| Selected emails sent to the site
during October
2002, with additional comments and perhaps even some humor here or
there.
August and September
emails were entirely destroyed in a HD crash in late September, hence
the two months missing. That and the August one was a couple of
weeks late at the time.
Away we go.
Date: October 22, 2002
From: Allen
Subject: Guidelines
Just read lots on your site.
Do you accept submissions?
Supply guidelines?
This is a first. I'd
never said anywhere on the site that I wasn't looking for guest
material, so I guess it's a fair question. It had never occurred
to me to clarify this one way or the other, since I just never thought
of it. It's my site, something I work on for fun. Why would
someone else want to post something here?
I don't object to it,
but I can't see it happening. If you want something you write to
be on this site, make it an interesting email and I'll quote it here or
on the main page. If someone suggests a topic to discuss or an
article to write, I would mention them on the page they inspired.
But this has never happened yet.
___________
Date: October 26, 2002
From: Ryan
Subject: Lightning
Hello,
Just a correction, but actually being out in the open is not the safest place to be, as you are the tallest thing around and the
only target for lightning seeking the shortest distance to the ground. One of the rules to protect against lightning strikes when you are in a field is to get as low as possible and wait it out. You're right in that it's just as dangerous to be standing next to the tallest objects as well. The best place to be is actually several
meters from the tallest object so that it will strike it, but not you, but you won't be close enough to get the run off of the
electricity.
An anal correction, but hey, there you go.
This is in regards to
the photo I posted
right here. He is correct, if you're out in the middle of a
huge open field, but I sort of assumed there were light towers or other
such high objects just out of the view of the camera. If these
guys were really out in the middle of like a stadium-sized field, then
they were the highest targets.
___________
The rest of the mails
are all related. First came this one from Wan asking who I think a
great fantasy novelist is. I posted it and replied on the site,
and then traded several mails with him on the subject. Another
reader got into the act as well.
The reader mails are
indented and in purple, my email replies are in black. If you're
color blind, I guess you're pretty much SOL. As well as barred
from the bomb squad.
Date: October 19, 2002
From: Wan Kong Yew
Subject: Fantasy?
I wandered onto your site from http://www.diabloii.net.
I've only spent time reading some of the non-fiction and in particular your review of fantasy authors pricked my attention enough to prompt this e-mail. Specifically, since you seem somewhat disparaging of two of the most respected names in fantasy, namely, Ursula K. Le
Guin, and J.R.R. Tolkien, I was curious as to what sort of fantasy writer you might consider to be truly, unreservedly, great.
I replied to him, but elaborated
on the webpage, basically editing my mail to be more coherent.
Something you won't see much of the rest of the way down this mailbag.
Read that for the full response, but my basic reply was that I don't
know of any "great" fantasy writers. Most of them tell a
pretty good story with interesting characters, and they're not total
hacks like Anne Rice, but I can't recall ever reading a fantasy novel
and just stopping dead at one point thinking, "Damn that was a well
written sentence/paragraph/scene." Or at the conclusion of a novel
thinking how well done it was.
The next day I got an
email with a suggestion.
Date: October 20, 2002
From: Brian
Subject: Great Writer
Hi!
In response to your blog about what makes a good novel, I have the perfect series for you. The series "A Song of Ice and Fire" by George R.R. Martin, beginning with "A Game of Thrones". It is to be a 6 book series and unfortunatly only 3 have been released so far, but just the first three are well worth the read even if the last leaves you hanging. The characters are the most well rounded you'll ever find in a series and as the series progresses, it's hard to say who the antagonists or protagonists are because you get to see the story from nearly every side. As you get farther into the series, the auther doesn't really play "favorites" with anyone and doesn't hesitate to put the axe (literally) to your favorite characters, so don't too attached to anyone! And what a story! It was roughly inspired by The War of the Roses with major families all vying for a throne and there is much double crossing and backstabbing to be had. Often times a situation will be resolved in a very unexpected way (whether good or bad for the characters involved), but whether you liked the outcome or not, you have to admire it. Also, even though it's a fantasy, it doesn't follow any fantasy formula and especially in the beginning of the series, it might as well just be a midievel fiction because of the lack of real use of the fantasy aspects (although the fantasy does pick up as the series progresses); it's nice to see a fantasy that doesn't use fantasy to drive the plot. This auther uses human nature and reality. I can honestly say these are the best books I've ever read and if you need more convincing, read the reviews on amazon.com or something. Reading from your complaints (I agree with them all), I really think you'd like these books, try them out! Enjoy!
I posted this one October
21st, and sort of replied, but mostly used it as an excuse to blab
about fan reviews on Amazon.com and other such sites. I've not
read these books so can't dispute his "great" contention, but
I have them on my list to check out at some point, and when I do I'll
post something to that effect.
_________
Here's the next mail
from Wan, and my reply, and so on. The discussion goes into Lovecraft in
some detail, away from the Fantasy Authors it starts on.
Date: October 22, 2002
From: Wan Kong Yew
Subject: Re: Fantasy
Hello,
I was very pleased to receive your detailed response to my query, though I hadn't had the time to respond until now. However, my observations should take into account the caveat that your page specifically indicates "fantasy novelists" as opposed to just the fantasy genre in general. If one does take the entire fantasy genre into account, it would surely be criminal to discount such writers as Fritz Leiber ("Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser"), Michael Moorcock ("Dorian Hawkmoon", "Elric of Melnibonι", "Count Von Bek", "Jerry Cornelius" and the other stories of the Champion Eternal), Roger Zelazny ("Amber"), Jack Vance and of course, Robert E. Howard ("Conan", "Kull"). All of the above writers are decidedly un-Tolkienesque in their content and style. Besides, there are writers who shun fantasy of the medieval European sort and try plumbing more exotic mythologies instead, such as Gary Kilworth ("Shadow-Hawk", "The Land of Mists"). As for more contemporary stuff, I don't much care for any of Robert Silverberg's recent work, but I have to admit that his "Madjipoor" series is quite original, and while I haven't read George R.R. Martin's new fantasy series, I understand that it's being lauded as that rare fantasy epic that does present the thoughtful reader with interesting moral ambiguities.
As for my own tastes, I must admit that I read more non-fiction than fiction these days (books like Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind Science" would be considered as indispensable to me), what fiction I do read is mostly short science-fiction of a highly technical and speculative sort (my favorite writers being Greg Egan and Ted Chiang). However, in fantasy, I would unreservedly defend both Tolkien and Le Guin as two of the most accomplished fantasy writers. But then, I acknowledge that the vagaries of individual taste are unpredictable. I would add only that Le Guin "Earthsea" series was always meant for more juvenile readers, (her "serious" work consists of such science-fiction books as "The Left Hand of Darkness" and "The Dispossessed"), and that I loved Tolkien's writing so much that I delighted in reading the many songs / poems included in the novel (let me guess: you probably skipped them for being too boring."
My own tastes are unquestionably different from yours. For example, while reading your page on horror novelists, I actually cringed when you commented that Lovecraft's work needed to include more "money-shots" of monsters actually tearing people to bits. For me, and I would daresay, most Lovecraft fans, such an approach would go against everything that makes a Lovecratian story special: the utter and complete mystery and unknowability of the otherworldly creatures. Furthermore, with no offence intended, I note that there seems to be an incongruity between your approval of the film "Pulp Fiction" and your taste in a fantasy genre with explicit violence and chock full of special effects and eye-candy. Surely, if you like "Pulp Fiction", you should try reading mainstream fiction, in which there are many talented, witty writers.
Finally, you did miss the names Tracy Hickman and Margaret Weiss. These two are so utterly Tolkienesque that their work borders on outright plagiarism.
Best regards,
Wan Kong Yew
P.S. As a side note, I did try writing fiction myself a while back. The best I managed to do was to get a science-fiction story "published" (for a $10 payment) on the
e-zine "Anotherealm".
My reply to him:
As for authors, you've certainly read a lot more authors than I have. Most of the ones you mention I've not read anything by, or maybe saw a short story in a collection at one point, or read an excerpt, but not enough that I could comment on them with any authority.
