Hard News: Problems
289 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Newer→ Last
-
For me scifi is writing where a self-contained imaginary reality is created, detached from our present and historical experience.
Who does that, Larry Niven? It seems to me that everybody else imagines people and societies of the future by extrapolating from our present. In more or less interesting ways, naturally, but because of the fact that it forces such extrapolations, science fiction it is often inherently political. Was it (Marxist) Frederic Jameson who called it the most relevant contemporary literary genre?
-
Giovanni: Fabianism.
The "anti-revolutionary branch." (Probably a bunch of Marxists hiding behind some fancy footwork. But Trotskywrote that "throughout the whole history of the British Labour movement there has been pressure by the bourgeoisie upon the proletariat through the agency of radicals, intellectuals, drawing-room and church socialists and Owenites who reject the class struggle and advocate the principle of social solidarity, preach collaboration with the bourgeoisie, bridle, enfeeble and politically debase the proletariat.”
;-)
-
What genre is Iain Banks "Song of Stone"
Mainstream, according to Banks' own very self-conscious distinction. When he writes science-fiction, he signs himself as Iain M. Banks.
-
From dictionary.com:
Socialism –noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.I think lots of people other than Marx have theorised on the first two without including the third.
-
Giovanni: I shouldn't have said "when it was explicitly socialist." I should have said "when it had a programme of radical reform."
Hence why it's a Labour party, and not a Communist/Marxist party.
Anyway, I'm fuzzy on Labour history, and don't want to pretend an expertise I don't have, but nonetheless I'm confident that by the time it was a popular party, most of its members would not have called themselves Marxists. Certainly when I was a little boy in the 70s, it had mass membership, but the Marxists had long left for their various splinter parties. Even in the 30s, nationalisation of the means of production and exchange was too far for Labour.
-
Paul, you're taking a lot of flak on this thread because of your opinions about sci-fi.
What you need is some protection from all this incoming fire.
-
Mainstream, according to Banks' own very self-conscious distinction. When he writes science-fiction, he signs himself as Iain M. Banks.
Yes, but it isn't the same. Espediair Street is set mostly in the West of Scotland in the '70s and '80s. The Business is set in various global locations in the time the book was written. Dead Air is set in London in 2001.
Song of Stone is set in an imaginary place at an imaginary time.
Who does that, Larry Niven?
Star Trek - wooden characters, drifting in a sparsely painted universe.
Asimov, Star Wars, blah, blah - grandiose galactic geopoliticsIncidentally, one favourite factioid is that Osama bin Laden is a huge fan of Asimov, and the name Al Quaida is the Arabic title of "Foundation".
-
Anyway, I'm fuzzy on Labour history, and don't want to pretend an expertise I don't have, but nonetheless I'm confident that by the time it was a popular party, most of its members would not have called themselves Marxists. Certainly when I was a little boy in the 70s, it had mass membership, but the Marxists had long left for their various splinter parties
Fair enough - I tend to have a broader view, perhaps because of the names given to such things in the Italian tradition, where Left-wing movements that are grounded in a Marxist analysis of class would be regarded as (and call themselves) Marxist even if they happen to be of the reformist kind.
Anyway, I knew I shouldn't have gone against The Nailer. That was a rookie mistake on my part.
-
I may be wrong but I do not think 1984 and the Handmaid's Tale are Sci-Fi
Sorry, but you are wrong. If I had a dollar for every time I'd heard that particular argument, I might not be able to retire, but I'd certainly have enough for a bloody good night out.
I'm afraid you can't change the data if you don't like the results - you can't create your own reality*.
For me scifi is writing where a self-contained imaginary reality is created, detached from our present and historical experience.
Rich, that won't fly. Since you mentioned Asimoc, we could consider two of his works:
and
The Foundation Series which you yourself mentioned.
Both clearly Sci-Fi. The second easily fits your definition of 'detached from our present and historical experience'. The first cannot be bent to fit - it's a world that is quite clearly extraplated from where we are now, and which clearly draws heavily on 'our present and historical experience'.
.
.
.
.
.
*man, I really am enjoying this multi-layered irony cake. Do ya see what I did there? Quoted this infamous bush aide quote, in a discussion about sci-fi! By definitation a made-up reality! And I did it in a discussion with a guy who wants us to concentrate less on sci-fi and more on a discussion of US politics! Am I good or what? -
Ahem "Fountains of Paradise" - Arthur C. Clarke
-
Star Trek - wooden characters, drifting in a sparsely painted universe.
But those are the things which make Star Trek awesome. That, and the Beatle boots.
-
Clarke, Asimov, what's the difference?
Don't try to bring facts into this, man!
-
Star Trek - wooden characters, drifting in a sparsely painted universe.
