[Andorion]

I saw this linked on Reddit
link
http://www.richardkm...in-three-parts/

Interesting argument. I wasn't around in the 70s or 80s so not really conversant with the fantasy reading atmosphere then.

Wondering what other people think.

[Maark Abbott]

I can only really add my approach, which is much as Erikson's (in a way) - magic is an intrinsic part of the world I write, and of course, vastly unrealistic. It's the reactions of characters to magic that I want to make realistic. Like, what would someone say if a chap walked up and fire shot out of his hands? "Hood's holy shit!".

[polishgenius]

I can respect the general sentiment, but there's a strong hint of 'I wish people would stop banging on about my gunmetal sky already!'.

Few points:

I guarantee you people were spotting nitpicks in their fantasy in the 70s and 80s. They just weren't on the internet at the time. The internet is history's greatest complaining tool.

Compartmentalising things into genres and subgenres isn't about control and making things safe, for fucks' sake. It's about recommendation and being able to have a measure of expectation about what we pick up.

Quote

but which you will believe in for the duration of the act, because the writing is strong enough to make you believe.

If people are complaining, the writing is obviously not strong enough to make them believe. At least not strong enough to make them believe that.
And I think there's a bit of disingenuity here because the nitpicking isn't usually aimed at the really fantastic things in the books. They're usually concerned with either mishaps in the internal logic (which, again, is an issue with the strength of writing) or with the presentation of the more normal things that underpin the fantasy. These things knock one out of stride. It's not some deliberate attempt to bring fantasy down from the inside. No-one (well, almost no-one, probably), is reading with the deliberate intent to complain that it doesn't make sense.



And, last but not least, critique makes writing stronger, even if not all of it is justified. Not just the person who wrote what's being critiqued right now, but the person who wrote the criticism, and the people reading it. If you hadn't read '80s farmboy fantasy and thought something along the lines of 'nah, this is bullshit', you wouldn't be the writer you are now. And the genre wouldn't be the genre it is now.

[amphibian]

Whatever Andorion linked to, Morgan's blog no longer has it up.

I like polishgenius's thoughts up above for any writer/reader.

[Andorion]

Yeah the link does seem to be dead. I think the gist of his essay was that critics who talk about fantasy being unrealsitic miss the point as fantasy is supposed to be unrealistic and escapist and going with the flow of the narrative with a willing suspension of disbelief is something that is necessary to enjoy fantasy. Of course this does not mean that fantasy should not be internally consistent and not obey its own rules. He compared this with the atmosphere in the 70s when he was reading Moorcock and people apparently did not make this type of criticism.

And I agree with Polishgenius as well. Critique makes writing stronger and the people who complain that magic is unrealistic are a tiny minority compared to the more informed critics who analyze how the implementation of magic affects the story and plot movement etc.

[polishgenius]

It's back now. I think he forgot to include the opening bit about the book it's from because I don't remember seeing that the first time.

[QuickTidal]

I'm going to come down on Morgan's side (at least a bit) here.

For me, if a book entertains me at a certain level, I will forgive a LOT with regards to "realism" being thrown into the wind. I read to be entertained, and if a story achieves that I am less concerned with how we got there. That's not to say there aren't elements that will pull me out of a story for being glaringly too much, but I suspect that those things are never going to be as stringent as others who read the same books.

Since Amph mentioned it in another thread I'll use the LOST ending as my example. I loved the ending of that show for two reasons.

1. It didn't answer all questions, and allowed some stuff to be ambiguous. I'm a fan of that to an extent.

2. In the end the road to get there, and the collective characters personal journey's meant FAR more to me being entertained than needing everything answered or laid out in a logical way.

So while I feel that some of the points PG makes are valid for me as well, I also think that critics these days (ESPECIALLY review bloggers; whose number I used to be among) are far too obsessed with what is wrong and right without allowing the story to sink in. I say that because when I reviewed books (and the reason I stopped was that) I always did so with this critical eye towards the subject from the outset. It stole from me any enjoyment I was able to get from most works. I was more intent on finding its flaws and attributes than just getting stuck into the narrative. I feel that even film critics fall into this trap. My mother once said "You should be a film critic, you love movies!" and I said "THAT is the reason I will NEVER be a film critic."

[acesn8s]

Andorion, on 21 July 2015 - 04:50 AM, said:

I saw this linked on Reddit
link
http://www.richardkm...in-three-parts/

Interesting argument. I wasn't around in the 70s or 80s so not really conversant with the fantasy reading atmosphere then.

