Kelly Jane Torrance on Philip K. Dick:
A quarter-century after his death, he is finally considered not just a serious American writer but one of the century’s greatest. At least, that’s one conclusion to be drawn from Dick’s inclusion in the Library of America: the first science-fiction writer to be so canonized in what is the closest thing to secular sainthood in American letters. Best known for collecting the works of such titans as James and Faulkner, the Library of America presents “America’s best and most significant writing in authoritative editions.” And Dick has been included not for his realist books, which finally started appearing in print posthumously, but for some of his most outlandish sci-fi creations.Some may complain that a genre writer has beaten Hemingway and Upton Sinclair into the Library of America. But these four novels — The Man in the High Castle, The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and Ubik — are not simply outstanding examples of their form. With their haunting evocations of alienation, thoughtful meditations on reality and religion, and vivid prose style, they are among the best American novels written in the last century…
Look, I really genuinely love Philip K. Dick, but no. Just… no. Dick was the Immanuel Kant of sci-fi: A visionary, original, often brilliant thinker but, let’s be honest here, an absolutely shit writer. I’ve read and loved each of the books included in this new compilation; they are phenomenal and provocative stories. But at the risk of being pedantic, they’re not great novels, let alone “among the best American novels written in the last century.” The reason it’s possible for Blade Runner to be a better work of art than the book on which it was based is that the latter is a fantastic story, but a mediocre novel.
I’m not slagging on Dick uniquely here; I think it’s just generally true that what makes for great sci-fi is usually the ability to construct compelling worlds that ultimately serve as settings to explore weird and exciting ideas. It’s been said that much contemporary philosophy reads like bad science fiction, but good science fiction has always been at least as much about philosophy as narrative. It’s probably expecting too much to want the people who excel at this to also be great prose stylists. You can make a case for J.G. Ballard or William Gibson, and if you have a loose enough definition of sci-fi, I suppose Richard Powers is in just by dint of being one of the best living novelists, period. But these are exceptions. Saying this sort of thing invariably runs sci-fi fans (among whom I count myself) the wrong way, because we’ve become understandably defensive about the status of genre fiction as “real” or “serious” art. And it is. But trying to make that case by insisting on the quality of most sci-fi prose is like defending Picasso on the grounds that Guernica really did look kind of like that. It’s just not what makes the vast majority of the good stuff good.
Update: The mention of Ballard, Gibson, and Powers was not meant to be an exhaustive list, of course. Commenters have noted various other candidates, among whom Samuel R. Delaney is probably the standout. Jeff Noon might be another. (Much as I adore Iain M. Banks, however, I’m not sure whether I’d place him in this camp.)
7 responses so far ↓
1 Anthony C // Jul 12, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Several years ago I read “Ubik” and I clearly recall coming away from it thinking it was a work of great brilliance – but weirdly enough I can’t actually remember what the hell happened in it.
2 Jim Henley // Jul 12, 2007 at 11:23 pm
I don’t hate you for this post, but I do pity you.
3 Larry M // Jul 13, 2007 at 12:54 am
Well … without stepping specifically into the Dick debate, you have a point generally, but maybe not as strong as one as you think. Now while it’s probably true that most science fiction doesn’t stand up well to serious literary fiction, I think that the quality of the prose in most of the better modern science fiction is pretty high. I mean, it’s well written in the most basic sense. That was far less true of most of the classics – I mean, re-reading a lot of that stuff now is sort of cringe inducing, but I could make a pretty long list of current writers of science fiction and fantasy that are, at the very least, solid prose stylists. Just to name a few: Mieville, Stross, Powers, Banks, and Gibson.
Of course you are correct that this isn’t the only (or probably even the main) reason that Science fiction deserves to be taken seriously.
4 foolishmortal // Jul 13, 2007 at 1:31 am
Re: Dick in particular, you certainly have a point, and Dick perhaps exemplifies your larger point about sci-fi in general in that his ideas were brilliant and his prose awful. However, you’re missing great SF authors who also happen to be be great novelists: Samuel Delaney, Gene Wolfe, and John Crowley. M. John Harrison might make it onto this list in time.
5 Nick // Jul 13, 2007 at 10:33 am
I agree with your points on Dick, but I also think that this should have kept him from inclusion in Library of America. He may be a great sci-fi thinker, but he’s simply not one of America’s greatest writers. Nor is he, as you point out, even among the ranks of the best science fiction writers.
6 Alex Knapp // Jul 13, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I don’t think any discussion of great prose stylists in sci-fi is complete without discussing Alfred Bester, who could not only turn a phrase, but had some awesome experimentations in the use of typography to create imagery. The party of telepaths in “The Demolished Man” is a great case in point.
Other great prose stylists in sci-fi:
Walter M. Miller, Jr.
Octavia Butler
M.J. Engh (just thinking about Arslan gives me chills sometimes)
7 joeo // Jul 13, 2007 at 5:46 pm
I was really surprised how badly written “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” was when I read it after the movie came out.