jimb@ISM780B.UUCP (08/20/85)
Re: Art vs. Good Reads
(Somewhat Lengthy Mild Flame)
Some of the intemperate postings regarding Art vs. A Good Read are
ridiculous.
The two have little to do with each other; a book that is good "art" may be a
lousy "read" and vice-versa. Both are subjective judgements based on
(usually) different sets of criteria.
For me, a good read is defined as being accessible and interesting (plot,
ideas, and/or characters).
Art, on the other hand, has a set of generally accepted (but arguable and
certainly not universally :-) accepted criteria that include something like:
- Form of the work
- Resonances between the work and the culture and other works of literature
(Whatzza matter, don't believe the humanities have their own valid
recursive logics?)
- Texture and style of writing
- Artistic composition of plot and characterization
- Etc.
I'm winging the definitions -- I'm not really into the literary
criticism game -- but to deny that valid esthetic criteria (albeit
qualitative, not quantititative) exist for Art is as simple minded
as denials of mathematics, nuclear physics, or any other complex reality that
requires education and insight to understand. (Oh, but Art doesn't have
numbers? Well you can't use numbers to meaningfully distinguish a schmuck
from a saint, but they both exist -- even if we don't have perfect agreement
on who is who.)
Ergo, the works of Larry Niven are great reads, I enjoy them
immensely. But great Art?
James Joyce and Thomas Pynchon have written great Art -- I also enjoy
them -- when i *think* i understand what is going on -- but they are easy
reads for nobody I know. (I have to admit, I prefer Art that is more
accessible, but just because it's difficult/complex doesn't mean it's
pointless, pompous, or anything else.)
Part of the problem about discussing Art in SF is that very little
great Art has been written. Close shots in my book include Canticle for
Liebowitz, The Left Hand of Darkness, and....um, let me see, oh, maybe Lord
of Light, but that's a sentimental favorite of mine that probably really
falls short.... Some great short stories, too.
SF has produced many more memorable *good* books, everything from
Startide Rising, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Neuromancer, etc., and a
considerable number of good reads as well as mounds and mounds of dreck.
(Sturgeon's Law: 95% of everything is crud. Except fantasy, which I also
enjoy, it's 98%).
As noted previously on this net, part of the problem about
perceptions of Art in SF stem from the fact that most SF criticism is either
hopelessly academic (for useless M.A.'s in Lit.), incestuous (you wash my
back and I'll wash yours), uselessly destructive, or (most often) uninformed
and uncritical -- everything's great, there are no standards.
("If everybody is somebody, then nobody is anybody." Gilbert & Sullivan.)
In summary, it seems to me that to either make Art the litmus test
for evaluating SF, or alternately, kicking Art in the balls as being humbug,
get in the way of having one's mind open to the ideas and entertainment that
SF can bring.
(Sorry for getting carried away on a ramble on my introduction to the net.
I've been reading the net for 2 months -- nobody had told me about the net
for the preceding 18 mos. Will try for more brevity next time.
-- from the bewildered musings of Jim Brunet
UUCP: jimb at CCA/IMA (I'm told this works)
usenet: !decvax!cca!ima!jimb (maybe this works)
ARPA: ima!jimb@CCA-UNIX.ARPA (maybe this works)