mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/13/85)
In article <812@utcs.UUCP> webber@utcs.UUCP (R. D. Webber) writes: >In article <1147@druri.UUCP> dht@druri.UUCP (Davis Tucker) writes: >>... 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. > It seems to me that I have read mention of quite a few academic >critics in such places as Budrys's review columns in F&SF. He largely >disparages them as having too little knowledge of the field, but they do, >apparently, exist. I irregularly subscribe to what is now called _Fantasy Review_, which attempts to review ALL published fantasy (in which they include SF and some horror). Their reviewers are not name authors. I would also point out that it is the practice of the _Wash. Post Book Review_ to use authors to review similar books, so this practice is hardly a problem exclusively of SF. >>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. I happen to own _Language of the Night_ by LeGuin, and I think this comment is totally off-base. First, we have "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie", in which she takes apart (as it happens) K. Kurtz (who seems to have learned from the article). Second, I really do not think that everyone has to criticize like Harlan Ellison. It is possible to criticize without going for the jugular, and with some humility. Anyone who reads _F&SF_ should be able to see that Budrys's reviews are no less thoughtful than Ellison's even though they are certainly gentler. >>There's a strong current of the old "He who can, does, he who cannot, >>criticizes" mentality in science fiction. For being such an intellectual >>genre compared to most, it's an interestingly anti-intellectual critical >>milieu. Very often the first response to adverse criticism is "Let's see >>you do better". With respect to the literary establishment, I think this criticism on the part of the SF (and the fantasy) community may in fact be justified. The social milieu of SF is so radically different from that of "literary" fiction that there aren't many people familiar with the critical apparatus who also are familiar with the aims and ideas of SF or fantasy; most of these people, it would appear, are authors within the fields. I don't see this to be a problem; with the passage of time, these people will become more numerous. What does bother me somewhat is this fannish notion that all enjoyable books have literary merit on all levels. This tends to produce criticism on the level of trivia exchange. (Which is not to say that this characterizes ALL fannish criticism!) Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "Do you know what this means? It means that this damn thing doesn't work at all!"