Comments on: The Bellowing Ogre: 12 Excogitations on the Reading of Fantastika

By: John Stevens (@eruditeogre)

John Stevens (@eruditeogre) — Sun, 20 May 2012 22:10:27 +0000

Levels of engagement, and articulations with other fields, are issues that definitely need more examination. I think that they are difficult to engage because the more casual a reader, the more distant from the core of the field, the harder it is to see their experiences manifest. I have so many readers at my bookstore who just shrug and say they “like” a given book and can really provide no deeper explanation. At the casual level is there an intechangeability of experience? Are these more flexible readers because their investment is different?

I think that they are part of the field of production, because they do read the literature, and they do get something out of reading it. It’s much harder to discern what that is, and their effect on struggles within the field and the creation and exchange of symbolic capital is more diffuse. It is also more difficult to codify their interest in the literature and what they get out of it, and I wonder if there traverse borders with more ease. This might also mean that cultural influences between fields affect them differently. I have a few theories on this that I will discuss in more detail down the road.

By: jeff vandermeer

jeff vandermeer — Fri, 18 May 2012 02:27:31 +0000

I tried real hard but I just think I broke something from the strain.

By: Chris, Elfland's 2nd Cousin

Chris, Elfland's 2nd Cousin — Thu, 17 May 2012 21:30:09 +0000

Hmm…you pose a lot of meaty questions, all of which deserve deeper and more cogent responses than a single blog comment might allow. But that being said, your points 6 (reader engagement), 10 (field of production), and 11 (hermeneutics) raise an important question: what about readers who are unaware of/unengaged in the field of production? I suspect that when those of us immersed in fantastika read something, we note different facets of the experience than those a reader ignorant of the broader field would. While we won’t run into them at cons, these readers do exist (an anecdotal example: a good friend of mine actively dislikes “sci-fi”, preferring contemporary mimetic lit…yet she devours China Mieville books). How does the process/experience of fantastika differ for the cognoscenti, the niche sub-genre fandom, and the casual reader? And how these groups’ perceptions of genre outside of books (especially film) filter back onto their perceptions of literature?

By: Paul (@princejvstin)

Paul (@princejvstin) — Thu, 17 May 2012 19:49:20 +0000

When we read fantastika, is this effect intensified in our reading? Engaging a secondary world, the future, or an alternate history creates yet another temporal displacement in addition to the shift in conceptual location that most reading creates.

So, except for Historical fiction, and in many ways more so than HF, yes, Fantastika does create that additional temporal displacement.

By: John H. Stevens

John H. Stevens — Thu, 17 May 2012 19:22:32 +0000

I think it would awesome if you grew a stabilizing fin out of your head that was somehow connected to your LH dorsal region and allowed you to both swim and increase your enjoyment of weirdness.

By: jeff vandermeer

jeff vandermeer — Thu, 17 May 2012 15:22:31 +0000

Clearly, we all need to better develop our dorsal fins. Especially with ocean levels rising.