John Clute

"John read the stuff, and he read each novel and story with the same passion for squeezing out all its hermeneutical juices ("hermeneutical " is a word I picked up from John) that he would have given to texts by Pound or Eliot. He enjoyed the stuff (or he didn't, as the case may be), but he also paid it the compliment [...] of critical attention - not in the blikered, self-protective context of genre 'criticism' as it then existed, but as though science fiction were an adult citizen of the Republic of Letters, responsible for its prose and its subtexts, not permitted the classic evasion of genre hacks that they're 'only telling a story'".

Tom Disch in the introduction to "Strokes - Essays and Reviews, 1966-1986" by John Clute

After re-reading "Scores" I was just in the right mood to tackle a previous colletion of Clute's reviews.

I think that the premise that (SF) critique should be clear-cut and obvious (namely that to be experimental a writer/book reviewer needs to reject narrative/analysis) is wrong, many modernist writers were great story tellers - Faulkner, Proust, Beckett. In fact a lot of experimental works that are frequently cited as not having anything happen in them – “Catcher in the Rye”, “Waiting for Godot”, “On the Road”, actually have very carefully structured stories whose mechanics are often skillfully hidden. Ulysses as well was nothing if it wasn't a character study. Likewise a lot of more conventional novels – “Atonement” is a great example - are also very experimental. Iris Murdoch is another great example of a very conventional writer who experimented with magical realism as well as other narrative structures - she frequently involved the narrator in the story and she frequently allowed the narrator to leave or look beyond the confines of the actual story itself. Classifications like meta-modernism and traditional fiction are very useful for academics looking to explain fiction but that does not mean they exist independently of each other. I just want to say that it is fair to portray those critical of Clute's style as brainless philistines who can't be bothered learning big words. I myself love reading philosophical tracts by German philosophers in my spare time (yes, really); that doesn't mean that I am allergic to overly florid writing that wants to wear the stamp of cleverness so earnestly on its sleeve. I can stomach, nay, actually admire, playful cleverness, especially when it comes to analyse some of my favourite SF novels.

I've seen some pretty shitty SF literary critique before but it’s not Clute’s... but going for Clute’s jugular because he is using a shiny new words? People are just oafs…

SF = Speculative Fiction.… (more)

"One fine day my friend is approached by a colleague.
- So how are things? asks the colleague.
- Pretty well. Flourishing, really.
- What are you doing these days?
- Still reviewing a great deal.
There is a pause.
- So have you any plans for the future?
- I expect to do more of the same, I suppose, says my friend.
- No, no, says the colleague, what I mean is: when do you plan to do some real work again?"

In "Scores: Re Views 1993-2003" by John Clute

We can all guess who "the friend" is, right? Now look, just because you don't understand the genius that is John Clute, don't knock it. Sure, everything he writes looks like you've dropped a box of scrabble. Nobody understands the words, because he uses words that pre-dated Christ. Just look at the pictures of himself for a clue. For all you small minded fools, Clute is giving you a clue. See the stick above his right elbow? It is his dowsing stick. I have seen him at low tide, in the early hours before sunrise, along the muddy banks of the dart 'dowsing' for words. He finds words that fell overboard from sailors ships to be lost in the thick mud. Digging them up with his bare hands. Words that have laid forgotten for “gembdiddiatcha”. The post-it notes contain random large words. Placed upon the wall in random. Every 23 words he writes, he selects one and makes Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis it the 24th word. I have it of good authority that some of those post-it notes actually belonged to WIlliam Shakespeare himself. The light bulb that is above his head? “Confliptoniationish” is an idea's bulb. When ever he needs an idea, he pulls a chord and 'Eureka.' Though I love Clute, He did sell me a word once that turned out to be a cut-n-shut, in that it was two pedestrian words cut in half and joined together. But never mind that. If you want what I mean go read some of his reviews on Gibson's "Virtual Light", Swanwick's "The Iron Dragon's Daughter", Egan's "The Permutation City", Priest's "The Prestige", etc.

Clute was one of the best things that ever happened to SF, SF-wise.… (more)

The hardback second edition dates from 1993; the third edition is only available online, (http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/). The second edition had over 6,500 entries and 1.3 million words; the third edition has just passed 18,000 entries and 5.9 million words. So you will understand which is the more comprehensive version.

Yet if I want to quickly look up some writer, or obscure old film, and I've shut my devices down for the night, I'll still reach for the second edition. The extent to which the gilt printing on the dust jacket of my copy has worn shows how often it has been on and off the shelf! And for idle browsing, it's still invaluable. If you see one second-hand and the asking price is within your pocket, go for it.… (more)