Bonnie's SF Thoughts

[WKLJAZZ at aol.com]

Bonnie (and gang),

Your definition of SF as it might apply to Pynchon (and other "serious"
writers) is wonderful, and I think does make the case for the importance of
encounters with various "others" in a whole bunch of important 20th century
texts.

At the risk of seeming dense, though, I've got to admit some continuing
bafflement -- and maybe pissed-off-ness -- at the way some critics (and, to a
lesser extent, the SF foax) have placed Pynchon into the SF world.  Bonnie's
definition is so wonderful, in large part, because it describes so many books
that have NOTHING AT ALL to do with spaceships, Martians, etc. -- like THE
FLOATING OPERA.  Thing is, no one in a million years (except you, Bonnie,
now) would describe THE FLOATING OPERA as SF.

If I could define SF not by an abstract standard of what it could be but by
what it really (usually) is, then describing Pynchon's work as SF is a
put-down.  My point is that, as academically and otherwise respected as
Pynchon's work may be in some circles, he's still considered a kooky,
over-the-top post-modernist (yeah, yeah, "whatever that means") by most, and
the SF "label" is part of that cut.  Of course, plenty of wonderful writers
suffer from writing great stuff with a "genre" and therefore having it not
taken seriously, but they usually do it consciously.  I'm positing, I suppose
(here comes the paranoia, everybody), that those who don't "get" or don't
like Pynchon's work have thought -- "this is too weird for me, but it's
obviously accomplished and it mentions rockets a-and spirits, so I can call
it SF and be excused from having to take it seriously."

  Whew.  I need to calm down.

-- Will L.