Author Topic: Damon Knight's quotes at the end of EP116: Ej-Es  (Read 24153 times)

Dex

  • Guest
on: August 02, 2007, 07:20:26 PM
I posted this in the EP116: Ej-Es episode comments section first. I thought I would post it here.  I can not be the only person who is curious about it.

I get conflicting ideas from the quotes.  The first one is ambigous (I don't understand it.); while Mike Resnick's comments appear that Damon Knight had some specific ideas about SF.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I was researching the Damon Knight definition used at the end of the story because I want to understand the quote: "Science Fiction is what I point to to when I say it."
I found: "Science fiction is what we point to when we say it"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_science_fiction

I also found a Mike Resnick article that discusses the issue.
http://www.baens-universe.com/articles/Straitjackets
I found this quote interesting:
"The first major critic to come along was Damon Knight. Damon knew that science fiction was the pure quill. It annoyed him when science fiction writers didn’t know the craft of writing, and it annoyed him even more when they got their science wrong.

But what really drove him right up a tree was when they didn’t even try to make the science accurate. "
------------------------------------
This was also interesting:
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~talfred/sf-def.htm
"Unfortunately, the clearest (or most aggressive) definitions are often the least definitive, although many sceptics have been attracted to Damon Knight's "Science fiction is what we point to when we say it" or Norman SPINRAD's "Science fiction is anything published as science fiction". Both these "definitions" have a serious point, of course: that, whatever else sf may be, it is certainly a publishing category, and in the real world this is of more pragmatic importance than anything the theorists may have to say about it. On the other hand, the label "sf" on a book is wholly subject to the whims of publishers and editors, and the label has certainly appeared on some very unlikely books. An additional complication arises because some writers fight hard to avoid the label, perhaps feeling that it might deleteriously affect their sales and/or reputations (e.g., Kurt VONNEGUT Jr, John WYNDHAM). Publishers apply similar cautionary measures to potential bestsellers, which are seldom labelled as sf even when that is exactly what they are (although this has been less true in the post-STAR WARS period than in, say, the 1970s), on the grounds that genre sf when so labelled, while normally selling steadily, rarely enters the bestseller class."

Is there anyplace I can find out more information about the Damon Knight quote about SF



ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #1 on: August 02, 2007, 07:56:10 PM
I believe the idea was along the lines of "we know science fiction when we see it."

There are lots of definitions floating around, but none that satisfies everyone.
The question on "What is SF?" has been intelligently discussed to death in the forum. It's like a variation on Godwin's law (as a discussion thread gets longer, the probability that someone mentions Hitler approaches 1), the longer a discussion of an EP story continues in a forum, the more likely someone will say that a story is not really SF.  Maybe we should refer to that as "Eley's Law"  :P

I used to be a big proponent of the "Hard SF" definition,
until six months ago when I started listening to EP,
and talking about what is or is not SF,
and then realizing that the discussion and definitions were pointless.

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Reply #2 on: August 03, 2007, 09:47:08 PM
Quote from: ClintMemo
...and then realizing that the discussion and definitions were pointless.
I disagree that they are pointless, but I will agree that it doesn't matter what they are.  Meaning that as long as I understand what the "presenter" considers sci-fi, I have an idea what to expect.

When I first listened to Escape Pod I was annoyed with the very large range of stories. Mainly because it was one of my podcast companions during my twice weekly long drive btwn Springfield, IL and Indianapolis, IN, so if the story was something I wasn't interested I had that much more time driving in silence. 

I've since stopped those drive, and I've also come to respect the ecletic choices, helping expand my own likes and dislikes.

But I've definitely learned that what Steve Eley thinks of as sci-fi is much larger than my own definition, so when I recommend this site (and I do, often) to people, I set their expectations accordingly.



ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #3 on: August 03, 2007, 09:54:53 PM
Quote from: ClintMemo
...and then realizing that the discussion and definitions were pointless.
I disagree that they are pointless, but I will agree that it doesn't matter what they are. 

So wouldn't that make them pointless?  :P

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


Dex

  • Guest
Reply #4 on: August 04, 2007, 05:41:05 PM
Thanks for the comments.  And I will respect others opinion that the defining SF discussion has run its course. 

However, there is an interesting question as to why people do not want to define SF.

Human beings define many things to facilitate communication, expand understanding and develop. One way we learn is by other discipline's example and precedent. Examples:
1. Dictionaries - we define words for clarity
2. Legal Contracts - define terms for agreement on obligations, consequences of actions
3. Philosophy defines ways of living to improve our existence.

So, in the face of the overwhelming precedents in various disciplines; those who do not want to define SF should be required to provide extraordinary proof that this is a good idea.  The concept of extraordinary proof is borrowed from science.  It is the concept that the more radical the theory the more proof is required to support it.

My theory of why people do not what to define SF is
1. Objective standards are difficult,  they have to be identified, disseminated administered and held to. It may be more difficult to find stories. - Subjective relativism is easy http://www.rit.edu/~692awww/resources/manuals/dgae1p4.html
See how Mike Resnick uses the "straw man" technique to argue against an objective standard.
2. It is difficult for authors - they would need to understand a scientific discipline (s), stay current with it; include it in a story and communicate it in an interesting and entertaining way to the reader. 

I'm sure you get the idea.

Finally, I can not avoid the irony in the quote "Science Fiction is what I point to to when I say it."  First, because the original quote appears to be: "Science Fiction is what we point to to when we say it."  The "we" is important because it implies that a group of people got together and agreed upon what is SF, so that they can point to it.  And, second the Orwellian implications of using the word "I".  "I" can point to what "I" want and call it SF - it could be one thing today and another thing tomorrow just as in the book. 



ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #5 on: August 04, 2007, 06:00:32 PM
You cannot objectively and precisely measure something that is subjective. 

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Reply #6 on: August 04, 2007, 11:17:29 PM
Quote from: ClintMemo
...and then realizing that the discussion and definitions were pointless.
I disagree that they are pointless, but I will agree that it doesn't matter what they are. 

So wouldn't that make them pointless?  :P

For exactly what I said they are not pointless, smarty pants.  I really like what Dex said "Human beings define many things to facilitate communication, expand understanding and develop."  Which is why I like to know what you (meaning the general population you) consider sci-fi.



Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #7 on: August 05, 2007, 01:53:04 PM
I don't like to define SF or any genre of writing/music/movie/art/etc..  When you define something, you make a box and say, "it needs to fit in here."  That's fine for things like chairs and screws, but it doesn't work for artistic creations. 

Art doesn't have quantitative goals.  "Entertain a reader" cannot be measured the same way the shearing strength of a screw can be.  Art gives us some of the worst shit every created by man, but it also gives us some of the most amazing.  If it had to stay in the box, it would only give us the most boring.



Dex

  • Guest
Reply #8 on: August 05, 2007, 04:12:05 PM
I don't like to define SF or any genre of writing/music/movie/art/etc..  When you define something, you make a box and say, "it needs to fit in here."  That's fine for things like chairs and screws, but it doesn't work for artistic creations. 

Art doesn't have quantitative goals.  "Entertain a reader" cannot be measured the same way the shearing strength of a screw can be.  Art gives us some of the worst shit every created by man, but it also gives us some of the most amazing.  If it had to stay in the box, it would only give us the most boring.

To each his sufferings: all are men,     
Condemned alike to groan;       
The tender for another's pain,        
The unfeeling for his own.         
Yet ah! why should they know their fate?            
Since sorrow never comes too late,           
And happiness too swiftly flies.   
          
Thought would destroy their paradise.   
               
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
   
'Tis folly to be wise. 
"Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College"   

The in light of what I said in my post the question we are discussing is:
"So, in the face of the overwhelming precedents in various disciplines; those who do not want to define SF should be required to provide extraordinary proof that this is a good idea.  The concept of extraordinary proof is borrowed from science.  It is the concept that the more radical the theory the more proof is required to support it."

I didn't say in my post "When you define something, you make a box and say, "it needs to fit in here.""  That is your assumption and in my opinion an erroneous one that I won't address.

The premise in my post is: "Human beings define many things to facilitate communication, expand understanding and develop." 



slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Reply #9 on: August 05, 2007, 06:26:12 PM
Quote
I didn't say in my post "When you define something, you make a box and say, "it needs to fit in here.""  That is your assumption and in my opinion an erroneous one that I won't address.
But I will, a little.

Defining art does nothing to put it in a box.  It means that people with have a notion of what to expect - not really bad thing in my mind.  People like Picasso or Monet certainly pushed the boundries of what people expected but even their art was "classified".



wakela

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 779
    • Mr. Wake
Reply #10 on: August 07, 2007, 12:46:32 AM
I believe the idea was along the lines of "we know science fiction when we see it."

There are lots of definitions floating around, but none that satisfies everyone.
The question on "What is SF?" has been intelligently discussed to death in the forum. It's like a variation on Godwin's law (as a discussion thread gets longer, the probability that someone mentions Hitler approaches 1), the longer a discussion of an EP story continues in a forum, the more likely someone will say that a story is not really SF.  Maybe we should refer to that as "Eley's Law"  :P

I used to be a big proponent of the "Hard SF" definition,
until six months ago when I started listening to EP,
and talking about what is or is not SF,
and then realizing that the discussion and definitions were pointless.

I'm flabbergasted because this is almost exactly what I thought after listening to the Ej-Es outro,  down referring to this form of Godwin's law as Eley's law.   And I too am a fan of hard SF, and was surprised when I discovered Escape Pod and found out how many SF fans are ambivalent to hard SF.  In one of my first posts I criticized a story because it didn't have any new ideas.  Steve responded saying something like  "So for you a story must have new ideas to be enjoyable?"  I was shocked because I thought that was the whole point of science fiction.  I still think so, but I've learned from the Escape Pod forum that not everyone agrees with me on this. 

I've been struggling with how to define SF in this forum.  I used to be happy saying that a story was not SF if the themes and plot could survive a change in genre.  I still think this is correct, but it tends to stifle meaningful discussion instead of encourage it.  It may be more productive to consider a story's SFness as one of degree rather than as a yes/no value.   All of us can probably agree that "The 43 Antarean Dynasties" and "Ishmael in Love" are less SF than "How Lonesome a Life Without Nerve Gas" and "The Giving Plague" (can't we?).  But it doesn't make sense to say they are not SF at all, because what else are they? 




Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #11 on: August 07, 2007, 01:34:58 AM
The greatest distinction between SF and fantasy is how the author wants their work to be percieved.  For instance: Star Trek is, for the most part, not based on any real science.  There is no real science of warp drive, of teleportation, of time travel, etc.  Almost all of the "sci-fi" elements are, in a practical sense, magic.  Niether the audience nor the writers has any idea how the things depicted in the show might work or if they are really possible.

What makes Star Trek SF is not any pragmatic quality of its stories; it's the fact that Star Trek is intended as an extrapolation of future history.  The writers and audience accept the idea that something very like this could happen in the future.

Contrast this with something like Harry Potter.  The "magic" in Harry Potter and the "science" of Star Trek are pragmatically very similar.  The difference is that Harry is not intended to be percieved as a genuine possibility.  Reader and writer accept that they are reading about an imaginary world that will not and cannot exist.

It would be entirely possible to swap explanations and make up techno-babble that explains Harry's world and say that the Enterprise is magic.  The essential plotlines of each could be maintained.  But the tone, the mood, the feel of each would be different.

The reader and author together decide and agree about the nature of the story.  If they agree that it a story about what could possibly, really happen, given the right circumstances, then it's sci-fi.  If they agree that the story takes place in its own, self-contained reality, then it is fantasy.  All other considererations are almost irrelevant.

For example, Anne McCaffrey wrote about telepathic dragons, but her writing is sci-fi: She specifies that her characters are descended from Earthlings and that the "dragons" are intelligent aliens.  There is nothing about Pern that wouldn't fit nicely into a fantasy story, but she decided that her writing was SF.  It's SF because she decided she wanted it to be, and the audience agrees.

It's a matter of how the author intends for their story to be recieved.  Usually, this intent is evident in the writing, but occassionally it isn't.

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #12 on: August 07, 2007, 10:49:50 AM
Quote
I didn't say in my post "When you define something, you make a box and say, "it needs to fit in here.""  That is your assumption and in my opinion an erroneous one that I won't address.
But I will, a little.

Defining art does nothing to put it in a box.  It means that people with have a notion of what to expect - not really bad thing in my mind.  People like Picasso or Monet certainly pushed the boundries of what people expected but even their art was "classified".

It was classified after the fact.  At the time the established community was screaming, "that's not art!!"  Afterwards people started saying, "Oh, the way this does this is…"  To which Picasso said, "are you buying the wine? yes? Then you can say whatever you want and I'll paint however I want.



Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #13 on: August 07, 2007, 11:01:58 AM
For instance: Star Trek is, for the most part, not based on any real science.  There is no real science of warp drive, of teleportation, of time travel, etc.  Almost all of the "sci-fi" elements are, in a practical sense, magic.
It's got more of a science grounding than you would think.

The Physics of Star Trek by Lawrence M. Krauss (Author), Stephen W. Hawking (Foreword)

From Publishers Weekly
Even those who have never watched an episode of Star Trek will be entertained and enlightened by theoretical physicist Krauss's adventurous investigation of interstellar flight, time travel, teleportation of objects and the possibility of extraterrestrial life. Case Western Reserve professor Krauss maintains that Star Trek's writers were sometimes far ahead of scientists?and famed astrophysicist Stephen Hawking's foreword, endorsing the possibilities of faster-than-light travel and journeying back in time, supports that notion. On the other hand, Krauss also argues that the show is riddled with bloopers and huge improbabilities, as when the Voyager's crew escapes from a black hole's interior. This informal manual for Trekkers offers a porthole on the wonders of the universe as it ponders the potential existence of aliens, "wormholes" that allow astronauts to tunnel through space, other dimensions and myriad baby universes.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2007, 06:55:39 PM by Russell Nash »



Dex

  • Guest
Reply #14 on: August 07, 2007, 03:52:55 PM

Human beings define many things to facilitate communication, expand understanding and develop.

So, in the face of the overwhelming precedents in various disciplines; those who do not want to define SF should be required to provide extraordinary proof that this is a good idea.  The concept of extraordinary proof is borrowed from science.  It is the concept that the more radical the theory the more proof is required to support it.


Some interesting comments but some are trying to define SF. I think my premise above is a valid one and most telling. 


Also, I found the site below helpful in facilitating my discussions. For example, I don't use analogies any more.  Why? Most people understand that an analogy is used to emphasize a specific point.  But some people believe that if they can find an error in an unrelated part of the analogy then they have refuted your argument.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

A couple of points:
Mr. Tweedy:
"The reader and author together decide and agree about the nature of the story."  To get to this agreement the reader would have to read buy the material and read it.  Shouldn't the reader know what they are buying?  Isn't it the publisher and author that makes this decision? In Mike Resnick's article he mentions this and has a telling point about it.

ClintMemo
"And I too am a fan of hard SF, and was surprised when I discovered Escape Pod and found out how many SF fans are ambivalent to hard SF. "  Me too.

ClintMemo
"I've been struggling with how to define SF in this forum.  I used to be happy saying that a story was not SF if the themes and plot could survive a change in genre. #1
I still think this is correct, but it tends to stifle meaningful discussion instead of encourage it.  It may be more productive to consider a story's SFness as one of degree rather than as a yes/no value. #2
All of us can probably agree that "The 43 Antarean Dynasties" and "Ishmael in Love" are less SF than "How Lonesome a Life Without Nerve Gas" and "The Giving Plague" (can't we?).  But it doesn't make sense to say they are not SF at all, because what else are they? " #3

#1 - I tend to agree with you.
#2 - It could also tend to enlighten people to what is good SF, improve story selection and the genre.  Generally, if people buy a particular type of book then publishers and authors produce more books of that type - post only the things you liked about a particular story and you will get more of those stories.
#3 - You could say that they were not good enough stories to fit into other genres so the author added some SF window dressing to fit them into the SF genre.   Which leads back to my question/premise - If you don't define what it is you get stories like them.

I was hoping that the D. Knight quote background would help me understand his thoughts.

I'm questioning if I should post what I think my definition of SF is.



ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #15 on: August 07, 2007, 05:24:32 PM

ClintMemo
"And I too am a fan of hard SF, and was surprised when I discovered Escape Pod and found out how many SF fans are ambivalent to hard SF. "  Me too.
That actually wasn't me, but it jives with what I did say.


ClintMemo
"I've been struggling with how to define SF in this forum.  I used to be happy saying that a story was not SF if the themes and plot could survive a change in genre. #1
I still think this is correct, but it tends to stifle meaningful discussion instead of encourage it.  It may be more productive to consider a story's SFness as one of degree rather than as a yes/no value. #2
All of us can probably agree that "The 43 Antarean Dynasties" and "Ishmael in Love" are less SF than "How Lonesome a Life Without Nerve Gas" and "The Giving Plague" (can't we?).  But it doesn't make sense to say they are not SF at all, because what else are they? " #3
also not me.

no worries.

Quote
#1 - I tend to agree with you.
#2 - It could also tend to enlighten people to what is good SF, improve story selection and the genre.  Generally, if people buy a particular type of book then publishers and authors produce more books of that type - post only the things you liked about a particular story and you will get more of those stories.
#3 - You could say that they were not good enough stories to fit into other genres so the author added some SF window dressing to fit them into the SF genre.   Which leads back to my question/premise - If you don't define what it is you get stories like them.

I was hoping that the D. Knight quote background would help me understand his thoughts.

I'm questioning if I should post what I think my definition of SF is.

Go for it.

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #16 on: August 07, 2007, 06:48:53 PM
How's this:

If the author believes that the things he/she depicts are genuinely possible (given the right circumstances) then the story is SF.  If the author believes that their story could not really happen, then it is fantasy.

The writers of Star Trek think it could happen: The future could really be like this.  SF.  In contrast, J. K. Rowling knows that Harry's world could not really exist.  Fantasy.

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #17 on: August 07, 2007, 08:07:45 PM
That definition won't work for me -- I just can't get behind it.  How does this impact Ray Bradbury's the Martian Chronicles or William Gibson's Neuromancer?  Pretty much any SF I read I don't really think can happen, no matter how realistic it is.  I don't imagine that Frank Herbert believed that it was possible for there to be giant sandworms on another planet anymore than JK Rowling thinks Hogwarts exists in the UK. 

The other problem is that a given author's idea of what's possible is fluid -- it will change.  I doubt Bradbury believes there's a chance the Mars colonization will look anything like it does in his book, though maybe he did when he wrote it. (Then again, he says Fahrenheit 451 isn't about censorship, so who knows?)

Personally, I can't explain how I define SF, especially in relationship to fantasy.  Most of the time I have an idea of which is which, but not always.  It gets even murkier with steampunk and alternate history/realities.


Chodon

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 519
  • Molon Labe
Reply #18 on: August 07, 2007, 08:26:51 PM
I think we're all misinterpreting Steve's comment at the end of Ej-Es.  I think what he was saying (in a nicer way than this) was "I'm sick of people saying 'that is/is not sci-fi.'  It's my podcast, and if it's on here I'm calling it sci-fi."  And I think he's right. 

Overall I've enjoyed listening to his podcast, and I would consider most of the stuff on here sci-fi.  I know what I'm going to get when I listen to Escape Pod.  That's all the definition I need.  I think the SF/non SF debate in the story discussions took away a lot from the stories, and this is a better place for it. 

As far as my definition of sci-fi, if it has lasers, space ships, or science it's sci-fi.  If it has dragons, magic, or wizards it's fantasy.  If it has something from both categories I flip a coin.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.


slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Reply #19 on: August 07, 2007, 08:27:10 PM
.
Quote
I didn't say in my post "When you define something, you make a box and say, "it needs to fit in here.""  That is your assumption and in my opinion an erroneous one that I won't address.
But I will, a little.

Defining art does nothing to put it in a box.  It means that people with have a notion of what to expect - not really bad thing in my mind.  People like Picasso or Monet certainly pushed the boundries of what people expected but even their art was "classified".

It was classified after the fact.  At the time the established community was screaming, "that's not art!!"  Afterwards people started saying, "Oh, the way this does this is…"  To which Picasso said, "are you buying the wine? yes? Then you can say whatever you want and I'll paint however I want.
But you've just proved my point.  Picasso didn't fit the mould and therefore they changed it - the box got bigger - if art was truly restricted then it would have been thrown out and ignored.


Quote from: Russell Nash
It's got more of a science grounding than you would think.
That is now - 30 years later.  When they wrote it, it was pretty much fantasy.  The whole idea behind the transporter was to save TV time around getting on and off planet.


The problem with your definition, Mr. Tweedy, is that it relies too much on the author and doesn't really help in the grey areas.  For example, Barnaby in Exile.

=fixed html=
« Last Edit: August 08, 2007, 01:08:08 PM by slic »



wakela

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 779
    • Mr. Wake
Reply #20 on: August 07, 2007, 11:52:18 PM
Quote from: Dex
You could say that they were not good enough stories to fit into other genres so the author added some SF window dressing to fit them into the SF genre.   Which leads back to my question/premise - If you don't define what it is you get stories like them.
Yeah, but the problem is that people liked those stories (more so "Dynasties" than "Ishmael").  I would have preferred they not been on Escape Pod, but there were others to whom they gave pleasure.  So who am I to say that they are simply not good enough.

I don't know how useful a definition of Sci-fi is.  I'm approaching a point where I would rather agree with Chodon...
Quote
As far as my definition of sci-fi, if it has lasers, space ships, or science it's sci-fi.  If it has dragons, magic, or wizards it's fantasy.  If it has something from both categories I flip a coin.
...than continue trying to persuade people that Star Wars isn't science fiction.  I do know that I have an itch in my mind that is satisfied when I think about some new, interesting idea, and its ramifications for human society.  Reading science fiction stories usually scratches this itch, so that's why I like them.  But a lot of science fiction stories are just tricking me into thinking about real world problems of the present ("Dynasties"), or age-old aspects of the human condition like love ("Impossible Dreams").  I feel ripped off when I hear these stories, because I invested my time with them, and I still itch.   Like ordering a beer and getting a non-alcoholic beer.  They may be great in every other way, but I find them unsatisfying and sometimes they actually piss me off.   In the end I don't actually care if they are science fiction or not, I just know that I don't like them. 

To be honest I find this kind of depressing.  I used to think that expressing novel-ness was the point of science fiction.  But after participating on the EP forum, reading the Nebula nominees and the Hugo nominees, I guess I'm wrong.  Now I don't know what the point is. 



Dex

  • Guest
Reply #21 on: August 08, 2007, 12:50:50 AM

I do know that I have an itch in my mind that is satisfied when I think about some new, interesting idea, and its ramifications for human society.  Reading science fiction stories usually scratches this itch, so that's why I like them.  But a lot of science fiction stories are just tricking me into thinking about real world problems of the present ("Dynasties"), or age-old aspects of the human condition like love ("Impossible Dreams").  I feel ripped off when I hear these stories, because I invested my time with them, and I still itch.   Like ordering a beer and getting a non-alcoholic beer.  They may be great in every other way, but I find them unsatisfying and sometimes they actually piss me off.   In the end I don't actually care if they are science fiction or not, I just know that I don't like them. 

