tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6531553.post404472066480863803..comments2023-06-27T01:34:35.359-07:00Comments on Ted Burke LIKE IT OR NOT: Some good words for Ray BradburyTED BURKEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16610296721891201100noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6531553.post-66002291955999611372010-03-16T15:10:39.670-07:002010-03-16T15:10:39.670-07:00The point about having faith in the template, ie g...The point about having faith in the template, ie genre writers, is that operate on the general priniciple that good and evil exist and are manifest in the way we conduct ourselves. Optimistic or cynical, there is an awareness that the adventures of the protagonists are either fighting for a virtue or are in the process of betraying that virtue. It's a severe dualism, yes, but it is one that results in rich perspectives, if shaky premises on which to declare the Absolute Meaning of life.<br /><br />The repuations of Ginsberg and Mailer are firmly enough established in what there is of our reading culture that I'd be hard pressed to think most people aren't aware of their adventures prior to actually reading them.TED BURKEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16610296721891201100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6531553.post-86894487854225555502010-03-16T12:35:29.245-07:002010-03-16T12:35:29.245-07:00Two points: I wonder if those writers who make the...Two points: I wonder if those writers who make the storyline supreme (using Bradbury as an example) are inherently any more idealistic/romantic in their outlook than those who do not. You indicate that a faith in the “templates” of fiction translates to a faith in the goodness (or at least orderliness) of human experience. I’m not so sure this is true. Wouldn’t H.G. Wells, Upton Sinclair or George Orwell (a borderline genre figure, I might argue) be examples of plot-centered authors with an often dystopian view of the world? Conversely, a writer like Thomas Wolfe – messy, sprawling, subjective – wasn’t criticizing society or promoting psychic revolution so much as singing a Song of Himself, which is a pretty romantic thing to do.<br /><br />As far as the antics of Ginsberg, Mailer, Pound, etc. go, do you think that the kid who picks up a copy of “Howl” at a college bookstore really knows much about AG’s public activities – or that the folks who lapped up The Executioner’s Song cared much about Mailer’s misadventures? Just asking.Barry Alfonsohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14624298347392911828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6531553.post-60920145618393563282010-03-16T10:59:27.305-07:002010-03-16T10:59:27.305-07:00I wouldn't argue against the idea that DeLillo...I wouldn't argue against the idea that DeLillo , Pynchon (or William Gaddis, for that matter) construct fantastic worlds of their own in their novels no less than the genre writers--mystery, romance, detective, science fiction writers.The difference, it seems, is a grade of writer making in good faith according to the dictates of a genre's rules, and bending those rules only to improve the storyline , and those writers who are attempting to demonstrate the fallibility of those templates as a means of "knowing the world" or instilling moral instruction. Bradbury and others were romantics, in the sense that the story is primary and that there is a hero and a villain and that there is a greater good that's at stake. DeLillo is a poet of the General Malaise, the temperament of a population that's trying to convince itself that all is well with the technologies of the current day yet who cannot shake the feeling that something valuable is slipping away from them.<br /><br />Writers like Ginsberg, Mailer, Pound and the like each suffered with the obsession that they were going to clear away the nonsense that has afflicted the culture with a series of daring fictions and poetries that would fire the collective imagination and help the reader ascend to higher levels of nuanced perception. They , and many others one can name, managed to produce quizzically brilliant writings , but they were also supreme egotists with all the faults the term carries. It is rather hard to limit a discussion of them to their work as writers. The larger-than-life reputations dwarfs the respective bodies of work, and the critic’s task, failing perhaps, is to redirect the chat to the books. That’s the problem with celebrity. For Dick Francis, Max Brand, or Ray Bradbury, a fan is likely to think (I believe) when their name is mentioned…”Yeah, Bradbury, he wrote those books I loved…” The advantage of being a successful genre novelists is that your name is associated with the work you’ve actually finished, not the stunts you’ve performed in civilian life.TED BURKEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16610296721891201100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6531553.post-53934456160914758692010-03-16T10:22:44.341-07:002010-03-16T10:22:44.341-07:00You’ve raised some interesting points here, Ted. I...You’ve raised some interesting points here, Ted. It makes me think that a lot (if not most) stratums of literature created by critics are totally artificial ones. Specifically, what it referred to as “genre fiction” is actually a division between low-, middle- and highbrow writing, based upon some fairly arbitrary criteria, some of which is based upon class rather than creativity. You mention the use of “fantastic” plot lines as a defining element of genre fiction, which is true enough by conventional critical standards. But haven’t literary icons like Don DeLillo and Thomas Pyncheon (among many others) engaged in pretty fantastic, reality-bending storytelling in their time? I would suggest that the most viable definition for genre fiction (science fiction, mysteries, Westerns, etc.) is that it is first and foremost plot-driven, often to the sacrifice of nuanced character development, idiosyncratic writing style and “experimental” innovations. It was once said of Rod McKuen that people read his poems for the same reason that people with headaches took aspirin: to achieve a specific effect. That may hold true for a lot of genre fiction readers as well; I suspect their favorite authors keep this in mind. Now, this is entirely honorable unless you think an author is suppose to challenge a reader, which is a pretty difficult thing to do as a full-time job these days. I find it interesting also to apply your comments about the objectionable behavior of writers like Allen Ginsberg and Norman Mailer in an earlier post to writers of genre fiction. Basically, I don’t think the readers of, say, Max Brand or Dick Francis really care if they misbehaved, because they don’t judge these writers as human beings the way that writers of “serious” fiction are. People who read Good Books seem to want their writers to be Good People, not just entertainers. It all seems a little arbitrary, don’t you think?Barry Alfonsohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14624298347392911828noreply@blogger.com