Showing posts with label Ian Sales. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ian Sales. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

DYSTOPIAN VISIONS Guest Post: Ian Sales, "The Road to Dystopia"

Today we welcome Ian Sales with a guest essay for Dystopian Visions! Sales is the author of the award-winning Apollo Quartet (see our glowing reviews of this must-read series: hereherehere and here), and founder of the SF Mistressworks blog. He can be found online at iansales.com and tweets as @ian_sales




The Road to Dystopia

There is a famous road paved with good intentions, but it is a very different sort of path which leads the way a dystopian future. We know the signs, we’ve seen them before--if we’re not old enough to remember them, then we’ve studied them in the classroom. Yet people these days seem all too happy to treat those warning signs lightly. And I have to wonder:

How much of that is science fiction’s fault?

True, there are several well-known cautionary tales - Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four is the obvious ur-text, but there’s also Zamyatin’s We, Karp’s One (though its concept of dystopia seems clearly aimed at a subset of US readers), Burgess’s A Clockwork Orange... none of which, of course, were published as science fiction, although they have been claimed by the genre. But there are also plentiful dystopian novels that were published as SF--Fahrenheit 451, The Space Merchants, Stand on Zanzibar, High-Rise… and, more recently and much more widely-known, The Hunger Games trilogy, which was published as YA but is widely recognised as science fiction.

No, I don’t think science fiction’s exploration of dystopian presents and futures has been instrumental in bringing on twenty-first century dystopia, but the genre as a whole does bear some small responsibility for our comfort with what we should be deeply uncomfortable with…

Three science fiction novels spring to mind as examples, published in 2011, 2013 and 2014. One was by a highly-regarded genre writer, who has spent the last twenty years writing fiction not actually published as science fiction. Another was written by a successful British author of space operas. The earliest of the three is also a space opera, the first in a series of, to date, six novels, which was adapted for television in 2014.

In each novel, there is one small, almost throwaway, element - a piece of background, a minor plot point, something which is either not needed or could have been achieved by other means – relevant to this piece.

In the first novel, the one published in 2014, a means of communicating with the relatively recent past has been discovered early in the twenty-second century. However, the act of communication, as in Schrödinger’s thought experiment, creates a new timeline which cannot lead to the communicator’s future. And so a “hobby” has grown up around this, with people of the twenty-second century using their more advanced knowledge and technology to interfere in the iterations of the early twenty-first century they generate. In a throwaway line in the novel, a character mentions one person who creates alternate twenty-first centuries with the sole intention of testing weapons technology, forcing the world of each past into a global war, so that he might harvest the fruits of its desperate technological struggle for survival. What the novel fails to point out, however, is that this “hobby” is playing with the lives of six billion plus people in every single one of the alternate worlds, often to fatal ends.

The plot of the earliest of the three novels revolves around an alien virus discovered on a moon of one of the gas giants. An executive of a powerful corporation is keen to learn the actual effects of this virus, and has decided that laboratory tests can tell him only so much. So he hires a group of mercenaries, seizes control of an asteroid community with a population of 1.5 million people, introduces the virus and seals the asteroid. In other words, the executive consigns 1.5 million people to death, a particularly horrible and gruesome death, in an effort to find something which might prove profitable.

In the third sf novel, published between the two mentioned above, a young woman’s peculiar origin is important in a billionaire’s plan to regain his former political position. But he can’t simply ask the young woman to help, as she has an important public role to play in her culture. He must kidnap her. And in order to hide her disappearance his agents crash a spaceship into the ocean, causing a tsunami which kills tens of millions of people.

The three books are: The Peripheral by William Gibson, published in 2014, Leviathan Wakes by James SA Corey, published in 2011, and Marauder by Gary Gibson, published in 2013.

Since its beginnings, science fiction has exhibited a blithe disregard for the characters who people its stories, outside those of the central cast of heroes, anti-heroes, villains, love interests, etc. Frank Herbert’s Dune from 1965, for instance, describes how Paul Muad’Dib launches a jihad across the galaxy which kills billions. EE ‘Doc’ Smith’s Second Stage Lensman, originally serialised in 1941, opens with a space battle between a fleet of over one million giant warships and an equal number of “mobile planets”…

Manipulating scale to evoke sense of wonder is one thing, but the lack of affect with which science fiction stories and novels massacre vast numbers of people, for whatever narrative reason, is more astonishing. There is no commentary on the morality of such actions. And very rarely any discussion of the effect on the victims and survivors. Such consequence-free deployment of mega-violence not only desensitises the reader to large numbers of deaths, but it also normalises the thinking which results in those atrocities.

Because these are atrocities. Some might be acts of war, dialled up to unrealistic levels in order to tickle the reader’s sense of the dramatic, but many of them are not. The authorial lack of empathy for those millions and billions is breathtaking. True, they are fictional people, they never existed, they are not real. Indeed, they’re likely not even named characters, just part of the background, like buildings or the landscape…

There are even fictional worlds which can only exist because atrocities such as the above were committed before the story began: dystopias. Dystopias do not happen overnight. War, a fascist or theocratic regime, epidemic, climate crash… something at some point slaughtered or enslaved huge swathes of the population, and this is considered simply “world-building”. Science fiction is more concerned with the costs of dystopia on those living within it - and the genre can play an important role in that respect, although waiting for the right special snowflake to come along and save the the day is not it - than it is the events which led to it. And if the latter are discussed, it’s with a sense of inevitability - who can stop the Bomb from falling, after all - that the narrative fails to address. In most dystopian novels, the dystopia is presented as a fait accompli. It is not worth commenting on how it could have been prevented because the lesson of the narrative is either accommodation or overthrow. And the latter, while much more dramatic, is almost certainly going to lead yet more mega-violence. Often to no good effect.

No discussion of dystopian fiction would be complete without mention of a work which discusses the costs incurred on the road to dystopia. Unhappily, I can’t think of a single science-fictional example. Science fiction is not interested in “works in progress”, or protean futures, only in applecarts which can be upset or re-righted. But then a setting is little more than a backdrop against which the protagonist can be shown under the brightest of lights. Who would want to read a book in which the hero’s impact was not immediate but might take decades or centuries to manifest?

In the name of world-building, in the name of drama, science fiction has created stories where millions or billions are slaughtered on the flimsiest of pretexts (to be honest, I can’t actually think of a single acceptable pretext), or where villains have a single setting: psychopath. The more such stories readers see, the more readers become inured to these sorts of actions. But that’s not what fiction is for, and certainly not what science fiction is for.

