Re: Reactions to the secret vice (was: Steg's wonderful sig.)

>Okay.  That in itself is a little harsh.  Some of our fiercest critics
>come from the "fantasy crowd," Dan.
    I'm suprised. But on second thought, maybe I shouldn't be.
Come to think of it, even among artists, musicians and other creative
people, there are those who create only toward practical aims
(money, fame, etc.) and those who create because they can't
not create. (And IMHO, some of the finest creations came to be
because the artist/musician/etc. was commissioned and worked
to a deadline for a profit.) For someone who creates, but never
without an ulterior motive, understanding "pure creativity" could be
difficult (and I daresay, it works in the other direction just as well!)
Same thing in the sciences: the notorious "feud" between those
in the applied sciences and those in the theoretical sciences.

>  I told everybody the story
>of my trip to Albacon where a fellow writer calmly denounced the
>whole obsession of language invention as completely uninteresting
>and wasteful.  Why invent languages down to the very participle when
>you could be spending that time writing about your fantasy worlds in
>exquisite novels that millions of people could understand and would
>earn you money?  YOu know, she's got a point.  I've pondered it.
    A very good point. As seen from a writer's perspective, I suppose
that getting that book into existence is the main thing, and measuring
"pure" creativity with that ruler will obviously not give conlanging much
value.
    On the other hand, if self-fulfilment is the standard, both conlanging
and writing detailed fantasies are IMHO both equally valid.
    The problem is, of course, time/energy. I'd certainly like 48-hour days!
But you know  the law [I forget its name]: Work expands to fill up the
available time! (:-P)


Dan Sulani


--------------------------------------------------------------------
likehsna rtem zuv tikuhnuh auag inuvuz vaka'a.

A word is an awesome thing.