Harsh. So Watts is accusing her of cultural misappropriation I take it? No citations, so let's see how she defines spec fic: From Atwood's writer's masterclass intro: What do other "real...
Harsh. So Watts is accusing her of cultural misappropriation I take it? No citations, so let's see how she defines spec fic:
From Atwood's writer's masterclass intro:
So there's speculative fiction and there's science fiction. And there's science fiction fantasy and there's fantasy. And you might put them all under a big umbrella called wonder tales. So wonder tales are not naturalist. They're not the world that we find ourselves in here and now today.
Speculative fiction is a way of dealing with possibilities that are inherent in our society now, but which have not yet been fully enacted. You can look at books like "Brave New World," Zamyatin's "We," and "1984," things for which we've got the technology more or less, and arranged in a space on the planet we happen to be living on. Science fiction, usually we think of other galaxies, other planets, other sorts of things entirely. And I write speculative fiction not because I don't like the other kind, but because I can't write it. It's not within my skill set.
What do other "real geographers" of scifi think about her work?
Is Arthur C Clark Science fiction enough? Handmaid's Tale won the first Arthur C Clark award in 1985; they awarded Atwood with the award for Imagination In Service To Society (2015) after she wrote The Heart Goes Last. Here is her acceptance speech -- does she sound dismissive or contemptuous of the audience, fellow winners, or the genre.
Handmaid's Tale was nominated but didn't win the Nebula, and nominated but didnt win the Prometheus in the 80s. The sequel, The Testaments, was only a finalist for the Prometheus 30 some years later again. Watts hasn't won one either to date, but maybe the criteria for them are different form Watt's works.
Neither Atwood nor Watts has won a Locus yet, but Atwood has her own Locus April Fools in 2012.
Here's an additional 2013 WIRED article on Atwood and SciFi vs SpecFic.
Anyway. Point being. In this short rant, I didn't see evidence that literature runs counter to SF (hierarchy), and I don't see evidence that Atwood feels contempt for SF. Additionally, Atwood's had a very successful career as a poet and novelist writing conventional non spec fic for thirty some years after her highly successful Handmaid's Tale (1985). If she was the sort of person who "has to write science fiction" because they desperately need to "stay relevant", we wouldn't have had:
Cat's Eye (1988) -- teen girl bullying set in the 50s Canada
The Robber Bride (1993) -- three Frienemies attend the funeral of a forth to make sure she's really dead
Alias Grace (1996) -- Pioneer times Celebrated Murderess
Blind Assassin (2000) is part lizards-on-alien-planet science fiction book within a book, and part regular "respectable" fiction set in 1930-40s. It won the Booker Prize. Watt's point about how science means relevance does not apply
It wasn't until 2003 that we have her next Spec Fic in Oryx and Crake.
Anyway, 2003 is a very long time ago. I wonder how he feels about this piece and Atwood today.
I just revisited this essay, and it's still relevant, I think. In a world that more closely resembles science fiction day by day, that genre is relevant, perhaps prescient. It's more relevant than...
I just revisited this essay, and it's still relevant, I think. In a world that more closely resembles science fiction day by day, that genre is relevant, perhaps prescient. It's more relevant than "Literature". Or is it?
I get the point he's making about Atwood refusing to acknowledge she's writing sci-fi, but I have to admit that a memoir about growing up poor in post-WWII Ireland does sound pretty good. I'd...
I get the point he's making about Atwood refusing to acknowledge she's writing sci-fi, but I have to admit that a memoir about growing up poor in post-WWII Ireland does sound pretty good. I'd certainly pick that over an exploration of human cloning ethics.
For the past few weeks, I've actually been contemplating a closely-related question on my own. And that is, if a story is set in the future (of something akin to the Real World -- ie, not...
For the past few weeks, I've actually been contemplating a closely-related question on my own. And that is, if a story is set in the future (of something akin to the Real World -- ie, not obviously Fantasy), does that automatically mean it is sci-fi? I'm still pondering it, though I'm leaning towards 'no'.
So, I had to look this guy up, Peter Watts, to see if I should actually care about his opinion ... I guess I should; he's got credentials.
I'm inclined to believe that there is some fuzzy line between speculative fiction and "real" sci-fi ... and I would also agree that Atwood is way over at one end of that fuzzy line. Much of her work that she wants to call speculative, I--and most people--would call sci-fi.
So, nutshell ... the guy has a point.
But also, to paraphrase, "methinks the sci-fi guy doth protest too much" ... rather like he's trying really hard to justify and validate his own chosen genre. At the very least, his diatribe here irritates me a lot more than Atwood's over-broad labeling of speculative fiction.
Harsh. So Watts is accusing her of cultural misappropriation I take it? No citations, so let's see how she defines spec fic:
From Atwood's writer's masterclass intro:
What do other "real geographers" of scifi think about her work?
Is Arthur C Clark Science fiction enough? Handmaid's Tale won the first Arthur C Clark award in 1985; they awarded Atwood with the award for Imagination In Service To Society (2015) after she wrote The Heart Goes Last. Here is her acceptance speech -- does she sound dismissive or contemptuous of the audience, fellow winners, or the genre.
Handmaid's Tale was nominated but didn't win the Nebula, and nominated but didnt win the Prometheus in the 80s. The sequel, The Testaments, was only a finalist for the Prometheus 30 some years later again. Watts hasn't won one either to date, but maybe the criteria for them are different form Watt's works.
Neither Atwood nor Watts has won a Locus yet, but Atwood has her own Locus April Fools in 2012.
Here's an additional 2013 WIRED article on Atwood and SciFi vs SpecFic.
Anyway. Point being. In this short rant, I didn't see evidence that literature runs counter to SF (hierarchy), and I don't see evidence that Atwood feels contempt for SF. Additionally, Atwood's had a very successful career as a poet and novelist writing conventional non spec fic for thirty some years after her highly successful Handmaid's Tale (1985). If she was the sort of person who "has to write science fiction" because they desperately need to "stay relevant", we wouldn't have had:
Cat's Eye (1988) -- teen girl bullying set in the 50s Canada
The Robber Bride (1993) -- three Frienemies attend the funeral of a forth to make sure she's really dead
Alias Grace (1996) -- Pioneer times Celebrated Murderess
Blind Assassin (2000) is part lizards-on-alien-planet science fiction book within a book, and part regular "respectable" fiction set in 1930-40s. It won the Booker Prize. Watt's point about how science means relevance does not apply
It wasn't until 2003 that we have her next Spec Fic in Oryx and Crake.
Anyway, 2003 is a very long time ago. I wonder how he feels about this piece and Atwood today.
I just revisited this essay, and it's still relevant, I think. In a world that more closely resembles science fiction day by day, that genre is relevant, perhaps prescient. It's more relevant than "Literature". Or is it?
I get the point he's making about Atwood refusing to acknowledge she's writing sci-fi, but I have to admit that a memoir about growing up poor in post-WWII Ireland does sound pretty good. I'd certainly pick that over an exploration of human cloning ethics.
For the past few weeks, I've actually been contemplating a closely-related question on my own. And that is, if a story is set in the future (of something akin to the Real World -- ie, not obviously Fantasy), does that automatically mean it is sci-fi? I'm still pondering it, though I'm leaning towards 'no'.
So, I had to look this guy up, Peter Watts, to see if I should actually care about his opinion ... I guess I should; he's got credentials.
I'm inclined to believe that there is some fuzzy line between speculative fiction and "real" sci-fi ... and I would also agree that Atwood is way over at one end of that fuzzy line. Much of her work that she wants to call speculative, I--and most people--would call sci-fi.
So, nutshell ... the guy has a point.
But also, to paraphrase, "methinks the sci-fi guy doth protest too much" ... rather like he's trying really hard to justify and validate his own chosen genre. At the very least, his diatribe here irritates me a lot more than Atwood's over-broad labeling of speculative fiction.
Oof. That part aged well at least. I'm guessing that at the time he was referring to SARS.