Who Gets to Decide What’s Good Literature?
(Originally found this question here). This question seems fitting considering my post yesterday about 1984 and genre fiction. One of the problems I think many of us have with literature is that there’s no consensus on what is good and what isn’t–not one, at least, that can be quickly and adequately discovered. Literary critics may say one thing, academics will say another, best seller’s lists will say something else, and finally readers themselves will say something either in tune with one of those previous groups, or something entirely different–and it’s usually a toss up. All of these, with, perhaps, some exception to best seller’s lists, have, I think, a discernible influence, in the long term, on definitions of “good literature.” It wasn’t too long ago that we all would have thought it impossible to have college courses dedicated to science fiction or fantasy, let alone high school or college courses that at least included in their curriculum at least one novel in those genres. Now we are seeing them in more regularity, even if programs focused on these genres are scarce at best. This is, to me, an example of how these three groups (literary critics, academics, and readers) have unintentionally worked towards redefining “good literature.” I don’t think that there is any one group that gets to make this decision. I also don’t think that there is really a way for the three to intentionally work together. Literature has to progress on its own, without people from diametrically opposed positions meeting in the middle and attempting to work it out on their own. Readers must state their opinion, and so too must literary critics and academics. In time, we’ll see those statements shift and adjust to accommodate new literature into their circles. This is how science fiction and fantasy have found their way into literature curriculum and into the hands of serious literary critics who, in previous generations, would have scoffed at the idea of treating genre fiction with any seriousness in the first place. As an example: one of the courses I am currently taking has The Road by Cormac McCarthy on the syllabus. Clearly this is an example of how the public can have influence on everything else, and how the times are changing. But the public didn’t decide that McCarthy’s novel was good; they formulated an opinion while another group started to pay attention, and without either intended it to happen, The Road achieved its “good literature” status–with sufficient help from Oprah, of course. Literature simply evolves and works that were once considered of low quality suddenly gain attention. This has happened numerous times in history, and I don’t think many of the most staunch and stubborn of “literary” readers realizes this. Some of the works we consider to be classics were, at one time, the equivalent of what genre fiction is to the literary community: trash. This is particularly so of some of the romantic poets in France and other areas of the world, yet we now devote academic study to such work and treat it with the utmost seriousness. We don’t really think twice about the rise of such work from the catacombs of “trashiness.” This is the same path science fiction and fantasy is taking, and will continue to take as they work their way into every circle. I think I’ve rambled quite enough. What do you all think? Do you agree that no one group decided what good literature is and that it is an unintentional process involving the groups I mentioned above? Or do you have another opinion? Whatever thoughts you have, feel free to leave a comment! Anywho!
1984 and the Label “Science Fiction”
Google alerts brought to my attention this short, interesting, and annoyingly snobbish post about why 1984 shouldn’t be stuck in the science fiction category and, being the science fiction nut that I am, I couldn’t leave it well enough alone. The author certainly despises science fiction as a genre and I can’t help thinking that his problem isn’t with science fiction itself, but with what Harlan Ellison considers to be the difference between “science fiction” and “scifi,” which are, for better or for worst, pretty distinguishable variations of the same thing. Still, I feel it necessary to tear into this argument, because it’s just so wrong. Let’s start with this: It most certainly does not deserve to be degraded to the point of being a sub-genre of science fiction. Science fiction is just that, fictional. It carries no meaning, no message and usually, no words with more than five letters All fiction is fictional, even literary fiction. There’s no such thing as fiction that is non-fictional. It’s not a possibility. Once something becomes true–to a certain degree–it ceases to be fiction. Historical fiction only gets away with it because it has to make up things during an even that actually happened, thus providing fictional dialogue and sometimes nonexistent characters to real scenery. Furthermore, why exactly is it degrading to be placed in a sub-genre of science fiction? All science fiction is not devoid of meaning or message; some science fiction is even highly “literary,” whatever that means. In fact, most science fiction has some sort of meaning or message. Some of the best science fiction novels ask us to question our humanity, or consider the “what if” of a certain scenario. It’s a genre that speculates on what could be. True, there are entire sections of science fiction devoted entirely to adventures in space, with no discernible message beyond a simplistic “the hero wins” one. But what about the work of Octavia Butler, Samuel R. Delany, Philip K. Dick, etc.? Their work does not fit into the author’s lesser form of science fiction. They fit into a different category of SF that is still SF, no matter what you do or say. But this continues with the author claiming that: Science fiction has never produced a single thing that the ordinary person would not consider offensive, senseless drivel. And yet there are those who waste their time reading this nonsensical garbage What exactly is an “ordinary person?” Ordinary implies discernible as part of the average, so, is the author ordinary? Am I? I don’t think either of us are particularly ordinary. In fact, if we want to be realistic, the ordinary person doesn’t even read (much). They’re the vast majority who rarely, if ever, reads a book or newspaper, or anything according to polls. They may still read, but they aren’t the ones who will have an opinion on literature that will matter in this context; the ordinary person watches more television than they do read a newspaper article or magazine. So, in all fairness, I don’t think the ordinary person finds anything offensive or senseless in science fiction literature, because they don’t read much anyway. The piece concludes with the following: Nineteen Eighty Four achieved something few science fiction novels ever have, publication. Besides this, Nineteen Eighty Four was well written, meaningful and above a third grade level, all of which distinguishes it from science fiction. Call Nineteen Eighty Four what you will, dystopic, a cautionary tale, anything but a sub-genre of science fiction. What exactly does the first sentence mean? A lot of science fiction novels have been published. That statement is absurd, because it applies to any genre. Pick a novel, any novel, and you can say that it achieved the same goal while most others in that genre did not. It’s not something that applies to only one genre. It’s universal. The same can be said of literary fiction. I’m also not sure where this assumption came from that science fiction cannot be well written. Why not? Every genre has its weak spots, even literary fiction. Science fiction happens to be a popular form of literature, and therefore much of it is written in that more popular vein. But that doesn’t mean that all of it is, and it’s not always necessary for a piece to be written like it was meant to be analyzed for word use. Sometimes a piece can be about the ideas, about the characters and what is going on. Science fiction can be on the literary side, it’s just not nearly as common as the more popular side. Either side can have value though, and neither should be discounted or removed from the genre for the sake of personal dislike of one or the other. This whole post seems like an attempt to make science fiction something it isn’t. If we remove all the examples to the contrary, then it becomes so. How many novels would this person suck out of the genre in order to make his vision of science fiction a reality? Is Fahrenheit 451 not science fiction because it happens to be really good? Seems absurd. The point is, 1984 is a science fiction novel. You don’t have to like it, you just have to accept it. It’s set, at the time of its publication, in a theoretical future dystopia. As much as you might consider quality to be a judgment on the genre of a particular work, quality has absolutely nothing to do with it. A really good book can also be a romance, or a western, or whatever. That’s just the way it is. Get over it. What do you all think?
Reader Question: How do I get ARCs/galleys easily?
This one was sent to me by LibraryDad via twitter. I think this is one of those questions that eventually gets asked by someone somewhere. Those of us who review books, whether professionally or as amateurs, love getting advanced reader copies (ARCs or galleys). I’m not entirely sure why. I like them because it’s nice to know I have one of the first printed copies if a particular book turns out to be a favorite (such as Sly Mongoose, which you should all go buy, because Mr. Buckell recently had twins and could use the extra royalties). But how do you get them? I’ll be honest that I don’t think there’s an easy answer or even a preferable answer here. I can only say the truth of the matter. There is no way to get ARCs easily, especially not through publishers. Publishers are not going to send free books to anyone. It costs them money not only to print out the book, but also to ship it to you, all on some hope that your review will bring them enough sales to cover it. There has to be some sort of discernible influence bloggers have on sales, otherwise I don’t think publishers would keep sending us books. Here are some key factors that can help you get books from publishers, particularly ARCs: A platform for reviews.This can be in the form of a blog, a website, etc. It needs to be something that can be navigated and has a way to view the reviews. Don’t bury them in the abyss. A niche.This isn’t necessary, but it helps if you have a specific kind of book you read. That helps them target to you and to your readers. This is more about not being a “I read every single thing in the universe” type person. I mean, if you read everything, great, but I’ve yet to see a successful blog/website that wasn’t clearly divided into sections that focused on everything. A back catalogue of reviews.Basically, you need to have actually done some reviews. You’re not going to get much from publishers if you haven’t actually done something productive in the reviewing community. An online following of some significance.They are not going to send you books if you get 25 unique hits a month. Not unless you win some from them. You need to have some sort of steady, significant traffic. This doesn’t need to be thousands of people, but it does need to be something they can figure into potential sales. The blog that I post my reviews on (run by the awesome SQT) gets a fair amount of traffic (more than I get here, actually). It also has a vibrant community. These things make it a website publishers will turn to for reviews (well, they won’t come to you, but you know what I mean), because, presumably, SQT’s blog brings them sales and exposure in a quantity that matters.Oh, and this takes a lot of time and effort. And even with that, there’s no guarantee you’ll ever succeed in creating a following. I’ve been at this for three years and while I love my readers, there aren’t a whole lot of them. Those that have stuck with me for a while certainly deserve kudos, though. You guys are awesome. The big thing is the following. Publishers have got to know that sending you books is good for them. You can track all that with the various sites out there, such as SiteMeter, Google Analytics, etc. Assuming you have a following, you review on some sort of timely schedule, and haven’t pissed off all the publishers, the next order of the day is actually contacting publishers. My recommendation is either follow their procedures for review requests, if they have any, or read books from that publisher, review them, and let the author know. Either way can work, but neither is a guarantee. All I know is that I have done it both ways and been relatively successful. It should be noted here that your intention should never be to simply get free books (particularly ARCs/galleys). ARCs are sent out specifically to be reviewed. Publishers are usually aware that reviewers can’t review everything, but that doesn’t mean you should never review the books. This isn’t about showing off that you got a bunch of free books; it’s about providing a service for publishers while doing something you like. If you just want to read books and have some collectibles, then you need to find ARCs in some of these ways: Garage sales, used bookstores (which technically shouldn’t be selling them), ebay, and other places like that. Friends Giveaways (blogs, publishers, authors, etc.). If you want to review books and let people know about them, then you should work on building up a fanbase and a back-catalogue of reviews. One step at a time. Eventually, if all goes well, you can request books from publishers (following their guidelines, if they have any–this is really important) or get them another way. ARCs are sort of like crack for reviewers, I suppose. Most of us love them, even desire them. And there’s nothing like getting books in the mail. One of my favorite things is when there’s a bubble envelope sitting in the mailbox waiting for me to open it. It doesn’t matter if I’ve had a bad day, that can really cheer me up. Hopefully that answers the question. This is sort of a short “how to” for reviewing in general, but so be it. Anyone else out there have advice on this matter? Is there a magical easy way to get ARCs? I don’t think signing up for contests is necessarily an easy way, because it’s random, but maybe that’s the easiest method to get your hands on these things. Anywho. If you have a question you’d like me to answer, feel free to send it to arconna[at]yahoo[dot]com, or leave it as a comment, or send it as a twitter message with
Reader Question: Why Science Fiction?
This is an interesting question submitted by Perry on Facebook. The reason it’s interesting is because I’m not sure what it’s asking. It could be asking several different things at once, such as: Why do you like science fiction? Why do you write/blog about science fiction? Why science fiction and not something else? How exactly do I approach this question if there are so many ideas infused into it? I figure the best way to do so is to answer each of the questions above as best I can. Here goes: Why do you like science fiction?One of the great things about science fiction is that it never ceases to amaze me. While the genre has largely lost it’s “wow” factor in the world, it is still a genre full of new and fresh ideas. The reason I like science fiction as much as I do is because I find the genre fascinating, whether it be far-future space opera or near-future hard SF. As a genre of ideas, it is one that constantly challenges me to rethink the world I live in, and the world I will one day live in, to rethink who I am and what it means to be human. Since my academic interests are invested in the notion of “the human,” this is a perfect genre for bringing up difficult issues to deal with, particularly about humanity and the other (whatever that other might be). I also happen to like spaceships and space battles. I like explosions and aliens and all the nifty cliches of the genre. It’s sort of hard not to for me. I’m also a big fan of science, even if I am not, and never will be, a scientist. Science fiction either approaches science from a realistic perspective or from a perspective that takes liberty with reality. But in true science fiction, science is always there in some capacity. As an avid fan of science, science fiction lets me see an author’s vision of the future based on where we are now; it’s also fascinating to see how science fiction and reality blend together. So, to put it simply: I like science fiction because it is the one genre that offers me everything I want in one package. Why do I write/blog about science fiction?I blog about a lot of things, but science fiction is certainly the big one. Fantasy and writing are pretty much tied for second place, I suppose. Blogging is, in part, an extension of what I want to do professionally. It’s an avenue through which I can express my opinions on the genre and converse with other fans, etc. I can’t exactly go down the street and find a big science fiction fan club to hang out in–I’m not even sure we have one in Santa Cruz. Blogging is basically the best way I have of communicating with folks interested in the same subjects as myself. And since I am going to be spending most of my academic career studying science fiction and its related genres, I find a blog is a healthy way of excavating ideas, thoughts, opinions, etc.–even if they’re not particularly good ideas, thoughts, or opinions. I write science fiction for an entirely different reason, though. I cannot for the life of me write anything but speculative fiction (science fiction, fantasy, etc.). If I start writing a story about the real world, I tune out. Getting excited about such things is impossible for me. The real world is too bland for my tastes, which probably says a lot about my tastes when there is so much going on in this world these days. But that’s the truth. When I write normal fiction, I’m pretty much bored after sentence two; when I write science fiction or fantasy, it’s a whole other story. I get excited about writing stories where I get to express my ideas of the future, or fiddle with concepts of humanity, etc. There’s something purely enjoyable about writing in this genre. Maybe it’s just me and I have some sort of ultra-fantasy gene. Whatever the internal or genetic reason, I write science fiction because I enjoy it. Period. Why science fiction and not something else?Well, I do like fantasy and related genres, but I am generally uninterested in fiction that is not fantastic in some way. The reason is that I find real life boring. I don’t mean my real life, but real life as it pertains to fiction. There’s nothing entertaining about people going through regular everyday things. I don’t particularly care about anything to do with the real world, as far as fiction is concerned (non-fiction is an entirely different story). The thing is, I live in real life; I don’t want to read about it. For this reason, I am interested in science fiction and related genres both personally and professionally. I am fascinated by the fantastic, by spaceships and dragons and anything that lies in the cracks. If there isn’t some sort of speculative premise in a story, I’m unlikely to read it with much enthusiasm. My tastes do change, though, and there are exceptions to this (Thomas Pynchon and a few African authors are good exceptions), but for the most part I stick to my guns on speculative fiction. And that’s that. Thanks for the question, Perry. Now I’ll throw it out to all of you. Why science fiction? Or, if science fiction isn’t your thing, why whatever you read (fantasy, horror, etc.)? If you’d like to send me a question, you can email it to me at arconna[at]yahoo[dot]com, leave it as a comment here or anywhere, or send it as a twitter message with @shaunduke at the front of the message. Thanks.
AmazonFail: Another Company Being Stupid
It’s apparently been going on for a few weeks, but it’s only just exploded in epic proportions in the blogosphere in the last day or so (as far as I know). What is it? I’ll give you the short version: Amazon essentially changed he way they list books on their best seller’s list, search feature, and the site in general, by removing sales information (specifically ranks) from books deemed to be “adult.” They apparently wanted to make it so “adult” books could not end up on the best seller’s list (and other reasons, I’m sure). Only, Amazon has seemingly gone off the deep end by removing sales ranks from a heck of a lot of books that are not only not adult at all (at least not compared to the stuff they’ve been letting through, such as American Psycho), but happen to have LGBT (lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender) themes or characters (a good example of how stupid this is can be found here, where a non-fiction book was cut off, while a violent, bloody fiction book was not). So, Twitter and the blogosphere (and all sorts of online news agencies) are throwing a fit over this, and rightly so (one fellow has even written an open letter to Amazon about the whole ordeal). Yes, there are a lot of links in that sentence–to highlight the enormity of this, I assure you. Amazon has apparently blamed this on a glitch in the system, but most are calling B.S. on that, and rightly so. I was shocked when I first heard about it this morning. I don’t know if this whole ordeal was done with any malicious intent; it probably wasn’t. Maybe it was a glitch after all, but you’d think a company as big and influential as Amazon would have tested this thing before implementing it, or at least took the notices sent to them by angry customers seriously when this all began. I’m going to keep this post short primarily because it seems like Amazon is going to fix the problem. If things don’t improve, I think we can all begin to speculate on why Amazon is pandering to the whims of the religious right. Right now, it doesn’t seem like there is much more to say other than pointing to the rants and angry posts of others. Am I upset by this? Yes, actually. Amazon better get its act together soon or they could end up with a hell storm on their doorstep. We’ll see what happens in the next week. Anyone out there have any thoughts? Feel free to leave a comment!
Science Fiction For Non-Readers?
This is one of those questions that has me really stumped. I know there have been posts on the net about this subject, but I can’t say whether it has ever been answered. Often times when this question is asked science fiction fans blurt out a load of typical names and novels; rarely are these suggestions actually good ones (primarily because they’re good suggestions for folks interested in expanding their horizons in the genre rather than for folks who have never liked the genre in the first place). In thinking about this, I think it’s fair to say that non-readers fall into two categories: Literary ReadersFolks who primarily read literary fiction or have particularly sophisticated tastes as far as literature is concerned. This group tends to hold general disdain for literature that focuses on plot rather than characters or style (and specifically all genre fiction and popular literary forms). Popular Fiction ReadersThink anyone who reads the stuff on the best seller’s list, but who have avoided science fiction or fantasy for whatever reason. Sometimes these sorts of readers have little book clubs and what not where they discuss Dan Brown and other such authors. I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to get the second group to read SF. They’ve probably already read a handful of SF books and don’t realize it. Popular fiction readers often read folks like Stephen King or Dean Koontz or Michael Crichton (the latter two have written a bunch of SF novels). If they only read romance novels, it’s not that much of a stretch to lead them to paranormal/SF romance or particularly romance-based SF tales. The first group, however, is the hard one. How do we get people who literally believe that science fiction is trash to read it? Do we point them to Isaac Asimov or Arthur C. Clarke? This is the problem. When we start making suggestions for non-readers, we often point to classic SF or even popular SF as if the popularity of the title will actually matter. But most of the titles we automatically suggest are not going to get these folks to read SF. Period. It will only serve to reinforce the idea that SF is trash. This isn’t because SF is actually trash; it’s because this particular group of readers considers considers SF to be so. So what do we do? How do we get these folks to even consider SF? Do we point to 1984 and Margaret Atwood? What other books are there other than those in the canon (which isn’t that many books anyway)? I don’t know. I don’t think there is an easy way through to this group; there are only a handful of books that they’d willingly read (and probably already have), and SF is not exactly rich with stylistically aware prose (in the sense that popular-styles are replaced with more complicated ones). Do any of you have suggestions? How would you get through to this group? Can we get through to this group, or is it hopeless?