Já conhecida no meio, Jo Walton tornou-se num nome a ter em conta no Fantástico internacional ao conquistar o Prémio Nébula em 2011 e o Prémio Hugo em 2012 na categoria de "Best Novel" com o romance Among Others - uma história de fantasia com uma forte componente meta-referencial. Mas esta autora natural do País de Gales e com cidadania canadiana tem vindo a construir uma sólida carreira na ficção de género desde a viragem do milénio, com livros como The King's Peace (2000), o seu romance de estreia, Tooth and Claw (2003), Farthing (2006) e Ha'penny (2007). Em entrevista à blogger Tanya Tynjala para o blogue da Amazing Stories, Walton fala sobre as especificidades da fantasia e da ficção científica, sobre estereótipos culturais e sexuais dos autores e do fandom, e sobre o actual panorama da ficção de género. Alguns excertos:
Tanya Tynjala / Amazing Stories: Is there a difference between Fantasy and science fiction?
Jo Walton: For me they are different but related genres. I find quite useful how the term Fantastic that covers all of it and even other genres like magical realism. But I think fantasy and science fiction are different but related genres, with different but related protocols, expectations and ways to doing things.
TT/AS: And which are those differences?
JW: Well, there are a lot of differences. There are two clear circles in fantasy and science fiction and sometimes they overlap. But most elements do not overlap. When you are talking about fantasy you are talking about a metaphysical or what we call the metaphysical element; while in science fiction you expect to be in a cause and effect scientific world. It depends also how those elements are treated. You get books that are science fiction but with half the things in there that are fantastical elements. For instance Alfred Bester’s “The Demolished Man” has people transporting using the power of their minds to move from one place to another, and this element is completely fantasy but the book is still science fiction, because the way that he treats it is a science fictional way, there is a scientifically physical cause for this power. On the other hand Kit Withfield’s “Benighted”, also known as “Bareback” has werewolves, but he talks about them in a totally science fictional way, not at all in a fantastic one.
TT/AS: So is what Frederik Pohl explained in his article “SF: The Game-Playing Literature”, that science fiction has to do with methodology, in this case the scientific method. He gave the example: “If you investigate any area of knowledge (whether it is stellar physics or the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin) by this method, you are doing science.”
JW: That’s Right! It all has to do with the way you explained it, the attitude towards it. What distinguishes fantasy from for example magical realism is that in fantasy, magic is treated as something knowable and so it works: you learn it, you use it. As in magical realism things just happens because they happen. Like to cry preparing a wedding cake and then all who ate it also cried, without “magic” explanation. The differences between genres is this attitude, this way you choose to explain, or not, things.
Talking about Latin American magical realism, I was reading Angelica Gorodisher’s Kalpa Imperial and I was enjoying this wonderful book as an “outsider” fantasy reader and I was wondering if for example you read it in another way, with the knowledge of the culture where it comes from. Perhaps you can understand better why she chooses to write the way she wrote the story.
Esta interessante entrevista pode ser lida na íntegra no blogue da Amazing Stories.
Fonte: Amazing Stories