{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4647", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 4647, "subject": "SRD on obscurity", "messages": 35, "voices": 13, "first": "2006-06-09T21:36:02+00:00", "last": "2006-06-17T02:54:26+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<1f7617370606091436r75c733f3x7de5dcd18332ae51@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-06-09T21:36:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No ... I don't mean Samuel R. Delany, but a writer many on\nthis list probably disdain, Stephen R. Donaldson. He said,\nabout a year ago, something that resonates for me with\nsome things Wolfe has said about some of the \"puzzles\" in\nhis work -- specifically, his attitude that the \"answers\"\nshould be obvious:\n\n\"As a narrative artist, I face an incessant dilemma which\n(I believe) plagues all artists in one form or another: I\nsuffer from a natural and understandable (and perhaps\ninevitable) impulse to *leave out* anything that seems\nperfectly obvious to me. At the same time, I expound\nendlessly on anything that I find obscure or difficult. But\nguess what? The things that are obvious to me are\nseldom obvious to the reader. At the same time, readers\nare quicker on the up-take than I am (because they read\nso much more quickly than I write).\"\n\nFor what that's worth." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"One o'th'flay-rods gone out o'skew on th'treadle.\"" } ] }, { "message_id": "<200606091843.57324.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "from": { "name": "Daniel D Jones", "address": "ddjones at riddlemaster.org" }, "date": "2006-06-09T22:43:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370606091436r75c733f3x7de5dcd18332ae51@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Friday 09 June 2006 17:36, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nNo ... I don't mean Samuel R. Delany, but a writer many on\nthis list probably disdain, Stephen R. Donaldson. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Why would you assume that many here disdain him?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<2124d6b10606091550o23494b48v2bd179ee8603ffcb@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "pthwndxrclzp", "address": "aquastor at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-06-09T22:50:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<200606091843.57324.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Probably because he's the most egregiously untalented fantasy hack ever to\n(unaccountably) get published?\n\n(Sales figures are irrelevant; fer gosh sakes, Howard Stern's books sell\nmultiple millions of copies....)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 6/9/06, Daniel D Jones wrote:\n\nOn Friday 09 June 2006 17:36, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "No ... I don't mean Samuel R. Delany, but a writer many on\nthis list probably disdain, Stephen R. Donaldson." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Why would you assume that many here disdain him?\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370606091552g4c40f201ra3ad8f22f2673500@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-06-09T22:52:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<200606091843.57324.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 6/9/06, Daniel D Jones wrote:\nNo ... I don't mean Samuel R. Delany, but a writer many on\nthis list probably disdain, Stephen R. Donaldson." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Why would you assume that many here disdain him?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Experience.\n\nI'd better explain that. I don't mean that this is a particularly\ndisdainful group of readers/fans. But Donaldson has come\nin for a great deal of disdain over the years, partially of the\n\"Covenant is a horrible character\" variety -- which I don't\nsuppose would particularly faze Wolfe's readers! -- but\nalso of Donaldson's _prose_, which is a lot harder to defend.\n\nDonaldson is a very conscious stylist, who deliberately\nchose a very unpleasant and (frankly) offputting style for the\nCovenant books. I don't mean his use of \"big woids,\" which,\nagain, ought not to bother Lupines, but the thudding rhythms,\nespecially of the first trilogy. Until I read some non-Covenant\nwork of his, I thought of him as \"a conscioius, and\nconscientious, stylist with a tin ear.\" (In fact, even the new\nCovenant book is much better-written than the old books:\nit's the same basic style, but handled much more deftly.\nDonaldson has become a much better writer.)\n\nAt any rate, you have but to mention his name in most\nfannish contexts to get people urgghing, which I think a\npity: he brought something desparately needed to the\nfantasy market.\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"One o'th'flay-rods gone out o'skew on th'treadle.\"" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370606091553h73401e69q971ec7477d1dd071@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-06-09T22:53:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<2124d6b10606091550o23494b48v2bd179ee8603ffcb@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Case in point..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 6/9/06, pthwndxrclzp wrote:\nProbably because he's the most egregiously untalented fantasy hack ever to\n(unaccountably) get published?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If you really think that, then you should go enjoy some nice Terry\nBrooks and Dennis McKiernan books, and leave the adults alone." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"One o'th'flay-rods gone out o'skew on th'treadle.\"" } ] }, { "message_id": "<2124d6b10606091604v41715c11ja5d72603001b7e4e@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "pthwndxrclzp", "address": "aquastor at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-06-09T23:04:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370606091553h73401e69q971ec7477d1dd071@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ah, so let me get this straight. Anyone who disagrees with your opinions on\nliterary quality is a child? Fascinatingly mature viewpoint ya got there.\n\nDonaldson's early prose is mind-numbingly unreadable. Your mileage may well\nvary, Grandpa.\n\nAs for able fantasy stylists, I prefer the work of folks like Gene Wolfe,\nC.S. Friedman, Mervyn Peake, John Myers Myers, Jennifer Stevenson, John C.\nWright, Lois McMaster Bujold, even George R.R. Martin. But Donaldson? Pfah.\nLife's far too short.\n\nBut then, you probably like *Tolkien*.... " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 6/9/06, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n\nCase in point...\n\nOn 6/9/06, pthwndxrclzp wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Probably because he's the most egregiously untalented fantasy hack ever\nto\n(unaccountably) get published?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If you really think that, then you should go enjoy some nice Terry\nBrooks and Dennis McKiernan books, and leave the adults alone.\n\n--\nDan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"One o'th'flay-rods gone out o'skew on th'treadle.\"\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1369962.1149894602420.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net>", "from": { "name": "Robert Davies", "address": "robertedavies at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2006-06-09T23:10:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<2124d6b10606091604v41715c11ja5d72603001b7e4e@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I haven't read them in years, but I've always liked the Covenant books. There are plenty of other fantasy author to slag if you must." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370606091802p5c4623d5vf9785f8ac489f8ac@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-06-10T01:02:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<2124d6b10606091604v41715c11ja5d72603001b7e4e@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 6/9/06, pthwndxrclzp wrote:\nAh, so let me get this straight. Anyone who disagrees\n with your opinions on literary quality is a child?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No; but I do think that anyone who confuses \"writer I\ndon't like\" with \"egregiously untalented,\" or confuses\ntheir personal opinions with facts (\"Donaldson's early\nprose is mind-numbingly unreadable\" as opposed to\n\"I find Donaldson's early prose mind-numbingly unreadable\")\nhas a bit of semantic maturing to do.\n\nNonetheless, I should not have written my previous\ncomment in such a blatantly insulting manner, and I\napologize for that." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Your mileage may well vary, Grandpa." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "My mileage usually varies; I drive many different roads.\nAnd, while I could in theory be a grandfather (my\nelder child will be 24 this year), I'm not." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As for able fantasy stylists, I prefer the work of folks like\nGene Wolfe, C.S. Friedman, Mervyn Peake, John Myers\nMyers, Jennifer Stevenson, John C. Wright, Lois McMaster\nBujold, even George R.R. Martin." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I was with you part of the way -- of those in this list I've\nread, I find them better stylists than the early Donaldson\n(though even there, if you check out his non-Covenant\nshort stories, collected in _Daughter of Regals_, you\nmay be in for a bit of a shock). B ut when you get to\nLois McMaster Bujold ... I have never successfully read\na single book of hers, and I've tried several. This is my\nproblem; I know she's a well-respected writer, and I\nknow better than to confuse \"bad writer\" with \"writer I\ndon't like.\"\n\nBut then, so is Donaldson a well-respected writer,\nexcept among people who apparently can't make\nthat not-terribly-complex distinction." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But then, you probably like *Tolkien*.... " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Indeed I do; and Lewis and Williams -- but for very\ndifferent reasons (and only one of them as a stylist)." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"One o'th'flay-rods gone out o'skew on th'treadle.\"" } ] }, { "message_id": "<2124d6b10606091835id615b80oed16f731fb92d6be@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "pthwndxrclzp", "address": "aquastor at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-06-10T01:35:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370606091802p5c4623d5vf9785f8ac489f8ac@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "My assessment had very little to do with my liking or disliking the\nmaterial. Whether you agree or not, I find his prose puerile, sloppy, and\noverwritten. You needn't agree, but getting so bent over the absence of an\n\"I think\" statement (which is actually implicit in almost anything anyone\nwrites, neurolinguistically speaking) seems equally childish to me.\n\nAs for the measure of Donaldson's respect as a writer, we'll just have to\nagree to disagree. I'm sure you know lots of folks who think he's terrific,\njust as all the readers I know find him an embarrassment to the genre.\n\nAnd while I couldn't disagree more with your lack of appreciation for\nBujold, I certainly respect your right to the opinion.\n\nI am curious about something. Is it your opinion that there exist no \"bad\nwriters,\" only writers about whose work opinions vary? Or just that yes,\nthere are indeed bad writers, Donaldson (in your opinion) just not being one\nof them? 'Cause it is starting to seem like you are holding the view that\nthere *are* no bad writers, just readers with insufficient appreciation, or\nsomething of that ilk....\n\nI stand by what I originally wrote, or certainly intended to write: *I*\nTHINK that Donaldson's \"Lord Foul's Bane\" is a literary embarrassment.\nWhile he may well have improved his skills thereafter, IN MY OPINION his\noffenses were sufficient to guarantee that I would never waste my time with\nhis work. Might well be my loss. And I'll add that I've never gotten to that\npoint with any other writer in over 40 years of reading. I mean, I loathed\nLOTR, but I did make my way through the whole thing. (I like the Hobbit,\nthough; go figure). FWIW." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 6/9/06, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n\nOn 6/9/06, pthwndxrclzp wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Ah, so let me get this straight. Anyone who disagrees\n with your opinions on literary quality is a child?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "No; but I do think that anyone who confuses \"writer I\ndon't like\" with \"egregiously untalented,\" or confuses\ntheir personal opinions with facts (\"Donaldson's early\nprose is mind-numbingly unreadable\" as opposed to\n\"I find Donaldson's early prose mind-numbingly unreadable\")\nhas a bit of semantic maturing to do.\n\nNonetheless, I should not have written my previous\ncomment in such a blatantly insulting manner, and I\napologize for that." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Your mileage may well vary, Grandpa." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "My mileage usually varies; I drive many different roads.\nAnd, while I could in theory be a grandfather (my\nelder child will be 24 this year), I'm not." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "As for able fantasy stylists, I prefer the work of folks like\nGene Wolfe, C.S. Friedman, Mervyn Peake, John Myers\nMyers, Jennifer Stevenson, John C. Wright, Lois McMaster\nBujold, even George R.R. Martin." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I was with you part of the way -- of those in this list I've\nread, I find them better stylists than the early Donaldson\n(though even there, if you check out his non-Covenant\nshort stories, collected in _Daughter of Regals_, you\nmay be in for a bit of a shock). B ut when you get to\nLois McMaster Bujold ... I have never successfully read\na single book of hers, and I've tried several. This is my\nproblem; I know she's a well-respected writer, and I\nknow better than to confuse \"bad writer\" with \"writer I\ndon't like.\"\n\nBut then, so is Donaldson a well-respected writer,\nexcept among people who apparently can't make\nthat not-terribly-complex distinction." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But then, you probably like *Tolkien*.... " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Indeed I do; and Lewis and Williams -- but for very\ndifferent reasons (and only one of them as a stylist).\n\n--\nDan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"One o'th'flay-rods gone out o'skew on th'treadle.\"\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<2124d6b10606091848k6b17a758rfae7cd138f8b31eb@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "pthwndxrclzp", "address": "aquastor at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-06-10T01:48:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370606091802p5c4623d5vf9785f8ac489f8ac@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sorry, I left off what is probably the most important part of what I wanted\nto say.\n\nThanks, Dan'l, for your words of apology, which were greatly appreciated.\nFor my part, I certainly didn't need to nastily hurl out my opinions like\nbuckshot for what was I'm sure at least in part my own gratification as much\nas for any group edification. My apologies right back at you." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 6/9/06, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n\nOn 6/9/06, pthwndxrclzp wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Ah, so let me get this straight. Anyone who disagrees\n with your opinions on literary quality is a child?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "No; but I do think that anyone who confuses \"writer I\ndon't like\" with \"egregiously untalented,\" or confuses\ntheir personal opinions with facts (\"Donaldson's early\nprose is mind-numbingly unreadable\" as opposed to\n\"I find Donaldson's early prose mind-numbingly unreadable\")\nhas a bit of semantic maturing to do.\n\nNonetheless, I should not have written my previous\ncomment in such a blatantly insulting manner, and I\napologize for that." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370606092357j2ecf8c1dhadfb7fa032aed140@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-06-10T06:57:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<2124d6b10606091835id615b80oed16f731fb92d6be@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 6/9/06, pthwndxrclzp wrote:\nMy assessment had very little to do with my liking or disliking the\nmaterial. Whether you agree or not, I find his prose puerile, sloppy, and\noverwritten. You needn't agree, but getting so bent over the absence of an\n\"I think\" statement (which is actually implicit in almost anything anyone\nwrites, neurolinguistically speaking) seems equally childish to me." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It seems to me (which I like to use instead of \"I think\" or \"in my\nopinion\") that, while the \"I think\" statement is _factually_ implicit\nin any utterance, failure to _explicitly_ mark opinions as over against\nfacts frequently denotes an inability to distinguish the two; the real\ntest, of course, is how \"emotionally\" people defend their opinions\nagainst perceived attacks." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As for the measure of Donaldson's respect as a writer, we'll just have to\nagree to disagree. I'm sure you know lots of folks who think he's terrific,\njust as all the readers I know find him an embarrassment to the genre." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"All?\" Mighty big statement." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And while I couldn't disagree more with your lack of appreciation for\nBujold, I certainly respect your right to the opinion." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I didn't state an opinion on Bujold. I don't _have_ one; I have not\ngot the qualifications for one, which would involve finishing at least\none book. I stated the mere fact that I can't read her, carefully making\nclear that I don't necessarily think the fault lies with her." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I am curious about something. Is it your opinion that there exist no \"bad\nwriters,\" only writers about whose work opinions vary? Or just that yes,\nthere are indeed bad writers, Donaldson (in your opinion) just not being one\nof them?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Oh, no. There are very definitely bad writers. Piers Anthony, post\n1976. Anne McCaffrey, post-about-1970. Ed Earl Repp, ever.\nJohn Saul. But if enough people I respect respect a writer that I\nsee no value in, I make the leap of faith that there's something in\nthat writer's work that I'm simply not equipped to see." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "'Cause it is starting to seem like you are holding the view that\nthere *are* no bad writers, just readers with insufficient appreciation, or\nsomething of that ilk...." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Rather, we all have blind spots." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I stand by what I originally wrote, or certainly intended to write: *I*\nTHINK that Donaldson's \"Lord Foul's Bane\" is a literary embarrassment." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think you're missing some valuable material, even in LFB. His style\nthere is decidedly not up to snuff, but he was doing something, and\nsomething valuable, that nobody had ever done in fantasy before." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"One o'th'flay-rods gone out o'skew on th'treadle.\"" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2006-06-10T07:05:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370606091552g4c40f201ra3ad8f22f2673500@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes writes: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At any rate, you have but to mention his name in most\nfannish contexts to get people urgghing, which I think a\npity: " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nGoogle \"clench racing Donaldson\" for an (unfair) titter at his expence " } ] }, { "message_id": "<20060610111355.78898.qmail@web35901.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "stilskin", "address": "acronus at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2006-06-10T11:13:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370606092357j2ecf8c1dhadfb7fa032aed140@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- On 6/9/06 Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:\nI think you're missing some valuable material, even\nin LFB. His style \nthere is decidedly not up to snuff, but he was doing\nsomething, and\nsomething valuable, that nobody had ever done in\nfantasy before." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Could you elaborate on what you believe he was doing,\nthat nobody had done in fantasy before?\n\nPaul\n\nhttp://www.sff.net/people/stilskin" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "David Duffy", "address": "david.duffy at qimr.edu.au" }, "date": "2006-06-10T11:36:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<200606091843.57324.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Daniel D Jones wrote:\nOn Friday 09 June 2006 17:36, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "No ... I don't mean Samuel R. Delany, but a writer many on\nthis list probably disdain, Stephen R. Donaldson." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Why would you assume that many here disdain him?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "FWIW, does anyone else remember the back-to-back review of Donaldson and\nWolfe by either Clute or Watson or Greenland in Foundation around 1983: it\nquite favourably compared _The One Tree_ to _The Sword of the Lictor_,\n(both midway through the series at that time). Donaldson's style was\nbecoming less grating to the reviewer. Unfortunately I didn't subscribe\nat that time, and can find no on-line contents list going back that far.\n\nThe review actually led me to bother reading the second Donaldson series,\nnot being greatly impressed by the first. Anyway, I don't *have* to\nreread Donaldson, but I do have to read each Wolfe through a few times\n(much better value for money;)).\n\nOther quotable Wolfe:\n\n\"But I wanted to be a particular person again, and so I sought the mirror\nof other persons, which would show me that I was not as they were.\"\n\n\"Thus by the paradoxical nature of knowledge, it is seen that though the\nexistence of the Ylem, the primridal source of all things, may be doubted,\nyet the existence of his servants may not be doubted.\"\n\n\"...it represents for me all that monomaniacal fabric of argument, so\ntightly woven that not even the tiniest objection or spark of light can\nescape its net, in which human minds become enmeshed whenever the subject\nis one in which no appeal to fact is possible.\"\n\n\nDavid Duffy." } ] }, { "message_id": "<200606100836.52590.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "from": { "name": "Daniel D Jones", "address": "ddjones at riddlemaster.org" }, "date": "2006-06-10T12:36:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<1369962.1149894602420.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Friday 09 June 2006 19:10, Robert Davies wrote:\nI haven't read them in years, but I've always liked the Covenant books.\nThere are plenty of other fantasy author to slag if you must." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I enjoyed the first series, but wasn't nearly as fond of the second. I don't \nthink Covenant is nearly as good as the Gap series, however. I find it \nrather humorous that Donaldson is being slammed as \"unreadable\" by Wolfe \nfans. " } ] }, { "message_id": "<200606100914.34339.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "from": { "name": "Daniel D Jones", "address": "ddjones at riddlemaster.org" }, "date": "2006-06-10T13:14:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<2124d6b10606091550o23494b48v2bd179ee8603ffcb@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Friday 09 June 2006 18:50, pthwndxrclzp wrote:\nProbably because he's the most egregiously untalented fantasy hack ever to\n(unaccountably) get published?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I fail to understand this.\n\nCertainly, I have no problem with you not liking Donaldson. The world would \nbe a boring place indeed if we all had the same tastes and opinions. But \nthis isn't a statement that his works don't appeal to you. It's an ad \nhominem attack that is clearly not factually true. (That is, however much \nyou dislike Donaldson, I find it extremely hard to believe that you think he \nhas less talent than, say, Gary Gygax.)\n\nThere are lots of writers I don't care for. I read all but the last two \nchapters of the first book of Brooks _Shanara_ series, laid it down and \nhaven't read a single word by him since. I can't stand reading Weis and \nHickman. Alan Dean Foster leaves me cold. I never cared for Philip Jose \nFarmer, although I know others who swear he's a god in human form. But I \ndon't find it necessary to despise any of these people or their writings. I \nexpress my opinion by not devoting my money and time to their efforts. I \ndon't understand why that isn't sufficient." } ] }, { "message_id": "<2124d6b10606100944y48d2377fj859c7930201999d5@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "pthwndxrclzp", "address": "aquastor at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-06-10T16:44:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<200606100914.34339.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I gather that what is giving you the most trouble with my statement is the\nword \"most,\" and I concede that I have not read every extant work of\nfantasy; thus, such that a categorical statement is inappropriate.\n\nIt's probably time to drop it, but I really am surprised at the intersection\nof Wolfe and Donaldson fandom. To my mind, it's like someone championing, I\ndunno, Cezanne and Jeff Koons in the same breath. Not that it's\nunacceptible, just seemingly unaccountable.\n\nI tried to say this earlier and may not have managed to convey what I feel.\n*I* had an extreme reaction to Donaldson's early work. I'm not even sure why\nI found it so offensive, but I did, and the opinion, admittedly founded upon\na minimum of his work, really stuck with me. And yes, the way I presented my\nopinion in here was definitely over the top, and in retrospect served no\npurpose but to let me grind away on a very old axe and to annoy most of the\naudience in here to no useful end. So I apologize to the group for letting\nmy passions get ahead of my good-citizenship. I will certainly aim at\ngreater circumspection in future when rendering off-charter literary\nevaluations.\n\nAll *that* said, I do think there's a utility in conveying extreme literary\nopinions, if only to present a more complete range of evaluation so that\npeople who haven't yet read a given author might make the best-informed\ndecision as to whether they should. Or should ahead of alternate, perhaps\nmore rewarding, writers.\n\nNevertheless, vitriol aside, there is a natural tendency to shoot for breezy\nreadibility rather than exhaustive, if more precise, prose. So I'm\ndefinitely guilty of writing \"the guy's work sucks\" instead of something\nlike, \"relative to the excellent examples of fantasy at what most readers\nwould consider the top of the genre, there are writers like, say, Stephen R.\nDonaldson, certainly not the worst of the bunch, but whose work just leaves\nme cold in such an extreme fashion that it's hard for me to refrain from\nunfairly bashing it, though of course your exegetical mileage may well\nvary.\"\n\nAgain, I'm still a bit stunned at the intersection of Wolfe/Donaldson fans.\nFor my money, Wolfe's stuff is erudite, layered, compelling, subtle, clever,\nrich, masterful. Whereas I find what little I've read of Donaldson to be\nnothing of the kind. But hey, I'm also sure I love some writers who'd\nprovoke nothing short of giggles from lots of people (and not in a good\nway).\n\nS'probably not a great place to stick a plug, but if you haven't read Sean\nMcMullen's Moonworlds stuff you are missing out on some superbly\nentertaining fantasy. And ironically, I suspect it will appeal to readers at\nboth the Donaldson and Wolfe ends of the spectrum. The Voyage of the\nShadowmoon is the single most enjoyable book I've read in the last 10 years,\nhands-down.\n\nThough your mileage may vary .\n\n-John\n\nP.S. Why isn't just avoiding a writer's books \"sufficient\"? Well, I think\n'cause sometimes you gotta let your passions fly. Makes for a more lively\ndiscussion...at least some of the time. And we are a literary discussion\nforum, after all. Or so it seems to me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 6/10/06, Daniel D Jones wrote:\n\nOn Friday 09 June 2006 18:50, pthwndxrclzp wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Probably because he's the most egregiously untalented fantasy hack ever\nto\n(unaccountably) get published?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I fail to understand this.\n\nCertainly, I have no problem with you not liking Donaldson. The world\nwould\nbe a boring place indeed if we all had the same tastes and opinions. But\nthis isn't a statement that his works don't appeal to you. It's an ad\nhominem attack that is clearly not factually true. (That is, however much\nyou dislike Donaldson, I find it extremely hard to believe that you think\nhe\nhas less talent than, say, Gary Gygax.)\n\nThere are lots of writers I don't care for. I read all but the last two\nchapters of the first book of Brooks _Shanara_ series, laid it down and\nhaven't read a single word by him since. I can't stand reading Weis and\nHickman. Alan Dean Foster leaves me cold. I never cared for Philip Jose\nFarmer, although I know others who swear he's a god in human form. But I\ndon't find it necessary to despise any of these people or their\nwritings. I\nexpress my opinion by not devoting my money and time to their efforts. I\ndon't understand why that isn't sufficient.\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-06-10T19:55:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370606091552g4c40f201ra3ad8f22f2673500@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It is not so much Covenant's horribleness that bothers me about that series, \nit's Donaldson's tendency to *wallow* in that horribleness for extended \nperiods of time.\n\nI enjoyed some things about that series. Afterward I felt pretty dirty about \nit, though. Something akin to your feelings about a bottle of cheap port \nwine the day after you've imbibed it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Experience.\n\nI'd better explain that. I don't mean that this is a particularly\ndisdainful group of readers/fans. But Donaldson has come\nin for a great deal of disdain over the years, partially of the\n\"Covenant is a horrible character\" variety -- which I don't\nsuppose would particularly faze Wolfe's readers! -- but\nalso of Donaldson's _prose_, which is a lot harder to defend.\n\nDonaldson is a very conscious stylist, who deliberately\nchose a very unpleasant and (frankly) offputting style for the\nCovenant books. I don't mean his use of \"big woids,\" which,\nagain, ought not to bother Lupines, but the thudding rhythms,\nespecially of the first trilogy. Until I read some non-Covenant\nwork of his, I thought of him as \"a conscioius, and\nconscientious, stylist with a tin ear.\" (In fact, even the new\nCovenant book is much better-written than the old books:\nit's the same basic style, but handled much more deftly.\nDonaldson has become a much better writer.)\n\nAt any rate, you have but to mention his name in most\nfannish contexts to get people urgghing, which I think a\npity: he brought something desparately needed to the\nfantasy market.\n\n--Dan'l\n\n--\nDan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"One o'th'flay-rods gone out o'skew on th'treadle.\"\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370606101405h2a4300a6m17efc4e19923e778@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-06-10T21:05:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 6/10/06, Chris wrote:\nIt is not so much Covenant's horribleness that bothers me about that series,\nit's Donaldson's tendency to *wallow* in that horribleness for extended\nperiods of time." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This provides a good jumping-off place to answer Stilskin's question,\n\"What was Donaldson doing that nobody had done before in fantasy?\"\n\n1. Disclaimer: since I haven't read every pre-Donaldson work of fantasy\nout there, I could obviously be missing something important.\n\n2. The short answer: taking a character from realistic fiction (I mean\nin the sense of Zola) and plopping him down into a fantasy world.\n\n3. The long answer is, naturally, more complex. The rest of\nthis post is a quick sketch:\n\nIt isn't that Covenant is horrible; it is that horrible things have\nhappened to Covenant, making him a particular kind of person;\nand then, in a particular situation, he does a particular and\nparticularly horrible thing, which colors his reaction to the Land\nand to himself for the rest of the book.\n\nThe Covenant books are (at one level) about the interplay of\npassion and control. What is shown in Covenant's crime is that\npassion without control is, well, horrible. What the rest of the\nseries dramatizes in a dozen ways, including Covenant's own\nprotests against the Land, is that control without passion is\nimpotent. This is the \"paradox\" at the heart of white gold: it is\nnecessary to make a decision in an utterly controlled way, and\ncarry out the decision with utter passion.\n\nThis paradox can _only_ be embodied in a character who is,\nno, not horrible, but _capable_ of horribleness: capable of\nmaking the choice to \"damn\" rather than \"save.\"\n\nPut another way: Covenant is a character who has been\ntaught, by the horrible things that happen to him, that only\nby complete and utter control can he survive. He finds\nhimself in a situation he believes to be impossible, and\n-- in a moment of lost control -- acts on pure passion, and\ncommits a crime he finds unbearable. His response is\ntwofold: first, to reject the reality of the Land (because by\ndoing so he makes his crime not real) and second, to\nimpose upon himself in the Land control even beyond\nwhat his condition required in his \"real\" world.\n\nOne result is that, in the real world, his control begins to\nslip, and he nearly dies. Another is that, in the Land, where\nhe is overcontrolled, he is impotent, incapable of wielding\nthe power that he is repeatedly demonstrated to carry.\n\nThe solution to the paradox -- control guiding passion --\nis the artist's solution; it is also the solution found at the\nsame time by Lord Mhoram, which causes him to reject\neverything the New Lords have built.\n\n4. Incidentally, one thing about Donaldson's style in\nthese books: the constant reuse of certain words (\"clench\"\nbeing the famous example) is an attempt -- which fails,\nin the first trilogy, through overuse and clumsy use --\nto create the literary equivalent of a Wagnerian\n_leitmotif_. This is one reason it would be wise to read\nat least one non-Covenant text before dismissing Donaldson\nas a terrible stylist; he doesn't do this everywhere, it's a\nspecific trick used only in the TC books." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"One o'th'flay-rods gone out o'skew on th'treadle.\"" } ] }, { "message_id": "<3778D866-307C-4046-81EA-0D2D46716D58@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Adam Thornton", "address": "adam at io.com" }, "date": "2006-06-11T00:48:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<200606100914.34339.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Jun 10, 2006, at 8:14 AM, Daniel D Jones wrote:\nCertainly, I have no problem with you not liking Donaldson. The \nworld would\nbe a boring place indeed if we all had the same tastes and \nopinions. But\nthis isn't a statement that his works don't appeal to you. It's an ad\nhominem attack that is clearly not factually true. (That is, \nhowever much\nyou dislike Donaldson, I find it extremely hard to believe that you \nthink he\nhas less talent than, say, Gary Gygax.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ooooh, now THEM'S FIGHTIN' WORDS!\n\nDid *Donaldson* ever write a Wandering Harlot Table?\n\nI *thought* not.\n\nAdam" } ] }, { "message_id": "<200606102232.22345.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "from": { "name": "Daniel D Jones", "address": "ddjones at riddlemaster.org" }, "date": "2006-06-11T02:32:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<3778D866-307C-4046-81EA-0D2D46716D58@io.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Saturday 10 June 2006 20:48, Adam Thornton wrote:\nOn Jun 10, 2006, at 8:14 AM, Daniel D Jones wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Certainly, I have no problem with you not liking Donaldson. The\nworld would\nbe a boring place indeed if we all had the same tastes and\nopinions. But\nthis isn't a statement that his works don't appeal to you. It's an ad\nhominem attack that is clearly not factually true. (That is,\nhowever much\nyou dislike Donaldson, I find it extremely hard to believe that you\nthink he\nhas less talent than, say, Gary Gygax.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ooooh, now THEM'S FIGHTIN' WORDS!\n\nDid *Donaldson* ever write a Wandering Harlot Table?\n\nI *thought* not." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I whiled away a lot of hours thanks to Gary. (For those who may not be \nfamiliar with him, he's the author/inventor of the original Dungeons and \nDragons game.) And his writing... hm, what would one call such writing? \nIt's difficult to call it non-fiction when one is describing the fighting \nability of a dragon, but its not fiction in the normal sense of telling a \nstory either. Technical fiction, perhaps? In any event, his writing skill \nin that area was fine. But if you've ever read (or tried to read) any of his \nfiction... Whew. Bad. Very bad." } ] }, { "message_id": "<200606102252.15498.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "from": { "name": "Daniel D Jones", "address": "ddjones at riddlemaster.org" }, "date": "2006-06-11T02:52:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<2124d6b10606100944y48d2377fj859c7930201999d5@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Saturday 10 June 2006 12:44, pthwndxrclzp wrote:\nI gather that what is giving you the most trouble with my statement is the\nword \"most,\" and I concede that I have not read every extant work of\nfantasy; thus, such that a categorical statement is inappropriate.\n\nIt's probably time to drop it, but I really am surprised at the\nintersection of Wolfe and Donaldson fandom. To my mind, it's like someone\nchampioning, I dunno, Cezanne and Jeff Koons in the same breath. Not that\nit's\nunacceptible, just seemingly unaccountable." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Interesting. I would expect a great deal of cross-over. While there are \ncertainly some very pronounced differences between them, I see similarities \nas well. Both bring intelligence and depth that is all too often lacking in \nfantasy. Both explore the nature of good and evil, albeit in very different \nways. Both have a penchant for protagonists who are, well, sometimes just \nnot very nice people." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Again, I'm still a bit stunned at the intersection of Wolfe/Donaldson fans.\nFor my money, Wolfe's stuff is erudite, layered, compelling, subtle,\nclever, rich, masterful. Whereas I find what little I've read of Donaldson\nto be nothing of the kind. But hey, I'm also sure I love some writers who'd\nprovoke nothing short of giggles from lots of people (and not in a good\nway)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, I enjoy David Eddings. It's the literary equivalent of cotton candy, \nbut one can't eat healthy all the time." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "P.S. Why isn't just avoiding a writer's books \"sufficient\"? Well, I think\n'cause sometimes you gotta let your passions fly. Makes for a more lively\ndiscussion...at least some of the time. And we are a literary discussion\nforum, after all. Or so it seems to me." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Just to be clear, I was addressing a larger question than solely your post. \nThere are web sites (someone posted a link to one here not too long ago) that \nare devoted to denigrating Wolfe and his works. A great deal of time and \neffort has gone into telling people how horrible a writer he is and how \noverrated is his fiction. " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Transentient", "address": "transentient at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-06-11T18:46:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<3778D866-307C-4046-81EA-0D2D46716D58@io.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I would like to interject into this thread the fact that I loathe the \nwriting style of George R. R. Martin, and I find his \"Game of \nThrones\" series to be nothing more than fanfic in search of a made- \nfor-Sci-Fi movie to be a fan of.\n\nThanks for listening, now please carry on." } ] }, { "message_id": "<53DD9D7B-7F54-4132-801F-8A7C2816DF35@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Adam Thornton", "address": "adam at io.com" }, "date": "2006-06-12T00:34:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Jun 11, 2006, at 1:46 PM, Transentient wrote:\n\nI would like to interject into this thread the fact that I loathe the\nwriting style of George R. R. Martin, and I find his \"Game of\nThrones\" series to be nothing more than fanfic in search of a made-\nfor-Sci-Fi movie to be a fan of.\n\nThanks for listening, now please carry on." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sometimes Stephen Baxter's prose style makes me want to stick hatpins \nthrough my eyes.\n\nAdam" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1105343188.20060614195206@poczta.fm>", "from": { "name": "Stanislaus", "address": "sbocian at poczta.fm" }, "date": "2006-06-14T17:52:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hello Andy," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Saturday, June 10, 2006, 9:05:54 AM, you wrote:\nDan'l Danehy-Oakes writes: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "At any rate, you have but to mention his name in most\nfannish contexts to get people urgghing, which I think a\npity: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Google \"clench racing Donaldson\" for an (unfair) titter at his expence" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is a brilliant essay by Langford:\n\n\"The well-tempered Plot Device\"\n\n http://www.ansible.co.uk/Ansible/plotdev.html\n\n \"Covenant saw. The Staff of Plot. Destroyed. For the Staff of Plot\n had been formed by Berek Halfhand as a tool to serve and uphold the\n Plot. He had fashioned the Staff from a limb of the One Tree as a way\n to wield Earthpower in defence of the health of the Land, in support\n of the natural order of life. And because Earthpower was the strength\n of mystery and spirit, the Staff became the thing it served. It was\n the Plot; the Plot was incarnate in the Staff. The tool and its\n purpose were one. And the Staff had been destroyed. That loss had\n weakened the very fibre of the Plot. A crucial support was withdrawn,\n and the Plot faltered.\"\n\n By the way- he, after reading \"Shadow\" and \"Claw\", prematurely accuses Wolfe of the same - that is,\n that the Claw is merely a plot device. - Wolfe as usual made it\n appear that way at first, later to explain that the Claw was\n essentially worthless in itself.\n\n " }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Best regards,\n Stanislaus mailto:sbocian at poczta.fm\n\n\n----------------------------------------------------------------------\nZobacz nowosci salonu moto w Madrycie >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1961" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370606141101p12c739fbi35cd203f6e92d93e@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-06-14T18:01:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<1105343188.20060614195206@poczta.fm>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Now that we've all had the chance to play \"bash the fantasy\nwriter (and fellow list members),\" does anybody have any\nthoughts on the original quote? To save y'all from having to\ndig through week-old emails, here it is again:\n\n\"As a narrative artist, I face an incessant dilemma which\n(I believe) plagues all artists in one form or another: I\nsuffer from a natural and understandable (and perhaps\ninevitable) impulse to *leave out* anything that seems\nperfectly obvious to me. At the same time, I expound\nendlessly on anything that I find obscure or difficult. But\nguess what? The things that are obvious to me are\nseldom obvious to the reader. At the same time, readers\nare quicker on the up-take than I am (because they read\nso much more quickly than I write).\"\n\nI found Stanislaus's comment strangely apropos, by the\nway:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 6/14/06, Stanislaus wrote:\n By the way- he, after reading \"Shadow\" and \"Claw\", prematurely\naccuses Wolfe of the same - that is, that the Claw is merely a\nplot device. - Wolfe as usual made it appear that way at first,\nlater to explain that the Claw was essentially worthless in itself." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "-- though I'd argue that in fact something that _seems_\ntremendously important but is \"essentially worthless in itself\"\nis almost a working definition of a plot device (especially the\nvariety of plot device known as a Maguffin)." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"One o'th'flay-rods gone out o'skew on th'treadle.\"" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1114109211.20060614205456@poczta.fm>", "from": { "name": "Stanislaus", "address": "sbocian at poczta.fm" }, "date": "2006-06-14T18:54:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370606092357j2ecf8c1dhadfb7fa032aed140@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hello Dan'l," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Saturday, June 10, 2006, 8:57:16 AM, you wrote:\nOn 6/9/06, pthwndxrclzp wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "My assessment had very little to do with my liking or disliking the\nmaterial. Whether you agree or not, I find his prose puerile, sloppy, and\noverwritten. You needn't agree, but getting so bent over the absence of an\n\"I think\" statement (which is actually implicit in almost anything anyone\nwrites, neurolinguistically speaking) seems equally childish to me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It seems to me (which I like to use instead of \"I think\" or \"in my\nopinion\") that, while the \"I think\" statement is _factually_ implicit\nin any utterance, failure to _explicitly_ mark opinions as over against\nfacts frequently denotes an inability to distinguish the two; the real\ntest, of course, is how \"emotionally\" people defend their opinions\nagainst perceived attacks." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The real difference between facts and opinion is that opinions can\nbe neither attacked nor defended. The opinion is the fact that I like\nor dislike something.They are. I like something, or not, and\nsimilarly you like it, or not. There is nothing more to it. I cannot,\nand I need not, persuade you that I like something.\n\nUnfortunately, the obvious fact that one can have an opinion about a\nvalue of a book is taken to mean that one cannot make a judgement\nabout it.\n\n\nYou can certainly say that there are no objective values of\nbooks, only personal likes or dislikes. That position is wrong, but it\nis tenable. It can be proven that books have an intrinsic value, but\nit would require many presupositions. Many of them could be regarded\nas not obvious, or even false. (Eg, I think it is necessary to suppose\nthat the God exists. This is a controversial supposition.)\n\nCalling any judgement about value of a book an opinion, however, only\nconfuses matter.\n\nThe proof that there opinions and judgements about books are\ndifferent things is easy - I can like a book, and judge it bad (eg\nsome romance) or I can dislike a book and judge it good (eg\nCortazar, or Joyce's Ulisses).\n\nIn other words there are two separate things:\nan objective value of a given book,\nyour liking or disliking of it.\n\nYou can like a bad book, and dislike a good one - most people do so.\nBut whether a book is bad or good is not an opinion, but a fact -\nalthough it can be difficult to ascertain. (It does not follow that\none of the widely different books must be better; good and bad is not\na one-dimensional cathegory, books can be good in different ways)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I am curious about something. Is it your opinion that there exist no \"bad\nwriters,\" only writers about whose work opinions vary? Or just that yes,\nthere are indeed bad writers, Donaldson (in your opinion) just not being one\nof them?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Oh, no. There are very definitely bad writers. Piers Anthony, post\n1976. Anne McCaffrey, post-about-1970. Ed Earl Repp, ever.\nJohn Saul. But if enough people I respect respect a writer that I\nsee no value in, I make the leap of faith that there's something in\nthat writer's work that I'm simply not equipped to see." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "So it seems you think that there are bad writers, but not good ones.\nThere is a certain objective minimal threshold. Those who are below,\nare bad. Those that are above, are not-bad.\n\nWriters who pass this minimum can be liked or disliked, but cannot be\njudged.\n\nUnfortunately, this theory is contradictory. Great works can\ndeliberately breach the rules which are the minimal limits of good\nwriting. So you will have to say that there are bad and not-bad books.\nAnd some of the best books are bad.\n\nOr perhaps you are simply saying that many people like Donaldson, and\nthey may very well be right." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I stand by what I originally wrote, or certainly intended to write: *I*\nTHINK that Donaldson's \"Lord Foul's Bane\" is a literary embarrassment." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think you're missing some valuable material, even in LFB. His style\nthere is decidedly not up to snuff, but he was doing something, and\nsomething valuable, that nobody had ever done in fantasy before." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Donaldson, and Bujold also, are neither very good, nor very bad. Both\nare rather enjoyable.\n\nDonaldson's innovation in fantasy is the world as inner landscape - the\nland as the heart of the hero. It is taking the so-called \"pathetic\nfallacy\" and making it the main constructing material of a novel.\nCovenant is corrupted, and the Land is corrupted in its turn - in\nother words, Lord Foul is a facet of Covenants character." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Best regards,\n Stanislaus mailto:sbocian at poczta.fm\n\n\n----------------------------------------------------------------------\nINTERIA.PL dla kobiet... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f193b" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2006-06-14T19:10:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<1105343188.20060614195206@poczta.fm>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Stanislaus writes: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This is a brilliant essay by Langford: \n\n\"The well-tempered Plot Device\" \n\n http://www.ansible.co.uk/Ansible/plotdev.html " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Indeed, but it's actually by the well-known UK fan Nick Lowe. \n\nI was in the audience at Fencon (Cambridge 1982) when it was first given - \ntime flies." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370606141257g621f5728uf39383dc133dda64@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-06-14T19:57:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<1114109211.20060614205456@poczta.fm>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Stanislaus," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The real difference between facts and opinion is that opinions\ncan be neither attacked nor defended. The opinion is the fact\nthat I like or dislike something." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ummm ... no, I don't think so. That's a very _narrow_ definition\nof opinion. I can have the opinion that Gene Wolfe is a good\nwriter; or that the Earth is flat; or that there is life on Mars,\nor that a Being much like the Judaeo-Christian God made\nthe world.\n\nThe first is debateable. The second is provably false, but I\n_could_ still hold it as an opinion. The third is _in principle_\nprovably false or true, but not with available knowledge. The\nlast is unprovable by any technology I can imagine.\n\nIf I hold to an opinion which is provably false (\"The Earth is\nflat\"), I am in-sane. If I hold to an opinion in spite of massive\nevidence, but not proof, well, I'm stubborn.\n\n\"I like Gene Wolfe's books\" represents a fact.\n\n\"Gene Wolfe is a good writer\" represents an opinion; and,\nunless you have objective, empirical means of determining\nwhether writer X is good (which of course means, to begin\nwith, an objective, extensional, etc. definition of \"good\" as\nit pertains to \"writer\") , it will _always_ be an opinion." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You can certainly say that there are no objective values of\nbooks, only personal likes or dislikes. That position is wrong, but it\nis tenable. It can be proven that books have an intrinsic value, but\nit would require many presupositions." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ummm, that's the basic problem: all those \"presuppositions.\"\nI like to operate in a world where all the cards are on the table,\nand only the empirically demonstrable is regarded as a \"fact.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Calling any judgement about value of a book an opinion, however,\nonly confuses matter." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Then there's this word \"value.\" What is the \"value\" of a book?\n$5.95 in paperback? Fodder for a whole bunch of research\npapers? Priceless, because it gave me an emotional\nexperience that changed my life? Or... What does this word\n\"value' mean _as you use it here_? I do not like this word;\nwe don't have agreement on what it means, so its use does\nnot aid clarity." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I can like a book, and judge it bad (eg some romance) or I\ncan dislike a book and judge it good (eg Cortazar, or Joyce's\nUlisses)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree with this statement, though I would perhaps have chosen\nother examples. (I like Joyce.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In other words there are two separate things:\nan objective value of a given book,\nyour liking or disliking of it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Again: you assert the existence of this \"objective value,\"\nwithout giving me any hint what it is or how I can determine\nit. I question this; if you can't discuss it clearly, it's a ghost.\nAnd then when you say:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But whether a book is bad or good is not an opinion, but a fact -\nalthough it can be difficult to ascertain." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "this sounds like you're already backing away from \"objective.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(It does not follow that one of the widely different books must be\nbetter; good and bad is not a one-dimensional cathegory, books\ncan be good in different ways)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "True: any kind of \"value\" is a _flattening_ measurement, i.e., a\nsingle, one-dimensional measurement that combines in some\n(usually quite complex) way a large number of measurements,\nsome of which are themselves multidimensional. This is why I\nincluded the ludicrous \"$5.95 in paperback\" above: price is the\nultimate flattening value-measurement." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I am curious about something. Is it your opinion that there\nexist no \"bad writers,\" only writers about whose work\nopinions vary? Or just that yes, there are indeed bad writers,\nDonaldson (in your opinion) just not being oneof them?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Oh, no. There are very definitely bad writers. Piers Anthony, post\n1976. Anne McCaffrey, post-about-1970. Ed Earl Repp, ever.\nJohn Saul. But if enough people I respect respect a writer that I\nsee no value in, I make the leap of faith that there's something in\nthat writer's work that I'm simply not equipped to see." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So it seems you think that there are bad writers, but not\ngood ones." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Where did you get that idea? You asked _specifically_ about\n\"bad\" writers, and I answered the question you asked; I said\n_nothing_ about there being no \"good\" writers.\n\nIn fact, I think that Wolfe, Donaldson, Delany, Ellison, Le Guin,\nTiptree, Butler, Shakespeare, Milton, Joyce, Mann, Faulkner,\nDostoievski, Woolf, Wolfe, and Twain are all \"good\" writers --\nthough I admit that there is at least one name in that list whose\nwork I don't personally care for." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Unfortunately, this theory is contradictory. Great works can\ndeliberately breach the rules which are the minimal limits of good\nwriting. So you will have to say that there are bad and not-bad\nbooks. And some of the best books are bad." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You've gone waaaaay off on a tangent here that I don't follow\nat all." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Or perhaps you are simply saying that many people like\nDonaldson, and they may very well be right." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm saying that (a) many people like Donaldson, (b) I\nlike Donaldson and (c) in my opinion, Donaldson is both\na skilled and a talented writer." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Donaldson's innovation in fantasy is the world as inner landscape\n- the land as the heart of the hero." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That would be one. Another is a little more complex ...\n\nOne of the clearest distinctions between \"swords'n'sorcery\" and\n\"high fantasy\" is that the former tends to concentrate attention\non The Hero and the latter on ... well, something larger. This\nbecomes clear when you realize that S'n'S series are generally\nreferred to by the hero's name (the \"Conan\" series, the \"Fahfrd\nand the Grey Mouser\" series, the \"Alyx\" series, etc.) while\nhigh fantasy series are generally referred to by the name of\nthe world or concept (\"The Lord of the Rings,\" \"The Earthsea\nSeries,\" etc.), and frequently don't have a Hero figure as such.\n\nWhat Donaldson did in the original \"Chronicles of Thomas\nCovenant, the Unbeliever\" was to place a (psychologically\nrealistic and complex) character at the focus of what would\notherwise seem to be a high fantasy series; thus the series\ntitle contains both his name and the larger central issue of\nthe series (Unbelief and its consequences).\n\nCovenant is different from every prior high-fantasy hero of\nwhom I am aware, because he is capable -- I mean\nemotionally capable -- of making a moral decision that will\nresult in the destruction of The Land. That's the whole point\nof the series: he was selected by the Despiser precisely\n_for_ that quality.\n\nLord Foul is \"a facet of Covenant's character\" only if the\nLand's Creator is also: yet we see the Creator in\nCovenant's \"real\" world (as the man in ochre robes),\nobjectively separate from Covenant. It might perhaps\nbe -- and I suspect that this is what is going to play out\nin the final chronicles -- that Creator, Despiser, and\nUnbeliever are three facets of a single larger personality;\nbut Foul and Covenant are decidedly separate, as much\nso (at least) as the Christian Father and Son and Holy\nSpirit.\n\nBut this is a Wolfe list, not a Donaldson list, and I only\nquoted Donaldson in the first place because I thought\nhis remarks had some relevancy to some Lupine issues..." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"One o'th'flay-rods gone out o'skew on th'treadle.\"" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-06-14T22:40:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SRD on obscurity", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370606141257g621f5728uf39383dc133dda64@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"Gene Wolfe is a good writer\" represents an opinion; and,\nunless you have objective, empirical means of determining\nwhether writer X is good (which of course means, to begin\nwith, an objective, extensional, etc. definition of \"good\" as\nit pertains to \"writer\") , it will _always_ be an opinion." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not to say that I don't agree with a lot of what you've said, but a \nqualification can be made here. You can believe in objective aspects of the \nworld that aren't codifiable in language (and perhaps not even in \nprinciple). You can further believe (or not believe) that there are still \nempirical means of determining whether writer X is good - the idea that some \nthings you know simply by *seeing* them (and of course people can see \nclearly, or not so clearly, on occasion).\n\nSOCRATES: The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.\nPHAEDRUS: Clearly.\nSOCRATES: And what is well and what is badly -- need we ask Lysias, or any \nother poet or orator, who ever wrote or will write either a political or any \nother work, in metre or out of metre, poet or prose writer, to teach us \nthis?\n\n\nStanislaus said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "You can certainly say that there are no objective values of\nbooks, only personal likes or dislikes. That position is wrong, but it\nis tenable. It can be proven that books have an intrinsic value, but\nit would require many presupositions." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I get lost somewhere in this one. One could also hold that there *are* \nobjective values when it comes to books, but that the overall \"goodness\" of \nparticular books is a matter of opinion. Or as above one could hold that \nthere are objective values, and the assessment of the goodness of books is \nnot a matter of mere opinion, and yet still hold that no flat \"criteria\" can \nbe given that codifies the goodness and badness.\n\nDan'l:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ummm, that's the basic problem: all those \"presuppositions.\"\nI like to operate in a world where all the cards are on the table,\nand only the empirically demonstrable is regarded as a \"fact.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I am afraid that your expectations are unrealistic, even with what we \nconsider to be empirically demonstrable facts. I am sympathetic to the urge \nbehind that particular Grail-quest, but ultimately we still have to come to \nterms with all these presuppositions which are not to be evaded or left \nbehind." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Calling any judgement about value of a book an opinion, however,\nonly confuses matter." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Then there's this word \"value.\" What is the \"value\" of a book?\n$5.95 in paperback? Fodder for a whole bunch of research\npapers? Priceless, because it gave me an emotional\nexperience that changed my life? Or... What does this word\n\"value' mean _as you use it here_? I do not like this word;\nwe don't have agreement on what it means, so its use does\nnot aid clarity." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That is perhaps the essence of what's at issue. We can't come to agreement \nuntil we agree on the nature of values. And this question cannot be avoided \nby simply ignoring the word, or pretending that \"values\" are not involved." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But whether a book is bad or good is not an opinion, but a fact -\nalthough it can be difficult to ascertain." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "this sounds like you're already backing away from \"objective.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think in a way he may be leaning toward the position I described above." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "(It does not follow that one of the widely different books must be\nbetter; good and bad is not a one-dimensional cathegory, books\ncan be good in different ways)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "True: any kind of \"value\" is a _flattening_ measurement, i.e., a\nsingle, one-dimensional measurement that combines in some\n(usually quite complex) way a large number of measurements,\nsome of which are themselves multidimensional. This is why I\nincluded the ludicrous \"$5.95 in paperback\" above: price is the\nultimate flattening value-measurement." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yet all of the different kind of \"goods\" seem to have something in common \nthat make them goods in the first place - a family resemblance. But what \nmakes a good soccer player may have nothing codifiably in common with what \nmakes a good novel (in any particular sense). Does this mean there's no such \nthing, objectively, as a good soccer player or a good book?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Unfortunately, this theory is contradictory. Great works can\ndeliberately breach the rules which are the minimal limits of good\nwriting. So you will have to say that there are bad and not-bad\nbooks. And some of the best books are bad." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You've gone waaaaay off on a tangent here that I don't follow\nat all." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't know for sure what he was talking about. I am vaguely reminded of \nProust's meditation on originality. He said that basically what is *really* \noriginal in art is inherently something that you don't at first know what to \nmake of, or are even a little disappointed with, because it does not fit \ninto the conventions of what you expected a \"good\" performance or painting \nto be like. One asks oneself, \"Is this beautiful?\"\n\nPerhaps it can tie in to what was said above. One comes up with hypotheses \nabout what makes a book good, but these hypotheses are only approximations \nof something that apparently escapes codification. Nonetheless one looks, \nand one recognizes the beauty. Only afterward are our hypotheses about the \nnature of beauty revised." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What Donaldson did in the original \"Chronicles of Thomas\nCovenant, the Unbeliever\" was to place a (psychologically\nrealistic and complex) character at the focus of what would\notherwise seem to be a high fantasy series; thus the series\ntitle contains both his name and the larger central issue of\nthe series (Unbelief and its consequences)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think a lot of other people have had psychologically realistic and complex \ncharacters, though I can't cite examples at the moment. What struck me about \nCovenant as an anti-hero was that the writer does not spare a lot of love \nfor his creation - or for that matter any of his characters. By this I don't \nmean anything syrupy. There is simply a certain amount of *care* with which \none renders a character - even a repulsive one - in a good work.\n\nI felt, throughout all of those books, that the author in some way loathed \nis creation, and it was more than just Covenant, it bled over into the world \nin general and even the characters presented as innocent. Perhaps this was \noriginal on his part, but in this case the actual feeling that it created \nwas that of an ill-made creation by a self-loathing author, and by \nattempting to identify or engage in some way with his characters the reader \nends up disliking themselves just that tiny bit more as well.\n\nAll this doesn't mean he's a bad writer, just that I did not like those \nbooks and did not see them as original in any positive sense." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But this is a Wolfe list, not a Donaldson list, and I only\nquoted Donaldson in the first place because I thought\nhis remarks had some relevancy to some Lupine issues..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Nonetheless most of what's been talked about isn't even about Donaldson, \nparticularly, so I think the digression can be forgiven." } ] }, { "message_id": "<010a01c690d9$e39825e0$4a227645@VALUED7B9600FA>", "from": { "name": "Alan Lewis", "address": "alanarc1 at optonline.net" }, "date": "2006-06-16T00:14:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) objective measure of \"good\"", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "True: any kind of \"value\" is a _flattening_ measurement, i.e., a\nsingle, one-dimensional measurement that combines in some\n(usually quite complex) way a large number of measurements,\nsome of which are themselves multidimensional. This is why I\nincluded the ludicrous \"$5.95 in paperback\" above: price is the\nultimate flattening value-measurement." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Chris:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yet all of the different kind of \"goods\" seem to have something in common\nthat make them goods in the first place - a family resemblance. But what\nmakes a good soccer player may have nothing codifiably in common with what\nmakes a good novel (in any particular sense). Does this mean there's no \nsuch\nthing, objectively, as a good soccer player or a good book?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This kind of discussion is very interesting, and certainly relevant for our \nlist. Though there seems agreement that there is such a thing as good \nwriting and bad writing, there remains the problem of the objective reality \nof these qualities when we disagree about which a particular work is. A \ngood (ahem) writer named Tom Stoppard said this in his play The Real Thing:\n\n\n ANNIE: It just needs a bit of work.\n\n HENRY: You're all bent.\n\n ANNIE: You're jealous.\n\n HENRY: Of Brodie?\n\n ANNIE: You're jealous of the idea of the writer. You want to keep it \nsacred, special, not something anybody can do. Some of us have it, some of \nus don't. We write, you get written about. What gets you about Brodie is he \ndoesn't know his place. You say he can't write like a head waiter saying you \ncan't come in here without a tie. Because he can't put words together. What's \nso good about putting words together?\n\n HENRY: It's traditionally considered advantageous for a writer.\n\n ANNIE: He's not a writer. He's a convict. You're a writer. You write \nbecause you're a writer. Even you write about something, you have to think \nup something to write about just so you can keep writing. More well chosen \nwords nicely put together. So what? Why should that be it? Who says?\n\n HENRY: Nobody says. It just works best.\n\n ANNIE: Of course it works. You teach a lot of people what to expect from \ngood writing, and you end up with a lot of people saying you write well. \nThen somebody who isn't in on the game comes along, like Brodie, who really \nhas something to write about, something real, and you can't get through it. \nWell, he couldn't get through yours, so where are you? To you, he can't \nwrite. To him, write is all you can do.\n\n HENRY: Jesus, Annie, you're beginning to appall me. There's something \nscary about stupidity made coherent. I can deal with idiots, and I can deal \nwith sensible argument, but I don't know how to deal with you. Where's my \ncricket bat?\n\n ANNIE: Your cricket bat?\n\n HENRY: Yes. It's a new approach. [He heads out into the hall.]\n\n ANNIE: Are you trying to be funny?\n\n HENRY: No, I'm serious. [He goes out while she watches in wary disbelief. \nHe returns with an old cricket bat.]\n\n ANNIE: You better not be.\n\n HENRY: Right, you silly cow -\n\n ANNIE: Don't you bloody dare -\n\n HENRY: Shut up and listen. This thing here, which looks like a wooden \nclub, is actually several pieces of particular wood cunningly put together \nin a certain way so that the whole thing is sprung, like a dance floor. It's \nfor hitting cricket balls with. If you get it right, the cricket ball will \ntravel two hundred yards in four seconds, and all you've done is give it a \nknock like knocking the top off a bottle of stout, and it makes a noise like \na trout taking a fly. [He clucks his tongue to make the noise.] What we're \ntrying to do is to write cricket bats, so that when we throw up an idea and \ngive it a little knock, it might . travel . [He clucks his tongue again and \npicks up the script.] Now, what we've got here is a lump of wood of roughly \nthe same shape trying to be a cricket bat, and if you hit a ball with it, \nthe ball will travel about ten feet and you will drop the bat and dance \nabout shouting Ouch! with your hands stuck into your armpits. This isn't \nbetter because someone says it's better, or because there's a conspiracy by \nthe MCC to keep cudgels out of Lords. It's better because it's better. You \ndon't believe me, so I suggest you go out to bat with this and see how you \nget on. [quoting from the play] You're a strange boy, Billy, how old are \nyou? Twenty, but I've lived more than you'll ever live. Ooh, ouch! [He drops \nthe script and hops about with his hands in his armpits, going Ouch! ANNIE \nwatches him expressionlessly until he desists.]\n\n ANNIE: I hate you.\n\n HENRY: I love you. I'm your pal. I'm your best mate. I look after you. You're \nthe only chap.\n\n ANNIE: Oh, Hen. Can't you help?\n\n HENRY: What did you expect me to do?\n\n ANNIE: Well.cut it and shape it.\n\n HENRY: Cut it and shape it. Henry of Mayfair. Look - he can't write. I \nwould have to write it for him.\n\n ANNIE: Well, write it for him.\n\n HENRY: I can't.\n\n ANNIE: Why?\n\n HENRY: Because it's balls. Mary's part is the least of it - it's merely \nham-fisted. But when he gets into his stride, or rather his lurch, \nannouncing every stale revelation of the newly enlightened, like stout \nCortez coming upon the Pacific - war is profits, politicians are puppets, \nParliament is a farce, justice is a fraud, property is theft. It's all here: \nthe Stock Exchange, the arms dealers, the press barons. You can't fool \nBrodie - patriotism is propaganda, religion is a con trick, royalty is an \nanachronism. Pages and pages of it. It's like being run over very slowly by \na travelling freak show of favourite simpletons, the India rubber pedagogue, \nthe midget intellectual, the human panacea.\n\n ANNIE: It's his view of the world. Perhaps from where he's standing you'd \nsee it the same way.\n\n HENRY: Or perhaps I'd realize where I'm standing. Or at least that I'm \nstanding somewhere. There is, I suppose, a world of objects which have a \ncertain form, like this coffee mug. I turn it, and it has no handle. I tilt \nit, and it has no cavity. But there is something real here which is always a \nmug with a handle. But politics, justice, patriotism - they aren't like \ncoffee mugs. There's nothing real there separate from our perception of \nthem. So if you try to change them as though there were something there to \nchange, you'll get frustrated, and frustration will finally make you \nviolent. If you know this and proceed with humility, you may perhaps alter \npeople's perceptions so that they behave a little differently at that axis \nof behaviour where we locate politics or justice; but if you don't know \nthis, then you're acting on a mistake. Prejudice is the expression of this \nmistake.\n\n ANNIE: Or such is your perception.\n\n HENRY: All right.\n\n ANNIE: And who wrote it, why he wrote it, where he wrote it - none of \nthese things count with you?\n\n HENRY: Leave me out of it. They don't count. Maybe Brodie got a raw deal, \nmaybe he didn't. I don't know. It doesn't count. He's a lout with language. \nI can't help somebody who thinks, or thinks he thinks, that editing a \nnewspaper is censorship, or that throwing bricks is a demonstration while \nbuilding tower blocks is social violence, or that unpalatable statement is \nprovocation while disrupting the speaker is the exercise of free speech. \nWords don't deserve that kind of malarkey. They're innocent, neutral, \nprecise, standing for this, describing that, meaning the other, so if you \nlook after them you can build bridges across incomprehension and chaos. But \nwhen they get their corners knocked off, they're no good any more, and \nBrodie knocks corners off without knowing he's doing it. So everything he \nwrites is jerry-built. It's rubbish. An intelligent child could push it \nover. I don't think writers are sacred, but words are. They deserve respect. \nIf you get the right ones in the right order, you can nudge the world a \nlittle or make a poem which children will speak for you when you're dead." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370606151912qa2820e5s14a39e7171879bfb@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-06-16T02:12:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) objective measure of \"good\"", "in_reply_to": "<010a01c690d9$e39825e0$4a227645@VALUED7B9600FA>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Alan,\n\nThank you for posting that -- I do like Tom Stoppard a lot\n(especially _Travesties_ and _Dogg's Hamlet and Cahoot's\nMacbeth_ and ... Oh, heck: I like Tom Stoppard), and what\nhe says here does seem relevant.\n\nIn fact, I _do_ have some thoughts on how one can make a\nuseful and empirical and all that stuff definition of \"good\"ness\nfor a piece of fiction, but they are (for the moment) insufficiently\nchoate for me to post anything about them, and anyway I\nwant to see if anyone else comes up with a similar approach." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"One o'th'flay-rods gone out o'skew on th'treadle.\"" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "David Duffy", "address": "david.duffy at qimr.edu.au" }, "date": "2006-06-16T04:06:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) objective measure of \"good\"", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370606151912qa2820e5s14a39e7171879bfb@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nAlan,\n\nThank you for posting that -- I do like Tom Stoppard a lot\n(especially _Travesties_ and _Dogg's Hamlet and Cahoot's\nMacbeth_ and ... Oh, heck: I like Tom Stoppard), and what\nhe says here does seem relevant.\n\nIn fact, I _do_ have some thoughts on how one can make a\nuseful and empirical and all that stuff definition of \"good\"ness\nfor a piece of fiction, but they are (for the moment) insufficiently\nchoate for me to post anything about them, and anyway I\nwant to see if anyone else comes up with a similar approach." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I fear this will be worse than a discussion about the definition of\nscience fiction. Maybe we should concentrate on objective measures of\n\"bad\". Just in the last month or so, I have read several\nnewspaper and journal articles:\n\n1) Allan Ginsberg is a bad poet and _Howl_ is undeservedly popular\n2) JM Coetzee is a bad writer and undeservedly received the Nobel\n3) Dan Brown is a bad writer and undeservedly made lots of money ;)\n\nEach article provided quotes from the offending author -- \"objective\"\nevidence.\n\nMy favourite review of _Finnegan's Wake_ was by a psychiatrist, who said\nhe frequently saw these types of word salads and neologisms in the writing\nof psychotics, and confidently made the same diagnosis for Joyce.\n\nOr how about the frequent comment that HP Lovecraft is *much* better in\nFrench translation ;)\n\nWhich is to say, *I* *know* what \"quality literature\" is, and can spot a\nwooden sentence as well as Tom Stoppard's character, but _de gustibus_.\n\nDavid Duffy." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370606160947t496de7c5o90435bebff11831d@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-06-16T16:47:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) objective measure of \"good\"", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 6/15/06, David Duffy wrote:\nI fear this will be worse than a discussion about the\ndefinition of science fiction." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Probably not, but I believe the approach I'm mulling over --\nbasically, a weighted version of fuzzy definition -- would\nmake defining SF a lot less controversial also. It's just that\nit makes defining \"definition\" a bit hairy." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Maybe we should concentrate on objective measures of\n\"bad\". Just in the last month or so, I have read several\nnewspaper and journal articles:\n\n1) Allan Ginsberg is a bad poet and _Howl_ is undeservedly\npopular" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Certainly the title poem is the only thing in it I find\nreadable -- but I'm not a real poetry-lover." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "2) JM Coetzee is a bad writer and undeservedly received the\nNobel" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This critic should review the list of past Nobel winners.\nChances are s/he has read less than half of those before,\nsay, 1970. The Nobel committee turns out to be roughly\nas infallible as the Academy that presents the Oscars\nor the WSFS that presents the Hugoi." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "3) Dan Brown is a bad writer and undeservedly made lots of\nmoney ;)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "God knows, Dan Brown is no Gene Wolfe, or even\nTom Clancy, but he delivers the product the audience\npays for. I can't call that a \"bad writer\" in any meaningful\nway." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Each article provided quotes from the offending author --\n\"objective\" evidence." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yeah, and Tolkien is a bad writer because Legolas fell\ninto his own tongue. \"Even Homer nods.\" I can prove\n_any_ writer lousy if I'm allowed to quote out of context." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "My favourite review of _Finnegan's Wake_ was by a\npsychiatrist, who said he frequently saw these types of\nword salads and neologisms in the writing of psychotics,\nand confidently made the same diagnosis for Joyce." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Cheez. That would be meaningful _if_ Joyce hadn't\nrepeatedly proved (and was still proving in his massive\ncorrespondence) that he was, in fact, perfectly capable\nof writing good \"standard\" English. Actually, it _is_\nmeaningful, but what it means is about the shrink in\nquestion, not about Joyce.\n\nJoyce's language in FW is clearly totally in control,\nhaving a definite structure and grammar which it is\npossible to imitate (my own recent attempt, a response\nto the Stephen James Joyce teatempestpot, can\nbe found on my blog at\nhttp://sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com/152542.html\nif you care)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Or how about the frequent comment that HP Lovecraft is\n*much* better in French translation ;)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've mostly heard that about van Vogt. I've also heard\nthat Thomas Mann -- or was it Franz Kafka -- was basically\ninvented by his English translator, and his style in German\nwas horrendous. I have no idea, since I can't read German..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Which is to say, *I* *know* what \"quality literature\" is, and\ncan spot a wooden sentence as well as Tom Stoppard's\ncharacter, but _de gustibus_." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Disgustibus non deputandem. (\"You can't hire someone\nelse to do your throwing-up for you.\")" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"One o'th'flay-rods gone out o'skew on th'treadle.\"" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Bob Miller", "address": "bob_bageera at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-06-17T02:54:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) objective measure of \"good\"", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370606151912qa2820e5s14a39e7171879bfb@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thank you so much for responding to the post, Dan'l. I was wondering why \nthat boring pretentiousness was put out there or why anyone would bother \nwith it, and you showed me again that viewpoint and variety are the master \nlimners of both profundity and accuracy. Very humbling---again.\n\n\nFrom: \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" \nReply-To: The Urth Mailing List \nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) objective measure of \"good\"\nDate: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:12:19 -0700\n\nAlan,\n\nThank you for posting that -- I do like Tom Stoppard a lot\n(especially _Travesties_ and _Dogg's Hamlet and Cahoot's\nMacbeth_ and ... Oh, heck: I like Tom Stoppard), and what\nhe says here does seem relevant.\n\nIn fact, I _do_ have some thoughts on how one can make a\nuseful and empirical and all that stuff definition of \"good\"ness\nfor a piece of fiction, but they are (for the moment) insufficiently\nchoate for me to post anything about them, and anyway I\nwant to see if anyone else comes up with a similar approach." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"One o'th'flay-rods gone out o'skew on th'treadle.\"" } ] } ] }