And tastes do differ; I read the songs and poems and such in LotR, but just to get the gist of them, see what the story told about the character relating it, that sort of thing. I didn't especially appreciate them on their own merit. I don't dislike them; they add nicely to the weight of the stories, and help a lot on the creating of the whole world. That's what people like so much in LotR, that it feels like a real world; it's not just a bunch of things happening for the benefit of the characters. Most of LotR is about the main quest, but take the Hobbit, the forest elves are doing their own thing and the party blunders into them. The goblins are in their mountain and the party blunders into them. Gollum is down there in his cave and bilbo trips over him. My point is that the characters don't seem to be just on a stage like in a sit com; they feel like intruders in a world that was going on long before they arrived, and will continue after they are gone. Not exactly an original observation, but anyway.
As for lovecraft, IMHO he just takes the easy way out quite often. He does lead up to events and sometimes portrays them in detail (the
Dunwitch horror, for instance, where the hicks see the monster in the telescope) but even in that story he cheats in that when it comes time for the real action; he cuts away from the main characters and has someone observe it. It's far easier to be scary and mysterious when you just don't show the reader what's happening. Easier to write it also.
You misquote me somewhat. My horror novelist page says:
There are some money shots, for example Cthulhu clawing his way out of his tomb, but most often the writing cheats the reader of the big events, such as by taking the perspective of the one group of privateers who don't go into battle in the The Strange Case of Charles Dexter Ward, or having the key events take place off screen, or relayed to us by a narrator long afterwards, who doesn't remember all of the details, or who blacked out for the crucial moments of the encounter.
I don't want his stories to be slasher descriptions (though some are) but the way events often transpire to so conveniently NOT detail the key events in a story is annoying.
Take The Case of Charles Dexter Ward; we get the description of everything, all the background, all the story, tales of vampirism, grave robbing, etc, but when it comes time for the fateful raid on the farm we suddenly are stuck with the PoV of some guy standing out in a field who can distantly hear whistles and shots fired, and can only conjecture about what actually
occurred, which is hinted at later (that Curwen summoned up something that summoned up something else that killed him). When the doctor is exploring the caves centuries later, he finds the monsters, sees the altar, and even summons up some spirit from the past... and blacks out, coming to safely back in the house. Why write such a great lead up to the whole climax events, and then cheat the reader of the details?
In some cases he's doing it to heighten suspense, but having given 98% of the story, all the details, always some conveniently-discovered manuscript with full details about everything,
diaries to translate, etc, and then just the very final event is somehow (usually someone fainting) not detailed usually feels like a cop out. You'd have to go on a story by story basis to compare them point by point though, to be really thorough. Call of the Cthulhu details everything, describes Cthulhu, etc. Rats in the Walls has every detail. Through the Gates of the Silver Key has every detail. Tales in the Witch House has every detail. Mountains of Madness has virtually every detail, and what it leaves undescribed is very obvious from other info.
In fact as I think about it, he more often than not details everything. It's just some few times he skips away or has someone conveniently faint and leaves me feeling cheated of the best part of the story.
At some point I'll greatly expand my Lovecraft review. I started on an analysis and commentary feature on every one of his stories years ago, did another big chunk of it early this year, but haven't gotten back to it. My initial work on it (like a decade ago) was just for myself, and was mostly notes about what happened in which story. Lovecraft has become 500% more popular in recent years; I can remember when 1 library in all of San Diego had any of his books, and
I'd have to order them from the central branch to my local branch to read them. No bookstores here had anything of his in stock. Now every Barns and Noble has 5 editions of collected works, and every one of his stories and letters can be read for free online.
So needless to say, my initial note taking and summarizing would be pointless to post at this point, since I could just link to the actual story that anyone could read. I have done commentary and analysis on probably 30 of his stories, though I'd expand them somewhat and do the rest, or at least the rest of the major tales (can skip the 4 page fragment stuff from his early work safely enough) and eventually I'll get that done and post it all. There are a ton of
Lovecraft sites with info and stories, but I haven't seen any that have any real analysis or evaluation, which I'd like to read personally. So I figure others might feel the same and would get some use out of my version.
I just have so many other ongoing projects and things to update it takes me a while to get to everything.
Flux
_________
Date: October 23, 2002
From: Wan Kong Yew
Subject: Re: Fantasy
Hello,
Hmm, I don't want to get into a "religious" argument over Lovecraft, so I'll concede that I should refresh my memory of his stories. :)
Still, I hope that the writers I've mentioned will be useful to you. I suppose it would be easy enough for you to follow up on them if you're interested. One notable writer that I inadvertently left off of my original list is Poul Anderson. I consider his story "The Gate of the Flying Knives" to be one of the archetypal adventure-fantasy stories.
Here's an essay
that you might be interested in: "Gulliver Unravels: Generic Fantasy and the Loss of Subversion". Needless to say, I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed in that essay. Your mileage may vary. :) The Infinity Plus archive in general contains plenty of fiction that I like as well.
Wan here certainly can
name a lot of fantasy short stories and authors I've never heard
of. My reply:
What is your take on that article? Being as you've read far more in the genre than I have.
They are mostly criticizing the tolkien-light fantasy, the
Elfstones of Shannara type thing, is my take on it. Saying that every story now has the same elements, same wizards and warriors and elves, etc etc. And that readers who are used to only that type of stuff aren't able to enjoy "real" fantasy, as they define it, which should create a whole different world, unlike anything Tolkien wrote about?
That seems a fairly inside argument, since most mainstream/best seller list type readers aren't even aware of fantasy novels, recycled
Tolkien or otherwise. Unless it's Harry Potter, which I'd classify as fantasy, and is certainly the biggest inspiration for authors now, with everyone trying to create a slightly-altered Earth with some magic and magical creatures. Entirely motivated by book sales, I suspect. The first 4 Harry Potter novels have sold 175m copies world wide. Which is probably more than just about every other fantasy series on earth, combined, over the same period of time. (I've not read any of them, so can't comment on quality.)
Anyway, enlighten me if you feel I could use it.
His next mail closed
the conversation. For the time being.
_________
Date: October 25, 2002
From: Wan Kong Yew
Subject: Re: Fantasy
Hello,
Whoa, I won't say that I've read more than you have. Probably, you read more novels while I read more shorter stuff. The essay pretty much speaks for itself, and yes, obviously it does refer to the generic Tolkienesque stuff. Again, these things are hard to pin down, but I would say that "real" fantasy isn't just about creating a non-Tolkien like world. Grant says it in the passage:
"Arguably, in order for a fiction to be fantasy it must be prepared to dance with the Tygers: it must take risks by exploring precisely those dangerous territories where no one has ever ventured before and which are still the demesnes of the wild animals. It must meddle with our thinking, it must delight in being controversial, it must hope to be condemned by authority (whatever authority one chooses to identify), it must be at the cutting edge of the imagination, it must flirt with madness, it must surprise, it must be doing things that other forms of fiction cannot."
Of course, you're right that it's an "inside argument". It's not that generic fantasy is inherently bad. It's just that, speaking for myself at least, whenever I walk into a bookstore and see teens raving about generic fantasy, I despair at just how much they are missing, how many really, really cool stories they've never heard of, and how much more exciting a reading experience they could get if they would just gather up a bit more courage and be willing to just work their minds a little bit harder. In a way, generic fantasy appeals to the lowest common denominator, the way generic Hollywood action movies and television soap operas do, I suppose. Hollywood action movies and soap operas aren't inherently bad, of course, and they can be fun and interesting to watch sometimes, but if you think of them as being the epitome of the film industry (even though commercially they do tend to be), missing out on the really cool, sometimes artsy, stuff (like "Pulp Fiction" I guess, and some other stuff that I like, "Dogma", "Fight Club" etc.), then that when I start rolling my eyes.
However, like I've said earlier, I don't really read much fantasy so this issue doesn't bother me as much as it does John Grant. One thing really, really gets me though: that's when people talk about "Star Wars" being science-fiction. Hey, I'm a big Star Wars fan, but call it "space fantasy", or "space opera", but please, please don't call it "science-fiction". Grrr...
Regards,
Wan Kong Yew
P.S. I have read the first of the Harry Potter books and I would definitely put it into the lowest common denominator category. However, it is surprising how much popular appeal the books have. For example, my girlfriend hates reading English novels (her maternal language is Chinese), and never finishes them ordinarily, but she devoured all of the Potter books in a couple of months. I was just stunned. I'd say it's a very definitely an entertaining book though. It reminded of the Enid Blyton books I read as a child.
He might not say it,
but I will. He's read a lot more than I have. I used to
read tons, and periodically go through a phase where I will read 10
novels in a couple of weeks, but that's rare. I read constantly on
the Internet, and for the last 4.5 years I've written a ton, but almost
all non-fiction website stuff. The past 9 months primarily on this
site, but still some on the D2 site as well. My point is that I don't
have time to read so much, or I don't make time, preferring to surf for
news and amusement, rather than read quality fiction.
I also reread novels
and short stories I've read in the past. I enjoy the stories, but
I think I do a lot of it for technique and analysis. I'd rather
read a book I know is good than try a new one that may be good or may
suck. I do the same thing with movies also, preferring to watch
one I like a lot rather than throwing down a few bucks on some new
rental. I have a relatively narrow range of film interest, and
generally get a strong vibe from a movie in advance if I'm going to like
it or not. I'm very seldom wrong, but then again I don't see all
that many movies.
In most cases it has to
have some interesting action, but not look like it's too stupid or
cliche. Lots of action movies I have some potential interest in,
but they just have a "suspension of disbelief" factor hanging
over them, where I can tell I'll be snorting in cynicism much of the
time. Episode I and II certainly fit that bill, and I'd have been
fine never seeing either one of them, though I guess I did, just so I
can insult them from a position of strength. I'm not always right;
I figured SpiderMan would be pretty dopey and cheesy acting, and it was
better than I'd expected, though the actual action scenes were mediocre.
Anyway, here's my reply
to Wan that ended the exchange.
Hi.
I think with books, probably even more than with film, what pleases the critics is almost never going to be what sells the most/pleases the fans. People like books with good stories and interesting characters. They don't know or care if the concepts in the book are all original or challenging. Critics read so much that everything is old to them, and some new fantasy that they'd immediately notice was almost entirely borrowed from some series 7 years ago might thrill 99% of the readers, who would see it as entirely new. Look how nearly every fantasy series goes on and on, often way past the expiration date, solely because the fans want more from that familiar and beloved world and/or characters.
The Elfstones of Shannara
(or whatever it's called) by Terry Brooks is very popular, and up to at least 10 or 12 books now. I read the first one earlier this year, and found it just terrible. Not so horrible, but such a Tolkien-light, with elements of every other fantasy series mixed in. Young male clueless orphan boy somehow ends up in the middle of this huge adventure (and he's inevitably the one of some ancient prophecy), there's a
Gandalf-like mysterious wizard, lots of evil ravening beasts, a stout friend, they set off on a quest pursued by strange black demons, get lost in some long long walk through an evil forest, etc. I'm not even sure I finished it, every element was so familiar and less well done than LotR that I was sort of disgusted. I don't think I even bothered to mention it on the site, it was so unremarkable.
Yet that book was very popular, lead to a trilogy, and has been expanded in a dozen or so other novels in the same world. The point being nothing original, and in fact almost everything very derivative, but still hugely popular (maybe it gets better after the first book). Harry Potter I've not read any of, but given their unbelievable sales, obviously there's something in it that really works on most readers.
Brilliant and original works appeal to critics, and will be somewhat popular, but most people don't read that much. Maybe a few novels a year, and they don't really want something that's going to change their life or way of thinking; they want something enjoyable with a good story they can get involved in. "Page turner" and "can't put it down" are probably the most desired critical appraisals, since that's what readers are likely to jump on.
Sadly, I think the lesson to be learned is that aspiring to be the most brilliant original writer is
not really the best commercial goal.
Flux
But who spends a dozen
hours a day for a year writing a book for the money anyway. They
do it for the art. Eating Ramen twice a day and living in a flea
bag apartment is fine if you have your artistic ideals.
Right?
*looks around the
apartment and at his bowl of instant noodles*
If you would like to be included in a future mail
bag, give it a try.
|
