The Early Days of a Better Nation |
Ken MacLeod's comments. “If these are the early days of a better nation, there must be hope, and a hope of peace is as good as any, and far better than a hollow hoarding greed or the dry lies of an aweless god.”—Graydon Saunders Contact: kenneth dot m dot macleod at gmail dot com Blog-related emails may be quoted unless you ask otherwise.
Emergency Links
LINKS
Self-promotion
The Human Genre Project
Comrades and friends
Colleagues
Genomics
Edinburgh
Writers Blog
Editor Blogs
Publisher Blogs
Brother Blogs
Skiffy
Brits Blog
' ... a treeless, flowerless land, formed out of the refuse of the Universe, and inhabited by the very bastards of Creation'
Amazing Things
Faith
Reason
Evolution
War and Revolution
Mutualist Militants
Democratic Socialists
Impossibilists and Ilk
Viva La Quarta
Communist Parties
Other revolutionaries
Radical Resources
Readable Reds
For the sake of the argument
|
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
This isn't a review of Sputnik Caledonia, the very fine novel by Andrew Crumey, who chaired and spoke at the Newcastle Parallel Worlds event a couple of months ago. It's had some very good reviews already, and I have nothing but my own enthusiastic recommendation to add. I'm just thinking about why it isn't SF. An outline can make it look like SF. Here's a novel that starts in early-60s Scotland, in the life of an imaginative, space-and-SF-obsessed boy whose father is a factory worker, a socialist, self-taught and firmly opinionated. One subject the father holds forth on is the contingency of history. After some strange experiences hinting at alien contact, and after a sort of blackout, the boy finds himself a few years older, a young soldier, in an alternate Scotland which has become part of a communist-ruled socialist Britain in the course of the Second World War. He's a volunteer for a secret space programme, which is even more secretly preparing to contact an alien intelligence that has just entered the solar system. Intrigues, betrayals, contacts with dissidents, and an ascent into space follow, with an unexpected and satisfying ending that ties the strands together and enough unexplained to leave us thinking. So, yes, it looks like SF. But it can't be read as SF. For a start, the text denies us almost all of the specific pleasures of alternate history. It does eventually reveal the hinge on which history turned, and it's the only place where I heard an echo of an SF text, in a possible allusion to a specific incident and a general mood in Graham Dunstan Martin's Time-Slip. But it doesn't elaborate on this history. There's plenty of detail about daily life in this alternate socialist Britain, convincingly grim and shabby and riddled with secret privilege, but there's no time-line to reconstruct from planted clues, and hardly any figures from our history to recognise (ah-ha!) in new roles. SF examples of all this abound, but to take another book published as mainstream: In Kingsley Amis's The Alteration, set in a 1970s world where the Reformation failed, there's some sly fun with a Cardinal Berlinguer, a Monsignor Sartre, and numerous other likewise impossible historical characters, and a purely SFnal delight in imagining subtle consequences. Or, to lower the tone (and the bar) a lot: my novella The Human Front has some of the same themes as Sputnik Caledonia: Scotland, aliens, 1960s boyhood, alternate post WW2 history, socialism. It's a far slighter work than Crumey's in every way, but it has more of the above alternate-history tropes in its seventy pages than Sputnik Caledonia has in over five hundred, and it does more to rationalise its blatantly handwaved (flying saucers, come on) physics. Crumey could easily do that - he knows a hundred times more physics than I've ever forgotten - but he doesn't. He uses physics in a quite different way, as metaphor. And that's the key. SF literalises metaphor. Literary fiction uses science as metaphor. In Sputnik Caledonia, the parallel world is a metaphor of what is lost in every choice. That's why the book is literary fiction and not SF, and is all the better for it. 'What might have been' functions in SF as a speculation. In Sputnik Caledonia, as in life, it's a reflection that we seldom have occasion to make without a sense of loss. 18 Comments:Ken, you seem to be patrolling the border between literary fiction and SF pretty zealously. I'd always thought the boundary between the two was fairly porous (Vonnegut springs to mind, among a few others) and as much to do with snobbery and marketing as anything else - I've noticed in a couple of bookshops how some of the SF Masterworks have been 'promoted' into the lit. fiction section. Any thoughts? I'm glad to see this book getting a mention, I think it is excellent. I wouldn't dare venture onto the ground of whether it is SF or not. However, picking up what you say about "figures our history in new roles", no, there aren't, but then (as far as I can recall) no famous figures really appear at all, other than passing mentions (though the discover, in the alternate universe, of the "scalar waves" emitted by a black hole is Hawkin, so they are Hawkin radiation). But there are plenty of alternate identities for the characters in the different parts of Sputnik Caledonia itself (for example, two of his teachers from Part 1 appear, with names changed but characters intact, at The Installation in Part 2)
David - yes, I should have said, the characters within the fiction appear but hardly any real-world characters, and it's the letter that give the characteristic frisson of alt-hist. (I think.)
I haven't read this book yet. But the way that you describe this distinction suggests that all the SF that I'm interested in isn't SF.
Hi Rich - I'm not saying 'if it's good, it's not SF'. I don't think it has anything to do with literary quality, or even the amount of scientific content. I think it has to do with how universal the theme of the book (story, film, whatever) is, and with whether the science (or fantasy) is there as metaphor. See the recent kerfuffle somewhere about one of Kelly Link's stories, when the literary reviewers were speculating on what the zombies represented, and the SF fans were pointing out, 'No, they're zombies!' Further to Rich - I can easily think of examples of well-written literary SF: Aldiss's Helliconia, Dan Simmons' Hyperion, Banks's Use of Weapons, Gene Wolfe and Disch and so on - which don't what Sputnik Caledonia does, or what a book by the other author at that event, Scarlett Thomas's The End of Mr Y (which I'm reading at the moment ) does, which is: uses scientific and/or fantastic concepts primarily as metaphors for aspects of the human condition and/or current social realities.
I'm glad that you'd like to link to my blog, thanks.
I'm not sure I've actually read Solaris but I've seen both versions of the film, and going by these I have to agree with you on that one. I'm not saying a given work can't do both, but I do say they're rare (and usually break-out novels, in that they sell to people who normally don't read SF).
I guess that the problem that I have with the "rare and usually break-out novels" concept is that the more well-written a book is, the more rare it is, and (if readers respond to writing quality) the more likely it is to be a break-out book.
Hi Rich,
antihippy, the question of when SF started is another one of those endless conversations, like "what is literary SF" and "what's the difference if any between SF and fantasy". But you're right that it predates pulp. (My opinion, from discussions with Adam Roberts about it, is that the first recognizeably SF work is Kepler's Somnium. A pretty amazing, though difficult, read. But if you agree that it's SF and that earlier works aren't, it shows that SF started right when science itself did.)
Rich,
Somnium is a tough read, because it almost literally makes your head spin: Kepler tries to make you visualize in astonomical detail the Earth and other planets as they'd appear from the surface of the Moon. I blogged about it here.
Ken, Jack - yes, that's it exactly. What I said about Sputnik Caledonia was meant entirely positively, and the same with your book, which does the metaphoric thing very powerfully.
|
I might check this book out.
Funnily enough this isn't the first time I've heard this book mentioned today. I've just been listening to the Guardian Books Podcast "Questions of Science and Literature". There were lots of problems with it - in particular the section where the critics talk about SF; a subject of which they didn't seem to have much experience.
It seems to me that SF doesn't always talk about the new or the future. Yet this is what people always harp on about. That and rockets and rayguns. Quite often authors use the lens of SF to look at now.
I have a problem with literary fiction in that it's too obsessed with post modernism and the form of writing rather than the art of good storytelling...
Of course neither of these of points is entirely true as both of these groups are broad churches with a lot of space for different approaches.
In any case I thought I would recommend you listen to the podcast and see what you think.
By Anonymous, at Wednesday, December 01, 2010 12:32:00 pm