Which probably explains why he wrote this.
I was writing a piece about this generation gap thing and how it was affecting conventions, but Paul trumped that with his cri-de-coeur to the guttersnipes (all apparently eager to display their generational penchant for jumping on bandwagons and shouting ‘me too’, and all while probably having little or no idea what he was talking about; gotta get that E-egoboo, right?).
Let’s conveniently ignore the fact that every ‘old’ generation has lamented the existence of the ‘new’ generation ever since there has been more than one generation. Let’s get past the hurtful and completely ineffective shouts of “you’re old and slow” and “you’re young and ignorant” and drill right down into the heart of the matter.
Jessup is wrong and Ellison is right.
Ellison isn’t right because he’s old, successful and has three-quarters of a century of experience under his belt. Jessup isn’t wrong because he’s young, inexperienced and prone to unthinking youthful exuberance. Not at all. The merits of this argument rest on logic and not chronology.
Jessup starts his piece by saying he enjoys “reading some of the older books on SF, like Dangerous Visions, cause it talks about how the old guard back in the day welcomed the younger writers and their revolution, and even though they disagreed with them, still read them…”
Right there you know he’s off on the wrong foot – or didn’t read Harlan’s introduction carefully enough. Not surprising since lack of comprehension is one of those charges levelled at youth. If you look at the TOC of DV, all you’ll see are so-called ‘old guard’ authors. The old guard was at least half responsible for the new wave once Ellison (and Moorecock in the UK) opened up the door.
Del Rey, Silverberg, Pohl, Farmer, deFord, Bloch, Aldiss, Dick, Niven, Lieber, Anderson, Bunch, Emshwiller, Knight, Sturgeon, Slesar, Sladek, Neville, Lafferty, Ballard, Brunner, Laumer, Spinrad, Spinrad, Zelazny, Delany.
Hoary old goat-bearded men and women all.
That’s ok. Jessup wasn’t born until a decade after DV came out and the fact that it was written by a bunch of old fogies (Ellison and Asimov included) just damns the thing even more, dontchya know.
He then references Ellison’s recent comments in the Toronto Sun and says “I want to know-who are we talking about here? What, you’re mad that a classroom full of college graduates haven’t read a book of fairy tales? Oh gosh! Oh noes! Yet, I bet every one of them could tell you what a Foucault’s Pendulum is.”
Yes. I’m as mad as Ellison is about that because my generation of college students and Ellison’s generation of college students and his father’s generation of college students knew both the fable AND what the pendulum was all about. They also read Poe’s The Pit and the Pendulum, knew where Pitcairn Island is and could point it out on a map. They didn’t publicly express their joy of being ignorant but went to the Library and looked it up so they’d no longer be ignorant. (I’ll take that bet, btw. I bet that two-thirds or more of them never heard of Foucault and have never seen one knocking over little pins, unless it was on YouTube.)
And, before I forget (which I’m prone to do because, you know, I’m old), Ellison wasn’t attacking Science Fiction or Science Fiction writers with those comments, so much as he was attacking the audience – “So, for a writer, the problem becomes: Do you write at the peak of your abilities and the highest peak of good grammar, using the precise word, and lose half your audience, many of whom will say: ‘What a smartass, using all them big words!’?
“Or do you continue to lower the bar and continue to keep writing down to the level that you think is going to be receivable by your audience?”
- an audience that includes those college students who had no right to be in college, let alone be graduates and, no doubt, are as blissfully ignorant of Science Fiction as they are of fables.
Jessup then launches into an attack on Ellison’s writing and eventually Ellison’s entire career. This is, of course, a strawman argument because Ellison’s career has nothing whatsoever to do with the comments Ellison made about the current generation. (Other than the fact that Ellison’s success gives him a bully pulpit and gets him more attention from the press than most old fogies receive.)
Like Jessup wanted us to, we’ll ignore the glaring fact that Ellison’s work has remained ‘contemporary’ and has been embraced and sought after by many of ‘this generations’ ground breakers (Babylon 5, Masters of SF, Dream Corridor, adaptations to film and even electronic games), because otherwise we’d have the problem of explaining why someone who remains relevant 50 years after he started writing would say the things he does about the current generation.
Jessup then puts down the ‘new wave’ as mostly irrelevant, while saying this “I appreciate the New Wave, Dangerous Visions, and etc, for paving the way for what I write, but then again, at the same time, they like to toot their horn a little too much.”
Two things about this statement yank my chain. This is biting the hand that’s fed, clothed, housed and nurtured you before you were even walking the planet, have some respect.
And don’t you think it’s just a bit disingenuous to condemn the older generation for doing exactly the same thing you are? Isn’t this the age of electronic self-promotion? Aren’t we all supposed to be enabled and empowered these days? Or is Jessup saying that now is the time for a kiddie swim, all the adults out of the pool?
Jessup wants to have this argument with Ellison both ways - the old guard isn’t allowed to defend themselves because they’re the old guard.
But nothing he says can erase the monumental contributions those authors, including Ellison, have made in shaping the genre as it is today. You can ignore and belittle them as much as you want to, but the hard fact remains that what you are doing today is based, at least in part, on what they did yesterday (and in many cases they will still be doing tomorrow).
No surprise we’re hearing this kind of thing as the gen-gap wars heat up. After half a century or more you get used to listening to irrational exuberance from the kiddies. Funny thing is, they never seem to realize that all too soon, they’re going to find themselves on the other side of that divide.
Can you tell me who did your layout? I’ve been looking for one kind of like yours. Thank you.
I just want to let you know how much I’m enjoying this series of posts.
Never heard of this Jessup fellow but he sounds like an ass.
For the most part, you’re right. Although you prove my point. What I was originally saying was that back when DV was published, both the old and new guard of the time supported it, and you don’t see this sort of thing now, hence the generation gap. I was saying (and I was saying it in a brash, youthful way cause we’re full of fire and life, unlike ye olde dinosaurs) that the gap exists because a majority of the old guard these days don’t reach across it.
But again, read my addendum in my original post. It’s not all the old guard- as I’ve said there is a lot of old guard out their embracing the youth and helping pave the way for another generation, rather than sitting around, telling us how much we owe them because once upon time they did something of moderate importance (that, when compared to the larger cultural change experienced in that time period, really doesn’t amount to much).
And some of the old guard are still pushing boundaries, still challenging, and these people have my infinite respect and gratitude. Because they are out there, in the thick of it, still writing and talking and being a part of it.
Also, I do understand the anger at the Emperor’s New Clothes, but I also understand that this generation doesn’t get a lot of those references because they don’t have the proper frame of reference. To claim this is a part of dumbing down of America, I think, really misplaces a lot of what makes the current generation, and how they act and react.
I recently was critting a friend of mine’s story, and told them their ending was very Monkey’s Paw (magical object brings the dead back to life, with horrible results! OH NOES!) and that person looked at me like I had rabbit ears. No frame of reference. Never heard of it, never read the story, or seen the gazillion references (in television, in movies, etc). I went and talked to other early 30 somethings. Not one I went to (well one, but she’s very well read) knew the frame of reference.
That was frustrating. So I understand where he comes from. But I know each of these people are very smart, and just because they hadn’t read or heard about it didn’t make them any less intelligent than I was. (Of course, it got more frustrating when I tried to bring up The White People and The Swords, but I won’t get into that…)
Anyway, I agree, but in some aspects, respectfully disagree.
I was also a fan before Jessup was born, but I agree with him. Ellison’s fiction has not aged well, and his public persona is an embarrassment.
As for the New Wave… I think you’ll find that it began in the UK with Moorcock, not in the US with Ellison. And yes, it produced some good material – because, among other things, many of those who took up the banner could actually write. Unlike many earlier sf authors. But much of it has also dated.
To me, it’s long past time we stopped looking back in awe. Too many times I’ve seen sf fans recommend the likes of Asimov and Heinlein to new readers. Why? Their books are no longer relevant, not up to the standards of today’s fiction, not written with modern sensibilities, and often no longer even in print. If someone told me they’d like to try sf, I’d point them at Richard Morgan, Alastair Reynolds, Ian McDonald, Stephen Baxter, Iain M Banks, Ken MacLeod…
Bill, glad you’re enjoying it! But as you can see from his subsuquent response, Paul is a stand-up kind of guy (and not just because he said I’m right…mostly).
Paul – you’re a stand up guy. As I suspect you are aware that, just as you were writing in a brash, youthful way, I was writing in an aged righteous indignation kind of way.
The goal should always be to draw the best from all possible worlds. For example, someone (with the proper writing skills) could make a very find career ‘answering’ each and every one of Heinlein’s novels. The members of the reading audience who would be most rewarded by such an effort would be those who read BOTH Heinlein’s originals and the new works.
The gap exists because (some vocal) members of BOTH camps are unwilling to reach across the fire. Youth doesn’t want to acknowledge that other people have been there before them and Aged doesn’t want to have to face its replacement until it’s forced to.
Both tendancies are, at root, probably genetic. Youth needs to learn from its mistakes and personal experiences; is still establishing its personal identity (to which ‘convention’ is the major obstacle). Aged is understandably unwilling to look at ANY incarnation of The End; once the idea that there is an end coming actually gets internalized, the only rational way to deal with it is by denying it. Youth challenges that denial in a big way.
I still have minor quibbles with some of the issues you’ve raised, but the desire to comment on them is not stronger than my need for a nap.
Too bad you didn’t come back at me with some over the top ‘old fool living in the past’ comment: I think we could have had a very nice give and take for a bit, lol.
Ian – too bad you didn’t get to read Paul’s comment before you wrote.
Our discussion was not about Ellison, it was about the generation gap.
However, to address your statement that ‘we need to stop looking back in awe’ – wrong. We need to be willing to embrace the entire genre from its beginnings to its now. Every bit of it has informed and influenced the rest, even if its only contribution has been to inspire some new writer who said “hell, I can do better than that!”
Well, yes… but Ellison is a good exemplar of the gap you were discussing, so I got in a dig at him. It wasn’t very charitable of me, but I suspect he’d have happily done the same…
The operative part of my “looking back in awe” was “awe”. I’m not saying we should ignore the genre’s past, or rewrite its history – even if this is the Age of Spin. What I am saying is that old sf stories and novels should be treated as historical documents. They were informed by different sensibilities, the threshold for quality was lower, and they in no way represent what the genre is now. Yes, I agree that if you want to write sf, then you need to know what has gone before. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to pretend you can pick and choose from the genre’s eighty year history without commentary, or even apology.
There are some old sf writers for whom that’s not necessary, of course. I’d say Leigh Brackett was one. And her style of planetary romance might even be coming back into style – or rather, a twenty-first century version of it. I think that’s a good thing.
I also think older sf fans need to engage more with current science fiction. And, while young sf fans also need to be aware of the genre’s history, I believe the older fans have to make the longer journey.
“Paul – you’re a stand up guy. As I suspect you are aware that, just as you were writing in a brash, youthful way, I was writing in an aged righteous indignation kind of way.”
Of course! And I’m sure we could’ve gone back and forth, old versus new, for quite some time. But I think we’re actually both in agreement here, and as entertaining as that could be, I think it would detract from the conversation.
“I still have minor quibbles with some of the issues you’ve raised, but the desire to comment on them is not stronger than my need for a nap.”
And, I with some of the ones you’ve raised. But again, but the same importance. And I agree- the gap cuts both ways. I was really shocked when I read Elizabeth Bear’s original comment (that started all this brouhaha) when she said they don’t read us, and we don’t read them.
And I think, with the younger crowd, I’m not sure if this is 100% true. Not with the writers getting published, getting out there. Sure, there are a few (as I’ve mentioned) that only read them and their friends, but I think that’s actually a minority.
I read a lot, and thoroughly. Always have, always will. I’m actually reading a little bit of both right now- Silverburg’s Kingdom’s of the Wall and Gypsy Star, Patricia McKillip’s Tower at Stony Wood and also a handful of my contemporaries like Michael Jasper and a few others. And I find it very strange that people who want to write genre don’t read it (classics or otherwise), but instead only read whatever their peers are writing.
Now, I think that this is a minority, and I’m starting to think that maybe (or rather hoping that maybe) that the old guard who don’t try and bridge this gap as well are also a minority. And that these two minorities are creating a large stink.
“To me, it’s long past time we stopped looking back in awe. Too many times I’ve seen sf fans recommend the likes of Asimov and Heinlein to new readers. Why? Their books are no longer relevant, not up to the standards of today’s fiction, not written with modern sensibilities, and often no longer even in print. If someone told me they’d like to try sf, I’d point them at Richard Morgan, Alastair Reynolds, Ian McDonald, Stephen Baxter, Iain M Banks, Ken MacLeod…”
Ian- I would agree with this, actually. And strangely enough, most of the people I know who used to read SF a few years ago (and grew up on Heinlein and Orson Scott Card and etc) doesn’t know about Banks or MacLeod and when I introduced him to Use of Weapons, thanked me over and over again for reigniting his love of the genre.
The classics are good. But people shouldn’t have to read them first. If someone is new to SF, they need to start up and move down.
Ian,
I disagree with you on a lot of those points.
First – ‘awe’ is in the eye of the beholder. There are plenty of old classics that STILL awe me – even after I’ve read them 50+ times. (EF Russell’s Hobbyist, Little Fuzzy, Mimsy Were The Borogoves, The Nine Billion Names of God all spring immediately to mind).
Second – ‘the threshold for quality was lower’. Ummm, no. It went something like this: during the first decade, no one was writing this kind of thing, so anyone who came close got published (one reason why Verne and Wells and Poe were reprinted so much). During the first half of the second decade, there was still no definition of what the genre was. Most writers were either hacks (yes, just scribbling out the word count with a formula that would bounce from Confessionals to SF to Detective to Hero to Adventure pulps) or initial converts to the genre who were figuring out what it was. No defintion means there aren’t any standards by which to measure quality by.
During the second half of the second decade the genre, and the top writers established themselves. Those boys impressed enough of the literary/publishing establishment that they got them to fork over the cash for the first SF anthologies and the first hardbacks; they are also co-conspirators in getting the the paperback introduced.
The leaders of the field also left the pulps for the leading general distribution magazines of the day and appeared alongside mainstream literary lights in those publications.
Tell me – is it easier to explore and pioneer or to arrive in town after there already is one?
They in no way represent where the genre is now? (Where did I pick and choose?) Excuse me? Go look at who is still in print. Go look at the gold standard by which all new writers are measured (Heinlein).
Apologies? I don’t have anything to apologize for – and neither do those folks.
“No definition means there aren’t any standards by which to measure quality by.” Why should sf have different standards to mainstream fiction? Why should it not be judged by the same criteria – with, of course, the addition of the sfnal aspect? People who don’t know what science fiction is should at the very least recognise what good writing is.
“Those boys impressed enough of the literary/publishing establishment that they got them to fork over the cash for the first SF anthologies and the first hardbacks…” Surely that was a purely commercial decision? The publishers realised sf sold, so they published it. And since the editors who chose what to publish were often fans themselves, they operated according to same scale of quality as the rest of the genre. Actually, I’m not sure this argument works – clearly there’s “publishable quality” and that’s irrespective of genre, although I’d submit it was lower for sf magazines than books; and short stories which were successful in magazines bypassed the quality loop by being automatically included in anthologies…
There must be an Atlantic Divide and as well as a Generation Gap
I wouldn’t call Heinlein a gold standard – if anything, I’m likely to avoid any new novelist who is overtly compared to him.
It’s unfair to point to the longevity of old writers’ works, as new writers haven’t been around as long. Further, some books only remain in print due to factors external to the text itself – (in the UK) most of PK Dick’s oeuvre is still in print because Malcolm Edwards is a huge fan; Starship Troopers because of the Verhoeven film and its straight-to-DVD sequels; Dune because of Lynch’s film, the Sci Fi Channel miniseries, and the execrable sequels by Kevin J Anderson & Brian Herbert…
Paul,
Seems we have reached the middle ground – which is, I guess, where we are trying to get everyone else to.
The only remaining (real) difference between our positions is, I strongly urge ‘reading from past to future’, while you are recommending reading from future to past.
My position is, I suppose, based on an academic approach; you can’t really teach history by going from now to the past.
If one were trying to introduce a new reader to the genre, it is probably much more effective to hand them something ‘now’ and then offer its antecedents. The only real problem with that is, they lose much of the sense of build and the chance for unfavorable comparison is increased – not because one work is necessarily better than the other, but because one does speak to the current cultural milieu and the other doesn’t (through no fault of its own).
I’d be interested to see how the steampunk fans react to ‘old’ steampunk that’s written in the language they affect and deals with the society and technologies they emulate. (Like H Rider Haggard or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.)
Of course, the ideal proto fan would be unbiased in their tastes anbd would approach the genre with passion, asking ‘where else can I find more of this?’ as they sweep their hand across the sky to encompass the entire genre, in all of its sub-genre glory and all of its history.
One final aside to the discussion: I find it upsetting to one degree or another that (at least some) current gen fans have a missing or undeveloped ’sense of wonder’. I find that the generalized comment “it’s no longer relevant/it was written for a different time” strikes me as indicating an inability to fully imagine a time or place where things are different, to forget what we know now in favor of what the author knew then and to simply enjoy the piece for what it is. Am I wrong, or is there some elemental imaginitive ability missing? Or perhaps it’s just a failure of youth to be able to take the long view? When the technology of your youth is no longer the technology of today, I guess you gain some perspective on how to imagine a time when things were different. I often enjoy the shocked expressions I get when I explain to some that not only was there no remote control, and not only were there only 3 channels (plus PBS), and not only was it in Black and White, but the broadcasts STOPPED after midnight!
“I find it upsetting to one degree or another that (at least some) current gen fans have a missing or undeveloped ’sense of wonder’. I find that the generalized comment “it’s no longer relevant/it was written for a different time” strikes me as indicating an inability to fully imagine a time or place where things are different, to forget what we know now in favor of what the author knew then and to simply enjoy the piece for what it is”
I’m not sure if I agree with that, in a broad sweeping generalization sense. Sure, there are a lot of people that fit that bill (and have no sense of wonder), and it makes me think, “why are they reading genre fiction then?”. But I think a majority of still genre readers and writers have that sense of wonder.
I agree with your historical approach for writers, but not, I don’t think, for readers. Because you get that whole, “Where do I start?” question popping up. Do they start with the Gothics? With the old pulp stories? Of course, the best way to go about it is to probably get them a best of collection of short stories.
One of the ones that span multiple generations (chronologically) with some awesome forwards explaining everything. Like Space Opera Renaissance, or the like. Problem with that, of course, is for a new reader this is kind of like drinking from the fire hose.
And that’s why I think readers should start at the top and work their way back. Because it will give them something they can relate to, and then lets them explore genre more fully, more completely. And that, paving your own path through a great and varied history, has it’s own sense of wonder, it’s own discovery.
“I’d be interested to see how the steampunk fans react to ‘old’ steampunk that’s written in the language they affect and deals with the society and technologies they emulate. (Like H Rider Haggard or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.)”
Don’t get me started on Steampunk. I love it and hate it, and let’s leave it at that. Some parts of the “modern movement’ is complete bull. Anyway….
But yeah, esp if they read Wells. His War of the Worlds starts with a racist diatribe that is just offensive. And it’s hard to excuse that, no matter how awesome the book is or how for it’s time period it was.
I’m in my early ’30s, so I guess I fall in the younger half of the “generation gap,” but I’ve always been of the opinion that good writing is good writing, simply put — regardless of who’s responsible, or when they wrote it, or how old they were at the time. Obviously you can’t divorce that writing from the cultural and generational context in which it was first produced, and it can be worthwhile to examine that; but I think you miss out on a whole lot of great work if you start from the assumption that the “old guard” stories are no better than historical curios, or that “kids today” don’t know what they’re talking about and aren’t producing great writing of their own.
I understand the impulse on both sides to create and foster the idea of a generational gap — both camps want to think they did, or are now doing, more important work than the other — but I also think it’s an impulse better redirected at just finding out what’s good, in reading good stories and finding what does and doesn’t resonate with you as a reader. Personally, I find that all over the place, in both the now and the then; I have room on my shelf for both Harlan Ellison and Alistair Reynolds.
COF: “Bill, glad you’re enjoying it! But as you can see from his subsuquent response, Paul is a stand-up kind of guy….”
Well….. he seems more reasonable here in his comments. But re-reading his post, I think it still deserves my earlier assessment.
By the way, I disagree with BOTH of you about reading past-to-present vs. present-to-past. I think any such methodical approach would be rather boring, limiting, and artificial. I think people should read in whatever fashion pleases them, in whatever strange and unexpected order the random circumstances of their lives brings various books to their attention.
Bill, I think we’ve had this discussion before. In the long run, I suppose it comes down to the purpose and goals of the individual reading: if they want to understand the genre or are engaged in criticism/deconstruction/etc., then the back end forward approach is a must; if it is simply successful exposure to the genre, it will most likely be current first (“do you like gladiator films, Billy?”). If it’s personal enjoyment, then one hopes the random picking and choosing will eventually cover a broad spectrum.
Fred – that middle ground you are talking about is pretty much where Paul and I have arrived – from different directions: I’d much rather hear “your stuff is old and dated – and I like it!” – “oh yeah!? well your stuff is completely contemporary and just builds on the past – and I like it!”, than I would dismissal out of hand for either ’side’.
Ian: I’ll have more tomorrow in response to your comments.
[...] The Crotchety Old Fan is feeling…er…crotchety about the SF Generation Gap (Get off his lawn, Paul!) [...]
Ian – SF was purely that ‘pulp’ stuff when Wollheim was trying to get Portable Novels of SF out. There did have to be a commercial market to even entertain the idea, but the resistance to servicing that potential market was very strong.
AWE: Well, either we’re going to talk about SF now compared to SF back then, or we’re going to talk about SF compared to mainstream. Clearly this discussion started as SF compared to SF.
Quality: considering that the first publishers and editors were ONLY coming from a mainstream tradition, I think the argument stands that what they bought and published was of a ‘publishable quality’ compared to mainstream…
Ian, I don’t think you’re playing fair: there is no way we can talk about older works without introducing the longevity issue. SOME old fogies have remained on the lists for decades (as I’m sure some contemporary ones will also, given time). Your dismissal of why some have remained so holds no water: Heinlein, for example, has been constant despite that movie you mentioned and, if his presence were due only to the film, all we’d see on the shelves would be ST.
And denial won’t change the fact that he is the gold standard – at least on the rebel side of the pond. Whenever a publisher really wants to push a new book, they use any excuse they can to stick ‘just like Heinlein’ on the cover.
Spider Robinson just won an award for his (IMHO terrible) finishing up of ‘the last Heinlein’ novel, which raised a lot of discussion and interest (the book has sold well and not just to completists).
Sorry – was away, and offline, for the weekend. But just a couple of points:
“Heinlein, for example, has been constant despite that movie you mentioned and, if his presence were due only to the film, all we’d see on the shelves would be ST.”
Which is pretty much the case here in the UK.
“And denial won’t change the fact that he is the gold standard…”
That’s an opinion. My “denial” is actually a difference of opinion. It happens.
“Clearly this discussion started as SF compared to SF.”
The genre is never going to grow up if it continues to claim special dispensation for bad writing.
“Quality: considering that the first publishers and editors were ONLY coming from a mainstream tradition, I think the argument stands that what they bought and published was of a ‘publishable quality’ compared to mainstream…”
I think there’s a crossed wire here somewhere. I was comparing sf with non-genre fiction in general. Perhaps sf was as good as pulp fiction of the day, such as ERB’s Tarzan novels, but it certainly didn’t match contemporary non-adventure mainstream fiction for quality.