SORCEROR@LL.ARPA (06/26/85)
From: <SORCEROR@LL.ARPA>
THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE FICTION TODAY, PART VII has finally prompted me to
put in my two-cent's worth. In this essay, I believe that Davis Tucker captures
the *essential* element which sets Literature off from *most* SF and other genre
entertainments; serious and authentic treatment of the protagonists' emotional
lives. While the desire for self-realization may be a nearly inevitable theme
for fiction, in SF this often takes particularly exotic and grandiose forms, and
it usually results from some outside agency, rather than the hero's or heroine's
coming to better terms with his or her *inner reality*. The general popularity
of this genre over the last decade may reflect cultural changes which place more
value on individual competence and achievement ("excellence"). I hypothesize
that the rare and unusual nature of the transformed protagonist makes SF very
appealing to people who have put a lot of effort into esoteric scientific and
technical specialties. Their disdain for a full development of emotional issues
in fiction may arise from a life experience which hasn't emphasized the value of
their expression and exploration. I think I hear echoes of this attitude in the
negative reactions to the "Thomas Covenant" series which have been expressed in
the Digest. Personal growth over the past year has led me to acknowledge that
my affinity for both science and SF has been, in part, a game I've played to
avoid dealing with my feelings. Despite this "self-realization", I still feel
that both enterprises are valuable, and I do not reject either one. However, I
am concerned that an intensive involvement with these glamorous myths (e.g. Star
Wars) is preventing many "fans" from directing their efforts to achieve self-
realization in real life. I would urge readers who feel threatened by the
recent wave of criticism to examine their reactions in the light of these
observations.
"Ray of Hope Department" - I was very impressed with David Brin's "SunDiver"
as a story which dealt with a character's emotional life and inner growth. Any
novel which can handle these issues *along* with fascinating hard science and
sociological extrapolation is a real winner, in my eyes. Comments, anyone?
Karl Heinemann
(SORCEROR at LL.ARPA)
jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) (06/27/85)
[...]
Northrup Frye (a Canadian literary critic whom Canadians think
is world-famous) has an interesting theory about the development
of literature that may pertain to the discussion of SF. He suggests
that all genres of literature go through four stages of development:
(1) Mythic stage: stories about gods or god-like beings.
(2) Heroic stage: stories about larger-than-life heroes.
(3) Peer stage: stories about people who are much like the
reading audience.
(4) Ironic stage: stories about people to whom the reader is
likely to feel superior.
If one looks at SF and its history, one can see these stages fairly
easily. SF emerged as a genre of its own with the pulps; before then,
there were certainly SF stories, but they weren't a separate visible
genre. At that time, the stories dealt with god-like and heroic people,
the ones who could do practically anything. This kept up for quite
some time, well into the fifties. Only gradually did SF characters
sink from their larger than life statures. Thus, SF had Lensmen, for
example, who were very god-like, and Buck Rogers, the classic hero.
The so-called "new wave" of SF brought in much more down-to-earth
characters. Instead of Space Rangers who could do anything, we got
scientists who had to struggle and be just a little bit cleverer
than whatever they were fighting. Such people were on the same
level as the reader (or at least what the reader believed him/herself
to be).
Now we (or some authors, at any rate) are on the verge of the ironic
stage. For example, characters like Thomas Covenant are more seriously
screwed-up than the average reader. It is much more common to see SF
characters acting in ways we recognize as childish or foolish or
insensitive.
Readers go through the same stages as literature...or rather, most
readers have a stronger affinity for one stage than another. Thus,
some readers buy SF precisely because it is a literature that still
has some god-like beings. Other "Ironic" readers (frequently those
who enjoy mainstream literature, which has been ironic for decades)
are looking for entirely different things in SF. And because SF is
only now entering the Ironic stage, the characteristic elements of
ironic literature are often missing in SF. Such elements include:
-- a certain type of characterization. It is wrong to say that
many SF stories do a poor job of characterization. In the
Mythic stage, the role of characterization is to impress the
reader with how great the god-like being is. The literature
would fail in its own goals if it introduced any humanizing
influences. (In the Old Testament, would it make sense to
have a scene in heaven where God agonizes over whether He
should destroy Sodom and Gamorrah?) Establishing characters
serves a different purpose in each of the four stages. Ironic
readers should not complain that a Heroic book doesn't give
the sort of characterization that is given in an Ironic book.
-- certain restrictions on possible events in the story. In Ironic
literature, "realism" is a desirable thing (at least if you're
fairly loose about your definition of realism). In Mythic stories,
it's an abomination. What good is it being a god if you can't
have a god-like disdain for rules of science, probability,
coincidence, and so on? In Heroic stories, the hero and heroine
really do live happily ever after (unless they're fated to die
in some high tragic way). Ironic readers can't accept such pat
solutions.
-- certain restrictions on prose style. Some SF writers can't
write...or at least they cannot write in a style that is
acceptable to readers in some stages. I howl every time I
read E.E."Doc" Smith's prose and can't take it seriously for a
moment. However, there are a large number of fans out there
who love his stuff. After 20 years, it is still in print, new
editions coming out, and so on. Smith's readers look at prose
in an entirely different light than classic "Ironic" readers.
The most educated readers today are usually Ironic readers, and what
they look for in a book are a certain set of virtues. Most of the
people who are contributing to this discussion are Ironic readers.
However, the main body of SF just hasn't got that far in the normal
course of development, nor has the main body of SF readers. I don't
think this means there is a "problem" with SF. An early stage of
development is not inferior to a later one; it's just different,
with different goals, different techniques, and a different readership.
Readers at a particular stage will be able to appreciate and enjoy
SF at the same stage. As for SF at other stages, the reader will
just have to avoid it or accept it for what it is.
Jim Gardner, University of Waterloowfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (06/28/85)
In article <15467@watmath.UUCP> jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) writes: >Northrup Frye (a Canadian literary critic whom Canadians think >is world-famous) has an interesting theory about the development >of literature that may pertain to the discussion of SF. ... When I was an undergraduate English major (late '60s, early '70s) Northrop Frye was indeed well-known and respected among literary academics in the U.S. I don't know about other countries, however. My impression is that he's still respected in some quarters, but has fallen somewhat out of fashion of late. >If one looks at SF and its history, one can see these stages fairly >easily. SF emerged as a genre of its own with the pulps; before then, >there were certainly SF stories, but they weren't a separate visible >genre. At that time, the stories dealt with god-like and heroic people, >the ones who could do practically anything. ... I'm not sure this applies to many of the characters in early SF. Jules Verne and Olaf Stapledon, for example, seem to have had a lot of people in their stories who were quite ordinary or flawed in some way. Consider the captain of the Nautilus (Nemo?) in 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea. If by 'at that time' you mean principally the early pulps, you're probably right, of course. >Now we (or some authors, at any rate) are on the verge of the ironic >stage. For example, characters like Thomas Covenant are more seriously >screwed-up than the average reader. It is much more common to see SF >characters acting in ways we recognize as childish or foolish or >insensitive. It seems to me that nonheroes or antiheroes have been fairly common in SF for many years. Consider, for example, the characters in Theodore Sturgeon's "More Than Human," who were all flawed in some way. Or Dr. Nancy what's-her-name in Asimov's robot stories, who could relate to robots effectively but not to her fellow human beings (at least that's how I remember her). >The most educated readers today are usually Ironic readers, and what >they look for in a book are a certain set of virtues. Most of the >people who are contributing to this discussion are Ironic readers. >However, the main body of SF just hasn't got that far in the normal >course of development, nor has the main body of SF readers. I don't >think this means there is a "problem" with SF. ... I wonder to what extent SF and genre literature other than SF has evolved in the sense you're talking about. It seems to me that the crime/detective story genre has always had a lot of less-than-heroic characters, at least for the bulk of this century. So has the western genre. I'm not that familiar with these genres, however. An interesting question is, have these genres 'evolved' in the sense you're talking about faster than SF has evolved over (say) the last fifty years? If so, what is it about SF that makes it harder for more 'modern' modes of fiction to become widely accepted by its readership? Perhaps someone in this group is more familiar with the history of SF and non-SF genres and can address these questions. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
JAFFE@RUTGERS.ARPA (07/08/85)
From: Mark Purtill <Purtill@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA> <Fnord> >It seems to me that nonheroes or antiheroes have been fairly common >in SF for many years. Consider, for example, the characters in >Theodore Sturgeon's "More Than Human," who were all flawed in some >way. Or Dr. Nancy what's-her-name in Asimov's robot stories, who >could relate to robots effectively but not to her fellow human >beings (at least that's how I remember her). It was Dr. Susan Calvin (I think). I beleive Asimov as said that she's his favorite character. Incidentally, one could classify at least some of the robot stories as Mythic or Heroic, *if* you consider the robots to be the protagonists. Especially the last two stories in _I,_Robot_, whose names I've forgotten (the one about "Is the candidate a robot or not?" and the one wherein the protagonists worry about whether the giant robots (really computers) that run the world are cracking up (I'm trying to avoid "spoilers" here, so I may be a little vague.)) In many of the stories robots mess up only because of (as HAL would say) human error. (Like the one where the robot messes up because it is told to pull a lever "firmly," and bends it.) On the other hand, in some of the stories robots mess up on their own (eg the one about the robot with a weak first law who was told to "get lost.") As with most attempts to classify all of anything into several neat pockets, there are ususally examples that either don't fit or which overlap more than one. Mark ^.-.^ Purtill at MIT-MULTICS.ARPA **Insert favorite disclaimer here** ((")) 2-032 MIT Cambrige MA 02139