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!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi
From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: The Problems of Science Fiction Today
Message-ID: <273@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Jun-85 14:46:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.273
Posted: Fri Jun 28 14:46:16 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Jun-85 03:30:56 EDT
References: <2398@topaz.ARPA> <15467@watmath.UUCP>
Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Distribution: net
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 58
Summary: 

In article <15467@watmath.UUCP> jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) writes:

>Northrup Frye (a Canadian literary critic whom Canadians think
>is world-famous) has an interesting theory about the development
>of literature that may pertain to the discussion of SF.  ...

When I was an undergraduate English major (late '60s, early '70s)
Northrop Frye was indeed well-known and respected among literary
academics in the U.S. I don't know about other countries, however. My
impression is that he's still respected in some quarters, but has
fallen somewhat out of fashion of late.

>If one looks at SF and its history, one can see these stages fairly
>easily.  SF emerged as a genre of its own with the pulps; before then,
>there were certainly SF stories, but they weren't a separate visible
>genre.  At that time, the stories dealt with god-like and heroic people,
>the ones who could do practically anything.  ...

I'm not sure this applies to many of the characters in early SF. Jules
Verne and Olaf Stapledon, for example, seem to have had a lot of
people in their stories who were quite ordinary or flawed in some way.
Consider the captain of the Nautilus (Nemo?) in 20,000 Leagues Under
The Sea. If by 'at that time' you mean principally the early pulps,
you're probably right, of course.

>Now we (or some authors, at any rate) are on the verge of the ironic
>stage.  For example, characters like Thomas Covenant are more seriously
>screwed-up than the average reader.  It is much more common to see SF
>characters acting in ways we recognize as childish or foolish or
>insensitive.

It seems to me that nonheroes or antiheroes have been fairly common 
in SF for many years. Consider, for example, the characters in Theodore
Sturgeon's "More Than Human," who were all flawed in some way. Or Dr.
Nancy what's-her-name in Asimov's robot stories, who could relate to
robots effectively but not to her fellow human beings (at least that's
how I remember her).
 
>The most educated readers today are usually Ironic readers, and what
>they look for in a book are a certain set of virtues.  Most of the
>people who are contributing to this discussion are Ironic readers.
>However, the main body of SF just hasn't got that far in the normal
>course of development, nor has the main body of SF readers.  I don't
>think this means there is a "problem" with SF.  ...

I wonder to what extent SF and genre literature other than SF has 
evolved in the sense you're talking about. It seems to me that the
crime/detective story genre has always had a lot of less-than-heroic
characters, at least for the bulk of this century. So has the western
genre. I'm not that familiar with these genres, however. An
interesting question is, have these genres 'evolved' in the sense
you're talking about faster than SF has evolved over (say) the last
fifty years? If so, what is it about SF that makes it harder for more
'modern' modes of fiction to become widely accepted by its readership?
Perhaps someone in this group is more familiar with the history of SF
and non-SF genres and can address these questions.

                            -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly