Subject: (urth) SRD on obscurity

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 21:36:02 +0000

No ... I don't mean Samuel R. Delany, but a writer many on
this list probably disdain, Stephen R. Donaldson. He said,
about a year ago, something that resonates for me with
some things Wolfe has said about some of the "puzzles" in
his work -- specifically, his attitude that the "answers"
should be obvious:

"As a narrative artist, I face an incessant dilemma which
(I believe) plagues all artists in one form or another: I
suffer from a natural and understandable (and perhaps
inevitable) impulse to *leave out* anything that seems
perfectly obvious to me. At the same time, I expound
endlessly on anything that I find obscure or difficult. But
guess what? The things that are obvious to me are
seldom obvious to the reader. At the same time, readers
are quicker on the up-take than I am (because they read
so much more quickly than I write)."

For what that's worth.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant

-----
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer
"One o'th'flay-rods gone out o'skew on th'treadle."

---

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 22:43:57 +0000

On Friday 09 June 2006 17:36, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
> this list probably disdain, Stephen R. Donaldson. 

Why would you assume that many here disdain him?

---

From: pthwndxrclzp <aquastor at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 22:50:46 +0000

Probably because he's the most egregiously untalented fantasy hack ever to
(unaccountably) get published?

(Sales figures are irrelevant; fer gosh sakes, Howard Stern's books sell
multiple millions of copies....).

On 6/9/06, Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20060609/2df00471/attachment.html

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 22:52:32 +0000

> Why would you assume that many here disdain him?

Experience.

I'd better explain that. I don't mean that this is a particularly
disdainful group of readers/fans. But Donaldson has come
in for a great deal of disdain over the years, partially of the
"Covenant is a horrible character" variety -- which I don't
suppose would particularly faze Wolfe's readers! -- but
also of Donaldson's _prose_, which is a lot harder to defend.

Donaldson is a very conscious stylist, who deliberately
chose a very unpleasant and (frankly) offputting style for the
Covenant books. I don't mean his use of "big woids," which,
again, ought not to bother Lupines, but the thudding rhythms,
especially of the first trilogy. Until I read some non-Covenant
work of his, I thought of him as "a conscioius, and
conscientious, stylist with a tin ear." (In fact, even the new
Covenant book is much better-written than the old books:
it's the same basic style, but handled much more deftly.
Donaldson has become a much better writer.)

At any rate, you have but to mention his name in most
fannish contexts to get people urgghing, which I think a
pity: he brought something desparately needed to the
fantasy market.

--Dan'l

-----

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 22:53:49 +0000

Case in point...

> (unaccountably) get published?

If you really think that, then you should go enjoy some nice Terry
Brooks and Dennis McKiernan books, and leave the adults alone.

-----

---

From: pthwndxrclzp <aquastor at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 23:04:55 +0000

Ah, so let me get this straight. Anyone who disagrees with your opinions on
literary quality is a child? Fascinatingly mature viewpoint ya got there.

Donaldson's early prose is mind-numbingly unreadable. Your mileage may well
vary, Grandpa.

As for able fantasy stylists, I prefer the work of folks like Gene Wolfe,
C.S. Friedman, Mervyn Peake, John Myers Myers, Jennifer Stevenson, John C.
Wright, Lois McMaster Bujold, even George R.R. Martin. But Donaldson? Pfah.
Life's far too short.

But then, you probably like *Tolkien*.... <shudder>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20060609/a6486797/attachment.htm

---

From: Robert Davies <robertedavies at earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 23:10:02 +0000

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.

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 01:02:42 +0000

On 6/9/06, pthwndxrclzp <aquastor at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, so let me get this straight. Anyone who disagrees
>  with your opinions on literary quality is a child?

No; but I do think that anyone who confuses "writer I
don't like" with "egregiously untalented," or confuses
their personal opinions with facts ("Donaldson's early
prose is mind-numbingly unreadable" as opposed to
"I find Donaldson's early prose mind-numbingly unreadable")
has a bit of semantic maturing to do.

Nonetheless, I should not have written my previous
comment in such a blatantly insulting manner, and I
apologize for that.

> Your mileage may well vary, Grandpa.

My mileage usually varies; I drive many different roads.
And, while I could in theory be a grandfather (my
elder child will be 24 this year), I'm not.

> As for able fantasy stylists, I prefer the work of folks like
> Gene Wolfe, C.S. Friedman, Mervyn Peake, John Myers
> Myers, Jennifer Stevenson, John C. Wright, Lois McMaster
> Bujold, even George R.R. Martin.

I was with you part of the way -- of those in this list I've
read, I find them better stylists than the early Donaldson
(though even there, if you check out his non-Covenant
short stories, collected in _Daughter of Regals_, you
may be in for a bit of a shock). B ut when you get to
Lois McMaster Bujold ... I have never successfully read
a single book of hers, and I've tried several. This is my
problem; I know she's a well-respected writer, and I
know better than to confuse "bad writer" with "writer I
don't like."

But then, so is Donaldson a well-respected writer,
except among people who apparently can't make
that not-terribly-complex distinction.

> But then, you probably like *Tolkien*.... <shudder>

Indeed I do; and Lewis and Williams -- but for very
different reasons (and only one of them as a stylist).

-----

---

From: pthwndxrclzp <aquastor at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 01:35:14 +0000

My assessment had very little to do with my liking or disliking the
material. Whether you agree or not, I find his prose puerile, sloppy, and
overwritten. You needn't agree, but getting so bent over the absence of an
"I think" statement (which is actually implicit in almost anything anyone
writes, neurolinguistically speaking) seems equally childish to me.

As for the measure of Donaldson's respect as a writer, we'll just have to
agree to disagree. I'm sure you know lots of folks who think he's terrific,
just as all the readers I know find him an embarrassment to the genre.

And while I couldn't disagree more with your lack of appreciation for
Bujold, I certainly respect your right to the opinion.

I am curious about something. Is it your opinion that there exist no "bad
writers," only writers about whose work opinions vary? Or just that yes,
there are indeed bad writers, Donaldson (in your opinion) just not being one
of them? 'Cause it is starting to seem like you are holding the view that
there *are* no bad writers, just readers with insufficient appreciation, or
something of that ilk....

I stand by what I originally wrote, or certainly intended to write: *I*
THINK that Donaldson's "Lord Foul's Bane" is a literary  embarrassment.
While he may well have improved his skills thereafter, IN MY OPINION his
offenses were sufficient to guarantee that I would never waste my time with
his work. Might well be my loss. And I'll add that I've never gotten to that
point with any other writer in over 40 years of reading. I mean, I loathed
LOTR, but I did make my way through the whole thing. (I like the Hobbit,
though; go figure). FWIW.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20060609/90effa42/attachment-0001.htm

---

From: pthwndxrclzp <aquastor at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 01:48:51 +0000

Sorry, I left off what is probably the most important part of what I wanted
to say.

Thanks, Dan'l, for your words of apology, which were greatly appreciated.
For my part, I certainly didn't need to nastily hurl out my opinions like
buckshot for what was I'm sure at least in part my own gratification as much
as for any group edification. My apologies right back at you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20060609/91661bfd/attachment.html

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:57:16 +0000

> writes, neurolinguistically speaking) seems equally childish to me.

It seems to me (which I like to use instead of "I think" or "in my
opinion") that, while the "I think" statement is _factually_ implicit
in any utterance, failure to _explicitly_ mark opinions as over against
facts frequently denotes an inability to distinguish the two; the real
test, of course, is how "emotionally" people defend their opinions
against perceived attacks.

> just as all the readers I know find him an embarrassment to the genre.

"All?" Mighty big statement.

> Bujold, I certainly respect your right to the opinion.

I didn't state an opinion on Bujold. I don't _have_ one; I have not
got the qualifications for one, which would involve finishing at least
one book. I stated the mere fact that I can't read her, carefully making
clear that I don't necessarily think the fault lies with her.

> of them?

Oh, no. There are very definitely bad writers. Piers Anthony, post
1976. Anne McCaffrey, post-about-1970. Ed Earl Repp, ever.
John Saul. But if enough people I respect respect a writer that I
see no value in, I make the leap of faith that there's something in
that writer's work that I'm simply not equipped to see.

> 'Cause it is starting to seem like you are holding the view that

Rather, we all have blind spots.

> THINK that Donaldson's "Lord Foul's Bane" is a literary  embarrassment.

I think you're missing some valuable material, even in LFB. His style
there is decidedly not up to snuff, but he was doing something, and
something valuable, that nobody had ever done in fantasy before.

-----

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:05:54 +0000

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes writes: 

> pity: 

Google "clench racing Donaldson" for an (unfair) titter at his expence

---

From: stilskin <acronus at yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:13:55 +0000

--- On 6/9/06 Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>

> something valuable, that nobody had ever done in

Could you elaborate on what you believe he was doing,
that nobody had done in fantasy before?

Paul

http://www.sff.net/people/stilskin

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

---

From: David Duffy <david.duffy at qimr.edu.au>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:36:03 +0000

> Why would you assume that many here disdain him?

FWIW, does anyone else remember the back-to-back review of Donaldson and
Wolfe by either Clute or Watson or Greenland in Foundation around 1983: it
quite favourably compared _The One Tree_ to _The Sword of the Lictor_,
(both midway through the series at that time).  Donaldson's style was
becoming less grating to the reviewer.  Unfortunately I didn't subscribe
at that time, and can find no on-line contents list going back that far.

The review actually led me to bother reading the second Donaldson series,
not being greatly impressed by the first.  Anyway, I don't *have* to
reread Donaldson, but I do have to read each Wolfe through a few times
(much better value for money;)).

Other quotable Wolfe:

"But I wanted to be a particular person again, and so I sought the mirror
of other persons, which would show me that I was not as they were."

"Thus by the paradoxical nature of knowledge, it is seen that though the
existence of the Ylem, the primridal source of all things, may be doubted,
yet the existence of his servants may not be doubted."

"...it represents for me all that monomaniacal fabric of argument, so
tightly woven that not even the tiniest objection or spark of light can
escape its net, in which human minds become enmeshed whenever the subject
is one in which no appeal to fact is possible."

David Duffy.

---

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:36:52 +0000

On Friday 09 June 2006 19:10, Robert Davies wrote:
> 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.

I enjoyed the first series, but wasn't nearly as fond of the second.  I don't 
think Covenant is nearly as good as the Gap series, however.  I find it 
rather humorous that Donaldson is being slammed as "unreadable" by Wolfe 
fans.

---

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:14:34 +0000

> (unaccountably) get published?

I fail to understand this.

Certainly, I have no problem with you not liking Donaldson.  The world would 
be a boring place indeed if we all had the same tastes and opinions.  But 
this isn't a statement that his works don't appeal to you.  It's an ad 
hominem attack that is clearly not factually true.  (That is, however much 
you dislike Donaldson, I find it extremely hard to believe that you think he 
has less talent than, say, Gary Gygax.)

There are lots of writers I don't care for.  I read all but the last two 
chapters of the first book of Brooks _Shanara_ series, laid it down and 
haven't read a single word by him since.  I can't stand reading Weis and 
Hickman.  Alan Dean Foster leaves me cold.  I never cared for Philip Jose 
Farmer, although I know others who swear he's a god in human form.  But I 
don't find it necessary to despise any of these people or their writings.  I 
express my opinion by not devoting my money and time to their efforts.  I 
don't understand why that isn't sufficient.

---

From: pthwndxrclzp <aquastor at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 16:44:01 +0000

I gather that what is giving you the most trouble with my statement is the
word "most," and I concede that I have not read every extant work of
fantasy; thus, such that a categorical statement is inappropriate.

It's probably time to drop it, but I really am surprised at the intersection
of Wolfe and Donaldson fandom. To my mind, it's like someone championing, I
dunno, Cezanne and Jeff Koons in the same breath. Not that it's
unacceptible, just seemingly unaccountable.

I tried to say this earlier and may not have managed to convey what I feel.
*I* had an extreme reaction to Donaldson's early work. I'm not even sure why
I found it so offensive, but I did, and the opinion, admittedly founded upon
a minimum of his work, really stuck with me. And yes, the way I presented my
opinion in here was definitely over the top, and in retrospect served no
purpose but to let me grind away on a very old axe and to annoy most of the
audience in here to no useful end. So I apologize to the group for letting
my passions get ahead of my good-citizenship. I will certainly aim at
greater circumspection in future when rendering off-charter literary
evaluations.

All *that* said, I do think there's a utility in conveying extreme literary
opinions, if only to present a more complete range of evaluation so that
people who haven't yet read a given author might make the best-informed
decision as to whether they should. Or should ahead of alternate, perhaps
more rewarding, writers.

Nevertheless, vitriol aside, there is a natural tendency to shoot for breezy
readibility rather than exhaustive, if more precise, prose. So I'm
definitely guilty of writing "the guy's work sucks" instead of something
like, "relative to the excellent examples of fantasy at what most readers
would consider the top of the genre, there are writers like, say, Stephen R.
Donaldson, certainly not the worst of the bunch, but whose work just leaves
me cold in such an extreme fashion that it's hard for me to refrain from
unfairly bashing it, though of course your exegetical mileage may well
vary."

Again, I'm still a bit stunned at the intersection of Wolfe/Donaldson fans.
For my money, Wolfe's stuff is erudite, layered, compelling, subtle, clever,
rich, masterful. Whereas I find what little I've read of Donaldson to be
nothing of the kind. But hey, I'm also sure I love some writers who'd
provoke nothing short of giggles from lots of people (and not in a good
way).

S'probably not a great place to stick a plug, but if you haven't read Sean
McMullen's Moonworlds stuff you are missing out on some superbly
entertaining fantasy. And ironically, I suspect it will appeal to readers at
both the Donaldson and Wolfe ends of the spectrum. The Voyage of the
Shadowmoon is the single most enjoyable book I've read in the last 10 years,
hands-down.

Though your mileage may vary <grin>.

-John

P.S. Why isn't just avoiding a writer's books "sufficient"? Well, I think
'cause sometimes you gotta let your passions fly. Makes for a more lively
discussion...at least some of the time. And we are a literary discussion
forum, after all. Or so it seems to me.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20060610/f1174f5f/attachment-0001.html

---

From: Chris <rasputin_ at hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 19:55:45 +0000

It is not so much Covenant's horribleness that bothers me about that series, 
it's Donaldson's tendency to *wallow* in that horribleness for extended 
periods of time.

I enjoyed some things about that series. Afterward I felt pretty dirty about 
it, though. Something akin to your feelings about a bottle of cheap port 
wine the day after you've imbibed it.

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 21:05:28 +0000

> it's Donaldson's tendency to *wallow* in that horribleness for extended

This provides a good jumping-off place to answer Stilskin's question,
"What was Donaldson doing that nobody had done before in fantasy?"

1. Disclaimer: since I haven't read every pre-Donaldson work of fantasy
out there, I could obviously be missing something important.

2. The short answer: taking a character from realistic fiction (I mean
in the sense of Zola) and plopping him down into a fantasy world.

3. The long answer is, naturally, more complex. The rest of
this post is a quick sketch:

It isn't that Covenant is horrible; it is that horrible things have
happened to Covenant, making him a particular kind of person;
and then, in a particular situation, he does a particular and
particularly horrible thing, which colors his reaction to the Land
and to himself for the rest of the book.

The Covenant books are (at one level) about the interplay of
passion and control. What is shown in Covenant's crime is that
passion without control is, well, horrible. What the rest of the
series dramatizes in a dozen ways, including Covenant's own
protests against the Land, is that control without passion is
impotent. This is the "paradox" at the heart of white gold: it is
necessary to make a decision in an utterly controlled way, and
carry out the decision with utter passion.

This paradox can _only_ be embodied in a character who is,
no, not horrible, but _capable_ of horribleness: capable of
making the choice to "damn" rather than "save."

Put another way: Covenant is a character who has been
taught, by the horrible things that happen to him, that only
by complete and utter control can he survive. He finds
himself in a situation he believes to be impossible, and
-- in a moment of lost control -- acts on pure passion, and
commits a crime he finds unbearable. His response is
twofold: first, to reject the reality of the Land (because by
doing so he makes his crime not real) and second, to
impose upon himself in the Land control even beyond
what his condition required in his "real" world.

One result is that, in the real world, his control begins to
slip, and he nearly dies. Another is that, in the Land, where
he is overcontrolled, he is impotent, incapable of wielding
the power that he is repeatedly demonstrated to carry.

The solution to the paradox -- control guiding passion --
is the artist's solution; it is also the solution found at the
same time by Lord Mhoram, which causes him to reject
everything the New Lords have built.

4. Incidentally, one thing about Donaldson's style in
these books: the constant reuse of certain words ("clench"
being the famous example) is an attempt -- which fails,
in the first trilogy, through overuse and clumsy use --
to create the literary equivalent of a Wagnerian
_leitmotif_. This is one reason it would be wise to read
at least one non-Covenant text before dismissing Donaldson
as a terrible stylist; he doesn't do this everywhere, it's a
specific trick used only in the TC books.

-----

---

From: Adam Thornton <adam at io.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 00:48:14 +0000

> has less talent than, say, Gary Gygax.)

Ooooh, now THEM'S FIGHTIN' WORDS!

Did *Donaldson* ever write a Wandering Harlot Table?

I *thought* not.

Adam

---

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 02:32:22 +0000

> Did *Donaldson* ever write a Wandering Harlot Table?

I whiled away a lot of hours thanks to Gary.  (For those who may not be 
familiar with him, he's the author/inventor of the original Dungeons and 
Dragons game.)  And his writing... hm, what would one call such writing?  
It's difficult to call it non-fiction when one is describing the fighting 
ability of a dragon, but its not fiction in the normal sense of telling a 
story either.  Technical fiction, perhaps?  In any event, his writing skill 
in that area was fine.  But if you've ever read (or tried to read) any of his 
fiction...  Whew.  Bad.  Very bad.

---

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 02:52:15 +0000

On Saturday 10 June 2006 12:44, pthwndxrclzp wrote:
> It's probably time to drop it, but I really am surprised at the
> intersection of Wolfe and Donaldson fandom. To my mind, it's like someone
> championing, I dunno, Cezanne and Jeff Koons in the same breath. Not that
> it's

Interesting.  I would expect a great deal of cross-over.  While there are 
certainly some very pronounced differences between them, I see similarities 
as well.  Both bring intelligence and depth that is all too often lacking in 
fantasy.  Both explore the nature of good and evil, albeit in very different 
ways.  Both have a penchant for protagonists who are, well, sometimes just 
not very nice people.

> For my money, Wolfe's stuff is erudite, layered, compelling, subtle,
> clever, rich, masterful. Whereas I find what little I've read of Donaldson
> to be nothing of the kind. But hey, I'm also sure I love some writers who'd

Well, I enjoy David Eddings.  It's the literary equivalent of cotton candy, 
but one can't eat healthy all the time.

> forum, after all. Or so it seems to me.

Just to be clear, I was addressing a larger question than solely your post.  
There are web sites (someone posted a link to one here not too long ago) that 
are devoted to denigrating Wolfe and his works.  A great deal of time and 
effort has gone into telling people how horrible a writer he is and how 
overrated is his fiction.

---

From: Transentient <transentient at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 18:46:21 +0000

I would like to interject into this thread the fact that I loathe the  
writing style of George R. R. Martin, and I find his "Game of  
Thrones" series to be nothing more than fanfic in search of a made- 
for-Sci-Fi movie to be a fan of.

Thanks for listening, now please carry on.

---

From: Adam Thornton <adam at io.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:34:35 +0000

> Thanks for listening, now please carry on.

Sometimes Stephen Baxter's prose style makes me want to stick hatpins  
through my eyes.

Adam

---

From: Stanislaus <sbocian at poczta.fm>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:52:06 +0000

Hello Andy,

> Google "clench racing Donaldson" for an (unfair) titter at his expence

This is a brilliant essay by Langford:

"The well-tempered Plot Device"

 http://www.ansible.co.uk/Ansible/plotdev.html

 "Covenant saw. The Staff of Plot. Destroyed. For the Staff of Plot
 had been formed by Berek Halfhand as a tool to serve and uphold the
 Plot. He had fashioned the Staff from a limb of the One Tree as a way
 to wield Earthpower in defence of the health of the Land, in support
 of the natural order of life. And because Earthpower was the strength
 of mystery and spirit, the Staff became the thing it served. It was
 the Plot; the Plot was incarnate in the Staff. The tool and its
 purpose were one. And the Staff had been destroyed. That loss had
 weakened the very fibre of the Plot. A crucial support was withdrawn,
 and the Plot faltered."

 By the way- he, after reading "Shadow" and "Claw", prematurely accuses Wolfe of the same - that is,
 that the Claw is merely a plot device. - Wolfe as usual made it
 appear that way at first, later to explain that the Claw was
 essentially worthless in itself.

-- 
Best regards,
 Stanislaus                           mailto:sbocian at poczta.fm

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Zobacz nowosci salonu moto w Madrycie >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1961

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:01:49 +0000

Now that we've all had the chance to play "bash the fantasy
writer (and fellow list members)," does anybody have any
thoughts on the original quote? To save y'all from having to
dig through week-old emails, here it is again:

I found Stanislaus's comment strangely apropos, by the
way:

On 6/14/06, Stanislaus <sbocian at poczta.fm> wrote:
>  By the way- he, after reading "Shadow" and "Claw", prematurely
> accuses Wolfe of the same - that is,  that the Claw is merely a
> plot device. - Wolfe as usual made it  appear that way at first,
> later to explain that the Claw was essentially worthless in itself.

-- though I'd argue that in fact something that _seems_
tremendously important but is "essentially worthless in itself"
is almost a working definition of a plot device (especially the
variety of plot device known as a Maguffin).

-----

---

From: Stanislaus <sbocian at poczta.fm>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:54:56 +0000

Hello Dan'l,

> against perceived attacks.

The real difference between facts and opinion is that opinions can
be neither attacked nor defended. The opinion is the fact that I like
or dislike something.They are. I like something, or not,  and
similarly you like it, or not. There is nothing more to it. I cannot,
and I need not, persuade you that I like something.

Unfortunately, the obvious fact that one can have an opinion about a
value of a book is taken to mean that one cannot make a judgement
about it.

You can certainly say that there are no objective values of
books, only personal likes or dislikes. That position is wrong, but it
is tenable. It can be proven that books have an intrinsic value, but
it would require many presupositions. Many of them could be regarded
as not obvious, or even false. (Eg, I think it is necessary to suppose
that the God exists. This is a controversial supposition.)

Calling any judgement about value of a book an opinion, however, only
confuses matter.

The proof that there opinions and judgements about books are
different things is easy - I can like a book, and judge it bad (eg
some romance) or I can dislike a book and judge it good (eg
Cortazar, or Joyce's Ulisses).

In other words there are two separate things:
an objective value of a given book,
your liking or disliking of it.

You can like a bad book, and dislike a good one - most people do so.
But whether a book is bad or good is not an opinion, but a fact -
although it can be difficult to ascertain. (It does not follow that
one of the widely different books must be better; good and bad is not
a one-dimensional cathegory, books can be good in different ways).

> that writer's work that I'm simply not equipped to see.

So it seems you think that there are bad writers, but not good ones.
There is a certain objective minimal threshold. Those who are below,
are bad. Those that are above, are not-bad.

Writers who pass this minimum can be liked or disliked, but cannot be
judged.

Unfortunately, this theory is contradictory. Great works can
deliberately breach the rules which are the minimal limits of good
writing. So you will have to say that there are bad and not-bad books.
And some of the best books are bad.

Or perhaps you are simply saying that many people like Donaldson, and
they may very well be right.

> something valuable, that nobody had ever done in fantasy before.

Donaldson, and Bujold also, are neither very good, nor very bad. Both
are rather enjoyable.

Donaldson's innovation in fantasy is the world as inner landscape - the
land as the heart of the hero. It is taking the so-called "pathetic
fallacy" and making it the main constructing material of a novel.
Covenant is corrupted, and the Land is corrupted in its turn - in
other words, Lord Foul is a facet of Covenants character.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERIA.PL dla kobiet... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f193b

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 19:10:50 +0000

>  http://www.ansible.co.uk/Ansible/plotdev.html 

Indeed, but it's actually by the well-known UK fan Nick Lowe. 

I was in the audience at Fencon (Cambridge 1982) when it was first given - 
time flies.

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 19:57:45 +0000

Stanislaus,

> The real difference between facts and opinion is that opinions
> can be neither attacked nor defended. The opinion is the fact
> that I like or dislike something.

Ummm ... no, I don't think so. That's a very _narrow_ definition
of opinion. I can have the opinion that Gene Wolfe is a good
writer; or that the Earth is flat; or that there is life on Mars,
or that a Being much like the Judaeo-Christian God made
the world.

The first is debateable. The second is provably false, but I
_could_ still hold it as an opinion. The third is _in principle_
provably false or true, but not with available knowledge. The
last is unprovable by any technology I can imagine.

If I hold to an opinion which is provably false ("The Earth is
flat"), I am in-sane. If I hold to an opinion in spite of massive
evidence, but not proof, well, I'm stubborn.

"I like Gene Wolfe's books" represents a fact.

"Gene Wolfe is a good writer" represents an opinion; and,
unless you have objective, empirical means of determining
whether writer X is good (which of course means, to begin
with, an objective, extensional, etc. definition of "good" as
it pertains to "writer") , it will _always_ be an opinion.

> it would require many presupositions.

Ummm, that's the basic problem: all those "presuppositions."
I like to operate in a world where all the cards are on the table,
and only the empirically demonstrable is regarded as a "fact."

> Calling any judgement about value of a book an opinion, however,
> only confuses matter.

Then there's this word "value." What is the "value" of a book?
$5.95 in paperback? Fodder for a whole bunch of research
papers? Priceless, because it gave me an emotional
experience that changed my life? Or... What does this word
"value' mean _as you use it here_? I do not like this word;
we don't have agreement on what it means, so its use does
not aid clarity.

> I can like a book, and judge it bad (eg some romance) or I
> can dislike a book and judge it good (eg Cortazar, or Joyce's
> Ulisses).

I agree with this statement, though I would perhaps have chosen
other examples. (I like Joyce.)

> your liking or disliking of it.

Again: you assert the existence of this "objective value,"
without giving me any hint what it is or how I can determine
it. I question this; if you can't discuss it clearly, it's a ghost.
And then when you say:

> although it can be difficult to ascertain.

this sounds like you're already backing away from "objective."

> (It does not follow that one of the widely different books must be
> better; good and bad is not a one-dimensional cathegory, books
> can be good in different ways).

True: any kind of "value" is a _flattening_ measurement, i.e., a
single, one-dimensional measurement that combines in some
(usually quite complex) way a large number of measurements,
some of which are themselves multidimensional. This is why I
included the ludicrous "$5.95 in paperback" above: price is the
ultimate flattening value-measurement.

> >> I am curious about something. Is it your opinion that there
> >> exist no "bad writers," only writers about whose work
> >> opinions vary? Or just that yes, there are indeed bad writers,
> >> Donaldson (in your opinion) just not being oneof them?

> So it seems you think that there are bad writers, but not

Where did you get that idea? You asked _specifically_ about
"bad" writers, and I answered the question you asked; I said
_nothing_ about there being no "good" writers.

In fact, I think that Wolfe, Donaldson, Delany, Ellison, Le Guin,
Tiptree, Butler, Shakespeare, Milton, Joyce, Mann, Faulkner,
Dostoievski, Woolf, Wolfe, and Twain are all "good" writers --
though I admit that there is at least one name in that list whose
work I don't personally care for.

> writing. So you will have to say that there are bad and not-bad
> books. And some of the best books are bad.

You've gone waaaaay off on a tangent here that I don't follow
at all.

