My opinion of Stirling's ISOT and Emberverse Series

[LordKalvan]

I think it all comes down to whether you've enjoyed reading the book, that's all that matters and that determines whether the author is a sucessful writer or not. Maybe an English teacher would be less than thrilled, but so what, your the one who bought the book and your the one who's reading it, if you've enjoyed reading it, thats all that matters whether your English teacher or Literature Professor agrees or not.

Last time I had an English teacher or a Literature Professor was unfortunately quite a few years ago .

Yes. I didn't pick up ISOT expecting a life changing all time classic. I was looking for a book to take on holiday and not provide too much work for me to get through and it provided that perfectly adequately. Despite this, I can still find ways to improve it and offer suggestions of ways to make it better.

How can you "find ways to improve it and offer suggestions of ways to make it better"? Unless you're from the pulp fiction business, I mean; and possibly not even then. One might argue that what you really wanted to say is something like "I read this book, and it pressed the wrong buttons, and I don't like Mary Sues, or black-and-white characters. I will not read another book written by this loser (*)". Cloaking everything under some kind of literary criticism is...lost time?

(*): Which is just like a guy who says: no more drinks for me. Pulp fiction fans are a kind of addicts and the best proof is Turtledove: everyone criticises him, his sloppy style, his heinous habit of repeating the same stale joke or the same bloody annoying habit of one character or another. He should be in the poor house by now. Wrong. He "writes" 4/+ books per year and sells them like pancakes.

People in books who are always good or only evil are both boring (we can anticipate their actions) and quite frankly unrealistic. I just think that in say ISOT, if some of the good characters found themselves agreeing with what Walker was doing or some of Walker's band having second thoughts about their choices. A section about an ex-Walkerite being captured and possibly reintergrated into Nantucket would be very interesting.

Pulp fiction is very similar to politics: one does not looks for the most ethic or the ideal wat of doing things. The key to success is to get as close as possible to the lowest common denominator, and access the widest possible accessible market. So a successful author should follow rules that best suit his/her target slice of the market. Black-and-white characters sell books, and they sell film. Why introduce complications?
A couple of "Walkerites" have been rehabilitated, more or less. Look at Odixeus and to the king of Tartessos. But there must be always a clear "sin-and-retribution" scenario for the true baddies. It works for Hollywood too, and makes them a lot of money, you know?

 

[Grimm Reaper]

According to how Walker operated anyone who he even imagined might betray him would suffer horribly, family as well, so Stirling invented a parody of a modern dictatorship where it could be claimed that the overwhelming majority save perhaps a few dozen at the very top(at most) could claim any atrocity they committed was only under extreme duress.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

According to how Walker operated anyone who he even imagined might betray him would suffer horribly, family as well, so Stirling invented a parody of a modern dictatorship where it could be claimed that the overwhelming majority save perhaps a few dozen at the very top(at most) could claim any atrocity they committed was only under extreme duress.

Well you can't just have Nantucket run roughshod over the entire world can you? That would not make a very dramatic story, the series needed a villian dating from modern times, so you needed William Walker as leader of the opposition force.

 

[Bill Cameron]

Pulp fiction fans are a kind of addicts and the best proof is Turtledove: everyone criticises him, his sloppy style, his heinous habit of repeating the same stale joke or the same bloody annoying habit of one character or another. He should be in the poor house by now. Wrong. He "writes" 4/+ books per year and sells them like pancakes.

Lord Kalvan,

You're preaching to choir in my case.

I've been saying for years that lousy writers like Turtledove, Stirling, and the rest are primarily our own fault. As a group we're so hungry for AH themed fiction we'll buy and read anything. Just look at that godawful Destroyermen series that came out last year.

Turtledove, Stirling, and all the rest crank the crap out and we all line up like eager pigs at the trough.

