Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site hyper.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!hyper!brust From: brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE FICTION TODAY - PART I Message-ID: <200@hyper.UUCP> Date: Wed, 15-May-85 16:14:53 EDT Article-I.D.: hyper.200 Posted: Wed May 15 16:14:53 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 17-May-85 00:22:20 EDT References: <1088@druri.UUCP> Organization: Network Systems Corp., Mpls., Mn. Lines: 289 > > 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. > Hi there. The quote was, of course, mine. That is only one of the things that moves me to answer. I will not apologize for the length; anyone can skip it and yours was a carefully thought out essay that deserves to be answered. What you say is not only wrong, but dangerously wrong. Should anyone with hopes of writing read it, and believe it, his career will likely be shot before it gets started. I am not unfamiliar with the kind of thinking going on here. It is the romanticising of the arts. Taking this seriously is fine for critics and historians, but for a writer to do so is pure poison. The notion that SF writers and fans are in closer touch than in most genres is true. The effect of this is to present to the writer more information on how is work is being taken than is common. To say that this is inherently a bad thing is to fall into the trap of feeling that an artist should be insensitive to the public's response to his art. Once again, we have the romance of the artist. But the JOB of the artist is to evoke emotion, and to deepen the viewer's knowledge of the world around him by bringing out and exposing the contradictions that operate on his, the viewer's or reader's, life. In other words, NO artist can create art that will move someone with whom he has nothing in common. The greatest artists are those who are most able to transcend that cultural differences that separate men to arrive at the underlying similarities. A common milue between writer and reader deepens the unity between them, and therefore makes even more sharp that the conflicts in the life of the artist, expressed through his art, are also there in the life of the reader. Should the artist feel he is creating art "above" the common man, he is no longer engaging in art, he is engaging in masterbation. To be clear, you are not saying all that I am attributing to you, but I sense it in your attitude and so feel driven to respond. > 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. No, this is nonsense. First of all, no one in the publishing industry would know anything about him when his manuscript first appeared. If it were good, it would be published. This is exactly the strength of Science Fiction. If you write good SF, you can publish. This is true to a lesser extent in mysteries, and almost nowhere else. But it is a low-paying field, and therefore the oppurtunity exists to take chances on unknowns. If what you say is true, Harlan Ellison would never have published, nor would Jerry Pournell (in the latter case, this might have been nice, but never mind) to pick just two examples. Neither of these people are well-liked (or were; I'm told Ellison is changing) but both are successful, and both have won awards. Now, there is nevertheless some truth to what you say about awards--as long as we are discussing the Hugo and not the Nebula--but even here the truth is very limited. All right, yes; the Hugo can be and sometimes has been a popularity contest. The Nebula has never been. Furthermore, if a writer can only sell to Fans (meaning those who have some contact with anything that can be called the Science Fiction Comunity) he will never be a successful author. If he were to be ostracised by these fans to the extent that NO fan would buy his books, the drop in sales would be noticable but not crippling. Just as a side note, by the way, have you been following the comments on TO REIGN IN HELL? If those who have been attacking it have been holding back out of affection for me, I don't want to hear their real opionions. > 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. > It is interesting to see the list of those you consider great writers. Twain; yes. But if you are implying that he was an unpleasant man, you are drastically overstating the case. Sinclair Lewis; okay. But Poe? "Greatest literature"??? Steinbeck? Certainly--sometimes. On a good day. As for your current choices, I can't believe you are serious. Truman Capote writing great liturature? For whom? I once thought the term self-indulgent was invented to describe him. And Mailer doesn't even have Capote's occasional gift for turn of phrase. I read SF because most (not all) of the best writers are working there. If you are going to mention current "liturature" that is worth reading, you should at least mention Salinger, who isn't consistent but is better than most of the ones you mention (I'll concede the point on Williams--he really is good, most of the time). As you say, someone's congeniality has no bearing on the quality of his prose. Think about that-- it runs both ways. > 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. > Why? I have, several times, had the pleasure of eating at The Bakery, a fine, continental restauraunt in Chicago. I have even made the 8-hour trip to Chicago to eat there. I also enjoy eating at little diner called "Key's" in St. Paul that the tiniest step above being a greasy spoon. The Bakery has good food; eating at "Key's" is pleasant. I don't feel that by enjoying eating at "Key's" I am insulting Chef Szathmary. They are not equal, I know the difference, and I can enjoy both. I feel I am richer thereby. I also read the Destroyer novels. In no way can they be called good. Nevertheless, I enjoy them. I do not feel my appreciation of Twain suffers because I can be entertained by pulp adventure. > > 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. > No. But if you can enjoy his work, there will be that much more that you can enjoy. Whence comes the notion that to enjoy the "sub-great" is to diminish enjoyment of the truly great? Take it on its own level and Rockwell is fine. The problem with Van Gogh is that there was only one of him. > 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. > I see. Well, I quite agree--QUITE agree--with your assessments of the relative literary merits of Dr. Asimov and Gene Wolfe. In fact, I don't think the comparison IS an overstatement. Yes, Asimov is to Wolfe as Rockwell is to Van Gogh. I've never met Dr. Asimov, but from everything I've heard, he gets away with acting as he does only becuase of his fame and success. He is--never mind. This is a semi-public forum. But I can safely say that, from all reports, Dr. Asimov is not a pleasant companion if you happen to be female. Okay. I HAVE met Gene Wolfe. On a panal, as the center of a group, on the fringe of a group, in letters, or in a tete-a-tete, you will never find a finer, wittier, more charming gentleman. Now, where does that leave you? > 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. > I will agree with this. Your notion that there is a widespread judgeing of literary quality based on personality is, however, incorrect. The real problem, which would be well worth addresing, is: the general of lack of criticism of any kind. You are a fan; this is obvious. You, like most fans, have a drastically overblown notion of the importence of fandom. Yes, we aren't getting much serious literary criticism, but this has little or nothing to do with fandom. Read LeGuin's essays on why American SF has generally been ignored by the critics. No, it isn't fandom--fandom just isn't that important to SF. There are interesting things going on in Science Fiction right now. On the one hand, with the sucess of Star Wars and Star Trek, we have an increase in popularity, with the similar incrase in cheap adventure, with little or no substance. At the same time, there is the emergence of exciting, new approaches, new themes, and higher literary standards. If fandom has had any effect at all on either of these I think that, as I said near the beginning of this response, it has been mostly a good one.