tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post2281444878461226622..comments2024-03-20T19:40:58.078-05:00Comments on The OF Blog: So you have a voice, but do you know when to be silent?Larry Nolenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16001420558511460998noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-67792850871874079542010-05-19T11:25:35.850-05:002010-05-19T11:25:35.850-05:00Having now read both halves of the SF Signal Mindm...Having now read both halves of the SF Signal Mindmeld in question, Gav's position just seems even more untenable to me based on the breadth and depth of suggestions that span several decades up to last November for recommendations. While it's probably best to say that certain elements of SF have changed with the times, nonetheless there seems to be a continued vitality to that literary subgenre due to concerns raised in books such as <i>Finch</i> about the effects of occupation and terrorism on a populace, or matters of gender as raised in Jeanette Winterson's <i>The Stone Gods</i>, or matters of faith raised in novels such as Mary Doria Russell's first two SF novels.<br /><br />To argue for a "crumbling" is quite odd, since there is really no evidence presented for that view, other than the person making it, for whatever reason, is not connecting with the conversations that are taking place within and between books, their authors, and their fans about these issues I mention above and others.Larry Nolenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001420558511460998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-35236074146077165682010-05-19T08:23:09.225-05:002010-05-19T08:23:09.225-05:00I've been ganged up on before and it's not...I've been ganged up on before and it's not fun; to that end, Sorry Gav. I don't think anyone is trying to take a dig at you, rather it's a conflict of ideas.<br /><br />Unlike 'blood, the body and dust and such' what you find 'old and harder to read' is subjective.<br /><br />Martin beat me to it but, yeah, the fallacies in bringing a dictionary to this type of debate are many, but "when in Rome..." Ironically, the dictionary is an example of you supplying a proof to your claim! ( Which I, and others, applaud you for doing. It's support, dare I say 'evidence' in a sense. )<br /><br />Another word for your lexicon:<br />Unfounded:<br />without foundation; not based on fact, realistic considerations, or the like: unfounded suspicions.<br />—Synonyms <br />1. groundless, idle, false, unjustified, unsubstantiated.<br /><br />Now if this modifier is applied to 'rant' or 'opinion' you can perhaps see why some others have taken exception to previous comments. <br /><br />If I'm of the opinion or mount my soapbox and rant on my personal belief that JFK was murdered by Papa Smurf with a blowgun...<br /><br />Oh, never mind; I feel the impasses in shall not be bridged and I don't think it matters if it isn't.Chad Hullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17774092046594256969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-730240545616331792010-05-19T03:11:03.106-05:002010-05-19T03:11:03.106-05:00@ Martin
I might be being a little overly defens...@ Martin <br /><br />I might be being a little overly defensive in my comments back to you. I'm not usually so testy but I've had to explain and expand on this so many times over the weekend I'm loosing the will to type. So sorry if I've been firing back a little harder than is justified. You just hit the wrong button at the wrong time. <br /><br />I labelled it as a rant because I was writing in it in a fast and impassioned way. Think Victor Meldrew. <br /><br />I've taken responsibility for what I've said, and defended it and it's an opinion that I hold that you are more likely to get a more cool, calculated and academically merited recommendation when looking for SF books and it's a genre where its champions should be doing a better job of showing that it has a strong beating heart with a lifeblood flowing through it. <br /><br />The reason for the metaphor of crumbling is that if you remove blood from a body there is nothing to hold it together and eventually it will crumble to dust. Something that I think is a problem when you present old and harder to read books as ways of accessing a genre. <br /><br />I'm yet to be shown the this premise the the automatic reaction is to look to past instead of the present is incorrect. And that the support that old books get is not reflected with the same ferocity when it comes to newer works. And that new works are dismissed as without merit before they've been through some peer-acessed value system.gav (nextread.co.uk)http://nextread.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-37427230962188114712010-05-19T02:45:48.921-05:002010-05-19T02:45:48.921-05:00Usually I would say that it is a really bad idea t...Usually I would say that it is a really bad idea to quote the dictionary in an argument. In this case though it is actually quite helpful since it shows that your "rant" is not a rant at all. By calling it that you are just using a common blogging shorthand that seeks to remove responsibility for what a blogger writes (as you have done in this thread). It is not wild or impassioned and it certainly isn't shouted; instead it is just an opinion on the state of the genre and an anchor point for further discussion.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345781894610597191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-44833209517449065422010-05-19T02:44:55.990-05:002010-05-19T02:44:55.990-05:00I don't agree they are ill informed - no one h...I don't agree they are ill informed - no one has yet to convince me what I said was incorrect - how I said it and how I went about explaining might be been less than ideal and that's mostly what I've been attacked for. <br /><br />I maintain that there is no automatic assumption that essential selection of SF books shouldn't mean something has gone through a peer-pressured assessment. Essential for me is personal and inspiring.gav (nextread.co.uk)http://nextread.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-91822571284213446802010-05-18T20:14:29.104-05:002010-05-18T20:14:29.104-05:00True, but if you want to provide uninformed opinio...True, but if you want to provide uninformed opinions, be my guest. It's a strange point to be arguing for the right to come across as making ill-informed remarks, but more power to you.Larry Nolenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001420558511460998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-159735790332737702010-05-18T15:26:53.916-05:002010-05-18T15:26:53.916-05:00@Larry, don't worry I'm good.
