A Meme In The Making

[coalescent]

grahamsleight reported his Readercon schedule, which includes a panel titled: "What Do You Believe About Speculative Fiction That You Can't Prove?"

ninebelow took this question and gave his own answer:

Most science fiction is shit. A common, unthinking response to this is to quote Sturgeon's Law as if it actually means anything. This may come as a surprise but it isn't actually a natural law and saying 90% of everything is crap doesn't tell you anything useful. In fact the quality of most science fiction is substantially below the quality of most mainstream fiction - as most of us in the genre ludicrously persist in calling literary mimetic fiction. Of the science fiction novels published in any given year you would be lucky to find one that stood up against a handful of popular, well received mimetic novels.

what I believe about sf but can't prove is almost the direct opposite:

There are many different measures of 'good writing'. What they all actually mean is 'the use of the best, most appropriate techniques for the story being told.' The best techniques for telling a realist story may not be--in fact, are probably unlikely to be--the same as the best techniques for telling an sf story. Consequently, measured by realist standards many sf novels may look like failures (and measured by sf standards, many realist novels may look like failures).

I say all this without denying that the majority of published sf is, indeed, shit, and without denying that the majority of it could indeed do with the wider frame of reference ninebelow wishes for.

So: anyone else want to offer their own answers?

EDIT: And Graham has suggested almost the same argument already.

Comments

[sparkymark.livejournal.com]

"That for the last five years everyone writing and reading SF has assumed the Singularity is a real phenomenon"

The reason I can't prove it is I can't read fast enough to see for myself, or understand the people who talk about it.

[mattia.livejournal.com]

Does 'mainstream fiction' includes pulp like Grisham, Dan Brown, every thriller writer EVER? SF has its equivalents, and lots of them (although...Fantasy has EVEN MORE crap), but I wouldn't say that, as a Genre, it's publishing a lot more crap than anything else.

Mostly, I agree with your view; there is no gold-standard for 'great writing', and different styles suit different stories, so any judgement of quality should be made within the framework of the books in question.

[grahamsleight.livejournal.com]

Well, if everyone's stuck for something to say on the panel (unlikely, one suspects) we'll just do a staged reading of the ninebelow thread.

Staged readings...

[bibliofile.livejournal.com]

I don't know if The Daily Show (with Jon Stewart) is ever available on UK TV, but it has frequent moments of brilliance. One periodic segment is called, "Great moments in punditry (as read by children)." It takes fragments of TV punditry (e.g., talking-heads shows on MSNBC and FoxNews) and reproduces them as a live reading, with kids in each part.

I just thought you should know. What you do with this knowledge remains, of course, your business.

[bibliofile.livejournal.com]

I agree with what you say, and that certainly was an interesting (and, thankfully, coherent) thread. Yes, writing needs to be examined for what it is trying to achieve. (Whether it's to one's taste is a separate matter.) Context matters (but that's a different panel, surely.)

I would further state that Sturgeon's Law applies to all fiction, not just SF. I think that SF's minority and penchants may make it an easier target than mimetic works, but the sad fact remains that there is a lot of crap out there. If someone thinks that mimetic stuff has a lower percentage of crap than any genre, I'd suggest that that person simply needs to get out more.

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

I would further state that Sturgeon's Law applies to all fiction, not just SF.

My point is rather that it applies to neither. It is just something Sturgeon pulled out of his arse, that has been adopted as dogma and actually acts as a barrier to saying useful things about quality.

I think that SF's minority and penchants may make it an easier target than mimetic works, but the sad fact remains that there is a lot of crap out there. If someone thinks that mimetic stuff has a lower percentage of crap than any genre, I'd suggest that that person simply needs to get out more.

To where? A bookshop? I don't think so. There is lots of shit out there, in every field, but my post is less about the prevailence of shit than the paucity of excellence. Walking into a bookshop I could yank any number of excellent books of the shelves of the Alphabet section. It would be a lot harder - disportionately so - to do the same in the SF section.

[bibliofile.livejournal.com]

My point is rather that it applies to neither. It is just something Sturgeon pulled out of his arse, that has been adopted as dogma and actually acts as a barrier to saying useful things about quality.

Well, it is a generalization, and that's one of the hazards of using generalizations.

There is lots of shit out there, in every field, but my post is less about the prevailence of shit than the paucity of excellence.

Oh, no arguments from me there.

Also, please note that I was responding to coalescent's post. While I read both yours and grahamsleight's posts, I was more remembering the various folks who I've observed dismissing SF as being of lower quality than [insert category here]. I also agree with your criticism of the "self-ghettoising" of many SF writers. I try to avoid them and their writing, as my doctor has advised me that too much eye-rolling can cause hair to grow on my palms, or something equally dire.

Walking into a bookshop I could yank any number of excellent books of the shelves of the Alphabet section. It would be a lot harder - disportionately so - to do the same in the SF section.

When I disagree with you, I'm thinking of all the books published in a given time span, whether I acquire them from brick-and-mortar shops, online shops, dealers at conventions, or my regional public-library system. I've been reading a lot of good, current, genre fiction lately, thanks to pointers from various sources. As I'd gotten away from SF in recent years, this was a pleasant surprise. Going off of SF, however, has meant that I've discovered firsthand that, alas, it's not a sure strategy to finding more (proportionally) quality fiction to read.

If we're to run with this literally, starting in a bookshop always puts SF at a disadvantage. Genre selections vary wildly depending on location and (in some cases) corporate ordering restraints--as well as the individual tastes of the shop's buyer. Add in the problems of maintaining a comprehensive inventory and, for publishers, sustaining mid- and backlists (especially here in the land of the Thor Power Tools case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Power_Tools_Decision)), of course you'll find a higher percentage of quality in the mainstream than any genre.

Rereading your original post also reminds me that you're talking specifically about SF, not fantasy or any blends thereof. To try to sidestep that other eternal conversation (trying to define the boundaries of SF), you should probably know that I'm thinking of multiple flavors of speculative fiction, not just "pure" SF. But can we please not even go there? At least, not until I've had a chance to stock up on a lot more hooch.

[(Anonymous)]

Damn fine thread that, damn fine. Lots of rage, but also lots of reason, i liked that.

I am kind of amazed we're still having this argument, though, given that what's going on is so bloody obvious. Here it is in bullet form:

• Most science fiction is crap.


• Like it or not, 90% of everything is crap.


• That doesn't make it okay. Crap is still crap.


• 90% of non-science-fiction fiction is also crap.


• Even if you exclude other traditional genres, leaving only what we will, through gritted teeth, call 'mainstream' fiction, 90% of it is crap. Bear in mind that this includes Dan Brown, Alexander McCall Smith and Jeffrey Archer.


• What we might call literary fiction is, perhaps, less than 90% crap. This is because literary fiction consists of things which the literary cabal^W elite think are not crap. If you ignored the overt classification, you'd find that high literature contains books from many genres - Umberto Eco writes crime (mostly historical crime), Jane Austen wrote romance, and Salman Rushdie writes SF.


• Part of the problem is the attitude of fandom (which is perhaps a result of the ghettoisation of SF), which embraces the crap and the good stuff on largely equal terms.


• This "the use of the best, most appropriate techniques for the story being told" stuff is relativist bunk. There are many ways to judge quality, but they're all valid for all genres - it's fair to judge SF for its characters, just as it's fair to judge mainstream for its ideas.

Okay?

-- tom