Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!jagardner
From: jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner)
Newsgroups: net.books
Subject: Re: what do _you_ think of sf?
Message-ID: <14580@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-May-85 15:45:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.14580
Posted: Tue May 21 15:45:10 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 22-May-85 01:16:28 EDT
References: <335@osiris.UUCP>
Reply-To: jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner)
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 65

[...]

One mustn't fault the SF field for being filled with a lot of
hacks.  Hacks abound in every field of writing, especially "genre"
writing where clever handling of genre elements can make up for mediocrity
in the actual prose.  (For example, readers of mysteries will forgive
pedestrian writing if the mystery itself is well-constructed.)  Even the
non-genre field is full of writers who are uninspired to say the least.

It so happens that in most English-speaking societies, academics and
newspaper reviewers pay more attention to "mundane" literature than to
genre literature.  Heaven knows why this is so; perhaps it is that mundane
literature is thought to be more accessible than genre literature.  It is
certainly more accessible than hard science SF which requires a familiarity
with science that more arts-oriented reviewers do not have.  (Net users are
probably exceptions to this generality -- the very fact that you are using
a computer to read this means that you have more technical familiarity
than most of the world.)

Because mundane literature receives more attention and respect than genre
literature, young writers who are learning their craft in traditional
universities, colleges, and workshops are often subtly or not-so-subtly
directed away from genre writing into mundane literature.  (Interruption:
in all this, I use the term "mundane" to mean non-genre or "mainstream"
writing.  It refers to general content, not quality.)  Having gone to
a number of workshops and writing classes, I have seen this happen many
times.  Young writers are encouraged when they write down-to-earth things
and discouraged when they approach the fantastic.  As a result, the best
trained, best educated writers are funnelled into mundane writing.

On the other hand, there are a large number of writers now who are
breaking out of this mold in response to inner urgings, the spirit of
the times, or whatever.  Doris Lessing, for example, has now written
five SF novels.  I have read that she has had to put up with a lot of
criticism from the British writing establishment -- SF is not respectable
literature, even though her SF novels have the same quality of prose
and thought as all her other work.  Other excellent writers are also
introducing SF and fantasy elements into their work, but for some reason,
SF still remains less than respectable.

This is not true in non-English literature.  Latin American literature
is rife with fantastic elements and has been for decades.  For some reason,
the same academics who pooh-pooh SF in general are currently lionizing the
Latin Americans for the same sort of ideas.

One of the nicest arguments I've seen in favour of SF vs. other fields
of literature is made by Samuel R. Delany, an SF writer who deserves to
be ranked among the great writers of our day, regardless of genre.
Delany points out that SF stories can say anything that a non-SF story
can, but that the reverse is not true.  This works on very low levels
like sentence structure -- Delany cites the sentence "The door dilated"
from a Heinlein novel as a sentence that could never appear in a mundane
piece -- and on higher levels, where the author simply has a wider range
of ways to convey character details, thematic points, philosophical ideas,
and so on.

This is not to say that SF writers are better than others; as I have said,
there is a selective process which tends to channel many good writers away
from SF.  But SF offers authors a wider scope for their imaginations and
creativity.  The best SF writers (e.g. Delany and Gene Wolfe) make full
use of that scope.  As for the rest...there's a lot to be said for a good
story, and these days, masterpieces are few and far between in any field.

				Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo