Ian McEwan: I have invented a new genre. It shall be called "science fiction"

babbage said:

Ian McEwan is often understated and deliberately disingenuous. He has also announced that he wrote an opera even though he doesn't care about opera. Where it gets tedious is everyone exposing their own insecurities by jumping on a writer who has pretty well demonstrated his importance as a WRITER but not necessarily as a perfect human being. Amusement? I see a little of that, but mostly there is a lot of "how dare he" and "he should now better." He does. He does know better. You don't think he has read some of the speculative authors mentioned in this thread? Really?

Click to expand...

That's your take on McEwan's comments and, as such, it's just as valid as everyone else's take. But to say 'everyone exposing their own insecurities' is making an assumption about writers you don't know. It is, in fact, presumptive. Don't do that.

Only McEwan knows why he said such a thing, but as a writer, he knows words have meaning and he chose his words whatever the effect he was after and he has to own them as we all do.

babbage said:

You don't think he has read some of the speculative authors mentioned in this thread? Really?

Click to expand...

If he has then his remarks are that much more inexplicable.

I write pulp. Fun stuff. McEwan's not my competition, and his weirdly-stated plans don't affect me in the least. As quoted, though, he's ignoring literally centuries of published work, and yeah, that's an irritant, in part because he's hardly the first "great" writer to set themselves above the genre.

babbage said:

Where it gets tedious is everyone exposing their own insecurities by jumping on a writer who has pretty well demonstrated his importance as a WRITER but not necessarily as a perfect human being. Amusement? I see a little of that, but mostly there is a lot of "how dare he" and "he should know better."

Click to expand...

Are you sure we're reading the same thread? I've seen some small amount of reasonable irritation by writers in a genre that is frequently and unfairly dismissed as "second-class," but mostly just amusement.

babbage said:

He does. He does know better.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. I'm just basing my assessment on his own words quoted in this article.

It sounds like you know much more about him than I do. What has he said/done that makes you believe he knows better, and that he was being disingenuious instead of plain ol' uninformed?

babbage said:

You don't think he has read some of the speculative authors mentioned in this thread? Really?

Click to expand...

I have no idea what he's read. I DO know that everyone has preferred genres and is liable to read some kinds of books more than others. My bookshelves are stuffed with fantasy, sci-fi, and horror, and there are still tons of authors I plan to read but haven't gotten to yet. One thing you won't find on my shelves, though, is a single solitary romance novel. I have nothing against the genre, I simply don't have a romantic bone in my body. My sister-in-law, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. She has hundreds of romance novels and an encyclopedic knowledge of the topic, while I doubt she's ever cracked the cover of more than a handful of sci-fi or fantasy books. My boyfriend generally passes on fiction altogether and reads histories, biographies, and cookbooks. Even people with a wide range of tastes will have preferences they return to again and again.

I'd assume McEwan's read "Frankenstein" since he referenced it directly. As to the others? Who knows? He's a literary fiction author, so clearly that's where his passion lies. It's a safe bet to guess his reading habits are heavily weighted toward literary fiction, and there's not time enough in a lifetime to read all the good books in every genre.

You mentioned himself that he "doesn't care" about opera. I'd guess, therefore, that he hasn't listened to much opera, because if you don't care about something, why would you bother? I don't care about sports, so it's no surprise I don't watch them on TV.

If he also "doesn't care" about sci-fi, I'd fully expect him to skip past the sci-fi section of the library. There's nothing wrong with that, but it DOES mean that if he tries to talk (disparagingly) about sci-fi and lacks a certain basic level of familiarity, he's going to come across as uninformed about the topic... which is exactly what appears to have happened here.

I suppose he COULD be, as you theorize, playing the fool... but why on earth would he choose to do so?

babbage said:

You don't think he has read some of the speculative authors mentioned in this thread? Really?

Click to expand...

If he has he's being intentionally blinkered.

I get that many authors of a certain generation like to appear 'in character' as condescending, dismissive snarks, with the understanding that their writing is so throughly lionized that they can defecate on a whole literary tradition in a few deliberately ill-considered words and will get a 'boys will be boys' response from many quarters. But, as always, RYFW.

Hornets nest, stirred not shaken.

