Samantha Brethel breaks it down:
The fantasy genre is very interesting because of the discrepancies people have in assigning the criteria a book must have to be considered a work of fantasy literature. However, after discussing it in class, I have come to the conclusion that for a novel to be considered fantasy, it must have a few of the following elements: some form(s) of supernatural elements or mythological creatures; have a character-driven plot; and incorporate some sort of journey or mission. J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit incorporates these elements fully, making his novel one of the most famous fantasy books. And the entire Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis is also a series that fully incorporates the elements necessary to make a novel belong to the fantasy genre, and to really keep this genre separate from science fiction, where the lines become blurred.
The plot of The Hobbit is indeed character driven; the dwarves and Bilbo go on a journey to the Lonely Mountain to take back their treasure that was stolen from them by the dragon Smaug. The entire novel consists of their journey getting to Smaug's lair, and then the battle to get back their gold. You follow the fourteen of them, and occasionally Gandalf the wizard and a few others, until they do actually defeat Smaug.
The same is true of The Magician's Nephew, the first (though written next-to-last) in the Narnia series. The two main characters are Digory and Polly, the children who first enter the world that is to be Narnia long before Lucy, Edward and their siblings go through the wardrobe. The readers follow the kids as they go into Charn and Narnia and meet Jadis, the soon to be White Witch, and Aslan the Lion. We follow them between our world and the other worlds until they finally get back to their world and get the apple to cure Digory's mother. The story ends with a nice little conclusion about how the children grow up and live happy lives.
Both novels incorporate a number of supernatural elements and made-up creatures, something all fantasy novels must have. Tolkien's story has not only dwarves and a wizard, but goblins, giant spiders, hobbits, wood elves, river elves, a Necromancer, a super-powerful giant man, a dragon, and a strange hobbit-hybrid creature named Gollum. Each one of these creatures has its own history and own culture; hobbits are specifically creatures of comfort who eat several times a day and never do anything exciting. That is their own specific culture, which is very different from that of, say, a dwarf, who lives underground and tunnels for treasure and loves adventures. The wizard Gandalf is a good wizard, and later on in the series you meet another wizard who is evil. Not every creature of every race is the same in every story, and the same is true of the creatures within this specific story. Bilbo breaks the barriers of hobbit normality by going off on the adventure with the dwarves.
The creatures invented with Lewis's story also are specific to his creation. While witches were not invented by Lewis, he invents her powers to make her unique to his story. Aslan, the talking Lion who creates the land of Narnia is also tailored to specifically meet the needs of this story. Of course Lewis didn't invent lions, but he did create this specific lion. In later stories in the Chronicles, other magical creatures are introduced (though most of them are talking animals).
Science fiction and fantasy are two separate genres, but often it is hard to differentiate between the two. I think Tolkien and Lewis help to make that distinction very clear; if there is an absence of technology (i.e. something invented by man, or seemingly futuristic) it belongs to the fantasy genre. If it's in a more futuristic setting or incorporates technology like spaceships, aliens, or otherworldly inventions, it definitely falls into the science fiction category. Other novels that incorporate some of the same things found in Middle-Earth and Narnia can be considered fantasy because of the absence of science-fiction elements.
Both of these fantasy stories have their main characters going on journeys to get something and get back home, and their treks through the magical lands with the fantasy creatures are what drives the plot. We read these stories to see what will happen to the characters and their friends on their journeys; will they make it back alive? Will they accept that there are magical worlds and mythological creatures that can help them on their ways? These very elements justify these novels as belonging in the fantasy genre. They aren't science fiction, nonfiction, romance novels, or coming of age (though The Magician's Nephew might fall into that last category). Tolkien's The Hobbit and Lewis's The Magician's Nephew both embody these characteristics and define the genre that is fantasy literature.
Showing posts with label defining SF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label defining SF. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Creating Borders in Fantasy
With any genre, the question that comes to mind right away is one of borders. Where does one genre end, and another genre begin? No genre has as much controversy surrounding its borders as fantasy. There are numerous works that can be seen as fantasy, but could also be seen as Sci-fi or Horror, or even a detective story. However, in the case of fantasy, I think it is actually a needless argument.
The word fantasy has been corrupted through usage for thousands of years. If you look at the origins of the word Fantasy, it comes from the greek phantasia which means imaginary visions or perceptions. This is the basic definition I will be using for fantasy, as I find it eliminates many of the arguments about what is and isn't fantasy.
Science fiction is a genre that likes to be held separate from fantasy, especially by critics. It is often seen as being of greater value, despite the fact that it becomes dated so quickly. There are two things that make science fiction just another form of fantasy to me. Firstly, to quote Arthur C Clarke, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” For example, does it matter if it's magical healing pixie dust, or advanced medical nanite dust? Not really. In science fiction, technology serves the same purposes in a plot that magic does in any kind of fantasy. Additionally, the science used in Sci-fi is not usually real, or even possible by the technology of the era in which it is written. At that point, the plot is relying on something imaginary to function.
That right there is what makes it possible to classify a broad range of works as fantasy. I believe that for any kind of fantasy, the main criteria is that it relies on something that does not, and more importantly, to the best of our knowledge could not exist in our world. Through this system, it is easy to classify other things as fantasy as well.
For example, horror that is not of the psycho-killer du jour variety is pretty clearly fantasy when using this criteria. Dracula for example relies on the existence of a creature that eats people's blood to live much longer than humans. The same criteria of relying on imaginary things can be applied to the wolfman, and everything written by H.P. Lovecraft.
Lastly, and most unpleasantly, there are the godawful supernatural romances. These things sadly rely on magical creatures like vampires and werewolves to push their poorly written, often somewhat pornographic narratives ahead. It almost makes me regret making the fantasy categorization so broad, as it includes a lot of godawful rubbish. Examples of this style of fantasy include the Twilight series and the Anita Blake series.
Fortunately, this classification system does have a redeeming feature, and it is that it brings in the classic epics and romances, such as The Epic of Gilgamesh or the romances of Chretien De Troyes. These works are considered classics, and are taught heavily at many academic levels. The ancient epics nearly always feature magic and gods, with few exceptions, while the romances feature evil witches and wizards and love potions. These epics and romances are actually the foundation for what most people refer to when they think of fantasy.
The idea of classifying things is so prevalent in modern society, especially with things like books. Part of this came about as a result of the publishing industry trying to make it easier for people to find books they like in a bookstore. However, this systemic categorization by publishers has left a great deal of things poorly sorted, and does a great disservice to the name of fantasy. It is by looking back in time that we are able to see that many of the distinctions we create are just that--created. When the wisdom of the ancients is consulted, it becomes clear that any attempt to divide fantasy up into smaller categories like science fiction and horror and romance are just that--fantasy.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
What Is Fantasy?
George M. breaks it down:
We can recognize it when we see it: witches and wizards casting spells at one another with their great yew staffs, great dragons loosely based on dinosaur renderings, but mostly constructed from pure imagination, ravaging nearby villages with terrific flames, having no explanation for their actions other than that they can. These are defining characteristics of the fantasy genre.
The average person can read a book about wizards and magic and tell you that he or she is reading a fantasy novel (even if the section in the book store didn't already give that away). It is much harder, however, for that person to explain why that novel is classified as "fantasy" and not something else, like mythological fiction or science fiction. In order to explain why this is, we must first look at what fantasy is.
This is my attempt to sum up what fantasy is in a neat sciencey way: "fantasy is the opposite of what could ever be." That’s probably what Emily Dickinson would say if you asked her. You can't, though; she’s dead. She loved to squeeze a book's worth of meaning into a two-stanza poem. The only way to truly appreciate the meaning of that vague, almost cryptic statement is to crank the handle of this fantasy Jack-in-the-box and stand back. Here we go...
Fantasy is wholly subjective of the author's reality and the technology available at the time. For example, an 18th century author could write a novel about horseless carriages and weapons that use light to injure an enemy and this novel would easily fall into the genre of fantasy. A person could pick up and read that same novel today and would be able to classify it as merely a work of fiction. The reason being is because those things are actually in use today, not just concepts (although using a laser as a weapon today would be difficult, as the really powerful ones are still bulky and stationary). What a difference 300 years can make!
The reason why the author classified his novel as "fantasy" was because mechanical, horseless carriages and light-based weapons were the farthest things from his present reality. They were "the opposite of what could ever be" for him. He simply could not fathom a reality where these things existed, so made the decision to place his novel in the same category that houses tales about magic artifacts and unknown worlds. Although the potential for these things existed at the time, the author was ignorant to that potential, and only used his imagination as reference. This 18th century author who exists solely in my example could have classified his novel as "sci-fi," and you'll see why this is momentarily.
J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit falls under the domain of fantasy because there is no record of our past and no evidence of our future depicting an Earth where dragons, dwarves, and goblins could have existed or could exist. Unfortunately, a world where Gandalf exists is not in our foreseeable future, and because of this The Hobbit must be classified as a work of fantasy.
So far we can conclude that in order for a piece of literature to be considered "fantasy," it cannot have a basis in reality. Although this statement seems quite obvious, there is much more to it than that. How many of the elements of the novel that are based in reality and what these elements consist of play a defining role in determining whether a work is considered fantasy or science fiction or some other genre.
If an author writes a story about a world that uses more sophisticated technology than the time in which he is writing in (all my examples are male--sorry, ladies), and the author tries to give a scientific explanation as to how this technology works, then this work can be classified as "science fiction." Although the world itself that the author is describing might not be our world in the foreseeable future, the technology he is describing might. If the author is writing a book about a "green planet" where all the energy we use is derived from fusion reactors, even though that world is obviously not our present one, fusion technology does exist, and so a basis in science fiction can be justified. The Hobbit is classified as "fantasy" as opposed to "sci-fi," because Tolkien did not make any attempt to scientifically explain how Gandalf can shoot lightning out of his staff. However, I don’t think Tolkien ever planned to. The author has to attempt to explain why things are the way they are for his work to be considered "sci-fi."
If a different author wrote a piece of literature in the year 200 B.C and wrote about Zeus and Athena tormenting a mortal man because he angered them in some way, a person who has read this far (and has never heard of mythology before) might guess that this work would be considered "fantasy," but this person would be wrong, although his or her guess makes perfect logical sense. This particular piece of literature would be considered "fantasy" if figures like Zeus and Athena did not have an actual basis in reality. Technically speaking, they do not. They never existed. Well, that is not exactly true, either. Zeus and Athena existed in the minds of the audience the author was writing for. They believed that these gods were real, and because it was a commonly held belief and a commonly accepted truth, this work cannot be considered "fantasy" and must be a work of mythology, a genre of literature that uses supernatural figures to explain real events.
Even though we know that the Greek gods were never real, we cannot reclassify the example story described in the beginning of the last paragraph as "fantasy." The reason being is that even though we know that the Greek gods never existed (although we cannot say that with total certainty), people once believed that they did. This work had a basis in reality, even though it is not the present one. Due to the subjective nature of reality and once-believed social truths, the work of literature that was written in 200 B.C. must be classified as a work of "mythology": things that people once believed were true, but now are not.
We can conclude that for a literary work to be considered a work of fantasy, it cannot have a substantial basis in our present reality. If an author tries to give scientific explanations as to why his world is the way it is, then this work is no longer considered "fantasy," and must be considered "science fiction." If an author writes about elements that he and everyone of the reality at the time of publication believe to be true, then that particular literary work is considered "mythology," not "fantasy." Hence, what exactly defines a piece of literature as "fantasy" is always changing because our reality is always changing. The perception of truth plays such a monumental role in defining fantasy that a truly concrete definition can't be achieved. In order to know that what you are writing will be considered "fantasy" (at least in your present time), just write about what you think can never happen. Because to write in the genre of fantasy is to believe that the impossible will remain impossible.
Work Cited
Tolkien, J.R.R. The Hobbit, Revised Ed. New York: Random House, 1997. Print.
We can recognize it when we see it: witches and wizards casting spells at one another with their great yew staffs, great dragons loosely based on dinosaur renderings, but mostly constructed from pure imagination, ravaging nearby villages with terrific flames, having no explanation for their actions other than that they can. These are defining characteristics of the fantasy genre.
The average person can read a book about wizards and magic and tell you that he or she is reading a fantasy novel (even if the section in the book store didn't already give that away). It is much harder, however, for that person to explain why that novel is classified as "fantasy" and not something else, like mythological fiction or science fiction. In order to explain why this is, we must first look at what fantasy is.
This is my attempt to sum up what fantasy is in a neat sciencey way: "fantasy is the opposite of what could ever be." That’s probably what Emily Dickinson would say if you asked her. You can't, though; she’s dead. She loved to squeeze a book's worth of meaning into a two-stanza poem. The only way to truly appreciate the meaning of that vague, almost cryptic statement is to crank the handle of this fantasy Jack-in-the-box and stand back. Here we go...
Fantasy is wholly subjective of the author's reality and the technology available at the time. For example, an 18th century author could write a novel about horseless carriages and weapons that use light to injure an enemy and this novel would easily fall into the genre of fantasy. A person could pick up and read that same novel today and would be able to classify it as merely a work of fiction. The reason being is because those things are actually in use today, not just concepts (although using a laser as a weapon today would be difficult, as the really powerful ones are still bulky and stationary). What a difference 300 years can make!
