The Sword and Laser discussion

Here's Annalee's rebuttal to the new york times news article that said Game of Thrones was for boys only:

http://io9.com/#!5792574/really-why-w...

I found it funnier that she called it a "global warming horror story." Really, has she ever seen Happy Feet?!?! ;)

GRRM's reply:

http://grrm.livejournal.com/210874.html

Damn Westoros and it's lack of carbon emission laws.

Wow... I mean... WOW! I read the original article and a lot of the replies today and I think the anger is justified. There's so much wrong with the NYT article that I don't even know where to begin with, but I think there's one quote that I find particularly condescending:

While I do not doubt that there are women in the world who read books like Mr. Martin’s, I can honestly say that I have never met a single woman who has stood up in indignation at her book club and refused to read the latest from Lorrie Moore unless everyone agreed to “The Hobbit” first.

Oh, okay then, thanks for allowing me to be in the minority of women who read "books like Mr. Martin's". How very nice of you. I don't even know Lorrie Moore, so I can't say whether I would enjoy her books or not. Maybe I will, as I have hardly any prejudices and msot of the time I just like to read. But then again, there's a reason, why I'm a member of *this* bookclub and not one which may tend to my literary needs as a woman. Or, you know... whatever.

The more I think about this article the more annoyed I get. So I better stop now or this is going to turn into a real rant.

I think it depends on what generation you are from, and perhaps the NY Times is dating itself. After all, I quit my only in-person book club after several of the (retired) women boycotted my book pick (Oryx and Crake) because they "do not read" science fiction. Sigh.

Jenny wrote: "After all, I quit my only in-person book club after several of the (retired) women boycotted my book pick (Oryx and Crake) because they "do not read" science fiction. Sigh."

I guess there's nothing to add to that. That makes me sad.

But Margaret Atwood clearly states she doesn't write science fiction. :)

I thought the same about Atwood not being science fiction. I don't agree, though. I think it's very science fiction, but there may be different takes on the genre. Let's say she writes dystopian novels or something - it's still science fiction to me.

But yeah, you're right, I would have thought that Margaret Atwood would be the perfect and welcome candidate for a (let's stay in clichées here) female-dominated book club. I guess I was wrong, though.

Well, yeah. I even found a review of her three dystopian novels that talked about how they were so important to feminist lit, etc., and mailed them to the women who were so resistant. Muahaha, it didn't help. The five of us who showed up had a three hour conversation about it though.

I think there is a serious misconception about science fiction and fantasy in general, about what it means about you if you read it, about the quality of it. I know I'm preaching to the choir here.

I would think that the sexuality and the nudity was aimed at male audience.

As to the io9 response, unless I missed something, most of content of response is referencing events and a tone that we have not seen yet on the show.

If it does end up being "drawing room drama" or even merely a less antagonistically-phrased "courtly drama", then that is another thing. What is in evidence though is gore, horror, swords, sex, and female nudity. Seems like pretty typical male fantasy to me thus far.

Gemma Files pointed to a very apt CS Lewis quote on her blog this afternoon.

“It is very dangerous to write about a kind [of literature] you hate. Hatred obscures all distinctions. I don’t like detective stories and therefore all detective stories look much alike to me: if I wrote about them I should therefore infallibly write drivel. Criticism of kinds, as distinct from criticism of works, cannot of course be avoided…but it should not masquerade as criticism of individual works. Many reviews are useless because, while purporting to condemn the book, they only reveal the reviewer’s dislike of the kind of which it belongs.

Let bad tragedies be censured by those who love tragedy, and bad detective stories by those who love the detective story. Then we shall learn their real faults. Otherwise we shall find epics blamed for not being novels, farces for not being high comedies, novels by James for lacking the swift action of Smollett. Who wants to hear a particular claret abused by a fanatical teetotaler, or a particular woman by a confirmed misogynist?”

http://handful-ofdust.livejournal.com...

Great quotation Kate, and I think is pretty much what happened in this situation.

Ginie Bellafante posted a reply on the NYT website now: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/201...

I'm still not sure, though. I mean, I get that criticism is bound to be personal, but one of the issues people took was that she was generalizing and basically didn't do her research when talking about the show and book.

It sounds like an acceptable apology, but it still seems a bit like she doesn't really think that what she wrote was wrong, just that she is sorry that it offended people.

It also seems a bit like she's still dividing the world into fantasy fans who read nothing but fantasy and non-fantasy fans who don't ever read fantasy. I read a lot of fantasy, but also a lot of other genres and I have too many TV shows that I watch regularly and while I don't know Nicole Holofcener, I have watched plenty of artsy movies (including lots of French ones from the 60s). So, what I'm saying is, it's not that simple.

Plus, I still believe that everyone is entitled to their areas of total ignorance, but if you are asked to review something, you should try at least to feign some interest in it and pretend you cared enough to gather some information. If you still don't like it, so be it. But as a professional I kind of expect you to do a little more work than just writing down your opinion and defend yourself with a "Well, I'm entitled to my opinion, aren't I?"

Is this too harsh? I don't know. Maybe I'm still too annoyed to be objective enough.

That's not an apology.

What she said boils down to "it's my opinion, so whatever geeks".

Yeah. I was wondering whether it was too early and I was still too pissed off, but I have re-read the quasi-apology and it's not good.

Why is it so hard for people to just read what people are upset about, understand it and say sorry?

Ala wrote: "That's not an apology.

What she said boils down to "it's my opinion, so whatever geeks"."

And one could argue she has that right, so why bother at all?

She has the right to her own opinion. That's not my issue.

Her original piece was titled a 'review' of the show yet contained nothing even remotely specific about the show.

It seemed, instead, to be a hit piece against those who are fans of the genre. Written with a whole lot of smugness and not much in the way of factual accuracy.

When you start out the piece by saying that there is "Embedded in the narrative is a vague global-warming horror story", you're pretty much far, far away from knowing anything about the material.

Wow... is all I can say... After reading the i09 post and the Martin response I cannot even bring myself to read the NYT article...

"If you are not averse to the Dungeons & Dragons aesthetic, the series might be worth the effort. If you are nearly anyone else, you will hunger for HBO to get back to the business of languages for which we already have a dictionary. "

That quote from the NYT article alone says it all, she hates anything that is sci fi or fantasy...

I think it'd be hilarious if Tom & Veronica invited Ms Bellafante to be the guest for the Dragon*Con podcast...

I guess what frustrated me about the original NYT article was that I've had to deal with that kind of ignorance my whole life. On several occasions people lent my son a science fiction or fantasy book and they would act surprised to find out I had read it too; people seem to assume I only read it in order to "screen" what my son was reading (I wasn't). As if, since I am a woman, I couldn't possibly be interested in books of "that" genre.

And BTW I'm an English major and I have read some Lorrie Moore-- but I would rather read Tolkien :)