soreff (12/16/82)
About half of the articles in Harper's are usually flames, and I believe that Arnold Klein's article falls into that category. Frankly, I think Klein states his complaints with far too few qualifiers. Consider " Professors Joe De Bolt and John R. Pfeiffer, in a critical guide to modern sci-fi, have managed to reduce the inconsequence of the bookshelves to eight basic categories: stories of utopias and distopias, human destiny, alternative and lost worlds, alein life, travels by spaceship and time machine to inaccessible places (sic), new technology, new beliefs, and new mental and physical capabilities. Of course, you don't need Occam's razor (a favorite sci-fi preindustrial artifact, misunderstood to mean 'simplify everything') to see that these genera have been multiplied without necessity; uncharitable souls might even consider all eight categories as forming one irrelevant mess." As far as I can see, in dismissing all utopias and distopias, Klein has dismissed most of the popular modes of expressing political thought except for editorializing about transient events. Dismissing new technology and new beliefs dismisses almost all the forces of change except for demographic ones. From the tone of the article Klein sounds like he wants to deal with a world he knows he can understand: "the complexities of real life" and "the hurble-burble of ground rent and class struggle". He sounds like he would be at home a century or two ago, but rather uncomfortable with this century. -Jeffrey Soreff (hplabs!soreff)
trb (12/18/82)
It is with great fear that I post this message, but I have always let my feelings on non-asinine issues be known, so... I find the childish reactions (over this medium) to the Harpers article laughable. If the guy was accurate then he was accurate. If he was inacurate then he was inacurate. But SF fandom must rear its macho head in defense of the wrongs (right or wrong) that this fellow has committed. I am not an SF fanatic, and I am not a Harpers reader. I have read a small bit of SF, and I have found the classic works satisfying and the trash disappointing. I see that there are many SF fans who chew through SF pulp as though it was their sole subsistence. I see people involved in SF who appear every bit as addicted to it as others are addicted to drugs and alcohol. I'm not saying that all SF is trash, but I AM saying that much SF is trash, much of any literary genre is trash. Trouble is that the really hungry SF fiends buy and defend this trash, and when someone attacks the mass of SF work as a whole, they get offended, rather than either recognizing the attacker as ignorant or separating the wheat from the chaff. [Here it comes...] I have met SF fans who seemed to have no connection to the real world. I find that sad. My God. I fully expect to have three-headed monsters from outer space burning effigies on my lawn by morning; that's the price I gotta pay. Andy Tannenbaum Bell Labs Whippany, NJ (201) 386-6491
bcw (12/18/82)
From: Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University Re: Arny Klein & Harper's It might be an eye-opener for some of the literary elitists to look at the origins of many of the "classics." For example, Daniel Defoe (who wrote Robinson Crusoe and a couple of other lesser-known "classics") was considered something of a hack writer at the time; his current fame was (mostly) acquired after he died. Other examples are legion, as well as examples of writers which were considered quite respected during their times but whose works did not stand the test of time. Most science fiction, however, *is* trash. So is most other literature which is produced today (perhaps that's not the clearest way to say it ... anyway). Most of it won't be considered interesting 20 years from now, let alone 200. On the other hand, some of the things in such genres are destined to be of long-lasting value; these works probably are those which are in some sense breaking new ground, not just for the sake of novelty but because of the merit of the story. Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University
jmturn (12/21/82)
Of course most SF is trash. Sturgeon's Law states that 90% of *anything* is trash. What is so irritating about the Harper's article is not that the author says "Some SF is trash", but "All SF is trash". If he had said "All 19th century Victorian novels are trash", I'd be just as mad (and I hate 19th century Victorian novels!) This kind of violent outlash has an unfortunate progression. 1) X is trash 2) People who read trash are stupid 3) People who read X are stupid 4) People who are stupid...etc Therefore, I make the following statement: Harper's is trash! James
jrb (12/22/82)
Remember Sturgeon's Law: 1. 90% of Science Fiction is shit 2. 90% of everything is shit Still true to-day (although I'm sometimes inclined to think its more like 95%). John R Blaker ...!fortune!wdl1!jrb