NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/misc/writing/2718

Text File | 1992-08-29 | 3.0 KB | 75 lines

Newsgroups: misc.writing
Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!bf455
From: [e-mail] (Bonita Kale)
Subject: Re: Science vs. story in SF (Was: World Creation)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 10:54:01 GMT
Lines:       64


References: <[e-mail]>


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Elizabeth Hudon) says:

>
>[e-mail] (D M Yohikami) writes:
>
>>I am interested in what the SF-er's think about balancing the
>>technology versus having a believable story that could be (in terms of
>>situation) similar if not the same as a story here on Earth.  In one
>>sense, I find it rather irritating, because if so, only the decoration
>>would distinguish SF from any other genre; on the other hand, if SF
>>does not appeal to anything that I am familiar with, it may lose my
>>interest.

>
>This may all be a statement of the obvious, but here it is anyway:
>
>...

>One final point: One could argue that a story which would be
>essentially the same story if you replaced the SF setting with an
>equivalent modern-Earth one is either
>    a) a *timeless* piece of fiction, capable of surpassing its
>setting in speaking about the general *human condition*
>    or, b) not an especially good story, SF or otherwise
>
>I agree with b), simply because I think an author using a SF base ought
>to have a purpose behind his choice, otherwise (as Mr. Yoshikami said),
>SF becomes merely *decoration*. SF can accomplish much more than
>nice backdrops.


I've been re-reading my C.S.  Lewis, and came upon two statements I'm not
going to look up again to get the right credit for:

In one place, he says that a writer who merely transfers a Western or some
other type of story to outer space is wasting the genre.

But in another, he mentions how he read James Fenimore Cooper as a boy, and
how he enjoyed the books not just for the plot (Someone's in danger!) but
for the "feel" of the kind of danger, the kind of place and people he was
reading about.

I think this kind of pleasure is a very great part of SF.  The plot may be
the same as an Earthly plot; the theme will no doubt be familiar.  But the
sense of -where we are- is very different than we get in any more ordinary
book.  There's a different "feel" to the time and place; the people think a
little differently; the society is different.  Very often, the sky is
higher than ours--that is, there are more (or at least, different)
possibilities for them than there are for us.

After all, you could make a similar argument about historical fiction.
People read it, I presume, at least in part because they want to be
transported to a different time/place.  It's not that the stories are so
different than contemporary ones.

I'm stuck in this gravity well for life.  How else can I get out?


Bonita Kale