Subject: (urth) Tut, tut, and a little history

From: Alice K. Turner <aturner6 at nyc.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 05:26:40 +0000

It seems to me that there is enirely too much ad hominen squabbling going on
here--if this list degenerates into Usenet, I, for one, will depart. Take it
to e-mail if you want to insult one another, especially wrt race or
religion.

Or sexual preference. Which reminds me...

Let me give you a little bit of sf history. Back in the 70s, an experimental
time in all sorts of ways, there was a small group of ambitious young sf
people living in New York. They had been influenced by the New Wave, of
course, and wanted to bust out of genre. Two of them, Samuel Delaney and Tom
Disch, were out-of-the-closet homosexuals, as was Baird Searles, a prominent
reviewer and bookseller. Crowley, a little younger than the others, was a
good friend of Disch's. Spinrad and even Ben Bova{!!) were also around, but
let's leave them out of it, except to note that Spinrad was also pushing the
envelope wrt to explicit sexual writing. But I get ahead of myself.

Now about Delaney specifically. First, he is a very nice (by which I mean
affable, amusing and generous), very intelligent man and a beloved teacher.
Second, even with the support of his friends and the temper of the times, it
took a lot of nerve for him to "come out" in print in a notably conservative
field (think of poor old Sir Arthur who had to hide out in Sri Lanka in
order to live what for him was a "normal" life). Did Delaney go too far?
Yes, probably, but he was a pioneer, and they often do. But I can tell you,
with certainty, that the publication of "Dhalgren" and of "Little, Big" at
just about the same time, two big genre-busting books, was quite an event in
the sf world. Interestingly, in both cases the publishers were afraid of the
books and put them out as paperback originals, thus virtually guaranteeing
that they would get no review attention except in genre--had they come out
in hardcover things might have been quite different, by which I mean that
the lines between genres might have blurred somewhat, as they do in Britain.
My point is that this group wanted to write books for grown-ups, relevant to
the times, and they also wanted the kind of liberation that the fantastic or
"magic realism"--a term just then coming into use--can give. (Joyce Carol
Oates published "Belle-Fleur" at the same time, which is the closest book to
"Little, Big" that you will ever encounter--the two books make up the entire
school of Hudson River Gothic. Mark Halprin published "The Winter's Tale,"
same sort of book, widely reviewed, but I never could finish reading it.
"One Hundred Years of Solitude" was being translated into English.)

So what happened next? Judy-Lynn del Rey happened, that's what, a brilliant
publisher with a crass, commercial mind (and a conservative old fart of a
husband). They launched Terry Brooks upon the world, set firm guidelines as
to what would or would not fly in sf (which did not include any of the above
except for Bova) and more or less defined sf/fantasy As We Know It, which is
to say, mostly crap. (Sorry if that's offensive to some who love it
indiscrimately, but at least it's not about race, religion or sex.)

How do I know all this? Well, at the time I was the paperback editor (i.e.
reporter and reviewer) of Publisher's Weekly, the beating heart of the
publishing universe, and I knew a lot of things. Sorry for the pedantry.
Also sorry if my pub-dates are a little muddled--I don't have time to check
them. But the above is *generally* true.

-alga

--

---

From: Andrew Bollen <abollen at internode.on.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:22:52 +0000

alga wrote amidst lots of interesting stuff:

> Mark Halprin published "The Winter's Tale,"

I thought of this book while I was reading the LB discussion here -
specifically the New York stuff. I liked it when I was a youngster, but I
couldn't finish it when I tried it again a couple of years ago - kind of
flatulent and self-indulgent, though some of the set-pieces were nice.
Dhalgren was certainly a better book, IMO.

Helprin is/was a New Yorker regular, I think? I guess that would help for
getting mainstream cred, as against being locked up in a genre box.

--

---

From: Josh Geller <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:06:05 +0000

> to e-mail if you want to insult one another, especially wrt race or

Yes. Well. I find it interesting that the only person here who *really* 
has understood what I meant by my original, regrettable and regretted
remark has been Dan'l Danehy-Oakes himself, the target of my misdirected
barb, whose wife hales from this very district and in fact shares my
attitude towards people who disrespect mi barrio, esse?  

> envelope wrt to explicit sexual writing. But I get ahead of myself.

Yes! Thank you!

I remember the time also. It was an exciting time. Thank you for writing
all of this historical stuff.

> affable, amusing and generous), very intelligent man and a beloved teacher.

Yes, that is what I have been forgetting to mention. Chip Delany is one
of the sweetest people you could ever want to meet. I've met him, I
think, three times, and I can't imagine anyone meeting him and not
liking him. One of the only other people I have met who acts as nice 
as he does as consistently is Gene Wolfe. If the two of them have ever
met, it would surprise me if they did not get along well with each
other, at least on a personal level. I'd like to thank the person who
criticized my lame perception that GW might think SRD was a better
writer than he: as soon as I read the criticism I realized how
bogus that idea is. Considering the sociocultural gap between the
two men, that person's remarks about Wolfe not getting Delany's 
writings strike me as far more likely.

J.

___

--

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at hotpop.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:56:58 +0000

Andrew gives an honest personal opinion (which is what I've noticed people
usually do around here, but suddenly some people have gotten very sensitive
and simultaneously thick):
I thought of [Winters Tale] while I was reading the LB discussion here -
specifically the New York stuff. I liked it when I was a youngster, but I
couldn't finish it when I tried it again a couple of years ago - kind of
flatulent and self-indulgent, though some of the set-pieces were nice.

Crush responds:
Flatulent? No, definitely not. Self-indulgent? Only to the extent that he
attempted to completely indulged his imagination, which Wolfe is also guilty
of. The difference is that Wolfe does not back away from where his
imagination leads him, while Helprin seems to have consciously done so.

As for the Delany/Baldanders connection, I'm still not sure what it is. Is
it the castle? Well, I think that's just a rationalization of the fairy-tale
Giant in a Castle motif. Wolfe has introduced a Giant in a SF story. Very
cleverly. Just as he introduced Vampires, Ghosts, Frankensteins, and
Werewolves into the Long Sun. I've only seen pictures of Delany, he didnt'
look like a big man to me. But I'm no Delany-expert and Blattid (the reputed
expert) has yet to pipe in.

--- Crush

--

---

From: Lisa Schaffer-Doggett <harlekin at earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:38:49 +0000

>> to e-mail if you want to insult one another, especially wrt race or

Don wholeheartedly agrees with this, however . . .

> attitude towards people who disrespect mi barrio, esse?

I too understand.  This place (bay area) is a little like the Balkans 
sometimes or maybe more like "Gangs of New York" with BMW's.  The sharp 
economic divide, combined with the overpopulation, xenophobia, and 
covert racism that festers below the surface here can really do a 
number on your attitude.   Plus it's been hot as hell here lately. 
Still courtesy and care (especially with emails) are best.  I'm not 
sure why I wrote this except to say that while I disagree with what 
happened, I know it didn't come from some emotionally unstable 
neverland.

Regards to all
Don

--

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at hotpop.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:31:08 +0000

> happened, I know it didn't come from some emotionally unstable

But we can put that sort of thing aside on this list, act like grown-ups,
not rise to bait (real or perceived), set aside extreme profanity, etc. Or
if not, take it off-list. If that means we're not discussing important
things, then so be it.

-- Crush

--

---

From: Lisa Schaffer-Doggett <harlekin at earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 02:42:36 +0000

> if not, take it off-list. If that means we're not discussing important

I agree completely.

--