Why does my prof consider 'Fantasy' to be crap? - Discussion [Archive]

PhatDad

08-16-2009, 06:51 PM

Fenika

08-16-2009, 07:01 PM

Change majors.

The bigwigs that judge, I mean grade, you have seen many a fantasy writer come through. And they've crushed them all. You're not going to change an old dogs mind.

And you don't need any kind of english major to be a good writer.

Of course, you could keep english and run from creative writing. Or transfer schools next year.

Sage

08-16-2009, 07:05 PM

There is a snobbery held by some academics against anything that's not literary or mainstream. I've never taken any college writing courses, but several of my friends did, and one of them was a fantasy writer who always felt ostracized in her classes because of people's reaction to fantasy. In her case, the professor was often included in this snobbery.

But perhaps this is a case of the professor's views influencing the other students. I know in my major (environmental studies), once we lost the environmental science professors, I suddenly was the only one in my year interested in the science aspect. The head of the department and the intro classes all focused on the social science aspects. I can imagine that if a professor or a department is telling people that one form of literature is "good" and therefore the other is not, even if it's shown by example, not by saying one's better, the same sort of thing could happen.

But not every department is the same. Not every professor or department will scoff at fantasy. Just because one person has that opinion, unless that person is going to be reviewing your work for a final grade, I wouldn't worry about what they say about genre.

In theory, a professor should be able to see a good novel and grade it because it's good, even if it's not in their preferred genre. But being human too, it's easy to see how they might get influenced by genre.

And it's sad, and I don't have any answers for you.

I believe my friend wrote her senior writing project for fantasy all the same. She didn't mention feeling like she was graded down for it when we talked about her discomfort in her classes.

MattW

08-16-2009, 07:09 PM

PhatDad

08-16-2009, 07:12 PM

Sage

08-16-2009, 07:18 PM

ChaosTitan

08-16-2009, 07:20 PM

I'm sure there are many who can speak to this better than I can, but I think there is an attitude in some sectors of academia that what is popular cannot be studied. It spills over to critics (many of whom have come through the academic mill) - King is only just starting to receive credit for a distinguished career, even though most literary critics won't have much good to say about his writing.

It's no small measure of pretentiousness, either. I encountered it in my writing courses as well. fantasy was put down as something for kids, and not tackling challenging topics, and not having deep characters. No doubt some of that is true, but it doesn't do the genres justice for the true depth they have, and the evolution that has taken place over decades since pulp fantasy ruled.

On the flip side, I can stereotype most literary fiction as masturbatory. And some of it surely is.

QFT.

It's quite perplexing, and I truly don't have an answer for why. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but one's opinion on genre should not interfere with one's ability to lead an objective classroom. Your professor's job is to teach and help you grow and learn, not to judge you based on your genre preference.

Most literary novels, both classic and modern, bore me to death. It's why I read and write Spec fic.

ChaosTitan

08-16-2009, 07:21 PM

Sage - I'm curious. What would he consider a "mainstream" movie? The Fifth Element was a wide release blockbuster, with named stars and it made lots of money. Pretty mainstream to me.

PhatDad

08-16-2009, 07:22 PM

Any chance, there's a point in a class somewhere where you can bring that up? That even though you prefer fantasy or you don't like another genre, you can still judge a good story in it? (Not directly calling out the prof, just giving him food for thought)

I had the intro writing class freshman year, and it was about pop culture, so we analyzed movies and ads and internet, etc. For my movie paper, I used The Fifth Element. Every single draft I did, he was like, "This isn't exactly a mainstream movie. I'll probably have to take that into account, so you might want to rethink which movie you're using." But I liked the paper, and I wasn't going to write a new one from scratch, so I used it anyway.

I got an A on it despite his comments (though he still wrote that he wished I had used a more mainstream movie in my comments).

<crosses fingers for you>

Unfortunately classes are out for this year and this is a portfolio I was supposed to have written earlier in the year but I've had family issues to contend with and didn't get it in, in time. I did raise this at the start of year and last year and was told that to write fantasy I have to break the mould and do something that hasn't been done before but to be honest, I can't think of anything that hasn't yet been done in one form or another. Even when I've come up with an idea I think is original I find it's already been done.

MattW

08-16-2009, 07:23 PM

Some SFF books that won't draw sneers:

1984
Brave New World
Time Machine
One Hundred Years of Solitude
The Name of the Rose
The Tempest
Gulliver's Travels
The Iliad
Canterbury Tales

PhatDad

08-16-2009, 07:24 PM

QFT.

It's quite perplexing, and I truly don't have an answer for why. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but one's opinion on genre should not interfere with one's ability to lead an objective classroom. Your professor's job is to teach and help you grow and learn, not to judge you based on your genre preference.

Most literary novels, both classic and modern, bore me to death. It's why I read and write Spec fic.

I agree, there are only a couple of classics I've read in the last two years I've actually enjoyed.

MattW

08-16-2009, 07:28 PM

Also, though they're not my personal favorite, anything like China Meiville's novels should be able to invoke those thoughts that professors should be looking for.

ChaosTitan

08-16-2009, 07:32 PM

and was told that to write fantasy I have to break the mould and do something that hasn't been done before but to be honest, I can't think of anything that hasn't yet been done in one form or another. Even when I've come up with an idea I think is original I find it's already been done.

Thing is, this is a common problem in ALL genres. There are only so many stories out there, and they've all been told. What makes one book different from another is HOW, WHO, WHEN and WHY.

You can give this premise -- Hero X must travel to Z in order to accomplish Y before G happens -- to six different authors, and you will get six completely different novels. Our heroes won't be the same (heck, mine will probably be a heroine!), their Z, Y and G will all be different and unique. It's all in the execution.

Medievalist

08-16-2009, 07:34 PM

Medievalist

08-16-2009, 07:38 PM

stephenf

08-16-2009, 07:39 PM

Not sure your generalisation of academia is totally true, Lord of the Rings was written by a academic. I think what you are really experiencing is snobbery.There has always been snobbery towards certain writing genres and I expect we are all guilty.What genre do you dislike?. We all have different tastes, except some think that there taste represents a position of superiority.

Fenika

08-16-2009, 07:40 PM

I've got to stick it out unfortunately. Been years in the doing and had I not wanted to do creative writing I'd have taken a history degree so I'm sticking with it.

I'm gonna repeat myself here.

You pay them.

You're the client.

They are acting like the stereotypical Walmart employees.

Stop banging your head against the wall. They will not teach you what you want to learn.

Either adopt their standards or shop elsewhere.

You already have a backup plan of History, even if you didn't take it. Go see if the grass is indeed greener, no?

vfury

08-16-2009, 07:54 PM

I did a MPhil in Popular Lit, so my modules were mostly based around genre fiction and how it was often looked down upon. Ironically, the course itself wasn't really taken seriously by the rest of the English Department. It was understood that those of us who wanted to pursue PhDs would have the least chance of gaining funding from the college, compared to those who were doing 'proper' literary studies.

A friend of mine did a MA in Creative Writing and she had problems with her tutor disliking fantasy. She tried to ignore that, and concentrated on other things she wanted to learn from them. By the end of her MA, she had a publishing deal for her YA fantasy. The first chapter of her book, that her class and teachers approved of after rewrites, was cut during her round of edits.

IdiotsRUs

08-16-2009, 08:07 PM

What a load of old snobbery bollocks

I sympathise, I really do. But, you want to finish your course. Then you can write what you want and thumb your nose at the Prof :D

Now, if this were me I'd do a few things. You, obviously, aren't me. But your priority should be to pass. If you can make a clear, reasoned argument that fantasy IS literature, so much the better. But not at the cost of failing your course.

1 - Start a debate about the best selling books of all time. Casually note that the majority are fantasy ;)

2 - Start a debate on Professor Tolkien and how academia and fantasy can go hand and hand, and are not mutually exclusive. Note some themes that classic fantasy has dealt with. And how about some classic authors/ works that are totally fantasy but still regarded well, even by snobs? As noted above, Orwell, Wells, Shakespeare. Ask in an innocent tone if you should not read them because of their fantasy elements?

3 - Turn in a story that has only very subtle fantastical elements ( out of body experiences aren't fantasy. I've had several. Get info on them to present that argument. ) if any. Get that A

4 - When you pass, tell Prof what a tosspot he is.

5 - Write what you like and become mega successful. Laugh at your professor. Use him as your incentive to be bloody brilliant.

6 - Go back to your uni after becoming mega successful and give a talk on 'Fantasy as literature'. Subtitle it 'Literary snobs are evil' :D OR wait till they ask you to come back and talk, and say no, because they are all snobs.

But like I say, that would be me. Do what it takes to pass the course if you feel that is what is beneficial to you. If that means keeping your head down, do it. Or, if you feel this course isn't beneficial ( you can still write without a qualification) quit the course.

PhatDad

08-16-2009, 08:11 PM

A friend of mine did a MA in Creative Writing and she had problems with her tutor disliking fantasy. She tried to ignore that, and concentrated on other things she wanted to learn from them. By the end of her MA, she had a publishing deal for her YA fantasy. The first chapter of her book, that her class and teachers approved of after rewrites, was cut during her round of edits.

I like the sound of that.

There is a lecturer who has a bookcase of fantasy in his office so I may go and have a word with him. The problem is that he doesn't take any of the creative writing modules but specialises in poetry.

I only have one year left of the degree so can't change now and due to finances can't delay obtaining my degree any further. I HAVE to pass next year or I'll be forced to get a job in a fast food minimum wage restaurant.

dclary

08-16-2009, 08:18 PM

Hi,

I am just finising my second year at Uni doing an English with Creative Writing degree. I'm a mature student and have spent the better part of my life reading fantasy and sci fi novels and love the genre. However, I'm having problems at Uni because as far as I can gather fantasy isn't perceived particularly well.

Now, I've had to complete a portfolio this summer and because of this 'dislike' for fantasy I decided to write a short story based in ancient Greece where a young grave robber has a 'near death' experience and spends a time next to the river styx while those who have had their payments to Charon stolen from their mouths are a little annoyed with him and force him back. He then has to decide whether to make amends or carry on as normal brushing the experience off as a mere dream due to the knock on the head.

Anway, one of the people who have read the story said it was 'crap' because of the fact it's fantasy. Because the lad has an out of body experience it is classed as fantasy in his eyes. So now I'm concerned that because I am a big lover of the genre my dissertation next year will fall flat on it's arse because I intend to write fantasy/sci fi. Despite millions of books selling every year in this genre a lot of people can't see past it and think each fantasy text is a pastiche on all the others.

So, why is this?

My argument is that 'any' genre has a set form and structure it follows to fit in that genre and although an author may change some part of that form/structure it will still remain in that genre unless all forms are broken, but then it'll end up in a different genre anyway and share cliche's.

Had I placed the same story within a modern day, hard boiled crime novel then the modern version of an out of body experience, following the white light or similar, would not make the story a fantasy.

Or if my non fantasy story that is classed as 'quite good' would automatically be classed as 'crap' if I altered even the smallest part of it and added a 'fantastically' perceived element to it.

I just don't understand what I can do. I want to write fantasy but I can't see anyway of doing so without it being marked lower just because it's fantasy.

Any ideas on this?

USC's Bachelor's of Narrative Arts includes the following senior level courses:

ENGL 375 Science Fiction
COLT 420 The Fantastic
CLAS 380 Approaches to Myth
COLT 312 Heroes, Myths, and Legends in Literature and the Arts

In fact, most major universities offer courses in in science fiction and fantasy.

What you have to do is one of a couple things:

a) Write what you want to write and be happy with it not matter what anyone else says.

b) Use your professor's time and experience to become a better writer: write the assignments you're given to write, under the guidelines given. You'll be amazed how much better your personal writing will become.

c) Stop whining.

d) Go to a different college. One that teaches sci fi and fantasy.

e) Recognize that it's highly possible that in trying to identify how badly what you wrote was written, your readers glommed onto the genre because it's a softer, more neutral criticism than "this writing really blows."

f) let this be a learning experience for you. Not everyone's going to agree with you. The most popular authors in the world have critics who call them horrible, horrible hacks of writers. So grow an upper lip, stiffen it, and move on.

PhatDad

08-16-2009, 08:20 PM

Summonere

08-16-2009, 08:28 PM

Why do academics consider 'Fantasy' to be crap? - Discussion

A few reasons, but mostly this: most of it is crap, and they don't know what they're talking about. Cool, huh? See, the thing is, ninety percent of everything is crap*, but not everyone agrees upon what is and what isn't till things sort and, years later, we discover that we're still reading some pretty old stories, after which we say, hey, this crap isn't all that bad.

But here's another thing: The more levels upon which a piece of fiction works, and the more deeply it touches them, is capable of evoking a sense of the mysterious, the more likely it is to be called literature, and, if done well enough, great literature. And here I mean “literature” in a sense distinct from mere fiction. Most fantasy tells a story and that's it. In fact, most fiction does that, because most fiction is designed to entertain in some pretty straightforward ways. But if in the telling it manages to evoke great and timeless themes that have something deep and meaningful and profound to say about humanity, all the better. Indeed there are fantasy works that do these very things, do them well, and that stand up today to the enjoyment of readers and the scrutiny of critics.

...one of the people who have read the story said it was 'crap' because of the fact it's fantasy

What are we to make of Macbeth's three witches? What are we to make of the ghost in Hamlet? What, for that matter, of the ghosts in the Charles Dickens' classic Scrooge? What of William S. Burroughs' time travel, aliens, and metafictive Cities of the Red Night? What of Italo Calvino's sentient formulaes, Cloven Viscount, or Nonexistent Knight? What of Gogol's Diary of a Madman weirdness, Kafka's buggy Metamorphosis? How about consultation of oracles in Oedipus Rex, or the fantastical sphinx? What of Pynchon's Byron the Bulb or Marry Shelley's manufactured man in Frankenstein? What of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses magical realism, the transformation of Farishta into an archangel? What about Dante's Divine Comedy, with its trip through hell and multiple encounters with the dead?

It annoys me that the first fantasy short story I wrote last year the lecturer wrote that he may be marking me down because of the genre rather than my actual work.

And when it comes time for student evaluation of instructors, you will be marking him down for attitude as opposed to actual work.

-----------------------
* Sturgeon's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law):

He made his original remarks in direct response to attacks against science fiction that used “the worst examples of the field for ammunition”. Using the same standards that categorize 90% of science fiction as trash, crud, or crap, it can be argued that 90% of film, literature, consumer goods, etc. are crap. In other words, the claim (or fact) that 90% of science fiction is crap is ultimately uninformative, because science fiction conforms to the same trends of quality as all other artforms do.

PhatDad

08-16-2009, 08:35 PM

A few reasons, but mostly this: most of it is crap, and they don't know what they're talking about. Cool, huh? See, the thing is, ninety percent of everything is crap*, but not everyone agrees upon what is and what isn't till things sort and, years later, we discover that we're still reading some pretty old stories, after which we say, hey, this crap isn't all that bad.

But here's another thing: The more levels upon which a piece of fiction works, and the more deeply it touches them, is capable of evoking a sense of the mysterious, the more likely it is to be called literature, and, if done well enough, great literature. And here I mean “literature” in a sense distinct from mere fiction. Most fantasy tells a story and that's it. In fact, most fiction does that, because most fiction is designed to entertain in some pretty straightforward ways. But if in the telling it manages to evoke great and timeless themes that have something deep and meaningful and profound to say about humanity, all the better. Indeed there are fantasy works that do these very things, do them well, and that stand up today to the enjoyment of readers and the scrutiny of critics.

What are we to make of Macbeth's three witches? What are we to make of the ghost in Hamlet? What, for that matter, of the ghosts in the Charles Dickens' classic Scrooge? What of William S. Burroughs' time travel, aliens, and metafictive Cities of the Red Night? What of Italo Calvino's sentient formulaes, Cloven Viscount, or Nonexistent Knight? What of Gogol's Diary of a Madman weirdness, Kafka's buggy Metamorphosis? How about consultation of oracles in Oedipus Rex, or the fantastical sphinx? What of Pynchon's Byron the Bulb or Marry Shelley's manufactured man in Frankenstein? What of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses magical realism, the transformation of Farishta into an archangel? What about Dante's Divine Comedy, with its trip through hell and multiple encounters with the dead?

And when it comes time for student evaluation of instructors, you will be marking him down for attitude as opposed to actual work.

-----------------------
* Sturgeon's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law):

He made his original remarks in direct response to attacks against science fiction that used “the worst examples of the field for ammunition”. Using the same standards that categorize 90% of science fiction as trash, crud, or crap, it can be argued that 90% of film, literature, consumer goods, etc. are crap. In other words, the claim (or fact) that 90% of science fiction is crap is ultimately uninformative, because science fiction conforms to the same trends of quality as all other artforms do.

Wow, great post thanks. I may add some of those examples to my critical commentary and see what the reply is.

vfury

08-16-2009, 08:37 PM

I like the sound of that.

There is a lecturer who has a bookcase of fantasy in his office so I may go and have a word with him. The problem is that he doesn't take any of the creative writing modules but specialises in poetry.

I only have one year left of the degree so can't change now and due to finances can't delay obtaining my degree any further. I HAVE to pass next year or I'll be forced to get a job in a fast food minimum wage restaurant.

I think having a professor on your side, so to speak, might be a good idea, in case the worst happens and you feel you've been marked down for your love of fantasy. But as IdiotsRUs said, your main priority should be passing your degree with a mark you're happy with.

Have you considered giving magical realism a try? If anyone becomes snobby over that, you can point to Salman Rushdie and point out that he's won the Booker and the Best of the Booker.

PhatDad

08-16-2009, 09:37 PM

I think having a professor on your side, so to speak, might be a good idea, in case the worst happens and you feel you've been marked down for your love of fantasy. But as IdiotsRUs said, your main priority should be passing your degree with a mark you're happy with.

Have you considered giving magical realism a try? If anyone becomes snobby over that, you can point to Salman Rushdie and point out that he's won the Booker and the Best of the Booker.

I haven't read any Rushdie so not exactly sure what you mean. I'll be receiving an eReader tomorrow so should find I can read a lot more as I'll always have it with me. Which do you recommend?

Shoeless

08-16-2009, 09:59 PM

I know a lot of people have complained (and often rightfully so) about their experiences with academics, but I have to say, I'm actually quite glad I took the creative writing courses I did while in university. I got EXTREMELY lucky and over the course of three years managed to have to have two professors who were extremely supportive of my writing and it didn't phase them at all that I did "genre writing." I was, as to be expected, the only one in my classes even interested in the stuff, but they didn't hold it against me.

One of the professors even laid out her agenda very clearly at the start of the year. She said that she was going to try and help the students to become better at what they WANTED to write, not what they felt they SHOULD be writing. On the whole I learned a lot of things about writing in general during those classes, and I found it helpful that my professor was willing to look at my work in an academic light, with a critical, academic eye... just without the snobbery.

I would have to say personally that while it's true creative writing classes may be difficult for people interested in writing science fiction or fantasy, they can also be INCREDIBLY helpful if you have a prof who doesn't harbor a grudge against those genres.

BigWords

08-16-2009, 10:16 PM

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.

I'm not dismissing all teachers, because there have been some who influenced me greatly, but the old saying is useful to remember when you are faced with an asshole who can't see past their own preferences. The dismissal of an entire genre is inexcusable from anyone, but coming from someone who is in a position of authority it is dangerous thinking.

Bartholomew

08-16-2009, 10:22 PM

I've got to stick it out unfortunately. Been years in the doing and had I not wanted to do creative writing I'd have taken a history degree so I'm sticking with it.

It annoys me that the first fantasy short story I wrote last year the lecturer wrote that he may be marking me down because of the genre rather than my actual work. I was WTF??? Anyway, I went to see the module leader after I realised that I wasn't doing too well and he said to me 'Why are you here if you want to write fantasy and not out there writing?'

Anyway, I don't understand why people don't like fantasy but I can still read a genre I'm not keen on and tell the difference between a good story and bad story in that genre. My problem is I can't tell from them if it's the fact my stories are crap or whether they are crap because they are fantasy.

I spoke with the creative writing instructors at the university I'm going to attend, and mentioned that I wanted to be a novelist. They basically told me I wasn't welcome in their program, and that they had nothing to offer me. Keep in mind, I didn't say "Fantasy Novelist," I said, "Novelist." Still, they had nothing for me.

So I'm majoring in communications instead.

(Sort of a giant leap from my original computer science degree, but whatever.)

I don't think I've ever met someone with a creative writing degree who actually made a living writing. This species must exist, but... how common are they compared to the writers who have some other degree?

PhatDad

08-16-2009, 10:27 PM

To be totally honest I don't feel as though I have learnt anything in the creative writing module. I have surprised myself and enjoyed the other modules but after reading a few 'How to' books there's nothing that the lecturers have taught me that I hadn't already picked up in those books. The other problem is that we're expected to critique each others work however, non of us have had the skills to do it. The one workshop I learnt the most was when I volunteered my weekly work to be critiqued by the lecturer himself. Everyone was patting me on the back after the workshop as he'd ripped the work apart and taken no prisoners but I actually learnt a lot from that 30 minute critique. No one else seems to have that skill or are too polite to say their thoughts on my work. Although the same can be said of me, I just can't see anything wrong with their work other than typos.

PhatDad

08-16-2009, 10:28 PM

I spoke with the creative writing instructors at the university I'm going to attend, and mentioned that I wanted to be a novelist. They basically told me I wasn't welcome in their program, and that they had nothing to offer me. Keep in mind, I didn't say "Fantasy Novelist," I said, "Novelist." Still, they had nothing for me.

So I'm majoring in communications instead.

(Sort of a giant leap from my original computer science degree, but whatever.)

I don't think I've ever met someone with a creative writing degree who actually made a living writing. This species must exist, but... how common are they compared to the writers who have some other degree?

Why did they not want you? Surely the novelist is the aim of 80 percent of those attending a creative writing program?

Sage

08-16-2009, 10:41 PM

Sage - I'm curious. What would he consider a "mainstream" movie? The Fifth Element was a wide release blockbuster, with named stars and it made lots of money. Pretty mainstream to me.
I think because it had a cult fanbase, rather than being widely popular. Probably a little anti-sci-fi snobbery there too.

The example paper he gave us was Thelma and Louise.

Bartholomew

08-16-2009, 10:48 PM

Why did they not want you? Surely the novelist is the aim of 80 percent of those attending a creative writing program?

I have no idea. This was a less-than-twenty minute phone conversation.

Nateskate

08-16-2009, 10:48 PM

Here are some thoughts to ponder. Teachers in every subject have their quirks, their likes and dislikes.

I know many college profs, and a fair number of them love fantasy, and even have fantasy displays lining their offices, everything from Lord of the Rings to Star Wars.

Fantasy/Sci Fi- People tend to love it or hate it to begin with. I'm sure that's in all areas of life. When I went through college I had to take required courses with teachers I disliked, disagreed with, and wished would get kicked out of academia. Still, it's about getting through and not about changing the collegiate world.

At least a third of my profs were stubborn and arrogant people, meaning they were never going to change. They would screw you for demeaning them and their sacred point of view, and they're no less sanctimonious with their fellow teachers. So, it doesn't really pay to take them on in a fight. If you read about Tolkien, he discusses the constant war between the Lit and Lang departments. They had two different worldviews. And editors constantly tried to correct Tolkien, because of some bias towards words "Dwarfs/Dwarves"

I once had a conversation with a group of agents. Very few would even consider rep for fantasy, because they admitted they didn't understand it. They didn't read it.

However, if you look at the top movies of all time- if you remove "Titanic"- the rest have a sci-fi or fantasy element. Even Pirates of the Carribean is mostly fantastical.

veinglory

08-16-2009, 10:51 PM

You have to research a creative writing course before you take it. You look at what the instructors write, do any of them write commercial fiction, who are they published by? Many are specifically aimed that producing literary writersa in a certain tradition, that is what they do. If that isn't what you want then you are simply in the wrong place.

I think that complaining about one stereotype about fantasy being crap while appealling to another (about "academics") is somewhat ironic. I think it is more that fantasy is not what they do, you have taken your horse to the mechanic and he can't help you. He might not even be all that sympathetic about your mistake.

vfury

08-16-2009, 11:28 PM

I haven't read any Rushdie so not exactly sure what you mean. I'll be receiving an eReader tomorrow so should find I can read a lot more as I'll always have it with me. Which do you recommend?

Rushdie's work can usually be described as literary with a fantastical bent, or magical realism. I'd recommend MIDNIGHT'S CHILDREN and THE SATANIC VERSES. He won the Man Booker award for MIDNIGHT'S CHILDREN years ago and the Booker really doesn't do genre. When they ran the 'Best of the Booker', he won it as the best of all the previous winners.

Cormac McCarthy's THE ROAD can be considered a post-apocalyptic novel, except people freaked out when that was suggested because Cormac McCarthy was a literary writer and would never write anything like genre. Sigh.

Liosse de Velishaf

08-16-2009, 11:55 PM

The topic itself has been discussed pretty well. But I thought I'd add my two cents anyway. I'm majoring in linguistics in college, instead of say, lit or creative writing. Not becuse I think all academia is biased or pretentious. Certainly, my writing instructors in highschool were all for my "genre" work when it fit the guidelines. I turned in scads of fantasy and sci-fi pieces. But I really despised all the assignments where I had to turn in something "literary". Hated 'em. Skipped a few even. But I kept in mind that my goal was to pass the courses, and I never got lower than a B. Some of the courses were supposed to be college equivalent, or at least, college freshman equivalent. Now, as much as I liked my teachers, the sort of writing the class was supposed to emphasize was not the sort of writing I do on my own. So I'm not taking any of those sort of courses in college(uni) if I don't have to. I'm sure my college professors are willing to accept any piece of writting that fits the rules of the particular assignment. From my experience, it's the students that I'll have trouble with. Okay, done rambling.

AMCrenshaw

08-17-2009, 12:02 AM

I think I'm an academic or well on my way and all I have to say is that there is crap in any genre from any number of points of view. Right now, fantasy is very popular which makes it an easy target. But other genres in the past have taken hits from the academic elite -- mystery, horror, romance. The stigma's strong enough or its perceived to be strong enough that certain writers (like Goodkind, for example) have denied they write "fantasy" novels.

My personal experience as an English major and MFA student has been more open than others I've heard about. But I like to read widely and as oddly as possible -- imo there's some shit in fantasy, no doubt, that other people like and there's stuff I find amazing that the critics don't like at all (Bleak Seasons by Glen Cook).

AMC

red_panda

08-17-2009, 12:11 AM

deleted by user

Xelebes

08-17-2009, 12:29 AM

Smiling Ted

08-17-2009, 01:05 AM

IrU is right.
Learn what you can, grab your degree, and go.

Genre fiction has always been written in opposition to accepted standards of "literary quality."
Your only mistake was trying to get a degree in it.

ChaosTitan

08-17-2009, 01:10 AM

Thought experiment time:

1) Fantasy/Sci-Fi is written off because anything can happen, making the plots easy to write.

2) Fantasy/Sci-Fi is often plot driven and not character driven. The lack of balance towards character-driven works make it easier to write off as another plot-driven story.

3) Fantasy/Sci-Fi can also be intensive in non-standard or synthesised vocabulary, which makes it less a story and more a history.

Just some ganders as to their reasons.

1) I'd vehemently disagree with anyone who said plots for SF/F are easier to write. Then I'd ask them to write a 100k novel, just to prove how simple it is. Yes, almost anything can happen in SF/F, which, to me, makes it even hard to write. Even though we can and do make shit up, there still has to be a reasonable amount of realism available to ground the reader. If the reader doesn't believe people can fly around on sentient dragons, in the context of a fantasy world that is well-created and thought-out, then the author has failed.

Easy? HA!

2) I'd disagree with that one, too. Granted, my current reading habits have landed firmly in the lap of paranormals, but the vast majority of the novels I've finished in the last couple of months have been very character driven. Now, I don't want to start a debate on the differences between the two types of novels (plus, there's a very recent thread somewhere, maybe in Novels? BWQ?), but being character-driven does not exclude the novel from having a strong plot.

3) I'm not quite sure how to address this one, except to say TOLKIEN. He invented languages, for goodness sake. How exactly does that make what he accomplished "easy" in the eyes of anyone?

It's almost funny how some of the reasons one might write off SF/F are the very reasons why it's impossible to dismiss. Writing anything is hard. Writing anything well is even harder.

Writing well in a genre that demands creativity and invention, and that has some of the most critical and loyal fans around? Priceless.

Kurtz

08-17-2009, 01:25 AM

I haven't read any Rushdie so not exactly sure what you mean. I'll be receiving an eReader tomorrow so should find I can read a lot more as I'll always have it with me. Which do you recommend?

If your going to read the Satanic Verses you really need to know a bit about Islam first, at least reading the Qur'an and something else explaining the times of the Prophet and the Companions. Get an annotated version because a lot of what's going on is pretty difficult to follow unless you understand the exact parts of Islam being referenced. Fun read though.

The main reason why SF/Fantasy are considered bad is that they are mostly bad, cliched dreck. There are diamonds, but it's rare to find them. There are major distinctions within fantasy as well, academics have a massive hardon for Magical Realism. With reason, because good magical realism (Marquez, Kafka, Borges, Rushdie, I guess Gogol can play as well) is inherently creative and in a much more profound way than whatever new elements someone attaches to tropes already thousands of years old for a fantasy story. That said, now that Magical Realism has been established for a while there's plently of stereotypical junk there as well.

The thing is, having a new idea for an element for a science fiction story doesn't neccesarily make your story new or exciting. I wrote a story about sentient warships (cliched) who talked like /b/tards (original) attacking a gigantic whelk (I think a little cliche) in an engagement lasting several years. In terms of narrative, pace or theme it was nothing special.

3) I'm not quite sure how to address this one, except to say TOLKIEN. He invented languages, for goodness sake. How exactly does that make what he accomplished "easy" in the eyes of anyone?

Bad example. Lord of the Rings is more an exercise in world building than an example of a good story. It is poorly paced and a lot of the characterisation falls flat. Just because the world is (fantastically) complex does not make it a good story. Compare it to Gormenghast, comparatively a much less developed world (do we ever end up knowing where Gormenghast is?) but a better story because of it.

Bartholomew

08-17-2009, 01:37 AM

The main reason why SF/Fantasy are considered bad is that they are mostly bad, cliched dreck.

You're really saying this in the wrong forum.

You honestly believe that most - say 70%? - of all published fantasy is dreck? Then you probably think everything I've ever written, ever, is just dripping with dreck. So kiss my pinky ring and go away, thanks.

Kurtz

08-17-2009, 01:49 AM

You're really saying this in the wrong forum.

You honestly believe that most - say 70%? - of all published fantasy is dreck? Then you probably think everything I've ever written, ever, is just dripping with dreck. So kiss my pinky ring and go away, thanks.

Did I say that somehow all other genres were shining beaconsof wonder and glory?

Some of my favorite stories, The 1001 Nights, The Aenied, The Popol Vuh, 100 Years of Solitude, El Zahir, The Writing of God, all are fantasy. I think you're feeling a little too defensive. And yes I am saying that at least 70% of fantasy and sci-fi are cliched abominations.

Every generation or so someone comes along and brings life back into it, but then it stratifies again. I think it was Gibson that did it last, but then cyberpunk got out of control. Fantasy is still under the yoke of Tolkein, who despite everything he wanted has become the standard by which all fantasy is based.

ChaosTitan

08-17-2009, 01:55 AM

The main reason why SF/Fantasy are considered bad is that they are mostly bad, cliched dreck. .

I wouldn't worry about this comment too much, Bart. Because you can replace "SF/Fantasy" with just about any other genre (Literary, Horror, Humor, Romance, Western, whatever) and still find someone who will find a measure of truth in it.

The substance of something, and its categorization as "bad, cliched dreck" is opinion of the person placing it in such a category. One person's dreck is another person's magnum opus.

But yeah, Kurtz, maybe you shouldn't go around denigrating a genre in its home forum. SF/F is bashed enough elsewhere, as it is, thanks.

Liosse de Velishaf

08-17-2009, 01:58 AM

Tolkein is the standard on which all fantasy is based? What decade are you living in? Maybe if all you read of the genre is Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance, I guess. :cry:

I'll agree that a lot of writing in all genres is dreck. I would't put the figure as high as 70%, but it'd be high.

eyeblink

08-17-2009, 02:10 AM

I'm speaking from a UK perspective here, but there are university courses in SF and fantasy and academics who teach them. Many of our leading genre critics are academics in their day jobs - Edward James, Farah Mendlesohn, Adam Roberts for example. The last-named is also a sf/fantasy fiction writer.

I did my English degree over twenty years ago (graduated in 1987) and Philip K. Dick was included in the Modern Literature unit.

I've been a reader of SF and fantasy on and off since childhood. I also read "mainstream" fiction. Yes, there is a lot of derivative junk in the genre - but there is plenty that rewards a deeper study too.

Kurtz

08-17-2009, 02:13 AM

But yeah, Kurtz, maybe you shouldn't go around denigrating a genre in its home forum. SF/F is bashed enough elsewhere, as it is, thanks.

Except I mention 7 authors who have written fantasy books, (although none would like the label 'fantasy authors' and a further 7 stories that are more fantasy than anything. I enjoy some science fiction (mostly in cinema as opposed to literature, although McCarthy, Dick, Vonnegut and Lem all kick ass).

Tolkein is the standard on which all fantasy is based? What decade are you living in? Maybe if all you read of the genre is Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance, I guess.

The majority of high fantasy is still predominantly set in a highly romanticised version of the middle ages with various humanoid races and various mythical beasts (some of the authors own creation). Traditionally it comes down to a cataclysmic battle with ultimate evil, with characters echoing (often merely reflecting) ancient hero stereotypes. I hear A Song of Ice and Fire is the cutting edge of modern fantasy, and despite having less elves (still dragons though) and magic it's still very much in Tolkeins mould. A little bit more naieve misunderstandings over what caused the Wars of the Roses crammed in as well.

This is Tolkien's influence, you would be suprised how much fantasy varied before he did. In fact its fair to say he invented High Fantasy, which is now what everyone thinks about when they hear the word fantasy. In fact books like The Crying of Lot 49 and Foucalt's Pendulum are still fantasies.

veinglory

08-17-2009, 02:18 AM

I wouldn't worry about this comment too much, Bart. Because you can replace "SF/Fantasy" with just about any other genre ...

Except that the comment has to imply spec fic has disproportionate amounts of dreck. If it has the same amount of dreck as any genre why would it be worth commenting on?

Ursula le Guin, Octavia Butler, Asimov, what a hacks.

Medievalist

08-17-2009, 02:20 AM

In fact books like The Crying of Lot 49 and Foucalt's Pendulum are still fantasies.

No, actually, they're not, at all.

IdiotsRUs

08-17-2009, 02:25 AM

eyeblink

08-17-2009, 02:32 AM

No, actually, they're not, at all.

Having read it, I wouldn't call The Crying of Lot 49 SF either.

However, Thomas Pynchon would have a place in a SF course - it may not be genre SF, but Gravity's Rainbow has been an avowed influence on many SF writers, from its publication onwards. It was even shortlisted for a Nebula Award - it lost to Rendezvous with Rama.

2Wheels

08-17-2009, 02:44 AM

Wouldn't that make Beowulf the standard for fantasy then?
Excellent point, but we can take it back further than that, to good old Homer.

Every culture on the planet has fantastical tales passed forward from the time we ate raw meat, berries and learned to walk upright. Cripes some would even argue that the Bible is fantasy. [I'm not going there, I'm just saying that some would provide argument in that direction].

IdiotsRUs

08-17-2009, 03:42 AM

Excellent point, but we can take it back further than that, to good old Homer.

Every culture on the planet has fantastical tales passed forward from the time we ate raw meat, berries and learned to walk upright. Cripes some would even argue that the Bible is fantasy. [I'm not going there, I'm just saying that some would provide argument in that direction].

So everything is derivative of something

So saying fantasy is derivative is only saying it has the same qualities as everything else. No?

Kurtz

08-17-2009, 03:44 AM

No, actually, they're not, at all.

The identifying traits of fantasy are the inclusion of fantastic elements in a self-coherent (internally consistent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent)) setting.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy#cite_note-0) Within such a structure, any location of the fantastical element is possible: it may be hidden in, or leak into the apparently real world setting, it may draw the characters into a world with such elements, or it may occur entirely in a fantasy world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_world) setting, where such elements are part of the world.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy#cite_note-1)

Both books are filled with fantastic elements in settings that (most of the time) are coherent and consistent. Pendulum's third act takes place in a very different world to the one we live in.

Wouldn't that make Beowulf the standard for fantasy then?

Well yeah, just like it's also the standard for everything else in the English literary canon.

Speaking of Homer, we don't consider the Aenied a rip-off of the Iliad, even though it is heavily influenced by it. It takes the form and does something dramatically different with it. So much high fantasy takes Tolkein's form and tinkers with it, using the same characters, places, monsters and races, and just mixing the story up a bit.

My problem is not with Tolkein, despite his flaws (no one has read the Silmarillion), Lord of the Rings is probably as close as the world comes to Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius, at least for the time being. It's the stories that wrench his creations from their history and mix them together without due care and attention. I always preferred Roverandom to Lord of the Rings anyway, Tolkein writing for young kids was so delightfully weird.

I guess that's the problem of writing a book that creates a genre.

benbradley

08-17-2009, 03:48 AM

I've many times heard this, that academia has always looked down its nose at SF and fantasy. I heard it more about SF, but I can see where fantasy would be equally disdained.
1) I'd vehemently disagree with anyone who said plots for SF/F are easier to write. Then I'd ask them to write a 100k novel, just to prove how simple it is. Yes, almost anything can happen in SF/F, which, to me, makes it even hard to write. Even though we can and do make shit up, there still has to be a reasonable amount of realism available to ground the reader. If the reader doesn't believe people can fly around on sentient dragons, in the context of a fantasy world that is well-created and thought-out, then the author has failed.

Easy? HA!

I dare even disagree that "almost anything can happen," thought I can see where an academic who isn't very familiar with the genres might say that, mainly from a lack of exposure to and understanding of the genres (I'm much more of an SF reader and haveonly read a little fantasy, so I feel I don't know the "metarules" of fantasy, but I'm SURE they're there). There are Rules in any good story, even though in speculative fiction such rules can be very different from those in the real world.

Regardless of what happens in the story's universe it all still has to be self-consistent (or otherwise explainable and/or understood) within that universe. Otherwise we might as well call all speculative fiction the "Deus Ex Machina" genre.

Yes, you can "make shit up" but you gotta keep the same shit throughout the whole story.
Except that the comment has to imply spec fic has disproportionate amounts of dreck. If it has the same amount of dreck as any genre why would it be worth commenting on?

Ursula le Guin, Octavia Butler, Asimov, what a hacks.
For a moment I thought the earlier post might have been an invocation of Godwin's Sturgeon's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law), but I agree that the original comment does seem to imply this more for the SF/F field than for others.

Kurtz

08-17-2009, 03:55 AM

This is the SF/F forum so I thought addressing the genre directly would be useful. Wrong as it turns out because it seems to have gotten everyone riled up. Every genre is mostly dreck. Especially this 'literary fiction' thing, where everyone seems to be a parody of Hamlet and moans about things all the time without actually getting up and doing something.

Although, as I said before, diamonds in the rough. I remember reading an unofficial sequel to The Man in the High Castle called something like Philip K Dick is Dead. It was set in a parrallel America with Robot Nixon (before Futurama did it). Philip K Dick has just died and is reincarnated in a cyborg something or other and the finale is Nixon and Dick duking it out on the moon. I can't remember exactly what it is called or even if it exists.

Towing Jehovah is also awesome and weird. God dies and crashes into the ocean, leaving a massive corpse and the book is about a ferry captained by Raphael towing him out. Now that's creativity.

Liosse de Velishaf

08-17-2009, 05:05 AM

The majority of high fantasy is still predominantly set in a highly romanticised version of the middle ages with various humanoid races and various mythical beasts (some of the authors own creation). Traditionally it comes down to a cataclysmic battle with ultimate evil, with characters echoing (often merely reflecting) ancient hero stereotypes. I hear A Song of Ice and Fire is the cutting edge of modern fantasy, and despite having less elves (still dragons though) and magic it's still very much in Tolkeins mould. A little bit more naieve misunderstandings over what caused the Wars of the Roses crammed in as well.

This is Tolkien's influence, you would be suprised how much fantasy varied before he did. In fact its fair to say he invented High Fantasy, which is now what everyone thinks about when they hear the word fantasy. In fact books like The Crying of Lot 49 and Foucalt's Pendulum are still fantasies.

This seems to be your entire issue with this discussion. Even though you say that, you fall under the same delusion (that's too strong a word, I know... sorry.) The vast majority of fantasy these days is not high fantasy. That may once have been true. It is not now. So you can't make that sort of comment without displaying the same ignorance you accuse others of. I'm not "riled up". I think this is a wonderfully interesting discussion. But generalizations are usually not the best way to go.

MDSchafer

08-17-2009, 06:40 AM

The older I get the less respect I have for the academic world of writing. Most of the professors have never written anything that more than a handful of academics will ever read and all pretty much read the same things because its a massive cliche.

I thought about going back and getting my PhD two years ago and I looked at the course offerings noticed there were courses in journalism, feature writing and online writing. I thought that I could clep out of those courses because surely they wouldn't make someone whose won a handful of Associated Press Awards and some other regional things sit through a journalism class taught by a professor who hadn't been in a newsroom since 1995. But no, I was told I'd have to pay for the class and sit there like everyone else regardless of the fact I was more qualified to teach the class than the instructor.

The academic world doesn't respect things that aren't of the academic world. It's an insular ivory tower where respect is given based upon peer pressure and group think. I see some professors now starting to recognize Phillip K. Dick, there are some courses taught on Tolkien, Star Trek, Star Wars, there are courses that looks at the graphic novel as an art form, although those aren't exclusively in the English department. Battlestar Galactica won a Peabody. You could make the argument that Slaughter House 5 is science fiction.

That said, a lot of SFF is one note. Harry Potter, while good, doesn't have the literary heft of Tolkien. Neil Gaiman's work has better literary value than Stephanie Meyer. There is work out there of literary value, but for every book of that level there are 10 to 100 lightweight pieces of easy reading like the Star Trek/Star Wars/whatever property licensed books that don't carry any heft in their spines.

SPMiller

08-17-2009, 06:54 AM

Rebekah7

08-17-2009, 08:41 AM

Medievalist's first response pretty much covers it. I've met my share of academics who enjoyed and even studied f/sf. I've also met many of those in the literary "establishment" who despise it. I'd say that, overall, academia disdains escapism, and let's face it: most fantasy is escapist.

And what exactly is "escapist"? Is it something that's different than "real life"? Is it something with positive aspects in it? Is it something that takes you out of your worldview? Is it something that merely exists to make you feel better and has no real depth?

Anytime I've had someone describe what "escapist" means to them, they give a completely different answer.

So, what are they despising when they talk about escapism? Is it merely one of those ambiguous words that mean everything by really meaning nothing?

IMO, escaping your everyday worldview is a way to see the world in a new way. There's plenty of shallow works of all genres that are feel good junk food, but I really can't bring myself to call them escapist, because they are all about people wrapping themselves up in what they already know and want the world to be, whether they use a fantasy with elves, a chic lit road trip, a treasure hunting thrill ride in the Sahara, or a literary novel with the same take on philosophy that they read as freshmen. They may be escaping, but it's to the familiar and comfortable, even if there is magic involved.

Xelebes

08-17-2009, 09:04 AM

dclary

08-17-2009, 09:47 AM

JoshW

08-17-2009, 10:04 AM

I am currently working on a double-major in Creative Writing and Literature (with a minor in Film Studies) at a University. I've seen a little bit of this "genre snobbery," but I've seen a lot of genre taught and loved by my profs.

For example, classes my college has offered:
-Tolkien
-C. S. Lewis
-Science Fiction Film Studies (I took this one, and it was great! Imagine, college credit for watching and discussing Empire Strikes Back, Bladerunner, Planet of the Apes, 12 Monkeys, etc)
-Films based off Graphic Novels (I plan to take this one next spring.)

I also took Native American Lit, in which our final novella used time-travel as an essential plot element. I took a writer's workshop where we brought in a prof from another university who teaches a class on Hip Hop as Poetry. In my beginner's Writing course, we watched Kill Bill, synced Wizard of Oz with Dark Side of the Moon, and read Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut (which would be hard for me to not call sci-fi.) In that class, we also had to write a reaction paper about a song by a band called the Weakerthans--one of my all-time favorites! So bonus points for that.

In my experience, it all depends on the prof. Some are snobs, while others are genuinely interested and appreciative of great genre fiction. If you get the snobs, it's often best to either drop the class or force yourself to learn what you can while agreeing to disagree.

Just my two cents.

JoshW

08-17-2009, 10:16 AM

On the flip side, I do actually love the classics. And I think the best genre writers have at least some appreciation for the literary greats. Ray Bradbury is my prime example. I'll offer some other examples if you'd like, but right now it's very late.

Leila

08-17-2009, 10:27 AM

I don't think 'fantasy' and 'literary' have to be mutually exclusive. In fact, I prefer it when they're not.

Creative writing professers like good prose and strong characterisation and symbolism, etc. That's no real surprise. But genre writing can absolutely still involve those things. Go read Ursula Le Guin.

For two of my creative writing papers, I wrote almost entirely fantasy and was probably the only person writing it. I was aware that I was going against the crowd and made sure my writing was as good as it could possibly be.

I got A grades for both.

Bartholomew

08-17-2009, 11:02 AM

Every genre is mostly dreck.

And most writers just plain suck, right? Is that the implication?

Writers, of all people, should be held accountable for the exact usage of their written words. So please, explain this comment.

eyeblink

08-17-2009, 11:02 AM

Although, as I said before, diamonds in the rough. I remember reading an unofficial sequel to The Man in the High Castle called something like Philip K Dick is Dead. It was set in a parrallel America with Robot Nixon (before Futurama did it). Philip K Dick has just died and is reincarnated in a cyborg something or other and the finale is Nixon and Dick duking it out on the moon. [I]I can't remember exactly what it is called or even if it exists.

Philip K. Dick is Dead, Alas by Michael Bishop, also known as The Secret Ascension, first published 1987.

Kurtz

08-17-2009, 04:16 PM

Philip K. Dick is Dead, Alas by Michael Bishop, also known as The Secret Ascension, first published 1987.

Damn, for a moment I thought I'd made it up for myself in a drug induced coma.

IdiotsRUs

08-17-2009, 05:46 PM

This is the SF/F forum so I thought addressing the genre directly would be useful. Wrong as it turns out because it seems to have gotten everyone riled up.

You expected to come in, tell us we're all dreck and think we'll like it? What did you expect, a medal?

Every genre is mostly dreck. Now, if you'd started there rather than singling us poor maligned unappreciated SFF writers ( who get 'all SFF is crap' all the time), you might have got off to a better start. ;)

DeleyanLee

08-17-2009, 05:54 PM

Not sure your generalisation of academia is totally true, Lord of the Rings was written by a academic.

Not only was LOTR written by an academic, but it was also on every list, if not topping, of "Most influencial/best books written in the 20th century".

So the most influencial/best book of the 20th century, which pretty much defines the genre of Fantasy as we know it today, is crap?

I really don't want to know what they consider to be quality then.

Kurtz

08-17-2009, 06:01 PM

Now, if you'd started there rather than singling us poor maligned unappreciated SFF writers ( who get 'all SFF is crap' all the time), you might have got off to a better start. ;)

What's SFF, Science Fiction Fiction? As in Science fiction written in imaginary worlds? Like Reterofuturepunk but futurefuturepunk?

I once entertained the idea about writing a book about World War 2, but written in the 25th century, with about as much historical accuracy as 300. The marines all come on riding horses shooting revolvers in the air, everyone's got Ipods, the SS come on with cars from Fast and Furious, ghostriding the Tiger. Special appearance by Anubis who only communicates in hieroglyphs.

It would redefine stupidity.

IdiotsRUs

08-17-2009, 06:03 PM

SFF = Science Fiction and Fantasy

If you're going to call us all dreck, at least know the right terms

Kurtz

08-17-2009, 06:05 PM

SFF = Science Fiction and Fantasy

If you're going to call us all dreck, at least know the right terms

Okay I didn't know it was the same as SF/F. It's like metal and there are more subgenres than there are books.

red_panda

08-17-2009, 07:44 PM

deleted by user

Higgins

08-17-2009, 07:55 PM

Escapism, I think, refers to the catharsis a book can achieve by merely throwing oneself into the plot of the story, where the reader supposes the role of the main character and wrestles the conflict in the world that has been created by the author. In and of itself, is a desirable effect where an author can write a book that makes the audience wish to do so but it lacks the lecturing punch to the gut that literary fiction typically aims for.

I think the lecturing punch to the gut is more along the lines of classic Sci Fi than lit fict. What is the lecturing punch to the Gut of George Meredith's the Egotist? It's not even don't be an Egotist. On the other hand The Moon is a Harsh Mistress punches guts and spreads its lectures all over the Moon and the Earth. I'd rather read all of Geroge Meredith than all of Heinlein, that's for sure.

Higgins

08-17-2009, 07:57 PM

I think the lecturing punch to the gut is more along the lines of classic Sci Fi than lit fict. What is the lecturing punch to the Gut of George Meredith's the Egotist? It's not even don't be an Egotist. On the other hand The Moon is a Harsh Mistress punches guts and spreads its lectures all over the Moon and the Earth. I'd rather read all of Geroge Meredith than all of Heinlein, that's for sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Meredith

Summonere

08-17-2009, 07:59 PM

That's where you're wrong. It would redefine awesome.

Get Tarantino and Rodriguez to direct it, as storyboarded by Frank Miller, from a screenplay by Charlie Kaufman and Tom Stoppard and Uwe Boll.

dclary

08-17-2009, 08:39 PM

And most writers just plain suck, right? Is that the implication?

Writers, of all people, should be held accountable for the exact usage of their written words. So please, explain this comment.

Most writers do suck, Bart. this is no surprise.

The reason why every one of us isn't published isn't for lack of publishers. It's because most of us suck.

Think about it this way: Of the hundreds of thousands of people who play basketball, how many play for the NBA?

IdiotsRUs

08-17-2009, 08:47 PM

However Kurtz appeared to be talking about published works.

Or the NBA, whatever the heck that is :D

PhatDad

08-17-2009, 08:58 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Meredith

Funny you should mention Meredith as I'd not heard of him till today as I'm doing some research for another assignment and his name cropped up. Then, you mention him on here. How weird.

Dawnstorm

08-17-2009, 09:30 PM

However Kurtz appeared to be talking about published works.

It goes like this: 90 % of everything is crap. But people can't agree which 10 % are good. :D

Gudanov

08-17-2009, 09:39 PM

However Kurtz appeared to be talking about published works.

Publishing is a business not a meritocracy. A lot of books follow formulas because that's what a lot of people want, I include myself most of the time. I think most of the time it comes down to execution rather than originality or literary merit.

SPMiller

08-17-2009, 10:12 PM

And what exactly is "escapist"? Is it something that's different than "real life"? Is it something with positive aspects in it? Is it something that takes you out of your worldview? Is it something that merely exists to make you feel better and has no real depth?

Anytime I've had someone describe what "escapist" means to them, they give a completely different answer.

So, what are they despising when they talk about escapism? Is it merely one of those ambiguous words that mean everything by really meaning nothing?When people refer to escapism, they should mean the attempt to escape a boring or depressing real-life existence. If what you say is true, some people don't use it that way. Ignore them.

You can see other cases of genre discrimination in the characterization of romance-novel readers as bored housewives, thereby hinting that romance novels are escapes from boredom. Seeing the trend yet?

IMO, escaping your everyday worldview is a way to see the world in a new way. There's plenty of shallow works of all genres that are feel good junk food, but I really can't bring myself to call them escapist, because they are all about people wrapping themselves up in what they already know and want the world to be, whether they use a fantasy with elves, a chic lit road trip, a treasure hunting thrill ride in the Sahara, or a literary novel with the same take on philosophy that they read as freshmen. They may be escaping, but it's to the familiar and comfortable, even if there is magic involved.It's specifically avoiding boredom/depression in favor of something more pleasant. Many (but certainly not all) fantasy novels achieve this by providing an artificial environment in which readers can vicariously live out fantasies, or by resolving a conflict with a feel-good ending of the sort rarely if ever seen in real life.

Mind you, that's not necessarily a bad thing, at least not in my opinion. But to certain academics, it is. And lest you think otherwise, they don't just dismiss fantasy; they're equally dismissive of all manner of novels with any hint of escapism. Now, if you ask me, I'd say that such people commit the ultimate academic sin of generalizing a subset to the whole, but that's not going to shut up their yapping.

(In the interests of full disclosure, I ought to point out that I rarely write escapist fantasy.)

Escapism, I think, refers to the catharsis a book can achieve by merely throwing oneself into the plot of the story, where the reader supposes the role of the main character and wrestles the conflict in the world that has been created by the author. In and of itself, is a desirable effect where an author can write a book that makes the audience wish to do so but it lacks the lecturing punch to the gut that literary fiction typically aims for.Sort of but not really. As Higgins said, there have been plenty of annoyingly preachy fuckers in f/sf. Heinlein's a damn good example.

IdiotsRUs

08-17-2009, 10:15 PM

It goes like this: 90 % of everything is crap. But people can't agree which 10 % are good. :D

Probably true :D

As I said, if Kurtz had said '90% of published work is crap' fair enough.

But SFF gets enough stick already without singling it out.

Rebekah7

08-17-2009, 10:31 PM

It's specifically avoiding boredom/depression in favor of something more pleasant. Many (but certainly not all) fantasy novels achieve this by providing an artificial environment in which readers can vicariously live out fantasies, or by resolving a conflict with a feel-good ending of the sort rarely if ever seen in real life.

Mind you, that's not necessarily a bad thing, at least not in my opinion. But to certain academics, it is.

I'd rather have a book that shows all the aspects of life, including the negative and positive bits. It sometimes seems if some people in academia seem to think that saying that the world is only filled with depression and negativity and anyone who is smart should only pay attention to those part of the world and the human condition. I think that's just as naive as people who only see the positive in the world and refuse to ever consider that there are negative and depressing and messed up parts of the world.

(Note - This is not an argument of what you said, but a comment, especially since my comment only adds to what you said and doesn't try to refute it. I just thought I'd add this last bit because the internet has a tendency to make people think that any comment is some sort of counter point or argument.)

SPMiller

08-17-2009, 10:40 PM

I'd rather have a book that shows all the aspects of life, including the negative and positive bits. It sometimes seems if some people in academia seem to think that saying that the world is only filled with depression and negativity and anyone who is smart should only pay attention to those part of the world and the human condition. I think that's just as naive as people who only see the positive in the world and refuse to ever consider that there are negative and depressing and messed up parts of the world.

(Note - This is not an argument of what you said, but a comment, especially since my comment only adds to what you said and doesn't try to refute it. I just thought I'd add this last bit because the internet has a tendency to make people think that any comment is some sort of counter point or argument.)Oh, I agree. Many such folks seem a bit, well, emo. No better way to put it than that.

I've often criticized lit fantasy for being too consistently gloomy when in a truly realistic portrayal of human nature, there would be at least a little brightness. That's just how we are.

That said, we've got a few writers 'round these parts who have a more literary take on fantasy, yet they manage to inject positivity into their tales. Why that hasn't worked for the broader market, I don't know.

CACTUSWENDY

08-17-2009, 10:57 PM

I'm sorry, but all fiction is fantasy of a sorts otherwise it would be non-fiction.

I'm sorry you are having this interaction with your school teachers. Like all areas of the writing world, yes, even here at AW, there are snobs of one sort or another. To write an attention grabbing story takes talent. It's too bad your instructors can not see it. Just think, what would their reaction have been if you wrote a really good romance/erotic novel? lol

Good luck and keep us posted.

eyeblink

08-17-2009, 11:10 PM

I'm sorry, but all fiction is fantasy of a sorts otherwise it would be non-fiction.

Moving off-topic, but there are such things as non-fiction novels - Thomas Keneally's Schindler's Ark and Norman Mailer's The Armies of the Night are two of the best-known examples.

Edited to add: By this I mean, not just fiction based on a true story, but "novels" where every character is/was a real person and every event happened - in other words, using the tools and techniques of the novelist to tell a non-fictional story. Schindler's Ark won the Booker Prize, but many considered it a work of non-fiction. (Schindler's List is the US title, and that of the film.) The Armies of the Night is about the 1967 March on the Pentagon, and features Mailer as a character in third person. Another famous example would be Truman Capote's In Cold Blood.

Nateskate

08-18-2009, 01:35 AM

Nateskate

08-18-2009, 01:42 AM

Another interesting point about the difference between theoretical writing, and writing for a market audience, some teachers are theorists who've never written for any market, except maybe academic, and academic writing doesn't have to appeal to the mass of humanity. It only has to tickle some ivory ears.

I know a prof who will have a helluva time getting published in the real world, because they have such bizzare tastes, and this mindset that they're artists, and that publishers should accept their artistic views, is Pie-in-the-sky. It's too 'ivory tower' in its thinking.

PhatDad

08-18-2009, 04:02 AM

dclary

08-18-2009, 04:49 AM

Xelebes

08-18-2009, 04:56 AM

Greg Wilson

08-18-2009, 12:33 PM

You're doing a "creative writing" course which at most schools and writing programs is meant to teach you to write the sort of stuff your teachers write--which, generally speaking, is what marketing dweebs call "literary fiction," or poetry, or "literary essays."

Mostly, the people who teach creative writing are not people who write genre fiction. Or people whose books you'll find in local bookshops where they don't live.

I'd be careful about these claims. There are many academics who greatly respect fantasy, and many who write it themselves--since I'm both a college professor who teaches courses in fantasy/science fiction and creative writing AND an author of fantasy fiction, I'm an example of said group. :) But there are lots of others--look at David Anthony Durham, Samuel Delaney, and David Hartwell (on the editing side) as three quick examples.

As for the professor in question--I don't know what this particular professor's problem is, but in my experience it's not one which most academics (at least most academics now) share. Not one of my colleagues at my university or any others to whom I've spoken about this subject over the past few years--literally hundreds--have any issue whatsoever with speculative fiction as a legitimate literary form like any other. The greater problem I find is a reluctance for some in the science fiction / fantasy community to accept academic attention, as if it's somehow making the genre too highbrow or inaccessible.

Finally, Veinglory is one hundred percent correct about not decrying one stereotype (about fantasy) while subscribing to another (about academics). As a member of both communities, I'm pretty confident in saying both stereotypes are at best very skewed, at worst dead wrong.

Greg

P.S. Phatdad: have you looked into studying the impact (potential or otherwise) of slipstream on fantasy as a genre and literature as a whole, taking a look at the work of James Patrick Kelly and John Kessel for starters?

motormind

08-18-2009, 01:12 PM

Hi,
I just don't understand what I can do. I want to write fantasy but I can't see anyway of doing so without it being marked lower just because it's fantasy.

"Fantasy" is a rather broad term. What do they consider it to be? How do they feel about Mundane Fantastic or even Magic Realism? I can understand, somewhat, that they might have some bias against stories about elves, sorcerers and orcs, since those have been run into the ground; at least they bore me, although of course I am not the measure of things.

Actually, the whole idea of following a course to learn creative writing strikes me as rather paradoxical, but that's just me :)

backslashbaby

08-18-2009, 02:14 PM

This has turned into a great thread.

So how do you think I should go about my final year dissertation which I will be starting in October. It's a 10,000 word piece in any genre, setting, form I wish.

I would like to stick with fantasy as I'm most comfortable with it but I'm not sure how I should go about it. How can I impress the lecturers with fantasy. As mentioned before I can't think of anything that hasn't been explored before and would much prefer to write something I would like to read rather than struggle to write something new and cutting-edge only to find it's already been done and full of 'fantasy cliche'?

[Awesome thread!]

Explain the assignment more, please. Do y'all write just the actual piece, or is there a discussion component at all?

I've read a lot of dissertations on Magical Realism cos I'm just nerdy that way (and my WIP is MR iin great part). If you get to discuss SF/F, there are lots of ways to go.

If it's just an actual piece that needs to be unusual, wow. Much harder.

Good luck in any case :)

Ruv Draba

08-18-2009, 03:20 PM

If I did a creative writing degree then I'd hope and expect to learn two key things: how to create well and how to write well. In support of that I'd also hope to develop some expert judgement in whether what I'd created or written was any good -- meaning: did it add anything original or significant, did my treatment do justice to my ideas, did it reach my target audience and did it give the reader the experience I'd intended and which I'd led them to expect?

I don't believe that studying a single genre can teach all of that. While I see creative writing as education, I see study of a single genre as training. Training just teaches us how to do; education also teaches us how to think.

Author and teacher Jim van Pelt said that a writer needs three things: the power to observe, a felicity with language and something to say. I believe that if we have those three things then we don't need genre to write. We can simply enjoy writing for its own sake. If we don't have those three things but write anyway then genre becomes a crutch. We rehash the ideas, expression and designs of others in a desire to be heard without enough regard for what we're saying or how we're saying it.

When genre is crap I think it's crap exactly because writers don't know how to write, but they do know how to rehash the work of other writers. It may be true that 90% of any genre is crap, but that 90% of crap isn't distributed evenly over authors. Some authors produce bright, lucid and original thought with every publication, which means that most other authors are writing 100% crap.

I'd want my creative writing course to keep me from being such an author.

On a personal note I once participated in a promising but disappointing workshop in which my fellow writers and I worked through exercises together. We all had certain genres in common that we loved, but some of the participants only ever wrote in genres they liked. But as the exercises got obscure and tricky, it got harder and harder to fit them to pre-conceived material. Really you had to invent the material to suit the exercise. That should have awakened our power to observe and something to say -- and probably helped with felicity of language... but it can only do that if you do the exercise. I found that my fellows kept wussing out, which meant that I lost out twice: once because I couldn't read what they'd written, and once because they hadn't developed enough expert judgement to help me improve my work.

Every respected author I've ever seen comment on reading says to read broadly. I think that the same argument requires us to write broadly -- especially while we're learning.

But is genre itself crap? I think it depends. I see genre as any of three things:

A superficial marketing label that helps sell books;
A literary body of knowledge that helps authors achieve certain effects with particular treatments of related concerns;
A set of trite formulas that helps write crowd-pleasers.I believe that if you see genre as 1 or 3 you'd have every right to say that 'All genre is crap'. If you see it as 2, you'll just see a toolbox -- and we don't judge a work by the tools used to produce it.

Put another way, literature can appear anywhere but never by regurgitating someone else's crap.

Higgins

08-18-2009, 05:10 PM

I'd rather have a book that shows all the aspects of life, including the negative and positive bits. It sometimes seems if some people in academia seem to think that saying that the world is only filled with depression and negativity and anyone who is smart should only pay attention to those part of the world and the human condition. I think that's just as naive as people who only see the positive in the world and refuse to ever consider that there are negative and depressing and messed up parts of the world.

(Note - This is not an argument of what you said, but a comment, especially since my comment only adds to what you said and doesn't try to refute it. I just thought I'd add this last bit because the internet has a tendency to make people think that any comment is some sort of counter point or argument.)

One academic I know posed their problem with fantasy topics in much the same way: it is too narrow an approach. A high proportion of students who want to be "creative" want to do it in a very narrow, highly fantisized way. For example they want to be as Elfish as possible. They wear Elfish jewelry, write in Elfish where-ever possible and their "creative" life consists of writing stories about Elves. And there are usually two or three wannabe Elves in every class. I suppose this would be fine if they were going to Elf school, but it seems to be getting in the way of their human education.

IdiotsRUs

08-18-2009, 05:42 PM

Training just teaches us how to do; education also teaches us how to think.

Very true, and that's the true value of the course ( maybe of any higher learning course - it teaches you to approach subjects differently).

On a personal note I once participated in a promising but disappointing workshop in which my fellow writers and I worked through exercises together. We all had certain genres in common that we loved, but some of the participants only ever wrote in genres they liked. But as the exercises got obscure and tricky, it got harder and harder to fit them to pre-conceived material. Really you had to invent the material to suit the exercise. That should have awakened our power to observe and something to say -- and probably helped with felicity of language... but it can only do that if you do the exercise.

I don't suppose you can remember the exercises? Because I would love to try them. I think there's a lot to be learned from venturing outside your comfort zone.

And people want to be elves? 0.0

PhatDad

08-18-2009, 06:10 PM

When I first saw Arnold Schwarzenegger's movie "Predator" I was late getting into the theater. As a result, I missed the 20 second prelude shot showing a burning object entering our atmosphere from orbit.

I went into the movie expecting a war film. A third of the way in it became something completely different. And it was amazing.

I suggest you do the same. Write something that doesn't pretend to be anything except literature, creative writing... and when you've made the audience your bitch, twist the screws and open the curtain.

The first 20 minutes of The Wizard of Oz are shot in black and white...

I've just tried something similar for my current, one of three, short stories. Because they will expect fantasy from me I have given them fantasy although by the end it's a drug fuelled overdose hallucination. However, I have tried to include fantastic equivalents of modern day events and items to give clues throughout the story that it's not what it seems. I'm not particularly impressed with it as it's been rushed.

P.S. Phatdad: have you looked into studying the impact (potential or otherwise) of slipstream on fantasy as a genre and literature as a whole, taking a look at the work of James Patrick Kelly and John Kessel for starters?

I will be looking as soon as I've finished the current workload. Thanks for the heads up.

[Awesome thread!]

Explain the assignment more, please. Do y'all write just the actual piece, or is there a discussion component at all?

I've read a lot of dissertations on Magical Realism cos I'm just nerdy that way (and my WIP is MR iin great part). If you get to discuss SF/F, there are lots of ways to go.

If it's just an actual piece that needs to be unusual, wow. Much harder.

Good luck in any case :)

All of the writing assignments I receive are to include a critical commentary. The dissertation if 14000 words in total so works out to be about 10000 word creative piece and 4000 critical commentary on that piece. I can also include glossary, appendices etc on top. I can do anything I wish, poetry, graphic novel, which I'm really tempted to do, fiction, thrillers etc. All I need to do is write why I chose it, how I went about it, what I feel I have learnt, what I have done well, what I have not done well. Simples! :(

If I did a creative writing degree then I'd hope and expect to learn two key things: how to create well and how to write well. In support of that I'd also hope to develop some expert judgement in whether what I'd created or written was any good -- meaning: did it add anything original or significant, did my treatment do justice to my ideas, did it reach my target audience and did it give the reader the experience I'd intended and which I'd led them to expect?

I don't believe that studying a single genre can teach all of that. While I see creative writing as education, I see study of a single genre as training. Training just teaches us how to do; education also teaches us how to think.

Author and teacher Jim van Pelt said that a writer needs three things: the power to observe, a felicity with language and something to say. I believe that if we have those three things then we don't need genre to write. We can simply enjoy writing for its own sake. If we don't have those three things but write anyway then genre becomes a crutch. We rehash the ideas, expression and designs of others in a desire to be heard without enough regard for what we're saying or how we're saying it.

When genre is crap I think it's crap exactly because writers don't know how to write, but they do know how to rehash the work of other writers. It may be true that 90% of any genre is crap, but that 90% of crap isn't distributed evenly over authors. Some authors produce bright, lucid and original thought with every publication, which means that most other authors are writing 100% crap.

I'd want my creative writing course to keep me from being such an author.

On a personal note I once participated in a promising but disappointing workshop in which my fellow writers and I worked through exercises together. We all had certain genres in common that we loved, but some of the participants only ever wrote in genres they liked. But as the exercises got obscure and tricky, it got harder and harder to fit them to pre-conceived material. Really you had to invent the material to suit the exercise. That should have awakened our power to observe and something to say -- and probably helped with felicity of language... but it can only do that if you do the exercise. I found that my fellows kept wussing out, which meant that I lost out twice: once because I couldn't read what they'd written, and once because they hadn't developed enough expert judgement to help me improve my work.

Every respected author I've ever seen comment on reading says to read broadly. I think that the same argument requires us to write broadly -- especially while we're learning.

But is genre itself crap? I think it depends. I see genre as any of three things:

A superficial marketing label that helps sell books;
A literary body of knowledge that helps authors achieve certain effects with particular treatments of related concerns;
A set of trite formulas that helps write crowd-pleasers.I believe that if you see genre as 1 or 3 you'd have every right to say that 'All genre is crap'. If you see it as 2, you'll just see a toolbox -- and we don't judge a work by the tools used to produce it.

Put another way, literature can appear anywhere but never by regurgitating someone else's crap.

I agree and we are told to read variedly as possible however we all go to waht we are comfortable in when it comes down to assignments. The first assignment I wrote that consisted of a great number of non-favoured styles of writing I was told in the lecturers marking 'What we can see from this is that you are a far better prose writer than poet.' So, when the marks mean something I will always write prose. The same with sff vs any other genre. It's the one I'm comfortable with, widest read and will get me higher grades even if the grades are low due to the lecturers dislike and marking being somewhat subjective. (EDIT) or the fact I'm just not very good at it and they keep telling me it's the genre rather than me. :)

backslashbaby

08-18-2009, 06:48 PM

All of the writing assignments I receive are to include a critical commentary. The dissertation if 14000 words in total so works out to be about 10000 word creative piece and 4000 critical commentary on that piece. I can also include glossary, appendices etc on top. I can do anything I wish, poetry, graphic novel, which I'm really tempted to do, fiction, thrillers etc. All I need to do is write why I chose it, how I went about it, what I feel I have learnt, what I have done well, what I have not done well. Simples!

Yeah :) That might be better, though. You sneak in strong academic argument about sf/f for most of those questions. Of course, use what the Lecturer has said, too ;)

I'm really not the best at this because it's not my genre, but you seemed drawn to Greek mythology in the piece you mentioned earlier. Maybe do a mythology theme to your story (and that ties to discussion so well). I don't know whether that's overdone in SF/F or considered awesome if done well. But I'll throw it out there.

If you want to get into Magical Realism more, you can drop us a line over in the Interstices subsection of the forum, too :)

MacAllister

08-18-2009, 07:09 PM

Meh. I did my Master's thesis on Stephen King's Pet Sematary.

As to the sweeping statement in the title that academics consider fantasy to be crap? I find that both insulting and inaccurate.

PhatDad

08-18-2009, 07:19 PM

Meh. I did my Master's thesis on Stephen King's Pet Sematary.

As to the sweeping statement in the title that academics consider fantasy to be crap? I find that both insulting and inaccurate.

I was trying to keep the thread title tight and attention grabbing. Seems to have worked but my apologies for generalising.

Anything worthwhile to add to the discussion though?

veinglory

08-18-2009, 07:20 PM

As to the sweeping statement in the title that academics consider fantasy to be crap? I find that both insulting and inaccurate.

Ditto.

And I think it is adding to the discussion to say that the discussion started with a false assumption.

IdiotsRUs

08-18-2009, 07:34 PM

PhatDad

08-18-2009, 08:07 PM

Well, it's a sweeping generalisation ( which is bad) but some academics do consider genre to be crap in its entirety ( either reading it or writing it). I've met a couple. It would appear the PD's prof is one. And I find that highly insulting too.

Happily it's not the norm

Like I say I was trying to keep the title short and simple as I find on a lot of forums there tends to be a limit of characters. I could have quite simply added 'some' or could have gone into greater details however I thought the content of the post itself was more important and would show I wasn't trying to generalise. I should also add that it's not just one lecturer but both of the lecturers running this section of the course. One is a poet and the other is a youth market author, writing about teachers sleeping with student etc.

It would just appear some would like to nitpick over the title text rather than the content of the original post or the very interesting discussion stimulated from that very title text.

dclary

08-18-2009, 08:44 PM

I was trying to keep the thread title tight and attention grabbing. Seems to have worked but my apologies for generalising.

Anything worthwhile to add to the discussion though?

Pssssst.... You, uh, might want not to ask that.

On the question of "worthwhile additions to the discussion" Mac can include "provides the very means for you to ask your redundant and inane question" along with "allows your soul to inhabit her digital realm."

dclary

08-18-2009, 08:46 PM

And people want to be elves? 0.0

'nuff said. (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=317)

:p

Higgins

08-18-2009, 08:55 PM

Funny you should mention Meredith as I'd not heard of him till today as I'm doing some research for another assignment and his name cropped up. Then, you mention him on here. How weird.

I only mentioned him because I was reading The Last Thousand Days of the British Empire

http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/39050000/39056049.JPG (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/imageviewer.asp?ean=9781596916760)

And among the weird scenes in Athens in the Fall of 1944 there was Maurice Harold MacMillan trapped under sniper fire and reading all the George Meredith he could.
I can vouch for the Egoist's being a good read, but I haven't read any other George Meredith. If there had only been Heinlien to read presumeably MacMillan would have given up screaming at Space Cadet and run out into the streets and been killed by a hail of communist bullets. Luckily Space Cadet wasn't published until 1948.

Ruv Draba

08-18-2009, 08:55 PM

I don't suppose you can remember the exercises? Because I would love to try them. I think there's a lot to be learned from venturing outside your comfort zone.The exercises were from Brian Kitely's book The 3AM Epiphany. They're mainly exercises in voice, perspective and imagery. They won't teach you how to build a character, but they'll teach you how to show one. They don't teach plot or scene-construction, but they have ideas for how to show a scene in different ways.

The people I worked through it with were all capable writers and very good folk. It was just the way we engaged it that seemed wrong. When we're studying style, subject shouldn't matter. When we're learning to paint does it matter whether the subject is a portrait, a still life or a landscape? Can you learn everything you need to know about art from colour-by-numbers paintbooks?
And people want to be elves?Apparently people think that there's some graduated path from fanficker to genre maven. According to the genre mavens though, that's not the path. All the genre mavens can write, they just happen to write genre.

PhatDad

08-18-2009, 08:58 PM

Pssssst.... You, uh, might want not to ask that.

On the question of "worthwhile additions to the discussion" Mac can include "provides the very means for you to ask your redundant and inane question" along with "allows your soul to inhabit her digital realm."

Ahh right. *Whistle innocently before running for the edit button*

Nahhh I'm not like that. I stand by what I say.

JoshW

08-18-2009, 08:59 PM

I suppose this would be fine if they were going to Elf school,

ROTFL!!!!

Higgins

08-18-2009, 09:14 PM

And people want to be elves? 0.0

I know. Hard to believe. One of those problems with
being a kid in the USA: sometimes a totally fictive identity seems to offer more than just being a kid. I suppose it is no worse than being the fan of some other bit of cultural iconography. The Elves get their own elfish jewelry I'm told and learning to write Elfish must take hours of intense study.

Ruv Draba

08-18-2009, 09:43 PM

So, when the marks mean something I will always write prose. The same with sff vs any other genre. It's the one I'm comfortable with, widest read and will get me higher grades even if the grades are low due to the lecturers dislike and marking being somewhat subjective.But what I'm saying is that if you can write, you don't have to pick genre first. You pick a subject first and find something worthwhile saying about it, then some way to say it. It might sometimes produce a genre piece, but it shouldn't always.

Let's say that you have to write 5,000 words about your neighbour's daughter. To a fiction-writer's eye, that cannot be a boring subject. People aren't boring to writers; they're fascinating -- full of contradictions and subtleties. They underpin everything we write.

So then you seek the story behind your neighbour's daughter. The seed of any story is a conflict or contradiction. You might discover that she has a love-hate relationship with her cat. She loves the cat, but her cat hates her. So you poke a bit to discover why... You realise that to her, the cat is her unborn daughter... a daughter that she's yet to have because she's not even adult yet. You realise that to the cat she's an irritating item of animated furniture that is sometimes warm and comfortable and brings food. There's your conflict, but how to explore it?

I'd suggest that making the cat sentient and putting them both into a rocket-ship to Venus is probably not the best way to treat that subject. Actually, the words 'blinkered' and 'hamfisted' come to mind (which fortunately as it's my idea, is a reflection only on me).

The conflict only occurs because the girl is confusing the cat for a third character -- a daughter, so I'd suggest that the story should involve all three characters... the girl, the cat and a daughter who doesn't exist yet. So then you start playing with this troika -- how does the cat teach the girl to be a mother? What does the girl teach the cat about people? How are the daughter and the cat similar? How are they different? What could they teach each other if they ever met?

Looking at the girl, you might decide that she's not going to learn anything. She smothers the cat, the cat scratches her, she gets hurt, but she comes back and smothers the poor moggy again. That sets the template of her life, you decide. But why does she do that? Perhaps it's simply that she confuses her emotions with the needs of those around her.

Looking at the cat, you might wonder: what is it that you're not doing that would get the girl to leave you alone? Perhaps you conclude: actually you're both bouncing back. It's that which keeps the cycle of abuse and irritation alive.

So then you might think: what if the mother eventually smothers the daughter too and she doesn't bounce back? There's the seed of a story idea: A girl who smothers her cat lovingly but mercilessly becomes a mother who does the same to her daughter to the point where she almost kills her with kindness -- and in the end, wishes that she'd killed the cat instead.

My point is, you can set that story anywhere, using any genre you like. You could write it as a fantasy in which the cat curses the girl, or you could write it as a horror in which the ghost of the cat takes its revenge on the daughter... Or you could make the daughter a clone that repeatedly dies, to the mother's great distress. Or you could write it as a murder mystery in which the girl (now the mother) has killed her daughter by accident and hidden the body... and the childhood cat becomes the clue. Or you could write it as a romance in which the boy heals the girl of her compulsion to smother. Or it could be a thriller in which the mother is gradually killing the daughter and a psychologist is trying to get proof to remove the daughter from her mother's custody...

But I'd suggest that none of those ideas entirely does justice to the original subject. Each reaches a point where it ignores the subject and dives into some escapist fantasy instead. On the other hand, if you can catch the characters and conflicts of the girl, the cat and her unborn daughter you could learn to write any of them. So as an educational exercise I think we stand to learn the most by writing some sort of mainstream version of this particular subject. It sharpens our writer's eye and keeps our mind focused on what it is we actually want to say about the girl -- rather than what we want to say about clones or ghosts.

