Nelson sends us a thought provoking excerpt from Bruce Sterling's Catscan column.
Bruce quotes from an earlier interview of Charles Sholtz about the weakening of science fiction and posits a few comments on his own....
In a recent remarkable interview in _New Pathways_ #11, Carter Scholz alludes with pained resignation to the ongoing brain-death of science fiction. In the 60s and 70s, Scholz opines, SF had a chance to become a worthy literature; now that chance has passed. Why? Because other writers have now learned to adapt SF's best techniques to their own ends.
I will read an excerpt from this column, however, to read the entire column, click the title of this article.
Bruce quotes from an earlier interview of Charles Sholtz about the weakening of science fiction and posits a few comments on his own....
In a recent remarkable interview in _New Pathways_ #11, Carter Scholz alludes with pained resignation to the ongoing brain-death of science fiction. In the 60s and 70s, Scholz opines, SF had a chance to become a worthy literature; now that chance has passed. Why? Because other writers have now learned to adapt SF's best techniques to their own ends.
I will read an excerpt from this column, however, to read the entire column, click the title of this article.
Thanks Nelson....
3 comments:
Paul,
You and I have discussed this privately - now I'll put my own 2cents worth here.
I stopped buying SF mags a long time ago, because most of the stories in them I simply could not understand - they may have had a place in an English lit class, but not in SF. When I start a journey, I want to know that it has a definable finishing point somewhere. But I've read published SF that has no beginning, middle or end, and after the last words I wonder 'what the bleep was that all about'. At the end of a journey, I should have some idea of where I've been...
It's not creative or inventive, it's just poor writing and even less imagination.
If it is unlikely that anyone but the writer can understand what the 'story' was about, then what is the point (other than to provide yet more useless fodder for budding English lit critics to wax and wane about into the wee small hours, and feel smug at the same time that they 'know' that you can't really 'know'...)
I sometimes hear of commentary from the above people that 'twists in an ending are simply bad' for example (and might be accompanied by 'you withheld information!' in a strident voice you can almost hear over the net). Any why is that? Sorry, but I'm just a humble PhD in psychology, and never studied Eng lit after high school. I just read what is enjoyable.
Yes, the garbage that gets lumped in with SF...unreadable material that does not entertain, that nowadays also often includes multiple mind-wretching volumes of 'Blaine, son of Got, secret heir to their blood-thingy magic stoney talismany thingy, stolen generations before, ready to run, eat stuff, be chased, and ponder big things for several thousand pages of dead trees...'
Give me an Asimov or Jack Williamson, or earlier Clarke or Heinlein any day - they could actually write and inspire, and in clear ways that anyone could read (without needing a secret membership to an Eng lit discussion group).
yes, I remember our talks on just this subject. I thought it interesting that others in your field feel the same way. I as just a fan may bitch, but it often is just noise. But I do agree, there is a problem at the heart of science fiction. You were a lot less kind on the cause. Horaaay for your!
Well, I'm also a reader, just like you, and this is how I feel, and I have a right to say so (and perhaps just as directly as those with, ah, more eng lit aspirations!)
Post a Comment