"you need to place us in a position that isn't difficult to grasp. What I'm saying is that often in fantasy or scifi books the superfoulous crap thats put in (Technological devices in scifi, wizards and magic in fantasy) gets in the way of exploring those emotions."
Correct. Which is why my fantasy contains neither wizards nor magic. The protagonists have to work things out for themselves without being able to rely on the crutch of magic. The only fantastical elements of my fantasy are the types of characters. It's not just humans, and each type of creature has its own strengths and limitations that other types do not share. But otherwise you might as well be in the early Middle Ages.
I appreciate what you are saying, and I even tried to modify my original thought in the post. Absolutely there are fully fleshed-out characters in classic literature, and that includes LoTR. What I wanted to do was expand some areas. For example, the southern armies that came at Sauron's call at the end of the Third Age: What was their motivation? Didn't they think they were doing something good and right? Or were they just "evil"? I wanted to explore the paradox of an organization that does evil things while being made up of individuals convinced they were doing the right thing.
I want to explore the very idea of power and corruption, and whether it is possible to separate the two (probably not), and so what should one do with that knowledge when the opportunity for power comes along.
I also wanted to give female characters equal time, so it's not nine men doing all the work with the women helping here and there and then showing up at the end (Eowyn, excepted, of course).
So I'm not trashing LoTR or classic literature by any means. I LOVE classic literature. I just wanted to add my own two cents to the ocean of stories.
Thanks for the passed-on advice. I do have four published articles already, a fact I pointed out in my letters to each agent. They are not fiction articles, of course, so that's not directly applicable to these books, but at least it should show that I have been paid as a writer.
Oh, I'm sure you're right. But at least then you have someone working for you, and someone who would have contacts at multiple houses. What I was afraid of was contacting Baen and then having to sit back and do absolutely nothing for eight months. Then if they say No, I've accomplished nothing for eight months. That's why I did things in the order I did.
Thank you for the tip. They are actually my #1 target once I got beyond the try-to-find-an-agent stage, which is usually required at most publishing houses. The only reason I didn't try Baen yet is I read they have about an eight-month wait to hear if you will get accepted, and they prefer you do not do multiple submissions. So I thought I would try the agents first, and then when it came time to hitting the publishers directly Baen would be my first stop. I like their philosophy a LOT.
And, well, frankly, I'm at a point where I'm not sure how to proceed. As I continue writing, I find that the characters deepen, and as they do the plot sometimes change. I've begun to wonder if the best thing is to at least get through the first draft of the whole book (1200 pages, I guesstimate) before peddling the edited, refined book one. Just in case I want to go back and change some things in book one. Once it's published, you can't really do that. Just talking out loud here, but suggestions welcome.
"The subject here is not good versus evil, but a clash of ego and philosophy. The novel's villains are driven by fear, weakness, and self interest; its heroes by ambition and wonder. This complexity is what makes the novel a work of serious fiction, what prevents it from being an epic. Epics are fate-driven and rarely concerned with shades of motivation. Characters act because they must act, they must save the world or all is lost, etc., etc."
Not only was this an excellent review (thank you for submitting it), but I found the above passage very encouraging on a personal level. I am writing a fantasy novel (or series of novels) based on what I, as a teen, found personally was my only real complaint about LoTR: I wanted more in-depth characterization. No, that's not entirely fair, for LoTR certainly has some in-depth characters, but you get the idea. I wanted to not write yet-another-fanboy-saves-the-world epic, but to explore on an adult level the sorts of emotions you or I would find ourselves if we were in that situation.
I've written and edited the first book, over 400 pages, and now have started in on book two. I've queried a dozen literary agents who specialize in fantasy fiction, but I've yet to find one who is willing to even read a sample. They all sent back rejection notes that were remarkably similar: Too busy, best of luck with someone else.
Oh well, I will keep trying. In the meantime, I'm very glad to hear that someone likes complexity, shades of motivation, adult-level emotional responses. That's been my exact goal, and if there is a market for a Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell book, there should be one for mine as well (I hope, anyway). Thanks for the encouragement, jmweeks, even though you didn't know that's what you were doing!
You are welcome to come and go as you wish, no argument there. But yes, it is moderated at Groklaw, and not based on "what PJ dislikes" (other than the language issue). There are other moderators there, not just PJ, who delete troll messages or messages that could get people in trouble legally or other issues. The community polices it, so it is peer review.
If you don't like the community decisions, well I can see why you don't want to be there. More power to you.
"The problem with that model is that it relies on the perfection of the dictator in charge. There is no peer review. It is the exact opposite of FOSS development where peer review is paramount."
Just like Linux. You have the dictator in charge (Linus), and a great peer review system. It works great. Same with Groklaw. You have a dictator in charge (PJ), and a grreat peer review system. It works great.
Now if you disagree with the choices made by Linus, you won't like the system. And if you disagree with the choices made by PJ, you won't like the system. There's no arguing taste, and I'll respect your opinion.
Well, I would amend your thoughts to say it's about the GPL more than it's about Linux. That's why BSD and OS X are not covered the same way. They don't have the GPL. And if there is one thing the SCO case taught us is that the GPL was needed. Without it, SCO would have a much easier time of it. If Linux were under BSD, SCO would have many more angles to take in court. With the GPL, they are cut off at every turn.
So while I agree with you that the more the merrier, and everyone should be able to have their choise of OS as well as license, I for one am very glad that the GPL exists, and I think it is that feeling that pervades Groklaw.
Actually, you are right, I forgot about her thoughts on the complexity of the Sun license. On the other hand, the GPL complexity is about what happens if you want to restrict freedom. If you want freedom, it's simple. The Sun license was about how many restrictions were being placed upon you, in other words your lack of freedom. I think that was the main point of her argument, not just length.
Her criticism about Sun is very much related to FOSS issues. I've yet to see a Sun article that didn't relate to it. Everything I've seen on Groklaw relates to that main issue.
You grossly simplifed the details in your examples. Slamming Sun for having a license that's about the same length as the GPL? What? That had nothing to do with it!
Of course Groklaw is on the side of FOSS. There can be hardly any statement made more obvious than that. And I do pay attention, having read every article ever posted there.
Nope, AC, the Sun material is just like her other material, but there are very few SCO supporters but a lot of Sun supporters. So whenever there is a Sun story, out come the Sun supporters and raise a fuss. THAT is what gives it a/.-type feel, not her articles which have been informative and on point and insightful. Time will tell how Sun does, and whether her suspicions will prove to be right. For now, we will just disagree on the subject and go our respective ways.
Garbage. The site was always about calling out bad things, it's just now we have a much clearer picture of the bad things SCO has done whereas in the beginning you had to give them at least the benefit of the doubt.
And yes, the site is about facts still. Check out the court transcripts. Those are facts you can check yourself. How many other news sites give you the direct source material to check for yourself?
Lots of Sun supporters hate it when Groklaw says anything negative about Sun, and that's understandable. They been a good company for so long it hurts to think of them turning against Linux. But the fact is that despite their Linux efforts, they are being hurt in the hardware arena by Linux, and so they are fighting against it. This is understandable, but the methods they are using are low. If this ZD article is accurate, and so far I've heard nothing from Sun denying it, it indicates some very sleazy behavior being planned by Sun.
Companys that begin to struggle and can see their future dying are apt to do all sorts of vile things. Partnering with Microsoft is not a good sign, for we all know how Microsoft view Linux. Now we may have another sign from Sun about how they view it. Thanks to Groklaw, despite all the naysayers, I've seen Sun's schizo "we love Linux / we are going to destroy Linux" behavior for what it is: No real friend to the FOSS community.
As for Groklaw not being objective, I'm so glad. I've had enough of objective news coverage that refuses to call people on their statements. Politician X tells his lie, then Politician Y tells his opposite lie, the story ends right there, and that's considered good journalism?! No thanks. Give me the Groklaw approach every day of the week. You do wrong, you get called out. You do right, you get praised. If you don't like it, start your own advocacy site where you can call it as you see it. But don't put down Groklaw just because it's on the side of FOSS.
"But speaking generally on the vulnerabilities Harris mentions, Diebold spokesman David Bear said by phone that no one would risk manipulating votes in an election because it's against the law and carries a heavy penalty."
You were right to highlight that quote for it is truly astounding. Now this was Wired and it was a better report than most, and Wired has done a great job of highlighting this issue. So my rant is a general one and not specifically directed at Wired, but more directed at the general state of journalism today.
What Mr. Bear said was laughable! It has always been against the law and carried a penalty for vote tampering. Yet in every major election (and probably lots of minor ones too), there has been vote tampering. Every single one, folks. It happens every time, and will happen this year like clockwork. Journalists know this, and yet today's media has been cowed into thinking balanced writing means you quote from Opponent A and then you counter-quote with Opponent B and then you hand it in to your editor. Today's politicians, and other sleazes, know this so they play the game this way: When asked for a quote, they make something up, anything to push their side or detract from the other side. They know that no matter how patently and obviously false their statement is, it will get printed and no journalist will call them on it.
Mr. Bear could have said, "Tomorrow the sun will not rise and gravity will cease to exist." All the journalist would do is find a scientist who would give a counter-quote and be done. I say why can't the journalist write the article this way:
"But speaking generally on the vulnerabilities Harris mentions, Diebold spokesman David Bear said by phone that no one would risk manipulating votes in an election because it's against the law and carries a heavy penalty. Although such has been the case in every election ever held and yet voting fraud has been widespread anyway, clearly showing that such penalties do not prevent voter fraud."
I mean, if it's obvious a guy is saying something irrelevant, call him on it!
No, if you catch me in a few years I'll say the same thing, but I can see for your purposes Rhapsody is the right idea, and that's cool. See, for me I'm not so interested in sampling all of the current songs. I'm into collecting certain albums from all genres and all times of my life...and then listening to them over and over again. I occasionally get a new album, but it's not my primary use.
It sounds as if you, on the other hand, do want to sample lots of stuff and not necessarily hang onto it for a long time. CDs are valuable to me for a lifetime, but for you only a couple of years. So our needs are different, and that's why it's good you have your choice and I have mine (iTunes). Keep renting, brother. I own mine and like it.:)
I for one am a total convert to the rental approach to furniture. I don't even know how to write about it without coming across like spam -- having instant access to over 40,000 couches, dining tables, chairs, and beds for much less every month than if I were to buy the furniture outright utterly changed the way I enjoy furniture.
Oh wait. I have to keep paying forever? Or else they take my furniture away? Oh.
Now to get back to your point, you do have a good one. The rental model is good for some people under some circumstances. It works for you? Great. But some people prefer the idea of pay once, own it forever. Those tracks you enjoy now, will you want to listen to them twenty years from now? Some of 'em, yeah. Will your rental service still be around twenty years from now? Doubtful. Bye bye tracks.
I was talking about the orginal base from the web, not it's current state. And I didn't make a joke, merely a humorous remark, and a very subtle one at that. Subtle humor often has to be explained before people even realize what hit them.
*sigh* yes, I should have said "the Net" instead of thinking it and writing "the Web." Man, everybody is looking at the letter of the law today instead of the spirit. This wouldn't be happening if this was a Friday afternoon...
Slashdot Mirror
Correct. Which is why my fantasy contains neither wizards nor magic. The protagonists have to work things out for themselves without being able to rely on the crutch of magic. The only fantastical elements of my fantasy are the types of characters. It's not just humans, and each type of creature has its own strengths and limitations that other types do not share. But otherwise you might as well be in the early Middle Ages.
I want to explore the very idea of power and corruption, and whether it is possible to separate the two (probably not), and so what should one do with that knowledge when the opportunity for power comes along.
I also wanted to give female characters equal time, so it's not nine men doing all the work with the women helping here and there and then showing up at the end (Eowyn, excepted, of course).
So I'm not trashing LoTR or classic literature by any means. I LOVE classic literature. I just wanted to add my own two cents to the ocean of stories.
Thanks for the passed-on advice. I do have four published articles already, a fact I pointed out in my letters to each agent. They are not fiction articles, of course, so that's not directly applicable to these books, but at least it should show that I have been paid as a writer.
Oh, I'm sure you're right. But at least then you have someone working for you, and someone who would have contacts at multiple houses. What I was afraid of was contacting Baen and then having to sit back and do absolutely nothing for eight months. Then if they say No, I've accomplished nothing for eight months. That's why I did things in the order I did.
Thank you very much. I will check it out.
And, well, frankly, I'm at a point where I'm not sure how to proceed. As I continue writing, I find that the characters deepen, and as they do the plot sometimes change. I've begun to wonder if the best thing is to at least get through the first draft of the whole book (1200 pages, I guesstimate) before peddling the edited, refined book one. Just in case I want to go back and change some things in book one. Once it's published, you can't really do that. Just talking out loud here, but suggestions welcome.
Not only was this an excellent review (thank you for submitting it), but I found the above passage very encouraging on a personal level. I am writing a fantasy novel (or series of novels) based on what I, as a teen, found personally was my only real complaint about LoTR: I wanted more in-depth characterization. No, that's not entirely fair, for LoTR certainly has some in-depth characters, but you get the idea. I wanted to not write yet-another-fanboy-saves-the-world epic, but to explore on an adult level the sorts of emotions you or I would find ourselves if we were in that situation.
I've written and edited the first book, over 400 pages, and now have started in on book two. I've queried a dozen literary agents who specialize in fantasy fiction, but I've yet to find one who is willing to even read a sample. They all sent back rejection notes that were remarkably similar: Too busy, best of luck with someone else.
Oh well, I will keep trying. In the meantime, I'm very glad to hear that someone likes complexity, shades of motivation, adult-level emotional responses. That's been my exact goal, and if there is a market for a Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell book, there should be one for mine as well (I hope, anyway). Thanks for the encouragement, jmweeks, even though you didn't know that's what you were doing!
That's a great one. Just wanted to give a pat on the back to the person who came up with it.
If you don't like the community decisions, well I can see why you don't want to be there. More power to you.
Just like Linux. You have the dictator in charge (Linus), and a great peer review system. It works great. Same with Groklaw. You have a dictator in charge (PJ), and a grreat peer review system. It works great.
Now if you disagree with the choices made by Linus, you won't like the system. And if you disagree with the choices made by PJ, you won't like the system. There's no arguing taste, and I'll respect your opinion.
So while I agree with you that the more the merrier, and everyone should be able to have their choise of OS as well as license, I for one am very glad that the GPL exists, and I think it is that feeling that pervades Groklaw.
Her criticism about Sun is very much related to FOSS issues. I've yet to see a Sun article that didn't relate to it. Everything I've seen on Groklaw relates to that main issue.
Of course Groklaw is on the side of FOSS. There can be hardly any statement made more obvious than that. And I do pay attention, having read every article ever posted there.
Nope, AC, the Sun material is just like her other material, but there are very few SCO supporters but a lot of Sun supporters. So whenever there is a Sun story, out come the Sun supporters and raise a fuss. THAT is what gives it a /.-type feel, not her articles which have been informative and on point and insightful. Time will tell how Sun does, and whether her suspicions will prove to be right. For now, we will just disagree on the subject and go our respective ways.
And yes, the site is about facts still. Check out the court transcripts. Those are facts you can check yourself. How many other news sites give you the direct source material to check for yourself?
Companys that begin to struggle and can see their future dying are apt to do all sorts of vile things. Partnering with Microsoft is not a good sign, for we all know how Microsoft view Linux. Now we may have another sign from Sun about how they view it. Thanks to Groklaw, despite all the naysayers, I've seen Sun's schizo "we love Linux / we are going to destroy Linux" behavior for what it is: No real friend to the FOSS community.
As for Groklaw not being objective, I'm so glad. I've had enough of objective news coverage that refuses to call people on their statements. Politician X tells his lie, then Politician Y tells his opposite lie, the story ends right there, and that's considered good journalism?! No thanks. Give me the Groklaw approach every day of the week. You do wrong, you get called out. You do right, you get praised. If you don't like it, start your own advocacy site where you can call it as you see it. But don't put down Groklaw just because it's on the side of FOSS.
You were right to highlight that quote for it is truly astounding. Now this was Wired and it was a better report than most, and Wired has done a great job of highlighting this issue. So my rant is a general one and not specifically directed at Wired, but more directed at the general state of journalism today.
What Mr. Bear said was laughable! It has always been against the law and carried a penalty for vote tampering. Yet in every major election (and probably lots of minor ones too), there has been vote tampering. Every single one, folks. It happens every time, and will happen this year like clockwork. Journalists know this, and yet today's media has been cowed into thinking balanced writing means you quote from Opponent A and then you counter-quote with Opponent B and then you hand it in to your editor. Today's politicians, and other sleazes, know this so they play the game this way: When asked for a quote, they make something up, anything to push their side or detract from the other side. They know that no matter how patently and obviously false their statement is, it will get printed and no journalist will call them on it.
Mr. Bear could have said, "Tomorrow the sun will not rise and gravity will cease to exist." All the journalist would do is find a scientist who would give a counter-quote and be done. I say why can't the journalist write the article this way:
"But speaking generally on the vulnerabilities Harris mentions, Diebold spokesman David Bear said by phone that no one would risk manipulating votes in an election because it's against the law and carries a heavy penalty. Although such has been the case in every election ever held and yet voting fraud has been widespread anyway, clearly showing that such penalties do not prevent voter fraud."
I mean, if it's obvious a guy is saying something irrelevant, call him on it!
Then it goes "de da da da," and finally it tells you, "is all I want to say to you."
It sounds as if you, on the other hand, do want to sample lots of stuff and not necessarily hang onto it for a long time. CDs are valuable to me for a lifetime, but for you only a couple of years. So our needs are different, and that's why it's good you have your choice and I have mine (iTunes). Keep renting, brother. I own mine and like it. :)
Oh wait. I have to keep paying forever? Or else they take my furniture away? Oh.
Now to get back to your point, you do have a good one. The rental model is good for some people under some circumstances. It works for you? Great. But some people prefer the idea of pay once, own it forever. Those tracks you enjoy now, will you want to listen to them twenty years from now? Some of 'em, yeah. Will your rental service still be around twenty years from now? Doubtful. Bye bye tracks.
Thanks, appreciate the words of support. I was getting tired of being nit-picked to pieces.
Interesting. I wasn't aware that Cisco was around at the birth of the Net.
Yes, but I'm a happy chucklehead dolt, while you...
I was talking about the orginal base from the web, not it's current state. And I didn't make a joke, merely a humorous remark, and a very subtle one at that. Subtle humor often has to be explained before people even realize what hit them.
*sigh* yes, I should have said "the Net" instead of thinking it and writing "the Web." Man, everybody is looking at the letter of the law today instead of the spirit. This wouldn't be happening if this was a Friday afternoon...