my own private I dunno: résumé | screenplays | fan fiction

Sci-fi sneaks in under the literary radar

| | comments (5)

People who wouldn’t be caught dead browsing the science fiction section at their local Borders are nevertheless gobbling up Audrey Niffenegger’s The Time Traveler’s Wife, a wonderfully heartbreaking story of a romance made more difficult by the fact that one of the lovers spontaneously time travels on a regular but unpredictable basis. The time travel is a metaphor, of course, for the things that separate even the most devoted of couples, of the mysteries inherent in getting to know someone, of the impossibility of ever fully knowing another person, of the secrets we keep from each other.

But the fact that it’s easy to find yourself sobbing by the end of the novel doesn’t make the book any less science fictional. Nor does the fact that the book was a selection of The Today Show Book Club. The SF in every novel actually labeled SF and stacked on the shelves in the SF section of bookstores is metaphoric, too -- no book succeeds that does not speak in some way to who we are here and now. Some reviewers understand this:

This is an extraordinary novel with a unique premise, an exploration of the unknown in this expanding century, where the impossible becomes possible, if not routine. In the vast prism of the universe, there is much that remains to be discovered. Who can know the secrets of the future?

[from Curled Up With a Good Book]

Most don’t:

This is far from a science fiction exploration of the space-time continuum, but a heartfelt love story of two people who must live with this curse as part of their lives.

[from ReviewsOfBooks.com]

And though it's about time travel, the book is more literary romance than science fiction.

[from BookPage]

Unfortunately, this aversion to calling a spade a spade is all too fathomable. The term "science fiction" is so bogged down with images of nerds in Spock ears and unkempt, antisocial types that few people can see past the stereotypes when a counterexample is right before their eyes. It’s a shame, because those people are missing out on a ton of books they might otherwise enjoy.

Like Robert J. Sawyer’s Flashforward, which I read just before I picked up The Time Traveler’s Wife. The two books have some startling thematic similarities: Flashforward also involves characters who get a glimpse of their futures, as the chronically displaced Henry does in Wife; the difference in Sawyer’s book is that it’s the entire human race who gets a peek, not just one man. Sawyer is techier; his novel is more concerned with big ideas than with the hearts of only two people... but as he explores the dramatic effect the look at the future has on global society, he does so through the eyes of a handful of people. The result may be less "literary," but it’s just as thought-provoking, and just as haunting. But it’s no more science fictional just because the spine actually has the words "science fiction" on it.

5 Comments

I'm a bit surprised that SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE, or Kurt Vonnegut in general hasn't been mentioned in relation to this chestnut of 'literary' vs. 'sci-fi' yet.
I'm a bit surprised that SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE, or Kurt Vonnegut in general hasn't been mentioned in relation to this chestnut of 'literary' vs. 'sci-fi' yet.
Robert Heinlein always preferred and encouraged (without much success) the use of the term "speculative fiction" for SF. I think it's a good point. "Science fiction" as a term can be pretty limiting, from both directions. The "lit'rary" types can dismiss the genre ("kid stuff about ray guns and rocket ships" or whatever"), but it can be limiting in the other direction too (e.g., Heinlein wrote some stuff that he considered to be wholly compatible with his other work, but didn't have any aliens, rocketships, or a future setting, and by most strictish definitions, wouldn't be "science fiction." What I don't quite get is how one becomes defined as "lit'rary" instead of "SF/Fantasy." "Magical Realism" seems to be a common buzzword for that sort of thing today, and as far as I can tell, tends to mean "Fantasy where you're not required to be consistent or establish/adhere to any rules."
I always thought the appropriate response to the "literature, yes, science fiction, no" crowd was "their loss."
I've just discovered your blog, Maryann, and I have to say that, as a micropatron, I'm thrilled to read your entries. Knowing how you enjoy the blending of genres, can I recommend "The Complete Time Traveler: A Tourist's Guide to the Fourth Dimension"? It's a wonderfully humorous spoof of travel guides, yet is also knowledgable about the time travel subgenre of SF. I first read it about 15 years ago, and it's still a favorite.

Leave a comment


I'm MaryAnn Johanson, writer and editor, and this is my scratch pad, idea-jotter-downer, portfolio and resume, and general hang-out blog.

• film/TV/pop culture critic at FlickFilosopher.com
• contributor, Film.com
• member, Online Film Critics Society
• member, Alliance of Women Film Journalists
• member, International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences

Location: New York City
[email me]

photo by David Speranza

archives

recently at FlickFilosopher.com

Powered by Movable Type 4.1

what I’m watching
(region 1)

what I’m watching
(region 2)

what I’m reading

my book
(Amazon U.S.)

my book
(Amazon U.K.)