Margaret Atwood, on sff

It's a little old -- 2005 -- but I had not come across it before and it is still relevant and true except for one line, about which more later.

Margaret Atwood, generally considered Canada's greatest living writer, writes extremely intelligently about everything she writes about, and this cogitation on the purpose of science fiction, published in The Guardian, is no exception. Sample quote:

Literature is an uttering, or outering, of the human imagination. It lets the shadowy forms of thought and feeling - heaven, hell, monsters, angels and all - out into the light, where we can take a good look at them and perhaps come to a better understanding of who we are and what we want, and what the limits to those wants may be.

Read the whole thing.

The line I have the quibble with, in 2010, emphasis mine:

Now we're close to being in control of everything except earthquakes and the weather.

With the avalanche of evidence in the intervening years, I would think she has recognized the reality of artificial climate change at this point.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.chevenga.com/trackback/585

Comments

Are you serious?

Quibbling about the origins of a climate change which have shifted our world a fraction of its normal standard deviation completely misses the point. Assuming you take the most masochistic perspective and we have clearly shifted the weather due to human impacts, do you seriously think that means we are in control of it?

If so, fantastic! Game over. Nothing to worry about, folks--we shifted it, and we're in control of it, so we'll just make it do whatever we want.

If not, then your quibble is because you attribute a position to her which she has not actually claimed. Claiming we are not in control of the weather does not preclude our influencing it any more than someone who starts an avalanche can be unable to stop it.

No I don't think that

...and the point did occur to me, but I figured the distinction went without saying. Perhaps I should have stated the nature of my disagreement more precisely.

I offered the link re science consensus as rebuttal to capriox's skepticism, for the benefit of all who read and would like to know the scientific community's position. Imo it bears repeating.

Still confused, then

If her statement can be true even if one accepts that man is responsible for a change in the average mean temperature of the earth over the past few decades, what are we quibbling about? Wasn't that the point of the post? If it's not...why was it even addressed, since it can be true no matter what your position is on global warming?

ETA: Perhaps you meant *caveat* (withholding but non-argumentative) rather than *quibble* (argumentative, in my mind) but I still don't see why it would even be a caveat for the reasons given above

You've lost me

...which is just as well, as this thread was actually supposed to be about Margaret Atwood's take on sff, in which I have more interest. The global warming thing was an aside, and if I'd known it would generate the fuss it has here, I'd never have raised it.

Sorry

I'll refrain from my half-formed critique of that link you posted, too, which references "The Art of Controversy" even I agree with the central claim of the article. It *is* a nifty quote, especially for one who writes like you do Smiling

Hey now, there's plenty of

Hey now, there's plenty of people who disagree about whether or not the facts really add up to artificial climate change. I haven't made a study of the issue, so I probably shouldn't bring up, but the consensus among my circles and the meteorologists that I know is that man-made climate change is not a proven theory. No need to pick on Ms. Atwood because she isn't in your camp on that =P

You definitely picked out the best quote in the article. I also liked the related line: "We want wisdom. We want hope. We want to be good. Therefore we sometimes tell ourselves warning stories that deal with the darker side of some of our other wants."

Re climate change

...I follow the discourse at the international level, and the consensus in the scientific community is that the current degree of climate change is caused by human activity. See a survey of scientists and a list of organizations supporting that position here.

Maybe it seems I'm picking on Maggie, but truth is, I love her dearly. And yes, if I'd quoted more that would have been it. Really, everyone should read the whole thing; it's totally worth it.

Bookmark Us

Bookmark Website 
Bookmark Page