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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi
From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: anti-Art Snobbery
Message-ID: <395@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Sep-85 12:53:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.395
Posted: Wed Sep  4 12:53:48 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Sep-85 04:42:47 EDT
References: <3512@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 216
Summary: 

Note: >   Jerry's response back to me
      >>  my response
      >>> Jerry's original posting

In article <3512@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> boyajian%akov68.DEC@decwrl.ARPA writes:

>	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'm afraid I didn't get that from your posting. Since I don't have the
full text of the original article, I can't really do anything but take 
your word for it and assume I misread you for some reason. If this was
what you said, I agree with you on both points.

>> 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.

I don't recall the 'conspiracy' attitude in the original posting you
refer to. Perhaps you can post a sample illustrating this. I was
reacting to the following statement in which you seemed to think that
you were being labelled unfairly by the original poster:

>>>...  So am I now branded as an anti-Art snob despite the fact
>>>that I liked ... [list of Delany's other works]

I'm afraid I don't understand who's branding you an 'anti-Art' snob,
or why the original posting rated this kind of reaction. But perhaps I
didn't read the posting you were reacting to closely enough, and if
this is the case I apologize for misjudging your reaction.
 
>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?

Since I stopped reading Mr. Tucker's posting halfway through the third
when he started getting repetitious and more than a little silly, I
really can't say. But the Devil's Advocate performs a useful function,
I think; there's something to be said for challenging people to defend
their passion for something and THINK about why they like or dislike
something. The sheer volume and passion of the postings on this topic
over the last few months testify to Mr. Tucker's success, I think.

Some people like to argue and wave their arms around; others feel
personally threatened by such argument. A lot of the perceived
hostility in this newsgroup may be due to people misreading each
others' intentions. My own interpretation of Mr. Tucker's postings is
that he has made some valid points and also beat a few dead horses
into the ground. So what? I think the same can be said about both
sides in this argument.

For example: haven't some of the Down With The Intellectuals posters
*in essence* called those of us who prefer to read Jorge Luis Borges
rather than Piers Anthony pretentious _ssholes? At least it's possible
to read some of their comments as personal attacks if one's gonads are
tied up in one's preference in reading material:

    "...art is boooring..." [read: you guys who prefer art to
                             a quick read are boring and pretentious]

See how you can get your dander up if you read personal attacks into
everything? Turnabout is indeed fair play.
 
>Where did I say that because I think DHALGREN is twaddle that there
>isn't anything there? 

My dictionary defines 'twaddle' as follows: "...foolish, empty talk or
writing; nonsense." To me, this implies there isn't anything there.
I'm not a mind reader. If you were using a personal and idiosyncratic 
definition of 'twaddle' you should have warned me.

>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 didn't say this. Here's what you said:

>>>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*.

And here was my response and my reasons for making it:

>> 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?" 

I didn't see anywhere where you were saying Dhalgren is twaddle for
reasons A., B., and C., so your claim of 'valid reasons' seemed
unsupported to me. The 'Defenders of Art' and 'Art snobs' at least
offer reasons WHY they think Dhalgren is worth reading. Please note
that this sentence doesn't accuse you of labelling anyone who finds
Dhalgren challenging/rewarding an Art Snob, or of ranting and raving
against Art. Next two sentences:

>> 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. 

Again, what you seemed to be saying was precisely this: your valid
reason for saying Dhalgren is 'twaddle' (note, people, the definition
of 'twaddle': foolish empty talk or writing; nonsense) is that you don't
like it for your own valid reasons. Again, please note that these
sentences don't accuse you of labelling anyone who finds Dhalgren
challenging/rewarding an Art Snob, or of ranting and raving against
Art. And finally:

>> 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 ...

This may in fact be what you're objecting to. Let's examine again the
following sentence from your posting:

>>>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." ...

Now in my book that says to me that the people you call 'Defenders of
Art' like Dhalgren but are either unwilling or unable to articulate
their reasons for liking Dhalgren ('you OBVIOUSLY were missing
something'). The implication seems to be that there is an academic
consensus (i.e., 'conspiracy of Critics') about the value of certain works,
and that the 'Defenders of Art' somehow brainwash themselves into
liking certain works because it's the 'trendy' thing to do and the
Critics tell them these works are worth reading ('If you set your mind
to working'). Please note that these sentences don't accuse you of 
labelling anyone who finds Dhalgren challenging/rewarding an Art Snob;
they do, however, accuse you of unfairly questioning certain persons'

>... 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. 

And if I'd seen statements like this in your posting I quite likely 
would not have posted my response.

>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.

I seem to recall the poster's comment as being more in the nature of a
mild suggestion that you maybe shouldn't be so quick to dismiss what
might be a piece of great writing, but it's been too long. And I failed
to see from your postings what your reasons were for not liking it.
Perhaps you can show us the hostility in the original poster's comment
that aroused your wrath. 

>> ... Who's
>> calling who a fool, Jerry?
>
>I give up. Who?

From your posting:

>>>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.

You're accusing people of branding you a fool. Then you turn around
and seem to be accusing Delany of being a fool for writing Dhalgren
(read my comment above in the original context, Jerry). That's what 
my question meant.

>	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?

I'm not familiar with Piers Anthony's books except through reviews, so
I can't say. First of all, let's make sure we agree on a definition of
'hack writer:' my dictionary defines a 'hack' as a person hired to do
dull and routine writing. I think the sense it usually has in the SF
community is a writer who grinds out novels more for the few hundred
bucks they bring him/her than for a love of the craft or for the sake
of the entertainment they bring to their readers. Agreed? As you may
know, you can write to certain publishers who specialize in the
romance genre and receive detailed cookbooks for their romance novels.
When I was an undergraduate I knew of several grad students in the
English department at the University of Iowa who supplemented their
incomes by 'hacking' romance novels, westerns, crime novels, and (yes)
SF under various pseudonyms. They did so for purely financial reasons
and for the amusement it afforded them. I believe these people were
probably 'hack writers' and that what they produced was indeed 'hack
work.' So to answer your question, yes, one does have the "right" to
call certain productions 'hack work.'

As to the SF genre, go down to your local paperback bookstore and
check out the SF section (B. Dalton or Waldenbooks are ideal for
this). You'll notice a wide shelf with 'Star Trek,' 'V,' 'Star
Wars,' 'Gor,' and 'Conan' clones. Do you really believe NONE of 
these clones were written purely for financial motives?

                        -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly