I included Karaleigh’s post on my blog because I thought it would be interesting to showcase a post talking about the definition of SF from a different author’s perspective and I think Karaleigh did a really good job summarizing Suvin’s article as well as offering her own thoughts.
Karaleigh Saar 8/31
In his piece “On the Poetics of the Science Fiction Genre,” Darko Suvin emphasizes an aspect of science fiction that we had discussed in class this past Wednesday. Notably, this would be the role of works of science fiction as mirrors of our society, our values, and ourselves as well. Suvin, himself, speaks of the ways in which science fiction works are created with new frameworks of time and space within that, though they differ greatly from the real world and its possibilities, help the reader look back at themselves and the world they live in with a more critical eye. Suvin says, “The aliens– utopians, monsters or simply differing strangers–are a mirror to man just as the differing country is a mirror for his world. But the mirror is not only a reflecting one, it is also a transforming one, virgin womb and alchemical dynamo: the mirror is a crucible” (pp. 117). This idea that science fiction is not only a distorted and dramatic reflection of our society, but instead a tool which is utilized by the author to encourage deeper thought–a challenge of the mind for the reader interests me. My interest was especially peaked with the use of the word ‘crucible’ to describe the ‘mirror’ that is the science fiction genre, in this case. A crucible is a severe trial of the mind or an intense challenge, and being given that the first thing most people think of when thinking of science fiction is a more light-hearted film experience like Star Wars or Star Trek, I would say that a reader or a viewer really does have to take in science fiction with open eyes to get the deeper sense of the genre. Suvin describes this concept of the mirror of science fiction more in the following paragraph, saying that, “this genre has always been wedded to a hope of finding in the unknown the ideal environment, tribe, state, intelligence or other aspect of the Supreme Good” (117). As a reader, I’m encouraged by the ability or perhaps, the purpose as according to Suvin, of reading science fiction and thus envisioning the ideal world or ideal societal standards. I think that this outlook of science fiction as a genre that can absolutely be light-hearted yet that it also has a significant role in framing our view of the world is a very positive one and might even make reading science fiction seem more accessible to readers who might find the genre inherently daunting or severe in nature.