In a comment on a recent post, Kathleen Duey provided a link to a really interesting article about the quality of young adult science fiction. In the article, Farah Mendlesohn laments the pessimism of YA science fiction and argues that it should be more didactic and less emotional.
Mendlesohn believes that good science fiction is that which explores the mechanics of the world (ie, is didactic), and that young adult science fiction often focuses on relationships to the detriment of mathematical and scientific elements. One example of the latter: The City of Ember. Mendlesohn writes:
The provision of genre material by nonspecialists (authors and editors) may serve up texts that are travesties of the genre to which they belong. Jeanne DuPrau’s City of Ember may be a very popular book, but any child who has acquired the sensibilities of a science fiction reader will quickly tear holes in it: one example only — a wind-up clock that keeps time for 250 years?
At the same time, Torie Atkinson at Tor.com writes in this article on Battlestar Galactica:
I’ve got news, folks: most science fiction isn’t really about the science. I know, I know, it sounds crazy, but hear me out. Sometimes works of fiction—even science fiction—explore deeper philosophical issues beyond the literal reality presented.
Atkinson writes about how science fiction allows us to safely explore our current culture by presenting futre situations. And yes, sometimes these futures are dismal.
So what makes for good science fiction? The science? The fiction? Or is it just a matter of preference?
Do you think young readers crave more stories about “shiny futures” like Mendlesohn claims, or are they happy with bleakness and killer robots?
Parker Peevyhouse hopes her own future is shiny and involves no killer robots.
Parker Peevyhouse
lindajoysingleton
Joni Sensel
Chris Eboch
Nick
Greg R. Fishbone
Does Mendlesohn actually know any teenagers?
I’m a teenager, and I see the phrase “shiny futures”, and I’m out. What is a shiny future, anyway? It sounds kind of boring and dull. I like there to be a little tension and bittersweetness in the books I read.
To me, didactic=boring. Emotional=good. It takes emotion to get caught up in a book, not lecturing. I haven’t read a lot of science fiction, but none of it has actually focused on the science, from what I can remember. Which is a good thing. If I wanted actual science, I’d pick up one of my dad’s magazines and see what they have to say about the future. I want to read about the relationships. I want good character development or some sort of underlying theme. I want that in every book I read.
I don’t like description that detracts from the story, and a novel? It’s meant to tell a story.
Madison, very well said. I think a lot of people are with you in that they want characters who are well-developed.
Sometimes I pick up my dad’s science magazines too
They always fill me up with lots of story ideas, especially the magazines about the crazy crazy things scientists are attempting.
Generally speaking, I’d say it’s personal preference, the same as some people only like “hard” SF and others prefer the “light” stuff. But it seems kind of ridiculous to me to want to remove emotions from the YA stuff to concentrate more on the science — because while science is (or at least can be) a huge part of what makes the story SF, a huge part of why YA is so popular is because of its emotional connection and the ease with which readers can connect with the characters.
Luckily, we’re allowed to read both hard and light/soft science fiction. I love both!
And I think Mendlesohn makes an interesting observation in the article: youth today don’t head straight into the career field after high school, so they might be less interested in reading “career stories” and more interested in reading about relationships.
I do love sci-fi, but get to hard-core, and I tend to back away. Or at least not pick up the next book.
And I am awed by the bleak endings. The Forest of Hands and Teeth – not the most uplifting future of the world. But I couldn’t put it down, and part of this I contribute to this bleak picture of the world it carves. It makes me care about the world and the few people remaining in it.
Nice post!
I’m all for authenticity, so I agree with Mendlesohn only to the extent that the science should be supportable. The idea that you would remove or reduce the amount of emotion is ridiculous. And YA science fiction is bleak now specifically because science fiction — all fiction — reflects the fears and culture of the time it was written, and frankly, we’ve been in a pretty scary time where it’s much easier to look around and be pessimistic than optimistic. Science fiction is a safe place to play out our fears and either reassure ourselves that we’ll still be human and can still prevail even if the worst does befall us (How We Live Now), or serve as a wake-up call/cautionary tale (Feed). Neither of those purposes can be served by “happy shiny,” and I can’t even think of a classic sci-fi that’s decent and “happy shiny.” It’s not the mechanics of a world or technology that are important (I better go read that article; I can’t believe anyone would seriously suggest that.). It’s the mechanics of being human. And you can’t explore that without emotion.
Okay, now that I’ve read the article I think Mendesohn is less crazy than I did, but I still think she’s missing the key point that in the ’60s and ’70s she references, the new NASA program and the advent of computers and other factors made us enthusiastic about the possibilities for the future. And the culture and attitudes are different now; we’re confronting the darker sides of the technological revolution, and I still think that’s the main reason that we’ve moved away from imagining how cool those futures are going to be and how scary they might be instead. But I see her point about didacticism having a place, when it is currently the anti-Christ in editorial circles, and I also think that the emphasis on relationships is exacerbated by all the women decision-makers in the world of books for young people. I’d say her most important point is that people who talk about (and write) sci-fi should be qualified to do so.
Joni, I also wonder if the heavy emphasis on relationships is a result of the YA field being dominated by women writers and editors.
Also I want to say that there are plenty of books with “shiny futures” that I absolutely love. The Gods Themselves by Asimov and 2001: A Space Odyssey by Clarke are just a couple of very well-written and satisfying novels that use technology to advance humans toward a hopeful future.
Oh wow. This is what I live for. I’m bursting at the seams, because I wrote my entire senior thesis for my bachelor’s on “Science Fiction not as a projection of the future but a mirror to the present.” (I had a much cooler title). It was for my History degree no less (no joke).
I watched sci-fi movies from the 20′s (Metropolis) through the present (Firefly – owns my soul), to show how the shifting perspective of the future changed with the events that were happening at their “present.” It was fantastic, and the most fun I’ve ever had writing a paper. I can’t believe they actually approved it for my dissertation.
I want to explode with comments, but I’ll try and keep myself reigned in. Simply, yes, the emotion to me has to be the most important part. While the science is important so as to make us believe in that world, it is ultimately the CHARACTERS and the SITUATIONS that we will respond to, since it is indeed a reflection of what we are currently facing.
It is only put through a lens so that we can better understand it (which is why I think sci-fi is so much more than the “fluff” people usually call it. Goodness). This is especially significant to teens, who need that emotional connection, and that lens to view the world in a safe, and new way.
Oh, and I’ve been meaning to ask Parker, do you have an email or website at all? I’ve been trying to find you and google, and you only seem to exist here. Not that I’m complaining.
What a cool thesis!!
I will point out that I do love characters, emotion, etc. but that sometimes it’s the puzzle aspect of science fiction (or at least of hard science fiction) that makes or breaks a book. When I think about Asimov’s Foundation series, no one character stands out to me–just the wicked crazy ideas. Can’t the same kind of science fiction work for teens?
And sorry to be so incognito. I’m still working on the website thing, and taking my sweet time since my book isn’t coming out for a while. But you can email me at parkerpeevyhouse at gmail dot com. Or by filling out the contact form on the About page–those all go to me.
I am amused by the phrase “shiny futures,” as it reminds me of those reallllly old b&w commercials for The Car of the Future (announced in stentorian TV announcer tones) in which people expected cars to drive themselves and to have their own robots by the futuristic year of 1990. Shiny futures. Bah. We have what we have. YA dystopia is a reflection of what we might ALSO have, and I like the idea that it gives the reader a chance to think, “Faced with that, what would *I* do!?”
I am wondering at Ms. Mendlesohn’s objections. It’s not like this is anything new — read the really old Anne McCaffrey speculative fiction — there were always relationships there — and if you want to quibble and says she just wrote romances, okay, fine: Asimov. Lots of relationships in Foundation, and lots of sexism too. Whee! I think it’s just that Mendlesohn’s objecting to the success of a particular version of the genre, and feeling like there should be some kind of a speculative fiction gatekeeper, or everyone will want to turn Jane Austen novels into zombie tales. She should ease up. Not everyone is into the flesh-eating unicorns and there’s a middle ground between that and “shiny futures.” Ironic that Mendlesohn’s last sentence says it so succinctly: “Reviewers of SF for children and teens need to keep in mind that there is more than one mode of behavior — and definitely more than one kind of teenager.” Yes. More than one type of young adult, and more than one type of speculative fiction…which will survive without her didactic hand upon it. Trust me.
Send in the robot chauffeurs!
Really, your last comments here mirror my own thoughts: there’s room in the market for all different types of science fiction, isn’t there?
Yes, definitely. Sorry I didn’t make that distinction in my last post. I love how you say it so succinctly tatina. There are many different kinds of teenagers, many different kinds of YA readers. There should be many different kinds of science fiction stories to choose from. Maybe there should be more hard science fiction (trust me, no objections there). It like the preponderance of fantasy to almost be completely dominated by western mythology/history. This is really cool, because there is a discussion going on about that over at the Enchanted Inkpot right now. Why not shake things up a bit?
I read that bit at the Inkpot. Really interesting.
PJ is actually a member of that blog.
Oh, interesting — thanks for the link.
I have always been a fan of Philip K. Dick’s definition of science-fiction, as he has done more to broaden and legitimize the genre than most other sci-fi writers for the past hundred years:
http://www.philipkdickfans.com/frank/sf-letter.htm
Yes, he has some very strange stories that really push the limits.
The idea that the future might be ‘shiny and not full of killer robots’ is difficult to swallow. Just look around at what we humans have – so far – made this planet – a dystopian science fiction landscape if there ever was one. It’s gotten so bad, it’s almost a “dark paradise” (as Snake Pliskin says.)
I mean I also really want the future to be ‘shiny’ – if I understand the feeling behind your words – but.. *sigh* can we pull ourselves out of this mess?
I guess it’s like philosopher & writer Slavoj Žižek says. ‘Utopia’ isn’t a choice. The future must be a utopia – or it won’t be any future at all.
In short, we’ve got to be the change we want to be see in the world – because ‘world’ and ‘us’ are in a state of radical Non Duality.
What makes for good science fiction? Vision. But then inventing new, even more shiny killer robots is always far easier – and far more profitable, isn’t it?
Mind you, I personally think living / surviving in a strictly Science Fiction Utopia would be totally techno-hellish..
Worried (but obviously not that worried enough to do anything positive about it except keep blogging),
Henry Swanson