brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) (06/27/85)
THE PROBLEMS WITH SCIENCE FICTION CRITICS TODAY By Steven Brust [ DISCLAIMER: I am extremely dislexic, and do not have access to a spelling checker, nor the patience to go through every word in the following essay with a dictionary. For those of you who are (understandably) frustrated by large numbers of typing and spelling errors, I strongly recommend you skip what follows. ] "Lift your heads out of the sf ghetto, people..." -- William Ingogly "We have made of our ghetto a shining city on the hill." -- Martin Schaffer We have now had several installments of what appears to be an effort to make a serious critique of today's science fiction, and several equally serious efforts to respond to the above. For those of us who are pleased to consider SF as literature the discussions have been entertaining, amusing, and thought- provoking. Messiers Tucker and Ingogly have both stated that they like science-fiction. It is good they said it. Had they not, I would be wondering why people with the opinions: A) There is no good writing in science-fiction, and B) I only read good writing, are contributing to a forum called sf-lovers. But they both said they like it, and I, for one, will take them at their word. All of the contributions from these two gentlemen have been, in my opinion, well thought-out and intelligent. As someone who disagrees, I feel an obligation to do my best to state my disagreements in some rational way. It would be pleasant to spend my time discussing the examples that various of us have raised as good and bad, but I think also pointless. That I find it amazing that anyone could seriously consider Truman Capote as good a writer as Roger Zelazny says something about me, but very little about the merits of the writers in question. That Mr. Ingogly can put forward excellent standards of comparison for writing (for the most part; there are flaws here, too), yet believe, as he evidently does, that Peter DeVries compares well to Gene Wolfe says a great deal about him, but again, nothing about either writer. It would be more of value to discuss, in general (perhaps I'll even pretend I'm Hegel and bend over backwards to avoid examples), what makes good writing. I don't expect agreement to result, as we are clearly dealing with completely different approaches. All of the above is actually a long-winded introduction to a defense of my statement that most of the best writers today are working in sf. I mean it. I did say, "not all", and I agree with the contributor who pointed out mysteries and children's books as places to find good writing. And yes, without naming names, I am sufficiently well-read to believe that my opinions have some validity. But I did mean it. I do not hold that opinion because I read sf, rather, I read sf because I think that's where the good writers are. I did not come to this conclusion without giving most other genres (including the literary genre) what I felt to be a fair trial. Yet this opinion differs from that of many literary critics. Do I hold the opinion, then, that the type of literary criticism we've been seeing is invalid for science-fiction? Well, sort of. It would be more accurate, however, to say that I feel the approaches of many literary critics are invalid for any genre at all. Why are so many literary critics down on sf? I'll tell you a story. Some time ago I found out that the University of Minnesota had the top-rated journalism school in the country. Some time later, I found out that this was because most of the people who rated journalism schools were U or Mn Alumni. So it is with literary critics and the literary genre. At least, with many of them. There are as many schools of criticism as there are of writing, and Messiers Tucker and Ingogly are to be praised for subscribing (as far as I can tell) to among the least obnoxious of them--at least, neither of them have started explaining that Gore Vidal is a great writer becuase he hasn't come to terms with his masculenity or something. (Note -- if anyone is not familiar with ISSUES AT HAND and MORE ISSUES AT HAND by William Athling (also known as James Blish) I recommend them.) But enough prelude; it is time I put my mouth where my money is and explain why I have such a high opinion of so many sf writers compared to so many writers in other, and most the particularly the "literary" genres. There was a brief period when large segments of the population (I'm speaking of the U. S.) were literate, yet the mass entertainment media had not been invented. During this time, it became necessary for authors to tell stories, in order to appeal to those who just wanted to be entertained and had no patience for intellectual depth. Writers were forced, by the harshest economic necessities, to simultaniously appeal