Eco-fiction discussion
What is Eco-fiction? How do you define it?
I agree on the major component of the story, but I wouldn't restrict the setting to our Earth. There is much eco-fiction that is set on other planets.
I think the current eco-fiction market is probably suppose to point people in a more responsible direction, either by example or by showing the consequences. It can be totally natural, or involve elements of science fiction, which would allow the setting to be anywhere, or anything. The overlap between eco-fiction and science fiction is probably just as blurred as the zone between fantasy and science fiction.
All science starts as fiction - someone has an interesting idea, then explores it, looking for fact or error. Pairing the words doesn't seem like a contradiction to me!Anyway, I think your core definition for eco-fiction is pretty sound, though I agree with Michael that there's no reason to limit the setting to earth, specifically.
A definition that allows for science fictional or non-science fictional interpretations would seem to me to be a good idea. I feel like genres/themes should be treated as a Venn diagram, rather than a tunnel of concentric circles whose boundaries never cross. So you could just as easily have an "eco-fic thriller" as an "eco-fic sci-fi thriller" as an "eco-fic rom-com", etc.
Great discussion about an important question. Below is how "eco-fiction" is defined on Mary Woodward's Eco-Fiction site (eco-fiction.com)."Eco-fiction is ecologically oriented fiction, which may be nature-oriented (non-human oriented) or environmental-oriented (human impacts on nature). Genres of eco-fiction are found in prose, novels, short stories, films, and other fiction and include–but are not limited to–pastoral, science fiction, fantasy, speculative fiction, adventure, wilderness, solarpunk, western, literary fiction, and climate fiction. Author Jim Dwyer said that eco-fiction “might be simply described as a critical perspective on the relationship between literature and the natural world, and the place of humanity within.” Source: Chico News & Review
I like Mike Vasey's description:
'Stories set in fictional landscapes that capture the essence of natural ecosystems…[They] can build around human relationships to these ecosystems or leave out humans altogether. The story itself, however, takes the reader into the natural world and brings it alive…Ideally, the landscapes and ecosystems–whether fantasy or real–should be as ‘realistic’ as possible and plot constraints should accord with ecological principals."
Seems like we are working on what the stage looks like that our actors are delivering their messages from. I end up with more questions than answers. Most people seem to believe that this is our planet. Something "you" can hang on to. More likely it appears to be our moment in time, a thing that has no substance of it's own, but still manages to keep everything in place.
I wonder what is eco-truth? 65 million years ago the dinosaurs entered the twilight zone. They were well on the way to developing a brain to body mass ratio that would have allowed some of them to stop anything from blocking their access to advanced problem solving and unlimited access to material goods, a race that has a lump of coal in a stocking as a reward.
“might be simply described as a critical perspective on the relationship between literature and the natural world, and the place of humanity within.”
That's pretty clear to me until I get to the meaning of natural world. What exactly is unnatural? Perhaps he is talking about behavior?
"plot constraints should accord with ecological principals"
We could probably spend all day discussing what that includes or doesn't include.
It's probably too much to ask that we try to get all life across the finish line at the end of the day.
I saw a tv murder/robbery mystery program the other night. Family member against family member, a few moments of gratuitous violence. Criminal partners who supposedly betrayed each other. A 400 year old robbery, plenty of false leads. This went on for 45 minutes, and then in the last 5 minutes, a solution to the mysteries which was a simple green solution for a common old city problem, how to revitalize crumbling city centers. For me, the simple way the green ending solved the multiple mysteries had more impact than the entire program.
I suppose that could have been the goal of the writers, a twist ending, but I wonder if the writers really understood how much the ending could totally neutralize entertainment value of the normal tv mystery format they pump out every episode.
Sometimes the last thought to enter a readers head as they turn the last page is all it takes to be eco-friendly.
Virginia wrote: "I can't even begin to summarize all the discussions I have had over the the past few years regarding what Eco-fiction is. I have been told by Amazon/other book companies that it does not exist as a..."I would call this Fantasy, not Eco-fiction. Eco-fiction should be restricted to our own planet. She deserves her own genre.
Robert wrote: "I think the current eco-fiction market is probably suppose to point people in a more responsible direction, either by example or by showing the consequences. It can be totally natural, or involve e..."We need to de-blur it. Eco-fiction is earth based. Science Fiction is not. It's all Fantasy Fiction, subdivide how you want from there... We can't get an audience for Eco-fiction because it is so "blurred" but as Robert has said, we need the messages of an earth-based Eco-fiction now more than ever (though I myself agree with E.O. Wilson that the earth gains no benefit from the overpopulation of any one species, including the human primate).
Andrew wrote: "All science starts as fiction - someone has an interesting idea, then explores it, looking for fact or error. Pairing the words doesn't seem like a contradiction to me!Anyway, I think your core d..."
I know, it is a mess. You can put them all together, mix and match... and really, maybe what I am referring to is an issue with "marketing"--remember when Miles can't publish his book because they don't know how they are going to market it? It doesn't fit into one clean genre? (Sideways).
Still, I think Eco-fiction (alone) should refer to OUR beloved threatened planet.
Virginia wrote: "Still, I think Eco-fiction (alone) should refer to OUR beloved threatened planet."But that would imply that "ecology" is something that only has local relevance, that concern about it is limited to the earth. For an example of how that's not the case, take the Galileo probe: at the end of its service it was deliberately crashed into Jupiter and incinerated, specifically (partly) so that it wouldn't accidentally contaminate any of the Jovian moons with earth bacteria; like Europa, which could conceivably have an ocean ecosystem utterly unique from anything evolved on our planet.
That's a piece of science (non-)fiction right there, and it could hardly be more "eco" (although Europa has already given rise to various pieces of actual sci-fi too).
Eco-fiction dealing with the here and now is definitely a category in it's own right. Perhaps a different name that doesn't spell out how to live responsibly towards Earth and others, no matter how big or small, would be more helpful. The term eco-fiction has been around since the 70's and hasn't really made much of a dent publicity wise.Especially with movies, if it has an eco-fiction plot, though more likely, an eco-sci-fi plot, the movie becomes famous for other reasons, and though it can be described as eco-fiction after it is famous, it doesn't start out that way.
Dirty spacecraft stories seem like an exception to the rule in terms of the here and now, I think they could easily have their own sub genre.
Loren Eiseley talked about how the slime mold flings out bits of itself ahead of it's body as it travels along. You could say people are flinging out random bits of genetic material accidentally left in deep space probes, as well as whatever is on all the probes, rockets and satellites we send up in our local atmosphere.
Bacteria can live around nuclear reactors, extremely high or low temperature surroundings, incredible chemical concoctions, far underground and way out into space, so I would say we have already done a pretty good job of contaminating the local space zone. A self fulfilling prophecy in the search for life in the solar system, the life we find out there could be our own.
A funny thing happened on the way to the forum,
"Galileo probe: at the end of its service it was deliberately crashed into Jupiter and incinerated, specifically (partly) so that it wouldn't accidentally contaminate any of the Jovian moons with earth bacteria;"
You forgot to mention pollution caused by the 34 pounds of plutonium that Galileo was carrying as a power source which may have actually exploded from being crushed by Jupiter's atmospheric pressure. At any rate we have sent out plenty of those plutonium batteries in space probes out into space. I hope they don't crash into anything in the next couple of billion years.
Virginia wrote: "I can't even begin to summarize all the discussions I have had over the the past few years regarding what Eco-fiction is. I have been told by Amazon/other book companies that it does not exist as a..."Good Job, Virginia. Even when solarpunk or cli-fi invent imaginary worlds when treating environmental problems, they are usually based on our own planet's basic nature.
Ok so Robert blew my argument by saying if "Science Fiction" is a contradiction in genre, so is "Eco-fiction" or anything you put in front of the word FICTION. Ok. Point taken. What I guess I am saying is I do not agree that science fiction and eco-fiction are the same or should be the same. It is this confusion that leads to the booksellers asking me what is eco-fiction? Why does it deserve it's own genre. So what I am going to say is Eco-fiction should be limited to fiction that centers around our earth and nature, as it is, no fantasy, period. Call science fiction what it is --a bunch of fantasy that may or may not include "real" science but please leave it out of eco-fiction. Let the science of ecology, our earth, have its own earth-based genre and let's call this Eco-fiction. This is my story and I'm stickin' to it!
--Eco-fiction should be limited to fiction that centers around our earth and nature, as it is, no fantasy, period.--You have a well defined genre, but I am thinking it seems to be somewhere inside the whole eco-fiction sector.
Are Solar Punk and Reality Earth Eco-Fiction subsets of the same set?
Fantasy in it? No.Full science based--in known physical reality--yes.
Why, what do you think?
Just trying to sort things out.Amazon apparently treats Eco fiction, Environmental fiction, and Ecological fiction as three different entities.
Is it always history when a fictitious representation of a true situation is the same as a factual representation of a true situation?
Besides the truth characters speak, would the only fiction be what comes out of the characters' mouths?
What set do you suppose Eco-Fiction a subset of.
Robert wrote: "Just trying to sort things out.Amazon apparently treats Eco fiction, Environmental fiction, and Ecological fiction as three different entities.
Is it always history when a fictitious representat..."
Amazon will not move my novel into any of these subgeneres after numerous requests. They told me I would have go through the publisher of the novel to put it in these categories aside from the small fact that I am the publisher. It's very enervating. I read a blog that said Amazon favors it's own authors that publish through them and is not as helpful for those who don't. The idea that they do not a promote a level playing field is no great surprise considering past issues.
On to your questions: it appears to be about literary fiction versus not? Literary fiction incorporates real world aspects into the story along with trying to convey some kind of meaning/message to the reader while non-lit fiction does not strive for this. Does this get to your question? If your question comes down to what is fiction, YIKES! I usually need a glass of wine for something like this!
After fruitlessly searching amazon book selling and not finding anything relevant.When you list a book not published through Amazon how is the genre set for your book?
If you publish it yourself not through Amazon can you republish it yourself again through Amazon and then pick the genre?
Is there a downside for doing that?
I think you will need a glass of wine for the fictional part of this discussion.
Okay, so on the question asked above.Science fiction is often defined as a story where certain aspects of the world it plays itself out in have sciences in them that do not exist (yet). There are a lot of differences between them. Star Trek would be a space opera, lots of drama with space ships and aliens. Never Let Me Go is also science fiction since, although human cloning is theoretically possible, it was not invented in the 70ties and has never been done before. Star Wars seems to be a mix since "the force" is so badly explained it is basically Space Magic. Its space ships, clone wars, alien species and intergalactic politics make it more sci-fi than fantasy though.
You have sci-fi love stories, sci-fi action stories, sci-fi military fiction, sci-fi that never leaves earth at all, sci-fi that crosses over with fantasy so much it stops being obvious one or the other, sci-fi where the aliens attack us, exploration of other planets sci-fi etc etc. Even double cross overs, sci-fi action love stories, sci-fi exploration space opera, sci-fi dystopian horror stories.
The thing is, its sci-fi because its worlds workings are accepted as science by the characters and the universe it all happens in as opposed to fantasy where everything is magic. Ofcourse, there is enough fantasy out there where the magic system is treated as a science and science-fiction where the science could just as well be magic (like the earlier mentioned star wars). But sci-fi seldom breaks the laws of physics without having a human build/invented device to aid them while fantasy does this without hesitation.
So I think, that if you want a good definition of Eco-Fiction you'll have to accept that there are going to be a lot of crossovers and ambiguous parts and books that cannot be so easily classified. I think it might be useful to decide whether Eco-Fiction points towards its setting, like fantasy and sci-fi, or towards its plot points and development (like romance and action).
So, according to your definition, would the movie "Avatar" count as eco-fiction? It does put a LOT of effort into creating a believable fictional ecosystem and centers a good part of its plot around two parties either wanting to preserve it or exploit it. Would The Windup Girl count? Its dystopian but its setting as its plot hinges on the fact that mankind has fucked up and now has to deal with mass extinction of, among other things, edible vegetation. Would any book describing a fictional character surviving in whichever natural environment count? Would Watership Down, a book about the displacement of a group rabbits, count?
Edit: Oh dear I did not realize I wrote this much. I hope I don't sound like I'm rambling.
Jenny,I like your take on science fiction and fantasy. Using the intent instead of the device to classify a story simplifies things.
I would rather say complicates things ^,^. I mean, I could create a story about a environmental activist fighting for the preservation of some kind of land but have it set in a sci-fi city, where the battle is fought online over a bit of land the protagonist never even went too, or in a historical land where the hunting of one animal or another might couse long lasting problems for the cities population but no one believes in the protagonist trying to fight for (or against) this bit of nature. The setting would not change basic themes of the story since it would be about trying to preserve (or ruin) a bit of nature (or an eco system or something around those lines. Maybe a sci-fi story about the effort of recreating a now extinct ecosystem would be cool. I'd love to read a story about that). The when and where would not be important in this scenario. Is that what you think should count as eco-fiction?Or maybe the opposite, a story about love, or revenge or politics but all set within a world/universe where there is just a ton of nature. Or has a very heavy nature religion based society where preservation and careful tending is just something everyone does. Or just set in a sprawling forest or desert or something. You know, lots of environmental descriptions, maybe even a bit of it as a plot device (the fight over a peace of land, trying to ruin the land/forest/property for the other party out of spite). It would be the entire/big part off the backdrop of the story but not necessarily the motivation of the characters or the overall meaning given to the story. Like, a book about the politics of a bunch of organisms living in a frog pond.
I think (in my most humble opinion) that you should begin with picking sides if we want a really clear and usable definition. ^.^ The side that is not chosen should get a name too (if it does not have it already. Up to this point I'd never heard of eco-fiction before).
That's the problem, the term Eco-Fiction is 40 years old, it doesn't get much publicity. Any highly successful commercial product labeled as eco fiction is more famous for something else. Like Avatar.People keep telling me, as an author, to keep things simple, limit the introduction of new lines of reasoning because readers have a hard time balancing more than 3 points of view in their heads when they are following one character.
Perhaps a very green novel with green scenery and green heroes is so green that most of the greenness gets lost in the reading and your only hope of leaving a positive lasting impression is the moment the story ends, right before the reader picks up another book and proceeds to fill their mind's character buffers with a new set of antagonists.
I usually don't agree with sides, instead I prefer to ransack all sides and build my own understanding of the situation. Right now I am trying to figure out what one would call the intersection of science fiction, eco fiction, and fantasy.
Maybe the concept of learning how to act responsibly automatically goes out the window when people are telling other people what to do, instead of why they are doing it.
Yeah, but, simply using your own understanding does not sound like a good idea if you'd want a universal understood cathagory. It does not have to be limiting. The regency romance is also a very specific genre but still uses the world and type description dynamic.
So what is the usual definition then? World based or motivation/plot based?
Today's San Jose Mercury News headline is: "Silicon Valley Reads' eco-fiction authors to launch this year's program." I've mentioned the very popular website eco-fiction.com before. There Mary Woodbury has interviewed dozens and dozens of eco-lit authors (including me) and listed hundreds of books, identifying sub-genres. I wonder if it might be more useful to discuss critical issues for eco-lit authors such as getting books reviewed and reaching the right audience? How our books are identified is part of that but there are other pressing issues.
There is a comprehensive and large list out there somewhere? Cuz I'm interested ^.^ I have a literary itch that needs to be scratched but would rather avoid anything to do with monkey-wrenching anything or stuff that lends to much to any political view. If the genre has been around for 40 or so years already, how come it does not seem to have its own clear and recognizable category definition? Or at least, not a mainstream known one.
Have you read Phoenix Rising, by Karen Hesse?I think it was mostly science fiction in the 70's, one of the more famous ones was Soylent green.
