From: gharlane@nextnet.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore)
Subject: Kasprzak/Mann replies; was: IN DEFENSE OF VONNEGUT
Followup-To: alt.dev.null
Summary: nope, I was serious.... (warning: 300+ lines)
Keywords: Sharkko, Korshak, Zelazny, Kickaha, Trout, Vonnegut
Organization: Evil Beings from the Planet Eddore, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:27:38 GMT

Jim Kasprzak said:

> Subject: In defense of Vonnegut (was Re: "VENUS ON THE HALF SHELL")
> From: kasprj@jec321.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak)
> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 16:57:52 GMT
> References: <1992Oct13.223004.1803@csus.edu>
> Organization: The Big Wedge 
> 
> In <1992Oct13.223004.1803@csus.edu>, gharlane@nextnet.csus.edu
>  (Gharlane of Eddore) writes some things
>    which I _hope_ were not intended seriously:
> > 
> |> My point here is that Vonnegut isn't much of a writer, and his florid,
> |> singy style with made-up science and technology isn't much of a style; 
>  
>  Isn't much of a style? Excuse me, what isolation chamber have you
> been living in for the past few decades?   If book sales or critical
> reviews are anything to go by, Vonnegut's style is a very successful one.

   Successful compared to what?   P.G. Wodehouse?     Leslie Charteris?
  Robert Heinlein?   C.S. Forester?   E.E. Smith, PhD?  (EES's work and 
  derivatives thereof have sold several times as many copies as Vonnegut's
  have, over their publication lifespan, but far be it from me to assert 
  that EES is more "successful" than Vonnegut; after all, librarians 
  know who Vonnegut is, and everyone knows what an incredibly good movie
  "SLAUGHTERHOUSE-FIVE" was, and public opinion is hardly divided on the 
  masterful anime version of "THE LENSMEN.")

   If you want to see the reaction of competent SF writers to Vonnegut,
  re-read "INFERNO" by Pournelle & Niven.   Vonnegut's in there, but 
  not Farmer.   There's a reason for this.

   Ask yourself why the most seminal collection of the sixties, 
  "DANGEROUS VISIONS," contains a Hugo-award story by Philip Jose 
  Farmer, "RIDERS OF THE PURPLE WAGE," and Kurt Vonnegut, whom 
  Ellison worshipped from afar, only appeared in the second DV after
  Ellison let him use the word "fuck" in the story's title.
   Note that the intro to the Vonnegut story in the second DV contains
  these lines, excerpted from the 24 January 1971 "New York Times:"
 
   "After 'SLAUGHTERHOUSE-FIVE,' Vonnegut began work on a novel called
    'BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS,' about a world in which everyone but a 
    single man, the narrator, is a robot.  He gave it up, however, and 
    it remains unfinished.  I asked him why, and he said  'Because it
    was a piece of ____.'"

  Far be it from me to contest Mr. Vonnegut's evaluation of his own work.
  Alas, this article also reported Vonnegut's intention to stop writing,
  which Vonnegut seems later to have forgotten.

> How many
> authors can you think of who are popular with the critics, the mainstream
> readers, _and_ the science fiction readers? And if none of these opinions

  Speak for yourself.   While I've read your comments and entries with
  great respect over the years I've been lurking here, it's long been 
  obvious that the Great Unwashed Literati Conspiracy strapped you to 
  the table in the Clockwork Orange Room and force-fed you French 
  "art" films and Fritos until your critical faculties became somewhat
  more than ordinarily warped, even for an SF phan.

> count for anything in your estimation, why not just say "I don't like 
> Vonnegut's writing"? That's all you're really saying in the first place.

  Isn't that all *any*body ever says here?  At least I had the common 
  courtesy to delineate precisely *why* I object to the man's existence.
  He's a hypocrite who ravaged the SF field for material, peddled it to
  the effete literate snobs at Saturday Review with all the science 
  converted to hokum so they could deal with it as myth, and destroyed
  the clean and shining brilliances of the field by eclipsing it with 
  pablum.   Raymond F. Jones sold "I TELL YOU THREE TIMES" at about the
  same time K.V. was finishing the first draft of "PLAYER PIANO." 
  Re-read them both and tell me which is science fiction, and which 
  should have been published in the mainstream without SF trappings.

> |>  this is evidenced by the fact that Farmer did it better, and is
> |>  the master of many styles and techniques--- and Vonnegut is not.
>  
>  All this proves is that farmer is a good mimic. This is like saying
> that some local bar band is the greatest band in the world, because
> they can play like the Beatles _and_ the Stones, plus they wrote a
> few of their _own_ songs! Yow! 

