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

[Alchemist]

Sparrow, I think you hurt your argument by comparing books to cars. It may be meaningful to step back and look at truth as existing in three domains: objective, subjective, and inter-subjective. When we're talking about art we're not talking about the objective domain, other than purely structural elements.

Most of the factors that you mention with regards to cars are quantifiable in some objective way; qualities of writing are not, or at least not easily so. Now we may come to an inter-subjective understanding of what good writing is, but it is not objective, at least beyond technical elements such as spelling and grammar. In other words, we cannot adequately define who is a better writer, Gene Wolfe or Ursula K Le Guin; we cannot say, "Wolfe drives faster but Le Guin has better handling."

But I agree with you that it isn't just all subjective, either. A toddler's crayon scribble is not Starry Night. Looking for objective proof for this assertion is beside the point; it is inter-subjectively true, in a not-so-different way that murder is not "objectively wrong" but it is inter-subjectively wrong (that is, rightness and wrongness aren't within the objective domain; they are within the purview of morality, which is a matter of inter-subjective truth).

What makes great art, or even good art, is difficult to define. Certainly technique is part of it but what makes art truly great is beyond technique. In truth, a piece of art can be only fair in terms of technique but still be great. But we're not even talking about great art; we're talking about what makes a story well-written. We can come up with a list of criteria, but even then there will be a gap, a subjective element.

 

[Alchemist]

I can not agree. Brain functioning is completely different with reading and watching/playing. While reading brain had to recreate internal picture from long-term stored patterns and text clues. That's orders of magnitude more brainwork than just processing videoinput. In fact it's a simple form of abstract thinking. Reading complex, "good" literature is the next level of abstraction - it's patterns of patterns. Next level would be higher math.

I very much agree. It isn't an either/or thing; either you are reading trash and it is the same as playing video games, or you are reading Proper Literature. To add to what you said, all reading requires a crucial activity that almost no video game uses: the imagination. This is the big difference between books and movies or role-playing games and video games.

This is not to say that reading a Harlequin romance is a "better" experience than watching an Andrei Tarkovsky movie simply by virtue of the medium (I'd rather stay away from any "cross-media" generalities because they'll all prove to be wrong). But that there is very simply a different aspect of human consciousness at work in the two forms.

 

[chokipokilo]

In my opinion

A work of fantasy/sci-fi/horror/romance/mystery/thriller can and should be judged by the same criteria as literature that doesn't fall into any of the above categories. It should also be taken a step further, because of the added expectations implied by the label.

A work of fantasy should have engaging prose, a cohesive plot, well-drawn characters, and the power to teach us something about the nature of ourselves and the world we know. It has the added burden of building a world or adding fantastical elements to our world without over-emphasizing them and bogging down the narrative, or under-emphasizing and making them too vague to grasp. A work of horror needs the same qualities mentioned above, plus the added burden of making it frightening without detracting from any of those things.

Any work that is placed under a label should be judged by more standards, not different standards, than mainstream, real world, present (at the time it's written) literature.

 

[Jon Sprunk]

Or apparently, in the part I previously quoted, any of the the posts in this thread.



This is the first time you've suggested we enjoy the books at our disposal in this thread. I have no idea what you mean by it. I consider Chabon as at my disposal as any fireball-to-the-face book.

I'm confused. What is the moon supposed to represent? Publishers, authors, readers? Because all three of those care deeply about what the readership thinks.

Forgive me if I didn't make my perspective clear. Let me try again.

I mean we have a rich and diverse selection of SFF stories to enjoy, old and new. Don't get hung up on your own hangs ups. For better or worse, a story is a story. No one will ever appreciate any book they way you appreciate it, good or bad. So there isn't any need to argue, attack, or defend. Find the things you love and cherish them. If someone else doesn't enjoy it, feel bad for them, but don't let them make you feel bad for enjoying it. Chabon, Shakespeare, or Salvatore. Love them all, if you are able. If you aren't, then the finger points to you.

The moon is all that and more. It's the genre, and the ideal of the genre. You can't capture it, minse it, or even fully understand it, but exploring it is a delightful life-long process.

 

[Erfael]

AO,

I think Alchemist pretty much sums up what I'd have to say with his comments on intersubjectivity. Just to pull out one of your paragraphs:

When building a house, how much importance is there in functionality vs. aesthetics? What about the building materials and what about the view? What if you have a "well designed" house that does not meet the needs of the intended occupants? An award winning design that gives no consideration to the fact that the owner is blind or in a wheel chair? What if most or all of these things are taken into account, but the house is built at the bottom of a hill that floods during the rainy season? What if it's "well built" and after the fact it's discovered that the proper permits were not, and cannot, be obtained? What if the future owner's primary goal is to keep costs down, but the builders spend exorbitantly to make the dwelling "well built" in every other way?

