Gabe,
Now this is more like it. The whole time I've been saying
that this here reviewing thing is a two-way street and that
if I'm going to take apart people's stories there has to
be an opportunity for those who are critiqued to "strike
back", as it were. It's necessary and crucial, in my
opinion, for some kind of dialogue to emerge, or else I'm
just shouting into an empty room. How else am I supposed
to gauge how I'm doing if people don't tell me, "Hey
buddy, you suck!" or "Keep the dream alive,
little guy!" or any one of many other phrases I
make up that people would never say in real life in a million
years. It's the back and forth of this that makes it worthwhile,
in my opinion and the best critiques I've ever done were
the ones were the author wasn't afraid to take me to task
on things I had said and make me quantify some of the more
off the cuff comments and help me engage in a continuous
dialogue. I don't know if that'll happen here or if you'll
just hire someone to fire missiles at my house, but you
actually bothered to throw down the gauntlet and punch holes
in the plate glass that is my boundless arrogance, so that's
definitely a start. I look forward to this hopefully starting
a long tradition, not just with you but with all the other
writers. Time will tell, but so far so good.
That said, I should take a moment to clarify some things
that I believe were either misinterpreted or misrepresented.
I agree with you to an extent that it's probably not entirely
fair for me to skim the ballads, but in my defense I should
have put those comments in better context. I dislike ballads
and songs in stories to a decent extent, to the point where
I tend to skip them in just about every story I read, with
very few exceptions. And while coming right out and saying
that was probably a little less than tactful, I think it's
more honest than either a) ignoring them entirely or b)
slamming them as boring or unnecessary. The latter point
I think would have been the true unfairness, because I am
not an objective judge of things like ballads or songs in
a prose context. Simply put, I can't stand them. And to
sit there and pretend to critique them would have been a
grave disservice to you as the author because you're not
getting the kind of feedback on that aspect of the story
you should be getting. My bias simply makes me utterly unqualified
to critique them and that's about as plainly as I can state
it. There was going to be no good way to put it and I felt
that it was better to just come out and say it than go through
the motions and commenting on something that I really have
no place to be commenting on. Perhaps you interpreted the
statement that I was skimming them to be a commentary in
itself on the quality of the ballads . . . as I've already
said, I didn't judge them at all. Hadian might be the next
Bob Dylan, or he might have learned from whoever writes
songs for Britney Spears. I really can't say. You put a
lot of work into them, I can tell, and your response seems
to indicate that I ruffled a feather or two by my blanket
dismissal of them, but I would like to stress, my skimming/skipping
of them is not a comment on the quality of the ballads in
of themselves. It's just not my thing.
The analogy to William Shakespeare is a little off, in
my opinion (and none of us are Shakespeare, alas, in fact
maybe even Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare, depending on
which scholar you want to believe). The plays of his that
I've read are Macbeth, Hamlet, Julius Caesar and Romeo and
Juliet, as well as parts of A Midsummer Night's Dream. None
of those are really none for people suddenly breaking into
song and to be perfectly honest, even if they did you wouldn't
notice. Story ballads are noticeable, they disrupt the scheme
of the story and produce a shift in the pacing. In Shakespeare,
everything is written in iambic pentameter, even the songs
so you don't really notice if a character is speaking his
lines, or breaking into a ballad, because it's all following
the same rhythm. And in that case I really don't care. The
one time that someone does break the scheme is that scheme
in Macbeth where Hectate is talking and suddenly the rhythm
shifts to rhyming couplets or some other ridiculous pattern
and the effect is immediately noticeable. Even when you're
listening to it, the scene sounds stupid, like a really
obnoxious person breaking into a perfectly good conversation.
Something like that I can't stand and if I ever read the
play again, I probably would skip it. And as I've mentioned
before, I do skip ballads in novels that I read. I even
skip poetry in the novels I read, to be honest. I'm a purist,
or a minimalist. I like prose, pure and simple. I may be
as bastard, but I'm a consistent bastard at the very least
and I would never apply a critique to a developing author
that I wouldn't to a "real" honest to whoever
published author. You guys get the same standards I use
when I read someone like, say, the incredibly overhyped
Neal Stephenson. There's not two different sets of rules.
Obviously I take into account the fact that someone might
be new at this but otherwise everyone gets the same treatment.
And I'm not saying that it's okay for me to skip the ballads
and then complain that I missed some nuance . . . you are
perfectly within your rights to stand up and point out,
"Well you know, the hint was in the song" and
the fault would entirely be mine. I'm not excusing my bias
or saying that it somehow exempts me. It just is what it
is and I wanted to lay it out there for everyone to see.
I'm not perfect and I'm not an expert and I don't pretend
to be. You have the right to base an entire chapter around
songs and ballads if you want and if I decide to be a prick
and skip them and by doing so miss out on a decent portion
of the story, again the fault is entirely mine and I wouldn't
even attempt to place it anywhere else. Stating my biases
is not an attempt by me to shift the blame for my shortcomings
onto other people and say, "Well if you don't write
the story my way nobody is ever going to like it."
I just want to explain why I might give one opinion on one
aspect of the story and other people might have a totally
different take on it. I have contrary opinions and very
offbeat tastes, I think we don't have to look any further
than the recent spate of discussions on a certain title
to a certain story to see that while I'm willing to go against
the grain, it doesn't mean that I'm right. I think my opinion
is valid and I'll do my best to state why that is so, but
many times I'm going to be in the minority. And I learned
a long time ago you're never going to be able to convince
everyone to see something a certain way. There will always
be one little asshole who will insist on stating the sky
is grey when everyone says it looks blue and you won't be
able to convince him otherwise. That rat of a person, alas,
is generally going to be me. I call them as I see them but
by no means that does mean that I'm going to be the majority
opinion. Often it will be the opposite. And I think if this
ballad debate erupts beyond us, you'll see me vastly outnumbered.
That's how it should be. But don't worry, I'm a big boy,
I'll be okay. But I do reserve the right as the reader to
read the story in whatever fashion I please and skim or
reread at my whim. You only know as the author that I skipped
the ballads because I was bold enough to state it. Otherwise
you would never know. Is that fair? It's not for me to say.
Again, if I miss something, it's my fault and my fault alone.
But that, to some extent, is between me and the story itself.
But just for the record, in my critique of the second chapter,
which isn't on the website as of this writing, I actually
do (gasp!) go out of my way to praise one of the ballads
as well done. So take that for what it's worth, if anything.
Just like anyone else, I'll change my opinions from time
to time. Nothing here is set in stone.
Which leads us nicely into your next point, which is sort
of two points in one, though the second is sort of slipped
in at the last second. I think I stated this at the beginning,
but there is going to be a lot of "other stuff"
in any of these columns, whether I bring in other authors
or things that happened in my life or whatever random crap
I decide to throw in there. I do it to keep the column interesting
for myself and to amuse myself mostly . . . I never assume
that anybody is going to read the damn thing so I might
as well write it for myself and if other people wind up
reading it and responding to it, more power to me I suppose.
But this column was in the same vein as previous columns,
there may have been slightly more "extraneous stuff",
for reasons we'll get to in a second, but for the most part
I intended this to be a mixture of critique and "other
stuff" with the latter being defined as whatever I
want it to be. Sometimes it's relevant, sometimes it's not,
sometimes the link is really only apparent to me. But again,
it is what it is, and just as I'm allowed to skim whatever
I want in a story, you're entitled to skim whatever you
want in my column. I don't expect the majority of what I
write to really be of interest to most people, my sense
of humor is a bit bizarre and I tend to refer to books no
one has read and songs no one has ever heard of. Ah well,
such is my burden, I suppose. Again, a lot of this probably
has to do with people not being used to me and my "style"
(if you want to call it that), and as with anything, you
have to take the good with the bad. I promise to give every
story that I read and write about a critique to the best
extent that I can, to a level of detail you probably didn't
even consider, but at the same time people are going to
have to brace themselves for a lot of randomness, as well.
It's just how I do things. Some people find it entertaining,
some people find it (dare I say?) pretentious, but I don't
know what kind of audience I'm writing to or if anyone is
even reading these things. So I might as well write for
myself and if people are able to enjoy it and if by some
accident I've managed to bring up or teach something that
someone may not have considered, then I've gone above and
beyond what I intended. I'm not here to change the world
or even someone's writing habits. I'm here because I have
stuff to say and it may not be relevant or important or
even interesting, but it beats sitting home staring at the
wall or wandering the streets or sitting in a bar wishing
I was more productive. And maybe that only means something
to me, and maybe I'm undermining my own point by including
so much static in the columns that the critique is obscured,
but I suppose that's a risk I'll take. Otherwise, what am
I doing here, then? I'd rather not be useful than be useless,
if that makes any sense. Maybe it doesn't.
"I've read most major fantasy books, even if I'm not
the biggest fan of epic fantasy for reasons that will probably
become very apparent when someone decides to submit an epic
fantasy story . . ." That's a direct quote from the
first column I ever wrote for the website. So I did warn
people ahead of time, even if nobody knew what I meant at
the time (or even read it, I don't get hit counter statistics
on these things) and as it happened, Gabe, you were the
lucky person to submit the first "true" fantasy
story (Dan counts to an extent, but his fantasy was more
atypical, plus I'd read his chapters before) and so you
got the fantasy lecture. It was nothing personal to you,
I just made a promise to plainly state my biases toward
fantasy in the first column I ever wrote about a fantasy
story and you were the person who happened to come along.
The piano has to drop on someone, right? So I do apologize
that it had to be you, but it had to be someone.
