E. E. "Doc" Smith vs. J. G. Ballard
Lawrenc...@gmail.com
fiction writer?
Who was the better writer, and why?
Discuss...
Lawrence Person
http://home.austin.rr.com/lperson
Just.A...@gmail.com
> Was E. E. "Doc" Smith or J. G. Ballard the more important science
> fiction writer?
>
> Who was the better writer, and why?
>
> Discuss...
I thought the 7th Lensman novel - The Lens From Nowhere - that Ballard
wrote was ... singular different.
GeekGirl
Jordan
Lawrenc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Was E. E. "Doc" Smith or J. G. Ballard the more important science
> fiction writer?
E. E. "Doc" Smith, by a very wide margin. Smith actually influenced a
host of science fiction writers who were in turn widely read: some of
his concepts were so important and well thought-out that they
influenced the development of actual technology (such as his invention
of the Combat Information Center, aka "Directrix Main Tank"). Ballard,
by contrast, influenced some stylists, but most of the work that was
influenced by him is not widely popular.
Note that the comparison can be a reasonable subject of discussion,
despite the fact that Smith died before Ballard even became popular.
Smith is exerting a strong influence on science fiction even today.
> Who was the better writer, and why?
>
> Discuss...
Smith's writing was clear and to the point, and his concepts fresh and
original. He also at least made an effort to think his science out,
and his stories had plots that led to signficant conclusions.
Ballard's style was murky, his science nonexistent, and his stories
often seemed to have little purpose other than to showcase his own
obscurity.
This is why Ballard is beloved of English lit-critters -- and Smith is
actually reprinted and read, more than 40 years after his own death.
Let's see how well Ballard stands up a few decades from now, when all
the Hot Fads that he was writing up so to be stroked for his political
correctness by the lit-critters are as irrelevant as Technocracy is
today.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
Matthias Warkus
> Ballard's style was murky, his science nonexistent, and his stories
> often seemed to have little purpose other than to showcase his own
> obscurity.
Ballard has written excellent science fiction which is also recognised
as excellent literature outside of the genre, and can be enjoyed by
people not "into" science fiction. It does not surprise me that you hate
him and that you are unable to enjoy his writing, though. I would laugh
if it weren't so sad, and so typical.
IMHO, Ballard would be an outstanding SF writer if he had written
nothing but "The Concentration City" and "The Subliminal Man". (This is
not to say his other works are irrelevant, it's just that I consider
these stories enough to build a reputation on.)
mawa
T Guy
> Ballard has written excellent science fiction which is also recognised
> as excellent literature outside of the genre, and can be enjoyed by
> people not "into" science fiction.
(T Guy):
Or, as I once put it to a friend: had Ballard's first work been _Empire
of the Sun_, no-one would regard _Crash, _High Rise_ and the like as
'Science Fiction.'
T G
T Guy
> Was E. E. "Doc" Smith or J. G. Ballard the more important science
> fiction writer?
>
> Who was the better writer, and why?
>
> Discuss...
(T Guy):
Do you prefer PCs or apples?
T G
Mike Schilling
>
> Let's see how well Ballard stands up a few decades from now, when all
> the Hot Fads that he was writing up so to be stroked for his political
> correctness by the lit-critters are as irrelevant as Technocracy is
> today.
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I wouldn't be surprised if
_Empire of the Sun_ outsold the collected works of Doc Smith. Certainly the
film version was seen by more people than have read either authors' works.
Not that popularity is highly correlated with merit. I'm just saying.
Jordan
I don't believe that _Empire of the Sun_ was science fiction.
- Jordan
Nancy Lebovitz
Matthias Warkus <War...@students.uni-marburg.de> wrote:
>Jordan wrote:
>> Ballard's style was murky, his science nonexistent, and his stories
>> often seemed to have little purpose other than to showcase his own
>> obscurity.
Really? "Chronopolis" and that one about breaking the time flowers
were both clear enough.
It might make sense to classify him as a horror writer with science
fiction trimmings.
This would place a lot of his work with a lot of the work of Bradbury,
Martin, and Pellegrino--all, imho, quite legitimately part of sf.
>
>Ballard has written excellent science fiction which is also recognised
>as excellent literature outside of the genre, and can be enjoyed by
>people not "into" science fiction. It does not surprise me that you hate
>him and that you are unable to enjoy his writing, though. I would laugh
>if it weren't so sad, and so typical.
>
>IMHO, Ballard would be an outstanding SF writer if he had written
>nothing but "The Concentration City" and "The Subliminal Man". (This is
>not to say his other works are irrelevant, it's just that I consider
>these stories enough to build a reputation on.)
