The Bodhisattva

14 responses so far ↓

• 1 // Jan 25, 2007 at 2:57 am

  < ![CDATA[Nice summary Jay. Paul kicked up a conversation on this topic over at our place, too.

  It is an interesting topic to discuss and I like your Luceno disclaimer.]]>

• 2 jaytomio // Jan 25, 2007 at 10:53 am

  Thanks -

  “Paul kicked up a conversation on this topic over at our place, too.”

  God, I don’t even want to imagine how much what’s her name is babbling about the subject then.

  Admittedly it’s not much of a summary (more of an admittance that I had nothing to offer) but what I always look for when this discussion gets brought up is some form of self-criticism. To some extent every part of the genre practices some sort of self-police and it’s generally accepted as someone having an opinion. The minute you bag an Ed Greenwood or Weiss and Hickman book (or whoever), you’re an elitist, shared-world hater who is taking personal shots at authors - not the books themselves. It’s nothing more than, “We want criticism, but don’t criticize us”. A reviewer can’t win - a discussion can’t start without someone crying foul.

  In other sub-genres you can have somebody like (and there are numerous examples - like 100’s not dozens) a Jeff Vandermeer being critical of China’s The Scar in the damn Washington Post and it’s not viewed as some crime against youth or scorned for being some condescending, self-elevating stance. Where is the self-criticism? Why can’t one author admit to me that they think something like Silverfall sucked ass - instead of giving me the “Greenwood gets a pass because he invented this shit”. Why can’t people say, “you know, the Dark Elf Trilogy was this wildly creative, borderline classic work - an introducton to an iconic figure in fantasy, and a legitimate character study - and beyond that a study on humanity reflecting off of Drizzt - but The Promise of the Witch King was a grand opportunity wasted, turned into the lowest form of fiction imaginable - a possible new direction, putting two potentially great characters into a bland hack/slash setting where characterization has to be aided by some lame magic flute, and the pages are plagued with yet another annoying dwarf who fullfills some sort of Jar Jar role”.

  Is any of that fact? Certainly not - they are opinion. But from my experience, you tell a shared-world author you like there work and it’s cool, but you criticize it - and you’re some hater with an over-inflated view of yourself beating on the easy (self-labeled) victim. If shared-world authors want to be part of dialogue then they have to take the good with the bad, and maybe offer real opinion on each other (a form of advertising, a cause of dialogue, a source of opinion - and who better to offer such?) that goes beyond we work together - we are all great and underrated.

  Tell me this isn’t what occurs.

  For the record: I enjoy many authors who have dabbled in shared world settings - I love books from the likes of Matthew Stover, Karen Traviss, Paul S. Kemp, Sean Stewart and to a lesser extent Ian Esslemont etc. I loved the Dark Elf Trilogy, RAS’s Demonwars, and the early Thieves World books (it fell off later) - and a Star Wars book was one of my favorite reads of last year, and I’m an avid comic book reader/collector. I don’t want to hear about any elitist bullshit. Critcism is not a good guy/bad guy discussion/topic - in these cases (like in all things) people fill both roles.

  P.S. - regarding Luceno - it’s for the love of protoculture

• 3 // Jan 25, 2007 at 1:51 pm

  < ![CDATA[Jay and Rob,

  I hope I didn't give the impression that I don't invite criticism. I do. I just want it to be criticism of what I've written, and not a derisive handwave by a reader who's never actually read my work but who concludes it must needs be crap merely because it's tie in. That's the point I was trying to make, though perhaps I did not make it all that clearly.

  On this subject, to give some props to Jay and his gang -- what I appreciate about sites like Fantasybookspot is that the crew there *does* evaluate books on their own merits. Similarly, Pat at Fantasyhotlist reviewed my books, too, and I was glad for it. He didn't care for them overmuch (though he complemented the writing, at least), but he actually read them and based his view on that. I'll take that everytime, whether the review is positive or negative.]]>

• 4 // Jan 25, 2007 at 2:13 pm

  < ![CDATA[I remember reading Weis and Hickman praising Jean Rabe, they called her a great writer etc, but didn't say anthing on the book itself. They're friends and will stick up for each other because of that, regardless of what was written. Honesty between them would only cause unwanted tension. And as seen with contradictions between the Dragonlance books I have read, the authors don't always read another's work. I'm guessing they just get notes, but im sure Mr. Kemp could share more light on that.]]>

• 5 paul s. kemp // Jan 25, 2007 at 2:26 pm

  Maurice,

  I honestly do not know what practices other authors might have. My personal rule is that I do not comment substantively on other authors in the line in which I write (I am friends with many of them, which creates an inherent confict of interest).

