MEMORIES OF THE SPACE AGE by J. G. Ballard
Evelyn C. Leeper
MEMORIES OF THE SPACE AGE by J. G. Ballard
Arkham House, 1988 (1962-1988c), $16.95.
A book review by Evelyn C. Leeper
Copyright 1989 Evelyn C. Leeper
This is a collection of eight stories by Ballard set in and around Cape
Canaveral in the post-Space Age. While Ballard writes well, he is a better
poet than a scientist (boy, there's an understatement!) and his attitude to
space travel and science in general is liable to turn off the readers who
would be most attracted to a work of this description--those interest in
space and space travel.
In "The Cage of Sand," for example, Ballard postulates that people
become so worried about the amount of material being shot off into space
that they start bringing back sand from Mars as ballast so that the Earth's
gravity doesn't change. This sand, however, turns out to contain bacteria
which destroy all plant life they come in contact with, although they live
in symbiosis with human intestinal bacteria. This is discovered when
Florida is laid waste, and so Florida is quarantined, thus saving the rest
of the Earth (and providing the setting for the story). Of course, all the
tourists who acquired the bacteria in Florida and excreted it elsewhere are
ignored. So, for that matter, is the fact that it is impossible to bring
back enough material to make up for what is fired off, since the latter
includes all the fuel. To bring back more requires firing off more fuel to
do it. Assume that you launch a 100-pound rocket which is 10 pounds
payload, 60 pounds fuel to get to Mars, and 30 pounds fuel used to get back.
(And these are extremely optimistic figures.) If you try to bring back 90
pounds in sand, then you need another 270 pounds of fuel to bring it back.
But then you need to bring back another 270 pounds of sand, .... If we
could ship as much sand as Ballard suggests around as ballast, we'd have one
hell of a space program!
But according to Ballard, we won't. Each story deals with its own
disaster brought about by the space program. In one, those who travel into
space (and eventually others) become susceptible to fugue states, in which
they blank out for hours at a time. In another, they become susceptible to
just the reverse--relative to them, everything else slows down. This in
fact is one of the major faults of this collection: as a collection, it
lacks continuity. Each story contradicts the others. In "The Cage of
Sand," there is Martian sand surrounding the Cape; in "The Dead Astronaut,"
there is no Martian sand. In one it's fugue; in another it's time-dilation.
Sometimes it's one set of dead astronauts circling the globe, sometimes
another. Ballard really likes the image of dead astronauts circling the
globe in their capsules, especially when he can have them achieve flaming
re-entries as needed for the plot--always landing at the Cape, of course.
It's not clear how this is accomplished, though one story mentions radio
beacons in passing. Right--the whole Cape is deserted and covered by sand,
but the beacons still work.
There are a few stories that do not harp on the theme "there are some
things man was not meant to tamper with." "A Question of Re-entry" is sort
of your basic cargo-cult story. The final story, "The Man Who Walked on the
Moon," is the most interesting, in that it doesn't try to slam the space
program, but rather examines our need for heroes and myths and who we fill
that need.
Now all this sounds very negative, and to a certain extent it is. But
there is no denying that Ballard can write poetic and vivid prose (when not
sabotaged by poor copy-editing that talks about "the siting [sic] of a
satellite"). And I suppose it's reasonable that even pro-space advocates
need to read the material of the opposition to be able to understand and
counter it, though Ballard's total disregard for science or scientific law
makes it difficult to discuss the issues raised logically. And the cover by
Max Ernst and interior illustrations by Jeffrey K. Potter are much better
than a lot of the artwork one seems on and in books these days. (Potter's
illustrations go particularly well with the stories they illustrate,
indicating a real effort on his part and on the part of the publisher to
produce a coherent piece.)
(While I was putting this review together, I serendipitously ran across
the following quote from Algis Budrys, which sums up much of what is wrong
with these stories and Ballard's stories in general:
A story by J. G. Ballard, as you know, calls for people who don't
think. One begins with characters who regard the physical universe as
a mysterious and arbitrary place, and who would not dream of trying to
understand its actual laws. Furthermore, in order to be the
protagonist of a J. G. Ballard novel, or anything more than a very
minor character therein, you must have cut yourself off from the entire
body of scientific education. In this way, when the world disaster--be
it wind or water--comes upon you, you are under absolutely no
obligation to do anything about it but sit and worship it. Even more
further, some force has acted to remove from the face of the world all
people who might impose good sense or rational behavior on you, so that
the disaster proceeds unchecked and unopposed except by the almost
inevitable thumb-rule engineer type who for his individual comfort
builds a huge pyramid (without huge footings) to resist high winds, or
trains a herd of alligators and renegade divers to help him out in
dealing with deep water. [GALAXY, December 1966]
And that says it all.)
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 201-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or e...@mtgzy.att.com
Thomas Maddox
> This is a collection of eight stories by Ballard set in and around Cape
>Canaveral in the post-Space Age. While Ballard writes well, he is a better
>poet than a scientist
Thus he writes fiction and does not build rockets. Pretty
clever, eh?
>his attitude to
>space travel and science in general is liable to turn off the readers who
>would be most attracted to a work of this description--those interest in
>space and space travel.
A really peculiar notion. Ballard is not exactly some unknown
writer likely to find the wrong audience; he is widely and commonly
known as an intensely literary writer, and those most likely to be
attracted to this book are J. G. Ballard fans.
> Each story deals with its own
>disaster brought about by the space program. In one, those who travel into
>space (and eventually others) become susceptible to fugue states, in which
>they blank out for hours at a time. In another, they become susceptible to
>just the reverse--relative to them, everything else slows down. This in
>fact is one of the major faults of this collection: as a collection, it
>lacks continuity. Each story contradicts the others.
If you're going to find fault with what Ballard has done, you
would do well to consider that he was not trying to construct a
coherent, more-or-less plausible world; he was *exploring a theme*,
and in the process constructing a number of dreamlike manifestations
of that theme. To act as though he were a failed Hal Clement is
absurd.
> Now all this sounds very negative, and to a certain extent it is.
More deluded than negative, it seems to me.
>there is no denying that Ballard can write poetic and vivid prose (when not
>sabotaged by poor copy-editing that talks about "the siting [sic] of a
>satellite"). And I suppose it's reasonable that even pro-space advocates
>need to read the material of the opposition to be able to understand and
>counter it, though Ballard's total disregard for science or scientific law
>makes it difficult to discuss the issues raised logically.
You almost entirely mistake what Ballard is doing.
Logical discussion of the merits and demerits of the space program
would probably rate very near the bottom of what Ballard is all about.
He is constructing a set of fantasies using the 20th century's most
characteristic products as his raw material--in short, he is
myth-making, and your concerns about fact and logic are simply
irrelevant.
[quotes from A. J. Budrys follow:]
> A story by J. G. Ballard, as you know, calls for people who don't
> think . . . Furthermore, in order to be the protagonist of a J. G.
> Ballard novel . . . you must have cut yourself off from the entire
> body of scientific education.
[etc.]
> [GALAXY, December 1966]
>And that says it all.)
Yeah, sure. Writers and critics such as Anthony Burgess, Susan Sontag,
William Burroughs, and William Gibson all remain fascinated by Ballard.
And Ballard's readership has continued to expand as his books have continued
to be reprinted, despite the usual incomprehension of the sf audience (all too
clearly exemplified by this review).
In short, Ballard's work is interesting and important, and don't let
the somewhat clueless Ms. Leeper tell you otherwise.
Tom Maddox
UUCP: ...{ucf-cs|gatech!uflorida}!novavax!maddoxt
Pete Jinks
response to e...@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper):
>In short, Ballard's work is interesting and important, and don't let
>the somewhat clueless Ms. Leeper tell you otherwise.
The important thing about a review is that it helps you to make up your own
mind as to whether you wish to read the book or not. In that sense, Ms.
Leepers excellent review did that for both Mr. Maddox and myself.
I do not like Ballard's style (although I have read and enjoyed some of his
work) and now know that this book is not going to be to my liking.
Mr Maddox obviously does like Ballard's style, and (if he did not already
know) now knows that he probably will like this book.
I would suspect that most other readers would also have a much clearer idea of
the merits of Ballard's book.
Ms. Leeper - please review more books, I find your reviews very interesting
and valuable.
Mr Maddox - thankyou also for your viewpoint, which I also find interesting
and valuable, but calling Ms. Leeper "somewhat clueless" is (IMHO) missing the
point of a review.
Scott TCB Turner
[about Evelyn Leeper's review of the aforementioned book]:
> If you're going to find fault with what Ballard has done, you
>would do well to consider that he was not trying to construct a
>coherent, more-or-less plausible world; he was *exploring a theme*,
>and in the process constructing a number of dreamlike manifestations
>of that theme. To act as though he were a failed Hal Clement is
>century's most characteristic products as his raw material--in short,
>he is myth-making, and your concerns about fact and logic are simply
>irrelevant.
There's a peculiar notion here: that fact and logic are irrelevant to
myths. Many equate myths with fantasies, but nothing is further from
the truth. Myths are explanatory - folk theories about natural
phenomenon, social practices or historical happenings. Myths do not
contradict the facts or reasoning of their societies.
As far as Ballard goes, I think he's strongest outside of science
fiction settings. Ignoring science or intentionally contradicting it
in the pursuit of a literary theme is fine, but Ballard makes
unintentional freshman-level science errors that undercut whatever
literary intentions his stories might have. Imagine a story with
similar unintentional errors in characterization or plotting - it
would be unacceptable to most sophisticated readers.
I've recently read _The Island_, a book that I think shows Ballard off
at his best. (It is, for instance, better than _Empire of the Sun_.)
A man drives home from work one day, has an accident, and ends up
trapped on a traffic island - an unused triangle of land at the
intersection of three major highways. The story concerns what he
finds there and how it changes his life and personality. This setting
has many of the same peculiarities Ballard looks for in his science
fiction without the attendant technical problems.
> In short, Ballard's work is interesting and important, and
>don't let the somewhat clueless Ms. Leeper tell you otherwise.
This kind of spiteful invective contributes little to any discussion.
-- Scott Turner
Thomas Maddox
>mad...@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) writes, in
>response to e...@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper):
>
>>In short, Ballard's work is interesting and important, and don't let
>>the somewhat clueless Ms. Leeper tell you otherwise.
>
>The important thing about a review is that it helps you to make up your own
>mind as to whether you wish to read the book or not. In that sense, Ms.
>Leepers excellent review did that for both Mr. Maddox and myself.
No, it didn't, not for me. It did, however, focus my estimate
of Ms. Leeper's critical sense.
>I do not like Ballard's style (although I have read and enjoyed some of his
>work) and now know that this book is not going to be to my liking.
You let a critic who obviously has no clear sense of Ballard's
worth as a writer put you off even looking at a book that, even if it is
Ballard at his least memorable, is certainly much more interesting
than anything Ms. Leeper had to say about it.
>Mr Maddox obviously does like Ballard's style, and (if he did not already
>know) now knows that he probably will like this book.
You are entirely wrong. I have no idea whether I will "like" the
book, even if that were the point, which it is not. My concern is,
will I find the book interesting? Will it amuse or enlighten me in
some way? Ballard in general, yes; this book, who knows? Ms.
Leepers's American Bandstand School of Criticism is no help at
all. "I'd give it a 65; it was about space flight but was a downer and
got some science wrong."
Pauline Kael, in an interview on NPR, talked about
how she despised Siskel and Ebert, the widely-syndicated tv film
critics whose response to a film is "thumbs up" or "thumbs down." She
said that in reducing criticism to this banal and trivial response,
they gave entirely the wrong message about criticism to a very wide
audience.
I agree. Thumbs up or down, one star or four--these are not
critical responses, they are simple expressions of opinion and are
also one of the least interesting responses one can make to a film or
a book. Genuine criticism requires a deep engagement with the object
of criticism in order to illuminate it.
>Mr Maddox - thankyou also for your viewpoint, which I also find interesting
>and valuable, but calling Ms. Leeper "somewhat clueless" is (IMHO) missing the
>point of a review.
True, I should have said "almost entirely clueless concerning
J. G. Ballard." And on the evidence, your conception of "the point of
a review" is eminently missable.
Tom Maddox
UUCP: ...{ucf-cs|gatech!uflorida}!novavax!maddoxt
Internet: novavax!mad...@bikini.cis.ufl.edu
Robert Firth
>. Thumbs up or down, one star or four--these are not
>critical responses, they are simple expressions of opinion and are
>also one of the least interesting responses one can make to a film or
>a book.
For the record, I usually find Ms Leeper's expressions of opinion
interesting, informative, and enlightening. Perhaps this is in
part because she is usually more interested in the book or film
in question than in her own ego.
Brian Yamauchi
>>mad...@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) writes, in
>>response to e...@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper):
>>
>>>In short, Ballard's work is interesting and important, and don't let
>>>the somewhat clueless Ms. Leeper tell you otherwise.
>>Mr Maddox obviously does like Ballard's style, and (if he did not already
>>know) now knows that he probably will like this book.
>
> You are entirely wrong. I have no idea whether I will "like" the
>book, even if that were the point, which it is not. My concern is,
>will I find the book interesting? Will it amuse or enlighten me in
>some way? Ballard in general, yes; this book, who knows? Ms.
>Leepers's American Bandstand School of Criticism is no help at
>all. "I'd give it a 65; it was about space flight but was a downer and
>got some science wrong."
