Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rti-sel.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi
From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: re: attacks on "Lord of Light"
Message-ID: <235@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 18:27:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.235
Posted: Thu Jun  6 18:27:45 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Jun-85 06:40:04 EDT
References: <2202@topaz.ARPA>
Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 65
Summary: 

In article <2202@topaz.ARPA> donn@utah-cs writes:
 
>I have to agree with John Redford here, although I have some sympathy
>with Bill Ingogly's point.  I've read both Naipaul's A BEND IN THE
>RIVER and Zelazny's LORD OF LIGHT and they are so different, in plot,
>style, characterization and intent, that comparing them on a sentence
>by sentence basis strikes me as an absurd exercise.

Now that I've read several responses to my posting, I have to agree
that it was a bad choice of books for a direct comparison. But as I've
pointed out elsewhere, 'tweren't the point of my posting anyways ...
 
>       ...  I much preferred the other Naipaul novel I've read,
>A HOUSE FOR MR. BISWAS, which is a fictionalized autobiography of
>Naipaul's childhood in Trinidad.  Although HOUSE is equally pitiless
>toward its characters, they seemed much more human, and I was able to
>empathize with them almost in spite of the author...

I liked both books. It seems we're dealing with differences of taste
here, and perhaps we read fiction for different reasons. Certainly (as
you point out) some fictional characters aren't SUPPOSED to be
sympathetic. For a few additional examples, try Hazel Motes in
Flannery O'Connor's Wise Blood, or the evil protagonist (can't
remember the name) in Graham Greene's Brighton Rock, or Benny Profane,
the ultimate schlemiel in Thomas Pynchon's V. Antiheros ain't
always pretty to listen to, since they sometimes tell us things
about the human condition that we don't particulary enjoy hearing.

>will say that while LORD is not profound, it is deeper than Bill
>Ingogly implies; ...
>style is not as pedestrian as Bill would have it either, although it
>does have its weaknesses; ...
>characters don't seem dead, as Bill would claim.  ...

As I've said and said and said ... I'll have to reread L of L, since
I seem to have been somewhat unfair to Zelazny. Enough said.

>       ...  You shouldn't feel guilty about not reading boring
>classics, but you will probably feel chagrin if you overlook a work
>you lumped into that category and later on discover that it was
>brilliant...  

... or that you enjoyed the hell out of it. Many of the people who
flamed me (or who otherwise think I'm a nut case) may not believe it,
but the reason behind my posting is that I LIKE many of the authors I
named, and I sincerely believe many people in this group are denying
themselves pleasure by not reading outside the genre. 

>(Here's my little plug: a book that combines gritty realism with the
>head space of certain kinds of sf (such as Ballard or Dick) is FAR
>TORTUGA by Peter Matthiessen.  Try reading it and see if you don't get
>the same kick you get when reading excellent sf; I sure did.)

I totally agree.

>Trying to figure out what brought on this spasm of self-criticism
>in sf-lovers,

Some people find the self-criticism worrisome; I find it a positive
thing. It never hurts people (SF fans included) to take a long hard
look at what they're doing and maybe consider alternatives to the
habitual. A good dialogue (or even an outright disagreement) can be
stimulating and constructive, don't you think?

                                     -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly