The Snark Theater

Mad at capitalism, madder at Cassandra Clare, maddest at Ernest Cline, nine years in the running and counting. I also discuss good (mainly queer) books sometimes.

[snarktheater]

How would I message you to see if you would be into giving my work a read (they're sci-fi/ fantasy YA, and I'm confident from you snarks and reviews that you would view it as at least refreshing)? I tried messaging your Goodreads, but you won't seem to be taking messages.

Apparently my Goodreads inbox is set to friends only. This is probably the best place to reach out to me, though—either an ask off-anon or via a direct message.

[snarktheater]

I know you said you're busy, but do you do commissioned book reviews?

if you mean like, pay me to review a book, no

if you mean like, sending me a review copy with the understanding that I'll make a review after reading it, then I'm open to that and have done it a couple times in the blog's history, although i'd say maybe check with me first to see if it sounds at all like something i'd be into (or check my goodreads to get a feel for what i read these days).

[snarktheater]

I read part of your Maze Runner reviews and wanted to ask about toxic masculinity and purple prose. I still have trouble seeing toxic masculinity as I always thought guys could talk about women being attractive amongst themselves but also know that appearance does not define anyone. That's something that guys can joke about. And I wondered about purple prose, as I have always been a descriptive writer with how I describe things, and I wondered if I am being descriptive or writing purple prose. Any advice for these topics?

P.S. I am worried that I have biases because I am a straight, white, male who has predominately grown up in a small metro city in Texas. I went to college, which definitely opened my eyes, but I still have trouble adjusting to the world as it changes(commuted from home). I've been introverted most of my life and the two friends I have are white men. My parents always taught me to treat people the same, and I always thought that was the right thing to do. I never thought of anyone being superior or inferior to anyone else. Now I hear that it can be bad to treat people the same way as it could disregard their backgrounds or upbringings. I only share this to provide context to my character and whether I can still learn to be at least a good or decent writer/person.

Okay i'll start with the purple prose because, well, it's been ten years and i have to recant some of it. I mean, the prose in these books did annoy me. I do not like it. I've just grown enough to recognize it's more "not for me" than "objectively bad" and i think the phrase purple prose pathologizes or vilifies a certain style of writing that's ultimately valid. Ineffective in my opinion, but I'm sure it has its perks.

What I would say on the topic instead (now) is to be mindful of the medium you're writing in. Having encountered that type of prose more, my working theory is it tends to irk me when the writer comes across as writing as if they're making a movie in their head. Which is not playing to the strengths of the medium you're in, and kind of comes across as if the writer wrote a book by default, because they didn't have the means to access a hollywood-level production, rather than out of a genuine love of the medium.

At least, that's how it feels to me.

It's not like describing visuals is inherently bad, but it's much more powerful if you can give the visuals meaning. Tell us how the visuals makes someone feel. Make the scene affect something. Sparkle in some theming! Don't make those curtains just be blue.

Toxic masculinity is a much broader topic, one that a single tumblr ask can't possibly begin to cover. But to bounce off your example: the issue is that "men talking about women's appearance in private" doesn't happen in a vacuum. Women are objectified in society, and it reinforces that notion when they're treated as literal objects to be discussed behind closed doors.

But that's not the part of it that I would really put into toxic masculinity. To me (as far as I understand as someone who has a very layperson understanding of it) the part of it that's toxic masculinity is how the act of discussing it with other men, or people perceived as such, behind closed doors, creates an environment in which one can either participate in it, or see themselves devalued. Speaking from experience as a queer person: there's nothing more terrifying than being forcibly dragged into that conversation, and having to decide how to navigate it without putting myself at risk. And I'm actually attracted to women, contrary to popular belief. It just so happens that my gender is complex and my attraction to women is more akin to a lesbian asking Agatha Harkness to put a curse on me, mommy. But interestingly, if I brought that to the table in boy talk, that would also get me ostracized. Because it's not just about talking about women's looks, it's about doing so in a prescriptive way, one that enforces a certain type of attractiveness above others (and that intersects with race, ability, etc) and that also enforces a certain power dynamic in the attraction of a man to a woman.

(Well, I say it's terrifying. It was as a teen. As an adult who has grown comfortable enough with his autism to make it everyone else's problems I just side eye and go blank until they stop)

But this doesn't affect only queer people, obviously. This same mechanism of social ostracism also affects any man, even a cis straight man, who would want to object to the treatment of women, or express a less conventional kind of attraction (like, say, the example I just cited, although I've yet to see a straight man say that about Agatha Harkness).

And that's...not easy to wrap your mind around! You kinda have to deconstruct your entire world view. It's not easy. The only reason someone like me might have an easier time of it is because I've had to do it to figure out who the hell I am in the first place.

This is why I don't think your point about treating all people equally works all that well. Maybe something may have gotten lost in translation, because it's not about giving someone preferential treatment. The thing is, objectification is harmful to everyone, not because you're feeling or expressing attraction (or lack thereof) but because of the implied power behind it. And that power, in the world we live in, is concentrated in the hands of privilege and wielded against the marginalized. So it's more that, in trying to redress social injustice, it's more urgent to call it out when wielded in that direction.

And just to be clear, as I hope was obvious in my little segue: you can still be horny without objectifying someone. It's about treating them with respect, as people with autonomy.

Anyway. Last thing I'll say is we live in an age where you have countless opportunities to find other perspectives, even if you're introverted and with friends who are mostly from a similar background. I am very much a shut in. That's what the internet is for.

[snarktheater]

I was wondering if you help give writers advice. Would you be willing to? If not, I completely understand.

i mean my ask box is open if you have a question you want my take on.

but if you mean direct, one on one feedback on your writing, i'm struggling hard enough with my own writing and beta reading for friends, i'm afraid

so that depends what you mean by "help give writers avice"

[snarktheater]

@ the anon who just sent me an ask related to certain authors' writings and zionism: appreciate the thought, but i honestly do not think i, a gentile person, have the right platform to have this discussion.

[snarktheater]

I’d be game. I’ve been waiting for another Snark for a long time (especially for some of the YA series you started). Quick question: what did Brandon Sanderson do?

to grossly summarize and oversimplify: he was invited to guest on a wheel of time fan podcast to watch the season 2 finale of the TV adaptation, and spent the entire time complaining about essentially every choice being made, admitted he hadn't watched the rest of the season (which, I don't know, seems instrumental in understanding those choices) and generally denigrating the work of what, in my humble opinion, is a stellar piece of adaptation.

which I'll freely admit is a very petty thing to be mad about, but considering that he wrote the last wheel of time book (and split it into three, but like, okay that part may have been inevitable based on reports of the size of robert jordan's notes), massacred a good 70% of character arcs in the process, and didn't think the big slavery empire was a plot point worth addressing and in fact painted the characters who did want to address it as unreasonable, well, i think maybe he shouldn't get to throw stones at anyone else doing their own spin in robert jordan's work.

and that's of course building up on a decade of being adjacent to his fandom (mainly through the wheel of time) and having to deal with. for instance. a lot of apologia for his earlier homophobia, a stance which despite various claims from said apologists he has never actually retracted and has only couched in a vague language of "well I still believe the [mormon] church teaches the truth but i have gay friends so haha i guess i'm still struggling to reconcile those things". and other things, many of them, i'll be honest, are at least tangentially related to the mormon faith. because that church is fucked. more than your average conservative christian denomination.

which in turn circles back to the wheel of time amazon show, because it's hard not to look at his comments about it in the context of all that history. the show is faithful to the spirit of the books, and (i would say in accordance to that spirit) presents a fantasy world that is a lot more welcoming and diverse. i know this is a tired talking point to some, but it's true: the show just features a lot more people of color, it features queer people on the actual screen and not just by innuendo, it gives women agency and features their point of view in a way that jordan, for all his good intentions, sometimes failed to or only provided as far as it made them sexy. the show interrogates the narrative of the male hero and the concept of violent masculinity it's built upon in a way that both works with the themes of the books but also sometimes challenges the archetypes that the books, as forerunners in modern fantasy, have helped establish.

