Belated Wed Reading Meme
Apr. 30th, 2015 10:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. The Romance Reader's Guide to the Marvel Universe -- just too funny not to share. It's basically a run down of all of the comic book tv shows, films, and fanfic out there - that would grab a romance genre fan. And which characters, per romantic hero trope, would appeal to you.
Example? If you like Billionaire Bad Boys? - Iron Man
LOL! (Personally, I just like Robert Downy Jr.)
2. My Novel Update...there was a question in the marketing essentials questionaire, which asked what inspired me to write my novel. Not easy to answer - mainly because it's rather personal. But I thought I'd share my answer:
What inspires anyone to write a book? Often it is just a story that I just need to get out there, to share with others, and hope that someone out there will either be healed by it, connect with it, or just understand. I wrote this book between 2004 and 2005, after a long bout of unemployment. I had left a horrible job in the reference publishing industry, without another in place, and had over 100 interviews in various segments of the industry, until I redefined what I did for a living entirely. While everything in this book is purely fictional, this book, in part arose from that post-9/11 period and various experiences that I had online and off.
The novel is coming along. I finished the revisions on Monday and uploaded the final draft to create space. I also approved the cover. They are working on formatting the simple interior and finishing the cover. The next stage is a digitized copy that will be sent to me electronically - which I will either approve or purchase additional changes (you ever wonder if these things are a money making racket?). Each stage of this process has been informative and stressful at the same time. (I'm considering hosting a book launch party when it is completed and inviting all those who helped me along the way, who are in town of course. Maybe not -- because I can't hold it at my apt, effectively. I'd have to rent out a place -- which is expensive.)
I'm a little worried about how people will read/interpret it. I make fun of things, my sense to say the least is irreverent.
Too often people will state that "the author is dead" or "authorial intent is unimportant". But I personally think, that's bullcrap. Or a fancy way of saying my opinion is the only thing that matters. It's not. Once you read a story -- the act of reading it, does not make it yours, any more than listening to someone tell a story makes it yours, or listening to a piece of music, or a song, or looking at a painting, or for that matter taking a photograph of a tree - makes it your tree. The tree had a reason for being there. The tree should be honored. It wasn't just there for you.
When I read a story, any story, I ask myself why did the writer write this, what did they want to say, and what is it they are attempting to convey or communicate. What is the dream they wish me to connect to or fall inside of? James Joyce said once that he wrote to connect, to find someone out there who got him, who understood. This forces me to not superimpose my own wants, experience, views upon it. Which I think, too often, happens. The story often gets lost in the reader's interpretation of it. The reader has gotten so caught up in their interpretation of the story or their experience, they've forgotten to listen and breath in the story being told.
3. Belated Wed Reading Meme
I was thinking about the above statement - regarding "the author is dead", while reading Goblin Emperor today, which, yes, I'm still reading. It's a rather dense book, with a lot of detail. The author, unlike most fantasy/sci-fi authors, actually has something to say. Although, she does ramble on a bit at times...dragging the story down. A vast majority of the genre novels that get published and are mass marketed, really are little more than bubblegum capers. You read them, you forget them. Oh, don't get me wrong, pulp is fun. I love pulp. Read a lot of it. But...well, some writers write to make a buck or just have fun or because they like communicating what they know in the strictly informative sense, while others write because well they feel driven to say something. Even if it is no more than -- look here, here I am, and this is...how I see the world at this point in time -- is there anyone out there who feels like this too?
Or as James Joyce put it - to connect to another like minded soul, who got him. To feel less alone.
Goblin Emperor is a flawed book. Too many names that are similar. And the writer isn't a good enough wordsmith to maintain the precision of words she needs to...to keep the reader from getting confused. In short, she is no Tolkien or Herbert, whose facility for linguistics and languages...made them both legends in the sci-fantasy universe. It's a very political book, with a great deal of state-craft, which is difficult to pull off well. I give her credit for attempting it - it's ambitious. And I do think the book has merit.
Also, the lead character has got to be the most likable and appealing character that I've read about in well, a very long time. Reminds me of Frodo, with no nasty ring burdening him. Maia, the Goblin Emperor, inherits the Elfland Throne upon his father's death. He is brought back from exile. The youngest son of his father, the son of a marriage with the Goblin Princess, who his father was forced into marrying but did not love. Maia, instead of being bitter or resentful, is kind. And states at one point, a line that may well be my favorite in the novel..."cruelty is unjust..or it is not justice, it is cruelty, and we do not wish to be cruel".
The writer gets across through her novel and the character of Maia, that we can solve our problems without violence, cruelty, or harm. We can resolve something through kindness and compassion. She also, shows, and admittedly a bit too much so, how discriminating against others based on race, sexism, or sexuality - again the cruelty of that -- does not end well nor is it productive.
It's interesting to me that this novel was nominated for a HUGO this year. Mainly because this is the year that the Hugos were made controversial, a group of right-wing crazy people (seriously guys you are giving conservatives a bad name), who do not like the way their world is turning, have stuffed the ballot box with a list of conservative nominations. In the midst of these is The Goblin Emperor, which was not nominated by the crazy people (they call themselves the Sad Puppies and everyone who opposes them Social Justice Warriors (seriously??) or Social Justice Whores (yep, I kid you not) -- which I don't know, sort of screams CRAZY to me or at the very least "high school".)
And this book, ironically, is the type of novel that the crazy people would hate. It's preachy in places, it demeans the traditional white male power structure and political role model. Yes, the author has a political agenda. They'd hate this book. If you want piss them off - vote en mass for The Goblin Emperor.
Does it deserve a Hugo? Not really. Oh don't get me wrong, it's a good book. And in some respects a far better book than Jim Butcher's Skin Game - mainly because the writer is trying something new, and playing with form, while Butcher has gotten slightly lazy in his writing and mainly phoning it in just to get a book out a year. Speed-writing shows.
The writers who churn out a book or two a year...look sloppy after a bit. Law of averages. That's why I stopped reading Stephen King.
But, it drags, and I keep getting bogged down in the verbiage. Too many characters, with too many similar sounding names. I agree with George RR Martin on this point. Also, it's a wee bit too interested in political issues and less on plot and character. The characters and plot sort of get lost in the political process at times. And well, I'm 79% of the way through...and it seems the writer is getting tired as am I.
That said, it is satisfying novel, and not aggravating. And I adore the theme, along with many of the characters which are complex and well rounded. But I wouldn't have nominated it for an award. There are admittedly very few books that I'd have nominated for an award. I preferred Illona Andrews novels in some respects, although I wouldn't have nominated them either.
Then again, I don't really think awards make a lot of sense for this sort of thing.
I mean it's rather subjective if you think about it. What criteria you think makes a good book.
For example? Read the oddest comment on another person lj this week. It was in response to a review of the HBO adaptation of A Casual Vacancy by JK Rowling. The poster stated that JK Rowling was a hack because she could only write odd characters or all her characters were odd, not normal. That threw me. Because I actually prefer books with odd or quirky characters, and it's how I write to a degree. Most people are quirky. Normal characters - are boilerplate or stock. So I would have said the exact opposite - she's a good writer because she writes quirky characters, while Danielle Steele is a bad writer who writes boilerplate characters or stock characters, who are the same from book to book.
A perfect example of how mileage varies. I think of James Patterson as a paint by numbers writer, with little talent. He bores me. While others clearly adore him -- he's a best seller. I adore Courtney Milan, who writes outlandish characters, with all sorts of interesting quirks, and Anne Tyler, and yes, JK Rowling's Harry Potter.
Example? If you like Billionaire Bad Boys? - Iron Man
LOL! (Personally, I just like Robert Downy Jr.)
2. My Novel Update...there was a question in the marketing essentials questionaire, which asked what inspired me to write my novel. Not easy to answer - mainly because it's rather personal. But I thought I'd share my answer:
What inspires anyone to write a book? Often it is just a story that I just need to get out there, to share with others, and hope that someone out there will either be healed by it, connect with it, or just understand. I wrote this book between 2004 and 2005, after a long bout of unemployment. I had left a horrible job in the reference publishing industry, without another in place, and had over 100 interviews in various segments of the industry, until I redefined what I did for a living entirely. While everything in this book is purely fictional, this book, in part arose from that post-9/11 period and various experiences that I had online and off.
The novel is coming along. I finished the revisions on Monday and uploaded the final draft to create space. I also approved the cover. They are working on formatting the simple interior and finishing the cover. The next stage is a digitized copy that will be sent to me electronically - which I will either approve or purchase additional changes (you ever wonder if these things are a money making racket?). Each stage of this process has been informative and stressful at the same time. (I'm considering hosting a book launch party when it is completed and inviting all those who helped me along the way, who are in town of course. Maybe not -- because I can't hold it at my apt, effectively. I'd have to rent out a place -- which is expensive.)
I'm a little worried about how people will read/interpret it. I make fun of things, my sense to say the least is irreverent.