Course if we weren't learning but already knew how to do this stuff, we could let the subject launch us wherever we wanted to go and just go there...

Higgins

08-18-2009, 10:09 PM

But what I'm saying is that if you can write, you don't have to pick genre first. You pick a subject first and find something worthwhile saying about it, then some way to say it. It might sometimes produce a genre piece, but it shouldn't always.

One thing I learned from an occasion when a creative writing teacher got me working on a non-generic piece is that it is very hard (for me anyway) to figure out where a non-generic piece starts and stops. The conveniance of putting your characters and their cats on a spaceship or in a magic castle is that you get to set a boundary...perhaps an absurd and crappy boundary, but at least a boundary. More literary approaches seem to sprawl or approach autobiography or to be painfully minimal. It's hard to find a happy medium -- at least for me.
So, in defense of using genre, genre tends to push the manipulative strategies of telling a story so far into the open and obvious that (let's hope paradoxically) they pretty much disappear. The journey in a spaceship that nicely boxes up the first part of our tale is generic and so it slips right by the reader in all its glorious artifice.

dclary

08-18-2009, 10:28 PM

But what I'm saying is that if you can write, you don't have to pick genre first. You pick a subject first and find something worthwhile saying about it, then some way to say it. It might sometimes produce a genre piece, but it shouldn't always.

Let's say that you have to write 5,000 words about your neighbour's daughter. To a fiction-writer's eye, that cannot be a boring subject. People aren't boring to writers; they're fascinating -- full of contradictions and subtleties. They underpin everything we write.

So then you seek the story behind your neighbour's daughter. The seed of any story is a conflict or contradiction. You might discover that she has a love-hate relationship with her cat. She loves the cat, but her cat hates her. So you poke a bit to discover why... You realise that to her, the cat is her unborn daughter... a daughter that she's yet to have because she's not even adult yet. You realise that to the cat she's an irritating item of animated furniture that is sometimes warm and comfortable and brings food. There's your conflict, but how to explore it?

I'd suggest that making the cat sentient and putting them both into a rocket-ship to Venus is probably not the best way to treat that subject. Actually, the words 'blinkered' and 'hamfisted' come to mind (which fortunately as it's my idea, is a reflection only on me).

The conflict only occurs because the girl is confusing the cat for a third character -- a daughter, so I'd suggest that the story should involve all three characters... the girl, the cat and a daughter who doesn't exist yet. So then you start playing with this troika -- how does the cat teach the girl to be a mother? What does the girl teach the cat about people? How are the daughter and the cat similar? How are they different? What could they teach each other if they ever met?

Looking at the girl, you might decide that she's not going to learn anything. She smothers the cat, the cat scratches her, she gets hurt, but she comes back and smothers the poor moggy again. That sets the template of her life, you decide. But why does she do that? Perhaps it's simply that she confuses her emotions with the needs of those around her.

Looking at the cat, you might wonder: what is it that you're not doing that would get the girl to leave you alone? Perhaps you conclude: actually you're both bouncing back. It's that which keeps the cycle of abuse and irritation alive.

So then you might think: what if the mother eventually smothers the daughter too and she doesn't bounce back? There's the seed of a story idea: A girl who smothers her cat lovingly but mercilessly becomes a mother who does the same to her daughter to the point where she almost kills her with kindness -- and in the end, wishes that she'd killed the cat instead.

My point is, you can set that story anywhere, using any genre you like. You could write it as a fantasy in which the cat curses the girl, or you could write it as a horror in which the ghost of the cat takes its revenge on the daughter... Or you could make the daughter a clone that repeatedly dies, to the mother's great distress. Or you could write it as a murder mystery in which the girl (now the mother) has killed her daughter by accident and hidden the body... and the childhood cat becomes the clue. Or you could write it as a romance in which the boy heals the girl of her compulsion to smother. Or it could be a thriller in which the mother is gradually killing the daughter and a psychologist is trying to get proof to remove the daughter from her mother's custody...

But I'd suggest that none of those ideas entirely does justice to the original subject. Each reaches a point where it ignores the subject and dives into some escapist fantasy instead. On the other hand, if you can catch the characters and conflicts of the girl, the cat and her unborn daughter you could learn to write any of them. So as an educational exercise I think we stand to learn the most by writing some sort of mainstream version of this particular subject. It sharpens our writer's eye and keeps our mind focused on what it is we actually want to say about the girl -- rather than what we want to say about clones or ghosts.

Course if we weren't learning but already knew how to do this stuff, we could let the subject launch us wherever we wanted to go and just go there...

Ruv, a step you're leaving out, because it's inherent in you and thus you see no distinction, is that being a good writer and being a good story-teller are not always congruous.

In your mind, you equate the two, because it makes sense that a good writer has an ear for story, and so always seeks it out, regardless of genre.

However, there are people who are good writers... but lack the innate talent of storytelling, and so have to rely on the trappings of genre to make their works succeed. If Terry Brooks had written a historical fiction book in which half of every chapter includes the POV character for that chapter recounting what had gone on the previous 4 chapters, his works would never get published. But because he does the same thing in a work surrounded by magic and races and concepts that are fantastical in nature, he can get away with it.

That to say this: Sometimes story isn't enough, because too few writers have mastered the art of the story.

Higgins

08-18-2009, 10:49 PM

However, there are people who are good writers... but lack the innate talent of storytelling, and so have to rely on the trappings of genre to make their works succeed.

Hence the all-too-visible crappiness of genre fiction. Anyway, in defense of crappiness, there's nothing inherently weak about using the trappings of genre. Their very obvious crappiness is their value to the story. It's not bad story telling, it's just obviously crappy story-telling which is not (I hope) quite the same thing. It can be amusing rather than enlightening, but sometimes a person needs more amusement and less enlightenment.

dclary

08-18-2009, 10:57 PM

Hence the all-too-visible crappiness of genre fiction. Anyway, in defense of crappiness, there's nothing inherently weak about using the trappings of genre. Their very obvious crappiness is their value to the story. It's not bad story telling, it's just obviously crappy story-telling which is not (I hope) quite the same thing. It can be amusing rather than enlightening, but sometimes a person needs more amusement and less enlightenment.

You mean like this:

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/7/12/128918932796209570.jpg

mercs

08-18-2009, 11:32 PM

Anway, one of the people who have read the story said it was 'crap' because of the fact it's fantasy. Because the lad has an out of body experience it is classed as fantasy in his eyes.

he's only saying what we all know. i mean come on dreams and apparations? that's just a modern gimmick. midsummer night's dream and divine comedies? do me a favour. william blake and mark twain? weren't they self published? says it all...

i can't think of a single successful book that has any reference to mythology, dreams or apparations....

but all joking aside, if this clown can't open his mind even a millimetre to make a structured comment beyond "fantasy is crap" then it's his money and time he's wasting. it's embarrassing that this person is allowed to view work and give feedback when he clearly has no appreciation of anything outside of his own narrow likes and dislikes...

Ruv Draba

08-19-2009, 12:23 AM

Ruv, a step you're leaving out, because it's inherent in you and thus you see no distinction, is that being a good writer and being a good story-teller are not always congruous.Actually I'd say that I'm not, but trying to learn to be. Finding the story in a situation is a learned skill. It wasn't an innate skill for me. My talents run more to logic and analysis, not psychology and emotion. So I've had to learn it and still am. (Perhaps that reduces my sympathy for those who had to learn it and didn't bother.) In any case, I believe that if I can do it, others should be able to.

However, there are people who are good writers... but lack the innate talent of storytelling, and so have to rely on the trappings of genre to make their works succeed....if by succeed you mean 'sell'. But if the work-model is to reheat and sell then why write genre fiction? Why not copywrite for toothpaste and ab-machines? For all but a tiny proportion of writers the money is substantially better. Also, I wouldn't suggest a creative writing degree for just that purpose. A marketing degree with a copywriting component seems to me much more useful.

And while I think it's true that genre helps sell bad writing, even good marketing skill sells well without genre. Max Barry (http://maxbarry.com/) is an Australian humourist who has written books like Jennifer Government (http://maxbarry.com/jennifergovernment/international.html). He has a marketing degree and no more writes genre than Ben Elton (http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/e/ben-elton/) does.

This may sound like I hate genre. I don't -- most of the fiction I read is one genre or another and so is much of what I write. I just think it's not a good vehicle for learning writing. I also think it's worthwhile to challenge writers-aspirant who only want to read and write in a narrow band. Whatever it may do for your writing when you mean to publish, it doesn't do much for your learning.

Sometimes story isn't enough, because too few writers have mastered the art of the story.Genre sells, or it wouldn't be genre. It's also sometimes a good vehicle to explore ideas. But it's awfully hard to learn painting from a colour-by-numbers book. :D

Liosse de Velishaf

08-19-2009, 12:34 AM

But what I'm saying is that if you can write, you don't have to pick genre first. You pick a subject first and find something worthwhile saying about it, then some way to say it. It might sometimes produce a genre piece, but it shouldn't always.

Let's say that you have to write 5,000 words about your neighbour's daughter. To a fiction-writer's eye, that cannot be a boring subject. People aren't boring to writers; they're fascinating -- full of contradictions and subtleties. They underpin everything we write.

So then you seek the story behind your neighbour's daughter. The seed of any story is a conflict or contradiction. You might discover that she has a love-hate relationship with her cat. She loves the cat, but her cat hates her. So you poke a bit to discover why... You realise that to her, the cat is her unborn daughter... a daughter that she's yet to have because she's not even adult yet. You realise that to the cat she's an irritating item of animated furniture that is sometimes warm and comfortable and brings food. There's your conflict, but how to explore it?

I'd suggest that making the cat sentient and putting them both into a rocket-ship to Venus is probably not the best way to treat that subject. Actually, the words 'blinkered' and 'hamfisted' come to mind (which fortunately as it's my idea, is a reflection only on me).

The conflict only occurs because the girl is confusing the cat for a third character -- a daughter, so I'd suggest that the story should involve all three characters... the girl, the cat and a daughter who doesn't exist yet. So then you start playing with this troika -- how does the cat teach the girl to be a mother? What does the girl teach the cat about people? How are the daughter and the cat similar? How are they different? What could they teach each other if they ever met?

Looking at the girl, you might decide that she's not going to learn anything. She smothers the cat, the cat scratches her, she gets hurt, but she comes back and smothers the poor moggy again. That sets the template of her life, you decide. But why does she do that? Perhaps it's simply that she confuses her emotions with the needs of those around her.

Looking at the cat, you might wonder: what is it that you're not doing that would get the girl to leave you alone? Perhaps you conclude: actually you're both bouncing back. It's that which keeps the cycle of abuse and irritation alive.

So then you might think: what if the mother eventually smothers the daughter too and she doesn't bounce back? There's the seed of a story idea: A girl who smothers her cat lovingly but mercilessly becomes a mother who does the same to her daughter to the point where she almost kills her with kindness -- and in the end, wishes that she'd killed the cat instead.

My point is, you can set that story anywhere, using any genre you like. You could write it as a fantasy in which the cat curses the girl, or you could write it as a horror in which the ghost of the cat takes its revenge on the daughter... Or you could make the daughter a clone that repeatedly dies, to the mother's great distress. Or you could write it as a murder mystery in which the girl (now the mother) has killed her daughter by accident and hidden the body... and the childhood cat becomes the clue. Or you could write it as a romance in which the boy heals the girl of her compulsion to smother. Or it could be a thriller in which the mother is gradually killing the daughter and a psychologist is trying to get proof to remove the daughter from her mother's custody...

But I'd suggest that none of those ideas entirely does justice to the original subject. Each reaches a point where it ignores the subject and dives into some escapist fantasy instead. On the other hand, if you can catch the characters and conflicts of the girl, the cat and her unborn daughter you could learn to write any of them. So as an educational exercise I think we stand to learn the most by writing some sort of mainstream version of this particular subject. It sharpens our writer's eye and keeps our mind focused on what it is we actually want to say about the girl -- rather than what we want to say about clones or ghosts.

Course if we weren't learning but already knew how to do this stuff, we could let the subject launch us wherever we wanted to go and just go there...

Ruv, this is pretty much the most wonderful post I have read in a very long time. But what I think you have not adressed enough is that this approach puts everything besides that central character/conflict into the category of unecessary trappings. Which, arguably, is a good thing. Every writer I've met/talked to has at some point said that the story is about the conflict between/within the characters. At the most basic level, this is true.

But the question then becomes, how does one justify the "trappings"? Within this perspective, any set of conventions used to tell the story are automatically degrading to the primary material. If the story could be told within any genre, as your example demonstrates, then what is the point of the genre at all? By writing the story within a genre, any author having this understanding is essentially saying he doesn't have the chops to tell the story without resorting to a set of comfortable conventions, and is therefore inferior. Or if you want to say he does have the chops and is just writing in a genre he enjoys, then the genre is still unecessary padding.

Anyway, this all boils down to one question. Within your(this) philosophy, what is the value of genre? (Or any writing convention, really?)

ETA: In response to the color by numbers comment:

Are you saying that you cannot learn good story-telling skills inside a single genre? I mean, most people probably couldn't, but then, they wouldn't learn good skills reading anything. But are you saying it is impossible for anyone?

Ruv Draba

08-19-2009, 01:29 AM

Ruv, this is pretty much the most wonderful post I have read in a very long time. But what I think you have not adressed enough is that this approach puts everything besides that central character/conflict into the category of unecessary trappings.Or maybe puts it in layers.

Anyway, this all boils down to one question. Within your(this) philosophy, what is the value of genre? (Or any writing convention, really?)Ignoring genre for a minute, style produces aesthetic effect -- it creates a lens through which to appreciate subject. That can help shape the reader's response.

Genre isn't much different to that. Certain subjects lend themselves well to certain genres. For instance, if you want to explore the nature of man through the subject of his tools you'd be hard-pressed to go past science fiction as a vehicle for that. Likewise if you want to explore morality through the subject of heroism then fantasy has many pointers. Or if you'd like to explore justice as a mystery, the crime genre is there to help you do that.

In the craft sense, I see genre as something very useful -- a dynamic literary tradition encompassing a body of knowledge on how to treat certain subjects in certain ways. If we use it as a toolbox rather than a template then it's empowering to the writer -- and in many ways helps make our material more accessible to the reader.

On the other hand, I can buy a handful of impressionist prints, copy impressionist technique and slap paint on a canvas using that technique and never develop an eye for subject, an understanding of what the impressionists were trying to do, a sense of the strengths and limits of the technique or accomplish anything really other than convert postcards into tourist souvenirs. And these days I don't even need to copy their technique. I can do it in Photoshop. And literature design is almost at the point where we can do the same.

Are you saying that you cannot learn good story-telling skills inside a single genre? I mean, most people probably couldn't, but then, they wouldn't learn good skills reading anything. But are you saying it is impossible for anyone?We know that the full set of writing skills is generally hard. But trying to learn it by looking at template after template seems to make it inordinately hard. Why make it so hard? Why exercise an expert judgement on what's good when you're not an expert yet?

Liosse de Velishaf

08-19-2009, 02:01 AM

Thanks for the response, Ruv.

And it brings up another question (or questions) that has something to do with genre versus literary fiction, and maybe why "escapism" is such an issue.

What is the purpose of most literary fiction? (I would argue that it is exploration of some theme or subject.) What is the purpose of genre fiction? (I would argue that it is most likely entertainment. Of course, it's also possible to mix and match.) Your post talked about treatment of stories, and you gave some examples of what genres might work for particular stories.

Now, I know that when I am writing a story, the first thing that comes to mind is usually not something like, "Exploring the nature of man through the subject of his tools", nor is this necessarily the case for other genre fiction writers, as far as my experience goes. On the other hand, a lot of "litfic" authors give the impression that this is something that goes through their minds fairly early on in the process. I mean, I tend to get there eventually, but I've already settled on a genre by then, usually.

So, my new question is, is this a flaw in my thinking?
Am I approaching these story ideas the wrong way? Am I missing out? Am I alone in this pattern? Could this sort of process be the reason a lot of genre fiction is how it is? Could it also be the reason some academics and literary fiction writers look down on genre work?

It probably is the reason we get so much dreadful sf/f fiction from younger people (and older people, too, but you know what I mean) and genre fans. They want to write a cool story with ELVES in it, and not necessarily to explore man's changing connection to nature--or whatever. But is there a middle ground there? Can I start writing a story without a clear theme in mind, and yet still avoid the charge of improper handling of a firearm genre?

Ruv Draba

08-19-2009, 09:36 AM

And it brings up another question (or questions) that has something to do with genre versus literary fiction, and maybe why "escapism" is such an issue.

What is the purpose of most literary fiction? (I would argue that it is exploration of some theme or subject.)

What is the purpose of genre fiction? (I would argue that it is most likely entertainment.
Personal view time.

Literature is the fiction of ideas. All fiction can entertain, delight, inform or provoke, because that's what ideas do. Generally speaking, mainstream fiction entertains with its characters and provokes with its situations. Literature provokes with its characters and situations, and delights with its style. Genre fiction entertains with its characters and delights with its settings and situations. But any kind of fiction can also entertain, inform and provoke as it sees fit. Yesterday's genre situations can become today's mainstream as the fabulous becomes practical (e.g. space-travel fantasy becomes an Apollo moonshot). Mainstream ideas can seed new genre (e.g. a travel story becomes travel adventure), and so on... It comes down to the core ideas and the writer's skill.

I see every dramatic work of fiction as having a subject or of concern. The subject ties to recurrent questions in the through-lines of main characters -- so in other words, the themes connect to the subject. Mainstream fiction works with its subject literally; literature works with its subject stylistically; genre works with its subject fantastically. Again -- these can overlap. Hard SF often looks a lot like mainstream, for example -- except for the advanced science.

For me, escapism is what happens when a story abandons its subject. There's a popular presumption that escapism only appears in genre writing, but I think that's not true. In genre writing, escapism is recognisable by the appearance of melodrama, as the author piles on unsupported tension for the sake of entertainment. In literature it's recognisable by the author's self-conscious showing-off -- the author abandons subject in favour of style. In mainstream it's recognisable by authors playing dolly-houses -- the author abandons subject for the sake of delighting in the characters.

There's also a critical presumption that all genre is escapist but I think that's not true either. As long as the genre sticks to its subject and works honestly with its characters and situations, only releasing a conflict when it's properly resolved then what it delivers may be very entertaining but not escapist. Indeed, there are some very provocative genre stories that are utterly unrelenting.
I know that when I am writing a story, the first thing that comes to mind is usually not something like, "Exploring the nature of man through the subject of his tools", nor is this necessarily the case for other genre fiction writers, as far as my experience goes. On the other hand, a lot of "litfic" authors give the impression that this is something that goes through their minds fairly early on in the process. I mean, I tend to get there eventually, but I've already settled on a genre by then, usually.

So, my new question is, is this a flaw in my thinking?I don't think so, Liosse. Genres deal with a class of subjects, not just a single subject. It's just that if your driving story concern happens to be an example of 'exploring the nature of man through his tools' that it can be a candidate for a SF treatment. But it doesn't have to be treated that way just because you can.

On the other hand if you decide to write about your neighbour's daughter and her conflict with a cat, you might have great trouble fitting it to SF -- because SF tends to look at humans as consumers or victims of technology and scientific frontiers. If that perspective offers no insight on your subject you wouldn't consider using it. Moreover, if you saw yourself as just a SF writer then you might not consider writing about your neighbour's daughter unless you could somehow connect it to humanity, technology and scientific frontiers. You might have a tonne of insights about your neighbour's daughter, but being bound to a genre might prevent you from ever developiong or sharing them.

It probably is the reason we get so much dreadful sf/f fiction from younger people (and older people, too, but you know what I mean) and genre fans. They want to write a cool story with ELVES in it, and not necessarily to explore man's changing connection to nature--or whatever. But is there a middle ground there?It used to be that SFF was for the most part, badly-written crap with great ideas. Nowadays I increasingly find that SFF is better-written crap with crap ideas. I attribute this to authors trying to sell genre rather than trying to investigate and write ideas through the vehicle of genre. The de facto standard of the multi-volume SFF cycle supports my view. I'm a bit old-school here -- I don't believe in publishing a book unless you have enough insights to make it worth writing as a book. (Literature is the fiction of ideas, remember -- if what you have is visually stunning and dramatically entertaining but light on the thinking, then why not write a cinematic screenplay? It worked for Lucas.)

I certainly don't believe in publishing a cycle just because you can extend the entertainment for twelve more volumes. Authors like Le Guin and Wolfe can sustain a really solid cycle. Authors like Jordan couldn't -- perhaps he never tried or thought to try in the first place -- so he'd just pad. And padding is easy. Any hack can do it.
Can I start writing a story without a clear theme in mind, and yet still avoid the charge of improper handling of a firearm genre?I think it depends on how you do it. If you start off with a writer's mind rather than a genre-hack's mind then you'll develop a deep understanding of characters, issues, and from there themes and styles will emerge. Then you can decide what to do with it. It might happen that you're fascinated with gods and beliefs say (as Le Guin is), and so your subjects will end up leading you to the same sorts of treatments anyway. Le Guin mainly writes fantasy but fantasy is a superb vehicle for her interests regardless. But if she wanted to write mainstream it's obvious from her fantasy writing that she could do it in a trice. Essentially, every one of her fantasy stories is a credible mainstream story with a few fantasy elements added. Heck, most of them are credible literary stories that happen to have fantasy elements salted in.

That's pretty much my point: the really good genre writers are mainstream and literary writers who just happen to write genre. The really crap genre writers are those who have some writing craft but not a writer's mind -- which gives them just enough ability to market reheated left-overs to an undiscerning audience.

For me, it comes down to: do you just want to be published, or do you want to write? Either way there's nothing stopping you from playing with whatever genres you like -- but how you go about learning and developing your craft will be very different.

I think that it might get to a point where you anticipate the treatment as you scout the subject. But while we're getting our foundations I think it's worth our effort to explore the subject early, then set the treatment late. From a personal perspective I've been doing that in the last year and it's made a huge difference to the quality of my writing -- and the depth of my core ideas. For several years before that I did it the other way, and just kept spitting out cardboard. Maybe in a few years time I'll be able to pick a genre then choose a mainstream or literary story for it and get it to work that way -- but I don't mind if I can't, as long as I can produce good fiction -- stories that leave a bit to chew on when they're done.

Ruv Draba

08-19-2009, 09:48 AM

The conveniance of putting your characters and their cats on a spaceship or in a magic castle is that you get to set a boundary...perhaps an absurd and crappy boundary, but at least a boundary.That sounds suspiciously like a crucible theory of drama -- which is fine.. But mainstream and literary fiction can also create crucibles without damaging the characters by ripping them out of their natural environment.

In the case of the girl with the cat, their shared home is a fine crucible. Its full of things they own, ceremonies and customs innate to them. All are cues for character and meaningful props for conflict. How does a rocket-ship to Venus improve on that? Arguably it doesn't -- it actually reduces opportunities for drama relevant to the subject.

Liosse de Velishaf

08-19-2009, 10:15 AM

Again with the good answers, Ruv. :)

Now I can spend time procrastinating by trying to remember why I started a given story, and how it fits into the framework of subject vs. conventions. Instead of procrastinating by watching anime, or rereading Scar Night.

Ruv Draba

08-19-2009, 10:25 AM

Now I can spend time procrastinating by trying to remember why I started a given stroy, and how it fits into the framework of subject vs. conventions. Instead of procrastinating by watching anime, or rereading Scar Night.It's not that bad. :D Some months back I received an invitation to submit a genre piece to an anthology. Moreover, it had to include a certain premise. Ruv of a year ago would have made the premise into the subject... Instead I picked a subject of my interest and tried to use the premise as a pry-bar into it. What I think I've produced is fiction that catches the subject fairly well and makes credible use of the genre premise. I haven't quite gotten them to fuse so seamlessly that you couldn't separate them but I'm happy that it's better than any of my previous attempts.

Uh, my point is that there was a deadline, so no excuses for procrastinating on chicken-and-egg questions. There's nothing like a deadline to strip the philosophy from a task. :)

Liosse de Velishaf

08-19-2009, 11:03 AM

Well, I meant, just as an exercise. It will be fun, I'm sure.

Anyway, I wish I had some deadlines. Otherwise, I'm too easy to distract.

I think that fusion so that the two are inseperable is one of the hardest parts of genre writing. It's why I've seen so many critiques telling new genre writers that if the story could be told just as well without the genre, then it should be. It's also an excuse I hear from a lot of people more into "litfic", whether they be some of the aforementioned (but by no means inherent to the profession) biased academics, or just writers who feel like taking potshots at genre in general. Of course, it's often true of those stories, but not a pattern the critics should get into out of habit.

Ruv Draba

08-19-2009, 02:59 PM

I think that fusion so that the two are inseperable is one of the hardest parts of genre writing. It's why I've seen so many critiques telling new genre writers that if the story could be told just as well without the genre, then it should be.Yes. It seems to come down to subject again... I've formed the habit of defending my story concepts to myself before I develop them. I especially work hard to make the mainstream story work as strongly as possible. Then I try and defend any genre elements. That's just to try to ensure that the drama works and the genre fuses. Example:Hetty's a mother who's gradually killing her daughter with kindness.So what?

So she doesn't want to kill her daughter, but she can't help it.Why not?

When she was a child she owned a cat which she loved but didn't understand. She committed abuses ranging from hugs to trying to bathe the cat, dressing it in doll's clothes and feeding it human food. The cat would often fight and scratch but she'd still do it. A neighbour was so incensed that she took the cat away and threatened Hetty with a dire curse. Years later, the curse seems to be taking effect. Her sickly daughter is suffering each time Hetty shows her a kindness and Hetty is now having nightmares about the cat.Okay, so what?

So Hetty decides that the curse is real and she must lift it before her daughter dies.How?

Hetty thinks that she must somehow atone for the cat, but in fact the problem is deeper. She needs to face it before the curse will lift.Deeper how?

Hetty has a life dotted by well-meaning actions that have caused hurt. It began with the cat, but has extended to her family and workmates. She's been hurting people with her kindness all her life -- but ignoring this fact.Like how?

Like throwing out her husband's favourite sweater and buying him a new one. Then when he complains, she argues with him until he submits. Or booking her shy daughter into dance class. Or submitting a workmate's resume for a job.Why hasn't she realised what she's doing before now?

People have tried to tell her, but she ignores them.Why?

At about the same age that she had the cat, Hetty's parents taught her that others must be happy before she can be happy. It was this that made her smother the cat. Ever since then she's been compelled to help others before herself -- but she helps them in ways that serve her.So how can she get through this?

First she must understand how much she's hurting others. Then she must understand how selfish her desires to love are. Finally she must understand that she is not a robot compelled to serve others. Sometimes she can do something just for herself.How can she learn these things?

Dreams of the cat haunt her. The cat terrorises her, but it's also offering guidance. She begins trying to appease the cat, but eventually realises that she's learning something important. I'm not yet sure if she finds out soon enough to save her daughter.Why does this story need a magical curse? Why a daughter who's suffering in this way?

The idea of a child suffering every time you love them has a visceral emotional appeal. It's horrific. It captures Hetty's situation symbolically in a way that I think a mainstream approach couldn't manage. It also captures the moral symbolically and I think, helps make it more accessible.Why is Hetty the very worst character for this situation to happen to?

Because her way of controlling people through love is the most extreme I can find for a character; her way of justifying herself the most compelling. (I need to write some examples to support this).Why is Hetty the very best character for this situation to happen to?

Because her treatment by her parents was so harsh; the lessons of 'do for others before yourself' so cruel. (I need to write up examples to support this).Why is the imagery of the cat the best way to progress the story?

Because cats hate being mistreated, and they punish back. The fact that Hetty can ignore the cat's fighting her shows just how deeply deluded she was. Because the image is familiar to readers and well- accepted.How did Hetty's neighbour come to be a witch?

The reader won't know for sure that she's a witch. Hetty's neighbour was a New Age devotee and a cat-lover. Her neighbour believed in magic, Gaia, karma... spells... and was angry enough to take out her outrage on a little girl. But just as easily, ths could be a story about karma or an angry cat-ghost, or psychosomatic injuries.Why did Hetty's belief in her neighbour's witchery persist into adulthood?

Deep inside where she doesn't admit it, Hetty feels terrible guilt over the cat. That guilt will resurface as her daughter begins to suffer.How will it resolve?

To be explored. In the dark fantasy version, the cat guides Hetty out of her predicament though it's terrifying. In the horror version Hetty finally faces the enormity of what she's become, but is trapped by it.Why Dark Fantasy? Why Horror?

Dark fantasy offers the moral version of the tale. It uses symbols to play with Hetty's psychology. Horror focuses more on the mood of the premise. Of the two, the Dark fantasy version probably has more to say.Where is the risk of melodrama? How can it be avoided?If the cat provides guidance rather than provocation then Hetty's journey will be too easy. If Hetty's reformation doesn't cost her anything then it'll be cheap magic.

Therefore this story needs to have a cat that's utterly terrifying. It needs to show Hetty in the most sympathetic light, then have that eroded over time as she begins questioning herself. Finally, if she breaks through the problem it must cost her where it hurts: to be called selfish and inconsiderate.That's my first cut at how to produce a story idea that fuses genre with the mainstream conflicts. After revising it a bit I'd then go on to mapping out the main characters and the stimuli that change them -- then establishing setting and plot. Hopefully it shows how one can keep the focus on the characters and not have the genre drag the story away. Any suggestions for how to improve on this method are welcome.

MumblingSage

08-19-2009, 05:16 PM

Is a Creative Writing degree that helpful to a writer of speculative fiction, anyway? As one who somewhat-obsessively reads the bios of favorite authors, I don't think I've ever found a fantasy author with one (granted, there's some sample bias there, but...).

Also, since part of the conflict in your story is the character trying to decide whether or not his expierance was real, I personally don't think it's very fantastic (that is, a fantasy, not that it isn't a good idea or a good story). I'm pretty sure most people would let it slide as historical fiction.

veinglory

08-19-2009, 06:35 PM

There are writing degrees that specifically pocus on spec fic and are taught by published authors. Thinking all writing is the sale is kind of like laking a course in psychoanalysis because you want to be a psychiatrist--because it's all 'stuff in the head', right?

Higgins

08-19-2009, 06:38 PM

That sounds suspiciously like a crucible theory of drama -- which is fine.. But mainstream and literary fiction can also create crucibles without damaging the characters by ripping them out of their natural environment.

In the case of the girl with the cat, their shared home is a fine crucible. Its full of things they own, ceremonies and customs innate to them. All are cues for character and meaningful props for conflict. How does a rocket-ship to Venus improve on that? Arguably it doesn't -- it actually reduces opportunities for drama relevant to the subject.

The rocketship to Venus doesn't necessarily improve on the drama, but it does offer some escape mechanisms that some readers may find it easier to settle into than the similar escape mechanisms a household provides. You put a negative value on escape (in another post), implying that when the writers pile on melodrama or overindulge in their perceptive comments on human mental processes -- that this somehow betrays the story.
I don't find the idea that the story is there in some space beyond the narrative techniques used to construct it very convincing. Sure you can tell any story a lot of different ways, but in fact those stories are really slightly different stories. By the same token, escape (ie the reader's immersion in the story and absence from their own concerns) is inherent in any narrative, the rocketship to Venus just makes the escape more obvious and perhaps more fun.

Salis

08-19-2009, 08:10 PM

Higgins

08-19-2009, 08:16 PM

I don't think fiction has to be exploring some underlying issue or theme (in the grand sense) to be worthwhile. I think that's dangerous ground to tread, that you should only write when you have something really important to say. Okay, so you'll only write every ten years?

Moreover, chances are your "big idea" has already been said before--I'm more a fan of the window-dressing and the characters than the big idea. Big ideas are great, but books that exist as nothing but a vessel for big ideas bore me.

I guess that's the distinction between academic fiction and commercial fiction, though. The academic is tenured or paid in some regard. Hence, he is not required to write in a way that entertains the public. The only thing he wants to do is write in a way that makes him (or her) feel artistically important.

I'm still on the side of populist entertainment.

What fiction by what academic is a vessel for big ideas? I can understand liking genre fiction (perhaps not quite the same as populist entertainment, wouldn't that be William Jennings Bryan?), but I can't understand why liking genre fiction requires one to invent a vast category of works of fiction concerning big ideas (such as what? What is an example of a big idea?) supposedly written by academics.

Liosse de Velishaf

08-19-2009, 08:24 PM

I don't think fiction has to be exploring some underlying issue or theme (in the grand sense) to be worthwhile. I think that's dangerous ground to tread, that you should only write when you have something really important to say. Okay, so you'll only write every ten years?

Moreover, chances are your "big idea" has already been said before--I'm more a fan of the window-dressing and the characters than the big idea. Big ideas are great, but books that exist as nothing but a vessel for big ideas bore me.

I guess that's the distinction between academic fiction and commercial fiction, though. The academic is tenured or paid in some regard. Hence, he is not required to write in a way that entertains the public. The only thing he wants to do is write in a way that makes him (or her) feel artistically important.

I'm still on the side of populist entertainment.

Who said anything about "big ideas"? I thought we were talking about exploring a charatcer...

motormind

08-19-2009, 08:31 PM

I suggest you do the same. Write something that doesn't pretend to be anything except literature, creative writing... and when you've made the audience your bitch, twist the screws and open the curtain.

That flies in the face of the often-spouted advice that you should start in the middle of sthe story.

Higgins

08-19-2009, 08:35 PM

That flies in the face of the often-spouted advice that you should start in the middle of sthe story.

You can't start in the middle of a plot-twist.

Salis

08-19-2009, 09:08 PM

What fiction by what academic is a vessel for big ideas? I can understand liking genre fiction (perhaps not quite the same as populist entertainment, wouldn't that be William Jennings Bryan?), but I can't understand why liking genre fiction requires one to invent a vast category of works of fiction concerning big ideas (such as what? What is an example of a big idea?) supposedly written by academics.

Populist entertainment in the sense of anything that appeals to people on a visceral level that doesn't really have to be thought about, or acquired as a taste.

i.e, the reason people watch Lord of the Rings in HD (not for it's literary value!)

If you can't find literary fiction that is busy hamfistedly shoving its ideas down your throat, you haven't read a lot.

Who said anything about "big ideas"? I thought we were talking about exploring a charatcer...

I see every dramatic work of fiction as having a subject or of concern. The subject ties to recurrent questions in the through-lines of main characters -- so in other words, the themes connect to the subject. Mainstream fiction works with its subject literally; literature works with its subject stylistically; genre works with its subject fantastically. Again -- these can overlap. Hard SF often looks a lot like mainstream, for example -- except for the advanced science.

There you go. He doesn't say 'big idea' explicitly, but I get the feeling he's not promoting meaningful subjects as, oh, I don't know, "EXPLOSIONS ARE COOL". It's a literary aspiration.

Higgins

08-19-2009, 09:15 PM

If you can't find literary fiction that is busy hamfistedly shoving its ideas down your throat, you haven't read a lot.

Since I haven't read a lot, I'm asking for an example of a work of fiction by an academic that is a vessel of big ideas. Better yet, you could give an example of a work of literary fiction that is potentially busy hamfistedly shoving its ideas down my throat -- I mean if I read it.

Higgins

08-19-2009, 09:17 PM

There you go. He doesn't say 'big idea' explicitly, but I get the feeling he's not promoting meaningful subjects as, oh, I don't know, "EXPLOSIONS ARE COOL". It's a literary aspiration.

Anything other than "explosions are cool" is a big idea?
So "explosions are not cool" is not just a big idea, its a step toward safety in the work place.

Liosse de Velishaf

08-19-2009, 09:17 PM

Populist entertainment in the sense of anything that appeals to people on a visceral level that doesn't really have to be thought about, or acquired as a taste.

i.e, the reason people watch Lord of the Rings in HD (not for it's literary value!)

If you can't find literary fiction that is busy hamfistedly shoving its ideas down your throat, you haven't read a lot.

There you go. He doesn't say 'big idea' explicitly, but I get the feeling he's not promoting meaningful subjects as, oh, I don't know, "EXPLOSIONS ARE COOL". It's a literary aspiration.

Good stories are about characters. Explosions are just a bonus. And, honestly, not much of one until we get the movie.:D

Salis

08-19-2009, 09:27 PM

Good stories are about characters. Explosions are just a bonus. And, honestly, not much of one until we get the movie.:D

That's my point, though. There's a distinction, there. "Meaningful fiction" basically sets out to prove a point or explore an idea through the characters--whereas I'm perfectly fine with fiction where we're just watching the characters do things and be interesting.

We're taught from a very early age, though, that there has to be something thematic or overriding about a piece.

Since I haven't read a lot, I'm asking for an example of a work of fiction by an academic that is a vessel of big ideas. Better yet, you could give an example of a work of literary fiction that is potentially busy hamfistedly shoving its ideas down my throat -- I mean if I read it.

Okay. (http://www.amazon.com/White-Noise-Penguin-Great-Century/dp/0140283307/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250701185&sr=8-1) (Not academic.)

We're getting offtopic here. You're trying to nail me down to a lack of details, when this isn't about details at all. I'm not trying to convince you of the rightness of my idea--just that there is a very obvious distinction between books that have their primacy in the Idea, and books that have their primacy in making the reader turn the page. I don't think this is a strange allegation to make, or that it needs lots of examples to support it. All you have to do is walk between two shelves at your local library to see it in action.

Ruv Draba

08-19-2009, 09:31 PM

You put a negative value on escape (in another post), implying that when the writers pile on melodrama or overindulge in their perceptive comments on human mental processes -- that this somehow betrays the story.

I don't find the idea that the story is there in some space beyond the narrative techniques used to construct it very convincing.Well, let me try harder then.

I believe that a good story-hook does three things:

Establishes the subject (often subtly)
Declares the nature of the experience
Provokes the reader to read onThree examples in support:

A literary example: the opening hook from Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.
A mainstream example: the opening from John Kennedy Toole's A Confederacy of DuncesA green hunting cap squeezed the top of the fleshy balloon of a head. The green earflaps, full of large ears and uncut hair and the fine bristles that grew in the ears themselves, stuck out on either side like turn signals indicating two directions at once. Full, pursed lips protruded beneath the bushy black moustache and, at their corners, sank into little folds filled with disapproval and potato chip crumbs. In the shadow under the green visor of the cap Ignatius J. Reilly’s supercilious blue and yellow eyes looked down upon the other people waiting under the clock at the D. H. Holmes department story, studying the crowd of people for signs of bad taste in dress.
A genre example which also happens to be escapist: the opening crawl from the first Star Wars. Bolding's mine.It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire.
During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the DEATHSTAR, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet.

Pursued by the Empire's sinister agents, Princess Leia races home aboard her starship, custodian of the stolen plans that can save her people and restore freedom to the galaxy....

In the literary example the subject is declared: marriage, upbringing, moral rectitude. The treatment is exemplified in its hyperbole. The hook challenges the reader to decide whether fortune indeed demands matrimony.

In the mainstream example the subject is declared to be Reilly's ability to fit into society. The treatment is shown to be ironic. The hook provokes the reader to decide whether Reilly could ever possibly fit in.

In the genre example the subject is declared to be civil war. The treatment is shown to be melodramatic. The provocation is for the reader to decide whether Leia et al... can actually destroy the Death Star and restore freedom to the galaxy.

In the first two examples the author goes on to maintain the initial provocation throughout the story. In the third example, the subject is already betrayed by its own non sequitur. Destroying an ultimate weapon does not normally win a civil war and neither does it restore freedom. Star Wars departs from its subject before the action even opens. It creates a double-barrelled question and only ever addresses the first half -- can the rebels destroy the Death Star? Sure, with difficulty. Can they restore freedom to the galaxy? Uh.. how? We've escaped the problems of civil war without ever exploring them.

It's the nature of escapism that it betrays the provocation that made its subject interesting in the first place. If we see a hook as a contract with the reader, escapism doesn't deliver on the provocation part of its contract. On the other hand, the reader mightn't mind. I'm not saying that escapism fails to entertain and delight. Star Wars clearly does. It might even succeed in conveying some useful information (though I don't think Star Wars does). But escapism fails to sustain its initial provocation. That may matter to an audience or it may not, but it should matter to people desiring to learn how to write.
By the same token, escape (ie the reader's immersion in the story and absence from their own concerns) is inherent in any narrative, the rocketship to Venus just makes the escape more obvious and perhaps more fun.Escapism does more than simply entertain. It breaks its own contract.

Does that matter morally? Ethically? Socially? I'll leave others to debate that. It certainly matters to a writer's education and development, though.

Liosse de Velishaf

08-19-2009, 09:44 PM

That's my point, though. There's a distinction, there. "Meaningful fiction" basically sets out to prove a point or explore an idea through the characters--whereas I'm perfectly fine with fiction where we're just watching the characters do things and be interesting.

We're taught from a very early age, though, that there has to be something thematic or overriding about a piece.
Now now, don't put words in my mouth.:D I don't plan stories based on a theme, nor do I read a story because I'm looking for an overriding theme. I said "good", not "meaningful". (Although, since we're discussing Ruv's argument, what I said doesn't necessarily matter.) Let's put it this way:

Magic is cool. So are spaceships. That's why I read sff. But if I find the protag annoying, or shallow, then I am not going to keep reading. That's what I meant by "character".

Ruv Draba

08-19-2009, 09:45 PM

I'm still on the side of populist entertainment.Gilgamesh and the Iliad were both populist entertainment and are also classics. What's wrong with populism? My question is whether a story breaks its integrity to deliver its entertainment. I've claimed that genre doesn't necessarily do that, but that escapism invariably does.

So why does it? In my experience it's not because the story, the entertainment or the audience require it. It's because the author does.

Why does the author require a story to break its contract? I'd suggest that it's because the author lacks either the skill or the care to deliver to the full scale of the original promise.

Does that matter, if readers suck down the material anyway? Not to those readers probably, but to writing as a profession and as a craft, I think it matters a lot.
I don't think fiction has to be exploring some underlying issue or theme (in the grand sense) to be worthwhile. I think that's dangerous ground to tread, that you should only write when you have something really important to say. Okay, so you'll only write every ten years?I don't know that we have to say something revolutionary. I would suggest though that if we hook the reader with a question and our professional integrity matters then we're beholden to have put some care into our answer. I don't believe that reduces our publication rate at all, but it might require that we think before we write -- or learn our craft before we publish.

Dawnstorm

08-19-2009, 09:58 PM

Escapism: The art of the story escaping its own premise.

Hm...

I don't think it makes a good definition, as X-isms generally posit X as the goal or cause or end-point. But it's very interesting if viewed as common unintended consequence of the role "escape".

Dawnstorms definition:

Escapism: The art of helping a reader escape from everyday mundaneity. (Which often avoids unpleasant aspects of concepts and plays them for their cool. As a consequence they won't ask about, say, the morals of civil wars, and won't delve into ponderables such as the philosophy of leadership, or the viability of destroying your own resources. I mean, Tatooine, okay, who'd miss that ball of sand? But a major system, probably rich in water and other resources...)

In the end it's always: "What sins do you notice? What sins do you forgive?"

Ruv Draba

08-19-2009, 10:14 PM

Escapism: The art of the story escaping its own premise.

Hm...

I don't think it makes a good definition, as X-isms generally posit X as the goal or cause or end-point. But it's very interesting if viewed as common unintended consequence of the role "escape".Agreed. I didn't supply it as a definition though. So let me amend that:

Escapism: the practice of uninterrupted self-gratification while pretending to do something difficult and important.

:D:Jump::banana::Jump::D

DeleyanLee

08-19-2009, 10:16 PM

Escapism: the practice of uninterrupted self-gratification while pretending to do ignoring something difficult and important.

Fixed that for you. ;)

Rebekah7

08-19-2009, 10:18 PM

Gilgamesh and the Iliad were both populist entertainment and are also classics. What's wrong with populism? My question is whether a story breaks its integrity to deliver its entertainment. I've claimed that genre doesn't necessarily do that, but that escapism invariably does.

So why does it? In my experience it's not because the story, the entertainment or the audience require it. It's because the author does.

Why does the author require a story to break its contract? I'd suggest that it's because the author lacks either the skill or the care to deliver to the full scale of the original promise.

But is escapism how the ideas are presented or solely based on the fact that something is "out of the ordinary"? If someone uses "fantastical" elements, are they always added there to entertain or take someone out of the story? What if they are there to distill the idea behind the story, or give a different perspective? Just because something is not normal does not mean it's escapist.

You can damage the integrity of a story with anything, and simply because there are a fantasy stories out there that are one dimensional and unrealistic, doesn't mean that it's the fact that the elements were fantasy is what makes it escapist (it just makes it more obvious to see when it is).

With the Star Wars example:

The whole "civil war is ended by killing the bad guys and freedom will just magically spring up" could be slopped into any story and be just as bad. You could have a story about the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution and have everyone clapping hands after the royalty have been killed. Or you could have a modern story that takes place in some third world country with a totalitarian dictatorship that is overthrown and have it that everyone lived happily ever after. People enjoy stories like that, but it's still escapist. The real story is much messier and a lot more interesting to write about, even if some people might not find it entertaining.

Higgins

08-19-2009, 10:22 PM

Escapism does more than simply entertain. It breaks its own contract.

I think you've misread the provocation and the resulting escapism in Pride and Prejudice and Star Wars. The original provocation in Star Wars isn't about a civil war in a galaxy far far away, its about the trappings of escapism itself shoved very brilliantly into the foreground: a massive space opera full of goofy topoi dropped right into the middle of the 1970s? It's all about the theatricality of the movie theater. The film is the thing. The contract with the audience (ie to place the mythic/escapist dimension of film itself in the foreground) is completely fulfilled. Or at least it was in the 1970s. Now it just looks silly, but the look of silliness has nothing to do with escapism except to suggest that Star Wars was too true to itself in terms of the distancing of the plot from grim reality. An overgrown fairy tale soon collapses under its own weight.
Speaking of fairy tales, Pride and Prejudice, deliberately sets up situations that have to be undercut: Darcy's ideal woman is apparently his sister (hmmm primordial incest strikes again) and yet she has already tried to run off with a very unsuitable fellow (whom in fact everybody likes). Meanwhile Elizabeth tries to maintain an impossible balancing act of pretending she can use her verbal wit to overcome all practical disasters, only to be thwarted when the same unsuitable fellow that tried to run off with Darcy's sister -- uh -- runs off with her sister. Ah those symmetrical sisters. Escapist irony (of a theatrically Star Wars like nature) is the mode that the reader must view the extreme positions of Darcy and Elizabeth. No real person would be able to maintain the extremes that Darcy and Elizabeth attempt just as no galactic rebels could restore freedom at a stroke. Escapist irony is also the mode that the original viewers of Star Wars had to be in. Both Star Wars and Pride and Prejudice are equally escapist in putting basic situations into very extreme terms. In the long run, Pride and Prejudice is more successful because it is not dependent on a particular theatrical moment.

Liosse de Velishaf

08-19-2009, 10:31 PM

But is escapism how the ideas are presented or solely based on the fact that something is "out of the ordinary"? If someone uses "fantastical" elements, are they always added there to entertain or take someone out of the story? What if they are there to distill the idea behind the story, or give a different perspective? Just because something is not normal does not mean it's escapist.

You can damage the integrity of a story with anything, and simply because there are a fantasy stories out there that are one dimensional and unrealistic, doesn't mean that it's the fact that the elements were fantasy is what makes it escapist (it just makes it more obvious to see when it is).

With the Star Wars example:

The whole "civil war is ended by killing the bad guys and freedom will just magically spring up" could be slopped into any story and be just as bad. You could have a story about the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution and have everyone clapping hands after the royalty have been killed. Or you could have a modern story that takes place in some third world country with a totalitarian dictatorship that is overthrown and have it that everyone lived happily ever after. People enjoy stories like that, but it's still escapist. The real story is much messier and a lot more interesting to write about, even if some people might not find it entertaining.

I thought that was exactly what he just said...:poke:

Higgins

08-19-2009, 10:46 PM

We're getting offtopic here. You're trying to nail me down to a lack of details, when this isn't about details at all. I'm not trying to convince you of the rightness of my idea--just that there is a very obvious distinction between books that have their primacy in the Idea, and books that have their primacy in making the reader turn the page. I don't think this is a strange allegation to make, or that it needs lots of examples to support it. All you have to do is walk between two shelves at your local library to see it in action.

It's not a strange allegation, I just think it is not particularlly true. I don't think there are lots of academics out there writing books that are vessels for big ideas. One detail that it might be interesting to look at would be what one means by "big idea"...other than a lack of explosions, what is a big idea? What are some big ideas? How might they be hamfistedly shoved around in fiction by academics and does that ever actually happen?

Ruv Draba

08-19-2009, 10:47 PM

But is escapism how the ideas are presented or solely based on the fact that something is "out of the ordinary"?Some people like the real and immediate, and consider everything else to be froth. They may choose to dismiss everything imaginative that they don't like as escapism -- but that doesn't mean it is.

Science constantly deals with the imagined, yet unseen. Science is very practical, very difficult and very important. It often requires deep intuitions. It also (sometimes) requires flights of fancy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8206280.stm) to suggest avenues of new investigation. Is that escapism? Hardly.

Here we are in the SFF forum. If we're here we probably like speculation, imagination, the improbable and the outright impossible. We're free to use those things to entertain, delight, inspire, inform and provoke. I believe that it's only escapism if you pretend that it's solving a problem when it's really avoiding the problem.

The whole "civil war is ended by killing the bad guys and freedom will just magically spring up" could be slopped into any story and be just as bad.Absolutely. Genre is often unrealistic but that doesn't make it escapist. Neither is escapism confined just to genre.
Or you could have a modern story that takes place in some third world country with a totalitarian dictatorship that is overthrown and have it that everyone lived happily ever after.Yes -- especially if the problem of what created the dictatorship is posed but then not addressed.

The real story is much messier and a lot more interesting to write about, even if some people might not find it entertaining.I think it's the essence of the fiction-writer's art to find interesting, difficult things and make them entertaining. That doesn't always mean dumbing them down or ignoring the difficult, unpleasant stuff. Even fairy tales can provoke.

dclary

08-19-2009, 11:57 PM

The real story is much messier and a lot more interesting to write about, even if some people might not find it entertaining.

Which seems a selfish reason to write it. Interesting or not, I'm more concerned with my readers' enjoyment. Not my own.

Rebekah7

08-20-2009, 12:12 AM

Which seems a selfish reason to write it. Interesting or not, I'm more concerned with my readers' enjoyment. Not my own.

That's why I put some people. Some people might not like fantasy, romance, literary fiction, or stories that have to do with dogs. Because some people aren't interested in it doesn't mean that no one would be interested in it, and you can't please everyone, no matter what.

If someone writes a story that they loved to write, but is not interesting to anyone but themselves, then they didn't do their job.

DeleyanLee

08-20-2009, 12:17 AM

If someone writes a story that they loved to write, but is not interesting to anyone but themselves, then they didn't do their job.

I agree with you--but only if that story was written with publication in mind. Not all stories are.

motormind

08-20-2009, 12:04 PM

You can't start in the middle of a plot-twist.

Why not? I do it all the time.

Higgins

08-20-2009, 04:41 PM

Why not? I do it all the time.

How is it a twist if there's no untwisted state established before the twist happens?

Ruv Draba

08-21-2009, 01:11 AM

Both Star Wars and Pride and Prejudice are equally escapist in putting basic situations into very extreme terms.That's a different meaning of 'escapism', Higgins. You're using it to mean 'implausibly exaggerated'.

I have two problems with that:

Life is already implausibly exaggerated at times. The Old Woman Who Lived in the Shoe seems like exaggerated maternity until you meet the Octuplet mother with 14 kids. :D
The route to escape is avoidance, not exaggeration. Octomum having 14 kids rather than 6 gains her nothing; it's only if 14 kids are all well-behaved and able to look after each other while she plays tennis that it's escapism.Pride and Prejudice uses exaggeration for humour, but Austen never really lets her characters off the hook. Star Wars not only lets all its major characters hit home-runs, it changes the rules of the game so they can do it.

MGraybosch

08-21-2009, 10:38 AM

Despite millions of books selling every year in this genre a lot of people can't see past it and think each fantasy text is a pastiche on all the others.

So, why is this?

Ever heard of Sturgeon's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law)? 90% of everything in the fantasy genre is crap. Your professors are probably sick of Tolkien, and may well associate all fantasy -- no matter how original or inventive -- with the endless retreads of Tolkien that Terry Brooks unleashed upon an unsuspecting world with the publication of The Sword of Shannara.

It might not be fair, and it might not be reasonable, but it's something you have to deal with. Try writing stuff that isn't fantasy for them. You can use what you've learned when you go back to your chosen genre.

dclary

08-21-2009, 11:27 AM

Ever heard of Sturgeon's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law)? 90% of everything in the fantasy genre is crap. .

Yes. In fact it's already been referenced in this thread.

Bartholomew

08-21-2009, 11:30 AM

Yes. In fact it's already been referenced in this thread.

And contested.

Higgins

08-21-2009, 05:32 PM

Pride and Prejudice uses exaggeration for humour, but Austen never really lets her characters off the hook. Star Wars not only lets all its major characters hit home-runs, it changes the rules of the game so they can do it.

I see escapism as that aspect of a narrative where the writer helps the reader construct a world that has some intriguing or pleasing differences from the world that the reader and writer supposedly share. Obviously a lot can go wrong with that: Jane Austen seems less escapist than she was because we tend to think she was realistically describing her world as it was, but we don't really know because we don't really share that much of her world. And Star Wars seems more like badly bungled escapism that it was originally because it created a set of themes in the world where that kind of big explosion = escapism confusion is accepted as a norm, ie. it accidently destroyed the perception of film as a complex medium with a history of complex forms of escapism in the paradoxically act of exploiting a lot of cinematic history (such as Buck Rodgers style serials).
So in the end (ie now), the various distances inherent in Jane Austen's exaggerations result in a fine brew of irony and faintly exotic escapism while Star Wars clubbed to death the few possibly ironic effects
that might have been teased out had the screen writers exercised any restraint in dumping in as many folkloric motifs and cinematic exaggerations as possible.

Higgins

08-21-2009, 05:53 PM

Pride and Prejudice uses exaggeration for humour, but Austen never really lets her characters off the hook. Star Wars not only lets all its major characters hit home-runs, it changes the rules of the game so they can do it.

Which brings us to blaming escapism for letting characters on or off the hook or otherwise betraying the provocation posed in the opening of a story. First of all, I don't think escapism has much to do with how a story resolves its conflicts and provocations. As a comedy Pride and Prejudice ends in various marriages (but some are less "wise" or "sound" to use some key words of Elizabeth's that Fay Weldon's brilliant version of PnP hints are naive via Charlotte Lucas), but the core revelations are far from comedic (Elizabeth's "I never knew myself until now"). So PnP does as much if not more letting off the hook than Star Wars does. The first episode of SW doesn't really have an ending (and how could it ? --the topos of brother-sister incest is left hanging -- Darcy does better and gets over his thing about his sister)...so everybody stays on the hooks (which is bad, very bad in my opinion, when a story ends, most hooks should be gone)

dclary

08-21-2009, 08:30 PM

And contested.

Contested? I thought it was more "expanded" -- in that we came to agree that 90% of everything is crap.

Bartholomew

08-21-2009, 08:51 PM

dclary

08-21-2009, 09:00 PM

Does this mean that everything you've ever written is crap, as it falls into that massive margin? Or does it mean that 10% of all you've personally written is publishable?

Why use an unjustifiable number when you could say "most?"

though I might agree if we're talking about the average slush pile.

Yeah, I think 90% of the stuff I've written is crap. especially before rewrites. Just like everyone else's.

MGraybosch

08-21-2009, 09:01 PM

Yeah, I think 90% of the stuff I've written is crap. especially before rewrites. Just like everyone else's.

I'd say it's 99.999% in my case.

Ruv Draba

08-22-2009, 12:21 AM

I see escapism as that aspect of a narrative where the writer helps the reader construct a world that has some intriguing or pleasing differences from the world that the reader and writer supposedly share.In other words, if it's fiction and we like it, it's escapism? Well okay... now that you've got a definition that's both broad as Queen Mary's derrier (the boat, not her former Majesty) and individually subjective enough for every postmodernist frotteur to start rubbing his trousers, whaddayawanna do wif it?

So in the end (ie now), the various distances inherent in Jane Austen's exaggerations result in a fine brew of irony and faintly exotic escapism while Star Wars clubbed to death the few possibly ironic effects
that might have been teased out had the screen writers exercised any restraint in dumping in as many folkloric motifs and cinematic exaggerations as possible.So the 19th century literary movement known as realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_realism)is actually escapism because its dialogue is sometimes humorous, while Star Wars which could have been mass-marketed to children as a postmodernist critique on US sociopolitical values, fell a hair short because the writers forgot to be ironic and self-referential.

Yes, yes... I begin to see. That cow Austen, behind her pseudonymous publication and self-effacing reflection on contemporary society, was really a fame-whore, cynically cashing in on the desire of her readership to escape into their own parlours where they'd be witty over marmalade instead of banal.

And meanwhile, Lucas, far from milking two-and-a-half generations of fat American kiddies with rewarmed pablum and McDonalds merchandise, was trying to Educate them dagnabbit, in postmodernistic deconstruction of disaster capitalism, the Naomi Klein of Science Fiction. Except... he should oughta've directed Mark Hamill to wink at the camera more.

:Huh:

Higgins

08-22-2009, 12:35 AM

So the 19th century literary movement known as realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_realism)is actually escapism because its dialogue is sometimes humorous, while Star Wars which could have been mass-marketed to children as a postmodernist critique on US sociopolitical values, fell a hair short because the writers forgot to be ironic and self-referential.

Escapism seems to be inherent in fiction, yes. Jane Austen was writing long before realism became an aesthetic. Her aim is not to be realistic, but to write novels (more or less satirical mostly) along the line of Fanny Burney's novels.
When it first came out, Star Wars (like Jane Austen, who we tend to misread as a realist) was obviously a deliberately excessively amplified echo of earlier cinematic modes. Now we read it in reverse as having
started the very odd identification of big explosions and escapism. There's no actual linkage of big explosion cinema and escapism except possibly in that, if you think Jane Austen is a realist and not escapist, then your supposedly non-escapist stuff is lacking in the kinds of escapist tension that actually fill Jane Austen.

Ruv Draba

08-22-2009, 12:48 AM

As a comedy Pride and Prejudice ends in various marriages [...], but the core revelations are far from comedic (Elizabeth's "I never knew myself until now"). So PnP does as much if not more letting off the hook than Star Wars does.I think you're confusing the outcome with how we get there. Gilbert and Sullivan's plot for HMS Pinafore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hms_pinafore) that swaps the tar Ralph's and Captain Corocoran's social roles is clearly escapism -- hilarious, delightful, parodic but a gratuitous deus ex machina swap played just for its own fun. It allows a marriages and Happy Ever After endings all round and coincidentally digs the plot out of its own hole. The genre of comedy is one of the few places where you can get away with this sort of trickery and the audience not feel cheated.

But Austen's marriages happen because the characters change in what they learn about themselves and each other. It's certainly crafted for emotional satisfaction, but I don't think it breaks its own premise to get there. Not every major character is wholly satisfied, but they are sufficiently satisfied to overcome their driving conflicts.

Ruv Draba

08-22-2009, 01:54 AM

Escapism seems to be inherent in fiction, yes.And the histories of Herodotus presumably... and most autobiographies. Not to mention birthday cake, bunny slippers and art deco buildings. And of course, most political speeches. Which leads me back to my earlier question: now you've defined it so broadly and subjectively, what do you want to do with that?

Jane Austen was writing long before realism became an aesthetic
Her aim is not to be realistic, but to write novels (more or less satirical mostly) along the line of Fanny Burney's novels.She wrote before the 19th century realism movement was under-way, but not before realism was an aesthetic. Jorge Luis Borges traces realism back to the Icelandic sagas, though I don't know where Austen picked it up from. Regardless, she chose not to follow satirists like Jonathan Swift into cariacture and farce. I think she deserves an honourary place among the realists for achieving satire without messing with setting, idealising character or contriving improbable situations -- something that very few humourists can manage even today.

But it's not my contention that the opposite of escapism is realism -- that's your contention I think. I just cited Austen as a test case. But if you're going to stretch your definition as far as Herodotus then it's hardly worth arguing over Austen.

When it first came out, Star Wars [...] was obviously a deliberately excessively amplified echo of earlier cinematic modes. Now we read it in reverse as having started the very odd identification of big explosions and escapism.I'm not concerned with explosions. Star Wars is a 1950s Western transplanted to make better use of new cinematic technology. It's the former and not the latter which I think makes it escapist. The technology is just ornamentation that happens to enhance the escapism. Naturally, other film-makers will borrow it for similar purposes.

if you think Jane Austen is a realist and not escapist, then your supposedly non-escapist stuff is lacking in the kinds of escapist tension that actually fill Jane Austen.It might come down to what we think fiction is about.

I said originally that fiction can provoke, inform, entertain and delight. But all fiction has to provoke to start with, or readers won't read it. If having provoked, it then explores according to the terms of its premise then I'd say it's doing something other than just entertaining us. You're free to ignore that part for the sake of talking about explosions, but I think that part is the bit that makes us pass on stories instead of throwing them away and demanding new ones. It's the difference between transient fiction and fiction that lasts -- and I think it's core to the argument about the importance of fantasy as literature.

Caledonia Lass

08-24-2009, 12:19 PM

Well, I'm sure that this discussion has pretty much turned the horse to glue by now, yet I will add my opinion all the same.
First of all, I have loved the Fantasy genre pretty much my whole life. I didn't read LOTR until the first movie came out, though. (I've been a huge fan ever since, I swear!) I started off reading authors like Eddings, Feist, Rawn and those silly "Choose Your Own Adventure" books.
Now when I tell people that I write, I get an excited, "Ooooh, an author!" reaction. When they ask what I write and I tell them I write Fantasy, that look immediately turns to pity or a mixture of pity and disgust. I've even had people question my intellect because I've told them I write Fantasy. And well, believe it or not, they judge my personality on the fact that I like and write in that genre.
It's already been said, everyone has their own opinions about every genre out there. Yet I think Fantasy is not the red headed step-child of the writing world, but the sick child that was locked in the back of the room so the family could go on with their lives and pretend it doesn't exist.
Personally, I love to read just about everything. Romance is not my favorite. I just can't stand all the swooning and well...you know.
But to be honest, isn't almost everything that is published some sort of fantasy? Well, with the exception of the obvious books riddled with facts. (non-fiction) If the author of a thriller is writing some scene or dialogue, it's pretty much made up. It never happened in real life. Of course similar events are always possible and plausible, but they are never exactly the same unless the person writing about it was actually involved. So, when people say that fantasy is just some made up kind of writing, retaliate with, "It's all made up, so it must all be fantasy". :D
Also, most of the time I am putting books down more often than not these days. There are so many reasons for this, but mostly it is either horribly written (yet has "New York Times Bestseller" all over it), or it doesn't grab my attention right away. Most of the time, I find myself counting the spelling and grammar errors. There are books out there that may have those same errors, but if the story has sucked me in, all it does is slow my reading momentum down for the moment before it hooks me back in. Of those books that I think are horribly written, almost all of them were recommended to me. I do try to give them a fair shot, but it makes for uncomfortable silences when my friends ask me what I thought of them and I flat out tell them I thought it sucked. I'm not insulting their taste or their intelligence, but if I don't like it, I don't like it. It all just comes down to personal taste and opinion.
Now, if there is someone teaching a creative writing class and disliking fantasy, that just screams oxymoron to me. Fantasy is as about as creative as you can frikkin' get! But lots of teachers only know how to teach what they like and are incapable in whatever manner of teaching you how to be better at what you like.
Okay, I think I've said my piece. I'll shut up now. ;)

Leila

08-24-2009, 03:08 PM

Has anyone else read Ursula Le Guin's essay 'Why are Americans afraid of Dragons?'? It's very much relevant to this discussion, and it's not just about Americans. I found it was equally relevant to readers in New Zealand. It is one of the most beautifully written defences of fantasy I know against people who refuse to take it seriously. It's in her book The Language of the Night: Essays on Fantasy and Science Fiction. It's not all that easy to find online, but you can read it if you go to the google books preview (http://books.google.com/books?id=ksOjjuy3issC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Language+of+the+Night:+Essays+on+Fantasy+an d+Science+Fiction#v=onepage&q=&f=false) and scroll down to p.39. (And then you should go buy the book, because it's really good :))

But to be honest, isn't almost everything that is published some sort of fantasy? Well, with the exception of the obvious books riddled with facts. (non-fiction) If the author of a thriller is writing some scene or dialogue, it's pretty much made up. It never happened in real life. Of course similar events are always possible and plausible, but they are never exactly the same unless the person writing about it was actually involved. So, when people say that fantasy is just some made up kind of writing, retaliate with, "It's all made up, so it must all be fantasy".

I've thought about this a lot myself and feel the same way. Although I'm kind of wary of using the word 'fantasy' to describe all works of fiction, not so much because I don't agree (I do very much), but because the genre connotations confuse people. And also because I'm kind of reluctant to dilute the awesomeness of fantasy fiction with books about everything else.

Anyway. What I wanted to say was that all fiction is a writer's reshaping of the world in their own way to tell a story. And that's as true of contemporary literary fiction as it is of fantasy. (There would be a lot more love affairs if the world were more like literary realism. 95% of marriages would end in divorce ;)) Fantasy fiction is more overt about its reshaping of reality, and I think that unnerves people. And I also think that they should get the hell over it. (But then again I would say that.)

In the end I'm writing about life, about what existence means to me. I don't think it should matter whether I'm using dragons or whether I'm using middle aged couples in unhappy marriages. Fantasy might be a different language, but I'm still talking about the same things.

A.R. Starr

08-24-2009, 06:30 PM

Ugh!

I'm having a similar problem with my own creative writing degree. I have one professor and workshop group who are fantastic about my fantasy novel and love it.

The other group and Professor, well... not so much. Rather then actually workshop my writing, they prefer to spend their time commenting on how all fantasy is 'too long, boring and filled with all the same things and plots' at the same time as telling me that my MC is 'too unheroic' and 'different from other fantasy MCs' because he makes mistakes and gets things wrong.

It's enough to make you want to tear out your hair in frustration, I know. But try to just imagine their faces when you send them a personallise, signed copy of your novel

Higgins

08-24-2009, 06:46 PM

And the histories of Herodotus presumably... and most autobiographies. Not to mention birthday cake, bunny slippers and art deco buildings. And of course, most political speeches. Which leads me back to my earlier question: now you've defined it so broadly and subjectively, what do you want to do with that?

Most narratives (including all the odd stories in Herodotus) have escapist aspects that are more articulated and multi-leveled than do birthday cakes.
Narrative is a similarly broad category, but nobody seems to have trouble doing things with it.

Caledonia Lass

08-25-2009, 02:16 AM

I certainly don't want to dilute the fantasy genre by naming it all "fantasy" either. But you are right, Leila, everyone is reshaping the world in their writing to serve their own purpose. Plot. :D
A. R., I like a MC that is "unheroic", who makes odd decisions and mistakes. It makes them more "human" and it makes your fantasy unlike anyone else's. I choose to write fantasy because quite frankly, reality bites. The majority of people in this world are selfish, spoiled rotten little brats. Just watch Dr. Phil! XD The world we live in is absolutely crazy. My world, well, it might be crazy, but it is a crazy I can control and weave into wonderful stories and legends.

Gynn

08-25-2009, 04:11 AM

I love when people get snobby about books. It reminds me of people who argue over genres of music: Country sucks! Rap sucks! No, they both suck; Metal rules!

There's no crappy genres, only crappy authors. Tell your professor that, just because something is old, doesn't mean it's good for everyone. I read my share of classics in school, and, to be honest, most of them bored the sh*t out of me. I'm sure they all had something important to say about the human condition, but I read for entertainment and relaxation, not to unravel the secrets of life. Your results may vary.

Anyway, write to your interests and don't worry about everyone else.

JoshW

08-26-2009, 09:29 AM

Just a sidenote from a film studies minor...

You can't analyze Star Wars like you analyze a novel. It was a film. And as a film, it did things that were very unconventional in the 1970s world of film. It changed the industry forever.

These are a few of the things that Star Wars did:
-Introduced us to faster cuts. In the Pre-Star Wars era, directors didn't like to cut a shot until the audience had time to fully absorb all the details of that shot.
-Killed opening credits. Thank God. Lucas was actually fined for not crediting the director at the beginning of the film.
-Insisted that background scenery is indeed important. Instead of hiring well-known actors, Lucas spent his meager budget on making the backgrounds painfully and excruciatingly detailed. (Not exactly a BRAND NEW thing--just look at Kubrick's work--but he did popularize the idea.)
-Used computers to track and time items on the screen (the spaceships and such)
-Made sci-fi mainstream. Very few sci-fi films made bajillions of dollars before Star Wars. (Obviously there were some. Not a lot though.) It proved to the studios that sci-fi wasn't just a waste of their money.

As a novel, Star Wars would not have been all that great. (A lot of the Star Wars expanded universe novels are pretty bad, in fact. I know--I've read quite a few of them.) As a film, it was important. Yes, Lucas has become a corporate tool, but at one time he was a legitimately talented man.

Back to the topic!

MargueriteMing

08-27-2009, 12:25 AM

Any chance, there's a point in a class somewhere where you can bring that up? That even though you prefer fantasy or you don't like another genre, you can still judge a good story in it? (Not directly calling out the prof, just giving him food for thought)

I had the intro writing class freshman year, and it was about pop culture, so we analyzed movies and ads and internet, etc. For my movie paper, I used The Fifth Element. Every single draft I did, he was like, "This isn't exactly a mainstream movie. I'll probably have to take that into account, so you might want to rethink which movie you're using." But I liked the paper, and I wasn't going to write a new one from scratch, so I used it anyway.

I got an A on it despite his comments (though he still wrote that he wished I had used a more mainstream movie in my comments).

<crosses fingers for you>

He probably hadn't seen the movie, so was hoping you'd change to something he was familiar with. Instead, you made him work for it, good for you. He probably had to go watch it a few times, to be able to judge whether or not your paper was a good one.

MargueriteMing

08-27-2009, 12:28 AM

Unfortunately classes are out for this year and this is a portfolio I was supposed to have written earlier in the year but I've had family issues to contend with and didn't get it in, in time. I did raise this at the start of year and last year and was told that to write fantasy I have to break the mould and do something that hasn't been done before but to be honest, I can't think of anything that hasn't yet been done in one form or another. Even when I've come up with an idea I think is original I find it's already been done.

So, with fantasy you have to break the mold, but with mainstream fiction you don't? I guess if you write a thriller about a cop hunting a serial killer, there is no need for originality?

MargueriteMing

08-27-2009, 12:41 AM

Some SFF books that won't draw sneers:

1984
Brave New World
Time Machine
One Hundred Years of Solitude
The Name of the Rose
The Tempest
Gulliver's Travels
The Iliad
Canterbury Tales

Odyssey.
2001.
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.
Lord of the Rings.
The Morte Arthur.
1001 Arabian Nights.
Dante's Divine Comedy.
Paradise Lost.
Alice in Wonderland.
Wonderful Wizard of Oz.
Foundation.
Dune.
Chronicles of Narnia.
Peter Pan.
Hans Christian Anderson Fairy Tales.
Beowulf. Robinson Crusoe.
Moby Dick.
Treasure Island.

MargueriteMing

08-27-2009, 12:46 AM

dgiharris

08-27-2009, 12:52 PM

So, read about 25% of this thread so I apologize for repeating an unpopular point.

There are times when one should fight the good fight. Then there are times when one should just do what the teacher wants.

In my philosophy class, we had two big papers, one due at midterms, the other at the end of the semester. I had developed this brilliant theoritical mathematical model that made a great case for a 'new' type of moral relativism that unified two diametrically opposing philosophical theories.

The philosophy department loved it and thought with some more work it would make a great candidate for some big named scholarly Journals.

But my philosophy teacher hated it. It was completely counter to his Thesis. Despite the fact that the other philosophy instructors thought it was pure genuis, he gave me a C+.

So, for my follow on paper, I started over from scratch, rehashed his notes from class, regurgitating his views, and spoon fed him what he wanted to hear

I got an A+ and finished the course with an A-.

Get the grade, pass the course, then after you graduate write your fantasy novel, make the NY times bestseller's list, and put a blurb in your book telling him to suck your nut sack.

Mel...

STKlingaman

08-27-2009, 01:33 PM

Because like everyone else, he is
entitled to his opinion.

Greg Wilson

08-27-2009, 08:03 PM

Get the grade, pass the course, then after you graduate write your fantasy novel, make the NY times bestseller's list, and put a blurb in your book telling him to suck your nut sack.

Mel...

And consider putting in another one to thank the teachers/professors who helped you along the way, too. It's more thanks than they often get.

Higgins

08-27-2009, 09:44 PM

So, with fantasy you have to break the mold, but with mainstream fiction you don't? I guess if you write a thriller about a cop hunting a serial killer, there is no need for originality?

You could shoot for minimalism and just type "serial" 150,000 times and call the book "Serial" and four your sequel type the word "killer" 150,000 times and name that one "Killer". You could probably cut and paste many pages and nobody would notice.

benbradley

08-27-2009, 10:55 PM

Contested? I thought it was more "expanded" -- in that we came to agree that 90% of everything is crap.

Does this mean that everything you've ever written is crap, as it falls into that massive margin? Or does it mean that 10% of all you've personally written is publishable?

Why use an unjustifiable number when you could say "most?"

though I might agree if we're talking about the average slush pile.
The original Sturgeon's Law is actually a reference to PUBLISHED works. As with 90 percent of all quotes (;)), the origin is rather murky, but as I heard it (and don't offhand see a web reference to this exact origin, but bear with me - actually this (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitle3tinj4tz) is kinda close), a news reporter was talking to Sturgeon at a science fiction convention - the reporter mentioned a few bad stories, then said "Ninety percent of this Sci-Fi stuff is crap" and Sturgeon famously responded "Ninety percent of EVERYTHING is crap."

MargueriteMing

08-31-2009, 06:33 AM

Get Tarantino and Rodriguez to direct it, as storyboarded by Frank Miller, from a screenplay by Charlie Kaufman and Tom Stoppard and Uwe Boll.

Tarantino writes most of his movies.

MargueriteMing

08-31-2009, 06:34 AM

It goes like this: 90 % of everything is crap. But people can't agree which 10 % are good. :D

Guess that means one person's crap is another person's good.

MargueriteMing

08-31-2009, 06:35 AM

Publishing is a business not a meritocracy. A lot of books follow formulas because that's what a lot of people want, I include myself most of the time. I think most of the time it comes down to execution rather than originality or literary merit.

Actually, they follow formulas because formulas that have been shown to work represent less risk to the publisher than publishing something truly original.

MargueriteMing

09-09-2009, 09:36 AM

Well, let me try harder then.

I believe that a good story-hook does three things:

Establishes the subject (often subtly)
Declares the nature of the experience
Provokes the reader to read on
Three examples in support:
A literary example: the opening hook from Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.

A mainstream example: the opening from John Kennedy Toole's A Confederacy of Dunces
A green hunting cap squeezed the top of the fleshy balloon of a head. The green earflaps, full of large ears and uncut hair and the fine bristles that grew in the ears themselves, stuck out on either side like turn signals indicating two directions at once. Full, pursed lips protruded beneath the bushy black moustache and, at their corners, sank into little folds filled with disapproval and potato chip crumbs. In the shadow under the green visor of the cap Ignatius J. Reilly’s supercilious blue and yellow eyes looked down upon the other people waiting under the clock at the D. H. Holmes department story, studying the crowd of people for signs of bad taste in dress.

A genre example which also happens to be escapist: the opening crawl from the first Star Wars. Bolding's mine.
It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire.

During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the DEATHSTAR, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet.

Pursued by the Empire's sinister agents, Princess Leia races home aboard her starship, custodian of the stolen plans that can save her people and restore freedom to the galaxy....
In the literary example the subject is declared: marriage, upbringing, moral rectitude. The treatment is exemplified in its hyperbole. The hook challenges the reader to decide whether fortune indeed demands matrimony.

In the mainstream example the subject is declared to be Reilly's ability to fit into society. The treatment is shown to be ironic. The hook provokes the reader to decide whether Reilly could ever possibly fit in.

In the genre example the subject is declared to be civil war. The treatment is shown to be melodramatic. The provocation is for the reader to decide whether Leia et al... can actually destroy the Death Star and restore freedom to the galaxy.

In the first two examples the author goes on to maintain the initial provocation throughout the story. In the third example, the subject is already betrayed by its own non sequitur. Destroying an ultimate weapon does not normally win a civil war and neither does it restore freedom. Star Wars departs from its subject before the action even opens. It creates a double-barrelled question and only ever addresses the first half -- can the rebels destroy the Death Star? Sure, with difficulty. Can they restore freedom to the galaxy? Uh.. how? We've escaped the problems of civil war without ever exploring them.

It's the nature of escapism that it betrays the provocation that made its subject interesting in the first place. If we see a hook as a contract with the reader, escapism doesn't deliver on the provocation part of its contract. On the other hand, the reader mightn't mind. I'm not saying that escapism fails to entertain and delight. Star Wars clearly does. It might even succeed in conveying some useful information (though I don't think Star Wars does). But escapism fails to sustain its initial provocation. That may matter to an audience or it may not, but it should matter to people desiring to learn how to write.
Escapism does more than simply entertain. It breaks its own contract.

Does that matter morally? Ethically? Socially? I'll leave others to debate that. It certainly matters to a writer's education and development, though.

Or maybe there is something to be said for the hook not giving away the whole story up front? Star Wars isn't about Civil War, that is just the backdrop. Star Wars is about Luke's journey to redeem his father.