Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!boyajian%akov68.DEC
From: boyajian%akov68.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: re: anti-Art Snobbery
Message-ID: <3512@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Tue, 3-Sep-85 08:42:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.3512
Posted: Tue Sep  3 08:42:45 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Sep-85 07:16:44 EDT
Sender: daemon@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 150

From: boyajian%akov68.DEC@decwrl.ARPA  (JERRY BOYAJIAN)


> From: rti-sel!wfi@topaz.arpa (William Ingogly)
 
>>From: boyajian%akov68.DEC@decwrl.ARPA  (JERRY BOYAJIAN)
>>In *this* universe, DHALGREN lost the Nebula ...  Delany won a sum
>>total of four (4) Nebulas ...  He must be highly thought of in
>>SFWA, eh?  At last reckoning, the writers who've garnered the most
>>awards ... are ... [list] What does that tell you?
 
> What is it supposed to tell him? For that matter, what is it
> supposed to tell the rest of us?

It wasn't meant to be a rhetorical question, but if you want *my*
interpretation ---

I mentioned that the authors who've won the most combined Hugo and
Nebula awards were Harlan Ellison, Ursula LeGuin, Poul Anderson,
and Fritz Leiber. Now, without having exact numbers at my fingertips,
I'd guess that the division between Hugos and Nebulas was about even.
that means that the writers choosing for "best literature" and the
fans choosing for "favorite" tend to have fairly similar tastes.
	It might also be said to point out that fans can choose the
more literary authors (Ellison, LeGuin) just as easily as the writers
can and that the writers can choose the less literary authors (Leiber,
Anderson) just as easily as the fans.
	The point I read in the article to which I responded was that
because DHALGREN [supposedly] won a Nebula, it must be a terrific work
of art. I merely wished to refute that. He also implied that because
the Nebulas were chosen by writers rather than fans, the winners of
such are a more estimable lot. I wished to refute that also.

>>I never got very far into DHALGREN, myself. I thought it was
>>twaddle.  So am I now branded as an anti-Art snob despite the fact
>>that I liked ... [list of Delany's other works]
 
> If feeling like a persecuted 'anti-Art snob' is enjoyable, be our
> guest. But don't you think this is just a little bit paranoid,
> Jerry?

No, I don't. And I never said whether I enjoyed being a persecuted
anti-Art snob or even if I *considered* myself such. The original
poster seemed to feel there is an anti-Art snob conspiracy abounding.
Isn't *that* just a little bit paranoid? *I* didn't bring up the
concept of the anti-Art snob. Turnabout is fair play.

>>There is a problem with the concept of Art that no one's brought up
>>yet.  The Art snobbery has always been such that no one can dislike
>>a Work of Art without being branded as an anti-intellectual fool.
 
> WHO sez 'the Art snobbery' (whatever that's supposed to be) has
> always been such? The endless stream of fantasies about how
> imaginary Critics are hounding the members of this group and the SF
> world in general is starting to get a little old, people. OK, Jerry,
> I'm calling you on this one: who exactly in this group or outside it
> has said that anyone who dislikes a Work of Art is an
> anti-intellectual fool? I can't recall even Davis Tucker going this
> far. If you knew anything at all about the Wonderful World of
> Criticism, you'd know that Critics disagree about which books are
> worth reading. Often and loudly.

No, no one has called anyone an "anti-intellectual fool" in so many
words, but hasn't that been the tone of Tucker's ravings, at least?
Hasn't he gone on at length about how sf fans and readers are content
to read [note: I don't have the previous SFL's to quote from verbatim]
soporific fiction of the likes of Asimov, Heinlein, et alia, rather
than the enlightening works of Literary Craftsmen? Hasn't he, *in
essence* called those who prefer to read Piers Anthony rather than
Jorge Luis Borges anti-intellectual fools?

 
>>If someone does not like DHALGREN, the Defenders of Art simply look
>>down their noses and say, "Well, you obviously were missing
>>something. If you set your mind to working, you'd certainly see why
>>it's an exemplary work." It never occurs to the Art snobs that
>>someone could simply *not like a Work of Art for valid reasons*.

> Pure pony diarrhea. You want us to say maybe, "OK, Jerry, you say
> Dhalgren is twaddle, so it must be twaddle; after all, you're NOT a
> critic?" Saying you don't like it/couldn't get into it so there
> mustn't be anything there is hardly valid criticism. Fact is, a lot
> of people LIKE Dhalgren and find it a challenging and rewarding
> work. If you have valid reasons for thinking that these people are
> all Art Snobs who like Dhalgren only because some mysterious
> conspiracy of Critics told them they should, please let us know
> about it. I've never gotten into Ezra Pounds "Cantos" because I find
> them rough going and more than a little self-indulgent.  But I'm
> also secure enough to recognize that some people have put a lot of
> work into reading the "Cantos" and are deeply rewarded for their
> efforts. It's just not my cup of tea. Why do you and some of your
> cohorts of a similar mind in this group refuse to grant us "Art
> Snobs" a similar courtesy?

Where did I say that because I think DHALGREN is twaddle that there
isn't anything there? Where did I say that anyone who finds DHALGREN
a challenging and rewarding work is, *de facto*, an Art Snob. For that
matter, where do I rant and rave against Art at all?
	I like Art, too. I've read and enjoyed Borges and Marquez
(both in English *and* Spanish), Hesse and Kafka (both in English
*and* German), Calvino, LeGuin, Delany, Tiptree, Barth, et alia.
On the other hand, I've never been able to make head nor tail out
of Joyce or Barthelme or any number of others. Likewise, I enjoy
reading Asimov, Clarke, Niven, Leiber, and others. And I don't care
for Anthony, Heinlein, Tolkien, and others. I don't consider myself
either an Art Snob or an Anti-Art Snob. And I'm willing to recognize
that someone can see something in a work of fiction that I can't.
People see can all sorts of things in anything. The poster to whom
I was responding, however, implied that by not liking DHALGREN, I
was obviously not trying hard enough to see its virtues. Maybe I
wasn't, but *maybe I was*. He shouldn't just *assume* the former.
In fact, because I liked previous work by Delany, I was predisposed
to liking DHALGREN, but I found it wanting (or at least, what I read
of it).

>>The only way someone can get away with not liking a Work of Art is
>>to say "It was an interesting experiment that failed" rather than
>>"It was a piece of self-indulgent nonsense". The end result is that
>>no one is willing to tell the Emperor about his new clothes.

> Either statement implies failure. The difference is that the first
> is sympathetic to the effort of an author to produce an intricate
> and serious work (800+ pages in the case of "Dhalgren"), and the
> second is hostile to the author's having missed the mark. Who's
> calling who a fool, Jerry?

I give up. Who?

> The effort and love that went into the writing
> of "Dhalgren" is obvious. If you think Delany failed, at least give
> the poor slob a little sympathy for having tried his best. It's
> obviously not a piece of hack work.

True, it's not, and I never said it was. I've seen many criticisms of
DHALGREN that called it many things, but I don't recall "hack work"
was any of them. Delany is a fine writer, and on the strength of other
novels and short stories, I *know* that he can produce fine work. That
still doesn't mean that he can't produce trash. And I feel that it's
*especially* discouraging that DHALGREN wasn't better.
	But this brings up the point of whether anyone has the "right"
to call *anything* a piece of hack work. Can you truly say that Piers
Anthony puts less love and effort into writing any of his books than
Delany does into his? If so, why? Because he publishes six times as many
books per year?

--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, Acton-Nagog, MA)

UUCP:	{decvax|ihnp4|allegra|ucbvax|...}
	!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-akov68!boyajian
ARPA:	boyajian%akov68.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA