I like alot of older movies as much as modern "popcorn" movies.) Perhaps the only exceptions for me would be Asimov, Heinlein, Tolkien, and Bradbury (in small doses for him). Interestingly enough Heinlein would probably be a good example of the kind of sex this website talks about, yet he was a contemporary of Asimov's. (If memory serves. )


----------



## RiggsWolfe (Jan 30, 2004)

Mallus said:
			
		

> This all has nothing to do with 'high art' vs. 'low art', 'intellectual' vs. 'popular'. People read for all kinds of reasons, and derive all kinds of different pleasures from the books they read. Its possible to go from Borges and Nabokov one week to King and Clancy [well, not me...] the next. Different kinds of writing, different pleasures.




No offense, but your reply is what I'm talking about. Did you notice how you had a need to distance yourself from the King and Clancy readers? I on the other hand could care less about Borges and Nabokov.


----------



## RiggsWolfe (Jan 30, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Just to hook in with mmadsen -- you have most definitely invented a contrast that doesn't exist.
> 
> I read purely for enjoyment. One of the things I enjoy in a book is having it provide me with intellectual stimulation. It's not the only enjoyment reading can provide me with, but it's definitely one of them. But even when I enjoy a book because it provides me with intellectual stimulation, I am still reading for enjoyment.




As I said in my reply to MMadsen's post, I was speaking in generalities. See, I view the intellectual reader in much the same way I view film critics. Both of them somewhere along the line ceased to have fun and began to view their chosen form of entertainment as some kind of high artform. I'm not explaining it well, but I truly believe for instance, that it is a rare movie critic who still enjoys movies. They're too jaded. 



> These things aren't complicated. Different people enjoy different things. Hurrah!
> 
> What's frustrating in these sorts of debates is when people get hung up trying to shield their opinions from criticism (objective/subjective rants, "everybody else thinks" defenses, "I'm such an iconclast" attacks) instead of just throwing their ideas out into the ring and seeing how they fare.
> 
> ...


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 30, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> What's frustrating in these sorts of debates is when people get hung up trying to shield their opinions from criticism (objective/subjective rants, "everybody else thinks" defenses, "I'm such an iconclast" attacks) instead of just throwing their ideas out into the ring and seeing how they fare.



Probably because it boils down to "I don't know art, but I know what I like."  At the end of the day, nobody has to justify their tastes, they just are what they are.  It's probably frustrating to say "I like XXXX" and then be shot down for saying that.

Me, I like to debate the finer points of _why_ I like things, so I have no problem with it.  But if I did, I'd probably do exactly what you just said above.


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> It's human nature to want to be right. And of course, most of us are lazy buggers, so we'd rather be right without having to figure out the truth. And finally, we've learned all our life that it's bad to be wrong. All that adds up to people digging in and insisting that their position is correct -- while trying to prevent debate, or shout down opposing points of view, or find tactics that seem to nullify the need for debate and analysis.
> 
> I do it all the time. Cause basically I'm an insecure dork.



That's a good point, but not necessarily applicable to taste in fantasy literature.  I don't argue with my neighbor about why I don't think Salvatore is a particularly good writer, even though he really likes him, because the reason he's a good writer to him is because he reads his books and is entertained by them.  I don't think there's any right or wrong in that regard, nor is there any truth to be figured out.  To me, Salvatore's weaknesses; his reliance on cliches, his overdescriptive combats, his poor dialogue and character development, to use a few examples, stand out more than his positive aspects as a writer, so I'm only marginally interested (if that) in reading something he's written.


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I run film sets and I run software development teams and I teach martial arts and in all these enterprises one thing is always true -- if people feel comfortable with being wrong, they will be right more often. Because when you can be wrong, you can enter into real debate on your positions and come out with an answer that is closer to the truth -- INSTEAD of trying to defend your position beyond the point of rationality.
> 
> It's very difficult to hear what other people are saying unless you're willing to consider the idea that you might be wrong.
> 
> Which neatly contrasts my previous notion that "Sometimes everybody else IS wrong." Life's like that a lot, I find.



Security is really where it's all at.  I find that in "debates" or even discussions of any kind, if I actually _know_ something I'm hard to move.  I used to have a friend that I haven't seen in many years who used to toss off pop science references all the time, when I on the other hand had often read all the _Nature_ and _Science_ and other academic journal publications that were the real scoop on what he was talking about.  Since it was immediately obvious to me that I knew a great deal more about what he was talking about than he did, the fact that he stated his innaccurate information with such authority didn't really serve to move me anywhere.  On the other hand, if I had a well-formed opinion based on purely subjective material, or stuff I had read but not a great deal about, or simply stuff that I hadn't given a lot of thought to, I'm the first to hedge my statements with "In my opinion" or "I belive" or "It seems to me" and I'll gladly admit that I could very well be wrong.

Of course, there's a fine line between academic snobbery here and confidence and security in your own opinion, and willingness to admit that you don't know everything all the time, though.

Hmmm... does any of this have anything to do with fantasy literature?  I really don't know.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 30, 2004)

RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> As I said in my reply to MMadsen's post, I was speaking in generalities. See, I view the intellectual reader in much the same way I view film critics. Both of them somewhere along the line ceased to have fun and began to view their chosen form of entertainment as some kind of high artform. I'm not explaining it well, but I truly believe for instance, that it is a rare movie critic who still enjoys movies. They're too jaded.



For what it's worth, RiggsWolfe, I've got yer back on this one.  I certainly believe such individuals exist, and they tend to be quite vocal.


----------



## RiggsWolfe (Jan 30, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Probably because it boils down to "I don't know art, but I know what I like."  At the end of the day, nobody has to justify their tastes, they just are what they are.  It's probably frustrating to say "I like XXXX" and then be shot down for saying that.




THIS is exactly what I was driving at. People like the guy who wrote that webpage come across like to him, if you like the Fifth Sorceross, a novel I have not read but now am interested in ironically enough, you have to justify it somehow or you're an inferior mind.



> Of course, there's a fine line between academic snobbery here and confidence and security in your own opinion, and willingness to admit that you don't know everything all the time, though.
> 
> Hmmm... does any of this have anything to do with fantasy literature?  I really don't know.




Hehe. I had to restrain myself from speaking too much about academic snobbery, though in my story about the guy I worked with that was precisely what I was thinking about.


----------



## RiggsWolfe (Jan 30, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, RiggsWolfe, I've got yer back on this one.  I certainly believe such individuals exist, and they tend to be quite vocal.




Agreed. To give another movie reference, I long ago became convinced that these types of people are the ones who vote on the Academy Awards, one reason I haven't watched them in over a decade. ::does some math:: 15 years actually. Longer than I thought!

In any case, I am not sure there's much point to arguing to much about the relative merits of current fantasy literature, some people will like it, some won't. Some will view it as more entertaining than past attempts, some will view it as a depressing decline in quality. To each their own.


----------



## RiggsWolfe (Jan 30, 2004)

Confession time. I too am one of those "line straddlers". I enjoy both "high art" and "low art" Especially in movies. I can watch Just Married, then watch a French Import of Cyrano De Bergerac. 

In literature I lean more towards the modern stuff than the old classics, or even the modern classics. My favorites are people like Christoper Stasheff, the occasional Piers Anthony and Steven King, David Farland, the guy who write Honor Harrington, J.K. Rowling, etc.


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 30, 2004)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I read somewhere that something like 80 percent of all new technology fails, for one reason or another. I think the same is true for literature - 80 percent of what is on the shelves is not worth the money to buy it and not worth the time to read it.



Grumpy Celt, you missed a _perfect_ opportunity to invoke Sturgeon's Law: 







			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> "Ninety percent of everything is crud." Derived from a quote by science fiction author Theodore Sturgeon, who once said, "Sure, ninety percent of science fiction is crud. That's because ninety percent of everything is crud." Oddly, when Sturgeon's law is cited, the final word is almost invariably changed to "crap".
> 
> Sturgeon's law might be regarded as an instance of the Pareto principle.



Given that "ninety percent of everything is crud," how do you find a decent fantasy novel to read?  If you're like most fantasy readers, you buy the first book of one of the many _obviously popular_ series on the shelf, then, when you're done, you go back and buy the second one.  It takes a lot of effort to figure out which books are good, so shoppers rely on cues ("There are ten of them; they must be popular.") and experience ("I liked the last one.").

Of course, in this day and age, it's much easier to do some on-line research and find lists of classics, articles on why they're the classics, reviews on Amazon, etc.  Why waste your time with something that isn't likely to be good when you can "cherry pick" the best books from the last century or two?


----------



## Mallus (Jan 30, 2004)

RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> No offense, but your reply is what I'm talking about. Did you notice how you had a need to distance yourself from the King and Clancy readers? I on the other hand could care less about Borges and Nabokov.



Oops. My bad. The bracketted text only applied to Tom Clancy  --I just don't like him. I enjoy King, and a wide variety of epic fantasy that plenty of fantasy afficianodos sneer at; like Eddings and Fiest.

I still think my point stands. There's a lot to like in literature, and to categorically avoid any one type is wrong. Wrong because it cheats the avoider out of a potentially valuable experience.


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 30, 2004)

RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> Why is it a false dichotomy?



Barsoomcore answered this quite nicely: 







			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Just to hook in with mmadsen -- you have most definitely invented a contrast that doesn't exist.
> 
> I read purely for enjoyment. One of the things I enjoy in a book is having it provide me with intellectual stimulation. It's not the only enjoyment reading can provide me with, but it's definitely one of them. But even when I enjoy a book because it provides me with intellectual stimulation, I am still reading for enjoyment.



From his name, you should realize he's not "above" a good, two-fisted, action yarn, but one of the things he enjoys in reading is intellectual stimulation.


			
				RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> For instance, those who do it for some kind of intellectual stimulation tend to be somewhat arrogant and condescending about the "mainstream". The ones who do it purely for enjoyment tend to find the others elitist and snobby. These are of course generalizations, but I see it alot. Especially on college campuses.



Certainly there are pretentious English majors who enjoy _Ulysses_ specifically because you don't.  But there are also people who have read both "classic" pulp and derivative pastiches and much prefer the classics -- which are not at all dry, stuffy, or pretentious.


			
				RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> As for the Conan stories I've never read them.



I highly recommend them -- and not at all because they're "good for you"; they're just good ol' rip-roarin' yarns.


			
				RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> I will say that most of the older fantasy and sci-fi I've read I disliked.



Can you tell us which works bored you?  I can certainly understand finding Tolkien slow.  A pulp editor would have cut the whole _Lord of the Rings_ down to _The Hobbit_'s size.  And, as much as I loved _The Worm Ouroboros_, if you don't enjoy ancient sagas translated into King James' English, the language will kill you.  Similarly, Lord Dunsany's works may drip with poetry and metaphor, but they don't drip with bloody action.

I can't imagine finding Robert E. Howard's works slow or boring though.  I also can't imagine finding Edgar Rice Burrough's stories slow; you may find them corny and dated, but certainly not slow.


----------



## Belen (Jan 30, 2004)

I have read both Conan and Elric and I disliked both.  Fantasy and sci fi are really a matter of taste.

For example, I hate Gene Wolf!  I read the Book of the New Sun and was just disgusted.  

However, I really enjoy the modern authors.  Just because a book is larger does not mean that it is all extraneous language.  In some cases, the larger books allow for more characters and larger plot.  The modern stuff seems far more well-rounded to me.

Yes, you have to weed out a lot of chafe, but then, you always had to weed the field.  For all the Lieber's and Howards out there, another dozen go unnamed even though they published at the time.

Only a very small percentage of books stay in print.

I do not think we need worry about the state of fantasy anytime soon.  

Personally, I lament the death of science fiction.  Very few people still write sf and most of those are in the magazines.  Star Wars and Star Trek have killed most of the original sf.  Heck, you should read the article by John Kessel sometime about the Death of Science Fiction.

Fantasy is easy to write in comparison because you do not need to do near as much research as a sf novel.

Dave


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 30, 2004)

> Ari, did you mean 2000 PAGE opus, there?




D'oh!!  

Yep, I certainly did.



> I do, too. What I'm saying is that they just plain don't sell as well, and really haven't for a long time, in the narrow S&S sub-genre of Fantasy.




Right, but I'm not sure we've got the chicken and the egg in the right order. Do stand-alones not sell as well because people prefer series, or do people buy more series because there are more series than standalones out there in modern fantasy?

Let me clarify:

I have no doubt that, at one point back when the numbers were roughly equal, people were no doubt buying series more than standalones. But I'd hazard a guess that it's _not_ because a majority of the fans prefer epic series to individual books. Look at in terms of numbers (and I'm pulling numbers out of a hat to illustrate something; one again, I don't claim these are statistics).

Let's say that, on average, 1 out of every 10 stories published in fantasy becomes popular. If a story is five books long, it will sell more books than a story that's one book long, because people who like the story want to finish it. It's not that they "prefer" a series; it's that they have to buy more books to finish the story, so the sales indicate that series are more profitable.

In other words, one could argue that series sell better because they _force_ fans to buy more books to get the whole story, rather than because people _inherently_ prefer them.

Publishers realize this, and begin pushing writers to write series, rather than standalones. If a series fails on the first book, the publisher need not continue it, and has lost nothing more than the cost of a single book. Should it succeed, the publisher/writer keep adding to it, and making more off it. Under this model, you're correct that it makes financial sense for publishers to prefer series--but that's _not_ because it's what the majority of the market truly wants.

I don't think series are evil. The vast majority of my favorite fantasy novels are series--but then, I can't think of very many standalone fantasy novels I even _own_ anymore. I'd just like, as a consumer, to have the option of one or the other, and I feel that option has been largely taken away from me in the past decade or so.

(And we won't even talk about what this situation does to those of us who are trying to get novels _published_.)


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 30, 2004)

RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> As I said in my reply to MMadsen's post, I was speaking in generalities. See, I view the intellectual reader in much the same way I view film critics. Both of them somewhere along the line ceased to have fun and began to view their chosen form of entertainment as some kind of high artform. I'm not explaining it well, but I truly believe for instance, that it is a rare movie critic who still enjoys movies. They're too jaded.



What makes you think I'm jaded? What makes you think I have ceased to have fun? What gives you this deep insight into other people's motivations?

You don't know. You're attacking a whole class of people, not because you know anything, but for some reason of your own -- but in any event you're doing so without a shred of evidence.

Are some people snobs? Yep, they sure are.  It is NOT snobbish, however, to state one's tastes. If somebody says "Borges rocks and King sucks" they're not being a snob, they're just telling you what they like. If somebody says "Only jaded cynics like Borges" then they're being a snob.


			
				RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> I suppose my idea is that this kind of thread is an example of my "non-existant" divide. To me saying it doesn't exist is similiar to saying there is no difference between Liberal and Conservative political thought.



The difference between Liberals and Tories is that they share different opinions on how political decisions ought to be made. If you want to say that some people enjoy intellectual stimulation and some people do not, I have no argument. But to pretend that you know people's motivations is just silly, because we all know you don't.

You don't enjoy intellectual stimulation when you read. Well and good. Like I have said, everybody has their own joys and thank heavens for that.


			
				RigssWolfe said:
			
		

> The existence of moderates (where someone like you might fall if we take your reading habits to be an example) does not mean that there are not two different camps. It just means that not everybody falls into those camps.



Here's the thing, though. EVERYBODY'S a moderate, in some way, shape or form. Creating artificial distinctions like this only makes it harder to hear what somebody's saying, because now they have to overcome your tendency to lump them into a group. They have to first demonstrate why they don't just fall into one of these categories before they can even get listened to.

Categorization (generalization) like this inhibits communication.


			
				RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> You again, are an exception that proves the rule.



Exceptions DON'T prove the rule. They do the opposite. A rule that admits to exceptions isn't a rule at all, it's a false generalization.


			
				RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> In this case, this whole thread revolves around opinions however, which gets us into a subjective area.



So what? As I have noted, the fact that we're talking about subjective opinions doesn't mean we can't have meaningful debates. Convince me that there really are two kinds of readers and that only one kind reads for enjoyment.

Note that I'm not saying NOBODY reads for something other than enjoyment. I'm saying that since it's impossible to know why anybody does anything, using such speculations as evidence for any conclusions is pointless. Much more useful and fun and interesting is for you to tell me what you like or dislike and why. Why don't you like Hemingway? What makes Asimov so great? Those are opinions about which we can have useful conversations.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 30, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I have read both Conan and Elric and I disliked both.  Fantasy and sci fi are really a matter of taste.



I love Howard, despise Moorcock.  As you say, it's all about taste.


			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> However, I really enjoy the modern authors.  Just because a book is larger does not mean that it is all extraneous language.  In some cases, the larger books allow for more characters and larger plot.  The modern stuff seems far more well-rounded to me.



Exactly.  Although Robert Jordan is tossed out as a particularly egregious example of bloated writing, pretty much anyone will agree that it wasn't always the case (although they'll disagree as to when exactly the Wheel of Time became big in a good way to big in a bloated, swollen corpse on the side of the road way.)  I like the fact that characters can come and go, plots can entwine into Gordion Knot's -- you simply can't do that in a smaller work.  So big is not equal to bad, it's just that big for big's sake is bad.  


			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Personally, I lament the death of science fiction.  Very few people still write sf and most of those are in the magazines.  Star Wars and Star Trek have killed most of the original sf.  Heck, you should read the article by John Kessel sometime about the Death of Science Fiction.
> 
> Fantasy is easy to write in comparison because you do not need to do near as much research as a sf novel.



Does anyone actually write science fiction anymore?  It seems like "science fiction" these days is simply fantasy (or some other genre) with "science fiction trappings" thrown on top.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 30, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> What makes you think I'm jaded? What makes you think I have ceased to have fun? What gives you this deep insight into other people's motivations?
> 
> You don't know. You're attacking a whole class of people, not because you know anything, but for some reason of your own -- but in any event you're doing so without a shred of evidence.
> 
> Are some people snobs? Yep, they sure are.  It is NOT snobbish, however, to state one's tastes. If somebody says "Borges rocks and King sucks" they're not being a snob, they're just telling you what they like. If somebody says "Only jaded cynics like Borges" then they're being a snob.



I dunno, I agree with RiggsWolfe.  I don't know (and I'm not saying) that _you_ or anyone else on this thread is a literary snob, but I think it's not particularly useful to pretend that such people don't exist.  I do have more than a shred of evidence of such people, I've known some very well.

Although you also make a great counterpoint -- brushing off the "classics" as without merit because only "snobs like that kind of stuff" is just as snobbish.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 30, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Personally, I lament the death of science fiction. Very few people still write sf and most of those are in the magazines. Star Wars and Star Trek have killed most of the original sf. Heck, you should read the article by John Kessel sometime about the Death of Science Fiction.



Humor the ignorant, How is SF dead?  Do you mean that you don't care for what is published as SF currently?  Because, as far as I can tell, there's a lot of SF hitting the stores at any given time.  I went and checked Locus to see if there'd been a sudden slowdown, and there certainly wasn't, AFAICT.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 30, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> For example, I hate Gene Wolf!  I read the Book of the New Sun and was just disgusted.



What the H*ll is wrong with.... I mean, what didn't you enjoy about them?   Where you really disgusted? Why am I hijacking a hijack? There must be pirates about.



> Fantasy is easy to write in comparison because you do not need to do near as much research as a sf novel.



That postion seems to discount all the science fiction published with bad/nonexistant science that still succeed as SF. Good science doesn't neccessarily equate to good science fiction [start with Shelly's Frankenstein and continue on up through Gibsons' Sprawl, Simmons' Hyperion Cantos --the Shrike and his Tree as lovely inventions without a lick of hard science in them , and Banks' Culture --"Just say to yourself, its all done with _fields_"]

There's always been a place in SF for science as metaphor and literary device,  where science and the trappings of SF are only a kind of idiom. 

And I'd argue that writing a good fantasy epic pretty much demands a lot of research, just in different fields.


----------



## takyris (Jan 30, 2004)

Ditto much of the above.  I got my MA in English from Stanford, and I still enjoy George R.R. Martin and Robin Hobb.  I also loved Ulysses and had some great conversations about Plato's Republic.  And I found Aristotle bland and Aquinas pinheaded.  There are certainly snobs out there, but really, once you've said "They're snobs," you pretty much have concluded the conversation.

I occasionally read King and enjoy him, because much of his work is able to draw me in.  I find him great at giving me the one telling detail that turns it from a story into something I'm really experiencing.

I like Modessit because, even if I don't agree with his social extrapolations, I find it fascinating to see what conclusions he draws.

I dislike Goodkind a lot.  It's only my opinion, but it's a very very strong one.

And I love Pratchett because he makes me laugh, and then surprises me by making me think.

And on Sunday, I finished the rough draft of my next novel, a swashbuckling, high-fantasy, gender-reversed retelling of _Pride & Prejudice_.  I'd talk about the swordfight on the balcony, the coach chase, and the use of jellyfish symbiotes to facilitate spellcasting, but it's probably too dry and snobbish for you.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 30, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I like to debate the finer points of _why_ I like things, so I have no problem with it.  But if I did, I'd probably do exactly what you just said above.



One of the corollaries of that is that if we want to have a community where such debates can be held, then it's the responsibility of all us to try and create an environment where people feel like they can express their opinions and be attacked not for the opinions themselves, but only for the evidence or logic that supports them.

