too harsh?

[adelaidesean]

Thanks to John De Nardo and SF Signal, I'm part of another awesome Mind Meld: "Who are Your Literary Influences in the Ongoing Conversation of Science Fiction?"

Somehow this slipped out: 'anyone who thinks "media" sf and "serious" sf don't deserve places at the same table simply hasn't read widely enough'.

That's bound to offend someone. But am I right?

(The thought was prompted in part by angriest's post over here.)

Comments

[karenmiller.livejournal.com]

Of course you're right. And not just because you made me blush.

Bottom line is, we are living in a different literary world, where literary encompasses as much visual sf as it does written sf. If we want to reach all the potential readers out there we can't afford to turn our noses up at the forms of sf they now take for granted -- especially since for many of them, the visual sf is their primary mode of interaction with the genre. There is such a feast of great sf delivered via film and tv these days -- tv most of all, I think -- that it's suicide to do anything but embrace that method of exploring story. Once upon a time an sf book was the only way to get your fix. That ain't so any more. And we either swim with that tide or drown.

[lonfiction.livejournal.com]

Nope. Spot on.

[seanwilliams.livejournal.com]

Whew. Thanks!

[seanwilliams.livejournal.com]

Nicely put!

One thing I've noticed since my first Star Wars novel came out is that by far the majority of Star Wars readers don't identify with Star Wars fandom. They're just people who read Star Wars books alongside many other different kinds of novels, and not all of those novels are SF, either. They read romance, or historical fiction, or crime, or literary fiction, or whatever. Star Wars is just something they read when they want to read that kind of thing. So to draw lines around a genre and say "None shall pass" is just absurd, since most readers don't regard books that way. I certainly don't.

That's not to say that all books are good. Some are clearly better than others. But to damn a whole category without even giving it a chance is a kind of literary racism that makes my blood boil. It's also self-fulfilling. There are authors out there who want to write in a certain category because they perceive it to be easier, that the usual expectations of fiction are relaxed there, and that just isn't true. Ever. I hate that these embedded prejudices give us a bad name and simultaneously lump us in with losers like that!

[graywave.livejournal.com]

I think it's no coincidence that a short story makes a better film than does a novel. A feature-length film just can't deal with more than one decent idea - like a short story. The medium is inherently limited. So I can't see sci-fi films ever being a replacement (or match for) sci-fi books.

I'm sure a good TV series could tackle something as big as a book, if it was long enough and *very* well done, but they don't tend to be that good. Some original sci-fi TV series (and their linked movie series) have been as good as the best, written space operas (Star Trek, Babylon 5, Firefly) but most have not.

As an introduction to sci-fi for kids, as a low-investment toe-dip for grown-ups, sci-fi on film (and video games) is good. Films like Alien and Terminator, TV series like Dr Who and Blake's 7, inherently good but, for the viewer who wants something more intelligent and sophisticated, there is nowhere else to go - except to books.

[seanwilliams.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I'm firmly of the opinion that Lost is the best SF series in the history of TV because it has had the space to explore its world and ideas in the same way as an SF novel. Truly a first. If only it ends well...

[lonfiction.livejournal.com]

The history of SF snobbery, in brief: (TONGUE IN CHEEK)

1) Old guard SF got no respect from the mainstream literary crowd, who mostly believed POPULAR=TRASH.

2) The New Wave tried to get respect from the mainstream literary crowd, with grudging, modest success. Sometimes, they adopted the mainstream literary world's P=T philosophy. I think it was what they traded away for acceptance, like in some high school drama of the 70s.

3) Major SF movie franchises, D&D, computer gaming and the internet happened. They all conspired as sentient things to reset the equation: it became P=$.

4) Now SF in it's broadest terms thrives in all media forms. The only people looking to cut one leg off the table are those to hidebound or shortsighted to realize that it's the same darn table!

[seanwilliams.livejournal.com]

Nice one. This table metaphor is proving surprisingly flexible. :-)

[karenmiller.livejournal.com]

This is where I bump into my background as a bookseller, and consistently find myself scratching my head when I'm with the 'in crowd' of spec fic folk. There is a significant disconnect between the general reading/book buying public -- the folk writers need to reach in order to establish and/or maintain a career -- and the genre specific people. Writers need to think like readers, not like other writers. Which is why I tend to start frothing at the mouth when I hear writers sneer at other writers who are doing well commercially, people like Rowling and Meyers and Brown and Canavan et al. Those people have found a way to connect emotionally/viscerally with the reading public. You can argue the so-called -- and often arbitrarily assigned -- literary merits of their work till the cows come home, but so what? An ounce of emotional connection is worth more than a self indulgently turned phrase, to your average reader. I think we in the spec fic genre are in danger of being so desperate to impress each other, to win each other's praise, that too often we forget that we're not the people we should be impressing. It's the reading public that bestows the ultimate compliment - and that's one we can bank. What astounds me more than anything is that the same folk who sneer at the eager, appreciative readership of the Rowlings and the Meyers and the Browns and the Canavans et al will in the next breath complain that those same readers won't buy their books. Gee. I wonder why.

You're right. Some books are better than others. But 'better' is an entirely subjective assessment. Instead of wasting energy sneering at writers or sub-genres who succeed despite the self-appointed arbiters of 'good', writers could do themselves a favour by working out why those books do so well. Then find a way to tap into that energy that still allows them to remain true to themselves and the things that matter to them.

[mireille21.livejournal.com]

Yes.
And incidentally, well put!

[seanwilliams.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I'll probably need to gripe about this until the day I die, but at least I won't be alone in my opinion. :-)

[seanwilliams.livejournal.com]

Watching writers sneer at other writers is one of the least attractive things about this game. When there's no right way to be successful (or to write, full-stop) and plenty of room for all of us, it strikes me as particularly ill-considered, and speaks more about the person doing the sneering than the, um, sneeree.

On the whole we're a pretty cheerful bunch, thank goodness, or I couldn't bear to go to cons--not for all the pink drinks in the world.

[punktortoise.livejournal.com]

The distinction sounds pretty artificial and nebulous, in any case. Where does it leave 2001, for example? Or Blade Runner? I suppose it could be said that 'serious' SF is more likely to contain genuinely startling ideas or concepts, but that's not always what anyone feels like reading.

It's maybe more of a distinction outside the US. There are plenty of big-name US science fiction authors who've expressed no shame about writing media tie-ins for the likes of Star Trek and Star Wars. (And I'm told there are even some Australian writers who fit into this category ...) Or maybe it's more something fuelled by the critics than by any writers - I interviewed a couple of big-name British SF authors last year, both of whom said they'd be thrilled to see their books brought to life on the big screen. That's maybe a different side of the same overall question, but you'd have to assume that a comfortableness with the 'book-to-film' concept should be commutative, should work the other way too.

I don't read much 'media' SF myself, but that's more from a desire to not get swamped by a sea of reading material threatening to distort my impressions of the SF films I've seen than from any feeling that the books in question aren't generally good. Readers whose main connection with printed SF is through 'media' books have just as much entitlement to call themselves SF readers as people who'll only touch Gibson or Egan.

I think, ultimately, arguing for a quality distinction between 'media' and 'serious' SF is like arguing over the relative merits of hard SF and space opera. There's good stuff in both.

[lonfiction.livejournal.com]

You make really good, smart points. Consider yourself Insta-friended! :)

[murasaki-1966.livejournal.com]

I knew I was born several centuries too late.

[murasaki-1966.livejournal.com]

You think you're hard done by. People treat poets much worse. Poets are the lepers of literature.

[seanwilliams.livejournal.com]

No way! Poets are cool!

Shame no one will give them any money...

[seanwilliams.livejournal.com]

Good move! Karen is one of the smartest (and nicest) people I know.

[murasaki-1966.livejournal.com]

Yep. Bruce Dawe said it best:

"to be a poet in Australia
isto come home and find
a For sale notice on your lawn"

[stephen-dedman.livejournal.com]

"There is no money in poetry - but there's no poetry in money, either." - Robert Graves

[murasaki-1966.livejournal.com]

Touche. You win.

[ex-paulskem.livejournal.com]

Dead nuts right on.

[seanwilliams.livejournal.com]

Excellent! Shame it has to be said over and over again, though. Maybe one day it'll sink in.

[tikiwanderer.livejournal.com]

There was a time when you only had access to books? No wonder I keep hearing about this supposed divide between litfans and mediafans. I never got that.

[karenmiller.livejournal.com]

Well, there was Lost in Space on tv. But no supporting fandom in the way there is now, with the internet. It's changed the way we interact with text.

[karenmiller.livejournal.com]

Thank you so much! Apologies for not acknowledging this sooner, but the brain she turned to sludge in a post finishing book haze.

[karenmiller.livejournal.com]

Thanks. It's all story, for me, and all this ghettoizing of ourselves drives me bonkers.

[karenmiller.livejournal.com]

So late. Playing catch up.

You are absolutely right. You're practically always right.

[seanwilliams.livejournal.com]

If only that were true, Karen! :-)

[karenmiller.livejournal.com]

But it is! You're a wise and level headed dude.

[seanwilliams.livejournal.com]

Surrounded by wise and level headed people (such as yourself) whose best thoughts I regularly steal. :-)

[lonfiction.livejournal.com]

I understand completely! I'm hoping to be in one of those dazes myself Real Soon Now.

[karenmiller.livejournal.com]

Good luck!

[karenmiller.livejournal.com]

Steal away! *g*