You offer a unitary criterion in place of the multiple criteria involved in earlier pronounccements. I would say all could be important in judging a horror film. Thus, you're not a pluralist.

When I say all of a comics genre is "crude kids' comics," then this will have some application. I don't think all superhero comics are crude or aimed at kids.

Cool.

Charles,

"Calling someone who only watches HBO shows, TWIN PEAKS and a few other quality programs in the history of tv an elitist is goofy... These [high/low] distinctions exist because of politics and should be dealt with since they have ramifications in art. But one isn't bound to the if one chooses not to be. However...about the only way you could fit me...into your categories is to refer to me as a pluralist elitist, who loves things from all genres, all media to which he's been properly exposed and both sides of those politically designated categories, but judges examples within those categories with a demand for a certain level of quality, as defined by a constantly evolving set of criteria (with some subsets being limited to particular media, form or content). However, 'pluralism' fails here to the degree that I prize intelligence across the board (although I love plenty of dumb stuff) and 'elitism' fails because I love so much from the politically defined opposite categories, which any elitist worth his salt would only denigrate... [these catagories] have no relevance in describing my own aesthetics. Let the snobbish and no taste dipshits fight about it. I prefer talking about the art and what it means to me. "

That is a sweet post. Especially the bits I left in, in my summary. Spot on and clear.

[Degression warning.]
I've not read Lem at all, but I liked the movie SOLARIS. HMV sounds intriguing - I'll give it a go when I get the chance.

Re: an author's insight: I thought Asimov had some interesting things to say about 'the real world' in some of his non-fiction writings. His fiction not so much. Overpopulation was a concern of his, and he incorporated that a bit into his Robot/Murder Mystery novels, but not in a way I found particularly resonant. Caves of Steel and Naked Sun were okay, but their appeal was basically as scifi variations of the 'locked room' mystery. (Naked Sun had a nice twist on it, with the 'locked room' being a whole planet, populated by a bazillion robots and the handful of usual suspects.) The other thing they had was a (by Asimov's standards) well rounded, likeable, substantial main character in Elijah Bailey.

However, it was the third of these scifi/detection books, Robots of Dawn, that I thought had real resonance; a sort of power Asimov's not attained elsewhere, even though he was probably not trying so specifically to have real world parallels. Instead of having a contrived overcrowded setting, or uber-undercrowed setting, he went for an inbetween world where robots were perhaps akin to slaves of old, with privileged "freemen" engaging in the politics of the republic. He also really started to invest in the character of Bailey (who was, I suspect, his most autobiographically pertinent protagonist). His writing style (competent but prosaic) suited the subject. There was at once a more human sense to the book than Asimov tends to get, and a genuinely alien feel to the environment he created. He also wrote some great interview set pieces.

Then there was the successful pulloff of the 'double climax'. The first (obvious) climax satisfactorily resolves the extent issues. Then comes the real reveal that gets to the heart of the mystery. Some mightn't like the later as it relied on a kind of supernatural twist. I thought it fine within the scifi context, given that it had been fairly hinted at. I also thought it related ultimately to the main subtext of the book: That desire for exploration (of one kind or another), and direct experience of the new, is integral to being human.

On the other hand, I read it years ago, and may be reading too much into it. But if I were to make a case for Asimov having real world relevance, that would be it.

I said:

'I know you've written a lotta stuff about how you love genre, but your remarks always seem deprecatory, as with the remark about "crude kids comics."'

Here's another such remark, a response to Bring Back Zot from 7-25-07, about Harry Potter, something you apparently didn't even freakin' READ:

'"The Harry Potter series succeeds brilliantly where almost all comics fail. It has characters you care about, spiritual themes, courage, unexpected plot twists, and is about the ultimate battle of good vs. evil. (BBZ)"

That sounds pretty generic, but even so, it's probably better than most commercial comics.'

I know, I know. You'll claim that what you're assailing here (as in an earlier post you did years ago, where you quoted Harold Bloom's attack on Rowling with evident approval) is not "genre," but "lack of significant quality."

I think, rather, that this statement shows that you have no deep appreciation for the elements that make "genre" what it is-- the repeated elements that you tend to view as "generic" or "conventional"-- and that your supposed "love" for the genre is only for those examples of the genre that you perceive as exceeding the conventional, or at least, what you deem conventional.

More later, when I've read the newer stuff.

My only approval of Bloom's review was that it was written. It's good to have such viewpoints in this world.

Most commercial comics are pretty generic. As is most genre work. I don't believe one has to appreciate a story with a robot in it unless it's a good story with a robot in it. Just like one doesn't have to love bad books in order to love to read.

And it might be prudent to point out that even the most generic, or conventional (assuming you mean something akin to generic and not merely 'uses conventions'), is almost never going to be merely about the appearance of some generic element, or convention. There are themes or subtexts that tend to be attached to these elements, often so tightly that those themes have become generic, as well -- unless treated otherwise. Wish fulfillment being the most obvious for superheroes. Also, there's going to be a whole mess of philosophical thought that will be connoted by just about any story, regardless of how bland or crude or stupid the story may be. One can't really do a superpowered being without connoting something about the morality of power, for example. Whether or not the story meets the challenge of these themes is the basis for evaluation, not (as you so often seem to suggest) the mere connotation of these complexities. Which brings me to:

stevv,

The appearance of a conscious robot detective is going to connote issues regarding AI, the meaning of humanity, etc., and I have no idea whether Asimov does a good job with those themes as I've not read the stories. Based on your analysis, it seems he does to some degree. I was just hypothetically taking the robot detective example as one where the story is more about the mere appearance of a robot than what such an appearance might mean. Robots are cool, but give me CYBERIAD over LOST IN SPACE.

From one POV I can see why one might agree with the final statement. From another I can see why it might be problematic.

S.T. Coleridge once more or less downgraded his own "Ancient Mariner" poem with being a little too preoccupied with aspects of real-world morality, in answering some critic who thought the poem had no moral:

'The moral is so plainly set forth that one
wonders how Mrs. Barbauld could ever have complained, as Coleridge tells
us she did, that the poem "had no moral." His reply is worth recording:
"I told her that in my opinion the poem had too much; and that the only,
or chief fault, if I might say so, was the obtrusion of the moral
sentiment so openly on the reader as a principle or cause of action in a
work of such pure imagination. It ought to have had no more moral than
the Arabian Nights' tale of the merchant's sitting down to eat dates by
the side of a well, and throwing the shells aside, and lo! a genie
starts up, and says he _must_ kill the aforesaid merchant, because one
of the date shells had, it seems, put out the eye of the genie's son."'

http://www.fullbooks.com/Coleridge-s-Ancient-Mariner-and-Select1.html

"You offer a unitary criterion in place of the multiple criteria involved in earlier pronounccements. I would say all could be important in judging a horror film. Thus, you're not a pluralist."

I **think** you're referencing this:

"The criterion for excellence in a horror film becomes, "Does it scare audiences?" as opposed to earlier unitary pronoucements as to literary worth"

But that's not a unitary criterion in the sense of my sentence, because it's being applied to the horror work for which it's designed, rather than across the board, to all genres. What I styled "unitary pronoucements as to literary worth" are more tyrannizing, saying, in essence, "If you don't allegorize your horrors into something relevant I'm not interested." Or as you say on the 30 DAYS OF NIGHT thread:

"I really love horror films which might be called allegorical, such as EYES WIHTOUT A FACE and NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, where much of the horror comes from it's suggestion of real world horrific events (Vietnam) or worries (issues regarding the body or identity)."

I have no problem with this statement as an expression of personal taste. I have reservations about using it as the foundation of a critical aesthetics for all genres, though (see Coleridge citation).

Gene, it's as if you don't see the humor in Coleridge's reply. You take what's a witty rebuttal to some moralistic ninny and act as if it's an aesthetic proscription. Do you really think that Coldridge sees his work as nothing more than an imaginative diversion to the realworld or that a work that's equally imaginative but also tells us much about some aspect of us and our world isn't more significant as art than such a diversion? Ceteris paribus, "more good things" is better than "less good things" or "only one good thing." If you want to say some well-crafted, fairly imaginative, but ultimately pointless piece of fantasy art is better than some well-told, but average story of a breakup, however universal it might be, then I'll gladly side with you. If, however, you want to ignore all other aspects of Borges' writing so that you can put other fantasy writers on his level based on some limited notion of "imagination" or "creativity," then you're being ridiculous.

Stevv--

Re CAVES OF STEEL and its "real world relevance," it depends on what you're looking for as an index of relevance is complex symbolism or something closer to allegory. I favor Frye's view that allegory is "forced metaphor" and I tend to rate it a little lower on the creativity scale.

For instance, you touch on the theme of overpopulation in CAVES, which you didn't find particularly memorable. That is what I would tend to call the book's allegorical meaning, in which Asimov is meditating on how a given set of current-day real-world circumstances may change things.

I did find, on recent rereading, some levels of complex symbolism of which I doubt Asimov was particularly aware. The whole business with his psychologizing of his wife Jezebel was interesting because on the face of it, it sounded like just a "bit of business" IA threw out for no reason. But given some of the other Biblical references that crop up in CAVES, I lean toward the view that Asimov was a little more creatively influenced by Biblical scriptures than one might think from his very public stance as a science-oriented atheist.

However, it's not likely that I'll analyze the whole novel on this site. But this mini-analysis may suffice to distinguish two differing forms of "relevance" (not the best term...)

"As is most genre work. I don't believe one has to appreciate a story with a robot in it unless it's a good story with a robot in it."

The question is still the problem of defining the Good. Your statement to BBZ stresses the unlikelihood (based on BBZ's description) that Potter is anything but generic. It's a question of perspective. You read "battle of good and evil" and you think "generic." I don't, which is one reason I claim to be a pluralist and don't think that you are. Are there more bad stories about "good vs. evil" than good ones? Sure, but given the context of HP's success I tend to wonder if there's something particularly resonant in Rowling's treatment of the theme. From your statement it would seem that you are less likely to think so.