Postmodern SF
Karl Schroeder
in article 12352 of rec.arts.sf.written, David Stein dst...@rhea.math.ucla.edu
writes:
[stuff deleted]
> written by Charles Jencks [0]. It is a small pamphlet of only 48 pages but
> lots of photographs and illustrations.
>
> Jencks's field is Architecture, and it is here that Jencks's description
> of Post-Modernism (note the spelling) is the most clear and satisfying.
> But Jencks does attempt a general definition of Post-Modernism in arts,
> including Literature. In his opinion the central trait of Post-Modernism
>is what he terms "double coding":
>
> Double coding to simplify means both elite/popular and new/old
> and there are compelling reasons for these opposite pairings.
> Today's Post-Modern architects were trained by Modernists, and
> are committed to using contemporary technology as well as facing
> social reality. These commitments are enough to distinguish
> them from revivalists or traditionalists, a point worth stressing
> since it creates their hybrid language, the style of Post-Modern
> architecture. The same is not completely true of Post-Modern
> artists and writers who may use traditional techniques of
> narrative and representation in a more straightforward way.
> Yet all the creators who could be called Post-Modern keep
> something of a Modern sensibility - some intention which
> distinguishes their work from that of revivalists - whether
> this is irony, parody, displacement, complexity, eclecticism,
> realism or any number of contemporary tactics and goals.
> As I mention in the foreword, Post-Modernism has the essential
> double meaning: the continuation of Modernism and its transcendence.
>
> So it seems Post-Modernism attempts to communicate in a positive way with
> the public without necessarily lowering its artistic standards. Just
> like Bugs Bunny may be enjoyed by both adults and children, Post-Modernism
> tries to work on both high/low level. Further, where Modernism may seek
> to break with the past, Post-Modernism respects it and tries to incorporate
> it into its design--without, again, ignoring the present.
[material deleted for brevity]
> seems evident here as well. To cite J. Barth:
>
> My ideal postmodernist author neither merely repudiates
> nor merely imitates either his twentieth-century
> modernist parents or his nineteenth-century premodernist
> grandparents. He has the first half of our century under
> his belt, but not on his back. Without lapsing into moral
> or artistic simplism, shoddy craftmanship, Madison Avenue
> venality, or either false or real naivete, he nevertheless
> aspires to a fiction more democratic in its appeal that
> such late-modernist marvels (by my definition and in my
> judgment) as Beckett's _Stories and Texts for Nothing_
> or Nabakov's _Pale Fire_. He may not hope to reach and move
> the devotees of James Mitchener and Irving Wallace--not
> to mention the lobotomized mass-media illiterates. But
> he should hope to reach and delight, at least part of
> the time, beyond the circle of what Mann used to call
> the early Christians: professional devotees of high art.[2]
[stuff deleted]
> So...
>
> My question, then, is whether there are any science fictional
> works that may be reasonably termed postmodern. In particular, I
> would like to know if there is any connection between Cyberpunk
> or _The Movement_ and postmodernism.
I won't comment on rival theories of what's postmodern (a sign of the
times: there are many). Under the above definitions, there's probably
a lot of postmodern SF around. The preeminent postmodern SF novel
right now though, may be The Difference Engine (Gibson and Sterling).
The rest of this may be a spoiler for some, so be warned!
TDE initially appears to be an alternate history. It also initially
appears to be a spy thriller. The story keeps mutating, however, and
expectations are set up and then not followed through on. The man
being set up as the prime mover of the 'spy' plot is killed at the end
of the first section, and the P.O.V. character, a woman, simply
vanishes from the book, reappearing only briefly at the end. Readers
familiar with the end of Gravity's Rainbow will not be startled by this,
but anybody expecting a straightforward projective alternate history will
have a right to be. Many people I know who've read it have been irritated
by this. But wait, what's really going on here?
Gibson and Sterling have said that the book was written entirely on
word processor (no paper drafts) largely by a process of 'plagiarism':
they plundered Victorian literature for narrative, description, and
dialogue which they incorporated almost without change into the novel.
You could call this cheating, but it's consistent with what happens
thematically. The novel is not a story set in an alternate world, but
is a story about CONSTRUCTING a world by means of storytelling.
The 'storyteller' within TDE is a kind of narrative engine, residing
in a computer somewhere, which imagines itself into being through the
narrative. The narrative mirrors reality, but in this case the reality
is the narrative, a circular process. The crucial image for this is
Lady Ada Byron gazing into a mirror at the end of the novel, an incident
that causes the differentiating engine of the storyteller to finally
become self-aware.
You can read the entire thing without making this interpretation. The
careful use of historical language and narrative style (to the point of
lifting entire chunks of prose from books of the time) and the fact
that the plots of the novel's sections are essentially period plots,
and banal, allows a traditional reading at any point. Only when you
finish the whole, step back and look at it, does another interpretation
demand itself.
This would seem to fulfil the conditions for postmodernity set out above.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Schroeder | ka...@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher J. Henrich
>
[much deleted...]
>times: there are many). Under the above definitions, there's probably
>right now though, may be The Difference Engine (Gibson and Sterling).
>The rest of this may be a spoiler for some, so be warned!
>TDE initially appears to be an alternate history. It also initially
>appears to be a spy thriller. The story keeps mutating, however, and
>expectations are set up and then not followed through on.
This *may* be a subtle strategy, but it may *also* be the mark of
slipshod work. It is a classic con game to promote inferior stuff as
illustrating some prestigious but poorly understood critical theory
or new movement. Examples from about 20 years ago, in my opinion,
include _Beyond Apollo_ by Barry Malzberg and _Report From
Probability A_ by Brian Aldiss. Two extremely tedious novels, both
advertised as showpieces of avant garde technique.
The implicit dialoguw with a dissatisfied reader might go like this:
"This book is incoherent."
"Oh, don't you understand - it's a terribly witty comment on the
incoherence of the modern world."
[For "modern world" you can insert "American culture" or "late
capitalism" or any other large visible target.]
As P. T. Barnum said, the world is full of people who are prepared to
be impressed by this strategy. And there's another one born every
minute.
For a mythic account of the same strategy in another medium, see
_The Emperor's New Clothes_ by Hans Christian Andersen.
Regards,
Chris Henrich
Curtis Yarvin
>In article <1992Sep2.1...@tinton.ccur.com> c...@tinton.ccur.com (Christopher J. Henrich) writes:
>
> This *may* be a subtle strategy, but it may *also* be the mark of
> slipshod work. It is a classic con game to promote inferior stuff as
> illustrating some prestigious but poorly understood critical theory
> or new movement. Examples from about 20 years ago, in my opinion,
> include _Beyond Apollo_ by Barry Malzberg and _Report From
> Probability A_ by Brian Aldiss. Two extremely tedious novels, both
> advertised as showpieces of avant garde technique.
>
Physician...
>Most of them mistake their limited understanding of literature for the
>truth, and blast anything they can't understand with the label 'tedious.'
>And then they pat themselves on the back for being such clever guys, 'cause
>they read SCIENCE FICTION. Get a real life!
M-r SCIENCE FICTION LITERATURE
M-r literature science fiction
"Most of them mistake their limited understanding of science fiction for the
truth, and blast anything they can't understand with the label 'tedious.'
And then they pat themselves on the back for being such clever guys, 'cause
they read LITERATURE. Get a real life!"
Doesn't sound much better either way.
Here's a curious question for the two of you: how do you define
"the truth"?
c
John O'Neil
This *may* be a subtle strategy, but it may *also* be the mark of
slipshod work. It is a classic con game to promote inferior stuff as
illustrating some prestigious but poorly understood critical theory
or new movement. Examples from about 20 years ago, in my opinion,
include _Beyond Apollo_ by Barry Malzberg and _Report From
Probability A_ by Brian Aldiss. Two extremely tedious novels, both
advertised as showpieces of avant garde technique.
The thing that's tedious is your holier-than-thou post.
Here's the simple fact. Barry Malzberg is one of the best novelists
working in SF. In a way, it is not surprising that you don't
recognize that, and further seek to run him down. _Beyond Apollo_ is
heresy in SF, since it took a critical look at the space program
(strike one). It doesn't incorporate any adolescent power fantasies
to shore up shaky egos (strike two). Finally, Malzberg tried to use
the tools English gave him to write as excellent a novel as possible,
so admittedly it reads more like Joyce than Heinlein (strike three and
he's out!).
In any case, I am still left wondering about your original point.
Which "poorly understood critical theory our new movement" is _Beyond
Apollo_ supposed to represent? You don't mention which one you had in
mind, but anyway none of them fit. The awful fact is that Malzberg
tried to write a novel which people would want to buy -- he needs the
money.
In any case, you didn't enjoy it. Fine, that's your opinion, and I
for one wouldn't dream of making you read it again. So you missed the
point of the book -- don't go making a bigger deal out of your
personal problem than it is.
The implicit dialoguw with a dissatisfied reader might go like this:
"This book is incoherent."
"Oh, don't you understand - it's a terribly witty comment on the
incoherence of the modern world."
[For "modern world" you can insert "American culture" or "late
capitalism" or any other large visible target.]
Oh, I see, the problem is that Malzberg is "politically correct" and
hence his fiction must be inferior, since it has to carry all that
ideological load. Wrong and wrong again!
In any case, "witty comment" is not the word to describe _Beyond
Apollo_ -- "agonizing scream" would be a better description.
As P. T. Barnum said, the world is full of people who are prepared to
be impressed by this strategy. And there's another one born every
minute.
There certainly is. Most of them mistake their limited understanding
of literature for the truth, and blast anything they can't understand
with the label 'tedious.' And then they pat themselves on the back
for being such clever guys, 'cause they read SCIENCE FICTION. Get a
real life!
Bye bye!
--
John O'Neil
"Occasionally I believed I had thoughts of my own -- who does not now
and then become the victim of such delusions?"
-- Paul Feyerabend
Bill Leue
"The Armies of the Night". It presents the most jaundiced possible view
of SF, and is an interesting contrast to Aldiss, the Panshins, and other
critics in the field. And, as other posters have mentioned, his writing is
impeccable.
-Bill Leue
le...@crd.ge.com
Bill Leue
>"The Armies of the Night". It presents the most jaundiced possible view
>of SF, and is an interesting contrast to Aldiss, the Panshins, and other
>critics in the field. And, as other posters have mentioned, his writing is
>impeccable.
ARRGGHHH! I meant to write "The Engines of the Night", which is the correct
title. I know I'll get 10,000 mail messages informing me of the error. :-)
-Bill Leue
le...@crd.ge.com