The reason why the author classified his novel as "fantasy" was because mechanical, horseless carriages and light-based weapons were the farthest things from his present reality. They were "the opposite of what could ever be" for him. He simply could not fathom a reality where these things existed, so made the decision to place his novel in the same category that houses tales about magic artifacts and unknown worlds. Although the potential for these things existed at the time, the author was ignorant to that potential, and only used his imagination as reference. This 18th century author who exists solely in my example could have classified his novel as "sci-fi," and you'll see why this is momentarily.
J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit falls under the domain of fantasy because there is no record of our past and no evidence of our future depicting an Earth where dragons, dwarves, and goblins could have existed or could exist. Unfortunately, a world where Gandalf exists is not in our foreseeable future, and because of this The Hobbit must be classified as a work of fantasy.
So far we can conclude that in order for a piece of literature to be considered "fantasy," it cannot have a basis in reality. Although this statement seems quite obvious, there is much more to it than that. How many of the elements of the novel that are based in reality and what these elements consist of play a defining role in determining whether a work is considered fantasy or science fiction or some other genre.
If an author writes a story about a world that uses more sophisticated technology than the time in which he is writing in (all my examples are male--sorry, ladies), and the author tries to give a scientific explanation as to how this technology works, then this work can be classified as "science fiction." Although the world itself that the author is describing might not be our world in the foreseeable future, the technology he is describing might. If the author is writing a book about a "green planet" where all the energy we use is derived from fusion reactors, even though that world is obviously not our present one, fusion technology does exist, and so a basis in science fiction can be justified. The Hobbit is classified as "fantasy" as opposed to "sci-fi," because Tolkien did not make any attempt to scientifically explain how Gandalf can shoot lightning out of his staff. However, I don’t think Tolkien ever planned to. The author has to attempt to explain why things are the way they are for his work to be considered "sci-fi."
If a different author wrote a piece of literature in the year 200 B.C and wrote about Zeus and Athena tormenting a mortal man because he angered them in some way, a person who has read this far (and has never heard of mythology before) might guess that this work would be considered "fantasy," but this person would be wrong, although his or her guess makes perfect logical sense. This particular piece of literature would be considered "fantasy" if figures like Zeus and Athena did not have an actual basis in reality. Technically speaking, they do not. They never existed. Well, that is not exactly true, either. Zeus and Athena existed in the minds of the audience the author was writing for. They believed that these gods were real, and because it was a commonly held belief and a commonly accepted truth, this work cannot be considered "fantasy" and must be a work of mythology, a genre of literature that uses supernatural figures to explain real events.
Even though we know that the Greek gods were never real, we cannot reclassify the example story described in the beginning of the last paragraph as "fantasy." The reason being is that even though we know that the Greek gods never existed (although we cannot say that with total certainty), people once believed that they did. This work had a basis in reality, even though it is not the present one. Due to the subjective nature of reality and once-believed social truths, the work of literature that was written in 200 B.C. must be classified as a work of "mythology": things that people once believed were true, but now are not.
We can conclude that for a literary work to be considered a work of fantasy, it cannot have a substantial basis in our present reality. If an author tries to give scientific explanations as to why his world is the way it is, then this work is no longer considered "fantasy," and must be considered "science fiction." If an author writes about elements that he and everyone of the reality at the time of publication believe to be true, then that particular literary work is considered "mythology," not "fantasy." Hence, what exactly defines a piece of literature as "fantasy" is always changing because our reality is always changing. The perception of truth plays such a monumental role in defining fantasy that a truly concrete definition can't be achieved. In order to know that what you are writing will be considered "fantasy" (at least in your present time), just write about what you think can never happen. Because to write in the genre of fantasy is to believe that the impossible will remain impossible.
Work Cited
Tolkien, J.R.R. The Hobbit, Revised Ed. New York: Random House, 1997. Print.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Lost and SyFy
My experience with Science Fiction literature is very sparse. My knowledge pretty much ends with some novels read in high school. I enjoy reading, but reading a science fiction novel isn't as appealing to me as watching a SF movie or TV show.
As someone stated in an earlier blog the SyFy channel is mostly low budget (and let's face it) crappy made for TV movies, such as Mosquito Man and The Gingerdead Man. While these movies are painful to watch and predictable, there are many interesting SF movies and shows out there.
The SyFy channel airs re-runs of the TV show Lost. Lost is one of my favorite shows of all-time, so I'm mostly biased, but this show does a great job at entertaining and intriguing it's audience, while making you think at the same time. Yes, the show can become very confusing, frustrating, and complex, but isn't that what SF is supposed to be? If Lost was a book series instead of a television show I don't think it would be as big as it is today because it would be even harder to follow. Visually watching something commits it to memory better. It's much easier to misinterpret something you read than something you watch.
Lost has brought back an interest in SF TV shows that we haven't seen since the Twilight Zone. More shows like Lost are popping up, such as Flash Forward and V. Finally, taking the spotlight and audiences away from all the endless (and pointless) Crime/FBI shows and reality TV that are turning our brains into mush. Of course, much of the plot is far-fetched and impossible to believe, but it intellectually challenges the audience and stimulates our mind and I feel that its about time.
As someone stated in an earlier blog the SyFy channel is mostly low budget (and let's face it) crappy made for TV movies, such as Mosquito Man and The Gingerdead Man. While these movies are painful to watch and predictable, there are many interesting SF movies and shows out there.
The SyFy channel airs re-runs of the TV show Lost. Lost is one of my favorite shows of all-time, so I'm mostly biased, but this show does a great job at entertaining and intriguing it's audience, while making you think at the same time. Yes, the show can become very confusing, frustrating, and complex, but isn't that what SF is supposed to be? If Lost was a book series instead of a television show I don't think it would be as big as it is today because it would be even harder to follow. Visually watching something commits it to memory better. It's much easier to misinterpret something you read than something you watch.
Lost has brought back an interest in SF TV shows that we haven't seen since the Twilight Zone. More shows like Lost are popping up, such as Flash Forward and V. Finally, taking the spotlight and audiences away from all the endless (and pointless) Crime/FBI shows and reality TV that are turning our brains into mush. Of course, much of the plot is far-fetched and impossible to believe, but it intellectually challenges the audience and stimulates our mind and I feel that its about time.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Neal Stephenson, Structuralist
Got this off fimoculous, it's a video of a lecture by Neal Stephenson called "The Fork: Science Fiction versus Munane Culture" at Gresham College.
Watch, learn, comment!
Watch, learn, comment!
Friday, May 16, 2008
Monday, March 17, 2008
On Researching/Teaching Gibson: Student Perspectives on Neuromancer
As you can see from a quick glance at the blog authors, I'm experimenting this year with adding blogging into the mix of things students do in my courses. So this semester I'll be posting post-group research/teaching-project learning analyses from students in my Science Fiction course here at sf@SF. The students' task in this assignment, one dimension of many they're being assessed on in this project, is simply to identify the one or two most interesting things they learned about the text and or writer on which they presented as a result of the planning, research, teaching, and reflection/assessment process they went through in doing the project. These are not meant to be full-blown analytical/interpretive/argumentative critical essays, but instead little personal, subjective pieces on what the text they taught meant to them and what they learned by teaching it.
***
Here's one from Anonymous #1:
I really enjoyed reading through Neuromancer. I have always been a big fan of the cyberpunk subgenre, though I never read this particular book before. Now knowing the “true origins” of cyberpunk, it has really given me a newfound appreciation towards what it has become. The many different pieces of the world that make up the plot had definitely grabbed my attention.
Being a film enthusiast, the similarities of cyberpunk to other genres had really been a point of interest for me. When you mentioned the similarities between cyberpunk and film noir, I immediately began to compare and contrast the two genres, remembering different multimedia that represent both genres the best. This in particular definitely motivated me to read this book carefully.
In conclusion, I found Neuromancer to be a good, if challenging read. Remembering the general structure of a Quentin Tarantino film, I was able to hang on for the ride William Gibson set out. I generally find it hard to get into a book, but I really enjoyed Neuromancer. Let’s just hope the world doesn’t turn out to be in such bad shape a few decades from now…
***
And from Anonymous #2:
I'm not going to lie: Neuromancer gave me the hardest time while reading it. I'm not a big fan of books with a lot of action and very limiting dialogue since I'm more likely to skip paragraphs of detail to get to the main plot. Of course, when you skip all of that detail in Neuromancer, you get lost really quickly. Add the fact that you're thrown into this world and are expected to say "yes, and..." to everything that is thrown at you regardless if it makes sense or not, it's a tough book for someone to get through. I was forcefeeding it down by page 20 and I was choking by the time the first section was finished.
