Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject: [OT] Barren SF (was RE: -REVIEW- Cannon Companion)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 07:56:58 -0500
From: abortion_engine
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 6:54 PM

> > Sci-fi is being taught and studied on the collegiate level these
> > days. A barren genre? hmmm... not likely.

<rant type="age-old" style="mild">
I'd like to preface this by jumping in and saying that a lot of us who've
spent our whole lives in science fiction fandom *loathe* the term "sci-fi."
Forry Ackerman, God love him, tried to come up with something useful when he
coined that term, but all he did was manage to come up with was something a
whole lot of people use to insult not only us, but our chosen genre. It
would do my heart no end of good to see it evaporate forever, but I'd settle
for people just not using it around me as much as they do. Many thanks.
</rant>

> What my original statement said was that it was, in terms of
> literature, currently a largely barren genre. Which is to say, in
> 500 years, very few will be looking to these books as "classics."
> There is little that science fiction written today does to add to
> the artistic and cultural level of our race.

So a genre that has given us the likes of Verne, and Wells, and Heinlein,
and Vance, and Asimov, and Bear, and Card, and both of the Vinges (among
others that are too numerous to name here)...this is barren. Most of these
people named are classics *now*, Verne and Wells especially.

Interesting definition you have there.

As for the books adding to "the artistic and cultural level of our
race"...that's not their job, frankly. The modern writer's job is to
entertain, and to perhaps enlighten, and maybe to make you think and feel.
But it's certainly not to "add to the artistic and cultural level of our
race." That's pretentious beyond the ability of my meager words to express.

> > Granted, there is some bad sci-fi out there, but then again, name
> > one genre that doesn't have its bad seeds.
>
> "Some?" I would certainly go so far as to say "most," and include
> most popular fiction, including "fantasy."

And now you bag a genre that gave us Tolkien and Pamela Dean and Steven
Brust and Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett and Emma Bull and Lois Bujold and
Joel Rosenberg. (Sorry, I don't know as many fantasy authors as I do SF
authors; sue me.)

My personal observation/opinion here (it's too early for me to tell them
apart) is that you tend to paint with far too broad a brush, marking up and
tainting the good with the bad in spite of your effort to include qualifiers
in your message.

Is most of the SF out there bad? Yes. Yes, it is. So is most of the
fantasy. So are most of the spy novels. So is most of the mainstream
fiction. To me, at least.

Someone out there loves this stuff, though. A novel I might throw through
the window (say, for example, NEUROMANCER), others will embrace as the Holy
Grail, the hallmark of a new era.

It's all subjective. It would make it a lot easier for me to deal with you
if you'd remember that, instead of making absolute statements that aren't,
in the real world, absolute realities.

This ends my discussion in this thread.

--
Patrick E. Goodman
remo@***.net
"I'm going to tell you something cool." -- Gene Wolfe
Message no. 2
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: [OT] Barren SF (was RE: -REVIEW- Cannon Companion)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:04:51 -0400
From: "Patrick Goodman" <remo@***.net>
> From: abortion_engine
> > > Sci-fi is being taught and studied on the collegiate level these
> > > days. A barren genre? hmmm... not likely.
>
> <rant type="age-old" style="mild">
> I'd like to preface this by jumping in and saying that a lot of us who've
> spent our whole lives in science fiction fandom *loathe* the term
"sci-fi."
> Forry Ackerman, God love him, tried to come up with something useful when
he
> coined that term, but all he did was manage to come up with was something
a
> whole lot of people use to insult not only us, but our chosen genre. It
> would do my heart no end of good to see it evaporate forever, but I'd
settle
> for people just not using it around me as much as they do. Many thanks.
> </rant>

And I suppose you'd like to be called a "Trekker," too. What's in a name?

Still, I will endeavour to spend the extra 1/2 second it takes to spell it
out, or simply write SF, like so many others do.

> > What my original statement said was that it was, in terms of
> > literature, currently a largely barren genre. Which is to say, in
> > 500 years, very few will be looking to these books as "classics."
> > There is little that science fiction written today does to add to
> > the artistic and cultural level of our race.
>
> So a genre that has given us the likes of Verne, and Wells, and Heinlein,
> and Vance, and Asimov, and Bear, and Card, and both of the Vinges (among
> others that are too numerous to name here)...this is barren. Most of
these
> people named are classics *now*, Verne and Wells especially.

Okay. Are you ready to listen, and not to pre-judge? Here are the words I
used above; "largely," "currently," "little." There's a
reason these
statements are not absolutes, and it's not because I was hedging. :)

Everyone you mentioned above does indeed stand a decent chance of
withstanding the test of time, and it is these authors - and a few others -
who are being taught in colleges today. But they are the exceptions, and you
know that. [I'm also not certain I'd put Card in that class, but hey, it's
your list.] And, with the exception of, what, two of them, perhaps, none of
these are *current.*

I was not lamenting SF in general, but the new, glossy, grocery-store face
of it. It's not literature any more than romance novels are. But that
doesn't mean I think all romance stories are, by extension, filth, just that
*current* romance novels are written for now, for cash, and for popularity,
and have, *largely,* *little* literary benefit.

> Interesting definition you have there.

No, you, as so many others, simply knee-jerked when I complained about your
chosen genre, without regard to the fact that it is also *my* chosen genre,
and that what I had said was, quite simply, true.

> As for the books adding to "the artistic and cultural level of our
> race"...that's not their job, frankly. The modern writer's job is to
> entertain, and to perhaps enlighten, and maybe to make you think and feel.

I don't agree. But obviously, modern science fiction authors mostly agree
with you.

What is the point of art, then? To entertain? Well, enjoy your televisions,
fellows.

> But it's certainly not to "add to the artistic and cultural level of our
> race." That's pretentious beyond the ability of my meager words to
express.

No, just old-fashioned. Classical, one might say.

> And now you bag a genre that gave us Tolkien and Pamela Dean and Steven
> Brust and Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett and Emma Bull and Lois Bujold
and
> Joel Rosenberg. (Sorry, I don't know as many fantasy authors as I do SF
> authors; sue me.)

Rosenberg? Lasting? No. Pratchett? Cute, but no. Gaiman? Wonderful, but
unfortunately, snooty academics probably won't respond to it well, and we're
left with long-time cult appeal. Tolkein? Well, here we find one. Tolkein,
the bane of my existence, one of my most hated authors, I am certain he will
be held as a master of his field for all time. *sigh* Just goes to show you,
my personal opinion doesn't count for much, objectively.

But, again, you're missing "largely." And the longview.

> My personal observation/opinion here (it's too early for me to tell them
> apart) is that you tend to paint with far too broad a brush, marking up
and
> tainting the good with the bad in spite of your effort to include
qualifiers
> in your message.

Are you mad? How much more can I quantify what I wish to say? Would you like
a list? The classic versus the dross? And yet, after saying that I paint
with too broad a brush, you, below, say "most SF is bad," which is not
terribly far removed from my original statement, except written more plainly
and simply, and without the assertion of objectivity.

> Is most of the SF out there bad? Yes. Yes, it is. So is most of the
> fantasy. So are most of the spy novels. So is most of the mainstream
> fiction. To me, at least.

Yes! By definition, it is all bad! Or at least, less than excellent. Should
I, here, draw a bell curve to make my point?

> Someone out there loves this stuff, though. A novel I might throw through
> the window (say, for example, NEUROMANCER), others will embrace as the
Holy
> Grail, the hallmark of a new era.

There are fools everywhere.

> It's all subjective. It would make it a lot easier for me to deal with
you
> if you'd remember that, instead of making absolute statements that aren't,
> in the real world, absolute realities.

While you are correct that the objectivity of art is not absolute, and that
learned men will argue forever about which book is good at what, certain
general conclusions are simple to make, like, "most current SF is not good
in a literary context." And someone - me, obviously - should be the one to
stand up and make an absolute statement. Otherwise, it's just this
namby-pamby, wishy-washy, "everyone has their own opinion that's equally
right" bollocks that makes me want to shoot something. Our kinder, gentler
societies are becoming grey areas where no one takes a stand on anything.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [OT] Barren SF (was RE: -REVIEW- Cannon Companion), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!