|
Post by Liv the Librarian on Apr 26, 2014 11:20:54 GMT -6
I've been told at least ten times in the past two months that I need to read this series. I'm currently still working through ASoIaF by GRRM, so I'm not ready to move to it yet. I would love to see more opinions as to why I should read these books though. Most people just tell me I have to read them and leave it at that
|
|
|
Post by Liadan on Apr 28, 2014 7:21:38 GMT -6
They're really not that good, though. I had way more fun reading a Let's Read series (http://ronanwills.wordpress.com/category/lets-read-tnotw/) that took apart everything that was so, so terribly awful about it (like the lack of anything resembling plot). That being said, they're a light read and entertaining at times.
|
|
|
Post by Liv the Librarian on Apr 28, 2014 12:20:42 GMT -6
I'm actually glad to get a real opinion on the books. Everyone gushes over them and tells me nothing. I mean, I'll suggest the Southern Vampire Diaries to people because I LOVE those books, but they're pretty horribly written and there are some major plotholes lol. I'm at least honest about it. I'll still try to get a hold of them, but it's good to know that if I am disappointed it's not my fault
|
|
|
Post by Liadan on Apr 28, 2014 20:11:40 GMT -6
Yeah, it's somewhat disturbing that this stuff's praised to the stars (especially its prose), but I'm not that surprised, given that apparently most of the people praising it haven't read outside the SFF genre. But yeah, huge problems with the main character being an over-the-top Gary Stu (this bothered me somewhat less than it did others, as I think Rothfuss is at least attempting, if not entirely succeeding, in engaging with various cliches and tropes littered in the genre), most women having no character whatsoever (though tbf that criticism can be leveled at most of the characters, really), and don't even get me started on the second book. Rothfuss thinks that people "hate him because omg I have sex in my books!!" but in reality, it's because the sex is either hilariously terrible (think 13 year-old sex fantasies, except if a girl writes it, it's suddenly "fanfiction" and if a guy writes it, it turns into an international best-seller) or just terrible. Also, rape. Rothfuss thinks he's a feminist. He isn't. I've still read and enjoyed the books, to be clear, but given the mass of frothing fans, I feel like it's necessary that -someone- point out the many, many flaws of this book. Or you could save yourself the money and just read the blog. It's in a much more condensed form, too.
|
|
|
Post by Liv the Librarian on Apr 29, 2014 0:11:48 GMT -6
It's incredibly hard for men to write well written female characters. Though, to be fair, there haven't been many authors that I've read that write well opposite sex characters. Except for Neil Gaiman. He's perfect in every way though lol. GRRM does a decent job, though, I think. Also.... Do you know how many of PR fanboy friends would slaughter me for reading the blog and not the books?
|
|
|
Post by Liadan on Apr 29, 2014 0:25:29 GMT -6
I mean... Neil Gaiman kind of draws on a fairly stock list of characters too, though. I enjoy a lot of his books, but I wouldn't exactly call his characters, female or not, particularly fleshed out. And while I haven't read Sandman, from the criticism I've read, he's pretty terrible about trans* characters there, so that's a bit of an iffy point for me.
|
|
|
Post by Liv the Librarian on Apr 29, 2014 1:45:51 GMT -6
Whaaat, no the criticisms are lying. Sandman is the best . I've never read anything better, and I can say that with confidence (though some might say that maybe I'm reading the wrong things ). Though, I do completely disagree that his characters are of stock value, especially with the fact that he kind of dominates in his own subgenre of fantasy writing. I think you need to read Sandman to get a feel for it yourself, that is one series I will 100% say that you cannot listen to anything anyone says about it (even me) without reading it yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Liadan on May 1, 2014 22:30:57 GMT -6
Um, I don't think I really need to read them to react to the criticism--often written by actual trans* folk--and realize that it's not something I'm interested in reading or supporting. While his portrayal of trans* characters may certainly be no worse than that of other writers' in SFF, mostly because SFF treats everyone like trash if they're not white/het/cis/male (they'll occasionally do okay treatments of gay characters or women), it doesn't make it any better. Just two minutes on Google turned up enough links that I'm rather turned away from it. shadowscrescent.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/a-trans-woman-on-sandman-and-the-objectification-of-our-bodies/birdofparadox.wordpress.com/2009/05/09/neil-gaiman-changes/www.cheryl-morgan.com/?page_id=10825www.keepyourbridgesburning.com/2012/06/the-sandman-a-game-of-you/Just to be clear, I'm not saying that there's any such thing as a work that's not problematic. Nor is there anything wrong, at all, with liking problematic works. But denying that there's problems, and that those problems do cause real people pain, turns into an attempt of erasure--and while I myself am not trans*, the issues presented here are problematic enough that I think I'll stay away. Sure, Gaiman's not bad for a genre writer, but he's no Michael Chabon or Junot Díaz. As for stock characters--again, Gaiman isn't bad for a genre writer, I suppose. But honestly, as much as I loved The Ocean at the End of the Lane, his characters are, simply put, stock characters. The narrator is a passive character who has no agency (which I realize is part and parcel of the plot, but nonetheless). He is a scared 7 year old boy with largely good intentions whose fear of adulthood, possibly-divorcing-parents, and "the other woman" are all physically realized in the character of Ursula Monkton (who is the embodiment of the Bogeyman that also represents "real world" fears, i.e. "the other woman"). The three women (Lettie, Ginnie Hempstock, and old Mrs. Hempstock) draw on the oldest stereotype of the Goddess (Maiden/Mother/Crone), and their personalities are defined largely as such. For that matter, most of the characters, in his novels, are motivated/characterized by some sort of McGuffin; Hunter in Neverwhere is driven by the desire to hunt/be the best, Laura in American Gods exists to propel the plot forward (she is the quintessential example of a fridged woman--Shadow's return from prison, the starting point of the novel, happens because of her death--even if she temporarily returns to life to make things happen) etc. They're not real, human characters. They're fantasy characters--and there's nothing wrong with that, particularly since a lot of his stories are often reminiscent more of mythic fiction (a term coined by Charles de Lint, I believe) than fantasy, but his characters don't, in any sense, remind me of actual, living people. I certainly wouldn't call his characters well-realized or well-written. Adequately, perhaps, but not done well.
|
|
|
Post by Liv the Librarian on May 2, 2014 13:13:52 GMT -6
Okay, because I am being bothered nonstop by people today and am not able to write my own feelings on this fully (about the trans* character Wanda), I am going to copy-paste one of the comments from this persons blog.
"As someone who has read “A Game of You”–albeit from a cis-perspective–I didn’t feel that Wanda’s portrayal was negative.
I felt that, yes, she was used as comedic relief, but not because of her trans*status, but instead because she was a funny, cynical, wise-crackin’ lady. I felt that Gaiman utilized the unfair treatment of Wanda’s character to highlight the unfair perception of trans* people throughout society.
What a stupid thing for any person to believe, “It’s like uh gender isn’t something you can pick and choose as as uh far as gods are concerned.” Gods aren’t REAL, and gender IS. The statement highlights the ridiculousness of transphobia, to me. It does not reenforce long-held-beliefs about transculture. I think, being offended by the mystic-realm treatment of Wanda might be you finding stuff you already assumed would be there, and assuming that a cis-male cannot be on the side of trans*women. If you have access to the bound copy of “A Dream of You,” there is a beautiful introduction by Shawn MacManus which discusses the issues around Wanda’s character (and indeed some of the other fantastical events that occur in this NYC) and contributes an intriguing solution.
I believe that if Gaiman wanted to portray trans*culture in a negative light, he would have completely isolated Wanda’s character. Instead, he brings in a completely unrelated character who ALSO has a trans*woman relative. Yes, this second trans*woman was also killed, but 1) her killer was human, and not by chance, and 2) this portrays transpeople as practically common-place if two complete strangers have this experience in common.
Additionally, this is not the only mention of trans*people in “The Sandman.” In the second installment, “The Doll’s House,” we meet a serial killer whose only victims are trans*people who are on HRT, are “passable,” and just have not undergone SRS. It would be easy to construe these three instances of trans*people in “The Sandman” as Gaiman insisting that all trans*people deserve death, but that conclusion is lazy, and makes assumptions on Gaiman’s part that he simply does not deserve. I think Gaiman thinks the trans* narrative is beautiful, worth investigation, an is deserving of recognition, and THAT is why he continues to write trans* characters.
I DO (obviously) love Neil Gaiman and he IS a champion in the portrayal of (usually cis-) women in comic-culture, but I also recognize that not everything he does is completely awesome. Gaiman is not infallible. However, here, I think that he did his very best to discuss the story of trans* women in relation to their portrayal in mainstream media and fiction. And I sincerely hope that this experience did not convince you to abandon a truly beautiful piece of fiction."
That's exactly how I felt about the issue. Gaiman never writes about characters to be cliché. Sure, he brings in clichéd characters a lot, but it's to bring more light to them and show the world that every cliché has plenty of non-cliché value. He writes about normalcy not being normal.
In general, I just deeply disagree about your assessment of his characters because I do see them as well-realized and well-written and well done.
That's just my opinion though, and it'd be a sad world if we all agreed on everything all the time.
|
|
|
Post by anonymous on May 2, 2014 16:09:56 GMT -6
I have read both books, AND I LOVE THEM!
|
|
|
Post by anonymous on May 2, 2014 16:15:09 GMT -6
well, as I read you want to have a "real opinion" to read them. here is my : You dont have to read that book like ASoIaF where everybody dies and is killed, and all is bad and evil, it`s so called "naive" fantasy where you know that everything will be ok anyways, but yet you want to know the story. I really liked that it is written in 1st person perspective rather than 3rd person ,and how the book is overall, it`s not to long, and it does not have 100 page descriptions like WoT has, its more like a baseline and lets your mind to come up with the details. I really enjoyed both of the books very much. And, of course, I am person who can enjoy every book. But I really think you should read it, it`s like in this nieche between harry potter and ASoIaF.
|
|
|
Post by Liadan on May 2, 2014 18:15:00 GMT -6
Okay, because I am being bothered nonstop by people today and am not able to write my own feelings on this fully (about the trans* character Wanda), I am going to copy-paste one of the comments from this persons blog. "As someone who has read “A Game of You”–albeit from a cis-perspective–I didn’t feel that Wanda’s portrayal was negative.
I felt that, yes, she was used as comedic relief, but not because of her trans*status, but instead because she was a funny, cynical, wise-crackin’ lady. I felt that Gaiman utilized the unfair treatment of Wanda’s character to highlight the unfair perception of trans* people throughout society.
What a stupid thing for any person to believe, “It’s like uh gender isn’t something you can pick and choose as as uh far as gods are concerned.” Gods aren’t REAL, and gender IS. The statement highlights the ridiculousness of transphobia, to me. It does not reenforce long-held-beliefs about transculture. I think, being offended by the mystic-realm treatment of Wanda might be you finding stuff you already assumed would be there, and assuming that a cis-male cannot be on the side of trans*women. If you have access to the bound copy of “A Dream of You,” there is a beautiful introduction by Shawn MacManus which discusses the issues around Wanda’s character (and indeed some of the other fantastical events that occur in this NYC) and contributes an intriguing solution.
I believe that if Gaiman wanted to portray trans*culture in a negative light, he would have completely isolated Wanda’s character. Instead, he brings in a completely unrelated character who ALSO has a trans*woman relative. Yes, this second trans*woman was also killed, but 1) her killer was human, and not by chance, and 2) this portrays transpeople as practically common-place if two complete strangers have this experience in common.
Additionally, this is not the only mention of trans*people in “The Sandman.” In the second installment, “The Doll’s House,” we meet a serial killer whose only victims are trans*people who are on HRT, are “passable,” and just have not undergone SRS. It would be easy to construe these three instances of trans*people in “The Sandman” as Gaiman insisting that all trans*people deserve death, but that conclusion is lazy, and makes assumptions on Gaiman’s part that he simply does not deserve. I think Gaiman thinks the trans* narrative is beautiful, worth investigation, an is deserving of recognition, and THAT is why he continues to write trans* characters.
I DO (obviously) love Neil Gaiman and he IS a champion in the portrayal of (usually cis-) women in comic-culture, but I also recognize that not everything he does is completely awesome. Gaiman is not infallible. However, here, I think that he did his very best to discuss the story of trans* women in relation to their portrayal in mainstream media and fiction. And I sincerely hope that this experience did not convince you to abandon a truly beautiful piece of fiction."That's exactly how I felt about the issue. Gaiman never writes about characters to be cliché. Sure, he brings in clichéd characters a lot, but it's to bring more light to them and show the world that every cliché has plenty of non-cliché value. He writes about normalcy not being normal. In general, I just deeply disagree about your assessment of his characters because I do see them as well-realized and well-written and well done. That's just my opinion though, and it'd be a sad world if we all agreed on everything all the time. I'm just... I could write an entire essay on the huge problems with a cis person dismissing trans* issues, but I'll keep it short. If someone is cis, they are not affected by cis people writing about trans* issues. Therefore, the people being affected (trans* folk) should be the people we're listening to, because they're the ones living those experiences. (Yes, I know that I'm cis and writing about trans* folk, but note that I'm not promoting my own opinion so much as supporting the already-existing discourse written by trans* folk, and also attempting to keep myself informed about trans* opinions on the matter.) There's already so much erasure of non-dominant narratives that it's important to pay attention and listen to non-dominant narratives. Anyway, focusing on what exactly the writer's trying to say: Media doesn't exist in a vacuum, though. The problem is that trans* characters are almost always killed off in any medium, whether it's books, film, TV, comics, etc. If Gaiman's going to continue to perpetuate the tired old stereotype of "all trans* characters don't get to have a happy or fulfilling life," then he is, in essence, contributing to a single, dominant narrative that frankly reads as transphobic. (It's actually incredibly similar to other queer characters, sadly; it's a hugely prevalent problem that if you're reading a story about a queer protagonist, they will not have an unalloyed happy ending.) In the end, representation does matter--but representation alone doesn't fix the problem of erasure. If there's only one type of dominant story, and you're adding to that dominant story, you're not adding anything new or valuable to that body of preexisting literature. Writing sad stories about cis men isn't really a problem, because cis men are included in every frame of narrative arc possible; you can read happy stories, sad stories, bittersweet stories, whatever. But if every trans* character's story ends in death, well... I mean, sure must suck if you're trans* and all the literature you read only ever tells that you're only fit to be a side character whose life ends in violence--particularly when you're surrounded by the reality of harsh statistics that tell you that you're 4x as likely to be a victim of violence as cisgendered people. It's kind of like reading a story about (for me) racism against WoC. Most WoC don't need to be taught about racism, because we live it. Maybe it's valuable for white people to understand WoC experiences, but at that point, it is a story by white people for white people. I don't think it's interesting to read about some narrative where a girl gets to face racism because "realism." Those narratives certainly can still be interesting, but their so-called realistic portrayal of those issues (which are usually pretty suspect anyway, unless written by actual WoC--and even then, it's often problematic, as there's inter-ethnic racism, etc. as you can see by reading most Japanese contemporary literature that loves to talk about the tragedy of WWII while remaining conspicuously silent about the atrocities the Japanese army committed) are not what makes them interesting. Ultimately, the person you quoted is cis. So am I. Having read the rather angry accounts of actual trans* folk who have a huge problem with his portrayal of trans* characters, I think I'm going to take their word for it over mine. From their criticism, I'm interpreting Sandman the same way. There might be trans* characters, but it's written for cis-people. Not for trans* people. It's kind of like how Memoirs of a Geisha (to draw on a mainstream example) is not about a Japanese woman, and it sure as hell isn't for Japanese people. It's a white person's (twisted) account of being a geisha, meant to bring the "Exotic East" in an English-language narrative for white people to be entertained by. Merely including a trans* character does not mean that you are exploring trans* issues--and judging by some of the things that trans* folk had to say, Gaiman really did not do a successful job of exploring trans* issues. You could, I suppose, argue that Gaiman is attempting to reveal the tragedy of how violence so frequently affects trans* lives... but knowing the 101 basics about trans* issues means that you'd know that. You could, I suppose, argue that Gaiman is attempting to evoke sympathy for trans* characters... but rather than creating a living character with living problems, we are, instead, presented with a victim, who achieves cis-perfection as a reward for dying (and that's not even getting into the problems of a cis-normative standard of beauty ugh). Again--this is not a story about a trans* character for trans folk. It is, instead, the narrative of a trans* victim written for a cis audience--because only as a victim, only when the narrative is written as a tragedy are we expected to feel sympathy for trans* people. Regarding well-written characters: About five years ago, when I'd read nothing but genre fiction, I'd probably have regarded Gaiman as the pinnacle of "omg amazing," but having read literary fiction, he's... still not bad, I suppose, but his characterization is quite lacking in comparison to writers who focus on that. That being said, I will say that what Gaiman is particularly good at is creating both mood and atmosphere; that, he's certainly skilled at.
|
|
|
Post by Liv the Librarian on May 6, 2014 12:25:58 GMT -6
Regarding everything you've said, I have no real response other than "you're right". I try to keep an open mind and see all sides of things. I can understand how Gaiman's trans* character would upset a trans person. I just can't feel or be properly bothered by it because I'm cis, I guess. I do empathize with trans* people because their struggle is one I'll never have to face, despite all the other struggles I've had in life. I've not read or seen too many trans* characters in media outlets, Wanda was honestly my first experience. I can understand that it would be horrible to watch every representation of your struggle end with death.
I'm a white, cis, straight, female. I won't ever fully understand half the struggles that the majority of the world go through every day, and I don't know how to rectify that. I still enjoy the Sandman novels though, and I won't ever turn down reading something just because someone was offended by a single part of it. Maybe I'm wrong to do that, I don't know.
About the well-written characters (or lack there of?), perhaps my issue is that I read "genre fiction" mostly. I don't get much joy out of reading literature, so I tend to stray away from it (unless it's philosophy) and stick to what I get the most enjoyment out of.
|
|
|
Post by Liadan on May 6, 2014 17:51:38 GMT -6
I mean, my two most important maxims when approaching any form of media are "All works are problematic" and "You can enjoy problematic things." I think it's just important to try to read criticism with an open mind and try to figure out where they're coming from. It doesn't mean that you can't like or enjoy said problematic things for other aspects of the work! I still primarily read genre fiction (and it's pretty much all I've written this year) but I've been trying to branch out. There's still quite a bit of intersection between genre and literary, though; Michael Chabon's The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay won the Pulitzer in 2000, I believe, and while it's primarily "literary" in that it focuses on the lives of two young comic writers/artists, there's a surprising amount of genre stuff thrown in there, expounding on the history of the Golden Age of comics, etc. While I haven't yet gotten around to actually reading Junot Díaz's The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao (2008 Pulitzer), I'm pretty sure there was a reference to Morgoth in the first 10 pages.
|
|