From: oneil@husc10.harvard.edu (John O'Neil)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Postmodern SF
Date: 7 Sep 92 03:07:40 GMT
Organization: Harvard Arts and Sciences Computer Services, Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: cjh@tinton.ccur.com's message of 2 Sep 92 16:19:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.161949.10142@tinton.ccur.com> cjh@tinton.ccur.com (Christopher J. Henrich) writes:

   This *may* be a subtle strategy, but it may *also* be the mark of
   slipshod work.  It is a classic con game to promote inferior stuff as
   illustrating some prestigious but poorly understood critical theory
   or new movement. Examples from about 20 years ago, in my opinion,
   include _Beyond Apollo_ by Barry Malzberg and _Report From
   Probability A_ by Brian Aldiss.  Two extremely tedious novels, both
   advertised as showpieces of avant garde technique.

The thing that's tedious is your holier-than-thou post.

Here's the simple fact.  Barry Malzberg is one of the best novelists
working in SF.  In a way, it is not surprising that you don't
recognize that, and further seek to run him down. _Beyond Apollo_ is
heresy in SF, since it took a critical look at the space program
(strike one).  It doesn't incorporate any adolescent power fantasies
to shore up shaky egos (strike two).  Finally, Malzberg tried to use
the tools English gave him to write as excellent a novel as possible,
so admittedly it reads more like Joyce than Heinlein (strike three and
he's out!).

In any case, I am still left wondering about your original point.
Which "poorly understood critical theory our new movement" is _Beyond
Apollo_ supposed to represent?  You don't mention which one you had in
mind, but anyway none of them fit.  The awful fact is that Malzberg
tried to write a novel which people would want to buy -- he needs the
money.

In any case, you didn't enjoy it.  Fine, that's your opinion, and I
for one wouldn't dream of making you read it again.  So you missed the
point of the book -- don't go making a bigger deal out of your
personal problem than it is.

   The implicit dialoguw with a dissatisfied reader might go like this:
      "This book is incoherent."
      "Oh, don't you understand - it's a terribly witty comment on the
   incoherence of the modern world."

   [For "modern world" you can insert "American culture" or "late
   capitalism" or any other large visible target.]

Oh, I see, the problem is that Malzberg is "politically correct" and
hence his fiction must be inferior, since it has to carry all that
ideological load.  Wrong and wrong again!

In any case, "witty comment" is not the word to describe _Beyond
Apollo_  -- "agonizing scream" would be a better description.

   As P. T. Barnum said, the world is full of people who are prepared to
   be impressed by this strategy. And there's another one born every
   minute.  

There certainly is.  Most of them mistake their limited understanding
of literature for the truth, and blast anything they can't understand
with the label 'tedious.'  And then they pat themselves on the back
for being such clever guys, 'cause they read SCIENCE FICTION.  Get a
real life!

Bye bye!
--
John O'Neil
"Occasionally I believed I had thoughts of my own --  who does not now
 and then become the victim of such delusions?"
						-- Paul Feyerabend
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written