Accessibility

[coalescent]

Following on from the duelling reviews of Learning the World that immortalradical and I had at Strange Horizons the other week, and from this conversation about valid critical opinions (which itself spun off from this post by Matt Cheney about this story by Eliot Fintushel), greengolux has a fascinating post here about accessibility as a quality of fiction:

The questions I've been asking myself in relation to all this are: can a reader who is outside of the target audience make a reasonable judgement about the quality of a work, and can a work's overall quality be judged on the size of the audience it's targeted at?

These are not questions with particularly easy or obvious answers, as the resulting discussion shows. They are also questions that come up time and again in discussions about sf, as John Scalzi's recent discussions about 'entry-level' science fiction, and all the satellite discussions of that concept, demonstrate.

After linking to all that discussion, I'm not sure there's a lot I can add, except a brief position statement. I think the answer to greengolux's first question has to be 'yes and no'. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I'm sure I'm on record somewhere as saying that an outside (or 'naive', for non-pejorative values of 'naive') perspective is valuable. It's one of the reasons I value immortalradical's reviews, and more broadly, why some of the most interesting and useful reviews can be the ones I disagree with. But I also think that, as an outsider to something, it is possible to Just Not Get It. Like greengolux, that's my basic reaction to Jane Austen, and although I would defend my right to have my opinions of Austen's books, I fully accept that I don't have a lot to bring to an informed discussion of her work.

I could learn, of course--any set of reference points can be learned--and that brings us to the second question. Primarily because context is learnable, I strongly doubt that the size of a work's audience has any bearing on the assessment of a work's quality. On the part of the writer, I am skeptical of the idea that aiming for universality is a good thing, or even a possible thing; I'm not even sure what a universal story would be, or what it could say. On the part of the reader, I am skeptical of the idea that that barriers to entry are inherently bad things. Just because I wouldn't give someone who's never read sf Accelerando doesn't make it a bad book, and just because anyone with a reading age in double digits can pick up The Da Vinci Code doesn't make it a good book. Historical context, or conceptual density, or linguistic complexity, or literary context--all of those are things that an individual reader may or may not appreciate. It is not the work's fault if a reader doesn't appreciate its strengths (indeed, it can be a shame, but it's not anyone's fault as such).

Yes, writing within a context may limit the audience to which a book is accessible, and yes, that has to be accepted--and yes, such writing can be artistically limited as well. I'm not excusing works that, to borrow immortalradical's phrase, preach 'a weak sermon to the baying choir'. It's just that the flipside to those books--the books that extend or develop an ongoing argument (which is one of the things I suggest Learning the World does), or that explore their context in minute depth (say, The Name of the Rose)--are, not infrequently, the books I wouldn't give up for the world.

(Bonus marks for anyone who can link this debate back into the self-indulgence debate of earlier in the year, thus constructing a hideous meta-debate impenetrable to anyone who hasn't read fifty posts on two dozen different blogs. Go on, I bet it'd be easy.)

EDIT: zarabee comments on accessibility here, and sartorias does the same here.

Comments

[secritcrush.livejournal.com]

The one story that's been popping through my head throughout this discussion is Karen Joy Fowler's "What I Didn't See" and how I thought it was a good story, but certainly something I'd never read again until I read the "The Women the Men Don't See" by James Tiptree, Jr. And then it became an entirely different story (particularly the actions of Eddie killing all the gorillas.)

But for me the question remains - how good is the story really? Is it good but sort of forgettable or the much more memorable story I reread later? I still haven't come to a position on it, though I'm not generally in favor of stories that you need a reading list to "get".

(I do keep meaning to write up my thoughts on why the Fintushel story doesn't work because I think it has less to do with it being inacessible than it being a "so what?" story that he tried to disguise with a cloak of prose and failed.)

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

The one story that's been popping through my head throughout this discussion is Karen Joy Fowler's "What I Didn't See"

Brilliant--a link to a debate from several years ago! Bonus bonus marks for you.

But for me the question remains - how good is the story really? Is it good but sort of forgettable or the much more memorable story I reread later? I still haven't come to a position on it, though I'm not generally in favor of stories that you need a reading list to "get".

*nods* I don't think anyone should have to go and learn the context for something; it's what I was getting at when I said that everyone's opinion is valid. But I think it's fair to recognise that you might only get the most out of a story if you have some background knowledge (fairytales, for instance, for some of Kelly Link's work). I also think that, if you know the context, there is still a difference between a story that is part of that context and a story that is dependent on its context. Different people will see the same story differently, based on how they come to them, I suspect.

