Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Today's Washington Post has an interesting article on fiction that attempts to predict the future. The premise of Annalee Newitz, an author and editor of the io9.com science fiction blog, is that the grimmer the present is, the rosier science fiction books and movies get in presenting the future. I can see that. And right now, media such as film and television includes a lot of science fictional settings and plots. The print market is smaller, but still there. If she's right, maybe those of us who write far future optimistic science fiction will have a better shot at selling it in 2009?

But what intrigues me is that the column mentions science fiction classics such as the movie Forbidden Planet and books by authors such as Heinlein and Burroughs, but Newitz never uses the words "science fiction." She calls some the these works "escapist fantasy," a classification with which, where Burroughs is concerned, it's hard to argue, but she never uses the phrase "science fiction" in the text of the article.

So, what's up with that? Was it deliberate or sheer coincidence? I'd really like to know.

freehit counter

hit counter


( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
Jan. 6th, 2009 12:02 am (UTC)
A good idea, perhaps.
It was probably deliberate, as it is a habit for individuals to write "science fiction" without really putting too much thought into it. Perhaps she is trying to meld the genres of fantasy & science fiction together therefore coining an all entirely new term, "escapist fantasy." It could be a good thing to do, putting the two together or it might never work considering those who are fiercely loyal to either genre. Time will only tell.
Jan. 6th, 2009 01:04 pm (UTC)
Re: A good idea, perhaps.
I wondered if she thought was so obvious it didn't need to be said.
( 2 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

June 2016


Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow