dht@druri.UUCP (Davis Tucker) (05/14/85)
THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE FICTION TODAY
PART I: The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions
by Davis Tucker
___________________________________________________________________________
"I hadn't liked his work until I met him, but
I couldn't stand liking him so much and not liking
his books, so I made myself read them until I
liked them." (1)
This quote exemplifies what is so difficult about science fiction and
its relation to its public. Since it is such an insular (some would
say inbred) community, there is a wonderful "personal" nature of
the relationship between author and reader that does not really
exist in any other genre (which I notice, most other forms of popular
writing do not refer to themselves as a "genre", but that's something
else altogether...). Fine. There is nothing wrong with a public being in
closer contact with an author, as long as that contact does not downgrade
any given person's ability to judge and appreciate. Unfortunately, this
degradatation of critical faculties is unavoidable, just by human nature,
and it takes a very strong sense of self to keep it in check. The above
statement puts it very succinctly - and is a very good example of what is
so often wrong with science fiction fandom and its rationale for giving
accolades or insults.
Dostoevsky was, by all accounts, an extremely contentious and obnoxious
individual, who was prone to fits of rage and drunkenness; a man who
died without many friends, mainly because he drove them off. Yet he
is one of the finest writers of all time. His work is a product of himself;
I'm not saying we have to divorce the man from the words. But given the
usual nature of science fiction, if he happened to be a writer in that
field today, he probably wouldn't get published, he certainly wouldn't
win any awards, and he would definitely not gain any great appreciation
from the science fiction readers and establishment. This is not conjecture;
this is fact. And the hardest fact of all for many fans to swallow, which
few of them have, is that it is often the most disagreeable people who
write the greatest literature. Our most tortured souls, our outcasts,
our misanthropists. Mark Twain. Edgar Allen Poe. Sinclair Lewis. John
Steinbeck. Ambrose Bierce (to whom science fiction owes a great deal
for writing a number of definitive "tomato surprise" stories). And
even more recently, Norman Mailer, Gore Vidal, Truman Capote, Tennessee
Williams! Let's be honest - almost all great writers, even if they
were likeable, had some very horrible personality traits, often in
the extreme. Alcoholism and drug abuse seem to be the congenital defects
of writers, coupled with a large streak of self-destructiveness.
Now, it's true that there are many likeable people who could fit
into this company. But the point is that someone's congeniality is not
his or her writing. It just flat out has no bearing whatsoever on the
quality of his or her prose.
A good friend of mine works for a newspaper. She's written all her life.
She's a wonderful human being from whom I've learned an incredible
amount. She's a very likeable person, the kind who draws people into
conversations, who listens, who relates. But she can't write fiction
for jack. No ifs, ands, or buts - she's just not good at it. Now am
I supposed to start liking her writing because I like her? Sure, she's
a close friend, and I'll do more than just give her the benefit of the
doubt. But to "make myself read them until I like them", to bludgeon
myself into liking her fiction, is to go against everything for which
great, even good writing stands. It downgrades literature of any sort,
takes it from being an art or a craft, to being a popularity contest.
And that is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Vincent Van Gogh was a tortured, insane, and lonely man. Norman Rockwell
was basically a nice guy. I probably would not have enjoyed being around
Van Gogh, while Norman and I would quite possibly have gotten along famously.
So I should, by the above quoted argument, attempt to reach a deeper appre-
ciation of Rockwell's work due to my personal fondness for him. In other
words, if I like him so much as a person, I certainly would like his work.
But no matter how much I tried, Norman Rockwell would never be one millionth
of Vincent Van Gogh, would never possess one iota of Van Gogh's genius.
Isaac Asimov, from everything I've heard, is a gentleman - well-mannered,
considerate, helpful to young authors, interested in new talent. Some of his
work possesses merit - his non-fiction. We'll forget about his poetry ("Dr. A."
indeed!). His fiction is not that good - yes, it shows some marginal crafts-
manship, some workable ideas, but it's not really that good, as fiction.
His characters are at best two-dimensional, his societies are not really that
interesting unless you like space opera, and his writing style is pretty
nondescript and undeveloped. His plots are rather predictable, and his
themes are shopworn after 40 years. Whatever he had to say about robots
he said a long, long time ago (Karel Kapek said it with much more depth
and understanding in "R.U.R.", which predates any of the Asimov robot
stories). He has made a career out of mediocrity, out of the standard
"Scientist-With-Great-Idea-Explains-It-All-To-Young-Whippersnapper" story
so unfortunately common in science fiction (especially the misnamed "Golden
Age Of Science Fiction"). There's nothing wrong with that; believe me,
the last thing I would do is take cheap potshots at someone who actually
makes a living by being a writer, even if I think he's not a very good one.
But nothing he has written even comes close to Gene Wolfe. This isn't mere
opinion - I don't truck with the idea of absolute relativism in art.
It is probably an overstatement, but Asimov is to Wolfe as Rockwell is
to Van Gogh.
Appreciation of good writing takes many forms, and it is arguably less
critically bankrupt to like an author for his work than to like his work
for his personality. A writer and his work are certainly not separate;
but it is the printed word which must be judged, because that is the
primary function of a writer - not to be a nice human being, or a good
father, or a temperate drinker, but to be a good writer. Anything else
is superfluous, unimportant, icing on the cake. A great author can be
forgiven anything in his life, no matter how heinous; a bad writer can
be the finest man in the world, but he cannot be forgiven being a bad
writer. If science fiction were not a field of literary endeavor (and
who knows? Sometimes it really does seem to be something totally different),
none of this would matter. But it is, and it is incumbent upon readers
of science fiction to remember this, and judge accordingly, and not
allow personalities to affect that judgement.
That's all for today, kids. Tune in next week for "THE PROBLEMS OF
SCIENCE FICTION TODAY, PART II: Meet The New Hack, Same As The Old
Hack".
(1) Steven Brust, USENET article dated May 6, 1985brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) (05/15/85)
> > THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE FICTION TODAY > > PART I: The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions > > by Davis Tucker > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > "I hadn't liked his work until I met him, but > I couldn't stand liking him so much and not liking > his books, so I made myself read them until I > liked them." (1) > > This quote exemplifies what is so difficult about science fiction and > its relation to its public. Since it is such an insular (some would > say inbred) community, there is a wonderful "personal" nature of > the relationship between author and reader that does not really > exist in any other genre (which I notice, most other forms of popular > writing do not refer to themselves as a "genre", but that's something > else altogether...). Fine. There is nothing wrong with a public being in > closer contact with an author, as long as that contact does not downgrade > any given person's ability to judge and appreciate. Unfortunately, this > degradatation of critical faculties is unavoidable, just by human nature, > and it takes a very strong sense of self to keep it in check. The above > statement puts it very succinctly - and is a very good example of what is > so often wrong with science fiction fandom and its rationale for giving > accolades or insults. > Hi there. The quote was, of course, mine. That is only one of the things that moves me to answer. I will not apologize for the length; anyone can skip it and yours was a carefully thought out essay that deserves to be answered. What you say is not only wrong, but dangerously wrong. Should anyone with hopes of writing read it, and believe it, his career will likely be shot before it gets started. I am not unfamiliar with the kind of thinking going on here. It is the romanticising of the arts. Taking this seriously is fine for critics and historians, but for a writer to do so is pure poison. The notion that SF writers and fans are in closer touch than in most genres is true. The effect of this is to present to the writer more information on how is work is being taken than is common. To say that this is inherently a bad thing is to fall into the trap of feeling that an artist should be insensitive to the public's response to his art. Once again, we have the romance of the artist. But the JOB of the artist is to evoke emotion, and to deepen the viewer's knowledge of the world around him by bringing out and exposing the contradictions that operate on his, the viewer's or reader's, life. In other words, NO artist can create art that will move someone with whom he has nothing in common. The greatest artists are those who are most able to transcend that cultural differences that separate men to arrive at the underlying similarities. A common milue between writer and reader deepens the unity between them, and therefore makes even more sharp that the conflicts in the life of the artist, expressed through his art, are also there in the life of the reader. Should the artist feel he is creating art "above" the common man, he is no longer engaging in art, he is engaging in masterbation. To be clear, you are not saying all that I am attributing to you, but I sense it in your attitude and so feel driven to respond. > Dostoevsky was, by all accounts, an extremely contentious and obnoxious > individual, who was prone to fits of rage and drunkenness; a man who > died without many friends, mainly because he drove them off. Yet he > is one of the finest writers of all time. His work is a product of himself; > I'm not saying we have to divorce the man from the words. But given the > usual nature of science fiction, if he happened to be a writer in that > field today, he probably wouldn't get published, he certainly wouldn't > win any awards, and he would definitely not gain any great appreciation > from the science fiction readers and establishment. This is not conjecture; > this is fact. No, this is nonsense. First of all, no one in the publishing industry would know anything about him when his manuscript first appeared. If it were good, it would be published. This is exactly the strength of Science Fiction. If you write good SF, you can publish. This is true to a lesser extent in mysteries, and almost nowhere else. But it is a low-paying field, and therefore the oppurtunity exists to take chances on unknowns. If what you say is true, Harlan Ellison would never have published, nor would Jerry Pournell (in the latter case, this might have been nice, but never mind) to pick just two examples. Neither of these people are well-liked (or were; I'm told Ellison is changing) but both are successful, and both have won awards. Now, there is nevertheless some truth to what you say about awards--as long as we are discussing the Hugo and not the Nebula--but even here the truth is very limited. All right, yes; the Hugo can be and sometimes has been a popularity contest. The Nebula has never been. Furthermore, if a writer can only sell to Fans (meaning those who have some contact with anything that can be called the Science Fiction Comunity) he will never be a successful author. If he were to be ostracised by these fans to the extent that NO fan would buy his books, the drop in sales would be noticable but not crippling. Just as a side note, by the way, have you been following the comments on TO REIGN IN HELL? If those who have been attacking it have been holding back out of affection for me, I don't want to hear their real opionions. > And the hardest fact of all for many fans to swallow, which > few of them have, is that it is often the most disagreeable people who > write the greatest literature. Our most tortured souls, our outcasts, > our misanthropists. Mark Twain. Edgar Allen Poe. Sinclair Lewis. John > Steinbeck. Ambrose Bierce (to whom science fiction owes a great deal > for writing a number of definitive "tomato surprise" stories). And > even more recently, Norman Mailer, Gore Vidal, Truman Capote, Tennessee > Williams! Let's be honest - almost all great writers, even if they > were likeable, had some very horrible personality traits, often in > the extreme. Alcoholism and drug abuse seem to be the congenital defects > of writers, coupled with a large streak of self-destructiveness. > Now, it's true that there are many likeable people who could fit > into this company. But the point is that someone's congeniality is not > his or her writing. It just flat out has no bearing whatsoever on the > quality of his or her prose. > It is interesting to see the list of those you consider great writers. Twain; yes. But if you are implying that he was an unpleasant man, you are drastically overstating the case. Sinclair Lewis; okay. But Poe? "Greatest literature"??? Steinbeck? Certainly--sometimes. On a good day. As for your current choices, I can't believe you are serious. Truman Capote writing great liturature? For whom? I once thought the term self-indulgent was invented to describe him. And Mailer doesn't even have Capote's occasional gift for turn of phrase. I read SF because most (not all) of the best writers are working there. If you are going to mention current "liturature" that is worth reading, you should at least mention Salinger, who isn't consistent but is better than most of the ones you mention (I'll concede the point on Williams--he really is good, most of the time). As you say, someone's congeniality has no bearing on the quality of his prose. Think about that-- it runs both ways. > A good friend of mine works for a newspaper. She's written all her life. > She's a wonderful human being from whom I've learned an incredible > amount. She's a very likeable person, the kind who draws people into > conversations, who listens, who relates. But she can't write fiction > for jack. No ifs, ands, or buts - she's just not good at it. Now am > I supposed to start liking her writing because I like her? Sure, she's > a close friend, and I'll do more than just give her the benefit of the > doubt. But to "make myself read them until I like them", to bludgeon > myself into liking her fiction, is to go against everything for which > great, even good writing stands. It downgrades literature of any sort, > takes it from being an art or a craft, to being a popularity contest. > And that is wrong, wrong, wrong. > Why? I have, several times, had the pleasure of eating at The Bakery, a fine, continental restauraunt in Chicago. I have even made the 8-hour trip to Chicago to eat there. I also enjoy eating at little diner called "Key's" in St. Paul that the tiniest step above being a greasy spoon. The Bakery has good food; eating at "Key's" is pleasant. I don't feel that by enjoying eating at "Key's" I am insulting Chef Szathmary. They are not equal, I know the difference, and I can enjoy both. I feel I am richer thereby. I also read the Destroyer novels. In no way can they be called good. Nevertheless, I enjoy them. I do not feel my appreciation of Twain suffers because I can be entertained by pulp adventure. > > Vincent Van Gogh was a tortured, insane, and lonely man. Norman Rockwell > was basically a nice guy. I probably would not have enjoyed being around > Van Gogh, while Norman and I would quite possibly have gotten along famously. > So I should, by the above quoted argument, attempt to reach a deeper appre- > ciation of Rockwell's work due to my personal fondness for him. In other > words, if I like him so much as a person, I certainly would like his work. > But no matter how much I tried, Norman Rockwell would never be one millionth > of Vincent Van Gogh, would never possess one iota of Van Gogh's genius. > No. But if you can enjoy his work, there will be that much more that you can enjoy. Whence comes the notion that to enjoy the "sub-great" is to diminish enjoyment of the truly great? Take it on its own level and Rockwell is fine. The problem with Van Gogh is that there was only one of him. > Isaac Asimov, from everything I've heard, is a gentleman - well-mannered, > considerate, helpful to young authors, interested in new talent. Some of his > work possesses merit - his non-fiction. We'll forget about his poetry ("Dr. A." > indeed!). His fiction is not that good - yes, it shows some marginal crafts- > manship, some workable ideas, but it's not really that good, as fiction. > His characters are at best two-dimensional, his societies are not really that > interesting unless you like space opera, and his writing style is pretty > nondescript and undeveloped. His plots are rather predictable, and his > themes are shopworn after 40 years. Whatever he had to say about robots > he said a long, long time ago (Karel Kapek said it with much more depth > and understanding in "R.U.R.", which predates any of the Asimov robot > stories). He has made a career out of mediocrity, out of the standard > "Scientist-With-Great-Idea-Explains-It-All-To-Young-Whippersnapper" story > so unfortunately common in science fiction (especially the misnamed "Golden > Age Of Science Fiction"). There's nothing wrong with that; believe me, > the last thing I would do is take cheap potshots at someone who actually > makes a living by being a writer, even if I think he's not a very good one. > But nothing he has written even comes close to Gene Wolfe. This isn't mere > opinion - I don't truck with the idea of absolute relativism in art. > It is probably an overstatement, but Asimov is to Wolfe as Rockwell is > to Van Gogh. > I see. Well, I quite agree--QUITE agree--with your assessments of the relative literary merits of Dr. Asimov and Gene Wolfe. In fact, I don't think the comparison IS an overstatement. Yes, Asimov is to Wolfe as Rockwell is to Van Gogh. I've never met Dr. Asimov, but from everything I've heard, he gets away with acting as he does only becuase of his fame and success. He is--never mind. This is a semi-public forum. But I can safely say that, from all reports, Dr. Asimov is not a pleasant companion if you happen to be female. Okay. I HAVE met Gene Wolfe. On a panal, as the center of a group, on the fringe of a group, in letters, or in a tete-a-tete, you will never find a finer, wittier, more charming gentleman. Now, where does that leave you? > Appreciation of good writing takes many forms, and it is arguably less > critically bankrupt to like an author for his work than to like his work > for his personality. A writer and his work are certainly not separate; > but it is the printed word which must be judged, because that is the > primary function of a writer - not to be a nice human being, or a good > father, or a temperate drinker, but to be a good writer. Anything else > is superfluous, unimportant, icing on the cake. A great author can be > forgiven anything in his life, no matter how heinous; a bad writer can > be the finest man in the world, but he cannot be forgiven being a bad > writer. If science fiction were not a field of literary endeavor (and > who knows? Sometimes it really does seem to be something totally different), > none of this would matter. But it is, and it is incumbent upon readers > of science fiction to remember this, and judge accordingly, and not > allow personalities to affect that judgement. > I will agree with this. Your notion that there is a widespread judgeing of literary quality based on personality is, however, incorrect. The real problem, which would be well worth addresing, is: the general of lack of criticism of any kind. You are a fan; this is obvious. You, like most fans, have a drastically overblown notion of the importence of fandom. Yes, we aren't getting much serious literary criticism, but this has little or nothing to do with fandom. Read LeGuin's essays on why American SF has generally been ignored by the critics. No, it isn't fandom--fandom just isn't that important to SF. There are interesting things going on in Science Fiction right now. On the one hand, with the sucess of Star Wars and Star Trek, we have an increase in popularity, with the similar incrase in cheap adventure, with little or no substance. At the same time, there is the emergence of exciting, new approaches, new themes, and higher literary standards. If fandom has had any effect at all on either of these I think that, as I said near the beginning of this response, it has been mostly a good one.
wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly) (05/25/85)
Davis Tucker raises some interesting points in his well-written essay on quality and contemporary SF. > ... Unfortunately, this > degradatation of critical faculties is unavoidable, just by human nature, > and it takes a very strong sense of self to keep it in check. The above > statement puts it very succinctly - and is a very good example of what is > so often wrong with science fiction fandom and its rationale for giving > accolades or insults. It's precisely SF fandom's insularity that has led to the slow acceptance of SF as a 'respectable' genre by people outside the SF community. Cults of personality lead to the overemphasis of the mediocre and the neglect of the superior. Was it Arthur C. Clarke or someone else who said that 90% of EVERYTHING is garbage? It's time that the myth of SF's persecution by mainstream critics be laid to rest. The quality of writing in the average SF mag is uneven because most SF is written for a fifteen-year-old mentality by hacks who wouldn't know quality writing if it jumped up and bit them in their warp drives. Most people who care about fiction as art don't have the patience to wade through five tons of horse manure in search of a single gem (what, me opinionated? :-). > ... Alcoholism and drug abuse seem to be the congenital defects > of writers, coupled with a large streak of self-destructiveness. > Now, it's true that there are many likeable people who could fit > into this company. But the point is that someone's congeniality is not > his or her writing. It just flat out has no bearing whatsoever on the > quality of his or her prose. Neither does a person's good sense when it comes to issues outside the field of writing. Consider, for example, Ezra Pound's infatuation with fascism which in no way diminishes his stature as a 20th century poet. As an aside, I wonder if the self-destructiveness isn't a byproduct of our romanticization of the creative act. I seem to recall reading that this redefinition of the artist's role in society is our inheritance from the likes of Blake, Shelley, Coleridge et al., and that writers before Romanticism reared its ugly head tended to be ordinary Joes with a family and payments on a Chevy in the garage :-). > So I should, by the above quoted argument, attempt to reach a deeper appre- > ciation of Rockwell's work due to my personal fondness for him. In other > words, if I like him so much as a person, I certainly would like his work. A cautionary note here: the work of a Norman Rockwell may be interesting from a sociological or historical perspective, hence worth studying for reasons that have little to do with its artistic merit. The writings of the worst SF hack may be worth looking at if they have influenced the evolution of the genre in some way. I've sometimes read books I've detested or listened to music that bored me because I felt there was a lesson to be learned from the experience, even if it was a negative one. You can sometimes learn a lot about quality by studying those things that lack quality. > Isaac Asimov, from everything I've heard, is a gentleman - well-mannered, > considerate, helpful to young authors, interested in new talent. Some of his > work possesses merit - his non-fiction. We'll forget about his poetry ... An interesting phenomenon, SF poetry. Why people who are more or less competent crafters of fiction think that their skills automatically carry over into poetry is beyond me. I've NEVER seen an SF poem that was more than marginally competent or revealed an understanding of the nature of poetry beyond the high-school creative writing class level. Yet mags like Amazing persist in publishing one or more of these embarassing efforts in each issue. Even Gene Wolfe (who, I believe, should know better) stoops to writing bad poetry. There's probably a book or article in here somewhere, if anyone cares to write it. > indeed!). His fiction is not that good - yes, it shows some marginal crafts- > manship, some workable ideas, but it's not really that good, as fiction. Ah, yes, the marginal Dr. Asimov. I dearly love The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, but his interminable lectures on stale science are getting a bit old. How many years has he been at this? If you want to see real 'marginal craftsmanship,' check out his useless book of advice on writing SF. What a rip-off. > But nothing he has written even comes close to Gene Wolfe. This isn't mere > opinion - I don't truck with the idea of absolute relativism in art. > It is probably an overstatement, but Asimov is to Wolfe as Rockwell is > to Van Gogh. Again, I think even a second-rate craftsman like Asimov is worth reading. He has had an influence on the direction SF has taken the past 30 years or so, after all. And as for Gene Wolfe, I think his Fifth Head of Cerberus is one of the great achievements in the genre. > ... If science fiction were not a field of literary endeavor (and > who knows? Sometimes it really does seem to be something totally different), > none of this would matter. But it is, and it is incumbent upon readers > of science fiction to remember this, and judge accordingly, and not > allow personalities to affect that judgement. I'm afraid there's going to be a flood of irate responses to your posting, because many SF fans would disagree with you. They don't want any surprises in their fiction, and they view the reading of SF as one aspect of their fandom. I've been reading SF since the early '50s, when I used to cadge my grandmother's copies of Worlds of If (believe it or not). If it weren't for the writers who still believe SF is a field of literary endeavor, I'd quit reading it tomorrow. -- In the name of quality, Bill Ingogly
wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly) (05/27/85)
In his reply to Davis Tucker's posting, Steve Brust writes: > self-indulgent was invented to describe him. And Mailer > doesn't even have Capote's occasional gift for turn of > phrase. I read SF because most (not all) of the best > writers are working there. While I agree with much of what you have to say in your response, Steve, this particular comment is absolute nonsense. Without even trying hard I've come up with a list of more-or-less active mainstream fiction writers who at their worst are at least as good as the best SF has to offer, and are CERTAINLY better than certain poseurs who are sometimes cited as paragons of writerly virtue in this group. How many of the following authors have you read, for example; Jorge Amado, John Barth, Donald Barthelme, Saul Bellow, Thomas Berger, T. Coraghessan Boyle, Italo Calvino, Robert Coover, Don DeLillo, Joan Didion, Jose Donoso, Stanley Elkins, Carlos Fuentes, William Gass, Gunter Grass, Graham Greene, John Hawkes, Carol Hill, Russell Hoban, William Kennedy, Milan Kundera, Doris Lessing, Mario Vargas Llosa, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, James Alan McPherson, V. S. Naipul (sp?), Walker Percy, Thomas Pynchon, Ishmael Reed, Philip Roth, Ntozake Shange, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Peter Taylor, Paul Theroux, John Updike, Gore Vidal, Peter De Vries, or Alice Walker to mention a few voices in mainstream fiction that are hard to ignore (sorry if I've skipped anyone's favorites or overemphasized someone whose faults I'm blind to)? In what way are the best writers in SF more numerous or better writers than these mainstream people? We're talking superior craftsmanship here, things like real dialogue by real people, little things I find infrequently in much SF. People in this newsgroup have cited Harlan Ellison and Roger Zelazny, for example, as examples of superior craftsmen of fiction. Harlan Ellison covers a lack of talent by projecting a hip, wisecracking persona that he apparently thinks will delude the unsophisticated into thinking he has something important to say. And Roger Zelazny (or is it Zelazney?) is even more of a fraud. His 'masterpieces' are poorly told bad jokes that would be mildly amusing if they were five or ten pages long, but Zelazny, like the crashing bore at the cocktail party insists on overstaying his welcome by expanding these bad jokes into full-length novels. 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? These books are Bad with a capital B because Zelazny doesn't really believe in these characters. I challenge the best of you out there to care about a character and bring him or her to life for your readers when you yourself have no faith in your own characters or any real interest in them other than as devices to carry the plot along! Why do Harlan Ellison, Roger Zelazny, and so many other SF authors write such bad fiction? There was a novel of socialist realism that experienced a certain popularity in England toward the end (as I recall) of the 19th century. It's called The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists, and it's about the trials and tribulations of a group of house painters who are abused by their employers. This is bad writing for the same reasons that much of SF is bad writing: unbelievable dialogue, cardboard characters, a linear and predictable plot. The reason? The author cared more about getting a message about the oppression of the working class across than he cared about his characters, and it shows. They're romanticized images of what he'd LIKE workingmen to be rather than living, breathing believable workingmen. The same thing's true of other 'message' fiction like Uncle Tom's Cabin and (sadly) much of SF. Fiction that stresses function at the expense of form is constantly in danger of degenerating into bathos and melodrama. Those of you who doubt this assessment of Steve's claims for the SF genre's containing the best contemporary writers should try the following experiment. Buy or borrow a copy of V. S. Naipul's A Bend In The River (your local library will have a copy) and a copy of Roger Zelazny's Lord of Light (I use Lord of Light because it's been cited in this group as an example of excellent writing). I think most of o you will agree that accurate dialogue and realistic characterization (hence, believable characters) are two characteristics that distinguish well-written fiction from poorly-written fiction (yes, there are other characteristics as well). You're going to examine each author's text and evaluate his treatment of dialogue and characterization. First, read each of the books to get a feel for the narrative. Next, go through each novel and write down ten or fifteen examples of dialogue from each. Compare the dialogue from each novel side by side; read it silently at first, then out loud (or better still, have someone else read it to you). Assign each sample of dialogue a numeric or letter grade based on its believability; dialogue that sounds like the character in question would really have uttered it and that tells you something about the character or his relationship to other characters would get a good score. Dialogue that is stilted and unrealistic, that exists to further the plot or the 'message' the author is trying to get across would get a bad score. Try to be as objective as possible when you're doing this. Look at the results; which book has consistently higher scores? Finally, write down everything you know about the protagonists in each novel. Which protagonist feels more lifelike, is more believable? Go back through each novel and look for passages that tell you something about the character. Compare these passages side by side. Is the information presented in a manner that makes complete sense in terms of the plot? Do you see why the author is presenting the information at this point in the narrative, or does it seem artificially grafted on top of the plot for extraneous motives? Do you sense the presence of the author in what he's written, or see the scaffolding that should be hidden from the reader (Note: some authors have made a living out of playing these kind of games with their readers' heads. Vladimir Nabokov is the foremost example. Whether this is a good or bad strategy, it takes a conscious effort and much skill to pull it off. I'm talking here about a lack of skill that lets such scaffolding show unwittingly). Which book in your final analysis seems to come out ahead in terms of the author's skill and control over his material, and the realistic presentation of the characters and events? I'm willing to bet you'll vote for the Naipul novel. The second and final stage in our experiment is more painful, because it requires a certain investment in time and effort in reading non-SF fiction that many of you may be reluctant to make. Take five to ten novels by authors from the list I've given you, and five to ten novels that you feel are the best SF has to offer. Repeat the comparative process I've described with all of them. Rank all novels without regard to genre in order of your assessment of the author's skill in presenting dialogue and characterization. Again, try to be as objective as possible. If two novels are too close to call, write their names side by side. If Steve Brust's claim that most of the best contemporary writers of fiction are working in the SF genre is correct, then most of the entries in the top half of the list will be novels from the SF genre. Are they? If they are, I apologize for my poor judgement and I'll gladly eat my hat (but at least I've gotten a few of you to read some fiction you might have otherwise passed by!). I firmly believe, however, that most perceptive people who diligently try this experiment will find that most writers on my list can create believable characters and dialogue at least as skillfully as the best and the brightest SF has to offer, and that some of them clearly outclass even the best SF writers. I encourage you to extend this experiment to consider other qualities of fiction like narrative and imagery. Lift your heads out of the SF ghetto, people; there are a LOT of excellent craftsmen outside the SF genre writing first-rate fiction. You may not know about them or care to read what they've written; fine. Just don't make ridiculous claims about the scarcity of good writers outside the narrow confines of SF unless you know what you're talking about and you've read widely outside the genre. And if you're going to make grandiose claims, at least provide some supporting evidence or you're going to unknowingly support the arguments of those who claim that SF is second-class literature. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (05/30/85)
In article <316@unc.UUCP> wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly) writes: >Without even >trying hard I've come up with a list of more-or-less active mainstream >fiction writers who at their worst are at least as good as the best SF >has to offer, and are CERTAINLY better than certain poseurs who are >sometimes cited as paragons of writerly virtue in this group. How many >of the following authors have you read, for example; Jorge Amado, John >[continued ad nauseum]... Oh, we are back into this argument again. sigh. To start with, it is possible to generate a list at least as long of BAD mainstream writers as it is to generate a list of good mainstream writers. It is ALSO possible to generate a list of writers, both good and bad, in SF, in mystery, romance, or any genre. This proposition is intuitively obvious to anyone who has studied Sturgeons Law, which also, I should add, is appropriate to postings to sf-lovers, and probably to this posting. For every Graham Greene (who isn't really mainstream, but more in the thriller/mystery/spy genre) or Gunter Grass, you can find an author in some other [generic] genre that writes as well. You can also find a clinker in their work. What I see here is an attempt to define mainstream by the best of the best and compare it with the worst of the best in the SF genre, and that's apples and oranges, folks. Sure, Ellison has clinked out at times, but Mailer and Capote and the rest have tossed out some outrageous and/or self-indulgent stuff as well. If you want to get into the second rank (and rank is an appropriate word for some of this stuff) in the mainstream, look to sydney sheldon and friends. What DOES matter is this: the best of the mainstream work is very good. The best of the genre stuff (even in romance) is very good. I'll hold up 'When Jefty is five' or 'Adrift of the Isles of Langerhans' or Wolfe's New Sun books or any number of other genre works against the works of a Capote or a Mailer. I'll also throw away the garbage of both, very happily. >People in this newsgroup have cited Harlan Ellison and Roger Zelazny, >for example, as examples of superior craftsmen of fiction. Harlan >Ellison covers a lack of talent by projecting a hip, wisecracking >persona that he apparently thinks will delude the unsophisticated into >thinking he has something important to say. You sound suspiciously like you are proving a point to yourself. If you've decided going in that SF is sh*t, then you will no doubt be able to prove your preconceptions. I find that Ellison has a wonderful command of the English language. Zelazny deals with cultures and mores, Varley and Spider Robinson with people and attitudes, and heinlein with whatever he wants to (clunkers and all). If I were to decide that mainstream work was garbage, I'd have no problem 'proving' that to myself, simply because when I went to 'research' the topic, I'd be expecting it. And I'd find it. That doesn't prove anything. >Lift your heads out of the SF ghetto, people; there are a LOT of >excellent craftsmen outside the SF genre writing first-rate fiction. There are lots of people IN the genre writing first rate fiction, and lots of people outside the genre writing garbage and lots of people in the genre writing garbage. so what? I don't think of it as a ghetto, either -- I prefer the term neighborhood. Lots of people DO stay in their neighborhood, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I would like to point out, however, that there IS more to life than sf/fantasy, and all of the serious sf authors I've met seem to have read widely beyond the genre literature. You can enjoy 'To Reign in Hell' (to take a recent example on the net) just fine on its own. If you've plowed your way through 'Paradise Lost' (not for the weak of heart) or skipped lightly through 'Inferno' and the rest of Dante's work a lot of the subtle references start making sense and the book takes on different meanings. Lots of authors make allusions to literature outside the genre. A good book survives without it, but it becomes a better book when you can recognize it. -- :From the misfiring synapses of: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA This space for rent. Political, religious and racist quotes need not apply.
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (06/01/85)
In article <2779@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >To start with, it is possible to generate a list at least as long of BAD >mainstream writers as it is to generate a list of good mainstream writers. >It is ALSO possible to generate a list of writers, both good and bad, in >SF, in mystery, romance, or any genre. This proposition is intuitively >obvious to anyone who has studied Sturgeons Law, which also, I should add, >is appropriate to postings to sf-lovers, and probably to this posting. Go back and read both my responses to the original postings (part I and part II). I made precisely these points. > ... What I see here is an attempt to define mainstream by the best >of the best and compare it with the worst of the best in the SF genre, and >that's apples and oranges, folks. Sure, Ellison has clinked out at times, Again, read my postings. I clearly state that what I'm responding to is not the claim that there are excellent writers in SF, but that MOST OF THE BEST WRITERS ARE IN SF. I don't take kindly to this kind of misrepresentation of what I've said. >but Mailer and Capote and the rest have tossed out some outrageous and/or >self-indulgent stuff as well. If you want to get into the second rank (and >rank is an appropriate word for some of this stuff) in the mainstream, look >to sydney sheldon and friends. I stated in my posting that I agreed 100% with Steve Brust's comments about Mailer and Capote. And read my comment on Sidney Sheldon in net.books a few months ago for my feelings on THAT hack. >What DOES matter is this: the best of the mainstream work is very good. The >best of the genre stuff (even in romance) is very good. I'll hold up 'When >Jefty is five' or 'Adrift of the Isles of Langerhans' or Wolfe's New Sun >books or any number of other genre works against the works of a Capote or a >Mailer. I'll also throw away the garbage of both, very happily. Again, you've misinterpreted what I've said, or you haven't read all three of my postings. You may judge them differently if you do so. >Lots of people DO stay in their neighborhood, and there is absolutely >nothing wrong with that. I would like to point out, however, that there IS But there's certainly something wrong with making negative statements about life outside your neighborhood when you know little about it and haven't taken the time to acquaint yourself with the people who inhabit it. Please reread what I've said; you may find that my opinion of SF is not as bleak as you seem to think, and that there's not as much to disagree with in my postings as you may think. -- Bill Ingogly