tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post5358752162595198652..comments2024-03-29T12:59:00.612+05:30Comments on Jabberwock: How sci-fi cuts us down to size (and shows us what we can be)Jabberwockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-4375520754510433232016-06-06T18:06:34.285+05:302016-06-06T18:06:34.285+05:30Lots more to say, of course - maybe another time. ...Lots more to say, of course - maybe another time. For now, I'll just add that more than your views (which of course you are entitled to), I was a little alienated by the lofty tone of your comment (whether or not it was intended), which seemed to stem from the fact that you devoted 4 years to "gauging the assessment that SF can be as engaging, profound and literary..." and that this makes you qualified to pronounce an objective verdict. (Just to repeat what I said in the first comment: there is absolutely no shortage of intelligent and engaged readers who find profundity and depth in SF - even if James Wood is not among them!)Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-12381658813131262652016-06-06T18:01:01.378+05:302016-06-06T18:01:01.378+05:30"James Wood’s prodigious reading does not inc...<i>"James Wood’s prodigious reading does not include a single SF book"</i><br /><br />This says a lot more about James Wood than it does about SF, Yayaati - surely even you can see that! (And to clarify, I don't mean that as a wholesale putdown of Wood. Life is short; even the most dedicated readers/movie-watchers among us have to make decisions about what we want to spend time on, what works best for us, etc.)Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-91943149728022082852016-06-06T18:00:25.870+05:302016-06-06T18:00:25.870+05:30"But alas, the very fact that SF writing need...<i>"But alas, the very fact that SF writing needs to be defended shows how open it is to (rightful) criticism."</i><br />This is a complete non-sequitur. Throughout history, many things that are of very high worth have been looked down upon by highbrow critics of the time.Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-82936784547140878642016-06-06T17:59:51.235+05:302016-06-06T17:59:51.235+05:30Yayaati - just re-posting the short comments I put...Yayaati - just re-posting the short comments I put on FB as a part-response to your comment:<br />- There are many fine literary critics (I don't know about "revered") and many wise readers who do, for very good reasons, rate SF much higher than you do, in terms of BOTH form and content. I'm as happy to ignore "literary" critics who barely even try to engage with genre/popular writing as I am to ignore highbrow film watchers who don't try to engage with popular cinema.<br />- Also: no, Asimov is not a "poor" writer; nor are many of the other old-time exponents of sci-fi. And there seems to be some confusion here in your own expression - are you really conflating "poor writing" with "devoid of any literary flourish"? There is no shortage of great writers who have very little "literary flourish" (as most people use that phrase), and those writers usually get celebrated for their lucidity - as Asimov (in my view at least) deserves to be.<br /><br /><br />Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-56231876123116933342016-06-06T09:11:03.175+05:302016-06-06T09:11:03.175+05:30nice work..very informativenice work..very informativeAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10557090246477504731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-66064139337959125902016-06-02T16:45:12.277+05:302016-06-02T16:45:12.277+05:30Dear ma'am I think you are taking the discussi...Dear ma'am I think you are taking the discussion away from what it was meant to be. Author simply wants to applaud the SF for it opens up the new avenues of thinking. This is not at all a praising of SF literature but its about the novelty of idea it gives birth to which at times potentially possess the ability to change the outlook of our existence and our relation with the cosmos. Gaurang Singhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04124862810315451551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-30184143395516988902016-06-02T10:57:50.889+05:302016-06-02T10:57:50.889+05:30this is boooooring shit jai.this is boooooring shit jai.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-28086436609014970542016-06-01T02:07:21.778+05:302016-06-01T02:07:21.778+05:30Over the last four years I have read plenty of Sci...Over the last four years I have read plenty of Science Fiction, largely in order to gauge the assessment that SF can be as engaging, profound and literary as “literary fiction”. I have read classics of Jules Verne and HG Wells, and I have pored over the writings of Clarke, Asimov, Bradbury, Dick, and writers of more recent vintage (Haldeman, Gibson, Stephenson, Scalzi, Ann Leckie et al). Then there are those I have read who’d rather not be called “Science Fiction writers” – people like Murakami and Ishiguro. My not so hasty conclusion is that regardless of the “importance” of their ideas, SF writers are unlikely to find any respect outside of devoted fan groups because their writing is poor. Take Asimov, for example. There is no doubt about the thought-provoking nature of his ideas. However, his writing is irredeemably prosaic and devoid of any literary flourish. The same can be said of several other writers. Even Clarke – a writer I admire despite my ambivalence towards SF – has written only two noteworthy novels; the rest is the sort of writing that would appeal only to readers looking for a “breezy” read. A rigorous grammarian would have a field day correcting the errors littered throughout the oeuvre of Phlip K Dick. James Wood’s prodigious reading does not include a single SF book; Christopher Hitchens dismissed it as “crappy”. Our revered literary critics aren’t bothered by the arrival of a new SF book. <br /><br />An important thing to note here is how fans (and writers) continue to demand the same kind of respect that would be given to, say Philip Roth. They argue that SF deals with “the human condition” or other markers of literary worth just as well (and sometimes even better!) than any literary writer. But alas, the very fact that SF writing needs to be defended shows how open it is to (rightful) criticism. This isn’t the celebration of a dense, difficult to comprehend novel like Gravity’s Rainbow; it is merely an irreverent attitude for writing that is not careful. <br /><br />At the heart of this argument is the idea of “anti-elitism”: the argument that even inferior work should command respect; it should be rewarded, and eventually, even canonized. It’s the packaging of something inferior as something “accessible”; something that is meant for the masses, and the wide acceptance of which is to signify greatness. Many SF defenders even posit that the idea is more important than the execution: which is to say that if a writer has thought of something profound, we must excuse how he documents and presents it to the reader. But if purity of purpose were to trump delivery, would many of us working for corporations ever get paid? Can an entrepreneur get away with sloppy execution, and bank solely on the brilliance of his idea? To take a more literary example, consider Jonathan Franzen. At the core of all his novels is the bickering, frustration and dilemma of family members learning to tolerate each other with as much decency as is possible. In other words, there isn’t anything “profound” or “celestial” in his material. However, his writing is polished with such skillful prose that reading a 500 page book about an American family becomes a delightful and rewarding experience. (Franzen’s gimmicky debut was dubbed “Science Fiction” by some obtuse observers; he was quick to retort that it was “all fiction and no science”). <br /><br />So, I did “break the cage” – assuming that I was trapped into believing that only literary fiction is worthwhile – however, I did not like very much what was outside of it. I will continue to be out on parole every now and then, and would be happy to report any difference in my experiences. Yayaati Joshinoreply@blogger.com