Anondynes and sf

[LARSSON at vax1.mankato.msus.edu]

Thanks to jp for his ano(not Yoyo)dynic anecdote.  Do let us know what happened
to the old Norewegian (and how *are* his bowels these days?).

continuing the SF (*not* "sci fi"--which SF fans pronounce "skiffy") question, 
the following expressed:
" . . . 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.""

Well, conversely, SF folks are often p.o.d at the inclusion of the likes of
TRP in their ranks because they see it as a condescending attempt to justify
their genre, along the lines of "Well, SF's usually crap, but ocassionally a
*good* writer uses SF, like Pynchon or that Walker Percy"!  There are a number
of SF writer/critics who are good at defining and defending their chosen genre,
few better than Samuel R. Delany, who--along with J.G. Ballard, Joanna Russ,
and a few others--is for my money one of the best writers living today.

The problem with evaluating SF as "what it really (usually) is" is that it is
like evaluating any genre or even mainstream lit. as a whole--so general as
to be useless.

We might remember Sturgeon's Revelation here:
the great SF writer Theodore Sturgeon was once approached at a party by a
beligerant guest who opined, "Ya know, 90% of science fiction is shit!" 
To which, Sturgeon replied, "That's true.  90% of *everything* is shit!"


Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)