Welcome to the Playpen, our space for ferrety banter and whimsical snippets of things that aren't quite long enough for articles (although they might be) but that caught your eye anyway.
Ibmiller: David Farland = Dave Wolverton?
Yes, that's him. Juneau uses both names to refer to him in the update to that execrable post explaining his "philosophy" of writing female characters.
Courtship is so bad it took Aaron Allston three books to make it even semi-interesting (and as someone who read it after Allston's prequels, it was an extreme letdown).
Well, it's been quite a while since I read either. I suppose I should remedy that fairly soon. I really enjoyed Han's showdown with Zsinj at the end, and Luke single-handedly piloting, copiloting, and operating the quad-guns for the Falcon a little earlier. The rest I could probably go either way on.
However, while reading it I kept thinking, boy this is a smart guy, he understands about the importance of not breaking an audience's trust, not fobbing them off with stuff that doesn't make sense, that isn't true to your premise; they could have used some of his advice over at Battlestar Galactica during its precipitous plunge in quality somewhere in the middle of season 2... oh, right. This is the man responsible for the "story doesn't matter, only character matters" philosophy that turned that series into a soup of contextless melodrama. Pity.
Plus, in his "regular" fantasy short stories I've read, he continues on with his rather vanilla gender/society obsessions. Like, exactly the same without the lightsabers.
Man, the more I hear about the behind-the-scenes stuff, the more it seems like Voyager was just a death ship. It certainly explains why the episode compendium had almost no commentary on the process behind the making of the show in it.
Also, re: Juneau
"But through this, I figured out why there's so much argument. Too much emotions. Just like with racism."
Now, I never read the books, so forgive my ignorance, but was it mentioned at any point that Panem was founded by Vladimir Tatlin? Because, in all honesty, that map implies to me that the books are set in a world where the United States was conquered, destroyed, and rebuilt by a cabal of immortal Russian Constructivists (which, come to think of it, would be a pretty awesome premise for a novel).
Probably should explain, shouldn't I? A few years back, I found out about The Company of the Dead though AlternateHistory.com, and I was so intrigued with the premise that I had to read it. Naturally, while it'd won a few awards in Australia, there was no news of it ever coming out overseas, so I had to shake down a copy from an Australian bookstore.
To summarize briefly, everything gets set into motion by an American neurologist who gets shanghaied into some research work on a damaged time machine excavated out in the Nevada desert. Naturally, he ends up getting sucked back in time to the 1900s, and with no way back, he decides he's going to dedicate his life to fixing the 20th century up. Unfortunately, he only gets as far as 1912 before he dies on the Titanic, but he does make a few critical changes. The bulk of the book is set in an altered version of 2012, when the planet has been divided for decades by the armed standoff between the world-spanning empires/alliance systems of Hohenzollern Germany and Showa Japan, and where America itself has split into two nations permanently divided by the cold war. As for the plot, the book is a spy caper/thriller involving a bunch of Americans (including an alternate Kennedy scion) trying to come up with a way to avert the coming apocalyptic war between the superpowers through a search for that buried time machine.
Now, I read this years ago, and I kind of liked it then, but I do have to admit that the criticisms on that Tor page are on base. It's bloody long, but it's thriller-style so it usually doesn't feel like a slog. (The author mentioned that it originally started out as a short story he worked on for years that just snowballed, and it really does show.) When I read it, I always got the feeling that while it was a thriller at heart, it had some aspirations towards "art" that it was never quite brave enough to follow through on. It's really a book that's more for enthusiastic teenagers that older people.
That said, I do remember it fondly. Some of the allohistorical speculation amusingly out-there (particularly the idea about a seperatist Texas convincing a fair chunk of the other southern states to leave the union with it by wrapping itself in the mantle of the Confederacy), and I am a sucker for any premise that involves a German victory in WWI. (I still don't know why more people don't use this idea; Nazi victories are so overplayed, and letting Wilhelmite Germany win means you could get a pretty strange alternate version of Europe that would probably be more enduring than anything the Third Reich could've done.) And, yes, even the thriller bits are kind of fun.
Oh, and the original site built to promote the book is still up after all these years.
My guess would be that because almost all the complex and interesting characters tend to be male while female characters are often tokenesque and under developed, that girls like to swap the genders around to see themselves better represented. In a sort of, "Why couldn't this character have been a girl" kind of way.
Awww - look gender-swapped Harry Potter! Part one and part 2. Hot sneering girl Draco is particularly delightful.
Wait...Rule 63 drawings that don't give you an overpowering need to bathe in Lysol? What madness is this?
Still, having encountered stuff like this in the past, it does leave me wondering. I can figure out the male motivations for creating/viewing this sort of material easy enough (curiosity, fetish, control, what have you), but I don't know what the appeal for women (mostly because the vast majority of this stuff seems to be male-to-female, rather than an equal split between the two).
Finally, on a tangentially related note, I thought this picture of a dragonified Isaac Clarke from Dead Space was pretty sweet. It's a dragon in an EVA suit; what more could you want?
Juneau wrote something about rape.
Ow. My eyes.
This looked like just another unpublished-author-gives-advice-to-other-unpublished-authors-on-how-to-stay-unpublished blog, but... this...? :-/
Am not going to waste breath on 'im. Not worth it.
Sometimes, I really wish the Catholic Church had decided to call the person responsible for calling a prospective Saint's claims to saintliness into question (before then grovelling and apologising to the Saint should they be canonised) as the Pretentious and Aggravating Arsehole Who Should Be Fucking Ignored Forever. Then people would stop claiming to do that.
Juneau wrote something about rape.
It is rock-bottom horrific and this man has a daughter. Extreme trigger warnings.
Having said that, I wouldn't be happy with hearing those things from women either, like "I think 99.9% of all women are bitchy-some more so than others of course" or "Females are nurturers. Men are fixers [...] When a woman lays out a problem, often she is not asking for it to be fixed, but is asking for sympathy" or "One last thing: women have a tendency to be passive aggressive." Indeed, were I interacting with women who say such things--again, assuming these women exist--I'd have told them to fuck right off, because these are stated as absolutes and reek of internalized misogyny. That's not even getting started on the repulsive heteronormativity in several of them.
On the other hand, things like this strike me as an anecdote about men being sexist fucks than a "this is how to write women":
I once told a male friend that while some men may have a constant sex drive, for women who are tuned in to their bodies and their husbands, ovulation can be like mating season. I swear I could see the mental wheels turning as he plotted to go home and figure out how to track his wife's cycle and take advantage of it.
My final point is that women are extremely sensitive, insecure about their looks, and slow to forgive and forget when someone makes us feel unattractive, stupid, masculine, or any other undesirable thing. I was a late bloomer and I still remember every person that teased me about my flat chest. I remember when I hit a growth spurt and a man told me I was getting "big". (I was 15...wrong word!) I remember the male coworker that told me I had big hands, and the boy in high school who told me my butt was getting jiggly after the end of basketball season (and I wasn't exercising enough, apparently).
...and interpreting it as "this is how women are, so write women like so" speaks of obliviousness whose level cannot be measured in either words or numbers.
The first part read to me like a guy with a fairly reasonable outlook and a fairly immature grasp of feminist issues which might conceivably improve with guidance (aside from the occasional tasteless joke, I could imagine my younger self writing something quite similar).
... and then the bullet list. After about point three, I'm sitting their with my mouth hanging open thinking 'Are you SHITTING me?' And the it gets worse. So much worse.
Girls are stupid, women are smart. Teenage girls think about boys and sex a lot.
Okay, you know what, fuck you. That's my sisters you're talking about right there; and most of my best friends, not too long ago. I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.
James D: You know who I'd take advice on writing female chararacters from? A fucking female author. I hear those exist now.
I see nothing wrong in taking some advice on writing female characters from a male author. Taking most-to-all of your advice from a male author? That's another story.
I'm not sure when he posted it, but Juneau has added an update clarifying that 1) it's Farland's list, not his (so why the fuck are you hosting it unless you endorse it?), and 2) Farland "is directly quoting other women."
The post Juneau "condensed and simplified" most of his bullet points from is available here. To me, the fact that the context of these women's remarks makes a huge difference in interpretation. (Contrast: "I am told by older female friends that menopause is very freeing, because they don't experience the emotional ups and downs that younger women do" from the original with Juneau's "condensed and simplified": "Menopause can be very freeing, because they won't have the emotional ups and downs.") I haven't been through all of Farland's post yet, but what I'm seeing so far strikes me as much less problematic. Do other folks here agree, or is there something I'm still missing?
Re: David Farland
Axiomatic: He's one of the worst fantasy authors I know. He doesn't even have the benefit of sucking due to being exceptionally offensive, he is just REALLY, REALLY bad at writing.
Oh, huh. It's been a while since I read Courtship of Princess Leia but I remember quite enjoying it, despite all the dodgy gender stuff. Hmm.
He's one of the worst fantasy authors I know. He doesn't even have the beneift of sucking due to being exceptionally offensive, he is just REALLY, REALLY bad at writing.
No wonder I bought his "something something Runelords" for 2.99 euros. I don't mean used, or having it marked down by the store, this book was published with "ONLY 2.99!!!" on the FRONT COVER.
Anyway the whole notion of a "how to write a non-straight/white/cismale character" article is flawed at the outset, unless the thrust of it is "how to write about people whose life experiences are very, very different from yours can't be summed up in a brief blog post, read books written by them and ask people you know who belong to these groups (and take them out to dinner to make your incessant stupid questions worth their while)."
A friend's speculated that perhaps Juneau will embark on a "how to write people of color" guide next. It could begin with "first I start off with a white person, and layer a thin veneer of brown, black or yellow on top..."
And those bullet points, ugh. You know who I'd take advice on writing female chararacters from? A fucking female author. I hear those exist now.
By the way valse de la lune, I just finished Scar Night, and the second half of the book made me more or less agree with your estimation. The setup was good but it utterly failed to make me care about any of the characters before just throwing a lot of plot at me, so all of it was happening to people whose motivations weren't properly built up and whose continued existence was utterly irrelevant. They make this Ulcis guy seem like a real threat and then he's dead within like 2 pages of meeting him. It was a big mistake to try to stuff *six* POV characters into a book that wasn't even 600 pages long. I did appreciate his staying away from cliche fantasy characters (no big strong manly hero types at all, surprisingly), but it's like they were all just outlines of characters rather than real people. Also fuck Dill. The book should've been about Mr. Nettle and Rachael and focused way more on them as people, rather than just launching right into a subpar plot. Perdido Street Station, for all its faults, was very good at making the characters feel like real people and making you care about what happened to them.