From: prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr)
Subject: Re: SF + PC
Organization: Neuroclinical Trials Center, University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 10:07:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.043819.22460@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mlabossi@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael C LaBossiere) writes:
>1. Merit
>     Merit is in fact relative to a particular literary theory. If you select 
>the books you consider to have merit on the basis of how much you enjoy them, 
>and the authors preconceptions affect your enjoyment, then the preconceptions 
>would be relevant. Philosophy of literature is a rather mudled business, but 
>merit seems to involve such factors such as the degree to which the book 
>addresses important, if not timeless, issues of the human condition. The power 
>to move people and to touch on something eternal seems important in all art. 
>Ill admit that my specialities are metaphysics (the philosophic variety, not 
>channeling, crystal healing etc.) and political philosophy, so Im not an expert
>here.

Again, I challenge you to be more specific here.  I enjoy potato chips,
but they aren't haute cuisine (to use a food analogy).  How do you
assess merit?  In the past, merit was assigned to DWMs only, now that is
changing and the literary community is responding to the "PC" agenda to
reform the cannon.  So-called enjoyment (I REALLY enjoy potato chips) is
not necessarily a criteria for entry into the cannon (even the
dyed-in-the-wool PCers wouldn't argue that) but rather some outstanding
characteristic of the work as you point out later in the paragraph.

>
>2. Political Views and Merit
>     True, the political views of an author color the work (for good or bad). 
>For example, Heinleins books are rife with his politics, while the Gateway to 
>Womens country undoubtably reflects the authors political views.  However, 
>these views may or may not affect the merit. I have a rather odd mix of 
>political views that conflict with some of those of Heinlein, Edgar Rice 
>Burroughs, various feminist sci-fi writers, and others, but I find merit in 
>their works and I am able to lay aside my prejudices and ideologies when 
>assessing merit (to a large degree-Im only human).

Aren't you just arguing AGAINST contextualization here?  That we should
separate an author from his/her life and times to get at some diaphanous
"merit" which is based upon "the work itself"?  I would argue that the
work exists as only one part of a critical assessment of itself, that
the author's other writings, his speaches, lectures, political views,
etc. all must play an integral part of assessing the worth of the work
in question.

>
>More to follow  tomorrow

Can't wait!   ;)

>Michael
>
>I can write what I damn well please. If you dont like it, dont read it.
>     -how to respond to the censors.

	-Phil
-- 
PHIL SCARR        \      We are Microsoft...     /          (o) 804.243.0229
 University of    /     OS/2 is irrelevant.      \          (f) 804.243.0290
 Virginia,        \     UNIX is irrelevant.      /        prs9k@Virginia.EDU
 Neurosurgery     /     Openness is futile.      \     prs9k@Virginia.BITNET
 HP-UX is my life!\ Prepare to be assimilated... /   ...uunet!virginia!prs9k

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written