Comments on: The Case For and Against Dick http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2007/08/22/the-case-for-and-against-dick/ Jeff VanderMeer Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:54:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: jeff ford http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2007/08/22/the-case-for-and-against-dick/comment-page-1/#comment-1249 jeff ford Mon, 27 Aug 2007 02:09:21 +0000 http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2007/08/22/the-case-for-and-against-dick/#comment-1249 Josh: Love those two examples, and yes, I agree, they are beyond immediate comprhension -- the second one beyond even careful consideration. Thanks! Josh: Love those two examples, and yes, I agree, they are beyond immediate comprhension — the second one beyond even careful consideration. Thanks!

]]> By: Josh http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2007/08/22/the-case-for-and-against-dick/comment-page-1/#comment-1230 Josh Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:52:58 +0000 http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2007/08/22/the-case-for-and-against-dick/#comment-1230 Jeff Ford, anent examples of PKD that sound kind of amphetamined: "The Maury Souza affair, he realized; it preyed vulturely on him, made a trough of his brain." "On this score, Lars Powderdry said to himself, I have failed as completely as, formerly, I let them down authentic, in time of need, weapons-wise." My theory is that Jeff Ford, who we all know has a fookin' gorgeous prose style, doesn't *need* to get that aesthetic rush out of other people's work on accounta he can do it for himself. The things that I dislike in the Gopnick piece have to do with evaluation of individual PKD works and with his sense of what's important in PKD, both of which are problems that don't stem from his being an "outsider" to the SF field. On the other hand, JeffV's brilliant insight, "It makes it seem as if the thing the mainstream finds tolerable about genre is its imagination but not its craft." is, I think, the reality of the situation; and Gopnick's evaluative judgments, which tend to praise the more poorly-written Dick novels over the ones he expended more care upon, are useful for that agenda. I *do* find some passages in PKD memorable, not for the style but for what they reveal about the characters (Mr Tagomi, Angel Archer, that Woody Harrelson guy from A Scanner Darkly). Jeff Ford, anent examples of PKD that sound kind of amphetamined:

“The Maury Souza affair, he realized; it preyed vulturely on him, made a trough of his brain.”

“On this score, Lars Powderdry said to himself, I have failed as completely as, formerly, I let them down authentic, in time of need, weapons-wise.”

My theory is that Jeff Ford, who we all know has a fookin’ gorgeous prose style, doesn’t *need* to get that aesthetic rush out of other people’s work on accounta he can do it for himself.

The things that I dislike in the Gopnick piece have to do with evaluation of individual PKD works and with his sense of what’s important in PKD, both of which are problems that don’t stem from his being an “outsider” to the SF field. On the other hand, JeffV’s brilliant insight, “It makes it seem as if the thing the mainstream finds tolerable about genre is its imagination but not its craft.” is, I think, the reality of the situation; and Gopnick’s evaluative judgments, which tend to praise the more poorly-written Dick novels over the ones he expended more care upon, are useful for that agenda.

I *do* find some passages in PKD memorable, not for the style but for what they reveal about the characters (Mr Tagomi, Angel Archer, that Woody Harrelson guy from A Scanner Darkly).

]]> By: jeff ford http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2007/08/22/the-case-for-and-against-dick/comment-page-1/#comment-1197 jeff ford Sat, 25 Aug 2007 04:23:20 +0000 http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2007/08/22/the-case-for-and-against-dick/#comment-1197 I insist I'm a crackpot. I insist I’m a crackpot.

