tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post4606584526774752013..comments2024-01-17T01:33:01.361-08:00Comments on Staffer's Book Review: Are we trying too hard?Justinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18030992882575439420noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-17091845121897251462012-02-07T05:53:29.937-08:002012-02-07T05:53:29.937-08:00Wait, you got rum? I didn't!
I hereby take ba...Wait, you got rum? I didn't!<br /><br />I hereby take back everything nice I ever said about the Kitschies.<br /><br />(Except for the part about God's War winning.)Nichttp://evesalexandria.typepad.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-36238084577762823142012-02-07T05:27:03.706-08:002012-02-07T05:27:03.706-08:00I, for one, refuse to be ashamed for what I read.
...<i>I, for one, refuse to be ashamed for what I read.</i><br /><br />Well, great. Though you do realise you’ve just written a lengthy post explaining how you’re definitely, 100%, *absolutely* not bothered about what other people think of your reading tastes, right? ;-)<br /><br />It’s a shame you feel yourself under attack as a reader, particularly since this feeling – it seems to me – stems from a misinterpretation of both Bourke’s review and the Kitschies. Contrary to your construction of events, I think both of these things are seeking to *celebrate* the genre, not denigrate it.<br /><br />The Kitschies’ founders have already spoken for themselves, and very ably; fundamentally, they’re interested in conversation internal to the genre, not whatever the ‘mainstream’ may or may not think. What about Bourke? Is her review <i>geared towards eradicating a certain type of incredibly popular genre fiction</i>? If that’s Bourke’s goal, then she’s got a strange way of going about it; her last two reviews at Strange Horizons were both positive, and both about epic fantasy titles (see <a href="http://www.strangehorizons.com/reviews/2011/12/two_by_kate_ell.shtml" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.strangehorizons.com/reviews/2011/10/sword_of_fire_a.shtml" rel="nofollow">here</a>).<br /><br />In other words, her review of Sullivan is not about hate for epic fantasy; it’s a criticism of what she considers to be a particular bad example of it. What is wrong with that? Should we give rubbish books a pass because they happen to have magic in them? And if you liked the book - as I gather you did, from the fact that your most recent post is a review of a later volume in the series - how does her review stop you from disagreeing, and explaining why you liked it? We all have different tastes, and different criteria that we use to judge what is good and what isn't; surely it can be a conversation, rather than "She hates what I like, therefore she hates me!!1!"<br /><br />You say you're interested in <i>demonstrating value in the things that the mainstream rejects, not only those things they embrace</i>. And this is exactly what Bourke’s review, and the Kitschies, are trying to do: take genre books seriously, by praising them when they’re good – well written, mould-breaking, *and* entertaining – and criticising them when they aren’t. Which is an agenda I support. What I’m not interested in is valuing something simply *because* the mainstream rejects it, which is the subtext I'm getting from your comments, rightly or wrongly; that’s as ridiculous as liking something just because it’s mainstream. <br /><br />I refuse to pull my punches when reviewing a book that I think is bad, just because it’s genre. I will not coddle poor writing just because some imaginary mainstream bogeyman might be looking over my shoulder as I type and run away cackling “See? I TOLD you all genre was bad!” Decrying reviews that criticise prose or characterisation in a particular genre novel is not a rejection of ‘mainstream’ ideas about genre, but an acceptance and an internalisation of these ideas: “we can’t expect anything better from a genre book; they’re only meant to be entertaining; asking for anything else is elitism”, etc. Nonsense. It's a big genre; there are room for more tastes than that.Nichttp://evesalexandria.typepad.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-51808344957536916892012-02-07T01:38:14.004-08:002012-02-07T01:38:14.004-08:00My problem with the award was that I wasn't sh...My problem with the award was that I wasn't shortlisted.<br /><br />This obviously renders the entire thing an offensive farce.<br /><br />But then you did give me rum.<br /><br />Now I'm conflicted...Joe Abercrombiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04096316583998199176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-50877571745372236612012-02-06T12:45:48.866-08:002012-02-06T12:45:48.866-08:00@Justin: I don't think using The Kitschies as ...@Justin: I don't think using The Kitschies as an example was wrong at all. Anne's right in that we have (for some reason) elided "elevate the tone of the discussion" into "elevate the tone", which is incorrect. But the overall point is still a fair one, and we're not-so-secretly delighted to be used an example of *anything*. <br /><br />I can't agree enough about the importance of NOT disregarding everything great about ubergenre (really?) when it comes to genre books, but I don't think there's a special category of "shit mainstream readers like". Genre certainly shouldn't ostracise itself by pretending that the silent majority "wouldn't like our stuff anyway". <br /><br />Really interesting point about the RT. Definitely don't see it that way, but I guess I can see where you're coming from. At least in comparison with the GT list (in which, we overlapped with your own best of list, if I recall correctly). Hmmm.... (goes off to count monsters and spaceships)Jaredhttp://www.pornokitsch.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-20904786395887424932012-02-06T05:53:57.953-08:002012-02-06T05:53:57.953-08:00@Jared
And I bet China was making ladies swoon wh...@Jared<br /><br />And I bet China was making ladies swoon when he said it. The jerk.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030992882575439420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-85939295175967493552012-02-06T05:50:55.741-08:002012-02-06T05:50:55.741-08:00The point being that we're not explicitly tryi...<i>The point being that we're not explicitly trying to make mainstream readers take genre seriously, but rather to make genre readers take genre itself more seriously, by taking all genre seriously.</i><br /><br />That's a really good distinction, Anne. I've not thought of it that way before.<br /><br /><i>It concerns me greatly that you don't think the Kitschies demonstrate value (or attempt to do so) in those things the mainstream rejects, because that means we've failed in our goals. </i><br /><br />They do in so much that the mainstream tends to reject everything in our genre. This year's nominees (at least in the Red) trend more toward novels that fit within the box the mainstream is most comfortable within the genre. Or at least that's my impression. In years past your lists have included some more ubergenre stuff, to borrow a terrible word I used earlier. Is it just one of those years? Probably. But, as I'm trying to draw trends about the literary conversation of genre, I do think it's worth pointing out and wondering about.<br /><br />Using the Kitschies as an example in this article was probably a mistake. I really think you guys do a great job. And I would agree, that the success is that is engenders conversation.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030992882575439420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-12282139575995330672012-02-06T04:25:10.631-08:002012-02-06T04:25:10.631-08:00For what it's worth, when Jared and I started ...For what it's worth, when Jared and I started the Kitschies (and, more broadly, Pornokitsch), we did so with the goal of "elevating the tone <i>of the conversation about</i> geek culture" - wording which we've accidentally kind of lost over the years. The point being that we're not explicitly trying to make mainstream readers take genre seriously, but rather to make genre readers take <i>genre itself</i> more seriously, by taking all genre seriously.<br /><br /><i>Where we differ, is that I believe in demonstrating value in the things that the mainstream rejects, not only those things they embrace.</i><br /><br />It concerns me greatly that you don't think the Kitschies demonstrate value (or attempt to do so) in those things the mainstream rejects, because that means we've failed in our goals. That said, what we're after truly is <i>conversation</i> - like this, for example - about genre. So we have succeeded, in a roundabout fashion.<br /><br /><i>In recent years, SFF bloggers (myself included) have tried to convince mainstream readers that the things we read have merit. Awards like The Kitschies seem created, almost exclusively, to serve this purpose.</i><br /><br />Again, if the Kitschies seem geared toward this, we've failed in our purpose. Our primary aim is and has always been to make sure <i>genre readers</i> take genre seriously. Let me be clear that we're not trying to come down against escapism (et al.); rather, we're trying to hold escapist literature to the same standards as any other literature. No book should be let off lightly because it was not intended to be taken seriously. Nothing should ever go unconsidered, and no book should be let off the hook because it's escapist, or as fluff, or whatever other words we like to throw at stuff we enjoy when a little ashamed of that enjoyment. These feelings are just as worthy of interrogation as everything else literature - all literature - inspires.