Too often people will state that "the author is dead" or "authorial intent is unimportant". But I personally think, that's bullcrap. Or a fancy way of saying my opinion is the only thing that matters. It's not. Once you read a story -- the act of reading it, does not make it yours, any more than listening to someone tell a story makes it yours, or listening to a piece of music, or a song, or looking at a painting, or for that matter taking a photograph of a tree - makes it your tree. The tree had a reason for being there. The tree should be honored. It wasn't just there for you.
When I read a story, any story, I ask myself why did the writer write this, what did they want to say, and what is it they are attempting to convey or communicate. What is the dream they wish me to connect to or fall inside of? James Joyce said once that he wrote to connect, to find someone out there who got him, who understood. This forces me to not superimpose my own wants, experience, views upon it. Which I think, too often, happens. The story often gets lost in the reader's interpretation of it. The reader has gotten so caught up in their interpretation of the story or their experience, they've forgotten to listen and breath in the story being told.
3. Belated Wed Reading Meme
I was thinking about the above statement - regarding "the author is dead", while reading Goblin Emperor today, which, yes, I'm still reading. It's a rather dense book, with a lot of detail. The author, unlike most fantasy/sci-fi authors, actually has something to say. Although, she does ramble on a bit at times...dragging the story down. A vast majority of the genre novels that get published and are mass marketed, really are little more than bubblegum capers. You read them, you forget them. Oh, don't get me wrong, pulp is fun. I love pulp. Read a lot of it. But...well, some writers write to make a buck or just have fun or because they like communicating what they know in the strictly informative sense, while others write because well they feel driven to say something. Even if it is no more than -- look here, here I am, and this is...how I see the world at this point in time -- is there anyone out there who feels like this too?
Or as James Joyce put it - to connect to another like minded soul, who got him. To feel less alone.
Goblin Emperor is a flawed book. Too many names that are similar. And the writer isn't a good enough wordsmith to maintain the precision of words she needs to...to keep the reader from getting confused. In short, she is no Tolkien or Herbert, whose facility for linguistics and languages...made them both legends in the sci-fantasy universe. It's a very political book, with a great deal of state-craft, which is difficult to pull off well. I give her credit for attempting it - it's ambitious. And I do think the book has merit.
Also, the lead character has got to be the most likable and appealing character that I've read about in well, a very long time. Reminds me of Frodo, with no nasty ring burdening him. Maia, the Goblin Emperor, inherits the Elfland Throne upon his father's death. He is brought back from exile. The youngest son of his father, the son of a marriage with the Goblin Princess, who his father was forced into marrying but did not love. Maia, instead of being bitter or resentful, is kind. And states at one point, a line that may well be my favorite in the novel..."cruelty is unjust..or it is not justice, it is cruelty, and we do not wish to be cruel".
The writer gets across through her novel and the character of Maia, that we can solve our problems without violence, cruelty, or harm. We can resolve something through kindness and compassion. She also, shows, and admittedly a bit too much so, how discriminating against others based on race, sexism, or sexuality - again the cruelty of that -- does not end well nor is it productive.
It's interesting to me that this novel was nominated for a HUGO this year. Mainly because this is the year that the Hugos were made controversial, a group of right-wing crazy people (seriously guys you are giving conservatives a bad name), who do not like the way their world is turning, have stuffed the ballot box with a list of conservative nominations. In the midst of these is The Goblin Emperor, which was not nominated by the crazy people (they call themselves the Sad Puppies and everyone who opposes them Social Justice Warriors (seriously??) or Social Justice Whores (yep, I kid you not) -- which I don't know, sort of screams CRAZY to me or at the very least "high school".)
And this book, ironically, is the type of novel that the crazy people would hate. It's preachy in places, it demeans the traditional white male power structure and political role model. Yes, the author has a political agenda. They'd hate this book. If you want piss them off - vote en mass for The Goblin Emperor.
Does it deserve a Hugo? Not really. Oh don't get me wrong, it's a good book. And in some respects a far better book than Jim Butcher's Skin Game - mainly because the writer is trying something new, and playing with form, while Butcher has gotten slightly lazy in his writing and mainly phoning it in just to get a book out a year. Speed-writing shows.
The writers who churn out a book or two a year...look sloppy after a bit. Law of averages. That's why I stopped reading Stephen King.
But, it drags, and I keep getting bogged down in the verbiage. Too many characters, with too many similar sounding names. I agree with George RR Martin on this point. Also, it's a wee bit too interested in political issues and less on plot and character. The characters and plot sort of get lost in the political process at times. And well, I'm 79% of the way through...and it seems the writer is getting tired as am I.
That said, it is satisfying novel, and not aggravating. And I adore the theme, along with many of the characters which are complex and well rounded. But I wouldn't have nominated it for an award. There are admittedly very few books that I'd have nominated for an award. I preferred Illona Andrews novels in some respects, although I wouldn't have nominated them either.
Then again, I don't really think awards make a lot of sense for this sort of thing.
I mean it's rather subjective if you think about it. What criteria you think makes a good book.
For example? Read the oddest comment on another person lj this week. It was in response to a review of the HBO adaptation of A Casual Vacancy by JK Rowling. The poster stated that JK Rowling was a hack because she could only write odd characters or all her characters were odd, not normal. That threw me. Because I actually prefer books with odd or quirky characters, and it's how I write to a degree. Most people are quirky. Normal characters - are boilerplate or stock. So I would have said the exact opposite - she's a good writer because she writes quirky characters, while Danielle Steele is a bad writer who writes boilerplate characters or stock characters, who are the same from book to book.
A perfect example of how mileage varies. I think of James Patterson as a paint by numbers writer, with little talent. He bores me. While others clearly adore him -- he's a best seller. I adore Courtney Milan, who writes outlandish characters, with all sorts of interesting quirks, and Anne Tyler, and yes, JK Rowling's Harry Potter.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-05-02 08:22 am (UTC)There's usually a reason an author chooses to tell a story, and every decision involved with the making of that story, consciously or unconsciously, cannot escape the author's own summation of experiences. (Unless it's forced on you by an editor or the marketing department, in which case sometimes it will go down in history as "unauthorized", if the author gains enough fame. But even that provides context, or maybe reflects some larger trend or sentiment.) Willfully turning your back on relevant autobiographical info on an author is ignoring necessary context within which a story should be interpreted to really make sense.
I don't know if that's getting too personal since we're talking about your novel. Easy example to prove authorial intent matters greatly: MLK's "I have a dream" speech. One cannot possibly fully appreciate the beauty, the courage, and the social significance of the speech without the context of the Civil Rights Movement, of what happened leading up to the demonstration and what's happened since, the intended audience for that speech, and some autobiographical information about the writer himself.
Anyway, good luck with all the necessary steps in bringing your novel to publication! Sounds like an exhausting but exciting experience!
no subject
Date: 2015-05-02 02:04 pm (UTC)I agree. The MLK speech is a great example.
When I was writing meta on Buffy, I spent a lot of time reading writer interviews, commentary, etc - which of course was confusing and not always reliable, because they contradict themselves. But I discovered Whedon had lost his own mother to cancer, his parents had divorced and separated when he was quite young, and he had issues with his father who had remarried and had additional children. Also, he had issues with older brothers.
These experiences add a certain texture or relevance to the series - the whole "sick" mother trope - is clearly about his own struggle with a mother who was dying slowly of cancer and whom he could not save. He actually wrote Buffy the Vampire Slayer for his mother. Knowing that - changes how you view the series.
OTOH - you can read or watch a story without knowing anything about the writer, and still connect with the writer through it. So knowing the writer's back story isn't essential to understanding the story or connecting with the writer -- since most things, like unemployment, the loss of a parent, etc -- are to a degree universal.
But I like both the Doylist (authorial intent perspective) and the Watsonian (author is not important, reading purely the text perspective). I don't think it should necessarily be one or the other.
no subject
Date: 2015-05-03 04:16 am (UTC)But sometimes I feel that there's almost an expectation of awareness of authorial intent for today's stories. Maybe it's because of the Internet, the book clubs, the discussion forums, all the promotional material available, the fact that it's so easy to dig up info on an author, that makes it an expected part of reader response.
And when it comes to TV shows, you can't ignore practical constraints inherent in the medium--like budget and production logistics, the length of a season, the way an episode has to break for commercials, the departure of an actor forcing a dramatic climax in the plot (I think you recently brought up Patrick Dempsey leaving Grey's Anatomy in another post) or production gossip (the rumor that on-set UST between Michelle Trachtenberg and James Marsters was the reason that they didn't have many scenes together in Season 7). Which means story elements that didn't make sense from the Watsonian perspective alone become kind of like, "well, duh" once you see it from the Doylist side.
On a personal note, I remember being tickled silly as a child by the extra information that the reason Sherlock Holmes dies then gets resurrected was because Arthur Conan Doyle got tired of writing SH stories, then caved to public pressure (including death threats) to bring the popular detective back to life. That was my first exposure to a direct link between an author's RL, reader response, and the fate of fictional characters. I didn't know it was called Doylist/Watsonian then, but the anecdote fascinated me. That was probably when I started paying any attention to authorial intent.