Science-Fiction & Fantasy

[Mirabell]

Like it? Or do you turn your nose up on genre fiction? And if you like it, do you lean more toward SF or Fantasy? And is it more those who have been embraced by the academy, such as Delany or Hoban or do you have a taste for the likes of A.E. Van Vogt or Robin Hobb or Niven/Pournelle.

[Stewart]

It's not for me. But, at the same time, there are those books which straddle. I'd pick out a dystopian novel here or, say, Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go. But out and out fantasy, no thanks. Similarly, sci-fi. I think I agree with the character of Henry Perowne in Ian McEwan's Saturday, when he thinks:

...the actual, not the magical, should be the challenge. This reading list persuaded Perowne that the supernatural was the recourse of an insufficient imagination, a dereliction of duty, a childish evasion of the difficulties and wonders of the real, of the demanding re-enactment of the plausible.

Oh, by the way, we have a Translated Science Fiction thread.

I did try China Miéville, reading Perdido Street Station. Didn't do anything for me. And The Lord Of The Rings bored me as it was so full of padding, with Tolkien rushing off to flesh this or that when, what mattered, was the journey its characters were undertaking.

[Mirabell]

Tolkien is horrible. But China Miéville, well, if he or Delany don't do anything for you, you're probably lost to that genre. *g*

But you might try Russell Hoban's Riddley Walker, which influenced Will Self's Book of Dave.

BUt you did like I am Legend, no? I'd say that one, though clearly SF, has strong fantasy traits, especially in the way it's wrapped up at the end.

These two genres are sadly, among all the genres, the biggest sausage fest. the notable women are few and far between. Not that there aren't many women, they're generally often just not as prominent as the men, although, in SF that has been changing for a while now. NOt just Russ or LeGuin, but also, McMaster Bujold, Octavia Butler, Connie Willis, James Triptree Jr., and Nalo Hopkinson. Interestingly many of the female SF writers are both fantasy and SF authors, whereas men often stick to their genre, Charles Stross being a recent and notable exception, or just think about Delany. But can you imagine Larry NIven writing straight fantasy? Or Robert 'Adolf' Heinlein?

[Paul]

I haven't got anything at all against Sci-Fi or fantasy, or any genre fiction, but generally I don't read it, no. What I look for in fiction is best provided for by 'literary fiction', I find.

But, saying that, there are a number of mainstream authors who have strayed into the area, and I've generally liked those that I've read. Angela Carter and George Orwell spring to mind. Two days ago I bought 'Ice' by Anna Kavan, which I'm quite excited about - I'm only a few pages in, but it's pretty fascinating stuff. It's in the dystopian-future vein. She's an author I want to read more of.

When I was younger, I read a few of the books by the classic authors - Asimov, Arthur C. Clark etc, and mean at some point to look into the Gormenghast books. The Tolkein stuff hasn't ever really appealed - I've always been very interested in Northern European myth and religion, so I've always thought it perhaps should.

[Eric]

I agree largely with Paul when he says:

I haven't got anything at all against Sci-Fi or fantasy, or any genre fiction, but generally I don't read it, no. What I look for in fiction is best provided for by 'literary fiction', I find.

I feel that the term "Sci-Fi" has become too all-inclusive. It can mean anything from Dan Dare and Star Trek to Stanislaw Lem and Tarkovsky, in other words light entertainment all the way to philosophising. It is a mistake to lump together sophisticated dystopian satires set in imaginary worlds with adventure stories set on other planets for their rocket-booster exoticism value.

"Fantasy" is also difficult to pin down. It covers everything from fairy stories to horror, myths to ghost stories. Again the term spreads its nets too wide, rendering it meaningless.

I think that these two categories run the risk of putting off potential readers who think that both categories consist of nothing but adventure and thrills.

Tolkien is surely for adolescents. I don't understand why anyone over the age of 25, and who claims to have a serious interest in literature, would be reading what is after all a children's fairy tale writ large with a free map, cardboard lady characters, and a lot of Quest. I read it at the age of about 20, already too old, and enjoyed it, I have to say. But I cannot see myself going back. The road goes ever on and on...

[Stewart]

Originally Posted by Paul

But, saying that, there are a number of mainstream authors who have strayed into the area, and I've generally liked those that I've read. Angela Carter and George Orwell spring to mind.

Yes, that's how I see it. Those that don't write exclusively in genres or use its conventions to explore ideas interest. But when it comes to Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind, and Terry Brooks, then I'm inclined to leave the fantasy well alone - innovative, I like, but when it's just making an incestuous industry of Tolkienesque quest stories, usually spanning a zillion books, then it's probably not worth the time.

Two days ago I bought 'Ice' by Anna Kavan, which I'm quite excited about - I'm only a few pages in, but it's pretty fascinating stuff. It's in the dystopian-future vein. She's an author I want to read more of.

Tarjei Vesaas, Cora Sandel and now Anna Kavan - Peter Owen Publishers must love you.

I've got Ice and had a scan of it on the bus home one day. I think I read the first chapter, to get a feel for it, after reading the introduction by Christopher Priest.

[Eric]

Article about Anna Kavan (aka Helen Woods) from CONTEXT the (highly) literary freesheet published by the Dalkey Archive Press in Illinois:

Anna Kavan

That was the first place I ever read about her.

[Sybarite]

It seems absurd to discount 'genre' fiction from 'literature', especially when the lines are so blurred. In terms of sci-fi, A Clockwork Orange is described as a sci-fi novel, as is A Handmaid's Tale. Did HG Wells write literature?

Crime fiction reveals the same question – are Raymond Chandler's works literature? Many people say that they are. And they're still genre fiction.

As for Tolkien ... Terry Pratchett commented that: "if you don't think that Lord of the Rings is the greatest novel in the world when you're 20, there's something wrong with you. If you still think it's the greatest novel in the world when you're 40, there's something wrong with you."

[saliotthomas]

Originally Posted by Mirabell

Robert 'Adolf' Heinlein?

Good one there.It's nice to think that one is not alone in front of general praise,would i dare to add Isaac Asimov.

I love both genre,all genre to be honest.In Fantasy you named Robin Hobb and she truly is very good,Glen Cook is a tough old bastard,worth reading.
I just read A canticle for liebowitz by Walter M Miller,oh so good if you like post atomic stuff.

[Bjorn]

I had a phase where I read a lot of sci-fi. My local library had two large shelves full; I think I went through it in a year. Today I'd struggle to remember a dozen of those, but I still enjoy a bit of sf from time to time - more so in movies and TV than in books, though. (Fantasy never did much for me, though, with some exceptions.)

As for whether it's real literature... The way I see it, genre divisions are based on plot, and what makes a book "real literature" or not isn't the plot in itself but how well it is written, what issues it tackles. There's nothing about spaceships or sorcerors that, all else equal, automatically make a text inferior to another text with no spaceships or sorcerors. A good writer can write about aliens living on a different planet 10,000 years into the future and say something very worth-while that people here and now can relate to. It shouldn't be about laser guns, but about the people firing the laser guns.

But of course, genre conventions are awfully convenient. Lazy writers can fall back on them and proceed to turn out a ridiculous number of books that push exactly the right buttons for their readers, and so you end up with a lot of crap sf/fantasy/horror/detective stories that are virtually identical.

I like the phrase "speculative fiction" - originally coined by Harlan Ellison, I think - as a catch-all for sf/fantasy/horror/etc.

Sidebar: In the foreword to one of my favourite "SF" novels, Vonnegut's The Sirens of Titan, the blurber (I think it was either Michael Chabon or Jonathan Lethem) writes that he always loved the "Big books" section at his local library; that's the only shelf where you could find absolutely anything without having to go through all the genre nonsense, since they only stood side-by-side on account of being too large to fit on any other shelf.

So basically, I agree with most people above, only in a slightly more incoherent way. Hey, it's Friday.

[Paul]

'Tarjei Vesaas, Cora Sandel and now Anna Kavan - Peter Owen Publishers must love you. '

I get a free book everytime I mention them.

(Not really (if only!).)

I stumbled across Tarjei Vesaas and Cora Sandel completely independently (my Alberta books are old 1980s Women's Library prints), but have to admit to being sucked in by their marketting for Anna Kavan, weak-minded fool that I am).

I agree with Eric that Sci-Fi and Fantasy are such broad terms, that they can become useless as guides to anything much. Also with Sybarite's comment about the absurdity of having these labels in the first place. Perhaps the best rule of thumb is that if there's a dragon or a spaceship on the cover then it's Sci Fi or Fantasy, if not, it's serious and important literature.

[Heteronym]

Jorge Luis Borges once said realism was a detour in the 3,000 years of literature, which started with Gilgamesh and The Illiad, and that that mistake would be corrected eventually. Fantasy (which I use to include sci-fi, horror and detective fiction) has triumphed in modern literature, altough Academe has had to change its name to magical realism to make it respectable.

- Franz Kafka (The Castle, The Metamorphosis, The Trial)
- Virgina Woolf (Orlando)
- James Joyce (Finnegan's Wake)
- Gabriel García Márquez (One Hundred Years of Solitude)
- José Saramago (Blindness, The Double, Death at Intervals)
- Halldor Laxness (Independent People)
- Juan Rulfo (Pedro Paramo)
- William Burroughs (Naked Lunch)
- Günter Grass (The Rat, The Tin Drum)
- Naguib Mahfouz (Arabian Nights and Days)
- Julio Cortazar (Blowup)
- Adolfo Bioy Casares (The Invention of Morel, A Plan for Escape)
- Mikhail Bulgakov (The Master and the Margarita)
- Dino Buzzati (The Seven Messengers)
- Italo Calvino (Cosmicomics)
- Giovanni Papini (The Blind Pilot)
- Thomas Pynchon (V., Against the Day, Gravity's Rainbow)
- Kurt Vonnegut (Slaughterhouse 5, Breakfast of Champions)
- Leopoldo Lugones (Strange Forces)
- Lord Dunsany (Tales of Wonder)
- Boris Vian (The Heart-snatcher)
- Max Ernst (A Week of Kindness)
- Horacio Quiroga (The Exiles)
- J.G. Ballard (The Atrocity Exhibition)
- Alan Moore (Voice of the Fire)
- Mário de Sá-Carneiro (The Great Shadow)
- Aldous Huxley (Brave New World)
- George Orwell (1984, Animal Farm)
- Anthony Burgess (A Clockwork Orange)
- Jorge Luis Borges (The Aleph, Brodie's Report, The Book of Sand, Fictions)
- Imre Kertesz (The Pathseeker, Detective Story)
- Orhan Pamuk (My Name is Red)

Only a blind person wouldn't see all the elements of fantasy present in the greatest authors of the 20th century.

[Irene Wilde]

I went through a sci-fi phase back in the college days (I blame Douglas Adams), and when I think back on browsing the shelves at that time, I was struck by a certain similarity on the book covers, be they sci-fi or fantasy: an overwhelming number would feature most prominently an heroic-looking male, a background that would feature a star, moon, or planet, and lastly, a busty female in revealing clothing in a clearly secondary role to the hero. The costuming would change, based on whether it was a space opera or wizards and warriors, but the essential elements were overwhelmingly the same. I don't think you could put a cover like that on Pynchon or Orwell, Calvino or Vonnegut, and, well, I think you see where I'm going with this thought. The genre books that stick to the formula provide a familiar and reassuring story to readers who like to read the familiar and reassuring, but they won't break out into the larger literary world. Writers that use futuristic elements, utopias, dystopias, magical realism, or realistic fantasy to speak about the human condition, and use these tools with judgment, talent, and originality are clearly a different species and defy genre-fication.

[ions]

I've found myself taken with what I'm calling 'Magical Realism', not that I invented the term, that's just what I'm using. Books like John Crowley's Little, Big & Chris Adrian's The Children's Hospital as recent examples.

The idea of a separation between Literature and genre fiction fascinates me. I do think there can be a demarcation as fuzzy as it can be. Literature can have elements of genre fiction but genre fiction is not necessarily Literature. What makes what what is the sticky part. Just don't ask Le Guin. She doesn't know.

[Mirabell]

Books like John Crowley's Little, Big & Chris Adrian's The Children's Hospital as recent examples.

Want to open a thread on the two? I am still catching up with my fun reading and both of these are in my to-read pile, along with a bucketful of other recommendations of Suz.

Btw. Another book that fits the group of books you refer to is certainly Madeleine Is Sleeping which puts maybe a slightly female spin on the genre. very serious literature tho.

[Eric]

I agree, when Sybarite, in #8 , says:

It seems absurd to discount 'genre' fiction from 'literature', especially when the lines are so blurred.

When Sybarite quotes the following...

As for Tolkien ... Terry Pratchett commented that: "if you don't think that Lord of the Rings is the greatest novel in the world when you're 20, there's something wrong with you. If you still think it's the greatest novel in the world when you're 40, there's something wrong with you."

...this is nicked from George Bernard Shaw, who said the same about Socialism, if I remember rightly, as Pratchett is saying about Lord of the Rings. Quotes get recycled and adapted.

I would prefer to forget the categories and simply analyse the value of books. The longer the lists, the more confused we become. Heteronym is right, but ultimately, literary discussion can deteriorate into cheese-paring as to whether a book is "fantasy", "sci-fi" or whatever.

Liberate yourself from categories and pigeon-holing and try to identify whether the book is well- or badly written!

[Mirabell]

hear, hear.

[saliotthomas]

Originally Posted by Eric

I would prefer to forget the categories and simply analyse the value of books. !

I've certainly heard of the late Swedish thriller writer Stieg Larsson whose real name was Karl Stig-Erland Larsson [1954-2004], not to be confused with Stig Håkan Larsson [born 1955], the living Swedish fiction author and poet, but I'm afraid I don't read thrillers or crime novels. Nor have I, for that matter, read anything by the latter author.

Surely a doppelgangeris stalking you Eric.

[Eric]

Very clever about Doppelgänger, Saliotthomas. But that's the point. I'm so fed up of seeing a load of books about spaceships and books about murdering people put on special shelves in bookshops, that I walk straight past such shelves on principle. I am prejudiced against those categories. I'd rather such books were mixed in with the "normal" novels, and leave it to the reader to look for books by their favourite sci-fi or thriller author. But I fear some readers need a helping hand, because they are hardly aware of the name of the author.

I don't want to read most of the books grouped in those categories by the calculatedly commercialist bookshops, pandering to the tastes of the buying masses. I could very well be missing out on something, but haven't the energy to browse and identify.

And as I said, I haven't read anything by the second Larsson, who isn't a thriller writer.

[Heteronym]

Originally Posted by Irene Wilde

Writers that use futuristic elements, utopias, dystopias, magical realism, or realistic fantasy to speak about the human condition, and use these tools with judgment, talent, and originality are clearly a different species and defy genre-fication.

The difference between those awful authors of sci-fi and the genre-defying species is the same between Danielle Steel and Philip Roth: they both write what would be classified as realistic fiction; one is shit, the other isn't. This isn't a problem of definitions, it's a matter of applying adjectives: good and bad.

José Saramago's Death at Intervals is fantasy: Death stops all people from dying, then falls in love with a man and comes to Earth to seduce him. If this isn't fantasy, I think I don't know what fantasy is.