Yes, I'm with you on that. But there does seem to be an unresolvable =
tension between the pulp/pop elements -- where most of the action is, so =
far as I can see -- and the more ambitious sort of sf. A bit like indie =
films (marginally profitable at best) vs. Hollywood. But then nobody =
dismisses indie films because they happen to be loosely related to films =
in general. This *does* happen with quality sf, though. Maybe because of =
the packaging, which doesn't help, but probably just because of the =
attraction of making simple-minded judgements. Of *course* sf isn't trash =
by definition. But people seem unable or unwilling to make fine distinction=
s in this case. Ah, well. Sod the intelligentsia, say I.
Cheers,
Wayne
>>> Tim Cooper <[log in to unmask]> 12/06/99 01:40PM >>>
Sturgeon's Law, of course. It's the idea that the genre is
fundamentally unsophisticated that I find so objectionable.
Timprov
On Mon, 6 Dec 1999, Wayne Daniels wrote:
>Quite true. I've just bee re-reading The War Against the Rull, and =
however enjoyable in a check-your-brains-at-the-door kind of way, you'd =
need a very elastic definition of 'sophisticated' to use it here. Of =
course, I thought it was great stuff when I was fourteen -- but then =
that's rather the point.
>
>Cheers,
>Wayne
>
>>>> James Palmer <[log in to unmask]> 12/03/99 01:56PM >>>
>That's what Moorcock and other writers from the new wave believe, and in
>some cases it's true.
>
>Tim Cooper wrote:
>>
>> I'm bitter at his use of "more sophisticated literary fiction" though.
>> Just what SF needs, the authors parading the idea that it's
>> unsophisticated.
>>
>> Timprov
>>
>> Tim Cooper [log in to unmask]
edu=20
>> "Quoth the penguin, "Open source."
>
Tim Cooper [log in to unmask]
=20
"Quoth the penguin, "Open source."
|