Why Are so Many of the Great Writers in Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Falling into Neglect ?

[KGeo777]

Really?
I would have thought that the 20th century was the great era for the democratisation of the arts, hand in hand with widespread education, public health, and the social safety net..

Only through technology--like the internet or consumer digital creation tools. The corporate side is entirely undemocratic and no longer based on public merit or artist merit. I was getting a red flag feeling when Harry Potter came on the scene because it felt like Rowling was getting a lot of artificial boost in the media that no author had ever enjoyed--Harry Potter was a globalist mascot.
Ironically, if the globalist corporate system that exists now had been around in 1960, it is likely Akira Kurosawa would be totally obscure--since it was thanks to the independent film work of Roger Corman that Kurosawa films were shown in North America. Global art does not really appreciate national art (which is what it was for thousands of years before the corporate era--one size fits all art for the globe is something that has only been contemplated in the last 20 years--more about experimental social engineering than true artistic expression).

 

[hitmouse]

Whatever you think of the corporate behemoth of the Harry Potter industry, or even of the merits of the original books, I do not think that your argument logically follows, or justifies your statement:
The 20th century saw the splitting of art into two camps--art for the elite and art for the public.
Which I still dispute. I think that you are conflating a number of different arguments.

 

[KGeo777]

The 20th century saw the splitting of art into two camps--art for the elite and art for the public.
Which I still dispute. I think that you are conflating a number of different arguments.

I would say Frankenstein and Gulliver's Travels were examples of works that were regarded pretty much the same by critics (who tended to be writers themselves in their day) and audiences. I do not think the same could be said about The Sun Also Rises, Catcher in the Rye, and many other works that were considered "important" in the 20th century.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Maybe we should get back to discussing SFFH writers.

I, for one, don't find Hemingway or Salinger particularly relevant to this topic.

 

[KGeo777]

They aren't. They are the "official" literary writers of that split in fiction which happened in the early 20th (as noted by Lovecraft).

 

[Extollager]

The question that supplied the title for this thread begged more than one question. It assumed that there are numerous ("so many") great authors who are neglected.

• What does "many" mean in this context? When I used to teach freshman composition, I had to get after students who used "many" when they couldn't come up with more than two or three (causes, benefits, or whatever)!

• What does "great" mean in this context? Unfortunately, though it hasn't happened on this particular thread, too often when someone refers to a "great" author, after a little discussion someone will assert that "greatness" is just a matter of subjective preference or popularity, etc., yada yada, i.e. there really is no such thing. There is such a thing. It is possible to use "great" in such a way that the word has meaningful content and, accordingly, can be used in discussion. Is Paradise Lost a great poem or not? C. S. Lewis thought so, T. S. Eliot (if I'm not mistaken) didn't, at least for a time. There could be a worthwhile discussion of the idea because "poetic greatness" was not a merely emotive term. These readers could have stated for us qualities that they thought a poem, or an author, had to possess, in order to be "great," and these were more than simply matters of personal preference.

• What does "neglected" mean in this context? This was never explained. "Neglected" could mean

---allowed to remain out of print for a sufficient period of time that the author's works were hard to come by and, so, were not finding the readers who would enjoy them

---in print, but overlooked or ignored by purchasers and readers for some reason that could be discussed, e.g. terrible cover art

---absent from discussions where the work(s) ought to be mentioned; for example, if a history of modern fantasy fiction in English was released that had nothing to say about Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea books, we would say that that history had neglected these important (perhaps even "great") works -- although, as long as they were being read anyway, I myself would hesitate to say the Earthsea books "are neglected"


At any rate, it does seem like it's time to come to grips with the assumptions of the thread question and decide whether or not it's been phrased appropriately, or might, rather, have been better, though more cumbersomely, phrased:

Are There Any Great Authors of SF, Fantasy, or Horror Whose Works Are Neglected? If So, Who, and Why?

Does anyone want to nominate an author, or a work, that the reader really does think is (a) great and (b) truly neglected?

I'm not sure there is even one.

I'm not sure that Edgar Pangborn is a great genre author. But, in any event, when I went looking on Amazon, it appeared to me that his major works are all in print.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0575116927/?tag=brite0a7-20

So -- can someone name even one great, but neglected, genre author?

 

[hitmouse]

I think defining greatness is always going to be problematic. I recall a scene in the film Dead Poets Society where a textbook is used to define greatness (or something like it) in terms of dimensions which could be plotted on a graph. The whole point was that this is a fundamentally silly exercise.

An attempt in the SF world to do something similar, was made by one of our old members, Owlcroft (not seen here for a number of years), who maintained a large website rating SF authors and books. Whilst I have some issues with his critical method, some of it might be relevant to the current discussion, as is his book list which is extensive and which contains some interesting essays.

 

[Extollager]

Hitmouse, I believe a serious alternative to "greatness" (other than "popular" or "influential") can be made, but I'm not going to go into it now in any detail.

I do believe that a work could be great even if hardly anyone read it; and something could be beautiful even if hardly anyone thought so.

These two often get mixed up with "taste," which is a distinct matter.

Suffice to say that a good written work invites, even requires, good reading, and that good reading is describable. Good reading is more, or different, than mere egoistic consolation (=daydreaming, etc.). Good reading is alert, simultaneously, to multiple levels of experience, e.g. to the sounds of words as well as their sense; to the ebb and flow of excitement that an author provides; to a work's adequacy as engaging with perennial human concerns -- and so on. The Lord of the Rings is a great work, and would await good readers if it didn't happen to have any.

But the original poster used "great" without explaining what "great" meant, and we rose to the bait, perhaps too quickly!

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Some reasons why older authors are not being read is because the fashions of the times have their writing style out of favor. Going in and out of favor has always been a problem for staying popular. I could be wrong but I don't think the original purpose of science fiction was to put as the world turns on a space ship. I'd prefer to think it's unusual ways of thinking that change people's minds, not new ways of doing the same old thing. When we reach a point where one can't find old stories then I would start to wonder what's happening. Word of mouth is always a good way to keep things in view.

 

[Bick]

think even Lovecraft now enjoys more popular affection than Hemingway

My feeling is this is not at all true.

But back on topic - what a robust discussion Baylor has generated! For what it’s worth I can’t actually think of a great SFF author who is neglected especially. There are some who I personally feel it would be nice if they got more love from bookstores (I never see any Vance on the shelves of physical bookshops these days for instance) but internet shops are my friend here - such authors are still published (so not neglected exactly) just printed in relatively small runs presumably.

 

[KGeo777]

Lovecraft does enjoy more popularity in the public than Hemingway. He or Cthulhu is referenced far more by other artists than anything Hemingway wrote. In fact, so much of Hemingway (like Picasso's relationships) was about the man, more so than the art. It is a good litmus test--is the artist better known than the works they did? Check out these entries:

Hemingwayesque - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

compared with:

Lovecraftian - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

Notice which one has more content.

 

[Randy M.]

Not sure that's a legit litmus test, KGeo. Fans of sf/f/h have traditionally been more vocal about their likes and dislikes than the audience for literary classics. (And yes, I know there's an overlap.)

Take another measure, and check out the masses of paper produced in literary studies on authors, my bet is Papa is still the heavy weight, though HPL might be gaining some.

Randy M.

 

[Bick]

Lovecraft does enjoy more popularity in the public than Hemingway. He or Cthulhu is referenced far more by other artists than anything Hemingway wrote. In fact, so much of Hemingway (like Picasso's relationships) was about the man, more so than the art. It is a good litmus test--is the artist better known than the works they did? Check out these entries:

Hemingwayesque - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

compared with:

Lovecraftian - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

Notice which one has more content.

That's a meaningless comparison of hand-picked terms which proves nothing. In fact, I think each and every sentence I've quoted above is nonsense, to be honest.

Lovecraftian is a word that's used widely by SFF fans (though by very few in the mainstream) as he helped create a new sub-genre of 'weird' writing. Hemingway wrote non-genre works simply in a recognisable writing style, so he's bound to be less categorised in the sense of a term to describe his work - it means nothing. I would suggest that, outside of SFF geeks, Lovecraft actually has limited cultural presence, certainly much less than Hemingway, who every Tom, Dick and Harry has heard of. If I were to ask all my friends and relatives (who read) if they know anything of Lovecraft, I can guarantee I'd get blank looks from most of them - he's has little or no cultural presence amongst non-genre readers - very few SFF writers do, in fact.

 

[KGeo777]

But I said fantasy has a longer shelf life than slice of life. That's why I knew Hemingway didn't stand a chance. There has never been much enthusiasm for slice of life except among establishment publishing and academics and the constant PC revisionism associated with it works against the genre as well. Considering that Lovecraft died in 1930s and Hemingway in 1960s Lovecraft has done remarkably well to achieve artistic success in the popular imagination and culture (and supports the point he made about the narrow tastes of NY publishing).

 

[KGeo777]

It's not meaningless. That is a user-controlled encyclopedia and one has more enthusiasm from the public than the other. And Lovecraft has three other words listed for him at the bottom too. As I said, slice of life does not have a long shelf life in the culture. Even Dickens most famous work is a ghost story.

 

[Bick]

It's not meaningless. That is a user-controlled encyclopedia and one has more enthusiasm from the public than the other. And Lovecraft has three other words listed for him at the bottom too. As I said, slice of life does not have a long shelf life in the culture. Even Dickens most famous work is a ghost story.

Sorry - but I find your whole thesis to be flawed and untrue. And Great Expectations isn't a ghost story, its a slice of life novel . As is Bleak House, Our Mutual Friend, Oliver Twist, and David Copperfield, all of whom I would suggest are at least as widely read and regarded as his Christmas books and they are more numerous.
I know you have said that "slice of life does not have a long shelf life in the culture" but I see no evidence for that statement whatsoever; you just say it like its a known fact... when it clearly isn't. Most of the authors that have best survived the passage of time from the 1800's (Bronte's, Elliot, Austen, Hardy, Dickens, Trollope, Thackeray, James, Melville, Tolstoy, Turgenev etc.) wrote slice of life, as you call it. Some others wrote fantasy or fantastic adventure (Stoker, Shelley, Poe, Haggard, Wells etc.), but I would suggest these latter authors are actually read less these days than the so called slice of life authors, by the general public. They are certainly less prominent in books stores and found much less on my friends' and relatives' bookshelves.

 

[KGeo777]

A Christmas Carol is without any doubt Dickens most famous work in the culture of society.
Literary critics and academics (and the artists) have no power in this. An artist's work is ultimately judged by the public--and artists who come from the public and reference it in their work. Mary Shelley's novel is more famous and influential than anything Jane Austen wrote. The public doesn't even need to read the book--the fact that it gets referenced in other works is evidence that the artist has made a cultural impact. I just wish I can find who made the observation I cited earlier--it was something like "for thousands of years fantasy was the dominant genre in literature--until the 20th century--but before long it would go back to normal again." Tried finding the source but to no avail.

 

[hitmouse]

need

Mary Shelley's novel is more famous and influential than anything Jane Austen wrote.

Please justify, or somehow quantify this sweeping statement.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Sorry - but I find your whole thesis to be flawed and untrue. And Great Expectations isn't a ghost story, its a slice of life novel . As is Bleak House, Our Mutual Friend, Oliver Twist, and David Copperfield, all of whom I would suggest are at least as widely read and regarded as his Christmas books and they are more numerous.
I know you have said that "slice of life does not have a long shelf life in the culture" but I see no evidence for that statement whatsoever; you just say it like its a known fact... when it clearly isn't. Most of the authors that have best survived the passage of time from the 1800's (Bronte's, Elliot, Austen, Hardy, Dickens, Trollope, Thackeray, James, Melville, Tolstoy, Turgenev etc.) wrote slice of life, as you call it. Some others wrote fantasy or fantastic adventure (Stoker, Shelley, Poe, Haggard, Wells etc.), but I would suggest these latter authors are actually read less these days than the so called slice of life authors, by the general public. They are certainly less prominent in books stores and found much less on my friends' and relatives' bookshelves.

Although it's hard to put actual quantities to statements, for example - for which literary work 'enjoys more publicity' - I would have to concur with your thoughts Bick.

But to try and put some number to this

A quick perusal of the good people of Goodreads has
Dickens: Average rating:3.88 · 2,813,223 ratings · 80,687 reviews
Hemmingway: Average rating:3.83 1,820,660 ratings · 65,175 reviews
HP Lovecraft Average rating:4.07 · 454,738 ratings · 23,416 reviews

(not these are stats for all their works that are listed in Goodreads under the authors name)

So on that evidence, members of the Joe public, or to be fair, the reading public that actually uses Goodreads and puts ratings in - would not put HP Lovecraft as more popular. And I'd say that's probably a reasonable (or perhaps a slightly better) subset of the total reading population.

Oh and 'A Christmas Carol' is the third most rated work by Dickens, the top two are 'A Tale of Two Cities' and 'Great Expectations'. Personally I'm a 'Bleak House' kinda guy, but 'Great Expectations' is pretty exceptional too!

 

[Bick]

A Christmas Carol is without any doubt Dickens most famous work in the culture of society.

Mary Shelley's novel is more famous and influential than anything Jane Austen wrote.

Again, two statements presented as commonly agreed fact, but which are in my view complete nonsense. I’m starting to think you’re just trolling...