# PSA: Choose Your Words Carefully



## Mindfire (Jul 7, 2015)

So the other day I was at Barnes and Noble, browsing the fantasy section as I am wont to do, when I came across this book: The Undead Hordes of Kan-Gul







So already the title is either a complete and utter travesty or the most awesome thing ever, depending on your tastes. I'm still not sure, myself. The cover image is very striking. It has a schlock feel to it, but the best kind of schlock. Awesome schlock. A sorceress and a ninja (who's shirtless for some reason) facing off against an army of undead warriors in samurai armor. I'll hand it to the book, it does nothing small. Already it makes grand promises. And it features something I don't see too often in the fantasy section at B&N: non-white people! So of course I pick up the book and look at the back cover to see what it's all about, only to discover this rich goodness*.



> Ninjas and zombies! Book 1 in a new series, the Shadow Warrior saga. A young ninja in a fantastic land of dreams and nightmares must face an army of zombies to save a beautiful sorceress. Book One in an exciting new series, the Shadow Warrior saga.
> 
> In the fog-enshrouded peaks of the island nation of Nehon, Ran, a newly-minted shadow warrior is set loose on a musha shugyo, a wandering quest, whereby he must travel alone and hone his skills. Journeying aboard a merchant vessel, Ran hears tales of a mysterious lord believed to have the dead for his servants.
> 
> Soon these tales prove all too real as Ran comes to the aid of Jysal, a beautiful sorceress, whose undeveloped power gives her the ability to heal a land -- or destroy it.  But the Lord Kan-Gul also covets Jysal's power. And when Kan-Gul sends a army of the undead to take Jysal by force, Ran is faced with the ultimate warrior's choice: save himself, or face down a horde of enemies that cannot be killed for the simple reason that they are already dead!



Yeah. Not the best summary ever. I'm starting to side-eye this book now, but I figure I'll give it a chance. So I open the book, and as I look at the first page my eyes are drawn to a single word: "Murai". I immediately close the book, put it back on the shelf, and continue my browsing, never to look at it again. At least until I wrote this post. Why? Because with a single word, that book sent me a powerful message about what it really was. It was _not_, contrary to my expectations, a fun romp filled with the kind of self-aware cheesiness you might find in _Guardians of the Galaxy_ or _The Warrior's Way_. Nope. It was all of the cheese with none of the self-awareness. Pure, unadulterated hackery. Hackery. Hackery. (Fun word, that is.) Hackery. The author's use of the invented word "Murai" to refer to what are obviously thinly-veiled counterparts to samurai is, frankly, insulting to my intelligence as a reader and offensive to me as a writer who attempts a modicum of creativity. I look at that word and I see laziness. But laziness mixed with a strange kind of pretentiousness. Like, he wanted a cool made up word for his not-samurai which are obviously samurai, but he didn't want to think very hard when he invented it. So he just chopped off the first two letters and called it a day. Of course, I was warned by the back cover, wasn't I? "Nehon"? Really? _Really?_ Look, I'm not bashing the "change a few letters of an actual word/name" method of creating fantasy names because it can work (and I'd be a hypocrite to say otherwise). There are numerous examples of that. But when you do it you have to do it smartly, and in a way that immerses the reader rather than jerks them out of the story. You have to use the name in a way that supports the world you're creating. It requires effort and subtlety. And you generally shouldn't use a word that is so common and familiar that the trick is _painfully_ obvious. Because when I read the word "Murai" all I can think is, "why did you even bother?" And then I laugh and decide not to read your book.

Is it fair for me to judge this book so harshly without reading it? Probably not. But I'm not making a point about the quality of the storytelling here. This is not a book review. (Although the only professional review of the book I could find, this one, isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.) Nor is it meant to be some kind of personal invective against the author; my snarkiness is only to convey the strength of my reaction and approximate my stream-of-consciousness thoughts in the moment. The true moral of the story is that even seemingly small choices, like the names you use, can affect the reader in a big way, like this one obviously affected me and colored my view of the entire book. And since we want to give the reader as few reasons to roll their eyes and stop reading as possible, it behooves us to give things like this careful consideration. Or at bare minimum, avoid presenting the reader with invented words that are transparently real words with letters missing. I admit I have been guilty of this mistake myself, as this "take a real name and maybe change a few letters" business was once my go-to method. I was a dumb high school kid and have since learned better. Those names ended up being placeholders until I thought of better ones. Here I must emphasize that the method isn't inherently bad or lazy. I still use it sometimes. But I think it works best when you do it in a way that's not immediately obvious. (Protip: as a general rule, the method seems to work better with people-names than place-names or thing-names. It's GRRM's bread and butter. The fact that you so rarely notice it is a testament to how good he is at using it.) 

To compare apples to apples here, it's unlikely that anyone who doesn't speak Japanese will pick up on the fact that the name of my mountain-dwelling tribe, Yamano, is a corrupted Japanese construction that literally means "of the mountain". "Murai" doesn't have that same subtlety.

That's today's public service announcement. I'm done.




*The quotation I use here are actually from the book's Amazon page, as I couldn't find an actual copy of the book to refer to for the purposes of this post.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 7, 2015)

I feel your pain.  I, too, am horrified by and dismiss books for reasons that no one else would ever in a millions years notice, much less care about


----------



## skip.knox (Jul 7, 2015)

Agree with all. And the truly discouraging thing, for an author, is that you are *never* going to know what is going to tick off a reader. I suppose there's some sort of calculus whereby we might know which choices will drive away many readers and which ones will only irritate cranky senior members of Mythic Scribes. ;-)  But I'll never know that calculus.

