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: <3397@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Fri, 23-Aug-85 08:47:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.3397
Posted: Fri Aug 23 08:47:47 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 06:05:17 EDT
Sender: daemon@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 53

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


> From: kanders@lll-tis-a (Kevin Anderson)
 
> I will say, though, that I have never heard it described with anything
> less than respectful awe.  It won the Nebula Award, which is given
> by the Science Fiction Writers of America to the work which the
> *writers* feel is the best piece of literature published in the past
> year (and it won the Nebula back in the days when the award did mean
> something).  I think that anybody who says that DHALGREN is a poorly
> written, plotless piece of trash should maybe ask themselves if
> there is even the remotest chance they might be MISSING something?

Would it be presumptuous of me to ask what Alternate Earth you're from?
In *this* universe, DHALGREN lost the Nebula to Joe Haldeman's THE
FOREVER WAR. Delany won a sum total of four (4) Nebulas out of the 80
or so that have been issued. He must be highly thought of in SFWA, eh?
At last reckoning, the writers who've garnered the most awards (Nebula
and Hugo combined) are Harlan Ellison, Ursula LeGuin, Poul Anderson,
and Fritz Leiber. What does that tell you?

And what does "when the award did mean something" mean? Doesn't it mean
anything anymore? Is it no longer an award chosen by sf writers for the
what they feel is "best piece of literature in the past year"? Or is it
that they aren't choosing what *you* think is the best? And does their
being writers mean that their opinions are worth more than mine? If so,
then their opinions are worth more than your's, too, which means that if
you don't like their choices, it must be *your* opinion that's wrong.

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
BABEL-17, EMPIRE STAR, THE BALLAD OF BETA-2, THE EINSTEIN INTERSECTION,
and NOVA? (No, I didn't like TRITON, either.)

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. 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*. 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.


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

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