July 2009

World in the Satin Bag

Reader Question: Science Fiction Definition (and Other Rhyming Goodness)(Part One)

/

Kelsey, a friend from Facebook and Young Writers Online, recently asked me the following question: This might be a stupid question, but what exactly defines SciFi, or what are the characteristics? Most people think (like my pitiful self) of space-ships, but I’ve also heard 1984 and other such books being called SciFi. Firstly, I want to make it clear that I am not going to get into the debate over the differences between the terms “science fiction” and “scifi.” Kelsey is specifically talking about the genre as a whole, and any discussions over the subtle nuances that separate the “serious” genre from its “entertainment-oriented” brother/sister will distract from the issue at hand. Secondly, my answer to this question is a personal one, and while I may consider it to be the right one, others will obviously disagree. This post should then become more of an open forum to discuss what may be the defining elements of science fiction as a genre, as in those elements which most easily define it without getting into a sempiternal dispersion of “or”s and “unless”s. Defining science fiction has been and continues to be one of the most challenging issues for writers and fans of the genre. Many have argued for various versions of definition, but no single definition, at least one that has been specifically defined, has been accepted or held firm by the public, writers, or the publishing industry. We run into a huge problem with defining science fiction due to absurd debates about what is and is not science fiction. Some argue that science fiction is not serious, that it is a genre fashioned entirely for entertainment, and anything that happens to use the furniture of science fiction, but is “serious” or “literary,” must not be debased by the term “science fiction.” Thus, high literary critics argue that 1984 and other classic examples of science fiction (Brave New World, Utopia, We, etc.) are literary endeavors and above the purview of the “pulpy nonsense” that has typically made up science fiction as a genre. But these sorts of arguments miss the point: that science fiction is like any other genre of literature and contains within itself the markings of good and bad, serious and juvenile, great and mediocre. With that in mind, how do we define such a genre if it is, at any point in time, a collage of elements equally as vast as its sister genre, fantasy? Here we have to look to two of the most recognized literary theorists who have, at one point or another, focused their attention onto a genre that has largely been ridiculed and treated with derision: Samuel R. Delany and Darko Suvin. Delany, to my understanding, argues for a verbal or lingual understanding of science fiction. While this is made far more complex and limiting in his various critical approaches to this theoretical model, the basic premise of science fiction as a linguistically designated genre delves into the “how” of the reading process (in science fiction). You do not read a science fiction novel the same way you read a romance novel, because what may be seemingly mundane in romance will be quite the opposite in science fiction. I am, unfortunately, not nearly as familiar with his theories as I would like to be, but it is still interesting to note this approach to understanding what science fiction is. Suvin, however, makes the argument that science fiction is “cognitive estrangement.” Broken down, this means that science fiction is about taking a cognitive element and twisting it so that it drags the reader to a different space–a space that is occupied by both the estranged (unreal, perhaps) and the cognitive (understood to be true at a particular time, or to at least be based on a cognitive element). Specifically, this takes into account the two elements of the term “science fiction” (i.e. science and fiction). Since one is, by default, a product of the imagined, to varying degrees, and the former is a product of human understanding of the natural world, these terms converge together to form a world view that is not only aware of what is or probably is true, but is also aware of the fictive reality that exists in the realm of speculation. This concept, perhaps, explains the initial creation of the term “speculative fiction” to mean, roughly, the same as “science fiction,” because ultimately what science fiction does is speculate upon possibilities, on potential realities broken from the temporal and spacial plane of reality. Hence, cognitive estrangement: since cognition is a process/perception of understanding based on learning and reason, to estrange that perception is to take it to a stage above current reality into one of the possible reality (i.e. where much of the “what if” questions arise from within early and middle-age science fiction). I tend to agree with Suvin, but because most who are familiar with his theoretical approach to science fiction only know it at its most basic, it tends to hold a limited view. Suvin, of course, discusses at length in various essays how he envisions the genre and where to draw the line. Due to the length of this post, I’m going to have to cut this short here. In the second part to this, I’d like to draw my own line. For now, feel free to open the discussion on what you think science fiction is. A good debate would do us some good, I think. Read Part Two ————————————————- If you have a question about science fiction, fantasy, writing, or anything related you’d like answered here, whether silly or serious, feel free to send it via email to arconna[at]yahoo[dot]com, tweet it via Twitter to @shaunduke, or leave it in the comments here. Questions are always welcome! If you liked this post, consider stumbling, digging, or linking to it!

World in the Satin Bag

SF/F Links: July Link Pie

/

No, there will not be any more clever rhymes, but there will be some good links. Special thanks goes to Charles Tan, Matt Staggs, and SF Signal for pointing me to a few of these. Here goes: The Daily Scott Brown calls for some more realism in vampire fiction, particularly in relation to vampire strength. io9 digs through literature, movies, and television to see how science fiction imagines the future of the U.S. government. Some interesting selections here. Fandomania gives us ten fantasy summer reading recommendations. Some good books and some iffy ones, but a good list overall. The Dream Cafe wants suggestions for dark fantasy books. Head on over and leave a few comments! Andrew Wheeler tells us that science fiction does, in fact, involve characters, contrary to what some literary critics believe. Eat it. Alma Alexander talks about reviewing as a writer, and whether it’s okay to do so. Yes, it is, just so my opinion gets out there. The Atlantic has one hell of an article on geo-engineering the Earth. Fascinating stuff. Here’s a list of YA fantasy novels by people of color. A damn good list, and still growing, it seems. There’s also an addendum to this list. Scott Edelman reminds us how to take criticism by telling us a very personal story. Scientists have apparently discovered that a single ant colony as colonized the world. It’s wild and awesome! Here is a rather long-winded, multi-author discussion of whether to self publish or not. Interesting opinions there. Oh, and Gawker gives us the nitty gritty of that whole Alice Hoffman scandal. You know, the one where Hoffman got pissed at a critic, then provided her fans with the critic’s phone number and email and told them to harass said critic? Yeah. Sheila Finch discusses fantastic voyages, in space and otherwise. Interesting stuff! The Mumpsimus talks about mimetic fiction and SF. Interesting post. B&N has an interesting article on the death of science fiction and its continued existence. Read it, because I can’t break it into a single sentence without sounding confusing. How about some cross genre fiction? Here’s a massive list of them! And, because I feel like being helpful, here’s a page of medieval demographics made simple. Should be useful to you fantasy writers out there. And that’s it!

World in the Satin Bag

Movie Review: Transformers (Rise of the Fallen)

/

One of the more anticipated of movies this year, Transformers 2 is a sequel that knows it’s a sequel. What it lacks in narrative cohesiveness it makes up for in what I’m going to call OCCAD, or obsessive compulsive computer animating disorder. Transformers 2 occurs some two years or so after the first movie ended. The Autobots now work with mankind to hunt down and destroy the remaining Decepticons, while Samuel Witwicky, our hero from the first movie, prepares to head off for college–apparently on the taxpayer’s bill. But the Decepticons are not finished with ruling the Earth. They’ve been here before, so many thousands of years ago, back before any of these enormous living machines could transform. These machines need Energon, a special form of energy that allows them to live and exist, and to do that they have to harvest suns. The rules, it seems, are to harvest only those suns orbited by lifeless planets. But when they find Earth, some of them don’t agree and a civil war breaks out. And now, thousands of years later, the Fallen–the bad guys who were defeated so long ago–are attempting to return. It’s up to Sam, Mikaela, and a few familiar friends to put a stop to it.That’s the short description. The problem with Transformers 2 is that it suffers horribly from sequelitis. The first half hour of the movie is essentially wasted space, explaining to us where everyone has gone, what they’re up to, why they’re where they are, etc., when, in reality, all that matters to the story is setting up Sam and the basic conflict. Great, wonderful, the Autobots, led by Optimus Prime, are off hunting their evil brethren, but we don’t really care, particularly because it’s wasted space when what matters isn’t so much that they’re doing what seems like a good idea, but that the Fallen have/has returned and Sam is caught in the middle of it. Why didn’t Bay start right in the middle of Sam’s move to college? Oh, but there’s a good reason. See, apparently they didn’t destroy all the Decepticons way back when. Oh yeah. They’re still around. No idea how the Autobots magically missed them all those years ago, nor why said Decepticons didn’t get into the fight, nor where all these new Autobots came from. We’re supposed to assume that they just magically took up Optimus Prime’s offer and flew over at sublight speed through space to Earth (which, let’s face it, makes about as much sense as trying to fly an apple through a ten-foot thick steel wall). But we get no explanation for that whatsoever, even though thirty minutes of the film are wasted explaining everything else. Unfortunately, the science in this film is abyssmal. I get it. The movie is ridiculous in and of itself, what with robots that transform, etc., but Bay could have at least tried to play things a little closer to home. A matter of days, maybe weeks occur in this one movie, yet somehow we’re supposed to accept that Decepticons can move at obviously slower-than-light speed from a planet not in our solar system to Earth in less than twenty-four hours? Bullcrap. Leave the ridiculous concept to its ridiculousness and leave everything else to reality, please. And then we have to deal with some of the more overwhelming parts of Transformers 2: the characters. There are far too many of them. The X-men franchise was at least smart enough to realize that it couldn’t possibly shove every single Marvel superhero into the mix; some had to be left as little more than side notes. But Transformers 2 is flooded with new and old characters. There are too many Decepticons and Autobots to keep straight in your head and I still have no clue who most of them are. It’s almost as if Bay wanted to keep the CG boys as busy as humanly possible, so any and all Transformers that might have appeared decades ago have now been sprung up from the depths and chucked into the fray. It’s confusing and overwhelming. And here’s where we get into the biggest criticism of the film: the computer graphics. Michael Bay has been accused of using CG as an ends to the mean, rather than as a tool, and that fact is made crystal clear here. There are so many battle scenes (with their accompanying transforming) that practically every inch of Transformers 2 is dripping with CG. And half the time these battles are extraneous. The first half hour is essentially an enormous turd of explosions and giant robots, and the rest of the movie is an on-and-off display of fights, destruction, and general mayhem, as if the movie’s concept wasn’t entertaining enough and Bay had to inject every minute of the film with something flashy and fiery. The film would have been just as entertaining with half the battle scenes. Truly. The only good thing to say about the CG is that it is quite good and cleverly crafted so it becomes difficult to see the lines between real and fake beyond one’s suspension of belief. The only thing that saves Transformers 2, though, happens to be one if its flaws: the characters. While I have already remarked that there are too many of them, those that have stuck into my head were definitely worth remembering. Not only are we gifted with familiar faces (Sam, Optimus, Bumblebee, the parents, and a few surprises), we are also introduced to a couple of other characters that drive the comedic quality of this film upwards. If not for the comedy, this film would be a waste of space. Chuckling in the theater has a way of making you forget, at that moment, all the problems with what is happening before you. Overall, I would say that Transformers 2 is a tremendously flawed piece, but it will likely entertain most audiences. If you’re thinking of taking your kids to this one, you might reconsider, if

World in the Satin Bag

SF/F Links: Starting Off July

/

No need for introductions. Special thanks goes to Charles Tan, Matt Staggs, and SF Signal for pointing me to a few of these. Here goes: Help Orbit Books create the ugliest SF/F book cover ever. Seriously. This could be fun. Jonathan Strahan chimes in on the electronic vs. print submissions argument. You can see Scalzi’s thoughts here, and oldcharliebrown has a few things to say too. Oh, and Cheryl Morgan rants here, remarking on problems with standard manuscript format. The Galaxy Express tells us how to take a negative review. Good stuff. Jonathan Cowie makes an argument for the greatness of science fiction as a response to the question: Is it possible to be negative about SF? Quite long, but interesting. Rants & Ramblings talks about whether to write what’s hot. I agree with Rachelle on this one: write what you’re good at. The Elegant Variation wants us to discuss whether we’re writing more now than we were in previous generations. Yes, we are, but your thoughts are welcome too! io9 discusses Michael A. Stackpole and how online publishing will and currently is changing the methods of breaking into to the business. Read the article, because it’s impossible to break this damned thing down into a single sentence without making it sound weird. Good stuff. And here’s a list from io9 of fifteen science fiction movie sequels that don’t suck. Good list. Beyond Identity makes a fine argument for why scientific accuracy, and other things, are not the end-all-be-all for categorizing books as science fiction. I sort of agree. There are certain limits to what makes something science fiction, in my opinion, but the arguments made at Beyond Identity are interesting ones. My Five Best lists five best fantasy series. Mostly typical stuff, but I mention it because there’s one in there I’ve never heard of by a fellow named Joel Rosenberg. Unsearchable Riches asks “Why Fantasy?” It turns into a rant about why fantasy in almost any vein is perfectly safe for Christians, but don’t let that turn you off–it’s interesting. Smashing Magazine lists fifty resources to help you with your writing. Elizabeth Bear, one of my favorite authors, has a few good bits of writing advice. And last on this list is a WTF moment provided by Nnedi Okorafor. Apparently Penguin (the publisher) is offering up a new fiction prize for African writers, but it directly excludes science fiction and fantasy. Nnedi calls them out, as should we all. This is retarded. A lot of great African writers are not eligible. And that’s it! Hope you found them useful!

Scroll to Top