> Or perhaps you are simply saying that many people like
> Donaldson, and they may very well be right.

I'm saying that (a) many people like Donaldson, (b) I
like Donaldson and (c) in my opinion, Donaldson is both
a skilled and a talented writer.

> Donaldson's innovation in fantasy is the world as inner landscape
> - the land as the heart of the hero.
That would be one. Another is a little more complex ...

One of the clearest distinctions between "swords'n'sorcery" and
"high fantasy" is that the former tends to concentrate attention
on The Hero and the latter on ... well, something larger. This
becomes clear when you realize that S'n'S series are generally
referred to by the hero's name (the "Conan" series, the "Fahfrd
and the Grey Mouser" series, the "Alyx" series, etc.) while
high fantasy series are generally referred to by the name of
the world or concept ("The Lord of the Rings," "The Earthsea
Series," etc.), and frequently don't have a Hero figure as such.

What Donaldson did in the original "Chronicles of Thomas
Covenant, the Unbeliever" was to place a (psychologically
realistic and complex) character at the focus of what would
otherwise seem to be a high fantasy series; thus the series
title contains both his name and the larger central issue of
the series (Unbelief and its consequences).

Covenant is different from every prior high-fantasy hero of
whom I am aware, because he is capable -- I mean
emotionally capable -- of making a moral decision that will
result in the destruction of The Land. That's the whole point
of the series: he was selected by the Despiser precisely
_for_ that quality.

Lord Foul is "a facet of Covenant's character" only if the
Land's Creator is also: yet we see the Creator in
Covenant's "real" world (as the man in ochre robes),
objectively separate from Covenant. It might perhaps
be -- and I suspect that this is what is going to play out
in the final chronicles -- that Creator, Despiser, and
Unbeliever are three facets of a single larger personality;
but Foul and Covenant are decidedly separate, as much
so (at least) as the Christian Father and Son and Holy
Spirit.

But this is a Wolfe list, not a Donaldson list, and I only
quoted Donaldson in the first place because I thought
his remarks had some relevancy to some Lupine issues...

-----

---

From: Chris <rasputin_ at hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:40:07 +0000

>it pertains to "writer") , it will _always_ be an opinion.

Not to say that I don't agree with a lot of what you've said, but a 
qualification can be made here. You can believe in objective aspects of the 
world that aren't codifiable in language (and perhaps not even in 
principle). You can further believe (or not believe) that there are still 
empirical means of determining whether writer X is good - the idea that some 
things you know simply by *seeing* them (and of course people can see 
clearly, or not so clearly, on occasion).

SOCRATES: The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.
PHAEDRUS: Clearly.
SOCRATES: And what is well and what is badly -- need we ask Lysias, or any 
other poet or orator, who ever wrote or will write either a political or any 
other work, in metre or out of metre, poet or prose writer, to teach us 
this?

> > it would require many presupositions.

I get lost somewhere in this one. One could also hold that there *are* 
objective values when it comes to books, but that the overall "goodness" of 
particular books is a matter of opinion. Or as above one could hold that 
there are objective values, and the assessment of the goodness of books is 
not a matter of mere opinion, and yet still hold that no flat "criteria" can 
be given that codifies the goodness and badness.

>and only the empirically demonstrable is regarded as a "fact."

I am afraid that your expectations are unrealistic, even with what we 
consider to be empirically demonstrable facts. I am sympathetic to the urge 
behind that particular Grail-quest, but ultimately we still have to come to 
terms with all these presuppositions which are not to be evaded or left 
behind.

>we don't have agreement on what it means, so its use does

That is perhaps the essence of what's at issue. We can't come to agreement 
until we agree on the nature of values. And this question cannot be avoided 
by simply ignoring the word, or pretending that "values" are not involved.

>this sounds like you're already backing away from "objective."

I think in a way he may be leaning toward the position I described above.

>ultimate flattening value-measurement.

Yet all of the different kind of "goods" seem to have something in common 
that make them goods in the first place - a family resemblance. But what 
makes a good soccer player may have nothing codifiably in common with what 
makes a good novel (in any particular sense). Does this mean there's no such 
thing, objectively, as a good soccer player or a good book?

>You've gone waaaaay off on a tangent here that I don't follow

I don't know for sure what he was talking about. I am vaguely reminded of 
Proust's meditation on originality. He said that basically what is *really* 
original in art is inherently something that you don't at first know what to 
make of, or are even a little disappointed with, because it does not fit 
into the conventions of what you expected a "good" performance or painting 
to be like. One asks oneself, "Is this beautiful?"

Perhaps it can tie in to what was said above. One comes up with hypotheses 
about what makes a book good, but these hypotheses are only approximations 
of something that apparently escapes codification. Nonetheless one looks, 
and one recognizes the beauty. Only afterward are our hypotheses about the 
nature of beauty revised.

>the series (Unbelief and its consequences).

I think a lot of other people have had psychologically realistic and complex 
characters, though I can't cite examples at the moment. What struck me about 
Covenant as an anti-hero was that the writer does not spare a lot of love 
for his creation - or for that matter any of his characters. By this I don't 
mean anything syrupy. There is simply a certain amount of *care* with which 
one renders a character - even a repulsive one - in a good work.

I felt, throughout all of those books, that the author in some way loathed 
is creation, and it was more than just Covenant, it bled over into the world 
in general and even the characters presented as innocent. Perhaps this was 
original on his part, but in this case the actual feeling that it created 
was that of an ill-made creation by a self-loathing author, and by 
attempting to identify or engage in some way with his characters the reader 
ends up disliking themselves just that tiny bit more as well.

All this doesn't mean he's a bad writer, just that I did not like those 
books and did not see them as original in any positive sense.

>his remarks had some relevancy to some Lupine issues...

