From: djdaneh@pbhyc.PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Subject: Bushwah (was Re: "VENUS ON THE HALF SHELL")
Reply-To: djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:19:43 GMT


Well, before I get started, let me confess that I'm not at all sure that the
posting I'm replying to isn't some kind of elaborate hoax.  Certainly the name
given ("Gharlane of Eddore") would lead one to think so.

And yet it's a very well-written and -researched article.  The individual who
wrote this knew, to a significant extant, what s/he was talking about; which 
makes his/her conclusions all the more pernicious.

So, to correct those conclusions, once more into the breach. . .


In article <1992Oct13.223004.1803@csus.edu> gharlane@nextnet.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore) writes:


>(In-Reply-To: <01GPQQIM2PBQ90MUJL@VAX1.ACS.JMU.EDU>)
>   FAC_PDEIGL@VAX1.ACS.JMU.EDU writes:

>>Why was the book written by Farmer and not Vonnegut?  What is the
>>relationship between Vonnegut and Farmer?  How did the book come about and why
>>was it written?

"Gharlane's" "explanation," while factual enough in its way, manages to fail to
answer the questions FAC_PDEIGL@VAX1.ACS.JMU.EDU asked.

The book was written by Farmer and not Vonnegut because Vonnegut never intended
to write a book by "Kilgore Trout."  Farmer, on the other hand, was at this
period involved in the elaborate conspiracy-theory-cum-joke-cum-literary-
research-project collectively referred to as the "Wold Newton family," (WNf)
which "Gharlane" (correctly) praises below.

Among the twisty ins and outs of the WNf project, was the concept of the "secret
history" -- that is, PJF attempted, half-seriously, to convince readers that the
WNf was real, and that -- allowing for fictionalization and "errors" by the
original authors -- the tales of, e.g., Tarzan, "Doc" Savage, and many other
fictional characters were _true_, but that this knowledge had been suppressed
(partially by the very act of publishing those adventures as fiction) for some
reason.

For example, his book THE OTHER LOG OF PHILEAS FOGG -- which ties into the WNf
project in several ways, most notably the concept of the "Secret Immortals" --
tells us what "really" happened during those quatre-vingt jours.  He even 
manages to drag Captain Nemo into a work where Verne never intended him.  Very
strange.  A great deal of fun.

Well, and anyway, Farmer included a number of fictional _authors_ in his family
tree of the WNf, including Harlan Ellison's nom-de-fuckoff "Cordwainer Bird";
his own "Peter Jairus Frigate"; and Vonnegut's "Kilgore Trout."

And _then_, calling upon his loyalty to fellow Hoosiers, he convinced Vonnegut
that it would be a grand joke if books by "Trout" were to begin appearing in
the objective world; and began to write some of the books Vonnegut had described
"Trout" as having written -- first VENUS ON THE HALF SHELL, and then THE SON OF 
JIMMY VALENTINE.  Depending on what version of Farmer's account you read, the
latter was in any stage from outline to a completed ms when Vonnegut pulled the
plug.  VENUS had been published, first as a serial in F&SF, and then in 
paperback ("first time without lurid covers!" -- though the covers were not the
biggest problem with "Trout's" "original" publishers; it was the promise of 
WIDE-OPEN BEAVERS INSIDE!!! that made the books embarassing for even science
fiction fans to own them.)

Why did Vonnegut pull the plug?  Simply:  he started getting letters and reviews
which _assumed_ that he'd written the book.  Since he didn't particularly _like_
the book (_de_gustibus_...), he was rather bothered by this, and more so that 
the people writing these ls&rs could _not_ be convinced that he hadn't written
it unless the real culprit came forth.  So he insisted that Farmer come forth,
and withdrew permission to do further books by "Trout."

Whether Vonnegut was justified in doing this is questionable, but I think it can
be stated that his motives were not the utterly base ones "Gharlane" seems to
impute.

Anyway -- Farmer managed to milk things for a bit more.  In VENUS, he had given
his hero, Simon Wagstaff, a "favorite science fiction writer," named Jonathan
Swift Somers III.  Shortly after VENUS appeared, stories by Jonathan Swift 
Somers III began appearing in F&SF, concerning a talking dog by the name of
Ralph von Wau Wau.  The cherry on the sundae appeared in ANALOG:  one of Spider
Robinson's "Callahan's" stories featured a talking dog, named Ralph, who (it
turned out) had pseudonymously written the stories of Jonathan Swift Somers III
. . . _and_ Kilgore Trout . . . _AND_ Philip Jose Farmer.  A lovely touch.


["Gharlane"'s summary of the history of the Riverworld books -- essentially
correct -- deleted.]

> His creation of the 
> "Wold Newton Family" and consequent unitization of most of the extant 
> heroic and pulp fiction of the last few centuries was a scholastic tour
> de force that may never be equalled.

"Unitization?"

Anyway -- while the WNf is indeed quite impressive, and a _great_ deal of fun,
calling it a "scholastic tour de force" is at best an exaggeration.  The book
DOC SAVAGE: HIS APOCALYPTIC LIFE, for example, is riddled with errors.  For
example, he gives a listing of who wrote which of the Doc novels (most of them
were written by Lester Dent): his attributions for many of the novels are just
plain wrong.  His attempt at a chronology for the stories has also been shown
to be impossible (at least one better chronology appeared in the fanzine BRONZE
SHADOWS).  [For much of this information I am grateful to Chris Jarocha-Ernst
and the egregious Jerry Boyajian.]


> Farmer used Vonnegut's style so superbly.

...Actually, he used an _exaggerated_ version of Vonnegut's style.

>       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; 

Well, yes, it _is_, and it's _much_ harder to imitate than you'd think.  (More
credit to Farmer.)  Parody, yes; imitate, even in an exaggerated way, no.

The exaggeration was necessary, btw.  Vonnegut had repeatedly explained that
Trout had brilliant ideas but "an atrocious writing style."  [Trout is allegedly
based on Theodore Sturgeon; this one fact makes me doubt that allegation highly,
since Sturgeon was possibly _the_ stylist in SF through at least the mid-'60s..
I suspect it's merely a name-joke.]


> this is evidenced by the fact that Farmer did it better, 

Very definitely a matter of opinion.  To my (admittedly superior:*) taste,
VENUS is -- deliberately -- very badly written.


> and is the master 
> of many styles and techniques--- and Vonnegut is not.   

Have you read any of Vonnegut's early work?  His style varied quite a bit from
story to story.  The pseudo-primitive style in which he has written everything
from SLAUGHTERHOUSE-FIVE on, is a deliberate choice, and, whether or not you
happen to like it, was achieved at great cost of labor.  Vonnegut deprecates and
even makes fun of that labor (e.g., at the beginning of PALM SUNDAY), but it's
very real.  (It is, among other things, a paean to the quasi-literacy of the
American reading public -- who will accept complex ideas, simply presented, but 
never a complex presentation.)


> Vonnegut spent most
> of the fifties writing "mainstream" novels that used plot elements derived
> from pulp SF magazines.... and using them poorly at that.  His publication 
> contracts always specifically stated that the words "Science Fiction" and 
> the abbreviation "SF" were *not* to appear on the dust jacket, or in 
> review announcements of his work.

Fascinating.  You mean all those works published in F&SF were really by someone
else stealing Vonnegut's work?  Or that the original edition of PLAYER PIANO
(which was nominated for a Hugo) was in violation of the publisher's contract
with Vonnegut, since the book was clearly identified as SF?

Bushwah and double bushwah.

Vonnegut's decision to dissociate himself from SF was later than you think, and
was not a matter of hating SF, but a deliberate _commercial_ decision:  he knew
that putting the words SF on a book guaranteed a certain minimum sale -- and,
equally, guaranteed (in those days) an absolute maximum sale.

Now, he's said some harsh things about SF since, and I think that this was 
partly an attempt to justify to himself his action in (effectively) insulting
the genre that had given him his first commercial success.  Some of the things
he's said have also been quite true -- e.g., that "Science Fiction" is a lodge,
like Elks or Jaycees, a social club every bit as much as a literary genre.  This
has become truer as SF has grown commercially and as non-genre SF has absorbed
much of what had been the exclusive playground of "SF," to the point that a
novel that would be "clearly" SF can, these days, be published without the
slightest hint from publisher that that's what it is (the trend began to take 
off in the '70s with, e.g., THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN).

Anyway. . .


>       So:  Vonnegut was a conscienceless rip-off artist who mined pulp SF 
> for stories that he then peddled to the fifties mainstream people as 
> "brilliant speculation," and made oodles by being completely unabashed 
> about his plagiarization of technique and concept.    

Well, nonsense.  Vonnegut wasn't that damn commercially successful in the '50s.
Nor did he ever peddle anything as "brilliant speculation"; if his publishers
ever used that phrase -- something I don't recall seeing -- he's not responsible
for it.  He just wrote the books, he didn't review them.


> During that time, 
> Farmer was working two and often three shifts trying to pay his debts, 

"Gharlane" seems to be implying that this is somehow Vonnegut's fault.  What
a masterpiece of character assassination!


> because he'd tried to sell a highly innovative novel within the genre---

No, it was because he'd _succeeded_ at selling it, but to a crook.


> because the mainstream people wouldn't look at anything truly innovative.

The mainstream people never got to see RIVERWORLD. "Gharlane" is lying by
implication.


> on occasionaly pyrotechnic displays
> of raw talent, the like of which Vonnegut never achieved on his best day.

Vonnegut did.  (Granted, that's a matter of opinion, but I'm right.:*)  If 
this construction is an example of "Gharlane's" writing, "Gharlane" most 
assuredly never will.


>   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!)..... 

(A) As I said above, the reason for Vonnegut's cease-and-desist on the "Trout"
books was not what you imply, and not utterly petty.

(B) It wasn't an attempt; it was a fait accompli.

(C) It *was* Vonnegut's territory.  Using actual, specific plot-lines from 
Vonnegut's work (as summarized in his descriptions of "Trout's" books) -- not 
to mention a name strongly associated in the reading public's mind with KV -- 
without KV's permission would not be "slopping around in Vonnegut's territory,"
it would be plagiarism.  Farmer, of course, has no interest in literary theft,
and ceased and desisted the minute Vonnegut asked him to.

(D) Name a single book Vonnegut stole, in whole or part, from pulp SF.  Your
statement is simply false.  (Saying "well, the _ideas_ are from pulp SF" is
not acceptable; the only "ideas" Vonnegut's books have in common with pulp
SF are not and never were the sole property of pulp SF:  space travel, life
on other worlds, time travel, etc.; and what KV did with those ideas in, e.g.,
THE SIRENS OF TITAN, is significantly different from what the pulp writers of
the day were doing with them.)


> and by the
> seventies, Farmer, under all his pseudonyms and writing styles, was
> outselling Vonnegut two to one, and no longer felt much need to kowtow.

Cite figures here, please.

 
>        I am delighted that Farmer's outlived Vonnegut by so many years,
> and been able to have such a good time doing it. 
 
Outlived Vonnegut?  Vonnegut is still alive, and his books are doing well (both
critically and commercially), so I presume you can't mean "his literary rep has 
outlived V's," either.  What on *EARTH* are you blathering about?

 
>  Most of Farmer's output is pure pulp drivel; he developed some bad habits
> during the desperate years, and the only things he's put real time and
> attention into are his heavy-research efforts.

Unfortunately true. The later "Riverworld" books are excellent examples of
what he churns out when his heart isn't really in it.


>  His biographies of Tarzan and Doc Savage, and the work that went into 
> them, are unmatchable in terms of adoring attention to detail, 

See above.

> and loving
> respect for the work of others.   

This is true.  It's also true of the other WNf books, including OTHER LOG
and -- in a way -- VENUS.


>   Suffice it that Farmer is more than worthy of respect. 

Amen.  When he's good, he's very very good.  (And when he's bad, he's putrid.) 


>   Vonnegut was in it strictly for the cash

Horsepuckey.  Vonnegut was intelligent enough to plan a way out of the penury
and obscurity of pulp SF; that doesn't mean he's in it strictly for the cash.
(If he were, he'd never have been *in* the then-ghetto of SF.)  


		Until the philosophy that holds one race superior and another 
								inferior
		Is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned
		Everywhere is war
			-- Haile Selassie via Bob Marley

		FIGHT THE REAL ENEMY
			-- Sinnead O'Connor

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, Net.Roach
My opinions do NOT represent Pacific Bell,
Professional Development, or anyone else.
But I'm willing to share.