R. A. Lafferty, The Best of R. A. Lafferty

[mrissa]

Review copy provided by the publisher. Edited by Jonathan Strahan, with so many other contributors beyond Lafferty himself.

I think it's a cop-out sometimes to say, "Oh, humor is so subjective," instead of, "This story wherein the protag blows up a young woman for not wanting to date him: I did not find it funny. And then the bit where he builds a robot for beating teenagers into submission to adult dress codes and mores: I did not find that part of this story funny either." I mean, sure, humor is subjective, but also "Eurema's Dam" is one of the most mean-spirited pieces of un-funniness I have ever read. And I read a lot of Silver Age purportedly-funny SF, so I have a big data set to draw on.

A "best of" label can be problematic in a case like this, because you end up staring at the stories with sexually precocious seven-year-olds and constant anger at women who inexplicably do not want to sleep with particular men and going, "Well, huh, this is the best? Okay then."

The structure of this volume is one that seems to assume that anyone who might ever want to read R.A. Lafferty has already read R.A. Lafferty and this volume is just a convenient place to have a lot of their favorites in one place. I say this because not only is there a collection introduction, but there is also an introduction to each story (by divers hands), and sometimes there is another note at the end as well. The latter structure is far less problematic, but at least half of the people writing introductions have written the sort of introduction that tells you exactly what will happen in the story you're about to read. In most cases they don't do it any better than R. A. Lafferty, in a few cases they do, and neither is particularly successful. I found myself grateful for the other half of the introduction writers, who talked about their own reactions more and plot summaries less.

And particularly for Kelly Robson, who actually grappled with the story in front of her, writing, "I try to forgive Lafferty the use of troubling racial epithets (should I?) even though they throw me out of the story (in 1978, no, there was no excuse), because he touches my world to his." Robson is not trying to pretend that enjoying a story means condoning its faults--or even leaving the reader wondering whether she has noticed them, which is worse. Given the opportunity to look into how actual Romany people or various indigenous groups portrayed in these stories might regard them, the editor...didn't. Opportunity missed.

Did I find any good in this collection, then? Well, some. The phrase "tall tale" kept coming up as a description of Lafferty's default mode of storytelling, and it's not a mode you find much in other places. I expect that most people would enjoy this volume more if they took it in little bites than if they read it all at once, and that's in part because of the prevalence of that particular mode, which is better suited for shorter bursts. I think Lafferty's strength is in surreal ideas that bend the world a little for the reader, and many of us can use periodic doses of that.

Comments

[sovay]

This story wherein the protag blows up a young woman for not wanting to date him: I did not find it funny.

That sounds like a bit of a dealbreaker to me.

[mrissa]

The Hugo voters of 1973 apparently disagreed.

[sovay]

The Hugo voters of 1973 apparently disagreed.

I saw that when I looked it up. I don't believe I ever read it: I feel both of the plot elements you mention would have been memorable enough to recall. Is the title some kind of pun or does it just look like it should be?

[mrissa]

It's about how "stupidity" (that is, not doing things the way other people do) is the mother of invention.

It's one of those Silver Age stories that mostly tells-not-shows the exploits of a Notable Man until his Disconcerting (spoiler alert: not particularly disconcerting) End.

The thing is that the plot elements are so very throwaway as to basically not be plot elements. It is literally not about him murdering the young woman in question; he does so in an aside and the story goes on. The teen-beating machine takes several paragraphs but is basically universally lauded, there is no conflict around it. Which makes the whole thing much more gross and stomach-churning, to be honest.

[sovay]

It's about how "stupidity" (that is, not doing things the way other people do) is the mother of invention.

This is some proto-Revenge of the Nerds, then?

Which makes the whole thing much more gross and stomach-churning, to be honest.

I can see that: it assumes that you the reader share the universal lauding.

[mrissa]

Yeah, in the context of the fans-are-slans bullshit one often sees in that era, it's particularly unpleasant. (Would that I could say we were done with that now....)

[sovay]

(Would that I could say we were done with that now....)

+1 *unprintable*

[mrissa]

Oh, and: when revisiting this story after more than 40 years to write an introduction, Robert Silverberg predictably does not notice anything different about it re: the murder of young women for their lack of interest in specific young men. He has not apparently spent any time since 1973 thinking about how that goes as a plot element and whether he wants to stand by it as a good thing he's glad he published.

Well. Of course he hasn't.

[sovay]

Well. Of course he hasn't.

You would think, even if the thought hadn't occurred spontaneously (which I believe, sadly), someone would have pointed it out to him.

[anne]

Haha you kids these days and your assumption that he'd listen.

[mrissa]

Oh jinx I should read my notifications.

[anne]

Some things are worth saying twice.

[mrissa]

...he is not excellent at listening to things pointed out to him either.

[sovay]

...he is not excellent at listening to things pointed out to him either.

I had gathered this fact over the years: I was honestly hoping someone had sat on him. I gather then that Strahan isn't the sort of person to notice, either.

[mrissa]

It's weird, I generally think well of Strahan, but no, I don't think he has set himself up to be that dude.

[okrablossom]

I thought perhaps that second paragraph was intended to be illustrative hyperbole... Here's another writer whose work I can just not read. I'm obviously not welcome. Thanks for steering me clear.

[rosefox]

I first read Lafferty's work at the most opportune time, when I was a teenager who had only read 1990s extruded fantasy product and some Heinlein juvies and was not prepared to stumble upon the New Wave. "Seven-Day Terror" delighted me and "Slow Tuesday Night" was (and remains) deeply personally meaningful in a way I can't really articulate. (The past couple of days with the $GME short squeeze nonsense have felt extremely "Slow Tuesday Night".) At some point I spent something like $60 or $80 that I absolutely did not have to buy a collection of his work. I know I read it. But... the only stories I still remember are "Seven-Day Terror" and "Slow Tuesday Night". Perhaps that's for good reason.

All the same, if you're looking to rehome your copy of this collection, I'll be glad to take it off your hands.

[mrissa]

It was an eARC.