I will not buy another book by Turtledove or Stirling ever again and I stopped doing so years ago. I've skimmed their books at the library, mostly to keep up with threads here, but they will not "earn" any of my money ever again. Sadly, I'm only one man and there's hundreds of AH zombies who'll shelling out for their hardbacks. Life's too short to waste on bad books, folks, you'll never get that time back.

So, Turtledove and Stirling are best sellers? They're still nothing but hacks. Barbara Cartland sold millions while she was still alive and no one even bothers to pretend she was nothing but a hack.


Bill

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Lord Kalvan,

You're preaching to choir in my case.

I've been saying for years that lousy writers like Turtledove, Stirling, and the rest are primarily our own fault. As a group we're so hungry for AH themed fiction we'll buy and read anything. Just look at that godawful Destroyermen series that came out last year.

Turtledove, Stirling, and all the rest crank the crap out and we all line up like eager pigs at the trough.

I will not buy another book by Turtledove or Stirling ever again and I stopped doing so years ago. I've skimmed their books at the library, mostly to keep up with threads here, but they will not "earn" any of my money ever again. Sadly, I'm only one man and there's hundreds of AH zombies who'll shelling out for their hardbacks. Life's too short to waste on bad books, folks, you'll never get that time back.

So, Turtledove and Stirling are best sellers? They're still nothing but hacks. Barbara Cartland sold millions while she was still alive and no one even bothers to pretend she was nothing but a hack.


Bill

How else do you judge a book other than by the number of copies sold? Its not whether Bill Cameron likes it, he can't buy enough books to support a single author. Some of the great authors of the past starved and only had a great following among professors and academics centuries later - too late to put food on the table. I think the public is quite capable of telling which books it likes to read without some "expert" telling them what is good literature and what is bad, fortunately we have a free market determining these things.

 

[Calgacus]

Lord Kalvan,

You're preaching to choir in my case.

I've been saying for years that lousy writers like Turtledove, Stirling, and the rest are primarily our own fault. As a group we're so hungry for AH themed fiction we'll buy and read anything. Just look at that godawful Destroyermen series that came out last year.

Turtledove, Stirling, and all the rest crank the crap out and we all line up like eager pigs at the trough.

I will not buy another book by Turtledove or Stirling ever again and I stopped doing so years ago. I've skimmed their books at the library, mostly to keep up with threads here, but they will not "earn" any of my money ever again. Sadly, I'm only one man and there's hundreds of AH zombies who'll shelling out for their hardbacks. Life's too short to waste on bad books, folks, you'll never get that time back.

So, Turtledove and Stirling are best sellers? They're still nothing but hacks. Barbara Cartland sold millions while she was still alive and no one even bothers to pretend she was nothing but a hack.


Bill

Well I think Turtledove is capable of some excellent writing. Some of his short stories and some stand-alone works are pretty good. Even the series are good in places, enough to enjoy at least some of the reading time. I don't want to waste my money on the books, but I am happy enough to get them from the library.

 

[Calgacus]

How else do you judge a book other than by the number of copies sold? Its not whether Bill Cameron likes it, he can't buy enough books to support a single author. Some of the great authors of the past starved and only had a great following among professors and academics centuries later - too late to put food on the table. I think the public is quite capable of telling which books it likes to read without some "expert" telling them what is good literature and what is bad, fortunately we have a free market determining these things.

Ooh, yes, we don't want those nasty elitists telling us what to think!

People are perfectly entitled to read whatever they want, and as long as they're reading something, good on them. But that doesn't mean there isn't some literature that is simply better than the rest. It could probably be defined by formula. x number of adjectives per sentence, and so on. I don't mean that great literature is always what critics say it is - plenty of them savaged Stephen King, who at his best is a great writer, and on movies, they're even worse judges of quality - but it isn't what sells best. There are far too many factors impacting the sales of novels to make that sort of judgment. There are different tastes, different levels of education/comprehension, different eras (what read well in 1800 isn't necessarily what will read well now), and also other, more prosaic, factors; a book can sink without trace if it isn't given the right sort of push by the publisher, or if it is written in the wrong language, or whatever.

A good example would be Oprah's book recommendations. Any book she recommends will soon sell a ton. That doesn't mean it is good, or that it was enjoyed by those who read it, or even that those who bought it ended up reading it at all! The same could be said for books which sell a lot due to having been banned. Notoriety can mess with the market - Mein Kampf would have been lucky to sell a few thousand if its author hadn't gone on to "greater" things. So the market is an imperfect way to judge these things. There is no perfect way, really. It all comes down to individual taste. But that doesn't mean we don't get to criticise the books we dislike.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

How else do you judge a book other than by the number of copies sold? Its not whether Bill Cameron likes it, he can't buy enough books to support a single author. Some of the great authors of the past starved and only had a great following among professors and academics centuries later - too late to put food on the table. I think the public is quite capable of telling which books it likes to read without some "expert" telling them what is good literature and what is bad, fortunately we have a free market determining these things.

Twilight is a far better book than, say, Tropic of Cancer? I must have really terrible taste.

 

[LordKalvan]

Twilight is a far better book than, say, Tropic of Cancer? I must have really terrible taste.

If one has to make a living, should he write Twilight or Tropic of Cancer?

 

[xchen08]

If one has to make a living, should he write Twilight or Tropic of Cancer?

As writing Twilight was a crime against humanity, no one can use making a living as an excuse, much as similar excuses on the part of various Nazis were shot down at Nuremberg. Yes, I just Godwinned this thread, and not regarding Stirling or the Draka.

Just how did Twilight get big anyway? I understand Eragon got a shot of publicity from the age of the author and some shameless self-promotion, but what the hell did Twilight do?

 

[LordKalvan]

Lord Kalvan,

You're preaching to choir in my case.

I've been saying for years that lousy writers like Turtledove, Stirling, and the rest are primarily our own fault. As a group we're so hungry for AH themed fiction we'll buy and read anything. Just look at that godawful Destroyermen series that came out last year.

Turtledove, Stirling, and all the rest crank the crap out and we all line up like eager pigs at the trough.

I will not buy another book by Turtledove or Stirling ever again and I stopped doing so years ago. I've skimmed their books at the library, mostly to keep up with threads here, but they will not "earn" any of my money ever again. Sadly, I'm only one man and there's hundreds of AH zombies who'll shelling out for their hardbacks. Life's too short to waste on bad books, folks, you'll never get that time back.

So, Turtledove and Stirling are best sellers? They're still nothing but hacks. Barbara Cartland sold millions while she was still alive and no one even bothers to pretend she was nothing but a hack.
Bill

My point was slightly different: Turtledove and Stirling (and even more Barbara Cartland) have sold and are still selling lot of copies. Which means that they have a target audience, and people who love reading their stories. Is this a sin? Should all of their books be condemned? What about Henry Potter? Those books were avtually condemned by some whacko church, but not on grounds of style and/or quality.
I do read both Stirling and Turtledove (not Harry Potter books, thank you), but I don't rate them better than they are: the equivalent of sugary foods, you can get a craving and stuff your face with them, but no one would argue in favor of their nutritional value.

How else do you judge a book other than by the number of copies sold? Its not whether Bill Cameron likes it, he can't buy enough books to support a single author. Some of the great authors of the past starved and only had a great following among professors and academics centuries later - too late to put food on the table. I think the public is quite capable of telling which books it likes to read without some "expert" telling them what is good literature and what is bad, fortunately we have a free market determining these things.

Different books belong to different bins, and cross-comparison is nonsense.
I've never been able to go beyond the first chapter of a James Joyce's book but I don't say it's crap, or even elitist literature. Techno-thrillers sell a lot of copies, but they belong to their own bin.

Well I think Turtledove is capable of some excellent writing. Some of his short stories and some stand-alone works are pretty good. Even the series are good in places, enough to enjoy at least some of the reading time. I don't want to waste my money on the books, but I am happy enough to get them from the library.

Possibly Turtledove discovered that quantity has a quality of its own and that good writing is not really a pre-requisite for huge sales. It's rather the other way around.

 

[LordKalvan]

As writing Twilight was a crime against humanity, no one can use making a living as an excuse, much as similar excuses on the part of various Nazis were shot down at Nuremberg. Yes, I just Godwinned this thread, and not regarding Stirling or the Draka.

Just how did Twilight get big anyway? I understand Eragon got a shot of publicity from the age of the author and some shameless self-promotion, but what the hell did Twilight do?

Never read Twilight, as a matter of fact, so I cannot really argue the moral implications of writing it .
I suppose there was a teen market waiting for it (or something similar). It may have got a boost from something like MTV, or even some teens chat site. Or just a professional advertising campaign.

 

[LordKalvan]

A good example would be Oprah's book recommendations. Any book she recommends will soon sell a ton. That doesn't mean it is good, or that it was enjoyed by those who read it, or even that those who bought it ended up reading it at all! The same could be said for books which sell a lot due to having been banned. Notoriety can mess with the market - Mein Kampf would have been lucky to sell a few thousand if its author hadn't gone on to "greater" things. So the market is an imperfect way to judge these things. There is no perfect way, really. It all comes down to individual taste. But that doesn't mean we don't get to criticise the books we dislike.

That's actually a good point. Oprah is in a class of her own, and can sell any crap by the tons. There are other less impressive players in the game who can in any case give a push to a book: a good word is never denied to any author who is lucky enough to participate in a tv panel.

Mein Kampf would have struggled to sell tens of copies, if the author had not
"gone on to "greater" things".
There are "instant books" on the market as soon as anything major happens. "Instant crap" might be a better way of describing them, but they sell like hot dogs. Who am I to issue condemnations?

Criticism is ok, I suppose (if professional critics are also ok it is much more doubtful). However, it is nonsense to criticise the ocean because it is wet and salty. Pulp fiction is played by its own rules: characters must wear a black or white hat, there must be a certain percentage of sex scenes in the book, no introspection and so on. Why bring up these points in an indictment of the author? It is like criticizing advertising because sexy features (which have nothing to do with the products advertised) are included.

 

[Calgacus]

That's actually a good point. Oprah is in a class of her own, and can sell any crap by the tons. There are other less impressive players in the game who can in any case give a push to a book: a good word is never denied to any author who is lucky enough to participate in a tv panel.

Mein Kampf would have struggled to sell tens of copies, if the author had not
"gone on to "greater" things".
There are "instant books" on the market as soon as anything major happens. "Instant crap" might be a better way of describing them, but they sell like hot dogs. Who am I to issue condemnations?

Criticism is ok, I suppose (if professional critics are also ok it is much more doubtful). However, it is nonsense to criticise the ocean because it is wet and salty. Pulp fiction is played by its own rules: characters must wear a black or white hat, there must be a certain percentage of sex scenes in the book, no introspection and so on. Why bring up these points in an indictment of the author? It is like criticizing advertising because sexy features (which have nothing to do with the products advertised) are included.

That's fine, but I take pulp fiction to be romance/westerns/etc. Science fiction long ago lost the right to hide behind the pulp excuse, as did almost every other literary genre. I'm not going to bother criticising romance novels (if I ever actually read any), but I'll criticise AH/Sci-Fi quite happily. Equally, if it's good, it'll get high praise from me.

 

[LordKalvan]

That's fine, but I take pulp fiction to be romance/westerns/etc. Science fiction long ago lost the right to hide behind the pulp excuse, as did almost every other literary genre. I'm not going to bother criticising romance novels (if I ever actually read any), but I'll criticise AH/Sci-Fi quite happily. Equally, if it's good, it'll get high praise from me.

IMHO, science fiction is less than it was. This is obviously my own personal take, and I don't pretend to lay down the law. My favored authors are all old ones: Heinlein, Pohl, Kornbluth, Asimov, Piper (one of the most undjustly underrated authors, in my view), Niven, Pournelle, Vance, Pratchett. That's possibly because I'm getting old myself

Nowadays I don't mind Weber and Flint, but they are not in the same class by a few thousand of miles. I did like Martin (A Game of Thrones), but it dragged along too many books. David Drake is also not so bad, but it's becoming very repetitive. To prove my point, the only books I buy nowadays in SF/AH genre are from Pratchett (who unfortunately got his terminal illness).
Bad luck. All the other books in the genre (and I do read a lot) are from a library: they are not worth the expense and the clutter (I am mentally unable to throw away a book).

It looks like I apply criticism too, if only in the most blunt of ways: "I did not like the book, and stopped after a few chapters" or "Boring!" are critical statements too.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

If one has to make a living, should he write Twilight or Tropic of Cancer?

I plan on drinking myself to death before I'm 30 and being remembered as a great talent squandered in a tragic life, so I'd rather write Tropic of Cancer.

As writing Twilight was a crime against humanity, no one can use making a living as an excuse, much as similar excuses on the part of various Nazis were shot down at Nuremberg. Yes, I just Godwinned this thread, and not regarding Stirling or the Draka.

Just how did Twilight get big anyway? I understand Eragon got a shot of publicity from the age of the author and some shameless self-promotion, but what the hell did Twilight do?

I haven't read it, but I've read summaries/etc which suggest to me that it just managed to hit the teen girl sweet spot. The books had been out for a little bit before they suddenly got huge.

 

[LordKalvan]

I plan on drinking myself to death before I'm 30 and being remembered as a great talent squandered in a tragic life, so I'd rather write Tropic of Cancer.

How quaint and retro-classic You could do worse just by choosing absinthe

Nowadays wasted great talents go by the way of overdosing.

On a different note, one has to be sober to write Twilight (or Harry Potter books), while Tropic of Cancer is better written under the influence

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

I think time and only time is the true test of a classic work. If someone writes a book and many copies are sold and 50 years later people are still buying many copies of that book, that may be a classic.

There are of course other reasons people might buy many copies of a book, for instance the writer happens to be a politician, maybe a Senator for instance. The Senator does one of his constituents a favor, but he doesn't want to be seen accepting kickbacks, so what does he do? He writes a book, not a particularly well written book, but somehow it still sells lots of copies, imagine that, in fact the author makes $6,000,000 from the sales of his book, and then just as mysteriously the book sales plumment, but the Senator is still happy, he deposits his money in his bank account, and then asks other wealthy and influential constituents if there is anything he can do for them, and then he mentions the book he has written.

I have no one in particular in mind, its just a hypothetical example of how someone may well many books without being a good writer.

 

[Calgacus]

I think time and only time is the true test of a classic work. If someone writes a book and many copies are sold and 50 years later people are still buying many copies of that book, that may be a classic.

There are of course other reasons people might buy many copies of a book, for instance the writer happens to be a politician, maybe a Senator for instance. The Senator does one of his constituents a favor, but he doesn't want to be seen accepting kickbacks, so what does he do? He writes a book, not a particularly well written book, but somehow it still sells lots of copies, imagine that, in fact the author makes $6,000,000 from the sales of his book, and then just as mysteriously the book sales plumment, but the Senator is still happy, he deposits his money in his bank account, and then asks other wealthy and influential constituents if there is anything he can do for them, and then he mentions the book he has written.

I have no one in particular in mind, its just a hypothetical example of how someone may well many books without being a good writer.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

I have learned from this thread that it is objectively possible to determine if one book is better than another but impossible to be objectively sure if a person actually said something if you did not see them say it in person.

How quaint and retro-classic You could do worse just by choosing absinthe

Nowadays wasted great talents go by the way of overdosing.

On a different note, one has to be sober to write Twilight (or Harry Potter books), while Tropic of Cancer is better written under the influence

Paris is apparently now very expensive and full of French people, so I'm not sure where I could go to drink heavily and write my masterpiece.