Posted by Nick Edwards on June 23, 1999 at 07:11:16:
I have been reading some critics; who should know better; attacking Jack Vance for his repetitive plotting and childish characterisation. The complaint appears to be that in so many books (and here they are comparing night lamp directly with Araminta station) the plot and the leading characters are simply rehashed.
First of all, most if not all great writers posessed at most two or three major characters and distinctive plots. (Dickens, Dostoevsky, George Elliot, John Irving, James Baldwin etc)
Secondly Jack Vance is not a great or worthy writer because of his characterisation or plotting. He is entertaining undoubtedly, but because of his wit and style not the complexity of his characters or plots. Does anyone seriously disagree with that statement? I would love to hear it.
I would argue that there is a second reason for reading Jack Vance, and one that explains the abiding appeal of what have been labelled childish, and male-adolescent fantasy, or chauvanistic works.
That is the coherence and force in his conception of human nature, and the derived politics. The ideas are implicit, and develop throughout his novels. Sometimes they are important to the plot, usually they are not. But they are always there because his is a coherent view, and the unique atmosphere of his novels is derived from his ideas. I have found that world literature is suffused with writers who have a similar atmosphere to Vance, because they two had a coherent view of homo sapiens that was grounded in either astute empirical observation or by science.
I suspect that it is because of these ideas that so many of, the leftist critics disapprove so vehemently of his work.
sorry to be so long but i had to get that off my chest.