Do we want literary SF?

[marycatelli]

Do You Really Want Science Fiction Books To Be More Literary?

Two of the aspects mentioned -- interrelate.  Fancy word play and suburban malaise go together because if your reader already knows what the setting and the characters are, he knows what the fancy word play decodes to.  If the reader doesn't know, you have to be more clear.

If a literary writer writes, "Two moons hung by the horizon," we know the character is seeing double.  If a SF writer writes the same thing, we know that the character's on a world with at least two but probably more moons (probably more because with only two, "Both moons" would be hanging there), or something has happened to Earth's Moon, or Earth has acquired at least one more moon, probably two -- or the character's seeing double.  You need more clues, which gets in the way of word play.

(fromsartorias)

Comments

[scbutler.livejournal.com]

A reader after my own heart. It doesn'y have to be one or the other, does it? Though I do find the literary crowd to be more generally sneering about anything other than itself. My experience is that a sff reader is more likely to have read literary works than vice versa.

[marycatelli]

when reading, certainly there's no reason why both can't be good

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

I like the way you explain this. If I understand what you're saying correctly, sff may not be able to play with words as much as lit fic does, simply because its purpose is to play with ideas. *g*

[crinklequirk.livejournal.com]

I think it depends upon the author.

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

:D

Always.

[marycatelli]

I'd say that while there is a lot of scope for variation -- the speculative writer has to deal with the cliffs he might fall off, while the literary writer, working in a mundane settings, has walls about him to keep him from falling.

Take the "two moons" thing I gave. A speculative writer has to add more clues; he can't just let it stand.

And metaphors of any kind are always more dangerous for speculative fiction, 'cause they could be literal.