I mean, it's PERFECTLY acceptable to say, "I like Spam and I don't know why and I don't care and I'm not going to listen to any arguments that it's gross." That's a fine argument, and frankly, I prefer statements like that rather than logical runarounds like appeals to popularity or ad hominem. If you don't want to debate your tastes, I'm never going to insist that you have to.

I think it's FUN to do so. I learn a lot by doing so. (intellectual stimulation = fun, remember?)


			
				JD said:
			
		

> I don't argue with my neighbor about why I don't think Salvatore is a particularly good writer, even though he really likes him, because the reason he's a good writer to him is because he reads his books and is entertained by them.  I don't think there's any right or wrong in that regard, nor is there any truth to be figured out.



Well, let us say, the opinion itself possesses no right or wrong,or truth or falsehood. I don't think investigating one's opinions on art is useful because we end up with better opinions (we might, but that's not the real usefulness of it) -- it's useful to do so because we end with a better understanding of OURSELVES.

When you defend your opinions to others, you find out what your opinions really are. You find out what actually matters to you, as opposed to what you've been telling yourself matters to you.


			
				JD said:
			
		

> Since it was immediately obvious to me that I knew a great deal more about what he was talking about than he did, the fact that he stated his innaccurate information with such authority didn't really serve to move me anywhere.



How about this: it can often be clear that you have very little to gain by entering into a debate with certain people. It would be of almost no value to me whatsoever to discuss with you the intricacies of Katori Shinto Ryu kenjutsu. You're unlikely to have opinions on such a subject that will provide me with new insights (unless this is another one of those creepy cases you and I are always having where we turn out to have the same idiosyncratic obsessions).

That's not to say I should disregard anything you say -- whatever statements you do make I should consider just like anyone else's -- it just means that the PROBABILITY of you giving me new insights into such a subject is low, and therefore my incentive to invest much energy in such a discussion is low.


			
				JD said:
			
		

> Of course, there's a fine line between academic snobbery here and confidence and security in your own opinion, and willingness to admit that you don't know everything all the time, though.



Actually, I would argue that snobbery derives from INSECURITY, not the opposite. True confidence doesn't need to denigrate others or prove its own superiority.

I have never pretended that there aren't snobs in this world. God knows. What I'm saying is that the idea that people either "read for enjoyment" or "read for intellectual stimulation" is a false distinction.


----------



## jester47 (Jan 30, 2004)

I have a theory of whats called "the sandbox."  The sandbox is required for sucess in creative endeavors.  It is simply this:  The limits that are imposed on an artist, writer, performer or some other person of artistic means.  Who imploses them is of no real importance.  They just have to be there for genius to work.  The artistry is when you toe the line between out of the sandbox and inthe sandbox.  Take the lines away and you get really bad art.  (obviously that is subjective but I would wager that many many more people like art that pushes the barrier and sort of stretches it to a new perspective than breaks the barrier.)

The closer to the edge of the sandbox your art gets without spilling over, the more people like it.  And since the edge of the sandbox stretches when this happens, good art makes it move slowly.  So eventually your cutting edge art becomes mainstream.  I think this is what happened between the Hobbit and LotR.  The Hobbit was right on the edge when it came out.  So JRRT added a bunch of sand and went to work on a magnum opus.  But the extra sand often overwealms the readers.  With Dune (appropriate for the sandbox analogy, no?) the problem was not too much sand but getting out of the sandbox.  The first two books are in the sandbox with the first streatching the sandbox a little and making room for the second.  Then we get started with the third book and the work rapidly goes out of control and gets too weird for most.  

There are some interaesting concepts here:

1.  Epic quests that span several books where the beginning of the story and end of the story are in separate books are really just one book broken up like LotR, Sword of Shanara etc.  

2.  Episodic novels and short stories where places and people and concepts are reused but are self contained stories.

3.  Serials.  These can be shorts ala the Three Musketeers or Foundation, or they can be big long stories like Robert Jordans current work.  

Combine these with the sandbox and you have a way of looking at the state of fantasy lit in such a way where we can see the terrain.  

Aaron.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 30, 2004)

takyris said:
			
		

> And on Sunday, I finished the rough draft of my next novel, a swashbuckling, high-fantasy, gender-reversed retelling of _Pride & Prejudice_.  I'd talk about the swordfight on the balcony, the coach chase, and the use of jellyfish symbiotes to facilitate spellcasting, but it's probably too dry and snobbish for you.



Hey, loving the dry and snobbish. Feel free to elaborate.

And congratulations, taky. How do we go about getting review copies?


----------



## Mallus (Jan 30, 2004)

takyris said:
			
		

> And on Sunday, I finished the rough draft of my next novel, a swashbuckling, high-fantasy, gender-reversed retelling of _Pride & Prejudice_.  I'd talk about the swordfight on the balcony, the coach chase, and the use of jellyfish symbiotes to facilitate spellcasting, but it's probably too dry and snobbish for you.



Hey, Taky... nicely done. Its always nice to hear about people finishing drafts of novels [nope, not a trace of self-recrimination and perhaps even self-pity in this post. Nope, not at all...].

It sounds interesting. Do you put samples of your work on the Web?


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jan 30, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Grumpy Celt, you missed a _perfect_ opportunity to invoke Sturgeon's_law]Sturgeon's Law




I had never heard of Sturgeon's Law before, but I would say that is fair - if harsh - assesment.



> Of course, in this day and age, it's much easier to do some on-line research




Well, I am not hung up on the classics - Howard irritates me and Tolkien can be exhausting - but I sample books based on the rep. of the author, to see if I like it.


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 30, 2004)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I had never heard of Sturgeon's Law before, but I would say that is fair - if harsh - assesment.



Nothing harsh was meant, Grump; it simply was the _perfect_ opportunity to invoke Sturgeon's Law.


----------



## takyris (Jan 30, 2004)

Sorry to hijack.  On the one hand, some of the comments hit close to home, because the idea for this novel was a direct result of me saying, "You know, I'm coming close to writing stuff I wouldn't want to read out of a desire to be seen as Good and Intriguing by all the writing folks I hang out with.  I need to bring back the fun goofy stuff I'm actually good at."

On the other hand, I completed a draft of my novel on Sunday, which means that you could ask me about how to get dog-poop out of the treads of your sneakers and I'd find a way to work my novel into it ("Well, ideally, a sharp stick and then something rough, like a welcome mat, which reminds me, in the novel I completed just last week, I had this great scene where the hero compares the villain to ostrich dung...").

As for web stuff: Nope, since I'm planning to rewrite it and send it to editors, and putting it up on the web raises questions about prior publication.  It's just generally considered a no-no.  When I send it to my buddies, I usually do it from a secure, out-of-the-way FTP site.  My slightly out-of-date website has links to two of my short stories online, though: http://patrick.wuut.net

As for review copies: How about when I get done with the next draft?  You know the one where I added a setting, fixed the enormous plotholes, figured out the voice I want my characters to use, and made the prophecies coherent?  One of the reasons I actually finish novels is the fact that I'm not afraid to write a really lousy first draft.  I can't fix something that isn't done yet. 

Mallus: Just do it.  Sit down every day and don't get up until you've got 500 (or 1000, or 250, or whatever) words cranked out.  And don't go back to fix things up unless you need to fix a glaring plothole.  Keep moving forward.  (Um.  This is what works for me.  YMMV)

As for elaboration: Don't even get me started.  What I will say is that after writing one of these swashbuckler dealies, I understand why every swashbuckling movie has a stage-coach fight.  Coach fights kick ASS.  And on the snob note, I reread P&P so that I could outline the plot events, and I was amazed, upon reading it with new eyes, at how incredibly sarcastic and angry Austen was.  She was writing something revolutionary, showing how the supposedly passive women could scheme and plan just as much as the supposedly active men, and she was just enormously peeved at all the unfairness of it -- and she managed to turn that anger into a kickass love story.

I don't capture that, not by a long stretch, but if I can find some way to take that idea and at least use it to be true to what I want my own story to be, that would rock.


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Jan 30, 2004)

There are still quite a few people out there writing old-fashioned, mind-blowing hard SF.  Greg Egan comes to mind - check out Diaspora.  He's also written a lot of great short stories, like "Reasons to be Cheerful" and "Oceanic", some of which can be found online.  Great stuff.

Ooh, and while I'm posting:  yes, there are forms of insecurity that lead to attacking everyone around you in an attempt to make yourself look good.  There are also forms that deny the existence of any kind of standards and insist that "everyone's opinion is valid", even though it violently refuses to consider the idea that the opinion that not all opinions are valid is valid.  I suspect this is really just an alternate, inverted form of the first kind of fear, one that strives for universal equality by dragging everything down to its level.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 30, 2004)

takyris said:
			
		

> "You know, I'm coming close to writing stuff I wouldn't want to read out of a desire to be seen as Good and Intriguing by all the writing folks I hang out with.  I need to bring back the fun goofy stuff I'm actually good at."



Dude, I went right through that milestone myself. I suspect it'll come round again.

My wife (working on her novel) has a big post-it note attached to her computer monitor: "This is supposed to be FUN!"

I bet you get that.


			
				takyris said:
			
		

> One of the reasons I actually finish novels is the fact that I'm not afraid to write a really lousy first draft.



It's very hard to get anything done if you aren't afraid to suck. I figured out pretty early on that I was basically going to suck at everything. Which has made it much easier for me to do all sorts of stuff, cause when I find out I suck at it, it doesn't surprise me.


			
				takyris said:
			
		

> Coach fights kick ASS.



Yes. Yes, yes, they do.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 30, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I don't know (and I'm not saying) that _you_ or anyone else on this thread is a literary snob, but I think it's not particularly useful to pretend that such people don't exist.



Sure, literary snobs exist, but what's the point in talking about them? 

Its much more interesting to do as BC suggests and create an environment where people people can discuss their differing repsonses to different works with the goal of mutual enlightment and enjoyment. Without resorting to words like 'snob', 'jaded', or 'bug-f*** crazy'.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 30, 2004)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Its much more interesting to do as BC suggests and create an environment where people people can discuss their differing repsonses to different works with the goal of mutual enlightment and enjoyment. Without resorting to words like 'snob', 'jaded', or 'bug-f*** crazy'.



Yeah, but who wants to be in an environment where we can't call each other 'bug-f*** crazy'?

You crazy bug-f***er. 

Sorry, but 'bug-f*** carzy' has to be one of my favourite epithets of all time. Hee.


----------



## RiggsWolfe (Jan 30, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Can you tell us which works bored you?  I can certainly understand finding Tolkien slow.  A pulp editor would have cut the whole _Lord of the Rings_ down to _The Hobbit_'s size.  And, as much as I loved _The Worm Ouroboros_, if you don't enjoy ancient sagas translated into King James' English, the language will kill you.  Similarly, Lord Dunsany's works may drip with poetry and metaphor, but they don't drip with bloody action.
> 
> I can't imagine finding Robert E. Howard's works slow or boring though.  I also can't imagine finding Edgar Rice Burrough's stories slow; you may find them corny and dated, but certainly not slow.




