ddb@mrvax.DEC (05/29/85)
With or without a license, as they say, I gotta butt into this.
I'm pleased to see such a large amount of light being directed into this
discussion, even if mostly we're shining it into each others eyes. Detailed
suggestions of what is "good literature" today are especially usefull.
Indeed, I haven't read most of the authors listed, and it's possible that
I may try some of them and perform the comparisons suggested (GOOD suggestions
on how to compare books, by the way). However, the fact is that both at home
and in school I've tried a moderate amount of what various people at various
times thought was good literature (literary genre, as opposed to best-seller
genre; there is no "mainstream" any more), and I thought it stunk, for exactly
the reasons various people are criticizing SF: unbelievable characters, bad
dialogue. So I'm not enthusiastic about diving back into the swamp for
another go.
People have sufficiently different views of humanity that characters probably
can't please all of us. Those of you espousing the literary genre as a
religion should note that many of us in the other camp feel at least as
strongly. I wouldn't say that most of the best writers today are working in
SF and fantasy. A good number of them are also in mystery and children's
(or young-adult) literature.
As for the acerbic attack on Lord of Light, I can only say you must not have
read it in the last few years; certainly the line you quote doesn't appear
in the book. Not being a lit-crit bullshit artist, I'm not interested in
attempting a line-by-line defense of the book, but it's one of my favorites.
The Ellison attack was shoddy, very shoddy. The criticism of him for putting
forward a hip, witty, front, may be true of him in person, and even of
his non-fiction perhaps, but is completely irrelevant to his fiction.
Apart from the differences on what constitutes a "believable" character,
I think a major source of argument is the relative importance of plot and
character to everything else (particularly style, or "quality of writing").
To me, a good plot can sometimes carry mediocre writing; but superb writing
can never carry a dull plot. (unsatisfactory characters will ruin everything
else no matter what.)
-- 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)wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (06/01/85)
In article <2359@decwrl.UUCP> version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rti-sel.UUCP version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP rti-sel!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mrvax!ddb ddb@mrvax.DEC writes: >Indeed, I haven't read most of the authors listed, and it's possible that >I may try some of them and perform the comparisons suggested (GOOD suggestions >on how to compare books, by the way). ... Good. I enjoy most of the authors on my own list of mainstream authors, and consider my posting a success if I've gotten a few people to at least CONSIDER reading some of these authors (many of whom are just as hungry as your average SF author, by the way) ... >and in school I've tried a moderate amount of what various people at various >times thought was good literature (literary genre, as opposed to best-seller >genre; there is no "mainstream" any more), and I thought it stunk, for exactly >the reasons various people are criticizing SF: unbelievable characters, bad >dialogue. So I'm not enthusiastic about diving back into the swamp for >another go. Hmmm... I realized after posting my article that it may have overstated my point a bit. In another posting on this subject I quoted the SF author (I said Clarke, but it was Sturgeon) who said 90% of EVERYTHING is garbage, so I agree with you to a certain extent. Also, tastes in literature certainly vary. Don't give up on non-SF literature because you've had some bad experiences with it (geez, I said the same thing to a non-SF fan who couldn't see what all the fuss was about SF recently...). You might try Italo Calvino, Jorge Luis Borges' Ficciones, Doris Lessing's Briefing for a Descent into Hell, maybe Thomas Pynchon's V or Crying of Lot 49. I also overstressed dialogue and characterization in my posting; not all good writers stress dialogue or characterization, and there are some on my list whose characters are stylized to a greater or lesser degree (Thomas Pynchon and Ishmael Reed, for example). Gravity's Rainbow, for example, reads at times like a Zap comic book. An acquired taste, I suppose. >... Those of you espousing the literary genre as a >religion should note that many of us in the other camp feel at least as >strongly. I wouldn't say that most of the best writers today are working in >SF and fantasy. A good number of them are also in mystery and children's >(or young-adult) literature. If you go back to my posting, you'll find that my main beef was with exactly this statement; of course there are good writers in these genres, and there are good writers who don't fit comfortably in any genre or who work in several genres. >As for the acerbic attack on Lord of Light, I can only say you must not have >read it in the last few years; certainly the line you quote doesn't appear >in the book. Not being a lit-crit bullshit artist, I'm not interested in >attempting a line-by-line defense of the book, but it's one of my favorites. I haven't read it in some years, but the negative feelings stem from my analyses in the years since (I read it twice ten years ago). The line I quote is a parody of the actual line in the book; I think it's near the end of the book as well as the beginning. There are books I'm fond of that I'm sure many people wouldn't wipe their noses with. One of the things I wanted to get across is that one person's favorite writer may well be another's least favorite (I HAVE read Madwand by Zelazny recently, and felt it was a disaster). The statement that most of the best writers today are working in the SF genre offended me, because I know it's simply NOT TRUE. If there are no sacred cows in so-called mainstream fiction, there certainly are none in SF. I honestly don't believe Zelazny or Ellison rank among the best SF writers working today, though I liked Zelazny a great deal ten years ago and have since changed my mind through reflection on his work as I remember it. I certainly plan to reread it now, to see if my feelings are warranted. And I certainly think no less of anyone who's a rabid Zelazny and/or Ellison fan. >The Ellison attack was shoddy, very shoddy. The criticism of him for putting >forward a hip, witty, front, may be true of him in person, and even of >his non-fiction perhaps, but is completely irrelevant to his fiction. I see the same hip, witty front in his fiction, unfortunately, from his snappy titles ("Shattered Like A Glass Goblin;" "The Beast Who Shouted Love etc.") to his slick prose. Ellison's fiction fairly drips trendiness, but I can't offhand say why it bothers me so. It seems urban and urbane in a very superficial way to me; consider, for example, "Shattered Like A Glass Goblin," which shows Ellison's knowledge of the '60s counterculture lifestyle and is a 'clever' story. But if you strip away all the trendiness and knowledge of the counterculture, what's left? A rather ordinary horror story. Sorry, I still find Ellison overrated. >Apart from the differences on what constitutes a "believable" character, >I think a major source of argument is the relative importance of plot and >character to everything else (particularly style, or "quality of writing"). >To me, a good plot can sometimes carry mediocre writing; but superb writing >can never carry a dull plot. (unsatisfactory characters will ruin everything >else no matter what.) I agree 100%. Just as long as we all realize that a plot that's dull to one person may be absorbing to another. -- Bill Ingogly