4CCVAX..PDUQUETTE%cit-vax@ymir.ARPA (07/02/85)
From: Will Duquette <engvax!ymir!4CCVAX..PDUQUETTE@cit-vax> YET ANOTHER DISCUSSION OF QUALITY: I've noticed quite a bit of talk about quality in literature ( and other things) in the last few weeks worth of SF-LOVER'S. I've also noticed that most of the letters sent in are rather "polarized" -- that is, they fall into one of two disparate and rather simplistic camps. The first camp is the "absolutist" camp. They say that there IS some absolute standard of quality, and that some works are innately better than others, whether YOU, YOU UNWASHED HEATHEN, agree or not. On the other hand, there are those who live in the "relativist" camp. Quality is all in personal taste; if you enjoy something, then it has quality for you; if you don't, it has none. I'm perfectly willing to grant that the authors of many of these letters may indeed have wider opinions than these, but this is what I've been reading. I called these views simplistic for the following reasons: the relativists seem to accept a certain standard of quality in their OTHER letters--that of technical quality. An author who does not know the rules of spelling or grammar clearly is not as good a writer _technically_ as some who does (or someone who does and purposely breaks those rules...). I expect that at this point someone is screaming "But somebody can have no concept of spelling or grammar and still be a marvelous story-teller!!!!!" Exactly so, and that brings me to the flaw in the absolutist case; or not flaw exactly, but a neglected point: that there is not one absolute standard of quality, but rather many! For example, consider the book _Stand On Zanzibar_, by John Brunner, and the "Alice" books by Lewis Carroll. Both works are excellent, and technically well-written. That is, both writers are good craftsmen. But it is clear that _Stand On Zanzibar_ fails at whimsy, and that _Alice In Wonderland_ fails at creating and documenting a new and intriguing society. Of course, neither were intended for these purposes--but for one whose main taste in literature is whimsy, _Stand On Zanzibar_ will likely not be very pleasing. Note that while the whimsical reader may therefore dislike SOZ, SOZ is still excellent at what it does, namely bringing a possible future society to life. Consequently, trying to rate the quality of book depends on two things: The technical quality of the work, and its quality levels in those areas to which it is addressed. _Alice In Wonderland_ rates very highly in whimsy and subtle humor, for example, and is also well-written--and is thus an excellent book. Trying to compare the quality of two books with different goals is like trying to compare two atheletes, say a swimmer and a diver. Both use water, but the skills are very different. Any comments? Will Duquette