reiher@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA (06/11/85)
From: Peter Reiher <reiher@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA> > Charlie Martin writes: >When I say ``sterile,'' just what am I talking about? ... >Have you ever read (or tried to read) a story in which you were >never able to become engrossed in the story? Where you were always >conscious that you were ... reading ... a ... book? Then I believe >you were reading something that I call sterile. Odd definition of literary sterility. The term "sterility" is usually meant to convey something incapable of reproducing, so I would have thought literary sterility to mean that the work in question is a dead end, that it will have no influence on future works, perhaps that it does not stimulate speculation or thought. Your use of "sterility" strikes me as, intentional or not, an attempt to misuse a word so that you can take advantage of its perjorative connotations. This is similar to a liberal who chooses to call conservatives facists for rhetorical value. While they may fit your definition of "works which didn't engross *me*", your examples are certainly not sterile by any traditional definition of the word. "Moby Dick" and "Finnegan's Wake" are tremendously influential works which have lasted. The examples set by these novels are widely emulated (though not, in the case of "Finnegan's Wake", to the extent that Joyce went). I suspect that Calvino will have the same kind of lasting influence. As for the alternate definition, both Melville and Joyce make me think a great deal more than the vast majority of science fiction authors, so I believe that reading them has been more valuable to me than reading, say, Heinlein or Asimov or Zelazney. If these mainstream authors cause me to think more, if they stimulate ideas and broaden my viewpoint, I certainly wouldn't call them sterile, even if I didn't forget for a moment that I had a book in my hand. On the other hand, with a very few exceptions, any sf/fantasy novel I read stimulates very little thought for me. They are influential in the sense that almost every successful sf novel is likely to be copied, by its author if no one else, but I have my doubts about lasting influences. The sf of the 30s and 40s is almost entirely forgotten, with the exceptions of a few fine works and a lot of stuff written by authors who later became extremely successful. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of today's sf is destined for oblivion in a couple decades, a greater proportion of it than today's mainstream fiction. >I find it impossible to read Moby Dick for pleasure. I very much >doubt that _Finnegan's_Wake_ is read by *anyone* for pleasure -- or >if it is, it is only because years of study have made the reader so >familiar with the language involved (which means learning how to >handle puns across several european languages which are written in >the form of euphonic Scotch telegrams) that this language barrier is >no longer a problem. I believe that _Finnegan's_Wake_ is sterile. I read "Finnegan's Wake" for pleasure. I have little linguistic background, beyond that inevitably gained by someone who has read a lot . I've never finished "Finnegan's Wake", and I am well aware that much of it flies right over my head. I have great difficulty even following what's going on. For me, reading "Finnegan's Wake" requires great effort. Yet, I enjoy it. Some people seem to only enjoy reading when they are able to put their mind on autopilot. I don't mind having to exert some effort, provided that the author gives me returns for my work. Authors like Joyce and Faulkner do. Many people are forgetting what sparked this discussion. It was a grandious claim that the best working authors are, for the most part, science fiction writers. I believe that, even under the constraint that you have to be able to immerse yourself in the book, this view is incorrect. You, of course, are welcome to feel otherwise, but unless you have done some fairly wide reading outside sf and in current literature, don't be too surprised if more widely read people snicker behind your back and attempt to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (06/12/85)
In article <2255@topaz.ARPA> reiher@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA writes: >From: Peter Reiher <reiher@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA> > >> Charlie Martin writes: >>When I say ``sterile,'' just what am I talking about? >... >>Have you ever read (or tried to read) a story in which you were >>never able to become engrossed in the story? Where you were always >>conscious that you were ... reading ... a ... book? Then I believe >>you were reading something that I call sterile. > >Odd definition of literary sterility. The term "sterility" is usually >meant to convey something incapable of reproducing, so I would have >thought literary sterility to mean that the work in question is a dead >end, that it will have no influence on future works, perhaps that it does >not stimulate speculation or thought. Your use of "sterility" strikes me as, >intentional or not, an attempt to misuse a word so that you can take advantage >of its perjorative connotations. In fact, the implication of infertility is precisely the implication I wanted, which is why I chose ``sterile.'' And the infertility that I intend to suggest is the inability to stimulate the creation of a vivid dream as an agreement between reader and writer. To strain my metaphor, I would go so far as to say that I think a mature reader is a growth medium, capapble of bringing forth this vivid and shared dream when fertilized by a (non-sterile) work of fiction. I will stick to the word I chose, and only want to assure you that the perjorative meaning you believe I implied is more-or-less the one I intended. > >While they may fit your definition of "works which didn't engross *me*", your >examples are certainly not sterile by any traditional definition of the >word. "Moby Dick" and "Finnegan's Wake" are tremendously influential works >which have lasted. And had I grown up with 19-th Century english as my native language, I'm sure that I would be engrossed by Moby Dick; but I didn't, and I'm not, even after a number of trys over several years. I wish I were -- I really admire the way that Melville put together sentences. >The examples set by these novels are widely emulated >(though not, in the case of "Finnegan's Wake", to the extent that Joyce went). >I suspect that Calvino will have the same kind of lasting influence. > >As for the alternate definition, both Melville and Joyce make me think a >great deal more than the vast majority of science fiction authors, so I >believe that reading them has been more valuable to me than reading, say, >Heinlein or Asimov or Zelazney. If these mainstream authors cause me to >think more, if they stimulate ideas and broaden my viewpoint, I certainly >wouldn't call them sterile, even if I didn't forget for a moment that I >had a book in my hand. I have been trying to establish my use of the word ``sterile'' to make a technical distinction which I think is both invaluable and neglected in most critical discussions. I think that the one and only, sole reason for fiction's existence is to bring about that immersion in the shared dream. In fact I have begun to call it the Vivid Dream specifically to make that point. That fiction which impedes the creation of the Vivid Dream I feel is sterile *as fiction*. I don't exclude the possibility of other value. >On the other hand, with a very few exceptions, any >sf/fantasy novel I read stimulates very little thought for me. Then they are unsuccessful essays. >They are >influential in the sense that almost every successful sf novel is likely to >be copied, by its author if no one else, but I have my doubts about lasting >influences. The sf of the 30s and 40s is almost entirely forgotten, with the >exceptions of a few fine works and a lot of stuff written by authors who later >became extremely successful. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of >today's sf is destined for oblivion in a couple decades, a greater proportion >of it than today's mainstream fiction. The distinction between ``being copied'' and ``being influential'' is so subtle that I can't follow what you are saying in the first instance at all. (Actually, I am subtly trying to say that I think the distinction you are making is specious.) Give me a little further explaination, OK? As for the second point, I agree that most SF of today will disappear soon, except for collections. Most of mainstream ficiton will disappear soon, except for collections. However, the proportion of SF that is in print from 1950 is *much* greater than the proportion of mainstream fiction in print from 1950 (easily checked at any large library), so your second point seems to come down on my side. But in any case, as the first para of my article said, I think that Sturgeon's Law applies to *everything* without exception. I *do* think that an SF novel is more likely to be good fiction (remember, I'm talking about Vivid Dream now, not how much of an essay is hidden within the narrative) than a mainstream novel published the same year; but if you claimed mainstream for 91% crap and SF for 89% crap, I could hardly argue the point. > >>I find it impossible to read Moby Dick for pleasure. I very much >>doubt that _Finnegan's_Wake_ is read by *anyone* for pleasure -- or >> ... >>the form of euphonic Scotch telegrams) that this language barrier is >>no longer a problem. I believe that _Finnegan's_Wake_ is sterile. > >I read "Finnegan's Wake" for pleasure. I have little linguistic background, >beyond that inevitably gained by someone who has read a lot . >I've never finished "Finnegan's Wake", and I am well aware that much of it >flies right over my head. I have great difficulty even following what's >going on. For me, reading "Finnegan's Wake" requires great effort. Yet, I >enjoy it. Some people seem to only enjoy reading when they are able to put >their mind on autopilot. I don't mind having to exert some effort, provided >that the author gives me returns for my work. Authors like Joyce and Faulkner >do. I've already covered this point a couple of times, so I won't belabor it: I overstated my point and I have indeed read parts of FW for pleasure. The pleasure is *not* that of entering into a shared dream, but rather of working out a puzzle. That pleasure is legitimate pleasure; I don't think its what *fiction* is about. > >Many people are forgetting what sparked this discussion. It was a grandious >claim that the best working authors are, for the most part, science fiction >writers. ``Speak for yourself, Miles.'' *I* was replying rather to the idea that science fiction was all derivative and devoid of artistic merit. I have extended that by adding an attempt at defining what makes ``good fiction'' good, in order to make my argument clear and explicit. I still think that the odds are (slightly) better that an SF book by Jon Q. R. Random will be ``good fiction'' in the sense that I mean than the book in mainstream that is published the same day. >I believe that, even under the constraint that you have to be able >to immerse yourself in the book, this view is incorrect. You, of course, are >welcome to feel otherwise, but unless you have done some fairly wide reading >outside sf and in current literature, don't be too surprised if more widely >read people snicker behind your back and attempt to sell you the Brooklyn >Bridge. I suppose that I should point out the various authors I have read, and also point out the authors mentioned in my posting that you've cut out of your quotes, but I won't. However, I am egotistical enough to state that I am pretty widely read, in German and English. In Science Fiction, Fantasy, mainstream fiction, poetry, history and philosophy. I even read Chinese to some extent, and have historical publications. But I should thank you for including this last paragraph: this is a near-perfect example of the sort of pseudo-argument that I was speaking of when I mentioned the ``elitist response.'' You are pretty explicitly saying that taking this stand suggests that I am not a literary sophisticate (sell me the Brooklyn Bridge, indeed.) This reasoning is so patently circular that I will dignify it with no further response. A summing up: I am not simply saying ``I couldn't understand these books, therefore they must be bad.'' I am specifically stating that the sine qua non of ``good fiction'' is the ability to produce the vivid and shared dream. I specifically reject what I feel to have been your contention, that the worth of a work of fiction is the worth of the ideas in that fiction (fiction-as-hidden-essay.) And I still believe that SF (and other genre fiction, e.g. mystery stories) is more likely to take care to produce that vivid dream than mainstream. However, Bill Ingogly and Davis Tucker and I had been approaching something like a consensus, I think. Fun to have another opposition member. -- Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (06/12/85)
In article <2255@topaz.ARPA> reiher@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA writes: >> Charlie Martin writes: >... >>Have you ever read (or tried to read) a story in which you were >>never able to become engrossed in the story? Where you were always >>conscious that you were ... reading ... a ... book? Then I believe >>you were reading something that I call sterile. > >Odd definition of literary sterility. The term "sterility" is usually >meant to convey something incapable of reproducing, so I would have >thought literary sterility to mean that the work in question is a dead >end, that it will have no influence on future works, perhaps that it does >not stimulate speculation or thought. Your use of "sterility" strikes me as, >intentional or not, an attempt to misuse a word so that you can take advantage >of its perjorative connotations. ... Sorry, Charlie's definition of literary sterility is close to the standard one. From Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College Edition: ... 3. lacking in interest or vitality; not stimulating or effective [a sterile style] ... I won't presume to respond to the rest of your response to him, but I did want to set the record straight on this point. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (06/12/85)
... and Bill's response reminds me, when I said that we were approaching a concensus, it didn't mean that Bill and DAvis and I all *agree* -- just want to make sure this wasn't misrepresented. I'll be out of town for a week or so, have fun while I'm gone. -- Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
reiher@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA (06/18/85)
From: Peter Reiher <reiher@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA> Bill Ingogly writes >Sorry, Charlie's definition of literary sterility is close to the >standard one. From Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College >Edition: > > ... 3. lacking in interest or vitality; not stimulating or > effective [a sterile style] ... Only if you accept his premise that the only way in which a work of fiction can be interesting, vital, stimulating, or effective is if it wraps its reader up in its own world, a premise I do not accept. Do you? Peter Reiher