Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 17:32:28 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@pobox.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: SF and literature (was Re: internationalization) Message-ID: <19980614173228.23705@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <19980613235641.01088@techunix.technion.ac.il>; from Anatoly Vorobey on Sat, Jun 13, 1998 at 11:56:41PM %2B0300 References: <199806121443.HAA09471@mailgate.cadence.com> <199806121619.JAA08857@usr02.primenet.com> <19980613212837.A17939@doriath.org> <19980613211430.51924@follo.net> <19980613235641.01088@techunix.technion.ac.il>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 13, 1998 at 11:56:41PM +0300, Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
> You, Eivind Eklund, were spotted writing this on Sat, Jun 13, 1998 at 09:14:30PM +0200:
> > The point isn't to see how many layers of allegories and symbols
> > one can create, or how clever one can be with words.
>
> But neither is this the point of good fiction. Allegories and symbols
> are but tools, which undo the beauty of a book when overused. Playing
> with words is crosswords, not literature.
>
> If you think great literature is about allegories and symbols and
> wordplay, you're seriously mistaken - maybe you had bad literature
> teachers? :)
I've just had this discussion too many times before, where people tend
to point at the tools and say "If you don't use _those_ tools, you
can't come play." I'm sick and tired of it, and tend to attempt to
shoot that concept first. If they then start to blabber about that
being the important point, I know I've not missed an interesting
discussion.
I've had irritating teachers, too - ones that "followed the book",
where the book insisted that the use of green lampshades in the _scene
descriptions_ was an extrememly important point in one of Ibsen's
plays, symbolic of the depths of the human soul.
> It's mainly about art, and about beauty, and about spontaneously
> recreating new reality.
I'm not certain what you mean by "spontaneously recreating new
reality".
>
> > The point is to evoke a sense of wonder
> > ("sensawunda"), to show how people could react to changes,
>
> Where are those people? Most of SF novels pay no attention to people
> at all. Even the main characters are unbelievably shallow; they only
> exist to illustrate author's ideas, they're not "real" by a long shot.
> Which SF author knows how to describe his main hero smiling - did
> you notice that almost any person you meet in your life smiles
> differently? When SF authors do try to attribute some unique
> characteristics to their heroes, they do it with banal metaphors and
> worn-out images. This is perfectly acceptable for SF readers only
> because of the non-written agreement between authors and readers -
> authors are pretending they are describing human beings (or alien
> beings for that matter), and readers are accustomed to not having
> any idea how they look like, what clothes they wear, what are
> their gestures, dreams, habits. It's OK because the reader is keen
> to skip to the next great hyperdrive invention the hero is about
> to unleash on the humanity. The people described aren't people,
> they're badly made dolls.
You're missing what (to me, at least) 'people' are. People aren't
clothes, or smiles. People are minds. You're a person. Terry is a
person. Jordan is a person. The girl sitting in the sun beneath my
window is a cute. Her white dress gives a nice contrast to her black
hair - it makes her pretty, an eye-rest. She wears a slightly tilted
smile looking at her little dachs rustling around after something in
the grass. The sunlight makes small shadows play in her dress as what
little wind there is in street touch her, first this way, then that
way. What does it matter? Until I talk with her, hear her expose
ideas, feel her _think_ - she's a doll.
I've read SF writers describing how they work. Mostly, they
consciously avoid giving long-winded descriptions like the above.
Give the reader some visual details to help them identify the
character, and then move on. Get on with the story, filling in visual
clues only on an 'as needed' basis. They're conscious about when they
give the details - and they're conscious about not giving too much,
building on the reader's imagination instead.
> The sense of wonder is truly a great thing. But is it all that
> one can enjoy in literature?
It isn't even enough alone - a novel with sense of wonder as the prime
consideration has to _extremely_ well done to not become trite. Right
now, I can't think of any pure "sense of wonder" novels that are
really good. However, I can think of novels where it plays a part.
> What about the joy of words, of unusual images, of novel and
> ingenious ways to describe human existence, emotions, thoughts and
> ideas?
I agree with your datum: Most of SF doesn't play with words and
language. This is a feature of the style selected by the SF culture,
and is a pity. There is a lot of room for expansion here (and some
writers use it; still too few).
As for novel and ingenious ways to describe human existence, emotions,
thoughs and ideas: That's part of the facination of SF - however, it
is done by changing the background instead of changing the wording.
Same goal, different technique. Much of it don't work, but sometimes
it do.
> Compared to a Kafka novel, most of SF's originality shrinks to utter
> banality!
I may not have read enough Kafka - I can't remember anything that was
very original, only a distinct style. He had a way with words that
evoked feelings - but not feelings in areas I'm particularly
interested in re-exploring (having spent a number of years in
existensial despair, I don't want much more negative feelings for
their own sake.). I feel the same with him as with quite a few other
artists: I can see that he is good at what he does, but what he does
is not an area that I casaully want to explore - too negative. I
don't read Kafka to stress down - I may read him again when I'm not
stressed and have time to assimilate.
> When Tolstoy describes Anna Karenina, you feel you know
> her better than people close to you in your own life - compare that
> to the usual doll-hero in SF!
Repeat above statement for just about all russian authors ;-) (Yes, I
know Kafka wasn't russian)
> > I certainly don't find it strange that this is what engineers prefer
> > reading - many of us became engineers by inspiration from SF, and all
> > of us work with shaping the future. We want to predict and shape, not
> > read anout what fictional people could have done in the last century,
> > unless it helps us understand the present or predict the future.
>
> Sure. That's the sign of our generation: look into the bright future,
> forget about the old and boring past. We're going to have nanotechnology
> soon, what do we care about Rabelais or Beethoven? The truth is that
> with all our wonders of technology, we find ourselves in less and less
> educated world, in the world where people are able to appreciate
> beauty and have taste in things less and less with every year.
Communications. There isn't time anymore; people don't find the time
to sit down and look at things, hear things, enjoy things. We want
everything _now_ - no waiting, no learning.
> With all the wonders of alien technology, cyberpunk, subspace travel
> and mindwaves SF as a genre still remains on the same level as
> trashy romance novels and soap operas. The characters are just as
> shallow, the plots are just as banal, the reality is just as
> second-hand and trivial.
For much of SF, I can't but agree.
> And it plays the same social role, too: exclusively entertaining,
> rather than helping one to learn more, to understand more.
I disagree. If they stick with hard SF, most people can't but learn.
It seldom is deep investigatins in the human mind, but it often
investigate science (though not far) and technology (far).
And what does "good literature" teach you? There is beauty there, of
a different kind - and you can learn to appreciate it. Apart from
that?
"No man can reveal to aught but that wich already lies half asleep in
the dawning of your knowledge." (From "The Prophet", by Kahlil
Gibran. The chapter on teaching).
Get your knowledge of yourself and your fellow humans from the world,
from living - not from books! Talk to your fellow humans, see how
they react, see how similar and how different they are! That's where
you learn about people, and learn about yourself - not from reading
about other's feelings, but from experiencing them, from learning to
empatize directly with them - not with words in a book!
> I'm not surprised engineers love reading SF. I'm surprised that
> *good* engineers often still read only SF. I treat programming as
> art (as much as I'm able to): and I perceive really well-desgined OS
> kernel, really fast and nontrivial algorithm, as works of art.
Yes and no. They can be enjoyed in much the same way as a work of
art, but saying that good engineering and good art is the same thing
do, IMHO, diminish both.
> I'm surprised that people possessing amazing intelligence and sense
> of beauty, allowing them to create such extremely complex and yet
> extremely beautiful works of art are often uneducated in the vast
> body of amazing art accumulated by humanity in the last thousands of
> years, so blind to the beauty of good literature.
Everybody is uneducated in some parts of the art that has been
accumulated. There is simply too much of it. Read what you most
enjoy, and always attempt to expand your vistas - in all directions.
Eivind, lover of books (both SF and others).
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980614173228.23705>