ILB Argues About Who is the Greatest Science Fiction Author

sci-fi can change your life!

what a weirdo

sub out "love" for "racism" and that malzberg passage also describes lovecraft

i actually do believe that reading SF has kept me sharper than i would have been without it. it makes me think.

lol dlh

all well and good. review previous threads for this, as noted.

OK. I have begun and therefore I may not be very active on this thread for a time.

But of the first, oh, 700 posts I've read, only about 3 approach the sort of direct addressing of an author's strengths and weaknesses I was hoping to read (all by Shakey Mo, fwiw). The remainder confine themselves to bantering, exclamations about who is good, or comparisons similar to "he reminds me of [author X]". I feel like I am toiling in hope's delusive mine.

I hate this guy and I hate this book, but he and it have a cadre of devoted fans here who address some of his specific literary qualities:

dhalgren
STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND, then DUNE and now, the major novel of love and terror at the end of time: DHALGREN, by Samuel Delany, four-time Nebula award winner (ilx book club #Y8554)

is this what you have in mind Aimless:

Best J.G. Ballard Novel

or this:

Gene Wolfe

boy this is hard, using the search function, must have been all that science fiction I have read that has mentally prepared me for this daunting, thankless task

take a break

JE: If you were asked to assess your work, how would you do so?

VV: Over the years, here in the United States, three groups of science fiction writers have enjoyed greater popularity than I. The leading writers of Group One are Robert Heinlein, Arthur Clarke, and Isaac Asimov, all of whom have known scientific training. I believe that there is a growing audience which, in reading science fiction, requires the assurance that what they read is a genuine extrapolation from true science. The rapid rise of Jerry Pournelle, who has several Ph.Ds., is a further evidence of the importance of a scientific background for this particular audience. Group Two is headed by Ray Bradbury, Ursula LeGuin, Roger Zelazny, and Harlan Ellison. These are all persons who write wonderfully condensed fictional sentences-meaning, their use of the English language is unusually pure and beautiful. All of these writers accept human nature at its present level without argument, and seem to believe that is all there is, ever. And so the vast audience of television and film is within the reach of what they write about. And they have penetrated the fabulous women's market. I suspect that Ellison will eventually have to remove the four-letter words from future revisions of his works, because pornographic language always runs in cycles. I seem to detect that interest in the current cycle is waning. Group Three is headed by Robert Silverberg. He has an extreme ability for finding touching themes, as in Dying Inside. His are not sentimental stories. They have genuine feeling in them. There are also a few special individuals, like Frank Herbert, of whose education I know nothing. And then there is my own favorite, R. A. Lafferty. I don't know what his audience is. What I have isn't merely extrapolation of science. I've devised actual practical sub-branches of economics, psychology, education, physical fitness, politics, libertarianism, criminology, etc. None of this will displace, or transcend, the science fiction poets, the scientists-writers, ot the marvelously sensitive women writers who have entered the science fiction writing field. But I believe what I have done will eventually exert an influence on modern thought.

of course he loved Lafferty, that makes total sense

I thought about recommending Lafferty earlier, but I didn't have time to write a term paper on him into the little box, so I figured my little effort would have lived in vain.

Now started to wonder if we should as the mods to move this thread to AaD.

my little effort would have lived in vain

I see what you did there

not to post on all threads, that is the law

JE: Finally, do you still enjoy reading science fiction? If so, whose work do you admire?

VV: I read the first few paragraphs of every story in all the science fiction magazines published in English. If those paragraphs have story energy in them, I may read on. And if that holds me, then I will read the story. I also receive all the Doubleday book club selections. With them, I also read the first few paragraphs. In addition, I buy several paperbacks a month, and get others free, and do the same with them. My general impression: there's less action in stories these days, but some very ingenious ideas. Of the non-action writers, R. A. Lafferty writes (for me) the best fictional sentences, Robert Silverberg the best true emotion, Harlan Ellison the most condensed fictional sentences, Larry Niven the best hardcore science fiction, Randall Garrett the best pastiche writing, and Jerry Pournelle the farthest in the shortest time. Of the great ladies, C. J. Cherryh, Vonda McIntyre, Katherine Kurtz, Marion Zimmer Bradley, Alice Sheldon (James Tiptree, Jr.), Chelsea Quinn Yarbro, and Tanith Lee have all gone up into those rarefied heights that only women can attain. But the fact that I have to list that many names, and omit several dozen that have my respect-for example, John Brunner and Brian Aldiss-tells me that the field has changed drastically for the better.

two posts good, four posts pad

xp

BAD

bah

is this what you have in mind Aimless: [link to] Best J.G. Ballard Novel

I read the entire thread. It was only 80 posts long, so it didn't take long, because every post but one could be fairly characterized as 3 brief sentences or fewer, mostly consisting of pithy observations such as 'I liked such-and-such best. It would make a good movie.'

The sole exception was the one long post by Milton Parker that Οὖτις linked directly to. Yes, that post was extremely helpful, in that it was personal, detailed and strove to encapsulate the qualities of Ballard's various books using vivid imagery that is easily grasped. So, thanks, Οὖτις. And thank you, Milton Parker.

Tempted to just do blogstyle posts on every author in my library, one a day. Would that make you happy

My happiness is at your command.

i do wonder whether aimless's question might not have had a less hostile response had it been overtly the question -- 'why do SFF readers tend towards non-critical* discussions of the values of the works they enjoy' is an interesting question, and the answer isn't "lol because they're autistic."

*by which i do not mean 'uncritical'

-- all-in-this-together nature of fanships, fear of being boorish
-- if one is in x pastime for enjoyment then why does one need more than a fans-of-x-and-y-will-enjoy-z consumer-guide
-- internet accelerating/concentrating above tendencies

It isn't? Oh, I see.

Obv that was xpost. Agree that yours might be a more interesting question.

But yeah, actually difficult to answer properly on Internet borad without getting shot by both sides.

thomp otm

if I have some free time today maybe I will write a paragraph on Brian Aldiss

'why do SFF readers tend towards non-critical* discussions of the values of the works they enjoy' is an interesting question

i think we had this discussion once on ilx about the (much superior) fantasy genre. my general thesis was that most people in the position to add to the critical discussion would rather deepen their immersion in the world the novel creates. like there are ppl doing legit scholarship on fansites and messageboards about 'game of thrones' but its like 'who is the third head of the targaryen dragon' and not... w/e ppl doing scholarship on jane austen write about. most of the work derived from weird fiction tends towards deepening the creator's relationship w/ the original work, like 'heres my detailed map of what the colony on mars from kim stanley robinson's mars trilogy would look like' &c

obv stuff like this, or fan-fiction, can be and often is critical but some of it isnt. but its routinely 'critical' in a way that lacks the authority/distance of what literary types consider criticism? idk this ended up messier than i intended

why do SFF readers tend towards non-critical* discussions of the values of the works they enjoy'

I kinda disagree that this is generally true, though - it's true of things like messageboard threads, but it is not true of, say, academia, which has generated a rich and expansive critical discourse (one that is nonetheless not as old or as large as the academic discourse around more mainstream lit)

B-b-but what about Aldiss? What separates him from the pack?

not much I just figured I'd go alphabetically

One of the signs of being on the spectrum.

what can I say, I was raised by a librarian. I alphabetize shit.

Okay, ping me when you get to Zelazny.

so yeah, Aldiss. I've read two books of his, attempted and never finished a third, plus a smattering of short stories (not all of which I can immediately recall). The two books I do rate very highly - "Barefoot in the Head" and "Report on Probability A" - are both stylistic and formal exercises more than anything else, and as such more conventional metrics of fiction writing (plot mechanics, characterization, dialogue, etc.) are not relevant, as they are not really employed in any standard, recognizable way. "Barefoot in the Head"'s structure mirrors the progressive psychological states typical of a psychedelic trip. Things begin slowly and with giddy optimism, gradually building to a frenzied "peak", followed by the inevitable comedown. The text is an amalgam of Burroughs-style cutup, jumbled slang, songs/poems, typographical experiments, and stream-of-consciousness narrative. It is possible to discern plot points in the chaos, as well as recurring themes and imagery - driving and cars and their perpetual forward motion are central (in a way that perhaps presages fellow New Worlds contributor Ballard's "Crash" nearly a decade earlier), as are a commitment to simultaneously maintaining multiple points of view. The ostensible plot centers around a messianic protagonist, Charteris, against the backdrop of a Europe that has been devastated by successive wars involving the massive deployment of psychotropic drugs into the environment. The protagonist becomes the chosen one/messiah of a huge gang of motorized followers, who stream across Europe towards an eventual violent end. Chapters written in a more or less conventional format (Charteris addresses his followers, miraculously survives a huge crash, etc.) are interjected with pages featuring song lyrics by the musicians that are following Charteris, or a page consisting entirely of iterations of the word "acid" in the shape of skull (ASCI-image style), etc. I'm not sure what other points of comparison can be made for these kinds of interjections and textual trickery - which bear more similarity to things like pop art than other contemporary lit - certainly there's some precedents in e.e. cummings and Alfred Bester and Burroughs and probably some others I'm unaware of, but they contribute very much to the novel's "anything can (and might) happen at any moment" feel. The book is a rush, dreamlike, not always coherent but with enough density that underlying patterns can be discerned and enjoyed and picked apart. It is *very* 60s, a reflection of psychedelic anxiety and hysteria, in love with the violence of free association.

"Report on Probability A" is completely different (hilariously it is listed as a "fantasy" novel in the "Also by" column of my copy of "Barefoot in the Head") in construction and themes, but is similarly built around a strong underlying premise. It is about surveillance and observation and the crippling inactivity and anxiety produced when all one does is sit and watch something; it's a book about people watching other people watching other people - ie a book where nothing happens. Instead of plot action what we get is a series of nested narratives where different subsets of characters are observing each other. iirc (it's been 10+ years since I read it, forgive me if some details are fudged - they don't really matter anyway) there's a couple in a shack who are supposed to be spying on someone in a large country house. Detailed descriptions of the environs are provided. Motives and characterization are not. Then it turns out the spies in this world (which is the titular Probability A) are also being spied on by some people in another dimension, who are in turn being spied on by people in yet another dimension - with the parallels piling up such that the reader is implicated as being one in just a series of realities observing other realities through the prism of the book, all begging the question of who's observing the reader. The overwhelming effect of the book is one of tension and paranoia - no resolution is ever provided. It sounds a bit dry in practice, and it is, but it's compelling for the way it's telescopic construction, where the eye of the narrative keeps backing out and out and out until nobody in the book, much less the reader, can maintain any sense of certainty or autonomy. Obvious shades of Kafka and Dick and Foucault.

After loving these two I started on "Cryptozoic", written around the same time as the others, and was startled at what a mess it was. Comparatively a straightforward narrative with classic sf themes of time travel and drug-induced states but everything about it was unengaging and tiresome. Where more standard plotting and character devices would have served him well, he just failed. Moorcock (who frequently commissioned and included material from Aldiss, including various sections of "Barefoot in the Head", for "New Worlds", the magazine he was then editing) has commented that Aldiss benefited from editorial guidance, that he flourished when he was given clear tasks. Which would seem to be borne out by my reading experience - "Barefoot in the Head" and "Report on Probability A" work so well because they are grounded in strong core concepts and executed with these sort of pre-laid restrictions in place, everything is in service to the central idea. But when it comes to more standard storytelling, he's less effective. That being said, if others here have other recs for Aldiss I would certainly entertain them. He's written a great deal of which I've read only a fraction, it's entirely possible (if not likely) that I'm missing out on some key works.

apologies for numerous grammatical errors

the (much superior) fantasy genre

?!?!?!?

In the spirit of this thread, would be interested in some current fantasy recommendations: I frequently find it hard enough picking out good SF from the dross, and have no idea with fantasy, since all the stuff in the bookshops seems to be desperately marketed as either Game of Thrones-lite or Tolkien-lite: not saying that's what it IS, but that's how it's presented, and I have no interest in either

def feel ya on that. the endless serialized novels featuring quests and savior figures and *zzzzzzzzz*

otoh I never would have guessed at the quality of Gene Wolfe's fantasy stuff based on how it's marketed/presented

Also gtfo any book which relies on a "prophecy" to push the plot along

I know I am the mjh street team in this thread, but does the word Viriconium mean anything to you, James M?

Yes indeed--i have it and really like it. It's that sort of thing that would interest me: I came to it via SF, having read several of his novels in that genre.

By "it" I mean the Fantasy Masterworks omnibus of Virconium stories

James, I would like to recommend to you the work of Elizabeth Hand.

I will investigate her this weekend. Cheers!

words to live by from van Vogt: "When I opened a book in a library to see whether I would borrow it or not, if the paragraphs were too long, I didn't borrow it."

― scott seward, Wednesday, 28 October 2015 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

One for the 'ppl who figured out how to live' thread.