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

[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.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

it's a question, indicating confusion

Possibly. Or possibly it's his way of indicating the many interpretations offered by the text, and its proud refusal to endorse any of them. I haven't read the story in question, so can't really comment on your suggestion that he's Missing The Point ... though from what you say it sounds reasonable. But the fact that a wilfully weird book confuses people just means it's doing its job, not that those mainstream readers are so stoopid haha.

Mainly, I agree with what veggiesu says: if an SF reviewer had suggested that some of the stories in the collection didn't hang together, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Because the reviewer would have been treated with respect, even if he'd been reviewing for some unimportant blog. Knight is being made fun of and his criticisms dismissed because he's Not In Dialogue With The Genre. And that's just silly.

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

if an SF reviewer had suggested that some of the stories in the collection didn't hang together, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Because the reviewer would have been treated with respect, even if he'd been reviewing for some unimportant blog. Knight is being made fun of and his criticisms dismissed because he's Not In Dialogue With The Genre. And that's just silly.

I think we'd be having the inverse discussion: Why Are Some SF Readers So Resistant to Complex and Subtle Literary Fiction.

[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.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

You were writing just yesterday about how a reviewer can only ever discuss how a particular book effecting them. It is therefore the reader's decision whether or not to take a particular reviewer seriously based on what he or she thinks that reviewer should have read before the book in question. It isn't particularly a reviewer's job to go off and read umpteen other books before actually reviewing the one he's been asked to read (that's an academic's job). Indeed, it could be said that a review without previous knowledge is fresher and more immediate.

There are SF readers who may question your ability to review SF based on your dearth of Golden Age reading. Almost certainly, most SF readers consider me a know-nothing. For my part, if I respect someone I'll listen to their thoughts on a book, regardless of their knowledge of its 'context'. Because, ultimately, Knight could read a billion zombie stories and still not really understand the genre way of looking at them. And you could read lots of Austen's contemporaries and still be unable to get your head around their style (for that reason, I'd recommend you don't bother unless you really want to). It's not what you read. It's how you read it.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

It isn't particularly a reviewer's job to go off and read umpteen other books before actually reviewing the one he's been asked to read (that's an academic's job). Indeed, it could be said that a review without previous knowledge is fresher and more immediate.

Well, we disagree, at least partly. The most important thing is to establish where the reviewer is coming from. If it's a reviewer I trust then yes, I'll read what they have to say whether they say they know the context or whether they say they don't, because a fresh perspective can be interesting. But in general, I don't think that's what we expect from reviews in places like the NYT. We expect the reviewers to know what they're reading, to know what they're saying, and to know how to communicate those things to us.

[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...

[mattia.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, there is that. Tricksy Niall.

and yes, is most amusing. Particularly as chances are he's getting these straight to his inbox...