“Lovers are fun, but
kind of stupid, too. They say stupid things to each other and they ignore all
their friends because they’re too busy staring, and they get jealous, and they
have fights over dumb shit like who did the dishes last or why they can’t fold
their fucking socks, and maybe the sex gets bad, or maybe they stop finding
each other interesting, and then somebody bangs someone else, and everyone
cries, and they see each other years later, and that person you once shared
everything with is a total stranger you don’t even want to be around because
it’s awkward.”
In “The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet” by
Becky Chambers
(No, I didn’t get the quote wrong; it’s really
in the book ipsis verbis)
Should all speculative fiction be written in a
fantastical, hyper-imagined future where everything is new and shiny and
different?
Having a rich panoply of characters make 'walk
on' appearances engages the reader and helps them to develop a richness,
texture and depth to a work. The reader can determine whether or not one of
these 'extras' connects to the story-line elsewhere - and an impressionistic
sketch of these characters and their activities actually requires that the
reader puts in some effort in constructing the world in which the characters
operate. Roger Zelazny used this device quite well, and I enjoyed it:
discontinuities were everywhere, and hints and ephemera enhanced the story. I
didn't want to see everything in a well-lit room. I tried Larkin when I was
twelve, then when I was sixteen (yay for required reading as part of my British
Council English education.) Much preferred Tennyson and then I was in my late
twenties. Each and every time it was like Dorothy Parker was sitting reading
over my shoulder: "this isn't a poet to be read lightly, he should be
hurled with great force". No wonder my school loved him - his poetry could
suck the life out of a lemon. Prior to permitting an external creative agent
(an author) to characterize the parameters of a conceptual context (a story),
the human imagination, through its own self-awareness, provides the
experiential appreciation of limitlessness. Stories feed the appetite of those
who elect not to revel in the limitlessness that defines human imagination. It
is true that among the authors there are those who excel at the artistry of
storytelling. But in the end confining oneself to the structured context
established by another individual's imagination is never more than a trivial
pursuit. And yet we're flooded with prancing, mincing, romance stereotypes ala
Gail Carriger's novels. The only difference here is that they take place in
space.
Where precisely are the limitations of human
imagination? Where is the edge of my mind; the edge of consciousness; the edge
of creativity? Most
writers and artist who are any good (and some that are not) do feel that they
are in some ways experimenting (testing out ideas), and when we read or see or hear works of
art and imagination that impress us we do, often, have a sense of having
learned something about the world - our understanding/perception of the world
has been enlarged or clarified in some way.
Bottom-line: If I want a Cozy Space Opera depicting the spectrum of
relationships depicted on spaceship, from romantic partners to casual lovers to
loyal companions to people who put up with each other because they have to….
and every kind of friendship in between, I’ll watch a well-lit “Neighbours”
room on TV where everything must be taken at face value.