But those are the things which make Star Trek awesome.I think that is the real point. Science fiction has always simplified the science, I guess that's why it's fiction ;-) Anyhow. Why is allegory an anathema to analysis? (duncha just love alliteration?...well I do) Simplification can lead to basic understanding, which can't be a bad thing. The problem is, I think, that BSG is being represented as being "kool" and, by default, not havig knowledge of the program puts us in the unkool catagory and, by implication, sugests we can't grasp the "Bigger Picture". That is just so many kinds of wrong.
-
Incidentally, one favourite factioid is that Osama bin Laden is a huge fan of Asimov
See, I told you it was destroying civilisation.
And I totally hear you, Rich; I find it *absolutely fascinating* how whenever a spec-fic work is acknowledged as a work of literature, it undergoes a mysterious transformation into "normal" literature (whatever that is). It's like a very special Venn diagram where everyone agrees to ignore the overlap.
Oh, and Paul: my totally anecdotal evidence is that a very large percentage of my branch of Young Labour are "geeky" in the way we've been discussing. Therefore, liking sci-fi/fantasy *causes* one to be politically involved. QED.
(Silly? Yes. But no more so than your assertion that liking it drives people away.)
-
The problem is, I think, that BSG is being represented as being "kool" and, by default, not havig knowledge of the program puts us in the unkool catagory and, by implication, sugests we can't grasp the "Bigger Picture". That is just so many kinds of wrong.
Would this be the wrong point in the thread to admit I've never watched BSG?
-
Lucy Stewart. as a very longtime devotee of science-fiction, speculative fiction, and gloriously outright fantasy
"whenever a spec-fic work is acknowledged as a work of literature, it undergoes a mysterious transformation into "normal literature" "
has been one of my gripes for ages. Margaret Atwood said "The Handmaid's Tale" wasnt spec-fic. She said "Oryx and Crake" wasnt sci-fic. Cormac McConnor said "The Road" was "serious literature."
Cheezus! Why do some writers think there is something *wrong* with their works being included in 'genre' categories?
O, wait a mo'-
-
Clarke, Asimov, what's the difference?
Probably a satellite somewhere, in any case..
-
Okay, you're going to have to explain to me how you can be a socialist and not a Marxist.
Funnily enough, I delivered a lecture on William Morris and the Arts and Crafts movement this morning and to avoid being long-winded (after all, I'm not being paid by the word here), Morris' socialism was opposed to the mass-scale production model of the Industrial Revolution. One may think him naive, but in any case, there is a difference between the Marxist belief in linear, progressive teleological history with its emphasis on urban civilisation and Morris' model of an idealised, local-scale co-operative model.
-
A very, very interesting discussion went on while I was away in First Life (and alas, I won't be able to follow much more of it as I have to mark four streams of student work before the weekend).
OK, on definitions of sf:
Brian Aldiss (former young turk, now fitted with OBE and pacemaker) comes up with:
Science fiction is the search for a definition of mankind and his status in the universe which will stand in our advanced but confused state of knowledge (science), and is characteristically cast in the Gothic or post-Gothic mode .
A bit wordy and legalistic, but look at the key words: "which will stand... science" Saving the last word, it would apply to any genre, but that last word is crucial as a distinguishing marker of the genre.
Darko Suvin, a Marxist critic, uses the term 'cognitive estrangement', which in a nutshell means, if a Martian were to look at what you're doing, they'd think it was pretty weird and silly - and maybe they'd have a point. SF is supposed to make people consider their thinking in a radically new context revealed by science and wonder therefore if it is not maladaptive.
A sociobiologist or evolutionary psycholgist would say for example that the instincts of a short-lived savannah ape do not prepare us for the challenge of long-term climate change. I'm interested therefore in the kind of cognition that would allow comprehension of such challenges.
In fact, I find written SF most interesting because so much of it is written by scientists indulging in speculation provoked by their research but which they cannot publish in refereed journals.
Of course, when we look at so much written and televisual SF, in my opinion, I see a confirmation of Sturgeon's Law: "Ninety percent of everything is crud__."
'Space Opera' is rather more problematic, as is the ambiguos definition of 'science fantasy'. Star Wars (which I confess, merely entertains me and does not stimulate any more thought that I don't get from reading Joseph Campbell) I do not consider to be SF because science-influenced thinking is utterly extraneous to the form and narrative. This is the case with BSG to a lesser degree, though actually BSG's speculations on the nature of 'true' human intelligence versus AI pull it back into the category, I think. For all its quasi-religious mythologising, I think that it conforms to Suvin's definition well.
But then of course, there is just sheer entertainment and bright lights and loud noises and I'll probably go and see the upcoming reboot of Star Trek before having a good cold shower of Stanislaw Lem (whose sixties speculations on military applications of cybernetics are now beloved of the Pentagon).
I've long been amused by Atwood's remarks about robots and chemicals. We have those. A documentary about a Toyota car assembly plant and paint shop would be SF by her definition. It has to be remebered however that she was campaigning for a Booker when she said that (what, they're political?) and when Aldiss was on the judging committee, he noted that if any SF-inflected candidate came up (maybe by Christopher Priest or J. G. Ballard?), he'd have to invent labels such as 'magic realism' to overcome prejudice by other members.
-
I find it *absolutely fascinating* how whenever a spec-fic work is acknowledged as a work of literature, it undergoes a mysterious transformation into "normal" literature (whatever that is)
Hmmmm, this book/film/whatever is amazing! Such rich characters! Such a well-developed and paced plot! Truely, this is a rarely crafted quality work!
But....wait a minute. Despite the lack of dragons/elves/epic-space-battles-which-will-decide-the-fate-of-an-empire-taking-place-beyond-the-outer-rings, there are certain elements in this which I'm not comfortable with.....certain not-quite-entirely-reality-as we-know-and-love-it elements....that if I'm right....would make this <gasp> Science Fiction! But I can't be enjoying Science Ficition! Only nerds and losers enjoy Science Fiction! I'm not a nerd loser! Therefore...this....isn't....can't be...Science Fiction! QED!
God, that's much better.......
Having said that, I do think Paul has a point. This BSG thing is getting out of hand.
Perhaps Russell could set up a thread dedicated entirely to geeking out - BSG, Star Trek, Dungeons and Dragons...
Anyone who wants to can indulge until their heads explode, and it might help take some of the heat off the 'serious' threads. Just a thought.
-
Science fiction is the search for a definition of mankind and his status in the universe which will stand in our advanced but confused state of knowledge (science), and is characteristically cast in the Gothic or post-Gothic mode .
I think the "universe" aspect of that definition is important, too; sci-fi tends to cast a wider net, looking outwards. Fantasy tends to look more inwards.
Another definition I've always liked is that science fiction is about humanity's reaction to speculative things and events, where fantasy is about humanity's reaction to speculative aspects of each other. Science fantasy, I think, is fiction that is set in a wider universe, but follows fantasy themes. Space opera, at heart, is really just action/adventure/military stories set in space. Some looks at more science-y aspects, but really it's all about the dogfights. But there's so much blurring around the edges, really, that I sometimes think the all these categories are ultimately unworkable.
-
Kracklite - Atwood "campaigning for a Booker"?
Doesnt happen.
Your publisher/s/critics do - but an author *cant.* And if it tries (I am assured)it is immediately discountenanced.Are the former Booker-McConnell awards political? O yes indeedy - but not necessarily in an obvious way: for a long time, it was - UK book wins this year, Commonwealth book next year.
Aldiss's comments are bang on the money.
For myself, I find some of the best writing & storytelling - bar none -in the scific/spec-fic/fantasy genres. It's interesting to note that within ANZ kids'/YA fiction* -going by sales figures - Teh Yoof think so too.
*I know publishers like these terms, but: I have a considerable collection of kK/YA fiction, and it is -Just Good Fiction! Think Gordon. Think Mahy. Think Lasenby. Think several others-
-
But there's so much blurring around the edges, really, that I sometimes think the all these categories are ultimately unworkable.
Indeedy indeedy.
Another theorist, Brian Attebery, has come up with the term 'fuzzy sets' in his study, Strategies of Fantasy - all the borders are blurred and definitions refer only to an approximate centre about which various examples of a genre cluster, nearer or farther from it according to their idiosyncrasies.
Your publisher/s/critics do - but an author *cant.* And if it tries (I am assured)it is immediately discountenanced.
Oh well, I suppose that her 'campaigning' here was to do with ensuring that Oryx and Crake was not disqualified by being SF when it might have been a Booker candidate rather than overtly being promoted as a deserving Booker winner.
I have a considerable collection of kK/YA fiction
Or Catherine Storr? Marianne Dreams is YA but makes terrific adult horror. Pratchett's fiction for adults versus young adults, as far as I'm concerned, is distinguished only by the ages of the protagonists. I think a number of 'YA' and 'children's' writers say more or less the same thing.
-
Storr? Sure!
If you look at some of the Gaelyn Gordon works, there's that same dichotomy - O! This is so cute - arrrgh! No, it's not!
I dont have literary gods, but Pratchett is someone I truly esteem. While I agree with you Kracklite, apropos the age of the protagonists determinng supposed age-reader stream (that'd apply to the Tiffany Aching books), where do we place "The Amazing Maurice And His Educated Rodents" (which is one of my favourites)?Just incidentslly, reader kids in my family who love Pratchett have come to him via the 'adult' novels - and then gone on to devour the kidult titles-
-
What genre is Iain Banks "Song of Stone" (for those who've ploughed through it?).
Snuff porn?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.