M. John Harrison on Worldbuilding

[Ser Garlan the Gallant]

However, any additional world-building beyond what is necessary to create a believable setting and characters, beyond which is necessary to drive the plot, bores me to tears. I don't need to see a map if it's not important to the plot. I don't need to know how to say "pig" in your made-up language if it's not important to the plot. If you make up words to use as names or titles, I don't need to know the etymology, unless it's important to the plot. I don't need a geneology for 20 pages, or a detailed appendix of the world and its races and the political history for the last 1000 fictional years, if it's not important to the plot. In fact, it is almost never that I will consult these materials. As long as the basic writing and the plot convey an adequate, believable sense of place, I simply don't care.

I would disagree that any world-building elements not directly subservient to plot or character-development/interaction are excess. Just look at ASoIaF. There's plenty of detail that is not "needed," but we of course don't mind. This is what gives Martin's world it's "lived-in" quality. He presents details that we may not need, but that are important to the characters in his world. That's why, in addition to the character development, rereading the books is so enjoyable, despite our knowledge of the plot. Sure, not as much happened in AFfC, and you could certainly tell while reading it through the first time, but it didn't really matter--simply returning to characters and the world, that complete immersion, was more than enough. (Then again, there's a danger that an author could get caught up in this and not advance the plot, but I have faith in Martin--things are coming together.)

As far as lengthy genealogies, family histories, detailed maps, etc., well, it's obvious Martin puts a ton of work into the building blocks of his world, and that's what gives it its internal consistency. This is what allows ASoIaF to be discussed and debated--not too many series can be, the way people do here.

Edit: bolded quotes

[Nerdanel]

I don't think I like the direction this thread is heading. I don't want to enter into "I had better grades than you/paid more attention in school!" competition. (I did have good grades, though, but I don't think bragging about such things should be a part of this discussion.) As for an "I have a higher IQ than you!" competition, consider yourself forewarned.

Dylanfanatic, why are you bringing up drug addict teens and suggesting that they are similar to with readers who enjoy worldbuilding? Do you have any evidence that there is any statistical correlation between the two groups? In case you wonder, I don't do illegal drugs or even tobacco or alcohol. On the contrary, I would think that the teens who read a lot of books are the type that is less likely to do things like hung around the town, party a lot, and do drugs. That would mean that worldbuilding is a net health benefit.

Enjoying worldbuilding doesn't mean one is unable to use one's critical faculties. I am, my search for emotional catharsis notwithstanding, an intensely analytical person. I am analytical with books too. For example, has it ever occurred to you that young Lena/Elena/old Lena in Donaldson's Thomas Covenant can be considered to represent a shadowed version of the real-world mythical Threefold Goddess or alternatively the Land itself as it and its relationship with Covenant changes throughout the trilogy? Also, I think I have figured out what the Mahdoubt really is, and that took a lot of textual detective work.

But as for Derrida and all that postmodern stuff, I don't particularly appreciate it. It's so full of nonsense it can't even properly separate the earnest stuff from the intentional nonsense. And it goes around deconstructing real, hard science as if the laws of physics were poems of physics.

[Multaniette]

I cannot believe the contempt some people hold entertainment into.

[Bellis]

I would disagree that any world-building elements not directly subservient to plot or character-development/interaction are excess. Just look at ASoIaF. There's plenty of detail that is not "needed," but we of course don't mind. This is what gives Martin's world it's "lived-in" quality.

Garlan, I guess this is where it gets subjective. I would actually say that Martin has an appropriate level of world-building, but i have heard it said on these very forums that world-building is one of his weaknesses. The reason we get more depth from re-reading is because the world-building details are relevant to the plot. But this is strictly IMHO. I can imagine someone else thinking there is too much detail. But relative to some authors, the amount of history or cultural depth is actually not that crazy.

OTOH, I do think Scott Bakkar is approaching a level that is a bit too much information for my tastes.

An example I just thought of someone who does this very well - Scott Lynch in LoLL. An undoubtedly plot-driven and character-driven novel, but it is apparent that there is an awful lot of depth to the world. In fact, as Mieville said in the earlier quote, there is a bit of a "culture shock". I like "culture shock", I like being introduced to the depth of the world on a need-to-know basis. (With a few teasers to add general ambience without infodumps). One of the elements I look forward to in Lynch's series is seeing how much more we'll learn about both the world and the characters as the over-arching plot progresses (but not until the plot progresses).

[Larry.]

If you thought that, then it seems you need to re-read what I said a lot more carefully

I was saying that I have spent a lot of time working with groups that don't have highly developed critical thinking skills, who don't give a shit about reading or most anything else. That those are more likely to be representative of the current teen/20-something population than the people posting at length here. That in the end, an argument over "worldbuilding" would just end up meaning jackshit to the majority of people...

And as for just blithely dismissing postmodernism, aren't you just basically stomping your foot and saying that it tastes bad and you don't like it, even if Mikey likes Life cereal? That's about all I can derive from a lot of your comments, a dismissive tone that doesn't try to understand what that thing (such as postmodernism) is about. I at least try to understand the fuss about expending such emotional energy on words concerned with versions of utopia that don't (for the most part, it seems) advocate anything that can be done to change this very real world of ours. I'm awaiting something more from the defenders of notions such as this still extremely vague "worldbuilding" than just versions of "Well, I like it, so there!" I'm just challenging people, I guess, to tell me why in ways that can help me and others understand better.

Maybe I'm asking too much, maybe I'm wanting more from this than what many are willing to give of themselves, but I think there's a mindset about all this that is too comfortable with not following Kant's advice of Sapere aude (Dare to know). I have to confront students about this constantly when it comes toward understanding the social studies, I confront the addicts on the weekends about this when it comes to hiding their emotions within conflicting behaviors, and I guess I'm confronting this with people here who are unwilling to go further. Maybe I'm just a bit pushy on this topic, but I am sincerely curious about all this. But if it's just going to lead to circular arguments, I can bow out, I suppose...

[Ser Garlan the Gallant]

Well, Bellis, I can't really rebut that. I guess this it is indeed where it gets subjective. TLoLL received uniformly high praise on this board, so I'm guessing Lynch's approach, fleshing out the world little-by-little as the plot progresses, worked very well. I will read it soon; I own it, but haven't yet gotten around to it. I'm probably missing out.

[Bellis]

Well, Bellis, I can't really rebut that. I guess this it is indeed where it gets subjective. TLoLL received uniformly high praise on this board, so I'm guessing Lynch's approach, fleshing out the world little-by-little as the plot progresses, worked very well. I will read it soon; I own it, but haven't yet gotten around to it. I'm probably missing out.

Well, i read it about 6 months ago, but i do remember being impressed by the worldbuilding. Your experience may be different.

I think we all approach SF for different reasons (I like seeing a mirror held to our world and for the big ideas and for creative storytelling). I also liked to be challanged by my reading and am an involved reader. when i was younger, i even used to change story details (like the sex of the characters). i have somewhat more respect for the text now, but i still find maps and appendices too micro-managing on the part of the author, and would rather imagine it on my own. Confession: I never really looked at the Westeros map until I was doing my second re-read with my bf, and he kept consulting it and wondering how long it would take to get from Winterfell to KL and how fast they were travelling. It just wasn't a detail that interested me, but I may be in the minority in that.

[Nerdanel]

Dylanfanatic, I was thinking you were a little bit more on-topic with those discussions about schoolchildren and drug users, but anyway...

I just can't take postmodernism seriously when they publish and exalt stuff like that which gets discussed behind this link.

I'm giving you a challenge. Explain why the following (from someone called Jaques Lacan) makes sense:

S (signifier) / s (signified) = s (the statement), with S = (-1), produces s = sqrt(-1)

(According to my googling, signifier = word and signified = idea represented by the word. I'm using "word" and "idea" from now on to expose the stupidity by providing clarity.)

- Since when are the statement and idea the same thing so that they can be represented with the same variable?

- Since when is the statement the word divided by the idea? What does it mean? (Please no trivial formula rotation like "It means that a word is an idea squared.")

- In what sort of circumstances can a word be a number, specifically -1? (Other than in cases like 2 - 3 = -1, but that's philosophically insignificant, or at least I hope so.)

- What it would mean for both the idea and the statement to be an imaginary number?

Ok, here's another, from someone called Luce Irigay:

She claims that "E = mc^2" is a "sexual equation" because "it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us".

How should be formulate the special relativity then?

E = m * (v_slow*30,000,000)^2, where v_slow = c/30,000,000?

Really? Other ideas?

And you wonder that I get dismissive...

I would like to get some more specific questions about the meaning of worldbuilding. I think I've been rather clear. This is starting to feel like trying to explain the color red to a blind man.

[Patches]

By "critical reading," I mean the process by which a reader is reading not just the surface contents of the text, but also questioning assumptions drawn from the text, authorial intent, possible applications, and a whole host of other possibilities that can be contained in those coded markings we call "words." While I am unsure of some of his ideas in regards to applicability, I did find many of Derida's ideas to be illuminating, although I do doubt the degree to which he placed emphasis on the transmitiability of ideas via the written language path. Does this give you a better idea of where I'm coming from in all this?

Alright, I thought that was what you meant by critical reading. It would be nice if people would think about what they read, but I don't think that will happen on any large scale. Like you said, not applicable. Besides, many people tend turn to books which tell them what to think. Sometimes people think they are reading critically when they are only feeding their own egos. I had an old roommate who was a good example.

First off, he said worldbuilding was that...What is untrue about the charge that indulging in such acts is "nerdish?"...And as for the psychological bit, did you read what he said elsewhere in related comments?

So in the end, what is untrue about Harrison's statements?

I'm not sure what is untrue about Harrison's statements. I'm not an authority on whether or not worldbuilding is the great, clomping foot of nerdism. I don't really know whether or not I should be scared of people who enjoy speculating about peripheral elements of a book. All in all, that post was a little extreme for me. I'll have to look into his related comments before I comment further.

You asked why people are taking it personally, though, and I said that Harrison willfully insulted them. He could have been more tactful. He's a professional writer, so I assume that he knows how to choose his words, that he knew people could take being called "nerdish" the wrong way (you might make fun of your 400 lb. uncle, but would you call a 400 lb. stranger in the street "lardass?"). Now, he probably did so to get a reaction, to get people to challenge their assumptions. But people taking it personally is part of the deal.

[Ran]

Lacan was rather a charlatan. Many postmodernists have disavowed him. I would take him and a number of others as an example of the worst kinds of excesses you can have in this sort of subject, but they're not the end all and be all of postmodern theory.

[Ser Garlan the Gallant]

Very entertaining, Dawkins' essay. I started quoting stuff, but then realized I had copied-and-pasted nearly the whole damn thing. It's well worth the read.

Edit: I'll just quote the opening:

Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say, but with strong ambitions to succeed in academic life, collect a coterie of reverent disciples and have students around the world anoint your pages with respectful yellow highlighter. What kind of literary style would you cultivate? Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose your lack of content...

[Larry.]

Hrmm...two comments to reply to here:

First, why should I bother taking Richard Dawkins at his word? From what I read of that and other pieces that he's written (I refrain from commenting on his actual books and research, for I have not yet read them and there may be other elements in those that are not present in his articles), but he seems to be engaged in a quite willful exercise of excerpting without providing enough context. But enough of that, as I do not know enough of Dawkins' true background to place much weight on anything. Onto a more direct topic:

You seem to have this notion that postmodernism is a quack-type field in which most anything can be said in most any fashion to any effect. Not exactly "true." Most conceptions of postmodernism (mine included) is that it is a rejection of this notion of "modernity," or the notion that there is an "upward progression" of ideas and societies. It is by its very nature decentralized. There aren't defined "schools" of postmodernism, and besides, the language that has to be employed to attempt to explore the possibilities within human societies and thought processes is going to be by the very nature of the subjects explored difficult to define, since the question of "definition" is very much in doubt in the minds of many asking these sorts of questions.

Dawkins gives the appearance of being just like a Cal Thomas in taking little bits, twisting them around by having the introductions and following remarks bear a possible faint resemblance (possible in that not enough background is given in my opinion as to what the writings were about) to what the original authors were trying to explore. Furthermore, there is nothing that has been discovered that gives much (if any) credence towards ANY form of schematization of human thought/action. It is a tool used to explore possibilities, not to define these. So what Dawkins was trying to argue is really a straw man, in my opinion.