  No, it's saying that the man who wrote the stories in the "STRANGE 
  RELATIONS" collection in the 1950's, and invented the "RIVERWORLD" 
  likes to experiment with his craft, in much the same way that 
  Kelly Freas experiments with different artistic technique, or in 
  the way that Joni Mitchell uses entirely different musical styles 
  in various albums.  (Compare "LADIES OF THE CANYON" to "MINGUS" 
  some time, and then tell me she's only a mimic.  Same thing.)

>  Vonnegut could write Farmer as well as Farmer wrote Vonnegut, if
> he wanted to. But Vonnegut doesn't have time for that sort of game.
> He's too busy writing Vonnegut, which is good enough for a lot of
> readers and critics.

  Readers who don't know anything about SF, Fantasy, or good writing, 
  perhaps; and critics who are easily swayed by mystique in the absence
  of content and talent, perhaps; but none I know.

> |>   Vonnegut spent most of the fifties writing "mainstream" novels
> |>  that used plot elements derived from pulp SF magazines....
> |>  and using them poorly at that.
>  
>  Well, if you want to think he used them poorly, you're allowed. I think 
> that Vonnegut's novels _were_ closer to the mainstream... SF-influenced
> mainstream, yes, but SF was hardly the only influence. My favorite feature
> of Vonnegut's style is his blend of imaginative speculation and harsh,
> real-world experience.

  Even Ellison, Vonnegut's premier fan/sycophant, doesn't like 
  "PLAYER PIANO."    As for "harsh, real-world experience," give 
  me a break.   Vonnegut practically invented the concept of 
  "carnography," and seems to *wallow* in human desperation and
  deterioration.

> |>    Come the sixties, Farmer had managed to get his career restarted,
> |>  and was making about as much as Vonnegut, despite all of Vonnegut's
> |>  mainstream best-sellers, sheerly on quantity... and on occasionally
> |>  pyrotechnic displays of raw talent, the like of which Vonnegut never
> |>  achieved on his best day.
>  
>  Again, what's your measure of "raw talent"?  Critical reviews?
> Vonnegut wins.

   You actually let critics determine your opinions?  Interesting.

> Sales of any given book?  Vonnegut wins again.

   Don't be too sure about that.  The "best-seller" designation is 
   a bit suspicious, and certainly has no provable correlation with
   talent or quality.  Vide Jackie Collins, Erich Segal, L. R. Hubbard.

> Your own opinion?   Then why don't you just say so?

  How about awards and publications within the field?   Vonnegut lost the
  novel Hugo to Simak in '64.  (Simak got "Best Novel" with "WAY STATION,"
  competing with Vonnegut's "CAT'S CRADLE."   And "WAY STATION" is a 
  vastly better-conceived and executed novel.)

  Farmer's "RIDERS OF THE PURPLE WAGE" tied with McCaffrey's "WEYR SEARCH"
  for "Best Novella" in 1968.

  Does this sound like the voters dug Vonnegut?
  Or does it sound like they might appreciate Farmer, just a bit ?

>  You want raw talent? _The Sirens of Titan_.

   A negative joke about the importance of the human race.  *yawn*

> _Cat's Cradle_.

   A world-ending caused by pseudotechnology?   *yawn*
   "Wyndham," "Christopher," and Moore did it better decades earlier.

> _Breakfast of Champions_.

   See Vonnegut's own comment on *this* bit of marvelousness, up above.

> (I could go on, but I just took three of my favorites for example.)

   I could go on, too.  But do you really want me to waste the bandwidth?

> Now compare to Farmer's Riverworld or World of Tiers series.

   Why?   Farmer was writing a pulp-series heroic fantasy quest.
   And damned well, too.

> Vonnegut shamelessly borrows science fiction elements to help illustrate 
> his insights into the real world.

   "Insights?"    Don't you mean sarcastic downer opinions on the 
   "essential hopelessness of being human?"
   (He called it that, once, in a lecture I attended.)
   And if he really borrowed "science fiction elements," and displayed
   any competence in doing so, I'd probably have more respect for him.
   ...but as it is, he lacked the experience and education to make 
   proper use of science or technology.  The closest he ever came was
   "Ice-Nine," which carried "CAT'S CRADLE" all the way to the Hugo 
   finals; but he said the idea was suggested, and explained, by a 
   friend.

> Farmer shamelessly borrows characters from the real world to populate
> his science fiction settings. You decide which you like better.

   That's easy; real-world characters require historical research, 
   checkable knowledge, and more than a little awareness of real
   technology.   In other words, Farmer's approach involves real 
   scholarship, and requires a bit more than spewing words while 
   wearing a bad attitude, Vonnegut's normal mode of operation.

> |>   The result of this was Vonnegut's petty attempt to keep Farmer
> |>  from slopping around in Vonnegut's territory (this, despite the
> |>  number of books Vonnegut had stolen, in whole or part, from pulp SF!).
>  
>  Petty? Farmer asked Vonnegut for permission to use one of his ideas.

   *NOT*   "one of his ideas" .....   Farmer asked permission to write
   a novel in the persona of one of Vonnegut's characters!
   Farmer *asked permission* to do biographies of Tarzan and Doc Savage,
   and would have done the same with the characters of Jules Verne and 
   Jack London and a host of others, had they had living representatives.

> Vonnegut granted it. He didn't like the results, so he didn't give

   Actually, what steamed Vonnegut off was that Farmer did such a 
   good job that it made it look really easy to Write Just Like 
   Vonnegut, since most of the self-styled literary critics who 
   eviscerate the works of others for a living COULD NOT TELL THE 
   DIFFERENCE.

> Farmer permission the next time. So Farmer abandoned that concept
> and went on to something else.

   Natch.  Farmer isn't limited in scope or concept.  He's a WRITER,
   not a "creative typist."   He does *all* kinds of writing, although
   his major strength for the last decade or two has been as an 
   analytical essayist.

> I don't see any pettiness there. Both parties were acting mature and
> respectful.  Unlike some people I could name who tried to set the
> followup line to "alt.dev.null".

   "Tried?"   Hm.  Looks like it worked, to me.....
  
> |>  I am delighted that Farmer's outlived Vonnegut by so many years,
> |>  and been able to have such a good time doing it. 
>   
>  If Vonnegut's been dead for so many years, who wrote _Hocus-Pocus_?

   Beats me.  I could make a few speculations, if  you like.  Rumor
   has it that Vonnegut's mortal remains are occasionally animated
   by "Bork-Tu," a Bokononist Spirit who is actually the old soul of
   a beer bottle awaiting re-incarnation as a five-cent Cocoa-Cola
   bottle, and consequently doomed to roam the cosmos forever....

> |>    So don't take Vonnegut's attitudes toward "VENUS ON THE HALF SHELL"
> |>  or P.J. Farmer too seriously; they are the attitudes of a drunken 
> |>  curmudgeon faced with a talent superior to his own, and loudly decrying
> |>  the ability of someone who did better work with less effort.
>
>  Tell me, are you a personal friend of Farmer's? Or did Kurt Vonnegut 
> beat you up on the playground at a young age? Or what? If you don't like
> Vonnegut's writing, fine. But you seem to have a personal hatred for the
> man, which I can't understand.

   Sorry to disabuse you, but the only direct contact I've had with 
   either of the gentlemen is their printed work.
   Hatred implies respect, or at least fear.  
   For Vonnegut I have only a sublime disdain, rooted in his hypocrisy
   and the shoddy work he's been peddling, to the damage of his peers,
   superiors, and customers, for the last forty years.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
....and then Jim Mann added:
  
> From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
> Message-ID: <7245@transfer.stratus.com>
> Date: 14 Oct 92 18:52:16 GMT

  Ref to Jim Kasprzak's comment on my ".alt.dev.null" reply line deleted.

> Aargh. I didn't notice this, so my post went to the bit
> bucket.  Jeez, Gharlane of Eddore (or whatever the hell his
> real name is) really was sure of his opinions, wasn't he. Sounds
> like he was afraid of anyone disagreeing with him.  

  Hardly.  However, it works well for screening out the illiterate 
  computer abusers who foment in my mail file on the rare occasions
  when I make an entry.   I regret missing your replay, since your
  stuff tends to be worth reading.

> Oh, well, I'd spent 20 minutes debating the crap he wrote about
> Vonnegut, and I really don't feel like retyping it.  I'll pay
> more attention to "followup to" lines in the future.

  either that or take advantage of the existence of the ".article" 
  file in your personal root directory, or pull a copy back from your 
  outgoing spooler; neither should take any real effort, only 
  a few seconds, hardly any trouble at all compared to twenty 
  minutes of lifespan invested in blitzing someone you feel 
  deserves it!

> > |>  I am delighted that Farmer's outlived Vonnegut by so many
> > |>  years, and been able to have such a good time doing it. 
> >   
> >  If Vonnegut's been dead for so many years, who wrote  
> _Hocus-Pocus_?
> 
> I think he was talking about their works. He's wrong there,
> too, of course. Vonnegut's works are almost all in print. All
> but a couple of Farmer's works are out of print. 
> --

  Actually, most of Farmer's best stuff is findable; but 
  Vonnegut's are hardly "almost all in print."

  (Heck, did you know that when Vonnegut was trying to write
   hard-boiled private-eye stuff, in the fifties, Mickey 
   Spillane told him not to bother until *after* he'd won
   the Newbry Prize for children's literature?  Spillane 
   explained that you need to know how to tell a simple 
   story well, *before* adding in the blood and thunder.)

  To this day, Vonnegut's never written a decent children's
  book, although his simplistic style might be a hangover
  from attempts at such......

  But there's still a gold medal on Spillane's mantelpiece,
  right next to a glass-boxed copy of "MY GUN IS QUICK."

  *snicker*
 .