Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!rohn
From: rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE FICTION TODAY, PART II
Message-ID: <2495@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-May-85 21:57:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: randvax.2495
Posted: Wed May 22 21:57:41 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 27-May-85 06:34:47 EDT
References: <1091@druri.UUCP>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 61

>                                                   .... 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.

Hmm.  Masters in whose judgment?  Good art is a very subjective thing.
Your master might be my hack.  And just because I think Joyce is a
master doesn't mean that I can't enjoy reading some Asimov now and
then.  And whether Asimov is a master in your judgment or in mine, I
suspect he is someone whom many young authors try to emulate.


>                                           .... Instead, the old hacks
> 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?

Personally, I think it would be boring.  Now this isn't to say that I
don't care for the three you mentioned, but if all new fiction were to
be patterned after just a few "masters", I think I'd go out of my mind
(further :-) ).  I happen to think variety in styles is a Good Thing.


>       ... and now this trash-heap is threatening to fall over on us.
> Barry B. Longyear, Brian Daley, Christopher Stasheff, Jerry Pournelle,
> Piers Anthony, Robert Asprin, Spider Robinson, Joe Haldeman, Marion
> Zimmer Bradley, Anne McCaffrey, etc., etc., ad nauseum. The fault does not
> lie with the author; it lies with the readership that continues to demand
> the same old crap in different colored toilets, or at the very least,
> continues to buy it....
> So let's not wallow in the 90 percent, let's get our heads out of the
> toilet and go look for the 10 percent that's worth reading....
>                          .... Possibly it's because in the eyes of the
> reading public, that descending to write science fiction is exactly that -
> descending. Being lowered. Jumping in the muck with all the Trekkies.
> Bug Eyed Monsters. All of the hackneyed, overused, cliched constructs
> that science fiction has been relying on for much too long, rather than
> finding something new.

I must disagree.  I don't consider it a fault to enjoy reading the "same
old crap."  Again, good literature is in the opinion of the reader.  I
consider the sonnet an overused construct.  Does that mean Shakespeare
shouldn't have written so many?  I don't think so.  There's nothing
wrong with finding something new.  But if you've found something you
like, there's also nothing wrong with sticking with it as well.


>                   .... In some ways, the general reading public has a
> clearer view of what science fiction is and what it isn't than those who
> have been reading it all their lives. The forest for the trees.

You mean the general reading public that has made Harlequin Romances
some of the best selling books around???  I'm not sure I'm willing to
trust their opinion of what is and isn't good science fiction....


					Lauri
					rohn@rand-unix.ARPA
					..decvax!randvax!rohn

"The best laid plans of mice and men are usually equal."