[alcatraz]

It's looking like writers have gotten themselves into a bit of a battle. When ever one comes out with a book, another will come out with a book soon after. The public, after viewing this as "rivalry" between "opposing" authors, starts comparing one to another.

This is sort of dangerous behavior, and makes some people hate some potentially good writers for the sole reason of them thinking that their favorite writer is better than them, thinking that some how reading this new writer would be "betraying" their favorite witer. For example: The lord of the rings - Lots and lots of people hate just because everyone loves it. Nooooo! They can't betray their favorite writer! That would just be inexcusable!

We'd all probably find more and better books that are out their if we didn't portray authors to be competing.

On the subject, it'd also be good if people stopped saying horrible generalizations about one genre of literature being ALWAYS badly written. It's okay not to like a topic, but saying the style is always bad is just dumb!

Any thoughts on why all this is? Any thoughts on this stuff being good or bad?

-Alcatraz

[allanon]

Absolutely right.

[kassimir funk]

"This is sort of dangerous behavior..."

I wouldn't say dangerous so much as pointless. I don't see how anyone benefits from these arguments.

[James Barclay]

I think the instances of writers bringing out books shortly after one another in deliberate and select competition are few and far between. The fact is that there are traditional good and bad times for books to come out (or better and not-so-good at least) and this is what leads to your competitive view.

It's not a cynical attempt to undermine one author, more that buyer behaviour means at some times of the year, a launch will reap more sales.

[Bond]

In principle I see nothing wrong in comparing, forming opinions, and sharing thoughts on various writers. It's all in how it's done. As for some people being fanatics, it can be all in good lighthearted fun or degenerate into infantile exhibitionism. I could not care less for the latter. If someone doesn't want to read a rival author of their favorite it is their loss. If they should then seek to prevent others from reading that which they deny themselves, they're free to try but I generally don't listen to them.

People do vilify things just because other people love them to death. It is pompous and vain to think however that this is the root cause or only reason people dislike something. I personally dislike LOTR because I found it too slow and belabored for my taste. In regards to its role in relation to the fantasy genre as a whole, given my own experience with the work, I also find the reverence accorded to it a bit much to the point of stifling the genre and demeaning to the work of other authors. I may not be too familiar with other genres but I don't think every new mystery novel that becomes popular gets hit with the criticism that "It isn't Agatha Christie!"

[This message has been edited by Bond (edited March 13, 2002).]

[Bardos]

I think this kind of "wars" can be fun. And should not be taken too seriously. Alas, each to their own. As Bond said, if you have a strong opinion (like/dislike) about something nothing is going to change that.

I hope all the wars in the future will be on the net. http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

Btw, Jordan sooks. http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by Bardos (edited March 13, 2002).]

[JohnH]

***************************

[saintjon]

I think the battles happen not so much between the writers as between the readers. That opinion's based solely on some of the arguments I've seen break out in this forum, not the ones about traits of the stories but those arguments about the superiority of Eddings, Martin or Jordan. What a lot of pointless factionism. I came down on Eddings just the other about how he treats violence but it still didn't feel write to be knocking an author who'd provided me with many hours of enjoyable reading, however I felt about the mortality of his characters.

It's pretty ridiculous. In most of those arguments about half way through everybody's saying, "Oh come on now guys, lets be friends; there's no point arguing like this," but sure enough, give it a week or so and everyone's at each other throats again. And this is one of the friendlier forums I've been to!! I begin to wonder if discussion without argument is even possible on the net, where everybody else is so abstract. (right now I'm thinking we need a confused face icon)

[James Barclay]

JohnH hits the nail on the head. Fantasy authors are generally a very friendly bunch, all knowing that success for one means more potential readers for all.

[alcatraz]

I was actually trying to critisize the comparison of Lord of the Rings to everything else; Thinking that all fantasies are trying to meet a perfect requirement (which LOTR is thought to fill...) is dumb. Lots of fantasies have completely different plots and ideas and shouldn't be so commonly compared to each other.

It really isn't that big of a deal, but I was just wondering what people thought about this.

The publishers have next to nothing to do with this.

-Alcatraz