ddb@mrvax.DEC (06/28/85)
> PART VII: Thematic Drought > by Davis Tucker >But let us return to modern novel, starting with "Don Quixote De La Mancha" >and Dante's "Inferno", "Purgatorio", and "Paradiso". What distinguishes the Dante's Divine Comedy isn't a novel of any sort, nor is it modern by any standard definition. I don't recall any agreed-on definition of the modern novel, but surely it's something AFTER Dickens? >The novels and short stories of the 19th and 20th centuries >have given us insight into the worlds within us that have lain buried... >strange themes of degradation and desperation... >Self-discovery instead of self-actualization (who you are, not what you can >become)... >Tales of obsession and murder and lust... Sigh. I know who I am, thank you very much. I'm not interested in reading fictional accounts of the self-discoveries of people I wouldn't care to meet on the streets. Most of those people are BORING BORING BORING, and reading about them is even worse. And I prefer a different slant on my tales of obsession and lust :-). >Why is it that this freedom of themes, this wealth of subject material, >is not present in science fiction? When was the last time you read a >real-life, honest-to-god science fiction tragedy? Why is it that nobody >has written a truly great *love story* in science fiction? Where is the >human failure, the small glories, the defeats of growing old, the joy >in childhood, the pain of growing aware, the acceptance that we all must >come to in time, the heartache, the anguish, the ecstasy? Tragedies? Tom Godwin's The Cold Equations would be my first pick. The original Dune trilogy is a classic Greek-form tragedy. Most of Sturgeon's work is love stories; try Venus Plus X, The Silk and Swift, or Slow Sculpture. Or Joan Vinge's Snow Queen. Or Delany's Driftglass. Zelazny does the "human failure, the small glories, the defeats of growing old, the joy in childhood, the pain of growing aware..." pretty well, as does Robert Heinlein (try The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, or Time Enough for Love). Look at Childhood's End (Arthur C. Clarke). Try Steve Brust's Brokedown Palace (when it comes out; sorry to cheat like that). Try John M. Ford's The Princes of the Air. The modern literary novel is obsessed with the self-discoveries of neurotics and schizophrenics; I'm not interested in the rantings of crazy people, thank you. >They don't address themselves to what is fundamentally >imperative when one is writing about human beings, or aliens, or any >kind of consciousness that feels and thinks. And just what is that? And how can you be so sure what's imperative? >It would be far better if >more authors of science fiction showed as much passion and interest in >their characters' lives as they do in their "universes" and scientific >extrapolation. The best ones do. Just as the less good ones in the literary genre don't. >Human nature is much more interesting than particle physics, >and it's a much richer lode of strangeness and imagination. I'm not sure there's any such THING as human nature; there are just humans. Humans are more interesting under stress than at rest (at least if you're watching from a distance :-). Humans interacting with particle physics on a personal level are often under a lot more stress than humans at rest! The universe is a much stranger place than the parts of it I've been able to visit so far would indicate; I find people's reactions to these strange environments to be very interesting. And humans AREN'T the only valid subject for a novel; it's perfectly valid to focus on something other than the characters. -- David Dyer-Bennet UUCP: ...!{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|purdue|shasta|utcsrgv}! decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mrvax!ddb Arpa: ddb%mrvax.DEC@decwrl.ARPA Easynet: Dyer-Bennet@KL2102, mrvax::ddb Compuserve: 74756,723 AT&T/NYNEX: (617) 467-4076 (work) (617) 562-2130 (home)