Stupid letters Pt. 2
Another round of letters to the editor from this week's Science Fiction Weekly. I rant a bit, and there's a little bit about a show I watch at the end because even though it's out of character for me, I have finally succumbed to my urge to say something, even if it's just to myself.
This got a lot longer than I thought it would. So all under LJ cuts.
So the whole fantasy/science fiction debate continues with a letter from some guy who dares to say that fantasy's weakness is its limitation, specifically the limitations set by Tolkien. I want to know where this guy has been? It's true that there are several writers, usually the younger amateur ones, who seem to think that Tolkien is the be all and end all of fantasy, but it completely boggles my mind that this guy believes that's all the fantasy genre has to offer. People shouldn't give such assertive opinions on genres they know absolutely nothing about.
The guy then goes on to talk about a book by China Mieville that defies this "limitation" and says something about how he hopes that style will catch on. Newsflash, dude, that style has and did catch on years ago. There are no limitations in fantasy, and that is reflected in the types of stories that one can find even in a poorly-stocked bookstore or library. There are so many subgenres and things that don't even fall into subgenres, and I cannot believe someone who claims to be even just a science fiction fan can say that the fantasy genre is limiting and that the science fiction genre is not (which is what he does say). There is nothing inherent to either genre that makes one more expansive than the other. The argument about Tolkien defining the boundaries of fantasy could also be applied to a certain group of science fiction authors as well, which many young amateur writers take to be the be all and end all of science fiction. I never understood how someone could think a single author could define an entire genre so that no one wanted to write outside those set boundaries. That has never and hopefully will never be the case. Anyone who thinks differently is obviously ignorant about the subject and doesn't need to be writing letters that make me want to smack them.
There's also some debate about character vs. science in science fiction, that the characters are more important than the science, and that today's science fiction is becoming more character-driven. Okay, I can buy that, and I have to say that I think it's fantastic. I'm all about the characters always, and I will forgive a lot if I like the characters. I can watch something like Stargate Atlantis, which has some of the wonkiest science ever (and I'm especially horrifed about their biology; I can ignore the physics stuff since I know next to nothing about it, but the biology is tear-inducing) but great characters, and I absolutely love it and can pretend that they must just be working with some kind of alternate science. On the other hand, if there was a show that had really good accurate science but crappy characters (I don't think there's actually an example of this, or not one that I can think of, since the vast majority of sci-fi shows either have weird science or none at all(1)) I wouldn't be able to sit through it. So, yeah, I'm all for lots of character-driven stuff and I love that sci-fi could be getting away from the Trek model (which could be said to have limited the genre of sci-fi television, oh no!). But I don't buy that leaving science out all together is the way to go. There's a reason that it's called science fiction. That means there should be a science part and a fiction part. And if something swings too far in either direction then that's a bad thing. Too much science and not enough fiction, I lose interest and watch something more introspective. I mean, I work in science. I see it every day. If I want to watch straight science I'll find a documentary or read an actual journal article. But if there's too much fiction to the detriment of the science (2), then what's the point of making a sci-fi show in the first place? If it's too easy to uproot the characters and situations and put them into completely mundane settings, then why bother with the high cost of the sci-fi stuff? Just to see things explode in pretty colors and blow your budget on CGI spaceships? I don't get that. Save some money (and arguably reputation) and make a straight drama instead.
I mean, I'm all about not limiting characters to a certain genre. Stephen King says he doesn't write horror, he writes about people. Which is true. But part of what makes the people interesting to read about is the situation they find themselves in, and I've always seen that as a reason why people write within a genre instead of classifying everything as mainstream. Science fiction, fantasy, horror, whatever, is all about the "what if?" and maybe I'm being somewhat contradictory in light of my above arguments about lack of limitations, but the way I see it, that lack of limitations is itself limited by genre. My personal definition of "genre" is very, very broad, which is where I get the "lack of limitations" thing from above. Not all fantasy has to be about elves and dragons, and not all science fiction has to be about spaceships and aliens. But yes, I do think that there should be at least some kind of attempt at science (2) in sci-fi television. I think the characters have to make sense for the world, and the world has to make sense for the characters.
(Actually, the letter this rant is mostly in response to I agree with fully, which is that character is most important. I just felt I should mention that while I think it's most important, character shouldn't be all that's important. There's definitely room for science and technology, too).
(1) To make things even more confusing, I'm using my personal definitions. When I refer to "sci-fi" I'm referring to what the networks typically categorize as sci-fi television, which encompasses pretty much anything in the speculative fiction genre, not such science fiction. So, basically, all science fiction, fantasy, and horror shows, as well as hybrids between any of those. "Sci-fi television" includes things like the Star Treks as well as things like Lost, Smallville, The X-Files, any of the shows Joss Whedon has created, etc.
(2) Science, in this case, doesn't have to refer strictly to science. It can also refer to magic or psychic powers or whatever is it that makes the story not mainstream. My point still stands.
So I was bad and started downloading the new episodes of Stargate Atlantis when they started airing in Canada instead of waiting for them to air here. Now, having seen all the way up through "The Long Goodbye," I have this to say to the fandom at large:
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
So I try to avoid spoilers, and I know there are lots of people who don't, and that's their personal choice and I have nothing to say about that. But really, I can't help but laugh at all the people who apparently read spoilers before the episodes aired and promptly threw massive hissy fits about plots and details (and *shudder* ships) they got from spoiler sites that are speculative at best, treating them as if they were the Gospel truth. And then it turned out to be a complete waste of energy. I mean, really. *points and laughs some more*
Get a grip, people. It's a fictional television show (about ridiculously attractive people in absurd situations). The sense of entitlement that fandom at large seems heir to is alternatively hilarious and pathetic. This is why I can't do fandom, or rather, why I don't actively do fandom. I watch the shows, I skim through some of the reactions (sometimes I write my own), and I read the fanfic. Really, I'm just a lurker here and I'm sure I just don't understand why of course everything should go the way that you want it, but then I don't really want to understand because one of the prerequisites seems to be completely losing hold of reality. It's supposed to be for fun, but there are some of you who just take everything so damn seriously. I mean, does it really matter who the hell certain characters have "feelings"? Or rather, is it really worth the time and effort it takes to bitch to each other about it? I'm not sure whether to laugh at you or feel sorry for you. Since I'm mean, I'll settle for laughing.
And that's really all the time I want to spend on that subject. Yes, I do feel better now, thanks.
So, as for the episodes themselves: I think I'll try to get back into doing reviews for the Stargates when they start airing again tomorrow. They fizzled kind of quickly after the beginning of the season, and I keep wanting to go back and do the ones I missed, but the sheer number of them makes me nauseous. I just don't have that kind of time.
This got a lot longer than I thought it would. So all under LJ cuts.
So the whole fantasy/science fiction debate continues with a letter from some guy who dares to say that fantasy's weakness is its limitation, specifically the limitations set by Tolkien. I want to know where this guy has been? It's true that there are several writers, usually the younger amateur ones, who seem to think that Tolkien is the be all and end all of fantasy, but it completely boggles my mind that this guy believes that's all the fantasy genre has to offer. People shouldn't give such assertive opinions on genres they know absolutely nothing about.
The guy then goes on to talk about a book by China Mieville that defies this "limitation" and says something about how he hopes that style will catch on. Newsflash, dude, that style has and did catch on years ago. There are no limitations in fantasy, and that is reflected in the types of stories that one can find even in a poorly-stocked bookstore or library. There are so many subgenres and things that don't even fall into subgenres, and I cannot believe someone who claims to be even just a science fiction fan can say that the fantasy genre is limiting and that the science fiction genre is not (which is what he does say). There is nothing inherent to either genre that makes one more expansive than the other. The argument about Tolkien defining the boundaries of fantasy could also be applied to a certain group of science fiction authors as well, which many young amateur writers take to be the be all and end all of science fiction. I never understood how someone could think a single author could define an entire genre so that no one wanted to write outside those set boundaries. That has never and hopefully will never be the case. Anyone who thinks differently is obviously ignorant about the subject and doesn't need to be writing letters that make me want to smack them.
There's also some debate about character vs. science in science fiction, that the characters are more important than the science, and that today's science fiction is becoming more character-driven. Okay, I can buy that, and I have to say that I think it's fantastic. I'm all about the characters always, and I will forgive a lot if I like the characters. I can watch something like Stargate Atlantis, which has some of the wonkiest science ever (and I'm especially horrifed about their biology; I can ignore the physics stuff since I know next to nothing about it, but the biology is tear-inducing) but great characters, and I absolutely love it and can pretend that they must just be working with some kind of alternate science. On the other hand, if there was a show that had really good accurate science but crappy characters (I don't think there's actually an example of this, or not one that I can think of, since the vast majority of sci-fi shows either have weird science or none at all(1)) I wouldn't be able to sit through it. So, yeah, I'm all for lots of character-driven stuff and I love that sci-fi could be getting away from the Trek model (which could be said to have limited the genre of sci-fi television, oh no!). But I don't buy that leaving science out all together is the way to go. There's a reason that it's called science fiction. That means there should be a science part and a fiction part. And if something swings too far in either direction then that's a bad thing. Too much science and not enough fiction, I lose interest and watch something more introspective. I mean, I work in science. I see it every day. If I want to watch straight science I'll find a documentary or read an actual journal article. But if there's too much fiction to the detriment of the science (2), then what's the point of making a sci-fi show in the first place? If it's too easy to uproot the characters and situations and put them into completely mundane settings, then why bother with the high cost of the sci-fi stuff? Just to see things explode in pretty colors and blow your budget on CGI spaceships? I don't get that. Save some money (and arguably reputation) and make a straight drama instead.
I mean, I'm all about not limiting characters to a certain genre. Stephen King says he doesn't write horror, he writes about people. Which is true. But part of what makes the people interesting to read about is the situation they find themselves in, and I've always seen that as a reason why people write within a genre instead of classifying everything as mainstream. Science fiction, fantasy, horror, whatever, is all about the "what if?" and maybe I'm being somewhat contradictory in light of my above arguments about lack of limitations, but the way I see it, that lack of limitations is itself limited by genre. My personal definition of "genre" is very, very broad, which is where I get the "lack of limitations" thing from above. Not all fantasy has to be about elves and dragons, and not all science fiction has to be about spaceships and aliens. But yes, I do think that there should be at least some kind of attempt at science (2) in sci-fi television. I think the characters have to make sense for the world, and the world has to make sense for the characters.
(Actually, the letter this rant is mostly in response to I agree with fully, which is that character is most important. I just felt I should mention that while I think it's most important, character shouldn't be all that's important. There's definitely room for science and technology, too).
(1) To make things even more confusing, I'm using my personal definitions. When I refer to "sci-fi" I'm referring to what the networks typically categorize as sci-fi television, which encompasses pretty much anything in the speculative fiction genre, not such science fiction. So, basically, all science fiction, fantasy, and horror shows, as well as hybrids between any of those. "Sci-fi television" includes things like the Star Treks as well as things like Lost, Smallville, The X-Files, any of the shows Joss Whedon has created, etc.
(2) Science, in this case, doesn't have to refer strictly to science. It can also refer to magic or psychic powers or whatever is it that makes the story not mainstream. My point still stands.
So I was bad and started downloading the new episodes of Stargate Atlantis when they started airing in Canada instead of waiting for them to air here. Now, having seen all the way up through "The Long Goodbye," I have this to say to the fandom at large:
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
So I try to avoid spoilers, and I know there are lots of people who don't, and that's their personal choice and I have nothing to say about that. But really, I can't help but laugh at all the people who apparently read spoilers before the episodes aired and promptly threw massive hissy fits about plots and details (and *shudder* ships) they got from spoiler sites that are speculative at best, treating them as if they were the Gospel truth. And then it turned out to be a complete waste of energy. I mean, really. *points and laughs some more*
Get a grip, people. It's a fictional television show (about ridiculously attractive people in absurd situations). The sense of entitlement that fandom at large seems heir to is alternatively hilarious and pathetic. This is why I can't do fandom, or rather, why I don't actively do fandom. I watch the shows, I skim through some of the reactions (sometimes I write my own), and I read the fanfic. Really, I'm just a lurker here and I'm sure I just don't understand why of course everything should go the way that you want it, but then I don't really want to understand because one of the prerequisites seems to be completely losing hold of reality. It's supposed to be for fun, but there are some of you who just take everything so damn seriously. I mean, does it really matter who the hell certain characters have "feelings"? Or rather, is it really worth the time and effort it takes to bitch to each other about it? I'm not sure whether to laugh at you or feel sorry for you. Since I'm mean, I'll settle for laughing.
And that's really all the time I want to spend on that subject. Yes, I do feel better now, thanks.
So, as for the episodes themselves: I think I'll try to get back into doing reviews for the Stargates when they start airing again tomorrow. They fizzled kind of quickly after the beginning of the season, and I keep wanting to go back and do the ones I missed, but the sheer number of them makes me nauseous. I just don't have that kind of time.