jriggenbach

Yes, every short story has a theme. "Light fiction" is a marketing category, not a literary category. From a literary (i.e., artistic, aesthetic) point of view there is no such thing as "light fiction." There is fiction and there is nonfiction. Setting aside for a moment, in the interest of "benevolence," the unspeakable vulgarity of the phrase "sci fi" - particularly when pronounced "sigh fie" - all three of those things, if written out as narratives and judged by artistic standards as fiction, have themes of some kind. If Rand's aesthetic theories are correct (as I believe, in the main, they are), there is no such thing as a "good yarn" which does not formulate and therefore express a theme. A "good yarn" is a narrative that pleases the individual who describes it as a "good yarn." What makes it seem "good" to that individual is the fact that it formulates a theme consistent with that individual's own sense of life. That's not an "abstract meaning"? Then I'd say you're not reading closely enough. Yes, you could. Speak for yourself. In other words, it's hard to evaluate the means toward an end here other than by evaluating the means toward an end? Of course, you would have to go into considerably more detail if you were doing a critical article on one of those mysteries. You'd have to define the end with some specificity, explain why you thought any given element of the novel constituted a means toward that end, explain what you mean by "skill" in this context and how you can identify it when you see it, and explain what, if anything, "originality" has to do with evaluating the means toward an end. Yes, I'd say so. But every time I try to say so, I'm caricatured as an "attack dog" and psychologized about at length in "blind" posts on other threads. So you can see why I might be hesitant about saying any more. JR

By what criteria do you consider Faulkner as a 'great writer'[or rather, that he wrote these mentioned 'great works' - what makes them objectively 'great'] ? As Rand put it, "In esence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist's theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it - i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life." [RM 54] I don't know of any critics, "ivory towered" or otherwise, who "swoon over the mention of [Faulkner's] name." My guess is that no such critics exist, outside your own fevered imagination. In any case, never having encountered any such, no, I can't say I've been influenced by them, if that's what you're asking. (I'm afraid the phrase "is it actually more formed" is meaningless gibberish to me. Is what "more formed"?) I've never read either Giant or The Big Country, so I can't comment on that. I will say that I first became aware of Raintree County when an English teacher of mine recommended it to me, saying it was the best written book she had ever read. I've never heard anyone say anything like that about either Giant or The Big Country. In fact, I've never heard anyone suggest that there was anything unusual or noteworthy about the manner in which either of those latter books was written - anything remarkable about their style, anything exceptional about the prose in which they're composed. This may in itself suggest a major difference between Raintree County and the other two. JR

On another thread, Phil wrote: "What great works have you read? And why?" Some great works (written in English in the 20th Century) I've read: Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov Dhalgren by Samuel R. Delany Return to Neveryon (four volumes) by Samuel R. Delany Raintree County by Ross Lockridge, Jr. Sometimes a Great Notion by Ken Kesey Absalom, Absalom! by William Faulkner Light in August by William Faulkner Go Down, Moses by William Faulkner The Fifth Head of Cerberus by Gene Wolfe Little, Big by John Crowley Black Spring by Henry Miller The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand Figures of Earth and The Silver Stallion by James Branch Cabell (published as separate books, but really one long story in two volumes) I read these great works to find out what they were all about. I had heard of them and was curious. JR the Snarky Attack Dog

Boy, you got that right. JR

Jeff likes you, Phil. He too believes in human improvement. --Brant Brant is right - at least, in his first sentence. JR

When one lives in a world in which the ridiculous predominates, one adapts as best one can. JR

One must be thankful for humor, wherever one finds it. JR

That won't stop him. JR

Gene was in Riverside (in Southern California) in the late '80s - where he's been since sometime in the '70s, I think; where he still is. I met him in Los Angeles in the early '70s and frequently saw him at libertarian conferences and conventions during the '80s. I haven't seen him since around 1990, but we do the occasional e-mail. I should, BTW, slightly modify my earlier post. I don't know with absolute certainty that Gene had no ownership interest in Libertarian Books and Periodicals. He might have had a financial interest in it that I didn't know about. But he was not living in San Francisco or playing any part in the management of the store. JR

So was I. But now, clearly, it would be nothing if not supererogatory. JR

A minor point, probably, but in case it makes any difference, Gene Berkman was never an owner of Libertarian Books & Periodicals, the bookstore in San Francisco that Jim Peron bought in the early 1980s. Nor was Gene himself ever "San Francisco-based." JR

