In certain cases, the sheer beauty and poetry of the writing is what appeals. In others, an elaborate, interwoven plot structure is what carries the day. [&c]

All right then. & I'm going to say this is the reason that for me style is *more* substance than substance, as it were, because litfic & the litfic aesthetic were my training wheels as I grew up. That's inextricably bound up in my personal definition of "good", I realize. & that's what I had been thinking about when I talked, earlier, about the hypothetical, brilliant fantasy novels I'm just not aware of. It's still just as eminently possible that they are *out* there, brilliant and unread, but what I meant is that they would be brilliantly written in terms of technique and style. Complicated plots don't do it for me. I mean, the *style* of the plot, the way its structure resonates on a metatextual level-- *that's* good. But just that something happens-- that's not enough.

... Fay, you might want to show me, sometime, how to do that thing. You know, the t /offensive one.

Also? Rebecca Lizard has Marrying FayJay listed as an interest on her LJ?

This was at all a surprise?

I think Anne W. hit the nail on the head, with both the bitchy/cynical rant and the more reasoned one. it's definitely not a clear bright line, though. As a quick rule of thumb, I'd say that literary fiction usually-but-not-always is more likely to concern plausible events taking place in the present or recent past than genre fiction. And yes, I can think of 500 exceptions.

Rebecca, how can you not read f/sf at all? How can you not find Giles sexy?

Speaking for me, not for RL, I don't read much fantasy/sf because it rarely interests me anymore (there are some exceptions, but in general it's a meh for me, because I like my fiction to take place in this world and feature realistic human characters. I can suspend one rule, like for Buffy, but very rarely both.) Not that my interests are pure -- I read trashy mysteries whenever I get on a plane.

Also, while I can see that Giles is attractive, he's past the age where I would have the "oooh, sexxxy" reaction -- I think of him more as a professor/mentor figure than a possible partner. But I'm the philistine who doesn't grok why anyone thinks Sean Connery is other than a)old and b)old and c)bald, so I'm probably not a representative data point.

See-- the professor figure is WHY I think Giles is hot. Although, now that I am getting older, I feel less so.

I like my fiction to take place in a plausible world and feature plausible human characters. I can suspend one rule, like for Buffy, but very rarely both.

There is lots of fantasy out there which only requires suspension of the 'real world' rule. Many fantasy (and quite a lot of sci-fi) authors write characters that are as believeable as any other.

I should add that for me (mainly because I basically find this 'real' world to be boring) that's an advantage rather than a disadvantage in fantasy. I don't like unreal characters, though- there's a reason I gave up on Issac Asimov.

IJS. t /book talk

There is lots of fantasy out there which only requires suspension of the 'real world' rule. Many fantasy (and quite a lot of sci-fi) authors write characters that are as believeable as any other.

Oh, I know that. It still doesn't usually jazz me (like, I sat thru both LotR movies bored out of my skull, and I've never gotten thru more than four pages of Ursula LeGuin).

But I only read sf or fantasy if someone specifically recommends it to me and it doesn't sound too unreal, so I don't think my opinion is especially intelligent or informed.

It still doesn't usually jazz me

I, personally, completely in the inside of my head, cannot understand this at all. How can you not totally be in love with the idea of magic, for instance?

But I realise this is totally, totally personal, and I gave up seriously trying to convert people some time ago, unless they actually asked to have things recced to them, because I invariably end up sitting in the corner just saying, "Elves, man. Elves. How can you not love elves?" over and over again.

for me style is *more* substance than substance, as it were

I have a friend for whom this is very much true. (We've had a couple of Faulkner vs. Dickens smackdowns). When I find a book, story, play, movie, or poem where style and substance both manage to build on each other, I feel like I've hit the jackpot.

that's what I had been thinking about when I talked, earlier, about the hypothetical, brilliant fantasy novels I'm just not aware of. It's still just as eminently possible that they are *out* there, brilliant and unread, but what I meant is that they would be brilliantly written in terms of technique and style.

RL, you may want to give some of Gene Wolfe's stuff a try, starting with "Shadow of the Torturer."

When I find a book, story, play, movie, or poem where style and substance both manage to build on each other, I feel like I've hit the jackpot.

So it feels rare to you? For me it's really the main requirement of successful art. Now I'm overcome with the urge to send you all these books I love, for that reason, to see if you'd like them.

RL, you may want to give some of Gene Wolfe's stuff a try, starting with "Shadow of the Torturer."

Yes ma'am.

So it feels rare to you?

Not so much rare as special, I guess. I'd love to know which books, plays, etc. get that jackpot feeling. There are plenty of books and stories that hit the mark on style and substance but that I find I don't like for one reason or another (usually they're too depressing, or I want to bitchslap the main character with two-by-four with nails in). I remember recommending a certain anime story to someone with the caveat: "This is the best story I didn't like. It's awesome, and brilliant, and I will never, ever read it again."

How can you not totally be in love with the idea of magic, for instance?

Heh. This is like how I don't understand how someone can hate The Simpsons. Yet plenty of people, even some smart people, do. Go figure.

I like a lot of the concepts in fantasy/SF books, but I'm usually not especially interested by the plots surrounding them, I guess? As I said, this is an uninformed reaction, and maybe there's an SF book out there that would make a convert out of me. I do love Kurt Vonnegut, like Octavia Butler and Phillip K. Dick, and think Laurell K. Hamilton writes fascinating trash, but it's never crossed over into wanting to read something *because* it's SF.