patchworkz7 posted:Dirk_Loechel posted:patchworkz7: Uhhh...all else aside...seriously? And I mean just in general; do you read much outside SW? Ursula le Guin? Octavia Butler? Gene Wolfe? Harlan Ellison? Anybody? (...) I want to stress this is nothing personal, but politics has been in literature and even escapist fantasy for as long as it has been around. I'm rather gobsmacked at the blanket statement. Did any of those comment of the politics of the day? I would not be aware of that. Cannot speak for Le Guin or Wolfe, and it's been a while since I read Ellison's short stories. But I would not remember them making statements about whatever was in the news when they wrote the books. Nothing's deader than yesterday's news, or something. Don't get me wrong, politics in escapist fition is fine if it is kept on a more general level; but if the book wantss to talk to me about the situation in Basra in 2005, or about Tony Blair's internal politics, it shoots itself in the knee, since this will be the past and cease to be interesting probably before the book makes it to the printers. That's what I was getting at. If writing a novel, you neet to take into account it's long production/product cycle. You can comment whatever Blair did wrong in a newspaper, since it is printed daily, and will very likely be relevant when it hits the street. You better should not in a book, lest you want to have your views invalidated. With daily politics, that is very likely after about a year. That's where the 'cardinal sin' is. You shoot your own fiction with this (with some, very few, exceptions to truely iconic events, which can make good backdrop for SciFi/Fantasy writing). Ellison was pretty much nothing but "the politics of the day", as was Le Guinn and to a lesser extent Wolfe. That's not to mention plenty other fantasy writers going all the way back to Tolkien (loads of papers have been written on his supposed politics, sometimes contradictory) and that's not to mention people who try to shoe-horn politics into THE WIZARD OF OZ (the usual one is the gold vs silver standard). I don't really understand how a view can be invalidated by the production cycle, as fantasy as commentary on history is rather quite common (which is one reason we had scores of alt-history books, and that's just the tip of the iceberg). Blair's legacy lives on in his party which inherited his policies, in the same way that neo-conservatism wars with the more center elements of our Republican party. Also, it's meaningless to the people who didn't catch it, and in truth it's hardly something that hijacks the narrative, imo. An epigraph that echos something Blair said and Jacen echoing the quote about sensing the hand of history are small things in the grand scheme of things (and GL has his own moments of this with things like the "with or against" speech and several other moments that clearly echo what was happening at the time). History continues to be relevant, so commentary on someone creating a watchdog culture where people turn on their neighbors and and become nationalistic could easily refer to something that is happening today or something that happened in many countries in the past, and megalomania in leaders is hardly anything new. I'm afraid I just don't see where it's a "cardinal sin" to make commentary on society and politics in a narrative, and Jacen was obviously far more than a Blair stand-in (since I don't remember Blair manning up and flying the front lines...), so it becomes a small touch and nothing more. Considering how many authors fill their works with their politics, religion, and personal beliefs, I just have to wonder where you draw the line to where it becomes a "cardinal sin" that invalidates a book, and I include all books in that, not just SW books or Karen's books. At best it becomes a game of; "Well, I noticed it and didn't like it...", which is fair enough, but if the mere mention of anything remotely political ruins a book for you, then I honestly wonder how many books or writers that leaves you with.
Dirk_Loechel posted:patchworkz7: Uhhh...all else aside...seriously? And I mean just in general; do you read much outside SW? Ursula le Guin? Octavia Butler? Gene Wolfe? Harlan Ellison? Anybody? (...) I want to stress this is nothing personal, but politics has been in literature and even escapist fantasy for as long as it has been around. I'm rather gobsmacked at the blanket statement. Did any of those comment of the politics of the day? I would not be aware of that. Cannot speak for Le Guin or Wolfe, and it's been a while since I read Ellison's short stories. But I would not remember them making statements about whatever was in the news when they wrote the books. Nothing's deader than yesterday's news, or something. Don't get me wrong, politics in escapist fition is fine if it is kept on a more general level; but if the book wantss to talk to me about the situation in Basra in 2005, or about Tony Blair's internal politics, it shoots itself in the knee, since this will be the past and cease to be interesting probably before the book makes it to the printers. That's what I was getting at. If writing a novel, you neet to take into account it's long production/product cycle. You can comment whatever Blair did wrong in a newspaper, since it is printed daily, and will very likely be relevant when it hits the street. You better should not in a book, lest you want to have your views invalidated. With daily politics, that is very likely after about a year. That's where the 'cardinal sin' is. You shoot your own fiction with this (with some, very few, exceptions to truely iconic events, which can make good backdrop for SciFi/Fantasy writing).
CadderlySoaring posted:In reply to the topic title, No, Karen Traviss shouldn't write a Mandalorian War Novel. Karen is the worse (and biased) author to enter the Star Wars Expanded Universe since Kevin J. Anderson. My opinion only.
ThisIsMadness91 posted:CadderlySoaring posted:In reply to the topic title, No, Karen Traviss shouldn't write a Mandalorian War Novel. Karen is the worse (and biased) author to enter the Star Wars Expanded Universe since Kevin J. Anderson. My opinion only. I haven't read any of Kevin J. Anderson's stuff outside of Tales of the Jedi. Out of curiosity, in what way was he biased?
QuentinGeorge posted: KJA's books are only really biased against making sense.
CadderlySoaring posted: Heh, outside of making goofy stories? I'd say he made Daala out to be a queen in the same way that Traviss has some undying fascination with the Mandos. Ironically, Traviss also loves Daala given her Legacy novels. Both Kevin J. Anderson and Karen Traviss are peas of the same pod. While a lot of us try our best to look the other direction and wish for their contracts to run up.
Dirk_Loechel posted: I differ between references to historic or iconic speeches and happenings, things that are and were relevant, and things that are relevant, at best, for a small audience. It is just poor writing, in my book, to write past the mass of your audience. Also, especially with politics, an author who thumbs their views as bluntly as Traviss does (again, more on what I take from her books in the O66 review) is very good at anoying me.
Robimus posted:I'm glad your simple stating your own opinion. Your first post didn't come across that way to me.
Robimus posted:And yet some of her clone characters are very complementry of the Jedi, but the Mandalorians are not. I still love the character of Arligan Zey because he's in the middle of it all. He showed that eventually the Jedi, given time, would have taken action to help the clones. Alas Order 66 didn't give them that time and ultimatly that made the Jedi as much victems as the Clones are.
Robimus posted:I think the story is a lot more complex than your giving it credit for. When Skirata comes to realize that he isn't so different than the Jedi themsleves in Order 66 this is really illustrated.
Robimus posted:Prove that she has used Mace, Yoda and Obi-Wan in this way. I've never seen it myself. Rape undertones? You'll need to point me to this as well.
patchworkz7 posted:I think we just disagree on this at a basic level, so fair enough, it's not something that bothers me, but I respect that it's an issue that bothers you. Thanks for the discussion.
ThisIsMadness91 posted:I haven't read any of Kevin J. Anderson's stuff outside of Tales of the Jedi. Out of curiosity, in what way was he biased?
DarthIktomi posted:[quote=ThisIsMadness91]Darksaber Worst. Name. Ever. Also, a Hutt Jedi? And the reasons Callista left Luke were stupid.
Robimus posted:Is it unprofessional? And of course her writing is connected to what has been established, its just we don't have a lot this Mandalorian generation in print to tie to. There was the Marvel stuff(Which I think Order 66 tied to very well) and the History of the Mandalorians article(to which she made some adjustments).