That was a good summing up of why I really don't follow science fiction much anymore.

And don't miss languagehat's demonstration of Asimov's weakness as a writer.

Great, great comment. "I read for language, plot, and character." Aw, yeah.

Go grumblebee. Thanks for pointing that out, agropyron.

That all may be true, but Alfred Bester's The Stars My Destination is the correct choice.

The Gene Wolfe critics are all neglecting his less famous work. He's an outstanding writer. I've been recommending Peace to everyone ever sine I read it.

For some reason I can't login to MeFi.

After several books and series that a group of us read aloud, I tried Asimov.

Didn't work for us aloud.

sciurus, I don't think anyone was criticising Wolfe. Two people said they wouldn't recommend him in this instance, and languagehat listed him among the authors he would recommend.

That was definitely a great comment.

I love Wolfe's Shadow and Claw. I agree he is a really good writer, although this particular book is creepily misogynistic. I really disliked The Edible Woman by Margaret Atwood and also American Gods by Neil Gaiman (I could barely finish it, and my sister, who owns several hundred fantasy and science fiction books never finished it), and people seem to be recommending Atwood and that one Gaiman work a lot so... I'm staying away.

I agree with some of the commenters that if the wife would not accept science fiction or fantasy unless it looked and read just like literary fiction, then it may be a lost cause. Although it's silly because if you're really serious about reading, how can an entire genre be worthless?

While it's true that separating out those rare, truly literary science fiction works won't help a lit snob enjoy the "idea books", at least the poster can share some great reading experiences with his wife.

See, that's why Bester's so great; since most sci-fi is heavily indebted to at least one part of The Stars My Destination, you can give someone Bester and know whether they'll buy into 95% of all sci-fi. And it's literary, in parts almost like Gaddis or Joyce.

Giving someone softer, less sci-fi-ey sci-fi is ducking the issue and offering something else instead. For example, just because Dandelion Wine or Something Wicked This Way Comes are both by Ray Bradbury doesn't mean either are sci-fi. Bester separates the wheat from the chaff.

Bester is the Alpha and the Omega of sci-fi. Everyone else is in between.

halonine, Atwood varies *wildly*. Not only in quality and style but also genre; a lot of Atwood is not in any way sci-fi, and she's very respected for straight fiction (probably more so than her sci-fi stuff).

I actually like Edible Woman, but I would call that early-feminist diatribe Atwood. Handmaid's Tale has some of the same ideas, but is written by a much more mature writer. And I haven't read Oryx & Crake but it just came out in the last few years, so I would assume it's more along that line.

I commented, but what I didn't say is that while I love Atwood (agree with Occhiblu that the later stuff is less diatribe-y) I kind of think the poster's wife should read someone who is from the SF ghetto section of the bookstore. Atwood & George Mitchell & even, somehow, the author of Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, among others, are considered "mainstream" writers and aren't in the SF/Fantasy section. There are really good writers like China Mieville & Iain Banks sitting in among the latest Star Trek fan fic compendiums that people who fear SF think is the whole genre, and for those people my guess is it will be more eye opening to good writing from the ghetto, with lurid covers even, & realize that they're actually well written, than to just read something that's already been okayed by the establishment.

I'm finding that thread fascinating; partly because I have borrowed Robert Heinlein, Doris Lessing, and Philip K. Dick books sitting on my to-be-read pile right now and I'm having some motivational problems in starting them.

MGL, I'm sure this is a basic concept, but I'm not really familiar with SF and I was interested in your comment in the thread -- what makes something SF as opposed to fantasy/alternate world?

occhiblu: If there's a rational explanation for everything that happens, it's science fiction. (Whether the explanation is good or not doesn't matter.) If there's a supernatural explanation, it's fantasy. Genres do blend.

I'm not sure I'm following: What are you labelling as supernatural and rational? "Supernatural" would be anything that couldn't currently happen on earth, based on our current understanding of it; "rational" as more science-y, this could possibly happen today through current science - type stuff?

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Middle part.


APologies. I've no patience today.

You know, I don't have a rational, backed up answer for this. My basic feeling is if they write about science, other planets, and rocket/hyperdrive/sentient ships, then it's SF, but if they write about wizards, magic, elves/dwarves/trolls/unicorns, then it's fantasy. And then you have writers like Andre Norton, whose people take rocketships to double mooned planets full of wizards, so yeah, there's tremendous blur and the categories are kind of bogus. But generally I think SF attempts to explain the setting of the novel, whereas fantasy just presents it. Four good & different writers: Dan Simmons, in Hyperion, explains some of the technology & explains where the culture came from (see also, Iain Banks)- it's SF. Jo Walton, in The King's Peace, just presents you with a quasi medieval world that could never have existed on the earth we know (see also, Guy Gavriel Kay) and never explains why or how, it's the setting and that's that - it's fantasy. There are fantasy writers who explain the magic - Charles de Lint springs to mind; and SF writers who never explain the technology - William Gibson, basically - and so it's a very fuzzy boundary if it even is one, but that is where I generally think the split happens.

