[Dragaera] Cool Stuff Theory of Litterature was: (RE: Steven Erikson (was: Reading series))

[Jerry Friedman]

--- On Thu, 1/22/09, Martin Wohlert <martin_wohlert at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Eugene wrote: 
[I wrote]
> >> By the way, Wolfe's starting point for TBotNS
> was apparently
> >> wanting his hero's clothes to be fun to wear
> at a con.
> > 
> > That's just it -- somehow hearing something like
> that seems to
> > downplay the *uncoolness* of TBotNS. I guess I might
> be getting worked
> > up over details here, or maybe putting TBotNS up on
> some sort of
> > pedestal, but, really, my earlier e-mail was a poor
> attempt to try and
> > put into words the gut feeling I got when Philip said
> TBotNS shares
> > what seems like such a simple philosophy with the Vlad
> books. They
> > couldn't be farther apart in my mind. At this
> point, either CSTOL is
> > generic enough to encompass many more books than I
> thought it did,
> > which is fine, but not what I had in mind when I first
> heard of the
> > theory. Brust's writing has a sense of fun, and a
> sense of style,
> > that, at least to me, are the cornerstones of
> "CSTOL."
...

>From The Paths Of The Dead:
> . . . First theory: "The Cool Stuff Theory of
> Literature is as follows: 
> All literature consists of whatever the writer thinks is
> cool. The reader 
> will like the book to the degree that he agrees with the
> writer about what's cool.

I don't think this line, quoted before, suggests any kind
of collaboration.  It just means that readers will like
the book if their standards are the same as the author's.

> And that works all the way from the
> external trappings to the level of metaphor, subtext, and
> the way one uses words. In other words, I happen not to
> think that full-plate armor and great big 
> honking greatswords are cool. I don't like 'em. I
> like cloaks and rapiers. 
> So I write stories with a lot of cloaks and rapiers in
> 'em, "cause that's what's cool." 
> 
> Second theory: "The novel should be understood as a
> structure built 
> to accomodate the greatest possible amount of cool
> stuff."
>  
> How to write like Steven Brust: "It's really
> simple. What you do is put 
> up a sign on whatever wall you face when you're
> writing. The sign says: 
> And now, I'm going to tell you something really
> cool." . . . 

This is helpful, but unfortunately, I don't see that it
settles whether Steven means "cool" as any different from
"good", which I think is what Eugene and I are discussing.
If "cool" does just mean "good", which is more or less
what I've been saying, then the CSTOL is "generic" and
might appear not to have a whole lot of content.  Hasn't
everybody always believed it?

If you think rapiers and cloaks are cool, what could
stop you from writing stories with them?  I can think of
two things.  First, you might think the market is better
for plate and greatswords.  So maybe Steven is saying to
follow your enthusiasms, no matter what the market says.

Second, in history the change from one fashion
statement to the other was made by technological change,
namely armor-piercing longbows and firearms (or so I've
read--I don't know the details).  So you might think
you have to justify their choices by the technology
and even social structure of their settings.  I think
it's more likely that Steven is saying that the top
priority is Cool Stuff--make sure you have that, and
if you can't justify it well, then gloss it over.

Jerry Friedman