Metaphor level
16 May 2004, 9:14 AM
In his essay "About 5,750 Words," in The Jewel-Hinged Jaw: Notes on the Language of Science Fiction, Delany talks about the "subjunctivity level" of phrases like "winged dog" in science fiction. The general idea is that there are phrases that are to be read as metaphor in literary fiction, but are to be taken literally in sf. (I've recently wondered if that explains part of sf's appeal for those of us who are unfortunately over-inclined toward taking things literally.)
One consequence of figurative-sounding phrases being more often literal in sf is that in an sf story, it can be hard to use figurative language without running the risk of sounding literal.
That probably didn't make any sense; I'm still waking up. Lemme provide an example:
The boy vanished.
In literary fiction and in most sf, that sentence could quite easily refer to a boy rapidly moving away from the viewpoint character, for example by running. But in some sf, it might mean that the boy suddenly winked out of existence (for example by teleporting or being vaporized), or disappeared without moving (for example by turning invisible or clouding the viewpoint character's mind, or by having been a hologram in the first place, or by turning into mist or an ant).
And so it seems to me that sf authors should be careful with such metaphors, especially at the beginning of a story when the reader may not yet be sure what the rules of this particular sfnal world are. It's fine to use such metaphors; just be aware that a reader reading them may not be sure for a while whether you intended them literally or not.
The same goes for words like "exploded," btw, which even in literary fiction might be literal. But a sentence like "He exploded with rage" is more likely to be literal in sf than in literary fiction.
Comments
As a reader, I don't make a lot of distinction between genres. One of the joys of reading good fiction for me is discovering what the rules that the author is using are. I'd never really considered before that other people might like to know what the rules are before they start reading.
I personally enjoy reading a story where I don't know if 'the boy vanished' is literal or metaphorical -- or even accurate in any sense within the context of the story.
As a writer, I like exploring the rules of the particular universe I'm describing. I don't have any preference for whether or not it's a literal or metaphorical place.
Posted by: Zak (mail) (web) | May 16, 2004 2:13 PM
Jed -- Interesting post. Curiously, I have an essay on pretty much precisely this topic going up at Internet Review of Science Fiction tomorrow. -- Jay
Posted by: Jay Lake (mail) (web) | May 16, 2004 6:16 PM
Yes. Just: yes.
Posted by: Hannah | May 17, 2004 1:41 PM
Zak: Interesting. But I would argue that in most of the cases I'm talking about, the author didn't intend there to be any ambiguity; the author wrote "The boy vanished" with the expectation and understanding that readers would know they didn't mean it literally.
So, yeah, if an author wants readers to be unsure whether to take something literally or not, that's fine; and there are some stories I like a lot that (intentionally) waver back and forth across the metaphorical/literal line. My real point is that authors often write figurative phrases in sf, especially at the beginning of a story, that they intend to be read as unambiguously figurative, but that an sf reader (knowing it's an sf story) may read as literal.
Posted by: Jed | May 17, 2004 1:57 PM
With writers like Kelly Link, even though she seems to come from a SF/F tradition, I'm still not sure what is metaphor and what is literal. But I'm not sure if she intends it to be ambigious or not.
Posted by: JeremyT (mail) | May 17, 2004 5:28 PM