I Arthur Charles Clarke Overview of His Work in the Context of Sci-fi Literature

I Arthur Charles Clarke Overview of His Work in the Context of Sci-fi Literature I.1 Introduction to Sci-fi Literature and Clarke s Position as a Keyfigure in the Evolution of the Genre I.1 1 Defining the Genre of Science Fiction Historically, the genre of science fiction is considered quite recent before the year 1900, there were very few authors whose work may viewed as belonging to this literary family. The critics of the genre have engaged in long-lasting debates in their attempts of devising a universally recognised definition of sci-fi, with various attitudes and approaches conflicting with one another throughout the years (Roberts 1). Tracing several general traits of sci-fi literature might help us with constructing our own definition: in every bookstore, we encounter a special section devoted to this genre, where many vividly coloured paperback volumes attract our attention, adorned with realistic depictions of alien landscapes, panoramic photographs of galaxies or quaint beings from other planets or dimensions. Regardless of what greets our eyes when we look at these covers, one first thing is common among all sci-fi texts, namely the fact that they include fictional worlds different from the one we live in: the fantastic is therefore one of the main traits of science fiction literature (Roberts 1). The disagreement begins to occur when it comes to defining the distinctive features of this genre that sets it apart from other fantastic and imaginative literatures. Circular reasoning abounds among such attempts, such as SF is what is marketed as SF (James qtd. in Roberts 2), Lance Parkin stating that the term science fiction has become a gimmick used by publishers to maximize sales, taking advantage by the lack of a proper definition and selling all kinds of second-rate literary texts under this label (Parkin qtd. in Roberts 2). According to the Oxford English Dictionary, science fiction is defined as imaginative fiction based on postulated scientific discoveries or spectacular environmental changes, frequently set in the future or on other planets and involving space or time travel. (Clarke, The City and the Stars 67) In such texts, verisimilitude is often abandoned by the authors,

who in turn strive towards introducing new things based on a mix of his imagination and theoretical scientific concepts. The historical emergence of the term science fiction is also of importance. Many texts written before the 1920s, such as the works of Jules Verne and H. G. Wells have been labelled SF by a vast number of readers and critics, with some stating that the first real sci-fi text is Mary Shelley s Frankenstein (Aldiss, 1973 cited in Roberts 3). However, the fact that none of these texts have been recognised as belonging to the genre of science fiction (the term having not been coined at the time) has prompted many critics to rethink their approach on the subject. Nevertheless, the term itself was introduced some time during the 1920s, as the number of such texts began to grow and the need to name this new family of literature became evident (Roberts 3). According to Joseph D. Miller (Wastfahl and Slusser 79), it may be too early to come up with a proper, fixed definition, given that establishing its borders might hinder a natural and healthy evolution process of this literature. Every attempt of assembling a genre-defining anthology, he states, often results in an idiosyncratic, anachronistic, unrepresentative or even patently offensive outcome, such as the Norton Book of Science Fiction cited in his book. However, Miller manages to establish a very important trait of sci-fi literature: The basic project and motivation of science fiction is a revolutionary threat to things as they are (Wastfahl and Slusser 85). In other words, science-fiction authors often manage to create ripples in our perceived order of the world by the use of certain tropes such as artificial intelligence, genetic engineering and faster than light travel, which Miller compares to the Holy Grail of the Knight of the Round Table (Wastfahl and Slusser 85). Such tropes either represent threats to the current order of the world or promises for a better, brighter future in both cases, the essence of science fiction literature is the new, a concept that people inherently perceive with either fear or great excitement (Wastfahl and Slusser 85). The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction (24) cites the idea of alienation as another central recurring concept of the genre, an element of character which often implies the idea that different is the same as superior (James and Mendlesohn 10). The concepts of different and novel are in many aspects interdependent, being widely accepted as particularities distinguishing sci-fi from other forms of fantastic literature.

Nevertheless, we do need to establish more than just a number of particularities and tropes of this genre in order to better understand why a sci-fi text is considered sci-fi. In his attempt of establishing a proper definition for this literary species, Adam Roberts has chosen three influential critics of the genre, whose definitions have had a considerable effect on how texts are labelled as belonging to this quaint category of literature. The first definition belongs to Darko Suvin, a Yugoslav-born literary critic and professor of comparative literature at the McGill University of Montreal. Suvin defines science fiction as: a literary genre whose necessary and sufficient conditions are the presence and interaction of estrangement and cognition, and whose main formal device is an imaginative framework alternative to the author s empirical environment (Suvin qtd. in Roberts 7). Thus, for Suvin, cognition and estrangement are two premises on which a sci-fi text is built: cognition implies gaining scientific knowledge and estrangement (or alienation) is the main formal device for his version of sci-fi literature. Furthermore, he insists that the alternative worlds depicted within these texts have to be at least theoretically possible, reflecting the constraints imposed by science. There is, however, much debate regarding the definition of science, as human knowledge is constantly undergoing change and pseudoscience is occasionally seen in SF writings, but Suvin states that despite these occurrences, rationality must nevertheless lie at the core of a sci-fi text (Roberts 9). The second definition Roberts comments upon belongs to Gwyneth Jones, a sci-fi writer and critic from the University of Sussex, England: Science in Science Fiction has always had a tacit meaning other than that commonly accepted. It had nothing in particular to say about the subject matter, which may be just about anything so long as the formal conventions of future dress are observed. It means only, finally, that whatever phenomenon or speculation is treated in the fiction, there is a claim that it is going to be studied to some extent scientifically that is objectively, rigorously; in a controlled environment. The business of the writer is to set up the equipment in a laboratory

of the mind such that the what if in question is at once isolated and provided with the exact nutrients it needs (Jones qtd. in Roberts 10). For Jones, it is not the scientific truth that is relevant to sci-fi, but the scientific methods employed for constructing the logical working of a particular premise, an observation shared by Suvin: SF is distinguished by the narrative dominance or hegemony of a fictional novum validated by cognitive logic (Suvin qtd. in Roberts 10). Therefore, cognitive logic becomes a crucial formal convention of SF (Roberts 10). Moreover, Robert Scholes stresses on the metaphorical aspect of sci-fi literature, acknowledging that the interest of this specific form of literature lies in worlds different from those in which we live, but which return to confront that known world in some cognitive way (Scholes qtd. in Roberts 10). Sci-fi worlds are thus both different and similar to our world, the cognitive way being the element that sets this body of literature apart from other types of fantastic or imaginative works, preventing the genre from being considered merely escapist (Roberts 11). Finally, the third definition chosen by Roberts belongs to Damien Broderick, an Australian sci-fi writer and critic who praised Scholes for his efforts to bring this genre to academic attention. Broderick s definition characterises sci-fi literature in connection with the epoch during which it emerged, offering additional insight regarding the factors that contribute to the genre s popularity: Sf is that species of storytelling native to a culture undergoing the epistemic changes implicated in the rise and supercession of technical-industrial modes of production, distribution, consumption and disposal. It is marked by (i) metaphoric strategies and metonymic tactics, (ii) the foregrounding of icons and interpretative schemata from a collectively constituted generic mega-text and the concomitant de-emphasis of fine writing and characterisation, and (iii) certain priorities more often found in scientific and postmodern texts than in literary models: specifically, attention to the object in preference to the subject (Broderick qtd. in Roberts 12).

Works Cited Anderson, Terry. The Movement and the Sixties. New York: Oxford University Press. 1996. Web. Arthur C. Clarke.Net. Sir Arthur C. Clarke's Legacy. 2011. Web. 15 Oct 2012. Arthur C. Clarke.Net. Sir Arthur C. Clarke's Quotes. 2011. Web. 16 Oct 2012. Babiak, Peter E. 2001 Revisited. CineAction, 52(2000). Questia. Web. 25 Nov 2012. Benford, Gregory. Arthur C. Clarke (1917-2008): Visionary Science-Fiction Author. Skeptic (Altadena, CA), 14.2 (2008). Bloom, Alexander. Long Time Gone: Sixties America Then and Now. New York: Oxford University Press. 2001. Web. Bork, Robert. Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline New York: Regan Books. 1996. Chatterjee, Choi, et. al. The 20th Century: A Retrospective. Westview Press. Clarke, Arthur C. Greetings, Carbon-Based Bipeds!: Collected Essays, 1934-1998. St. Martin's Press. 2001. Clarke, Arthur C. The City and the Stars. Harcourt, Brace & World. 1956. Dinello, Daniel. Technophobia! Science Fiction Visions of Posthuman Technology. University of Texas Press. 2005. Farber, David. The Sixties: From Memory to History. University of North Carolina Press. 1994. Flacks, Richard and Jack Whalen. Beyond the Barricades: The Sixties Generation Grows Up. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 1989. Web. Free Inquiry. God, Science, and Delusion. Free Inquiry, 19.2(1999).

Fry, Carrol L. From Technology to Transcendence: Humanity's Evolutionary Journey in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Extrapolation, 44.3 (2003). Greenwald, Jeff. Arthur C. Clarke On Life. On Newsstand Now. 1.3 (1993). Wired, n.d. Web. 5 Nov 2012. James, Edward and Farah Mendlesohn. The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction. Cambridge: University Press.2002. Kimball, Roger. The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America. Encounter Books. 2000. Lehman, Steven. Sir Star Child: The Asian Odyssey of Arthur C. Clarke. Hollins Critic, 38.5 (2001). Questia. Web. 25 Nov 2012. Marwick, Arthur. The sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy, and the United States, c.1958-c.1974. Oxford University Press. 1998. Web. Menos, Denis. The Superpowers and Nuclear arms control: Rhetoric and Reality. New York: Praeger Publishers. 1990. Morgan, Edward. The '60s Experience: Hard Lessons about Modern America. Temple University Press. 1991. Monteith, Sharon. American Culture in the 1960s.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 2008. McWilliams, John C. The 1960s Cultural Revolution. Greenwood Press. 2000. Pike, Sarah. New Age and Neopagan Religions in America. New York: Columbia University Press. 2004. Pok, Hannah. Where do we go from here : Extrapolation Vs. Mysticism in Arthur C. Clarke's Fiction. HannahPok. 1999. Web. 20 Nov 2012.