Failure and Reasons

[mrissa]

Here's what I want to say this morning: you can't fail at things you don't try.

This is not meant to be a slacker manifesto ("Stop trying, never fail!"). What I'm saying here is that some forms of criticism fall down in this regard. It's totally unreasonable to decide that, for example, science fiction has failed at predicting the future. Science fiction was not trying to predict the future! It was trying to tell interesting stories! I did not fail at baking a custard tart this morning -- I just didn't bake one, which is different. If you want to consider it a flaw that I didn't try in the first place, you'll have to justify that, because not everyone has to make a custard tart first thing Wednesday mornings. Hardly anyone does. But people who have decided that SF was supposed to predict the future (or become the primary reading material of the entire English-speaking world, or save us from a host of ills, or...) never see the need to justify their assumption. Anything they wanted SF to do is what SF was inherently supposed to do.

Nonsense.

Books are written by actual people, and wishing very very hard does not make those actual people's motivations into one's ideal motivations.

I wrote Thermionic Night because it has taken me years to process the feeling of being part of the group (physicists) that came up with nuclear warfare, even though I'm no longer part of that group.

I wrote Thermionic Night because I was fascinated with the Kalevala and it's been sorely neglected in fantasy.

I wrote Thermionic Night because I hoped it could make a segment of "my kind" of people go around rubbing their heads and blinking for awhile thereafter.

I wrote Thermionic Night because I had written YA fantasy, children's SF, and adult SF, and I wanted to write adult fantasy as well, and it seemed like a better idea to work as broadly as I could to begin with, so that people would have a harder time saying, "But I thought you wrote X instead."

I wrote Thermionic Night because the things I'd been reading ran away with my brain and did funny things to it while it was gone and returned it somewhat the worse for wear.

I wrote Thermionic Night because the stupid characters wouldn't leave me alone until I did.

I wrote Thermionic Night because I hoped it would catch the eye of some editor and sell a gajillion copies and make me and the editor very happy.

I wrote Thermionic Night because it felt like melting a glacier in my head with a kitchen torch, which is an incredibly stupid thing to do unless you have a glacier in your head and the only tool you have in there is a kitchen torch, in which case you just get melting.

I wrote Thermionic Night because I had to write it in order to get to the others in the series.

I wrote Thermionic Night because the 1950s are not "Happy Days," and never a one of my characters has even considered wearing a poodle skirt. I love Buddy Holly, but they couldn't care less about him. Don't you understand there's a Cold War on?

I wrote Thermionic Night because it looked like fun.


All of these things are true. None of them refer to Why People Write Fantasy Novels or Why People Write Historical Novels or Why People Write Spy Novels or Why People Write Novels About Technology (though it is all of those things). I am not People. I am me. I wrote this book. If I am very lucky, it will sell and people will read it, and it still will not be about somebody else's theory of reasons to write fantasy novels. And if you decide that the purpose of fantasy novels is to provide biographical information about Marie of Roumania, that will not be my fault. Okay? Okay.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have another one to do.

Comments

[blzblack.livejournal.com]

So what are you responding to? It might help me understand what you're getting at if I saw an example of what you see as wrong attitudes within the genre.

[everyonesakitty.livejournal.com]

I wrote Thermionic Night because it looked like fun.

That's usually my reason for writing anything, usually the main reason. Although it's always mixed with a little neurosis, like, "this book looks fun to write and I need something to do with my time so I don't feel like I'm a loser and if I'm not writing I get itchy."

But, yeah, that's my reason, and it's valid enough for me. Good post!

[angeyja.livejournal.com]

I especially like the glacier torch part.

When I went to talk to Dad about 9-11 (very helpful) I had the sense although he didn't say it outloud that some of the need to jitterbug came from lying in bed thinking about the Cold War. He went on to become an engineer not an architect but I know he regretted it at times. Now he does other things.

The creation bit seems self evident? I don't know why something should have to be anything, unless you want it and can do it. But that may be because mine doesn't work that way at all.

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

I don't know if this is what Mris meant, but there have been conversations about (by which I mean 'circling about' as much as 'centering on') What SF Is S'posed To Do on the blogs of John Scalzi, eBear, and Sartorius lately (on the off chance you haven't seen 'em, which probably you have).

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

You are wise.

(Especially with the not baking. In _this_ weather? ::melts::)

[blzblack.livejournal.com]

Thanks, Hannah. Ah yes. I enjoyed their comments. So I take it this is a comment in response to Killheffer.

[palinade.livejournal.com]

::nods::

I wanted to write some responses to this whole thing, but don't have the time to set it all down. Maybe in a bit. But I think what bothers me most is still the "us" vs. "them" attitude and the idea that writers still "ghettocize" themselves. Some do, but they're usually those who wail and cry and raise hue about whatever. In general, I think a lot of writers just write stories that mean something to them, and they are mostly surprised that anyone or lots of someones find something worthwhile in the same way they did. Those who've been doing this for most of their careers have a bit more perspective, but I don't think any spec fic writer or science fiction writer sets out to write a novel of predictions. I think, if anything, they write about what's going on around them right now with a twist, a curl, a bit of their own habdashery tossed in. Afterall, as you said before, it's fiction.

[madwriter.livejournal.com]

I don't think very many SF writers have intentionally set about to predict the future. I think those who say SF is about prognostication fall into one of two categories:

(1) People who feel they need to be defensive about SF and think saying "It predicts the future!" makes it sound more "useful".

(2) People who tend not to read a lot (if any) SF but somehow feel qualified to talk or write about it.

As for me, if it's an idea that says "What if...?" and sounds like fun, I'll write it. But that's true regardless of genre.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

I thought the point of Sci-Fi was not to predict the future, but to critique the present.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

"...you can't fail at things you don't try."

I don't agree. You can fail to catch the ball, even if you did not know it was thrown. You can fail to eat the leftovers, even if you didn't know they were in the refrigerator. And you can fail to wake up, even if you didn't hear the alarm ring.

Even more fundamentally, there is a difference between an object and the creator of that object. The sculpture can fail to support a weight, even though it was intended to be a piece of fine art. Similarly, a book can fail to predict the future, even though the author did not intend it to do so.

There are social norms and background knowledge inherent in this. It's silly to claim that the brick wall failed to tell time, for example, but less so so claim that it failed to withstand the flood waters. My guess is that the difference centers around whether the object might conceivably be expected to do the thing. And certainly a science fiction book might conceivably be expected to predict the future.

"And if you decide that the purpose of fantasy novels is to provide biographical information about Marie of Roumania, that will not be my fault."

That seems to be the crux of the matter: fault. Is it the creator's fault that the object failed at whatever? Unlike the question as to whether the object failed, the intentions of the creator are essential to assigning responsibility for a failure.

B

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

That seems to be the crux of the matter: fault. Is it the creator's fault that the object failed at whatever? Unlike the question as to whether the object failed, the intentions of the creator are essential to assigning responsibility for a failure.

Or perhaps, not even responsibility for it so much as whether it _matters_ or not, to have failed?

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Yes; that too.

But again, that is more about responsibility.

B

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

If I have a response to Killheffer in specific, I will say so, I assure you.

Instead, I'm frustrated with a much broader class of comment.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

In 1999 when I won the Asimov Award, a family friend was blaming me for the lack of space station, because it was almost 2001. Yes, sir! Undergrads writing short stories are in charge of that!

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

The point of this post -- or part of it -- is that I hate it when people talk about the one true point of SF.

If I don't feel like critiquing the damn present, I don't have to.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm. This makes it sound like you have failed to eat my leftovers, failed to take my vitamins, failed to create world peace and an end to poverty today....

It just seems like failing at something and not doing it at all are different, and dropping anvils on statues' heads makes neither their artists nor even the statues themselves failures.

Why should a science fiction book be expected to predict the future? I'm not saying they never can, I'm saying that if you're using that as a measurement, you need to justify it, and mostly people don't.

[timprov.livejournal.com]

I'm 97% sure that Robert has considered wearing a poodle skirt.

[porphyrin.livejournal.com]

People write books for various reasons.

Those reasons differ wildly.

Why should books that are written for so many disparate reasons, all *have* to do One True Identical Thing, Every Time?

(Tangentially, I get this a lot about the act of _writing_ SFF: if you're not willing to devote yourself to it as a full-time craft-- if you're not willing to lay down your life to do the One True Thing-- then you have failed as a writer.)

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

And -- lucky you! -- there are people who have the same One True Thing attitude about medicine and motherhood, so you can get told how much of a failure you are in lots of areas. Yay! Oh. Um. Not yay.

Didn't somebody around this field say, "Specialization is for insects"?

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

"Hmmmm. This makes it sound like you have failed to eat my leftovers, failed to take my vitamins, failed to create world peace and an end to poverty today...."

Well, yesterday. The day is still young, and your leftovers might be enticing.

Again, there's a lot of background knowledge. If I were staying over, I could easily fail to eat your leftovers even though I didn't know they were in the fridge. From my house, the sentence reads more oddly. I think my previous analysis still stands: "the difference centers around whether the object might conceivably be expected to do the thing."

"It just seems like failing at something and not doing it at all are different, and dropping anvils on statues' heads makes neither their artists nor even the statues themselves failures."

They are certainly different, just as "failing at something" and being a "failure." The second is a value judgment, while the first is simply a fact. I think you're focusing on the responsibility.

"Why should a science fiction book be expected to predict the future?"

I have no idea, but it is. It's not even a bizarre expectation; it's a common expectation. The expectation might be wrong at a factual level, but I don't think you can argue that it's invalid at a semantic level.

B

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

But it's on the factual level where I think you need to explain why you have that expectation of an entire genre that never made any such guarantee. Which you can phrase as about responsibility instead of about failure if you like, I suppose.

markgritter made kung pao chicken the other night, and I think there may be a little of timprov's creatively spiced tomato sauce in there....

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

"But it's on the factual level where I think you need to explain why you have that expectation of an entire genre that never made any such guarantee. Which you can phrase as about responsibility instead of about failure if you like, I suppose."

Me? I don't care one way or the other. I don't have a dog in this fight.

I just notice that there is such an expectation, and it's not considered bizarre to have it. I don't think any genre makes a "guarantee" about anything, so I'm not sure that's relevent.

I'm just responding to your statement that you can't be a failure at something you didn't try to do. I think you can. As to whether science fiction should, can, is likely to, cannot possibly, or can hardly be expected to predict the future, I'll let the literary types debate that.

B

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, that's true. I should have said "I thought one of the points".

Since, y'know, it's got many of 'em. Some of which are contradictory. Which makes it all more interesting, anyway.

[blzblack.livejournal.com]

Hmm. So where do you find this class of comment, so that I may peruse their arguments (or lack thereof)?