Jeff Vandermeer and that Evil Monkey converse (before Evil Monkey - being the righteous chap that he is - leaves to go kick the shit out of Anne Rice and Michael Crichton) about Bakker’s response to Vandermeer’s previous article (both from Emerald City)
The evil monkey - living up to his moniker - bites the hand that feeds him:
You should have been more radical in your article. Mieville would have pounded it down everybody’s throats. And sounded hot doing it
and Vandermeer adding:
And somehow I think Nick Mamatas is going to come along and say something cogent that makes both Bakker and me look like idiots
(edit)
We are discussing this at FBS - and I just wanted to add my comments here as I don’t want to be thought of as hiding, as I respect both author’s work (as I have in the past recommended both authors each other’s books in the past), and I genuinely think - from my limited exposure to each - that they are both cool peeps. Here is my thought:
I’m kind of echoing other’s opinions here a bit, in terms that I think what happens when someone writes a reaction of another article they tend to focus on one aspect and allow into morph into the underlining theme of the novel to suit their arguement. Here is the problem I have …
Scott is not that stupid, or shortsighted, in fact I find him to be quite brilliant , which is why when I read his response (this morning - which would be early morning U.S.) I was a bit (outside from simply sparking lively debate) disappointed as I really have to question the motivation of Bakker, simply because I know he’s brilliant, and could obviously see that he created a debate that never existed stemming from essentially one sentence and he took it and tried to create a platform from something only slightly more substantial than thin air.
Thus the content - what I’m viewing as gloss - isn’t what I’m focusing on, but I really ask some of the questions covered in Jeff’s and the Evil Monkey’s response regarding aspects that may or may not be veiled. I think Scott made much (and Scott can bring knowledge like no other) of nothing (which I have no problem with, I’m all for drama!).
Tags: books
3 responses so far ↓
1 Larry // Mar 29, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Yeah Jay, I’ve been following (and oddly enough for myself, participating) that entry for the past three days. It just seems like a downward spiral of two well-meaning people who have differing (and valid) approaches to the writing craft to the point where it might get grating if it continues, precisely because the two don’t know the other or the other’s work that well.
But I’ll just sit back and cheer on the Evil Monkey, who does indeed rock all sorts of awesome!
2 banzai cat // Mar 30, 2006 at 6:27 am
Wow. Did you see the last parts of the comment thread. Basically, it was like a fight– that wasn’t a fight. Did I get this right? Scott made a comment that riled Jeff, Jeff didn’t want to respond, Scott blithely went on, Jeff got pissed, Scott asks “what’s wrong?”, Jeff answers, Scott apologizes finally. It’s weird: I had a feeling that there was nothing to fight about but it just degenerated badly between the two guys. Maybe it’s some kind of cosmic destiny that the two “shall fight?”
3 Neth // Mar 30, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Ironically, it was the Canadian who initially failed at diplomacy in a discussion on politics in fantasy with an American. What’s the world coming to.
Leave a Comment