Roundtable: SF Aesthetics
I’m reminded of Mary McCarthy’s observation (dicta) that SF and Fantasy “novels” are not novels at all, since the word itself, the new thing, referred to long prose narratives that were no longer about gods and ghosts and dragons and fantastical stuff, but about everyday life. Manners, morals and money. That was a very original (novel) concept in the early 19th century when the “novel” was born.
As to beauty, that’s a not uncommon thing. Spoons and fences, bowls and weapons, as well as tales have always been crafted with an eye toward symmetry. It’s the way humans work.
All literature is about ideas.
Ed: That wraps up the official Roundtable portion of the discussion, so now it moves into the comments. Any thoughts?
Pingback:New Year Linkdump | Cora Buhlert
Pingback:Cheryl's Mewsings » Blog Archive » At Locus, We Talk
The ‘beauty’ that Dirac referred to includes an element of ‘getting the job done’. In that respect, any story that gets the job done for the reader contains that element of ‘beauty’.
As at least a couple of the contributors mentioned, this is really nothing more than an exercise in goal post moving. Rather than discussing “what is science fiction”, we’re asking if there is “beauty” to be found in it. A question that will never be answered as we are all looking at different sections of the tapestry.
For me, personally, those elements of writing that are (erroneously) attributed to “literary merit” CAN be incorporated into works of science fiction but do not have to be present to produce a beautiful story. (Cold Equations anyone? Where’s the “depth of character” in that classic?)
Damien lost me, however, with one of his opening paragraphs:
“I strongly object to the idea that science fiction has to be about science.”
For me there is a line, however squishy or nebulous. The absence of science that informs the story, or serves as background or provides the central element removes a story from the ranks. Even stories that ‘act’ like science fiction but that do not have the practices, logical projection/speculation based on science are over that line (the case for many so-called literary works that incorporate elements of SF, but that do not derive from an SF history/community/sensibility/whatever).
I view this as yet another argument “against” science fiction, seeming to come from someone who buys in to the Vonnegut epithet.
Pingback:The Great Geek Manual » Geek Media Round-Up: January 3, 2011
I’m reminded of the remarks of former world chess champion Emmanuel Lasker contrasting his views of beauty in chess with those of title contender Siegbert Tarrasch.
“Dr. Tarrasch is a thinker, fond of deep and complex speculation. He will accept the efficacy and usefulness of a move if at the same time he considers it beautiful and theoretically right. But I accept that sort of beauty only if and when it happens to be useful. He admires an idea for its depth, I admire it for its efficacy. My opponent believes in beauty, I believe in strength. I think that by being strong, a move is beautiful too. – Emanuel Lasker”
In other words, I agree with the previous commenter regarding “getting the job done.” Are the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch beautiful? Deep? I’d say no to both. But they get his points across. The same is true of many highly regarded works in other media.
Pingback:Locus Round Table Group « Damien G. Walter
Pingback:Geek Media Round-Up: January 4, 2011 – Grasping for the Wind
Pingback:The Habitation of the Linked « Torque Control
Pingback:The Skiffy and Fanty Show #2.2a — The Beauty of SF and Her Sisters (or “How to Ask SF on a Date”)(Part One) « The Skiffy and Fanty Show
Pingback:The Skiffy and Fanty Show #2.2b — The Beauty of SF and Her Sisters (Part Two) « The Skiffy and Fanty Show
Pingback:Science fiction’s future-flinch | Velcro City Tourist Board