tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259460772864393968.post9110176129254869647..comments2024-03-26T21:58:50.501-04:00Comments on MPorcius Fiction Log: Ten Short Short SF Stories: Niven, Malzberg, Pronzini, Knight & BusbyMPorciushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15515742639389937221noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259460772864393968.post-28283059848765911182022-08-13T15:06:32.084-04:002022-08-13T15:06:32.084-04:00"I Wish I May, I Wish I Might" isn't..."I Wish I May, I Wish I Might" isn't meant to be funny. It's a horror story. (Do the math on 10^18 scoops of ice cream.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259460772864393968.post-73241980877000414842018-06-02T21:00:53.006-04:002018-06-02T21:00:53.006-04:00Very cool, thanks for pointing this out! I love s...Very cool, thanks for pointing this out! I love seeing these kinds of connections. I'll update the post above!MPorciushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15515742639389937221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259460772864393968.post-40749850466324348462018-06-01T13:52:39.970-04:002018-06-01T13:52:39.970-04:00Very belated reply, but for anyone who is curious,...Very belated reply, but for anyone who is curious, the Pronzini story is a riff on "Purple Cow", a once-famous short nonsense poem by Gelett Burgess:<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_CowGeoduckhttp://www.geoduckthings.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259460772864393968.post-44338674128275887722014-11-09T06:40:46.265-05:002014-11-09T06:40:46.265-05:00Firstly, thanks for the link to the interview. It...Firstly, thanks for the link to the interview. It's good stuff.<br /><br />I think I addressed your concerns in my reply to Joachim above, but in case not, my main concern is not that Knight's criticism is bad from our perspective, but may be overblown from the past's perspective as well. One telling moment for me is Knight's criticism of van Vogt's World of Null-A. Knight seems so interested in tearing van Vogt down that he failed to grasp van Vogt had actually written something that transcended the times, i.e. in some way "achieved heights of science fiction hitherto unknown". Null-A is a major precedent to the works of PKD and other writers for whom reality is not clearly reality. Moreover, Knight's willingness to be so harsh may have made a reputation for him as much as the "good" reviews he offered. In short, history can recognize people, but the reasons are not always clear, and in Knight's case I question how he fit into his times. (By the way, the Science Fiction Encyclopedia is often 'kind' to writers. As any good reference book, they maintain a neutral objectivity I have so much trouble finding in my own assessments...)Jessehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07796098208589965362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259460772864393968.post-66634976324890149612014-11-09T06:26:46.817-05:002014-11-09T06:26:46.817-05:00I was referring to perception in Knight's time...I was referring to perception in Knight's time.<br /><br />For a little bit of comparison, Justin Landon is a prominent member of today's speculative fiction community. He has a popular blog, hosts Tor's podcast, attends conventions, etc. In short, he appears an important member of the field. Looking at the actual content of his future artifacts, however, one notes that his finger is not precisely on the pulse of genre. His essays are often half-baked and lack true critical rigor, he has trouble developing conversations on the podcast in ways that present the politically correct zeitgeist of our day, and his views are decidedly rooted in epic-fantasy, which, as popular as it is, does not begin to encompass speculative fiction as a whole. And yet, when future bloggers look on wikipedia for review material (i.e. what did people of the past think of writer X), there may be a Landon quote - and as uninformed as it may be.<br /><br />Therefore, you're right: I do not and can never have the same view of Knight in his prime. But my fears remain that Knight may be something like an older Landon. See the following points:<br /><br />Recorded history: Knight's reviews were published in book form for the commercial market. Actual history of the time: This was done because of the relevancy and biting profundity of Knight's views, i.e. the place in culture the editor thought to recognize? Or the fact Knight was so free in his opinion, i.e. willing to insult big genre names? Given the fact we know drama sells it is, of course, an unanswerable question. This leads to:<br /><br />Recorded history: Knight's name is used as back cover copy on genre novels. Actual history of the time: publishers used Knight's name in an attempt to sell more books. Did their ploy work? We can know if sales figures of the era are broken down into those with Knight copy and those without, and then make a comparison. Only after can we say his name was "very important in selling a book." Otherwise, we are drawing assumptions from facts we do not have. Speaking of facts:<br /><br />Recorded history: In a review Knight makes a statement about an element of book A. Actual history of the time (and toay): when the reader looks in book A, they cannot find the element. No comment needed except to say that when done repeatedly, it casts doubt on other statements.<br /><br />Knight a recognized member of the field, yesterday and today? Like Landon, yes. Actually a significant mover and shaker driving speculative fiction (i.e. a historically important member of the field)? We'll never be certain given the subjectivity of what is and is not recorded. This is why I question his value to his time - and ours.Jessehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07796098208589965362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259460772864393968.post-6028915832994287722014-11-08T20:58:30.639-05:002014-11-08T20:58:30.639-05:00I have to agree, his work as editor and critic are...I have to agree, his work as editor and critic are the elements that made Knight historically important... He's worth remembering for that even though his writing has not aged well, and was only "pretty good" to begin with. He was very popular in the '50s and well anthologized into the '60s; you can attribute some of it to changing tastes and the evolution of the genre, though I don't think he was quite capable of writing something that could withstand the test of time as a genre "classic." That or there's a mob of people waiting just over the next hill who think Knight's fiction was just swell and will convince me I'm wrong, but I've yet to find them.<br /><br />Knight was the first SF critic, full-stop. He savaged a number of books I enjoy, and let others I despise slip by unscathed, for reasons comprehensible only to himself. But there wasn't anyone else holding SF to the same standards... or any standards, really. SF was the pulp ghetto, all those bug-eyed monsters menacing women wearing chrome bikinis, and then there's Damon Knight holding the genre to rigorous high standards and trying to force it in what he felt was the Science Fiction direction. At times I feel like he's savaging decent novels to keep the others in line. Kill one of the good ones to make the bad ones shape up.<br /><br />Since Knight was both author and critic, and since most of the stories he wrote wouldn't have withstood his own criticism, his writing somewhat undermines his criticism. It's clear he's not a writer that resonates well with modern SF readers. But if he wasn't important to "actual" history, he wouldn't have been so well-anthologized, his critical opinion would have meant nothing, and we wouldn't see those occasional glowing reviews of his fiction (his <a href="http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/knight_damon" rel="nofollow">SFE</a> entry is pretty positive).admiral.ironbombshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02209722437784430986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259460772864393968.post-47464831046150642292014-11-08T09:43:46.819-05:002014-11-08T09:43:46.819-05:00Knight's high reputation is a little puzzling ...Knight's high reputation is a little puzzling if you only consider his fiction--his adventure thriller stuff is just OK, and when he tries to be funny or profound (I think) he falls flat. <br /><br />I think the enormous volume of valuable work he did on the editorial side endeared Knight to lots of people in the field. Gene Wolfe, for example, talks about how much help he got from Knight, and how critical that help was to him, in a great interview with Larry McCaffery from 1988:<br /><br />http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/interviews/wolfe46interview.htm<br /><br />(In this interview we also get Wolfe's assessments of H. P. Lovecraft and the New Wave, a perhaps unflattering anecdote about Fred Pohl, a reference to the time Harlan Ellison physically assaulted Charles Platt, talk about Wolfe's war experiences, and lots of discussion of Wolfe's major 1970s and '80s works. It's a great interview.) <br /><br />As for his criticism, maybe the importance of Knight's work there is that he was taking SF seriously as literature and encouraging other people to take SF seriously at a time when few people did. Even if his criticism wasn't very good (from our perspectives), the fact that somebody was doing criticism may have pushed SF writers to greater efforts or increased conscientiousness.<br />MPorciushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15515742639389937221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259460772864393968.post-76943899058864425752014-11-08T09:14:04.349-05:002014-11-08T09:14:04.349-05:00"His name has more meaning in recorded histor..."His name has more meaning in recorded history than actual history." I see where you're going with statement but I'm somewhat confused. Clearly Knight was an important figure, even if his criticisms come off as unusual or incorrect, as a critic of the time. His word was very important in selling a book etc. So, perhaps we need to struggle a bit to understand why at the time his criticisms were deemed so relevant, so poignant, so key in appraising a work. He was an important historical figure in both "actual" and "recorded" history. However, his legacy, or his continued importance as an author/critic now might have diminished. Reception is a strange beast as values and standards and conceptions of the world evolve.<br /><br />And yes, I am completely on the "Knight is an overrated SF author" train. Both his short stories and his novels have left me cold and unimpressed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259460772864393968.post-24428454082367724282014-11-08T03:24:55.858-05:002014-11-08T03:24:55.858-05:00Your reviews of Damon Knight's stories are gen...Your reviews of Damon Knight's stories are generally interesting. For whatever reason, he is considered one of the top critics of his day. (Wikipedia often has his quotes and I see his name pop up in various reviews.) Yet whenever I read these criticisms, I find them not opposite to mine, rather insular, as in: did he read the same story as me? His "critique" of Leigh Brackett's The Long Tomorrow I'm still scratching my head about. <br /><br />I've read only two pieces of Knight's short fiction, the famous "Country of the Kind" and the second.. I forget the title, something about a super iPad that allowed the user to see any place at any point in time. "Country of the Kind" is an intriguing story, but it's not knock your socks off stuff, and the second story whose name I forget is an interestingly developed idea, but again, doesn't seem to achieve the heights Knights' criticisms would seem to demand of science fiction. Reading your reviews above only strengthens my belief that his name has more meaning in recorded history than actual history. I'm hoping the same does not become of Jo Walton...<br /><br />Am I missing something about Knight?Jessehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07796098208589965362noreply@blogger.com