HTMLGIANT

November 13th, 2009 / 6:24 pm davidpeak—

stanislaw lem’s imaginary magnitude is a great place to start w/r/t sci-fi that transcends.

November 13th, 2009 / 6:25 pm davidpeak—

oh and it kind of helps if you read it in tandem with a perfect vacuum–which i am just finishing now

November 13th, 2009 / 6:33 pm Nathan Tyree—

Roadside Picnic

November 13th, 2009 / 6:35 pm joe—

karel capek – probably “At War with Newts.”
i had delany in undergrad; and i still can’t get into his books. i’ve tried “Driftglass” and it was okay.
Lem for a third.
also, surprised by how much i liked octavia butler’s “Parable of the Sower.”

November 13th, 2009 / 6:38 pm davidpeak—

did you ever read capek’s tales from two pockets? capek is amazing.

November 13th, 2009 / 2:38 pm davidpeak—

did you ever read capek’s tales from two pockets? capek is amazing.

November 13th, 2009 / 6:40 pm Nathan Tyree—

Yes.

November 13th, 2009 / 2:40 pm Nathan Tyree—

Yes.

November 13th, 2009 / 6:43 pm Gabriel Blackwell—

J.G. Ballard.

Brian Aldiss.

November 13th, 2009 / 6:46 pm Nathan Tyree—

I never think of Ballard as Science Fiction exactly . But yes. Ballard

November 13th, 2009 / 6:48 pm Shya—

Uh, have you heard about this novel called Forecast? Ha.

Brian Evenson’s a big fan of Miéville, and has encouraged me to read him, but so far I haven’t dug in.

Many friends of mine swear by the Dune books, for imaginative scope and intelligence–at least those written by Frank (his son’s are far inferior, apparently).

Also, why not say Dick? Is that too obvious, or below your consideration?

I enjoyed Jonathan Lethem’s The Wall of the Sky, The Wall of the Eye. Strange, cunning science fictions.

Shelley Jackson’s Half Life is really smart and well-written (though it kind of buckles under the weight of its theory in the end).

November 13th, 2009 / 6:50 pm Blake Butler—

i’ve tried several Ballard — The Atrocity Exhibition, Crash, something else — always left me feeling empty, not in a good way. What is your favorite of his?

November 13th, 2009 / 2:50 pm Blake Butler—

i’ve tried several Ballard — The Atrocity Exhibition, Crash, something else — always left me feeling empty, not in a good way. What is your favorite of his?

November 13th, 2009 / 6:51 pm Blake Butler—

Dick I’ve read enough of already. He’s fine, but I’m trying to dig past.

Lethem never really killed me. I’ve read 3 or 4 of his. Someone once sent me Wall of the Sky though and i didn’t open it. Maybe I will.

Shelley Jackson is the shit

November 13th, 2009 / 6:52 pm davidpeak—

robert sheckley’s mindswap

November 13th, 2009 / 2:52 pm davidpeak—

robert sheckley’s mindswap

November 13th, 2009 / 6:54 pm Blake Butler—

I think my main thing is i want something more creepy than corny. A lot of science fiction gets trapped by itself. And language. Good sentences, instead of just ideas.

November 13th, 2009 / 6:55 pm mike—

I am not Gabriel but as a fellow Ballard fan I will offer this:

While his books are great, I think Ballard hits harder in his short stories. If you don’t want to jump into the new complete one there are other shorter collections.

November 13th, 2009 / 6:56 pm Nathan Tyree—

The Atrocity Exhibition

November 13th, 2009 / 2:56 pm Nathan Tyree—

The Atrocity Exhibition

November 13th, 2009 / 7:00 pm Adam R—

ursula leguin has some book about a guys dreams that change reality that seemed eerie what is that one called

November 13th, 2009 / 7:01 pm Shya—

Bunny Modern, by David Bowman

November 13th, 2009 / 7:03 pm Gabriel Blackwell—

Always come back to The Best Short Stories of J.G. Ballard (Picador), which is most definitely science fiction. Better than any of the novels that I’ve read of his.

If you didn’t like Ballard, you probably won’t like Aldiss. Different, of course, even more empty. Report on Probability A is an object, not a novel. I relish this, in small doses.

Both published in New Worlds, a British magazine, which I believe had a nice anthology reprinted recently by four walls eight windows.

November 13th, 2009 / 7:04 pm joe—

i think that’s ‘lathe of heaven.’

November 13th, 2009 / 7:06 pm Amber—

I totally hear you. I personally liked The City and the City, and I think the language was a huge part of it for me. I do like a lot of Phillip K. Dick, and Ballard (if he’s sci-fi), and some William Gibson stuff is not bad…but most pure sci-fi leaves me cold because it reads, like you say, as “just ideas.” I’d rather just have it be like Vonnegut does with Kilgore Trout’s stories, and just summarize the core idea in another novel, one or two sentences each. That’s a book I’d read.

November 13th, 2009 / 3:06 pm Amber—

I totally hear you. I personally liked The City and the City, and I think the language was a huge part of it for me. I do like a lot of Phillip K. Dick, and Ballard (if he’s sci-fi), and some William Gibson stuff is not bad…but most pure sci-fi leaves me cold because it reads, like you say, as “just ideas.” I’d rather just have it be like Vonnegut does with Kilgore Trout’s stories, and just summarize the core idea in another novel, one or two sentences each. That’s a book I’d read.

November 13th, 2009 / 7:08 pm davidpeak—

shya, my first novel The Rocket’s Red Glare is available for pre-order in december

November 13th, 2009 / 7:09 pm dull_mauve—

The two most intense and gratifying (and difficult) science fiction novels I’ve read in recent years have been Light by M. John Harrison, and Theodore Sturgeon’s More Than Human. Gene Wolfe’s Books of the New Sun tetralogy is also immense and awesome.

On the short fiction front, Gene Wolfe has also written what I’d consider some of the genre’s best short stories – a “best of” collection just came out, and is worth checking out, if interested. Also Thomas Disch’s Getting into Death is (deservedly) one of the classics of “literary” science fiction.

November 13th, 2009 / 7:10 pm Shya—

Post the synopsis!

November 13th, 2009 / 7:13 pm davidpeak—

Nearly 350 Million quarters are minted each month. In the second after a coin is pressed, an entire civilization of germs can rise and fall, leaving behind only their tale of survival.

This is one of their stories.

http://www.leucrotapress.com/Rocketsglare.html

November 13th, 2009 / 7:16 pm Shya—

Looking forward to it.

November 13th, 2009 / 7:22 pm davidpeak—

glad to hear it. thanks, man.

November 13th, 2009 / 7:38 pm Lincoln—

I keep trying to give sci-fi a chance, but the books are always so horribly written even when they are by big popular names like Clarke or LeGuin. I do want to try Dhalgren though.

November 13th, 2009 / 7:39 pm Lincoln—

Was Stever Erickson ever really a sci-fi writer? His first book isn’t sci-fi at all, more like Lynchian. I’ve only read three books of his though, maybe I just missed the sci-fi ones…

November 13th, 2009 / 7:41 pm Matthew Simmons—

Second “Appleseed.”

November 13th, 2009 / 3:41 pm Matthew Simmons—

Second “Appleseed.”

November 13th, 2009 / 7:42 pm Lincoln—

My favorite Lethem book is Gun With Occasional Music, which is a Sci-fi book mixed with Chandler hardboiled detective trappings. A fun read.

November 13th, 2009 / 7:42 pm Matthew Simmons—

On Wings of Song by Thomas Disch

November 13th, 2009 / 3:42 pm Blake Butler—

yeah, exactly. i like idea, but the writing of so much of it just turns me off hard. dhalgren isn’t much an exception i have to say.

November 13th, 2009 / 7:44 pm David—

try ballard’s high-rise, blake. it’s a winner-over, i think.

November 13th, 2009 / 7:47 pm Blake Butler—

that one sounds interesting, thanks David. i will try it

November 13th, 2009 / 3:47 pm Blake Butler—

that one sounds interesting, thanks David. i will try it

November 13th, 2009 / 7:48 pm Lincoln—

Gene Wolfe is someone I’ve heard enough good things about from sources I trust that I need to check him out.

November 13th, 2009 / 3:48 pm Lincoln—

Gene Wolfe is someone I’ve heard enough good things about from sources I trust that I need to check him out.

November 13th, 2009 / 7:49 pm Lincoln—

hmm yeah. well i’m with you. Normally when I find a “genre” book I really love, it is by a “literary” author who is dipping his toes into genre for that one book or story. I’d name some example, but I’m sure you’ve read them.

November 13th, 2009 / 7:52 pm Mike Meginnis—

Also Solaris.

November 13th, 2009 / 7:54 pm Graham—

I’ll second The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell (about a group of Jesuits who are the first to visit alien life)

Excession by Iain M. Banks (which I can’t really summarize)

November 13th, 2009 / 3:54 pm Graham—

I’ll second The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell (about a group of Jesuits who are the first to visit alien life)

Excession by Iain M. Banks (which I can’t really summarize)

November 13th, 2009 / 7:55 pm Mike Meginnis—

I taught that this semester. It’s pretty great. I do think “Wall of the Sky” has some better stuff in it.

November 13th, 2009 / 3:55 pm Mike Meginnis—

I taught that this semester. It’s pretty great. I do think “Wall of the Sky” has some better stuff in it.

November 13th, 2009 / 7:57 pm Shya—

There’s also a great sci-fi book called Ardelia vs. The Snow or something like that. I can’t remember exactly.

November 13th, 2009 / 8:00 pm Lincoln—

Did not think that was very well written, though the concept was good. Also, when I read that book I got it for free and randomly at page 100 the previous twenty pages were repeated. It was the only book I had with me on a bus trip and the copy was ruined!

November 13th, 2009 / 8:02 pm Jonathan Redhorse—

I heard it was just a rip off of Forecast.

November 13th, 2009 / 8:05 pm Adam Robinson—

Oh yeah, I went out of my way to buy that City in the City book and then couldn’t get myself to pay $27 for it.

November 13th, 2009 / 8:08 pm David—

i don’t really get this whole praising of sci-fi that isnt sci-fi kind of thing. sci-fi has always kind of been kicked in the ass as it’s kissed on the mouth by that kind of ‘appreciation’. i’m not a well-versed fan of sci-fi but that attitude just irks me. it seems like a cherrypicking approach and not very interested in the genre as such. sci-fi is genre, genre tends to be plot-, type- and idea-oriented. that doesn’t mean it can’t be literary on those grounds alone. language is overrated when it’s made to be the only conduit to the literary; it’s akin to a point made by Johannes Gorranson of how out of touch it is that hyper-text is considered by academia to be the really edgy frontier of internet literature when anyone acquainted with tao lin’s manipulation of the net’s scape and interface knows there’s something so much more profounder going on in the non-formalist realm. that isn’t to relativise genre and literature, so that dan brown is the same as padgett powell; nor is it to say language books are ’empowered’ over genre or something because when you look at what presses will publish these days, of course they aren’t; publishing-wise, it’s the reverse. it’s just to say you don’t have to be all languagey to be killer lit, that it’s a false arbitration of how awesomeness emerges from its field, a myopia. so, having said that, some sci-fi books i read and liked that maybe did, maybe didn’t rise about the genre but still seem totally literary to me: joe halderman’s the forever war; sheri tepper’s grass; robert silverberg’s dying inside and the book of skulls; theodore sturgeon’s more than human; alfred bester’s the stars my destination; john wyndham’s the chrysalids.

November 13th, 2009 / 8:09 pm Phoebe—

Octavia Butler (any), Riddley Walker by Russell Hoban.

November 13th, 2009 / 8:13 pm Phoebe—

And, yeah, what David said. Sheri Tepper is pretty good feminist sci-fi generally. I’d also recommend Joanna Russ along the same lines, though she’s hella weird.

November 13th, 2009 / 8:14 pm David—

no worries, blake. it would be interesting lto know what you think. maybe a post later or something? oh, and uh, i just wanted to clarify that my thing below is not aimed at you specifically or anything, though i mean obviously it is kind of to you, too. but it’s aimed at the idea more broadly, whoever’s interested and reading or whatever, the anonymous. thanks for putting this post up actually. i’ve scribbled down lots of books i haven’t heard of before.

November 13th, 2009 / 8:18 pm Phoebe—

In another sci-fi novel?

And I mean, you guys talking about how Ballard didn’t write scifi have read the Le Guin essay on the subject (http://www.ursulakleguin.com/Note-Calling-Utopia-a-utopia.html) right?

November 13th, 2009 / 8:21 pm Lincoln—

“it seems like a cherrypicking approach and not very interested in the genre as such”

Why should one be interested in the genre as such? Shouldn’t’ we only be interested in powerful moving and well-executed writing?

November 13th, 2009 / 8:22 pm Phoebe—

Because sometimes people like to read about robots or aliens, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

November 13th, 2009 / 4:22 pm Phoebe—

Because sometimes people like to read about robots or aliens, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

November 13th, 2009 / 8:23 pm David—

i’d argue you will lack understanding of what powerful, moving and well-executed writing can be in all its manifold aspects without interest in the genre as such

November 13th, 2009 / 8:24 pm Blake Butler—

and for those people, that’s fine. i wouldnt ask those people to change, or the books those people like to change. but i’m looking for something that hits me personally.

these arent comments about the genre, but about my personal tastes, for me. each is their own, etc.

November 13th, 2009 / 8:26 pm Lincoln—

There is nothing wrong with writing a book about aliens or robots that is written competently enough that you aren’t constantly taken out of the story by bad metaphors, horrible attempts at humor or cliches.

I think david is setting up a false dichotomy where books are either super languagey poetry goop or are awesome fun genre time. There are lots of ways to write well, being “languagey” is not the only way.

Like, if we were talking about movies it is possible to make a fun action film that is competently or interestingly done (I dunno, Aliens? Terminator 2? Iron Man?). It doesn’t have to be either Transformers 2 or some goofy art school flick.

November 13th, 2009 / 4:27 pm Lincoln—

I guess what I’m saying is I disagree with the notion that “genre as such” means bad writing.

November 13th, 2009 / 8:27 pm Lincoln—

Can you define “genre as such”?

November 13th, 2009 / 8:28 pm Phoebe—

Sure, makes sense. You can easily have a hankering for robots or aliens + well-styled prose. I’d stay away from Dune, though. It’s precisely not well styled prose.

Metafilter does sci-fi recommendations fairly well. There might be a post with better recs than this one, but it’s a start and I think it might be helpful: http://ask.metafilter.com/130528/Wheres-the-scifi-with-actual-characters

November 13th, 2009 / 8:33 pm David—

i wouldn’t call myself an intense sci-fi reader for the same reason, blake. and let me just sorry because i didn’t mean to make any kind of personal attack on you. plus i entirely get that thing about needing the language to lead and becoming bored without it. i guess i meant that the genre matters to the reading because, for instance, it’s sort of in ‘engenreing’ yourself, let’s say, that you get more into something like the time and play of the book as genre maybe so that boredom tends not to cut in from the outer expectations. but you’re right, you do need ways in and i know you would never ask for any writing to give way to anything other than its own inclinations and perversities. so yeah, sorry, i didn’t mean to make that claim. there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this post, with calling for good language sci-fi books to hook you and stuff. i just wanted to pronounce and sharpen that differentiation a little was all. thanks for the thoughtful reply, man. much appreciated.

November 13th, 2009 / 4:33 pm David—

i wouldn’t call myself an intense sci-fi reader for the same reason, blake. and let me just sorry because i didn’t mean to make any kind of personal attack on you. plus i entirely get that thing about needing the language to lead and becoming bored without it. i guess i meant that the genre matters to the reading because, for instance, it’s sort of in ‘engenreing’ yourself, let’s say, that you get more into something like the time and play of the book as genre maybe so that boredom tends not to cut in from the outer expectations. but you’re right, you do need ways in and i know you would never ask for any writing to give way to anything other than its own inclinations and perversities. so yeah, sorry, i didn’t mean to make that claim. there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this post, with calling for good language sci-fi books to hook you and stuff. i just wanted to pronounce and sharpen that differentiation a little was all. thanks for the thoughtful reply, man. much appreciated.

November 13th, 2009 / 8:34 pm Blake Butler—

totally feel you. and thanks for the recommendations, i will check them out. this thread has a lot of good suggestions i think. appreciated.

November 13th, 2009 / 8:35 pm TiMen—

Gun with Occasional Music – there be good bathroom sci fi.

For my money, you ended up with a superior Sci Fi read. The clinical gaze beats weird fiction any day. Well, except for the part in ‘The Scar’ with the floating city. That was the shit.

November 13th, 2009 / 8:36 pm Nathan Tyree—

I recognize that ballard often uses SF tropes, but I still don’t read him as SF. By the way, I don’t think that Science Fiction lacks literary merit

November 13th, 2009 / 8:38 pm Phoebe—

Oh, Dune’s plenty fun, and it has good ideas, but the writing itself is a bit bland–that’s something that happens with fair frequency in the fantasy/scifi world, I think if only because it’s difficult to strike a balance between world building, innovative ideas, character creation, and pretty prose.

But, yeah, finding fantasy that fits the bill might be even harder–the market has been oversaturated with Tolkein rip-offs and books about girls with magical bonds to horses/dragons/whatever for years.

November 13th, 2009 / 8:41 pm Phoebe—

Here’s another good metafilter thread on the subject: http://ask.metafilter.com/37305/Pick-the-best-science-fiction-book-for-the-uninitiated

November 13th, 2009 / 4:41 pm Phoebe—

Here’s another good metafilter thread on the subject: http://ask.metafilter.com/37305/Pick-the-best-science-fiction-book-for-the-uninitiated

November 13th, 2009 / 8:46 pm Nick—

Yes. Which is out of print but you can find as a .pdf by googling. Which I did recently, by coincidence: http://brothercyst.blogspot.com/2009/10/roadside-picnic.html

November 13th, 2009 / 8:47 pm Phoebe—

Knee jerk reaction on my part, but maybe it’s understandable: arguments re: books with sci-fi tropes not being sci-fi usually rest on perceived literary merit. Maybe you’re basing it on something else (hardness of scifi?) which would be another kettle of fish entirely.

November 13th, 2009 / 4:47 pm Phoebe—

Knee jerk reaction on my part, but maybe it’s understandable: arguments re: books with sci-fi tropes not being sci-fi usually rest on perceived literary merit. Maybe you’re basing it on something else (hardness of scifi?) which would be another kettle of fish entirely.

November 13th, 2009 / 8:48 pm Lincoln—

My name isn’t linc and that was a sincere question because I felt maybe I’m misreading you. Sci-fi is a broad term, but what we are talking about is sci-fi writing. As such, it is engaged with words and I personally think the wrong move is to dismiss any questions of the writing by saying sci-fi is just about ideas or world building. Writing has to be judged on the writing, more or less. If only the plot or ideas are good, but not at the actual writing, I’ll go watch the film version where hopefully the directing and acting will be okay.

I’m still unsure what being interested in genre as such means though or why one should care. I don’t get the term. I’m not sure I’m interested in anything as such.

November 13th, 2009 / 8:53 pm Lincoln—

I must say I’ve always thought the idea that any work that contains any small amount of “tropes” from a genre automatically becomes a part of that genre to be completely silly. It is also something that is totally unevenly applied. Some people will claim anything that remotely resembles fictional science is Sci-Fi, but no one claims that any book that has any romance or sex becomes a Romance novel.

November 13th, 2009 / 8:54 pm Phoebe—

I’m going to take a stab at this: “being interested in genre as such” would mean that you look for books with genre trappings, whatever those are, because you like the trappings, not that you look for books that have other merits and that just happen to have genre elements in them.

I don’t see why writing has to be judged on writing. Writing can be judged by whatever the reader wants to judge it by, not in the least ideas or entertainment value or whether it gives the reader a boner. I prefer the boner method of judgment.

November 13th, 2009 / 9:01 pm David—

hm. sorry lincoln i didn’t mean to insult you, i was actually meaning to tone down that sentence by using a familiar term with you, not make it condescending. the internet and intonation is so weird. anyhow, it’s hard for me to get a fix on the exact grounds of our disagreement here because my original post was putting forward the idea that the writing of sci-fi needs to be taken into account as sci-fi writing. which does not mean bad writing at all. i don’t really follow what it means to make the general claim that “writing has to be judged on the writing, more or less”. ideas, world-building, there wouldn’t be any of either without words in the book. if that’s what you mean, well, sure. but the words in the book atmospherise in relation their structuration both inside the book and inside the mode of the writing (sci-fi, horror, whatever) and that’s what i was referring to. it’s precisely word-based judgements which enter into the kind of situation you talk about where you can say oh this book has good ideas but i can’t read it or like it or say it’s literary because the writing’s “bad”, i’ll wait for the movie. why is it that it’s easier to find fault in the writing rather than ponder whether its ‘bad’ quality might mean you don’t understand the writing in its generic mode is what i’m saying. i dont really know what more i can add, sorry.

November 13th, 2009 / 5:01 pm David—

hm. sorry lincoln i didn’t mean to insult you, i was actually meaning to tone down that sentence by using a familiar term with you, not make it condescending. the internet and intonation is so weird. anyhow, it’s hard for me to get a fix on the exact grounds of our disagreement here because my original post was putting forward the idea that the writing of sci-fi needs to be taken into account as sci-fi writing. which does not mean bad writing at all. i don’t really follow what it means to make the general claim that “writing has to be judged on the writing, more or less”. ideas, world-building, there wouldn’t be any of either without words in the book. if that’s what you mean, well, sure. but the words in the book atmospherise in relation their structuration both inside the book and inside the mode of the writing (sci-fi, horror, whatever) and that’s what i was referring to. it’s precisely word-based judgements which enter into the kind of situation you talk about where you can say oh this book has good ideas but i can’t read it or like it or say it’s literary because the writing’s “bad”, i’ll wait for the movie. why is it that it’s easier to find fault in the writing rather than ponder whether its ‘bad’ quality might mean you don’t understand the writing in its generic mode is what i’m saying. i dont really know what more i can add, sorry.

November 13th, 2009 / 9:02 pm Lincoln—

I would say any work of art needs to be engaged in the medium it is presented in to be successful.

But I don’t think anyone is saying you can’t like genre as such, as you define it, but I don’t see it as any better or worse than being interested in something else that may or may not overlap with genre writing now and then.

November 13th, 2009 / 5:05 pm Lincoln—

I guess I’m saying that saying any book that has anything remotely technological that is fictional makes it sci fi is a similar oversimplification of the term science fiction. Or should be.

November 13th, 2009 / 9:09 pm Phoebe—

It is an oversimplication. Even people who use similar definitions wd. usually say something along the lines of: “Science fiction explores the application of new scientific principles or technology and explores the ramifications of their use.” I don’t know anyone, fan of sci fi or not, who would say “scifi is anything with technology in it.”

November 13th, 2009 / 9:11 pm Lincoln—

David,

I agree it seems we are talking past each other / misunderstanding each other.

“why is it that it’s easier to find fault in the writing rather than ponder whether its ‘bad’ quality might mean you don’t understand the writing in its generic mode is what i’m saying.”

Well, again we may just be talking past each other… but if I read a metaphor that does not track (for example) that is simply a faulty metaphor, not a matter of me failing to understand genre writing or what not, right? Likewise if I read a character as a stock character with cliche dialogue, I don’t think that is about me misinterpreting the genre. Plot holes, inconsistent voice, etc. Some things are just bad writing, regardless of genre.

The above is what I was trying to say… though a lot of this gets blurry for sure.

November 13th, 2009 / 9:17 pm Lincoln—

I dunno… no one would say it like that, but they would argue along those lines. Wasn’t there a thread htmlgiant where someone argued anything with fake history (I think Roth was the subject) in it counts as sci-fi because it emerges from a conception of worm holes creating alternate timelines?

To me that kind of stuff seems like a huge stretch.

As far as your LeGuin link, I can totally understand why someone would call 1984 a sci-fi book but at the same time it should be obvious why someone would say it isn’t really. Orwell is interested in writing a political allegory, not really in “exploring the application of new scientific principles or technology.” His concerns don’t strike me as tied to sci-fi. Again, I can see calling the book sci-fi, but on some level it is like calling Animal Farm a fantasy book since the animals talk.

November 13th, 2009 / 9:19 pm jereme—

I was going to suggest “stranger” also.

i didn’t really like the language but the “idea” is big. The hippies did adopt this thing as their sort of bible or something.

November 13th, 2009 / 9:23 pm David—

it is worse, i think, when that school of overlapping writing supplants genre for readers as somehow genre-but-better. take phil roth’s the plot against america. wretched book, an execrable instance of alt-history, but it is well-written on a purely worded basis. it was lauded by critics as this really profound clever use of genre for better things. even celebrated by the alt-history associations themselves. but it just fundamentally sucks. alt-history for it is, at best, a prop. of course writing that dips in to genre isn’t automatically dissing the genre. margaret atwood is an example of that. robert coover is another. dodie bellamy, again. i’m talking about the way we see the literary see themselves as such open-minded readers today willing to embrace anything ‘well-written’, wherever its point of origin, when there’s a hidden hierarchy to that supposedly non-hierarchical attitude that assigns certain ideas of the pre-eminence of writing to the good and the literary.

November 13th, 2009 / 5:23 pm David—

it is worse, i think, when that school of overlapping writing supplants genre for readers as somehow genre-but-better. take phil roth’s the plot against america. wretched book, an execrable instance of alt-history, but it is well-written on a purely worded basis. it was lauded by critics as this really profound clever use of genre for better things. even celebrated by the alt-history associations themselves. but it just fundamentally sucks. alt-history for it is, at best, a prop. of course writing that dips in to genre isn’t automatically dissing the genre. margaret atwood is an example of that. robert coover is another. dodie bellamy, again. i’m talking about the way we see the literary see themselves as such open-minded readers today willing to embrace anything ‘well-written’, wherever its point of origin, when there’s a hidden hierarchy to that supposedly non-hierarchical attitude that assigns certain ideas of the pre-eminence of writing to the good and the literary.

November 13th, 2009 / 9:26 pm Satan's asscrack—

I heartily endorse the above recommendations of Ballard, especially High Rise (my personal favorite). I would also recommend Concrete Island and The Unlimited Dream Company.

I also second Disch’s 334. You could also try Camp Concentration.

I recommend:

– Inter Ice Age 4 and the Ark Sakura, both by Kobo Abe.
– Ice, by Anna Kavan. It’s a weird, Kafka-esque end-of-the-world allegory about her heroin addiction. The copy I have has a glowing introduction by Aldiss.
– Dr. Adder, by K.W. Jeter. This is some twisted cyberpunk shit before that stuff really caught on. It was pimped by Philip K. Dick during its time, and my copy even has an afterword by him. Sadly, I think it’s out-of-print, but its probably not hard to find a copy.
– Plus, by Joseph McElroy. This is more like “sci-fi without the sci-fi” weirdness. But its the shit, anyway.

As a dedicated sci-fi fan, though, I must say that your quest for sci-fi with great prose or stunning language is going to be mostly futile. Most all the prose in sci-fi is pretty much shit, even from writers I love (I’m looking at you, Dick).

November 13th, 2009 / 9:27 pm Phoebe—

Well, dystopic fiction is a pretty common sci-fi subgenre with historical precedence, at the very least, to be included under the umbrella of sci-fi, as is alternate history. I’d guess that that’s labeling that comes more from marketing perspective (scifi publishers found their readers, interested in extrapolations about possible but nonexistent science, were also interested in extrapolations in possible but nonexistent history), but that’s just a guess. Just a note that the science-shackled definition of sci-fi isn’t the one that I prefer; I like a mixture of identifying common elements, tropes, and cliches (again, “technology” is too simple, and would include many things that I think sci-fi readers wouldn’t want to read, but I’m fine with “space ships” “intelligent robots” “aliens” “dystopias”) and a “you-know-it-when-you-see-it” definition a la porno. The whole wormhole thing just sounds silly.

November 13th, 2009 / 9:29 pm Mather Schneider—

The hippies had a lot of “bibles or something” besides this one, including On The Road, Howl, the Tropics, etc.

November 13th, 2009 / 5:29 pm Mather Schneider—

The hippies had a lot of “bibles or something” besides this one, including On The Road, Howl, the Tropics, etc.

