A Song of Ice and Fire [2]

halfwise wrote:If you read the whole interview with Ellison carefully, you'll find that he emphatically is not saying the internet is bad, just that he doesn't find it useful.  And the reason he doesn't find it useful is because the lack of a filter multiplies Doctorow's law: "90% of science fiction is crap...but then 90% of everything is crap."  

Note that was referring to published work.  The filterless internet would be closer to 99%, at which point Ellison has no time for it.  Of course he never took the time to find the better sites, but I don't think that means he's wrong.  You also have to remember he's got very high crabbit standards, so would have given up in a rant quicker than we do.

Bluebottle wrote:I do feel he has some interesting points about for instance the effect technology has on writing. The easiness that computer writing bestows, leading to writers who aren't trained in brevity and the pains of telling a story in the right way. Does internet culture lead to an acceptance of mediocrity and a lack of care for the creative process? I don't know, but it's intriguing to think about.

Spoiler:

Eldorion wrote:

Bluebottle wrote:I do feel he has some interesting points about for instance the effect technology has on writing. The easiness that computer writing bestows, leading to writers who aren't trained in brevity and the pains of telling a story in the right way. Does internet culture lead to an acceptance of mediocrity and a lack of care for the creative process? I don't know, but it's intriguing to think about.

I dunno man, Robert Jordan became popular before the Internet was really a thing outside of college campuses.

Spoiler:

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.

It should also be said that as fantasy series go LotRs is succinctness itself. It might even be a little short.

Eldorion wrote:That's weird; the tie-in cover version should have had a different ISBN.  Did you ask for a specific edition of AFFC?  If so you can probably send it back as an exchange.

halfwise wrote:

It should also be said that as fantasy series go LotRs is succinctness itself. It might even be a little short.

That's because it's not a series.  It was written as a single book.  In a real series an instalment is published before the author has finished the next one.

By this definition the Foundation series, which beat out the LotR for winning the best science fiction/fantasy series of all time, perhaps should not be considered a series either.  It was serialized by chapter first (bonafide series) but put together into book form later, with authorial additions.

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?

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.