![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Eastercon: 'You're Reading it Wrong'
Monday, March 24th, 2008 12:25 pmI'm writing up and posting, separately, notes on each panel that I attended at Eastercon. They're date-stamped with the date of the actual panel. I'll post an entry with links to all of 'em once I've finished writing up notes.
Monday 14:00 You're Reading it Wrong: Do you need to know genre to read genre? Do you need to know an author's previous work to critically assess their latest work? Is it even possible to 'misread' a book? To whose opinion (authors,
critics, fans) should we give the most weight? (Andrew Ducker, Penny Hill, Tanith Lee, Farah Mendlesohn, Charles Stross.)
FJM: quoting Clute: 'creative misprision'. She's failed to spot origin of a story based on Christian parable. A misreading can be more interesting than what the author meant. Some writers try to fix an interpretation of their work.
CS: mainstream writers tackling sf and trying for heavy metaphor. "Sometimes a rocket ship is simply a rocket ship."
TL: writers should make their own decisions, not be swayed by reviewers.
FJM: betas are there to tell you when a book isn't going the right way.
Good fiction paragraphs mirror the structure of good non-fiction: tesis, evidence, analysis. (The evidence could be dialogue or description.)
Non-fiction as challenging as fiction ...
FJM: The meaning of books slips. Sometimes can reopen a book to new reading with changing times. E.g. Heinlein's Friday which, now, can be read as the story of a survivor of abuse.
Theories as categories -- temporary filters, multiple ways of looking at something. Genre is a filter: how does this novel look if interpreted as sf? does it fit?
CS: no book is more than a snapshot of a point of view. One can't extrapolate from an author's previous work to their current POV.
TL: "I did have some of my books burnt in the States. It was lovely."
Audience: Art isn't complete until it's reacted to.
FJM: Emily Dickinson is the classic artist-without-audience.
Audience (Lillian): writing is now social, edited, collaborative, beta'd: are we losing the wild creative thing?
FJM: all writing social at some stage.
Monday 14:00 You're Reading it Wrong: Do you need to know genre to read genre? Do you need to know an author's previous work to critically assess their latest work? Is it even possible to 'misread' a book? To whose opinion (authors,
critics, fans) should we give the most weight? (Andrew Ducker, Penny Hill, Tanith Lee, Farah Mendlesohn, Charles Stross.)
FJM: quoting Clute: 'creative misprision'. She's failed to spot origin of a story based on Christian parable. A misreading can be more interesting than what the author meant. Some writers try to fix an interpretation of their work.
CS: mainstream writers tackling sf and trying for heavy metaphor. "Sometimes a rocket ship is simply a rocket ship."
TL: writers should make their own decisions, not be swayed by reviewers.
FJM: betas are there to tell you when a book isn't going the right way.
Good fiction paragraphs mirror the structure of good non-fiction: tesis, evidence, analysis. (The evidence could be dialogue or description.)
Non-fiction as challenging as fiction ...
FJM: The meaning of books slips. Sometimes can reopen a book to new reading with changing times. E.g. Heinlein's Friday which, now, can be read as the story of a survivor of abuse.
Theories as categories -- temporary filters, multiple ways of looking at something. Genre is a filter: how does this novel look if interpreted as sf? does it fit?
CS: no book is more than a snapshot of a point of view. One can't extrapolate from an author's previous work to their current POV.
TL: "I did have some of my books burnt in the States. It was lovely."
Audience: Art isn't complete until it's reacted to.
FJM: Emily Dickinson is the classic artist-without-audience.
Audience (Lillian): writing is now social, edited, collaborative, beta'd: are we losing the wild creative thing?
FJM: all writing social at some stage.