Soylent green... Make Room! Make Room! ?, I read it abridged in highschool. It was mostly about overpopulation and what effect that would have on society. If that is eco-fiction than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? should be too but they are often counted as dystopian instead.
Having no list of what categories eco fiction is a part of, I am using Eco Fiction as a loosely based tag.That's what I mean, famous eco fiction works are famous for something else. Soylent green's catastrophe was the death of the oceans' plankton which was a major source of food. That's when they started eating dead people.
A secondary tag for Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep would be eco-fiction. But it is another case where the eco-fiction tag takes a back seat.
Big bad government is always easier to sell than explaining that the entire framework of a story is based the reactions to a badly treated environment.
There are different kinds of future projections.
One kind substitutes real items we use and situations with items that represent a vast improvement over the current situation. It is simple progress, there is no downside, and the situation that brought about the change was neutral or a bit of inconvenience.
The other type of projection is composed of steps taken to compensate for a crumbling environment, which could be caused by man, natural causes, or a mixture of both. The "improved" designs may not be improvements at all, just dealing with what is available without improving things.
When the reactions are driven by environmental changes, real or imagined, I would say that has a place in eco literature.
I guess the top category is Eco Literature. Normally, the next branch would be non-fiction and fiction. However the fiction tag has already been taken by Virginia's Eco Fiction tag that only encompasses real life.
Jenny would like to have an easy way of avoiding political stories.
I have written an ecology fuel collection of observations that some people have labeled science fiction.
"reaching the right audience" Is that the audience that is already receptive to green ideas or is that the audience that has no idea that no one owns this planet?
Make room make room (or soylent green, just without the canabalism) is mostly an explination to the world that makes the plot happen. The world has enviromental problems, so has the world of Do Androids Dream. Neither has much greenery or concern about the ecosystem/enviroment in it. Eco-fiction sounds like something around the lines of Ferngully (fantasy) or Avatar (sci-fi). I dont know (I'm obviously no expert, just someone with a love for catagories and statistics) but eco-fiction seems such an ungainly catagory. A fast bit of googeling tells me that solarpunk is seen as eco-fiction but steampunk and cyberpunk are not. All three are obvious sci-fi subgenres (with steampunk crossing the line to fantasy in a very few cases, though still being heavy on the clockwork/steam engine technology of its world setting).
The name eco-fiction seems to suggest that the world setting needs an ecosystem. Which most fictional as non fictional worlds have.
The characters are fictional. The "story" is not based on fantasy or science fiction, giving readers a realistic experience.. The environment is made of dirt, water, animals, plants, and a major part of the story. Weather is optional.Can the story start happy, stay happy, and end happy, or does it need some kind of conflict based on green values?
Inspirational stories are automatically included.
If protagonists use negative values to get the job done is that considered political?
Jenny wrote: "A fast bit of googeling tells me that solarpunk is seen as eco-fiction but steampunk and cyberpunk are not."Solarpunk is a term I've only recently come across, but this distinction doesn't surprise me. All three genres have a technological focus, but the purpose of that focus differs for each.
Cyberpunk is typically about futurism and technology for its own sake. There may be the trappings of ecological issues in the worlds of this genre, just as there are in post-apocalyptic or dystopian stories, but the stories are driven by virtual/online/data technologies, while in a generally scifi scenario. Similarly you get Nanopunk and Biopunk, both of which might mesh well with ecological concerns but where the thematic focus is mainly on the tech.
Steampunk gives us retro-futurism as its principle plaything, but it is also often used as a lens for redrawing the sociological roles of the past: there is many a pre-Suffrage heroine casting off the chains of expectation to kick a little patriarchal ass here, and similar critiques of the past's arguable cultural misbehaviour (empire building, European colonialism) often feature.
There are a slew of other punks (I set up a group in Goodreads to discuss them all - it's pretty dead!) that do the same thing for other eras (more or less; I've not read examples of them all, but I think they're treated flexibly by authors): Decopunk (flapping 20s/30s, )Dieselpunk (hot-rodding 40s/50s), Atompunk (cold war 50s/60s). Certainly for the last two eco-themes could be a nice fit, but the fun is mainly generated by mixing up the limited technology with scifi's boundless potentials. And there are more.
The label Stonepunk has also been raised - retroactively applied to things like The Clan of the Cave Bear, though I think that's taking things a bit far. Speaking for myself, I'd like to see Flowerpunk (late-sixties California music scene) and Punkpunk (late-70s UK music scene)... or how about Glampunk, for big-hair-and-Spandex-clad 80s scifi, anyone? ;-)
ANYway, to come full circle: where Solarpunk might diverge from these is that the technology itself is sharply associated with the ecological movement. There's little reason to place the focus on solar power (or geo-thermal, or A, or B, or C new technologies) if there isn't also a thematic motive inherent in the narratives: failure of non-renewable power sources, environmental collapse, etc. So, in SolarpunkI think there is a reasonable expectation of eco-fic where elsewhere in punkfiction there is not.
All that said: the ~punk suffix is meant to be as much about the style of the text as it is about the theme it's attached to. This is why Stonepunk is an ill-fit for me, at least when people want to slot any or all prehistoric fantasy into it, regardless of each book's treatment. By contrast, given the often "outsider", protest-y nature of those who embrace the ecological cause, I'd actually welcome the genre of Ecopunk as a truly appropriate member of the ~punk club.
(time to go and re-post this comment over at my other group!)
Oh really? I did not know that. i was under the impression that the "punks" were a extension of the technology that is part of the world building. So, with steampunk its mostly a fictional extension to the tech of the late Victorian age while there is no real reason why the setting itself cannot be in 2044 or 1294 with all the social rules that come with such a setting (though justifying that in a story might be a challenge all on its own XD). All the other punks are just an extension on the aesthetic and use of their respective age. The actual social rules that come with it are just a symptom. I mean, only very few authors get the strict but loose and backwards social etiquette of the Victorian age even remotely right and the entire society become a big potpourri of aesthetics and characters using the word "quite" and "bloody" a lot. XD I mean, Wild Wild West, Hellboy 2 and The Infernal Devices: Clockwork Angel; Clockwork Prince; Clockwork Princess are all seen as steampunk despite the second existing in "modern day" and the last two being more fantasy than sci-fi but they all have clockwork/steam powered machines. I have the same rough idea about the punk suffix as you have :D Its a type of story rather than a setting per-se so steam-punk is the usual setting-storytype combo like historical-romance (also known as the bodice ripper).
Stonepunk is a bit.... well I get why it would technically work but there is no way thats actually getting used to sell anything. It just sounds way to silly XD XD
Robert: Oh, I dunno really but excluding all fantasy and sci-fi might work. I mean, a classmate I discussed naming of genres with this afternoon pointed out to me that the "noir" genre is also a specific combo of both setting and type of story. Though it can be combined with fantasy and/or sci-fi because it is not set firmly in a specific place. Regardless, a noir needs, at its very least, a gritty, dark, world(view), a cynical main character, and some kind of crime to solve, Eco-fiction might work like that maybe? It needs at least a clear idea in the story that the environment matters and a story line that cares (be it good or bad) about it. So it could be political or very personal as long as those two things are present it could be eco-fiction?
Jenny wrote: "i was under the impression that the "punks" were a extension of the technology that is part of the world building. So, with steampunk its mostly a fictional extension to the tech of the late Victorian age while there is no real reason why the setting itself cannot be in 2044 or 1294 with all the social rules that come with such a setting (though justifying that in a story might be a challenge all on its own XD)."Absolutely, and you definitely get examples of steampunk that aren't tied directly into, say, the Victorian era (I was, briefly, published in a series exactly like this); but there is a strong trend towards that kind of theme in period fantasy - the attraction of revising or playing with the associated expectations.
But you're right: narratives set in an actual future in which steam power had become key once more would certainly be considered steampunk. In such a case ecological themes may well be very relevant.
"story that the environment matters and a story line that cares (be it good or bad) about it."That's a very clear definition of environmentally conscious literature.
Eco-Sci-Fantasy, a science fiction and or fantasy story were the environment is prominently featured and a story line that cares (be it good or bad) about it.
Eco Punk is suppose to be very realistic, about home grown genetic engineering a person can do in their kitchen sink or back yard.
Steampunk has successfully branched out into other markets, mostly jewelry, costumes, and paraphernalia. There are also numerous Steampunk festivals and conventions all year long.
I was reading about Solar Punk through a link in Eco-Fiction.com. The thrust of the comment was that solar punk was uncensored, personal, and, in my opinion, a place where the outer reaches of the technological plains of the old empire have become the center of a new one.
Just got back from slapping a couple boards against some incredible snow. Dmn but we're having a great winter here in NorCal, finally, apparently thanks to Baby Jesus (figure it out). I'm reading all your comments and loving it. Reads like fresh powder to me. New tracks? Maybe.
Charlene mentioned my site above as one that is named eco-fiction.com. This genre was new in the 1970s. Jim Dwyer wrote a book about it here: http://www.amazon.com/Where-Wild-Book.... Eco-fiction seemed to have become popular in the same timleine as ecocriticism did. Both terms look at oikos, in my opinion--the study or imaginary fiction of ecology/economy--our home--how humankind is connected to the natural environment, and how this connection is revealed in literature.Well, here it is over 40 years later and though the term is not used as much anymore, I was trying to find a label to describe the books I wanted to archive and talk about that are eco-minded. I had been calling my site clifibooks.com, because I had written a novel about climate change and no one place on the web was really covering these books. However, soon I realized that climate fiction was not the umbrella I wanted. I wanted to curate a huge sampling of literature that was related to the way we connect with nature, and systemically, climate change is just one (though a huge) result of that--the means to get there involves so many other issues like greed, environmental destruction, polluting the land and air and water, deforestation, etc. I wanted to cover the big picture, though climate change novels are getting more popular and make up a big part of the site and are a *part* of the picture. A colleague Claude Nougat once said that there are downstream/upstream effects to climate change, and she was definitely right-on. And those other factors are more inline with eco-fiction overall.
Eco-fiction was the only term that really made sense to me as I searched for a new domain name, especially after reading that it could cover both human-oriented and nature (non-human) oriented subject material. That made "eco-fiction" the umbrella I was looking for, even though it may not be a true publishing label. Even though eco-fiction can be called a genre, or even a composite subgenre, it seems pretty broad, and Dwyer said it does cover speculative fiction (like science fiction and fantasy) that meet the other ecologically minded themes.
So to me, eco-fiction is a good descriptor of this literature, but unfortunately may not always be considered a genre via bookstores and book distributors. I use it at Moon Willow Press (the nice thing eco-fiction has going for it is that it's easily recognizable at least), and I know that Ashland Creek Press, EcoLit Books, Green Writers Press, Harvard Square Editions, and other niche presses also use the term. I've seen libraries and CanLit use it as well as organizations like ASLE. Occasionally you'll see the word pop up at places like Grist or The Guardian. I think academics may use it more than those trying to push popular genres, but, to me, I think it's perfect as a description in the very least.
I like the idea of fleshing out genre meanings, though, but, for those interested in eco-fiction, and--not saying that this term is static and cannot evolve--it had a lot of attention in the 1970s and volumes were written about it, including that entire book mentioned above. So there's plenty out there, definition-wise, to spring from.
Another interesting book that I'm now reading, called "Eco-fiction," edited by John Stadler (now out of print, published also in the 1970s), is a collection of short stories, mostly science-fiction--with authors like Edgar Allen Poe, Ray Bradbury, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., John Steinbeck, JG Ballard, Isaac Asimov, and more. It's so great. Some of the stories were published 2-3 decades before this collection. It's interesting to see that really took off in the 1970s, a similar timeline as the growing environmental movement, the back-to-the-land movement, etc.
But I would argue we have had eco-fiction forever, and that there's hardly anything new why writers address ecological subjects. From Gilgamesh and the Bible to Tolkien to Edward Abbey to very early science fiction writers, eco-fiction has a rich lineage. There is a different ideology you'll see in authors today who nature-write; whereas nature used to be seen more as a divine offering and place of solitude, it may be more seen now as a non-divine one. The topics (fire, deluge, etc.) change along the way as we create new myths and reflect new realities--but the bent has always been there. Now that we are facing a huge climate crisis, writers may be getting even more jittery and it is showing. Climate change is becoming a very popular subject among authors today trying to imagine it, or write how it already has affected the world--in both fiction and nonfiction.
But now we are here today, and eco-fiction is all but forgotten except in a few literary circles that still talk about it. It's good to see interest in it here. I will note, as a publisher and one who works through Ingram, one of the largest book distributors in the world, we are hard-pressed to be able to find any environmental category for books whatsoever unless it is nonfiction or juvenile fiction. I joke: what, when we grow up we lose our interest in environmental fiction? There is no category for that currently, not even at a broad level like eco-fiction, nature fiction, environmental fiction. Zilch. Maybe it's because our stories, though eco-minded, are also romances, mysteries, thrillers, fantasy, science fiction, crime-detective, etc., and these genres are more easily marketable and familiar. Maybe also, it has been argued, that terming a genre based upon something that might be morally or politically "teaching" is potentially dangerous and may be a turn-off from the get-go. Publishers and marketers don't like to take risks unless there's potentially a good payoff.
That brings me to my final point: solarpunk. This is an evolving genre that is verrrrry grassroots, coming from multiple points of origin and spreading out just as diversely. The solar part of it speaks to the genre as being somewhat tech-based in that we want to see renewable energy in the future and that's part of what it's about--a cleaner, more sustainable world. But the punk suffix means that to get there, we have to work against the machine that is all about fossil fuels. It's status quo, the same one that still doesn't even recognize ecological works in fiction as a book category/genre. I am in love with the concept of solarpunk. Not only does it seem to be like a fairly new genre (some say authors like Kim Stanley Robinson and Ursula le Guin have written with the solarpunk concept, before the label), but it is a movement that is hands-on, artistic, solutions-based, and so on--one in which not only authors may participate in but also other artists building the future we want: engineers, scientists, architects, fashion designers.
Hmmm, I kinda got that the -punk suffix is mostly suggesting a ugly, gritty, urban, often rather dystopian feel of its world-building and its technology but romanticized in a way that all this dark, greasy terribleness can easily be read as pretty damn "cool". The solar- steam- diesel- cyber- etc prefixes just specify in what flavor this comes. The fighting against the established order doesn't seem to be a necessity of the genre, the few steampunk novels I read all lacked them as did a good part of the cyberpunk ones. A solarpunk worldsetting could easily be a world where fossil fuels never existed in the first place.
bit late to this discussion:) I have struggled with a genre since 2009 when the first of my series came out - everyone wanted to call it science fiction - i didn't think it was. I think anyone buying it would be dissapointed with the contents if they were looking for sci fi. Some suggested dystopian because it is about the world after climate wars but it was too hopeful a book I thought to be dystopian - I thought about clific but no one seemed to have heard of it. I've sort of settled on speculative, future history, eco fiction, as descriptions but I still don't know really where to market the booksThey are about the impact that climate change could have on the world - how nature takes over, how people cope with pre-industrilised living but it is more about re-building and the effects of human love, compassion and friendship.
'tis a shame there is no genre pigeon hole for us:(
I argue there is Alberta. See prev. posts. But the bottom line is when books about Britney Spears sell more than books about the mass extinctions going on, I know we are still a primitive primate species trapped within a short life span (=selfish), and I make sure I keep my expectations very low.
Ecofiction was defined in the 1970s. Jim Dwyer's book "Where the Wild Books Are: A Field Guide to Ecofiction" goes into depth on this category of literature.Given that we have his field guide from someone who read hundreds (maybe thousands) of books and put a lot of time into the research of this field, I feel we can go by it to come to understand what ecofiction is. Charlene has posted some of the main ideas here, from my site.
Regarding ecofiction in other worlds, the book states:
"Ideally, the landscape and ecosystems--whether fantasy or real--should be as 'realistic' as possible and plot constraints should accord with ecological principles. It should be noted that magic realism and speculative fiction, however, frequently employ fantastic elements to provide readers with a different perspective on the nature of reality itself, as in Kim Stanley Robinson's Three Californias or Mars trilogies."
For the above reason, and because older ecofiction has included both science fiction and fantasy worlds that aren't our planet, I believe these works are traditionally seen as ecofiction.
I'd like to note too that ecofiction may overlap with, coincide with, or even broadly cover other genres such as dystopian literature. I think it's helpful to see it as more open-ended and evolving than closed or a category within itself.
As for trying to pin down "ecofiction" as a modern day hashtag, a buzzword, a publishing category recognized by many, I think it's tough to do that. The term is from academic study on books emerging in the 1970s that were ecological in nature (though much literature beforehand paved the way), so I think it's more of an academic/literary/ecocriticism descriptor than a publisher's or marketer's one. However, it seems that modern day marketers/publishers have used it, such as Ashland Creek Press and the article Charlene linked above. Libraries and colleges are more likely to use this taxonomy than news media and commercial publishers. However, my own site has been listed in Wired and The Guardian, so it's not like ecofiction is so old it's not recognized--it totally is, but I think really in our day of hashtags and buzzwords, it is not a trending or transitory term. It's a composite genre that is very holistic and includes other genres such as science fiction, fantasy, other speculative fiction, political fiction, literary fiction, etc.
I personally like the term ecofiction because it's self-explanatory at a superficial level and is a good umbrella for the types of novels I want to explore on my site. I could have gone with environmental fiction (same thing) or eco-lit/nature writing, but eco-fiction was shorter and is more inclusive of fiction than nonfiction; eco-literature and nature writing is often more related to nonfiction, and I really wanted to look mostly at fiction. It just came down to the domain name. I did think about nature fiction too, but eco-fiction is a short name and already established.
I also think that established terms are perfectly fine, and when they also cover newer ideas, like climate change in fiction for instance, I'd prefer to use a long-established description that hasn't gone anywhere in half a century, whereas newer terms have the potential to fade out.
But labels are just labels, and the work itself is, to me, what is so interesting. I recently interviewed Jeff VanderMeer (http://eco-fiction.com/interview-with...), whose Southern Reach trilogy's first book, ANNIHILATION, is being made into a movie next year, starring some pretty popular actors like Oscar Isaac of Star Wars, Jennifer Jason Leigh, and Natalie Portman. Jeff really likes the term "weird fiction," which is one way to deal with ecology in fiction. My interview with him goes into this in more detail, but to me it's just another exciting newer kind of approach when dealing with environmental destruction. Note that weird fiction is not a new term. I think it came around in the 1930s, re-emerged in the 1980s, and in the modern sense is being tied with some other ideas like hyperobjects (climate change being one) and dark ecology. Anyway, I'm derailing slightly, but while labels are exciting, reading Southern Reach really kind of blew my mind and opened me up to a whole new ideas involved in storytelling when it comes to environmental issues.
First, I so greatly respect and appreciate what you do Mary, so thank you. It's very important, esp. right now. So with all due respect, I don't think eco-fiction should include fantasy, science fiction, anything but our earth in all its splendor. Here is an example--I was recently asked to critique an "eco-fiction" story for a member of my writing group. It is the typical story-line--the earth in danger from us (NOT science fiction--the truth), fantasy flowers and trees (he built a fantasy forest which is cool but...) When I suggested to him he research REAL EXISTING flowers and trees, birds, say our "real" biodiversity he told me it's so much easier to just "make it up". He's not "an ecologist" like me. There is the rub. Eco-fiction should at its BASE be based on our "real" earth ecology from which the fiction is built, otherwise, we truly have NOTHING. We are melded in with the other genres and nothing will change. Nobody will have to learn the names of the native trees in their yard, on the street, in their county, their state, their nation. I cannot find one CA native plant on the lower half of my property anymore. What are we losing here? Our history, our ecology. When I weave the earth's biodiversity, my regional biodiversity, into my stories, I also weave in MY, OUR, THEIR history. Yes, God forbid, I have to, YOU have to learn something, do some research--but this is in deference, respect to our only home. Oh my God, so you have to learn the name of one of the native trees on your street? Gosh, this is terrible!! No, go ahead and "make it up"...this isn't anything but intellectual laziness IF we call it eco-fiction. So make it up but call it what it is--FANTASY or science fiction. Then no one will have to learn the names of the birds, the beetles, the moths...it's just so easier to make it up, right? Then when it's all bulldozed (or in CA, "fire cleared") you will not have to suffer the pain of once knowing what was there. Our native flora and fauna is undergoing MASS extinction right now. In WWII, they rushed in to save all the art work from the Nazi's. We are losing so much more every single day through extinctions. Could you not weave THEIR STORIES into your eco-fiction or is this just too much work?
I've had a few columns published about this and this is woven into Birdbrain but one thing I cannot wrap my head around re: the human species is, as I have said in my published columns, in keeping with E.O. Wilson's idea of Biophilia (though he just advocated for the human species to start wiping out mosquitoes they don't like leaving me appalled; why not other things then like, say wolves? Oh. Nevermind)--anyway, humans love the IDEA of nature but they don't really care about nature itself. If I were to get a PhD, I would do it on this. Many examples: the mountain biker who loves mtn biking in the Sierras but who also smashes thousands of native wildflowers that grow along the trail. When I ask these folks about this, they just shrug their shoulders and say things like, "well it's going to happen" yet they "love nature". Once I worked in a nature-themed store (most of the stuff in it from China) and a woman came in asking if we had any cards with frogs on them. I then mentioned that this entire taxa is going extinct globally. She waved her hand and said, "I don't really care about this, that. I just like frogs." WTF? I mean, really. What IS this? What is it about the human primate that it can be like this? How can you like frogs on cards but not care about frogs in the real world? Perhaps nature is just an idea for design? Art? Decoration? This is all we need now to feed our biophilia--the IDEA of nature? The real thing isn't really all that important, interesting? If I think about anything a lot, I think about my conversation with that woman and frogs. I wish I could figure it out.
Virginia wrote: "First, I so greatly respect and appreciate what you do Mary, so thank you. It's very important, esp. right now. So with all due respect, I don't think eco-fiction should include fantasy, science fi..."Here is simply where fiction may depart from reality, which it often does. While I completely agree with you about the importance of understanding the reality of our world, fiction has the permission to take that knowledge and imagine other worlds with it. Writers do not need to be scientists to warn/imagine a climate-changed world; we simply need to know the basics and go from there.
While eco-fiction traditionally accepts speculative fiction, modern authors leading the way in stories with parables about the importance of the environment are often doing so with magic realism and fantasy--including Margaret Atwood, Jeff VanderMeer (with his weird fiction), and so on. Eco-fiction that depicts actual reality is simply another type of eco-fiction--usually contemporary, perhaps realism/naturalism. This is what I meant by the scope of eco-fiction being quite broad. I don't believe we should exclude the broad types of fiction already accepted into the canon of eco-fiction as it has existed for the past half-century, nor the newer authors leading the way--as are defined in the media as well (Vandermeer, for instance, according to The New Yorker, is "The Weird Thoreau.")
I'm reading Adam Trexler's "Anthropocene Fictions" now. I really like Trexler's explanation (pg. 75): "Fictionalizing climate change is not about falsifying it, or making it imaginary, but rather about using narrative to heighten its reality". Of course, this can be applied to all eco-fiction.
Charlene wrote: "I'm reading Adam Trexler's "Anthropocene Fictions" now. I really like Trexler's explanation (pg. 75): "Fictionalizing climate change is not about falsifying it, or making it imaginary, but rather a..."I like that very concise explanation :)
Mary wrote: "Virginia wrote: "First, I so greatly respect and appreciate what you do Mary, so thank you. It's very important, esp. right now. So with all due respect, I don't think eco-fiction should include fa..."I disagree completely and we will just have to agree to disagree. I stick to my strong assertion that eco-fiction creates fiction around the real earth, our earth, in all its fading accuracy. Fiction stores that make up nature belong in fantasy or science fiction, period. I will not be changing my mind, ever.
Now can someone help me with the lady and the frogs in the store?
It's funny how everything comes down to simple ideas. The idea that if you treat everyone and everything with respect and honor and extend that behavior to everything around you, living and inert, that the world would be a better place.People want ecological stories to tell others how things are going wrong or right, while all the time, that same theme has been brought down through time dressed in different clothing but it is the same behavior we are all talking about.
By insisting that everything is based on exact meanings, individual situations, little cutouts of the big picture and not be transferred to one common situation we will have history repeating itself as the main prerequisite for going forward. United we stand, divided we fall.
Been missing all summer so way behind on the debate - If we have to deal with genre labels (a fact of publishing life I loathe) then I'm a firm believer in eco fiction being about our world our climate change/ destruction etc, the same as magic realisim should be a touch of magic in our everyday world and sci fi about scientific possibilities - fantasy and fantasy worlds have a huge amount of space to frolic in but they don't need to encroach into every genre (although I have to confess i do quite enjoy English urban fantasy!! if genres are being blended it must say so in the title such as 'urban fantasy' the reader then knows what to expect and settle down to enjoy? the tale.
But then maybe I'm too old now to appreciate eco lit with fantasy worlds - I do feel though it is an important genre and should be taken seriously, to fantasize it is to water now the seriousness of Earths plight. If the reader cannot at the end of book say 'what the hell?' then we are failing.
Jenny wrote: "There is a comprehensive and large list out there somewhere? Cuz I'm interested ^.^ I have a literary itch that needs to be scratched but would rather avoid anything to do with monkey-wrenching any..."You remind me about the woman and the frog I mention above. I don't understand. I really don't. How can one want frogs on a card, clothing, etc., but not care about frogs in the real world (entire taxon is going extinct) which HAS to get political if we are to "save ourselves" inherently meaning, save our own planet. Is it recreational then for some people and whether the environment is destroyed or not is just not important? I really don't understand.
Eco-fiction
Books mentioned in this topic
The Big Melt (other topics)Mercedes Wore Black (other topics)
The Big Melt (other topics)
Clockwork Angel; Clockwork Prince; Clockwork Princess (other topics)
The Clan of the Cave Bear (other topics)
More...
I think part of the problem with Eco-fiction is the lack of a concrete (sorry) definition.
I offer a definition of Eco-fiction:
Fiction whose major underlying theme is nature on earth; the plot is based on, incorporates, explores how this state of nature is affected, for better or worse. Nature is the main or a major component of the story.
What do you think?