|
savinhill posted:I started Red Moon by Benjamin Percy today and I love it so far. It begins with werewolves committing 9-11, and as ridiculous as that sounds it's really good, it got that Stephen King epic feel to it. That... sounds so loving crazy I'm sorely tempted. I'm a sucker for a story with a totally insane premise.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 03:11 |
|
|
FowlTheOwl posted:There are though, aren't there? They just need more promotion and interest because they might be a tough sell. Once minorities are more successful more would be writing. Maybe they need a award within the Hugos or Nebulas to promote minority writing in some way to help sales. Why is this even a thing? I have a good couple hundred books and I only really know what a few of the authors look like, let alone whether they're a minority of some sort. It's text on a page, if you want equality just stop putting pictures of the author in the liner I guess?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Why is this even a thing? I have a good couple hundred books and I only really know what a few of the authors look like, let alone whether they're a minority of some sort. It's text on a page, if you want equality just stop putting pictures of the author in the liner I guess? Because people from different backgrounds think and write differently and there's no evidence that the stuff produced today would lower in quality if we had people from different backgrounds writing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Why is this even a thing? I have a good couple hundred books and I only really know what a few of the authors look like, let alone whether they're a minority of some sort. It's text on a page, if you want equality just stop putting pictures of the author in the liner I guess? And scrub their names from the covers, and normalize all the topics they write about and the language they use? You can't obfuscate someone's gender, culture, and country of origin just by removing the picture. There's good quantitative evidence that minority and women authors have a harder time landing book deals, don't get paid as much, and receive less recognition for their work. (This is true in most other fields, or at least it was last time I was heavily involved in research on the topic.) Fortunately, SF/F does seem to be making decent progress on this front. I don't mean to be snide, though, it's admirable to not care! But skew still happens. We sometimes go pages in this thread without mentioning women authors, even though they're pretty active and always have been. I'd bet that most of the people in this thread are egalitarian-minded and just want to read good fiction. Network effects and availability heuristic can skew blind picks. General Battuta fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Feb 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Oh so it's a publisher side thing rather than a buyer thing? Or do people really avoid books because a woman/minority wrote it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Both. I added a little bit about the mechanisms above. When I was in social psychology we studied unintentional bias, the kind of bias that pops up in groups of well-meaning egalitarian people. It's usually driven by very subtle tendencies and habits, not by flamingly obvious racism and misogyny. So on the publisher side, an editor might look between two submissions and settle on the one that's under the more familiar name, rationalizing it as a safer pick on the market. On the reader side, an active SF/F reader might scan over blurbs and pick a book with a setting and plot that sounds familiar, since they're exhausted and don't want to confront a stressful and confusing read. Or they might get on a forum, ask about authors similar to one they've read, and get responses that are, indeed, similar - maybe because the authors are friends and talk about each other a lot. General Battuta fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Feb 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Plenty of writers and editors seeking the cool new thing, too. Non-American* writers have even more basic facts stacked against them. Smaller populations or smaller Anglophone publishing industries mean there are less likely to be local magazines or publishing houses that will accept their work, forcing them to compete in the big pool of all writers. Same if their publishing industry just isn't interested. Or they're writing in their own language and translation adds a lot more problems to getting recognition in English. *I'm not weeping for the poor oppressed Canadians, Brits, Irish, Saffers, etc, but all the new Nebula novel/novella nominees except Ken Liu and Cixin Liu are American. E: Forgot to add that writers from different cultures are likely to be making assumptions based on those different cultures, making them less accessible for people who don't know about that culture, making their work innocently undervalued. Eg a story based on a Greek myth is a lot more comprehensible to one based on even a well-known Chinese myth. Safety Biscuits fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Feb 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
Short fiction's got some non-Americans, though. Aliette de Bodard and Usman Malik off the top of my head.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Short fiction's got some non-Americans, though. Aliette de Bodard and Usman Malik off the top of my head. The only others I could find were Tom Crosshill - he's Latvian - and Alyssa Wong who is Filipina and wrote this: quote:I was also incredibly excited to find out that I’m the first Filipin@/person of Filipin@ descent to be nominated for the Nebula. It’s humbling, more than a little terrifying, and a huge honor. It’s also a sign that American SFF, a field that was once very white and male, continues to broaden to include, nurture, and provide space for people of color, people in non-Western countries, and people who write in languages other than English. This year alone, the Nebula slate includes French-Vietnamese award winner Aliette de Bodard; indomitable Cixin Liu, writing in Chinese and translated into English by the brilliant Ken Liu; and newcomer Usman T. Malik, the first Pakistani Nebula nominee. It’s heartening and beautiful to see. (That @ is a circle with an "a" inside it on her Twitter, it looks really cool.) Anyway, all I did was some quick & dirty googling/Wikipedia-ing, and I might have left a non-American out. I admit that "Americans" covers many cultures and ethnicities, but even the non-Americans have strong ties to the US, e.g. Crosshill lived there, de Bodard was born there, Malik and Ken Liu do, and Cixin Liu of course was translated by him. I'd've expected at least one British writer, but no. This is probably partially due to the fact that Nebula nominees must be published in the US, but it shows how difficult it is for someone to be noticed from outside the US. E: Oh yeah, don't forget to go and post in the worldbuilding thread, tia Safety Biscuits fucked around with this message at 08:24 on Feb 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
I don't get it. What's a Filipinat?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:I don't get it. What's a Filipinat? I'd guess it's just a quick way of saying Filipino/Filipina
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 10:05
|
|
|
House Louse posted:The only others I could find were Tom Crosshill - he's Latvian - and Alyssa Wong who is Filipina and wrote this: Also, worth mentioning is that Crosshill uses an English translation of his real name as a pseudonym. Presumably the thinking was that a foreign name would be a harder sell. I don't know if it's because publishers are less willing to pick up a female or foreign author in a genre stereotypically dominated by white male readers or buyers themselves (unconsciously) choosing books by people whose world-view might be reasonably guessed to be closer to theirs. And I'm not sure if it mattered all that much in the end for Crosshill, although him being noticed does talk in favour of his approach. But lack of promotion for fiction in translation and minority writing is a problem throughout literature, not only in sci-fi. Here's an overview by about the represantation of women authors in publishing from a guy who reads 100+ translated books every year: http://www.complete-review.com/quarterly/vol3/issue4/sexist.htm . There are follow-ups scattered throughout his blog, but the situation hasn't changed much. Although this is about literary fiction, I suspect similar issues apply to SF/F, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
Safety Factor posted:I'd guess it's just a quick way of saying Filipino/Filipina Yes, it is. Using an '@' to replace the 'a'/'o' which indicates gender is a common resource in spanish (and probably other gendered languages).
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 12:25
|
|
|
Safety Factor posted:I'd guess it's just a quick way of saying Filipino/Filipina Yes, Latino/a is the other way to do it (and that way is common in Hispanic Studies departments in the US).
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Amberskin posted:Yes, it is. Using an '@' to replace the 'a'/'o' which indicates gender is a common resource in spanish (and probably other gendered languages). No, pretty sure it's a Spanish thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Originally it was a dark circle with an a inside, both an o and an a. Neat looking: http://crashwong.tumblr.com/post/111659304738/nomination-globalization-mermaids-that-willAzathoth posted:Given that the fantasy and scifi genre seems to expect authors to crank out books very quickly Unironically a bigger problem for sf/f.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
So the people who recommended Son of the Morning by Mark Alder were spot on, this is a good book. I'm about halfway into it and I have to say, the prose is good, the plot is engaging, the world building feels right and consistent, and the characters are interesting. Definitely worth the price, you should get it
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
GENDERWEIRD GREEDO posted:It should be both that and to encourage non minority writers to write outside their comfort zone. Agreed(o). Scifi/fant already has a problem that it's so white/male centric that even minority writers(like NK Jemison) felt they couldn't write about someone like them when they got started, and but you're not going to break that without other writers attempting to put *gasp* anyone of any type of minority in their books beyond a token.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Agreed(o). I used to be okay with someone "waiting for the right character," "wanting to do them justice" or "not wanting to just do it to fit a quota." After some consideration I realized that no, those are stupid reasons to wait and just lead to procrastination and high expectations from yourself and your readers. It seems obvious, but if you're writing your own story, whether it's for a book, comic, movie, game or whatever, those minorities will never exist if you don't put them there yourself. You're not gong to be That Writer, the one everybody points to as the person that finally got such-and-such minority right, after all this time. So, do a bit of research like you would for any topic you're not familiar with to avoid any too-embarrassing mistakes, and write something. Don't worry about doing them justice or anything like that, and don't focus on one group, either. Go over different races, genders, sexual preferences, economic and cultural standings, anything you can think of. You already create people, treat these characters the same way. If you're worried about messing something up, put it out to your friends, colleagues and coworkers to get some feedback, the more exposure the better, and encourage any that write to do the same so you can get differing views. Then, throw minorities in everything you write; main characters, supporting characters, minor characters, antagonists, one-offs, background fluff, everywhere. I feel that that would get more notice than just focusing a single, ridiculously researched and over thought book or series ever would.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
I wasn't too hot on Operation Shield by Joel Shepherd but Originator was actually pretty good. Too bad it also looks like the series is over.
Mars4523 fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Feb 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
This whole thing about minority writers is weird to me, I've probably looked at like two or three author portraits, ever, and I don't think that's unusual. If someone writes good books what's it matter if they're not black or asian? Seems to me if anything's holding them back it's a lack of numbers. Anyway, anyone got a recommendation for me if I liked Ship of Fools (russo)? or something similar? I liked the gimpy main character and the sort of derelict atmosphere, mainly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 11:02
|
|
|
Personally, if I see an author portrait without a beard, I put the book down and set fire to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
Albinism is my personal prerequisite.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 11:21
|
|
|
Chairchucker posted:Personally, if I see an author portrait without a beard, I put the book down and set fire to it. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 11:41
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Agreed(o). When the SF&F revolution comes, you will be shot first.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 11:55
|
|
|
I've always kinda hated author photos. Sometimes it's INCREDIBLY painfully obvious that the "everyman" adventurer who's a navy seal spec ops army ranger ordinary dude who's been pushed way too far just happens to look just like them. Other times, you get weird poo poo like what happened to Koontz and his hair, and that loving dog. I'd rather just read a book and enjoy it, than see an author photo and have that ruin the experience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
Stupid_Sexy_Flander posted:I'd rather just read a book and enjoy it, than see an author photo and have that ruin the experience. Sometimes it's a good idea to look at the author photo so that you get the reflex of putting the book down, though. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
And occasionally because they look baller as gently caress:
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Junkenstein posted:Sometimes it's a good idea to look at the author photo so that you get the reflex of putting the book down, though. Does he write libertarian military scifi?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
systran posted:Does he write libertarian military scifi? Close. Ayn Rand inspired doorstopper "epic" fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Megazver posted:And occasionally because they look baller as gently caress: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Both Marxists, it checks out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Megazver posted:And occasionally because they look baller as gently caress: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
Oh hey are we posting author photos? Sweet. I win. semper wifi posted:This whole thing about minority writers is weird to me, I've probably looked at like two or three author portraits, ever, and I don't think that's unusual. If someone writes good books what's it matter if they're not black or asian? Seems to me if anything's holding them back it's a lack of numbers. Quoting in case anyone missed that "not".
