Ideology, Pt. 2

I've been discussing the nature of ideology and steampunk a lot over on the Brass Goggles forums lately. Even after a few posts, it has become very clear to me that my vision of the genre is completely different from most of those who frequent the forums. I have always been one to take a serious approach to literature. As I've mentioned before, I feel like fiction ought to have a purpose: whether that purpose is to entertain or enlighten is entirely up to the author. For me, I want my readers to walk away having gained something more than just a fun story to add to their list of "have reads."

In light of the discussion, I began to think very specifically about the nature of genre and its meaning to people. So I've added to my list of tasks to research a number of others' views on genre and genre theory as it pertains to speculative fiction and begin to formulate my own ideas to either grow out of those thoughts or stand in opposition to them.

In general, I believe genre fiction has a unique place in the repertoire of literature because it has the ability to speak towards topics untouchable by mainstream fiction by placing them in a context that is either foreign or futuristic (or some other conception). It has the potential to talk about things in a way that other authors might be shunned by the general populace for bringing up. With that in mind, I think that there is something to be said for some of the movement towards strictly embracing a particular movement's aesthetic aspect only. To disregard ideology is to lose part of what makes a particular genre or sub-genre stand out and bring home its message.

I invite you to join in on the discussion over at the forums if you're keen on discussing steampunk. Otherwise, your thoughts here are always welcome.

Ideologies Abound

Literary movements typically happen without an express intent to do so. Writers working under similar perceptions of the nature of language, writing, politics, society, or whatever else drives a writer to write, tend to create movements inadvertently by writing in similar fashion. Modernism was a response to the Romantic idealism of the 19th Century. Post-Modernism was a response to the traditionally-bound and structurally-minded artists of Modernism. This is the way of movements: the writers didn't intentionally try to create a movement; it just happened.

The "punk" movement in science-fiction is a good example of this. For very general information, you can look up cyberpunk and steampunk on Wikipedia (though the information is certainly less than exhaustive). Both of these movements were created in reaction to a previous way of thinking; both of them created a new movement that spawned a way in which to present a story.

I believe, however, that both of them are dead - or at least not progressing - movements. Cyberpunk has run its course. It's message has been stated, and the reaction has been made. Steampunk has also run its course, ideologically, though it is still around as an aesthetic. The stylized nature of the sub-genre has produced more than its fair share of fashion, movies, and styles. But it can be revived.

Why am I bringing this up? Because my current project lies in the attempt to recreate a new steampunk. The message of the first wave of steampunk has been sung; I think, though, that the environment can be kept and a new message inserted. So that's what I'm trying to do. I'm reading a fair amount of literature that I hope will inspire a new idea (one I already have in mind but wish to solidify) and some essays. When I'm done, it will either be a grand success or a very educational failure.

I'll keep everyone informed :-)

Make It Mean Something

I was speaking with one of my students the other day, and she asked, "What is it about short stories that make them stand out?" I asked her if she meant stand out from other stories or stand out as a medium for fiction. She wanted both answers.

So . . . what makes certain short stories stand out from other short stories?

For me, it's stories that mean something. Not in the truly metaphorical way but more in the metaphysical one. They have to speak to me in some way - make me connect with the story, the characters, the concept, something. I want to walk away from a short story with having gained some sense of the author's truth about the world.

Perhaps it's the literary mind in me. Perhaps it's the theorist as well. For a long time, I thought that there was a slight sense of arrogance to my preference (and I'll admit that might be part of it) - a hold-over from my academic days where criticism meant the world. Honestly, though, I think that it comes from a continually-growing love of short fiction. I try and read as much as I can when I can afford it and go to the library when I can't. So I've digested a lot of fiction in the last three years. To me, the stories that resonate the most are the ones that I respond to in some way. Whether it's "Wow, that was great" or "What the hell did I just read?"

And . . . what makes short stories stand out from other fiction media?

I will give you my thoughts, and then I will give you the thoughts of two individuals that I highly agree with.

First, I think that it takes a distinct desire to create something concise when one is writing a short story. And with that in mind the author gives himself a challenge to put together one grand thought into a short amount of space. I think it's a challenge because we have want to say what others have said before, but we want to say it our way, and we want it to resonate with someone in a way that it hasn't done before.

Second, I think that short stories are wonderful and diverse and offer a way to be creative, artistic, experimental, and out of the ordinary. Novels are hard to sell and harder still to make "out of the box." Poetry is, by its nature, out of the ordinary. It speaks to the soul in a way that the short story speaks to the mind. And fiction on stage and screen is dramatic and visual; it's hard to compare that to fiction most times.

I think it's best summed up by these two quotes:

Martha Foley, one of the first editors of the Best American series said, "A good short story is a story which is not too long and which gives the reader the feeling she has undergone a memorable experience." I think that Barbara Kingslover - the author - expands upon that nicely: "A good short story cannot simply be Lit Lite; it is the successful execution of large truths delivered in tight spaces."

Sad Songs Say So Much

I'm sitting in the library of the local university, and I'm listening to sad music. Why? It just strikes me sometimes that I need to listen to other peoples' sad stories; it helps me recognize the pain in the world and put it into my own writing. Some songs are so brilliantly written and poignant that they make me truly sad inside. It is my sincere hope that my own fiction will one day elicit that response from at least one reader. I believe that all writers should have a similar hope: to elicit an appropriate response from their readers in such a way that it completes their work - and not because their work was incomplete before - but because a reader, in my opinion, makes a work what it is for them.

I've been working on two pieces lately.

One is about a society forced into quiet acceptance and obedience made possible by forceful removal of dissenting voices. It is about a young man whose father is taken away, and he begins a revolution that is eventually - and sadly - quelled and forgotten, as is often the case in such societies.

The other is about a woman who feels that her life has come unraveled to a point that she feels her only course of action is to leave her husband - a man whose only true joy in life is his job. It takes place over the course of an evening as she waits for him to return home, so she can tell him why she is leaving, giving him some semblance of dignity, only to wake up in the morning to find that he's not come home. So she leaves regardless.

I don't know why it is that sad stories move me - they always have.