![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Interview Meme: Question 1
The most excellent unsworn posted the following.
Damnable Weakness
I was going to resist. I was, I was, I was. Nonetheless:
If you want me to interview you--post a comment that simply says, "Interview me." I'll respond with questions for you to take back to your own journal and answer as a post. Of course, they'll be different for each person since this is an interview and not a general survey. At the bottom of your post, after answering the Interviewer's questions, you ask if anyone wants to be interviewed. So it becomes your turn-- in the comments, you ask them any questions you have for them to take back to their journals and answer. And so it becomes the circle.
Some memes are too much fun to resist...
And here we go... Question 1..
My response to unsworn
Oh yeah... A golden opportunity this one.. I can't think of a person better suited to give me some insightful and difficult questions...
Go on, interview me... Take your time.. This is going to be real good.
The Question
Don't worry, I'm going to space them out some. But first of all, something from your entry today caught my attention: "Genuine science fiction, the mythology of modernity, has hardly had sufficient time to develop many literary classics (Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds are two prominent exceptions), yet anyone with a long term view of literary history should realize by now that only science fiction will create new classics in modernity."
So my first question is this: Do you agree with the above statement, and why/why not? (Bonus points for citing what you consider to be modern classics, and why)
The Answer
Heheh... I like this, one question at a time... Also seems that plenty of people want you to be an interviewer, perhaps
a new profession?
Anyway, answer #1:
As I wrote it for my PhD, one could presume that I agree with it. However, I made a small modification the moment after I posted it, changing the word 'new' to 'lasting'.
The literary profession has it's own definition of what constitutes a "classic", which is largely independent of the various subjective debates over aesthetic content. Strictly defined, a classic is literature that is still "in print", (i.e., being re-published and re-distributed) one hundred years after first publication. The "one hundred years" criteria is, of course, a rule of thumb, but the general idea is that if there are publishers around that still want to do new print runs of a something published one hundred or more years ago, there must be something in it that ensures lasting demand.
I'll be daring enough to suggest some of the components that make up this "lasting demand". In no particular order (in fact, preferably with each component equal); (i) the story must provide the reader an excellent description and sense of setting that avoids anarchronisms; (ii) the story must provide the reader characters with deep and multi-faceted personalities, motivation and development; (iii) the story must provide the reader a discernable narrative with extreme challenges; (iv) the story must provide the reader a moral theme that has universal appeal to all people and all times (and commonly aided by motif); and finally, a story must have a clear and/or interesting style.
No clearly much popular literature doesn't fit this criteria - it's designed to be temporary, for immediate rather than lasting consumption and as such "high art" criteria, such as what has been just described are often just ignored. Also, because the technological ability to produce and reproduce literature has substantially changed since the invention of that technology of modernity, the movable type printing press, the "rule of thumb" will increasingly be less important and stricter criteria will have to be considered in the future (e.g., are new websites containing the publication being produced for distribution two hundred years after initial posting?).
This is where it gets really challenging. If the central tenet of my doctorate is correct (and I think it is, otherwise I wouldn't have written it), the Internet is at least as important as the invention of movable type press - and that invention caused (yes, that's right, caused) the development of the modern state and economy, the industrial revolution and the mass change from a religious to secular mode of consciousness.
If the Internet has a similar effect (and perhaps we don't immediately see it because we're "in it"), it seems likely that in the far future that the literature of its genesis will be studied closely. This makes matters difficult because I am not satisfied with any of the "cyberpunk" classics. John Brunner's The Shockwave Rider is the closest possibility to fitting all the criteria, William Gibson's Neuromancer does pretty well too, but I don't think any are good enough to make the grade.
In other words, we're still waiting for the "epic" cyberpunk story. Writers, on your marks...
Damnable Weakness
I was going to resist. I was, I was, I was. Nonetheless:
If you want me to interview you--post a comment that simply says, "Interview me." I'll respond with questions for you to take back to your own journal and answer as a post. Of course, they'll be different for each person since this is an interview and not a general survey. At the bottom of your post, after answering the Interviewer's questions, you ask if anyone wants to be interviewed. So it becomes your turn-- in the comments, you ask them any questions you have for them to take back to their journals and answer. And so it becomes the circle.
Some memes are too much fun to resist...
And here we go... Question 1..
My response to unsworn
Oh yeah... A golden opportunity this one.. I can't think of a person better suited to give me some insightful and difficult questions...
Go on, interview me... Take your time.. This is going to be real good.
The Question
Don't worry, I'm going to space them out some. But first of all, something from your entry today caught my attention: "Genuine science fiction, the mythology of modernity, has hardly had sufficient time to develop many literary classics (Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds are two prominent exceptions), yet anyone with a long term view of literary history should realize by now that only science fiction will create new classics in modernity."
So my first question is this: Do you agree with the above statement, and why/why not? (Bonus points for citing what you consider to be modern classics, and why)
The Answer
Heheh... I like this, one question at a time... Also seems that plenty of people want you to be an interviewer, perhaps
a new profession?
Anyway, answer #1:
As I wrote it for my PhD, one could presume that I agree with it. However, I made a small modification the moment after I posted it, changing the word 'new' to 'lasting'.
The literary profession has it's own definition of what constitutes a "classic", which is largely independent of the various subjective debates over aesthetic content. Strictly defined, a classic is literature that is still "in print", (i.e., being re-published and re-distributed) one hundred years after first publication. The "one hundred years" criteria is, of course, a rule of thumb, but the general idea is that if there are publishers around that still want to do new print runs of a something published one hundred or more years ago, there must be something in it that ensures lasting demand.
I'll be daring enough to suggest some of the components that make up this "lasting demand". In no particular order (in fact, preferably with each component equal); (i) the story must provide the reader an excellent description and sense of setting that avoids anarchronisms; (ii) the story must provide the reader characters with deep and multi-faceted personalities, motivation and development; (iii) the story must provide the reader a discernable narrative with extreme challenges; (iv) the story must provide the reader a moral theme that has universal appeal to all people and all times (and commonly aided by motif); and finally, a story must have a clear and/or interesting style.
No clearly much popular literature doesn't fit this criteria - it's designed to be temporary, for immediate rather than lasting consumption and as such "high art" criteria, such as what has been just described are often just ignored. Also, because the technological ability to produce and reproduce literature has substantially changed since the invention of that technology of modernity, the movable type printing press, the "rule of thumb" will increasingly be less important and stricter criteria will have to be considered in the future (e.g., are new websites containing the publication being produced for distribution two hundred years after initial posting?).
This is where it gets really challenging. If the central tenet of my doctorate is correct (and I think it is, otherwise I wouldn't have written it), the Internet is at least as important as the invention of movable type press - and that invention caused (yes, that's right, caused) the development of the modern state and economy, the industrial revolution and the mass change from a religious to secular mode of consciousness.
If the Internet has a similar effect (and perhaps we don't immediately see it because we're "in it"), it seems likely that in the far future that the literature of its genesis will be studied closely. This makes matters difficult because I am not satisfied with any of the "cyberpunk" classics. John Brunner's The Shockwave Rider is the closest possibility to fitting all the criteria, William Gibson's Neuromancer does pretty well too, but I don't think any are good enough to make the grade.
In other words, we're still waiting for the "epic" cyberpunk story. Writers, on your marks...
no subject
On that there will be no debate :)
Correct, although unless one is doing a narration of a sociopath, some detailed discernment of other characters is probably necessary.
Not always - look at "The Old Man and the Sea" for example.
Well, I leave that debate to the cultural relativists versus the moral universalists (I'm a strong adherent of the latter school) (Hey, this could become a question?),
Almost certainly :)
but this could be changed to "existential themes" - which would include moral themes as, of course, morality itself (if not the particular content) is universal to all cultures.
Existential is a better fit, I think. The word carries less bagage than moral :)
I'm not sure that would do. Have a look at some of things in Project Gutenberg. I mean, yes, there are classics there but...
But Project Gutenberg is deliberately and avowedly indifferent to the quality of the works, being concerned more with archiving them. As you pointed out, the advent of the Internet requires us to re-think many of our criteria - the definition of "re-printed" being one of them. Perhaps by defining the re-printing as specifically mass-, rather than niche- market?
They tried their best, believe me. I really think it was the technology that did them in. Whereas previously you need the labour of scribes to copy books which, for anything of a decent size and quantity, would take months if not years, the printing press churned out pamphlets at a rate of knots. By the time they got wind of what was happening there was probably 50,000 pamphlets in circulation on how to make a movable type printing press.
