Astonishing Essay on Prince of Thorns

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, fine, could you give me an example a type of "grimdark" you DO approve of?

Here's a small sampling: despite the "rapeyness," which I think gets excessive, I do otherwise generally like George R. R. Martin's first three Song of Ice and Fire books. I enjoyed Joe Abercrombie's Best Served Cold. Glen Cook's The Black Company, which started it all, is still one of the best examples of the style that I can think of--the darkness is almost silly at times, but scratch the surface and there's some very serious commentary on the Vietnam War. Most of KJ Parker's fiction, and arguably Sapkowski's Witcher books, which look like Tolkein-meets-Moorcock questing but are really quite dark and grim (and political) books.

I'm just saying that rape DOES happen in wartime. It always has, and, as any woman born in Russia or Eastern Europe before 1940, or most areas of Central Africa to the present day, will attest, probably always will. Americans, French and Brits are very exceptional in the fact that none of them really accepts it as a standard combative practice. Practically every other army I know of has always used it as a major weapon of mass terror

If your objection is that a depiction of rape might "trigger" someone to do so in reality then I have to wonder why you're a writer or believe that people ought to read, or even talk, or listen, or do anything but sit alone in a concrete bunker for that matter. Besides, wouldn't rape depicted in an "artistic" manner be even worse in that case?

You're right...it DOES happen, though in some historical cases it may have happened much less than widely assumed (there are almost no depictions of rape in Viking sagas, for example, and of the ones that are depicted, nearly all are male-on-male rape).

Nevertheless, in that essay (I think) I said that I don't have a problem with depiction of rape, per se, but rather when it's employed as a sort of default way to signal "edginess." My issue here isn't with any particular book, but rather the cumulative effect of so many books that take this approach. And I feel the same way about torture. (AND these issues are exacerbated when urge-to-titilate-with-edginess intersects with graphicness of the depiction. Then it becomes "rapeporn" or "tortureporn.")

Intelligent depictions of rape/attempts to grapple with rape as a weapon or outgrowth of warfare could be the opposite of that, in theory. I guess, for me, as with all gritty/grimdark stuff, what matters is the degree to which the author uses these devices to say something interesting/do something meaningful. Obviously "interesting" and "meaningful" are up for debate, but that's why we have forums like this one :)

As far as grimdark and diversity I will let the author speak

Can't really comment on that. Though generally speaking, traditional fantasy (i.e. Tolkein/neo-Tolkein) strikes me as worse on racial issues than gritty fantasy.

I'm sort of baffled by Zombies myself. The only reason I used it as an example is the fact that it is about the darkest fantasy scenario I can think of and also among the most popular in modern SFF. Rape is part of darkness and darkness, right now, sells.

I find zombies incredibly annoying at this point. Vampires too. Werewolves, borderline.
 
But your indignation is interesting. It makes you indignant if any book you happen to pick up doesn't have 'enough' women in it? How many is enough? And does the subject matter, focus, topic etc have any bearing on the matter?

Does every writer every where have to insert a certain number of females into the story they choose to tell in order to escape your indignation?

I'm very curious about this.

Well, I must apologise for my earlier snippiness, it was unwarranted... but some reason you seem to draw it out of me. So I’m going to refrain from making any more comments about Broken Empire’s lack of womenfolk, as I haven’t finished the series yet, and well, it’s hypocritical for me to do so.:eek:


"The moral code states "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.""

Interesting. Where can I find _the_ moral code? That sounds like a rephrasing of a line from the bible but if it's part of a code that runs through every religion and philosophy then it would be great to have a copy of that absolute morality code for reference.

Ooh... much better than that, I found it on Wikipedia, the font of all knowledge. I really can’t imagine life without it!

"One could argue that PoT is ‘amoral’ as it would appear to show an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles."

...so the _book_ is amoral now as opposed to any particular character in it? I'm puzzled by this talk of the book showing awareness though... is it alive? Or if you're not talking about the characters in the book or the actual book who are you talking about... me? You think my personal morality is embodied in a swords and sorcery story I wrote? ... I'm really rather confused by what you're attempting to say here.

Now you’re being farcical books don’t come alive! And I really don’t think it’s my place to mention anything about your personal morality...now... is it?

Well that _is_ a huge weight off my mind. Though I was actually asking about novels demonstrating the qualities mentioned - not mine in particular. I'm interested in your thought processes not attempting to buy a pardon off you.

You’re interested in my thoughts - I must say that makes a change! Well, I guess I like fantasy and ‘praise novels’ where the protagonist strives against all the odds for a better outcome...I’m a hopeless optimist. But I do appreciate, like you mentioned earlier, there are many books out there that already do just this.. and I guess you wish to achieve something else entirely.

ps. Just because you made light of my overuse of elipsis in a previous post, really doesn’t mean you have to resort to using underscores instead...:)
 
I just downloaded POT to my Kindle on the strength of this thread. I needed to see what all the fuss was about. So far it is a pretty good story. The only issue I have is Jorg's age. He does seem rather young to be mixing it up with a bunch of sadistic, social misfits and his thought processes for his age are top notch. But that is a minor concern. The world(it is a post-apocalyptic Earth?) is fairly brutal, but I can live with that if the story continues to develop.
 
Well, it's the first time I've had a giggle in this thread. :)

Lauren, I haven't got to the end of book 3 so can't fully comment on the whole trilogy, either. I'm struggling a wee bit, which has nothing to do with the book and the world, and more to with my problems with epic fantasy as a genre (sorry, Mark). What I liked with book one and two was they didn't read like epic, but as something much quicker and pacier. But I am withholding my verdict til I do get to the end.

One thing that does strike me, I had a torturer in my first book and when I did him in in a straightforward fashion, the concensus from readers was that there should be some payback. I think that was because it was the torture victim who was responsible for his death, and we like to support the underdog. In my case I used a secondary character to extend things a little - still very mild - and kept the central ethos that revenge isn't always either a motivator or, indeed, a healer.

Hi Springs, don't you like epic fantasy? I read some of your WiP on the critique board (with the eight legged bots) and thought it was very good. So I'm guessing your a sci-fi fan! :)

I know what you mean about how hard it is to write good descriptive text - when you play a story out in your head you don't bother with all that stuff! I've also written a torture scene in my ms, but how graphic should it be? and is there really any recompense served in revenge? But I do like a little payback, (set the world to rights and all that)! But still I struggle with these sorts of issues - I notice Mark doesn't serve up any kind of balm in PoT (can't comment on the other two books).:p
 
My goodness, this was an amusing half hour catching up on this thread! Haven't as yet got onto POT (hung up reading set texts for course and writing about dragons) but picked it up a while back. Epic fantasy is something I love, well epic anything really...interesting thread here bringing up issues about things that always get people arguing about and misunderstanding (purposefully or not) what others are saying...but still staying mildly on track...anyway, looking forward to actually reading POT when I get around to it - I tend to come at things from a rather meta and philosophical point of view and I am rather a fan of "not good" MCs - situational aspects that cause such problems always interesting...anyways, all this grumbling is why I stick to writing about dragons and out of date science, but I am sure that if any of it ever does get published I'll get yelled at for not showing enough of x type of dragon, being dragon sexist and racist and probably putting too much description in...

Interesting thread all round really, and springs - one day we shall find you a book (possibly with dragons ;)) that is epic fantasy that you will just LOVE hehehe
 
Fascinating thread, this. The original essay is worthwhile, if a bit on the longwinded side. I'm not sure I agree with his analysis of the book in terms of video game culture, but it contained a lot of interesting observations.

The institutional sexism/racism angle is, I think, a lot more interesting than the inclusion of rape. Although I should note that when people use the word "trigger" referring to rape, they mean that rape victims can get traumatic experiences reading about rape.

I find it interesting that the author continually refers to "the story" as his reason for writing certain things. It's just where the story took him. But that's a bit of a weak reason, I'd say. The story didn't appear out of thin air. There wasn't a muse creeping up on him and telling him what to write. There were choices made in the process of writing the story. How badly would the story have been mauled had Jorg been a woman? Would the story have suffered had Makin had darker skin? Would the story have imploded had the Nuban been from Greece? Had he had a name? Would it have been worse had the characters made some homosexuality-tinged jokes? Would the book have been worse had there been any kind of cultural interaction?

Those features didn't make it into the story because the author chose not to put them there. The author made those choices, not the story.

It's annoying that the author refuses to acknowledge this, hiding behind the story as if it's an immutable object over which he had no authority. The women in the book have almost no agency. People with color are rare, and those that are identified adhere to troublesome stereotypes. These things happen in a lot of books and stories, and they weren't necessarily put there consciously. Often they are just the result of the author's cultural exposure. I can't speak to why this happened with this book, because I can't see inside Mark Lawrence's brain. But once you as a reader are aware of privilege, of institutional sexism and racism and how that pervades our cultures and the stories we see, then you do start recognizing tropes. Or at least, I do -- and so does the author of the essay in the first post of this thread. And every time I do read a book like that, I just feel a little sad for the state of fantasy literature (and to a lesser extent, storytelling in general).

Part of the problem is, of course, that no -- there isn't a world filled with fantasy stories without these issues. The vast majority of fantasy stories I've read and found tend to take place in a generic medieval world where everyone is implicitly white, and women have very little agency. I may want to read a book like Prince of Thorns with more women and people of color -- good luck finding it, though.

Is it then the author's moral responsibility to tell a story that does not perpetuate problematic stereotypes? For me the answer to that question is yes, although morality tends to be rather personal. No author is under an obligation to tell such a story. But that doesn't preclude me from finding the resulting works profoundly disappointing.

But at the very least, the author should take some ownership of the choices he made, rather than hiding behind the veil of 'story'.
 
I can't believe this is still going :eek:

I've never understood the arguments around these issues ever since they first came up. If you don't like dark fantasy then don't read it. I don't really see how it can get any more complicated than that.

Also:

My issue here isn't with any particular book, but rather the cumulative effect of so many books that take this approach. And I feel the same way about torture. (AND these issues are exacerbated when urge-to-titilate-with-edginess intersects with graphicness of the depiction. Then it becomes "rapeporn" or "tortureporn.")

Do such books even exist? I consider myself fairly well read in gritty fantasy and I don't remember ever coming across anything like this. If we are saying "if a book contained repeated scenes of torture and rape with explicit descriptive detail that would be awful" then ok...but why are we saying this when such books don't exist?? :confused:

The most graphic scenes of rape and torture I have ever read come from works considered literary classics. Nothing in the grimmest of grimdark novels comes close to some of the scenes in American Psycho for example.

I find it interesting that the author continually refers to "the story" as his reason for writing certain things. It's just where the story took him. But that's a bit of a weak reason, I'd say. The story didn't appear out of thin air. There wasn't a muse creeping up on him and telling him what to write. There were choices made in the process of writing the story. How badly would the story have been mauled had Jorg been a woman? Would the story have suffered had Makin had darker skin? Would the story have imploded had the Nuban been from Greece? Had he had a name? Would it have been worse had the characters made some homosexuality-tinged jokes? Would the book have been worse had there been any kind of cultural interaction?

Bit conceited to think you know anything about a writer's creative process, and plenty of authors describe their story telling in exactly this way - that it's an organic process and they don't necessarily know where the next line will take them. I also don't see why an author has to offer up their "reasons" for doing anything. It's their story. I'm an amateur writer, I have a protaganist, he's a white male. That's just how it has always been in my head. Should I sit down and think, "actually he could have been a woman?" Well...he could have been a small tray of raspberry puddings I suppose but he's not. He is what he is. If he was someone else he would be someone else. Same goes for the rest of your rhetoricals. It might not have been worse had the Nuban been from Greece. It might not have been better. It's a complete non-point because it's not something that requires any sort of justification.

An author shouldn't have to consider shoehorning social commentary of real life discrimination into every story choice.
 
Last edited:
Couldn't have put it better, Rolynd.

Seems some people want a book written entirely to conform to their own taste, their own socio-political/gender/race 'tropes', that doesn't have the faintest possibility of offending any person in the entire world, but feel free to criticise any writer that doesn't conform to this impossibility. Good luck with that one, Sander...
 
I find it interesting that the author continually refers to "the story" as his reason for writing certain things. It's just where the story took him. But that's a bit of a weak reason, I'd say. The story didn't appear out of thin air. There wasn't a muse creeping up on him and telling him what to write.

A remarkable amount of insight you have into my writing process. Sadly very wrong though. That's exactly how I write. I start typing and the story rolls out.

There were choices made in the process of writing the story. How badly would the story have been mauled had Jorg been a woman?

Actually at no point did I consider any of those choices.

Those features didn't make it into the story because the author chose not to put them there. The author made those choices, not the story.

Fascinating but wrong. Perhaps other authors sit down and make a series of choices. I do not.

It's annoying that the author refuses to acknowledge this

Would you rather I lie?

I can't see inside Mark Lawrence's brain.

And yet you continuously make statements that give every indication you think you can...

But once you as a reader are aware of privilege, of institutional sexism and racism and how that pervades our cultures and the stories we see, then you do start recognizing tropes.

Once you have a hammer you start to see nails. This is true.

No author is under an obligation to tell such a story. But that doesn't preclude me from finding the resulting works profoundly disappointing.

We agree on something! And I can live with your disappointment.

But at the very least, the author should take some ownership of the choices he made, rather than hiding behind the veil of 'story'.

....and you're back to seeing inside my brain again. How profoundly disappointing.
 
Bit conceited to think you know anything about a writer's creative process, and plenty of authors describe their story telling in exactly this way - that it's an organic process and they don't necessarily know where the next line will take them. I also don't see why an author has to offer up their "reasons" for doing anything. It's their story. I'm an amateur writer, I have a protaganist, he's a white male. That's just how it has always been in my head. Should I sit down and think, "actually he could have been a woman?" Well...he could have been a small tray of raspberry puddings I suppose but he's not. He is what he is. If he was someone else he would be someone else. Same goes for the rest of your rhetoricals. It might not have been worse had the Nuban been from Greece. It might not have been better. It's a complete non-point because it's not something that requires any sort of justification.
I don't know how Lawrence wrote the story, or how anyone else did. I'm not trying to divine that. But my point is that, whether consciously or no, those are still choices that he made and could have been made differently.

As you say, the protagonist in your head is a white male in your story. That's just the way it's always been for you. And that's fine. I'm not telling you that has to be different. It's your story. But when you start writing a story, you are still choosing to make it about a white male protagonist. For you it doesn't register as a conscious choice, because it is baked into your brain as an assumption. Maybe that's because of culture, or maybe that's just because you are a white male (assuming you are), or maybe that's because all the stories similar to the one in your head feature white males as protagonist. Or maybe there's a different reason entirely -- I can't speak to that. I'm not asking for stories with white male protagonists to be banned, after all.

But are you now saying that you cannot think about what you are writing? That you don't have any choice but to write exactly the story as it magically appears in your head? That your brain, your culture, your history, the stories you've read don't inform you, on a conscious or subconscious level? That you cannot engage your brain while putting pen to paper or finger to keyboard?

I would argue that no matter how much you just write where the story takes you, it's your brain that's doing the talking. Your brain. It is not an object that is divorced from your thinking. The story doesn't exist as an objective reality. It is your story, and everything you put into it is a result of the choices you make -- whether you make them explicitly or implicitly.

I am not asking for a justification. Mark Lawrence made those choices, and he's entitled to make those choices. It's his story. As I said: no author can be obligated to write a story a certain way. He doesn't need to justify anything to me or anyone else. I just find it a little dubious to hide behind "the story" as the reason why it has certain characteristics. That line of thinking denies that an author has any say over what he writes, and that, to me, is nonsense.

Rolynd said:
An author shouldn't have to consider shoehorning social commentary of real life discrimination into every story choice.
I'm not asking for social commentary, really. I'm asking for more diversity in fantasy. Which is why I posed my questions (not all of them rhetorical) the way I did. How would making Jorg a woman be social commentary? Why would making the Nuban Greek be a form of social commentary? It's just changing some features of a character.

I didn't ask for a treatise on race or gender, though I do think a fantasy novel engaging those issues of discrimination actively could be interesting. In fact, I'd say the world as presented by Lawrence could be very interesting for that sort of thing. But that has nothing to do with the story he tells. And really, there is quite a bit of fantasy out there that does have social commentary of various sorts.

What I'm asking for is much simpler. I'm just asking for literature that's a little more diverse, literature that doesn't employ the tropes of discrimination we've seen for ages. I'm just a little saddened every time I read a novel that continues to employ those tropes.
 
Actually at no point did I consider any of those choices.
I think this is where we differ, really. I completely understand that you didn't make those choices consciously. I didn't, until I started to force myself to think about them. And when I did, I saw all the implicit choices I (or my subconscious mental processes) had made for me. Why did I make that protagonist a guy? Why is everyone white in my story? Where are all the women? The stories we tell are, to an extent, a result of the culture(s) we live in and the stories we've been exposed to and of course our own personal experience. But they are still the stories we choose to tell.

So sure, you didn't make those choices on a conscious level. But they were there to be made, and some part of your brain made them for you. And yes, I do think you should take ownership of that. Because if you had wanted to, you could have changed all those things -- had you been conscious of the choices you were implicitly making.

Boneman said:
Seems some people want a book written entirely to conform to their own taste, their own socio-political/gender/race 'tropes', that doesn't have the faintest possibility of offending any person in the entire world, but feel free to criticise any writer that doesn't conform to this impossibility. Good luck with that one, Sander...
No, I don't care about offensive. And it's not about books being written to my tastes, which are particular to me. What I'm asking for is that people recognize they are making (sub)conscious choices when they write a story, and that those stories can perpetuate tropes that have played (and sometimes continue to play) roles as tools of discrimination and oppression.

It's not about being inoffensive, but about the institutional discrimination that is a part of our culture(s). There's room for fantasy literature dominated by white males, but the sad fact is that it can be a little hard to find fantasy literature that isn't dominated by white males. Which makes me sad. And it makes me sad to read fantasy literature that is otherwise pretty good, but continues to use those tired old tropes for no real reason. That's all.
 
Last edited:
I don't know how Lawrence wrote the story, or how anyone else did. I'm not trying to divine that. But my point is that, whether consciously or no, those are still choices that he made and could have been made differently.

By using the word 'choices' so broadly that it in fact covers ever single thing with more than one possible outcome you rob it of meaning, sense and usefulness.

You might as well start on about my choice of dreams tonight, or the way I choose not to fall off my bike, or how I choose to translate these combinations of letters on the screen into words.
 
I think this is where we differ, really. I completely understand that you didn't make those choices consciously. I didn't, until I started to force myself to think about them. And when I did, I saw all the implicit choices I (or my subconscious mental processes) had made for me. Why did I make that protagonist a guy? Why is everyone white in my story? Where are all the women? The stories we tell are, to an extent, a result of the culture(s) we live in and the stories we've been exposed to and of course our own personal experience. But they are still the stories we choose to tell.

So sure, you didn't make those choices on a conscious level. But they were there to be made, and some part of your brain made them for you. And yes, I do think you should take ownership of that. Because if you had wanted to, you could have changed all those things -- had you been conscious of the choices you were implicitly making.

You're right it, it is where we differ, and I have no hesitation in saying I think you're profoundly wrong.

If the option were given to me to change any issue you might have with the books I have already written I would have no interest in doing so, just as I have no interest in changing them in the book I'm currently checking the publisher's edit for.

You just demonstrate ignorance of the way I write - I don't step back from a painting I've finished and say... what if that cloud were in fact a rainbow, or what if I make the trees into bushes. I don't step back from a book I've written and say what if I swap the main character's sex... that's just madness.

Have you actually read the book or are you launching into this on the strength of somebody else's distortion of it?
 
I don't think anyone disputes that our social environment impacts on our sub-conscious, I just take issue with the idea that an author should be obliged to consciously amend their story from how it came to them originally because of a perceived lack of other kinds of stories. There's nothing wrong with wanting more fantasy to explore away from the "tropes" as you put it. You're bored of the protaganist being a white male. That's fine, and I'm all for new ideas to come through into fantasy (like grimdark in fact) but i can't get on board with the idea that an author has to reconsider his character choices to fulfil a diversity quota or shy away from tropes. An author's story is theirs to do with as they will. If anything its more the publishers that any approbrium should be directed at, since they are the ones that put the books out.
 
By using the word 'choices' so broadly that it in fact covers ever single thing with more than one possible outcome you rob it of meaning, sense and usefulness.

You might as well start on about my choice of dreams tonight, or the way I choose not to fall off my bike, or how I choose to translate these combinations of letters on the screen into words.
That's a fair point, but if those examples are correct - are you really saying you have as much control over your story as you do over your dreams? Are you then disavowing any responsibility for those choices? Or even your story? Are you saying, in effect, you had no role to play in the story being written down?

I'm willing to accept that, but it's just an example of a larger point: that these tropes are endemic in our culture(s), to the point that they become parts of our subconscious. Which, really, is a shame. And thankfully something that is changing slowly.

And really, once you're aware that that is happening, I do think any writer would benefit from examining how those tropes surface in their own writing. Whether or not you then do something with the result is entirely your own choice - but at least you can say that you then made a choice to (or not to) change something about the stories.

Mark _Lawrence said:
Have you actually read the book or are you launching into this on the strength of somebody else's distortion of it?
I've read the first book, not the subsequent two. I'm not sure whether I will or not. I actually enjoyed the book despite its (in my eyes) problems.


Rolynd said:
I don't think anyone disputes that our social environment impacts on our sub-conscious, I just take issue with the idea that an author should be obliged to consciously amend their story from how it came to them originally because of a perceived lack of other kinds of stories. There's nothing wrong with wanting more fantasy to explore away from the "tropes" as you put it. You're bored of the protaganist being a white male. That's fine, and I'm all for new ideas to come through into fantasy (like grimdark in fact) but i can't get on board with the idea that an author has to reconsider his character choices to fulfil a diversity quota or shy away from tropes. An author's story is theirs to do with as they will. If anything its more the publishers that any approbrium should be directed at, since they are the ones that put the books out.
Sure, I'm not saying any author has to do anything. I'm mostly just noting my disappointment with the prevalence of those tropes. Prince of Thorns is just one example of many, really.

I do think we'd have stronger literature if authors did start looking more consciously at those subconscious choices. Many of them do (obviously, most minority and female authors do), already. But I can't obligate anyone to do anything with their story, of course. Nor would I want to.
 
I recall Stephen Fry, on one of the early series of Room 101, bemoaning the style of criticism often used by Allison Pearson, whose demeanour, Fry suggested, was that of a headmistress saying, with a sad shrug, "If only you'd shown it to me before you let it loose on the world...."


I simply don't see the point of criticising the way a writer writes his work (unless one is that writer's editor or agent, people who have a pecuniary interest in the work being delivered on time). Criticise the book by all means - the information to do that is there in the words before you - but getting all angsty about whether this or that choice is done in the full glare of (the reader's) enlightenment is pointless, usually evidence-free and, generally, a waste of one's time (unless one is making a real, paid, career of it).


It's hard enough for an author to produce a coherent book without second-guessing the sensibilities of all the potential readers. For this reason alone, the author shouldn't do it**.


** Other than in making the book more marketable if this is what the author wants to do.

.
 
Last edited:
That's a fair point, but if those examples are correct - are you really saying you have as much control over your story as you do over your dreams? Are you then disavowing any responsibility for those choices? Or even your story? Are you saying, in effect, you had no role to play in the story being written down?

I'm willing to accept that, but it's just an example of a larger point: that these tropes are endemic in our culture(s), to the point that they become parts of our subconscious. Which, really, is a shame. And thankfully something that is changing slowly.

And really, once you're aware that that is happening, I do think any writer would benefit from examining how those tropes surface in their own writing. Whether or not you then do something with the result is entirely your own choice - but at least you can say that you then made a choice to (or not to) change something about the stories.

Yes, I am on record many times as describing my writing process as a sort of dreaming.

And yes, I made a choice not to change the story once it was written. I stand by my choice just as a man who has built a card tower stands by their choice not to reach in and swap one of the central cards for a frog. My tower of cards looks fine to me - I'm not touching it in case it falls over.
 
Yes, I am on record many times as describing my writing process as a sort of dreaming.

And yes, I made a choice not to change the story once it was written. I stand by my choice just as a man who has built a card tower stands by their choice not to reach in and swap one of the central cards for a frog. My tower of cards looks fine to me - I'm not touching it in case it falls over.
Well, I think we've reached a resolution (understanding?) then. I'll continue to be disappointed by some of the tropes in an otherwise enjoyable book, and you'll continue to write good books with possibly some of those tropes, because those are the books enclosed in your dreams. :)

I recall Stephen Fry, on one of the early series of Room 101, bemoaning the style of criticism often used by Allison Pearson, whose demeanour, Fry suggested, was that of a headmistress saying, with a sad shrug, "If only you'd shown it to me before you let it loose on the world...."
Ah, if only I could get Stephen Fry to comment on myself.

As for the point -- well, it was about the (sub)conscious choices that go into any novel and how they can reflect some problematic elements. Really, I thought I had something to add to the conversation in this thread. Whether I did -- you (and the others) be the judge.
 
Well, I think we've reached a resolution (understanding?) then. I'll continue to be disappointed by some of the tropes in an otherwise enjoyable book, and you'll continue to write good books with possibly some of those tropes, because those are the books enclosed in your dreams. :)

That seems entirely reasonable. Thanks.
 
Now that's over, perhaps someone can get on with that grimdark story where the hero is a tray of raspberry puddings? I'd buy it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads


Back
Top