Last month, many science fiction fans and authors were enraged at Ian
McEwan’s dismissal of the genre when he talked about his newest
novel, Machines That Think Like Me, in an interview with The Guardian. As much as it contains the elements
of science fiction, it was said that McEwan does not refer to it as
that. Many people took this as literary elitism on his part. Science
fiction has had a history of belittlement which has given the genre’s
term a negative connotation. In this age of political correctness,
many people do not like using the term and much less its shortened
version, “sci fi”. Because of that, fans and even authors of the
genre are self-conscious of using the word “science fiction” to
refer to their reading preferences or work. I know because I’ve
been there myself. However,
there is nothing bad in the word
“science fiction” except what the literary elite put
in it. But that
doesn’t count since what
they put in it is only based
on their own biases.
 |
| Credit: Pixabay.com |
First of all, I want
to clarify that Ian McEwan did not dismiss his book as science
fiction. He did not straight out say that his work is not science
fiction and did not even use the term to say that it wasn’t. It’s
particularly that fact, that he didn’t use the term “science
fiction”, that I think a lot of fans in the genre got mad at and
took it as an elitist attitude on his part. The Guardian says
that “McEwan . . . has
little time for conventional science fiction” and then quotes him
saying, in relation to Machines,
“There could be an opening of a mental space for novelists to
explore this future, not in terms of travelling at 10 times the speed
of light in anti-gravity boots, but in actually looking at the human
dilemmas of being close up to something that you know to be
artificial but which thinks like you.”
That’s all he said
that comes anywhere close to him dismissing the genre. He didn’t so
much dismiss his book as science fiction as he dismissed the familiar
conventions of the genre. Therefore he particularly dismissed his
novel as being “conventional science fiction” rather than
saying that it wasn’t at all science fiction. What he was more so
implying was that he does not use the familiar tropes of sci fi such
as “travelling at 10 times the speed of light in anti-gravity
boots”. Instead he emphasises
the human reactions to human-like machines, an element of science
fiction. Still, people call this reaction from him “genre snobbery”.
But that’s the way
he describes such stories. He doesn’t have to refer to them as
science fiction in order for them to be such and, besides, he doesn’t
have to call it science fiction if he doesn’t want to. In fact,
it’s his right to deny it as science fiction. He’s the author of
the story, he can label it whatever the hell he wants! George Lucas
never called his Star Wars movies science fiction as much as
they have science fictional elements in them even if mostly on the
pulp level. I disagree with Lucas, but I respect his right to not
refer to it as science fiction. The late Harlan Ellison did not like
being referred to as a science fiction writer in which I agree with
him on that much more than I do with Lucas’s objection to Star
Wars as sci fi. Ellison didn’t like the term being applied to
him as an author because he felt it made him look restricted to
writing only in that genre which he did not limit his writing to. I
never liked being put in a box myself (except maybe at night when I
go to bed) so I can perfectly understand him getting angry when
people applied that word to him.
So, because McEwan
was simply saying what his novel doesn’t contain, conventional
science fiction tropes, rather than saying what it is not, science
fiction, I think he has been misjudged by many lovers of the genre.
To prove this a little more, he actually refers to his novel as “a
total fantasy” as The Guardian quotes him saying. Although I don’t agree with a novel such as his being all fantasy,
still, it’s fantasy of a sort. It’s science fantasy which is what
science fiction had been called at one time. So it doesn’t appear
that he’s entirely dismissing his novel as science fiction or as
genre fiction of any sort.
That said, I do get
very irritated when people really do dismiss science fiction as a
cheap, un-literary form of fiction. And it’s true that much of the
“literary” crowd dismisses it as that. The majority of academia
and the upper class sophisticates
have talked down about the genre to the point where the term has
developed it’s negative connotation. Again, I’ve experienced this
literary prejudice myself, particularly when I was in college.
Submission calls for fiction at Sacramento State University often
discouraged science fiction and other genre fiction such as high
fantasy, horror and romance. Part of this discrimination came from
the belief that genres had not much more use than for bookstores and
big publishing houses to classify their merchandise as a means for
gaining profit. But that isn’t the only reason that they are used
for. People, myself included, have their reading preferences and it
would be hell for many of us to have to open every single book in a
bookstore or for us writers to have to second guess what a publisher
wants if all genres were dismissed.
The term ‘science
fiction’ also got its negative meaning from becoming popular during
the pulp craze of the 1930s through early 50s. Pulp fiction was often
quickly written using story formulas, and so quality of character was
often jeopardised. However, not all pulp fiction was like that but it
became identified as such.
Even if they didn’t
use the best characterization, many of the great science fiction
writers such as Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke, wrote stories that
were far from shallow. These authors were very serious about
conveying future technologies and scientific phenomena realistically
and therefore convincingly. If they didn’t show how individual
characters were effected by the scientific phenomenon then they
showed how a society in the story was effected by it. Then you get
people like Harlan Ellison who showed individual characters’
reactions to scientific phenomena and how it effected their daily
lives and their relationships with others.
But it’s because
of the high quality science fiction by authors such as the ones
mentioned above that we should use the term “science fiction”
with pride. Forget what the literary snots say, science fiction as a
genre is as valid as any other type of fiction. I mean, how can we
say it is cheap, worthless fiction of no importance? It’s because
of science fiction that a man walked on the moon. It’s because of
science fiction that we have smart phones and advanced medical
technology including robotic limbs. Who the hell is anyone to say
that the genre is cheap and worthless?
We as lovers of
science fiction should not be embarrassed to use the term that refers
to the genre. The genre has lead to a lot of achievements in science
and technology. If we back away from using the word “science
fiction”, we give power to the literary elite that put the genre
down and we only enforce its negative connotation in doing so. So the
next time someone asks what you write or read, and if you like the
genre, then say “science fiction” with confidence and pride! The
more of us that do that, the weaker that the bad connotation the
literary elite give it becomes.
Are you proud to say
you are a writer or reader of science fiction or whatever popular
genre (e.g. fantasy, horror, romance, etc.) you read or write in or
do you use a more “acceptable” term?
Until next time . .
.
Comments
Post a Comment