boyajian%akov68.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (08/23/85)
From: boyajian%akov68.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (JERRY BOYAJIAN) > From: kanders@lll-tis-a (Kevin Anderson) > I will say, though, that I have never heard it described with anything > less than respectful awe. It won the Nebula Award, which is given > by the Science Fiction Writers of America to the work which the > *writers* feel is the best piece of literature published in the past > year (and it won the Nebula back in the days when the award did mean > something). I think that anybody who says that DHALGREN is a poorly > written, plotless piece of trash should maybe ask themselves if > there is even the remotest chance they might be MISSING something? Would it be presumptuous of me to ask what Alternate Earth you're from? In *this* universe, DHALGREN lost the Nebula to Joe Haldeman's THE FOREVER WAR. Delany won a sum total of four (4) Nebulas out of the 80 or so that have been issued. He must be highly thought of in SFWA, eh? At last reckoning, the writers who've garnered the most awards (Nebula and Hugo combined) are Harlan Ellison, Ursula LeGuin, Poul Anderson, and Fritz Leiber. What does that tell you? And what does "when the award did mean something" mean? Doesn't it mean anything anymore? Is it no longer an award chosen by sf writers for the what they feel is "best piece of literature in the past year"? Or is it that they aren't choosing what *you* think is the best? And does their being writers mean that their opinions are worth more than mine? If so, then their opinions are worth more than your's, too, which means that if you don't like their choices, it must be *your* opinion that's wrong. I never got very far into DHALGREN, myself. I thought it was twaddle. So am I now branded as an anti-Art snob despite the fact that I liked BABEL-17, EMPIRE STAR, THE BALLAD OF BETA-2, THE EINSTEIN INTERSECTION, and NOVA? (No, I didn't like TRITON, either.) There is a problem with the concept of Art that no one's brought up yet. The Art snobbery has always been such that no one can dislike a Work of Art without being branded as an anti-intellectual fool. If someone does not like DHALGREN, the Defenders of Art simply look down their noses and say, "Well, you obviously were missing something. If you set your mind to working, you'd certainly see why it's an exemplary work." It never occurs to the Art snobs that someone could simply *not like a Work of Art for valid reasons*. The only way someone can get away with not liking a Work of Art is to say "It was an interesting experiment that failed" rather than "It was a piece of self-indulgent nonsense". The end result is that no one is willing to tell the Emperor about his new clothes. --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, Acton-Nagog, MA) UUCP: {decvax|ihnp4|allegra|ucbvax|...} !decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-akov68!boyajian ARPA: boyajian%akov68.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (08/24/85)
>From: boyajian%akov68.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (JERRY BOYAJIAN) >In *this* universe, DHALGREN lost the Nebula ... >Delany won a sum total of four (4) Nebulas ... >He must be highly thought of in SFWA, eh? >At last reckoning, the writers who've garnered the most awards >... are ... [list] What does that tell you? What is it supposed to tell him? For that matter, what is it supposed to tell the rest of us? >I never got very far into DHALGREN, myself. I thought it was twaddle. >So am I now branded as an anti-Art snob despite the fact that I liked >... [list of Delany's other works] If feeling like a persecuted 'anti-Art snob' is enjoyable, be our guest. But don't you think this is just a little bit paranoid, Jerry? >There is a problem with the concept of Art that no one's brought up yet. >The Art snobbery has always been such that no one can dislike a Work of >Art without being branded as an anti-intellectual fool. WHO sez 'the Art snobbery' (whatever that's supposed to be) has always been such? The endless stream of fantasies about how imaginary Critics are hounding the members of this group and the SF world in general is starting to get a little old, people. OK, Jerry, I'm calling you on this one: who exactly in this group or outside it has said that anyone who dislikes a Work of Art is an anti-intellectual fool? I can't recall even Davis Tucker going this far. If you knew anything at all about the Wonderful World of Criticism, you'd know that Critics disagree about which books are worth reading. Often and loudly. >If someone does >not like DHALGREN, the Defenders of Art simply look down their noses and >say, "Well, you obviously were missing something. If you set your mind to >working, you'd certainly see why it's an exemplary work." It never occurs >to the Art snobs that someone could simply *not like a Work of Art for >valid reasons*. Pure pony diarrhea. You want us to say maybe, "OK, Jerry, you say Dhalgren is twaddle, so it must be twaddle; after all, you're NOT a critic?" Saying you don't like it/couldn't get into it so there mustn't be anything there is hardly valid criticism. Fact is, a lot of people LIKE Dhalgren and find it a challenging and rewarding work. If you have valid reasons for thinking that these people are all Art Snobs who like Dhalgren only because some mysterious conspiracy of Critics told them they should, please let us know about it. I've never gotten into Ezra Pounds "Cantos" because I find them rough going and more than a little self-indulgent. But I'm also secure enough to recognize that some people have put a lot of work into reading the "Cantos" and are deeply rewarded for their efforts. It's just not my cup of tea. Why do you and some of your cohorts of a similar mind in this group refuse to grant us "Art Snobs" a similar courtesy? >The only way someone can get away with not liking a Work >of Art is to say "It was an interesting experiment that failed" rather >than "It was a piece of self-indulgent nonsense". The end result is that >no one is willing to tell the Emperor about his new clothes. Either statement implies failure. The difference is that the first is sympathetic to the effort of an author to produce an intricate and serious work (800+ pages in the case of "Dhalgren"), and the second is hostile to the author's having missed the mark. Who's calling who a fool, Jerry? Anyone who's made a serious effort to write something other than a posting to the net knows what an intellectual and emotional drain the production of fiction can be. It means a refusal to compromise and a constant effort to be completely honest with oneself. The author must be his own severest critic if he's to produce the best work he's capable of. The effort and love that went into the writing of "Dhalgren" is obvious. If you think Delany failed, at least give the poor slob a little sympathy for having tried his best. It's obviously not a piece of hack work. Making a decision to devote your life to the arts is a lot like becoming a tightrope walker. You study theory and you practice. But one day you're going to have to face the wire alone, and know that below you in the darkness the audience is waiting for you to stumble and fall. Most turn back before that point. Those that make the difficult decision are to be admired for their determination and courage, even if they fail to make it to the other side. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
boyajian%akov68.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (09/03/85)
From: boyajian%akov68.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (JERRY BOYAJIAN) > From: rti-sel!wfi@topaz.arpa (William Ingogly) >>From: boyajian%akov68.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (JERRY BOYAJIAN) >>In *this* universe, DHALGREN lost the Nebula ... Delany won a sum >>total of four (4) Nebulas ... He must be highly thought of in >>SFWA, eh? At last reckoning, the writers who've garnered the most >>awards ... are ... [list] What does that tell you? > What is it supposed to tell him? For that matter, what is it > supposed to tell the rest of us? It wasn't meant to be a rhetorical question, but if you want *my* interpretation --- I mentioned that the authors who've won the most combined Hugo and Nebula awards were Harlan Ellison, Ursula LeGuin, Poul Anderson, and Fritz Leiber. Now, without having exact numbers at my fingertips, I'd guess that the division between Hugos and Nebulas was about even. that means that the writers choosing for "best literature" and the fans choosing for "favorite" tend to have fairly similar tastes. It might also be said to point out that fans can choose the more literary authors (Ellison, LeGuin) just as easily as the writers can and that the writers can choose the less literary authors (Leiber, Anderson) just as easily as the fans. The point I read in the article to which I responded was that because DHALGREN [supposedly] won a Nebula, it must be a terrific work of art. I merely wished to refute that. He also implied that because the Nebulas were chosen by writers rather than fans, the winners of such are a more estimable lot. I wished to refute that also. >>I never got very far into DHALGREN, myself. I thought it was >>twaddle. So am I now branded as an anti-Art snob despite the fact >>that I liked ... [list of Delany's other works] > If feeling like a persecuted 'anti-Art snob' is enjoyable, be our > guest. But don't you think this is just a little bit paranoid, > Jerry? No, I don't. And I never said whether I enjoyed being a persecuted anti-Art snob or even if I *considered* myself such. The original poster seemed to feel there is an anti-Art snob conspiracy abounding. Isn't *that* just a little bit paranoid? *I* didn't bring up the concept of the anti-Art snob. Turnabout is fair play. >>There is a problem with the concept of Art that no one's brought up >>yet. The Art snobbery has always been such that no one can dislike >>a Work of Art without being branded as an anti-intellectual fool. > WHO sez 'the Art snobbery' (whatever that's supposed to be) has > always been such? The endless stream of fantasies about how > imaginary Critics are hounding the members of this group and the SF > world in general is starting to get a little old, people. OK, Jerry, > I'm calling you on this one: who exactly in this group or outside it > has said that anyone who dislikes a Work of Art is an > anti-intellectual fool? I can't recall even Davis Tucker going this > far. If you knew anything at all about the Wonderful World of > Criticism, you'd know that Critics disagree about which books are > worth reading. Often and loudly. No, no one has called anyone an "anti-intellectual fool" in so many words, but hasn't that been the tone of Tucker's ravings, at least? Hasn't he gone on at length about how sf fans and readers are content to read [note: I don't have the previous SFL's to quote from verbatim] soporific fiction of the likes of Asimov, Heinlein, et alia, rather than the enlightening works of Literary Craftsmen? Hasn't he, *in essence* called those who prefer to read Piers Anthony rather than Jorge Luis Borges anti-intellectual fools? >>If someone does not like DHALGREN, the Defenders of Art simply look >>down their noses and say, "Well, you obviously were missing >>something. If you set your mind to working, you'd certainly see why >>it's an exemplary work." It never occurs to the Art snobs that >>someone could simply *not like a Work of Art for valid reasons*. > Pure pony diarrhea. You want us to say maybe, "OK, Jerry, you say > Dhalgren is twaddle, so it must be twaddle; after all, you're NOT a > critic?" Saying you don't like it/couldn't get into it so there > mustn't be anything there is hardly valid criticism. Fact is, a lot > of people LIKE Dhalgren and find it a challenging and rewarding > work. If you have valid reasons for thinking that these people are > all Art Snobs who like Dhalgren only because some mysterious > conspiracy of Critics told them they should, please let us know > about it. I've never gotten into Ezra Pounds "Cantos" because I find > them rough going and more than a little self-indulgent. But I'm > also secure enough to recognize that some people have put a lot of > work into reading the "Cantos" and are deeply rewarded for their > efforts. It's just not my cup of tea. Why do you and some of your > cohorts of a similar mind in this group refuse to grant us "Art > Snobs" a similar courtesy? Where did I say that because I think DHALGREN is twaddle that there isn't anything there? Where did I say that anyone who finds DHALGREN a challenging and rewarding work is, *de facto*, an Art Snob. For that matter, where do I rant and rave against Art at all? I like Art, too. I've read and enjoyed Borges and Marquez (both in English *and* Spanish), Hesse and Kafka (both in English *and* German), Calvino, LeGuin, Delany, Tiptree, Barth, et alia. On the other hand, I've never been able to make head nor tail out of Joyce or Barthelme or any number of others. Likewise, I enjoy reading Asimov, Clarke, Niven, Leiber, and others. And I don't care for Anthony, Heinlein, Tolkien, and others. I don't consider myself either an Art Snob or an Anti-Art Snob. And I'm willing to recognize that someone can see something in a work of fiction that I can't. People see can all sorts of things in anything. The poster to whom I was responding, however, implied that by not liking DHALGREN, I was obviously not trying hard enough to see its virtues. Maybe I wasn't, but *maybe I was*. He shouldn't just *assume* the former. In fact, because I liked previous work by Delany, I was predisposed to liking DHALGREN, but I found it wanting (or at least, what I read of it). >>The only way someone can get away with not liking a Work of Art is >>to say "It was an interesting experiment that failed" rather than >>"It was a piece of self-indulgent nonsense". The end result is that >>no one is willing to tell the Emperor about his new clothes. > Either statement implies failure. The difference is that the first > is sympathetic to the effort of an author to produce an intricate > and serious work (800+ pages in the case of "Dhalgren"), and the > second is hostile to the author's having missed the mark. Who's > calling who a fool, Jerry? I give up. Who? > The effort and love that went into the writing > of "Dhalgren" is obvious. If you think Delany failed, at least give > the poor slob a little sympathy for having tried his best. It's > obviously not a piece of hack work. True, it's not, and I never said it was. I've seen many criticisms of DHALGREN that called it many things, but I don't recall "hack work" was any of them. Delany is a fine writer, and on the strength of other novels and short stories, I *know* that he can produce fine work. That still doesn't mean that he can't produce trash. And I feel that it's *especially* discouraging that DHALGREN wasn't better. But this brings up the point of whether anyone has the "right" to call *anything* a piece of hack work. Can you truly say that Piers Anthony puts less love and effort into writing any of his books than Delany does into his? If so, why? Because he publishes six times as many books per year? --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, Acton-Nagog, MA) UUCP: {decvax|ihnp4|allegra|ucbvax|...} !decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-akov68!boyajian ARPA: boyajian%akov68.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (09/04/85)
Note: > Jerry's response back to me >> my response >>> Jerry's original posting In article <3512@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> boyajian%akov68.DEC@decwrl.ARPA writes: > The point I read in the article to which I responded was that >because DHALGREN [supposedly] won a Nebula, it must be a terrific work >of art. I merely wished to refute that. He also implied that because >the Nebulas were chosen by writers rather than fans, the winners of >such are a more estimable lot. I wished to refute that also. I'm afraid I didn't get that from your posting. Since I don't have the full text of the original article, I can't really do anything but take your word for it and assume I misread you for some reason. If this was what you said, I agree with you on both points. >> If feeling like a persecuted 'anti-Art snob' is enjoyable, be our >> guest. But don't you think this is just a little bit paranoid, >> Jerry? > >No, I don't. And I never said whether I enjoyed being a persecuted >anti-Art snob or even if I *considered* myself such. The original >poster seemed to feel there is an anti-Art snob conspiracy abounding. >Isn't *that* just a little bit paranoid? *I* didn't bring up the >concept of the anti-Art snob. Turnabout is fair play. I don't recall the 'conspiracy' attitude in the original posting you refer to. Perhaps you can post a sample illustrating this. I was reacting to the following statement in which you seemed to think that you were being labelled unfairly by the original poster: >>>... So am I now branded as an anti-Art snob despite the fact >>>that I liked ... [list of Delany's other works] I'm afraid I don't understand who's branding you an 'anti-Art' snob, or why the original posting rated this kind of reaction. But perhaps I didn't read the posting you were reacting to closely enough, and if this is the case I apologize for misjudging your reaction. >No, no one has called anyone an "anti-intellectual fool" in so many >words, but hasn't that been the tone of Tucker's ravings, at least? >Hasn't he gone on at length about how sf fans and readers are content >to read [note: I don't have the previous SFL's to quote from verbatim] >soporific fiction of the likes of Asimov, Heinlein, et alia, rather >than the enlightening works of Literary Craftsmen? Hasn't he, *in >essence* called those who prefer to read Piers Anthony rather than >Jorge Luis Borges anti-intellectual fools? Since I stopped reading Mr. Tucker's posting halfway through the third when he started getting repetitious and more than a little silly, I really can't say. But the Devil's Advocate performs a useful function, I think; there's something to be said for challenging people to defend their passion for something and THINK about why they like or dislike something. The sheer volume and passion of the postings on this topic over the last few months testify to Mr. Tucker's success, I think. Some people like to argue and wave their arms around; others feel personally threatened by such argument. A lot of the perceived hostility in this newsgroup may be due to people misreading each others' intentions. My own interpretation of Mr. Tucker's postings is that he has made some valid points and also beat a few dead horses into the ground. So what? I think the same can be said about both sides in this argument. For example: haven't some of the Down With The Intellectuals posters *in essence* called those of us who prefer to read Jorge Luis Borges rather than Piers Anthony pretentious _ssholes? At least it's possible to read some of their comments as personal attacks if one's gonads are tied up in one's preference in reading material: "...art is boooring..." [read: you guys who prefer art to a quick read are boring and pretentious] See how you can get your dander up if you read personal attacks into everything? Turnabout is indeed fair play. >Where did I say that because I think DHALGREN is twaddle that there >isn't anything there? My dictionary defines 'twaddle' as follows: "...foolish, empty talk or writing; nonsense." To me, this implies there isn't anything there. I'm not a mind reader. If you were using a personal and idiosyncratic definition of 'twaddle' you should have warned me. >Where did I say that anyone who finds DHALGREN >a challenging and rewarding work is, *de facto*, an Art Snob. For that >matter, where do I rant and rave against Art at all? I didn't say this. Here's what you said: >>>If someone does not like DHALGREN, the Defenders of Art simply look >>>down their noses and say, "Well, you obviously were missing >>>something. If you set your mind to working, you'd certainly see why >>>it's an exemplary work." It never occurs to the Art snobs that >>>someone could simply *not like a Work of Art for valid reasons*. And here was my response and my reasons for making it: >> Pure pony diarrhea. You want us to say maybe, "OK, Jerry, you say >> Dhalgren is twaddle, so it must be twaddle; after all, you're NOT a >> critic?" I didn't see anywhere where you were saying Dhalgren is twaddle for reasons A., B., and C., so your claim of 'valid reasons' seemed unsupported to me. The 'Defenders of Art' and 'Art snobs' at least offer reasons WHY they think Dhalgren is worth reading. Please note that this sentence doesn't accuse you of labelling anyone who finds Dhalgren challenging/rewarding an Art Snob, or of ranting and raving against Art. Next two sentences: >> Saying you don't like it/couldn't get into it so there >> mustn't be anything there is hardly valid criticism. Fact is, a lot >> of people LIKE Dhalgren and find it a challenging and rewarding >> work. Again, what you seemed to be saying was precisely this: your valid reason for saying Dhalgren is 'twaddle' (note, people, the definition of 'twaddle': foolish empty talk or writing; nonsense) is that you don't like it for your own valid reasons. Again, please note that these sentences don't accuse you of labelling anyone who finds Dhalgren challenging/rewarding an Art Snob, or of ranting and raving against Art. And finally: >> If you have valid reasons for thinking that these people are >> all Art Snobs who like Dhalgren only because some mysterious >> conspiracy of Critics told them they should, please let us know >> about it ... This may in fact be what you're objecting to. Let's examine again the following sentence from your posting: >>>If someone does not like DHALGREN, the Defenders of Art simply look >>>down their noses and say, "Well, you obviously were missing >>>something. If you set your mind to working, you'd certainly see why >>>it's an exemplary work." ... Now in my book that says to me that the people you call 'Defenders of Art' like Dhalgren but are either unwilling or unable to articulate their reasons for liking Dhalgren ('you OBVIOUSLY were missing something'). The implication seems to be that there is an academic consensus (i.e., 'conspiracy of Critics') about the value of certain works, and that the 'Defenders of Art' somehow brainwash themselves into liking certain works because it's the 'trendy' thing to do and the Critics tell them these works are worth reading ('If you set your mind to working'). Please note that these sentences don't accuse you of labelling anyone who finds Dhalgren challenging/rewarding an Art Snob; they do, however, accuse you of unfairly questioning certain persons' >... I don't consider myself >either an Art Snob or an Anti-Art Snob. And I'm willing to recognize >that someone can see something in a work of fiction that I can't. >People see can all sorts of things in anything. And if I'd seen statements like this in your posting I quite likely would not have posted my response. >The poster to whom >I was responding, however, implied that by not liking DHALGREN, I >was obviously not trying hard enough to see its virtues. Maybe I >wasn't, but *maybe I was*. He shouldn't just *assume* the former. I seem to recall the poster's comment as being more in the nature of a mild suggestion that you maybe shouldn't be so quick to dismiss what might be a piece of great writing, but it's been too long. And I failed to see from your postings what your reasons were for not liking it. Perhaps you can show us the hostility in the original poster's comment that aroused your wrath. >> ... Who's >> calling who a fool, Jerry? > >I give up. Who? From your posting: >>>There is a problem with the concept of Art that no one's brought up >>>yet. The Art snobbery has always been such that no one can dislike >>>a Work of Art without being branded as an anti-intellectual fool. You're accusing people of branding you a fool. Then you turn around and seem to be accusing Delany of being a fool for writing Dhalgren (read my comment above in the original context, Jerry). That's what my question meant. > But this brings up the point of whether anyone has the "right" >to call *anything* a piece of hack work. Can you truly say that Piers >Anthony puts less love and effort into writing any of his books than >Delany does into his? If so, why? Because he publishes six times as many >books per year? I'm not familiar with Piers Anthony's books except through reviews, so I can't say. First of all, let's make sure we agree on a definition of 'hack writer:' my dictionary defines a 'hack' as a person hired to do dull and routine writing. I think the sense it usually has in the SF community is a writer who grinds out novels more for the few hundred bucks they bring him/her than for a love of the craft or for the sake of the entertainment they bring to their readers. Agreed? As you may know, you can write to certain publishers who specialize in the romance genre and receive detailed cookbooks for their romance novels. When I was an undergraduate I knew of several grad students in the English department at the University of Iowa who supplemented their incomes by 'hacking' romance novels, westerns, crime novels, and (yes) SF under various pseudonyms. They did so for purely financial reasons and for the amusement it afforded them. I believe these people were probably 'hack writers' and that what they produced was indeed 'hack work.' So to answer your question, yes, one does have the "right" to call certain productions 'hack work.' As to the SF genre, go down to your local paperback bookstore and check out the SF section (B. Dalton or Waldenbooks are ideal for this). You'll notice a wide shelf with 'Star Trek,' 'V,' 'Star Wars,' 'Gor,' and 'Conan' clones. Do you really believe NONE of these clones were written purely for financial motives? -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
chabot@miles.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) (09/06/85)
> I mentioned that the authors who've won the most combined Hugo and > Nebula awards were Harlan Ellison, Ursula LeGuin, Poul Anderson, > and Fritz Leiber. Now, without having exact numbers at my fingertips, > I'd guess that the division between Hugos and Nebulas was about even. > that means that the writers choosing for "best literature" and the > fans choosing for "favorite" tend to have fairly similar tastes. > It might also be said to point out that fans can choose the > more literary authors (Ellison, LeGuin) just as easily as the writers > can and that the writers can choose the less literary authors (Leiber, > Anderson) just as easily as the fans. Ahem, er, well, not to really disagree with you, Jerry, but I actually find Leiber to be enjoyable on many depths, and since I got older and more sophisticated than I used to be (maybe)(well, it *was* an improvement for *me* :0) ), I began to enjoy more Leiber stories because of his literary qualities. But this is _just_ my humble opinion, and frankly, I can't come up with which Leiber book won both the Hugo and the Nebula, and it might well have been one with not much literary depth. I'm not flaming. > But this brings up the point of whether anyone has the "right" > to call *anything* a piece of hack work. Can you truly say that Piers > Anthony puts less love and effort into writing any of his books than > Delany does into his? If so, why? Because he publishes six times as many > books per year? Which reminds me of some recent discussions in net.startrek about whether anybody who abases themself enough to write a startrek novel could really have any talent. Lots of flaming, talent-assassination of Vonda McIntyre, pooh-poohing of Clarion, lists of talented and publishing authors. I bring it up because "hack" got bandied about in that discussion also. On a lighter side about "hack", from "TURBOTOME" by Polly Frost in a recent _New_Yorker_ (used without permission): " Congratulations on purchasing TURBOTOME--a software program designed especially for the Professional Writer (YOU)! TURBOTOME enables to bypass the rough draft, the first and second drafts, the galleys--even the test of time!--and lets you get on with the business of writing." L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot