|
|
Joined: 8/21/2011
Posts: 394
|
Came across a book by Susan Mandala entitled “Language of Science Fiction and Fantasy: The Question of Style.” The book is rather pricey (it’s basically a textbook), so, so far, I have only read an excerpt in Google Books (hope to buy the book someday). The section I read cites and heavily quotes another scholar, Peter Stockwell of the University of Nottingham. Here’s an excerpt of the excerpt of the Mandala book I read (the numbers in parentheses are the citations – I can’t see the complete references in the excerpt I have):
“. . . he [Stockwell] also declares that style in science fiction is, with only few exceptions, unimpressive and uninteresting. It ‘has traditionally been very pedestrian, conservative, unimaginative and unspectacular’ (2000: 50) and remains so. ‘Science fictional prose is stereotypically blandly descriptive to the point of banality’ (2000: 50), a pattern disturbed only by ‘the hyperbole of “Gosh-wow!” awe and wonder’ (2000: 50). He further says that ‘the vast majority of science fictional writing is not syntactically deviant or semantically challenging (2000: 76); that most of it has ‘retained the conventional pattern of fantastic content with prosaic delivery’ (2000: 102); and that it is at best characterized by ‘general invisible competence’ (2000: 76), at worst by ‘in-your-face-ineptitude’ (2000: 76).”
Pedestrian, unimaginative, unspectacular, stereotypically blandly descriptive, general invisible competence, and in-your-face-ineptitude. Hmmmm? Some of the threads on Book Country touch on language – some people dislike descriptive language; some like it (me included). I thought I’d throw this excerpt out there and get people’s thoughts.
Personally, I’ve read some very bland science fiction writing – but the story, dialogue, and characters kept me engaged. But I’ve also read some beautifully descriptive sci fi. In the Foreigner series, for example, there are some wonderfully descriptive passages about all the ornate porcelains damaged during an exchange of gunfire.
So, you tell me – is language in science fiction “stereotypically blandly descriptive to the point of banality”? And if it is, should it be? Is there room in science fiction for poetic, descriptive language?
|
|
Joined: 6/7/2011
Posts: 467
|
Angela. You really need look no further than the works of Samuel R. Delany. Complex, elegant, beautiful, playful prose (praised by no less an author than Umberto Eco, by the way.) I'd also recommend the short stories of James Tiptree and the novels of Joanna Russ. I'm sure there are others more recent, but I'm an old timer.
I find Stockwell's characterization to be nearly as bland and trite as the prose he disparages. No doubt, there is a lot of dull writing out there, but that's true in any genre.
Personally, I think lean, spare prose can be very effective. I admire it, and I think we should all aspire not to waste words. But descriptive prose? Good lord, let's not lose that! There is a place for spice, for fat, for texture. Without it, life can get pretty bland.
|
|
Joined: 8/13/2011
Posts: 272
|
To be honest, this sort of thing has more than a little of the monacle and brandy feel to it. Basically, like always, genre fiction gets a bashing because it isn't 'serious'. Of course, 'serious' really translates to 'written in the way I like or think I should like', because the critic basically doesn't grasp why readers like fiction of the unacceptable style.
To be honest, the reason this sort of criticism comes up is that genre fiction is about the emotions and ideas that the writers evoke, not the actual writing itself. Quite simply, it is content that defines the book, not presentation. Books with more literary pretensions have to be 'better written' as a nature of the market. They have to be more focused on dazzling prose as a nature of the market.
Personally, much of the fiction I enjoy oscillates up and down the descriptive valleys, but I think that's kind of the point. If I'm reading about some kind of apocalypse, I don't want startling flights of prose. I want it laid out in front of me. I want to have a grasp of the details and I want to know exact details.
Finally, it's of course worth pointing out some of the best description I've seen. China Melville's Perdito Street Station is perhaps the only book I've ever had to put down because it's creeped me out describing a bug. Eric Flint is one of my favourite writers not just because of his inventive stories, but also for delightful, tiny descriptions of characters that fit them like gloves.
Of course, finally, it's worth pointing out that the criticism
|
|
Joined: 8/21/2011
Posts: 394
|
Hi, Timothy - You're comment got truncated somehow. Love to know what you were going to point out. . .
I hope to do some digging and see if I can find the original Stockwell references/articles and read them in full. One problem with reading excerpts within an excerpt is that it's hard to tell if the comments were taken out of context.
I agree with the points you and Attys brought up: good, crisp prose has its value as does good, descriptive prose and the language used shouldn't interfere with the story - it should enhance it.
And, yes, literary types have a tendency to beat up on genre fiction (just like some "fine arts" people have a tendency to look down on craftspeople and folk artists). I personally think the Stockwell excerpts are over the top. Anything that makes generalizations like that is, in my opinion, something that should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism.
|
|
Joined: 1/31/2012
Posts: 16
|
The writer is literally putting style over substance. I appreciate a beautifully composed phrase, but SF as a genre does not lend itself to such (speaking very generally). Fantasy, on the other hand, lends itself much more to flowery prose (I've written some myself where that was the point and the plot was secondary).
Then again, prose can go overboard at the expense of readability. I can recall one mainstream bestseller (and critical darling) whose prose was so overblown I literally could not get past the first page.
|
|
Joined: 8/13/2011
Posts: 272
|
Angela: I'm pretty sure that the last 'paragraph' there doesn't actually exist. I'm pretty sure that the previous paragraph was the last one I wrote. It's certainly the last one I remember writing, so I wouldn't worry about the content.
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
Part of the problem I have with putting style above substance is that style is so much a slave to fashion. On the other hand, Good plots stay relevent for much longer, outlasting the cultures they came from in some cases, like the old Greek plays. While which characters are seen as 'heroic' and which are seen as 'villainous' changes, good characterization remains worthwhile; even a look into a villain's head can tell us about ourselves.
Style, on the other hand, completely changes every few decades. When I was a kid, a first person present sci fi novel would be seen as far too emotion-driven, and the 'best' style was one that almost imitated a scholarly paper. Go back further and you get the longwinded prose of the Dickens era. Back to the Greek plays and you get some really overblown soliloquies.
Style is ephemeral. Being able to do a style on command shows great command of prose, but it doesn't mean you can tell a story... *cough*Tolkein*cough*
|
|
Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 662
|
Clap, clap, clap, clap. Thank you, Robert. Style is subjective, just like anyone's opinion of art for that matter. Taste for certain styles vary depending on literary movement and time period. There is also the author's preference.
That said, I have also read SF that runs up and down the descriptive scale. As a writer, even my fantasy doesn't have the typical flowery prose. (This is probably because of the half-ton of Hemingway I read one semester. I swear, I've been ruined.) It isn't really fair to generalize the style of one genre since so many writers do have their own flair, even if they're emulating another.
As an english major in college, I did note that many academics become quite sure of themselves without the proper evidence. I've written more than one paper where I disputed an academic's claim because it was paper thin and taken out of context. (This made my professors love me or hate me.) So I always take an academic's claim with a grain of salt.
|
|
Joined: 8/21/2011
Posts: 394
|
When I was in college, I studied both English (with a concentration in writing) and geology. What I found interesting back then (and still do) was the difference between the way scientific academics/researchers and arts & humanities academics/researchers present their work. Scientific writing (research-oriented, not popular science writing) is filled with hedge words. Scientists, who have science on their side and who deal with evidence and proof, have a tendency to be overly cautious when presenting their work. Academics in literature or the arts, on the other hand, who are dealing with human expression and creativity, seem to come out and state their opinions as absolute truths.
I haven't read Stockwell's original papers, so I don't know what, if any, kind of rigorous analysis he used to determine the "blandness" of the sci fi he was reading. Did he analyze the prose by word types, length of words, length of sentences, use of similes and metaphors, and so on? Or was his conclusion based on his subjective opinion of the prose? I'm thinking it was the latter.
|
|
Joined: 6/14/2012
Posts: 194
|
Stockwell hasn't read enough science fiction--he's cherry-picking, probably based on what he read years ago and what he heard from someone else.
But science fiction and literary fiction have different goals, and within science fiction writers have different goals. Someone whose larger concern is exploring the possibilities of alien contact, like Cherryh, or the way different human cultures cooperate (or don't) and understand (or misunderstand) one another, like Bujold, will not have "syntactically deviant or semantically challenging" as a primary goal--they will want to write clearly, so readers can follow the story and the concepts the story illuminates.
Syntactic deviance and semantic challenges make reading harder for the reader (and thus fun for the reader who just likes feeling smarter) and is not ideal for people actually telling complicated stories. Writing can be good--clever even--decorative--without making readers squint and scratch their heads.
Writers should strive to add new tools to their writerly toolkits...should write better over time...but there's no reason to worry about anyone's writing but your own. Write what you want to write, as best you can, and learn from writers you recognize as better than yourself how to do the things you admire.
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
Am I the only one who read 'syntactically deviant or semantically challenging' and immediately thought of "Ulysses" by Joyce, followed by an extended bout of dry heaving as my subconscious, aided by my treacherous digestive tract, tried to convince me not to crack that cover again?
|
|
Joined: 6/14/2012
Posts: 194
|
Not the only one at all, Robert. Language as a jungle gym, not a means of communication.
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
And not even a fun jungle gym at that. I've had authors take me on a linguistic waterslide, where I was never quite sure where I was or where I was going, but I enjoyed it the whole time. That book, on the other hand, was more in the nature of an artificially difficult free climb, wherein every ounce of coherence is only grudgingly released to the reader.
|
|
|
|