Wondering what other people think.

I was born in '72, so I was a young fantasy reader in the early 80s. Thinking back, I do believe the atmosphere wasn't as critical as it is now. Mostly due to the lack of "the internet" as Polishgenius stated. The people reading SciFi/Fantasy in your area were most likely in your D&D group. So, if none of you picked up on an inconsistency, it often went unnoticed. You'd show up at the cafeteria or your friends house and say, "Hey, I just finished Magicians Gambit and friggin Brill bounced. Twice!" We'd all laugh and go on to argue who was cooler, Silk or Barak. There'd maybe be a little griping about how formulamatic the plot for the books were and maybe we'd compare it to how edgey the Elric books were.

I did go back and reread the Belgariad and Malorian 6 or 7 years ago. It was a fun nostalgic read. It kinda mirrored the TV shows that were popular. The A-Team would show up to do their Robin Hood thing, shoot a bunch of guns while never killing anyone. Action and violence with no regrets.

Currently we are seeing the next step in the SciFi/Fantasy evolution. There are writers who grew up reading "the classics" and "greats" and are making their own marks; with some following a template used by others, some trying to elevate the content, some going their own path completely. There are more readers than ever, with some just looing for an escape, some looking for a book or theme brand new, and some seeking more consistency in the product.

With forums, twitter, facebook, blogs, and integrated review/feedback features on sites like amazon, B&N, etc. It's easier than ever to voice your opinion and find like minded individuals, and it still seems that more people will take the time to complain about something than people will to compliment.

I'm of a like mind with Morgan. I read SciFi/Fantasy to escape. I'll overlook minor issues if the story is good and the writing acceptable. If I'm engaged in the story, inconsistencies are more likely to be glossed over (usually unintentionally).


I read a quote by Steven Brust many years ago that I think is applicable here.

Quote

“The Cool Stuff Theory of Literature is as follows: All literature consists of whatever the writer thinks is cool. The reader will like the book to the degree that he agrees with the writer about what's cool. And that works all the way from the external trappings to the level of metaphor, subtext, and the way one uses words. In other words, I happen not to think that full-plate armor and great big honking greatswords are cool. I don't like 'em. I like cloaks and rapiers. So I write stories with a lot of cloaks and rapiers in 'em, 'cause that's cool. Guys who like military hardware, who think advanced military hardware is cool, are not gonna jump all over my books, because they have other ideas about what's cool.

The novel should be understood as a structure built to accommodate the greatest possible amount of cool stuff.”

That's what I'm looking for. A writer who thinks the same things are cool as I do and has the ability to write an engaging novel. Anything else they manage to put into the book is gravy.

[Andorion]

QuickTidal, on 22 July 2015 - 12:01 PM, said:

I'm going to come down on Morgan's side (at least a bit) here.

For me, if a book entertains me at a certain level, I will forgive a LOT with regards to "realism" being thrown into the wind. I read to be entertained, and if a story achieves that I am less concerned with how we got there. That's not to say there aren't elements that will pull me out of a story for being glaringly too much, but I suspect that those things are never going to be as stringent as others who read the same books.

Since Amph mentioned it in another thread I'll use the LOST ending as my example. I loved the ending of that show for two reasons.

1. It didn't answer all questions, and allowed some stuff to be ambiguous. I'm a fan of that to an extent.

2. In the end the road to get there, and the collective characters personal journey's meant FAR more to me being entertained than needing everything answered or laid out in a logical way.

So while I feel that some of the points PG makes are valid for me as well, I also think that critics these days (ESPECIALLY review bloggers; whose number I used to be among) are far too obsessed with what is wrong and right without allowing the story to sink in. I say that because when I reviewed books (and the reason I stopped was that) I always did so with this critical eye towards the subject from the outset. It stole from me any enjoyment I was able to get from most works. I was more intent on finding its flaws and attributes than just getting stuck into the narrative. I feel that even film critics fall into this trap. My mother once said "You should be a film critic, you love movies!" and I said "THAT is the reason I will NEVER be a film critic."

acesn8s, on 22 July 2015 - 12:25 PM, said:

Andorion, on 21 July 2015 - 04:50 AM, said:

I saw this linked on Reddit
link
http://www.richardkm...in-three-parts/

Interesting argument. I wasn't around in the 70s or 80s so not really conversant with the fantasy reading atmosphere then.

Wondering what other people think.

