EDITORIAL :
I am particularly happy with this issue of Fruitless Recursion as it introduces a couple of innovations; it is the first issue to include an interview and it is the first issue to devote more than one piece to a particular subject. Luckily enough, the three Lovecraft-related pieces demonstrate exactly why interviewing critics is a good idea.
Indeed, consider my reviews of Houelebecq's H.P. Lovecraft: Against the World, Against Life and Marice Levy's Lovecraft: A Study in the Fantastic and consider them in the light of my interview with S. T. Joshi and you'll see something quite interesting going on. In my review of Levy, I accuse him of letting his preconceptions cloud his understanding of Lovecraft. In fact, this conceptual bias is the reason why my review of Levy's work is less favourable than my review of Houellebecq's. However, when I asked Joshi about both of these works, he downplayed the importance of Houellebecq's book on precisely these same grounds. Namely that Houellebecq allows his preconceptions to cloud his judgment. Clearly the fact that I agree with much of Houellebecq's world-view made his conceptual bias tolerable whereas my dislike for fantasy (and the sacred) made Levy's work seem stilted and poorly argued. I suspect that the same is true of Joshi's view of the two texts, demonstrating that knowing a bit about where critics are writing from is probably quite useful.
Setting Lovecraft aside, we are also lucky enough to have two rather splendid reviews by Duncan Lawie and Karen Burnham.
Karen's review of David Seed's epic anthology of critical writings A Companion to Science Fiction, is a great read. Not only is it an insightful piece about an evidently rather uneven collection, it is also animated by an incredibly waspish sense of humour. All it needs is a dry martini and a 1920s Manhattan hotel bar and Dorothy Parker starts springing to mind.
Duncan's piece is a real work of retro-criticism in that it reviews a book that was published in the 1960s. The Issue at Hand by William Atheling, Jr. is a true classic of SF criticism. Drawn from a series of columns written by James Blish under a nom de plume, the collection stands out (as Duncan correctly says) due to its incredibly concrete focus. Indeed, where most contemporary critics write about plot and characterisation, Blish writes about the technical aspects of genre from story construction to grammar. Unfortunately, with fewer and fewer people being taught grammar and composition, this style of criticism seems likely to stay an endangered species.
Thanks for reading :-)
Indeed, consider my reviews of Houelebecq's H.P. Lovecraft: Against the World, Against Life and Marice Levy's Lovecraft: A Study in the Fantastic and consider them in the light of my interview with S. T. Joshi and you'll see something quite interesting going on. In my review of Levy, I accuse him of letting his preconceptions cloud his understanding of Lovecraft. In fact, this conceptual bias is the reason why my review of Levy's work is less favourable than my review of Houellebecq's. However, when I asked Joshi about both of these works, he downplayed the importance of Houellebecq's book on precisely these same grounds. Namely that Houellebecq allows his preconceptions to cloud his judgment. Clearly the fact that I agree with much of Houellebecq's world-view made his conceptual bias tolerable whereas my dislike for fantasy (and the sacred) made Levy's work seem stilted and poorly argued. I suspect that the same is true of Joshi's view of the two texts, demonstrating that knowing a bit about where critics are writing from is probably quite useful.
Setting Lovecraft aside, we are also lucky enough to have two rather splendid reviews by Duncan Lawie and Karen Burnham.
Karen's review of David Seed's epic anthology of critical writings A Companion to Science Fiction, is a great read. Not only is it an insightful piece about an evidently rather uneven collection, it is also animated by an incredibly waspish sense of humour. All it needs is a dry martini and a 1920s Manhattan hotel bar and Dorothy Parker starts springing to mind.
Duncan's piece is a real work of retro-criticism in that it reviews a book that was published in the 1960s. The Issue at Hand by William Atheling, Jr. is a true classic of SF criticism. Drawn from a series of columns written by James Blish under a nom de plume, the collection stands out (as Duncan correctly says) due to its incredibly concrete focus. Indeed, where most contemporary critics write about plot and characterisation, Blish writes about the technical aspects of genre from story construction to grammar. Unfortunately, with fewer and fewer people being taught grammar and composition, this style of criticism seems likely to stay an endangered species.
Thanks for reading :-)
- Jonathan McCalmont
(Editor)
THIS ISSUE'S PIECES :
INTERESTING LINKS :
As ever, if you come across any interesting reviews or hear of any books that are worth checking out then drop me a line.
(Editor)
THIS ISSUE'S PIECES :
- Duncan Lawie's review of William Atheling, Jr.'s The Issue at Hand.
- Karen Burnham's review of David Seed's A Companion to Science Fiction.
- Jonathan McCalmont's review of Houellebecq's H.P. Lovecraft: Against the World, Against Life.
- Jonathan McCalmont's review of Maurice Levy's Lovecraft: A Study in the Fantastic.
- Jonathan McCalmont's interview of S. T. Joshi.
INTERESTING LINKS :
- Every year, the British Science Fiction Association puts out a shortlist of notable works of genre criticism. Nominations are currently open and Martin Lewis has set up a thread on the BSFA's forum in which people can discuss their nominations.
- Regarding Martin's suggestions : Keller's V for Vendetta as Cultural Pastiche has only received a little online discussion. By contrast, Gibbons, Kidd and Essl's Watching the Watchmen has received quite a bit more. There has also been some discussion of Nevins' Impossible Territories, a book about Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comics. Meadows' Studio Space also seems interesting. As does Wagner, Golden and Bissette's Prince of Stories : The Many world of Neil Gaiman.
- Farah Mendlesohn has also done some checking as to what might be eligible and she suggests looking at Superheroes! by Roz Kaveney, Tolkien on Fairy Stories, by Tolkien with Flieger and Anderson and Hal Duncan's long summer blog posts about SF, Fantasy and Horror. She also suggests some other stuff but it's either offline or it has been linked to on here before.
- Also worth looking at is John Enzinas' review of Lawrence Watt-Evans' The Turtle Moves!, yet another book about Pratchett's Discworld.
- Tammy Moore's review of the utterly preposterous Grimoire of the Necronomicon by Donald Tyson, a book attempting to pull together a formal system of worship based upon the writings of Lovecraft.
- David Maddox's review of Dalek : I Loved you by Nick Griffiths, which also got a very sweet Paul Raven review in the latest issue of Vector but unfortunately it is not (yet) online.
As ever, if you come across any interesting reviews or hear of any books that are worth checking out then drop me a line.
Regarding Martin's suggestions
I'm shocked that you could mistake my prose style for James Bacon's! And Simon Guerrier reviewed the Dalek book, not Paul Raven.
Nice piece by Karen, I will have to check out the Companion.
Posted by: Martin | December 09, 2008 at 11:05 AM