]]> By: Jeff VanderMeer http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2007/08/22/the-case-for-and-against-dick/comment-page-1/#comment-1193 Jeff VanderMeer Sat, 25 Aug 2007 03:35:39 +0000 http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2007/08/22/the-case-for-and-against-dick/#comment-1193 CBO--I think you're overstating it. The overreaction to this piece is just frankly funny to me. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say "I enjoy PKD, but I don't read him for his prose style." End of story. The fact is, PKD was undervalued to begin with and now is being over-valued. Some of his stuff is just frankly unreadable. I also don't think it's all a problem to say, yeah, some people who enjoy Dick don't know what the fuck they're talking about. They're entitled to enjoy him, but they're not entitled to defend him in ways that are, frankly, indefensible. And I don't think Jeff Ford is a crackpot in this discussion, either. JeffV CBO–I think you’re overstating it. The overreaction to this piece is just frankly funny to me. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say “I enjoy PKD, but I don’t read him for his prose style.” End of story. The fact is, PKD was undervalued to begin with and now is being over-valued. Some of his stuff is just frankly unreadable. I also don’t think it’s all a problem to say, yeah, some people who enjoy Dick don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about. They’re entitled to enjoy him, but they’re not entitled to defend him in ways that are, frankly, indefensible.

And I don’t think Jeff Ford is a crackpot in this discussion, either.

JeffV

]]> By: Dickesode « Citizen Arnold http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2007/08/22/the-case-for-and-against-dick/comment-page-1/#comment-1190 Dickesode « Citizen Arnold Sat, 25 Aug 2007 02:41:19 +0000 http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2007/08/22/the-case-for-and-against-dick/#comment-1190 [...] [SON OF UPDATE: So has Jeff VanderMeer.] [...] [...] [SON OF UPDATE: So has Jeff VanderMeer.] [...]

]]> By: CBO http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2007/08/22/the-case-for-and-against-dick/comment-page-1/#comment-1180 CBO Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:48:40 +0000 http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2007/08/22/the-case-for-and-against-dick/#comment-1180 The notion that PKD couldn't write at the sentence level is such a cliche, another example of good, old fashioned American GroupThink. And let me ask you this: If PKD couldn't write, what does that say about all of the people who have read him and enjoyed his prose? That they don't know how to read, or what "GOOD" writing is? Yes, PKD wrote some leaden lines, but who hasn't? You mean to tell me that some of Pynchon's work isn't incomprehensible? Even Pynchon admits that when he looks back at GR he has no idea what the hell he was talking about, and you don't think that relates to the way he wrote his sentences? The reason people are reacting to Gopnick's piece is because the tone was utterly snotty, which is totally par for the course in the case of the New Yorker. Another flame job on a corpse. And stop trying to convince everyone that being a SF writer in the 60's was a smart career choice. Being a genre writer is a risk. Writing for tony NYC lifestyle mags is the smart career choice. Let me make an analogy. Rob Sheffield writes a piece in Rolling Stone that basically says, Hey, I know everyone loves The Velvet Underground, but here's why they weren't as good as everyone says they were, and it has to do with the fact that The Velvet Underground had a hard time writing a melody, just listen to Sister Ray. Some guy who writes for a magazine that has never championed artists on the margins goes out of its way, 30 years later, to point out why one of these artists isn't really worthy of postumous kudos. That's what Gopnick's piece is about, to me. Just one more established institution trying it's best to make sure that the rabble doesn't storm the gates. The notion that PKD couldn’t write at the sentence level is such a cliche, another example of good, old fashioned American GroupThink. And let me ask you this: If PKD couldn’t write, what does that say about all of the people who have read him and enjoyed his prose? That they don’t know how to read, or what “GOOD” writing is? Yes, PKD wrote some leaden lines, but who hasn’t? You mean to tell me that some of Pynchon’s work isn’t incomprehensible? Even Pynchon admits that when he looks back at GR he has no idea what the hell he was talking about, and you don’t think that relates to the way he wrote his sentences? The reason people are reacting to Gopnick’s piece is because the tone was utterly snotty, which is totally par for the course in the case of the New Yorker. Another flame job on a corpse. And stop trying to convince everyone that being a SF writer in the 60’s was a smart career choice. Being a genre writer is a risk. Writing for tony NYC lifestyle mags is the smart career choice. Let me make an analogy. Rob Sheffield writes a piece in Rolling Stone that basically says, Hey, I know everyone loves The Velvet Underground, but here’s why they weren’t as good as everyone says they were, and it has to do with the fact that The Velvet Underground had a hard time writing a melody, just listen to Sister Ray. Some guy who writes for a magazine that has never championed artists on the margins goes out of its way, 30 years later, to point out why one of these artists isn’t really worthy of postumous kudos. That’s what Gopnick’s piece is about, to me. Just one more established institution trying it’s best to make sure that the rabble doesn’t storm the gates.

]]> By: ed http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2007/08/22/the-case-for-and-against-dick/comment-page-1/#comment-1170 ed Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:05:55 +0000 http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2007/08/22/the-case-for-and-against-dick/#comment-1170 I'll jump again into this interesting discussion later, but for now I'll just say: Jeff Ford, you ain't so much a crackpot! I’ll jump again into this interesting discussion later, but for now I’ll just say: Jeff Ford, you ain’t so much a crackpot!

]]> By: jeff ford http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2007/08/22/the-case-for-and-against-dick/comment-page-1/#comment-1157 jeff ford Thu, 23 Aug 2007 22:20:36 +0000 http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2007/08/22/the-case-for-and-against-dick/#comment-1157 Mark and Jeff: My bullshit has plum run out, and I'm repeating myself. I've made more sense at times talking in my sleep. Gotta take a break and recharge my crackpot ideas. I'll check back tomorrow and see if you guys had the heart for any more. Thanks. Mark and Jeff: My bullshit has plum run out, and I’m repeating myself. I’ve made more sense at times talking in my sleep. Gotta take a break and recharge my crackpot ideas. I’ll check back tomorrow and see if you guys had the heart for any more. Thanks.

]]> By: Mark Teppo http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2007/08/22/the-case-for-and-against-dick/comment-page-1/#comment-1155 Mark Teppo Thu, 23 Aug 2007 22:13:59 +0000 http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2007/08/22/the-case-for-and-against-dick/#comment-1155 I, um, need to think about that. I think they do, but it's not (consciously, at least) how I've been approaching them (or the level of introspective that has been involved). I, um, need to think about that. I think they do, but it’s not (consciously, at least) how I’ve been approaching them (or the level of introspective that has been involved).

]]> By: jeff ford http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2007/08/22/the-case-for-and-against-dick/comment-page-1/#comment-1154 jeff ford Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:16:40 +0000 http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2007/08/22/the-case-for-and-against-dick/#comment-1154 Mark: Good post, but I wasn't the one arguing for superiority of a given writer or his/her style over another. My point is that the way Dick conveys his ideas is the way he must. For Dick, Dick's writing is awesome. He can't convey the ideas of Joyce, only Joyce can. Because Joyce's approach is complex, does complexity supersede clarity? I don't even know that I'd call Dick's approach "clarity." Or Joyce's complex for that matter. Perhaps they are things too different to compare? Is there any benefit to comparing Dick to Joyce as far as their "prose" goes. I doubt Joyce could have written Valis. In academia Joyce is always the one they roll out to trump any other writer or any other writing. Sometimes in life you gotta have "The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch" and Joyce just ain't gonna do. Only the 3 Stigmata will help, will save, will solve the problem, will entertain, and Finnegan's Wake just seems a worthless brick. But my question still remains -- Do Dick's ideas that you get out of Valis every year, do they have nothing to do with the language used to convey them. Mark: Good post, but I wasn’t the one arguing for superiority of a given writer or his/her style over another. My point is that the way Dick conveys his ideas is the way he must. For Dick, Dick’s writing is awesome. He can’t convey the ideas of Joyce, only Joyce can. Because Joyce’s approach is complex, does complexity supersede clarity? I don’t even know that I’d call Dick’s approach “clarity.” Or Joyce’s complex for that matter. Perhaps they are things too different to compare? Is there any benefit to comparing Dick to Joyce as far as their “prose” goes. I doubt Joyce could have written Valis. In academia Joyce is always the one they roll out to trump any other writer or any other writing. Sometimes in life you gotta have “The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch” and Joyce just ain’t gonna do. Only the 3 Stigmata will help, will save, will solve the problem, will entertain, and Finnegan’s Wake just seems a worthless brick. But my question still remains — Do Dick’s ideas that you get out of Valis every year, do they have nothing to do with the language used to convey them.

]]>