rob@osiris.UUCP (Robert St. Amant) (05/17/85)
Has anyone taken a look at net.sf-lovers? There is a vast number of postings, and a good number of them are ridiculous. One poster says that he reads science fiction because most of the the great writers active today are in the field. I read sf, but rarely find anything more than bare entertainment. Any comments on different genres? There are authors who break out of the mold occasionally--I like Simenon, and a very few sf writers. Other suggestions, anyone? Rob St. Amant
jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) (05/21/85)
[...] One mustn't fault the SF field for being filled with a lot of hacks. Hacks abound in every field of writing, especially "genre" writing where clever handling of genre elements can make up for mediocrity in the actual prose. (For example, readers of mysteries will forgive pedestrian writing if the mystery itself is well-constructed.) Even the non-genre field is full of writers who are uninspired to say the least. It so happens that in most English-speaking societies, academics and newspaper reviewers pay more attention to "mundane" literature than to genre literature. Heaven knows why this is so; perhaps it is that mundane literature is thought to be more accessible than genre literature. It is certainly more accessible than hard science SF which requires a familiarity with science that more arts-oriented reviewers do not have. (Net users are probably exceptions to this generality -- the very fact that you are using a computer to read this means that you have more technical familiarity than most of the world.) Because mundane literature receives more attention and respect than genre literature, young writers who are learning their craft in traditional universities, colleges, and workshops are often subtly or not-so-subtly directed away from genre writing into mundane literature. (Interruption: in all this, I use the term "mundane" to mean non-genre or "mainstream" writing. It refers to general content, not quality.) Having gone to a number of workshops and writing classes, I have seen this happen many times. Young writers are encouraged when they write down-to-earth things and discouraged when they approach the fantastic. As a result, the best trained, best educated writers are funnelled into mundane writing. On the other hand, there are a large number of writers now who are breaking out of this mold in response to inner urgings, the spirit of the times, or whatever. Doris Lessing, for example, has now written five SF novels. I have read that she has had to put up with a lot of criticism from the British writing establishment -- SF is not respectable literature, even though her SF novels have the same quality of prose and thought as all her other work. Other excellent writers are also introducing SF and fantasy elements into their work, but for some reason, SF still remains less than respectable. This is not true in non-English literature. Latin American literature is rife with fantastic elements and has been for decades. For some reason, the same academics who pooh-pooh SF in general are currently lionizing the Latin Americans for the same sort of ideas. One of the nicest arguments I've seen in favour of SF vs. other fields of literature is made by Samuel R. Delany, an SF writer who deserves to be ranked among the great writers of our day, regardless of genre. Delany points out that SF stories can say anything that a non-SF story can, but that the reverse is not true. This works on very low levels like sentence structure -- Delany cites the sentence "The door dilated" from a Heinlein novel as a sentence that could never appear in a mundane piece -- and on higher levels, where the author simply has a wider range of ways to convey character details, thematic points, philosophical ideas, and so on. This is not to say that SF writers are better than others; as I have said, there is a selective process which tends to channel many good writers away from SF. But SF offers authors a wider scope for their imaginations and creativity. The best SF writers (e.g. Delany and Gene Wolfe) make full use of that scope. As for the rest...there's a lot to be said for a good story, and these days, masterpieces are few and far between in any field. Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo
waltt@tekecs.UUCP (Walt Tucker) (05/22/85)
> Has anyone taken a look at net.sf-lovers? There is a vast number of > postings, and a good number of them are ridiculous. One poster says > that he reads science fiction because most of the the great writers > active today are in the field. I read sf, but rarely find anything > more than bare entertainment. Any comments on different genres? > There are authors who break out of the mold occasionally--I like > Simenon, and a very few sf writers. Other suggestions, anyone? > > Rob St. Amant (this reply covers about four years; I'm not that voracious of a reader!) I tend to read a lot of different types of books. I primarily grew up on science fiction, and still have about three shelves full of the stuff. However, in the last few years I've moved more towards contemporary or "classical" fiction (I know that is a broad category). Some of the more recent authors (last 3 or 4 years) I've read have been Michener (five books worth), Tom Wolfe, John Updike, Edgar Allen Poe, Stephen Crane, George Orwell, Erskine Caldwell ("Tobacco Road" and "Gods Little Acre"). In a recent college class, I sampled Cheever, Steinbeck, Shirley Jackson, Conrad, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and a score of others. Tom Robbins (Even Cowgirls get the Blues), Nevill Shute (On the Beach), Steinbeck (Grapes of Wrath) are in the queue. I have currently just started "Megatrends" (John Naisbitt). On the sf side, I completed the "Riverworld" Series by Phillip Jose Farmer, "Icerigger" by Alan Dean Foster", three books of the "Cities in Flight" quadology (James Blish), "A Canticle for Leibowitz", "The X Factor" (Andre Norton), and "2010: Oddessy Two" (Arthur C. Clarke). I read "The X Factor" as a respite. I had just finished Michener's "The Covenant" (1250 Pages), and thought I would settle down with some pulp sf. That is exactly what I got. Reading Norton's "The X Factor" back to back with "The Covenant" brought home how bad some science fiction can be. The plot in TXF jumped around, the characters were mere cardboard, and the ending left much to be desired. From that one book, it appears Michener and Norton are on extreme ends of the literary spectrum (don't get me wrong -- there are other Norton books I've read that are much better, but Norton is still no comparison with Michener). The "Cities in Flight" quadology ranked down near the bottom of my literature list with TXF. Having heard a few good things about this series, and enjoying Blish's "Star Trek" adaptations in high school, I expected to really enjoy this. The first book was nothing but mediocre. By the second book, I knew I didn't really want to finish this series. But, not being a quitter, I jumped into the third book, hoping it got better. No luck. I finally filed the fourth book away unread, where it has been sitting for the last two years. In a nutshell, there was nothing in this series that enticed me to keep read. The four Blish books only comprised 600 pages. I find more motivation to finish a 1200 page Michener book than I did in this entire series. The "Riverworld" Series was better than "CIF". At least I finished all four books. However, the problems with this series were remeniscant (sp?) of "The X Factor". Farmer didn't jump off on imaginary technical tangents like Blish did, and I actually "got into" the books (as opposed to "wading through" them), but there was still no comparison to some of the other authors. The characters never really developed. Also, it seems that the plot wasn't well thought out over the entire series (each book was rather interesting). The entire series suffered from a "Oh no, here's a plot crisis. Let's invent a new character, new device, or new plot twist (inconsistant with the old) to solve the crisis." syndrome. This is probably what really happened, as the first and last book of the series were written ten years appart. If you read the first book in the series (which asks questions) and the last book in the series (which answers the questions), the entire flavor each book is different. Both Clarke (2010) and John Updike (Rabbit is Rich) wrote sequels to books published years earlier and captured more consistancy than Farmer did. I read "Canticle for Liebowitz" primarily because of the promotion on this net. It had great potential. After the first third of the book (when the bomb shelter was discovered), I expected great things and a great story. The book really had my interest. Alas, it sort of waned from there. The book presented many questions, without satisfactory answers (nothing wrong with this, as in 2001, but the plot moved through 1600 years with an unsucceeding attempt at resolution). Who was the hermit? Why was he there? What did the two headed being at the end represent? The book never satisfactorly answered my questions. I didn't really care to look on a symbolic level. I really wanted to be entertained. For me, CFL ranked slightly above mediocrety. I can think of better science fiction novels to make into a movie. "Icerigger" was good. I liked it. From this book, I can't say Foster is "one of the great writers around today", but I'll probably buy another one of his books. Now, the last one. Arthur C. Clarke is one of my all-time favorite writers. I think he ranks up there with the list of others I presented at the beginning of this article. I have about 20 of his books in my shelves. "2010" proved that he still has it. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It was excellent (read it!). Instead of making "Canticle for Leibowitz" into a movie, how about "Childhood's End". In closing, I don't want you to think I am totally down on science fiction. Arthur C. Clarke is one of my favorite writers. So is Robert Heinlein (I have about 30 of his books), but his more recent stuff is not on par with his older stuff. I also enjoy Asimov, and Bradbury is one of my favorite writers, too (although he borders on fantasy writing). H.G. Wells is excellent, too. But, to make the statement, > that he reads science fiction because most of the the great writers > active today are in the field. is slightly ridiculous, although there are some great writers (consider Vonnegut, which I haven't read). Consider expanding your horizons by venturing into another genre of book. Read some Michener, Updike, Robbins, Hunter Thompson, Caldwell or others. I'm glad I did. -- Walt Tucker Tektronix, Inc. P.S. -- I'll pose a counter-question I've been curious about for some time Why do people in technical fields tend towards "escapist" entertainment (not only science fiction, but role playing games, the SCA, etc) more than people in other fields? Is there something inherent in the work or the water?
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) (05/23/85)
In article <14580@watmath.UUCP> jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) writes: >[...] > >Because mundane literature receives more attention and respect than genre >literature... >I have read that she has had to put up with a lot of >criticism from the British writing establishment -- SF is not respectable >literature, even though her SF novels have the same quality of prose >and thought as all her other work. Agreed. Another case in point: a few (well... many) years ago I took a course in Comparative Literature here at the university entitled "Fantasy and Science Fiction." I remember the professor commenting that she had to put up with a lot of flack from her peers for stooping to such dizzying depths. (And she didn't even assign any Heinlein!) -- -joel {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!plutchak ******************************************** Honk if you love silence ********************************************
wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly) (05/25/85)
> Has anyone taken a look at net.sf-lovers? There is a vast number of > postings, and a good number of them are ridiculous. One poster says > that he reads science fiction because most of the the great writers > active today are in the field. You think that's ridiculous, you should have caught the exchange a few months ago on the 'greatest book in the English language in the 20th century.' Want to guess the genre? > I read sf, but rarely find anything > more than bare entertainment. Any comments on different genres? Don't judge all readers of net.sf-lovers by the rantings of a few, or the whole SF genre by the books you've read. Here are a few SF books that may alter your opinion of the genre: The Crystal World, by J. G. Ballard Engine Summer, by John Crowley Stars In My Pocket Like Grains of Sand, by Samuel Delaney The Dispossessed, by Ursula K. LeGuin The Cyberiad, by Stanislaw Lem Solaris, by Stanislaw Lem Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang, by Kate Wilhelm The Fifth Head Of Cerberus, by Gene Wolfe I hope you can find some of these books, and that you enjoy them. Several of them are probably out of print, so you'll have to dig around in used book stores and libraries for them. A couple of additional works by Stanislaw Lem worth looking at are Mortal Engines, a book of imaginary introductions to imaginary books, and A Perfect Vacuum, a book of imaginary reviews of imaginary books. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
thomas@utah-gr.UUCP (Spencer W. Thomas) (05/26/85)
There was an interesting "editorial" in the book review column of this
month's Asimov's SF (don't have it here, so I don't know if it is June,
July, Aug, or Sept :-). Recommended reading if you are interested in a
comparison between "mainstream" and "genre" literature.
--
=Spencer ({ihnp4,decvax}!utah-cs!thomas, thomas@utah-cs.ARPA)
"There are only the pursued, the pursuing, the busy, and the tired."
- F. Scott Fitzgeraldjulian@osu-eddie.UUCP (Julian Gomez) (05/30/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PROSE ***
Remember they said DH Lawrence (for example) wrote "garbage" and
"trash" when his spicier works first came out.
