henry%clemson.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa (08/10/85)
From: Henry Vogel <henry%clemson.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa> Davis Tucker writes: >Has science fiction built such a wall around itself that no >self-respecting critic will vault over it? I don't know whether that's the case or not, but I remember reading a criticism by the book critic of one of the major news magazines - Newsweek. The critic was talking about Michaelmas by Algys Budrys (sp?). Anyway, he began his review by stating that he had read hardly any science fiction but that this book was not like typical science fiction. My question is, if he hasn't read much science fiction, how can he know what "typical science fiction" is like? I agree with the major points of your posting, but I'm not sure that SF is entirely to blame. Many people have preconceived notions as to what SF is like and aren't interested in actually reading some SF to find out if their preconceptions are, indeed, true. I believe this is what has caused the hard, defensive shell (or wall) to form around the genre. Many times in my past I've been asked how I could stand to read such garbage. In every case, the person asking had either 1) never read SF or 2) read one or two books or anthologies (and if it was anthologies they had read they were always collec- tions of stories published in the 30's and 40's). Fortunately, that sort of thing is happening less and less, but the attitude still prevails in many places (now people think SF is just Star Wars in book form) and, unfortunately, many of the people holding those opinions seem to be critics... Henry Vogel henry%clemson.csnet@csnet-relay