I quite agree, but even then, widespread literacy in the lower classes didn't even get going for another century or two, and only became the default (at least as a goal) in the 20th century.
Keep in mind in the first one hundred years after it's invention more books were printed in Europe that the sum total of prior civilization had produced.
But again, I feel this merely proves my point about publishing. Unlike scribe-copying, printing made possible a mass-market for all sorts of literature for the first time. It is, after all, at this point that the pornography industry begins ;)
I know, I was just running with my plot ;-)
Fair enough, then.
You might be right there. I'm pretty tough on the criteria (as you would have noticed, only two books in over three hundred years get a definite *nod*!).
Frankly, I'd argue that both "The War of the Worlds" and "The Time Machine" belong there. As allegories of colonialism and class war respectively, they were among the first of their kind - and are still some of the best written.
Only if he can (a) reduce his books to half or even a third of the length and (b) read up on linguistic philosophy so he doesn't make the same (albeit interesting) error regarding Nam-Shub's in Snow Crash.
Indeed. Still, I suspect that the completed "Cryptonomicon" may well qualify. One day. If Stephenson lives long enough to finish it.
Another which is in the "almost" basket, but it hampered because it is so damn hard to understand the narrative flow (which is part of why it's so clever) is William S. Burroughs' Nova Express. That novel in conceivably pure genius.
The works of Burroughs are certainly contenders for classic status. Again, it's too soon to say - but it does seem likely that these works will still be argued over a century hence. One could make a similar, albeit non-sf, case for James Joyce's work, especially "Ulysses" and "Finnegan's Wake".
no subject
Not always - look at "The Old Man and the Sea" for example.
OK, good example. In fact, an excellent example of the character of a single person. Just "a character" rather than characters.
We're splitting hairs, but that's OK. Nothing wrong with precision.
Almost certainly :)
Well, phrase the question then... (Hey, I'm not going to do this for you, lol)
Existential is a better fit, I think. The word carries less bagage than moral :)
Granted, especially given the propensity for organizations - particularly religions - to claim to "know" what moral reasons are.
Perhaps by defining the re-printing as specifically mass-, rather than niche- market?
At the end of the day I suppose it's whether people are still reading the text, regardless of how it's being "printed" or distributed.
I feel this merely proves my point about publishing.
Chicken and egg. IMO, the technology has ontological priority to the provision of the service that arises from the technology.
..at this point that the pornography industry begins
Oh, the Ancient Greeks and Romans were pretty fond of it too. All those vases, statues, frescoes etc.
James Joyce's work, especially "Ulysses" and "Finnegan's Wake".
I don't know whether either of those will be "lasting".
Anaedoctal story on "Ulysses" - apparently ten years after publication an interviewer began with the question: "Well Mr. Joyce, it's ten years since 'Ulysses' was published and critics are still in debate about it". Answer: "They should be. It took me thirteen years to write it."
no subject
At the end of the day I suppose it's whether people are still reading the text, regardless of how it's being "printed" or distributed.
Arguably, although is a work still "in print" if no one reads it but every sees the movie? I suppose it remains influential.
Chicken and egg. IMO, the technology has ontological priority to the provision of the service that arises from the technology.
Oh, no argument about that. I merely wished to distinguish between a variable technology and the multiple options for the provision of services arising from it. Too much history of technology is deterministic about the provision of services (although the Internet, both by example and by effect, is changing this).
Oh, the Ancient Greeks and Romans were pretty fond of it too. All those vases, statues, frescoes etc.
True, but that was at best "cottage industry" rather than mass production. I meant the industry in its modern sense.
I don't know whether either of those will be "lasting".
I doubt that they will not. Ireland has a public holiday each year to celebrate Ulysses... even if their literary effect were to stop, their effect on the tourist industry would go on for a generation or so. :)
Anaedoctal story on "Ulysses" - apparently ten years after publication an interviewer began with the question: "Well Mr. Joyce, it's ten years since 'Ulysses' was published and critics are still in debate about it". Answer: "They should be. It took me thirteen years to write it."
I've always enjoyed Joyce's cheerful arrogance :)