Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!grkermi!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!columbia!topaz!reiher@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA From: reiher@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: literary sterility Message-ID: <2255@topaz.ARPA> Date: Tue, 11-Jun-85 01:21:09 EDT Article-I.D.: topaz.2255 Posted: Tue Jun 11 01:21:09 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 13-Jun-85 01:34:08 EDT Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 68 From: Peter Reiher > Charlie Martin writes: >When I say ``sterile,'' just what am I talking about? ... >Have you ever read (or tried to read) a story in which you were >never able to become engrossed in the story? Where you were always >conscious that you were ... reading ... a ... book? Then I believe >you were reading something that I call sterile. Odd definition of literary sterility. The term "sterility" is usually meant to convey something incapable of reproducing, so I would have thought literary sterility to mean that the work in question is a dead end, that it will have no influence on future works, perhaps that it does not stimulate speculation or thought. Your use of "sterility" strikes me as, intentional or not, an attempt to misuse a word so that you can take advantage of its perjorative connotations. This is similar to a liberal who chooses to call conservatives facists for rhetorical value. While they may fit your definition of "works which didn't engross *me*", your examples are certainly not sterile by any traditional definition of the word. "Moby Dick" and "Finnegan's Wake" are tremendously influential works which have lasted. The examples set by these novels are widely emulated (though not, in the case of "Finnegan's Wake", to the extent that Joyce went). I suspect that Calvino will have the same kind of lasting influence. As for the alternate definition, both Melville and Joyce make me think a great deal more than the vast majority of science fiction authors, so I believe that reading them has been more valuable to me than reading, say, Heinlein or Asimov or Zelazney. If these mainstream authors cause me to think more, if they stimulate ideas and broaden my viewpoint, I certainly wouldn't call them sterile, even if I didn't forget for a moment that I had a book in my hand. On the other hand, with a very few exceptions, any sf/fantasy novel I read stimulates very little thought for me. They are influential in the sense that almost every successful sf novel is likely to be copied, by its author if no one else, but I have my doubts about lasting influences. The sf of the 30s and 40s is almost entirely forgotten, with the exceptions of a few fine works and a lot of stuff written by authors who later became extremely successful. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of today's sf is destined for oblivion in a couple decades, a greater proportion of it than today's mainstream fiction. >I find it impossible to read Moby Dick for pleasure. I very much >doubt that _Finnegan's_Wake_ is read by *anyone* for pleasure -- or >if it is, it is only because years of study have made the reader so >familiar with the language involved (which means learning how to >handle puns across several european languages which are written in >the form of euphonic Scotch telegrams) that this language barrier is >no longer a problem. I believe that _Finnegan's_Wake_ is sterile. I read "Finnegan's Wake" for pleasure. I have little linguistic background, beyond that inevitably gained by someone who has read a lot . I've never finished "Finnegan's Wake", and I am well aware that much of it flies right over my head. I have great difficulty even following what's going on. For me, reading "Finnegan's Wake" requires great effort. Yet, I enjoy it. Some people seem to only enjoy reading when they are able to put their mind on autopilot. I don't mind having to exert some effort, provided that the author gives me returns for my work. Authors like Joyce and Faulkner do. Many people are forgetting what sparked this discussion. It was a grandious claim that the best working authors are, for the most part, science fiction writers. I believe that, even under the constraint that you have to be able to immerse yourself in the book, this view is incorrect. You, of course, are welcome to feel otherwise, but unless you have done some fairly wide reading outside sf and in current literature, don't be too surprised if more widely read people snicker behind your back and attempt to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.