redford%avoid.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (06/04/85)
From: redford%avoid.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Redford)
Bill Ingogly writes:
"The dialogue, characterization, and narrative in Lord of Light and
Creatures of Light and Darkness are amateurish; consider the clumsy
and stilted passages where Mahasamatman (sp? I don't own the book any
longer and haven't read it for some years) 'heroically' names himself
for us mortals' benefit: "...Some call me Sam, and most call me ham,
but you can call me Jim, or you can call me Slim..." Is this
believable or well-done? ..."
True, that is a stilted passage, but Zelazny didn't write it. The correct
quote is:
"His followers called him Mahasamatman and said he was a god. He
preferred to drop the Maha- and -atman and called himself Sam."
which sounds considerably better. It's on the cover blurb for the novel.
What's odd here is not the faulty quotation, but that Ingogly goes
on to suggest that SF readers do a detailed comparison of "Lord of Light"
with V. S. Naipaul's "A Bend in the River". This will show the superiority
of a mainstream writer's powers of characterization and dialogue. Why should
we do the comparison when Ingogly obviously hasn't? How can he say
that Naipaul is a better writer when he doesn't even remember Zelazny's
cover blurb? In any case, it's weird to compare "A Bend in the River",
the story of an alienated Indian shopkeeper in an
African town, to Zelazny's mixture of class warfare and mythology. Their
themes, settings, plots, characters, and audiences have nothing in common.
John Redford
DEC-Hudsondonn@utah-cs (06/05/85)
From: donn@utah-cs (Donn Seeley) I have to agree with John Redford here, although I have some sympathy with Bill Ingogly's point. I've read both Naipaul's A BEND IN THE RIVER and Zelazny's LORD OF LIGHT and they are so different, in plot, style, characterization and intent, that comparing them on a sentence by sentence basis strikes me as an absurd exercise. Having said that, I think I can still make some generalizations about the books that might help you decide which one is more interesting to read. BEND is narrated by an Indian shopkeeper named Salim who has come to live in an unnamed town on an unnamed river in an unnamed African country (which is apparently modeled after Stanleyville in the Congo). The novel mercilessly describes the gradual, inevitable collapse of Salim's political and social illusions about life in his new country. While the characters appear realistic, I still got the feeling they mostly exist to flesh out points about social problems in third world countries. Little or no effort is made to make the characters sympathetic, and I felt frequent annoyance at the foolishness or obstinacy of almost all the characters, particularly the narrator. My principal emotion when I finished the novel was disgust, and the fact that Naipaul intended me to be disgusted didn't make me feel much better. I much preferred the other Naipaul novel I've read, A HOUSE FOR MR. BISWAS, which is a fictionalized autobiography of Naipaul's childhood in Trinidad. Although HOUSE is equally pitiless toward its characters, they seemed much more human, and I was able to empathize with them almost in spite of the author... LORD OF LIGHT is about what happens when some otherwise ordinary human beings try to become gods. There's probably no point in describing the book in detail since most of this audience is familiar with it, but I will say that while LORD is not profound, it is deeper than Bill Ingogly implies; it suggests that there is more to the god business than the characters in the novel can imagine, and works this hypothesis out in careful stages rather than announcing it as a conclusion. The style is not as pedestrian as Bill would have it either, although it does have its weaknesses; the story is a melodrama in the same form as a classic legend, tending to colorful action at the expense of sophisticated dialogue. I think Zelazny clearly relishes his characters and enjoys playing serious scenes off against comic relief (which takes the form of anachronisms, typical of Zelazny). The characters don't seem dead, as Bill would claim. In fact the whole novel is basically written for fun, and the fun rubs off on the reader (at least on me). If I had to choose which of the two books I could take to a desert island, there's no question that I would take LORD OF LIGHT. Perhaps this shows I have no taste... (... which should come as no surprise to some of you!) Now, with all that in front, let me back up a little further. Bill's point -- that you should not automatically assume that the only good books, or even most good books, are sf books, WITHOUT TRYING ANY OTHER KIND -- is basically a good one. The point I would like to share with you is simply the converse of Bill's: Don't assume that a book must be good just because someone else tells you so; it's YOUR taste in books that counts, not some snotty reviewer's (who, me?). It may require some effort to determine the extent to which a reviewer's taste coincides with your own, but you have to make it, otherwise you won't be reading the books you'll enjoy the most. If you expose yourself only to sf reviews, you'll miss plenty of non-sf books that you might have liked, so the implication of both points is that you should hunt around more. You shouldn't feel guilty about not reading boring classics, but you will probably feel chagrin if you overlook a work you lumped into that category and later on discover that it was brilliant... Does all this make sense? Hope it's not too obvious... (Here's my little plug: a book that combines gritty realism with the head space of certain kinds of sf (such as Ballard or Dick) is FAR TORTUGA by Peter Matthiessen. Try reading it and see if you don't get the same kick you get when reading excellent sf; I sure did.) Trying to figure out what brought on this spasm of self-criticism in sf-lovers, Donn Seeley University of Utah CS Dept donn@utah-cs.arpa 40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W (801) 581-5668 decvax!utah-cs!donn
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (06/07/85)
In article <2202@topaz.ARPA> donn@utah-cs writes: >I have to agree with John Redford here, although I have some sympathy >with Bill Ingogly's point. I've read both Naipaul's A BEND IN THE >RIVER and Zelazny's LORD OF LIGHT and they are so different, in plot, >style, characterization and intent, that comparing them on a sentence >by sentence basis strikes me as an absurd exercise. Now that I've read several responses to my posting, I have to agree that it was a bad choice of books for a direct comparison. But as I've pointed out elsewhere, 'tweren't the point of my posting anyways ... > ... I much preferred the other Naipaul novel I've read, >A HOUSE FOR MR. BISWAS, which is a fictionalized autobiography of >Naipaul's childhood in Trinidad. Although HOUSE is equally pitiless >toward its characters, they seemed much more human, and I was able to >empathize with them almost in spite of the author... I liked both books. It seems we're dealing with differences of taste here, and perhaps we read fiction for different reasons. Certainly (as you point out) some fictional characters aren't SUPPOSED to be sympathetic. For a few additional examples, try Hazel Motes in Flannery O'Connor's Wise Blood, or the evil protagonist (can't remember the name) in Graham Greene's Brighton Rock, or Benny Profane, the ultimate schlemiel in Thomas Pynchon's V. Antiheros ain't always pretty to listen to, since they sometimes tell us things about the human condition that we don't particulary enjoy hearing. >will say that while LORD is not profound, it is deeper than Bill >Ingogly implies; ... >style is not as pedestrian as Bill would have it either, although it >does have its weaknesses; ... >characters don't seem dead, as Bill would claim. ... As I've said and said and said ... I'll have to reread L of L, since I seem to have been somewhat unfair to Zelazny. Enough said. > ... You shouldn't feel guilty about not reading boring >classics, but you will probably feel chagrin if you overlook a work >you lumped into that category and later on discover that it was >brilliant... ... or that you enjoyed the hell out of it. Many of the people who flamed me (or who otherwise think I'm a nut case) may not believe it, but the reason behind my posting is that I LIKE many of the authors I named, and I sincerely believe many people in this group are denying themselves pleasure by not reading outside the genre. >(Here's my little plug: a book that combines gritty realism with the >head space of certain kinds of sf (such as Ballard or Dick) is FAR >TORTUGA by Peter Matthiessen. Try reading it and see if you don't get >the same kick you get when reading excellent sf; I sure did.) I totally agree. >Trying to figure out what brought on this spasm of self-criticism >in sf-lovers, Some people find the self-criticism worrisome; I find it a positive thing. It never hurts people (SF fans included) to take a long hard look at what they're doing and maybe consider alternatives to the habitual. A good dialogue (or even an outright disagreement) can be stimulating and constructive, don't you think? -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly