tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2483805127569817547.post2638647614700923591..comments2018-06-21T03:19:46.007-04:00Comments on Travel By Thought: Cherie Priest's Boneshaker, Hype, and TasteMike Johnstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16428761379918258628noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2483805127569817547.post-53958527378246949382010-11-24T00:20:21.495-05:002010-11-24T00:20:21.495-05:00Hi, well be sensible, well-all describedHi, well be sensible, well-all describedcialishttp://www.agir-galiza.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2483805127569817547.post-23226186580887329972010-06-14T19:06:38.170-04:002010-06-14T19:06:38.170-04:00@Anonymous: I will admit that Boneshaker is one of...<b>@Anonymous:</b> I will admit that <i>Boneshaker</i> is one of the few novels I've read in my life that I seriously considered putting down and not picking up again, primarily because I had so little interest in the characters and the incidents happening to them. The novel is "underdeveloped" as a whole, really. It moves toward becoming more developed by the end, but that suggests to me (as I write in the post) the problem of ultimately not choosing the right story to tell -- or, not choosing the right format for the story that is told (i.e., novel vs. novella).<br /><br />I think you pinpoint what we might call the "politics of reviewing," or maybe the "politics of mutual support and diplomacy" among the various structures of the SF&F publishing/writing community. Authors help each other out by supporting one another's books in various ways, and in doing so can function as authorities, thereby influencing readers' tastes. Yet that is where critics and criticism can serve as a balancing factor, no? A respected critic could counter or cut through the hype to offer a more analytical take on a book, not so limited by worrying about "savaging ... colleagues"?Mike Johnstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16428761379918258628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2483805127569817547.post-48364147329688167602010-06-14T18:54:04.511-04:002010-06-14T18:54:04.511-04:00@Jonathan M: Thanks for the kind words about the b...<b>@Jonathan M</b>: Thanks for the kind words about the blog. I'm looking forward to your response to this discussion: do let me know when it's available.<br /><br />I think you raise an important corollary issue here: the ways in which hype can negatively impact readers' decisions about what or whom to read. The opposite to Kay's notion of the "space(s)" between authors and readers/consumers disappearing, in which authors can be complicit, is a kind of distancing -- i.e., the persona of an author as communicated through forms of online "hype" can potentially alienate a reader.<br /><br />I suppose there is then a further question: at what point does promotion or criticism become simply hype?Mike Johnstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16428761379918258628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2483805127569817547.post-25267903812915546522010-06-14T10:34:36.371-04:002010-06-14T10:34:36.371-04:00I think you're too generous about the ways _Bo...I think you're too generous about the ways _Boneshaker_ did succeed. I didn't find it enjoyable even as an action/adventure romp thanks to the middle 50%, wherein a parade of underdeveloped secondary characters just clamber around the city blabbing with the heroes and telegraphing all the 'surprises' to the reader. There was nothing very striking about the premise either--this might well have been published as a _Deadlands_ novel with only slight alterations.<br /><br />But what Cory Doctorow and John Scalzi both like is going to get read, and thanks to their halo effects, plus the readers' natural tendencies toward bandwagon effects, confirmation bias, and choice-supportive bias, their opinions are likely to stick. What you want, to counter that kind of hype, is a similarly well-known and beloved author willing to waste time savaging their colleagues for poor taste and/or poor writing, but since that's not really a path to becoming either well-known or beloved, it is unlikely to happen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2483805127569817547.post-17252153936268328992010-06-13T03:56:17.537-04:002010-06-13T03:56:17.537-04:00I really dislike hype.
As a critic, it raises m...I really dislike hype. <br /><br />As a critic, it raises my hackles and makes me feel a responsibility to cut through it. As a reader, I find it completely alienating. Simply put, I will never read anything by Mark Charan Newton simply because of the aggression with which he hypes himself.<br /><br />Nice blog, I shall put up a response to some of the discussion points later when I get a moment to myself.Jonathan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12664070458542872255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2483805127569817547.post-494033079220376492010-06-12T12:45:47.838-04:002010-06-12T12:45:47.838-04:00Nice of you to say that about my review of Cyberab...Nice of you to say that about my review of <i>Cyberabad Days</i>. Thanks.<br /><br />I'm glad for your piece because it put me on to your blog, which I haven't visited before. I'll be by again!Terry Weynahttp://www.readingtheleaves.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2483805127569817547.post-22432471504197493862010-06-12T10:09:37.505-04:002010-06-12T10:09:37.505-04:00@Terry Weyna: First off, thank you for the correct...<b>@Terry Weyna:</b> First off, thank you for the correction on Niall Harrison. Much appreciated. I got that fixed. :-)<br /><br />Certainly, a fair chunk of the post constitutes, in effect, a kind of review of <i>Boneshaker</i> -- but in the larger context of me trying to figure a few things out regarding how online reviews and buzz create expectations that can sometimes be disappointed. I'm willing to be flexible with what I read, for a well written novel is a well written novel, no matter the genre. Steampunk aside, <i>Boneshaker</i> to me is simply not a well written novel, though it has elements that could make for an excellent novel and that intrigued me.<br /><br />The Hugo and Nebula nominations for <i>Boneshaker</i> are troubling, in a way, because I can't see them as other than resulting from the hype and buzz for the novel. Yet this perhaps is also about taste, Priest's novel apparently according with the taste (maybe not so much the critical assessment) of those involved in establishing the nominees for the awards. Hmm ....<br /><br />That's a fine review of McDonald's <i>Cyberabad Days</i>, by the way. I loved <i>River of Gods</i> and have been wanting to pick up the short story collection for a while. You've given me extra encouragement. Thank you.Mike Johnstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16428761379918258628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2483805127569817547.post-57815229951538388762010-06-12T00:20:15.561-04:002010-06-12T00:20:15.561-04:00I must have misread you, then. When you said: &q...I must have misread you, then. When you said: "I agree wholeheartedly with Harvey and feel that the consistently positive hype overlooked the novel's significant faults for the sake of a fun, mad, uniquely entertaining genre mash-up full of action," I thought you were saying that you found the novel to be fun, mad, etc., but that it had "significant faults."<br /><br />I also didn't understand that you weren't writing a book review. A tight focus on a single work does make it seem like a review. Your post reads rather like a hit piece on Cherie Priest's book rather than an examination of hype. I guess I think there are much better examples of hyped books that are actually not very good (think Danielle Steel, James Patterson and John Grisham). Priest's book seems to me a good effort that is a significant step for her compared to her earlier books, showing genuine growth in her as a writer.<br /><br />I say this even though I agree with you that I would not have placed <i>Boneshaker</i> on the Hugo ballot myself. I agree with you that there are pacing problems, for instance. But I also recognize that steampunk isn't really my cup of tea, so I'll have to be cautious about that when I write my own review (I'm one of the few I know who disliked <i>The Difference Engine</i>, for instance).<br /><br />BTW, I'm pretty sure you mean Niall Harrison instead of Niall Ferguson, since your link goes to Torque Control, which is the website of the former Niall rather than the latter. The latter is a historian and economist.Terry Weynahttp://www.readingtheleaves.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2483805127569817547.post-90180791324684617552010-06-11T23:29:18.624-04:002010-06-11T23:29:18.624-04:00@Terry Weyna: Thank you for your comment. Technica...<b>@Terry Weyna:</b> Thank you for your comment. Technically, the post isn't a review of <i>Boneshaker</i>, but more of an essay about taste and hype using the novel as a focus. I don't think there's any point in the post where I write that I found <i>Boneshaker</i> fun, though I do quote several other reviewers who state this. I use such quotations to demonstrate the general tone of response to the novel and create a basis from which to question that response.<br /><br />In fact, I found the book overall to be distinctly not fun, which I hope is clear in the faults of the novel that I identify. Also, I am careful to acknowledge the trickiness of criticizing a novel, in part, for not being what it is, for not doing what I think it could or should have done. As a novel, fun or not, I simply feel <i>Boneshaker</i> missed the mark regarding the story it told, from the perspective of what generates effective narrative tension, makes characters complex and engaging, and gives substance to the world of the narrative. For me, then, the novel does not succeed as good SF/steampunk, thus I am approaching it on its own terms, so to speak.<br /><br />I agree, there's nothing wrong with a book being primarily fun and entertaining, especially if this is what tickles a particular reader's fancy. That's a matter of taste, which I certainly appreciate -- and which I believe the internet serves an important role in communicating.<br /><br />I simply think the hype for the novel ultimately made it out to be more than it actually is. The Hugo and Nebula nominations for <i>Boneshaker</i> reinforce the hype, in a way, by claiming it as one of the best five or six SF&F novels of 2009 -- which I firmly believe not to be so.Mike Johnstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16428761379918258628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2483805127569817547.post-76050308570882000212010-06-11T23:05:13.069-04:002010-06-11T23:05:13.069-04:00@paintings: Thanks for the comment. I think you...<b>@paintings:</b> Thanks for the comment. I think you're quite right about "fairness" in criticism, which I'm not sure was much in evidence with <i>Boneshaker</i>. Yet, true, critics can become victims of their own potentially narrow expectations and standards: the trick, I suppose, as you suggest, is to be flexible enough to stay "current" -- but also with an awareness of how the new stuff relates to and fits with previous, older stuff. I felt much of the praise for <i>Boneshaker</i> was overly enamoured with its newness and maybe not interested enough in its limitations as a novel. Yes, props to Reynolds and Miéville; I have yet to read some Ryman, but I'll check him out.Mike Johnstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16428761379918258628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2483805127569817547.post-25350287650459809862010-06-11T21:56:16.545-04:002010-06-11T21:56:16.545-04:00This is an odd approach to reviewing. You say, es...This is an odd approach to reviewing. You say, essentially, that the book is perfectly fun and does what it sets out to do: it's a romp, it's a zombie/steampunk mashup, it's fun to read. There are problems, but basically it succeeds on this level.<br /><br />And then you go on to criticize the book for doing what it sets out to do and not trying to do anything more. That's like criticizing Tom Clancy for not writing a literary masterpiece instead of a military thriller, or blaming cheese for failing to be beef.<br /><br />I don't think any of the reviews you point to as "hype" calls this book a masterpiece or anything of the sort. They all say, instead, that the book is fun. And there's nothing wrong with fun. As a reviewer, you're supposed to take the book on its own terms, not criticize it for not being something it doesn't even try to be.Terry Weynahttp://www.readingtheleaves.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2483805127569817547.post-55134474064261222152010-06-11T19:14:49.294-04:002010-06-11T19:14:49.294-04:00Excellent post. I suppose that one of the difficul...Excellent post. I suppose that one of the difficulties is fairness in critical reaction. You'll get that both from readers, and from specialised critics like Colin & Niall (& many others).<br />One thing to be asked of critics is: are they only interested in some imagined literary Parnassus (something I don't think you could accuse Colin & Niall of) or are they just responsive to current sf tropes?<br />I think the solution lies in a middle ground no one but Iain M Banks (10 years ago) occupies, unless it be Al Reynolds, China Mieville, or... actually, there isn't anyone else. I'm just wishing it was Geoff Ryman.<br />In the meantime: Go Scalz! It doesn't mean scrap Chris Priest. or M John Harrison.mckiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15217754492699859517noreply@blogger.com