To be honest I find this kind of depressing.  I used to think that expressing novel-ness was the point of science fiction.  But after participating on the EP forum, reading the Nebula nominees and the Hugo nominees, I guess I'm wrong.  Now I don't know what the point is. 


Explore that feeling - I think it will lead you to what is good SF and when you are being ripped off.



wakela

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 779
    • Mr. Wake
Reply #22 on: August 08, 2007, 04:26:00 AM
Quote
Explore that feeling - I think it will lead you to what is good SF and when you are being ripped off.
I'm trying to get away from saying that the stories I like are good and the stories I don't like are bad.  I haven't liked the Mike Resnick stories, but a lot of other listeners do and the science fiction community has given his stories awards.   In addition when you say something is bad, then the people who think it was good get upset and then the forum discussion becomes less interesting.  Forum discussion like those about "Mayfly", "The Giving Plague", and "Ej-es" I think were quite interesting because people were talking about the characters and extrapolating on the ideas of the stories. 

Maybe the best move for the next "Dynasties" type story is to post on the forum that I didn't like it because as a science fiction story it is weak, and then back out of the discussion.   It's set on another planet, so it doesn't make sense to say that it is not science fiction.   Steve and a lot of listeners liked it, so it doesn't make sense to say that it doesn't belong on Escape Pod. 



Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #23 on: August 08, 2007, 08:20:53 AM
.
Quote
I didn't say in my post "When you define something, you make a box and say, "it needs to fit in here.""  That is your assumption and in my opinion an erroneous one that I won't address.
But I will, a little.

Defining art does nothing to put it in a box.  It means that people with have a notion of what to expect - not really bad thing in my mind.  People like Picasso or Monet certainly pushed the boundries of what people expected but even their art was "classified".
It was classified after the fact.  At the time the established community was screaming, "that's not art!!"  Afterwards people started saying, "Oh, the way this does this is…"  To which Picasso said, "are you buying the wine? yes? Then you can say whatever you want and I'll paint however I want.
But you've just proved my point.  Picasso didn't fit the mould and therefore they changed it - the box got bigger - if art was truly restricted then it would have been thrown out and ignored.

But my point was not everybody had Picasso's balls.  There were generations of artists who never experimented, because of the hard definition of art before Picasso.


Looking up the definition of Science Fiction on Dictionary.com I see that the definitions say SF is Fiction that incorporates real or imagined scientific elements.

The thing is no matter what definition you look up, no matter where you look, one word never changes.  And that is "fiction".  These are products of the imagination.  The first goal of fiction is story, then come the other elements.  Without the story you just have a guy saying, "scientists can and should make this."  That's why I listen to science podcasts. 

Your definition of SF is HARD SF.  Not all SF is hard.  I have a friend who thinks BMWs are the only cars, but my Volvo (pre-Ford) does everything I ask of it very well.  I don't care how long my friend rants.  He's not going to convince me that I don't have a very good car.  You're trying to do the same thing with SF.

If someone comes up with a good HARD SF story and submits it to Steve, he'll produce it.  The problem is, as Steve has said many times in the forums and on EP, no one is submitting good Hard SF stories.  Go find a writer who is writing what you want and tell him about EP.  Tell him EP isn't getting good hard stories.  Tell him the fans of the cast buy a shitload of books.  If it's a good story, that would work in audio, you'll hear it.



« Last Edit: August 08, 2007, 09:21:47 AM by Russell Nash »



Simon

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Reply #24 on: August 08, 2007, 10:42:26 AM

...than continue trying to persuade people that Star Wars isn't science fiction.  I do know that I have an itch in my mind that is satisfied when I think about some new, interesting idea, and its ramifications for human society.  Reading science fiction stories usually scratches this itch, so that's why I like them.  But a lot of science fiction stories are just tricking me into thinking about real world problems of the present ("Dynasties"), or age-old aspects of the human condition like love ("Impossible Dreams").  I feel ripped off when I hear these stories, because I invested my time with them, and I still itch.   Like ordering a beer and getting a non-alcoholic beer.  They may be great in every other way, but I find them unsatisfying and sometimes they actually piss me off.   In the end I don't actually care if they are science fiction or not, I just know that I don't like them. 

To be honest I find this kind of depressing.  I used to think that expressing novel-ness was the point of science fiction.  But after participating on the EP forum, reading the Nebula nominees and the Hugo nominees, I guess I'm wrong.  Now I don't know what the point is. 


Can I stand up and say YES, completely?

I think the big problem we're having here is that a lot of people are piping up after a story they find unsatisfying to say "This piece is conceptually weak, and not imaginatively rigorous enough" but the way they are choosing to say that is "This isn't Science Fiction".  Its a fair position to go for, because for roughly the first 30 years of the modern-genre, one of SF's main trappings was that the idea had to be primary.  And further, this idea game role became so pivotal to the genre (which had everything from the political tracts of Le Guin and Rand to the religious space-battles of Zelazny, but all still playing a game of "how do I make this idea consistent") that it was regarded by many as what held it together. 

I get quite angry with "forget genre" people (a group who I seem to encounter in every creative-writing setting, whatever I am trying to write), because a genre is not a straight jacket - its a shared language.  If you take away all your limitations: of style, setting, concept, language... You don't get the pure quill of new invention, you get a blank page with nothing on it.  The great leaps forward in creativity occur when someone shows a new framework to work in, not breaks down restrictive barriers of the old.  A genre is a shared set of tools that allow you to build within it, an accepted relationship between the author and their ideal reader.  Early SF was written with "How do I get this past John Campbell and Horace Gold" in mind for almost every word, so I suppose you could define SF as "The genre of people writing to please Gold and Campbell".  In any venue where you see creativity taking place, you see people using a shared language in order to speak.  Some of the most creative fiction (and I am thinking of House Of Leaves by Mark Danielewski here for horror, or Paul Auster's New York Trilogy for Noire) not only embraces it's genre, but the genre rules become so primary to it that it couldn't possibly be original the way it is, without it.

The problem is that such a large proportion of SF is now written around a different set of rules, this old fashioned fundamental is not only rejected, but irritating to others.  To a vast amount of the readership, SF is a fantastic genre with a futuristic setting and action.  The escapist side to the genre has become the primary trapping, and what a lot of the readership are looking for when they buy an SF book/ watch an SF film/ listen to an SF podcast.  If people didn't care about genre, we wouldn't be investing this amount of emotional effort into having this argument time and time again,  the problem is that Escapism/imaginative whimsy and Concept are two different underlying priorities, and shouldn't really be trying to co-exist in one genre.  I don't think we're going to solve this argument just by saying "SF is whatever I say it is" and wielding a big stick. 

I, personally, am never going to embrace SF stories that revolve primarily around Escapism. Not what I want with my meat and potatoes. That's fair enough, I don't run this podcast, but I think that those of us commenting from this position need to come to an agreement about how we say this "this is insufficiently developed imaginatively to be good imaginative fiction" argument, without being bashed on the head for arguing about genre again. I don't think that is the argument we are trying to have. 

I passionately wish there was a genre of fiction based on Idea development as a vehicle to tell a story, but unfortunately we lost this battle about 30 years ago, due to a man named Lucas...  According to the Damon Knight rule, SF is whatever the SF community as a median thinks it is.  They disagree with us.

"EP is a genre ‘zine. We’re looking for science fiction and fantasy. Please don’t send us anything that doesn’t fit those descriptions. And by the way, we mean SF/F on a level that matters to the plot. Your story about a little boy receiving a balloon before his heart transplant may be touching literature, but it probably isn’t something we’re interested in, even if you edit it so that the balloon’s an alien and the heart came from Satan." - From the EP submissions guideline, because SF is what we all want, if only we could agree on what it is.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2007, 01:30:40 PM by Simon »