Posted on February 27th, 2006 by Scraps.
Categories: Words, Science Fiction.
I've seen several people link approvingly to the Seattle P-I's obituary of Octavia Butler. One hesitates to say anything like this, because it seems churlish, especially in the face of a respectful obit, which is a good deal more than science fiction figures used to merit; but: I think it's a pretty bad obit, that in the course of calling Butler unique covers a few easy, superficial, not especially unique things about Butler while entirely missing what made her indeed unique.
First, it gets basic facts wrong or leaves them out -- her first novel wasn't Kindred, and it wouldn't hurt when referring to the famous Clarion workshop to actually name it. Second, the people it directly quotes are extremely minor figures in sf*, who mean very little even to regular readers of sf and certainly mean nothing to the general public. Third, it's historically ignorant and earnestly club-footed:
Butler's work wasn't preoccupied with robots and ray guns, Howle said, but used the genre's artistic freedom to explore race, poverty, politics, religion and human nature.
"She stands alone for what she did," Howle said. "She was such a beacon and a light in that way."
Butler did stand alone, but not because her work wasn't preoccupied with robots and rayguns -- by the time Butler came along, no one of importance had been preoccupied with these things for three generations -- and not for using the genre's freedom to explore any of the things mentioned, all of which are and were done by others; "she was such a beacon and a light in that way" is just so much cant.
The whole piece leans on her as a social sf writer, speaking of her handling of issues like race, slavery, etc. She did that, but it isn't what set her apart. She was the greatest modern writer of biological sf. She was a piercing thinker, not just about women's or racial issues but about anything she considered. She was truly unflinching, thinking through all the consequences of her ideas, creating work that was deeply disturbing not because it tried to be but because it carried absolute conviction. Butler never shrank from her vision. She was Tiptree without Tiptree's bravura theatrics but with firmer control and zero sentimentality. Butler was relentless. When you entered one of her stories, you needed to be ready to be shaken to the core.
That is what we have lost.
*This is certainly not meant as a commentary on the the character or skills of the people quoted, two of whom I know and think are terrific people.
0 comments.
Comments can contain some xhtml. Names and emails are appreciated but not required (emails aren't displayed).