Showdown

[coalescent]

So, last night Naomi and I went to Oxford to see Margaret Atwood being interviewed by Peter Kemp (fiction editor for The Sunday Times). All in all, I was pleasantly surprised. She was an entertaining interviewee, much given to wit and digression (one of the questions later, from someone clearly looking for the answer for his A-level coursework, was 'how easy do you find it to write in a broken style?' I didn't fully understand it, either, but based on the interview I'd have to go with 'very easy', because she clearly thinks that way anyway). Of course the matter of speculative fiction vs science fiction ('things we already have' vs 'made up things') came up very early on - unprompted by Kemp, even. But she didn't sound derogatary in the way the interviews I've been quoting made her sound. She clearly evinced a fondness and respect for, say, HG Wells, but at the same time wanted to distance her own work from that tradition. Indeed, she says she makes a point of dipping into pretty much every genre now and then - Western, Crime, Mills & Boon, you name it - just to see what's going on.

Then it came to the questions session, and I asked: "Was Oryx and Crake influenced by any other contemporary speculative fiction authors, and if so, who? And whether it was or it wasn't, in general which other contemporary speculative fiction authors would you recommend?"

The three authors she named were Ursula Le Guin, William Gibson, and John Wyndham. Points lost for not being hugely contemporary (although to be fair, she did admit that herself) - but points gained for recommending John Wyndham. Not just because I also think he's a wonderful writer, but because it basically confirms to me that she is playing the definitions game, which I can't really find it in myself to get that worked up about. You see, as rigorous as Wyndham is, he does include elements that are clearly 'made-up things'; telepathy in The Chrysalids, for instance, not to mention the invasion from the depths of the sea in The Kraken Wakes. So as long as she's not being actively derogatory towards science fiction, I'm happy to let her call her own books what she likes.

Afterwards, there was a signing. I had my copy of Oryx and Crake dedicated 'to the Oxford University Speculative Fiction Group, best wishes, Margaret Atwood', explained that the society has been around for donkey's years and was founded by Brian Aldiss, assured her that no, we don't think Star Trek is any good, and in turn received a recommendation: We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin. I'm sure this will make Mike very happy (it made Naomi quite happy, too, since she'd recommended it to me a while back).

All in all, a fine evening out.

Comments

[snowking.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but is her book any good, Niall? You've never said. :P

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Did too.

[snowking.livejournal.com]

Choose Your Own Response Adventure

1) Oh bum. Go to page 88

2) Anything over a week ago didn't actually happen. Go to page 88

3) I've adopted a Harrison strategy to Livejournal and I'm not actually reading anything. Go to page 88

PAGE 88

You go to hell and you die. Please start again.

[greengolux.livejournal.com]

Zamyatin's We is good. It felt to me like a Russian version of Brave New World. I can lend you a copy if you'd like.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I do have a copy knocking about, so it's just a question of getting around to it. Of course, I haven't read Brave New World, either...

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

We is good. If you've read 1984, there will be much you recognise, the difference being that 1984 depicts a world in transition, hanging between the old and the new, while We is a fully realized future society (a bit like BNW, indeed). But there is much they share, including the central 'love' thing.

Yes, so read that.

[pikelet.livejournal.com]

I feel like you've fallen under the spell of some malevolent power, come to enslave us all.

You don't really love her! It's a spell!

[snowking.livejournal.com]

I heard she eats people

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Like you never have.

Why won't LJ let me edit my post to remove typos?

[snowking.livejournal.com]

Because you're insane.

[truecatachresis.livejournal.com]

LJ is broken; it won't let you Edit Entries without being logged in, but it won't retrieve the entries without you putting your username and password in on the edit page, which it won't let you do if you're already logged in.

What superb thinking. Download the client; that works fine for editing.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Every client I've tried on this Mac has crashed. I'm not sure why. Ah well, I'll just do the editing when I get home.

[snowking.livejournal.com]

Umm, I just edited several entries today, both personal and community.

[truecatachresis.livejournal.com]

Well, that's odd. I was having exactly the same problem as coalescent, and the symptoms for me were exactly as I described. If I tried editing using the web, I was told that no username had been supplied, although I was logged in. If I was not logged in, I couldn't get that far even.

[mattia.livejournal.com]

explained that the society has been around for donkey's years and was founded by Brian Aldiss, assured her that no, we don't think Star Trek is any good,

Oi! DS9 is good Trek. Well, the middle few seasons. The rest is mostly just fun Trek. The rest....meh.

and in turn received a recommendation: We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin.

Inform me of it's goodness level, and I shall ponder acquiring it.

re: Trek

[applez.livejournal.com]

That reminds me, I saw last night's season finale of 'Enterprise' ... whether you lot watch it often or not, I'll just say this much about it:

- They're back on the temporal Cold War, now with new geopolitical players (TM) ... (yawn)

- They try their hand at 'September 11th' fictional rendering ... to add character depth

- It's gone even shallower and crapper, I dunno if I'll bother anymore, simply a problem of no suitable replacements. Futurama is on way too late.

Re: re: Trek

[mattia.livejournal.com]

I watched the first season of Enterprise, was amused enough, never actually moved, rarely if ever even really intruiged, and S2 made me realize I just didn't actually give a damn. Stopped at episode 8 or 9, don't regret it for a moment.

- They're back on the temporal Cold War, now with new geopolitical players (TM) ... (yawn)

Oh dear..

- They try their hand at 'September 11th' fictional rendering ... to add character depth

Erm, right. Oookaay. They flew a pair of spaceships into twin orbiting civilian starfleet stations and tried to destroy Starfleet Command headquarters by doing the same?

- It's gone even shallower and crapper, I dunno if I'll bother anymore, simply a problem of no suitable replacements. Futurama is on way too late.

Tape it. It's better than Enterprise.

Oh, and you could always look out for NBC's new shiny patriotic program in the fall: 'Homeland Security'. I merely wish I was kidding..

OK, maybe it won't be as bad as I fear, but with (rumours of?) Aaron Sorkin leaving TWW, and potential righter-wing showrunners/writers coming on-board, I'm just depressed...

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

DS9 is good Trek

Oh, it really is. But on the whole, Trek isn't good; I can't remember who said it, but I really like the description of DS9 that argues that it's good because it comes the closest to showing what real humans would do if they woke up and found them selves in a Trek-like situation.

And we were in a long signing queue, and there wasn't really time to say 'Trek is rubbish, apart from these few bits'.

Inform me of it's goodness level

What, recommendations from Dan and Geneva aren't good enough for you?