Science Fiction’s Secret History
01. Oct, 2009 
3 Comments
I just received my copy of the Secret History of Science Fiction (edited by Kelly & Kessel) – thank you Matt Staggs who is no longer keep up the Octopus’ blog….
I’ve not been through the stories but I did manage to read the editorial matter at the beginning, where the editor’s make their case.
The concept here is to take on the divide/war/feud/whatever between ghettoized science fiction and mainstream literature; illustrative examples are provided through the selection of short stories. The authors run the gamut from dyed-in-the-wool honest to goodness fans who became pros, to SF writers who have enjoyed mainstream success (if not acceptance), to highly acclaimed mainstreamers who publicly avow their love of genre, mainstreamers who deny their connection to anything SF and just about every incarnation in-between.
I’m planning on dissecting the introduction. On first blush there are good points made, many of which I agree with, and a few others that I take issue with (mostly in the realm of offering a weak argument).
However, there is one statement in the book, a quote from Margaret Atwood, that I will respond to right now.
Each of the stories is preceeded by a couple of illustrative quotes, at least one by the story’s author and another by someone else. Atwood’s is the well-known one about her story lacking aliens, rayguns and spaceships, which therefore means that it is not a science fiction story. It is, in fact, as Atwood identifies it, a SPECULATIVE Fiction story.
While the anthology’s intro gets fairly deep into a discussion of exactly what is SF or isn’t, Atwood’s quote just gets my dander up every time I see it. I just can’t believe that she doesn’t see the ridiculousness of the distinction she is trying to make.
What, exactly, is speculation? Regardless of what you are speculating on, the exercise involves logic, which is in and of itself a science. Or a foundation of the scientific realm, maybe one step down in the hierarchy from math.
I can’t help but react by thinking that any form of speculation that is not logically based has got to be fantasy, whimsy, illogic. Is Atwood trying to tell us that what she is writing is fantasy? Given how strongly she seems to want to separate herself and her writing from SF, I can’t believe that.
She’s just looking for another term, one that isn’t connected (in her mind) with things that she obviously considers silly and perhaps contemptible.
I’ll say this though. The intro to Secret History is itself worth the ticket price. The editors have obviously given the subject some considered thought. Whether I agree with their conclusions or not will have to wait for later.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO MY FEED
Steve, I have just this minute started reading the Gnome Press anthology ‘SF ‘58′ edited by Judith Merril. In her introduction she mentioned ’speculative’ fiction and ’science’ fiction. If I might quote from her:
“A few years back, the physical possibility of space flight was still enough in doubt to make space travel a favorite subject for science-fiction, which after all, is speculative fiction: meaning a story that answers the question, “What if . . . ?” But in order to be science-fiction, the answer must not only be imaginative, but logically reasoned from the accepted knowledge of the day”.
It seems the distinguished Ms Merril was comfortable with the ’speculative’ label. So it would seem that the line (or grey zone) in the sand keeps moving ahead as to where the boundary between speculation and science actually is. Alien invasion or time travel is speculative fiction whereas moon colonies or cloning are science fiction. Seems reasonable to me.
A result of this is that much of what is commonly termed ’science fiction’ is in actual fact a combination of both. Food for thought.
Thanks for bringing this book to my attention. Sounds fascinating and I didn’t know it existed until now. Will you be letting us know how the rest of it is?
I started reading this yesterday. So far I’ve read a few stories I liked and a few I didn’t. But you’re right, the introduction is good.