Literary Snobbery (Part One): The Idiocy of “Artistic Expression”
I try not to dig into these sorts of issues primarily because, generally speaking, the arguments against genre fiction (specifically science fiction and fantasy) are almost all the same, almost always utterly ignorant, and almost always the mark of someone who, unfortunately, takes pride in thinking he or she is above someone else because he or she reads a certain kind of book (which is like saying that George W. Bush is better than Al Gore just because he won; I think we all now wish Gore had won). But, on occasion I come across an argument that is particularly idiotic and makes points that are largely irrelevant or contradictory. And that is what this post is about. I use Google Alerts to send me blog posts based on a set of keywords, and this post sprung up for “fantasy literature.” After reading it, I knew immediately that I had to blog about it. For identification purposes I’ll stick to calling the author Roby. Roby is one of those folks who, while apparently not someone that dislikes fantasy as an idea or mode of expression (he seems okay with a literary novel containing fantasy elements), but holds a particular disdain for fantasy as a genre (the popular form as we know it today). His argument, however, offers a lot of explanation as to why it is that fantasy is popular and literary fiction has largely fallen to the wayside, and why it is that literary purists simply do not understand literature at all. Roby starts off by saying that fantasy isn’t literature, but pulp fiction, and goes on to make this distinction: Literature is created out of a desire for artistic expression, commentary on life, and contributing to humanity’s understanding of itself. It’s part of a giant, centuries-spanning dialogue that informs our identity as a species. Yeah, this is all high-minded, but really, it boils down to this: if the author sat down and wrote something they thought was important and worth others’ time, it’s literature. The pulps, by contrast, are written purely for your entertainment. The author sat down and tried to figure out what you would like, and then tried her level best to serve you exactly that on a silver platter. There’s no attempt to communicate there, nothing that the author thinks is important. The book or short story or whatever is purely intended to allow you to spend time enjoyably. It’s fluff. I’m sorry, but what? Let’s break this down: literature is about artistic expression and the author’s intent to produce something that is worth our (the reader’s) time, while pulps are there for entertainment purposes. That doesn’t compute, at all. First off, sitting here and presuming we understand every author’s intent in creating some piece of written work is foolish; often times we don’t know. Secondly, he just said that literature and pulps are the same thing. Both forms have to be “worth others’ time,” otherwise nobody would read either of them. It stands to reason that the problem with literary fiction is that it fails to connect with most readers and is, as such, not worth their time, while popular fiction forms, invented to be worth their time, are, well, popular as a result (and none of this is an indication, in my book, of whether one form is necessarily superior to the other, as this is often up to taste). Then there’s this bullcrap that you constantly see in the literary world about how literature is about expression and yadda yadda. Yes, of course it’s about expression, but no individual can sit there and say that a fantasy novel written in a modern, popular fiction style isn’t an attempt at expression. It’s just a different kind of expression. While literary fiction places heavy focus on language to convey hidden meanings, etc., popular fiction tends to shift focus to the plot and ideas. That doesn’t make it fluff; that makes it different, just like rock music is different from pop. Just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean the expression isn’t there; there are many ways to show artistic expression and literary fiction isn’t the only way. And I’m calling bull that there is no attempt to communicate in fantasy. If anything, fantasy authors are attempting to communicate to the human imagination, offering an escape from the mundanity, or banality, of the real world so they can play the hero or heroine. That communication, that allowing for the reader to become a part of something that isn’t real and thus be consumed into the fantasy, is as important and valuable as the communication provided through clever uses of language that make up literary fiction. Because this critique of Roby’s argument is quite extensive, and I understand that folks don’t like reading extremely long posts (the same can be said of myself), I’m going to cut it up based on the theme. So, stay tuned for other installments and feel free to leave a comment with your opinion!
Author Conduct: A Slippery Slope to Insanity (Part Two)
Now to part two of my Author Conduct deal. The Cole A. Adams/Kevin W. Reardon/Steve Berman FiascoAlright, so basically here is what happened:Steve Berman is an editor who said of Kevin W. Reardon’s story “The Portico Angel” that “a bad opening crippled this story for me plus the various relationships felt off.” Shortly after Reardon sent a rather unprofessional and rude email to Berman, to which Berman replied as any professional should and let it go. Then, Berman, who is also a writer, made some comments about his writer’s block and depression over writing (such an unusual thing for us writers, I know) only to receive a strange comment from someone calling themselves Cole saying the following: You should really just kill yourself. Obviously, that’d be no great loss to literature. Just do us all a favor and take down your blog first. Of course, this didn’t sit too well with folks, for obvious reasons. But, it didn’t end here (of course, why would it?). No, this Cole person (now calling himself Cole A. Adams) on a different, but related post, took matters to a different level by saying: There–you said it yourself. It is all futile. You write for attention, and while you are getting attention here, it will never be enough. It will never satisfy. Writers who are in it for attention or money usually burn out at middle age, as you are doing now. You have accomplished nothing. You will accomplish nothing. You mentioned, in one of your posts, that you live in an apartment with windows. Is it a high floor? If it is, you should go now to the window, and look out. Twilight, of the day, of your life. Open the window and feel the wind. If Dault will come to you, take your cat in your arms and jump. Jump, Steve. Don’t fear the reaper. You can make this sense of emptiness end. The pain can be over. Life is futile, but for the desperation. You have the power to bring a stop to that, Steve. Give in. Give up now. You know I understand. And that’s shortly before Berman broke the news that it was Kevin W. Reardon all along (I’ll direct you to the full post and Reardon’s responding comment because it’s too much text to re-post here: the short version is that Berman caught on, Reardon pretended like he never meant to be anonymous or some crap and made it seem like the whole thing was about getting the review removed and some other nonsense that defies logic). What do I make of all this? Well, as everyone has pretty much already said, if Kevin W. Reardon has any sort of successful writing career after this it will be a miracle, maybe an act of charity out of pity for the pathetic state this man has put himself in. SteveBerman isn’t just some random guy who sprung up yesterday. He knows quite a few people, and so does Elizabeth Bear and many of the others who have spoken. Add in the fact that the blogosphere has latched on to this story, spreading it, as it should, like wildfire, and you really have a writing career that has just been stomped to dust and by no fault of any publisher, editor, reader, etc. Berman’s review didn’t kill Reardon’s career. In fact, Berman’s review likely only helped Reardon’s career by driving new readers to Reardon to see what Berman was really talking about. Reardon killed this all on his own. What surprises me most about this whole thing is the manner in which this career was killed. Reardon didn’t kill it by accidentally misspeaking, nor by failing to publicize or get reviews. Reardon killed it by telling someone else that they should commit suicide and then claiming that Berman isn’t really a writer because Reardon, being the oh so literary, in-it-for-the-art/love (bullshi*t), wouldn’t want to live if he couldn’t write. Let’s not ignore the fact that Reardon called Bermans’ anthology a “competing anthology,” which goes counter to Reardon’s claim that he’s not “in it for the money.” If he wasn’t he wouldn’t give a sh*t what Berman had to say or whether there are supposed “competing” works out there (which is another pile of b.s., by the way, which is for another post). People who do this for the love aren’t going to be concerned about competing anthologies. In fact, if you really write “for the love,” then you’re not submitting at all. As soon as you submit, you’re not doing it for the love anymore. You’re doing it for entirely selfish reasons. For the love goes right out the frakking door. This is the same for people who post their fiction online. You may think “oh, yeah, I’m just doing this for the love,” but the reality is that you’re doing it so people will see it and perhaps enjoy it, otherwise you wouldn’t do it and keep it all to yourself (like certain poets that Reardon mentions). This is what a writer does: reach out to an audience, no matter how small. But Reardon, of course, is supposedly the “high and mighty” one, telling us that he would kill himself if he couldn’t write. If anyone honestly believes that they should die if they are unable to write (even for a short while), then they should immediately seek psychological help. It’s clear to me that Reardon is actually mentally unstable. There is nothing normal about telling someone to commit suicide or believing that death is the only solution to most of our problems. This is a sign of a pathological behavior. Reardon is insane and if any of his family, who I pray have not abandoned him for the same reasons that the writing community has, will try to get him help. If Reardon were to pay attention to any of this, or any of the stuff going on about him out there, I would ask him: Why? What
Author Conduct: A Slippery Slope to Insanity (Part One)
I’m not the first one to discuss this issue and most certainly not the most prominent to do so. In recent days/weeks/months there has been an (sort of) out pour of stupid authors/artists doing stupid, if not psychotic, things to other folks in similar fields. Both instances have floored me, in a way, not because I’m at all surprised (after the “entertaining” William Sanders fiasco I can’t say I will ever be surprised in this field unless I find out that some of my favorite authors are actually white supremacists who eat non-white babies for breakfast), but because it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. But, since this post is about two entirely different incidences, I’ll separate my arguments/rants/discussions into two separate posts. Here goes: The Sciborg Sam/Erik Secker FiascoI’m about sick and tired of this sue-happy culture we live in. I get the need to sue people who cross the line and to punish them, but more often than not people cross the line, suing people for millions of dollars when a hundred thousand would do just fine. We’ve gotten to the point where lawsuits are done for profit on the side of the plaintiff, which to mean screams of an ethical problem, if not a moral one. And yes, free speech is often squashed in these suits (almost every time, actually), and yet the people who do the suing have absolutely no issue with that, usually stating that free speech is still alive and well as a way of navigating responsibility away from themselves (don’t look at me, I’m the good guy–no, you’re not). Sciborg Sam is the latest in this attempt to silence free speech. Apparently Erik Secker recently posted a “review” (for lack of a better word) of this Sciborg Sam character’s attempts at music (or whatever it is that this person thinks he or she is doing). The following horrible video was posted (which I will post here in hopes that I will get a similar treatment as Secker): Then, Secker received a cease and desist letter telling him: This letter is to inform you that your website is in violation of United States copyright laws. And: There is an image of my artwork posted on it and a music video produced by my band and also text copied from my website. These were posted without permission or contract. Your website portrays my work in a negative way, which I believe may be libelous. I’m sorry, what? Now, first off, this is just idiotic at best. For someone to claim that you are violating copyright laws and yet be so oblivious to them is like a racist who gets banned from the local pub for trying to kill black people claiming that everyone else is discriminating. Now, Secker has done a good job laying out all the legal mumbo jumbo (that copyright does not protect you from negative or positive review, that one may use small portions of material for reviews or criticism with proper attribution, etc.), so if you want all that, go read the post. I’d like to chime in that Sciborg Sam clearly wasn’t paying attention to Youtube, because allowing for his video to be embedded constitutes a willingness to have it used elsewhere (otherwise that option would be deleted). The same can be said about the ability to comment on the videos. What stands out in all this is the fact that Sciborg Sam is threatening a lawsuit over something you can’t technically sue somebody for. Secker’s only crime is…wait, he didn’t commit any crime. He posted a “review” or “criticism,” using small snippets of text, embedding a video from a public video site, and using a picture from the same location for the same purposes. This is not illegal. If it was, then there would be no book reviews, no movie reviews, no nothing, because if you could legally sue people for criticizing your work, then nobody would be criticizing at all. We’d all have to figure out whether a movie is good on our own and then be careful about what we say in public, lest we be sued for imaginary libel. This is a clear case of attempting to stifle free speech. Seckler never did anything other than speak his mind. His review was somewhat negative, which is perfectly acceptable. But Sciborg Sam doesn’t seem to understand that. Libel is intentionally lying, to say something not true about someone else in a public forum. If the local newspaper wrote that I murdered children for fun, that would be libel. I have not, to my knowledge, murdered any children, and I doubt if I did that I did it for fun. If a local newspaper wrote that I have a habit of procrastinating, then that wouldn’t be all that untrue. In fact, that would be 100% true, as I am procrastinating while writing this. I’d probably be pissed off about the comment, but there’s nothing I can really do about it short of writing an nasty letter-to-the-editor. This all leads to my discussion of Author Conduct (or Artist Conduct). Where do we draw the line in protecting one’s intellectual property? Where do we draw the line on hurt feelings? Sciborg Sam may have been upset by those supposed mean words, but if he wanted nothing but positive comments, he wouldn’t have put his stuff online in the first place. No artist should ever expect positive words on everything. Tobias S. Buckell has received a mixture of comments on his work (good, bad, and neutral) and yet I have not seen him run around throwing a tantrum (he apparently likes driving off of icy roads into ditches, though–kidding Mr. Buckell!). But, you see, Buckell is a professional, as most people in the writing and artistic worlds are. He knows he’s going to get criticism from people. He knows that not everyone will love his work or him. And in knowing this, he doesn’t get upset when someone gives
To Market, To Market?
I was looking at where to submit my latest story today, and I began thinking, What criteria does a writer use to select which markets to submit to? Is it just payment? Well, no. I’ve known established writers to submit to non-paying markets simply because they liked the look of them. I myself have occasionally seen a market and, becoming obsessed with it, written a story specifically, despite the pay. Of course, professional paying markets matter if you live off your short fiction or you want to apply to the SFWA/HWA, but not if you write simply for the love of it. Is it exposure? This, too, is a difficult one, because a short story magazine with a distribution of 1000 or so doesn’t provide much exposure to someone like Clive Barker. Furthermore, why would he need further exposure anyway? Surely his readers know of him and new readers who’re looking for genre work will know to consider him. Perhaps it’s being ‘part of the club’. If you’re published at a given venue, you become part of a cabal of writers who have all been published there. Appearing alongside writers you admire, or in a beautifully designed and highly selective magazine is always a good thrill, whether or not you need the exposure. So perhaps all writing is selfish and all publishing is vanity, but this probably comes as no news to most writers, who’ve secretly been hiding this info from the rest of the world and making them dependend on us for, well, everything 😀
Would You Rather Live in Science Fiction or Fantasy World?
Marian of Flights of Fantasy recently had an interesting post about what kind of world she would want to live in and it got me thinking about the same thing. Warning: I will be taking this whole idea very seriously even though it’s totally fiction and unreal. My initial reaction to this question is: which world would inevitably be better for me? Both fantasy and science fiction worlds have their good and bad points (for the sake of argument, I’m going to stick with the stereotypical examples of these genres).Fantasy worlds have magic, fantastic creatures, swords, talking animals, fair maidens, noble kings, and other such goodies. But fantasy worlds also have evil overlords, evil creatures, wars, bad food of the bland variety, and prophecies that always seem to put the world in chaos for a short period before some “chosen one” can come along and put things right–why it is more rare that fantasy characters don’t get ticked off about this last one doesn’t make much sense to me.Science fiction worlds have spaceships, alien races, faster-than-light travel, cool gadgets, space adventures, and damn good food. But science fiction worlds also have interstellar wars, alien invasions, evil aliens that can’t talk, but manage to wreak havoc on ship crews, moral quandaries, technology that goes bad, and sterile environments or excessively dirty environments.Which is better? Do I want magic and unicorns or spaceships and aliens with three heads?On the one hand, perhaps I could use magic to escape from all the darkness of a fantasy world, but that assumes that if I lived in such a world I would be fortunate enough to have magic. This also makes me a terrible coward. A fantasy world also means I can’t take all the things I currently enjoy with me. No computers, no Twitter, no WISB, no nothing. A science fiction world means I can keep my gadgets, but I also would have to face dystopian societies, interstellar wars, space pirates, and the like.Do you see the dilemma? In some ways, I think science fiction worlds are harsher than fantasy worlds. Sure, in science fiction worlds a lot of things are handed to the characters: they rarely have to worry about food or water or running out of laser guns or whatever. But, these same characters live in a world (or galaxy, I imagine) where governments turn into Big Brother, robots reject and kill their masters (a simple snap of the neck will suffice), interstellar wars rage for decades, decimating planet after planet, civilization after civilization.That’s not the say that fantasy worlds are a picnic. At least in science fiction worlds death is quick (usually). Laser guns tend to kill people a lot faster and less painfully than bleeding to death on a battlefield. Characters in fantasy worlds also don’t have the luxury of food processors or good storage methods (no fridges in Narnia, I’m afraid). Plenty of salted meat, moldy fruits and vegetables, and food poisoning. Plus, the “chosen one” is almost always some stupid farm boy who takes forever to fulfill prophecy, which is unfortunate if you’re impatient like me. While fantasy characters are waiting for someone to rescue them, evil warlords are turning them into slaves or outright killing them in droves (I suppose similar happens in science fiction worlds).But a fantasy world allows me to do things that can’t be done in a science fiction world, primarily because science fiction worlds should adhere to standard rules of science. I’ve always wanted to shoot fireballs out of my hands