From Eccentric Flower
«August 1999 «Eccentric Flower
The thing is, while I cop to the sin below, I still prefer to use a definition of SF which - absolutely coincidentally - happens to mostly include books I don't like. I think that for SF the science has to be essential, or why is it not just a tale of the fantastic? It ALSO happens that I don't like hard SF much because I drown in all that science. But I think the two things - my definition and my tastes - can coexist without stepping on each other's feet. If you don't like my definition, write your own. It just so happens I have a definition of "fantasy" that is quite broad and a definition of "SF" that is quite narrow. Aussie clearly works the formula the other way, because if Tolkien isn't fantasy even by more classical definitions than mine, I'm a monkey's uncle.
|
Oops, this is going to hurt
I posted the previous entry and I read it and I realized that I had missed something obvious. Something that reflects badly on me.
Well, never let it be said that I was unwilling to indulge in unpleasant self-revelation. But you'd better go read the previous entry first or you won't understand.
I'll still be here when you come back.
Okay, what started me thinking was one of the other emails I got this morning, from Aussie. She said:
One of the problems you're having with it is this:
Sci-fi = Boy book
Fantasy = Girl book
I am offended by this as well, because I wouldn't be caught dead reading fantasy. I don't consider Tolkien fantasy. I consider Tolkien a unique literary object, transcending genre.
Now, I don't buy the boy-book girl-book thing at all, but that's a discussion for another day. The interesting thing is Aus's syllogism:
1. I don't like fantasy.
2. I like Tolkien.
3. Ergo Tolkien is not fantasy.
It occurs to me - painfully - that I am doing the same thing with SF. If I like it, it's probably not SF. I am defining my categories to suit my preferences. That is a bad idea.
This is doubly embarrassing because over on mouth organ we got in several big fights over the distinction between porn and erotica. In fact, we had so much trouble every time we discussed it that we have permanently retired the topic. Basically my argument (Nonelvis' was slightly different) was that I didn't like the way people were using "erotica" to mean "the parts of pornography I approve of," freeing them to anathemize "porn" (because of course nothing in that category was worthwhile, right?)
Now, the porn/erotica debate has higher stakes because it ties into censorship and such. The people who gripe about the evils of porn usually are trying to inflict their tastes on everyone else, whereas I'm not trying to make you conform to my definition of "science fiction."
Nonetheless, I am ashamed to be caught out in a practice which I myself have condemned loudly several times in public record.
So, mea culpa, and now I'm going to go hide in a cave for a brief period of time. Please don't kill me if you'd been trying to tell me this all along.
© Columbine
|
|
