Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!duke!crm From: crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE FICTION TODAY, PART II Message-ID: <5867@duke.UUCP> Date: Tue, 21-May-85 13:33:29 EDT Article-I.D.: duke.5867 Posted: Tue May 21 13:33:29 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 01:36:12 EDT References: <1091@druri.UUCP> Reply-To: crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) Organization: Duke University Lines: 131 Summary: Them's fightin' words, pardner.... In article <1091@druri.UUCP> dht@druri.UUCP (Davis Tucker) writes: > THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE FICTION TODAY > PART II: Meet The New Hack, Same As The Old Hack > by Davis Tucker >_____________________________________________________________________________ > >What do we mean when we use the word "hack" in reference to an author? This >is often a very fuzzy phrase, and everyone has a different definition. Mine >is "an author who is merely competent, and who does not attempt to improve." >Stasis is death, at least in the creative world. Competency is a compliment >to mechanics, journalists, and airline pilots. It is a veiled insult (or a >left-handed compliment) to any creative person. To say that someone is a >"competent painter" means nothing. To be merely competent is to never rise >above a given level. In science fiction, competency and mediocrity go hand >in glove, dancing merrily into justifiable oblivion. If being a "competent writer" is an insult, I suppose that being an incompetent writer is a complement? Come off it -- Salieri was a competent composer who composed a lot of pretty music; (and not quite the bozo he was made out to be in the movie.) Do you expect everyone to be Mozart? I can tell you, being a "competent" writer is a struggle in itself, which should not be downplayed -- that not all SF writers are Herman Melville doesn't mean there is no value in their fiction.l > >We all have heard the lame excuse that science fiction has different rules >than mainstream fiction until it sounds like a broken record... >structural integrity, everything that is important to literature. Stephen >King, for all that we may think of him as a wasted talent, knows this, and what you mean "we", paleface? I don't much like SK's work, but anyone who has caught the imagination of MILLIONS (MILLIONS!) of people is hardly a wasted talent. >obeys all these "rules". But incredibly, many science fiction writers get > >A creative person is allowed to break all rules and all conventions >provided that the end product is a work of art. And as many of the masters >have proved, Rodin, Picasso, Joyce, Proust, etc., to break the rules >you must learn them, and learn them well. But it is hard to believe that >Robert Heinlein *ever* kept his overbearing personality out of the mouths >of every character. Funny, I always thought the old "Future History" stories missed out on that pretty well. In any case, I don't much like Tennessee William's personality, and he certainly doesn't keep his personality out of the mouths of his characters. But his characters *are* compelling. Those of us (many, many of us!) who *like* Heinlein find his characters compelling as well. That you don't does not mean that it's logical to ignore the number of ideas Heinlein originated or was first to use effectively. "Time Enough For Love" was a nightmare - Robert A. >Heinlein living forever, and worse, *talking* forever. It's a shame, >but science fiction, unlike almost any other creative field, has almost >no true masters that are recognized as such, no people who are held up by >the aficionados as examples to young acolytes. Where the *hell* have you been? Check it out -- Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke have been recommended by a number of *outsiders* -- for example, John Gardner (the *Grendel* author, not the James Bond imitator.) >are deified and glorified. Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke. What would >science fiction be like if instead, the examples for new writers were >Aldiss, Ballard, and Silverberg? hard to say; however, Aldiss, Ballard, and Silverberg have all recommended one or more of Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke, or mentioned them as being some of their favorite writers. Would Aldiss, Ballard, and Silverberg have found a market for their fiction if -- for example -- "Against the Fall of Night" had not been published? > >All that you will see when you wander through the science fiction section >of your local bookstore is new authors who are rarely more than warmed-over >Eric Frank Russell, Keith Laumer, or Gordon Dickson. ... and in the mainstream fiction, you find a lot of warmed over Updike, King, not to mention trash like Jackie Collins and Harold Robbins. Should SF somehow be able to avoid this? Should we publish only the 10 best manuscripts every year? >Where is a new Thomas Disch? Another Barry Malzberg? Maybe even another >Ursula LeGuin? most editors will tell you that the *last thing* they want is *another* Disch, Malzberg, or LeGuin. However, a new author with his/her own voice... >and glorification of hacks. Notice that "mainstream" authors who have >written science fiction for the general reading public have by and large >maintained a higher standard of craft than is present in current new >offerings within science fictions. "Duluth" by Gore Vidal. The "Canopus >In Argus" series by Doris Lessing. "Canopus in Argus" explores themes that we've treated carefully and well in SF years ago, does so in a way that Sf readers (in general) will not accept -- and should not! -- and (to my eyes) seems to contain thouroughly hackneyed ideas spoken from the mouths of cardboard cutouts labelled "I am an alien." Hardly a good example. I don't want to give the impression that I believe *all* SF is well-written and Great Literature -- it's not. But modern best-seller writers are hardly the ones to use as examples of non-hackery. In "mainstream" writing, at least as much as in SF writing, 90% of everything is crap. (Remember that Sturgeon's Law was originally stated: "90% of science fiction is crap; but then, 90% of everything is crap.") In the mean time, this whole thesis ignores writers like: Somtow Sucharitkul -- who can't keep from making some of the characters live even in a series of humorous shorts, like "Mallworld." Gregory Benford -- who has been called the SF world's answer to Falkner. William Gibson, Rudy Rucker, and Gene Wolfe. All of these writers are producing what I (and *mainstream critics*) think is some of the most alive and interesting literature in the last twenty years. -- Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)