[Guardian] Why we need SF by Margaret Atwood

[PaulKemp]

I disagree with this, though. Of the 5 narratives she writes about, I'd say only one really applies to fantasy (the realms of imagination one). I don't see the other four working in the fantasy genre.

Conceded that you must stretch your imagination some to see the fantasy connection but when she says:

"They can explore the consequences of new and proposed technologies in graphic ways, by showing them as fully operational. We've always been good at letting cats out of bags and genies out of bottles, we just haven't been very good at putting them back in again. These stories in their darker modes are all versions of The Sorcerer's Apprentice: the apprentice finds out how to make the magic salt-grinder produce salt, but he can't turn it off."

To my mind, any genie-out-of-the-bottle story set in a fantasy setting is really a metaphor for knowledge exercised without wisdom, which is the general case of "consequences of new and proposed technologies" being explored in graphic ways. True, the fantasy "genie" is more likely to be an actual genie than a new technology, but the point of the exploration is the same.

She says:

"They can explore the nature and limits of what it means to be human in graphic ways, by pushing the envelope as far as it will go."

And

"They can explore the relationship of man to the universe, an exploration that often takes us in the direction of religion and can meld easily with mythology - an exploration that can happen within the conventions of realism only through conversations and soliloquies."

Any good book does this, but both f and sf do it particularly well. Science fiction juxtaposes man's existence (and its meaning) against the universe and technology, while fantasy juxtaposes man's existence (and its meaning) against the supernatural and metaphysical. The tools are somewhat different, but I'd argue that the exercise is the same.

She says:

"They can explore proposed changes in social organisation, by showing what they might actually be like for those living within them. Thus, the utopia and the dystopia, which have proved over and over again that we have a better idea about how to make hell on earth than we do about how to make heaven."

Countless fantasy novels create hypothetical worlds with different social organizations than our own and explore the consequences for those within them.

Then again, maybe I'm seeing to much in it.

 

[GSHamster]

Conceded that you must stretch your imagination some to see the fantasy connection but when she says:

<snip>

Then again, maybe I'm seeing to much in it.

Hmm, I see what you are saying. However, I think in science fiction the connection is far more explicit than in fantasy. For example, a genie in a bottle is all well and good as a metaphor, but I don't think it really compares to, for example, something about genetic engineering. The gene engineering is explicit, its value is that the actual scenario presented quite possibly could happen. No one is actually going to meet a genie.

Countless fantasy novels create hypothetical worlds with different social organizations than our own and explore the consequences for those within them.

Yes, but in the vast majority of fantasy societies, the conditions that give rise to them cannot be replicated in the real world at all. (Mostly because of a lack of magic or similar elements.) Whereas in scifi, the conditions that give rise to the society are plausible (maybe improbable, but not impossible).

The narratives she talks about are present in fantasy, but on a far more metaphorical level. They are far more "concrete" in science fiction, and I would argue that it is concreteness that gives science fiction its distinctive value. So I would still say that the two genres do different things.

 

[PaulKemp]

The narratives she talks about are present in fantasy, but on a far more metaphorical level. They are far more "concrete" in science fiction, and I would argue that it is concreteness that gives science fiction its distinctive value. So I would still say that the two genres do different things.

I can agree with this, but I'm not convinced that it therefore follows that the two genres do different things. I'll stand by my original position, which is that they do the same thing -- but I will acknowledge that they do it with different tools.

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

Well, to be fair to Ms. Atwood, would she really have all the prizes and cultural authority she has now, if she had been writing "science fiction"? Sadly, I don't think she would. Consider that she felt she has to write an essay defending the genre and pointing out its worth.

Its more of a comment on the literati and cultural elite, rather than on science fiction itself though.

But the fact that she said, just a year or two ago (in the NYTimes or Washington post, I believe), that science fiction was a nothing but "robots and monsters" and that she doesn't write it and does not want to be associated with it in any way. So when she comes out with this essay now, and basically says "Yes, I've written some, but ONLY 2 books", it strikes as a bit hypocritical. It's as if she is saying "Well, ok, I guess those people who write it need someone with power to tell the rest of the world that it's ok to write what they do". It just comes across as a bit self serving, as if she's doing anyone a favor by writing this article. It just reenforces the "elite" view that many take, because they can look at it and say "well, it's ok to read Atwoods SF, because every author goes slumming once in a while." BS. If she doesn't want to be associated with SF, fine, she should just go away and write her 'speculative fiction' and leave the genre alone. She doesn't want us, and we don't need her.

 

[Fast Learner]

Or maybe she realizes she was wrong about SF in general. Listering to her discuss it within Diane Rehm, it seemed that she came to new conclusions.

 

[takyris]

I can sorta see both sides. I don't disagree that SF can do those things, and that it's possible that some of those things are things that SF is built specifically to do. On the other hand, you can also do those things in novels that couldn't be considered SF. You could write a historical fiction novel about a guy exploring the rainforests of South America, and you could get into a study of the sense of wonder (seeing new places), the notions of humanity (dealing with natives and coming to terms with own issues), the genie in a bottle (cutting down rainforests and losing naturally healing plants to get lumber, or illness spreading through the native population because of the explorer's actions), and so forth. It wouldn't be an SF novel, but several SF critics would try to adopt it as such simply because it fit the parameters.

Which is why I tend to roll my eyes at literary critics, generally speaking. If you can get some guy exploring South America into the SF section while keeping Christopher Moore's zombie-making angels, man-eating demons, sexy vampires, talking fruit bats, and love-needin' sea serpents in the LitFic section, you've gone clearly into silliness and would be better served by just writing "Stuff we think has value" and "Entertainment Drivel" on the bookshelves.

At least then, I'd be able to stay in the entertainment-drivel area.

 

[ShrinkyLink]

I believe that much of Ms. Atwood's initial distancing of herself from SF was due--in large part--to the politics of Canadian literature. Granted, she is a world class author, but here in Canada, she is seen as nothing less than a literary goddess. And to soil herself with SF just would not do with the eternally image conscious Canadian publishers, or her readers--many of whom I long suspect simply buy Ms. Atwood's books to put on their coffee tables.

If she truly has changed her mind, then I applaud her. If only Canadian publishers would follow suit.

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

I believe that much of Ms. Atwood's initial distancing of herself from SF was due--in large part--to the politics of Canadian literature. Granted, she is a world class author, but here in Canada, she is seen as nothing less than a literary goddess. And to soil herself with SF just would not do with the eternally image conscious Canadian publishers, or her readers--many of whom I long suspect simply buy Ms. Atwood's books to put on their coffee tables.

If she truly has changed her mind, then I applaud her. If only Canadian publishers would follow suit.

That's really a shame, because some of the most innovative authors in SF/Fantasy today are Canadian-Robert J. Sawyer and Guy Gavriel Kay off the top of my head, I could easily find 5 or 6 others on my shelf if I wanted to go look upstairs. The short fiction market is full of young, hot, Canadian authors that are just waiting to get book deals.

 

[ShrinkyLink]

That's really a shame, because some of the most innovative authors in SF/Fantasy today are Canadian-Robert J. Sawyer and Guy Gavriel Kay off the top of my head, I could easily find 5 or 6 others on my shelf if I wanted to go look upstairs. The short fiction market is full of young, hot, Canadian authors that are just waiting to get book deals.

Which is why it was so nice to see Penguin take a (well-rewarded) chance with R. Scott Bakker's Prince of Nothing series.

The problem with most Canadian publishers is that they receive a fair chunk of change from the Canadian government to assist in publishing Canadian works. The government has very definite ideas on what constitutes Canadian literature. Science fiction does not fall into that defintion. So you end up with a market that doesn't want to upset the apple cart, putting out books that keep the Arts Council, the CBC radio hosts, and Globe and Mail critics happy.

It seems that only when authors like Kay and Sawyer make a name for themselves outside of Canada, do they get noticed here. It's a hard road for Canadian writers who want to write fantasy or science fiction. But you're right, Cthulu's Librarian: despite these stumbling blocks, there is a very dynamic group of writers up here in the land of the ice and snow.

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

David Hartwell at Tor Books has coedited two volumes of Canadian SF, and both are worth reading for a nice cross section of some of the best authors.
Northern Stars: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312864752/103-9151354-4738267
Northern Suns: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_2/103-9151354-4738267?v=glance&s=books

A few more Canadian SF writers I missed before: Charles deLint, Nalo Hopkinson, William Gibson