"First of all, I don't write fantasy. I write stories that have important human themes. They have elements of romance, history, adventure, mystery and philosophy. Most fantasy is one-dimensional. It's either about magic or a world-building. I don't do either." -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
James Nicoll <jdnic...@panix.com> wrote: > Terry Goodkind does not write fantasy: > http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20030805003/tscript.htm > "First of all, I don't write fantasy. I write stories that have > important human themes. They have elements of romance, history, > adventure, mystery and philosophy. Most fantasy is one-dimensional. > It's either about magic or a world-building. I don't do either."
I want to smack every writer who declaims their genre.
I hope an agent told him to say that. I hope he doesn't actually believe it.
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:18:52 +0000 (UTC), Remus Shepherd
<re...@panix.com> wrote: >James Nicoll <jdnic...@panix.com> wrote: >> Terry Goodkind does not write fantasy: >> http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20030805003/tscript.htm >> "First of all, I don't write fantasy. I write stories that have >> important human themes. They have elements of romance, history, >> adventure, mystery and philosophy. Most fantasy is one-dimensional. >> It's either about magic or a world-building. I don't do either."
> I want to smack every writer who declaims their genre.
I believe you mean "disclaims."
> I hope an agent told him to say that. I hope he doesn't actually >believe it.
As it happens, I know his agent, and he would never, ever tell anyone to say that. Goodkind's being a jerk all on his own.
Remus Shepherd wrote: > James Nicoll <jdnic...@panix.com> wrote: >> Terry Goodkind does not write fantasy: >> http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20030805003/tscript.htm >> "First of all, I don't write fantasy. I write stories that have >> important human themes. They have elements of romance, history, >> adventure, mystery and philosophy. Most fantasy is one-dimensional. >> It's either about magic or a world-building. I don't do either."
> I want to smack every writer who declaims their genre.
> I hope an agent told him to say that. I hope he doesn't actually > believe it.
Given the way his Wizard's Rule series went downhill and other things I've heard about, he almost certainly does believe it. "I don't do either" is so very, _very_ true it made me LOL. But not in a way he'd like.
-- 7 Years - 2265 Experiments - 10 tons of explosives - 705 Myths Myths - Will - Fall!
> "First of all, I don't write fantasy. I write stories that have > important human themes. They have elements of romance, history, > adventure, mystery and philosophy. Most fantasy is one-dimensional. > It's either about magic or a world-building. I don't do either."
This reminds me of the director who said "This isn't just a comedy. It's about relationships.", while discussing his Coneheads movie.
On Nov 4, 8:53 am, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> "First of all, I don't write fantasy. I write stories that have > important human themes. They have elements of romance, history, > adventure, mystery and philosophy. Most fantasy is one-dimensional. > It's either about magic or a world-building. I don't do either."
Aside from the failings of the series that began with Wizard's First Rule - which are manifold, the series being some sort of bizarre political tract, and hence subject to being classed as "one- dimensional" - this would still be a laughable statement even if this were not an issue.
The Lord of the Rings has important human themes; it has elements of romance and adventure, and it definitely presents a moral and philosophical point of view.
Does that mean, then, that it is not fantasy?
Or is it Tolkien's linguistic indulgences that make it about "world building"?
What makes the Lord of the Rings fantasy, of course, is: dragons, rings that turn people invisible, magic, and so on and so forth don't exist in the real world in which we live - and, in addition, they're not presented as the consequences of a further advance in technology from what we now have, so that eliminates science fiction as the genre.
"Wizard's First Rule" also has magic and wizards in it. That makes it fantasy, and that would be true even if it were good fantasy, like Lord of the Rings, instead of mediocre fantasy like Sword of Shannara.
But denying one's genre sometimes _does_ make sense. If you're Ray Bradbury, you might well say that you don't write science fiction. Not so much because you believe it, but because you don't want to embarass the nice magazines that publish your stories which are _not_ printed on pulp, and which do _not_ have lurid painted covers.
As Terry Goodkind's publisher actually does publish some of that horrid fantasy stuff written by authors who actually admit they write fantasy, he doesn't need to defend its reputation in that fashion.
> > "First of all, I don't write fantasy. I write stories that have > > important human themes. They have elements of romance, history, > > adventure, mystery and philosophy. Most fantasy is one-dimensional. > > It's either about magic or a world-building. I don't do either."
> This reminds me of the director who said "This isn't just a comedy. > It's about relationships.", while discussing his Coneheads movie.
"This isn't a comic book movie. This is a science fiction movie based on a comic book." Or that's what Bryan Singer said of "X-Men". Because SF isn't quite at the bottom of the pile.
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote: > <re...@panix.com> wrote: > > I want to smack every writer who declaims their genre. > I believe you mean "disclaims."
Yes, thank you, that's what I meant. Now I want to smack myself.
> > I hope an agent told him to say that. I hope he doesn't actually > >believe it. > As it happens, I know his agent, and he would never, ever tell anyone > to say that. Goodkind's being a jerk all on his own.
Well, that's one theory we can throw away, then. I don't understand what makes authors do this.
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote: >> <re...@panix.com> wrote: >> > I want to smack every writer who declaims their genre.
>> I believe you mean "disclaims."
> Yes, thank you, that's what I meant. Now I want to smack myself.
>> > I hope an agent told him to say that. I hope he doesn't actually >> >believe it.
>> As it happens, I know his agent, and he would never, ever tell anyone >> to say that. Goodkind's being a jerk all on his own.
> Well, that's one theory we can throw away, then. I don't understand >what makes authors do this.
"'SF's no good!' they holler till we're deaf. 'But this is good!' 'Well, then, that's not SF.'" (Damon Knight maybe?)
-- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at hotmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress. Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
<re...@panix.com> wrote: >Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote: >> <re...@panix.com> wrote: >> > I want to smack every writer who declaims their genre.
>> I believe you mean "disclaims."
> Yes, thank you, that's what I meant. Now I want to smack myself.
>> > I hope an agent told him to say that. I hope he doesn't actually >> >believe it.
>> As it happens, I know his agent, and he would never, ever tell anyone >> to say that. Goodkind's being a jerk all on his own.
> Well, that's one theory we can throw away, then. I don't understand >what makes authors do this.
In this case the answer is obvious. He aspires to be a latter day Ayn Rand, and Rands books aren't shelved with science fiction.
David Johnston wrote: > In this case the answer is obvious. He aspires to be a latter day > Ayn > Rand, and Rands books aren't shelved with science fiction.
I don't know why not -- her work has so much in common with Hugo Gernsback's.
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:25:26 -0800, "Mike Schilling"
<mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >> "'SF's no good!' they holler till we're deaf. >> 'But this is good!' 'Well, then, that's not SF.'" >> (Damon Knight maybe?) >Likewise:
>"Computers can't reason; they' never be able to do X". >"They can do X now." >"Well, that's not reasoning, then. Even a machine can do that."
It's the "No True Scotsman" argument.
-- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
:: "Computers can't reason; they' never be able to do X". "They can do :: X now." "Well, that's not reasoning, then. Even a machine can do that."
: Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> : It's the "No True Scotsman" argument.
Hm. The traditional TSA is more, "anything that does X is not a Y". In the above, "anything Y can do is not an X". The two aren't *quite* equivalent, especially as the things Y can do are monotonically increasing.
Psychiatrist: "You're convinced you are a ghost?" Patient: "I'm not only convinced, I AM a ghost." Psychiatrist: "Ghosts don't bleed, do they?" Patient: "No, of course not." Psychiatrist: <pricks patient's finger with a lancet> "See, you're bleeding. So what do you say now?" Patient: "Ah. Well. I guess ghosts bleed after all."
"I would more easily believe that a Yankee professor would lie than that stones would fall from heaven." --- Thomas Jefferson
> Hm. The traditional TSA is more, "anything that does X is not a Y". > In the above, "anything Y can do is not an X". The two aren't > *quite* > equivalent, especially as the things Y can do are monotonically > increasing.
> James Nicoll <jdnic...@panix.com> wrote: > > Terry Goodkind does not write fantasy: > >http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20030805003/tscript.htm > > "First of all, I don't write fantasy. I write stories that have > > important human themes. They have elements of romance, history, > > adventure, mystery and philosophy. Most fantasy is one-dimensional. > > It's either about magic or a world-building. I don't do either."
> I want to smack every writer who declaims their genre.
> I hope an agent told him to say that. I hope he doesn't actually > believe it.
You know, I can sort of accept this from the Margaret Atwoods of this world, who aim for a mainstream readership. I don't care if a writer fibs here and there to attract readers who would otherwise shun his books. But honestly, what does Terry Goodkind have to offer to the mainstream? As far as I know (never read his work but many friends did so I have a clear impression), He DOES write genre fantasy which IS all about magic and swordfighting and one-dimensional characters. At least in the Sword of Truth series, which, by Jove, has an implement of war in its name, a sure sign of genre if ever there was one.
> On Nov 4, 7:18 pm, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote: > > James Nicoll <jdnic...@panix.com> wrote: > > > Terry Goodkind does not write fantasy: > > >http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20030805003/tscript.htm > > > "First of all, I don't write fantasy. I write stories that have > > > important human themes. They have elements of romance, history, > > > adventure, mystery and philosophy. Most fantasy is one-dimensional. > > > It's either about magic or a world-building. I don't do either."
> > I want to smack every writer who declaims their genre.
> > I hope an agent told him to say that. I hope he doesn't actually > > believe it.
> You know, I can sort of accept this from the Margaret Atwoods of this > world, who aim for a mainstream readership. I don't care if a writer > fibs here and there to attract readers who would otherwise shun his > books. But honestly, what does Terry Goodkind have to offer to the > mainstream?
He also says, "My primary interest is in telling stories that are fun to read and make people think. That puts my books in a genre all their own."
>On Nov 4, 7:18 pm, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote: >> James Nicoll <jdnic...@panix.com> wrote: >> > Terry Goodkind does not write fantasy: >> >http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20030805003/tscript.htm >> > "First of all, I don't write fantasy. I write stories that have >> > important human themes. They have elements of romance, history, >> > adventure, mystery and philosophy. Most fantasy is one-dimensional. >> > It's either about magic or a world-building. I don't do either."
>> I want to smack every writer who declaims their genre.
>> I hope an agent told him to say that. I hope he doesn't actually >> believe it.
>You know, I can sort of accept this from the Margaret Atwoods of this >world, who aim for a mainstream readership. I don't care if a writer >fibs here and there to attract readers who would otherwise shun his >books. But honestly, what does Terry Goodkind have to offer to the >mainstream? As far as I know (never read his work but many friends did >so I have a clear impression), He DOES write genre fantasy which IS >all about magic and swordfighting and one-dimensional characters. At >least in the Sword of Truth series, which, by Jove, has an implement >of war in its name, a sure sign of genre if ever there was one.
The Stabbing Tool of Factuality series (which was published by Tor) is overtly fantasy. Goodkind's latest novel, The Law of Nines, is a thriller and is from G.P. Putnam's Sons/Penguin Books [1]. While it is true his Tor books and his Penguin books are connected, he may feel it is useful to distinguish the two series.
1: The deal Goodkind got when he jumped ship from Tor got a fair amount of attention.
> In article <4df7ab7f-0b31-4b68-845d-5310da7f3003 > @b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, grosberg.mich...@gmail.com says... >> On Nov 4, 7:18 pm, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote: >>> James Nicoll <jdnic...@panix.com> wrote: >>>> Terry Goodkind does not write fantasy: >>>> http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20030805003/tscript.htm >>>> "First of all, I don't write fantasy. I write stories that have >>>> important human themes. They have elements of romance, history, >>>> adventure, mystery and philosophy. Most fantasy is one-dimensional. >>>> It's either about magic or a world-building. I don't do either."
>>> I want to smack every writer who declaims their genre.
>>> I hope an agent told him to say that. I hope he doesn't actually >>> believe it.
>> You know, I can sort of accept this from the Margaret Atwoods of this >> world, who aim for a mainstream readership. I don't care if a writer >> fibs here and there to attract readers who would otherwise shun his >> books. But honestly, what does Terry Goodkind have to offer to the >> mainstream?
> He also says, "My primary interest is in telling stories that are fun to > read and make people think. That puts my books in a genre all their > own."
Michael Grosberg <grosberg.mich...@gmail.com> wrote: >But honestly, what does Terry Goodkind have to offer to the >mainstream? As far as I know (never read his work but many friends did >so I have a clear impression), He DOES write genre fantasy which IS >all about magic and swordfighting and one-dimensional characters. At >least in the Sword of Truth series, which, by Jove, has an implement >of war in its name, a sure sign of genre if ever there was one.
More precisely, he WOULD write genre fantasy, except he's slathered it in gore and fetishism and stuck Objectivism all over it like feathers. Which still doesn't make it mainstream anything, but does make it rather difficult to read.
(Perhaps he's trying to get his new book off the SF shelves and over onto the mainstream Fiction shelves, for whatever reason?)
Dave -- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote: >In article <4df7ab7f-0b31-4b68-845d-5310da7f3003 >@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, grosberg.mich...@gmail.com says... >> On Nov 4, 7:18 pm, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote: >> > James Nicoll <jdnic...@panix.com> wrote: >> > > Terry Goodkind does not write fantasy: >> > >http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20030805003/tscript.htm >> > > "First of all, I don't write fantasy. I write stories that have >> > > important human themes. They have elements of romance, history, >> > > adventure, mystery and philosophy. Most fantasy is one-dimensional. >> > > It's either about magic or a world-building. I don't do either."
>> > I want to smack every writer who declaims their genre.
>> > I hope an agent told him to say that. I hope he doesn't actually >> > believe it.
>> You know, I can sort of accept this from the Margaret Atwoods of this >> world, who aim for a mainstream readership. I don't care if a writer >> fibs here and there to attract readers who would otherwise shun his >> books. But honestly, what does Terry Goodkind have to offer to the >> mainstream?
>He also says, "My primary interest is in telling stories that are fun to >read and make people think. That puts my books in a genre all their >own."
Heh. He's excluding Tolkien? I calls that hubris. (That's Greek for chutzpah.)
"The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them." -- JRRT, Preface to the revised edition, _FotR_
the fish wife curse and the laugh of the horse shakespeare and i are frequently coarse --archy the cockroach, via don marquis
-- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at hotmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress. Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
|
