Any real readers?
Katie Pfefferkorn
<FLAME ON>
This might be considered a flame by all you net news
watchers so feel free to remonstrate if I'm not following
the network protocal BUT I've noticed now to the point of
irritation that the majority of books or movies discussed on
the network are science fiction or fantasy. Does anyone out
there read novels? I mean, the occassional Jane Austen, or
Kafka? I'm not pretending I'm a literary snob but I have to
pour over hundreds of articles to get to something I've
actually enjoyed reading before. Now Tom Pynchon is decent,
and he gets a by-line here and there, but I'm reading
nothing about any authors who are experimenting with new
types of fiction. Anyone out there ever read Borges?
Donald Bartleme? John Barth? Flannery O'Conner? Cormac
MacCarthy? Garcia-Marquez?
The movies discussed offer even less variation. Bladerunner
seems to be the only movie everyone has watched on this
network, or Three Men and a Baby. I have to admit I'm
getting a kick out of the best movie moments, but 50% of the
selections have been scenes out of Bladerunner. Can't we
get a little controvercy going over Wings of Desire or
Goodfellas?
I came to netnews so excited because I felt that in this
space poeple were writing because they want to and they
might be a little braver with their opinions than if they
were writing for a professor or haveing their thoughts
scensored by a social scene. I haven't been totally
disappointed but the threads of conversations are getting
pretty tedious. Maybe this isn't the place for me?
Is anybody out there?
K. Pf.
<FLAME OFF>
Louis Blair
>the threads of conversations are getting
>pretty tedious.
If you want to talk about something else,
pick something AND START TALKING
ABOUT IT. Don't blame others for not
having anything to say on a subject, if
you don't have anything to say on the
subject either.
Edward Lopez
> <FLAME ON>
>I've noticed now to the point of
>irritation that the majority of books or movies discussed on
>the network are science fiction or fantasy. Does anyone out
>there read novels? I mean, the occassional Jane Austen, or
First, I consider the characterization of sf readers versus 'real'
readers, sf books versus novels, to be incredibly inappropriate to
put it most politely.
>Kafka? I'm not pretending I'm a literary snob but I have to
>pour over hundreds of articles to get to something I've
>actually enjoyed reading before. Now Tom Pynchon is decent,
>and he gets a by-line here and there, but I'm reading
>nothing about any authors who are experimenting with new
>types of fiction.
Yes, you are. Perhaps if you weren't so dismissive of sf you'd realize
it. John Crowley has been discussed here recently -- look to his
_Engine Summer_ for an originally told tale. Works of Philip K. Dick,
Stanislaw Lem and Ursula LeGuin also come quickly to mind. (Note: I am
talking specifically about 'experimental types of fiction' here; I am
not merely bringing up their works for their quality.)
>Anyone out there ever read Borges?
>Donald Bartleme? John Barth? Flannery O'Conner? Cormac
>MacCarthy? Garcia-Marquez?
Looking to the authors you mention is telling. Barth's _Giles
Goat-Boy_ is set in a world of intelligent machines and advanced
genetic engineering. Pynchon, too, draws on sf as he sees fit. And I
personally consider it outlandish to not acknowledge Borges for an
author of fantasy.
The big difference is that they're outside the sf ghetto; they're
_recognized_ as literary. Academics study them. Self-styled
intellectuals who aren't interested in a vulgar form such as sf read
them. But, ultimately, the biggest difference between some sf and some
of what you're calling 'real' books is one of labelling.
I think you're very right to suggest that those who read only what's
called sf are missing out on some worthwhile things. But also that
you're very wrong to suggest that they're missing out on all of them.
>Maybe this isn't the place for me?
Your call. You seem to suggest you're getting little out of it, but
I think that could change if you let it, if you're willing to judge
books by their content and not what's written on their spines.
> K. Pf.
> <FLAME OFF>
--
Zed edwa...@aludra.usc.edu user...@rpitsmts.bitnet z...@mts.rpi.edu
Eric Thread-killer vonLaudermann
>
> <FLAME ON>
>
> This might be considered a flame by all you net news
>watchers so feel free to remonstrate if I'm not following
>the network protocal BUT I've noticed now to the point of
>irritation that the majority of books or movies discussed on
>the network are science fiction or fantasy.
Probably because the majority of books or movies *in existence* are science
fiction or fantasy. (Or should I say *of this century*?)
> Does anyone out
>there read novels? I mean, the occassional Jane Austen, or
>Kafka? I'm not pretending I'm a literary snob but I have to
>pour over hundreds of articles to get to something I've
>actually enjoyed reading before. Now Tom Pynchon is decent,
>and he gets a by-line here and there, but I'm reading
>nothing about any authors who are experimenting with new
>types of fiction.
When I read a book, I read for entertainment. To me, there's no point reading
a ground-breaking work of fiction if it is simply *boring* to read.
(I *do* like Borges, tho, what little I've read by him, but I don't get a
chance to read for recreation very often.)
--E.V.L. (dr...@wpi.wpi.edu) # "I think I broke my face."
Disclaimer: "It's all absolutely # "Well of *course* you did!"
devastatingly true, except the bits # --SuperDave & Announcer,
that are lies." --Douglas Adams # Nike commercial
Evelyn C. Leeper
> irritation that the majority of books or movies discussed on
> the network are science fiction or fantasy. Does anyone out
> there read novels? I mean, the occassional Jane Austen, or
Well, it's not clear why anyone posting to the movies group *should*
read novels, though I'm sure many do.
I was also unaware that the terms "novel" and "science fiction"
were mutually exclusive.
You mention Kafka, Pynchon, Borges, Bartleme, Barth, O'Connor,
MacCarthy, and Garcia-Marquez [sic]. Last time I checked at least
five of those eight were considered to have written science
fiction/fantasy/magical realism.
I would also claim that they probably have a higher proportional
readership among "science fiction fans" than among the American public
as a whole.
> The movies discussed offer even less variation. Bladerunner
> seems to be the only movie everyone has watched on this
> network, or Three Men and a Baby. I have to admit I'm
> getting a kick out of the best movie moments, but 50% of the
> selections have been scenes out of Bladerunner. Can't we
> get a little controvercy going over Wings of Desire or
> Goodfellas?
Ah, yes, WINGS OF DESIRE--hardly a realistic movie. In fact, I
would classify it as fantasy as well. (Plus if you figure the
wretched distribution it got, most of the people had no chance
to see it anyway.)
It I look at rec.arts.movies.reviews (I wonder what makes me think
of that? :-) ) there are a wide variety of films reviewed there.
Of course, given that a higher proportion of computer networking types
are science fiction fans than of the general public, it's not
surprising that you will find a lot of discussion about science fiction
on a computer network. And maybe, just maybe, it's because science
fiction fans are willing to be more vocal and talk about what they
read. Maybe it's because science fiction fandom *encourages* people
to voice their opinions while "mainstream" fandom does not. (I have
yet to hear of a "mainstream literature convention" of the sort one
sees in science fiction all the time.)
As others have said, write something if you want to start a
discussion. Three years ago, Donn Seeley posted a long article
on Borges and he and I had a lengthy discussion about it.
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or e...@mtgzy.att.com
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
-Edmund Burke
Sammy
: Katie.Pf...@samba.acs.unc.edu (Katie Pfefferkorn) writes:
:
:
: > <FLAME ON>
: >I've noticed now to the point of
: >irritation that the majority of books or movies discussed on
: >the network are science fiction or fantasy. Does anyone out
: >there read novels? I mean, the occassional Jane Austen, or
:
: First, I consider the characterization of sf readers versus 'real'
: readers, sf books versus novels, to be incredibly inappropriate to
: put it most politely.
:
: >Kafka? I'm not pretending I'm a literary snob but I have to
: Yes, you are. Perhaps if you weren't so dismissive of sf you'd realize
:
: I think you're very right to suggest that those who read only what's
: called sf are missing out on some worthwhile things. But also that
: you're very wrong to suggest that they're missing out on all of them.
: Zed edwa...@aludra.usc.edu user...@rpitsmts.bitnet z...@mts.rpi.edu
I think that Zed is totally missing what's being said here.
Nowhere did I see Katie putting down SF, SF readers, or suggest that
people who read SF are missing out on anything. What Katie said was
that _SHE_ was interested in other forms of literature, she named them,
and asked if anyone on the net was discussion these authors and these
novels, or was the only discussion about SF.
I'd suggest to Katie that she start a discussion about a book or author
she's interested in and just see how many people jump in and provide her
with just the discussion she's looking for.
--
Sammy=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The enemy of women...is not men, just as the enemy of blacks is not whites.
The enemy is "the tyranny of the dull mind." Carol S. Pearson, _The Hero Within_
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Jeff Sullivan
> <FLAME ON>
>
>This might be considered a flame by all you net news
>watchers so feel free to remonstrate if I'm not following
>the network protocal BUT I've noticed now to the point of
>irritation that the majority of books or movies discussed on
>the network are science fiction or fantasy. Does anyone out
>there read novels? I mean, the occassional Jane Austen, or
>Kafka? I'm not pretending I'm a literary snob but I have to
>pour over hundreds of articles to get to something I've
^^^^
What exactly are you pouring over the articles? Perhaps if you poured
boysenberry syrup over them, you'd like a higher percentage (I find
that about the only thing that gives me your low ratio in this group
is sweet-and-sour sauce -- blech).
>actually enjoyed reading before. Now Tom Pynchon is decent,
^^^
Well, sure, Tom is okay, but I prefer Fred Nietsche or Bill
Shakespeare for my highbrow lowballing. Or perhaps Dot Parker, if I
have a bent for the controversial.
>and he gets a by-line here and there, but I'm reading
>nothing about any authors who are experimenting with new
>types of fiction. Anyone out there ever read Borges?
>Donald Bartleme? John Barth? Flannery O'Conner? Cormac
>MacCarthy? Garcia-Marquez?
Funny, but I noticed something else about this group: why doesn't
anyone ever discuss how to fix the dash-blasted brake problem on my
Mercury Tracer. The little dickens go out after only a few thousand
miles' fun.
>The movies discussed offer even less variation. Bladerunner
>seems to be the only movie everyone has watched on this
>network, or Three Men and a Baby. I have to admit I'm
>getting a kick out of the best movie moments, but 50% of the
>selections have been scenes out of Bladerunner. Can't we
>get a little controvercy going over Wings of Desire or
>Goodfellas?
We could, but I've never seen them. Nor to I want to see anything by
Wim Wenders. I have this thing about anyone with the first name
"Wim," and I just can't seem to shake it. Oh, well, back to my
Criterion Laserdisc of Bladerunner. There's this greate scene where
Deckard's eyes glow red, and I SWEAR you'd think he's a replicant
himself...
>I came to netnews so excited because I felt that in this
>space poeple were writing because they want to and they
>might be a little braver with their opinions than if they
>were writing for a professor or haveing their thoughts
>scensored by a social scene. I haven't been totally
^^^^^^^^^
I assume this is a typo, so I won't touch it. I just have more scense
than that.
>disappointed but the threads of conversations are getting
>pretty tedious. Maybe this isn't the place for me?
>Is anybody out there?
Ah. There it is. You've stumbled (blindly, yes, but stumbled
nonetheless) onto the dark secret of usenet. There is, in fact, no
one out here. All of the postings you've been seeing are just an
incredibly coincidental bit of line noise. And, If I'm not mistaken,
your luck is about to run ou@#$%^&*{}{{)(&%^^%":"><((**^&*&^&^*&^*& *
&&&^
> K. Pf.
>
> <FLAME OFF>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Sullivan | Senior Systems Programmer
j...@venera.isi.edu | Information Sciences Institute
j...@isi.edu DELPHI: JSULLIVAN | University of Southern California
Edward Lopez
>: Katie.Pf...@samba.acs.unc.edu (Katie Pfefferkorn) writes:
>: > <FLAME ON>
>: >I've noticed now to the point of
>: >irritation that the majority of books or movies discussed on
>: >the network are science fiction or fantasy. Does anyone out
>: >there read novels? I mean, the occassional Jane Austen, or
>: >Kafka? I'm not pretending I'm a literary snob but I have to
>:
>: Yes, you are. Perhaps if you weren't so dismissive of sf you'd realize
I had been ambivalent as to whether to follow this up until I saw this
accidental misquoting. My "Yes, you are" was in response to Katie's
"I'm reading nothing about any authors who are experimenting with new
types of fiction", deleted from Sammy's excerpt. If I'd wanted to
take shots, I would have specifically agreed with the statement which
Sammy's quote suggests I was contradicting.
>I think that Zed is totally missing what's being said here.
>Nowhere did I see Katie putting down SF, SF readers, or suggest that
>people who read SF are missing out on anything. What Katie said was
>that _SHE_ was interested in other forms of literature, she named them,
>and asked if anyone on the net was discussion these authors and these
>novels, or was the only discussion about SF.
We evidently read the original posting rather differently. The subject
line requests 'real readers' versus what Katie characterizes as sf
readers, and she further distinguishes sf books from (presumably
'real') novels.
>I'd suggest to Katie that she start a discussion about a book or author
>she's interested in and just see how many people jump in and provide her
>with just the discussion she's looking for.
>Sammy=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Certainly this is a good idea. While I stand by my original post that
there's benefit to be had in the sf threads for everyone, even 'real
readers' (SF: real novels for real readers?), I was remiss to not
explicitly suggest this myself.
Cisco's Buddy
} [...] I've noticed now to the point of irritation that the majority
} of books or movies discussed on the network are science fiction or
} fantasy.
This, coupled with the subject line, seems to suggest that you think
that science fiction and fantasy aren't "real fiction". This very idea
seems to be brought up on the net every so often. It's also bullshit.
} Does anyone out there read novels?
The last time I checked, Isaac Asimov wrote novels, as did Robert Heinlein
(well, no, not any more he doesn't), Anne McCaffrey, Marion Zimmer Bradley.
Hell, even Piers Anthony writes novels (not very good ones, admittedly,
but they *are* novels).
Why does their being sf/fantasy exclude them from being novels?
} I mean, the occassional Jane Austen, or Kafka?
Kafka? You mean the guy who writes about someone waking up and finding
out that he's mutated into a cockroach? Sounds like fantasy to me.
} I'm not pretending I'm a literary snob [...]
No, you're not pretending. You don't have to. You appear to believe that
science fiction cannot produce a writer worth discussing, when in fact
the field has produced people the likes of John Crowley, Gene Wolfe, and
Ursula LeGuin, any of whom are a match for any of the literary giants
esposed by Halls of Learning. Yes, 90% of science fiction is crap. But
so is 90% of mainstream fiction. For every LeGuin, there may be a Piers
Anthony, but for every Garcia Marquez, there's a Harold Robbins.
} Now Tom Pynchon is decent,
And he wrote GRAVITY'S RAINBOW, which is science fiction.
} and he gets a by-line here and there, but I'm reading nothing about any
} authors who are experimenting with new types of fiction. Anyone out
} there ever read Borges?
Who's written fantasy. And yes, I've read him.
} Donald Bartleme?
Haven't read him.
} John Barth?
Yes, and he's written fantasy. Ever read GILES GOAT-BOY?
} Flannery O'Conner? Cormac MacCarthy?
Nope, neither one.
} Garcia-Marquez?
Yes (in fact, his newest is next on my list to read). But you don't
think ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SOLITUDE is science fiction?
} The movies discussed offer even less variation. Bladerunner seems to be
} the only movie everyone has watched on this network, or Three Men and a
} Baby.
While there are lots of articles on these movies, there don't by any means
have a stranglehold on the net.
} I have to admit I'm getting a kick out of the best movie moments, but
} 50% of the selections have been scenes out of Bladerunner. Can't we
} get a little controvercy going over Wings of Desire or Goodfellas?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Which strikes me as fantasy.
} I came to netnews so excited because I felt that in this space poeple
} were writing because they want to and they might be a little braver with
} their opinions than if they were writing for a professor or haveing
} their thoughts scensored by a social scene. I haven't been totally
} disappointed but the threads of conversations are getting pretty tedious.
} Maybe this isn't the place for me? Is anybody out there?
First of all, if you want to see something discussed, the burden is on
*you* to start a discussion. We are not here for your entertainment.
Second of all, you appear to want people to be able to "write because they
want to" and "be a little braver with their opinions" and yet you flame
them for wanting to write about sf/fantasy. Are they only supposed to want
to write about mainstream works? Are they only supposed to be "braver"
if they're writing about things that you want them to write about? Aren't
you, in fact, trying to act as the "social scene" that is attempting to
censor their thoughts?
--
"I can't die yet. I haven't seen THE JOLSON STORY."
--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)
UUCP: ...!decwrl!ruby.enet.dec.com!boyajian
ARPA: boyajian%ruby...@DECWRL.DEC.COM
John Locke
> We are not here for your entertainment.
No comment. Hee, hee, hee (":->"). Alright, a small comment: you're right,
we're here for our entertainment and if we're not, then let's pass the pitcher
of Kool-Aid without further delay, because we're certainly not fulfilling our
higher purposes with any particular efficiency.
P.S. Has anyone else read "The Erotic Diaries of Albert Einstein"? I can't
quite decide whether it's highbrow, lowbrow, or middle of the road.
Michael Hayward
Fiction (which I don't think was under attack in the original posting
anyway) and pick up on another thread.
In article <16...@beguine.UUCP> Katie.Pf...@samba.acs.unc.edu (Katie
Pfefferkorn) writes:
> Anyone out there ever read Borges?
> Donald Bartleme? John Barth? Flannery O'Conner? Cormac
> MacCarthy?
Cormac McCarthy (I believe that this is the correct spelling) was
mentioned in that list. An amazing writer that someone pointed me at two
years ago, and I've since devoured everything he's written. I'd like to
know how he's regarded in the states - is he considered a regional writer,
or does he have wider appeal? Judging from the jacket copy he has had some
critical success - is this really the case, or is this just publisher's hype? I'm also interested in knowing if he's written anything since "Blood
Meridian", which is the last thing of his I've read; anyone know?
Try him out if you like prose where every word counts. He has a dark,
almost perverse vision of the world and humanity. "Suttree" is perhaps his
most accessible novel; "Blood Meridian" takes on the old West, and shows
the evil underside of those modern myths.
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>Does anyone out there read novels?
Yo, Katy,
Two points.
First, this is approximately an anarcho-democracy. People will talk about what
they feel like. The way to get a conversation going about
>the occassional Jane Austen, or Kafka
is to say or ask something provocative about them. (BTW, I've seen Kafka
discussed here, but not Austen, or at least not so's ya'd notice.) If there's
anyone out there interested in the topic -- and if what you have to say is at
all original there probably will be -- it'll be picked up and soon you'll have
someone jumping down your throat and calling you a fool or a liar or both and
it's a regular literary party. But insulting people for not spontaneously
coming up with the topic *you* would like to discuss is not merely rude, it's
silly.
Which brings me to the second point: as I said, rude. You imply that science
fiction (including, say, Ursula K. Le Guin, Gene Wolfe, H.G. Wells, and recent
works by Doris Lessing and Margaret Atwood, to drop some names) and mysteries
(like those by Umberto Eco, Raymond Chandler, and G.K. Chesterton) are in some
unspecified way not "novels." Then you go on to add that
>I'm not pretending I'm a literary snob
Perhaps not: but I'm afraid you're *acting* like one.
At any rate, I'll do the honors by starting a non-genre topic. Two, really.
The first is, "Books You Were Forced To Read In School." I want to make this
a slightly narrower topic, though: "Books you were forced to read in school,
hated, and, coming across them later, found that they were pretty damn good."
My example: the only book I had to force myself to read in school was Evan
S. Connell's MRS BRIDGE. As a fellow student put it, "Connell sets out to
show how boring this woman's life is, and *suceeds* beyond his wildest dreams."
We thought that Ms. Burnett, the teacher who gave it to us, should be tried for
war crimes.
Well, I still think she should, but for a different crime entirely: the crime
of making an entire classroom of kids who might have come across the book in
later years and enjoyed it, hate it. A co-worker recently recommended it to me,
and after a conversation that began with me making gagging noises and asking if
she was joking, I reread MRS BRIDGE and then rushed right out (figuratively
speaking) and bought its companion volume, MR BRIDGE. The books are witty,
lively, and very, very "real." Connell performs a literary marvel: he portrays
two characters (Mr. and Mrs. Bridge, natch) who are individually quite
unpleasant (they are upper-middle-class boors, racists who think they aren't,
bourgeois schmucks, all that) and yet makes you love them, as human beings
trying to live decent lives as best they know how. Each novel closes with
an image which sums up its protagonist's life -- MRS BRIDGE is particularly
successful in this -- in some clear symbolic fashion that grows naturally out
of the character's behavior.
So: anyone else out there read these?
Anyone know anything about the movie supposedly about to come out from them?
And anyone got any "I hated it in high school, boy was that teacher dumb to
give this great stuff to a bunch of kids" stories?
Why is 1991 "almost here" and 2000 "right around
the corner," while Friday 5:00 PM is an eternity
away?
--me
The Roach
Mark Foskey
>P.S. Has anyone else read "The Erotic Diaries of Albert Einstein"? I can't
>quite decide whether it's highbrow, lowbrow, or middle of the road.
I don't care what brow it is, just tell me if it's any good. And who
wrote it?
Brian W. Ogilvie
(Eric "Thread-killer" vonLaudermann) writes:
>Probably because the majority of books or movies *in existence* are science
>fiction or fantasy. (Or should I say *of this century*?)
What hat was this figure pulled out of? Unless Mr. von Laudermann is taking
a very broad definition of "science fiction" and/or "fantasy," this has to
be the most silly statement made on the Net this year. My guess is that
there are many more romance novels published each year than fantasy and
science fiction combined. Not to mention mysteries, thrillers, "mainstream"
fiction, etc. Actually, if I had to pick the most numerous category of book,
I would say cookbooks (you can't live on bread alone, but you can't live
without it either...unless you're from America, where you can get Wonder
'bread') :-).
Followups to /dev/null, unless you really want to.
--
Brian W. Ogilvie "Find a need and fool it!"
og...@midway.uchicago.edu --Zippy the Pinhead
Cathy Smither
>
>The first is, "Books You Were Forced To Read In School." I want to make this
>a slightly narrower topic, though: "Books you were forced to read in school,
>hated, and, coming across them later, found that they were pretty damn good."
>
>My example: the only book I had to force myself to read in school was Evan
>S. Connell's MRS BRIDGE. As a fellow student put it, "Connell sets out to
>show how boring this woman's life is, and *suceeds* beyond his wildest dreams."
>We thought that Ms. Burnett, the teacher who gave it to us, should be tried for
>war crimes.
>
Yes, I have. I love Connell's style. I recommend, if you haven't
read it yet, his biography of Custer, _Son of the Morning Star_.
>Anyone know anything about the movie supposedly about to come out from them?
No. At least, not much. Apparently, Joanne Woodward read these years ago
and always wanted to make a movie from them. Now she and her husband,
Paul Newman, are to be Mr & Mrs Bridge. I've been wondering how they would
convey the feel of the book -- so much of the mood is in the flatness of
the characters & their response (or non-response) to the changing world
around them.
>And anyone got any "I hated it in high school, boy was that teacher dumb to
>give this great stuff to a bunch of kids" stories?
How about the other way around? I read and enjoyed Steinbeck's _The
Grapes of Wrath_ before having it assigned in high school. When I re-read
it there, with the usual high school spin on "themes" and such, I
hated it. Now I can't read Steinbeck at all. On the other hand, I
appreciate Shakespeare much more now than I did then.
Cathy Smither Seismological Laboratory
ca...@seismo.gps.caltech.edu California Institute of Technology
Mark Anderson
common basis for the discussion of recently read books:
That each month there will be a designated book. The book
will be announced far enough in advance to give even those
of us with the busiest of schedules a chance to re-read the
selected work.
Selection of the book will be by popular vote. I volunteer
to post monthly announcements of a call for votes, tally
the votes and announce the final results.
Nothing about this plan is fixed, if people are interested
and have any suggestions for change I welcome them. For
instance perhaps a month is too long. Or perhaps selecting
a group of books would involve more people. Nothing in
this is to suggest that normal rec.arts.books activities
should change and that you are not free to discuss any book
at any time.
Comments?
Mark Anderson
ma...@cs.ucsd.edu
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>The last time I checked, Isaac Asimov wrote novels, as did [list of names]
I might be wrong, but I suspect that Ms. Pfefferkorn was limiting her field of
purview to the bourgeois novel and its direct descendants. The SF novel is
an indirect descendant, being descended not from the field of bourgeois fiction
but from the field of pulp-adventure fiction, through the SF short story.
The bourgeois "romance of science" as practiced by, e.g., Shelley, Verne, and,
yes, Wells was back-grafted onto the SF family tree by overzealous historians;
the real parents of the SF novel are Burroughs' A PRINCESS OF MARS, Gernsback's
RALPH 124C41+, and Smith's THE SKYLARK OF SPACE -- all honorable parents, and
frankly no cruder than PAMELA or A JOURNAL OF THE PLAGUE YEARS (which were the
early stutters of a new genre of English literature, as were these), but quite
uninfluenced (with the possible exception of the Gernsback) by Wells/Verne/
Shelley.
The influence of the bourgeois literary novel *is* felt in SF, but less
directly.
>Kafka? You mean the guy who writes about someone waking up and finding
>out that he's mutated into a cockroach? Sounds like fantasy to me.
You might, btw, want to check out the interview with Samuel R. Delany in the
recent collection of interviews BEYOND THE WOUNDED GALAXIES. He discusses the
case of the METAMORPHOSIS rather specifically.
In brief: a science fiction/fantasy reader will read METAMORPHOSIS in a very
different manner from the way a reader of bourgeois/literary/mundane fiction
will. They bring to a fictive text a very different set of expectations (or,
you might say, decoding protocols/conventions/mechanisms).
The experienced reader of bourgeois/literary/mundane fiction will read the
transformation as a metaphor primarily, and that decoding will in-form their
entire reading. That is, everything that Gregor Samsa says and does in the rest
of the text will be filtered through that metaphor as the reader seeks to
understand what Kafka is "telling" them.
The experienced SF reader, on the other hand, will be inclined to look for the
literal mechanism by which the transformation was accomplished. (Indeed, Jerry,
your own use of the word "mutated," which, while literally accurate is
emphatically inappropriate, betrays a degree of this protocol.) In so doing,
some SF readers will entirely _miss_ the metaphorical burden of Gregor Samsa's
transformation.
(Note that the use of a literary text in this case prejudices the outcome in
favor of the experienced reader of bourgeois/literary/mundane fiction. A
similar case can be made by facing both readers with a fairly advanced SF text.
In fact, the experienced reader of bourgeois/literary/mundane fiction will be
quite as unable to find the SF writer's intent as the SF reader was unable to
find Kafka's.
(This different set of decodings is what allowed professors and critics of
bourgeois/literary/mundane fiction for several decades to dismiss SF as a
"marginal" form [when the standard techniques for decoding bourgeois/literary/
mundane fictive texts were brought to it, it remained opaque and "therefore"
unimportant] or even actively harmful to the young mind [since the SF reader
had learned a different set of protocols, they kept finding strange and
inappropriate meanings in texts]. Enough has been written about this particular
era of intellectual terrorism that it deserves no more than parenthetical
mention, but I want to make this point: based on these two things, which they
actually *did* see, the bourgeois/literary/mundane Establishment's dismissal of
SF was neither capricious nor jealous; they genuinely saw valueless and
potentially harmful material.
(It is also worth noting that this difference in decoding protocols is why many
SF readers find bourgeois/literary/mundane fiction boring and contentless; they
bring to it the reading protocols of SF, in which the surfaces are far more
literal [e.g., if a man changes into a cockroach, the question is not "what does
this mean?" but "who has done this and why?"]. This is not to say that SF is
any less rich in its ability to comment on the world-as-such; only that it uses
a different set of tools in doing so.
(Finally, the above description assumes an "ideal" reader of SF and an "ideal"
reader of bourgeois/literary/mundane fiction -- that is, one who is quite
experienced in the reading protocols of their own chosen form and not at all,
or not significantly, in those of the other. There is nothing to prevent a
reader from learning how to read both forms.)
>} Donald Bartleme?
>
>Haven't read him.
You should. I recommend THE DEAD FATHER. I think you'd enjoy it, Jerry.
BTW, Elizabeth misspelled his name, Barthelme.
Soren Ryherd
books-you-hated-in-school-but-have-given-another-chance category, I have
a couple of additions. Two of the books I was forced to read in high
school were Knowles' "A Separate Peace" and Melville's "Billy Budd".
Boy did I hate these! I literally forced myself to drudge my way
through both of them. I didn't like them, didn't see any point to them,
and wanted to put them behind me as quickly as possible.
Okay, so why do I keep *thinking* about them? I don't think I've spent
any time pondering *any* books I read over ten years ago, with these two
exceptions (not counting ones I've subsequently re-read). I guess I
will have to pick them up again and re-read them after all.
A third book in this category was "Flowers for Algernon", which I read
in junior high, hated, re-read in high school and loved. So there it
is.
And just to perpetuate the "mainstream" trend, and to please our friend
and co-netter, Pfefferkorn, did anyone find Michael Dorris' "Yellow Raft
in Blue Water" as dull and pointless as I did? I hope he and Louise (I
understand they co-write everything) didn't mean this as a book of teen
self-discovery, because it didn't seem to work. In fact, I didn't even
find the characters that interesting. The only thing that I thought was
unique was the shifting point of view, although I wanted to kill Dorris
the first time he shifted, as I was just getting interested in the story
line at that point, then *wham*, we're twenty years back and in someone
else's head.
That was a nice, long, convoluted sentence!
Johnathan Vail
Who is Cormac McCarthy? Is there any connection to the folk singer of
the same name? Are they the same persone or do I have the names
confused?
. . The end of the world doesn't come suddenly and without warning. To
9 3 imagine it does is to be fooled by popular misconception and thus
. fail to recognize the larger picture. The end of the world is an
ongoing process. It starts slowly, imperceptably then blossoms
unnoticed in our very midst until it has engulfed all that there is
and none is free from its spell.
_____
| | Johnathan Vail | n1...@tegra.com
|Tegra| (508) 663-7435 | N1...@448.625-(WorldNet)
----- j...@n1dxg.ampr.org {...sun!sunne ..uunet}!tegra!vail
Barbara Hlavin
>purview to the bourgeois novel and its direct descendants. The SF novel is
>an indirect descendant, being descended not from the field of bourgeois fiction
Believe me: this is simply a request for clarification. What, exactly,
is a "bourgeoise novel," or "bourgeoise fiction"? Are we referring to
the writers, to the readers, to the content or structure of a certain
type of novel? If so, how do we define that "certain type"?
Does William Styron write "bourgeoise" novels? Does Saul Bellow?
Does Isaac Bashevis Singer? Thomas Pynchon? Gail Godwin? Margaret
Atwood? Iris Murdoch? Margaret Drabble? Philip Roth? Raymond
Carver? Laurie Colwin? Marge Piercy? Rita Mae Brown? Tolstoy,
Doestoevsky, Chekov, Kafka, Camus, Sartre? Flannery O'Connor?
(There comes a point when the most conservative element in one's
society is at the same time the most subverisve.) Donald Barthelme?
Twain, Hawthorne, Melville? Henry James? (*Really*?) Joseph
Conrad? Emily Bronte? Hemingway? Grover Cleveland? Norman Mailer?
Nathaniel West? How about Charles Dodgson? (If not, why not? What
could be more brilliantly bourgeoise than this clerical mathematician?)
Thanks, and happy Thanksgiving.
--Barbara
.
my favorite writers
--
Barbara Hlavin Oh I am a cat that likes to
tw...@blake.acs.washington.edu Gallop about doing good.
U Washington JC-21/Seattle 98105 -Stevie Smith
Barbara Hlavin
>>
>>Haven't read him.
>
>You should. I recommend THE DEAD FATHER. I think you'd enjoy it, Jerry.
>
I find his novels disappointing. His real strength was in the short
story form, and my recommendation would be _Good-bye, Dr. Caligari_.
Shortly after _The Dead Father_ was published, Donald's younger brother
Frederick called. "I read your book," he said, "and just wanted you
to know I'm writing a novel, too. I'm going to call it _The Dead
Brother_."
--Barbara
soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty
>> >P.S. Has anyone else read "The Erotic Diaries of Albert Einstein"? I can't
>> >quite decide whether it's highbrow, lowbrow, or middle of the road.
>> I don't care what brow it is, just tell me if it's any good. And who
>> wrote it?
>I had a hard time finishing it, so I didn't. The book provides some unexpected
>insights into the private world of a great man (so there you have your
>redeeming social value, Mr. Helms). But it's a plotless sort of thing, no
>real beginning or end, 1097 pages that you can crack open anywhere and pick
>up the flavor, e.g.
So who's the AUTHOR, for crying out loud? (from the excerpt, it could
be a lot of people--but probably not Einstein).
--
"How could I dance with another/When I saw him standing there" --Tiffany
soren f petersen : **************************
++++++++++++++++ : spet...@peruvian.utah.edu
-+DISCLAIMER: I wouldn't speak for the University of Utah if they paid me.
Nichael Cramer
>Does William Styron write "bourgeoise" novels? Does Saul Bellow?
Yes, yes, no, yes, sometimes, no, yes, yes, definitely, never, no, no,
hardly, yes, you've got to be joking, no, no, yes, often, no, yes, no, yes,
yes, of course, and yes.
>Thanks, and happy Thanksgiving.
Likewise,
NICHAEL
nic...@bbn.com -- deep autumn my neighbor, what does she do?
Cisco's Buddy
} The bourgeois "romance of science" as practiced by, e.g., Shelley, Verne,
} and, yes, Wells was back-grafted onto the SF family tree by overzealous
} historians; the real parents of the SF novel are Burroughs' A PRINCESS
} OF MARS, Gernsback's RALPH 124C41+, and Smith's THE SKYLARK OF SPACE [...]
Actually, I think the point here is precisely the problem of "labelling".
Prior to Uncle Hugo's coinage of "scientifiction" and his founding of
AMAZING STORIES as a magazine devoted to that genre, science fiction
simply did not exist as a distinct genre. To say that the field grew out
of the pulp-adventure field is not quite accurate, as the pulp-adventure
field hadn't really existed for all that long prior to the establishment
of AMAZING STORIES. To be sure, the pulps grew out of the nickel weeklies
and dime novels, but they also are bastard children of the "slicks" like
SCRIBNER'S, COSMOPOLITAN, HARPER'S, and the like. Taking a look at the
magazine ARGOSY, for example, at the beginning of its career as a "slick",
and its death circa 1980 as a testosterone-soaked "men's fiction" magazine
can show how the mighty can indeed fall.
} [...] but quite uninfluenced (with the possible exception of the
} Gernsback) by Wells/Verne/Shelley.
Shelley, I may give you, but I'm not convinced that the field was "quite
uninfluenced" by Verne or Wells, *especially* Verne, whose works -- more
FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON and the Nemo and Robur novels than JOURNEY
TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, et alia -- seem very much to have spawned
the stress on technology in early sf magazine fiction.
re: Kafka and THE METAMORPHOSIS
} The experienced reader of bourgeois/literary/mundane fiction will read
} the transformation as a metaphor primarily, and that decoding will
} in-form their entire reading. That is, everything that Gregor Samsa
} says and does in the rest of the text will be filtered through that
} metaphor as the reader seeks to understand what Kafka is "telling" them.
} The experienced SF reader, on the other hand, will be inclined to look
} for the literal mechanism by which the transformation was accomplished.
} (Indeed, Jerry, your own use of the word "mutated," which, while
} literally accurate is emphatically inappropriate, betrays a degree of
} this protocol.)
If it indicates the direction I'm coming from, I'd say it's more my
comics background than sf background. :-)
That said, need I point out that the very interpretation of the word
"mutated" *in itself* is biased by one's literary background. Because
"mutate" has a more specific meaning in an sf context, Mr. SF Reader is
likely to read something into that word that isn't necessarily there.
The word inherently carries no such jargonistic baggage. Someone who is
not versed in science fiction will likely interpret the word to mean
nothing more than "changed".
And that's really the bottom line. Regardless of whether Kafka intended
the change as pure metaphor or whether there is a literal mechanism for
the change, *the change took place*. The mechanism as such is irrelevant.
What is relevant is how the change affects Samsa.
And that was my point. The parameters that define "science fiction" are
simply a mechanism with no value in and of themselves. The concerns of
a well-told story are the effect of the events in the story on the lives
of the characters, and whether those events take place in Hackensack,
New Jersey or on Barsoom is of no real importance. Samsa's change into
a cockroach is beyond the realm of natural experience, and that places
the story in the "supernatural" realm of fantastic literature whether
we like it or not. It strikes me as just as wrong to deny that the
mechanism is there as it is to say that the mechanism is the primary
concern.
} [...] based on these two things, which they actually *did* see, the
} bourgeois/literary/mundane Establishment's dismissal of SF was neither
} capricious nor jealous; they genuinely saw valueless and potentially
} harmful material.
Agreed. Which makes it all the more compelling to argue against continued
practice of this "intellectual terrorism".
} This is not to say that SF is any less rich in its ability to comment
} on the world-as-such; only that it uses a different set of tools in
} doing so.
I'm more likely to consider this a flaw in the reader than in the genre.
Note that in all of your arguments about the decoding protocols, you
talk not of what the work brings to the reader, but what the reader
brings to the work. The anal-retentive "Joe Phan" may well be obsessed
with taking a literal view of the events of a novel, but many of us
apply the same analytical tools to science fiction as we do to mainstream
fiction, and classification of a work as "science fiction" or "fantasy"
is merely a convenience. Much in the same way a music critic would
differentiate jazz from blues from country-&-western, all the while
approaching the three genres with the same analytical tools.
}}} Donald Bartleme?
}} Haven't read him.
} You should. I recommend THE DEAD FATHER. I think you'd enjoy it, Jerry.
OK, it goes in the stack. May take a while to get to, though. The stack
is huge. :-)
Mike Godwin
>different manner from the way a reader of bourgeois/literary/mundane fiction
>will. They bring to a fictive text a very different set of expectations (or,
>you might say, decoding protocols/conventions/mechanisms).
I just don't think this is true. I know lots of SF readers who read
Kafka's fiction as essentially metaphorical. Even SF readers who know
little about other kinds of fiction tend not to read "The Metamorphosis"
as a kind of SF or fantasy, or so my experience has been.
>The experienced reader of bourgeois/literary/mundane fiction will read the
>transformation as a metaphor primarily, and that decoding will in-form their
>entire reading. That is, everything that Gregor Samsa says and does in the rest
>of the text will be filtered through that metaphor as the reader seeks to
>understand what Kafka is "telling" them.
I take it you are aware that "bourgeois" and "mundane" are
negatively connotative modifiers; if this were sf-lovers, "literary"
would be too.
>The experienced SF reader, on the other hand, will be inclined to look for the
>literal mechanism by which the transformation was accomplished. (Indeed, Jerry,
>your own use of the word "mutated," which, while literally accurate is
>emphatically inappropriate, betrays a degree of this protocol.)
I think this generalization is totally groundless.
>(Note that the use of a literary text in this case prejudices the outcome in
>favor of the experienced reader of bourgeois/literary/mundane fiction. A
>similar case can be made by facing both readers with a fairly advanced SF text.
>In fact, the experienced reader of bourgeois/literary/mundane fiction will be
>quite as unable to find the SF writer's intent as the SF reader was unable to
>find Kafka's.
I think this is a false symmetry. SF is a genre, with genre conventions.
Mainstream fiction is *not* a genre.
I trust readers of so-called "literary" fiction to find "the writer's intent"
(I see you switched to the other side of the intent debate) in SF far
more than I trust SF readers, the majority of whom read uncritically,
to find "the writer's intent" in non-SF.
>(This different set of decodings is what allowed professors and critics of
>bourgeois/literary/mundane fiction for several decades to dismiss SF as a
>"marginal" form [when the standard techniques for decoding bourgeois/literary/
>mundane fictive texts were brought to it, it remained opaque and "therefore"
>unimportant] or even actively harmful to the young mind [since the SF reader
>had learned a different set of protocols, they kept finding strange and
>inappropriate meanings in texts]. Enough has been written about this particular
>era of intellectual terrorism that it deserves no more than parenthetical
>mention, but I want to make this point: based on these two things, which they
>actually *did* see, the bourgeois/literary/mundane Establishment's dismissal of
>SF was neither capricious nor jealous; they genuinely saw valueless and
>potentially harmful material.
Please name three critical works that dismiss SF as a "marginal" form or
as "valueless and potentially harmful material." I read lots of criticism
back when I was in graduate school, but I seem to have missed the
critics and works you are alluding to here.
>(Finally, the above description assumes an "ideal" reader of SF and an "ideal"
>reader of bourgeois/literary/mundane fiction -- that is, one who is quite
>experienced in the reading protocols of their own chosen form and not at all,
>or not significantly, in those of the other. There is nothing to prevent a
>reader from learning how to read both forms.)
I think it is important to note that you have to posit "ideal" readers
to support your theory. If your theory is about "ideal" readers, why not
come up with one that's about real readers? Consider, after all, the
title of this thread.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 |"If the doors of perception were cleansed
mnem...@eff.org | every thing would appear to man as it is,
Electronic Frontier | infinite."
Foundation | --Blake
Betsy Perry
>In article <61...@bbn.BBN.COM> ncr...@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>>tw...@blake.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) writes:
>>>Does William Styron write "bourgeoise" novels? Does Saul Bellow?
>>> ... [other names deleted for space] ...
>
>>Yes, yes, no, yes, sometimes, no, yes, yes, definitely, never, no, no,
>>hardly, yes, you've got to be joking, no, no, yes, often, no, yes, no, yes,
>>yes, of course, and yes.
>
>novelist?
>
>
And if so, just when did he make that trip to Sweden?
A member of the bourgeoisie and enjoying it to the dregs,
Betsy Perry bet...@apollo.hp.com
Apollo Division, Hewlett-Packard, Inc.
(her opinion doesn't matter, matter, matter, matter...)
Richard Caley
In brief: a science fiction/fantasy reader will read
METAMORPHOSIS in a very
different manner from the way a reader of
bourgeois/literary/mundane fiction
will. They bring to a fictive text a very different set of
expectations (or,
you might say, decoding protocols/conventions/mechanisms).
I know you say at the end that you are talking of `ideal' readers of
each genre, but I can't help feeling that these ideals are more than a
little platonic. I don't think anyone, no matter how SF-oriented,
would read Metamorphosis without noticing that it was intended to be
read metaphorically. If nothing else, memories of school English
lessons would tend to rise. Similarly, I don't think that anyone, no
matter how strongly attached to `litterary' fiction could read, say,
Always Coming Home without noticing that Le Guin tries very hard to
describe a workable society in addition to all the litterary trickery
and the intended political message.
It might be nice to remove the covers and see if these hypothetical
litterary/SF readers could consistantly label these books without the
little label attached by the publisher :-).
If there are differences, I suspect they would show up less in how the
book was interpreted than in what criticisms different people would
come up with. I suspect that a dyed in the wool SF reader would be
more likely to criticise Kafka for not providing a (semi-)realistic
frame for his metaphor or Le Guin for inconsistancies in Stone
Telling's description of her society. Similarly, if someone's first
criticism is structural or of the form ``well if he'd made it a worm
instead of an insect it would have better represented...'' I think
we could guess they were at the eng.lit end of the spectrum.
Now there is a distinction between `real readers' and people who just
sit in cliques slinging mud at everyone else. ( maybe 0.001% :-))
Just a bit of free association here. I read an article about Philip
Glass in some newspaper or other (prob Sunday Times) just after
Planet 8 was first performed. I remember a `wonderful' quote which
stoped me dead. I can't get the words correct , but basically he said
that `Lessing doesn't write Science fiction, she uses SF images in a
metaphorical manner'.
Initially I was just incredulous, I though this kind of demarcation
issue dissapeared before I could read. Then it was just incredably
depressing, it looks like we may never get rid of stupid
categorisations like SF/Literature.
Not only does it lead to people making infantile comments about `real
readers' and starting flame wars on the net, but I can't help thinking
that somewhere there is a `real' author who could have written a
wonderful novel if they hadn't been mentally hobbled or a `SF' author
who is too scared to take risks.
Oh, should anyone meet Mr Glass, please tie him to a chair and read,
say, Dying Inside, The Left Hand of Darkness and the New Worlds
anthology at him. :-)
[Aside, `bourgeois/literary/mundane fiction': can't someone someone
come up with a reasonable lable for this genre? It's like
`serious/art/classical/concert music' except that the fans of
the latter don't generally try and label it simply `music' as
a put down to everyone else :-|]
--
r...@uk.ac.ed.cstr Knowledge=Power=Energy=Matter=Mass
- Terry Pratchet `Guards! Guards!'
Michael Hayward
> Who is Cormac McCarthy? Is there any connection to the folk singer of
> confused?
From the "About the author" blurb in Cormac McCarthy's "The Orchard
Keeper" (his first novel):
Cormac McCarthy was born in Rhode Island in 1933 but moved to Knoxville,
Tennessee, at the age of four. ... He finished high school in 1951 and
attended the University of Tennessee the following year. His record there
was so poor that he was asked not to return, and the next year he spent
wandering about the country and working at odd jobs. In 1953 he enlisted
in the Air Force for four years, two of which were spent in Alaska. After
his discharge he returned to Tennessee and ultimately to the University.
He attended there for four years but left without taking a degree. Cormac
McCarthy began work on "The Orchard Keeper" in 1959, but the necessities
of life delayed its completion.
There's no indication of musical talents, so I suspect that they're
different people.
David Palmer
>A great novel must concern itself with the world as we know it, especially the
>rules, laws, principles, or other inherent factors that govern the realm of
>man...
I suppose, therefore, that any novel that takes place in a world we
don't know is not great. I, in particular, do not know the pre-civil
war south, Spain of a few centuries back, the god-infested ancient
Mediteranian etc. (except from what I've read in the works of Twain,
Cervantes, Homer, Virgil etc.). I have much more knowledge of the
world of the year 2000, or what types of things could be going on in
the research labs of Yoydyne, or the strange interplay of Pavlovian
psychology and rocketry during World War II (as described vividly by
the SciFi writer Thomas Pynchon.)
>A serious novel, then, can be viewed as a "case study" of life
>that illustrates the writer's special understanding or analysis of the world.
Does this mean that the setting has to be in this time and this part of
this world?
>If a science fiction novel is to reflect the world, it is forced
>to do so by analogy.
Two points--What's wrong with analogy? All novels are analogies. This
character or that is analogous to this type of person in real life
"Oh yes, So-and-so (a real person) did thus and such, in this book
whatsisname (a fictional character) did this and that, for the following
reason. Did so-and-so have a analogous reason? Why so he did!
you learn something new every day." The exception, of course, is the
historical novel, where all the characters are real, and even then
analogies can be drawn (otherwise, what's the point?)
Second point, varying everything possible is a good way to focus on
invariants. Even when the Sun grows cold, there will be a human
need for redemption. Even when mighty magic armies mass, a lone hero
can make the difference.
>Why does so little science fiction achieve the highest levels of fictional art?
I thought you were arguing that absolutely none does.
>There are a number of problems. First, it is simply too difficult to imagine
>a world that is as complex, ambiguous, and rich in subtlety as the world we
>live in. Most departures from the real world tend to simplify rather than
>clarify it. The greater the departure, the harder it becomes to create a valid
>analogy.
I see--what you are saying is that writing science fiction is too much
of a challenge. I admit that some writers just aren't up to it. Margaret
Atwood's Science Fiction novel "A Handmaid's Tale" created a world which wasn't
much for complexity, ambiguity, richness and subtlety, but the novel's
goals didn't require them. "Gravity's Rainbow" is full of complexity,
ambiguity, richness and subtlety (much of it invented, and not to
be found in the real world) which is what makes it such fun to read.
>A second issue is credibility. If I write a story about Hackensack,
>my readers have the tools of their own experience to assess how faithful I am
>to the place of Hackensack, the people who live there and, even if they've
>never been to Hackensack, how genuine a reflection of the real world my story
>is. Barsoom is a much easier place to write about. My imagination allows me to
>instantly invent anything I need to propel the story forward. If my hero,
>John Carter, dies, I'll just have my wizard, Ras Thavas, do a brain
>regeneration...after leaving my readers grief-stricken for a few chapters.
>Hackensack provides me no such luxury. The real world imposes powerful
>constraints on the scope of fictional narrative. If I write about Hackensack,
>I am held to a higher standard; in fact, the highest standard.
I've never been to Hackensack, or Barsoom. Suppose a critically
acclaimed great novel, set in Hackensack, put Joe's pool hall right
next to Ed's diner. Suppose someone later went to Hackensack and
discovered that they were actually across the streeet from each other.
The novel, therefore, violates its constraints, and thereby falls short
of the standard to which it should be held. It is therefore FANTASY,
not worthy of serious consideration, and should be placed on the shelf
next to the Star Dreck novels. That is your argument, and you are welcome
to use it to decide for yourself whether a novel is any good.
If, however, in the last few chapters, Frodo had decided to put on the
Magic Ring, blast Sargon to smithereens, and set himself up as the new
head honcho of Mordor, then -I- would consider that to be a violation of
the constraints of the story, and I would feel that "The Lord Of The
Rings" was not as good a novel as it should have been.
>A third problem arises from the phenomenon of the market. The science fiction
>readers demand a swift and steady stream of new books to keep them entertained.
>This creates opportunities for talentless writers to fill the pipeline with
>products. This also subverts the talents of good writers, who are tempted to
>write faster than their imaginations can grow. The effect is a vast number of
>novels which are not created from study of the world, but rather from study of
>other novels. The field is left with a few original and interesting works, and
>a great many others which dilute their premises.
Of course, the same thing never happens to non-SF literature, where the
all-too-infrequent novels by Jackie Collins and Tom Clancy and other
giants of literature are awaited breathlessly by academics, who are
priviledged to be in a field where every work is an artistic masterpiece.
>What it comes down to is this: the key problem, and the greatest challenge, in
>fiction is in describing the world of people as we know it. The best writers
>will always attack the greatest challenge. And it's lucky for us they do.
>Speculative fiction is easier to do well, and not as relevant. How could it
>be?
I thought you said that speculative fiction was too challenging to do well.
> How could any of the infinite number of imaginary worlds be as relevant to
>us as our own?
You are 100% right, and from now on I will read only novels set in Pasadena,
1990, since that is my own world.
--
David Palmer
pal...@gap.cco.caltech.edu
...rutgers!cit-vax!gap.cco.caltech.edu!palmer
Francis Muir
Does William Styron write "bourgeoise" novels?
Barbaric spelling. The word is bourgeois.
Un bourgeois gentilhomme
Cisco's Buddy
} A great novel must concern itself with the world as we know it, especially
} the rules, laws, principles, or other inherent factors that govern the
} realm of man. A great writer must seek and, to some meaningful extent,
} harness the wisdom that lies outside of the taxonomy dividing knowledge
} into separate fields. Rather than a rejection of categorical knowledge,
} this is, instead, a subsumption. A serious novel, then, can be viewed as
} a "case study" of life that illustrates the writer's special understanding
} or analysis of the world. It is neither science nor philosophy, but rather
} the higher purpose to which the art of fiction aspires.
Does this mean that FRANKENSTEIN is not a "great novel"?
} Why does so little science fiction achieve the highest levels of fictional
} art? There are a number of problems. First, it is simply too difficult to
} imagine a world that is as complex, ambiguous, and rich in subtlety as the
} world we live in. Most departures from the real world tend to simplify
} rather than clarify it. The greater the departure, the harder it becomes
} to create a valid analogy.
Of course, there's also the point that there's plenty of science fiction
that does not set out to create a different world, but merely an extension
of the one we live in. A second point to be made is that while "so little
science fiction achieve[s] the highest levels of fictional art", the same
can be said of mainstream fiction.
} A second issue is credibility. If I write a story about Hackensack, my
} readers have the tools of their own experience to assess how faithful I
} am to the place of Hackensack, the people who live there and, even if
} they've never been to Hackensack, how genuine a reflection of the real
} world my story is. Barsoom is a much easier place to write about. My
} imagination allows me to instantly invent anything I need to propel the
} story forward. If my hero, John Carter, dies, I'll just have my wizard,
} Ras Thavas, do a brain regeneration...after leaving my readers grief-
} stricken for a few chapters. Hackensack provides me no such luxury.
Neither does Barsoom. A cheat is a cheat is a cheat. To leave your readers
grief-striken for a few chapters, only to resurrect your hero hale and
hearty is a cheat. That it *can* be done does not mean that it *should*
be done.
} The real world imposes powerful constraints on the scope of fictional
} narrative. If I write about Hackensack, I am held to a higher standard;
} in fact, the highest standard.
All fiction is held to the highest standard, whether science fiction or
not. A work that achieves this standard is a great work, whether science
fiction or no. A work that fails to achieve this standard is not a great
work, whether science fiction or no.
} A third problem arises from the phenomenon of the market. The science
} fiction readers demand a swift and steady stream of new books to keep
} them entertained.
As do mainstream readers. Otherwise, science ficton would be the only
genre on the bestsellers lists.
} This creates opportunities for talentless writers to fill the pipeline
} with products. This also subverts the talents of good writers, who are
} tempted to write faster than their imaginations can grow.
All of which is equally true of mainstream fiction.
} The effect is a vast number of novels which are not created from study
} of the world, but rather from study of other novels. The field is left
} with a few original and interesting works, and a great many others which
} dilute their premises.
It's unfair to compare the nadir of the science fiction field with the
zenith of the mainstream and conclude that science fiction hasn't as
much value as the mainstream.
} Speculative fiction is easier to do well, and not as relevant. How could
} it be? How could any of the infinite number of imaginary worlds be as
} relevant to us as our own?
Because it can take us down the "road not taken", which has a value in
itself. A *different* value to be sure, but a value nonetheless. At the
moment I'm reading a novel by Alan Brennert called TIME AND CHANCE which
deals with exactly this idea, the one of the road not taken. A man makes
an important decision in his life, and has lived with that decision for
the past 13 years. "Elsewhere", the same man is living with consequences
of having made a different decision. Through a mechanism that's made
vague (simply because, as Dan'l points out obliquely in his article, the
"how" isn't as important as the "why"), the two manage to come together,
and switch places, as each had regretted his decision and longs for what
the other had.
This is a fundamental longing in human beings. Haven't all of us at times
wondered "Why didn't a do X instead of Y?" or "What would've happened if
I'd chosen A instead of B?" This could be as important as whether to
take a job on the other side of the country, or as trivial as thinking
one wouldn't have been rear-ended by that asshole in the Omni if one had
taken the other route home from work.
I don't know the outcome yet, as I'm only half-way through, so I can't say
whether or not they realize that no life is perfect, that each decision
carries with it its own plusses and minusses. Will each be happier in his
new life? Will each long to go back to his old one? Will they be "stuck"
in their new lives, or go back to their old ones? I don't know. But in
order for Brennert to have his characters arrive at whatever conclusion
they do arrive at, the fantasy mechanism that allows the two Richard
Cochranes to exchange places is a necessary condition.
The human heart has many avenues to explore. Some can be explored using
the "real" world. Some can be explored using a fantasy world. My point is
that one isn't inherently better or worse than the other. If a truth is
arrived at -- even if it's the "truth" of the reader examining his or her
own heart -- then the story has done its work, whether via elements of
the fantastic or not.
olo...@wam.umd.edu
>I put forth the following suggestion to encourage a more
>common basis for the discussion of recently read books:
>That each month there will be a designated book. The book
>will be announced far enough in advance to give even those
>of us with the busiest of schedules a chance to re-read the
>selected work.
>Selection of the book will be by popular vote. I volunteer
>to post monthly announcements of a call for votes, tally
>the votes and announce the final results.
This is a pretty good idea. Only problem I can think of is
that we might end up picking books just for familiarity, rather
than interest. There's probably more Stephen King or Donaldson
fans or the net than Margret Atwood or Doris Lessing fans.
Perhaps there might be some way of insuring that the people
that vote are also those who discuss?
(By the way, I'm not criticizing the King and Donaldson fans. I actually
like King better than I like Lessing. It's just I've found that there's
less to discuss in King...)
Laura Burchard
John Locke
> I suppose, therefore, that any novel that takes place in a world we
> don't know is not great. I, in particular, do not know the pre-civil
> war south, Spain of a few centuries back, the god-infested ancient
> Mediteranian etc.
By "we," I meant humanity. By "the world we know," I meant the world of
people as it does or has existed. If we can know anything about people
that knowledge is contained within the breadth of humanity today and the
span of history.
> I have much more knowledge of the
> world of the year 2000, or what types of things could be going on in
> the research labs of Yoydyne, or the strange interplay of Pavlovian
> psychology and rocketry during World War II (as described vividly by
> the SciFi writer Thomas Pynchon.)
You have no knowledge of the year 2000, since that year is yet to come. You
may speculate about it, but your speculation is guesswork, not knowledge.
You can probably guess right in many details, but it's unlikely that 2000
will be much more different than today than today is from 1980.
> >A serious novel, then, can be viewed as a "case study" of life
> >that illustrates the writer's special understanding or analysis of the world.
> Does this mean that the setting has to be in this time and this part of
> this world?
As above.
> >If a science fiction novel is to reflect the world, it is forced
> >to do so by analogy.
> Two points--What's wrong with analogy?
Nothing. It's the type of analogy that takes most science fiction far off
the point. Science fiction toys with the rules and principles that govern
our lives. It is in precisely this area that the literary novelist does
not try to vary from the truth, as he or she discovers it in the world.
This is not to say that science fiction cannot be entertaining or thought-
provoking, though (damned with faint praise!).
> All novels are analogies.
All novels have analogous aspects. Characters and places may be the same or
similar to actual places, but no great writer can be less than truthful in
the way that people act, and act upon each other.
> Second point, varying everything possible is a good way to focus on
> invariants. Even when the Sun grows cold, there will be a human
> need for redemption. Even when mighty magic armies mass, a lone hero
> can make the difference.
Okay. But if you can strip the fantastic elements off of the story and be
left with a tale that is completely relevant to the real world, then what
claim to accomplishment can science fiction make? Let's take The Brothers
Karamazov and give them blue, acrylic hair. Is that science fiction? All
we've done is garnish the mainstream novel. That would be science fiction of
a very superficial kind, like so many science fiction adventures that can be
fairly described as westerns in outer space. I maintain that to be good
science fiction, the novel must add an arbitrary, speculative element about
the nature of humanity that disqualifies it from literary greatness.
> I've never been to Hackensack, or Barsoom. Suppose a critically
> acclaimed great novel, set in Hackensack, put Joe's pool hall right
> next to Ed's diner. Suppose someone later went to Hackensack and
> discovered that they were actually across the streeet from each other.
No one would care, because it's a trivial detail. If Joe shot Ed with a ray
of pure mental energy, people would care, because it's not realistic. In
that case, the principles that govern human abilities and behavior will have
been ignored.
> The novel, therefore, violates its constraints, and thereby falls short
> of the standard to which it should be held.
The novel is not constrained to perfectly describe the geographical proximity
of two buildings. That task is better performed by a map. The novel is
constrained to be as honest about life as the writer is able.
> If, however, in the last few chapters, Frodo had decided to put on the
> Magic Ring, blast Sargon to smithereens, and set himself up as the new
> head honcho of Mordor, then -I- would consider that to be a violation of
> the constraints of the story, and I would feel that "The Lord Of The
> Rings" was not as good a novel as it should have been.
The Lord of the Rings is a wonderful story. No doubt about it. And as you
point out, it is faithful to its own internal logic. But since its internal
logic is different that the logic of our own world, it will never be classed
with the great novels.
> Of course, the same thing never happens to non-SF literature, where the
> all-too-infrequent novels by Jackie Collins and Tom Clancy and other
> giants of literature are awaited breathlessly by academics, who are
> priviledged to be in a field where every work is an artistic masterpiece.
You're right. The trash end of the spectrum is pretty foul for all forms of
fiction.
> I thought you said that speculative fiction was too challenging to do well.
It can be done well because it doesn't aim as high. The failure of a great
ambition may be more fruitful than the complete success of a modest one.
> You are 100% right, and from now on I will read only novels set in Pasadena,
> 1990, since that is my own world.
I thought everyone down there had their own car. :-)
--
Tom Maddox
>rules, laws, principles, or other inherent factors that govern the realm of
>man. A great writer must seek and, to some meaningful extent, harness the
>wisdom that lies outside of the taxonomy dividing knowledge into separate
>fields.
Ick.
(In fact, no one has a fucking clue what "great" means when applied to
"novel," and perhaps *the* saving grace of writing fiction is that no one knows
the rules.)
--
Tom Maddox
"Satanic Verses is a despicable book that could not have been
written by a person who wished to behave decently and responsibly."
Orson Scott Card
Jean Nowakowski
>
>
> The Lord of the Rings is a wonderful story. No doubt about it. And as you
> point out, it is faithful to its own internal logic. But since its internal
> logic is different that the logic of our own world, it will never be classed
> with the great novels.
>
Where've you been, John? Its already considered one of the classics.
As is _Brave New World_, and _Frankenstein_, and _1984_, and _The
Faerie Queene_. By your logic, how can you explain these?
I don't mean to jump to conclusions (since I don't really know you,
after all). You may be well-read in the classics, mainstream fiction,
novels, etc.; you are at least well spoken. But I don't think you have
read much science fiction at all.
Jean
(kpno!nowa...@noao.edu)
Joann Zimmerman
>Does William Styron write "bourgeoise" novels? Does Saul Bellow?
>[Et cetera ...]
Given your spelling, I think that the logical candidate for true
"bourgeoise" novel is very likely _Madame Bovary_ .
--
"I have measured out my life with coffee spoons ..." T S Eliot
...!cs.utexas.edu!walt!jzimm
John Locke
> The parameters that define "science fiction" are
> simply a mechanism with no value in and of themselves. The concerns of
> a well-told story are the effect of the events in the story on the lives
> of the characters, and whether those events take place in Hackensack,
> New Jersey or on Barsoom is of no real importance.
A great novel must concern itself with the world as we know it, especially the
rules, laws, principles, or other inherent factors that govern the realm of
man. A great writer must seek and, to some meaningful extent, harness the
wisdom that lies outside of the taxonomy dividing knowledge into separate
fields. Rather than a rejection of categorical knowledge, this is, instead, a
subsumption. A serious novel, then, can be viewed as a "case study" of life
that illustrates the writer's special understanding or analysis of the world.
It is neither science nor philosophy, but rather the higher purpose to which
the art of fiction aspires.
Given this definition of literature and its devaluation of taxonomy, one
must proceed cautiously in differentiating science fiction from fiction as
a whole. However, the differentiation cannot be ignored, especially since
the field of science fiction itself promotes the distinction. It was born
with the promise of providing sensations and experiences not to be found in
other forms of fiction. So therein lies the fundamental break with the world as
we know it. If a science fiction novel is to reflect the world, it is forced
to do so by analogy.
Why does so little science fiction achieve the highest levels of fictional art?
There are a number of problems. First, it is simply too difficult to imagine
a world that is as complex, ambiguous, and rich in subtlety as the world we
live in. Most departures from the real world tend to simplify rather than
clarify it. The greater the departure, the harder it becomes to create a valid
analogy.
A second issue is credibility. If I write a story about Hackensack,
my readers have the tools of their own experience to assess how faithful I am
to the place of Hackensack, the people who live there and, even if they've
never been to Hackensack, how genuine a reflection of the real world my story
is. Barsoom is a much easier place to write about. My imagination allows me to
instantly invent anything I need to propel the story forward. If my hero,
John Carter, dies, I'll just have my wizard, Ras Thavas, do a brain
regeneration...after leaving my readers grief-stricken for a few chapters.
Hackensack provides me no such luxury. The real world imposes powerful
constraints on the scope of fictional narrative. If I write about Hackensack,
I am held to a higher standard; in fact, the highest standard.
A third problem arises from the phenomenon of the market. The science fiction
readers demand a swift and steady stream of new books to keep them entertained.
This creates opportunities for talentless writers to fill the pipeline with
products. This also subverts the talents of good writers, who are tempted to
write faster than their imaginations can grow. The effect is a vast number of
novels which are not created from study of the world, but rather from study of
other novels. The field is left with a few original and interesting works, and
a great many others which dilute their premises.
What it comes down to is this: the key problem, and the greatest challenge, in
fiction is in describing the world of people as we know it. The best writers
will always attack the greatest challenge. And it's lucky for us they do.
Speculative fiction is easier to do well, and not as relevant. How could it
be? How could any of the infinite number of imaginary worlds be as relevant to
us as our own?
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
> rules, laws, principles, or other inherent factors that govern the realm of
> man. A great writer must seek and, to some meaningful extent, harness the
> wisdom that lies outside of the taxonomy dividing knowledge into separate
> fields. Rather than a rejection of categorical knowledge, this is, instead, a
> subsumption. A serious novel, then, can be viewed as a "case study" of life
> that illustrates the writer's special understanding or analysis of the world.
> It is neither science nor philosophy, but rather the higher purpose to which
> the art of fiction aspires.
Realizing full well these are not novels, I would still contend that any
definition that seems to rule out such works as Dante's INFERNO or the Bible as
a great work of literature must have some problems. On a different level, I
would observe that every novel differs from our world in some way (or it
wouldn't be a novel--it would be a history book). One can argue about the
degree of differentiation necessary to make a novel science fiction or fantasy
from now until Doomsday without resolving the issue.
> Given this definition of literature and its devaluation of taxonomy, one
> must proceed cautiously in differentiating science fiction from fiction as
> a whole. However, the differentiation cannot be ignored, especially since
> the field of science fiction itself promotes the distinction. It was born
> with the promise of providing sensations and experiences not to be found in
> other forms of fiction. So therein lies the fundamental break with the world as
> we know it. If a science fiction novel is to reflect the world, it is forced
> to do so by analogy.
Well, given this definition that you have just given, perhaps, but if we don't
agree on the definition, we're not going to make any progress. In other words,
if you say that literature by definition must be about the real world and
cannot be science fiction/fantasy, you've stacked the deck and you can deal me
out.
> Why does so little science fiction achieve the highest levels of fictional art?
For the same reason that so little fiction of any sort achieves the highest
levels of fictional art.
> There are a number of problems. First, it is simply too difficult to imagine
> a world that is as complex, ambiguous, and rich in subtlety as the world we
> live in. Most departures from the real world tend to simplify rather than
> clarify it. The greater the departure, the harder it becomes to create a valid
> analogy.
True. All this means is that science fiction authors have set themselves a
harder task. This does not mean that they must of necessity fail. Many
mainstream authors try to write novels set in the Old West, or China, or other
real places that they have never visited--and fail miserably. Does this mean
no author should write about any place more than five miles from his house?
> A second issue is credibility. If I write a story about Hackensack,
> my readers have the tools of their own experience to assess how faithful I am
> to the place of Hackensack, the people who live there and, even if they've
> never been to Hackensack, how genuine a reflection of the real world my story
> is. Barsoom is a much easier place to write about. My imagination allows me to
> instantly invent anything I need to propel the story forward. If my hero,
> John Carter, dies, I'll just have my wizard, Ras Thavas, do a brain
> regeneration...after leaving my readers grief-stricken for a few chapters.
Do that and you've written what is technically termed "bad science fiction."
(In SIR GAWAIN AND THE GREEN KNIGHT, another "classic," the Green Knight gets
decapitated and walks around with his head under his arm. Does this make it a
bad story?)
> Hackensack provides me no such luxury. The real world imposes powerful
> constraints on the scope of fictional narrative. If I write about Hackensack,
> I am held to a higher standard; in fact, the highest standard.
One might also claim you've taken the easy way out. In any case, Dante never
visited Hell, and Carlos Fuentes certainly never visited anything he described
in TERRA NOVA. (And is Shakespeare really a worse author because he gave
Bohemia a seacoast?)
By your argument, history is even greater than fiction, because it must be even
more "accurate" to the real world. Since this does not seem to be your
intention, one must conclude that all that really matters is how well the
author does the task he sets out to do. A well-realized book about life in the
year 2004 is better than a crappy novel about Hackensack, and that's the long
and short of it.
> A third problem arises from the phenomenon of the market. The science fiction
> readers demand a swift and steady stream of new books to keep them entertained.
Last time I checked, mainstream readers were doing likewise, or Charles Dickens
would still be a best-seller. In fact, science fiction backlists are usually
much more substantial, and have more continued sales, than mainstream backlists.
> This creates opportunities for talentless writers to fill the pipeline with
> products. This also subverts the talents of good writers, who are tempted to
> write faster than their imaginations can grow. The effect is a vast number of
> novels which are not created from study of the world, but rather from study of
> other novels. The field is left with a few original and interesting works, and
> a great many others which dilute their premises.
Can you say Harold Robbins? Or any number of other mainstream writers whom
this description fits? Is the endless stream of John Jakes historical novels
really better than anything science fiction has produced? Really?!
> What it comes down to is this: the key problem, and the greatest challenge, in
> fiction is in describing the world of people as we know it. The best writers
> will always attack the greatest challenge. And it's lucky for us they do.
> Speculative fiction is easier to do well, and not as relevant. How could it
> be? How could any of the infinite number of imaginary worlds be as relevant to
> us as our own?
You may think this is the greatest challenge. I may think the greatest
challenge is defining a new world. (I'm not saying I do, mind you.)
Perhaps the greatest challenge is to write speculative fiction and convince
literary snobs that it's literature. Borges, Garcia Marquez, and many others
have done this. You just weren't paying attention.
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or e...@mtgzy.att.com
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
-Edmund Burke
David Goldfarb
>If, however, in the last few chapters, Frodo had decided to put on the
>head honcho of Mordor, then -I- would consider that to be a violation of
>the constraints of the story, and I would feel that "The Lord Of The
>Rings" was not as good a novel as it should have been.
> David Palmer
I cannot resist pointing out that Frodo did in fact decide to
do exactly this. (He was thwarted by events beyond his control, but the
intention *was* there.)
David Goldfarb gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (Insert standard disclaimer)
"LUCK? You're talking to the ORACLE, boy.
Luck is for people who can't handle FATE."
SD558F Course - GD Peterson
I recently read Zamiatin's WE, a novel set the world of the One State.
Zamiatin was a russian writer, involved in the revolution, but a critic
of Communism. The novel WE explores some of the problems of Communism/
Socialism. It was banned in the USSR. The author escaped the Gulag, due
to the influence of Tolstoy, but he was exiled from the USSR
and died, alone in France.
The novel is 'written' by an space engineer, the builder of a space ship, and
it chronicles his life as his passion is awoken in the mechanized world
of the one state.
The prose flows superbly. The mathematical descriptions especially juve.
However there are several translations. The Dutton one is best, follwed
by the Penguin. Avoid all older translations.
WE is both a SF book and a great book.
Garry\
gdpe...@watserv1.waterloo.edu
Pynchon - Conrad - Nakasone - Myurakami - Kafka - Ballard - Heller - Camus
Richard Caley
A great novel must concern itself with the world as we know it,
especially the
rules, laws, principles, or other inherent factors that govern the realm of
man.
Why? I'm not being sacastic, I am interested in how you came to this,
not at all obvious, conclusion.
Can no novel which deals with the internal world of an individual be a
`Great Novel'? Such a novel does not concern itself with the world as
we know it, but with the world as the central character sees it.
Similarly, Metamorphasis was mentioned in one of the branches of this
thread. Is it forever barred from consideration as a great book
because it deals with an imposible as a metaphore for the all too
familiar?
I don't think any book I own could come under your rule, is everything
I read (e.g. Lessing, Eco, Kafka, Calvino, Wolf, Le Guin...)
worthless? Should I dump it all and go in search of... what? Hang on
lets check later in your article to make sure I have your criteria
right...
A serious novel, then, can be viewed as a "case study" of life
that illustrates the writer's special understanding or analysis of
the world.
Ok, thet eliminates Dickens (thank goodness :-) ), too much caracature, he
is certainly never trying to present a case study.
Given this definition of literature and its devaluation of taxonomy, one
must proceed cautiously in differentiating science fiction from fiction as
a whole. However, the differentiation cannot be ignored, especially since
the field of science fiction itself promotes the distinction. It was born
with the promise of providing sensations and experiences not to be found in
other forms of fiction.
And what form of fiction is not born to provide something not found in
other forms? It is more or less a tautology, if it wasn't intended
to provide something new it would not be a new form.
If a science fiction novel is to reflect the world, it is forced
to do so by analogy.
All novels must reflect the world by analogy. I know no one named
Karenina I am unlikely to be called on to be an interpreter at a UN
conference, etc.
Why does so little science fiction achieve the highest levels of
fictional art?
Do you have any evidence that it is `worse' in this respect than any
other class of literature? Do suburban adultery novels or exorcises in
social commentary have a higher proportion of `the highest levels of
fictional art', whatever that may be?
There are a number of problems. First, it is simply too difficult
to imagine
a world that is as complex, ambiguous, and rich in subtlety as the world we
live in. Most departures from the real world tend to simplify rather than
clarify it. The greater the departure, the harder it becomes to
create a valid
analogy.
However this is a none issue. All writers must simplify. If Tolstoi
hadn't simplified the world massively War and Peace would not be the
shelf bender we know and love, but something which NASA would be
launching probes to.
The `highest levels of fictional art', to the extent that the concept
makes sense, lie in choosing the simplifications.
A second issue is credibility. If I write a story about Hackensack,
my readers have the tools of their own experience to assess how
faithful I am
to the place of Hackensack, the people who live there and, even if they've
never been to Hackensack, how genuine a reflection of the real
world my story
is. Barsoom is a much easier place to write about.
I suggest you try it, it is harder than you seem to think to create a
self consistant and persuasive world.
My imagination
allows me to
instantly invent anything I need to propel the story forward. If my hero,
John Carter, dies, I'll just have my wizard, Ras Thavas, do a brain
regeneration...after leaving my readers grief-stricken for a few chapters.
Hackensack provides me no such luxury.
First, it is important to note that Burroughs was not writing science
fiction. John Carter's adventures are fantasies, or romances in the
older meaning of the term. As such they live or die by a different set
of criteria from those relevant to a straight narrative, SF or
otherwise.
Second, while it is true that in a fantasy you may bring in whatever
you like, what you bring in you must work in. A fantasy is an exorcise
in symbolic literature, if you will pardon the rather waffly phrase,
if Carter gets his brain regrown then this had better fit into the
overall form of the fantasy or it will stick out like a sore thumb. Is
a death and regeneration theme going to fit in? At a more mundane
level, if JC gets a brain regeneration, you can't later kill off his
best friend.
Thirdly, absolutely nothing prevents you from doing the same in
Hackensack. You have to call Ras Thavas Mr Thimblethorp the renound
consultant brain surgeon and brain regeneration becomes a 10 hour
operation with the machine which goes `ping', but the hero is ready to
fight another day afterwards just the same.
A third problem arises from the phenomenon of the market. The
science fiction
readers demand a swift and steady stream of new books to keep them
entertained.
This creates opportunities for talentless writers to fill the pipeline with
products.
Another non-SF problem. Walk into your nearest book shop. The number
of SF novels produced to fill the market is dwarfed by the number of
non-SF books produced for the same reason. For every Foster their is
an Archer and three Cooksons.
What it comes down to is this: the key problem, and the greatest
challenge, in
fiction is in describing the world of people as we know it.
As you have probably worked out by now, I consider this to be a
non-issue.
Just as a reality check, I have rooted around on my desk and found the
fiction I happen to have here, how do these rate by your criteria.
1) The Memoirs of a Survivor by Doris Lessing
2) Invisible Cities by Italio Calvino
3) The Complete Yes Minister by Jonathan Lynn and Anthony Jay
Of the three only Yes Minister is set in the `real world', even there
the characters are rather caracatured. `Memoirs' is straight forward
hard core SF. `Cities' is, well, Calvino (well, you categorise it! I
hate these litle boxes).
I think the only book I have which might pass your criteria is
``Aspects of Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space-Time'' by
S.A. Fulling, but I doubt it will ever replace Crime and Punishment on
Eng Lit syllabi :-)
Actually I suppose if connection to reality is to be a criterion, you
might be best looking at, say, pre 1970 SF. Some of them made the
correct predictions and are likely to be more closely tied to the real
world of 1990 than an 1830s `realistic' novel. Bug Jack Barron comes
to mind.
--
r...@uk.ac.ed.cstr Bow to its chemistry,
Beguiling with the shadow play.
Why should their mimicry,
That sugars their decline.
- Danielle Dax `The Spoil Factor'
Richard Caley
In article <16...@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jx...@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
> [go read it]
Ick.
I hate you Tom :-).
I spend 150 lines and you get it down pat in one line...
--
r...@uk.ac.ed.cstr Consenually Perceived Reality: What gets published
in the tabloids.
Chuck Turner
>rules, laws, principles, or other inherent factors that govern the realm of
>man.
I'm sorry, but I do not accept your basic statement as you have presented it.
I must admit that I am not well versed in modern fiction (having chosen to study
past masters, and limit my modern reading to SF and a few novelists in more
conventional fields), but I have never come across a novel in one of the
conventional areas that transported me, or caught me up in its tale, as have so
many SF or Fantasy or Horror novels.
Len Deighton and LeCarre came the closest, but still did not affect me in the
same way as Tolkien or Heinlein or Lovecraft, or numerous others. If, as you
say 'A great novel must concern itself with the world as we know it', then to
me 'a great novel' must not necessarily be an ENJOYABLE novel. And if not then
your great novel is not worth reading.
>If a science fiction novel is to reflect the world, it is forced
>to do so by analogy.
Why force it to reflect the world? Some of the most incredible SF novels and
short stories I have ever read did not happen on Earth or some colony of Earth,
or even involve humans or human ideals. The ability of the author to make the
reader feel for a protagonist who shows no human traits that we can identify
with is incredible. I offer, as examples, such authors as Italo Calvino,
Frederik Pohl, Theodore Sturgeon.
>A third problem arises from the phenomenon of the market. The science fiction
>readers demand a swift and steady stream of new books to keep them entertained.
Apparently, there are no talentless authors in the other fields of literature...
interesting. Have you ever read a Mack Bolan book, or how about ANY romance?
>What it comes down to is this: the key problem, and the greatest challenge, in
>fiction is in describing the world of people as we know it.
I do not see how describing the real world is a challenge. If you describe a
small New England town (as King so often does), you rely on the reader's general
knowledge to help you out. You don't have to describe everything, because his
mind can fill in what you don't describe. If, however, you want to describe
an underground city on the moon (as Heinlein does in _The_Moon_is_a_Harsh_
Mistress_) you can't rely on the reader knowing anything about your setting.
Nothing is taken for granted, everything is new and fantastic. You can't just
go and describe everything or it comes off sounding like an entry in the
encyclopaedia. As I see it, it takes more talent to tell a believable tale set
in the realm of SF than in the real world.
>Speculative fiction is easier to do well, and not as relevant. How could it
>be? How could any of the infinite number of imaginary worlds be as relevant to
>us as our own?
Why worry about relevancy? How does making the setting of the story relevant
to me increase my enjoyment of it? I enjoyed _A_Tale_of_Two_Cities_. The
world of that time is different from mine, as are the cultures and morals. My
world has nothing in common with the one in the book, except that we are of the
same race. Even when it was written, it described events 75 years in the past.
It it still made Dickens money.
Chuck
Michael J. Hennebry
<In brief: a science fiction/fantasy reader will read METAMORPHOSIS in a very
<different manner from the way a reader of bourgeois/literary/mundane fiction
<will. They bring to a fictive text a very different set of expectations (or,
<you might say, decoding protocols/conventions/mechanisms).
<bourgeois/literary/mundane fiction for several decades to dismiss SF as a
<"marginal" form [when the standard techniques for decoding bourgeois/literary/
<mundane fictive texts were brought to it, it remained opaque and "therefore"
<unimportant] or even actively harmful to the young mind [since the SF reader
<had learned a different set of protocols, they kept finding strange and
Hmmm. I wonder what the b/l/m folks would think of Asimov's "It's a Wonderful
Day".
<era of intellectual terrorism that it deserves no more than parenthetical
<mention, but I want to make this point: based on these two things, which they
<actually *did* see, the bourgeois/literary/mundane Establishment's dismissal of
<SF was neither capricious nor jealous; they genuinely saw valueless and
<potentially harmful material.
Which proves that SF has at least some value.
<
<(It is also worth noting that this difference in decoding protocols is why many
<SF readers find bourgeois/literary/mundane fiction boring and contentless; they
<bring to it the reading protocols of SF, in which the surfaces are far more
<literal [e.g., if a man changes into a cockroach, the question is not "what does
<this mean?" but "who has done this and why?"]. This is not to say that SF is
Especially since the average reader can tell you that it means the victim
should beware of DDT and the health department. It also means that his wife
will not make love to him.
--
Mike henn...@plains.NoDak.edu
"The best is the best, though a hundred judges have declared it so."
Arthur Quiller-Couch
Michael J. Hennebry
>may speculate about it, but your speculation is guesswork, not knowledge.
>You can probably guess right in many details, but it's unlikely that 2000
>will be much more different than today than today is from 1980.
You have no *certain* knowldge of 1980. For all you know the world was
created last Tuesday. If the year 2000 comes, it is likely that the
sun will "rise" and set several times. This is more certain than much
of history, even that learned as fact in grade school.
>Okay. But if you can strip the fantastic elements off of the story and be
>left with a tale that is completely relevant to the real world, then what
>claim to accomplishment can science fiction make? Let's take The Brothers
Try Niven's A Gift from Earth and Asimov's The Stars Like Dust.
Sridhar Dasari
been recommended to me by fellow net-users. If you would like more
information on the book, I gave the email address with every suggestion.
In some cases, I've also included the comments about the book by the
person who made the recommendation.
Enjoy.
Sridhar H. Dasari
______________________________________________________________
je...@techbook.com (Jeff Danforth):
"Parting the Waters" by Taylor Branch
It's a combination of American history and biography on
Martin Luther King. It won the Pulitzer Prize, and it is extremely well
written - and fascinating.
Charlie Chaplin's autobiography
Autobiography of Ben Franklin
Wayne V. Citrin <cit...@soglio.Colorado.EDU>
memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman
reviews of recently reissued by Library of Congress copies say
: interesting, worthwhile, well-written.
f...@whittaker.rice.edu (Fiona Oceanstar):
"Oscar Wilde" : Richard Ellmann biography,
highly recommended;
osm...@emx.utexas.edu (Ron Morgan):
"I Married Adventure", by Osa Johnson. 1923, I believe. This will most likely
be out of print, but most libraries should have it. I found a copy in a used
bookstore. Osa and Martin Johnson got married and spent many years in
Africa back in the 1910's and 20's, shot the first motion pictures ever made
of African animals, and most places they went, they were the first white
people ever seen in that area. They saw the "old" Africa; herds of elephant
30,000 strong, etc.
"Hunter", by John A. Hunter. Also probably out of print, but I'm not sure. J.A.
Hunter was one of the greatest of the "great white hunters." He got started
by protecting a railroad construction gang from marauding lions which, back
then, were as common as rabbits and killed *hundreds* of people. He describes
massive safaris with all kinds of people; rajahs, movie stars, etc. and some
incredible experiences with dangerous game. I think it's still out in
paperback.
Brad Crittenden <crit...@cs.unc.edu>:
"Agony and Ecstasy": Irving Stone biography.
life and work of Michaelangelo. well researched, written as novel.
Irving Stone did many other biographies, including Van Gogh and
biography of 23 losing presidential candidates.
William B Bradley <bra...@brahms.udel.edu>
"A Man Named Peter"
land...@euclid.math.colostate.edu (Steve Landsburg):
"Son of the Morning Star" by Connell.
Biography of Custer; fascinating, hilarious, educational, gripping.
highest recommendation.
Dylan Thomas: biographies by Paul Ferris, Constantine Fitzgibbon
both excellent.
"Dylan Thomas in America" by John Malcolm Brinnin (fascinating)
"Caitlin" by Mrs. Brinnin.
Marianna Wright <jane...@u.washington.edu>:
"The Road from Coorain" Jill Ker Conway autobiography.
She grew up on sheepstation in Australian outback, and ended up as
first woman president of Smith college.
gives good sense of what living in Australia`s vast deserts is really like.
va...@tegra.com:
"Surely you are joking..." Feynman
"Why do you care what other people think" (or something like that) ibid
"Good does't live and theres no evil here, only this great power we
misunderstand" Dinosaur jr.
fire...@oak.circa.ufl.edu
>In article <16...@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil>, jx...@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes...
>
>} .... Barsoom is a much easier place to write about. My
>} imagination allows me to instantly invent anything I need to propel the
>} story forward. If my hero, John Carter, dies, I'll just have my wizard,
>} Ras Thavas, do a brain regeneration...after leaving my readers grief-
>} stricken for a few chapters. Hackensack provides me no such luxury.
>
>Neither does Barsoom. A cheat is a cheat is a cheat. To leave your readers
>grief-striken for a few chapters, only to resurrect your hero hale and
>hearty is a cheat. That it *can* be done does not mean that it *should*
>be done.
As a person who has read all eleven of the John Carter of Mars trilogy, the
first ten at least seven times each, it occurs to me (as I sit unnecessarily
bristling at an imagined attack at good old ERB...) that there is something
not completely understood about "realism" and "science _fiction_" ...in any
fiction you get, *something* is invented. I don't deny that. If John is
inferring that _all_ sci-fi literature has the horrible "predictable undying
hero" syndrome, I would like to disagree. By way of example, I offer the
second (and last) book of the _Chronicles of Corum_ by Michael Moorcock, in
which the hero dies after the world is saved. Or _The Elfstones of Shannara_,
in which the female lead turns into a tree, thereby losing mortal, human
existance....it would have been easier in the latter, and more predictable,
for the female lead to have found a way out of destiny and lived happily ever
after with the male lead. She didn't. There are more, but my memory is bad,
and I have no references with me for titles/authors.
Then again, ... what is the purpose of sci-fi, and what is the purpose
of "bourgois" lit.? Generalizations about either will meet with a
counterexample. And we can't pretend there aren't crossovers. I read a book a
couple years ago of *science fiction* by Edgar Allan Poe. It was a collection
of short stories, with a title something like _S is for Space_ . It was true
sci-fi, but it was also true literature (what I read). If we are trying to set
boundaries, we will be defeated. If we are trying to NOT classify anything,
we will be confused as heck AND defeated. So,....knowing this, what are we
arguing about? If you can't totally separate sci-fi from bourgois/literary/
classic literature, how are we supposed to argue that one may be different or
better than the other? There *is* no such animal!!!!
----------end of what seems to have become a rant------------
Shauna Iannone "Opinions? Sure, I've got 'em,....
University of Florida but I'd rather play Devil's
Gainesville, FL Advocate and learn more."
Jack Campin
> [ The Lord of the Rings is ] already considered one of the classics.
I'm sure Barbara Cartland is too. Depends on who's doing the considering,
doesn't it?
> As is _Brave New World_, and _Frankenstein_, and _1984_, and _The
> Faerie Queene_. By your logic, how can you explain these?
Odd selection, and Frankenstein is the only one I'd back for continued
popularity 100 years from now.
In particular, does anyone outside the English departments of second-rate
colleges get anything much out of The Faerie Queene? It may have been an
effective piece of political hack writing in its time, but the culture at
large has consigned it to oblivion - would even the most pretentiously
erudite author or politician try an allusion to any of its characters,
quote so much as a line from it or make use of its argument for any purpose
at all? Compared with other literary/political axe-grinders, from Zola
back to Swift to Rabelais to Suetonius to Aristophanes, Spenser hasn't
lasted too well.
--
-- Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank
Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland 041 339 8855 x6044 work 041 556 1878 home
JANET: ja...@cs.glasgow.ac.uk BANG!net: via mcsun and ukc FAX: 041 330 4913
INTERNET: via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL UUCP: ja...@glasgow.uucp
fire...@oak.circa.ufl.edu
>I recently read Zamiatin's WE, a novel set the world of the One State.
Yay! Someone else has read this!!!! I read it in a Soviet Lit. course,
and enjoyed it immensely. Even after picking it apart in literary discussion.
Supposedly (rumor from a professor) George Orwell may have obtained a
number of his ideas for 1984 from this novel.
>Zamiatin was a russian writer, involved in the revolution, but a critic
>of Communism. The novel WE explores some of the problems of Communism/
>Socialism. It was banned in the USSR. The author escaped the Gulag, due
>to the influence of Tolstoy, but he was exiled from the USSR
>and died, alone in France.
Not just communism/socialism, but totalitarianism in general. Now that I think
of it, _Logan's Run_ may have obtained a lot of ideas from _WE_.
>The novel is 'written' by an space engineer, the builder of a space ship, and
>it chronicles his life as his passion is awoken in the mechanized world
>of the one state.
Enlightening, considering the trends of the industrial world today,....
>The prose flows superbly. The mathematical descriptions especially juve.
>However there are several translations. The Dutton one is best, follwed
>by the Penguin. Avoid all older translations.
The prose is excellent! Descriptions are vivid, and significant, but not just
dripping words for the sake of words. The whole thing is told from the thoughts
of the main character.
>WE is both a SF book and a great book.
Agreed.
>Garry\
>gdpe...@watserv1.waterloo.edu
Shauna Iannone
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL
Ken Braithwaite
Very flip David, but you missed his points.(This is quite clear from your post:
he states a position and goes on to justify it. But you always seize only the
statement of the thesis, as if the argument that followed did not exist.)
The main point was: the "highest art" is concerned with subjects X, Y,Z and
so on. Details about galactic space warps -- however engaging -- do not
(it was argued) further the analysis of X, Y or Z. SF devotes a LOT of time
and pages to galactic space warps: from a "high art" point of view this is
waste (it was argued).
If I were inclined to defend SF I'd challenge the assump-
tion that fantasy cannot illuminate X, Y and Z WHATEVER THEY ARE ACCORDING
TO ANY DEFINITION. After all, the Divine Comedy, the Rime of the Ancient
Marriner, the Odyssey,and Paradise Lost are all fantastical. And insightful
into any letter of the alphabet!
Ken Braithwaite Ken.Bra...@Waterllo.NCR.COM
You might say his access to a gun saved some lives.
-- Phil Ngai on talk.politics.guns Sept 1990, referring to Marc Lepine
who shot 14 women at L'Ecole Poytechnique in Montreal
Michael Turner
> > The science fiction readers demand a swift and steady stream
> > of new books to keep them entertained.
> > This creates opportunities for talentless writers to fill the
> > pipeline with products. This also subverts the talents of good
> > writers, who are tempted to write faster than their
>
> Of course, the same thing never happens to non-SF literature, where
> the all-too-infrequent novels by Jackie Collins and Tom Clancy and
> other giants of literature are awaited breathlessly by academics,
> masterpiece.
>
> > How could any of the infinite number of imaginary worlds be as
> > relevant to us as our own?
>
> You are 100% right, and from now on I will read only novels set in
> Pasadena, 1990, since that is my own world.
>
I don't think it's as simple as either of you are making it out to be. That
last comment made me think instantly of Philip K. Dick. PKD could start a
novel out in Pasadena and end it on Mars. Part of the appeal of his novels
for me is that they are often rooted in the S.F. Bay Area, where I live.
But I don't think that appeal is for natives alone--it's the seedy, weedy
little details he foraged from his immediate experience that give his
novels their pungency and spice.
PKD wrote for the market (i.e., to eat), as did Dostoyevsky. Some portion
of the voluminous output of each was trash. Perhaps if they had been well
off, they would have written less--or more; better--or maybe worse. Who
knows?
When I go to the small bookstore in my neighborhood, I find lots of 300-page
volumes of SF/fantasy that are Book N of the Saga of the Spuuw. The few
(if any) paperbacks in print written by PKD seem to have been chosen at
random--i.e., they are rarely his best, and in fact are seldom very good at
all. They sell for the same reason they sold when first published--pimply
kids are selecting entertainment at random. (I speak here as a 34-year-old
who still gets the occasional zit, OK?)
When I go the larger used-book stores in my town, I find a similar selection
of his books are also available used. When I ask the clerks if they have seen
any of the ones I have liked, or that I have heard recommended, they laugh
and say, "Those seldom come through here, and they get snapped up instantly
when they do."
The output of both Dostoyevsky and PKD grew faster than their imaginations.
Both wrote under duress, both were drowning in a sea of mediocrity, both
wrote from hellish personal experience in the real world, both sold themselves
short. To me, they are both great writers.
Michael Turner
tur...@tis.llnl.gov
Fiona Oceanstar
>} The bourgeois "romance of science" as practiced by, e.g., Shelley, Verne,
>} and, yes, Wells was back-grafted onto the SF family tree by overzealous
>} historians; the real parents of the SF novel are Burroughs' A PRINCESS
>} OF MARS, Gernsback's RALPH 124C41+, and Smith's THE SKYLARK OF SPACE [...]
This is great stuff! Not being a regular reader of rec.arts.sf-lovers, I
had no idea we had such literary historians on board. Do you mind if I
ask a few questions, Dan'l? (Or are there any others who know this field?)
1) What do you mean by "bourgeois"? That word has so many different
connotations--aesthetic, historical, political, sociological--I need more
info to understand your use of it.
2) Why is "romance of science" in quotes? Is that a term used in the
history of science fiction? What are the characteristics of a "romance
of science"?
3) What about _The_Princess_of_Mars_, for example, makes it more of a
"real" science fiction novel than, say, _The_Time_Machine_? (I'm not
disputing your claim at all, Dan'l, I just don't know how you got there.)
* * *
Jerry "jayembee" Boyajian also has a historian's overview:
>Actually, I think the point here is precisely the problem of "labelling".
>Prior to Uncle Hugo's coinage of "scientifiction" and his founding of
>AMAZING STORIES as a magazine devoted to that genre, science fiction
>simply did not exist as a distinct genre. To say that the field grew out
>of the pulp-adventure field is not quite accurate, as the pulp-adventure
>field hadn't really existed for all that long prior to the establishment
>of AMAZING STORIES. To be sure, the pulps grew out of the nickel weeklies
>and dime novels, but they also are bastard children of the "slicks" like
>SCRIBNER'S, COSMOPOLITAN, HARPER'S, and the like. [...]
Once again, fascinating stuff! Some questions, for Jerry or whomever:
1) My father used to read dime novels in the late 30's. What genre
label(s) would we give them, if we read them today? Also: when did
they actually cost a dime?
2) What is the pulp-adventure field like today? Are there any authors
writing in it who are high enough quality for Ms. Pfeffercorn?
3) Will you join the thread on labels and categories? :-)
--Fiona Oceanstar
fire...@oak.circa.ufl.edu
>
> <FLAME ON>
>
> This might be considered a flame by all you net news
>watchers so feel free to remonstrate if I'm not following
>the network protocal BUT I've noticed now to the point of
>irritation that the majority of books or movies discussed on
>the network are science fiction or fantasy. Does anyone out
>there read novels? I mean, the occassional Jane Austen, or
>Kafka? I'm not pretending I'm a literary snob but I have to
>pour over hundreds of articles to get to something I've
>actually enjoyed reading before. ....
.......stuff deleted...............
>Is anybody out there?
> K. Pf.
>
> <FLAME OFF>
Point taken.
And very true.
I plead guilty, and of accordance.
Thank you for voicing a concern that has existed without voice heretofore.
In search of literary discussion,
Shauna Iannone
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL
Disclaimer: ATM is evil. Bad editors are just electronic demonspawn that
interfere with brevity and clarity. George Bush would look very bad in a
pink tutu. That is all.
John Locke
> Does this mean that FRANKENSTEIN is not a "great novel"?
It's a good example to test the definition against. The only fantastic
element, as I recall, is that the creation is assembled from the body parts
of different people but has its own consciousness. Most of the novel concerns
its anguish about being a creation of man rather than of God, hence different,
and perhaps without a soul. The book has more to do with the nature of
humanity than it does with the science involved in assembling the creation.
The fantastic element could as easily be defined as a literary device allow-
ing a question to be posed rather than as a scientific speculation. I imagine
most histories of science fiction would mention it briefly, if at all, and
then only as an antecedent form. But to return to your question, it is a
well-written and interesting story, but the fantastic element may be a limiting
factor. If FRANKENSTEIN is science fiction, then the whole argument of the
novel is predicated on a fact, the creation, that has not been and possibly
cannot be accomplished, making the argument an intellectual exercise and of
no compelling relevance. If the creation is just a literary device giving
the author a character whose narration expresses the feeling of Godlessness,
then I don't think it fits well into the science fiction field.
> Of course, there's also the point that there's plenty of science fiction
> that does not set out to create a different world, but merely an extension
> of the one we live in.
Certainly. The potential relevance is higher the less of a fantastic element
there is--which leads to the conclusion that novels without any fantastic
element are potentially the most relevant of all.
> A second point to be made is that while "so little
> science fiction achieve[s] the highest levels of fictional art", the same
> can be said of mainstream fiction.
Yes, but all mainstream fiction is on the path that converges on the essential
truths. I don't say science fiction is bad; I say it leads in another
direction. It doesn't matter how bad a mainstream novel is--the dustiest
western or the raunchiest porn--it can all be measured against its depiction
of the life we know, and be judged accordingly. Science fiction novels pose
worlds that operate under imaginary and therefore unverifiable principles.
> All fiction is held to the highest standard, whether science fiction or
> not. A work that achieves this standard is a great work, whether science
> fiction or no. A work that fails to achieve this standard is not a great
> work, whether science fiction or no.
I've attempted to define what I think the standard should be. Will you define
it as you see it?
> It's unfair to compare the nadir of the science fiction field with the
> zenith of the mainstream and conclude that science fiction hasn't as
> much value as the mainstream.
Okay. I withdraw the point about the market.
> Because it can take us down the "road not taken", which has a value in
> itself. A *different* value to be sure, but a value nonetheless. At the
> moment I'm reading a novel by Alan Brennert called TIME AND CHANCE which
> deals with exactly this idea, the one of the road not taken. A man makes
> an important decision in his life, and has lived with that decision for
> the past 13 years. "Elsewhere", the same man is living with consequences
> of having made a different decision. Through a mechanism that's made
> vague (simply because, as Dan'l points out obliquely in his article, the
> "how" isn't as important as the "why"), the two manage to come together,
> and switch places, as each had regretted his decision and longs for what
> the other had.
This story reminds me of the movie "It's a Wonderful Life." George gets to
see what his town would have been like if he had gone away and become a
civil engineer. It also sounds like those Graustarkian romances where the
King and the commoner are identical and trade roles. ERB copped that formula
in his second novel, "The Mad King."
> The human heart has many avenues to explore. Some can be explored using
> the "real" world. Some can be explored using a fantasy world. My point is
> that one isn't inherently better or worse than the other. If a truth is
> arrived at -- even if it's the "truth" of the reader examining his or her
> own heart -- then the story has done its work, whether via elements of
> the fantastic or not.
If you strip away the fantastic elements and are a left with a story of our
truths, then the fantastic elements are just excess baggage and should be
discarded.
Cisco's Buddy
} I read a book a couple years ago of *science fiction* by Edgar Allan Poe.
} It was a collection of short stories, with a title something like _S is
} for Space_ .
Well, Poe hs certainly written stories that would be classified as science
fiction, and undoubtedly a collection of them has seen print, but it isn't
S IS FOR SPACE, which is a collection by Ray Bradbury.
In article <16...@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil>, jx...@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes...
}} Does this mean that FRANKENSTEIN is not a "great novel"?
} It's a good example to test the definition against. The only fantastic
} element, as I recall, is that the creation is assembled from the body
} parts of different people but has its own consciousness. Most of the
} novel concerns its anguish about being a creation of man rather than
} of God, hence different, and perhaps without a soul. The book has more
} to do with the nature of humanity than it does with the science involved
} in assembling the creation.
That's precisely my point. You seem to have a view of science fiction such
that an sf story *of necessity* deals more with the technology that drives
the plot than of the ethical/moral/philosophical questions that are
driven *by* the plot. This is a rather parochial view. While it's true
that much of science fiction is indeed like this is beside the point. It
isn't like that *of necessity*, and many of the best examples of the
genre, as with FRANKENSTEIN, use the element of the fantastic to set the
story in motion, while the story really concerns itself with matters of
the human condition.
} The fantastic element could as easily be defined as a literary device
} allowing a question to be posed rather than as a scientific speculation.
Exactly.
} I imagine most histories of science fiction would mention it briefly, if
} at all, and then only as an antecedent form.
Well, there you are wrong. Many sf histories consider it to be the first
"true" science fiction novel (for example, check out Brian Aldiss' BILLION
YEAR SPREE -- and I would imagine the revised version under the title of
TRILLION YEAR SPREE, though I haven't read that).
} If the creation is just a literary device giving the author a character
} whose narration expresses the feeling of Godlessness, then I don't think
} it fits well into the science fiction field.
You seem to be approaching the problem backwards. Sort of like what we used
to call the "Real Scientific Method" back in college: draw your graph and
then plot the points; discard any data that doesn't support your theory.
You "define" science fiction, and when I bring up FRANKENSTEIN as an obvious
exception, you claim it isn't sf because it doesn't fit your theory of what
sf is.
} It doesn't matter how bad a mainstream novel is--the dustiest western or
} the raunchiest porn--it can all be measured against its depiction of the
} life we know, and be judged accordingly.
I disagree. I don't live in the Old West, nor do I live a life of wanton
debauchery. Those depictions are as far from my day-to-day experience as
most science fiction I've read is.
} I've attempted to define what I think the standard should be. Will you
} define it as you see it?
I don't think my standard is all that far from yours. Where I disagree is
in your claim that science fiction, by positing technology and societies
removed from ours, is incapable of dwelling on the same truths that any
other type of fiction can.
} If you strip away the fantastic elements and are a left with a story of
} our truths, then the fantastic elements are just excess baggage and
} should be discarded.
Say what? They are simply another way of telling the story. Why do they
"need" to be discarded?
Bret Jolly
>>} The bourgeois "romance of science" as practiced by, e.g., Shelley, Verne,
>>} and, yes, Wells was back-grafted onto the SF family tree by overzealous
>>} historians; the real parents of the SF novel are Burroughs' A PRINCESS
>>} OF MARS, Gernsback's RALPH 124C41+, and Smith's THE SKYLARK OF SPACE [...]
This is pretty dubious. Wells and Verne were frequently reprinted
in early science fiction mags. The idea that _Ralph 124C41+_ had more
effect on sci-fi than _The Time Machine_ or _20,000 Leagues Under the
Sea_ is silly. I've never met anyone who has read _Ralph 124C41+_,
(which by all reports is unreadable--I've seen extracts in historical
essays). In contrast, you would have a hard time finding sci-fi
writers who had never read anything by Verne or Wells. Furthermore,
_A Princess of Mars_ is not true science fiction, and _The Skylark of
Space is a too late to be a "parent" of the sci-fi novel.
"In your heart, you know it's flat."
?
Bret Jolly (Bo'-ret Tro Ly) Mathemagus LA Platygaean Society
.
Cisco's Buddy
} 2) Why is "romance of science" in quotes? Is that a term used in the
} history of science fiction? What are the characteristics of a "romance
} of science"?
Yes, "romance of science" (actually, I hear it more often as "scientific
romance" -- same difference) is a term that's been in use. The American
Heritage defines "romance" as:
1. A long, medieval narrative in prose or verse, telling of the
adventures of chivalric heroes. 2. Any long, fictitious tales
of heroes and extraordinary of mysterious events. 3. The class
of literature of such tales. 4. A quality suggestive of the
adventure and idealized exploits found in such tales [...]
Add "science", and the connotations it brings, to these definitions and you
get a working definition of "scientific romance".
} 3) What about _The_Princess_of_Mars_, for example, makes it more of a
} "real" science fiction novel than, say, _The_Time_Machine_? (I'm not
} disputing your claim at all, Dan'l, I just don't know how you got there.)
I think what Dan'l means in this instance was that A PRINCESS OF MARS was
a more immediate influence on the birth of science fiction as a distinct
genre than Wells, et alia. I still disagree. JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF
THE EARTH was as much a scientific romance as A PRINCESS OF MARS.
} 1) My father used to read dime novels in the late 30's. What genre
} label(s) would we give them, if we read them today? Also: when did
} they actually cost a dime?
The same genre labels as we place on books: westerns, mystery/detective,
science fiction. Some of the first US editions of Rider Haggard's novels
were dime novels (and more often than not pirated, as international
copyrights didn't apply at the time). I also have a collection of sf
stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in dime novel format that is a
first-and-only edition of that particular collection. The Nick Carter
novels were mysteries.
The Dime Novels cost a dime somewhere around the turn of the century.
Contrary to the obvious, "dime novels" refers more to the physical form
than to the price. In general, they are paperbacks (though, unlike the
modern paperback, the covers were made of notably heavier stock than
the interior pages) a little larger in planar dimensions than the modern
paperback (roughly 4"x7") but not quite as large as a trade paperback
(5"x8").
} 2) What is the pulp-adventure field like today? Are there any authors
} writing in it who are high enough quality for Ms. Pfeffercorn?
The closest approximation to the "pulp-adventure" field we have today are
the various paperback "action series" such as The Executioner, Destroyer,
Butcher, and so on, none of which are what I would say were of "high
enough quality" though some do have hidden virtues. The very concept of
"pulp adventure" precludes high quality, as the aim of such an industry
is to grind out lots of "cheap" fiction.
There is one other modern descendent of the pulp-adventure field and that's
comic books. The form may be different, with comics being primarily a
visual medium, but spiritually, they are the children of the pulps.
As for genres, both the "action series" books and the comics have had,
traditionally, a wide representation. There are ones that are pure sf,
others that are mysteries, romances, war stories, westerns, fantasy,
horror, you name it.
} 3) Will you join the thread on labels and categories? :-)
Maybe. :-)
Jack Campin
> As promised, I made a list of all the autobiographies/biographies that have
> been recommended to me by fellow net-users.
Here's a few more off the top of my head:
Janet Frame's autobiography - "To the Is-Land", "An Angel at my Table" and
"The Envoy from Mirror City". Recently made into a wonderful film, "An
Angel at My Table", by Jane Campion. Frame is one of the best writers
living; my own favourite of her novels is "Intensive Care", but I think
it's out of print. Try anything of hers you can find. It's interesting to
compare Frame's second volume with C.K. Stead's fictionalized version of
the same events in "All Visitors Ashore" - I read Stead first, and while
he's often very funny, his version seems like macho melodrama compared with
Frame's inward-looking style.
"The Memoirs of Hector Berlioz" (Tr. David Cairns). Spectacular display of
raving egomania. The opening paragraph has to be the funniest-ever account
of the author's birth.
"The Autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini". Makes even Berlioz look modest.
Edward Limonov: "It's Me, Eddie". A sort of Soviet-exile-in-New-York
bisexual Henry Miller. I am not sure how much of this is fiction but it
hardly matters any more than it does with Cellini. It's a gas.
Emma Goldman: "Living my Life" (2 fat volumes) and the complementary book
"My Disillusionment in Russia". Whether or not you like Goldman's ideas, I
think you'll find it hard not to like her as a person after reading these.
Kaveh Baharestan
>If you strip away the fantastic elements and are a left with a story of our
>truths, then the fantastic elements are just excess baggage and should be
>discarded.
Wrong, Case in point, Hyperion (and any other sf dealing with humanity
and its dependence on its own creations.) This Novel (and _The Fall of H_)
have fantastic epic technology (beyond the scale of Star Wars) but what
it is really about is how we will cease to evolve both mentally and physically
as a result of our dependence on technology that we have created. The author
could not have shown this without including the sf the way he did.
Kaveh.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Men are like lizards that bask in the sun, and say "what a nice place |
| someone has built for me!"" -The Stone Of Farwell |
| Tad Williams |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
John Locke
> ...I have never come across a novel in one of the
> conventional areas that transported me, or caught me up in its tale, as
> have so many SF or Fantasy or Horror novels.
I predict the day when your sense of wonder is so diminished that you will
not be able to stand reading another fantasy. At that point, you might consider
reading from the great books of the past. I think you will be surprised at how
good they are.
> If, as you
> say 'A great novel must concern itself with the world as we know it', then to
> me 'a great novel' must not necessarily be an ENJOYABLE novel. And if not
> then your great novel is not worth reading.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, the metaphor of consumption and appetite is
useful in describing our needs for the written word. We have junk food, which
tastes mighty good, but we don't kid ourselves that we can live on it. It
winds its way through the body, and when it is gone, it has left nothing of
value behind. Other food, we know to be nutritional--it contributes value--but
since it lacks the sugar, the salt, or the fat, it doesn't seem to have the
same pizazz as the junk. But it behooves us to acquire a taste for it since
not doing so results in sores on the skin, or worse. In the end, we discover
that the real stuff tastes pretty damn good. In other words, Chuck, eat your
vegetables before desert!
> I do not see how describing the real world is a challenge.
You don't?!? But it's what the great scientists, the great philosophers, the
great historians, the great religions, and the great writers have all been
trying to do for thousands of years. If you're a high roller, it's the only
game in town.
> Why worry about relevancy?
John Locke
> You have no *certain* knowldge of 1980.
According to my birth certificate, I was here that whole year.
> For all you know the world was created last Tuesday.
Are you arguing that it was?
> If the year 2000 comes, it is likely that the
> sun will "rise" and set several times. This is more certain than much
> of history, even that learned as fact in grade school.
Well-established patterns are easy to predict. That's what computers do
well. It's not much of an accomplishment for a writer.
Susan A. Musil
to literature the phrase:
For every Foster there is an Archer and three Cooksons.
comes up. Who's Archer, Foster and the three Cooksons? Sounds like
a hell of a law firm to me, but I know Godwin didn't write the note
that included this. 8-)
suzy%skat.u...@usc.edu
su...@skat.usc.edu
University of Spoiled Children
Downtown Ellay
Scott TCB Turner
ground someone else has covered...
John Locke writes:
>Science fiction novels pose worlds that operate under imaginary and
>therefore unverifiable principles.
Not entirely. Better to say that science fiction novels take most of
the verifiable principles of reality and add to that some speculative
ones. But this is no more than what mainstream fiction does. The
actions of any character in a book can be looked upon as
"unverifiable". In the same way that you could say about a science
fiction novel "The universe doesn't operate that way" you can say
about a mainstream novel "People don't operate that way". What's more
important is whether a book is in some sense *plausible* - whether,
given the initial premises of the story, the story makes sense.
Science fiction and fantasy add initial premises, they don't void the
plausibility test.
>If you strip away the fantastic elements and are a left with a story
>of our truths, then the fantastic elements are just excess baggage
>and should be discarded.
Not necessarily. The fantastic elements can be essential to
establishing the important truths of the story. For example, why tell
a story set in the Middle Ages? One answer is that using a different
milieu establishes the universality of the truths presented by the
story. If the reader finds some truth in your Middle Ages story and
thinks "Hey, that's also true today", he comes to a deeper
understanding: that the truth is somehow fundamental to the human
existence. It is independent of setting and time.
In a similar way, the "imaginary and unverifiable principles" of
science fiction can be used as a literary device to convey knowledge
and truth. In _Flowers for Algernon_, the initial premise is the
discovery of a drug that greatly enhances the intelligence of the test
subject. That's used as a literary device for showing how morality is
independent of intelligence, much in the same way that setting a story
in the Middle Ages show universality over setting and time.
Seen in this light, science fiction and fantasy are simply two more
tools in the writer's bag of techniques. If your definition of
worthwhile literature is literature that tries to reveal deep truths
about the human condition, then it appears that these tools are often
mis-used, just as the tools of suspense and disgust are mis-used by
horror writers. So reject this mis-use of the tools. That's fine.
But don't reject the tools themselves. That a baby can use a pipe
wrench to make loud noises doesn't invalidate its use as a plumbing
tool.
-- Scott Turner
Hal Render
In article <16...@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jx...@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil writes:
>I never claimed that science fiction was bad. I claim that it fails at
>fiction's most important challenge, that is, in describing the real world
>of people.
I think your definition of fiction's "most important challenge" is
idiosyncratic to say the least. Given your terms, the following
works of fiction would be considered failures:
The Iliad
The Odyssey
Aesop's fables
Tales of the Arabian Nights
Le Morte de Arthur
Grimms' Fairy Tales
Gulliver's Travels
Candide
Gargantua and Pantagruel
Faust
I believe that your test of worth is flawed if it disregards
such works as these. Further, if you can't see how science
fiction can be viewed as the modern equivalent to earlier works
of allegorical fantasy, then I think you should read more
of these older works.
hal.
John Locke
> As a person who has read all eleven of the John Carter of Mars trilogy, the
> first ten at least seven times each, it occurs to me (as I sit unnecessarily
> bristling at an imagined attack at good old ERB...)
His best stuff is very entertaining, indeed: the Martian novels, the first
two Pellucidars, The Mucker, The Land That Time Forgot trilogy, the "lost
race" Tarzans (Tarzan the Untamed through Tarzan at the Earth's Core), the
Moon Maid (my sentimental favorite), Pirate Blood, Beyond Thirty. By the
thirties, though, he had degenerated into writing the same dull book over
and over. He ran out of fresh ideas, it seems, and distractions like the
publishing business and the rivalry with Otis Adelbert Kline got the better
of him. His plotting, which always took a back seat to his ability to invent
interesting creatures and worlds, was seldom more than schematic. In his later
books, the plot was the only thing left--endless coincidences as different
characters crossed paths as they roamed his vast worlds. You could always tell
what was going to happen about 8 pages sooner than it did.
> If John is
> inferring that _all_ sci-fi literature has the horrible "predictable undying
> hero" syndrome, I would like to disagree.
My point is that the hardest job in fiction is to make an invented story,
with the structure a story must have, mesh with the evidence of the real
world. The story must distill the real world in a way that lays bare its
mechanisms and meanings. When you look at the world, the problem is not in
failing to see it, but in seeing too much of it. The writer must seek a
meaning beneath the mountain of conflicting facts and opinions. This is
extremely difficult to do well. How does the writer resolve problems that
arise in the process of seeking the truth? It is by direct reference to the
world--the place with the best evidence of what really happens. Reference to
other writers for answers can only inhibit originality. Science fiction does
not labor under this restriction. The invented world is a contrivance and its
unique laws are contrived. If the writer confronts a difficulty, he or she is
not required to look back upon the world for evidence. The invented world can
be altered to meet the needs of the story.
> Then again, ... what is the purpose of sci-fi, and what is the purpose
> of "bourgois" lit.?
That's a good question: what is the purpose of sci-fi? I feel its purposes
are often different from the purposes of mainstream fiction.
> If you can't totally separate sci-fi from bourgois/literary/
> classic literature, how are we supposed to argue that one may be different or
> better than the other?
There are many importants shades of meaning inbetween complete opposites or
mutually exclusive categories. Leave the binary logic to the machines. The
real meanings must be discovered by people.
--
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>To say that the field grew out
>of the pulp-adventure field is not quite accurate, as the pulp-adventure
>field hadn't really existed for all that long prior to the establishment
>of AMAZING STORIES. To be sure, the pulps grew out of the nickel weeklies
>and dime novels, but they also are bastard children of the "slicks" like
>SCRIBNER'S, COSMOPOLITAN, HARPER'S, and the like.
All of which is true; and all of which would underline, rather than deny, my
point if I were interested in writing a master's thesis rather than a quick off-
the-cuff Usenet article. Perhaps a better way of saying what I was aiming at
would be "grew out of the tradition of the pulp-adventure field," but even that
can be misread. The point: SF grew out of "cheap" commercial fiction, as
opposed [taxonomically, not morally] to "literary" fiction. Thus my claim that
the three novels in question -- RALPH 124C41+, A PRINCESS OF MARS, and THE
SKYLARK OF SPACE -- were
>} quite uninfluenced (with the possible exception of the
>} Gernsback) by Wells/Verne/Shelley.
>Shelley, I may give you, but I'm not convinced that the field was "quite
>uninfluenced" by Verne or Wells, *especially* Verne, whose works -- more
>FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON and the Nemo and Robur novels than JOURNEY
>TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, et alia -- seem very much to have spawned
>the stress on technology in early sf magazine fiction.
Note, please, that I *only* claimed that those three novels were uninfluenced
by W/V/S, and quibbled myself about RALPH. I made no such sweeping claim for
the field as a whole.
Many of, even, the earliest SF writers were clearly aware of the "tradition"
[there was no tradition yet, as such, but they would soon graft it together]
of ur-SF: not only Verne/Wells/Shelley, but Lucien, Cyrano, Darwin-the-Elder,
More, etc. Some, indeed, were clearly and consciously influenced by same
[though influences from the great mythological traditions would be more obvious
at first]. However, the source of SF _as_ _SF_, and the models which the early
SF writers most closely imitated, even when they were allowing in "outside"
influcences, were Gernsback, Smith, and Burroughs. This becomes clearer if you
have the stomach to read large amounts of these early works. (I spent more time
than I like to think about doing that a few years ago. I don't think I could
hack it anymore.)
Re: Kafka/METAMORPHOSIS/readerly protocols.
>If [the use of the word "mutated"] indicates the direction I'm coming from, I'd
>say it's more my comics background than sf background. :-)
Fair enough, though they grow from much the same soil, with a stronger
interpenetration of influences than most SF writers, at least, would like to
admit.
>That said, need I point out that the very interpretation of the word
>"mutated" *in itself* is biased by one's literary background.
I thought that that was what I said.
>Someone who is
>not versed in science fiction will likely interpret the word to mean
>nothing more than "changed".
That's no longer as true as it used to be. As someone recently pointed out
elsewhere, reality is becoming indistinguishable from science fiction. This not
in the sense that "Science Finally Catches Up With Science Fiction!" [as the
headlines used to blare at every major breakthrough], but in the sense that the
feel of reality these days is much more like that of SF than that of "mundane"
fiction.
>And that's really the bottom line. Regardless of whether Kafka intended
>the change as pure metaphor or whether there is a literal mechanism for
>the change, *the change took place*. The mechanism as such is irrelevant.
>What is relevant is how the change affects Samsa.
That is true *only* for a reader who knows how to read BML (for those new to
this argument: Bourgeois/Mundane[or Mimetic]/Literary) fiction. Which is,
finally, where the rubber meets the road, why the two genres -- however they
may grow to resemble each other -- will never "merge" into one great mass of
"fiction-in-general," any more than either can become "the same thing" as
poetry. Each genre has its own proper rhetoric, and to use one means that the
exclusive reader of the other will necessarily find your text maddening, or even
incomprehensible.
>And that was my point. The parameters that define "science fiction" are
>simply a mechanism with no value in and of themselves. The concerns of
>a well-told story are the effect of the events in the story on the lives
>of the characters, and whether those events take place in Hackensack,
>New Jersey or on Barsoom is of no real importance.
The "where" is semi-irrelevant: that much is true. However, your sweeping
statement makes to ignore the structural underpinnings that ground the
differences between the rhetorics of SF and BML fiction. The fundamental fact
about an SF text is that its milieu is, in some way, _different_ from the
world that is the case: it takes place in a world that is _not_ the case. A
BML text, even when it gets into "magical realism" and suchlike, even when the
protagonist begins the story by being metamorphosed into a huge blattidaean,
[and what's wrong with *that*, I'd like to know?:*)], takes place in our world
as-such, at least to the extent that the BML writer is capable of making us
believe it to be so.
Consider it in terms of commentary on the world: a BML writer comments on the
world by portraying it; an SF writer comments on the world by portraying how it
is not, thus throwing it into contrast. [Samuel R. Delany, in several critical
works -- most notably THE AMERICAN SHORE (Dragon Press, 1978) -- argues that
this difference involves mundane fiction speaking in two voices, while SF speaks
in three, which he refers to as "trivalent discourse."]
As a result, even the simplest sentence in an SF novel can and often will _mean_
differently from the same arrangement of words in a BML novel. Consider the
by-now cliched sentence "Her world exploded." In a BML novel, this is a muzzy
metaphor for an emotional disaster; in an SF novel, well, "You can't do that!
Basketball is a peaceful planet!" Similarly, "He turned on his left side." In
BMLF, he rolls over. In SF, he flips a switch.
In each case, the SF sentence forces the trained SF reader to reach a number of
conclusions about the world that is not the case: this is the sort of world
where a person _can_ own a planet; in this world, biotechnology has reached the
point where a man's left side can be replaced by a machine that can be turned on
and off. Then, too, SF allows sentences that BML does not permit at all: "The
red sun was high, the blue low." A BML reader with no experience of SF would
not make the necessary deductions from the first two sentences; the third would
be completely indecipherable. (That one sentence, in SF, creates images of an
alien world, two suns in the sky, strange coloured shadows, and begins the
trained reader thinking out questions of climate, culture, geotechtonics...)
On the other hand, an SF reader with little or no experience of BML fiction
*will* try to read Samsa's transfiguration in very much the same way, and will
eventually be frustrated by Kafka's "failure" to provide any explanation. "It
doesn't mean anything!" she will wail, and hurl the book at the wall, producing
a large unsightly dent.
>Samsa's change into
>a cockroach is beyond the realm of natural experience, and that places
>the story in the "supernatural" realm of fantastic literature whether
>we like it or not. It strikes me as just as wrong to deny that the
>mechanism is there as it is to say that the mechanism is the primary
>concern.
My claim is not that Samsa's transformation is less supernatural than, say, the
melange spice of Arrakis; it is that the way in which the one is meant to be
read, and the way in which it *must* be read in order to produce a rich and
interesting experience, is radically different from the way the other must be
read. The first must be read metaphorically, because it takes place in the
world we live in, and Gregor's experiences in that world are precisely
reflective of that world as Kafka understood it. The second must be read
literally, because it takes place in a world different from ours, in which
melange spice really extends life and can really be made into a drug that brings
forth the memories and personalities of one's ancestors, and Paul-Muad'Dib's
experiences of *that* world are most specifically *not* reflective of *this*
world.
Because of this, it seems obvious (to me) that the two are different from each
other in a way far more important than the fact that both contain fantastic
plot elements.
>} [...] based on these two things, which they actually *did* see, the
>} bourgeois/literary/mundane Establishment's dismissal of SF was neither
>} capricious nor jealous; they genuinely saw valueless and potentially
>} harmful material.
>
>Agreed. Which makes it all the more compelling to argue against continued
>practice of this "intellectual terrorism".
True, but it also makes it all the more important to argue *appropriately*
against it. First, because it demonstrates that arguing with the BML
Establishment on their own grounds is not only futile, it is _necessarily_
futile; second, because it might allow us to argue without rancor, because it
allows us to see that their rejection of SF is not blind hostility but the
result of a difference in "language."
>} This is not to say that SF is any less rich in its ability to comment
>} on the world-as-such; only that it uses a different set of tools in
>} doing so.
>
>I'm more likely to consider this a flaw in the reader than in the genre.
Who said anything about flaws?
>Note that in all of your arguments about the decoding protocols, you
>talk not of what the work brings to the reader, but what the reader
>brings to the work.
The work brings nothing to the reader except itself.
>The anal-retentive "Joe Phan" may well be obsessed
>with taking a literal view of the events of a novel, but many of us
>apply the same analytical tools to science fiction as we do to mainstream
>fiction, and classification of a work as "science fiction" or "fantasy"
>is merely a convenience. Much in the same way a music critic would
>differentiate jazz from blues from country-&-western, all the while
>approaching the three genres with the same analytical tools.
I would say that such a critic would be a damn fool, and likely to complain
about the C&W's lack of improvisation. But a better analogy would be a music
critic trying to judge a bebop jam session and a symphony by the same standards
and with the same tools. Certain purely mechanical standards can be applied --
did the musicians play their instruments competently, was the sound mix handled
well -- but to look for theme-and-development in the first, or solos and
improvisation in the second, would be idiotic.
In point of fact, the difference between genres is more than a "convenience,"
it is a description of how a work is to be read in order to achieve maximum
enjoyment/enlightenment/whatever. The separation of the genres in bookstores is
commercial, to be sure, but commercial with good reason: a reader of one genre
will not, as a rule, find what she's looking for in a book from a different
genre.
Why is 1991 "almost here" and 2000 "right around
the corner," while Friday 5:00 PM is an eternity
away?
--me
The Roach
Chuck Turner
>"true" science fiction novel (for example, check out Brian Aldiss' BILLION
>YEAR SPREE -- and I would imagine the revised version under the title of
>TRILLION YEAR SPREE, though I haven't read that).
I disagree with you and Aldiss in saying that FRANKENSTEIN is the first SF
story, though I tend to believe that it is SF. According to Scholes(sp?) and
Rabkin, both Cyrano de Bergerac and Voltaire wrote literature that could only
be described as SF. Sure they were philosophical discourses, but de Bergerac
used a society on the Moon, and one on the Sun to point out problems with our
own here on Earth. These papers are called THE STATES AND EMPIRES OF THE MOON,
and THE STATES AND EMPIRES OF THE SUN, more commonly known together as OTHER
WORLDS. Voltaire's satire Micromegas has a giant from Sirius visiting the
planets of our Solar System. I could also mention Jonathon Swift's GULLIVER'S
TRAVELS, and if I really wanted to stretch things...Plato's THE REPUBLIC (but
even I don't accept this one).
I do believe that the first *novel* that can clearly be classed as science
fiction is a story called THE BRICK MOON. I can't supply an author or a date,
but an old English prof of mine (who taught a course on SF) claims that this
is the first. If anyone is interested, I can get the info on it.
Chuck.
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>A great novel must concern itself with the world as we know it, especially the
>rules, laws, principles, or other inherent factors that govern the realm of
>man.
This is true as far as it goes: but it doesn't go far enough. To "concern"
itself with the world as we know it, is not necessarily to write literally about
the world as we know it, any more than to write about, say, God, one must talk
directly about God (rather than, say, a huge white whale). BML fiction, as
Stendahl put it, "holds up a mirror to" the world. But the world can be viewed
in other ways; and SF specializes in viewing the world through prisms and lenses
rather than, or along with, mirrors.
The lens allows one to magnify specific items in the world, to blow them up for
a better look. Example of this, good and bad, might include Pohl and
Kornbluth's THE SPACE MERCHANTS [examining advertising], Robert Sheckley's THE
TENTH VICTIM and Stephen King's THE RUNNING MAN [examining the media, game shows
and audience jadedness in particular], Joe Haldeman's THE FOREVER WAR [the
military mindset], and so on.
The prism allows one to isolate particular items in the world from other things,
to a variety of effects. For example, in THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS, Ursula K.
Le Guin isolates the question of sex-difference from the rest of human nature.
Rather than examining it directly, she filters it out, and looks at the *rest*
of human nature, to see what human nature would be like without that pervasive
differentness.
Additionally, the prism and the lens can be used to distort the reflection,
to produce a reflection that shows us our world by showing us how it _isn't_.
For example, and this is a hoary old example, Robert Heinlein's STARSHIP
TROOPERS is something like three-fourths of the way through before the narrator/
protagonist mentions, so casually that many readers miss it, that he's dark of
skin. Since the generic "human" for most SF readers at the time the book was
written was a white male, those who *did* notice were mildly shocked: but it
was a shock of _recognition_. So, they realized, this is what it might look
like to have a society where the color of one's skin genuinely didn't matter.
(This isn't intended as a recommendation of STARSHIP TROOPERS or of Heinlein;
it's an example.)
>Given this definition of literature and its devaluation of taxonomy, one
>must proceed cautiously in differentiating science fiction from fiction as
>a whole.
You, here, betray a sad ignorance which grows from prejudice. You use the
phrase "fiction as a whole" to signify bourgeois/mundane/literary fiction. Like
many folks, you appear to think that this is the model to which all fiction
aspires, or should aspire. In reality, this is like saying that all languages
should aspire to the model of English, or that all music should aspire to the
model of hardcore punk rock. The academic aesthetic is _not_ a privileged
case (which is not to call it valueless: it didn't attain its current status
-- actually its *recent* status, since it's beginning to be deprivileged even
among the academics -- through bald assertion but through mostly-reasoned
argument).
>So therein lies the fundamental break with the world as
>we know it. If a science fiction novel is to reflect the world, it is forced
>to do so by analogy.
Again, this is an extremely limited statement of a much richer reality. What
you are calling "analogy" is actually an complex and well-developed (considering
it's less than a hundred years old) set of rhetorical tools for observing and
criticizing the world that is the case. Yes, there's a lot of SF written as
"pure" entertainment: that's true of mundane fiction, too (or haven't you
looked at the bestseller lists lately? -- though bestsellers are usually not
BML fiction as such). But you don't judge an art form by its worst; you judge
it by its best, by what it's capable of. Further, "entertainment" can also
aspire to the condition of art -- remember Shakespeare?
>Why does so little science fiction achieve the highest levels of fictional art?
For the same reason that so little mundane fiction does. In SF circles, this
is called Sturgeon's Law: "90% of everything is crap." When you make a
statement like this, you forget that the world is full of Harold Robbinses and
Jacqueline Suzannes, and the Saul Bellowses and Joyce Carol Oateses are the
exceptions rather than the rule.
>There are a number of problems. First, it is simply too difficult to imagine
>a world that is as complex, ambiguous, and rich in subtlety as the world we
>live in.
True: and most BML fiction practitioners fail to manage it. So?
>Most departures from the real world tend to simplify rather than
>clarify it. The greater the departure, the harder it becomes to create a valid
>analogy.
This argument would hold water if your oversimplistic belief that SF works on
the real world only through analogy were valid; since it isn't, the rest falls
on its face.
I'm blanking on who it was said it, but a medium-major BML writer of this
century advised his students that they should not try to reproduce the real
world in their fictions, but that they should try to keep their fictions "up to"
the standard of the real world.
This is true for SF also.
>A second issue is credibility. If I write a story about Hackensack,
>my readers have the tools of their own experience to assess how faithful I am
>to the place of Hackensack, the people who live there and, even if they've
>never been to Hackensack, how genuine a reflection of the real world my story
>is. Barsoom is a much easier place to write about. My imagination allows me to
>instantly invent anything I need to propel the story forward.
Well, gosh and golly. Yes, an SF writer can write badly if he wishes. No
doubt about it. So?
>If my hero,
>John Carter, dies, I'll just have my wizard, Ras Thavas, do a brain
>regeneration...after leaving my readers grief-stricken for a few chapters.
Thabbt. (Sound effect of a loud raspberry.) If you think Edgar Rice Burroughs
is a standard for SF, you're living in the deep past.
>Hackensack provides me no such luxury. The real world imposes powerful
>constraints on the scope of fictional narrative. If I write about Hackensack,
>I am held to a higher standard; in fact, the highest standard.
I take it you feel that writers like Barth, Borges, and Garcia Marquez fail
to meet this standard...
>A third problem arises from the phenomenon of the market. The science fiction
>readers demand a swift and steady stream of new books to keep them entertained.
Which explains, of course, why a book like DUNE has been continually in print
for 25 years, right?
The *fiction* market -- all of it -- demands such a swift-and-steady stream.
If you can damn SF with Piers Anthony or Edgar Rice Burroughs, fiction machines,
then I can damn mundane fiction with Harold Robbins or Jacqueline Suzanne. But
I'm not stupid enough to judge an art form by its bad examples. Are you?
>This also subverts the talents of good writers, who are tempted to
>write faster than their imaginations can grow.
This is, perhaps, a better point; and I can specifically cite the case of
Philip K. Dick.
Dick was an extremely talented writer. After an apprenticeship in which he
failed to sell a number of bizarre "mainstream" novels (which have been
appearing in a ghoulish cornucopia since his death), Dick turned to SF and
produced a number of equally bizarre novels like THE COSMIC PUPPETS and EYE
IN THE SKY, novels which established him with a small but steady readership
in the SF field.
For most of the rest of his life, Dick churned out passable novels one after
another, novels which if he'd had more time to work them out might have been
masterpieces: and a few which were stunningly good _anyway_, like THE MAN IN
THE HIGH CASTLE; FLOW MY TEARS, THE POLICEMAN SAID; and A SCANNER DARKLY.
But these novels were marketed alongside his semi-hack-work, and all of it was
dismissed by a literary world which knew that none of it could be good because
all of it was SF. One can only imagine what might have come if attention had
been paied to THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE outside the field; even modest
commercial success might have allowed him to slow his pace, and he might well
be alive today. Even if not, he would almost certainly have produced more
novels of the quality of the three listed above.
But it is important to realize that the critical establishment is as much to
blame for this tragedy as the economics of SF: for by ignoring Dick, they
kept him locked to that economics.
>Speculative fiction is easier to do well, and not as relevant. How could it
>be? How could any of the infinite number of imaginary worlds be as relevant to
>us as our own?
How could anything be more relevant to us than our own interior worlds?
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>I just don't think this is true. I know lots of SF readers who read
>Kafka's fiction as essentially metaphorical. Even SF readers who know
>little about other kinds of fiction tend not to read "The Metamorphosis"
>as a kind of SF or fantasy, or so my experience has been.
As I said elsewhere: I've met a few people who did precisely this, though with
THE TRIAL. If you need to know what sort of reader to look for, try to find
someone who thinks Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle can do no wrong, and that
Robert Silverberg was okay until the mid-60s.
>I take it you are aware that "bourgeois" and "mundane" are
>negatively connotative modifiers; if this were sf-lovers, "literary"
>would be too.
I've argued elsewhere that "mundane" is indeed a nasty word to apply to people.
I think both it and "bourgeois" take on a different spin when applied to a work
rather than a person, though. I'm perfectly happy with the use of the word
"mimetic" rather than "mundane" if you like, but I don't know any word to
substitute for "bourgeois" that would imply the same things without the negative
connotations that a Marxist, at least, will see in that word.
>I think this is a false symmetry. SF is a genre, with genre conventions.
>Mainstream fiction is *not* a genre.
"Mainstream fiction?" What is that? Bestsellers? BML fiction? Or what?
I don't think there *is* a mainstream any more. The culture's gotten too big
and too diverse for there to be anything we can legitimately call "mainstream."
But BML fiction is indeed a genre with generic conventions.
>I trust readers of so-called "literary" fiction to find "the writer's intent"
>(I see you switched to the other side of the intent debate) in SF far
>more than I trust SF readers, the majority of whom read uncritically,
>to find "the writer's intent" in non-SF.
No, I haven't switched sides; I'm on both sides depending on who I'm arguing
with:*) More seriously, I *do* claim that "intent" -- a word I used sloppily in
the cited passage -- is not truly knowable, but that it's a useful place-marker,
in discussing a work, for something like "the effect that this work seems to
have, and which would be the intent if the writer's intent and the effect of the
work perfectly matched, and let's assume that the writer is perfectly competent
so the match will be perfect and we can call that effect intent." In other
words, I *am* talking about something which exists in the reader, rather than
in the writer. (That the writer actually *has* intentions I have never denied.
Only that we can usefully talk about them.)
But I find it fascinating that you believe that a reader unaccustomed to the
generic conventions of SF will find it easier to read works with those
conventions, than the SF reader will find it to read works which you claim have
no generic conventions to get in the way of an inexperienced reader...?
>Please name three critical works that dismiss SF as a "marginal" form or
>as "valueless and potentially harmful material."
You have me at a bit of a disadvantage, sir; my library is packed away because
they're building a second floor on my house. Remind me of this in six months or
so.
>I think it is important to note that you have to posit "ideal" readers
>to support your theory. If your theory is about "ideal" readers, why not
>come up with one that's about real readers? Consider, after all, the
>title of this thread.
I used ideal readers for much the same reason a chemist uses an ideal gas, or
a physicist turned milkman uses a spherical cow of uniform density: it's a
simplifying assumption that allows me to make useful generalizations about real
readers. Real SF readers are like the ideal SF reader to the extent that they
don't ever read any other form of fiction. Real BML readers are like the ideal
BML reader to the extent that *they* don't ever read any other form. It's
possible to come almost arbitrarily close to the ideal SF reader; I'm not as
sure about the ideal BML reader.
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>The author escaped the Gulag, due
>to the influence of Tolstoy, but he was exiled from the USSR
>and died, alone in France.
Where had all the French gone? To Spain for the winter?
Sorry... I actually enjoyed your article, but couldn't resist that. Also,
what *does* the last word of this line mean:
>The prose flows superbly. The mathematical descriptions especially juve.
I assume it was a typo, but I can't for the life of me figure out for what.
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>Try Niven's A Gift from Earth and Asimov's The Stars Like Dust.
They've already been tried and found guilty.
With defenders like you, does SF really need any prosecutors?
Evelyn C. Leeper
In article <16...@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jx...@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil
(John Locke) writes:
> In article <> e...@cbnewsj.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
> > Realizing full well these are not novels, I would still contend that any
> > definition that seems to rule out such works as Dante's INFERNO or the Bible
> > as a great work of literature must have some problems.
>
> To class the Bible with novels is to take a theological position. The people
> who wrote it did not think it was fiction. Many of the people who read it do
> not, either.
Note that I specifically said it was *not* a novel, but that it was
considered great literature. (It was not so long ago that novels were
considered by definition to be inferior to "literature," which could
only be poetry, essays, and other non-fiction forms.) Hal Render has
provided many additional examples of "great literature" that are also
by any reasonable definition science fiction or fantasy, which I will
not re-list here. Note that this refers directly to the following:
> > One can argue about the degree of
> > differentiation necessary to make a novel science fiction or fantasy
> > from now until Doomsday without resolving the issue.
>
> So you will not debate any issue that cannot be resolved to everybody's
> satisfaction? Why bother posting? Nothing that matters is resolvable.
Okay, I'll debate. (I'm nothing if not accommodating.) You start by
defining just how much variation from the real world is necessary to
make a novel science fiction or fantasy, bearing in mind that in 1491
anything set in a land west of the Atlantic Ocean was fantasy and in
1950 anything involved a heart transplant was science fiction.
> > Well, given this definition that you have just given, perhaps, but if we
> > don't agree on the definition, we're not going to make any progress.
>
> So what's your definition?
Borrowing quite a bit from other definitions I have seen, I would say
that great literature is that which teaches me about myself or other
people or the world in general, or that which moves me or inspires me
in some way. As C. S. Lewis points out, this can be twisted to mean
that someone reading pornography and being inspired by it would
consider that great literature--I leave it to the reader to understand
the connotative meanings of "move" and "inspire" here.
> > In other words,
> > if you say that literature by definition must be about the real world and
> > cannot be science fiction/fantasy, you've stacked the deck and you can deal
> > me out.
>
> I haven't stacked the deck. I have simply tried to step back and explain why
> the deck is stacked.
Okay, you didn't stack the deck. But who did, i.e., who provided this
definition that literature must be about the real world (in a literal as
well as allegorical sense)?
[quotes deleted in the interest of space]
We seem to agree that miserable hacks shouldn't be published in any field.
> > (In SIR GAWAIN AND THE GREEN KNIGHT, another "classic," the Green Knight
> > gets decapitated and walks around with his head under his arm. Does this
> > make it a bad story?)
>
> I never claimed that science fiction was bad. I claim that it fails at
> fiction's most important challenge, that is, in describing the real world
> of people.
And I claim that fiction's greatest challenge is making people see
within themselves or others, and that science fiction or fantasy is
just as valid a way to do this if it works. (Or to borrow a phrase
from Boyajian, I don't give a rat's ass what genre or non-genre a
person writes in, as long as they do it well.)
> There's more to be discovered in any Hackensack family, than there is in a
> thousand imaginary worlds. If I don't search for it, then I have taken the
> easy way out.
If someone who has never lived in Hackensack can discover something
valuable in an imaginary Hackensack family, why can't s/he discover
something valuable in an imaginary family on Mars, or in Hackensack in
1999?
And it's statements such as the above that make me read your comments
as saying that science fiction is bad, or unworthy, or not
"literature," merely by the fact that it is science fiction.
[more quotes deleted]
We agree that historians explain what has happened and novelists try to
explain how the world of people works. We also agree that a good
science fiction book is better than a bad non-science fiction book.
> > Is the endless stream of John Jakes historical novels
> > really better than anything science fiction has produced? Really?!
>
> You seem to think I said that the worst mainstream novel is better than the
> best science fiction novel, or somesuch. Maybe you're thinking of someone
> else.
See above. I believe one can claim *by your definitions* that Jakes has
described the real world of people, and that LeGuin in THE DISPOSSESSED
has not, but I still contend THE DISPOSSESSED is a better book.
And when you say things like:
> I predict the day when your sense of wonder is so diminished that you will
> not be able to stand reading another fantasy. At that point, you might
> consider reading from the great books of the past. I think you will be
> surprised at how good they are.
you are stating that any book that could be "another fantasy" cannot be
one of the "great books of the past."
> > You may think this is the greatest challenge. I may think the greatest
> > challenge is defining a new world. (I'm not saying I do, mind you.)
>
> Well, that's as stirring an equivocation as I've ever read! But, say, if
> you were to have an opinion, what might it be?
See above for my answer to this.
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908-957-2070 | 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?
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>1) What do you mean by "bourgeois"? That word has so many different
>connotations--aesthetic, historical, political, sociological--I need more
>info to understand your use of it.
Aesthetic, primarily. The term "bourgeois novel" is more-or-less pirated from
Marxist criticism, to mean the same type of novel the Marxists refer to, only
without the same automatic negative judgement.
>2) Why is "romance of science" in quotes? Is that a term used in the
>history of science fiction? What are the characteristics of a "romance
>of science"?
It's in quotes because it's a quotation; that's how Wells referred to his own
early proto-SF novels. If you want to know their characteristics, read them.
I tend to use it to refer to Victorian proto-SF in general.
>3) What about _The_Princess_of_Mars_, for example, makes it more of a
>"real" science fiction novel than, say, _The_Time_Machine_? (I'm not
>disputing your claim at all, Dan'l, I just don't know how you got there.)
A PRINCESS OF MARS was written, if not within the SF genre, at least within the
collection of genres referred to en masse as "pulp adventure fiction," out of
which modern SF grew. THE TIME MACHINE was written in a more academic
tradition. I can't exactly call it BML fiction since Wells turned out to be
approximately a socialist, but you get the idea.
I hope you won't mind my partially addressing the things you asked of Jerry.
>1) My father used to read dime novels in the late 30's. What genre
>label(s) would we give them, if we read them today? Also: when did
>they actually cost a dime?
In the 1890s. And we call them things like THE EXECUTIONER, by Don Pendleton,
or that sort of thing. Not really proper dime novels, but grew therefrom.
>2) What is the pulp-adventure field like today? Are there any authors
>writing in it who are high enough quality for Ms. Pfeffercorn?
By definition, I suspect not. There's no real PULP-adventure field today,
since the pulps are all dead. Things that grew out of it -- hard-boiled
mysteries, technothrillers, Harlequinoid romances, and modern SF.
>3) Will you join the thread on labels and categories? :-)
I don't know about Jerry, but I will when I have time.
John Locke
> Wrong, Case in point, Hyperion (and any other sf dealing with humanity
> and its dependence on its own creations.) This Novel (and _The Fall of H_)
> have fantastic epic technology (beyond the scale of Star Wars) but what
> it is really about is how we will cease to evolve both mentally and physically
> as a result of our dependence on technology that we have created. The author
> could not have shown this without including the sf the way he did.
And how many times was this same idea used on the old Star Trek? As for the
scale of technology, the basic ideas are straight out of the space operas of
Jack Williamson and E.E. Smith, written in the thirties for Astounding. The
trouble is, if the point that technology promotes our deterioration is true
then the evidence is to be found in modern society, and could have more
convincingly have been handled in a mainstream novel. If the evidence cannot
be found, the author is just guessing. Some arbitrarily different guess that
I might make would be just as valid. Only the real world can provide a yard-
stick to measure the difference between the two.
John Locke
> Ick.
Is that short for "icky," Tom? How's puberty treatin' ya, otherwise? Tell you
what. If you'll sign my yearbook, I'll sign yours:
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Tommy's as deep
As a pool o' wet poo!
> (In fact, no one has a fucking clue what "great" means when applied to
> "novel," and perhaps *the* saving grace of writing fiction is that no one
> knows the rules.)
Whu-oh! Here's the real stuff, smirking behind parentheses like a boesky in
a minimum security cell. Well, I'm trying to read between the bars...er,
lines, but you haven't given me much to work with. Are you saying that there
is no way to judge fiction? If you are, I have a box of Nancy Drew mysteries
molding in my attic that you'll find to be among the best stuff you've ever
read.
--
Michael J. Hennebry
>element, as I recall, is that the creation is assembled from the body parts
>of different people but has its own consciousness. Most of the novel concerns
My recollection is the Shelley does not state where the creation's body
parts come from. They may have been made from rubber trees or some such.
--
Mike henn...@plains.NoDak.edu
"The best is the best, though a hundred judges have declared it so."
Arthur Quiller-Couch
Michael J. Hennebry
<
<> You have no *certain* knowldge of 1980.
<
<According to my birth certificate, I was here that whole year.
They're both fakes.
Michael J. Hennebry
<novel is predicated on a fact, the creation, that has not been and possibly
<cannot be accomplished, making the argument an intellectual exercise and of
<no compelling relevance. If the creation is just a literary device giving
If it could be accomplished would that make it "not science fiction"?
<If you strip away the fantastic elements and are a left with a story of our
<truths, then the fantastic elements are just excess baggage and should be
<discarded.
Not necessarily. To one uninterested in mysteries Larry Niven's The
Patchwork Girl might as well have taken place on earth. Had it been set
on earth any point LN might have wanted to make about the judicial system
might have been rejected as soon as it was made.
If there is a point to make, why make it in a novel? Why not an essay?
Simple. Not only do folk pay more for novels, they may quit
reading before the end because they see the point and don't care for it.
This is less likely with "distractions" like an interesting story, a
lunar setting, or a mystery to solve.
John Locke
> Realizing full well these are not novels, I would still contend that any
> definition that seems to rule out such works as Dante's INFERNO or the Bible
> as a great work of literature must have some problems.
To class the Bible with novels is to take a theological position. The people
who wrote it did not think it was fiction. Many of the people who read it do
not, either. But since the issue is irrelevant to the present discussion, I
leave it to you to resume the thread in a more appropriate newsgroup.
> One can argue about the degree of
> differentiation necessary to make a novel science fiction or fantasy
> from now until Doomsday without resolving the issue.
So you will not debate any issue that cannot be resolved to everybody's
satisfaction? Why bother posting? Nothing that matters is resolvable.
> Well, given this definition that you have just given, perhaps, but if we don't
> agree on the definition, we're not going to make any progress.
So what's your definition?
> In other words,
> if you say that literature by definition must be about the real world and
> cannot be science fiction/fantasy, you've stacked the deck and you can deal
> me out.
I haven't stacked the deck. I have simply tried to step back and explain why
the deck is stacked. A lot of people express confusion or anger that science
fiction is not regarded highly enough by academics, critics, and other readers.
There are some legitimate points to be made. But some of the people who can't
be bothered to think through to plausible explanations resort to accusations
of snobbery. These class-conscious fears are thoroughly unconvincing as
arguments and best left to our politicians who can reliably depend on finding
an ignorant constituency waiting to listen.
> All this means is that science fiction authors have set themselves a
> harder task. This does not mean that they must of necessity fail. Many
> mainstream authors try to write novels set in the Old West, or China, or other
> real places that they have never visited--and fail miserably. Does this mean
> no author should write about any place more than five miles from his house?
It definately means these same miserable hacks should not try to improve their
fiction by taking it even farther afield--like to Mars. It doesn't mean
anything to good writers. They don't need the experiences of the failed
writers to guide them.
> (In SIR GAWAIN AND THE GREEN KNIGHT, another "classic," the Green Knight gets
> decapitated and walks around with his head under his arm. Does this make it a
> bad story?)
I never claimed that science fiction was bad. I claim that it fails at
fiction's most important challenge, that is, in describing the real world
of people.
> >Hackensack provides me no such luxury. The real world imposes powerful
> >constraints on the scope of fictional narrative. If I write about Hackensack,
> >I am held to a higher standard; in fact, the highest standard.
> One might also claim you've taken the easy way out.
There's more to be discovered in any Hackensack family, than there is in a
thousand imaginary worlds. If I don't search for it, then I have taken the
easy way out.
> In any case, Dante never visited Hell,
Apparently not a drinking man... :-)
> (And is Shakespeare really a worse author because he gave
> Bohemia a seacoast?)
No.
> By your argument, history is even greater than fiction, because it must be
> even more "accurate" to the real world.
History deals with data and their interpretation. Novelists invent stories
that illustrate a view of the world. There is similarity but only slight
overlapping of goals between the two. Historians try to explain what happened;
novelists try to explain the way the world of people works.
> Since this does not seem to be your
> intention, one must conclude that all that really matters is how well the
> author does the task he sets out to do. A well-realized book about life in the
> year 2004 is better than a crappy novel about Hackensack, and that's the long
> and short of it.
Amen.
> Is the endless stream of John Jakes historical novels
> really better than anything science fiction has produced? Really?!
You seem to think I said that the worst mainstream novel is better than the
best science fiction novel, or somesuch. Maybe you're thinking of someone
else.
> You may think this is the greatest challenge. I may think the greatest
> challenge is defining a new world. (I'm not saying I do, mind you.)
Well, that's as stirring an equivocation as I've ever read! But, say, if
you were to have an opinion, what might it be?
> Perhaps the greatest challenge is to write speculative fiction and convince
> literary snobs that it's literature.
See what I mean!
> Borges, Garcia Marquez, and many others
> have done this. You just weren't paying attention.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. My daisy has run out of petals.
--
Gavin Steyn
[Talking about _Frankenstein_]
>It's a good example to test the definition against. The only fantastic
>element, as I recall, is that the creation is assembled from the body parts
>of different people but has its own consciousness. Most of the novel concerns
>its anguish about being a creation of man rather than of God, hence different,
>and perhaps without a soul. The book has more to do with the nature of
>humanity than it does with the science involved in assembling the creation.
>The fantastic element could as easily be defined as a literary device allow-
>ing a question to be posed rather than as a scientific speculation. I imagine
>most histories of science fiction would mention it briefly, if at all, and
>then only as an antecedent form.
As an ancillary matter, Aldiss actually calls it the first real science fiction
novel in his history of sf called the _The Trillion Year Spree_. However, I
think the heart of your problem is a misunderstanding of a lot of science
fiction. You imply that because _Frankenstein_ is actually more about people
than science, it isn't science fiction. By that definition, most sf isn't
science fiction. Most sf authors are not particularly interested in
speculation for its own sake (otherwise they'd be doing research or some-
thing). The fantastic element is usually a way to look at the human condition
in a new way.
< But to return to your question, it is a
>well-written and interesting story, but the fantastic element may be a limiting
>factor. If FRANKENSTEIN is science fiction, then the whole argument of the
>novel is predicated on a fact, the creation, that has not been and possibly
>cannot be accomplished, making the argument an intellectual exercise and of
>no compelling relevance. If the creation is just a literary device giving
>the author a character whose narration expresses the feeling of Godlessness,
>then I don't think it fits well into the science fiction field.
Again, most science fiction is NOT meant to be an intellectual exercise. The
fantastic element is almost always a literary device. Shelley's novel is
relevant whether or not the science is plausible. As another example, Harlan
Ellison writes a lot of science fiction that is supposed to be relevant to
our lives. He uses very little actual science, because he's not particularly
interested in the scientific aspects of his fiction. He's interested in making
a person examine his/her life in a new light.
>Certainly. The potential relevance is higher the less of a fantastic element
>there is--which leads to the conclusion that novels without any fantastic
>element are potentially the most relevant of all.
I have something of a problem with this statement. Are the insights gleaned
from a novel less relevant the more fantastic the novel? Are all of us who
find Hamlet illuminating deluded? Or, if you think the ghost is a delusion,
how about _Macbeth_ (my favorite of the tragedies anyway)? It's not sf,
granted, but they both have fantastic elements that are central to the play.
>> A second point to be made is that while "so little
>> science fiction achieve[s] the highest levels of fictional art", the same
>> can be said of mainstream fiction.
>Yes, but all mainstream fiction is on the path that converges on the essential
>truths. I don't say science fiction is bad; I say it leads in another
>direction. It doesn't matter how bad a mainstream novel is--the dustiest
>western or the raunchiest porn--it can all be measured against its depiction
>of the life we know, and be judged accordingly. Science fiction novels pose
>worlds that operate under imaginary and therefore unverifiable principles.
This is something of a strange standard, if I may be blunt. Most fiction I
read is not very much like life as I know it. Joyce's Ireland, Twain's
America, etc. do not resemble the areas I live in at all. By this standard,
there are very few relevant authors (Updike, etc), and all of these authors
will be completely irrelevant in twenty years.
>I've attempted to define what I think the standard should be. Will you define
>it as you see it?
Glad you asked (Grin). Actually, it's kind of hard to define good literature--
ideally, the words should flow well, the characters should be well drawn, and
the novel should have some relevance to one's life (and not as judged on the
rather limited scale above. It should be judged by the book's impact on your
own life).
>If you strip away the fantastic elements and are a left with a story of our
>truths, then the fantastic elements are just excess baggage and should be
>discarded.
Yes, but suppose the fantastic elements are essential for getting at that
truth. For example, a science fiction novel (say, _Do Androids Dream of
Electric Sheep_) can probe the difference between humans and machines by
positing machines that look human. It's NOT IMPORTANT whether the machines
could ever be made; what's important is that the question "What does it mean
to be human?" is raised. I submit that the question cannot be raised in so
stark a fashion in mainstream fiction; thus the fantastic element is not
"Excess baggage" and cannot be dropped.
Gavin Steyn
st...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
John Locke
> Where've you been, John?
Well, I've never been to Spain, but I've been to Oklahoma.
John Locke
> The Iliad
> The Odyssey
> Aesop's fables
> Tales of the Arabian Nights
> Le Morte de Arthur
> Grimms' Fairy Tales
> Gulliver's Travels
> Candide
> Gargantua and Pantagruel
> Faust
You forgot Bill Shakespeare's best sci-fi novel, Hamlet, in which our
hero of Denmark is visited by the ghost of his dead Jedi father. :-)
Of your list, only Gulliver's Travels could be remotely considered a novel
and none of them could seriously be considered science fiction.
> I believe that your test of worth is flawed if it disregards
> such works as these.
The scope of the definition was the novel. I apologize if I didn't make that
clear.
> Further, if you can't see how science
> fiction can be viewed as the modern equivalent to earlier works
> of allegorical fantasy, then I think you should read more
> of these older works.
Some science fiction, no doubt some of the best, can be viewed as allegorical
fantasy. Do you consider all science fiction as allegorical fantasy? If not,
which are the keys works you would use as examples?
--
Richard Caley
Somewhere in the discussion of science fiction and it's relationship
to literature the phrase:
For every Foster there is an Archer and three Cooksons.
comes up. Who's Archer, Foster and the three Cooksons?
'twas me.
Foster, Alan Dean -- bad SF, derivative plots, no suspence.
Archer, Jeffery -- Failed as a politician, as a bigwig of the
conservative party and as an author.
Unfortunatly people keep buying the books so
he hasn't realised the last.
Cookson, Catherine -- tacky romances by the wheelbarrowfull, hance
three.
--
r...@uk.ac.ed.cstr
Scott TCB Turner
> Oh cut the crap, Locke. If you don't like science fiction just say so then
>keep your mouth shut. [etc]
Locke has been quite obviously taking a contrarious position, but I
think he's raised some interesting issues regarding science fiction.
Every avid science fiction reader comes to understand that great
science fiction shares many of the same redeeming qualities as great
non-science fiction. Once this realization occurs, the question then
arises: "What is the role of speculation in fiction?"
A question which hasn't come up is "What makes science fiction that
isn't good literature appealing?" Recently I read the first book in
David Gerrold's (or was it Drake? :-) Chtorr series. Terrible
writing, but nonetheless very appealing, because of the mystery and
fascination of the unfolding new ecology Gerrold presents. Locke
bases his definition of a great novel on man's tropism for the truth.
But it is just as obvious that we have a tropism for novelty. Who's
to say which is "better" or more valid as a definition for great
literature. (And, just as a last pinprick, science fiction has the
potential to be great under both definitions, which mainstream fiction
which does not stray from the "Hackensack" of modern existence does
not.)
-- Scott Turner
M. AXFORD
Personally I find that good fantasy reaches me at a deeper
psychological level -- perhaps more archetypal -- level than does
"realistic" fiction. So I feel I learn more from the fantasy.
I also agree with those that feel it is ridiculous to say that
one genre of literature can't ever be great. That is Mr. Locke's
opinion, but it is rare to me that such a blanket statement is true.
The discussion of the different decodings of an SF reader and
a reader of burgeois literature was fascinating, and I do think there
are marked differences in worldview between the people who almost
always prefer one to the other. My bias is to the SF/fantasy side,
and I am one of the typical SF fans that has never been able to fit
well into the "real" world. Naturally I don't believe that is
altogether a bad thing, as there is a lot of nasty shit going on in
the "real" world that I want not to promote. Analysis of the
difference in world views would take volumes. Dated as some may
view it to be, the answer that I liked best is in C.P. Snow's
_The Two Cultures_, in which he said that the scientists had
"the future in their bones".
--
MARY A. AXFORD
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!li40163
Internet: li4...@prism.gatech.edu
Chris Cooke
> Cookson, Catherine -- tacky romances by the wheelbarrowfull, hance
> three.
On a similar subject:
I noticed in the paper recently that Barbara Cartland was
recently treated to a party to celebrate her 500th book.
By the time the party happened she'd already written 13 more...
Michael J. Hennebry
<differently from the same arrangement of words in a BML novel. Consider the
<by-now cliched sentence "Her world exploded." In a BML novel, this is a muzzy
<metaphor for an emotional disaster; in an SF novel, well, "You can't do that!
How does one type a giggle?
<On the other hand, an SF reader with little or no experience of BML fiction
<*will* try to read Samsa's transfiguration in very much the same way, and will
<eventually be frustrated by Kafka's "failure" to provide any explanation. "It
<doesn't mean anything!" she will wail, and hurl the book at the wall, producing
<a large unsightly dent.
Now, now. Let's not exaggerate. Basic premises, whether man into insect
or spaceship into hyperspace, do not require explanations. The main distinction
is that folks in SF/F stories expect the spaceship to go into hyperspace, but
Samsa expected to wake up human. Samsa and therefore an SF/F reader would
want an explanation, but an SF/F reader can retain sanity wothout it.
William Tsun-Yuk Hsu
> "The Memoirs of Hector Berlioz"... Spectacular display of
> raving egomania.
Francis Muir:
>This is a harsh view of a great composer who devoted much energy...
Since when did being a great composer implied immunity to raving
egomania? There are quite a few great composers who were raving
egomaniacs.
Bill
Friendless
>If FRANKENSTEIN is science fiction, then the whole argument of the
>novel is predicated on a fact, the creation, that has not been and possibly
>cannot be accomplished, making the argument an intellectual exercise and of
>no compelling relevance. If the creation is just a literary device giving
>the author a character whose narration expresses the feeling of Godlessness,
>then I don't think it fits well into the science fiction field.
Oh cut the crap, Locke. If you don't like science fiction just say so then
keep your mouth shut. You obviously believe that if a book is any good then
it can't be science fiction. You are changing the definition of science
fiction away from accepted opinion to suit your own prejudices. Give it up.
Friendless
Evelyn C. Leeper
> In article <> ren...@cs.uiuc.edu (Hal Render) writes:
> > The Iliad
> > The Odyssey
> > Aesop's fables
> > Tales of the Arabian Nights
> > Le Morte de Arthur
> > Grimms' Fairy Tales
> > Gulliver's Travels
> > Candide
> > Gargantua and Pantagruel
> > Faust
>
> and none of them could seriously be considered science fiction.
I would say that CANDIDE and GARGANTUA AND PANATGRUEL are also novels (or in
the case of the latter, contain them), but let us not quibble.
I also believe that the rest of us have been discussing the catch-all
genre encompassing both science fiction and fantasy. As have you, else why
references to wizards doing brain regnerations? And youo also use the term
speculative fiction, generally considered to encompass fantasy as well as
science fiction.
> > I believe that your test of worth is flawed if it disregards
> > such works as these.
>
> The scope of the definition was the novel. I apologize if I didn't make that
> clear.
Well, you did say:
>I never claimed that science fiction was bad. I claim that it fails at
>fiction's most important challenge, that is, in describing the real world
>of people.
You spoke of "fiction's challenge," not the "novel's challenge." I think we
are all agreed these are fiction. Why do your statements apply only to the
novel, rather than to the short story or the play or the narrative poem?
> > Further, if you can't see how science
> > fiction can be viewed as the modern equivalent to earlier works
> > of allegorical fantasy, then I think you should read more
> > of these older works.
>
> Some science fiction, no doubt some of the best, can be viewed as allegorical
> fantasy. Do you consider all science fiction as allegorical fantasy? If not,
> which are the keys works you would use as examples?
He didn't say science fiction *was* allegorical fantasy, he said it was the
*modern equivalent* of allegorical fantasy. That is, it is a way of showing
you something about the real world by setting it somewhere "different."
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or e...@mtgzy.att.com
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
-Edmund Burke
Mark Foskey
>>different manner from the way a reader of bourgeois/literary/mundane fiction
>>will. They bring to a fictive text a very different set of expectations (or,
>>you might say, decoding protocols/conventions/mechanisms).
>
>I just don't think this is true. I know lots of SF readers who read
>Kafka's fiction as essentially metaphorical. Even SF readers who know
>little about other kinds of fiction tend not to read "The Metamorphosis"
>as a kind of SF or fantasy, or so my experience has been.
I think you're right, Mike, but nonetheless Dan'l's cute example is a
good analysis of the differences between the concerns of middle-of-the-
road SF and literary fiction. Of course, the middle of my road may not
be the same as everybody else's; I like my SF to be pretty heavy on
plot. But still, SF concerns itself a great deal with what-would-it-
be-like-if.
Or, to put things differently, yes, there are probably enough cues
in "The Metamorphosis" (which I haven't read, unfortunately) to
tell most intelligent readers that it's not intended to be read as
a straight SF story. But Dan'l said that his "experienced" readers
were idealizations, and I think what he said holds if you idealize
readers as people determined to read all works as examples of their
favorite kind of fiction. If you choose to read "The Metamorphosis"
as SF, then you are choosing to view Samsa's transformation as a
problem in biology. You might not demand that the story give an
explanation for how it happened, but you would expect the characters
to seek one. You would expect people to worry that it would spread.
If the story were a really hard SF story you'd expect some discussion
of how the insect body type is scaled up to human size -- square-cube
law and all that.
I would also like to hear more about this appellation "bourgeois"
as applied to types of fiction. I take it that the novel developed
as a form popular among the middle classes? Is there an "upper
class" fiction? I suppose TV is proletarian fiction? (Don't get
me wrong -- I watch TV. :-) )
Mark Foskey mfo...@ucsd.edu
Gayle Surrette
I've always considered good SF/Fantasy to the most satisfying
for me also. I've learned more about myself and my world by
spending time in other times and places.
To me, SF/Fantasy covers all times, all places and therefore
mainstream literature is only a subset of SF/Fantasy. :) Mostly,
mainstream seems to be preferred to those who lack the imagination
and effort to step outside of the boundaries of 'real life'.
When I was taking a 'literature' course a while back, 3/4 of
the class members said that the 'real, real' reason that they
didn't read SF/Fantasy was that it was TOO Hard. They 'had to
read every word... couldn't just skim it like they did everything
else.'
By removing the reader from the 'real, concrete, day-to-day' life,
SF/Fantasy authors (or at least the good one) can then deal with
those great truths of life in a manner that I find often hits
home harder that trying to dredge it out of those (in MHO) boring
'slice of daily life' mainstream books that are so popular today.
Gayle
Tom Maddox
>> (In fact, no one has a fucking clue what "great" means when applied to
>> "novel," and perhaps *the* saving grace of writing fiction is that no one
>> knows the rules.)
>Whu-oh! Here's the real stuff, smirking behind parentheses like a boesky in
>a minimum security cell. Well, I'm trying to read between the bars...er,
>lines, but you haven't given me much to work with. Are you saying that there
>is no way to judge fiction?
No, I'm not. I'm pointing to an obvious truth that most people familiar
with the history of literature, criticism, and literary history have no real
problem grasping. At one time or another in the history of literature, many
criteria have been held up as self-evident determinants of greatness. Not a
one has stood the test of time.
Johnson considered Richardson's novels superior to Fielding's because
of their morality; the French despised Shakespeare for his failure to conform
to Neo-Classic "unities," etc. The novel is a particularly interesting case,
because it covers such a wide terrain it can give offense to most everyone, in
one or the other of its guises. Leonard Woolf could not abide _Moby Dick_,
and the Bloomsbury Group generally found Joyce obscure and indelicate. And of
course the novel as such was in its beginnings considered frivolous and low.
Further, your denial of the importance of fantasy (or, to up the ante,
Coleridgean or Romantic "Imagination") impoverishes the tradition of the novel
so far as to make it unrecognizable. Cervantes, Swift, Bunyan, Sterne,
summarily dismissed; much of the Brontes, Dickens, Wilkie Collins, great chunks
of Melville . . . and of course the history of 20th century literature would
have to be completely rewritten to eliminate all its beautiful fantasists,
from Wodehouse and Beerbohm to Marquez, Asturias, Fuentes, et alia.
Finally, your insistence on the novel as a special category
apparently represents an attempt to sever the novel from all other forms of
literature and thus to avoid the obvious and insurmountable difficulties you
would have in trying to account for numerous works from the _Odyssey_ to
_A Midsummer Night's Dream_ to _Love in the Time of Cholera_ or _Valis_.
You see, you are denying the novel as romance, or "roman," as
European languages acknowledge it. It is *fiction*, the realm of the neither
true nor false, where Jeeves can stand quite nicely beside Raskolnikov,
or Puck next to Lear. You can attempt to constrain it to strict forms of
mimesis, as a sort of Gradgrindian exercise in criticism, but no matter--
The only test that matters is that of time. Fashions in the novel
come and go, as they do in a thousand other things, but none of them can compel
readers past the brief moment of their ascendance; ultimately, all fictions
stand or fall on merits which we can only guess at ("universality," we might
say, which is only a form of tautology). Literature's news that stays news
(did Pound say that, or William Carlos Williams?), but *why* it stays news,
that no one knows.
--
Tom Maddox
"Satanic Verses is a despicable book that could not have been
written by a person who wished to behave decently and responsibly."
Orson Scott Card
John Locke
# Personally I find that good fantasy reaches me at a deeper
# psychological level -- perhaps more archetypal -- level than does
# "realistic" fiction. So I feel I learn more from the fantasy.
# My bias is to the SF/fantasy side,
# and I am one of the typical SF fans that has never been able to fit
# well into the "real" world.
These are interesting revelations. Would you say they are related to the
escapist nature of science fiction and fantasy? If so, would you say that
escapism is an important requirement for the genre?
Francis Muir
Jack Campin:
Francis Muir:
You managed to lift part of a sentence of mine out of it's context. This
is particularly annoying since I make a point of keeping my postings short
and to the point. The rest of the sentence went on to say that Berlioz
devoted much energy to furthering the musical cause of Gluck, another
composer. This is hardly the work of a raving egomaniac. If you want me
to be more specific, I am thinking of Orfee et Euridice, the opera that
Berlioz took under his musical wing some, what, 70 years after Gluck's
death? Personally, I prefer the "bella semplicita" of the original Italian
book by Calzabigi.
Fido
Cisco's Buddy
argue this out right now (I've also been working on an involved response
to another, related article), but one response I must make:
In article <59...@pbhyc.PacBell.COM>, d...@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes...
}} That said, need I point out that the very interpretation of the word
}} "mutated" *in itself* is biased by one's literary background.
} I thought that that was what I said.
Well, yes and no. I was looking at it one level removed from you. What I
was trying to get at was that you seemed to be pointing out that it was
my grounding in sf that made me look at Samsa's change as a "mutation".
What I was counterpointing was that it's your grounding in sf that made
you note a signficance to my use of "mutate". Not that seeing the word
used would color your view of the mechanism by which Samsa changed, but
that seeing it would color your view of the way *I* approach it.
Is that clearer?
--
"I can't die yet. I haven't seen THE JOLSON STORY."
--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)
UUCP: ...!decwrl!ruby.enet.dec.com!boyajian
ARPA: boyajian%ruby...@DECWRL.DEC.COM
Wayne V. Citrin
>
>Wayne V. Citrin <cit...@soglio.Colorado.EDU>
>memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman
> reviews of recently reissued by Library of Congress copies say
> : interesting, worthwhile, well-written.
>
Just want to make a correction here. That's Library of AMERICA, not
Library of Congress.
Wayne
Wayne Citrin
cit...@soglio.colorado.edu
cit...@boulder.colorado.edu
Marianna Wright
>> The Iliad
>> The Odyssey
>> Aesop's fables
>> Tales of the Arabian Nights
>> Le Morte de Arthur
>> Grimms' Fairy Tales
>> Gulliver's Travels
>> Candide
>> Gargantua and Pantagruel
>> Faust
>You forgot Bill Shakespeare's best sci-fi novel, Hamlet, in which our
>hero of Denmark is visited by the ghost of his dead Jedi father. :-)
[stuff deleted]
And how about Charles Dickens' "Bleak House," in which one of the characters
spontaneously combusts? Or his "A Christmas Carol," complete with time
travel and ghosts and animated door knockers?
Marianna Wright Newton
Francis Muir
"The Memoirs of Hector Berlioz" (Tr. David Cairns). Spectacular display of
raving egomania. The opening paragraph has to be the funniest-ever account
of the author's birth.
This is a harsh view of a great composer who devoted much energy to the
furthering of Gluck's music, and whose own opera, Les Troyens, had to
wait until 1957 before it was properly presented.
Fido