and so to have sanderson come in and criticize all that, well, it makes his weak attempts at appealing to his overwhelmingly more progressive than he is fandom come across as very shallow. i'm not saying he's a liar—i'm sure he's earnestly trying he's best—just that he seems to simply not understand the subject at all.

which is why i'm curious to see how it translates into his writing. if i can figure out which book to even look at. and if i can conjure up the willpower to stick through a whole book.

[snarktheater]

is anyone even still here

question: what if. i revive this blog. for brandon sanderson extravaganza. would anyone want that. and also what book would y'all recommend.

[snarktheater]

i do feel the need to specify that by "extravaganza" i do mean i expect to be mean. based on everything i know about the man and his writing ethos and how much he fucked up the ending of one of my favorite series

[snarktheater]

is anyone even still here

question: what if. i revive this blog. for brandon sanderson extravaganza. would anyone want that. and also what book would y'all recommend.

[unpretty]

someone put this screenshot in my notes and i wasn't gonna put the op on blast but i cannot stop thinking about it. this is up there as one of the funniest doubling downs i've ever seen. "it's called craft. it's called storytelling." is going to enter my meme vernacular and no one is going to have any idea what i'm talking about. the count of monte cristo shows a clear lack of craft in its wordcount. if only ernest hemingway's editor had killed more of his darlings while he wrote for whom the bell tolls. readers and editors alike are always complaining about how fucking long to kill a mockingbird is.

[ms-demeanor]

Valid Jane Austen Novels:

Northanger Abbey

Persuasion

Kindling:

Sense & Sensibility

Pride & Prejudice

Mansfield Park

Emma

[cipheramnesia]

Really starting to take this whole austerity shit too far huh.

[unpretty]

a theory from @solitarelee in the groupchat last night:

[xiranjayzhao]

Roasted this man for coming for me on TikTok for criticizing publishing's exploitative payment structures but thought what I had to say was worth posting here as well

[ashirisu]

The discourse surrounding publication still seems to regard publishing houses as these all-knowing arbiters of what’s good and popular, and that it is a Privilege™️ if they choose your book to the point that you should be sobbing and grateful over whatever scraps of a deal they deign to offer you.

There’s also a severe misconception that most authors receive enough money from their advances and royalties that they can rest on their laurels and write new books at their leisure. This obviously isn’t true even of bestselling authors! Writing books takes time, effort, and MONEY. If a publishing house wants to benefit from an author’s work and have them continue writing new books to sell, they need to pay them enough money to do so.

Corporations can and will exploit artists in any way they can. Publishing companies profit from selling books way more than the authors themselves do, and it’s not entitled for authors to demand appropriate compensation for the commodities they’re creating. PAY AUTHORS.

[xiranjayzhao]

We do not owe corporations gratitude when WE make their profits

[ruggaboo]

My sister is publishing her first book. She was excited that she got picked up by a publisher. Less excited to find out she had to pay something like $4,000 herself just to get the book published. The publishing house has promised her a LOT and we haven’t really seen them follow through on it (finding cover art, finding a cartographer for the simple map for he front, and they promised to create and host a website for her books as they release). She was astounded when they told her the prices her books were going to be ($35 for a hardback novel and $25 for a softback, aimed at preteens), and moreover how little she’ll be getting back. She’s HOPING to make enough to cover the costs of the next book, and isn’t even pretending that she’ll make any money off this endeavor at all. I’m stupidly proud of her. But I get anxious when she calls me worried about how the publisher isn’t helping her the way she needs to be helped.

[xiranjayzhao]

@ruggaboo Oh NO, I am very sorry to say this but if she has to PAY her publisher to publish, it's not a legit publishing house. It's a scam.

Authors should NEVER have to pay their agent or publisher. That's a glaring red flag. If she hasn't paid anything yet I recommend cutting contact with that "publisher" immediately. At this point she's better off self publishing.

[snarktheater]

Hey, longtime lurker here - I rediscovered your Cassandra Clare snarks during lockdown and they've been a comfort read ever since. If you do finish out Dark Artifices someday I'd read for sure.

i do want to finish them someday. or just skip over them and go straight for the malec books. wasn't she also planning books centered on kit and ty? just give me some gays to be invested in while i bitch about everything else

…though i'd probably need to read TDA anyway for any of them to make sense, right

[snarktheater]

Hello, been a fan of yours for a while (no Tumblr account, though). I recently published a book of my own, and I'd like to say that you were an influence (at least, with respect to character agency). It's available on Amazon KDP (Wyatt Ewert's "Red Knight") in case it interests you in any way. Thanks for all that you've written (and don't feel the need to advertise on my account, by the way)

That is very sweet and also I am lowkey terrified that I'm now officially an influence on writers.

Good luck with all the publishing struggles!

[snarktheater]

I know the Shadowhunter books are old news by now, but I wanted to say that I had so much fun reading your snarks years ago that it inspired me to write actual reviews of the books on goodreads. Usually I have many thoughts that I forget to write down, but there's something so cathartic about putting into proper words all the things that bother me about those books. It also helps me deal with the frustration of finding so many interesting ideas in the story that never live up to their potential.

Aw, it's heartwarming to hear I inspired someone! I agree it's pretty cathartic. I should do it more.

(Also I don't think Shadowhunter is really old news. I'm honestly curious to find out what's been going on in those books.)

[snarktheater]

For the anon talking about mxtx books. The reason you've heard good this about the translation for svss and tcgf is probably bc the, at least for svss, ones who did the fan translations for them are the ones working on the official.

I can't can't vouch at all for mdzs but the ones for svss at least are the fantranslators themselves, I was even following one of them, that's one of the many reasons why a couple of them had to take their work down, it wasn't just that sevenseas had licensing for the stories now but also bc they'd supposedly be going against their contract if they left the translations up.

Well. There you go, then. Neat that they could get hired to do their work professionally, too.

[snarktheater]

oh I didn't mean to imply that the fantranslations are unreadable or something. plenty of folks have gotten into the fandom before the official seven seas translation so it stands to reason that they're at least decent. I just brought it up because I figured it's good to know.

most of the fantranslations have been taken down because of the seven seas licensing of the books but they're easy enough to find if you know where to look. or you could just use the seven seas translation I heard the SVSSS and TGCF ones are pretty good.

not to sound too pressure-y on this I don't have a horse in this race I just started reading them too

Oh I know I'm just not really interested in seeking out fan translations for a running series. The piracy part isn't the problem for me, but vetting a translator and finding one that covers the whole series is just more effort than I'm willing to put in something I'm not particularly invested in when I already have a never-ending TBR pile of other more accessible queer stuff. Which is why I'm curious about the official translation.

[snarktheater]

not the mxtx anon but I'm starting to read her work a bit and yeah her characters are definitely canonically queer. I think the main issue would be translation? because I can just read them in Chinese but I don't think the official Seven Seas is complete (and has some controversy when it comes to the mdzs translations I think?) so you'll have to go with fantranslations, which for one are fantranslations and for two mostly have stopped after the licenced novels have been announced so.

well, has anyone read the translation then? because much as i'd like to learn the language i don't think i could feasibly make enough time to get to the level where i can read a novel in chinese (or if i did, i'd have to have a lexicon next to me and pause every three second to look something up).

[comicaurora]

What Are Your Opinions On Harry Potter's Magic System

"system" is a strong word for that situation

[comicaurora]

The Harry Potter universe screwed itself right out the gate by combining the softest of soft magic systems with setting the entire thing in a school for teaching the protagonist how magic worked, and rather than having to establish hard rules on a soft magic system so it could let the magic school do its job, it split the difference by making Harry such a terrible student that neither he nor the audience ever learns anything about how magic actually works. Hermione does his homework for him. He cheats off Snape’s old textbook. He starts and ends the series with the same spell because it’s poetic and also because to do anything else would’ve required letting him actually learn or grow.

