Discussion of fantasy/literature divide and levels of Brow-ness

[Werthead]

Seems an appropriate point to note that the much-respected Gene Wolfe turns 80 this week and is still producing novels at an impressive rate.

 

[Violent Emesis]

"High-Brow" implies assumed superiority. "High-Brow" implies pretense. "High-Brow" implies exclusion.

What terms would you use to distinguish more-capable readers from less-capable readers? Or do you posit that all readers are equally competent?

. .

So a person is less competent if they do not read what you deem literature? All this blah blah, for what? Internet contention? Most of these posts could probably be summed up with "blah blah blah." I do not understand how people can presume to set themselves higher than another. "I read Faulkner, I read long dead authors so my opinion is more important than yours." That is the the general feeling. Feel free to insert your favorite author where Faulkner is in the above sentence. From some of the posts I have seen, it can be assumed that readers of fantasy are a bunch of semi literate dolts. It just ain't so. I gotta say, from what I have read, the people who read old literature (rhymes with manure) are unhappy with their lives and want to take it out on anyone who is enjoying what they are reading. Misery loves company. My first rant!!!! Yeeeee-haawwwwww

 

[Mazarkis]

Now hold on a minute! I love the old stuff. The reason certain long-dead authors are so respected is because their work continues to resonate to this day.

I object to the idea that people who read fantasy are too silly to enjoy anything else, and also the idea that people who enjoy anything else are necessarily snobs.

 

[Violent Emesis]

Now hold on a minute! I love the old stuff. The reason certain long-dead authors are so respected is because their work continues to resonate to this day.

I object to the idea that people who read fantasy are too silly to enjoy anything else, and also the idea that people who enjoy anything else are necessarily snobs.

Well put. I just blah blahed a bit. I like some dead authors as well, but just because someone dies, does not mean they are suddenly awesome! I agree with you, you have nailed it.

I wonder if the Inferno( A work of fantasy if ever there was) is low brow? What if Virgil had gone snooty on our worthy, and left him to make his own way through hell. "I don't like your style, get lost."
A persons tastes do not always reflect their intellect. I would rather eat a hamburger than caviar, does that mean I am not as smart as someone who eats over priced fish eggs?

 

[owlcroft]

Sigh.

So a person is less competent if they do not read what you deem literature?

That exemplifies the difficulty of having these sorts of discussions. I did not anywhere say that. Competence is a set of tools; reading habits are the sorts of ways a given person chooses to use his or her tool set. As with, say, carpentry, it will usually fall out that persons with an extensive set of quality tools will usually be interested in doing craftsmanlike work with those tools, and that persons with only a set of basic tools will be unable to manage the sorts of projects that are possible with the larger tool set. That is not a value judgement on the carpenter, it is just how things usually go. While a carpenter with a very large assortment of first-rank tools may nevertheless take pleasure in simply whittling a crude little toy, it is doubtful that that's all he or she would ever be content to do: those tools just beg to be applied to more complex work.

While bright-line separations are obviously impossible, it is still plausible to separate the discussions of tool sets and of tasks performed with those sets. My belief, which I do not think a solitary or unusual one, is that the books that folk with better reading "tool sets" usually prefer are what is being called here "literature". It is not what is read that defines the reader, it is the reader who defines what is read.

As I said before, that is inflammatory precisely because it says that some readers have better skills than others. Skills, mind, have little to do with personal tastes. One reader may, owing to some personal quirk, be repulsed by books set on ships, while another may have a special craving for books set on railroad trains. Those things have nothing to do with their reading skills, but will affect their choices of reading. An as I also said before, the two things--skills and tastes--are orthogonal: a reader with a taste for tales set on on railroad trains will normally read tales of that sort written at a level comensurate with his or her skill set; another reader with the same tastes but a significantly different skill set will also read tales set on trains, but almost surely a very different set of such tales.

Unless one denies outright that different readers have differing abilities to extract content from writing, which seems a very, very difficult position to defend, then how would one designate the differing types of reader skills? "Highbrow" and "lowbrow" are obviously pejorative and divisive. What else, then?

 

[Eventine]

Fetters, I'm pretty sure no one here has claimed that all fantasy is low brow (and Inferno is an interesting choice of example), nor that dead authors are better than the living.
I think the very fact we're having this discussion on a SFF board put paid to the contention that "readers of fantasy are a bunch of semi literate dolts".

Owlcroft, what about when the tastes are based on the skill? i.e. rather than liking something for its content (your train/plane example) it is liked purely for the skill of how it is written? Is that when we're getting into the realm of snobbery?

 

[Jon Sprunk]

Owl, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with your "non-PC" premise that people read at different levels. But those who read sufficiently for them to seek out and join a website like SFFWorld are -- I think I'm safe in saying -- generally among the top percentile of skilled readers. We're reading geeks. So who are you talking to?

And for anyone who thinks that fantasy/sf isn't "smart" or "heavy" enough, if we of the top-percentile can find enjoyment and --gasp-- meaning in spec lit, why does that put a twist in your underwear? If you don't find enough fantasy that meets your personal criteria, do what I did, and what countless other authors have done, and write your own books. Otherwise, you're just barking at the moon, and the moon doesn't give a damn.

(Darn it, I was going to stay out of this, but everytime I think I'm out...)

 

[Kaeru]

Owl, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with your "non-PC" premise that people read at different levels. But those who read sufficiently for them to seek out and join a website like SFFWorld are -- I think I'm safe in saying -- generally among the top percentile of skilled readers. We're reading geeks. So who are you talking to?

And for anyone who thinks that fantasy/sf isn't "smart" or "heavy" enough, if we of the top-percentile can find enjoyment and --gasp-- meaning in spec lit, why does that put a twist in your underwear? If you don't find enough fantasy that meets your personal criteria, do what I did, and what countless other authors have done, and write your own books. Otherwise, you're just barking at the moon, and the moon doesn't give a damn.

(Darn it, I was going to stay out of this, but everytime I think I'm out...)

(Applause and partying) Know who I like reading? P.G. Wodehouse and Rex Stout. I don't know where their brows are, but I love Wodehouse for how he uses words and I love Rex Stout for Nero Wolfe. Neither of those falls under fantasy, but I read everything I can get my hands on, from Harry Potter to Raven Ring, to Wuthering Heights, (hated it) to Poe, to.... Anyway. Except horror. (i'm a scaredy cat :-o there's very little in the realm of horror that I can read without nightmares. ) My vote ( except for things that are so horribly written it's painful) goes to all brow. (don't worry, everyone. I am 86% sure this is the last time I post while I'm this sleep-deprived)

 

[chokipokilo]

But those who read sufficiently for them to seek out and join a website like SFFWorld are -- I think I'm safe in saying -- generally among the top percentile of skilled readers.

Every day there's a post by someone who just started reading and is looking for something new based on liking one book. They are so skilled that they miss all the stickies about the search function.

As for the they argument, I feel safe using that term as I was once among the they I'm referring to. My brows have definitely raised since A) joining this site, and B) reading certain authors that I consider superior to others whom I used to enjoy more.

I don't think joining a forum in any way indicates reading skills. Just desire.

 

[AmethystOrator]

I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing.

A sign of intelligence is an awareness of one’s own ignorance.

I've always felt that a person's intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting points of view he can entertain simultaneously on the same topic.

There are many who know many things, yet are lacking in wisdom.

The beginning of wisdom is the admission of one's ignorance,
And in knowing, that you know nothing, makes you the smartest of all.

There is no great concurrence between learning and wisdom.

It should be noted that the seeds of wisdom that are to bear fruit in the intellect are sown less by critical studies and learned monographs than by insights, broad impressions, and flashes of intuition.

Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.

Belief is the death of intelligence.

I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of.

The recognition that no knowledge can be complete, no metaphor entire, is itself humanizing. It counteracts fanaticism. It grants even to adversaries the possibility of partial truth, and to oneself the possibility of error.

As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more mysterious.

I am not young enough to know everything.

In seeking wisdom thou are wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it thou are a fool.

A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.

 

[molybdenum]

Owlcroft:

I do think different tastes still factor into it though. Someone could be a high-minded reader, but much prefer straight forward prose to a more poetic approach. Someone could enjoy introduction of fantastical elements, and others may want to stick to things that are found in this world. Someone could be OK with reading as a form of escapism, and others simply want their outlook on life changed by what they read. None of these preferences is impacted by the skill of the reader, but it will still change significantly what is read. So in terms of preferences, it can be the type of read that will define the reader, even if the reader is at the same level of "intellect" (though I'm beginning to think intellect is not a good word. Perhaps skill is much better, if more vague.)

In a similar sense, a skilled reader can enjoy "commercial hacks", either for the same reasons normal readers do, or because they can see the psychology the author is appealing to within the typical reader, and enjoy watching the skill of the author exploit that psychology.

Eventine:
I know you didn't ask my opinion, but once you get into things like "how it is written" you enter into the realm of the very, very objective. So I would say it is a tad snobbish to presume you operate on a higher level because you are enjoying something you believe is well written. There is nothing snobbish about simply enjoying how a work is written though. As long as you understand it to be a personal preference and not proof of your superiority.

Jon:
While I don't disagree that we have many skilled readers, I myself would never presume to be one of them. I would probably get through 100 pages of one of the works on the lists Owlcroft likes to produce and put it back down again, because I wouldn't be able to understand where the author is going, or where the enjoyment lies for the readers of those books. I do get quite enough enjoyment in those "commercial hacks" where it's written more to my level. So, that makes one non-skilled reader.

 

[Erfael]

Eventine:
I know you didn't ask my opinion, but once you get into things like "how it is written" you enter into the realm of the very, very objective. So I would say it is a tad snobbish to presume you operate on a higher level because you are enjoying something you believe is well written. There is nothing snobbish about simply enjoying how a work is written though. As long as you understand it to be a personal preference and not proof of your superiority.

I agree here. But this is the point at which I think the big divide is happening. There are those of us who WANT to get the same thing out of secondary world fantasy that we get out of something like Graham Joyce or John Crowley or Michael Chabon...in fact, I think some of us are saying that secondary world fantasy could do an even BETTER job with those things than Joyce, etc. etc. But we don't feel like we're finding it there. That in no way make a commentary on those who do like secondary world stuff.

But on the other hand, there are those that feel that by saying that we're not finding those things in secondary world fantasy, we're somehow saying that those who read secondary world fantasy are somehow lacking in gray matter...which is something I don't feel anyone is saying in this thread.

 

[AmethystOrator]

there are those that feel that by saying that we're not finding those things in secondary world fantasy, we're somehow saying that those who read secondary world fantasy are somehow lacking in gray matter...which is something I don't feel anyone is saying in this thread.

I would have to say that I feel very much the opposite. I would argue that the degree to which this pov has permeated this thread is glaring and appears to make any attempt at a constructive dialogue pointless. There are certain people who seem to take for granted that "literature" is the greatest goal achievable (at least within this artistic form) without even making an effort to constitutively define the concept or support their supposition. Those people appear to me to be rude, arrogant and condescending towards anyone who questions their beliefs. From where I sit, those people seem to have at best a spurious understanding of the nature of intelligence, which they have coupled with a blind obedience to their flawed comprehension of that concept. If they were not so derisive and divisive in their posts then it might still be worthwhile to attempt a meaningful conversation, but the people in question seem quite content in their ignorance and unwarranted feelings of superiority.

I find several elements of the topic in question to be interesting and believe that there could potentially have been a fascinating discourse. Sadly for those of us who are genuinely open to what others have to say, such seems impossible in this environment.

 

[Eddy Gemmell]

I finished Abercrombie's, The Heroes yesterday.

Fantastic. He's perhaps allowed his love of swearing to get a little out of hand (I'm not a prude, some of it was VERY funny!) but suggestions that he glorifies war is just (IMO) - boll*ocks.

Is there a relevant point here to this thread? Hmmm, I'm not sure but I hope so. It struck me that books can, of course, operate on more than one level. Someone may read the violence, think it excessive, and conclude that it's gratuitous and so glorifies war. I did not read it that way. I read it as an exploration of all aspects of conflicts, those who thrive on it, those that don't, those that think they will ...and don't. Those it kills, those it leaves miraculously alive, the causes of war, etc, etc. It reminded me strangely of the film Love Actaully for the way that it takes many different angles on one topic and does it rather well.

I think the book is a triumph and bodes well for Joe's future, if it wasn't already assured.

Ten years ago, I would probably have just read the violence, thought the fight scenes were cool and laughed at the profanity. I see more now and I believe that's due to age (40 next year ...) and taking an interest in actually writing myself and having a decent understanding of how you pull a novel together.

I agree that different people have different skill sets and someone with a basic set won't get much out of Conrad or Hemmingway, for instance. I have always believed though that reading is about escape and entertainment. If a book delivers on that level then it's done its job. Does that mean I am happy with the low-brow? Perhaps. But I think it also means, as with The Heroes, that you can find deeper issues in fantasy if you look for them. All writers have their own world view, beliefs and predjudices. It's inevitable that some of these views, or at least their flavour, will come out in their writing. You can see them too as long as you are able to recognise and question your own beliefs and prejudices.

Apologies, I am talking around the topic a little but overall, I don't think there is any easy answer. For instance, I have been re-reading some David Gemmell books recently. I devoured them the day they came out years ago before he passed away. They were familiar in style and felt like meeting an old friend. I never stopped to think about how they were written. Looking back now, they stand out for me as morality tales and an exoploration of right and wrong and of honour and redemption. The writing is, I am loathed to say, rather basic and lacks the finesse of modern writers. I fear he would have struggled with publication had he begun his career 20 years later. And yet, his tales speak to the reader in profound ways that make you think about your life and how you are living it. That's also a fundementally important aspect of why many people read books and what they are looking for in a story. They want to be moved or to be prompted to think about their life or perhaps to re-think how they are living their lives or to question their own world view.

So, I think that depth is there in fantasy, though not in all books. You aren't going to get that from Dan Abnett's Black Library stuff ( Gaunt's Ghosts, etc) and yet as compelling action books (for pure escapism and immersion in a fantasy world) they rock!

Each to their own, there is plenty for all. You just need to find the right ones that speak to you.

Some interesting ideas though. Though provoking and, it would seem, emotionally charged!

 

[owlcroft]

Bits and pieces:

What about when the tastes are based on the skill? i.e. rather than liking something for its content (your train/plane example) it is liked purely for the skill of how it is written? Is that when we're getting into the realm of snobbery?

I'm missing the connect between the two questions. Liking a tale because of the skill with which it was written is, I think, the natural and normal reaction; the personal-tastes thing (ships/trains) usually has only a modest effect on a given reader's response to a given tale. I cannot remember now how old I was the first time I realized I was enjoying a book sheerly for how it was written, but it was at an awfully early age; my dad had to do some work at the office on a weekend and took me along, and I was bored silly till I found a bookcase with some odds and ends of fiction in it, picked up a book, a novel, I would never have otherwise dreamt of opening, and was captivated. Some years later, in junior high school (don't know if it's even called that today), I did a book report on a title I can no longer remember how I came to, on the history of the German General Staff (about which I had zero prior knowledge or interest), and realized that any book can be interesting if well-written. But . . . how liking a particular book chiefly or solely because it is well-written would get into "the realm of snobbery" baffles me.

I like books of speculative fiction. I would, and on occasion do, also enjoy "mainstream" fiction set in the everyday world, but my life is not infinite and so what I read is what I like a little more. Within the division of fiction called "speculative fiction" (or "fantastic fiction"), my preference is for books well assembled by their authors: books with acceptable plots, in-depth characterization of realistic human beings, interesting and plausible settings, and language pleasing to read. That last does not mean purple prose; it means language that, at the minimum, does not grate or annoy from bad grammar or the sorts of things presented monthly at The Ansible in Thog's MasterClass. If the prose is better than harmless, actually pleasant to read (which is still some country miles from "purple"), that is a big plus.

So who are you talking to?

It may be of benefit for those unclear on the answer to this to review the thread. It began as some comments on a particular work. The people I am talking to--besides interested bystanders--are those who claimed, rather stridently, that fantastic fiction cannot and must not be judged by the same criteria by which we assign excellence or a lack of it in books other than fantastic fiction: that they get some sort of bonus points, or an automatic bye, just because they are fantastic. We need not expect, and are wrong to want, such things as plausible characterization or language less than stilted or wooden. When challenged on that point, they became quite hostile, and began throwing such terms as "highbrow", "lowbrow", and "snobbery" around like brickbats. I find that insulting to the body of readers of fantastic fiction who do not believe that crap has the smell removed by being crap about imaginary things.

Someone could be a high-minded reader, but much prefer straight forward prose to a more poetic approach.

Oy; again. Why does everyone, no matter how often the contrary is asserted, assume that well-written prose is "poetic"? To be sure, poetic prose by a competent poet is pleasing (compare Satyrday by Steven Bauer), but this eternally recurring idea that pleasing prose is somehow plush or archaic is just flat-out silly. What about, say, this is particularly hard to parse or fathom? Or, even closer to home, what in--

When Mr. Bilbo Baggins of Bag End announced that he would shortly be celebrating his eleventy-first birthday with a party of special magnificence, there was much talk and excitement in Hobbiton.

--makes the casual reader squirm in his or her seat? Ashamed to read it out loud? Think it reeks of Percy Dovetonsils?

I would have to say that I feel very much the opposite. I would argue that the degree to which this pov has permeated this thread is glaring and appears to make any attempt at a constructive dialogue pointless. There are certain people who seem to take for granted that "literature" is the greatest goal achievable (at least within this artistic form) without even making an effort to constitutively define the concept or support their supposition.

Well, let's start there. "Literature" is a word that simply means well-written books. Who here wants to argue that poorly written books are actually the greatest goal achievable? What in reality we are hearing is an argument that falsely supposes that "literature" is some sort of silly and artificial nonsense that real, salt-of-the-earth readers will have no truck with, which is a roundabout way of saying that well-written books are not admirable for being well-written, that books are only admirable if they feature either--as the case may be--lots of exploding spaceships, or lost of swords and magical fireballs, and that anyone who thinks else is a "snob". As to "making an effort to constitutively define the concept", this may not be complete, but I think it constitutes "an effort"; there are these, too, for the patient.

Those people appear to me to be rude, arrogant and condescending towards anyone who questions their beliefs.

Sorry, I was under the impression that calling people who disagree with you "rude, arrogant and condescending" is what "rude, arrogant, and condescending" means.

From where I sit, those people seem to have at best a spurious understanding of the nature of intelligence, which they have coupled with a blind obedience to thir flawed comprehension of that concept. If they were not so derisive and divisive in their posts then it might still be worthwhile to attempt a meaningful conversation, but the people in question seem quite content in their ignorance and unwarranted feelings of superiority.

Dear me. A cynical reader might think that diatribe to be rude, arrogant and condescending towards anyone who questions the writer's beliefs.

 

[molybdenum]

Just to defend my poetic prose statement, I made no indications about the quality of the prose used. I simply stated that both forms of prose exist and a reader, no matter their reading skill, may prefer one or the other.

I'll get back to your other statements when I have some time.

 

[suciul]

Well, let's start there. "Literature" is a word that simply means well-written books.

And here lies the crux of the issue - what is a well-written book?

You offered one point of view, others offered different points of view; I tend to believe that "well-written" books are those that move a person, that make one keep wanting to read a book and turn the pages, books that are "alive", that speak to someone; of course the issue is more complex than that, but this will do

This of course means that there is no such a thing as universality, but that is a given and only someone who is born and raised in a dominant culture can assume it and thankfully in our times, the voices of such while still loud and taking a huge part of the spectrum are compensated by many other voices.

When this discussion crops up and arguments get to this point as they did a few times in various threads, I still urge everyone to read this essay shortlisted for the BSFA non-fiction award in 2009, which summarizes some of the problems with your point of view very well. It is called "I Didn't Dream of Dragons" and it says some things much better than I can do it, but I will give you a quote:

"You know why I flinch? It’s because the assumptions flatten the problem. A poorly written book has cardboard cut-out characters, and a well-written book has thoughtful, nuanced characteristically. But I have spent a lifetime reading well-written books with nuanced characters that hurt me by erasing or misrepresenting me."

So what is a well-written book again? A book with well-written characters that actually seem very wrong to many people? A book with perfect grammar that perpetuates the myth of your cultural superiority? Sorry, do not buy that

Edit: cannot resist to add more quote from the essay because it is pertinent and again says it better than i could:

I distrust universalizing statements proclaiming our inherent mutual humanity because they are uni-directional—they do not make everyone more like me, they make everyone more like you. And I do not want that.

 

[DailyRich]

He's perhaps allowed his love of swearing to get a little out of hand (I'm not a prude, some of it was VERY funny!) but suggestions that he glorifies war is just (IMO) - boll*ocks.

Too many people are too quick to equate depiction with glorification.

 

[Alchemist]

The people I am talking to--besides interested bystanders--are those who claimed, rather stridently, that fantastic fiction cannot and must not be judged by the same criteria by which we assign excellence or a lack of it in books other than fantastic fiction: that they get some sort of bonus points, or an automatic bye, just because they are fantastic. We need not expect, and are wrong to want, such things as plausible characterization or language less than stilted or wooden. When challenged on that point, they became quite hostile, and began throwing such terms as "highbrow", "lowbrow", and "snobbery" around like brickbats. I find that insulting to the body of readers of fantastic fiction who do not believe that crap has the smell removed by being crap about imaginary things.

This is called a straw man argument, owlcroft, as no one that I've seen is saying any such thing, that "we need not expect, and are wrong to want, such things as plausible characterization or language less than stilted or wooden."

I'm assuming I"m one of these homogeneous people you are talking to who you seem to be unable (or unwilling) to differentiate in your mind in terms of subtlety and nuance of perspective. If I am included within "the people" I will say that you're missing what I was saying, or at least misunderstanding and mis-characterizing it. But I also don't hear anyone saying that fantasy stories should receive an "automatic bye" in terms of characterization, writing quality, etc. What I hear others saying, and which I have said, is that a fantasy story be judged somewhat differently than a mainstream literary work. If you are reading Lord of the Rings and The Sun Also Rises there are certain commonalities, but it is a very different experience with very different intentions by the authors.

On one hand, quality is quality. On the other, it all depends upon what you're trying to do, as an author. The concerns of the fantasist are different than that of a realist; both forms (fantasy and realism) include all aspects of the other form, but to varying degrees.

I enjoy making Neapolitan style pizza (you know, the kind with a very thin crust, fresh mozzarella, basil, and red sauce). If someone expecting and wanting a New York style slice had a slice of my pizza, they would probably be disappointed - it is rather different. Both Neapolitan and New York style pizza share the main ingredients of crust, sauce, and cheese, but both do very different things with them.

That is my point. Fantasy and realism share the basic ingredients of Story - plot, character, setting, language, etc. But both do very different things with them. To read fantasy with the expectations of it being realist literature is to "miss the point," so to speak, like approaching Neapolitan pizza as if it is New York style.

Again, no one (as far as I can tell) is saying that fantasy - even secondary world fantasy - can be crappily written and still be good. But I do think that fantasy, as a general rule (although not without exception), is less focused on some of the classic aspects of realist literature - such as use of language and various literary devices. If we're talking about secondary world fantasy, I have found that the more unobtrusive the language is, the better. Again, as a general rule. The more the writer dabbles with complex literary effects, the more the "secondary world mystique," the internal consistency and atmosphere, is threatened, even unraveled. Again, as a general rule but not without exception.

Within the division of fiction called "speculative fiction" (or "fantastic fiction"), my preference is for books well assembled by their authors: books with acceptable plots, in-depth characterization of realistic human beings, interesting and plausible settings, and language pleasing to read.

Agreed and I'd be surprised if anyone here didn't, except with the caveat that some might find certain qualities less important than others. I would say that all of those qualities you mention are necessary to some degree in a great fantasy story, but that the most important factor - at least if we're talking about secondary world fantasy - is the degree to which the world itself, the setting, comes alive, is "real" and is, in a sense, a living character - the main character, if you will.

But again, it depends upon what sort of story one is reading (or writing). Farrah Mendlesohn's taxonomy of Portal-Quest, Immersive, Intrusive, and Liminal is useful in this regard. An Immersive fantasy in a secondary world has a very different character than a Liminal one set in our own world. Compare, again, Steven Erikson's Malazan and John Crowley's Aegypt. Both are great works of fantasy, in my opinion (although Erikson's more flawed, less polished than Crowley's), but both are "great" in very different ways and through very different techniques.

 

[Eventine]

I think we just came full circle, back to the validity of using the same tools to assess Literature vs genre fiction...

Lots of talk on somewhat different levels here - this is probably one of those discussions which would've planned out a lot differently if everyone was sitting in the same room.