Kim Stanley Robinson slams Booker ‘ignorance’

[sparkchaser]

Saw this on a friend's Facebook wall last night.

Kim Stanley Robinson slams Booker ‘ignorance’

American sci-fi author Kim Stanley Robinson has slammed the judges of the well-known Man Booker Prize, saying they hand out the coveted award “in ignorance”, passing over science fiction books he considers to be “the best British literature of our time”.

The prize is awarded to the best novel each year written by a citizen of the British Commonwealth and has a 50,000 pound prize. Earlier this month, the shortlist for the prize was announced, but no science fiction books were to be found on it.

In a scathing article published by New Scientist online last week, Robinson, best-known for his terraforming Mars trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars), said the Booker Prize tended to focus on historical novels instead of giving at least some credibility to what he considered to be the literature of here and now today: Science fiction:

“Sometimes these are fine historical novels … But working, like all of us, in the rain shadow of the great modernists, they tend to do the same things the modernists did in smaller ways. A good new novel about the first world war, for instance, is still not going to tell us more than Parade’s End by Ford Madox Ford. More importantly, these novels are not about now in the way science fiction is.”​

New Scientist article here.

Do you think he has a valid point?

 

[The Mythwriter]

I think he may be right, I do think both science fiction and fantasy genre novels tend to be snubbed by higher in the literature field. I think this results from a lot of mediocre books being shoved onto shelves in those genres that drowns the good ones.

But I confess, I have read far fewer books of these types than of other fiction where the book had really meant something to me; rather, they tend to be in the middle water of being creative and entertaining, but nothing more. So, having not read most of the British fiction the writer feels deserved more notice, I can't really judge. I think Science Fiction has its greatest importance in helping our dreams of what can be, both technology and ideally, where humanity is concerned. I think the problem is too few authors focus on the humanity angle.

And I have one question I just thought of... this is an American author speaking of a British award. Hardly inappropriate, but I just wonder why he seems to care so much, it seems rather irrelevant from his angle.

 

[Peder]

I don't follow the Bookers avidly. I certainly don't go out of my way to read the candidates, and I only occasionally read the winners. (Can't remember which ones now.) But I have read the better part of Red Mars and I think Mythwriter hit it on the head, so I'll echo his nicely worded phrase: "in the middle water of being creative and entertaining."

But, for Red Mars and other occasional SciFi that I have read, I don't see a reason to push aside more serious (and generally more appealing) literary fiction that I have read.

So, no I don't really agree with KSR's point.

Perhaps I would agree in the negative sense, that there are many novels that don't win the Booker that I would gladly forego in favor of a good SciFi novel. But "Best SciFi" against "Best Booker?" I'd take Best-Booker without any hesitation.

 

[Occlith]

I wonder if the Booker committee will have a response.

Here's an article concerning the Booker and attitudes to science fiction.

It is true that there were a few folk at the Clarkes (Arthur C Clarke awards) who bore more than a passing resemblance to Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons. But there were also a great many perfectly ordinary, even some rather glamorous, people who happen to take an intelligent interest in SF as literature - a fair number of whom are remarkably well-read in other fields as well.
The reverse does not, on the whole, hold true. Most people who read fiction do not read any science fiction: or so they will tell you. Yet when I express surprise that they have never read Nineteen Eighty-Four or Brave New World or Frankenstein or A Clockwork Orange, they concede that yes, of course they have read those. The unspoken assumption is that these books have ceased to be science fiction by dint of being, well, good.

 

[Peder]

I think we could use a tighter definition of science fiction here but, yes, I have read those particular works. What I would appreciate at the moment, however, is a recommendation of a recent example of sci-fi, more recent than those that I have already read: (Man in the High Tower, Perdido Station, Neverwhere, Chrysalids, Red Mars and, if you stretch it, Flowers for Algernon). It has been a long time since Frankenstein and Clockwork Orange (maybe) as examples of the genre, and even 1984 or Brave New World are getting old among the dystopians.
However, I'm eager to be re-educated if I am missing out on some of the world's glorious literature.
What are anyone's best recent examples? :flowers:

 

[sparkchaser]

Why a tighter definition?

 

[Peder]

The clasical answer, Sparky: so we are at least comparing apples and apples, not apples and oranges. I'm not an expert on genres but it seems that some of the works that I and others have mentioned are near the borderline of the sci-fi genre. Flowers for Algernon or Clockwork Orange, for examples. They are not "realistic" or "naturalistic," but are doubtful for "sci-fi" either, at least the way I think of it.

But, as I think I also suggested, I'm open to suggestion.

And BTW, I accidentally omitted Contact as perhaps the best sci-fi I have read.

 

[Peder]

An afterthought.

Any chance that a more serious student of the genres might post the last 10 Booker winners and the last 10 Clarke winners? Who knows? Maybe someone here has read some from each list and will offer a thought.

 

[chuephödli]

Maybe it is instructive to look at Iain Banks's books: he writes both "straight" and Scifi. I really like Scifi, and imho Banks is up there with the best. But even his best Scifi can't really hold a candle to, say, The Bridge or The Crow Road.

 

[Occlith]

What are anyone's best recent examples?

The Time Traveler's Wife - Audrey Niffenegger
The Book of Dave - Will Self
Cloud Atlas - David Mitchell
Never Let Me Go - Kazuo Ishiguro
The Stone Gods - Jeanette Winterson
Brasyl - Ian McDonald
Nova Swing - M John Harrison

The article mentioned these titles.

 

[Occlith]

I think we could use a tighter definition of science fiction here

I'm not sure what you mean by a tighter definition but I feel that these suffice....

Literary fantasy involving the imagined impact of science on society - WordNet

Fiction in which advanced technology and/or science is a key element; Technology which, while theoretically possible, is not yet practical - Wiktionary​

 

[Heteronym]

More importantly, these novels are not about now in the way science fiction is.

We can debate this.

On the one hand, a WWI novel is relevant for us today because ninety years later the world is still suffering its consequences. On the other hand, Mr. Robinson wants us to believe that books about things that haven't happened yet and perhaps may not even happen, say more to us today than the past that has shaped who we are.

I think Mr. Robinson needs to find better arguments.

 

[Peder]

Occlith,
Many thanks for both your posts. When I was thinking "tighter," I had vaguely in mind a pair of rather more lengthy and detailed definitions that I had seen in these pages some time back for distinguishing between Science Fiction and Fantasy. But it need not be a big issue for this discussion. The definitions you have provided can serve as well, even if they seem more expansive to me than comes to my own mind.

I'm also glad for the list of books mentioned in the article (which obviously I have not read). I am familiar with only three.

Cloud Atlas certainly has the most stunning two or three sections of science fiction that I have ever seen in its futuristic central sections, although the majority of the book, in its surrounding sections, would not make me call it overall a novel of science fiction. I though it was an excellent book.

Time Traveler's Wife, likewise wouldn't leap to my mind particularly as science fiction, but rather as a novel that employed time shifts as a conceptual framework for the story and nothing of advanced or improbable science or technology, if I recall correctly. I thought it was a middling novel, of whatever sort.

I only skimmed Never Let me Go, and in some detail here and there, but never read it entirely because the topic did not appeal to me. Organ harvesting doesn't strike me as futuristic or improbable technnology -- it is here now. The setting in a deliberately controlled social context, which seemed to me to be more the emphasis of the book, recalls dystopian more to my mind than science fiction. And, since I haven't read it completely, I'll refrain from an opinion of the book.

So I guess, personally, I would not have thought of any of those three particular works as science fiction, but the wordnet definition is broad enough to include them. So, so be it. I live and learn.

The remaining titles in the list, however, do sound interesting enough to pursue, so thanks for posting the list. :flowers:

 

[Stewart]

A potential blind spot on KSR's argument is that sf books are eligible, provided they meet the publication window and the publisher is willing to put forward promotional cash, but publishers probably don't submit sf titles, for whatever reason, and therefore will never know. If they do, and don't make the longlist, we'll never know either, since submissions are not announced. The prize does need to be more open, I think, about what titles are sumitted, if only to let us audit what publishers are doing, since they are the one's responsible, other than call-ins and entrants given a bye, for what the judges read.

 

[Peder]

Well, that's interesting to know. It puts a different light on things.

 

[joderu95]

What are anyone's best recent examples? :flowers:

The Scar - China Mieville
Learning the World - Ken MacLeod

But even his best Scifi can't really hold a candle to, say, The Bridge or The Crow Road.

We'll see about that soon. The first two I am going to read are The Wasp Factory and Use of Weapons. I've heard a lot more about Consider Phlebas, The Algebraist and Matter than any of his straight fiction stuff.

More importantly, these novels are not about now in the way science fiction is.

We can debate this.

On the one hand, a WWI novel is relevant for us today because ninety years later the world is still suffering its consequences. On the other hand, Mr. Robinson wants us to believe that books about things that haven't happened yet and perhaps may not even happen, say more to us today than the past that has shaped who we are.

I think Mr. Robinson needs to find better arguments.

I don't think relevance is necessarily what Robinson is talking about when he uses the example that a WWI novel is "not going to tell us more than Parade's End by Ford Madox Ford." I think he is hinting at a level of redundancy in historical fiction for certain topics and that sci-fi tends to focus on present or near future events.

 

[Peder]

Many thanks, joderu, for the additional titles.

I'll be carrying a written list with me to Borders/B&N the next time I go. The list is getting longer and longer -- which is a good thing. :flowers:

Cheers