Assorted Thoughts
I've had a lot of ideas scrabbling at the back of my brain with no real energy to give them the treatment I feel they deserve, so I'm going to throw some of them out here without much development.
1) There's an oft-unexamined equivalency drawn between originality, quality, and the elusive "sense of wonder" that people hearken back to when they talk about what they want from SFF or why it appeals to them. Joanna Russ talks about it a bit in "The Wearing Out of Genre Materials" (found in The Country You Have Never Seen), though I find her notion of Innocence, Plausibility, and Decadence to be at least somewhat problematic, and she doesn't really deal with one of the core issues related to originality and the perceptions thereof, which is audience knowledge. Quite simply, if readers aren't familiar with cultural details or early precedents or source works, they will often perceive something as New! and Exciting! and Totally Original! which... well, isn't.
2) I have come to the conclusion that modern SFF short fiction - even if you restrict it to professionally published short fiction - has become a field which no single individual has a grasp on, and which quite possibly no one can have a grasp on, short of making reading and reviewing it their full-time vocation. Lois Tilton has dismissed Daily Science Fiction and other publications as beneath her notice, while Tangent Online and all the other short fiction reviewing venues I'm aware of have similar gaps in their coverage. In preparing for my Hugo nomination ballot, I read somewhere between one hundred and two hundred short stories last year, and started but didn't finish as many more, and that's without having read the entirety of any single publication's output. Under such conditions, I find the idea the idea that awards ballots and Years Best anthologies are the result of anything like a comprehensive survey of the field to be highly suspect.
3) There continues to be a lot of noise made about the notion that the difference between genre fiction and literary fiction is purely one of labeling and marketing categories. I think this claim is only really sustainable if one cherry-picks one's evidence, inasmuch as there are a range of genre discourses in play, many of which are overlapping. Yes, the work of Kelly Link and Aimee Bender has a lot in common, and no, this doesn't mean that it's really useful to talk about Joyce's Ulysses and... I don't know, Prospero Burns as being part of a single conversation. One is about linguistic exploration, literary ironies, and the lives of a Jewish man and those around him in early 20th-century Dublin. The other is about space battles and treachery and main battle tanks falling from the sky. Trying to blur that distinction serves no one, save possibly as a rhetorical tactic.
4) Also, seemingly as the legacy of some SFF authors and their attempts to claim a seat at the table of literature, I've seen people trying to claim that there is no distinction between SF work in the YA genre and SF work outside of it. In some cases that may be true. That said, the YA marketing category as currently constructed has a lot of conventions that are specific to it, and to say that just because one can't easily 'define' it means that it can't be distinct feels specious. Whether those conventions will remain stable is another question, but at least for the moment, the line between YA SF and adult SF seems fairly clear in the minds of many authors and readers (and editors, and agents, and...), even if on an individual level they all disagree with each other.
5) Everyone seems to want bright lines, and clear distinctions, and an utter lack of ambiguity in these issues. I understand why - clarity is far less stressful and anxiety-inducing than ambiguity, and we want to be right, not waffling about with probabilities or qualitative judgments. But ambiguity is what we're stuck with, for the most part, and trying to erase it and make claims to more precision than we can achieve are often harmful. See the example of storm surge height vs. levee height in Nate Silver's recent article in New York Magazine for one example.
Anyway. Possible more later, on the importance of being humane.
1) There's an oft-unexamined equivalency drawn between originality, quality, and the elusive "sense of wonder" that people hearken back to when they talk about what they want from SFF or why it appeals to them. Joanna Russ talks about it a bit in "The Wearing Out of Genre Materials" (found in The Country You Have Never Seen), though I find her notion of Innocence, Plausibility, and Decadence to be at least somewhat problematic, and she doesn't really deal with one of the core issues related to originality and the perceptions thereof, which is audience knowledge. Quite simply, if readers aren't familiar with cultural details or early precedents or source works, they will often perceive something as New! and Exciting! and Totally Original! which... well, isn't.
2) I have come to the conclusion that modern SFF short fiction - even if you restrict it to professionally published short fiction - has become a field which no single individual has a grasp on, and which quite possibly no one can have a grasp on, short of making reading and reviewing it their full-time vocation. Lois Tilton has dismissed Daily Science Fiction and other publications as beneath her notice, while Tangent Online and all the other short fiction reviewing venues I'm aware of have similar gaps in their coverage. In preparing for my Hugo nomination ballot, I read somewhere between one hundred and two hundred short stories last year, and started but didn't finish as many more, and that's without having read the entirety of any single publication's output. Under such conditions, I find the idea the idea that awards ballots and Years Best anthologies are the result of anything like a comprehensive survey of the field to be highly suspect.
3) There continues to be a lot of noise made about the notion that the difference between genre fiction and literary fiction is purely one of labeling and marketing categories. I think this claim is only really sustainable if one cherry-picks one's evidence, inasmuch as there are a range of genre discourses in play, many of which are overlapping. Yes, the work of Kelly Link and Aimee Bender has a lot in common, and no, this doesn't mean that it's really useful to talk about Joyce's Ulysses and... I don't know, Prospero Burns as being part of a single conversation. One is about linguistic exploration, literary ironies, and the lives of a Jewish man and those around him in early 20th-century Dublin. The other is about space battles and treachery and main battle tanks falling from the sky. Trying to blur that distinction serves no one, save possibly as a rhetorical tactic.
4) Also, seemingly as the legacy of some SFF authors and their attempts to claim a seat at the table of literature, I've seen people trying to claim that there is no distinction between SF work in the YA genre and SF work outside of it. In some cases that may be true. That said, the YA marketing category as currently constructed has a lot of conventions that are specific to it, and to say that just because one can't easily 'define' it means that it can't be distinct feels specious. Whether those conventions will remain stable is another question, but at least for the moment, the line between YA SF and adult SF seems fairly clear in the minds of many authors and readers (and editors, and agents, and...), even if on an individual level they all disagree with each other.
5) Everyone seems to want bright lines, and clear distinctions, and an utter lack of ambiguity in these issues. I understand why - clarity is far less stressful and anxiety-inducing than ambiguity, and we want to be right, not waffling about with probabilities or qualitative judgments. But ambiguity is what we're stuck with, for the most part, and trying to erase it and make claims to more precision than we can achieve are often harmful. See the example of storm surge height vs. levee height in Nate Silver's recent article in New York Magazine for one example.
Anyway. Possible more later, on the importance of being humane.