“Literary” fiction is a number of things: a mode, a genre, a set of tropes and story structures and expectations, a club. (In the membership sense, not the hitting-people sense, although sometimes…)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Faced with the science-fictional nature of the present, more and more “literary” writers are attempting speculative fiction, with mixed success. Of course, as the article points out, plenty of classic writers have worked with spec-fic; Huxley and Orwell get mentioned, Shakespeare and Virginia Woolfe do not. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Advisory: fixed (small) font size on this website, unfriendly to the visually impaired. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Originally shared by David Brin<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Okay, so science fiction has conquered the world. It is the engine behind most of the big, money-making successes of Hollywood. It propels much of the political narrative, from dread of Big Brother to obsession with social collapse scenarios. And now, each year, ever more purportedly \u201cliterary\u201d authors try their hand at \u201cdoing future\u201d \u2013 resulting in romances set in space, thinly repurposed westerns and navel-contemplating angst-ridden time travelers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n On Slate, Laura Miller appraises some of the most recent forays by artistically approved authors, and finds most of them wanting. Only then, what about Chabon? Bacigalupi? Rajamieni? Sue Burke? We embrace them. Yes, in part because they give a little love back. But also because they bothered to heed some of our history, some of our had-learned craft.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Still, should we be glad, or miffed? <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cFirst they ignore you,\u201d Gandhi said. \u201cThen they mock you. Then they fight you. And then they claim to have loved you, all along.\u201d Sigh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n