SH Comments
Reged: Feb 16 2004
Posts: 1056
|
|
This thread is for comments and feedback about On SF and the Mainstream, or, Rapidly Changing Scenery, by Susannah Mandel.
|
milesteg
New user
Reged: Jul 11 2007
Posts: 5
|
|
Interesting piece, which I think captures the mood of a lot of people in the field now. Michael Moorcock raised some of these issues in a special section on him in the July issue of Interzone (which I reviewed for Tangent at http://www.tangentonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1097&Itemid=284). It also spurred me to write down some of my own thoughts on the issue in a separate article,
http://www.tangentonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1099&Itemid=284.
Naturally, I wonder if anyone on the other side of the line, over in the mainstream, is having these same thoughts.
|
SaintElsewhere
New user
Reged: Jul 17 2007
Posts: 9
|
|
"Literary" Fiction has been flirting with science fiction quite a bit recently. Cormac Mccarthy with The Road, among the others mentioned in the article, as well as David Foster Wallace, Ben Marcus, and Dave Eggers(whom I can't stand), are all writing works in the upper echelons that are essentially science fiction. Critical works on Philip K. Dick aid in his canonization and a retroactive search for literary "outsider artists" is underway. Themes of disassociation, and isolation from modern life and technology are particularly pertinent, conversely the feeling of strangeness that developing technology once elicited in the public has largely been replaced by casual familiarity, even an expectation to be "wowed". I will go out on a limb here and say that never has the mainstream been so accepting of science fiction tropes, ideas and explorations. Somewhat counterintuitively, this may turn out quite badly for the "science-fiction world" and the small presses.
Many in science fiction have fought long and hard for the dissolution of genre boundaries. "Our authors deserve respect!" was the cry. "We are making the same fundamental explorations of humanity..." etc. They assumed that if science fiction gained respect in the literary world it would mean greater respect for its authors. Instead, I suggest we're seeing a co-opting of techniques developed in science fiction and fantasy by the literary mainstream, which will not mean greater recognition or respect for authors like Terry Brooks or Brian Aldiss (whether they deserve any more is arguable). I can't fully explore this here, but if I'm right, science fiction as a distinct genre loses its "specialness". Really think about what will happen when the ghetto walls dissolve.
The recidivist and traditionalist strains in science fiction (a trad science fiction author seems somehow contradictory...) may keep some of the core values from being melted down, but at the cost of restricting true growth and innovation. Of course, if these recent developments are simply a kind of slumming by the mainstream, maybe we need these values kept safe. An alternate route could be available in the developing of a new strain in science fiction (slip stream?) something more avante garde, more inventive in technique and effect. Personally this is what I would like to see.
One wonders if there will be a "next generation" of Asimov or Analog readers at all. If its stories are simply a raiding of the past meant to placate those who want "true" science fiction they will be dead to newer readers.
I'm not crying wolf. I'm crying wake up!
Edited by SaintElsewhere (Wed Jul 25 2007 12:40 PM)
|
DavidJ
New user
Reged: Jul 26 2007
Posts: 1
|
|
A lot of people get worked up on this subject so it's refreshing to see such a logical and lucid take. I think there has been a lot of attention coming to the relationship between genre and mainstream, at least a lot of people are talking about it now with the web and all.
I just wanted to point you, and anyone interested in the topic, to a really fantastic list of "The Core Canon of Slipstream" compiled by Paul Di Filipo et al. at Readercon.
http://community.livejournal.com/theinferior4/91464.html
It may not be entirely new or groundbreaking, but it helps in making connections and sort of putting certain authors or specific books (eg. Virginia Woolf's Orlano) into new light.
|
milesteg
New user
Reged: Jul 11 2007
Posts: 5
|
|
I think the point about a new strain is one worth looking at. We're talking about the mainstream now, genre boundaries.
But no one denies that there are those boundaries. What is happening inside them just now? Where is the cutting edge, or is it the case that there isn't one, that we're just, for the most part, retreading the same ground, as some have said in so many words? In this age when science fiction has long since embraced every subject and theme, every approach in style and sensibility; long since proven that it can do anything the mainstream does; are we playing a game of diminishing returns, in which genuine invention is rare and sporadic--in which case, frankly, we would not be all that much better off than the mainstream?
You wonder if there will still be readers for the mags, a question that others have asked, and partially responded to (in the case of Orson Scott Card and the late Jim Baen, with new magazines, aimed at helping bring back a genuinely commercial market for magazine SF). For me that raises another question, given the traditional role of the mags as incubators for the new and the novel--where that new and novel might be.
Consider the histories of the genre. They offer a very clear view of earlier decades (even recognizing the Golden Age or New Wave as limited, imperfect descriptions, they still approximate what was out there), but the histories get awfully fuzzy after the '80s, scarcely able even to ID who and what was really important over the last two decades.
Part of it might be that we don't have as much perspective on it as we do earlier periods, but I think part of it is the way things actually are. I believe some very good SF is being created--but can we really point to anything out there right now that seems truly revolutionary, that screams "THIS IS THE FUTURE OF SF?"
Is it possible to think in terms of there being a really new movement? Is there a need for one, or room for one, or is that outdated thinking?