Someone once said dystopian fiction plays an important role because it shows the privileged what the lives of the unprivileged are like. And yet so little published dystopian fiction actually meets that description. Science fiction has spent over a century reinforcing the prejudices of its readers, and all the while it has claimed to be “challenging their horizons”. It is an astonishing sleight of hand.

Not, of course, that science fiction is unique in popular culture in doing so.

However, science fiction at least has the advantage of an active community of creators and consumers. So instead of telling stories of genocide and mega-violence and psychopathic villains, throw a little empathy into the mix. When writing war stories, show the cost on all involved, not just the hero. Don’t escalate the violence while blithely ignoring the morality.

Let’s all be responsible about what we read and write, because it does matter.

Friday, November 27, 2015

Microreview [book]: A Prospect of War, by Ian Sales

First-rate space opera "spaction"—a new epic adventure begins!

Sales, Ian. A Prospect of War. Tickety Boo Press Ltd., 2015.

Said book can be bought right here!

Best of all, this space opera is way more interesting than real opera, because there’s just a whole lot more going on with a lot less (practically none, really!) full-throated warbling whilst striking dramatic poses on stage. Seriously, how many operas have you seen? Be honest: you secretly (or perhaps openly!) think opera is pretty dumb, right? But I’ll bet most of you totally like the idea of (outer) space, especially when there’s ships blowing up and people getting impaled on swords and everything!

So how did we get the term ‘space opera’? Space is way cooler than opera. But I don’t want to be a complainer, so I’m here with an alternate suggestion: spaction! That’s exactly what A Prospect of War is: major action, involving spaceships and brief stops on planets and conspiracies against an ancient, seemingly stable empire. Plus, Sales took a hint from Frank Herbert’s brilliant innovation to combine spacefaring civilization with swords: the technological explanation is similar, something along the lines of projectile weapons being ineffective against personal shielding gizmos so all high-class people master the sword.

The most interesting innovation Sales brings to the spaction is the seemingly harsh neo-feudal system in place throughout the enormous empire. Society is stratified into the noble class (hardly any), the yeoman class (an elite few), and proles (the 99%).  The difference between the two elite classes is tiny compared to the rigidly enforced gulf between the proles and the higher-ups. That said, among the epic cast of characters, several yeomen-class figures end up impersonating proletarians, with varying degrees of effectiveness (coaching from a linguist helps one yeo(wo)man temporarily shed her haughty aristocratic speech patterns and accent). It’s fascinating to consider a multi-planet empire that has devolved in its social system to a complicated feudal monarchy, and not necessarily implausible either.

However, it seems to me it would be all too easy for people in such a universe to fake it—both ways (assuming they have the means to acquire a suitable costume). Right from the beginning of the story, it’s so tremendously useful for elites to use the giant world of the underclass that despite their classist distaste for the idea, they keep doing it. Obviously the reverse is a lot more destabilizing to the social order, and there are a few offhand comments by characters suggesting (that they believed) any prole who dared attempt such a revolutionary act would be caught instantly (and it’s an offense punishable by death, which would provide a healthy deterrent for most, to be sure!).

This is by way of saying that the sociopolitical system, while interesting on an intellectual level, sounds a couple of gentle pushes from total systemic collapse (and to be fair, this is the first part of a larger series which will certainly explore the weaknesses of the seemingly eternal empire). Aside from this quasi false note, however, the rest of the story and its characters are quite engaging (though Casimir’s journey to maturity was quite a jerky, abrupt roller coaster), and I’m looking forward to the subsequent installments! To Ian Sales, and in honor of Thanksgiving: I'm thankful for A Prospect of War (which sounds pretty weird unless we all understand it's a book title!).


The Math

Objective assessment: 8/10

Bonuses: +1 for rocking the spaction formula

Penalties: -1 for a degree of implausibility in the idea of a neo-feudal space-faring civilization

Nerd coefficient: 8/10 "something pretty awesome this way comes" (see stuff on scoring here).


This message brought to you by Zhaoyun, spaction-lover and reviewer at Nerds of a Feather since 2013. 

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

6 Books with Science Fiction Author Ian Sales


Ian Sales is the author of the award-winning Apollo Quartet (see our glowing reviews of this must-read series: here, here, here and here), and founder of the SF Mistressworks blog. He can be found online at iansales.com and tweets as @ian_sales. Today he shares his "6 Books" with us...


1. What book are you currently reading? 

Loving by Henry Green. Originally published in 1945, it’s set belowstairs in a large house in rural Ireland during World War II. Green was apparently much neglected during the 1970s and 1980s, but he’s seen something of a resurgence in recent years. I don’t actually remember where I stumbled across his name - probably on some “authors you must read” list - but when I found an omnibus of three of his novels in a charity shop, I thought it worth giving him a go. And I’m glad I did. In Loving, Green throws the reader straight in at the deep end. The relationships between the characters are not explained, they have to be worked out from the story - a lot of which is carried in dialogue... and Green has a superb eye for voice (if that makes sense). Loving is not how I would tell a story, but the way he does it, it works superbly. And I have to wonder if it’s not a technique it might be worth trying...


2. What upcoming book you are really excited about?

One of my favourite short story writers, Helen Simpson, has a new collection out later this year, Cockfosters, so I’m keen to read that. And Katie Ward’s debut, Girl Reading , was hugely impressive, so I’m looking forward to seeing her next novel, The Woman in the Green Coat, also due late in the year. Neither are genre fiction. Next on the TBR, however, is Kim Stanley Robinson’s Aurora. I’ve been a fan of his fiction for decades, and I’ve heard good things of this one, so I’m looking forward to starting it.




3. Is there a book you're currently itching to re-read?

Just about the only re-reading I’m doing these days is books I’m reviewing for SF Mistressworks; but there are plenty of past reads I’d like to tackle again, such as Gwyneth Jones’s Aleutian trilogy of White Queen, North Wind and Phoenix Café (I used reviews I wrote back in the 1990s for SF Mistressworks). It’s also probably about time for my semi-irregular re-read of Samuel R Delany’s Dhalgren. And it’s not actually a re-read, but last year I tracked down a copy of the novel on which my favourite film, All That Heaven Allows is based, also titled All That Heaven Allows, by Edna Lee and (her son) Harry Lee, and I’m looking forward to re-visiting that story but in novel format. 


4. How about a book you've changed your mind about over time--either positively or negatively? 

Definitely A Stainless Steel Trio. I loved the series as a teenager - I think I actually read The Stainless Steel Rat’s Revenge first, but I quickly got hold of the rest of the series and devoured them. I even liked the two comic adaptations in 2000AD. But a couple of years ago, I re-read The Stainless Steel Rat and… it was dreadful. Really terrible. The writing was workmanlike at best, the story didn’t actually need to be science fiction (it’s a 1930s caper film tricked out with coal-powered robots, etc.), and the characterisation of Angelina, the villain, was deeply offensive. I immediately purged my shelves of all my Harry Harrison books. 


