Science Fiction, the internet, and the evils of ‘genre staples’
Everyone loves receiving packages in the post. I especially like the little non-commercial ones- with the textured white or brown recyclyed, reinforced paper exterior and that slightly spongy tightness as you pick it up or receive it from the postman, betraying the fixed masses of bubblewrap just beneath the surface.
Beyond such aesthetic concerns, there is an implicit promise from such packages: no matter the postage stamp, no matter the size: what’s inside was dirt-cheap, probably second-hand, bought not from Amazon but some other, private seller over the internet. And, in my case at least, is almost certainly an out-of-print science fiction novel.
Here is the beauty of internet shopping. People always complain that the likes of Abe Books and Amazon are putting the little sellers out of business. I was present at an extremely irritating lecture given by Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian, on the subject of ‘the challenge of new media’, and he essentially said the same thing, even though he had the dignity to admit that Abe is one of the sweetest things on God’s earth.
The end of the little businessman, the corner bookshop? Nothing could be further from the truth: there is a whole new generation of specialists and second-hand dealers, people who have come up through eBay and actually started small businesses. It’s the hobbyist’s dream, and also just simple, good news for people who are willing to do a tiny bit more legwork. The truth is, none of us are ever likely to pine for a certain book ever again. And this is a good thing, seeing as the vast, vast majority of all books are currently out of print.
The world of publishing is particularly cruel to science fiction authors: even after that monumental moment of actually selling a story, they have to face the fact that their initial run will be small, the book will never get properly marketed, the front cover and editing will be a shambles, and the finished product on the bookstore shelf will be almost unilaterally ignored due to a combination of the above factors and the truth that most readers have an enormous chip on the shoulders about science fiction as a genre. And sci fi books don’t get second chances. You’re either phenomenally popular, relative to more mainstream fiction, or you achieve a very short-term success within the relatively miniscule confines of your genre’s base readership.
And yes, massive amounts of science fiction is very very bad. In America particularly, the genre was essentially hijacked by nonsense-nationalists and ideologues during the 60s and 70s. The whole thing became politically charged and polarised: space-hippies roamed the spacelanes in every chapbook while the other side of the fence saw ridiculously overbearing libertarian dreamworlds, projected into the future or else crushed by the inevitability of the apocalypse. Apocalypse everywhere.
This is the start of a very dangerous thing: the ‘genre staple’. Think on those words. Try saying them aloud. Learn to loathe them. ‘Genre’ is as unnecessary a piece of terminology as any outside the elitist, pretentious realms of literary or media criticism. It confines, renders rules where the creative process ought to run wherever the creator damn well pleases it to. Add a ‘staple’- the repeated theme (connote that it is repeated ad nauseam). What is a staple? Why, it is the stodge at the side of your plate, the complex carbs excised from your atkins diet. It’s tasteless so that you can put other things on top of it. It’s comfort food.
And make no mistake: a ‘genre staple’ is as much invented by an author as by a critic. We can all accept a little of it- there’s a reason a cliche becomes a cliche, after all, and a few people did it first, or did it second or third or fourth in vaguely original ways. The post-apocalypse novel is an essential part of our literary geography now, and rightly so. But when even otherwise great books are marred by endless, meaningless cold-war bleating (see Greg Bear’s Eon) you can see where the science fiction authors shot themselves in the foot. It’s not a genre, it’s a culture, with as much negative as positive. But it’s also utterly dismissed now, and partly because science fiction writers have failed to do themselves any favours.
But in amongst the reams of books that have been published once, or trialled for a second run and then abandoned, or lost to dodgy reprints, or edited into oblivion before being consigned between the covers of a cheap anthology: in amongst all of those now-invisible words, there is the quality stuff that simply deserves to be recognized.
This morning, in a textured white envelope, beneath the bubble-wrap, I received a 1972 edition of the novel Phoenix by Richard Cowper, which was the pseudonym then under use by a certain John Middleton Murry Jr., who had previously published several excellent books under the name of Colin Murry. The man can write, by god, no matter what he decides to call himself:
Like a match struck up to the zenith of the northern sky the rocket flared, dwindled, and was lost behind the thin scrapings of cirrus. Within minutes the silver-white smoke of its trail, nudged to the east by the prevailing breeze, had crooked outwards into a colossal question mark which slowly melted away. Long after all trace of it had disappeared, Bard still leant against the railing of the penthouse balcony, gazing upwards.
Three hundred feet below him the evening exodus was beginning. The express track of the pedaway was already sprinkled with homeward-bound commuters speeding out towards Hendon and Golders Green, while the mono-rail cars from the Baker Street terminal, pinned by lancing shafts of sunlight, wriggled like slim silver-fish as they squirmed their way through the reticulated traceries beyond Regent’s Park…
Now if any of you have even heard this guy’s name before- any of them- then I’ll buy you a pint.
I bet I’ll read this tomorrow and write another thousand words about science fiction and genre-wars…
Must say I’m not an SF fan – but my dad is so I’ve heard of Cowper. Seem to remember he wrote a fair few, at least under that name, and he’s done some shorts collections as well. His dad was an editor if I remember rightly. Think he’s supposed to be pretty good – both father and son.
Like most “genres” science fiction is best at its margins, that ol’ cutting edge. Mainstream SF is the purview of scientist/authors who make sure every bolt and rivet of their stories are certified as one hundred per cent plausible by NASA/JPL. Peter Watts has spoken of this same trait–that scientists make the worst writers. I got into an ugly moment with a SF author at a convention once when I told him that I wished sci fi scribes would spend as much time in the literature stacks as they did poring over their physics texts. Give me Bradbury’s vision of Mars over Bova’s and Robinson’s any day. Check out my blog for further ruminations on writing and all things literary. Google “Beautiful Desolation” or drop by
cliffjburns.wordpress.com. Good piece, I enjoyed it immensely.
-Cliff
Genres and subgenres have a point. They are blunt tools but genres in literature, film, art, music etc help people identify what they enjoy and find new books or bands to explore. Whilst people don’t confine themselves to one genre (fanboys aren’t people) it doesn’t mean that people don’t have preference over genre.
In music for example, I know that you have little time for punk, whereas I could listen to The Ramones from now until eternity. I like other music (today I went from Blind Willie McTell to Melt Banana) but I still prefer punk to other genres in general, even if it is fairly generic. I respect your taste in music, but wouldn’t recommend you Screeching Weasel or The Vindictives even though I love them as I know you dislike the genre.
In literature the boundaries are more blurred but there are still books that I wouldn’t suggest you read as I don’t think they’d be to your taste (mainly ones from the dropouts-living-in-a-house-together-and-collectively-fucking-everything-up school that is so close to my heart).
Now admittedly it isn’t just the genre that means I think you wouldn’t enjoy these bands or books but that because our brains make connections between style and content that overrule genre and even medium when it comes to realising what a person would like but these connections take time. I think I know your tastes fairly well but with someone who you’ve just met and are trying to get to know, genre provides a useful if crude distinction. Our real preferences are so complex that they are hard to express, especially the first time we meet someone. For example this exchange:
Q: What type of films do you like?
A: I like things with passionate cynicism yet with lashings of hope, preferably set in some sort of desert, with a main character who wears hat. I also like poo jokes.
That’s too much information.
Q: What type of films do you like?
A: I like Westerns. And teen comedies.
That enables people to grasp something easier and gives them a background to work off discussing things and suggesting alternative works that the person may enjoy.
“I like protest folk music.”
“Cool. Have you ever listened to Erik Petersen.”
“I like war films.”
“Me too. What about Kelly’s Heroes.”
“I like Martin Amis.”
“Right. Have you tried a full frontal lobotomy you pathetic pseudo-intellectual cunt bastard shit-shovel?”
Most relationships are built-up at first by shared cultural tastes or knowledge. “Sweet. We both like industrial-skanarcho-grind-progcore. Let’s fuck!” or the like. Over time your knowledge builds up to where you can recommend something outside someone’s comfort zone (which is what preferred genres are) but that takes a while. So, yes, genres can be restricting, and genre staples can lead people to stereotype and dismiss worthy pieces of work, but they are needed (and aren’t some sort of iron guideline, you can cross genres, the best works often do). Our brains are microchips, acquiring data and information on the different aspects of art (style, dialogue, characterisation, plt etc in the case of literatute) that ultimately leads to us deciding whether we like something or not but we may have been led to that film or play or video game by the genre that it was in.
Our brains are complex machinery. Genres are blunt tools, like hammers, but you can’t use a microchip to bash in a nail (or defeat a hoard of Korean gangsters a la Oldboy).
Did any of that make any sense at all? It is four in the morning and I have been playing onslaught for god knows how long.
Vicky: the pint is yours!
Cliff: I definitely see what you’re saying about the contrast between the super-hard SF and the stuff that actually reads beautifully. Mind you, some of the best get the balance right- Gene Wolfe wrote some hard SF, and I think he’s arguably one of the best writers ever produced by the genre. Just for the record- I’m more of a KS Robinson man when it comes to Mars!
Joe: My complaint isn’t so much leveled at ‘genre’- which, despite distaste, I recognise is an effective inevitability- as it is at the genre staples and tropes. It’s here that the categorisation starts to become more of a determination, and that really can only be harmful. Our brains, as you say, work as categorisers and hierarchy-constructors, and it’s hard to see how that might be avoidable. But I dream of a world where no-one is surprised when a book ‘crosses a genre’. It’s all socially constructed, a margin of limitation around creative endeavor.
Though I do agree that it helps for that pub talk afterwards.
Umm. I reckon I’m going to steer clear of ‘Onslaught’ from now on. LOL.
About genres. Why not just hoist a bunch of pigeonholes and leave it at that? Paradoxically, the tendency of our species to categorise and impose hierarchies is one of our strengths because it optimises the development of our learning and understanding, but it can also be a huge drawback, preventing clear thought, insight and further learning, because it is the father and mother of such ills as suspicion of the untried/tested, objectification, narrow-mindedness, etc. It certainly stops millions of otherwise perfectly bright individuals from dipping their toes into ‘untested’ literary waters, and thereby ushers in the worst misdemeanour I can think of – to wit, snobbery. You’re right, how nice to read those magical words ‘socially constructed’ from your fingers, Simon. As a species we really are too keen to barricade ourselves within the schemas and discourses arising from our own little categorised universes of understanding and ‘taste’, relying heavily on our social indoctrination to do so. We are discursively positioned by the mere fact of our existence and thinking within a certain time- and culture-frame; and as obilivious of much of this influence, to paraphrase Milgram, as a fish is of the medium in which it swims.
To illustrate what I mean: I didn’t dismiss Mills and Boone crap as crap until I’d tried (God how I tried and suffered) to read one of those bits of trash. I didn’t take anyone else’s word for it that it was trash before deciding for myself that it was trash, in other words. But sadly all too many people (are they just lazy, perchance?) are breathless to jump on whatever particular bandwagon (between as within the various imposed ‘genre’ headings) happens to be de rigueur at any time (just as with all other consumer goods), and condemn as ‘not good art/ literature/ architecture/ thinking/ clothing’ anything that the pundits (who the hell ARE they, anyway?) decide is not good art/ literature/ architecture/ thinking/ clothing’.
There WAS a time when we thought we might break the thrall of ‘authority’ and classification, but it faltered. I fought and lost the so-called ‘hippy’ battle of the late 60s and 70s (which is nowadays profoundly misunderstood and oversimplified) – and I am still maintaining a rearguard action in my own way – to try to get people to think outside the box. Think OUTside the BOX, dudes! Go for it, enjoy and employ your youth and your flexible minds, and explore, explore EXPLORE every avenue, damn you! don’t let others make up your minds for you in such questions as what is good literature, whether sci-fi is literature or not, whether you somehow ‘lose status’ by reading certain things, etc. Christ; most critics write a lousy novel in ANY ‘genre’. They’re fucking up even as they tell you how not to! (*puff puff* Where’s me cuppa and carpet slippers?…)
Main tip: The great thing is to maintain PASSION – and not only for the quickest way to find out who shares your likes/dislikes and whether you can get a lay out of it.
Keep up your commentary, Simon. Yours is the most exciting stuff I’m reading right now, because whatever you’re saying one can’t mistake your passion. Right on.
A good discussion. When does a genre become a ghetto for bad writing? When it lacks an intelligent, informed readership (romance writing, anyone?). When I find a good writer, I like to spread the word, letting people know about him/her. Harlan Ellison was writing about the dumbing down of America back in the late 60′s (see his columns collected in THE GLASS TEAT). Every once in awhile, there’s a backlash against academia or, in some people’s view, pseudo-intellectualism. I also worry about the prevalence of video and computer games, loaded with lovely graphics but sporting only the barest of plots/characterizations. That mentality leads to movies like “300″, (subject of yet another rant on my blog), empty-headed garbage with no depth but damn pretty to look at (not coincidentally based on a comic book, another visually oriented medium sporting, with few exceptions, about a Grade 6 level of writing). It’s not that reading will ever become completely irrelevant, it will just draw an increasingly hardcore group of people who eschew the literal-mindedness of movies and games. People like the ones contributing to this debate. Genre staples should set the bar for the field, not cater or pander to an audience. Gibson’s NEUROMANCER re-invented sci fi in the 80′s, brought it out of the doldrums and it was a damn fine book. The fusion of the near future and hard-boiled writing worked. Sci fi stuff that’s appealed to me of late includes Tony Daniel’s SUPERLUMINAL, Charles Stross’ stuff, Iain Banks and Richard K Morgan (though sometimes he could do with a good editor). Do these guys represent “staples” or just good writing, backed by extraordinary imaginations? Just a few thought. Thanks to all the participants.
Video games are an entirely different thing whatsoever. They aren’t naturally a narrative genre. Pong didn’t have a storyline. The greatest videogames combine fantastic gameplay with a strong plot and writing, just as the best films combine great direction and acting and writing, and the best comic books combine excellent writing and vivid art. Most of any genre or medium is shite, because its far easier to produce mediocrity than excellence. It could be argued that it is more prevalent in videogames or films because of the budgets involved often lead to blander committee-based risk-free demographic-targeting piles of shite but the amount of bad novels that come in for either critical praise or commercial success is massive. To dismiss any medium as generally worse than any other is just bloody stupid. All mediums and genres produce masterpieces, all mediums and genres produce bollocks.
“Joe”:
I don’t think video games ARE a different matter altogether because their mentality is bleeding over into other media. So we’re seeing movies and books (graphic novels anyone?) overflowing with eye-catching visuals but utterly lacking emotional or aesthetic counterpoints. Graphic novels are the wave of the future precisely because they can be read quickly by over-stimulated, attention deficient minds that lack the ability to focus on in-depth narratives and complicated characterizations. And we’ll be seeing more fluff like “300″ and the comic book movie adaptations (“Spiderman VIII”, “Batman Vs. Superman”) for exactly the same reasons. Thanks to video games, people’s thumbs are becoming smarter while their brains rot.
Hmmm. I can’t agree entirely there, Chris. The baby and the bathwater are easily thrown out together. If something is enjoyable to an individual then that surely is as legitimate a reason for him/her to read or play or watch it as any other. I for one enjoyed 300 enormously. I don’t found my Greek mythological knowledge on the movie, of course; I know it for what it is – great fun, occasionally entirely inaccurate, escapist, racy and beautifully choreographed entertainment, and I’d happily see it again, for what it is. The next guy or gal may see it entirely differently. That’s their prerogative.
And I also feel there’s a risk in ‘lumping together’ different media forms and condemning whole tranches out of hand. Think about it: all entertainment has as a common denominator that they are consumed by us; they are here to divert, instruct and distract us. Not all consumers have to share our likes and dislikes (i.e. if YOU love Mills and Boone, enjoy! Who am I to stop or condemn you? Just do me the favour not to give me the story-line of one of the novels, is all). Not all entertainment has to be apocryphal, didactically perfect etc (pace Aquinas); Heck, what a sad world this would be if it were so.
I also must quickly (ever so non-flamingly) challenge you, Chris, about the cognitive effects of media use on kids. Certainly there has to be a mix, the moderation and leavening of materials, but contrary to much popular belief, there is a demonstrated positive relationships between regular computer gaming and cognitive as well as motor skills as well as enhancing of concentration, abstract and tactical thinking, etc. Of course there has to be a balance, as stated: Kids who have a good mix of media interaction and physical activity (and of course diet) generally show the most steady and satisfactory progress. It seems to have the same effect as learning a musical instrument. Not really surprising, in view of the fact that a huge part of our cerebral cortex is taken up with hand-eye co-ordination, and closely married to our mathematical and symbolic thought processing centres.(This topic within developmental psychology is a bit of a speciality of mine).
So there’s always a risk of ‘committing’ sweeping statements when we discuss topics like this. In fact we may well become the beast we decry and turn into a bunch of critics, saying “this is THIS, and can be no other way; I have spoken!”. Etc.
I like your book recommendations, by the way. Here’s a suggestion from me: Have you tried Mary Doria Russell yet? ‘The Sparrow’ and ‘Children of God’ are her first two works, and WHAT works: challenging, thought-provoking, entirely NEW.. occasionally I find her writing a bit ‘chummy’, but that’s just me. See what you think.
Thorn:
I do know my Greek history and “300″ was rubbish factually. Read a wonderful book called “Gates of Fire” by Stephen Pressfield and you might have an entirely different view of the ridiculous aspects of “300″. The story of the Spartans is amazing and stirring enough and did not require comic book treatment. The portrayal of Xerxes as some kind of “Darth Vader” is moronic. I don’t mind if comic book adaptations are shot with one breathless eye on game consoles but when a great historical event is given the cheesy treatment, I do take exception. I talk about this stuff on my blog so I won’t belabor the point. I don’t play video games, never have. I have two sons who play but their time is limited. That lack of physical activity and “couch potato” syndrome is worrisome to me. They’re also dedicated “D & D”ers but that’s okay with me because it requires a lot of writing and character design. They also do a lot of drawing and write stories. I’m a writer (it’s “Cliff”, actually) and the printed word is an article of faith to me. Perhaps why I find this visually appealing and intellectually empty stuff so appalling.
I’ve heard about those cognitive development studies re: video games…and I also know that boys, in particular, are reading less and less and there is a growing overall concern with literacy in our schools and colleges. Is there a connection between the two? I wonder…
-Cliff (cliffjburns.wordpress.com)
300 was style over substance. It was incredibly silly. I still enjoyed it for what it was. Big blokes shouting and stabbing each other. It didn’t pretend to be anything else. 300 didn’t have any educational value, but it wasn’t supposed to, and it probably still inspired some people to find out more about the real Greek history.
The reason 300 was a silly over-the-top film was because 300 was a silly over-the-top graphic novel, not because it was just a graphic novel. Batman Begins was a fantastic film and that was based on a comic. V For Vendetta was a crap film because it dumbed down the intelligence of the comic. Comics like The Watchmen, The Sandman, Transmetropolitan, Astro City, Demo, Y: The Last Man, DMZ, Promethea, Planetary and countless others are intelligent, well-written works. A lot of comics are crap, but most of the crap comics are the ones that fall back on the genre staples that Simon was complaining about in his original post.
As for video games, they probably are a negative influence on film in some ways, but there have been big and stupid films for years, not everything has to be an intellectual journey (though some video games are), some things are just fun. And as for it being a passive medium, I’ve never seen someone running whilst reading a book.
Running while reading a book…hmmm…nope, you got me there. I–wait! What about books on tape/iPod? Ah, Hell, with my coordination I wouldn’t dare try it. Besides, you can’t get a good rhythm going while listening to Grisham. I have read some of the graphic novels you mention, Joe, and I’ll stick by what I said about the writing being subpar, grade VI level. In any case, I think we’re veering off Simon’s original posting so I’ll clam up at this point and let the discussion go back to the matter at hand: those genre staples. Simon, please moderate and pull us debaters back on track. Otherwise we’ll wander all over the place like drunken Irishmen (coming from someone whose ancestors come from those parts). Best to you, everyone.
Well, like the drunken almost-Jew I can sort of speak as- What’s wrong with the wandering all over the place? I’m enjoying it very greatly. If I wasn’t exhausted from over-studying medieval Christianity right now, I’d be making a pertinent and intriguing comment of my own on the topic. But I am, so I’m not.
I cede the floor to others. When you have another posting up, lemme know. I have a new one up on my site, deriding scientists who write sci fi. Sure to piss some people off. Drop by once you’ve finished your studies and add to the discussion. Already have one very lengthy–and very smart–reply that I’m still digesting. Until later…
Durn it. Why does my system freeze just when I’ve typed a response? Anyway, here we go again. Cliff, sorry I called you Chris. But I must say I find your derision of scifi-writing scientists astonishing; I won’t bother listing all the excellent writer-scientists I have read to support my comment, unless you ask me to. Also I’m not really in the mood for a quarrel so I’ll leave it there. I’m just rather concerned at your apparent absolutism. As regards male children, computing and not reading. the correlation is tenuous at best. Research is still ongoing but first findings suggest that this is a phenomenon found only in a small section of western/westernised society and has more related to a ‘counter-intellectual’ movement in certain circles than to computer gaming activities. The good news is that it is definitely not a global phenomenon, and cause-and-effect are definitely not established. (I follow this kind of thing closely, being a psychologist by training and trade). Anyway, nuff said. Good luck with your mediaeval Christians, Simon; may they stay in line for you
Thorn:
Peter Watts dropped me a line after I sent him my “Good Science = Bad Fiction” article and told me I was slow off the line. He’d been saying the same thing for years. You should drop him a line at his rifters.com website and ask for a copy of the presentation he sent me. If anything, he was harder on scientist/scribes than I was. And this coming from a scientist/scribe whose book was just shortlisted for the Hugo. Query: do you read science fiction novels/stories for the good writing or the great ideas? Take a minute and think about it. There is a distinction. I myself can’t think of too many scientist/authors who sentence structure, word choice and syntax, their unique and innovative style blows me away. Would I stack Greg Benford against Colson Whitehead? Nope. Ben Bova vs. Cormac McCarthy (what a mismatch!). David Brin toe-to-toe with Don Delillo? The mind boggles. You may argue it’s apples and oranges but I’m saying as someone who dissects and creates with the printed word on a day to day basis (for the past two + decades) there are objective distinctions that can be drawn between the best SF writers and the best literary scribes. Simon’s original post dealt with “genre staples”–every genre is cursed with them (don’t get me started on the horrors of fantasy, now THAT’S a cess pit). Science fiction is no exception. Once Simon rests his eyes, perhaps he can post a followup and elaborate on his point further. I won’t presume to speak on his behalf…