or take a trip on the back of a dragon. Having my own set of armor and an enchanted sword would be pretty cool too. Or, I could be a bard and travel the world telling amazing stories about people that lived or never lived, captivating the minds of children and adults alike! When I think about fantasy worlds that way, it certainly makes them much more appealing.How do I decide, though? Would I be willing to give up Twitter or computers or the possibility of travelling into space? Would I be willing to give up dragons or magic fireballs or enchanted swords? Which one would be the best fit?If I had to take a guess, I would say that the science fiction world would fit best, but only because I can see how difficult it would be for me to give up technology. Technology is as much a part of my everyday life as breathing and I can’t imagine being able to toss that away without thinking long and hard on it, and even then I would be apprehensive and might even regret going to a fantasy world. But I might regret going to a science fiction world too. It all depends how it turns out. Would I end up in a good fantasy/science fiction world or a bad one? Perhaps if I knew that information ahead of time it would make the decision easier. I’d be much more likely to forego science fiction for fantasy if I knew that the fantasy world would inevitably be a better place for me, one where I wasn’t going to end up enslaved by evil three-eyed squid-like aliens.I guess I’m still on the fence. What about you? For the sake of making this argument easier, let’s assume that you could choose between a perfect fantasy world or a perfect science fiction world. Which one would you choose?
Post-Christmas Shopping Guide: Book Edition
Christmas is over and you’ve got a handful of Borders, Amazon, or B&N gift cards to use (if you’re lucky). So what books should you buy with them? Well, here are my suggestions of a few titles you might want to consider in your post-Christmas shopping madness: The Golden Cord by Paul GenesseThis debut fantasy novel has everything you need to tickle those fantasy taste buds. Action, adventure, magic, and more. It’s all there to keep you entice from start to finish! Wicked Gentlemen by Ginn HaleNot all the books you buy this year have to be fun fantastic romps, do they? Some can be simply stunning quasi-fantasy stories involving the deeper meanings of relationships as they pertain to a society of clashing peoples: Demons and Inquisitors. If you’re into some tough love in the fantasy genre, then this is certainly a book you should consider. After all, nothing wrong with a book that makes you really think, is there? Sly Mongoose by Tobias S. BuckellZombies in space. That’s the line I’ve been pitching to people for this book and it’s just as important now as it was then. This book is the first in a series of loosely connected space opera novels by a fantastic Caribbean author. If you don’t like jumping into the middle of a series, however, consider snatching up Crystal Rain and Ragamuffin, each equally unique and action-packed stories following some of the same characters. Spaceman Blues by Brian Francis SlatteryThink literary fiction meets pulp fiction (not the movie) meets science fiction. It’s different, it’s beautifully written, and it taps into all the little glimmers of gold in all those genres all at once. Or maybe you’re not into all that adult stuff. Well, how about some young adult fantasy? The 13th Reality by James DashnerA brilliant start to a brilliant new series. Magic, quantum physics (and don’t let that scare you!), strange individuals, and quirky fantasies, this is surely a good book to satisfy those urges for something to fill that Harry Potter void. Leven Thumps Series by Obert SkyeIf quirky is your thing, then the Leven Thumps Series is right up your alley. Nothing can be more strange than the world Mr. Skye has built for this young adult universe. Take Clover, a small, large-eared talking creature that can turn invisible and has what amounts to an endless void in which he stores various unusual things! Quirky? I think so, and fantastic! Or, if you’re into neither straight fantasy or straight science fiction or young adult fantasy, then perhaps you’re into alternate history. Ha’Penny by Jo WaltonIf you haven’t read Farthing, then I recommend you do so. But if you have, then Ha’penny is a well written and deeper continuation of an alternate world in which England and Nazi Germany made peace instead of duking it out. A terrifically despondent world and a story written like a 1930s detective novel! These, of course, are just a few suggestions I can make. If you don’t see anything here, however, you should consider checking out SF Signal’s enormous Mind Meld (part one, part two, and part three) on best genre works consumed this year! You can also find my reviews of the above books either in my Book Reviews label section, at Shelfari, or at Goodreads (feel free to add me as a friend at those last two locations). Happy shopping!