>
>mawa
--
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
http://nancylebov.livejournal.com
My two favorite colors are "Oooooh" and "SHINY!".
William Hyde
Lawrenc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Was E. E. "Doc" Smith or J. G. Ballard the more important science
> fiction writer?
I'd say Smith was more important to the field of SF, and I'd
be somewhat surprised if Ballard didn't agree. Ballard was
an important figure in moulding the SF we have today, but
Smith was there at the beginning of magazine SF.
Now *there's* a topic, Smith's influence on Ballard.
>
> Who was the better writer, and why?
Well, I can't really be fair to Smith here, as the one time
I tried to read his work his prose stopped me cold.
So clearly for me Ballard is the better writer, but
not having read much Smith, I can't go into detail
on the why.
It is worth noting that even Brian Aldiss commented
that Smith was an underestimated writer.
Bearing in mind that the two writers are not even trying
to do the same thing, comparisons are difficult. Ballard
writes a greater variety of story, of character, but could
he write a fast-paced space opera even if he wanted to?
I suspect thing would get surreal about chapter two, if
not earlier. I'd probably want to read it, but others might
well not.
William Hyde
Mike Schilling
"Jordan" <JSBass...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164904658....@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
No one has said it was.
Perhaps you sould explain which "Hot Fads that he was writing up so to be
stroked for his political
correctness by the lit-critters" it exhibits, though.
Jordan
Mike Schilling wrote:
> "Jordan" <JSBass...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1164904658....@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> stroked for his political correctness by the lit-critters" it exhibits, though.
All right, I'll confess something. I tried to read Ballard about 20
years ago, thought it was crap, and never tried again. I am exhibiting
precisely the same unfairness to Ballard that I hate when some people
exhibit it toward "Doc" Smith, in that I do not know what I am
criticizing. So there.
I should try Ballard again sometime.
- Jordan
Walter Bushell
"Jordan" <JSBass...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Smith's writing was clear and to the point, and his concepts fresh and
> original. He also at least made an effort to think his science out,
> and his stories had plots that led to signficant conclusions
Among them the superiority of free over slave cultures.
--
Divided we stand!
Snakes and Babies
sub-genre?
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Snakes and Babies <ma...@mattduanegriffin.com> wrote:
>ooo, surreal space opera... Anybody got any good examples of that
>sub-genre?
>
_World of Null A_ ?
Ted
Nicholas Waller
> Lawrenc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Was E. E. "Doc" Smith or J. G. Ballard the more important science
> > fiction writer?
> Let's see how well Ballard stands up a few decades from now, when all
> the Hot Fads that he was writing up so to be stroked for his political
> correctness by the lit-critters are as irrelevant as Technocracy is
> today.
I haven't read any Smith so I can't comment on him, but I doubt there's
any need to put down Ballard in order to puff your man up. They're
clearly doing and interested in doing different things.
I think it unlikely that Ballard (or anyone) really sits down and
writes simply to be "stroked for his political correctness" with regard
to Hot Fads for a career of 50 years. More likely his writing is a
personal expression of his own responses to wartime childhood in
Japanese internment camps and the post-war growth of the media
environment plus his own experiences of medical school, scientific
publishing, the RAF, his wife's shocking early death, his involvement
in the art world, and his relentlessly normal lifestyle in a
semi-detached house in what he calls a suburb of London Airport,
surrounded by transport systems and bombarded by tv and advertising and
the whole media landscape, and informed by sf he read and sf writers he
got to know.
I like Ballard... his mordant wit, for instance, but then I think
Leonard Cohen is witty when the standard stereotype about him is that
he causes suicides. I am not so keen on Ballard's "condensed novels",
like The Atrocity Exhibition, and though I have read almost all his
novels I find I haven't read many twice, except I think _The Drowned
World_. But I think his short stories are great... the imagery, the
mood, the language, the quietly insane and obsessive characters, and
the way things fall apart. He's seen things fall apart and people
finding new ways of living.
Without trying to be a "predictive" writer he also manages to predict
things. The collision of a powerful car, the worldwide media and
Princess Diana was a pure Ballard moment.
It's not standard sf, sure, and certainly never broad-screen space
opera, but sf is a broad church and there's certainly room for some of
Ballard.
--
Nick
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
It wasn't, unless you want to consider it "magical realism" and
include that under the SF label.
(It's not accurate history, that's for sure. It's not even history as
Ballard remembers it. According to an interview I saw, it's Ballard's
memories as he feels they should have been.)
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
The second issue of Helix is at http://www.helixsf.com
A new Ethshar novel is being serialized at http://www.ethshar.com/thevondishambassador1.html
James Nicoll
Nicholas Waller <test...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I like Ballard... his mordant wit, for instance, but then I think
>Leonard Cohen is witty when the standard stereotype about him is that
>he causes suicides.
I caught a Jann Arden* show at the Center in the Square last
year. Much to my surprise, she's a lot funnier than I expected. At
one point she launched into her impression of "Jann Arden sings Leonard
Cohen" and I nearly lost bladder control.
* That's also where I encountered Bob Kemmis, who I know I'd like when
he got to the part in FREAK LUCK that goes
Freak luck put a car in the way / I wasn't looking for love but our eyes met/
As I bounced off your Chevrolet.
The next song began "Well, I'm scarred [...]".
Finally, songs for realistic people.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
norrin
T Guy wrote:
> Or, as I once put it to a friend: had Ballard's first work been _Empire
> of the Sun_, no-one would regard _Crash, _High Rise_ and the like as
> 'Science Fiction.'
I agree, _High Rise_ is not science fiction.
One could, however, regard the barbecue at the beginning of the book
as a metaphor for a science fiction story. It's like walking through
the flaming trellises of a lost colony, or feasting upon the flesh of
King Kragen.
Mike Schilling
I respect that admission.
Honestly. No snark.
>
> I should try Ballard again sometime.
Maybe he's just not for you. No shame in that. Doc Smith isn't for me
(though I suspect he might be if I'd met him at 12 instead of 35.)
The Hurkle Beast
I'm not entirely sure that "criticizing" is what you were
doing.......I hesitate to apply a label to it, though.
As much as I really like "Doc" Smith, nothing I've ever read by him
struck me forcefully, the way some of Ballard's work has. On the
other hand, nothing I've read of Smith's work has struck me as being
entirely too dry & dense, like a couple of Ballard's stories have done
(this isn't to say that they were actually dry & dense, just that I
couldn't wrap my mind around them at the time I tried to read them).
To be honest, I can't think of any real reason to compare the two
directly.
The Hurkle Beast
news:1164916331.8...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> I like Ballard... his mordant wit, for instance, but then I think
> Leonard Cohen is witty when the standard stereotype about him is
that
> he causes suicides.
Wha!!?!??????? _His_ endearingly cheerful songs?
[snip]
> It's not standard sf, sure, and certainly never broad-screen space
> opera, but sf is a broad church and there's certainly room for some
of
> Ballard.
Indeed.
Andrew Wheeler
>
> Was E. E. "Doc" Smith or J. G. Ballard the more important science
> fiction writer?
"Doc," whose coruscating violent rays launched a trillion
reality-bending imitators.
> Who was the better writer, and why?
Ballard. Because he was acquainted with beings that approximated humans
(note that one has to write quite badly indeed to have *Ballard* write
more plausible characters than one does), and he knew how to write
pleasing sentences.
> Discuss...
Not much else to say. SF is built on the writings of people who wrote on
a third grade level. (Which can be quite profitable; I saw a recent
report that pegged Mich Albom's books at about there.)
--
Andrew Wheeler: Professional Editor, Amateur Wise-Acre
--
If you enjoyed this post, try my blog at
http://antickmusings.blogspot.com
If you hated this post, you probably have bad taste anyway.
Sea Wasp
> Not much else to say. SF is built on the writings of people who wrote on
> a third grade level. (Which can be quite profitable; I saw a recent
> report that pegged Mich Albom's books at about there.)
>
Third graders still have trouble spelling "Third Grade".
Polychromatic coruscating refulgence is quite a number of grades above
that. (In the current scholarly world, I'd peg it at college or above.)
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Rich Horton
<ma...@mattduanegriffin.com> wrote:
>ooo, surreal space opera... Anybody got any good examples of that
>sub-genre?
Galaxy 666, by Pel Torro?
(That's mainly a joke, but actually I think an argument could be
advanced ...)
More seriously, perhaps _Appleseed_, by John Clute, though I don't
think it really qualifies as "surreal". Plenty weird, though.
colin campbell
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I read a lot of Ballard but the only thing I remember is EMPIRE OF THE
SUN. I think it will be remembered for a long time.
I haven't been reading SF for quite a while now...has Ballard's career
changed since EMPIRE? I'm thinking about Kurt Vonnegut, who wrote
tortured fascinating novels until he finally wrote about his real-world
trauma in Dresden, and after that he wrote frothy off-the-cuff stuff
that got progressively less interesting to me.
I read a lot of E.E. Smith because it was so venerated, and I found it a
chore to read the ponderous stuff. It was from before my time, that's
all. However, I read his GALAXY PRIMES and SUBSPACE EXPLORERS stuff in
the magazines as they came out and I was the Golden Age and it seemed
terrific to me, although I think I'm the only one here with that
opinion. Later, SKYLARK DUSQUESNE seemed like more of the same old
tedious 30s stuff.
Smith substantially expanded the universe for SF writers. Ballard is
just a guy making a living in SF, but his reportage of what it's like to
be a little boy in a city when a gigantic brutal army sacks it, will
reverberate into the future a lot more than Smith's work.
Butch Malahide
>
> ooo, surreal space opera... Anybody got any good examples of that
> sub-genre?
Surreal? Not sure exactly what that is. Limp watches? Giant loaves of
bread floating in the sky? Wait a minute while I look it up. . . .
". . . fantastic or incongruous imagery or effects . . . by means of
unnatural juxtapositions and combinations."
Hmm. That seems to describe quite a lot of stf, and a lot of space
opera, maybe most of it. Maybe all of it. Examples? The Smiths (Doc,
Cordwainer, and others), Hamilton, Campbell, Van Vogt, Dick, Lafferty,
Williamson, Heinlein, and just about everybody who wrote space opera.
Isn't space opera intrinsically surreal? A bunch of people, and their
dogs and chickens, screwing and playing chess, in a tin can, way up in
the sky, between the stars?
David Johnston
<fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
No, that is not surreal. A fish wearing a bowler hat as it competes
in NASCAR is surreal.
Butch Malahide
Whereas an octopus wearing an antigravity harness as it fires a blaster
is not. Evidently, the definition of surrealism is much more technical
than my desk dictionary lets on. That's why I read these groups, to
learn stuff I don't know, which is more or less everything.
David Given
[...]
> ooo, surreal space opera... Anybody got any good examples of that
> sub-genre?
_Mindswap_, by Robert Sheckley?
--
â•â”€â”ˆDavid Given┈──McQ─╮ "People who think they know everything really
│┈ d...@cowlark.com┈┈┈┈│ annoy those of us who know we don't." --- Bjarne
│┈(d...@tao-group.com)┈│ Stroustrup
╰─┈www.cowlark.com┈──╯
Snakes and Babies
In the late twenties, Salvador Dali & Luis Bunuel made a couple of
movies that were photographed live, but were definitely surreal. I
tend to think of surreality as nonlinear or illogical images which are
seemingly arbitrarily placed against each other, but which our minds
will still combine and try to make sense out of. The challenge of the
Dali films was to not make sense. I've seen one of them -- it's about
ten times wackier than anything committed to celluloid in 1929 has any
right to be (at least by my expectation), but pretty compelling viewing
all the same. Your Octopus shooting a blaster is in service to a
linear story, we have some idea of that octopus' origins and
objectives. If that Octopus suddenly showed up in a victorian drawing
room comedy, that would be surreal...
Here's my best shot at naming a surreal space opera -- Paul Di Filipo's
Fuzzy Dice (although there is never a scene set in space, there are
many nonsensical planets...)
Christopher J. Henrich
<acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
> Lawrenc...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Was E. E. "Doc" Smith or J. G. Ballard the more important science
> > fiction writer?
>
> "Doc," whose coruscating violent rays launched a trillion
> reality-bending imitators.
>
> > Who was the better writer, and why?
>
> Ballard. Because he was acquainted with beings that approximated humans
> (note that one has to write quite badly indeed to have *Ballard* write
> more plausible characters than one does), and he knew how to write
> pleasing sentences.
>
> > Discuss...
>
> Not much else to say. SF is built on the writings of people who wrote on
> a third grade level. (Which can be quite profitable; I saw a recent
> report that pegged Mich Albom's books at about there.)
"Writing at N-thgrade level" is often intended to be a measure of how
difficult a text is to read. It depends on length (and complecity?)of
sentences, vocabulary, and so on.
The /New//York/ /Times/ is written, if I recall correctly, at a
ninth-grade level. But this is not to say that its editorial staff
have ninth-grade writing skills.
The previous sentence may be ambiguous.
--
Chris Henrich
http://www.mathinteract.com
God just doesn't fit inside a single religion.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Well, Smith was a PHD. I expect he could and did (I don't have the
books in front of me) write grammatically correct dependant clauses
and other structures more complex than "third grade level". That's
a totally different issue from whether his characters, plots or dialog
were "good" or plausible.
