What gets me seriously annoyed with books these days — especially the modern trend of urban paranormal — is the way they (they being so many other authors, perfectly good authors who can write) handle the fantastic element.
and while there are those among us who feel it's just a less awesome version of this rant, we don't care about that. What we care about are the comments. (And for those of you who are too lazy to read the whole thing, luckily you have me to provide the highlights.)
Paul Jessup starts off the slapfight funfest with that old standby:
You’re wrong. That is not why the current influx Urban Fantasy sucks. It sucks for so many reasons far more profound and interesting then the fantastic presented as mundane.
So Elizabeth Moon gives him the what for:
Mr. Jessup, you seem to feel that you’re divinely appointed to know right and wrong when you see it.
You’re wrong. Nobody died and appointed you literary god.
If you ever learn to read carefully and with discernment, reason clearly, and acquire minimal social skills so you don’t come across as rude on first acquaintance, you will look back on your posts here with some embarrassment.
Jessup clings to the Mamatas defense:
No, I use logic and reason to discern this.
So Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff breaks out the CAPS:
And if YOU had the rationality of a meerkat, you would see that IT IS NOT the case at all. And please, actually back up your comment logically.
Jeremy Tolbert takes his ball and goes home:
Paul, I said no such thing on Chrononaut. That’s twice you’ve attributed things to me that I did not say. Your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired, and I will no longer engage you on this matter if you can’t even read what I’ve actually written.
Hmm, perhaps Jessup's reading comprehension is as bad as Moon intimated:
I’m sorry, the Via JeremyT at the ending made it sound like you were being quoted, and a lot of blog software place the author of the blog beneath the post. So I assumed it was you, I’m sorry if that’s wrong. I don’t read the chrononaut, so I had no idea who had originally said that.
Because you know, blogs are soooo complicated. Possibly he doesn't know what "via" means. Thank goodness Moles has a dictionary:
“Via: preposition: by the agency or instrumentality of.”
But Nazarian for the win:
“A parochial viewpoint and an aggrieved sense of entitlement?” Is that the only thing you can go after in all of my essay? My passionate inflammatory tone? How lukewarm of you. (And no, leave poor Paul Jessup alone, admit, it’s my jugular you’re after.)
What about all the things I am actually saying? Do I strike a sympathetic string anywhere in your gray matter’s hoary depths, or is your semantic instrument completely flat? Because there is a world of difference between a “parochial viewpoint” and a classic one.
And yes, I do have a grand and rather healthy sense of entitlement because I _am_ entitled — entitled to have a strong opinion and to voice it in however manner I choose without being hurtful to others.
Suddenly you owe me an additional apology. Without such, regretfully I must disdain to acknowledge you from this point onward and merely fart SFWA Rainbows in your general direction.
Wait, what's the first apology he owes?
I guess we'll never know.