letter from Asimov's

[jwgh]

I'm just getting around to reading the March 2007 issue of Asimov's, which contains the following letter from a reader of an essay by Kristin Kathryn Raush:

Dear Sheila,

Kristine Kathryn Raush's essay, "Barbarian Confessions" (September 2006), was a breath of fresh air in the stale, mannered and claustrophobic halls of the SF world. In Britain, and probably in America, surrounded by critics disappearing up their own fundaments, self-proclaimed SF academics who think they rule the roost and deeply serious writers who are "political" and believe their opinions beyond fiction actually matter, we're still choking in rotting flotsam and jetsam cast up by a New Wave that retreated about forty years ago.

Like Kristine, I too abandon more new books than I read, rather confining my "work" reading to those written expressly for the purpose of conveying information. And I'm tired of the literati and the damage they do, the careers they wreck by convincing writers who have produced hated entertainment to now produce something serious, the self-important reviewers who put themselves above the books they review, the long turgid essays about the meaning of it all and the importance of obscure books of authorial masturbation, the older writers who think story and entertainment are beneath them, produce some worthy tome, then spend their declining careers whining to their publishers and agents about lack of sales, and the general sneering attitude towards anything that dares to be an easy enjoyable read.

Bring on the barbarians, I say. Let them kick over the crumbling statues, tear down the rotting curtains and smash all the windows to let in some air and light. Let them put to the sword and throw into a pit all the grubby weasel-worshippers of bankrupt ideas about literature. I'll look down at their bloody corpses and dance.

Neal Asher
Essex
United Kingdom

I will probably write more about this later in a comment but right now I have to go to see some roller derby. Until then, any comments? I assume he wants Gene Wolfe's head on a pike but other than that I'm not sure what to make of it, other than to be impressed by its ferocity.

Comments

[majorzed.livejournal.com]

I, too, abandoned the artsy-fartsy stuff typical of Asimov's long ago, but don't hold any grudges. I still dip into Analog (formerly Astounding), where the the other side of Snow's "two cultures" still rules. Ironically, a recent editorial there implies the rejection of Star Wars as a model for SF writing, too, on the grounds that the S is not an integral part of the F. It's just swashbuckling with a cheap "scifi" backdrop painted behind it. Perhaps a different definition of "good" SF, but Star Wars still doesn't make it.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

What if I'm entertained by politics, highfalutin prose and experiments in style?

[jwgh]

If I understand Dave Truesdale right, it means you're gay, but I may be oversimplifying.

But, yeah. Other letters, and things I've read online, criticize science fiction writers who choose 'realism' and 'characterization' over 'entertaining' -- but I know that there are a lot of people who find books that don't have any realism, or whose characters might was well be cut out of cardboard, to basically be unenjoyable. I guess you could argue that those people aren't true science fiction fans, but it seems kind of pointless to me. (Tying it to manliness, which I've seen people [not just Truesdale] try to do, just seems completely wrongheaded and dumb.)

[jwgh]

I should add that I am able to be entertained by just about anything -- I think that the mere act of sitting down and reading a book is enjoyable to me -- which makes me less than useful as a literary critic.

[jwgh]

There's another letter in this issue of Asimov's which addresses some issues pretty well, so I'm reproducing it here.

Dear Ms. Williams,

Although I started with science fiction at about the same time and age that Kristine Kathyrn Rusch did, and enjoy both written and media SF (I'm an engineer today in some part due to Scotty), I think Ms. Rusch's article, "Barbarian Confessions," in September's issue is mistaken in the following ways.

First, the notion that hardcore fans and writers consider space opera and time travel to Hitler's Germany to be passé seems off the mark. Catherine Asaro writes unabashed space adventure stories and the SF writers elected her the president of SFWA; Allen Steele wrote a time-travel-to-Hitler's Germany story ("Where Angels Fear to Tread") in 1997 -- and the fans gave it a Hugo Award. And Jack McDevitt, whose Polaris Ms. Rusch correctly calls a good old-fashioned SF novel, was nominated for the Nebula by his fellow writers many times, including for Polaris.

