Science fiction authors need not apply
Clea Saal
encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
I understand that science fiction is not seen as "real literature" by
some of the most elitist members of the old guard who seem to have
forgotten that reading was a pastime, something the average person
actually did for FUN, until not so long ago. I understand that a few
science fiction writers have contributed to this problem by writing
books that can be described as thinly disguised, poorly written, porn,
but on the other hand I also believe that genres are not cast in
stone, and that this is particularly true of those genres that deal
with content instead of form. I believe that there are good and bad
writers in all genres, so determining good from bad based upon the
books genre is absurd.
So back to the original question: is there a real reason behind this
attitude, or is it just plain, old fashioned, prejudice? (And for the
record, while what I write does have elements of science fiction, it
is not science fiction in the strictest sense).
Clea Saal
--
"Soulless" No sex, no aliens, just a chilling possibility...
because the end has already begun.
Download the first chapter for free from:
http://www.cleasaal.com/downloads/soullessch1.pdf
Or read it online: http://www.cleasaal.com/soulless/excerptsoul.htm
David M. Harris
writers is because sf writers have access to a lot of groups and markets
and contests that are only for them. The short fiction market for sf is
larger than for any other genre, for example. Sf writers also have
access to conventions, where a lot of writing groups are formed (not as
part of the convention, but as a social result of them).
Another reason for excluding sf writers is because they whine so much
about prejudice against them. There is very little evidence of such
prejudice in the real world, and a lot of us (including people, such as
myself, who are members of SFWA and published sf writers) are sick of
hearing about it.
Furthermore, reading sf well and critically requires special skills --
an understanding of the premises of starflight, for example, and its
implications -- that non-sf readers don't have, so they can't really
comment well on sf texts.
dmh
Dave O'Neill
"Clea Saal" <clea...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:711cba4.02040...@posting.google.com...
> I apologize for the upcoming rant, but this is something I've
> encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
> really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
> except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
> strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
>
> I understand that science fiction is not seen as "real literature" by
> some of the most elitist members of the old guard who seem to have
> forgotten that reading was a pastime, something the average person
> actually did for FUN, until not so long ago. I understand that a few
> science fiction writers have contributed to this problem by writing
> books that can be described as thinly disguised, poorly written, porn,
> but on the other hand I also believe that genres are not cast in
> stone, and that this is particularly true of those genres that deal
> with content instead of form. I believe that there are good and bad
> writers in all genres, so determining good from bad based upon the
> books genre is absurd.
>
> So back to the original question: is there a real reason behind this
> attitude, or is it just plain, old fashioned, prejudice? (And for the
> record, while what I write does have elements of science fiction, it
> is not science fiction in the strictest sense).
I'm not sure if there is a definative answer, but I do agree that there is
prejudice - there are also (in danger of being flamed) some SF'nal elements
who like this state of affairs.
It is common on BBC Radio and TV literature programmes that the interviewer
will have a great deal of anti-SF bias - I recall hearing Ned Sherrin on
Weekending asking Iain Banks why he persisted in writing "those dreadful
Dalek books" - Jeremy Paxman, Merlyn Bragg and Lark Lawson have also sinned
in a similar way. When an SF or Fantasy novel makes the main stream its
generally rebadged by the critics - Pullman's His Dark Materials has had
this kind of treatment.
Then there are the "mainstream" authors who write an inferrior copy of a SF
novel and call it magical realism not realising, in Wheldon's case, that
Brian Aldiss did it infinately better a few decades earlier.
I suspect it comes from early learning factors. SF fans and many authors
tend, in my experience, to come from technical fields and backgrounds, other
genres and certainly the universities where literature is taught tend to be
rather separate to the technology departments and view engineers, scientists
and mathematicians as semi-literate. This works both ways, many English and
art experts have in my experience also been semi-numerate. This is a flaw
in the western worlds teaching of these subjects, in particualar in the UK
with the A level system. Couple this training deficit to a perception that
SF is media and ignoring the vast bulk of literary SF going back hundreds of
years and you have a poor state of affairs.
On a final note, Fans aren't always the best ambassadors for SF that there
are. While I have some non-SF books in my collection I'd a good 80% is SF
biased and I am only now, in my 30's, reading English lit classics like
Paradise Lost and others which I didn't read earlier because they didn't
interest me.
This is certainly a subject for rich debate.
--
Dave O'Neill
Helicon 2 Con Report and other new stuff right there, right now!
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
"Dave O'Neill" <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote:
> It is common on BBC Radio and TV literature programmes that the interviewer
> will have a great deal of anti-SF bias - I recall hearing Ned Sherrin on
> Weekending asking Iain Banks why he persisted in writing "those dreadful
> Dalek books" -
What did he answer?
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
Dave O'Neill
"Anna Feruglio Dal Dan" <ada...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:adaldan-6853E5...@twister2.tin.it...
> In article <TREr8.2741$jo6.17...@news-text.cableinet.net>,
> "Dave O'Neill" <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote:
>
> > It is common on BBC Radio and TV literature programmes that the
interviewer
> > will have a great deal of anti-SF bias - I recall hearing Ned Sherrin on
> > Weekending asking Iain Banks why he persisted in writing "those dreadful
> > Dalek books" -
>
>
> What did he answer?
To be honest he fudged it. I could hear the conflict in his voice of
wanting to throttle Sherin and also come back another time.
In the end he said, "well, that's not really true, the Affront are nothing
like Daleks"
--
Dave O'Neill
Principle Word Wraggler - Atomicrazor
The lowest editorial standards on the web!
Eric San Juan
news:TREr8.2741$jo6.17...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
> "Clea Saal" <clea...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> news:711cba4.02040...@posting.google.com...
> > I apologize for the upcoming rant, but this is something I've
> > encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
> > really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
> > except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
> > strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
>
> On a final note, Fans aren't always the best ambassadors for SF that
there
> are. While I have some non-SF books in my collection I'd a good 80%
is SF
> biased and I am only now, in my 30's, reading English lit classics
like
> Paradise Lost and others which I didn't read earlier because they
didn't
> interest me.
Here I think you've really touched on something. I think many SF fans
read SF almost exclusively. That's not good from a "knowledge of
literature" point of view. One may be able to claim 500 books under
their belt, but when those 500 books are decidedly lacking in the most
beloved and deserved classics of literature, it's almost understandable
that "lit types" will frown on all that reading as not having been real
reading at all. Elitist as it may sound, if one wants to bring their own
favorite books into the mainstream, one should at the very least be
familiar with the great works of mainstream literature.
When people think about SF fans, they often think about the "geek
factor," but that's only one small part of the dividing line. The SF
culture is a very enclosed one. Genre fans decry the prejudice of the
mainstream in making SF/fantasy writers "outsiders," but the fact
remains that truly great writers have crossed into mainstream appeal -
the incomparable Ray Bradbury and JRR Tolkien being two key examples -
yet the same does not happen in reverse. Mainstream does not break into
SF and fantasy because by definition the genres exclude a vast amount of
literature. The genre is at its roots outside the mainstream, and many
fans show just as much desire to test out the mainstream as the
mainstream shows to test out SF. Less so, in fact, as genre books can
and do break out of the genre box. It does not happen in reverse, and
fans don't seem to care. How then can fans bring their books to other
ardent yet non-SF readers when those same fans are unfamiliar with To
Kill A Mockingbird and Catcher In The Rye and For Whom The Bell Tolls?
Like many (or most) SF and fantasy readers, I spent almost all of my
teenage reading time on works of SF and fantasy. More novels than I can
count, and by and large non-pulp, high-quality stuff. By no means was my
reading of choice bad literature. Despite that, it was still very, very
limited and narrow in scope. Years later, I realized I missed a treasure
trove of wonderful work because my focus was so narrow. I may have read
quite a lot, but my ability to actually discuss books in general was
poor because I had skipped the essential works of fiction, genre fiction
or no. That has since been resolved. Thanks to my decision to go back
and read outside the genre for a number of years, my love of reading has
been enhanced tenfold, as has my love for the escape genre fiction gives
me.
I think all of this is part of the reason for some of the elitism and
prejudice. Genre fans paint themselves into the outsider status and
limit their ability to speak on literature with credibility by
maintaining such a narrow focus. I imagine reading groups want to steer
themselves away from falling into that whole, and I don't blame them.
Oh, snobbery comes into play, no doubt. People who just won't try a book
they know is SF comes into play. No question. Why? Probably because the
mainstream assumes that SF is purely mindless entertainment by default.
And hey, to a large degree that's not too far from the truth. The great
writers of the genre have artistic merits that defy categorization, but
peruse the SF/fantasy rack at your local bookstore and I'd wager the
signal to noise ration is not all that great. And I love the genre.
Hey, we read for fun. Clearly that's a huge part of it. I imagine
mainstream literature types read for slightly different reasons. Maybe
you want a gripping adventure, maybe they want a moving story of the
human experience. Yes, SF can do both. *We* know that, but we don't give
ourselves a chance to show others that through our own choices. But even
if reading for fun is the *only* part of it, how can you legitimately
claim your genre of choice is the best if you've never given other works
of literature a real shot? More importantly, if you don't *care* about
reading things outside the genre, don't complain when others treat you
as an outsider for it, because *you're* making yourself an outsider.
Lucy Kemnitzer
wrote:
>I apologize for the upcoming rant, but this is something I've
>encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
>really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
>except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
>strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
>
>I understand that science fiction is not seen as "real literature" by
>some of the most elitist members of the old guard who seem to have
>forgotten that reading was a pastime, something the average person
>actually did for FUN, until not so long ago. I understand that a few
>science fiction writers have contributed to this problem by writing
>books that can be described as thinly disguised, poorly written, porn,
>but on the other hand I also believe that genres are not cast in
>stone, and that this is particularly true of those genres that deal
>with content instead of form. I believe that there are good and bad
>writers in all genres, so determining good from bad based upon the
>books genre is absurd.
>
>So back to the original question: is there a real reason behind this
>attitude, or is it just plain, old fashioned, prejudice? (And for the
>record, while what I write does have elements of science fiction, it
>is not science fiction in the strictest sense).
>
I don't think that this is the reason such groups say these things,
but I think there is a real reason why many of those groups would be
useless to the writer who draws from an sf tradition: many of those
writers would not be able to tell what is good and what is bad in sf.
They don't know what an sf audience knows: they don't know what
doesn't need to be explained, or what shouldn't be explained, or what
should be explained. They don't know what the conventions are, so
they couldn't tell you when you're being cliched, when you're paying
legitimate homage, or when you're deviating in a way that needs more
attention, justification, or explanation. And so on.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Dave O'Neill
"Lucy Kemnitzer" <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:3caf27ea...@cnews.newsguy.com...
There is a part of me which feels at an instintive level that this isn't
necessarily what a writer of SF should learn from a writing circle. I would
rather my SF ignore many of the SF'nal elements and concentrate on the
things that other genres can help with. Many published SF authors, for
example, ignore characters and strong narative in favour of defining the
"big" idea etc...
It is important to recognise cliches etc, but I think an ability to write
believable characters in a strong narrative is more important. If you can
do that the less likely you are to find yourself having to rely on cliches.
I agree there is a case that "conventional" writing circles will not
understand the baggage that most SF readers have in terms of grasping ideas
etc, but surely the genre should strive to be more inclusive than less. I
have tried on occasion to get my wife to read SF and some novels she has
found deeply interesting, eg. The Man in the High Castle and others, The
Player of Games, unreadable. Both of which are excellent.
Then there are SF classics which, in my opinion, rely on no prior SF
knowledge - for example The Day of Triffids.
Dirk van den Boom
I made a follow-up2 because my news-server doesn't deliver two of the
three mentioned groups.
Clea Saal schrieb:
> I apologize for the upcoming rant, but this is something I've
> encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
> really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
> except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
> strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
Now, that's funny.
Over here in Germany, fans are complaining for decades that Science
Fiction is not taken seriously anywhere outside the relatively closed shop
of fandom and those (few) editors who happen to be experts because they
publish the stuff. University teaching, esp. literature, permanently
denounces Science Fiction (with few exceptions), it is not taken seriously
as literature. One reason may be that within the history of SF in Germany,
it has mostly been published in pulps and still you can hardly see any
hardcover-editions of SF or F over here (with few exceptions again).
Now, in contrast - from the viewpoint of German fans - the situation in
the US (or UK) has always been kind of gloryfied in this case. It was
percepted as much better, more integrated, more accepted, taken seriously
also by those who do not claim to be fans. Your questions seems to
indicate that this perception is totally or partly wrong. Of course, maybe
the differences are more gradual...
Brenda W. Clough
>I apologize for the upcoming rant, but this is something I've
>encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
>really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
>except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
>strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
>
It's Oprah Winfrey's fault. She refused to have F or SF on her Book Club.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
Read my novella "May Be Some Time"
Complete at http://www.analogsf.com/0202/maybesometime.html
My web page is at http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Ray
> encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
> really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
> except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
> strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
>
> I understand that science fiction is not seen as "real literature" by
> some of the most elitist members of the old guard who seem to have
> forgotten that reading was a pastime, something the average person
> actually did for FUN, until not so long ago. I understand that a few
> science fiction writers have contributed to this problem by writing
> books that can be described as thinly disguised, poorly written, porn,
> but on the other hand I also believe that genres are not cast in
> stone, and that this is particularly true of those genres that deal
> with content instead of form. I believe that there are good and bad
> writers in all genres, so determining good from bad based upon the
> books genre is absurd.
>
> So back to the original question: is there a real reason behind this
> attitude, or is it just plain, old fashioned, prejudice? (And for the
> record, while what I write does have elements of science fiction, it
> is not science fiction in the strictest sense).
>
> Clea Saal
Let's see... we can speculate:
1) Lots of people just don't like science.
2) Some are intimidated by the thought that they might have to know
something besides English Lit.
3) SF is more difficult to read and write because you don't generally start
with a pre-packaged world. Someone can say "I was walking the streets of
Boston in a rainy November day", and the reader has a good picture of the
setting. If you change that to an alien planet under an alien sun in
another time, there is no background. The author has to build the world.
People who aren't used to reading SF can become disoriented.
4) Those who don't read SF get their opinion of the genre from what many of
call "sci-fi". That is, they think of it as space operas, cheezie plot
lines, poor character development, and the like. They are thinking about
the "mass media" sci-fi that is so different from some of the well-crafted
stuff that is available.
Ray Drouillard
Huw Lyan Thomas
SF is much higher than elsewhere. I think that's why so many literary agents
are simply not interested in seeing SF manuscripts.
Orson Scott Card touched on this in "How to Write Science Fiction and
Fantasy".
"... readers were so hungry for another sf novel that they'd buy anything
... as long as it had a rocket on the cover ... you couldn't lose money
publishing it, almost regardless of quality."
The same thing came true for fantasy, a few decades later.
I also wonder if SF produces a disproportionately high number of "wannabee"
authors, prepared to have a go without necessarily being prepared to work at
the craft of writing? That could put outsiders off, too. After a while, some
people put up a reject-all filter because it's just too time consuming
looking for the jewels among the slush.
--
"Clea Saal" <clea...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:711cba4.02040...@posting.google.com...
Ray
> I don't think that this is the reason such groups say these things,
> but I think there is a real reason why many of those groups would be
> useless to the writer who draws from an sf tradition: many of those
> writers would not be able to tell what is good and what is bad in sf.
> They don't know what an sf audience knows: they don't know what
> doesn't need to be explained, or what shouldn't be explained, or what
> should be explained. They don't know what the conventions are, so
> they couldn't tell you when you're being cliched, when you're paying
> legitimate homage, or when you're deviating in a way that needs more
> attention, justification, or explanation. And so on.
That is a very good point.
I joined a writers' group, and posted the first chapter of my WIP. It got
slammed pretty hard for things that are generally accepted in SF.
OK, so it also got slammed pretty hard by some SF folks, too, but that was
stuff that I could (and did) clean up :-)
Ray Drouillard
Dave O'Neill
"Ray" <rDrovouil...@comcast.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:NJHr8.15243$l7.16...@bin7.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
This may be a part of it but it isn't a major part IMO.
> 2) Some are intimidated by the thought that they might have to know
> something besides English Lit.
Doesn't explain why other genre's are "accepted"
> 3) SF is more difficult to read and write because you don't generally
start
> with a pre-packaged world. Someone can say "I was walking the streets of
> Boston in a rainy November day", and the reader has a good picture of the
> setting. If you change that to an alien planet under an alien sun in
> another time, there is no background. The author has to build the world.
> People who aren't used to reading SF can become disoriented.
This is part of the problem my wife has with some SF and "author's circles"
have had with stuff I've shown them. They don't like funny names etc... on
the other hand some of the best and strongest SF is set in this world and
not necessarily involves space ships, robots or any of the cliches which
they hate. Flowers for Algenon, 1984, Day of the Triffids and loads of
others - some of which are suddenly "literature" and some are left in the
"ghetto" for no reason.
> 4) Those who don't read SF get their opinion of the genre from what many
of
> call "sci-fi". That is, they think of it as space operas, cheezie plot
> lines, poor character development, and the like. They are thinking about
> the "mass media" sci-fi that is so different from some of the well-crafted
> stuff that is available.
I think this might be the strongest argument of all. Media SF is perceived
as SF by many.
Hence many non-fans asking the immortal question when coming to the SF group
I used to be a member of - "so you like Star Trek, right?"
Dave O'Neill
"Huw Lyan Thomas" <h...@NOhexSPAMlibrisPLEASE.com> wrote in message
news:a8nhp6$7uu$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> There's a perception (justified, I suspect) that the "garbage" quotient in
> SF is much higher than elsewhere. I think that's why so many literary
agents
> are simply not interested in seeing SF manuscripts.
>
> Orson Scott Card touched on this in "How to Write Science Fiction and
> Fantasy".
>
> "... readers were so hungry for another sf novel that they'd buy anything
> ... as long as it had a rocket on the cover ... you couldn't lose money
> publishing it, almost regardless of quality."
>
> The same thing came true for fantasy, a few decades later.
>
> I also wonder if SF produces a disproportionately high number of
"wannabee"
> authors, prepared to have a go without necessarily being prepared to work
at
> the craft of writing? That could put outsiders off, too. After a while,
some
> people put up a reject-all filter because it's just too time consuming
> looking for the jewels among the slush.
While this is a factor for the parts of the sub-genre which are in fashion -
eg. Pratchett sells well, find me somebody like Pratchett and suddenly the
shelves are heaving with poor clones with cartoon covers.
On the other hand, all genre's get wannabee's who can't write. Some of
these become popular. Certain crime writers come to mind. The writing in,
for example, RD Wingfield's Frost novels is awful - change of PoV in the
middle of paragraphs being the worst I can think of.
rr...@lmi.net
<shoeg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I think all of this is part of the reason for some of the elitism and
>prejudice. Genre fans paint themselves into the outsider status and
>limit their ability to speak on literature with credibility by
>maintaining such a narrow focus. I imagine reading groups want to steer
>themselves away from falling into that whole, and I don't blame them.
But they don't apparently tell other genre readers not to apply. (I'm
not sure, since I've never seen the situation the OP was talking
about.) For example, they don't say "no romance" or "no men's
adventure". And it's reasonable to assume that those people stick to
their genres as much as SF readers do.
And if we're talking about writer's circles, the authors of those
kinds of books most be as much anathema to "serious" writers as SF
authors are. Of course, when you get into Harlequin romances, the
authors may not perceive the need for joing writer's circles.
Rebecca
Joyleen Seymour
genre in general.
Joy
Matt Ruff
>
> I think there is a real reason why many of those groups
> would be useless to the writer who draws from an sf
> tradition: many of those writers would not be able to tell
> what is good and what is bad in sf. They don't know what an
> sf audience knows: they don't know what doesn't need to be
> explained, or what shouldn't be explained, or what should
> be explained.
Why the assumption that anyone who writes SF must be writing for an "SF
audience"? If you really want to transcend genre barriers and reach as
wide a readership as possible, you can probably learn an awful lot from
people who *aren't* familiar with genre conventions.
-- M. Ruff
Ray
"Matt Ruff" <Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3CAF5D51...@worldnet.att.net...
That makes it a good idea to lurk mainstream circles. Submitting SF to
them, however, can be problematic.
Ray
David Cowie
>
> It's Oprah Winfrey's fault. She refused to have F or SF on her Book
> Club.
>
> Brenda
>
Did she say why?
--
David Cowie
There is no _spam in my address.
"You had to do WHAT with your seat?"
Theresa Ann Wymer
: Clea Saal wrote:
: >I apologize for the upcoming rant, but this is something I've
: >encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
: >really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
: >except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
: >strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
: It's Oprah Winfrey's fault. She refused to have F or SF on her Book Club.
Did she really? Can't say I'm surprised, but it is irritating. When I
saw the tape of Oprah saying she'd run out of books that really grabbed
her, I immediately thought, "What about Kij Johnson's _The Fox
Woman_?" The milieu might be a bit unfamiliar, but otherwise it seems to
me it would work pretty well. I have no idea of how Ms. Johnson would
feel about being in Oprah's Book of the Month Club.
--
Theresa Ann Wymer twy...@efn.org
Gareth Wilson
> Clea Saal wrote:
>
> >I apologize for the upcoming rant, but this is something I've
> >encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
> >really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
> >except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
> >strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
> >
>
> It's Oprah Winfrey's fault. She refused to have F or SF on her Book Club.
Didn't that slave ghost story count as fantasy?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gareth Wilson
Christchurch
New Zealand
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A.C.
news:3CAF7EA8...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz...
> "Brenda W. Clough" wrote:
>
> > Clea Saal wrote:
> >
> > >I apologize for the upcoming rant, but this is something I've
> > >encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
> > >really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
> > >except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
> > >strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
> > >
> >
> > It's Oprah Winfrey's fault. She refused to have F or SF on her Book
Club.
>
> Didn't that slave ghost story count as fantasy?
If you establish a mainstream literary reputation first, you can basically
write any genre afterwards and still be considered mainstream.
--
nomadi...@hotmail.com | http://nomadic.simspace.net
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other
countries because you were born in it."-- George Bernard Shaw
David M. Palmer
San Juan <shoeg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Genre fans decry the prejudice of the
> mainstream in making SF/fantasy writers "outsiders," but the fact
> remains that truly great writers have crossed into mainstream appeal -
> the incomparable Ray Bradbury and JRR Tolkien being two key examples -
> yet the same does not happen in reverse. Mainstream does not break into
> SF and fantasy because by definition the genres exclude a vast amount of
> literature.
Patrick O'Brien managed to break out of the mainstream and into SF.
_The_Intuitionist_ by Colson Whitehead is another mainstream book that
would be good for SF readers.
--
David M. Palmer dmpa...@email.com (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
stan
"Joyleen Seymour" <joyse...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CAF5A41...@attbi.com...
> I find the same prejudice against crime writers. It's not sci fi, but
> genre in general.
>
> Joy
>
Stephen King could write a Christian love story and it would sell a million.
Stan
--
http://StansPlace.Web.com
A Quiet Place To Read
A.C.
news:060420021855548553%dmpa...@email.com...
Robert Mosley crossed over from mystery to sf, though I haven't tried any of
his sf stuff. Laura Esquivel's second novel was sf, though she did not
distinguish herself with it (got a few pages into the Law of Love, then gave
up).
Of course Kurt Vonnegut has been doing sf for years, but he's always been
considered mainstream, or legitimate fantasy (which is itself considered
mainstream).
It's kind of interesting that the two sf authors who've had the most
mainstream crossover success, Bradbury and LeGuin, probably are more highly
regarded outside fandom than in it (if the posts on the sf newsgroups are
any indication). As far as I know, Le Guin is the only sf author to ever be
considered for the Pulitzer, though I could be wrong.
Lucy Kemnitzer
I just sort of think that people who set out to write sf generally
want to write that because that's what they want to read, and they
want to write the thing that they like. And the audience they
imagine, I think, is an audience who likes to read the same thing that
they like to read. I guess there's a place, somewhere, for people to
write in a genre, but write it for people who don't like that genre,
but it seems less likely, somehow.
"Science fiction for people who don't like and don't get science
fiction" just doesn't sound very appetizing to me.
Lucy Kemnitzer
PButler111
>record, while what I write does have elements of science fiction, it
>is not science fiction in the strictest sense).
>
>Clea Saal
Then what are you bitching about?
Lucy Kemnitzer
<nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> wrote:
>"Gareth Wilson" <gr...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
>news:3CAF7EA8...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz...
>> "Brenda W. Clough" wrote:
>>
>> > Clea Saal wrote:
>> >
>> > >I apologize for the upcoming rant, but this is something I've
>> > >encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
>> > >really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
>> > >except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
>> > >strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
>> > >
>> >
>> > It's Oprah Winfrey's fault. She refused to have F or SF on her Book
>Club.
>>
>> Didn't that slave ghost story count as fantasy?
>
>If you establish a mainstream literary reputation first, you can basically
>write any genre afterwards and still be considered mainstream.
>
See, I don't think Toni Morrison or any of her sort of writer thinks
of it this way. They think "I want to write this book," not "I want
to write a book in this genre."
Genre, I think, is most important to genre people. I think maybe.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Lucy Kemnitzer
<gr...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>"Brenda W. Clough" wrote:
>
>> Clea Saal wrote:
>>
>> >I apologize for the upcoming rant, but this is something I've
>> >encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
>> >really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
>> >except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
>> >strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
>> >
>>
>> It's Oprah Winfrey's fault. She refused to have F or SF on her Book Club.
>
>Didn't that slave ghost story count as fantasy?
Do you mean _Beloved_? I think that to be fair to it and to the genre,
it should probably be considered "magic realism" instead. Let's see
if I can figure out why I think so. I think maybe because of the
dream logic in the book: its core mystery isn't resolved the way most
fantasies are, it's resolved in this other way. Um. I think I'm in
very shaky territory here, and if somebody wants to tell me I'm full
of it, I won't be able to defend my position. Still. That's what I
think. It could maybe go on a fantasy shelf, but it would be more
comfortable on a literary shelf.
I certainly adore Toni Morrison. And I do think she really did
deserve that Nobel prize.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Brenda W. Clough
>Brenda W. Clough (clo...@erols.com) wrote:
>: Clea Saal wrote:
>
>: >I apologize for the upcoming rant, but this is something I've
>: >encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
>: >really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
>: >except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
>: >strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
>
>: It's Oprah Winfrey's fault. She refused to have F or SF on her Book Club.
>
>Did she really? Can't say I'm surprised, but it is irritating. When I
>saw the tape of Oprah saying she'd run out of books that really grabbed
>her, I immediately thought, "What about Kij Johnson's _The Fox
>Woman_?" The milieu might be a bit unfamiliar, but otherwise it seems to
>me it would work pretty well.
>
Yes, she's on record as saying so, loud and clear, on her show.
Sharon Goetz
clea...@mailandnews.com says...
> So back to the original question: is there a real reason behind this
> record, while what I write does have elements of science fiction, it
> is not science fiction in the strictest sense).
If some of it is old-fashioned prejudice, some of it is new-fashioned
(and prejudiced nevertheless). Greenwood Press has recently published a
collection of essays that addresses this topic, specifically re: the
academy, as in college and university instructors, who by assigning
books for courses they teach influence what other people think is "good
literature" (and influence which books their students buy). I'd
especially recommend the collection's first essay, written by Tom
Shippey. Here's the citation:
Westfahl, Gary, and George Slusser, eds. "Science Fiction, Canonization,
Marginalization, and the Academy." Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press,
2002.
sharon
+/- an academic
Mark Reichert
> about prejudice against them. There is very little evidence of such
> prejudice in the real world, and a lot of us (including people, such as
There's plenty of it among academia. Oh, we were discussing the real
world. Never mind. :)
Doug
The major difference between SF and every other genre (with the
exception of mysteries) is that SF makes you think while the others
ask only that you feel. I submit that the former is more difficult
than the latter and that's an automatic wall to acceptance. I call it
the intellectual cover charge.
The only way to get some people to read science fiction is to trick
them. The publishers of Vonnegut, Bradbury and Clancy have done this
quite well, to the point where people will actually debate you as to
whether these guys are writing science fiction. I doubt most people
who watch The West Wing get the fact that it takes place in an
alternate world.
Doug
Doug
> I apologize for the upcoming rant, but this is something I've
> encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
> really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
> except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
> strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
>
> some of the most elitist members of the old guard who seem to have
> forgotten that reading was a pastime, something the average person
> actually did for FUN, until not so long ago. I understand that a few
> science fiction writers have contributed to this problem by writing
> books that can be described as thinly disguised, poorly written, porn,
> but on the other hand I also believe that genres are not cast in
> stone, and that this is particularly true of those genres that deal
> with content instead of form. I believe that there are good and bad
> writers in all genres, so determining good from bad based upon the
> books genre is absurd.
>
> attitude, or is it just plain, old fashioned, prejudice? (And for the
> record, while what I write does have elements of science fiction, it
> is not science fiction in the strictest sense).
If you have the eensiest, teensiest, itty-bittiest drop of science
fictional content in your story, then it's science fiction. The only
thing that trumps SF in this regard is fantasy.
To say it's "not science fiction in the strictest sense" is to defame
the entire genre just as prejudicially as others do. Science fiction
is extrapolation, the literature of the possible, and if you're doing
that - if you're asking "what if" - then you're writing science
fiction. It doesn't matter if most of your story takes place on a
Georgian plantation in 1703 or in Chicago the day after tomorrow or in
a galaxy far, far away - a dollop of SF makes it SF.
You can even write a story which seems to have no science fictional
content whatsoever, especially regarding the stereotypical iconography
associated with SF, yet still have written science fiction. Howard
Waldrop's short story "The Ugly Chickens" is a case in point. No
spaceships or rayguns, not the future, just the everyday world except
looked at with the science fictional attitude.
I am bemused by the constant parading of stories through the newsgroup
with the attendant pontificating that they can't be categorized into
either science fiction or fantasy, when such parsing is absurdly
simple. Of course genres are cast in stone, that's what makes them
genres. One set of criteria divides a genre from the next. That's
the point of having genres, and that's the fun of genre-typing.
What annoys me is when one genre is deemed somehow less fit than
another - and I see you've fallen into that same attitude with your
casual "oh, it has science fictional elements but it's not really SF."
The phrase, "After all, I'm not a geek, you know" is implied.
I can't tell by the first chapter you have online what genre you've
written. Write what you want to write and then after having done so,
decide which genre it belongs in. One genre is as good as another,
and you can be creatively fulfilled while making money in any of them.
So if you want to write a fantasy this year and a romance the next,
go for it.
Doug
Doug
> Clea Saal wrote:
>
> >I apologize for the upcoming rant, but this is something I've
> >encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
> >really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
> >except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
> >strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
> >
>
Someone should give her anything by Octavia Butler.
Doug
Doug
> genre in general.
>
> Joy
The best of both the mystery and SF genres require a reader to pay
attention and think. Thinking is anathema to many people. They're
more concerned with how a book made them feel. All of the other
genres specialize in this.
Doug
Doug
> "Joyleen Seymour" <joyse...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3CAF5A41...@attbi.com...
> > I find the same prejudice against crime writers. It's not sci fi, but
> > genre in general.
> >
> > Joy
> >
> >I'm not sure it has as much to do with genre as it does with "name."
> Stephen King could write a Christian love story and it would sell a million.
>
> Stan
Popular appeal isn't the same as literary merit, which is the original
question.
Fantasy and science fiction are among the biggest selling books and
films, but they aren't regarded as art.
Doug
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>The major difference between SF and every other genre (with the
>exception of mysteries) is that SF makes you think while the others
>ask only that you feel.
You don't read a lot of mysteries, I take it.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 3/2/02
My latest novel is THE DRAGON SOCIETY, published by Tor.
Dan Clore
> Of course Kurt Vonnegut has been doing sf for years, but he's always been
> considered mainstream, or legitimate fantasy (which is itself considered
> mainstream).
He hasn't always been considered mainstream. At first his
books were published as science fiction, and his short work
appeared mostly in science-fiction magazines. He
deliberately set out to shake the genre label, quit
submitting to sf magazines, had his publishers label his
novels simply "fiction", and for a time even avoided
science-fiction content in his work. (Though the last he
cheated on, by for example having a science-fictionw writer
as a character and describing a bunch of his works, so that
even though the *character's* work was sf, *Vonnegut's* work
wasn't.)
--
Dan Clore
mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
<dmpa...@email.com> wrote:
>Patrick O'Brien managed to break out of the mainstream and into SF.
What do you mean, "break into SF"?
That he's generally liked by readers of SF?
vlatko
--
_Neither Fish Nor Fowl_
http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/
http://www.michaelswanwick.com/
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr
Leopoldo Perdomo
Hello:
Among academia's gurus there is also a prejudice against the literature
of best-sellers. They accept mostly the left leaning literature, all the
rest is suspected of being bastard.
leopoldo
--
There are no grades of vanity, there are only
grades of ability in concealing it.-- Mark Twain
Dave O'Neill
"Lucy Kemnitzer" <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:3cafc064...@cnews.newsguy.com...
I am tempted to ask that this differs from the "no SF" bias how? I'd rate
the work of Vonegut, Bradbury, Wyndham and many others precisely as SF for
people who don't like and don't get SF - it doesn't debase what they do one
iota.
--
Dave O'Neill
Principle Word Wraggler - Atomicrazor
The lowest editorial standards on the web!
Leopoldo Perdomo
>
> Popular appeal isn't the same as literary merit, which is the original
> question.
>
> Fantasy and science fiction are among the biggest selling books and
> films, but they aren't regarded as art.
>
> Doug
Which is the clan that defines "literary merit"? Why past works, from a
hundred years ago, are considered of "literary merit" in spite of being
very popular in their own time? Or that it means that in a hundred years
all the "literary trash" of popular works today will be classics?
I have read often the comments of famous writers over the work of their
own competitors in the art. They usually have thrown their antagonist
colleagues a lot of shit in their faces. So among the writers of high
merit there was a clear disagreement over which work had a real merit, or
was worth of praise.
Del Cotter
(rec.arts.sf.written snipped)
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, in rec.arts.sf.written,
Clea Saal <clea...@mailandnews.com> said:
>I apologize for the upcoming rant, but this is something I've
>encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
>really starting to bug me.
Your mentioning writer's groups, and crossposting to alt.writing and
alt.sf.creative suggests to me that the rec.arts.sf group you really
wanted was rec.arts.sf.composition rather than rec.arts.sf.written. The
latter is for readers discussing published works of sf, the former is
for writers discussing their experiences of writing.
--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .
JustRead:lyForward:RobertRankinTheBrentfordChainstoreMassacre:TerryPratc
hettTheTruth:JeromeKJeromeThreeMenInABoat:WilliamGoldmanThePrincessBride
ToRead:AlastairReynoldsRevelationSpace:JohnCrowleyLittle,Big:RobertCharl
David M. Harris
dmh
Joyleen Seymour
Ray wrote:
> "Lucy Kemnitzer" <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
> news:3caf27ea...@cnews.newsguy.com...
>
> > I don't think that this is the reason such groups say these things,
> > but I think there is a real reason why many of those groups would be
> > useless to the writer who draws from an sf tradition: many of those
> > writers would not be able to tell what is good and what is bad in sf.
> > They don't know what an sf audience knows: they don't know what
> > doesn't need to be explained, or what shouldn't be explained, or what
> > should be explained. They don't know what the conventions are, so
> > they couldn't tell you when you're being cliched, when you're paying
> > legitimate homage, or when you're deviating in a way that needs more
> > attention, justification, or explanation. And so on.
>
> That is a very good point.
>
> I joined a writers' group, and posted the first chapter of my WIP. It got
> slammed pretty hard for things that are generally accepted in SF.
>
> OK, so it also got slammed pretty hard by some SF folks, too, but that was
> stuff that I could (and did) clean up :-)
>
> Ray Drouillard
Could this explain why sf isn't taken seriously by other writers? If the
quality of the writing isn't up to par (Slammed for things generally accepted
in SF) then perhaps you need to work on the basics.
Joy
Joyleen Seymour
into "literary fiction." (Another way to say "no plot".)
Joy
Jim Cambias
> On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 16:43:36 GMT, "Eric San Juan"
> <shoeg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I think all of this is part of the reason for some of the elitism and
> >prejudice. Genre fans paint themselves into the outsider status and
> >limit their ability to speak on literature with credibility by
> >maintaining such a narrow focus. I imagine reading groups want to steer
> >themselves away from falling into that whole, and I don't blame them.
>
> But they don't apparently tell other genre readers not to apply. (I'm
> not sure, since I've never seen the situation the OP was talking
> about.) For example, they don't say "no romance" or "no men's
> adventure". And it's reasonable to assume that those people stick to
> their genres as much as SF readers do.
>
> And if we're talking about writer's circles, the authors of those
> kinds of books most be as much anathema to "serious" writers as SF
> authors are. Of course, when you get into Harlequin romances, the
> authors may not perceive the need for joing writer's circles.
>
Bearing in mind that I write SF myself, I suspect the brutal truth is that
the writing group doesn't want to have to sit through endless "Ensign Mary
Sue" Star Trek or Buffy fanfic readings. Yes, it means they miss out on
the next James Morrow, but the odds probably back them up.
Cambias
Robert Rinne
I thought that when The Big O invented her book club she essentially created her own genre.
RAR
Robert Rinne
I challenge that idea. Writing has rules that we must stick to in order for the story to make sense. Simple rules like grammar do apply in this sense - and this rule is broken by many writers, but only after they know the rules so well they break them perfectly.
Anthony Burgess' 'Clockwork Orange' is one. James Joyce is another 'Finnegan's Wake' and 'Ulysses'.
Genre's have rules to. If you follow those rules you can write to fit that genre.
Thing is, as with all things with rules, some people follow them better than others and their work appears seamless and beautiful - that's when we call them artists.
RAR
Robert Rinne
"David M. Palmer" <dmpa...@email.com> wrote in message
news:060420021855548553%dmpa...@email.com...In article <YAFr8.254884$Gf.23...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>, Eric
San Juan <shoeg...@hotmail.com> wrote:Genre fans decry the prejudice of the
mainstream in making SF/fantasy writers "outsiders," but the fact
remains that truly great writers have crossed into mainstream appeal -
the incomparable Ray Bradbury and JRR Tolkien being two key examples -
yet the same does not happen in reverse. Mainstream does not break into
SF and fantasy because by definition the genres exclude a vast amount of
literature.
Patrick O'Brien managed to break out of the mainstream and into SF.
_The_Intuitionist_ by Colson Whitehead is another mainstream book that
would be good for SF readers.
Robert Mosley crossed over from mystery to sf, though I haven't tried any of
his sf stuff. Laura Esquivel's second novel was sf, though she did not
distinguish herself with it (got a few pages into the Law of Love, then gave
up).
Of course Kurt Vonnegut has been doing sf for years, but he's always been
considered mainstream, or legitimate fantasy (which is itself considered
mainstream).
Hello,It's kind of interesting that the two sf authors who've had the most
mainstream crossover success, Bradbury and LeGuin, probably are more highly
regarded outside fandom than in it (if the posts on the sf newsgroups are
any indication). As far as I know, Le Guin is the only sf author to ever be
considered for the Pulitzer, though I could be wrong.
--
nomadi...@hotmail.com | http://nomadic.simspace.net
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other
countries because you were born in it."-- George Bernard Shaw
Didn't Carl Sagan write Contact and get a Pulitzer for it? Or was it Dragons of Eden? Sagan got something for science writing - and neither one was very good in terms of writing - but very informative.
Sidebar - has anyone heard of the absolutely horrible and brilliant Brit SciFi author Edmund Cooper? Write in the 70s and everything in paperback. Reading him makes me wonder if he was Vonnegut's Kilgore Trout.
RAR
Matt Ruff
>
> Ray wrote:
>
>> Matt Ruff wrote:
>>
>>> Why the assumption that anyone who writes SF must be
>>> writing for an "SF audience"? If you really want to
>>> transcend genre barriers and reach as wide a readership
>>> as possible, you can probably learn an awful lot from
>>> people who *aren't* familiar with genre conventions.
>>
>> That makes it a good idea to lurk mainstream circles.
>> Submitting SF to them, however, can be problematic.
>
> The major difference between SF and every other genre (with
> the exception of mysteries) is that SF makes you think while
> the others ask only that you feel. I submit that the former
> is more difficult than the latter and that's an automatic
> wall to acceptance. I call it the intellectual cover charge.
What was the intellectual cover charge on "Battlefield Earth," do you
think? About two cents?
Seriously, it may be true that SF offers a somewhat above average ratio
of thought-provoking titles, but the genre has plenty to offer people
who don't want to overtax their brain cells, too. So I don't think the
"intellectual cover charge" theory explains much.
-- M. Ruff
David M. Palmer
Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 18:55:54 -0700, "David M. Palmer"
> <dmpa...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >Patrick O'Brien managed to break out of the mainstream and into SF.
>
> What do you mean, "break into SF"?
>
> That he's generally liked by readers of SF?
Right. SF readers accept that the strange world the science officer is
from is named 'Ireland'. Just as mainstream readers of 'The Left Hand
of Darkness' accept that the reassignment of gender roles can be
produced by biology.
And in the case of _The_Intuitionist_, the plucky young test pilot
fighting for respect in an alien culture is a great SF story.
(Although it could have been an Oprah book since she's a Black female
elevator inspector in Jim Crow America.) Read it.
--
David M. Palmer dmpa...@email.com (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
Andrew Wheeler
>
> clea...@mailandnews.com (Clea Saal) wrote in message news:<711cba4.02040...@posting.google.com>...
> > I apologize for the upcoming rant, but this is something I've
> > encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
> > really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
> > except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
> > strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
> >
> >
> > So back to the original question: is there a real reason behind
> > this attitude, or is it just plain, old fashioned, prejudice? (And
> > for the record, while what I write does have elements of science
> > fiction, it is not science fiction in the strictest sense).
>
> If you have the eensiest, teensiest, itty-bittiest drop of science
> fictional content in your story, then it's science fiction. The only
> thing that trumps SF in this regard is fantasy.
I'm not sure we want the historical baggage that comes along with the
"one drop of blood" argument. Did you mean the parallel deliberately, or
was it inadvertent?
And *why* should SF content be the single determining factor in a book?
It places SFnal ideas in the center of the literary universe, a place
where they have never been and -- as this thread is mostly about -- they
mostly aren't welcome.
Also, this criterion would place lots and lots of books in which the
author made a science error (and thus things work in an
alternate-historical or Clarkean sufficiently-advanced manner) into SF,
which I don't think any of us want.
--
Andrew Wheeler
--
"Day One: Ringwraiths killed: 4. V. good.
Met up with Hobbits. Walked forty miles. Skinned a squirrel and ate it.
Still not King." -- from The Secret Diary of Aragorn son of Arathorn
Brenda W. Clough
I'm told that nobody can give Oprah anything. She only will consider
books that she Discovers herself.
Brenda W. Clough
>Fantasy and science fiction are among the biggest selling books
>
Uh, you're aware that fifty percent of all fiction purchased in this
country is romance. SF and F make up at most ten percent of fiction
sales, and that's in the good years.
Brenda W. Clough
>Oprah has never had any sort of genre on her show, has she? She is decidedly
>into "literary fiction." (Another way to say "no plot".)
>
Couldn't say, since I never watch her show. She boycotts me, I boycott her.
Brenda
Joyleen Seymour
as far as I know she has never called for me to be put in jail the way Rosie
O'Donnell did.
Joy
A.C.
news:db01bae.02040...@posting.google.com...
> The major difference between SF and every other genre (with the
> exception of mysteries) is that SF makes you think while the others
> ask only that you feel. I submit that the former is more difficult
> than the latter and that's an automatic wall to acceptance. I call it
> the intellectual cover charge.
Guess you've never read Umberto Eco...
A.C.
> See, I don't think Toni Morrison or any of her sort of writer thinks
> of it this way. They think "I want to write this book," not "I want
> to write a book in this genre."
I'm not sure about that. She might have been a little hesitant to have made
a ghost story her first novel, rather than her fifth.
Matt Ruff
>
> Matt Ruff wrote:
>
>> Why the assumption that anyone who writes SF must be
>> writing for an "SF audience"? If you really want to
>> transcend genre barriers and reach as wide a readership as
>> possible, you can probably learn an awful lot from people
>> who *aren't* familiar with genre conventions.
>
> generally want to write that because that's what they want
> to read, and they want to write the thing that they like.
> And the audience they imagine, I think, is an audience who
> likes to read the same thing that they like to read.
I don't see any reason to limit these comments to people who write SF. I
think almost all authors, given a choice, would prefer to write the kind
of books that they themselves like to read.
That's a different issue, though, from whether mainstream fiction and
genre SF are completely irreconcilable. I don't think that they are, but
an SF writer who does shouldn't be hurt or surprised when mainstream
readers don't get his stuff, and he definitely shouldn't be wasting his
time in a general fiction writing workshop.
> I guess there's a place, somewhere, for people to write in
> a genre, but write it for people who don't like that genre,
> but it seems less likely, somehow.
How does lack of familiarity with a genre and its conventions imply
dislike of that genre? I'm not suggesting anyone try to write SF for
people who actively hate SF -- that would indeed be silly. But it seems
to me you unfairly limit yourself if you assume that books written "in
the genre" can only ever appeal to card-carrying genre readers. If you
could make your work accessible to mainstream readers too, without
diluting or compromising the story, why wouldn't you?
-- M. Ruff
David Johnston
>
> Doug wrote:
> >
> > clea...@mailandnews.com (Clea Saal) wrote in message news:<711cba4.02040...@posting.google.com>...
> > > I apologize for the upcoming rant, but this is something I've
> > > encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
> > > really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
> > > except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
> > > strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > So back to the original question: is there a real reason behind
> > > this attitude, or is it just plain, old fashioned, prejudice? (And
> > > for the record, while what I write does have elements of science
> > > fiction, it is not science fiction in the strictest sense).
> >
> > If you have the eensiest, teensiest, itty-bittiest drop of science
> > fictional content in your story, then it's science fiction. The only
> > thing that trumps SF in this regard is fantasy.
Romance. There are a few romances with sf elements that get classed
as romance rather than SF. Additionally, extremely minor science fictional
content often puts a book into the techno-thriller category, but I assume
you were exaggerating for effect.
>
> I'm not sure we want the historical baggage that comes along with the
> "one drop of blood" argument. Did you mean the parallel deliberately, or
> was it inadvertent?
>
> And *why* should SF content be the single determining factor in a book?
Suppose someone writes a mystery. It would be put in mystery shelf, wouldn't
it? But suppose someone writes someone writes a mystery that takes place on
a spaceship? Where does it get put?
The answer is in "science fiction" almost all the time. It's not that sf is
the center of the fiction universe. Quite to the contrary, it is because
sf elements put just about any work out in the fringe by their nature or at
least by the nature of people's reactions to them.
Matt Ruff
>
> To say it's "not science fiction in the strictest sense" is
> to defame the entire genre just as prejudicially as others
> do.
Or -- switching to decaf for a moment -- it could just be an honest
attempt to describe a story that has science fictional elements but
doesn't fit into the speaker's notion of a clearcut genre piece.
-- M. Ruff
Laura Burchard
Robert Rinne <rri...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>--------------010705070700080101090305
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Turn off the html posting, please, it makes your messages almost
impossible to read.
--
Laura Burchard -- l...@radix.net -- http://www.radix.net/~lhb
Livejournal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/tavella/
"Good design is clear thinking made visible." -- Edward Tufte
Chris Dollin
tr...@cinci.rr.com (Doug) writes:
>
> The major difference between SF and every other genre (with the
> exception of mysteries) is that SF makes you think while the others
> ask only that you feel.
That sounds implausible, for two reasons. First, in the little non-SF
non-mystery [fiction] reading I do, I *still* encounter books that make
me think as well as books that "only" make me feel. (To hand and to wit,
Jane Austen & David Lodge.) Second, I have read enough and plenty SF
that didn't demand much in the way of "thinking". Most of such I don't
*own*, but I have *read* it.
So your case needs some support, at least as far as I'm concerned.
> I submit that the former is more difficult
> than the latter and that's an automatic wall to acceptance. I call it
> the intellectual cover charge.
Ye gods, chum, I've read fiction where the emotional load made it *much*
more difficult to cope with than thinking does. That's just as much a
"wall to acceptance" - think of people who refuse to read horror, for
example.
Yes, the *best* SF makes you think, deeply and seriously, about certain
kinds of issues. But then, so does the *best* in pretty much any brand of
literature. Doesn't it?
--
Regretably Narrow Hedgehog
Alan Hope
programme, like this one from Doug, calling from alt.writing:
>"Ray" <rDrovouil...@comcast.nospam.net> wrote in message news:<FmJr8.25712$%i.27...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
>> "Matt Ruff" <Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:3CAF5D51...@worldnet.att.net...
>> > Lucy Kemnitzer wrote:
>> > > I think there is a real reason why many of those groups
>> > > would be useless to the writer who draws from an sf
>> > > tradition: many of those writers would not be able to tell
>> > > what is good and what is bad in sf. They don't know what an
>> > > sf audience knows: they don't know what doesn't need to be
>> > > explained, or what shouldn't be explained, or what should
>> > > be explained.
>> > Why the assumption that anyone who writes SF must be writing for an "SF
>> > audience"? If you really want to transcend genre barriers and reach as
>> > wide a readership as possible, you can probably learn an awful lot from
>> > people who *aren't* familiar with genre conventions.
>> That makes it a good idea to lurk mainstream circles. Submitting SF to
>> them, however, can be problematic.
>The major difference between SF and every other genre (with the
>exception of mysteries) is that SF makes you think while the others
>ask only that you feel. I submit that the former is more difficult
>than the latter and that's an automatic wall to acceptance. I call it
>the intellectual cover charge.
Mainstream fiction doesn't ask you to think? What a ridiculous
statement. One wonders what on earth you've been reading.
>The only way to get some people to read science fiction is to trick
>them. The publishers of Vonnegut, Bradbury and Clancy have done this
>quite well, to the point where people will actually debate you as to
>whether these guys are writing science fiction. I doubt most people
>who watch The West Wing get the fact that it takes place in an
>alternate world.
Um, all fiction takes place in an alternative (sic) world. So what's
your point?
--
AH
Pete Fenelon
> Sidebar - has anyone heard of the absolutely horrible and brilliant Brit
> SciFi author Edmund Cooper? Write in the 70s and everything in
> paperback. Reading him makes me wonder if he was Vonnegut's Kilgore Trout.
>
I recall reading something dire called "Crashing Suns" or similar, but
very little else. Was he real, or was he another Fanthorpe or Ted Tubb
pseudonym?
pete
--
pe...@fenelon.com "Irk the purists, irk the purists, it's a right good laugh."
Pete Fenelon
>>I'm not sure it has as much to do with genre as it does with "name."
> Stephen King could write a Christian love story and it would sell a million.
>
He did. "The Stand". It sold a hell of a lot more than a million :P
Justin Harwood Moss
news:ub1dm8q...@corp.supernews.com...
Cooper was real - died 15 or 20 years ago IIRC. Didn't read much of his
stuff, though I really liked "Transit" when I read it in the library when I
was 12 or so. He also wrote a pulpy SF series as Richard Avery - team goes
(loaded for bear) to a different planet each wee^H^H^H"book, usually
infested by hideous creatures (EG first book was called "Deathworms of
Kratos") - events ensue.... These were later republished under his own name,
possibly after he was safely dead. Don't recall "Crashing Suns" as being by
him, though the title rings a bell - sounds more like Edmond Hamilton...
Justin
--
Come to Justin's Place at http://www.moss53.freeserve.co.uk
Sf reviews, photos, info on my music projects and various other
ramblings......
phil hunt
>
>So back to the original question: is there a real reason behind this
>attitude, or is it just plain, old fashioned, prejudice?
I would guess that the reason is fear and stupidity. Some people
are intimidated by science because they feel they are too stupid to
understand it.
--
<"><"><"> Philip Hunt <ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk> <"><"><">
"I would guess that he really believes whatever is politically
advantageous for him to believe."
-- Alison Brooks, referring to Michael
Portillo, on soc.history.what-if
phil hunt
>On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 11:03:04 +1200, Gareth Wilson
><gr...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
>>"Brenda W. Clough" wrote:
>>
>>> Clea Saal wrote:
>>>
>>> >encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
>>> >really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
>>> >except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
>>> >strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
>>> >
>>>
>>
>
>
>it should probably be considered "magic realism" instead.
What's that supposed to mean anyway? Magic isn't real, it is
fantasy.
phil hunt
>Theresa Ann Wymer wrote:
>
>>: Clea Saal wrote:
>>
>>: >I apologize for the upcoming rant, but this is something I've
>>: >encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
>>: >really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
>>: >except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
>>: >strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
>>
>>: It's Oprah Winfrey's fault. She refused to have F or SF on her Book Club.
>>
>>saw the tape of Oprah saying she'd run out of books that really grabbed
>>her, I immediately thought, "What about Kij Johnson's _The Fox
>>Woman_?" The milieu might be a bit unfamiliar, but otherwise it seems to
>>me it would work pretty well.
>>
>
>
>Yes, she's on record as saying so, loud and clear, on her show.
Did she give a reason?
Mark Reichert
> Uh, you're aware that fifty percent of all fiction purchased in this
> country is romance. SF and F make up at most ten percent of fiction
> sales, and that's in the good years.
Well, there's the SF and F with romance mixed in. Laurell K.
Hamilton's gone so far in that direction that I've lost interest. And
then there is Auel's series.....
Brenda W. Clough
>On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 23:28:03 -0500, Brenda W. Clough <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>Theresa Ann Wymer wrote:
>>
>>>Brenda W. Clough (clo...@erols.com) wrote:
>>>: Clea Saal wrote:
>>>
>>>: >I apologize for the upcoming rant, but this is something I've
>>>: >encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
>>>: >really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
>>>: >except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
>>>: >strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
>>>
>>>: It's Oprah Winfrey's fault. She refused to have F or SF on her Book Club.
>>>
>>>Did she really? Can't say I'm surprised, but it is irritating. When I
>>>saw the tape of Oprah saying she'd run out of books that really grabbed
>>>her, I immediately thought, "What about Kij Johnson's _The Fox
>>>Woman_?" The milieu might be a bit unfamiliar, but otherwise it seems to
>>>me it would work pretty well.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, she's on record as saying so, loud and clear, on her show.
>>
>
>Did she give a reason?
>
I don't watch her show (turn about is fair play after all), but I am
told that she just 'doesn't like the genre.'
Andrew Wheeler
>
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 03:53:22 GMT, Lucy Kemnitzer <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> >Do you mean _Beloved_? I think that to be fair to it and to the
> > genre, it should probably be considered "magic realism" instead.
>
> What's that supposed to mean anyway? Magic isn't real, it is
> fantasy.
"Magic realism" means either:
a) literary fantasy novels written by Latin Americans (if you're not
taking the whole thing seriously)
or
b) a story in which the fantastic elements are grounded in the
everyday lives of the characters, who otherwise live in a world
indistinguishable from our own. The stories are also generally low-key
and everyday, and the stories tend to be set in the present-day (or be
the kind of generational historical novel that tells the story of a
family up to the present day).
Strictly speaking, "magic realism" should be a subset of fantasy, but I
don't think most academic types like that idea.
To compare it to books we might have read, Sean Stewart gets pretty
close to magic realism sometimes, and I think _Mockingbird_ fully
qualifies. Tim Powers writes in a somewhat similar sub-genre, but the
magical struggles are too major to really qualify; magic realism is
emphatically *not* about saving the world. Obviously, any fantasy set in
a secondary world (Tolkienesque or otherwise) or a medieval setting
would be immediately disqualified.
The great canonical magic realist novel is Gabriel Garcia Marquez's _One
Hundred Years of Solitude_, which I recommend. It can be tough to work
through (unpleasant things keep happening, and the central family seems
to have only four names to spread among a couple of dozen characters),
but it is a great novel.
Andrew Wheeler
>
> Doug wrote:
>
> >"Brenda W. Clough" <clo...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<3CAF40B6...@erols.com>...
> >
> >>Clea Saal wrote:
> >>
> >>>I apologize for the upcoming rant, but this is something I've
> >>>encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
> >>>really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
> >>>except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
> >>>strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
> >>>
> >>It's Oprah Winfrey's fault. She refused to have F or SF on her
> >>Book Club.
> >>
> >
> >Someone should give her anything by Octavia Butler.
> >
>
> I'm told that nobody can give Oprah anything. She only will consider
> books that she Discovers herself.
She gets, conservatively speaking, crates of galleys every week. But the
publishers only send her (and by "her," of course, I mean "the team of
people who open her mail and read/skim the books first") things that
they think she will like -- there's no point in becoming the publisher
who keeps sending books her staff hates, since that will only lead to
being ignored. (I doubt Oprah has had to pay for a book in ten years.)
Besides, she just announced that she's semi-disbanding the club (she
might do it now and then, but it won't be on any set scheduled) because
"it was getting too hard to find good books." Smart money, though, is on
the fact that these are among her lowest-rated shows. So the point is
now moot.
Andrew Wheeler
Brenda is talking about the romance *section*. That generates close to
50% of the sales, and -- if you add in "women's fiction" and similar
things, it's probably closing in on 75%. (And then there's
mystery/thriller, which is substantially higher in sales than SF/Fantasy
as well.)
Women buy most of the books, women read most of the books, and women
mostly read love stories (sometimes mixed with other things, but with a
love story in there, too). SF/Fantasy is a minority taste.
Brenda W. Clough
>Mark Reichert wrote:
>
>>"Brenda W. Clough" <clo...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<3CB07B3D...@erols.com>...
>>
>>>Uh, you're aware that fifty percent of all fiction purchased in
>>>this country is romance. SF and F make up at most ten percent of
>>>fiction sales, and that's in the good years.
>>>
>>Well, there's the SF and F with romance mixed in. Laurell K.
>>Hamilton's gone so far in that direction that I've lost interest.
>>And then there is Auel's series.....
>>
>
>Brenda is talking about the romance *section*. That generates close to
>50% of the sales, and -- if you add in "women's fiction" and similar
>things, it's probably closing in on 75%. (And then there's
>mystery/thriller, which is substantially higher in sales than SF/Fantasy
>as well.)
>
>Women buy most of the books, women read most of the books, and women
>mostly read love stories (sometimes mixed with other things, but with a
>love story in there, too). SF/Fantasy is a minority taste.
>
Amen. I know of romance readers who read a romance -a day-. And it
can't be a reread, either -- has to be a new book. That's 365 new
romances a year. Is there an SF-F fan half so driven?
Richard Horton
<joyse...@attbi.com> wrote:
>Oprah has never had any sort of genre on her show, has she? She is decidedly
>into "literary fiction." (Another way to say "no plot".)
For the most part, fairly lowbrow literary fiction. Decently-written
soap opera, basically. (Some exceptions, to be sure, like Dubus and
Morrison, but still.) That's why Jonathan Franzen (rather fatuously)
expressed misgivings about _The Corrections_ being an Oprah choice --
he felt the reputation of Oprah books was at odds with his ambitions.
That said, I think if Oprah read anything by Octavia Butler, it would
rock her world.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
Richard Horton
wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 03:53:22 GMT, rit...@cruzio.com (Lucy Kemnitzer)
>wrote:
>
>>Do you mean _Beloved_? I think that to be fair to it and to the genre,
>>it should probably be considered "magic realism" instead. Let's see
>
>Could someone explain this blatant oxymoron to me? "Magic realism?"
>I suppose if you're John Edwards or Miss Cleo, you believe magic and
>realism go together, but for me, once you've introduced magic, it's
>"fantasy," plain and simple.
Lucy is right -- the difference between "magic realism" and genre
fantasy is the way in which the fantastic elements are "explained" --
or the way in which they are internally consistent.
I don't think that people who say things like "Magic Realism is
Fantasy written in Spanish" can have read much Magic Realism.
That said, I believe that many genre readers will get a similar "kick"
out of MR as the "kick" they get from genre fantasy -- this based on a
sample on one reader -- me.
Pete McCutchen
<clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>Theresa Ann Wymer wrote:
>
>>Brenda W. Clough (clo...@erols.com) wrote:
>>: Clea Saal wrote:
>>
>>: >I apologize for the upcoming rant, but this is something I've
>>: >encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
>>: >really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
>>: >except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
>>: >strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
>>
>>: It's Oprah Winfrey's fault. She refused to have F or SF on her Book Club.
>>
>>Did she really? Can't say I'm surprised, but it is irritating. When I
>>saw the tape of Oprah saying she'd run out of books that really grabbed
>>her, I immediately thought, "What about Kij Johnson's _The Fox
>>Woman_?" The milieu might be a bit unfamiliar, but otherwise it seems to
>>me it would work pretty well.
>>
>
>
>Yes, she's on record as saying so, loud and clear, on her show.
Which is odd, given that Toni Morrison -- one of Oprah's favorite
writers -- tends to write stuff with a fairly high strangeness
quotient. Not quite sf, but odd enough to be interesting to sf fans.
I doubt she'd like, say, David Weber, or even Lois Bujold, but I
suspect that Winfrey would actually rather like Octavia Butler or even
Ursula LeGuin.
--
Pete McCutchen
Maureen O'Brien
> I joined a writers' group, and posted the first chapter of my WIP.
> It got slammed pretty hard for things that are generally accepted in > SF.
Yeah, like the word "telepathy". I had to explain what it meant. (It's
not like it's an uncommon word.) Then, when they understood that it
meant "mindreading", I got hassled for "how come didn't I use the
word 'mindreading' instead?"
This wasn't even the point of the story, mind you. It was just a side
comment. And, by the bye, I am really tired of people objecting to
side comments which paint the world out for you, or ignoring the
_perfectly obvious_ clues to what kind of world the story takes place
in.
There were many legitimate comments made. I regarded them with
respect. But if you have to define common words every five seconds,
what's the point?
"Ah, sunshine. That means lightwaves emanating from the star at the
center of the stellar system around which the planet orbits. And while
I'm at it, lemme just give you a lecture on how this here machine
works....."
Maureen, who's glad they couldn't read her mind
Mark Reichert
> Brenda is talking about the romance *section*.
I KNOW THAT!
I also know that Hamilton and Auel have benefited from crossover sales.
Doug
> Coming up next, your comments and questions on issues discussed in the
> programme, like this one from Doug, calling from alt.writing:
>
>
> >exception of mysteries) is that SF makes you think while the others
> >ask only that you feel. I submit that the former is more difficult
> >than the latter and that's an automatic wall to acceptance. I call it
> >the intellectual cover charge.
>
> Mainstream fiction doesn't ask you to think? What a ridiculous
> statement. One wonders what on earth you've been reading.
Hm, what have I read lately? Fortunately I keep a list for just such
a question:
ALIENS OF EARTH – Nancy Kress; F/SF stories
ALONG THE OHIO – Andrew Borowiec; NonFic
AN ABSENCE OF LIGHT - David Lindsey; Fic
BATMAN: THE KILLING JOKE – Alan Moore, Brian Bolland; F
BELARUS – Lee Hogan; SF
LA BETE – David Hirson; Fic Play
BIG DEAL – Thom Taylor; NonFic
BLACK HAWK DOWN – Mark Bowden; NonFic
BLACK HOLES AND TIME WARPS – Kip Thorne; NonFic
THE BONEHUNTERS' REVENGE – David Rains Wallace; NonFic
BRIDGET JONES'S DIARY - Helen Fielding; Fic
BURNING YOUR BOATS – Angela Carter; F stories
A CASE OF CONSCIENCE – James Blish; SF
CATCHER IN THE RYE - J.D. Salinger; Fic
CHILDREN OF GOD – Mary Doria Russell; SF
A CLASH OF KINGS – George R.R. Martin; F
CODE OF CONDUCT – Kristine Smith; SF
THE CORRECTIONS - Jonathon Franzen; Fic
CRAZY IN ALABAMA - Mark Childress; Fic
CULT TV: THE DETECTIVES – Jon E. Lewis, Peggy Stempel; NonFic
DAUGHTER OF FORTUNE - Isabella Allende; Fic
THE DIRECTORS: TAKE TWO – Emery; NonFic
DO FISH DRINK WATER? – Bill McLain; NonFic
THE DRAGON NEVER SLEEPS – Glen Cook; SF
DREAMSIDE – Graham Joyce; F
EAST, WEST - Salman Rushdie; Fic/F stories
EATING MEMORIES - Patricia Anthony; SF/F stories
EUCALYPTUS - Murray Bail; Fic
THE FACE IN THE FROST – John Bellairs; F
FEVRE DREAM – George R.R. Martin; F
50 IN 50 – Harry Harrison; SF/F stories
A FINE BALANCE - Rohinton Mistry; Fic
FOLDING THE UNIVERSE – Peter Engel; NonFic
FRANKENSTEIN - Mary Shelley; SF
FRANKENSTEINS AND FOREIGN DEVILS – Walter Jon Williams; SF/F
stories
FRAUD – David Rakoff; Essays
THE FREE LUNCH – Spider Robinson; SF
A GAME OF THRONES – George R.R. Martin; F
GHOST WORLD – Daniel Clowes; Fic
THE GRAVEYARD GAME – Kage Baker; SF
GRAVITY DREAMS – L.E. Modesitt; SF
GRAVITY'S ANGELS – Michael Swanwick; SF stories
GREAT STORIES OF THE AMERICAN WEST - Martin H. Greenberg, Ed.; Fic
sotries
THE HAPPY BOTTOM RIDING CLUB – Lauren Kessler; NonFic
HEART OF DARKNESS - Joseph Conrad; Fic
HOLIDAYS ON ICE - David Sedaris; Fic
A HYMN BEFORE BATTLE – John Ringo; SF
IF CHINS COULD KILL: CONFESSIONS OF A B MOVIE ACTOR – Bruce
Campbell; NonFic
I'M A STRANGER HERE MYSELF – Bill Bryson; Essays
IN THE GARDEN OF IDEN – Kage Baker; SF
INCREDIBLY STRANGE MUSIC – V. Vale, Andrea Juno, Ed.; NonFic
JACKSON POLLOCK – Kirk Varnedoe; NonFic
KILLING PABLO – Mark Bowden; NonFic
KNIGHTS OF MADNESS – Peter Haining, Ed.; F stories
THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN – Alan Moore, Kevin
O'Neill; F
A LESSON BEFORE DYING - Ernest Gaines; Fic
MAN PLUS – Frederick Pohl; SF
MAROONED IN REALTIME – Vernor Vinge; SF
MAUS: A SURVIVOR'S TALE – Art Spiegelman; NonFic
MAUS II – Spiegelman; NonFic
MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA - Arthur Golden; Fic
