(offtopic grumbling) Crap is more popular

[Rast]

Has anyone else noticed that as popular good authors turn crappy, they
actually get more popular? And that as their fandom gets larger, it
gets much stupider?

example 1: Wheel of Time circa the first 3-4 books vs now

example 2: GRRM

example 3: Stephen King's Dark Tower series after 3 books vs after 6.
(the 7th and final book culled that fandom back pretty hard though.
Even the dumbest fans usually don't like being shat directly upon.)

example 4 (hence the DND newsgroup crosspost): Order of the Stick
circa #200 vs now (#841, and no end in sight and very little DND or
humor remaining, and certainly no DND humor)

[Chucky & Janica]

Post by Rast
Has anyone else noticed that as popular good authors turn crappy, they
actually get more popular? And that as their fandom gets larger, it
gets much stupider?

The second point is pretty obvious. The more people gather anywhere,
the more likely they are to be stupid.

Post by Rast
example 1: Wheel of Time circa the first 3-4 books vs now
example 2: GRRM

This is only likely to get worse now that the TV show has opened the
story to a whole new wave of illiterates who don't even realise "A
Game of Thrones" is only the name of the first book (actually, the
makers of the TV series don't seem to realise this either, what the
fuck is "A Game of Thrones Season 2"?). On the plus side, also new
readers.

Post by Rast
example 3: Stephen King's Dark Tower series after 3 books vs after 6.

Yeah well, this is "I liked it before it was cool" syndrome.

Post by Rast
(the 7th and final book culled that fandom back pretty hard though.
Even the dumbest fans usually don't like being shat directly upon.)

I liked the ending. There were a couple of books in there that could
have been edited, and I didn't like the way he ended it for a lot of
the characters, but hey, it's his story and he's got to tell it.

Not sure I like the way he's now writing more Dark Tower books,
though. I thought it was meant to be over. Of course, I'll still read
them. Even if they're prequels.

Post by Rast
example 4 (hence the DND newsgroup crosspost): Order of the Stick
circa #200 vs now (#841, and no end in sight and very little DND or
humor remaining, and certainly no DND humor)

Yeah, haven't read this in a year or more, but it was really slowing
down and getting bogged around (what in the non-webcomic world was
called) Paladin Blues.

Still kinda liked it, though. I guess there's only so many jokes you
can tell where "oh look, they're actually PCs in a roleplaying game".




C&J

[Taemon]

Post by Chucky & Janica

Post by Rast
example 3: Stephen King's Dark Tower series after 3 books vs after 6.

Yeah well, this is "I liked it before it was cool" syndrome.

Heh.

Post by Chucky & Janica
Yeah, haven't read this in a year or more, but it was really slowing
down and getting bogged around (what in the non-webcomic world was
called) Paladin Blues.

Rick's on a roll (sorry) these last weeks. I really like OotS, always have.
You never know what to expect. But I would love him always anyway because of
"ending your sentence on a semicolon".

Anyway, I have never understood what is popular for what reasons. I'm in a
store, I hear some generic soulless muzak, turns out it's from some wildly
popular prize-winning artist. I stopped being bothered a long while ago.

But hey, ranting is always fun!

T.

[Larry]

Post by Chucky & Janica
The second point is pretty obvious. The more people gather anywhere,
the more likely they are to be stupid.

Isn't that a classic law of human society? "The intelligence of a group is
inversely proportional to the size of the group." There is also, "Three
people is the largest committee that will ever decide anything."

[LL]

Post by Larry

Post by Chucky & Janica
The second point is pretty obvious. The more people gather anywhere,
the more likely they are to be stupid.

Isn't that a classic law of human society? "The intelligence of a group is

The Int of an _unorganized_ group, otherwise the leader's
or leaders' Int or lack thereoff might be the most important.

Post by Larry
inversely proportional to the size of the group." There is also,
"Three people is the largest committee that will ever decide
anything."

Then again: Imagine how stupid the average person is........got it?
...now realize that half of the people is actually dumber than that. ;-)

And just because this goes out to rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan:
even Alan Burt Akers is better than Wheel of Time :-P

Cheers
LL

[Chucky & Janica]

Post by LL

Post by Larry

Post by Chucky & Janica
The second point is pretty obvious. The more people gather anywhere,
the more likely they are to be stupid.

Isn't that a classic law of human society? "The intelligence of a group is

The Int of an _unorganized_ group, otherwise the leader's
or leaders' Int or lack thereoff might be the most important.

Wow, what country do you live in? I want to go there. But I suspect I
would need a spaceship.




C&J

[LL]

Post by Chucky & Janica

Post by LL

Post by Larry

Post by Chucky & Janica
The second point is pretty obvious. The more people gather anywhere,
the more likely they are to be stupid.

Isn't that a classic law of human society? "The intelligence of a group is

The Int of an _unorganized_ group, otherwise the leader's
or leaders' Int or lack thereoff might be the most important.

Wow, what country do you live in? I want to go there. But I suspect I
would need a spaceship.

Look at sport, police, military, or project teams. What would be the
point of building groups if group Int would suffer that much from
individual member's Int?
It's fun to trash talk about the stupid mob and feel all individual and
hip, but the truth is: humans are much more intelligent and efficient
in groups...and groups of groups. The lone genius rather being the
exception than the rule. And still he needs society's support to be
the lone genius...quite smart of society to support him, me thinks. ;-)

LL

[Chucky@Work]

Post by LL

Post by Chucky & Janica

Post by LL
The Int of an _unorganized_ group, otherwise the leader's
or leaders' Int or lack thereoff might be the most important.

Wow, what country do you live in? I want to go there. But I suspect I
would need a spaceship.

Look at sport, police, military, or project teams. What would be the
point of building groups if group Int would suffer that much from
individual member's Int?

The point in sport is that most team sports with a team of one would
be boring.

The more police, military, or workers contributing to a project,
generally, the bigger chance there is of a massive clusterfuck, so
those are bad examples. In fact, the whole term "clusterfuck" comes
from this very phenomenon. If it doesn't involve a group, it's just a
fuck, and that's sort of acceptable. Fun, even, if done properly.

Post by LL
It's fun to trash talk about the stupid mob and feel all individual and
hip, but the truth is: humans are much more intelligent and efficient
in groups...and groups of groups.

Don't buy it.

Post by LL
The lone genius rather being the
exception than the rule. And still he needs society's support to be
the lone genius...quite smart of society to support him, me thinks. ;-)

I quite agree on the fact that society, as a "group", lends stability
and basic capability to the individual. This doesn't make people en
masse superior to people on an individual basis when it comes to
intelligence and rationality.

As the great K once said, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky
dangerous animals and you know it."



- ***@w

[Chucky & Janica]

Post by Larry

Post by Chucky & Janica
The second point is pretty obvious. The more people gather anywhere,
the more likely they are to be stupid.

Isn't that a classic law of human society? "The intelligence of a group is
inversely proportional to the size of the group." There is also, "Three
people is the largest committee that will ever decide anything."

I think it was Pratchett who said the IQ of any mob is the IQ of the
stupidest person in the mob, divided by the number of people in the
mob.

And you'd think this only applies to disorganised groups of humanity
... but no.




C&J

[Rast]

Chucky & Janica wrote...

Post by Chucky & Janica

Post by Rast
example 3: Stephen King's Dark Tower series after 3 books vs after 6.

Yeah well, this is "I liked it before it was cool" syndrome.

Not really; I started reading the series in about 2000.

Post by Chucky & Janica

Post by Rast
(the 7th and final book culled that fandom back pretty hard though.
Even the dumbest fans usually don't like being shat directly upon.)

I liked the ending. There were a couple of books in there that could
have been edited, and I didn't like the way he ended it for a lot of
the characters, but hey, it's his story and he's got to tell it.

There's no accounting for taste, as they say. IMO King's story sucks
in a lot of places, specifically "everything after he got hit by a van
IRL".

Post by Chucky & Janica
Not sure I like the way he's now writing more Dark Tower books,
though. I thought it was meant to be over. Of course, I'll still read
them. Even if they're prequels.

Huh, I didn't know.

According to wikipedia, it's set between books 4 and 5. Seems to me it
would have made sense to have given us that instead of book 4, which
was just a prequel that had almost nothing to do with the rest of the
series.

[Chucky & Janica]

Post by Rast

Post by Chucky & Janica
Not sure I like the way he's now writing more Dark Tower books,
though. I thought it was meant to be over. Of course, I'll still read
them. Even if they're prequels.

Huh, I didn't know.
According to wikipedia, it's set between books 4 and 5. Seems to me it
would have made sense to have given us that instead of book 4, which
was just a prequel that had almost nothing to do with the rest of the
series.

Hmm. I don't get it. It sounds like Highlander 3. There can't be any
tension because you know everyone survives.



C&J

[tussock]

Post by Rast
Has anyone else noticed that as popular good authors turn crappy, they
actually get more popular? And that as their fandom gets larger, it
gets much stupider?

The usual process is that they sell enough for the mass media to get on
board, because it's already ancient news for anyone who cares. Once the mass
media are on board, it's a license to print money. See the Potterverse, and
that creepy fucking sparkle vampire series (creepy, as in abusive, micro-
controlling, stalker worshipping, not as in supernatural).

Then the authors demand editorial control and it all goes to shit,
because editors are vastly more important to a good book that authors are.
Like a good caddy and a golfer. The pay scale's just the wrong way, because
there's more good editors than there are good authors.


Crap's not more popular, it's just that popular shit is given the
freedom to turn back into crap, and popularity is sticky and contagious
despite that. A-hem, like *Dungeons & Dragons*, wordy-ass pretentious low-
grade art-books full of shitty rules no one even uses.

Post by Rast
example 1: Wheel of Time circa the first 3-4 books vs now
example 2: GRRM
example 3: Stephen King's Dark Tower series after 3 books vs after 6.
(the 7th and final book culled that fandom back pretty hard though.
Even the dumbest fans usually don't like being shat directly upon.)
example 4 (hence the DND newsgroup crosspost): Order of the Stick
circa #200 vs now (#841, and no end in sight and very little DND or
humor remaining, and certainly no DND humor)

Rich fucking Burlew just got given a million dollars to make an OOTS
book, directly from his fanbase. You can't really argue with that, in
commercial terms. Dude has made it, drawing crappy fucking humorless never-
do-anything stick figures on the internet, because they got popular.

He's so proud there's a single panel with perspective in it in the last
one. Like, you know, he spent more than 10 minutes drawing it.

Suck on that, genuinely talented artists. Bo-yah!

[David DeLaney]

Post by tussock

Post by Rast
example 4 (hence the DND newsgroup crosspost): Order of the Stick
circa #200 vs now (#841, and no end in sight and very little DND or
humor remaining, and certainly no DND humor)

Rich fucking Burlew just got given a million dollars to make an OOTS
book, directly from his fanbase. You can't really argue with that, in
commercial terms. Dude has made it, drawing crappy fucking humorless never-
do-anything stick figures on the internet, because they got popular.

1.25 million dollah, actually. Kickstarter Was Not Prepared.

And I think you couldn't replicate his art style without a good deal of
trying... and he makes you CARE about the antics of the cfhn-d-a stick
figures. That takes some talent.

Dave "but you're not bitter" DeLaney

[Chucky & Janica]

Post by David DeLaney
And I think you couldn't replicate his art style without a good deal of
trying... and he makes you CARE about the antics of the cfhn-d-a stick
figures. That takes some talent.
Dave "but you're not bitter" DeLaney

My thoughts exactly.

Not sure if he'll see your response though, if you removed the
crosspost. Or did you just remove it from follow-ups? Are the
arguments about crossposts even valid anymore (if they ever were to
start with)?




C&J

[fingolfinon]

1. It's hard to keep going with something good without having it turn to crap.
2. If something is good, more and more people will find out about it.

Both of these things happen at the same time, independent of each other. But it ends up appearing that the are related: the more people love it, the crappier it gets; or the crappier it gets, the more people love it.

Good stuff can't be made on purpose. It sometimes just happens, and then you futilely try to keep it that way.