Second, concern that SF/fantasy sales are a tiny part of the overall fiction market overlooks the fact that a lot of science fiction is sold as romance (The Time-Traveler's Wif and the popular category of time-travel romance), myster (The works of J.D. Robb (Nora Robert's penname)), or general fiction (The Handmaid's Tale, The Plot Against America, Never Let Me Go, etc.). The wide spread of science fictional tropes is to SF's credit; we don't hoard our tropes. That's why some movies that are clearly SF (Gattica, The Truman Show, or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind), but don't fit the mold of Star Wars, are not recognized as being SF.

Finally, I think Ms. Rusch's history of SF is incorrect. Dystopian SF did not arise as part of the New Wave of the 1960s but instead as part of the reaction to the Second World War, in the late 1940s and early 1950s. It was then, not later, when stories about infacticide, nuclear holocaust, and disturbing social trends run amuck became common. Strongly plotted non-dystopian SF remained available in the post New Wave, but pre-Star Wars 1970s (The Mote in God's Eye and Tau Zero are two examples from the awards lists) and remain easy to find today (in works by David Brin, Lois McMaster Bujold, Robert Sawyer, and Kristine Kathryn Rush). When Star Wars, Star Trek, or some other dramatic presentation draws someone to the SF shelf, the sense of wonder will be there for him or her in the latest Stargate tie-in and in the latest book by Vernor Vinge, just as it was for me in Rendezvous with Rama.

Andrew Love
Columbia, MD

[jwgh]

I don't think there's a whole lot for me to add to what's already been said, but here are a few things.

There are several aspects to this argument, I think. (1) People write the 'literary' stories they write nowadays for the wrong reasons, and people who like them are wrong, and (2) these kind of stories are not the kind of stories most people want to read (unlike the old 'storytelling' stories), resulting in fewer booksales and the death of science fiction.

(1) seems overly hysterical to me. I can't say that wanting to impress critics or whatever doesn't influence writers at all, but still it seems to me that people mostly write the stories they want to write, and people either buy them or not depending on if they like those sorts of stories. It's disappointing if the genre takes a turn in a direction you don't like, but accusing the authors of somehow writing in bad faith doesn't seem correct to me; it just seems like this is fundamentally a difference in taste and it's best left at that level (not that you can't express your point of view, but saying that you'll dance on the corpses of people who disagree with you seems a little over the top).

But of course if you think that the people you disagree with are bringing about the death of science fiction then leaving it at that isn't a very attractive option. The problem is that if you really think that old science fiction had good storytelling and that that's one of the things that keeps new science fiction from selling, then that would seem to imply that if you brought out new editions of classic science fiction authors then they'd sell like hotcakes. (Of course some classic authors have been kept in print, but a lot haven't; I don't see a lot of Van Vogt when I go to my local Border's, for instance.) I don't think that's really true, though. (Two authors I can think of who are still in print are Asimov, who I would take to represent classic SF, and Philip K. Dick, who I would take to represent a later kind of SF -- I wonder what their relative sales figures are like these days?)

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

Actually I find that in just the past few years, old classics have gone back into print in surprising numbers. I keep seeing stuff I used to have to trawl used-book stores for. I think I even saw some van Vogt at Borders recently, and if there's anyone whose style is not of the modern era, it's him.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

...note, though, some of that newly reprinted stuff is New Wave! If simple storytelling is what people want, you'd think they wouldn't still be selling Dhalgren, but it's there in handsome new editions.

[jwgh]

Hey, there's a Henry Kuttner collection out now! Hmm.

[jwgh]

Roger Zelazny's Amber chronicles seem to have been in print pretty consistently since they first came out, come to think of it.

[sunburn.livejournal.com]

IMMINENT DEATH OF SCI-FI PREDICTED!
Interocitor transmission at Terran metron ô.Apple.11
Blessed are the conquerors!

[neal-asher.livejournal.com]

Why on earth would I want Gene Wolfe's head on a pike? He produces entertaining fiction and adheres to 'story'. I guess my problem is that I've laboured through too many books lauded as wonderful but which fizzle. To be more succinct, the idea I hate (which exists not just in the SFF world) is that 'it is entertaining, therefore cannot be Literature'. Who's predicting the death of SF? Not me.

[jwgh]

I guess I'm responding partly to the original essay, partly to your response to it. Do you have examples of authors who you feel have fallen prey to the literary disease?

[neal-asher.livejournal.com]

Nope. I'm quite prepared to express an overall opinion but not prepared to be specific. I know how much writers put into their work whether or not they have the literary disease. I only laud what I feel to be good and keep my mouth shut about the rest now.

[jwgh]

Fair enough.

I agree that the idea that entertaining works can't be literature is a bad one. Do you have particular reviewers or reviews in mind who promote this idea, or is this an overall trend you've noticed in reviews and commentary since the New Wave came onto the scene?

(Also, thanks for responding!)

[neal-asher.livejournal.com]

Isn't that attitude epidemic? We see it in all forms of fiction, in film and in the art world too. Maybe it's because we're becoming decadent and overloaded with sophists. Perhaps we're ripe for jihad, for the barbarians...

[jwgh]

I don't think I do agree that the attitude is that common. Ideally I would like to determine if I've been living under a rock (which, believe me, would not be all that surprising to learn) or if I disagree with your interpretation of things.

I read a lot of fiction (science and otherwise) that I enjoy, but I'm not sure if we're reading different books or if we just disagree about what's entertaining, for instance. On the other hand I understand your desire to not name names.

[neal-asher.livejournal.com]

I'm probably the one living under a rock. My reaction is probably just something to do with Sturgeon's Law.

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

If you mean Two Handed Engine, I believe that it is a Kuttner/Moore collection. If you don't mean Two Handed Engine, I would like to recommend it to you very highly.

[jwgh]

Amazon gives as the title for the collection I was looking at The Last Mimzy: And Other Stories Originally published as The Best of Henry Kuttner (Paperback). Two-Handed Engine doesn't seem to be in print here right now, but I'll keep an eye out for it.

I haven't read much Kuttner or Moore; the only collections I seem to have currently are Ahead of Time and Line to Tomorrow (published under the Lewis Padgett pen name). (The first Women of Wonder anthology also has a C.L. Moore story.)

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

The Science Fiction Book Club did an edition of it.

I think I have the MMPK edition of The Best of Henry Kuttner. It might even be old enough to be Ballantine and not Del Rey.

[kerri9494.livejournal.com]

I think one difference is that the fiction *you* tend to read is often not the fiction that's on the bestseller list. It's not 'commercial' fiction. It's not the fourteenth in a mystery series about a cosmetics-marketer-turned-private-eye, which is going to sell fourteen BILLION copies even if it sucks (*cough*PLUM LOVIN'*cough*).

There are lots of authors out there who write because it's a lucrative job, not because they find the beauty in creating characters and weaving stories. Grisham, Crighton, Evanovich, Patterson, RBParker, Griffin, Grafton, la la la la. All the hottest sellers. Are the stories good? Generally, no. I think in most cases of these folks, first one or few were actually good stories in their own rights...but then it turns into formula formula formula. I remember reading Flowers in the Attic when I was a teenager. Then there was Petals on the Wind. Not quite as compelling, but OK. Then If There Be Thorns. Sucked. Then they just kept going, and going, and going, and sucking, and sucking, and sucking...*sigh*

[jwgh]

Actually, I read a lot of trashy mysteries.

[kerri9494.livejournal.com]

Well, you never TELL us. ;-) But they are commercial formulae.

With Fifteen You Get Eggroll

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

By which I mean the SFBC does an edition of it.

[majorzed.livejournal.com]

dissing Grafton is fytin woids!

New stories worth reading

[(Anonymous)]

Of course, the best-paying short-fiction market in SF is Universe. ( http://www.baens-universe.com ) Considering the list of who is writing stories for them (including Asaro and Foster and Herbert and...) I would say that good short-form SF is still available.

Re: New stories worth reading

[jwgh]

Be nice to know who wrote this, but I assume it's legit and not spam.