The Author and the Fan: What do we owe each other?

cthia wrote:

JustCurious wrote:Another thing that has led to a lot of complaint has been the change in the nature of the stories centered around Honor. They changed to becoming more about the politics than about the fighting.
But this is a necessary consequence of Honor becoming part of the high command from Ashes of victory onward. Many followed her career and wanted to see her succeed. They got their wish but wanted to see her in the same sort of action as in the earlier books. But that would have jarred with many, especially most of those here. Giving them what they wanted would have been contrived.
The growth in the size of science fiction novels has been due to two things. One is authors putting in detail that older authors would have left out. The other is telling a story from more viewpoints.
The amount of detail is a matter of taste. The Honorverse books need more than most but I do think he is overdoing it. I think what is more important is how the detail is introduced. Is it introduced in ways that fits in with the flow of the story?
And the change to a more politically oriented type of story does mean that a story does need to be told from more viewpoints.

I certainly can admit that I was also miffed at the deviation from an ingredient that worked. If it ain't broke don't fix it. My main attraction in any story is the allure of a strong female character. It is why I purchased the original publishing of OBS for $5 in the first place, even though it has an unappealing, hideous picture of Nimitz staring at me from the cover. I dislike the horror genre and I wasn't sure what OBS wasn't about that, because it wasn't located in a bookstore but in a closeout book bin at a sidewalk sale. But the pic of Honor was compelling, she was female and it was only $5. It turned out to be a real steal. But I digress.

OBS is the first in the series and it is the preferred starting point. It turned out to be my favorite read in all of the Honorverse and probably amongst my global all time favorites. The heroine is female and she kicks ass and takes names. She literally takes names, entering them into her database. LOL

But alas, storyline moved away from our heroine. I think it was due to the series length and some psychological notion only Freud and his colleagues can explain, having to do with an author not wanting to burn his reader out or appearing to be one dimensional and/or unimaginative in his writing. Which isn't possible for this reader. Weber could have force fed me Salamander cooked in many different ways and I'd've pounded the table for more. But that's just me. I can eat Italian every day and not grow tired of it either. Is Honor Italian by any chance? LOL

Then I hear my mother's words reminding me to be mindful of others and I suddenly realize that the author has stories he wants to tell and, well, too much Honor in epic space battles could have burned him out as well.

Our tastes differ here. I prefer the story of a character, how that character develops, to unending stories about an undeveloping character. And those look like the stories that RFC wants to tell.
A consequence of that is that Honor was eventually going to be promoted into a position where she would not see frequent action. I accepted that. I wanted the story to have a conclusion.
I like the background detail about the societies and the technology. But RFC does overdo this and has taken it to a level where it interferes with storytelling. I wonder whether the historian and the world builder are interfering with the story teller without him realizing it. Also he can drop the infodumps in a way that causes more interference with the story than was needed.

JustCurious wrote:Our tastes differ here. I prefer the story of a character, how that character develops, to unending stories about an undeveloping character. And those look like the stories that RFC wants to tell.
A consequence of that is that Honor was eventually going to be promoted into a position where she would not see frequent action. I accepted that. I wanted the story to have a conclusion.
I like the background detail about the societies and the technology. But RFC does overdo this and has taken it to a level where it interferes with storytelling. I wonder whether the historian and the world builder are interfering with the story teller without him realizing it. Also he can drop the infodumps in a way that causes more interference with the story than was needed.

As far as I'm personally concerned, Equations of motion for missiles under constant acelleration is just way too over the top. I mean one may as well pick up my uncles monologue on transcendant algorythms or some such non sense.

It has to be a good story and the magic aka handwavium has to be consistent. If the hero isn't likeable or at least has some redeeming feature,if there is no conflict driving the plot, its pretty much going to suck in my opinion.

I don't care how much mathematics ye auld author throws in as fibre. Its like the cheezy sci fi movies where the script sucks, the actors either can't or don't and the director doesn't have a clue, but its filled with wonderful CGI & other special effects.

I guess there are hard science guys and girls that really need this stuff because their brains ain't so good at processing words, I'm way more social sciences, I have trouble processing formulae with anything greek alphabet in it. I have real problems with number memory.

As I said before those missiles xxx light seconds away traveling at yyy KPS or zz gravities, is just meaningless to me. why stick 4 paragraphs of that into anotherwise intriguing dialogue of how all the officers and crew on all the ships are reacting to approaching anhiallation.

That'll be the episode where Wonder Woman gets trapped by enemies and Batman has to step in to rescue her with Robin's unwitting assistance. Chuckle.

Cheers, John

cthia wrote:

John Prigent wrote:I must be unusual. I just enjoy a good story and don't bother to try to understand the 'tech' - most of which has to rely on handwavium because we don't have, for example, FTL space flight or graser lenses. And I couldn't care less about strange foreign names because I know how to pronounce the 'genuine' languages, and mutated ones as on Safehold are fun to 'work backwards' to their originals. So Honor is now so senior that she's not personally in combat - so what? We're still reading battle scenes from her friends' and subordinates' viewpoints, and RFC has made it clear that he won't write blood-spattered porn. I simply enjoy whatever he cares to write for us - which is what any real fan will do without carping over minor details.

Oh John. You're simply one of those health nuts with a healthy attitude towards sci-fi. You probably buy your books in the gluten free aisle.

I'm pretty much the same. I simply like the storyline. I like the cavalry coming over the hyper wall in time and could care less for the detail of the tech beyond a single layer under the skin. For example, I appreciate hearing about the development of Apollo, the hellish ECM, LACS and the like. But I won't cry if the detail isn't included. Simply that it works.

BUT! If I may enquire...

What is an episode of Wonder Woman, without, well... Wonder Woman?

cthia wrote:THE AUTHOR AND THE FAN: WHAT DO WE OWE EACH OTHER?

https://www.amazon.com/Exasperating-Dav ... miniatures

This book is appalling to me. Fans are just so trucking disrespectful nowadays.

What is our due? Are we due?

Author and reader do not owe each other anything.
But as with any long developing book series expectations arise and disappointment emerges when those expectations are not met.

An author is completely justified to ignore those expectations and go his own way / stick to the original idea. But in doing so he risks fueling the disappointments of the reader.

To a certain degree is inevitable with longer book series but it gets significantly worse if the setting and narrative changes too radically over time.
And of course disappointment will result in criticsm. Some constructive, some rational, some fair, some justified and some not.

But so what? Its no big deal. An author with dozens upon dozens of books under his belt is free to ignore the whining of a tiny fraction of his readers on a forum. He’s even free to ignore some 500 less than 4 star reviews on amazon on his last book. You cant make everybody happy even if you tried.

But maybe, just maybe there is some valid criticisms to be had on the direction and progression of not only the last but the last four or five books in the series.

Anyway, i’m curious, have you read the essay thingy you linked? What is so appalling, besides the fact that the author dares to criticise the Honorverse series?

I have read that thing and tbh, the author has some very good points IMO. Sure the author displays some zeal, but thats to be expected if someone is crazy enough to write a book criticising a somwhat known military scifi series.
Obviously i dont agree on everything – the complains about infodumping and general prose for example – but i do think the criticisms of later plot and progression of the series is spot on.

To put it this way – personally I'm a fan of the first dozen or so Honorverse books. Its military scifi at its very best. But sorry, i dont like the last four or five Honorverse books for a multitude of reasons. Its very likley i would not have read all the Honorverse books if the series started out the way it became after AAC.

This quote from the essay sums it up pretty well:

‚The modality of the Honorverse has changed with expansion, from grounded, densely allusive, and notably consistent military space opera to incrasingly implausible and arbitrary space-operatic fantasy with heavy military trim dominated by authorial fiat – but Weber seems wholly unaware of it, and has in no way adjusted his writing style to allow for the different imperatives, with increasingly disastrous results.‘

I plodded through as much of it as I could, swashbuckling along the way. I didn't purchase the book. It was my niece's copy, given to her as a gift from a suitor. I borrowed it one weekend while she was visiting.

The author does a fine job in some areas, e.g., fleshing out the comparison and likeness of Harrington to Hornblower. He fleshes out the similarity in design of Honorverse tech vs. historical tech and the overall paradigm the Honorverse follows with true military history, tactics, strategy and design.

He goes on to suggest that fanfic is a result of the long waits between publishings. I disagree with that statement. For me, fanfic is a testament to both the appeal and the longevity of the series. Much like Star Trek. I wouldn't be surprised if Weber's works of fanfic fuel the series long after the fact, much like it does with Star Trek. It is just that good to me.

Much of the background detail that the author admonishes -- though I personally didn't care for it upon first read myself -- will be there awaiting the fan as he rereads and rereads and as he becomes more familiar and intimate with the series, characters and plots and when he begins to mature along with it, thus wanting more. The detail, as my young niece has pointed out, will be instrumental if a movie is ever produced of the series. It will become a ready made boiler plate schematic for a producer to follow. The less detail a story has, the more literary license and the more of himself a producer has to inject into the effort. The Honorverse has no shortage of DNA of which a producer can use, so errant crap shouldn't have an excuse to find its way into a screen write.

John Lennard goes on to imply fanfic to be one of the possible results of a reader's disappointment with the direction of plot. I don't find this to be fair, reasonable or accurate. Any literary work, be it novels, movies, plays, what have you, can suffer the same fate of readers feeling a different direction would have been better. That is what alternate endings are all about. I'm sure the author himself sees many forks in the road where his writing could have taken, but there can only be one true route the works could have taken and should have taken, which is pursuant only to the vision the author himself ultimately sees in his own head.

I don't so much find the book appalling mainly because of the content, though some of it I feel is downright wrong, inaccurate, misleading, insensitive and even insane. It is well laid out and articulated and he is obviously not some raving lunatic criticizing without focus. What I find appalling is that it belongs more in a classroom as a book report or an essay where no harm is done to the author or the reader.

This kind of thing can damage an author's sales and livelihood. It can also steer a new fan away from a monumental work of science fiction. A critic, even a super critic, an informed critic, an educated critic, can only state subjective criticism. Just as an author cannot peg what everyone will like, a critic has the same limitations.

I hope kzt doesn't mind my using his dislike of At All Costs again as an example, because I respect him wholly, and have learned from his angle of approaching At All Costs and appreciate it as a fellow reader, and as a fan of the Honorverse and of book discussions. However, At All Costs is one of my most favorite in the series. It serves to show the difference in human nature. For a critic to critique as if his word is written in stone is appalling. I've never liked Siskell & Ebert. They would frequently give a movie that I happened to absolutely adore and rave about a bad rating. "What?!" I, oftentimes more than not, would find myself exclaiming. In fact, when they would claim a movie was bad, meant I needed to see it. Many times I'd wonder what side of the bed the two of them woke up on. Or what mood they were in before seeing the awesome movie they discredited. I found myself asking this question every time of them... "Did you get dumped before the movie by phone?"

I've also heard other posters claim that they didn't like Flag In Exile, which blows my mind. That is probably my second most favorite book in the series. Pound for pound, page for page, it boasts some of the most densely packed action, suspense, excitement, enjoyment, and tears per page! Of any book I've ever read actually. As far as what floats my boat. I come away from Flag in Exile a pleasantly exhausted and emotionally satiated fan.

At any rate, kzt isn't publishing a global, subjective, formal critique of the author's works. John Lennard has. His effort is more befitting or at home around the coffee machine at work, or amongst friends at a small gathering. I personally could never do such a thing. I was taught that if you don't have anything nice to say....

But that's just me. When did things get to this point? How can anyone feel they have this sort of stock in a writer's vision? If I find an author has abandoned what floats my boat, I simply drop him. I could never purport to know what floats anyone else's boat, or risk steering them away from a read that they may find absolutely incredible. Who died and made critics story gods? If they could do a better job, they'd have movies or series of their own.

If Weber had killed off Honor, I would have discontinued buying the novels. I would have complained about it with friends, family and colleagues. However, I would never have written a book about it. I do take note of some of his charges. Such as Baen's complicity in tainting the Honorverse with the mechanics of its publishing.

But this is just me. Like I said, I didn't get the memo.

I don't so much find the book appalling mainly because of the content, though some of it I feel is downright wrong, inaccurate, misleading, insensitive and even insane. It is well laid out and articulated and he is obviously not some raving lunatic criticizing without focus. What I find appalling is that it belongs more in a classroom as a book report or an essay where no harm is done to the author or the reader.

Well i disagree with this viewpoint on principle. Any work of art is open for public criticism, period. Whether or criticism will damage sales or even hurt an author livelihood is irrelevant as long as we are talking criticism and not slander. The fact that criticism is always subjective and thus limited in nature is also irrelevant to this question.
An author is not entitled to his readers approving of his work, refraining from public criticism or anything. An author is entitled to would be readers paying him for his work. That’s it. Period. Everything else is free speech in a free society.
And form a purely practical standpoint, I seriously doubt this essay has had a measurable impact on anything. Those 500 rather negative amazon reviews might have though. I guess you have a problem with those as well? Where do you draw the line?
You’re right, nobody made critics gods. But nobody made you or anyone else god either, to decide which criticism is – I guess – public enough to not be allowed.

Star Knight wrote:Well i disagree with this viewpoint on principle. Any work of art is open for public criticism, period. Whether or criticism will damage sales or even hurt an author livelihood is irrelevant as long as we are talking criticism and not slander. The fact that criticism is always subjective and thus limited in nature is also irrelevant to this question.
An author is not entitled to his readers approving of his work, refraining from public criticism or anything. An author is entitled to would be readers paying him for his work. That’s it. Period. Everything else is free speech in a free society.
And form a purely practical standpoint, I seriously doubt this essay has had a measurable impact on anything. Those 500 rather negative amazon reviews might have though. I guess you have a problem with those as well? Where do you draw the line?
You’re right, nobody made critics gods. But nobody made you or anyone else god either, to decide which criticism is – I guess – public enough to not be allowed.

I guess there are principled reviewers and just plain rotten persons venting their spleen over the anonymity of the internet. Reminds me of "The Fountainhead". Some people do not care a whit for pretty much anything. Its all about being nasty and getting followers.

Not saying that is what this particular person has done/is doing. Just as a matter of principle.

pappilon wrote:

Star Knight wrote:Well i disagree with this viewpoint on principle. Any work of art is open for public criticism, period. Whether or criticism will damage sales or even hurt an author livelihood is irrelevant as long as we are talking criticism and not slander. The fact that criticism is always subjective and thus limited in nature is also irrelevant to this question.
An author is not entitled to his readers approving of his work, refraining from public criticism or anything. An author is entitled to would be readers paying him for his work. That’s it. Period. Everything else is free speech in a free society.
And form a purely practical standpoint, I seriously doubt this essay has had a measurable impact on anything. Those 500 rather negative amazon reviews might have though. I guess you have a problem with those as well? Where do you draw the line?
You’re right, nobody made critics gods. But nobody made you or anyone else god either, to decide which criticism is – I guess – public enough to not be allowed.

I guess there are principled reviewers and just plain rotten persons venting their spleen over the anonymity of the internet. Reminds me of "The Fountainhead". Some people do not care a whit for pretty much anything. Its all about being nasty and getting followers.

Not saying that is what this particular person has done/is doing. Just as a matter of principle.

I know that there is one critic who comes up and critizes the info dumps in the Safehold series to the extent that I wonder why she doesn't simply stop reading Safehold. She should stick to romance novels.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:I know that there is one critic who comes up and critizes the info dumps in the Safehold series to the extent that I wonder why she doesn't simply stop reading Safehold. She should stick to romance novels.

Don

-

In Safehold there is more excuse for infodumps than there is in most series. This is because the technological advancement is a major element of the story and cannot be glossed over. One can still argue for RFC having taken it too far but this series will not work without them.
Really the question is do the infodumps disrupt the flow of the story? This in part how many and how large they are. But it is more where are they and how are they introduced?

cthia wrote:

kzt wrote:There are authors whose books I have thrown against a wall. There are others authors whose book I have set down half done and never ever picked it up again (GRRM, I’m looking at you) because I just stopped caring about the characters. Other people like those books.

Authors owe the people who buy their books the most entertaining and self-consistent story they can deliver in the time they have to write it.

There are several books in a series I’m a fan of that I think would have been greatly improved by a much more aggressive edit. But that takes time that wasn’t possible. (My suspicion is that at least once getting the book out with less editing than I’d have wanted kept Baen afloat.) And I’d rather have the book then not have the book, even if it does feature secondary characters who mysteriously teleport across the galaxy between scenes,

As far as what the fans owe the author: Money, don’t steal their work. Actually read it before criticizing it. Be fair. Don’t make stuff up to criticize them over.

:raises hand:

Are legal thefts ok? I began my foray into the World of Weber on a whim. I purchased the original hardback publishing of OBS, the one with the hideous picture of Nimitz on the cover, for $5 at a sidewalk sale. I consider that a real steal!

And I'll admit it in a court of law. Clutching my copy tightly!

The only way you'll get it Coppers, is if you pry it from my cold clammy claws!

U.S. copyright law specifies ways of getting a work legally. That includes buying used copies, getting it from a library and so forth. Some publishers and authors are not happy with that, but that's the law. Anything else is opinion, not law.

A certain Druid of my online acquaintance says he has a spell on his books about magic that prevents someone who acquired them illegally (via a pirate download site, for example) from gaining any benefit from them. He says that he has testimony from pirates that it does, in fact work, and he would like something similar for his fiction.