![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kate_nepveu) wrote2008-02-20 09:36 pm
Boskone Panel: The Best Things in the Worst Books
Panel report two of two. Again, very minimal unpacking (limiting self to 30 minutes so I can go to bed); requests for clarification welcome.
Description:
Editor Patrick Nielsen Hayden has said, "Sometimes the unkillable merits of otherwise terrible work are a lot more interesting to discuss than the several perfections of the best." Let's see if we can prove him right.
Kathryn Cramer (m), Wen Spencer, Teresa Nielsen Hayden
(It is a coincidence that both panels I went to were based on PNH quotes. Honest.)
Panel notes:
Cramer: first drew blank when looked at this description, then thought of books that thought were great at first, re-read then realized terrible
Her example: Bram Stoker's The Jewel of Seven Stars [I am pretty sure, based on context and what words I did hear; the acoustics were not good and there were no mikes]. Read first at 12, best book ever written; the King Tut exhibit was disappointing in comparison. Really terrible book, but something about priestesses coming back from dead because of embalming was completely engaging
Spencer: works inspiring fanfic come to mind: obviously something there that's clicking but even fans going but-but-but; Anne McCaffrey's Pern: fans, many say gave up after X book, but unconditional dragon love strikes something
Cramer: guy in Poland read all of space opera anthologies but thinks their whole purpose is as background for games; different way of reading, doesn't matter whether it's good from a reviewing standpoint
Saberhagen book in high school, liked a lot, then assigned to write review of it and discovered not actually as good as thought
[TNH arrives, is filled in]
TNH: her example like Seven Stars: Trial of Terror, Jack Williamson; mentioned to him a few years [apparently not to favorable reaction] and promised will never read again. But most amazing book at time (included psionic mirror? in which see self as actually are, and owner loves watching reactions; idea of tracing piece of metal (?) back through time)--dizzying, remembers pictures in her head
Cramer: Hartwell would say to defend genre have to understand flaws [didn't hear all of this]
van Vogt? some author, anyway, wanted SF so packed full of ideas, that set alarm for each hour to write down ideas in head as dreaming
TNH: aghast
audience member: get that effect by having baby
TNH: Zelazny never finished scene without [something inaudible] but tremendously idea-rich
audience member: cites Herbert, some non-Dune book
Cramer: flip side, people who write fiction that other people really think is excellent & worthy, that she's completely unable to read: just allergic (prose, thematics)
TNH: her example is a fantasy that names things the wrong names!
Spencer: a childhood experience: Xanth (much audience reaction)
TNH: "the book that you remember is the book that you read." No-one can say you didn't enjoy it when you read. Listening to comic book pencillers talking about how much detail, how they remember particularly well-beloved sequences in comics: remember panels being bigger on page, and have motion & sound
audience member: something about a bad author who nevertheless pulls you in, makes you fill in details
TNH: news for you, all you readers: you're already doing 90% of the work
Spencer: character over four books is described in total as middle-aged, gray eyes, and she gets readers saying "this actor!"
Cramer: Hartwell's first SF: Tom Swift and His Television. Read all the TS books, asked librarian for more like these, led into adult SF section
TNH: "another one just like that" = way that book made me feel
Cramer: when writing for teens, ideas are new, have [inaudible] reaction to them; so yeah, newness; and sometimes hot new writer is most interesting first time read them
TNH: sometimes writers run out
Cramer: yeah, but sometimes audience is just not interested anymore
audience member: curious: different reading experience when acting as critic, and something is terrible but I have to find something good in it? Speaker writing reviews of self-published novels.
TNH: Charles Lamb? literary critic on minor Elizabethan playwrights; found something good to quote in everyone, in some cases the only good lines they ever wrote; but it's a tough trick to do without condescending
audience member: anything you cherish in particularly notorious bad works?
TNH: Eye of Arogn: vigorous and clearly in love with the material, not at all disengaged
Cramer: sincerity of author comes through
audience member: reading bad books just because contain [bulletproof kink] trope . . . ?
Cramer: has one of those. When working for antiquarian book dealer, reading through motif index, one summary was just too wonderful: "An Uncomfortable Night," by Charles Loring Jackson, Harvard chemistry professor--he donated a copy to Harvard, and in 1985 she was first person to check it out. [Web says he lived 1847-1935.] About house haunted by ghost of passionate woman which attempts to make love to male traveler: delightful summary but really very bad written. She happened to mention it in passing in the introduction to an anthology, and the Chicago Sun-Times didn't read any of the stories and mentioned it in a review as the clearly worst in the book!
audience member [me]: seems like a ritual list of things once read or are still reading even though bad--Xanth, Pern, Mercedes Lackey, Laurell K. Hamiliton--which seem mostly to be spoken of by women. Is there a similar category that mostly has male readers?
TNH: boy v girl versions?
audience member: Dresden Files, for boys
TNH: borrows Steve Brust's rant: hear two guys talk about the Destroyer novels, "yeah, those books are really bad--especially #36!"
(f) audience member: Star Trek novels?
Spencer: went on kick of 300 Regency novels in 1.5 months
(f) audience member: guy fantasy equivalent = D&D tie-ins, at least for college acquaintances
TNH: Saberhagen
Spencer: Thomas Covenant (audience member: oooh [though me, I doubt])
Cramer: went through a stage of reading where paid only most superficial attention to name of author, but one she read a lot of was Poul Anderson: sometimes good, sometimes not (all of his books in house = 42 books). There is the voracious reader period.
audience member: took long time as reader to give self permission not to finish bad book (much audience reaction)
TNH: first time ever privately burnt a book was also very liberating (privately because public burning is a political statement). The Wolf and the Dove, historical novel (whoo, Kathleen Woodiwiss!)
Cramer: was working on little poetry magazine, used to count number of words necessary to determine whether to reject, thinks fewest was five
[Sounds like a contest prompt to me: come up with 1-4 opening words that would get a poem immediately rejected!]
Spencer: one blurb request caused her to say OMG someone bought this?!
TNH: very useful phrase: "this is the kind of book I rave about"
Cramer: Year's Best: even if story is published, gets to reject all over again
TNH: editors cannot cultivate a long attention span, because your readers won't
audience member: what about editors who oversee 100 D&D books: do they read & say, "ooh best one yet!" or just dump into production after thirty pages confirm that, yup, D&D novel
Cramer: if hiring process correct, found someone like Greg Cox who likes tie-in books
TNH: who also has very good taste in other books
Spencer: John Morgan (last editor at Roc): edits on last book would be little one-sentence notes here & there, and then a one-page note on how she read Batman wrong. He now edits DC tie-in novels.
TNH: very hard to edit something don't like
Cramer: authors can tell, audience can tell
TNH: sometimes only thing can do is embed really weird jokes in cover copy. No-one gets to escape reading book for publication.
[digression into spoilers in cover copy]
audience member: slush, what do you when it has one great element but rest sucks?
TNH: sometimes send a little note to author, but if can tell author will never have more than a first date with the muse of literature, not a lot of reason to encourage
audience member [me]: anything held up better than expected?
TNH: Golden Treasury of Myth & Legend. Fritz Leiber, Zelazny, who she didn't appreciate at time
audience member: Wrinkle in Time holds up; amazed that no references that date it
another audience member: but Swiftly Tilting doesn't!
another audience member: Manly Wade Wellman, Silver John stories
Cramer: Dr. Seuss
TNH: Pinkwater
audience member: Mad Scientist Club (?)
audience member: does reading as editor affect fun reading?
TNH: mmm-hmm. *sad face*
Cramer: does spoil light fluffy prose
Spencer: even as writer, start seeing seams & the bones; husband hates watching movies with her because she dissects the story progression
TNH: Joanna Russ short stories hold up; she's someone who got to certain age before realizing that other people could not tell what would happen on TV show within first few minutes and *didn't want to be told*
mentions ML Cloverfield post, comments saying hate having plots dissected
audience member: can you turn off reading analytically?
TNH: *shakes head, sad face*
Cramer: [?? something about re-reading? something that worked, anyway]
TNH: "Black Air," KS Robinson: first time reading, told friend who recommended: "I couldn't possibly tell you if there were any typos in it." For her major high praise because can't usually turn that off.
The Warlock in Spite of Himself: dorky plot skeleton bolted on that no-one remembers, what remember is the good parts version
Cramer: another kind of terrible fiction: great prose, terrific lines, doesn't go anywhere
TNH: Thomas ____, author with great dialogue & no plots
made a bad mistake with a first novel that she loved, but too compressive for average audience based on sales, reviews
audience member: sword & sorcery as a genre [has a lot of bad stuff that's still readable, I think]
TNH: a whole lot of story will get you past bad prose
Cramer: that's what spent most of hour talking about
[End]
(Half an hour on the nose. I told you this takes surprisingly long . . . )
no subject
no subject
no subject
Ooh, how I identify with this. I'm pretty sure I was in my 20s.
no subject
no subject
Any idea what, in context, the inaudible bits might have been?
no subject
no subject
no subject
All of the Mad Scientist books are orderable from <http://www.purplehousepress.com/msc.htm>. I think they're all worth reading.
And yes, I regard the (first) Thomas Covenant trilogy as bad books with some unkillable virtues. It's possible this is the result of brain damage caused by a subversive librarian who pointed me at them around age 13. (She also handed me _The Wasp Factory_. Subversive librarians kick ass.)
no subject
I think I still have my copy somewhere (if it didn't die in Katrina). I should reread it and see if it is as awesome as I remember.
...On the other hand, maybe I shouldn't.
no subject
no subject
Considering I thought the second one was distinctly inferior to the first, I think I can safely give the rest a miss.
I might still dig up the first one, though.
no subject
I had a huge crush on Henry. You know how he tips his stool back and thinks and thinks....
no subject
no subject