YOUR 5 Cents Worth
by The Readers
Wynn Manners
Oakland University
Rochester Michigan, 48063
Pickering's latest article is, at least, readable. It doesn't do much more
than say goshwow, I think this film is good (altho in a more reserved and
"erudite" manner) and give alotta quotes, but it doesn't leave me utterly
flabbergasted as did the other two. You're improving, Stevie boy. But...
I won't raise to any great defense of Ted White since I haven't read anything
by him, but re: Judy Merrill, White's got Truth, Honor and Motherhood (not
counting Wynn Manners) behind him every centipede step of the way.
Now I expect Steve should like Judy -- they're two of a kind. Both of them
make the same mistake in their criticism: they mistake pigeon-holing and
labelling for values and standards. They don't read or evaluate a work for
what it is: they read it to classify it into their set little categories and
they criticize the category, not the work at hand. This is an easy kind of
criticism: they've already formed their value judgments. It makes for facile
classification and it does much for proving their theses about the direction
modern s-f is taking or should take. Afterall, each work they evaluate they
cut down to fit their mold, and sure enuf, the mold-image proves their point.
Point at hand: Steve's classification of Heinlein as a Birchist. Ironically
enuf, Pickering seems to have much in common with the Birchites -- the same
narrowness of views and the same catch-all labels -- and all thinking is a
classifying within those labels.
The sad thing is, and the thing which makes all "thinkers" of this mode look
utterly foolish, is that all people and works simply don't classify within
these easy, limited categories. Often as not these "thinkers'" ideas of
something are about as far from the truth as a hundred and eighty degrees can
get. But they can't admit it -- for their thesis is their God, and if they did
admit it, it sure as Hell would be sacrilege. Little minds don't seem to be
able to grasp the world in any other way.
I don't call this intellectualism. I call it pseudo-intellectualism. I take
no stand against the intellectual: I come with due humility to listen,
criticize and perchance admire and incorporate his perceptions. However, I do
take a definite stand against the sham intellectual: and I say that Merrill
and Pickering often become such. This is not to say that the things they
criticize are not criticizable and/or don't deserve sober evaluation: this is
simply to say that that criticism cannot take the form of squeezing works or
people into petrified categories and then lambasting or warbling the
categories. This kind of criticism is a criticism of straw men and straw books
which exist nowhere but in the critic's limited imagination.
Critic-wise I personally find that the best one writing in the prozines now is
Algis Budrys. I almost pick up Galaxy just to read him, but usually I figure
that isn't quite enuf to shell out the 60 cents for, so I read his column at
the newstand and then put the mag back on the shelf! Budrys doesn't seem to
have an ax to grind as does Merrill, and he isn't automatically turned to
gushing approbations simply upon seeing the names of Norton or Merrill on a
book as P. Schuyler Miller is (and he doesn't seem to be severely restricted as
to what he's allowed to say as I suspect P. Schuyler is). He takes a book and
evaluates and analyzes it for what it is, for what it purports to be. He does
have values and standards he measures each book against -- defined and obvious
(Miller's aren't) yet flexible enough to deal with each book on its own ground
(as Merrill's aren't). One may not agree with Budrys, no critic believing in
free thot would demand it (tho notice Pickering is quite antagonistic towards
anyone who doesn't yea-yea his wole conglomerated body of misconceptions) --
but you can be certain that you'll know by what standards he judged the book
and exaactly how and why it does or does not measure up to those standards. I
get the feeling Budrys has dealt with the book honestly -- and if you're going
to disagree with him, you'll know from the review where it'll be. He's been
that explicit about the matter. With Merrill, however, after you've read the
book, you're liable to find out she hasn't even reviewed THAT book. The book
she's reviewed doesn't and never did exist.
Pickering's categorizations are further demonstrated in his letter by that
McCarthyism business. "McCarthyism" here is of course used as a nhasty word,
badly connotative, implying C E N S O R, enemy of free thot and whatlike.
Mebbe there's been a few suchlike that Pickering's met -- but all the voices
I've heard have criticized him for reasons similar to those I've used. At
worst they've said he's making an awful ass of himself and that he isn't the
intellectual he's deluded himself into believing he is. Pickering doesn't
bother listening or reading or trying to comprehend what his critics really say
and mean. What his critics are saying is critical of him. This is bad. He
pigeon-holes it immediately into the "bad" pigeon-holes, McCarthyism and Anti-
intellectualism. Sure, they don't fit into either of them, but that's were
Pickering has put them, and you can't tell him either, because that too is
criticism, which is bad, which ends up in exactly the same spot.
And if I've fallen prey to the same pitfall of categorical classification in
this tirade myself, may the Great Gods forgive me ---- and, o yes, you too,
Steve.
"Incidentally, in spite of" Fred Phillips's "much-appreciated compliment at the
end of his comments in the lettercol of NEM 10, I would like to point out" that
I fear he's read both my letter and Mr. Pickering's article rather
superficially. I don't really consider myself a genuine intellectual, altho I
make an attempt at being as knowledgeable and perceptive as I can, but I don't
think a genuine intellectual is one who talks about being an intellectual, or,
in fact, attempts to become an "intellectual" as such. As for Steve's first
article, it was intellectual and erudite sounding but it had no logic in
reality, and thereby no real applicability. Steve's vocabulary sounds
"excellent and erudite" but when you get down to brass tacks on a sentence and
ask: what do these words mean in this context, what does this sentence add up
to? you get garbled meaninglessness. They simply don't work together. Steve
knows several impressive-sounding words, but he doesn't know how to use them
properly. This blocks whatever thots he may have from communicating. Now
reading his article in a superficial manner with a vague idea of what the words
mean may end up with you reading some of your ideas and meanings into the
article. I'm afraid this is what you've done, Fred. You've been hoodwinked.
My point was, when you really read it, there's no meaning. And if I'm wrong,
I've yet to hear what the meaning is.
With the anti-intellectualism article, Steve was more cogent with his language.
There were still errors in logic and applicability (to steal yr. terms again).
In fact, I can hardly envy what I feel is a fault. Steve may well have quite a
bit of worthwhile things to say -- but he needs to say them and avoid
jargonese. A good vocabulary is fine, but one must make it say what one means -
- and, one must have something meaningful to say with it.
And whence think you came the Parables but from journeyings within my own
soul?
(Yeah, a rather arid soul, what eh?)
****
Failure to capture
Moment, season. Not-captured
I've captured. Success!
--Rene Taonna
****
[pp. 45 - 49, NO-EYED MONSTER #11, Spring 1967]
Updated June 26, 2001. If you have a comment about these web pages please send a note to the Fanac Webmaster. Thank you.