Maybe. I've only read one sci-fi anthology (Amazon link won't work - it's called Best Science Fiction of the Year: 1, edited by Neil Clarke) but I didn't recognise it there either. I read a LOT of short stories, but they're almost exclusively horror and rarely aspiring to be literary. I really do think her whole argument is based on a false premise, but if she's having this problem it's probably due to the self-selecting nature of the works she reads. Most submissions are going to be similar as they're writing for that particular market.
I also really want to know about her passive voice complaint. She's complaining about writing sameness and too-slavish following of conventions, and then she complains that these same-style writers are violating one of those slavish conventions. And as I always say, passive voice is really very rarely used. So how much can these rules-lockstep writers be using?
No. Modern urban fantasy predated this by more than a decade. Gaiman himself points to works from the 80s as the beginning of urban fantasy. Can take it back as least as far as de Lint in the early 80s. I could probably find earlier examples. Even people who don't want to go that far back end up with Emma Bull and War for the Oaks in 1987. And of course Tanya Huff's Blood Price books are even more firmly entrenched in what many people think of as urban fantasy because of vampires. Those are at least five or six years before Neverwhere. From what I've read, the term for the genre was coined in the Encyclopedia of Fantasy in 1998, after Neverwhere, and they don't even mention Gaiman (though they do mention works from the 80s).
Why? 85% of the population are straight, why would I want to tell 5,000 out of every 6,000 readers "Your existence is less than mine"? What is that supposed to accomplish?
Can't speak to 50 Shades, but Twilight was published after a bidding war by multiple publishers, and Meyer got a $3/4 advance, as a first-time novelist. An editor had to be willing to try to get that much money for her, and had to get it approved through all the channels at publisher that have to approve shelling out that much as an advance. Those people aren't idiots. They knew it was going to be big when they saw it, as, apparently, did the other publishers trying to bid for it. Had they known exactly how big, the bidding would have netted her even more.
It doesn't say the existence is worth less just by being a side character. Is Gimli's life worth less than Frodo's? Hell, it's just a story. For example, a sci-fi world where breeding has become illegal due to discoveries on living forever. So the uncommon and minority preference would be straight, and you could make unique jokes about straight people still choosing the "old" ways.
As another data point, Shadowrun, an urban fantasy roleplaying game, was published in 1989. Roleplaying games tend to stem from existing well-established genres.
Let's all drop what we're working on and write stories like Twilight and 50 Shades. Let's get rich! 50 writers here, we each write a chapter, we combine it into one book and make 10 million total. That's two hundred grand a piece. #LETSGETRICH
"Side character vs. Main character" is not the issue here. Is was not comfortable with my asexual orientation until I read the Sherlock Holmes stories. And I am an unusually insensitive, unsentimental person (hence the rest of my love for the Sherlock Holmes stories). Most people need to see themselves in the world around them even more that I do. It's one thing for straight characters to be characters that LGBT characters make jokes about. It's another thing for straight characters to be "joke characters." Do you see the difference?
I think there is a break-down in communication here. I didn't mean the characters are a joke. I mean that they provide some comedy through odd situations. Some of my favorite comedy comes from putting characters in situations where they feel awkward. Having a character lust after a character only to find they have a different orientation can be entertaining. Having a character who works for a church that thinks it's wrong, and they find out their best friend isn't straight, entertaining. Each of these situations can be funny in a fantasy/sci-fi world. I rarely use gender preference or anything of the sort in my writing, but if I do it is in a light-hearted way. If people are offended by the fact that I can speak of it freely than I really don't care. I will explain myself if they wish, but I am not poking fun at a group of people, and it is a work of fiction for characters that I create. Existence is less than mine? Are you serious? When does making a character funny make them worth less? It's my style of writing is all. It's not like I'm making them all stupid, or failures in society. If I had a book where LGBQ+ were represented as stereotyped societies that I demean through the book, I could understand you thinking that I want them to be less than straight people. Also, The 5,000 out of 6,000 your existence means less than mine comment. Every book from an elven perspective ever. Except I guess 6,000 out of 6,000 readers must be offended because they are inferior humans. I loved the movie Gran Torino movie and it used a lot of non-white characters for comedy. However... this was never LGBQ+ VS. Straight in my mind. It's simply a lighthearted comment that turned into this. Now... did I make someone my servant... did I use a horribly offensive word with hatred in my eyes? Did I say "yada yada's are [insert hateful comment]." Nope. So I say lets drop it. P.S. Sorry if I had offended anyone, it was not my intention. Thanks.
Okay then, I get your POV better. At least in one regard we're on the same page, first person narratives are a deal breaker for me.
I read, To Kill a Mockingbird when I was very young, with as you say, no knowledge of its place in classic literature... just loved it. Indeed, it's my all time favorite book. For that reason I've never revisited it, won't ever read it again. It's just a good memory I don't want to ruin.
At your age you are probably writing a practice novel. I banged one of those out when I was young. I was in my early 20s when I wrote my first novel. At the time, I didn't think it was a practice novel, but I also had no idea how hard it would be to publish a novel. By the time I learned that, I was a better writer and let go of my first novel to go on to write better things and have a career as a writer. I think LGTBQ stories are important and currently a subject matter many editors could be interested in. What's worrisome is that you are trying to or believe you are being really "deep." Tell a good story. Don't worry about being deep. I think when writers are trying to be deep, it often doesn't come across as they intended. Really look at your prose. Is there clarity in your language and story? Without clarity you really have nothing. As far as writing for an audience or writing for yourself, I don't give these things too much thought. I write to be published. That's the true goal with everything I write. I read a lot. If you want to get published or write for an audience, reading a lot is very important. Take in as many books as you can. If you read contemporary works in your genre, you should have a good idea on what the market/your potential audience is looking for. Then it will always be in the back of your mind. I believe being an avid reader is far more important than having any beta readers. Good luck with everything.
And unrealistically, if the critics are to be believed... To Kill a Mockingbird has a magical place in my heart. A fond memory that the much older, and horribly jaded version of me leaves in a box with old photographs and forgotten love letters.
50 Shades is just bad from the title on. Have read amateur Erotica/BDSM that was better writ and executed. And I will stop there on that whole Shit Show of a Trilogy. I would like to submit The Count of Monte Christo and Martian Chronicles on the book list. Though to be honest I don't know much about the "serious voice", in stories. Granted I like to be reasonable with my own writing. Though I enjoy either first or third POVs, and try to find stories in all genres. The exception being Alt-History, Zombie, Vampires, Bio, and most YA (from what I have heard most YA is love-triangle heavy, with the strong female lead cliches). I like something that isn't as burnt as toast in a broken toaster. Take all that trendy shit, and shove it.
I don't think it was unrealistic. It isn't being narrated by a five year old. Also good first person=Lolita.
This may be wise. While I doubt that you'd be disappointed, it's always possible. I was disappointed in the writing quality of A Wrinkle In Time, which I had loved as a child. As an adult, I think that it needed a few more editing sweeps; my memory of the story/characters/theme/etc., which I still believe are that of a masterpiece, was slightly tarnished by the writing flaws.
Some of that sort of thing seems time-related to me. I've gone back and read some works I loved long ago, and I don't often find technical problems with the work in terms of grammar and the like. But I'll find aspects of the writing that stand out to me, like adverbs, how description and characterization are handled, and the like. Such things seem to be common across various works from the same time period, so I wonder whether it's simply that tastes have changed.
Am I the only one who uses a library? I know that's not your point. But I'm always startled at the assumption that people will buy. I do very often buy, but that's closely connected to the fact that I read while bathing, gardening, and washing the dishes.
