That's a really good point the Drinker made re: the lack of life experiences on the part of today's writers. J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis were both WW1 veterans who nearly died in the trenches of that war (Tolkien from illness, Lewis from friendly fire), and both went on to have strong scholarly careers in addition to writing with Tolkien, in particular, famously becoming a professor at Oxford. Their works need no introduction and are still internationally beloved, genre-defining modern classics.
Meanwhile let's consider someone like Hugo Award-winning author Becky Chambers. She's got the publishing industry and media outlets like Wired shilling hard for her books, portraying her as a trailblazer of 'hopepunk'. WTF is that? Well, I've seen someone sum it up as 'comfort food for the kind of people who think frosting is a cake', and I can't disagree with that assessment. Chambers herself came from a well-off Californian family, then worked in theater & as a freelance writer before going into writing; she essentially has had, as far as I can tell from her public profiles, no truly dangerous or demanding life experiences (doesn't even have to be wartime experience like Tolkien & Lewis, something like the depression & poverty Rowling struggled with while writing Philosopher's Stone or even having to work in fast food & retail would have qualified) in her 36 years.
And it shows in her works. They're twee, simplistic (to an extent that literal children would get bored of them very quickly), puddle-deep tales populated by characters who universally sound either like bourgeois coastal Californians, or what bourgeois coastal Californians think people from outside their bubble sound like (usually these are villains) - the literary equivalent to High Guardian Spice. I haven't met a soul IRL or online who has bought or heard of Chambers' works despite her friends in the publishing industry trying their best to promote her. They have no lasting cultural impact and never will, hell she'll be lucky if she retains any relevance in 3 years' time.
I suspect the same is true of the nepotistic hacks who have been getting hired into writers' rooms in Hollywood at an especially high pace since the 2008 Writers' Strike. Only Hollywood has a lot more money to play with & isn't quite as moribund an industry as publishing has been since self-publishing became much easier & more popular.
Putting aside lived experience, most writers these days won’t even do the research! I don’t think you necessarily have to have lived this exciting life full of all kinds of adventures and adversity like Tolkien or Hemingway to be a good writer as long as you’re willing to do some research and actually try to learn about the things you want to write. But most writers these days are too lazy to even dig beyond a Wikipedia article, if that.
Excellent point. I remember reading an article about the lives that the great authors of the golden age of sci-fi had. I am currently reading the LOTR trilogy and am loving it!
Golden era SF was built on the backs of hard men. Asimov endured more before he was 40 than every Hugo award winner of the last decade will ever endure, combined.
And Heinlein and Asimov used to joke that Asimov had it easy... because at least he still had his health.
I think that's a symptom of the problem right there. The Hugo's had a HUGE fallout a few years back where merit was tossed out in favor of "Woke". The issue severely damaged the "brand", and I know a lot of people outwardly ignore anyone currently associated with the Hugo Awards. Your description of her writing sounds precisely like what we all knew would happen.
As for what you, and Drinker have said (watched the video yesterday), I'd say the exact same problem has infiltrated comics as well. I've been friends with several comic store owners who've seen their industry destroyed by these same simplistic hacks. And as Drinker stated, for those of us who grew up knowing better, we understand when we're served a plate full of shit, compared to these poor kids today (many who ignore comics, so I'm speaking in general too) who simply gobble up what's served to them. It's a very sad state of affairs.
It's as if an entire generation decided if they couldn't burn the books they would simply make them unreadable.
portraying her as a trailblazer of 'hopepunk'. WTF is that? Well, I've seen someone sum it up as 'comfort food for the kind of people who think frosting is a cake', and I can't disagree with that assessment.
sigh
You know, I too am getting a little tired of constant hyper-realism "Morally Grey" sort of stories. But I still like my stories to have, you know, a little something called conflict.
There are three styles of "punk" I like: Steampunk, Dieselpunk, and Cyberpunk. All of them have some form of conflict. Charismatic, kind hearted, swashbuckling rogues fighting for corset wearing maidens against big businessmen in their imperial holdings. Men fighting utterly grinding war with titanic machines capable of killing scores in seconds with armies who throw around chemical weapons with casual disregard. Some poor schmuck trying to cut out a life between uncontrolled gangs of deranged cyborgs and corpos who would sell their own mothers for a little profit (too bad they already did).
But guess what? They will all fight against the odds no matter how long they seem. Hell, a usual theme in Dieselpunk is that the threat is supposed to be unbeatable. And the hero either beats it to prove that it wasnt as unbeatable as people thought, or they face the death machine with a witty one liner, a grim look, and their rifle in hand.
So why, oh why, do I get the feeling that 'hopepunk' includes no such conflict? To answer my own question, because I have seen how these people write their stories. I have seen far too many stories done by these modern authors where the conflict is comparatively mild. Stuff like "Damn, I am poor and cant make rent." (and the "poverty" is almost always self inflicted by poor life choices), or its against a strawman of racist, always white. Then when they are forced to fight, they.....win. There is no real fight. The villain will likely even stand there and get hit or just miss obvious attacks, because otherwise the hero might lose. And we cant have that, that doesnt feel good to lose. Never mind that that is how you grow and learn. No, you need to be carried through everything and always win. Because "hope" and "good vibes" or some shit.
They have no lasting cultural impact and never will, hell she'll be lucky if she retains any relevance in 3 years' time.
More than that, I dont think they have a cultural basis to build OFF of. So few of them stick around with any sort of relevance. They cant use those dumb, icky "conservative" ideals like God, king, or country. And while they used to have Harry Potter, Rowling became an apostate so now they must scrub all use of her. So it makes it that much harder for them to actually create any sort of meaningful story.
That's a really good point the Drinker made re: the lack of life experiences on the part of today's writers. J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis were both WW1 veterans who nearly died in the trenches of that war (Tolkien from illness, Lewis from friendly fire), and both went on to have strong scholarly careers in addition to writing with Tolkien, in particular, famously becoming a professor at Oxford. Their works need no introduction and are still internationally beloved, genre-defining modern classics.
Meanwhile let's consider someone like Hugo Award-winning author Becky Chambers. She's got the publishing industry and media outlets like Wired shilling hard for her books, portraying her as a trailblazer of 'hopepunk'. WTF is that? Well, I've seen someone sum it up as 'comfort food for the kind of people who think frosting is a cake', and I can't disagree with that assessment. Chambers herself came from a well-off Californian family, then worked in theater & as a freelance writer before going into writing; she essentially has had, as far as I can tell from her public profiles, no truly dangerous or demanding life experiences (doesn't even have to be wartime experience like Tolkien & Lewis, something like the depression & poverty Rowling struggled with while writing Philosopher's Stone or even having to work in fast food & retail would have qualified) in her 36 years.
And it shows in her works. They're twee, simplistic (to an extent that literal children would get bored of them very quickly), puddle-deep tales populated by characters who universally sound either like bourgeois coastal Californians, or what bourgeois coastal Californians think people from outside their bubble sound like (usually these are villains) - the literary equivalent to High Guardian Spice. I haven't met a soul IRL or online who has bought or heard of Chambers' works despite her friends in the publishing industry trying their best to promote her. They have no lasting cultural impact and never will, hell she'll be lucky if she retains any relevance in 3 years' time.
I suspect the same is true of the nepotistic hacks who have been getting hired into writers' rooms in Hollywood at an especially high pace since the 2008 Writers' Strike. Only Hollywood has a lot more money to play with & isn't quite as moribund an industry as publishing has been since self-publishing became much easier & more popular.
Putting aside lived experience, most writers these days won’t even do the research! I don’t think you necessarily have to have lived this exciting life full of all kinds of adventures and adversity like Tolkien or Hemingway to be a good writer as long as you’re willing to do some research and actually try to learn about the things you want to write. But most writers these days are too lazy to even dig beyond a Wikipedia article, if that.
Right, you have to have some sort of perspective on reality too [even when writing very fanciful fiction] so you can have relatable themes.
Excellent point. I remember reading an article about the lives that the great authors of the golden age of sci-fi had. I am currently reading the LOTR trilogy and am loving it!
Golden era SF was built on the backs of hard men. Asimov endured more before he was 40 than every Hugo award winner of the last decade will ever endure, combined.
And Heinlein and Asimov used to joke that Asimov had it easy... because at least he still had his health.
I think that's a symptom of the problem right there. The Hugo's had a HUGE fallout a few years back where merit was tossed out in favor of "Woke". The issue severely damaged the "brand", and I know a lot of people outwardly ignore anyone currently associated with the Hugo Awards. Your description of her writing sounds precisely like what we all knew would happen.
As for what you, and Drinker have said (watched the video yesterday), I'd say the exact same problem has infiltrated comics as well. I've been friends with several comic store owners who've seen their industry destroyed by these same simplistic hacks. And as Drinker stated, for those of us who grew up knowing better, we understand when we're served a plate full of shit, compared to these poor kids today (many who ignore comics, so I'm speaking in general too) who simply gobble up what's served to them. It's a very sad state of affairs.
It's as if an entire generation decided if they couldn't burn the books they would simply make them unreadable.
ah yes the puppies mess the highlight i rember is them heckeler vetoing with glee
Great comment, love CS Lewis and Tolkien. Both of their writings are filled with Christian esotericism, those two were on another level.
But damn I never knew Lewis took some friendly fire, it really do be ya own niggas
Fuck me that wired article. I just couldn’t finish it.
sigh
You know, I too am getting a little tired of constant hyper-realism "Morally Grey" sort of stories. But I still like my stories to have, you know, a little something called conflict.
There are three styles of "punk" I like: Steampunk, Dieselpunk, and Cyberpunk. All of them have some form of conflict. Charismatic, kind hearted, swashbuckling rogues fighting for corset wearing maidens against big businessmen in their imperial holdings. Men fighting utterly grinding war with titanic machines capable of killing scores in seconds with armies who throw around chemical weapons with casual disregard. Some poor schmuck trying to cut out a life between uncontrolled gangs of deranged cyborgs and corpos who would sell their own mothers for a little profit (too bad they already did).
But guess what? They will all fight against the odds no matter how long they seem. Hell, a usual theme in Dieselpunk is that the threat is supposed to be unbeatable. And the hero either beats it to prove that it wasnt as unbeatable as people thought, or they face the death machine with a witty one liner, a grim look, and their rifle in hand.
So why, oh why, do I get the feeling that 'hopepunk' includes no such conflict? To answer my own question, because I have seen how these people write their stories. I have seen far too many stories done by these modern authors where the conflict is comparatively mild. Stuff like "Damn, I am poor and cant make rent." (and the "poverty" is almost always self inflicted by poor life choices), or its against a strawman of racist, always white. Then when they are forced to fight, they.....win. There is no real fight. The villain will likely even stand there and get hit or just miss obvious attacks, because otherwise the hero might lose. And we cant have that, that doesnt feel good to lose. Never mind that that is how you grow and learn. No, you need to be carried through everything and always win. Because "hope" and "good vibes" or some shit.
More than that, I dont think they have a cultural basis to build OFF of. So few of them stick around with any sort of relevance. They cant use those dumb, icky "conservative" ideals like God, king, or country. And while they used to have Harry Potter, Rowling became an apostate so now they must scrub all use of her. So it makes it that much harder for them to actually create any sort of meaningful story.