The Decline and Fall of SF

[andrew at cee.hw.ac.uk]

Dexter C. Palmer writes:
> 	I just recently bought Doris Lessing's "Canopus in Argos: 
> Archives", which presents itself as an SF series, except for a couple of
> things: it's put out by Vintage International (and has that same
> Vintage-type cover) and it's always in the "literature" section of
> bookstores, instead of sandwiched between pulp novels in the SF section at
> the back of the store where books never get dusted and weirdos with thick
> glasses, unkempt hair, and faded Ozzy Osborne T-shirts hang out. Has
> anyone else read this, and if so, does he or she have an opinion?

I think it gets into the lit section because of her other novels. I'm
no great sci-fi fan but I will readily acknowledge that there is good
stuff out there which rides along under the banner. But I started
reading one of the books in this series and thought it was so dreadful
I could not even approach completing it. By contrast I found her first
novel (The Grass Is Singing?) utterly brilliant and quite enjoyed her
most (in)famous novel `The Golden Notebook'. They are both radically
different (it's more of a vertical than a horizontal difference) to
the sci-fi stuff.

> (ObPynchon: one of the reasons I first got into Pynchon is that after I'd
> just read William Gibson's "Neuromancer," I came across an article in a
> magazine (probably Wired. Now I've said way too much about myself.) that
> claimed that Thomas Pynchon is the "godfather of cyberpunk." Which is a
> bit like David Bowie touring with Nine Inch Nails last year, but...) 

Not all too keen on `Neuromancer' which is the only Gibson I have
read. I thought he spoiled some immense ideas with rather hack
writing. But I reread chapter 1 last week and found it better than I
recalled. Every other paragraph or so a neat turn of phrase or nicely
weighted sentence would turn up. But turn back to Pynchon and it still
looks like clumsy hack work (but then that's not uncommon).

I thought it would be real neat if someone tried rewriting the opening
of `Neuromancer' in the style of TRP just to see how the material
could havebeen used to better effect. But then I realised that the
rewrite would have to be the complete book since Pynchon would
disperse the material much wider than Gibson. Oh, Gibson doesn't
explain *everything* right away but mostly he gives you comments on
things or reveals details which elaborate context pretty much as you
arrive. And I think this is a common indicator of poor quality SF, the
desire to have the reader know as he goes along where he is, what it
all means and why s/he is there (the reader, that is, rather than why
the characters are where they are). For me this is what gives much
sci-fi the impression that it is trying too hard (the Kellogs of
sci-fi sins, the original and worst). I prefer sci-fi where you have
to do the piecing together yourself e.g. I just reread Russell Hoban's
`Riddley Walker' (the last read was a stupendous 15 years ago!) and
you really have to work at putting Riddley's world together.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
And though Earthliness forget you,
To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
To the rushing water speak:  I am.