I'd li...@Larry, don't worry I'm good. <br /><br />I'd like to say though that the OED (UK) defines rant as:<br /><br /> • verb speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way.<br /><br />and opinion as: <br /><br />• noun 1 a view or judgement not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. 2 the beliefs or views of people in general: public opinion. 3 an estimation of quality or worth. 4 a formal statement of advice by an expert or professional.<br /><br />No where does it say you need to provide evidence ;)gav (NextRead.co.uk)http://www.nextread.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-4348090557515924162010-05-18T13:57:23.294-05:002010-05-18T13:57:23.294-05:00I'm sorry you don't want to continue the c...I'm sorry you don't want to continue the conversation and I'm afraid I see it as not a question of semantics but one of articulacy.<br /><br />You are completely right that you have no duty to try and satisfy me that you are right. However, if you want to engage with and write critically about a field it is probably in your best interests to do so. Otherwise you will just end up getting more reactions like Vandermeer's.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345781894610597191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-3613271786240632402010-05-18T13:06:57.310-05:002010-05-18T13:06:57.310-05:00Gav,
I think all that anyone is really asking is ...Gav,<br /><br />I think all that anyone is really asking is that in the future, just take the time to make sure that your opinions are supported with relevant facts/evidence. It's nothing personal, certainly not on my end.Larry Nolenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001420558511460998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-26613167488827300092010-05-18T12:24:17.301-05:002010-05-18T12:24:17.301-05:00Sigh, I’m just going to repeat my self from above:...Sigh, I’m just going to repeat my self from above:<br /><br />‘I don't think that anyone has to justify themselves to the level where the other person has satisfied themselves the argument has been made to their own standards of evidence.’<br /><br />And you seem to be continually pushing for your own level of satisfaction. <br /><br />The ‘right to reply’ doesn’t mean the same as the ‘right to justifications or explanations’ from the originator. <br /><br />I also think that you are now playing semantics of language. <br /><br />I don’t think this discussion is going to end in anything that is going to satisfy your own standard and I see little point in continuing.gav (NextRead.co.uk)http://www.nextread.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-36312881379706815352010-05-18T04:51:10.882-05:002010-05-18T04:51:10.882-05:00Regarding newspapers, many employ columnists who d...Regarding newspapers, many employ columnists who do not reflect the view of the paper at all and do so for this very reason. However, my point was actually about your assertion that "comment and opinion pieces in newspapers come as they are" and are rarely responded to. In fact, newspapers offer many ways of responding: letters pages, right to reply columns, readers' editors, blog comments, etc.<br /><br />This is relevent because - as per newspapers - you seem to be drawing some distinction between quantifiable, factual writing and opinion. From this you draw the bizarre conclusion that opinion doesn't need to be supported, logical, coherent, etc. The problem with your series of blog posts on this issue is that they just don't make sense. Given this, I don't think it is enough to just shrug your shoulders and say "its just my opinion".<br /><br />Nor do I find the idea that it all comes down to authorial authority at all persuasive. Should an opinion stand on its own? Absolutely it should. Words have meanings independent of the person writing them.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345781894610597191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-70204862265238198862010-05-17T21:11:35.744-05:002010-05-17T21:11:35.744-05:00Chad,
What I said is: "Sometimes you need ev...Chad,<br /><br />What I said is: "Sometimes you need evidence to sustain an opinion and sometimes you don't. It kind of depends on what kind of conversation you're trying to have. And who you want to have it with."<br /><br />Does that not strike you as true? If I'm walking down the street and we pass Chad's Sushi Joint and I turn to my friend and say "Chad's Sushi is the greatest sushi in the whole world. After you eat it, the world will blueshift for a moment and colors will never quite look the same again because you will have been thrust into an alternate dimension where the laws of physics are slightly different."<br /><br />I don't expect my friend to say, "Why is it so good?" And if he did, I probably wouldn't have an answer (mostly because I spent so long coming up with that extended hyperbole).<br /><br />There are plenty of times when sharing an opinion is just about communicating, for the sake of it. Now, if my friend did ask me, "No, really, why do you think this place is so good? I think its sushi is really made of raw rat," would he be wrong to question my opinion? Not really. But I would think that he was kind of missing the objective of the communication.<br /><br />Admittedly, this point is less applicable to the current situation, as I noted above, because blog posts are not really conversations. If my friend went around to other people, being all like, "Rahkan said Chad's was really good, but he never gave a reason and I don't think it's so good because its sushi has the consistency of gamy rat," then I doubt I'd care. Unless I was really sensitive. Which I am not.rahkanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04197789931178553085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-55511492253139390682010-05-17T16:08:16.828-05:002010-05-17T16:08:16.828-05:00@Martin
I really didn’t say you take or you leav...@Martin <br /><br />I really didn’t say you take or you leave opinions. I said ‘You either accept a persons opinion or your don’t’. I could have gone one to say… ‘that it’s up to you to judge what your own thoughts on that opinion are and how that matches your own view and if that makes you pause for thought and if that opinion has a positive, negative or meh effect - amongst the myriad of other possible outcomes and reactions you could have.’ <br /><br />Columnists are chosen, as I understand it, to be reflection of the views of the papers in which they appear - they are however editorially independent - meaning that they can express their own opinion as well as that of the paper in which they appear. It doesn’t mean that their opinion is the same as their paper however. But as the voice of the paper they might as well be on most occasions and all intents and purposes. If you pick up the Daily Mail you are going to get a completely different opinion than if you pick up The Guardian and you should be aware of their biases. <br /><br />Blogs don’t have to a separate ‘news’ voice an other ‘personal’ voice. They are a reflection, most of the time, of a single person who is only human and is a channeling all their experience and personal development into a continual monologue with a public forum. Engagement isn’t always with all those that it reaches to but only the small percentage that engages so can’t be a reflection of audience - and yes I know that Jeff pointed out that the mindmeld wasn’t a reflection on SF fandom. <br /><br />Should an opinion stand on its own? It depends on if it’s something that is quantifiable or something that is conjecture and open to interpretation but as I said it you give that opinion more weight depending on how you see the person or entity it comes from. <br /><br />It also depends on your knowledge of the subject that is being discussed and how it fits in with your own views. As I said the more open something is to interpretate the harder it is to see the opinion in on it’s own without some context.gav (NextRead.co.uk)http://www.nextread.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-12962074867896344722010-05-17T15:57:09.901-05:002010-05-17T15:57:09.901-05:00Now is the time on Sprockets vhen ve dance!:
Gav,...Now is the time on Sprockets vhen ve dance!:<br /><br />Gav,<br /><br />I like to think there's inherent risk whenever communication of any sort, but especially of a public, op-ed nature takes place. And some of us commentators come from professions where detailed back and forth isn't just an option, but a frequent occurrence. No harm in forearming oneself for those encounters, though.<br /><br />Chad,<br /><br />I don't think "insecure" is the word here, but rather "frequently skeptical." And the "evidence" I talk about is meant to relate solely to supporting opinions, rant or no rant.<br /><br />Eddie,<br /><br />Lawyers are a special category of evil, related to that of veteran teachers. The constant prodding and questioning of assumptions is a symptom ;)Larry Nolenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001420558511460998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-12267288753386558492010-05-17T15:41:37.964-05:002010-05-17T15:41:37.964-05:00Gav, I don't know why on Earth you would think...Gav, I don't know why on Earth you would think that you have to just take or leave opinions. That isn't how newspapers work and it certainly isn't how blogs work (it also completely goes against your conclusion that blogging is about expressing an opinion). Why would you have comments enabled if this was true? As for the idea that an opinion's authority is based on your view of the commentator, do you really not think the opinion itself plays a part?Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345781894610597191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-49486415189374295192010-05-17T14:51:36.867-05:002010-05-17T14:51:36.867-05:00"I do find myself wondering if it's a gen..."I do find myself wondering if it's a generational thing, this jumping to conclusions and then becoming overly sensitive when those conclusions are swatted back as if Federer were doing a forehand slam."<br /><br />Larry, old man, don't try to turn this into a generational debate. You've got a decade on me or so, I think, and I don't see that reflected in me or my contemporaries. Then again, most of my friends are lawyers, and we construct arguments for a living, or scientists, who know how to use empirical evidence :P. Take that data point for what you will...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15446040693497057719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-20389556622361157592010-05-17T14:46:55.011-05:002010-05-17T14:46:55.011-05:00"
One worry I have in my blogging is that I d..."<br />One worry I have in my blogging is that I don't receive enough critical feedback. Too often there's either silence or overly effusive praise, praise that I distrust due to having this sense that there's always an angle that I missed, downplayed too much, or just misinterpreted.<br />"<br />The above strikes me as insecurity. If you got something to say, contentious or not, say it. This is where the evidence bit comes in. If your 'opinion' or 'voice' doesn't hold water then perhaps you should be hesitant to express it (e.g. if you believe two plus two equals five). <br /><br />"Sometimes you need evidence to sustain an opinion and sometimes you don't."<br /><br />I can't tell if the above has been squashed or not--I got lost in the comments. <br /><br />Empirical proofs don't need supporting evidence (in the traditional sense) because they can be, well, ... empirically proven. Hypothetical theories, are generally longer, (Much Longer!) than any proof. The bulk, or extra length, is evidence to support the claim. Hence, if I were suggest a 'new math,' one in which two plus two did equal five, I would need substantial evidence to support such a claim. <br /><br />Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse. <br /><br />Hurt feelings and criticisms seem incongruous to me as long as all parties involved can act adult-ish. <br /><br />As to the right to express an opinion; I feel as Aidan does: if you don't like what's on TV you can always change the channel or (read a different blog as it were).Chad Hullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17774092046594256969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-79138540811106161812010-05-17T14:27:02.655-05:002010-05-17T14:27:02.655-05:00It's quite odd seeing yourself talked about in...It's quite odd seeing yourself talked about in the third person. <br /><br />I'm letting this fire die down if I can on my rant, thoughI do think I have a valid point as badly made as some see it, there isn't really that much further it can go without getting mixed up too many issues that may or may not confuse or clarify things. <br /><br />I do though think that comment and opinion pieces in newspapers come as they are. You either accept that persons opinion or you don't. Rarely, if ever, do you write to them and get to give you blow by blow justification of each and every statement they make. <br /><br />And comment or opinion pieces on blogs should be seen from the perspective that is one persons opinion and you give that opinion 'authority' based on your view of the commentator. I'm not sure if this weekend has altered anybodies opinion of me or not. <br /><br />But it was one reaction to one bee that I have in my bonnet. It wasn't designed to be anything more than letting off steam in public whilst raising a point about an aspect of SF fandom as I see it. <br /><br />If I get called out on it I'm happy to try and explain it and talk about it though and I did quite a bit. <br /><br /> I don't think that anyone has to justify themselves to the level where the other person has satisfied themselves the argument has been made to their own standards of evidence. <br /><br />And I think that getting spiky in terms of my response to Jeff was a human reaction as he'd put me in a box I didn't fit in. <br /><br />Bloggging is all about expressing an opinion after all and lively debate is healthier than being part of the shoal...gav (nextread.co.uk)http://nextread.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-65601845165750558862010-05-17T12:40:59.109-05:002010-05-17T12:40:59.109-05:00That's quite likely, Elena, and a valid point ...That's quite likely, Elena, and a valid point to raise about my comments on the pacing there. I wonder what would happen if I would re-read them weeks apart now...which is part of the impetus behind these re-read commentaries I've been doing.<br /><br />Thanks for commenting and pointing out something I might need to consider in the future!Larry Nolenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001420558511460998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-79048137299378133672010-05-17T12:06:27.042-05:002010-05-17T12:06:27.042-05:00Entirely off-topic except that I wanted to engage ...Entirely off-topic except that I wanted to engage in some critical dialogue about your take on a book, and I just wasn't sure that if I left comments on a post 3+ weeks old you'd see them. If so let me know and I'll happily hunt up the post so we can talk below that post. :)<br /><br />Anyway, what I wanted to bring up specifically was your review of the two Matthew Swift books. I've finally gotten my copy of the second, and I am actually going to disagree with your assessment on the pacing of the two. You had said you thought the first read much slower due to all the listing, and that the second has less of that and to having action that developed quicker. I actually think they're fairly well matched in terms of descriptions and actions. The first one, I think, just *seems* slower because it drops you into the story en medias re and you're trying to figure out what's going on and what events are important to the bigger story and what aren't. AND you have to cipher through all the paragraph-long lists. But eventually two things happen: you pick up the story at last, so what is happening begins to feel like action and not just events, and you realize that the incessant listing is how MS/tbea view the world. Once that flipped in my head in the first book, it read much faster. I think reading them back to back you had flipped that switch at some point maybe without quite noticing, and the second one seems to read quicker because you started it with that mindset already in place vs developing halfway+ through the book.Elenahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09285405662294874917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-41908377902531068912010-05-17T10:15:20.099-05:002010-05-17T10:15:20.099-05:00And by the way, I highly recommend that you do NOT...And by the way, I highly recommend that you do NOT click on any images associated with either, unless you want to vomit afterward.Larry Nolenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001420558511460998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-71618910256901369042010-05-17T10:14:08.761-05:002010-05-17T10:14:08.761-05:00Tasteless is generally used to describe things suc...Tasteless is generally used to describe things such as Tub Girl and Two Girls, One Cup, not people who disagree with another's rant. If you think it's insensitive for that to be done or that it was done without tact being employed, "insensitive" or "tactless" would be better word choices that would convey the intended meanings better.<br /><br />Not that I would agree, but that's beside the point.Larry Nolenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001420558511460998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-26130098332641195002010-05-17T10:05:25.540-05:002010-05-17T10:05:25.540-05:00Both Larry and Jeff mentioned that "tasteless...Both Larry and Jeff mentioned that "tasteless" was the wrong word to use. I kind of want to know why? I thought that "taste" could also refer to delicacy in terms of social situations, and a sense of what is appropriate within a given context. As in, just as someone with "taste" can sense the various nuances of food, they can also sense the nuances of conversation. If I was saying that it's kind of inappropriate to make a comment on this post, then I think "tasteless" is well-used as meaning that it demonstrates a lack of ability to judge the appropriate thing to say. <br /><br />Is it just that the juxtoposition of the two usages is jarring? Since in some sense, this conversation also refers to aesthetic judgments? Like, what if you get invited to a dinner party and the food is really, really bad. And you tell the host, "Wow, this food is awful." Would that not be a tasteless comment?<br /><br />Or is it something else? I am just curious, since it struck both of you as the wrong word.rahkanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04197789931178553085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-51350509473146717082010-05-17T10:04:25.668-05:002010-05-17T10:04:25.668-05:00True, but it was discussed merely as a counterpoin...True, but it was discussed merely as a counterpoint to the first part of the post, which seems to lack the discussion that the second half did.Larry Nolenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001420558511460998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-32788413059936286102010-05-17T09:57:01.082-05:002010-05-17T09:57:01.082-05:00If you find a rant/argument weak or non-compelling...If you find a rant/argument weak or non-compelling in the first place, why bother responding to it? Isn't it better to just let it speak for itself.Aidan Moherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11680602160285884082noreply@blogger.com