I have serious issues with epic fantasy. Those issues have
been formed by years of reading fantasy stories, it's not
something I developed over the past week or year. And again,
much like before, for me not to come out plainly and state
that before penning a critique of someone's fantasy story
does an incredible disservice to the writer and the story,
because you as the author might assume that I'm being objective
in my comments, when chances are my comments are drawn from
my bias and my dislike of many aspects of the epic fantasy
subgenre. That's not fair and I refuse to do that. And as
boring or as unpleasant as it is for the reader to slog
through fifteen paragraphs of my attempt at a thesis for
why I'm not as big a fan of fantasy as I should be, it's
something that has to be done for this column to maintain
some sort of integrity. The good thing is I only have to
do it once. The bad thing is, it has to be done at least
once. Now it's on record and out in the open, which I think
is nothing but good because now people know where I'm coming
from. In order for people to get a better understanding
on my likes and dislikes and how that informs my critiques
of their stories, I have to build up a kind of "reading
resume" so people will be able to say "Well, see,
Michael doesn't like romance novels, of course he's going
to be harsh toward my story "I Tore Off His Clothes
in the Sweaty Epiphany of Love" . . .". It's given
that I'm going to be subjective and I want to be as clear
on my subjectivity as possible. Anything less is dishonest.
I appreciate your efforts to win me over to the fantasy
genre. But remember, I didn't form my opinions because I
read Tolkein and two other novels and went "By golly,
this stinks." I've read Tolkein (not only Lord of the
Rings, but a lot of the notes and other stories as well),
Terry Brooks, RA Salvatore, David Eddings, Robert Jordan,
George R R Martin, Angus Wells, Margaret Weis, Tracy Hickman
and dozens of other authors that I don't remember off the
top of my head. And I think you miss my point by stating
that people read it to escape, that's the reason people
read any fantastic type of literature, whether it's fantasy
or SF or even romance novels. People read fiction in general
for escape, because it's not real, because it's a world
that isn't the mundane "real world", because you
can put it down for a week and pick up where you started
or read it again and have it all turn out the same way.
Whether I go to Middle Earth or Mars or wherever wasn't
my point. I don't care about that, to be honest. And your
point about other nations seeking freedoms is, to be honest,
completely lost on me. I don't seek entertainment in those
other countries (like I do with novels) and while those
people may be looking toward US and our documents for inspiration,
they're doing it to better their lives, not to better their
pocketbooks or win millions of fans. It makes no difference
to them at all whether they get labeled as copycats, they're
trying too hard to live. And trying to compare the relative
stagnation of the fantasy genre to a country rising from
oppression only distorts both our respective points. My
point is that other than adjusting to the relative loosening
of societal mores (ie more blood, sex, cursing, etc) in
their novels, authors have done nothing to improve or change
upon what Tolkein laid down. Fantasy novels today follow
the same structure and format as they did sixty years ago,
and why should I read a copy of something that was decent
in the first place, when I can go and read the real thing?
Connecting it loosely to your uprising nation metaphor,
why should I live in a pale copy of the US when I can perfectly
happy in the real thing, especially if the other country
isn't trying to improve on us at all. Other authors/countries
have a right to do their own take on the original, of course,
but if it's nothing more than a copy, why should I have
to suffer through it? The reason it still exists so widely
today is because people still enjoy it, it's familiar, it
touches upon some basic human emotions. But that doesn't
mean I have to enjoy it, especially when it's all just variations
on a theme. And maybe that's true of any genre and I'm just
unfairly singling out epic fantasy, but again, I never claimed
to be the final word on any of this, I just wanted to lay
out my opinions for everyone to see, and if necessary, dissect.
But at least you know where I'm coming from.
I would also like to briefly address what you say is my
"affinity for concepts such as Star Wars or the Matrix".
I never said I had an affinity for either of them. And,
while this will probably also open up another can of worms,
I do not consider Star Wars to be SF in the least bit. Star
Wars is fantasy through and through, from the poor farmboy
destined for greatness (Luke) to the princess (Leia) to
the roguish guide (Han Solo) and his nonhuman companion
(Chewbacca) to their quest to overthrow the evil Emperor
by way of defeating his evil warlord (Darth Vader) in his
sinister castle (Death Star) while fighting through his
army of minions (Stormtroopers). There are even magic swords
involved, as well as mystical powers (the Force) and mentors
and fantastic kingdoms and all kinds of other stuff. The
only reason that Star Wars is considered SF is because people
ride around in spaceships. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Star
Wars, I've seen the movies a million times, it's a visual
treat and an exciting story, but it's certainly not SF,
it's pure fantasy. And I don't read any of the zillion Star
Wars novels because they don't add too much to the original
story from what bits I have read. There's really no connection
between Star Wars and Star Trek other than the name, Star
Trek was Roddenberry's take on Westerns (he originally termed
the concept "Wagon Train to the stars") and has
more to do with that genre, although there are more SF concepts
in Star Trek, even if most if it is what we lovingly call
"technobabble" (ie science that sounds scientific
but really makes no sense). And there's definitely no connection
between any of those and the Matrix, which has more to do
with the cyberpunk sensibility started in the seventies
by Michael Moorcock and his Jerry Cornelius novels and later
taken up by authors such as William Gibson and Bruce Sterling,
and in reality has the most to do with the super-hero genre
and comic books than anything else (the later movies make
that connection more explicit I think, but the Matrix is
basically a comic book on film). It's not really SF either,
but it's not fantasy, really. And I think your comment misses
my point entirely about epic fantasy. My gripe is not that
authors were inspired by Tolkein and wanted to write their
own takes on epic fantasy, I think that's great and I went
out of my way to describe the history of other subgenres
of SF, mostly space opera, which is the closest fantasy
equivalent. My main complaint is that those authors don't
build on what he did to any great extent, merely exchanging
his places and people and events for their own, without
trying to push the envelope to any sort of degree. And again,
perhaps I'm being unduly harsh, but after twenty versions
of "farmboy saves the world" without any kind
of attempt to do something different with the clichés
and conventions of the genre, I tend to start to lose hope
(through George Martin is starting to restore that hope,
if only he wasn't so damn slow). The point is that SF has
evolved over time, not all of the subgenres have of course,
and not all at the same speed (and some of it is devolving)
but many authors have done their level best to push the
envelope, to not go for the commercially available easy
way out, and to expand the limits of the genre and to challenge
readers' conceptions of what a SF story should be. When
I can read the back cover of an epic fantasy book and can
essentially predict where it's going to go, there's no reason
for me to spend my hard earned money and time.
And I don't mean to be nit-picky or some kind of show-off
detailing all of this stuff, but I want to show how serious
I am about what I do here. If I'm going to critique something,
I better know damn well what I'm talking about and if that
means researching the history of the development of fantasy
back to the eighteenth century, knowing the authors, knowing
how they relate, digging into the basic structures and limitations
of the genre, I really can do no less. So when I say something
like "epic fantasy is stagnating" I like to think
I have the evidence to back it up. And readers may not care
because they like the conventions of the genre, because
of that familiarity and structure, but I do care and I'm
not going to simply accept those conventions without trying
to goad the author into working around them, into taking
those conventions and twisting them and taking them someplace
unexpected. And I think to let all of that percolate in
the background of my critiques and letting it inform my
critiques without being honest enough to state them bluntly,
I believe is wrong. And while I do apologize for letting
it dominate the critique, it had to be brought to the forefront
at some point. But I don't think it affected the critique
too much, reading it over, I see that my fantasy discussion
really only took up the first third of the column and wasn't
really brought up again. The rest of it was devoted to your
story and I think I took my time and hit all the points
that I wanted to hit about your story. Maybe by leading
off with the fantasy thesis type thing I gave the false
impression that I was going to talk about only my favorite
authors, but I don't think that was the case. Out of a 4300
word column, only 855 words were devoted to the "what
I don't like about fantasy" issue, the majority of
the rest of it (about 3000 words, with the rest the random
stuff I mentioned before) was bent toward discussing and
critiquing your story, albeit in the light of the context
I had spent the previous paragraphs detailing, but still
I don't think the column turned into a laundry list of my
favorite authors.
I think that addresses everything (it better, after six
pages) that you brought up in your comments about my column.
You have very valid concerns about the column itself, things
that begged for a better explanation from me, and I hope
I did my best in detailing my rationales behind the things
that I do. And maybe nobody really cares why I do what I
do, but I want to get as much on the record as possible.
This column and these words are the only interfaces we have
to relate to each other and as such I want everything out
in the open as it pertains to me, so that there's no confusion
and no claiming that I'm being dishonest in some fashion.
I don't want anything hidden, period. I don't think for
a second that you were claiming that, but you did have concerns
and comments and I did my best to address those comments.
Hopefully my next column will be more to your liking, or
if not, maybe the one after that. Still, no matter what
I'll keep reading and writing and in the end, I hope we
can find more places where we can agree rather than disagree.
Thanks again for your response, your civility and clarity
sets a high benchmark for future comments from other authors
(you listening out there, people?), you didn't hold anything
back and you were honest and frankly, that's all I want.
It's the only way anything is going to get done around here.
Dan is definitely going to post your comments to the website
and possibly this will get posted as well.
It's been an absolute pleasure debating this with you. Let
me know what you think of my critique of your second chapter,
if you so desire.
Any other comments or concerns, you know where to find
me.
All the best,
- Michael
"There is something wrong with me . . ." - Wilco,
Radio Cure
Send your comments on this story to the author:
