In a long aside in his 1977 essay “Sturgeon” (collected in Starboard Wine), Samuel Delany discusses the widespread fan impact of
Theodore Sturgeon’s revision of his 1947 story “Maturity,” which was first published in Astounding, then printed in a significantly revised version in
an anthology. Apparently, for a scifi author to revise his work was practically unheard of at the time.
Delany relates this to a wider
phenomenon: that while writers of literature are apt to place an enormous value
on the process of revision, at times even boasting about how many times they
have worked and reworked a text before it sees publication (and here their
models would seem to be Flaubert and Joyce), SF authors don’t talk much about
their writing process, and would even seem to fetishize the production of
first-draft publishable work.
Delany
teases out two explanations for this: The first, a “synchronic” description of
the genre, would have it that the field of science fiction is something like a
circus, in which multiple wonders are performed simultaneously, and in which
the desired effect of any given piece (ie, story) on an audience is something along the “gosh, wow” line of the audience's response to a particularly good trapeze jump or a particularly good piece of clownery.
You do a trick, and then you go on to the next one; to go back and re-do that last tumble, just because it wasn't quite perfect, is pretty much unheard of—just not how it's done under the big top. Literary fiction, on the other hand, places a much greater emphasis on a kind
of muted, methodical realism. SF writers, then, are far more likely to stress the ideas and the novums of their work; literary writers, in a kind of compensatory gesture,
tell us how much labor and craft went into the making of their far more
understated gestures.
Delany’s
second explanation is a “diachronic” discussion of the differing fields of
“serious” literature and science fiction and their historical development.
Drawing on Stanley Fish’s Self-Consuming Artifacts, he argues that serious literature has developed
under the aesthetic of the “Good Physician”—that it is meant in some way to be good
for you. (This ties in with the general
distrust of “reading for pleasure” in academic circles, which he talks about
with some subtlety, including an excellent discussion of the sort of concerted
work necessary to gain the eventual pleasure of any genre, including science
fiction.) Sci fi, on the other hand, is a popular genre, rooted ultimately in
the pulps—a kind of writing which is by definition and cultural consensus bad
for you. If you are the “good physician,”
you can go to some trouble to specify the labor that has gone into the writing
that will presumably have a salubrious effect on your audience; if you writing
in a genre that corrupts the youth, then to confess to an inordinate interest
in craft is to confess yourself not just a scamp but an outright criminal.
***
This should be tied, I think, to Moorcock’s revisions, and
his compositional practices. One of the deepest “seams” in his overall stance
is the implicit conflict between being a “popular” writer (MM’s own preferred
term; he shies away repeatedly from confessing himself a genre writer) and
being a “serious” or literary writer. Perhaps it’s an oversimplifiction to say
that his ambition pulls him in one direction—“serious,” sprawling, complexly
plotted and thematically “heavy” works like Mother London and the Pyat novels—while his audience, and economic
pressures, pull him in another (fantasy, science fiction).
The
New Worlds episode is perhaps exemplary,
or at least parallel: while MM was editing the magazine, he sought as it were
to push the field of writing (speculative fiction, what have you) in a more
“serious” direction—to move it away from the adolescent fantasies of Golden Age
SF, to incorporate the disjunctions of late modernist fiction (Burroughs
especially), to explore not outer space but the human interior (“inner space”).
At the same time, in order to keep the magazine afloat and the printers’ bill
paid, he was churning out whole strings of fantasy novels, written to precise
formulas and produced in a matter of days.
1 comment:
Post a Comment