REVIEW: _Science Fiction_, Adam Roberts
Martin Wisse
Adam Roberts
204 pages, including notes and index
published in 2000
Adam Roberts is a relatively new UK science fiction writer, whose first
novel, Salt was published in 2000 and nominated for a Clarke Award.
Since then he has written several more. He comes from an unusual
background for a science fiction writer, as he is a member of the
English Department at the University of London. Which helps explain why
he wrote this critical appraisal of science fiction at the same time as
his first sf novel.
Simply but aptly titled _Science Fiction_, it is part of the New
Critical Idiom series published by Routledge which, according to the
introductory note in the front aims to provide "an invaluable series of
introductory guides to today's critical terminology" and "an original
and distinctive overview by a leading literary and cultural critic". In
other words, this book is aimed at people in academia with no special
knowledge of science fiction, who want to quickly gain at least a
cursorily knowledge of the field.
If however, like me, you have some interest in science fiction in itself
and its history, you'll find little new in here. Roberts starts with
defining science fiction, then broadly outlines the history of the
genre, from a discussion of its origins to the 1960ties and the New
Wave. He then moves on to discussions of gender and race in science
fiction and ends with the role of technology in science fiction and the
way specific technologies are used as metaphors. At the end of each
chapter, he examines a relevant science fiction work in some depth.
Even for a book intended as nothing but a general outline of science
fiction rather than an in depth treatment of it, this is quite an
ambitious program. Even more so because Roberts does not limit his
treasise to the literary genre of science fiction, but also includes
science fiction in the movies and on tv. Of the five sf works he
explores in some detail, two are movies (Star Wars and Men in Black). On
the whole however, he concentrates on written science fiction.
What Roberts does in _Science Fiction_ that makes it worth reading for
those of us who are already acquainted with science fiction and its
history, is the context in which he puts the familiar story. He argues
for science fiction as a symbolist genre, "distinguished from other
symbolist modes of literature by the fact that its symbols are deployed
within a rationalised and materialist discourse, most usually that of
'science' and 'pseudo-science'. He further argues that "science fiction
is about the encouter with difference", that this is what makes science
fiction worthwhile, rather than any traditional literary values.
He has in my opinion only partially succeeded. Evaluating _Science
Fiction_, it does do a decent job of introducing science fiction to an
academic public. However, because of its ambitious scope and limited
space, it does not do that well a job of arguing the definition of
science fiction Roberts put forth, nor does it do justice to the
complexity of science fiction. The trouble seems to be that Roberts
tried to both write this introduction and put forth his own theory of
science fiction at the same time. At times, these two different needs
conflict, e.g. when he writes as if his own theories are accepted fact.
This was especially noticable in the first two chapters.
On the whole, I found that when I stopped reading this as purely a
factual account of science fiction but rather read this as an attempt by
Roberts to explain his own views on science fiction, I was much happier
in reading it. I also found I needed to adjust to the academic language
Roberts used; if the extracts I've given above already make you break
out in hives, you may have serious trouble reading this book. Finally,
there were also some sloppy mistakes, e.g. referering to the editor of
Astounding as Joseph Campbell in one instance, as well as some eyebrow
raising statements, like "that it is probably fair to say that the
present-day giants of the field are Ursula Le Guin and Octavia Butler"
that took me some time to get over.
From my booklog: <http://www.cloggie.org/books/>
Martin Wisse
--
[about e-book piracy]
Pirates are murderers and rapists. Electronic "pirates" are superannuated
juvenile delinquents stealing bubble gum and bragging about it.
Eric Flint, rasfw
Michael Stemper
>Science Fiction
>Adam Roberts
> Roberts starts with
>defining science fiction,
Well, that's a pretty amazing accomplishment in and of itself. Assuming
that the definition is any good. Is it?
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
No animals were harmed in the composition of this message.
Peter D. Tillman
mste...@siemens-emis.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
> In article <4074d7c9....@news.individual.net>, Martin Wisse writes:
> >Science Fiction
> >Adam Roberts
>
> > Roberts starts with
> >defining science fiction,
>
> Well, that's a pretty amazing accomplishment in and of itself. Assuming
> that the definition is any good. Is it?
See also <http://www.panix.com/~gokce/sf_defn.html>
for 52(!) other definitions of SF.
My fave being Darko Suvin's:
It [science fiction] should be defined as a fictional tale determined
by the hegemonic literary device of a locus and/or dramatis personae
that (1) are radically or at least significantly different from
empirical times, places, and characters of "mimetic" or "naturalist"
fiction, but (2) are nonetheless--to the extent that SF differs from
other "fantastic" genres, that is, ensembles of fictional tales
without empirical validation--simultaneously perceived as not
impossible within the cognitive (cosmological and anthropological)
norms of the author's epoch.
Preface, Metamorphoses Of Science Fiction, (Yale University Press, New
Haven, 1979)
WTF's a "hegemonic literary device"??
[shakes head]
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
Andrew Plotkin
I think it's a swarm of machines that want to break down all your
libraries and reassemble them into manuals describing themselves.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
David Cowie
>
> WTF's a "hegemonic literary device"??
>
Bible. Koran.
--
David Cowie david_cowie at lineone dot net
Containment Failure + 3482:43
Niall Harrison
> However, because of its ambitious scope and limited
> space, it does not do that well a job of arguing the definition of
> science fiction Roberts put forth, nor does it do justice to the
> complexity of science fiction. The trouble seems to be that Roberts
> tried to both write this introduction and put forth his own theory of
> science fiction at the same time.
Pretty much, yes. From Roberts' website:
http://www.adamroberts.com/writing.htm#aw
[quote]
_Science Fiction_ (Routledge New Critical Idiom, Routledge 2000). This is
a relatively brief (50,000 word) introduction to the critical debates
surrounding Science Fiction. It includes chapters on defining the term, on
the history of SF, on gender, race and technology. Designed only as an
introduction, I'm less happy with this work - it was written too quickly,
I'm sorry to say, and whilst I stand by most of what I say in it, it does
contain a few errors and infelicities. I'm presently writing a much
larger-scale, much more carefully researched Critical History of Science
Fiction (Palgrave, forthcoming), which will advance the core argument of
this little book and remedy some of its failures.
[/quote]
Niall
--
But is it art?
Christopher Adams
> Michael Stemper wrote:
> Martin Wisse writes:
>
>>> Roberts starts with defining science fiction,
>>
>> Well, that's a pretty amazing accomplishment in and of itself. Assuming
>> that the definition is any good. Is it?
>
> See also <http://www.panix.com/~gokce/sf_defn.html>
> for 52(!) other definitions of SF.
>
> My fave being Darko Suvin's:
>
> It [science fiction] should be defined as a fictional tale determined
> by the hegemonic literary device of a locus and/or dramatis personae
> that (1) are radically or at least significantly different from
> empirical times, places, and characters of "mimetic" or "naturalist"
> fiction, but (2) are nonetheless--to the extent that SF differs from
> other "fantastic" genres, that is, ensembles of fictional tales
> without empirical validation--simultaneously perceived as not
> impossible within the cognitive (cosmological and anthropological)
> norms of the author's epoch.
>
> Preface, Metamorphoses Of Science Fiction, (Yale University Press, New
> Haven, 1979)
>
>
> WTF's a "hegemonic literary device"??
>
> [shakes head]
That's what happens when you read academic definitions - jargon burns your eyes.
I think that "hegemonic literary device" means all-pervading and consistent
technology/occurrence/whatever that is central to the story - i.e., Asimov's
robots are a hegemonic literary device in his robot stories because that's what
the stories are about and, more to the point, the exploration of their
technological and psychological features are central to the narrative.
Item (2) is about distinguishing between science that is believed to be
possible, even if only barely, at the time the stories are written, and complete
fantasy, i.e. with magic and dragons.
Not that I necessarily wish to defend Suvin's definition.
--
Christopher Adams - SUTEKH Functions Officer 2004
All right, vampire killers, let's kill some fucking vampires.
Del Cotter
Peter D. Tillman <til...@aztec.asu.edu> said:
>WTF's a "hegemonic literary device"??
I don't know, it seems to be a Shadowy concept...
--
Del Cotter
Thanks to the overwhelming volume of UBE, I am now rejecting *all* email
sent to d...@branta.demon.co.uk. Please send your email to del2 instead.
William December Starr
mwi...@cloggie.org (Martin Wisse) said:
> Simply but aptly titled _Science Fiction_, it is part of the New
> Critical Idiom series published by Routledge which, according to
> the introductory note in the front aims to provide "an invaluable
> series of introductory guides to today's critical terminology" and
> "an original and distinctive overview by a leading literary and
> cultural critic". In other words, this book is aimed at people in
> academia with no special knowledge of science fiction, who want to
> quickly gain at least a cursorily knowledge of the field.
I don't suppose he tries to sell them on "It's a grubby little
ghetto where they eat visitors. Best avoided."?
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>