Re: Stephenie Mayer -- the next J. K. Rowling

Andrew Plotkin wrote:
> 
>  Here, Andrew Wheeler <acwheele@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

[snip]

>  "Protocol" is too rigid a term; I say "conventions", but I believe
>  there *is* a point beyond which if you don't know the conventions you
>  can't even make a dent in the book. And a lot of SF published today
>  is beyond that point.

Can you provide some examples?  I can see missing details & references
and not understanding some common terms that aren't explained, but
"can't even make a dent" seems quite a stretch.

I also don't see how that relates to a genre definition. 

> > (The way one reads a secondary-world fantasy, most urban fantasy,
> > alternate history, and most future-set SF is not all that different
from
> > the way one reads a mystery novel -- keep a close eye out for telling
> > details, and try to figure out what those details imply.)
> 
>  They're analogous skills, yes. But if you're expecting to apply those
>  skills to the plot, and the author expects you to apply them to the
>  protagonist's lifestyle and culture, you may be in for a train wreck.

In a mystery, the character's lifestyle and culture can be just as much
a clue.  I also don't see how missing a couple of details is going to
equate to a "train wreck" (Gene Wolfe being an obvious exception, but
he's atypical for the SF genre).
 
>  Another element which is subject to strong genre conventions is *how
>  much* of the book is spent on this or that. SF and fantasy blow a lot
>  of words on setting, society, laws of physics/magic/psionics/whatever.
>  When it's done crudely we call it "infodumping" and when it's done
>  well we call it "inclueing", but that doesn't question the expectation
>  that the book should *do* that work.

Historical fiction can spend plenty of words on the setting as well.
Rather then being a genre boundary, this seems more a result of how
different the setting is from the reader's world and how interested 
the author is in the setting.

There is plenty of marketed SF that spends little time on the setting.
Does this mean that it's not really part of the genre?  How much time
needs to be spent on the setting for it to qualify as being part of the
genre?  5%, 10%, 15%...

>  Whereas this "paranormal romance" that a friend lent me a couple of
>  months ago was set in the near future, but did only a modest amount of
>  world-building. Enough to hold up the plot elements, but not enough to
>  make me believe in a working society back there. Instead, it spent a
>  whole lot of words on how attractive each of the protagonists found
>  each other. From my point of view, that was hammered in with the
>  subtlety of a big lead hammer, scene after scene. But what would a fan
>  of that book have thought of the endless Big Dumb Picaresque scenes in
>  Iain Banks's _Matter_?
 
Readers have differing tastes.  I hardly see how that relates to a genre
definition or how the book is actually read (other than those who hate
infodumps skipping those sections or tossing the book against the wall).  

- W. Citoan
-- 
In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people
very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move.
-- Douglas Adams