Debuts and Hype

[Shryke]

I hate to say it, but I think it may be an age thing. "Datedness" has been around forever.

Jazz vs Classical
Rock and Roll vs everything
Punk vs Rock and Roll
Steel vs Iron

"Your still using Flint? That is SO last century Og"

[Lord of Oop North]

[quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1371479' date='May 26 2008, 17.47']I'm seeing this more as a cultural issue, one in which "datedness" is itself a very recent cultural development.[/quote]

I'm not so sure about that. Various things have been going in and out of fashion for centuries. Whether it be music, literature, clothing, hair styles, architecture, or whatever.

[quote]I'm posing questions here, not answers. But here's an observation: by claiming that certain works become "dated" within a generation, is not the unspoken but presumed furthering of that statement implying that the work in question is disposable and thus really has no lasting merit? And if that be the case, then would the overwhelmingly vast majority of the "debuts" in any genre end up being worth as much as a Mister Mister CD twenty years from now?[/quote]

I think that's an interesting question.

I don't believe it means that the art has no merit for a younger generation, just that it doesn't particularly resonate with them. Witness the cultural shift between the 'baby boomers' and their parents. The music of the past didn't really speak to those people, so they turned to Rock n' Roll . But this does not mean what came before is pointless or of no value. It's simply a widespread shift in attitude and values. Certain things go out of style for a while, until a new generation discovers them and for whatever reason, it appeals to them. I'll use Garage Rock as an example. In the mid-60s, it was insanely popular, but eventually fell out of the spotlight. After basically disappearing for 25 years, it has recently exploded in popularity.

People change, and since art is entirely subjective, the percieved value of that art changes over time.

[Larry.]

You're a bit more optimistic about this than I am; I'm used to viewing this through discontinuities and breaks that do not really come back into vogue.

[Lord of Oop North]

[quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1371502' date='May 26 2008, 18.16']You're a bit more optimistic about this than I am; I'm used to viewing this through discontinuities and breaks that do not really come back into vogue.[/quote]

What exactly are you worried about? That no one is going to read those authors?

[salinea]

[quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1371260' date='May 26 2008, 21.51']The point about a time lapse is merely that it tends to be a filter of sorts, allowing for a wide range of opinions to be gathered in regards to [i]popular[/i] reactions to any given hyped product. Don't see where the "elitist" aspects come into it, but perhaps that's because I'm not concerned with that *shrug*[/quote]
You do realise that if nobody at all buy products in the early time of its release, the industry will die away?

[salinea]

[quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1371479' date='May 27 2008, 00.47']I suspect part of the issue here is the lens through which each is viewing this. I'm seeing this more as a cultural issue, one in which "datedness" is itself a very recent cultural development.[/quote]
Do you count the 17th and 18th century as "very recent"? I'm pretty sure there's some satire out there about fashion, trends and hype of the new hot thing - including for literature. Moliere always bored me to tears so I can't remember any specific case, but I'd be surprised if I was wrong.

[salinea]

[quote name='Werthead' post='1371441' date='May 26 2008, 23.49']That I think is the suspicion that a lot of people hold over 'older' books: that they are old, dated and do not appeal to modern tastes. We may know that is BS. Some books - like Wolfe's or Zelazny's - feel as fresh now as they did thirty years ago[/quote]
Hahahahahha! I love Zelazny's writing dearly, but fresh as snow isn't the qualification I wouldn't have used to describe his writing. The sexism and the quirkiness it is blindingly obvious, if occasionally charmingly old fashioned. I'd need to read more Wolfe, it's more than ten years since I read the Urth series...

[Werthead]

[quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1371479' date='May 26 2008, 23.47']I'm posing [i]questions[/i] here, not answers. But here's an observation: by claiming that certain works become "dated" within a generation, is not the unspoken but presumed furthering of that statement implying that the work in question is disposable and thus really has no lasting merit? And if that be the case, then would the overwhelmingly vast majority of the "debuts" in any genre end up being worth as much as a Mister Mister CD twenty years from now?[/quote]

Absolutely. Very few works survive in the long run. [b]The Book of the New Sun[/b], [b]Thomas Covenant[/b] and, erm, [b]Shannara[/b] have all survived from the late 1970s because they were major works or represented a cultural zeitgeist of the time. How many hundreds or thousands of books, many of which were no doubt worthwhile in their own right, published at the same time have completely fallen out of view and these days no-one's ever heard of them? I don't see how this is avoidable, myself.

[Lord of Oop North]

Also:

I don't really percieve myself as optimistc, just realistic. We can't control how people are going to react to art. If they don't like what is presented to them, it does not mean it was a failure. Art is too subjective for that. Our culture is constantly evolving, and it is a given that certain things are going to fall by the wayside. We replace those things with newer things. Things that hold more meaning for our present selves. If something has no percieved value to me, then why would I read it?

I am not the person I was ten years ago, and my tastes have changed. I'm going to react differently to a novel that is presented to me now, than if it was presented to me in the past. If I pick up [i]The Blade Itself[/i] and it blows me out of the water, should I calm myself down? Should I say to myself "No, you must wait and see. This may just be a passing fad."? Somehow, I don't think so. Sure, it's nice to see a piece of work stand the test of time, but that does not necessarily deride the quality of those pieces, which have been forgotten.

I see this as an unavoidable situation, since it has been going on for five or six millenia.

edit: sorry, mistakes :)

[Larry.]

[quote name='Lord of Oop North' post='1371505' date='May 26 2008, 18.18']What exactly are you worried about? That no one is going to read those authors?[/quote]

I'll use this question to answer the ones below it as well:

I'm more concerned about the links of past and present, of the accretions of culture, and of symbolic discourse. If too many people fail to be grounded in what comes before, a whole history of discourse can be lost. To put it another way, it may fall to specialists such as myself to "wrest" out of an older text layers of meaning and reference that those who are not as well-read in that field will fail to grasp. A possible example, albeit not a 100% great one: I finished reading Gregory Frost's upcoming [i]Lord Tophet[/i] yesterday. It is a story that uses stories to tell a larger one. A great many of those stories have a direct link to the past 300-400 years. While "pinottos" will be more obvious, Enkidu will not, and perhaps the origin of "joys impregnate. Sorrows bring forth" will be lost.

As for "very recent," I'm referring to the development of modern languages and their shifts. I just don't know if English today is becoming enriched or impoverished or if the very language of discourse is about to shift wildly. It's an uneasy feeling I have about it. Literature is part of one's cultural heritage and while I certainly am not opposed to discovering new authors (far from it, in fact), I think some are misunderstanding my apprehension about the possibility that too much of a focus is being placed on the new at the expense of the established. If a work is "dated," it is mostly because that work became disposable. Are there "indisposable" works? Depends on how one approaches it, but I would argue that being unaware of one's own rich cultural tradition is one of the most self-impoverishing things that could happen to a person. It would be as if one were to lack the tools to accomplish a fine, minutely-detailed work. Yet this is not to argue that the new cannot be of value, as there are many fine newish contributions to global cultures emerging each year. However, to place such a value on the "future" or "present" at the expense of "tradition" or "the past" is worrisome, as it risks undermining our semantical connections with our own languages.

But perhaps, as I said before, this is something that bothers me more because of what I was trained to do. Others are bound to see it differently. I can only hope that my position is understood and not misinterpreted, no? :D

[salinea]

[quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1371537' date='May 27 2008, 01.58']I think some are misunderstanding my apprehension about the possibility that too much of a focus is being placed on the new at the expense of the established.[/quote]
False dichotomy. It is not because new things foster discussions and interest that it means old things suddenly stop attracting the same interest. If you look at the 10 best SFF writers vote done recently, you'll see classic writers along the new ones. Classics do keep on being the subject of discussions and gossips, definitely. If anything, in terms of publishing, it seems to me there's more of a trend for reedition of Anglosaxon SFF classics now than there were previously on, such as the Fantasy Masterwork editions and a couple of others (don't know the name of the publisher, but they reedited Dispossessed and Lord of Light recently for example)

[Lord of Oop North]

[quote]But perhaps, as I said before, this is something that bothers me more because of what I was trained to do. Others are bound to see it differently. I can only hope that my position is understood and not misinterpreted, no? :D[/quote]

Yes, I think I understand you and I suppose it does sort of bother me as well. I don't think 'dated' works are necessarily bad or should be forgotten about. So hopefully you didn't get that idea from my posts.

The problem, as I see it, is that you can't really force someone to appreciate literature (or any art). Do you remember that thread about people's most hated classics? All those posters were forced to read those novels (or poems, or plays, or whatever) and ended up hating them. Those books held no value to them. Why should we continue to make people read literature that they won't enjoy? If something is 'part of my culture' and I don't enjoy it, am I really part of that culture? If the disconnect is that large, then why even bother? To me, it seems counter-productive. I happen to think this is a major cause of the decline in reading among youth. They are presented with 'literature' that they don't enjoy, and thus they begin to see reading as an unenjoyable pastime.

Maybe the solution is to show them that reading can be enjoyable, before throwing them into the fray? Perhaps the grounding in the classics should come later? The blacksmith must continually thrust his sword into the forge before his has his finished product. I don't think reading has to be about discovering our cultural traditions, at least not at first. Maybe that is uncultured of me, but there it is. I think I'm being realistic.

Also, I don't think whole literary traditions are going to be lost, if only because literary circles are populated by people of a like mind with you. The ones who are able to influence people's choices are also the ones who seem to care the most about 'classics'. I'm not trying to be snide, but am just making an observation, as I don't think there is anything wrong with that position.

[Larry.]

I already addressed that - I said above that it isn't the new itself, but rather the fetishization of "newness" that is of concern to me. There's a big semantical difference, or as Slavoj Žižek might call it, a "parallax" going on. If (that damnable conditional) the "old" is viewed as something to be disposed of, as of being little more than a fad, and not as being something that has a value of its own, then there might be reason to be concerned. Valuing both is not what I was talking about; I was addressing the perception that as a [i]material cultural[/i] matter (bump this way past literature, music, and into the realm of socio-cultural discourse here), this development might have deleterious effects on a whole host of matters. I'm not looking at either/or situations here as much as possible implications of raising "newness" to the level of a Cult, similar to what Modris Eksteins addressed in his [i]Rites of Spring[/i] cultural history of World War I and its immediate aftermath. Totally different set of interpretive tools would be required to look at that than what you mention above.

Or to put it even more bluntly - if the "new" is [b]overvalued[/b] compared to the "old," would it be a matter of some apprehension if it is pervasive and occurring throughout a culture's material aspects? I would argue that it might be, for the consequences of the discontinuities that may occur as a result.

And LooN, I'll put this in very stark and personal terms as to why I'm worried: I'm not completely a WASP. Over half of my ancestry is Irish and by the time that my ancestors left for the US from the 17th-19th centuries, so much of the original culture had been wiped out, forcibly. Another major part of my ancestry is Cherokee and Chickasaw. Hardly a single cultural element inherited from those two ethnic groups, again forcibly. That happens and is tragic, I know, and knowing this shapes my attitudes. What is occurring is the failure to transmit and to dessiminate very large parts of our shared cultural heritage, in a much more insidious fashion, via apathy and a spotty education. I don't advocate "forcing" anyone into learning matters; I just merely shake my head at how much is willingly being forsaken. For what? What is gained by stripping down the language (as some would argue) and removing so many nuances from it? Is it worth it?

I just don't know. But I fear it's not.

[Xray the Enforcer]

[quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1371570' date='May 26 2008, 19.39']I already addressed that - I said above that it isn't the new itself, but rather the fetishization of "newness"[/quote]

I submit that you haven't actually established that there [i]is[/i] a fetishization of "new," either here or elsewhere (aside from your anecdotal evidence), nor have you established that this is actually deleterious to the genre as a whole.

I'm not trying to unduly pick on you, Larry, but you are engaging in some seriously specious handwringing, with absolutely no data to back it up.

[Werthead]

[quote]I'm more concerned about the links of past and present, of the accretions of culture, and of symbolic discourse...[/quote]

All of which is fine, but the original point was that someone had expressed an interest in if there were any 'big new 2008 releases' around in the same way that there had been for the last 3-4 years. I don't necessarily think that that is symptomatic of the collapse of appreciation for the 'classics' (as Etrangere points out, publishers are actually investing more time and money now than at any time for years in reprinting 'the classics' of the genre). For myself, the lack of 'huge' new 2008 releases means I can spend more time investing in exactly those classics that I've neglected up until now. For example, Zelazny's [i]Lord of Light[/i] and [i]Amber[/i] are on my reading list at the moment, as is [i]The Fall of Hyperion[/i] and some vintage Aldiss, as well as brand-new works like Esslemont, the new Erikson and Morgan and so forth.

[quote]But perhaps, as I said before, this is something that bothers me more because of what I was trained to do. Others are bound to see it differently. I can only hope that my position is understood and not misinterpreted, no? :D[/quote]

This isn't the first time you've brought up your academic background here, but it has happened so many times and been commented on a fair bit that I do feel the need to ask [i]why[/i] you need to validate every other post with this information? The number of people on this board with academic qualifications is extremely high, they just don't trumpet them to the same degree. I understand you want people to know from what angle you are approaching a debate or review from, but we're not goldfishes. We do remember stuff that you mentioned just the other day ;)

[salinea]

[quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1371570' date='May 27 2008, 02.39']I already addressed that - I said above that it isn't the new itself, but rather the fetishization of "newness" that is of concern to me.[/quote]
Fetishization of oldness also occurs, and can also be a bummer trust me. Although I'm willing to assume that there's slightly more of a comemoration rage around in the US than in France.

[quote]There's a big semantical difference, or as Slavoj Žižek might call it, a "parallax" going on.[/quote]
I've just looked this up on the wikipedia, and instead of feeling smarter for it, I still have no clue what you're trying to say.

[quote]If (that damnable conditional) the "old" is viewed as something to be disposed of, as of being little more than a fad, and not as being something that has a value of its own, then there might be reason to be concerned. Valuing both is not what I was talking about; I was addressing the perception that as a [i]material cultural[/i] matter (bump this way past literature, music, and into the realm of socio-cultural discourse here), this development might have deleterious effects on a whole host of matters. I'm not looking at either/or situations here as much as possible implications of raising "newness" to the level of a Cult, similar to what Modris Eksteins addressed in his [i]Rites of Spring[/i] cultural history of World War I and its immediate aftermath. Totally different set of interpretive tools would be required to look at that than what you mention above.[/quote]
Gosh. I still see no signs that this is something be feared. On the SFF realms or on any other cultural realm. Do you have any evidence of such?

[quote]Or to put it even more bluntly - if the "new" is [b]overvalued[/b] compared to the "old," would it be a matter of some apprehension if it is pervasive and occurring throughout a culture's material aspects? I would argue that it might be, for the consequences of the discontinuities that may occur as a result.[/quote]
Why wouldn't it be? You'd just have to look through various curriculars and sales numbers to see if that happens. Doesn't sound like something hard to measure, nor like something no one has any interest in measuring (since people just love whining about the good old days and the decreasing standarts of literateness and culture...)

[quote]Over half of my ancestry is Irish and by the time that my ancestors left for the US from the 17th-19th centuries, so much of the original culture had been wiped out, forcibly. Another major part of my ancestry is Cherokee and Chickasaw. Hardly a single cultural element inherited from those two ethnic groups, again forcibly. That happens and is tragic, I know, and knowing this shapes my attitudes.[/quote]
I'm not LooN but I can't see how you compare a situation of ethnocide through violent means, in a context of oppression and systematic abuse, to that of trends and topics of discussion on the internet. I mean, seriously?

[Lord of Oop North]

[quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1371570' date='May 26 2008, 19.39']I already addressed that - I said above that it isn't the new itself, but rather the fetishization of "newness" that is of concern to me.
.....
Or to put it even more bluntly - if the "new" is [b]overvalued[/b] compared to the "old," would it be a matter of some apprehension if it is pervasive and occurring throughout a culture's material aspects? I would argue that it might be, for the consequences of the discontinuities that may occur as a result.[/quote]

I think you may be overestimating how much our culture values the "new". Heck, we fetish the "old" authors just as much (if not more, in my opinion) and sometimes to the point of incredulity. Do you have any reason to believe it has ever been any different? Also, what consequences? The loss of 'cultural identity'? You can't disseminate cultural identity simply by studying literature. Sometimes the past just isn't relevant any more.

[quote]For what? What is gained by stripping down the language (as some would argue) and removing so many nuances from it? Is it worth it?[/quote]

I don't know. Are you sure this is happening? Most of the world wasn't even literate before the 20th century, so I doubt the language of the 'common man' was very nuanced in those days. Although I can understand your concern about the devaluation of proper English and the rise of simpler (for lack of a better word) language.

--

[quote]That happens and is tragic, I know, and knowing this shapes my attitudes. What is occurring is the failure to transmit and to dessiminate very large parts of our shared cultural heritage, in a much more insidious fashion, via apathy and a spotty education. I don't advocate "forcing" anyone into learning matters[/quote]

Our education is spotty relative to when? A century ago, literary tastes were largely determined by an elite class of privilege and did not necessarily represent the culture of the 'common man'. Maybe that is not really part of our cultural heritage, but simply something that was insidiously forced upon the majority of the population.

--

[quote]I've just looked this up on the wikipedia, and instead of feeling smarter for it, I still have no clue what you're trying to say.[/quote]

Yeah, I'm just an eejit commoner, so I'm not sure what you meant by that either. Sorry. :)

[Arthmail]

Dylanfanatic:
- I misunderstood you from earlier, its been a long day of headaches. (literally, not figuratively)

I can certainly see where you are coming from. I think much of your focus is obviously derived from the fact that your concerns are part of your profession (at least from what i have gleaned).

I personally don't believe that the New is overvalued compared to the Old. Classic works stand or fall, however, based on their own merits, much the same as new works. I think your concern stems from the fact that we, as a culture, are moving away from a rich history of language into something different. I can see how this is a cause for concern.

But a richness of language does not necessarily denote a work that is worth reading. Though i certainly think that language is being dumbed down at an accelerated pace, especially considering the texting and emailing cultures that have arisen in the last ten years, i personally am of the belief that the story is what is important.

There has been this sort of slow decline for probably a thousand years, lamented mostly by passionate lovers of language such as yourself, who worry about the dumbing down and the new baseness of language. Those who raged against Tolkien loved Joyce, though now for many Tolkien is simply too much. So in that sense, i suppose you are correct. The language is loosing its nuance, the gracefull elegance of past times.

Yet that is the ever changing nature of language. Should it be lamented and worried about, or simply taken as something that is going to happen. There is no stopping the tide.

But the new is, in all honesty, only reflections of what is the modern vernacular. Those that seek to expand will always do so, falling back on what has come before. But most are not of that mind set, and will refuse to do so. The old works are not lost, or forgotten. If they are good they will still be there in time.

[Arthmail]

[quote name='Lord of Oop North' post='1371606' date='May 26 2008, 21.18']I think you may be overestimating how much our culture values the "new". Heck, we fetish the "old" authors just as much (if not more, in my opinion) and sometimes to the point of incredulity. Do you have any reason to believe it has ever been any different? Also, what consequences? The loss of 'cultural identity'? You can't disseminate cultural identity simply by studying literature. Sometimes the past just isn't relevant any more.



I don't know. Are you sure this is happening? Most of the world wasn't even literate before the 20th century, so I doubt the language of the 'common man' was very nuanced in those days.[/quote]


While the majority might not have been as literate as we are now, i think there was still a certain form and function to everyday language that is not often seen now. Though in terms of literacy rates, you are certainly correct, i think even in terms of how words were spoken there has been a great deal of change. And i have to admit, for the most part, i don't necessarily think it has been for the better. While i don't believe that making sentences needlessly complicated is appealing, we are certainly getting to the stage where listening to some people speak is like listening to someone with no formal education speak. My brother, for instance, is a prime example. Though smart in his own way, his interests have delved into a different realm than my own, and listening to him speak makes me wince. Perhaps as i am not entereing middle age, but am older than my brother by six years, i sit between DF and the likes of the next generation. He is disturbed by the changes that he sees, which i cannot see because i am not of his generation. But when looking back at my brothers generation, i myself am disturbed, whereas my brothers generation does not care.

[Lord of Oop North]

[quote name='Arthmail' post='1371617' date='May 26 2008, 20.30']While i don't believe that making sentences needlessly complicated is appealing, we are certainly getting to the stage where listening to some people speak is like listening to someone with no formal education speak.[/quote]

But the world was already like that. A century ago, the vast majority of people had no formal education to speak of. I don't see any reason to believe that the common language was any more nuanced than it is today. Logic suggests that the everyday language of the majority of the population was even simpler than it is today. I've run in circles of the 'uneducated' before and believe me, they have an entirely different way of speaking. Just ask niamh, she knows what I'm talking about. Through our education system, we have inherited the 'nuanced language' of the educated class of the past. It has affected you and I more than we dare to believe. The way of speaking of our forefathers has been mostly replaced by it.

It seems that people want to think that the people of the past were all well-spoken, much moreso than the people of today. But that's just not true.