Hmm. She has written SF type works, I agree that much.
Thematically, Handmaiden's is dystopian, rather than SF. I say supposedly, because 'gestational carriers' is a term used with absolute sincerity and gratitude in this century. No SF or dystopia needed. Always surprises me that people who are fans of that work don't see any straight line link to the real world. (In other regards, it's an extended glorified rape fantasy.) As you'd gather, I'm not in awe of her fiction. It has a lot of problems. That particular novel is deeply traditional and conservative.
Oh sure; I have pretty mixed feeling about the Handmaid's Tale. But a lot of SF isn't very good!
I think dystopian fiction (and utopian fiction!) are subsets or overlapping with SF. I guess Atwood insists her book is "speculative fiction" not "science fiction" which seems to me like a way to distance herself from a less prestigious genre.
yes, I think of the genre today as speculative fiction, even though that brings in a lot of fantasy and paranormal stuff of the most cliched form. But I think actually most folks agree that that is the broader genre. The stuff that drops scientific names hither and yon---accurately or inaccurately--is called "hard" science fiction. The stuff that involves roaming around galaxies is "space opera." Any of it can be good or dreadful, can deal with the surface plot only or deeper issues.
Speculative fiction makes more sense, is more accurate.
A lot of writers, these days, do a mash up, and yes, a lot of it isn't very good. But there's high demand. I think the mash ups suffer from being diluted (as well as poor writing).
I recently reread The Road. Pure dystopian. Still brilliant.
On Substack, it seems to me that mashup SF dominates the fiction. I admit to not understanding the appeal, for writers or readers. 😁 Very few doing commercial writing. (And none literary.)
Handmaiden's Tale doesn't fall into SF.
Well, that’s what Atwood said at first! Like I said though, she seems to have changed her mind.
(The plots based on a future mysterious plague…which looks like af to me!)
Hmm. She has written SF type works, I agree that much.
Thematically, Handmaiden's is dystopian, rather than SF. I say supposedly, because 'gestational carriers' is a term used with absolute sincerity and gratitude in this century. No SF or dystopia needed. Always surprises me that people who are fans of that work don't see any straight line link to the real world. (In other regards, it's an extended glorified rape fantasy.) As you'd gather, I'm not in awe of her fiction. It has a lot of problems. That particular novel is deeply traditional and conservative.
Oh sure; I have pretty mixed feeling about the Handmaid's Tale. But a lot of SF isn't very good!
I think dystopian fiction (and utopian fiction!) are subsets or overlapping with SF. I guess Atwood insists her book is "speculative fiction" not "science fiction" which seems to me like a way to distance herself from a less prestigious genre.
yes, I think of the genre today as speculative fiction, even though that brings in a lot of fantasy and paranormal stuff of the most cliched form. But I think actually most folks agree that that is the broader genre. The stuff that drops scientific names hither and yon---accurately or inaccurately--is called "hard" science fiction. The stuff that involves roaming around galaxies is "space opera." Any of it can be good or dreadful, can deal with the surface plot only or deeper issues.
Speculative fiction makes more sense, is more accurate.
A lot of writers, these days, do a mash up, and yes, a lot of it isn't very good. But there's high demand. I think the mash ups suffer from being diluted (as well as poor writing).
I recently reread The Road. Pure dystopian. Still brilliant.
On Substack, it seems to me that mashup SF dominates the fiction. I admit to not understanding the appeal, for writers or readers. 😁 Very few doing commercial writing. (And none literary.)