Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!webber
From: webber@utcs.UUCP (R. D. Webber)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE FICTION TODAY, PART IX
Message-ID: <812@utcs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Aug-85 18:07:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcs.812
Posted: Tue Aug  6 18:07:36 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Aug-85 19:20:23 EDT
References: <1147@druri.UUCP>
Reply-To: webber@utcs.UUCP (R. D. Webber)
Organization: University of Toronto - General Purpose UNIX
Lines: 56
Summary: 

In article <1147@druri.UUCP> dht@druri.UUCP (Davis Tucker) writes:
>
>... it is interesting to note that virtually
>all of the science fiction criticism that has been penned has been by authors
>currently working in the field. 
     It seems to me that I have read mention of quite a few academic
critics in such places as Budrys's review columns in F&SF.  He largely 
disparages them as having too little knowledge of the field, but they do,
apparently, exist.
>And due to the sociological factors of their
>group, science fiction writers, even Delany and LeGuin, pull their punches
>and let people off the proverbial hook. 
     Would you care to back up this comment with some real, concrete
examples, along with a description of the sociological factors involved
in each particular case?  The following:
>I have never read anything more
>than mildly disparaging about Asimov's work by a science fiction author,
>and I wonder how that correlates with the fact that he edits one of the
>science fiction magazines.
doesn't count because Asimov does not edit the magazine which bears his
name:  Shawna McCarthy was the editor until recently; the editor is now
Gardiner Dozois. 
>We cannot blame the authors who venture into
>this field - it's understandable that they will concentrate on works that
>they feel showcase the best of science fiction, and that they would avoid
>soiling their own nest by attacking someone else's work, a someone that
>they meet two or three times a year, possibly.
     Ah, that explains why Charles Platt is so popular.
>
>There's a strong current of the old "He who can, does, he who cannot,
>criticizes" mentality in science fiction. For being such an intellectual
>genre compared to most, it's an interestingly anti-intellectual critical
>milieu. Very often the first response to adverse criticism is "Let's see
>you do better".
     While you're digging up some examples to substantiate this, keep track
of the names of the authors involved, and see if a pattern emerges.
>
>There is tension and not a small amount of
>acrimony between writers and critics, and it will always be there and
>should always be there.
     Why?
>Authors often forget that it's better to be terribly
>excoriated in print than simply ignored, that anything is preferable to being
>overlooked. Just as critics often forget that they have as much responsiblity
>to their craft as authors do to theirs, perhaps more.
     Pardon me, but, "Sez you!"  This is simple speculation on your part.
>
>This isn't just one man's opinion. Many important people in the field have
>stated as much, in some cases much more strongly.
     Who?  How about some examples, rather than assertion and hand-waving?
     Frankly, your essay could have done with a lot of editorial criticism.
Your writing style is so "lumpy" that I find myself ready to argue even with
the points I agree with.
			Bob Webber