--
Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez
The Ohio State University
{ucbvax,decvax}!cbosg!osu-eddie!julianmichaelk@azure.UUCP (Michael Kersenbrock) (05/30/85)
[] There are at least several decent SF books availiable. These include a Brave New World, "1984", Farenheit 451, and the like. More may come to mind with a bit of thought. Does "Rearden Metal" (static power, etc) allow "Atlas Shrugged" to count as SF? Probably not, but then again.... Mike Kersenbrock Tektronix Microcomputer Development Products Aloha, Oregon
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (06/02/85)
> > There are at least several decent SF books availiable. > These include a Brave New World, "1984", Farenheit 451, and the like. > My, fond of anti-utopias, aren't we? I, for one, would hesitate to classify any of these as SF. Give me A.C. Clark any day. Jeff M.
brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) (06/03/85)
> *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PROSE *** > > Remember they said DH Lawrence (for example) wrote "garbage" and > "trash" when his spicier works first came out. > -- > Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez > The Ohio State University > {ucbvax,decvax}!cbosg!osu-eddie!julian Er, DH Lawrence is a her. I think her works, spicier and otherwise, aren't really very good. She insists on explaining what her characters are like, rather than showing it, and I've never been able to identify with any of them. -- SKZB
leiby@masscomp.UUCP (Mike Leibensperger) (06/05/85)
In article <208@hyper.UUCP> brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) writes: > Er, DH Lawrence is a her. I think her works, spicier and > otherwise, aren't really very good. She insists on explaining > what her characters are like, rather than showing it, and > I've never been able to identify with any of them. You must have your D.H.'s confused. The D.H. Lawrence to whom Julian refers is David H. Lawrence, an English author of the Modern period (I think that's what it's called-- been a long time since English Lit. 305) whose primary theme is redemption through sensuality. His works are mostly set in the coal producing areas of England, near Nottingham and Newcastle. "Who needs a hobby, Like tennis, or philately? I've got a hobby Re-reading 'Lady Chatterley'!" -- Tom Lehrer -- Rt. Rev. Mike Leibensperger, Archbishop of Chelmsford Church of St. Clint the Righteous ("Feel lucky, Pink Boy?") Masscomp; 1 Technology Park; Westford, MA 01886 {decvax,harpo,tektronix}!masscomp!leiby
clarise@petfe.UUCP (Clarise Samuels) (06/05/85)
D(avid) H(erbert) Lawrence, English novelist, 1885-1930, is not a her.
julian@osu-eddie.UUCP (Julian Gomez) (06/10/85)
> > Remember they said DH Lawrence (for example) wrote "garbage" and > > "trash" when his spicier works first came out. > > Er, DH Lawrence is a her. I think her works, spicier and > otherwise, aren't really very good. She insists on explaining > ... David Herbert Lawrence (1885-1930) The son of a coal miner, ... See, for example, "The Random House Encyclopedia", New Revised Edition p.2360 -- Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez The Ohio State University {ucbvax,decvax}!cbosg!osu-eddie!julian
dat@hpcnoa.UUCP (dat) (06/14/85)
Actually, for really interesting Science Fiction, I would
recommend going back in time a few dozen years and reading such
wonderful (but obscure) books as;
"We",
"Land Under England",
"Enslaved Brains",
or "Metropolis".
(Unfortunately, I cannot remember any of the Authors' names...but they
are all good (especially the first two) interesting stories)
Side note: Any other recommendations on books that deal with
political problems in a readable way?
I know of;
Land Under England, We, 1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World,
and Utopia.
Thanks
-- Dave Taylor
HP - Colorado Networks Operationlum@osu-eddie.UUCP (Lum Johnson) (06/15/85)
"We" is by Yevgeny Zamyatin. "Born in Russia in 1884, Yevgeny Zamyatin was the commanding presence of Russian literature in the 1920s. Denied publication in Russia, WE, when first published in the West was hailed as one of the most astonishing novels of the century. Hounded out of his native country, Zamyatin died a lonely exile in Paris in 1937." -- Bantam edition biography "One of the great novels of the twentieth century, a brilliant, imagin- ative arraignment of totalitarianism. I hope it will be widely read." -- Irving Howe Highly recommendable. Thanks for reminding me about this one. Lum Johnson ..!cbosgd!osu-eddie!lum or lum@osu-eddie.uucp