AlysonofBathe Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Does everyone out there consider these genres seperate, the same, overlapping with some differences, or something else altogether? I was recently discussing The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood with some friends and the inevitable conversation of genre came up. If you haven't read it, or are unfamiliar with Atwood, she has long claimed that while The Handmaid's Tale (and two of her other works, Oryx and Crake and The Year of the Flood) have elements of science fiction, ultimately they're speculative fiction because they don't involve classic science fiction tropes (e.g. aliens, space ships, ray guns). I myself see it as only a difference in semantics, and I've always skeptically thought that for an author typically considered very literary, like Atwood, publishing a work labelled as science fiction may seem like a down grade, so language like speculative fiction is adopted to make it a little more literary. Just my two cents though. What does everyone think? Cheers, Alyson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karsa Orlong Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 It's a good question, Alyson. I think the term 'speculative fiction' is used as a catch-all for science fiction, fantasy, horror, and all their sub-genres. Science fiction and fantasy are the ones that usually get lumped under that umbrella, I think. There's a fair amount of book snobbery that goes one with these genres - mainly from people who've either never read them, or have had one bad experience and never gone back, or have watched Star Wars and Star Trek and decided that's all there is to it. Maybe that's why this 'speculative fiction' label came along. The main problem, as I see it, is that the science fiction and fantasy markets are flooded and the quality is extremely variable, and it gives ammunition to the kind of people who like to throw stones in their glass houses. Maybe it leads to authors and publishers not wanting to be labelled as such in case it damages sales. If so, they're only fooling themselves, I reckon although maybe, ultimately, it could lead to people who would not normally read science fiction to actually find their way into the genre. Hopefully they'd stick around long enough to discover some of the brilliant authors out there who aren't afraid of labels, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo MInderbinder Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) I think a good name for the genre would be 'Futuristic Fiction'. Especially for books of the same style as Handmaid's Tale, Orwell's 1984, and Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. Sci-Fi can be set in the year 4920 but the aforementioned titles deal with worlds that are not that far-fetched from the era we are curently living in. Edited March 21, 2012 by Milo MInderbinder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ooshie Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 As someone who reads all sorts of fiction, I actually find the separation of speculative fiction into various sub-genres (as described by Karsa Orlong) helpful. I recently read "The Man in the High Castle" by P K Dick and, not having done any research on the book, was expecting a Science Fiction read; if I was someone who was only interested in the classic type of space ship Science Fiction, I would have been sadly disappointed in it. I will make sure and check next time I am venturing into the genre! I have both The Handmaid's Tale and Oryx and Crake on my shelf waiting to be read, looking forward to getting to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karsa Orlong Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) Yeah, agreed, Ooshie. I think 'speculative fiction', rather than 'science fiction' definitely applies to something like The Man in the High Castle. I think it's a popular misconception that the term science fiction applies just to stories about space ships and ray guns. In fact, the space ship stories probably more readily fit into yet another sub-genre, that of 'space opera'. Point the people who believe these things towards The Time Machine or The Day of the Triffids, or modern books like Cowl or The Windup Girl. That'll learn 'em Edited March 21, 2012 by Karsa Orlong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlysonofBathe Posted March 21, 2012 Author Share Posted March 21, 2012 I think it's a popular misconception that the term science fiction applies just to stories about space ships and ray guns. In fact, the space ship stories probably more readily fit into yet another sub-genre, that of 'space opera'. Point the people who believe these things towards The Time Machine or The Day of the Triffids, or modern books like Cowl or The Windup Girl. That'll learn 'em This is exactly my issue with Atwood's position - it assumes things about science fiction that are incredibly limiting, and you are entirely right about space operas. In terms of the pulpy science fiction classics, a great majority of them are space operas. I haven't read The Man in the High Castle. Can someone let me in on the details; how's it an example of speculative fiction that isn't science fiction? Thanks guys, great thread so far! Cheers, Alyson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karsa Orlong Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I haven't read The Man in the High Castle. Can someone let me in on the details; how's it an example of speculative fiction that isn't science fiction? Well, without giving too much of the game away, it's an alternate history tale in which the Axis powers won the Second World War and have divided North America up amongst themselves, and now they're busy spying on each other and such. IIRC, it takes place some time in the early 1960s. Can't say more than that as it would spoil it, I think. This is exactly my issue with Atwood's position - it assumes things about science fiction that are incredibly limiting, and you are entirely right about space operas. In terms of the pulpy science fiction classics, a great majority of them are space operas. It's kind of irksome when an author gets snooty about the genre, like they think they're too good for it, or that they don't consider science fiction to be literature. In some ways, I think sf/fantasy/speculative fiction - whatever - is storytelling in its purest form because by its very nature it engages the imagination in ways other genres don't. But then I'm biased, and sometimes I feel like I'm the only one fighting the genre's corner on this board! For me at least, sf is about big ideas conveyed on a human level, doesn't matter what the setting is. Some of the modern examples of space opera, by guys like Peter F. Hamilton and Alastair Reynolds, for example, are so much more than stories about space ships and ray guns. Actually, I think ray guns went out of fashion a while ago. You're nothing now without a pulse rifle or a railgun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlysonofBathe Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 Oh that sounds interesting, definitely seems more speculative than sci-fi; I may have to read this. Honestly, authors weighing in about their books post facto has always bothered me a tad; criticism/interpretation is so subjective that I've always thought an author's opinion on their own book is just another voice in the crowd, no better than any other reviewer. Cheers, Alyson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodkafan Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 But then I'm biased, and sometimes I feel like I'm the only one fighting the genre's corner on this board! I'm right behind you big guy. Just been a leetle preoccupied lately Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontalba Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Many of the books mentioned above sound more like dystopian and/or apocalyptic genre. Which might be an off shoot of sci-fi in a way I suppose, at least have some aspects of it. But I wouldn't classify it as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I think this part of the publishing market suffer from the same problem as certain types of music. Publishers are SO desperate to get you to read their book as opposed to someone elses, so they shoe-horn it into a genre so we can relate to the type of read it's going to be. If something slightly different comes along, they invent a new sub-genre. And so it proliferates. I can't really fault them for doing this, in their place I would probably do the same, but we do end up with a plethora of sub-genres that describe an ever smaller section of fiction. In MY world, there are two types of books - those I like, and those I don't. Somehow though, I don't think you would all be best pleased if the next time you walked into your local bookshop and found the shelves divided into "Books Ian likes" and "Books Ian doesn't like" ! Sure make MY life easier though ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookie Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 "Books Ian likes" and "Books Ian doesn't like" ! Sure make MY life easier though ! How good would that be? Your own personal bookshop? Books I like - Books I don't like. I would never have to read the back and hope for the best ever again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karsa Orlong Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 How good would that be? Your own personal bookshop? I have an image in my head of Waterstones morphing in a Hogwarts staircase kind of way every time I walk in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruth Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I think there's a difference between science and speculative fiction. I'll admit that science fiction is not a genre I'd usually go for, whereas dystopian fiction - which is how I would classify books such as The Handmaid's Tale, A Clockwork Orange, Brave New World, 1984, etc. - is one of my favourite genres. (The Handmaid's Tale is one of my favourite books.) Ian is right also, when he says that shops tend to lump books into a genre which they probably don't actually belong to, to get the attention of shoppers. This is probably great for some authors, but can work against others. Actually thinking about it - science fiction is not so much a genre I'd avoid, but fantasy is. I used to be guilty of thinking of them as more or less the same thing, but there's actually a big difference. I find a lot of fantasy irritating, science fiction not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karsa Orlong Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Actually thinking about it - science fiction is not so much a genre I'd avoid, but fantasy is. I used to be guilty of thinking of them as more or less the same thing, but there's actually a big difference. I find a lot of fantasy irritating, science fiction not so much. I think that the misconceptions some people have of sf are more appropriate for fantasy, in that a large percentage of the fantasy books out there rip-off Tolkein in some way or other which results in a lot of unoriginal drivel on the shelves and literally invites scorn. There's more scope for different and challenging ideas in sf, so there's more variety. Plus you don't get many multi-volume series in sf, whereas there's a lot of that in fantasy, and it gets tiresome. It sounds like I don't like fantasy - I do. When it's done well and with originality it can be fantastic, but I'm even more selective when it comes to reading it than I am with sf, and I like to delve into the sub-genres like urban fantasy etc. Those who feel fantasy is just about swords/sorcery/wizards/dragons etc should read The Lions of Al-Rassan or The Anubis Gates or Replay or Waylander or Perdido Street Station etc. There are also some authors out there who are having fun subverting the traditions of the genre and making it much harder hitting and gritty as a result (Erikson, Martin, Abercrombie etc) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodkafan Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Some brilliant points being brought up. I agree with them all. To me if a different name gets coined then that in itself shows a significant split. When you start off reading in any genre you lump them all together because you don't know enough. You are a Lumper. Then with continued reading you become a Splitter. The differences between Speculative Fiction, Sci-Fi, Space Opera , Urban Fantasy and Fantasy and Fairy Tales are quite real to me and I enjoy them all. Coming back to your original point Alyson, if Atwood herself wanted to call her book Speculative Fiction I guess that's fair enough I got no argument with her. Without knowing her it is hard to say whether she was being snooty about Sci-Fi or just reacting to others dismissal of the book as Sci-Fi. It is a great book to me anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.