It's good to see a realistic assessment of this issue for a change. The overwhelming majority of Rand's readers never move on from her novels to her nonfiction, irrespective of the form that nonfiction takes. Millions have read her novels. Tens of thousands (at most) have read her essays and those of her associates and colleagues. JR

Adam, I think it might be helpful if you looked the word "testimonial" up in a dictionary. JR

This is too comical for words. JR

You have extraordinary difficulty comprehending what you read, don't you? I recommend you work on that problem before attempting to participate in a forum like this one. JR

Singing is really a matter of great importance to you, isn't it, Michael? If the kids are taught to believe crooks and nonentities like Nixon and Reagan are great men who are "leading" us to a better tomorrow through the miracle of government, that's just fine and dandy. On the other hand, if they're taught to literally sing the praises of a fatuous fraud like Obama, this is beyond the pale. Have I properly understood you? JR

You can put your recommendations where you put your likes and dislikes, Dan. I'm sure there's lots of room in there where the sun don't shine. JR

Why not? And just who said anything about many people agreeing upon a standard? Or about many people being obliged to accept one? What precisely does any of this have to do with what I actually said? Yes. Yes. Writing is writing. The standards for judging it are the same whether it's fiction, poetry, or nonfiction. Rand is one of the greatest writers of English in the 20th Century. Her best writing is to be found in her fiction (mostly in Atlas Shrugged), but that's happenstance - probably relating to the fact that her heart was more in her fiction than in her nonfiction. JR

If you don't like my "rude behavior," Dan, I suggest you ask Ted Keer what you can do with your likes and dislikes. Or does your abject illiteracy prevent you from dropping him a note? JR

Yawn. All school kids are always taught to venerate whoever is president. It's disgusting, yes - but no more so now than at any other time in history. JR

No, Phil, you don't have to bow down. But it would be helpful if you were willing to admit when you don't know what you're talking about. You don't have any idea what the objective standards for judging proficiency at writing are, do you? You've never given it a moment's thought, have you? You've always just figured, "If I like a writer, s/he must be a good writer," right? JR What 'objective standards' ? the ones touted at creative writing classes? doubtful, as the real criteria there was philosophical/political - if ye wrote about certain things in a certain way, then ye were in writing - if ye wrote about the 'wrong' things, no matter how well ye punctuated ye were the lousy mediocre writer - and most of those so-called objective standards fit that mode... which is why, to them, Heinlein is not a good writer, but Vonnegut is; Clarke isn't, but Farmer is, etc... Subject matter - what one writes about - has nothing to do with whether one writes well. JR

I realize this is a minor point, but it is intensely irritating to read someone who pontificates about someone else as though he is oh so knowledgeable about that someone else - and yet is apparently unable even to spell that someone else's name correctly. It's Peron, NOT "Perron." JR

No, Phil, you don't have to bow down. But it would be helpful if you were willing to admit when you don't know what you're talking about. You don't have any idea what the objective standards for judging proficiency at writing are, do you? You've never given it a moment's thought, have you? You've always just figured, "If I like a writer, s/he must be a good writer," right? JR

No, you shouldn't. Yes, they do. And Dangerous Visions was published forty years ago! "Interesting," "exciting," and "thought-provoking" are not terms that have anything to do with literary criticism. They are reports on what interests you, what excites you, what provokes your thoughts. What you like has no necessary connection with what is "very good." Judged by objective criteria, the so-called "Big Four" are, as I have mentioned, mediocre writers. Examples? Since there were such "a lot" of them, surely some examples must be ready to hand. JR

Look again, Phil. The greatest SF novels published before 1990 poll does not take place twice I assure you that none of the "Big Four" ever wrote a great short story. But I'll return to this topic with further observations in a later post. In case you hadn't noticed, Phil, we're not doing literary criticism here. We're discussing whether your impression that Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, and Niven are regarded by "s-f aficionados" as the four greatest sf authors. You find out the truth about that by consulting polls. No, one doesn't have to assume anything. One can ask Jeff. The answer is, with reference to Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein, that Jeff has read all the major works by each (both novels and short stories) and has almost certainly read far more than you have. With regard to Niven, Jeff is not quite so well read. He read enough Niven back in the '70s, when Ringworld came out, to satisfy himself that he had no further interest in this author. JR