So many of these things don't have to do with how well-built the house is. I don't deny that many of the things you list are important factors in whether the house is a good match for certain occupants or whether it's located practically. But they don't have to do with whether it's crafted well.

What I'd be getting at is more along the lines of: Is the foundation set in such a way that it won't crack and leave structural sinkage or shift? Are the roofing materials affixed without gaps so that there will be no leaking? Do the flues in the fireplaces vent properly for safety? Do all the doors open and close properly, or do they stick? Does the sewer line connect to the outside world? Was the wood selected such that it won't be warping? Is the crawl-space water-secure? Are the windows energy-efficient? Did the builder bother putting in insulation?

None of that has to do with whether it works for a blind man or whether it's in a flood-prone area. Now, I'm not arguing that a book and a house are the same.

Consider, say, Lord of the Rings for a moment. Let's take that same basic story and give it to a few different authors: Let's say an Oxford professor named Tolkien, a fellow named Terry Brooks, and another fellow named Dennis McKiernan. For fun, let's also give it to a fifth-grade honor-roll student and a high-school dropout in Minnesota. In the end I'm sure we'll get some very different product -- of measurable quality.

It just occurred to me why I have such issue with the completely subjective approach. I work in a field where no one is equal. There are very distinctly people who are better at what they do and people who are worse at it -- and whether they're better or worse has to do with how the combination of smaller skills interacts. I played a concert last weekend with three violinists. They were all very different players, but more than competent to be in a professional concert. But one of them had trouble playing in tune some of the time and tended to rush. Another one would crash whenever very fast passages happened and he had trouble leading the rest of the group into tutti sections. The last one had trouble improvising divisions over a harmony. But while they all had issues, everyone in the group had to recognize those issues to work together. But again, they were all competent enough that their other attributes outweighed the issues (and in the end one couldn't say which was "best", much as in Wolfe and Le Guin).

But then you'll come across those people who are lacking (sometimes drastically) in even more areas. And they cause major problems that can't be adequately compensate for. So yes, I work in a field where you have to intimately know your own skills and limitations and be able work with strengths and compensate for weaknesses all the time in order to be successful. I don't see authors and their product as any different.

Think of writing as a very slow performance art. Authors are taking a concept or idea they have and conveying it through words to their audience. They can do that well or they can do it poorly. And it's not a single-grade kind of thing -- it's a combination of skills all coming together to make a whole. And they all have strengths and weaknesses. But through Alchemist's idea of intersubjectivity those things CAN be talked about, articulated, and agreed upon if people are willing to step back and be analytical about things.

Not everyone will agree on aspects of it, because people are different. Some people don't care about certain aspects of that skill set. Others care deeply about other aspects of it. All that is in the realm of personal preference, though. If we're trying to talk about whether something is intersubjectively well-written, we have to be able to step outside our preferences at least a little. It sounds like that's the kind of reflection you don't like to do in relation to your reading, though, AO.

If we're only measuring on the basis of whether it works for individuals, I guess I agree that there's not much to talk about as far as whether something is well-written. But I don't think that's what most of us are talking about here.

 

[Sparrow]

Sparrow,
Most of the factors that you mention with regards to cars are quantifiable in some objective way; qualities of writing are not, or at least not easily so. Now we may come to an inter-subjective understanding of what good writing is, but it is not objective, at least beyond technical elements such as spelling and grammar. In other words, we cannot adequately define who is a better writer, Gene Wolfe or Ursula K Le Guin; we cannot say, "Wolfe drives faster but Le Guin has better handling."

That's a bad example because we would be comparing apples to apples; both writers are talented and most of their work reflects that talent. Personally, I don't enjoy reading either all that much... but I'm perfectly able to step outside the subjective and admit that, while they are both gifted writers, they simply don't appeal to my tastes in fiction. No speedometer needed.

 

[Kaeru]

I actually have no problem with the car analogy. There are groups of books that may be objectively measured to be roughly equal in the skill that went into their creation, but which in those groups is the "best" is more subjective and is based on what you consider most important. Some cars are roughly equal in quality of design which is objective, but out of those cars, it may be somewhat subjective which is the best. Some aspects of each are absolutely quantifiable, some aspects of each rely more heavily on personal preference.