tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post1873653181704626707..comments2023-10-21T07:44:20.549-04:00Comments on The Existence Machine: Clumsiness in the Face of a Brilliant Narrative MindRichardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post-85915846814898896242007-04-06T10:20:00.000-04:002007-04-06T10:20:00.000-04:00Hi, Jay, thanks for dropping by. I'll have to sam...Hi, Jay, thanks for dropping by. I'll have to sample some PKD one of these days. I imagine I'll go for the few recommended by Mr. Waggish...<BR/><BR/>Speaking of which, Mr. Waggish, I'll certainly be interested in reading what you have to say about <I>Book of the New Sun</I>, but I hope you don't get your long-simmering post up before I get mine up!<BR/><BR/>I was going to chime in on Crowley, too. Of course I loved <I>Little, Big</I>. I'm really looking forward to reading his <I>Aegypt</I> series...Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post-58966317225926364052007-04-05T20:13:00.000-04:002007-04-05T20:13:00.000-04:00thanks for the link! I have to agree with what mr ...thanks for the link! I have to agree with what mr waggish says. I think that the sloppiness in Dick is there all the way up to the end. Probably one of my favorite Dick novels is Radio Free Albemuth which he had cleaned up and revised at the very end of his life, and it still suffers from a lot of the stilted sentence structure and downright sloppy grammar that is there in The Man in the High Castle or Clans of the Alphane Moon. Or in Flow My Tears the Policeman Said or A Scanner Darkly for that matter. <BR/><BR/>Also, while it's true that Dick wrote very quickly, his novels are also very short. I often will breeze through one in an evening, although I do that less often the closer I get to having read everything he's written. So I think it's a bit of a cop out to excuse his sloppiness by his speed. Hemingway also wrote fast and managed to write well, and I think that they're in the same league of flawed American Lit giants so it's a fair comparison. <BR/><BR/>That having been said, I have to say I find a lot of the supposedly "good writers" in science fiction tedious. Sturgeon for sure, since he was mentioned in another comment. But also some of the other supposed bright lights mentioned by other commentors like Samuel R. Delany. Dick, on the other hand, wrote books that i find endlessly entertaining and satisfying. That's not something that I can say of the crossover writers at present like Link, Lethem, and certainly Neal Stevenson.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, it's very nice to see oneself quoted at length, thanks again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post-21163565251875647452007-04-05T13:07:00.000-04:002007-04-05T13:07:00.000-04:00Wolfe would disdain the idea that he's trying to b...Wolfe would disdain the idea that he's trying to be literary. He's not trying to be anything more than a great science fiction writer. (It should go without saying that that is as lofty a goal as trying to be any other kind of great writer.) I think his grasp is immense, so I probably wouldn't be the most sympathetic audience to the notion that his reach exceeds his grasp (though it often seems to exceed the garsp of reviewers).<BR/><BR/>As soon as I posted, I regretted not including Crowley.Scrapshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16874243983012948223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post-2334173158965731622007-04-05T01:28:00.000-04:002007-04-05T01:28:00.000-04:00Don't forget John Crowley! One of the best stylist...Don't forget John Crowley! One of the best stylists the field has ever known, particularly Engine Summer. I think that with more self-consciously arty sorts like Kelly Link and Jonathan Lethem hitting it big, the ghettoization is seeing more crossover these days, but as always, the highbrows will be the last to catch up.<BR/><BR/>I disagree on the post-70s work, though; with the exception of A Scanner Darkly, it's generally flabby next to the best of his 60s efforts, and I always found the Valis trilogy downright dreary. Along with Ubik, Three Stigmata and Martian Time-slip are both quite remarkable, I think.<BR/><BR/>And as far as style goes, Dick was writing so fast that it's amazing he had as many good books as he did. Ford Madox Ford had a much-lower hit ratio: those in the know say about 6 of his 80+ novels are any good.<BR/><BR/>Now Gene Wolfe, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish! I think he does the field harm by reaching far beyond his grasp and allowing people to look at him and say, "Oh, look how cute, he's trying to be literary!" (and that's before they know his politics!) but I know many respectable sorts who disagree with me. Maybe I should write that long-simmering post on Book of the New Sun....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post-29573226604002643452007-04-04T14:10:00.000-04:002007-04-04T14:10:00.000-04:00I look forward to that! Welcome to the "frenzy of...I look forward to that! Welcome to the "frenzy of interpretation" (in, if I recall correctly, John Clute's words).<BR/><BR/>I don't know what to say to the idea that Confessions of a Crap Artist is Dick's best work. I don't think it's even the best of his early mainstream attempts (I'd probably pick The Man Whose Teeth Were All Exactly Alike).Scrapshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16874243983012948223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post-87595152612214941162007-04-04T13:46:00.000-04:002007-04-04T13:46:00.000-04:00For what it's worth, in the beginning of the revie...For what it's worth, in the beginning of the review, Quackenbush says that <I>Confessions of a Crap Artist</I> is indeed not science fiction, then, in the paragraph after the one I quoted above, he goes on to say the following: "On the one hand, <I>Confessions</I> may be as good as Science Fiction gets. On the other hand, calling it a Science Fiction novel seems to stretch the definition of the term beyond the breaking point. And it is here, in the borders of the genre, that the truly unfortunate aspect of the way the Science Fiction community has embraced its ghettoization is revealed. While <I>Confessions</I> is undoubtedly Dick's best work, it is also one of his least well known."<BR/><BR/>I have to thank you for first alerting me to Gene Wolfe. I <I>still</I> have a post on <I>Book of the New Sun</I> in the works...Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post-51725595670619693962007-04-04T13:34:00.000-04:002007-04-04T13:34:00.000-04:00A few points. First, it's untrue that Dick's flaw...A few points. First, it's untrue that Dick's flaws are or were unperceived and unnoted by the science fiction field. It's always been remarked that his strengths were offset by stylistic flaws, and that his work ranged from brilliant to awful. Second, Confession of a Crap Artist was an early book (though it was published late); Dick improved a great deal as a stylist, and there is very little clunkiness in his post-1970 work. Third, it's not a genre book -- it's not science fiction -- and like the rest of his non-sf work, it has never attained that much reputation with his fanbase (I don't remember ever seeing it listed among his best books), so I don't see how it has anything to do with the overrating of his skills by his fans (and I will acknowledge that many of his fans do overrate him, but also point out that this has been abetted by a lazy mainstream critical press that elevated Dick to the best science fiction had to offer while remaining blissfully ignorant of the many writers in the field who are better stylists. Singling out Dick has allowed the literary world to preserve their idea that science fiction is fundamentally crude but vigorous -- primitive -- literature, to be occasionally appreciated in a slumming way, while ignoring excellent stylists like Sturgeon, Russ, Delany, Disch, Wolfe, unless, like Delany and Russ, they can be appreciated on political grounds.Scrapshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16874243983012948223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post-19237067889955303192007-04-04T10:08:00.000-04:002007-04-04T10:08:00.000-04:00Thanks for the interesting comment and the recomme...Thanks for the interesting comment and the recommendation, Mr. Waggish. I'll take a look at <I>Ubik</I>.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post-52172425971894016912007-04-04T01:10:00.000-04:002007-04-04T01:10:00.000-04:00In line with what you say, Mr. Quackenbush does a ...In line with what you say, Mr. Quackenbush does a disservice to Dick. Dick's prose is as clunky as any pulp writer's, but a damn sight better than Olaf Stapledon, Doris Lessing, Dreiser, or the worst of Sinclair Lewis. Dick can get away with it because he doesn't need any more than functional prose to play out his strengths, which are *not* what people think they are (neither character nor speculation nor psychology). And Dick's "postmodernism," which is not postmodernism as much as it is metaphysical inquiry, is far more calculated than it superficially appears.<BR/><BR/>Stanislaw Lem was sharp enough to recognize Dick as possessing very distinct qualities, and his essay on Dick, reprinted in Microworlds, is excellent. Lem recommends Dick's Ubik, as do I.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com