I'm not sure, but I think we might be debating from the opposite ends of the elephant (and not the one in the room, just the one with the thick tail versus the skinny one).
Ninth book, really, on that I agree: an extensive # of books really only works in an episodic sense. VI Warshowski can manage that (with a minimal arc in the background, mostly personal), because as a detective, she's going to go from case to case. Same with Hillerman's Chee; I've read that character from a bumbling junior police officer to a senior officer in his own right. I cannot think of any series in which the villian has remained the same guy-behind-the-curtain for more than six or seven books (and even those books are filled, by necessity, with front-stage conflicts that push the villian to the background for long stretches, a la Harry Potter).
I know Anghara didn't mean her words as an arrogant, "I wrote it, you bought it, we're done," kind of thing (I know her in person, so I know she'd be absolutely astounded and hurt if someone were to get that impression). But I do think some authors have that attitude, and writing the story the author wants, and saying, "that's it, I don't owe you anything," ignores that the author, in writing, has implicit agreements as part of the storytelling. That's basically what I'm outlining: what those implicit agreements are.
Which, really, boil down to: when I move the story along, I'll give you some kind of explanation/reason/justification so as to make it believeable, comprehensible, reasonable for you. Yes, I spent $15 on that book, and the author owes it to me -- within the story -- to make that money worth it.
Perhaps 'owe' isn't the entirely right word (although it has connotations of 'damn it, this is not a one-way street, you cannot say it's done just because you have my money now' that do fit what i mean). Perhaps it's more like...hrm. That I'm clarifying, here, the dangers of thinking that writing a story, publishing, having people purchase it, means that you've done something right.
In fact, it may be that the unhappy percentage are all unhappy for different reasons -- just as much as the happy percentage are all happy for different reasons. Do they keep reading because they're so deprived of solid gay/lesbian characters that they'll take any amount of bad grammar and pap just to get something? Or is your setting so divine, so spot-on, that they'll ignore the main protag just for the background folks? How do you know?
Anyway, incidentally, I've never seen a single review from anyone -- positive or negative -- that says they like LKH's writing style. What they seem to like, and consistently focus on, is that they liked having a female protag who kicked ass, and they're mad she's now just a mattress.
no subject
Date: 5 Jan 2007 02:13 am (UTC)Ninth book, really, on that I agree: an extensive # of books really only works in an episodic sense. VI Warshowski can manage that (with a minimal arc in the background, mostly personal), because as a detective, she's going to go from case to case. Same with Hillerman's Chee; I've read that character from a bumbling junior police officer to a senior officer in his own right. I cannot think of any series in which the villian has remained the same guy-behind-the-curtain for more than six or seven books (and even those books are filled, by necessity, with front-stage conflicts that push the villian to the background for long stretches, a la Harry Potter).
I know Anghara didn't mean her words as an arrogant, "I wrote it, you bought it, we're done," kind of thing (I know her in person, so I know she'd be absolutely astounded and hurt if someone were to get that impression). But I do think some authors have that attitude, and writing the story the author wants, and saying, "that's it, I don't owe you anything," ignores that the author, in writing, has implicit agreements as part of the storytelling. That's basically what I'm outlining: what those implicit agreements are.
Which, really, boil down to: when I move the story along, I'll give you some kind of explanation/reason/justification so as to make it believeable, comprehensible, reasonable for you. Yes, I spent $15 on that book, and the author owes it to me -- within the story -- to make that money worth it.
Perhaps 'owe' isn't the entirely right word (although it has connotations of 'damn it, this is not a one-way street, you cannot say it's done just because you have my money now' that do fit what i mean). Perhaps it's more like...hrm. That I'm clarifying, here, the dangers of thinking that writing a story, publishing, having people purchase it, means that you've done something right.
In fact, it may be that the unhappy percentage are all unhappy for different reasons -- just as much as the happy percentage are all happy for different reasons. Do they keep reading because they're so deprived of solid gay/lesbian characters that they'll take any amount of bad grammar and pap just to get something? Or is your setting so divine, so spot-on, that they'll ignore the main protag just for the background folks? How do you know?
Anyway, incidentally, I've never seen a single review from anyone -- positive or negative -- that says they like LKH's writing style. What they seem to like, and consistently focus on, is that they liked having a female protag who kicked ass, and they're mad she's now just a mattress.