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: Anti-Art Snobbery Message-ID: <374@rti-sel.UUCP> Date: Sat, 24-Aug-85 15:25:01 EDT Article-I.D.: rti-sel.374 Posted: Sat Aug 24 15:25:01 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 14:03:56 EDT References: <3397@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC Lines: 85 Summary: >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? >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? >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. >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? >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? Anyone who's made a serious effort to write something other than a posting to the net knows what an intellectual and emotional drain the production of fiction can be. It means a refusal to compromise and a constant effort to be completely honest with oneself. The author must be his own severest critic if he's to produce the best work he's capable of. 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. Making a decision to devote your life to the arts is a lot like becoming a tightrope walker. You study theory and you practice. But one day you're going to have to face the wire alone, and know that below you in the darkness the audience is waiting for you to stumble and fall. Most turn back before that point. Those that make the difficult decision are to be admired for their determination and courage, even if they fail to make it to the other side. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly