Science Fiction Categories: A Proposal

[psikeyhackr]

I would like to suggest a characteristic to be evaluated in science fiction works. One of the troubles these days is people use that term and I really have no idea what they are talking about sometimes. So I will suggest 3 stories as archetypes to demonstrate rather than only explain the characteristic with words. These stories are all in the public domain so everyone can get them easily and they are also available as audiobooks.

#1. Cat and Mouse by Ralph Williams
http://www.feedbooks.com/book/2584/cat-and-mouse

#2. The Servant Problem by Robert F. Young
http://www.feedbooks.com/book/2388/the-servant-problem

#3. All Day September by Roger Kuykendal
http://www.feedbooks.com/book/2295/all-day-september

#1 was nominated for a Hugo but lost to Flowers for Algernon so it should not be bad but it says nothing whatsoever about the "science" or "technology" enabling the story. An alien just makes things happen. #2 is unusually similar to #1 in that the technology driving the story perfoms the same function but the writer offers a kind of explanation mentioning mobius loops and has a little astronomy. #3 is strictly hard SF and contains nothing likely to be impossible at some time in the not too distant future. It is in fact curious in that it is a Moon colony story 10 years before the first Moon landing in 1969 and a prospector finds water on the Moon which was actually found in October of 2009. The story also has a little chemistry. It brings to mind Arthur C. Clarke's A Fall of Moondust.

I think #1 and #2 are both better written than #3 and #2 somewhat better than #1 in that respect, but that is not the characteristic I am referring to for this evaluation. This is just about how they treat the science and or engineering empowering the story.

I would put Komarr by Lois McMaster Bujold at 2.5 between #2 and #3. She explains some of her fictional science while most reviews of that story do not point this out. And she discusses a little real classical physics.

Quality of the writing and characterization and world building should all be treated as separate issues from the implementation of the science but most science fiction reviews don't do that and may even ignore the science. They try to treat SF as just another form of literature.

psik

==============================================

I would like to suggest some categories for science fiction. One of the troubles these days is people use that term and I really have no idea what they are talking about sometimes. So I will suggest 3 stories as archetypes to demonstrate rather than only explain the categories with with words. These stories are all in the public domain so everyone can get them easily and they are also available as audiobooks.

#1. Cat and Mouse by Ralph Williams
http://www.feedbooks.com/book/2584/cat-and-mouse

#2. The Servant Problem by Robert F. Young
http://www.feedbooks.com/book/2388/the-servant-problem

#3. All Day September by Roger Kuykendal
http://www.feedbooks.com/book/2295/all-day-september

#1 was nominated for a Hugo but lost to Flowers for Algernon so it should not be bad but it says nothing whatsoever about the science or technology enabling the story an alien just makes things happen. #2 is unusually similar to #1 in the technology driving the story but it offers a kind of explanation mentioning mobius loops and has a little astronomy. #3 Is strictly hard SF and contains nothing likely to be impossible some time in the future. It is in fact curious in that it is a Moon colony story 10 years before 1969 and finds water on the Moon which was not actually found until 2009 and it has a little chemistry. It brings to mind Arthur C. Clarke's A Fall of Moondust.

I think #1 and #2 are both better written than #3 and #2 somewhat better in that respect than #1 but those are not the characteristics I am referring to for the categories. This is just about how they treat the science empowering the story.


I would put Komarr by Lois McMaster Bujold at 2.5 between #2 and #3. She explains some of her fictional science while most reviews of that story do not point that out. And she discusses a little real classical physics.

Quality of the writing should be a separate issue from the treatment of the science but most science fiction reviews don't do that and may even ignore the science. They try to treat SF as just another form of literature.

[owlcroft]

They try to treat SF as just another form of literature.

Off with their heads! Imagine writing fiction that is a sort of, ugh, literature! Things that might entertain and amuse and expand viewpoints. Screw that! We want lectures, ladies and gentlemen, science textbooks, not this trashy "fiction" rot that pollutes impressionable young minds!

Onward! Downward!

[psikeyhackr]

Off with their heads! Imagine writing fiction that is a sort of, ugh, literature!

LOL, not surprised. When I proposed the archetype business before you objected. But there is too much writing about writing to wad through. Read 20 reviews of a short story and they are longer than the short story. We need a more efficient system. But maybe that is not the objective of critics.

So science fiction is definitely the genre to do some innovation. So I used short stories so people can read them quickly to get my point.

psik

[Hereford Eye]

What is it that we want from critiques?

From the framework of M.H. Abrams * criticism discriminates four elements in the total situation of a work of art:
(1) the work, that is the thing made by the maker
(2) the artist
(3) the universe, that is the nature that is imitated, if art is viewed as imitation, the materials of the real world or the world of ideal entities out of which the work may be thought to take its subject
(4) the audience to whom the work is addressed.

Psikeyhackr's categories seem to concentrate first on the universe and secondarily on the writing. Completely ignored are the writer and the audience. Since the audience for sf is generally assumed, perhaps an argument can be made for ignoring them. Then, again, who assumed the general population of teenagers as an sf audience until The Hunger Games made it blatantly apparent. And who wants to read about the writer? I know I rarely read biographical notes or interviews as they do nothing to enhance my enjoyment of a story.

But, ….
If Heinlein hadn't attended the U.S. Naval Academy...
If Vonnegut hadn't lived through WWII....
If Asimov hadn't rebelled against the continued narrowing of focus required in advanced degrees...
If any given writer hadn't experienced the life they did...

Rob Bedford's reviews, which I enjoy and trust, deal with a work as a story enjoyed or not enjoyed. The supporting rationale occasionally dips into the universe the story describes but does not rely on that universe. Rather his reviews deal with the characters and their believability, i.e., he deals with the story's imitation of life as he understands it. That approach makes his reviews valuable to me. Spider Robinson used to write reviews for Analog that treated the story as Rob does. Those are what matter to me.

It is not an approach that will lead to award winners. Some of the books he reviews may end up award winners but nothing in his review will predict such achievement. He'll merely tell you that he thinks a story is worth reading or not. Over time, you know the kind of things he likes. If they match the kind of things you like, then you begin to trust him.

That is not the intent of literary criticism which is what psikeyhackr seems to me to be pursuing, sf as literature according to rules. There is a place for that type of criticism. I suspect its place is in the classroom and in the textbooks. I do not suspect its place is in the reviewing of sff. There, the focus should be on story: is it enjoyable or not? And that is a matter of taste, not rules.

I also suspect that the awards folk these days are concentrating on story as opposed to rules. Otherwise, how they justify presenting Hugos to fantasy?


* The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition (1953) ISBN 978-0-19-501471-6

[psikeyhackr]

Psikeyhackr's categories seem to concentrate first on the universe and secondarily on the writing. Completely ignored are the writer and the audience. Since the audience for sf is generally assumed, perhaps an argument can be made for ignoring them. Then, again, who assumed the general population of teenagers as an sf audience until The Hunger Games made it blatantly apparent.

Notice how real science constantly changes our comprehension of the universe. That is the strength and usefulness of science fiction. Kids can use some mind expanding while their brains are still plastic.

Maybe I should have said characteristic instead of category. I picked those three stories to show varying degrees of a narrow characteristic of science fiction. I consider the quality of writing to be a separate characteristic from the quality and presentation of the science. I am simply suggesting that reviews include an evaluation of that characteristic in any work claiming to be science fiction. Any other aspects may be all over the map and evaluated separately.

Maybe people want to suggest other aspects which should be rated. Characterisation should quite likely be one of them. But that was not one of the things I am proposing to evaluate with these examples. Maybe we need some other short story suggestions, possibly not even science fiction, to demonstrate evaluations of that.

I am just really tired of people saying I like this and I don't like that particular work and not having the slightest idea what they do and don't like about it. It could be what they like, I dislike, and vice versa and their vague description means nothing to me or is even misleading.

The trouble now is that this digital technology vastly expands the reading possibilities. In the old days we could only choose from what was on the shelves when we went to satisfy our addiction. Six months later something we intended to buy might not be there. For all practical purposes, nothing goes out of print now. So how do we wade through this cornucopia of potential riches if at least 80% of it is trash but each of us has different opinions about what is and what is not trash.

The old reviewing technique is obsolete.

psik

[vrabinec]

I don't trust reviews. I check out the blurb and if it sounds interesting, then I dowload the sample. If the first few pages draw me in, then I buy the thing. I think half the fun of books is NOT knowing exactly what you're getting. Sometimes it's light on the science, sometimes it's heavy, and I can live with either one. It's those opening pages that I mostly make my decision on. If a writer's good enough to grab me in a few pages to open the boo with, he'll probably be good throughout.

[Hereford Eye]

That is the strength and usefulness of science fiction.

Utility? How did that get to be strength of science fiction? How can that be a strength of any writing save for textbooks, homilies, and diatribes?

The old reviewing technique is obsolete.

Concede that the old reviewing technique is obsolete for you. But, you are interested in a specific type of story, one that you can learn specific science from and/or one you can't poke holes in. I know of no pure science stories that appeal to me. If there isn't something to be said about the human condition, then the story loses its appeal and I probably won't finish it. I read Hal Clement's Mission of Gravity and enjoyed it, sort of, but it was more tutorial than story albeit the science was the plot and the resolution. But, I never got through more than three pages of any other of his work.

When I want to know something about science, I read folks such Casti or Gribbin or MacPhee or Gleick, et al.

[psikeyhackr]

I don't trust reviews. I check out the blurb and if it sounds interesting, then I dowload the sample. If the first few pages draw me in, then I buy the thing. I think half the fun of books is NOT knowing exactly what you're getting. Sometimes it's light on the science, sometimes it's heavy, and I can live with either one. It's those opening pages that I mostly make my decision on. If a writer's good enough to grab me in a few pages to open the boo with, he'll probably be good throughout.

In the old days when novels were only about 150 pages I could be sure within 20 pages. These days it is less reliable with 50 pages. I would much rather have a rating system using about 5 different characteristics.

Like AAAAA would be all 5 characteristics are perfect.
EEEEE would be all terrible. CBADB Would be somewhere in between with varying characteristics. So if they were always kept in the same order comparisons would be simple and readers could learn the patterns they liked.

psik

[Hitmouse]

PSi: very happy for your classification system, and I hope you find it useful.

Personally I am not particularly bothered.

[kennychaffin]

What a silly thread.

For starters, I've never heard of any of the books listed in the OP. And "literature" OMG! RUN! RUN!

I think the categories we have are just fine, categories should evolve naturally not be imposed on artists. In particular speculative literature should be that - speculative and that necessarily involves bending, blending, breaking expectations.

Attempts at pigeon-holing every book will just cause trouble, better to let the artist and reader decide. Critics should review the books, not categorize them.

This posting is a 2.1765 on the posting category scale.

[psikeyhackr]

What a silly thread.

For starters, I've never heard of any of the books listed in the OP. And "literature" OMG! RUN! RUN!

I think the categories we have are just fine, categories should evolve naturally not be imposed on artists. In particular speculative literature should be that - speculative and that necessarily involves bending, blending, breaking expectations.

They are not books they are short stories. I never heard of them either until I decided to start finding and reading public domain science fiction works. But the reason I did that was because so many reviews of more recent stuff claimed it was good but I found it unsatisfactory. The problem is your bending and evolving is vague and subjective and some people think that is artistic.

The characteristic I am talking about in the OP is how the work treats the science. And apparently Kurt Vonnegut commented on that in 1965. I find it very interesting that he mentioned C.P. Snow in the process.

http://sites.google.com/site/zscslau...cience-fiction

psik

[vrabinec]

In the old days when novels were only about 150 pages I could be sure within 20 pages. These days it is less reliable with 50 pages. I would much rather have a rating system using about 5 different characteristics.

Like AAAAA would be all 5 characteristics are perfect.
EEEEE would be all terrible. CBADB Would be somewhere in between with varying characteristics. So if they were always kept in the same order comparisons would be simple and readers could learn the patterns they liked.

psik

But you're still relying on someone else's subjective rating. The only real help I think reviews provide is if they're the kind that give you some idea of the type of book it is. "Light on character development, fast paced, solid science" or "soft science, more of a love story in space, long descriptions" that sort of thing, but you rarely get those. Usually it's "This is the worst book I ever read" or "This is awsome!" Stars don't mean squat.

[kennychaffin]

But you're still relying on someone else's subjective rating. The only real help I think reviews provide is if they're the kind that give you some idea of the type of book it is. "Light on character development, fast paced, solid science" or "soft science, more of a love story in space, long descriptions" that sort of thing, but you rarely get those. Usually it's "This is the worst book I ever read" or "This is awsome!" Stars don't mean squat.

Agreed. I mean look at the mainstream/literary sector -- there are hundreds of kinds of books and the reviews are about the books, not about the type of book it is. I want a review to tell me something about the characters and story and then I can decide if it's something I want to read, I really could care less about what category it might fit into ... but by the same token there are categories that are less appealing to me --- like romance for example, but still I've read a few of those as well and they are not all 1-star in my book.

[Chuffalump]

Like AAAAA would be all 5 characteristics are perfect.
EEEEE would be all terrible. CBADB Would be somewhere in between with varying characteristics. So if they were always kept in the same order comparisons would be simple and readers could learn the patterns they liked.

psik

E.E. 'Doc' Smith's species categorisation in the Lensmen series anyone? Could work but you'd need to find some monomaniac to create the website, read the books and post the reviews.

[psikeyhackr]

But you're still relying on someone else's subjective rating. The only real help I think reviews provide is if they're the kind that give you some idea of the type of book it is. "Light on character development, fast paced, solid science" or "soft science, more of a love story in space, long descriptions" that sort of thing, but you rarely get those. Usually it's "This is the worst book I ever read" or "This is awsome!" Stars don't mean squat.

That is why I gave three examples for use as reference and said they were only about evaluating one characteristic. I should not have said category. Other books would have to be used showing variations in other characteristics.

There is no escaping some subjectivity but at least this would supply references and characteristics for what people were being subjective about. If someone says some story is AWESOME, how does anyone know what about it he thinks is awesome? What if another reader does not care about that?

psik