[pat5150]

Richard Morgan wrote an interesting piece on gratuitous sex and violence in SFF books/series. While I may not agree with everything he says, it is food for thought.

You can find the essay, titled "Gratuities at your discretion", here.

Cheers,

Patrick

[Gorefest]

Ah, judging by the title I thought he was participating. What a little letter can do.

[worry]

There's a certain subspecies of nerd who think anything that doesn't directly serve the plot is "gratuitous" and it's an author's job to scorn them wholeheartedly.

[acesn8s]

I'm going to quote Steven Brust,

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.”

[QuickTidal]

I love that he has a brief, but concise dig at Margaret Atwood (whose work I LOATHE).

[Andorion]

QuickTidal, on 07 April 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

I love that he has a brief, but concise dig at Margaret Atwood (whose work I LOATHE).

Any particular reason? I don't know much about Atwood, but lots of people have told me to read Oryx and Crake as its supposed to be an absolutely great book. I don't particularly like dystopian stuff, so if there are some glaring weaknesses in the writing it would be nice to know now.

[QuickTidal]

Andorion, on 07 April 2016 - 01:29 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 07 April 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

I love that he has a brief, but concise dig at Margaret Atwood (whose work I LOATHE).

Any particular reason? I don't know much about Atwood, but lots of people have told me to read Oryx and Crake as its supposed to be an absolutely great book. I don't particularly like dystopian stuff, so if there are some glaring weaknesses in the writing it would be nice to know now.

I did a long report on her in high school for english lit...my teacher (who was also an asshole) forced us to pick only Canadian authors, and I ended up with Atwood. Had to read 4 of her books. I find her work overwrought, pretentious garbage that largely bored me.

Beyond that, I don't like the woman herself...she's got a chip on her shoulder whenever she talks (I find)...and once I saw her on the subway and people were fawning over her like she was a rockstar....and I'm just like "Ugh"

It's a multifacted dislike that stems from her earlier work, and her 'tude" and the fact that Canadian lit circles pretend she craps constant gold.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 07 April 2016 - 02:00 PM

[polishgenius]

I've never read Atwood, but her terrified insistence that she doesn't write sci-fi has always been worth mocking.


I'm not sure I agree with Morgan otherwise though. He raises some interesting points, but the idea that the story is absolutely subservient to the thrilling bits is daffy to me, and overall he comes off a bit defensive.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 07 April 2016 - 04:36 PM, said:

I've never read Atwood, but her terrified insistence that she doesn't write sci-fi has always been worth mocking.


I'm not sure I agree with Morgan otherwise though. He raises some interesting points, but the idea that the story is absolutely subservient to the thrilling bits is daffy to me, and overall he comes off a bit defensive.

I think he's right. If he wants to put sex or violence that isn't glued firmly to plot progression, is there a reason that needs to be called "gratuitous"? Is there some reason that sex can't be treated as the window dressing and style in the rest of the story? It's only got that stigma from a old school, puritanical bent. To me if you are okay to set a scene, then you can set a scene with sex.

[Abyss]

polishgenius, on 07 April 2016 - 04:36 PM, said:

...Atwood, ...her terrified insistence that she doesn't write sci-fi has always been worth mocking.
...

This, and I vaguely recall she's done an about-face recently when someone told her SFnF is outselling poncy literature.

I was required to read all kinds of Atwood for school. Hated all of it.