• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Speculations on Speculation: Theories of Science Fiction

Posted on: Thursday, 26 January 2006, 09:00 CST

By Harris-Fain, Darren

James Gunn and Matthew Candelaria, eds. Speculations on Speculation: Theories of Science Fiction. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2005. 374 pp. $30.00 pbk.

* Every time I've taught a course on science fiction, I've thought it would be useful to be able to offer my students, in a single volume, a collection of critical and theoretical essays on the topic, rather than making multiple photocopies of essays and book chapters or placing materials on reserve. So I was excited when I learned of the publication of just such a collection, one of whose editors is the estimable James Gunn, one of the acknowledged authorities of the field in addition to his own contributions to the literature.

Speculations on Speculation: Theories of Science Fiction, edited by Gunn and Matthew Candelaria, comes close to my ideal compilation in many ways. Several of the key texts you'd expect to find are here, such as the section of Gary K. Wolfe's book Critical Terms for Science Fiction and Fantasy dealing with important definitions of science-fiction terms, two of the central chapters from Darko Suvin's Metamorphoses of Science Fiction, Ursula K. Le Guin's classic essay "Science Fiction and Mrs. Brown," the introduction and the chapter on Mary Shelley from Brian W. Aldiss and David Wingrove's Trillion Year Spree, the chapter on science fiction and myth from Alexei and Cory Panshin's The World Beyond the Hill, Colin Greenland's chapter on the New Wave from his The Entropy Exhibition, David G. Hartwell's chapter on fandom from his'Age of Wonders, and Samuel R. Delany's well-known essay "Some Presumptuous Approaches to Science Fiction." In addition, there is much else here of interest for both students and scholars of science fiction: three provocative pieces by Gunn, "Toward a Definition of Science Fiction,""The Readers of Hard Science Fiction," and "Touchstones"; four short but fascinating essays from Barry N. Malzberg's The Engines of the Night; Paul Kincaid's essay "On the Origins of Genre," originally published in Extrapolation; a second piece by Delany, "Science Fiction and 'Literature'-or, The Conscience of the King," a speech delivered at a 1979 con; an excerpt on SF from Robert Scholes's Structural Fabulation; "How Shit Became Shinola: Definition and Redefinition of Space Opera," Hartwell and Kathryn Cramer's online essay, here retitled "Space Opera Redefined"; two essays on current trends first published in Asimov 's by practicing writers, Michael Swanwick on "the postmoderns," which develops the cyberpunks versus the "humanists" argument of the 1980s, and James Patrick Kelly on "slipstream" (actually two essay combined); and, finally, Judith Berman's Pioneer Awardwinning essay, "Science Fiction without the Future," from The New York Review of Science Fiction. In addition, the book includes a decent bibliography of critical and theoretical works on science fiction for further reference.

As Candelaria notes in his introductory essay, he and Gunn deliberately excluded critical works on science fiction published prior to the emergence of "mature" SF criticism, which he argues had occurred by the early 1970s. Therefore this collection contains nothing published more than thirty years ago, although Candelaria provides a useful overview of important critical works that appeared earlier than their self-imposed cutoff, and these earlier works are also included in the bibliography.

Despite this limitation, this is a decent collection of critical and theoretical writings devoted to science fiction, and it would certainly serve to fulfill its stated purpose: to introduce students to the variety of views writers and scholars have put forward about the genre and to encourage classroom discussion regarding what science fiction is and does.

That said, the book does have some limitations and problems. The first limitation is temporal. While Candelaria presents an interesting argument about what counts as "mature" SF criticism and what doesn't, why not include readings from earlier science-fiction critics such as Damon Knight, James Blish, Thomas D. Clareson, Kingsley Amis, and H. Bruce Franklin? Why not include essays about science fiction by earlier writers such as Isaac Asimov and Robert A. Heinlein? For those of us who teach older SF in addition to newer novels and stories, we might find ourselves back to making photocopies or placing items on reserve in such cases.

Even if one applauds the book's chronological restriction, there are still limitations. Where, for instance, are such SF critics as Damien Broderick, John Clute, Thomas M. Disch, Carl Freedman, Stanislaw Lem, Eric Rabkin, Joanna Russ, Brian Stableford, and Gary Westfahl, to name just a few? Of course, no collection can contain every conceivable item, but one wonders why the editors chose to include multiple pieces from some writers (Gunn, Malzberg, Aldiss and Wingrove) while excluding others.

There are other problems as well. First, while there are useful contributor biographies in the back of the book, there are no indications of when and where the individual pieces were published accompanying each selection, and when one turns to the acknowledgments pages for this information, one finds that it is missing for six of the readings. Also, the acknowledgments list one selection, a chapter from David Ketterer's New Worlds for Old, that is not in the book. A second problem, also related to trying to find particular kinds of information, is the index, which is both generally inaccurate and woefully incomplete.

A final problem with the book as an abstract entity is that it has been poorly edited and proofread. The text of riddled with errors-in some cases more, in some less, but throughout a large enough problem that I would hesitate to offer this to my students simply because of the many mistakes. Having read many of the pieces included here in their original publications, I know that these errors are not attributable to the sources themselves.

The physical book, in my case, was also a problem. The review copy I received from the publisher literally fell apart, with dozens of pages pulling loose from the spine. Perhaps I simply received a poorly glued copy, but this left me wondering whether my students would encounter the same problem.

Despite these flaws, Speculations on Speculation offers a good sampling of ideas about science fiction from both academic critics and practicing writers, and its selections would serve as an excellent springboard for class discussions about the nature and purposes of the genre. It's not my ideal text, but for now it will do.

Copyright University of Texas at Brownsville Fall 2005

Source: Extrapolation

More News in this Category