[Eventine]

I've been wondering for a while now what causes "tribalism" in fans of certain authors.
Martin, Goodkind and Jordan fans all seem to be very tribal and aggressive in pointing out why one series is better than another, and often seem to get very hung up comparing the series and pointing out how superior one is to another.
Why don't we see in this in other authors - why don't the Hobb fans ever butt heads with the Wurts fans?

Do different authors appeal more to certain parts of the population, and this is the end result?

Are you a rabid fan? If so, why do you (generally) argue more about these authors?
Or do you keep your tribalism under control and just recommend the same author to everyone you meet (you all know who you are)?

P.S. Please don't turn this into a bagging session.

[ChrisW]

I think it's a popularity thing. The three you mentioned(which I all enjoy readingy) are the three big sellers in epic fantasy. I don't think Goodkind fans are as bad as Martin and RJ fans by the way.

It's all about promoting your fav author and people perceiving it as a competition imo. RJ fans used to do it but now we don't need to as he is the most popular. Now it's all about defending the position from attack by the Martin tribe;) .
Martin fans want the top spot for their author so they attack the title holder in an attempt to discredit him and both camps bash Goodkind for being a dolt:D . This is just a theory i've put together from being a nuetral observer ofcourse:eek: .


Do different authors appeal more to certain parts of the population, and this is the end result?

Hrm that's a tough one. I get the impression that Martinites(the rabid fans) consider themselves to be more literate than RJ fans and that aSoIaF is good literature while WoT is mass market junk. So if that is the case then yeah I guess it is the end reusult. A kida class war.


Are you a rabid fan? If so, why do you (generally) argue more about these authors?

I don't consider myself a rabid fan. I seem to argue a lot about RJ though as WoT bashing is a sport:) .


Or do you keep your tribalism under control and just recommend the same author to everyone you meet (you all know who you are)?

I don't always recommend WoT. I base my recommendations on what the person is looking for. WoT tops the list if they don't specify though:).

P.S. Please don't turn this into a bagging session.

I bagged both sides, that ok?

Oh and be on the look out for Erikson vs Martin battles in the future. There have already been a few skirmishes between the two tribes on the Martin ezyboard:cool: .

[Eurytus]

Originally posted by Caldazar
It's all about promoting your fav author and people perceiving it as a competition imo. RJ fans used to do it but now we don't need to as he is the most popular. Now it's all about defending the position from attack by the Martin tribe;) .
Martin fans want the top spot for their author so they attack the title holder in an attempt to discredit him and both camps bash Goodkind for being a dolt:D . This is just a theory i've put together from being a nuetral observer ofcourse:eek: .

I don’t see that it’s like that at all. You say that Jordan is the most popular author and that Martin fans want their author to be top.
For myself (although not solely a Martin fan) I can 100% say that I care little for how popular any author I like is. As long as the books sell well enough to ensure that the series reaches its planned finish then I am happy. All I want to do is to be able to read them. I don’t care in the slightest that others like them too. I might be happy if my close friends who like fantasy books like them too but I care not a jot for total strangers and the “general public”.
I would also add that the popularity of an author has little bearing on the quality. I could mention examples of authors in fantasy that prove this but in response to the topic starters wishes I won’t. Instead I will use an example form a different genre. In the UK Jeffrey Archer is a best-selling author. As is Jackie Collins. Both sell far more than booker prize winners. Are they better?
The Sun is the top selling “news”paper in Britain despite the fact that it contains almost no news. (well unless you count discussions of the quality of Kylie Minogue’s arse to be news. Again does it’s popularity make it worthwhile. Would I want to argue the case for my preferred paper so that it would become more popular than The Sun? Of course not. So why would I argue for Martin or Tolkien to be more popular than Jordan?
I really do not care that he is popular. All that matters to be is the answer to this question.

“Do I like his writing?”

[ezchaos]

Personally, I keep my tribalism in check. However, I do have my favorite and least favorite authors and I can see how it can get out of hand.
I think what happens with some readers is that they rally around an author/series that they really like, kind of like the way sports fans rally around their favorite sports teams. Many of you know how loyal soccer fans are around the world. Or if you live in the US and Canada you probably know about the rivalries like Red Sox/Yankees, Cowboy/Redskins, Bruins/ Canadiens, etc. People get riled up about this stuff!!! Also, it can be fun to poke fun at the opositions fans. It's human nature.
Where things can get out of hand is when readers start leveling personal attacks against fans of other books that they dislike. It's something that's easy to do here on the internet where one can acquire quite a level of 'keyboard courage'.
But on the other hand, if everyone liked Goodkind or Martin or Jordan, then this would be a very boring world. So, IMO tribalism is sometimes a good thing.

[Leiali]

I sometimes worry that an author I like hasn't released a book because of poor sales on the last one, so in that sense I wish some writers were more popular than they actually are.

And I sometimes get a bit possessive if a friend gets a book before I do when I introduced them to the author in the first place. But then I remember I am an adult and should be happy to share the experience. Which I normally do. That is my tribalism.

Don't understand the wranglings discussed on this thread though.

[Ouroboros]

In my opinion, when people go head-to-head over various authors, it says more about the kind of people they are and the nature of the medium we're using than the author's work.

-Some people feel the need to evangelise and are tireless in their attempts to convince the world at large that 'X' is the greatest writer who ever put fingers to keys.

-Some people mistake attacks on authors they like as personal attacks on themselves because it implies deficiencies in their taste or even intelligence. ("How dare you imply my favourite author is less than perfect! If he's for kids and Im a 40 year old fanboy then what the heck does that make me?!")

-Some people love pushing other people's buttons. ("Yeah, 'X' is OK, but he's nothing but slime on the boot of 'Y'...." ;) ). Let's face it, some people just get off on riling up fanatics and watching them froth at the mouth. I know because I do. :D

-Some people forget they are adults due to the medium of the net and start acting like petulant children when in real conversation things would pan out entirely differently.

-Some people just seem to enjoy one-upmanship and have an endless stream of arguments demonstrating that they do indeed 'know it all'. What is the actual topic seems to rarely matter.

I've done it myself, gotten carried away and ended up yammering away at someone who is equally zealous. But there comes a time at which you realise that it's a pointless pursuit. I personally believe that protracted author versus author arguments (and similar old chestnuts in other subjects, such as 'which is the best martial art?' or '9mm versus .40 versus .45') are open doors for protracted nonsense.

[Richardb]

It's a good question, and one I have wondered about. I am a huge fan of many authors, and do feel a bit defensive when they are attacked. Despite this, I have never felt the need for them to be 'better' than another author, or even to compare them. I enjoy Jordan and Martin a lot. They are different, and I enjoy them for different reasons. I can't imagine a reason in the world to denegrate one to support the other (which many have done on threads on this site). It makes no sense. This stuff is all art, and art is not good or bad so the saying goes, but is either appreciated or not.
It makes sense to challenge a post that you don't understand, or challenge a stance 'why do you like or dislike that'. It is just silly to insult someone 'only an idiot would like something like that' or 'that author is an idiot'.
Too much of that goes on, and it seems a bit juvenile.
There have certainly been some amazing flame threads, and attempts to try to get everyone in alignment (especially those that hate Jordan) with a viewpoint. Waste of time.

[Iskaral Pust]

Originally posted by Caldazar
Oh and be on the look out for Erikson vs Martin battles in the future. There have already been a few skirmishes between the two tribes on the Martin ezyboard:cool: .

I've been looking foreward to that one myself. Martin is, of course, clearly inferior, but there are always people of limited understanding who don't quite see things as clearly. :D

I can see this turning into a full on war (one which the normal people will ignore), I think Raymond Fiest and Janny Wurts are planning something (ever noticed how they always give each other nice comments to put on their covers?) same thing goes for George Martin and Robin Hobb. (and Anne McCafery is just nice to everyone). And no, I don't really have a clue what I talking about any more, so don't ask.

[ubersoft]

I think a lot of people have a philosophy of what "good fantasy should be," and the author who hits the most checkpoints gets their allegiance.

I also think that some authors are perceived as the vanguard of something new and fresh, and fans tend of a "new and fresh" movement tend to be a bit more fervent. Martin is certainly seen in that light. Jordan was seen as new when WoT started too, because a) his hero rapidly accepted his hero status and "got to work", and b) his female characters all started out pretty strong and competent.

As for my own opinions on the big fantasy writers, well, that's for another thread entirely. :)

[Eventine]

I don't always recommend WoT
I wasn't pointing the finger at you there Cald so much as Shehzad and Hobbit :)

fans tend of a "new and fresh" movement tend to be a bit more fervent
This reminds me of a similar situation in alternative music. When fans really get into an alternative band which then goes on to release a single that does well on the pop charts, the fans feel really diasspointed and abandon their band. Maybe it's because people like feeling as if they're part of something exclusive, and as that feeling dissipates their love of the band (or author) does as well.


Some people forget they are adults due to the medium of the net and start acting like petulant children when in real conversation things would pan out entirely differently.
I also think the way arguments occur on forums is different. Someone might be arguing with a post you made 3 weeks ago or the one you made yesterday, and unless things are very clear it can get confusing what they are actually arguing about, whereas in a conversation that sort of thing doesn't really happen. Not that it has anything to do with tribalism.


But there comes a time at which you realise that it's a pointless pursuit.
This is why I generally steer away from author bashing arguments. I don't have the energy to sit there arguing with some zealous fan(atic) arguing over why I feel series X is better than series Y when it's obviously just the personal taste of both sides of the argument that it's all stemming from. I've got better things to do with my time. Like read.

They are different, and I enjoy them for different reasons
Here here!