ZEVE@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (09/17/85)
From: Steven J. Zeve <ZEVE@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> "Artsy" things can be a problem, especially in books; so many of them fail. When they fail, they come across so hopelessly self-conscious and pretentious that they can be almost painful to read. (and 90% of them will probably be failures, remember Sturgeon's law) The problem seems to me to be that a great deal of the "artsy" books are written be lesser writers. Sometimes lesser because they haven't served their "apprenticeship" and learned their craft or thye just don't have the talent; yet they decide to storm the literary world and prove their "worth" by doing their "artsy" magnum opus which will prove that they are the new James Joyce, or William Shakespeare, or <fill your favorite great writer>. Have set off with great and ponderous deliberation they just keep rolling down hill spewing out words (much like this sentence) without knowing where to stop. All of this is not to say that there are no good "artsy" books or stories, I am not truly literate enough to pass that kind of jdgement. Rather, in my somewhat rambling opinion, I mean to say that the good ones are swamped by the bad ones. The truly great produce great works naturally, they don't set out (usually) to produce the "ultimate" book or to prove themselves to be the equal of whoever, they just do it; or if they do set out on such a course, sheer talent carries them until they're past the foolishness (usually). It is not the intention of producing a work of art that motivates them, it is the work of art itself calling out, demanding, to be born. To me, this is why the hack "artsy" works hurt so much to read. It is also why I am willing to read books like Gene Wolfe's works or Stephen Donaldson's (if he would just learn the craft that goes with his talent and cut out the purple portions) or Edgar Pangborn's; these works are important and they shine even when you don't understand all of what they are saying (and I never have, but they are so beautiful to read). Even the failed experiments by the really talented are worth something for what they can show us of the talent itself or of its limits. I suppose, I shall have to read Dahlgren now and find out what I think of it. And if I really can stand by what I've just said. Steve Z. p.s. A few digests back, someone made a comment about Delany insisting on Dahlgren going out unedited. I found that interesting because I had heard (several years ago) rumors that Dahlgren had suffered from massive editing that was supposed to have hurt the book. -------