In the 2+ years that OF has been running, we've discussed many things, from movie adaptations of Tolkien to deep explorations of the sources of inspiration for fantasy and science-fiction authors. Yet in all that time, I've learned that nothing gets as much reaction as a simple Author vs. Author or Character vs. Character discussion.
Currently, we're running a series of Quickpolls on favorite characters, in the tongue-in-cheek named Character Quickpoll Series. This is following on the heels of a very successful (and sometimes controversial) Author Quickpoll Series. Over the past five months that we've done these two series of Quickpolls, the level of reader participation has increased markedly, but at what cost?
I participate on a limited basis at a half-dozen other fantasy/SF-related sites, using a variety of screen names. At almost every single one of them, I've noticed what almost amounts to a factionalization of those sites along character/author lines. Nowhere is this more evident than at the SOIAF board. There, in their Other Authors section, one can expect to find plenty of posts devoted to comparing authors, including the linked-to one of Martin versus Jordan. But to be fair, this also occurs with too-frequent occurrance at OF as well, especially when we have been known for taking our potshots at Terry Goodkind and his interview style and how that compares with the perceived qualities of his Sword of Truth series.
Sometimes, comparing authors is a worthwhile endeavor. However, many times, it seems as though we get caught up in a reductio ad absurdum situation. Either a poster will say, "This book is kickass! Buy it now!," or on the flip side, it'll be more along the lines of, "This sucks!" (or sux, or suxx0r, depending on the person and the code language they want to use). Two months ago, Robert Salvatore mentioned the OF Quickpoll in passing when he talked about the negativity that internet websites seem to have toward the non-kosher authors. We had a very honest and open discussion about this issue and I am glad that we resolved matters to our mutual liking.
But Salvatore does raise a very important point. Why is it that many have to believe that they must bash other authors into the ground at the same time that they express their admiration for another author's work? Shouldn't the merits of a George R.R. Martin stand on their own without having to be compared to a Robert Jordan or any other fantasy author?
And that leads into an even more fundamental issue for fans who post on websites. We're not exactly known as paragons of debating. All too often, our attempts to discuss matters breaks down into simple likes/dislikes, without a clear model for determining those preferences. Over at SFF World two months ago, a mini-battle of sorts broke out over how to delineate between "quality" and "non-quality" speculative fiction. But the specifics of that debate are for another post, I fear.
There are two important things to consider here: Why do we like this character/author? How does this character/story work for me? All too often in the constricting confines of internet forums, we have little opportunity to expound upon our initial statements, due mostly to the time it take for us to compose and organize our thoughts on the matter. There are plenty of very intelligent writers that visit these forums, yet even they are sometimes guilty of writing only a sentence or a paragraph and expecting everyone else to see as he/she sees the issue. I know I'm guilty of this in the past.
But what can we do about it? For the time being, apparently not much. Although there are many that are willing to put forth the extra effort required to spark a lively and civilized discourse on how we view authors and their characters, there are many times more of us fans who are content to engage in questions that revolve around a Versus scenario, whether it's Martin vs. Jordan, Erikson vs. Martin, Tolkien vs. Miéville, or if it's a Character Deathmatch sort of setting. Sometimes, in order to get some of the former, we have to indulge others who want the latter.
The Empirical Approach to Learning
1 day ago
Posts
14 comments:
While I agree with your basic sentiments, shazdawg, I just want to clarify one point. When I asked whether or not Martin should be critiqued based on his own merits, that was as a followup to the previous statement about how too often an author is compared to another author just to bash one. The implied statement behind that is that without a set of standards for comparison (how well do the characters interact, how is language used to describe the settings and happenings, how strong and believable is the dialogue, etc.), it's extremely difficult to convey to anyone just what succeeds and what doesn't.
Yes, there are going to be comparisons between authors, but if done in a manner that reflects upon the authors' relative skills in the areas I mention above, there's going to be a lot less conflict than if one just says - he sucks, the other is cool!
But my basic point still stands - why can't Martin be measured up to a defined criteria without having to resort to comparing him to other authors? Most of the time that I review an author's work, I compared that book to a mental list of strengths/weaknesses that I have developed for gauging the effectiveness of the work. I rarely compare one author to another, unless I'm trying to persuade fans of one to read the other, because I know that comparing authors without exploring both in depth and breadth is just asking for trouble.
Thanks for replying. Hope I've made my case a little more clear now.
This is Gavroche (damn, I really need to get an ID eventually :P ). I cannot say I'm not guilty of the simply comparing an author to another author, or the "I liked it" or "I didn't like it". But I will say, I don't often use comparisions simply for the purpose of bashing. Saying "I think Mieville and Gaiman have roughly equivalent skill" or something of that sort doesn't bash either, now does it? Yes, internet forums are somewhat limiting (though I must say, I can definately argue far better in writing than orally), but they can still work in the capacity you are thinking, so long as the people are inspired enough.
Well Gav, I checked and it looks like you'll have to do a quick registration (it's free and if you want, you can continue through and create a Blog of your own to boot). Now onto what you said:
You make the point that one could compare authors without bashing either one. While I agree, but how would you support your statement that the two have similar skill levels? Sometimes, posting a review is akin to submitting a paper for a college professor to shred - you have to support your assertations and be ready for those who are going to counterpoint them all. So I'm curious, how would you set about comparing the two?
Feel free to answer here or on OF. Either place is fine with me.
Gav again.
I know what you're saying Larry, but I was just making the point that not all comparisons are for the sole purpose of bashing. With the example I gave (I obviously didn't elaborate because I didn't want to write an essay simply to give an example), you can back up your assertion by doing such things as: analyzing the works of both authors first on technical aspects (writing style, etc), then on the more internal/personal/subjective aspects (such as how well the novels worked at provoking emotions and such), and basing your judgement of merit on qualities such as those (I know there's likely many more qualities you could think of).
I know - I just wanted to give you a hard time!
Maybe, but sometimes I would rather aspire for Phi Beta Kappa-worthy discussions ;)
I will. But in a few minutes, I'm going to sleep for about 2-3 hours and then shower, shave, and go to work by 11PM CDT. Such is the life of the working Admin ;)
Nice points, Eric. I agree with practically all that you say. Of course, when I said an author should stand on his own merits, that was following comments about how too often lazy readers just compare/contrast authors without going into any depth - the usual, he sucks/is cool contrast, without any real context behind those comments. And in minefields such as author/character discussions, sometimes that middle ground is also the safest ground.
I agree with you for the most part, Larry. It has been especially interesting over the past several months as we've worked through the different VS. quickpolls on OF. It is all too common that a person tosses out an argument that is nothing more than surface level preference. Arguments that are superficial in those ways tend to decay into nothing more than "my author rules and yours sucks..." types of scenarios.
Shaza and Eric do bring up important points in this discussion though. No set of underlying value judgements, no matter how seemingly removed from specific literary connection, are arrived at without some level of prior value judgement. We arrive at our understanding of what makes good characters, plotting, writing, etc., by finding examples of each that we accept as good or of a high quality. Yes, those judgements get more complex as they are filitered through a great mass of material as we continue to read and learn. Still, at the basic level, in any review we are responding on some level at a Character A does not live up to my ideal of a good Character.
This approach is definitely more reasoned and open for quality discussion, but we can't forget that all quality assessments are really comparisons of what has been done.
True, Jake, but at the same time, the presumption of being able to analyze character strengths/weaknesses has to emphasize the guidance of criteria over simple surface discussions. But the true beauty of this all lies in the fact that regardless of how detailed and in-depth we go in analyzing books or characters, in the end there's always more and more room for further explorations.
After all, remember learning in those historiographical classes about how 19th century historians used to believe that they'd soon run out of historical topics to cover? 150 years later and we're still going strong there, yes? :D I guess the same will hold true for a Tolkien or any other author still being read then.
It is, Eric, which is part of the reason that Larry and I thought that a Blog would be a good expansion to what we already do on OF.
Larry, of course, I agree with that. My intent was to bring up that very aspect of these types of assessments. In all situations, our assumptions and models can, and often are, changed or modified through continued discussion, experience, understanding.
I have a question though. Do you think that all qualitative conversations covering points out of books, or whatever topic, should remain tightly focused on the object under scrutiny as compared to our more specific qualifications of quality, success, etc? Is there no room in your books for straight up comparative analysis?
While authors like Martin, Erikson, Bakker have their different styles and focuses, I do believe that comparative analysis is still a valid form of conversation. While I dislike conversations that have sole purpose of trying to define which character is "cooler" or more "kick ass," I do think that comparing characters, plot elements, plotting from different authors can help us understand each individual author a bit better. Sometimes, in comparison, I realize that some aspects of an author's work is particularily strong compared to other writer's in a specific style. The opposite is also true. To me, it is an interesting conversation, if handled properly, to discuss the relative strengths and weakness of authors when compared to their peers.
I have a question though. Do you think that all qualitative conversations covering points out of books, or whatever topic, should remain tightly focused on the object under scrutiny as compared to our more specific qualifications of quality, success, etc? Is there no room in your books for straight up comparative analysis?Tough question. My answer is this: Yes and no. When I was having to write book reviews in my history grad classes, I was told to give enough evidence that I was familiar with the literature on the area in question, but to focus my attention on discussing the merits of such a book and how that book's contents adds to the overall literature.
So while it's good to show some awareness of others writing in the field, I think it's much better to concentrate most of the review space on the book at hand and not on other writers.
Speaking of writing reviews, I think I'll be writing a post sometime soon (maybe in the morning) on what constitutes a good review. That should make for an interesting discussion, yes?
But it won't hurt for me to comment on it, but that'll have to wait until the morning. About to leave for work in an hour and I have other things to do in-between. Should be fun reading the comments. 23 here already. Cool.
Post a Comment