moreau%babel.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (08/19/85)
From: moreau%babel.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Ken Moreau, ZKO2-3/N30 3N11, DTN 381-2102) Bill Ingogly writes: >Fact: Gerald Jonas writes a column in the NYTBR every other week. He >hardly trashes every SF book he reviews. Another fact: I believe > [some text omitted] > I see some of the hostility toward >'critics' in this newsgroup arising from the perception of SF as a >popular genre, and a certain resentment that the 'eggheads' are seen >as either (1) choosing to ignore SF or (2) choosing to say bad >things about SF as a matter of course. Sorry, I never said that NYTBR trashes only SF, I said they trash anything which I seem to like. I also never said that 'eggheads' are ignoring or saying bad things about SF. My points about critics were (and are) completely general, not limited to SF, literature, Broadway, or any other field. The feeling seems to be common to critics in every field. I agree that some critics (at least of NYTBR and a few other places) do not apply different standards to SF, but I disagree with their standards when they review anything. > You're welcome to your >opinions, but don't assume you've found some great 'truth' or that >anyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't belong in this newsgroup >(there have been replies to some of my postings, for example, that >questioned my 'right' to post in this newsgroup because of my >'incorrect thinking'). But my whole point is that there is no such thing as "great 'truth'". I don't assume I found it, I deny that it even exists! I welcome other opinions because I enjoy these discussions. As someone or other said a while ago, (possibly paraphrased) "I completely disagree with everything you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Brad Templeton writes: >I suspect that the use of "art" as a pejorative stems from the fact >that quite often material is passed off as art when it is quite >simply *BAD*. > >What Spider Robinson (an author whom I dislike, btw) may be trying >to say is that truly superb art involves excellent communication >skills as well. You may have something valid to say about emotions >or the human condition, and you may be able to convey it to a few >who think as you do, but an artist of great skill conveys it to all. Thank you for saying what I meant, better than I said it. Critics (and most self-proclaimed artists who do not have the skills to back up their pretensions) seem to feel that "It is great art because I *SAY* it is great art, and if you don't understand it and agree with me, you are an uncultured barbarian" (see Mr. Tuckers comments, below). Davis Tucker writes: >In most places in the world, to say that something is "great art" is >a compliment. To you and Spider Robinson (author of such art as >"Harry Callahan's Crossroad Five-Guys-In-A-Bar-Trade-Stupid-Puns- >And-Act-Superior-And- Incredibly-Sophomoric"), it is an insult. *WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG*. I said that art and a good read are orthoganal, and that I preferred one of them over the other. I *NEVER* said that one is superior to the other, because (see above) I deny that the concept of "great truth", or "absolute standards" by which to measure superior, even exists. I also never said that I do not like great art, but (as Brad Templeton points out) most of the stuff touted as *ART* is not art, it is bad. I like and appreciate art. But I won't depend on some pompous critic (or even you, Mr. Tucker) to tell me that some piece of sh** is art simply because I don't immediately like or understand it. If it is art (and to me that is a very select, very praiseworthy term), then it will be immediately obvious to everyone. If it is not, then it fails the test, and no critic can sneer at my taste enough to make me admit it is art. > But to champion a "good read" >over "great art" is very, very egocentric. It also belies an >inferiority complex about one's ability to appreciate art and uphold >one's personal standards as opposed to lying down and accepting the >tyranny of entertainment. Many definitions of great art encompass >being a "good read", but this quality is but a portion of what it >takes to write a great novel. It seems to me that if I am "accepting the tyranny of entertainment", you are accepting the tyranny of critics. And I agree that being a good read is but a portion of what it takes be a great novel. But most of what critics have touted to be *GREAT NOVELS* have not had that portion, have not been a good read in addition to whatever else you may require to judge something great. I seems to me that you are attacking the very action you are trying to defend. I am confident in my "ability to appreciate art and uphold one's personal standards". But when I defend that standard, you accuse me of being egocentric. >Spider Robinson... (the sound of spitting in derision and disgust) > [some text omitted] >purposefully ignorant attitude. These hedonistic tendencies will >leave you with little fulfillment, less enlightenment, and no >understanding of the world outside D&D games and national news >programs. > [some text omitted] > ... A backward, Luddite, barbarian attitude ... > [some text omitted] > Spider Robinson's championing of ease of reading over depth of feeling is simple laziness. > [some text omitted] > ... semi-mindless entertainment ... > [some text omitted] > ... the lazy or the proudly ignorant. ... > [some text omitted] >"I am ignorant, I am proud of it, and I shall remain blissfully so". Isn't it nice that we are keeping this discussion on an high-level and serious track, without resorting to insult and personal attacks? Ken Moreau
reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU (09/05/85)
From: Peter Reiher <reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU>
I composed a response to Mr. Brust's reply to one of my recent messages.
Since it weighed in at over 100 lines, I'll just include the last paragraph
here, and send the whole gargantuan mess to Mr. Brust.
My point, before and now, is that one must beware of those who claim
that readability is a *necessary* criterion for artistic greatness.
Essentially, what I'm saying is this: I read a book, work hard at it
because it isn't an easy book to read, get blown away by it, and tell
people that it's a great book. They come back and say, "It isn't easy,
so you're wrong." Moreover, they refuse to consider the possibility that
expending more effort might convince them that there is something to my
point of view. I can accept that some people do not want to spend effort
on reading, that they read to relax and hear a good story, but I do object
to having them then tell me that their criteria for art are better than
mine, and that is precisely what some people have been saying.
Peter Reiher
reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiherbrust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) (09/10/85)
> From: Peter Reiher <reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU> > > My point, before and now, is that one must beware of those who claim > that readability is a *necessary* criterion for artistic greatness. > Essentially, what I'm saying is this: I read a book, work hard at it > because it isn't an easy book to read, get blown away by it, and tell > people that it's a great book. They come back and say, "It isn't easy, > so you're wrong." Moreover, they refuse to consider the possibility that > expending more effort might convince them that there is something to my > point of view. I can accept that some people do not want to spend effort > on reading, that they read to relax and hear a good story, but I do object > to having them then tell me that their criteria for art are better than > mine, and that is precisely what some people have been saying. > > Peter Reiher > reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU > {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher I read John Crowley's LITTLE, BIG, worked hard at it because it wasn't an easy book to read, and was blown away by it. I have recommended it to many people. I am very glad I read it. It was beautifully crafted, and said things that I think are important to say, and looked into things that deserved looking into. It was not a great book, however; it was too dificult to read to be a great book. I am, in fact, argueing that my criteria for art are better than yours. I am prepared to be proved wrong. I entered the argument because others were putting forward critera for art that I feel to be invalid. I have never objected to be told that my criteria are inferior or incorrect, so long as I can disagree. I am remaining in the argument because I am enjoying it. -- SKZB