boyajian%akov68.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (08/09/85)
From: boyajian%akov68.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (JERRY BOYAJIAN) > From: druri!dht@topaz.arpa (Davis Tucker) > With a few notable exceptions, critical endeavors in the field of > science fiction have been nonexistent. [...] > What efforts we have seen have > been notable more for the fact that they have actually been > published, than for what they necessarily contain. Delany's "The > Jewel-Hinged Jaw" and LeGuin's essays are exceptions, and there > certainly are others. Horse puckey. Before writing an essay, it helps to do a little basic research. You obviously have not seen any issues of: (1) EXTRAPOLATION, founded by Thomas Clareson in 1959 (!), published semi-annually by the English Department of Wooster (Ohio) College. It is considered to be the official journal of the Modern Languages Association Seminar on Science Fiction. (2) FOUNDATION: THE REVIEW OF SCIENCE FICTION, a British journal from North East London Polytechnic, started in 1972. (3) SCIENCE FICTION STUDIES, originally from Indiana State University (I believe that it now comes out of McGill University, but I'm not sure). One of the founding editors, Darko Suvin, is a Professor of English at McGill University and has had critical works on sf published in a wide variety of places. FOUNDATION and SCIENCE FICTION STUDIES have had reprints in hardcover from Gregg Press. Clareson (EXTRAPOLATION) is also one of the foremost figures in sf criticism, having founded the Science Fiction Research Association, which was created to foster literary criticism in the sf field. Clareson has also edited numerous anthologies of sf criticism, such as SF: THE OTHER SIDE OF REALISM (1977) and MANY FUTURES, MANY WORLDS: THEME AND FORM IN SCIENCE FICTION (1977). He also published SF CRITICISM: AN ANNOTATED CHECKLIST (1972) which is quite extensive (despite its being 13 years out of date!). And I myself have about 4 feet of bookshelf space devoted to scholarly studies and criticism on sf and sf authors, including some of the aforementioned works. > But it is interesting to note that virtually > all of the science fiction criticism that has been penned has been > by authors currently working in the field. And due to the > sociological factors of their group, science fiction writers, even > Delany and LeGuin, pull their punches and let people off the > proverbial hook. You obviously have not read any of the criticism by James Blish as William Atheling (ISSUES AT HAND and MORE ISSUES AT HAND) or Damon Knight (IN SEARCH OF WONDER). They are quite uncompromising. > Very often the first response to > adverse criticism is "Let's see you do better". While I have seen this type of response here and there, I have *not* seen it with the frequency that you imply. How about giving some supporting examples? I didn't respond to your previous essays because for the most part they dealt with matters of opinion (and besides, others raised many of the points that I would've raised). But in this essay, you spew forth "facts" that are anything but. Instead of making up "facts" that you wish were true, try examining the evidence that is there for anyone to see. --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, Acton-Nagog, MA) UUCP: {decvax|ihnp4|allegra|ucbvax|...}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-akov68!boyajian ARPA: boyajian%akov68.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
chabot@miles.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) (08/13/85)
> From: druri!dht@topaz.arpa (Davis Tucker) > With a few notable exceptions, critical endeavors in the field of > science fiction have been nonexistent. We take it you *missed* Joanna Russ's fine reviews in F&SF in the late 70's. Too bad. I believe they still stock back issues at $3 per copy, and might have some of those. It's highly suggested that you purchase these: she's sharp and will likely burst your pretty, pompous bubbles. L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa