I hate the sneering too, especially when the sneer in this passage hinges on a false comparison. The author of this passage separates the ancient storyteller by the fireside (a cliche in and of itself) from the poet, who apparently sits on the far reaches of the circle and sneers at the storyteller. What this person has failed to have learned in any basic Medieval literature course is that the poet and the storyteller were one and the same person, that the story was told THROUGH poetry to begin with.

Which is also what this sort of writer tends to forget as they pen their modern (also historically innacurate or innacurate historically modeled) fantasy novels.

Good luck to them. Seems like they're going to need it.

Que?

This is obviously allegory. the young poet is obviously representative of the literary circles which disparage “craft” for “art” and look down their noses at the triteness of external conflict vs. myopic, emotional introspection.
The idea that it somehow was meant as a reference to historical poets seems deliberately obtuse. It speaks to the classic argument of literary writing vs. genre writing.

It’s trying to speak to it, I’ll give it that, but it’s not doing it very well. Like the man said: “If you mixed drinks as bad as you mix metaphors, you’d be out of a job.” A literary tradition that harks back to Howard ought at least to be able to come up with a more vivid and accurate image. (Bonus points for one that includes the phrase effete city-dwellers.)

But there’s a better point in what Barzak’s saying, and it’s this. Those literary circles that look down their noses at external conflict? They don’t exist. (Or if they do, they’re a sideshow. Their opinion on swords-&-sorcery means about as much as Harold Bloom’s opinion on Harry Potter.) The literary vs. genre argument? In an era when Pattern Recognition and The Bridge are shelved in the SF section and The Sparrow and Gun, with Occasional Music are shelved in the Fiction & Literature section? Dead, except to people who aren’t paying attention. The whole argument, like the allegory, is founded on a false dichotomy.

You seem to be using anecdotal evidence to speak to larger movements--and in adamant tones, as if it were a math equation that could be proven. It seems like you may have conciously or sub-conciously identified yourself with that sneering poet.
The literary vs. genre bias is built into editors and reviewers through the structure and focus of college creative writing classes.
The editorial speaks to how things like literary concerns, political correctness, and imitation of a single focus have diluted a sub-genre that used to be known for pacing, vividness, and an approach to magic that harkened back more to a primal superstition than modern anology of mastery of technology.

I seem to be hearing you say, "nope, everything's fine here, move it along folks," while people in the crowd behind you are saying "no, there's clearly a car wreck, here."

That is, I found the truth of what he was saying so self-evident that I felt inclined to draw you out further on your disagreement a little bit--not come to your blog and start a brawl.

I myself would like to read the next Karl Edward Wagner [say] than what I'm being given which is the next Robert Jordan, who was the next Marion Zimmerman Bradely who was the next Tolkien, etc etc ad nauesum.

Now one not be looking for such fiction, but to deny the state of things as it exists seems strange to me.

With respect, Nathan, you need to check yourself. You accuse David of using anecdotal evidence while making blanket statements like, "The literary vs. genre bias is built into editors and reviewers through the structure and focus of college creative writing classes."

That's just not true, not like it once was. Genre fiction is being taught in college courses, and plenty of genre writers are having their work taken seriously in MFA programs. Harry Potter and Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrel are on the best-seller lists, and folks like Kelly Link and Tim Pratt are showing up in the Best American Short Stories. Now, perhaps there's an argument that Sword & Sorcery itself is still marginalized, but the genre as a whole is not.

And yet, to my eyes the editorial seems to propose revitalizing the sub-genre by forcing it to adhere to strict criteria so as to appeal to an already self-selected audience; by imposing restrictions on setting and tone which appear contradictory. (What does a hard-boiled sense of wonder look like?) It's working so hard to distance S&S from other forms of fantasy that the corner it leaves for itself is too tight to swing a broadsword in.

What's more disturbing, it appears to stem from the sense of persecution which too many fantasy fans adopt when we start talking about capital L literature. Now that, as Ben Rosenbaum says, we are waking from "the long, cold sleep of realism," the way to heal the rift between our internal poets and storytellers is not to cast aspersions one upon the other; that way leads only to authorial schizophrenia.

They were trying to please the same sort of audience who gathered at the foot of ancient storytellers, not the young poet who lurked on the edges of the campfire, sneering at the story.

Ah yes, nothing quite beats the pretentiousness of faux populism. Well, except for:

The editorial speaks to how things like literary concerns, political correctness

Darn those PC thugs. Next week: blame the "metrosexuals."

It doesn't get much more metrosexual than Elric.

Dave: Nicely put.

Yes, back in the days of S&S dominated publishing there was a term for metrosexual; effeminate,;-).

A "hard-boilded sense of wonder" would I think, mean a magic system that is more frightening than utilitarian--more superstittion than allegory of technology. That is, instead of fire ball throwing D&D knock-offs you have a conjurer--without going all Catcher in the Rye wears a sword and sandals about why the conjurer is evil.

It is no straw man to say the focus of publishing in the fantasy field has changed drastically since the end of the time of S&S--say the mid 1980's. It is self-evident by the kinds of books being published. Which was/is fine. At that time S&S had played itself out in many ways. But writing trends and tastes are/can be cyclical.

It is easy to speak of They--in this case "They" mean currents or trends of focus in the [in this case] fantasy publishing world. Surely none will deny that the fantasy seller lists of 1968 or 73 or 84 didn't look different than 90, or 98 0r 03. That is not a strawman. It is rather a strawman to say it is a strawman.

An idea [in this case put out by FS in their guidelines]that a clear statement of focus on those elements which were over shadowed in modern fantasy is no more inncorrect than a mystery publisher requiring a murder in the plot. Is it confining? Are the walls of a house confining? Can be; but they have to be there for it to be a house.

Once upon a time S&S played itself out. Publishers were looking for something new. They got it, they've run with it until it is not new.

A plea to writers to put aside the elements popular for the last 15 years in favor of elements so old they often appear new to younger readers [what fantasy without elves, gasp?]is not sneering. It is a beginning of the pushing of the wheel that runs the cycles.

Why the defensiveness of precieved attacks on MFA programs? Why the defense of Literary--which is the formulaic genre of coming of age and self-discovery stories? Hell, why the defensive of metrosexuals for godsake? It seems as if you hold these in esteem and don't wish to see them disparaged; as perhaps old school S&S fans feel about that style of writing.

Publishers publish what sells. But you can only buy what is published. There for if you find yourself tired of something that holds the focus in publishing it is often necessary to start small, like with a FS and then parley small success into greater attention. As I hope most sincerely will happen with MUD for example.

That FS is clear about likes and dislikes is merely a mission statement. Disagree with the mission statement--but don't claim MFA programs are realy holding Raymond Chandler up there with Salinger or Robert E Howard up there with Kafka just because they're mentioned. It's disengenuious.

Why the defense of Literary--which is the formulaic genre of coming of age and self-discovery stories?

So, do you like formulaic writing, or dislike it? You clearly consider it a negative here, even faux-capping the word "literary", but you previously saw no problem with a hypothetical "mystery publisher requiring a murder in the plot." I triple-dog dare you to find a "literary" fiction imprint that has a requirement as exacting as, say, "the protagonist's epiphany must involve the realization that she isn't happy, but that nobody else is either."

Your manifesto-of-the-minute sounds a sour note because it is full of strawmen and you also stack the deck. It's not a strawman that hardcore S&S is our of favor; it IS a strawman to claim that once upon a time things were better because "The story was still paramount. And that’s because they were working writers. They earned their livings sharing their work." Who would dare say anything against working writers, after all? It is stacking the deck to applaud the formulae you like but disparage those you dislike simply for being formulaic.

As for publishing S&S, go ahead. Lots of people have the great idea to publish The Good Ol' Stuff, as written by their tyro buddies. Some of the attempts, like Absolute Magnitude for SF adventure, almost manage to come out once a year too! Ditto the endless Mythos fanzines; the "hardcore" horror markets hoping to capture the 80s in a bottle, etc etc.

But, and here's the tricky part, it actually is possible to carry on with such an endeavor without whining and whimpering about how you and your taste cohort are all victims of a mythical "literary set." Like Moles said, name some names. Which authors and which publishers are printing BFF (of all things!) in order to impress the folks uptown at Columbia, or at The New Yorker? Did it work?

Two other, minor points, both of which suggest that you're just stapling together random complaints rather than thinking things through:

1. Here you decry "political correctness"; on your site you promise to "set aside the sexism and racism and the suspect politics." Dude, they're fucking barbarians! They should be sexist and racist! The sort of socio-political ideologies of egalitarianism and individualist liberalism that even make sexism and racism issues cannot even exist in the spasms of a tributary political economy trying to hold of feudalism, which is the mode of production in which S&S exists. "Political correctness" is just a content-free bugaboo; a nonsense term used to describe those whose tastes differ.

2. You complain, repeatedly, about the use of magic in fantasy as essentially a stand-in for technology. A poor (and dumb) man's electricity and all that. But there is plenty of fantasy that doesn't involve such magic; virtually all contemporary fantasy and supernatural horror published today and for the past fifty years fits the bill. Your taste in fictional magic is certainly being catered to.

Nick, you have confused my sympathetic leanings towards the editorial for having written the editorial or being some part of the apparatus which printed the editorial. I am sympathetic to the idea. I want to see S&S move into a mainstream category--not languish in a small press at 75-90$ a pop per book--for no other reason than I enjoy it. I see a certain mindset in editors of big houses coming from having graduated as a general rule of thumb from English or FA programs [I get this assumption from reading job descriptions in headhunter news]. Internal conflict good, external conflict bad to over simplify for the point of brevity. Detailed “world building” means talent--break-neck pacing means hack.
That is I think at this point--nearly 20 years after the end of its “hay-day”--the kind of story focus that was paramount in a 1978 or so would very well strike many modern readers with a sense of the new. Talking about this is interesting and entertaining to me---but don’t confuse me, Nathan, as the site which sponsored that editorial. It struck a cord but it is not me.
To clarify my opinion on formula. My point was simply that the elements of literature are in many ways as formulaic [to the point where there is no need for the New Yorker to specify them implicitly] as genre fiction. The fact that you were so able to mock the idea in such specific terms of parody makes that point rather self-evident.
I seem to hear you as saying that liking a particular style or tone of fiction is fine with you, but one must not suggest that political correctness [e.g. a traditional save the princess story is not considered sexist in many circles--I‘m just imagining this line of argument], entrenched educational bias, or a system of momentum based on past sales influencing more recent ones is accurate. Or that the rift between “artist” and “craftsmen” is somehow a straw man construct and not so old it is cliche.
Let me clarify. High fantasy sits at the top of the fantasy publishing list at the moment--as far as I can tell be looking at what is on sale at Wal-Mart; a more accurate gauge IMO than what is crammed spine out in the fantasy section of Borders as to what are the “big“ sellers, it and its derivatives have done so for years, I would say starting from about the time of Mists of Avalon. Having grown tired of this twist from the barbarian warrior over the last 15 years or so--I’d like to see the trend swing back in another direction. Before styles can change, they must be acknowledged.

Sorry for conflating you with the editorial. Anyway, onward!

I see certain mindset in editors of big houses coming from having graduated as a general rule of thumb from English or FA programs [I get this assumption from reading job descriptions in headhunter news]. Internal conflict good, external conflict bad to over simplify for the point of brevity. Detailed “world building” means talent--break-neck pacing means hack.

Ah see, now we're getting to facts and factual claims. Marvelous, because now, we can disabuse you of the same.

As someone who has worked on every level of publishing for the past seven years, let me first point out that I seriously doubt any "headhunter news" job descriptions call for MFA grads. Indeed, I defy you to produce five such ads for jobs in commercial publishing from, say, the last eighteen months. A BA in English? Also hardly necessary; a number of the editors in the genre don't have college degrees at all. The entry-level gigs do ask for English degrees, however, this is for a much more prosaic reason than you think. People with English degrees are likely interested in writing and capable communicators. As your entry level ed asst will likely be opening mail, doing P&L spreadsheets, handling phone calls, and growing blisters at trade shows, any ideological indocrtination from the degree is tertiary in its affect on acquisition choices at best.

(And of course, one can still break into publishing in a variety of ways, without a degree at all. Work your way in to editorial from sales, copy editing, or production, but be quick about it before you're stuck on one track or another.)

Further, the leap you make from the assumption that college boys are infiltrating publishing to the idea the books with "external conflict" are being underpublished or undervalorized makes me wonder if you've been inside a bookstore in the past thirty years. Koontz, Clancy, Crichton, et al, keep the Big Five publishers in business, and innumerable knock-offs, spin-offs, and also-rans fill the shelves. "New Yorker-style" literary fiction (for lack of a better term) is a minority current. Hacks rule the world, and no major editor or publisher is rolling their eyes or cringing when they decide to print another 250,000 mmpbs of the latest Stephen King or Orson Scott Card or Nora Roberts.

one must not suggest that political correctness [e.g. a traditional save the princess story is not considered sexist in many circles--I‘m just imagining this line of argument], entrenched educational bias, or a system of momentum based on past sales influencing more recent ones is accurate.

I'm not saying that "one must not" suggest anything; I'm saying it's simply not the case. Thus, when one does suggest it, and when one plays "Dodge the Facts" and "Repeat the Claim" rather than offer any basis for their suggestion, it is fair game to wonder what's going on the claimant's head.

Or that the rift between “artist” and “craftsmen” is somehow a straw man construct and not so old it is cliche.

The point is: what is the relevance of the rift in this case? I'll tell you that the recent REH reissues are selling like hotcakes; 15,000+ in the first month in trade paperbacks -- not too shabby for work that never really fell out of print and that it is mostly in the public domain. So, what happened? Did Ballantine, and Wildside, AND the University of Nebraska Press (where the employees are all degreed), which ALL released Howard material over the last year, decide that he was an artist after all? Or did they just see a moneymaker after consulting their calendars?

Do these same people really think that the post-Tolkien heroic fantasists are "artists"? Again, I defy you to come up with some quotes from publishers or editors (say, from trade mags or their blogs or whatever) claiming that Jordan, Goodkind, or their ilk are "artists". Mieville, Crowley, and VanderMeer? Perhaps. But the cash cows of BFF? It is to laugh ... all the way to the bank.

Nick, I got lazy and simply went over to Monster and typed in editor. I didn’t need to go back 18 months--I didn’t need to go back a full week--a four year degree, more often than not English was if not a stated requirement was then a strong preference. Are you saying only the lowly guys need degrees but the bosses in NY don’t? I do concede that a FA reference was to broad a brush, used because of reference to the thread above--but not English, not by a long shot. Now if your argument is that people are not influenced by their educations then we’ve left the objective [number of jobs requiring degrees in the field] and entered the subjective [sure, they *need* degrees but I don’t think their education influences them]
Also my statement--in support of the editorial but more generalized--is as it applies to fantasy and not commercial fiction in general, and I’m sure I was specific when I wrote it.
Go now and type “sword&sorcery +sexist” into google. Look at the hits, look where the hits come from and whom the top sites reference. That someone would suggest such a concept doesn’t exist seems beyond belief. You seem to want me to do a lot of home work and reference everything in a MLA format. I say this; You’ve read a lot of guidelines have you not? How common is the “no S&S” submission rule, as common as the no “space opera” rule, I’d imagine. Yet when Blackgate submission site crashed they lost nearly 500 manuscripts. There is a base of S&S fans both writers and readers out there [site your own example of the REH sales] yet the plethora of books being published are not in this focus. If as, you point out, there are good sales being made by Nebraska Press [Nebraska press!]---then where is the S&S push by all those money hungry editors you are speaking of publishing Koontz, etc? It isn’t there. Why not?
Without one shed of documented proof at my finger tips I submit to you that a publisher can make or break a book [assuming a journeyman level of writing] through pushing or not pushing. I’m saying if a freakin’ Nebraska press can sell 15,000 books then Simon&Shuster[sp] could move how many times that number? Hell, what if TOR pushed a new S&S novel like they do book 200 of Jordan’s Wheel of Time? There is a reason and it isn’t that there aren’t fans, or that competant work-a-day writers are willing to write it, that S&S has languished.
If not the traditionally sighted reasons [such as the ones in the editorial] than what could it be?

Sorry I'm in a different time zone, thirteen or fourteen hours ahead of most of you, so my comment here goes back to the top again.