Funny how quickly everyone wants to say "you have the right to your opinion" while saying, essentially, that I don't have the right to make certain assumptions about what other posters think or are saying. And that is exactly what they are doing in regard to Mr. McEwan.

I say the point still stands: this is much ado about nothing. Not worth arguing or haranguing over, especially with everything else that is going on in the world and in the world of fiction right now.

I have read several of McEwan's books and other interviews he has done. He can come off as egotistical, but Jesus--did any of you see what Bret Easton Ellis said last week? Small potatoes.

babbage said:

Hornets nest, stirred not shaken.

Funny how quickly everyone wants to say "you have the right to your opinion" while saying, essentially, that I don't have the right to make certain assumptions about what other posters think or are saying. And that is exactly what they are doing in regard to Mr. McEwan.

I say the point still stands: this is much ado about nothing. Not worth arguing or haranguing over, especially with everything else that is going on in the world and in the world of fiction right now.

I have read several of McEwan's books and other interviews he has done. He can come off as egotistical, but Jesus--did any of you see what Bret Easton Ellis said last week? Small potatoes.

Click to expand...

Eh, here's where the argument gets a tad circular and I lose the ability to parse it. Who's claiming what about who now? But I would humbly submit that you feel like Brett Easton Ellis and everything else happening in the world means that McEwan is not worth discussing, and maybe that a writer's forum with a strong SFF component might still want a chance to complain about it.

babbage said:

Hornets nest, stirred not shaken.

Click to expand...

I hope you're not suggesting you deliberately attempted to annoy people.

babbage said:

Funny how quickly everyone wants to say "you have the right to your opinion" while saying, essentially, that I don't have the right to make certain assumptions about what other posters think or are saying.

Click to expand...

Just to be perfectly clear, your definition of "opinion" is inaccurate.

babbage said:

I say the point still stands: this is much ado about nothing. Not worth arguing or haranguing over, especially with everything else that is going on in the world and in the world of fiction right now.

I have read several of McEwan's books and other interviews he has done. He can come off as egotistical, but Jesus--did any of you see what Bret Easton Ellis said last week? Small potatoes.

Click to expand...

You are perfectly free to start a thread about Bret Easton Ellis, or "everything else that is going on in the world of fiction right now." This thread is about Ian McEwan's words in this interview making him look very much like someone entirely clueless about a well-established genre of fiction.

I posed three questions to you in my posts. I know tone is difficult to convey in writing, so let me assure you they were asked sincerely, not sarcastically.

Tazlima said:

Let's say it WAS quoted out of context. In what context would these words NOT display a (frankly hilarious) lack of familiarity with classic science fiction subject matter?

Click to expand...

Tazlima said:

It sounds like you know much more about him than I do. What has he said/done that makes you believe he knows better, and that he was being disingenuious instead of plain ol' uninformed?

...

I suppose he COULD be, as you theorize, playing the fool... but why on earth would he choose to do so?

Click to expand...

I see your point here:

babbage said:

I say the point still stands: this is much ado about nothing. Not worth arguing or haranguing over...

Click to expand...

Certainly the comments of one author in one interview is unlikely to alter anything in the grand scheme of things. But just as the other posters were bothered enough by his words to comment on them, you were bothered enough by those comments to jump to his defense, so here we are.

And so I ask again. Do you have answers, based on what you know of him, for any of the questions I posed?

AW has one rule: Respect Your Fellow Writer (RYFW); it's in our Newbie Guide and it's included in a sticky for this room.

babbage said:

Hornets nest, stirred not shaken.

Funny how quickly everyone wants to say "you have the right to your opinion" while saying, essentially, that I don't have the right to make certain assumptions about what other posters think or are saying. And that is exactly what they are doing in regard to Mr. McEwan.

I say the point still stands: this is much ado about nothing. Not worth arguing or haranguing over, especially with everything else that is going on in the world and in the world of fiction right now.

I have read several of McEwan's books and other interviews he has done. He can come off as egotistical, but Jesus--did any of you see what Bret Easton Ellis said last week? Small potatoes.

Click to expand...

That part I placed in bold, babbage? It's a passive-aggressive swipe at me as the room mod as well as being a misrepresentation of what you and I both wrote:

You wrote:

babbage said:

Where it gets tedious is everyone exposing their own insecurities by jumping on a writer who has pretty well demonstrated his importance as a WRITER but not necessarily as a perfect human being.