We are given single disconnected data points that smack of hard magic systems - individual magic words with static, concrete consequences and limitations, Accio not working on living creatures, etc - and the implication that, elsewhere in the universe, smarter people than Harry are capable of developing new spells. This implies that there is a system of rules at play here. Mispronouncing a spell or changing the associated wand movement can cause it to have a different effect, meaning the words have power on their own. Is there a language of magic? Well, yes, and it’s Latin, but like - is there a reason these sounds produce these effects? In other systems magic is the language of dragons, or the true names of the souls of the elements and creatures of the world. No such explanation is given here. Spells misfire or are miscast by incompetent wizards or broken wands, resulting in intriguing consequences outside the typical spell parameters, implying an intriguing fluidity to magic that is belied by literally everything we’re officially shown or told. Before going to hogwarts, Harry causes inexplicable phenomena (vanishing glass, uncuttable hair, the world generally warping in small ways to help him out) that is heavily implied to be the result of his magic because what else could it be, but after going to Hogwarts we never see this sort of wild magic again, which is a shame, because it seems like it could’ve been useful.

The magic system of Harry Potter is “if the plot needs a spell, artifact, potion, creature or magical doohicky to exist, it does, and if the plot needs it to NOT exist, it does not.” This is not a magic system because its rules are entirely Doylist, and any possible Watsonian rule systems are purposefully obfuscated to avoid the dreaded Worldbuilding More Than The Surface. One book needs time travel, so now there’s time magic. Later books can’t have time travel, so all the time magic is destroyed. All of it. One book needs luck magic so Harry can waltz through five layers of plot difficulty at once, and this game-breaker is never brought up before or after. Potion-brewing is discussed, but how were all these spells and artifacts created in the first place? Who laid down these restrictive rules on what they can and can’t do? Why can’t our heroes or their teachers make new ones that are more useful? None of these questions can be answered because to do so would require worldbuilding any internal rules, which this story does only when the plot needs those rules to exist.

The magical worldbuilding in Harry Potter is almost literally paper thin. It exists only to produce a surface aesthetic. If you ask a single question about how and why it functions the way it does, you punch through that paper-thin layer and see the needs of the plot laid bare behind it. This is not inherently bad. There are plenty of soft-logic stories that fully commit to the bit. The problem is that Harry Potter is a soft magic system with pretensions of hard-system grandeur. Instead of just owning up to the fact that magic is fickle and does what the plot needs, it seems to say “there ARE rules, and everybody else in the world knows them, but you, the audience surrogate outsider to the system, will never be told what they are.” And Harry is such an incurious, agencyless lump in his own narrative that he never tries to learn or improve. He has no desire to learn how his own magic system works, treating homework as an obligation to fob off on his smart friend while he dicks around playing quidditch and coasting on his magical trust fund. This handily saves the story from ever having to build the hard magic system it insists exists, and instead lets it populate the world with magical creatures and artifacts and potions and an implied population of very interesting, very smart people dealing with how all that stuff actually works while we hang out in Harry’s back pocket watching him complain that his magical school has the audacity to try and make him learn magic.

Blue has also directed me to a relevant clip where Brennan Lee Mulligan and Matthew Mercer discuss this very question. The internal logic of the Harry Potter universe is nonexistant. That’s not inherently a bad thing for a magical setting, but in this case I’m willing to be mean about it. I’ll put up with a lot from a story as long as it commits to the bit, but when the story and author try and convince the audience that the hard complicated worldbuilding is totally actually there and even was there all along, despite all observable evidence, that just makes the whole thing seem insecure and embarrassing. I’m not mad that Harry Potter’s magic system makes no sense, I’m just mad it keeps lying to me about it.