Though from what little I remember of the Ballard I've read, I'd rather
have lunch with Dick Seaton than any Ballard character..
Ted
William Hyde
Jordan wrote:
> Let's see how well Ballard stands up a few decades from now, when all
> the Hot Fads that he was writing up so to be stroked for his political
> correctness
I see by scanning downthread that you admit to never having read any
Ballard.
So what drove you to make the above accusations, which happen
to be comically untrue? Ballad following fads really gave me a chuckle
or two - thanks for that. Has it just become automatic now, that
*anything* you don't like is "politically correct"?
As to decades, Ballard's first stories date from the late 1950s, and a
brief amazon search shows that collections with those stories are still
in print. Fifty years seems a long time for a hot fad.
As I said, I really couldn't finish anything I've tried by Doc Smith,
but I didn't feel compelled to lie about him.
William Hyde
Matthias Warkus
>>> No, that is not surreal. A fish wearing a bowler hat as it competes
>>> in NASCAR is surreal.
>> Whereas an octopus wearing an antigravity harness as it fires a blaster
>> is not. Evidently, the definition of surrealism is much more technical
>> than my desk dictionary lets on. That's why I read these groups, to
>> learn stuff I don't know, which is more or less everything.
>
> In the late twenties, Salvador Dali & Luis Bunuel made a couple of
> movies that were photographed live, but were definitely surreal. I
> tend to think of surreality as nonlinear or illogical images which are
> seemingly arbitrarily placed against each other, but which our minds
> will still combine and try to make sense out of. The challenge of the
> Dali films was to not make sense.
There are theoretical texts by surrealists telling you exactly what
surrealism is supposed to be. I think there is even "The Surrealist
Manifest" by Louis Aragon ... too damn long since I wrote that paper.
mawa
Ahasuerus
> All right, I'll confess something. I tried to read Ballard about 20
> years ago, thought it was crap, and never tried again. I am exhibiting
> precisely the same unfairness to Ballard that I hate when some people
> exhibit it toward "Doc" Smith, in that I do not know what I am
> criticizing. So there.
>
> I should try Ballard again sometime.
Well, Ballard is a talented writer, but I am not sure that what he did
with his talent after roughly 1965 will be of much interest to you. If
you want to give him a try, you may want to start with _Vermillion
Sands_ (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?VRMLLNSNDS971973), which
has numerous advantages. First, it's one of his best known books and
has proved influential. Second, the linked stories in this collection
are colorful and extravagant, but not the kind of mind-numb^H^H^H^H^H^H
experimental stuff that he later became associated with. And finally,
it's a collection, so if you really hate it, you can stop anytime you
want and still have some idea of what early Ballard was like. OTOH, if
you like it, then you may want to try _The Terminal Beach_, another
early collection. After that, there are his "disaster novels" (_The
Wind From Nowhere_,_The Drowned World_, _The Crystal World_, _The
Drought_) from roughly the same period.
Next, I would try one or two of his better known post-1965 pieces like
"Why I Want to Fuck Ronald Reagan" (1966) and "The Assassination of
John Fitzgerald Kennedy Considered as a Downhill Motor Race" (1967). I
doubt you will enjoy them, but they are quite short (you can read them
in a bookstore) and you will get a pretty good idea of some of the
directions that he was famously exploring in the late 1960s, which
eventually led to _Crash_ (1973) et al.
Finally, there are his highly experimental "condensed novels", but they
are not for the faint of heart.
--
Ahasuerus
Christopher P. Winter
I have to chime in here. If the creature firing the blaster is a genuine
octopus, the story is surreal. If it's an alien that merely looks like an
octopus -- and presumably can breathe air and thus is not under water when it
fires the blaster -- then, IMHO, the story is not surreal (necessarily).
Surreality springs from the multiple incongruities. Whiplash of the mind (to
steal from and paraphrase Niven.)
htn963
Lawrenc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Was E. E. "Doc" Smith or J. G. Ballard the more important science
> fiction writer?
>
Given that they're markedly different writers in terms of content
and style, what's your point?
> Discuss...
Do your own homework.
--
Ht
Ahasuerus
> Lawrenc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Was E. E. "Doc" Smith or J. G. Ballard the more important science
> > fiction writer?
> >
> > Who was the better writer, and why?
>
> Given that they're markedly different writers in terms of content
> and style, what's your point?
Well, Lawrence has a history of starting "Let's discuss X" threads.
> > Discuss...
>
> Do your own homework.
It's unlikely that the SF writer and editor Lawrence Person
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Person ,
http://home.austin.rr.com/lperson/) needs to do homework these days.
--
Ahasuerus
Alexey Romanov
> "Jordan" <JSBass...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1164913627.9...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>> "Jordan" <JSBass...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1164904658....@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> Perhaps you sould explain which "Hot Fads that he was writing up
> so to be
>>> stroked for his political correctness by the lit-critters" it
> exhibits, though.
>>
>> All right, I'll confess something. I tried to read Ballard about 20
>> years ago, thought it was crap, and never tried again. I am
> exhibiting
>> precisely the same unfairness to Ballard that I hate when some
> people
>> exhibit it toward "Doc" Smith, in that I do not know what I am
>> criticizing. So there.
>>
>> I should try Ballard again sometime.
>
> I'm not entirely sure that "criticizing" is what you were
> doing.......I hesitate to apply a label to it, though.
"Condemning"? Thereis a famous quote in Russian: "I have not read
Pasternak, but I condemn him." It is even more fitting that Pasternak was
condemned for winning the Nobel prize for an ideologically unsuitable book
:)
--
Alexey Romanov
"Heavy construction equipment is so cute when it's trying to be
subtle."
"I make riverways. I know how to be subtle. That's when I use
chemical explosives instead of nuclear."
jpe...@qwest.net
Lawrenc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Was E. E. "Doc" Smith or J. G. Ballard the more important science
> fiction writer?
E.E. Smith, without question.
>
> Who was the better writer, and why?
J.G. Ballard. It's not even close.
>
> Discuss...
Oh, okay... Smith was influential, accessible, and easily imitated.
Probably the most imitated SF author until the Campbell years of
Astounding. Ballard was/is brilliant, innovative, and really quite
impossible to duplicate. Whether or not he's been an "SF writer" at any
time in the last twenty or so years is certainly a matter for debate,
but what's clear is that he is one of the most important authors of his
time.
Ballard will be studied years from now as a major literary figure,
Smith will be regarded (as he is now) as a first-rate entertainer.
Me? I enjoy both for entirely different reasons.
Cheers,
John
jpe...@qwest.net
Justin Alexander
> I see by scanning downthread that you admit to never having read any
> Ballard.
"Haven't read in 20 years" and "never read" are not synonymous in any
language.
--
Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net
Nicholas Waller
htn963 wrote:
> Lawrenc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Was E. E. "Doc" Smith or J. G. Ballard the more important science
> > fiction writer?
> >
> > Who was the better writer, and why?
>
> Given that they're markedly different writers in terms of content
> and style, what's your point?
The original question reminds me of a TV commercial in which a little
girl is asked by her sister "Which do you like better, Daddy or chips?"
and the little girl ponders this conundrum for a few moments (until her
father nicks one of her chips, and she rejects him and comes down on
the side of chips).
--
Nick
htn963
> htn963 wrote:
> > Lawrenc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Was E. E. "Doc" Smith or J. G. Ballard the more important science
> > > fiction writer?
> > >
> > > Who was the better writer, and why?
> >
> > Given that they're markedly different writers in terms of content
> > and style, what's your point?
>
> Well, Lawrence has a history of starting "Let's discuss X" threads.
Mayhaps I better put him on my ignore list then. There is
something intolerant in me that cannot abide vacuous Compare Apples v.
Oranges questions. At least Nicoll does his topical conversational
starters with substance and humor.
> > > Discuss...
> >
> > Do your own homework.
>
> It's unlikely that the SF writer and editor Lawrence Person
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Person ,
> http://home.austin.rr.com/lperson/) needs to do homework these days.
Writers and critics here are a dime a dozen. T'is those who are
informative (and entertaining if need be) that have my attention -- and
I note that most of those who do here aren't either.
--
Ht
htn963
Exactly. That'll teach the Daddy.
--
Ht
Ahasuerus
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:03:20 -0600, The Hurkle Beast wrote:
>
> > "Jordan" <JSBass...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> All right, I'll confess something. I tried to read Ballard about 20
> >> years ago, thought it was crap, and never tried again. I am exhibiting
> >> precisely the same unfairness to Ballard that I hate when some people
> >> exhibit it toward "Doc" Smith, in that I do not know what I am
> >> criticizing. So there.
> >>
> >> I should try Ballard again sometime.
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure that "criticizing" is what you were
> > doing.......I hesitate to apply a label to it, though.
>
> "Condemning"? Thereis a famous quote in Russian: "I have not read
> Pasternak, but I condemn him." It is even more fitting that Pasternak was
> condemned for winning the Nobel prize for an ideologically unsuitable book :)
Well, the Soviets who denounced Pasternak in 1958 did so because they
(quite understandably) wanted to remain in the good graces of a
government which had near complete control of their lives, in least in
potentio. Jordan, OTOH, was drawing conclusions based on insufficient
evidence, which is a whole different kettle of gefilte fish. I am
unaware of any American laws that would make praising Ballard's work a
misdemeanor, much less a felony.
--
Ahasuerus
William Hyde
Justin Alexander wrote:
> William Hyde wrote:
> > I see by scanning downthread that you admit to never having read any
> > Ballard.
>
> "Haven't read in 20 years" and "never read" are not synonymous in any
> language.
I thought that "tried to read" implies that he didn't actually succeed
in
reading any Ballard.
I read a few pages of Smith, but I cannot say I "read Smith".
I read enough to know I don't like his style (in that fragment,
anyway), but I couldn't offer a reasoned opinion on his
characters or his plotting, for example.
Or on his reasons for writing as he did, for that matter.
I take it that Jordan had a similar experience with Ballard, and I
can well understand it. My first Ballard was "Billennium" which
is a very easy read, and the next "The Voices of Time" which
I couldn't make any sense of, but which carried me along with
its language and images. Thus when I came to Ballard's more
difficult works, I knew that he was a good writer, and if he was
trying to do something different, it was not without reason.
Which didn't necessarily mean I liked the works in question,
but I gave them a chance. If I had started with his "condensed
novels" I too might have written him off.
William Hyde
Snakes and Babies
> There are theoretical texts by surrealists telling you exactly what
> surrealism is supposed to be. I think there is even "The Surrealist
> Manifest" by Louis Aragon ... too damn long since I wrote that paper.
>
> mawa
Hey, thanks for the heads up! Wow, the things you learn on the
interweb.
David Johnston
I've read Ballard. But I don't remember anything I read. Doc Smith I
remember.
GSV Three Minds in a Can
wonderful person David Johnston <rgo...@block.net> said
>
>
>I've read Ballard. But I don't remember anything I read. Doc Smith I
>remember.
You don't remember _The Crystal World_ or the Garden of Time, or the
Countdown to doomsday in _The Voices of Time_ (? or was it)??
I Do remember EEDocS too, but it was mostly the coruscating effulgence
of his prose, as ever larger blasters encountered ever more immovable
shields.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
7,053 Km walked. 1,267Km PROWs surveyed. 23.0% complete.
Gene Ward Smith
GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
> You don't remember _The Crystal World_ or the Garden of Time, or the
> Countdown to doomsday in _The Voices of Time_ (? or was it)??
>
> I Do remember EEDocS too, but it was mostly the coruscating effulgence
> of his prose, as ever larger blasters encountered ever more immovable
> shields.
So would you rather read Smith rewritten by Ballard, or Ballard
rewritten by Smith?
Andrew Wheeler
*I* would vastly prefer Smith rewritten by Ballard. On the other hand,
I'm also the guy who wished _Spin_ had been written by Ballard, so I'm
not necessarily the best judge of these things.
--
Andrew Wheeler: Professional Editor, Amateur Wise-Acre
--
If you enjoyed this post, try my blog at
http://antickmusings.blogspot.com
If you hated this post, you probably have bad taste anyway.
James Nicoll
Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>>
>> GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>>
>> > You don't remember _The Crystal World_ or the Garden of Time, or the
>> > Countdown to doomsday in _The Voices of Time_ (? or was it)??
>> >
>> > I Do remember EEDocS too, but it was mostly the coruscating effulgence
>> > of his prose, as ever larger blasters encountered ever more immovable
>> > shields.
>>
>> So would you rather read Smith rewritten by Ballard, or Ballard
>> rewritten by Smith?
>
>*I* would vastly prefer Smith rewritten by Ballard. On the other hand,
>I'm also the guy who wished _Spin_ had been written by Ballard, so I'm
>not necessarily the best judge of these things.
It would be a terrible thing if someone commissioned a
collection of stories of the form "The stories of X, if they
had been written by Y."
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Bill Snyder
Nicoll) wrote:
>In article <457B5551...@optonline.com>,
>Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>>Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>>>
>>> > You don't remember _The Crystal World_ or the Garden of Time, or the
>>> > Countdown to doomsday in _The Voices of Time_ (? or was it)??
>>> >
>>> > I Do remember EEDocS too, but it was mostly the coruscating effulgence
>>> > of his prose, as ever larger blasters encountered ever more immovable
>>> > shields.