<br /><br />Rereading what I've written above comes across as stodgy and defensive, for which I apologise - because I am <i>beyond delighted</i> that we're talking about this stuff at all. Like Jared says above, it's the asking and the discussing that's the important part.Annehttp://www.pornokitsch.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-53598029045621743382012-02-06T03:35:37.946-08:002012-02-06T03:35:37.946-08:00I'm leaping back to the original post and avoi...I'm leaping back to the original post and avoiding the discussion of the MJS review entirely. The whole thing is somewhat belated - I blame the Prestatyn internet (or lack therefore).<br /><br />For me, there's a reason that one of The Kitschies' criteria is "entertaining". And I agree with Justin wholeheartedly: that's a really, really important aspect of genre literature that shouldn't ever fall by the wayside.<br /><br />Regarding the larger debate, China Miéville actually had a lovely quote on this over the weekend - "Our own desires should not go uninterrogated." He then went on to weave more cleverness, including "the thing you want is not always the most interesting thing to have." What is it about SF/F that we want? Why do we want it? And if it were different, would it be more interesting? In a way, that's what SF/F does already - explore interesting differences. Why not apply the same creative process to SF/F itself?<br /><br />I don't pretend to have the answers to any of those questions. But I believe that asking - and discussing - them is the important part, and that's what Justin, Liz and Damien (and hopefully The Kitschies) are all doing.Jaredhttp://www.pornokitsch.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-37860002860016963502012-02-05T10:02:29.364-08:002012-02-05T10:02:29.364-08:00Is 'eradicate a kind of genre fiction' hyp...<i>Is 'eradicate a kind of genre fiction' hyperbole? Absolutely.</i><br /><br />See, what you call "hyperbole" I call "imputing false and unworthy motives to someone on no evidence." Which is not a nice thing to do.<br /><br /><i>In criticizing those responsible for publishing it, there's an implicit critique of those who read it and liked it.</i><br /><br />By that reasoning, every negative review is an implicit criticism of the people who do like - or even the people who chose to consume - the subject of the review. Does that seem reasonable to you?<br /><br /><i>It's her opinion. But, I'm going to read into what I want to -- also my right, no?</i><br /><br />Of course. But I think that I'm also entitled to read things into your reaction, and to ask you to support your argument. So far in this thread you keep retreating into an attitude that you're just saying what you feel and it's unfair to ask you to examine either your assumptions or your conclusions. Which, again, is pretty easy to read into.Abigail Nussbaumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08562462228380637583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-3020961477358281522012-02-05T08:32:07.070-08:002012-02-05T08:32:07.070-08:00@Abigail
Thanks for the response.
To your first ...@Abigail<br /><br />Thanks for the response.<br /><br />To your first point, I was speaking more toward shallow, anachronistic second world fantasy in general as opposed to the 'epic fantasy'. The definition of the latter is far to broad to apply to Sullivan's novels as some representative of it. Is 'eradicate a kind of genre fiction' hyperbole? Absolutely.<br /><br />To the second point, of course I'm applying my own filter to what she's written. I'm reading into it. When she says that a novel poisons other novels around it, she's saying it's so bad NO ONE should read it. In criticizing those responsible for publishing it, there's an implicit critique of those who read it and liked it. I'm not particularly offended by that, I do find it interesting though. Especially that someone would claim she's not criticizing the reader. That seems like willful denial to me. <br /><br />Again, for the umpteenth time, she's entirely within her rights to do and I don't begrudge her the review. It's her opinion. But, I'm going to read into what I want to -- also my right, no?<br /><br />The point of this article was just to point a trend, I think could be happening (I have no idea if it is), and I caution that we should be aware of it. Although, at this point having read 30+ comments on the subject, relating them back to my original words is becoming increasingly difficult.