Click to expand...

which was not, in fact, about making "certain assumptions about what other posters think or are saying", but instead was essentially attacking those writers participating in this thread as "exposing their own insecurities". That's a violation of RYFW.

To which I responded:

Ari Meermans said:

That's your take on McEwan's comments and, as such, it's just as valid as everyone else's take. But to say 'everyone exposing their own insecurities' is making an assumption about writers you don't know. It is, in fact, presumptive. Don't do that.

Click to expand...

Now, you can bring any further comment to me via PM or take your concerns to the forum owner MacAllister, but do not try to pull that flimflammery in here again.

Everyone else: Let's please move on from babbage's attempt at a derail. I appreciate it. Thanks.

Duly noted.

Ari Meermans said:

AW has one rule: Respect Your Fellow Writer (RYFW); it's in our Newbie Guide and it's included in a sticky for this room.


That part I placed in bold, babbage? It's a passive-aggressive swipe at me as the room mod as well as being a misrepresentation of what you and I both wrote:

You wrote:



which was not, in fact, about making "certain assumptions about what other posters think or are saying", but instead was essentially attacking those writers participating in this thread as "exposing their own insecurities". That's a violation of RYFW.

To which I responded:



Now, you can bring any further comment to me via PM or take your concerns to the forum owner MacAllister, but do not try to pull that flimflammery in here again.

Everyone else: Let's please move on from babbage's attempt at a derail. I appreciate it. Thanks.

Click to expand...

The Guardian had a follow-up article this morning.

I'm on my way out the door and not very accessible today, so I'll only add three comments:

1) This one isn't much better than the last one. Who writes these "think" pieces??

2) As someone who was persistently mis-genered right out of SF and may never be able to break back in, I'd give a whole lot to be "pigeon-holed" into the genre.

3) I maybe didn't read closely enough - but it sure looked like Chambers was the only author of recent SF they talked to (or quoted). And Chambers is lovely, but seriously, people, she's not the only person who's written SF in the last ten years, or even the last ten months.

Thanks for the link!

I’m fond of Michel Faber’s work, so I’m glad he seems to have a more inclusive attitude. One of the books mentioned is about a journey from Earth to an inhabited planet, and another is about aliens hunting people on Earth, so I’m not sure how those could not be under the SF umbrella. They also happen to be literary and character-driven books, and he’s best known for writing a historical novel, which apparently leads some readers to want to “protect” his other books from the SF label.

Some readers seem to believe that if a book has “serious concerns” that it’s presenting allegorically through a futuristic or fantastical scenario (for instance, The Handmaid’s Tale or The Power making points about patriarchy; Under the Skin asking us to think about how we treat animals), then it’s “not really SF,” as if the subtext negates the text. Given how many canonical SF works have had heavy subtexts, though, that seems like an impossible line to draw.

And I like the point about how, for writers who feel unwelcome in the “literary” sphere (because of a certain once-prevalent assumption that only the white male perspective is universal), SF can serve as a refuge, a place to present your own perspective and not be told it’s irrelevant to “serious” concerns.

I know critics who promote the idea of “serious” fiction and earnestly believe it cannot be genre fiction, in a definitional way. I don’t even know where to start with that. That could be why I only use the word “serious” in scare quotes.

I like the ending of that follow-up:

If writers such as McEwan won’t acknowledge the monkey wrench in their hand, maybe it’s simply because they don’t understand its true power.

Click to expand...

... but in other places it's rather half-hearted:

Science fiction retains a rather juvenile set of associations – “heroic captains in black and silver uniform ... mad scientists with nubile daughters,” as Le Guin put it – that can make readers embarrassed to enjoy it. One way to deal with that embarrassment is to decide that, if you liked it, it’s clearly too good to count as SF.

Click to expand...

Who are these "readers" referred to? Clearly not the same readers who gave out the awards mentioned three paragraphs up. Or who purchase SF. So why make a generalisation that contradicts points within the same essay? It's a bizarre attempt at even-handedness.

Perhaps they're the same mysterious readers who "reported lower empathy... when a text included vocabulary such as 'airlock' and 'antigravity'". Hang on - according to authors of that study, which only surveyed 150 people:

https://thepatronsaintofsuperheroes...1/13/science-fiction-makes-you-stupid-part-2/

The conclusions that [the researchers] draw refer specifically to [the 1000 word texts created for the study] and so only tentatively to the larger genres of science fiction and narrative realism, which are each vast and diverse.

Click to expand...

It's poor journalism to take a small study with conclusions that the authors have heavily qualified and apply it as a universal truth. Especially when, in The Guardian's own article initially reporting the study, one of the authors states:

“While this wouldn’t be true of all readers, for those who are biased against SF, thinking of it as an inferior genre of fiction, they assume the story will be less worthwhile, one that doesn’t require or reward careful reading, and so they read less attentively. This then lowers their scores on objective comprehension tests because they miss so much. Interestingly, they don’t even realise it, because they still report that the story required less effort to understand. It’s a self-fulfilling bias – except we can now show objectively that the weakness is with the reader, not the story itself,” said Gavaler.

“So when readers who are biased against SF read the word ‘airlock’, their negative assumptions kick in – ‘Oh, it’s that kind of story’ – and they begin reading poorly. So, no, SF doesn’t really make you stupid. It’s more that if you’re stupid enough to be biased against SF you will read SF stupidly.”

Click to expand...

The study is used in the follow-up as an explanation for why SF is looked down upon - but the reverse is true. The surveyed readers looked down upon SF, hence their reactions. Cause and effect have been confused.


There is a lot I like in the follow-up - I like the fact it was written and published to begin with, rather than ignoring the kerfuffle - and I like that it does criticise the literary establishment, however tentatively. I just wish it hadn't been so desperate to appear balanced that it presented sweeping generalisations and misunderstood data as gospel.

onesecondglance said:

There is a lot I like in the follow-up - I like the fact it was written and published to begin with, rather than ignoring the kerfuffle - and I like that it does criticise the literary establishment, however tentatively. I just wish it hadn't been so desperate to appear balanced that it presented sweeping generalisations and misunderstood data as gospel.

Click to expand...

All of your points are excellent, and there was one more I thought about while I was reading: We're talking about SF here, and not fantasy. (I know it's a fuzzy boundary sometimes, but invoking words like "airlock" and "gravity" isn't going to evoke Tolkien in anyone's mind.) And I do think SF has one serious genre-specific issue: it's going to look dated pretty quickly, no matter how "out there" you write, because you're trying to extrapolate based (more or less) on real-world science. Your knowledge of current science, as well as knowledge of current technologies, is going to bias what you think the future is going to look like. There are a lot of technical touches in the stuff I wrote in 2011 that I'd completely change now.

Which doesn't change the power of the "what-if" scenario, of course. Frankenstein is no less a story of hubris and alienation than it would be with the trappings of modern medicine. But many SF writers choose to grab on to current ideas and run with them, and they don't alway age well, even if the story's good. Take faster-than-light travel: as we understand physics today, it's probably impossible, but it's a staple of SF, on the page and on the screen. If we ever do figure out how to crack that nut, it's undoubtedly not going to look like all the pretty, streamlined sfx we're seeing on Star Trek.

I don't know if this phenomenon contributes to the media's insistence on dismissing SF as a genre with any gravitas. (And in fairness SF is hardly alone in being trashed by "intellectuals": romance gets even less respect, although IMHO the reasons are a bit different.) It certainly can make specific works seem dated fairly quickly.

That’s a great point, Liz.

But if SF (especially hard, tech-based SF) is typically going to age poorly, acclaimed realistic literary fiction is also often tied to the era that produced it. Some books more, some less. I picked up a bestselling literary novel from the 1950s at a salvage store. The plot revolves around the characters feeling angsty and unfree because they have guaranteed lifetime jobs with high salaries, insurance, and a generous social safety net. (Also, they play lots of golf.) I read this and I’m like “Why the angst? Sign me up!!!” It’s still an interesting book, but it’s turned from a Serious Novel of Today’s Concerns into a period piece, and you can’t read it without wondering why all the characters are well-off and white, and whether other perspectives might change its thesis. Sure, many books transcend their time (Revolutionary Road, with similar themes, has held up better), but I have doubts about realistic fiction being inherently more universal.

Having read this article you linked to and having looked over my cavalier comments, I would just like to say that I was wrong and that I'm sorry I stirred the pot.

As someone who thought of himself as an author of "literary fiction" for the last 20 years, I have grappled for the last 4 with my decision to take up sci-fi and to stick with it. So I did get defensive on McEwan's behalf, but he is clearly wrong--just as I was.

Anyway, my apologies. Won't happen again.

lizmonster said:

The Guardian had a follow-up article this morning.

I'm on my way out the door and not very accessible today, so I'll only add three comments:

1) This one isn't much better than the last one. Who writes these "think" pieces??

2) As someone who was persistently mis-genered right out of SF and may never be able to break back in, I'd give a whole lot to be "pigeon-holed" into the genre.

3) I maybe didn't read closely enough - but it sure looked like Chambers was the only author of recent SF they talked to (or quoted). And Chambers is lovely, but seriously, people, she's not the only person who's written SF in the last ten years, or even the last ten months.

Click to expand...

What book are you referencing here? Sounds like something by Updike.

Fuchsia Groan said:

That’s a great point, Liz.

But if SF (especially hard, tech-based SF) is typically going to age poorly, acclaimed realistic literary fiction is also often tied to the era that produced it. Some books more, some less. I picked up a bestselling literary novel from the 1950s at a salvage store. The plot revolves around the characters feeling angsty and unfree because they have guaranteed lifetime jobs with high salaries, insurance, and a generous social safety net. (Also, they play lots of golf.) I read this and I’m like “Why the angst? Sign me up!!!” It’s still an interesting book, but it’s turned from a Serious Novel of Today’s Concerns into a period piece, and you can’t read it without wondering why all the characters are well-off and white, and whether other perspectives might change its thesis. Sure, many books transcend their time (Revolutionary Road, with similar themes, has held up better), but I have doubts about realistic fiction being inherently more universal.

Click to expand...

babbage said:

What book are you referencing here? Sounds like something by Updike.

Click to expand...

More obscure: When the Bough Breaks by Otis Carney from 1957. I may actually just be guessing at the bestsellerdom, but it seems to have had lots of editions.

Reaction to the thread generally: Hey, I've invented this really cool thing! It's round and it goes on this bar thing called an axle, and it spins around. You put the round things on each end of the axle and then you can attach a box to the axle and ta da! You can use it to move things around! It's even more stable if you use two axles and a total of four round things, so the round things are arranged in a rectangle around the box (all facing the same way). Then it stands up all by itself and you can push it or pull it, and put things in the box and you move things that are too heavy to carry! Yay! Isn't that an amazing thing? Everyone should take heed of my great invention!

onesecondglance said:

The study is used in the follow-up as an explanation for why SF is looked down upon - but the reverse is true. The surveyed readers looked down upon SF, hence their reactions. Cause and effect have been confused.

Click to expand...

I've been wondering how much of the disdain towards science fiction actually comes from a dislike of science. A lot of people in literature and media seem to have an aversion to science. For example, the way questions of scientific accuracy are brushed aside (implying that "normal people" don't care about science or scientific accuracy) and people who are into science are often portrayed as being weird in one way or another, as though "normal people" can't be interested in or good at science.

If people are reacting negatively to words like "airlock" maybe they feel insecure because they're not confident in their ability to understand science. Or maybe they think if a book talks about airlocks it must be a book just for nerds and they won't read it because they're not a nerd. All the stereotypes I've come across imply that science fiction readers are geeky nerds with no social life.

Then the whole literary v genre fiction thing is layered upon all of the anti-science baggage.

Note: I'm not for one minute saying that *all* people within literature/the media/etc are like this, not at all. There are plenty that don't think like that. It's just that there are enough people do think like the above that it's a thing, and that must be influencing people's perception of science fiction at one level or another.

Even within the genre, people have very odd ideas sometimes.

I've lost count of the number of times a SFF reader has said "aliens = scifi" or "fantasy must have magic" or "fantasy can't have high technology" or "if it has time travel, it's scifi" etc etc. A lot of the differences between SF and F (such as they are) come down to presentation and tone. A lot of the differences between litfic and genre fic come down to presentation and tone. Actual ideas are very flexible things.