Man, this month's Ansible has a lot of great stuff!
Check out these "As others see us" bits:
quote:AS OTHERS SEE US. Max (_Jennifer Government_) Barry is yet another author who defines sf by futuristic gadgetry and regards this with Atwood-like alarm: `I had the idea for a story set in an ultra-capitalist world for a long time. But I didn't want to write a science-fiction book with laser guns and flying cars. I was more interested in writing a social fiction: taking the world we live in now and tweaking it a bit.' (_Orbit Ezine 60_) [DH] Of course no sf author could create _that_ kind of thing. _The Observer_'s reviewer agreed: `The point of the dystopian satire, of course -- as opposed to pure science-fiction -- is that its imagined world is both recognisable and chillingly possible ...' (27 July) [MM]
and
quote:LISA GOLDSTEIN had an `As Others See Us' moment at a class on copyediting fiction: `The instructor handed out a leaflet, and the first thing on it was a list of the different types of fiction we will have to copyedit. First there was "Art", then "Entertainment", then "Dreck". And "Dreck" consisted of -- you guessed it -- "fantasy, sci-fi, mystery, suspense ... "After the class I went up to her and told her I was a writer. "And I guess I write" -- big show of looking at leaflet -- "here it is, dreck." She did apologize, which I suppose is progress. Later, though, studying the leaflet, I realized that "Entertainment" is dreck that she likes to read.'
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
A couple of months ago Langford reported Margaret Atwood's latest dig against SF, which she dealt in an interview on New Scientist. Unfortunately, the interview is old enough that it is now archived, and as my subscription has run out (note to self--resubscribe to New Scientist), and I've already signed up for their free, 7 day trial access to their archives under all of my current webmail usernames, so I can't go in an get it. The gist of it was that SF was silly, ridiculous stuff that she would never deign to write, and that it mostly involved "talking squids in outer space". It was pretty funny in an "I can't believe it, what will this snob think of next" sort of way.
Here is what various SF authors said in response, according to this month's Ansible:
quote:_Stephen Baxter_ on Margaret Atwood's latest dismissive definition of sf, `talking squids in outer space': `Yikes, it's all my fault then; I did have talking squids in outer space, in my novel _Time_. Get a life, woman!' _Jeff VanderMeer_ adds: `I do agree that the disreputable "talking squid in outer space" subgenre is giving sf a bad name. On the other hand, talking squid in a fantasy or postmodern fantasy story are not only acceptable -- they're expected! At least, by me.'
And here's a positive "As Others See Us" for a change:
quote:AS OTHERS SEE US. A pleasant surprise for once. _New York Times_ film critic A.O.Scott may not like _The Hulk_ or _The Matrix Reloaded_, but has a good word for sf. `[I]t has been a long time since anyone but a few unreconstructed culture snobs has denied that sci-fi and superhero stories can be illuminating, even profound, as well as entertaining. That argument is long settled: without science fiction, we would lack a crucial imaginative resource for grappling with the promise and peril of technology, and without comic books we would have fewer heroes, fewer monsters, and thus a poorer idea of what it is to be human.' [HOB]
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:The point of the dystopian satire, of course -- as opposed to pure science-fiction -- is that its imagined world is both recognisable and chillingly possible
That is freakin' hilarious. Clearly it takes a true littérateur to come up with the chillingly possible. All those sc-fi hacks are only capable of creating with unrealistic, cartoon dystopias.
But what can you expect? Having been overawed by Joyce and Nabakov and lost their way in the wastelands of po-mo ficiton, modern literary authors have no other choice but to steal ideas from sci-fi, detective fiction, romance and memoir in order to create their own brand of literary privy.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yeah Zal, isn't that bizarre? It's like some people out there define SF as crap, period. If it isn't crap, it must not be SF--it must be a dystopian satire, or whatever they decide to call it. Very strange. There's plenty of crap SF out there, sure, but it wouldn't be too hard for someone taking an honest look to find some incredible books.