Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!nsc!chuqui
From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Yes, *H*A*R*L*A*N* *E*L*L*I*S*O*N*
Message-ID: <1840@nsc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 02:14:27 EST
Article-I.D.: nsc.1840
Posted: Thu Nov  8 02:14:27 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 9-Nov-84 08:31:00 EST
References: <4049@decwrl.UUCP> <>
Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui)
Organization: The Warlocks Cave, Western Annex
Lines: 57
Keywords: potshots
Summary: 

In article <984@druri.UUCP> isiw@druri.UUCP writes:
>If I read one more Harlan-Ellison-
>I'm-SO-depressed-and-nobody-likes-me-so-I'm-going-to-blow-up-the-whole-world
>story, I'm going to be ill. The guy has *no* understanding of the word
>"subtlety". His idea of compassion is maudlin sentimentality and shameless
>pandering to the popular swings of fandom. 
Hmm... I've never seen anyone accuse Harlan of being subtle. He isn't, and
doesn't want to be. Maudlin sentimentality? shameless pandering? Are you
sure you don't have one of those wonderfully high quality Star Trek novels
in your hand? Harlan has been notoriously uneven for years-- at his worst
he comes across as self-indulgent and immature but at his best he is one of
the best writers in America. Period. His is not an easy form of literature
to read because it makes you think and it forces you to consider the
unpleasant aspects of life. He isn't a light read, but then neither are
writers such as Kafka, Dante, Cervantes and most of the other classic
writers. Of all of the SF that I feel will survive the test of time,
harlan's stuff is a good contender, along with Gene Wolfe's New Sun stuff
and Bradbury. These authors will be around long after the Clarkes and
Asimovs of the world are out of print because they aren't just good SF,
they are good works of literature. That doesn't make them easy things to
read, or enjoyable, but they are compelling and technically excellant. 

>And all this "Final Dangerous
>Visions" crap - so he's got a writer's block, eh? On an *anthology*? Give
>me a break! He's a hack, just like all the others, it's just that he's a
You obviously have never seriously tried to write. I could make a snide
comment about the chances of your success by the quality of your posting,
but I'll be nice and refrain. Anthologies are a LOT of work. Harlan's
writers block also had a physiological base (there was an article in Locus
a few issues back on this-- I can detail it if neccessary) that made it
impossible for him to work at all. One thing Harlan has NEVER been is a
hack. Just ask all of those castrated editors who tried to modify his work
when he didn't agree with their changes. Hacks care about money, harlan
cares about words...

>But at least he's got company - John Varley, George R. Martin, Barry B.
>Longyear, Anne McCaffrey (oh, those dragons are just *so* cute!).
Oooh, lets just take a potshot at ALL of SF while we're at it. Jump on
Issac, jump on Arthur, you forgot Terry Carr and R. A. MacAvoy, too.

>Mean-
>while, mainstream fiction has Martin Cruz Smith, Mark Halprin, geez -
>even Rosemary Rogers writes better than they do! Wake up! Neat ideas
>and far-off worlds and fantastic expostions don't make up for bad
>characterization, weak plots, and no character development, no matter
>*how* many tribbles you strew around.
There are at least as many BAD authors in 'mainstream' as there are in any
genre. Perhaps more. You can put the best SF authors and worst mainstream
people together and get just as biased a discussion in the other direction.
It sounds to my like you simply have a bias against SF.

chuq
-- 
From the Department of Bistromatics:                   Chuq Von Rospach
{cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui  nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA

  I'd know those eyes from a million years away....