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030992882575439420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-82971992256964156702012-02-05T07:50:07.327-08:002012-02-05T07:50:07.327-08:00It seems as if reviews like the ones written by Bo...<i>It seems as if reviews like the ones written by Bourke are geared towards eradicating a certain type of incredibly popular genre fiction</i><br /><br />I'm really not sure how you draw this conclusion. Inasmuch as any review is geared towards eradicating any kind of fiction (a futile goal that few reviewers of my acquaintance would be so foolish as to believe themselves capable of), Liz's review is geared towards eradicating <i>bad fiction</i>. Liz's criticisms of <i>Theft of Swords</i> are specifically of its quality - she criticizes the poor prose, predictable plotting, mishandling of archaic dialects, and lack of agency of female characters. At no point in the review does Liz criticize or express a longing for the eradication of the epic fantasy genre - an argument she'd have trouble making with any credibility given that she's written extremely positive reviews of epic fantasy novels for both <i>Strange Horizons</i> and Tor.com.<br /><br /><i>In her recent review of Theft of Swords by Michael J. Sullivan, she eviscerates both the book, the author, and the publisher for its existence. It's not so much her critiques of the book, but the tone with which she delivers them. As though we should be ashamed that we bought it, or read it, or God forbid enjoyed it.</i><br /><br />There seems to be a leap here that has nothing to do with anything Liz wrote. Liz's review is critical of <i>Theft of Swords</i>, because it's a reviewer's job to criticize where they find fault. It is implicitly critical of Sullivan inasmuch as it concludes that he's written a bad book, and explicitly critical of his publisher for abdicating their role as a gatekeeper of quality and letting such a bad book through. But nowhere in the review does Liz say anything about the book's readers and what they ought to feel about it. She's reporting on her own reading experience, and if you choose to take that as a judgment on yours then that's on you and not on anyone else.Abigail Nussbaumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08562462228380637583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-90209806534805795272012-02-04T06:55:02.950-08:002012-02-04T06:55:02.950-08:00I'm confused. You say you would prefer it if t...I'm confused. You say you would prefer it if there were no distinctions but claim they are somehow inevitable. They are not at all inevitable but you have just spent the whole post arguing in favour of them. You say, for example, <i>The Tiger's Wife</i> isn't a fantasy novel. You profess not to know why Walter would describe those seven novels as SFF. So would you say that for you the most important important thing is who publishes a book? That everything published by an SFF publisher is SFF and nothing published by a non-SFF publisher is SFF?<br /><br />For me, the most important this is content; a novel is an SFF novel is it contains SFF content. I would have thought this was a pretty obvious and widespread point of view and it means there is no reason to second guess the motivations of people describing novels as SFF.<br /><br />I am interested in the best 10% of SFF not because it justifies the existence of the genre or because it might improve the rest of the genre but simply because it is the best 10%.Martinhttp://everythingisnice.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-8871956907310662942012-02-04T05:50:24.506-08:002012-02-04T05:50:24.506-08:00Great response, Eric. Thanks for taking the time ...Great response, Eric. Thanks for taking the time to write it.<br /><br />I couldn't agree more with you that the vast majority of 'nostalgic genre' is hard to read these days. I tried to pick up Weis & Hickman the other day on a lark and didn't get past page 10. There is a big distinction between nostalgic fantasy (Sullivan is a good new example of this, but also Rachel Aaron, Jon Sprunk, etc.) and what Abercrombie, Ahmed, Brett, etc. who I see doing more (more, not a lot) thematic exploration.<br /><br />#<br /><br />I'm not sure this is a subtle (or not so subtle) protestation of, 'leave my epic fantasy alone' so much as it's a 'are trying too hard to get outside observers to look beyond epic fantasy?'. Again, if the answer is no, GREAT! I'm just trying to plop myself down in the middle of a debate I perceive in the community. Maybe the fact I perceive a SFF community is my first problem?<br /><br />I would prefer that we had no distinctions at all, frankly. Drop the SFF into the Fiction section and be done with it. But, that's not going to happen and thus we end up in this parochial discussion about what's our's and what's their's. <br /><br />We see a lot of grumbling that Atwood won't admit she writes SFF, who cares? What does classifying her as SFF gain for the genre? If we're not searching for legitimacy of Abercrombie and Morgan, why do we care if the high brow stuff is considered SFF? I get the impression (according to you and Martin an entirely wrong impression, which is fine) it's insecurity that no one thinks the vast majority of SFF is worth a shit and it drives us to find the other 10% to justify the genre's existence.<br /><br />Maybe it's just about trying to use the other 10% to make the other 90% better. I'm stoked if that's the case, and I'm glad I wrote the post to stimulate this response.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030992882575439420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-21573694587532782482012-02-04T05:29:27.314-08:002012-02-04T05:29:27.314-08:00That's an interesting point, Sean. I certainl...That's an interesting point, Sean. I certainly think if you ask Abercrombie, he'd completely agree with you. He's writing the same old thing, just playing with some of the tropes and adjusting the volume, if you will.<br /><br />I think we're seeing more mixing up. Hurley's <b>God's War</b>, Okorafor's <b>Who Fear's Death</b>, a lot of the recent Small Beer Press releases.<br /><br />Genre means it checks certain boxes. And I think there's a general annoyance that those boxes have turned out to be awfully specific. For example, Lev Grossman's stuff being shelved in Literature and not SFF in a book store. Or <b>Tiger's Wife</b>, or <b>Night Circus</b>, or any of Atwoods stuff. Is it SFF? And if we're (the genre community, whatever that means) the only ones who consider it SFF, is it? Does it matter? Why do we argue those distinctions? <br /><br />In Walter's post he says, 7 SFF novels you must read. Only a genre reader would consider most of those novels SFF. Everyone else just calls them literature. Insisting that SFF has some ownership of those titles comes off (to me) like searching for legitimacy. The whole message changes if he says, 'Hey genre readers, here are some lit novels that you might dig.'Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030992882575439420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-90058078015188114432012-02-04T04:54:45.385-08:002012-02-04T04:54:45.385-08:00I don't want to step on anyone's toes here...I don't want to step on anyone's toes here, but these kinds of discussions tend to shirk away from acknowledging even the possibility that a lot of mainstream SFF just isn't all that great. I tried Joe Abercombie and Richard Morgan and a lot of the other authors who are supposedly 'breaking the mould' or whatever, and you know what? They're not doing anything different. They're writing the same kind of fantasy fluff that the genre's core has been composed of for decades, just with more swearing and (a little bit) more sex. That readers will defend this stuff <i>to the death</i> if anyone suggests that the genre could afford to mix things up a bit is depressing, to say the least.Sean Willshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15509443197147729977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-29297789413148467152012-02-04T04:44:42.840-08:002012-02-04T04:44:42.840-08:00I worry this post boils down to is a subtle (and f...I worry this post boils down to is a subtle (and frequently no so subtle) fear that people will make fun of what you read, despite your protestations. I see this backlash frequently. But what you are discussing is in fact rather mainstream, pedestrian fantasy. Big epic series that are high on the boy's own adventure quotient and low on the exploration of deeper themes.<br /><br />It is easy to mistake nostalgia with the qualities of books. I would suggest that you'd not enjoy those same titles if you read them for the first time now, as much as you did when you first encountered them then. I don't doubt you still enjoy books of this sort, but I'd be wary of saying it’s entirely because of their virtues and not that dialogue they establish with your own childhood/early adulthood experience of the genre.<br /><br />And there are still just as many books of this sort being published, and young readers encountering and enjoying them as there were "back then." Many more. We always feel a pang for the passing of our halcyon youth and that somehow things were more authentic because they were more "ours" and less removed from whatever primary source we believe in our folly we had tapped first.