on Margaret Atwood’s infamous ambivalence about squids in space.

Elevator Girl House F1  © Miwa Yanagi 1997

Margaret Atwood
In Other Worlds: SF and the Human Imagination

New York: Doubleday/Nan A Talese, 2011. 255 pp.

There are a few problems here, which may take a few minutes to sort through before we can get down to the gist of this slender volume.

Many of her casual readers, and most critics of her work, are aware by now that Margaret Atwood got herself into a spot of bother after the publication of her pulpish dystopia Oryx and Crake (2003), when she disassociated her text from the conversation of SF, the underlying megatext of conventions, phrases, solutions, tags and cliches which honest Science Fiction writers both acknowledge and make new in their works, and which has evolved enormously over the years. Despite her conspicuous use of SF topoi copied holus-bolus as they existed half a century ago — i.e., the Superman Mad Scientist who Ends the World while Simultaneously Creating a New Species to Inhabit the Remains — she claimed in 2003 that what she wrote was not Science Fiction at all, because Science Fiction was all about squids in space. What she was really writing was something decently grown-up, something akin to Speculative Fiction of a utopian/dystopian bent. In 2003 this reviewer (for one) waxed enthusiastically indignant — given the patently condescending disingenuousness of what she said — about what seemed not so much misprision as trahison des clercs. I argued that a person who had attained a public voice had a public responsibility, as a member of a clerisy whose voice could be heard for good reason, not to allow offhand comments to be understood as discourse. Solipsism in a clerk — clerisy being the committee of the whole of the literate members of a conversing society — is a form of tyranny.

In 2003, Ursula K. Le Guin — a writer of singular importance to the field not only for her fiction but for her critical work — made it clear that the squids-in-space bon mot was genuinely discourteous. But her measured rebuke seems to have made little difference. Atwood has now reiterated her claim almost unmodified, in her latest book, In Other Worlds: SF and the Human Imagination. It may be that like a lobster in a trap who cannot find the exit door, Atwood cannot work her way out of the perplex of ill-judged subjectivity in which she had trapped herself: perhaps because, as with any statement of belief as opposed to argument, her “definition” of SF is as unfalsifiable as any sermon.

Read More

This is really interesting. I love Margaret Atwood, but seriously, she shouldn’t be ashamed to call her work what it is!

Source: lareviewofbooks
  1. suzifgarcia reblogged this from lareviewofbooks
  2. nbelk reblogged this from lareviewofbooks
  3. rafaelfajardo reblogged this from lareviewofbooks
  4. albionlibrary reblogged this from lareviewofbooks and added:
    This is really interesting. I love Margaret Atwood, but seriously, she shouldn’t be ashamed to call her work what it is!
  5. notastorytopasson reblogged this from lareviewofbooks
  6. drkarenlord reblogged this from lareviewofbooks
  7. correlatedcontents reblogged this from lareviewofbooks
  8. misscecil reblogged this from lareviewofbooks
  9. peterbreitholtz reblogged this from lareviewofbooks
  10. lareviewofbooks posted this