I was born in '72, so I was a young fantasy reader in the early 80s. Thinking back, I do believe the atmosphere wasn't as critical as it is now. Mostly due to the lack of "the internet" as Polishgenius stated. The people reading SciFi/Fantasy in your area were most likely in your D&D group. So, if none of you picked up on an inconsistency, it often went unnoticed. You'd show up at the cafeteria or your friends house and say, "Hey, I just finished Magicians Gambit and friggin Brill bounced. Twice!" We'd all laugh and go on to argue who was cooler, Silk or Barak. There'd maybe be a little griping about how formulamatic the plot for the books were and maybe we'd compare it to how edgey the Elric books were.

I did go back and reread the Belgariad and Malorian 6 or 7 years ago. It was a fun nostalgic read. It kinda mirrored the TV shows that were popular. The A-Team would show up to do their Robin Hood thing, shoot a bunch of guns while never killing anyone. Action and violence with no regrets.

Currently we are seeing the next step in the SciFi/Fantasy evolution. There are writers who grew up reading "the classics" and "greats" and are making their own marks; with some following a template used by others, some trying to elevate the content, some going their own path completely. There are more readers than ever, with some just looing for an escape, some looking for a book or theme brand new, and some seeking more consistency in the product.

With forums, twitter, facebook, blogs, and integrated review/feedback features on sites like amazon, B&N, etc. It's easier than ever to voice your opinion and find like minded individuals, and it still seems that more people will take the time to complain about something than people will to compliment.

I'm of a like mind with Morgan. I read SciFi/Fantasy to escape. I'll overlook minor issues if the story is good and the writing acceptable. If I'm engaged in the story, inconsistencies are more likely to be glossed over (usually unintentionally).


I read a quote by Steven Brust many years ago that I think is applicable here.

Quote

"The Cool Stuff Theory of Literature is as follows: All literature consists of whatever the writer thinks is cool. The reader will like the book to the degree that he agrees with the writer about what's cool. And that works all the way from the external trappings to the level of metaphor, subtext, and the way one uses words. In other words, I happen not to think that full-plate armor and great big honking greatswords are cool. I don't like 'em. I like cloaks and rapiers. So I write stories with a lot of cloaks and rapiers in 'em, 'cause that's cool. Guys who like military hardware, who think advanced military hardware is cool, are not gonna jump all over my books, because they have other ideas about what's cool.

The novel should be understood as a structure built to accommodate the greatest possible amount of cool stuff."

That's what I'm looking for. A writer who thinks the same things are cool as I do and has the ability to write an engaging novel. Anything else they manage to put into the book is gravy.

I agree with QT about reading being about entertainment. I read to enjoy. Readng makes me feel good. If a book entertains me I don't really care about most of the stuff it includes. Obviously when the author i someone like SE with great worldbuilding and characters it only gets better. But even if these elements are not so good but the author through good chemistry pulls of a page-turner I will welcome him with open arms.

A very good example of this type of writing is Matthew Reilly. He writes the most insane action scens I have ever read. But I love reading his books as the sheer in your face implausible craziness makes me laugh out loud.

I have my own idea about the more critical atmosphere of today. With people like Donaldson, Cook. Se, Abercrombie etc turning well established tropes upside down most even halfway attentive readres are now aware that the new turn in fantasy came from a comprehensive critique and questioning of the old structure. I think this awareness makes it seem that critique is now welcome, necessary, mainstream and demanded. Thus reading has become more analytical and readers have become harder to please. While this is very good for the field in some ways, in the sense that it pushes writers to excel, it also devalues the pleasure of reading. I don't care what the problems with Tolkien are, every time I read the part about the Battle of Minas Tirith and the coming of the Rohirrim I still get great pleasure. It is this emotional return that over-critique destroys.

[amphibian]

I'm reading Morgan's thing. He's off about a few things in a way that polishgenius already mentioned.

His resistance to categorization is dumb. Books require investments of time, attention, and care. Having expectations beforehand is a reasonable thing and having informed expectations driven by a loose usage of categorization, recommendations, and prior experience is what most people do. This is right and good. Objecting to this is dumb.

He's also using anecdotal evidence of not nitpicking books as a young reader to mean that nobody nitpicked books. He's also dismissing the reader's ability to test the general "rules" within the books with their own thought experiments as nitpicking. This is dumb. The Venn diagram between the two overlaps, but not wholly. The Internet makes critiques easier and more available to people, which is a good thing because criticism drives writing improvement in the aggregate (even if some criticism is wacko/wrong/unrelentingly nitpicky).

He is right about the writer's ability to be convincing winning out over everything else.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 22 July 2015 - 06:14 PM, said:

His resistance to categorization is dumb. Books require investments of time, attention, and care. Having expectations beforehand is a reasonable thing and having informed expectations driven by a loose usage of categorization, recommendations, and prior experience is what most people do. This is right and good. Objecting to this is dumb.

I honestly think he makes a good point there. Categorization predisposes people to things. It's not wrong to be against the idea that going into a book with predisposition is a bit of antithesis to finding new stuff, or busting out of your comfort zone. You're right in how we choose our fiction, but is it so dumb to wish that such categorization didn't exist for a cleaner fresher experience with fiction? It's maybe naive to think such a thing could ever be, but I'd not call it dumb.

amphibian, on 22 July 2015 - 06:14 PM, said:

He's also using anecdotal evidence of not nitpicking books as a young reader to mean that nobody nitpicked books.

Sure it's anecdotal in the fact that he can't speak for everyone, but as far as my slice of the pie goes, I didn't and I can't think of any fellow readers who did...nitpick books in early reading experiences. I started reading with John Bellairs books, The Hardy Boys, Choose Your Own Adventures, and eventually Dragonlance (my fantasy gateway)...in that that time I can't recall nitpicking the things he's talking about. As an adult I bet you I could find oodles to nitpick in those books now...but I never would have thought of it then. Even in my teens, I was not discerning in much more than story. Think about it like Star Wars. The reason why so many adult fans exist of that film is not because it can't be nitpicked apart (it can)...but because most of us who grew up with it were young enough to NOT do that. We were either entertained or we weren't. So not to say that a young person could never nitpick a book...but the chances they would do such early in their reading are slimmer than an adult. I realize that's totally subjective to the person, but I tend to think that the Star Wars example illustrates that young people are just generally less discerning. Look at MINIONS movie. A sketch with those little guys stretched out to feature length, which is ridiculous...but no one cares. It makes money hand over fist and kids all over want to see it (and will probably run the DVD/BRD ragged when it comes out).

[polishgenius]

I wouldn't call it dumb to wish you could approach books without categorization (though surely if you really wanted to you could mostly ignore what anything is seen as beyond the most broad spectrum), but it is pretty dumb to accuse everyone who does compartmentalise stuff as having a motive of de-fanging and controlling the works of fiction that they are doing such to.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 22 July 2015 - 07:02 PM, said:

I wouldn't call it dumb to wish you could approach books without categorization (though surely if you really wanted to you could mostly ignore what anything is seen as beyond the most broad spectrum), but it is pretty dumb to accuse everyone who does compartmentalise stuff as having a motive of de-fanging and controlling the works of fiction that they are doing such to.

Does he accuse everyone of that? I didn't really get that from it. To me the whole posts comes off more as "reLAX people!" in a general way, just peppered with Morgan's saucy cursing.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 22 July 2015 - 07:21 PM

[acesn8s]

polishgenius, on 22 July 2015 - 07:02 PM, said:

I wouldn't call it dumb to wish you could approach books without categorization (though surely if you really wanted to you could mostly ignore what anything is seen as beyond the most broad spectrum), but it is pretty dumb to accuse everyone who does compartmentalise stuff as having a motive of de-fanging and controlling the works of fiction that they are doing such to.

It's a battle he won't win, look at music. Lemmy from Motorhead says he believes they are a rock and roll band, meanwhile they've been tagged a a heavy metal, speed metal, hard rock, classic/pre thrash band. In the end, Lemmy goes into the studio to make a rock and roll album. Once his music is released into the wild, the fans and critics will do with what they will. Lemmy could scream from the rooftops that it's just rock n' roll, but Wikipedia, Amazon, iTunes, the fans, and reviewers will categorize it as something else.

I hope Richard's rant was cathartic and he is able to go back to writing his next book, because I'm waiting for it, no matter what he calls it.

[amphibian]

The Minions movie isn't good - not because the concept/characters cannot be stretched out to a full length movie, but because the writers aren't used to working with characters who either don't speak or don't speak intelligibly.

Look at the early Looney Tunes cartoons. Roadrunner vs. Coyote took place over and over and over again in an almost non-verbal fashion. Same for Tom and Jerry, Elmer Fudd vs. Daffy Duck and many other famous pairings. Chuck Jones and the writing staff got very used to working with characters that didn't speak or spoke rarely/gibberish. It's an actual art form to make this method of story-telling support a complex set of directives. The Minions movie doesn't have writers who are used to doing that (not sure anyone does these days, outside of the people who put together the first 20 minutes of Wall-E). Criticizing the Minions movie for not doing this well isn't nitpicking, boxing what the movie is now as a slightly below average kids' movie isn't limiting what it is or the audience it'll connect to well, and understanding why it isn't particularly good helps us deal with future movies/stories.

Imagine a backstory of Minions landing on the planet in a broken spaceship at Roswell or Tunguska, deciding that they want to go home, that working with mad scientists/evil geniuses is the best way to go home because they'll have access to the best technology that way and so on. That's a better origin story, leads to them working with the direct predecessors to Gru and eventually linking up with Gru. The set pieces that make kids laugh can be fitted in during this longer story.

But nope, what we got was a different deal with Scarlett Overkill getting 50% more plot development than the Minions did. Kevin, Stuart, and Bob got all their plot development in the first 25 minutes of the movie and then basically went on plot rails from then on.

Morgan points to the type of people who would criticize Moorcock as being the targets of his blog entry. I don't really understand that. Moorcock's books are very purposely a loose collection of stories that point towards archetypes and most of the criticisms I find aren't about whether or not the magic gem should provide video AND sound or just video. They're about whether Moorcock achieved his general objectives, whether the reader connected to the story, and whether or not it was fun/cool. I stopped reading Moorcock's stories about 8 books in because I found them boring.

Part of my reaction is due to Moorcock being long surpassed by better writers and part of his reaction is that Moorcock was fresh back then. He was also reading them as a teenager and I was reading them as an adult with more experience already under my brain belt.

The post generally comes off as someone who is upset people are taking shots at his beloved books of yore. Rather than accepting that the books of yore may have had problems that books of now should be addressing, he slags on the people doing the criticizing.

[Illuyankas]

Uh I think you copied your movies thread post into that reply a little bit.

[amphibian]

Illuyankas, on 22 July 2015 - 07:41 PM, said:

Uh I think you copied your movies thread post into that reply a little bit.

Nah, I wrote it in response to QuickTidal mentioning the Minions and then copied it over with a slight change into the Movies Thread. The general point of it being that even if the movie is intended to be open-ended entertainment, it's still ok to categorize it as a kids' movie or sci fi or whatever because categories shape expectations and that is a valuable thing, even if Morgan hates it.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 22 July 2015 - 08:57 PM, said:

Illuyankas, on 22 July 2015 - 07:41 PM, said:

Uh I think you copied your movies thread post into that reply a little bit.

Nah, I wrote it in response to QuickTidal mentioning the Minions and then copied it over with a slight change into the Movies Thread. The general point of it being that even if the movie is intended to be open-ended entertainment, it's still ok to categorize it as a kids' movie or sci fi or whatever because categories shape expectations and that is a valuable thing, even if Morgan hates it.

Yes, but my point in bringing it up was not about categorization. It was about how it doesn't matter the quality, young people will see a movie without seeing flaws which are (likely) there. Evaluating it later in life I'm sure kids who love MINIONS will be more circumspect...but right now, they just know they loved it.

[amphibian]

I dunno. Half the kids in there with us came out kinda blah and many of them got restless/asking questions when the Scarlett story fell apart soon after her introduction.

[RACHEL]

I can understand Morgan's resentment towards categorization. The other day my friend spotted a book on my shelf ( The Search for Wondla, a cute young readers book about a future Earth ) and asked about it. When I picked it up and she saw the cover with an alien creature on it she immediately said "that is too weird for me". This is coming from a girl who loves Harry Potter, Star Wars movies, and even kind of liked the Twilight books. I can understand being turned off by a book cover but she saw a creature and immediately put the book into a category she won't like. I responded that if she liked Harry Potter how can the book in question be too weird for her and she had no response. She just started Name of the Wind and is liking it so far. What is irritating to me is the fact that she would probably avoid the sci-fi / fantasy section in a book store because it is "too weird" even though she clearly is into books in that genre. So, for a person like her who would see fantasy or sci-fi on a book cover and probably choose something else then categorization would make her miss out on books that she would probably like. I run into this a lot where people say sci-fi and fantasy is too weird for them even though they have read books in that genre or at least watched and enjoyed movies in that genre. I don't think categorization is all that bad it is just sad that there are people out there that wll miss out on something they would love just because they have a negative view about the category the store or critics put it in.