I know I will put thought into all my choices. I'll hope my editor comes at it from a different angle and finds where I've made poor choices. And then, I'll just have accept that every once in a while I'll choose something that lots of people like but some don't. You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time. I think Abraham Lincoln said that. Or maybe it was Bob Dylan.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jul 7, 2015)

This makes me think how strange it is what turns one person off from a book and what turns another person off. For example, if you have guns in your book some gun enthusiast will be upset if you mis-name a certain part of a gun, like calling the slide on a semi-auto the bolt. Or for others if you have an urban fantasy in a well known city and botch the geography. (I would be upset if someone made a one hour drive from Salt Lake to St. George Utah and would stop reading the book) And yet for some readers having such problems isn't a problem at all (*cough* west coast of Brazil *cough*). That Murai thing though that's some lazy writing right there. And I think that is what turns people off is a lack of basic effort. Look, I don't expect you to know where every house is on University Parkway in provo/orem. But dang it don't you dare say the University of Utah is located in Provo!


----------



## X Equestris (Jul 7, 2015)

Agreed.  Honestly, it probably would have been better if this author had just stuck with samurai instead of lopping the first two letters off.  After all, I don't see complaints about the usage of "knight" in fantasy based on medieval Western Europe.


----------



## glutton (Jul 7, 2015)

Murai would kind of be a cool name for a specific character though... not a samurai type, more an evil sorcerer or dark lord.

'I am Murai, king of shadows...' lol


----------



## Incanus (Jul 7, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> Agreed.  Honestly, it probably would have been better if this author had just stuck with samurai instead of lopping the first two letters off.  After all, I don't see complaints about the usage of "knight" in fantasy based on medieval Western Europe.



Ha!  Maybe I should call mine "Ights" from now on.  Ights in shining Mor.


----------



## MineOwnKing (Jul 7, 2015)

You have made some good points and I understand the message.

In defense of the author, his book did make it inside an actual book store so he must be doing something right.

If I was young again, something as trivial as that would not bother me.

When I was still at an age to enjoy a book like that, I was also still reading Groo the Wanderer,...that was many moons and ex-wives ago.

If I thought too hard about every detail of every movie I had ever seen, I probably wouldn't get much enjoyment out of them either.

There are as many levels of seriousness to each sub-genre as there are opinions to a-holes. Perhaps his chosen level of seriousness is a tad lower. 

I think if we want to be successful at marketing we have to take risks and I think his gamble is to win a younger crowd.

I think the target audience for that particular book might actually disagree with you. 

That is why I have suggested to other writers to read outside of the fantasy genre. It helps me to clear my mind, I think it could help others too.

I suggest reading Hunter Thompson for a few months to clear your head.

Or else rum, lot's and lot's of rum, and sandy beaches, and bikinis, lots and lots of bikinis.


----------



## X Equestris (Jul 7, 2015)

MineOwnKing said:


> In defense of the author, his book did make it inside an actual book store so he must be doing something right.



Sure, but that doesn't stop it from being creative laziness.  If you're going to create a group that is samurai in all but name, you should put a bit more effort into the name than cutting off the first two letters of "samurai" and calling it a day.  Or you could just leave it as samurai.  And that's not the only example with this book.  There's Nehon instead of Nippon, though at least that is a bit more subtle.  

On a different note, I just noticed a bit of redundancy in the first paragraph of the book's back cover/Amazon summary.


----------



## psychotick (Jul 7, 2015)

Hi,

Well I'm going to be contrary - what else is new?! When I read your post and saw the word murai - it meant absolutely nothing to me. I never even considered it as a bastardised version of samurai. So that at least wouldn't bother me at all. The cheesiness of the plot might, and I object to half naked guys on covers. (Girls are different as I appreciate the "art" - but I still wouldn't buy the book as the cover would scream romance at me and that would make me run screaming!)

Having said that someone mentioned guns and it makes me aware that people are very different, and many are very sensitive to even the slightest issues on certain topics. For example when I wrote The Nephilim I had my guy as a fed carrying a Glock. But I wanted him to have a misfire holstering the weapon. Because I'm unfamiliar with weapons, I put out a question to another writing community about the possibility of this happening. Instantly I got replies blasting me for suggesting that the FBI used Glocks - they use Sigs, and they have to be forty calibre not ten mm even though they are the same calibre to my admittedly ignorant eyes. Then there were posts about guns which have safeties (Glocks apparently don't) versus trigger guards.

All good points I'm sure and in the end they forced me to change the weapon. But I was blown away by the passion of the debate - all for a one paragraph bit of action in a book which isn't really about guns.

To sum up there are I think trigger points (pun intended) which will hit readers, but they are often very specific to certain readers.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Incanus (Jul 7, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> On a different note, I just noticed a bit of redundancy in the first paragraph of the book's back cover/Amazon summary.



Yeah, that struck me in a really bad way.  A short paragraph with two of the sentences nearly identical--yikes.  And then a lack of consistency on top of that:  Book 1; Book One.  Also, "a army" should be "an army".  With so many mistakes on the back cover, I can only imagine what's going on inside.  Doesn't exactly inspire my confidence.


----------



## Mindfire (Jul 7, 2015)

glutton said:


> Murai would kind of be a cool name for a specific character though... not a samurai type, more an evil sorcerer or dark lord.
> 
> 'I am Murai, king of shadows...' lol


A good example of how important context is, and how taking a real word and altering it works better for character names.



MineOwnKing said:


> You have made some good points and I understand the message.
> 
> In defense of the author, his book did make it inside an actual book store so he must be doing something right.


The fact that the book made it into a bookstore means that someone somewhere thought it would sell. And they were probably right. But it didn't sell to _me_. His creative laziness cost him at least one customer. Whether you're industry-minded or you're doing it for the art, the lesson remains the same: laziness hurts your product. He has achieved at least a modicum of success by getting published, but might he not be _more_ successful if his book didn't include such lazy writing?



X Equestris said:


> Sure, but that doesn't stop it from being creative laziness.  If you're going to create a group that is samurai in all but name, you should put a bit more effort into the name than cutting off the first two letters of "samurai" and calling it a day.  Or you could just leave it as samurai.  And that's not the only example with this book.  There's Nehon instead of Nippon, though at least that is a bit more subtle.


