HemGrupperDiskuteraMerTidsandan
Sök igenom hela webbplatsen
Denna webbplats använder kakor för att fungera optimalt, analysera användarbeteende och för att visa reklam (om du inte är inloggad). Genom att använda LibraryThing intygar du att du har läst och förstått våra Regler och integritetspolicy. All användning av denna webbplats lyder under dessa regler.
Hide this

Resultat från Google Book Search

Klicka på en bild för att gå till Google Book Search.

Laddar...

Canopus in Argos: Archives

av Doris Lessing

Serier: Canopus in Argos: Archives (Omnibus)

MedlemmarRecensionerPopularitetGenomsnittligt betygOmnämnanden
1332158,938 (4.19)21
"An exquisite glimpse into a unique and imaginative view of eternity." -- Chicago Tribune Canopus in Argos: Archives is an omnibus collection of Doris Lessing's five visionary novels -- Re: Colonised Planet 5, Shikasta; The Marriages Between Zones Three, Four, and Five; The Sirian Experiments; The Making of the Representative for Planet 8; and Documents Relating to the Sentimental Agents in the Volyen Empire -- about the intergalactic empire of Canopus. Even as it gives an epic account of the struggles between Canopus and its rivals over the fate of the universe, Canopus in Argos comments, with Lessing's characteristic insight and eloquence, on human history and our prospects for the future. "An audacious and disturbing work from one of the world's great living writers." -- Time "A dissection of the political illusions of our own terrestrial 20th century." -- The New York Times Book Review "Stunning... Read Lessing like a message of hope in dark times ...read her to nourish your soul." -- Los Angeles Times… (mer)
Ingen/inga
Laddar...

Gå med i LibraryThing för att få reda på om du skulle tycka om den här boken.

Det finns inga diskussioner på LibraryThing om den här boken.

» Se även 21 omnämnanden

Visar 2 av 2
(Original Review, 1980-09-29)

League for the purity of what?

An admittedly less-than-thorough examination of Lessing's work leads me to conclude that her primary faults are bad (i.e., clumsy, awkward, [difficult without the extra levels that make Joyce, etc. difficult]) writing, excessive moralizing, and trite plotting with no refreshing elements (SHIKASTA in particular strongly resembles what Bova called the "tomato surprise story"). On the other hand, I admit that I've never been very impressed with Stapledon, either; I'll acknowledge that this may be a matter of taste while observing that various mundane reviewers also seem unimpressed with the Canopus Archives. In fact, I expect that most "hardcore SF fans" (however few of them are left) will simply ignore Lessing. I don't care whether she "follows conventions"; anyone who is good/ at an art form will break the rules and make you see why it is as right and necessary to break rules in the given context as it is to hold fast to them otherwise. (Granted, this is easier to see in formal music than in writing, but the frangibility of rules holds true for all art forms.) The one convention whose breakage annoys me is that the characters should be drawn in such a way that I can care what happens to them; obviously this is a subjective test, but it is the factor in which several authors (e.g., Ben Bova) consistently fail my expectation. (I also think the authors who claim they aren't competing for the readers' beer money are fooling themselves, and maybe snobs to boot; maybe their readers spend beer money on Glenfyddich instead, but it's still a competition for their recreational money and attention.)
As for "mundane" being an insulting term, that depends on where and how you use it. If you call people at an SF convention "mundanes" you'll probably annoy some of them; there the term tends to mean the people who gape at the costumes and wander away tapping their heads.

When the term is used of writers it can simply mean those who by/ their/ own/ definitions/ do not write SF --- I specifically said in the msg in question that there was a matter of intent. (I think I'll officially christen this Garrett's criterion, after Randall Garrett's TOO MANY MAGICIANS: "Black magic is a matter of symbolism and intent.") There are wide enough gaps dividing "literature" (Saul Bellow?), popular writing (Jacqueline Susann?) and SF that it is possible to draw, not a line, but a zone showing some authors bridging the gaps and others definitely in one of the divisions, and it is convenient to many of us to have the zones drawn.

If you're thinking I don't appreciate fiction in general, you're right; I find the incidence of self-indulgence, navel-scanning, and limitation of imagination even higher in mundane writing than I do in SF. I don't deny -- in fact I celebrate -- that some of the material I like on both sides of the gap reflects a bridging of the gap by a specific author; Kuttner, Priest and Kornbluth both had substantial mundane reputations, and John D. MacDonald wrote a lot/ of SF in his youth (the recently-published collection is less than half of his shorter work). But I do see that many of the principles of mundane writing --- principles whose following gains the writers favorable criticism and/or good reviews and sales --- are tangentially or diametrically opposed to what I and many of the SF readers I know enjoy.
Aside from my practical interest as an SF longtime fan, I don't believe in an SF Purity League, and I snicker at the J. J. Pierces who try to form them; the field doesn't deserve that kind or direction of effort. (Damon Knight, considering the charge that there is grown out of his writers' conference at Milford a "conspiracy to rig awards and elections, worship turkeys, and so forth", quotes P. G. Wodehouse hearing the accusation that he was planning to subvert the French government: " 'But one has so little time.' ")

Now I've/ gone into an over-long flame; let's see if there's anyone else who doesn't think we've beaten this to death yet.

[2018 EDIT: This is one if the few instances where my younger self strongly deviates from my current SF tastes. Somehow I get the idea that in 1980 there was a 'League for the Purity of SF' out there that didn't appreciate fiction in general.

1) Are there any SF fans nowadays, other than myself, who still enjoyed Doris Lessing's Canopus in Argos series? These books still seem to disgust some SF reviewers. I re-read them later on. I found the first 2 books elegantly written, imaginative in their use of archetypes, and fully committed to the examination of being that Olaf Stapledon did so well. (Lessing claims that she was influenced by Stapledon; while I wouldn't say that her Canopus books were as good as his, they're certainly in the same league.) It seems to me that hardcore SF fans are most upset that she doesn't follow certain SF conventions. (I feel that she made a few gaffes but that these don't detract from the themes of the books.)

2) Whence came the expression 'mundane' in reference to "non-SF" authors? I know I still use this expression nowadays. This sounds like some elitist term from the depths of the SF ghetto in the 80s. Look, all fiction springs from an act of the imagination. Most fiction in any category will not arise from any deep plumbing of the imagination, but in every field there is fiction that rises above the designation 'mundane'. (I know, some people try to use 'mundane' to mean 'earthbound', but it really only is lack of imaginative depth that keeps fiction on the ground.)

This review was changed from 2 stars (1980) to 5 stars (1993)] ( )
  antao | Nov 9, 2018 |
Lessing's sci-fi "space" stories are a bit too wordy and philosophic to really fit into the genre - I guess I feel like they're a bit too preachy and obvious in their intent. However, I have to say I still loved every book in the Argos series. ( )
  dbsovereign | Jan 26, 2016 |
Visar 2 av 2
inga recensioner | lägg till en recension
Du måste logga in för att ändra Allmänna fakta.
Mer hjälp finns på hjälpsidan för Allmänna fakta.
Vedertagen titel
Originaltitel
Alternativa titlar
Första utgivningsdatum
Personer/gestalter
Viktiga platser
Viktiga händelser
Relaterade filmer
Priser och utmärkelser
Motto
Dedikation
Inledande ord
Citat
Avslutande ord
Särskiljningsnotis
Förlagets redaktörer
På baksidan citeras
Ursprungsspråk
Kanonisk DDC/MDS

Hänvisningar till detta verk hos externa resurser.

Wikipedia på engelska (2)

"An exquisite glimpse into a unique and imaginative view of eternity." -- Chicago Tribune Canopus in Argos: Archives is an omnibus collection of Doris Lessing's five visionary novels -- Re: Colonised Planet 5, Shikasta; The Marriages Between Zones Three, Four, and Five; The Sirian Experiments; The Making of the Representative for Planet 8; and Documents Relating to the Sentimental Agents in the Volyen Empire -- about the intergalactic empire of Canopus. Even as it gives an epic account of the struggles between Canopus and its rivals over the fate of the universe, Canopus in Argos comments, with Lessing's characteristic insight and eloquence, on human history and our prospects for the future. "An audacious and disturbing work from one of the world's great living writers." -- Time "A dissection of the political illusions of our own terrestrial 20th century." -- The New York Times Book Review "Stunning... Read Lessing like a message of hope in dark times ...read her to nourish your soul." -- Los Angeles Times

Inga biblioteksbeskrivningar kunde hittas.

Bokbeskrivning
Haiku-sammanfattning

Snabblänkar

Populära omslag

Betyg

Medelbetyg: (4.19)
0.5
1
1.5
2 1
2.5 2
3 2
3.5
4 5
4.5
5 11

Är det här du?

Bli LibraryThing-författare.

 

Om | Kontakt | LibraryThing.com | Sekretess/Villkor | Hjälp/Vanliga frågor | Blogg | Butik | APIs | TinyCat | Efterlämnade bibliotek | Förhandsrecensenter | Allmänna fakta | 158,907,396 böcker! | Topplisten: Alltid synlig