Litcritter Dung
The discussion about the New Wave that sprang from my post on "Doc" Smith caused me to remember this post, originally on Usenet's rec.arts.sf.written, regarding Litcritters and their main product.
Someone (I know who but will spare him embarassment) had stated that military science fiction was inherently "tripe." I asked
"Why is military-SF "tripe?"
and was told:
"Come back when you manage to parse my postings without intentionally misinterpreting them."
The post was my response.
===
So, this is another of those Ineffable Truths that cannot be explained to those not of the Cognoscenti?
See, the funny thing here is that if you were holding a genuine Truth (such as a scientific proof, or even an internally self-consistent philosophical theory) you could explain it, and in a few paragraphs, and it would make sense -- even if I disagreed with it, I could follow your reasoning.
What's clearly going on is that you're a snob -- you despise sf for its perceived lower social status, not for any actual inferiority in content judged by the standards of good writing -- but you don't want to out and out say this, because this would lead to the question of just what gives you, or the litcritters, the authority to judge between the social statuses of different genres.
Me, I go by what sells, and what lasts. Litcritter-dung doesn't, and doesn't. I grew up at the tail end of the Counterculture, and I remember their litcritter-dung -- and the vast majority of it isn't read or even remembered today. The science fiction that tried to smell like it -- most of the New Wave -- isn't read or remembered either. The science fiction that stayed true to the genre -- Poul Anderson's 60's and 70's output -- even Michael Moorcock's more clearly sword and sorcery and science fantasy work -- is.(*)
Back in the 19th century, the writers of the equivalent of litcritter-dung wrote flowery poems and paeans to nature -- which have perished. The popular writers of that era -- Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, and Thackeray -- are still read today.
The disconnect between good writing and litcritter-dung is stronger today, of course. The reason is that today (contrary to the gloomy predictions of the 70's and 80's sf which tried to smell like litcritter-dung), reading is more popular than any time before in history. As a result, one has to produce really smelly dung to scare away the masses, and prduce a product that can be lovingly embraced as truly esoteric.
Writers like "Doc" Smith, Robert Heinlein, Poul Anderson, Larry Niven, and (today) S. M. Stirling are writing books which are going to still be in print decades, even centuries, from now. Unlike those who excrete litcritter-dung, whose crap is going to be hosed off our collective consciousness the moment that the political fashion de jour fades.
Example: a lot of the litcritter-dung of the 60's and 70's is unacceptable to the PC crowd of today -- the only people who willingly eat litcritter-dung -- because of its sexism)
*tip of the hat to NOW for holding the hose in that particular case*
On the other hand, the better science fiction of the 60's and 70's, even if it contains extreme sexism, is still read. Much of it is still in print, even. That's because sf fans aren't as heavily political -- they read what they enjoy, not what impresses other fans with the smell.
Those who admire your work on purely political grounds will abandon it when the Party Line shifts. Those who like your adventure stories will keep reading it.
Note that the work of Edgar Rice Burroughs has enjoyed continual popular readership for a century now. Wildly politically incorrect on multiple grounds -- but people still love it.
How have the "socially important" novels of his era fared, by comparison?
===
(*) Almost nobody reads the _Jerry Cornelius_ stories, which were pure and cumbersomely Important New Wave work, though. It smelled too much like litcritter-dung, and suffered the same fate as the rest of the New Wave when the pen got hosed down.
Someone (I know who but will spare him embarassment) had stated that military science fiction was inherently "tripe." I asked
"Why is military-SF "tripe?"
and was told:
"Come back when you manage to parse my postings without intentionally misinterpreting them."
The post was my response.
===
So, this is another of those Ineffable Truths that cannot be explained to those not of the Cognoscenti?
See, the funny thing here is that if you were holding a genuine Truth (such as a scientific proof, or even an internally self-consistent philosophical theory) you could explain it, and in a few paragraphs, and it would make sense -- even if I disagreed with it, I could follow your reasoning.
What's clearly going on is that you're a snob -- you despise sf for its perceived lower social status, not for any actual inferiority in content judged by the standards of good writing -- but you don't want to out and out say this, because this would lead to the question of just what gives you, or the litcritters, the authority to judge between the social statuses of different genres.
Me, I go by what sells, and what lasts. Litcritter-dung doesn't, and doesn't. I grew up at the tail end of the Counterculture, and I remember their litcritter-dung -- and the vast majority of it isn't read or even remembered today. The science fiction that tried to smell like it -- most of the New Wave -- isn't read or remembered either. The science fiction that stayed true to the genre -- Poul Anderson's 60's and 70's output -- even Michael Moorcock's more clearly sword and sorcery and science fantasy work -- is.(*)
Back in the 19th century, the writers of the equivalent of litcritter-dung wrote flowery poems and paeans to nature -- which have perished. The popular writers of that era -- Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, and Thackeray -- are still read today.
The disconnect between good writing and litcritter-dung is stronger today, of course. The reason is that today (contrary to the gloomy predictions of the 70's and 80's sf which tried to smell like litcritter-dung), reading is more popular than any time before in history. As a result, one has to produce really smelly dung to scare away the masses, and prduce a product that can be lovingly embraced as truly esoteric.
Writers like "Doc" Smith, Robert Heinlein, Poul Anderson, Larry Niven, and (today) S. M. Stirling are writing books which are going to still be in print decades, even centuries, from now. Unlike those who excrete litcritter-dung, whose crap is going to be hosed off our collective consciousness the moment that the political fashion de jour fades.
Example: a lot of the litcritter-dung of the 60's and 70's is unacceptable to the PC crowd of today -- the only people who willingly eat litcritter-dung -- because of its sexism)
*tip of the hat to NOW for holding the hose in that particular case*
On the other hand, the better science fiction of the 60's and 70's, even if it contains extreme sexism, is still read. Much of it is still in print, even. That's because sf fans aren't as heavily political -- they read what they enjoy, not what impresses other fans with the smell.
Those who admire your work on purely political grounds will abandon it when the Party Line shifts. Those who like your adventure stories will keep reading it.
Note that the work of Edgar Rice Burroughs has enjoyed continual popular readership for a century now. Wildly politically incorrect on multiple grounds -- but people still love it.
How have the "socially important" novels of his era fared, by comparison?
===
(*) Almost nobody reads the _Jerry Cornelius_ stories, which were pure and cumbersomely Important New Wave work, though. It smelled too much like litcritter-dung, and suffered the same fate as the rest of the New Wave when the pen got hosed down.