I had high hopes for Neuromancer, too. I had seen Johnny Mnemonic, I had read great reviews for it on Amazon, and I'd had it on my Amazon.com wishlist for at least 6 months before joining this class. I was sorely disappointed in the overall writing style and most, if not all, of the characters. I'm not a person who can just accept every character personality or fact of the world without saying "why?" Whenever I asked "why?" to the book and found only silence, I wanted to throw the book across the room and forget about it.
However, I'm not saying that Neuromancer is a bad book. While the writing, to me, has a lot left to be desired, the plot line is quite interesting and the concepts behind it are alluring. What would happen if we were being watched by a super computer? Are Wintermute and Neuromancer merely representations of divine beings? How far will people go to live forever? Could an AI unit really schedule your life out so you can help them evolve? Is it really that easy to manipulate chance? If written by any other author, Neuromancer would have been a better read for me.
I've always been interested in cyberpunk--ever since I watched The Fifth Element, I've been interested in futuristic novels and movies and anything that has interesting gadgetry or aliens or robots thrown everywhere. While I don't claim to own many cyberpunk novels (vampires are my main genre), I do enjoy finding movies and such to get my cyberpunk fix.
In our in-class discussion, we went over what can be constituted as "cyberpunk". Most people concentrated on the dystopian/cyber/future part of the genre, but overlooked one simple word: "punk." Punk isn't just about the music or the fashion (although I've found that the wardrobe of what could be considered punk or gothic is usually thrown into the details), it's about sticking it to "the Man". Most people will think that "the Man" means the leader of whatever country or group that the hero is apart of. However, the "man" is anything oppressive and what is overcome doesn't even have to be a person, it can be a social concept in the world. The world doesn't have to be dystopian, it doesn't even have to be as technologically advanced as we imagine it to be. It merely needs an oppressed society and a hero who is willing to break rules to fix at least his place in that society.
In conclusion, Neuromancer was a hard book to read, but cyberpunk continues to be one of my favorite genres. People need to remember that cyberpunk has the word "punk" in it and isn't indicating the attire of the characters. And characters being roped along by faceless AI units is a bit closer to the concept of "God" than anyone really realized.
***
And here's Lauren Picariello:
During the course of our study of William Gibson’s novel Neuromancer, I actually found myself relating to the character of Case in some ways. His generally apathetic attitude towards the outside world and events around him reflects how ignorant I was about government when I was younger. I knew it affected my quality of life and society I was accustomed to, but I never took the time to think about how any of my actions could affect it. Case has a basic, but limited awareness of his surroundings and only seems to concern himself with what immediately involves him instead of the bigger picture. As the novel’s plot develops, Case begins the see the internal workings of the grungy social structures of the century he lives in.
Furthermore, I believe the technology presented in the novel isolates Case’s character from his real feelings in the same way that today’s modern nuclear family has suffered deterioration due to new technological gadgets that enable more independence for younger and younger generations. The most basic example is the cell phone: children have it to be in touch with family, but use it primarily to be in touch with their peers. At their leisure, they can communicate with their friends whether they’re on a family vacation, at the dinner table, or in the middle of math homework. In the past, parents had say over when their kid was allowed to use the phone. In this day and age of expansion, communication is becoming more and more limited to instant gratification.
What I saw in Case was a need to get high, a need and dependency on drugs to feel more alive and “human.” While energized by ‘hexagons’ (and various other drugs), Case has sharper realizations that I thought went beyond the normal line of sight coming from an average citizen of Chiba City. An example of this is shown when he returns to where he and Molly are temporarily staying (having previously had surgery and modifications to his organs), once again hopped up on drugs. His sudden rush of urgency and need to be in touch with his surroundings is the sense of wonder I felt when I took the time to investigate what was really going on outside my shallow perception of the world. To be personally involved in the issues of the world like Case was with Wintermute--even if it wasn’t on a face-to-face basis--opened up more opportunities to express myself not only as my own person, but as a freethinking member of the world.
I personally enjoyed Neuromancer because of its complexity. I know it was difficult for many people to get through, and it was definitely a challenge for me as well. However, I found having to re-read paragraphs satisfying due to the numerous interpretations one could take from each, and the chance to re-experience that one specific scene in a book is like watching a different angle on the scene unfold. Also, when I read I pay very close attention to the details but can unfortunately miss the bigger picture. If you were to ask me about several of the sub-plots, I’d honestly be able to provide an accurate but vague description. Ask me about a specific scene, and I can discuss it at length. This is what kept me so engaged in Gibson’s work. Not only that, but I’m a huge fan of the cyberpunk genre (I own Ghost in the Shell, Blade Runner, The Matrix trilogy, Steamboy, Appleseed, and other anime titles) and was fascinated to discover that Gibson was the “creator” of cyberpunk.
***
So there you have it! Coming soon: learning analyses on Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 and Butler's Parable of the Sower.
***
Here's one from Anonymous #1:
I really enjoyed reading through Neuromancer. I have always been a big fan of the cyberpunk subgenre, though I never read this particular book before. Now knowing the “true origins” of cyberpunk, it has really given me a newfound appreciation towards what it has become. The many different pieces of the world that make up the plot had definitely grabbed my attention.
Being a film enthusiast, the similarities of cyberpunk to other genres had really been a point of interest for me. When you mentioned the similarities between cyberpunk and film noir, I immediately began to compare and contrast the two genres, remembering different multimedia that represent both genres the best. This in particular definitely motivated me to read this book carefully.
In conclusion, I found Neuromancer to be a good, if challenging read. Remembering the general structure of a Quentin Tarantino film, I was able to hang on for the ride William Gibson set out. I generally find it hard to get into a book, but I really enjoyed Neuromancer. Let’s just hope the world doesn’t turn out to be in such bad shape a few decades from now…
***
And from Anonymous #2:
I'm not going to lie: Neuromancer gave me the hardest time while reading it. I'm not a big fan of books with a lot of action and very limiting dialogue since I'm more likely to skip paragraphs of detail to get to the main plot. Of course, when you skip all of that detail in Neuromancer, you get lost really quickly. Add the fact that you're thrown into this world and are expected to say "yes, and..." to everything that is thrown at you regardless if it makes sense or not, it's a tough book for someone to get through. I was forcefeeding it down by page 20 and I was choking by the time the first section was finished.
I had high hopes for Neuromancer, too. I had seen Johnny Mnemonic, I had read great reviews for it on Amazon, and I'd had it on my Amazon.com wishlist for at least 6 months before joining this class. I was sorely disappointed in the overall writing style and most, if not all, of the characters. I'm not a person who can just accept every character personality or fact of the world without saying "why?" Whenever I asked "why?" to the book and found only silence, I wanted to throw the book across the room and forget about it.
However, I'm not saying that Neuromancer is a bad book. While the writing, to me, has a lot left to be desired, the plot line is quite interesting and the concepts behind it are alluring. What would happen if we were being watched by a super computer? Are Wintermute and Neuromancer merely representations of divine beings? How far will people go to live forever? Could an AI unit really schedule your life out so you can help them evolve? Is it really that easy to manipulate chance? If written by any other author, Neuromancer would have been a better read for me.
I've always been interested in cyberpunk--ever since I watched The Fifth Element, I've been interested in futuristic novels and movies and anything that has interesting gadgetry or aliens or robots thrown everywhere. While I don't claim to own many cyberpunk novels (vampires are my main genre), I do enjoy finding movies and such to get my cyberpunk fix.
In our in-class discussion, we went over what can be constituted as "cyberpunk". Most people concentrated on the dystopian/cyber/future part of the genre, but overlooked one simple word: "punk." Punk isn't just about the music or the fashion (although I've found that the wardrobe of what could be considered punk or gothic is usually thrown into the details), it's about sticking it to "the Man". Most people will think that "the Man" means the leader of whatever country or group that the hero is apart of. However, the "man" is anything oppressive and what is overcome doesn't even have to be a person, it can be a social concept in the world. The world doesn't have to be dystopian, it doesn't even have to be as technologically advanced as we imagine it to be. It merely needs an oppressed society and a hero who is willing to break rules to fix at least his place in that society.
In conclusion, Neuromancer was a hard book to read, but cyberpunk continues to be one of my favorite genres. People need to remember that cyberpunk has the word "punk" in it and isn't indicating the attire of the characters. And characters being roped along by faceless AI units is a bit closer to the concept of "God" than anyone really realized.
***
And here's Lauren Picariello:
During the course of our study of William Gibson’s novel Neuromancer, I actually found myself relating to the character of Case in some ways. His generally apathetic attitude towards the outside world and events around him reflects how ignorant I was about government when I was younger. I knew it affected my quality of life and society I was accustomed to, but I never took the time to think about how any of my actions could affect it. Case has a basic, but limited awareness of his surroundings and only seems to concern himself with what immediately involves him instead of the bigger picture. As the novel’s plot develops, Case begins the see the internal workings of the grungy social structures of the century he lives in.
Furthermore, I believe the technology presented in the novel isolates Case’s character from his real feelings in the same way that today’s modern nuclear family has suffered deterioration due to new technological gadgets that enable more independence for younger and younger generations. The most basic example is the cell phone: children have it to be in touch with family, but use it primarily to be in touch with their peers. At their leisure, they can communicate with their friends whether they’re on a family vacation, at the dinner table, or in the middle of math homework. In the past, parents had say over when their kid was allowed to use the phone. In this day and age of expansion, communication is becoming more and more limited to instant gratification.
What I saw in Case was a need to get high, a need and dependency on drugs to feel more alive and “human.” While energized by ‘hexagons’ (and various other drugs), Case has sharper realizations that I thought went beyond the normal line of sight coming from an average citizen of Chiba City. An example of this is shown when he returns to where he and Molly are temporarily staying (having previously had surgery and modifications to his organs), once again hopped up on drugs. His sudden rush of urgency and need to be in touch with his surroundings is the sense of wonder I felt when I took the time to investigate what was really going on outside my shallow perception of the world. To be personally involved in the issues of the world like Case was with Wintermute--even if it wasn’t on a face-to-face basis--opened up more opportunities to express myself not only as my own person, but as a freethinking member of the world.
I personally enjoyed Neuromancer because of its complexity. I know it was difficult for many people to get through, and it was definitely a challenge for me as well. However, I found having to re-read paragraphs satisfying due to the numerous interpretations one could take from each, and the chance to re-experience that one specific scene in a book is like watching a different angle on the scene unfold. Also, when I read I pay very close attention to the details but can unfortunately miss the bigger picture. If you were to ask me about several of the sub-plots, I’d honestly be able to provide an accurate but vague description. Ask me about a specific scene, and I can discuss it at length. This is what kept me so engaged in Gibson’s work. Not only that, but I’m a huge fan of the cyberpunk genre (I own Ghost in the Shell, Blade Runner, The Matrix trilogy, Steamboy, Appleseed, and other anime titles) and was fascinated to discover that Gibson was the “creator” of cyberpunk.
***
So there you have it! Coming soon: learning analyses on Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 and Butler's Parable of the Sower.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Pet Peeves
I have certain pet peeves when it comes to attempts to define science fiction. Here are a few:
1) Definitions that aim to exclude science fiction writers or subgenres you don't appreciate;
2) Definitions that aim to exclude your own works from science fiction just because you don't want to be labelled as a science fiction writer;
3) Definitions that seek to elevate science ficion over other non-elite genres; e.g., "science fiction is that branch of fantasy which does not suck (because it's so much more, like, rational, progressive, logical, systematic, relevant, etc.)";
4) Definitions that attempt to prescribe what future science fiction writers should attempt to do.
I have a few more almost peeves, but these are less about definitions than about origins and lineages, so I'll save those for another post.
What are your peeves?
1) Definitions that aim to exclude science fiction writers or subgenres you don't appreciate;
2) Definitions that aim to exclude your own works from science fiction just because you don't want to be labelled as a science fiction writer;
3) Definitions that seek to elevate science ficion over other non-elite genres; e.g., "science fiction is that branch of fantasy which does not suck (because it's so much more, like, rational, progressive, logical, systematic, relevant, etc.)";
4) Definitions that attempt to prescribe what future science fiction writers should attempt to do.
I have a few more almost peeves, but these are less about definitions than about origins and lineages, so I'll save those for another post.
What are your peeves?
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Is Earth Abides Science Fiction?
This question was in play when Stewart's novel first came out in 1949 and it's one I'm putting in play for us here.
Think of all the other novels, films and tv shows, and more that are definitely post-apocalyptic but may or may not be science fiction: recently, Cormac McCarthy's The Road or Brian Vaughan's comic book series Y: The Last Man; not so long ago, Stephen King's The Stand or the tv show The Day After; roughly contemporaneously with Stewart, all the authors Connie Willis mentions in her 2005 introduction to the new edition. Which would you consider science fiction? Which not? And why?
Just to get us thinking about defining science fiction, why we do it, and what's at stake in it....
Think of all the other novels, films and tv shows, and more that are definitely post-apocalyptic but may or may not be science fiction: recently, Cormac McCarthy's The Road or Brian Vaughan's comic book series Y: The Last Man; not so long ago, Stephen King's The Stand or the tv show The Day After; roughly contemporaneously with Stewart, all the authors Connie Willis mentions in her 2005 introduction to the new edition. Which would you consider science fiction? Which not? And why?
Just to get us thinking about defining science fiction, why we do it, and what's at stake in it....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)