You might have seen it, you might have not, but folk in the genre are having a good old squabble about who deserves to be a writer and who shouldn’t be part of their club. (actually, a lot of them on Westeros don’t want me as part of their club anyway, but that’s for a whole different reason).
For those of you who don’t know what’s going on, basically people are saying that if you write fantasy you should read it. Joe Abercrombie summed it up here with some of the various links when he put his own POV across, since he’s one of the folk being accused in parts of being a hypocrite, or at least something that looks like one and smells like one.
So what’s my opinion on it all? Actually, I’m not going to tell you that, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there are authors on each side whose books I like and who sell more than I do, so either way I’m criticising a more successful competitor. Secondly, I don’t actually like the internet that much.
Aha, not what you were expecting to read on a blog I suspect, well let me qualify it. The internet’s great, and incredibly useful, but a very loud minority of folk who use it are ignorant and a big bundle of their own prejudices. They use the net to show they’re a big man (and probably occasional woman I expect) and hammer their arguments into people – apparently feeling better after they’ve vented their spleen all over the world. These people are pricks and cover the whole range of interests and subjects the net caters for, which is everything. The fact of the matter is that I don’t like arguing with someone on a page/screen, it’s cowardly and never seems to go anywhere because there’s always some git with all the self-belief and self-righteousness of an old testament prophet who doesn’t like to discuss and argue, they only like to win.
As it happened last week, before I saw all the arguments had blown up, I had needled Joe Abercrombie about the subject in the pub. I’m not saying my opinion is displayed in that act because actually it’s only my love of winding people up that can be derived from it. Having said that, however much I occasionally rant on all sorts of subjects, when I’ve got an opinion I’d much prefer to say it to someone’s face so if nothing else they have the chance to tell me to fuck off.
Of course, Joe didn’t (except perhaps under his breath) but I don’t think his natural humility would have made him hold back had he wanted to. So, people of the internet, step away from the computer and if you’re going to argue with someone, do it over a pint and actually listen to their response. You’ll learn something. If you refuse to believe you’ll ever learn anything from a proper discussion, please do the rest of us a favour and kill yourself now.
Oh, I think that debate is winding down now and the consensus is that some good* writers do, and some good writers don’t. All in a day’s blogging, I guess.
*Terms and conditions apply.
Fair enough. Not surprised to discover I only caught the tail end of the discussion, is ever thus…
Oh, I think that debate is winding down now and the consensus is that some good* writers do, and some good writers don’t. All in a day’s blogging, I guess.
*Terms and conditions apply.
Fair enough. Not surprised to discover I only caught the tail end of the discussion, is ever thus…
Wow… I don’t really keep up with many debates on SF&F, I didn’t know there there are boards where authors and genre fans have a pop at each other for various opinions in their own little community.
One of my favourite SF&F authors and a very highly regarded one, Jack Vance, is on record saying he barely read any contempory SF&F, except possibly that of his late best friend, Poul Anderson. It is certainly fair to say you don’t need to read the genre you write in at all. Although Mieville, Bilsborough and Morgan in his forthcoming book are I think directly tackling issues they have with genre fantasy. They could not do so without being familiar with what it is.
Personally, I’ve got a lot of sympathy for Bilsborough’s comments. And what I mean by a “lot of sympathy”, is that I think he’s probably right. For every handful of quality writers in one way or another, there are a legion of jobbing hacks chucking out mass consumption cliche. There’s nothing heretical, weird, or hypocritical about saying so. After all, Sturgeon’s Law, from the SF author, is “Ninety percent of everything is crap”. Some of us enjoy that crap, even where we recognise it is crap.
Regarding the method of discussion, I recall having an argument with another guy from the SF&F soc at my university, where I said that a lot of SF&F had serious failings: poor characterisation, cliche, or just plain bad writing. He had a go at me for being a “literary snob”. Many SF&F fans can feel slightly besieged and defensive when the genres they love are criticised, and possibly overreact. And it is too easy on the net to let fly, something I was much guilty of myself when younger.
Sturgeon’s Law came from weary defence of SF, R. Scott Bakker wrote an essay findable on the web relating to snobbish criticism. I think Sturgeon was right: the idea is not that we should have defend it all, we really just need to say it has its 10% share of gems. We don’t need to justify the other 90% nor justify ourselves if we choose to read it, nor equally should we fault those who just decide to give that same 90% a miss.
Wow… I don’t really keep up with many debates on SF&F, I didn’t know there there are boards where authors and genre fans have a pop at each other for various opinions in their own little community.
One of my favourite SF&F authors and a very highly regarded one, Jack Vance, is on record saying he barely read any contempory SF&F, except possibly that of his late best friend, Poul Anderson. It is certainly fair to say you don’t need to read the genre you write in at all. Although Mieville, Bilsborough and Morgan in his forthcoming book are I think directly tackling issues they have with genre fantasy. They could not do so without being familiar with what it is.
Personally, I’ve got a lot of sympathy for Bilsborough’s comments. And what I mean by a “lot of sympathy”, is that I think he’s probably right. For every handful of quality writers in one way or another, there are a legion of jobbing hacks chucking out mass consumption cliche. There’s nothing heretical, weird, or hypocritical about saying so. After all, Sturgeon’s Law, from the SF author, is “Ninety percent of everything is crap”. Some of us enjoy that crap, even where we recognise it is crap.
Regarding the method of discussion, I recall having an argument with another guy from the SF&F soc at my university, where I said that a lot of SF&F had serious failings: poor characterisation, cliche, or just plain bad writing. He had a go at me for being a “literary snob”. Many SF&F fans can feel slightly besieged and defensive when the genres they love are criticised, and possibly overreact. And it is too easy on the net to let fly, something I was much guilty of myself when younger.
Sturgeon’s Law came from weary defence of SF, R. Scott Bakker wrote an essay findable on the web relating to snobbish criticism. I think Sturgeon was right: the idea is not that we should have defend it all, we really just need to say it has its 10% share of gems. We don’t need to justify the other 90% nor justify ourselves if we choose to read it, nor equally should we fault those who just decide to give that same 90% a miss.