ILB Argues About Who is the Greatest Science Fiction Author

Delany is the best interview. And the book of interviews with him that i have is a real favorite of mine. lots of interviews online too and they are worth reading as well.

http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/6088/the-art-of-fiction-no-210-samuel-r-delany

I got his book On Writing to give to my daughter, started reading it, and kept it for myself.

scuse me, About Writing.

i need a copy of the jewel-hinged jaw.

some kind of most-honest-post-in-thread award for scott here tho:

/that's kinda my definition of genre fandom. i will read all these books that are not really great but they give me that thing that i like./

Yeah i love scott but i dont read like he does (maybe i would if i had the access to material he does tho)

i don't read just ANYTHING though. lots of stuff i don't buy when i'm browsing SF paperbacks at the used book store.

i just started reading robert silverberg's the masks of time. which looks cool.

looking at the july 6, 1981 issue of isaac asimov's science fiction magazine and the point i was making above about fandom sorta/kinda reflected in a review of disch's on wings of song. (a book i own and have never read partly because the cover is so terrible...)

"I'm still not sure whether I liked it or not. But I can certainly say that it's well worth reading."

"You don't have to like a work to think it's good."

Harold Bloom put that book on his Western Canon list

(also a review of m. john harrison's a storm of wings in the same issue. overly baroque for the reviewer, but still a book that should be read slowly and carefully and perhaps immediately again which the critic assures us is something that they have never suggested before.)

also includes a review of this book which looks interesting:

http://www.amazon.com/Aliens-Linguists-Language-Atlantic-Association/dp/0820304875/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1446316119&sr=1-1&keywords=aliens+and+linguists

Picking up on some of the ideas that have been broached lately:

Being an analytical reader is not the same as being a critical reader. Everyone who reads enough to develop tastes and affinities also develops a template that describes in outline what 'that thing they like' looks like, so they can maximize their ability to capture that thing. For the vast majority of readers this template is very crude, but serviceable. It does the work it was designed to do. For example this template might include 'never read anything where the paragraphs are too long'.

For the type of reader who finds ILB and frequently comes back to it, that analysis is going to be much better defined and based in an ongoing dialogue between that reader and the books and authors being read. But that analysis is very personal and is not quite the same as developing a critical point of view. That requires a further step of creating a critical vocabulary that can generalize and communicate their findings as they read a book, and how it fits into the universe of existing and possible books.

When the ordinary reader attempts to communicate their appreciation of a piece of writing, even though their personal analysis of 'that thing' might be fairly exacting and quite adept at identifying 'that thing' when they seek it, their critical vocabulary is almost certainly going to begin with "I liked it" or "I didn't like it". The next stop is "it reminded me of [book or author that fit my template in similar ways]". But it is dicey whether they can go much further than that. And that's just normal and understandable. Developing a more flexible and acute critical vocabulary than that is a highly specialized endeavor and doesn't pay very well.

One thing ILB does as a matter of course, is to encourage ILBers who post to threads to stretch themselves a bit and develop their critical vocabulary beyond these basics. You can see this at work in every thread. I think I also irritated a bunch of ILBers in this thread by pushing too hard for that development and not realizing that this would feel like inviting enthusiasts to dinner and then making them sing for their supper. I apologize for that.

P.S. Hi, Casuistry. I will seek out some Delany and give it a whirl.

I believe my wide-reading/scientist Dad likes LeGuin and Heinlein and Asimov, the last I think more for the science than the fiction, as well as Clarke.

I know another scientist/reader/writer who's pretty into David Brin, and perhaps Pohl but I may be misremembering.

I was a big fan of Ray Bradbury as a kid but not necessarily his sci-fi stuff. I liked the little Heinlein I've read too but less my thing.

bradbury was my way in/gateway drug ten years ago. i had a lot of regret at the time that i never read him in high school. his imagination is now one of my favorite things in the galaxy.

i NEVER read SF as a kid/teen. like, never. i'm making up for lost time.

Picking up on some of the ideas that have been broached lately:

Being an analytical reader is not the same as being a critical reader. Everyone who reads enough to develop tastes and affinities also develops a template that describes in outline what 'that thing they like' looks like, so they can maximize their ability to capture that thing. For the vast majority of readers this template is very crude, but serviceable. It does the work it was designed to do. For example this template might include 'never read anything where the paragraphs are too long'.

For the type of reader who finds ILB and frequently comes back to it, that analysis is going to be much better defined and based in an ongoing dialogue between that reader and the books and authors being read. But that analysis is very personal and is not quite the same as developing a critical point of view. That requires a further step of creating a critical vocabulary that can generalize and communicate their findings as they read a book, and how it fits into the universe of existing and possible books.

When the ordinary reader attempts to communicate their appreciation of a piece of writing, even though their personal analysis of 'that thing' might be fairly exacting and quite adept at identifying 'that thing' when they seek it, their critical vocabulary is almost certainly going to begin with "I liked it" or "I didn't like it". The next stop is "it reminded me of [book or author that fit my template in similar ways]". But it is dicey whether they can go much further than that. And that's just normal and understandable. Developing a more flexible and acute critical vocabulary than that is a highly specialized endeavor and doesn't pay very well.

One thing ILB does as a matter of course, is to encourage ILBers who post to threads to stretch themselves a bit and develop their critical vocabulary beyond these basics. You can see this at work in every thread. I think I also irritated a bunch of ILBers in this thread by pushing too hard for that development and not realizing that this would feel like inviting enthusiasts to dinner and then making them sing for their supper. I apologize for that.

P.S. Hi, Casuistry. I will seek out some Delany and give it a whirl.

I mean it isn't as if the half dozen threads shakey linked are full of people simply saying I liked it/I didn't like it?

I definitely think that a person interested in c20 literature would benefit from reading Ballard Delaney and LeGuin

As an omnivore/dilettante I think the merits are apparent but I acknowledge that there are notes that I miss as a non-connoisseur, kind of like when I listen to country music or something

xp to wins

tbh, yes, they are very full of people saying exactly that, punctuated occasionally by people saying very much more. the typical reply in every thread on ILX, including ILB, is one sentence long. it's hard to fit much in one sentence without relying on common knowledge to do all the heavy lifting.

I wonder if there is a science fiction (etc.) equivalent to Lucasta Miller's The Bronte Myth? After describing how Charlotte built up the mystique of the Bronte brand in her memoirs and influence on Gaskill's bio, she considers how pop media reviewa and academic takes reflect cultural changes---and it's not *just* lol Victorians Freudians etc,, she goes back to the texts and notes how different approaches can come up with points that still make sense, still have some value, no matter how aware we are of ancestral limitations (we're all products of our own time and place). It's a book that might inspire fan nonfiction: how do the Brontes fit with some schools of crit she doesn't mention? Don't think the Cyborg Manifesto's in there...
(The closest SF comparison I know of is fiction: In Nancy Kress's "Exegesis," scholars interpret "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn," down through the ages [Year's Best SF 16, edited by Hartwell & Cramer]).(There are other examples of the reflective mcguffin,to use Hitcock's term, I think, but Miller never lets the texts become pretexts).
(Ben Ratliff's The Coltrane Legacy is a worthy trek through the word wars and anxieties of musical influence.)

"MacGuffin," prob, and def "Hitchcock."

I read a ton of SF as a kid: pretty much anything I could get my hands on at the library that looked cool, stuff I got through the SF Book of the Month Club (the bunch of free books they send you for signing up, and then the ones that sneak through if you didn't send the postcard back in time), the stories in Omni magazine, old books of my Dad's. I'd read pretty much anything I came across by Heinlein, Asimov, Herbert, or Clarke. Bradbury was kind of my gateway into more lit-fic (I guess he can function as a gateway in either direction) - him and Vonnegut. Some other classics I discovered later by H.G. Wells and C.S. Lewis.

Oh, forgot to mention the Tom Swift books. Those were probably my original gateway into SF.

i would definitely recommend a bradbury story collection to anyone on earth.

Be less patronizing aimless

I know aimless has cheesed a lot of people off here, but i have found this resulting thread interesting, entertaining and worthwhile

I am aware that was a 1-sentence rsponse

LOL well I never thought I'd re-consider reading van Vogt -- just couldn't get through the one time I tried. Truly a 'result' I wasn't banking on.

Been thinking abt what skot and others are saying in terms of what SF does and lit fic doesn't do. Like o.nate I can say its a 'gateway' into lit fic (and back into SF) but I wonder if there isn't an overrating of what both sides bring to the table to separate them out more than we want them too? A lot of lit fic is such overwritten tosh and a lot of SF might be more all ~contemporary concerns~ with not as much attention and concentration paid to the craft except it doesn't feel that way. Right now I am reading/struggling (more the week I had as I am loving the writing, but its more fragmentation than I need) through a novel by a gay and Jeiwsh Czech writer from the 20s, all those of scenes of not being there and utter displacement that you could find in a lot of SF writing. I wonder if that would pass Ward's "best read mildly stoned" test.

Earlier ppl were talking about vV's politcs that reminds a lot of how we would talk about a more literary writer's 'backward' politics (whether that's LOL Amis or someone I really love like Celine). Isn't Kafka Or Borges SF? Or when Proust talks about memory? otoh my only reading skill is stubbornness and being able to read while in public transport and restaurants.

Delany so looks like a major Old testament figure even more these day huh? (the pic on wiki is just) #analyticalCriticism

I appreciate some of the more recent posts on this thread but I dunno, ping me when Aimless comes down off the mountain. I have my doubts that he is ever going to find anything in this genre to please his refined schoolmarmish sensibilities.

xpost Long after I read many of Delany's books I discovered that he lived a few blocks away from me and was that interesting looking fellow I'd see out from time to time

i always think of ursula's quote about pkd - mostly because it's on every dick paperback - about him being "our own homegrown borges". it's a nice quote. i guess it's true?

speaking of zelazny, and fantasy, has anyone read his Amber books? always think i'm more likely to read fantasy written by people who mostly write SF.

also feel bad for old olaf that nobody has mentioned him since the first post. i still have never read any of his books.

i always think of ursula's quote about pkd - mostly because it's on every dick paperback - about him being "our own homegrown borges". it's a nice quote. i guess it's true?

She also said Wolfe was our Melville. Closer to otm on that one

That is def better. Borges not really the idiot savant type that Dick was imo.

speaking of zelazny, i read this the other day after reading that it was a big influence on him as a kid. it was a big influence on a lot of people. one of the cornerstones of modern sci-fi, though that might be hard to believe now.

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0601191h.html

i always think of the "homegrown" part of that quote to mean: well, that's what THIS country grows when it grows a borges. kinda wild like a weed.

Haha okay sure

Kinda doubt that was the original intention there

also, i wish i had all these: http://www.nesfa.org/press/Books/Zelazny-Project.html

Just breaking: https://mobile.twitter.com/michikokakutani/status/545009684495998977

http://isites.harvard.edu/course/colgsas-66707

i always think of the "homegrown" part of that quote to mean: well, that's what THIS country grows when it grows a borges. kinda wild like a weed.

lol

you do sometimes see backhanded stuff ending up as back matter, like the quote you sometimes see on old editions of henry miller, something to the effect of "our finest amateur writer"

aimless should just read borges.

^this

speaking of zelazny, and fantasy, has anyone read his Amber books?

Yes, I've read the first couple, they're great fun - classic fantasy type story but told in a much slangier, early 70s hipster style (for example, the main character smokes cigarettes all time) - seems to have been a huge huge influence on Neil Gaiman's Sandman comics, which may or may not put you off.

actually i was tempted at one point to work on the intersection of 'avant garde' and 'genre' fiction in britain in the 60s with some specific attention to the politics of literary journaling

Would read! Again, my very sketchy idea of all this is that in the UK, white male middle class science fictiondom first began to be dismantled in the early 1960s, when you get more or less 'experimental' writers like Doris Lessing, Naomi Mitchison, Anna Kavan, Christine Rose-Brooks etc working within science fiction, and then a little later you get New Worlds under Moorcock encouraging a 'new wave' of science fiction that was at least familiar with Borges or Robbe-Grillet AND with the first forms of gender politics. But how this was felt 'on the ground' - ie within 'mainstream' SF opinion -is hard to get a feeling for, I think.

in honor of this thread i bought a fantasy novel today. though not a sword & sandals fantasy book. paul park's a princess of roumania. huge rave blurbs by ursula on the front and karen joy fowler, kim stanley robinson, jonathan lethem, michael swanwick, elizabeth hand, and john crowley on the back. (also bought a horror/weird/fantasy book by someone named steve rasnic tem. jeff vandermeer compares him to mervyn peake, ray bradbury, edward gorey, and shirley jackson in his blurb. which made me buy it.) (also bought tim powers story collection which i might already own...) (also bought paperbacks of zelazny's the guns of avalon and joanna russ's picnic on paradise.) (also bought the expanded edition of laura riding's progress of stories. which everyone should read. it's the only book that rebecca west and john ashbery and harry matthews ever agreed upon! also bought an old copy of chelsea magazine that has a long great article about the friendship between chelsea mag's sonia raiziss and laura riding. and it also has a great photo series of writer portraits by gerard malanga including a nice photo of borges. and john ashbery. to name two. borges is holding a crystal ball in his portrait.)

I appreciate some of the more recent posts on this thread but I dunno, ping me when Aimless comes down off the mountain. I have my doubts that he is ever going to find anything in this genre to please his refined schoolmarmish sensibilities.

― You're a Big URL Now (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, November 1, 2015 11:41 AM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Strange_manuscript.jpg

borges is holding a crystal ball in his portrait

he was probably amused at this, since he was blind