SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Group Reads Discussions 2011
>
"Oryx & Crake" Won't read it
Eh. She's a stuck up tard for saying that, but I don't take an authors personal opinions into a decision on whether or not to read a book.
I don't tend to read SF books by authors who are mainstream identified because when I have read them, I've found them unsatisfying. One way in which "write what you know" applies to SF is that people who know the genre write better books. They know what's cutting edge and what's so trite that no editor familiar with the field would ever accept it. Naturally, SF written by mainstream authors is published by the same people that produce their mainstream works. A mainstream editor will know as little about SF as the mainstream author who has decided to have a fling with it. I get the most amazing sense of deja vu when I've read SF by mainstream authors.
There are a lot of trans-genre writer who don’t like being pigeon-holed for the SCFI work. I like Oryx & Crake (the only Atwood I’d ever read) and liked it enough to try another. I’m in the middle of Bodily Harm, and the best you can say is that it’s Yeoman-like. It’s not that she’s a bad writer; it’s that reading someone in an interesting genre is like listening to a friend. I’m also reading 11/22/63, and while he’s a pretty careless writer, he tends to get the story right, and when you become familiar with his work the self-reference become amusing rather than annoying.
EJ Luv Zombie wrote: "Ala wrote: "Eh. She's a stuck up tard for saying that, but I don't take an authors personal opinions into a decision on whether or not to read a book."Don't say tard, some of my best friends are ..."
Some of my best friends are stupid and prude....
Could it be that Margaret Atwood doesn't want her work to be classified as sci-fi because she doesn't want her work to be put in a box/stereo typed? Just a thought.
Rita wrote: "Could it be that Margaret Atwood doesn't want her work to be classified as sci-fi because she doesn't want her work to be put in a box/stereo typed? Just a thought."That's how I've thought of her statement. I would say that she doesn't think ill of SF or consider it in any way "lesser" fiction...considering her newest book is In Other Worlds: SF and the Human Imagination - a series of essays on the impact SF has had on her and the SF authors she reveres.
Not wanting to be boxed into a specific genre is fine.
Calling said genre "talking squids in outer space" and other such drivel isn't. Rewriting the definition of Science Fiction isn't.
Don't want to be called scifi? Don't write scifi.
Calling said genre "talking squids in outer space" and other such drivel isn't. Rewriting the definition of Science Fiction isn't.
Don't want to be called scifi? Don't write scifi.
Maybe Ala meant "stuck up tart" (she is Canadian, isn't she?). Is "tart" more PC than "tard"?
As much as it irks me that she talks with such disdain of the genre, I still love her work. When I hear her say she doesn't write 'that stuff' I smirk and think to myself 'unfortunately lady you don't get to decide what we call it'.
You know...I've had the opportunity to meet her on more than one occasion and actually discussed "Oryx & Crake" with her (as well as "Year of the Flood") and here is what I have to say about her comments regarding the genre...I think they've been misinterpreted. From what I could tell from our discussion she actually enjoys SciFi. It seemed as though she just feels that she can't do the genre justice because she isn't a scientist. She actually preferred the term Dystopian for this series and considers herself more of a dystopian writer than a SciFi writer. (She also considers herself to be an optimist while others think she is pessimistic.)
But - read it or don't. I am a great fan of hers (as Philippa can attest :-D) but I don't read all her works. I actually read Year of the Flood (second book in the series) before Oryx & Crake and enjoyed it far more. Either way, the series is interesting and while set in the future there is not that much science in it.
Then again, Philippa is right...she and her editor may decide which shelf her work goes onto in the bookstore, but she doesn't get to ultimately decide what we call it. :-)
Lisa I agree completely. I have heard her talk about this topic, and she has never criticized sci fi. I do agree with her categorization, I wouldn't consider this science fiction. But even if it does fall in to the very broad and general category of science fiction, there are so many genres and categories in science fiction right now, I think new categories may be warranted.
Considering she just came out with this, I'd be surprised if she disliked sci-fi: In Other Worlds: SF and the Human Imagination
EJ Luv Zombie wrote: "David wrote: "Maybe Ala meant "stuck up tart" (she is Canadian, isn't she?). Is "tart" more PC than "tard"?"Tart is fine, but "tard" is an offensive word that I don't like to hear along with when..."
Words have the power we give them. They also tend to have the definitions time has attached to them. Being overly sensitive about a specific word choice really doesn't help anyone.
Besides, "tard" could have just as easily been short for leotarded.
I'm not trying to change your mind. In fact, in engaging with this, I'm equally guilty of completely derailing this thread from its intended topic to banter over semantics.I apologize to everyone who was trying to discuss the book for my part in the meaningless tangent.
EJ Luv Zombie wrote: "Ala wrote: "You know nothing, zombiesnow."This I shall argue a bit though. What do you mean I know nothing? I'm simply stating an opinion about word choice."
It's a reference from A Song of Ice and Fire.
One, those were jokes based off of lines from A Song of Ice and Fire. I use them a lot since they're pretty well known. Apologies if you didn't know the referenced material.
Second, I don't take the time to 'think' about what I say beforehand for one simple reason: I don't care. If I offend, so be it. It's not my intent to offend, but I can't control how someone else feels.
Second, I don't take the time to 'think' about what I say beforehand for one simple reason: I don't care. If I offend, so be it. It's not my intent to offend, but I can't control how someone else feels.
Ala wrote: "One, those were jokes based off of lines from A Song of Ice and Fire. I use them a lot since they're pretty well known. Apologies if you didn't know the referenced material.Second, I don't take t..."
I'm sorry about getting riled up; it's my own fault. I should've recognized that they were references. I know you didn't mean to offend, but I just got done having this discussion with a person at school because he literally said the word "rape" a few times to her face and she was ready to cry.
Situations like that require getting an teacher/administrator involved, or outright boot to the nether regions.
But, really, these are two completely different situations.
On a forum about books, you're going to come across tons of words and phrases that may offend. And here there is no censorship of these possibly offensive words. So the choice is either to hole yourself up inside a small, private group where everyone is PC, or just dealing with it all and moving on.
I choose the latter. Makes things more interesting.
But, really, these are two completely different situations.
On a forum about books, you're going to come across tons of words and phrases that may offend. And here there is no censorship of these possibly offensive words. So the choice is either to hole yourself up inside a small, private group where everyone is PC, or just dealing with it all and moving on.
I choose the latter. Makes things more interesting.
I agree, but you can't exactly tell a teacher because the person hasn't told many people and don't want them to know...Once again, sorry about all of that, but like I said, I just had the conversation and was still in a pissy mood about words like that so I will admit that it is MY FAULT for this whole tangent and take full blame for it. And now I just made this tangent go on longer by posting this.... *frustrated sigh*
I feel a fool.
No worries.
It's not like this thread was getting all kinds of use anyway.
Besides, tangents and off-topics are my favorites :P
It's not like this thread was getting all kinds of use anyway.
Besides, tangents and off-topics are my favorites :P
EJ: You don't have to apologize! Ftr, I agreed with you but figured it wasn't worth pursuing and missed the most recent posts. That dude at your school sounds like a total asswipe. I'm sorry you had to deal with that. D:
OK - I am getting a bit confused here. Is there another reason you have for not wanting to read the book "Oryx & Crake" which would be completely and totally fine, or was it just because there was a misinterpretation of Ms. Atwood's feelings towards this book being a SciFi book and SciFi in general?
For me, it's simply that I couldn't get into it. I didn't get very far. There was nothing to which I could relate. I found what I read too distant and conceptual. I also felt that the author was preaching at me. The overt didacticism reminded me of Shikasta by mainstream writer Doris Lessing. I try not to be prejudiced against these literary fiction writers when they turn to SF. I do check the books out, but I've never been impressed.
I understand Atwood a bit: for her, scifi are only the stories that can´t really happen, in very distant future or universe or with aliens. But she write about very close future (no more than one century distant)and only with the things which really exist today and events they can really happen tomorrow or within a few decadas. Her scifi is her warning for today (present people) - and her fear from bad tomorrow, nothing more. No scientic fantasy as scifi tend to be. It is very similar with her Handmaid´s story, another her scifi from very close future (which can happen really tomorrow). But, I mean, that scifi from very close future which can really happen is still scifi. :o)Maybe she need some new subgategory of scifi: "real scifi", "warning scifi" or so. Because she clearly fears, that scifi is for readers only some fairy-tale for fun, nothing about they think deeper, nothing important for their thinking about world and their acts. And Atwood wants (and needs) write so that the readers of their novels (and that novel) think deeply about it, about this danger, that they read it as important warning for present and future. Do you (or your children) want to live in the world of Oryx and Crake? No? So do something! Change the world, present world, for better, so your future (our future) can be better! Don´t be silent, obedient and happy about it, or you (or your children) will be doomed. Similar asi many animals, as Oryx Beisa or Red-necked Crake (I found more about these species). This is thing of every person - and every reader of her book. And this is the thing which Atwood wants to say to readers of that novel, I mean.
This is what Atwood wrote on the subject in an essay of hers "the science fiction label belongs on books with things in them that we can't yet do, such as going through a wormhole in space to another universe; and speculative fiction means a work that employs the means already to hand, such as DNA identification and credit cards, and that takes place on Planet Earth."There's a write up of a discussion between her and Ursula LeGuin on the topic over at IO9: http://io9.com/5650396/margaret-atwoo...
I fully understand people not liking the book. Atwood has a distinctive style, regardless of the genre she writes in. I really enjoy her way with words and her sense of humour, and I'm a bit of an environmental muppet myself, so I don't begrudge her that either. ;) But I really enjoy reading novels of ideas, and if that's not your cup of tea you probably won't enjoy Atwood (or LeGuin's SF for that matter) as much.
Lisa wrote: "OK - I am getting a bit confused here. Is there another reason you have for not wanting to read the book "Oryx & Crake" which would be completely and totally fine, or was it just because there was..."I'm not reading because it looks boring as hell. I don't like when an author
I've only just started the book so I don't have a wide overview of its totality of story and content, but even though I understand the arguments for and against the definition of SciFi and/or Speculative Fiction, this just appears to me to be very well written and enjoyable environmental/biological post apocalypse SF. IMHO if this isn't Science Fiction then neither is Make Room! Make Room! by Harry Harrison or Stand on Zanzibar by John Brunner.
I think whether an author considers themselves as an SF author or not is a totally different argument altogether, consider Jonathan Lethem, Kurt Vonnegut and J.G. Ballard; all excellent writers who admit to having written SF works, but would consider themselves mainstream authors. Nothing wrong with that as far as I can see.
Hmm... I read this a couple years ago. I thought the premise of the book sounded interesting and I enjoyed it. But it definitely is a type of book that wouldn't necessarily work for everyone. It's weird, and different, and a little bit cartoonish, in a way, while being serious in other ways. I liked it. I don't really know anything about Margaret Atwood. I've read two of her books, and liked both of them. I would consider both of the books that I read to be "science fiction" books if I had to name them - dystopian & post-apocalyptic themes fit that for me. But then I know that she writes in other styles too, so maybe it is the "not wanting to be fit into a box" thing. Nobody puts Margaret Atwood in a box.
Except that it does seem sort of... pretentious, to me, to deride genre fiction. She HAS written it, and it is what it is whether she calls it "literature" or "science fiction" or "flarfignuten". She just runs the risk of people no longer wanting to read her work when she insinuates that people who write or read SF are beneath her. Which... is kinda what this thread is about.
That is all.
Well, I'm a genre reader. If she doesn't write my genre and has decided that she will change the definintion of my genre to fit her literary snobbishness...I guess it works well that she won't get any of my money.Honestly, I've come to the point when I want all these authors just to STFU. Stop talking already.
You're fucking it up for everyone.*
*note - this is a line from a comedian.
Becky wrote: "Hmm... I read this a couple years ago. I thought the premise of the book sounded interesting and I enjoyed it. But it definitely is a type of book that wouldn't necessarily work for everyone. It's ..."I believe that both Atwood and le Guin could rightfully be called pretentious, although I imagine there's a legion of angry hipsters and grad students out there who would challenge me to a fight to the death over the assertion. What they don't understand is that I like some of my reading to be pretentious.
In general, I suspect Margaret Atwood goes in the same box as Salman Rushdie for me: authors whose works I really like but whose opinions I never want to hear outside their books or stories.
As for the genre war, well, I've not read any of her statements so I can't speak to that. I do feel, personally, that no all speculative or dystopian fiction is science fiction. Personally, I have this shelved as sci fi but The Handmaid's Tale is not. (For those interested, The Man in the High Castle is not sci fi either, in my view.) Overall though, I'm the minority on this in thinking it's pure semantics and doesn't actually matter.
MrsJoseph wrote: "Well, I'm a genre reader. If she doesn't write my genre and has decided that she will change the definintion of my genre to fit her literary snobbishness...I guess it works well that she won't get..."MrsJ, I love you. I love that you just said so clearly what I was simultaneously blathering on and trying to say.
Chris wrote: "I'm not reading because it looks boring as hell. I don't like when an author ^This.
I say people should read and write what they like and not worry so much about what it's called or what people think about the fact that they do so. It's your money, your time, spend it how you like. I read Stephen King, and over the years I've been given a whole lot of hell for reading his "trash". But I love it, and so I say screw 'em. They can drool over their Harold Bloom critiques all day long. No skin off my back. ;)
Ugh, can't stand Harold Bloom...
Yeah... who needs Harold Bloom anyway?*goes off to google Harold Bloom*
I was ready to get all outraged ('cause you know I love my Harry Potter), but then I fell asleep listening to his waffle...
Denae wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "Well, I'm a genre reader. If she doesn't write my genre and has decided that she will change the definintion of my genre to fit her literary snobbishness...I guess it works well ...":-D
± Colleen of the Crawling Chaos ± wrote: "I was ready to get all outraged ('cause you know I love my Harry Potter), but then I fell asleep listening to his waffle..."^This, lol. It became obvious that he was in love with the sound of his fingers hitting the keyboard.
MrsJoseph wrote: "± Colleen of the Crawling Chaos ± wrote: "I was ready to get all outraged ('cause you know I love my Harry Potter), but then I fell asleep listening to his waffle..."^This, lol. It became obvious that he was in love with the sound of his fingers hitting the keyboard. "
*snort* You're full of one liner awesomeness today!
Thank you, thank you!I'll be here every Monday and Wednesday! *bows*
And you just know that if there WAS sex in the book, he'd have slammed it for being present in a book for/about 11 year olds.
Evilynn wrote: "This is what Atwood wrote on the subject in an essay of hers "the science fiction label belongs on books with things in them that we can't yet do, such as going through a wormhole in space to anoth..."I enjoy reading novels of ideas. In fact, my favorite books are novels of ideas. But I don't like the didacticism to be too overt. For me, story and character have to come first.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Stand on Zanzibar (other topics)Make Room! Make Room! (other topics)
In Other Worlds: SF and the Human Imagination (other topics)
In Other Worlds: SF and the Human Imagination (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Jonathan Lethem (other topics)Harry Harrison (other topics)
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. (other topics)
John Brunner (other topics)
J.G. Ballard (other topics)
More...
I clearly recall when Oryx & Crake was released, Atwood kept going on and on about how it's not science fiction and how she wouldn't be caught dead writing "that stuff".
Maybe it's because I'm old enough to have been bullied for reading "that stuff" that I have an instinctive repulsion against such small-minded ghettoization of the genre I love and diminution of everyone who likes it.