Science fiction, speculative fiction, and literature
This entry was originally posted on 9 September 2003 at 4:49 p.m.
There's a message board that i've been lurking on for a few weeks now that recently produced a couple of snippets that got the literature/fiction gears to turn in my mind once again.
The first one is a quote from Margaret Atwood about her latest book, Oryx and Crake (which i admittedly have not read)--she claims that, rather than science fiction, the book is speculative fiction, and that "Science fiction has monsters and spaceships; speculative fiction could really happen" (see Robert Potts' review in The Guardian).
The second is a quote from a review of the same book: "I am going to stick my neck out and just say it: science fiction will never be Literature with a capital ''L,'' and this is because it inevitably proceeds from premise rather than character. It sacrifices moral and psychological nuance in favor of more conceptual matters, and elevates scenario over sensibility. Some will ask, of course, whether there still is such a thing as ''Literature with a capital 'L.' '' I proceed on the faith that there is. Are there exceptions to my categorical pronouncement? Probably, but I don't think enough of them to overturn it" (from Sven Birkerts' review in Locus Online).
The first seems to make the assumption that fiction must be realistic in order to be useful, or at least worthwhile. I find this assumption disturbing--since when is realism necessary for a clear and moving examination of the human condition?
The second bothers me even more--it dismisses science fiction (or the broader realm of speculative fiction) as completely devoid of literary value. Since when must science fiction be unliterary? And by what definition of literature is he working? By my definition, there's plenty of literary science fiction out there.
I bet Kurt Vonnegut would have something pointed to say to both of them.
There's a message board that i've been lurking on for a few weeks now that recently produced a couple of snippets that got the literature/fiction gears to turn in my mind once again.
The first one is a quote from Margaret Atwood about her latest book, Oryx and Crake (which i admittedly have not read)--she claims that, rather than science fiction, the book is speculative fiction, and that "Science fiction has monsters and spaceships; speculative fiction could really happen" (see Robert Potts' review in The Guardian).
The second is a quote from a review of the same book: "I am going to stick my neck out and just say it: science fiction will never be Literature with a capital ''L,'' and this is because it inevitably proceeds from premise rather than character. It sacrifices moral and psychological nuance in favor of more conceptual matters, and elevates scenario over sensibility. Some will ask, of course, whether there still is such a thing as ''Literature with a capital 'L.' '' I proceed on the faith that there is. Are there exceptions to my categorical pronouncement? Probably, but I don't think enough of them to overturn it" (from Sven Birkerts' review in Locus Online).
The first seems to make the assumption that fiction must be realistic in order to be useful, or at least worthwhile. I find this assumption disturbing--since when is realism necessary for a clear and moving examination of the human condition?
The second bothers me even more--it dismisses science fiction (or the broader realm of speculative fiction) as completely devoid of literary value. Since when must science fiction be unliterary? And by what definition of literature is he working? By my definition, there's plenty of literary science fiction out there.
I bet Kurt Vonnegut would have something pointed to say to both of them.
posted by Circus at 12:24 PM
2 Comments:
Hi people
I do not know what to give for Christmas of the to friends, advise something ....
Hello. Good day
Who listens to what music?
I Love songs Justin Timberlake and Paris Hilton
Post a Comment
<< Home