Gosh, where to start.
First off, I'm genuinely amazed by the intelligent and reasonable responses I've had. On many forums offering an opinion contrary to the Host's would kick off some fairly nasty lines of conversation. Since posting that last comment I was half-expecting to be banned faster than L. Ron Hubbard can type after a night of drinking caffeine! That or an attack by a vengeful quill-wielding writer :-p
First-off, Thaurismunths:
I'm afraid to say that in my own experience, the chances of anyone's mind ever being changed by fiction are minute. I'm reminded of the Frank Zappa obscenity trials in which the judges were concerned that his music was adversely affecting the youth of America. Part of Zappa's defence was to point out that the vast majority of songs are love songs, but that listening to them doesn't seem to make us love each other any more. Sadly, it's similar here, anyone with a political view adverse to this story will dismiss it out of hand or else give up on it. The only people that will find meaning in it are those who already hold these views.
It goes without saying that it really shouldn't be like this.
For me a social observation story should work on two levels, the story itself and a deeper level of meaning for those that want to find it. The only example I can think of off the top of my head is Animal Farm by George Orwell, which could be taken as a fantasy story about animals taking over a farm, of could be taken as a take on the Russian Revolution. But in the case of Animal Farm, you don't need to appreciate the sub-text in order to be able to just enjoy the story. (This isn't a fantastic example, I know, but it's the first that comes to mind)
ClicheKiller:
(Nice Moniker, btw.)
I do accept your point about good literature existing to make us think. I would also add that it should stimulate the imagination, this to me is just as important.
I'm afraid I'd be reluctant to accept the internal conflict within the guide, as this conflict was resolved before the story even started, when he decided to take the job. Had the story started, f'rinstance, when the guide had just left University and was debating whether or not to become a guide, I could have accepted that as a plot. In this case, though, there is no conflict, the guide's opinions are fixed before the story begins, as are those of the American Tourists.
With the Asimov pieces I'd actually be more inclined to think of them as Science Fiction pieces with a Murder Mystery backdrop. The Science Fiction aspects are what he's trying to relate, the Murder Mystery is the medium through which he relates them. With this story here, the story about the Tourists is what Mr Resnick is trying to relate, the Science Fiction elements are only a backdrop.
It's true that awards and popularity are often a mark of quality, but not always. Dan Brown springs to mind for one example of an exception :-p (I'm in no way implying that Mr Resnick is as bad as Dan Brown, just giving an example to support my supposition)
Thankyou also clichekiller, you presented your arguments most eloquently, I'll look forward to seeing you around on these forums in future.
Mr Eley:
It's OK, I don't think you're trying to cramp feedback, your opinion is always welcome
First off: I have automatic respect for anyone that likes Percy Shellley! The Mask of Anarchy is one of my favorite poems, I literally have the T-Shirt.
I'm afraid the imagery of the story didn't do anything for me at all for two reasons. Firstly, that to me this is background material, it's like the painted backdrop of a stage in a theatre, it's better if it's attractive to look at and portrays the atmosphere, but it's the story and the performances that're really important, anything else is secondary. The second reason (which may possibly explain something of my attitude here) is that I'm a massive fan of the British New Wave SF Movement (Michael Moorcock, Barrington J Bayley, etc) where such imagery is commonplace. Michael Moorcock for one has produced a multitude of such images in just about everything he's every written.
Also, this idea of Western ignorance is nothing new to me, I've been aware of it ever since I was at school, and images of American Tourists such as those portrayed here abound in films, and have for as long as I've been watching them.
Now, if that building had actually contained a God, we might be on to something
Finally, Mr Resmocl (should we ever meet in person, you'll know me when I address you as that
):
SF for me doesn't have to be about "starships, aliens, or zap guns" and never has, just about ideas, vivid new ideas well told, or even just stories that exist for no other reason than to be good stories (though it's much harder to find cases of this working).
To cite another example: to me calling this story Science Fiction would be like calling the David Carradine TV Series 'Kung-fu' a western, it isn't really. The series is mostly concerned with philosophy, the Western element is just a backdrop, you could have set it almost anywhere without changing the characters or the plot one bit.
Similarly here, this story could be changed from Science Fiction to Mainstream by pretty much just changing the names and nothing else.
It might be worth mentioning at this point (I've probably not made this clear) that although I stand by my three criticisms, the main one is actually the lack of plot. I can forgive the other two to an extent if the plot is good enough to carry me along, and in this case I don't believe it was.
Thanks again everyone for such a though-provoking debate, it's been a good many years since I've had to think like this about my own opinions.
Simon Painter
Shropshire, UK