‘Speculative Slipstreaming’: The Impact of Literary Interventions within Contemporary Science Fiction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting article, with many important points made. Even if the issue of the literary merits of science fiction writing is a well-trodden field, the idea of slipstreaming is an interesting way to view it. However, I do have some issues with the organisation of the material.

It starts out being about the way that (1) certain awards confer on the work a cultural capital, and others don’t. (2) It examines the ‘arbitrary’ differences between literary works and those considered popular. (3) It then goes on to discuss two women writers, and suggests that science fiction and this ‘slipstream’ are more accommodating to women writers.

(1)    This seems a little complicated by first discussing how Kim Stanley Robinson laments the lack of awards for science fiction authors, then goes on to say that he has won at least three. I think the article here needs to signpost that it will later discuss the ‘hierarchy of merit’ that these different awards represent, and how that feeds into the perception of science fiction.

(2)    This is fine, but using Gelder extensively here doesn’t help (in my opinion) because his distinctions are setting up a false dichotomy. Later the author says that Gelder acknowledges that sometimes ‘these apparent opposite positions enfold together’, which seems too little too late.

(3)    I think there is too much time spent outlining Margaret Atwood and Jeanette Winterson’s awards and distinctions, and also the idea of science fiction being better for women writers is (a) not sufficiently discussed, and (b) seems like a slight tangent to the main discussion. Also, Margaret Atwood’s distinction between science fiction and speculative fiction has always been problematic, and her ‘feud’ with Ursula LeGuin is well-known, but the article doesn’t seem to ‘know’ wither of these things until later on. Some more signposting here would be good. It would also be useful to point out how problematic MA’s comments are – a lot of science fiction is about things that ‘could happen’, and her distinction is almost meaningless. This needs to be discussed. It is alluded to later but not in a way that feels satisfying.

So I feel that overall this article has a reasonable structure and discussion, but I would like to see more discussion around what science fiction is considered to be and what it isn’t, so that we have more of a framework to understand MA’s comments, as well as Gelder and others, and less of a CV of Atwood and Winterson’s achievements. If the author wants to retain the comments about science fiction being accommodating to women writers I think there needs to be more of a discussion about it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for sharing this paper. I think it knows what it is up to and does that thing really well. 

I do notice that the references are not entirely up to date. I only know a few pieces from the field of SFS to recommend, and I think looking at those might help to add a few sources. I don't think updating some references means major re-writing. I trust that the author will be able to consult these sources and include as and where appropriate. See Dan Sinykin "The Conglemeration Era," Sarah Brouillette "Corporate Publishing and Canonization," Veronica Hollinger "Genre vs Mode," and Bellamy "Post-Apocalyptic Novels in the Age of US Decline" and "Remaindered Books" both from Remainders of the American Century.

 Something to consider: One of the key distinction here that Winterson and Atwood don't get (or perform not getting) is treating science fiction (or literary work for that matter) as a mode rather than as a genre. When people ask, "does this work belong?," they are thinking of genre. That's why W and A can say, my work looks like SF but doesn't belong for reasons x and y . Yet, science fiction writers and critics, such as KSR, work under the assumption that SF is a way of getting something done and so instead ask, "what does this work do?," rather than whether it belongs. See Hollinger and Bellamy for a discussion of this distinction which dates back to Alistair Fowler's work in the 70s. Some of this may be relevant to the distinction between capital L lit and sf because, as the piece argues, capital L lit wins the Booker prize! That's something that it does, in one respect: I'm thinking of mode as way of delimiting genre here, if that's helpful.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf