Stephenie Mayer -- the next J. K. Rowling
Gene
the new queen of fantasy. Her bold, original idea? Mix vampires
with romance.
Clearly, the handwriting is on the wall and I will have to try
her. Any opinions?
David DeLaney
I've got a Meyers, a Mazer, and some Meier, but no Mayer. Sorry...
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Catherine Jefferson
Yeah. Why would Time Magazine's take on this writer influence you (or
anybody knowledgeable in the field) in the slightest?
--
Catherine Jefferson <ar...@devsite.org>
Personal Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
mimus
> That's what Time Magazine asks. It says right here that Meyer is
> the new queen of fantasy. Her bold, original idea? Mix vampires
> with romance.
Didn't Bram Stoker do that?
--
Time was by ill luck arrested hereabouts on a Thursday evening,
and so the maid is out indefinitely.
< _Jurgen_
Dan Goodman
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 00:08:10 +0000, Gene wrote:
>
> > That's what Time Magazine asks. It says right here that Meyer is
> > the new queen of fantasy. Her bold, original idea? Mix vampires
> > with romance.
>
> Didn't Bram Stoker do that?
No. Dracula is not a romantic hero.
--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://clerkfuturist.wordpress.com
mirror 1: http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
mirror 2: http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
mimus
> mimus wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 00:08:10 +0000, Gene wrote:
>>
>> > That's what Time Magazine asks. It says right here that Meyer is
>> > the new queen of fantasy. Her bold, original idea? Mix vampires
>> > with romance.
>>
>> Didn't Bram Stoker do that?
>
> No. Dracula is not a romantic hero.
Sez who? both his history and his trio of vamp, er, hand-maidens, surely
qualify him-- even though I was really thinking about the other two main
couples in the book, one of which babes survived and the other didn't.
What about le Fanu's "Camilla", made by Hammer Films into the very nice
classic _Vampire Lovers_?
--
YOUR ENEMIES THE TEETH ARE NOW YOU SHOW AT THE COURSE!
< Deranged spammer Frank d
Dan Goodman
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 04:20:25 +0000, Dan Goodman wrote:
>
> > mimus wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 13 May 2008 00:08:10 +0000, Gene wrote:
> >>
> >> > That's what Time Magazine asks. It says right here that Meyer is
> >> > the new queen of fantasy. Her bold, original idea? Mix vampires
> >> > with romance.
> >>
> >> Didn't Bram Stoker do that?
> >
> > No. Dracula is not a romantic hero.
>
> Sez who? both his history and his trio of vamp, er, hand-maidens,
> surely qualify him--
No. He's presented as the villain.
I don't consider Prospero a Good Guy, but that's how Shakespeare
presented him in The Tempest.
> even though I was really thinking about the
> other two main couples in the book, one of which babes survived and
> the other didn't.
>
> What about le Fanu's "Camilla", made by Hammer Films into the very
> nice classic _Vampire Lovers_?
--
Jon Schild
Mix vampires and romance?! What a stunning new idea! How ever did she
think of that!
What this article shows most clearly is that Time magazine needs a
literary critic who has read some fantasy besides Harry Potter.
--
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-- Galileo Galilei
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:Xns9A9CAE2F93252ge...@207.115.17.102:
On what charges?
Tommie Kratman will, of course, reply to this, because he can't stop
himself. That's what makes him my bitch.
--
Terry Austin
"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gene
@news.xmission.com:
> Mix vampires and romance?! What a stunning new idea! How ever
did she
> think of that!
According to Time, it came to her in a dream. A girl was
talking with a "beautiful, sparkling man" in an idyllic
setting. They were in love. Tenderly, he tells her how much he
would like to kill her, and how hard it was to resist doing so.
Ah, sweet romance!
PV
>> Didn't Bram Stoker do that?
>
>No. Dracula is not a romantic hero.
He's certainly not the *hero*, but there's no question that Dracula is a
gothic romance. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Sean O'Hara
> That's what Time Magazine asks. It says right here that Meyer is
> the new queen of fantasy. Her bold, original idea? Mix vampires
> with romance.
>
And we all know whenever a magazine proclaims "Foo is the next Bar"
it's always true.
Anyone got a list of every author whose been called "The next
Stephen King" or "The next Tolkien"?
Of course in this case Time is really going out on a limb -- the
movie based upon her first book is already in production, scheduled
for a Christmas release.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
Abstract reasoning cannot decide any question of fact or existence.
-David Hume
sienamystic
Well, go ahead and read them if you feel you've done something that
requires you to punish yourself. The main character is a Mary-Sue to
out-Sue all others, and the only problem vampires seem to face in the
books is that when they go out into the sun they don't burst into
flames, or anything. Instead, they sparkle. Like diamonds.
I've read enough excerpts to know that I'd rather kiss a giant squid
than read the books.
Siena
Peter Knutsen
> Mix vampires and romance?! What a stunning new idea! How ever did she
> think of that!
>
> What this article shows most clearly is that Time magazine needs a
> literary critic who has read some fantasy besides Harry Potter.
Might that be because Harry Potter is a lot more "accessible" than what
one might refer to as real fantasy fiction?
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
William December Starr
sienamystic <siena...@gmail.com> said:
> Well, go ahead and read them if you feel you've done something
> that requires you to punish yourself. The main character is a
> Mary-Sue to out-Sue all others, and the only problem vampires seem
> to face in the books is that when they go out into the sun they
> don't burst into flames, or anything. Instead, they sparkle.
> Like diamonds.
>
> I've read enough excerpts to know that I'd rather kiss a giant
> squid than read the books.
You've got to be careful when you say things like that. I mean,
look at Princess Leia: she once said "I'd rather kiss a wookie!"
and just a couple of months later she was getting full-body licks
from Jabba the Hutt, and wookikes aren't even that bad -- imagine
what might have happened to her if she opened the bidding at the
giant-squid level.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
sienamystic
> In article <7e57b19d-0574-4038-baf3-a8a23cefe...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> sienamystic <sienamys...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > Well, go ahead and read them if you feel you've done something
> > that requires you to punish yourself. The main character is a
> > Mary-Sue to out-Sue all others, and the only problem vampires seem
> > to face in the books is that when they go out into the sun they
> > don't burst into flames, or anything. Instead, they sparkle.
> > Like diamonds.
>
> > I've read enough excerpts to know that I'd rather kiss a giant
> > squid than read the books.
>
> You've got to be careful when you say things like that. I mean,
> look at Princess Leia: she once said "I'd rather kiss a wookie!"
> and just a couple of months later she was getting full-body licks
> from Jabba the Hutt, and wookikes aren't even that bad -- imagine
> what might have happened to her if she opened the bidding at the
> giant-squid level.
>
> --
Honestly, I typed out a few other possibilities and deleted them.
They included: slamming my hand in a car door repeatedly, giving
myself a homemade lobotomy, and setting myself on fire. I went with
the giant squid for its inherent comedy value.
Seriously, though. The books are..not good.
Siena
Dan Goodman
Giant squid romance -- the next new thing!
Anthony Nance
>> > That's what Time Magazine asks. It says right here that Meyer is
>> > the new queen of fantasy. Her bold, original idea? Mix vampires
>> > with romance.
>> >
>> > Clearly, the handwriting is on the wall and I will have to try
>> > her. Any opinions?
>>
>> Well, go ahead and read them if you feel you've done something that
>> requires you to punish yourself. The main character is a Mary-Sue to
>> out-Sue all others, and the only problem vampires seem to face in the
>> books is that when they go out into the sun they don't burst into
>> flames, or anything. Instead, they sparkle. Like diamonds.
>>
>> I've read enough excerpts to know that I'd rather kiss a giant squid
>> than read the books.
>>
>> Siena
>
> Giant squid romance -- the next new thing!
Argh - I'm now wondering about the best placement of the word
"vampire" amongst your first three words.
Add a hyphen for even more options,
Tony
Brenda Clough
Squids would be naturals for vampiry. They already have suckers!
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Recent short fiction:
"A Mighty Fortress"
http://www.helixsf.com/archives/Jul07/index.htm
Andrew Wheeler
What on earth is "real" fantasy fiction, and how does it differ from
"fake" fantasy fiction?
And there's a whole lot of very strong-selling fantasy books over here
in the genre, both of the secondary-world-epic and of the
vampire-shagging varieties, which a very large number of people seem to
find easy to understand.
Harry Potter is no more accessible than Anita Blake or Rand al'Thor.
--
Andrew Wheeler
David DeLaney
>Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>> Might that be because Harry Potter is a lot more "accessible" than what
>> one might refer to as real fantasy fiction?
>
>What on earth is "real" fantasy fiction, and how does it differ from
>"fake" fantasy fiction?
Obviously "fake" fantasy fiction has plastic elves, styrofoam unicorns, and
the big-breasted scantily-clad women have all had boob jobs.
Peter Knutsen
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>one might refer to as real fantasy fiction?
>
> What on earth is "real" fantasy fiction, and how does it differ from
> "fake" fantasy fiction?
Actual fantasy is that which requires the reader to utilize the fantasy
genre reading protocl, the same way that actual science fiction written
by a science fiction author is that which requires the reader to utilize
the science fiction reading protocol.
> And there's a whole lot of very strong-selling fantasy books over here
> in the genre, both of the secondary-world-epic and of the
> vampire-shagging varieties, which a very large number of people seem to
> find easy to understand.
>
> Harry Potter is no more accessible than Anita Blake or Rand al'Thor.
Are you certain?
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Dan Goodman
Actually, at least the first book _is_ more accessible to people who
aren't in the habit of reading for enjoyment. Not because of the
content, but because Rowling used literary devices which habitual
fiction readers don't need these days. For example, it starts off with
maid and butler dialog.
ravenlynne
> I've read enough excerpts to know that I'd rather kiss a giant squid
> than read the books.
>
> Siena
Hey! I'd rather watch you kiss a giant squid than read the books too!
Seriously, not my thing either...a co-worker of Mr. Raven's suggested
them to me as well...yuck.
--
Leah: That were a wee bit repulsive.
Buffy: Went okay. 'Cept I feel a little wierd about using a
crucifix to kill someone.
Leah: Yeh dinno much about religion, do yeh?
ravenlynne
You forgot dipping your head in boiling water...that was top on my list.
Gene
news:g0gjo...@news2.newsguy.com:
> Hey! I'd rather watch you kiss a giant squid than read the books too!
If you're gonna do it, do it right and kiss a colossal squid. Squid romance
would never be the same.
ravenlynne
Slimy, yet satisfying!
Dimensional Traveler
> Andrew Wheeler wrote:
>> Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>> Might that be because Harry Potter is a lot more "accessible" than
>>> what one might refer to as real fantasy fiction?
>>
>> What on earth is "real" fantasy fiction, and how does it differ from
>> "fake" fantasy fiction?
>
> Actual fantasy is that which requires the reader to utilize the
> fantasy genre reading protocl, the same way that actual science
> fiction written by a science fiction author is that which requires
> the reader to utilize the science fiction reading protocol.
>
--
.-- - ..-. ..--..
Matthias Warkus
> Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>> Might that be because Harry Potter is a lot more "accessible" than what
>>> one might refer to as real fantasy fiction?
>> What on earth is "real" fantasy fiction, and how does it differ from
>> "fake" fantasy fiction?
>
> Obviously "fake" fantasy fiction has plastic elves, styrofoam unicorns, and
> the big-breasted scantily-clad women have all had boob jobs.
Where can I buy some of that?
mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de
Sea Wasp
> Andrew Wheeler wrote:
>
>> Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Might that be because Harry Potter is a lot more "accessible" than what
>>> one might refer to as real fantasy fiction?
>>
>>
>> What on earth is "real" fantasy fiction, and how does it differ from
>> "fake" fantasy fiction?
>
>
> Actual fantasy is that which requires the reader to utilize the fantasy
> genre reading protocl, the same way that actual science fiction written
> by a science fiction author is that which requires the reader to utilize
> the science fiction reading protocol.
>
I know not this "protocol" of which you speak. I read fantasy pretty
much the same way I read SF. And I would think that if different
"protocols" existed that it would be extremely difficult to read
things that cross the borders. Borders which, I will note, are almost
impossible to define, as shown by hundreds of discussions on this very
newsgroup.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Sea Wasp
Say it right: The Secret Protocols of the MASTERS of Fandom!
Howard Brazee
<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>> What on earth is "real" fantasy fiction, and how does it differ from
>> "fake" fantasy fiction?
>
>Actual fantasy is that which requires the reader to utilize the fantasy
>genre reading protocl, the same way that actual science fiction written
>by a science fiction author is that which requires the reader to utilize
>the science fiction reading protocol.
What does that mean? Is this a protocol based upon Western European
fantasy of the 18th century?
Anthony Nance
> Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>> Might that be because Harry Potter is a lot more "accessible" than what
>>> one might refer to as real fantasy fiction?
>>
>>What on earth is "real" fantasy fiction, and how does it differ from
>>"fake" fantasy fiction?
>
> Obviously "fake" fantasy fiction has plastic elves, styrofoam unicorns, and
> the big-breasted scantily-clad women have all had boob jobs.
And garden gnomes.
Anthony Nance
> Anthony Nance wrote:
>
>> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>>>sienamystic wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On May 12, 7:08pm, Gene <g...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>That's what Time Magazine asks. It says right here that Meyer is
>>>>>the new queen of fantasy. Her bold, original idea? Mix vampires
>>>>>with romance.
>>>>>
>>>>>Clearly, the handwriting is on the wall and I will have to try
>>>>>her. Any opinions?
>>>>
>>>>Well, go ahead and read them if you feel you've done something that
>>>>requires you to punish yourself. The main character is a Mary-Sue to
>>>>out-Sue all others, and the only problem vampires seem to face in the
>>>>books is that when they go out into the sun they don't burst into
>>>>flames, or anything. Instead, they sparkle. Like diamonds.
>>>>
>>>>I've read enough excerpts to know that I'd rather kiss a giant squid
>>>>than read the books.
>>>>
>>>>Siena
>>>
>>>Giant squid romance -- the next new thing!
>>
>>
>> Argh - I'm now wondering about the best placement of the word
>> "vampire" amongst your first three words.
>>
>> Add a hyphen for even more options,
>> Tony
>
>
>
> Squids would be naturals for vampiry. They already have suckers!
Oh, very nice!
Hey, maybe you can work this in to Atlantis Nights.
- Tony
David DeLaney
No no, they're subsets of XML - FGRP:// and SFRP:// .
Dave "unfortunately the protocols are overloaded, and also refer to specific
types of roleplaying, COMPLETELY IGNORING the superior CosPlay protocols
developed in recent years, but what can you do when Microsoft insists on
supporting legacy protocols in nonstandard ways" DeLaney
Peter Knutsen
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>> Andrew Wheeler wrote:
>>> What on earth is "real" fantasy fiction, and how does it differ from
>>> "fake" fantasy fiction?
>>
>> Actual fantasy is that which requires the reader to utilize the
>> fantasy genre reading protocl, the same way that actual science
>> fiction written by a science fiction author is that which requires the
>> reader to utilize the science fiction reading protocol.
>
> I know not this "protocol" of which you speak. I read fantasy pretty
> much the same way I read SF. And I would think that if different
You write it the same way too, I presume?
> "protocols" existed that it would be extremely difficult to read things
> that cross the borders. Borders which, I will note, are almost
> impossible to define, as shown by hundreds of discussions on this very
> newsgroup.
I know that there exists a protocol for how science fiction is written
and read, but I have never encountred a formally described fantasy
protocol, and I often tend to think like you, that there is one protocol
for reading fiction from the master-genre that contains both fantasy and
science fiction.
However, it is clear to me that there exists fiction which most people
would naively classify as fantasy or as science fiction (or as a hybrid
- that doesn't matter), but which does not utilize the protocol.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Andrew Plotkin
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
> > And I would think that if different
> > that cross the borders. Borders which, I will note, are almost
> > impossible to define, as shown by hundreds of discussions on this very
> > newsgroup.
>
> I know that there exists a protocol for how science fiction is written
> and read, but I have never encountred a formally described fantasy
> protocol, and I often tend to think like you, that there is one protocol
> for reading fiction from the master-genre that contains both fantasy and
> science fiction.
I agree.
As for difficulty crossing the borders -- when I try to read the
the "romantic fantasy" in the Luna line, I usually fling it across the
room within a few pages. (Not literally; I just put it back in the
shelf.) That is a difficulty reading, is it not? I had the same
trouble -- for many of the same reasons -- with Melanie Rawn's recent
book _Spellbinder_.
Some "paranormal romance" hews closer to the fantasy protocols, and
some to the romance protocols. I'm sure there is stuff which works
both ways, but I would have to read a lot of books I hate to find it.
And I know there are people who are good at reading both fantasy and
romance novels. (Not just crossovers, but the "mainstream" of both
genres.) I have friends that do that. They are not, I find, good at
recommending crossovers to me.
I recently wrote a short essay which jumps off from this very point:
http://eblong.com/zarf/essays/game-genre.html
I tried to stick at least a couple of pins into what the SF and
romance reading protocols actually contain.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
It's a nice distinction to tell American soldiers (and Iraqis) to die in
Iraq for the sake of democracy (ignoring the question of whether it's
*working*) and then whine that "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Wheeler wrote:
>>>
>>>> What on earth is "real" fantasy fiction, and how does it differ from
>>>> "fake" fantasy fiction?
>>>
>>>
>>> Actual fantasy is that which requires the reader to utilize the
>>> fantasy genre reading protocl, the same way that actual science
>>> fiction written by a science fiction author is that which requires
>>> the reader to utilize the science fiction reading protocol.
>>
>>
>> I know not this "protocol" of which you speak. I read fantasy
>> pretty much the same way I read SF. And I would think that if different
>
>
> You write it the same way too, I presume?
There's some shift in language depending on the flavor I want to get
across. Otherwise, yes.
>
> I know that there exists a protocol for how science fiction is written
> and read,
And that is...?
My protocol for reading is I open the book, read, and then stop when
I reach the end, unless the book sucks, in which case I stop earlier.
W. Citoan
>
> Andrew Wheeler wrote:
> > Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> >>Might that be because Harry Potter is a lot more "accessible" than what
> >>one might refer to as real fantasy fiction?
> >
> > What on earth is "real" fantasy fiction, and how does it differ from
> > "fake" fantasy fiction?
>
> Actual fantasy is that which requires the reader to utilize the fantasy
> genre reading protocl, the same way that actual science fiction written
> by a science fiction author is that which requires the reader to utilize
> the science fiction reading protocol.
That's a non-answer. You have simply restated that "fake" fantasy is
that which is not "real" fantasy.
- W. Citoan
--
You're never alone with schizophrenia.
-- GI helmet during Vietnam War
W. Citoan
>
> However, it is clear to me that there exists fiction which most people
> would naively classify as fantasy or as science fiction (or as a hybrid
> - that doesn't matter), but which does not utilize the protocol.
In other words, your protocol isn't that which defines the genre...
Moriarty
Protocols of the Elders of Fandom.
-Moriarty
Peter Knutsen
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>> I know not this "protocol" of which you speak. I read fantasy
>>> pretty much the same way I read SF. And I would think that if different
>>
>> You write it the same way too, I presume?
>
> There's some shift in language depending on the flavor I want to get
> across. Otherwise, yes.
Yes, obviously. I do the same. I'm talking about the particular needs of
fantasy and science fiction.
>> I know that there exists a protocol for how science fiction is written
>> and read,
>
> And that is...?
You don't know this?
> My protocol for reading is I open the book, read, and then stop
> when I reach the end, unless the book sucks, in which case I stop earlier.
Incorrect. That is not an adequate description of what you actually do,
when you read proper science fiction or proper fantasy, although it may
very well be all you do if you read something like Harry Potter
(disclaimer: I've only read the first two books).
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>> However, it is clear to me that there exists fiction which most people
>> would naively classify as fantasy or as science fiction (or as a hybrid
>> - that doesn't matter), but which does not utilize the protocol.
>
> In other words, your protocol isn't that which defines the genre...
It isn't my protocol. It is our protocol. And *I* am using it to define
the genres of fantasy and science fiction. If someone writes something
with spaceships and high technology in it, and so forth, but he or she
fails to utiize the science fiction protocol, then it isn't science fiction.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> Andrew Wheeler wrote:
>>Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>>Might that be because Harry Potter is a lot more "accessible" than
>>>what one might refer to as real fantasy fiction?
>>
>>What on earth is "real" fantasy fiction, and how does it differ from
>>"fake" fantasy fiction?
>>
>>And there's a whole lot of very strong-selling fantasy books over here
>>in the genre, both of the secondary-world-epic and of the
>>vampire-shagging varieties, which a very large number of people seem
>>to find easy to understand.
>>
>>Harry Potter is no more accessible than Anita Blake or Rand al'Thor.
>
> Actually, at least the first book _is_ more accessible to people who
> aren't in the habit of reading for enjoyment. Not because of the
> content, but because Rowling used literary devices which habitual
> fiction readers don't need these days. For example, it starts off with
> maid and butler dialog.
Yes she does that.
On top of that, she also uses *hobbits*.
Notice how a book with a comparable subject matter (very young man goes
to wizardry school), le Guin's "Wizard of Earthsea", does not? Not even
*one* *single* hobbit, anywhere, in that book.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>>> I know that there exists a protocol for how science fiction is
>>> written and read,
>>
>>
>> And that is...?
>
>
> You don't know this?
No.
>
>> My protocol for reading is I open the book, read, and then stop
>> when I reach the end, unless the book sucks, in which case I stop earlier.
>
>
> Incorrect.
Exactly where did you get supernatural powers to be able to tell
better than I myself what I myself do?
> That is not an adequate description of what you actually do,
> when you read proper science fiction or proper fantasy, although it may
> very well be all you do if you read something like Harry Potter
> (disclaimer: I've only read the first two books).
I read Harry Potter as I read all other books.
AFAIC, there's no difference in how I read any fiction.
Kurt Busiek
Me neither, as far as I know. This is reading as if Peter thinks all
he has to do is saying "science fiction protocol," and we'll all go,
"Oh, of course!"
I have different expectations of different books, but I don't think
that constitutes a protocol -- and for that matter, my expectations of
the Harry Potter books aren't that they're not "proper" fantasy in some
way.
Peter, are you just going to keep insisting we follow this mysterious
protocol, or are you at some point going to tell us what you mean by it?
kdb
W. Citoan
At the moment, it's only your protocal as you haven't defined it. The
rest of us have no way of knowing that it's "our" protocol.
However, it can be safely said that if you're using it to define a genre
and that definition excludes works that are among today's most visible
members of that genre, then it's a bogus definition. Your definition is
a circular reference.
W. Citoan
Er, so? What is the existence or non-existence of hobbits supposed to
mean? Hobbits make a book more accessible? Hobbits make a book not a
fantasy? It's hard to make the connection between hobbits and those 2
claims you have made above regarding Harry Potter.
Wim Lewis
Brenda Clough <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>Anthony Nance wrote:
>> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>Giant squid romance -- the next new thing!
>> Argh - I'm now wondering about the best placement of the word
>> "vampire" amongst your first three words.
>>
>> Add a hyphen for even more options,
>
There is a "vampire squid" (Vampyroteuthis infernalis). Creepy thing.
--
Wim Lewis <wi...@hhhh.org>, Seattle, WA, USA. PGP keyID 27F772C1
David Johnston
<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>Jon Schild wrote:
>> Mix vampires and romance?! What a stunning new idea! How ever did she
>> think of that!
>>
>> What this article shows most clearly is that Time magazine needs a
>> literary critic who has read some fantasy besides Harry Potter.
>
>Might that be because Harry Potter is a lot more "accessible" than what
>one might refer to as real fantasy fiction?
Not likely.
Sea Wasp
> In article <UWJWj.216$vE.170@trnddc03>,
> Brenda Clough <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>Anthony Nance wrote:
>>
>>>Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Giant squid romance -- the next new thing!
>>>
>>>Argh - I'm now wondering about the best placement of the word
>>>"vampire" amongst your first three words.
>>>
>>>Add a hyphen for even more options,
>>
>>Squids would be naturals for vampiry. They already have suckers!
>
>
> There is a "vampire squid" (Vampyroteuthis infernalis). Creepy thing.
>
Very much a Cthulhoid monster. Though the giant Humbolt that
"MonsterQuest" got a shot of is also a good candidate for eldritch
Horror status; the vampire squid doesn't appear to get to be nearly so
huge.
norrin
> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> writes:
> >> Didn't Bram Stoker do that?
>
> >No. Dracula is not a romantic hero.
>
> He's certainly not the *hero*, but there's no question that Dracula is a
> gothic romance. *
I agree. In life, the Prince of Wallachia was a hero, after,
he did nothing notable. He was mad, bad, and dangerous
to know, but he was like that before.
Stoker wasn't the first to use an aristocratic vampire.
Anthony Nance
> In article <UWJWj.216$vE.170@trnddc03>,
> Brenda Clough <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>>Anthony Nance wrote:
>>> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>>Giant squid romance -- the next new thing!
>>> Argh - I'm now wondering about the best placement of the word
>>> "vampire" amongst your first three words.
>>>
>>> Add a hyphen for even more options,
>>
>>Squids would be naturals for vampiry. They already have suckers!
>
> There is a "vampire squid" (Vampyroteuthis infernalis).
Oh cool - Literally "vampire squid from hell". That's great.
> Creepy thing.
Yeah - imagine if it could get larger than 1 foot long.
- Tony
Larry Caldwell
ge...@chewbacca.org (Gene) says...
> That's what Time Magazine asks. It says right here that Meyer is
> the new queen of fantasy. Her bold, original idea? Mix vampires
> with romance.
What a great concept! I can see it now. Teenage girl falls in love
with centuries-old studly vampire and offers him her virginity, which
triggers an ancient gypsy curse. She ends up with a curse of her own,
as she finds that only vampire sex can sexually satisfy her. They
should call her something cute and vaguely suggestive, like Muffy.
Meanwhile, the author should change her name to Anne Rice.
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.
Larry Caldwell
(Sean O'Hara) says...
> Of course in this case Time is really going out on a limb -- the
> movie based upon her first book is already in production, scheduled
> for a Christmas release.
Is that the one they are shooting in Portland? Even the actors say it
is a pile of crap.
Chuk Goodin
>Me neither, as far as I know. This is reading as if Peter thinks all
>he has to do is saying "science fiction protocol," and we'll all go,
>"Oh, of course!"
>
>I have different expectations of different books, but I don't think
>that constitutes a protocol -- and for that matter, my expectations of
>the Harry Potter books aren't that they're not "proper" fantasy in some
>way.
>
>Peter, are you just going to keep insisting we follow this mysterious
>protocol, or are you at some point going to tell us what you mean by it?
I have seen his explanation of the "protocol" before -- I thought it was
this newsgroup, but it might have been another one.
It's rigid and absolutist, like a lot of his stuff.
--
chuk
Dimensional Traveler
> Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Wheeler wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> what one might refer to as real fantasy fiction?
>>>>
>>>> from "fake" fantasy fiction?
>>>
>>> fantasy genre reading protocl, the same way that actual science
>>> fiction written by a science fiction author is that which requires
>>> the reader to utilize the science fiction reading protocol.
>>>
>>
>> The Secret Protocols of Fandom?
>>
>
Sorry, forgot to put my beanie on before typing that.
--
.-- - ..-. ..--..
Dimensional Traveler
Bill Snyder
<seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>
>>>Andrew Wheeler wrote:
>>>
>>>>Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Might that be because Harry Potter is a lot more "accessible" than
>>>>>what one might refer to as real fantasy fiction?
>>>>
>>>>What on earth is "real" fantasy fiction, and how does it differ from
>>>>"fake" fantasy fiction?
>>>
>>>Actual fantasy is that which requires the reader to utilize the
>>>fantasy genre reading protocl, the same way that actual science
>>>fiction written by a science fiction author is that which requires
>>>the reader to utilize the science fiction reading protocol.
>>>
>>
>> The Secret Protocols of Fandom?
>>
>
> Say it right: The Secret Protocols of the MASTERS of Fandom!
Are you mispronouncing The Eldritch Protocols of the Secret
Masters of Fandom?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Andrew Wheeler
I may regret asking this, but...
What creatures or persons in _Harry Potter and the {Foo} Stone_ are at
all like hobbits?
Hobbits are short people, very fond of food and the sedentary life, who
live in a idealized pastoral version of England and are themselves
something of an idealized version of the British people. They are cut
off from the wider, more dangerous world, and like it that way.
I can't think of any group in the Rowling book that are at all like
hobbits.
--
Andrew Wheeler
in a state of befuddlement
Andrew Wheeler
> Andrew Wheeler wrote:
> > Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> >>Might that be because Harry Potter is a lot more "accessible" than what
> >>one might refer to as real fantasy fiction?
> >
> > What on earth is "real" fantasy fiction, and how does it differ from
> > "fake" fantasy fiction?
>
> Actual fantasy is that which requires the reader to utilize the fantasy
> genre reading protocl,
Achtung! Fantasy novel approaching, Fritz! Break out the Fantasy Novel
Reading Protocol!
As others have said, here you're just asserting things that no one else
agrees with.
Admittedly, there are strategies that can be useful in reading various
genre SF and Fantasy works, but that's not what you're saying.