<br /><br />There is nothing wrong with this sort of novel. They've always been quite popular and make up the bulk of the genre. But we shouldn't insist that they are something they are not, or that lauding novels which set out to do more, are kicking sand in their faces. There is room for both, and all examples in between, on the blanket.<br /><br />I also think that we've reached a period where many of those who started out in the late 1970s and 1980s, resent seeing what was appropriated as "geek culture" for their own use, explode into mainstream awareness and acceptance. You can hear an echo in your "pretty girl" et al example. There is a bitterness.<br /><br />On the contrary, this is a Good Thing. I think your analogy is a poor one, as what is happening is that instead of the members of the Chess and D&D clubs going to the prom together and dancing with no one or with each other, let along with their Jock rulers, we've thrown *all* the students from the combined tri-county area into the AV Club, given them Buffy t-shirts, iphones, copies of the Harry Potter Handbook and sent them on a sleepover in a small remote haunted time traveling cabin in the troll plagued mountains of madness.<br /><br />Some of them will not survive, some may eat the others, but by Cthulhu, it will be a night to remember.<br /><br />II/IIEric M. Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11464329371478605627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-57279203560268862362012-02-04T04:40:56.179-08:002012-02-04T04:40:56.179-08:00I have to disagree that "Fantasy is about div...I have to disagree that "Fantasy is about divorcing from reality." Or your claim that it’s not inextricably bound up in the wider field of fantastical writing. I would urge readers to look where fantasy has come from but I think these are not the same sources you have in mind.<br /><br />Nor is the term mainstream useful. Books like "The Tiger's Wife" are hardly mainstream. No more than Angela Carter or Margaret Atwood should be considered to be "mainstream" despite how widely read these authors are. I admit, Atwood comes close. Mainstream is airport thrillers, romance novels, and absolutely, many Fantasy book series. Mainstream tastes tend towards the escapist, easily digested, and disposable.<br />Literary as a classification is even more problematic.<br /><br />Franz Kafka, especially his short stories published and unpublished during his lifetime is unmistakably fantastical. As is some of Gogol's work - though considered in his day a staunch realist. They are also considered to be canonical "literary" fiction.<br /><br />Likewise, I’m against an artificial line being drawn between magicians who cast spells and hang out with people of short stature - and magicians like Bulgakov's Woland and his hellish retinue who fall upon Moscow in The Master and Margarita. Or Goethe's Faust, on which the latter is based.<br /><br />Jorge Luis Borges and Thomas Moore are fathers of modern fantasy - and of fantastical literature in general. Without Utopia, we wouldn't have all our great dystopias and Borges influences are equally lasting. These are just two, plucked out of a near bottomless hat.<br />I would not wish to cut off this rich flow from divers origins and alternative sources such as Weird Tales, Pulp/Science Fiction, Gothic, and Horror, and strand the sort of ponderous epic fantasy you are focusing on, upon a sandbank of limited prospects. Cut off from the satisfying wholeness of speculative fiction and its history.<br /><br />This would certainly accomplish what you fear: that Fantasy with a capital F ends up in its own ghetto, consigned to the backwaters of literature.<br /><br />I/IIEric M. Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11464329371478605627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-74129628178911026722012-02-04T03:16:57.088-08:002012-02-04T03:16:57.088-08:00Tone, tone, tone. But please, point to a single pi...Tone, tone, tone. But please, point to a single piece of vitriol in the comments here. The closest I can see is Weirdmage's comment about "pretentious pricks" but even that isn't particularly strong.Martinhttp://everythingisnice.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-58217096227224384572012-02-04T01:59:03.903-08:002012-02-04T01:59:03.903-08:00@Mark. Remember that recent conversation about how...@Mark. Remember that recent conversation about how hard it is to actually 'discuss' anything on the internet without it degenerating into a vitriol-fueled argument? This is a good example.Michellehttp://www.vilutheril.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-37688209076316460002012-02-04T01:56:30.351-08:002012-02-04T01:56:30.351-08:00Wow. Seriously? Wow. @Martin, we get it you don...<i>Wow. Seriously? Wow. @Martin, we get it you don't agree with Justin's post. Does that really warrant posting your diatribe against it? </i><br /><br />Justin posted the link to this on Twitter saying "I ask the question: are we trying to hard?" He followed up by saying "Worth discussing at least, I think." I agree and that it why I have been discussing it with him.<br /><br />Justin's proposition is that:<br /><br />a) Some within the genre (with Pornokitsch, Bourke and Walter as examples) are trying too hard to gain mainstream recognition<br />b) By doing so they are (in some unexplained way) harming the genre<br /><br />I disagree with both points and, since Justin "hopes he is wrong", I've asked him to try and support his proposition. What do you think? It is noticeable that you have failed to engage with either the post or my response to it. Instead, as always happens with people who can't engage with the substance, you are reduced to the tone argument.<br /><br /><i> Read whatever the hell you want to and let others do the same.</i><br /><br />Good advice. Of course, this goes against Justin's post which says that certain types of writing are harmful and, implicit in this, is the idea that rather than being ignored, they should be opposed.<br /><br /><i>I believe this, along with Justin's previous two posts, bring to light very good questions concerning the status of genre literature today. Thank you for writing it and getting at least some of us thinking.</i><br /><br />And what are these questions? You don't say, you don't engage with the post at all. You say that the post got "at least some of us thinking" and, while you don't actually state it, you presumably include yourself and exclude me in that. But where is the evidence of this? As far as I can see, I am the only person who has actually engaged with the substance of the post, the other comments all address unrelated strawmen. Justin wants an honest conversation about the issue but apparently other people don't.Martinhttp://everythingisnice.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-71829997116099199212012-02-03T19:58:48.046-08:002012-02-03T19:58:48.046-08:00Wow. Seriously? Wow. @Martin, we get it you don...Wow. Seriously? Wow. @Martin, we get it you don't agree with Justin's post. Does that really warrant posting your diatribe against it? Read whatever the hell you want to and let others do the same. I applaud Justin for even responding to such trifle. <br /><br />I believe this, along with Justin's previous two posts, bring to light very good questions concerning the status of genre literature today. Thank you for writing it and getting at least some of us thinking. <br /><br />By the way, Ulysses rocks...Prince of Thorns rocks harder.Schaefernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-81679535038405423672012-02-03T14:44:08.316-08:002012-02-03T14:44:08.316-08:00SFF written by litfic authors make litfic awards l...SFF written by litfic authors make litfic awards lists, because they are taken seriously by the "litarary establishment". The same, or better by any standard, book by a SFF author receives scorn by the "literary establishment". It has nothing to do with what is in the book.<br /><br />And when the lific crowd (="literary establishment") say something is "bold" and "groundbraking", you can usually hear the moans of SFF readers, because it was considered passé 10 years ago. <br /><br />If Miéville had started with litfic, I'm sure the litfic fans would be debating if he should have gotten the Nobel now, or he if he was to young after TC&TC.<br /><br />And I don't understand why "literary"-SFF fans get so uptight when you point out their "darlings" are not original. After all they claim "ordinary" SFF is derivative.<br /><br />If you use SFF standards for a litfic author who uses SFF "tropes", you'll very rarely find they are original at all. Adding litfic's introspection and metaphors, that are also there in "ordinary SFF" (, but litfic fans can't see unless it is gone on-and-on about for endless pages, sacrificing any semblance of telling a story, because they don't seem to have the ability to see a deeper meaning in stories that are actually engaging,) you'll see that they are just pretentious pricks. Too involved in their own importance to actually take more than a passing glance at the genre thay are trying to usurp as their "original/daring new direction".<br /><br />If you want to play in the SFF "sandbox", you should refrain from stealing all the toys, claiming you have invented new toys, and then calling them shit toys afterwards.Weirdmagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10999326013335351617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-15974043482708657502012-02-03T13:58:56.962-08:002012-02-03T13:58:56.962-08:00I love all literature. I think where I draw the li...I love all literature. I think where I draw the line is the unnecessary feeling of superiority that some people have about what they read vs. what the mainstream folks read.