Successful Writer Blog

Jeanette Winterson’s book about a foster mother and son in 17^th century England is a travel novel that sometimes reminds some of Calvino’s work. This book gives a new meaning to science fiction because the ’science’ that is being challenged here is not the usual mathematics, physics or philosophy but rather history and the science of feelings. In other words, Winterson teaches us that science fiction doesn’t have to be about the future, it can also be about the past. What’s so special about this book is that even though it has references to historical figures such as Charles I, it isn’t an alternative history, because history runs its course along the book and no one denies what happened. The real protagonists of the book are not historical figures; most chances are that they never really existed. Most of all, if you read the opening lines you can see that Winterson, like The Bible, does not accept the idea that there is a present, past or future. The book breaks the chronological order of times and more than that Sexing the Cherry defies reality and that’s what makes it science fiction. We have to take a break from reality when words become a palpable thing where a banana is seen as a devilish obstacle. We can think that the idea that there is a city where people live above an open alligator pool is preposterous or the fact that two lovers can choke on their own words is weird, but don’t we all live on the edge of danger? And even though choking on one’s word is a metaphor to reality, where people are being hurt by words, even that is presented to us with the means of defamiliarization. One of the lessons that I take from this book is that science fiction doesn’t have to be science but a way to challenge our wit and feelings by looking at reality in a whole different perspective. And that is what great literature should do.

In the upcoming weeks we shall deal with gender and Polish literature, and if possible, we shall combine both.

A friend from school bought me the first book as a present for my Bar-Mitzvah. For many years these books were extremely rare in Israel and it’s a shame because this is a book that combines the characteristics that we talked about in Sterne’s book – i.e. the fact that you can read these books again and again and only then understand their deep meanings. On the other hand, the humor in Douglas Adam’s books is a parody on science fiction or travel books but it is now accepted as a part of the genre itself, hence following in the footsteps of Swift. The omniscient narrator is not a persona but he is outside of the story, but what is so funny is that he is deadly serious about everything that happens and he is using history, philosophy and science in a grossly exaggerated way. It is true that this book catches you with honey and not with vinegar, but I believe that from the beginning, the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy deals with the question of happiness and more than that, the fact that Jesus is mentioned from the beginning shows that we have made a full circle. Both of the author’s that wrote satires in the beginning of this week were priests and the idea that in a secular age a popular book can indeed talk about Jesus, brings us to the point where we see that the secular and the profane are both susceptible of humor. And this is a very important lesson for writers today, not to take themselves too seriously and they must know that they can make a difference with humor.

Next week we shall deal with my all-time favorite science fiction books.   

About a year ago I was invited to take part in a science fiction evening. I normally write poems and short stories that are very realistic, but I thought I’d write something special for this evening so I asked the man in charge, “What is science fiction?”
He said, “Think of Dune for example.”
I said, “I’m sorry but for me Dune isn’t science fiction because it’s very much based on the nomadic tribes of Arabia, the characters use the Arab language, and if instead of spice they would have fought of gold or oil, it might have been very realistic.”
“But you can’t say it about Asimov, can you?” He asked.
“Well I can because I admit that I have not read much of the 60’s science fiction but from what I’ve seen, in order to debate philosophical questions they take moral issues from the everyday news, and stretch the reality to the edge, the only thing that is fiction in this sort of science fiction is that the writer believes that the future is nothing but an extreme present, and does not take the trouble to imagine that the world can really change. There are but a few books that imagine a brave new world, and they are normally very wrong because the Achilles’ heel of every science fiction book is its link to the present that is ever-changing.”
The thing I love the most about science fiction is satires like The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy because in this kind of book, the joke is on us. The failure to predict the future is inherent and I can truly enjoy the jokes and not to take the predictions very seriously.
“Do you actually claim there’s no science fiction?” He asked, after a long silence.
“Well, I don’t know. Science fiction is like asking the question, ‘Could God create a rock he could not lift?’ In the end you can’t describe anything that is not built on the basis of what God and Man have created, and you cannot imagine the unimaginable.”

What is science fiction? Is it a merely genre packed with moralistic books? By the same token, does this make detective stories philosophy? Do we have greater freedom once we declare something as science fiction? Does it even have to be related to science? Does it even have to contain a moralistic thread at all? Or is it pure escapism? What do you think?