So you demand that every reviewer share your own tastes?
It's just as valid to critize J. G. Ballard's science as it is to
criticize Robert Forward's style and characterization -- despite that
the former may be more interested in style and character and the
latter more interested in science and technology.
Fans of Ballard and Forward may be willing to overlook these flaws
because they value the author's other talents, but that's no reason
to demand that every reviewer share these opinions.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester
yama...@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________
Copyright 1953, Renewed 1989
} Pauline Kael, in an interview on NPR, talked about how she despised
} Siskel and Ebert, the widely-syndicated tv film critics whose
} response to a film is "thumbs up" or "thumbs down." She said that
} in reducing criticism to this banal and trivial response, they gave
} entirely the wrong message about criticism to a very wide audience.
} I agree. Thumbs up or down, one star or four--these are not critical
} responses, they are simple expressions of opinion and are also one
} of the least interesting responses one can make to a film or a book.
} Genuine criticism requires a deep engagement with the object of
} criticism in order to illuminate it.
Whether it's "one of the least interesting responses one can make to
a film or book" is up for debate, but I think the point on which you
yourself seem to be "clueless" is that there is a difference between
"reviewing" and "criticism". Pauline Kael is a critic, Siskel & Ebert
are reviewers, and never the twain shall meet. They serve different
purposes.
A review is meant to give a glimpse of what the book/film/whatever is
about, so that the audience can decide whether it might be worth
pursuing (and, in this case, disagreement with the reviewer in question
can be as enlightening as agreement; there are a number of reviewers
who can get me interested in a particular work preceisely *because*
they pan it).
A critic's job is to delve into the work in depth, and examine what
the author was trying to do, whether he or she was successful, which
elements work and which don't, how the work fits into a greater artistic
scheme, either in comparison to the author's previous works or to his
contempories or predecessors, etc.
"H-h-h-happy birthday, y-you th-th-thing from
another world, you."
--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)
UUCP: ...!decwrl!ruby.enet.dec.com!boyajian
D.A. Hosek
In article <57...@shlump.nac.dec.com> boya...@ruby.dec.com (Copyright 1953, Renewed 1989) writes:
>A critic's job is to delve into the work in depth, and examine what
>the author was trying to do, whether he or she was successful, which
>elements work and which don't, how the work fits into a greater artistic
>scheme, either in comparison to the author's previous works or to his
>contempories or predecessors, etc.
Nice definition, but there are a lot of things to be said against it (none
of this is to imply that I disagree in whole or in part, although you'll
never catch me admitting to agreement or disagreement, but I'm rambling).
For example, how can we have any idea what the critic was trying to do?
W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley in "The Intentional Fallacy" write,
And perhaps [T.S. Eliot] is to be taken more seriously here, when off guard
in a note, ... he comments on the difficulty of saying what a poem means
and adds playfully that he thinks of prefixing to a second addition of
_Ash Wednesday_ some lines from _Don Juan_:
I don't pretend that I quite understand
My own meaning when I would be _very_ fine;
But the fact is that I have nothing planned
Unless it were to be a moment merry.
If the author doesn't know his intention, how can you expect the critic to
figure it out? And assuming that we _can_ determine intention, how do we
judge success? Is _The Wasteland_ successful? Is your typical drug store
paperback successful?
Also, if we allow your definition of criticism to stand, what value does it
have? One of the things that bothers me about many theories of literature
is that they have no social value (and their political content is dangerously
veiled).
Just thought I'd toss some ideas on the topic out to r.a.b...
-dh
(Never trust an English major on the net).
--
D.A. Hosek | Internet: DHO...@HMCVAX.CLAREMONT.EDU
| Bitnet: DHO...@HMCVAX.BITNET
| Phone: 714-920-0655
(I used to be a Mudder, but I got better)
Tom Maddox
>In article <15...@novavax.UUCP> mad...@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) writes:
>>Ms. Leepers's American Bandstand School of Criticism is no help at
>>all. "I'd give it a 65; it was about space flight but was a downer and
>>got some science wrong."
>
>So you demand that every reviewer share your own tastes?
Not at all. I would like to demand that every critic engage
the object of her review at an appropriate level of complexity. In
the case of a book by Ballard, who has proven himself a writer of
considerable interest, Ms. Leeper's review did a disservice to the
writer and his possible audience. Imagine the same form of review as
applied to _Gravity's Rainbow_ or _Naked Lunch_. Urghh.
Tom Maddox
Tom Maddox
>Whether it's "one of the least interesting responses one can make to
>a film or book" is up for debate, but I think the point on which you
>yourself seem to be "clueless" is that there is a difference between
>"reviewing" and "criticism". Pauline Kael is a critic, Siskel & Ebert
>are reviewers, and never the twain shall meet. They serve different
>purposes.
>A review is meant to give a glimpse of what the book/film/whatever is
>about, so that the audience can decide whether it might be worth
>pursuing [. . .]
I understand that many people want to make this distinction
because it makes things so much easier to *consume*. Then, film,
book, and restaurant reviews have the same status, and the
reader's/viewer's/eater's only question is priority.
I believe this distinction trivializes the reviewer's work
at the same time as it consigns the critic to some academic cave where
she will never be heard from again. However, if you look at the history
of criticism and reviewing even briefly, you'll see that the distinction
won't hold except in the culture of the lowest common denominator--tv
reviewing, of course, which should be enough to put anyone off this
distinction; and reviews in the daily paper. But the moment you step up
the smallest bit, to National Public Radio or weekly magazines, for
instance, the distinction reviewer/critic no longer holds
consistently. At this level, critics make an effort to tell you what
they *know* about the object in question, not merely whether they like
it. The tradition they embody (at times quite well, at other times
quite poorly) goes back at least to the essay journalism of Johnson
and Addison and Steele; names such as Matthew Arnold, Edmund Wilson,
and Lionel Trilling are also important. At a less exalted level,
there were Dwight McDonald's criticism in _Esquire_ and indeed Pauline
Kael's own in the _New Yorker_. And that of a hundred others who
routinely publish reviews in weeklies, monthlies, and quarterlies.
Meanwhile, of course, _People_ and "Eyewitness News" continue
providing consumer guidance: "Eat this movie; it's spicy hot and
*good*." And people learn that this is the proper mode of response to
a film or book or play or musical work. Especially since many of them
read little if at all, and consider the weeklies, etc. to be
high-brow--"criticism," which they in general wouldn't touch with a
ten-foot pole.
At the level of sf-lovers, the consumer review may or may not be
appropriate. The responses I've seen in the newsgroup and in e-mail are
pretty evenly divided, some saying I wasn't harsh enough on Ms. Leeper,
some saying I misunderstand what she is doing. That's not my problem;
sf-lovers will get the critical discourse it deserves, which may well
be Ms. Leeper's. However, when this mode of criticism is applied to a
writer or work that manifestly deserves better, I think a reply is
indicated. Face it: the happy consumer doesn't want any part of
writers like Ballard, anyway; so why drag a writer of his worth into
consumer reviewing? Stick to sub-literary dreck like Piers Anthony or
mid-level "good reads" on the order of Scott Card, and everyone will be
happier.
Tom Maddox
amol...@eagle.wesleyan.edu
>
> I agree. Thumbs up or down, one star or four--these are not
> critical responses, they are simple expressions of opinion and are
> also one of the least interesting responses one can make to a film or
> a book. Genuine criticism requires a deep engagement with the object
> of criticism in order to illuminate it.
>
A ``deep engagemnet with the object of criticism''!!! Wow! This is, of
course, just pseudo-literary bullshit, typical of pseudo-literate people. What
is surprising here is that Tom Maddox is not, IMHO, a pseudo-literate person,
but may actually be literate, tragically he seems to have bought into this
garbage.
There is a fantasy (or rather a whole collection of fantasies)
the content of which is that criticsm is incredibly difficult, and that critics
(real ones) have to be incredibly clever to do it. In truth, all anyone can do
is present opinion, and present argument of some kind to back it up. This
argument need not be the sort used by mathematicians, and generally is not. The
most rigourous and scholarly critical analysis, however, can be no more than
this -- opinion and supporting argument. Indeed, a mathematical proof is no
more than this, though the argument must be (in order to be accepted) *most*
compelling.
Ms. Leeper does exactly this. The most important thing a review must do
to be useful and interesting for the reading public is present _enough_
evidence. Enough, in this case, should allow the reader of a review to form
their own opinion. Ms. Leeper does this as well. IMHO -- clearly, opinions
differ.
The point here is that ``thumbs up/down'' and ``n-stars'', while
sickeningly cute, have a legitimate place in summing up the *opinion* component
of a review.
> Tom Maddox
Andrew
Mary Holstege
>(real ones) have to be incredibly clever to do it. In truth, all anyone can do
>is present opinion, and present argument of some kind to back it up. This
>argument need not be the sort used by mathematicians, and generally is not. The
>most rigourous and scholarly critical analysis, however, can be no more than
>this -- opinion and supporting argument. Indeed, a mathematical proof is no
>more than this, though the argument must be (in order to be accepted) *most*
>compelling.
>
> Ms. Leeper does exactly this.
Oh, I do hesitate to leap into this fray, I do indeed. And much as I
appreciate Ms. Leeper's reviews usually, I think she dropped the ball big-time
on this one. WHat I saw was several attacks (I'd say 'criticisms' but that
terms seems to be under debate too) that were entirely irrelevant to the
work in question. The stories are not set in indentical backgrounds. This
is relevant? The stories to not uphold the gosh-wow progress forever view that
most sf consumers have bought into. This makes the work useless? It's not
that I object to the points, per se, but they were presented as denigration
rather than critical analysis. Indeed, Ballard doesn't buy into the gosh-wow
progress forever isn't life grand view of the future. It is important to
understand this when reading his work -- it doesn't make that work worthless,
as Ms. Leeper implied. (Or rather, it doesn't mean that only foolish Ballard
fans should even consider reading the book.)
-- Mary
Hols...@cs.stanford.edu
ARPA: holstege%c...@score.stanford.edu
BITNET: holstege%c...@STANFORD.BITNET
UUCP: {arpa gateways, decwrl, sun, hplabs, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!holstege
Mark R. Leeper
> In article <29...@eagle.wesleyan.edu> amol...@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
my motives are suspect, my having the same last name and all.
> The stories are not set in indentical
> backgrounds. This is relevant?
In a collection of unrelated stories, no. If they are set in the same
supposedly-consistent future history, aren't they supposed to be
consistent?
> The stories to not uphold
> the gosh-wow progress forever view that most sf consumers
> have bought into. This makes the work useless?
Certainly not. There is nothing wrong with writing against the
gosh-wow. (Incidentally, I question your use of "most". Do you
actually have evidence for that?) What I would say is that an argument
against a point of view is fine, IF IT IS CONVINCING. And when someone
is putting forth an argument, isn't the question of whether that
person has his/her facts right relevant? Isn't Ballard making a
political statement? Shouldn't Evelyn question such a statement if
she sees holes in it? Should Ballard be exempt from having people
critically consider his ideas because he is an artist?
> It's not
> that I object to the points, per se, but they were presented
> as denigration rather than critical analysis.
She criticized what bothered her. Because there is an artistic aspect
to Ballard's work doesn't mean that is the only aspect that should be
discussed.
Mark Leeper
...att!mtgzx!leeper
(201)957-5619
Michael C. Berch
> hols...@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Mary Holstege) writes:
> > The stories are not set in indentical
> > backgrounds. This is relevant?
>
> In a collection of unrelated stories, no. If they are set in the same
> supposedly-consistent future history, aren't they supposed to be
> consistent?
Arrrrgh. I've been following this from the sidelines, with increasing
amusement. I saved Evelyn Leeper's original review, with the intent to
respond to it in Ballard's defense, but others beat me to the punch. I
have enjoyed Evelyn's many reviews and convention reports, but there
was something about the review that stuck in my craw. (And it wasn't
that she is not a Ballard fan; that's completely irrelevant.)
What bothers me about the review, and the paragraph above, is the idea
that MEMORIES is a "supposedly-consistent future history". I have read
at least 90% of the Ballard canon, and I think that anyone who
considers herself well-enough read in an author's work to write a
serious review should know, the concept of slavish "consistency" is
utterly irrelevant to Ballard's concept of fiction. I am sure that
Evelyn must be aware of Ballard's four early novels THE WIND FROM
NOWHERE, THE DROWNED WORLD, THE DROUGHT, and THE CRYSTAL WORLD (if for
no other reason than they are presumably the context of the critical
quote from A.J. Budrys). They were published in the period 1962-66.
In each of these novels, which may be Ballard's best known work until
the recent EMPIRE OF THE SUN, civilization on Earth is destroyed by a
particular excess of nature. The novels are, in the normal sense of
"consistency", completely inconsistent and mutually exclusive. But
together they read as an organic whole, a haunting combination of the
Naturalistic literary school with the British New Wave, interpreted
through Ballard's relentless narrative of obsessed, compelled,
tormented characters. Taking Ballard to task for using this same
literary device 25 years later seems to me rather pointless.
--
Michael C. Berch
m...@tis.llnl.gov / uunet!tis.llnl.gov!mcb
Nichael Cramer
be to casual observation, it might be useful to edit the newsgroup line off
of rec.arts.books.
2] In any case, r.a.b is an _open_ list for readers of books. The correct
response to a review with which you don't agree is to write your own
review. As I don't as a rule read SF I didn't read Evelyn's initial review
so I can't comment on the specifics, but, whether one agrees, disagrees or
abstains, it should be noted that at least she had the guts to lay out her
opinions in an orderly fashion. Moreover, she managed to do so without
name-calling.
N
Here it IS. Again. And it's called
>In article <1989Oct30.1...@Neon.Stanford.EDU> hols...@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Mary Holstege) writes:
>> In article <29...@eagle.wesleyan.edu> amol...@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>I too hesitate to enter this fray and I hate to side with Evelyn where
>my motives are suspect, my having the same last name and all.
>> The stories are not set in indentical
>> backgrounds. This is relevant?
>In a collection of unrelated stories, no. If they are set in the same
>supposedly-consistent future history, aren't they supposed to be
>consistent?
Every review of the book that I've ever seen would imply that the
stories aren't set in a "supposedly-consistent future history".
Instead, they are independent stories, but all on the same theme.
It seems that what we have here is either misleading copy-writing
on the part of the publisher, or an inability to read on the part
of the Leepers. Since I haven't looked at the book in question, I
will not attempt to speculate as to which is more likely.
(Btw, although I haven't read the book, I have read several of the
stories therein. They make absolutely no attempt to be consistent
with each other. Nor should they.
--
"How could I dance with another/When I saw him standing there"
--Tiffany
spet...@sunset.utah.edu so...@cc.utah.edu
I don't speak for the University of Utah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>In a collection of unrelated stories, no. If they are set in the same
>supposedly-consistent future history, aren't they supposed to be
>consistent?
Probably, though I can't think of any case where they actually hold up to
a serious consistency check worth a damn.
Fact is, however, that these are *not* a series of stories, they're a
collection of unrelated stories, and your article, Mr Leeper, is the first
place where I've seen any assertion that they *were* set in "the same
supposedly-consistent future history."
I'm really appalled; how in the *world* did you reach such a boneheaded
conclusion? Nothing anywhere in or on the book would lead one to such a
statement. If *that* is the assumption underlying Evelyn's gripe, then Tom
Maddox's use of the word "clueless," which previously seemed rhetorical and
a bit on the uncalled-for/rude side, becomes a simple diagnosis.
>> The stories to not uphold
>> the gosh-wow progress forever view that most sf consumers
>> have bought into. This makes the work useless?
>
>Certainly not. There is nothing wrong with writing against the
>gosh-wow. (Incidentally, I question your use of "most". Do you
>actually have evidence for that?)
I think the mere fact that ANALOG, the prime exponent of the mindlessly-hopeful
future, is the bestselling of the SF magazines is prima facie evidence for this
statement...
>What I would say is that an argument against a point of view is fine, IF IT IS
>CONVINCING. And when someone is putting forth an argument, isn't the question
>of whether that person has his/her facts right relevant? Isn't Ballard making
>a political statement?
No. Ballard is *not* making a political statement. And if you (or Evelyn)
believe that he is, the word "clueless" moves from the realm of diagnosis to
that of grotesque understatement. A few remedial classes in the reading of
literature seem in order here.
What Ballard is exploring, and has *always* been exploring in *all* his work,
is the mythical (==>subconscious) significance of the symbols of modern life in
general and of science fiction in particular. His method in this project is,
and has been, the literary equivalent of the artistic method known as
"Surrealism." In surrealism, images are presented in a manner which do not
conform to the logic of the waking world, but to that of the subconscious, the
realm of myths and dreams.
The stories collected in MEMORIES..., to be specific to the case at hand, are
concerned not at all with the possibility, the plausibility, or the "oughtness"
of manned exploration of space, but with the *significance* thereof; that is,
what does it *mean* that we explore space, why do we do it, what effect does
it have upon the "souls," to use a somewhat-inappropriate word, of those of us
who do not participate directly but only vicariously in this exploration?
What inner demons drive us to this exploration; and what inner demons may be
unleashed thereby?
These questions are not directly explorable in a hard SF story. Indeed, they
are not directly explorable at all, but only indirectly, through a
non-literalistic technique such as surrealism.
>Shouldn't Evelyn question such a statement if
>she sees holes in it? Should Ballard be exempt from having people
>critically consider his ideas because he is an artist?
No, but when they miss the ideas entirely, and criticize something completely
irrelevant to what he's doing, they only make asses of themselves in public;
it's rather as if someone were to approach Salvador Dali and say, "But, Mr.
Dali, you realize that the Cross was made of simple wood. They hadn't even
invented the concept of the tesseract in the time of Christ..." Dali, and
any onlooker with even a slight clue to what Dali was doing, would have been
completely justified in laughing up their collective sleeves and dismissing
such an individual with a decrepitative sneer.
>She criticized what bothered her. Because there is an artistic aspect
>to Ballard's work doesn't mean that is the only aspect that should be
>discussed.
Absolutely true; but a "criticism" that ignores the primary thrust of the work
in favor of blasting away indiscriminately at the work on grounds irrelevant
to the work's purpose is worthy neither of respect nor of publication before
so many people. Nor does it help to observe that this was "a review, not
criticism." A review that so completely misses the point of a work can do
nothing but mislead the review's readers, leading people away from the work
who might have enjoyed/profited from it and possibly leading people to it who
would merely be baffled by it -- as, it's clear, Evelyn was in this case.
I've enjoyed reading both your and Evelyn's reviews on USENET in the past.
However, between this and the review of THE JEHOVAH CONTRACT, my respect for
both of your judgement has been seriously marred...
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
William Tsun-Yuk Hsu
>an artistic aspect to Ballard's work doesn't mean that is the only
>aspect that should be discussed.
I could write a long review of Scorsese's _Taxi Driver_, listing
the "inconsistencies" that "bothered" me, and not saying much else.
And my review would be just as irrelevant as Evelyn Leeper's
Ballard review.
Bill
John Locke
+ ...it should be noted that at least she had the guts to lay out her
+ opinions in an orderly fashion. Moreover, she managed to do so without
+ name-calling.
"Let Us Now Praise the Bare Minimum"
Evelyn C. Leeper
This is a collection of eight stories by Ballard set in and around Cape
Canaveral in the post-Space Age. While Ballard writes well, he is a better
space travel and science in general is liable to turn off the readers who
space and space travel.
I did not say Ballard is not a good writer (later in fact I also say, "there is
no denying that Ballard can write poetic and vivid prose"); I said (in effect)
that he is not a good (hard) science fiction writer. And I specifically
targeted my comments toward those readers who are looking for (hard) science
fiction.
mad...@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) writes:
>In short, Ballard's work is interesting and important, and don't let
>the somewhat clueless Ms. Leeper tell you otherwise.
I would never deny that Ballard's work is interesting and important, and I
don't believe I said otherwise. What I *did* say was that readers who pick
this up because it is about the space program are likely to be disappointed.
I picked it up because, although I am not a big Ballard fan, the subject matter
was one that interested me. I suspect others may react similarly.
I have to say, though, that the fact that my posting has genereated this much
serious discussion about an author of substance makes for a delightful change in
sf-lovers, and I'll have to think of some way to outrage people more often.
:-) :-) :-)
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 201-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or e...@mtgzy.att.com
--
If I am not for myself, who is for me? If I am only for myself what am I?
And if not now, when? --Hillel
Mark R. Leeper
> Fact is, however, that these are *not* a series of stories, they're a
> collection of unrelated stories, and your article, Mr Leeper, is the first
> place where I've seen any assertion that they *were* set in "the same
> supposedly-consistent future history."
>
> I'm really appalled; how in the *world* did you reach such a boneheaded
> conclusion? Nothing anywhere in or on the book would lead one to such a
> statement.
Thank you. Gee, it's nice to start this discussion on such a high
plane. Suppose I were to read a book entitled MEMORIES OF MY HIGH
SCHOOL YEARS that consisted of stories told of that period of a
person's life. If the stories all contradicted each other and were
full of all kinds of inconsistencies, I think I would consider that to
be a fault. Most people don't have that many contradictory memory.
I guess somewhere I got the impression that MEMORIES OF THE SPACE AGE
was supposed to be a set of rememberences of the Space Age from a later
point in time. Now what in or on the book could have given me such an
impression?
> >> The stories to not uphold
> >> the gosh-wow progress forever view that most sf consumers
> >> have bought into. This makes the work useless?
> >
> >Certainly not. There is nothing wrong with writing against the
> >gosh-wow. (Incidentally, I question your use of "most". Do you
> >actually have evidence for that?)
>
> I think the mere fact that ANALOG, the prime exponent of the mindlessly-hopeful
> future, is the bestselling of the SF magazines is prima facie evidence for this
> statement...
Do you really believe that it is prima facie?
1) ANALOG has been around the longest of the current SF magazines.
That means they have had the longest time to build up subscriptions and
newsstand circulation. This could well be why it is the best seller.
2) ANALOG at any given time represents a lot of different attitudes.
At one point the editorial staff believed in an physically-impossible
inertia-less drive called the Dean Drive. Do you honestly believe
that represented the attitudes of its audience also? Do you stop
subscribing to a magazine as soon as you find one attitude you
disagree with?
3) I think you would have to make a case that ANALOG has been
monolithically optimistic on the future. It doesn't seem to me that is
true.
If you think such a tenuous connection is prima facie, it is not clear
to me if you know what it means.
> No. Ballard is *not* making a political statement. And if you (or Evelyn)
> believe that he is, the word "clueless" moves from the realm of diagnosis to
> that of grotesque understatement. A few remedial classes in the reading of
> literature seem in order here.
Ah, you charmer you. So nice of you to take an interest in our
well-being, sir.
> What Ballard is exploring, and has *always* been exploring in *all* his work,
> is the mythical (==>subconscious) significance of the symbols of modern life in
> general and of science fiction in particular.
It isn't clear to me that Ballard is incapable of doing more than one
thing at once. Even assuming he is doing what you claim, does that
rule out his stories having a political aspect also?
Well, thank you for the comments.
Mark Leeper
...att!mtgzx!leeper
(201)957-5619
Jack Campin
> Ballard is *not* making a political statement. [...]
> His method in this project is, and has been, the literary equivalent of
> the artistic method known as "Surrealism."
Not so fast; on two counts. Firstly, Ballard describes himself as being
politically on the left; I have seen him describing Le Guin as "very right
wing" on TV, so that should give some idea where he stands. (I don't know
of any public political statements he's made, though).
Secondly, Ballard's method certainly is surrealist, but surrealism itself
was politicized at its inception - the founders mostly ended up in the
Fourth International, the French Communist Party, or the anarchist
movement, and this was only a short hop from their positions when they did
the first experiments in surrealism. And these initial experiments were
more to do with literature than, as you seem to imply, visual art; if
there's a surrealist Bible, its Old Testament is Lautreamont's "Maldoror"
and its New Testament is Breton & Soupault's "Magnetic Fields". The
libertarian left politics of surrealism has continued to the present day
via people like Pablo Neruda, Herbert Read, Wifredo Lam and its development
into things like situationism.
Franklin Rosemont's books give the early history; Stuart Home's "Assaults
on Culture", Aporia Press, London 1988, is a good survey of the later
developments, as are the writings of Paul Buhle (perhaps someone else has
references here?) on the more traditionally surrealist stuff. Rosemont is
a Trotskyist, Home an anarchist, and Buhle a libertarian Marxist of the
C.L.R. James variety.
Of course, most people think surrealism = Dali. Dali's opportunism let him
happily come to terms with Franco and the Catholic Church; no wonder he got
the four-colour print jobs in TIME. Henry Luce wouldn't have gone a bundle
on reprinting what Artaud thought about Western "syphilization" or Neruda
on imperialism.
And finally, does this affect the way you should read Ballard's work? Yes
it does. Any good writer who has thought about political issues - as he
certainly has - is going to put those thoughts into his work. This may not
take the form of explicit sermonizing or allegory, both of which the
surrealist method precludes in any case. But demanding "the return of the
repressed", as Ballard's work often does, opposes the agenda of the
Christian fundamentalist right as strongly as, and probably more
effectively than, Serrano's "Piss Christ" picture. Or: the green movement
tells you your car is killing trees a few hundred miles away. Ballard, in
"Crash", tells car drivers they really want to be fucked to death by rubber
and cold steel. I know which of these I think is the more effective attack
on the auto industry.
--
Jack Campin * Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank
Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND. 041 339 8855 x6045 wk 041 556 1878 ho
INTERNET: jack%cs.glasg...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk USENET: ja...@glasgow.uucp
JANET: ja...@uk.ac.glasgow.cs PLINGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack
Nichael Cramer
If the suggestion here is that simple courtesy and straighforward, rant-
free expression of opinion (as exemplified by, say, Ms Leeper) should be
taken as a "Bare Minimum" for net.postings, I heartily concur.
In any case, the novelty would be refreshing.
N
Jack Campin
d...@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) wrote:
> Ballard is *not* making a political statement. [...]
After posting my last article, it occurred to me that I could refute this
rather more forcibly by pointing to some of Ballard's short stories (either
in, or written around the same time as, "The Atrocity Exhibition"):
"Why I Want To Fuck Ronald Reagan" - I can't remember the content of this but
the title should be enough...
"The Assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy Considered as a Downhill
Motor Race" - which reconstructs Jarry's blasphemous satire on the
Crucifixion to extend the blasphemy by identifying JFK with Christ (which
is surely implicit in a lot of Americans' attitudes to Kennedy, but I don't
recall anyone pointing that out quite as bluntly as Ballard).
