OFF: Moorcock on sci-fi

[Douglas Pearson]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 14:15:25 +0000, Nick Medford <nick at HERMIT0.DEMON.CO.UK>
wrote:
>I'm sure Mike H. will answer for himself, but I think he was referring to
>MM's endorsement of Dworkin (who is famously pro-censorship) rather than
>anything in the essay you referenced.

Yes, she definitely is.  THAT I would never dispute.

>Well, I think the problem is in the idea that the political views of an
>author are the most important thing about his/her writing. I don't buy
>that at all.

Nor do I, but I think they're important to know about in order to know
where a writer is coming from.  Just as knowing about, say, an author's
childhood, can give insights or (somewhat) "objective" perspective on the
themes in the author's writing.  Sometimes a good story is just a good
story, but sometimes it's also an allegory ...

>It's entirely possible that HP Lovecraft, say, held
>racist/supremacist views,

I don't dislike him for those views (which I can certainly believe he held,
although I'm no expert on the man, given the fascination with "subhuman"
races he exhibits in many of his stories); I dislike him because his prose
strikes me as extremely ponderous.  But what might strike me as ponderous
may come across as dramatic to others (and undeniably contributes to the
creepy atmosphere of his stories whether you like the style or not), so
certainly to each his own ...

>and it's pretty certain that he was a rather
>sad and disturbed individual-none of this alters the fact that he wrote
>some great short stories.

Being a sad and disturbed individual can frequently be quite beneficial to
an author (in an artistic sense) - look at Philip K. Dick!  No one can
write about schizophrenia (or general themes of identity loss/confusion)
like an actual schizophrenic.

     -Doug
      ceres at sirius.com