Nonetheless most of what's been talked about isn't even about Donaldson, 
particularly, so I think the digression can be forgiven.

---

From: Alan Lewis <alanarc1 at optonline.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 00:14:51 +0000

> thing, objectively, as a good soccer player or a good book?

This kind of discussion is very interesting, and certainly relevant for our 
list.  Though there seems agreement that there is such a thing as good 
writing and bad writing, there remains the problem of the objective reality 
of these qualities when we disagree about which a particular work is.  A 
good (ahem) writer named Tom Stoppard said this in his play The Real Thing:

  ANNIE: It just needs a bit of work.

  HENRY: You're all bent.

  ANNIE: You're jealous.

  HENRY: Of Brodie?

  ANNIE: You're jealous of the idea of the writer. You want to keep it 
sacred, special, not something anybody can do. Some of us have it, some of 
us don't. We write, you get written about. What gets you about Brodie is he 
doesn't know his place. You say he can't write like a head waiter saying you 
can't come in here without a tie. Because he can't put words together. What's 
so good about putting words together?

  HENRY: It's traditionally considered advantageous for a writer.

  ANNIE: He's not a writer. He's a convict. You're a writer. You write 
because you're a writer. Even you write about something, you have to think 
up something to write about just so you can keep writing. More well chosen 
words nicely put together. So what? Why should that be it? Who says?

  HENRY: Nobody says. It just works best.

  ANNIE: Of course it works. You teach a lot of people what to expect from 
good writing, and you end up with a lot of people saying you write well. 
Then somebody who isn't in on the game comes along, like Brodie, who really 
has something to write about, something real, and you can't get through it. 
Well, he couldn't get through yours, so where are you? To you, he can't 
write. To him, write is all you can do.

  HENRY: Jesus, Annie, you're beginning to appall me. There's something 
scary about stupidity made coherent. I can deal with idiots, and I can deal 
with sensible argument, but I don't know how to deal with you. Where's my 
cricket bat?

  ANNIE: Your cricket bat?

  HENRY: Yes. It's a new approach. [He heads out into the hall.]

  ANNIE: Are you trying to be funny?

  HENRY: No, I'm serious. [He goes out while she watches in wary disbelief. 
He returns with an old cricket bat.]

  ANNIE: You better not be.

  HENRY: Right, you silly cow -

  ANNIE: Don't you bloody dare -

  HENRY: Shut up and listen. This thing here, which looks like a wooden 
club, is actually several pieces of particular wood cunningly put together 
in a certain way so that the whole thing is sprung, like a dance floor. It's 
for hitting cricket balls with. If you get it right, the cricket ball will 
travel two hundred yards in four seconds, and all you've done is give it a 
knock like knocking the top off a bottle of stout, and it makes a noise like 
a trout taking a fly. [He clucks his tongue to make the noise.] What we're 
trying to do is to write cricket bats, so that when we throw up an idea and 
give it a little knock, it might . travel . [He clucks his tongue again and 
picks up the script.] Now, what we've got here is a lump of wood of roughly 
the same shape trying to be a cricket bat, and if you hit a ball with it, 
the ball will travel about ten feet and you will drop the bat and dance 
about shouting Ouch! with your hands stuck into your armpits. This isn't 
better because someone says it's better, or because there's a conspiracy by 
the MCC to keep cudgels out of Lords. It's better because it's better. You 
don't believe me, so I suggest you go out to bat with this and see how you 
get on. [quoting from the play] You're a strange boy, Billy, how old are 
you? Twenty, but I've lived more than you'll ever live. Ooh, ouch! [He drops 
the script and hops about with his hands in his armpits, going Ouch! ANNIE 
watches him expressionlessly until he desists.]

  ANNIE: I hate you.

  HENRY: I love you. I'm your pal. I'm your best mate. I look after you. You're 
the only chap.

  ANNIE: Oh, Hen. Can't you help?

  HENRY: What did you expect me to do?

  ANNIE: Well.cut it and shape it.

  HENRY: Cut it and shape it. Henry of Mayfair. Look - he can't write. I 
would have to write it for him.

  ANNIE: Well, write it for him.

  HENRY: I can't.

  ANNIE: Why?

  HENRY: Because it's balls. Mary's part is the least of it - it's merely 
ham-fisted. But when he gets into his stride, or rather his lurch, 
announcing every stale revelation of the newly enlightened, like stout 
Cortez coming upon the Pacific - war is profits, politicians are puppets, 
Parliament is a farce, justice is a fraud, property is theft. It's all here: 
the Stock Exchange, the arms dealers, the press barons. You can't fool 
Brodie - patriotism is propaganda, religion is a con trick, royalty is an 
anachronism. Pages and pages of it. It's like being run over very slowly by 
a travelling freak show of favourite simpletons, the India rubber pedagogue, 
the midget intellectual, the human panacea.

  ANNIE: It's his view of the world. Perhaps from where he's standing you'd 
see it the same way.

  HENRY: Or perhaps I'd realize where I'm standing. Or at least that I'm 
standing somewhere. There is, I suppose, a world of objects which have a 
certain form, like this coffee mug. I turn it, and it has no handle. I tilt 
it, and it has no cavity. But there is something real here which is always a 
mug with a handle. But politics, justice, patriotism - they aren't like 
coffee mugs. There's nothing real there separate from our perception of 
them. So if you try to change them as though there were something there to 
change, you'll get frustrated, and frustration will finally make you 
violent. If you know this and proceed with humility, you may perhaps alter 
people's perceptions so that they behave a little differently at that axis 
of behaviour where we locate politics or justice; but if you don't know 
this, then you're acting on a mistake. Prejudice is the expression of this 
mistake.

  ANNIE: Or such is your perception.