And yeah, stories can be good for many different reasons, and this is all only one axis.

[pnew8.livejournal.com]

(I do keep meaning to write up my thoughts on why the Fintushel story doesn't work because I think it has less to do with it being inacessible than it being a "so what?" story that he tried to disguise with a cloak of prose and failed.)

A "so this" story that uses an intensity of prose and an outside reference to Inuit mythology. IMHO. *bowing*

[secritcrush.livejournal.com]

so this? *whispers* what do you mean by that?

[pnew8.livejournal.com]

*whispers back* "So this" in this particular case, is an examination of the narrator, Eliot; his perspective, his chain of events, his failings, his rationale, his struggle.

[secritcrush.livejournal.com]

*whispers* and that's exactly what makes me go "so what?"

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

On the part of the writer, I am skeptical of the idea that aiming for universality is a good thing, or even a possible thing

But that's not what we're talking about. Nor is A Big Audience. A work clearly doesn't have to be universal (though the most immortal works are perhaps those ones that manage to find themselves in that position without being The Da Vinci Code), and obviously doesn't have to have a huge, whacking readership. But if a work only addresses the ideas or terms or issues not of a tiny portion of people but of a small sub-section of literary concerns, then this is a limiting thing. I have a problem with works mired in their own context, but if they strive to develop that context even a little I have a lot of love to give.

The problem, perhaps, is that I do not buy the idea that LtW is doing anything new. It's the literary equivalent of a covers bad. You may now tell me I haven't read enough SF to comment. ;)

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

It's the literary equivalent of a covers bad

Gotta love those Freudian typos :-p

[white_hart]

The thing about novels that require a certain literary context, unlike novels that require knowledge of a social/cultural context, is that while I can fairly easily go off and assimilate background knowledge of other historical periods, cultures and religions from a quick trawl of the interweb (and frequently do - as a reader I am never far from works of reference, figuratively speaking at least, and always want to find outjust where the overlap between reality and fiction comes) it's far more difficult to assimilate a literary tradition without reading all, or at least a fair selection, of the works contained within the tradition. An example that comes to mind is Jasper Fforde; I have a literary background, and while I didn't pick up every reference in The Eyre Affair, I picked up enough to enjoy it, while it left Niall cold and probably would have done even if he liked funny books.

Perhaps this is why, having stopped reading sf in about 1991 and come back to it a couple of years ago, I frequently find it leaves me cold?

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

Possibly. I'm of the constant mind that the best book is one that can be enjoyed on many levels - heightened for those who get the references, still brilliant for those who don't. I think SF has those sort of books; I also think it too often assumes you didn't have that decade-long break. :)

[white_hart]

the best book is one that can be enjoyed on many levels

Oh, absolutely (I'm rather hoping that, when I get round to it, Zadie Smith's latest proves to be one of those). And I'd happily admit that the appeal of Fforde, who I rather enjoy, is probably limited to literary geeks in the same was as lots of modern sf seems to be limited to sf geeks. I suspect it's all about the fine positioning of the dividing line between 'intertextuality' and 'up its own arse'.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

... and being able to write well, yes. :)

I have On Beauty waiting for me on the shelf. If it's too reliant on an understanding of Forster, I shall stomp it as much as I stomped Learning the World. :)

[white_hart]

Even though Howard's End is one of my favourite books, I'd agree that if On Beauty is only accessible to Forster-lovers Smith will have failed.

OTOH, White Teeth didn't require a detailed background knowledge of colonial and postcolonial Jamaica and India, nor of genetics, and The Autograph Man was perfectly accessible to someone with little knowledge of or general interest in autograph-collecting of the Kabbala, so I have hopes.

I think that the issue that, as a reader of literature and modern literary fiction, I find a lot of sf to be pedestrian at best and badly-written at worst is a whole nother can of worms to the one about it making assumptions that I will have read x and be interested in y.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

I'd agree that on past form Smith is more than capable of writing a book with echoes rather than variations on a theme. I'm looking forward to getting to it.

I find a lot of sf to be pedestrian at best and badly-written at worst

This is a criticism that's too often left unspoken or swept under the carpet for fear of sounding 'elitist'. In Niall's recent marginalia post, he quotes a defence of 'riffing literature' based on the work of literary greats like Shakespeare, who took forms and riffed on them (although I think this is a hugely reductive characterisation of what Shakespeare did) ... that's all well and good, but not very many people can write as well as Shakespeare. Luminous prose can hide an awful lot of ills, can transform the old traditions simply by expressing them anew. SF's problem, oftentimes, is that it lacks these truly brilliant stylists.

But, yeah. It's far easier on us to criticise the genre for having narrow interests. ;P

[white_hart]

Literary fiction sometimes privileges form over substance (recently I've been wondering whether to go back to Jeanette Winterson, having not read anything of hers more recent than Sexing the Cherry, which I thought was beautifully written but frankly didn't seem to be *about* anything); sf frequently seems to me to do the opposite, and I'm not sure that either of them tends to result in particularly good novels. The best novels use beautiful prose to tell fascinating, compelling stories; but I'd rather read a novel that used good prose to tell a fairly interesting story than one that was brilliant in one aspect and had very little to show for the other.

Only connect, as was once famously said ;-)

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

I agree entirely with everything you said, which makes for a very dull comment. :)

On the subject of Winterson, try The Passion - theme and form married wonderfully, methinks.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Compounce deliberately took his time lighting up a cigarette, making Diego sweat the wait. Then the editor regarded his protege from behind his horn-rimmed glasses with a gaze like a drillbit. "Mature in what sense? The concepts behind 'The Ethical Ingeniators' are big and solid and revolutionary as anything we've ever published. Are you getting hung up on non-issues like style, Patchen? You're not turning quotidian on me, are you? The next thing I know you'll tell me you've been submitting vignettes about the love-affairs of your dentist to The Gritsavage Muse."

"No, no, of course not. But Winslow, really, you can't discount style entirely."

"Certainly not. I'm not some tone-deaf oaf like Mallika Prang over at Simulacra, am I? I let you express yourself as you see fit, and I recognise the more elegant turns of your prose. But when it comes down to style versus sense of estrangement, poetry versus ideas, then I have to plump for estrangement and ideas every time. And if a story posessess enough of those, the style just doesn't figure, one way or the other."

Diego thought he was going mad. Compounce had this effect on him at least once a month, but never before on this particular, sensitive topic. Approaching anger, Diego said, "You can't unyoke the two, Winslow! Each is the interlocking product of the other!"

Compounce cut short the argument with a familiar phrase. "I feel an editorial coming on regarding this topic, Patchen. Let's table the matter until then."

- From 'A Year In The Linear City' by Paul di Filippo

Some days I'm Winslow, some days I'm Diego. In a straight choice between style-but-no-substance and substance-but-no-style, I suspect I'd always go for the latter ... but thankfully we don't actually have to make that choice. (Of course, here we get into different peoples' definitions of 'good style'...)

[white_hart]

I think I'm always Diego. Bad writing detracts from good ideas; it makes them seem dull and dry, and if it's really bad it can render them incomprehensible. And I find a lot of sf - well, clunky. I'm thinking particularly of something like Cryptonomicon, which was full of interesting ideas but felt rather like the literary equivalent of trying to eat three Shredded Wheat without milk.

'Good style'...I don't know if I'd say that there was a universal 'good style' (beyond the basics of correct spelling and grammar). The best writers adapt their styles to the material being described. David Mitchell does it in Ghostwritten - each story is told in a voice that seems right for its narrator, for its genre, even though all are recognisably by the same person and part of a whole. Tolkien does it too, and I get very annoyed when people deride Tolkien's grandiose mock-epic tone, because they just aren't getting it - the tone is grandiose and mock-epic because, hello, he's writing grandiose mock-epic. When he's writing hobbits, the narrative becomes much simpler, more homely; when he's writing elves, it's flowery.

What I'm trying to say, I think, is that good writing uses language intelligently, selects the best register of language to convey its ideas. Mediocre writing makes the ideas do all the work, and to someone who isn't just reading for the ideas (and that probably sums up the difference between your average reader and your hardcore sf geek) it can feel far too much like hard work rather than reading for pleasure.

[mattia.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking particularly of something like Cryptonomicon, which was full of interesting ideas but felt rather like the literary equivalent of trying to eat three Shredded Wheat without milk.

Honestly, the meandering style, Stephenson's use of language, as well as the imagery and high geek content is what I like about Cryptonomicon. Without that rambling, digressive, highly enjoyable and imminently readable style, I wouldn't like it nearly as much. The language is perfectly suited to the text, and a joy to read in its own right. I realize it is very much an aquired taste, as I've met many, many people who can't stand it. But it tickles me, and that's what matters

This said, I'm pretty much always Diego. Ideas can only go so far. Basically, wot you dun said.

[white_hart]

I really enjoyed Snow Crash, I found it very readable and I rather admired Stephenson's use of language in it. Which is why I was so disappointed in Cryptonomicon. Perhaps I'm just not geeky enough for that one.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

A couple of things--

1. Surely Tolkien isn't writing mock-epic, he's writing, you know, epic? Which is not to deny Tolkien's linguistic skill, but it is, for me, the problem: the writing in Return of the King seems like a parody.

2. As Mattia pointed out, Cryptonomicon isn't a great counter-example, because it is written in a style that's married to its content. It's written in High Geek. (Charlie Stross is the same.)

3. The counter to your last argument would be that relatively plain language can be the best register to convey the ideas sf is trying to convey. I came across a lovely phrase in a review of Transcendent: "occasional Stapledonian drop-kick sentences." You can tell exactly what it refers to, a completely matter-of-fact shift in perspective from the personal to the cosmic that leaves your head spinning because it is plain.

[white_hart]

1. He's certainly writing in the epic tradition, but I think that true epic pretty much has to be the product of an oral tradition, therefore Tolkien is mock-epic. He's also mock-epic because he's deliberately harking back to older forms and adopting their language and rhythms, which are not natural to him.

I wouldn't say parody, but I think there's an inevitable element of pastiche.

2. OK. Perhaps I'm just not geeky enough to have got Cryptonomicon. But I definitely found the narrative voice one of the turn-offs.

3. Plain does not necessarily mean mediocre; I quite agree that very simple prose is sometimes best. (One of my favourite writers is Bruce Chatwin, who produced simple, concise prose that was absolutely breathtaking in its elegance and lucidity.) There's a difference between plain and clunky, or just inappropriate.

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

Some days I'm Winslow, some days I'm Diego.

Obviously I'm Diego but it's nice that the cosmogenic and the quotidian can bond over a hatred of Analog.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

In Niall's recent marginalia post, he quotes a defence of 'riffing literature' based on the work of literary greats

Er, I think it was more a defence of authors who run variations on a theme.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

The punctuation was off in that sentence - it wasn't meant to seem that I was saying it was a defense of 'riffing literature' b ased on the work of literary greats, but a rather a defense of 'riffing literature', one based on the idea that the work of literary great was itself riffing.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Ah, right. That makes more sense.

Irrespective of whether the comparisons being used hold water, what do you think of the principle? I'm going back and forth. On the one hand, it's easy to admire writers who write over a wide range of subjects and settings. And it's also easy to disparage writers who seem to be churning out the same ol' same ol'. On the other hand, I do find it satisfying to watch the development of a writer's ideas track through a series of novels, and if they don't think they did their themes justice first time around, or have thought of another angle to explore, why shouldn't they try again?

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

Oh, I think it's irrefutable that most writers have a few core themes and/or forms to which they constantly return, and I agree that it's satisfying in and of itself to watch the development of those through the course of their work. This isn't quite the same issue that comes with LtW, though, because these themes and/or forms, though returned to often, can still be of a wider interest than the writer's personal milieu. Indeed, you can keep addressing the same ideas and do it using that wide range of subjects and settings you praise. My criticism of LtW, of course, is that it is playing with ideas and forms in a fairly restricted environment and manner.

Julian Barnes constantly returns to issues of memory and history, and as you rightly say he can't be criticised for that because it's what he wants to say, he's trying to perfect a philosophy. Salman Rushdie returns time and again to magic realism - again, nothing wrong with that as long as his favourite form doesn't become a crutch or the whole point of his writing. It's what you do with your preoccupations, not the fact that you have them, that matters.

[secritcrush.livejournal.com]

I think it boils down to how well they do it. Sometimes it's worth reading and sometimes people say the same thing over and over and if you encounter it for the first time in a later book you think it's brilliant, but if it's your fourth time through then you are bored.

[secritcrush.livejournal.com]

And a silly one it was- "Gee, I've read authors who've done it well, so your criticism must be baseless"?

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

To refine Niall's earlier point, I think Jasper Fforde is the literary equivalent of Weird Al Yankovich.