Kevin's Watch

Relayer wrote:BTW, Luci and Sea, what's with your avatars? Are you ganging up on us?

Seareach wrote:

Relayer wrote:BTW, Luci and Sea, what's with your avatars? Are you ganging up on us?

It's a long and sordid story... I think the answer lies in the Fantasy Bedtime Hour thread where we discussed it.

Lucimay wrote:

Seareach wrote:

Relayer wrote:BTW, Luci and Sea, what's with your avatars? Are you ganging up on us?

It's a long and sordid story... I think the answer lies in the Fantasy Bedtime Hour thread where we discussed it.

yeah, whyn't you step on out h'yer in the parkin lot cowboy, and
i'll tell ya allllll about it.

danlo wrote:Before Runes I had never bought an SRD book that wasn't paperback so my opinion on this is obvious--we need to start a letterwriting campaign!

Brian Matthews: Mr. Donaldson,

You once responded to a question of mine stating you thought your writing for the Second Chronicles was "uneven." Now that you are half way through the Third Chronicles, how would you describe writing in this series so far? And specifically your opinion of your writing for FR. Thanks again.

I may be the worst possible judge of my own writing. (Or not. Only time will tell.) But here's how I choose to look at it. "The Runes of the Earth" is the launch platorm. In "Fatal Revenant," the ICBM really takes off. Now the only question is whether or not I can keep up with what I've launched. <rueful smile> Later I'll worry about whether or not my missile is going to hit its target.

(08/19/2007)

Ur Dead wrote:I Can Barely Move

It Costs Big Money

Romeo wrote:Ya gotta LOVE the fact that there's someone out there who doesn't know what an ICBM is. That's a sign of hope for the future! Hopefully there will come a day when no one will know what they are except historians/archiologists.

danlo wrote:It's a Cold War missile not Eskimo poop ya ignorant young'un!

dlbpharmd wrote:

Romeo wrote:Ya gotta LOVE the fact that there's someone out there who doesn't know what an ICBM is. That's a sign of hope for the future! Hopefully there will come a day when no one will know what they are except historians/archiologists.

Aw, Drew's just a happy go-lucky Canuck.

Damelon wrote:

danlo wrote:Before Runes I had never bought an SRD book that wasn't paperback so my opinion on this is obvious--we need to start a letterwriting campaign!

Probably not a bad idea. I would never have picked up SRD if I had to buy hardcovers or trade paperbacks when I was in HS. One can hope that FR sells better so they reconsider their decision.

In the Gradual Interview was wrote:Richard: Hi Stephen,

I was just thinking of a introduction by Moorcock in one of his novels were he cites an author friend of his being approached by a 'literary writer' and being accused that 97% of SF and fantasy is **** (censored for the constitutionally weak) to which he replied absolutely, but then 97% of all fiction is **** (further self censorship).

I was wondering what you thought of this? Admittedly there is no context to describe exactly what good writing is. Possibly it is the line between truly bad writers (of which there sadly far too many published) and then the finer distinction of writers who have genuine literary merits, whose use of language transcends mere words on a page and those authors whose use of language is more perfunctory but who could be considered crude but effective plot-weavers (modern examples being such popular figures as JK Rowling or Dan Brown)

• As far as I know, Moorcock's assertion isn't original--but it is certainly apt. Empirically if not scientifically, we're surrounded by evidence that he's right. I'm not going to get drawn into a discussion of particular writers. And I'm not wise enough to define true excellence ("art"): only the test of time winnows "the best" from "the merely good". But back in the days when I taught writing (lo! these many years ago), I liked to say that "Bad is objective: good is subjective." Put another way: it is easy to demonstrate that writer X's work is bad--and there's no escaping the fact that it *is* bad, regardless of whether or not writer X sells a lot of books. It is much more difficult to demonstrate that writer Y's work is good (again regardless of whether or not writer Y sells a lot of books). And it is virtually impossible to demonstrate that writer Z's work is excellent. The farther away we get from the realm of the objectively bad, the more we enter the domain of "I like this, but I don't like that."
  
  Some people consider my books to be the rancid by-products of a diseased mind. Well, fine: everyone is entitled to his/her likes and dislikes. But can these unspecified people *demonstrate* that my books are objectively bad? Personally, I doubt it. In my (admittedly limited) experience, the people who consider my books to be the rancid etc. use vehement adjectives, rhetorical "straw men," and unsupported generalizations to defend their views because they can't actually find the objective evidence they want in the text.
  
  Please understand that I'm not claiming for myself the stature of "excellence" (or even the stature of "merely good"): I'm simply observing that people who dislike my work intensely appear to do so for reasons which are subjective rather than objective.
  
  (08/22/2007)