Posted by Dan Gunter on June 23, 1999 at 21:10:42:
In Reply to: Repetitive Plotting and childish characterisation in Jack Vance posted by Nick Edwards on June 23, 1999 at 07:11:16:
I want both to agree with you and disagree with you and with the nameless critics.
I will agree, first, that Vance reuses his plots and characters. Of course, as you recognize, similarity of plot and character is not in itself bad; but weak, obvious, or uninspired reuse is bad. I have been a fan of Vance for about 30 years now, and I continue to read him and reread him with delight; but some of his works are less successful than others. I did feel that "Night Lamp" was a rehash of earlier works: "Araminta Station," "Maske: Thaery," and "Marune: Alastor 933" come to mind most immediately. Moreover, "Night Lamp" felt like a weak rehash of some typically Vancean themes. By contrast, "Araminta Station" seems like a strong version of some of those themes. (Unfortunately, "Ecce and Old Earth" and "Throy"--although they have their moments--do not live up to "Araminta Station.")
I also want to agree that one of the chief pleasures of reading Vance is his language. But I do think that his best works have relatively strong narratives. I think that, overall, the Tschai books have very strong narrative development, with particularly skillful pacing. (I wonder if Vance was successful there because he was working with and against the models of Burroughs and other writers of interplanetary adventure.) "To Live Forever" is also well developed (but I'll admit that I haven't read that work in several years). "Suldrun's Garden" also has a strong plot; indeed, its narrative probably does become a "plot" in the more restrictive sense of the term. But some of Vance's narratives are fairly haphazard, and loose ends are never properly tied up. For example, in the Cadwal Chronicles, Vance gets rid of important villains almost as an afterthought: Julian Bohost is hung off-stage. Hints of Namour's villainy appear throughout the trilogy, but he makes the scantiest of appearances on-stage. Perhaps a defense can be offered, but the result is still unsatisfying.
Vance's characterization skills also vary considerably. I actually rather like the Adam Reith/Kirth Gersen types: they're somewhat Clint Eastwoodish, but they at least appear intelligent and fundamentally moral. Aillas, Shimrod, and Cugel are all interesting characters (although it's difficult actually to like Cugel in "Eyes of the Overworld"). The villains are often curiously pallid. Off the top of my head, I'd put Aila Woudiver as the most thoroughly and satisfyingly evil of all of Vance's characters--and perhaps one of the most interesting overall. Dordolio is minor, and only slightly evil, but still well drawn. (And isn't Julian Bohost descended from Dordolio?) But, of course, Vance's characters never reach the complexity of other writers--even, say, of Patrick O'Brian's Stephen Maturin. And I do find the depiction of women troubling from time to time.
You state that Vance "is entertaining undoubtedly, because of his wit and style and not the complexity of his characters or plots." There's a suggestion there that we should simply ignore plot and character. But writing isn't a zero-sum game: writers can be great stylists with great plots and great characters. I'll offer Jane Austen as one of the best examples of an author who combines greatness in all three qualities. (All who are inclined can fire away at that assertion. You won't shake my admiration for Austen.) Among recent works, Cormac McCarthy's "Suttree" is very fine on all three levels, especially style and character. And I believe that Vance has been better at times with plotting and character than he has been of late. I do feel that "Night Lamp" was tired, and I feel that "Ports of Call" was--despite the beautiful vignettes--basically a sad book. I saw many posts defending the "plotting" of "Ports of Call," and it may well be that "Lurulu" will tie it all together; but I think that, fairly assessed, the work shows Vance's age, just as "The Hundred Days" shows the age of Vance's contemporary, Patrick O'Brian.
As for Vance's politics: I'm a good leftist, and his politics do bother me from time to time. I still squirm at "The Gray Prince." On the other hand, I'm not sure that Vance is a real right-winger. The Connatic aside, he's no fan of dictators. Perhaps he's something of a Jeffersonian Democrat.
Obviously, I've said enough. But you brought up some of the most interesting questions about Vance.
: 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.