Scif/Fantasy Authors who hate scifi/fantasy and/or their fans.

[Grack21]

Now, I'm not going to mention any names because

1. I don't want to get banned

2. I have only one hand to type with til saturday

but how do you guys/gals deal with it when you find out a favorite author of yours ..well....shits on the genre. I know several recent authors who have basically said genre fiction is shit...yet they write genre fiction. Some of them won't acknowledge they do, but thats another story.

Also, in a more general way, i find it upsetting when an author I really respect makes a blog post/gives an interview and turns out to be a giant asshat. I was just wondering how you all deal with that.

Forgive the typing/spelling. One hand.

And no I don't mean Bakker goddammit.

[Migey]

Well one of the obvious answers is Tairy I-don't-write-fantasy Goodkind.

[Apoapsis]

Most people are asshats. Authors are no different.

I mostly ignore the author's views or personality and just enjoy the books, if they are good. I liked some of Card's books before I knew about his political views, I still like those books. I don't like most of the stuff I've read by him since, but that mostly because it's crap. If the author/asshat in question is dead that makes it even easier to ignore his views. I don't have to worry about any of my money going to the racist dick Howard Phillips Lovecraft if I buy a collection of weird tales today.

I don't know of any authors I've read who actually disses the genre that people place them in, so I haven't really thought about that. I think it's a lot more common in music though (like a hundred GY!BE wannabands whining"We're not postrock!").

[Myrddin]

Forgive the typing/spelling. One hand.

TMI !! TMI !! :stunned:

Ahem.

I agree that authors shouldn't shit in the bed they sleep in.

I think it's stupid for authors to slag off their peers (especially people like Atwood or even Goodkind who claim they don't even write fantasy), but if they're not finding anything in their field that speaks to them personally, it must be a weird feeling.

In reality though, what's important is the story, not what an author says about the genre.

[Ormond]

I think if you read what Margaret Atwood has written lately, her comments about not writing science fiction came from her having a very narrow view of what science fiction is. She says that she thought that if books like The Handmaid's Tale were labeled "science fiction" that readers would be disappointed because there were no spaceships in the story, and thinks that "speculative fiction" is a better term for what she herself writes.

Atwood recently published a book called In Other Worlds. Here is an excerpt from the Publisher's Weekly review of that book:

Atwood has a long and complex relationship with science fiction, and this mix of essays and short fiction represents her most sustained examination of the genre to date. Famously having refused the label "science fiction" for such novels as The Handmaid's Tale, she prefers to call her work "speculative fiction," though she here reveals herself to be both friendly to and well-read in genre SF. The book opens with three personal essays on her relationship with the fantastic, beginning with a delicious piece on her childhood obsession with rabbit superheroes, followed by a look at the connections between mythology and modern SF, and a useful discussion of her own work as dystopian fiction.

[Sci-2]

As Valente said, there are very few authors who are so good that you are truly missing out if you don't read them.

So, in line with that, there are very few authors whose absence from publishing would be a genuine loss to art. The only living asshole whose works might be argued as being "essential" that comes to mind is Naipul.

In SFF, the obvious gotos are Wright and Card, and neither AFAIK have produced anything really worth mentioning save for Ender's Game. Creating the Innocent Killer shows why Ender's Game is more of a magician's trick for the nerd ego that, once exposed, loses its power.

Really, if both never produced anything again in the history of the world, would we really be at a loss?

From there, I guess people could take issue with writers who've either been less than politically correct or have attacked valued traditional institutions, and that's more a case by case basis.

[Sci-2]

but how do you guys/gals deal with it when you find out a favorite author of yours ..well....shits on the genre. I know several recent authors who have basically said genre fiction is shit...yet they write genre fiction. Some of them won't acknowledge they do, but thats another story

Also, you can think a genre is filled with shitty works without believing that the genre itself is intrinsically shit. Though I did a double take when Alan Moore differentiated comics from "grown up books", but whatever I'll still buy his stuff.

[Contrarius]

The personality and beliefs of authors don't affect my enjoyment of their work. I don't know the vast majority of authors or artists whose work I appreciate, and I'm not about to go researching into all of their lives just to be sure that they are worthy of my appreciation. Beethoven wasn't a nice guy; Wagner was beloved of the Nazis; Van Gogh was insane. And so on.

I was very saddened when I heard OSC speak in Utah, because it did destroy my image of him as a person. But that didn't destroy my enjoyment of his books (or lack thereof, depending on the book). People can very easily have dumb ideas while still producing good art.

[sologdin]

I for one was infuriated when Mr. Jonson wrote in his Dedication to the Reader in The New Inn:

IF thou be such, I make thee my Patron, and dedicate the Piece to thee: If not so much, would I had been at the Charge of thy better Litterature. Howsoever, if thou canst but spell, and join my Sense, there is more hope of thee, than of a Hundred fastidious Impertinents, who were there present the first Day, yet never made piece of their Prospect the right way. What did they come for, then? thou will't ask me. I will as punctually answer: To see, and to be seen: To make a general muster of themselves in their Clothes of Credit: and possess the Stage against the Play: To dislike all, but mark nothing. And by their confidence of rising between the Acts, in Oblique Lines, make Affidavit to the whole House, of their not understanding one Scene. Arm'd with this Prejudice, as the Stage-furniture, or Arras-cloaths, they were there, as Spectators, away. For the Faces in the Hangings, and they beheld alike; so I wish they may do ever, and do trust my self and my Book, rather to thy rustick Candor, than all the Pomp of their Pride, and solemn Ignorance to boot. Fare thee well, and fall too.

Impertinents! Rustick candor! Prejudice! Fie on you Ben Jonson, fie on you Sir!

[kwvapor]

I'm sure these authors know the ramifications of their actions. They make the active choice to be true and real. To show us, the author without a mask. We might not like it but we should commend them for their courage and even honesty.

:leer:

[Sci-2]

Besides Goodkind, who has said that?

I can think only of Atwood (who qualified her statement, and I don't think it was unreasonable) and Alan Moore (who has basically made himself irrelevant barring Jerusalem being a masterpiece and possibly was always overrated regardless).

ETA: To clarify:

Irrelevancy: You can't simultaneously judge the quality of creators in comics while simultaneously stating you don't read many comics anymore. Moore rights great fiction, Voice in the Fire has some great moments, but it also gets kinda boring in a lot of places. In general, purple prose can only take you so far.

Overrated: I'm curious how much of Moore's success comes from pulling in ideas from literature. I mean, the ending to Watchmen is based on a radio program (or was it Twilight Zone episode) right? This isn't to say Moore isn't incredibly talented, but the more "literature" I read the more I wonder how much he's simply transcribed ideas for an audience less exposed to literary works.

[peterbound]

Hmmm.. I've only ever got that vibe a few times at signings. The first was with he-who-shall-not-be-named. He even had the balls to say, on a panel with connie willis (who is great, btw) that he's 'kind of a big deal in sf/f'. With a straight fucking face. I saw him treating the line of his fans kind of like a dick as well. I refused to engage with the man, lest i get kicked out of the con

The second time was with Vernor Vinge. I don't know if it was because he was really awkward, or what, but the man just seemed super stand offish. Not an out and out dick, but not really the behavior i expected from him.

[jagilki]

No names?

:)

[Procrastimancer]

I for one was infuriated when Mr. Jonson wrote in his Dedication to the Reader in The New Inn:

Impertinents! Rustick candor! Prejudice! Fie on you Ben Jonson, fie on you Sir!

Something is amiss...

There are capital letters here. I think someone may have replaced Solo with an impostor.

[peterbound]

I was very saddened when I heard OSC speak in Utah, because it did destroy my image of him as a person. But that didn't destroy my enjoyment of his books (or lack thereof, depending on the book). People can very easily have dumb ideas while still producing good art.

Fella, the only thing OSC did that was good is EG, and he's been riding that pony for years. Unless of course you love his retelling of the early days of LDS, or maybe his 're-imagining' of Hamlet. He hasn't done anything good/significant for the genre since the 80's, and for me, even that's not all that great.

[Lord of Rhinos]

As Valente said, there are very few authors who are so good that you are truly missing out if you don't read them.

So, in line with that, there are very few authors whose absence from publishing would be a genuine loss to art. The only living asshole whose works might be argued as being "essential" that comes to mind is Naipul.

In SFF, the obvious gotos are Wright and Card, and neither AFAIK have produced anything really worth mentioning save for Ender's Game. Creating the Innocent Killer shows why Ender's Game is more of a magician's trick for the nerd ego that, once exposed, loses its power.

Really, if both never produced anything again in the history of the world, would we really be at a loss?

From there, I guess people could take issue with writers who've either been less than politically correct or have attacked valued traditional institutions, and that's more a case by case basis.

That post is awful. A string of nebulous undefined concepts standing a top a frame work of silly suppositions that crumbles and collapses at the merest hint of thoughtfulness.

[HokieStone]

She says that she thought that if books like The Handmaid's Tale were labeled "science fiction" that readers would be disappointed because there were no spaceships in the story, and thinks that "speculative fiction" is a better term for what she herself writes.

Ah yes, "speculative fiction"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Q9FdiJnLzl4#t=44s

[Grack21]

Ah yes, "speculative fiction"...

http://www.youtube.c...FdiJnLzl4#t=44s

Thats beautiful.

[Contrarius]

Fella, the only thing OSC did that was good is EG, and he's been riding that pony for years. Unless of course you love his retelling of the early days of LDS, or maybe his 're-imagining' of Hamlet. He hasn't done anything good/significant for the genre since the 80's, and for me, even that's not all that great.

This isn't the thread for that particular discussion, but I very much disagree with you. Fortunately, we are all allowed to have our own opinions.

And I ain't a fella. ;)

[Sci-2]

That post is awful. A string of nebulous undefined concepts standing a top a frame work of silly suppositions that crumbles and collapses at the merest hint of thoughtfulness.

Um, it's a post I made on a message board, but I'm happy to debate it if you can clarify your critique.

Or are you talking about the essay on Card's child-[as]-killer glorification?