What Science-Fiction is supposed to be, revisited

[polymorphikos]

Yet again.

I read many reviews that proclaim that something is not "true" science-fiction, because it does not deal with a large moral, ethical, socio-political or metaphysical question.

This, in my opinion, is self-agrandising poppycock.

What is your opinion on this annoyingly-elitist trend?

 

[amara]

i say who cares if it is considered science fiction, fantasy or whatever you want to call it, as long as it is a good read

 

[Rane Longfox]

Sod 'em. I read books to enjoy them, not to be lectured at about completely irrelevant ideals. True sci-fi has space, adventure and REALLY BIG GUNS.

 

[littlemissattitude]

I can say this, because I write book reviews sometimes...

When a reviewer starts to act like he or she can read a book in or out of a genre, then he or she is getting off on his or her own verbiage. It's like someone who says someone else isn't a Christian because that other person doesn't conceive of God or Jesus the same way as the person who is speaking does. It's all semantics and bears little or no relation to reality.

Sure, there is a broad definition of "science fiction", in that it's pretty easy to state that, say "The Graduate" or "Little House on the Prairie" or "The Godfather", aren't science fiction. But I've read things that are by most general agreement, science fiction - one example is William Gibson's "Pattern Recognition" - but which have few of the trappings that one immediately thinks of when science fiction is brought up in conversation.

I think this whole controversy is why perhaps "speculative fiction" might be a better label than "science fiction" to describe that broad category of literature.

Which is probably all a long-winded way of saying that, in general, I agree with you, polymorphikos.

P.S. - Sorry for the religion comparison, since we don't generally talk religion much around here, but it was the only analogous situation that I could come up with on short notice.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I read many reviews that proclaim that something is not "true" science-fiction, because it does not deal with a large moral, ethical, socio-political or metaphysical question.

I noticed that in Card's review of Serenity and wondered as well.

At first glance, it does look pretentious, but I do think that the *best* science fiction opens up a reader's imagination to make them think about issues they may not have considered before - the place of humanity, themselves, to the universe, to one another.

I don't think it's a case of grading works as science fiction and none on that basis, though, as different people react to different works in different ways.

Perhaps it may be said that certain works will *generally* try and make a reader open up to deeper questions - but it will remain an individual experience that the individual reader will gain differently from with each individual story.

2c.

 

[dwndrgn]

I'll go even further than you Brian, any book can easily

make a reader open up to deeper questions

and the question of what genre to place it in is really neither here nor there. As a matter of fact, in my personal opinion, labels like science fiction and speculative fiction are completely useless unless they are taken in the context they are written about. That being said, however, most reviewers are reviewing a work for other 'possible' readers and must do their best to explain what the book is all about and using labels is one of the best ways to convey that to a reader. Since reviews are completely subjective, you just have to try and understand what the reviewer is trying to say.

 

[stencyl]

Yet again.

I read many reviews that proclaim that something is not "true" science-fiction, because it does not deal with a large moral, ethical, socio-political or metaphysical question.

This, in my opinion, is self-agrandising poppycock.

What is your opinion on this annoyingly-elitist trend?

I think that good writing does all of what you list in your post. That means science fiction, mystery, fantasy, etc.

It sounds like the reviews that you are writing about are trying to equate science fiction with what academic institutions might deem "literary."

"True" is the word that makes the claim ring false, as if it is part of the definition. It may mean that the writing has a little more philosophical or moral depth than writing only centered on the novelty of things like techno-gadgets or Big Dumb Objects, but that doesn't make it any more "science fiction."

 

[Brian G Turner]

I'll go even further than you Brian, any book can easily and the question of what genre to place it in is really neither here nor there.

Actually, I'm not so sure - for example, I don't see fantasy attempting to do so in the same way or degree. Reading George R R Martin, for example, didn't leave me with questions about issues outside of the book - just questions about the characters and the world. And because it's fantasy, any questions about these belong only to the book and have no real relationship outside of the story.

I remember the issue raised on the GRRM board here about a major feature of the world was a massive wall of ice. Someone suggested it couldn't exist in the real world, to which the retort wasthat it was fantasy, and so it didn;t matter - in other words, what happens in fantasy doesn;t really need to have anything to do with the real world or our place in it.

