Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site hyper.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!hyper!brust
From: brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: PROBLEMS WITH SCIENCE FICTION CRITICS TODAY
Message-ID: <219@hyper.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Jun-85 13:46:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: hyper.219
Posted: Thu Jun 27 13:46:30 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jul-85 02:10:40 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Network Systems Corp., Mpls., Mn.
Lines: 228



	THE PROBLEMS WITH SCIENCE FICTION CRITICS TODAY

			By Steven Brust




	[ DISCLAIMER:  I am extremely dislexic, and do
	  not have access to a spelling checker, nor the
	  patience to go through every word in the following
	  essay with a dictionary.  For those of you who are
	  (understandably) frustrated by large numbers
	  of typing and spelling errors, I strongly recommend
	  you skip what follows. ]



	"Lift your heads out of the sf ghetto, people..."
			-- William Ingogly


	"We have made of our ghetto a shining city on the hill."
			-- Martin Schaffer



We have now had several installments of what appears to be an
effort to make a serious critique of today's science fiction,
and several equally serious efforts to respond to the above.
For those of us who are pleased to consider SF as literature
the discussions have been entertaining, amusing, and thought-
provoking.

Messiers Tucker and Ingogly have both stated that they like
science-fiction.  It is good they said it.  Had they not,
I would be wondering why people with the opinions: A) There
is no good writing in science-fiction, and B) I only read
good writing, are contributing to a forum called sf-lovers.
But they both said they like it, and I, for one, will take
them at their word.  All of the contributions from these
two gentlemen have been, in my opinion, well thought-out
and intelligent.  As someone who disagrees, I feel an
obligation to do my best to state my disagreements in
some rational way.

It would be pleasant to spend my time discussing the
examples that various of us have raised as good and bad, but
I think also pointless.  That I find it amazing that anyone
could seriously consider Truman Capote as good a writer as
Roger Zelazny says something about me, but very little about
the merits of the writers in question.  That Mr. Ingogly can
put forward excellent standards of comparison for writing
(for the most part; there are flaws here, too), yet believe,
as he evidently does, that Peter DeVries compares well to
Gene Wolfe says a great deal about him, but again, nothing
about either writer.

It would be more of value to discuss, in general
(perhaps I'll even pretend I'm Hegel and bend over backwards
to avoid examples), what makes good writing.  I don't expect
agreement to result, as we are clearly dealing with completely
different approaches. 

All of the above is actually a long-winded introduction
to a defense of my statement that most of the best writers
today are working in sf.  I mean it.  I did say, "not all",
and I agree with the contributor who pointed out mysteries
and children's books as places to find good writing.  And
yes, without naming names, I am sufficiently well-read to
believe that my opinions have some validity.  But I did
mean it.  I do not hold that opinion because I read sf,
rather, I read sf because I think that's where the good
writers are.  I did not come to this conclusion without
giving most other genres (including the literary genre)
what I felt to be a fair trial.  Yet this opinion
differs from that of many literary critics.  Do I hold
the opinion, then, that the type of literary criticism
we've been seeing is invalid for science-fiction?  Well,
sort of.  It would be more accurate, however, to say
that I feel the approaches of many literary critics
are invalid for any genre at all.

Why are so many literary critics down on sf?  I'll tell you
a story.  Some time ago I found out that the University
of Minnesota had the top-rated journalism school in the
country.  Some time later, I found out that this was
because most of the people who rated journalism schools
were U or Mn Alumni.  So it is with literary critics
and the literary genre.  At least, with many of them.
There are as many schools of criticism as there are of
writing, and Messiers Tucker and Ingogly are to be
praised for subscribing (as far as I can tell) to among
the least obnoxious of them--at least, neither of them
have started explaining that Gore Vidal is a great writer
becuase he hasn't come to terms with his masculenity
or something.  (Note -- if anyone is not familiar
with ISSUES AT HAND and MORE ISSUES AT HAND by
William Athling (also known as James Blish) I recommend
them.)

But enough prelude; it is time I put my mouth where
my money is and explain why I have such a high opinion
of so many sf writers compared to so many writers in
other, and most the particularly the "literary" genres.

There was a brief period when large segments of the population
(I'm speaking of the U. S.) were literate, yet the mass
entertainment media had not been invented.  During this
time, it became necessary for authors to tell stories, in
order to appeal to those who just wanted to be entertained
and had no patience for intellectual depth.  Writers were
forced, by the harshest economic necessities, to simultaniously
appeal to the lowest common denominator of their readers,
and still write with the depth craved by the intelligensia.
Among the examples of writers from this period is Mark Twain.

With the arrival of radio, talkies, and television, large
sections of the literary community abandoned story telling
as a necessary part of fiction.  If you want to place this
historically, read Joyce's PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG
MAN, then read ULYSSES, then start working from either end
toward the middle.  

Today, many writers feel that it is unnecessary
to tell a story.  Other writers feel that ALL that is
necessary is to tell a story.  The latter group can
be found in the best-seller genre, the former can be found
in the literary genre.  Literary critics, almost without
exception (Ciardi is one exception -- maybe) belong to
the first camp.  And me?  Well, I am more likely to be
impressed by a good story with enough depth to give
me something to think about than by writing which tries
to make up for its lack or obscurity of plot by throwing
in a car that has Shakespear's birthday for a license
number.

Science fiction writers--the best of them--believe that
a good story is necessary and not sufficient.  That good
English language values (ie, the ability to write a
sentence) are necessary, that the story should be
driven by characters who are real, three-dimensional
human beings, and that there should be a strong theme
without (as Terry Carr put it) a Message.

I will put up with cheap entertainment that is nothing
more than a story.  I will NOT put up with the pretentions
of those who feel themselves above the need to
entertain me.  Let us remember that the paintings of
Van Gogh, even some of the more disturbing ones,
can be appreciated by someone with little or
no understanding of art.  He was willing to talk
to us, not at us.

What else makes good writing?  Largely, I think, the
ability to transcend its genre (someone said,
quite correctly, that ALL writing today is
genre writing).  Billie Holliday can be appreciated
by people who don't like jazz.  Beethovan by those
who don't like classical music, Stan Rogers by
those who don't like folk, Dave Van Ronk by those
who don't like Blues, the Grateful Dead by those
who don't like rock. 

In writing, Alexander Dumas may be enjoyed
even by those who don't like nineteenth century
romanticism.  James Clavell(SHOGUN), for all his
(many!) flaws as a writer, goes beyond the
best-seller genre. Robert B.  Parker (EARLY AUTUMN)
goes beyond mysteries, Ken Kesey (SOMETIMES A GREAT
NOTION) beyond the literary genre. These people give 
us something of value beyond satisfying the
particular requirements of their subfield.

It is this "something of value" that I look for.  It
is writing that challenges me, that makes me both
feel and think, that sends me away both entertained
and with the knowledge that I have grown.  When
Zelazny is at his worst--just turning out a book
to pay the bills (CHANGELING is a good example)--
I still come away with something to think about,
a way to look at people--and myself--that hadn't
occurred to me before.  And I certainly come away
entertained.

So much for my hopes to avoid examples.  But, yes,
I think Sturgeon was a great writer.  So was Blish.
So is John M. Ford, and Gene Wolfe, and Robin
Mckinley, and Robert B. Parker, and, yes, Roger
Zelazny, and Pamela Dean, and Ken Kesey, and Jane 
Yolen.  These people believe that a good story, 
while not sufficent, is necessary.  

Indeed, there is much that is bad in science fiction.
But the problem isn't that Heinlein is doing so
well--dammit, he INVENTED many of the concepts
that are now standard in the field.  It isn't
Asimov and Clarke, either--none of these are
good writers, but they have contributed to making
the genre a medium in which much that is valuable
can flourish.  If you are looking for writers
to pick on, look for the ones who could have been
more than hacks, but refused to challenge themselves--
Piers Anthony, Alan Dean Foster, even Andrew Offut.
Or the ones who seem bound and determined to
make sure they NEVER accomplish anything either
new or with any literary merit: Robert Asprin
and others.   (See NOTE below).

But don't throw the Heechee out the Warp Drive.  Wait 
for Megan Lindholm's new book, or read Nancy Kress,
and rejoice that there is a place where those who
are willing to tell stories with good literary
values have a way to enrich us with the slices of
their lives they are sharing.


		-- Steven Brust


NOTE: The above statements are opinions.
It shouldn't be necessary to say this, but I
really DON'T want to offend those who enjoy
Anthony or Foster or Offut or Asprin.
I believe what I said, but there is no reason
you have to.
		-- SKZB