In this generally comprehensive (I'll come to the not comprehensive part shortly), Gunn guides the would-be SF writer first (in "How to Write Fiction") through the history and craft of fiction writing (subdivided into smaller chapters dealing with character development, scene writing, suspense, dialogue, critiquing among others) before looking at science fiction. Much of this would be relevant to any would-be writer, or indeed anyone interested in learning about the structure and mechanics of writing. I always find this a little challenging, being confronted by the fact that the books I enjoy don't effortlessly and seamlessly flow out on to the page. I do, I hasten to add, know this, but I like to avoid the knowledge of this unromantic fact as much as possible.
Gunn's second section, "How to Write Science Fiction," begins with a reflection on the origins of the genre (was the first SF novel Frankenstein or The Time Machine, the Golden Age of Science Fiction etc), an eight page discussion about how to define the term, and extensive chapter on how ideas come to the prepared and inquisitive mind, and an examination of the different kinds of characters prevalent.
The last main, and to my mind least useful, section is about SF writers, with chapters for each of HG Wells, Robert A Heinlein, Issac Asimov, and the partnership of Henry Kuttner and Catherine Moore, who wrote under a variety of nomes de plume in the forties and fifties. Each author section explores the era, the author's history, their writing beginnings and their greatest works, and their impact on the genre.
I've read all of the featured authors bar Kuttner/Moore, which might be why I was disenchanted with Gunn's rhapsodical (and by far most exhaustive) raves for their work. This last chapter reads like a pared down version of a lovingly-researched thesis, and I don't think it helps budding authors at all - the Golden Age is well over.
There is very little acknowledgement, apart from the obligatory William Gibson reference, to more contemporary writing, even though the book was only published eight years ago, and often times Gunn refers to authors with an expectation that the reader is already familiar with their work. I kept thinking about some of my favourite genre authors who aren't even obliquely refereced, and I'm startled by the complete absence of women from Gunn's discussion.
Which brings me to my biggest issue with The Science of Science Fiction Writing - the intent of the book and its target audience. My library have it shelved as an 808.3, writers' resources, in with a bunch of how to guides and literary riffs. But it doesn't necessarily tell the beginner reader how to write SF, as opposed to, say, Will Write for Shoes, Cathy Yardley's how to write chick lit text I recently reviewed.
Nor is it a history of the genre, and it most certainly is not about the science of science fiction, a topic far better covered in books like The Physics of Star Trek, Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics (which I haven't read but think sounds fabulous), or The Science of Star Wars. I think I expected the approach, taking in these books and similar ones (like The Philosophy of the Simpsons or Seinology: The Sociology of Seinfeld) of marrying an aspect of pop culture with a (soft or hard) science analysis, but Gunn hasn't looked at the science aspect at all - the science fiction writing advice doesn't even mention making sure your science is feasible, concentrating instead on other, unquestionably important, aspects of writing. That's fine, but in that case call your book How to Write Science Fiction - your audience will find you far more easily, and those expecting something different won't be taken aback.
There's a small final section which suggests a program (based, I strongly suspect, on Gunn's own teaching course), using chapters of his book as reading guides.
It was interesting, and I'm glad I read this erudite contribution from an author I haven't previously read (but whose work sounds interesting), but it was nothing like I expected. I can't tell if my issue with the text was that it actually is flawed, or if it was a result of the dissonance between expectation and reality. As I renewed the book twice, picking it up and putting it down multiple times, I suspect the the latter but can't be sure. - Alex
No comments:
Post a Comment