mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/26/85)
In article <515@baylor.UUCP> peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >Science fiction is, as you say, the literature of ideas. Unlike other >forms of literature the background has prominence over the characters. >Thus it is that very bad works of literature are very good SF. The >occasional exceptional author can produce a book that's both good SF >and "art". It's my opinion, totally unsubstantiated by statistical >analysis of course, that the % of good literature in SF is probably >about the same as in other forms of fiction... it's just that, since >SF has other, orthogonal, standards to meet that may take precedence >over the quality of the writing (look at Robert Heinlein, even his good >stuff), certain books get raved about by the SF community that the >mainstream wouldn't even consider reading. This gets up the critics >nose, since he doesn't realise that there might be other criteria for >judging a work, so he posts abominable reviews such as the one referenced >above. >No, folks, we're not anti-art. We just have other things to look for >than superb characterisation and brilliant prose. If the book has these >as well, great. But it doesn't stand or fall on them. I've heard this argument before, but I still doubt its merit. Let me begin by considering a few extreme cases. First, take _Rendezvous with Rama_, by Arthur C. Clarke. This is essentially an essay on how one might go about building an "ark-ship"; plot and characterization are there simply to move the reader about in the spaceship. This certainly is "literature of ideas", but it is far indeed from storytelling. For our second course, let us consider a Heinlein book, in this case, _Glory Road_. Now it a certain strange sense this is still "literature of ideas" (about how to run a galactic empire), but the thing that makes it tick is a fairly standard sort of adventure story, which could just as well been decorated with the trappings of "high fantasy" rather than "high technology". And finally, let me suggest a couple of books which I think could be considered literature in the classical sense: _The Lather of Heaven_ by LeGuin, and _Gateway_ by Fred Pohl. In a sense, both of these are "literature of ideas", since both of them play with the question of "what would happen if we did thus-and-such to the world?" But they are also, I would argue, literature in the classical sense; they both are statements about the nature of man, and attempt a better (or perhaps only different) understanding. It seems to me that the vast bulk of SF (and fantasy in general, for that matter) falls into the first two categories. There are very few authors with a consistent interest in the themes of Literature. It is also true that many critics look down upon SF because (a) people don't have these interests, and (b) stylistically, SF is very conservative, with quite straightfoward narrative style. Nevertheless, I think that it is fair to criticize SF for its shallowness. It's very easy to write essays in fictional drag, or to dress up horror or adventure stories with random SF elements. The bald fact is, however, that few authors are willing even to risk writing something that can hold up to some sort of introspection and analysis. Charley Wingate
news@stc.UUCP (Network News System) (08/28/85)
In article <1381@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >the classical sense: _The Lather of Heaven_ by LeGuin, and _Gateway_ by Fred ^^^^^^ | Was this space opera or soap opera? (|:=) <schoolboy smirk>
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (09/03/85)
OK. You gave "Rendezvous with Rama" as one example, and "Glory Road" as
another. I don't see that this is in any way a refutation of my thesis.
Even throwing in LeGuin and a few other authors doesn't change things.
Item: Leguin and the other authors you mentioned with her are outside the
domain of SF. So, I think, are the other authors you mentioned. One must
distinguish between SF and literature with an SF background. Stephen King
writes plenty of the latter, but I don't believe he has provided one new theme.
Item: Most of Clarke's writings, and now Bob Forwards, are pretty bad
literature, but they succeed by fulfilling the other and I believe more
important goal of being great SF. It is possible to write great SF by
concentrating on the SF aspect. It is not possible to do so by concentrating
on the literature. See, for example, the works of Stephen King.
Item: 90% of SF is crud. So is 90% of everything else. How many romances are
great works of literature? How many westerns?
Item: Counterexamples to the assertion that SF is stylistically flat: The
Demolished Man, Golem 100,...
--
Peter (Made in Australia) da Silva
UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter
MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076Purtill.StudentNS@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA (09/14/85)
From: Mark Purtill <Purtill@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA> <Fnord> >[responding to Charley Wingate, Peter da Silva writes:] >Item: Leguin and the other authors you mentioned with her are >outside the domain of SF. So, I think, are the other authors you >mentioned. One must distinguish between SF and literature with an SF >background. Stephen King writes plenty of the latter, but I don't >believe he has provided one new theme. You don't think Le Guin writes SF? Or Fred Pohl (one of the "other authors" Charley Wingate mentioned)? You must have a very narrow view of what "SF" means, and I don't think this perception is shared by most readers of "SF." I also don't understand your distinction between "SF" and "literature with an SF background." Citing Stephen King is little help as (1) I've never read anything by him, and (2) I was under the impression that he mostly wrote "horror" stuff. To me, "SF" means what we point to and say "that's SF." (Does anyone out there know who came up with that definition? I'm sure I read it somewhere...) It's not a very satisfactory definition, but anything excludes works that are "clearly" SF and/or includes works that equally "clearly" aren't. Anyway, certainly Lequin's _The Lathe of Heaven_ and Pohl's _Gateway_ are SF. Mark ^.-.^ Purtill at MIT-MULTICS.ARPA **Insert favorite disclaimer here** ((")) 2-229 MIT Cambrige MA 02139
dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) (09/16/85)
> Item: Counterexamples to the assertion that SF is stylistically flat: The > Demolished Man, Golem 100,... Golem 100? you call it style, I call it absolute unadulterated trash. Yuck, ick, wash my eyes out with soap. I did, however, like The Demolished Man. David Albrecht
horton@fortune.UUCP (Randy Horton) (09/18/85)
> >To me, "SF" means what we point to and say "that's SF." (Does anyone >out there know who came up with that definition? I'm sure I read it >somewhere...) I could easily be wrong, but I believe that this was originated by S.I. Hayakawa in his book *Language in Thought and Action*. If not originated then perhaps first popularized. By the way, for people interested in Language and meanings of words, this book is reccomended readig. -- +---------------------------------------------+ | allegra\ Randy Horton @ Fortune Systems | | cbosgd \ | | dual >!fortune!ranhome!randy | | ihnp4 / | | nsc / Clever disclaimer goes here | +---------------------------------------------+
norman@lasspvax.UUCP (Norman Ramsey) (09/18/85)
I believe it was Damon Knight who first said "Science fiction is what I
point at."
--
Norman Ramsey
ARPA: norman@lasspvax -- or -- norman%lasspvax@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu
UUCP: {ihnp4,allegra,...}!cornell!lasspvax!norman
BITNET: (in desperation only) ZSYJARTJ at CORNELLA
US Mail: Dept Physics, Clark Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853
Telephone: (607)-256-3944 (work) (607)-272-7750 (home)tom@utcsri.UUCP (Tom Nadas) (09/20/85)
i'm pretty sure that Damon Knight, editor of the Orbit series of original anthologies and driving force behind the Clarion SF writing workshops, coined the phrase about SF being what's being pointed to at the moment. rjs