5. What's one book, which you read as a child or young adult, that has had a lasting influence on your writing?

I started writing late, so I don’t think any of my influences stretch back to my childhood or teen years. Besides, I was reading 1970s and 1980s science fiction then, and I’m not likely to write that now. But the two books that have most heavily influenced my writing, I read this century. They are Ascent by Jed Mercurio and Moondust by Andrew Smith. Those two books are probably the most responsible for the Apollo Quartet. I suppose you could throw The Road or Blood Meridian in there too, as one of the inspirations for Adrift on the Sea of Rains was “Cormac McCarthy on the Moon”, which led to the prose style I used. Oh, and there’s a bit of DNA from WG Sebald’s Austerlitz in there as well. As the quartet progressed, of course, more books contributed to it - not just as research, but also in terms of narrative feel and atmosphere; and I think the final book, All That Outer Space Allows, has a little bit of DH Lawrence’s Sons and Lovers in it somewhere, not to mention all the 1950s and 1960s women sf writers I read, and read about, while writing the novel.


6. And speaking of that, what's *your* latest book, and why is it awesome?

It’s titled A Prospect of War and it was published by Tickety Boo Press. It’s the first book of a wide-screen space opera trilogy with swords that’s a little bit steampunk and a little bit Regency. Sort of. Despite the title and the GIANT SPACE BATTLESHIP on the cover, it’s not military SF. But there are lots of sword-fights and battles and space-battles, the latter two more or less inspired by various wars from the Age of Reason. It’s kind of a “hidden prince saves empire” almost-consolatory fantasy-type plot, made complicated by lots of wheels-within-wheels conspiracies and an embarrassing tendency by the author to twist or deconstruct each space opera trope as he deploys it... And I like to think it’s witty too. A Prospect of War will be followed in October by A Conflict of Orders, and by the final book, A Want of Reason, in March next year.

-Ian Sales


***

POSTED BY: The G--purveyor of nerdliness, genre fanatic and Nerds of a
Feather founder/administrator (2012).

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

Zhaoyun's Third Annual Splendiferous Summer Reading List

Boom!


1) Various Stuff by Brandon "Branderson" Sanderson



It took me a while to warm up to Brandon Sanderson, but I now think he's cool enough to deserve his own one-man celebrity portmanteau: Branderson. I just hope if he has a male child he will name (or already has named?) him Brandonson. Anyway, my initial distrust was totally irrational, sparked by the sudden burst of (almost certainly mistaken!) insight, while reading Neal Stephenson's Reamde, that the workhorse sci fi/fantasy author good ole' Neal was mocking must be Sanderson. I had no desire to read books by the Thomas Kinkade of sf/f, I haughtily huffed. But then I read a short story by Branderson, and liked it immensely. This gateway taste led to a sampling of the Mistborn series, which I found to be excellent (though I'm still on the fence about the Alloy of Law industrial age digression). Currently, I'm midway through the first couple of books of the Stormlight Archives series, and am loving it so far!







2) The Good, The Bad, and the Smug, by Tom Holt
 

The world needs a new Terry Pratchett, and Holt may be it: based on this book (which I've already finished), he's got much of Pratchett's wit and word-crafting skill. Holt still has a lot of growing to do before his feet fill out into Pratchett's dauntingly awesome shoes, but he's certainly on the right track, if this book is any indication.










3) Dark Eden and Mother of Eden, by Chris Beckett



I'm excited to read straight-up science fiction again—it's been a long time. Everything I've heard about this series, especially Beckett's speculations on the linguistic effects of the passage of time on another world, has me in a tizzy, so much so that I've begun to worry if I/Beckett have created an expectations trap out of which no book, no matter how brilliant, can escape. Time will tell!


4) A Prospect of War, by Ian Sales


My thoughts on this are similar to #3 above: science fiction has been singing its siren song to me for quite some time now, and I am looking forward to being dashed upon the rocks and swallowed up by the Scylla of space opera! I feel certain this Odyssey references are mixed up, but not everyone is as long-suffering as him, to slog through the tedium of yet another detour on his road home. Honestly, from Troy to Ithaca is like a three-week journey, tops—even with only hands for paddles.





5) The Shepherd's Crown, by Terry Pratchett



See #2 for praise, by implication, for the late master of words Terry Pratchett. I loved his work over the years, and it will be quite upsetting to read this knowing that it's the last thing he wrote before his tragic death, but I'll read it anyway, because not to do so would be even worse.












6) The Buried Giant, by Kazuo Ishiguro




Actually, I'm not certain I'll read this; Ishiguro doesn't wow my socks off, if anything sometimes irritating the socks back on me for failing to reach the full potential of his interesting ideas. Reading his books is maddening, as I keep expecting some titanic, earth-shattering denouement and instead he delivers not a bang but a whimper. Yo, Ishiguro: enough whimpering! It's time to make a bang!












And that, as they say, is that! 

Brought to you by Zhaoyun, reader of dreams and dreamer of books here at NOAF since 2013.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Microreview [book]: All That Outer Space Allows by Ian Sales

An alternate history of science fiction...


All That Outer Space Allows is the fourth and final installment in the Apollo Quartet, Sales' series of speculative novellas--each of which rests, as the name implies, on an alternate history of the U.S. Apollo program. I'm a big fan of the series, and think Adrift of the Sea of Rains and The Eye with which the Universe Beholds Itself in particular embody a science fictional ethic that is increasingly rare in this age of "exhaustion."  I found the third installment, Then Will the Great Ocean Wash Deep Above, a bit uneven in comparison--pairing, as it does, a compelling tale of female test fighter pilots facing institutional barriers to the astronaut program to an entertaining but poorly connected narrative about deep sea exploration. So I was curious to see how (or perhaps more accurately "if") Sales would tie the series together in the penultimate volume.

All That Outer Space Allows tells the story of Virginia "Ginny" Eckhardt, the fictional wife of fictional astronaut Walden Eckhadt, and a moderately well-known science fiction author. The alternate historical conceit is that science fiction is a literary space reserved for women, and a mode of escape for housewives laboring under the sexist mores of American society in the 1960s--thus playing a similar role to romance literature in our world. The narrative begins at Edwards Air Force Base, where Walden is a test pilot trying to gain entrance to the prestigious astronaut program; after he is accepted, the couple move to Houston, where Ginny is inducted into the Astronauts' Wives Club (now subject of a network television series), thus becomes something of a public figure. The new role subjects her to intense social pressure--to be a model housewife and to thereby reflect well on the program and, hopefully, increase Walden's chances of being assigned to one of the upcoming Apollo missions. But the pressure, and Walden's increasing absence, make it increasingly difficult for Ginny to write. So she decides to learn first-hand about the Apollo program, in the hopes that this will provide the creative spark she needs to revive her writing career.