>>>
>>> So would you rather read Smith rewritten by Ballard, or Ballard
>>> rewritten by Smith?
>>
>>*I* would vastly prefer Smith rewritten by Ballard. On the other hand,
>>I'm also the guy who wished _Spin_ had been written by Ballard, so I'm
>>not necessarily the best judge of these things.
>
> It would be a terrible thing if someone commissioned a
>collection of stories of the form "The stories of X, if they
>had been written by Y."
<snerk> "The stories of Gentry Lee, if they had been written by Arthur
C. Clarke."
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Walter Bushell
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> It would be a terrible thing if someone commissioned a
> collection of stories of the form "The stories of X, if they
> had been written by Y."
They are called "movies".
--
Divided we stand!
GSV Three Minds in a Can
the wonderful person Gene Ward Smith <genewa...@gmail.com> said
Tough call, but probably Smith re-written by Ballard. Smith did at least
have some (few) interesting ideas. I can't imagine Smith actually making
=anything= of 'The Voices of Time' except maybe 'The End.'.
It's sort of 'Ballard paints pictures', where often nothing much really
happens, you just get a closer and closer view of the scene until you
finally understand it.
Smith does movies. Action movies, of the kind usually found in 1960's
cinema matinees for juveniles ('can Captain Courageous get out of this
massive explosion? Tune in next week, to see the scene we just watched,
with the 5 seconds added back in which showed him jumping clear just
before it went bang!').
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Jim Lovejoy
news:vp3nn29v62vba39rn...@4ax.com:
The stories of James Tiptree, if they had been written by John Norman.
or Vice-versa.
Snakes and Babies
GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>
> Smith does movies. Action movies, of the kind usually found in 1960's
> cinema matinees for juveniles ('can Captain Courageous get out of this
> massive explosion? Tune in next week, to see the scene we just watched,
> with the 5 seconds added back in which showed him jumping clear just
> before it went bang!').
Not quite accurate -- Smith hated cliffhangers, and never wrote one.
Also, Smith was a scientist, so on that level he was a bit more
sophisticated than Thunderbirds, Flash Gordon, etc.
David Johnston
wrote:
>David Johnston wrote:
>> On 30 Nov 2006 22:35:23 -0800, "Butch Malahide"
>> <fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Snakes and Babies wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ooo, surreal space opera... Anybody got any good examples of that
>> >> sub-genre?
>> >
>> >Surreal? Not sure exactly what that is. Limp watches? Giant loaves of
>> >bread floating in the sky? Wait a minute while I look it up. . . .
>> >
>> >". . . fantastic or incongruous imagery or effects . . . by means of
>> >unnatural juxtapositions and combinations."
>> >
>> >Hmm. That seems to describe quite a lot of stf, and a lot of space
>> >opera, maybe most of it. Maybe all of it. Examples? The Smiths (Doc,
>> >Cordwainer, and others), Hamilton, Campbell, Van Vogt, Dick, Lafferty,
>> >Williamson, Heinlein, and just about everybody who wrote space opera.
>> >Isn't space opera intrinsically surreal? A bunch of people, and their
>> >dogs and chickens, screwing and playing chess, in a tin can, way up in
>> >the sky, between the stars?
>>
>> No, that is not surreal. A fish wearing a bowler hat as it competes
>> in NASCAR is surreal.
>
>Whereas an octopus wearing an antigravity harness as it fires a blaster
>is not.
Those elements actually kind of fit together assuming it's an an
octopoid alien or a genetically engineered octopus of the future.
Nobody needs to explain why a smart octopus would use an anti-gravity
harness or a blaster if it could, or why an alien that looks like an
octopus or an octopus from the future has technology we presently
don't.
Tony Zbaraschuk
Snakes and Babies <ma...@mattduanegriffin.com> wrote:
>
>GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>>
>> Smith does movies. Action movies, of the kind usually found in 1960's
>> cinema matinees for juveniles ('can Captain Courageous get out of this
>> massive explosion? Tune in next week, to see the scene we just watched,
>> with the 5 seconds added back in which showed him jumping clear just
>> before it went bang!').
>
>Not quite accurate -- Smith hated cliffhangers, and never wrote one.
If I recall correctly, Galactic Patrol at least was originally serialized
and each of the sections ended on a major cliff-hanger (in one case, on
a literal cliff...)
>Also, Smith was a scientist, so on that level he was a bit more
>sophisticated than Thunderbirds, Flash Gordon, etc.
Granted.
Tony Z
--
If I can't see as far as others, it's because giants have
stood on my shoulders. --Jenni Subriar