I never have liked Kings James versions of anything. Probably came from my exposure to it in the bible as a child.  In fact, I blame King James for my early aversion to Shakespeare, though as I got older I grew to really like Shakespeare, especially once I figured out the rhythm to reading it.

To be honest, most of the classics I read I read so long ago I don't truly remember any. I remember Ray Bradbury had about a fifty percent success rate with me. Some of his stuff I liked. Some of it I found really, really bizzare. George Orwell tended to move slow for me, though I do admit I blazed through Around the World in 80 Days. I think part of it is there was a cultural difference back when these classics were written and as you said it makes them dated and corny. Perhaps that is what I have trouble getting past.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 30, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Sorry, but 'bug-f*** carzy' has to be one of my favourite epithets of all time.



Mine too.


----------



## RiggsWolfe (Jan 30, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I have read both Conan and Elric and I disliked both.  Fantasy and sci fi are really a matter of taste.
> 
> Personally, I lament the death of science fiction.  Very few people still write sf and most of those are in the magazines.  Star Wars and Star Trek have killed most of the original sf.  Heck, you should read the article by John Kessel sometime about the Death of Science Fiction.
> 
> ...




I have never read either, though I suspect from reading a summary of the Elric novels that they'd depress the hell out of me. I'm not a big fan of masochist fiction, IE, the main character suffers constantly.

As for Sci-Fi, the only recent Sci-Fi I can think of that I read and liked that wasn't Star Wars (I long ago bored of Star Trek novels) are Honor Harrington and the Deathstalker series. (Though I haven't picked up the last two Deathstalker books.)


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 30, 2004)

RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> George Orwell tended to move slow for me, though I do admit I blazed through Around the World in 80 Days.



That would be Jules Verne. A much better story-teller than ol' George.

It's funny readin _Around the World in 80 Days_ when you have some political context -- watching the philosophical and still pragmatic French servant save the day for his fussy, stuck-up, egotistical English employer is pretty comical.


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Jan 30, 2004)

There's also the very important point that works that were highly influential inevitably negated their own worth.  If someone's performance raises the bar, it follows that what was once an exceptional work is now the bare minimum.

There was a time when stream-of-consciousness was absolutely revolutionary.  Now we take it for granted, and we no longer realize how brilliant the author of the first work to feature it was.


----------



## RiggsWolfe (Jan 30, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> What makes you think I'm jaded? What makes you think I have ceased to have fun? What gives you this deep insight into other people's motivations?
> 
> You don't know. You're attacking a whole class of people, not because you know anything, but for some reason of your own -- but in any event you're doing so without a shred of evidence.[\quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## RiggsWolfe (Jan 30, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Although you also make a great counterpoint -- brushing off the "classics" as without merit because only "snobs like that kind of stuff" is just as snobbish.




Note I have never said the classics are without merit. I've said I don't particularly enjoy most of them. Even Lord of the Rings I've only read twice as compared to some more modern series I have read probably half a dozen times. I am not sure WHY I don't. I think it is a different feel, sometimes the classics feel to me like they were written by these kind of stuffy gentlemen who would faint if you said a curse word in front of them or something. Who knows...


----------



## RiggsWolfe (Jan 30, 2004)

Mallus said:
			
		

> That postion seems to discount all the science fiction published with bad/nonexistant science that still succeed as SF. Good science doesn't neccessarily equate to good science fiction [start with Shelly's Frankenstein and continue on up through Gibsons' Sprawl, Simmons' Hyperion Cantos --the Shrike and his Tree as lovely inventions without a lick of hard science in them , and Banks' Culture --"Just say to yourself, its all done with _fields_"]
> 
> There's always been a place in SF for science as metaphor and literary device,  where science and the trappings of SF are only a kind of idiom.
> 
> And I'd argue that writing a good fantasy epic pretty much demands a lot of research, just in different fields.




You know, I've never given it much thought before, but I much prefer Science Fiction with "Bad" science to Hard Science Fiction as it's called. Perhaps because the novels with bad science feel more imaginative to me.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 30, 2004)

A couple brief hijacks:

First, if you wanna read a fantastic western written recently, pick up something by Cormac McCarthy.  Might I specifically recommend _Blood Meridian_?  Not only is it a great story, it's even all literamary 'n stuff.  It's definitely got good inspiration for running scary creepy games, too.

Second, for a good romance written recently, check out Joyce Carol Oates' _A Bloodsmoor Romance_.  Someone described it "as if _Little Women_ were written by Stephen King."  Great description of a hilariously weird book; again; it's also a hifalutin book by a Real Live Respectable Author.  But that's less important than the fact that you'll have great fun reading it (if you can get past the rather slow first third).

Third, there's plenty of great standalones being written; the book I'm reading right now, _The Grand Ellipse_, is one such book.  If you see it at the library, pick it up and read the prologue; if nothing else, it'll teach you how to run elementals in your D&D game .

Fourth, very interesting conversation; carry on!

Daniel


----------



## RiggsWolfe (Jan 30, 2004)

jester47 said:
			
		

> 1.  Epic quests that span several books where the beginning of the story and end of the story are in separate books are really just one book broken up like LotR, Sword of Shanara etc.
> 
> 2.  Episodic novels and short stories where places and people and concepts are reused but are self contained stories.
> 
> ...




Oddly enough you listed them in the order I prefer to read. Probably my big disappointment with Jordan is I got into it thinking I was reading Type 1 and am now stuck with Type 3. Still reading, though I have decided not to pick up "The New Spring".


----------



## Mallus (Jan 30, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Not only is it a great story, it's even all literamary 'n stuff.  It's definitely got good inspiration for running scary creepy games, too.



_Blood Meridian_ is good inspiration for crawling under a large rock and never coming out.


----------



## RiggsWolfe (Jan 30, 2004)

takyris said:
			
		

> Sorry to hijack.  On the one hand, some of the comments hit close to home, because the idea for this novel was a direct result of me saying, "You know, I'm coming close to writing stuff I wouldn't want to read out of a desire to be seen as Good and Intriguing by all the writing folks I hang out with.  I need to bring back the fun goofy stuff I'm actually good at."




Ah-ha! A perfect example of my proposed two camps. Fun and goofy vs appealing to the "writing folks". Give me fun and goofy anytime!

 As for finishing your novel. Good job. I used to write alot, but then my muse was savagely murdered, drawn and quartered, resurrected, staked and turned to dust. As a result I haven't written so much as a short story in more than ten years. The urges hit alot lately though.


----------



## RiggsWolfe (Jan 30, 2004)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Sure, literary snobs exist, but what's the point in talking about them?
> 
> Its much more interesting to do as BC suggests and create an environment where people people can discuss their differing repsonses to different works with the goal of mutual enlightment and enjoyment. Without resorting to words like 'snob', 'jaded', or 'bug-f*** crazy'.




The reason I brought them up is that I felt that the writer of that website that got this whole thing started rested very firmly in the literary snob camp. That and it made me cringe to see an author's work attacked so savagely in what is a very public way. (The internet) I just sort of felt this irrational urge to defend the guy for some reason.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 30, 2004)

RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> Ah-ha! A perfect example of my proposed two camps. Fun and goofy vs appealing to the "writing folks". Give me fun and goofy anytime!



Not so fast... 

It could also be a perfect example of the ever-evolving process of finding's one voice. And the specific manner of fiction one wants to write.


----------



## RiggsWolfe (Jan 30, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> That would be Jules Verne. A much better story-teller than ol' George.
> 
> It's funny readin _Around the World in 80 Days_ when you have some political context -- watching the philosophical and still pragmatic French servant save the day for his fussy, stuck-up, egotistical English employer is pretty comical.




Ack! You're right. I switched them. I tend to do that alot with those two for some reason. Some kind of mental block. I pretty much imagined the Englishman in that story like the characters in this old Nintendo game I had. They'd walk blindly forward and you had to raise and lower doors, change ramps, lower boards over pits, etc to keep them alive. Of course they never noticed. 

I just remembered another of the classics I Did like. I tended to enjoy H.G. Wells alot and I liked Frankenstein, though not Dracula. I also really liked Edgar Allen Poe.


----------



## RiggsWolfe (Jan 30, 2004)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Not so fast...
> 
> It could also be a perfect example of the ever-evolving process of finding's one voice. And the specific manner of fiction one wants to write.




Of course it was an example of finding one's voice. But read it again. He was speaking, in my opinion of course, of feeling a pressure to write something that would be recognized by the academic establishment as having merit. Along the way he changed his mind and decided to write for himself and make it "goofy fun".

Edit: About your signature, I recently read that there is now a theory that Joan of Arc wasn't burned at the stake after all, that another woman was killed in her place and she was sort of quietly retired and lived to a ripe old age.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 30, 2004)

RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> Actually, I have never commented on your specific reading habits one way or another.



Indeed you have. You claimed that there were two types of people -- people who read for enjoyment and people who read for intellectual stimulation. 

Given that I read for intellectual stimulation (among other things, but still) then any statement you make about those people in general must apply to me in specific.

I'm not getting defensive. If I was getting defensive I'd be indulging in "Yeah!? Sez who?" kind of behaviour. What I'm doing is applying your generalizations to specific cases -- mainly in order to show that making generalizations like this is useless. If they don't apply in all cases then how do you determine in which cases they DO apply?

What we are seeing in this very debate is that your generalizations fail the moment they  get applied to ANY individual -- you always have to start from scratch anyway so you've wasted your time developing and presenting these generalizations. They haven't helped you.


			
				RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> It is being implied that if you like King and not Borges then you must like inferior trash rather than classics. (snip) When a group tries to imply not that "King sucks" but that King's fiction is inferior to Borge's fiction and with it, carry a implication that those who like it aren't discerning readers well....



I happen to think King's fiction IS inferior to Borges'. I happen to think I can show why.

I am NOT implying that people who like King aren't discerning readers. YOU are making that implication, not me. A statement of taste is nothing more or less than that. If you want to take from that an attack on yourself, it is YOU who are doing it.

I'm not saying (again) that snobs don't exist. But you are saying that ANY statement of the type that fiction A is inferior to fiction B carries with it an implication of insult to people who hold opposing viewpoints -- and that's not true.

It is possible to discuss ideas without any reference to the people who hold those ideas. Indeed, that ability is at the very center of rational debate.


			
				RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> I didn't say I don't enjoy intellectual stimulation. I said it's not the reason I read. I read for enjoyment. If I get intellectual stimulation, that's an added bonus.



Okay, let's examine that. You didn't say that you don't enjoy intellectual stimulation.

