"Systemised magic and time travel not serious subjects" - discuss

[HareBrain]

It depends on who says them. If a big name** says it in the mass media.

This leads me to believe Eleanor Catton herself said no such thing (she says she is researching those subjects for a children's novel). It seems to be the opinion of the journalist Prizzley mentions in his first post.

 

[Ursa major]

I can't be bothered to register with that paper, but I'll take you word for it.


On the other hand, I did hear Atwell spouting her nonsense on live radio, and she's been spouting it for quite a while, as far as I can tell.

 

[HareBrain]

I can't be bothered to register with that paper, but I'll take you word for it.

Weird, it's unrestricted if you go there from Google.

 

[Ursa major]

You're right. Weird.

 

[Ogma]

It depends on who says them.

I suppose that it does but would the opinion of the Man Booker Prize winner really going to have much of an effect*? Now if a prize-winning SF writer announced to the world that his/her life's work was infantile rubbish that might turn a few heads but a writer outside the genre?

I found the article or at least a couple of paragraphs on another site, and from what I have seen the dig at genre fiction is the least of the article's problems.

*In the article it is the opinion of the journalist not the writer.

 

[Ursa major]

I suppose that it does but would the opinion of the Man Booker Prize winner really going to have much of an effect*?

Who knows?

But that's why I was directing my comments in the direction of Margaret Attwood, a much bigger name, someone who is not being misquoted and who feels the need to repeat her nonsense.

 

[Ogma]

Margaret Atwood is a good example. She has been making these comments for years, and other than annoying (and alienating) some SF readers, have her comments had any little real impact on the genre? It has trundled on with and without her.

I don't think that her comments are aimed at SF readers. I think her focus is on literary readers who would baulk at reading an "SF" book. That has to be a small constituency by now and it is going to get smaller with time.

 

[Ursa major]

Of course it isn't directed at readers of SF: they'd know it was rubbish.

How much of an effect what she says has on those who've never read SF is moot. But if they haven't yet picked up any SF (other than Atwood's efforts), she's hardly encouraging them to do so, is she? (And she must think it has some sort of effect; otherwise why** does she keep on saying it?)




** - It can't be: "Spreading ignorance wherever I go." It's hardly a suitable motto for a writer, is it?

 

[Ogma]

She did write that book on SF (In Other Worlds?). I don't know if some non-SF readers want to be reached. At this stage, SF is so prevalent in the culture you would have to deliberately go out of your way to avoid it. But it has to be small minority by now.

I always remember some reviewer saying once that to read an SF book (it could have been coincidently one of Atwood's but I might be wrong), she had to focus on it as something like an allegorical tale. When your bias is that extreme, it isn't rational.

 

[Ogma]

I just saw your postscript. LOL.

 

[ZombieWife]

It depends on who says them. If a big name** says it in the mass media (as in being interviewed on the TV on or on a national radio station, or in a national newspaper), it may have an effect. But if Bob the builder, or Tanya the car hire company marketing manager, says it down the pub after a couple of drinks, who really cares? (Unless they're telling you that your Romance novel, "Isn't a proper book," obviously.)

As the saying goes: With Power comes Responsibility.



** - Being the just-voted winner of the Man Booker Prize counts, at least for a while.

This, and it really does highlight the divide between literary fiction and genre--which (for most people) is a "line in the sand" that so few care about anyway. Some of us are tired of being told that we must engage in this debate.

I feel the same way about genre-readers who go out of their way to bash lit-fic, too. Read what you want. We all have different tastes. But instead of making sweeping (semi-ignorant) generalizations like the person in this article, how about simply saying, "It's just not my thing." (Though in her case, it's a wee bit hypocritical.)

 

[Ursa major]

I think it's best to think of genres as aids to helping you to find the type of book which you might prefer to read (at that particular moment).


It shouldn't really be used to define the books you should never read. (Or even the ones you ought to read, although it's easy to understand why people - the author and publisher, for instance - might want you to think this.)

 

[HareBrain]

But that's why I was directing my comments in the direction of Margaret Attwood, a much bigger name, someone who is not being misquoted and who feels the need to repeat her nonsense.

Ah ...

Sorry, I mixed up the Man Booker with the Nobel Prize. When you've won both as many times as I have, it's easy to do.

 

[The Judge]

I haven't heard Margaret Atwood speak, so I don't know what she said recently, but I have read In Other Worlds (subtitled SF and the Human Imagination) and it's very clear that she loves SF, but yes, she defines it more narrowly than perhaps do some others. Not because she wishes to exclude herself from writing SF, or to denigrate those who do write it, but because to her

What I mean by "science fiction" is those books which descend from H. G. Wells's The War of the Worlds... things that could not possibly happen -- whereas, for me, "speculative fiction" means plots that descend from Jules Verne's books... things that really could happen but just hadn't completely happened when the authors wrote the books

She also speaks of discussing the matter with Ursula Le Guin and realising that

what Le Guin means by "science fiction" is what I mean by "speculative fiction," and what she means by "fantasy" would include some of what I mean by "science fiction."

We might agree more with Le Guin than Atwood, but we're all going to put the borders in a slightly different way (Star Trek, Star Wars?!) than someone else, and while we might want to claim Atwood as being SF, she is pushing speculative fiction of all kinds -- including both wide and narrow definitions -- as being worthy of being read, which is the important thing.

 

[Ursa major]

That all sounds very reasonable**, until one realises how presumptuous it all is. Neither of her definitions - that for science fiction and that for speculative fiction - are the standard ones, particularly as the latter is usually thought to encompass the former (as it does fantasy, super heroes, supernatural fiction, and probably lots of other stuff with which she would not want to be associated).

What they are are self-serving, specifically doing duty to make sure that what she writes isn't bundled up with what she believes are fundamentally implausible ("things that could not possibly happen"), and so hers are, by implication (by her definition), "things that really could happen" (but not yet).

I'm not sure which is worse:

• stating that science fiction is implausible nonsense (all science fiction, because "Verne" books rub shoulder to shoulder with "Wells" books on the shelves of bookshops and libraries and on, say, Amazon), or
• presuming to alter the meaning of words simply to suit her own purposes.

As it happens, her definition of speculative fiction has some currency (if only because she is not alone in running scared from the science fiction label), but she should have left it at that. What is wrong with just saying, "I prefer my books be thought of as speculative fiction, by which I mean works that are set on the solid foundation of science of which we already have a good understanding"?



** - That was what she was saying on, I think, Radio Four's Start the Week.

 

[The Judge]

I think that's being more than a little harsh, particularly the self-serving accusation. She isn't condemning SF, quite the reverse, as she makes plain, and she certainly isn't using the words "implausible nonsense" or any other pejoratives. A pity I'm not going to Brighton, otherwise I'd have forced the book into your hands and made you read it until you were rather less antipathetic towards her!

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I met her at the local book fair - either last year or the year before. She certainly didn't denigrate anything but I found her amusing and interesting when she spoke.

It's no different to JK Rowling's daft comments about fantasy. I still enjoy her books but I would suggest she reads more.

Like with the original post I kind of agree with it - as much thought as I put into mine time travel and systemised magic is too much fun to be serious.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

I tend to take things pretty seriously-and dark. My Tooninoot series being an exception, but that's a fantasy-comedy, so that's a whole other matter.


Magic? I go with a pretty standard view on magic, basing it off the strength of the spellcaster's brainwaves and as a result, overtaxing one's magical abilities can lead to exhaustion, insanity, and death, as the brain just either overloads its circuitry, or demands too much energy from the rest of the body.


Time travel? In my serious works, I've only ever had one character be able to manipulate time, and that was via warp speeds, so it only affected "time" for the planet he was interacting with.

 

[Tyburn]

Once upon a time (to pun intended) I swore I'd never have anything to do with time travel stories.

Then I realised the great fun you can have with time travel.

One of my side-projects is 'The Me Reunion', where a time traveller visits the same pub on the same day once a year throughout his time-travelling career, to get together with his other selves and have a few drinks.

I'm having fun with it, especially the fact that every version of himself is referred to in first person, which probably makes it incredibly confusing, as in "I saw me sat in the corner with myself and I, so thought I'd go and join myselves."

 

[Bowler1]

To the sound of jet turbines and a cloud of dust Bowler1 lands his spaceship in the middle of this thread to see what all the fuss in about. Stepping forth, and hitching my RAY GUN holster up to sit more comfortable on my hip, I nod to Yoda, but he's having none of it as he fiddles with his stolen fusion generator. I'd like to stay, but Yoda's right - Tyburn's pub is the place to be on a Friday night. I'd also like to say it would be intelligent conversation, but I know better!

With a wink and a cheeky grin, I take off again. I'm in a rush, parking is a pain when it's just all my me's, spaceships all over, not to mention the dangers of random RAY GUN discharges when landing.

Watch out, Tyburn, I's are on our way's.