Never mind violet, here's Mike Minnis!
Mike Minnis
Folks
I took a nasty and unfair shot from this "reviewer" here, and frankly, I'm
very disappointed. She read one story, decided I was dog vomit, and
couldn't continue. Uh huh. Considering that I have 13 stories or so,
you'd think she could have at least gone to the bathroom, driven the
porcelain bus, come back and tried another tale. Nope.
This the hallmark of a lazy, arrogant reviewer.
What I don't like is the shitty pseudo-Edmund Wilson critical tone taken
against nearly ALL "fan fiction". Apparently violet is under the
impression that it's all something on the sidewalk to be stepped around.
Apparently none of us can "grasp" the cosmicism of HPL - because we're "the
sub-sub-sub-sub group" of a "sub-literate" genre. Her words, not mine.
This is inexcusable arrogance.
Yes, there are BAD Mythos stories out there. There are stories out there
rife with cliches, zoological parks of otherworldy beings, and yet another
Dreadful Tome of Forgotten Lore.
And yet there are GOOD Mythos stories out there. That cannot be denied.
Thomas Ligotti (sp?) has wrote a few. I think Tim Waggoner's great. Even
that old demon Derleth has a good tale here and there. And I happen to
think my own work is pretty decent, too.
What violet misses utterly is the fact that HPL was here to LISTEN, as well
as speak. He opened his world up to any and all - fellow writers at
first, and then composers, gamers, film-makers, thrill-seekers,
intellectuals, dreamers and fellow myth-makers.
Other fantasists will eventually pass from view. Their worlds, however,
brilliant, are forever static. Etched in stone. How many of you read
Dunsany? Brilliant as Tolkien as is, will he be read 100, 200, 500 years
from now? Perhaps...but HPL-inspired fiction may still very well be in
print.
I find that mind-boggling...
Folks like violet most likely wanted it all to stop when the poor old gent
died in 1937. Put him in a glass case, pin him up like a rare butterfly.
Sure, it's beautiful - but dead and soon dust.
I like to think HPL wouldn't have wanted this...
HPL's universe continues on without him, though he remains at the center of
its galaxy - on his own Throne of Chaos, I like to imagine, while the rest
of us - the faithful - dance blindly about him
...except when we take a break to produce sub-literate fan fiction, of
course.
End of polemic.
MIKE
(and yes, the subject header means I'm a fan of the Sex Pistols)
AdamsHWA
Hey, Mike, have you written anything that's been published professionally?
If yes, then congrats!
If not, then quit wasting bandwdith getting your stories posted on the net, and
go forth and sell your stories.
The only way to succeed as a writer is to put your balls on the line, learn to
take criticism (either from a professional editor or critic, and Jessica
Salmonson -- Violet -- is both), and sell your stuff.
Anything else is just jerking off.
And I know this because. . . ?
Because I've been through it myself.
Oh, and if you can't sell your stuff professionally even after years of
trying?
Nine times out of ten, it's because you're not good enough. Hey, a lot of
people can't play guitar, a lot of people can't paint, and a lot of people
can't write. An awful lot, in fact.
Benjamin Adams
http://www.sff.net/people/Ben_Adams/
Mike Minnis
AdamsHWA <adam...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199807031601...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Hey, Mike, have you written anything that's been published
professionally?
Yes.
> If yes, then congrats!
Thanks.
> If not, then quit wasting bandwdith getting your stories posted on the
net, and
> go forth and sell your stories.
Been trying that, like I explained...
> The only way to succeed as a writer is to put your balls on the line,
learn to
> take criticism (either from a professional editor or critic, and Jessica
> Salmonson -- Violet -- is both), and sell your stuff.
True. If it's fair and even-handed. Dimissing my entire body of work
after reading one OLD story is not fair, even-handed or professional. This
was written to amuse Mrs. Salmonson's devoted.
> Anything else is just jerking off.
OK. I've written 13 short stories in under a year. 338 pages of material.
Because I've decided to try a different avenue for a period of time, I'm
jerking off.
> And I know this because. . . ?
meaningful pause...
> Because I've been through it myself.
>
> Oh, and if you can't sell your stuff professionally even after years of
> trying?
>
> Nine times out of ten, it's because you're not good enough. Hey, a lot
of
> people can't play guitar, a lot of people can't paint, and a lot of
people
> can't write. An awful lot, in fact.
Thanks, Ben...trust me, I'm good enough.
MIKE
Don D'Ammassa
Mike Minnis wrote:
> Folks
>
> I took a nasty and unfair shot from this "reviewer" here, and frankly, I'm
> very disappointed. She read one story, decided I was dog vomit, and
> couldn't continue. Uh huh. Considering that I have 13 stories or so,
> you'd think she could have at least gone to the bathroom, driven the
> porcelain bus, come back and tried another tale. Nope.
>
> This the hallmark of a lazy, arrogant reviewer.
>
I haven't read the story in question, so I have no opinion there, but your
final statement is wrong. It's the hallmark of an efficient and practical
reviewer. I've been a professional reviewer for over twenty years and life is
still too short to give a writer a second chance without a damned good reason.
One bad novel or one bad story and you're off my list unless (1) I've already
read other stuff by you that's good, or (2) someone whose opinion I respect
tells me to try again. The problem with publishing fiction freely is the same
as vanity press books, which I receive from time to time. If a writer couldn't
find ANYONE to buy his/her work, that's a pretty good sign that writer is at
best reasonably competent. On the other hand, I wouldn't review (or read) fan
fiction because most of it is not written to be professional fiction.
AdamsHWA
Don,
Damn nice to see you here. How's life on Genie?
Benjamin Adams
http://www.sff.net/people/Ben_Adams/
AdamsHWA
>Okay. I apologise in turn for flaming you. I still don't understand
>what your problem is with amatuer/non-profit writers, though.
Peter, back in the 1980's I was involved in fanzine fandom, both comics- and
SF-related. I even edited my own 'zine for 11 issues. Being involved in
fandom at that time left a bad taste in my mouth. I witnessed people with no
demonstrable talent form insecurity support groups, wherein they all told each
other how great they really were. The only way to describe the true grossness
of it is to call it a mutual masturbation society. If any of these fen
actually had the temerity to go pro, they were then ripped to shreds by the
remainder of the group.
Of course, you're thinking I'm talking about myself. Nope. I didn't go pro
until the mid '90's. This was just what I saw happen time after time "back in
the day," so to speak.
Hopefully that answers your question.
Benjamin Adams
http://www.sff.net/people/Ben_Adams/
Brenna R. Toblan
In article <199807051558...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, adam...@aol.com (AdamsHWA) says:
>
>Peter, now that I've calmed down a bit, let's see if this suits you better.
>
>Y'know, ths is all actually amusing the hell out of me. First, the fella who
>runs the website that hosts Mike's stories ASKS Jessica Salmonson to critique
>Mike's work. She's invited to comment. So this wasn't a random, "drive-by"
>review. So she posts her opinion, and then gets ripped to shreds by the online
>fan writer community, largely because NO ONE'S HEARD OF HER.
Not entirely so. The review contained little practical content
(ways to improve the story, which is the purpose of critique) and mostly
dismissive, condescending personal opinions that revealed a certain amused
surprise with undercurrents of distaste.
Clearly, the lady has no time for what she may describe as strictly
"hobby writers." She lavishes the same kind of intolerance and partial
embarrassment on Mythos writers (amateur or not) as one would aim at a
particularly bad Elvis impersonator.
You cannot say with any honesty that you would have accepted the
same review of *your* work.
>
>It's not her fault that none of you have heard of her; she is, admittedly, a
>smaller name in the field. She's not prolific, and in a field where being
>prolix equals name recognition to the average reader, that's the kiss of
>anonymity. But most of the professional anthology editors I know in the field
>would jump at the chance to buy a new story from her; and most of the authors I
>know speak of her as being a consummate writer. A writer's writer.
This doesn't matter. Even if the comments came from (fill in the
name of immensly talented, successful and prolific author here), it still
would not stand as a review or critique of any value as it contains little
in the way of actionable observations.
>
>The absurdity and juvenility of responding to a review by someone who truly is
>well-respected within her field with "And who the hell are YOU?" is
>reprehensible, especially in a day and age when, on the net, one can do a
>search for a person's name and easily find out all about them.
I heartily agree that responding with profanity and vulgar insults
just adds to the building carnage and lowers the credibility of the group
as a whole.
But this still does not alter the fact that Ms. Salmonson could have
spoken with considerably more tact and professional courtesy.
My guess is that since the review was of a casual nature (i.e. not
for general publication and not for a fee) she tailored her remarks more for
the entertainment of the other subscribers of the NG she frequents, and did
not intend it for distribution in the NG it eventually appeared in.
Something we can all learn from: be careful what you write on the net.
Eventually, everyone will see it and nobody gets the last word.
>
>{Aside: when I first jumped headlong into this flamewar, someone asked who the
>hell _I_ was. I know I have practically no name recognition, but for God's
>sake, my URL was listed at the end of my post. Very simple.)
>
>To me this sort of reaction smacks of the worst in amateur, fannish
>boorishness. I do apologize if in some of my more gut-level posts I've been
>guilty of boorishness of my own. But it all leads to my point that just
>because you haven't heard of someone it doesn't mean that they're NOT someone.
This doesn't excuse discourteous commentary for public view.
>
>I've quoted Harlan Ellison on this before, and I'll do so now again: "You are
>not entitled to an opinion. You are entitled to an INFORMED opinion."
An informed opinion would have been possible if she had read more
than one of Mr. Minnis's stories. It could be likened to judging Isaac Asimov's
body of work after only reading "Marooned off Vesta."
>
>No matter how much you may disagree with her assessment of Mike Minnis' work,
>Jessica Salmonson is extremely qualified to deliver her informed opinion of it.
As I said, her opinion *could* have been informed if she had studied
more of the work.
>
>Just as anyone disagreeing with her is entitled to their own -- informed --
>opinion.
You may make of my comments what you wish.
I still stand by what I have said on previous posts: Read "Carpenter's Hammer"
and tell me what you think of it. I'll enjoy a well-considered, constructive
critique that will allow me to enhance the story further.
Anything else is of little use.
I can email the story to anyone who wants it in .txt format.
I don't fear *any* critic.
Adrian Kleinbergen
Brenna R. Toblan
In article <35A05B21...@ix.netcom.com>, Don D'Ammassa <damm...@ix.netcom.com> says:
>
>
>
>Mike Minnis wrote:
>
>> Folks
>>
>> I took a nasty and unfair shot from this "reviewer" here, and frankly, I'm
>> very disappointed. She read one story, decided I was dog vomit, and
>> couldn't continue. Uh huh. Considering that I have 13 stories or so,
>> you'd think she could have at least gone to the bathroom, driven the
>> porcelain bus, come back and tried another tale. Nope.
>>
>> This the hallmark of a lazy, arrogant reviewer.
>>
>
>I haven't read the story in question, so I have no opinion there, but your
>final statement is wrong. It's the hallmark of an efficient and practical
>reviewer.
Not neccesarily. While I continue to believe that the "review" was
not to the standard Ms. Salmonson would have produced for publication
and for a fee but a casual, amused summation of her opinion of amateur
fiction in general, what she did produce was neither efficient or practical.
As constructive criticism, it contained only sketchy comments about
characterization and was heavily coloured with disdainful opinion.
I've been a professional reviewer for over twenty years and life is
>still too short to give a writer a second chance without a damned good reason.
I would think that those who pay you for your services are expecting
a thorough product. In that light, I imagine you must take the piece to be
dissected and give your views of the pros and cons on the piece until
you've created a fair analysis of the work and why or why it shouldn't be
promoted.
Ms. Salmonson would not be paid much for the small amount of in-depth
study she employed on Mr. Minnis' story.
>One bad novel or one bad story and you're off my list unless (1) I've already
>read other stuff by you that's good, or (2) someone whose opinion I respect
>tells me to try again. The problem with publishing fiction freely is the same
>as vanity press books, which I receive from time to time. If a writer couldn't
>find ANYONE to buy his/her work, that's a pretty good sign that writer is at
>best reasonably competent. On the other hand, I wouldn't review (or read) fan
>fiction because most of it is not written to be professional fiction.
It is certainly within your rights as a working professional to
conduct your craft as you see fit. I'm sure a critique from *you* would
have been impartial, courteous and fair in the case of mr. Minnis. Perhaps
you should read the story in question and see if you agree with Ms. Salmonson.
If you do, I'm sure you'll conduct yourself like the professional you are.
Adrian Kleinbergen
>
GigiloAunt
>On the other hand, I wouldn't review (or read) fan fiction because most of it
is not written to be professional fiction.<
If a writer is writing for the right reasons, and has the talent, it shouldn't
matter what market the work was targetted for. Does a story somehow lose its
quality if the writer gives it free to a zine or web site, rather than trying
to sell it? I don't see how that would work.
Rich
"Man, when thou seest the comet, know that another seeketh besides thee nor
ever findeth out."---Dunsany---
AdamsHWA
Perhaps not all professional writers have the time or inclination to provide
detailed critiques, Adrian. A good set of story notes would probably be at
least three times as long as Ms. Salmonson's review of Mike's story. I know I
don't have time to provide notes like that for free, for someone I don't know.
Benjamin Adams
http://www.sff.net/people/Ben_Adams/
AdamsHWA
If Jessica Salmonson did not like the story, she had every right to write a
review -- especially since she was invited to share her comments.
Simply because several people here in this ng don't like what she had to say,
does it mean she shouldn't have said it?
Since when has alt.horror.cthulhu become a haven for the politically correct?
All aboard for Happy Funland. Censorship, next stop.
Benjamin Adams
http://www.sff.net/people/Ben_Adams/
AdamsHWA
> Not entirely so. The review contained little practical content
>(ways to improve the story, which is the purpose of critique) and mostly
>dismissive, condescending personal opinions that revealed a certain amused
>surprise with undercurrents of distaste.
> Clearly, the lady has no time for what she may describe as strictly
>"hobby writers." She lavishes the same kind of intolerance and partial
>embarrassment on Mythos writers (amateur or not) as one would aim at a
>particularly bad Elvis impersonator.
>
> You cannot say with any honesty that you would have accepted the
>same review of *your* work.
Adrian,
How dare you presume what I would and would not accept?
However, I will admit that what Jessica Salmonson provided was a review, and
not a critique. A review need not provide helpful hints as to what may make a
story better.
Is Ms. Salmonson being paid to be a writing teacher?
Benjamin Adams
http://www.sff.net/people/Ben_Adams/
GigiloAunt
>Of course, you're thinking I'm talking about myself. Nope. I didn't go pro
until the mid '90's. This was just what I saw happen time after time "back in
the day," so to speak.<
What you say is of course true in many cases. Still, I remember a creative
writing instructor I had who hated such back slapping sessions. A word of
advice from him was that if a person had nothing but good to say about your
work, they were lying or didn't have a clue what they were talking about.
There seems to be a universal dismissal of all fan fiction though as being
below some standard or another with no regard for whether or not it is good
work. If it wasn't bought, it's crap. On the flip side there is a universal
dismissal of pro writers who actually get paid for their work as being sell
outs. Both views are wrong, both views seem to be demonstrated here at some
time or another, and both piss me off greatly.
Literature is literature. Whether it was bought or given, or produced by a
seasoned writer or some newbie twelve year old who happened to turn out a good
piece, it is _all_ of value. When sorting the mushrooms from the cow shit,
what amount the story commanded shouldn't be an isssue, be it nothing or
several million dollars.
GigiloAunt
>You cannot say with any honesty that you would have accepted the
same review of *your* work. <
You have a point. But consider this; perhaps Minnis was lucky. I remember a
review a nice lady offered of one of my works. She did nothing but concentrate
on the work. Nothing personal, no attacks, just stuck to it and told me, and
quite a few others, what she thought. I have to tell you, that hurt a hell of
a lot more than any personal attack, which I could have responded to. She
called it for shit, and it was. Admittedly, her input was much more useful in
the long run.
GigiloAunt
>Read "Carpenter's Hammer"
and tell me what you think of it. I'll enj<
I know you said it earliewr, but where can I find your story?
AdamsHWA
>I remember a creative
>writing instructor I had who hated such back slapping sessions. A word of
>advice from him was that if a person had nothing but good to say about your
>work, they were lying or didn't have a clue what they were talking about.
>There seems to be a universal dismissal of all fan fiction though as being
>below some standard or another with no regard for whether or not it is good
>work. If it wasn't bought, it's crap. On the flip side there is a universal
>dismissal of pro writers who actually get paid for their work as being sell
>outs. Both views are wrong, both views seem to be demonstrated here at some
>time or another, and both piss me off greatly.
>
>Literature is literature. Whether it was bought or given, or produced by a
>seasoned writer or some newbie twelve year old who happened to turn out a
>good
>piece, it is _all_ of value. When sorting the mushrooms from the cow shit,
>what amount the story commanded shouldn't be an isssue, be it nothing or
>several million dollars.
This is probably the most enlightened thing that anyone has said in this entire
thread. Thanks, Rich.
Benjamin Adams
http://www.sff.net/people/Ben_Adams/
Brett Riley
I've noticed a few things about the story, and its impact. First
of all, there's the unusual phenomenon that the mi-go have really not
appeared in that many stories (excluding this one). Other than the
sequel, I can only think of "The Mine on Yuggoth". One of HPL's most
facinating races and one that I would think would merit at least as many
stories as the deep ones, or at least the Great Race.
Even odder is that in the Call of Cthulhu RPG, the Mi-Go *are*
used as often as the deep ones, and form the main alien adversaries in
the "Delta Green" campaign setting.
The second note is about Wilmarth's actions. Almost every
commentary about the story remarks about what a complete dupe Wilmarth
was to be taken in by such an obvious fake. Unfortunately, this is just
an aspect of the old "horror movie syndrome" - how could the guy back
into the maniac when he's knows he's right behind him? Well, because he
isn't watching himself from a movie theatre. The same thing applies
here. In fact, if you notice at the end Wilmarth is suspicious, that the
"aliens" have threatened Akeley or perhaps forced him to go along with
their plans. This implies that Wilmarth may have been suspicious from
the start; that the pleasant letter was indeed written by Akeley, but
under duress. Then he would be obligated to rescue his friend.
Of course, Wilmarth never *met* Akeley in person, just seen him
in a photograph, so I'm surprised that no one has intimated that "Akeley"
had been gone for a while and the Mi-Go had, for some reason, been
sending all the letters and evidence.
All-in-all one of HPL's best stories. Would he consider this to
be one of his "Arkham Cycle" stories? (This would lead into "At the
Mountains of Madness", of course, since Wilmarth is mentioned a few times
there).
GigiloAunt
>Unfortunately, this is just
an aspect of the old "horror movie syndrome" - how could the guy back
into the maniac when he's knows he's right behind him? Well, because he
isn't watching himself from a movie theatre. <
You have to admit though, that there are moments of incurable stupidity in
horror movies. (c:
I dunno about you, but if I see so much as one zombie in my neighborhood, I'm
getting in my car, _locking_ the doors, rolling the windows _up_, and heading
for the nearest airport.
james ambuehl
Reminds me of a kind of funny, but absolutely true story:
Like Ben, I started writing Cthulhoid fiction for the fanzines in the
80's. I had a few stories in a fairly unknown fanzine (ETCHINGS AND
ODYSSEYS) (and eventually went on to edit it briefly -- but that's
another story) and one of my earliest efforts found its way into Stefan
Dziemianowicz' hands -- and quite frankly he ripped it apart!
OK, I was plenty mad at first, but swallowing my pride and deciding not
to write him back and say 'Fhtagn you and the Shoggoth you rode in on!'
-- I decided to gain my revenge! I proceeded to kill him off in another
story and then sent this new work, "The Critique" to Bob Price
(Dziemianowicz was reviewing for him back then). Bob wrote back and
said 'Dziemianowcz loved it -- and we're using it in CRYPT OF CTHULHU
too!'
It appeared in CRYPT OF CTHULHU #78. My revenge was complete!
-- Jim
jpe...@cnw.com
In article <199807060519...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Well let me add just one brief comment, now that we've had postings from a
World Fantasy Award winner and a man who has reviewed more stories than a
fair number of folks have read...
I've had several books savaged by one of the top critics in the field... I
was invited by the editor of the magazine in which the "review" appeared to
craft a response. I did nothing of the kind, to respond to a bad review does
nothing except make the writer in question appear petulant and foolish.
I suppose the main difference between publishing in professional and
non-professional markets is that in the case of the former one can easily
salve the sting of a negative review with the balm of giving off a loud
horse-laugh on the way to the bank...
Cheers,
John Pelan
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
StoOdin101
>A word of
>advice from him was that if a person had nothing but good to say about your
>work, they were lying or didn't have a clue what they were talking about.
Shostakovich said, about art in general, that if it pleases everyone it's crap.
If it makes everyone mad it's probably crap, but it may have the real stuff.
If it splits people, so that half the populace wants to deify and the other
half wants to crucify, then you may be sure you are on the right track.
"...there is, as they say, a special science against gunshots --- ballistics.
But against the RADIO scientific thought seems to be blind." --- Mikhail
Zoshchenko, _The Anti-Noise Campaign_
StoOdin101
>All-in-all one of HPL's best stories. Would he consider this to
>be one of his "Arkham Cycle" stories? (This would lead into "At the
>Mountains of Madness", of course, since Wilmarth is mentioned a few times
>there).
Probably an Arkham Cycle story, if the Arkham Cycle, as I suspect, referred to
stories written around HPL's invented geography/history.
Brenna R. Toblan
In article <199807060519...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, adam...@aol.com (AdamsHWA) says:
>
>Perhaps not all professional writers have the time or inclination to provide
>detailed critiques, Adrian. A good set of story notes would probably be at
>least three times as long as Ms. Salmonson's review of Mike's story. I know I
>don't have time to provide notes like that for free, for someone I don't know.
Perhaps not. That still doesn't excuse JAS' scornful comments on
fan fiction and Mr. Minnis' implied lack of ability. That was personal
opinion not based on verifiable facts but on perceived opinion.
She admits herself that she could not get through more than one story yet
she believes she can sum up the entire body of his work and that of the
Mythos community in one, all-encompassing statement.
It's not a valid review, whether she has time or not.
Adrian Kleinbergen
Brenna R. Toblan
In article <199807060512...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, adam...@aol.com (AdamsHWA) says:
>
>> Not entirely so. The review contained little practical content
>>(ways to improve the story, which is the purpose of critique) and mostly
>>dismissive, condescending personal opinions that revealed a certain amused
>>surprise with undercurrents of distaste.
>> Clearly, the lady has no time for what she may describe as strictly
>>"hobby writers." She lavishes the same kind of intolerance and partial
>>embarrassment on Mythos writers (amateur or not) as one would aim at a
>>particularly bad Elvis impersonator.
>>
>>same review of *your* work.
>
>
>How dare you presume what I would and would not accept?
How dare I?
Easy.
Would you accept it as a valid review of your work?
>
>However, I will admit that what Jessica Salmonson provided was a review, and
>not a critique. A review need not provide helpful hints as to what may make a
>story better.
>
>Is Ms. Salmonson being paid to be a writing teacher?
Not at all. Neither is she being paid to provide slurs on character.
If she had stayed on topic and confined her comments to details of the story
and not gotten sidetracked with her views on the nature of fan fiction and
Cthulhu Mythos fans in general, the review might have remained valid.
Adrian Kleinbergen
Brenna R. Toblan
In article <199807060520...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, adam...@aol.com (AdamsHWA) says:
>
>If Jessica Salmonson did not like the story, she had every right to write a
>review -- especially since she was invited to share her comments.
And so she would, if a straight review is what she had provided. You
still maintain that her original statement was a correctly conducted review
without a trace of specific or general slander aimed at an individual or a
group? That it was solely based on her reactions to the story in its form
and content with no extraneous commentary concerning the state of fan fiction
or unfair judgements on the abilities of the writer?
Go on, examine her original review and tell me you can't see any trace
of what I'm indicating.
>
>Simply because several people here in this ng don't like what she had to say,
>does it mean she shouldn't have said it?
Now that it *has* been said, she should not have been surprised
at the general reaction to her words. It boils down to JAS condemning the
entire group of Cthulhu fan fiction based on her reaction to one story
by one writer. It's only natural that a general damning of this kind would
not be acceptable by any group.
>
>Since when has alt.horror.cthulhu become a haven for the politically correct?
It has nothing to do with PC or not PC. It's simply that inflammatory
statements will be responded to in kind.
>
>All aboard for Happy Funland. Censorship, next stop.
With a short stopover in Sarcasm Junction.
Adrian Kleinbergen
AdamsHWA
>>Adrian,
>>
>>How dare you presume what I would and would not accept?
>
>
> How dare I?
>Easy.
>
>
>Would you accept it as a valid review of your work?
There are at least two stories of mine in print that I absolutely loathe;
Jessica Salmonson's review of Mike Minnis' story could just as easily apply to
them
One must be the harshest critic of one's own work.
Benjamin Adams
http://www.sff.net/people/Ben_Adams/
AdamsHWA
Absolutely hysterical, Jim! Stefan D. is a terrific guy; he hand-delivered my
contributor's copies of 100 VICIOUS LITTLE VAMPIRE STORIES -- containing my
first sales -- to me at a get-together at Robert Weinberg's house.
Benjamin Adams
http://www.sff.net/people/Ben_Adams/
Chris Lloyd
Such a draconian attitude...
I'm sure HPL, Shakespeare, Faulker, and pretty much any writer you care to
suggest has produced some less than brilliant works. Its a good thing our
intrepid but hard-bitten reviewer is so able to see the brilliance (or lack
thereof) in only one work by any given author. No doubt she would have
identified the brilliance of HPL or Jane Austin from an early work...
This isn't critically reviewing another's writings, it self-aggrandizement
at another's expense. I wouldn't be too much concerned with what such a
self-righteous, poisonous little creature thinks of my creative efforts...
Brenna R. Toblan
Or JAS?
Adrian Kleinbergen
Don D'Ammassa
Haven't been there in over a year, so I have no idea.
Don D'Ammassa
The purpose of a review is NOT to show ways to improve the story. The purpose of a review is to
point toward good stories and away from bad ones.
Brenna R. Toblan wrote:
> In article <199807051558...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, adam...@aol.com (AdamsHWA) says:
> >
> >Peter, now that I've calmed down a bit, let's see if this suits you better.
> >
> >Y'know, ths is all actually amusing the hell out of me. First, the fella who
> >runs the website that hosts Mike's stories ASKS Jessica Salmonson to critique
> >Mike's work. She's invited to comment. So this wasn't a random, "drive-by"
> >review. So she posts her opinion, and then gets ripped to shreds by the online
> >fan writer community, largely because NO ONE'S HEARD OF HER.
>
> Not entirely so. The review contained little practical content
> (ways to improve the story, which is the purpose of critique) and mostly
> dismissive, condescending personal opinions that revealed a certain amused
> surprise with undercurrents of distaste.
> Clearly, the lady has no time for what she may describe as strictly
> "hobby writers." She lavishes the same kind of intolerance and partial
> embarrassment on Mythos writers (amateur or not) as one would aim at a
> particularly bad Elvis impersonator.
>
> You cannot say with any honesty that you would have accepted the
> same review of *your* work.
>
> >
Don D'Ammassa
Brenna R. Toblan wrote:
> In article <35A05B21...@ix.netcom.com>, Don D'Ammassa <damm...@ix.netcom.com> says:
>
> >>
> >> This the hallmark of a lazy, arrogant reviewer.
> >>
> >
> >I haven't read the story in question, so I have no opinion there, but your
> >final statement is wrong. It's the hallmark of an efficient and practical
> >reviewer.
>
> Not neccesarily. While I continue to believe that the "review" was
> not to the standard Ms. Salmonson would have produced for publication
> and for a fee but a casual, amused summation of her opinion of amateur
> fiction in general, what she did produce was neither efficient or practical.
> As constructive criticism, it contained only sketchy comments about
> characterization and was heavily coloured with disdainful opinion.
>
Reviews are not supposed to be about constructive criticism. That's an entirely different
type of writing.
> I've been a professional reviewer for over twenty years and life is
> >still too short to give a writer a second chance without a damned good reason.
>
> I would think that those who pay you for your services are expecting
> a thorough product. In that light, I imagine you must take the piece to be
> dissected and give your views of the pros and cons on the piece until
> you've created a fair analysis of the work and why or why it shouldn't be
> promoted.
> Ms. Salmonson would not be paid much for the small amount of in-depth
> study she employed on Mr. Minnis' story.
>
Nope. That's not what I get paid for, and if I did that kind of in depth analysis, I'd get
fired. Reviews, literary criticism, and creative writing/workshop type criticism are three
distinctly different types of writing.
> >One bad novel or one bad story and you're off my list unless (1) I've already
> >read other stuff by you that's good, or (2) someone whose opinion I respect
> >tells me to try again. The problem with publishing fiction freely is the same
> >as vanity press books, which I receive from time to time. If a writer couldn't
> >find ANYONE to buy his/her work, that's a pretty good sign that writer is at
> >best reasonably competent. On the other hand, I wouldn't review (or read) fan
> >fiction because most of it is not written to be professional fiction.
>
> It is certainly within your rights as a working professional to
> conduct your craft as you see fit. I'm sure a critique from *you* would
> have been impartial, courteous and fair in the case of mr. Minnis. Perhaps
> you should read the story in question and see if you agree with Ms. Salmonson.
> If you do, I'm sure you'll conduct yourself like the professional you are.
>
> Adrian Kleinbergen
>
The situation is, there is too much fair to excellent stuff to read everything, so the merely
readable gets short shrift. That's life. Would be writers have to realize they are
essentially salespeople. They need to get reviewers/readers to "buy" their work, and not just
in a dollar and cent sense. I usually watch one episode of new television shows in the same
way. If I'm not hooked, they haven't done their job, and I won't be back without a good
reason.
>
>
> >
Don D'Ammassa
No, not necessarily. But in practice, fan fiction is almost always subliterary.
Even professionally done fan fiction. A large number of professional SF writers
have done Star Trek novels. Without exception, they're inferior to the same
author's original work.
GigiloAunt wrote:
> >On the other hand, I wouldn't review (or read) fan fiction because most of it
> is not written to be professional fiction.<
>
> If a writer is writing for the right reasons, and has the talent, it shouldn't
> matter what market the work was targetted for. Does a story somehow lose its
> quality if the writer gives it free to a zine or web site, rather than trying
> to sell it? I don't see how that would work.
>
Don D'Ammassa
I have now read the review in question. I thought it was pretty mild, and not even entirely
negative. If anyone finds that review cruel, they should stop writing right now, because they're
going to be hearing much worse in all likelihood.
Brenna R. Toblan wrote:
> In article <199807060512...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, adam...@aol.com (AdamsHWA) says:
> >
> >> Not entirely so. The review contained little practical content
> >>(ways to improve the story, which is the purpose of critique) and mostly
> >>dismissive, condescending personal opinions that revealed a certain amused
> >>surprise with undercurrents of distaste.
> >> Clearly, the lady has no time for what she may describe as strictly
> >>"hobby writers." She lavishes the same kind of intolerance and partial
> >>embarrassment on Mythos writers (amateur or not) as one would aim at a
> >>particularly bad Elvis impersonator.
> >>
> >> You cannot say with any honesty that you would have accepted the
> >>same review of *your* work.
> >
> >Adrian,
> >
> >How dare you presume what I would and would not accept?
>
> How dare I?
> Easy.
>
> Would you accept it as a valid review of your work?
>
> >
Don D'Ammassa
An odd thing I've noticed over the years is that I've received more nasty letters
from authors whose books I reviewed favorably than from those I panned. Never did
figure that out.
jpe...@cnw.com wrote:
> In article <199807060519...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> adam...@aol.com (AdamsHWA) wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps not all professional writers have the time or inclination to provide
> > detailed critiques, Adrian. A good set of story notes would probably be at
> > least three times as long as Ms. Salmonson's review of Mike's story. I know I
> > don't have time to provide notes like that for free, for someone I don't know.
> >
dotcom
GigiloAunt wrote:
> >Unfortunately, this is just
> an aspect of the old "horror movie syndrome" - how could the guy back
> into the maniac when he's knows he's right behind him? Well, because he
> isn't watching himself from a movie theatre. <
>
> You have to admit though, that there are moments of incurable stupidity in
> horror movies. (c:
>
> I dunno about you, but if I see so much as one zombie in my neighborhood, I'm
> getting in my car, _locking_ the doors, rolling the windows _up_, and heading
> for the nearest airport.
>
My favorite monster movie cliche is "Well, there's a vampire living in the
basement of the old (name here) mansion. I'll meet you here at dark. Don't
forget the stakes."
Cthulhu isn't racist. He hates all of us.
dotcom, off...
dotcom
GigiloAunt wrote:
> >You cannot say with any honesty that you would have accepted the
> same review of *your* work. <
>
> You have a point. But consider this; perhaps Minnis was lucky. I remember a
> review a nice lady offered of one of my works. She did nothing but concentrate
> on the work. Nothing personal, no attacks, just stuck to it and told me, and
> quite a few others, what she thought. I have to tell you, that hurt a hell of
> a lot more than any personal attack, which I could have responded to. She
> called it for shit, and it was. Admittedly, her input was much more useful in
> the long run.
>
If I was looking for a review of my writing, I would welcome criticism of the
work. If it's bad, I need to know what, where and how, so I can fix it. I've got
the "Boy, that's great stuff" critiques, and after a while I came to realize that
this is an information-free exchange. I much prefer the "This is good, this is OK,
and this stuff here sucks big green ones." Yeah, it hurts some, but it's real,
it's helpful and it shows that the critiquer actually read it and thought about
it.
If the reviewer attacked me, on the basis of my writing (which has happened, BTW)
I would get cranky, quick, for obvious reasons.
Poor Old Sod First Class,
dotcom, off...
vio...@drizzle.com
In article <
1998070612213600.IAA28853@ladder0
1.news.aol.com>,
stood...@aol.com (StoOdin101)
>
> Shostakovich said, about art in general, that if it pleases everyone it's crap.
> If it makes everyone mad it's probably crap, but it may have the real stuff.
> If it splits people, so that half the populace wants to deify and the other
> half wants to crucify, then you may be sure you are on the right track.
Sounds like an argument Seattle's six
remaining active Maoists would make,
that they are half the populace.
But let me see if I've followed your
special application of Shostakovich's
dictum. You're saying if a dog poops in
the yard next door to where it lives, &
the slob who owns the dog thinks that
that's just about the coolest place his dog
can poop, but the neighbor who has to
deal with the mess is not convinced, what
you're saying is, uhm, the dog is a great
artist?
