R.A.Lafferty

[David Casseres]

>.... I tried to read the (supposedly good) _Neuromancer_ a few
>years back but could only get through about the first 75 pages.  Then, for
>further punishment, I read Tad Williams' 4-volume "trilogy."  Your comments
>about the good ideas and poor writing in SF echo Kurt Vonnegut's comments on
>the writing of his own, fictional, Kilgore Trout. I often wondered if Trout
>was supposed to resemble P.K.Dick.  The major exception to this blanket
>condemnation of the SF/fantasy genres (of mine) continues to be Delany's
>_Dhalgren_, which I just can't seem to stop plugging.  It's just about the
>most depressing book I ever read, at the same time that it's absolutely
>fascinating.  The incongruity of gang members in a burned-out city
>discussing whether it's "must of" or "Must have" is kinda typical for
>_Dhalgren_.  Imagine: _JR_, _Dhalgren_, and _Gravity's Rainbow_ as enduring
>literary representatives of the early seventies. Interesting thought.
>Someplace Delany commented that _Dhalgren_ described the kinds of places
>white folks spent their whole lives trying to avoid.  I can't disagree.  

Well, I disagree with you about Gibson but heartily agree about Dhalgren, 
and Delaney in general.  But I don't think Dhalgren can really be 
classified as science fiction, though it represents an outgrowth from 
that genre.  The same goes for Vonnegut's work.  Gibson and a few other 
"cyberpunk" writers, like Sterling and Stephenson, are writing a sort of 
anti-SF; they react to today's technologies much as an earlier generation 
of SF writers reacted to The Bomb (Walter Miller's "Canticle for 
Leibowitz" and other apocalyptic stories), and have as little impact on 
the dyed-in-the-wool SF fans.


Cheers,
David