Postmodernism has provided a lot of insight when it comes to the humanities. Amusing how a presumed natural scientist would take issue with it. Must be some pet conceptualization that he had that had been critiqued in such a fashion

And as for the signifier/signified, that actually is a very important distinction that probably shouldn't be conflated with word/idea. After all, the first two terms are based on a concept that language/understanding is a very fluid thing (you mention trying to explain the color "red" - do you mean "rojo" o "colorado," if you were talking to a Spanish speaker? Marón o café for "brown"? Maybe there is quite a bit of room for misconceptions for the so-called "sighted."). While I have my reservations about Benjamin Whorf's theories on languages and diglossia, even a thing such as "word" or "idea" probably shouldn't be viewed as a "universal" thing, as our cultural input and societal class can and does have an impact on a lot of what we understand. When is an "oreo" a bad thing and when it is a good thing? Are you "whitebread," or a "crab lover?" Is everything "straight," or is being "straight" a totally different thing from being "bent?" How does one work these things out? What is it about language that goes beyond the sounds uttered and the tone in which those sounds emerge? What is it about how the body is positioned in relation toward another when those sounds (in whatever tone) emerge? What is being signified by those words and what "ideas" are being re-encoded by the recipient of the person(s) assigning the signification to those sounds/tones? So your replacement of "signifier/signified" with "idea/word" (or the reverse equation, if you will ) is not an X=Y approach. It is making subtle, yet significant, changes toward what is being discussed...or to that "equation."

And I wouldn't be surprised if those other excerpts were placed in context that there might be something more to them. Else it would be like that odd 80s parody of Nancy Reagan's Just Say No campaign that took bits and pieces of words she and her husband had said over the years, spliced them together, and made a hilarious bit about them talking about all the acid, PCP, and coke they had used over the years. And when done in reverse, not in the search for a capital-T Truth but for "truth statements," postmodernist inquiries have shed some light on possible interpretations of historical and literary texts. These aren't going to be universally agreed upon, but yet they do represent an often fresh and exciting approach toward many questions about human civilizations that have puzzled many historians, literature scholars, and anthropologists for millenia. So your dismissive tone seems to indicate (perhaps I'm off here) an unwillingness to confront these concepts that seem perhaps so alien to you. A pity if this is true...

And Patches:

Yeah, that first bit is pretty much what I see from a great many. I'm a recent (2003) convert to Catholicism, in a household that is quite Evangelical, despite being nominal Methodists. I cannot help but see a reading of a book such as the Bible within the context of the traditions surrounding it, while they seem to be more rigid in their readings, seeming to believe that Christianity must proceed out of the Bible's exact words, rather than that book proceeding from the traditions and beliefs of its earliest followers. But to each their own on that - not going to explore the religious stuff here any further!

As for Harrison's other comments, I'll give you a few links:

How I Write

Justina Gets It Too

And especially this one: Licensed Settings

And as for the "personal" nature, I wonder if part of it has to do with the "audience." If I were to post about my profound love for Latin American cultures and languages at a Militiaman website, I would imagine that the audience there would tear me to shreds Harrison posted it on his Blog, just to express a thought of the moment. It was not posted on a site where there are a great many fans of this nebulous "worldbuilding." It was probably just a thought to be shared with other like-minded individuals. Remember, it was I that made this post and the earlier one on wotmania almost a week ago. I posted it on two sites where I knew there would be quite a few people who would take an opposing viewpoint to what Harrison (and to a large extent, myself) thinks on the issue. The reason why I did it wasn't just to get a reaction, but in hopes of a reaction that would lead to quite a bit of questioning about matters related toward one's concepts. Perhaps Harrison could use being challenged on his beliefs on the matter, but I would imagine that the inverse would be true as well.

There has been some thoughtful dialogue here; interesting views have been shared. But what I think many need to keep in mind that sites such as Westeros or wotmania are not representative of the totality of thought within the spec fic community(-ites?) on this and related issues. Perhaps he should have worded it differently, but if his intended audience is different than the one here, then one again has to ask the question, "Why be offended at all?" Would it be akin to the tone in which someone calls me "gringo?" Or is it a statement that is being viewed out of a larger context in which that statement was originally framed?

Never hurts to keep questioning why. But then again, I'm just a postmodernist, what do I know?

[Larry.]

Lacan was rather a charlatan. Many postmodernists have disavowed him. I would take him and a number of others as an example of the worst kinds of excesses you can have in this sort of subject, but they're not the end all and be all of postmodern theory.

I'm curious, Ran (as I do agree with you on Lacan, based on the bits I had to read of his work in grad school), which other authors would you cite as being examples of the worst kinds of excesses? I'm especially wondering about your take on Derrida's work, as I know Of Grammatology was one of the very few books that left my brain in a spinning mush-mode for a while. Probably should re-read that sometime in the near future.

[Ran]

DF,

I think Derrida is quite different from Lacan in that much of his highfalutin language actually ends up meaning something. I think he falls into a similar trap that a number of influential intellectuals fall into -- a mode of writing that's overly complex because they haven't fully considered how to trim the fat from how to communicate their ideas -- but once you boil it down he has some very clear notions. Deconstruction is an important methodology in a scholar's toolset.

In general, Dawkins is right about a tendency to appropriate and misuse -- as much from enthusiasm as anything else -- mathematical and scientific concepts. Why? Well, personally, I think some (Lacan) did it because of some need to "prove" their theories as having same rigor as mathematic and scientific theories, so appropriating their symbols was a way todo this even if they willfully misused it; dress-up was better than no dress-up. Others, though, do it because they're genuinely trying to quantify a systemic, symbolic language to get concepts across. Once everyone's learned the rules of the language, you can put forward statements in symbolic terms and know that you're getting across a pretty specific idea.

I think it's a fool's errand, mind you, but I can understand the impulse. Philosophy has seen myriad attempts to create systems of equation to try and explain concepts.

[MinDonner]

Jumping back a few posts (because all this postmodernist stuff goes right over my head - I have a vague feeling that it's all rubbish but can't really be bothered to analyse why, as it seems kinda beside the point)...

...but I'm just one of those that finds putting-the-pieces-together-type of stories to be rather dull.

Yeah, we all do. Again, that's just bad writing, and is as evident in mainstream fiction as it is with SFF. No-one wants a story where the main character spends their entire time exploring the author's wonderful map and collecting plot-coupons.

I can't help myself from wondering why people don't want to engage with the text, but only to want an author to give more and more detail that seems (to me) to detract from the prose and the story being told.

This I just don't get. Yes, some people just want a simple story without complex layers and so on... but what does that have to do with worldbuilding? Some people (myself included) read history books for fun - lots of maps and lists of dates, no subtext, no food for thought on the deeper meanings of life, no swirly prose... and no worldbuilding. I really can't understand your problem with one particular facet of one particular genre. How does worldbuilding "detract" from the story? Surely it enhances it? Saying the creation of a fantasy world is meaningless because it's "dead" sounds frankly very bizarre. Yeah, it's not real. That's why it's called fiction. By that token, why should we care about any characters in any books - they're not real either, so we shouldn't take their problems seriously.

Honestly, I find this conversation like trying to discuss (racks brain for suitable non-offensive analogy), er, telecoms regulation with a Martian. I simply cannot understand where you are coming from on this.

[Calibandar]

I want to write another big post on the fallacies of the Harrison/Dylan argument, but I find myself reading MinDonner's last post and can only second it.

Particularly;

Yes, some people just want a simple story without complex layers and so on... but what does that have to do with worldbuilding? ......How does worldbuilding "detract" from the story? Surely it enhances it?

I will never understand the Dylan/Harrison assumption that worldbuilding is extraneous, and something to look down upon. Why on Earth does the inclusion of lots of worldbuilding automate with a lack of good storytelling? And what has all this Postmodernist hogwash to do with this? Why is it ok to have lots of fancy words and little in the way of plot, characters and worldbuilding? Why is prose necessarily more important than worldbuilding, in Fantasy? Why should fiction make you want to go introspective rather than evoke a sense of wonder or simply offer a window into another world?

There's this contempt for worldbuilding in Fantasy which is so strange. The genre rightfully relies on it as one of it's prime aspects, aside from plot and characters. It does not in any way have to preclude a great story, in fact there are many examples of writers who use their secondary world to really improve upon their story. They are not mutually exclusive, and it surprises me that anyone would need to point that out.

It all boils down to taste. Harrison and Dylan don't like the Tolkien style Fantasy. Fair enough, and it's fair to question why people feel worldbuilding is essential. However I have seen a dozen thoughtful replies to that question yet Dylan still isn't satisfied. I think there comes a point where you simpy have to conclude that someone simply isn't willing to accept your reasoning, no matter the arguments. Which is why we are now running in circles. Personally I love the great worldbuilders like Tolkien, Eddison, Bakker, Erikson, Williams, Kay, Wolfe, Feist, you name 'em and see no merit in the insubstantial and " literate" books loved by Harrison/Dylan.

And I still don't see why Harrison gets to be so hypocritical.He has professed love and admiration for Moorcock, Mieville and Gene Wolfe and all three of these authors are prime worldbuilders, no matter what one may think of the quality of their work. Apparantly worldbuilding is only to be despised if it's a certain type, like for instance the sort that Tolkien ( whom he says he hates) or writers like him use.

[Stego]

And I still don't see why Harrison gets to be so hypocritical.He has professed love and admiration for Moorcock, Mieville and Gene Wolfe and all three of these authors are prime worldbuilders, no matter what one may think of the quality of their work. Apparantly worldbuilding is only to be despised if it's a certain type, like for instance the sort that Tolkien ( whom he says he hates) or writers like him use.

Like him?

You mean successful?

[Werthead]

I am intrigued as to how Scott Bakker would view this argument or be viewed by it, given that he has a lot of literary cachet in the blogosphere but simultaneously engages in 'subcreation for the sheer fun of it' as Tolkien called it (check out the last 100 pages of The Thousandfold Thought).

I find the whole argument tiresome. The world is either a character in its own right (as New Crobuzon is in Perdido Street Station or Arrakis is in Dune) or it is merely a backdrop providing context for the story. In both cases, giving it greater detail and texture seperate from the story is a worthy goal. If you don't like it or feel it's doing some of the reader's work for him, then that is okay. Even Tolkien reflected on this, saying that anyone who felt the "unexplained vistas" of Middle-earth (the odd mention of Beren or Luthien here, the mention of the Silmarils or Morgoth there) were part of the literary effect of reading the novel would very properly neglect the appendices, and Christopher later extended this to The Silmarillion and Unfnished Tales. But does this invalidate the experiences of the people who enjoy reading that information? Absolutely not.

[Nerdanel]

The Dawkins "essay" is not an essay at all but a book review of a book not written by him. Naturally it can only give an overview of the arguments presented in the book. If you want a more comphrehensive version, read the book.

I've read for fun a couple of biology books (The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene) written by Dawkins. He writes popular science well and his science is good. He's the guy who came up with the memes, so he can do original thinking too. That clarity of style is no exception in hard science. For example a classic of my field (one from which we got to read excerpts in class), The Mythical Man Month, is written in plain language nothing like Derrida. My densest math course material presents its subject nothing like Derrida although you need to read slowly because formulas are a very dense way of representing information so that you can express in a line what would take a long paragraph otherwise, and with less confusion. Lacan's formulas only add to the confusion since they misuse the mathematical notation.

For a real language theorist with formulas that actually means something, look at Noam Chomsky. He gets talked about in computer science classes, and his research into formal languages has increased the understanding of programming language design and compiler construction. Interestingly, Wikipedia has a quote in which Noam Chomsky disagrees with the postmodernist and post-structuralist criticism of science.

I'm wondering if this whole thing is really about whether one believes in an objective reality. If you happen to think even science is just an opinion, you probably aren't too keen of objective realities in fiction either. I'm not at all sure if this is correct though, as I hold such an approach to reality incomphrehensible.

And as for the "personal" nature, I wonder if part of it has to do with the "audience." If I were to post about my profound love for Latin American cultures and languages at a Militiaman website, I would imagine that the audience there would tear me to shreds.

Um, I think Harrison's original post is more comparable to him complaining about the inferiority of Latino culture with language such as "the great clomping foot of Latinism" and "the psychological type of a Latino artist and a Latino artist's victim", finishing by saying that the existence of Latino culture makes him very afraid.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

Um, I think Harrison's original post is more comparable to him complaining about the inferiority of Latino culture with language such as "the great clomping foot of Latinism" and "the psychological type of a Latino artist and a Latino artist's victim", finishing by saying that the existence of Latino culture makes him very afraid.

Personally I read it even worse, since Latino isn't an insult word per se (or is it? Not being a natve speaker I can't be sure) It is as if he wrote about gay literature and used words like "the great stomping foot of faggotism" etc.