(The way one reads a secondary-world fantasy, most urban fantasy,
alternate history, and most future-set SF is not all that different from
the way one reads a mystery novel -- keep a close eye out for telling
details, and try to figure out what those details imply.)
> the same way that actual science fiction written
> by a science fiction author is that which requires the reader to utilize
> the science fiction reading protocol.
>
> > And there's a whole lot of very strong-selling fantasy books over here
> > in the genre, both of the secondary-world-epic and of the
> > vampire-shagging varieties, which a very large number of people seem to
> > find easy to understand.
> >
> > Harry Potter is no more accessible than Anita Blake or Rand al'Thor.
>
> Are you certain?
Why yes. I have an accessibility meter right here. Let me start it up.
{high-pitched hum}
Harry Potter comes in at 18 -- the first book; the later ones vary.
Anita Blake is a 17.
I misspoke slightly; Rand is actually a 22.
_Dhalgren_ is a 56, _Ulysses_ a 73, and _Finegans Wake_ a near-perfect
97. _Go Dog Go_, on the other hand, is a 1.
--
Andrew Wheeler
contents may have settled in shipping
Taki Kogoma
allegedly proclaimed to rec.arts.sf.written:
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>> Andrew Wheeler wrote:
>> > Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>> >>Might that be because Harry Potter is a lot more "accessible" than what
>> >>one might refer to as real fantasy fiction?
>> >
>> > What on earth is "real" fantasy fiction, and how does it differ from
>> > "fake" fantasy fiction?
>>
>> Actual fantasy is that which requires the reader to utilize the fantasy
>> genre reading protocl,
>
> Achtung! Fantasy novel approaching, Fritz! Break out the Fantasy Novel
> Reading Protocol!
I wonder if _The Tough Guide to Fantasyland_ has any bearing on said
protocol...
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.
Peter Huebner
bsn...@airmail.net says...
>
> Are you mispronouncing The Eldritch Protocols of the Secret
> Masters of Fandom?
>
Wasn't that meant to read "Femdom"?
(Thread Highjack alert: actually, I am just trying again to
steer the discussion around to Liz Williams 'Darkland' again,
since I hardly got a nibble the first time.)
-P.
--
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
Mad Hamish
Wheeler) wrote:
>Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Jon Schild wrote:
>> > Mix vampires and romance?! What a stunning new idea! How ever did she
>> > think of that!
>> >
>> > What this article shows most clearly is that Time magazine needs a
>> > literary critic who has read some fantasy besides Harry Potter.
>>
>> Might that be because Harry Potter is a lot more "accessible" than what
>> one might refer to as real fantasy fiction?
>
>What on earth is "real" fantasy fiction, and how does it differ from
>"fake" fantasy fiction?
>
Dreampark would qualify as "fake" fantasy fiction IMO.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>On 2008-05-15 17:48:09 -0700, Sea Wasp <seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> said:
>
>> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>> That is not an adequate description of what you actually do, when you
>>> read proper science fiction or proper fantasy, although it may very
>>> well be all you do if you read something like Harry Potter (disclaimer:
>>> I've only read the first two books).
>>
>> I read Harry Potter as I read all other books.
>>
>> AFAIC, there's no difference in how I read any fiction.
>
>Me neither, as far as I know. This is reading as if Peter thinks all
>he has to do is saying "science fiction protocol," and we'll all go,
>"Oh, of course!"
>
There are times when Peter's surname can be read as an accurate
description and the problem is inherited through the male line.
Erol K. Bayburt
>That's what Time Magazine asks. It says right here that Meyer is
>the new queen of fantasy. Her bold, original idea? Mix vampires
>with romance.
At a tangent, who was the *last* "J. K. Rowling," the author of whom
it could be said "J.K. Rowling is the next ---"?
Erol K. Bayburt
Ero...@comcast.net
Dimensional Traveler
Do I dare ask what the scale is and do high numbers mean more or less
accesable?
Andrew Plotkin
>
> At a tangent, who was the *last* "J. K. Rowling," the author of whom
> it could be said "J.K. Rowling is the next ---"?
Nice question.
In the YA SF/F arena... I can't think of one. A book that all the kids
were reading, mid-90s or earlier?
Maybe _The Golden Compass_. That wasn't anywhere near Rowling-level
popularity, but it got a lot of attention and promotion, and I think
some of that was genuinely because teenage readers liked it.
If I don't limit it to books *like* Harry Potter (but still within the
general SF/F range), I think it would have to be Anne Rice. A whole
lot of people read those, and not just people who were in the habit of
reading fantasy.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
"Bush has kept America safe from terrorism since 9/11." Too bad his
job was to keep America safe *on* 9/11.
Dorothy J Heydt
C. S. Lewis, to those who know him chiefly as the author of the
Chronicles of Narnia?
Mike Schilling
John Grisham, maybe?
Gene
@reader2.panix.com:
> In the YA SF/F arena... I can't think of one. A book that all
the kids
> were reading, mid-90s or earlier?
What they were reading was the Stine Goosebumps series.
Kurt Busiek
> Why yes. I have an accessibility meter right here. Let me start it up.
>
> {high-pitched hum}
>
> Harry Potter comes in at 18 -- the first book; the later ones vary.
>
> Anita Blake is a 17.
>
> I misspoke slightly; Rand is actually a 22.
>
> _Dhalgren_ is a 56, _Ulysses_ a 73, and _Finegans Wake_ a near-perfect
> 97.
> _Go Dog Go_, on the other hand, is a 1.
A big dog party! In a tree!
kdb
Peter Huebner
@comcast.net says...
Well if we're looking at 'universally loved and hugely
translated children's book author' I'd say Roald Dahl.
But he wrote nothing at all like Rowling, of course.
Or maybe Astrid Lindgren. She's a more likely candidate, come
to think of it. Who hasn't read or heard of Pippi Longstocking
and Karlsson on the Roof?
Maybe Lewis, like Dorothy said, but his kids/juve stuff never
made my orbit. Narnia etc were virtually unheard of in Germany
30+ years ago. I think he was more or less limited to the
English Language realms. (Correct me if I'm wrong).
Michael Ikeda
news:K0zvG...@kithrup.com:
Tolkien?
--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
tphile
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 00:08:10 GMT, Gene <g...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
> >That's what Time Magazine asks. It says right here that Meyer is
> >the new queen of fantasy. Her bold, original idea? Mix vampires
> >with romance.
>
> At a tangent, who was the *last* "J. K. Rowling," the author of whom
> it could be said "J.K. Rowling is the next ---"?
>
> Erol K. Bayburt
> Ero...@comcast.net
I catalog Rowling as a One Hit Wonder (so far). An author that
strikes gold with a
single novel or series. and in her case, with nothing else in her
resume.
Which is not a bad or good thing but its different from authors like
Heinlein,
Andre Norton etc who have a diverse body of work.
Tolkien is another
Mary Shellys Frankenstein
tphile
Dorothy J Heydt
Peter Huebner <no....@this.address> wrote:
>
>Or maybe Astrid Lindgren. She's a more likely candidate, come
>to think of it. Who hasn't read or heard of Pippi Longstocking
>and Karlsson on the Roof?
I read the first PL book when I was a kid -- but that was
fifty-plus years ago. I became vaguely aware that there was a
series some time in the intervening decades, but never felt
inclined to follow it up.
>
>Maybe Lewis, like Dorothy said, but his kids/juve stuff never
>made my orbit. Narnia etc were virtually unheard of in Germany
>30+ years ago. I think he was more or less limited to the
>English Language realms. (Correct me if I'm wrong).
I don't know; but I don't think Lindgren made that much of a
splash in the English-speaking world. We seem to have a mirror
image here. But I could be wrong too.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Michael Ikeda <mmi...@erols.com> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>news:K0zvG...@kithrup.com:
>
>> In article <rpls24lq3ko90gai5...@4ax.com>,
>> Erol K. Bayburt <Ero...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 13 May 2008 00:08:10 GMT, Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>That's what Time Magazine asks. It says right here that Meyer
>>>>is the new queen of fantasy. Her bold, original idea? Mix
>>>>vampires with romance.
>>>
>>>At a tangent, who was the *last* "J. K. Rowling," the author of
>>>whom it could be said "J.K. Rowling is the next ---"?
>>
>> C. S. Lewis, to those who know him chiefly as the author of the
>> Chronicles of Narnia?
>
>Tolkien?
I dunno. Are we looking for the previously popular writer of
*kids'* books? Or of popular books generally? In which case
there would be too darned many and we'd never agree on one.
W. Citoan
>
> Andrew Wheeler wrote:
> >
> > _Dhalgren_ is a 56, _Ulysses_ a 73, and _Finegans Wake_ a near-perfect
> > 97. _Go Dog Go_, on the other hand, is a 1.
>
> Do I dare ask what the scale is and do high numbers mean more or less
> accesable?
If 97 is a near perfect, than it's a scale to 100. Given _Finegans
Wake_ is at the top and _Go Dog Go_ at the bottom, a smaller number
is more accessible than a larger one.
- W. Citoan
--
In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people
very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move.
-- Douglas Adams
Sea Wasp
Well, I don't think there was a last, or will be a next.
I suppose the closest approach would be C.S. Lewis or Roald Dahl. If
I crossed the two I might start closing in on Rowling, but only
conceptually.
In terms of actual success, I'm not sure if there's BEEN any author
on her level. Has there? Have Grisham, Clancy, et. al., hit her level
of success? I'm not talking about, say, Agatha Christie, who's had
over half a century to sell in (and I'm unsure as to how her sales
compare), but someone over the same rough period of time as Rowling.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Sea Wasp
> In article <rpls24lq3ko90gai5...@4ax.com>, ErolB1
> @comcast.net says...
>
>>On Tue, 13 May 2008 00:08:10 GMT, Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That's what Time Magazine asks. It says right here that Meyer is
>>>the new queen of fantasy. Her bold, original idea? Mix vampires
>>>with romance.
>>
>>At a tangent, who was the *last* "J. K. Rowling," the author of whom
>>it could be said "J.K. Rowling is the next ---"?
>>
>>Erol K. Bayburt
>>Ero...@comcast.net
>>
>
>
> Well if we're looking at 'universally loved and hugely
> translated children's book author' I'd say Roald Dahl.
> But he wrote nothing at all like Rowling, of course.
On the contrary, I felt Rowling's work -- especially the first book
or two -- had a VERY Dahlian aspect to them.
>
> Or maybe Astrid Lindgren. She's a more likely candidate, come
> to think of it. Who hasn't read or heard of Pippi Longstocking
> and Karlsson on the Roof?
An AWFUL lot of people.
I might have to go back to L.Frank Baum for someone even vaguely on
her level.
Sea Wasp
I'm not sure on sales statistics, but in my short (7 year) career as
a bookseller, I never saw anyone that even began to approach Rowling.
So one might look at whether there's ever been anyone to compete with
her on that yardstick.
Peter Huebner
says...
>
> I don't know; but I don't think Lindgren made that much of a
> splash in the English-speaking world. We seem to have a mirror
> image here. But I could be wrong too.
>
LoL, again, I don't know. You may very well be right. My
interest piqued, I decided to follow this up: A quick google
yielded the result that Narnia has been translated into 29
languages, Longstocking into 50. Whatever that proves, or
doesn't ;-). I didn't try to find out sales figures.
Poised as a question of taste, I personally much prefer(red)
the anarchistic antics of Pippi, or Dahl's protagonists, over
Lewis' (stodgy?) world of imagination. Kid, youth and uncle.
-Peter
Graham Woodland
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 04:20:25 +0000, Dan Goodman wrote:
>
>> mimus wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 00:08:10 +0000, Gene wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's what Time Magazine asks. It says right here that Meyer is
>>>> the new queen of fantasy. Her bold, original idea? Mix vampires
>>>> with romance.
>> No. Dracula is not a romantic hero.
>
> Sez who? both his history and his trio of vamp, er, hand-maidens, surely
> qualify him-- even though I was really thinking about the other two main
> couples in the book, one of which babes survived and the other didn't.
>
> What about le Fanu's "Camilla", made by Hammer Films into the very nice
> classic _Vampire Lovers_?
>
That's *_Carmilla_*, by a stonking great mug of green tea!
I once ran a seriously aberrant AD&D campaign in which all the
immortal lords of the land were in-yer-face lifts of well-known
movie vampires, and both Vlad Dracula of the Wolves and Carmilla
of the Mists had been amongst the last stalwarts of the living
resistance before being turned. I forget the ultimate Eeevil
responsible, but the proximate shitbags were Yorga the Nightmare
and Orlok the Rat. The players started off in Carmilla's
fogbound territory, where the vamp depredations against their
living subjects were as lackadaisal as pretty much everything
else, and drugs rather than precious metals were used as currency
since the vampires gained nothing by nicking them.
So this first-level party eventually runs into Carmilla, who is
chronically bored and characteristically three magical sheets to
the wind at the time. She approves of their uncommon flicker of
spirit and agrees to release some commandeered peasant girl from
maid duties in her castle or something, if they'll do her a small
favour.
This favour is basically to go out and commit minor nuisance on
the remote border holdings of the fifth and least 'great' vampire
lord, Lugosh of the Bat, a buffoon who has them in the belfry and
is a sort of compendium of every hamhock ever perpetrated by Bela
Lugosi from _House of Dracula_ to _Plan Nine from Outer Space_.
It isn't actually likely to be bringing them into contact with
even vampire riff-raff -- first level characters, *hello*? -- but
it is intended as an ambivalently-intentioned bit of possibly
lethal education in how fucked-up the world beyond the dreamy
decay of her Mists really is. (Also it is the equivalent of
throwing sweet papers over your despised neighbour's fence, which
is pretty hilarious to a mind so toked-up on ilusion magic that
it is only degrees away from thinking Cheech and Chong are the
new Laurel and Hardy, if not indeed the new J.K. Rowling; but I
digress.)
Magic weapons and holy water were precisely as available as you
might imagine.
Via a long, perverse, and outstandingly jammy course of events
which I no longer even remember in detail, they ended up *killing
@$^!ing Lugosh* and precipitating the Great Conflict which was
supposed to begin when their level was rather nearer double
figures than it was. With hilarious consequences(TM).
Carmilla was ultimately supposed to be the romantic heroine
(evolving from anti-) of the Great Überplot which those ingenious
chaps and chappesses so consummately derailed. Happily Real Life
intruded before too long, and we were all scattered upon the
winds of the wide world before the true poverty of my plotting
could be exposed to universal derision.
Whew, *there* was lucky, now!
--
Cheers,
Gray
---
To unmung address, lop off the 'be invalid' command.
Thomas Womack
Peter Huebner <no....@this.address> wrote:
>Or maybe Astrid Lindgren. She's a more likely candidate, come
>to think of it. Who hasn't read or heard of Pippi Longstocking
>and Karlsson on the Roof?
I've dimly heard of Pippi Longstocking and never read it; I've never
even heard of Karlsson on the Roof. Tove Jansson is perhaps the only
Scandinavian (ok, Finnish) writer of children's stories that I've
encountered here in England.
Tom
Graham Woodland
> Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>> Might that be because Harry Potter is a lot more "accessible" than what
>>> one might refer to as real fantasy fiction?
>> What on earth is "real" fantasy fiction, and how does it differ from
>> "fake" fantasy fiction?
>
> the big-breasted scantily-clad women have all had boob jobs.
>
You know that Shea Ohmsford, when he falls down the cliff in _The
Sword of Shannara_? Albeit not far enough?
Stunt double. *And* the bit where ~Gandalf topples into the pit
with the ~Balrog!
And all those orgasms Anita Blake has in that laundry scene, pp
19-456 of _The Nephrite Nymphomaniac_? Faked, I tell you --
every least last one! I know the Pen Grip on that production,
and he swears the out-takes were a living scream. Fact.
There's no *truth* in fiction these days, goldang it!
Rebecca Rice
> Or maybe Astrid Lindgren. She's a more likely candidate, come
> to think of it. Who hasn't read or heard of Pippi Longstocking
> and Karlsson on the Roof?
>
*raises hand* I've heard of Pippi, but haven't met anyone
who actually read the book. (Although I have never asked,
so someone may have that I just don't know about.) But I've
never even heard of Karlsson.
Rebecca
Graham Woodland
> In article <5fjr24put18nhsrqe...@4ax.com>,
> bsn...@airmail.net says...
>> Are you mispronouncing The Eldritch Protocols of the Secret
>> Masters of Fandom?
>>
>
> Wasn't that meant to read "Femdom"?
>
> (Thread Highjack alert: actually, I am just trying again to
> steer the discussion around to Liz Williams 'Darkland' again,
> since I hardly got a nibble the first time.)
>
I liked _Snake Agent_ but have not yet read any of her other stuff.
As to the Secret Masters of Femdom, I feel this concept may
contain an inherent contradiction.
Sea Wasp
I've read several Pippi books, but my mom was of Scandinavian stock
and she was the one who introduced me to them.
Karlsson I never heard of, either.
Graham Woodland
> Anthony Nance wrote:
>
>> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>>> sienamystic wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On May 12, 7:08pm, Gene <g...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That's what Time Magazine asks. It says right here that Meyer is
>>>>> the new queen of fantasy. Her bold, original idea? Mix vampires
>>>>> with romance.
>>>>>
>>>>> her. Any opinions?
>>>>
>>>> Well, go ahead and read them if you feel you've done something that
>>>> requires you to punish yourself. The main character is a Mary-Sue to
>>>> out-Sue all others, and the only problem vampires seem to face in the
>>>> books is that when they go out into the sun they don't burst into
>>>> flames, or anything. Instead, they sparkle. Like diamonds.
>>>>
>>>> I've read enough excerpts to know that I'd rather kiss a giant squid
>>>> than read the books.
>>>>
>>>> Siena
>>>
>>> Giant squid romance -- the next new thing!
>>
>>
>> Argh - I'm now wondering about the best placement of the word
>> "vampire" amongst your first three words.
>>
>> Add a hyphen for even more options,
>> Tony
>
>
>
> Squids would be naturals for vampiry. They already have suckers!
>
I believe they are also associated with a Personage sometimes
described as possessing 'fanged cilia', a combination I always
found more than a little curious. Much is now clear to me!
Andrew Plotkin
> > > Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > genre reading protocl,
>
> Achtung! Fantasy novel approaching, Fritz! Break out the Fantasy Novel
> Reading Protocol!
>
> As others have said, here you're just asserting things that no one else
> agrees with.
I agree with him, to a degree, although nobody seems to have picked up
on that part of the thread.
"Protocol" is too rigid a term; I say "conventions", but I believe
there *is* a point beyond which if you don't know the conventions you
can't even make a dent in the book. And a lot of SF published today is
beyond that point.
> (The way one reads a secondary-world fantasy, most urban fantasy,
> alternate history, and most future-set SF is not all that different from
> the way one reads a mystery novel -- keep a close eye out for telling
> details, and try to figure out what those details imply.)
They're analogous skills, yes. But if you're expecting to apply those
skills to the plot, and the author expects you to apply them to the
protagonist's lifestyle and culture, you may be in for a train wreck.
Another element which is subject to strong genre conventions is *how
much* of the book is spent on this or that. SF and fantasy blow a lot
of words on setting, society, laws of physics/magic/psionics/whatever.
When it's done crudely we call it "infodumping" and when it's done
well we call it "inclueing", but that doesn't question the expectation
that the book should *do* that work.
Whereas this "paranormal romance" that a friend lent me a couple of
months ago was set in the near future, but did only a modest amount of
world-building. Enough to hold up the plot elements, but not enough to
make me believe in a working society back there. Instead, it spent a
whole lot of words on how attractive each of the protagonists found
each other. From my point of view, that was hammered in with the
subtlety of a big lead hammer, scene after scene. But what would a fan
of that book have thought of the endless Big Dumb Picaresque scenes in
Iain Banks's _Matter_?
Similarly, the Stephenie Meyer book which survives, zombie-like, in
the subject line of this thread. I haven't read it. I've read a lot of
energetic and entertaining skewering of it (see, e.g.,
<http://the-red-shoes.livejournal.com/tag/twilight_spork>). I gather
it spends *lots* of words, I mean buckets, on describing sparkly-
vampire-boy as sparkly, gorgeous, perfect, sparkly, obsessed with Girl
Hero like unto no other human being in history, and continually
(depending on the plot's coinflip) either tearing buildings apart to
save Girl Hero or teetering on the edge of doing something unspeakably
awful to her (but never quite doing it because he would *never*).
And Girl Hero is barely described at all -- just a vague impression of
somebody who never in a million years deserves wonderful-vampire-boy.
In short, I am told, we have a supersaturated solution of Bad Boy
poured into a Petri dish of Mary Sue, all aimed at the teenagers who
hold that as their ideal of romance but don't believe it will ever
happen to *them*.
That's a hook, not a protocol. (Just like the overlooked boy who turns
out to be awesomely powerful and important is the hook of Harry
Potter.) But the book then caters to the hook with a tonal balance of
*all sparkle boy, all the time*; and desiring that or rolling your
eyes at it is something like a reading protocol.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
Just because you vote for the Republicans, doesn't mean they let you be one.
Kurt Busiek
> In article <rpls24lq3ko90gai5...@4ax.com>, ErolB1
> @comcast.net says...
>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 00:08:10 GMT, Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
>>
>>> That's what Time Magazine asks. It says right here that Meyer is
>>> the new queen of fantasy. Her bold, original idea? Mix vampires
>>> with romance.
>>
>> At a tangent, who was the *last* "J. K. Rowling," the author of whom
>> it could be said "J.K. Rowling is the next ---"?
>>
>> Erol K. Bayburt
>> Ero...@comcast.net
>>
>
> Well if we're looking at 'universally loved and hugely
> translated children's book author' I'd say Roald Dahl.
> But he wrote nothing at all like Rowling, of course.
>
> Or maybe Astrid Lindgren. She's a more likely candidate, come
> to think of it. Who hasn't read or heard of Pippi Longstocking
> and Karlsson on the Roof?
I loved the Pippi books when I was a kid, but had never heard of
Karlsson on the Roof until now.
I kinda-sorta could see calling Rowling "the next Lloyd Alexander,"
since Alexander did a wonderful kids fantasy series (well, several, but
one he's particularly known for) with characters who learn and grow, a
big adventure against a malign force and a lot of warmth and humor.
But Alexander didn't have the kind of financial success Rowling has,
more's the pity.
kdb
W. Citoan
[snip]
> "Protocol" is too rigid a term; I say "conventions", but I believe
> there *is* a point beyond which if you don't know the conventions you
> can't even make a dent in the book. And a lot of SF published today
> is beyond that point.
Can you provide some examples? I can see missing details & references
and not understanding some common terms that aren't explained, but
"can't even make a dent" seems quite a stretch.
I also don't see how that relates to a genre definition.
> > (The way one reads a secondary-world fantasy, most urban fantasy,
> > alternate history, and most future-set SF is not all that different from
> > the way one reads a mystery novel -- keep a close eye out for telling
> > details, and try to figure out what those details imply.)
>
> They're analogous skills, yes. But if you're expecting to apply those
> skills to the plot, and the author expects you to apply them to the
> protagonist's lifestyle and culture, you may be in for a train wreck.
In a mystery, the character's lifestyle and culture can be just as much
a clue. I also don't see how missing a couple of details is going to
equate to a "train wreck" (Gene Wolfe being an obvious exception, but
he's atypical for the SF genre).
> Another element which is subject to strong genre conventions is *how
> much* of the book is spent on this or that. SF and fantasy blow a lot
> of words on setting, society, laws of physics/magic/psionics/whatever.
> When it's done crudely we call it "infodumping" and when it's done
> well we call it "inclueing", but that doesn't question the expectation
> that the book should *do* that work.
Historical fiction can spend plenty of words on the setting as well.
Rather then being a genre boundary, this seems more a result of how
different the setting is from the reader's world and how interested
the author is in the setting.
There is plenty of marketed SF that spends little time on the setting.
Does this mean that it's not really part of the genre? How much time
needs to be spent on the setting for it to qualify as being part of the
genre? 5%, 10%, 15%...
> Whereas this "paranormal romance" that a friend lent me a couple of
> months ago was set in the near future, but did only a modest amount of
> world-building. Enough to hold up the plot elements, but not enough to
> make me believe in a working society back there. Instead, it spent a
> whole lot of words on how attractive each of the protagonists found
> each other. From my point of view, that was hammered in with the
> subtlety of a big lead hammer, scene after scene. But what would a fan
> of that book have thought of the endless Big Dumb Picaresque scenes in
> Iain Banks's _Matter_?
Readers have differing tastes. I hardly see how that relates to a genre
definition or how the book is actually read (other than those who hate
infodumps skipping those sections or tossing the book against the wall).
Gene
news:2008051709161816807-kurt@busiekcomics:
> But Alexander didn't have the kind of financial success
Rowling has,
> more's the pity.
Which brings us back to R. L. Stine.
Dorothy J Heydt
sort of shepherd's pie, made of leftover, warmed-over bits of
Mabinogion in a sort of gluey crust. He attempts to add
characterization by giving his characters speech-tags that are
repeated for five volumes until at the end I was hoping they
would ALL sail into the Uttermost West and (since I *live* in the
Uttermost West) the ship would sink in mid-voyage.)
Dorothy J Heydt
Thomas Womack <two...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <MPG.22993e59a...@news.individual.net>,
>Peter Huebner <no....@this.address> wrote:
>
>>Or maybe Astrid Lindgren. She's a more likely candidate, come
>>to think of it. Who hasn't read or heard of Pippi Longstocking
>>and Karlsson on the Roof?
>
>I've dimly heard of Pippi Longstocking and never read it; I've never
>even heard of Karlsson on the Roof.
As I said upthread, I read the first Pippi Longstocking as a
child; didn't think it was all that great (all I remember now is
that she lived alone with a monkey. "What did you think he was?
A lawn mower?")
Never heard of Karlsson either.
Tove Jansson is perhaps the only
>Scandinavian (ok, Finnish) writer of children's stories that I've
>encountered here in England.
Heard of, never read. That's the Moomintrolls, right?
On the other hand, I suspect we all know the Three Billy Goats
Groff, and we wouldn't if it hadn't been translated by (if
memory serves) Moe and Asbjornson.
Kurt Busiek
> In article <2008051709161816807-kurt@busiekcomics>,
> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.comics> wrote:
>> I kinda-sorta could see calling Rowling "the next Lloyd Alexander,"
>> since Alexander did a wonderful kids fantasy series (well, several, but
>> one he's particularly known for) with characters who learn and grow, a
>> big adventure against a malign force and a lot of warmth and humor.
>> But Alexander didn't have the kind of financial success Rowling has,
>> more's the pity.
>>
> Meh ... I'm not all that impressed by Alexander.
More for the rest of us, then.
kdb
Thomas Lindgren
I seem to recall Astrid Lindgren, no relation, was one of the three
bestselling authors in the world for a time; for instance, Der Spiegel
claims she's sold 145m copies worldwide.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,517378,00.html
As far as I could tell from the papers at the time of her death, she
lived a pretty modest life not far from where I'm writing this, and
didn't leave a huge estate, "merely" on the order of about 10m
euro. (Judging from the sales, just the royalties should have been an
order of magnitude more than that.)
I loved her books when I was a kid (and the Moomins too), and still
do. Tough, wise, compassionate. She sort of reminds me of Granny
Weatherwax, or the other way around.
(Also, in the public sphere, she among other things turned the tide
regarding income taxation, facing down the then-minister of
finance. Great stuff. Very witchy.)
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren
Dorothy J Heydt
Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.comics> wrote:
>On 2008-05-17 10:22:34 -0700, djh...@no.such.domain (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
>
>> In article <2008051709161816807-kurt@busiekcomics>,
>> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.comics> wrote:
>>> I kinda-sorta could see calling Rowling "the next Lloyd Alexander,"
>>> since Alexander did a wonderful kids fantasy series (well, several, but
>>> one he's particularly known for) with characters who learn and grow, a
>>> big adventure against a malign force and a lot of warmth and humor.
>>> But Alexander didn't have the kind of financial success Rowling has,
>>> more's the pity.
>>>
>> Meh ... I'm not all that impressed by Alexander.
>
>More for the rest of us, then.
Right. You can have my Alexander (as well as my pickles, olives,
and beer) and I'll take on everybody's broccoli and eggplant.
Kurt Busiek
Sorry, you can keep the olives (you can probably trade with my
daughters, they love olives) and I'll keep the broccoli.
The rest sounds good, though.
kdb
Peter Knutsen
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>> Sea Wasp wrote:
>>> My protocol for reading is I open the book, read, and then stop
>>> when I reach the end, unless the book sucks, in which case I stop
>>> earlier.
>>
>> Incorrect.
>
> Exactly where did you get supernatural powers to be able to tell
> better than I myself what I myself do?
*You* are the one with the absurd claim. You claim to have full
knowledge what goes on inside your own skull at all times.
>> That is not an adequate description of what you actually do, when you
>> read proper science fiction or proper fantasy, although it may very
>> well be all you do if you read something like Harry Potter
>> (disclaimer: I've only read the first two books).
>
> I read Harry Potter as I read all other books.
>
> AFAIC, there's no difference in how I read any fiction.
Yes there is.
< http://www2.ku.edu/~sfcenter/protocol.htm >
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org