November 13th, 2009 / 9:38 pm Lincoln—

Phoebe:

“alternative history” is something that dates back to ancient writing, centuries before anything called sci-fi. It also seems to have nothing to do with any classic understanding of sci-fi. So why should it be grouped with it automatically? Some alt history is certainly sci-fi, but there is nothing inherent about making up things using real people or events that makes it sci-fi I don’t think. And to be fair I doubt many people would truly argue that (like, would you argue every time Borges makes up footnotes to fictional books or distorts real books that he has turned the story into sci-fi?)

I agree with the know-it-when-you-see-it approach though. And for what it is worth, I definitely don’t define sci-fi as un-literary.

November 13th, 2009 / 5:38 pm Lincoln—

Phoebe:

“alternative history” is something that dates back to ancient writing, centuries before anything called sci-fi. It also seems to have nothing to do with any classic understanding of sci-fi. So why should it be grouped with it automatically? Some alt history is certainly sci-fi, but there is nothing inherent about making up things using real people or events that makes it sci-fi I don’t think. And to be fair I doubt many people would truly argue that (like, would you argue every time Borges makes up footnotes to fictional books or distorts real books that he has turned the story into sci-fi?)

I agree with the know-it-when-you-see-it approach though. And for what it is worth, I definitely don’t define sci-fi as un-literary.

November 13th, 2009 / 9:40 pm Caiti D—

Riddley Walker is definitely a good one! I read The City & The City, I wasn’t that excited. It was definitely one of those sci-fi situations where this crazy concept completely overrules having an interesting storyline.

November 13th, 2009 / 9:46 pm Phoebe—

I’m not denying that alt. history predates our modern understanding of scifi–just saying that it’s something that’s been embraced under the scifi umbrella for the past fifty years or so. Of course, there are sci-fi-ish things going on in 1984: telescreens and synthetic meals and it’s in the future, to boot.

For what it’s worth, I have heard sci-fi peeps talk about Plato’s Republic as early scifi. Not me, but they’re out there.

“like, would you argue every time Borges makes up footnotes to fictional books or distorts real books that he has turned the story into sci-fi?”

No, of course not. “Scifi” doesn’t mean “not exactly as it is in reality” because then, all fiction would be scifi and it would no longer be a useful term.

November 13th, 2009 / 10:01 pm Ryan Call—

yes to hoban.

November 13th, 2009 / 6:01 pm Ryan Call—

yes to hoban.

November 13th, 2009 / 10:44 pm jereme—

once again mather i am well aware.

“strangers” relationship with the hippies is not as well known or publicized

which is why i mentioned it.

November 13th, 2009 / 11:20 pm JosephScapellato—

Oh man, I second that. You ever read “Apocryphal Tales”? Fantastic. He does all kinds of reinventing of historical/mythical figures– Archimedes, Pilate, Lot, and so forth.

November 13th, 2009 / 11:29 pm JosephScapellato—

Yes to your yes to Hoban. “The Medusa Frequency”– sci-fi that’s lyrical, layered, and deeply mythic. Sentences that spiral in and spiral out. Lovely. An afterread that crackles.

November 14th, 2009 / 12:44 am joe—

i can agree with that. in a broader way, i haven’t read a single czech author i didn’t really love. granted, only a handful get real attention over here, but still.

November 14th, 2009 / 4:02 am Tom B.—

People keep mentioning China Mieville and The City and The City. It’s an OK book, but I’d recommend Perdido Street Station, his second novel — it’s a fantasy about a very strange city inhabited by various species of creatures, including humans. It might have the fantasy plus good writing that Blake is looking for. If you like Perdido, I’d follow up with King Rat (his first novel), then whatever else strikes your fancy.

Can’t say enough about Octavia Butler. It’s a damn shame that a stroke killed her a few years ago. Parable of the Sower is nine miles of awesome. Then there’s Kindred (a time travel story that is considered a feminist classic and I believe gets taught in some colleges), the Xenogenesis trilogy, and Fledgling, her final novel, which is about, uh, vampires. But read it anyway.

Alternate history fiction is considered by many to be science fiction because most of it’s written by science fiction authors. Guilt by association. They’re little thought experiments, which is what sf writers do. There was a huge boom in alt-history fiction in the genre back in the early ’90s. Unfortunately too many of the genre stories are of the what-if-the-South-won-the-Civil-War or what-if-Germany-won-WW II (The Big One) variety.

November 14th, 2009 / 4:05 am Tom B.—

Oh, I almost forgot to mention — Octavia Butler’s short stories (she only wrote a few, collected in Bloodchild and Other Stories) are mighty.

November 14th, 2009 / 4:44 am Ben White—

Ursula K Le Guin, as mentioned, is absolutely worth reading. Someone recommend the Lathe of Heaven, which is cool, but not her best. One of the most notables is The Left Hand of Darkness…which is both well written, won the Huge and Nebula, and plays with gender in amazing ways.

November 14th, 2009 / 4:46 am Ben White—

I read a Gene Wolfe short story collection a couple years back. It ended up being a lot of myth tales and magical realism that weren’t really doing a lot for me. I was disappointed given how massive of a name he is, but it was probably just my preference.

November 14th, 2009 / 6:05 am Phoebe—

The eponymous story from Bloodchild can be found via googling; it’s amazing, and a nice introduction to her work, particularly the xenogenesis trilogy.

November 14th, 2009 / 7:07 am Tim Jones-Yelvington—

I really love Octavia Butler, but I don’t think Blake will — great and gutsy storyteller, but her language is pretty meh.

November 14th, 2009 / 8:13 am Bradley Sands—

Didn’t like The City and the City, but liked Perdido Street Station and the Scar.

Check out Jeff Vandermeer’s City of Saints and Madmen. Another one is Shriek: An Afterword.

Jack O’Connell writes really great crime fiction. Would consider it New Weird-y. Didn’t really like his last book, The Resurrectionist though.

There’s all this good apocalyptic science fiction-y stuff: Super Flat Times, Miranda Mellis’ The Revisionist.

Dig a lot of science fiction, particularly William Gibson and Jack Womack and Jeff Noon and lots that I’m not remembering because it’s late at night and I’m sleepy.

November 14th, 2009 / 4:53 pm mike—

the half of these that i have read are pretty much sci-fi rec’s that are both literary and languagey yet this is the comment that has had no response

November 14th, 2009 / 4:59 pm mike—

i think when these large genre debates start the o.p. should define basically their specific definition of whatever genre it is they’re talking about. like, most of this thread is retarded. how is something that uses sci fi type idea that is languagey not sci fi? how is a sci-fi book that is by an author who does not write exclusively sci-fi not a sci-fi book? that’s like saying that jess franco’s Women Behind Bars isn’t a women in prison movie because Franco is known primarily as a director of erotic-horror. etc etc.

i don’t get what the point of this is. ballard wrote science fiction. ballard also wrote mimetic “realist” fiction. ballard also wrote a million other things. what are you asking for. what are “sci fi type ideas.” there are like 400 “sci fi type ideas.” what the hell is going on.

November 14th, 2009 / 5:26 pm marco—

First of all: if the world of the story diverges from the “real” world by means of a plausible variation (ie the divergence is not due to supernatural factors and cannot be reduced to overtly metafictional/surreal elements) it’s science-fiction. That’s because even the presence of a single futuristic robot or of an alien breaks the expectations of realistic – mimetic fiction. It’s simple as that.

Of course there’s a problem of observation bias when a work gets labelled sci-fi or literary – M John Harrison’s Signs of Life is a novel with literary themes and interests in a basically real-world setting while Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale is set in a future dystopia, but past publishing history informs reception.

The point of genre, Lincoln, is that most people are more emotionally invested in particular stories/settings/premises and less in others. It would take exceptional writing, for example, to get me interested in the story of an aging Professor who finds love with a 30 year younger, green dildo-equipped lesbian. The critically lauded “grumpy old men confront mortality” subgenre of literary fiction doesn’t, on its own, entice me much.

I don’t think that it is difficult to find “good prose” in science-fiction – and many younger writers nowadays have degrees in literature or creative writing or have attended workshops like Clarion, and there’s an increasing number of them that manage to get published both in and out of genre venues – but you still have to do a lot of picking and choosing if that’s the only thing you’re interested in.

Ideas/characters/prose – for me style is not an end in itself, it’s a function of what you want to do with your writing. Noone complains about the lack of believable characters in Kafka. If I feel that a novel succeeds in what it sets out to do, and I find it worthwhile, I’m prepared to forgive a lot.

To turn on its head the “It’s just ideas” argument: James Tiptree, Jr. was a good, albeit uneven writer; most of her short stories are flawed on same level. Nevertheless the best ones present startingly original visions of violence, gender relations, power relations, ecology, free will and biological determinism.
So what if Margaret Atwood is on average a better writer? Reading The Handmaid’s Tale or Oryx and Crake after Her Smoke Rose Up Forever still feels like eating flour with a spoon.

I’m not sure my tastes overlap significantly with Blake, but I’d unreservedly recommend:

M John Harrison’s The Course of the Heart – not science-fiction – it’s set in the real world, with a single supernatural incident, never fully described, which happened before the start of the narration – it’s a beautiful, gorgeously written, heartwrenching novel about the yearning for trascendence as a means to give sense to one’s own existence (almost a cruel inversion of the Chesterton quote from Orthodoxy which appeared on this site a few days ago).
Light is very weird science-fiction and also very good.

I would also add:

John Crowley – Great Work of Time
Andrew Crumey – Sputnik Caledonia
Geoff Ryman – Air
Jack Womack – Random Acts of Senseless Violence
Gwyneth Jones – Life
Karen Joy Fowler – Sarah Canary
Maureen McHugh – China Mountain Zhang
Alan Garner – Red Shift
Adolfo Bioy Casares – The Invention of Morel
Chris Beckett – The Turing Test
Jeffrey Ford – The Well-Built City Trilogy

and I’d second

Thomas Disch – On Wings of Song/334/Camp Concentration
J.G. Ballard – The Best Short Stories
John Brunner – Stand on Zanzibar
Jeff Noon – Vurt
Gene Wolfe – The Fifth Head of Cerberus/The Death of Doctor Island/The Book of the New Sun
Russell Hoban – Riddley Walker/The Medusa Frequency
Stanislaw Lem – His Master’s Voice/Solaris, etc.
Brian Aldiss – Barefoot in the Head

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this recent review discusses an anthology whose aim is precisely to bring together literary science fiction and science fiction by literary authors. The reviewer makes a couple of very interesting points about the differences between the two, – see for example the discussion of Karen Joy Fowler’s story “Standing Room Only” – and the anthology is a good introduction to some of the more literary sci-fi writers.

November 14th, 2009 / 5:51 pm Blake Butler—

super flat times and the revisionist would totally be the kind of things i’m after. i will check out the other mieville books.

November 14th, 2009 / 5:53 pm mike—

I got an advance of the city & the city sitting around if anyone wants to trade me something for it.

November 14th, 2009 / 5:58 pm dull_mauve—

Theodore Sturgeon’s “The Man Who Lost the Sea”, a short story first published 50 years ago, is, in my opinion, about as good as it gets in science fiction. If interested, it’s online:
http://www.strangehorizons.com/2009/20090413/lostsea-f.shtml

November 14th, 2009 / 6:39 pm Harry the Flat—

Cripes, I’m almost afraid to get started here, Mr. Butler.

Soon, soon.

Keep your eye on the mailbox, man;}

Surprised to not see Malzberg or Tiptree’s names mentioned, and I’m really almost only popping up for the sake of plugging them. The list could be endless, though. Seriously.

The main thing that doesn’t seem to be taken into account here is that the majority of the writers working in sf, historically, were making a living (however meager) off of their writing, often producing work at an alarming pace, and frequently plugging away at several pieces at once, in several different paying genres (which often included what would now be considered soft-core porn). Almost none of them were academics in lit/fict/engl, or could afford to write at a leisurely pace (although occasionally you did get oddballs like Cordwainer Smith [mentioned], or Tiptree [not mentioned] who did not do it for the sake of “living off their writing,” came from entirely different backgrounds where they could afford this approach, and wrote majestically).

For instance: Dick got a bit better with his prose later on when he had a bit more time/money (compare sentences from VALIS with, say, sentences from UBIK), but the fact is that he had relatively wooden ears to the bitter end, and his most exciting stuff was written when he was more desperate (and more deeply under the influence of van Vogt’s bizarre pacing/composing ideas).

Similar writers like Malzberg, Disch, Lafferty, Davidson, Sturgeon (older, but held his own until the end), Silverberg, and (occasionally) Pohl could pump out work at the same pace, during the same period, often working with similar themes, and write circles around Dick on a sentence-by-sentence level (or around almost anybody else at that time, for that matter: issues of the Paris Review or the New Yorker from the late 60’s/early 70’s haven’t all dated so well, and from this distance reek in as many places of “literary genre” hack-writing as contemporaneous issues of Galaxy and F&SF do of hack-sf), because they all simply had a genuine, musical facility with language.

So some historical context needs to be taken into consideration.

As far as “pre-genre” goes, you could take the history of sf back to Lucian and Gilgamesh.

The schisms between literary and sf are obviously being blurred, if not almost obliterated, now, and I applaud that (being an obsessive reader of both), but historically (last hundred years) the genres “as genres” were written under very different conditions, and generally with very different ends in mind.

You have to take it back to the pre-Gernsback era pulps to find something similar (say Conrad and Wells publishing in the same places).

As far as “language-y goop” goes (got a kick out of that), it seems many of the most ambitious and progressive authors in those areas have been turning to more speculative imagery and ideas for some time. PoMo grandaddy Burroughs was a freak for Bayley, and much of his most seminal work was chopped up gags on E.E. “Doc” Smith, who was possibly one of the “worst” prose stylists of any genre (this is not to diminish his cultural significance/influence, which is so vast it is almost impossible to estimate). Nabo wrote ADA, taught and loved Stevenson, Borges and Bioy-Casares both worshiped Wells, etc.

The late DFW, Evenson, Marcus, and a handful of others have been leading the way recently, in the crossover dept. Their stamps are on so much avant-garde writing produced right now, it’s almost flooring.

Anyhoo, blah3, we’ll all be in the same ghetto soon enough. Everyone just bring their library, kindle, laptop, iPhone, whatever.

Right here. Yesterday’s sf.

November 14th, 2009 / 7:25 pm Blake Butler—

i’ll trade, wha you want? email me

November 14th, 2009 / 11:37 pm Mike Meginnis—

The Resurrectionist was bewildering. I felt pretty bad because I tore it apart a bit on my blog and I’m fairly convinced the author found the post, read it several times.

November 14th, 2009 / 11:47 pm Bradley Sands—

Oh, shit. Blake Butler. Read Ligotti. Thomas Ligotti. He writes horror. Stuff is incredible.

City & the City annoyed me because it was written in first person yet the narrative prose doesn’t sound like the protag’s dialogue. The narrative sounds like every other Mieville book. Should have stuck to third person. Great concept though.

And then there’s Kelly Link. You probably know most of the stuff I mentioned already.

November 15th, 2009 / 12:26 am André—

The first Dune is amazing, I got high just from reading it, but the second one is such complete garbage that I wouldn’t recommend anyone here even attempt to read it, no matter how much they liked the first one. I got maybe a 100 pages in before I had to put it down.

The first one is really good, though. Something about the world and the way it develops and that autistic feeling that wants to possess the universe.

November 15th, 2009 / 12:27 am Trey—

I agree with this.

November 15th, 2009 / 12:29 am André—

“We”, by Zamyatin was on this site a while back, and if you haven’t read that, you should read that. Not corny I don’t think, not in the same way Golden Age sci-fi is.

November 15th, 2009 / 9:07 pm Thad—

ender’s game

November 15th, 2009 / 9:27 pm darby—

why ender’s game? lets have a discussion about ender’s game.

i’m not being facetious. ender’s game was a catalyst book for me but not because it was good literature, i knew nothing about literature at the time i read it. I’ve tried reading it since but can’t get even a few pages into it, that my sense for what i want a book to be these days seems to only exist on the fringes. EG only moved me because of what it was saying w/r/t the context I was in as I was reading it (the army). Other sci fi books I’ve read have been similar experiences, like cryptonomicon by neal stephenson because I have both a military and engineering background, i felt the book was written exclusively for me. But is it valid for the elements of my own life to prop up lit like this? These days I don’t trust when that happens, if i’m only liking something because i can relate, it feels false or something. I feel like that is the staple of sci fi and most genre, what turns people into trekkies, etc. that relation. Okay. Is relation okay? Okay.

November 16th, 2009 / 8:31 am sang vert—

altered carbon by richard morgan

November 16th, 2009 / 11:35 am Caiti D—

I don’t know if it counts as a scifi book, but the Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson is pretty good. Or at least I liked it. No one I have ever recommended it to liked it. It is a political and sexual satire of just about everything, lots of weird sex rites, conspiracy theory, and crazy machines/ submarines. Dolphins talk, which mayhaps qualifies it as scifi?

November 16th, 2009 / 1:49 pm joe—

i liked it a lot. the sequel was not so good though – though i didn’t finish it, i think. i’d say it’s science fiction though; it’s been a while, but i remember then riding inside leviathan, which i believe was robotic – i don’t know what else it could be…

262 Comments

Archives

Meta