SF-TH Inc

An Interview with Darko Suvin

Author(s): Takayuki Tatsumi and Darko Suvin
Source: Science Fiction Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Jul., 1985), pp. 202-208
Published by: SF-TH Inc
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4239684
Accessed: 09-09-2015 14:29 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

SF-TH Inc is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science Fiction Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 143.107.8.30 on Wed, 09 Sep 2015 14:29:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

202

SCIENCE-FICTIONSTUDIES, VOLUME 12 (1985)

Thkayuki Tatsumi

An Interviewwith Darko Suvin*

Takayuki
Tatsumi:Partof yourMetamorphoses
of ScienceFictionhas already
been translatedintoJapaneseandmanycriticstherehavebeen influencedby
your criticalsystem. Therefore,I think, it will be quiteuseful if you would
informyourJapaneseaudienceof whatyou are currentlythinkingaboutSF,
SF criticism, and SF academics.
Yourdefinitionof SF is "cognitiveestrangement."
It is very fascinating
becausethe conceptclearly springsfrom BertoldBrecht'stheoryof drama,
which was yourearliermajorinterestand is the topic in one of yournewest
books, ToBrechtandBeyond(1984).Ontheotherhand,I noticethatyoubegin
Metamorphoseswith a very strictgenericdefinitionof SF. Allow me to ask
how you conceive the genericrelationshipbetweenSF and drama.
DarkoSuvin:I haveused the conceptfirst introducedby the RussianFormalists and laterdevelopedfurtherby Brecht.But then, I think, this concept,
althoughparticularlyclear in theatre,is in fact of moregeneral,culturaland
potentialusefulness.If it were not, obviouslyI shouldnot haveappliedit to
SF.O.K?AlthoughI didn'tquiteknowwhatI wasdoingwhenI wasusingthis
concept, why I was using it, I think I could give you a theoreticaljustificationtoday.I think it is caughtup with what both the SF communityand
also logicians in their latest investigationscall "possibleworlds."As you
may know,this is a conceptnow discussedin semioticsby people like Eco
and so on. A "possibleworld"is a little space-timeislandwhich is in some
wayscompletein itself, roundedoff and set off againstotherpossibleworlds
-which applies equally in the Einsteinianphysicalsystem, in logics, and
in literarytheory. Now, of course, a play, includingits performances,is
clearly a little rounded-offworld. And obviouslySF is also, withinthe epic
genreandthenovel,thatformwhichusuallymostclearlyrepresentsa different
possible world. Therefore,thereare some stronginternaland formal-even
formalizable-kinshipsbetween SF and drama, because both are possible
worlds. And by pure luck, being a theatrecritic to begin with and then a
theoreticianof drama,I stumbledon this idea which Brechthad developed.
But as you know, Brechttook it from the RussianFormalists,who developed it in analyses of the novel-developed it on Sterne, Tolstoy,and so
on. So it's not confinedto drama:I simply happenedto havegottenit from
Brecht.
*Thisinterviewby TakayukiTatsumi,a graduatestudentat Cornel University,was
tapedon December28, 1984, at the WashingtonSheratonHotel, for a JapaneseSF
magazine.Mr Tatsumiand DS hold the copyright.-eds.

This content downloaded from 143.107.8.30 on Wed, 09 Sep 2015 14:29:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AN INTERVIEW
WITHDARKOSUVIN

203

2T: Doesn'tthis meanthatyou havenoticedan essentialconnectionbetween

the form of SF and the form of drama?
DS: I didn'tknowwhyI wasusingit. Ijust intuitivelyusedit-in the '50swhen
I beganwritingin Yugoslaviaandthenin the '60s in English.ButnowI could
giveyoua theoretical,semioticdefenseof that,if youwant,basedon thenotion
of possible worlds.
iT: O.K. And yet, my opinionis that,as faras the genreof SF is concerned,
the very concept of "world" is binary- "world-view" and/or "worldmechanics."Do you understand?
DS: No. Explain,please.Do youmeananyparticularwork,or thewholegenre
together?
71: For example,if we appreciateClarke'sChildhood'sEndvery much, we
mustagreewithhis "worldview."On the otherhand,if we appreciateLem's
Solaris very much, we are fascinatedby its "worldmechanics."
DS: Do you meanthe wayhe describesthe world-the Oceanin Solarisand
all that?Is that what you mean?
2T:Putsimply,thereare,I think,at least a coupleof waysof readingSF. One
is a readingon the basis of "worldview,"thatis, "ideology,"while the other
on the basis of "worldmechanics,"namely,"law."
DS: And you wantto know how this relatesto my opinions?
7T*Yes.
DS: I thinkthe distinctionyou establishedonly goes so far.Thatis to say, it
is an analyticallyusefuldistinction,but, you know,all analyticallyusefuldistinctionsbreakdownaftera certainstretchof use. So, I wouldsaythatif you
wantto understandanyworkof SF,of courseyouhaveto beginwithwhatyou
call worldmechanics-space-time,the plot developingin this space-time,the
narrativeagents,andeverythingelse. O.K?But,then,the space-timeis always
a choiceamongpossibilities.Yousay"thereis a bluesun,"whichmeans"there
is a blue, butnot yellow,sun."Evenif the authorsaysonly "blue,"the reader
will translatethis; for us yellow is normaland we translateit as "blue, but
notyellow."Thereforewe arenot in the SolarSystem."BlueSun"is a choice
amongpossible sun colors and systemsfromwhich a lot will then follow: a
typeof planetatmosphere,climate,geology,andso on. But,then,thesemechanics reallybeginto serveas a delineationof a possibleworld,whichis made
up by choices of what to show and what not to show,what to focus on and
whatto leave on the periphery.Thatchoice is an ideologicalchoice, and at
that momentthe distinctionbetweenmechanicsand ideology breaksdown.
Now I can appreciate,therefore,up to a limitedpoint, Childhood'sEnd,
let'ssay(sinceyou mentionedit); butI don'thaveto agreewithClarke'sideology, which is a kind of EnglishNon-Conformistmysticism.I don'thaveto
agreewith Clarke'sideology in orderto be able to readthe book. I can say
his ideologyhas certainlimits, andI'mwillingto followhim up to his limits;
but, then, I wouldnot like to stop at his limits, going no further.Therefore,
I will not acceptthis book as a finalvaluestatement.So, I thinktherearetwo

This content downloaded from 143.107.8.30 on Wed, 09 Sep 2015 14:29:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

204

SCIENCE-FICTIONSTUDIES, VOLUME 12 (1985)

mattershere:oneis a technicalmatter,whiletheotheris a valuedecision.Technically, I thinkyou can't read the book longer than three sentencesbefore
mechanicsbeginsto interferewith value,choices, ideology,and so on. Ideologically,I thinkthatI absolutelyrefuseto be boundby the ideology of any
particularwriter.Moreover,I thinkit is very perniciouswhen SF becomes
an ideologyfor the subcultureof SF fans.This is terriblybadin my opinion.
Thentheybecomea kindof sect whichcanbe manipulatedforsemi-political,
semi-religiousends,whichoftenhappensto SF fansas we know,unfortunately.
And I thinkthe healthyattitudeis thatyou haveyourown point of view, an
ideology which is based on yourlife experienceand which can be, then, in
a dialoguewiththeideologyof thenovelbyLemorthenovelbyClarke.Maybe
youcanlearnsomethingfromthemandchangea partof yourideology.Maybe
you cannot-in which case, you simply say, "I don'tlike this ideology."
1T: In that case, you don'trecognizeany possibilityof misreading?
DS: Oh, of course.I'massumingthatyouarea carefulreader,andI wasspeaking aboutthe case of the ideal reader.Eventhen, I thinkyou cannotsay that
in orderto be an idealreaderI mustagreewithClarke.I don'tsee why.I must
understandwhat he said, but I can also say I disagree.
1T:ThereasonwhyI'maskingthisquestionis thatyouyourselfareusingsome
two-foldstructurein writingyourMetamorphoses,tryingto combineor fuse
poeticswithhistory.Herewe cannotmistakeyoureffortto dialecticallyunite
theformalandthehistoricalaspectsof SF,andwhatI meantbytheterm"world
mechanics"is quite similarto your "formalism."
DS: ButI wouldnot totallyagreewithyouranalogybetweenan explicitwork
of conceptualtheory,such as my book, and a workof fiction, which is not
anexplicit,formalizedconceptualization,
butratheris moreakinto a metaphor
or a parable-a developedmetaphoror a sustainedparable.By the way,I don't
defendthe structureof Metamorphosestoo much. I thinkit wouldhavebeen
betternotto divideit intotwoparts,butI didn'tknowhowto manageotherwise.
17: Let me ask again,moreintelligibly:whatdid you try to do in thatbook,
using poetics and history-mere combination?
DS: More exactly,juxtaposition.I wantyou to knowthe historyof how this
was written.I firsthad some kindof idea andwrotea theoreticalessay.Then
I wrotea historicalsketch-both of thesein Yugoslavia.Then,thinkingmore
abouttheory,I wrotethefirstthreechaptersof theory.ThenI wrotethehistorical part,whichis basedon definitionsfromthe firstthreechapters.Andwhen
I finishedall that, I wrotethe fourthchapterof theory,"ScienceFictionas
Novum."That'sthewaythebookwaswritten-afterwhichI wrotethePreface,
of course.
If you want to see the way I would do it now, you should look at my
book VictorianScience Fiction in the United Kingdom,whose last 200
pages show no (or at least muchless) division betweenpoetics and history.
Thereare some preliminarydiscussionsof what a social addresseeis, what
narrativelogic is, and so on, simplyto clarifythe terminology.Thatworkis
morehomogenousandappliedto only one particularsocio-historicalphase;
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.30 on Wed, 09 Sep 2015 14:29:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AN INTERVIEWWITH DARKO SUVIN

205

it attemptsa social theory of literature-for one genre, in one historical

period.
Furthermore,if my book Metamorphosesof Science Fiction ever gets
translatedin its entiretyin Japan,I hopethey wouldincludea new theoretical
essay which I havepublished,in English, in Metaphores,no. 9/10 (1984),a
special issue devotedto papersgiven at a colloquiumorLSF held in Nice in
1983.My essay is called "ScienceFiction:Metaphor,Parable,and Chronotope";as you can see, it is influencedby Bakhtinespeciallyandendswith an
analysisof a storyby CordwainerSmith, "TheLadyWho Sailed TheSoul."
1T: One of his anthologieswas recentlytranslatedinto Japanese,and succeeded in giving rise to a lot of CordwainerSmith "maniacs."
DS: Well, I haveall kindsof doubtsaboutCordwainerSmith,becausehe was
ideologicallya very strangeperson. He was a CIA experton psychological
warfare,for Asia especially-a specialiston Indonesia,China,andwhatever.
of American
Nonetheless,or becauseof that,I thinkhe is very representative
ideology,especiallytoday.
iT: How do you connectCordwainerSmithwith Americanideology?
DS: CordwainerSmithis todayin a veryprivilegedposition,becausetheideology he representsin some idealizedpurewaysis the ideology thatcame to
dominateAmericawith Reagan.He was eccentricin his own time, buttoday
he can serve very well to elucidatesomethingcentralwithinAmerica.But,
by the way,I'm not sayingthatCordwainerSmithis the same as Reagan;as
Marxsaid, Rousseauis notthe sameas a normalpetitbourgeoisbut, nonetheless, he is the idealandtheoreticalrepresentative
of the pettybourgeois.I can
substantiatemy claim aboutCordwainerSmithby my analysisof that story
of his.
7T: Are you now talkingin an ironicalsense?
DS: No, no. I thinkSmith/Linebarger
meantthis to be so. For instance,his
heroineis called Helen America-she is an allegoricalheroine.She is saved
by the apparitionof an unknownlover,which is obviouslya transpositionof
theChristianideaof heavenlybrideandbridegroom,Christwhocomesto save
America.
IT: But, I thinkCordwainerSmithhas usuallybeen graspedfromthe viewpoint of aesthetics.
DS: I don'tbelieve thereis aestheticsoutsideof ideology.
iT: This is just whathas confusedme very muchin your system.Although
you aredealingwith writerslike Lem, Dick, andCordwainerSmith,who all
seemto me quiteaesthetic,yourbookitselfexcludessuchwriters,emphasizing
the ideologicaltraditionfrom More down to Capek.
DS: Well,thebookhadto stopsometime.Ithadbecomeverylong, so I stopped
at the point of Wells and a couple of thingsafterWells.
IT: But, as a reader,I hope you would proposea total vision of the New
Waveandafter,becausethe New Waveservedas the firstaestheticmovement
in SF.
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.30 on Wed, 09 Sep 2015 14:29:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

206

SCIENCE-FICTION
STUDIES,VOLUME12 (1985)

DS: By New Waveyou meanwhom:HarlanEllison, or ThomasDisch?Or-?

1T:J.G.Ballardin particular.
DS: To answeryourquestion,let me first say thatI'm presentlywritingnot
aboutSF but aboutliterarytheory,theatre,and culture.So I doubtif I shall
evergive you a generaloverviewof SF-fortunately.I say fortunatelyin large
partbecauseI'm very unhappyaboutthe generalturnof eventsin the last 12
years of SF in the US, which is the dominantpowerin world SF. (I'm also
unhappyaboutthe generalturnof eventsin RussianSF, by the way.)Given
thatunhappiness,whatI couldwriteaboutUS SF wouldbe negativeandironical, exceptin regardto some exceptions-Disch, much Delany,early Russ,
Piercy,some Bishopperhaps,etc. It wouldnot be pleasanteither for me to
writeor forthereaderto reada bookwhichwouldbe 90%negativeor ironical.
I preferto do otherthings.
As far as the New Wavewritersare concerned,they no doubtbroughtin
some interestingthings-notably a concentrationon psychology,which had
been muchneglectedin SF, thoughI thinkSF cannothavethe 19thcentury's
Balzac-Tolstoy
typepsychology.ThereforeI disagreewithUrsulaK. Le Guin,
who thinksit shouldhave-I thinkit cannothavethatkindof psychologyby
definition.TheNew Wavebroughtin a numberof tricks-devices, if youwant
a nicer term-which, I think, were useful and renewedthe genre some. But
these attitudesor devices basicallyseem to me the photographicnegativeof
attitudesused by people like Asimov.Thatis to say, Asimov,Heinlein, and
theirilk lovetechnology,whiletheNew Wavehatestechnology,a phenomenon
alreadyprefiguredin someearlierwriters,likeBradbury.
AsimovandHeinlein
writea utilitarianradio-mechanics
kindof prose,while the New Wavepeople
writea buoyant,purpleanddecadent,fin-de-siecletype of prose. If you react
to somebody,youarestill conditionedby thatsomebody.Youarejust a photographicnegativeandshe or he is a positive,or vice-versa.So, I refuseto take
sides in a battlebetweenthe older writersandthe New Wave,becauseeach
side has good aspectsas well as bad aspects.Basicallyit's a familyquarrel.
Finallytheyall coexistin the samesubcultureandthe samemagazines,some
of which, nevertheless,likedto specializein one side morethanin the other.
Butpeoplelike AsimovandHeinleingot the messageandstuffedin passages
aboutsex, usuallyin very silly ways. All in all, thatwas a stormin a teacup
really.
7T1:How aboutthe post-NewWavewriters?
DS: I wouldreally prefernot to discuss the last 12 yearsbecauseI havenot
beenreadingsystematically,
with someexceptions-most of whomarepeople
notprintedin SF magazines.I reallydon'tthinkI am competentto talkabout
this period.
iT: Then,thenextquestion.Attendingyourlastlecture,"WilliamMorrisand
the Science Fictionof the 1880s,"I was astonishedat your employingeven
"deconstruction."
DS: In quotationmarks, as you might remember.I'm not a follower of
deconstructionism.
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.30 on Wed, 09 Sep 2015 14:29:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AN INTERVIEW
WITHDARKOSUVIN

207

IT: But you haveapparentlyused Formalismand Structuralism,being very

consciousof their methodologies.If the very act of reading,writingabout,
and/orcriticizingSF cannotbe separatedfrommethodology,don'tyou find
validityeven in Post-Structuralist
poetics?
DS: I thinkthatany criticuses whatevermethodhe or she can find in order
to understandand elucidatea text. No methodshouldbe forbidden.Some
methodsgive betterresultswith sometextsthanwithothers.Wouldyou apply
deconstructionto Gernsback?On the other hand, there is less difficulty
applyingit to Delany,becausethere is an innerkinship.
IT: YoumeanDhalgren?
DS: If you readDhalgren,for example,thereyou can find a pre-Derridean
deconstructionof New YorkCity (Bellona),I think.Butpersonally,I suppose
thatthe methodwhich suits me best is what I wouldtodaydescribeas some
kind of socio-historicalsemiotics, which tries to do betterwhat I already
startedin Metamorphoses:
fusingtheformalandthesocio-historical.Thatwill
be my approach:let everybodyelse use whatevertheywant,andI wish them
luck. ButI wouldn'tdo that,andI wouldevenhavesomeideologicalobjections
to some methods.
7T: How, then, do you define the role of languagein SF? Because PostStructuralistpoeticsas well as Formalistmethodsseem quiteusefulto high
light the linguisticaspect of the genre.
DS: I thinkmuchtoo little workhasbeendoneon that,partlybecauseSF was
usuallyvery shoddilywrittenon the level of sentence-which is the level of
linguisticinquiry.SFbecametolerableonthelevelof paragraph
andveryinterestingon thelevel of chapter,butwasusuallyverybadon thelevel of sentence.
But with the adventof Lem, Delany,Le Guin, and so on, this is no longer
true. Now we can begin seriouslytalkingaboutthe stylisticsof SF, eventhat
of Burroughs-if you wish, of course-who is a reasonablybrisk writeron
thelevel of sentence.ButI thinkthereareotherproblemsconnectedwithSFe.g., neologisms;andin general,howdoeslanguageformverydifferentpossible worlds?Thatshouldbe a privilegedthemeof investigation,probablyby
otherpeople.
iT: I quiteagreewith you. By emphasizingthe poetics of SF, did you think
it is possibleto cognitivelyestrangeyourown historyof SF itself?Withthis
question,I'm askingyou whetheryou can applyyour definitionof SF even
to your own socio-historicalmethodology.
DS: I thinkthat is a very intelligentand very witty question.I have never
thoughtaboutthis. ButI supposethatwhenthe subjectdefinesan object,she
or he also auto-definesher or himself.
7T.:Youmean a self-referentialsystem?
DS: Unconsciously.It'sunconsciouslyself-referential.Yes, I'm interestedin
cognitionandestrangement,andthe bookis donethatway.Yes,I thinkyou're
absolutelyright, and I thinkthat was a very interestingquestion[laughs].
IT: Let me ask one last question.Are you an academicianor a critic?

This content downloaded from 143.107.8.30 on Wed, 09 Sep 2015 14:29:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

208

SCIENCE-FICTIONSTUDIES, VOLUME 12 (1985)

DS: I guessI'mboth.I workin archivesandwritewitha lot of footnotessometimes, andI also wrotetheatrecriticismin circumstanceswhereI wentto the
theatrein the eveningand at 12 o'clocknext day the critiquehad to be in a
newspaper.So, I did both, and I don'tfeel uncomfortablein either.
7TT:
Thankyou very much.

This content downloaded from 143.107.8.30 on Wed, 09 Sep 2015 14:29:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions