Hmmph.

[mrissa]

I have often told people that they should read widely in the fields they're attempting to write in, so they know what is and isn't being done already.

Yet half the time I read a discussion of what fantasy isn't doing but maybe could, I think, well, hell, I'm doing that. But I didn't think about it that way. I didn't notice that other people weren't doing the thing that looked natural to me. I just kind of did something in the background with technology or with forms of government or heaven knows what, because that was what belonged there, and the thing I was actually thinking about was something completely different. Like narwhals.

That first sentence up there? It is no longer anything but an excuse to read lots of books.

Comments

[alecaustin.livejournal.com]

It's an excuse to read lots of books right up until something you've read becomes critical in how you think about your own work.

Besides, who needs an excuse to read lots of books?

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Well, sure, but something I've read becoming critical in how I think about my own work isn't even mostly limited to other things in the same genre(s).

It's not that I don't still think it's a good idea. I'm just feeling a little dense that it doesn't seem to be working quite that way.

[alecaustin.livejournal.com]

I'm not exactly sure what "it doesn't seem to be working quite that way" is referring to, but this is possibly because being sick has rendered me stupid.

Meanwhile, recent events to which you are privy (see my LJ) have reminded me extremely clearly of why reading widely in the field is a Very Good Idea. Not that I ever thought that you doubted that...

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

"It doesn't seem to be working quite that way" means that apparently there's a lot not going on in fantasy, and I just haven't noticed. And it's not along the lines of "I thought it all had to have elves" style of didn't-notice, it's the "Do they really all have elves? I didn't notice that." kind.

But yes, I still do really think reading widely in one's field(s) is a good idea.

And not just for fiction-writing; I think reviews from people who haven't read much have their own interest value, somewhat, sort of...but only limitedly so. So damn many of them fall into the "I thought it all had to have elves" style of not knowing anything. "Neil Gaiman is so creative because he doesn't have elves!" Yarrrrrg, no, shut up. "J.K. Rowling is so creative because it's set, like, at a school!" As yhlee would say (if she was still around, sigh), spork spork spork!

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

Yes! You can argue that Gaiman and Rowling are creative. But (general) you really ought to find actual, y'know, examples.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Yes. Exactly.

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

Also, I am consistently stunned by how many people get really. angry. when you answer "Why doesn't fantasy ever do...?" questions with, "Well, it does."

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

They do. But I get kind of annoyed with them for the question in the first place. You don't get to read two books in a genre and then make sweeping pronouncements about the whole thing.

Did I tell you about the guy in my fiction studio who thought my work was a lot more reminiscent of Golden Age than of modern SF, and why?

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

You did not. Please do?

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Heh. So I turned in the story that eventually won the Asimov Award. (I think I changed one sentence after the fiction studio critted it. If that.) And most people started their crit by saying, "I don't usually read this kind of thing, so take my opinion for what it's worth." But one guy started his with, "I think you're really getting back to the roots of the genre with this. The style was more modern, but what you were doing with the story felt a lot more like the old classic stuff than some of the modern stuff, and I think that's a good thing." Flattered, I asked if he could expand on that.

"Well," he said, "the older stuff I've read is Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke. The newer stuff is Terry Brooks and Robert Jordan, and I think your ideas are a lot more like the older stuff than the newer. And I think that's a good thing!" Uh...huh. Or it could be that this is a science fiction story, and the two newer writers were doing fantasy? SIGH.

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

That's...wow.

Heh.

That's too bad.

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

(And re: the first paragraph: YES.)

[katallen.livejournal.com]

I suspect I fall in with passing on that advice because of the number of people I run across who believe that they'll make a fortune revolutionising x genre... and either don't understand that it's already been done, or don't realise that what they want to do wouldn't particularly fit in that genre.

Still, nothing wrong in advising a writr to read :o)

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Yah, I've run into all kinds of "revolutionary" people who wanted to do something that was maybe revolutionary in 1970, maybe. And some of them were actively opposed to reading relevant works I recommended, because they didn't want to "taint" their own artistic vision.

As for artistic vision, mine is as pure as...well, as that expression about the English language, I suppose.

[scottjames.livejournal.com]

I'm like a shark, I have to... keep making analogies.