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
I was looking for this pic I saw a while ago of a fantasy author who brought like a throne into a grassy field, and took a picture of himself on it with his dog next to him, but I found this instead:
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Pretend I posted that picture of Gene Wolfe with a wine glass in his hand where he uncannily resembles a walrus
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Neurosis posted:Pretend I posted that picture of Gene Wolfe with a wine glass in his hand where he uncannily resembles a walrus Would that be this one? Anyway, could someone put nametags on the people above? The only one I recognized is Miéville. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
I know there's a Gene Wolfe thread but it's dead as poo poo so I'd rather post here: I feel like it's really hard to discuss his stuff, because there are a lot of--what feels to me--very 'stock answers' that people like to give. I feel like everyone is equally confused by Gene Wolfe's work, and there have been these answers developed that you give to people who say they are confused, but even the people giving those answers don't really know what they are talking about. I find it not helpful and frustrating. My thing with Wolfe is that I always feel confused and frustrated as I am reading his stuff, but I always get drawn in and want to read more of his work. I read the New Sun trilogy, The Knight (not the Wizard Knight), and I'm more than halfway through Soldier of the Mist. After completely finishing the New Sun trilogy, I felt I finally had an okay grasp of what happened, but it still felt very disjointed. As an amateur writer, I can't imagine writing like Wolfe does, and more importantly I can't imagine anyone ever reading my stuff if I wrote like that. It seems like the only reason people finish Wolfe's novels is because they know he's so well regarded, and people even read them twice after not liking them on the first read-through. His plotting makes almost no sense in any circumstance, and things happen nearly at random. My best guess for this is that real life tends to be like this, and doing this kind of thing in his crazy settings adds a level of realism that is absent from most narratives. I think this is what actually keeps drawing me in, but I never stop feeling frustrated by this tendency as I am reading. There are so many things in his books where I just can't figure out why or how he decided to include them: In BotNS when they suddenly launch into the play, and Severian just goes along with it for almost no reason; In Soldier of the Mist when he is talking to some guy and the guy just decides out of the blue that 'they should wrestle' and Latro just goes ahead and wrestles him resulting in getting his head messed up even worse; and in the Knight it feels like Abel accepts a new quest or task from every random entity he comes across, only to completely lose sight of whatever his original goal was. Some of these inclusions work, like when Severian is on the front lines of the war and everyone agrees to tell a story. These stories and the way it was woven in meshed with the plot and atmosphere to me. Maybe all of these things that bother me are actually well done like that, but I'm just missing it. The 'stock answers' are always that "Wolfe loves unreliable narrators," and "You have to read his stuff multiple times! The first read through is nothing!" I get it, it's obvious the narrators are unreliable, but this doesn't actually answer anything or address the root of my confusion. I'm confused not by the narrators being unreliable, rather by Wolfe's thought process and decision to include certain things or turn the plot or goals of the character around seven times per novel. I don't buy needing to read something multiple times. There is simply no way you can write a work of fiction with the intention that people won't get it unless they read it two or three times. You can write something that has enough depth to merit re-reading, but you have to hook readers and make them enjoy reading once even if they never go back to re-read. I imagine a very small percentage of people who read Wolfe's novels re-read at all. I've read interviews with Wolfe and it rarely helps me get into his thought process. I can't really process how he plots or plans his novels, if at all. Is he just writing as he goes? Is he actually planning ahead of time that Severian's first task is to go to Thrax and be executioner there, but that he won't arrive there until the middle or end of the second book (and that he will do like 200 other things along the way?) I don't know that I'm looking for answers here, but just felt like going on the tangent. angel opportunity fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Feb 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 03:11 |
|
|
I have a weird theory on Gene Wolfe that I'm not sure everyone will agree with: I think he's not that good of an author. He's a good writer but he doesn't have or doesn't demonstrate the basic storytelling skills. Don't get me wrong, he's an amazing prose stylist, and his work is, in its own weird way, brilliant. But he can't plot his way out of a paper bag, much of his work is so dense and multi-layered that it verges on the incoherent, his pacing is so poor that his works can be actively difficult to read, etc. He's a brilliant stylist and he has amazing, wonderful ideas but he's not good at any of the things that make a work, like, sell. End of the day, I see him as a writer's writer. Other professional writers like him because of his amazing use of language and his incredibly intricate ideas and puzzle-like stories. There's a lot there that other more popular writers (say, writers like Gaiman, who constantly talks about how wonderful Wolfe is) can mine and learn from. But there's also a reason he's never been mass-market successful, not even to the extent that, say, Jack Vance was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 16:55
|
|