Science-fiction isn't just spaceships

[trixtah]

I've become irked in the last few weeks about a number of statements I've seen about SF as a genre for pimply-faced nerds who only care about space-ships, aliens and muzzle velocities. While a lot of SF is about precisely that, it's not the kind I read. It might be a surprise to some, but quite a bit of SF consists of character-driven stories which examine everything from economics, ecology and politics through to interpersonal relationships of all kinds (of course, the latter two are the same, jut macro and micro). Of course, the background and plotting relates to spaceships, strange worlds and aliens... and sometimes big guns too (although if I enjoy a novel that features that kind of thing, it's despite the weapons). Genre fiction can tend to be more prosaic in its prose compared to the more literary varieties of writing, but when you find an Ursula Le Guin writing beautiful SF, you realise that the one doesn't necessarily preclude the other.

Elizabeth Lowell wrote an essay on Popular Fiction: Why We Read It, Why We Write It, which went around a few months back.Yes, I like escapism (and most other fiction isn't?). Yes, I like a fairly-definitely delineated plot. I really don't want to spend time when I'm trying to relax sitting there wondering what the hell is going on (if anything is) - it irritates me. And what isn't so explicitly laid out in that essay is the fact that I like the internal character development to be subordinate to the plot. Just like real life. If I am totally stuck in my own head in RL, then there is something wrong with me. For me, a healthy state of being is for life to be continuing, and for me to be dealing with it, and my own self-awareness is something that comes and goes. I find a lot of so-called literary fiction to be claustrophobic, if not outright narcissistic.

Just to show what I mean about internal awareness being part of a plot, I'm going to post a longish excerpt from Komarr, by Lois McMaster Bujold. The background is another world, where everyone lives in domes. There are space "wormholes", where spaceships can "jump" to remote solar systems. There are a bunch of conspirators, whose aim is to collapse one of these wormholes, and so isolate their world from the militaristic overlords who conquered their world a generation back. The lead character is the son of the man who conquered the world. He meets the wife of one of the colonial administrators, who (the administrator) turns out to be in the pay of the conspirators. Things happen, lots of them. But read the following excerpt and see if you still think SF is only ever just about the spaceships. And while realising that this describes the background to an event that has a major influence in moving the plot forward. I like the aspect of internal character development driving external results...just like in RL. By contrast, I also like the fact that most genre fiction has a positive ending... because you get enough crap to wade through in reality. If making internal changes leads to positive external results, I'm all for it as a theme. Anyways, read on:

Ekaterin studied Tien as they undressed for bed. The frowning tension in his face and body made her think she had better offer sex very soon. Strain in him frightened her, as always. It was past time to defuse him. The longer she waited, the harder it would be to approach him, and the tenser he would become, ending in some angry explosion of muffled, cutting words.

Sex, she imagined wistfully, should be romantic, abandoned, self-forgetful. Not the most tightly self-disciplined action in her world. Tien demanded response of her and worked hard to obtain it ... . The inward erotic fantasies required to absorb her self-consciousness had become stronger and uglier over time; was that a mere unavoidable side-effect of learning more about the ugliness of human possibility, or a permanent corruption of the spirit?

I hate this.

... She knew when the shift had occurred in her, of course, back about four, five jobs ago now. When Tien had decided, for reasons she still didn't understand, that she was betraying him—with whom, she had never understood either, since the two names he'd finally mentioned as his suspects were patently absurd. She'd no idea such a sexual mistrust had taken over his mind, until she'd caught him following her, watching her, turning up at odd times and bizarre places when he was supposed to be at work—and had that perhaps had something to do with why that particular job had ended so badly? She'd finally had the accusation out of him. She'd been horrified, deeply wounded, and subtly frightened. Was it stalking, when it was your own husband? She had not had the courage to ask who to ask. ... Then he had accused her of sleeping with her women friends.

That had broken something in her at last, some will to desire his good opinion. How could you argue sense into someone who believed something not because it was true, but because he was an idiot? ... She began then to believe he was living in a different universe, one with a different sense of physical laws, perhaps, and an alternate history. And very different people from the ones she'd met of the same name. Smarmy dopplegangers, all. ...

Why was he so impossible?

She didn't want the insight, but it came nonetheless. Because he fears losing you. And so in panic blundered about destroying her love, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy? It seemed so. It's not as if you can pretend his fears have no foundation. Love was long gone, in her. She got by on a starvation diet of loyalty, these days. ...

Most of all, she despised in herself that crippling desire for physical affection, regenerating like a weed in her heart no matter how many times she tried to root it out. That neediness, that dependence, that love-of-touch must be broken first. It had betrayed her, worse than all the other things. If she could kill her need for love, then all the other coils which bound her, desire for honor, attachment to duty, above all every form of fear, could be brought into line. Austerely mystical, she supposed. If I can kill all these things in me, I can be free of him.

I'll be a walking dead woman, but I will be free.

Comments

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Yeah, there are a lot of very different flavours of science fiction. A lot of the difference IMHO has to do with whether the science and toys are driving the story or just providing a way to tell it.

For instance, a Clarke story I read recently ("Breaking Strain") starts with a two-man spaceship that's thirty days away from port when an accident leaves it with only forty man-days of air.

If that had been an Asimov story, I'd happily have bet money that it would turn into a thinly-disguised logic puzzle where human cleverness and scientific trivia manage to save both of them. Instead, Clarke used it to write about how two people who don't much like one another interact under the strain of knowing that one of them has to die.

For similar reasons, I'm rather fond of John Wyndham and Robert Sheckley.

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

A lot of the difference IMHO has to do with whether the science and toys are driving the story or just providing a way to tell it.

Too right. I don't mind some of the former, but it has to be very good for me to enjoy it. That's a great comparison with Asimov and Clarke, but even Asimov managed to cough up a romance once (The End of Eternity). One of the things I liked about him as well was that he didn't fetishise the technology too much (*cough*Neal Stephenson*cough*) - I don't mind a bit of puzzle-solving detective work occasionally. Brain candy.

I like John Wyndham too. I've only read a little of Sheckley - I agree he has an interesting take on human nature... it's a little bit cynical for me to take in large doses. :-) Still, I prefer it to farm boys finding large phallic objects pieces of cutlery, which preferably light up, and using them to find their twoo selves and/or save the world.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

even Asimov managed to cough up a romance once

I think most sci-fi authors do romance at least once, if only as wish-fulfilment ;-)

It occurs to me that emphasis on the human element isn't always a plus. It's very easy for it to turn into My Political Philosophy (In Space), or even John Norman... although Norman can at least be read for laughs.

*nods*

[thebluerose.livejournal.com]

Yes I read for many of the same reasons as you do (not surprising seeing as we share LMB as a notable author). I havent read the essay (yet) but I wonder if its a gender related thing?

ie women like something more character based and men more guns and spaceships and things blowing up?

Am randomly generalising at large, but I wonder, say with LMB for example, what the % of readers gender she has for say, the Vorkosiverse books vs Chalion vs Legacy?

Re: *nods*

[pretentiousgit.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes. Gendered writing is here just like it is in fan-fiction and the peculiarities thereof. See Also: Jenkins, H. "Welcome to Bisexuality, Captain Kirk." Textual Poachers. Routledge: July 1992.

It's wildly dated, but still a good essay on the things that make slash writers (and romances generally) tick over nicely.

But I liked that essay an awful lot. Thanks for the link.

Re: *nods*

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

Groovy! Thanks for the reference. If I ever get access to a university library again, I'll check it out.

Speaking of LMB again, that's how she started out - writing fanfic for a wee zine about Kirk and Spock in the 60s. :-)

Re: *nods*

[pretentiousgit.livejournal.com]

You know, I am extremely unsurprised by that. It seems a lot of people, or at least way more than I would have expected, either went or are going that route. My not-so-secret affection for the people who apparently evolved out of Xena fandom (send help, I may be mentally ill) has resulted in my finding a tremendous amount of stuff to read at the local women's bookstore.

I actually haven't read any LMB at all, because I keep forgetting who's on my to-read list whenever I happen past the library, and I grab things like "The Strange Adventures of Rangergirl" instead. Which is fun, but perhaps a bit too pulp for most people's taste.

Re: *nods*

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

You know, it's terrible (and terribly unpatriotic), but I've not read any Xena fanfic. Argh! I have to rectify this terrible lack.

And, hey, we all need to read tripe occasionally. At least it's not Daughters of a Coral Dawn (which I own. And reread. Mea culpa.)

Actually, my one and only claim to fame was meeting Lucy Lawless at at a dyke party in Auckland in the late 80s. :-D

Re: *nods*

[goatsfoot.livejournal.com]

hmm i find i prefer female sci fi and fantasy authors (and in other genres, errr), partly for that reason, character based plots and not so much frickin heavy breathing gratuitous violence, dishonest sexualising, and random suffering.

hmm, trix, i'm really gunna try to hunt some of these authors down. gotta find a library that has them (which i haven't devoured already!). inspired!

and totally yes! about good endings. i like escapist fiction. also, your post made me feel better about the fact that i don't really like literary fiction that much.

Re: *nods*

[pretentiousgit.livejournal.com]

If you haven't already, "Slow River" by Nicola Griffith is on my favorite books list. It's pretty awesome, if just a touch Random University 2A06 - Women Writers In The Twentieth Century for some people.

Re: *nods*

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

I definitely second the recommendation for Slow River. I think you'll really enjoy the psychology of it. Trouble is, I only managed to track it down by ordering it off Amazon. GRAR. Still, I hear the Melb. library system is excellent, so you may well have some luck.

All things being equal, I prefer female authors too. I mean, women can write absolute tripe, but they have to be trying quite hard for it to be offensive (to me) tripe.

Re: *nods*

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

I definitely think there is some of that element to it. Look at all those guys our age who like Heinlein (I expect older women who were adults in the 60s to possibly enjoy his non-juvenile work, but not our contemporaries).

And all those guys who like H*n*r H*rr*ngt*n!! Jesus. Weapon porn and spaceship porn. Bleah. I'm usually the last person to say "That chick is just like a man", but let's just say she's the butchest heterosexual female I've ever come across, fictional or otherwise.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were more women who read the Chalion books, and I wouldn't be surprised if more women again read the Legacy books. I loved the Chalion books, but I'm afraid Lois lost me with Legacy - there wasn't enough of interest to me to make me want to read more of the "married couple setting up house together" thing. I really like the romance element in Lois' work, but I actually think she hit the perfect balance in ACC. And The Spirit Ring, actually.

Re: *nods*

[thebluerose.livejournal.com]

I have read and enjoyed many of Heinleins stuff, specifically the Lazarus Long series, I enjoyed those. I think the first book of his I read was Number of the Beast, and it didnt put me off. Mind you its been a good 10 yrs if not more since I read anything from him.

And yes I have also read and enjoyed the HH books, many times I wished she would *just die* already :) but they are entertaining in their own way.

You should try Kristine Smith and Elizabeth Bear, they both do a great series each about an older woman, battlescarred and with alien tech built in trying to carry on with life, and life catching up with them. Both on LJ.

Do you have Ammonite by Nicola Griffith, I have a copy I bought a few years ago, but I preferred Slow River.

I bounced completely off the Kushiel books, far too wordy and pretentious for moi :) And I struggled quite a lot with Legacy TSK.

You should also try Anne Bishops Black Jewels Trilogy, dark magic, and very sensuous and sexy characters and world, and she has a new duology out which is interesting but a little romancy for me.

Re: *nods*

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

I keep wanting to try Elizabeth Bear, but the Canberra library system is pathetic. I keep hoping that one day some interesting stuff will come in. The Anne Bishop sounds good too.

I do have Ammonite, but I did like Slow River somewhat better myself. I need to be in the mood for Ammonite, since it is slow-paced, and it doesn't quite have a resolved ending. Slow River moves along much better.

Yes, I had to have two goes with the Kushiel books. I found that after about page 150, the first one got a lot less wanky for me, and I found I liked the lead character. I was thinking it was a bit too much like George R. R. Martin initially (and those I bounced off, in a big way).

Re: *nods*

[goatsfoot.livejournal.com]

i haven't read HH books, but i know sometimes male authors are known to write female characters up as themselves but with extra emotional capabilities and vulnerabilities that the authors are too afraid to express in a male form. (plus he gets to narcissistically fantasise about fucking her.)

Re: *nods*

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

*cough*

Well, no need for you to read HH, then. IMO. :-)

[maniac-angel.livejournal.com]

Awesome. I'm a big SF fan. My mum got me into Anne McAffery, Azimov, Right now, for some reason, my mind is drawing a huge blank on all the other authors I love and adore... So bizarre and I can't check up on the names because all the books are at my mums. blah! Who are your fav authors?

I've cut down on reading for the past 5 years, mainly because of uni but lately I'm slowly getting back into it. I realise that escapism into a fantasy world keeps me more sane than anything, and you're definitely right on what you've written.

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

Heh, I'm sure one of the reasons I dropped out of university (other than having no money) way back when was the fact I couldn't read what I wanted.

Hm, my favourite SFF authors are LMB, whom I've just mentioned, Melissa Scott (http://www.pointsman.net/mpage/books.html) (she's queer, and most of her books have that as a theme, especially Shadow Man), Nicola Griffith (http://www.nicolagriffith.com/) (another dyke - she's written a couple of great SF books, and a couple of great suspense books - she's right into delving into psychology and survival), Julian May (although not the last series she wrote, blech), Jacqueline Carey, who wrote the Kushiel (http://www.jacquelinecarey.com/) books, Elizabeth Moon's Paksennarion series, and quite a number of kiddie authors (still) like Diana Wynne Jones, Alan Garner and so on. I still have a few Anne McCaffreys lurking around as well (the Killashandra and Sassinak ones). And other odds and sods I can't bring to mind right now either. :-)

[sraun]

You reminded me of a point I thought of some time ago, and should maybe post on myself at some point.
There was a panel at Minicon some years ago - IIRC, the title was something like "Science Fiction and Fantasy: Instatiating the Metaphor". Someone (maybe one of the panelists?) raised an interesting point - a number of things that are exclusively metaphorical in mainstream fiction can easily be literal truths in SF&F. (For example, my wife described a character as a silk-dressed cobra - the first question asked about the passage was 'is she a snake or a human?')
Since there is that problem, the metaphors, similes, and similar constructs in SF&F are either absent, or much larger or more subtle. From what I can tell, this drives the academic nuts - part of their world-view is that they provide the explanation of what the author was saying by pointing out all these constructs, and explaining what they mean. And in SF&F it's (mostly) just not there! The whole story (or big blocks of it) may have meaning or illumination outside the story proper, but it's not there at the nit-picky detail level that academics love.
As a side note - it's really terrible to put an academic and an author in the same room - the academic finds all this hidden meaning in the author's writing, that the author says he never put there. As near as I can tell, that's why the author's opinion of what he meant to say is not considered valid source material in academia.

[filkferengi]

Great post! [cheers enthusiastically.]

Don't give up on _Sharing Knife_ until you at least read the first two books together; the second one's a counterbalance in a big way.

Have you ever read Tamora Pierce?

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

Yes, I've read both parts of TSK, and I'm afraid I found the second one had even less for me to get into. I actually don't mind stories about people establishing their lives, or culture shock, or even heterosexual romances (obviously!). I dunno why not, but in the end I didn't really care too much about what happened with Dag and Fawn.

And yes, I love Tamora Pierce! And Diane Duane too. :-D