rob@hhb.UUCP (05/04/84)
What is SF?
The answer to that question has eluded many a 'Literature
of Science Fiction' class. You're on shakey ground when you try
to make objective demarkations in the land of Art.
Good fiction of any genre is able to achieve what is known
as the 'suspension of disbelief' - where the author knows the reader
is aware he is reading fabrication, and yet, wishing the reader
to nevertheless be able to identify with character and action, tries
to make the fabrication more real by supplying rationalizations and
plausible explanations for the fictional elements.
Readers of SCIENCE fiction are supposed to be of a more
demanding nature when it comes to the plausibility of fictional
elements in a story. Many of them possess a greater familiarity
with the workings of REAL world 'elements' as diverse as machines,
political systems, economic policies, etc, than the average reader.
SCIENCE fiction is therefore characterized by a stronger attempt on
the author's part to supply background and incidental factual
information to support the conjectures in his story, and to remain
consistent within the logic of the reality he creates.
Poor science fiction, failing to 'involve' the reader,
can evoke as much distaste in its audience as a bad romance or
western or mystery novel can in their audiences. It is a matter
of satisfying the reader - of gently hoodwinking him, like a good
magician, and not being perceived as merely a sharlatan. No one
wishes to be taken for a fool in the area of his interests,
and what he reads reflects his interests.
In general, science fiction stories deal with a reality
which, in at least one major respect, differs from 'our' reality
enough to require some skill on the author's part in finessing the
'lie' past the reader. All other genres have characters, settings,
props, motives, conflicts, and resolutions that while perhaps
improbable in our reality, are at least not impossible.
The fantasy stories, and other stories which explore
things other than just the ramification of gadgets, which have
been included in the genre, now no longer science fiction but
'speculative fiction' for this reason, tend to be self-consistent
and believable as well (at least the good ones), more so than
other works of literature which make no attempt to cater to an
especially critical and educated readership. The good fantasy
is almost poetic, and engages in flights of fancy at least as
dramatic as one at lightspeed to a distant star.
Lest people who read sf feel too buttered-up, however,
let me repeat the views of a Lit-of-SF teacher (and I use the
term loosely) I had once. He felt that all sf stories had
themes which appealed solely to our more child-like desires -
to defeat an (often evil) authority figure (dad, perhaps?),
to romance a beautiful and willing princess, defeating all
opposition (but is this a desire of only children?), to be
recognized by some benevolent power as having hidden talents,
and various others. Looking back on the stories I liked, I
have to admit that many of them conformed to that scheme.
Many, however, did not, and I think that the genre as a whole
has matured considerably. Complaints by the snooty about
lack of characterization and shallow motivations are not as
justifiable as they once were.
But back to my original (although never clearly expressed)
point: I think it is a waste to go drawing borders in the land
of Art. Do we each need justify our own private Dewey Decimal System?
Just walk into a bookstore (or a movie theater, or a playhouse or
concert hall) and pay attention to what you like.
I'll let others be content to while away their daydreams
on a desert isle, or out on the range, or in foggy London. I
enjoy trips to more exotic destinations, in more eccentric
company, on more grand quests. But I also want to know how
I'll get there, and if I can breathe the air. (I can't help it.)
rob
{decvax,inhp4,allegra}!philabs!hhb!roberlsmith@uokvax.UUCP (05/08/84)
#R:hhb:-15100:uokvax:5400057:000:247 uokvax!erlsmith May 8 11:39:00 1984 while watching a recent interview on the arts channel on tv, issac asimov might have given us the answer. "people who read science fiction are usually of an above average intelligence." Q.E.D. -eric l. smith !ctvax!uokvax!erlsmith