A Process of Translation

[coalescent]

Kelly Link's Magic For Beginners is reviewed in the New York Times by Michael Knight (yes, really). He seems a bit confused:

Take ''Some Zombie Contingency Plans.'' It's about a recently released convict who drives around the suburbs looking for parties to crash because he's lonely. There are zombies here, but are they real? The premise is fresh and the characters (the con, the girl whose party he crashes, her little brother who sleeps under the bed) are likable and Link puts a metafictional twist on the narrative voice (''This is a story about being lost in the woods,'' she says), but the story doesn't quite come together, and those zombies -- are they supposed to be a metaphor?

Scott Westerfeld explains:

Allow me to explain, Mr. Non-sf-Reading Reviewer Man. Sure, zombies can “be a metaphor.” They can represent the oppressed, as in Land of the Dead, or humanity’s feral nature, as in 28 Days. Or racial politics or fear of contagion or even the consumer unconscious (Night of the Living Dead, Resident Evil, Dawn of the Dead). We could play this game all night.

But really, zombies are not “supposed to be metaphors.” They’re supposed to be friggin’ zombies. They follow the Zombie Rules: they rise from death to eat the flesh of the living, they shuffle in slow pursuit (or should, anyway), and most important, they multiply exponentially. They bring civilization down, taking all but the most resourceful, lucky and well-armed among us, whom they save for last. They make us the hunted; all of us.

That’s the stuff zombies are supposed to do. Yes, they make excellent symbols, and metaphors, and have kick-ass mytho-poetic resonance to boot. But their main job is to follow genre conventions, to play with and expand the Zombie Rules, to make us begin to see the world as a place colored by our own zombie contingency plans.

EDIT: A relevant comment at Making Light:

I got into a rather heated argument a few months back with someone who was insisting that Tooth and Claw was good because "it isn't really about dragons." I said that it was too really about dragons, and that it would have been a much worse novel if it had not been really about dragons. "But I mean, really about dragons," said the other person. And I said yes, really about dragons. It didn't matter how many kinds of typographical emphasis she attempted to vocalize: Tooth and Claw is about dragons.

It also does other things, but if every little thing in it was a metaphor for man's inhumanity to radishes or some damn thing, it would suck.

Comments

[greengolux.livejournal.com]

It's a shame that Link's fiction didn't get talked about more on the 'Waiting For The Fantastic' panel because I think her stories are perfect examples of what John Clute was calling 'equipoise' - they could be anything from outright fantasy to mainstream metaphor and there's absolutely no way to tell. Indeed, the joy is in the fact that they are all these things at the same time.

So I'd say that Michael Knight does get it, in a way. And in a way, Scott Westerfield doesn't. Yes, zombies in 'Some Zombie Contingency Plans' are plain old literal zombies. But that's not the only thing they are. They are metaphors too. Not as well as being literal zombies, but in direct contradiction to that reading. The literal and metaphorical readings are incompatible and both present at the same time. Fucking wonderful.

So yeah, I'd say that Knight's confusion constitutes getting it, in some sense. What he hasn't grasped is how to properly appreciate that sense of confusion and uncertainty.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

So yeah, I'd say that Knight's confusion constitutes getting it, in some sense. What he hasn't grasped is how to properly appreciate that sense of confusion and uncertainty.

Yep, that's a more accurate way of putting it. But perhaps not as entertaining. ;-)

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

sense of confusion and uncertainty

Or perhaps the confusion and uncertainty only exists within genre circles. There's a lot to be said for the idea that ambiguous genre tales - those that straddle the mainstream and the generic, and do so by using genre staples in mainstream ways (i.e. as something less or more than literal) - question not mainstream sensibilities, which are quite used to metaphors thankyouverymuch, but genre ones. The genre sensibility is the only one that is used to zombies being Just Zombies, and also the only one that sees the point in that. In this way, Link is exploding genre preconceptions, not mainstream ones.

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

Or perhaps the confusion and uncertainty only exists within genre circles.

That doesn't explain why Michael Knight is confused and uncertain.

Unless one considers literary fiction a genre, of course.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

That doesn't explain why Michael Knight is confused and uncertain.

We have two confusions here, perhaps - one born of unfamiliarity (Knight's), and one of over-familiarity (Westerfeld's). Of the two, Knight's seems to me the most open.

Unless one considers literary fiction a genre, of course.

Literary fiction is certainly a community, just like science fiction. But since I don't think science fiction is a genre, and just use the term for ease of argument, I'm not about to call literary fiction a genre. :)

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

Westerfeld isn't confused. He's quite certain of how to read that story. You may think the reading's wrong, but that's not the same thing as being confused.

I don't think the zombies in "Some Zombie Contingency Plans" *are* a metaphor. Discussing zombies is a way for Soap and his friend to express or relieve some of their general anxiety (which Westerfeld obliquely alludes to), but that doesn't mean the zombies *stand for* anxiety. The zombies in "The Hortlak," those are a metaphor. And also literal.

Literary fiction is certainly a community, just like science fiction. But since I don't think science fiction is a genre, and just use the term for ease of argument, I'm not about to call literary fiction a genre. :)

So long as I can call literary fiction a genre for ease of argument, sure. :)

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

Westerfeld isn't confused. He's quite certain of how to read that story. You may think the reading's wrong, but that's not the same thing as being confused.

... Then Knight isn't confused, either. He's just quite certain that the stories don't make a whole lot of conventional sense. And, as greengolux says below, the 'omgwtf!' response is precisely the one Link wants us to have. Which makes Westerfeld and his much vaunted understanding of genre both unbending and dogmatic, if not confused.

So long as I can call literary fiction a genre for ease of argument, sure. :)

:) I think this is one of those moments when the word 'genre' unwittingly reveals its essentially useless nature.

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

Knight says:

Link puts a metafictional twist on the narrative voice (''This is a story about being lost in the woods,'' she says), but the story doesn't quite come together, and those zombies -- are they supposed to be a metaphor?

The question may be rhetorical, but it's a question, indicating confusion.

What I think Knight is confused about is not how to read Link's stories generally (the review is in general quite good), but in how to read this one in particular. He's attracted by the bright shiny zombie contingency plans--or rather the shambling zombies--and not looking at the obsessive plan-making, the chance encounters, the focus on certainty and uncertainty and misinterpretation and contingency, which is why he thinks this particular story doesn't come together.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Which makes Westerfeld and his much vaunted understanding of genre both unbending and dogmatic, if not confused.

See, now I don't have to post anything inflammatory and filled with rude words to explain my reaction to that blog entry :-)

[snowking.livejournal.com]

Because KITT's not there to tell him what to do. And Dan's a wrong 'un as usual.

[mssrcrankypants.livejournal.com]

To my mind, "literary fiction" and "mainstream fiction" are just as clearly genres/marketing labels as the terms "romance," "science fiction," "fantasy," and "horror." Some solid application of lit/genre theory can easily get you to workable definitions of each, especially with a combination of structuralism and reader-response.

People who write "literary fiction" of the contemporary variety hate the idea of its being a genre, but it really is, with a solid core of common themes, character types, conflicts, etc.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I think the point is that genre readers tend to be pretty comfortable with the ambiguity; by contrast Knight seems to be looking for metaphors, and not really understanding why they're not being used in the way he expects. So if you want to argue that Link is exploding mainstream preconceptions of genre fiction, I'd be tempted to agree with you ...

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

genre readers tend to be pretty comfortable with the ambiguity

With their particular kind of ambiguity, perhaps. Meanwhile, genre writers and readers really should at some point start taking at least a little responsibility for those mainstream preconceptions. For starters, perhaps they could stop gleefully jumping up and down on mainstream reviewers every time said reviewers saw 'their' fiction differently. Just a thought.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

When mainstream reviewers stop saying entertainingly daft things that could be easily remedied by, oh, say reading some books, sure. :p

(If you want equal-opportunity mockery, the start of Clute's review of the same book is equally entertaining, though for different reasons: "Not all books are distributed-network psychopomps (this will not come as a surprise)', he says.)

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

reading some books ...

... that we, the SF crowd at large, think you should read. When you have joined us in the ghetto, we will come out and engage you in constructive discussion!

Would you like me to provide you with a dozen early 19th century novels, to help you in your reading of Austen?

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

*shrug*

You already know I'm planning to read more 19th century literature at some point, just not intensively or regularly, and that when I do, if I review them I won't presume to pretend to have enough knowledge to judge them fully, just as I didn't have enough knowledge to judge Persuasion. So I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove with your comment.

[mattia.livejournal.com]

Dear Baniel, methinks you're reacting in a slightly kneejerk fashion here ;-)

Niall's quoting others, and seems to lend the Second Two a tad too much credence, but from what I've read, I don't think he's saying that the latter two have it All Right and the former All Wrong.

SF readers do get Metaphor, y'know. Most of them. I do. I'm quite certain the rest of the Third Row (ie: I'm too lazy to type up all da names) do. They do also understand the multiple readings angle, if you will. In this sense, Westerfield's reading is the more 'blinkered SF fan' one, and yes, does come across as self-important. However, I don't think you'd need to look far to find his equivalent in lit-fic land.

The brief description Knight provides for the stories in the review (annoyingly spoilerific descriptions, I might add. It's a short, but still) almost undercut his pretty much dead-on accurate description of the writing, the feel, the questions the ficition poses, the contradictions. Knight may not fully be enjoying the book in the way Niall is (or, for that matter, in the way I did), or he may simply be asking the 'questions' as a way to illustrate what you wonder when you first get through the book, or what mainstream readers unfamiliar with this level of 'oddness' might get from it (see his closing parapgraph).

I think it's more about levels of comfort, rather than a deeper lack of understanding; yes, Knight's a-hunting for metaphors, and he does seem rather disqueted, perhaps even disconnected from stories at times (he says as much in his closing paragraph, give or take), but I can't conclude from this that he's reading it 'wrong'. The simple fact he seems to relish the fact that Link undercuts the metaphors he thinks are building more often than not (paragraph 6) tells me he does, in fact, rather 'get it'. Most of the time. Whether or not ZCP 'quite comes together' is, after all, a matter of perspective.

That he is reading it from a more mainstream perspective seems clear. Are SF fans more comfortable accepting the literal weridness of it all in addition to the potential metaphorical baggage? Quite probably. Does that make their reading more correct, or richer? If they read it as straightly as Westerfield seems to have done, well, then that's anything but true. Yes, Westerfield's got a clear 'understanding' of what 'Zombie Contingency Plans' is about. And at the same time misses the point completely, and rails against Knight's review on, I might argue, fairly unfounded grounds. There Be Zombies throughout the book, and it's a review of the entire work What exactly did he expect from a 400 word review on a book in a mainstream paper? Detailed analysis of every story? That one's being used as an example, and while the effectiveness of the description vis. getting the point of it all across is debatable (see above), I can't but conclude that Knight's review is, in fact, a good one, if not a great one. In fairness to Westerfield, though, I'm liable to see his reaction as a knee-jerk rant in and of itself, and not necessarily representative of how he reads things. I like giving people the benefit of the doubt.