That's not quite the same as saying that you ENJOY intellectual stimulation. But let's assume that it's true, that you enjoy intellectual stimulation. If my assumption is incorrect, then I'm wasting my time, but that's okay.

So you enjoy intellectual stimulation. Which means, at the very least, that intellectual stimulation falls into the category of "things that can cause enjoyment". So when somebody reads for intellectual stimulation, they are reading so as to experience one of the things that can cause enjoyment. Similar to reading for humour, or action or romance, or whatever. I think this is identical to saying that they are reading for enjoyment.

Ergo, people reading for intellectual stimulation ARE reading for enjoyment. Ergo, your distinction between the two categories is false. This isn't my opinion, it's a result of logical analysis. If there's a flaw in my reasoning, please point it out.


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Categorization (generalization) like this inhibits communication.





			
				RiggsWofe said:
			
		

> This statement is hard to respond to.



That's because it's true. It's not HARD to respond to -- it's IMPOSSIBLE to refute.

Generalizations inhibit communication. Is that untrue? Prove it. I don't believe you can, because I believe it's true.


			
				RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> Of course noone is TOTALLY in one camp or another.



Then why try to divide them into these camps in the first place? It accomplishes nothing. You still have to deal with each individual on their own terms, so why waste time trying to pretend there's these easy categories you can stick them into?


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Exceptions DON'T prove the rule. They do the opposite. A rule that admits to exceptions isn't a rule at all, it's a false generalization.





			
				RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> Ok. (snip) Just because some people straddle a line doesn't mean the line doesn't exist.



Yes, it does. Or at least, it means the line doesn't show us anything very useful -- so why should we waste time worrying about it? Logical distinctions ought to make understanding easier. Generalizations about people do not do this. They make it harder. They lead us to false conclusions. They make it easier for us to be lazy.


			
				RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> Shades of gray are very difficult to argue.



Shades of grey are NOT difficult to argue. If you want to argue that something or other is a little bit of this and a little bit of that -- that's not any more difficult to argue that to say that it's all one or the other. Both need evidentary support if they're going to carry any "convincibility".


			
				RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> It's alot easier to generalize two different sides and go with the assumption that to some extent most people belong to one side or another.



Yeah, it sure is.


			
				RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> I don't like Hemingway because I find his novels hard to read and they are from a viewpoint I don't particularly empathize with. Reading Hemingway to me is like being told a story by a very wordy old man and it's not even an interesting story. I like Asimov because despite being writtenin the 1950's it still feels "modern". In addition, I have never felt like Asimov was condescending to me.



If you have any interest in getting to like Hemingway (not saying you should, but IF) first off, read his short stories -- he's one of the best short story writers ever (I would not say he was one of the best novelists). Secondly (or firstly) read _Death in the Afternoon_ a non-fiction book he wrote about bull-fighting. It really is a wordy old man telling you stories -- but what stories. It's really awesome -- after you finish reading it, I guarantee you will want bullfighters in your campaign.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 30, 2004)

RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> Ah-ha! A perfect example of my proposed two camps. Fun and goofy vs appealing to the "writing folks". Give me fun and goofy anytime!



What? That's no example of anything.

I'm prepared to say this a few more times but eventually I'm going to give up: snobs exist. I do not oppose the suggestion that some people are obnoxious snobs. I won't even go up against the idea that university literature departments are rife with such snobs.

But the fact that some people are snobs in no way supports the idea that there are only two kinds of readers -- those who read for enjoyment and those who read for intellectual stimulation. The ideas aren't even related.

If you want to say that people attacking that writer are literary snobs, well, I'll listen. You'll need to provide some evidence to convince me, however. Saying that there are only two types of readers, and the type that doesn't like this book are snobs isn't doing very much to do so. You might as well just define the word "snob" to mean "people who don't like _The Fifth Sorceress_."


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 30, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> One of the corollaries of that is that if we want to have a community where such debates can be held, then it's the responsibility of all us to try and create an environment where people feel like they can express their opinions and be attacked not for the opinions themselves, but only for the evidence or logic that supports them.



Absolutely.  One of the reasons I spend way more time than I should cruising the boards here.


			
				BC said:
			
		

> Well, let us say, the opinion itself possesses no right or wrong,or truth or falsehood. I don't think investigating one's opinions on art is useful because we end up with better opinions (we might, but that's not the real usefulness of it) -- it's useful to do so because we end with a better understanding of OURSELVES.
> 
> When you defend your opinions to others, you find out what your opinions really are. You find out what actually matters to you, as opposed to what you've been telling yourself matters to you.



Yeah, but in this case I got the same benefit just from hearing him mention several times that he really likes Salvatore, and I had to think about "why do you like him so much?"  and "why do I not think he's that great?"  I mean, sure, I like to talk about it too, but in that particular case, you have to know your audience.  Not that I couldn't talk to him about it or anything, but it wouldn't have been the kind of discussion we're having here, for instance.


			
				BC said:
			
		

> How about this: it can often be clear that you have very little to gain by entering into a debate with certain people. It would be of almost no value to me whatsoever to discuss with you the intricacies of Katori Shinto Ryu kenjutsu. You're unlikely to have opinions on such a subject that will provide me with new insights (unless this is another one of those creepy cases you and I are always having where we turn out to have the same idiosyncratic obsessions).





			
				bc said:
			
		

> Not this time around.  However, the aforementioned Salvatore fan could probably fill in for me there.  Actually, I would argue that snobbery derives from INSECURITY, not the opposite. True confidence doesn't need to denigrate others or prove its own superiority.



While the motivation is the polar opposite, the behavior itself isn'y all that different at times.


----------



## takyris (Jan 30, 2004)

Well, both, actually.  I *do* like the classics, but what I was writing wasn't actually classical.  I was in an SF writing group, and I was feeling pressure (self-created and based on what people said they found interesting, as opposed to "a fun light story") to write heavy stuff with a ton of philosophy and an unreliable narrator and no plot or action scenes.

What I discovered is that I love the classics, but also that most of the classics, at the time they were written, were intended to be incredibly freakin' popular and entertaining.  I think that if Shakespeare were resurrected and told about, say, a space-opera retelling of Macbeth that was an enormous summer hit smash and combined the strength of his original ideas about fidelity and guilt with flashy effects and revamped writing for the modern audience, Ol' Billy would be annoyed for about thirty seconds, and then he'd smile and be glad that his stories are valued enough to be carried on and changed to meet the needs of a new audience.

(He'd still be ticked off about _Strange Brew_, though.)

So I don't think of myself as having turned my backs on the classics, because I love 'em.  In fact, I think that the classics have been stolen by the stuffy people and neutered by centuries of academic debate designed to advance the pet project of a thousand professors fighting for tenure.  When you learn to read Shakespeare's language, he's making sex jokes up the wazoo.  He's raunchy.  He's playing for the people in the cheap seats just as much as he is for the people in the booths.  His monologues aren't supposed to be delivered in a thoughtful, controlled voice -- half of the time, they oughta be screamed or ranted.  You look at _Henry IV, part i_, and it's a dry political drama with a lot of complex language, but *really*, it's the story of a screw-up son who doesn't want to inherit his dad's business -- he just wants to pal around with his hell-raising sidekick buddy.  And then some bad guys come in, and everything hits the fan, and the son rolls out his shoulders and cracks his knuckles and says, "Well, s, I guess I *do* care about this stuff," and unloads a can of whoopass on the bad guys and redeems himself in his father's eyes.

C'mon.  Cast Will Smith (Henry) and Martin Lawrence (Falstaff) in this thing, with Samuel Jackson as the dad and Clancy Brown as the bad guy.  Put the end fight on a moving subway, only still with swords -- instead of being English royalty, have them be the heirs to mystical magical power that has lain hidden in the world for millenia.

That movie would kick so much ass.

But in order to make it, somebody has to understand the old language first somebody who likes the classics enough to go in and see what they're really about but who isn't so rarified that he turns up his nose at modern entertainment.  Kind of like a cultural translator.

Enter the Tacky.

Someday.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 30, 2004)

Now if only I could talk barsoomcore out of his ridiculous position that snobs don't exist...


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 30, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Now if only I could talk barsoomcore out of his ridiculous position that snobs don't exist...



Oh yeah!? Just you try it! My logic is unassailable! I'm right right right right right....

I'm not listening, not listening, not listening...

Ah, heck, it's all subjective, anyway.


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Jan 31, 2004)

Am I the only person here who enjoys intellectual stimulation and is intellectually stimulated by enjoyable things?

Thought so.  Drat.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 31, 2004)

Wrath of the Swarm said:
			
		

> Am I the only person here who enjoys intellectual stimulation and is intellectually stimulated by enjoyable things?



*pokes Wrath of the Swarm with a sharp stick and runs away*

I got yer intellectual stimulation right here, buster!


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Jan 31, 2004)

I wouldn't do that if I were you.  People who make me angry tend to become riddled with horrible sentient parasites that monitor their every move.

Or just ripped to pieces and scattered to the twenty-six vertices of the universe...


----------



## RiggsWolfe (Jan 31, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Indeed you have. You claimed that there were two types of people -- people who read for enjoyment and people who read for intellectual stimulation.
> 
> Given that I read for intellectual stimulation (among other things, but still) then any statement you make about those people in general must apply to me in specific.




And why must it apply to you in specific? At this point I probably need to go back and reread my original post, but basically what I was saying was there are people who do it because it is fun, and there are people who do it as something else. I believe I did say intellectual stimulation. I was thinking of that guy with the English degree I worked with, as well as a terrible creative writing professor I once had and one or two other encounters in the English department at 2 Universities and 1 junior college. I was thinking of, for lack of a better term, the academic reader. Those who feel a need to analyze everything they read, to find some hidden metaphor about society in it. I'm having trouble organizing my thoughts on, probably has something to do with the wine.



> I'm not getting defensive. If I was getting defensive I'd be indulging in "Yeah!? Sez who?" kind of behaviour. What I'm doing is applying your generalizations to specific cases -- mainly in order to show that making generalizations like this is useless. If they don't apply in all cases then how do you determine in which cases they DO apply?
> 
> What we are seeing in this very debate is that your generalizations fail the moment they  get applied to ANY individual -- you always have to start from scratch anyway so you've wasted your time developing and presenting these generalizations. They haven't helped you.




No, what you are showing is that the generalization apparently doesn't apply to you. I don't know yet if I agree. I don't know you well enough. 



> I happen to think King's fiction IS inferior to Borges'. I happen to think I can show why.
> 
> I am NOT implying that people who like King aren't discerning readers. YOU are making that implication, not me. A statement of taste is nothing more or less than that. If you want to take from that an attack on yourself, it is YOU who are doing it.




And WHY is it inferior? What specifically about it is inferior? As for you implying that those who like King aren't discerning readers, never said you did. I said that that implication can be drawn, depending on the tone of the person who is involved in the discussion. I think for instance, that the writer of that Website is one of these elitists I speak of, and I think he does imply that those who like the types of fiction he mentions are somehow inferior. 




> I'm not saying (again) that snobs don't exist. But you are saying that ANY statement of the type that fiction A is inferior to fiction B carries with it an implication of insult to people who hold opposing viewpoints -- and that's not true.
> 
> It is possible to discuss ideas without any reference to the people who hold those ideas. Indeed, that ability is at the very center of rational debate.




Yes and no. It is possible to say I like A better than B with no insult. I like Star Wars better than Star Trek. No insult.

However, if I say, for instance, Star Trek is an inferior form of entertainment, I can gurantee you some people will be offended, and part of that offense, will be that they will feel I am implying they don't know good entertainment when they see it.




> Okay, let's examine that. You didn't say that you don't enjoy intellectual stimulation.
> 
> That's not quite the same as saying that you ENJOY intellectual stimulation. But let's assume that it's true, that you enjoy intellectual stimulation. If my assumption is incorrect, then I'm wasting my time, but that's okay.




A double negative might be a positive. On the other hand it could be seen as noncomittal...



> So you enjoy intellectual stimulation. Which means, at the very least, that intellectual stimulation falls into the category of "things that can cause enjoyment". So when somebody reads for intellectual stimulation, they are reading so as to experience one of the things that can cause enjoyment. Similar to reading for humour, or action or romance, or whatever. I think this is identical to saying that they are reading for enjoyment.
> 
> Ergo, people reading for intellectual stimulation ARE reading for enjoyment. Ergo, your distinction between the two categories is false. This isn't my opinion, it's a result of logical analysis. If there's a flaw in my reasoning, please point it out.




Throwing the word Ergo in there does not make it logical analysis. You are trying to make this sound like:

My argument is 

If A then Not B
(If you are reading for enjoyment you are not reading for intellectual stimulation.)

However, what I really said was

There are generally two types of people:
A and B.
A is the one who reads for fun
B is the one we've come to term the snob.

I believe the website writer falls into the B column. I don't believe it's impossible to be both and never said I do. I said in general this is what you have. 



> That's because it's true. It's not HARD to respond to -- it's IMPOSSIBLE to refute.




*sigh* you only quoted part of my reply and part of what I was replying to. I was meaning the comment about everybody being a moderate. That's what the whole rest of my paragraph was about. Please don't resort to editing replies to try to make things look different than they are. I think you're intelligent enough to know what my entire written paragraph there was replying to. It was blatantly obvious.




> Generalizations inhibit communication. Is that untrue? Prove it. I don't believe you can, because I believe it's true.




Can you prove it IS true? How does you believe it's true make it true?



> Then why try to divide them into these camps in the first place? It accomplishes nothing. You still have to deal with each individual on their own terms, so why waste time trying to pretend there's these easy categories you can stick them into?




For one thing, I wasn't truly trying to talk about individuals, I was trying to talk about readers in general, as a sort of mass group. Your statement, again, to use politics as a metaphor, is like saying that because a moderate exists it is useless to talk about people's politics in terms of Liberal and Conservative.To put it another way, you're trying to argue Quantum Mechanics (the small picture) while I'm arguing Relativity (the big picture)



> Yes, it does. Or at least, it means the line doesn't show us anything very useful -- so why should we waste time worrying about it? Logical distinctions ought to make understanding easier. Generalizations about people do not do this. They make it harder. They lead us to false conclusions. They make it easier for us to be lazy.




Indeed? Then what kinds of logical distinctions would you make?



> If you have any interest in getting to like Hemingway (not saying you should, but IF) first off, read his short stories -- he's one of the best short story writers ever (I would not say he was one of the best novelists). Secondly (or firstly) read _Death in the Afternoon_ a non-fiction book he wrote about bull-fighting. It really is a wordy old man telling you stories -- but what stories. It's really awesome -- after you finish reading it, I guarantee you will want bullfighters in your campaign.




Hemingway had his chance with me. Twice. I forced myself to finish both novels. As for the book about bullfighting I rarely read non-fiction unless it is Science or Occult. Though, arguably, depending on your viewpoint, the last might be fiction.


----------



## RiggsWolfe (Jan 31, 2004)

takyris said:
			
		

> Well, both, actually.  I *do* like the classics, but what I was writing wasn't actually classical.  I was in an SF writing group, and I was feeling pressure (self-created and based on what people said they found interesting, as opposed to "a fun light story") to write heavy stuff with a ton of philosophy and an unreliable narrator and no plot or action scenes.




First off, a science fiction writing group? Sounds interesting. Was it a school thing or more informal. 

Second, about the "heavy stuff" , sounds like a Philip K Dick novel to me. 



> What I discovered is that I love the classics, but also that most of the classics, at the time they were written, were intended to be incredibly freakin' popular and entertaining.  I think that if Shakespeare were resurrected and told about, say, a space-opera retelling of Macbeth that was an enormous summer hit smash and combined the strength of his original ideas about fidelity and guilt with flashy effects and revamped writing for the modern audience, Ol' Billy would be annoyed for about thirty seconds, and then he'd smile and be glad that his stories are valued enough to be carried on and changed to meet the needs of a new audience.




A space opera retelling of MacBeth? You making this one up or is it some movie I didn't see past the obvious on? MacBeth is an interesting play. I kept hoping for him to redeem himself. Oh well. I miss when Kenneth Brannagh was going through his Shakespeare days.




> (He'd still be ticked off about _Strange Brew_, though.)




I love Strange Brew. A bit warped, but I love it. I have to admit, it has been years, over a decade since I've seen it. 



> So I don't think of myself as having turned my backs on the classics, because I love 'em.  In fact, I think that the classics have been stolen by the stuffy people and neutered by centuries of academic debate designed to advance the pet project of a thousand professors fighting for tenure.




These Stuffy people were who I was speaking of in my original theory about the two camps of readers. I wish I'd never put the phrase "Intellectual stimulation" in there. Oh well. I know what you mean. I remember getting so irritated with various English professors. They'd want me to analyze some story or play and I was the guy who'd raise his hand and go "isn't it enough to just enjoy it?" Not that I couldn't , or in some cases, didn't analyze it. It's that I didn't want to lose sight of just enjoying the book/play/whatever. Though I will admit to once writing a huge essay on the mythos behind Star Wars. I even went so far as to analyze color schemes!



> When you learn to read Shakespeare's language, he's making sex jokes up the wazoo.  He's raunchy.  He's playing for the people in the cheap seats just as much as he is for the people in the booths.  His monologues aren't supposed to be delivered in a thoughtful, controlled voice -- half of the time, they oughta be screamed or ranted.  You look at _Henry IV, part i_, and it's a dry political drama with a lot of complex language, but *really*, it's the story of a screw-up son who doesn't want to inherit his dad's business -- he just wants to pal around with his hell-raising sidekick buddy.  And then some bad guys come in, and everything hits the fan, and the son rolls out his shoulders and cracks his knuckles and says, "Well, s, I guess I *do* care about this stuff," and unloads a can of whoopass on the bad guys and redeems himself in his father's eyes.




That was my big problem with Shakespeare when I was younger. I always saw it done in real boring productions with people just sort of speaking the dialogue. Then, several things happened, a good teacher, a movie with Danny Devito where he teaches some army soldiers how to read Shakespeare, and Kenneth Brannagh.



> C'mon.  Cast Will Smith (Henry) and Martin Lawrence (Falstaff) in this thing, with Samuel Jackson as the dad and Clancy Brown as the bad guy.  Put the end fight on a moving subway, only still with swords -- instead of being English royalty, have them be the heirs to mystical magical power that has lain hidden in the world for millenia.




Does Will Smith have to cut off Clancy Brown's head to win? 



> That movie would kick so much ass.
> 
> But in order to make it, somebody has to understand the old language first somebody who likes the classics enough to go in and see what they're really about but who isn't so rarified that he turns up his nose at modern entertainment.  Kind of like a cultural translator.




You sound like me when I talk about fantasy/sci-fi/comic book movies. Heh. Someone has to understand it, and appreciate it before they can make a good movie out of it.



> Enter the Tacky.




Heh, sounds like a movie tagline.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 31, 2004)

Wrath of the Swarm said:
			
		

> Am I the only person here who enjoys intellectual stimulation and is intellectually stimulated by enjoyable things?
> 
> Thought so.  Drat.



Depends on what you mean by intellectual stimulation.  The kind of academia that RiggsWolfe is talking about, in my opinion, isn't very intellectually stimulating.  I don't think it's intellectually stimulating to try and come across like a snob.


----------



## takyris (Jan 31, 2004)

RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> First off, a science fiction writing group? Sounds interesting. Was it a school thing or more informal.




Informal.  Bunch of unpublished and new-pro folks, most of us Clarion graduates (Clarion: Intense 6-week SF/F writing workshop in Seattle/Michigan every summer.  Great for the SF writer who wants a good quality workshop run by actual SF writers and aimed at actual SF writers.).  It was great in that you could write an alien-mutation-monster-as-metaphor-for-breakup story and have it taken seriously, but less great in that SF writers have their own kind of snobbishness.  In the writing geek arena, Hard SF writers are cooler than Social SF writers are cooler than historically accurate fantasy writers are cooler than epic fantasy writers are cooler than space opera writers, and modern-day fantasy (like Charles de Lint) writers are these magic realism snobs who act all literary.

I was writing about swords and elves and stuff.  I got a lot of responses like "Well, this is less ambitious than your complex-metaphor-for-complex-scientific-idea story, but for what it is, it's pretty good," which, really, is a really awful kind of praise.  Not saying that this was endemic to all groups -- it was really just a couple people -- but still led me in a "writing stuff I wouldn't read" direction.



> Second, about the "heavy stuff" , sounds like a Philip K Dick novel to me.




Yep.  Science fiction with a strong literary presence.



> A space opera retelling of MacBeth? You making this one up or is it some movie I didn't see past the obvious on? MacBeth is an interesting play. I kept hoping for him to redeem himself. Oh well. I miss when Kenneth Brannagh was going through his Shakespeare days.




Totally made it up.  But it would be cool, no?



> I love Strange Brew. A bit warped, but I love it. I have to admit, it has been years, over a decade since I've seen it.




My senior English project was an examination of Strange Brew as a retelling of Hamlet with Bob & Doug McKenzie as Rosencrantz & Guildenstern.  I eventually went with Hosehead as Fortinbras, and Hosehead's ability to fly allowed him to reach the finale in time to prevent the deaths by poisoning.



> These Stuffy people were who I was speaking of in my original theory about the two camps of readers. I wish I'd never put the phrase "Intellectual stimulation" in there. Oh well. I know what you mean. I remember getting so irritated with various English professors. They'd want me to analyze some story or play and I was the guy who'd raise his hand and go "isn't it enough to just enjoy it?" Not that I couldn't , or in some cases, didn't analyze it. It's that I didn't want to lose sight of just enjoying the book/play/whatever. Though I will admit to once writing a huge essay on the mythos behind Star Wars. I even went so far as to analyze color schemes!




Well. see, I agree and I don't.  I agree because it's possible to deconstruct something to the point where it's no longer enjoyable, and if you're not taking the emotion into account, you're not really capturing it at all well -- so you had lousy teachers.

But in an English class, I do think it's important to break stuff down.  Coming at things with a fuller understanding of the subject matter and the metaphors being used can make the experience more enjoyable (and if understanding more about it doesn't make it more enjoyable, then you shouldn't be in an English class to begin with; I don't get more out of a painting by understanding more of what the author was trying to do.  It just doesn't impress me any more than seeing the painting on my own.  Therefore, I don't take Art classes.).




> Does Will Smith have to cut off Clancy Brown's head to win?




You know, you try to make a modern-day fantasy movie, and it just naturally turns into _Highlander_.



> You sound like me when I talk about fantasy/sci-fi/comic book movies. Heh. Someone has to understand it, and appreciate it before they can make a good movie out of it.




Right.  If we heard a director say, "Well, I didn't read any of the back issues of this comic.  I just know the basics, but I really enjoy it, so now I'm going to make a movie that really just has fun with it," we all know that the movie is going to be a train wreck for people who liked the original comic storyline or concept.  The comic-adaptation movies that have been successful have been the ones that have demonstrated an understanding of the source material.

Thus, an understanding on the part of the writer can lead to a more enjoyable movie.  And an understanding of all kinds of X-Men trivia certainly led to a more enjoyable experience of the second X-Men movie for me -- catching the Easter Eggs, seeing where we were going with the Phoenix saga... If I hadn't studied, I wouldn't have known that. 

The key is to study things you like, and to find people who can make the study interesting.

But really, a good novel should work on both levels.  As deep as you want to go with it if you're in that frame of mind, but a good compelling story even if you're a blank slate.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 31, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I didn't get that far to find all the 'isms that are attributed to it.  But there was nothing in there as bad as the writing in Spellfire.   Worst Book Of Any Genre Ever!



Spellfire is one of the few books that I started and never finished.  I refuse to ever touch another Ed Greenwood novel.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 31, 2004)

janos said:
			
		

> "there haven't been any really great standalone fantasy novels recently"



Perdido Street Station is a great standalone fantasy novel.

It's not a _heroic_ fantasy novel, though, so it won't appeal to a lot of fantasy readers...


----------



## RiggsWolfe (Jan 31, 2004)

takyris said:
			
		

> Informal.  Bunch of unpublished and new-pro folks, most of us Clarion graduates (Clarion: Intense 6-week SF/F writing workshop in Seattle/Michigan every summer.  Great for the SF writer who wants a good quality workshop run by actual SF writers and aimed at actual SF writers.).  It was great in that you could write an alien-mutation-monster-as-metaphor-for-breakup story and have it taken seriously, but less great in that SF writers have their own kind of snobbishness.  In the writing geek arena, Hard SF writers are cooler than Social SF writers are cooler than historically accurate fantasy writers are cooler than epic fantasy writers are cooler than space opera writers, and modern-day fantasy (like Charles de Lint) writers are these magic realism snobs who act all literary.




Sounds good other than that little group you described. Oh and that be a thousand miles or so from me. Heh. Too bad.



> I was writing about swords and elves and stuff.  I got a lot of responses like "Well, this is less ambitious than your complex-metaphor-for-complex-scientific-idea story, but for what it is, it's pretty good," which, really, is a really awful kind of praise.  Not saying that this was endemic to all groups -- it was really just a couple people -- but still led me in a "writing stuff I wouldn't read" direction.




Best advice I ever got was to write stuff I enjoyed. Second best was to make my old story and not try to retell someone else's story. That was during my "See, it's Stand By Me, crossed with Lord of the Rings. " phase.





> Totally made it up.  But it would be cool, no?
> 
> 
> 
> My senior English project was an examination of Strange Brew as a retelling of Hamlet with Bob & Doug McKenzie as Rosencrantz & Guildenstern.  I eventually went with Hosehead as Fortinbras, and Hosehead's ability to fly allowed him to reach the finale in time to prevent the deaths by poisoning.




Yep, MacBeth as a space opera would be cool. For a brief minute I was thinking of Star Wars when you said and trying to shoehorn Anakin into MacBeth's place. Wouldn't work though.

As for Strange Brew, as I said, it's been over a decade. I'd have to watch it and reread Hamlet before I made any comments.



> Well. see, I agree and I don't.  I agree because it's possible to deconstruct something to the point where it's no longer enjoyable, and if you're not taking the emotion into account, you're not really capturing it at all well -- so you had lousy teachers.
> 
> But in an English class, I do think it's important to break stuff down.  Coming at things with a fuller understanding of the subject matter and the metaphors being used can make the experience more enjoyable (and if understanding more about it doesn't make it more enjoyable, then you shouldn't be in an English class to begin with; I don't get more out of a painting by understanding more of what the author was trying to do.  It just doesn't impress me any more than seeing the painting on my own.  Therefore, I don't take Art classes.).




I think with me it depends on how its presented to me. For instance, we deconstructed The Importance of Being Earnest and I really enjoyed it. We then took an early 20th Century Novel and tried to deconstruct it. I guess my feelings are sort of like Tolkien's. Remember the interview where he said he hated metaphors in novels and that no, Lord of the Rings was just a story, it wasn't supposed to be World War 2 or what have you? See my feeling is that sure, sometimes a writer sets out to put alot of symbology in his novel (or a filmmaker in a movie) but sometimes they just set out to write a story. The feeling I got from some of these professors is they believed you could pick up any novel and find some symbolism in it. To me it felt more like a psychology class than a literature class.




> You know, you try to make a modern-day fantasy movie, and it just naturally turns into _Highlander_.




Sorry, it was just something about the image of a sword fight involving Clancy Brown and a mystical power at stake that caused it. 




> Right.  If we heard a director say, "Well, I didn't read any of the back issues of this comic.  I just know the basics, but I really enjoy it, so now I'm going to make a movie that really just has fun with it," we all know that the movie is going to be a train wreck for people who liked the original comic storyline or concept.  The comic-adaptation movies that have been successful have been the ones that have demonstrated an understanding of the source material.




Agreed. I'd say X-Men is perhaps the exception since it is my understanding that Bryan Singer knew little to nothing about X-Men before he set out to direct it. I think what saved things was he decided to be respectful to the material and the fans.



> Thus, an understanding on the part of the writer can lead to a more enjoyable movie.  And an understanding of all kinds of X-Men trivia certainly led to a more enjoyable experience of the second X-Men movie for me -- catching the Easter Eggs, seeing where we were going with the Phoenix saga... If I hadn't studied, I wouldn't have known that.




I loved XMen 2 for that. I was practically bouncing in my seat at certain times. Here's hoping they make a 3 and follow up on the clues given in 2.



> The key is to study things you like, and to find people who can make the study interesting.
> 
> But really, a good novel should work on both levels.  As deep as you want to go with it if you're in that frame of mind, but a good compelling story even if you're a blank slate.




I do. That's why I'm one semester from graduating in Computer Science. Though as I said in an earlier response, I am feeling urges to write again. Even if only to get those ideas out of my head.


----------



## barsoomcore (Feb 1, 2004)

RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> And WHY is it (King's writing compared with Borges) inferior? What specifically about it is inferior?



Borges' language, the richness of his prose alone is enough to set him above King. His stories move faster and carry greater wallops than King's He's more _consistently_ good -- with King you never know, sometimes it's _Salem's Lot_, sometimes it's _The Tommyknockers_. And Borges is philosophically more interesting, more sophisticated. He's trying to talk about more complicated things than King is. 

If you're interested in reading more about Borges' writing, the Internet Public Library has some good articles and web pages about him. I'm not myself a very good critic.


			
				RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> I said that that implication can be drawn, depending on the tone of the person who is involved in the discussion. I think for instance, that the writer of that Website is one of these elitists I speak of, and I think he does imply that those who like the types of fiction he mentions are somehow inferior.



Well, if that's what you meant, then sure -- tone can carry all kinds of implications. I have no objection to that -- only to the suggestion that statements of taste _necessarily_ carry implications of personal worth. If you weren't saying that, then my apologies.


			
				RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> However, if I say, for instance, Star Trek is an inferior form of entertainment, I can gurantee you some people will be offended, and part of that offense, will be that they will feel I am implying they don't know good entertainment when they see it.



This is exactly what I'm saying. _THEY WILL FEEL_ you are implying. That doesn't mean you ARE implying it -- just that some people get defensive when their opinions are challenged -- or even when they are confronted with someone who doesn't share their opinions, regardless of any attempted challenge.

If I say _The Fifth Sorceress_ sucks, I'm not challenging the opinion of some guy who thinks it's awesome. I'm only stating my opinion. If I say, "I think you're wrong and here's why..." THEN I'm challenging his opinion.

And challenging someone's opinion carries no built-in implications of personal worth, either. To attack someone's opinions is not to attack _them_. That people are sometimes unable to make that distinction doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.


			
				RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> Throwing the word Ergo in there does not make it logical analysis.



Correct! The fact that it's a logical analysis is what makes it, er, logical analysis. The fact that it's an analysis proceeding on logical grounds, that is. It's a pretty straightforward _reductio ad absurdum_. There's a pretty straightforward page on the concept here.


			
				RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> You are trying to make this sound like:
> 
> My argument is
> 
> ...



Okay, I'm not trying to insist you stick to what you said. Or, in fact, I was -- I was applying basic logic to your initially stated position. I can accept that we sometimes (even often) post statements that maybe weren't letter-perfect in all their possible implications. So if we can find agreement on this issue I'm all for that.

By and large you seem to want to draw a distinction between people who read for fun and snobs, saying that these are "generally" (there's that word again, making trouble) how people are divided. We must take from this that you believe most people who read for fun are NOT snobs, and vice versa, otherwise the statement "generally two types of people" doesn't make sense. But then you say you don't believe it's impossible to be both. Okay, so some few snobs read for fun and some few people who read for fun are snobs.

Do you see how removing the generalities from your statements immediately makes this whole issue much clearer? The fact that you want to use categories that aren't absolute doesn't mean you have to use generalities -- you can be specific about the idea that there exist groups of people that don't include all people.

But there's still a flaw (actually, it's the same flaw, just now with new terminology) in your position.

Given that "snob" is an insulting term, meaning, more or less, "People who think they're better than others because of their tastes, or think other people are inferior because of THEIR tastes," and that when we insult someone we are saying that they are inferior, saying that "Some people read for fun and other people are snobs" is in fact a snobbish statement. You are saying you think people who read for fun are better than other people, if for no other reason than that they are less likely to be snobs.

Okay, that's not so much a flaw as a potentially inadverdant conclusion to what you've stated as your own position. I suspect you don't think of yourself as a snob, and yet if your statements are true, then you must be one.

I am NOT calling you a snob. I am drawing attention to the fact that the statements you are making are snobbish ones -- I don't know you at all, and I have no desire to insult you whatsoever. But this is a great example of how generalizations get us into trouble.

I think what you're trying to get at is that you've met a lot of snobs who look down on people who read only for fun, and they piss you off. Which is an observation I have no complaint against, only to offer up my own anecdotal evidence that people who decry literary analysis are every bit as likely to be snobbish as those who analyze every text they come across. But neither type of snob pisses me off, because I understand that snobs are insecure about their intelligence and need to demonstrate superiority in order to feel good about themselves.

So there we are, with two data points and no generalizations to be drawn. Now we can talk about it.


			
				RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> you only quoted part of my reply and part of what I was replying to.



My apologies. It was sincerely not my intention to misrepresent you -- I honestly misunderstood your point. I know you felt it was blatantly obvious but I assure it was not to me and no offense or misrepresentation was meant.

I take these sorts of debates very seriously (talk about blatantly obvious) and it's very important to me that when I address someone's statements that I do so accurately -- I would take no joy in continuing a debate under some sort of inconsistent analysis. Again, I apologise. It was my error.


			
				RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> Can you prove it IS true?



Yes, indeed I can, but it's a pretty long and involved sort of proof. Or at least it would take me a long time to write because you know, big words are kinda hard for me. This very thread, at least, provides very strong evidence (not the same as a proof, but still). We have had an extremely long, involved debate only because you have tried to make a simple generalization and I have been asking you to clarify it. If you hadn't made the generalization but had instead made an observation about specific people you know, we'd be much further along in this conversation.

We might possibly be having LESS fun, I'll admit.  

If you really want an analysis of generalizations, let's take it offline. Email me and we can continue the discussion. Believe me, I'd be thrilled to find somebody who found these sorts of discussions as interesting as I do.

And I suspect there's a whole raft of ENWorlders who would be relieved to have me shut up for once.  


			
				RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> Your statement, again, to use politics as a metaphor, is like saying that because a moderate exists it is useless to talk about people's politics in terms of Liberal and Conservative.



Exactly! It IS useless! Though not BECAUSE moderates exist but because everyone is a moderate on some issues, and some people are extreme on some issues. What do you need to know about someone's politics? You need to know how they will vote on a given issue. You need to know how EACH person will vote. This is why generalizations are useless -- they won't give you accurate information when you need to make a decision. And inevitably they will lead you to the wrong decision at some point. Whenever you need to make a decision, you will ALWAYS be better served by facts rather than generalizations.

It may be FUN to talk about people's politics in terms of Liberal and Conservative. It may be EASY. But it's USELESS. Well, okay, fun is a use. I'll give you that one. Generalizations are useful for entertainment purposes only.

Now, for financial reasons most democracies run their governments by organizing into parties that can share resources and agree to get along together in order to acquire more power. That's a local reality of the political sphere that has nothing to do with artistic appreciation.

The fact that, for example, my home province of British Columbia has a Liberal goverment doesn't make the generalization that "most BC'ers are Liberals" any more true or useful than it ever was -- when we meet someone from BC, we still need to find out what their individual political convictions are. Assuming we care.


			
				RiggsWolfe said:
			
		

> What kinds of logical distinctions would you make?



Lots. Make distinctions between ideas and people. Ideas can be good or bad -- but that has nothing to do with the worth of the people holding those ideas. Distinguish between objective and subjective statements -- that will save you a lot of grief. Distinguish between correct and appealing. Distinguish between different kinds of logical errors.

There's lots of logical distinctions that make thinking easier. There are entire BOOKS on this very subject -- just go Amazon, type in "logic" and see what search results you get. The use of generalizations is not, however, one that makes thinking easier. I'm happy to discuss this with you in more detail but I think we're beginning to tread on a massive circular debate that I would rather spare the other readers of this thread.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, and I truly hope that this is coming off as what it is for me -- an entertaining excursion into logical analysis and "types" of people.

There are snobs in every "taste bracket" -- learning how to recognize them and not be bothered by their need to feel superior really helps get to the point of critical debates.

And I just want to point out how this all got started. You drew a distinction between people who read for fun and people who read for intellectual stimulation and I said that was a false distinction. It seems like, at least, we agree on that (even if that's not what you said or what you meant, I THINK you agree that it's true).


----------



## takyris (Feb 1, 2004)

> But neither type of snob pisses me off, because I understand that snobs are insecure about their intelligence and need to demonstrate superiority in order to feel good about themselves.




*Awesome.*

I finally figured out how to not lose my temper around snobs (either the academic snobs or the geek snobs, both of which have a goodly number of card-carrying members) when I realized that these were the people who got picked on in the fifth grade by the bigger popular kids, and they had to stand there with pudding in their hair and their favorite bouncy-ball deflating at their feet because some popular kid popped it, and all the while, the poor little kid was thinking, "Someday I'm going to have a position of power in some area, somewhere, and I will *never* let anyone take that away from me."

Realizing how truly that image applied to so many members of my English department was one of the reasons I escaped after getting the MA instead of trying for the long haul.  Lotta geeks clutching at their academic power and really insecure about it.  Not all, not by any stretch, but a lot -- and they tend to be louder.  And the same holds true in a geek chatroom (uh, again, geek is not a perjorative in my personal vocabulary, given that I outscored all my buddies on that online "Percentage Nerd" test).  There are a lot of people who have finally found a position of power -- they are respected for their knowledge of anime, roleplaying game rules, or the intricacies of conjugating Elven verbs in the second declension.  And after years of being picked on, they are going to defend their newfound power with a vindictive zeal that many tyrannical third-world despots could learn from.   

A snob is a snob is a snob.  The only difference is which imaginary playground they're defending.


----------



## barsoomcore (Feb 1, 2004)

takyris said:
			
		

> I realized that these were the people who got picked on in the fifth grade by the bigger popular kids, and they had to stand there with pudding in their hair and their favorite bouncy-ball deflating at their feet because some popular kid popped it, and all the while, the poor little kid was thinking, "Someday I'm going to have a position of power in some area, somewhere, and I will *never* let anyone take that away from me."



I know because I was that little kid, too. And I was a snob, too.

Probably still am, really. That's how these things go: you think you're doing so well and then somebody taps you on the shoulder and says, "Um, you know those clowns you're always denigrating? Uh, you'd be one of those clowns yourself, pal."

And let's of course realise that the bigger kids doing the picking were just carrying out their own feelings of inadequacy, probably going home to angry fathers who smacked them or disapproving mothers who kept telling them what losers they were, so that in order to feel powerful (I'm seeing a trend, here) they had to have SOMEBODY to push around.

Stephen King has a great quote about this topic in relation to fantasy literature (and he brings it back on topic! Is there anything this guy can't do?) --

"Great stories are about people finding power or losing power. Mediocre stories are about people wielding power."

Power fantasies (of which our favourite genre has easily its share) are about the wielding of power. We like reading them because they give us the vicarious sense of having power ourselves. Nothing wrong with that, unless we're using that as a substitute for finding power in our own lives. Then it can become an interference in our own personal growth, just like beating up skinny kids at recess, or flaunting one's 1337 Unix skillz.

But stories about finding or losing power (at which our favourite genre also excels) are about the impact power has on the person. What happens when you become king? Or when your inheritance is stolen away from you? Or maybe something more interesting that I can't think of right now because it's Sunday morning and I'm at work?

Somebody else (I got this from Mrs. Barsoom, who got from some source that I can't currently recall) said that while science fiction is always about society and examining the impact of social developments, fantasy is always about power and its impact on individuals. It's a provocative idea, though I haven't put much thinking into it. Just throwing it out there for the ENWorld masses.

So tacky, how about the novel? Gaining power? Losing power? Wielding power?


----------



## jester47 (Feb 1, 2004)

BC, thats a good point.  

The Hobbit (as it stands after the changes made to fit with LotR, but even before that) is about finding power.  As is The Last Unicorn.  I have posted here before that one of the essential elements of a hero is his ability to relinquish power when he no longer needs it, be this by the ways of destiny or his own free will.  Oftentimes power is contained within some magic dodad, and thus we have the disolving sword of beowulf, Saurons ring, the ring of Gyges, Excalibur, etc. When the hero does not relinquish his power he becomes the villian.  Thus we have Gollum, King Haggard, Sauron, Vader, Elric etc.  In fact it is one of the key differences between Elric and Corum.  Corum gives up his power, where Elric refuses to and is consumed by it.

But yeah, Steve aint no fool, and he is a great writier when he is writing somthing he wants to write rather than when he feels he needs to come up with somthing.  

Aaron.


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Feb 1, 2004)

I think you may have something there with the idea that fantasy is about the relation of power to individuals, but science fiction isn't necessarily about society.  I'd say it's an examination of the way individuals live in environments fundamentally different from our own - not only physical environments, but social and technological as well.

Fiction examines the lives of characters placed in a set of environments that exist, while science fiction examines potential sets.


----------



## takyris (Feb 1, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I know because I was that little kid, too. And I was a snob, too.
> 
> "Great stories are about people finding power or losing power. Mediocre stories are about people wielding power."
> 
> So tacky, how about the novel? Gaining power? Losing power? Wielding power?




Crap.  Wielding, I think.  But my fight scenes are *awesome*.

Actually, I hadn't thought of it that way, but of the three heroes, Bennet is gaining power, Draixis is losing power, and Mina is both gaining and losing power.  So I'm kinda all over the place.


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Feb 1, 2004)

As a side issue, why would anyone ever bother gaining power if it's never used?  Why would losing power matter if it wasn't to be used?

Change makes for better stories than stasis, but that doesn't mean that tales where the level of available power remains constant won't be good stories.  There can be change of worldview, of knowledge and understanding, of the relationships between the characters and their circumstances.  (And I've really got to let go of the extended clauses...)


----------



## barsoomcore (Feb 2, 2004)

Right, right. Could we say mediocre fiction is _purely_ about wielding power? But yeah, I'm not 100% sold on the idea myself. It does give you an interesting twist on things, though, and it's worth a thought or two.


			
				takyris said:
			
		

> But my fight scenes are *awesome*.



Dude. I'm so there.


----------



## barsoomcore (Feb 2, 2004)

Oh, and anyone serious about writing and reading ought to read Stephen King's _Danse Macabre_. One of the best books on story-telling ever, even though it's ostensibly a survey of horror in radio, print, TV and movies of the past fifty years.

A fascinating book worth anyone's time.


----------

