From: dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: "Buffalo" is SF?  /Hugo nominated/ SF?!
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:21:11 GMT
Reply-To: dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann)
Organization: University of Arizona

In article <5130@transfer.stratus.com>, jmann@vineland (Jim Mann) writes:
>dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) writes:
>> 1. What exactly about this story makes it SF?  Except for the use of
>>    H. G. Wells as a character, I saw no SFnal elements at all.
>
>I understand your point here, though one definition of SF (I think
>Damon Knight first came up with it) is "SF is what I'm pointing a
>at when I say SF."  A story appearing in one of the 3 major SF
>magazines is certainly "being pointed at and called SF."  

I'm not sure how to reply to this, other than to say I don't find it
to be compelling logic.  I know that I've read some non-sf books that
had an "sf feel" to them (Ivan Doig's Montana books, for example), but
I don't feel like this qualifies.  I guess since this is all very
subjective, all that's left to say is "oh, well".

>> 2. I found this story disappointing.  Kessel does a reasonable job
>>    of portraying believable characters, but... what's the point?

>One answer is that this story, like any story, is its own point.
>However, I think there are several things that make this a good 
>story. One is the portrait of the characters.

Agreed.  Nicely fleshed out (especially considering the space available).

>Another is the view of Wells himself, the old, bitter socialist who
>doesn't really understand the world at all anymore.

Again, this is mostly MHO, but this is not the sort of thing that makes a
good story.  I way more than my fill of this sort of thing when I was
obliged to read Miller's "Death of a Salesman" for English Composition,
and write paper after paper etc ad nauseum (and I do mean nauseum).

Thinking back, I have read and enjoyed stories centered on unlikeable
characters that come to a less than happy ending (Benford's Nigel Walmsly (sp?)
from _In the Ocean of Night_ and _Across the Sea of Suns_ is who I am
thinking of).  I can't say precisely why I can sympathize with Nigel, but
not with Kessel's Wells, but I think that part of it is that there is
nothing left in this Wells to admire with.  As you say, he's a bitter old
man who doesn't understand his lover, the political world around him, or
even the value of his own stories.

Another example I am reminded of is the aliens in Octavia Butler's _Dawn_
(and sequels).  Although what they do to (what's left of) the human race
sometimes made me grit my teeth and say, "those lousy SOBs!", there is
ultimately something to admire and sympathize with.

Ultimately, reading a story either puts you in the head of the main
character(s), or at least lets you watch over thier shoulder.  And I can't
imagine that anyone wants to spend time being that close to someone (even
a fictional someone) that they can't find a single redeeming quality in.

-- 
There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension
as vast as space and as timeless as infinity.  It is the middle ground between
light and shadow, between science and superstition. And it lies between the pit
of Man's fears and the summit of his knowledge.  This is the dimension of
imagination -- it is an area which we call "The Twilight Zone".