I'd therefore suggestive that science fiction - by it's generally speculative nature - forces the reader to think about issues beyond the immediate story - because the questions they raise are as relevant in the real world, not least it's future, and therefore has a different inherent experience for the reader.

Anyway, there's a generalisation to be shot down to pieces.

EDIT: Just to add to poly's point - moral, ethical, socio-political questions can be raised in any genre, and cannot be the claim of science fiction - which by it's very nature surely has to raise questions far beyond these general literary stables.

2c.

 

[Foxbat]

As far as I'm concerned, the only true purpose a tag like Science Fiction (or Fantasy.... or any other genre name for that matter) is to point me in the right direction when I go into a book shop.

Sci-Fi doesn't have to be deep & meaningful - just like any other genre doesn't have to be either.

I like Bob Dylan's songs for example - some are thought provoking - some are just wordplay. It doesn't really matter as long as you enjoy the experience as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Brys]

I don't see why books in any genre should be required to "deal with a large moral, ethical, socio-political or metaphysical question." I agree that this is what good books do, generally, but this can't be confined to any one genre, and neither can it define a genre. Science fiction is simply about speculation and using scientific explanations (not necessarily plausible) to explain these phenomena. It doesn't matter whether it's adressing a moral question or whatever, as long as it is speculating, that determines whether it's science fiction or not.

I, Brian, I agree with the general idea that science fiction is more likely to deal with these issues than fantasy because of its nature, but there are still many fantasy novels which do as well. Martin was effectively writing a historical fantasy - why should we be expecting it to be modern and relevant? It is instead showing insights into Britain in the Wars of the Roses. Is that any less valid than the others? Michael Moorcock's Elric, China Mieville's Iron Council, M John Harrison's Viriconium, Michael Swanwick's the Iron Dragon's Daughter, Steph Swainston's the Year of Our War- all address some of these issues. In fantasy it perhaps is easier not to, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

 

[stencyl]

I agree Brys. I think that Fantasy does deal with the issues as well. Lord of the Rings deals with several moral, philosophical issues. There have even been green/environmental reading done with the books.

 

[dwndrgn]

Actually, I'm not so sure - for example, I don't see fantasy attempting to do so in the same way or degree. Reading George R R Martin, for example, didn't leave me with questions about issues outside of the book - just questions about the characters and the world. And because it's fantasy, any questions about these belong only to the book and have no real relationship outside of the story.

I remember the issue raised on the GRRM board here about a major feature of the world was a massive wall of ice. Someone suggested it couldn't exist in the real world, to which the retort wasthat it was fantasy, and so it didn;t matter - in other words, what happens in fantasy doesn;t really need to have anything to do with the real world or our place in it.

I'd therefore suggestive that science fiction - by it's generally speculative nature - forces the reader to think about issues beyond the immediate story - because the questions they raise are as relevant in the real world, not least it's future, and therefore has a different inherent experience for the reader.

Anyway, there's a generalisation to be shot down to pieces.

EDIT: Just to add to poly's point - moral, ethical, socio-political questions can be raised in any genre, and cannot be the claim of science fiction - which by it's very nature surely has to raise questions far beyond these general literary stables.

2c.

First, I refute your first two paragraphs with three words: Tolkein. Religion. Racism.
Second, your third paragraph actually could be used to refute your first two paragraphs as well - you are saying that science fiction raises questions that are relevant in the real world and its future. Most of the science fiction I've read (and I'll admit that isn't a whole lot) doesn't deal with our real world at all, but an imagined one with similar laws and strange new worlds and beings and gadgets that may or may not exist...hmm, sounds quite a bit like fantasy doesn't it?

 

[Shoegaze99]

Sod 'em. I read books to enjoy them, not to be lectured at about completely irrelevant ideals. True sci-fi has space, adventure and REALLY BIG GUNS.

Interesting that you dismiss the idea of trying to stake a claim for "true" sci-fi, then go on to stake a claim for "true" sci-fi.

 

[Rane Longfox]

Is that how it came across? Not my intention at all. What I meant was that "true" scifi is a misnomer. Purists be damned, good books are merely books you enjoy reading. No other criteria. Personally, a bit off kick-ass sci-fi is just my cup of tea