  In truth, it’s quite rare that I comment substantively on any genre authors at all. I have made a few exceptions (e.g., I greatly admire Moorcock’s Elric work, am impressed by Mieville’s prose and command of language (if not his pacing and plotting), think Bakker’s ideas are incredible, etc.) but they’re rare.

• 6 Damon // Jan 25, 2007 at 3:08 pm

  < ![CDATA["what’s her name"

  This is the best line so far :) Heck do all of us even know to whom Jay refers :)

  Anyway Im actually reading that Unclean book (ARC) and Im enjoying it. As Jay will tell you Im a big fan of shared worlds myself, I will even go so far as to say sometimes the world itself can overshadow the author.]]>

• 7 Damon // Jan 25, 2007 at 3:08 pm

  < ![CDATA[And thanks to Paul for making that ARC happen for us as well.]]>

• 8 // Jan 26, 2007 at 1:44 pm

  < ![CDATA[Damon,

  I'm pleased WotC followed through on that. :-)

  Paul]]>

• 9 jaytomio // Jan 26, 2007 at 1:57 pm

  < ![CDATA[Leave to Damon to spout off all this infectuous blasted goodwill - destroying the Bodhisattva's ratings :)

  Have we learned nothing from the Idol knowledge of creatures that live in the jungle with bug eyes and what they do for buzz? :)]]>

• 10 // Jan 28, 2007 at 12:56 am

  < ![CDATA[Interesting debate you guys have going on over here :)]]>

• 11 jaytomio // Jan 28, 2007 at 11:59 am

  Mr. Kemp,

  My point is that various other (I don’t know call them sub-groups, sub-genre’s, in spec fiction) police themselves rather well and often are good pre-indicators and serve in directing traffic to books. In the age of everyone having a blog, author’s have a great tool to exanding and even change opinion of their own craft and others in it. The only thing one has to achieve is some level of culpability.

  Yo brign up the point of percenatges (picking up random SF/F in realtion to shared world books of the shelf), and I’d say if we are trying to argue a point based on the randomness of a non-random act we are really inventing a point, not really talking a legitimate one. The key is knowledge and the lack of people in the know willing to offer it, Nobody (exceptions etc) buys books randomly. If I go into a bookstore and pick out 10 SF/F I’ll tell you what - I guarantee you I’m walking out with 10 books of at least reasonable quality armed with what I know about authors, publishers, and previous books. For instance, I can go buy one book of each from Harrison, Graham Joyce, Carroll, Vandermeer, Link, Ford, Mieville, Bakker, Shepard, and Macleod and know I’m not making a purhase that’s going to leave me infuriated. I can say the same for 50 more SF/F authors. I bet I can buy 100 books with a minimal self-disappointment rate (obviously not perfect as sometimes someone will just write a sub-par book). Why? Dialogue, available information from the publisher, disclosure within the community - both from within and the fans.

  Who are the top shared world authors right now? I have no idea. Take for example -I read just about every Star Wars novel that comes out (I can’t help myself). Literally it’s a crap shoot - excluding Traviss and Stover, I have no idea what I’m getting into book to book, but for every Allston Betrayal, I get 20 books that make me ask myself why I even like Star Wars. Who is the hot new gun at WOTC? I know who it is - it’s Paul S. Kemp. Anymore? Who is the guy just signed b Lucas who is going to set the world on fire? Like I said, I read the books and I don’t know.

  Another issue is familiarity. I can get an idea of what I’m going to get in a new/debut novel from authors who have a body of work already established pre-debut novel/collection. I can get excited by forthcoming debut novels by a Chris Barzak or Joe Hill based on an existing body of short fiction work. I knew who Richard Bowes, KJ Bishop, Daniel Abraham, Holly Phillips, Ian R. Macleod, Zoran Zivkovic and Alan DeNiro were before they had a book out (or before I knew they had a book out). I look on the shelves here (where FR and DL have a strong presence) and it’s literally like names pulled out of a hat (this is not a statement regarding quality or potential quality of the writer) - and I’m not exactly a passive fan of SF/F. For the book buyer/potential reviewer these amount to risks or potential wastes of time.

  If I never heard of Zoran Zivkovic I can go read an opnion about his work by Moorcock - who bascially embodies SF/F in my opinion. Where are my shared world reference material? I’d love to see someone like Mr. Greenwood give critical opinion on people playing in his setting - that would be awesome! I’d love to see what RAS feels about writers in a setting where his work is without doubt the flagship of. How did I get interested in Paul S. kemp’s work? RAS told me (had to be two years ago) you work your ass off at your craft.

  There is a simple lack of information IMHO, and the people who have it can’t speak out against the franchise for obvious reasons, which is a fundamental flaw IMHO - or at the very least makes it tougher for a cat like me who just wants a recommendation, and even more than that wants to be able to spread that recommendation afterwards.

  I just don’t believe in a shared world stigma - because I think the Evil Monkey could announce a shared world project in the Vellum featuring Moorcock, China, Vandermeer, Hal Duncan, Ben Peek, Bishop, Jeff Thomas called Punklagmirenbergmoil (if any of you bastards do this - I better get a credit damn it and maybe get to write the forward) and the world would explode.

• 12 // Jan 29, 2007 at 2:24 pm

  < ![CDATA[Jay,

  Seems to me we're talking about two related, but distinct things.

  I'm asserting that there is no inherent qualitative difference between shared world novels and non-shared world novels.

  You don't seem to take issue with that. Instead, you seem to be asserting that shared world publishers/authors/etc. are doing a poor job of promoting their quality authors and thus a poor job of making the case that shared world fiction can also be quality fiction.

  I agree. That's why I msde this post. :-) (it's also why I appreciate the FBS's of the internet, which evaluate shared world and non-shared world books on their own merits).]]>

• 13 // Jan 29, 2007 at 2:25 pm

  < ![CDATA[And speaking of quality -- what a typo-ridden post I just wrote. Sheesh. Sorry about that.]]>

• 14 Elaine Cunningham // Jul 26, 2007 at 7:40 pm

  I came across this thread when doing a Google search for a shared-world writers organization for a gal in my writing workshop. This is an interesting post, but as I told Paul in the post Jay Tomio hyperlinked, though I wish him well in his efforts to raise the profile of shared-world fiction through discussion, it’s not a battle I’d care to fight.

  Here’s why.

  On the recommendation of a reader whose opinion I respect, I recently read The Leopard Prince, a historical romance by Elizabeth Hoyt. The person who recommended the book usually doesn’t read historicals of any kind, but she loved this book because the characters were so vivid and the wit sparkled. I agree with her assessment; in fact, the writing in this book is stronger than that in many of the historicals I’ve read. But I’m not sure this would be the way to promote it. The book succeeds brilliantly in all the ways it should, but it will hold little appeal for readers of Umberto Echo or Stephen R. Lawhead or Bernard Cornwell. A sword and sorcery novel, like a historical romance, has to meet certain criteria in regards to style, setting, length, and story arc. Yes, there is room for considerable variation and yes, the writing quality ranges widely within this sub-genre, but there ARE limitations to the genre and no matter how well the books are written, they’re not for everyone. I recognize and respect this.

  Another reason is personal. A few years ago, I posted on R.A. Salvatore’s message board to lend a supportive voice during the flood of vitriol that followed the publication of Vector Prime, and on the WotC board to urge civility when it was common practice to call Ed Greenwood a lech and a pervert. On both boards, I occasionally responded to posters who sneered at newcomers or “fanboys,” because I know how few places there are IRL for a young reader to share his excitement about a book. Kids who read often deal with teasing and scorn from their peers, and to also encounter it in a forum of fans must be very disheartending. But I seldom visit fantasy message boards and rarely post. No time, no interest. Nor will I ever again respond to a writer who presents his work as superior to “that D&D crap.” I think seeking to elevate oneself by trashing someone else is, at best, short sighted, but every writer has to choose how to present himself.

  And that’s another reason why I’m no longer interested in online debate. It’s not something I want to associate with, or BE associated with. China Mieville, a very fine writer, has become indelibly linked with his description of Tolkien as “a wen on the arse of fantasy.” A collection of Mark Twain’s work frequently includes his brilliantly vicious deconstruction of James Fennimore Cooper. Controvery has a way of overshadowing perception. I would rather that Paul Kemp be known for his intelligently written characters than his defense of shared-world fantasy. Certainly, I hope his widely-quoted blog post will lead to a wider familiarity with his work. My experience indicates that defense invites attack. I hope he fares better.

  And I suppose I should also admit that after seventeen years of writing in various shared-world settings, I’m wrapping up and moving on. I’ve told most of the tales I want to tell, enjoyed being part of a larger whole, and met some wonderful people. My opinion on the matter has come down to this: Write it if you enjoy writing it, read it if you enjoy reading it.]