Sturgeon's Law
Kevin L. O'Brien
science fiction author, was being interviewed one time when the
reporter remarked that 90% of science fiction was crud. Sturgeon
replied, "Sure, 90% of science fiction is crud. That's because 90% of
everything is crud." At some point after that "crud" got changed to
"crap".
Sturgeon is well known for his wit and bawdy sense of humor. His
statement was obviously meant to be a facetious rejection of the
reporter's sweeping generalization. However, three groups conspired
to turn a quip made in jest into an immutable law of nature.
The first group was those fans who hang on every word Sturgeon said as
if it was holy scripture.
The second group was cynics who, because of a few bad experiences in
their lives, had overreacted and come to believe the worst about
everything, and siezed upon his statement as an expression of their
own pessimism.
The third group was, oddly enough, hackers and other computer
operators, who are generally avid science fiction readers. They use
his statement to express their disdain for much of what they encounter
in the computer world and on the Internet. Which is probably why the
statement is so well known among Usenet users but practically unknown
in mainstream society.
So to answer Aaron Vanek's question, why did Sturgeon say it? He
meant it to be a quip, a humorous response that demonstrated the
reporter's ignorance on the subject of science fiction writing but in
a way that did not insult the reporter. He did not mean it as a
profound statement of the actual quality of the vast majority of
science fiction, art, literature, or even life. Aaron's use of
"Sturgeon's Law" tells us more about his own prejudices and outlook on
art and life than it does Sturgeon's.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Theo Paijmans
you there O'Brien? How could you possibly know how Sturgeon arrived at
his dictim - even if called a jest, a joke, or another of those terms to
minimise exactly what is said.
Obviously, everything you say is concocted, born, fermented or
formulated first in the grey matter dept, agree? Sturgeon just did not
simply pluck some words out of the air, but instead in an instant - the
famous Sturgeon's reply - connected some dots which had been floating
around in his mind.
Anyway, I'd like to see how you know what Sturgeon meant with his
dictum.Unless, of course, when you "were there".
regards,
Theo
Robbie
O'Brien) wrote:
>I don't know the full details
<snippage>
>Kevin L. O'Brien
Quite.
Kevin, as I sit on the fence watching, I *really* want to warm to you.
But you just won't let it lie and here we go again. By all means raise
a discussion about Sturgeon, but don't turn it into an attack on
Aaron. This devalues the purpose of the topic and creates more bad
feeling.
You say that you don't really value this newsgroup as a forum for
selling your wares. I can see why your personal experience here will
have done that. However these debates you oft engage in are, from a
voyeur's perspective, mild entertainment (at best) or extremely
annoying (at worst).
I've never bought any of your books -- and I'm less and less likely to
based on your Usenet postings. Sadly my expectations are affecting my
overall opinion of the work you put out. :-( I sincerely wish you
nothing but the best of health, long life and a successful business;
but spare the rest of us from further lengthy flamed debates, please.
Just accept that within AHC some people have differing views from your
own. And then move on.
--
Robbie
Mike Tice
> meant it to be a quip, a humorous response that demonstrated the
> reporter's ignorance on the subject of science fiction writing but in
> a way that did not insult the reporter. He did not mean it as a
> profound statement of the actual quality of the vast majority of
> science fiction, art, literature, or even life.
Perhaps we should see what Sturgeon said about it himself:
http://www.physics.emory.edu/~weeks/misc/faq.html
The first reference I can find in his oeuve appears in the March 1958
issue of Venture Science Fiction, where [Sturgeon] wrote:
"I repeat Sturgeon's Revelation, which was wrung out of me after
twenty years of wearying defense of science fiction against attacks of
people who used the worst examples of the field for ammunition, and
whose conclusion was that ninety percent of sf is crud.
"The Revelation: Ninety percent of everything is crud.
"Corallary 1: The existence of immense quantities of trash in science
fiction is admitted and if [sic] is regrettable; but it is no more
unnatural than the existence of trash anywhere.
"Corallary 2: The best science fiction is as good as the best fiction
in any field."
Corollary 1 shows that Sturgeon did indeed feel that "immense
quantities" of sf is crap.
Corollary 2 shows why I haven't given up on sf or Mythos Fiction.
--Mike
Shiflet
news:n5l200p9tu8rf1q69...@4ax.com...
>>
>
> I've never bought any of your books -- and I'm less and less likely to
> based on your Usenet postings. Sadly my expectations are affecting my
> overall opinion of the work you put out. :-(
I don't know what your expectations are but I own a copy of the Schwader
book, released by Lindisfarne Press and it is very impressive. I don't
understand why other small press publishers have been unable to release
affordable hardbacks of this nature.
I have found Kevin to be always honest in his dealings with me and do know
that he has paid advances on future royalties, to contributors to his
"Eldritch Blue" anthology. I wish more people would support his efforts
rather than dump on what he is doing.
>I sincerely wish you
> nothing but the best of health, long life and a successful business;
> but spare the rest of us from further lengthy flamed debates, please.
> Just accept that within AHC some people have differing views from your
> own. And then move on.
>
I was not under the impression that Kevin was debating himself. Others were
involved as well. Please don't try to place the blame solely on him. I
applaud him for standing up for what he believes.
Ron Shiflet
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> What puzzles me in your otherwise eloquent exposition is this: but where
> you there O'Brien? How could you possibly know how Sturgeon arrived at
> his dictim - even if called a jest, a joke, or another of those terms to
> minimise exactly what is said.
>
> Obviously, everything you say is concocted, born, fermented or
> formulated first in the grey matter dept, agree? Sturgeon just did not
> simply pluck some words out of the air, but instead in an instant - the
> famous Sturgeon's reply - connected some dots which had been floating
> around in his mind.
>
> Anyway, I'd like to see how you know what Sturgeon meant with his
> dictum.Unless, of course, when you "were there".
>
It's obvious given the facts and the circumstances as I have presented
them.
I gave the facts, then my interpretation of them. The other members
of this group may then come to their own conclusions. I doubt I will
convince anyone who views Sturgeon's Law as an immutable law of
nature; my concern was for people who didn't know what to think of it,
and for those like me who recognize the law for what it is and are
glad to have confirmation of it.
Short of Sturgeon himself showing up on this list and confirming or
denying my claim, I have no way to prove this is true, which is why I
had not mentioned it before, but I will add that I once saw Sturgeon
being interviewed on television. He was asked about Sturgeon's Law,
and he gave pretty much the explanation I gave, minus the talk of the
three groups. He also expressed bemusement at how his quip had been
taken so seriously, when in fact he does not himself really believe
that 90% of everything is crap.
Kevin L. O'Brien
james ambuehl
I can buy that one, being an occasional shrimp or pickled herring or
tuna fisher eater, but touching no other such "noxious sea-spawn," as
HPL might have had it. ;-)
-- Jim
"Currently she was standing in the middle of what appeared to be his
TARDIS library. But it was a library of the evil and the arcane, where
the godless 'Necronomicon' was sandwiched between those terrible works
'Liber Inducens in Evangelium Aeternum' and 'The Black Scrolls of
Rassilon'. Where the infamous 'Book of Vile' and its Black Appendix sat
next to 'The Ambuehl Lores' and the wretched 'Insidium of Astrolabus'
.."
-- THE QUANTUM ARCHANGEL by Craig Hinton
Kevin L. O'Brien
> But you just won't let it lie and here we go again. By all means raise
> a discussion about Sturgeon, but don't turn it into an attack on
> Aaron. This devalues the purpose of the topic and creates more bad
> feeling.
>
No attack was intended. I simply pointed out that if Sturgeon himself
did not take his comment seriously or believed it was universally
true, that this tells us more about how those people who do take it
seriously think than it does how Sturgeon thinks.
>
> You say that you don't really value this newsgroup as a forum for
> selling your wares. I can see why your personal experience here will
> have done that. However these debates you oft engage in are, from a
> voyeur's perspective, mild entertainment (at best) or extremely
> annoying (at worst).
>
I didn't say I didn't value it as a forum for selling books, since
there are people in this group who do buy them. What I said was I no
longer count on it as a major source for sales, as I first did.
Whether or not that is my fault is certainly debateable, but two other
factors that would need to be discussed as well is the affect
Sturgeon's Law has on people's expectations of new Mythos fiction and
the fact that most of the people in this group appear to be gamers and
so are not interested in or familiar with te bulk of Mythos fiction,
especially historical Mythos fiction, except for certain Big Names and
more recent works. That fact that hardly anyone knew who Walt DeBill
was, and could not care less that his out-of-print and unpublished
fiction was finely available, underscores this conclusion.
>
> I've never bought any of your books -- and I'm less and less likely to
> based on your Usenet postings. Sadly my expectations are affecting my
> overall opinion of the work you put out.
>
Then it's your loss. Frankly, its irrational to equate someone's
business products with his opinions expressed on a public discussion
forum.
I would recommend that you base your decision on the recommendation of
those who have seen my books and read the stories. Ron Shiflet has a
copy of Strange Stars; I'm sure he would be happy to tell you what he
thinks of it. And Jim will be posting a review once he has read the
book. You might also want to go to my website and read the sample
stories posted there. My URL is below.
>
> I sincerely wish you
> nothing but the best of health, long life and a successful business;
> but spare the rest of us from further lengthy flamed debates, please.
> Just accept that within AHC some people have differing views from your
> own. And then move on.
>
I have no problem with people expressing differing opinions. The
problem I have is with people who believe that their notariety and/or
life experiences make their opinions absolutely true and who
visciously attack anyone who challenges that assumption. Had Aaron
simply responded with rational statements and arguments instead of
insults, juvenile rhetoric, and vindictive attacks, there would have
been no problem.
Kevin L. O'Brien
http://www.clare.ltd.new.net/epress/
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> Perhaps we should see what Sturgeon said about it himself:
>
> issue of Venture Science Fiction, where [Sturgeon] wrote:
>
> "I repeat Sturgeon's Revelation, which was wrung out of me after
> twenty years of wearying defense of science fiction against attacks of
> people who used the worst examples of the field for ammunition, and
> whose conclusion was that ninety percent of sf is crud.
>
Corollary 1 notwithstanding, the above statement supports my claim
that the quip, as Sturgeon himself referred to it a number of years
later in a television interview, was meant to refute the claim that
90% of scifi was crap, by pointing out exactly the problem described
above: using the 10% that is crap to pass judgement upon the whole
genre, again as Sturgeon himself explained in that self same TV
interview.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Robbie
O'Brien) wrote:
>No attack was intended.
Forgive me for snipping the majority of your post, but it doesn't seem
worthwhile to reply to your points. And I honestly don't mean that as
an offence. It's just that no consensus can be reached by engaging you
in debate.
You are a biter, Kevin. You are a troll's wet dream. And because you
always come back for some more flamin', you will always be a target.
As such I fear that you are in a lifelong cyclic pattern of
never-ending flame wars, simply because you find it impossible to
stand back.
Naturally the last word shall be yours. An option I know you will be
unable to resist! :-)
--
Robbie
Gregory L. Hansen
>
> So to answer Aaron Vanek's question, why did Sturgeon say it? He
> meant it to be a quip, a humorous response that demonstrated the
> reporter's ignorance on the subject of science fiction writing but in
> a way that did not insult the reporter. He did not mean it as a
> profound statement of the actual quality of the vast majority of
> science fiction, art, literature, or even life. Aaron's use of
> "Sturgeon's Law" tells us more about his own prejudices and outlook on
> art and life than it does Sturgeon's.
And Sturgeon, and other authors, have also said a lot of things that
haven't entered the popular wisdom. It really doesn't matter what
Sturgeon meant; a million other people found enough wisdom in those
words to keep repeating them.
John Pelan
(james ambuehl) wrote:
>Er, wouldn't Sturgeon's Law actually be that 90 % of all fish is crap?
>I can buy that one, being an occasional shrimp or pickled herring or
>tuna fisher eater, but touching no other such "noxious sea-spawn," as
>HPL might have had it. ;-)
>
>-- Jim
No, no... 90% of all fish is carp...
J
C.S.Strowbridge
> So to answer Aaron Vanek's question, why did Sturgeon say it? He
> meant it to be a quip, a humorous response that demonstrated the
> reporter's ignorance on the subject of science fiction writing but in
> a way that did not insult the reporter. He did not mean it as a
> profound statement of the actual quality of the vast majority of
> science fiction, art, literature, or even life. Aaron's use of
> "Sturgeon's Law" tells us more about his own prejudices and outlook on
> art and life than it does Sturgeon's.
It may have just been a quip, but it is pretty accurate. For instance,
there were 500 movies released last year, can you think of 50 that were
good? I can't, and I'm a box office analyst. And those movies that are
released should be a cut above the screenplays that were rejected. (Who
the hell is responsible for greenlighting crap like Kangaroo Jack or
Boat Trip, or the upcoming Torque?)
Anyhoo, personally I don't think Sturgeon's Law is a Law, more of a
guideline. Most, (maybe not 90% but the majority), of any creative
endeavour is crap. But you'd only really see this if you read
everything. If you just read stories that are recommended, or
reprinted then that should help the average.
However, when you read a story you should have an open mind. Sure, it
could be one of the 90%, but it could also be one of the 10%.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
>>Perhaps we should see what Sturgeon said about it himself:
>>
>>The first reference I can find in his oeuve appears in the March 1958
>>issue of Venture Science Fiction, where [Sturgeon] wrote:
>>
>>"I repeat Sturgeon's Revelation, which was wrung out of me after
>>twenty years of wearying defense of science fiction against attacks of
>>people who used the worst examples of the field for ammunition, and
>>whose conclusion was that ninety percent of sf is crud.
>
> Corollary 1 notwithstanding, the above statement supports my claim
> that the quip, as Sturgeon himself referred to it a number of years
> later in a television interview, was meant to refute the claim that
> 90% of scifi was crap, by pointing out exactly the problem described
> above: using the 10% that is crap to pass judgement upon the whole
> genre, again as Sturgeon himself explained in that self same TV
> interview.
I don't want to get into a flame war here, but I have two questions:
1.) How can Corollary 1 be ignored?
2.) He repeats the, "immense quantities of trash" phrase, yet you say he
meant only 10% was crap. Why? It seems that it would be more likely that
he misspoke on a TV interview then when he was writing and could
carefully choose his words.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
> jamesa...@webtv.net wrote:
>>Er, wouldn't Sturgeon's Law actually be that 90 % of all fish is crap?
>>I can buy that one, being an occasional shrimp or pickled herring or
>>tuna fisher eater, but touching no other such "noxious sea-spawn," as
>>HPL might have had it. ;-)
>
> No, no... 90% of all fish is carp...
And that joke is obviously one of the 90% of jokes that are crap.
C.S.Strowbridge
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> >No attack was intended.
>
> Forgive me for snipping the majority of your post, but it doesn't seem
> worthwhile to reply to your points. And I honestly don't mean that as
> an offence. It's just that no consensus can be reached by engaging you
> in debate.
>
How do you arrive at that, considering that no ever tries? They just
either refuse to respond, bail out as you do, or attack me. It's
impossible to reach an consensus when no one engages in a rational,
reasoned discussion.
>
> You are a biter, Kevin. You are a troll's wet dream. And because you
> always come back for some more flamin', you will always be a target.
> As such I fear that you are in a lifelong cyclic pattern of
> never-ending flame wars, simply because you find it impossible to
> stand back.
>
Translation: Anyone may attack Kevin but if he tries to defend
himself he's the villain.
>
> Naturally the last word shall be yours. An option I know you will be
> unable to resist! :-)
>
Irrationality and prejudice need to be challenged.
Kevin L. O'Brien
jeanannd
Intelligent discourse without insulting others can be GOOD!!!!
--
^ ^
>"< jeanannd
/ I \ /
\ / I \/
"Robbie" <rob...@unisystemrpg.com> wrote in message
news:ojj3009aphjm1ani4...@4ax.com...
Robbie
wrote:
>Guy, Kevin isn't the one flaming or trolling - you are. Suggestion:
>Intelligent discourse without insulting others can be GOOD!!!!
I never suggest he *was* flaming or trolling. I suggested he was a
troll's wet dream, a target, a victim. Now if he were to pick up on
that bit of advice he'd get himself into fewer flame wars.
Thanks for top posting.
--
Robbie
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> I never suggest he *was* flaming or trolling. I suggested he was a
> troll's wet dream, a target, a victim. Now if he were to pick up on
> that bit of advice he'd get himself into fewer flame wars.
>
Translation: It's all Kevin's fault that people attack him, and he
makes it worse by defending himself. So he should stop defending
himself, or even responding at all. In fact he should just shut up
altogether and disappear.
Sorry Robbie, but I choose not to accept that "advice". But thank you
for giving it, even though I didn't ask for it.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Charles Cunningham
>
> So to answer Aaron Vanek's question, why did Sturgeon say it? He
> meant it to be a quip, a humorous response that demonstrated the
> reporter's ignorance on the subject of science fiction writing but in
> a way that did not insult the reporter. He did not mean it as a
> profound statement of the actual quality of the vast majority of
> science fiction, art, literature, or even life. Aaron's use of
> "Sturgeon's Law" tells us more about his own prejudices and outlook on
> art and life than it does Sturgeon's.
>
> Kevin L. O'Brien
Hi Kevin,
I'm a little late to this discussion, but the above raises a
question in my mind. It seems that in your discussion you are
implicitly saying "Sturgeon really didn't mean it." Also, it would
seem that there is an implied criticism of those who "use" the quote,
or believe it.
I would propose that he really DID mean it, and I would agree with
him. This is not necessarily a "cynical" attitude, IMO. It's similar
to the epiphany Steppenwolf (the Hesse character, not the band)
experienced--life is like a Mozart symphony heard through a
static-filled low-fidelity radio. It is our "job," if you will, to
filter out the dross (the 90%, or whatever percent you're comfortable
with saying) in order to perceive the joy and beauty of the rest.
I would say, without meaning to give offense , that your
interpretation of "Sturgeon's Law" as a non-law tells us much about
YOUR prejudices and outlook.
Best,
Charles Cunningham
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> Hi Kevin,
> I'm a little late to this discussion, but the above raises a
> question in my mind. It seems that in your discussion you are
> implicitly saying "Sturgeon really didn't mean it." Also, it would
> seem that there is an implied criticism of those who "use" the quote,
> or believe it.
>
Okay. The only problem with that is that Sturgeon himself stated in a
TV interview a number of years later that he didn't mean it, and he
himself expressed bemusement at how seriously people had taken what he
meant to be a quip.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Gregory L. Hansen
> <snip>
> >
> > So to answer Aaron Vanek's question, why did Sturgeon say it? He
> > meant it to be a quip, a humorous response that demonstrated the
> > reporter's ignorance on the subject of science fiction writing but in
> > a way that did not insult the reporter. He did not mean it as a
> > profound statement of the actual quality of the vast majority of
> > science fiction, art, literature, or even life. Aaron's use of
> > "Sturgeon's Law" tells us more about his own prejudices and outlook on
> > art and life than it does Sturgeon's.
> >
> > Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> Hi Kevin,
> I'm a little late to this discussion, but the above raises a
> question in my mind. It seems that in your discussion you are
> implicitly saying "Sturgeon really didn't mean it." Also, it would
> seem that there is an implied criticism of those who "use" the quote,
> or believe it.
"Sturgeon really didn't mean it, therefore it's not really true."
Except a million people have repeated the quote, and it's not because
they deified the guy that said it. Most of them (including me) have
no idea who Sturgeon is, except for being the guy that said that. They
keep using the quote because they find wisdom in it, a concise
expression of an opinion that they share.
On a related note, there's a joke about the American Physical Society
journals, that they're taking up library shelf space at an increasing
rate, so that by so-and-so year they'll be taking up shelf space
faster than the speed of light. But that won't violate causality
because no information will be transmitted.
What do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the sea? A good
start.
Pay attention and you'll find lots of independently formulated "most
of it is crap" quips about one particular field or another. Sturgeon
summed it up. It doesn't matter whether he really meant it, the
opinion exists independently of him.
Matthew T. Carpenter
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html
Matt
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> "Sturgeon really didn't mean it, therefore it's not really true."
>
Sturgeon himself stated that is wasn't true, that he did not say it
because it was true, and that the people who took him seriously are
simply expressing their own cynicism.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Aaron Vanek
I gotta find me in there...
Matthew T. Carpenter wrote:
--
Aaron Vanek
My latest movie reviews:
http://www.flipsidemovies.com/yellowsign.html
http://www.filmthreat.com/Reviews.asp?Id=4472
Also Check out: http://www.webnoir.com/yellowsign
My last movie, "Return to Innsmouth" available at:
http://www.beyond-books.com/catalog/
"Haven't we already given money to rich people...Shouldn't
we be giving money to the middle?" --President G.W. Bush
C.S.Strowbridge
> Matthew T. Carpenter wrote:
>> And a much needed dose of humor...
>>
>> http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html
>
> HA HA HA!
>
> I gotta find me in there...
I've been labelled an Ego, Royal and Jerk in my other NG. (ASVS)
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame45.html
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame20.html
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame34.html
C.S.Strowbridge
Matthew T. Carpenter
set in your early teens through early 20's, when you have all the
leisure time in the world. If that's when you get into HPL and
friends, then it will likely be a long time acquaintance. If you
never catch the wave then you likely won't.
I don't think I am more or less critical of the mythos fiction I read
than any other kind. I just happen to like the thmese, creatures and
stories. I get bummed when I read an anthology and all the stories
are pretty bad, but it doesn't stop me from coming back. Even in a
regretable anthology like Cthlhu's Heirs there was Mr. Skin and Behold
I Stand At The Door And Knock. Even Cthulhu And The Coeds had The
Scrimshaw Museum. Sometimes, like Cthulhu 2000, most of the stories
are winners. And I don't claim anything for this type of fiction
other than it is a pleasant diversion for me, like reaffirming old
friendships when I open a new book. None of it compares to the
greatest books I've read like Dostoevsky or Dickens, but so what?
Even some really dog novel like Nightmare's Disciple or Other Nations
won't stop me from exploring new ones. SOmetimes I get vexed with
Price's essays at the beginning of then CHaosium anthologies because
they are overly erudite for what is, for me, just pleasant diverting
fiction.
What I really like about this group, and particularly Jim's posts, is
that I have discovered new stories and books and internet fiction I
wouldn't have otherwise.
Matt -I'll post more detailed impressions of Other Nations later.
james ambuehl
>SOmetimes I get vexed with Price's essays at the beginning of then
CHaosium anthologies because they are overly erudite for what is, for
me, just pleasant diverting fiction.
What I really like about this group, and particularly Jim's posts, is
that I have discovered new stories and books and internet fiction I
wouldn't have otherwise. <
Me: I have to agree on Bob's Introductions. He takes the stories much
too seriously, oftimes, comparing their themes to classical literature
works or theology texts, and I really have no idea what he's going on
about! So I usually just skip over the Intros and get right to the meat
of the book: the stories themselves!
And as for me pointing Mythos stuff out, well, I appreciate it when
people do likewise for me here, and I know I've found out about new
stuff just being on this wonderful Newsgroup, so I try and help out all
I can. Plus, with a working Bibliography perpetually in the works, I
sometimes post my info just to clarify it all for myself, then save my
Biblio posts in my email file for later study . . . ;-)