I was a huge fan of the show ANGEL

Standard

I mean, seriously. I liked it from the first episode. So how happy was I to see the Twenty Palaces books listed on io9.com as books that could fill the void. Money quote:

Basically, if you want a series that’s entirely based on the storyline about Angel going to work at Wolfram & Hart, this might be the closest you’ll get in book form.

As you might expect, the sales rank on Amazon for Child of Fire improved by quite a bit, although they’re returned to normal now. I’m also getting brand new 2-star reviews, a 5-star review that suggests the books would be perfect for “An urban fantasy fan who loves death”, and a mini-surge in sales of the prequel (although that’s still declining).

It’s nice to know folks are still finding the books. It won’t change the status of the series by any degree, but a high profile recommendation is a high profile recommendation.

How “Hard” Is Your Magic? (plus book giveaway)

Standard

I’m about to respond to a post that’s nearly a week old so that makes me totally behind the times, right?

I’m always behind on everything.

Anyway, last week N.K. Jemisin wrote a post about magic making sense (her take: it shouldn’t have to because it’s magic and not science). I think it’s a great post and I agree with much of what she says. There must be space in the genre for magic that is inexplicable, that is ill-defined or not truly understood.

Yeah, I know: the natural first response is to assert that magic needs limits because hey, if everything is possible, nothing is interesting (check out the first comment on Jemisin’s post). But that’s not the same thing at all. Yes, magic can be mysterious or non-rational without being omnipotent. It’s just a matter of how it’s written.

To be clear, I don’t think we should do away with so-called “mechanistic” magic. I haven’t tossed my Pat Rothfuss books into the donation bin, after all, and I certainly enjoy that Harry Potter fellow. But I continually see an emphasis on the rules and limits of this magic “system” or that one–or even the idea that there has to be a specific system–and I agree that too much emphasis is put on it.

The one place I disagree with Jemisin’s post is where she lays the blame for this at the feet of Dungeons and Dragons. First, the idea that magic was a super-complicated but vaguely-mechanical process where people drew certain symbols, said certain works, used certain objects with the plan to get a specific outcome predates Gary Gygax’s great-great-grandfather. Hell, Conjure Wife beat The Players’ Handbook by a couple of decades.

Which isn’t to say that D&D hasn’t had influence. It most definitely has. I mean, it’s a fun game and a lot of folks in the genre play it, how could it not have an effect?

But I think the real culprit here is science fiction.

SF and F have been lumped together for years, with science fiction getting most of the respect and cultural cachet while fantasy gets most of the sales. They’re in an odd relationship, with a lot of crossover among the readers and writers, and from what I can tell as an outsider to fandom, devoted science fiction fans largely holds fantasy in contempt.

Fantasy is “playing tennis with the net down”. It’s supposed to be anti-progress, pro-monarchy, reactionary, irrational… blah blah blah. I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that, if that’s the tenor of the conversation inside that community, it’s no surprise that fantasy readers and writers would start to adopt the idea that the best sort of fantasy would be “hard.”

Since I’ve been online, I’ve seen two separate movements to push so-called “hard fantasy.” The first was fantasy that stuck close to the original folklore. The second was fantasy with world-building that felt so solid you “knew that the sewers worked”.

Both times it came up I couldn’t help but wonder why anyone would want to emulate a niche genre like hard science fiction. My best guess–once again, talking as an outsider here, so I am open to correction–is a version of Stockholm Syndrome.

Still: more of the numinous! Less talk about “magic systems.”


Regarding the book giveaway: The response has been amazing. Thanks, you guys. The winner, selected by a roll of many-sided dice, is Mark Martinez. Your book will be thrown into the U.S. Postal Service in a few days.

Thanks again.

Randomness for 6/20

Standard

1) 25 Ways to Tie a Scarf in 4.5 Minutes. Whether you care about scarves or not, it’s an entertaining video.

2) The Stephen King story universe flow chart.

3) Creepy married actor hits on model during flight. She tweets about it, bringing him more fame than he might have wanted.

4) I guess if you’ve already spent the money on the photos, you might as well do this. Er, #35 is “special.”

5) Starbucks name fail.

6) Political attack ads in Westeros.

7) The ten most ridiculous rules in first ed. D&D. I see that no one will acknowledge the elephant in the room: armor class. via Mike Cole

I don’t need to see more characters taking a piss

Standard

Lev Grossman has a fun list of 20 things he wants to see characters in fantasy novels do more often. Someday I’ll do a list of all the reasons the internet is about lists, but this one is pretty fun.

However, I don’t much need to see characters peeing, unless it’s important to the story. Are they trapped somewhere for a long time? Are they showing their contempt for someone? Go for it. Otherwise, leave it implied.

Also, number 1, forgetting things, wouldn’t fit the sort of stories I like to read or write. For most of us, the expectation is that characters will perform to the best of their abilities. If the troll army is marching through a forest, the elven ranger might be able to successfully elude them while the city tax collector could not, but we expect both to do their best. This is why we invented the term “idiot plot.”

Frankly, fiction is artificial enough without adding complications from obstacles like “I swear I packed our weapons!” It seems too much like author manipulation.

As for number 19, I figure worlds on the other sides of portals would be pretty much like ours, in the most basic way. I mean, if I’m not taking up arms against the Dark Lards in our world, why would I believe myself capable of doing it in another?

Short fiction on the donation model

Standard

All around cool guy Saladin Ahmed is giving away a Sword & Sorcery tale on his website, with a request for donations. Times are tough for a lot of people, but as someone with out-of-date prescription glasses, I can tell you how incredibly hard it is for a writer who struggles to see text.

Give the story a read and, if you like it, send a couple of bucks his way.

“… anyone who wants to talk about Wheel of Time and doesn’t get that it’s metafiction isn’t really worth listening to.”

Standard

Here’s an idea I didn’t really consider when I read and reviewed The Eye of the World: that it’s a meta-fictional take on the fantasy genre.

Aidan Moher linked to my writeup on Reddit and let’s just say the reception wasn’t warm. That’s cool by me; I’m not all that concerned with having everyone agree with me. And while some of the reactions were dumb…

[It’s meta-fiction, which is] why you have in-world main characters (ta’veren,) an in-world mechanism that drives plot contrivances (the pattern,) and characters who are savvy enough to manipulate the inherent illogicality of their world (Mat abusing his luck, people being able to find Rand by his trail of improbable events). It’s a fantasy series that deals with the implications of living in a fantasy world, but does it subtly without being an outright parody. I’m tempted to say that after Terry Pratchett, Robert Jordan is probably the second most genre-savvy author in fantasy

Meta-fiction? Or is that being a savvy munchkin about the rules of your own setting? Or something else?

Obviously I haven’t read the whole series but I’m sure some of you have. What do you think? Comments on the blog are turned off due to spam, but you can reply by tweet, on Facebook, or join the conversations on LiveJournal.

Randomness for 6/5

Standard

1) Amazon changing its sales ranking algorithms again?

2) Why movies have so many explosions in them, in graph form.

3) This is an animal, not a monster.

4) Proof that anything is more dramatic with a movie soundtrack: Slinky on a treadmill. Video.

5) How fast food serving sizes have grown out of control, in infographic form.

6) 102 Awful Celebrity Portraits, Drawn By Their Fans.

7) Film producer Keith Calder on Scientology and what it feels like to finally stop biting your nails.

Bonus item: “What does Satanism mean to you?” Video

With the summer season about to start…

Standard

How to recognize when someone is drowning.

It’s not what you think.

Randomness for 5/19

Standard

1) Dungeon Kickstarters.

2) Eleven problems music can solve.

3) George Lucas Does Something Likeable For a Change: Revenge on Rich Neighbors

4) The Nine Circles of Hell… in Lego.

5) Inventor turns Nerf gun into a working Tesla gun.

6) The creator and showrunner of COMMUNITY responds to being fired via press release.

7) The Most Successful Self-Published SF/F Authors.

How this is something I even need to say, I don’t know.

Standard

During the past week Time Magazine gave everyone a new catchphrase to bash mothers with (since everyone was tired of the old ones) and a provocative cover for to make cultural hand-wringers wring away. Now that it’s the weekend, the NYTimes has given us an excuse to bash writers. For the click-phobic, the article suggests that, in this New Publishing Environment(tm), writers are being pressured to put out more, more, MORE books, where it used to be common to publish a book a year.

Predictably, this brought on hoots of derision from people already doing that.

Look, let’s just skip over the fact that it’s the writer of the article, not the best-selling author featured in it, who uses the word “brutal” to describe a two-thousand-word-a-day pace. Still, I have genuine sympathy for anyone trying to increase their productivity, whatever the reason. I’ve been trying to write more and finish more, by any measurement, for my whole life.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth of things: some writers are prolific, some are plodding, some could write faster with a little more focus, some would benefit greatly by taking more time with their books.

But in response to an article like this we get an interplay of a lot of unpleasant things: the pervasive lack of sympathy for the creative class, the faux-populist, faux-blue collar attitude many writers use to mark themselves as anti-elitists, the idea many people have that the ereaders they got for Christmas have Changed Everything, and the nasty effects of living in the “age of the social artist.”

And sadly, most of the nasty comments were coming from other writers.

Here’s the thing: I’m one of those slow writers. Circle of Enemies took me a year to write. Sure, some people think it’s formula popcorn crapola; if they knew how much I pulled my hair out over it, they would pity me. Still, it was a complicated book and getting it right required time.

So when people talk about writers as though they’re begging sympathy, I get honestly pissed off. You shouldn’t measure a writer’s work by the number of pages they do a day. It’s not an assembly line. It’s not piece work. If you think it is, you’re doing it wrong.

Yeah, there are authors out there putting out interesting original books every few months. There are others who need years. Who’s going to tell Pat Rothfuss he ought to write two books a year?

(Yeah, I know: A lot of people would say that. They’re wrong.)

Even worse are the people who claim that authors should never complain, ever, because they’re writers, aren’t they? Isn’t that privilege enough?

Hey, we live in the age of the social artist, where people are supposed to share their authentic lives, but the one thing they can never do is complain, or feel dissatisfied, or show their unhappiness, because they get to be writers. They’re not scraping up roadkill, or caring for dementia patients, or busting their asses on a construction site in the heat of summer. They get to make up stories for a living.

Never mind that construction work was the best-paying, easiest work I’ve ever done. Not physically easy, but not too physically challenging, either. It’s not nearly as draining as writing. Maybe other people see writing as a care-free playtime, but it’s never been that way for me.

I’m not a writer because it’s easy; screw those who think it is. I’m not a writer because I want to live some sort of privileged life, or because I want to be rich, or even because it’s the only thing I can do.

I’m a writer because it’s challenging and I’m good at it. I’m a writer because I want to make things, as Doris Egan has said.

So let’s stop the faux blue collar anti-elitism, and let’s stop talking about the number of words a writer creates a day as some sort of measure of how hard they work.