A Song of Ice and Fire [2]

Bluebottle wrote:

“Though mayhaps this was a blessing. Had he lived been included he D&D would have grown up to be a Frey written him.”
– Wyman, on the show.. probably.

That tale she had from Justin Massey, who was less devout than most. “A sacrifice will prove our faith still burns true, Sire,” Clayton Suggs had told the king. And Godry the Giantslayer said, “The old gods of the north have sent this storm upon us. Only R’hllor can end it. We must give him an unbeliever.”

“Half my army is made up of unbelievers,” Stannis had replied. “I will have no burnings. Pray harder.”

She narrowed her eyes. “What is our heart’s desire?”
“Vengeance.” His voice was soft, as if he were afraid that someone might be listening. “Justice.” Prince Doran pressed the onyx dragon into her palm with his swollen, gouty fingers, and whispered, “Fire and blood. But what we need is a bad pussy.
— Arianne and Doran Martell

I'll put this simply. If J.R.R.-freakin'-Tolkien could wrap up the first, biggest, and best epic ever in three books, no one else has ANY excuse to do otherwise. I recognize that a lot of authors have a lot of their time and energy invested in their pet worlds, and I also recognize that books about those worlds are often in demand by their fans. I recognize that as a rationalization, not an excuse.

I don't really mind if the scope of your universe is big enough to fit a non-linear and widely variant body of work. Niven's Known Space, Heinlein's Future History, Fiest's Midkemia, these are all pretty large and well-populated universes with a wide range of possibilities. They are all places I don't mind coming back to and visiting from time to time with just enough continuity and familiarity to set the mood. It's these long-running series of books that are either purely or damn-near linear and use largely the same (ever expanding) character set that set me to sneering like Elvis.

Why? You get suckered in, you buy the first couple of books and they look good and you have no idea that the author is never going to stop, never, not even if he has a major stroke and has to type out the next four 700-page installments with his tongue. Meanwhile, you're waiting 6 to 18 months for the next book depending on how big a hack you've chosen and after a while you've forgotten why you gave a shit about any of the heroes or villians. Forget term limits for politicians, what about term limits for a series?

Well, also, one uses the level of technology that is appropriate. The main advantage of having a computer is to be able to go back and change stuff or to re-arrange your paragraphs, which is, from what I've heard, just not your style.

See, that also bothers me. When PCs first started being used by writers, I said "This is not a good idea". Using PCs for doing term papers, or scientific treatises, for lists, for stuff like that, it's fine, but NOT for creative work. Because all I've ever heard, and I've heard this from many many writers, now I'm no longer alone in this philosophy, in saying "Gardez Vous", you know, "Be careful" - what I've heard now is many writers saying yes, it has made them write in a more slovenly fashion. They are not nearly as alert to the fact that they're going to actually have to do the physical labor of changing something. All they know is that if they do it wrong, all they have to do is press a button.

What this means is that we have nothing but long, windy novels that are three times the length that they ought to be. We have trilogies and tetralogies that are idiotic, that are chewing the cud a million times over, and the only thing I've ever heard in aid of using a computer over a typewriter is it makes it easier. You know, "If I get ten pages into my story and I discover that that isn't where the story begins, that it should begin here, all that I have to do is hit the button and it'll just, you know, start me there."

And I think to myself, "You really shouldn't be a writer. You ought to be out on a hillside, planting trees, serving the common weal". Because a writer would KNOW that that wasn't where the story began. You wouldn't have to GO ten pages.

Making it easier, I think, is invidious. It is a really BAD thing. Art is not supposed to be easier! There are a lot of things in life that are supposed to be easier. Ridding the world of heart attacks, making the roads smoother, making old people more comfortable in the winter, but not Art. Art should always be tough. Art should demand something of you. Art should involve foot-pounds of energy being expended. It's not supposed to be easier, and those who want it easier should not be artists. They should be out selling public relations copy.

That's also one of the disadvantages of the Internet, then. It becomes remarkably easy for anybody in the world to become not only a writer, but a publisher, and a salesman...

That's right. When they say "Gee it's an information explosion!", no, it's not an explosion, it's a disgorgement of the bowels is what it is. Every idiotic thing that anybody could possibly write or say or think can get into the body politic now, where before things would have to have some merit to go through the publishing routine, now, ANYTHING.

And all you're getting is an explosion of useless crap, which added to the other useless crap that was being done originally, only makes it that much worse.