to the lowest common denominator of their readers, and still write with the depth craved by the intelligensia. Among the examples of writers from this period is Mark Twain. With the arrival of radio, talkies, and television, large sections of the literary community abandoned story telling as a necessary part of fiction. If you want to place this historically, read Joyce's PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN, then read ULYSSES, then start working from either end toward the middle. Today, many writers feel that it is unnecessary to tell a story. Other writers feel that ALL that is necessary is to tell a story. The latter group can be found in the best-seller genre, the former can be found in the literary genre. Literary critics, almost without exception (Ciardi is one exception -- maybe) belong to the first camp. And me? Well, I am more likely to be impressed by a good story with enough depth to give me something to think about than by writing which tries to make up for its lack or obscurity of plot by throwing in a car that has Shakespear's birthday for a license number. Science fiction writers--the best of them--believe that a good story is necessary and not sufficient. That good English language values (ie, the ability to write a sentence) are necessary, that the story should be driven by characters who are real, three-dimensional human beings, and that there should be a strong theme without (as Terry Carr put it) a Message. I will put up with cheap entertainment that is nothing more than a story. I will NOT put up with the pretentions of those who feel themselves above the need to entertain me. Let us remember that the paintings of Van Gogh, even some of the more disturbing ones, can be appreciated by someone with little or no understanding of art. He was willing to talk to us, not at us. What else makes good writing? Largely, I think, the ability to transcend its genre (someone said, quite correctly, that ALL writing today is genre writing). Billie Holliday can be appreciated by people who don't like jazz. Beethovan by those who don't like classical music, Stan Rogers by those who don't like folk, Dave Van Ronk by those who don't like Blues, the Grateful Dead by those who don't like rock. In writing, Alexander Dumas may be enjoyed even by those who don't like nineteenth century romanticism. James Clavell(SHOGUN), for all his (many!) flaws as a writer, goes beyond the best-seller genre. Robert B. Parker (EARLY AUTUMN) goes beyond mysteries, Ken Kesey (SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION) beyond the literary genre. These people give us something of value beyond satisfying the particular requirements of their subfield. It is this "something of value" that I look for. It is writing that challenges me, that makes me both feel and think, that sends me away both entertained and with the knowledge that I have grown. When Zelazny is at his worst--just turning out a book to pay the bills (CHANGELING is a good example)-- I still come away with something to think about, a way to look at people--and myself--that hadn't occurred to me before. And I certainly come away entertained. So much for my hopes to avoid examples. But, yes, I think Sturgeon was a great writer. So was Blish. So is John M. Ford, and Gene Wolfe, and Robin Mckinley, and Robert B. Parker, and, yes, Roger Zelazny, and Pamela Dean, and Ken Kesey, and Jane Yolen. These people believe that a good story, while not sufficent, is necessary. Indeed, there is much that is bad in science fiction. But the problem isn't that Heinlein is doing so well--dammit, he INVENTED many of the concepts that are now standard in the field. It isn't Asimov and Clarke, either--none of these are good writers, but they have contributed to making the genre a medium in which much that is valuable can flourish. If you are looking for writers to pick on, look for the ones who could have been more than hacks, but refused to challenge themselves-- Piers Anthony, Alan Dean Foster, even Andrew Offut. Or the ones who seem bound and determined to make sure they NEVER accomplish anything either new or with any literary merit: Robert Asprin and others. (See NOTE below). But don't throw the Heechee out the Warp Drive. Wait for Megan Lindholm's new book, or read Nancy Kress, and rejoice that there is a place where those who are willing to tell stories with good literary values have a way to enrich us with the slices of their lives they are sharing. -- Steven Brust NOTE: The above statements are opinions. It shouldn't be necessary to say this, but I really DON'T want to offend those who enjoy Anthony or Foster or Offut or Asprin. I believe what I said, but there is no reason you have to. -- SKZB
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (07/12/85)
In article <219@hyper.UUCP> brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) writes: >Messiers Tucker and Ingogly have both stated that they like >science-fiction. It is good they said it. Had they not, >I would be wondering why people with the opinions: A) There >is no good writing in science-fiction, and B) I only read >good writing, are contributing to a forum called sf-lovers. Where did you get this from my postings? They make it abundantly clear that I don't hold either position. I've explicitly stated (A) that there's good writing in all fictional genres, and (B) that I read all sorts of fiction. See my comments about the much-maligned Peter DeVries below, for example. Or my comments about Vladimir Nabokov's catholic tastes in a (much) earlier posting of mine. Criticism does not mean hatred. It doesn't even necessarily imply a mild distaste. When I was six, I sometimes thought my parents' criticisms meant they no longer loved me. I've since grown out of that opinion. I criticize much of what I read. I also continue reading it. > ... That I find it amazing that anyone >could seriously consider Truman Capote as good a writer as >Roger Zelazny says something about me, but very little about >the merits of the writers in question. Just so no one thinks Steve is talking about me, I wasn't the one who called Mr. Capote a first-rate author. >That Mr. Ingogly can >put forward excellent standards of comparison for writing >(for the most part; there are flaws here, too), yet believe, >as he evidently does, that Peter DeVries compares well to >Gene Wolfe says a great deal about him, but again, nothing >about either writer. My personal feeling is that Mr. DeVries is an underrated writer. He's the American equivalent of P. G. Wodehouse, another minor author of very funny books who I enjoy reading. I obviously read less-than-first rate fiction; that's one of the reasons I named Mr. DeVries. I DON'T recall comparing him directly to Gene Wolfe, so I believe you're misinterpreting me there. We all have peculiarities in the set of writers we enjoy reading, authors other people ignore or even scorn. Peter DeVries is one of my peculiarities. I'm sure you have them too, Steve. Even those of us with perfect taste have occasional lapses (oh, come on; where's your sense of humor? That's a JOKE, all you literal-minded terminal jockeys out there in netland...:-) >Why are so many literary critics down on sf? I'll tell you >a story. Some time ago I found out that the University >of Minnesota had the top-rated journalism school in the >country. Some time later, I found out that this was >because most of the people who rated journalism schools >were U or Mn Alumni. So it is with literary critics >and the literary genre. At least, with many of them. >There are as many schools of criticism as there are of >writing, and Messiers Tucker and Ingogly are to be >praised for subscribing (as far as I can tell) to among >the least obnoxious of them ... Geez, at least my obnoxiousness is a MINOR character trait; I think I can deal with that ... :-) You paint a picture of the literary critical profession as being inbred; this is true. The SF field seems to me to be somewhat inbred, as well. This has nothing to do with the quality of thought or the validity of the ideas coming out of any given literary critic or SF writer. And your implication that criticism is by its very nature obnoxious "says something about you," to use your own phrase. You seem to have a hangup about criticism, or maybe about academics who make their living by talking about other people's writing. As you've said, there are many schools of criticism. And there are many types of people who write about fiction. There isn't a perfect consensus or standard in the literary community about quality in fiction or the desireability of plot, and saying there is one don't make it so. If you or other readers of this group have had bad experiences with fiction outside the SF genre, I'm sorry. I stand by my claims for 'literary' fiction and those who criticize fiction, and I still believe your claim that most of the best are writing in SF is way off the mark. >Today, many writers feel that it is unnecessary >to tell a story. Other writers feel that ALL that is >necessary is to tell a story. The latter group can >be found in the best-seller genre, the former can be found >in the literary genre. Literary critics, almost without >exception (Ciardi is one exception -- maybe) belong to >the first camp. I think this is an unfair generalization, Steve. Take a look at the books reviewed in the New York Review of Books or the New York Times Book Review over the past year or two. There are authors and reviewers who believe plot has been taken as far as it can go, so they emphasize other things in fiction. But as you yourself have said, there are many different approaches to literary