Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
They want to be left alone and recognised at the same time. In a word: Emo.
What an ignorant comment. But to take partial issue with what Jack wrote earlier, genre is not just a matter of marketing, it constitutes its readers and its writers in more complex ways. Operating within the 'labelled', official science-fiction domain of specialised imprints and magazines created its constraints (and they weren't always positive, just ask Philip Dick) but also gave authors certain freedoms. And it produced a readership who became progressively more sophisticated, steeped in kinds of speculation that weren't familiar to the readers of mainstream.
(And incidentally, that's exactly the thing about The Handmaid's Tale - it seemed so groundbreaking precisely to people who turned their nose up at science-fiction, which is why Atwood's rejection of the label was first and foremost an act of self-promotion. Pay no attention to the feminist sci-fi authors behind the curtain!)
Now it's pretty much established that science-fiction was in fact the genre for speculative literature of the last century, and it's in recognition of that that Banks labels his more speculative work that way. But Keir is also right, that just as that veil was lifted the genre also went stale.
This is a reading lust thread so I guess that mentioning Thomas Disch's The Dreams Our Stuff is Made Of as one of the best available histories of sci-fi may not be out of order.
-
I am not going to bother with the "better than Atwood" slur; it is not widely held
I simply picked three writers who worte magnificent speculative fiction and weren't ashamed of the label that Atwood so disdainfully rejected for her works. She may not want to mix with the rabble, and that's her business, but then she'd probably help her cause by writing a book that bests FemaleMan, The Left Hand of Darkness or Ubik. Otherwise it's like saying I exist outside of culture and this thing you call literature.
(And as for the "not widely held" thing, I could care less, but in Dick's case I think you'll find it actually is.)
I mean really, Banks?
What are you gonna do?
-
Why should it matter what Atwood calls her own writing and why are Sci-Fi people so determined to prove her wrong?
For the reason that Jack pointed out, because it's arrogant and dismissive (just like saying "Sci-fi people", and you know it). Besides, if you are so keen to dismiss a group of authors, it's probably best if it doesn't include a fair whack who are better than you are - it just doesn't look good.
-
William Gibson is a science fiction writer. He does not speculate.
-
Atwood and Banks, like Orwell and Wells, are simply good writers
Except Banks is an unapologetic rider of the genre boundary, to the point of using a subtly different name to signal when he's being a science fiction writer as opposed to a mainstream one.
Also, I'm tempted to say, call me back when Atwood is worth the little pinky of Philip Dick, or Ursula LeGuin, or Joanna Russ. Her claim that science fiction is "talking squids in outer space" (since revised, to her credit) was just the apogee of stupid.
What about calling her an author who has written some science fiction, then?
She's said as much herself in her wiser old age. But hey, why spoil a good yarn?
-
Yeah, what Keir said.
-
this was probably related to DisContinuity, a convention up in Auckland in 92, which I attended as a callow youth specifically to meet the man in question. Ah, memories.
Hey! I saw Pratchett in 92 as well. I didn't know him, but a friend of mine was a fan, and I happened to be holidaying in Edinburgh when he was up for a book signing, so I grabbed a book and queued so I could get him to sign it for my friend and heard him read a few pages. That was magic.
-
If you want reality, why bother with fiction?
Because we don't understand reality except through fictions. Fictions tell us things about ourselves, and reflect our understanding of the world around us. When they are vacuous and stupid, it does mean something. And when people remark that it doesn't matter, that it's all in the spectacle and that you shouldn't try to attach extraneous meanings, it also means something.
-
Though nothing wrong with a little postneorealism.
It's a lovely film that.
-
It would have the added bonus of reducing the output of neorealist filmmakers.