![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A review by Paul Kincaid:
Sfsite
I rarely argue with reviews. When I have on one or two occasions is correct a review, which I will do here--this is what Kincaid says:
"Just about all of them pay reverence to the ghost stories of the past, perhaps most blatantly in Gene Wolfe's "Sob in the Silence," a nasty but inconsequential tale that, I suspect, would not have been included here if it didn't have Wolfe's name attached to it."
I object to this most strenuously.
Perhaps Kincaid didn't care for the Wolfe story, but I found it creepy and scary. I don't know what what he means by "inconsequential" --perhaps it's not a socially instructive moral tale such as Geoff Ryman's "Pol Pot's Daughter (a Fantasy)" which Kincaid considers the best story in the book. But IT DOES WHAT IT IS MEANT TO DO.
However, that is not what annoys me. What I do object to (and I hope someone sends him over here to read this) is the idea that I included the story because of the presumed marketability of Gene Wolfe's name. Sorry, but that's not how I edit YBFH.
I have NEVER taken a story for YBFH for the name value. I've NOT taken plenty of stories by writers whose names have a much greater impact on the marketing of a book than Wolfe's.
I have no interest in responding to the rest of the review but to say that Kincaid seems not to understand horror vs fantasy. Horror is usually better served in traditional forms/structures --which isn't to say that occasional experimentation isn't sometimes effective in evoking horror. But I'd say that too much structural fooling around can dissipate the mood.
Comments most welcome.
Sfsite
I rarely argue with reviews. When I have on one or two occasions is correct a review, which I will do here--this is what Kincaid says:
"Just about all of them pay reverence to the ghost stories of the past, perhaps most blatantly in Gene Wolfe's "Sob in the Silence," a nasty but inconsequential tale that, I suspect, would not have been included here if it didn't have Wolfe's name attached to it."
I object to this most strenuously.
Perhaps Kincaid didn't care for the Wolfe story, but I found it creepy and scary. I don't know what what he means by "inconsequential" --perhaps it's not a socially instructive moral tale such as Geoff Ryman's "Pol Pot's Daughter (a Fantasy)" which Kincaid considers the best story in the book. But IT DOES WHAT IT IS MEANT TO DO.
However, that is not what annoys me. What I do object to (and I hope someone sends him over here to read this) is the idea that I included the story because of the presumed marketability of Gene Wolfe's name. Sorry, but that's not how I edit YBFH.
I have NEVER taken a story for YBFH for the name value. I've NOT taken plenty of stories by writers whose names have a much greater impact on the marketing of a book than Wolfe's.
I have no interest in responding to the rest of the review but to say that Kincaid seems not to understand horror vs fantasy. Horror is usually better served in traditional forms/structures --which isn't to say that occasional experimentation isn't sometimes effective in evoking horror. But I'd say that too much structural fooling around can dissipate the mood.
Comments most welcome.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
I have never sneered at foreign publications, at least not for simply being foreign. I noted that Interzone is a minor publication, as was NYRSF...New York is still in the United States, isn't it? I noted that TLS was far more prominent, but that hardly matters either since we're not talking about the reputation of TLS.
The issue of a deserved reputation is a red herring.
I guarantee that this conversation will be much more entertaining for everyone if you refrain from making things up in defense of your pal. Just because he complained about ad hominems doesn't mean that my actual remark was one, nor does it mean that you're allowed to swap out what I actually said for some arbitrary nasty-sounding things ("sneer", etc.)
Reputation is the social evaluation of the public toward someone or something. You have yourself acknowledged that he has low levels of public awareness in the US, which is by a significant margin the largest market for English-language SF (and related critical material). It really is as simple as that. The main social evaluation for
Thus, he has no particular reputation. Not only am I not factually incorrect, you agree with me.
One thing I will sneer at: whining that "no particular reputation" is an ad hominem attack after leveling an attack like "I suspect, would not have been included here if it didn't have Wolfe's name attached to it." That's worth at least a sneer.
From:
no subject
The main social evaluation for peake, amongst readers of SF is as follows: "Who?"
That is a surprising statement.
I guarantee that this conversation will be much more entertaining for everyone if you refrain from making things up in defense of your pal.
Eh? Where did that come from? Oh, I see: he's British and I'm British. Stands to reason . . .
whining that "no particular reputation" is an ad hominem attack
I would in fact agree with him that it was. I would also agree with you that his own comment about the inclusion of Wolfe's story was both unjustified and unjustifiable.
Still doesn't affect the fact that he has a good reputation as a critic.
From:
no subject
That is a surprising statement.
Not really. Feel free to stand in the lobby of the hotel of the next con we're both at and we can quiz passers-by.
Eh? Where did that come from? Oh, I see: he's British and I'm British. Stands to reason . . .
No no, refrain from making things up; don't continue to do so. Though I suppose you could have just made up the bit where I "sneer" at foreign publications out of sheer pique.
(At any rate, my first encounter with peake's work was one of his rare pieces of fiction, and it was when I read my contributor copy of Strange Pleasures 2, and I don't believe you had opened that book to slush submissions but instead solicited from people you knew and whose work you were well-disposed toward. "Pal" is a sufficient descriptor there, I think.)
I would in fact agree with him that it was. I would also agree with you that his own comment about the inclusion of Wolfe's story was both unjustified and unjustifiable.
Well, at least your half-right ;)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Feel free to stand in the lobby of the hotel of the next con we're both at and we can quiz passers-by.
You'd find quite a few who knew who he was. I have no idea of percentages.
Besides, that's a damn' stupid way to judge reputations. I would describe your own reputation as a writer as being reasonably high, yet you're not especially well known. (Obviously that's likely to change!) You're confusing a good reputation with fame.
I don't believe you had opened that book to slush submissions
On the contrary, we spread the word fairly far and wide; you yourself submitted because one of the places I announced the antho was on the NYC Writers list. The story concerned was anyway submitted to Dave Hutchinson in the UK rather than to myself here.
refrain from making things up; don't continue to do so
As you well know, I was objecting to your very objectionable assumption that I was correcting you concerning Kincaid's reputation simply because I was defending a "pal".
Full disclosure: I used to know Kincaid reasonably well -- he and I Milforded together two or three times -- but aside from bumping into him briefly once or twice at cons I don't think I've heard from him in a decade or more.
To repeat: he has a good reputation as a critic. His only problem is that you haven't been aware of him.
From:
no subject
Besides, that's a damn' stupid way to judge reputations. I would describe your own reputation as a writer as being reasonably high, yet you're not especially well known. (Obviously that's likely to change!) You're confusing a good reputation with fame.
See, I would disagree with you here too! And this isn't just a hypothetical — some time ago there was a note on a prominent LJ which referred to me as "minor SF writer Nick Mamatas" and some folks, always eager for a dust-up, asked what I thought and wasn't I insulted at being called "minor" and all that. And I said, "No, 'minor' is a perfectly accurate description."
Reputation is a mix of awarness and evaluation, not just the former and not just the latter.
And I never said that peake didn't have a "good reputation", I said that he had "no particular reputation." Reputation has two axes — awareness and evaluation.
Up thread, in discussion with Niall, I pointed out that I and Darrell Schweitzer both meet Niall's definition for reputation, making the point that by any reasonable definition I don't count as a critic of reputation despite placing reviews in venues with six-figure circulations, being a GoH at some small con, having my blog entries cited in Nebula anthologies and being printed out by
I was objecting to your very objectionable assumption that I was correcting you concerning Kincaid's reputation simply because I was defending a "pal".
Actually, I was objecting to you falsely claiming that I was sneering at foreign publications on behalf of a pal. (It's again worth noting that upthread I pointed out that several of my review-essays were in foreign publications, specifically the German magazine Spex. It even had a little column title — "American Letters/Letters from America" and everything. Sneering at foreign pubs would be like me spitting food out of my mouth.)
you yourself submitted because one of the places I announced the antho was on the NYC Writers list.
No, actually. You wrote me a personal email with the solicitation after I sent you an ARC of Northern Gothic for review in Infinity Plus. (We did meet via NYC Writers though.) I was very excited as that was my first-ever personal solicitation, which is why I remember it so clearly.
His only problem is that you haven't been aware of him.
Making things up again. I have been aware of him, and for quite some time. A bit over five years by my count. I was even met him briefly at Wiscon in 2003, have read his reviews in a number of venues (SFSite, Strange Horizons, etc.)
In the same it is foolish to think that I must not have known him -- else I wouldn't say that he has no paritcular reputation -- I think it is foolish to think that the average con-goer would know of him because you (and I) do.
Quick example: we had someone in this thread who had never heard of Esther Friesner. We, I am sure, both agree that she is far more famed than peake. Would you have guessed that someone like Livia, who is a Clarion grad and has published here and there (Subterranean is her most prominent pub, I believe) and who regularly reads Ellen's lj and mine and those of a bunch of others would have not heard of her?
I've learned, probably from spending a lot of time with readers who are not SF readers, that the midlist is often a big blur to all but the hardest of the hardcore fans. Critics are surely a few steps below midlisters.
From:
no subject
"No, actually. You wrote me a personal email with the solicitation"
You're perfectly correct -- my apologies for misremembering. That was a lot of books ago!
I think you underestimate your reputation.
I was thinking that, by your test, even Clute would be a critic of no particular reputation, since the average sf reader is unlikely to have heard of him. Con-goers much more likely, of course, but the same is so with Kincaid.
I must pause this conversation. I'm trying to get everything shipshape before my hospital sojourn.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject