Text 127, 206 rader
Skriven 2004-09-26 11:33:02 av Bob Lawrence
     Kommentar till en text av Robert Bull
Ärende: Recommend juvenile Sf?
==============================
BL> Writing is a craft, and the two parts of that craft I lack are
BL> the ability to make my characters act so stupidly that they
BL> create unnecessary conflict (trapped by stupidity), and I lack
BL> the ability to write in bureaucratese.

RB> But, if you're writing SF, isn't your conflict likely to be set
RB> up partly by the "cold equations" of physics? And even normally
RB> sensible people can have careless moments, or whatever.

 I have no problem with creating problems of Physics (to me that's
the whole point of SF), or other people with conflicting goals working
in opposition, or creating "coincidences" and "mistakes". My problem
is characters who intentionally get into trouble, out of character..
in ordfer to create conflict. The conflict I prefer is unavoidable
(or perhaps avoidable 100 pages back). To me, thats the *right* way to
do it, and many authors do it right.

RB> Fred Pohl in MAN PLUS has a problem arise because everybody was
RB> down with 'flu and didn't feel up to telling someone something
RB> difficult (he was being cyborged, and they didn't want to tell
RB> him that in order to survive in the cold of Mars, his wedding
RB> tackle had been, uh, disconnected).

 That's okay! It's when the characters act stupidly (unless stupid is
part of their character). I suppose what I don't like is characters
acting *out* of character... unless it is meant to reveal another side
of the character.

RB> Isn't there a sense in which bureaucratese -is- plagiarism, in
RB> being a shared jargon used to create a shared fiction where
RB> their jobs actually mean something?

 I went to uni with two rising bureaucrats, and it was fascinating to
see inside their reality. It's not that their jobs are meaningless, in
fact the bureaucracy overall fills a function, it's just that success
in the job does not come from the ability to get the job done, but
more from not-stuffing-up, so a failure shifts up a level to your
boss. In that situation the only way to succeed is to do nothing much,
and shift responsibility upwards while attempting to collect more
people under *your* control. They used to plot takeovers!

 To me, bureaucratese is a complicated and confusing way to say
nothing, hence adding deniability if someone does read something into
it. Bureacratese needs to be *interpreted*... anyway at all, if they
do it right. It's a skill that escapes me.

BL> After years of war, what the people of Iraq want is stability.
BL> The poor Yanks have no idea. One only has to compare Basra
BL> under the

RB> Americans seem so oddly insensitive...

 They don't seem to be able to accept that other people might have a
reality different from theirs. They are "right" and that's the end of
it. It's a very childish approach to the world... especially when you
have 5,000 H-bombs at home and a Fundamentalist Christian in charge
who thinks Noah's Ark was real. Without the H-bombs, it'd be really
funny.

RB> If you're into weird, the weirdest book I've ever read is Flann
RB> O'Brien's THE THIRD POLICEMAN. A self-confessed murderer and
RB> all-round heel recounts his odyssey through his personal Hell,
RB> while simulateously detailing his attempt to write the
RB> biography of a minor aristocrat in the face of an avalanche of
RB> misinformation, and attempting to keep one step ahead of a trio
RB> of bicycle-obsessed policemen. You learn, for example, how to
RB> tell if a person is turning into a bicycle, and the only thing
RB> you can put into a perfectly-crafted box ("and if I were to
RB> tell you the cost of it, your astonishment would be
RB> flabberghasted").

 Our local library is pathetic! I check every author you mention, and
the only hit I've had was Nix and Meiville! I like weird (what else is
SF?), so long as it is well written.

BL> it interesting is that Mark Read is a genuine psycho, a
BL> murderer and a convicted criminal. So far as I can work out, he
BL> doesn't give a

RB> Hmmm... sounds a bit strong for me. Have you read the "Ripley"
RB> books? Is there some similarity?

 Ahh... (I just worked out what you meant). Chopper is further out
that that. His writing is allegorical, but his insanity shines
through, and he's funny!

BL> Sounds more like natural selection, and that doesn't dumb-down,
BL> it lifts up.

RB> Sure? I mean, are you saying the pinnacle of evolution is
RB> soccer fans? 

 No... just that the pinnacle of mass entertainment is soccer, but
(thank you, Jesus) not here in Oz. My objection to soccer is the game
itself, not the principle. Rugby League (or even Rugby if you're
desperate) is a better game for allowing tribal anger to vent itself.
Who ever came away from Carmen feeling totally stuffed, drunk and
disappoionted, when your team lost? Or elated that the bull won?
Everone needs a team, to feel despair and elation. Calssical music
just doesn't cut it, and Elton John doesn't even come close.

BL> Okay, so if subsiding opera and classical music improves the
BL> breed, where is our new Verdi, Beethoven, Wagner? Why do they
BL> keep producing century-old crap? If you start at Beethoven and
BL> move

RB> Those chaps were mostly working for the aristocracy, the people
RB> who count. They had one advantage that later composers didn't -
RB> they still had all the best tunes available...

 Rubbish! Muisic is like Chess - there are billions of possible
tunes. Actually, my main objection to classical is the lack of poetry
that popular mucic provides. Fro some reason I have never understood,
the poeple who *love* classical, or poetry, never realise that the two
together (words and music) can be a hundred-times more evocative. To
me, Elton John's SORRY beats the hell out of Beethoven's da, da, da
daaaa... etc.

 That was one of the best tunes...? Get real, Robert. A good pop song
can evoke tears, in me. Bonnie Raitt never fails.

RB> One of the Beatles once said they were more popular the Jesus
RB> Christ. 

 John.. and he apologised but he was right. But of course, Elvis was
the really famous one.

RB> A British bishop gave them a splendid put-down - "Our show has
RB> been running a lot longer, and our total audience is bigger."

 But John made a lot more money than Jesus, and Paul made more money
than God. How silly is that? Bishops are famously silly. My personal
favourite are the poofter bishops. Can't they read the Bible at all?

RB> It's possible Mahler's influence may eventually be bigger and
RB> longer-lasting, but maybe it's too early to tell.

 Just go outside and ask the first ten people who John Lennon was,
and who Gustav Mahler was. You could throw in Jesus... as a control.  
Then ask about David Bechham or Posh. Influence? If you want to be
famous and influence people, you just hire PR in the year 2004. Times
have changed... big time.

RB> Shostakovich certainly had a lot of influence in Stalinist
RB> Russia, because e.g. the Fifth Symphony seems to be about a
RB> determination to survive in the face of oppression. Classical
RB> music mattered a lot there and then because Western-style
RB> popular music would have been banned. 

 But on the other hand, how much influence does the USSR have
today? Does zero sound about right?

BL> I have no problem with someone liking stuff I see as totally
BL> empty, but I do have a problem with subsiding their queer
BL> tastes, just as I could understand if they objected to
BL> subsiding the Beetles.

RB> I doubt you'd like highly unpredictable music based on
RB> statistical processes :-) It needs to have pattern to have a
RB> chance of "doing something to your brain."

 As I said... I have no problem with someone who thinks my taste in
music sucks. My problem is when they expect me to subsidise *their*
tastes. My radio (I play it all day as background) has probably 50
stations on it. I could tune all fifty, and the only two playing
classical (Sunday morbning) will be the subsidised ABC. There'll be
five (say) playing fundamentalist religion, five sport, ten dickheads
rabitting on about something or other, ten Rock, a few Jazz, and the
rest will be Pop in one form or another... but none of *those* will be
subsidised. 48 survive wiothout my tax dollar, but the "Classical"
stations suck it up to service an audience fo sub-1%. Why am I
supposed to feel this is good? Is this sub-1% saving us from the
Barbarians at the gate? Are they the ones saving Austrlia from
slipping into a soccer-hooligan society? Is Anarchy just around the
corner if we cut Shostakovich? Or trade him to Leeds United?

 This is silly, but in the meantime we are spendign $800 million a
year of the useless ABC! That's nearly as much as we spent on Paul the
Beetle, and *he* wrote YESTERDAY.

 Hms.. yesterday, all my troubles were so far away... pure poetry!

RB> BTW, are you subsidising your Australian Living National
RB> Treasure, Peter Sculthorpe? :-)) Actually, I quite like what
RB> little bits of his work I've heard.

 Of course he's subsided! Actually, I've never heard of him, so he
must be subsidised. Scluthorpe? Who's his agent? He *has* to change
that name or he'll bever be a success. Now Delta Goodrum... there's a
name. Or the Crocodile Hunter... somethign with a bit of *meaning*
in it. Sculthorpe? He's gotta be kidding. How about Elvis Thorpedo?

PS: Excuse my flippancy. I'm trying a new wine, Verdelho, and it's
very nice...

Regards,
Bob
 

      
 

     

--- BQWK Alpha 0.5
 * Origin: Precision Nonsense, Sydney  (3:712/610.12)