About Speculative Fiction A Literary Article, (I think) |
Speculate 1. (verb; an introductory usually followed by on, upon, or about) Form a theory, conjecture, especially without a firm, factual basis; meditate 2. Invest in stocks, knowing there is risk; gamble recklessly; (adjective - speculative; Latin - speculari spy out, observe; French specula watch tower) Oxford Fiction noun 1. An invented idea; 2. an imaginary thing; 3. conventionally accepted falsehoods I don't have anything hugely against the use of the term "speculative" per se. But these days, when hard drive manufacturers are being forced to rename their master/slave hard drives to father/son or anything else that cannot be interpreted as an offense to somebody, when common terms like lover or spouse are being recognized in court as "significant others," I feel more justified in pointing out the illogical use of this widely accepted misnomer. How can writers speculate without fictionalizing? Isn't all fiction imaginary, else why the non-fiction genre? Speculative certainly does not qualify as a sub-genre, but is used to denote variations in kinds of fiction, especially science fiction, which has its own set of subordinate classifications (alternate reality, space-opera, high tech, low tech, and my own new genre of pure alien-no humans.) The term also includes genres such as horror, alternate history and fantasy. In short, it means fiction. I cannot address this quandary to the dictionary people or the Chicago Manual of Style because they do not accept or deny trends, which this is. All I can hope to do is bring this issue before the literary world and hope for a communal decision to erase this foolishness for a new and better . . . fad. If one is going to classify fiction further into types beyond the genres already recognized, we might do better to concentrate on truly useful appellations. Take Romance for example. Isn't this genre begging for clearer definitions? Couldn't we have Animal Romance? (animals loving other animals that is, hopefully within the same species.) What's wrong with Ostrich or Otter Romances, or even Seahorse, which is quite ready for the pregnant male scenario. Wouldn't a canary tryst, fluttering off in the bushes, be more appealing than dull, boring Western romances, in spite of the abused horses? Surely an Alligator Romance is to die for after reading and watching the Hollywood and Australian Outback travesties. Look at it honestly. The only thing that really sells, according to the television and movie moguls, is sex and violence. All the other kinds of fiction are largely snubbed, though an occasional classic manages to break through. So what we really need to put this controversy in perspective are skin/blood subclassifications. Considering the realities, I suggest the following: Skin Titty Toggles Ass Swishes First Fumblings Coupling Cookies Accidental Alignments Nailing Nellie Against the Wall Inappropriate Office or Party Behavior Getting It On When No One Is Supposedly Looking Blood The Boss The Spouse The Waywardee The Lifelong Friend The Business Partner All the Postal Workers Everybody in the Bus or Elevator The Entire Membership of Congress There, now that gives readers some clear options to think about. Doesn't it all fit precisely what book publishers and movie producers exhibit ad nauseum? Who can argue with success? Clearly, these leaders and pundits, these pedestal hoppers, who deem themselves worthy enough to change mass morality into their own private visions, ought to be emulated and duplicated forever. Right? Consider the breadth and scope of the way they have reduced entertainment to naught but two paying venues. Is that not the essence of fiction? Or is it reality, now that we have been inundated? I'm finding it hard to decide. W. A. Rieser |