Science fiction can describe things that aren't possible with our current technology, as long as they're attributed to science. It can even describe things that are currently considered impossible, as long as it's stated/implied/assumed that they're accomplished by some technology unknown to us.

I'd apply the label "supernatural" to any described phenomena that are not scientifically possible, and not attributed to scientific principles unknown to us.

I once read a book where a cyborg explorer landed on a planet where magic apparently functioned. Certain human inhabitants had the ability to fly, read minds, and so on, and were referred to as sorcerers. As the story progresses, the cyborg is able to study and learn the apparently magical abilities, and attributes them to previously unknown scientific principles. (I can't remember what the explanation given was, but I'm sure it was rather vague.) I would call this a science fiction story. Some may disagree.

The Force powers shown in the Star Wars movies might once have been considered supernatural, and therefore a fantasy element. But in The Phantom Menace, it's revealed that the Force is actually a manifestation of the midichlorians, microscopic life forms living in the blood cells of the Jedi. There's even a blood test that shows how strong one's Force powers are. I'd say this removed it from the realm of fantasy.

I thought science fiction is just a fancy name for a 'what if?' story, an exploration of an alternative reality where the rules are a bit different. This is an all-encompassing definition that includes fantasy as a subset.

You know what? I've been thinking about it and I'm moving China Mieville from SF to Fantasy. Someone tell him, will you?

I'm glad people liked my comment. I was really scared of offending people by coming off as snobbish. I would LIKE to say that it's all just a matter of taste and that Asimov is as-good-as Updike, just different. But I can't.

While I don't think it's really possible to rank art, my guess is that most people who eat a steady diet of "serious literature" and classics feel the same way about sci-fi as I do -- not because they're being snobbish, because they're just USED to a more polished sort of prose.

I think becoming a connoisseur of ANYTHING is a trade-off. As I mentioned in the Metafilter thread, I'm a wine moron. I've thought about educating myself, but I sort of like the fact that I can buy a $4 bottle of wine and love it. I KNOW that if I refined my tastes, I'd no longer enjoy cheap wine. On the other hand, I'd experience something richer and I'd grow as a person. A tradeoff.

I really WANT to find good sci-fi. I love it in theory. I just always get disappointed in reality. I think SOME lit people can enjoy sci-fi, because they go into a different sort of mode when they're reading it. They can actually turn off the parts of their brain that respond to good wordsmanship, etc. while they're "slumming it" in genre-land. I WISH I could do that. I can't.

I think it's easier for academics. For many of them, as much as they love Shakespeare or whatever, it always seems a little like work (it IS work for them), so they like relaxing with trash. But for me, the classics are fun. They're what I take with me to the beach and on the plane.

Yet I still long for other worlds.

I don't know if they'll work out for "the wife", but I look forward to checking out some of the books in posted here and at Metafilter. Thanks everyone!

If you want to destroy your braincells with more grumblebee on sci-fi, here's a blog entry:

http://wscmonster.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_wscmonster_archive.html#112109062715280482

grumblebee, that blog post makes me wonder: It seems that good writers who write good, compelling, true characters do so because they are hugely observant of real people, of real psychology, of how real people behave. I wonder if there's just a big gap between trying to masterfully describe someone, on the one hand, getting a divorce, which is something we may have all seen someone go through, and, on the other hand, creating a ship and flying to alien lands, which is *not* something we've all seen someone go through.

I'm not articulating quite what I mean.... something just strikes me in the idea that good writers work not just from their imaginations, but also from observable reality. The farther an SF story takes you from observable reality, the harder the writer's job must become, because he or she has fewer real-world referants for the character development.

So it's not just being a "master of creating the believable alien world," as you point out, but also creating believable interactions for real people (or other creatures) within it. And I think if you're writing good straight fiction you can think, "Would a real person do this? Why or why not? Have I seen people in my own life do similar things? What type of emotion would underlie that act?" and kind of query yourself as you're going about that aspect of character development. It gets harder to do that, though, the farther you get away from describing real-world interactions, and I imagine it gets easier to think, "Well, of COURSE that's what a person would do when faced with X!" because you haven't had real-world experiences that contradict your assumptions.

Histories, on the other hand, are still working within real-world constraints -- and given our relative permissiveness now, it seems that your characters' options would be actually *more* limited in a history than in a contemporary novel. And because you have to stay aware of those constraints, of what "real people might do," you still have something pulling you toward more believable characterizations.

I think there's some truth to what you say, occhiblu, but I also suspect there's a more pedestrian reason. Though histories are rooted in reality, the middle ages (or whenever) isn't natural to anyone now, so a writer must spend tons of time worldbuilding, just like with sci-fi. Yet there are so many better-crafted histories than sci-fis.

I think the pedestrian reason is that sci-fi isn't as respected (in literary circles) as history. Lit people don't read much sci-fi (they read stuff by other writers like them), and they don't write it, because they won't get the respect they normally get (there are exceptions, of course, like Atwood). My guess is that much of this isn't conscious. Writers, just like all of us, tend to find a niche they're comfortable in and stay in it.

Mysteries are MUCH more accepted. Highbrow people read and respect mysteries. So you'll find many many good ones, written by expert writers.

If sci-fi ever gets this sort of resect, I bet we'll see more lit writers flock to it. But it's a catch-22 situation. It won't get the respect until lit people write it, and they won't write it until it gets the respect.

Short version: "The New Yorker" doesn't publish sci-fi.

I just did a thought experiment in which I had several million dollars, and I decided to divide it up and give it to 20 hot, literary writers, under the condition that each produces a sci-fi novel. IF this happened -- if there were 20 of them by people like Proulx and E.L. Doctorow, my guess is this would start a trend.

Trouble is, I bet many of the novels would be bad. Because -- skilled as these writers are -- they aren't world builders (in the sci-fi sense). A good sci-fi novel must be written by someone with literary skills AND the special skills needed by the genre.

So the only way to make it work would be to pair up the lit writers with proven sci-fi writers, writers who might not write great prose, but who know the rules of the genre. So Proulx gets teamed up with A.C. Clarke or someone like that. Proulx writes the novel, Clarke works as her editor -- but he only has say over the world-building logic. And he doesn't get any credit. It's key that it LOOKS like the book is written by Proulx. Otherwise the trend won't start.

Once the trend starts, the next generation of literary writers will get the training they need to write good sci-fi.

Okay, I'll wake up now.

Yeah, and I agree, but I guess what I was trying to say is that I can read non-fiction histories of 14th-century Venice, for example, and learn how people lived, what tools they used, what their city looked like, what clothes they wore. I can learn what political systems were in place, and whether those systems were popular. I can learn about major holidays and trade partners and prejudices and religion and art. There's already that information out there. I don't have to create all the infrastructure, *and* imagine how people reacted to that infrastructure, from scratch.

On preview: That's kind of what I mean, the world-building and the acting-believably-within-that-world are different skill sets.

I agree, and the problem works both ways. Most sci-fi writers don't improve their prose, because they mostly read OTHER sci-fi writers. And they are mostly read by sci-fi fans, who approve of what they are doing. So the status quo never changes.

I just thought of a really fun varient of my idea, which might really work if a major publisher got behind it: pair up major literary figures with major genre writers and have them collaborate (they BOTH get credit). Anne Tyler would team up with Michael Crichton, John Updike with Stephen King, etc. It would be really cool to see what they would produce.

what makes something SF as opposed to fantasy/alternate world?

The most concise answer I can think of to this question is actually the three books I loaned you - you didn't think I picked them at random?

There are, though, very very good writers working quietly within the SF/Fantasy genre. John Crowley, Patricia McKillip, Ursula LeGuin, Jo Walton, Iain Banks, Neal Stephenson, Neil Gaiman, Bruce Sterling, William Gibson, Ray Bradbury, Elizabeth Hand are just a few I can think of offhand who can really write, by which I mean that they are genuinely using the language, developing characters & etc - not just focusing on the plot and the wildness of the invention. So there is good sci fi - and I know, I'm adrift in the wilderness here too; I can and do read pulp if there's nothing else to read (hell, I read cereal boxes and the Asheville paper if there's nothing else to read, I'm easy) but good writing is recognizable, and it does exist in the SF world.

The most concise answer I can think of to this question is actually the three books I loaned you

But how would you classify those?

Who have you read, grumblebee? I don't read a lot of sci-fi, but I really enjoyed Octavia Butler's Kindred and George R. Stewart's Earth Abides, for starters. I really love Harlan Ellison, but I'm guessing you won't find what you want in him, even though I'd consider him a great writer too.

This may be an ignorant assumption, but it also seems a bit that people who are invested in creating new worlds maybe aren't that invested in observing this one. Or, at least, in observing this one closely and lovingly/obsessively enough to write at the same level of an Updike or a Fitzgerald.

I just get a "head in the clouds" feeling from so much of the SF I've read (which, granted, is not much), which is not a bad thing, but which is not really a trait that makes you a good observer or chronicler of human behavior and emotion. It's kinda an inherently escapist genre, for the writer as well as the reader.

The big exceptions I'd see would be dystopia-themed works (do those qualify as SF?), because you're actually taking what's going on now in the real world and projecting it forward, but you're not really fundamentally altering the present emotional reality to do so. Those novels are basically a comment on where we *are*, not on where we might be.

Obviously there are going to be exceptions, writers who can handle all this deftly, just as there are fiction writers who suck (and I just finished The Nanny Diaries, so I know from sucky fiction). But I think there are fundamentals of SF that are going to attract writers who don't really give a shit about observing true human behavior.

Y'all must not've read Bester.

I was surprised how far down the AskMe thread I had to go before Cordwainer Smith came up but perhaps he's not considered SciFi enough.