Writing

What is speculative fiction, and how do I write it? (Or, how to make sh*t up.)

Tuesday, June 21st, 2011

The next of wave of what’s hot in the YA literary world looks like “speculative fiction.” Sound vague enough? For starters, think of it as a more advanced course in writing vampires and zombies. Or, of vampires and zombies as training wheels for your speculative imagination.

Speculative fiction is a term that emerged in the 1970s and ’80s to capture books that blurred the line between realist fiction, science fiction, horror, and other genres that typically came laden with readers’ expectations for what they’d find between the covers–be it aliens, ghouls, knights, or lifelike representations of ordinary people going about their ordinary lives. But remember, we’re talking about stories, here. Art. Like people, they’re hard to pigeonhole. In the whole history of storytelling, there is a vibrant history of borrowing, quoting genres, and referencing previous literary works–think of Dante’s Inferno, in which the poet wrote himself into his own story, with Virgil as his guide through layers of myth, history, and hellacious monsters. Speculative fiction has grown out of a long human history of making sh*t up, which you can see, for instance, in Ward Shelley’s astounding and educational cartoon creature that depicts the evolution of science fiction. (Click on it, but be warned: Plan on spending a good twenty minutes marveling at it.)

But since we’re trying to categorize our writing for agents, publishers, and readers, it helps to understand why a certain kind of “making sh*t up” produces speculative fiction, and why tossing a space ship battle into a novel about a lepidopterist is just gratuitous.

First, all speculative fiction requires world-building. World-building is a specific literary task. Orson Scott Card wrote an entire how-to book on world-building, and it’s a pretty good starter manual if you’re new to this kind of writing. Basically, you saw simple world-building in most vampire and zombie novels–the writer must create a context and explanation for her monsters. At the other end of the spectrum, you have a novel like The Hunger Games, where Suzanne Collins invented an entire world for her characters. If the world works, you suspend your disbelief. If it doesn’t, we start grilling the writer (e.g., “Waitasecond, how can a biological warhead explosion in Chicago infect everyone in America at the exact same moment?”), and voila, you’ve lost your reader.

Second, the speculative element must have meaning that shapes the story. This is the most important part, I believe, and it’s why I love the genre. It’s the “thought-experiment” that you are conducting in the pages of your novel. It’s why I include canonical and literary works such as Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, Toni Morrison’s Beloved, Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude, Jose Saramago’s The Stone Raft, and Patrick Suskind’s Perfume in the speculative fiction category with writers who typically come to mind when we think of genre fiction, such as Ursula K. LeGuin, Octavia Butler, Philip K. Dick, Neil Gaiman, Anne Rice, Ted Chiang, and China Mieville. If you look at the speculative fiction element in any of the “literary” works, you’ll find something meaningful, something thematic, encoded there:

The Handmaid’s Tale: Ofred’s enslavement is a critique of Christian fundamentalism.

Beloved: The ghost of the dead baby is a constant reminder of the impoverished, impossible circumstances that required her ex-slave mother to kill her.

One Hundred Years of Solitude: The isolation of the Buendia family and century of outsiders’ invasion and influence mirrors the colonial history of Latin America.

The Stone Raft: The rift that appears between Spain and Portugal mirrors the cultural divide between the two nations.

Perfume: The protagonist’s supernatural sense of smell and concomitant alienation motivate a series of murders whose goal is the manufacture of a perfume that will make people love him.

For an academic but useful perspective on how a novel’s speculative element is tied to its meaning, check out Wendy Faris’s book about magical realism, Ordinary Enchantments, and read Chapter 1. Or don’t. (I’m a lifelong bookworm who learns by reading. Maybe you aren’t.) In any case, you see the same principle at work in The Hunger Games, where the speculative world is a critique of a very familiar situation in American life: violence as entertainment.

No matter where on the literary spectrum you fall as a writer, if you set out to write speculative fiction, choose your novel’s speculative element before you make final decisions about your protagonist or plot line–because the character’s actions (and hence the plot) will be a response to the world in which she lives. This is really no different from Lajos Egri’s excellent advice to choose your theme before choosing your character or main conflicts.

Bottom line, in speculative fiction, the novel’s central thought-experiment is its theme.

“The Wild Girls” by Ursula K. Le Guin

Friday, May 20th, 2011
Click to buy the book from Powell's. Don't buy it from Amazon, against whom Le Guin has "nothing, really, except profound moral disapproval of their aims and methods, and a simple loathing of corporate greed."

Click to buy the book from Powell's. Don't buy it from Amazon, against whom Le Guin has "nothing, really, except profound moral disapproval of their aims and methods, and a simple loathing of corporate greed."

Last February, Ursula Le Guin told The Oregonian‘s Jeff Baker that at 80, she probably didn’t have another novel in her. Which was bad news to her readers, like me, who didn’t want to consider Lavinia her last work of fiction. It is one of her finest, dancing so gracefully along the lines between genres that it ought to have finally-once-and-for-all proven that there were never any lines in the first place. The good news, then, is that Le Guin can’t stop writing. The Wild Girls (PM Press Outspoken Author Series) is an even broader pastiche of genres—containing fiction, poetry, essay, and interview.

The title comes from the eponymous novelette whose economy showcases the maturity of Le Guin’s writing, reminding me of Gabriel García Márquez Memories of My Melancholy Whores. It’s the work of a writer at the peak of her talents, whose forty years’ attention to the craft and its context can produce a seamless story about injustice, gender, slavery, and love that completes its work in fewer than fifty pages. If her 1973 short story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” was an extended metaphor for the idea that every society rests on some fundamental cruelty, “The Wild Girls” is a more literal version of the same story. It’s about a girl who follows her sister into slavery in order to protect her, and both are raised to marry the soldiers who captured them; throughout their years of acculturation, they’re haunted by the memory of an infant who died during the raid. It’s a violent, bleak story that has no wish to be pessimistic, and it works, oddly, because Le Guin’s portrayal of the soldiers is so generous—not out of a prim compulsion to be fair to everyone, but out of the same blunt realism with which she writes about the slaughter that preceded the girls’ capture.

She resists moralizing. Her characters are complicated; some do awful things despite having humane sensibilities; the slaves collude with their captors; the unjust system lives on. It’s the world we live in, even though its class system looks different from ours. Her stories have no agenda, but she will not let us forget that the absence of a solution does not imply absence of right and wrong. For this reason, Le Guin’s speculative fiction is some of the most realistic writing I’ve ever had the joy of reading.

Visit Ursula K. Le Guin’s website here.

A few notes from Robert Pinsky’s “Is Vision the Twin of Speech?” (Bernard Osher lecture at Portland Art Museum).

Monday, March 7th, 2011

As a past national Poet Laureate, Robert Pinsky launched the Favorite Poem Project, a collection of ordinary Americans reading lines from their favorite poems. The project grew from his conviction, which he expressed at tonight’s lecture at the Portland Art Museum, that America struggles from a lack of a unified folk culture and of a unified class culture (the “snob” factor). He argued that without grandmothers to pass down distinctly “American” stories, dances, and recipes, and without a hereditary elite to guard and pass on “American” high culture, the work of inventing our culture is multiethnic, democratic, and continuous.

He opened the speech with a statement that I am still thinking about: That we are a great nation with vast economic and military power. But are we a great people? He spoke with a poet’s respect for the human ear–for the need to hear ideas slowly, a second or even third time, to give the mind time to circle and inspect the words. So imagine his slow, slightly gravely voice asking, a second and third time, A people… Are we a great people?

Part of his lecture featured clips from the Favorite Poem Project, one of them an high-achieving Chinese immigrant high school student, whose favorite poem is Emily Dickison’s “I’m Nobody! Who are You?” She read it aloud in the park at Stone Mountain, Georgia–what she called her favorite place. After the clip, Robert Pinsky called attention to the relief carving on the rock behind her, of slave-era heroes Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis. “She is a smart girl,” he said. “Someday she will think about that carving, and wonder how slavery is part of the culture she is living today.” (Slightly paraphrased, with apologies.)

He closed with a reading of William Carlos Williams’s “To Elsie”:

The pure products of America
go crazy—
mountain folk from Kentucky

or the ribbed north end of
Jersey
with its isolate lakes and

valleys, its deaf-mutes, thieves
old names
and promiscuity between

devil-may-care men who have taken
to railroading
out of sheer lust of adventure—

and young slatterns, bathed
in filth
from Monday to Saturday

to be tricked out that night
with gauds
from imaginations which have no

peasant traditions to give them
character
but flutter and flaunt

sheer rags—succumbing without
emotion
save numbed terror

under some hedge of choke-cherry
or viburnum—
which they cannot express—

Unless it be that marriage
perhaps
with a dash of Indian blood

will throw up a girl so desolate
so hemmed round
with disease or murder

that she’ll be rescued by an
agent—
reared by the state and

sent out at fifteen to work in
some hard-pressed
house in the suburbs—

some doctor’s family, some Elsie—
voluptuous water
expressing with broken

brain the truth about us—
her great
ungainly hips and flopping breasts

addressed to cheap
jewelry
and rich young men with fine eyes

as if the earth under our feet
were
an excrement of some sky

and we degraded prisoners
destined
to hunger until we eat filth

while the imagination strains
after deer
going by fields of goldenrod in

the stifling heat of September
Somehow
it seems to destroy us

It is only in isolate flecks that
something
is given off

No one
to witness
and adjust, no one to drive the car

(From The Poetry Foundation)

What doesn’t grow, doesn’t travel well.

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011

An update on SHAHIDA is long overdue, and like most things novelists say, requires context.

The short of it is that I plan to have a complete draft by the end of March, and am hauling away loads of scaffolding–that is, what the Portland Dangerous Writers call those tedious passages of first-draft writing in which the novelist explains the story to herself. The only thing SHAHIDA lacks is its ending, which lies somewhere beneath the final load of scaffolding. You can’t find clarity until you’ve piled a lot of chaos on top of it, and let it germinate.

The long of it is that while I am finishing this novel, E. and I will be uprooting ourselves again and moving to San Antonio. I’m getting better at chaos–at searching for houses from afar, checking walk scores, finding the right glassware (e.g., the margarita glasses) on the other side, and most of all, stepping back from routines, favorite streets, new friends, and whatever lens on the world is local to the current city. Except for the friends, it’s scaffolding. It doesn’t travel well. Unless it someday appears in a novel, reshaped or cleverly distorted, it’s gone.

What travels is the habit of writing; the love of my work; the long e-mails with friends (it has been a joy to discover a sharper premise in tandem with my friend Laura Stanfill‘s own journeys into her novel, for instance); and the whole complex inner city that is a relationship with another human being. Maybe language, too–the most personal lens on the world, our voice.

There seems to be a chicken-and-egg question with regard to adaptation, travel, and growth. What doesn’t travel cannot learn to adapt. Yet what doesn’t grow doesn’t travel well, either.

On editing, postulated futures, and the 3/4-rule of sanity.

Friday, February 4th, 2011

You might have seen my interview with Laura Stanfill a few weeks ago. This week, she returned the favor. Read her interview with me here.

  • Archives