No, no, I got it, if your child flunks first
grade, & you go scream obsenities at the
teacher until you're hauled off by the
cops & leave the teacher to assume a
"family" trait is at work there, the mere
fact of the disagreement proves the child
a genius?
Oh! Oh! How about this one: If a critic is
considered a poopyhead by some
overexitable individuals, while others are
laughing at such comical antics,
then the critic caught in the crossfire is
"on the right track!" Great; thanks for
the compliment.
Moral: Stupid logic = stupid deduction.
-Ms Salmonson
Gregory Loren Hansen
Don D'Ammassa wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't read the story in question, so I have no opinion there, but your
final statement is wrong. It's the hallmark of an efficient and practical
still too short to give a writer a second chance without a damned good reason.
read other stuff by you that's good, or (2) someone whose opinion I respect
tells me to try again. The problem with publishing fiction freely is the same
as vanity press books, which I receive from time to time. If a writer couldn't
find ANYONE to buy his/her work, that's a pretty good sign that writer is at
fiction because most of it is not written to be professional fiction.
In article <01bda903$2a4e1c00$600996cf@clloyd>,
Chris, I think you forget that publishing is a profit-making business.
This isn't about giving aspiring writers a fair chance or discovering the
one gem in a bucketful of pebbles. It's about making money by filling a
niche in the market for entertaining fiction. If his business runs fine
with that approach, why should he change it? Discovering the next HPL
might bring in a lot more money, but the search could cost more than he'd
recover.
And it's not directly related to Mike's story. Mike did not submit that
story to Jessica in hopes of getting it published, she did not review it
in the capacity of a professional. She was entertaining herself on her
own time, and while the review may not have been nice, she was not obliged
to give constructive criticism or really to do much of anything at all.
She was no more obliged than I am or you are. I would just blow it off as
another drive-by insulting.
--
"Don't just do something, stand there!" - Buddha
GigiloAunt
>The purpose of a review is NOT to show ways to improve the story. The purpose
of a review is to
point toward good stories and away from bad ones.<
But where does the name calling come in?
vio...@drizzle.com
In article <
35A18FDA...@ix.netcom.com>,
Don D'Ammassa <
damm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> I have now read the review in question. I thought it was pretty mild, and not even entirely
> negative. If anyone finds that review cruel, they should stop writing right now, because they're
> going to be hearing much worse in all likelihood.
>
Thanx, Don. I have wondered what kind
of two-week snitt the group would've
gone on if I'd REALLY done a killer
review -- & if someone'll suicide over
something not tempered. Also
appreciated your post tersely explaining
the difference between a critique & a
review. It is SO odd to me that any group
purporting to care about fiction (but
perhaps only their own) would have
confused the two.
What keeps me from getting VERY mad
at some of the more cretinish threads is
that I have some slight empathy for
cretinism. I have myself, when younger
& more frantic, done similar "hooting,
dancing monkey" routines in public
forums. As you well know!
lv, jessica
Allienne Goddard
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Yeah, you go girl! Rip that strawman to shreds! You old poopyhead,
you.
You know damn well that the basic argument being advanced was that an
artistic work which evokes strong reactions is of more value than one
which everyone thinks is "nice." What do you get out of babbling on
for three or four paragraphs and following it up with a snide
declaration? If you want people to think you're a dip, you can stop
now.
Yours -- Ally
vio...@drizzle.com
In article <
35a1bad1....@nntp.a001.sprint
mail.com>,
nihi...@sprintmail.com (Allienne
Goddard) wrote:
> Yeah, you go girl! Rip that strawman to shreds! You old poopyhead,
> you. You know damn well that the basic argument being advanced was that
>an artistic work which evokes strong reactions is of more value than one
> which everyone thinks is "nice." What do you get out of babbling on
> for three or four paragraphs and following it up with a snide
> declaration? If you want people to think you're a dip, you can stop
> now.
>
> Yours -- Ally
>
Big Dipper to Little Dipper:
But the GREAT kick is that I'm the
only one who actually discussed the
stories, which everyone else seems to
regard as inconsquential to the issue of
my having dared to review any cthuloid
tales of any stripe. Hence,
even by the Shostakovich dictum, no
work of art has been committed.
I fear my "three or four
paragraphs of declaration" (written
strictly for humor's sake because the
pokerfaced Shostkovich referance made
me LOL & I had to share my good
spirits) were nevertheless more apropos
than the series of red herrings posited &
posted by sundry folks who really don't
give a S about ANY stories (unless their
own). It is I-me-myself that
invoked strong reactions (not with much
justification -- who could have guessed a
whole classroom would start rioting over
an honest review with all its punches
pulled). No work of fiction that MIGHT
have been at issue has invoked any
response whatsoever. Very likely
because no very sophisticated response is
possible.
But thanks for telling me it's artistic
to not be regarded "nice." It barely
occurred to me I was committing acts of
art to go along with the whole joke. My
sweetie keeps telling me to stop poking
in the monkey's cage. But I'm weak,
weak.
Ms. Salmonson
jpe...@cnw.com
vio...@drizzle.com wrote:
> snip
> No work of fiction that MIGHT
> have been at issue has invoked any
> response whatsoever. Very likely
> because no very sophisticated response is
> possible.
> But thanks for telling me it's artistic
> to not be regarded "nice." It barely
> occurred to me I was committing acts of
> art to go along with the whole joke. My
> sweetie keeps telling me to stop poking
> in the monkey's cage. But I'm weak,
> weak.
> Ms. Salmonson
And amidst all this critiquing of criticism no one took the time to read the
story about the "vampire-commandos"... Seems a shame to not at least make a
passing mention of it...
JP (being a bad boy and poking at the monkeys...)
StoOdin101
>special application of Shostakovich's
>dictum.
You missed the point completely. Sorry. Maybe Shostakovich's opinions were too
Russian for you to take in. That sort of thing happens sometimes, cultural
barriers and all that.
Read any good books lately?
Adrian Kleinbergen
Please, don't stop on our account.
Accept my invitation to peruse my work on the site listed below.
and do your worst... if you can.
I suggest "Carpenter's Hammer" as an appetizer.
Marlon Perkins is ready with the tranquilizer gun if the monkey
starts to hoot.
Adrian M. Kleinbergen
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Chamber/8064/Adrian/
Bruce
>
> And amidst all this critiquing of criticism no one took the time to read the
> story about the "vampire-commandos"... Seems a shame to not at least make a
> passing mention of it...
>
> JP (being a bad boy and poking at the monkeys...)
One of my stories--a weaker effort than "The Final Pronunciation," I
thought, but still entertaining. Is the reference to it an indication of
its perceived weakness, poor quality etc.? Comment?
Bruce
b...@efn.org
Cthulhu Mythos Original Short Fiction Website
to be found at:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/6140/
Don D'Ammassa
in the 1960's would probably drive both of us to hide in the mountains.
vio...@drizzle.com wrote:
vio...@drizzle.com
1998070711273100.HAA25668@ladder
03.news.aol.com>,
stood...@aol.com (StoOdin101)
wrote:
> >But let me see if I've followed your
> >special application of Shostakovich's
> >dictum.
>
> You missed the point completely. Sorry. Maybe Shostakovich's opinions were too
> Russian for you to take in. That sort of thing happens sometimes, cultural
> barriers and all that.
> Read any good books lately?
>
You missed the point completely. Sorry.
Maybe satire is too literary for you to
take in. That sort of thing happens
sometimes, intellectual barriers and all
that. Read any good cthuloid stories
lately?
GigiloAunt
it follows that non-profit fiction is automatically a bad thing.
Indeed, the whole sordid situation you've just described could be
avoided quite easily by people just being aware of it and taking care
not to get lazy and spend their time patting each other on the back
instead of taking the time to improve their skills.<
This is the difference between those who are in love with the idea and process
of writing and those in love with the idea of being published.
unape...@hotmail.com
> Even professionally done fan fiction. A large number of professional SF writers
> have done Star Trek novels. Without exception, they're inferior to the same
> author's original work.
I'm not sure I agree completely with this definition of mythos fiction as
"fan fiction", as I think it far more closely relates to something like
vampire fiction, ghost fiction, or even "holy grail" fiction. It's seems far
more like a modern mythology to draw upon instead of a strict set of
characters and rules (though some seem to treat it as though that is what it
is). At least that's how I treat it, much like Celtic Mythology or the
Northern Legends (from where Tolkien and Poul Anderson took some of their
characters).
You could say amateur ghost fiction was fan fiction in that it was written by
fans of ghosts, and all sub genres have their own "stars", whether Dracula,
Cthulhu or the ghost carrying a head under its arm.
As for sub-literary, it depends like much else on the individual author. Some
are very literary, the only problem with the Mythos, as with most sub genres,
is where authors merely try and mimic what has gone before rather than trying
to use the material in the development of their own voice. To let the
material use the author, rather than the other way around, whereas people
like Ramsey Campbell made use of the Mythos to help create their own voice.
Ghost Stories may still have a tweedy respectibility that allows their
proponents to get away with snide remarks aimed at "lower forms" of
literature, but I think the remarks can equally apply there as well. Though
there are great authors of Ghost Stories, the modern master Phil Rickman
amongst them, there is just as much rubbish. It goes with all forms of
literature, whether a sub-genre or not.
The majority of online fiction may be crap, but that's to be expected, its a
new medium with few rules, and an ease of publication makes things that much
more pervasive. The main attitude of course is: Why spend money on printing a
fanzine when you can put on online for free and have a bigger readership?
I'm sure I'm not entitled to these remarks as I haven't made a professional
sale. As I am still experimenting and finding my feet, though I have had
offers and will work on getting some work professionally published once my
workload gives me some free time. And a printer to print the manuscripts of
course...
ian.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6477/
StoOdin101
>fans of ghosts, and all sub genres have their own "stars", whether Dracula,
>Cthulhu or the ghost carrying a head under its arm.
I'm currently writing a ghost story of sorts, in between work on my new
compositions. I hope that it will prove to be interesting, especially since I
find typical ghost stories as hackneyed as the typical Cthulhu or typical
Vampire story.
M.R. James wrote good ghost stories. Mainly because his "ghosts" are things
more horrific than Lovecraft could come up with. The being in "O WHISTLE AND
I'LL COME TO YOU, MY LAD" is one to be listed in the very upper echelon of
monsters, along with HPL's Colour, Brennan's Slime and Sturgeon's It. The
"Whistle" entity is called by some a "ghost", but it is like no ghost seen
anywhere else. And I wouldn't want to read endless sequels about it, because
its story, like Cthulhu's and Dracula's, is told completely. There is no more
story there. Fortunately it never gained a cult following, like the
unfortunate King of Vampires and Lord of R'lyeh.
But I am endeavouring to throw a new twist in on the tale... not that I expect
to create a fiend as terrifying as the ones mentioned above. My emphasis is
not on the fiend, in fact. My ghosts are pretty much standard. It is their
rationale that I hope to confound and astonish with.
>To let the
>material use the author, rather than the other way around, whereas people
>like Ramsey Campbell made use of the Mythos to help create their own voice.
Stravinsky: "An artist learns from other artists the same way a boy learns
from an apple orchard --- by stealing whatever he can grab and carry off."
Campbell certainly grabbed and carried off a lot from HPL. But once he had
eaten and digested it, so to speak, it became pure Campbell.
StoOdin101
>lately?
>
Indeed I have! I highly recommend the late Karl Edward Wagner's (not to be
confused with Phyllis Wagner, who may or may not exist, as it were) last story,
"I've Come To Talk With You Again". (Title from "The Sounds of Silence", a
Simon & Garfunkel song that I've always suspected of being a Cthulhuoid
manifesto hidden in paltry folk/rock humanism. )
Superlatives fail me. A magnificent piece of understatement. Yet beneath it
all, the delightful pulp racket of the horror story is still running full
blast, grinding out its dire chaos for all who have ears to hear: " Greasy
machinery slides on the rails/young minds and bodies on steel spikes impaled"
--- P. Hammill, who may be an awful poet, but has certainly captured the noisy,
garish undercurrent of real horror, regardless of its subgenre.
You may read this fine little Cthulhuoid grotesquery in Robert Price's
anthology "The New Lovecraft Circle". It is probably the best thing in the
book, and proof that the cthulhuoid elements in new fiction are not yet
completely enervated, even at this late date.
Don D'Ammassa
internet almost certainly is.
unape...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <35A18EFA...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Don D'Ammassa <damm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > No, not necessarily. But in practice, fan fiction is almost always subliterary.
> > Even professionally done fan fiction. A large number of professional SF writers
> > have done Star Trek novels. Without exception, they're inferior to the same
> > author's original work.
>
> I'm not sure I agree completely with this definition of mythos fiction as
> "fan fiction", as I think it far more closely relates to something like
> vampire fiction, ghost fiction, or even "holy grail" fiction. It's seems far
> more like a modern mythology to draw upon instead of a strict set of
> characters and rules (though some seem to treat it as though that is what it
> is). At least that's how I treat it, much like Celtic Mythology or the
> Northern Legends (from where Tolkien and Poul Anderson took some of their
> characters).
>
> You could say amateur ghost fiction was fan fiction in that it was written by
> fans of ghosts, and all sub genres have their own "stars", whether Dracula,
> Cthulhu or the ghost carrying a head under its arm.
>
> As for sub-literary, it depends like much else on the individual author. Some
> are very literary, the only problem with the Mythos, as with most sub genres,
> is where authors merely try and mimic what has gone before rather than trying
> to use the material in the development of their own voice. To let the
> material use the author, rather than the other way around, whereas people
> like Ramsey Campbell made use of the Mythos to help create their own voice.
>
Don D'Ammassa
of course reviews are subjective. No one ever said they weren't (though I did have one writer tell
me I had no right to put my opinions in my reviews.)
Peter Miller wrote:
> Don D'Ammassa <damm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I still maintain that the purpose of a review should be more to inform
> that to judge. If we want a personal opinion of whether something is
> worth reading, we all have friends whose opinions carry more weight
> with us than those of any reviewer. A review should tell us what this
> story is like, give reasons why we should read it, as well as the
> reasons why we shouldn't, say who is likely to appreciate this kind of
> thing, and especially to tell us whether it achieves what it set out
> to do. This was a major omission on Ms Salmonson's part.
>
> If you must seperate 'good' stories from 'bad' ones, you must also
> accept that these terms are primarily subjective. It becomes necessary
> to judge the stories by their own standards - you may not like
> tragedies, for example, but if you find that one makes you feel
> genuinely sad, any review of it should reflect this favourably.
>
> Both the stories in question are Lovecraftian wierd tales, and thus
> their primary purpose is to create a certian atmosphere. I would
> contend that they both succeeded in this, however briefly, and should
> be viewed at least as being 'adequate' wierd tales. Take, for example,
> this passage from Minnis' story:
>
unape...@hotmail.com
> internet almost certainly is.
In that case wouldn't it be better to call it "amateur fiction", as in my
mind at least "fan fiction" is something completely different. Much of it is,
but I don't think you can claim all of it is. Fan fiction can be
professionally published can it not, ala Star Trek Volumes #1-#infinity?
Larry Marak
comments seemed to be on the perceived juvenality of the genre, rather
than on Mike's creative effort.
Larry Marak
David Skogsberg
>In article <
>1998070711273100.HAA25668@ladder
>03.news.aol.com>,
> stood...@aol.com (StoOdin101)
>wrote:
>> >But let me see if I've followed your
>> >special application of Shostakovich's
>> >dictum.
>>
>> You missed the point completely. Sorry. Maybe Shostakovich's
>> opinions were too Russian for you to take in. That sort of thing
>> happens sometimes, cultural barriers and all that.
>> Read any good books lately?
>You missed the point completely. Sorry.
>Maybe satire is too literary for you to
>take in. That sort of thing happens
>sometimes, intellectual barriers and all
>that.
You know, I just realised something. What ms. Salomonson doesn't really
understand is that just because you're famous / a published author /
whatever in RL doesn't mean that everyone will automatically praise /
agree with you on-line - witness, for instance, Brian Lumley's little
diatribe here, and some authors in rec.arts.sf.written (Will Shetterly
has been mentioned WRT rasfw). With ms. Salomonson's entry on ahc being
what it was, it's fairly obvious some people would take umbrage towards
her.
I think I had a point in there somewhere. I hope so, anyway.
>Read any good cthuloid stories
>lately?
Yes, as a matter of fact I have. Among them one by Don D'Amassa (who has
defended you here), and John Tynes' contribution to the _Singer of Strange
Songs_ collection.
/cd
--
Tastes vary. There's nothing wrong with enjoying things other people find
hideous. Unless it's something *I* find hideous, in which case you're an
abomination of nature
-- Ayse Sercan
vio...@drizzle.com
> Tastes vary. There's nothing wrong with enjoying things other people find
> hideous. Unless it's something *I* find hideous, in which case you're an
> abomination of nature
> -- Ayse Sercan
Dear A.S.:
A fine point. There have been so few
here, I have to congratulate you. I have
enjoyed some bad sword & sorcery
stories, even some amateur ones that
could not find professionial publication
because they were full of howlers. Also,
some "professional" stories of the 1930s
so pulpish as to look idiotic to modern
readers, I've liked some of that stuff too,
& awful books like EAST INDIA
LIGHTS I will not part with. So I enjoyed
them anyway, big deal; I don't feel any
need to express hatred of anyone who
can't enjoy such poor material. I also
cannot enjoy all that is excellent; I do
not like Joyce. If there is any difference
between what I feel & what you express
here, it is that I think it's fine for people
(including sometimes myself) to
enjoy what objectively is rather bad (as
well as to not care to read all that may
be objectively characterized as superior),
whereas your short statement implies it
could all be good or bad & there is
nothing objective about it. So we half
agree.
-J.A.S.
Don D'Ammassa
definitely no accounting for taste. I call it the potato chip theory of
literature. When you're in the mood for a potato chip, a steak won't do. That
doesn't make the chip better, or worse, than the steak.
Don D'Ammassa
unape...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <35A45578...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Don D'Ammassa <damm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Not all Mythos fiction is fan fiction. Mythos fiction published for free on the
> > internet almost certainly is.
>
> In that case wouldn't it be better to call it "amateur fiction", as in my
> mind at least "fan fiction" is something completely different. Much of it is,
> but I don't think you can claim all of it is. Fan fiction can be
> professionally published can it not, ala Star Trek Volumes #1-#infinity?
>
> ian.
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6477/
>
GigiloAunt
are not merely rude, but patent fools who WILL be shunned by thinking
individuals. <
If you define thinking individuals as those who agree with you, then you are o
better than those shitheads who made you think twice at the pickett line.
An arrogant, abrasive, rude, annoying and generally unpleasant person remains
so regardless of how much schooling they recieve or how much literacy they
obtain in a certain field.
I have seen too many misanthropic windabags hop on one band wagon or another
and behave just as you are now, and be that band wagon the goth craze, a group
of people on some new and hip drug, or intellectualism, it is equally pathetic
all around.
Allienne Goddard
>pulled). No work of fiction that MIGHT
>have been at issue has invoked any
>response whatsoever. Very likely
>because no very sophisticated response is
>possible.
What is the matter with you? Is it really necessary to vomit forth
such a copious amount of garbage to reply to a usenet post? Look, if
you want to blather on about your "review," go ahead, but don't
pretend I care. I was responding to a subsequent stupidity of yours,
but considering your posts, I'm not surprised that you have some
paranoid delusion that everyone is out to get you. I'll grant that
you are very annoying, and therefore do attract flames, like any other
netkook.
> But thanks for telling me it's artistic
>to not be regarded "nice." It barely
>occurred to me I was committing acts of
>art to go along with the whole joke. My
>sweetie keeps telling me to stop poking
>in the monkey's cage. But I'm weak,
>weak.
> Ms. Salmonson
If you had any ability to comprehend the written word you'd have
noticed that I didn't offer the argument, I merely responded to your
idiotic reply. Where does the arrogance come from? Clearly it isn't
from your writing ability, nor your intellect. Are you really as
conceited as you appear, or is your real life a chain of failed
relationships, missed orgasms, and binge eating? Wait, don't answer
that, I'd just as soon not know.
Yours -- Ally
vio...@drizzle.com
35a5c0e4....@nntp.a001.sprint
mail.com>,
nihi...@sprintmail.com (Allienne
Goddard) wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 20:17:36 GMT, vio...@drizzle.com wrote:
>
> >In article <
> >35a1bad1....@nntp.a001.sprint
> >mail.com>,
> > nihi...@sprintmail.com (Allienne
> >Goddard) wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, you go girl! Rip that strawman to shreds! You old poopyhead,
> >> you. You know damn well that the basic argument being advanced was that
> >>an artistic work which evokes strong reactions is of more value than one
> >> which everyone thinks is "nice." What do you get out of babbling on
> >> for three or four paragraphs and following it up with a snide
> >> declaration? If you want people to think you're a dip, you can stop
> >> now.
> >>
> >>
> >
ME paranoid. I'm the only one who's
having FUN!!! -j.a.s.