Science fiction - Ingliz tili - Referatlar

Science fiction

Yuklangan vaqt:

20.09.2019

Ko'chirishlar soni:

0

Hajmi:

45.5 KB

Ko'chirib olish

Science fiction PLAN: 1. General background. 2. Real and Fake Science. 3. Topics and Times.

"North American English-language science-fiction stories from i960 to 1990" —No problem with English-language North America. No prob lem with 1960-1 990. Not much problem with stories. But what do we mean by science fiction? An anthology, by what it contains and omits, is an implicit definition. As editors, we remained in the implicit zone, avoiding definitional dis cussions, until we felt the question forced on us, Is this story science fiction or not? We answered that question editorially; and the editor owes the reader some attempt to be explicit. What is science fiction? Why are all the answers to that question either brisk evasions or labored partialities? I think of the statues at the Tar Pits in Los Angeles: a mammoth, sinking in the dreadful ooze, lifts her trunk in a vain and perpetual bellow, while all around her lie vast sunken corpses of the unwary, pre served for paleontologists. I would prefer not to step into this pit. I would prefer to be not a mammoth, but a small primate, skipping briskly away. Science fiction is "a genre," we are told, briskly. But the validity of the concept of genre (not to mention the problem of how to pronounce it in English) is problematical. The definition of a genre is often an act of offense, or of retaliation. The professors and critics who for most of the century have controlled the modernist literary canon define and dismiss science fiction—fre quently in absolute ignorance of its texts—as "genre fiction," that is, not "literature," in order to restrict "literature" to the privileged mode, realism. In defiant and often ignorant resentment of "the highbrow establishment," some practitioners of science fiction define it defen sively as "popular entertainment," not "literature." Some chic critics go slumming trendily with them. None of this posturing advances under standing. Genre is a useful concept only when used not evaluatively but descrip tively. Authors and readers of any genre form a community, with certain shared interests

and expectations. Modern poetry is a good example of genre as community. So is science fiction. Professor Thomas Roberts, author of The Aesthetics of funk Fiction, * makes this parallel, pointing out that people who read poetry "follow "(Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1968). These quotations are from an interview by Marcia Biederman: "Genre Writing" in Poets and Writers (January-February 1992). poetry rather than poems"—that is, they read the genre, not only certain authors, because the body of work is at least as important as the individ ual writers. Excellence within a genre is seen not as a miraculous anom aly of "genius," but as a high point in a tradition. The artist is not expected to reinvent the wheel—only to use it well. Genre writers and readers share a common stock of concepts, icons, images, manners, patterns, precisely as the musicians and audiences of Haydn's and Mozart's time shared a materia musica which the composer was expected, not to shatter or transcend, but to use and make variations on. "The pattern," says Roberts, "has to be fixed, partly because that's enjoyable in itself, partly because that makes it possible to be surprised and delighted by a diversion from the pattern." Transcendence, as in the case of Mozart, may of course occur; it's wonderful, but it really isn't the point. We have let the modern fixation on the Hero-Genius, that phallo-logical fellow who towers in tremendously visible solitude from Byron on, obscure our view of how literature actually works. It works through accreting a tradition. A genre is a formal tradition. All right. I say that science fiction is a literary tradition, a genre of fiction, like realism. But we have not yet defined it. The Tar Pit waits. And the brisk evasions continue, as do the boasts and the dismissals. One well- known writer in the field recently informed readers of The Atlantic that science fiction "is for children," thus exhibiting his superi ority both to science fiction and

to children. Others earnestly proclaim it to be "the mythology of the modern world," which sounds fine, but generally begs the question of what myth is and does. Damon Knight says science fiction is what he's pointing at when he points at it, and I agree; but it isn't very useful unless you can see where he's pointing. I will not try to summarize the efforts of scholars to define science fiction; serious, complicated, and various, they are outside the scope both of my expertise and of this introduction. Those interested should obtain Brian Attebery's Teaching Guide to this volume. They will find there an excellent summary of critical opinion. They will not find a nice, neat, final definition of "what science fiction is." Indeed I wonder: is the non-definability of science fiction perhaps an essential quality of it? Perhaps any close, fixed definition of a genre tends not towards a broader critical understanding, but towards a mere limitation to formula. (Thus, while "the genres" are defined in order to reduce them to formula, "literature" is defined by its exemption from the requirement that it be defined: Le Guin's Conspiracy Theory of the Canon.) Formula fiction is not a literary tradition but a commercial commod ity. Formula fiction is inherently definable, self-limited, not to a shared treasury of living patterns, but to a set of stock figures, motifs, props, locutions—a list of items. In cases of extreme formulization, such as some series romances, the list is actually furnished to the writer by the publisher. When you ask the Common Reader what science fiction is, the an swer is likely to include ideas or images from a list of items or elements (often derived from film rather than fiction) such as: the future "futuristic" science, technology, weaponry, cities, etc.

spaceships, space voyages time machines, time travel other worids alien beings monsters robots mutants parapsychology mad scientists The Common Reader who has actually read science fiction might add complex non-formulaic patterns, such as: alternative history, alternate or parallel worlds thought experiments in physiology, psychology, physics, etc. experimental models of society Elements of the first list may occur both in formula/commodity sci ence fiction and genre/literary science fiction. They may serve as dead items to be manipulated as in a game, or living patterns to be used in the work of art. They are infinitely reusable until (probably) finally exhausted or outmoded. Professor Gary K. Wolfe calls them "icons," a useful word.* Looking at the tremendous vitality of some of them, such as the Robot, the Spaceship, the Alien, which long ago escaped from fiction to become common elements of our entire culture, I would incline to call them archetypes, in much the sense in which Jung used the word: mind-forms, iconic modes of thought. William Gibson deals with something *The Known and the Unknown (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1979).

very similar in his story, "The Gernsback Continuum": "They're semi-otic phantoms, bits of deep cultural imagery that have split off and taken on a life of their own." Even from a capsulized notion of "sci fi" as formula, one may work towards an open conception of science fiction as field, by noting the common element of most icons/items on the list. They generally derive from or employ assumptions basic to science, scientific technology, and scientism. Materialistic cause and effect; the universe conceived as comprehen sible object of exploration and exploitation; multiculturalism; multi-speciesism; evolutionism; entropy; technology conceived as intensive industrial development, permanently developing in the direction of complexity, novelty, and importance; the idea of gender, race, behavior, belief as culturally constructed; the consideration of mind, person, per sonality, and body as objects of investigation and manipulation: such fundamental assumptions of various sciences or of the engineering mind underlie and inform the imagery and the discourse of science fiction. The content may be not scientific but scientistic, when science and technology are presented as deity (or negatively as demon). Science is all-powerful: it can create anything (destroy everything). Science will save us (destroy us). It can solve any problem (it is the problem). It is the essence of the human (it creates monsters). The scientist is superhuman (subhuman). Science is a purely rational process (the scientist is mad). It is objective, excluding all emotional considera tion; hence its judgment is unappealable. Science is gendered (male). It is inherently virtuous (immoral). Science is the sum of knowledge: hence it predicts or prescribes the future. Science progresses inevitably "for ward" or "upward": hence technological advance and civilization are synonymous. Science disproves and replaces religion. That is the mythos of scientism, positive or negative. All its elements can and do enter into science fiction, along with the actual content of science.

Science fiction, then, commonly uses techniques both from the realis tic and the fantastic traditions of narrative to tell a story of which a referent, implicit or explicit, is the mind-set, the content, or the mythos of science and technology. In his Strategies of Fantasy, Brian Attebery shows how science fiction uses science as its "megatext." The nourishing medium, the origin of the imagery, the motive of the narrative, is to be found in the contents, assumptions, and world view of modern science and technology. "Sci ence surrounds, supports, and judges SF in much the same way the Bible grounds Christian devotional poetry."* Such reciprocity is of course not limited to one kind of fiction. The Western partly reflected actual frontier/ranch life, partly invented the ethos and mythos of western America. The realistic novel both grew from and helped create the middle class, and has defined and defied it for two hundred years. All living art is connected to the central concerns of its society and has a social and intellectual function. It seems strange that one has to say so. But the idea of "pure" art, "high" art as socially functionless, above use, apolitical, is still so diligently cherished by many critics that it must be directly addressed. The social function of narrative is not limited to "primitive" people sitting around the fire telling each other where Fire came from and why they're sitting around it. Intellectual content and moral function are equally essential elements of "civilized" fiction. In his book Retelling and Rereading, Karl Kroeber discusses the Modernist attempt to rele gate narrative to the nursery or the savages. "More attention to narrative as narrative," he says, "might assist in developing a responsiveness that does not flinch from art that is more than 'aesthetically' interesting. Throughout human history, stories have been the preferred form for expression of moral commitments. . . . Narrative is a primary means for testing with concrete particularizations the benefits and disadvantages of specific ethical decisions. Narrative retellability and rereadability en sure that such examinations will not too easily crystallize into mere dogma."! Science fiction, in reflecting and reflecting upon both the passing dogmas and the tragic ethical questions of the Age of Science, has car ried a narrative load which

realistic fiction was encouraged to abandon in favor of concentration on the individual psyche and personal relation ships. In the postmodern era, thanks largely to feminist criticism and the extraordinary contemporary flourishing of fiction by non-white, femi nist, and other marginalized writers, the literary canon based on "pure" aesthetic value is in question. The hidden social agenda of "pure" art may be discussed. And narrative may again be valued as much for its intellectual, political, and ethical content as for its psychological depth and its beauty. This revaluation has already enhanced the critical study of science fiction. But there are dangers here. When science fiction was considered as without aesthetic merit, as "not literature," it was overvalued for its *Strategies of Fantasy (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1992), p. 107. f Retelling and Rereading (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1992), p. 189. intellectual content, studied as if it were a matter of ideas only. And this habit of mind continues. An acute contemporary writer in the field says: . . . Science fiction is art—conscious or unconscious, but art, and whatever artistic can be found in it is freely assimilable into the growing body of study of science fiction as an art. Curiously enough, although this school of thought lends weight to the product of intellect, it contains at its core the statement that art is independent of intellect. That is a true statement, in my experience, but few scholars who have elaborated the "literary" view of science fiction appear at all willing to work with or discuss it, and most "literary" critics write as if authors always build their tabulations in every detail on some sort of scrupulous intellectual model* I cannot agree that "art is independent of intellect," but I do abso lutely agree that art does not originate in the intellect, and that it cannot be judged adequately as a

product or expression of intellect. Science fiction may be, as its lovers love to call it, "a literature of ideas," but it is no less a literature. It has no mandate to produce or explain ideas, nor is it reducible to intellectual schemata. It behooves our critics to study its literary techniques and devices as well as its intellectual content. Critics of landscape paintings don't analyze and judge the actual hills and rivers painted by the artist; they discuss the paintings. "An idea," to a writer, is a very different thing from a scientist's "idea," and the writer's pursuit of it is not an intellectual but an aesthetic one. Therefore, though science is the megatext, science-fiction stories cannot be judged according to their actual scientific content. Serious writers in the field take pride in careful research and fact-checking, in, as S. R. Delany says, "not denying what is known to be known," and in making plausible extrapolations from current knowledge. Many of them are real experts in one science or another (some are practicing scientists), and their fictions can be used as trustworthy introductions to various fields or theories. But there are serious and beautiful science-fiction stories in which the science is completely imaginary and the technology not only implausible but impossible. A perfect example, which our geographical limitation forbade us to include in this book, is Robert Shaw's "Light of Other Days." Shaw imagines a kind of glass which slows the velocity of light. Light takes days or even to pass through a slow- glass window pane, which thus becomes a literal window on the past. This is lovely idea. It is not a scientific idea, in that there is absolutely no theory or technique that could explain or accomplish it. Yet the story does call upon the scientific megatext: the author knows what is known of the behavior of light, and he presents slow glass, not as a miraculous substance, but as a natural development of scientific technology, a product, an amenity. The beauty of “Light of Other Days” is not in the scientific probability of the concept, but in its coherent development, its convincingness, its imaginative resonance – all aesthetic qualities – and its aesthetic function as “the idea” of a moving and elegant story.

*Algirdas Jonas Budrys, "SF in the Marketplace," in Nebula Winners 12, ed. Gordon R. Dickson (New York: Harper & Row, 1978), p. 114.

Literature: 1. Dean Curry. 1988. Highlights of American Literature. Washington, D.C. 2. M. Bakoeva, E.Muratove, M.Ochilova. 2006. English Literature. Tashkent. 3. Peter Conn. 1980. Literature in America. An illustrated History. Cambridge University Press. 4. Ronal Carter and John Mc. Rae. 1996. Guide to English Literature: Britain and Ireland. The Penguin. 5. William Shakespeare. 2005. Four Shakespeare Comedies. Macmillan Publishers Limited. 6. William Shakespeare. 2005. Four Shakespeare History Plays. Macmillan Publishers Limited. 7. Ronald Carter and John McRae. 1996. Guide to English Literature: BRITAIN AND IRELAND. UK: The Penguim.

O'xshashlar

Fiction and nonfiction

Introduction lexicologyas a science

Twentieth century english literature (1915-2000)

English literature today

Modern american drama