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