Prose vs Plot

[Palfrey]

In that example I gave earlier in the thread there is an obvious grammatical error in the first paragraph of his book. I mean, I wouldn't compromise so much as to turn a blind eye to that. (It's a regular feature of his books.) Some would. Some would just skip/skim the text, gleaning the main landmarks of the story along the way.

Even my old, stalwart college creative writing teacher agreed that strictly proper grammar is not necessary in creative writing. What really matters is getting your point across.

Language is important to me - I couldn't read Steven Brust's The Phoenix Guards to save my life because of the language used. I have tried and failed several times to read Anne McCaffrey - There is something about the way she structures her sentences that annoys me. But incorrect grammar is something I'm willing to overlook if the writing is convincing.

All of which is to say that different things are important to different people. There is no wrong reason to enjoy a book.

 

[Trip]

I fail to understand how incorrect grammar is something one overlooks while at the same time looking for convincing writing. Writing most definitely *isn't* just about getting your point across. Actually, that statement doesn't make sense to me.

As for the sentence, did you read it?

"An extrovert who typically bellowed before he considered his roar, his voice often rang loudest among the ruling council."

I'm sorry, but grammatical agreement of clauses is Writing 101. Not even Creative Writing 101. Again, I'm sorry, but I can sort of accept that kind of writing only if I suspend my entire knowledge and instincts of English grammar while reading, and that's too much work to no conceivable gain.

Not to mention more subjective stuff, such as the out-and-out inanely sounding "bellowed before he considered his roar".

And, yes, of course that different things are important to different people. I've said it at least three times now. But there are degrees of perceiving a book as literature and perceiving it as a rough blueprint for your own loosely-bound imaginings. The kind of writing quoted above is low on the former scale, high on the latter.

@ Erfael: QFT

 

[BreakLater]

I'm sorry, but grammatical agreement of clauses is Writing 101. Not even Creative Writing 101. Again, I'm sorry, but I can sort of accept that kind of writing only if I suspend my entire knowledge and instincts of English grammar while reading, and that's too much work to no conceivable gain.

Yeah, Palfrey, I gotta agree with Trip on this one, even though I think he's being a bit hyperbolic about it. Your stalwart old creative writing teacher probably meant that grammatical exactness was not important when it is intentionally violated, such as in the novels of William Faulkner or the early epistles of The Color Purple.

Mistakes made unintentionally, such as in Trip's example, just degrade the quality of the writing. As KatG pointed out, it might not actually be the writer's fault as an entire team of editors works on the book.

The elements of a tale may be classed in many ways, but the traditional one seems to me to remain serviceable: language, plot, characterization, setting.

While strength in one can make up for weaknesses on others, as a generalization, no tale that is really weak in more than one of those can possibly be rescued by any combination of strengths in the others. One leg of the stool can be tottery, but not two, else the tale and the writer (along with its readers) ends up violently dumped on their respective butts.

Good points and great analogy. I agree with all of this.

I was really just concurring with KatG when she said that readers will forgive other sub-adequate elements of a novel if they are invested in its characters. I realize I'm talking about that mythical vague mass of 'readers' again but I really do think this is true. My evidence is of course all anecdotal.

When I complain about The Wheel of Time I have several friends who love it, who admit that the plot got all out of hand, but they always end the dicussion with how much they love the characters. "Yeah, but I like Matt" they'll say.
Now, my attachments to these characters are not enough for me to forgive the morass of the series's plot, but I have to admit that even though I'm disgusted with other elements of the books, I still like and identify with the characters.

It has to do with how our minds anthropomorphize everything. We are a very vain species and we know no other species like us so we're constantly burdening non-persons with our person-hood. Characters, being a literary construction designed to mimic human behavior, become like real people to us, just as our pets are people to us or we ascribe a personality to an old car that we love. So I'm saying characters take on a life of their own in a reader's mind. Yes, characters are COMPOSED of prose, but in a reader's mind they exist apart from all those other elements that make up a story.

This is why we're able to conceive of a Dracula story outside the confines of the original Bram Stoker tale. It's why we can enjoy Conan stories that were not penned by Robert Howard.

I'm asserting that characterization is what readers most indentify with, for obvious reasons.

 

[Sparrow]

None of this has to do with interpretation or discrimination. There's very little critical thinking going on. I've been shocked a few times when I've had high-school-aged students come to me in how little they're able to take some set of information (basically everything they've learned so far) and apply it logically to some question. Even something that only requires about three logical steps between data and answer is too much for some of them.

We've had this argument come up several times with our own daughter... "why do I have to learn this stuff... I'm never going to use it in real life!" I've had to tell her such things as how important it really is that she learn to convert fractions into decimals, or that my understanding of geometry is a necessary evil if I'm to continue renovating the house we're living in. Not to mention basic physical equations to figure out engineering problems I run up against, figuring out load-bearing and weight distribution arrangements, etc.

It's a very nebulous thing, serious problem solving often requires the union of different disciplines. It's tough teaching young people that computer science and music lessons are equally important. Though I've often enough witnessed people who while very well educated are unable to solve what I consider rudimentary problems because they've become so specialized in an area. Learning is like shepherd's stew, throw everything in!

 

[KatG]

What I'm trying to do, when I talk about something I've read, is not simply state how this or that struck me, but describe something of the process by which it struck me.

What you're trying to do is tell other people that the way that they express themselves is woefully inadequate to your superior understanding of narrative, that they are shallow escapists, and that you are putting yourself in the position of professor to help them improve their reading comprehension and expression skills. Which is not an argument that works with me at all. But you are a nice person, so I'm not going to blast you. Plus, when you told me that you were "not trying to tell you to write a ten-page essay," you made everyone who knows me burst into hysterical laughter, so that was fun.

I've worked editorially with fiction authors of all stripes for twenty years and I believe I am sufficiently able to discuss fiction as well as your average creative writing high school student. I have also waged discussions about Abercrombie's prose, Rothfuss' prose, Mieville's themes, Jordan's characterizations, etc., when it's appropriate on the forums. The topic of this thread, though, is feelings about prose versus plot in general, which I have already done, and in specific, I was responding to Roland's remarks about these three authors, whom he brought up in terms of the general topic, pointing out where I differ in impressions of their skills and approaches from his general remarks about them, which did not require a detailed analysis of any of them. I am not a particular fan of the three authors, but I do not have the same reaction to them as Roland does. As for quoting from them, since I don't have any of their books on hand, not happening. Also not needed for this particular discussion. Plus, if your big complaint about a fiction author is that he isn't using "proper grammar," I doubt we'll always agree about prose styles in any case.

I will clarify that in terms of the D&D folk and Salvatore writing for them, what I meant by "bardic" is not poetic. I meant that it is written in styles in an epic legend, blood and thunder sort of way -- long ago and far away, there lived a king with a mighty sword, etc. It's not a subtle, post-modern approach, nor was that what they needed for the tie-in novels. Salvatore's non-tie-in work tends to be less in that direction, more straight contemporary, while not abandoning it entirely.

And that's all you get.

 

[Trip]

Hm. All right then.

 

[N.S. Barrett]

All that is a long way of saying I think that in ways the world is moving past this idea of "prose" that you're all exploring here in this thread. I don't mean us...after all, we're here because we love the written word. But for many people, the written word is merely a (necessary? inconvenient?) way to communicate data. Any kind of extra words or odd constructions that get in the way of merely communicating the idea is too much (and I wouldn't be surprised to see something like that get a lower grade in today's school environment than something without any artistic expression at all).

Underachieving student here. Writing creatively going on ten years, being told not to going on seven.

Right now, sitting in law school. Professor comes out with a numbered list. Statute says that the list is supposed to be illustrative, not exhaustive. Despite this fact and the fact that the statute is easily referenced, all students are typing furiously on their keyboards to get it down.

American education is fail. My one goal is to escape it with my panache intact. And no, I won't forget that I know the meaning of the word "panache".

 

[Roland 85]

What you're trying to do is tell other people that the way that they express themselves is woefully inadequate to your superior understanding of narrative, that they are shallow escapists, and that you are putting yourself in the position of professor to help them improve their reading comprehension and expression skills. Which is not an argument that works with me at all. But you are a nice person, so I'm not going to blast you. Plus, when you told me that you were "not trying to tell you to write a ten-page essay," you made everyone who knows me burst into hysterical laughter, so that was fun.

No offense, but that was uncharacteristically imperceptive of you, Kat. It is fairly obvious to me that Trip just hopes for a more in-depth discussion than the one that's been happening, and is explaining his reasons for it. Also, judging by what I've read so far, he has superior understanding of narrative compared to the average reader. Also, many people (including some in this forum (which is perfectly normal), though not necessarily in this particular topic) who read speculative fiction, are shallow escapists. In fact, most people in general are shallow in one extent or another, including me and you.

That said, I never got even the slightest feeling that Trip was trying to put himself above anyone. If anything, he's been reaching out desperately, hoping that someone would engage in a discussion. Sadly, as is usually the case (well described by BreakLater), whenever a topic threatens to go more in-depth than the usual listing of "I like/I don't like" opinions, it quickly plunges into discussion about the discussion, and the words people carelessly used, therefore insulting other people, who misunderstood and insulted them back, or did they?, so let's discuss it in depth.

For the record, I would also love reading more specific examples of things that authors like Salvatore and Brooks, for whom I have absolutely ZERO respect as writers, have achieved in their books. Obviously you can't provide those, having no access to the actual texts (although excerpts are spread all over the internet, no?), but honestly, the fact that you only listed some qualities was not enough to engage me in any form of dialogue, which is why I didn't respond. I'm not saying you HAD to engage me in dialogue, but it would've been more rewarding for both of us, I think, and would further the discussion greatly.

Sadly, people don't have the patience to go into detail with text examples. I don't have it either, so I understand.

 

[3rdI]

What you're trying to do is tell other people that the way that they express themselves is woefully inadequate to your superior understanding of narrative, that they are shallow escapists, and that you are putting yourself in the position of professor to help them improve their reading comprehension and expression skills. Which is not an argument that works with me at all. But you are a nice person, so I'm not going to blast you. Plus, when you told me that you were "not trying to tell you to write a ten-page essay," you made everyone who knows me burst into hysterical laughter, so that was fun.

I've worked editorially with fiction authors of all stripes for twenty years and I believe I am sufficiently able to discuss fiction as well as your average creative writing high school student. I have also waged discussions about Abercrombie's prose, Rothfuss' prose, Mieville's themes, Jordan's characterizations, etc., when it's appropriate on the forums. The topic of this thread, though, is feelings about prose versus plot in general, which I have already done, and in specific, I was responding to Roland's remarks about these three authors, whom he brought up in terms of the general topic, pointing out where I differ in impressions of their skills and approaches from his general remarks about them, which did not require a detailed analysis of any of them. I am not a particular fan of the three authors, but I do not have the same reaction to them as Roland does. As for quoting from them, since I don't have any of their books on hand, not happening. Also not needed for this particular discussion. Plus, if your big complaint about a fiction author is that he isn't using "proper grammar," I doubt we'll always agree about prose styles in any case.

I will clarify that in terms of the D&D folk and Salvatore writing for them, what I meant by "bardic" is not poetic. I meant that it is written in styles in an epic legend, blood and thunder sort of way -- long ago and far away, there lived a king with a mighty sword, etc. It's not a subtle, post-modern approach, nor was that what they needed for the tie-in novels. Salvatore's non-tie-in work tends to be less in that direction, more straight contemporary, while not abandoning it entirely.

And that's all you get.

Epic.

I love it. When are people going to realize you simply cannot beat Kat in a literary debate. You don't have to agree with her but bottom line she can articulate a point better than anyone here. Kat is the Michael Jordan of SFFWORLD.

 

[owlcroft]

My goodness, this thread flies along.

I don't know about you but I would qualify the above like this: "... a writer whose plots, characters and setting *seem* clever, interesting, satisfactory - when you read *about* them, outside the book. But not when you experience them in the book itself."

I understand what you are saying, but am not sure I agree wholly. I won't mention names, but I have in mind a particular author whose first trilogy I got half-way through before the pain became unbearable. I really wanted to know more about the characters, and about the world, and about how it would all work out--all of which had interest--but eventually the pain of the prose just did me in.

I am minded of a performance I once sat through of an amateur orchestra doing Dvorak's 9th; that is one of my very favorite works, but the ensemble was so ghastly awful--I mean wrong, off-key notes all over, not just subtleties of phrasing--that only a rigid commitment to politeness kept me in my seat. The underlying work was wonderful, but the expression of it was hideous. That is the sort of thing I mean. Had the author I refer to had a collaborator whose whole role was simply to express the tale as first written in better prose, the thing might have been a success. But the performance of the work was, um, need yet another synonym for "ghastly".

 

[Trip]

Yeah. Epic. And stuff.

@ Owlcroft: Yes, that's basically what I meant too

 

[owlcroft]

Late-night thoughts . . . .

I'm not sure I'm following all this closely enough, and certainly not in real time, but I reckon Roland's most recent post here is probably quite correct.

More generally: These sorts of discussions become very, very difficult, because deep beneath can be heard the mournful and plangent chime of inevitability, and--to mix the metaphor--of the beast whose name none dare say (though I will: the Dunning-Kruger Effect). Anyone who has it in the back of his or her mind (whether by that name or by the general idea) has to dance like a dried pea in a hot skillet to avoid even hinting at it, lest the wrath of the mods descend as the waters of Niagara; yet it is often difficult to frame certain discussions absent a consideration of it.

We live in a time and clime wherein the motif that all are equal has been, presumably as hypercorrection of times past, pushed well beyond the (justified) points of moral and legal equity--some would say, of sanity. That Jared Lee Loughner has as much right to a trial by a jury of his peers as would you or I does not mean that his g factor is necessarily equal to yours or mine. But that latter sort of assumption is inherent in almost all discussions where matters of "taste" and "subjective qualities" arise.

I've gotten a bit off the track here, and I'm certainly not addressing any particular person or set of comments, but we do seem to have these sorts of non-discussions over and over, wherein people say things along the lines of "Salvatore, Shakespeare, I like one, you like the other, who's to say which is better?" How does one respond to that sort of thing without making Miss Manners very cross? I certainly have never found a way. . . .

 

[thirstyVan]

I'm not sure I'm following all this closely enough, and certainly not in real time, but I reckon Roland's most recent post here is probably quite correct.

More generally: These sorts of discussions become very, very difficult, because deep beneath can be heard the mournful and plangent chime of inevitability, and--to mix the metaphor--of the beast whose name none dare say (though I will: the Dunning-Kruger Effect). Anyone who has it in the back of his or her mind (whether by that name or by the general idea) has to dance like a dried pea in a hot skillet to avoid even hinting at it, lest the wrath of the mods descend as the waters of Niagara; yet it is often difficult to frame certain discussions absent a consideration of it.

We live in a time and clime wherein the motif that all are equal has been, presumably as hypercorrection of times past, pushed well beyond the (justified) points of moral and legal equity--some would say, of sanity. That Jared Lee Loughner has as much right to a trial by a jury of his peers as would you or I does not mean that his g factor is necessarily equal to yours or mine. But that latter sort of assumption is inherent in almost all discussions where matters of "taste" and "subjective qualities" arise.

I've gotten a bit off the track here, and I'm certainly not addressing any particular person or set of comments, but we do seem to have these sorts of non-discussions over and over, wherein people say things along the lines of "Salvatore, Shakespeare, I like one, you like the other, who's to say which is better?" How does one respond to that sort of thing without making Miss Manners very cross? I certainly have never found a way. . . .

You are making this page way too smart. Knock it off.

GOODKIND CHARACTERS STUPID AND LAME. STORY BORE ME. NO ENOUGH PICTURES.

 

[Sfinx]

[...] More generally: These sorts of discussions become very, very difficult, because deep beneath can be heard the mournful and plangent chime of inevitability, and--to mix the metaphor--of the beast whose name none dare say (though I will: the Dunning-Kruger Effect). Anyone who has it in the back of his or her mind (whether by that name or by the general idea) has to dance like a dried pea in a hot skillet to avoid even hinting at it, lest the wrath of the mods descend as the waters of Niagara; yet it is often difficult to frame certain discussions absent a consideration of it.

made my day. Thanks Owl.

You are making this page way too smart. Knock it off.

GOODKIND CHARACTERS STUPID AND LAME. STORY BORE ME. NO ENOUGH PICTURES.

Also did

I'd say a sense of humor and the ability for self reflection (and therefore doubt) are very highly correlated...

Cheers,

Sfinx.

 

[3rdI]

I'm not sure I'm following all this closely enough, and certainly not in real time, but I reckon Roland's most recent post here is probably quite correct.

More generally: These sorts of discussions become very, very difficult, because deep beneath can be heard the mournful and plangent chime of inevitability, and--to mix the metaphor--of the beast whose name none dare say (though I will: the Dunning-Kruger Effect). Anyone who has it in the back of his or her mind (whether by that name or by the general idea) has to dance like a dried pea in a hot skillet to avoid even hinting at it, lest the wrath of the mods descend as the waters of Niagara; yet it is often difficult to frame certain discussions absent a consideration of it.

We live in a time and clime wherein the motif that all are equal has been, presumably as hypercorrection of times past, pushed well beyond the (justified) points of moral and legal equity--some would say, of sanity. That Jared Lee Loughner has as much right to a trial by a jury of his peers as would you or I does not mean that his g factor is necessarily equal to yours or mine. But that latter sort of assumption is inherent in almost all discussions where matters of "taste" and "subjective qualities" arise.

I've gotten a bit off the track here, and I'm certainly not addressing any particular person or set of comments, but we do seem to have these sorts of non-discussions over and over, wherein people say things along the lines of "Salvatore, Shakespeare, I like one, you like the other, who's to say which is better?" How does one respond to that sort of thing without making Miss Manners very cross? I certainly have never found a way. . . .

Was all this necessary? Couldn't this have been achieved just as easily with something like..."In my opinion qualitative debates are frowned upon"?

Which of course is not true there have been numerous debates of such nature.

This has a particular odd scent of "I have read more classic Fantasy therefore my opinion is not opinion rather fact and all my interpretations are not interpretations but literal descriptions therefore everything I say is valid and any opinions rendered outside of my own are deemed lowly, invalid, and insufficient."

Or something like that. I do have a sensitive nose.

 

[Roland 85]

You know, it annoys me that whenever a topic becomes more complicated, you appear and start accusing people of being presumptuous. It's... well, presumptuous. If you only like non-argumentative topics, by all means, stick to those. There' way more of them in any given forum anyway, than there are meaningful debates.

And really, what's wrong about knowing more than somebody else? I certainly don't know a tenth of what Kat knows about the SFF market and its workings. She is an expert in my eyes - an authority whose opinions are fact until proven otherwise. Should I claim that what I say about the way publishing works is just as valid as what she says? That would be wildly presumptuous of me, no?

 

[3rdI]

You know, it annoys me that whenever a topic becomes more complicated, you appear and start accusing people of being presumptuous. It's... well, presumptuous. If you only like non-argumentative topics, by all means, stick to those. There' way more of them in any given forum anyway, than there are meaningful debates.

And really, what's wrong about knowing more than somebody else? I certainly don't know a tenth of what Kat knows about the SFF market and its workings. She is an expert in my eyes - an authority whose opinions are fact until proven otherwise. Should I claim that what I say about the way publishing works is just as valid as what she says? That would be wildly presumptuous of me, no?

I would apologize but I do not want you to mistake me for someone that actually cares about whether or not you are annoyed.

I call it like I see it. Arrogance is arrogance. Bulls**t is Bulls**t.

And your Kat argument isn't doing much to further your position. You are screaming for debate yet you already surrender your opinions on the publishing industry because Kat knows more about it?

That seems a bit oxymoronicallicoool....yeah....

 

[KatG]

No offense, but that was uncharacteristically imperceptive of you, Kat. It is fairly obvious to me that Trip just hopes for a more in-depth discussion than the one that's been happening, and is explaining his reasons for it. Also, judging by what I've read so far, he has superior understanding of narrative compared to the average reader. Also, many people (including some in this forum (which is perfectly normal), though not necessarily in this particular topic) who read speculative fiction, are shallow escapists. In fact, most people in general are shallow in one extent or another, including me and you.

That said, I never got even the slightest feeling that Trip was trying to put himself above anyone. If anything, he's been reaching out desperately, hoping that someone would engage in a discussion. Sadly, as is usually the case (well described by BreakLater), whenever a topic threatens to go more in-depth than the usual listing of "I like/I don't like" opinions, it quickly plunges into discussion about the discussion, and the words people carelessly used, therefore insulting other people, who misunderstood and insulted them back, or did they?, so let's discuss it in depth.

For the record, I would also love reading more specific examples of things that authors like Salvatore and Brooks, for whom I have absolutely ZERO respect as writers, have achieved in their books. Obviously you can't provide those, having no access to the actual texts (although excerpts are spread all over the internet, no?), but honestly, the fact that you only listed some qualities was not enough to engage me in any form of dialogue, which is why I didn't respond. I'm not saying you HAD to engage me in dialogue, but it would've been more rewarding for both of us, I think, and would further the discussion greatly.

Sadly, people don't have the patience to go into detail with text examples. I don't have it either, so I understand.

Okay:

1) You didn't go into detail either, and you brought the authors up in the first place. What you said is, I don't like them because I think their prose is bad, but other people are stupid and like them. I was explaining some of the reasons I found some value in their work and felt what you were claiming about them was a rather simplistic reading of their texts. So I'm amused that you are complaining that I lack depth.

2) The OP asked the question what do you like/don't like on this topic, so complaining that people are doing what was asked seems rather pointless to me. If you don't like this particular topic, start a new thread with whatever topic you would like to discuss.

3) Do you seriously think encouraging me to write even longer posts is a good idea? I was kind of proud that I got that post down to a few paragraphs.

4) If you are going to call me a shallow escapist who can't understand narrative texts as well as you can, don't expect me to engage in a deep discussion with you about whatever the topic is. If I did, you wouldn't like it very much. I regard your, Trip and owlcroft's puffing in the same way that I do the people who say I am a shallow escapist who can't understand narrative texts because I read science fiction and fantasy or because I am a woman or whatever bastion of inferiority they are trying to categorize me in because they think that's winning a discussion -- I ignore it. (Again, that doesn't mean that I don't think Trip or you are nice people.)

5) People like to talk on these message boards, but they don't always have a lot of time. They certainly don't always have time to go researching around the Internet for affadavits and bonafides and excerpts. So they say what they manage to say. Asking them to write doctoral dissertations to prove that they are worthy of talking to you on the topic intimidates other members from attempting to talk here, so I would appreciate it if you, Trip and owlcroft would cut it out, as it is bordering on personal insults. And purely concerning myself, if people give up trying to talk with me and my long posts, I don't blame them a bit, nor again do I feel any requirement to comply with Trip's request in this thread.

6) Since you don't like that threads devolve from the topic into a discussion of how people post, how about you drop the the topic of how people post and get back to the topic of the thread? Or start a new one about Salvatore or whatever you want to talk about. We'll try our best to participate, inadequate though it may be.

Update: 3rdI, please stand down and get back on topic.

 

[Roland 85]

1) You didn't go into detail either, and you brought the authors up in the first place. What you said is, I don't like them because I think their prose is bad, but other people are stupid and like them. I was explaining some of the reasons I found some value in their work and felt what you were claiming about them was a rather simplistic reading of their texts. So I'm amused that you are complaining that I lack depth.

See, that's the dynamic, sadly - someone posts something simple, you reply with something longer, then if they're on the level they will reply with something equally long, and discussion occurs. I was the first there, so I was entitled to post the simple post! I am kidding of course, but it kinda is the way discussions progress in my experience. A discussion very rarely stems from a complex and long post.

I never said that only stupid people like Salvatore and Brooks. Of course, many of the people who like Salvatore and Brooks are stupid. I suspect we can find stupid people even among John Crowley's readers. Whatever "stupid" means, really... However, I did NOT said anything of the sort, so I'll be thankful if you do not put words in my mouth. Having a simplistic concept of what reading is and what you want from it does not make you stupid. It only means you scratch the surface of something vastly deeper.

2) The OP asked the question what do you like/don't like on this topic, so complaining that people are doing what was asked seems rather pointless to me. If you don't like this particular topic, start a new thread with whatever topic you would like to discuss.

No need to get all moderatory about it. See what I wrote about discussions' evolution. It is absolutely natural for a topic to evolve beyond its initial boundaries. What I don't think is natural, is for people to begrudge this to others and to insist that the topic should remain in its proto form.

3) Do you seriously think encouraging me to write even longer posts is a good idea? I was kind of proud that I got that post down to a few paragraphs.

It's not about the size, Kat Oh damn, I can't say that with a straight face...

4) If you are going to call me a shallow escapist who can't understand narrative texts as well as you can, don't expect me to engage in a deep discussion with you about whatever the topic is. If I did, you wouldn't like it very much. I regard your, Trip and owlcroft's puffing in the same way that I do the people who say I am a shallow escapist who can't understand narrative texts because I read science fiction and fantasy or because I am a woman or whatever bastion of inferiority they are trying to categorize me in because they think that's winning a discussion -- I ignore it. (Again, that doesn't mean that I don't think Trip or you are nice people.)

See, this is where your horse got a bit too high for me, and I'm straining my neck talking to you. Whatever, pray, made you assume that I think you're a shallow escapist who can't understand narrative text as well as me of all people? For that matter, whatever made you assume Trip thinks it? I am sorry, Kat, but if you are going to just throw around accusations like that, I would insist on a quote from a post of mine or Trip's. You don't owe it to us, but it's the decent thing to do.

Nobody's looking down on you. If anything, you should have noticed by now, that I have great respect for you and the knowledge you have. I do not praise people on their posts often, and I do it consistently with you. So please, do get off that saddle, and let's talk like equals, if we are to talk at all. Do not put crimes at my feet just so you can dismiss me, because honestly, right now it seems like very much the case. Engage in dialogue, give examples or don't. It's not terribly important to me, as you might guess, but at least don't try to make me feel guilty about it, ok? Also - "puffing" - not a cool word

5) People like to talk on these message boards, but they don't always have a lot of time. They certainly don't always have time to go researching around the Internet for affadavits and bonafides and excerpts. So they say what they manage to say. Asking them to write doctoral dissertations to prove that they are worthy of talking to you on the topic intimidates other members from attempting to talk here, so I would appreciate it if you, Trip and owlcroft would cut it out, as it is bordering on personal insults. And purely concerning myself, if people give up trying to talk with me and my long posts, I don't blame them a bit, nor again do I feel any requirement to comply with Trip's request in this thread.

Nobody's asking anybody for anything. I am perfectly aware that people often lack the time/passion/desire to engage in more complex argument. Hell, most of the time I am like that too. For some reason though, people feel personally insulted when someone is trying to go into more detail. 3rdI pops up from somewhere to accuse us of delusions of absolutism or something like that, as if engaging in an actual discussion is somehow wrong and hurtful to a... uh... discussion. Also, do I really need to point out that there is middle ground between "Plot, definitely plot" and "doctoral dissertations"?

6) Since you don't like that threads devolve from the topic into a discussion of how people post, how about you drop the the topic of how people post and get back to the topic of the thread? Or start a new one about Salvatore or whatever you want to talk about. We'll try our best to participate, inadequate though it may be.

What's inadequate right now, is your sarcasm, since it's being completely unprovoked. You have received nothing but respect and politeness from me, yet what I get in return are assumptions and sarcastic moderator remarks. And as you must be well aware, it's not about any particular topic, it's about the attitude of the people posting in it.

I call it like I see it. Arrogance is arrogance. Bulls**t is Bulls**t.

And your Kat argument isn't doing much to further your position. You are screaming for debate yet you already surrender your opinions on the publishing industry because Kat knows more about it?

That seems a bit oxymoronicallicoool....yeah....

Yes, arrogance is arrogance. I fully agree...

As for the Kat argument, it furthers nothing, and it isn't meant to. I am "screaming" (I loled at that) for debate about topics I have actual knowledge of. When I lack it, that's usually due to lack of big enough interest in them. I do not surrender my opinions, I just accept Kat's, because she seems knowledgeable. I will doubt what she says the second I find reason to, but I find doubting for the sake of doubting to be a sign of juvenile lack of self-esteem ^_^ Make of this what you will.


Whatever.

I prefer prose! It's cooler than plot!

 

[Trip]

Since I don't wish to write anything more here, I'll try and quote myself. Apparently every new word I add to my attempt at communication makes things worse; I hope some old ones don't. There's other stuff that I would have liked to quote, if it weren't for my lack of motivation right now.

But threads such as this one make me seriously doubt if I've learned the English language right at school. Maybe there's something to the people who were born with it that I lack, I don't know. Whatever.

When I talked about the "it sucked/it was boring" blueprint (or storyboard, as Roland called it) school of thought in fantasy, I wasn't talking about people here in this thread; I was defending my observation that lots of fantasy readers *do* read like that. And of course it's my own experience, I said that in my reply to Jon Strunk.

And in that relation, Kat - that's what I meant when I said fantasy readers tend to treat fantasy as escapism. I can't count the times I've had to deal with or read about "Who's gonna win in a single combat?"-type of questions. Also, treating characters as your best friends, or your annoying little brat-sister, or in any way like people you can meet on the street IS a form of escapism. To me. It's a much healthier form of escapism than running around with a cape and a magic stick, or spending eight hours a day writing fan-fiction with you as the protagonist and Cersei as your step-MILF (or Tyrion as your sly little love-gnome), but it's still a form of escapism. And yes, sure I've done it. Sure I still do. But I keep it to myself and don't let this into my aesthetic impression of a book.


(That last one is a sort of emotional/intellectual response (not necessarily coherent) that, in order to effect, you need to go beyond personal likes/dislikes for character, plot and setting.)

Reading the text as a blueprint can be liberating, but it curtails exactly the force of that aesthetic impression. "Who are you to point out the lack of homoerotic tension between Eddard and Jaime?! It's there! Screw you! Who are you to talk about Brienne and the interesting deconstructionationism or whatever of female fighting characters ? She's an ugly boring b**ch!"

Valid opinions all. We all choose what to take in and what to ignore when we read. Most people read only for entertainment. I read Sanderson's books for entertainment. They are terrific entertainment. But the way he structures his narrative (all these pseudo-ScottCardian introspective analyses) and the way he sometimes writes a sentence could have made me put the books down if I hadn't chosen to just not pay attention to some of these.

Still, I just feel that this kind of snipping away of potential meaning impoverishes greatly both reading and discussions about stuff we read. Not to mention I'm strongly opposed to the inattentiveness to language that the blueprint approach engenders - not only to language in literature, but to language in general.

And in *that* respect, concerning your examples - I wouldn't call Salvatore's language bardic. I wouldn't deign to call him even a workhouse writer. In that example I gave earlier in the thread there is an obvious grammatical error in the first paragraph of his book. I mean, I wouldn't compromise so much as to turn a blind eye to that. (It's a regular feature of his books.) Some would. Some would just skip/skim the text, gleaning the main landmarks of the story along the way. God knows I did when I had to review a couple of his books. But then I *had* to review them.

Also, I would certainly *like it* (I don't *want* anything from you or anyone else, I like to think I'm not that presumptuous ) if instead of saying "Feist has tried some really interesting things" or "Salvatore can do comic and he can do dark", or "I think these and these books by Brooks are really well-written", you would give an example of the interesting things Feist has done, or Salvatore's skills with different tones (I remember some of his "comedy" - in one book Drizzt and the gang had a great laugh, cause Bruenor couldn't get his axe out of the mangled body of a goblin, as if it were a tree stump. Tasteful.), or some arguments why you think Brooks' prose is good in this or that particular instance.

I'm not saying you should write a 10-page essay on any of these subjects, I would just like it if you gave us a taste of your direct readerly impressions, unfiltered through generalizations such as "well-written" or "an interesting, fun character"; imagine being in a creative writing class and you're scribbling notes in the margins of a fellow-writer's text. If Sturgeon had been my writing buddy (hm, maybe I'm kind of presumptuous sometimes ) at the end of his first two paragraphs I would have written: (great colors, the bronze, the red-gold, the leather-color, the pears, the gold leaf; all fits; great contrast with the girl feeling she doesn't fit). Or something like that.

...

What I'm trying to do, when I talk about something I've read, is not simply state how this or that struck me, but describe something of the process by which it struck me. For a review or an opinion on a message board, one obviously has to pick and choose which impressions to describe in more detail, but still, even a little goes a long way, with me at least.