  HENRY: All right.

  ANNIE: And who wrote it, why he wrote it, where he wrote it - none of 
these things count with you?

  HENRY: Leave me out of it. They don't count. Maybe Brodie got a raw deal, 
maybe he didn't. I don't know. It doesn't count. He's a lout with language. 
I can't help somebody who thinks, or thinks he thinks, that editing a 
newspaper is censorship, or that throwing bricks is a demonstration while 
building tower blocks is social violence, or that unpalatable statement is 
provocation while disrupting the speaker is the exercise of free speech. 
Words don't deserve that kind of malarkey. They're innocent, neutral, 
precise, standing for this, describing that, meaning the other, so if you 
look after them you can build bridges across incomprehension and chaos. But 
when they get their corners knocked off, they're no good any more, and 
Brodie knocks corners off without knowing he's doing it. So everything he 
writes is jerry-built. It's rubbish. An intelligent child could push it 
over. I don't think writers are sacred, but words are. They deserve respect. 
If you get the right ones in the right order, you can nudge the world a 
little or make a poem which children will speak for you when you're dead.

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 02:12:19 +0000

Alan,

Thank you for posting that -- I do like Tom Stoppard a lot
(especially _Travesties_ and _Dogg's Hamlet and Cahoot's
Macbeth_ and ... Oh, heck: I like Tom Stoppard), and what
he says here does seem relevant.

In fact, I _do_ have some thoughts on how one can make a
useful and empirical and all that stuff definition of "good"ness
for a piece of fiction, but they are (for the moment) insufficiently
choate for me to post anything about them, and anyway I
want to see if anyone else comes up with a similar approach.

-----

---

From: David Duffy <david.duffy at qimr.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 04:06:28 +0000

> want to see if anyone else comes up with a similar approach.

I fear this will be worse than a discussion about the definition of
science fiction.  Maybe we should concentrate on objective measures of
"bad".  Just in the last month or so, I have read several
newspaper and journal articles:

1) Allan Ginsberg is a bad poet and _Howl_ is undeservedly popular
2) JM Coetzee is a bad writer and undeservedly received the Nobel
3) Dan Brown is a bad writer and undeservedly made lots of money ;)

Each article provided quotes from the offending author -- "objective"
evidence.

My favourite review of _Finnegan's Wake_ was by a psychiatrist, who said
he frequently saw these types of word salads and neologisms in the writing
of psychotics, and confidently made the same diagnosis for Joyce.

Or how about the frequent comment that HP Lovecraft is *much* better in
French translation ;)

Which is to say, *I* *know* what "quality literature" is, and can spot a
wooden sentence as well as Tom Stoppard's character, but _de gustibus_.

David Duffy.

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:47:32 +0000

On 6/15/06, David Duffy <David.Duffy at qimr.edu.au> wrote:
> I fear this will be worse than a discussion about the
> definition of science fiction.

Probably not, but I believe the approach I'm mulling over --
basically, a weighted version of fuzzy definition -- would
make defining SF a lot less controversial also. It's just that
it makes defining "definition" a bit hairy.

> Maybe we should concentrate on objective measures of

Certainly the title poem is the only thing in it I find
readable -- but I'm not a real poetry-lover.

> 2) JM Coetzee is a bad writer and undeservedly received the

This critic should review the list of past Nobel winners.
Chances are s/he has read less than half of those before,
say, 1970. The Nobel committee turns out to be roughly
as infallible as the Academy that presents the Oscars
or the WSFS that presents the Hugoi.

> 3) Dan Brown is a bad writer and undeservedly made lots of

God knows, Dan Brown is no Gene Wolfe, or even
Tom Clancy, but he delivers the product the audience
pays for. I can't call that a "bad writer" in any meaningful
way.

> Each article provided quotes from the offending author --
> "objective" evidence.

Yeah, and Tolkien is a bad writer because Legolas fell
into his own tongue. "Even Homer nods." I can prove
_any_ writer lousy if I'm allowed to quote out of context.

> My favourite review of _Finnegan's Wake_ was by a
> psychiatrist, who said he frequently saw these types of
> word salads and neologisms in the writing of psychotics,
> and confidently made the same diagnosis for Joyce.

Cheez. That would be meaningful _if_ Joyce hadn't
repeatedly proved (and was still proving in his massive
correspondence) that he was, in fact, perfectly capable
of writing good "standard" English. Actually, it _is_
meaningful, but what it means is about the shrink in
question, not about Joyce.

Joyce's language in FW is clearly totally in control,
having a definite structure and grammar which it is
possible to imitate (my own recent attempt, a response
to the Stephen James Joyce teatempestpot, can
be found on my blog at
http://sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com/152542.html
if you care)

> Or how about the frequent comment that HP Lovecraft is
> *much* better in French translation ;)

I've mostly heard that about van Vogt. I've also heard
that Thomas Mann -- or was it Franz Kafka -- was basically
invented by his English translator, and his style in German
was horrendous. I have no idea, since I can't read German...

> Which is to say, *I* *know* what "quality literature" is, and
> can spot a wooden sentence as well as Tom Stoppard's
> character, but _de gustibus_.

Disgustibus non deputandem. ("You can't hire someone
else to do your throwing-up for you.")

-----

---

From: Bob Miller <bob_bageera at hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 02:54:26 +0000

Thank you so much for responding to the post, Dan'l.  I was wondering why 
that boring pretentiousness was put out there or why anyone would bother 
with it, and you showed me again that viewpoint and variety are the master 
limners of both profundity and accuracy.  Very humbling---again.

From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <danldo at gmail.com>
Reply-To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
Subject: Re: (urth) objective measure of "good"
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:12:19 -0700

Alan,

-----

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/