(no subject)

[andrewducker]

There's a new Thomas Covenant series coming out.

This will horrify many people.

I'm going to have to go back and re-read the first two trilogies again.

Oh, my life is so hard.

I may also get around to attempting the Gap series too.

Comments

[andrewducker]

I shall make a note, so that if I ever find myself going in for crap fantasy I know where to start.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

But you've already started. ;-)

[andrewducker]

Well, yes. But I stopped after the second Shannara novel and haven't been back in over a decade.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Oh, I enjoy crap fantasy novels. Have read all six Thomas Covenant, a large chunk of Pern, and a bunch of others of which the details are unclear (reading The Tough Guide to Fantasyland does tend to blur things a bit). Never sank quite to the Shannara depths, though: I've always seen them as beach fantasy novels, to be best enjoyed when stupefied with sun and sand, and I'm not really a beach holiday type.

Beach Fiction

[opusfluke.livejournal.com]

Read a few of those Shanarararara novels myself many years ago: Good for a few beers in the garden. Also subjected myself to Belgariad/Mallorean malarky. How cheap is that anyway - "Of course it takes 12 books to tell the same story as History is caught in a loop!" Further laughter can be found in SF series such as the 5 volumes of Piers Anthony's "Bio Of A Space Tyrant".

[andrewducker]

I found it pretty much impossible to read crap fantasy novels after reading Pratchett. They just don't work for me on any reasonable level - I can't believe in the people or the backgrounds or really anything.

I can manage the occasional well-written fantasy, but even then it's a close thing. I really only managed the LOTR films because the characters were engaging and skipped my forebrain - in real life most of the ideas espoused in the film are fairly repugnant.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

I found it pretty much impossible to read crap fantasy novels after reading Pratchett.

Come off it: this thread started with your declaration that you were about to re-read six volumes of crap fantasy. You obviously don't find it impossible to read that stuff any more than the rest of us...

[andrewducker]

Nope - I don't consider Covenant to be crap fantasy.

[andrewducker]

To be honest, I thought what I was doing was obvious from about post 2.

I say "I do X", you say "Aah, if you do Y then you'd like Z" and then I deny doing Y. By extension I'm stating that I don't think that X implies Y. Which I was expecting to lead into conversation about why I don't think that Covenant is crap fantasy, but for some reason didn't.

I'll post about it when I'm re-reading them - you may have to wait a while...

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Which I was expecting to lead into conversation about why I don't think that Covenant is crap fantasy, but for some reason didn't.

It would be kind of like discussing why I don't think the moon is made of green cheese.

[andrewducker]

Andy: ...conversation about why I don't think that Covenant is crap fantasy.

Yonmei: ...like discussing why I don't think the moon is made of green cheese.

Did you mean to imply that the moon is made of green cheese or that the Covenant books aren't crap fantasy? Or did you mean the opposite of what you said?

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Actually, I was attempting to privilege neither side in the discussion.

If someone comes along and says "The moon is made of green cheese!" and really means it it may be worth teasing them about it, or laughing at them, or if you are a kinder sort of person just leaving them be - but it's not worth debating with them whether or not the moon really is made of green cheese, except for entertainment.

The issue of whether or not the Covenant books are crap fantasy is a little different. To me, there's no doubt about it: of course they are. I read them: I am not speaking from hearsay, but from my own experience. To you, evidently, there's no doubt about it: apparentl you think of course they're not, and you're speaking from the same experience.

I am no more really interested in finding out how you justify crap fantasy as not really being crap fantasy than I would be in finding out why this hypothetical person justifies the moon being made of green cheese.

I doubt if you're really interested in finding out why I think crap fantasy is crap fantasy, since you think it's not.

[andrewducker]

I could well be interested in your definition of crap fantasy and you might be interested in mine.

I might after all, agree with the 'crap' bit but not the 'fantasy' bit, or vice versa.

We could discuss the reasoning behind it and possibly I could offer reasons for why I think it's not fantasy (or not crap) and you could dissect these and point out my error, or be converted. Or possibly converted on some points and converter on others.

You have, by the way, consistently used prejudiced language to indicate that you don't just disagree with my opinion but that you find it ludicrous.

Rather than saying, for instance, "...no more really interested in finding out how you justify crap fantasy as not really being crap fantasy..." you could have said "...no more really interested in why you feel that this isn't crap..." which would acknowledge that crapness is a value judgement and as such that my opinion was as valid as yours and that the book isn't intrinsically either crap or not.