I have much the same kind of feeling vis. the Making Light quote as I do the Westerfield one; namely, that while yes, if the whole book was only one big, pompous, metaphorical travel into drivel, and only that, or tried to hard for EVERYTHING TO BE METAPHORICAL, or otherwise meaningful in ways beyond the literal, then it probably wouldn't make a terribly satisfying piece of writing. I've read Donaldson's stuff. I know what I'm talking about. The opposite approach that is portrayed (whether accurately or not. In Westerfield's case, my vote is 'not', in the Making Light snippet, we ain't got the source, soo), let's mislabel it the 'lit' approach, is equally blinkered in stating it's good BECAUSE it's about metaphor, not Real Dragons. Both, in this case, are wrong, but I put it to you that a strictly metaphorical reading, and attribution of quality to a book because of it, smacks of a good deal more pretention than a strictly literal reading. Neither, however, is particularly great, rich, or as rewarding as it could be. Some may be slightly more wrong than others, but which ones depends on your own perspective.

[(Anonymous)]

Dude, I was just baiting Niall. :P

And, FWIW, I agree broadly with pretty much everything you wrote. :) My issue was less with the basic assumption that genre readers are more used to TEH WEIRD, than the genre convention of mocking the mainstream whilst complaining that the mainstream mocks them.

[mattia.livejournal.com]

Don't tease the Niall Demon. It's...tacky.

Re: the mockery, well, it does indeed go both ways, y'know. And honestly, I don't think Niall's guilty of perpetrating the mockery hisself, y'know. Most of the time, at least.

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

In this sense, Westerfield's reading is the more 'blinkered SF fan' one, and yes, does come across as self-important. However, I don't think you'd need to look far to find his equivalent in lit-fic land.

Indeed. Would Niall quote them approvingly though? I think the strong negative response to Westerfeld's piece here can be explained my the fact it is an almost textbook example of the things that piss off non-fan SF readers (more than a few of whom read this blog.) When you use the term mundane you sound like someone using using the term muggle, ie. arrogant, bigotted and ignorant of the world.

In the comments Westerfeld himself explains what motivated him to right his response:

Indeed, I wasn’t being fair at all to Mr. Non-sf-Reading Reviewer Man. I was merely ranting against the torturous transition from the con-space to the real world, which I feverishly imagined to be embodied by one tiny line in the NYTBR. I got no beef with Mr. Knight, and am sure he doesn’t really see the operations of language and storytelling sophomorically.

The diagnosis is clear: fandom poisoning.

[mattia.livejournal.com]

We sure Niall's quoting Westerfield in complete approval of the style? He picked that passage because he found it, and because it makes for a nice, strong contrast. Food for discussion. He also isn't saying that Knight's review is a bad one, or that either position is 'correct'. At least, that's not how I 'read' it; there's actually very little commentary at all by Niall himself here, and he's done, in the original post, little more than throw up a couple of supporting arguments.

Re: the use of the word 'Mundane' for 'Non-Fan', it's not one I'm comfortable with, and I know several other folk who were at WorldCon (I won't go so far as to say the whole 'third row', but still) feel the same way, ie. the way you do. I think we can all agree that Westerfield's got a bad, bad case of Fandom Poisoning, as you've so aptly described it.

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

At least, that's not how I 'read' it; there's actually very little commentary at all by Niall himself here, and he's done, in the original post, little more than throw up a couple of supporting arguments.

You are right that he is very sneaky but the construction of his post - Michael Knight is confused, Scott Westerfeld explains, Niall Harrison is amused - certainly leads me to believe I am not being unfair in my characterisation. There is definitely some framing going on here.

Hee hee, it's good talking about him as if he's not here...

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

They are metaphors too. Not as well as being literal zombies, but in direct contradiction to that reading. The literal and metaphorical readings are incompatible and both present at the same time. Fucking wonderful.

Oh, man. I don't have my mind completely around what this might mean. But I like the way it feels, a lot. Gorgeous. Thank you.

The other thing about the zombies...there aren't any zombies in "Some Zombie Contingency" plans. Not in the shambling brain-eating sense of zombies. There's lots of talk about zombies. There's lots of thinking about zombies. There are people who may be zombies in other senses. But actual rotting undead zombies? Are not in this story anywhere. Even when the zombies are literal here, they're sort of metaphors.

[greengolux.livejournal.com]

Off-screen literal zombies?

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

That, too.