Of course that passage was aiming at allegory. But even allegory, when drawing upon historical personages, must be honest and truthful to the reality of those sources. Otherwise the point it makes is made upon a false analogy.

In any case, that aside, I'm sorry but last time I checked Sword and Sorcery novels were still the cash cow of fantasy publishing and the authors of such books do not seem to have to struggle in the same way that literary fantasists sometimes have to do in order to publish a book that is just too hard to categorize.

Now if it's sword and sorcery not having much of a market in the realm of short stories, that I may agree with. But the sources for genre short stories in general is but a trickle these days (I mean professional, large circulation markets) and so all the subgenres of fantasy and science fiction are struggling to some extent.

I do earnestly hope they produce something of value in the New Edge. I just don't think it's ever a good idea to shoot down another type of writing in order to promote your own. It's like the kid at school who always makes fun of another kid. If it's someone else getting blamed or picked on, it's not him.

An immature strategy to say the least.

Why the defensiveness of precieved attacks on MFA programs? Why the defense of Literary — which is the formulaic genre of coming of age and self-discovery stories? Hell, why the defensive of metrosexuals for godsake?

Nathan, I’m only defending because you’re attacking, and attacking in a way that makes it look like you don’t know what you’re talking about. If you want to complain about MFAs, hang out with a few of them first; if you want to complain about lit-fic, make it clear that you’ve read some. And if you don’t get the difference between metrosexual and effeminate, spend a few years living in San Francisco, New York, London or Tokyo.

David, did you confuse my use of the term effeminate with homosexual?

Here is how Dictionairy.com defines effeminate:Having qualities or characteristics more often associated with women than men. See Synonyms at female. Characterized by weakness and excessive refinement.

Now metrosexual is slang so after seeing the gist of the "definition" I copied and pasted this one:
"In truth, "metrosexual" describes an individual with whom you're already familiar. New York Times says he's a straight urban male who's willing, even eager, to embrace his feminine side. He's unafraid to be complimented on his clothing or mistaken for being gay. He stocks his medicine cabinet with prestige grooming products, maintains an impressive up-to-date wardrobe, and visits chic salons for a variety of men's esthetic services that include hairstyling, facials, manicures, and body hair removal [etc all]"
from: http://www.menessentials.com/tips/metrosexual.html

I'll be honest--not having been in London or Tokyo recently--but metrosexual seems pretty synonymous with effeminate. In fact it seems like a movement designed for guys who like mousse and man-purses to asert themselves out of the shadows--much like the gay community's use of the word "queer" as a rally point.

More power to them, by all means--nothing wrong here, but don't be afraid to call a spade a spade. In the old days [i.e. those days before the rally cry of metrosexual existed] such behavihor was termed "sissy."

This offends you? If so sorry, this is a blog and not a BB so I'm actually not coming over to pee on your furniture. But really Dave, it's like you took offense at me saying "hey, the sky is blue."

[note; that was meant in fun right? You're not sitting somewhere rooting through your man-purse past lip-balm and hair mousse looking for a Xanx 'cause I'm insulting you, right?]

First you defend the sneering young poet--a Jungian arch-villian if ever there was one--now you are upset by the suggest that metrosexual is effeminate?

What kind of den of peversions is this?

Hmm.

David says: "It may sound strange when read from a space as snarky as this one’s become over the last few weeks..."

Yeah, that's been bugging me.

I think the antidote to snarkiness is reading generously.

I don't find a lot of sneering in the New Edge editorial. What I find is chin-raised-in-defiance now-it's-my turn bravado. And that's just fine with me.

Chris is right that the poet/storyteller analogy is nonsense if set in medieval times. But, now, if you set it around 1820 (when there were still plenty of stories being told around the fire) it makes a lot more sense. (Ol' Byron there is an international celebrity and a big seller, so his withdrawl from the fire is a conscious stance -- Romantic art-for-art's-sake disdain for entertaining the masses, in favor of pursuing the Pure Vision of the Artist's Soul.)

And the most generous way to look at this analogy is not by trying to pick particular writers to be the poet and the storyteller, but rather, as David M. suggests in the update, to consider them as internal forces within us. The analogy should be, generously, interpreted as saying: "want to write for us? Listen to the inner voice that wants to please the crowd, not the inner voice that wants to yearn for Artistic Truth." And that might not be such a bad recipe for producing the stories Jones wants to buy, if you were the kind of person who wanted to write them.

Or maybe it is a bad idea for producing them -- a methodological error. But even then, it's not a damning one, nor a dishonest one. It might be worth trying.

Jones' editorial actually says nothing about MFA programs or literateurs. It contains one throwaway reference to "the literary set" -- "we must throw off the shackles of those who have tried to remold the genre to be respectable to the literary set". A generous interpretation of this is as an expression of a preference in prose styles: pulpish over littish.

The editorial does not blame declining sales of anything on deviation from its author's preferences. It does not promise anyone any financial success if they return to the One True Way.

It does say of the old-skool writers it admires that "they were working writers" -- a generous interpretation of this would be that Jones admires the kind of writing that came out of people working for five 1930 cents a word, as opposed to the kind of writing produced by someone who, say, has a nice lucrative day job writing Java code for the National Science Foundation, and whose short stories, selling for five 2005 cents a word, are therefore really part of a prestige economy -- and thus written to be admired, rather than to be unthinkingly consumed. I'll cop to that.

The editorial does not spend any time at all attacking literary writers, or literary fantasists. Jones quotes Hocking's attack on "most fantasy" for being anemic and moribund. But the point of quoting it is clearly not to dissuade BFF writers from writing BFF. It is to outline, by contrast, what he *does* want to see -- non-Tolkeinesque settings, exploration of mysterious realms, vigorous and committed application of formula where formula is applied, and fast-paced storytelling. What is the problem here?

The only attack in that editorial on anyone (aside from the assertion that some SF fans are too hip for their own good) is Jones quoting Hocking to say that "most" fantasy is repetitive in setting, cynical in application of formula, and meandering in style. And not to make them look bad, but simply to make clear how what he wants is distinct from BFF.

This is wrong why?

Neither Jones nor Hocking claim that BFF is too literary or influenced by the literary set. That seems an almost willful misreading of the essay. I read it to say "hardly anyone is doing the kind of S&S we like. Some people are doing literary-influenced tongue-in-cheek self-parodic S&S. This is not what we like. Other elements of S&S survive in high fantasy, but most high fantasy is too derivative, mechanical in its use of magic, lacking in thrilling weirdness, and meandering in style for our tastes. We now describe what we like. Send us some."

I don't see anything contradictory in combining hard-boiled tone and sense of wonder: sounds like they want very odd and disturbing settings and events, concisely described in short, low-affect sentences. And many events, of high intrinsic emotional intensity, described in a small number of sentences.

Nowhere do they suggest that this is the One True Way to Write. Okay, arguably they claim it's the
"true" sword and sorcery. I'm not sure they are as faithful to their antecedents as they claim; I've read Lieber recently, and he seems often guilty of the flowery language, and sometimes of the postmodern self-mockery, which they eschew.

But so what? They also don't claim to be authoritative Lieber scholars. Read generously, they simply claim to be *inspired* by Lieber -- that's quite a different thing.

And what does this have to do with any of us?

I am not, personally, planning to follow the injunction to turn away from the Byronic poet and towards the crowd-pleasing storyteller; I am rather going to follow Moles' injunction to integrate them. But that is because I am not a conservative artist. The Flashing Swords editorial is a call for conservative art.

I am not going to submit to FS. I am not going to read FS. But I don't see the point in picking on them. To claim that it's a bad idea for them to want what they want, or to ask for it, or to decry what they don't like, seems awfully arrogant to me. And what I read (ungenerously? :> ) as an implicit claim that conservative art, by its nature, has missed the point, or isn't really art -- that seems intellectually dishonest to me.

I expect them to have a rollicking good time around that fire. I hope they will. And I'm glad for them. Not snarkily pseudo-glad. Honestly glad. Let's all get it where we can.

Nathan, I think the point is that if you hung around urban centers more, your notion of which characteristics are masculine and which are feminine -- or even the very idea of assigning characteristics in this fashion -- would be challenged.

For instance, I am wearing a plum-colored shirt, like to cry at sad movies, and identify strongly with the protagonist of "William Wants A Doll"... and yet, I would be perfectly happy to kick your ass for characterizing me as weak and excessively refined. :-)

As the Principal said to Duddley Pippin: "a sissy is someone who doesn't cry, because he's afraid someone will call him a sissy if he does cry."

Nathan, are you seriously suggesting that the problem with fantasy fiction is that it's too girly?

If so, it's not so much offensive as ridiculous. If not, I don't see what your screed has to do with the topic at hand.

Oh, dear sweet Benjamin you communicate well but there is no better working definition of weak and excessively refinned as threating to kick some ones ass over a medium like the internet. Unless perhaps by post, lol. I live in Las Vegas, I grew up near and lived for many years in Seattle.
If you love the effeminate, then embrace the effeminate; don't try and change it into what is not; don't go changin' to try and please me, I like you just the way you are. . .lol.[however all cat-fighting and bitchy comments aside--joking--]I wanted to address the stated belief that those English programs influence the editors of Big Houses--who will always follow the money first, of course--and how and why I hold this belief. No I do not hold a list of names of prominent editors. Nor do I know any ex-Baathists in Iraq by name when I assert that Sadaam loyalists seem to make up a part of the insurgency movement. I arrive at this conclusion through extrapolation and deduction--not by having a written manifesto.
I have a degree in nursing [now that has got to be metrosexual enough!] but like a great many “non-traditionals” I filtered through half-a-dozen under graduate programs before I started to follow the money myself. About six or seven English classes, creative writing course, intro novel, intro to short story, etc, etc. [I mean I think I had to read “The Young Goodman Brown” like 8 times, lol] There is a bias in these classes against genre, and the bias is not stated that plainly. It runs along these simplistic lines Literary A] concerns itself with “serious” things and wants to “challenge” you (you MFAs know the buzzwords, come on!) and B] literature is characterized as an emphasis of characterization over plot while genre is short-handled in style as plot over characterization. Okay if that seems like a wild claim then I’ve lost you. If you can vaguely recall hearing such things than follow my extrapolation.
Now. Hold up a Andrew Offutt novel, or Karl Edward Wagner “Darkness Weaves” or a Conan paperback against Two Towers, The Sword of Shannara, Mists of Avalon, or anything written by Robert Jordan. The difference between the BFF and the S&S novel can be measured in inches.
So what makes the BFF, B&F? Plot? I say no. I say if you remove the skeleton of the action map from a BFF and hold it up to Darkness Weaves [example] you don’t see more plot-moving actions happening--you see 2 things. More world building [i.e “setting”] and more what? More characterization.
This isn’t inherently evil--the way defending metrosexuals is, say--but in order to beef-up characterization you must sacrifice pacing. You change the emphasis from *what* is happening to *who* it is happening to. The very definition of literary concerns vs. genre ones. An externally focused, physically dynamic character has a term all its own in literture; the "flat" character. And I--perhaps only me?--was taught that a "flat" protaganist is not as good as a "round" one.

I feel like I just had to write 10k in words to point out a fact that is rather obvious.
Now I’m speaking of fantasy. Other commercial fiction seems much more sparse orientated. I’m also saying that if that editor buyer took his education seriously, embraced it, they must have wet themselves when they put down the latest Conan pastiche and picked up a story about a poor misfit anti-hero who struggles up from being the stable-slopper to get the princess and is basically Holden Caulfield in a tunic--he [or perhaps she] must have nearly passed out. S&S was dying, but the editors were ripe for a certain kind of replacement; one with a literary focus of characterization, subconsciously or not. For a particular something to replace it. Which was fine. But it’s been awhile now and I’m tired of angst and if those guys over at FS want to see a little less whinny Oprah book club introspection and a little more blood & thunder--then I’m up for it.
Now the Moby Dick of a post I just wrote all seemed self-evident before I wrote it. Yet you guys seem to find it insulting--to the point in fact where you are insulting to FS for having a stated preference and for clarifying that preference in a Compare and Contrast model with High Fantasy.
I’m at loss to understand your emotional investment.

I'm not saying that underlings need BAs while their bosses don't.

I'm saying, like pretty much every industry out there, the jobs you see posted are not all jobs -- people have been kicked upstairs from high school internships, have made the leap from fanzines and fandom to publishing, have made the leap from other publishing tracks (production, sales) into editorial, etc. It's also not at all unusual to find notations like this in a want ad:

We have an exciting opportunity for an Associate Managing Editor in the Grosset & Dunlap Editorial department to create schedules and track all titles in the mass merchandise children's division and prepare biweekly status reports to be distributed to the department.

Responsibilities include:

* Creating schedules for all titles including licensed properties, series, and novelty books.
* Maintaining production notes.
* Tracking the status of each title.
* Trafficking stages of book between Editorial, Copyediting, and Design to ensure books are on schedule.
* Working on other projects as needed.

Qualifications/Requirements include:
* 4 year college degree or equivalent work experience.

Now, you will occasionally see it as a requirement, as in this ad, also from this week, for Bedford/St. Martin's:

Duties include supporting editors by running manuscript review programs, preparing manuscripts for production, eventually undertaking own book development projects, as well as performing clerical tasks that include copying, filing, requesting checks, and corresponding with authors. The successful candidate should have excellent written, verbal, and computer skills and work well in a fast-paced environment where attention to detail is important. A college degree is required, preferably in English.

The degree here, (not even necessarily a BA!) can be in anything and is simply a literacy/attention check: can the applicant sit around accomplishing things for a couple of years in a row?

And you can also bet that this ad went up after an internal search of interns and the like found no takers. It's an entry-level gig. Gigs that require experience generally are only interested in experience. Nobody is going to say "Gee, Mr. Nielsen-Hayden, you HAVE been editor for more than a decade, but no BA, so no new job for you."

As far as this: I submit to you that a publisher can make or break a book [assuming a journeyman level of writing] through pushing or not pushing.

I submit to you that even a basic understanding of rational actor theory would suggest this: if what you are saying is true, publishers would push EVERY title and make them ALL bestsellers.

If push/not push determined sales, then they'd max out sales every single time. They'd certainly have the money to do so -- pushing would generate the money. "Pushing" would be a black box; put a dollar in at one end, and a buck and a half would be spit out the other end.

But it's not that way. It's hit or miss; indeed, "pushing" just barely qualifies as a rational economic activity. If it worked any less well or any less often, it wouldn't even be done anymore.

The rest of your minor-league whimpering is just that; a silly attempt to cobble together something, anything, rather than simply acknowledge that you don't know what you're talking about. To wit:

1. Google results mean nothing. Heck, the very first hit for "sword and sorcery" sexist reads "Sword and sorcery can be mere escapist fare, and as sexist as any James Bond film.'

And yet, James Bond films continue to be very popular, as do its related ancillary products! So clearly, google is not evidence of a PC police sinking S&S for sexism. The point is that there is no particular need for S&S to be "cleaned up". If there was, REH wouldn't be selling 15K copies for Ballantine, and thousands each for Wildside and U Neb (the same stories, mind you!)

2. Submission guidelines that say "no S&S"? So? I can find as many that say "no first person stories" (Surreal and Flesh and Blood come immediately to mind) and ten times as many that say "no genre fiction" at all. Meaningless. Incidentally, if you're appealing to magazine sub guidelines, we can toss the whole BA/MFA thing right out. The only qualification needed to edit a magazine in the field these days is the money to start a magazine. Most of them are volunteer efforts.

3. Related: Black Gate lost 500 submissions and this means what? That everyone's writing S&S and thus, there must exist a large audience for the same that the publishers cruelly ignore because they have college degrees and shower more frequently than real men like Kull the Conqueror?

You're being ridiculous. Black Gate publishes all sorts of heroic fantasy (when it manages to come out, that is!) and you have no idea what the submission mix looks like; if it's like most other slush piles, a large fraction of them are entirely inappropriate. Lots of writers, especially new ones, submit "Adam and Eve" stories too, that doesn't mean there's a big audience for them either.

So garsh, big Nate, where ARE the kids who want swords with their sorcery going? If I had to guess: WoTC gaming tie-in titles. Dark elves with two swords and shit like that. And there are plenty of those out there.

Nick, you seem a little worked up--Lexapro. You asked for 5 jobs; I gave them to you. For you to then say “oh I didn’t mean *those*” jobs seems whinny--not my point out the jobs in the first place.
James Bond movies may remain popular, but that doesn’t then extrapolate that S&S is being published in the same majority status as BFF.
You ask for exhaustive proof in hopes that the person will become tired then poopah the examples. A bit intellectually dishonest. Here’s your argument Nick, stripped of pretension; “What you’re wrong. I demand written proof and specific examples. What you call that proof, I spit on your proof and specific examples.”
Wow if you continue to do that you’ll never have to admit you were wrong. It is rather a good formula.
As for pushing or not pushing that is ridiculous. One merely has to walk through the front doors of Barnes and Nobles to be presented with tables and displays of the books being pushed. You merely have to wind your way back to the shelves where 85% of the books are crammed spine out between face-up Stephen Kings and Dean Koontzs to see the books not be pushed. Proof? It is the proof of the self-evident, the proof of the common sense.
Let us narrow this focus. The trend in fantasy is obviously BFF over S&S. In the abstract this is neither good nor bad, it simply is. For FS to say, hey tired of milieu and characterization padding, we’d like to see some blood and thunder isn’t something to get upset about. Heck it doesn’t even have to be an issue between non-showering “real-men” and plum-shirt-wearing metrosexuals. I’m sorry you don’t care for Drizzt--but he’s an elf, that makes him high fantasy by definition--no matter how many swords he wields. . .

Ooo, excessively refinned! That's what I want to be.... large numbers of newly-minted metallic fins embedded in my frame. Sexy.

I am glad my post got you hot, Nathan. I can't actually decide whether to treat you as a troll (and thus not feed you further) or not. Your comments on effiminacy are rather troll-like and creepy, but your account of the insidious creeping of round characters into the pulps may have some merit.

Also, the fact that, on the evidence, your actual working definition of "weak" is "female" makes me morbidly curious about your personal life. Are you kind of, let's say, a loner? Or do you have a dewy-eyed Gor-enthusiast slave girl entourage who find your contempt for them sexy? Or do you actually have nice, supportive women in your life who, you know, just don't take you entirely seriously?

Not that I want to offend you or anything. I'm just curious, because I don't get out to Las Vegas much, so I don't know how things work out there.

(Also, unless anyone wants to say anything substantive further about the original issue, I am going to assume that we have come to a consensus (It's fine for FS to articulate a preference for terse narratives with true strangeness; the poet retreating from the fireside is actually not sneering, and is just as productive a figure as the storyteller, and we all have both; everybody follow your own muse) and that we are now just gang-banging.)

Avast, ye beer-swilling casinosexuals! Arrrr!

You asked for 5 jobs; I gave them to you.

Nathan, like most know-nothings, you're an exceptionally poor liar. Here's what I asked for:

I doubt any "headhunter news" job descriptions call for MFA grads. Indeed, I defy you to produce five such ads for jobs in commercial publishing from, say, the last eighteen months.

How many jobs did you present that call for MFA grads? Zero. And you conceded as much. Now you say you showed me five. That's you moving the goalposts; I never said that English degrees weren't preferred. In fact, I said, before any "proof" you claimed to show: The entry-level gigs do ask for English degrees, however, this is for a much more prosaic reason than you think. And it is. And indeed, even you admit, with your proof, that I am right: "more often than not English was if not a stated requirement was then a strong preference."

More often than not...a strong preference, is NOT the same as your initial claim: I see a certain mindset in editors of big houses coming from having graduated as a general rule of thumb from English or FA programs [I get this assumption from reading job descriptions in headhunter news]. Internal conflict good, external conflict bad to over simplify for the point of brevity. Detailed “world building” means talent--break-neck pacing means hack.

Well, we know who the big editors are. How many of them are coming out of MFA programs? Zero. How many out of English programs? Fewer than you think. How many of them, due to these programs, think "internal conflict good, external conflict bad"? Given what they publish, clearly zero of them.

What are you left arguing: 'Well, some assistant editor job ads on some websites do say you need a degree, and some of those times they want the degree to be in English!'

It's odd, how many balless wonders pull the same exact set of tricks: Waah, girly college boys took away my manly reading, except for all the available manly reading and but for the fact that I have no idea how publishing works!

And it's the same throughout this multi-threaded conversation. I point to the article and note that S&S is and really, should be, a bit sexist, and you act as though I've said the exact opposite, remarking That someone would suggest such a concept doesn’t exist seems beyond belief.

Ditto with all your back and forth with Dave and Ben. Yes, it's a fact; there isn't a lot of S&S published. But that fact is not evidence for your silly claims about MFAs, political correctness, or an devalorized view of "external conflict." They do not connect with one another at all. When people point out that they do not connect, you literally read them as making the exact opposite claim, and then draw a false conclusion. To wit:

James Bond movies may remain popular, but that doesn’t then extrapolate that S&S is being published in the same majority status as BFF.

Indeed it doesn't, and I never ever said it did. The point was this:

1. you seem to be claiming that political correctness is holding back S&S.
2. as proof, you decided to do a google search on S&S and sexism. The sheer number of hits, you think, is proof that S&S is a) widely considered sexist and that b) obviously the forces of PC thuggery work against it for that reason.

BUT, I point out, not all those google hits make the claim you do. In fact, the very first one points out that S&S is as sexist as James Bond, which remains popular. That's evidence that the PC police is not out to eliminate sexist material from the marketplace.

You, because you are literally too stupid to read, have somehow decided that this means I said that S&S must be as popular as James Bond, when that clearly isn't the case.

And it goes on: As for pushing or not pushing that is ridiculous. One merely has to walk through the front doors of Barnes and Nobles to be presented with tables and displays of the books being pushed. You merely have to wind your way back to the shelves where 85% of the books are crammed spine out between face-up Stephen Kings and Dean Koontzs to see the books not be pushed. Proof? It is the proof of the self-evident, the proof of the common sense.

Again, you're literally too stupid to read. I never said that books weren't pushed, I said, and this is true, that publishers cannot make or break a book based on push (your claim was that they can, as you may remember.) I further said that pushing was barely a rational economic act. I never said "Pushing doesn't occur", so pointing out that pushing does occur demonstrates nothing.

What you don't get, and again, you don't get this partially due to ignorance but largely due to an arrogant stupidity that shields you from both facts and rason, is this: pushing fails. Often.

Those books you see on the dump tables at B&N? A fair number of them will be history in 90 days, and 90 days after that, relegated to the Returns table at $4 a pop. Pushed books can and do fail. A friend of mine wrote one of the more spectacular failures. Please Don't Kill The Freshman by Zoe Trope had it all: six-figure advance, riding the "edgy" YA wave, lots of publicity including a publicist from Harper's whose only job was to push Trope for the month of release, dumps and co-op advertising, lots of media, the rub from folks like Dave Eggers, a good newsy hook, you name it.

Trope's first royalty statement? -$71,000.

You might also want to check out the fate of a few other 100 grand babies: When The Elephants Dance or I Don't Know But I've Been Told. Neither of those authors will be publishing again, because their pushed books tanked big time.

And I'm only talking right now about people I know.

Pushed books fail all the time. If they did not, if pushing, as you claimed, meant success, then every book would be pushed! Why on Earth wouldn't publishers push every book they put out if pushing meant profits? Don't say "they publish too many for that" -- they wouldn't need to speculate or keep a midlist or backlist intact if they could simply push everything onto the bestsellers list.

So when you grouse that publishers don't push S&S (due to their English degree indoctrination, which somehow prejudices them against S&S for its external conflict, despite bestsellers lists FULL of external conflict) and that pushing "makes or breaks" a book, well then, I know simply to file you under OMIB -- One More Internet Blowhard.

I'm sorry you were too stupid to understand your English classes in school. I regret the fact that, at one point, you were exposed to so much literary girliness that your balls popped off and rolled under the bed. (See, that's what happens when you don't invest in a dust ruffle, Butchie!) I am a doublebaconsorry burger with a side of fries that you only have two ways to reclaim your manhood: Conan and making an ass of yourself on online (especially since you can't seem to find Conan in bookstores, despite his ready availability across several different publishers). But you see, just because you feel like an emasculated victim of vast left-wing conspiracies, that doesn't mean you are one, or that any such conspiracies exist.

And just because you're too dumb to read doesn't mean that the rest of us are. Pointing to some obvious facts: some books are pushed, English degrees exist, does NOT lead to the conclusions you insist they do.

Wow, Nick. I guess the idea that vehemence does not an argument make, nor the idea that personal attacks undermine the logical force of your arguments is a concept you either missed or choose to ignore in those Critical Thinking classes.

That you would claim someone is an Internet blowhard and then go on and rant like the Thorazine drip got turned off doesn't strike you as laughably hypocritical? It is the height of “internet blowhard” to make personal attacks from the safety of the keyboard.

Wipe the spittle off your screen. Replace the keyboard you broke by pounding on the keys so hard. Keep the appointment with your therapist. Once you've done all that--and really only then--come back and take your post back to scratch and try to write something that doesn't sound like the complete ranting of a lunatic. There is nothing written here on this board that warrants what you just did, and I suspect you know it. The emotional investment was disproportional to the topic at hand.

I'm guessing this whole thread isn't really going to help my spicy-slipstream submission? LOL

David! Something's gone screwy with the comments, they're misattributing. Humorously snarky comments are being attributed to Ben "Calm and Even Tempered" Rosenbaum, while ones with complete grammatical sentences are being attributed to Nathan "without going all Catcher in the Rye wears a sword and sandals" Meyer. Maybe it's a caching error? Can you look into that?

(OH NOES!!! LOL!! jklolling babe. kthxbye!)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I love Susan.

Once you've done all that--and really only then--come back and take your post back to scratch and try to write something that doesn't sound like the complete ranting of a lunatic.

This is just your li'l way of saying "Eep, Nick made me go pee-pee again!!"

What you see, because you're knees are knocking, as "ranting" is simply going back to what you actually claimed, and pointing out that you're wrong.

You claimed that the top editors were English/MFA grads. Not so. Pointing to some entry level positions that prefer a BA in English doesn't make it so.

You claimed that books can be made or broken if they're pushed (or ignored). I pointed out that many pushed books nonetheless fail. Pointing out that pushing still exists doesn't mean that pushed books don't fail.

You claimed that there are trends against "external conflict." I pointed out that virtually all bestsellers are awash in the stuff. Your insistence that S&S is nonetheless a small category doesn't disprove the actual trend.

It's all very simple. It's all very easy to understand. If my having explained the above at length sends your knees knocking and makes your pussy hurt, well, what can I say? Quit writing and trying to publish. External or internal, PC or not, writing demands an ability to read that you don't have.

Nick this isn't you.

This is Paul Dracon isn't it. Somehow he signed on as Nick Matamas

You've always been prone to fits, but now you've slipped into the Dracon zone.
If it's easier to e-mail me in private with an admission that you've slipped out of the realm of rationale discourse and turned into an under-medicated monster, than [by all means] do so. I will accept your apology.

All right, gentlemen, you've fought your corners, now let's step out of the ring, please.