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 lzwi.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!pegasus!lzwi!psc
From: psc@lzwi.UUCP (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Ken Moreau, Spider Robinson, Art, Helen Keller, and Me
Message-ID: <248@lzwi.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 17-Aug-85 06:37:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: lzwi.248
Posted: Sat Aug 17 06:37:30 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 05:37:47 EDT
References: <1153@druri.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T-IS Enhanced Network Services
Lines: 76

In article <1153@druri.UUCP>, dht@druri.UUCP (Davis Tucker) writes:
> 
> >I applaud Spider Robinsons comment that "A critic tells you whether 
> >it is *ART*, a reviewer tells you if its a good read".  To me this
> >indicates that the two concepts are orthogonal, and have nothing to
> >do with each other.  Thank you, I will ignore both *ART* and critics 
> >who talk about *ART* because I have found this bias to be pretentious, 
> >boring, unapproachable, and generally gives me no pleasure.  
> >              [KEN MOREAU]
There are four kinds of writing:  writing that was meant to be
entertaining, and is, but can also be classified as Art (e.g.,
Shakespear); writing that was meant to be entertaining, and is
nothing more; writing that was meant to be Art, and succeeds, but
can also be read and enjoyed at some lower level; and writing that
was meant to be Art to the exclusion of it possibly be entertaining.
The latter seems to fit your last sentence well.
> 
> Spider Robinson... (the sound of spitting in derision and disgust)
. . . has written some light SF that is meant to be entertaining, and
nothing more.  It will certainly be forgotten fifty years after he's
dead.  The same can be said of the man who built my house.  Not all of
us build pyramids, no should all of us.
Robinson's also written some stories that, while entertaining, also
have the "quality" that we're calling "Art" here.  Every single one
of these stories has been flawed, some more seriously than others.
Robinson has some very strong storytelling skills, but he could be
a much better writer.  I keep hoping he'll improve.

>                                                                     To
> ignore art because it gives no pleasure is synonomous with ignoring edu-
> cation because it gives no money.
A valid point . . .
>                                   A backward, Luddite, barbarian attitude
> which makes me wonder how anyone who ever held this belief ever got the drive
> and motivation to learn how to read. 
. . . but did you ever hear the phrase, "You can catch more flies with
honey than vinegar"?  There's a difference between literary criticism and
"a severe and unfavorable judgement" (Funk and Wagnalls).  Saying that
everyone who disagrees with you is a jerk is less likely to make a point
than to make enemies (or at least to have people judge your personality
rather than your argument).

> This is not idle electronic banter,
I agree.  "Rambling" is a more appropriate word than "banter".

>                                                                   How many
> "enjoyable" works have allowed you or forced you to walk a mile in another
> man's shoes ("Soul On Ice"), or understand the nature of death ("The Death
> Of Ivan Ilych"), or feel outrage at terrible injustice ("Les Miserables"), or
> come face to face with home and family ("The Last Picture Show"), or realize
> that politics affects individuals as well as societies ("A Tale Of Two Cities"),
> to see the depths of depravity and hatred of self ("Notes From Underground",
> "In The Belly Of The Beast", "Heart Of Darkness"), to internalize and gain
> some knowledge of the human condition? 
Do you want a list?  Fiction can be "entertaining" in some sense and still
do all those things.

>                      Remain an intellectual and artistic Helen Keller - but
> remember that she, who had so little ability to appreciate greatness and art
> and love and life, struggled her entire life to appreciate those very things
> which you and Mr. Robinson and so many others of your ilk choose to downgrade
> and spit upon and despise. 
> I shake my head in wonder and awe at the power of ignorance and the majesty
> of barbarianism. And I wish that I did not shake my head so often, or so long.
> Davis Tucker

I like that statement.  I repeated it because it's stronger out of context,
the context being a sixty line flame.

I'll say something about reviews vs. criticism in a separate article.
-- 
       -Paul S. R. Chisholm       The above opinions are my own,
       {pegasus,vax135}!lzwi!psc  not necessarily those of any
       {mtgzz,ihnp4}!lznv!psc     telecommunications company.
       (*sigh* ihnp4!lzwi!psc does *NOT* work!!!  Use above paths.)
"Of *course* it's the murder weapon.  Who would frame someone with a fake?"