Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site druri.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!drutx!druri!dht From: dht@druri.UUCP (Davis Tucker) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE FICTION TODAY - PART I Message-ID: <1088@druri.UUCP> Date: Mon, 13-May-85 22:39:00 EDT Article-I.D.: druri.1088 Posted: Mon May 13 22:39:00 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 15-May-85 00:00:44 EDT Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver Lines: 117 THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE FICTION TODAY PART I: The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions by Davis Tucker ___________________________________________________________________________ "I hadn't liked his work until I met him, but I couldn't stand liking him so much and not liking his books, so I made myself read them until I liked them." (1) This quote exemplifies what is so difficult about science fiction and its relation to its public. Since it is such an insular (some would say inbred) community, there is a wonderful "personal" nature of the relationship between author and reader that does not really exist in any other genre (which I notice, most other forms of popular writing do not refer to themselves as a "genre", but that's something else altogether...). Fine. There is nothing wrong with a public being in closer contact with an author, as long as that contact does not downgrade any given person's ability to judge and appreciate. Unfortunately, this degradatation of critical faculties is unavoidable, just by human nature, and it takes a very strong sense of self to keep it in check. The above statement puts it very succinctly - and is a very good example of what is so often wrong with science fiction fandom and its rationale for giving accolades or insults. Dostoevsky was, by all accounts, an extremely contentious and obnoxious individual, who was prone to fits of rage and drunkenness; a man who died without many friends, mainly because he drove them off. Yet he is one of the finest writers of all time. His work is a product of himself; I'm not saying we have to divorce the man from the words. But given the usual nature of science fiction, if he happened to be a writer in that field today, he probably wouldn't get published, he certainly wouldn't win any awards, and he would definitely not gain any great appreciation from the science fiction readers and establishment. This is not conjecture; this is fact. And the hardest fact of all for many fans to swallow, which few of them have, is that it is often the most disagreeable people who write the greatest literature. Our most tortured souls, our outcasts, our misanthropists. Mark Twain. Edgar Allen Poe. Sinclair Lewis. John Steinbeck. Ambrose Bierce (to whom science fiction owes a great deal for writing a number of definitive "tomato surprise" stories). And even more recently, Norman Mailer, Gore Vidal, Truman Capote, Tennessee Williams! Let's be honest - almost all great writers, even if they were likeable, had some very horrible personality traits, often in the extreme. Alcoholism and drug abuse seem to be the congenital defects of writers, coupled with a large streak of self-destructiveness. Now, it's true that there are many likeable people who could fit into this company. But the point is that someone's congeniality is not his or her writing. It just flat out has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of his or her prose. A good friend of mine works for a newspaper. She's written all her life. She's a wonderful human being from whom I've learned an incredible amount. She's a very likeable person, the kind who draws people into conversations, who listens, who relates. But she can't write fiction for jack. No ifs, ands, or buts - she's just not good at it. Now am I supposed to start liking her writing because I like her? Sure, she's a close friend, and I'll do more than just give her the benefit of the doubt. But to "make myself read them until I like them", to bludgeon myself into liking her fiction, is to go against everything for which great, even good writing stands. It downgrades literature of any sort, takes it from being an art or a craft, to being a popularity contest. And that is wrong, wrong, wrong. Vincent Van Gogh was a tortured, insane, and lonely man. Norman Rockwell was basically a nice guy. I probably would not have enjoyed being around Van Gogh, while Norman and I would quite possibly have gotten along famously. So I should, by the above quoted argument, attempt to reach a deeper appre- ciation of Rockwell's work due to my personal fondness for him. In other words, if I like him so much as a person, I certainly would like his work. But no matter how much I tried, Norman Rockwell would never be one millionth of Vincent Van Gogh, would never possess one iota of Van Gogh's genius. Isaac Asimov, from everything I've heard, is a gentleman - well-mannered, considerate, helpful to young authors, interested in new talent. Some of his work possesses merit - his non-fiction. We'll forget about his poetry ("Dr. A." indeed!). His fiction is not that good - yes, it shows some marginal crafts- manship, some workable ideas, but it's not really that good, as fiction. His characters are at best two-dimensional, his societies are not really that interesting unless you like space opera, and his writing style is pretty nondescript and undeveloped. His plots are rather predictable, and his themes are shopworn after 40 years. Whatever he had to say about robots he said a long, long time ago (Karel Kapek said it with much more depth and understanding in "R.U.R.", which predates any of the Asimov robot stories). He has made a career out of mediocrity, out of the standard "Scientist-With-Great-Idea-Explains-It-All-To-Young-Whippersnapper" story so unfortunately common in science fiction (especially the misnamed "Golden Age Of Science Fiction"). There's nothing wrong with that; believe me, the last thing I would do is take cheap potshots at someone who actually makes a living by being a writer, even if I think he's not a very good one. But nothing he has written even comes close to Gene Wolfe. This isn't mere opinion - I don't truck with the idea of absolute relativism in art. It is probably an overstatement, but Asimov is to Wolfe as Rockwell is to Van Gogh. Appreciation of good writing takes many forms, and it is arguably less critically bankrupt to like an author for his work than to like his work for his personality. A writer and his work are certainly not separate; but it is the printed word which must be judged, because that is the primary function of a writer - not to be a nice human being, or a good father, or a temperate drinker, but to be a good writer. Anything else is superfluous, unimportant, icing on the cake. A great author can be forgiven anything in his life, no matter how heinous; a bad writer can be the finest man in the world, but he cannot be forgiven being a bad writer. If science fiction were not a field of literary endeavor (and who knows? Sometimes it really does seem to be something totally different), none of this would matter. But it is, and it is incumbent upon readers of science fiction to remember this, and judge accordingly, and not allow personalities to affect that judgement. That's all for today, kids. Tune in next week for "THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE FICTION TODAY, PART II: Meet The New Hack, Same As The Old Hack". (1) Steven Brust, USENET article dated May 6, 1985