On 2 April 2012 22:38, Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I don't mean to be harsh to the list, but I wouldn't expect Karen and her friends to go on and on about how unprofessional and shallow Conlang members' fiction writing is (especially of the amateurs among us). Nor would I expect Conlang members to be quite as critical of other members' beginning conlangs as they are of Mando'a. Constructively critical, yes, but not so dismissive.
I would expect them to do so if unprofessional and shallow fiction
were actually published, though. Once something is printed in an
actual book (and not via vanity press), there's an expectation that it
conform to a higher level of quality.
At the possible risk of offending someone who likes _Eragon_, it's
like when people say "It's pretty good for something written by a
19-year-old". Well, yeah, but that's not the relevant metric. One can
say "it's good for providing some flavor to a Star Wars novel with a
linguistically naive audience", and that may be perfectly true and a
perfectly valid goal and we may be pleased that it successfully
fulfills its design goals. But that's irrelevant to the analysis of
whether or not it's good *as a conlang*, or how annoyed one might get
over the fact that *bad conlang* was published.