franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (06/04/85)
There has been a great deal of flame recently on the subject of the literary merits (or lack thereof) of science fiction. Unfortunately, most of this has been of the form "I like these authors and don't like those authors". To try to avoid that I will avoid mentioning particular authors entirely in this submission (although the temptation is at some points hard to resist). I am not going to attempt to compare the literary merits of "science fiction" and "mainstream literature"; my knowledge of the latter is too small. Instead I wish to concentrate on the comparison of science fiction as viewed by its fans (typified by the Hugo awards), and science fiction as viewed by critics from outside the field. The striking thing about this comparison is that there is practically no overlap between what the two groups like. Essentially, there are two possible explanations for this: either one group has no taste and likes junk, or different but reasonable standards are being applied by the two. I believe that the latter is the case. In particular, I believe there is an element present in the science fiction preferred by the fans, which the critics either do not recognize or do not value. This element is _world_building_. By this I mean the invention of a (relatively) complete, believable background for the story. This may mean any or all of an alien world, alien creatures, speculative societies, or created sciences and technologies. The key word here is *invented*; mainstream fiction has backgrounds every bit as complete and believable (indeed more so, on average), but they are not invented. Thus they do not require the creative effort that good science fiction requires. I believe the critics, as a class, are unaware of this dimension to science fiction. They thus tend to judge science fiction backgrounds by the standards appropriate for non-science fiction; their verisimilitude and lack of intrusion on the story. But these criteria precisely exclude the more inventive works of science fiction! An alien background can hardly be true-to-life (at least life-as-we-know-it), and by the same token, a fair amount of the author's effort must go into conveying that background. (Of course, good science fiction authors are good at conveying that background with minimal intrusion, but it will still stick out more than in the mainstream.) Now, is this an accurate description of what sf fans value? Or do they, as has been alleged, prefer rehashings of the same old tired themes, and infinite sequels? I submit that, based on the Hugo awards, they do indeed prefer inventive world-building. I can think of only one recent Hugo winner which is in any way a sequel (and whatever you may think of that one, _Foundations_Edge_, it is clearly a special case (remember, no names, please)). As to the quality of the world-building in them, that must be left for each individual to judge; but I think a critical reading will bear out my point. A final point -- there is an important distinction between a series and a set of sequels, both of which are proliferating in sf today. A sequel is written after the fact, to take advantage of a good thing, and is rarely much good. A series is a planned single work in multiple volumns, and should properly be judged as a whole. There is one good reason for writing series in sf, which is that a single volumn is often inadequate to convey a well built world, particularly when the author is attempting to produce superior characters and plot as well as a superior world. (These efforts are rarely all successful, but ...) I am Frank Adams, at Multi-mate International in Hartford. I'm quite new to the net, and don't really know what the address is here (I'll figure it out soon).