I've come across a number of articles noting a worrisome trend in contemporary science fiction and fantasy. A cursory glance at genre best-seller lists shows a slew of derivative, paint-by-numbers premises endlessly recycling the same stock characters. (Only Wool distinguishes itself from the rest of the list).
You might argue that it's always been this way. True, there's always been a market for schlock potboilers. But try to recall a book in the sci-fi or fantasy genres from the last ten years that could stand beside Cat's Cradle, The Lord of the Rings, or Dune. Reviewer hyperbole often claims that the Wheel of Time books or A Song of Ice and Fire meet this test, but despite their quality both series stand on the shoulders of giants.
Why does current genre fiction underachieve compared to its predecessors? Donald Maass identifies a vital element of standout fiction: that the author has strong convictions and makes those beliefs come through in the book's characters, conflict, and themes.
Contemporary sci-fi and fantasy authors seem to be lacking in this regard. John C. Wright has a thoughtful essay on how postmodern disillusionment with scientific progress is stifling imagination. Writing on the Orson Scott Card affair, Jim Bennett blames rigid political correctness for creating a publishing environment that excludes challenges to the popular zeitgeist.
Neither culprit alone seems to explain the dearth of challenging fiction. Taken together though, a clearer picture of genre fiction's current malaise emerges. Escapism is the point of genre fiction. Fantasy transports the reader to a world that is better because it is simpler--both technologically and morally. Science fiction flies us either to worlds made better by human ingenuity, or else destroyed by it. In either case, genre fiction must be able to instill hope for or fear of worlds different from ours. It must therefore go against the grain of dominant thought for best effect.
In contrast, most contemporary genre fiction (I don't say "modern" because current science fiction is decidedly postmodern) adheres to one of two tropes: either the self-congratulatory insistence that everything is just fine or utter despair at the current paradigm's inevitable demise.
If we look back to sci-fi's origins, it's plain to see how the genre took up the cautionary role once held by fairy tales. Great science fiction authors from Jules Verne to George Orwell used their stories to warn society against the possible excesses of its pet theories. Likewise, great fantasy enshrined traditional understandings in danger of being forgotten. That genre fiction has ceased to fulfill this function illustrates why it's being reduced to a flavor of the month clearinghouse.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
To say that a work stands on the shoulders of giants I find to be both obvious and outragous. Do Jordan and Martin and others benefit from the authors of the previous generation? Yes, they do indeed, just as those same authors benefited from a still earlier generation. Jordan might owe a lot to Tolkien, but wouldn't you say that Tolkien in kind owes much to say Robert E Howard?
At some point doesn't every generation proclaim the serious lack of creative innovation within a field. They're left pining for the days of their youth when men were men and music spoke to their every emotion.
If we're looking for genre fiction that is pushing the bounds, the first question we should ask is, "Which bounds?" If you're looking for something that's challenging all of our popular notions perhaps a best seller list isn't the place to find it. If however you're loking for fiction that has had an impact on the field, I think you could find some works. Harry Potter for instance has probably done more for fiction in the last twenty years than any other work.
I agree with your points. They don't directly address mine, though.
For me, it's not really a matter of quality. Today's sci-fi has about the same good to bad ratio as always. The problem is that it's not doing the job that even the bad stuff once did.
Take television for instance. Watch an original Twilight Zone or Outer Limits episode and consider how edgy it is compared to mainstream 1950's culture. Better yet, compare vintage Dr. Who to the Russell T. Davies run. Contemporary sci-fi is more interested in confirming popular thinking than in challenging it.
I agree that we need to look elsewhere for challenging themes. I plan on devoting the next post to that subject.
Regarding the debts all writers owe to their forebears, I'd be foolish to deny your point. Martin and Jordan write very good books, albeit within a genre that Tolkien revealed. His writing evolved less from Howard (also good) than from traditional Germanic and Scandinavian folk tales. Tolkien wasn't the first to tell stories with dragons. He did make such tales palatable to the modern mind.
To sum up, there are earthquakes and aftershocks. The former seem to be in short supply these days.
Are authors the culprits though? It's possible that the kind of books that you're looking for are the ones being rejected by the publishers. You mentioned George Orwell earlier, his Animal Farm was rejected by nearly every publishing house, and this was after he was a successful author.
There are also more choices for potential authors these days. The guy who might have written the next Kurt Vonnegut might have decided to write a graphic novel instead, or maybe he wrote a television show or video game.
I think you just summed up what I meant to say in the original post better than I did. You should start a writing blog!
As for where today's Kurt Vonneguts are hiding themselves, more tomorrow.
Post a Comment