levin@bbncc2 (10/11/85)
From: Joel B Levin <levin@bbncc2.ARPA>
I don't usually respond to this (or any) type of criticism, not being much
of a critic myself, and, since you wrote your message over three days ago,
I am sure you will have received several responses already; I am
nevertheless moved to respond to your critique of Asimov's introduction to
his essay.
You ask: "Could sombody clue me in?" I will offer my personal explanation,
but I expect it won't help. Just as there are people whom you just don't
much like, even though they may themselves have many close friends, I would
guess you simply don't like this aspect of Asimov's writing.
I have been reading Asimov as long as I have been reading SF (almost as
long as I have been reading, over 30 years). He has been writing this way
all that time, usually in introductions to other people's books or to
stories in anthologies, and I always thought he was pretty funny. The clue
that you are seeking must be that lump in his cheek caused by a firmly
planted tongue. If you don't believe that he is humorous when writing in
this vein, then, sure enough, you will find plenty to object to in the
words. I believe it is true of much satire or parody that when a reader
misses the humorous point or tone and takes the words seriously, he or she
will find much that is objectionable. In fact, your message reminds me of
occasional flaming responses to SFL digest articles in which the author
could have, but did not, insert smiley faces. Certainly no author's style
of humor will reach 100% of the audience. I expect you should just count
yourself in that portion which does not care for it, and forget about it.
(Skip over the first part of the F&SF essays if you want to read their
meat.) For me, if this type of writing is amusing, that is enough.
"...why in the hell is this vignette included in a science history
article...?" Because that is what Asimov does in an F&SF essay. It is not
what someone else would do there, and it is not what he would do in a book
or text about science (other than a collection of his essays, of course).
It is what is expected of him, it is what the editor buys. If most readers
had felt the way you do when he began writing in this style, it would not
have lasted this long.
One final note: In the excerpt you quoted, I could find few commas I could
disagree with. I would ADD one after "friends of mine"; I would ADD
another after "would say"; I would ADD another after "and say" in the next
paragraph. A number of the commas he used I would consider optional, and a
couple places could have benefited from an added comma. I am not a
grammarian, but I could remember rules which justify his punctuation in
each case except those I noted. The rules are not followed as carefully as
they once were, and I enjoy seeing (what I think is) proper usage.
/JBL