EP101: The 43 Antarean Dynasties

[mike-resnick]

Historically, writers/publishers tend to go where the money is. Kurt Vonnegut was clearly a science fiction writer, his early stories were in Galaxy and F&SF,  but somewhere along the way he and/or his publisher perceived that he could do much better as a mainstream writer, and so, without changing what he wrote, he embarked on a 50-year campaign of denying he wrote science fiction -- and it worked: the New York Literary Establishment, which should have known better, bought it.

Move the clock ahead to the early 1970s, and Silverberg, Ellison, Koontz and Malzberg all left the field because it was "too restrictive" (well, Koontz was honest; he left because he saw a way to get rich writing associated stuff and took it)...but public perceptions had changed, Dune and Riverworld and Heinlein and Clarke were all on the NY Times bestseller lists, and there is a huge economic difference between writing mainstream and writing blockbusters...and by 1980 everyone but Koontz was back in science fiction again. The thing is, by my (and most readers') definition, they never left; by madSimon's, they were probably never here, Malzberg ever, Ellison and Silverberg by the mid-1960s.


-- Mike Resnick

[slic]

I don't imagine that there are too many people out there that rip off the labels from the canned goods in their cupboard.  Why not? Because they like to know what they are about to consume before they open it.  This is why it's useful to label stuff.  Labelling all the cans "Food" is better than nothing, but can still lead to interesting results.

And this thread also shows why it's useful to know how other people classify things.  If Mr. Resnick offers me some supper warning me that it's a bit spicy, it's good to know what he considers spicy. 

That Mr. Resnick has a much larger acceptance of what he considers sci-fi than madsimonJ is also good to know. The opportunity to debate these views with someone with "insider knowledge" like Michael Resnick is too good to pass up.  Whether we agree or not, it's a perspective I couldn't get anywhere else. 

A key point, for me, is that each person's classification is valid - helps me understand what I might be in for. Majority opinion doesn't mean I'm wrong, just that I might disagree.
 
Escape Pod runs stories that meet Steven Eley's criteria, not mine or madsimonJ's or Mike Resnick's.  And while I like that there is a mix of stories at EscapePod, that won't stop me from telling people what I liked and disliked.

[mike-resnick]

I'm not arguing good or bad; that's up to each reader to decide, and any writer who argues that he wrote a good story when some critic or reader claims to dislike it is playing a fool's game. ("No! You only -think- you hated it! Actually, upon further consideration and six more readings, you'll realize that you really loved it!")

But I -will- argue definitions, at least to this extent: not all opimions have equal weight. Let me explain:

A few people here have denied that this story is "real" science fiction. Okay. Now, who actually dictates what is and isn't science fiction? First or all, of course, are the science fiction editors. The story sold to 5 of them in the USA and 8 of them in foreign countries.  So it's not just me saying that it's science fiction; there are 13 editors, many of them with unassailable credentials,  who clearly agree with me.

Who else decides what will be termed science fiction? Well, the readers. And other than actually buying the story or novel, how do the readers express that opinion? The most obvious way among the cognescenti, those most familiar with science fiction in all its forms and evolutions, is by voting for the Hugo. This story won the Hugo.

Is it possible that foreign science fiction editors were just buying it for my name value and didn't think it was science fiction, and that the definition really doesn't extend beyond our shores? Spanish fans voted it the Ignotus, which is the Spanish Hugo.

I'm not using these examples to prove that the story is good. If you don't like it, all the reviews, sales and awards in the world won't change your mind, and I'm not trying to. I am trying to show you that when madSimon (or whoever) says it's not science fiction and I say it is, it's not just his opinion against mine. It's his against 13 professional science fiction editors from all over the world, and the readers/voters of two countries.

-- Mike Resnick, who seems to have to point this out every time Steve runs one of my stories for grown-ups

[Swamp]

-- Mike Resnick, who seems to have to point this out every time Steve runs one of my stories for grown-ups

Let's hope you have to point it out again soon. 

[SFEley]

-- Mike Resnick, who seems to have to point this out every time Steve runs one of my stories for grown-ups

On the upside, the feedback to your stories always gives me great subject matter for intros.

[mike-resnick]

Steve --

It's been an education. Like most successful writers, I don't lack for self-confidence. I always thought I was good, I always thought I was commercial, I always thought I was pretty adept at the mechanics of pushing a noun up against a verb...

...but prior to Escape Pod, in more than 40 years as a full-time writer, I never thought I was controversial.

-- Mike Resnick

[slic]

Mr. Resnick, right off, I really do appreciate that you're willing to debate these things with us.

I agree with your point that opinions have different weight.  A person's background and/or experience will definitely factor in how their opinion is held.  Clearly, if you gave someone advice on a story and I gave them advice on a story, yours will have more weight.  But my point is that it still doesn't mean you are right or that my opinion is invalid.  Note, above I said valid (not to be picky, just clarifying what I wrote).

Opinions are personal.  You may cite 35 more recognized authories on sci-fi, but it won't matter.

Let me put it this way - The tomato is by definition a fruit (http://plantanswers.tamu.edu/fruit/definefruit.html), but in 1893 the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Mother Nature and declared that tomatoes were not fruits, but rather vegetables (http://www.lawyersweeklyusa.com/nix_hedden.cfm). So if the Justices of the 1893 Supreme Court want to classify tomatoes as vegtables - well, I can't stop them (even if I had a time machine).  Anyone who takes their case before them will be told, "Yes, tomatoes are vegtables."  But if I ask a botany teacher, I will be told that tomatoes are fruit.  The tomato hasn't changed, just people's opinion of what it is.  I only care so I know what to expect when I ask for a fruit.

For me, it doesn't really matter how you classify this story (or any others), just so long as I understand your (and others) rules of classification. 

And for the record, I do consider this story a form of Sci-fi (in the same group as Star Wars).

[mike-resnick]

Sonuvagun! I just remembered that -I'm- an editorial authority. I
have two Hugo nominations for Best Editor, so add me to those 13
other editors I quoted/listed.

For the record, I will freely admit that I haven't written a sci-fi story
since I adapted a Battlestar episode in 1980, and I have no intention
of ever writing another. I am one of that multitude of writers who
equates "sci-fi" with bug-eyed monsters, brass bras, and very bad
movies.

I write science fiction.

-- Mike Resnick

[slic]

I am one of that multitude of writers who
equates "sci-fi" with bug-eyed monsters, brass bras, and very bad
movies.

I write science fiction.

Well, sir, since you have made it clear that you consider anything this side of Plato's Dialogues to be science fiction, your comment is no surprise.  However, you may be surprised to find the majority of discerning public opinion on my side in this case - this story is definitely sci-fi, up there with Star Wars and the Honor Harrington series.

I freely admit that I love both - even if one is a "ray-gun" Hero-Myth Archetype story and the other is a modernized version of Horatio Hornblower.

[mike-resnick]

I can't stop you or anyone else from using the term "sci-fi". I just come
from a generation that had to hide our science fiction magazines inside the far more socially acceptable Playboy on the bus because of the public perception of "sci-fi", and finds the term repugnant. "Sci-fi" was created by Forrest J Ackerman, whose enthusiasm was (and still is) boundless, and whose taste and discrimination was (and still is) just about nonexistent. He spent years popularizing the term "sci-fi" in his magazine, Famous Monsters of Filmland, and to many of us that is exactly what the term implies and represents.

We have a First Ammendment. Call the field what you will, and I'll defend to the death your right to do so. But I'll defend to the death my right to deny that I write "sci-fi".

Mike Resnick

[slic]

Maybe it was just the "voice" in which I read your reply, but I smiled all the way through it.

I imagined this distinguished man saying "You whippersnappers and your sci-fi - I show you some real science fiction"

[mike-resnick]

I'm too young -- well, on the inside, anyway -- to call anyone a
whippersnapper. When I lose interest in writing, sports, and
naked ladies,  -then- it'll be time.

Mike Resnick

[BrandtPileggi]

I disagree. Minus the naked ladies. I think you've got something there.

[Mfitz]

.

Being an American living in a foreign land will give you a different insight on not only other cultures, but your own people. I felt that this story portrayed both the tourist and local very accurately. I found myself nodding my head & smirking when the Antarean gave his educational background as this is kind of over qualification is rampant in other countries due to the severe lack of jobs.

Also, the family's reactions to the various landmarks and local street urchins was spot-on as well.

It doesn't have to even be another nation, American are just as insulting to their own countrymen.  Check out a tourist area in Amish country, Appalachia or near a reservation if you don't believe me.

[wakela]

I'm showing up late in the game, and there isn't a lot to say that hasn't been said.  I pretty much agree with MadJSimon. 

The story is definitely science fiction, but it lacks a sense of wonder, which is why I, personally, read science fiction.   I still don't like being preached to, even if it's an alien who is doing the preaching.

I found the Americans insulting.  Could any other group have been portrayed so stereotypically?  True, we've all seen ugly Americans in our travels, but they stand out only because they are louder than the peace corps workers, English teachers, and backpackers.  This had the effect of putting me on the defensive from the beginning.

The story was about the tour guide, but I found him unlikeable.  I agree that a more interesting story would be to tell what brought him to this level.   As it stood I felt like I was being blamed for the sorrow of his country.  If the story were about him, why did the family have to be such jerks?  I felt like I was listening to four people competing to be the biggest prick.

Though having said that, I found the characters of the Americans more sympathetic.  Maybe it's because I was on the defensive.  The mother was open-minded and curious, the boy knowledgeable and intelligent, the father realistic and skeptical -- rightfully so, we discover.  These are traits not all cultures admire, but the West does, and I think all of us do, too.  The tour guide was arrogant, racist, overly religious (IMHO), and deceitful.   So now I've talked my way from "stereotypical" to "nuanced."  But there was still a heavy enough dose of ugly American to put me off. 

I would like to say that it is a real and rare treat for the author to participate in the discussion.  Thank you, Mr. Resnick.  I don't mean to bash your story, these are just my feelings.  I understand that a lot of people thought it was great.   

[Thaurismunths]

Though having said that, I found the characters of the Americans more sympathetic.  Maybe it's because I was on the defensive.  The mother was open-minded and curious, the boy knowledgeable and intelligent, the father realistic and skeptical -- rightfully so, we discover.  These are traits not all cultures admire, but the West does, and I think all of us do, too.  The tour guide was arrogant, racist, overly religious (IMHO), and deceitful.   So now I've talked my way from "stereotypical" to "nuanced."  But there was still a heavy enough dose of ugly American to put me off. 

The mother was curious, but short-sited, ignorant, and a little dim. She at least gets points for asking questions, even if the answers go whizzing right over her head.
The son only demonstrated an 8th grade education, was rude, whiny, and terribly disrespectful to everyone. His only interest in speaking up was to correct his father and listen to stories of carnage.
The father was arrogant, ignorant, pompous, and a jackass. He didn't give a rat's ass about being there or seeing anything. My guess is he would have been a whole lot happier back at the hotel bar hitting on the Venusian waitresses, but his dim-bulb wife whined until he capitulated.
I really don't see how those are positive traits in any culture.

In America there is a growing persecution of anyone who exhibits any kind of religion. The tour guide wasn't overly religious; in fact he was barely religious. Mistaking "religious" for "overly religious" happens a lot and is something I imagine a lot of the Christians on this board can relate to. Though not a Christian myself, I have several friends who are and often get thwacked about the head and neck whenever they stand firm on any kind of religious issue. Hermes wasn't a priest or monk, but a very educated historian who told only one story about the "Footprint of God" and had a lot of love and respect for his culture’s history.

[mike-resnick]

Thaurismunths: right on the button.

Mike Resnick

[wakela]

The mother was curious, but short-sited, ignorant, and a little dim. She at least gets points for asking questions, even if the answers go whizzing right over her head.
The son only demonstrated an 8th grade education, was rude, whiny, and terribly disrespectful to everyone. His only interest in speaking up was to correct his father and listen to stories of carnage.
The father was arrogant, ignorant, pompous, and a jackass. He didn't give a rat's ass about being there or seeing anything. My guess is he would have been a whole lot happier back at the hotel bar hitting on the Venusian waitresses, but his dim-bulb wife whined until he capitulated.
I really don't see how those are positive traits in any culture.

Obviously, that is true, and that is the part I found personally insulting and uninteresting.
Also, we are seeing them though the eyes of Hermes, who is bitter and arrogant enough to see them as he wants to rather than as they are. 

No one thinks they are being an Ugly American Westerner when they travel to a poorer country, but I can't help but think that all of us are at some point to some degree, even if we do everything "right."  For me, seeing the positive traits in the family made me realize that sometimes I must look ignorant, disrespectful, or pompous to the locals even when I think I'm being open-minded, knowledgeable, and appropriately skeptical.   This made the story more interesting to me rather than seeing the family as people I had nothing in common with.

You're right about my comment about his religion.  I felt like I was going a little too far with it, so I'll take the hit. 

[Mfitz]

In America there is a growing persecution of anyone who exhibits any kind of religion. The tour guide wasn't overly religious; in fact he was barely religious. Mistaking "religious" for "overly religious" happens a lot and is something I imagine a lot of the Christians on this board can relate to. Though not a Christian myself, I have several friends who are and often get thwacked about the head and neck whenever they stand firm on any kind of religious issue.

I don't see that in real life, but I do see it in SF.  It's long been one of my pet peeves that in 90% of SF the only bad guys are ever practicing members of traditional religions.  I'm not foaming at the mouth religious myself, but I'm mostly Catholic. I think the almost complete lack of sympathetic people of faith in SF is a distortion of reality. 

I had to go back an listen to this story to even remember any religious comments, other than the one about the possible child messiah, and even it seemed more academic than devout to me.

[Thaurismunths]

In America there is a growing persecution of anyone who exhibits any kind of religion. The tour guide wasn't overly religious; in fact he was barely religious. Mistaking "religious" for "overly religious" happens a lot and is something I imagine a lot of the Christians on this board can relate to. Though not a Christian myself, I have several friends who are and often get thwacked about the head and neck whenever they stand firm on any kind of religious issue.

I don't see that in real life, but I do see it in SF.  It's long been one of my pet peeves that in 90% of SF the only bad guys are ever practicing members of traditional religions.  I'm not foaming at the mouth religious myself, but I'm mostly Catholic. I think the almost complete lack of sympathetic people of faith in SF is a distortion of reality. 

This probably doesn't apply to EP listeners, because I think we're all a little too hip to fall for it, but it's out there. I admit it's pretty sneaky, but anti-religious sentiment is common and becoming more so, but I wasn't aware of it until recently.
It doesn't take the form of "God Loving = Bad Person" as it does in SF, or anything that obvious. It likes to come dressed up like "equal rights for all religions," which usually means "equal rights for my religion." In misguided attempts to accept all religions it's becoming more and more important that you disavow all religions. Especially anything Christ-based.
For example, and from my perspective: I don't know if it's because of Christianity's popularity (making them a big target), their evangelical streak, political correctness has gone too far, or there's a grudge over that wacky Crusade thing 800 hundred years ago, but often just standing up and saying "Because I'm Christian, I think this is good/bad." is about enough to get oneself burned in effigy. Saying a prayer before dinner can get you branded as Very Christian. And don't even think of mentioning god, the bible, or church. On the other hand, a Muslim stopping to pray 5 times a day, participating in Ramadan, and making the Hajj is cool. A Jew keeping Kosher, celebrating Chanukah, and wearing a kippah makes them 'devote.'

[Mr. Tweedy]

Wow, I am surprised to hear this perception being expressed in a non-Christian forum.  I've been noticing it myself my whole life, but I didn't think Western culture's anti-Christian leaning was noticed by anyone on the "outside."  I guess it must be pretty obvious.

[DKT]

I agree with Thaurismunths 100%.  There is a huge irony in embracing other religions but *not* Christianity.  That's probably partly do to Christianity being the majority religion in the US for so long.  Some of it -- like prayer at dinner -- is just looked at as weird, I suppose, and that's about it. But a lot of it is a backlash against Christians (and I do lump myself into that camp, although I don't consider myself conservative) because of angry/hateful things that are said in politics.  To be honest, that's the one thing that bums me out about my religion -- that when people are asked what they think of Christians,the good stuff like grace and love don't come to mind.  Instead, they remember the chants and picket signs and some of the really awful things Christians have said. 

I realize I'm completely off topic at this point (apologies to Steve and Mr. Resnick) but these comments really got me thinking and made me want to discuss this a bit more.

[Mr. Tweedy]

I think that perception is mostly due to a concerted effort in the media to portray Christians in that light for the last few decades.  The mean, hateful "God-hates-fags" people are really a tiny minority, but the cameras always focus on them when they come out.  Christians in all fiction (not just sci-fi) have largely played stock roles as ignorant, supersitious fools in need of enlightenment or as crazed fanatics in need of restraint.  (Compare that with the concerted media effort to make Islam seem cool since 9/11.)

I'm going to go off on a little tangent here and say that I think all the talk about "tollerance" and "diversity" is really creating a new religion.  A religion which embraces both Christ and Buddha is neither Christianity nor Buddhism: It's something else.  It is not intelllecually honest to claim both Christ and Buddha, because they offer different routes to salvation.  The only way you can claim both is treat both as mere fiction, which is exactly the tennant that this New Religion holds: It's all fiction.  You can embrace everything because none of it has any substance anyway.

If I am to respect a person with a different religion then I have to be honest and say that his/her religion is wrong.  If I claim that our religions are equal, what I have really done is call his/her religion a fantasy without substance.  You can only embrace both if neither is real.

Is it cool to go off-topic?  I'm new here.  Is that rude?

[ClintMemo]

I think that perception is mostly due to a concerted effort in the media to portray Christians in that light for the last few decades.  The mean, hateful "God-hates-fags" people are really a tiny minority, but the cameras always focus on them when they come out. 

The perception is completely different depending on where you live.
I live in one of the many states that passed changes to their state constitutions banning same sex marriages. In Kentucky, where I live, it passed by a HUGE margin - like 80% approval.
Where I live, people I think of as "blindly religious" are far from a tiny minority.

Now I'm taking it further off-topic.   
Maybe we should start another thread.....

[DKT]

I think that perception is mostly due to a concerted effort in the media to portray Christians in that light for the last few decades.  The mean, hateful "God-hates-fags" people are really a tiny minority, but the cameras always focus on them when they come out.  Christians in all fiction (not just sci-fi) have largely played stock roles as ignorant, supersitious fools in need of enlightenment or as crazed fanatics in need of restraint.  (Compare that with the concerted media effort to make Islam seem cool since 9/11.)

I'm going to go off on a little tangent here and say that I think all the talk about "tollerance" and "diversity" is really creating a new religion.  A religion which embraces both Christ and Buddha is neither Christianity nor Buddhism: It's something else.  It is not intelllecually honest to claim both Christ and Buddha, because they offer different routes to salvation.  The only way you can claim both is treat both as mere fiction, which is exactly the tennant that this New Religion holds: It's all fiction.  You can embrace everything because none of it has any substance anyway.

If I am to respect a person with a different religion then I have to be honest and say that his/her religion is wrong.  If I claim that our religions are equal, what I have really done is call his/her religion a fantasy without substance.  You can only embrace both if neither is real.

Is it cool to go off-topic?  I'm new here.  Is that rude?

Cool to go off topic?  I don't think it's a problem, in general, although the discussion might get moved to a different area of the forums.  I'd move it myself if I knew how to transfer the conversation.    Maybe we could even start up a new discussion about this somewhere.  

I don't believe that Christians scream mean-spirited things in general but I've heard an unbelievable amount from the pulpit that is exactly that.  I live in an LA suburb, and I've attended 3 churches seriously in the last 6 years and have been frustrated with all of them because of things I've heard coming out of the pulpit or the congregation (we're currently looking for another church).  I heard one pastor literally say that AIDS was God's way of punishing homosexuals only a few years ago.  Like I said before, I'm not a conservative, although I was brought up that way.  But being a liberal in an evangelical church makes me feel like a leper sometimes.  Three years ago when people found out I didn't vote for Bush and didn't support the war in Iraq, I half expected someone to come up and tell me to move to France  

And as far as tolerance goes, I took apologetic-type classes at my private junior-high that made fun of other people's relgions.  As if believing a virgin gave birth to the messiah is a completely logical thing to accept  

So I don't think I agree that more tolerance creates a different religion.  The idea of tolerance is so that people will be educated and understand the different kinds of religion and have respect for them.  I can be a Christian and respect people who have different faiths than I do without accepting what they believe as my own faith.  The important thing about tolerance is listening to what others believe and realizing, whether we believe it or not, that there's some value to it (and we don't need to go crazy invading anyone's holy land).

I'd love to see Christianity portrayed as more than just a stereotype.  But at the same time, I love seeing it poked and prodded, too.  I'm actually a big fan of "Burning Bush" and I enjoyed "the Capo of Darkness," too (see me trying to stay on topic?).  I don't even know that I'd consider those stories blasphemous, even though I think Steve Ely might.  In the end, if I can't laugh at myself, then I'm taking myself way too seriously and I'm really screwed.