''Throughout science fiction’s history," a SF fan writes, in calling for a new subgenre for sci fi novels about climate change although he couldn't think of a name right off the bat so he didn't mention any names for this so-called SF subgenre, "stories have fallen into a range of movements, aligning themselves stylistically and thematically as they each react to one another."
But in 2016, does the Science Fiction Genre Need a New Subgenre to Focus on Climate Change? No, it doesn't.
Sci-fi writers already are doing a great job focusing on climate change issues and have been for ages.
Maybe they didn't have terms like Anthropocene and Antropocenic Global Warming (AGW) to bat around in earlier days of sci-fi in the 1950s and 60s, and even into the 70s and 80s, but surely sci fi novelists have already been mining the climate change issues of yesterday and today -- and tomorrow -- and there is no need at all for a new subgenre of sci fi to deal with these issues.Sci-fi is fine.
As the SF fan has already mentioned, ''science fiction concerned with the effects of anthropomorphic climate change [AGW] on the planet [is an old story among genre writers], and certainly, authors such as Paolo Bacigalupi and Margaret Atwood have been writing excellent stories about the dire circumstances we face as a humanity and where we’re headed. Climate change is one of the most pressing issues that we will face in our future, and such an impending challenge is ripe for science fictional interpretations."
So to repeat, throughout science fiction’s history, stories have fallen into a range of movements, aligning themselves stylistically and thematically as they each react to one another. But in 2016, does the Science Fiction Genre Need a New Subgenre to Focus on Climate Change?
No, it doesn't. And not in 2017 or 2018 or 2025 or 2050. Sci-fi is sci-fi. It's doing fine without the addition of any new subgenres.
As the SF fan noted: "Determining where books fall can be an academic exercise: Defining where a book should lie, or what the precise definitions should be for entry into a literary genre or canon is usually futile. "
As the SF fan noted: "Determining where books fall can be an academic exercise: Defining where a book should lie, or what the precise definitions should be for entry into a literary genre or canon is usually futile. "
Yes, sci-fi is sci-fi. It's doing fine without the addition of any new subgenres.
"[Sure], loose definitions of such literary movements are useful: In a broad sense, they can help to guide works by either working with or against a shared cluster of tropes," the SF fan added. "With rising and vocal proponents pushing for a shared movement of works that explicitly deal with climate change, we [in the sci-fi community] should be wary about strict definitions for any movement. Criteria, particularly when it comes to literary movements, can act as walls, and thus restrict the raw exploration and storytelling that movements require to thrive."
So again, please note, there is no need fwhatsoever for a new subgenre of sci fi. Not now, and not in the future. Sci-fi is sci-fi. It's doing fine without the addition of any new subgenres.
No comments:
Post a Comment