On Sat, 6 Sep 1997, Eleanor Arnason wrote:
> Gregory Benford is an extremely bright man with things to say that are worth
> considering; but having reading several essays by him on hard SF, I think he
> may have (I am trying to find a polite or neutral term and failing) a hidden
> agenda when he writes about LeGuin.
>
> At present, he seems to be the chief spokesperson for the idea that "hard
> SF" is the core of science fiction.
Yes. Excellent. But isn't it too quick to blame his Le Guin criticism for
being a result of his anti-feminist, masculinist bias?
> The lists of hard SF writers -- their canon -- never seems to contain women
> writers, though several female SF writers have impressive scientific
> credentials. Hard SF writers tend to use utilitarian prose and to have a
> limited interest in characterization. This last may be related to their lack
> of interest in psychology and the social sciences. They also tend to
> undervalue biology, though starting with THE TIME MACHINE or FRANKENSTEIN,
> the biological sciences seem to be key to the development of science fiction.
> Hard SF plots tend to be action driven. Hard SF writers tend to resolve
> problems through violence; and they tend to have right of center politics.
>
> Now, I am not claiming that Benford's work always fits the above
> description. I have liked some of his work a lot. But he seems to have a
> tolerance I don't have for quite godawful, technophilic SF, stuff that
> doesn't convince me for a moment; and I think there's a good chance that he
> likely to undervalue psychology, the social sciences, writing by women,
> "literary" writing, left of center writing and plots that are NOT action
> driven and do not use violence to solve problems.
>
> So he may not be the ideal person to analyze LeGuin.
I agree with what you say about Benford, a deeper (but for me pointless)
analysis may reveal worse things about him, but:
1) I did not try to idealize him and launch an attack to Le Guin. I said I
had in mind his article, tried to acknowledge the list guests with his
views, and wanted to have their attention to the point.
2) Besides, I am an INCURABLE ATHEIST but will never _blame_ a narrative
for not being so. And to Hades with Benford's Christianity (or was it
Hell?) !!
3) By having people's attention to the (perhaps) moral authoritarianist
aspects of her novel, I just wanted to start a discussion on the topic.
4) Maybe it would also be necessary to say that I am a FEMINIST and
did never aim to use a non- (perhaps anti-) feminist writer and critic
like Benford purposefully, in order to attack "soft" (whatever it is) or
anarcho-feminist SF.
Later I will develop my argument, I have got to go now...
EMRAH
-"Insight! Insight! My kingdom for an insight!"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:39 PDT