I don't pretend to have answers. I'm not even sure I'm asking the right questions. But they are the ones to which this discussion is leading me nonetheless. That's what I would like to hear more about (actually, have been wanting to hear more about since I was researching my dissertation): Where have we been these last two decades, where are we now, and where might we be going?
Edited by milesteg (Fri Jul 27 2007 09:17 AM)
|
SaintElsewhere
New user
Reged: Jul 17 2007
Posts: 9
|
|
Miles:
In this age when science fiction has long since embraced every subject and theme, every approach in style and sensibility; long since proven that it can do anything the mainstream does;
I disagree completely that sci-fi has embraced every subject and theme, style and sensibility. I still see the unexplored territory as much wider than the explored. So many times people have claimed that the resources of a particular art have been exhausted, only to be proven wrong. The resources are only exhausted if we continue onward with limiting definitions and traditionalism. In short, time haves changed so the art must change. Evolve or die.
I disagree as well, that science fiction can do anything the mainstream does just as well (when I say mainstream I'm referring to the canon of English lit, not pop culture). I believe sci-fi serves a specific function that isn't served by mainstream lit (why do it otherwise).But when it tries to do the things the mainstream does, it's only out of resentiment. We have to balance two somewhat conflicting impulses here: the impulse to belong and be accepted by the mainstream, and the impulse to fulfill a singular purpose. I think the pendulum has swung both ways in the past.
|
milesteg
New user
Reged: Jul 11 2007
Posts: 5
|
|
Don't get me wrong here--I was mainly tossing out possibilities (though I do honestly think it's harder to say that there are subjects we haven't seen treated in SF than it was to make that claim back in the 1950s, for instance). I'm certainly open to the idea that there is unexplored territory--but I am having a hard time seeing it, and am curious to know where others are finding it.
As it seems to me, there was a broad Futurist vision in the Golden Age, and then there was a rebellion against it. (When I said that SF can do anything the mainstream does, I was thinking of literary quality--that SF can handle themes, develop characters and plot as well as the mainstream does, not that it is somehow the same.) Where do we go from here? What are the unexplored possibilities? What is the genre all but desperate for at this stage in its life?
Where hard SF is concerned, I wonder: will the "end of science," as one writer described it, be an issue? Or the changes in technology--which many economists and scientists as well as cultural commentators argue are less radical than the changes of, say, the 1880-1945 period?
I certainly don't expect final answers. But I would greatly appreciate any thoughts that anyone out there does have--or even, if anyone else has been wondering about the same things.
|
SaintElsewhere
New user
Reged: Jul 17 2007
Posts: 9
|
|
Oh yeah, the whole "end of science" thing was what I was getting at with my comments about people's changing relationship with technology in my first post. I don't think we'll ever see a practical "singularity" of ever increasing technological advances in the sense described by people like Cory Doctorow. Instead I think we'll see something more like Fukuyuma's The End of History or Nietszche's idea of the Last Man.
In a sense, we're actually living in the time predicted by earlier science fiction. Earlier SF depended on the constrast between the modern world view and speculation on technology. I think the postmodern world view, not just as some kind of academic idea, has actually come to pass in the (liberal) public. People don't look at technology with that same old mix of excitement and fear and expectation, its more a mixture of bone-weariness and fear. Of course this could just be the pendulum swinging in one direction rather than a lasting development.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think SF is dead per se. I just think our author's are WOEFULLY behind the times. I can't give you too much speculation as to where we're going because I'm not even sure how we're going to play catch-up.
One thing look into is the growing popular and critical concept of the "outsider artist". At first I dismissed this term as simply redundant, but I've sense changed my mind. I am working on a critical work myself that I would like to see published, so i'm not going to go into this part in too much detail (:
|
milesteg
New user
Reged: Jul 11 2007
Posts: 5
|
|
I think you're right when you say that we are living in the time that earlier SF was talking about, but to be fair, I think SF has treated that bone-weariness and fear in various ways since the 1950s. (To name but one example, consider Philip K. Dick and "kipple"--the useless junk that just keeps piling up.)
When you say behind the times, do we mean that we've reverted to an earlier type of outlook--maybe related to a revival of interest in hard SF, with its profusion of changes (though as in cyberpunk and post-cyberpunk, I'm not sure those changes seem particularly inspiring)?
If "outsider artist" is a term in wide enough use that I can find out what it means, I guess I'll get back to you on it.
|
SaintElsewhere
New user
Reged: Jul 17 2007
Posts: 9
|
|
The term outsider artist is pretty common I'd say. You can find books with it in the title. Darger is often mentioned as the archetypal outsider artist, along with Phil Dick, and Daniel Johnston (the musician).
I don't think there's a real critical definition of the idea yet, which is what I've been toying with. The basic idea is that an outsider artist is fundamentally outside of the history of his art, past and present. Often they are mentally ill (there are moral ambiguities on this issue) and/or isolationist. I haven't decided whether this is a greater demand for ascetism on the part of the public, perhaps as a result of consumerism, or whether its a true change in artists. Probably both. This seems to be whats on the critical horizon and I was somewhat shocked when I realized this, coming from the study of Romantic poetry where a great deal of the criticism deals with the relation between artists and their predecessors (like Bloom's The Anxiety of Influence).
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
