D a l l a s

Dissing SF

From New York Times Book Review, March 5th, 2006.  Dave Itzkoff reviews a new SF novel, and he feels compelled to to say:

" . . . if you were to immerse yourself in most of the sci-fi being published these days, you would probably enjoy it as much as one enjoys reading a biology textbook or a stereo manual. And you would very likely come away wondering, as I do from time to time, whether science fiction has strayed so far from the fiction category as a whole that, though the two share common ancestors, they now seem to have as much to do with each other as a whale has to do with a platypus."

It seems easy for people to diss SF.  If a person looks hard enough, they can find fault with any form of literature.  But Dave's generalization of SF is confusing.  Has he never heard of Ursula K. LeGuin? Orson Scott Card? Gene Wolfe? Kim Stanley Robinson? Greg Bear? Octavia Butler? Dan Simmons? Cory Doctorow? China Mieville? Connie Willis?  I could go on, but I think you get the picture.  The listed authors, all with new work published in the last year, would easily illustrate Dave's ignorance of a genre he supposably knows something about.  Dave's definition of SF is the equivalent of saying most mysteries are just DNA/forensic texbooks, most romances are just rape fantasies, and most literary fiction is just plotless navel-gazing.  Repeating such cliches is irresponsible criticism.

SF Aesthetics

Well, you would probably think this is now a sf/f blog, but it just seems to be a kick I'm currently  exploring.  I came across a cool blog Calico Reaction, that recently reviewed a book  from the 70s titled Towards an Aesthetic of Science Fiction by Joanna Russ.  The reviewer makes some interesting points in trying to define science fiction, particulary this:

"What was interesting about this [the book] is the main point of how a person cannot analyze science fiction the same way one analyzes literature. And this made sense in a lot of ways, because those people not interested in science may look too much into certain aspects of the story, not understanding the genius lies in other areas that aren't common in literature. To put it simply: literary fiction is about the beauty of the metaphor describing every day life. Science fiction takes that metaphor and literalizes it and makes that literalization a part of every day life."

Interesting way to look at things.  I recently checked out a book that deals with the same issues of definition called Speculations on Speculation: Theories of Science Fiction.  From what I can tell, a definition of sf is near impossible.  It's like trying to define "what is a novel?" or "what is literary fiction?"  I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.