Nicolas Delsaux
2013-09-12 14:33:50 UTC
La questiond e la d=C3=A9finition de ce qu'est (ou pas) la SF est =C3=A9=
pineuse, et =
bien des auteurs s'y sont frott=C3=A9s ... parfois avec malice.
L'article de Lois mc Masters Bujold chez Goodreads (l=C3=A0 =
http://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/4822375-science-fiction-plato=
nic-ideal-or-rorschach-blot?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dauthor_blog_=
post_digest) =
me para=C3=AEt assez "vrai", pardon, juste.
Je le reproduis pour Laurent qui doit toujours avoir des probl=C3=A8mes =
de =
connexion au web ....
Science Fiction: Platonic Ideal or Rorschach Blot?
A poster in a prior thread inquired: "Sorry to bring this up if you're=
=
purposefully ignoring it, but any comment on the Cook BS?"
I am somewhat bemused by how very many people have felt it necessary to =
=
bring this to my attention this week. Go figure.
This refers to a guest post earlier this week at the Amazing Stories =
website, by, apparently, an aging academic much devoted to science ficti=
on =
as he sees it. The original post was, shall we say, rather carelessly =
written and marred by status posturing, which unfortunately obscured wha=
t =
I suspect the man was trying to say, and sent the subsequent net =
conversation reeling off to other concerns. I'll take one pass at gettin=
g =
things back on track in a more interesting direction, after which you ar=
e =
all on your own.
Since I came in as a reader a bit over fifty years ago, the debate over =
=
"What is science fiction?" (or "real" science fiction, or "hard" science=
=
fiction, or "important" science fiction, or pick the valorizing modifier=
=
of your choice) has formed and reformed without, as nearly as I can tell=
, =
getting any forwarder. Each decade seems to have had its own version of =
=
the barbarians at the gates =E2=80=93 the New Wave in the late 60s and e=
arly 70s, =
Cyberpunk in the 80s, the rise of fantasy since Tolkien, and so on. (Som=
e =
reader older than me will have to tell us what the 50s and 40s and 30s =
were kvetching about, but I guarantee there was something.) Boiled down,=
=
it was as if each camp in the arguments believed that there existed some=
=
Platonic Ideal of SF (suspiciously matching the promoter's own tastes), =
=
toward which all works and all authors ought convergently to aspire.
There have always seemed to be mixed up in it issues of generational =
control and perceived status, which naturally heightens emotions. In =
theory there is a difference between arguing about the status of science=
=
fiction, and using science fiction as a platform to jockey for status, =
although in practice, alas, the two slop over into each other pretty =
uncontrollably.
I see the field a bit differently.
The metaphor of emergent properties was not available fifty years ago, a=
s =
chaos and fractal theory had not yet been developed enough to trickle ou=
t =
to the public discourse. What I think is actually happening is that each=
=
writer (and reader and critic) is supplying their own bright thread to a=
=
growing tapestry that we shorthand "the SF field", and when people squin=
t =
at it as a whole, they see some picture emerge. No single thread is the =
=
picture, though it could not exist without all of its threads, any more =
=
than a painting is some measured amount of canvas and pigment and glue; =
if =
you reduced a painting to its elements, the image would disappear. That =
=
image is an emergent property, no less real for not being material. (Som=
e =
people think human consciousness itself is something like this.)
People being what they are, I think it is also probable that everyone =
perceives a different picture from this tapestry (thank you, Dr. =
Rorschach), just the way every person reading the same book constructs a=
=
different reading experience in their head.
Happily, I am not responsible for the entire tapestry (no one person cou=
ld =
be), only my own thread, which I spin as well as I am able. This is, I =
suspect, a much more relaxing view than that held by the urgent =
cat-herders attempting to impose their own visions of SF perfectibility =
on =
the masses.
My view is not, actually, intrinsically opposed to Platonic ideals, =
plural, which should be free to joust it out in the marketplace of ideas=
; =
just to the restrictive notion of A Single Best Platonic Ideal whose =
manifest destiny it is to consume all the others. That tends not to work=
=
out well, as anyone who has observed a pond taken over by duckweed can =
attest. It plays hell with the ecosystem.
(Publishing fads, although they have duckweed-like properties, tend to b=
e =
self-limiting and go away on their own, so I try not to waste energy =
worrying too much about them.)
(I also observe, reading this over, that we are once more in the old =
"prescriptive versus descriptive" territories with these views. Hm.)
I have more on these notions, and how they play with various genres, in =
=
some of the pieces (including my 2008 WorldCon Guest of Honor speech) in=
=
Sidelines: Talks and Essays, my 2013 e-collection available from the usu=
al =
suspects. But I think this is long enough, now.
So. What's your favorite Platonic Ideal of science fiction?
Ta, L.
-- =
Nicolas Delsaux
pineuse, et =
bien des auteurs s'y sont frott=C3=A9s ... parfois avec malice.
L'article de Lois mc Masters Bujold chez Goodreads (l=C3=A0 =
http://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/4822375-science-fiction-plato=
nic-ideal-or-rorschach-blot?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dauthor_blog_=
post_digest) =
me para=C3=AEt assez "vrai", pardon, juste.
Je le reproduis pour Laurent qui doit toujours avoir des probl=C3=A8mes =
de =
connexion au web ....
Science Fiction: Platonic Ideal or Rorschach Blot?
A poster in a prior thread inquired: "Sorry to bring this up if you're=
=
purposefully ignoring it, but any comment on the Cook BS?"
I am somewhat bemused by how very many people have felt it necessary to =
=
bring this to my attention this week. Go figure.
This refers to a guest post earlier this week at the Amazing Stories =
website, by, apparently, an aging academic much devoted to science ficti=
on =
as he sees it. The original post was, shall we say, rather carelessly =
written and marred by status posturing, which unfortunately obscured wha=
t =
I suspect the man was trying to say, and sent the subsequent net =
conversation reeling off to other concerns. I'll take one pass at gettin=
g =
things back on track in a more interesting direction, after which you ar=
e =
all on your own.
Since I came in as a reader a bit over fifty years ago, the debate over =
=
"What is science fiction?" (or "real" science fiction, or "hard" science=
=
fiction, or "important" science fiction, or pick the valorizing modifier=
=
of your choice) has formed and reformed without, as nearly as I can tell=
, =
getting any forwarder. Each decade seems to have had its own version of =
=
the barbarians at the gates =E2=80=93 the New Wave in the late 60s and e=
arly 70s, =
Cyberpunk in the 80s, the rise of fantasy since Tolkien, and so on. (Som=
e =
reader older than me will have to tell us what the 50s and 40s and 30s =
were kvetching about, but I guarantee there was something.) Boiled down,=
=
it was as if each camp in the arguments believed that there existed some=
=
Platonic Ideal of SF (suspiciously matching the promoter's own tastes), =
=
toward which all works and all authors ought convergently to aspire.
There have always seemed to be mixed up in it issues of generational =
control and perceived status, which naturally heightens emotions. In =
theory there is a difference between arguing about the status of science=
=
fiction, and using science fiction as a platform to jockey for status, =
although in practice, alas, the two slop over into each other pretty =
uncontrollably.
I see the field a bit differently.
The metaphor of emergent properties was not available fifty years ago, a=
s =
chaos and fractal theory had not yet been developed enough to trickle ou=
t =
to the public discourse. What I think is actually happening is that each=
=
writer (and reader and critic) is supplying their own bright thread to a=
=
growing tapestry that we shorthand "the SF field", and when people squin=
t =
at it as a whole, they see some picture emerge. No single thread is the =
=
picture, though it could not exist without all of its threads, any more =
=
than a painting is some measured amount of canvas and pigment and glue; =
if =
you reduced a painting to its elements, the image would disappear. That =
=
image is an emergent property, no less real for not being material. (Som=
e =
people think human consciousness itself is something like this.)
People being what they are, I think it is also probable that everyone =
perceives a different picture from this tapestry (thank you, Dr. =
Rorschach), just the way every person reading the same book constructs a=
=
different reading experience in their head.
Happily, I am not responsible for the entire tapestry (no one person cou=
ld =
be), only my own thread, which I spin as well as I am able. This is, I =
suspect, a much more relaxing view than that held by the urgent =
cat-herders attempting to impose their own visions of SF perfectibility =
on =
the masses.
My view is not, actually, intrinsically opposed to Platonic ideals, =
plural, which should be free to joust it out in the marketplace of ideas=
; =
just to the restrictive notion of A Single Best Platonic Ideal whose =
manifest destiny it is to consume all the others. That tends not to work=
=
out well, as anyone who has observed a pond taken over by duckweed can =
attest. It plays hell with the ecosystem.
(Publishing fads, although they have duckweed-like properties, tend to b=
e =
self-limiting and go away on their own, so I try not to waste energy =
worrying too much about them.)
(I also observe, reading this over, that we are once more in the old =
"prescriptive versus descriptive" territories with these views. Hm.)
I have more on these notions, and how they play with various genres, in =
=
some of the pieces (including my 2008 WorldCon Guest of Honor speech) in=
=
Sidelines: Talks and Essays, my 2013 e-collection available from the usu=
al =
suspects. But I think this is long enough, now.
So. What's your favorite Platonic Ideal of science fiction?
Ta, L.
-- =
Nicolas Delsaux