Science fiction has been, until recently, a genre I ignored. In the past, I'd choose from the Boarders 'mysterious' sci-fi section only to be sorely disappointed by the over emphasis on immature emulations of masculinity in the male protagonists. Vonnegut describes this symptom of science fiction being geared towards teenage male well in an essay of his about science fiction:
"...current science fiction was (still is) catnip to the boys, any science fiction at all. They couldn't tell one story from another, thought they were all neat, keen. What appealed to them so, I think, aside from the novelty of comic books without pictures, was the steady promise of futures which they, just as they were, could handle. In such futures they would be high-ranking non-coms at the very least, just as they were, pimples, virginity and everything," (Vonnegut).
So basically, one could almost equate boys interest in science fiction (and fantasy novels on a separate note) to girls' interest in Barbie Dolls, fashion magazines, etc. (I'm trying to think of a genre that matches the same purpose science fiction suits for boys for girls, but coming up short. So please forgive me for selling my gender short, and being boys like books, girls like plastic dolls. Help?) Science fiction serves the need for hormonal teenage boys to fit into this cookie cutter image of what masculinity means.
All that being said, when I started reading Kurt Vonnegut Jr. I realized I'd actually enjoyed a good deal of science fiction, which has literature exceeds the random books I'd choose from Boarders. I was surprised to find out Vonnegut was labeled as science fiction though. I don't know why on reflection. Cat's Cradle is the first book of his books I ever read which dealt with Ice-9- a liquid that causes the solidification of the entire body of water. *Spoiler alert* it comes in contact with the ocean and freezes all the earth's oceans. A bit of a hint of science fiction, I suppose. His works always seemed to have too many anti-technology themes so it seems almost hypocritical to label Vonnegut as science fiction
Still seeing Vonnegut and I lot of "science fiction" I have read since then amuses me that it can even be labeled science fiction. As Vonnegut put his recognition as being labeled science fiction, "The way a person gets into this drawer, apparently, is to notice technology. The feeling persists that no one can simultaneously be a respectable writer and understand how a refrigerator works, just as no gentleman wears a brown suit in the city," (Vonnegut). A paranoia, justifiable from my experience, of his was that by being set into the science fiction genre it considered escapist work and not much beyond that by critics.
In conclusion, I'm not taking my labeling of science fiction of Firefly back. Even minus the lasers and focus on human drama, it still is in space. Not something all of us do that much (yet). So my answer to that sentiment is the Philip K. Dick quote at the top of the post, "Reality is whatever refuses to go away when I stop believing in it."
That break down of characterization probably would be a very interesting answer to all the crappy science fiction that is out there.
The link is to an article about science fiction by Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
The link is to an article about science fiction by Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
5 comments:
I enjoyed this post quite a bit because it speaks to my own experience with "science fiction" and whatever baggage comes along with something that gets that label. Like Holly, I too, would probably say I am generally not a fan of the genre. But then I realize that many of my favorite works (at least TV shows) are science fiction: The X-Files, Lost, the Whedon shows.
Holly's points about masculinity and science fiction are really worth talking about in more depth. As for the Barbie doll example...I'm not sure I can think of a better one! Any doll can serve the same function (sort of) for girls as lots of science fiction does for boys. (Again, we are speaking in generalities here.)
Finally, I just love Vonnegut's point about technology. That seems absolutely true to me. Show any interest in technology (especially technology of the future) and you run right into that science fiction label.
I really like this because I had, and somewhat still have, the same gender idea about science fiction books and shows. They really do seem to be more geared towards boys in the sense that they replicate a lot of boy's toys and cartoons into a real life form. Boys are the ones who like monsters, space, action and killing, while girls like dolls, love stories, and "pretty things." It obvious that this is not true for everyone, but it is the basis of the gender roles. Science fiction writing tends to be more technical, non realistic, action filled, and incorperates killing. As for girls, I always see Romance as their Sci-fi equivalent. A common stereotype is that all women love romance stories, books, and movies and men never read romance book. This is also not true for everyone, but a lot of people still think it.
Yeah, I was going to say girls love princess stories, which obviously goes right with the Romance thing.
First: Holly, thanks for reminding me why Kurt Vonnegut is so awesome!
Also, I've been thinking about the Barbie Doll/science fiction question.
Has anyone read the book The Jane Austen Book Club or seen the movie? In the film, there is a male character who loves science fiction and tries to convince the Jane Austen-addict female character the value of science fiction and how it speaks to human experience and not to shy away from it so quickly. Her acceptance of "his" genre and his acceptance of "her" genre actually brings them together (and it's all very sweet and touching, of course!) The movie made me think of a direct instance of boys-read-scifi and girls-read-romance coming together.
I've seen the movie, and as much as I hate to admit it, a lot of the stuff in such a girly movie really is spot on. Literature genres, and film/tv ones do tell a LOT about a person, and blending them makes an excellent metaphor for the compromises that people have to face when loving each other.
Post a Comment