My Blog Gate post of the week is up… really just a postlet about the “GRRM is not your bitch” thing Neil Gaiman wrote. Which is being applauded around the internet as if it were a nifty from the works of Oscar Wilde. Which I don’t think it is, really.
-
Archives
- January 2024
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- September 2016
- March 2015
- October 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- March 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
-
Meta
Abusive? Really?
Yes–I wouldn’t say it’s even a borderline case. The image of a prison-house bitch is necessarily violent and coarse, and it appears out of nowhere in NG’s post. Whereas, in the “Whatever” thread back in February, someone named stevem wrote, “In short, GRRM is behaving like a whiny b!@#h” and Tully responded, “Opinions differ. But the big point is, he’s not YOUR bitch. Get it?” That’s not abusive, because it’s just matching, or even lightening, the tone already set. NG’s appropriation or recreation of the same phrase was markedly more abusive in context.
I get a very different feel from it.
Gareth’s question, while moderate in tone, had some pretty unpleasant assumptions at its foundation. Gaiman’s choice of words (digression: I wish he hadn’t used the gender-specific “bitch”) was probably meant to shock the questioner (and others who agreed with him) out of those assumptions.
It’s a sharply-worded reply, but I don’t see the abuse in it.
But that’s why Baskin-Robbins makes so many flavors–YMMV
Right now, if Neil Gaiman sneezes, he wins an award for his brilliance and brio.
I know what you mean. Normally I don’t begrudge him his success, but this seemed unnecessarily coarse and ungenerous.
It’s not really all that politically correct, but it does get the point across. If the fan who raised the concern was serious in the first place, they probably needed the brick in the head method in order for it to sink in.
I don’t like the tone that most of the whiners-at-GRRM are taking either, but this Gareth guy hadn’t said anything thick or abusive; he just (by implication) expressed a POV that NG disagreed with. Is that brick-worthy? A judgement call, I guess.
Gareth has more of a point than NG is willing to admit, too. These guys are responding to expectations that GRRM himself has set up. That doesn’t mean they own a piece of GRRM’s soul, that they get to decide what projects he takes on and what he does in the morning, afternoon and night. All that is ridiculous. But it does mean that the heat in GRRM’s kitchen comes from his own cooking, so… maybe he ought to open the window or something. (Honestly, I’ve lost track of what the metaphor means.)
If you can’t stand either the heat, or the questions about when dinner will be ready, finish what you’re cooking.
Or just advise people to order takeout, or something. That was the good part of NG’s advice; I wish he’d stuck to that.
It comes down to delivery, and NG took a fairly harsh stance that wasn’t necessary.
Of course, NG has probably read tons of letters like Gareth’s, and probably much worse. He likely just lumped them all together and made an example out of Gareth to cut down on that kind of fan mail. Still, it wasn’t a shining example of authorhood.
I think Gaiman makes a good point, but I’d guess that the reason he’s getting such good press on it is his current flavor of the month status — not entirely undeserved, though I’m not a fan* — and the fact that he’s speaking for a lot of writers who feel trapped in their own series.
His comments reminded me of an essay Harlan Ellison wrote back in the day (70s? 80s?) with a title something like “You Don’t Know Me; I Don’t Know You.” Long while since I read it, but my recollection is that Ellison was denying the whole concept that fans “own” writers or that writers have any obligation to their readers except a well-told story. As I recall, he raised some hackles with the essay. (Surprise, surprise!) I really should search the thing out in my library — if I have it — or online before mentioning the thing, but feeling far too lazy tonight!
*I’ve read three or four of Gaiman’s books and found them readable but didn’t feel that they spoke to me the way some writers do. Not a criticism of him or his writing, just the reality that some writers & readers connect, and some don’t.
I thought of the Ellison essay, too. There’s another one he wrote, for Asimov’s in the 80s, I think: “Xenogenesis”. If I’m remembering right, it’s even more bitter. (Bitterer. Bitteritudinouser. Something like that.)
I really think the cases are different, though. For one thing (and this will sound weird, giving the respective personae of NG and HJE), I don’t remember Ellison’s essay being so grossly uncivil. Second, it was more original. Finally, it seems to me that GRRM’s fans are only complaining because of expectations that he himself has set up. I don’t think that justifies all the complaints, particularly the whinier ones. Talk of a “contract” is obviously absurd. But I guess I can imagine worse fates than a bunch of people clamoring for one’s next book.