The Campaign Builder's Guild

You'll need to read this essay (http://www.sfwa.org/writing/thud.htm) before you can fully understand what I'm going on about.

To summarize my reading of it: "Stories that are are unrealistic are okay, except there is no excuse for not including all these realistic details which I shall list here.  But we can still retain the fun of exaggeration without the exaggeration!"  (I'm obviously not giving the most objective reading here.)

I'm sorry, but no.  The idea that you can take the exaggeration out of something and then expect it to retain the same sort of pizzazz and excitement is just wrong.  It's wrong because the exaggeration and glossing over of boring and/or depressing details is the whole point of such stories.  People don't read ancient Greek myths expecting to see the heroes struggle realistically just getting from one place to another, they read them to see heroes doing things that are amazing and probably impossible to do.  Unrealistic stuff exists in a story because the story is about something other than reality.

The essay wouldn't bother me quite so much if it was just presenting a simple reality check on unrealistic fantasy.  It does a very good job in that regard.  What bothers me is the simple conceit [this is probably the wrong word] that unrealistic fantasy is wrong because it is unrealistic while trying to be exciting.

(All the above is just me sharing my frustration in the hopes that it would make me feel better.  Thank you for your time.)

Personally, I think the author gets excited about the 'little boring things' that fantasy authors gloss over. To him, those 'little boring things' bring the story to life and I can respect and support him for that.

What I can't support, is his constant barrage of insinuations that stories that gloss over the 'little boring things' are less less interesting to everyone and because they gloss over those details, the stories are less pure and loose all weight as a story.

I do, however, think there are some good ideas in the essay that can, if used properly, make for an interesting perspectives and/or entire stories. I especially like this idea for a 'Civilized-Man-Behind-Conan' story. I haven't read many books that deal with that particular angle, most likely because the front man tends to be more exciting on a base level than the man behind him. Still, an interesting idea none the less.

Have you ever read any Poul Anderson? He made his chops writing and editing hard SF back when I was still a lad. (Probably before most of the readers of this board were born.) From his stories, you know if he ran a D&D campaign (and he probably does), it would surely be of the "gritty" variety. So I'm not surprised that he's a bit of a stickler for the details.

I generally agree with his take, for me. But his essay is for writers, and particularly for professional (or would-be) writers. I think you can include the details in a heroic fantasy novel without dwelling on them, and without ruining the heroic feel, but it takes a deft writer's touch. If I were to run a heroic fantasy game I don't think I could pull it off.

To put it in Silvercat's terms, the exaggeration can be made to seem even more exciting and heroic by contrast, if you include some of the grotty little details. For example, the hero who must remain true, not just out of his own virtue, but also to honor the hundreds of humble peasants whose sweat and toil is needed to support his efforts. But to retain the pizazz you can't dwell too much on the boring and depressing, or the whole campaign will slide into the "gritty" fantasy genre.

So I don't really think there is anything wrong with skipping the details to focus on the heroic, just to avoid that trap. It really wouldn't be my cup of tea - I prefer the smaller scale heroism of the man fighting for his family over the world-spanning super-heroic savior. But that is really a matter of taste, not structure.

My main objection to what was said was simply the feeling that Anderson hadn't even bothered to consider the point of heroic fantasy.  Like I said, nothing is wrong with pointing out what parts of heroic fantasy aren't reality-accurate.  Nor do I think that heroic fantasy absolutely can not be written with the "little details".  The essay just comes off as "my version of your thing is better than your version of your thing, and you should accept it or you are a bad person".

I tend to agree, the essay really didn't pay much attention (any attention at all, really) to maintaining the essence of heroic fiction while also including the semi-realistic details.

And it seems clear to me, not only from Anderson's remarks, but also from reading his books, that he is the sort who really revels in the details. So to some extent the essay was an exercise in trumpeting his own preferences over those of others.

For example, I read and thoroughly enjoyed "Orlando Furioso" which is generally considered to be classic heroic fiction. And it seems to fall prey to every tendency that Anderson disparages. It is nevertheless fun and effective, though it certainly creates a very different feel from what Anderson seems to be aiming at.

What other books (or poems, as the case may be) are out there that are like that?

I only glossed over the article, but I dunno... it seems when he's asking for "realism", he's really asking for verisimilitude. In the introductory prose, I can understand arrows glancing off his chainmail if it was made with exceptionally nimble fingers, but it's not quite as "real" if it's normal, everyday, run-of-the-mill mail. Obviously, my understanding of this doesn't rule out exaggeration at all, but instead asks for a logical explanation for it (yes, the explanation itself, as I've shown, can be exaggerated).

If I missed the point of the article, then I'll have to read it over again, when I have more time. Personally, I think exaggerations are completely allowable, so long as they don't ruin my personal suspension of disbelief. Once they start doing that, I'm demanding explanations.

Wow, that essay was the most obnoxious, self-serving, illogical thing I've read in a long time.

First, the author is complaining that most heroic fantasy lacks certain elements that, frankly, most heroic fantasy stories do have. Complex societies, political maneuvering, non-combatant characters, dark city streets, bandits. The author even has the gall to say that few sea voyages in heroic fantasy involve pirates. Sea-faring heroic fantasy stories without pirates! What heroic fantasy is this guy reading where each sea voyage doesn't involve at least one pirate attack?

Maybe I'm just spoiled by playing D&D, where rich, detailed settings are the norm. Maybe I'm missing the point because I actively seek out good reading material instead of reading any two-bit filler in a publisher's release schedule. But it seems to me that all of this guy's complaints about details being glossed over are relevant only to a subset of crappy, sub-standard heroic fantasy novels. The ones I read have complex, detailed worlds where people behave - and do battle - in semi-realistic ways.

Second, the author is complaining that heroic fantasy is too Eurocentric. Then, he gives a long list of things that wouldn't work using Medieval European society and technology as a model. Interspersed, he has comments like "of course, that would work with a Japanese sword" and "the only poison that works that way is found South America." Well, hey, genius: maybe people who write heroic fantasy aren't really as Eurocentric as your essay's unfounded statement would have us believe. Maybe the hero is wielding the fantasy world equivalent of a Japanese sword. Maybe the assassin is using the equivalent of a South American poison.

And maybe, just maybe, heroic fantasy authors are assuming that their fantasy worlds have some small hint of modern scientific knowledge, instead of being the SCA-style European historical recreation that the essay wants us to believe that heroic fantasy must so obviously be. (Because, after all, the author belongs to the SCA, so apparently, the SCA version of reality is the only one permitted in heroic fantasy.)

Third, the author is claiming that heroic fantasy too often glosses over the pain and suffering of the people the hero is chopping up in battle. Well, duh. Heroic fantasy isn't a morality play. It's a genre that's all about a hero lucky enough to live in a world where most of society's evils can be taken down with a sword. Complaining about unrealistic depictions of violence in that sort of genre is like saying we don't know enough about the inner pain of those three nameless guys the action hero just gunned down in this year's blockbuster action flick. That's not the freakin' point of the story!

To summarize: that essay only applies to sub-standard, Eurocentric heroic fantasy that claims to be a morality play instead of an action-adventure. In other words, it applies to virtually nothing that actually exists in the world of literature.

[blockquote=Epic Meepo]To summarize: that essay only applies to sub-standard, Eurocentric heroic fantasy that claims to be a morality play instead of an action-adventure. In other words, it applies to virtually nothing that actually exists in the world of literature.[/blockquote]
I wonder when Anderson wrote this?  I have to venture a while ago.
There was a time in the 1970's and early 1980's when this particular essay would have been much more useful and indicative of the dreck that was passing for the average paperback.   Meepo is correct as the genre has grown up, the versimilatude, the variety, and the pure quality has grown tremendously.  I am guessing Anderson's essay was directed at the period where there were a few good writers, and a lot of bad stuff that found it's way to the bookshelves that should have been birdcage filler.

And after re-reading it, I think that has a lot to do with SilvercatMoonpaw's trouble; in that Anderson nearly takes the stance that you have to have this 'realistic-fantasy' or don't bother.  But he does this due to the context of the time it was written in. There would be no point in writing this today, the genre has learned and grown past the need for such rudimentary lessons.

Quote from: LordVreegAnd after re-reading it, I think that has a lot to do with SilvercatMoonpaw's trouble; in that Anderson nearly takes the stance that you have to have this 'realistic-fantasy' or don't bother.  But he does this due to the context of the time it was written in. There would be no point in writing this today, the genre has learned and grown past the need for such rudimentary lessons.

I still think it's more obnoxious than it needs to be.  It's like an art snob looking down on some new fad just because it doesn't meet their taste.

I agree, many of his points are moot in good stories and the majority of the genre.  However, this was directed towards BAD hf story-writing.  Also, being an essay, it's his opinion.  As far as I'm concerned the title of the essay should be "If Your Realistic Fantasy Books Sell For $0.50 in a Few Shoddy Bookstores Then You Should Read This."

P.S.  It is a touch outdated, too, I believe.

Hmm.  That introductory vignette just drove home for me: I am well and truly done with casual bloodshed.  I know culpability and realism isn't the point but... damn.  I've had enough.  No more heroic fantasy for me.

On the essay itself, I got less than halfway and thought: irrelevant.

This essay, assuming the problems he describes are as grave as he makes them out to be, makes me think my general avoidance of the fantasy genre in bookstores is well considered.  I can't say the essay itself does much for me, but he may have a few valid points.

On the other hand, I'm not sure if "Lord of the Rings: Now with Abysmal Poverty and Chamber Pots" is what anybody really wants.

Considering the copyright is 1995, and the page hasn't been modified since 05, we can see this is pretty old. And honestly, what little I read of it applies only to drivel. Most of the stuff put out today is good.

Quote from: Stargate525Considering the copyright is 1995, and the page hasn't been modified since 05, we can see this is pretty old. And honestly, what little I read of it applies only to drivel. Most of the stuff put out today is good.

"Good" being a very relative term...

American and British book stores might be very different from Aussie ones, but when I flip through fantasy books at the store so many of them read like the same darn book, regardless of their qualities of realism or literary skill.  Which is not to say that there aren't plenty of good authors out there; only that perhaps some readers are responding to the literary sameness rather than their poor quality (and after a point, I think the former soon results in the latter).

Quote from: MOWL (my Money's on the One With Legs)American and British book stores might be very different from Aussie ones, but when I flip through fantasy books at the store so many of them read like the same darn book, regardless of their qualities of realism or literary skill.  Which is not to say that there aren't plenty of good authors out there; only that perhaps some readers are responding to the literary sameness rather than their poor quality (and after a point, I think the former soon results in the latter).

I my opinion nearly all fiction reads like this.  Granted I only work through the sci-fi and fantasy section, but you read the back blurb and you feel like its a form document with blanks for filling in the few different details.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI my opinion nearly all fiction reads like this. Granted I only work through the sci-fi and fantasy section, but you read the back blurb and you feel like its a form document with blanks for filling in the few different details.

Our hero,_______, lived a humble life as a _______.  However, his entire life changes when ________ kills his family.  With the sword _______ that was passed down to him from his father just before he died, our hero fights his way through hoards of enemies with a few friends he meets along the way.  But will it be enough to stop _______?  Will they get there before _______ kills the king and takes over the whole kingdom?


Just once, I'd like to see a hero inherit a weapon that isn't a sword.  A spear would be fun.  Or a mace.  Yeah...a mace.

I think that you just described why I liked the Elric books so much.  
Not the sword part, but just the atypical storyline.

I've taken several creative writing courses, and believe me what I say that several of my colleagues need to read this article.  Their work is bland, over-the-top, and has no literary merit.  It's an entertaining read, at first, but it quickly loses my (and everyone else's) interest.

And I feel that way about most fantasy stories on the market.  They tend to be boorishly written.  I love fantasy, I really do, but I pretty much only read literature now-a-days.  It's much better.  I actually can't remember the last fantasy story I read.  I got through about half of a Salvatore book a year and a half ago before putting it down for something else.  Then I picked up Dune and found it to be quite literary.  But it's also packed full of realism.  I have never read such a realistic approach to a science fiction set so far in the future.  It's out there, but it all seems quite plausible.

Right, what were we talking about?

What do you mean by "has no literary merit"?  How do you judge something that subjective?

Well, we are.  Somebody has to judge for quality.  What are you, a literary relativist? ;)

Edit: Oh, you edited on me.

To be more serious, I don't see how "literary merit" is neccessarily, 100% of subjective value - or, if it was, why subjective value prevents a value judgement.

If I presented you with an incoherent two-page story about a puppy written by a fourth grader and "The Kite Runner," I think you would be hard pressed to make the case that the puppy story had more literary merit (and not be a liar).  An extreme example, but it's the extreme examples that make the case.  If you can't judge subjective things you might as well stop giving opinions on everything, as purely objective judgements are either trite or nonexistent.  Reasonable people can disagree on exactly what "literary merit" means and exactly which books have more than other books, but that subjectivity does not automatically mean that the entire discussion is fruitless and should be jettisoned into the abyss of "problematic subjectivity."  There's nothing wrong with taking a stand on things that don't come with ironclad objective definitions.

I think good fantasy comes in pairs. Elric and Conan exist in counterpoint. There's the Wizard of Oz and Alice in Wonderland. There's Lord of the Rings and the series beginning with The Horned King and the Black Cauldron (I can't remember the name of the series). Hell, I may as well include Arabian Nights and... I guess Canterbury tales? I suppose it's a bit of a stretch. And there is so much potential for heroic fantasy outside of the fictional setting obsession. Hell, it isn't exactly crazy with the magic in any of these, but there are the legends about Charlemagne's knights and King Arthur's court. There's Robin Hood and the Three Musketeers.

I think the problem is the ridiculous quantity of Lord of the Rings ripoffs. Honestly, where are our Alices, Ozzes, Peganas and Kadaths? Hell, where are our modern world fantasies as per Lovecraft's mythos or the King in Yellow. I'd settle for something better written on a similar premise to The White People... although, in all fairness, there is Pan's Labyrinth. And how about some more fantasy in a "real" historical/cultural (if not historically/culturally accurate) context? The French revolution plus sorcery equals awesome.

I'm just saying that good vs evil in x non-earth setting gets old, but that's (fortunately) not what all fantasy is about.

Quote from: Holy Carp!Edit: Oh, you edited on me.

I can't remember what I said in what you saw, but I was trying to say something without being mean.

In terms of whether or not anyone is qualified to judge "literary merit" I just don't want it to be used to justify ignoring a work that doesn't fit in to some subjective category.

As to what I think doesn't get done enough: fiction that doesn't restrict itself.  Space opera with magic powers (Star Wars doesn't go far enough).  Fantasy worlds that exist at a stage of technological development similar to our own.  Etc.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawAs to what I think doesn't get done enough: fiction that doesn't restrict itself.  Space opera with magic powers (Star Wars doesn't go far enough).  Fantasy worlds that exist at a stage of technological development similar to our own.  Etc.

One of these days I need to make a modern day setting with all the tropes dumped in. Magic? Sure. Ninjas? Why not? Cthulhu? Why, certainly. Zombies/vampires/werewolves? Fan-friggin'-tastic. Scifi stuff? Hell yes. Giant robots? Oh, you know it.

It would make no sense. And it wouldn't need to.

Quote from: beeblebrox

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawAs to what I think doesn't get done enough: fiction that doesn't restrict itself.  Space opera with magic powers (Star Wars doesn't go far enough).  Fantasy worlds that exist at a stage of technological development similar to our own.  Etc.

One of these days I need to make a modern day setting with all the tropes dumped in. Magic? Sure. Ninjas? Why not? Cthulhu? Why, certainly. Zombies/vampires/werewolves? Fan-friggin'-tastic. Scifi stuff? Hell yes. Giant robots? Oh, you know it.

It would make no sense. And it wouldn't need to.

Do you plan on submitting it to SJ Games?

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawIn terms of whether or not anyone is qualified to judge "literary merit" I just don't want it to be used to justify ignoring a work that doesn't fit in to some subjective category.

Why not?  What "objective categories" would you rather have people use?  I'm having trouble understanding what your objection is.

Well, let's quickly define literary merit, since it's something that seems thus far to need quotation marks (which means it isn't yet defined):

I have read fantasies, science fictions, and mysteries that had literary merit.  Being literature is not a genre.  Literature exists outside of genres.  The problem that most literary snobs have with most genre fiction (and I will include myself) is that so much of it falls into various trappings of the genre.  The genre of science fiction is space fights and giant robots and mars colonies and numerous aliens.  The genre of mystery is a sleuth character and an illegal occurrence and trying to find the perpetrator.  

There is science fiction literature.  I would site sources such as Frank Herbert's Dune, Isaac Asimov's Nightfall, works by Arthur C. Clarke, Margaret Atwood, and Ray Bradbury.  I would say that there is literary merit in the fantasy of Lord of the Rings, Alice in Wonderland, and several others that Beeblebrox mentioned.  Sherlock Homes or anything by Edgar Allen Poe.  These all have literary merit.

Works that lack literary merit are those that don't require a bit of work from the reader, that aren't very intellectual, that don't have inspiring writing.  I would argue (possibly against many literary snobs) that Harry Potter is literature.  And I say this because the writing is brilliant.  It's clean, it paints a perfect picture, and communicates exactly what it is meant to communicate.  It's not terribly intellectually stimulating (though people have had debates on the themes and morals from the series), but I would still say it's literature.

I love the Dragonlance series.  But how much of that is literary?  I think the reason that Raistlin is so many people's favorite character is because he is one of the few deep characters in the setting.  He's not all good vs. evil, heroics, and life vs. death.  He's something a little bit more.  He's literary.  Nothing else in Dragonlance is.  They're just fun stories.  That's not bad, but they aren't literary.

Does that really help Poul Anderson's argument?  Maybe a little.  I think that there should be more literary merit in the publishing world now-a-days.  Instead we get all of these dime novels that I cannot read.  They just bore me.  I haven't read a typical fantasy novel in years, but I'm still here as a huge advocate for the genre.  

Right, I'm done.

My objection to "literary merit" is that I've read books that (probably) counted as literature, not because I wanted to, but because it was required for school.  And every single one of them was dull and incomprehensible.  They were trying to say something without actually coming out and saying it, and they never tried to just be entertaining.  I have no doubt I was made to read these because someone thought they had "literary merit", but it was the stupidest thing I ever had to do.
(And just in case you want to say it was being forced that made me hate literature: I tried reading Dune.  Twice.  Of my own free will.  Same problem.)

My objection is that categories like "literary merit" creates a perception that there are certain areas of art that one is required to like in order to be a "good person".  I don't want to be judged simply because I rather read something without depth.

Ugh. As to your last comment, Silver, personally I love Dune, but it's not exactly the easiest reading. Especially the first half. If you like more action books, skip straight to the last few chapters of the first half and work off assumptions (or alternatively read a summary of the first half). You really won't miss anything that you can't work out by things mentioned later on.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawMy objection to "literary merit" is that I've read books that (probably) counted as literature, not because I wanted to, but because it was required for school.  And every single one of them was dull and incomprehensible.

They were trying to say something without actually coming out and saying it, and they never tried to just be entertaining.  I have no doubt I was made to read these because someone thought they had "literary merit", but it was the stupidest thing I ever had to do.
(And just in case you want to say it was being forced that made me hate literature: I tried reading Dune.  Twice.  Of my own free will.  Same problem.)[/quote]My objection is that categories like "literary merit" creates a perception that there are certain areas of art that one is required to like in order to be a "good person".  I don't want to be judged simply because I rather read something without depth.
[/quote]
Yeah... the whole literary snobbery thing is something I'd like to see die off. It isn't enough to say something without saying it, or pad your book with pages of descriptive text. The story itself needs to be interesting, well paced, and well written. Also, people need to stop writing novels when a short story would suffice. I know that novels are the only way to make money writing anymore (the pulps? gone) but it's annoying to get so little out of so much time spent reading.

I think genre fiction has a great deal of entertainment value that can greatly enhance a literary work. I loves me some Aldous Huxely, PKD, and Vonnegut, for example. I also think a whole lot of authors think genre tropes *make* something entertaining just by being there, which is in fact not true.

Quote from: Sdragon1984Do you plan on submitting it to SJ Games?

GURPS? Ick. What I'd really like to see is RIFTS done in Mutants and Masterminds' system.

I would contend that if something is not entertaining, it's not literary.  If it's not written in such a way that the reader enjoys reading it, it's not literary.  If it's a pain, it's just not literary.  Being a pain does not make something literary, contrary to popular belief.

Of course, there are books that are brilliant but are also a pain to read.  These can be literary, but they would be better if they weren't such a pain.

Good writing should be accessible to the reader.  When it's not, there are issues.

That's what I think, Jharviss.  I just don't like it when people imply that I should like something specific, regardless of my own feelings about it.

Literary merit, as far as I am familiar with the term, means simply that a book has lasting aesthetic value.  Aesthetic, in this case, means having the quality of art; not pornographic or otherwise gratuitous, and not purely functional (e.g. a car manual).

Whether a single person likes a book or not is irrelevant to whether the book has literary value.  There are plenty of artists whose work I do not enjoy, but that doesn't mean they aren't artists or that their work isn't art.  It just means that I don't like them, and nothing more.  Similarly, the ease of reading a book is irrelevant.  Dune is hard to read, but it's also my favorite book of fiction, with no exceptions.  I've never read Harry Potter (as I said before, I don't read much in the way of "pure" or high fantasy, as opposed to sci fi), but I've heard it's quite easy to get into, which also doesn't prevent it from having literary merit.

As for school assignments, it should be apparent that books you are forced to read on a schedule are harder to appreciate than those you take up on your own time.  I thought Beowulf was rather tedious when I had to read it; I find myself appreciating it more now that I'm out of college and capable of reading the book on my own terms.

To take the example of Moby Dick, I read it a long time ago and didn't think much of it.  My housemate in my last two years of college was an English major who wrote a 90 page thesis on Cosmopolitanism in Moby Dick.  He not only enjoyed the work, but found it full of interesting minutiae to study and write about.  After 10 months and 90 pages, however, even he started to loathe it - it's not just the bored high school students who can get a book ruined for them by a class assignment.  You're doing a disservice to yourself if you say a book "sucks" just from the experience of trudging through it in some second-year English class.

I don't know what qualifies as "snobbery" but I'm afraid I don't buy the reaction against it - to me looking down on literary criticism or other such "snobbery" smacks of anti-intellectualism for it's own sake.  There are surely snobs of literature just as there are literary troglodytes, but that's no different than all the other arts and sciences.  Some people can appreciate deeper meanings in art than others, and some can appreciate deeper meanings in rhetoric, or writing, or design, or flavor.  What of it?

Quote from: Holy Carp!Literary merit, as far as I am familiar with the term, means simply that a book has lasting aesthetic value.  Aesthetic, in this case, means having the quality of art; not pornographic or otherwise gratuitous, and not purely functional (e.g. a car manual).

Whether a single person likes a book or not is irrelevant to whether the book has literary value.  There are plenty of artists whose work I do not enjoy, but that doesn't mean they aren't artists or that their work isn't art.  It just means that I don't like them, and nothing more.  Similarly, the ease of reading a book is irrelevant.  Dune is hard to read, but it's also my favorite book of fiction, with no exceptions.  I've never read Harry Potter (as I said before, I don't read much in the way of "pure" or high fantasy, as opposed to sci fi), but I've heard it's quite easy to get into, which also doesn't prevent it from having literary merit.[/quote]As for school assignments, it should be apparent that books you are forced to read on a schedule are harder to appreciate than those you take up on your own time.  I thought Beowulf was rather tedious when I had to read it; I find myself appreciating it more now that I'm out of college and capable of reading the book on my own terms.[/quote]To take the example of Moby Dick, I read it a long time ago and didn't think much of it.  My housemate in my last two years of college was an English major who wrote a 90 page thesis on Cosmopolitanism in Moby Dick.  He not only enjoyed the work, but found it full of interesting minutiae to study and write about.  After 10 months and 90 pages, however, even he started to loathe it - it's not just the bored high school students who can get a book ruined for them by a class assignment.  You're doing a disservice to yourself if you say a book "sucks" just from the experience of trudging through it in some second-year English class.[/quote]I don't know what qualifies as "snobbery" but I'm afraid I don't buy the reaction against it - to me looking down on literary criticism or other such "snobbery" smacks of anti-intellectualism for it's own sake.  There are surely snobs of literature just as there are literary troglodytes, but that's no different than all the other arts and sciences.  Some people can appreciate deeper meanings in art than others, and some can appreciate deeper meanings in rhetoric, or writing, or design, or flavor.  What of it?
[/quote]
Snobbery is snobbery. It's calling something merit that isn't merit. It's attributing the aesthetic value of a thing, as you put it, to something that isn't aesthetic. Certainly, Lovecraft's stories can be said to be about despair or what have you. But it can not be said that Lovecraft's stories constitute good horror on the basis of that "tiny speck alone in the universe" concept. The literary merit of Lovecraft's stories rests in his implementation of a certain set of techniques to evoke a certain aesthetic.

So Lovecraft had a knack for scary things; the transhuman element that made Innsmouth tick, the "something is wrong" feeling throughout the whole of the Whisperer in Darkness and the oh-so-wrong conclusion thereof, etc. Likewise, Asimov's merit wasn't in his attempts to deconstruct and reconstruct the way people think using machines as a metaphor (even if that's something his stories do). Asimov's merit is in his no-frills writing style and his story structure's resemblance to a more investigative style of story. Or something. Hell, the Scarlet Letter isn't a good read because of its commentary on morality, prominent though that commentary may be in the book. The Scarlet Letter is good because everything is anthropomorphicized(is that a word? did I spell it right) and everything is described with it's own sort of malicious intent.

Something like that. It's point-missing. Point is, any dumb shmuck can write a story that's "about despair" or "about sentience" or "about morality." While in school you're taught to look for the central point of a book, it isn't the core ethos or any of that rot that makes the book a good read.

There are other kinds of snobbery too, but that's a big chunk of what I was referring too.

A literary snob is not somebody who sees merit where there is none; a literary snob is somebody who sees others as inferior because they do not or cannot see what they see in literature.  That's what it means to be a snob: you think you are better than person X because you possess Y.  You could very well be a literary snob and only like works of real literary value.  What would make you a snob is if you thought people who didn't understand that value were inferior to you.  A person who ascribes literary merit to something worthless isn't a snob, they're just wrong.  Being wrong, especially about something as difficult to agree on as literary merit, is not a terrible thing.

I don't like snobbery.  Nobody should.  I perceive, however, that "anti-snob" comments are often directed against higher literary criticism generally, or "pretentious" books, or english teachers/students in general, and not just against people who actively look down on others.  The way you describe snobbery would seem to indict everyone who disagrees with you with regards to literary merit as either stupid or a hypocrite.  I think people should be able to have different sets of aesthetics, even simpler or more complex ones, without being branded as elitists.

By the way, I didn't mean to imply that you personally were in second-year English; I was drawing an example from my own experience in my second year of high school English, which was atrocious.  I hear a lot of people complain about books they were forced to read; if you picked it up yourself and still didn't like it, well, at least you gave it a chance.

Quote from: Holy Carp!A literary snob is not somebody who sees merit where there is none; a literary snob is somebody who sees others as inferior because they do not or cannot see what they see in literature.  That's what it means to be a snob: you think you are better than person X because you possess Y.  You could very well be a literary snob and only like works of real literary value.  What makes you a snob is that you think people who don't understand that value are inferior to you.  A person who ascribes literary merit to something worthless isn't a snob, they're just wrong.  Being wrong, especially about something as difficult to agree on as literary merit, is not a terrible thing.

I don't like snobbery.  Nobody should.  I perceive, however, that "anti-snob" comments are often directed against higher literary criticism generally, or "pretentious" books, or english teachers/students in general, and not just against people who actively look down on others.  The way you describe snobbery would seem to indict everyone who disagrees with you with regards to literary merit as either stupid or a hypocrite.  I think people should be able to have different sets of aesthetics, even simpler or more complex ones, without being branded as elitists.[/quote]By the way, I didn't mean to imply that you personally were in second-year English; I was drawing an example from my own experience in my second year of high school English, which was atrocious.  I hear a lot of people complain about books they were forced to read; if you picked it up yourself and still didn't like it, well, at least you gave it a chance.
[/quote]
I figured. But this is the internet. One can't assume much.

Me personally, I enjoyed English greatly most of the time. And I realize the purpose behind the point-missing itself... in that the *assignment* is usually to analyze the central point of a work, whereas if one is expected to learn to write, the central point has little to do with the merits of *your* original work. And in the "show don't tell" example, the lesson that day was about the use of descriptive language... so when a student piped up with "show don't tell" it was easier to include it as part of the lesson than spend limited class time contradicting it. Although I still feel the glorification of the description uber-alles technique is a bit much...  just the Asimov fan in me grumbling really.

What I object to is the idea that there are traits which objectively determine the value of a particular form of artistic expression.  The idea that the things that put some work of fiction in the "good" or "merit-worthy" category are anything other than purely subjective.

Quote from: JharvissI would contend that if something is not entertaining, it's not literary.  If it's not written in such a way that the reader enjoys reading it, it's not literary.  If it's a pain, it's just not literary.  Being a pain does not make something literary, contrary to popular belief.

Of course, there are books that are brilliant but are also a pain to read.  These can be literary, but they would be better if they weren't such a pain.

Good writing should be accessible to the reader.  When it's not, there are issues.

I'd have to disagree with all but the second paragraph, using my personal experience with LotR as an example. I have never been able to get past the Prancing Pony bit, because I've always found Fellowship to read too painfully slow. I've heard lots of comments from people who have love LotR that agree, the beginning is painfully slow. Does this mean Tolkien's well-loved trilogy isn't "literary"? I, personally, don't think so. I think it's still a good work of art, I just don't think it's as accessible as, say, the Harry Potter series.

I'm not saying it's not literary.  Rather, I should say that it not being well-written has very little to do with it being good literature, it's just not well written.  When the writing style is keeping people from reading the story, I would say that that is a major fault in the writing.  English is used to communicate, and it's not effective communication if the person reading it quickly decides its not worth it.

And you can't just disagree with the second paragraph.  Those three paragraphs were all explaining the same point.  It's either void or isn't, methinks.

Yep yep.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawWhat I object to is the idea that there are traits which objectively determine the value of a particular form of artistic expression.  The idea that the things that put some work of fiction in the "good" or "merit-worthy" category are anything other than purely subjective.

Does anybody actually think this?  I've never met anybody, let alone any students or professors of English, who thought that there were objective traits that determine the value of art.

Quote from: Holy Carp!Does anybody actually think this?  I've never met anybody, let alone any students or professors of English, who thought that there were objective traits that determine the value of art.

Hey, man... we're discussing literature specifically here. You tell me that wishy-washy stuff about there being no objective traits that define the value of art... well, them's fighting words.

Seriously, though, there is a huge difference between an Escher and a scribble in brown crayon on a piece of newspaper. Both *are* art, because calling something art says nothing of the quality of the piece, but only one is good, with good being defined (in my opinion) by the degree of technical skill, effort, etc. that went in.

To say otherwise overvalues work produced by toddlers, undervalues work produced by renaissance painters, and might be found mildly insulting to critics teachers and students of art... all of whom seek to make their wage on their knowledge of exactly what constitutes good art.

It's one thing to say that diametrically opposed techniques are still valid. Tolkien has the uber-descriptive thing down, while Asimov takes the uber-concise route. And while I prefer Asimov, I can appreciate that both are good writers who produce good work. But tell me that anyone goes online and reads about the hypercube and calls it good and I'll happily call you a liar. Likewise, pop art (some of it anyway), impressionism, expressionism, photorealism (again, some of it), abstract, surreal, and about forty other kinds of painting and drawing are all good. But if I write someone else's name in sharpie on a used popcorn bag? The only reason anyone's going to buy that is on pretense or hype, not on artistic merit.

All art is not equal.

QuoteSeriously, though, there is a huge difference between an Escher and a scribble in brown crayon on a piece of newspaper. Both *are* art, because calling something art says nothing of the quality of the piece, but only one is good, with good being defined (in my opinion) by the degree of technical skill, effort, etc. that went in.

objective[/i] trait makes the Escher art and the crayon not art?

Quote from: Holy Carp!

QuoteSeriously, though, there is a huge difference between an Escher and a scribble in brown crayon on a piece of newspaper. Both *are* art, because calling something art says nothing of the quality of the piece, but only one is good, with good being defined (in my opinion) by the degree of technical skill, effort, etc. that went in.

objective[/i] trait makes the Escher art and the crayon not art?

Ah, I explicitly said they're both art. However, one is good, on the basis of the greater degree of technical skill, time, effort, etc. put into it (not to mention its being more visually impressive, which is not totally subjective, though I wouldn't know enough to give you an all-encompassing set of rules as to why).

Again, you're confusing art with good. All art isn't good and everything good isn't necessarily art.

As for what makes art good... I've seen stuff on psychological studies on what provokes a response in the brain, as well as mathematical studies on compositional techniques on what does and doesn't work. For example, Pollock isn't just paint spatters. Beyond the difference of technique (continual drips and paints thick enough that the paintings were... "hairy" I guess is the word I'm looking for) his work also produced a set of fractal patterns, and these patterns increased in complexity in certain ways as his career progressed.

Anyway, I'm not debating that a scribble in crayon isn't art. It is. But is it on par with a Rodin? As someone who has scribbled in crayon, I say no.

I misread you with regard to the art/good distinction.

I agree with Silvercat; the things that make art are subjective.  I just don't think that anybody holds the opposite opinion, so I'm baffled as to how somebody could take offense to it.  One might as well object to something extant and worthwhile like poor copy editing or trickle-down economics.

Effort and time do not necessarily correlate with artistic or literary merit.  More importantly, however, they - just like technical acumen - are attributes of the craftsman, not the object.  When I view two paintings in a museum, I have no idea which one required more technical skill.  When I decide which one is good, it is through my subjective aesthetic perception alone that I come to that decision.  Heck, there are things in nature that I think have "lasting aesthetic value," and thus art, and haven't been produced by any craftsman (let's leave God out of this for now).

Holy Carp, the thing is that I feel people seem to be using "X merit" to justify being against a certain work without explaining themselves.  And that implies that there are objective traits that I should know without being told.  In the case of beeblebrox he explained what he meant by "good", so at least he has reasons which he recognizes that not everyone is going to share and thus they won't know about them.

However, I still say that "on par with a Rodin" is subjective.  The fact is that people are going to like different things.  If we continue to act as if there is an objective standard we are going to alienate those people who actually don't follow it.

@Carp: You speak the truth on that point. Effort, time, and technical skill are not the direct qualifiers one is looking for, but they are most likely to be found behind good work and good work is generally made with all of these things. Technical skill I find important, as someone with skill has a learned or instinctual understanding of what most people find evocative (even if I don't know it as well as I'd like myself).

@Silvercat: Most of the time, I'd agree. It's hard to decide what you put on par with what. I mean, Rodin vs. Pollock would be a very difficult comparison. However, I think we can make an allowance in the case of a brown zigzag in crayon being compared to a Rodin.

Unless it's my putting Rodin's name on Rodin's work that's bugging you. Lord knows there were like 50 anonymous artists working on any "Rodin" after a certain point.

I realize I'm getting all tangled in something that's very subjective, but I'm an English major.  I'm also a writer, so I'm slightly invested in this particular debate. And while there is no objective determination for whether you enjoy a piece of art (whether it be visual, auditory, or written), there are definite specific things that determine the skill with which something is created.  Art is something to be enjoyed - but for the people that make their bread and butter by Art - its also a craft.  And just like any other craft - wood working,  etc. there are objective standards by which you can determine how well something is made.  
"Good writing" is not whether or not it fits your taste.  It's not the subject matter.  It's not the style of the writing.  It has nothing to do with whether the plot if fantastical or gritty.  It's the skill that an author uses to choose his words.  It's how clearly he conveys his message.  If writing does not succeed at clearly and concisely conveying its meaning then it's the same thing as a potter making a pitcher that doesn't pour well; a sword that is badly balanced and clumsy to wield; or a dancer that stumbles through their steps.  

Welcome, Eorla, as I have not seen you around.

And yeah... I guess part of it may just be the difference in perspective between the artist and the audience.

From the audience's perspective, I know there are preferences outside the bounds of what does qualify good and bad in art. I myself have a particular fascination for works in which bad things happen to good people, with the stipulation that these good people have at least one key flaw, and that the protagonist's flaw not be utter helplessness. These preferences definitely color my view of things like books and movies. It allowed me to enjoy the Scarlet Letter while the rest of the class was bitchin' about it, and is probably why I enjoyed Requiem for a Dream, but despised Crash and Babel.

But there's a difference between audiences having preferences having nothing to do with the aesthetic quality of the art and saying that the aesthetic qualities themselves can't be judged or are somehow ineffable.

And now I am rambling and have forgotten what my point was. When in doubt, return to the OP; that essay sucks. Objectively sucks.

Yes.  That essay objectively sucks.  

I have no problem with the idea that a work of art can be judged as "good" based upon the level of skill the artist probably has to possess in order to pull it off.  What I object to is the idea that there is an objective set of qualities for measuring how "good" something is aesthetically, because I don't believe that aesthetics is anything other than subjective.

I'll agree with that.  I don't think it's a very uncommon viewpoint.

Not uncommon anymore,
formerly nearly heretical.
(Kant vs. Rancière)
"There is a causal power within matter itself and thus no heteronymous power, such as that of predetermined subjects' forms, is necessary to generate works of art."--Rancière

(Beeblebrox, my colorful friend, this might suit your particular intellectual temprament
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-134170715.html
)

A quick look into differences of cultural aesthetics is also useful here...the very careful way that the East INdia trading company 'dressed up' and characterized items that would have been considered barbarous by the english aristocracy; and they way they did the same with the translated writings gives rise to the possibility that writing aesthetics might actually be able to be subjectively judged from a cultural standpoint, but not from a universal one.  Unless one makes claimes to an omniscient viewpoint.

Quote from: LordVreegNot uncommon anymore,
formerly nearly heretical.
(Kant vs. Rancière)
"There is a causal power within matter itself and thus no heteronymous power, such as that of predetermined subjects' forms, is necessary to generate works of art."--Rancière

(Beeblebrox, my colorful friend, this might suit your particular intellectual temprament
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-134170715.html
)

Fascinating. I am familiar with the compositional technique of using vertical and/or horizontal lines in composition. Word they used for it in school was "skewers" because the lines were mostly implicit, and their breaking and reappearance bore a resemblance to skewers through the painting...

I'm not familiar with this Mondrian spacing. Nor whether his lines were mostly implicit or explicit. You've given me something to wikipedify!

EDIT: D'oh! I've seen his stuff around! Pretty sure I got the up-close look in Phillie once or twice at some of those pieces. And yeah, if those lines ain't explicit I don't know what is!

But the specifics on his spacing techniques... that'll be the hard to find bit... I think.

EDIT: EDIT: This hardly justifies a new post, but... http://www.secretcrocodileadventureclub.com/?p=45

Quote from: EorlaYes.  That essay objectively sucks.  

Actually, the essay is objectively sound.  The sentence structure, grammar, use of examples and facts, etc. are all fine.  However, I dissagree with the point he's making.

As far as I'm concerned with literature, I don't like a lot of "good" literature because I can't figure out what the hell they're saying.  The piece was written in a way that people don't speak anymore, thus I don't know what the author's saying.  However, if it can be translated into the way I speak, and it retains it's aestetic value, it's good.  I realize this isn't exactly easy because some things just sound cool because of the way they ARE worded.

Going back to the art references, it's hard to say one piece is better than another (even if one of them's a scribble on a popcorn bag.  Van Gogh has a rather popular piece that was scribbled onto a napkin), maybe I happen to enjoy really simple things (the crayon) over pieces of art that I enjoy the little details of.  Maybe I don't want to look at all those things in dots, and would rather just see a simple line, KISS.  I personally don't think that a picture of different types of gravel layered in a clear cup is art.  However, that particular picture was bought at a local art show for over $200.  So, it's art to somebody (crazy modern artists and their dillusions).

Quote from: HaphazzardActually, the essay is objectively sound.  The sentence structure, grammar, use of examples and facts, etc. are all fine.  However, I dissagree with the point he's making.

Yes I know, I'm just being silly.

Quote from: EorlaYes I know, I'm just being silly.

As was I

Quote from: Eorla

Quote from: HaphazzardActually, the essay is objectively sound.  The sentence structure, grammar, use of examples and facts, etc. are all fine.  However, I dissagree with the point he's making.

Yes I know, I'm just being silly.

I, on the other hand, am going to be completely serious in suggesting that the essay is not objectively sound. While the grammar is fine, much of the logic used in the essay's argument is quite flawed:

The introductory "excerpt" presented in the essay is a classic example of a strawman argument. The author tries to demonstrate how heroic fantasy is flawed by creating his own "example" constructed with the obvious goal of including as many perceived flaws as possible, intentionally misrepresenting the subject he is critiquing.

Also, the implication that the essay is a criticism of heroic fantasy is imprecise, since few of the issues it addresses are defining tropes of the heroic fantasy genre. In fact, the author mistakenly claims that several popular tropes appearing regularly in heroic fantasy are never used. Bandits and pirates, for example.

Further, the essay contradicts itself by criticizing heroic fantasy for being too Eurocentric while simultaneously complaining that heroic fantasy contains elements that cannot be explained using only Medieval European civilization as a starting point (Japanese swords, South American poisons, Amazonian warrior women, etc.).

For me, that's enough to demonstrate that the essay is objectively flawed.

I didn't like the essay because it reads like some old fart sitting around complaining about the 'damn longhairs'. You could sum it up in a few sentences and get the same result. Really, this reads about like Orson Scott Card ranting about same sex marriage. And the feeling I had towards the end was exactly the same--"Is he STILL writing this? When does it end?"

We have writers around like S.M. Stirling, George R.R. Martin, Jacqueline Carey, Raymond E. Feist, we have horror/fantasy crossovers like King and Straub's "The Talisman" and Clive Barkers "Imajica". There is a lot of serious creativity out there, and you can pick and choose.

Does the poster try to make a point? Perhaps. I would direct this more at those fantasy gamers (players) who don't feel like reading anything other than game fiction, but that's a whole rant on it's own.

Quote from: TybaltI didn't like the essay because it reads like some old fart sitting around complaining about the 'damn longhairs'.

LOL.  I bet he has a walking stick that he uses to beat the neighbor children when they  mess up his lawn.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawHowever, I still say that "on par with a Rodin" is subjective.  The fact is that people are going to like different things.  If we continue to act as if there is an objective standard we are going to alienate those people who actually don't follow it.

I agree there's a lot of subjectivity in evaluating any work of art.  Anybody who tells me that Youngblood #1 (first series) is superior to Jack Kirby and Stan Lee's Fantastic Four is going o get a look of puzzlement from me, though.

I'm not an anti-intellectualist; when I went to college, I was an English- Language & Literature major, but certain things that the convetional wisdom marks out as drenched in literary merit leave me very cold, and certain things that are supposed to be meritless as literature are the best stuff I ever read.

Dune, I'll agree is a classic.  

Tolkien, doesn't do much for me.  I made about five false starts on Fellowship, and still haven't finished it.

I hated The Great Gatsby, not because it was an assignment in high school, but because it wasn't about anyting.  Nothing happens in it.  Actually, I generally liked school assignments. I loved Lord of the Flies, Romeo & Juliet, Macbeth, and The Crucible.  I even kind of liked Pride & Prejudice.

Geting back to speculative fiction read for fun.

Pratchett is amazing. Discworld is better than most fantasy that doesn't also go for laughs.

Robert E. Howard is criminally under-rated.

Oh noes... are we resurrecting this thing?

Preferences vary!
There are things that are aesthetic and things that are not!
All art is not equal*!
All art is not necessarily good!
All good is not necessarily art!
Some things aren't and can't be art by definition**!

*Actually all art is equal, but some art is more equal than others. :p
**Nature is *not* art no matter how good it is because nobody made it. If there is a God this is only thrown into doubt and not disproved entirely.

Quote from: beeblebroxOh noes... are we resurrecting this thing?

Preferences vary!
There are things that are aesthetic and things that are not!
All art is not equal*!
All art is not necessarily good!
All good is not necessarily art!
Some things aren't and can't be art by definition**!

*Actually all art is equal, but some art is more equal than others. :p
**Nature is *not* art no matter how good it is because nobody made it. If there is a God this is only thrown into doubt and not disproved entirely.

Sorry. I was bored and was back-tracking through old threads to find one of mine.  It probably was not worth the thread necroancy becasue now that I look at what I said and what was already said by others, I believe a consensus was reached, and I don't disagree with it too much.

And the indirect Animal Farm reference was cool.  Animal Farm was another one of those high school English assignments that didn't suck.

"With one stroke of his fifty-pound sword, Gnorts the Barbarian lopped off the head of Nialliv the Wizard. It flew through the air, still sneering, while Gnorts clove two royal guardsmen from vizor through breasplate to steel jockstrap. As he whirled to escape, an arrow glanced off his own chainmail. Then he was gone from the room, into the midnight city. Easily outrunning pursuit, he took a few sentries at the gate by surprise. For a moment, arms and legs hailed around him through showers of blood; then he had opened the gate and was free. A caravan of merchants, waiting to enter at dawn, was camped nearby. Seeing a magnificent stallion tethered, Gnorts released it, twisted the rope into a bridle, and rode it off bareback. After galloping several miles, he encountered a mounted patrol that challenged him. Immediately he plunged into the thick of the cavalrymen, swinging his blade right and left with deadly effect, rearing up his steed to bring its forefeet against one knight who dared to confront him directly. Then it was only to gallop onward. Winter winds lashed his body, attired in nothing more than a bearskin kilt, but he ignored the cold. Sunrise revealed the shore and his waiting longship. He knew the swift-sailing craft could bring him across five hundred leagues of monster-infested ocean in time for him to snatch the maiden princess Elamef away from evil Baron Rehcel while she remained a maiden '" not that he intended to leave her in that condition '¦"

Is it just me, or is this made-up counterexample actually kind of entertaining? It's much more readable than some of the pedantic, didactic stuff that Anderson writes when he's being serious.