<br /><br />By the way, I've never read Ulysses, but it's on the list. I'll get there eventually. :)Brycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08883040345972688616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-79425700789384484632012-02-03T13:48:03.227-08:002012-02-03T13:48:03.227-08:00Justin: I'll leave the first three points to o...Justin: I'll leave the first three points to one side since we are arguing over different interpretations and we obviously aren't going to agree.<br /><br /><i>Granted.</i><br /><br />You've removed the context here. Call me judgemental but if you define yourself in opposition to what other people think then yes, I think you are an idiot. But I didn't call you an idiot, I allowed for the possibility that you meant something different from what you actually said.<br /><br /><i> I feel bad for the way she wrote it, but more to the point, I'm concerned about the comments that I believe demonstrate a hugely fractured community of genre readers. It was combative and nasty.</i><br /><br />I'm never going to be convinced that the tone argument is at all relevent to anything. However, in terms of demonstrating a fractured community, why is this a surprise or a concern? Of course, it is fractured, how could it not be. But why does the fact Bourke believes something different to you and others matter?<br /><br /><i>It's like when you beat up your little brother. Put him in a headlock, and show him who's boss? Sure. Throw him into oncoming traffic? Not cool.</i><br /><br />Again, your metaphor is incomprehensible. In what possible way is Sullivan's novel Bourke's little brother?<br /><br /><i>The call for a Booker shortlist is a call for books that meet the Booker expectations, which isn't wizards and space ships regardless of how good the prose or conceit are.</i><br /><br />The first part of this doesn't make any sense and doesn't reflect reality. The second part is factually wrong: <i>Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell</i> is a book about wizards and it made the Booker longlist precisely because the prose and conceit were recognised. When people wonder why SFF doesn't make the Booker shortlist, they are wondering why such boks are so rarely recognised.Martinhttp://everythingisnice.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978497880525976810.post-69323673204294980362012-02-03T13:44:58.545-08:002012-02-03T13:44:58.545-08:00Scott: In reference to my comment above about list...Scott: <i>In reference to my comment above about lists. It was likely a bit obtuse, but I was referring to a lot of the Genre specific lists or awards that play with the big boys.</i><br /><br />I complained that your lists were imaginary, you have responded by failing to identify a single one of these lists.<br /><br /><i>Like Scalzi's been up for the Hugo before, but I find that even Hugo and other awards can overlook "genre" to find "literary genre" instead as if it's some sort of contest where they won't let the plebs in to join because their clothes are too shabby.</i><br /><br />You specifically mentioned <i>Old Man's War</i> as a book that was overlooked for its ""spacey" cover, or it's "pulpy" style" but it was shortlisted for the Hugo in 2006. So again you are reduced to unsupported statements about imaginary states of affairs. What are the literary genre novels that the Hugos have favoured over genre novels? How have the Hugos - an open membership organisation - stopped the plebs from joining in?<br /><br /><i>The Arthur C. Clarke Award is a good example, of one that seems to nominate a lot of the same type of books year in year out and books that are written quite "pulpy" or present as "too genre" seem to be overlooked in favor of the stuff that pushes some sort of boundaries, or crossed some level of weird to make it stand out.</i><br /><br />Here are the last five winners of the Clarke Award: Nova Swing by M. John Harrison, Black Man by Richard Morgan, Song of Time by Ian R. MacLeod, The City & the City by China Miéville and Zoo City by Lauren Beukes. All very different novels but all genre novels published by genre publishers. Are they pulpy? No. You would not expect pulpy novels to win a literary award.<br /><br /><i> Does that mean the paperback urban fantasies ought to be overlooked?</i><br /><br />For the Clarke Award? Yes, it is an award for science fiction.Martinhttp://everythingisnice.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com