From: eschneid@sparc8.tamu.edu (Erich R Schneider)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Is SF imaginative? (somewhat long)
Date: 23 Jan 93 16:02:17
Organization: Texas A&M University
	<ESCHNEID.93Jan22151211@sparc8.tamu.edu>
	<1jq6al$828@agate.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sparc8.cs.tamu.edu
In-reply-to: curtis@cs.berkeley.edu's message of 23 Jan 93 01:17:09 GMT

Note: some trimming, to keep down article size.

In article <1jq6al$828@agate.berkeley.edu> curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:

[Summary of Curtis' position: Great Works do not necessarily preach,
and preaching has robbed many a work of potentially great status]

>To do things right, one has to remain at all times non-judgmental.  To
>present the problem, and let the reader come up with his own solution.
>To avoid contrivances of plot and character, bogus "realizations,"
>obvious pigeonholing of good and evil... and so forth.
>
>It may sound easy, but it is not.  Everyone sees the world through the
>filter of their own ideology; it is hard to show it clearly.
>
>But I believe it is worth the attempt.  Examples of success might
>include some of the works of Iain Banks; of Ian McDonald; William
>Gibson (though it's easy to be cool, when you're such a damn
>minimalist); Bruce Sterling; Charles Oberndorf (_Sheltered Lives_);
>and so on.

The Oberndorf is indeed good. I've read all of these authors except
McDonald.

I think we do, more or less, agree here. I, personally, like works that
attempt to subvert various paradigms, dominant or no. I acknowledge
as well that many works are good, and do not preach a political (in
your sense) message. (Example: Calvino's _If on a Winter's Night a
Traveler_.) 

To reiterate: I originally came up with this idea (which I admitted
was simplistic) when thinking about the differences between classical
"storytelling" and modern literature. One of the difference I saw was
that "traditional storytelling" played a role of reinforcing cultural
norms, while modern writers have often felt a need to examine cultural
norms critically. (I was attempting to relate to the thread-starters
question about "true imagination" and its relation to "the real
world", and the presence thereof in SF.) Another difference, which I
didn't mention, is that a certain subset of modern literature aims to
emphasize "style", so as to play up was is "literary" about
literature, with the belief that refining the knowledge of the
"literary" will allow us to create literature with more artistic
quality.

"Describe, not prescribe" is my goal here. I reserve the right to decide
what I like, however, and explain why I like it.

>>>Iain Banks' _Consider Phlebas_
>>
>>An interesting puzzle, here. "State of the Art" and _The Player of
>>Games_ are very much direct attacks on the sacred cows of capitalism
>>as preached in the United States.
>
>I'll buy that for "State of the Art"; but _Player of Games_?  Don't
>you think you're reaching a bit?  I can't refute you, here, because I
>don't know what you mean.

_PG_ attacks the general "imperialist-hierarchical-military-
industrial-complex-state" idea. Imprecision on my part.

>>But in _CP_, Banks shows the bad side of the socialist, relativistic
>>Culture as well (the Eaters), and thus shows that he knows that the
>>most effective way to argue against what's wrong with our current
>>culture is not merely inverting it and setting the inversion up as
>>"good" and the current culture "evil".
>
>Do you really think Banks wrote _Consider Phlebas_ to argue against
>what's wrong with our current culture?  It may be a symptom of my
>terminal derangement at the hands of consumerist decadence, but I sure
>don't.

I agree with you here; I was thinking more of Banks' SF work in general.

>>>Do they reinforce our Eurocentric, patrimonial, mammonistic,
>>>homophobic, and (of course) profoundly decadent Social Norms?  Or do
>>>they boldly step out into this literary chasm, where No Man hath Gone
>>>Before, and Subvert the Dominant Paradigm?
>>
>>I wouldn't call our dominant social norms "profoundly decadent". Not a
>>while ago our leaders were pounding the pulpit denouncing decadence in
>>American culture. That aside, I'd say the three works I talked about
>>do in some sense attempt to "subvert the dominant paradigm".
>
>Again, be careful.  This here sword has got two edges to it.
>
>Suppose, say, _Consider Phlebas_ really is an attack on the Sacred
>Cows of Murrican Capitalism.  Would it really be subverting the
>dominant paradigm?
>
>Banks, after all, isn't a die-hard Republican from the redneck-swamps
>of Maine.  He's an English (Scottish?) socialist of academic circles.
>His "dominant paradigm" isn't laissez-faire capitalism - it's
>socialism.  Sacred cows?  More like sacrificial cows if you ask me.
>For a man in Banks' circles to write a socialist book is about as
>courageous as shitting in the toilet.  If you want to subvert the
>dominant paradigm you got to shit in the sink.

Huh? Only a Republican can subvert Republicanism? I think it matters
more who one's audience is; as we've all have been told, die-hard SF
readers tend to be a libertarian lot.

>And what about yourself?  I don't pretend to presume but my guess
>would be that _your_ dominant paradigm is liberal socialism.  Are you
>so brave and avant-garde, to read Delany and Le Guin?  You should be
>chowing down on Vernor Vinge and L. Neil Smith.

At this point my political views could be described as "wimpy crypto-
socialism with a pro-technological twist". (I find Banks' Culture a
worthy goal, for example.) And in fact, I _have_ read some Vinge.

>Me I reserve the right to loathe them all equally - although Delany
>and Le Guin are, to be sure, far better craftsmen than the likes of
>Vinge and Smith.  Politics is for ballot booths.

Are you using "politics" in your general sense, here?
Do you loathe Delany for his politics, his "artsiness", both, or neither?
--
Erich Schneider  eschneid@cs.tamu.edu

"Even the AI hated [my book]?"
"The AI _loved_ it. That's when we knew for sure that _people_ were going
 to hate it."
                      -Dan Simmons, _Hyperion_
From: David.Dyer-bennet@f30498.n1125.z0.tdkt.kksys.com (David Dyer-bennet)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com