It’s an interesting debate about SF being written by mainstream
writers, and whether it is still SF. Most of the early examples are female
writers who coupled SF and feminism. Atwood, LeGuin, Lessing, Octavia Butler
(who also brought in race topics, of course). Whether you see them as SF or mainstream
really depends which editions of their books you pick up. And it really doesn't
matter either way, they were (and are) just good. When it becomes
embarrassing is when mainstream writers start playing with SF tropes but don't
have the skill to carry it off well. At the moment I'm reminded of that point
in the eighties when mainstream white pop acts started rapping - embarrassing
to say the least. You can tell when an artist has a real grasp on the tradition
they are working in. You don't expect classical musicians to be able to play
rhythm and blues without at least listening to John Lee Hooker for a while, yet
mainstream writers go stumbling into the depths of Hard SF territory without
apparently reading any of what has come before. Fair enough if they can do it,
but if Cormac McCarthy and Winterson are any guide it seems that they can't. What's
"rebellious" about conforming to current expectations and ideology?
Stereotypes and political correctness are two sides of the same coin, treating characters as
statements or representatives and not as individuals.
Quite apart from believing there is space for pure entertainment, I
also do not believe that interesting, challenging work usually comes about as a
result of a writer sitting down and consciously thinking "OK, I'm going to
tackle this important topic". Writing is more often a process of
exploration and discovery, with a lot of unconscious input. As a provision, I would
also suggest that the expectation that writers must "treat characters as
statements or representatives and not as individuals", reliable narrators or not, is also a presumption and taste of our own particular time, place,
and culture.
Why "must" this
be so?
Are allegorical and symbolic modes of narration always somehow less rewarding? I’ve fed up with people saying they don’t bother
reading books with unreliable narrators. Why? No idea. I
think that the whole palette should be available to the writer and the reader.
I also think that imperatives about making SF "representative" reveal the degree to
which contemporary notions of Realism have saturated aesthetic discussions. Representative
values and individuation are certainly not as necessary (or necessary at all)
for the success of works such as Dunsany's ”The Gods of Pegana”, Cabell's ”Jurgen”, Eddison's ”The Worm Ouroboros”, or Lindsay's ”The Voyage to Arcturus”. And I would maintain that -- viewed retrospectively -- two works
that I greatly admire, ”A Wizard of Earthsea” and ”Perdido Street Station”, now seem as much about "types of narration" as anything else. This is not
meant to mark down Le Guin or Mieville. Far from it. Rather, I think that ”A Wizard of Earthsea” and ”Perdido Street Station” will endure despite
their politics or ideology -- which will increasingly date over time -- by
virtue of their style, tone, and aesthetic achievement.
When it comes to first
person narrators aren't they all essentially unreliable? Who
cares? David Copperfield, Holden Caulfield, anything by
Gide, Mersault, and so on. Also, shouldn't we distinguish between 'twist in the tail'
narratives where an objective truth is revealed in the denouement, and more
nuanced novels that describe the fine line between knowledge, story telling, and madness.
I'll never understand the people, and I've met several, who say they
don't like unreliable narrators. For me, they're the only interesting kind and K. J. Parker is, undeniably, the SF master of
the form.
SF = Speculative Fiction.