Even that's not as subtle as you think. Nippon is one word for Japan. But another, the one I'm more familiar with, is _Nihon_. Yeah. He literally changed one letter. -_-


----------



## X Equestris (Jul 7, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> Even that's not as subtle as you think. Nippon is one word for Japan. But another, the one I'm more familiar with, is _Nihon_. Yeah. He literally changed one letter. -_-



Ah yeah, I remember it now.  I haven't heard it much at all compared to Nippon, but it rings a bell.  Wow.  That's...something special.  Just changing one letter for the name of one of your fictional countries is...I don't even have the words.


----------



## MineOwnKing (Jul 7, 2015)

I agree with psychotick,

The word murai meant nothing to me either.

I'm just not sold that he did it out of laziness. 

I think he is catering to his market.

kids.


----------



## Ophiucha (Jul 7, 2015)

It doesn't really sound like a kid's book. Young adult, _maybe_, although the 20-somethings on the cover seem a little old for YA protagonists. Also as somebody who read Eragon as a teenager, I certainly _did_ find the '[D/E]ragon' switch incredibly lazy, so I'd have probably thought the same of 'sa/murai' and 'N[e/i]hon'.

To be fair, though, I'd have probably bailed on this book around the time I got to 'zombies!'. I'm kind of zombie'd out.


----------



## MineOwnKing (Jul 7, 2015)

Ophiucha said:


> It doesn't really sound like a kid's book. Young adult, _maybe_, although the 20-somethings on the cover seem a little old for YA protagonists. Also as somebody who read Eragon as a teenager, I certainly _did_ find the '[D/E]ragon' switch incredibly lazy, so I'd have probably thought the same of 'sa/murai' and 'N[e/i]hon'.
> 
> To be fair, though, I'd have probably bailed on this book around the time I got to 'zombies!'. I'm kind of zombie'd out.



By kids, I meant a younger crowd, not children.

Sorry, I wasn't specific. 

_Young Adult_ has become a loose term for marketers.

I guess my point was that if this book doesn't appeal to a reader then it might be time to self-assess rather than criticize.

I do admit I could be totally wrong about the lazy aspect, but it didn't stand out to me at all.


----------



## Nimue (Jul 7, 2015)

Wowww, I've put my share of books back on the shelf after skimming a page, but that's something else!  Nehon, my ass.  Well, I'd have figured out that's not my kind of book by the time I got to the end of the title, so maybe my opinion is moot.  It's just that a lack of effort in something as basic as _coming up with a name_ is going to be echoed in characterization, plotting, resolution, attention to detail... It's a bad sign to see in the first few pages, and people pick up on it.

That's the thing-- I still don't buy the "Most readers wouldn't pick up on that, so it doesn't matter" argument.  Maybe.  But don't tell me that the average reader can't tell the difference between sloppy, forgettable names and something like Harry Potter, which is chock-full of interesting and allusive names.  They might not be able to come out with "Oh, the worldbuilding is bad and the names are derivative" but they're not gonna fall in love the same way with a shallow setting.  And even if they wouldn't consider that synopsis tropey, they might think "Eh, boring," and put it back.

At 13, the Eragon/Aragorn Arya/Arwen thing bugged the heck out of me, to say nothing of Eragon/Dragon.  I feel like sometimes we don't give "the average reader", much less "the average young adult reader" enough credit.


----------



## Penpilot (Jul 7, 2015)

After thinking about this for a bit. I don't think it would bother me much, if at all, if the story was good. If it was poorly written then I find that things like this stick out. When the story is well written, things like this are easily forgiven. 

I remember reading something said by one of the science fiction greats. I want to say Asimov or Bradbury, but can't be sure. But any way. They would name planets with simple names like Alpha and Beta, and the reason they did that was the names didn't matter. What mattered was the story. They could have come up with an original name but they though it would distract from the story.

For me, and as with others, when I saw the word Murai, it didn't occur to me that it was just samurai with the first two letters chopped of. And as I've said, it doesn't matter to me as long as the story is good.

Thinking back on some of the most beloved cartoons from my childhood, they are filled with similarly naming conventions. Thundercats were from Thundara, with names like Lion-O, Cheetara, Panthero, etc. He-man was from Eternia and She-ra was from Etheria. 

How many stories use New Earth, Terra, or Planet X?

For me, as long as what I consume has some substance to it, I don't care much about what it's called. A rose is a rose by any other name.

With that said, this sounds like a "don't call a rabbit a smerp" type situation, and a good argument could be made that it would probably have served the story better to just use samurai.


----------



## Mindfire (Jul 7, 2015)

Incanus said:


> Ha!  Maybe I should call mine "Ights" from now on.  Ights in shining Mor.


Excellent idea! You can set it in the kingdom of Gland, ruled by King Thur who wields the sword Calibur and ventures forth with his Ights of the Und Ble.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jul 8, 2015)

Nimue said:


> I feel like sometimes we don't give "the average reader", much less "the average young adult reader" enough credit.



The average reader is very intelligent. They can, usually, tell schlock from quality. The reason why, I think, some writers look down on them is that they can't easily articulate or pinpoint why they didn't like the book and often misdiagnose the problems. Often times, when the average reader doesn't like the book its because of a totality of the circumstance. The story is bland, the actual writing is lazy, the research is poor, and the characters are flatter than a boogey board. However, sometimes readers can conflate some issues because they can be so similar. So, while I recognize the criticisms that Murai could be overcome by a good story, it is a problem. It is a knock against the book. And if enough knocks add up the reader will put the book down. And judging by the Amazon description and other factors mentioned in this thread I wouldn't read it. The totality of the circumstances indicate this book wouldn't be worth my time.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 8, 2015)

“Whenever you write, whatever you write, never make the mistake of assuming the audience is any less intelligent than you are.”
-Rod Serling (creator of _The Twilight Zone_)


----------



## skip.knox (Jul 8, 2015)

My favorite anecdote about some bit of trivia taking people out of a story concerns movies rather than books, but it's a good one. I stumbled across a web site years ago that was run by a typographer. He freely admitted up front that his pet peeve was a rare breed, but he proceeded to cultivate it with care. His complaint, not surprisingly, concerned typography. In movies.

Not in the credits, but in the scenes. Street signs, movie marquees, billboards, that sort of thing. Some ignorant fool designer for a movie set in the 1930s would have a sign displayed in Helvetica. Boom! Moment ruined. Helvetica, you see, wasn't invented until later. 1950s, I think.

He said that for him, it was as if a Ford Mustang had driven through the scene.

I have always remembered that site, though I've not found it again, in part for the self-deprecating good humor with which he wrote, but also because it reminds me forcibly how there will always be *something* I've missed. That doesn't excuse me from trying my best, and it sure doesn't excuse either laziness or sloppiness, but it does mean there is just plain going to be something I miss, and that some reader will catch and wince at.

Like prepositions.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Jul 8, 2015)

Wowzers!  I was out at the mention of zombies.  and the redundancy of the first paragraph.  I mean, if you can't get the blurb right, how good is the book going to be?  I actually liked the cover art, though, because I didn't think romance so much as I thought of a hint of romance--a guy who has to save a girl and all the protective nature and harmless attraction that might entail.  I'd be very disappointed if it was actual romance though.  In fact, romance is one of the reasons I'll put a book down.  I hate it when a sword and sorcery makes a terrible romance bloom where it shouldn't, or where a romance becomes too much the point of the story (which I'm guilty of as a writer, hence all my time editing).

Yeah, I was out at the blurb.  Too bad.  I've opened a fair number of books with high ratings and good reviews, because the writing on page one or two was too lame to stomach, but I've rarely dropped a book I think I'd like after a blurb.  Lesson:  A weak blurb is book suicide.  Do your homework and get a dozen writer friends to read your blurb before you publish!


----------



## X Equestris (Jul 8, 2015)

I'm honestly not sure how that redundancy in the blurb got missed.  You'd think an editor would have caught it.


----------



## Mindfire (Jul 8, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> I'm honestly not sure how that redundancy in the blurb got missed.  You'd think an editor would have caught it.



To be fair, I'm not sure if that's on the book or just on Amazon. If it's just Amazon it could be a typo, or laziness by whoever typed in the description. I'd have to find a copy of the book to be sure. But even if it is only on Amazon, lots of books get sold through Amazon. So it's still not helping.


----------



## Miskatonic (Jul 9, 2015)

Unfortunately for anyone who takes the time to deconstruct what's good or bad about a book, there are plenty more who will just read it and not realize the quality of what they read. Otherwise the quality of most mainstream contemporary literature wouldn't be so lacking.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jul 9, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> Unfortunately for anyone who takes the time to deconstruct what's good or bad about a book,



I'm not sure it's good to care about people who deconstruct books. Stories are meant to be felt and enjoyed and sure to make us think, but not about the inner workings of the book. If the book is making you turn inward to the mechanics of the book, that's a failed book, imo. Books should be making you look outward from the story toward yourself or the world around you. I don't think it's good to care about critics and judges of books. I think it's better to value the people who just want to read and enjoy a story and let it become part of them without needing to tear it apart to see how it works. 

“He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.”  

And when it comes to fiction "quality" is really a meaningless word. Maybe one person picks up the book and sees the word "Murai" and thinks "ugh, seriously?" and maybe the next person picks it up and sees the word "Murai" and thinks "cool!" Which one of them is right? Neither, because there is no real standard of quality for fiction. There's only personal enjoyment. No matter how many people dislike a book for whatever reason, if it reaches an audience of people read it and enjoy it, then it works.


----------



## Russ (Jul 9, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> I'm not sure it's good to care about people who deconstruct books. Stories are meant to be felt and enjoyed and sure to make us think, but not about the inner workings of the book. If the book is making you turn inward to the mechanics of the book, that's a failed book, imo. Books should be making you look outward from the story toward yourself or the world around you. I don't think it's good to care about critics and judges of books. I think it's better to value the people who just want to read and enjoy a story and let it become part of them without needing to tear it apart to see how it works.
> 
> “He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.”
> 
> And when it comes to fiction "quality" is really a meaningless word. Maybe one person picks up the book and sees the word "Murai" and thinks "ugh, seriously?" and maybe the next person picks it up and sees the word "Murai" and thinks "cool!" Which one of them is right? Neither, because there is no real standard of quality for fiction. There's only personal enjoyment. No matter how many people dislike a book for whatever reason, if it reaches an audience of people read it and enjoy it, then it works.



I think it is different strokes for different folks.  Some people are happy to just and experience the work and that is all they want.  They are perfectly entitled to that experience and I don't think should be criticized for it.

Some people want to look at a book as a work of art and judge it as such, same for them, if that makes them happy let them do it, and debate it all day long.

Other folks might want to think about craft and structure, plot, pacing, characterization etc for any  number of reasons, and I think those are all valid topics.

It is kind of like cars.  Someone might buy one because they like the colour, someone else fuel economy, someone else interior space, someone else, safety, someone else acceleration or displacement, someone else the estetics.  It is just as valid for someone to say "I love my car because it is yellow and cute" as for someone to say "I love my care because I can can 315 bhp out of my 20 value engine and it only weighs 2600 lbs!"

*BUT* and this is a big but, if we want to have a conversation about something between individuals that has any meaningful exchange, we need to rise above a conversation of "I like this book, it moved me", or "I didn't like this book, it didn't impact me at all."

To get beyond that really simple and almost meaningless level of discussion, we need to start thinking about why we like things and why they work, and develop a common language, and common ideas of what makes for effective writing and what does not.  That is how communications and analysis of any depth happen.

Nobody can define a reading experience for you, but we sure can learn from each other's experiences if we find ways to articulate them properly.

I try not to break things, but I sure like taking them apart to see the genius of how they were assembed, and most of the time I can put them back together again.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jul 9, 2015)

Russ said:


> *BUT* and this is a big but, if we want to have a conversation about something between individuals that has any meaningful exchange, we need to rise above a conversation of "I like this book, it moved me", or "I didn't like this book, it didn't impact me at all."
> 
> To get beyond that really simple and almost meaningless level of discussion, we need to start thinking about why we like things and why they work, and develop a common language, and common ideas of what makes for effective writing and what does not.  That is how communications and analysis of any depth happen.
> 
> ...



I don't think I agree. The only value to be gained from a conversation with another person about a piece of art is in keeping it subjective and keeping it on a personal level. That's the only way you'll be able to learn about the other person through their experience of the art. Trying to make an objective assessment will only work if both of you already agree in your judgements, which would ultimately make the conversation pointless. But you can learn about other people by accepting their personal experience of a piece of art as a real thing.


----------



## Russ (Jul 9, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> I don't think I agree. The only value to be gained from a conversation with another person about a piece of art is in keeping it subjective and keeping it on a personal level. That's the only way you'll be able to learn about the other person through their experience of the art. Trying to make an objective assessment will only work if both of you already agree in your judgements, which would ultimately make the conversation pointless. But you can learn about other people by accepting their personal experience of a piece of art as a real thing.



But one cannot communicate an experience without a language to do so.  You don't need to agree on anything, but you need a way to communicate your experience so it can be discussed.  Thus we need words like plot, setting, pacing, dialogue etc. which will each  have meaning.  It can also help you understand why the experience is different.

To have the most basic conversation we need an agreed upon language so if I say to someone "What did you like about the book", they can say "the characters were lively, the pacing perfect and the setting breathtaking."  It doesn't mean I will agree, but to have the discussion you need the language.  Without language or a Vulcan mind meld the experience simply remains trapped within us.  Which is also cool,  unless you want to talk about it.

If say person A reads a slow paced book and loves it, and person B reads it and doesn't like it.  The only way they can come to understand the work better and understand themselves and their differences better is by having an agreed upon language that lets them agree what "pacing" is and some concensus on what slow or fast is.  Without that it really just falls apart into self-worshipping nihilism.

It doesn't mean either person is right or wrong, their is no inherent good or ill in slow or fast pacing, it just allows for understanding and conversation of experience.

This allows you to take the next step, if you choose to as a writer or person who works in the industry and say, for example, "we find that more people like fast pacing than slow pacing" which can lead to certain choices.  Which can lead to commercial analysis (much like taste testing for food products).

These, are by their very nature, higher level and more complex analysis steps, but they can be done, and should be done depending on one's goals.


----------



## Mindfire (Jul 9, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> Maybe one person picks up the book and sees the word "Murai" and thinks "ugh, seriously?" and maybe the next person picks it up and sees the word "Murai" and thinks "cool!" Which one of them is right? Neither, because there is no real standard of quality for fiction.



I disagree here, because "Murai" is _objectively_ lazy and stupid.


----------



## psychotick (Jul 9, 2015)

Hi Mytho,

I think I'm going to have to disagree in turn. Talking about books and movies etc after is great. It helps with the understanding. Often in seeing a work through other people's eyes we gain a different appreciation / understanding of it. And that in turn can increase our enjoyment of it. It also helps to bond people together as they discover similarities and differences between themselves in the way they see the world.

Hi Mind,

Objectively? No you mean subjectively I'm afraid. That's opinion you stated - there's no actual hard fact in it. Which is actually good because if their were and you came up with a statistic about how much a word needs to be changed before it becomes hard working and clever, you'd find yourself in more problems.

I'm minded of an old story about a panel beater. Man goes to him with a dent in a car and says can you fix it. He says yes, goes to the car, pushes his hands against the inside of the bump and bangs it so that the dent suddenly pops out. "That'll be a hundred bucks please." (I said this was an old story!)

The other guys gets indignant and protests that a hundred bucks for five seconds work is outragious.

"But," says the panel beater, "you couldn't do it. That's ten bucks for the work, and ninety bucks for knowing how to do it."

The point being that changing only two letters in a word may be lazy and stupid, but it may also be the product of countless hours of thought and utter genius. And it's pure opinion as to which it is.

Take the current trend of sticking an "I" in front of things. The first guy to do it was obviously a genius (well maybe) or had tapped into something because it took off. But really he only changed one letter so according to any actual measure of his work he was lazy and stupid.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Mindfire (Jul 9, 2015)

Nope. It's still lazy and stupid.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jul 10, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> I disagree here, because "Murai" is _objectively_ lazy and stupid.



No, just no. If you really think that then I don't think you really understand the nature of stories and storytelling.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jul 10, 2015)

psychotick said:


> Hi Mytho,
> 
> I think I'm going to have to disagree in turn. Talking about books and movies etc after is great. It helps with the understanding. Often in seeing a work through other people's eyes we gain a different appreciation / understanding of it. And that in turn can increase our enjoyment of it. It also helps to bond people together as they discover similarities and differences between themselves in the way they see the world.



I'm not saying talking about stories is bad. I'm saying that treating stories as if they have an objective standard of quality is not necessary and I believe actually harmful if one wants to communicate with others about them.


----------



## Nimue (Jul 10, 2015)

Theoretically, I agree that writing quality is inherently subjective.  Pragmatically, _viscerally_...I think that 'Murai is hella lazy.

I mean, come on.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jul 10, 2015)

Nimue said:


> Theoretically, I agree that everything is subjective.  Pragmatically, _viscerally_, I think that 'Murai is objectively lazy.
> 
> I mean, come _on_...



It's fine for you to feel that it's lazy and stupid. I think that too. But you need to recognize that it's just your opinion. Just how you personally react to it. And people who react differently are not wrong.


----------



## Russ (Jul 10, 2015)

Does there not come a point when some things are so self-evident or well accepted that we can accept them as a good norm?

Is every opinion valuable or useful?  Are some worthy of criticism and disdain?


----------



## Nimue (Jul 10, 2015)

Of course, but someone reacting negatively to something is also a valid opinion.

"Objectively", like "literally", is often used in a figurative or nonserious way.  Interrupting with "Nothing is objective!" every time someone complains about something being bad is kind of pedantic.  Everybody knows there isn't an absolutely, universally good or bad book, but everybody also knows that opinions can give you useful information.

I dunno if we really need to preface every single thing we say with "This is my opinion, but..." Of course it's my opinion, where would I be pulling universal facts from?


----------



## Nimue (Jul 10, 2015)

Wait a minute, I've just thought of a situation where I wouldn't mind 'murai running around.  Post-apocalyptic near future where linguistic drift has resulted in the names of cultural touchstones being misspelled and abbreviated.  Could actually result in some fun moments when you realize that the horse-riding, gun-slinging Murai Boys on the tidewater-emabattled Old Nehon archipelago had actually, at some point, styled themselves after Beforetimes samurai.

That is the only premise under which I could embrace that.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jul 10, 2015)

Russ said:


> Does there not come a point when some things are so self-evident or well accepted that we can accept them as a good norm?
> 
> Is every opinion valuable or useful?  Are some worthy of criticism and disdain?



In the context of fiction storytelling? No, I don't think an "accepted norm" can be practically recognized in a useful way. Yes, every opinion is valuable and/or useful within the context it is presented. No, no opinions are worthy of disdain. Criticism is only useful within specific contexts, when generalized it is almost never useful. 



Nimue said:


> Of course, but someone reacting negatively to something is also a valid opinion.



Which is why I said that your opinion was valid.



Nimue said:


> "Objectively", like "literally", is often used in a figurative or nonserious way.  Interrupting with "Nothing is objective!" every time someone complains about something being bad is kind of pedantic.  Everybody knows there isn't an absolutely, universally good or bad book, but everybody also knows that opinions can give you useful information.
> 
> I dunno if we really need to preface every single thing we say with "This is my opinion, but..." Of course it's my opinion, where would I be pulling universal facts from?



I think that's just a lazy excuse, personally. And it's usually a double standard. People tend to only apply it to themselves. They say, "Of course this was just my opinion. Never mind that I used language which presented my opinion as if it were absolute truth. You should have assumed I wasn't being 100% literal." But people almost never give others the same benefit of the doubt. I've seen this played out a hundred times at least on this board alone.

Which is why I try my best to only say what I mean and mean what I say and assume others here are doing the same. We are writers after all.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Jul 10, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> So the other day I was at Barnes and Noble, browsing the fantasy section as I am wont to do, when I came across this book: The Undead Hordes of Kan-Gul
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A missed opportunity! I read the review which included the phrase "overly serious." This book should be the opposite.

GRRM uses names like "milk of the poppy" and it works because the reader can figure out what the "milk" does, but it doesn't conjure street-drug imagery which might be the case if he used a real narcotic term. In this case, GRRM's made-up phrase is preventing an immersion-breaker, while Merz is breaking immersion by making a real word different without changing the meaning, prompting the reader to wonder, "Why not just call them samurai if that's what they are?"


----------



## Nimue (Jul 10, 2015)

Look, I soften and modify almost everything I say, because I like to be polite, but sometimes you get sick of it.  I thought it was pretty clear that my "objectively" comment up there was tongue-in-cheek, but no, we've got to be 100% literal.

Derailing something into word-by-word semantics pretty much never results in a fun conversation.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jul 10, 2015)

Nimue said:


> Look, I soften and modify almost everything I say, because I like to be polite, but sometimes you get sick of it.  I thought it was pretty clear that my "objectively" comment up there was tongue-in-cheek, but no, we've got to be 100% literal.
> 
> Derailing something into word-by-word semantics pretty much never results in a fun conversation.



You can do whatever you like. I was simply making a point that seemed like it was being lost in this thread where everyone was agreeing about how terrible a book was based on not actually reading it.


----------



## Nimue (Jul 10, 2015)

I think everyone's been pretty specifically saying "I would not read this book because of the blurb/cover/words on the page," which are valid things readers in general consider when deciding whether or not to read something, rather than "This book is awful."

I can see how many glancing negative opinions might seem like unilateral condemnation, but honestly, I don't think anybody individually hates it that much.

Except Mindfire, because he actually picked up the book and got abruptly let down.  I get it, heheh.

My idea for post-apocalyptic 'Murai Boys has also been lost in this thread, so I feel sad about that


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Jul 10, 2015)

I think the Murai would be great in a three-way war against Ights and Rbarians. Or perhaps they would ultimately create an alliance among the three factions, as only the Murai embrace both the honor of ighthood and the rbaric nature of the sword.

EDIT - The post-apocalyptic melee weapon of choice would be the ord. It's like a sword, but with orb-like properties and futuristic humming sounds that are not at all lightsabery.


----------



## Nimue (Jul 10, 2015)

You mean the rbaric nature of the 'tana, forged from discarded car doors.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Jul 10, 2015)

r doors. R's being rbaric vehicles that are so futuristic, even the post-apocalyptic people were only able to obtain their doors because of a post-post-apocalyptic time traveler who died an infinite number of times when a fatal accident trapped him in a time loop.

Man, I could write schlock. (Who am I kidding? I already do.)


----------



## Nimue (Jul 10, 2015)

We all gotta embrace the dumb in our writing, because it's in there somewhere


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Jul 10, 2015)

Nimue said:


> embrace the dumb


Yes!

I was once at an E3 (or was it GDC) convention where a game writer said, "Let's face it, we all write crap." I was offended for, like, a second. Then I felt liberated.


----------



## Mindfire (Jul 10, 2015)

Nimue said:


> Wait a minute, I've just thought of a situation where I wouldn't mind 'murai running around.  Post-apocalyptic near future where linguistic drift has resulted in the names of cultural touchstones being misspelled and abbreviated.  Could actually result in some fun moments when you realize that the horse-riding, gun-slinging Murai Boys on the tidewater-emabattled Old Nehon archipelago had actually, at some point, styled themselves after Beforetimes samurai.
> 
> That is the only premise under which I could embrace that.



Going a bit deeper into the snark-hole for a bit here, but I think the author has pretty well proven that a setting like that would require far more work and creativity than he is willing to give.



Mythopoet said:


> I think that's just a lazy excuse, personally. And it's usually a double standard. People tend to only apply it to themselves. They say, "Of course this was just my opinion. Never mind that I used language which presented my opinion as if it were absolute truth. You should have assumed I wasn't being 100% literal." But people almost never give others the same benefit of the doubt. I've seen this played out a hundred times at least on this board alone.
> 
> Which is why I try my best to only say what I mean and mean what I say and assume others here are doing the same. We are writers after all.



I think I agree with Nimue that you're being pedantic. When I say that this "Murai" business is objectively bad, can I back that up with charts and tables or studies and surveys? Of course not. That's ridiculous.  But at the same time I am so deeply convicted of it's vacuousness that it boggles my mind that anyone could think otherwise. I hold this truth to be self-evident: "Murai" is lazy like unto eternity. In this case "objectively" is not being used to mean that something is or can be quantitatively proven, but rather that I find it so viscerally obvious that, for all intents and purposes, it might as well _be_ quantitatively proven, that I will treat it as such, and that any contrary opinion is incomprehensible. "Objectively" is the adverbial equivalent of multiple exclamation marks.



Legendary Sidekick said:


> A missed opportunity! I read the review which included the phrase "overly serious." This book should be the opposite.
> 
> GRRM uses names like "milk of the poppy" and it works because the reader can figure out what the "milk" does, but it doesn't conjure street-drug imagery which might be the case if he used a real narcotic term. In this case, GRRM's made-up phrase is preventing an immersion-breaker, while Merz is breaking immersion by making a real word different without changing the meaning, prompting the reader to wonder, "Why not just call them samurai if that's what they are?"



Well and succinctly put.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jul 10, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> Unfortunately for anyone who takes the time to deconstruct what's good or bad about a book, there are plenty more who will just read it and not realize the quality of what they read. Otherwise the quality of most mainstream contemporary literature wouldn't be so lacking.



I have to take issue with readers not knowing what is and is not quality. I think that, for the most part, readers do instinctively know when a book is good or when it isn't good, if they have read more than a handful of books. But, the problem is they do not have the education to properly diagnose the problems. And, since they cannot perform the proper diagnostics on the book, they twist themselves in order to make the book better than it is. That's why, so often when a bad but popular book is in its height, you see the arguments that because the book sold so much it must be good. Then, all of a sudden, a blogger comes in and metaphorically crucifies the book. Then these readers suddenly disavow the book and rage against it, creating a counter movement, and will never admit to actually reading the thing. 

I feel that Twilight is a good example of this reaction. I know for a fact that at least three people I have know read the book and claimed to love it. Then when pressed on why they liked it they said it's because it sold well. I was too unsophisticated to fight the claim properly myself. But a little time later they read a blog that made specific criticisms against the book and they change their tune, claim to never have read the book, and rail against it thereafter. 

This makes me think that a book is a totality of circumstances. Characters are important (arguably the most important). Story is important. Craft if important (arguably the least important). Setting is needed. Marketing is a great addition. You can survive with some elements being weaker or altogether missing, but eventually all the mistakes will come and bite you in the butt.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jul 10, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> I think I agree with Nimue that you're being pedantic.



Well, then, I guess I'd rather be a pedant than someone who judges another writer without actually having read what he wrote.


----------



## Mindfire (Jul 10, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> Well, then, I guess I'd rather be a pedant than someone who judges another writer without actually having read what he wrote.



I'm not judging the writer, per se. I'm just saying that based on what I _have_ seen, in particular an element that put me off the book on the very first page, I would decide not to purchase and read the book. And that is completely fair. I, as a reader, am under no obligation to give the writer a second chance. Ever. For anything. If I open the book and see something stupid on the first page that makes me quit, that's it. It doesn't matter whatever justification may or may not exist for the element I have judged stupid. Bottom line is, I'm not reading. And it behooves all authors, including myself, to be mindful of this.


----------



## skip.knox (Jul 10, 2015)

I agree with Mindfire. I routinely look at the first couple of pages of a book and make a buy decision (assuming I've made it past the cover and the blurb). Moreover, I as an author do not expect the public to give me any better break. 

That's why I found this thread worthwhile. I *do* want to make sure the blurb (and cover!) does two things. One, that it hooks. Two, that it does not repel. Both are important. I would not have thought samurai either, though if there was a picture of a samurai I'd probably put it together. It would be a negative, though I perhaps would not have reacted quite so viscerally. It does not take many such negatives, though, to drive me off. 

There are times I let the rope pay out further. One is when it's an author I've previously enjoyed. That one gets more rope. Another is when it's a book that's in the genre niche where I'm working. I've grim-slogged my way through two or three books like that. But when I'm just reading for pleasure, my standards go way up. So those first impressions are terribly important, and it's quite enlightening to hear from fantasy readers how they react to these seemingly trivial points.


----------



## Mindfire (Jul 11, 2015)

This bugged me especially because I'm really anal about my names, almost to the point of paranoia. So when an author isn't willing to put in even a basic level of efforts with their names, it turns me off. But in this case, I don't think you have to be as name-obsessed as I am to be put off by the showing here.


----------



## SeverinR (Jul 15, 2015)

I think the point here is, don't try to fake a non-European backdrop story. If you want to write about an oriental fantasy study oriental history and culture. If you want to write about Russian fantasy, study Russian history and culture.

I like European fantasy. I have lived there(Germany and Greece), I've visited many places there, I have read a lot of history on it, I know a lot the lore. 

So, maybe I would even go as far as to say don't just read about it, live it. Delve into the history of your story. 

That way, when you create something, it is in the spirit of the culture you create it from. Not just a simple letter manip.

Side topic: Have you ever looked at a book, and thought, this one made it? Of the ten thousand manuscripts that flow across a publishers mail room, this book made it?


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jul 15, 2015)

SeverinR said:


> Side topic: Have you ever looked at a book, and thought, this one made it? Of the ten thousand manuscripts that flow across a publishers mail room, this book made it?



After seeing so many call 1-800 get your book published now commercials no. I just assume they did that.


----------



## stephenspower (Jul 15, 2015)

This is one of my favorite lines ever printed in a PW review:

"The story lacks both the sense of fun and the respect for Asian cultures that a ninjas-vs.-zombies tale deserves."


----------



## Miskatonic (Jul 16, 2015)

SeverinR said:


> I think the point here is, don't try to fake a non-European backdrop story. If you want to write about an oriental fantasy study oriental history and culture. If you want to write about Russian fantasy, study Russian history and culture.
> 
> I like European fantasy. I have lived there(Germany and Greece), I've visited many places there, I have read a lot of history on it, I know a lot the lore.
> 
> ...



Completely agree. It's more interesting to learn about actual events in history, especially if it's a topic you aren't familiar with. Creative license is alright as long as you aren't outright spinning things to make them appear different than how they actually happened. Like Mel Gibson for example. Braveheart might be a good film but the historical accuracy is a joke. If any movie is "based on real events" you know it's probably 90% bullshit.


----------



## Miskatonic (Jul 16, 2015)

skip.knox said:


> I agree with Mindfire. I routinely look at the first couple of pages of a book and make a buy decision (assuming I've made it past the cover and the blurb). Moreover, I as an author do not expect the public to give me any better break.
> 
> That's why I found this thread worthwhile. I *do* want to make sure the blurb (and cover!) does two things. One, that it hooks. Two, that it does not repel. Both are important. I would not have thought samurai either, though if there was a picture of a samurai I'd probably put it together. It would be a negative, though I perhaps would not have reacted quite so viscerally. It does not take many such negatives, though, to drive me off.
> 
> There are times I let the rope pay out further. One is when it's an author I've previously enjoyed. That one gets more rope. Another is when it's a book that's in the genre niche where I'm working. I've grim-slogged my way through two or three books like that. But when I'm just reading for pleasure, my standards go way up. So those first impressions are terribly important, and it's quite enlightening to hear from fantasy readers how they react to these seemingly trivial points.



This is essentially what you have to do to try and sell a script to a studio. Basically have 60 seconds to convince them the story is worthwhile. Then you have the movie poster which has to do the same for the consumer.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jul 16, 2015)

SeverinR said:


> Side topic: Have you ever looked at a book, and thought, this one made it? Of the ten thousand manuscripts that flow across a publishers mail room, this book made it?



I used to think that sometimes. 

How on earth did The Wheel of Time get published? It's some of the worst storytelling I've ever come across. But it has hordes of fans. How did that happen? If you're able to take a step back and look at it from a more impartial frame of mind, you have to acknowledge that it's because there are thousands readers that really, really enjoy those books. And you have to acknowledge, if you are intellectually honest, that there is nothing wrong with that. That different people enjoy different things and just because there's someone who enjoys something that I did not enjoy at all, does not mean they are somehow wrong about it. Fiction is all about the experience and the experience varies highly from person to person. Someone else's experience of a thing is not wrong just because it is different from mine. 

The Wheel of Time got published because someone at a particular publisher read it and said "I bet there are a lot of readers who will want to buy this." That person was correct. The publication of The Wheel of Time made a ton of happy readers into fans. So, without a doubt, The Wheel of Time deserved to be published, whether I think it's crap or not. 

Every single book that has been published has been published because someone thought there was a good chance people would buy it and enjoy it. Sometimes books get published and readers don't respond positively to them, they sink into obscurity, Sometimes books get published that some readers respond to really positively, but most readers don't, and then the few fans go around wondering why no one else likes this obviously wonderful work. Sometimes the books that are the most popular, the most beloved are also the books that are the most hated and maligned. Twilight, 50 Shades, Eragon, Shannara, etc. No one has the right to judge that any of those books don't deserve to be published. If a story gives even a handful of readers an experience that they enjoy and value, then it has done what a story is supposed to do.


----------



## Guy (Jul 16, 2015)

SeverinR said:


> Side topic: Have you ever looked at a book, and thought, this one made it? Of the ten thousand manuscripts that flow across a publishers mail room, this book made it?


All. The damn. Time.


----------



## Mindfire (Jul 17, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> Twilight, 50 Shades, Eragon, Shannara, etc.



Are Eragon and Shannara really that popular though? Eragon's Fandom seems to have evaporated, and I only ever see Shannara referenced on articles about how *not* to write fantasy.


----------



## Incanus (Jul 17, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> Are Eragon and Shannara really that popular though? Eragon's Fandom seems to have evaporated, and I only ever see Shannara referenced on articles about how *not* to write fantasy.



According to the Wikipedia intro on Terry Brooks, he is one of the best-selling, living fantasy authors.  I've always considered the Shannara stuff pretty weak, even as a kid when I first encountered it (probably around 1979-80), I felt it was lacking.  But as we've seen, success and quality are all too often exclusive to one another.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 17, 2015)

Incanus said:


> ...success and quality are all too often exclusive to one another.


Quality is subjective.


----------