"The Generations of America" - which begins by saying that Oswald shot
Kennedy and Ruby shot Oswald, invents someone who shot Ruby and builds a
two-page linear list of shooters and shootees. A sort of Dadaist comment
on American gun mania.
And the piece (I forget the title) that cuts British royalty down to size
by creating an immensely detailed description of cosmetic surgery
techniques applied to the royal flesh of Princess Margaret. (Incidentally,
this refutes the claim that Ballard knows nothing about science; I doubt if
any other SF writer has described surgery with this degree of realism).
Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt
Hosek) writes:
> God, I love it when people make generalizations.
> In article <57...@shlump.nac.dec.com> boya...@ruby.dec.com (Copyright 1953,
> Renewed 1989) writes:
> >A critic's job is to delve into the work in depth, and examine what
> >the author was trying to do, whether he or she was successful, which
> >elements work and which don't, how the work fits into a greater artistic
> >scheme, either in comparison to the author's previous works or to his
> >contempories or predecessors, etc.
>
> Nice definition, but there are a lot of things to be said against it (none
> of this is to imply that I disagree in whole or in part, although you'll
> never catch me admitting to agreement or disagreement, but I'm rambling).
Gee, Don, you didn't waffle this much when you taught LaTeX. :-)
In the context of "criticism vs. reviewing", I think Jerry's "generalization"
is accurate. The things he mentioned may not be the *only* things a critic
does (or can) do, nor is one critic's opinion to be taken as Ultimate Truth,
but all of the definition is usually outside the realm of most reviews.
(Now it's my turn to waffle, as some reviews, intentionally or not, do "cross
over" into criticism at times. As with any definition, you need to be
charitable in usage.)
> For example, how can we have any idea what the critic was trying to do?
Now we're in the realm of "critic as author", no? It takes another critic to
decide what the first critic was trying to do, "and so on, infinitum."
> If the author doesn't know his intention, how can you expect the critic to
> figure it out?
I'm sure Don has heard this before, but some "non-English" majors may be
unfamiliar with it: Sometimes only a critic can provide the objectivity
necessary to determine what a work "means", "is about", and so on. It's
important to remember that a single work can "mean" many things simultaneously.
> And assuming that we _can_ determine intention, how do we judge success?
In many instances, it's easy to judge success: did the work accomplish what it
set out to do? If it has many levels, does it succeed on a given level?
> Is _The Wasteland_ successful? Is your typical drug store paperback
> successful?
Successful *as what*? As an examination of the human condition? As an
entertainment? As a personal statement?
More reasons to remember that criticism is, in some ways, as much as personal
statement as reviewing (or writing the work under consideration) is.
> Also, if we allow your definition of criticism to stand, what value does it
> have? One of the things that bothers me about many theories of literature
> is that they have no social value (and their political content is dangerously
> veiled).
Well, what value would you like?
Seriously, questions of value are even more personal than reviewing. And when
we talk about "social value", we're attempting to perceive a consensus of value
judgments which may in themselves not reflect our personal values.
> Just thought I'd toss some ideas on the topic out to r.a.b...
Good idea. "Censorship in Libraries" had worn thin.
> (Never trust an English major on the net).
But since you were (presumably) an English major, can I trust that statement?
Can you, in turn, trust my statements? :-)
--
Yog-Sothoth Neblod Zin,
Chris Jarocha-Ernst
UUCP: {ames, att, harvard, moss, seismo}!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!cje
ARPA: JAROCH...@CANCER.RUTGERS.EDU
CCIS, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08855-0879
Killer
>be Ms. Leeper's. However, when this mode of criticism is applied to a
>writer or work that manifestly deserves better, I think a reply is
"manifestly deserves better"? I think what you're trying to say is that
*you* like Ballard, and don't enjoy people slagging him off.
ken
Mark R. Leeper
> collection of unrelated stories, and your article, Mr Leeper, is the first
> place where I've seen any assertion that they *were* set in "the same
> supposedly-consistent future history."
>
> I'm really appalled; how in the *world* did you reach such a boneheaded
> conclusion? Nothing anywhere in or on the book would lead one to such a
> statement.
Thank you. Gee, it's nice to start this discussion on such a high
plane. Suppose I were to read a book entitled MEMORIES OF MY HIGH
SCHOOL YEARS that consisted of stories told of that period of a
person's life. If the stories all contradicted each other and were
full of all kinds of inconsistencies, I think I would consider that to
be a fault. Most people don't have that many contradictory memory.
I guess somewhere I got the impression that MEMORIES OF THE SPACE AGE
was supposed to be a set of rememberences of the Space Age from a later
point in time. Now what in or on the book could have given me such an
impression?
> >> The stories to not uphold
> >> the gosh-wow progress forever view that most sf consumers
> >> have bought into. This makes the work useless?
> >
> >Certainly not. There is nothing wrong with writing against the
> >gosh-wow. (Incidentally, I question your use of "most". Do you
> >actually have evidence for that?)
>
> I think the mere fact that ANALOG, the prime exponent of the mindlessly-hopeful
> future, is the bestselling of the SF magazines is prima facie evidence for this
> statement...
Do you really believe that it is prima facie?
1) ANALOG has been around the longest of the current SF magazines.
That means they have had the longest time to build up subscriptions and
newsstand circulation. This could well be why it is the best seller.
2) ANALOG at any given time represents a lot of different attitudes.
At one point the editorial staff believed in an physically-impossible
inertia-less drive called the Dean Drive. Do you honestly believe
that represented the attitudes of its audience also? Do you stop
subscribing to a magazine as soon as you find one attitude you
disagree with?
3) I think you would have to make a case that ANALOG has been
monolithically optimistic on the future. It doesn't seem to me that is
true.
If you think such a tenuous connection is prima facie, it is not clear
to me if you know what it means.
> No. Ballard is *not* making a political statement. And if you (or Evelyn)
> believe that he is, the word "clueless" moves from the realm of diagnosis to
> that of grotesque understatement. A few remedial classes in the reading of
> literature seem in order here.
Ah, you charmer you. So nice of you to take an interest in our
well-being, sir.
> What Ballard is exploring, and has *always* been exploring in *all* his work,
> is the mythical (==>subconscious) significance of the symbols of modern life in
> general and of science fiction in particular.
It isn't clear to me that Ballard is incapable of doing more than one
Greg Michaelson
formulaic. For example, "Drowned World", "Wind from Nowhere" & "Terminal Beach"
are disaster novels that start off as straight SF thrillers &
turn into existential psycho dramas. The characterisation is all very similar.
The hero's often "flawed" (drunk, broken marriage etc) but redeems himself
through "manly" acts in the closing chapters. The women are appallingly
stereotyped.
Thomas Maddox
>be to casual observation, it might be useful to edit the newsgroup line off
>of rec.arts.books.
Seems to me that this discussion has mostly concerned the
proper relationship of criticism to the works it criticizes, books in
particular--not sf, which just happened to be the occasion for
beginning all this.
>2] In any case, r.a.b is an _open_ list for readers of books. The correct
>response to a review with which you don't agree is to write your own
>review.
Begging your pardon, but sez who? Reviewing the reviewer
seems to me both reasonable and just. Whether doing so is or isn't
the most desirable act, it also seems to me that you might present
something by way or logic and evidence in support of your claim. It
is hardly self-evident.
>As I don't as a rule read SF I didn't read Evelyn's initial review
>so I can't comment on the specifics, but, whether one agrees, disagrees or
>abstains, it should be noted that at least she had the guts to lay out her
>opinions in an orderly fashion.
As did I in my response to her; as have a number of others.
So what?
>Moreover, she managed to do so without name-calling.
An admirable trait indeed. However, her dismissive treatment
of the book was, in my opinion, much worse than name-calling. Just
goes to show you, eh?
Thomas Maddox
>"manifestly deserves better"? I think what you're trying to say is that
>*you* like Ballard, and don't enjoy people slagging him off.
Go back and read the original article, where I talked about
Ballard's recognized importance as a writer.
It's almost always a mistake to join one of these things in
mid-stream if you haven't read all the postings.
Thomas Maddox
>> Genuine criticism requires a deep engagement with the object
>> of criticism in order to illuminate it.
>
> A ``deep engagemnet with the object of criticism''!!! Wow! This is, of
>course, just pseudo-literary bullshit, typical of pseudo-literate people.
Who taught you that use of "of course," Richard Nixon? If
not, care to share with me why the notion of a deep involvement with
the object of criticism is (1) pseudo-literary and (2) bullshit.
>What
>is surprising here is that Tom Maddox is not, IMHO, a pseudo-literate person,
>but may actually be literate, tragically he seems to have bought into this
>garbage.
You judge whether I am "literate;" let me set you a problem.
Figure out what you meant by "literate" and then explain that. At
some point here, you also might allude to your obviously extensive
experience as critic and reader of criticism.
> There is a fantasy (or rather a whole collection of fantasies)
>the content of which is that criticsm is incredibly difficult, and that critics
>(real ones) have to be incredibly clever to do it. In truth, all anyone can do
>is present opinion, and present argument of some kind to back it up.
So this simpleminded fantasy of *yours* covers all the bases,
right? Lionel Trilling on Nietzsche, Sam. Johnson or A. C. Bradley on
Shakespeare, Hugh Kenner on Pound; Cleanth Brooks on Keats, and M. H.
Abrams on Romanticism, just to cite a few examples of world class
criticism with which you're no doubt intimately familiar.
>This
>argument need not be the sort used by mathematicians, and generally is not. The
>most rigourous and scholarly critical analysis, however, can be no more than
>this -- opinion and supporting argument. Indeed, a mathematical proof is no
>more than this, though the argument must be (in order to be accepted) *most*
>compelling.
So criticism's no more rigorous than mathematics??? Well,
hell, why didn't you say so? It's just like in math, boys; one
statement's as good as any other.
Yike.
Here it IS. Again. And it's called
>this refutes the claim that Ballard knows nothing about science; I doubt if
>any other SF writer has described surgery with this degree of realism).
Ballard had medical training. I think he may have actually
practised medicine (in what capacity, I know not).
Bob Allison
>In article <16...@pbhyc.PacBell.COM> d...@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:
>>
>> I think the mere fact that ANALOG, the prime exponent of the
>> mindlessly-hopeful
>> future, is the bestselling of the SF magazines is prima facie evidence
>> for this
>> statement...
>
>Do you really believe that it is prima facie?
>
Well, I believe Omni is still classified as an SF magazine, and it has
sales quite a bit higher than all the others combined, doesn't it? (I
haven't read an issue in five years, so it's hard to say).
On the other hand, while Omni has had its dystopic fiction, the rest of
the magazine tends to clinch Dan'l's (however you spell that) point.
None of which, mercifully, has the slightest to do with critiques of reviews
of Ballard.
Yawn.
Bob Allison
uunet!microsoft!bobal
Secretary of the Stratosphere
} Well, I believe Omni is still classified as an SF magazine, and it has
} sales quite a bit higher than all the others combined, doesn't it? (I
} haven't read an issue in five years, so it's hard to say).
Classified by whom? I've never considered OMNI to be a science
fiction, LOCUS doesn't consider it to be a science fiction magazine,
and no reference work I've ever come across (except the NESFA Index
to the SF Magazine) considers it to be a science fiction magazine.
Yes, it includes one to three sf stories per issue. So what? That's
a very small percentage of the contents of the magazine. There was
a period of a couple of years in the late 70's or early 80's in which
PLAYBOY had at least one sf/fantasy story in just about every issue.
Did that make PLAYBOY an sf magazine?
OMNI is, and has always been, a "popular science" magazine that also
includes some fiction.
"Gentlemen, gentlemen, you can't fight in here.
This is the WAR ROOM!"
--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)
UUCP: ...!decwrl!ruby.enet.dec.com!boyajian
Evelyn C. Leeper
> In article <87...@microsoft.UUCP>, bo...@microsoft.UUCP (Bob Allison) writes...
> } Well, I believe Omni is still classified as an SF magazine, and it has
> Yes, it includes one to three sf stories per issue. So what? That's
> a very small percentage of the contents of the magazine. There was
> a period of a couple of years in the late 70's or early 80's in which
> PLAYBOY had at least one sf/fantasy story in just about every issue.
> Did that make PLAYBOY an sf magazine?
No, PLAYBOY was then and is now a fantasy magazine.
Of course, if you consider fantasy a subset of science fiction, then .... :-)
John Locke
>1) ANALOG has been around the longest of the current SF magazines.
Amazing Stories (if still published) dates to 1926. Analog started out
as Astounding Stories of Super-Science in January 1930.
Killer
>In article <20...@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP> kitt...@cs-sun-fsd.UUCP (Killer) writes:
>
>>"manifestly deserves better"? I think what you're trying to say is that
>>*you* like Ballard, and don't enjoy people slagging him off.
>
> Go back and read the original article, where I talked about
>Ballard's recognized importance as a writer.
I did read the original article. Go look up the word "opinion" in
the dictionary. :-> Ballard's "recognition" by other writers does not
make him more "important" than Scott Card or (yuck) Piers Anthony, because
this recognition is based on subjective opinion. BTW, I think Ballard is
a great writer, but I stop short of arguing that his importance is
manifest.
>
> It's almost always a mistake to join one of these things in
>mid-stream if you haven't read all the postings.
when you assume...
Ken