|
The Science Fiction Club of London (S.F.CoL) in an attempt to boost membership
and at the same time contribute something to London fandom in general, has started,
as an experiment, a series of monthly open meetings consisting of a talk followed
by a discussion, refreshments being provided. We have planned three for a start but
these can be extended according to degree of success. This has only been possible
because of Ella Parker's particular situation. She now lives in one of the multi-storey
"matchbox" flats which are replacing the dreary rows of crumbling 19th century terraced
houses in most London suburbs. While the flats themselves tend to make me feel slightly
claustrophobic (I am 5'-11 ½" on the rare occasions I stand up straight) yet the
extra amenities laid on are really tremendous e.g. central heating, waste disposal etc
(good old G.L.C.!) On the ground level is a hall which can be hired for weddings, parties
etc. at a nominal rent and this is just ideal for our purpose. We put the first meeting
on free since we have a little bit in the bank due to the fact that, much to our surprise
we got back in full the money we lent to finance Loncon II. (This is of great importance
to me since I am treasurer, which happens to be the official post requiring least work
which is why I am it and also, tho' I myself find difficulty in adding two and two, my
wife who looks after the family finances has a keen arithmetical mind which solves my
annual accountancy problems.)
As an attraction to start with, we invited Brunner to give a talk on any subject of his
choice. He chose to speak on "The Fiction in S-F." It was, I trust, a measure of the
apathy of London fandom rather than the value of Brunner that drew an audience of 25,
including the S.F.CoL. members. Those who heard Brunner's speech at the Loncon will know
what to expect. For me, it was the highlight of the official Con. programme. The depth of
thought revealed, the very acute intellect, the beautifully modulated voice, and the
excellent presentation combined to make that speech a real joy to me. And his talk for us
was a repetition. After tracing the main influences on S-F. writing 1) the cliff-hanger
approach of the U.S. mags, and 2) the British adventure novel in the Haggard style; he
traced it down decade by decade. I fear he commented most unfavourably upon much of the
so-called Golden Age of the '40s when genuinely original and lasting material, e.g.
Heinlein, was all but submerged in a morass of trash. I was most gratified, to find that
he found many of the so-called "classics" virtually unreadable (haven't you heard me on
about that very thing?) and actually commented on Weinbaum's "Tweedle" thus:
"If this was held up as a great advance in characterisation then it could only have been
because of the poverty of the rest." (I am not quoting verbatim.)
He pointed out the differences in story technique between short story and novel, quoting
some really hoary and comical examples. His obvious immense knowledge of his chosen
profession - writing, in case you don't know - was really exciting (I really enjoy listening
to or watching an expert in anything, from physicist to flunkey). Another point he brought
out was another one which I have been hammering for year, namely responsible criticism of
a sufficiently high standard.
After mentioning that fanzines were supposed to provide this, at least in part, he took
as an example ZENITH
SPECULATION #11 (Jan. '66), specifically Joe Patrizio's article on Ballard.
This is billed by Pete Weston, who should have known better, as:
"a serious attempt to get behind the facade of critical adulation, to give us a calm and
considered appraisal of Ballard's real worth [emphasis mine] as a S-F, writer
while preferring not to take sides in the current pro- and anti-Ballard dispute."
Unfortunately this is not so. Joe from the start obviously detests Ballard's writing and
far from being a balanced essay in criticism is solely a diatribe, albeit he has made
every effort to back his statements with quotes, etc, a very, commendable procedure, no
more nor less than we would expect of Joe Patrizio. Unfortunately, he allows his emotions,
and a determination to find fault to mar his judgement.
In a few choice
phrases and with devastating logic did Brunner completely demolish this fannish attempt at
literary criticism.
Anyway, it was a most interesting afternoon and I believe Moorcock, who turned up belatedly, bought
the speech there and then so it may appear in New Worlds (I might even buy that issue).
Coming so closely after my own plea in OMPA for better Standards, I found it most gratifying to
find someone of Brunner's standing thinking along the same lines. During the discussion which
followed (a rather desultory one, I fear, since it had pretty well all been said) one point which
I feel fairly important was raised, viz that of emotion. This is not something one can easily
measure all the logic in the world has no bearing on it. A good author will by his choice of
phrase etc., etc., create an emotional bond between the reader and the narrative, and according
to the effectiveness of this bond will the success or failure of the story be determined for that
particular reader. Thus some people of a particular emotional make-up will be quite incapable of
appreciating certain types of story. There is nothing wrong in this, it is just life. We are all
different, but this emotional aspect of reading is usually - mistakenly in my opinion - overlooked,
then we end up with two sides, one saying "Well I didn't" and the other "never the 'twain shall
meet."
- Ian Peters, HAGGIS #7 (March 1966, ed. Peters)
|