FDP Mike
First Post
It's not THAT bad . . .
Hmm . . . I feel a need to defend the article. (Should I put on my flame suit?
)
For one, the guy's not a hack. He obviously knows the SF & F field pretty well (at least as it stood in the mid-80s); he writes with a lot of zing, panache, and real insight; and, he has a good point in the end. (There's also a decent dose of irony in the piece, a bit of tongue-in-cheek playfulness.)
He's also not necessarily a snob. Look very closely at the examples that he actually quotes: they really are dreadful writing, such as those four related passages from Lin Carter's The Black Star. Just because someone takes a stand and criticizes something as lacking does not equate directly to snobbery.
Moreover, he's not focussing on the "truly imaginative"; instead, he's focussing on the very technical issue of how to judge what makes not just good SF & F, but good storytelling in general. Personally, I don't see why SF & F should be somehow exempt from such considerations. Even though the article is rather old, Lowe is still right.
Yep, I said it: Lowe is right.
I think that what lies at the heart of his contention is that SF & F has become formulaic. And he's right. It's become clichéd and predictable for the most part (which is not to say that good writers are not out there; sadly, they just don't form the majority) -- and readers in general feel comfortable with this predictability, and that comfort drives the market as a whole for SF & F (i.e., the publishing companies are doing their marketing surveys and ensuring that they make money with their releases).
For instance, behind Lowe's criticisms is this sense that SF & F has lost a sense of "craft" and innovation. Mind you, when you start talking about more recent authors such as Dan Simmons (the Hyperion series) or George R.R. Martin, you can see that some authors do practice "craft"; such authors have not fallen prey to the easy road of cliché and predictability. Simmons and Martin aside, though, SF & F really is home to a lot of . . . well, bad writing and bad plotting.
Lowe makes reference to Aristotle's comments on plot. Aristotle suggests that the plot should unfold naturally from the characters' actions and desires; if a plot seems overly constructed, then it's a poor plot that can't achieve its end purpose (which Aristotle calls catharsis, at least with regard to tragedy). Maybe that was written centuries and centuries ago, but it's still very sound criticism. Much of the history of literary criticism has been concerned in some way with Aristotle's notions on plot as a basis for judging works of literature. Again, I don't see why SF & F should be exempt.
I kind of see Lowe's article in this light: his real goal, ultimately, is to make SF & F better. Here's where the irony is working in his piece. If we can develop a language to say what's bad in SF & F books, then by a kind of default we'll get on to what's really, really good. He's taking his pot shots, true, and even Tolkien comes under fire, but perhaps Lowe is doing so because he cares about SF & F. It bugs me, too, that so much . . . junk gets published -- though I suppose all the junk only makes the truly fabulous stuff stand out all the more.
Lowe made me laugh, out loud even. It's a fun article, and it's on target for the most part.
Think, then, of D&D and how a campaign might run. When do the players feel more involved: if the actions and decisions of their characters are driving the story, or if they're constantly yanked along on the DM's tether (i.e., "railroaded")? Players can get frustrated pretty quickly once they realize that the DM has made everything fit his or her plan. On the other hand, a campaign can be a ringing success if its events appear to arise primarily from what the PCs do.
There, see, I got this post on topic in the end!
Deadguy said:
Hmm . . . I feel a need to defend the article. (Should I put on my flame suit?
)For one, the guy's not a hack. He obviously knows the SF & F field pretty well (at least as it stood in the mid-80s); he writes with a lot of zing, panache, and real insight; and, he has a good point in the end. (There's also a decent dose of irony in the piece, a bit of tongue-in-cheek playfulness.)
He's also not necessarily a snob. Look very closely at the examples that he actually quotes: they really are dreadful writing, such as those four related passages from Lin Carter's The Black Star. Just because someone takes a stand and criticizes something as lacking does not equate directly to snobbery.
Moreover, he's not focussing on the "truly imaginative"; instead, he's focussing on the very technical issue of how to judge what makes not just good SF & F, but good storytelling in general. Personally, I don't see why SF & F should be somehow exempt from such considerations. Even though the article is rather old, Lowe is still right.
Yep, I said it: Lowe is right.
I think that what lies at the heart of his contention is that SF & F has become formulaic. And he's right. It's become clichéd and predictable for the most part (which is not to say that good writers are not out there; sadly, they just don't form the majority) -- and readers in general feel comfortable with this predictability, and that comfort drives the market as a whole for SF & F (i.e., the publishing companies are doing their marketing surveys and ensuring that they make money with their releases).
For instance, behind Lowe's criticisms is this sense that SF & F has lost a sense of "craft" and innovation. Mind you, when you start talking about more recent authors such as Dan Simmons (the Hyperion series) or George R.R. Martin, you can see that some authors do practice "craft"; such authors have not fallen prey to the easy road of cliché and predictability. Simmons and Martin aside, though, SF & F really is home to a lot of . . . well, bad writing and bad plotting.
Lowe makes reference to Aristotle's comments on plot. Aristotle suggests that the plot should unfold naturally from the characters' actions and desires; if a plot seems overly constructed, then it's a poor plot that can't achieve its end purpose (which Aristotle calls catharsis, at least with regard to tragedy). Maybe that was written centuries and centuries ago, but it's still very sound criticism. Much of the history of literary criticism has been concerned in some way with Aristotle's notions on plot as a basis for judging works of literature. Again, I don't see why SF & F should be exempt.
I kind of see Lowe's article in this light: his real goal, ultimately, is to make SF & F better. Here's where the irony is working in his piece. If we can develop a language to say what's bad in SF & F books, then by a kind of default we'll get on to what's really, really good. He's taking his pot shots, true, and even Tolkien comes under fire, but perhaps Lowe is doing so because he cares about SF & F. It bugs me, too, that so much . . . junk gets published -- though I suppose all the junk only makes the truly fabulous stuff stand out all the more.
Lowe made me laugh, out loud even. It's a fun article, and it's on target for the most part.
Think, then, of D&D and how a campaign might run. When do the players feel more involved: if the actions and decisions of their characters are driving the story, or if they're constantly yanked along on the DM's tether (i.e., "railroaded")? Players can get frustrated pretty quickly once they realize that the DM has made everything fit his or her plan. On the other hand, a campaign can be a ringing success if its events appear to arise primarily from what the PCs do.
There, see, I got this post on topic in the end!