MENDOZA IN HOLLYWOOD – Kage Baker; SF
THE MIOCENE ARROW – Sean McMullen; SF
THE MOST BEAUTIFUL VILLAGES IN TUSCANY – Bentley, Palmer; NonFic
THE MOTHER TONGUE: ENGLISH & HOW IT GOT THAT WAY – Bill Bryson;
NonFic
MOVIE MUTTS: HOLLYWOOD GOES TO THE DOGS – Stephen Silverman;
NonFic
MOVIES OF THE THIRTIES – Ann Lloyd, David Robinson, Ed.; NonFic
MOVIES OF THE FORTIES – Ann Lloyd, David Robinson, Ed.; NonFic
NAUSICAA OF THE VALLEY OF THE WIND: VOL. 1 – Hayao Miyazaki; F
NAUSICAA OF THE VALLEY OF THE WIND: VOL. 2 – Hayao Miyazaki; F
NAUSICAA OF THE VALLEY OF THE WIND: VOL. 3 – Hayao Miyazaki; F
NAUSICAA OF THE VALLEY OF THE WIND: VOL. 4 – Hayao Miyazaki; F
THE NEW MYSTERY - Jerome Charyn, Ed.; Fic stories
NEW TRAILS - John Jakes, Martin Greenberg, Ed.; Fic stories
NICE - Jen Sacks; Fic
100 BULLETS #1: FIRST SHOT, LAST CALL – Brian Azzarello, Eduardo
Risso; Fic
100 BULLETS #2: SPLIT SECOND LAST CHANCE – Azzarello, Risso; Fic
100 BULLETS #3: HANG UP ON THE HANG LOW – Azzarello, Risso; Fic
THE ONION GIRL – Charles De Lint; F
ORANGE ROOFS, GOLDEN ARCHES – Philip Langdon; NonFic
PENNY CANDY – Jean Kerr; Essays
PERDIDO STREET STATION – China Mieville; F
THE REDISCOVERY OF MAN – Cordwainer Smith; SF stories
RING OF FIRE – Kendra Santos; NonFic
ROADSIDE AMERICA – Lucinda Lewis; NonFic
SAGA OF THE SWAMP THING – Alan Moore, Steve Bissette, John
Totleben; F
SCREENING SPACE: AMERICAN SCIENCE FICTION FILM – Vivian Sobchak;
NonFic
SHIP OF FOOLS – Richard Paul Russo; SF
SKY COYOTE – Kage Baker; SF
A SMALL KILLING – Alan Moore, Oscar Zarate; Fic
A SOLDIER'S DUTY – Thomas Ricks; Fic
THE SPARROW – Mary Doria Russell; SF
STARTING OUT IN THE EVENING - Brian Morton; Fic
A STORM OF SWORDS – George R.R. Martin; F
SYNDROME X – Jack Challem, Burton Berkson, Melissa Smith; NonFic
TERRAFORMING EARTH – Jack Williamson; SF
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD – Harper Lee; Fic
TODAY WE CHOOSE FACES – Roger Zelazny; SF
THE TOOTH FAIRY – Graham Joyce; F
TUF VOYAGING – George R.R. Martin; SF stories
UNCLE TOM'S CABIN – Harriet Beecher Stowe; Fic
THE VERSATILE BORDER COLLIE – Janet E. Larson; NonFic
THE VIRGINIAN – Owen Wister; Fic
VOYAGE OF THE SPACE BEAGLE – A.E. Van Vogt; SF
WAITING - Ha Jin; Fic
WAR LETTERS – Andrew Carroll, Ed.; NonFic
THE WAR OF THE WORLDS - H.G. Wells; SF
WILD SEED - Octavia Butler; F
WINDHAVEN – George R.R. Martin, Lisa Tuttle; SF
WORD FREAK – Stefan Fatsis; NonFic
THE WORD ON THE STREET – John McWhorter; NonFic
WORLDS OF SCIENCE FICTION – Robert P. Mills, Ed.; F/SF stories
WORLDS WITHOUT END – John S. Lewis; NonFic
WRITERS ON WRITING – John Darnton, Ed.; Essays
THE YEAR'S BEST SCIENCE FICTION: 18TH ANNUAL – Gardner Dozois,
Ed.; SF/F stories
That's about six or seven months' worth. My reading tends to trends,
obviously, but it's a fairly representative sample - except for the
preponderance of graphic novels which is a recent trend.
Not that I expect anyone to actually read that list, of course.
> >The only way to get some people to read science fiction is to trick
> >them. The publishers of Vonnegut, Bradbury and Clancy have done this
> >quite well, to the point where people will actually debate you as to
> >whether these guys are writing science fiction. I doubt most people
> >who watch The West Wing get the fact that it takes place in an
> >alternate world.
>
> Um, all fiction takes place in an alternative (sic) world. So what's
> your point?
Okay, everyone who thinks "all literature is Fantasy" is now excused
from any genre discussions as having nothing of value to say.
Kinda goes back to my statement on thinking.
Doug
Doug
> On 6 Apr 2002 21:46:50 -0800, tr...@cinci.rr.com (Doug) wrote:
>
> >The major difference between SF and every other genre (with the
> >exception of mysteries) is that SF makes you think while the others
> >ask only that you feel.
>
Wrong.
Doug
Doug
> Nor, apparently, a lot of sf.
>
> dmh
Also wrong.
Doug
Doug
> Doug wrote:
> >
> > Ray wrote:
> >
> >> Matt Ruff wrote:
> >>
> >>> Why the assumption that anyone who writes SF must be
> >>> writing for an "SF audience"? If you really want to
> >>> transcend genre barriers and reach as wide a readership
> >>> as possible, you can probably learn an awful lot from
> >>> people who *aren't* familiar with genre conventions.
> >>
> >> That makes it a good idea to lurk mainstream circles.
> >> Submitting SF to them, however, can be problematic.
> >
> > the exception of mysteries) is that SF makes you think while
> > is more difficult than the latter and that's an automatic
> > wall to acceptance. I call it the intellectual cover charge.
>
> think? About two cents?
>
> Seriously, it may be true that SF offers a somewhat above average ratio
> of thought-provoking titles, but the genre has plenty to offer people
> who don't want to overtax their brain cells, too. So I don't think the
> "intellectual cover charge" theory explains much.
The worst of any genre is going to look mighty bad, but in an average
match-up of good-to-excellent works across the genres, the thinking v.
feeling comparison is valid.
Doug
Doug
> In article <db01bae.02040...@posting.google.com>,
> tr...@cinci.rr.com (Doug) writes:
> >
> > The major difference between SF and every other genre (with the
> > exception of mysteries) is that SF makes you think while the others
> > ask only that you feel.
>
> That sounds implausible, for two reasons. First, in the little non-SF
> non-mystery [fiction] reading I do, I *still* encounter books that make
> me think as well as books that "only" make me feel. (To hand and to wit,
> Jane Austen & David Lodge.) Second, I have read enough and plenty SF
> that didn't demand much in the way of "thinking". Most of such I don't
> *own*, but I have *read* it.
>
> So your case needs some support, at least as far as I'm concerned.
I would like to read a list of Fiction works that made you think, and
what it was that you thought about. Thinking about feelings doesn't
count, of course. I'll even grant you Mark Twain's work, but I'm
dubious about Austen. Even though it's been years since I read any of
her stuff, I don't recall any of it being especially challenging.
(I've not heard of Lodge.)
> > I submit that the former is more difficult
> > than the latter and that's an automatic wall to acceptance. I call it
> > the intellectual cover charge.
>
> Ye gods, chum, I've read fiction where the emotional load made it *much*
> more difficult to cope with than thinking does. That's just as much a
> "wall to acceptance" - think of people who refuse to read horror, for
> example.
Which proves my point that thinking is more difficult than feeling.
> Yes, the *best* SF makes you think, deeply and seriously, about certain
> kinds of issues. But then, so does the *best* in pretty much any brand of
> literature. Doesn't it?
I don't think so. I recently read To Kill a Mockingbird and Uncle
Tom's Cabin, and neither one of them stretched my mental faculties at
all. In fact, I found the arguments in Mockingbird to be poorly
reasoned, and the weight it carries is mostly emotional. Comparing it
to something like The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell, which is SF
that's more emotional than intellectual, Mockingbird is an emotional
featherweight.
Doug
Doug
>
> >Fantasy and science fiction are among the biggest selling books
>
> Uh, you're aware that fifty percent of all fiction purchased in this
> country is romance. SF and F make up at most ten percent of fiction
> sales, and that's in the good years.
Um, you are aware that "among" doesn't mean "only"?
The second part of the sentence was the main point: "Fantasy and
science fiction are among the biggest selling books and films, but
they aren't regarded as art."
When's the last time you heard of a best-selling Fantasy book being
accorded the same literary status as the latest "good Christ we were
poor [insert ethnic group here] during the [insert 20th century time
period here]" or the "woe is me, my kid is dead and my family is
dysfunctional" opus.
Even the OP who started this thread is talking about a book that
starts with a Dead Kid (tm), smacking of a cynical cashing-in on the
latest trend.
Doug
Doug
> Doug wrote:
> >
> > clea...@mailandnews.com (Clea Saal) wrote
> > > So back to the original question: is there a real reason behind
> > > for the record, while what I write does have elements of science
> > > fiction, it is not science fiction in the strictest sense).
> >
> > If you have the eensiest, teensiest, itty-bittiest drop of science
> > fictional content in your story, then it's science fiction. The only
> > thing that trumps SF in this regard is fantasy.
>
> I'm not sure we want the historical baggage that comes along with the
> "one drop of blood" argument. Did you mean the parallel deliberately, or
> was it inadvertent?
No, that's just you.
I don't know where you're coming from with this (Halle Berry's Oscar
win?) but that isn't my mindset. It's a simple delineation of genre
boundaries, not a racist allegory. I don't even see how you made that
leap. Not every discussion exists within the framework of race
relations in America. Free your mind.
> And *why* should SF content be the single determining factor in a book?
> It places SFnal ideas in the center of the literary universe, a place
> where they have never been and -- as this thread is mostly about -- they
> mostly aren't welcome.
It's the single determining factor in books in this thread, though.
> Also, this criterion would place lots and lots of books in which the
> author made a science error (and thus things work in an
> alternate-historical or Clarkean sufficiently-advanced manner) into SF,
> which I don't think any of us want.
That would be accident rather than intent, which is of course what I
meant. (And said.)
Doug
Doug
> Andrew Wheeler wrote:
> >
> > Doug wrote:
> > >
> > > > I apologize for the upcoming rant, but this is something I've
> > > > encountered in a number of writers' groups out there and that is
> > > > really starting to bug me. Things like: "all genres are welcome,
> > > > except science fiction". My question is this. Why is there such a
> > > > strong prejudice against science fiction authors?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So back to the original question: is there a real reason behind
> > > > this attitude, or is it just plain, old fashioned, prejudice? (And
> > > > for the record, while what I write does have elements of science
> > > > fiction, it is not science fiction in the strictest sense).
> > >
> > > If you have the eensiest, teensiest, itty-bittiest drop of science
> > > fictional content in your story, then it's science fiction. The only
> > > thing that trumps SF in this regard is fantasy.
>
> as romance rather than SF. Additionally, extremely minor science fictional
> content often puts a book into the techno-thriller category, but I assume
> you were exaggerating for effect.
No, because techno-thrillers with science fictional content are
science fiction.
For instance, The Hunt for Red October is science fiction because the
submarine Red October is a science fictional vehicle, every bit as
extrapolative as Verne's Nautilus. The setting is immaterial.
> > I'm not sure we want the historical baggage that comes along with the
> > "one drop of blood" argument. Did you mean the parallel deliberately, or
> > was it inadvertent?
> >
> > And *why* should SF content be the single determining factor in a book?
>
> Suppose someone writes a mystery. It would be put in mystery shelf, wouldn't
> it? But suppose someone writes someone writes a mystery that takes place on
> a spaceship? Where does it get put?
>
> The answer is in "science fiction" almost all the time. It's not that sf is
> the center of the fiction universe. Quite to the contrary, it is because
> sf elements put just about any work out in the fringe by their nature or at
> least by the nature of people's reactions to them.
I read a book (the title escapes me) that was classified as a mystery
(and was well-reviewed as such), but at its heart the Maguffin was a
laser pistol. It was hard-boiled detective fiction, but still it had
a science fictional device at its heart. So it's automatically
science fiction.
The film Threshold concerns the world's first self-contained
artificial heart. That is its only science fictional conceit. Yet it
was made in 1980, a full 20 years before an actual self-contained
artificial heart would be developed. It is, therefore, science
fiction. (And despite it being surpassed by current events, it's
still SF.)
The Clint Eastwood films High Plains Drifter and Pale Rider are both
westerns, but they are also Fantasies, because there is a supernatural
element to both. Hamlet by Shakespeare is mostly just teen-angst and
royal intrigue, but the supernatural appearance of the ghost of
Hamlet's father makes it a Fantasy, even though that's the only
Fantasy element.
Science fiction is an uber-genre, as is fantasy. The smallest amount
of science fictional content makes a story SF. The smallest bit of
fantasy makes a story fantasy, no matter what its other genre elements
might be. The recent novel Archangel Protocol is loaded with the
iconography and settings of both science fiction and hard-boiled
detective fiction, yet it is a fantasy because some of the characters
turn out to be actual supernatural beings. (It's also not good, but
that's beside the point.)
Doug
Doug
> Doug wrote:
> >
> > To say it's "not science fiction in the strictest sense" is
> > to defame the entire genre just as prejudicially as others
> > do.
>
> Or -- switching to decaf for a moment -- it could just be an honest
> attempt to describe a story that has science fictional elements but
> doesn't fit into the speaker's notion of a clearcut genre piece.
I definitely got the sense that she was intentionally trying to
distance herself from the genre while still using its concepts.
Having her cake and all that.
If I'm wrong then I'm wrong, and no hard feelings, but I welcome
further comment from her.
Doug
Lucy Kemnitzer
<da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote:
>
>"Lucy Kemnitzer" <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
>news:3cafc064...@cnews.newsguy.com...
>> On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 20:38:08 GMT, Matt Ruff
>> <Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Lucy Kemnitzer wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I think there is a real reason why many of those groups
>> >> would be useless to the writer who draws from an sf
>> >> tradition: many of those writers would not be able to tell
>> >> what is good and what is bad in sf. They don't know what an
>> >> sf audience knows: they don't know what doesn't need to be
>> >> explained, or what shouldn't be explained, or what should
>> >> be explained.
>> >
>> >Why the assumption that anyone who writes SF must be writing for an "SF
>> >audience"? If you really want to transcend genre barriers and reach as
>> >wide a readership as possible, you can probably learn an awful lot from
>> >people who *aren't* familiar with genre conventions.
>> >
>>
>> I just sort of think that people who set out to write sf generally
>> want to write that because that's what they want to read, and they
>> want to write the thing that they like. And the audience they
>> imagine, I think, is an audience who likes to read the same thing that
>> they like to read. I guess there's a place, somewhere, for people to
>> write in a genre, but write it for people who don't like that genre,
>> but it seems less likely, somehow.
>>
>> "Science fiction for people who don't like and don't get science
>> fiction" just doesn't sound very appetizing to me.
>
>I am tempted to ask that this differs from the "no SF" bias how? I'd rate
>the work of Vonegut, Bradbury, Wyndham and many others precisely as SF for
>people who don't like and don't get SF - it doesn't debase what they do one
>iota.
Well, in that I didn't say I didn't like a particular work, or set of
works, but a certain orientation -- that's how it differs. And I
don't think that most of what you listed was written _as_ science
fiction for people who don't like science fiction. Vonnegut always
said that what he wrote wasn't science fiction (that is, he did not
set out to write science fiction for people who don't like science
fiction: he set out to write a certain kind of book which he didn't
think belonged in the genre at all). I've never seen a quote from
Bradbury or Wyndham saying they set out to write science fiction for
people who don't like it, either. I think, actually, that Bradbury
always seems quite comfortable as an sf writer.
I'm going to say this again, to be perfectly clear. I'm not talking
about particular works up there, I'm talking about an intention, an
orientation, in writing, just like Matt is. Matt suggested that there
might be an advantage for a writer to specifically aim their sfnal
work at people who don't like sf (because there are more of them). I
said I thought that was an unappetizing thought. Like cooking
souffles for people who gag on eggs.
The categorizing of works, now, that's a different thing. Lawrence
Watt-Evans pointed out someplace quite recently that what a writer is
thinking about their work when they write it, and what they think
about it later, are neither of them necessarily reliable final
statements about what the work actually is or does, and that seems
self-evident to me, since once the work is out there, there's a whole
world of context that's beyond the writer's intention and so on.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Lucy Kemnitzer
<nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> wrote:
>"Lucy Kemnitzer" <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
>news:3cafc2c1...@cnews.newsguy.com...
>
>> See, I don't think Toni Morrison or any of her sort of writer thinks
>> of it this way. They think "I want to write this book," not "I want
>> to write a book in this genre."
>
>I'm not sure about that. She might have been a little hesitant to have made
>a ghost story her first novel, rather than her fifth.
>
Since I've read some of her other works, I can say I don't think it
went like that. _Beloved_ really does seem like a natural progression
from the earlier works. There's a fervidity all along, fantastic
imagery that pushes at the limits of realism.
But, okay, here's the challenge: read _Beloved_ and one other book by
Toni Morrison, and come back and tell me that you think that she was
thinking about genre when she wrote _Beloved_.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Lucy Kemnitzer
wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 03:53:22 GMT, rit...@cruzio.com (Lucy Kemnitzer)
>wrote:
>
>>Do you mean _Beloved_? I think that to be fair to it and to the genre,
>>it should probably be considered "magic realism" instead. Let's see
>
>Could someone explain this blatant oxymoron to me? "Magic realism?"
>I suppose if you're John Edwards or Miss Cleo, you believe magic and
>realism go together, but for me, once you've introduced magic, it's
>"fantasy," plain and simple.
>
>Sounds to me something invented by people afraid of the word "fantasy"
>but who still want to read it. Like Ray Bradbury firemen with stashes
>of books in their homes.
>
No, "Magical realism" is a genre of literary work. The magical part
is that there is dream logic and there are fantastical events and
images. The realism part is that the works are rooted in the here and
now and the historical. There's a whole esthetic to it, which is
distinctive: when you read a bunch of it you think "yes, these guys
are definitely in the same track," and it's not the track of your
usual fantasy writer.
I can think of two fantasy writers who could be described the same way
sometimes: Charles de Lint and Phillip Blaylock. And both of them, to
me, seem different from magical realists.
I'm trying to think of why. It seems to me that it's sort of like the
difference between left-handers and right-handers. Both of them use
hands, and both of them use their hands in concert. But the left
hander uses the right hand to support and elaborate on the work the
left hand is doing, and the right hander uses the left hand to support
and elaborate on th work the right hand is doing. Though that
sentence doesn't adequately describe the situation either.
The magical realist's story goal is to tell a story about
relationships and events in the realist mode -- there's a whole
political and esthetic history to the word "realist" in this context
-- and the fantasy writer is telling a story which is first and last
about the fantasy: the real world is there in the story in order to
develop the fantasy.
Of course this is inadequate. But I think it might be a beginning.
I don't make this distinction in order to diss one or the other type
of writing -- I adore them both -- but because it seems to me that
there is a real difference there.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Lucy Kemnitzer
<clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>Joyleen Seymour wrote:
>
>>Oprah has never had any sort of genre on her show, has she? She is decidedly
>>into "literary fiction." (Another way to say "no plot".)
>>
>
>Couldn't say, since I never watch her show. She boycotts me, I boycott her.
Her loss -- I can imagine _How Like a God_ in a discussion group of
earnest ladies. It would be good.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Lucy Kemnitzer
<Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Lucy Kemnitzer wrote:
>>
>> Matt Ruff wrote:
>>
>>> Why the assumption that anyone who writes SF must be
>>> writing for an "SF audience"? If you really want to
>>> transcend genre barriers and reach as wide a readership as
>>> possible, you can probably learn an awful lot from people
>>> who *aren't* familiar with genre conventions.
>>
>> I just sort of think that people who set out to write sf
>> generally want to write that because that's what they want
>> to read, and they want to write the thing that they like.
>> And the audience they imagine, I think, is an audience who
>> likes to read the same thing that they like to read.
>
>I don't see any reason to limit these comments to people who write SF. I
>think almost all authors, given a choice, would prefer to write the kind
>of books that they themselves like to read.
>
>That's a different issue, though, from whether mainstream fiction and
>genre SF are completely irreconcilable. I don't think that they are, but
>an SF writer who does shouldn't be hurt or surprised when mainstream
>readers don't get his stuff, and he definitely shouldn't be wasting his
>time in a general fiction writing workshop.
>
>> I guess there's a place, somewhere, for people to write in
>> a genre, but write it for people who don't like that genre,
>> but it seems less likely, somehow.
>
>How does lack of familiarity with a genre and its conventions imply
>dislike of that genre? I'm not suggesting anyone try to write SF for
>people who actively hate SF -- that would indeed be silly. But it seems
>to me you unfairly limit yourself if you assume that books written "in
>the genre" can only ever appeal to card-carrying genre readers. If you
>could make your work accessible to mainstream readers too, without
>diluting or compromising the story, why wouldn't you?
I think we must be talking about different things, because you sound
so reasonable but yet you're saying these reasonable things in support
of something that seems quite silly to me.
Okay, like this. My daughter plays flute and she plays bagpipe. She
takes her flute lessons from a flautist and she takes her bagpipe
lessons from a bagpipe player. Is she going to take her bagpipe to
her flute teacher and ask "am I doing this right?"
Well, the flute teacher can tell her if it's musical, but she can't
tell her how to trim her reed. And she needs to know how to trim her
reed, so she needs a bagpipe player to go to for advice on that.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Eric Walker
[...]
>Amen. I know of romance readers who read a romance -a day-.
>And it can't be a reread, either -- has to be a new book.
>That's 365 new romances a year. Is there an SF-F fan half so
>driven?
Yes.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, webmaster
Great Science-Fiction & Fantasy Works
http://sfandf.owlcroft.com/
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
<acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
> b) a story in which the fantastic elements are grounded in the
>everyday lives of the characters, who otherwise live in a world
>indistinguishable from our own.
Ah, you mean "urban fantasy". :-)
>Strictly speaking, "magic realism" should be a subset of fantasy, but I
>don't think most academic types like that idea.
"Call rose ..." etc.
vlatko
--
_Neither Fish Nor Fowl_
http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/
http://www.michaelswanwick.com/
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr