dht@druri.UUCP (Davis Tucker) (05/20/85)
THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE FICTION TODAY
PART II: Meet The New Hack, Same As The Old Hack
by Davis Tucker
_____________________________________________________________________________
What do we mean when we use the word "hack" in reference to an author? This
is often a very fuzzy phrase, and everyone has a different definition. Mine
is "an author who is merely competent, and who does not attempt to improve."
Stasis is death, at least in the creative world. Competency is a compliment
to mechanics, journalists, and airline pilots. It is a veiled insult (or a
left-handed compliment) to any creative person. To say that someone is a
"competent painter" means nothing. To be merely competent is to never rise
above a given level. In science fiction, competency and mediocrity go hand
in glove, dancing merrily into justifiable oblivion.
We all have heard the lame excuse that science fiction has different rules
than mainstream fiction until it sounds like a broken record. But all it
is is an excuse for being a hack, or being lazy. I'll agree that it has
*more* rules: since there's much more imagination and extrapolation involved,
science fiction does require more attention to detail and consistency. I
could think of other rules, also. But the basic fundamentals of mainstream
fiction still apply - realistic characaterization, depth of understanding,
plot development, correct use of descriptive passages, realistic dialogue,
structural integrity, everything that is important to literature. Stephen
King, for all that we may think of him as a wasted talent, knows this, and
obeys all these "rules". But incredibly, many science fiction writers get
away with cheap puns, absolutely wretched dialogue, ridiclously constructed
plots, inconsistent character motivation, terminal cuteness (Gidget's Disease),
and worst of all the "And-Then-He-Woke-Up" ending, or some kind of deus ex
machina ending (sometimes both together). And the readers lap it up, and go
to their conventions and sit around watching Dr. Who or Star Trek reruns
and listen to their favorite author explain why he wrote his seventeenth
novel on the same subject with the same characters. This is the stuff of
comic books, of children's literature, though you'd get no argument from
me that the Silver Surfer has more craft and art and blood, sweat, and
tears than the Xanth novels, or that "Where The Wild Things Are" and the
Dr. Seuss books show more imagination and extrapolation than Star Trek.
A creative person is allowed to break all rules and all conventions
provided that the end product is a work of art. And as many of the masters
have proved, Rodin, Picasso, Joyce, Proust, etc., to break the rules
you must learn them, and learn them well. But it is hard to believe that
Robert Heinlein *ever* kept his overbearing personality out of the mouths
of every character. "Time Enough For Love" was a nightmare - Robert A.
Heinlein living forever, and worse, *talking* forever. It's a shame,
but science fiction, unlike almost any other creative field, has almost
no true masters that are recognized as such, no people who are held up by
the aficionados as examples to young acolytes. Instead, the old hacks
are deified and glorified. Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke. What would
science fiction be like if instead, the examples for new writers were
Aldiss, Ballard, and Silverberg?
All that you will see when you wander through the science fiction section
of your local bookstore is new authors who are rarely more than warmed-over
Eric Frank Russell, Keith Laumer, or Gordon Dickson. Hackdom reigns supreme.
Where is a new Thomas Disch? Another Barry Malzberg? Maybe even another
Ursula LeGuin? For too long science fiction has built on such a narrow
pedestal, and now this trash-heap is threatening to fall over on us.
Barry B. Longyear, Brian Daley, Christopher Stasheff, Jerry Pournelle,
Piers Anthony, Robert Asprin, Spider Robinson, Joe Haldeman, Marion
Zimmer Bradley, Anne McCaffrey, etc., etc., ad nauseum. The fault does not
lie with the author; it lies with the readership that continues to demand
the same old crap in different colored toilets, or at the very least,
continues to buy it. A readership that wants a sequel to every novel,
a readership that wants a novel out of every short story, a readership
that has grown fat and lazy on a diet of trash, like metropolitan raccoons.
Theodore Sturgeon, who knew a thing or two about being a hack, wrote a
corrolary to Murphy's Law that said "90 Percent Of Everything Is Crap".
So let's not wallow in the 90 percent, let's get our heads out of the
toilet and go look for the 10 percent that's worth reading.
It's science fiction's doom as a viable 20th Century artform if its
readership continues to wallow in mediocrity, merely competent writing,
and glorification of hacks. Notice that "mainstream" authors who have
written science fiction for the general reading public have by and large
maintained a higher standard of craft than is present in current new
offerings within science fictions. "Duluth" by Gore Vidal. The "Canopus
In Argus" series by Doris Lessing. A few others here and there, not many,
because it's the kiss of death for a mainstream author to become associated
with writing science fiction. Possibly it's because in the eyes of the
reading public, that descending to write science fiction is exactly that -
descending. Being lowered. Jumping in the muck with all the Trekkies.
Bug Eyed Monsters. All of the hackneyed, overused, cliched constructs
that science fiction has been relying on for much too long, rather than
finding something new. In some ways, the general reading public has a
clearer view of what science fiction is and what it isn't than those who
have been reading it all their lives. The forest for the trees.
That's all for now, kids. Tune in next week for "THE PROBLEMS OF
SCIENCE FICTION TODAY, PART III: Self-Censorship And The Science
Fiction Establishment".crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (05/21/85)
Them's fightin' words, pardner.... In article <1091@druri.UUCP> dht@druri.UUCP (Davis Tucker) writes: > THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE FICTION TODAY > PART II: Meet The New Hack, Same As The Old Hack > by Davis Tucker >_____________________________________________________________________________ > >What do we mean when we use the word "hack" in reference to an author? This >is often a very fuzzy phrase, and everyone has a different definition. Mine >is "an author who is merely competent, and who does not attempt to improve." >Stasis is death, at least in the creative world. Competency is a compliment >to mechanics, journalists, and airline pilots. It is a veiled insult (or a >left-handed compliment) to any creative person. To say that someone is a >"competent painter" means nothing. To be merely competent is to never rise >above a given level. In science fiction, competency and mediocrity go hand >in glove, dancing merrily into justifiable oblivion. If being a "competent writer" is an insult, I suppose that being an incompetent writer is a complement? Come off it -- Salieri was a competent composer who composed a lot of pretty music; (and not quite the bozo he was made out to be in the movie.) Do you expect everyone to be Mozart? I can tell you, being a "competent" writer is a struggle in itself, which should not be downplayed -- that not all SF writers are Herman Melville doesn't mean there is no value in their fiction.l > >We all have heard the lame excuse that science fiction has different rules >than mainstream fiction until it sounds like a broken record... >structural integrity, everything that is important to literature. Stephen >King, for all that we may think of him as a wasted talent, knows this, and what you mean "we", paleface? I don't much like SK's work, but anyone who has caught the imagination of MILLIONS (MILLIONS!) of people is hardly a wasted talent. >obeys all these "rules". But incredibly, many science fiction writers get > >A creative person is allowed to break all rules and all conventions >provided that the end product is a work of art. And as many of the masters >have proved, Rodin, Picasso, Joyce, Proust, etc., to break the rules >you must learn them, and learn them well. But it is hard to believe that >Robert Heinlein *ever* kept his overbearing personality out of the mouths >of every character. Funny, I always thought the old "Future History" stories missed out on that pretty well. In any case, I don't much like Tennessee William's personality, and he certainly doesn't keep his personality out of the mouths of his characters. But his characters *are* compelling. Those of us (many, many of us!) who *like* Heinlein find his characters compelling as well. That you don't does not mean that it's logical to ignore the number of ideas Heinlein originated or was first to use effectively. "Time Enough For Love" was a nightmare - Robert A. >Heinlein living forever, and worse, *talking* forever. It's a shame, >but science fiction, unlike almost any other creative field, has almost >no true masters that are recognized as such, no people who are held up by >the aficionados as examples to young acolytes. Where the *hell* have you been? Check it out -- Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke have been recommended by a number of *outsiders* -- for example, John Gardner (the *Grendel* author, not the James Bond imitator.) >are deified and glorified. Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke. What would >science fiction be like if instead, the examples for new writers were >Aldiss, Ballard, and Silverberg? hard to say; however, Aldiss, Ballard, and Silverberg have all recommended one or more of Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke, or mentioned them as being some of their favorite writers. Would Aldiss, Ballard, and Silverberg have found a market for their fiction if -- for example -- "Against the Fall of Night" had not been published? > >All that you will see when you wander through the science fiction section >of your local bookstore is new authors who are rarely more than warmed-over >Eric Frank Russell, Keith Laumer, or Gordon Dickson. ... and in the mainstream fiction, you find a lot of warmed over Updike, King, not to mention trash like Jackie Collins and Harold Robbins. Should SF somehow be able to avoid this? Should we publish only the 10 best manuscripts every year? >Where is a new Thomas Disch? Another Barry Malzberg? Maybe even another >Ursula LeGuin? most editors will tell you that the *last thing* they want is *another* Disch, Malzberg, or LeGuin. However, a new author with his/her own voice... >and glorification of hacks. Notice that "mainstream" authors who have >written science fiction for the general reading public have by and large >maintained a higher standard of craft than is present in current new >offerings within science fictions. "Duluth" by Gore Vidal. The "Canopus >In Argus" series by Doris Lessing. "Canopus in Argus" explores themes that we've treated carefully and well in SF years ago, does so in a way that Sf readers (in general) will not accept -- and should not! -- and (to my eyes) seems to contain thouroughly hackneyed ideas spoken from the mouths of cardboard cutouts labelled "I am an alien." Hardly a good example. I don't want to give the impression that I believe *all* SF is well-written and Great Literature -- it's not. But modern best-seller writers are hardly the ones to use as examples of non-hackery. In "mainstream" writing, at least as much as in SF writing, 90% of everything is crap. (Remember that Sturgeon's Law was originally stated: "90% of science fiction is crap; but then, 90% of everything is crap.") In the mean time, this whole thesis ignores writers like: Somtow Sucharitkul -- who can't keep from making some of the characters live even in a series of humorous shorts, like "Mallworld." Gregory Benford -- who has been called the SF world's answer to Falkner. William Gibson, Rudy Rucker, and Gene Wolfe. All of these writers are producing what I (and *mainstream critics*) think is some of the most alive and interesting literature in the last twenty years. -- Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) (05/22/85)
> > science fiction be like if instead, the examples for new writers were > Aldiss, Ballard, and Silverberg? Early Silverberg, yuck! > > All that you will see when you wander through the science fiction section > of your local bookstore is new authors who are rarely more than warmed-over > Eric Frank Russell, Keith Laumer, or Gordon Dickson. Hackdom reigns supreme. > Where is a new Thomas Disch? Another Barry Malzberg? Maybe even another > Ursula LeGuin? For too long science fiction has built on such a narrow > pedestal, and now this trash-heap is threatening to fall over on us. > Barry B. Longyear, Brian Daley, Christopher Stasheff, Jerry Pournelle, > Piers Anthony, Robert Asprin, Spider Robinson, Joe Haldeman, Marion > Zimmer Bradley, Anne McCaffrey, etc., etc., ad nauseum. The fault does not > lie with the author; it lies with the readership that continues to demand > the same old crap in different colored toilets, or at the very least, > continues to buy it. A readership that wants a sequel to every novel, > a readership that wants a novel out of every short story, a readership > that has grown fat and lazy on a diet of trash, like metropolitan raccoons. > It's science fiction's doom as a viable 20th Century artform if its > readership continues to wallow in mediocrity, merely competent writing, > and glorification of hacks. Notice that "mainstream" authors who have > written science fiction for the general reading public have by and large > maintained a higher standard of craft than is present in current new > offerings within science fictions. "Duluth" by Gore Vidal. The "Canopus > In Argus" series by Doris Lessing. A few others here and there, not many, > because it's the kiss of death for a mainstream author to become associated > with writing science fiction. Sorry for the rather large excerpt. Crap!, I read books because I enjoy them not because they are masterworks of art. The cardinal sin for a book, any kind of book, on my reading list is for it to be boooriiiiiiing. A fantastically well crafted and written book that is boring is guaranteed a non-stop one-way trip to the circular file whereas I have very much enjoyed and will no doubt continue to enjoy some "hack" novels simply because they were fun (the first couple Xanth books then it got old, real old) or action packed or funny or ... you get the idea. Art for the sophisticate always gets short shrift in the mass market, and to my lights rightly so. You can take classic jazz (random notes), modern art (random scribbles), and "well written" sci fi (random but well structured phrases, translate boring) and stuff them for all that I would miss them. I read a great deal of science fiction and am willing to try practically any author but, I don't evaluate a book on how well they are written (someone else's subjective evaluation) but rather how well they read (a personal subjective evaluation). I don't feel any need to apologise or change my taste in literature just because of someone else's likes and dislikes, I like what I like and feel perfectly comfortable with that. David Albrecht General Electric
rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (05/23/85)
> .... It's a shame, > but science fiction, unlike almost any other creative field, has almost > no true masters that are recognized as such, no people who are held up by > the aficionados as examples to young acolytes. Hmm. Masters in whose judgment? Good art is a very subjective thing. Your master might be my hack. And just because I think Joyce is a master doesn't mean that I can't enjoy reading some Asimov now and then. And whether Asimov is a master in your judgment or in mine, I suspect he is someone whom many young authors try to emulate. > .... Instead, the old hacks > are deified and glorified. Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke. What would > science fiction be like if instead, the examples for new writers were > Aldiss, Ballard, and Silverberg? Personally, I think it would be boring. Now this isn't to say that I don't care for the three you mentioned, but if all new fiction were to be patterned after just a few "masters", I think I'd go out of my mind (further :-) ). I happen to think variety in styles is a Good Thing. > ... and now this trash-heap is threatening to fall over on us. > Barry B. Longyear, Brian Daley, Christopher Stasheff, Jerry Pournelle, > Piers Anthony, Robert Asprin, Spider Robinson, Joe Haldeman, Marion > Zimmer Bradley, Anne McCaffrey, etc., etc., ad nauseum. The fault does not > lie with the author; it lies with the readership that continues to demand > the same old crap in different colored toilets, or at the very least, > continues to buy it.... > So let's not wallow in the 90 percent, let's get our heads out of the > toilet and go look for the 10 percent that's worth reading.... > .... Possibly it's because in the eyes of the > reading public, that descending to write science fiction is exactly that - > descending. Being lowered. Jumping in the muck with all the Trekkies. > Bug Eyed Monsters. All of the hackneyed, overused, cliched constructs > that science fiction has been relying on for much too long, rather than > finding something new. I must disagree. I don't consider it a fault to enjoy reading the "same old crap." Again, good literature is in the opinion of the reader. I consider the sonnet an overused construct. Does that mean Shakespeare shouldn't have written so many? I don't think so. There's nothing wrong with finding something new. But if you've found something you like, there's also nothing wrong with sticking with it as well. > .... In some ways, the general reading public has a > clearer view of what science fiction is and what it isn't than those who > have been reading it all their lives. The forest for the trees. You mean the general reading public that has made Harlequin Romances some of the best selling books around??? I'm not sure I'm willing to trust their opinion of what is and isn't good science fiction.... Lauri rohn@rand-unix.ARPA ..decvax!randvax!rohn "The best laid plans of mice and men are usually equal."
wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly) (05/25/85)
A few additional comments. By the way, Steve Brust is right on the mark; Capote (RIP) and Mailer ARE miserable hacks... > ... To be merely competent is to never rise > above a given level. In science fiction, competency and mediocrity go hand > in glove, dancing merrily into justifiable oblivion. Well ... I think this is probably true of fiction in general. Take a look at what passes for 'fiction' in many literary quarterlies and little magazines, for example. The difference may be that mainstream writers have an outlet for the fiction they write while they're learning their craft (i.e., the little mags), but new, old, good and bad SF writers all publish in the same small set of magazines. And if you want to see REAL mediocrity, take a look at ten or fifteen of the current top-40 mainstream bestsellers at your friendly neighborhood bookstore. Sidney Sheldon, indeed ... I think we need to keep on criticizing SF to keep the juices flowing, but we need to make sure we stay on target. I'm not sure your criticism here can't be levelled at the 90% of ALL fiction that's mediocre ... > We all have heard the lame excuse that science fiction has different rules > than mainstream fiction until it sounds like a broken record. ... > But the basic fundamentals of mainstream > fiction still apply - realistic characaterization, depth of understanding, > plot development, correct use of descriptive passages, realistic dialogue, > structural integrity, everything that is important to literature. > ... But incredibly, many science fiction writers get > away with cheap puns, absolutely wretched dialogue, ridiclously constructed > plots, inconsistent character motivation, terminal cuteness (Gidget's Disease) > and worst of all the "And-Then-He-Woke-Up" ending, or some kind of deus ex > machina ending (sometimes both together). ... I think this all goes back to the SF-as-pariah syndrome I mentioned in my reply to part I of your posting; poor, poor SF has always been picked on by the mainstream critics because they simply don't understand that SF writers are capable of producing quality fiction. This simply doesn't work anymore. In the late '60s, many mainstream critics began examining SF as serious fiction. The late Theodore Sturgeon, as I recall, was one of the first hailed as a quality writer by the non-SF critics. Since then, countless MA theses and PhD dissertations have been written on SF works. Writers like Delaney, LeGuin, Wilhelm, Wolfe, and Lem are acknowledged by mainstream critics as well as SF critics. A conspiracy against SF? Hardly. Yet some SF writers and fans seem to have decided that the trappings of mainstream literary criticism don't apply to SF; consequently, we've seen claims by members in the SF community that the only important or good fiction being produced is SF, or that only SF writers are still producing solid stories, or that the novel is dying everywhere but in the SF genre (I've actually seen all these claims in one place or another over the last 15 years or so, but I can't quote my sources, unfortunately). By isolating the genre from the rest of literature, some members of the SF community would place it in a position where the standards applied to 'ordinary' fiction no longer apply to SF. Thus, some 'purists' seem to believe that idea is everything, and that well-crafted characters and believable dialogue are unnecessary or secondary to the conceptual goals of the story. Much of this fiction reads like socialist realism, another genre where function takes precedence over form. > ... It's a shame, > but science fiction, unlike almost any other creative field, has almost > no true masters that are recognized as such, no people who are held up by > the aficionados as examples to young acolytes. Instead, the old hacks > are deified and glorified. Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke. What would > science fiction be like if instead, the examples for new writers were > Aldiss, Ballard, and Silverberg? > All that you will see when you wander through the science fiction section > of your local bookstore is new authors who are rarely more than warmed-over > Eric Frank Russell, Keith Laumer, or Gordon Dickson. Hackdom reigns supreme. > Where is a new Thomas Disch? Another Barry Malzberg? Maybe even another > Ursula LeGuin? I see a number of newer writers out there who seem to be heading in interesting directions. For example, Ed Bryant, Greg Bear, Ian Watson, Lucius Shepard. The deification and glorification seems to be going on at the conventions and in the fan magazines, but there are at least some of us who have followed SF closely for a number of years and who have no interest in getting involved in the fandom nonsense. A writer is his own best and severest critic; if he wants to be a GOOD writer (as opposed to a hack), he'll approach his reading of SF critically and eventually realize that Aldiss, Ballard, and Silverberg have more to teach him about writing than Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke. > ... A readership that wants a sequel to every novel, > a readership that wants a novel out of every short story, a readership > that has grown fat and lazy on a diet of trash, like metropolitan raccoons. A readership that demands an endless stream of mediocre trilogies and tetralogies. Let's face it, this junk SELLS and an author who has a family to feed may be sorely tempted to crank out a quick trilogy instead of a finely crafted 100 page novel or novella ... > ... Notice that "mainstream" authors who have > written science fiction for the general reading public have by and large > maintained a higher standard of craft than is present in current new > offerings within science fictions. "Duluth" by Gore Vidal. The "Canopus > In Argus" series by Doris Lessing. A few others here and there, not many, > because it's the kiss of death for a mainstream author to become associated > with writing science fiction. ... I'm not so sure about the 'kiss of death' theory; see my above comments about mainstream critics and SF. The interested reader will also want to check out Stanislaw Lem's works (of course), and Italo Calvino. A book I'm starting soon is the newly-published mainstream novel The Eleven-Million Mile High Dancer, but it looks like it may be a bit too stylized and trendy for my taste (I'll post a review). And there's Don DeLillo's Ratner's Star, Vladimir Nabokov's Ada, and The Waltz Invention, and so on. Of course, much of this fiction barely qualifies as SF, but SF has had a great impact on many so-called mainstream writers. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly) (05/25/85)
> Crap!, I read books because I enjoy them not because they are masterworks > of art. The cardinal sin for a book, any kind of book, on my reading list > is for it to be boooriiiiiiing. ... > ... Art for the sophisticate always gets short shrift in the mass market, > and to my lights rightly so. You can take classic jazz (random notes), > modern art (random scribbles), and "well written" sci fi (random but well > structured phrases, translate boring) and stuff them for all that I > would miss them. ... So, Dave, you're the canonical SF fan? There's plenty of 'lite' reading out there for people who are looking for something to shade their noses while they get a suntan; why should you resent those of us who are looking for something more? I could care less what you think of 'art for the sophisticate;' there are those of us who get the greatest enjoyment out of listening to classic jazz, looking at modern art, and reading well-written SF (oh, and by the way, the term 'sci fi' is an abomination). This interchange is addressing SF on one level; you obviously read it on another. If you don't like what we're saying, use your 'n' key. -- Hugs & kisses, Bill Ingogly
dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) (05/29/85)
> So, Dave, you're the canonical SF fan? There's plenty of 'lite' > reading out there for people who are looking for something to shade > their noses while they get a suntan; why should you resent those of us > who are looking for something more? I could care less what you think > of 'art for the sophisticate;' there are those of us who get the > greatest enjoyment out of listening to classic jazz, looking at modern > art, and reading well-written SF (oh, and by the way, the term 'sci fi' > is an abomination). > > This interchange is addressing SF on one level; you obviously read it > on another. If you don't like what we're saying, use your 'n' key. > > -- Hugs & kisses, Bill Ingogly Me thinks you miss the point. I am not OFFENDED by classic jazz, modern art, "well written" SF (since you find sci fi such a cultural abomination I will use your abreviation) etc. Variety is the spice of life and enriches all of us, I have probably read and enjoyed some works that even the author of the original posting would consider acceptable. What I disagreed with was the haughty tone of the posting that was criticizing all of us who like to read the perhaps less sophisticated SF (I DO like Zimmer-Bradley and McCaffery and no doubt alot of others the author would detest) because it is limiting their evolution or recognition of authors of which the author approves. The relation I was making here was that modern art fans often sneer at Classic art, classic jazz people disdain fusion. Personally, I don't sneer or disdain modern art, classic jazz, the "well written" SF I just don't generally like them. Obscure authors are frequently that way because their material is simply not written such that it is accessable to most people. Criticizing the people because they don't like the work instead of recognizing that the author's style has limited his market is just plain ridiculous. If you want recognition write what the critics like, if you want sales write what the masses like, anything else will address some sub-spectra of the populace. Just because the masses don't side with your sub-spectra doesn't make them wrong or you right, we are talking reality here, grow up. David Albrecht General Electric