Okay, why would you not believe me when I say this? We've been discussing things for four years in these forums. And in that time, I have consistently and repeatedly said that I believe all art and the experience of art to be totally subjective, and that it is impossible to have any sort of objective criteria of it, and further, I have repeatedly supplied proof for why I hold this belief. In fact, we have further proof in this thread -- numerous critics and literary pundits and literature professors, etc., agree with me that The Kite Runner is a very good novel. It's won awards. You, though, feel it is a mediocre novel undeserving of its hype. Are you planning to change your opinion on the grounds that your belief in objectivity requires you to do so? I don't think so, kiddo. Nor should you.KatG, I don't truly believe you when you say you feel that all literary criticism is purely subjective and not based upon any tangible or objectifiable criteria.
As for Oprah, I didn't bring her up. You and Foo did. You didn't like that she picked The Road, at least at first. I quoted you and responded to it.
Um, all of them.In what other genre can an author break out into verse and wax poetic about destiny or fate or suffering? In what other genre can we create characters who are not real, not meant to be real, but are symbolic and metaphoric and allegorical all at the same time?
These, I grant you, are unique to fantasy and I agree with you in general principle. Those who don't see much worth in that consider fantasy's use of magical beasties and such to discuss issues of humanity and meaning to be a bizarre idea, kind of like we're religious zealots.In what other genre can we use magic and powers that are not real and not meant to be real to discuss cosmological and metaphysical issues? In what other genre can beasts and fantastical beings speak to the earth's problems?
Okay, got ya. A lot of SFF authors feel this way. For me, the experience is a little different. Working editorially with different types of authors and writing both fantasy and contemporary fiction, there's not as much difference for me between unrealistic and realistic fiction. It's not that I don't see SFF as special -- I wouldn't be trying to write it if I didn't -- but that I don't see it as fundamentally different from the realistic side of the coin.I write SFF because I feel I'm unconstrained when I do.
Oh that's true. Oh well. Still, if we get a large enough mass pressing on the writing world, it will help, right?The thing to remember, though, is that the article appeared in Wired. That's a bit like praising Asimov in Omni. Preaching to the converted. In Wired, an article about the merits of mainstream fiction would be more interesting.