Re: Arthur C Clarke, RIP

On 2008-03-22 13:06:55 -0700, "W. Citoan" <wcitoan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:

> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>> 
>> On 2008-03-22 12:01:22 -0700, "W. Citoan" <wcitoan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
said:
>> 
>>> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> He doesn't define himself as a science fiction author,
>>> 
>>> And what were we talking about?  A definition that excludes Bradbury.
>>> Bradbury's definition excludes himself.
>> 
>> No, it doesn't.  His definition is:
>> 
>> "Science fiction is a depiction of the real, fantasy is a depiction of
>> the unreal.  So The Martian Chronicles is not science fiction, it's
>> fantasy.  It couldn't happen, you see?"
> 
> Not the same quote as above...

It's the part of the quote that defines "science fiction."  I cut and 
pasted it.

>> That doesn't exclude Bradbury, it excludes THE MARTIAN CHRONICLES.
> 
> It excludes everything else per his statement that the only science
> fiction book he's writtem is FAHRENHEIT 451.

That quote specifically excludes TMC.  The line where he says that the 
only SF he's ever written is F451 excludes everything but F451, but 
that's not defining SF, that's applying the definition and noting what 
does and doesn't fit.

>> It includes FAHRENHEIT 451, as Bradbury notes himself.
> 
> This gets us into the question of: if an author publishes one book of a
> specific genre, but all their other books are in a second genre, should
> they be called a genre one writer or a genre two writer who has written
> a book in genre one?
> 
> I'd argue the second.  However, I also recognize that's a slipperly
> slope as how many is enough?

I'd agree with you that the definition of "science fiction writer" is 
probably pro****tional and mutable -- someone who writes largely or 
notably SF, or like that.  Though even those who aren't usually SF 
writers are nonetheless SF writers while they're engaged in writing SF.

Bradbury doesn't consider himself an SF writer.  But his definition of 
SF doesn't actually rule him out.

>> That Bradbury does'nt consider himself a science fiction writer is not
>> definitional -- it's clearly meant to be descriptive of how Bradbury
>> sees himself in general.  But by his definition, and by his direct
>> statement, he's written science fiction.
> 
> People are forgetting the context of this thread.  A poster claimed that
> we should rely on authors' definitions of what is science fiction and
> then said there couldn't be a definition that excluded Bradbury and the
> MARTIAN CHRONICLES.  However, Bradbury himself excludes the MARTIAN
> CHRONICLES.  So much for appeals to authority...

I'm not forgetting that, but then, I never argued that TMC couldn't 
possibly be excluded.  I'm responding to the argument that Bradbury's 
definition of SF excludes him.  It excludes most but not all of his 
work.

> I'm not arguing that he's not a science fiction author.  I consider
> him to be one and I would classify MARTIAN CHRONICLES as science
> fiction.  I'm objecting to the claim readers do not have a say.

Well, hell, I'm with you there.  Of course readers have a say.  And 
what they say will be endlessly argued, here and elsewhere; I don't 
have much patience for the larger argument.

I'm just, as a reader, pointing out that when Bradbury's definition is 
read, science fiction includes some of what he's done, by his own 
acknowledgement, even.  That he doesn't consider himself an SF writer 
doesn't mean he hasn't written SF, so he apparently doesn't mean it as 
globally as some are assuming.

I don't agree with Bradbury's definition -- I just note that it doesn't 
exclude him, which ain't the same thing.  [I'll note that Nixon said he 
wasn't a crook, but his definition of crime probably didn't exclude 
him.]  For the most part, I agree with the Moskowitz definition; it's 
nice and vague.

kdb