Throughout the traditional third-person narrative, Sales interjects anecdotal commentary--written in such a way as to suggest the editorializing of a historian, but which is in actuality an equally fictional narrative about "V. G. Parker" (i.e. Ginny Eckhardt) navigating the institutional sexism of SF as it actually existed in the 1960s. The main narrative and this "annotational" one come together in the story attributed to Eckhardt/Parker, "The Spaceships Men Don't See," whose "housewife heroines" and mild explorations of sexism in the astronaut program are said to provoke a negative (and realistic) response from the male readership of Galaxy. Sales presents the story within the text, a literary trope dating back to Hamlet, and which serves to literalize Ginny's frustration at how the subservient position ascribed to women shackles her dreams.  

Given this formal and thematic complexity, I think it's fair to say that All That Outer Space Allows is the most ambitious entry in the Apollo Quartet. It is also significant for its commentary on the field of science fiction. As a critic and fan writer, Sales has dedicated himself to recording the "secret" history of female-authored SF, and to bring attention to the many unrecognized, underappreciated and out-of-print female-authored SF novels published over the past century. All That Outer Space Allows is, fundamentally, an attempt to explore this history through fictional device, and it by and large succeeds. Ginny is an strong, well-realized character, and Sales does a great job evoking period and place--reflecting a meticulous level of research. There are, of course, some moments when it's clear that the author is not American--Ginny referring to the family vehicle as "the Impala" rather than "the car," as Americans would when there is only one to choose from, or the narrator referring to Ginny as having "finished her toilet"--a phrase that doesn't make sense in American colloquial English. But these are relatively infrequent; at most points one forgets that Sales is British. 

I've gone back and forth on the breaking of the fourth wall, however. Initially I found it distracting, but at some points it seemed to work beautifully. In the end, though, the cost of shattering perspective is just too high. Formally, I think I would have preferred the commentary to come in the form of footnotes, as one might find in an academic edition of a novel. That would allow the reader to choose between reading the text on its own or shifting to the notes as they come up--an arrangement that would also, I might add, incentivize re-reading. Moreover, at times the "annotational" narrative is too blunt a tool, hammering in messages that are already clear in Ginny's story. At the same time, I do appreciate the experimentation, and found both the "annotational" narrative and story-within-a-story to be worthwhile endeavors. I'm just unconvinced by the mode of presentation. 

Taken together, this marks All That Outer Space Allows as the most difficult volume of the Apollo Quartet to quantify. It is absorbing and undeniably powerful, and takes risks that I wish I encountered more frequently in the genre. But the biggest risk, at least as far as I'm concerned, doesn't quite pan out. Perhaps it's a testament to the things this novella does well that I nevertheless recommend it in the strongest possible terms.


The Math

Baseline Assessment: 8/10.

Bonuses: +1 for general sophistication; +1 for writing "hard" social science fiction.

Penalties: -1 for breaking perspective with in-line annotations when footnotes would have been better; -1 for making an obvious message a little too obvious.

Nerd Coefficient: 8/10. "Well worth your time and attention."

Read about our scoring system here.


***

POSTED BY: The G--purveyor of nerdliness, genre fanatic and
'nerds of a
feather, flock together' founder/administrator
.
     
Reference: Sales, Ian. All That Outer Space Allows [Whippelshield Books, 2015]


Wednesday, April 8, 2015

PERSPECTIVES III: "What is Science Fiction? Or, Hell, What is Genre?"

Welcome to Perspectives III, which is not only a companion, but a response to Blogtable III.

Here’s how it works: an editoral, opinion piece or critical essay written by an external blogger, critic, journalist or creative person is presented by a regular contributor to nerds of a feather, flock together; it is then answered by three other regular 'nerds of a feather, flock together' contributors. Crucially, each respondent will also respond to each preceding respondent. This episode's cast o' characters:


The G (Respondent #1)


The G is founder and co-editor of ‘nerds of a feather, flock together’, which covers SF/F, crime fiction, comics, cult films and video games. He moonlights as an academic.

Vance K (Respondent #2)


Vance is the co-editor and usually cult-film reviewer for ‘nerds of a feather, flock together.’ He records loud folk songs under the name Sci-Fi Romance, and writes and directs things for a living.

English Scribbler (Respondent #3)


Our resident Londoner, English Scribbler gets to see all the BBC shows before any of the other contributors, and lets us know about it whenever it best pleases him.

EPISODE 3: In which three nerds of a feather debate what it is that makes science fiction a coherent genre, and if it can even be considered that...

The discussion around the question of "Defining Science Fiction" and the insightful but wildly different responses that made up our Blogtable III simply had too many facets to be left to a single post. So in this installment of Perspectives, the nerds of a feather respondents will begin directly from the comments of Blogtable participants Ian Sales, Aliette de Bodard, and Paul Kincaid.

The G

All three discussants in this month’s Blogtable offered compelling visions of what, if anything, makes science fiction science fictional. Paul Kincaid contends that “science fiction” is more attitude or approach than genre, rendering its boundaries inherently subjective--a position that grows more attractive as one explores the permeable boundaries demarcating science fiction (by any definition) from fantasy, horror and mimetic fiction. Ian Sales also believes science fiction is defined primarily by attitude or approach, and not by its tropes (spaceships, robots, etc.) or the supposed “hardness” of its science; rather, he argues that for something to be truly science fictional, it must be grounded in a rational or scientific worldview. Though generally accepting of this framework, Aliette de Bodard makes the important point that defining science fiction strictly in relation to science or a scientific worldview embeds certain normativities (often Western-biased) in the discourse, which can be off-putting or exclusionary to those raised outside the West--or, indeed, those raised inside the West but outside the strict rationalism that pervades its urban intellectual enclaves.

While I see much value in all three contributions, my own feelings are somewhat distinct from each. For me, at least, science fiction denotes something very specific. More to the point, what makes a story science fictional is the degree to which it explores what life would be like and what kinds of stories could be told if certain variables were altered from the present or any historical state, provided that the alterations are scientifically plausible.

Now what I mean by “scientifically plausible” is in need of clarification. First, “science” includes a whole lot more than just the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, cybernetics, etc.). It also includes the social and behavioral sciences (sociology, anthropology, economics, political science, psychology, etc.). Second, plausible does not mean “adhering closely to the stable of scientific facts we possess at this moment,” but rather “adhering to the much broader category of scientific theorization we possess at this moment, or reasonable extrapolations from that theorization.”

I think this is a reasonably broad definition, and casts a fairly broad net across genre. Take Iain M. Banks’ Culture novels, in which technology has progressed to such a point as to be nearly magical. Some might conclude that these books, like other space operas (e.g. Star Wars), aren’t really science fictional. But, from my perspective, they are. After all, the fundamental preoccupation of the series is to speculate on what life would be like and what stories could be told if a society progressed to the point where scarcity no longer existed, while bordering any number of societies in which scarcity was still very much the norm. Or take John Brunner’s Stand on Zanzibar, an almost disturbingly prescient novel that involves very little technological or physical-scientific speculation. But it is sociologically speculative, and thus — in my view — very clearly science fictional.

Wait...what about stuff like Dune? That’s kind of science fictional by your definition, but also kind of fantastic too….

Thank you for bringing that up, disembodied rhetorical voice. And to answer your question, I’d suggest that any definition of what science fiction “is” or “is not” should adopt the logic of correlation rather than causation. Or, to put it another way, even as we look to set boundaries, we should reject the idea that those boundaries are hard or immutable. Categories are useful sorting mechanisms, but only if one recognizes that the boundaries are fuzzy and permeable, and that lots of stuff fits in the in-between spaces. And that’s a good thing. Rules are made to be broken, after all.

So is Dune science fiction? I’d argue it’s closer to fantasy. However, I’m inclined to put it in one of those interstitial spaces, and to say while it’s not strictly speaking science fiction, it does have elements of science fiction.

Okay, fine. But what about spaceships, robots and laser guns? Isn’t that what science fiction is really about?

Ian makes the point that science fiction should not be defined by its tropes. I agree, as you can surely tell, but given that these tropes create certain expectations and provide certain parameters that most readers (and consumers of related media) use for sorting, it doesn’t make sense to dismiss the idea that they are meaningful. They clearly are, and to many people. Thus I’d suggest that this is what we have the alternate term “sci-fi” for — not to use as a synonym or shorthand for science fiction, but to denote the broader category of works that deploy these tropes. The categories “science fiction” and “sci-fi” overlap, to be sure, but strike me as both distinct and helpful in distinctive ways.

To illustrate, consider space opera. Some clearly counts as science fiction according to the scheme I’ve laid out — Banks’ Culture series, for one, but also Revelation Space (Alastair Reynolds), Downbelow Station (C. J. Cherryh), Leviathan Wakes (James S. A. Corey) and Fallen Dragon (Peter F. Hamilton). On the other hand you have Star Wars or Hidden Empire (Kevin J. Anderson), which don’t really fit the parameters. Actually, they strike me more as fantasy-in-space. At the same time, they all would fit within the broader category of sci-fi.

So that’s pretty much how I see things -- for now at least. Over to you, Vance.

Vance

I come to the idea of genre from a very different angle than the other voices in this conversation, I think. As a musician and film writer, genre is for me and has always been a marketing discussion. I love the comments of all of the people who have weighed in on this topic, and find Paul’s observation that he can nod in agreement with both Ian and Aliette’s positions (even while they’re saying different, somewhat contradictory things) particularly resonant. The reason why such a thing is possible, in this case, is that in a linguistic sense the word genre is almost utterly useless.

Take for instance Paul’s suggestion that the “more generally accepted” definition of genre is a characterization of story in which we know the basic structure. First, more accepted by whom? Writers? Critics? Academics? Readers? Publishing house marketing departments? Bookstores (long may they live)? In this space, guest contributor Peter Higgins argued compellingly that there was no such thing as a book that belonged to only a single genre.

Call me maybe. Or I kill you!
I would argue as a creator that a structural pattern or framework has nothing whatsoever to do with genre. Wikipedia defines bildungsroman as a genre, sure, but how is that a helpful categorization tool when one may come of age on the farm, on a space station, in an underwater colony, in a World War I trench, in any country on Earth, or within any other of countless locales or situations? That’s structure. In the same way that an Intro/Verse/Chorus/Verse/Chorus/ Bridge/Chorus song structure tells you nothing of the “genre” of that song. Carly Rae Jepsen has written those songs, and so has the Polish death metal band Vader. So have I.

When I was writing (unproduced) screenplays for studios and what-have-you, the genre conversation was pretty damn short and uncomplicated. It was a comedy, drama, thriller, romcom, horror, sci-fi, maybe adventure. That’s about it. Very few mysteries, very few romances, very few heists. I was writing comedies, so during development hell larger winds would blow through the culture, and maybe the “R-rated comedy” would wax and the “family comedy” would wane, and suddenly I was being asked to get a lot more balls jokes into certain scripts. But they were still comedies and were still going to be sold accordingly. You know, if they had ever gotten shot. Metal is infamous for its myriad sub-genres, but most people still agree on something being either metal or not. That classification is much more at the band-level, though, rather than the individual song.

All this is why I love the notion of “sci-fi” that The G has proposed above. The idea of macro-genres like that seems to me to have far more value to anyone who’s got skin in the game, either as a fan, a creator, or a business. We can all argue over drinks about sub-genres, but under the communal umbrella of understanding that we’re all sci-fi fans. I will quibble with The G’s reading of Aliette’s point about people being excluded. If we’re defining genres, we certainly have to draw lines. But I read Aliette’s comments to be more about not allowing the lack of a shared language become a barrier to genre inclusion, rather than as a rejection of using science or a scientific worldview as a liminal criteria. Look at that -- I used a fancy academic word! I think science or a scientific worldview has to be part of any definition or science fiction, although I’d broaden it to include civilizations in which scientific capabilities or understanding are sufficiently different from our own as to be a signature trait for a reader.

So in a language where the word “genre” no longer has any linguistic value whatsoever because it can mean almost anything (how can “crime” be a genre in any meaningful way when Michael Clayton, Unforgiven, Snatch, and the legend of Prometheus all revolve around crimes?), I think that relying on a marketing understanding isn’t such a bad guidepost. I mean, that’s what we’re after anyway, right? As ardent fans, we want to know which shelf at the video store (long may they live) or bookstore is most likely to scratch the itch we have for new stories and adventures that push our buttons or help us cope or make us feel at home.

(Incidentally, when I put out the first Sci-Fi Romance album, reviewers called it “alt-folk” which had no meaning whatsoever to most casual fans I actually spoke with, so when I got blank stares, I said “We sound like that time Johnny Cash covered Soundgarden.” The most common response I got then was, “Whoa. Johnny Cash covered Soundgarden?” You're damn right he did.)

English Scribbler

The downright terror I feel in any attempt to follow such eloquent and erudite voices as the excellent ones in our Blogtable, and my esteemed editors above, with these feeble scribbles is perhaps suitably akin to what many an aspiring science-fiction author must feel as they stare at the proverbial carte blanche. However, attempt I shall.

Vance makes the point that genre to him is a bracketing exercise based in post-creative marketing, and I agree as far as that goes. I would argue in fact that science fiction writing deals far less in genre-aspiring or group mentality than music or film often does. I've seen enough gigs and worked for enough directors to see a lifetime of eager yet deluded would-be imitation. Sir, you will never be Mike Leigh, and you lads will never be Joy Division, but his point stands. All these media are afflicted by post-creation external attempts to pigeon-hole or make them ‘fit’ a genre for easy consumption.

However, Ian Sales makes a valid argument for the idea of SF being a distinct mode for which certain boundary values apply, the transgression of which makes a proud genre merely a mask to wear, "a box of tropes" to play with. So is genre, as such, the chicken or the egg, creatively? Is SF something that writing falls in into, or takes advantage of, or is it a labelling exercise that is an after-thought to a writer's intention? Asimov called science fiction “that branch of literature which is concerned with the impact of scientific advance upon human beings”. On that basis, by the very move to concern themselves in writing with this impact, is a writer thereby determining to be a Science Fiction Writer, or just wandering into the woods of the genre by coincidence? And does intention matter, or only outcome?

One of my very favourite novels of the last two years is Lagoon by Nnedi Okorafor. A Nigerian-origin American, she has written eloquently about the lack of creation of and interest in African-made science fiction, and so her attempts to tell very sci-fi tales set very much in and on the continent are therefore bold and refreshing. She has specifically attempted a genre for a definite, and political purpose, and is therefore pigeon-holing herself intentionally; however, this is not a reductive venture, and she uses Lagoon as a funnel to explore far more than alien invasion plot devices. So she may have then found her work marketed as ‘African fiction’ or ‘magic-realism’, but it would remain in her eyes as science fiction and those that read it would hopefully see that too.

My other stand-out science fiction novel read recently was Michael J Sullivan’s Hollow World. He himself frequently described it as science-fantasy, while many reviews saw it as a foray by a fantasy writer into science fiction. Time-travel, post-humans, dystopia/utopia = science fiction, surely? Where does fantasy start in science fiction? Is Star Wars fantasy using science fiction elements, and The Matrix sci-fi using fantasy elements? Does it matter?


Both the above novels are remarkable for me because they cover ideas, subjects and emotional themes that I find attractive, but they work because they happen to be great stories, beautifully told, and if there is an element to both I could describe as key to my enjoyment it would be originality. So I’m not responding to the same flavour, the same feel, every time. I’m no longer the child who would happily guzzle horror after horror, sword-fantasy after sword-fantasy, space opera after space opera, with little desire for variety, beyond the desire to never be bored.

Professor H. Bruce Franklin was perhaps not the first to do so, but he very neatly described the term science fiction by stating, “On one side lies fantasy, the realm of the impossible. On the other side lie all the forms of fiction that purport to represent the actual, whether past or present. Science fiction's domain is the possible.” This is at odds with what I thought s.f. meant as a child. I had through naivety and cultural osmosis defined it mentally as fictional science-based plots — i.e. time-travel, alien life, thinking robots — and so saw it a world of joyful fantasy. I never read Dan Dare Pilot of The Future concerned by how its 50s origin dated its view of space travel or the surface of Venus. I never cared how Dune reflected medieval royal politics. I just wanted to leap onboard a mind adventure.

Perhaps, then, despite my admiration and frequent agreement with all the preceding opinions, it is maybe arrogant yet honest to concede that the only opinion that matters to me is the eight year old who thinks “oh cool this cover has an alien AND a robot on it!!” If that is science fiction, great; but it doesn’t matter to the child. If the tale then transgresses genre, does that impress the young reader because it furthers the life of the genre or because it keeps things original and fresh after the 17 previous space robot novels she/he read? If the science of the robot is hard, does that matter to them unless ‘hard’ means ‘dry and dull’? This questions remain, I think unanswered at the end of all this wonderful debate. Yet in the mind of the child, they are irrelevant to a pure fascination with the fantastically impossible-possibilities of a story that happens to be science fiction. In the same way as chocolate cereals remain on our market shelves due to the raw demand of the clear-minded youth, I hope science fiction long remains on the bookstore shelf.

***
Posted by Vance K, who already told you plenty up there at the top. Nerds of a feather co-editor since 2012.

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

BLOGTABLE III: Defining Science Fiction

Welcome to the third episode of Blogtable! Here's how it works: a prompt is issued by a regular contributor to nerds of a feather, flock together; it is then answered by three guest bloggers in turn. Crucially, each guest blogger will also respond to each preceding respondent. This episode's cast o' characters:

The G (Prompter)


The G is founder and co-editor of ‘nerds of a feather, flock together’, which covers SF/F, crime fiction, comics, cult films and video games. He moonlights as an academic.

Ian Sales (Respondent #1)


Ian Sales is the author of the award-winning Apollo Quartet, the final book of which, All That Heaven Allows, will be published soon. The first novel of a space opera trilogy, A Prospect of War, will be published by Tickety Boo Press in July 2015. He can be found online at
iansales.com and tweets as @ian_sales.

Aliette de Bodard (Respondent #2)


Aliette de Bodard is an engineer, a science fiction and fantasy writer and a keen amateur cook. Her stories have appeared in venues such as Clarkesworld or Interzone, and her novel The House of Shattered Wings, a murder mystery set in a post-apocalyptic Paris ruled by Fallen angels, will be released by Gollancz and Roc in August 2015. She blogs (and cooks) at http://www.aliettedebodard.com.

Paul Kincaid (Respondent #3)


Paul Kincaid is the author of two collections of essays and reviews, What It Is We Do When We Read Science Fiction and Call and Response, and he is currently working on a book about Iain M. Banks. He has received the Thomas Clareson Award from the SFRA and the BSFA Non-Fiction Award.
 
EPISODE II: In which The G asks our respondents what it is, exactly, that makes science fiction science fictional...

Prompt:

What does the term “science fiction” denote to you?

  • Do you favor a broader or narrower definition of what science fiction “is” or “isn’t?”
  • How central is speculative science to science fiction, and how rigorous or “hard” does that science need to be?
  • More broadly, what, if anything, makes a story “science fictional?”

How important is it for science fiction to have a clear identity--as distinct from fantasy or mimetic/literary fiction? 

  • What are the potential benefits and pitfalls of transgressing genre boundaries, such as those delineating science fiction from fantasy or mimetic/literary fiction?
  • How does the transgression of genre boundaries affect the kinds of stories being told and range of literary statements being made?
  • What about staying within definitional boundaries--does this (generally) serve as a means of focus or constraint?

Ian


Like many people involved in science fiction--reading it, writing it, commenting on it--I’ve had a go at defining the genre. To me, it’s more just than a toy box for writers to play in, it’s a mode of fiction, and understanding how that mode works is useful when writing, or writing about, sf. In my definition, the four modes of fiction--science fiction, fantasy, magical realism and mimetic--are characterized by differing levels in narrative agency and deployment of wonder. In science fiction and mimetic fiction, agency is conferred on objects systematically by the natural world - for example, the laws of physics. But in fantasy and magical realism, that agency exists purely due to authorial fiat. Wonder, on the other hand, is a consequence of the manipulation of scale and expectation. In science fiction and fantasy, this is set at a high level; in magical realism and mimetic fiction, it is low. As a result, I don’t believe science and/or technology is central to science fiction, but a rational and/or scientific worldview is. The degree of “hardness” is pretty much irrelevant.

By this argument, the defining characteristics of science fiction are structural rather than a consequence of the presences of certain tropes. After all, how we treat tropes does, in part, tell us which genre we’re reading. For example, a dragon is fantasy, but Varanus Cryptodraconis is science fiction; a spaceship traveling faster than the speed of light using a hyperspace drive is science fiction, but a spaceship powered by someone waving their arms and spouting gibberish is fantasy.

When knowledge of the underlying elements and operating mechanisms which together form science fiction is lost or ignored, people just use it as just a box of tropes. And when people treat it like that, they also feel free to mix and match those tropes according to some artistic agenda. Which I think does science fiction a disservice. The true boundary works, the real edge-cases, are not those which jumble up tropes from, say, sf and fantasy, but those which work at a lower level, making play with the operating assumptions of more than one genre.

Given this, it’s no surprise I believe science fiction is distinct, that it’s not simply one flavour of something called “speculative fiction” (a term I hate, since all fiction is essentially speculative--you might as well call literature “fictional fiction”). Mungeing all genres into one doesn’t actually give us anything new or innovative. Thanks to this fallacy, much of the innovation we’ve seen in sf short fiction in the past decade or so has all been in terms of literary style--driven, I suspect, by creative writing courses and workshops...

I’m not sure when it happened, but at some point someone realised that genre fiction itself could be used a tool because it allowed writers to literali
ze a metaphor. This then spread into genre writing, and now half the sf and fantasy stories we see published use the technique. More recently, many genre writers have turned it on its head and use metaphors to disguise the common genre tropes they deploy. I’m not convinced this is any better. In fact, this latter technique seems to have led to a preponderance of over-writing in genre fiction. 

Basically, I believe that just as you have to understand a rule before you break it, so you have to understand science fiction before you can bend and twist it and do interesting things with it. And I’m not convinced every genre writer currently being published does really understand it. For many, it’s not an issue--they’re working in the core genre landscape, where the signposts are plain to see (and I’m mixing metaphors like mad here), so they’re writing down well-traveled lines. But there are also a number working at the edges, and it often strikes me that for many of those writers their approach to genre is nowhere near as sophisticated as they like to think it is.


Aliette

I have to admit that I'm coming from a slightly different position on categories (SF vs fantasy, SF vs mimetic, etc). I think they're very useful for setting expectations--both of what the reader is getting, and also for posterior analysis, to gather together movements and trends. Saying a book is "science fiction" means the reader expects something, and is going to be sorely disappointed if the plot turns out to take place in the 19th Century, feature a romance and no science whatsoever!

They also make it easier for readers to find books by grouping them by similar themes and features; they create a shorthand of common language based on common tropes (space travel, time travel...), and common expectations (sense of wonder...), which can be very useful both for building a story: for instance, I can use the term "ansible" in a science fiction story, or refer to generation ships, and most people familiar with the genre will know what I'm talking about, without the need for me to pause and explain for paragraphs on end!

The issue I have with them is that, like any common languages, categories can be used (and are used) to leave people out, in particular marginali
zed people. There is a very easy drift I see, time and time again, of saying that "this isn't SF because..." that gets applied with a particular vengeance to women/non-binary folks, or POCs, or people from outside the Anglosphere, or marginalized in other ways. Because, of course, the drawback of a common language and a common shorthand is that people who do not share this are in many ways left in the cold--when you don't speak this language or are not in conversation with the right background (as a reader, as a writer), what are you meant to do? (I have seen people, for instance, insist that one should read the classics before going on to read any science fiction--which is a heavy onus to place on readers who are probably just here for pleasure). 

I know it's a line, and that where it's drawn is a complicated matter--on the one end, excluding all but a narrow subset of people; on the other, putting everything into the same confusing, grab-bag category--; but it's just something I like to be aware of when it comes to categories.

And, indeed, as a writer, I feel like categories can be more of a cage than a focus; because they set rules of what is and isn't acceptable; because those rules are so easy to learn, continuously reinforced, and can take years if not decades to unlearn. And because you need people to set new boundaries for science fiction for the genre to renew itself (I'm aware people not everyone will agree with me there!); and this will not happen if everyone remains hemmed in by narrow definitions of the category (some of the most intriguing and fresh genre stories I read came from outside the Anglophone world, and were based on different traditions and different genre breakdowns).

At the same time, I do agree with Ian that it's useful to know the rules, especially if you mean to break them: partly because it's good to know what's gone on before or what's going on at the moment, and partly because what makes a story satisfying to an audience depends on the category (a science fiction story that ended up saying science is useless would not go down well with the SF audience, although I'm sure there would be ways to make it work!)--and that if you're going to stray from what people expect, I think it helps to know, as a writer, why you're going uphill and what you can do to make things work for your readership. 


I'm tempted to say that one of the defining characteristics of science fiction is that it should deal with science and the future in some way; but then I run into several problems: the first, of course, is that not all science fiction is concerned with the future (should we argue that even stories, say, of time travel or alternate histories set in the past are about our future? But then surely all fiction is about our present, and even our vision of the future is rooted in our present? Just compare Jules Verne's works to current ones, and it's easy to see that the 19th century vision of a Frenchman is quite distinct from, say, the 21st-Century vision of a U.S.-ian).

The second is that science is not fixed. By that, I don't mean completely without rules, of course; but Clarke was right when he said that science and magic became indistinguishable: one of the core characteristics of science is that it's always evolving, always contradicting and extending itself. The tail end of the 19th Century/20th Century gave us quantum mechanics and general relativity, two theories that profoundly changed our understanding of current physics (and likewise for other sciences; I'm just taking physics as something I'm particularly familiar with). It's likely that in a few centuries' time, science will have changed so much that all that we currently know will be outdated, inaccurate or outright false.

I've seen the writing advice that no story should break the laws of physics; the catch, of course, is that the laws of physics are not absolute, and that they almost certainly subject to revision in the future: to say that something is implausible or impossible four, five centuries into our future feels particularly inappropriate. With that in mind, I'm of the opinion that being "rigorous" or "hard" in a story means following the usages and storytelling modes of hard science fiction: I don't think hard SF has any kind of intrinsic superiority to other sub-genres of SF; though of course that doesn't mean hard SF stories have no attraction (I actually quite like hard SF stories because it's quite good fun to see the kinds of geeky space things people come up with!). Personally, I like to play with science and the evolution of science in my stories because it's something that fascinates me (but I totally understand that other writers have different ideas on this!).

So I guess what I'm trying to say that I'm more on the "broad definition" term of the spectrum; and that I would prefer to be inclusive rather than exclusionary. 



Paul

Although there are fundamental differences between what Ian and Aliette say, I found myself nodding in agreement as I read both of them. I started thinking of a post that would somehow tie them together, draw out the commonality, agree with what they are saying. Then I changed my mind. It is not that I suddenly decided that science fiction should be narrowly defined (I don't think that), or that I
realized Ian and Aliette were wrong (they aren't, that's part of the point). It is more that I recognized that I was seeing science fiction differently.

Bear with me, I've been working my way painstakingly towards these ideas for a decade or more, and I've still not reached a point where I am wholly satisfied with my position. This is a work in progress, if you like. My starting point is that science fiction is not a genre. I know we (including me) regularly refer to it as such, in fact it is often talked about as "The Genre" as if it's the only one. We are wrong.

There are two ways of talking about genre. (Actually, there now seem to be three ways: I've started to see anything that might link disparate bits of writing together being described as a genre. Fiction by British-Asian writers: it's a genre; fiction by women: it's a genre. So far as I can see, this is a completely useless and meaningless employment of the term, but beware, it's out there.) The oldest and broadest and, for some people, still the only correct way to use genre is in terms of type of writing. Prose, poetry, drama: these are genres; science fiction, in this context, clearly isn't.

The more recent, and now more generally accepted use of the word is as a
characterization of story. Here we know the basic structure of the story, we know the end point towards which we anticipate the story will lead us (or which may be subverted, but you need to recognize where it should go in order to recognize the subversion). Crime is a genre: it leads us to the solution/restoration; coming-of-age is a genre: it leads to personal growth; quest is a genre: it leads to the finding of what was lost; romance is a genre, bildungsroman is a genre. Genre is what shapes the story we are reading. Science fiction is not a genre, there is no natural end point towards which a science fiction story leads (a point made in very different ways by Brian Stableford when he talks of an sf story having no ending, and by Brian Attebury when he describes science fiction as a parabola open to infinity); on the contrary, science fiction can employ any of these genres. Science fiction, in other words, is what enables the story, not what shapes it. The same is true of historical fiction, for instance, or contemporary mainstream literature.

I have taken to imagining these enabling features as a field. Perhaps we might say it stretches between the fantastic and the real along one edge, between the past and the future along the other. Story (in terms of genre) may spring up anywhere within the field; whereabouts within the field will lead us to identify it as science fiction, or fantasy, or magic realism, or mainstream. (I'm using Ian's four-fold division here, because it helps to illustrate the point, and because it shows a certain continuity in our thinking, but I don't fully agree with it. Science fiction, fantasy and magic realism are all variations within what we might term the fantastic; mainstream can be similarly broken up into as many or more subdivisions. So I think this four-fold pattern significantly undersells the variety of literatures. Nevertheless, as I say, it is illustrative.)

This is too simplistic an analogy, of course. Think of something like David Mitchell's Cloud Atlas: that consists of six different genres, but it also relates to six different portions of the field. There is no definitive argument that allows us to say this book belongs at that point, and that point only, within the field. Besides, the field is not neatly and clearly divided up. Let me mix my metaphors for a moment; have you seen those color wheels you get when you are trying to define the color for a website or an InDesign document? The whole array is filled with a dense mass of colors. Place the cursor at random at any point on the array and you may pick a light blue. Move the cursor slowly in one direction and the colour gradually changes until all at once you have a bright red, without ever passing one identifiable point where you could say it has stopped being blue or started being red. 


Indeed, moving in one direction you might come upon a value that you consider still counts as blue, whereas someone moving in the other direction might identify the same value as red. And you could both be right. The same thing happens in fiction. Think of something like Karen Joy Fowler's Sarah Canary: approach it one way and you might decide it is mainstream, from another direction it might appear fantasy, from still a third it is science fiction.

The point I am making is that these various enablers of story cannot be defined in such a way that their borders are sharply and clearly delineated. Not only do they all merge into one another, but they must merge. Just as no value on the color field is exactly the same as even its closest neighbor, so no point in the literature field, no story, is exactly the same as its neighbor. They will share some characteristics (what I have called family resemblances) with the fiction to one side, but they will also share different family resemblances with the fiction on the other side. (It is possible to think of these family resemblances in a Delany-esque way as a shared language, but I have resisted that usage partly for the point that Aliette makes about language as being exclusionary.) There is no work that is entirely and purely science fiction, just as there is no work that is entirely and purely historical fiction or contemporary realist fiction or fantasy or ...

So, to go back to your original questions: What does the term "science fiction" denote to me? It's a story that shares recogni
zable characteristics with other stories that I have chosen to call science fiction. And everyone will see those characteristics differently, will approach individual works from different directions, so a broad or narrow definition is actually irrelevant. As is the centrality of science or technology; for me science is not a necessary component of sf, but it is likely to be more important for others. So two of us might stand on the exact same spot in the colour field and I think this is still a shade of blue where they think it is now certainly red.

And if you bear all that in mind, then when you ask: How important is it for science fiction to have a clear identity--as distinct from fantasy or mimetic/literary fiction? The answer is inevitable: not only is it not at all important, it is actually impossible. And personally I find works that cannot be delineated, that merge characteristics from all over the field, to be far more interesting, innovative and rewarding (I like how Ian puts this: "making play with the operating assumptions of more than one genre", though you'll understand that I quibble over the word genre).



***

POSTED BY: The G--purveyor of nerdliness, genre fanatic and Nerds of a
Feather founder/administrator (2012).