Caro.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (09/21/83)
The response to my "SF & F Novels of Literary Merit Survey" was UNDERwhelming. At first, I thought this was the result of (SF-LOVERS) reader apathy. But the comments included with several of the ballots that I received point to another reason. Many people were uncomfortable with, if not dead-set against, comparing SF & F to such works as MOBY DICK, THE TALE OF TWO CITIES, etc. The impression I got was that readers don't consider SF & F to be in the same "league." The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that Science Fiction and Fantasy writers, for the most part, are incapable of writing novels of lasting literary merit. Science Fiction and Fantasy will forever be neighboring tenements in the ghetto of literature. What I want to know is WHY IS THIS SO??!! Anyway, here are the few exceptions to the conclusion drawn above. There were some surprises. I would contest not a few of the entries. I was hard put to resist the temptation to do a little self-centered editing. Other entries caused me to slap my forehead and cry, "Now how could I have forgotten THAT ONE!?" There were some predictable entries, and some glaring omissions (which I corrected when submitting my own ballot.) I decided against ranking the list. There weren't enough votes to do a good job of that anyway. The list is presented alphabetically by author's last name. Further comments follow. The Results: Douglas Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide, et. al. R. Adams: WATERSHIP DOWN Isaac Asimov: Foundation Trilogy Peter Beagle: A FINE AND PRIVATE PLACE THE LAST UNICORN G. Benford: TIMESCAPE Alfred Bester: THE DEMOLISHED MAN THE STARS MY DESTINATION James Blish: CITIES IN FLIGHT Ray Bradbury: FAHRENHEIT 451 The Martian Chronicles SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES John Brunner: STAND ON ZANZIBAR THE SHOCKWAVE RIDER David Bunch: MODERAN Anthony Burgess: A CLOCKWORK ORANGE C. J. Cherryh: PORT ETERNITY Faded Sun Triology Michael Chrichton: ANDROMEDA STRAIN Arthur C. Clarke: CHILDHOOD'S END THE CITY AND THE STARS/AGAINST THE FALL OF NIGHT THE SANDS OF MARS John Crowley: LITTLE, BIG Samuel Delaney: DHALGREN THE EINSTEIN INTERSECTION NOVA P. K. Dick: THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE P. J. Farmer: THE DARK DESIGN W. A. Harbinson: GENESIS R. A. Heinlein: THE DOOR INTO SUMMER TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE Frank Herbert: DUNE Herman Hesse: DAS GLASPERLENSPIEL Aldous Huxley: BRAVE NEW WORLD U. K. LeGuin: THE DISPOSSESSED The Earthsea Trilogy THE LATHE OF HEAVEN THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS Stanislaw Lem: THE FUTUROLOGICAL CONGRESS THE INVESTIGATION SOLARIS C.S. Lewis: The Space Trilogy Walter M. Miller Jr.: A CANTICLE FOR LEIBOWITZ Mervyn Peake: Titus Groan Trilogy (TITUS GROAN, GORMENGHAST only) Niven & Pournelle: THE MOTE IN GOD'S EYE George Orwell: 1984 Christopher Priest: FUGUE FOR A DARKENING ISLAND Ayn Rand: ATLAS SHRUGGED Mary Shelley: FRANKENSTEIN Robert Silverberg: BOOK OF SKULLS DYING INSIDE J. R. R. Tolkien THE LORD OF THE RINGS Kurt Vonnegut: SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE H. G. Wells: THE TIME MACHINE Gene Wolfe: Book of the New Sun (SHADOW OF THE TORTURER, etc.) Roger Zelazny LORD OF LIGHT ???: FAIL-SAFE -------- More Observations: THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS, and "Lord of the Rings" garnered the most votes, though that isn't saying much considering the small number of respondents. Some random comments ... ''When I think of literary excellence, I have to think in SF terms, not in mainstream terms.'' ''One problem with comparing SF to "mainstream" fiction is that SF lovers can read mainstream, but only a person familiar with SF and technology in general is going to make any headway with "Stand on Zanzibar."'' ''LotR is probably one of the greatest works of the 20th century, all around. .... Tolkien is merely a work of art.'' ''These are some candidates for literary merit in SF&F. I do NOT consider them to be in the same class as, for example, "Moby Dick". I just don't believe there are any works at that level. Sorry. Does this disqualify my ballot?'' *** Finally, though unsolicitated, I received a rather humorous Anti-Recommendation. In light of the fact that Gene Wolfe's "Book of the New Sun" got more votes than most, I think this comment is quite provocative ... ''Works of Utterly Negligible Literary Merit, that are also Rotten Science Fiction. The entire Opus (Can-Opus?) that Doris Lessing seems Hell-bent upon inflicting upon an undeserving world. The First, Second, ..AlephNullth Chronicles of TC ... The Saga of the Pliocene Exile, The Finger of the Fornicator, Sai-Dan, Blech the Barbarian, and everything else fabricated by hacks who propose to sell heroic fantasy by the yard.'' **** Perry
Bakin@HI-MULTICS@sri-unix.UUCP (09/22/83)
From: Jerry Bakin <Bakin @ HI-MULTICS> I'm not sure what most readers think, (or even if most readers think) but I do not feel the conclusion that "...Science Fiction and Fantasy writers, for the most part, are incapable of writing novels of lasting literary merit..." is valid. As a refutation from an author's point of view, I suggest reading Isaac Asimov's editorial in the latest "Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine", he definitely feels that science fiction writers are capable of writing stories of great literary merit, and lists evidence from the literary field to prove it. Personally I happen to feel the lack of response is apathy coupled with the enormous task set before anyone responding to the query. I have been reading science fiction since elementary school, at least twelve years. In that time I have read an enormous amount of science fiction, but there are few authors whom I have read all of. We're supposed to categorize the best of the authors? Sorry, the reason most people can list the "Best of Hawthorne", or the "Best of Kipling" or the Best of Anyone, is because someone said "Read this book, it is considered a classic", not because someone said, "Read all the author's books, and you tell me which the classics are." It is not necessarily true that it is hard to tell what a classic is, but standing in the paperback section, amidst many titles, from many different authors, you can't easily pick the classics from the crap. So the question of which books are classics is difficult to answer for at least two reasons: The research most people have put into the question has been spent over a prolonged period of time, with little note taking, and with various other details coming into the researcher's life to play havoc with his memories of "that was a good book", and few people have made exhaustive studies of an author's works. (I did, or tried to, but my limited allowance when I was trying, prevented this for all but about three or four authors -- and it wasn't an intended study, but just getting the most for my buck: "Boy that Niven guy sure writes well, maybe I'll buy his other books instead of looking at this guy's book.") Anyway I've flamed long enough, Jerry Bakin <Bakin at HI-Multics>
jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (09/25/83)
You asked the wrong question to start with. What is the point in
looking for "the best" f&sf novels? Fantasy is not science fiction
is not "literature". They have different rules and rationales.
Why should sf be judged by those of traditional "literature" alone?
You quoted one response saying that sf was inferior to "literature",
yet you have taken that as the conclusion of your survey. Seems to
me you found what you wanted to find.
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
{ihnp4,kpno,ut-ngp}!ut-sally!jsq, jsq@ut-sally.{ARPA,UUCP}Caro.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (09/26/83)
''In that time I have read an enormous amount of science fiction, but there are few authors whom I have read all of. We're supposed to categorize the best of the authors?'' Well, obviously one can say nothing about books one has never read. But of the books you have read, which INDIVIDUAL works struck you as having great literary merit? This was the (obvious, or so I thought,) point of the survey. No where did I say that ALL authors must be surveyed, nor did I require that all of an author's works be read. ''So the question of which books are classics is difficult to answer for at least two reasons: The research most people have put into the question has been spent over a prolonged period of time, with little note taking, and with various other details coming into the researcher's life to play havoc with his memories...'' Does one have to take notes to remember that "The Man in the High Castle," was unforgettable? Do I have to go back and re-read "The Lord of the Rings" to convince myself that indeed it was a classic? In point of fact, I have read "The Lord of the Rings" exactly once, and that was 12 years ago! Tolkien's work had such a profound impact on me that I can still remember certain passages almost word-for-word. It seems to me that the "classic's" are the works that you remember without any effort. That is at least one criteria I use to define a "classic." Perry
hakanson@orstcs.UUCP (09/27/83)
#R:sri-arpa:-1193900:orstcs:11600015:000:830
orstcs!hakanson Sep 26 08:44:00 1983
I echo Jerry Bakin's reaction. I just haven't had the time to filter through
my memories of the probably thousands of stories I've read. And I'm not all
that sure my opinion is equivalent to an expert's opinion on what has
literary merit -- who's going to define "literary merit" for the purposes
of this survey? However, of the books on the list which I have read, I
don't have any objections. And if I thought there were a lot which didn't
make it but should have, that may just be a reflection of how well I like
to read, or of how tolerant I am of "less than best" SF.
But keep up those surveys. It's a good source of recommended titles, and
could save some of us some money!
Marion Hakanson {hp-pcd,teklabs}!orstcs!hakanson (Usenet)
hakanson.oregon-state@rand-relay or
hakanson@{oregon-state,orstcs} (CSnet)CSvax:Pucc-H:Physics:dub@pur-ee.UUCP (10/01/83)
This is directed at the guy who started this survey and is complaining about apathy. Well, I for one tried many, many times to mail my entries to him but each time my response ended up in dead.letter. I just wonder if this is a common problem. I for one am a person who loves to read net.sf-lovers, but has a minimal knowledge of the inner workings of Unix. You can't blame me if I can't seem to get mail through this system. And if you do want to blame me then I suggest you submit an article telling all us news readers just how to respond to your queries. D. Bartholomew
twt@uicsl.UUCP (10/02/83)
#R:sri-arpa:-1193900:uicsl:10700040:000:523 uicsl!twt Oct 1 15:43:00 1983 I didn't know that there were humans alive that have read "The Lord of the Rings" only once. I know of many people who haven't read it, and I know of many people who have read it nth times, but ONLY ONCE. (I've been under the impression that after the first time -- you're HOOKED). I've probably read it about once every year or year and a half since the first time. I truly enjoy Middle Earth and find it a great place to take a vacation when you can't afford the gas or hotel bills to go anywhere else. Mary
preece@uicsl.UUCP (10/04/83)
#R:sri-arpa:-1193900:uicsl:10700043:000:834 uicsl!preece Oct 3 08:22:00 1983 I have to admit I've only read the Lord of the Rings once (1965). I expect to read it again, eventually, in a less-busy phase of my life. The problem with reading things over again (let alone over and over) is that it eats up time. This leads eventually to having a set of things you reread in a repeated pattern (oh, this is August, time for Jane Austen). Just now (young kids) I haven't nearly enough time to keep up with even that subset of new stuff that really appeals to me, let alone the other items that have less appeal but seem to be worthy of attention. Even on my list of books to be reread, though, LOTR doesn't come all that high, mostly because of its length. On the other hand, talking about it has brought back some memories; maybe I'll try taking in on our next vacation... scott preece pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (10/04/83)
Should we take any notice of literary remarks from someone who can't
spell classics and doesn't know the singular of criteria is criterion?
And should we consider the opinions on literary merit of sf & f of
someone who has only read the Lord of the Rings once?
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
{ihnp4,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsq, jsq@ut-sally.{ARPA,UUCP}jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (10/04/83)
If you really want a good source of recommended titles, you might
subscribe to Locus (who do both an annual poll and a suggested reading
list), try Howard DeVore's list of Hugo, Nebula, World Fantasy and other
award winners, get the "Reader's Guide to SF" (assuming it's still in
print), buy the SF Encyclopedia, find the various Science Writers of
America Hugo and Nebula winners volumes, or go to a con and speak to
people there. Any of these are more reliable than an sf-lovers poll.
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
{ihnp4,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsq, jsq@ut-sally.{ARPA,UUCP}thomas@utah-gr.UUCP (Spencer W. Thomas) (10/20/83)
I found it interesting that so may LeGuin books made it into this list,
especially in light of the fact that she is avowedly moving away from SF
into "mainline" fiction. For example, "Malafrena" can easily be put
into the "historical fiction" class, the book which came closest to it
in feeling for me was "One Hundred Years of Solitude" by (how could I
forget his name?).
Similarly, Wolfe has been "accepted" by the "mainstream" literary crowd
- I have seen at least one short by him in the New Yorker (ask any
writer friend how hard it is to get into there). In fact his first
novel ("Peace"?) is not SF.
Just about any "genre" writing is denigrated by the literary
establishment, which to me just points out the narrowness of the
"classical" definition of literary merit.
Oh, well, I've rambled enough, now.
=Spencer