Conference noted::sf

Okay, I originally posted this as 1070.28, in reply to 1070.27 (the 
referenced extract below).
I thought it might be a rathole there, so if Steve wants a new topic, 
I'll follow his lead....


>    All books deserve criticism, but some deserve it more than others.  In
>    this case, one that was definitely not written for the audience that will
>    read it today.  (Especially when it appears to endorse sexism and
>    eugenics!)    

There are two aspects to be considered in this light:
  1) Books need to be read with knowledge of the context in which they
     were written, and presumably the context in which they were expected
     to be read.
  2) Books that discuss or present certain points of view don't necessarily
     mean to endorse those points of view.

Read in historical context, books we find abhorrent by today's moral
and cultural standards should challenge us to try to understand the moral views
in place when the books were written, and should challenge us to question
our own moral groundings and seek self-enlightenment about our own assumptions
and their extrapolations.  What currently political correct views will be
found abhorrent by readers in the next century?

Speculative fiction is particularly prone to "endorse" views that
are more generally or potentially abhorrent than many mainstream genres.
I don't know if John Norman believes that women should be slaves
just because he writes about that in the Gor novels.
I do know that Jerry Pournelle believes that military people 
and their endeavors deserve more respect than they currently get.
The fact that you may "know" that one author or another is using
his medium as a propagndist vehicle does color the perception 
one might have of speculative authors in general.

This is a rathole, I suppose, but the rationale for stocking a bookstore
is a good topic to discuss these matters in too.

- tom]

I remember back in high school English class my teacher said that we still read
Shakespear today because the human emotions he wrote about are still valid today.
However, in order for me to understand a lot of what he wrote, I needed a
primer to get me over the use of the language. Not all the words he used were
meaningful to me. 

I believe any time we read a "period" piece that we need to know the context of
the times that piece was written in. To that end, I'd expect a forward in a
reissue that perhaps examined (briefly) the era the book was written in. 

My early exposure to SF meant reading a lot of stories written for young males
with no female role models at all. Perhaps that's why I don't see the magic of
the E.E. Smith stories. It's just a throwback to the time when my half of the
human race wasn't considered in adventure type stories. 

Sf is different in another manner also. Shakespear wrote about emotions and the
fact the people lived in castles or rode horses dosen't detract from the story.
When the story is about the "science" then a change in the scientific beliefs 
directly affects the value of the story. The science *is* the story in some cases
and if the plot line revolves around hard science that can ruin the book for
contemporary readers. Obviously I'm not talking about fantasy style stories but
those that attempt to mimic "real life". 

Having said all that, I'll also say that I prefer character stories rather than
hard science stories. I want to read about people in interesting and strange
environments to show me my world in a different light. I also want adventure and
a bit of escapism. I no longer read the older stories, they don't speak to women.
liesl

Re .2 (Leisel):

>I believe any time we read a "period" piece that we need to know the context of
>the times that piece was written in. To that end, I'd expect a forward in a
>reissue that perhaps examined (briefly) the era the book was written in.

I can't argue, really.  Or at least something about the author's perspective. 

>My early exposure to SF meant reading a lot of stories written for young males
>with no female role models at all. Perhaps that's why I don't see the magic of
>the E.E. Smith stories. It's just a throwback to the time when my half of the
>human race wasn't considered in adventure type stories.

You can see the evolution, even in the Smith stories.  In the first of the 
Skylark Series, Dorothy Vanemann (who married Seaton) was pretty much a
rescue object; even in the second book, her most important function was
to keep the wives of the Osnomians and the like entertained while the
men did Serious Stuff.  She also did very little in the third book.  But
in the final book, she became much more active, even fighting side-by-side
with her husband during the reseating of the Premier on the Barlo's world
(name escapes me at the moment). 

> .. When the story is about the "science" then a change in the scientific beliefs 
>directly affects the value of the story. The science *is* the story in some cases
>and if the plot line revolves around hard science that can ruin the book for
>contemporary readers. Obviously I'm not talking about fantasy style stories but
>those that attempt to mimic "real life".

