So I remember in class over the past few weeks, we expressed some confusion and discussion about the Cory Doctorow novels as science fiction. They take place almost completely within our own world, at least in the areas of technological advancement, which is normally how we differentiate science fiction from traditional fiction. If it's in the future and they have technology that we don't, it's sci-fi. One comment that Mr. Duncan made in class is that what really sets the works apart for him is the dense explanation. Where in a work that was defined as "fantasy," there would be a magical spell or object that could make the citizens of San Francisco look suspicious, in Little Brother, there is an arphid jammer that works this way, and much detail goes into explaining to the reader why this works the way that it does.
I wanted to take this viewpoint into account when reading the stories in the anthology. The first one "Weep for Day," as well as "The Man," take place in a world where one side of the planet is in eternal night, the other in a never-ending day. Now, in a setting that would be considered fantasy, this would be simply stated and accepted as a facet of life, such as in the Game of Thrones series, where seasons last for many years at a time. That's just how the world is and we don't need to understand beyond that. Traditionally, "Weep for Day" might fall into that same category. It takes place in a different world, there are knights and foul beasts of shadow. It all sounds very fantastical.
However, the descriptions alter that perception of the setting, at least for me. The world isn't magically day on one side and night on the other. The story says that the planet is tidally locked and, whether or not it revolves around the sun, it doesn't rotate on an axis causing partial day and night. The setting is explained. Similarly, the shadow-creatures that serve as a kind of subverted antagonist for the story are explained away through evolutionary science and biology. Are there still fantasy elements to the story? Certainly! There's the "sun wyrm," which one can only envision as some manner of solar dragon. There's a Shadow King creature with a sword that matches many a fantasy archetype, and (SPOILERS) the story itself ends with the narrator going deeper into the Night to find something that IS unknown and unexplainable. But by spelling out the astronomy and biology of this world, it takes on a different feel that can only be science fiction.
How does this factor in to your perceptions of the works? I know that some of the Ted Chiang stories felt decidedly not science fiction-y, but under this criterion, they do to me more than they did before. Anyone else feel that way?
I think that Weep for day is a mix of science fiction and fantasy. the fact that knights are fighting creatures seems extremely fantasy to me, although the explanations for everything was science, which is why it is also science fiction.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jocelyn and the idea that "Weep For Day" was fantasy. Everything seemed mysterious and related to a sort of twisted fairytale. However, the science fiction aspect of it did confuse me a few times while I was reading it. It seemed almost too abstract, and it was hard for me to wrap my head around it all. I did enjoy how Valyzia was the narrator and spoke directly to the reader throughout the story.
ReplyDeleteMost of the stories we had to read this week left me questioning how we could call Doctorow science fiction since these were so space intensive. "Weep for Day" does have some slightly fantastical qualities to it, but is it so different from the rest of this weeks reading? Yes, the world is divided into night and day, but these are also alien creatures, not necessarily like we would classify the Sushi or the things from Holmes Sherlock, but alien as in different. The characteristic of this story that makes it seem more fantasy than science fiction is the fact that they are called Nightmares instead of some name we couldn't pronounce if we wanted to. The actions within the story look at the technical aspects of life instead of the emotional and 'conquest' aspects seen in most fantasy.
ReplyDeleteTo me, Weep for Day, really didn't seem that fantastical despite having knights and living nightmares, because the language used in the story reminded me of steampunk and Victorian novels so I just thought the knights went along with the monarchy. As for the Nightmares, even though everything took place on the same world felt sort of like a first contact novel where the protagonist realizes the things from space aren't so foreign after all (so kind of what Ashley said).
ReplyDeleteI can see how "Weep for Day" could fit partially into the fantasy category but most of the illogical facets of the story fit into science fiction. The division of night and day is attributed to a scientific explanation. Also, the story tells of how the Nightmares adapt to survive. They eat their young and avoid light to help sustain their population and fight back when their territory is threatened. Many technologies also came into play in the story such as the night suits and night crawler vehicle.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading "Weep for a Day" I was constantly reminded of the game "Dark Souls" which is set in a world where there is an eternal sunset, demons, magic etc. All very fantastical. Despite the fantasy elements in "Weep for a Day" I accepted it a Science Fiction because of the narrator's work at 'scientifically' understanding the nightmares. Though her studies are archaeological or anthropological these are still forms of science (perhaps not as technological as we would hope). On a more personal note I loved this blurring of the lines between the genres.
ReplyDelete