100 Best Novels
Maskull
Just recently the Modern Library released a safe and conventional
list of "The 100 Best English Novels of the 20th Century". Not to be
outdone, the folks at Radcliffe quickly rushed out their own rather
idiosyncratic reply.
In both cases sf made a fair showing. Note that all of the sf
from the Modern Library list also appears on the Radcliffe one.
Modern Library:
#05 "Brave New World", Aldous Huxley
#13 "1984", George Orwell
#18 "Slaughterhouse Five", Kurt Vonnegut
#41 "Lord of the Flies", William Golding
#65 "A Clockwork Orange", Anthony Burgess
Radcliffe:
#08 "Lord of the Flies", William Golding
#09 "1984", George Orwell
#16 "Brave New World", Aldous Huxley
#29 "Slaughterhouse Five", Kurt Vonnegut
#40 "The Lord of the Rings", J.R.R. Tolkien
#43 "The Fountainhead", Ayn Rand
#49 "A Clockwork Orange", Anthony Burgess
#66 "Cat's Cradle", Kurt Vonnegut
#72 "A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", Douglas Adams
#85 "The War of the Worlds", H.G. Wells
#92 "Atlas Shrugged", Ayn Rand
Apparently nobody told the brain trust at Radcliffe that "The War
of the Worlds" first appeared in 1897, which, last time I checked, was
not part of the 20th century.
The thing that immediately strikes me is that these choices seem
to have been made by genre outsiders. And while the Modern Library
choices are rather predictable, some of the Radcliffe additions are,
well, odd. Why give Vonnegut two slots but Delany none? Rand is
undeniably influential but is she really a better writer than LeGuin
or Russ - or for that matter Heinlein? Adams' book is a comedy classic
but to include it while ignoring someone like Dick seems peculiar.
Of course lists like this shouldn't be taken too seriously, but
they do seem to provide some insight into how the genre is perceived
by readers in general.
Maskull
<mas...@pop3.concentric.net>
"The realists turn our words to gravel..."
--Yeats
liz...@mrlizard.com
>
>
> Just recently the Modern Library released a safe and conventional
>list of "The 100 Best English Novels of the 20th Century". Not to be
>outdone, the folks at Radcliffe quickly rushed out their own rather
>idiosyncratic reply.
(List deleted)
Why are "The Lord Of The Flies" and "Fountainhead" considered SF?
("Anthem" and "Atlas Shrugged" are inarguably SF, but TF really isn't. OTOH,
when I read it, I *felt* like I was reading an SF novel, not a 'mainstream'
one -- because TF is a)about ideas, more than people, and, b)the characters
were heroic/villanious archetypes, as in much SF, not 'realistic' or
'naturalistic')
Endymion9
>list of "The 100 Best English Novels of the 20th Century". Not to be
>outdone, the folks at Radcliffe quickly rushed out their own rather
>idiosyncratic reply.
>Maskull
><mas...@pop3.concentric.net>
Animal Farm, Frankenstein, Dracula should be above any of the boring sf books
mentioned such as Farenheit 451 <<one of Bradbury's weakest in my opinion>>,
1984 <<a sleeper>, Brave New World <<zzzzzzzzzzz>>.
Slaughterhouse Five would be my second choice in alltime classic sf.
I left out all my post 1980 favorite fantasy/sf and only included the time
tested classics.
Dennis/Endy
Happiness is reading a good scifi book :)
Ethan A Merritt
Maskull <mas...@pop3.concentric.net> wrote:
>
>
> Just recently the Modern Library released a safe and conventional
>list of "The 100 Best English Novels of the 20th Century". Not to be
>outdone, the folks at Radcliffe quickly rushed out their own rather
>idiosyncratic reply.
> In both cases sf made a fair showing. Note that all of the sf
>from the Modern Library list also appears on the Radcliffe one.
>
>Modern Library:
>
>#05 "Brave New World", Aldous Huxley
>#13 "1984", George Orwell
>#18 "Slaughterhouse Five", Kurt Vonnegut
>#41 "Lord of the Flies", William Golding
>#65 "A Clockwork Orange", Anthony Burgess
You missed
#90 _Midnight's Children_, Salman Rushdie
>
>Radcliffe:
>
>#08 "Lord of the Flies", William Golding
>#09 "1984", George Orwell
>#16 "Brave New World", Aldous Huxley
>#29 "Slaughterhouse Five", Kurt Vonnegut
>#40 "The Lord of the Rings", J.R.R. Tolkien
>#43 "The Fountainhead", Ayn Rand
>#49 "A Clockwork Orange", Anthony Burgess
>#66 "Cat's Cradle", Kurt Vonnegut
>#72 "A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", Douglas Adams
>#85 "The War of the Worlds", H.G. Wells
>#92 "Atlas Shrugged", Ayn Rand
>
I can't find the full Radcliffe list on-line.
Do you have a URL?
Ethan A Merritt
mer...@u.washington.edu
tomlinson
<Radcliffe list comments snipped>
: The thing that immediately strikes me is that these choices seem
: to have been made by genre outsiders.
I saw this list and felt that the dearth of SF was curious, especially
considering the prevalence of Rand. Can you imagine a writer with a
noisier minority of followers?
In addition I'm rather heartened that so little genre fiction made
the list. If college students suddenly began rating Heinlein and
Asimov above Henry James and Conrad, I would be very worried.
-tomlinson
--
Ernest S. Tomlinson - San Diego State University
O di immortales! Kenium interfecerunt!
liz...@mrlizard.com
>In addition I'm rather heartened that so little genre fiction made
>the list. If college students suddenly began rating Heinlein and
>Asimov above Henry James and Conrad, I would be very worried.
>
Why?
As a former English major, I consider most 'genre' fiction to be superior to
'classic literature', which, as a rule, is boring, slow moving, and usually
says little more than 'life sucks' or 'its hell to be poor' or 'God can be a
cruel bastard'. I know I found most of the 'real' literature I had to read in
order to graduate to be personally meaningless -- that is, it had no meaning
for me, evoked no emotion, and did not cause me to look at things in anew way
or inspire me to new ideas and visions.
Maskull
>In article <35bdc655....@news.concentric.net>, mas...@pop3.concentric.net (Maskull) wrote:
>>
>>
>> Just recently the Modern Library released a safe and conventional
>>list of "The 100 Best English Novels of the 20th Century". Not to be
>>outdone, the folks at Radcliffe quickly rushed out their own rather
>>idiosyncratic reply.
>
>(List deleted)
>
>Why are "The Lord Of The Flies"
They get stranded on the island while fleeing WWIII, right? It's
been years since I read it but that's what I remember.
>...and "Fountainhead" considered SF?
Beats me. I've never read "Fountainhead". Since it was Rand I
threw it in. If it isn't sf just consider it a typo.
Maskull
>> Just recently the Modern Library released a safe and conventional
>>list of "The 100 Best English Novels of the 20th Century". Not to be
>>outdone, the folks at Radcliffe quickly rushed out their own rather
>>idiosyncratic reply.
>> In both cases sf made a fair showing. Note that all of the sf
>>from the Modern Library list also appears on the Radcliffe one.
[...]
>
>Animal Farm, Frankenstein, Dracula should be above any of the boring sf books
>mentioned
"Animal Farm" was on both lists(#31 and #17 respectively). I left
it out because I've always thought of it more as a fable than sf. As
for "Frankenstein" and "Dracula" they weren't 20th century novels.
>...such as Farenheit 451 <<one of Bradbury's weakest in my opinion>>,
>1984 <<a sleeper>, Brave New World <<zzzzzzzzzzz>>.
>
Uh, Bradbury didn't make either list at all. What lists are you
reading?
Maskull
Merritt) wrote:
>In article <35bdc655....@news.concentric.net>,
>Maskull <mas...@pop3.concentric.net> wrote:
>>
[...]
>
> I can't find the full Radcliffe list on-line.
> Do you have a URL?
>
I got it out of a Gannett newspaper.
Sea Wasp
>
> In article <35bdc655....@news.concentric.net>,
> Maskull <mas...@pop3.concentric.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >list of "The 100 Best English Novels of the 20th Century". Not to be
> >outdone, the folks at Radcliffe quickly rushed out their own rather
> >idiosyncratic reply.
> > In both cases sf made a fair showing. Note that all of the sf
> >from the Modern Library list also appears on the Radcliffe one.
> >
> >
> >#05 "Brave New World", Aldous Huxley
> >#13 "1984", George Orwell
> >#18 "Slaughterhouse Five", Kurt Vonnegut
> >#41 "Lord of the Flies", William Golding
How does Lord of the Flies count as SF? It's just Robinson Crusoe with
psycho children.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;;
_Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at http://www.hyperbooks.com
ther...@vegtabl.com
>>...such as Farenheit 451 <<one of Bradbury's weakest in my opinion>>,
>>1984 <<a sleeper>, Brave New World <<zzzzzzzzzzz>>.
>>
> Uh, Bradbury didn't make either list at all. What lists are you
>reading?
He's refering to the forum full of fulsome frenzies.
EntrpyBear
>Asimov above Henry James and Conrad, I would be very worried.
above who and who? Asimov rules!
ther...@vegtabl.com
...obbook: _The Gods Themselves_
Travis C. Porco
>In article <6piuri$ita$1...@hole.sdsu.edu>, etom...@rohan.sdsu.edu (tomlinson) wrote:
>>In addition I'm rather heartened that so little genre fiction made
>>the list. If college students suddenly began rating Heinlein and
>>Asimov above Henry James and Conrad, I would be very worried.
>Why?
>As a former English major, I consider most 'genre' fiction to be superior to
>'classic literature', which, as a rule, is boring, slow moving, and usually
>says little more than 'life sucks' or 'its hell to be poor' or 'God can be a
>cruel bastard'. I know I found most of the 'real' literature I had to read in
>order to graduate to be personally meaningless -- that is, it had no meaning
>for me, evoked no emotion, and did not cause me to look at things in anew way
>or inspire me to new ideas and visions.
This is the best post of the week; I couldn't have said it better!
But that said, I only feel that way about some of the pop 20-th century
"greats", to wit, _Portnoy's Complaint_, _The Crying of Lot 49_,
_Catcher in the Rye_, or heaven help us, _The Sound and the Fury_...
auuugh; it's enough to make you want to give up reading entirely.
But I had to read _The Death of Ivan Ilyich_ in a world lit class--and
that blew my mind forever; same with _Crime and Punishment_. But I agree
overall--most genre fiction may well be superior to much of what gets
called "classic" literature. Believe me, there are more good ideas and
exhilirating imagination in any randomly chosen old Astounding than in
all four of the books I just mentioned all put together! ...IMHO, of course
--
Travis **standard disclaimers apply**
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly
is to fill the world with fools." --Herbert Spencer
Gary J. Weiner
>
> Maskull (mas...@pop3.concentric.net) wrote:
>
> <Radcliffe list comments snipped>
>
> : The thing that immediately strikes me is that these choices seem
> : to have been made by genre outsiders.
>
> I saw this list and felt that the dearth of SF was curious, especially
> considering the prevalence of Rand. Can you imagine a writer with a
> noisier minority of followers?
Interestingly enough, in their "Reader's 100 Best", _Atlas Shrugged_
is #1 with more than 1000 votes than the #2 selection, _Dune_.
The URL is:
http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100best/
> In addition I'm rather heartened that so little genre fiction made
> the list. If college students suddenly began rating Heinlein and
> Asimov above Henry James and Conrad, I would be very worried.
How about PKD? Or LeGuin?
--
Gary J. Weiner - webm...@hatrack.net
http://www.hatrack.net
HatRack Web Design & Hosting - Hang your web with us
-----
"Where else are you going to see cheating, transsexual twins?"
--Richard Dominick, Jerry Springer's executive producer
eda...@cts.com
>
>
> Just recently the Modern Library released a safe and conventional
>list of "The 100 Best English Novels of the 20th Century". Not to be
>outdone, the folks at Radcliffe quickly rushed out their own rather
>idiosyncratic reply.
> In both cases sf made a fair showing. Note that all of the sf
>from the Modern Library list also appears on the Radcliffe one.
>
>Modern Library:
>
>#05 "Brave New World", Aldous Huxley
>#13 "1984", George Orwell
>#18 "Slaughterhouse Five", Kurt Vonnegut
>#41 "Lord of the Flies", William Golding
>
>
>#08 "Lord of the Flies", William Golding
>#09 "1984", George Orwell
>#16 "Brave New World", Aldous Huxley
>#29 "Slaughterhouse Five", Kurt Vonnegut
>#40 "The Lord of the Rings", J.R.R. Tolkien
>#43 "The Fountainhead", Ayn Rand
>#49 "A Clockwork Orange", Anthony Burgess
>#66 "Cat's Cradle", Kurt Vonnegut
>#72 "A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", Douglas Adams
>#85 "The War of the Worlds", H.G. Wells
>#92 "Atlas Shrugged", Ayn Rand
At the Modern Library site they have a list of peoples
choices. It has more SF including Enders Game, Hitchhikers,
and some others that don't come to mind. Of course people
on the net aren't a demographic cross sample.
--
Edmond Dantes
edantes$cts.com---replace the "$" with "@" to mail me.
Endymion9
>>...such as Farenheit 451 <<one of Bradbury's weakest in my opinion>>,
>>1984 <<a sleeper>, Brave New World <<zzzzzzzzzzz>>.
> Uh, Bradbury didn't make either list at all. What lists are you
>reading?
Sorry. Saw the original list alongside a list compiled from library readers
choice in USA Today. That list had Farenheit 451 in it.
Dracula was 1914 I believe so is 20th century but you are correct about Mary
Shelly's work.
Thomas R Scudder
: tomlinson wrote:
: >
: > Maskull (mas...@pop3.concentric.net) wrote:
: >
: > <Radcliffe list comments snipped>
: >
: > : The thing that immediately strikes me is that these choices seem
: > : to have been made by genre outsiders.
: >
: > I saw this list and felt that the dearth of SF was curious, especially
: > considering the prevalence of Rand. Can you imagine a writer with a
: > noisier minority of followers?
: Interestingly enough, in their "Reader's 100 Best", _Atlas Shrugged_
: is #1 with more than 1000 votes than the #2 selection, _Dune_.
: The URL is:
: http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100best/
The weird part of the reader's list isn't the Objectivist & Sf-Fan stuff
near the top (Atlas Shrugged, Dune, Lord of the Rings, practically
everything else Ayn Rand wrote), but some of the stuff in the lower
reaches. Two or three books by Charles DeLint, frinstance.
Not to mention TEK LORDS.
--
Tom Scudder aka tom...@umich.edu <*> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~tomscud
Squeezing flinthead trout If religion is the opiate of the masses,
in their massive jaws, sparks fly: does that mean Usenet is the artificial
Bears discover fire. sweetener of the masses? - rone
tomlinson
: As a former English major, I consider most 'genre' fiction to be superior to
: 'classic literature', which, as a rule, is boring, slow moving, and usually
: says little more than 'life sucks' or 'its hell to be poor' or 'God can be a
: cruel bastard'.
Aw, come on...how I am supposed to answer that? Is there the slightest
chance that I may change your mind?
: I know I found most of the 'real' literature I had to read in
: order to graduate to be personally meaningless -- that is, it had no meaning
: for me, evoked no emotion, and did not cause me to look at things in anew way
: or inspire me to new ideas and visions.
All I can say is, that I find the situation reversed. Genre fiction,
science fiction and fantasy, is perforce at least one step removed
from real, human concerns. Yes, I am bored by much "real literature"
but at least the characters of, say, a Dostoevsky novel (I cite him,
because he's whom I'm reading at the moment) struggle with affairs and
difficulties with which I myself I have sometimes struggled. Which is
to say, I'm no Alexei Karamazov, but at least some of his problems are
also mine. (My family is nearly as dysfunctional as his :-/)
SF, on the other hand, must invent difficulties which have no
correspondence in reality. And, to be quite honest, I'm not sure
whether this has any purpose. Sometimes it seems mere intellectual
exercise (e.g. Clarke's RAMA or Niven's RINGWORLD, "high concept"
books in which the author invents some clever backdrop against which
the struggles of the characters is of secondary, or lesser,
importance.) Sometimes the purpose is allegory, a cloak for
issues which the author daren't tackle directly. In any case,
the "scientific" or "fantastic" conceit seems to me often an
obstacle preventing the reading from grasping whatever it is in
the fiction which is of _immediate_ importance to him.
gerryca...@my-dejanews.com
liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
> In article <6piuri$ita$1...@hole.sdsu.edu>, etom...@rohan.sdsu.edu (tomlinson)
wrote:
>
> >the list. If college students suddenly began rating Heinlein and
> >Asimov above Henry James and Conrad, I would be very worried.
> >
>
>
> As a former English major, I consider most 'genre' fiction to be superior to
> 'classic literature', which, as a rule, is boring, slow moving, and usually
> says little more than 'life sucks' or 'its hell to be poor' or 'God can be a
> order to graduate to be personally meaningless -- that is, it had no meaning
> for me, evoked no emotion, and did not cause me to look at things in anew way
> or inspire me to new ideas and visions.
>
I hope you changed majors or college must have been a major waste of your
time.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Jim Mann
>
> In article <6piuri$ita$1...@hole.sdsu.edu>, etom...@rohan.sdsu.edu (tomlinson) wrote:
>
> >In addition I'm rather heartened that so little genre fiction made
> >the list. If college students suddenly began rating Heinlein and
> >Asimov above Henry James and Conrad, I would be very worried.
> >
>
> Why?
Because Conrad and James are better writers. (Well, I know Conrad is. I
haven't read much James.)
>
> As a former English major, I consider most 'genre' fiction to be superior to
> 'classic literature', which, as a rule, is boring, slow moving, and usually
> says little more than 'life sucks' or 'its hell to be poor' or 'God can be a
> cruel bastard'.
Maybe you're reading the wrong stuff. I've read lots of "classic
literature." The reason most of it is "classic" is that a lot of
different people have read and liked it. Shakespeare, Austen, Dickens,
Twain, Cervantes, Hemingway, Tolstoy, et. al. aren't "classics" because
some select group said they were. Their works are classics because so
many people, over many years, have read and been moved by their works.
(And while writers like Joyce and Faulkner may not be as popular among a
wide audience as the ones I just listed, those of us who do enjoy their
works -- they are two of my favorite novelists of the 20th century --
tend to enjoy them a lot and return to them frequently.)
Jim Mann
Jim Mann
>
> But that said, I only feel that way about some of the pop 20-th century
> "greats", to wit, _Portnoy's Complaint_, _The Crying of Lot 49_,
> _Catcher in the Rye_, or heaven help us, _The Sound and the Fury_...
> auuugh; it's enough to make you want to give up reading entirely.
>
The Sound and the Fury is one of my favorite books. However, I think the
mistake many people make with it is reading it as their first (or one of
their first) Faulkner books. It is by far the most difficult book he
wrote, but it's much easier to read if you have read several of his
other works first.
Jim Mann
Jake Kesinger
Maskull
: > Just recently the Modern Library released a safe and conventional
: >list of "The 100 Best English Novels of the 20th Century". Not to be
: >outdone, the folks at Radcliffe quickly rushed out their own rather
: >idiosyncratic reply.
: > Apparently nobody told the brain trust at Radcliffe that "The War
: >of the Worlds" first appeared in 1897, which, last time I checked, was
: >not part of the 20th century.
: Animal Farm, Frankenstein, Dracula should be above any of the boring sf books
: mentioned such as Farenheit 451 <<one of Bradbury's weakest in my opinion>>,
: 1984 <<a sleeper>, Brave New World <<zzzzzzzzzzz>>.
Dendy, you might have missed the part of Maskull's post in which the
phrase ``20th Century'' appeared, and also his comments about ``The War
of the Worlds,'' which I left in above.
Mary W. Shelley died in 1851, which would rather eliminate ``Frankenstein''
from eligibility. I'd check job opportunities at Radcliffe if I were
you...
==Jake
Maskull
[...]
>Dracula was 1914 I believe so is 20th century but you are correct about Mary
>Shelly's work.
>
I don't want to make a huge deal of this, but "Frankenstein" was
published in 1818; "Dracula" appeared the same year as "War of the
Worlds", 1897.
Maskull
wrote:
>Gary J. Weiner (webm...@hatrack.net) asieoniezi:
[...]
>: Interestingly enough, in their "Reader's 100 Best", _Atlas Shrugged_
>: is #1 with more than 1000 votes than the #2 selection, _Dune_.
>
>: The URL is:
>
>: http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100best/
>
>The weird part of the reader's list isn't the Objectivist & Sf-Fan stuff
>near the top (Atlas Shrugged, Dune, Lord of the Rings, practically
>everything else Ayn Rand wrote), but some of the stuff in the lower
>reaches. Two or three books by Charles DeLint, frinstance.
>
I just noticed that Wodehouse's "Uncle Fred in the Springtime" is
listed twice, at #3 and #61. Some kind of glitch.
>Not to mention TEK LORDS.
Star Trek I could understand, but Tek Lords?!
liz...@mrlizard.com
>In article <6pj0jk$a...@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>> In article <6piuri$ita$1...@hole.sdsu.edu>, etom...@rohan.sdsu.edu (tomlinson)
>wrote:
>>
>> >In addition I'm rather heartened that so little genre fiction made
>> >the list. If college students suddenly began rating Heinlein and
>> >Asimov above Henry James and Conrad, I would be very worried.
>> >
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> 'classic literature', which, as a rule, is boring, slow moving, and usually
>> says little more than 'life sucks' or 'its hell to be poor' or 'God can be a
>> order to graduate to be personally meaningless -- that is, it had no meaning
>> for me, evoked no emotion, and did not cause me to look at things in anew way
>> or inspire me to new ideas and visions.
>>
>
>I hope you changed majors or college must have been a major waste of your
>time.
>
corporations that you can put up with BS, thereby proving you can function in
a corporate environment.
And I did swtich majors -- from biochem TO English, because I needed a four
year major I could finish in two years. English is a GREAT major, because
there are no right answers -- just BS your way to a degree. In science, they
keep expecting you to put down PRECISELY what the teacher thinks the answer
should be. In English, you can say that Moby Dick represents capitalism and
that Ahab is America, or something, and you'll get an A+.
liz...@mrlizard.com
>liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>
>: As a former English major, I consider most 'genre' fiction to be superior to
>: says little more than 'life sucks' or 'its hell to be poor' or 'God can be a
>: cruel bastard'.
>
>chance that I may change your mind?
>
Importance, but I doubt I'd believe you.
>: I know I found most of the 'real' literature I had to read in
>: order to graduate to be personally meaningless -- that is, it had no meaning
>: for me, evoked no emotion, and did not cause me to look at things in anew way
>
>: or inspire me to new ideas and visions.
>
>All I can say is, that I find the situation reversed. Genre fiction,
>science fiction and fantasy, is perforce at least one step removed
>from real, human concerns.
Real, human, concerns are BORING. I am (more or less) a real human. I know
what it's like to fall in love, to fall out of love, to experience pain and
loss, to be hungry, wet, cold, tired, afraid, lonely, horny, etc, etc, etc.
Why do I need to read about someone else feeling/doing things I've
felt/done/could at least in theory do? I want to experience, vicariously,
things I never could in real life. I want to do battle with the Spawn of
Eddore, I want to blow up the Death Star, I want to stand on the Ringworld and
look up at the Arch, I want to match wits with wizards under a dying sun...I
don't want to read about Joe Schmoe trapped in a dead end marriage and pining
for his lost youth and all that other crap. I'm 33, and I'm pining for MY lost
youth (not married, though). Why read about it?
Yes, I am bored by much "real literature"
>but at least the characters of, say, a Dostoevsky novel (I cite him,
>because he's whom I'm reading at the moment) struggle with affairs and
>difficulties with which I myself I have sometimes struggled.
Precisely. You've been there, done that -- so why read a book about it?
Which is
>to say, I'm no Alexei Karamazov, but at least some of his problems are
>also mine. (My family is nearly as dysfunctional as his :-/)
>
The closest to 'mainstream' fiction I've ever liked is Ayn Rand, precisely
because her characters aren't realistic and aren't supposed to be. I like
reading about heroes triumphing over impossible odds, not wimps dithering over
what to do next.
Real life example:My current employment situation is tenuous at best, rent is
due soon and my boss can't make payroll. So in attempting to find the strength
to go on, who shall I turn to in my internal library? Babbit? MacTeague? Or
Louis Wu, John Galt, Lazarus Long, and Bilbo Baggins?
I admit to having not read Doeso...Dosto...Desto..that russian guy. Tell me
that somewhere around page 5,679, the lead character says, "To hell with all
of you! I'm going to America to become rich, you can stay here and whine and
freeze and go to hell!" Then by page 8,321, he's obscenely wealthy and owns a
hundred factories. The end. Tell me that, and I'll read them. Tell me they
spend all 8000 pages whining, and I'll ask -- why bother?
>SF, on the other hand, must invent difficulties which have no
>correspondence in reality. And, to be quite honest, I'm not sure
>whether this has any purpose. Sometimes it seems mere intellectual
>exercise (e.g. Clarke's RAMA or Niven's RINGWORLD, "high concept"
>books in which the author invents some clever backdrop against which
>the struggles of the characters is of secondary, or lesser,
>importance.) Sometimes the purpose is allegory, a cloak for
>issues which the author daren't tackle directly. In any case,
>the "scientific" or "fantastic" conceit seems to me often an
>obstacle preventing the reading from grasping whatever it is in
>the fiction which is of _immediate_ importance to him.
What is of immediate importance is the reconstruction of the heroic ideal,
recast in terms which resonate to 20th century man. We don't believe in gods
or demons, but we can believe, or should believe, in superheroes and alien
invaders.
Ethan A Merritt
Maskull <mas...@pop3.concentric.net> wrote:
>On 27 Jul 1998 22:05:29 GMT, mer...@u.washington.edu (Ethan A
>Merritt) wrote:
>> I can't find the full Radcliffe list on-line.
>> Do you have a URL?
>
>Mod. Lib. one.
><http://cnn.com/books/news/9807/22/radcliffe.list/index.html>
>
The interesting thing I learned from this story is that both the
Modern Library and the Radcliffe lists of "100 best" were drawn from
a single earlier list of 400 novels. So now we need to know what was
on the list of 400 to know whether other SF works were even considered
in the first place.
Ethan A Merritt
mer...@u.washington.edu
Jerry_F...@my-dejanews.com
etom...@rohan.sdsu.edu (tomlinson) wrote:
> liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>
> : I know I found most of the 'real' literature I had to read in
> : order to graduate to be personally meaningless -- that is, it had no meaning
> : for me, evoked no emotion, and did not cause me to look at things in anew
way
> : or inspire me to new ideas and visions.
>
> All I can say is, that I find the situation reversed. Genre fiction,
> science fiction and fantasy, is perforce at least one step removed
> but at least the characters of, say, a Dostoevsky novel (I cite him,
> because he's whom I'm reading at the moment) struggle with affairs and
> to say, I'm no Alexei Karamazov, but at least some of his problems are
> also mine. (My family is nearly as dysfunctional as his :-/)
Why are you reading Dostoyevsky? Why not a novel set in the late twentieth
century at an American university? Those characters' problems would be even
more like yours. (I recommend _Tam Lin_, by Pamela Dean (Dyer-Bennett), or
the strikingly similar _The Secret History_, by Donna Tartt, or maybe _The
Big U_, by Neal Stephenson. And I hope your problems are NOT like those
characters'.)
Why read fiction at all? Whatever your answer is, I wonder whether it's an
equally good justification for reading sf. (Obviously you have some
justification.)
>
> SF, on the other hand, must invent difficulties which have no
> correspondence in reality. And, to be quite honest, I'm not sure
> whether this has any purpose. Sometimes it seems mere intellectual
> exercise (e.g. Clarke's RAMA or Niven's RINGWORLD, "high concept"
> books in which the author invents some clever backdrop against which
> the struggles of the characters is of secondary, or lesser,
> importance.) Sometimes the purpose is allegory, a cloak for
> issues which the author daren't tackle directly. In any case,
> the "scientific" or "fantastic" conceit seems to me often an
> obstacle preventing the reading from grasping whatever it is in
> the fiction which is of _immediate_ importance to him.
I wouldn't call the Rama/Ringworld kind of intellectual exercise "mere"; I
enjoyed those two books a lot.
And then there are the other ones. Say "When it Changed", by Joanna Russ, one
of my all-time favorite short stories, in which she tackles her real-world
subject MORE directly and powerfully in sf than she could otherwise.
Or there's extrapolation. Population increase is a problem that everybody
faces (though not every minute of your day). We naturally deal with it by
extrapolation: "If this goes on, we'll have this situation." Make the
extrapolation more detailed, tell it as a story for the power of a story,
with the richness and color of a great novel, and you have _Stand on
Zanzibar_. Non-sf can't do the same thing.
Or how can you have a novel about science itself and not have it be sf? _The
Disposessed_, for example, or (the much inferior but still with some good
points) _Twistor_, by John G. Cramer. Well, you could have a historical novel
about a past discovery, but I don't think the same thrill would be there.
Fantasy? I think ghosts, witches, magicians, non-human sentient beings,
etc., are part of human experience. Maybe only in stories, but we're talking
about stories. Certainly many of the greatest writers, writing about real
human problems (including dysfunctional families), have seen no need to limit
their narratives to what you and I agree is real. They have used ghosts and
the like not necessarily as allegory or extended tropes or whatever, or at
least not merely as those things, but because ghosts are one of the elements
human stories are made of.
The only alternative I see is T. S. Eliot's: to dislike _Hamlet_ because the
ghost has no "objective correlative", which I take to mean that the ghost is
not a figure of speech for anything "real". Whatever the point of _Hamlet_
is, I think Eliot missed it. And if you were to read _Hamlet_ to see how
someone with a family worse off than yours (I hope) deals with a vengeful
ghost, in case it happens to you, I think you too would be missing the point.
--
Jerry "How's that sigdash, John?" Friedman
Endymion9
>Dendy, you might have missed the part of Maskull's post in which the
>phrase ``20th Century'' appeared, and also his comments about ``The War
>of the Worlds,'' which I left in above.
>Mary W. Shelley died in 1851, which would rather eliminate ``Frankenstein''
>from eligibility. I'd check job opportunities at Radcliffe if I were
>you...
> ==Jake
Baked,
You are correct. In my original post I did miss the 20th century
qualification. I thought the list was 100 greatest novels of all time. No
thanks for the job advise though. I have a great one :)
Endy
Jorj Strumolo
ET> Genre fiction, science fiction and fantasy, is perforce at least one
> step removed from real, human concerns. Yes, I am bored by much "real
> literature" but at least the characters of, say, a Dostoevsky novel
> (I cite him, because he's whom I'm reading at the moment) struggle with
> affairs and difficulties with which I myself I have sometimes struggled.
But the "affairs and difficulties with which I myself I have
sometimes struggled" are the *last* things I want to read about.
Most of them are boring in the extreme. No sane person cares
that I have to get a new muffler. And those troubles that *aren't*
boring are -- wait for it -- troublesome. Life is full of problems.
I don't want to dwell on them. I want to read something that's
actually interesting, that maybe teaches me a few things, that
distracts me from mundane problems. "Real world" stories don't
do that. Their characters have the same boring lives I do.
Far, far better that you present me with a corpse in the sunroom
and let me figure out whodunnit, or dump some castaways on a
non-ideal world and let me follow their struggles.
ET> SF, on the other hand, must invent difficulties which
> have no correspondence in reality. And, to be quite
> honest, I'm not sure whether this has any purpose.
Not going insane from the the trivia of reality? Escape,
distraction, entertainment, pleasure, call it what you will?
Presenting interesting worlds and people, not faded copies
of the nameless souls who surround one in mundania?
liz...@mrlizard.com
Lawrence Person
endy...@aol.com (Endymion9) wrote:
> >>...such as Farenheit 451 <<one of Bradbury's weakest in my opinion>>,
> >>1984 <<a sleeper>, Brave New World <<zzzzzzzzzzz>>.
>
>
> > Uh, Bradbury didn't make either list at all. What lists are you
> >reading?
>
>
> Sorry. Saw the original list alongside a list compiled from library readers
> choice in USA Today. That list had Farenheit 451 in it.
> Dracula was 1914 I believe so is 20th century
BAAAMP! I'm sorry, you don't win the microwave.
Try 1897 for DRACULA.
--
- Lawrence Person
lawr...@bga.com
Visit the Nova Express Web Site at:
http://www.delphi.com/sflit/novaexpress/
"Crucifixion Variations" in the May 1998 Asimov's
Lame Excuse Books Catalog #3 Now Available!
Drew Stowers
wrote:
>On 27 Jul 1998 22:05:29 GMT, mer...@u.washington.edu (Ethan A
>Merritt) wrote:
>
>[...]
>>
>> I can't find the full Radcliffe list on-line.
>> Do you have a URL?
>>
>
> I just found it on the CNN Website. They have both it and the
>Mod. Lib. one.
><http://cnn.com/books/news/9807/22/radcliffe.list/index.html>
>
>
The New York Times site has links to some (not all) of the original
book reviews
http://www.nytimes.com/library/books/072098best-novels-list.html
I'm not certain, but you may have to register with the them to access
the site. (No cost to registering.)
Gary J. Weiner
> : The URL is:
>
> : http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100best/
>
> The weird part of the reader's list isn't the Objectivist & Sf-Fan stuff
> near the top (Atlas Shrugged, Dune, Lord of the Rings, practically
> everything else Ayn Rand wrote), but some of the stuff in the lower
> reaches. Two or three books by Charles DeLint, frinstance.
Not really that weird. These sorts of internet polls almost always
produce oddly skewed results. The People Online's "50 Most beautiful
people" poll conducted on their web site gave top honors (by a
wide margin) to "Hank, The Angry, Drunken Dwarf", with Leonardo
DiCaprio coming in a distant third.
http://www.pathfinder.com/people/50most/1998/winners/index.html
> Not to mention TEK LORDS.
Okay, this I don't understabd as all.
eda...@cts.com
>
>What is of immediate importance is the reconstruction of the heroic ideal,
>recast in terms which resonate to 20th century man. We don't believe in gods
>or demons, but we can believe, or should believe, in superheroes and alien
>invaders.
Somehow the book Dumas wrote about me managed to become
considered "great lit" even though he was basicaly the Tom
Clancy of his day.
Ager
>Somehow the book Dumas wrote about me managed to become
> considered "great lit" even though he was basicaly the Tom
> Clancy of his day.
Interesting thought, that. How do the literary elect get
elected? I enjoy Shakespeare and Chaucer a great deal, though it
struck me as I studied them that their material was really pretty
vulgar and silly. They both might have done well as writers for
"My Two Dads," or "Charles in Charge," though something like
"Seinfeld" would have been a bit too sophisticated for them.
If anyone doubts that Chaucer could have been the Richard Pryor
of his day, have a look at "The Miller's Tale."
http://www.win.bright.net/~mickbeth/poem.htm It's in both Modern
and Middle English.
Beth
--
We grok it. http://www.wegrokit.com
Bill McHale
: >
: Of course college was a waste of time. That's what it's for -- to prove to
: a corporate environment.
If that was your opinion of what College was for, then I suppose English
was the right major for you.
: And I did swtich majors -- from biochem TO English, because I needed a four
: year major I could finish in two years. English is a GREAT major, because
: there are no right answers -- just BS your way to a degree. In science, they
: keep expecting you to put down PRECISELY what the teacher thinks the answer
: should be. In English, you can say that Moby Dick represents capitalism and
: that Ahab is America, or something, and you'll get an A+.
Ah yeah, those pesky science teachers, they keep expecting that the
answers shhould reflect observed reality. How arrogant of them to impose
those standards on their students.
The one thing I always liked about Math and science, if I thought a
teacher was wrong I had a chance to unequivocally prove them wrong with
experiments or science. In my history (which I loved) and literature
(which I loathed) classes, as often as not, the person who receieved the
best grade was the person who could most effectively regurgitate the
Teacher's opinions. At least in History I could be original by studying
something the teacher did not know much about...
--
Bill
***************************************************************************
The main problem with my job is that they expect me to actually work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home page - http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~wmchal1
***************************************************************************
R. Byers
On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Gary J. Weiner wrote:
> Not really that weird. These sorts of internet polls almost always
> produce oddly skewed results. The People Online's "50 Most beautiful
> people" poll conducted on their web site gave top honors (by a
> wide margin) to "Hank, The Angry, Drunken Dwarf", with Leonardo
> DiCaprio coming in a distant third.
Are you saying that Hank, the Angry, Drunken Dwarf is *not* more
beautiful than Leo? Wake up and smell the coffee!
He's more literary than Bujold, too.
--
Randy Byers
rby...@u.washington.edu
gerryca...@my-dejanews.com
liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
> In article <6pl2io$8s3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, gerryca...@my-dejanews.com
wrote:
> >In article <6pj0jk$a...@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> > liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
> >> In article <6piuri$ita$1...@hole.sdsu.edu>, etom...@rohan.sdsu.edu
(tomlinson)
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> >In addition I'm rather heartened that so little genre fiction made
> >> >the list. If college students suddenly began rating Heinlein and
> >> >Asimov above Henry James and Conrad, I would be very worried.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why?
> >>
to
> >> 'classic literature', which, as a rule, is boring, slow moving, and usually
> >> says little more than 'life sucks' or 'its hell to be poor' or 'God can be
a
in
> >> order to graduate to be personally meaningless -- that is, it had no
meaning
> >> for me, evoked no emotion, and did not cause me to look at things in anew
way
> >> or inspire me to new ideas and visions.
> >>
> >
> >time.
> >
> corporations that you can put up with BS, thereby proving you can function in
> a corporate environment.
>
> year major I could finish in two years. English is a GREAT major, because
> there are no right answers -- just BS your way to a degree. In science, they
> keep expecting you to put down PRECISELY what the teacher thinks the answer
> should be. In English, you can say that Moby Dick represents capitalism and
> that Ahab is America, or something, and you'll get an A+.
>
So now you have a job in marketing? Trying to tell people that beer is a
really good way to improve your athletic ability and get plastic women to
sleep with you?
liz...@mrlizard.com
>liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>: >
>: Of course college was a waste of time. That's what it's for -- to prove to
>
>: a corporate environment.
>
>was the right major for you.
>
>: there are no right answers -- just BS your way to a degree. In science, they
>: keep expecting you to put down PRECISELY what the teacher thinks the answer
>: should be. In English, you can say that Moby Dick represents capitalism and
>: that Ahab is America, or something, and you'll get an A+.
>
>answers shhould reflect observed reality. How arrogant of them to impose
>those standards on their students.
>
mean anything? Shouldn't we answer with how the universe should be, rather
than it is? And aren't you glad I'm not designing any bridge you might happen
to drive over?
>The one thing I always liked about Math and science, if I thought a
>teacher was wrong I had a chance to unequivocally prove them wrong with
>experiments or science. In my history (which I loved) and literature
>(which I loathed) classes, as often as not, the person who receieved the
>best grade was the person who could most effectively regurgitate the
>Teacher's opinions.
Bingo! I got a B+ in a course in which I did not read a single book. I just
wretched up whatever drivel the teacher said in class, turned in the blue
books filled with ideological vomit, and received my meaningless degree.
And all for only 60 grand!
I make my living as a programmer. The English degree is just a good excuse to
act pompous on occasion.
liz...@mrlizard.com
>In <6pla8t$7...@enews4.newsguy.com>, liz...@mrlizard.com writes:
>>
>>What is of immediate importance is the reconstruction of the heroic ideal,
>>recast in terms which resonate to 20th century man. We don't believe in gods
>>or demons, but we can believe, or should believe, in superheroes and alien
>>invaders.
>
>considered "great lit" even though he was basicaly the Tom
>Clancy of his day.
>
"No, no! We need some more ghosts, and another murder, and how about some
slapstick clowns in the middle? Yeah, that'll keep them interested. Pity that
stupid "To be..." speech is so long, but he has to keep yapping while everyone
changes costume backstage. Doesn't matter, they'll forget about it once the
killing starts."
Popular culture, ultimately, is the onlyculture which matters, because it is
the art which actually reflects the feelings, needs, desires, etc of the
society in which it is produced. So-called "great art" --- produced by the
elite for the elite -- is by its nature temporary. Hackwork is forever.
tomlinson
: Popular culture, ultimately, is the onlyculture which matters, because it is
: the art which actually reflects the feelings, needs, desires, etc of the
: society in which it is produced. So-called "great art" --- produced by the
: elite for the elite...
Burn, strawman, burn.
tomlinson
: boring are -- wait for it -- troublesome. Life is full of problems.
: I don't want to dwell on them. I want to read something that's
: actually interesting.
Look--I _like_ pulp. I watch dumb action movies, read the occasional
Batman comic, and keep a large stock of mystery novels. _But_, I
have found, a steady diet of nothing but "entertainments" becomes
stodgy and irritating. When I find myself unable to read anything
but Asimov short stories and Erle Stanley Gardner novels, I know I'm
in a rut. And--guess what--I happen to find "elitist" fare (I was
just waiting for Mr. Lizard to bring up _that_ tired old canard)
interesting. I've gotten just as hooked on "real" literature as
I have on a Crichton potboiler.
: ...that maybe teaches me a few things...
There are better ways to learn, then. But I'm a confirmed autodidact.
: that distracts me from mundane problems.
Quotidian (in the sense of "everyday") does _not_ imply mundane. And
unless you're so colossally arrogant that you think that you've found
the answers to all problems and know exactly what to do in every
situation, you may sometimes find value in sampling of other
perspectives. I have to say it--distraction is often bad.
: do that. Their characters have the same boring lives I do.
But, if the author is any damn good, he's given these characters
different outlooks and different ways of dealing with their same
"boring lives".
: Not going insane from the the trivia of reality?
I'm a little bothered that you should find "the trivia of reality"
so infuriating. Infuriating at times, yes, but to the point of
_insanity_? Is that just an empty rhetorical turn of phrase or
did you really mean that?
liz...@mrlizard.com
>So now you have a job in marketing? Trying to tell people that beer is a
>really good way to improve your athletic ability and get plastic women to
>sleep with you?
>
Nah. My career in advertising lasted barely six weeks, as you need to start
out as an 'admin assistant' and I have the organizational talent of a mayfly
with ADD. I just write client/server databases now, and tell people, "Sure, I
can do that...lessee, 12 hours at <obscene> an hour equals..."
liz...@mrlizard.com
>liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>
>: Popular culture, ultimately, is the onlyculture which matters, because it is
>: the art which actually reflects the feelings, needs, desires, etc of the
>: society in which it is produced. So-called "great art" --- produced by the
>: elite for the elite...
>
>Burn, strawman, burn.
>
Keep that up, and I'll give in to temptation and quote Kipling at you.
tomlinson
: Come now, is that the best you can do?
It's true! Before writing that, I spent a little time reviewing
what the assigned reading was for 12th grade English lit (the last
time I was subjected to a rigorous literature curriculum); the only
author whom I could fit into the "elitist writing for elitist"
category was T. S. Eliot. Dostoevsky wrote in the best penny-a-page
serial tradition of the best science fiction authors. Shakespeare,
as you've said earlier, competed with bear-baiting for his
Elizabethan audience. Emile Zola wrote for the popular press.
The "elitist" canard is a strawman, and diverts attention away
from the real issue, which is whether non-genre fiction (whatever
its source, whatever its audience) has anything to offer which
genre fiction does not.
For that matter, would you not say that in certain circumstances
the science fiction author is an "elitist" (one of a select club)
writing for "elitists" (a limited audience)? I don't think that
the fan base of SF is nearly as wide as it is for other sorts of
genre fiction (say, mystery novels.)
Joanna Wojtysiak
>In article <6pn9pd$e02$1...@news.umbc.edu>, wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) wrote:
>>liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>>: >
>>: Of course college was a waste of time. That's what it's for -- to prove to
>>: corporations that you can put up with BS, thereby proving you can
>>: function in
>>: a corporate environment.
Wrong! Well, college may be there for that but University is there to teach
you that your brain is not sponge-cake and that, contrary to what you were
taught in high-school, you are allowed to use it.
>>: And I did swtich majors -- from biochem TO English, because I needed a
>>: four
>>: year major I could finish in two years. English is a GREAT major, because
>>: there are no right answers -- just BS your way to a degree. In science,
>>: they
>>: keep expecting you to put down PRECISELY what the teacher thinks the
>>: answer
>>: should be. In English, you can say that Moby Dick represents capitalism
>>: and
>>: that Ahab is America, or something, and you'll get an A+.
>>
>>Ah yeah, those pesky science teachers, they keep expecting that the
>>answers shhould reflect observed reality. How arrogant of them to impose
>>those standards on their students.
>>
>Quite. Isn't an ELEGANT answer better than a RIGHT one?
If you don't think that Math and Science are elegant, you are obviously lost in
a little world of your own devising. They are as open to interpretation as
any other subject, it is simply a little more difficult to do it.
I also haven't seen a single TA who didn't take the time to go through a proof
to see if it made sense. I mean, you start out with one thing and end up with
another thing, but how you get there is completely up to you.
>Doesn't IMAGINATION
>mean anything?
Of course. That's how science progresses.
>Shouldn't we answer with how the universe should be, rather
>than it is?
We are barely beginning to understand the universe as it is -- and we may
never understand it completely. So really the point is irrelevant, because --
how do we know that we are describing the universe as it should be and not as
it is? All we have to rely on is our perceptions, which aren't all that
accurate anyway. Of course, the application of pain renders that point
irrelevant as well :)
>And aren't you glad I'm not designing any bridge you might happen
>to drive over?
:) That's Engineering. Considering how many engineering students I know that
have failed their math courses, it's better not to think about who actually
_is_ designing the bridges we drive over.
>>The one thing I always liked about Math and science, if I thought a
>>teacher was wrong I had a chance to unequivocally prove them wrong with
>>experiments or science. In my history (which I loved) and literature
>>(which I loathed) classes, as often as not, the person who receieved the
>>best grade was the person who could most effectively regurgitate the
>>Teacher's opinions.
There are instructors who value originality above sucking up. And there are
plenty of fanatics in the sciences -- just listen to Software Wars for a while,
where everyone argues vehemently for their own pet program when in the grand
scheme of things they are pretty much all identical.
>Bingo! I got a B+ in a course in which I did not read a single book. I just
>wretched up whatever drivel the teacher said in class, turned in the blue
>books filled with ideological vomit, and received my meaningless degree.
>
>And all for only 60 grand!
It's OK. You'll find your purpose in life someday!
>I make my living as a programmer. The English degree is just a good excuse to
>act pompous on occasion.
Considering the opinion that you seem to have of Math and Science, remind me
to steer clear of your programs as well ^.^;;
---
jOANNE wOJTYSIAK joa...@cs.ualberta.ca
If someone with multiple personalities threatens suicide... is it considered
a hostage situation?
Elizabeth Celeste
> Are you saying that Hank, the Angry, Drunken Dwarf is *not* more
>beautiful than Leo? Wake up and smell the coffee!
> He's more literary than Bujold, too.
Nonsense. Hank, the Angry, Drunken Dwarf is a Bujold creation.
Obviously. Who else could possibly be the third Vorkosigan brother?
And as for Leo DeCaprio, he makes an excellent girl. A little bit of
liquor, and suddely the lesbian remake of Romeo and Juliet is quite an
improvement.
Elizabeth. Who didn't vote in the poll
etwi...@helios.acomp.usf.edu Elizabeth Celeste elizc...@yahoo.com
"At the Crossroads of Disaster and an Imperfect Smile"
Travis C. Porco
>In article <90169959...@wagasa.cts.com>, eda...@cts.com wrote:
>>In <6pla8t$7...@enews4.newsguy.com>, liz...@mrlizard.com writes:
>>>What is of immediate importance is the reconstruction of the heroic ideal,
>>>recast in terms which resonate to 20th century man. We don't believe in gods
>>>or demons, but we can believe, or should believe, in superheroes and alien
>>>invaders.
>>Somehow the book Dumas wrote about me managed to become
>>considered "great lit" even though he was basicaly the Tom
>>Clancy of his day.
>Ditto Shakespeare -- the Stephen King (or perhaps Irwin Allen) of the late 16th century.
>"No, no! We need some more ghosts, and another murder, and how about some
>slapstick clowns in the middle? Yeah, that'll keep them interested. Pity that
>stupid "To be..." speech is so long, but he has to keep yapping while everyone
>changes costume backstage. Doesn't matter, they'll forget about it once the
>killing starts."
>Popular culture, ultimately, is the onlyculture which matters, because it is
>the art which actually reflects the feelings, needs, desires, etc of the
>society in which it is produced. So-called "great art" --- produced by the
>elite for the elite -- is by its nature temporary. Hackwork is forever.
Of course, if a people is great, the best hackwork designed to please
them will be great. I'd also suggest that (truly) great art has no
other origin. From Sophocles to Shakespeare to Dostoyevsky to Mark Twain,
the true greats always had a general public who understood them. Whether
our public and our marketing mechanisms can produce such art is not really
known at this time. I certainly agree that "so-called 'great art'--produced
by the elite for the elite" is temporary; in 100 years no one is likely
to have the foggiest idea why, say, a soup can, or a couple of color blotches,
ever appealed to anyone. They'll use the old fable about the Emperor's New
Clothes, which will be remembered, to get a chuckle at our expense.
--
Travis **standard disclaimers apply**
"Their real problem was that they assumed themselves able to formulate
the questions, and ignored the fact that the questions were every bit
as important as the answers." --Idries Shah, _The Sufis_
Travis C. Porco
>: Come now, is that the best you can do?
...
>The "elitist" canard is a strawman, and diverts attention away
>from the real issue, which is whether non-genre fiction (whatever
>its source, whatever its audience) has anything to offer which
>genre fiction does not.
I don't think non-genre fiction offers anything that genre fiction
does not offer; at least I've never seen any good candidates for
such a thing!
>For that matter, would you not say that in certain circumstances
>the science fiction author is an "elitist" (one of a select club)
>writing for "elitists" (a limited audience)? I don't think that
>the fan base of SF is nearly as wide as it is for other sorts of
>genre fiction (say, mystery novels.)
The "Fans are Slans" line aside, on the whole I don't see anything
really that elitist in the writership or readership of SF. The
field used to try to appeal to boys or young men (today it would be
young people of either sex) who had plenty of other activities
competing for their attention (Heinlein made the point); if you're
writing to an audience of 15 year olds in Nebraska say, and writing
good, imaginative stuff, not much will go wrong.
If you write Zippy-the-Pinhead style little puzzleworks for the self-
described elite, a few people will read it and say it's brilliant,
but it will basically not have any real enduring effect. Maybe more
SF writers would do well to keep Heinlein's perspective in mind, and
maybe SF would do better to have more good, solid, imaginative storytelling
about new worlds and other possibilities.
Alter S. Reiss
> "R. Byers" <rby...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > Are you saying that Hank, the Angry, Drunken Dwarf is *not* more
> >beautiful than Leo? Wake up and smell the coffee!
> > He's more literary than Bujold, too.
>
> Nonsense. Hank, the Angry, Drunken Dwarf is a Bujold creation.
> Obviously. Who else could possibly be the third Vorkosigan brother?
Chico.
--
Alter S. Reiss --- www.geocities.com/Area51/2129 --- asr...@ymail.yu.edu
"Largemouth bass? Oh, you mean Sunfish Of Unusual Size.
Well, I don't believe in them."
Maskull
[...]
>>Somehow the book Dumas wrote about me managed to become
>>considered "great lit" even though he was basicaly the Tom
>>Clancy of his day.
>>
>Ditto Shakespeare -- the Stephen King (or perhaps Irwin Allen) of the late 16th century.
>
>"No, no! We need some more ghosts, and another murder, and how about some
>slapstick clowns in the middle? Yeah, that'll keep them interested. Pity that
>stupid "To be..." speech is so long, but he has to keep yapping while everyone
>changes costume backstage. Doesn't matter, they'll forget about it once the
>killing starts."
>
Here we have a case study in how to demolish your credibility in
one easy post.
>Popular culture, ultimately, is the onlyculture which matters, because it is
>the art which actually reflects the feelings, needs, desires, etc of the
>society in which it is produced. So-called "great art" --- produced by the
>elite for the elite -- is by its nature temporary. Hackwork is forever.
Which makes Lionel Fanthorpe the greatest writer that ever lived!
Maskull
<mas...@pop3.concentric.net>
"The realists turn our words to gravel..."
--Yeats
Travis C. Porco
>: boring are -- wait for it -- troublesome. Life is full of problems.
>: I don't want to dwell on them. I want to read something that's
>: actually interesting.
>Look--I _like_ pulp. I watch dumb action movies, read the occasional
>Batman comic, and keep a large stock of mystery novels. _But_, I
>have found, a steady diet of nothing but "entertainments" becomes
>stodgy and irritating. When I find myself unable to read anything
>but Asimov short stories and Erle Stanley Gardner novels, I know I'm
>in a rut. And--guess what--I happen to find "elitist" fare (I was
>just waiting for Mr. Lizard to bring up _that_ tired old canard)
>interesting. I've gotten just as hooked on "real" literature as
>I have on a Crichton potboiler.
But much of the "real" literature was "entertainment" in its day.
Actually the word "entertainment" is not so useful here; it suggests
mere fluff and diversion, but things can be designed to appeal to the
"people" and to provide satisfaction, and be much more substantial than
"entertainment" would suggest. Take _Crime and Punishment_--basically
a best-selling crime story in its day. And it's "entertaining" in
exactly the same way as any such story might be today. Yet Dostoyevsky
has enough depth and philosophical substance in the book that it can
change the way you think forever.
Of course, "depth" is acceptable in some circles today, as long as you
only try to prove an acceptable PC point. For instance:
(1) (Since America can never again experience any sort of threat whatsoever
under any imaginable circumstances) war is always and forever bad under
any condition or for any reason, or
(2) (Since European-Americans are uniquely evil in all of world history
and all people of European descent are always and forever filled with
hate toward everyone else) all people must be treated equal except that
white people must be punished for their unspeakable crimes,
(3) Since life is meaningless, suicide is the only philosophical question,
hell is other people, etc., we should dedicate our lives to socialist
revolution.
(4) Since morality is contingent and relative, we have an absolute moral
duty to end poverty.
Then again maybe I've lived in Berkeley too long :-)
Travis C. Porco
>liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>: Of course college was a waste of time. That's what it's for -- to prove to
>: corporations that you can put up with BS, thereby proving you can function in
>: a corporate environment.
>If that was your opinion of what College was for, then I suppose English
>was the right major for you.
LOL!
>: And I did swtich majors -- from biochem TO English, because I needed a four
>: year major I could finish in two years. English is a GREAT major, because
>: there are no right answers -- just BS your way to a degree. In science, they
>: keep expecting you to put down PRECISELY what the teacher thinks the answer
>: should be. In English, you can say that Moby Dick represents capitalism and
>: that Ahab is America, or something, and you'll get an A+.
>Ah yeah, those pesky science teachers, they keep expecting that the
>answers shhould reflect observed reality. How arrogant of them to impose
>those standards on their students.
>The one thing I always liked about Math and science, if I thought a
>teacher was wrong I had a chance to unequivocally prove them wrong with
>experiments or science. In my history (which I loved) and literature
>(which I loathed) classes, as often as not, the person who receieved the
>best grade was the person who could most effectively regurgitate the
>Teacher's opinions. At least in History I could be original by studying
>something the teacher did not know much about...
That's why math and science is so refreshing--the presence of standards
recognized by everyone makes it democratic in a way!
Why does the so-called left like to embrace relativism these days
anyway? Just wait till the Right discovers how useful relativism is--
"what is oppression anyway? who is to say the poor are really more
unhappy than the rich? since we construct reality, let the victims
of racism construct themselves a reality in which racism etc. don't
exist". You laugh, but this sort of thing has been used before
and will be used again.
We're getting off the SF topic! I'm going to go do a quiet penance
now.
Travis C. Porco
>In article <6pn9pd$e02$1...@news.umbc.edu>, wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) wrote:
>>liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>>: Of course college was a waste of time. That's what it's for -- to prove to
>>: corporations that you can put up with BS, thereby proving you can function in
>>: a corporate environment.
>>If that was your opinion of what College was for, then I suppose English
>>was the right major for you.
>>: And I did swtich majors -- from biochem TO English, because I needed a four
>>: year major I could finish in two years. English is a GREAT major, because
>>: there are no right answers -- just BS your way to a degree. In science, they
>>: keep expecting you to put down PRECISELY what the teacher thinks the answer
>>: should be. In English, you can say that Moby Dick represents capitalism and
>>: that Ahab is America, or something, and you'll get an A+.
>>Ah yeah, those pesky science teachers, they keep expecting that the
>>answers shhould reflect observed reality. How arrogant of them to impose
>>those standards on their students.
>Quite. Isn't an ELEGANT answer better than a RIGHT one? Doesn't IMAGINATION
>mean anything? Shouldn't we answer with how the universe should be, rather
>than it is? And aren't you glad I'm not designing any bridge you might happen
>to drive over?
If I may say so, this is a typical misunderstanding. A lot of people seem
to resent the hard standards of science or mathematics, apparently under
the impression that it is in opposition to such things as "creativity",
"imagination", etc. But this isn't a useful way to think at all!
Imagine that someone has a creative solution to a puzzle; happens all
the time!
It is the difficulty of the puzzle that makes the creativity
meaningful! If you could just write down any old thing, where would be
the drive for the creativity? where would be the meaning of the creativity?
Who would appreciate it? Creativity is wasted without standards to
measure itself against!
Lizard
wrote:
>liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>
>: Come now, is that the best you can do?
>
>It's true! Before writing that, I spent a little time reviewing
>what the assigned reading was for 12th grade English lit (the last
>time I was subjected to a rigorous literature curriculum); the only
>author whom I could fit into the "elitist writing for elitist"
>category was T. S. Eliot. Dostoevsky wrote in the best penny-a-page
>serial tradition of the best science fiction authors. Shakespeare,
>as you've said earlier, competed with bear-baiting for his
>Elizabethan audience. Emile Zola wrote for the popular press.
>
>The "elitist" canard is a strawman, and diverts attention away
>from the real issue, which is whether non-genre fiction (whatever
>its source, whatever its audience) has anything to offer which
>genre fiction does not.
>
You never responded (that my newsserver has seen) to my lengthy post
in which I explained, at some length and in my best poetic style, why
I prefer 'genre' fiction. Respond to that one, and we'll talk.
>For that matter, would you not say that in certain circumstances
>the science fiction author is an "elitist" (one of a select club)
>writing for "elitists" (a limited audience)? I don't think that
>the fan base of SF is nearly as wide as it is for other sorts of
>genre fiction (say, mystery novels.)
>
It can be, certainly. There's plenty of SF with pretensions of being
literature. (The whole of the pointless 'new wave' for one)
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice;
Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue:AuH20
http://www.mrlizard.com
Lizard
wrote:
<More deleted>
You know what's scaring me? Two people took my (way over the top, IMO)
parody of Pretentious Artistes Criticizing Cold Science seriously.
Which means there are people out there who would say what I said and
*mean* it.
Brrrr....
Permit me to summarize more succinctly.
a)Science and math require scholarship, discipline, study, and work.
b)Literature, philosophy, and other squishy subjects[1] require only
an ability to sling the bull.
c)Guess which I discovered I was better at, or, rather, which would
leave me more free time in college to play with computers and
otherwise learn what I *wanted* to learn?
In essence, becoming an English major gave me enough free time to
teach myself programming, and to learn all the science I really wanted
to learn, without having to chop up cats, spill acid on my hands, or
remember what the liver secretes. (Chemicals, IIRC. Lots of them.)
[1]Including 'sciences' like sociology, anthropology, and psychology.
Lizard
Wojtysiak) wrote:
<deleted>
You *do* recognize sarcasm and self-mockery when you see it, correct?
Or do I have to express myself in functions?
Lizard
wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 18:57:24 GMT, liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>
>[...]
>>>Somehow the book Dumas wrote about me managed to become
>>>considered "great lit" even though he was basicaly the Tom
>>>Clancy of his day.
>>>
>>Ditto Shakespeare -- the Stephen King (or perhaps Irwin Allen) of the late 16th century.
>>
>>"No, no! We need some more ghosts, and another murder, and how about some
>>slapstick clowns in the middle? Yeah, that'll keep them interested. Pity that
>>stupid "To be..." speech is so long, but he has to keep yapping while everyone
>>changes costume backstage. Doesn't matter, they'll forget about it once the
>>killing starts."
>>
>
> Here we have a case study in how to demolish your credibility in
>one easy post.
>
Save, of course, that I'm correct. Shakespeare was a hack. The various
'great playwrights' of his time are forgotten, but his work lives on,
because he wrote *good* *stories*, not "Great Art". Good stories last.
"Art" doesn't.
When was the last time Kenneth Branagh made a movie from one of
Francis Bacon's plays?
>>Popular culture, ultimately, is the onlyculture which matters, because it is
>>the art which actually reflects the feelings, needs, desires, etc of the
>>society in which it is produced. So-called "great art" --- produced by the
>>elite for the elite -- is by its nature temporary. Hackwork is forever.
>
> Which makes Lionel Fanthorpe the greatest writer that ever lived!
Who?
PMccutc103
>The one thing I always liked about Math and science, if I thought a
>teacher was wrong I had a chance to unequivocally prove them wrong with
>experiments or science. In my history (which I loved) and literature
>(which I loathed) classes, as often as not, the person who receieved the
>best grade was the person who could most effectively regurgitate the
>Teacher's opinions. At least in History I could be original by studying
>something the teacher did not know much about...
[This isn't particularly directed at you, Bill; I've been thinking this for a
while, and your post was sort of related.]
Y'know, the number of people on this group for whom school experiences have so
much resonance is surprising to me. I don't know if I'm older than average --
I'm 34, if anybody cares -- or if my school experiences were less traumatic,
but I generally enjoyed school and did reasonably well throughout.
Nor was I somebody who always lapped up whatever my teachers said. I don't
know if anybody will believe me, but I've always been a) opinionated and b)
willing to express my opinions. I certainly don't recall any one of my
teachers or professors punishing me for disagreeing with him or her.
In fact, when I look back and ponder how obnoxious I was at nineteen (You think
I'm bad now; I was _much worse_ then.) I'm actually rather shocked that most of
my profs were so tolerant.
I hear people [again, not you, Bill] ranting and raving about these schoolday
slights, and I've got to say that I just can't relate. My memories of school
are, generally, fond ones. I had a pretty good time, even if I did have Raman
noodles rather more often than I would have liked.
--
Pete McCutchen
Bill McHale
: In article <6pnr81$n...@enews1.newsguy.com>, <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
: >In article <90169959...@wagasa.cts.com>, eda...@cts.com wrote:
: >>In <6pla8t$7...@enews4.newsguy.com>, liz...@mrlizard.com writes:
: >>>What is of immediate importance is the reconstruction of the heroic ideal,
: >>>recast in terms which resonate to 20th century man. We don't believe in gods
: >>>or demons, but we can believe, or should believe, in superheroes and alien
: >>>invaders.
: >>Somehow the book Dumas wrote about me managed to become
: >>considered "great lit" even though he was basicaly the Tom
: >>Clancy of his day.
: >Ditto Shakespeare -- the Stephen King (or perhaps Irwin Allen) of the late 16th century.
: >"No, no! We need some more ghosts, and another murder, and how about some
: >slapstick clowns in the middle? Yeah, that'll keep them interested. Pity that
: >stupid "To be..." speech is so long, but he has to keep yapping while everyone
: >changes costume backstage. Doesn't matter, they'll forget about it once the
: >killing starts."
: >Popular culture, ultimately, is the onlyculture which matters, because it is
: >the art which actually reflects the feelings, needs, desires, etc of the
: >society in which it is produced. So-called "great art" --- produced by the
: >elite for the elite -- is by its nature temporary. Hackwork is forever.
: Of course, if a people is great, the best hackwork designed to please
: them will be great. I'd also suggest that (truly) great art has no
: other origin. From Sophocles to Shakespeare to Dostoyevsky to Mark Twain,
: the true greats always had a general public who understood them. Whether
: our public and our marketing mechanisms can produce such art is not really
: known at this time. I certainly agree that "so-called 'great art'--produced
: by the elite for the elite" is temporary; in 100 years no one is likely
: to have the foggiest idea why, say, a soup can, or a couple of color blotches,
: ever appealed to anyone. They'll use the old fable about the Emperor's New
: Clothes, which will be remembered, to get a chuckle at our expense.
Actually I believe that was Warhol's point in the first place. Of course
the rest of the world took him seriously...
As for the argument about a people being great? I think I can state
pretty confidently that people are people are people. There seems to be
some myth flying around that some peoples have been greater than others.
Probably because we tend to look back at groups like the Classical Greeks
and Romans, the Elizabethan English and others as being great times in our
history. As a result we tend to think of them as great people. But
consider how different our perceptions might have been if things had gone
differently. If Hannible had won the 2nd Punic War or the Spanish Armada
had successfully invaded England, our window to the past might be
completely different. We might be looking fondly back on the Great
Phonecians or...
Jim Mann
>
>
> Save, of course, that I'm correct. Shakespeare was a hack.
You have a very strange definition of "hack." Most of us tend to define
hack as some one who churns out lots of often-fun, often-popular
material but material which has no real depth, lasting power, or style.
>The various
> 'great playwrights' of his time are forgotten, but his work lives on,
Shakespeare was the greatest of the great playrights of his time. His
work was universally well regarded at the time.
> because he wrote *good* *stories*, not "Great Art". Good stories last.
> "Art" doesn't.
Shakespeare did both. His work was popular because of his good stories
(though I'd argue that the real lasting power, the real depth, is more
the result of his characters and his style), but it lasts because it is
much more than than.
Jim Mann
Jim Mann
>
> Why does the so-called left like to embrace relativism these days
> anyway?
The left? Well, in some ways. But it's the right that keeps using the
term "elitist" every time anyone wants to say that Shakespeare is better
than Clancy or Beethoven is better than the Spice Girls. I think if we
applied a dollar to the Federal defecit every time Newt used the term
"elitist" in debates over the arts we'd have paid it off by now.
Jim Mann
Jim Mann
> The one thing I always liked about Math and science, if I thought a
> teacher was wrong I had a chance to unequivocally prove them wrong with
> experiments or science. In my history (which I loved) and literature
> (which I loathed) classes, as often as not, the person who receieved the
> best grade was the person who could most effectively regurgitate the
> Teacher's opinions. At least in History I could be original by studying
> something the teacher did not know much about...
>
But the real problem here seems to be with the teacher, not with the
subject itself (though I grant there are lots of bad ones who act the
way you describe). A good literature teacher will grade a paper based on
the strength of the argument and the way the conclusions flow from that
argument, even if he/she disagrees. Are the points the writers is making
supported by the book? Is the writer leaving out other key points to
bolster his/her argument? Do the facts presented actually lead to the
conclusion? This can be done in at least a reasonably objective way. You
can prove the teacher wrong (or the teacher can prove you wrong) by
going back to the book and pointing out specifics.
It's not quite as cut and dried as math or science, but it's not purely
subjective either.
Jim Mann
tomlinson
: Shakespeare was the greatest of the great playrights of his time. His
: work was universally well regarded at the time.
Not quite; there's a famous attack on Shakespeare by some playwright
otherwise long forgotten; he fulminated on the cheek of this mere
actor who had the conceit to "bombast out a Shake-scene with the best
of them" or something like that. But this happened early in Shake-
speare's career as a playwright.
Ah, I remember now. The dramatist was Robert Greene; he wrote his
little screed on his death-bed in 1592.
-tomlinson
--
Ernest S. Tomlinson - San Diego State University
O di immortales! Kenium interfecerunt!
Bill McHale
: Bill McHale wrote:
It is not nearly as cut and dried as it is in the sciences. Indeed some
schools of literary criticism have seemed to abandon the concept of
objectivity all together. Ultimately in any literature discussion, even
if the teacher is trying to be their fairest, its going to come down to
personal opinion, does the teacher agree with the way that the student
argues, or what they are arguing etc. There are no, can be no standards
that objectivy either of those things.
In science and math, there are rigorous, objective ways that I can proove
my case, and if the teacher will not listen, I can bring my results in
front of peers who will listen.
It can only be considered objective if all observers will agree on the
results. If that was the case with literature, noone would be studying
Shakespeare anymore.
Steve Simmons
: Why are you reading Dostoyevsky? Why not a novel set in the late twentieth
: century at an American university? Those characters' problems would be even
: more like yours.
*chuckle* Reminds me of a comment from Joe Haldeman:
"Bad books on writing and thoughtless English professors solemnly
tell beginners to WRITE WHAT YOU KNOW, which explains why so many
mediocre novels are about English professors contemplating adultery."
--
The address used here is a spam trap. My friends know how to find me.
Robert Devereaux
: Jim Mann (jm...@transarc.com) wrote:
: Not quite; there's a famous attack on Shakespeare by some playwright
: otherwise long forgotten; he fulminated on the cheek of this mere
: actor who had the conceit to "bombast out a Shake-scene with the best
: of them" or something like that. But this happened early in Shake-
: speare's career as a playwright.
: Ah, I remember now. The dramatist was Robert Greene; he wrote his
: little screed on his death-bed in 1592.
Yes. In fact, there's a Bay Area bookstore called The Upstart Crow,
which comes, I believe, from this same quotation.
--
Robert Devereaux
Author of SANTA STEPS OUT: A FAIRY TALE FOR GROWN-UPS (Dark Highway Press)
http://www.frii.com/~bovberg/DHPress.htm
http://www.drcasey.com/literature/spotlight/interview.shtml
Evelyn C. Leeper
Jim Mann <jm...@transarc.com> wrote:
> Lizard wrote:
> >
> > Save, of course, that I'm correct. Shakespeare was a hack.
>
> You have a very strange definition of "hack." Most of us tend to define
> hack as some one who churns out lots of often-fun, often-popular
> material but material which has no real depth, lasting power, or style.
He *was* a hack then, but is now a classic author. :-)
> >The various
> > 'great playwrights' of his time are forgotten, but his work lives on,
>
>
> Shakespeare was the greatest of the great playrights of his time. His
> work was universally well regarded at the time.
I don't believe this is true, but can't produce any evidence other than
pointing out that there is never universal agreement on anyone's
talent.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | ele...@lucent.com
+1 732 957 2070 | http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824
"That's how things are--you open the door to a possibility and the next
thing you know, an actuality has you by the throat." --Russell Hoban
tomlinson
: "entertainment" would suggest. Take _Crime and Punishment_--basically
: a best-selling crime story in its day. And it's "entertaining" in
: exactly the same way as any such story might be today. Yet Dostoyevsky
: has enough depth and philosophical substance in the book that it can
: change the way you think forever.
I think CRIME AND PUNISHMENT suffers a little from its being written
in a hurry, as a serial. There's a certain disjointed quality to it,
somewhat like Asimov's FOUNDATION.
But I meant to attempt to coerce this thread back onto SF, somehow.
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT is in part a "police procedural" fiction,
containing much lively discussion of the proper way to go about
solving a murder case. Speaking of police procedurals, has this
genre ever been rendered in an SF context?
The only examples I can call to mind are two short stories, one of
which I'm sure is by John Varley, the other which might have been
written by Varley. The latter is "The Barbie Murders"--damn, why
can't I remember who wrote it? I have forgotten the title of the
former story, but I remember the plot well. A woman is "awoken" to
find that she is the fourth in a series of murders, the victims of
whom have all been herself, or rather clones of herself. The
police procedural element comes in to a small extent. There's
considerable other detail, and one very badly written sex scene,
that I remember, in that Varley story.
Maskull
>On 29 Jul 1998 22:19:24 EDT, mas...@pop3.concentric.net (Maskull)
>wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Here we have a case study in how to demolish your credibility in
>>one easy post.
>>
>Save, of course, that I'm correct.
Save, of course, that you obviously don't have even a passing
acquaintance with the subject.
>Shakespeare was a hack.
Sure, if you define any artist who gets paid for their work a
hack. That would make DeLillo, Acker and Eco all hacks.
>The various
>'great playwrights' of his time are forgotten,...
What 'great playwrights'? Care to name them?
>...but his work lives on,
>because he wrote *good* *stories*, not "Great Art". Good stories last.
>"Art" doesn't.
>
Most of those stories existed before Shakespeare offered his
interpretation of them. It's the art that he exhibited in telling
those stories for which he is remembered today.
>When was the last time Kenneth Branagh made a movie from one of
>Francis Bacon's plays?
>
Francis Bacon never wrote any plays, Einstein. You better take
that English degree you claim to have back for a refund.
[...]
>>>So-called "great art" --- produced by the
>>>elite for the elite -- is by its nature temporary. Hackwork is forever.
>>
>> Which makes Lionel Fanthorpe the greatest writer that ever lived!
>
>Who?
My point exactly. Fanthorpe is a notorious sf hack and you've
never even heard of him. So much for "Hackwork is forever."
Jorj Strumolo
PM> Y'know, the number of people on this group for whom school
> experiences have so much resonance is surprising to me.
You probably are odd, yes. I'd think that just about anyone,
if asked, could come up with a dozen things from xer school days
that still irk when they come up in memory. After all, we were
younger then. Still being formed, so they say. Those experiences
leave marks seen throughout life. Most hadn't yet learned to
ignore the idiots and bullies with which life abounds.
PM> I don't know if I'm older than average -- I'm 34, if anybody
> cares -- or if my school experiences were less traumatic, but
> I generally enjoyed school and did reasonably well throughout.
Age doesn't much count. Doing reasonably well doesn't count either
(except as a negative in the eyes of the average). It's the social
aspects of school that are hell. The academic is a breeze.
PM> My memories of school are, generally, fond ones.
One wonders if you went to school on this planet, that's so odd
a statement. One expects most people here were brighter than
average, probably odder than average, and just didn't fit it.
Reindeer games can be a pain.
Jorj Strumolo
ET> I happen to find "elitist" fare (I was just waiting for
> Mr. Lizard to bring up _that_ tired old canard) interesting.
I didn't use the term. I'd say "mainstream" or "realistic" or
something else along those lines. Although this
ET> There are better ways to learn, then. But I'm a confirmed autodidact.
does come off sounding a bit elitist. But that's not about your
choice of reading matter, that's personal style, so I'll skip
the bits I found insulting or arrogant.
ET> if the author is any damn good, he's given these characters different
> outlooks and different ways of dealing with their same "boring lives".
That's trying to get by on characterization alone, it seems.
That may do it for some people. Hell, plenty of people watch
sports on TV, and I've never managed to last more than minutes
at that, it all seems so pointless. "Realistic" fiction seems to
experiment with what's possible if you take out the interesting
bits that I like in SF or mysteries. This may suit some people,
but it seems not to suit me. A bread sandwich.
ET> I'm a little bothered that you should find
> "the trivia of reality" so infuriating.
Don't be bothered on my account. I manage without guardians.
Nor did I say "infuriating"; that's your term.
ET> Is that just an empty rhetorical turn
> of phrase or did you really mean that?
Trying to get past the bit where our styles grate on each other,
you know the phrase "Life is what happens while you're making
plans"? I think that's supposed to mean "don't sweat the small
stuff, get out there and experience, enjoy". But I don't see
it. Life is all small stuff, endless streams of annoyances,
disappointments, delays, more. We make plans, we do stuff like
read, we distract ourselves and fill our days to try to get away
from them. Because there's no glory in just breathing. (There
can be worry and even panic, but various combinations of seven
meds eight times a day deals with most of that.)
Maybe some souls are inherently ebullient.
I'm a darker shade of grey.
Vern Hart
>
> At the Modern Library site they have a list of peoples
> choices. It has more SF including Enders Game, Hitchhikers,
> and some others that don't come to mind. Of course people
> on the net aren't a demographic cross sample.
There's a list that sets demographics aside by saying it's the
-Internet's- Top 100 SF/Fantasy list. It's got only a little more than
2000 votes so it isn't a good representation but maybe someday it will
be.
There's an html version of it at http://www.vern.com/top100sff/
Cheers,
Vern
Kevin J. Maroney
>It's true! Before writing that, I spent a little time reviewing
>what the assigned reading was for 12th grade English lit (the last
>time I was subjected to a rigorous literature curriculum); the only
>author whom I could fit into the "elitist writing for elitist"
>category was T. S. Eliot.
James Joyce was certainly an elitist writing for the elite, but I
don't know that he's read in high school.
Kevin Maroney | kmar...@crossover.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor
The New York Review of Science Fiction
http://ebbs.english.vt.edu/olp/nyrsf/nyrsf.html
tomlinson
: James Joyce was certainly an elitist writing for the elite, but I
: don't know that he's read in high school.
We were assigned PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST OF A YOUNG MAN, which I had
quite forgotten. OK, make that two.
Splifford
(tomlinson) wrote:
Varley wrote "The Barbie Murders". One of two-three mysteries set in the
same moon colony.
Rich Horton
wrote:
>The latter is "The Barbie Murders"--damn, why
>can't I remember who wrote it? I have forgotten the title of the
>former story, but I remember the plot well. A woman is "awoken" to
>find that she is the fourth in a series of murders, the victims of
>whom have all been herself, or rather clones of herself. The
>police procedural element comes in to a small extent. There's
>considerable other detail, and one very badly written sex scene,
>that I remember, in that Varley story.
These are both Varley. I think the clone story is "The Phantom of
Kansas", but I may be wrong.
--
Rich Horton | rrho...@concentric.net
"I am an excellent cook, and anyway when I am fifty I will probably
prefer the breakfast to the girl anyway." - W. M. Spackman
Rich Horton
> You probably are odd, yes. I'd think that just about anyone,
> if asked, could come up with a dozen things from xer school days
> that still irk when they come up in memory. After all, we were
> younger then. Still being formed, so they say. Those experiences
> leave marks seen throughout life. Most hadn't yet learned to
> ignore the idiots and bullies with which life abounds.
Well, doubtless I'm odd too, or maybe it's just because I am also from
the Chicago area, but I agree with Pete. I generally liked High
School, I liked most of my teachers, and those I didn't I tolerated,
and learned how to deal with their tics, I liked an awful lot of the
books I was assigned to read (didn't like _Dandelion Wine_, though,
which I'd bet a lot of rasfw readers would wish they'd been assigned).
Sure, there were idiots and bullies, and sometimes I was unhappy, and
I wish the pretty girls I lusted after were more interested in me ...
but, on balance, it sure as heck didn't scar me for life. (Or maybe
it did, but I can't notice it.)
Rich Horton
wrote:
>Ah, I remember now. The dramatist was Robert Greene; he wrote his
>little screed on his death-bed in 1592.
Right. When the sum total of Shakespeare's output was what? Titus
Andronicus, Henry VI, and A Comedy of Errors? Anyway not much more.
Travis C. Porco
>Travis C. Porco (po...@stat.Berkeley.EDU) wrote:
>: >In article <90169959...@wagasa.cts.com>, eda...@cts.com wrote:
>: >>In <6pla8t$7...@enews4.newsguy.com>, liz...@mrlizard.com writes:
>: >>>What is of immediate importance is the reconstruction of the heroic ideal,
>: >>>recast in terms which resonate to 20th century man. We don't believe in gods
>: >>>or demons, but we can believe, or should believe, in superheroes and alien
>: >>>invaders.
>: >>Somehow the book Dumas wrote about me managed to become
>: >>considered "great lit" even though he was basicaly the Tom
>: >>Clancy of his day.
>: >Ditto Shakespeare -- the Stephen King (or perhaps Irwin Allen) of the late 16th century.
>: >"No, no! We need some more ghosts, and another murder, and how about some
>: >slapstick clowns in the middle? Yeah, that'll keep them interested. Pity that
>: >stupid "To be..." speech is so long, but he has to keep yapping while everyone
>: >changes costume backstage. Doesn't matter, they'll forget about it once the
>: >killing starts."
>: >Popular culture, ultimately, is the onlyculture which matters, because it is
>: >the art which actually reflects the feelings, needs, desires, etc of the
>: >society in which it is produced. So-called "great art" --- produced by the
>: >elite for the elite -- is by its nature temporary. Hackwork is forever.
>: Of course, if a people is great, the best hackwork designed to please
>: them will be great. I'd also suggest that (truly) great art has no
>: other origin. From Sophocles to Shakespeare to Dostoyevsky to Mark Twain,
>: the true greats always had a general public who understood them. Whether
>: our public and our marketing mechanisms can produce such art is not really
>: known at this time. I certainly agree that "so-called 'great art'--produced
>: by the elite for the elite" is temporary; in 100 years no one is likely
>: to have the foggiest idea why, say, a soup can, or a couple of color blotches,
>: ever appealed to anyone. They'll use the old fable about the Emperor's New
>: Clothes, which will be remembered, to get a chuckle at our expense.
>Actually I believe that was Warhol's point in the first place. Of course
>the rest of the world took him seriously...
Yes, the joke is really on them! I believe much the same is true of
"postmodernism" as well; it's _supposed_ to be meaningless!
>As for the argument about a people being great? I think I can state
>pretty confidently that people are people are people. There seems to be
>some myth flying around that some peoples have been greater than others.
>Probably because we tend to look back at groups like the Classical Greeks
>and Romans, the Elizabethan English and others as being great times in our
>history. As a result we tend to think of them as great people. But
>consider how different our perceptions might have been if things had gone
>differently. If Hannible had won the 2nd Punic War or the Spanish Armada
>had successfully invaded England, our window to the past might be
>completely different. We might be looking fondly back on the Great
>Phonecians or...
True, but this suggests that the correlation between our ability to judge
greatness based on history, and greatness itself, is not perfect.
Individuals can be more courageous, imaginative, talented, determined, etc.
than other individuals; I don't see why groups can't differ as well.
Especially when you consider that groups can have wildly different
cultures and values, and that not all values equally promote survival
or prosperity of the group. The really surprising thing would be to
find that all groups are the same--that is a very special circumstance!
--
Travis **standard disclaimers apply**
"Their real problem was that they assumed themselves able to formulate
the questions, and ignored the fact that the questions were every bit
as important as the answers." --Idries Shah, _The Sufis_
Travis C. Porco
Lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>On 30 Jul 1998 00:19:17 GMT, po...@stat.Berkeley.EDU (Travis C. Porco)
>wrote:
><More deleted>
>You know what's scaring me? Two people took my (way over the top, IMO)
>parody of Pretentious Artistes Criticizing Cold Science seriously.
Believe me, there's no position so absurd that no one on the net
believes it! Trying to satirize for instance the academic left is almost
impossible, some of it is so far out!
So I'm glad to hear that you're not the PACCS :), but frankly the satire
was well-done enough, and unfortunately close enough to reality, to
be believable. One good friend of mine, whom I've had good natured
spirited arguments with for years, holds views that are only a shade
less far out than what you posted!
>Which means there are people out there who would say what I said and
>*mean* it.
Yes indeed.
>Brrrr....
>Permit me to summarize more succinctly.
>a)Science and math require scholarship, discipline, study, and work.
>b)Literature, philosophy, and other squishy subjects[1] require only
>an ability to sling the bull.
The way they're taught and practiced today, yes! What's amazing to
me is that real literature study--or creation!--is a demanding business,
as is real philosophy--where argument does count and positions do
get refuted sometimes. But on the whole you're right, and I think the
reason is that the sort of people who just HATE the idea of correctness
itself (which they think is an evil, intrinsically elitist idea) have
found it easiest to attack the fields where the nature of standards or
correctness are the weakest.
In other words because it's so hard to say just what makes a great book
great, they find it convenient to deny the concept of greatness itself.
As though any old book could be declared "great" and we'd all follow it
like sheep. If it's all "social", then maybe the KKK will take over
and declare The Turner Diary to be "great", and who will be able to
argue with them--it's all relative and socially-determined, right?
Why do the pomo-types struggle so hard to take away the
intellectual weapons people use to fight fascism? I've never understood
that.
>c)Guess which I discovered I was better at, or, rather, which would
>leave me more free time in college to play with computers and
>otherwise learn what I *wanted* to learn?
>In essence, becoming an English major gave me enough free time to
>teach myself programming, and to learn all the science I really wanted
>to learn, without having to chop up cats, spill acid on my hands, or
>remember what the liver secretes. (Chemicals, IIRC. Lots of them.)
Cool.
Travis C. Porco
This is absolutely true. I don't know why people seem to find this
necessary, this kind of rhetoric. It probably is something to do with
the nature of a democracy itself; there's no question that lowest-common-
denominatorism is always a tendency. What I find sad is that the people
who should be the real elites of the humanities--the academic literati--
are engaged in a war of total destruction against their own field
by using anti-elitism and relativism. So they provide no defense against
the populist right's use of anti-intellectualism. BTW there's nothing
wrong with deflating pretentious windbags--clearing the air of false
or unearned "elites". There are plenty of people on the academic left
who while they may well condemn "elitism" of a certain sort, very much
enjoy their privileges in this society!
Sorry that's so scattered; I'm stoned on antihistamines since I have
the croup. Kind regards,
Courtenay Footman
>Travis C. Porco (po...@stat.Berkeley.EDU) wrote:
>
>genre ever been rendered in an SF context?
I would say that Lee Killough's _Dragon's Teeth_ qualifies. In
fact, the Encyclopedia describes it, and its prequels, as such.
--
Courtenay Footman I have again gotten back on the net, and
c...@lightlink.com again I will never get anything done.
(All mail from non-valid addresses is automatically deleted by my system.)
tomlinson
: These are both Varley. I think the clone story is "The Phantom of
: Kansas", but I may be wrong.
That's it, that's the one. I sort of liked it; "Barbie Murders"
was much better, and probably among the twenty best shorts I've
read (I only read it once and I still remember it vividly.)
tomlinson
: Well, doubtless I'm odd too, or maybe it's just because I am also from
: the Chicago area, but I agree with Pete. I generally liked High
: School, I liked most of my teachers, and those I didn't I tolerated,
: and learned how to deal with their tics, I liked an awful lot of the
: books I was assigned to read (didn't like _Dandelion Wine_, though,
: which I'd bet a lot of rasfw readers would wish they'd been assigned).
You were assigned DANDELION WINE? Geez. That was one of my
favorites--on the other hand, I seem to remember that I was
always rereading the bits that I liked and skipping the rest.
I don't remember too much from high school; it was boring enough.
Junior high school (grades 7 to 9) were worse. Caltech, where I
went to school for two years, _did_ scar me for life, though; it
took me three years to regain some degree of composure after getting
kicked out of that loony bin.
PMccutc103
>
>> Why does the so-called left like to embrace relativism these days
>> anyway?
>
>The left? Well, in some ways. But it's the right that keeps using the
>term "elitist" every time anyone wants to say that Shakespeare is better
>than Clancy or Beethoven is better than the Spice Girls.
Ah, now I remember. It was _Strom Thurmond_ leading the demonstration at
Stanford, the one where they snake-danced through campus, chanting "Hey, hey,
ho, ho, Western Culture's gotta go."
>I think if we
>applied a dollar to the Federal defecit every time Newt used the term
>"elitist" in debates over the arts we'd have paid it off by now.
I think Newt's primary objection is to "art," that involves smearing one's
naked torso in chocolate or displaying a crucifix in a jar of urine. Newt's
average constituent might not particularly want to attend a Shakespeare play,
but that person would likely recognize it as art. The same could not be said
of many of the well-publicized "artworks" funded by the NEA.
When Newt uses the term "elitist," I think he's referring to the essentially
parastic, extremely incestuous, ultimately empty art world. My guess is that
he'd be quite willing to admit that Beethoven is better than the Spice Girls.
The problem, as Newt would see it, is that the NEA won't fund Shakespeare;
they're far more likely to fund some naked guy who plays the drums using his
private parts while reciting free verse decrying the evils of capitalism.
--
Pete McCutchen
PMccutc103
>etom...@rohan.sdsu.edu (tomlinson) wrote:
>
>>It's true! Before writing that, I spent a little time reviewing
>>what the assigned reading was for 12th grade English lit (the last
>>time I was subjected to a rigorous literature curriculum); the only
>>author whom I could fit into the "elitist writing for elitist"
>>category was T. S. Eliot.
>
>James Joyce was certainly an elitist writing for the elite, but I
>don't know that he's read in high school.
I read the number 3 selection,_A Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man_, in
high school, oh so many years ago. (I actually have to say that I liked it
somewhat better than the Modern Library's number 1 selection, _Ulysses_, which
I most definitely did not read in high school.
--
Pete McCutchen
David Goldfarb
Robert Devereaux <bob...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
)Yes. In fact, there's a Bay Area bookstore called The Upstart Crow,
)which comes, I believe, from this same quotation.
Unless there's another one I don't know about, it's long
since been replaced by an Indian restaurant.
--
David Goldfarb <*>|"...with very few exceptions, nothing lasts
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | forever; and among those exceptions no thought
aste...@slip.net | or work of man is numbered." -- Iain M. Banks
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |
R. Byers
On 31 Jul 1998, PMccutc103 wrote:
> The problem, as Newt would see it, is that the NEA won't fund Shakespeare;
> they're far more likely to fund some naked guy who plays the drums using his
> private parts while reciting free verse decrying the evils of capitalism.
Yeah! I saw that guy! I thought it was a clever, rightist
attempt to discredit anti-capitalism, 'cause he came off as a real bozo.
There's nothing more effective than "protecting" freedom of speech by
letting some caricature get up and embarrass his ideology.
But, boy, when he lifted the tractor with his private parts as a
salute to the former Soviet farmworkers, I was kind of impressed -- albeit
pretty squicked at the same time!
--
Randy Byers
rby...@u.washington.edu
Jerry_F...@my-dejanews.com
s...@mail.msen.com (Steve Simmons) wrote:
> Jerry_F...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> : Why are you reading Dostoyevsky? Why not a novel set in the late twentieth
> : century at an American university? Those characters' problems would be even
> : more like yours.
>
> *chuckle* Reminds me of a comment from Joe Haldeman:
>
> "Bad books on writing and thoughtless English professors solemnly
> tell beginners to WRITE WHAT YOU KNOW, which explains why so many
> mediocre novels are about English professors contemplating adultery."
It's a good line, but as someone asked here a while ago (if that's precise
enough for you), has anyone actually read one of those books? No, _Pale Fire_
does not count.
Jerry Friedman
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Jerry_F...@my-dejanews.com
liz...@mrlizard.com (Lizard) wrote:
> On 29 Jul 1998 21:31:51 GMT, etom...@rohan.sdsu.edu (tomlinson)
> wrote:
>
...
> >For that matter, would you not say that in certain circumstances
> >the science fiction author is an "elitist" (one of a select club)
> >writing for "elitists" (a limited audience)? I don't think that
> >the fan base of SF is nearly as wide as it is for other sorts of
> >genre fiction (say, mystery novels.)
> >
> It can be, certainly. There's plenty of SF with pretensions of being
> literature. (The whole of the pointless 'new wave' for one)
Let's see if I can get a piece of the bait without taking the hook. Judging
by the Hugo awards, the SF with literary pretensions of the '60s and early
'70s was quite popular. You may dislike it, which is a matter of taste (I
like some of it a lot), but it's hardly pointless according to your
arguments.
Jerry_F...@my-dejanews.com
etom...@rohan.sdsu.edu (tomlinson) wrote:
> liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>
> : Come now, is that the best you can do?
>
> It's true! Before writing that, I spent a little time reviewing
> what the assigned reading was for 12th grade English lit (the last
> time I was subjected to a rigorous literature curriculum); the only
> author whom I could fit into the "elitist writing for elitist"
> serial tradition of the best science fiction authors. Shakespeare,
> as you've said earlier, competed with bear-baiting for his
> Elizabethan audience. Emile Zola wrote for the popular press.
I read (and enjoyed) Dante and Beckett in high school, and I'd say they were
writing for the elite, even among the literate. The eliterate?
The reason I mention the literate is that Dostoyevsky was writing for the
elite in one sense. I suspect that more than half of the Russian population
of his time couldn't read well enough to enjoy his work. (That's based on 0
data.)
>
> The "elitist" canard is a strawman, and diverts attention away
> from the real issue, which is whether non-genre fiction (whatever
> its source, whatever its audience) has anything to offer which
> genre fiction does not.
You didn't answer my comments on the complementary issue: whether "genre"
fiction has anything to offer that "lit-fi" does not. (Or I can't find your
answer with Deja News.) So I'll just point out that, as I implied above,
there's no reason to see sf as a genre but Updike, McCarthy, Morrison, etc.,
as somehow free of genre constraints and pleasures.
Well, not just that. The lit-fi marketing category does sometimes offer
something that the other genres don't. If you got a book from the mystery
section, and halfway through it there's no crime, you can be pretty sure that
one will be committed or revealed soon. In a book from the "literature"
shelves the crime comes as a surprise. Likewise in _Tam Lin_, from the sf
shelves, you know there will be a supernatural explanation for the strange
events; in _The Secret History_ there's doubt. But this is a problem with
marketing, not with genres, since I'd be happy to decide what genre a book is
in *after* I read it.
(The other problem with marketing categories is that the "satisfying story"
and "larger-than-life heroism" readers will probably like _All the Pretty
Horses_, by Cormac McCarthy, far better than _Little, Big_, to mention two of
my favorite books. But McCarthy is in the literature shelves with Beckett
and a National Book Award sticker, and Crowley is in the sf shelves with
Niven.)
> For that matter, would you not say that in certain circumstances
> the science fiction author is an "elitist" (one of a select club)
> writing for "elitists" (a limited audience)? I don't think that
> the fan base of SF is nearly as wide as it is for other sorts of
> genre fiction (say, mystery novels.)
Yeah, but sf fans don't consider themselves better than everybody else. That
is, uh, well... (Actually, the difference is that the REST of the world
doesn't consider sf fans better. However, there are people who have never
read either Dumas pere or Flaubert but believe that Flaubert is in a higher
category.)
Jerry_F...@my-dejanews.com
liz...@mrlizard.com (Lizard) wrote:
...
> Save, of course, that I'm correct. Shakespeare was a hack. The various
> 'great playwrights' of his time are forgotten, but his work lives on,
> because he wrote *good* *stories*, not "Great Art". Good stories last.
> "Art" doesn't.
Good stories? Shakespeare?
Anyway, lots of other people used the same silly stories before and after
Shakespeare, so as Jim Mann pointed out, you have to look at other things
(character and poetry, such as the "To be or not to be" speech) to see why
Shakespeare's work lives on.
As for the "great playwrights" of the time, are you thinking that, IIRC,
learned Jacobean critics preferred Ben Jonson to Shakespeare because Jonson
obeyed the Aristotelian unities? Well, Jonson still has his fans (such as
the late Robertson Davies), for reasons having nothing to do with Aristotle,
and I believe Jonson's plays are still performed, though much less often than
Shakespeare's. And Kyd, Marlowe, Beaumont and Fletcher, Webster, and Ford
are not forgotten (though I admit the only one I've read a whole play is
Marlowe).
The claim that "Art" doesn't last is probably closer to being true of prose
fiction than the other arts. (Think of Bach, late Beethoven, Wagner,
Stravinsky; of Milton, Keats, Yeats; of Van Gogh, Rodin, Picasso.) However,
it's still not true. People have mentioned Joyce. Nabokov was probably the
most openly elitist of all writers, but he wrote a best-seller and his works
still have a lively following. In all the arts, some lasting work is
produced with an eye on cash flow, some with an eye on the elite, and some
with an eye on nothing but the artist's own satisfaction.
Jerry_F...@my-dejanews.com
>
> Somehow the book Dumas wrote about me managed to become
> considered "great lit" even though he was basicaly the Tom
> Clancy of his day.
Considered by whom? (I've never read any Dumas, so I have no opinion.)
tomlinson
: The "Fans are Slans" line aside, on the whole I don't see anything
: really that elitist in the writership or readership of SF. The
: field used to try to appeal to boys or young men (today it would be
: young people of either sex) who had plenty of other activities
: competing for their attention (Heinlein made the point); if you're
: writing to an audience of 15 year olds in Nebraska say, and writing
: good, imaginative stuff, not much will go wrong.
There are different sorts of "elite". A well-known writer, for example
may build about himself a personal following, and begin writing his
works for that following. I think Douglas Adams has become such a
writer. Or a different example: genre fiction tends to foster the
writing of series and four-book trilogies. Once a writer starts
down that path, immediately he restricts his audience to that
minority of those whom the writer managed to capture with the first
book(s) of the series. In either case, the writer tends to write
for a special audience, an "elite".
Gerry Quinn
>>
>> The only examples I can call to mind are two short stories, one of
>> which I'm sure is by John Varley, the other which might have been
>> written by Varley. The latter is "The Barbie Murders"--damn, why
>> can't I remember who wrote it? I have forgotten the title of the
>> former story, but I remember the plot well. A woman is "awoken" to
>> find that she is the fourth in a series of murders, the victims of
>> whom have all been herself, or rather clones of herself. The
>> police procedural element comes in to a small extent. There's
>> considerable other detail, and one very badly written sex scene,
>> that I remember, in that Varley story.
>>
Varley wrote the 'opposite' story too, in a sense: a woman is awoken
to find she is an illegal clone held in bondage. Her captor killed
all the previous ones when they tried to escape - how does she try
something new this time?
Can't remember the title, but it was kind of the main one in his
series about Earth being taken over by aliens and humanity exiled to
the planets.
- Gerry
----------------------------------------------------------
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
----------------------------------------------------------
tomlinson
: That's trying to get by on characterization alone, it seems.
: That may do it for some people. Hell, plenty of people watch
: sports on TV, and I've never managed to last more than minutes
: at that, it all seems so pointless.
..comes off sounding a bit elitist :-/
(Myself, I'm a bandwagon-jumping Padres fan, have always liked
baseball; indifferent to football; loathe professional basketball
with a passion.)
: Don't be bothered on my account. I manage without guardians.
: Nor did I say "infuriating"; that's your term.
When you deliver yourself of the sentiment that the trivia of
life would drive you insane, "infuriating" is an accurate
description, whether you think it is or not.
: Maybe some souls are inherently ebullient.
: I'm a darker shade of grey.
It's not a question of being ebullient, but realizing
that things could be a lot worse. Hackneyed, but true.
(q.v. Joel Coen's FARGO for a good explication of this.)
jfri...@nnm.cc.nm.us
> But I meant to attempt to coerce this thread back onto SF, somehow.
> CRIME AND PUNISHMENT is in part a "police procedural" fiction,
> containing much lively discussion of the proper way to go about
> genre ever been rendered in an SF context?
Either I don't know what a police procedural is (and I admit to skipping Ed
McBain), or the classic sf examples are _The Caves of Steel_ and its sequels,
by Asimov, and _The Demolished Man_, by Bester. I think Niven's Gil Hamilton
stories might also fit.
Then there's "Brillo" (= metal fuzz), by Harlan Ellison and Ben Bova. I
suspect it was travestied into the TV series _Holmes and Yoyo_.
Steven Brust's Khaavren romances probably don't qualify, though the main
characters are on the Dragaeran equivalent of the police.
Robin Scott (Wilson) recently published a story called "Thanks, Diaz", which
I'm pretty sure was a police procedural. I think it was in Asimov's, but
maybe F&SF.
ObOffTopic: If my definition is wrong, what is a police procedural?