Maybe I'm a bit broadminded this way, but I differentiate between "science when
it was written" and contemporary science, if they differ.  Thus, though the 
Mars of Weinbaum's "A Martian Odyssey" and "Valley of Dreams" has virtually no
connection to that we now know about the Red Planet, I can enjoy the story.
Likewise the fact that Jules Verne's shot-around-the-Moon story was scientific-
ally impossible, it still is a cute read (ditto _Hector Servadac_ and _Robur
the Conqueror_).  The "hard science" of Hal Clement's _Mission of Gravity_
has softened over the years, but it likewise is still enjoyable.

But there's also a whole spectrum on what can/can't "mimic `real life'."
One could make a case that the Lord D'Arcy stories about a parallel universe
where the laws of magic are as rigorously understood as the laws of physics
are "here," are mimicking "real life"; it's just that we might not have 
discovered those laws yet.  A story like van Vogt's Null-A novels, where
the premise is based on a law or laws that is or are outside our current
knowledge, then the "hard science" doesn't matter.  [In the Null-A case,
it's theoretically possible today to attune two energies to a 20-decimal
level of similarity, so someone could check that out. :-)]  Donald A.
Wandrei's chilling "The Red Brain," anthologized in _Creeps By Night_, was
SF when written, actually depends on an impossible condition of physics,
and still works. 

>Having said all that, I'll also say that I prefer character stories rather than
>hard science stories. I want to read about people in interesting and strange
>environments to show me my world in a different light. I also want adventure and
>a bit of escapism. I no longer read the older stories, they don't speak to women.

But some do.  C. L. Moore wrote some beauts, including "Judgement Night," in
the SF category, and several fantasies about a warrior-maiden, Jeirel of Jorey.
"That Only a Mother," by Judith Merrill, comes to mind immediately, as does
"No Woman Born" (I've a momentary block on the name of the author).   All of
those were written before my wife was even born, and all are memorable.  

Steve Kallis, Jr. 

re: .3

I admire your persistence in getting to the fourth book of the Skylark
series...i guess.  I couldn't get more than a few chapters into the
first book, even as a 12 year old.

Not only are some of the alleged classics sexist but they're sexless too
--definitely a factor limiting their appeal to a 12 year old boy! ;-)  I
never had trouble reading A. Merritt, for all his purple prose.  There may
have been some sexist depictions of heroines, but many of the ancillary
female characters were undeniably *potent*...often villainesses (like Lur
in _Dwellers in the Mirage_) but also sometimes just powerful people who
wove mysteriously in and out of the story (like Adana in _The Face in the
Abyss_).  A 12 year old who doesn't "fit in" is often likely to find the
villains/villainesses and ambiguous characters more appealing than the
stock heros/heroines.

Taking Shakespeare as an example again, moral ambiguity abounds among his
famous characters.  One could speculate that this somehow lends works the
sense of reality that makes them true classics, even when their setting
and language becomes archaic or unfamiliar (or are frankly fantastical to
begin with).  Even in a classic "good-vs.-evil" story like _The Lord of
the Rings_, which has spawned so many poor imitations, characters like
Frodo and Galadriel and Beorn and (of course!;^)) Gollum exhibited a
certain amount of ambiguity.

The dull reinforcement of an accepted social viewpoint through stock
characterizations is worthy of criticism, whatever the "viewpoint du jour"
may be.

								paul

    Re .4 (Paul):
    
>I admire your persistence in getting to the fourth book of the Skylark
>series...i guess.  I couldn't get more than a few chapters into the
>first book, even as a 12 year old.
    
    A confession .. and as someone who enjoys a lot of Doc Smith: I read
    the third Skylark book before I read the first two.  
    
>Not only are some of the alleged classics sexist but they're sexless too
>--definitely a factor limiting their appeal to a 12 year old boy! ...
    
    Then you might like _Skylark DuQuense_, the fourth and last.  Doc wrote
    that after the Lensman Series, after _Subspace Explorers_, and well
    after _The Galaxy Primes_.   In it, there's a legitimate amount of
    sexuality (even Dorothy Seation comes alive sexually).
    
> ..................................................................  I
>never had trouble reading A. Merritt, for all his purple prose.  There may
>have been some sexist depictions of heroines, but many of the ancillary
>female characters were undeniably *potent*...often villainesses (like Lur
>in _Dwellers in the Mirage_) but also sometimes just powerful people who
>wove mysteriously in and out of the story (like Adana in _The Face in the
>Abyss_).  ....
    
    Ah, Merritt!  A whole 'nother continuum.  I never knew him, but he came
    up with a few really interesting folk.  The "heroines" (in quotes
    becausde they generally were less active -- more just being there to be
    put in peril so the hero could rescue them) weren't much, but other
    characters were.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    
    Re: .4
    
    Hi Paul, long time no see...
    
    There's no accounting for taste. As a youngster I read all of Doc
    Smith's stuff. I was embarrassed by my own enjoyment of that stuff,
    but I read and re-read it all. It is archetypical Space Opera and I
    accepted it as such.
    
    I tried and tried to read A. Merritt, not least because Smith's
    characters would occasionally refer to Merritt's "immortal" writings.
    But I never once managed to finish one. "The Moon Pool" was supposed to
    be one of his best and I must've started that one a dozen times...
    
    JP

Apparently it's a good thing that there are so many authors, since we all have a
selection of "those we can't read and those we can". It occurs to me that the
only important reality is that of an informed readership. As long as we don't
allow our minds to be shaped by some small subset of thoughts, reading, of any
genre and any era, provides us with new frames of reference. And to me, good SF
does just that. I don't negate the value of the older stuff, but viewed through 
my eyes, as a female, I see a different message than I think a male may see. 

I also agree with the comment about many early works being sexless. That was
definately a condition of the times. Authors who dealt with sex probably didn't
get printed. Look what happened to "Tropic of Cancer". Now you can read Gor
novels. Not an improvement in my book. BTW, I liked TOC, even if it wasn't SF it
sure bounded off into fantasy at times. liesl

re: .7

>I don't negate the value of the older stuff, but viewed through 
>my eyes, as a female, I see a different message than I think a male may see. 

I'll bet!  And a lot of the message is just "passthru" stuff...the authors
probably weren't even aware of the message they were reinforcing...

>Look what happened to "Tropic of Cancer". Now you can read Gor
>novels. Not an improvement in my book. BTW, I liked TOC, even if it wasn't SF it
>sure bounded off into fantasy at times. liesl

A friend of mine who worked in a bookstore part-time said she encountered a
perpetual queue of barely subadolescent males waiting for the next Gor book
to come out.  Scary (but part of the price of artistic freedom?).

_Naked Lunch_, on the other hand, has definite science fiction elements! ;-)

									paul

    re .7 (Leisel):

>I also agree with the comment about many early works being sexless. That was
>definately a condition of the times. Authors who dealt with sex probably didn't
>get printed.  ...

    Oddly, in the pulp world, an author could be "sexy" up to a point. 
    There were several magazines with "spicy" as part of their name (e.g.,
    _Spicy Detective_ and _Spicy Westerns_) that had what I'd call
    "teasing" or "titillation" in the area of sex without Going All The Way
    onstage.  There was a Robert E. Howard story, "The Purple <mumble>,"
    where the heroine was raped by a villain in a room with walls, floor,
    and ceiling composed of mirrors, so that wherever she looked, she could
    see what was being done to her -- and it was published in a pulp. [I
    wish I could remember the name of the story, but I'm miles from my
    library.]  In fact, one could get away with things in pulps that one
    couldn't get away with in hardcover books back then (if you can find
    any, check out the original adventures of Richard Wentworth, aka The
    Spider, in pulp form).

    Re .7 (Paul):

>I'll bet!  And a lot of the message is just "passthru" stuff...the authors
>probably weren't even aware of the message they were reinforcing...

    Even if "they" were, one wrote to please an editor in order to get it
    published (even as is the case today).  Some pulp stuff was strictly
    template (as Sprague DeCamp once observed, a typical pulp adventure
    could be stated as, "Three men go out on a journey.  One is killed by
    accident, a second is eaten by Things, and the third survives to tell
    the tale."  This could hold in a non-SF story, too, merely by changing
    "Things" to "jungle animals," "cannibals," "sharks," or what have you,
    depending on story type).  If you wrote an exceptional story that could
    buck the trend (e.g., C. L. Moore's "Judgement Night"),  it could
    transcend the conventions and be published anyway.  But it had to be
    very, very good.

    Steve Kallis, Jr.