I'm no expert in science fiction, not a professional of the history of the genre or anything like that. I've not got degrees in the thing or been asked to be a talking head on Newsnight Review. But I have read a lot of science fiction, I have read a lot of fantasy, I've watched films and TV shows that fall into the categories, seen documentaries
on both, and honestly know a fair bit about it. Seeing as I've got all that behind me I'm hoping that this post doesn't come across as just some ignorant, angry man behind a keyboard but strays somewhere close to a legitimate, well informed line of argument. Basically, I'm going to rant but it's got some good stuff in there so slug it out and read the damn thing. Pretty please.
Margaret Atwood has written some profound and enduringly popular books during her career, not least my favourite of her works,
The Handmaid's Tale. I read
The Handmaid's Tale around the same time that I read
We by Yevgeny Zamyatin and
Children of Men by P.D. James, two highly regarded dystopian novels revolving around society's breakdown or fatal flaws. They are both regarded as science fiction, to greater or lesser extents, as most dystopian works are- the "hard science" of social experimentation and social science is the basis, however loose, for roughly half of all dystopian fiction, sharing the genre with disaster/ accident/ catastrophe (which, incidentally, then fuels a socially focused story, after the cause of the current state of affairs). At the time I couldn't help grouping these three books together in my mind- similar themes ran through all of them, and they all
felt largely the same.
Even now they come as a set in my mind when I refer to them, and it's little wonder why; I probably picked them up in the library as a group because of their very similarities. So why is the author of one of them,
The Handmaid's Tale, keen to inform everyone that it is in fact not science fiction, and wouldn't be unless it was entirely implausible and possibly had dragons?