The Literary Nazis: Part Two
…or Why the Literary Academia Hates SF…from my viewpoint.Well, I thought I’d do a little extension on this post. What exactly makes those who seem to control the literary world and decide the fate of individual works of art hate science fiction so much? Given the discussion in my Literary Interpretation class, I think I have a couple ideas. Feel free to add your thoughts and ideas! Science: Most people who read are not scientists. Trends in science fiction have gone from fantastical truly unbelievable settings to ones rooted in reality. Some novels go as far as to bring up concepts that are rather complicated and hard to grasp for a lot of people–namely the current trend to use Quantum Physics. This can all be intimidating. Simplicity and Lack of Thought: I think I mentioned it in the previous article, but there is an unfortunate belief that science fiction is all pulp-fiction. They think it as simplistic, possibly formulaic writing. The likely reason for this is the overabundance, or at least the common presence of shared world SF. Things like Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, and others. Sure, there are some wonderful books in those series’, but they’re not remotely the same as original SF. This leads the literary academia to believe that SF is simple, that it relies on the work of others to make its mark. Simplicity also seems to extend to the idea that SF doesn’t address valuable issues or have complicated internal ideas–mythological concepts, humanistic qualities, man vs. self, and the like.Perhaps the idea that SF doesn’t create situations that make people think is something that is holding SF back. My Professor for my Interpretation course spoke of this issue in conjunction with simplicity. When you go to Walmart, you rarely, if at all, see the works of SF that are truly the most powerful and influential. You see Star Wars and maybe a couple books by authors who are big names in the field. The books that end up on the shelf at stores like Walmart represent the simplified works in the field, in general. They tend to be the books of straight entertainment. Not only SF is in this bind, but other genres too, and when the literary academia looks up they don’t see all the works that really matter, but the works that are the ‘in thing’ right now. You can imagine what that looks like to them. Failure: This might turn out to work in SF’s favor, but there has been a steady decline in sales and popularity with SF. This seems to have a lot to do with the surge of popularity in fantasy. J. K. Rowling, Scott Westerfeld, and a myriad of others who are flooding the market with what the public obviously thinks is fantastic literature–that has a double meaning of course. Science fiction, on the other hand, seems to be dying, or at least falling slowly as fantasy continues its relentless dominance in the speculative field. On the one hand, this means that less science fiction is being seen, and inevitably losing some critical acclaim. This could be seen negatively. Perhaps literary critics see this decline as the mark of a genre that can’t survive. On the other, maybe they will see the ‘failure’ or science fiction as the public losing interest with something that actually is worth studying. They Just Don’t Get It: That should be clear enough. Literary academia just doesn’t understand SF as a whole. They fail to see its significance because they can’t see past their snobby noses. They’re Hypocrits: This is related to the point made before this. I don’t know if you could call it a reason for hating SF, but since some SF books have made it into the canon, primarily books of a literary or classical nature (1984 or Brave New World), they feel that they don’t have to count those as part of SF. So, did I miss anything? What are your thoughts?
The Literary Nazis (Against Science Fiction)
I wrote the following as a journal entry for one of my literature classes this year. It came up during class really, the idea that the literary world considers science fiction, and fantasy, to be either not really literature at all, or lesser literature. This has become a sort of campaign for me now–attempting to change the minds of people about science fiction. Someone also brought up the idea that the novel is dying. I decided to address the issues in a journal entry. Keep in mind, I may not be right, and this was somewhat of an emotional response. Here it is:Something I am finding rather difficult to deal with and accept lately is this somewhat negative concept in the literary world that books like The Immoralist and similar ‘classics’ are significantly better literature than books that hold somewhat more higher prestige with the majority, such as Harry Potter. It was brought up in class today whether it is true that the importance of the novel is dying. I think the problem isn’t that the novel is dying, because in reality, it’s not, but rather that the rigid and sometimes rather close-minded idea of what constitutes as true literature is no longer something that any significant majority of people are interested in. Certainly people read the occasional classic, and perhaps it is because those classics are somewhat simplistic, or perhaps it has more to do with the fact that people, in general, want to be entertained, and some classics still seem to do that. 1984 by George Orwell is a great example of a novel that still manages to captivate people. Even if you’ve already read it, another reading proves even more insightful than the last. So in reality, I don’t think that the novel is becoming less important, but more that there is a shift in what constitutes importance now. We’re a money driven society, and in some ways you could say that money tends to drive people as much as it drives the market. A book that sells is a book that gets heard about more often and is more likely to continue selling.Granted, I will admit that there must be more than a fair share of novels that have no literary merit, but of the ones that do have some significant importance socially and culturally seem to get shunned away by the literary crowd as simplistic or lower literature. Science fiction, for example, is one of the most influential genres in the history of literature. The computer, cell phone, space shuttle, moon missions, the Mars missions now and in the future, are all products of science fiction thinking. Science fiction’s influence is so great that there are actually websites devoted to keeping track of the technologies created in science fiction books that have become reality. And there is a stigma with science fiction that I would say exists due to the rise of the pulp magazine and pulp SF books in the early age of science fiction. Often people think of it as wild fantasy in space. They think green aliens that are evil with super spaceships, interstellar wars, hot babes in skimpy clothes, and suave Captains who always get the girl. In reality, the bulk of true science fiction is well-thought and more relevant now than it probably was during the early 20’s and 30’s. Many SF novels deal with real world concepts set in obviously futuristic landscapes. When you look right down into the bare bones of these novels, you realize that they are as complex and revealing as the classics. They deal with politics not only on an external scale, but on the internal as well. They deal with concepts such as stem cell research, genetic manipulation, nuclear war, global warming, and the like. These are issues that are strikingly strong in our society today. The stigma also extends to the authors themselves. On one side people think of these authors as the dork living in a basement—likely a relative—writing silly stories about stuff that isn’t real. The ironic part of the last part of that stereotype is that all writers write stuff that isn’t real, even literary fiction writers. The reality of the situation is that the majority of SF writers don’t fit into the stereotype at all. Isaac Asimov, who may very well have paved the way for true, gripping, and relevant science fiction, was a degree holding scientist who went off to write many papers and books on legit subjects. SF writers are biologist, astronomers, astrophysicists, sociologists, teachers, and political scientists, just to name a few. Carl Sagan was a scientist renowned for his representation of the cosmos and for writing many wonderful books on scientific subjects—a book of note would be the Dragons of Eden which, despite its fantastical name, was actually a study about the evolution of human intelligence that delved not only into the structure of our brains, but into the structure of our mind and the evolving nature of our psyche. But Carl Sagan also wrote science fiction. He wrote Contact, a novel that was eventually turned into a movie with Jodie Foster, and his son has continued the family trend.So, I continue to question this somewhat ignorant stance that science fiction is lower literature. And I also really question the notion that the novel is losing importance. Perhaps there is a hint of truth to this if you were willing to say that the novel is changing on an individual level, which would account for the flood of young adult fiction in the market and the surging sales and surplus of paranormal style fiction novels. But really the novel is doing just fine. As of yet the idea of eBooks has not quite caught on, and I don’t know that they ever will, though perhaps that will change in the next generation or two. Many of us cannot stand to read a book on the computer. Some of us reason this by saying that
Chapter Outlining, Your Thoughts?
I’ve never really done outlining of any sort before. Originally it was because when I tried to do it I lost all interest in the story and stopped. Now, I don’t outline because I’m afraid of it. A lot of my ideas never come into my head in their full form. I have an idea for something, start it up, and go with it.Lately I’ve been having problems though and am trying to do the whole outline thing, at least to the extent that I know the general direction of the story. But outlining is not nearly as easy as I thought. Basically this is what is going on:A long while ago I started a strange SF horror story called “The White”. The title is only temporary, in fact I’m thinking of the changing it to “The Lies of Venicia”, since that has more to do with what is going on anyway. Well, I put the story aside, unfinished, a long time ago for some reason or another and just came back to it and realized how much I really liked the idea (a human colony in another star system that has been turned into a backwater because of the violent reaction of a mysterious alien entity known as the White). So I sat down and tried to think of what i could do with ti. I didn’t want to write another novel from the perspective of one person. Part of this is because I think in the case of this story one POV would really make all the horror and psychological issues feel old. I didn’t want that. So I added a second POV taken from someone in a place that, more or less, is not really involved in the second plotline, not directly at least. Same planet, different city. Things were going okay, rather swiftly. Then suddenly, I wanted another POV. It popped into my head that I have two people from opposite spectrums living on the same planet, but I didn’t have someone from the other spectrum–off planet.But I have a dilemma here. Outlining is proving…difficult. I’m not sure where to go with the story and when I write something down, I realize, I don’t like the way that is going and just write something else other than what the outline intended.So, what do you guys do when it comes to outlining? I want to hear your thoughts!
Heinlein’s Rules of Writing
If you don’t know who Heinlein is, you obviously don’t read SF. I regret to say I have yet to read any Heinlein, which could be considered blasphemy by many. In any case, he was an influential writer and he had a few little rules that even to this day seem to be rather relevant. This also is going to address a comment by Jameel regarding ‘constant fiddling’, where you are always making changes rather than progressing the story. So pay attention: Rule One: You Must WriteSounds obvious doesn’t it? The problem is that too many people, including myself at one time, say they want to be writers, but never actually get anything done. You can’t be a writer if you don’t write! Rule Two: Finish What You StartThis one I have problems with and I think a lot of writers do too. Sometimes you’ll write something and suddenly be extremely bored with it. Are there others of you out there that have that problem? To put it simply, though, you can’t publish anything if you never finish anything. Rule Three: You Must Refrain From Rewriting, Except To Editorial OrderApparently creative writing teachers hated Heinlein for this rule, but when you think about it it makes sense. You shouldn’t write something, and then continuously rewrite it every time someone mentions something in it or doesn’t like a piece. Otherwise you’ll just do that forever and never get anything done. Remember, not all revisions are good. Sometimes you can revise something and make it worse! Rule Four: You Must Put Your Story On the MarketDuh! You can’t get published if you don’t do this. One thing to consider doing once you start submitting is to try to keep a relatively steady stream. Write it, submit it, write something else, submit that, and if something comes back rejected, resubmit it elsewhere. Rule Five: You Must Keep It On the Market Until It’s SoldWell I’m sure there is some leeway to this. If you’ve submitted something to everything imaginable and have 500 rejections on one story, I think it would be safe to say that you’re not selling that story. That doesn’t mean to give up. New markets spring up all the time and one of those might take your story. You also can’t let rejections discourage you too much. Some of the most popular authors were rejected hundreds of times before getting anywhere. Also, when you get a rejection, take that story and submit it elsewhere right away! Rule Six: Start Working On Something ElseOnce you submit, don’t stop writing. Get right back into it and write something else. Period. If you don’t write then you’ll spend a long amount of time sitting around waiting for your acceptance or rejection. So write! So, in theory, following these rules will do you some good. I know a few that I need to follow! What do you all think of these rules?
So You Want To Be A Writer…
Being a writer, even a published one, is not an easy thing. We all wish we could have the success of people like Stephen King or John Grisham, selling million dollar book contracts and selling millions upon millions of copies worldwide in a whole assortment of different languages. The sad part of that dream is that it most likely will never come true.In short, being a writer is hard. Here are some things to think about to make sure you’re serious about this venture: Trying to keep up with the market is impossible. Therefore writing to the market is pointless, unless it’s short stories. Even if you sell your novel, it could take a year or more before it ever goes to print. By then, whatever market you had written and marketed that book to may have changed and now your really interesting and original novel is old news. Rejections are common. Some writers go through hundreds of submission attempts before anyone ever gives them a shot. You’ll likely have the same problem. The market is brutal like that. So, be prepared to get rejected a lot. Maybe you’ll get lucky on your first try, but most likely you’ll get a lot of rejections before an editor really considers your work. Writers are poor. Don’t quit your day job. If you have high hopes that you’ll be able to write for a living and be comfortable doing it, think again. Orson Scott Card discussed this very thing in his book on writing SF & F. In reality, even if your first novel does well, you probably won’t be buying Ferrari’s with the paycheck that comes with it. That also assumes you sell out on your advance. See, the way it works in the market is that a publisher forwards you an advance of money–usually a few thousand dollars. This is sort of your ‘tide-me-over’ payment. When your book actually comes out, you have to earn back that money for the publisher before you get paid anything else. You get a percentage of every book sold, so from the start, that percentage is paying off the money they gave you. Maybe you’ll earn out your advance, maybe you won’t. Until you do, you get nothing else.In the event you get published and earn out your advance, likely you won’t be making a whole lot of money at all. In fact, if anything, the money you’ll be making won’t be enough to even pay the rent. So, don’t quit your day job. If you do, and you’re married, make sure your significant other is willing to support you. Publishers have no qualms about dropping you. Sounds lovely doesn’t it? Well, if you’re not making the publisher any money, they have no reason to keep you around. So if you don’t earn out your advance on your first novel, you might get a second chance, you might not. That depends on how bad your novel does. Most publishers accept that a first novel often won’t make a lot of money anyway. So if your second novel, and your third, aren’t doing very well, then expect to be dropped. If that happens it might become very difficult for you to get back into the market. The market functions on money. Writing is a hell of a lot of work. You can’t be a writer if you don’t write. That means you have to accept that writers block is not a real syndrome, but actually the result of laziness. If you finish your novel and want to publish it, realize it could be a long road before anything happens, if anything happens. Publishers have long wait times. If you submit your novel to one publisher, you might be waiting for months, or longer, before a response comes back. Some publishers won’t take simultaneous submissions, so this means you could be jumping from publisher to publisher shopping your book for many many years. This can get very discouraging when it seems like all the publishers are rejecting your work. The Writing World is not fluffy bunnies and joy. It’s damn hard work. Being a professional writer is like any other full time job, except in this case you get to do something you actually like to do. So, of course you’ll enjoy writing, but you’ll also have to recognize that it will be difficult and a lot of hard work, and in the end you’ll have no guarantee that you’ll be a bestseller or one of those names that everyone knows. You do have to have some talent. Maybe not a lot, judging from some of the abysmal novels that seem to be coming out these days, but you can’t just spring up one day and say “I want to be a writer” and expect your first words to be pure gold. Most people write garbage for a while. Many of us know that saying that you have to get through the first 1,000,000 words before you write anything good. It’s an overstatement, but if you think about it, in some respects, there is truth to it. Most likely the first thing you write will be crap. Stephen King and J. K. Rowling are flukes. They are not common place in the world of writers. In fact, both are incredibly rare. Almost all writers don’t have the monetary success of those two. So if your dream is to be like them, expect to be disappointed a lot. John Scalzi and Tobias Buckell are both fantastic writers who have great careers ahead of them, and neither of them are being handed huge contracts for millions of dollars (correct me if I’m wrong though). I only bring this bit up more before because too many people have hopes to be like those really popular and rich authors. Come back down to Earth. A better focus would be just to be published and successful enough to be able to continue doing it. I’d love to be rich like
A Dialogue of War (in fantasy)
This very subject was brought up by SQT in her recent post. I don’t want to steal the spotlight from her very well drawn analysis, but I did feel like addressing the issue a bit myself.SQT is very right that it seems that fantasy is overridden with novels that focus on war. I can’t think of a novel I have read that didn’t have war as a central theme somewhere. War might not be the primary plot line in a story, but almost all fantasy seems to have it there in some capacity.Some of the issues I see with this is that fantasy writers want to place a lot of focus on the people in war that aren’t ordinary, ignoring those that suffer the most. I addressed this in the comments to some extent, but I think some context here would be great.Look at the historical basis for fantasy. Generally, most fantasy is written in a semi-medieval style time period. We all can generally accept this as true. Whether or not magic, dragons, or other strange and supernatural things ‘actually’ exist in this fantasy setting is irrelevant to this discussion. Medieval societies were violent by nature. Machiavelli handled this idea very well in saying that a ruler could control his people by subjecting them to war. What Machiavelli proposed is that a king or prince, or even queen, would rule the masses by using the fear of war–death, destruction, and loss of livelihood–to keep them in order. This serves several purposes: It reduces the number of impoverished people, the lower class, in situations that would cause them to revolt by placing them, instead, in armies and ultimately into combat. While they may be subject to obviously unlikable conditions, the idea that they are protecting their homeland and doing something that might be considered honorable might hold their complaints at bay. It keeps those living in the impoverished situations from revolting or dissenting by making them believe that they are constantly on the verge of being destroyed by the enemy, whoever they might be. Fear generally results in undeserved loyalty, but as we can see in our current and ancient history, this is an all too common thing. It raises new generations into this cycle of oppression by war. Children raised in this situation are also even less likely than their parents to question authority. Of course, it does happen, but that has much less to do with the people themselves than the failure of the ruling class to make the idea of war more serious than the horrid policies of those in power. Machiavelli wasn’t lying through his teeth when he proposed some of the ideas on The Prince. Medieval times were violent by nature. From 1,095 to 1400 C.E. (current era) there were nine crusades not including any of the Northern Crusades or the various other smaller crusades, which together with the traditional nine crusades numbers somewhere around twenty. This is only a select number of the many wars that took place in the Middle Ages. Also take into account that what is considered the Middle Ages (400 to 1400 C.E.) encompasses all of Europe. In 1100 years of history we can only imagine the number of small and major wars that took place.We have to then take into account the commonality of war in what would traditionally be fantasy fiction, which is most often set in a time much like the Middle Ages anyway. As I said, the problem isn’t that fantasy writers focus so much on war, since war in some form or another would be common anyway, but that fantasy writers instead base their stories primarily around characters which are abnormal. These are the heroes, characters who possess heroic qualities–excellent swordsmanship, magic, etc.–rather than being insignificant in the sense that from the start of the book they aren’t anything special. In most cases these are also the characters who have very little to actually lose. Why would this be such an issue? Because the primary reason that war is such an effective device in fiction is that it represents ultimate loss. People die in war, lands are destroyed, families are broken, etc. Without loss, what is the point of having war? It becomes a device in the story that has no reason to exist. Sure, the abnormal heroes of the story do experience loss, but do they really experience it? Does a king really feel the lost of the hundreds or thousands of men in his army? Not likely. In fact, a king might feel little at all unless someone of great importance is lost. A king may feel anger at the loss of a keep, but the king doesn’t mourn this loss.But the people who live in the towns and villages do. They experience it worse than the ruling class because it is they who are being murdered and slaughtered, and it is they who are driven from their homes and experience the ultimate of losses.Then this begs the question, what would fantasy be without traditional styles of heroes? Very difficult, but better fiction. Ordinary characters can become heroes. It would be more interesting to begin with a character that is in the lower class, has no discernible amazing abilities, but becomes great through his or her own force, rather than through luck. A character doesn’t have to be a captain of the guard, a general, or a king, or anything in royalty at all. A simple scribe could end up a hero. But it becomes far more effective to take war from the eyes of someone who truly experiences it. Kings didn’t frequently engage in battle. They were often preoccupied with the other nuances of war. It was the lower class that saw battle more often.So, what do you think? Do you see some of the same problems in fantasy? Do you disagree? What say you?