criticism. To writing, as well; you'll find many books reviewed by the litcrits in these newspapers that DO tell good stories. And what's Good Story to me isn't necessarily Good Story to you. Or maybe you know something the rest of us don't? Is there a canonical definition of Good Story other than what's engaging to some (maybe only one) of a book's readers? If there is, I've never seen it. Plot is a tool. It isn't fiction in its entirety. Consider Italo Calvino's "Invisible Cities," a book that some of us might call fiction. As Charlie Martin pointed out, it's metafiction to a certain extent: fiction about fiction. By pushing against the limits of our definition of what fiction is, Calvino is calling attention to the artificiality of a definition like 'fiction' or 'Good Story.' At the same time, he's extending the definition to include his book. At least some of us find that sort of writing engaging and (yes) enjoyable. There are as many ways to read as there are to write. And my claim is that "Invisible Cities" is a GOOD STORY; what's more, it's a Good Story that doesn't have a plot. Furthermore, my enjoyment of the qualities in Calvino's writing is probably as intense as the enjoyment you get from reading non-'literary' fiction. You might ask yourself if plotless books like Stanislaw Lem's "A Perfect Vacuum" and "Imaginary Magnitude" are (A) enjoyable (B) Good Stories. Or perhaps you're one of those who think less of Lem for his excursions into metafiction. >And me? Well, I am more likely to be >impressed by a good story with enough depth to give >me something to think about than by writing which tries >to make up for its lack or obscurity of plot by throwing >in a car that has Shakespear's birthday for a license >number. And some of us might be amused by finding such a reference in a story. We all read for different reasons. Another comment: you're just plain wrong in claiming (as you seem to be) that most or all 'literary' fiction can be characterized by bankrupt plot and superficial cleverness. >Science fiction writers--the best of them--believe that >a good story is necessary and not sufficient. That good >English language values (ie, the ability to write a >sentence) are necessary, that the story should be >driven by characters who are real, three-dimensional >human beings, and that there should be a strong theme >without (as Terry Carr put it) a Message. I find the same qualities in a lot of contemporary non-SF fiction, what you call 'literary' fiction. We're either reading totally different books or dealing with personal prejudices here. >I will put up with cheap entertainment that is nothing >more than a story. I will NOT put up with the pretentions >of those who feel themselves above the need to >entertain me. Let us remember that the paintings of >Van Gogh, even some of the more disturbing ones, >can be appreciated by someone with little or >no understanding of art. He was willing to talk >to us, not at us. Some art works on many levels. Some doesn't. There are interesting, rewarding, and entertaining works of art in both groups. This applies to 'literary' fiction as well as the field of painting. >It is this "something of value" that I look for. It >is writing that challenges me, that makes me both >feel and think, that sends me away both entertained >and with the knowledge that I have grown. ... Guess what? We both read fiction for the same reasons. >Indeed, there is much that is bad in science fiction. >But the problem isn't that Heinlein is doing so >well--dammit, he INVENTED many of the concepts >that are now standard in the field. It isn't >Asimov and Clarke, either--none of these are >good writers, but they have contributed to making >the genre a medium in which much that is valuable >can flourish. I'd like to point out (again, to set the record straight) that I made the same comment in one of my postings. >If you are looking for writers >to pick on, look for the ones who could have been >more than hacks, but refused to challenge themselves-- >Piers Anthony, Alan Dean Foster, even Andrew Offut... I'm sorry you and other people thought Mr. Tucker and I were 'picking' on their favorite authors. We all have personal favorites, Steve (I happen to like Peter DeVries and P. G. Wodehouse; they make me laugh). I have few illusions about mine, and I fully realize that many of my friends and acquaintances don't share my tastes. I also have been trained to approach literature critically, and I enjoy reading that way. There is good AND bad in all writing. I feel that my knowledge and appreciation of literature (including SF) is enhanced by approaching it this way; I certainly don't put down those who approach it in other fashions, and I apologize if any of my postings created that impression. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly