Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmath.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!jagardner From: jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: The Problems of Science Fiction Today Message-ID: <15467@watmath.UUCP> Date: Thu, 27-Jun-85 12:12:12 EDT Article-I.D.: watmath.15467 Posted: Thu Jun 27 12:12:12 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 28-Jun-85 00:51:46 EDT References: <2398@topaz.ARPA> Reply-To: jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) Distribution: net Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 90 [...] Northrup Frye (a Canadian literary critic whom Canadians think is world-famous) has an interesting theory about the development of literature that may pertain to the discussion of SF. He suggests that all genres of literature go through four stages of development: (1) Mythic stage: stories about gods or god-like beings. (2) Heroic stage: stories about larger-than-life heroes. (3) Peer stage: stories about people who are much like the reading audience. (4) Ironic stage: stories about people to whom the reader is likely to feel superior. If one looks at SF and its history, one can see these stages fairly easily. SF emerged as a genre of its own with the pulps; before then, there were certainly SF stories, but they weren't a separate visible genre. At that time, the stories dealt with god-like and heroic people, the ones who could do practically anything. This kept up for quite some time, well into the fifties. Only gradually did SF characters sink from their larger than life statures. Thus, SF had Lensmen, for example, who were very god-like, and Buck Rogers, the classic hero. The so-called "new wave" of SF brought in much more down-to-earth characters. Instead of Space Rangers who could do anything, we got scientists who had to struggle and be just a little bit cleverer than whatever they were fighting. Such people were on the same level as the reader (or at least what the reader believed him/herself to be). Now we (or some authors, at any rate) are on the verge of the ironic stage. For example, characters like Thomas Covenant are more seriously screwed-up than the average reader. It is much more common to see SF characters acting in ways we recognize as childish or foolish or insensitive. Readers go through the same stages as literature...or rather, most readers have a stronger affinity for one stage than another. Thus, some readers buy SF precisely because it is a literature that still has some god-like beings. Other "Ironic" readers (frequently those who enjoy mainstream literature, which has been ironic for decades) are looking for entirely different things in SF. And because SF is only now entering the Ironic stage, the characteristic elements of ironic literature are often missing in SF. Such elements include: -- a certain type of characterization. It is wrong to say that many SF stories do a poor job of characterization. In the Mythic stage, the role of characterization is to impress the reader with how great the god-like being is. The literature would fail in its own goals if it introduced any humanizing influences. (In the Old Testament, would it make sense to have a scene in heaven where God agonizes over whether He should destroy Sodom and Gamorrah?) Establishing characters serves a different purpose in each of the four stages. Ironic readers should not complain that a Heroic book doesn't give the sort of characterization that is given in an Ironic book. -- certain restrictions on possible events in the story. In Ironic literature, "realism" is a desirable thing (at least if you're fairly loose about your definition of realism). In Mythic stories, it's an abomination. What good is it being a god if you can't have a god-like disdain for rules of science, probability, coincidence, and so on? In Heroic stories, the hero and heroine really do live happily ever after (unless they're fated to die in some high tragic way). Ironic readers can't accept such pat solutions. -- certain restrictions on prose style. Some SF writers can't write...or at least they cannot write in a style that is acceptable to readers in some stages. I howl every time I read E.E."Doc" Smith's prose and can't take it seriously for a moment. However, there are a large number of fans out there who love his stuff. After 20 years, it is still in print, new editions coming out, and so on. Smith's readers look at prose in an entirely different light than classic "Ironic" readers. The most educated readers today are usually Ironic readers, and what they look for in a book are a certain set of virtues. Most of the people who are contributing to this discussion are Ironic readers. However, the main body of SF just hasn't got that far in the normal course of development, nor has the main body of SF readers. I don't think this means there is a "problem" with SF. An early stage of development is not inferior to a later one; it's just different, with different goals, different techniques, and a different readership. Readers at a particular stage will be able to appreciate and enjoy SF at the same stage. As for SF at other stages, the reader will just have to avoid it or accept it for what it is. Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo