?

Log in

No account? Create an account

The Past | The Previous

Why You're Not Cool

Over at Tor.com, Jo Walton is engaged in a variation of the old argument of why science fiction is not respected:

We’ve all probably had the experience of reading a great SF novel and lending it to a friend—a literate friend who adores A.S. Byatt and E.M. Forster. Sometimes our friend will turn their nose up at the cover, and we’ll say no, really, this is good, you’ll like it. Sometimes our friend does like it, but often we’ll find our friend returning the book with a puzzled grimace, having tried to read it but “just not been able to get into it.” That friend has approached science fiction without the necessary toolkit and has bounced off. It’s not that they’re stupid. It’s not that they can’t read sentences. It’s just that part of the fun of science fiction happens in your head, and their head isn’t having fun, it’s finding it hard work to keep up.


Unfortunately, the post boils down to arguing that a door is really a door (especially if it opens to another dimension where dragons exist) and that the world is just not educated enough to appreciate science fiction properly.

Perhaps the most telling part of the post, however, is when Walton discusses the translation of one of her own books. "Science fiction," she writes, "may be literalization of metaphor, it may be open to metaphorical, symbolic and even allegorical readings, but what’s real within the story is real within the story, or there’s no there there. I had this problem with one of the translators of my novel Tooth and Claw—he kept emailing me asking what things represented. I had to keep saying no, the characters really were dragons, and if they represented anything that was secondary to the reality of their dragon nature. He kept on and on, and I kept being polite but in the end I bit his head off—metaphorically, of course."

What Walton fails to recognise here is that the dragons are doing both in her book, just as they would be doing should they appear in any other genre: they exist as the dragons within the text, but carry also a secondary reading, which is open to a representational reading. It is wrong to say that one reading is more valid than the other and Walton, by ignoring that, sounds very much like a High School student, who, sick of being stuck in an English class, turns around and says, "Why does this stuff have to mean anything? Why can't it just be about what is happening on the page." What the student there is saying is, I don't want to think. I don't want to have to work for meaning. I want it to be two plus two equals four. I just want to be told something. I want to be given my moment away from my life and not have to think about anything in it. Which is, of course, fair enough, but its up to the reader to decide if they would like to read a book that way--and often the reader makes a subconscious decision on how they will be reading the work by his or her own interests. For example, to use Walton's example of The Forever War, you can read the novel as a story about being a story in which the characters get out of sync to what's happening at home, or you can read it as a story that details what it was like for soldiers involved in the Vietnam War. Both readings are valid, and to me, it is the second reading that makes the novel an interesting piece. Now, I couldn't imagine Haldeman saying, "Yeah, no, piss off. It's about people lost in time. There's no extra meaning at all. The people are just people." But who knows, maybe he would--Walton, however, in actually rejecting that there are multiple ways to write, and in being unable to see how her book should function on two levels, and unable to present it with a realisation that it should function on levels like that, is doing herself a disservice.

(crossposted)

Comments

( 12 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )
strangedave
Jan. 19th, 2010 02:34 am (UTC)
Looks to me as if Walton explicitly (and multiply) acknowledges that there is a secondary meaning in the paragraph immediately above the one in which you claim she doesn't, making your criticism of her nonsense.

And it is all very well to wave your pomo credentials around and say that no one reading is better than another. Whatever, son - she isn't trying to tell you how to read it, she is trying to create an authors preferred translation, which is quite a different thing. She isn't trying to tell you how to interpret what is written on the page, just ensure that what is written on the translated page approximates the same meaning as what was written (and intended) on the original page. Then the book can function on multiple levels *in approximately the way in which she intended it to*.

Really, you seem to have made a pretty silly statement here by treating a writers comments about translation the same way you would a student critical interpretation. The two aren't really comparable.
benpeek
Jan. 19th, 2010 05:19 am (UTC)
did you just call me 'son'?

anyhow, avoiding that, i don't think she does. i think she is trying to argue that spec fic is, first and foremost, about the literal reading of things. a dragon is a dragon, first, and to me what she's saying is that this is the preferred interpretation in spec fic, and the first way that it is read by a lot of people. i picked her quote about the translation because it highlighted that, since as far as i was reading it, she was actively stepping away from acknowledging that there was a metaphoric content to the dragons. which, hey, it's her choice--but why can't it be both? and doesn't it make for a more aware author to work with both?
(Deleted comment)
benpeek
Jan. 19th, 2010 05:45 am (UTC)
brother, you got some years yet ;)
teratologist
Jan. 19th, 2010 02:58 am (UTC)
I think I now understand why I enjoyed Tooth and Claw and bounced off all the other Walton I've tried to read. Because in my mind, it was completely fucking obvious that the dragons were metaphors, otherwise the book would be boring.
catvalente
Jan. 19th, 2010 03:01 am (UTC)
Can I ask what you thought they were metaphors for?
teratologist
Jan. 19th, 2010 03:08 am (UTC)
People. I read it mainly as a critique of Social Darwinism, in which light I found it awesome, even if that's not what Walton intended.
benpeek
Jan. 19th, 2010 05:22 am (UTC)
i've never read anything of walton's, but i was curious about tooth and claw. the 'dragons are dragons' thing though kinda turned me off.
ashamel
Jan. 19th, 2010 03:10 am (UTC)
This reminds me of Stanley Kubrick ringing up Stephen King, whilst making The Shining, to ask if he believed in God.

Or a quote from Anne Rice, that went something along the lines of "sometimes vampires are just vampires" -- obvious metaphors for the gay community notwithstanding.

Which is to say, I think there is a difference between acknowledging different levels of meaning, and having to commit to one thing at the whim of a translator.
benpeek
Jan. 19th, 2010 05:21 am (UTC)
well, its not so much the whim of the translator i was picking on, it was (and this is in the context of the larger essay) she talks about how an important part of reading in sf is that things are first are foremost what they are on the page. the vampire is just a vampire, the dragon a dragon.
frogworth
Jan. 19th, 2010 10:19 am (UTC)
I totally agree with you except that I AM cool.
benpeek
Jan. 19th, 2010 11:37 am (UTC)
that's a lie and you know it ;p
( 12 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )