>Writes sci-fi >Tells everyone it's not sci-fi >Win

>>9372339
You forgot

>sell rights to major content provider that specializes in pretentious serial drama

>>9372339
it was successful because it's a well-written feminist novel and was therefore deemed culturally important

>>9372361
She's been extremely successful since the 80's anon, I don't think a new adaptation has anything to do with it.

>>9372361

How many years later is it after the publication?

Bit of a long con, don't ya think?

>>9372382
>con

I was following up on "Learn from Atwood"

>>9372339
>You don't accept the sci-fi label if you want to be successful

more specifically you defend the existence of the imaginary category of science fiction but you place yourself firmly outside of it because that's the way to gain notoriety. science fiction fans spend about 3% of their time reading science fiction and the other 97% arguing about what is or isn't science fiction, so making controversial statements about that divide gets you infinite free press.

File: 1489146853427.png (78KB, 250x219px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 250x219px

Atwood is a fucking degenerate savage that needs to be taken into the woods and shot (metaphorically of course).

I was forced to read Oryx and Crake by a whore of a professor of mine and it was by far the worst book I have read in my entire life.

- Terrible vocabulary
- Completely unimaginative
- Sentence are put together by what resembles the work of a downsey syndrome five year old
- Vulgarity ((without purpose))
- Shit characters
- Predictable and boring story
- "Jimmy would have practiced intellectual honourableness if only he fucking knew what the fuck it meant."

This woman is an ingrate and her writing has plagued society like a filthy ulcer covered in hot spices and burnt pepper. She has fueled the trash that is the feminist man-hate machine and furthered the idea that "if you have a pussy, you can be successful without talent". She is the Hillary Clinton of writing and a bitch, destitute of any firing neurons.

>>9372362
Also it came out at the right moment, 1985 was the height of the power of the Religious Right in the US and elsewhere, and Atwood was effective at, more or less, scaremongering people into believing we weren't that far away from The Handmaid's Tale becoming a reality.

File: 1478664978765.jpg (86KB, 630x630px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 630x630px

relevant:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/17/margaret-atwood-the-prophet-of-dystopia

>In a photograph taken the day after the Inauguration, at the Women’s March on Washington, a protester held a sign bearing a slogan that spoke to the moment: “make margaret atwood fiction again.”

>>9372561

You're fucking telling me I could've had my own fucking handmaiden this entire fucking time

Where do I sign up for one?

>>9372449
>being this mad

Handmaiden was good, Oryx & Crake was not.

>>9372704

You've got that backwards

>>9372716
You might not agree with the politics of Handmaiden but it was a well told story using lots of contextual ambiguity in a strong voice. O&C was just a clusterfuck of shitty male characters and awful world building that just demonstrated her general ignorance.

>>9372339
Kurt Vonnegut also distanced himself from SF, after writing several of them, and making the Hugo nominees list consistently: Cat's Cradle, Player Piano, Sirens Of Titan. Even Slaughterhouse-Five is in the realm of speculative fiction with its time travel and aliens.

>>9372339
I liked Handmaiden's Tale, but was too aroused by the scenario to feel sympathy for the character.

>>9372870

>being forced to get fucked by an old man whenever he wants

You fucking degenerate

How is The Handmaid's Tale NOT a histrionic diatribe with no basis in reality? We live in such a hyper-feminized society that to suggest women are under attack is just bizarre.

>>9372449
and yet you still can't write a better book yourself.

>>9372571
ISIS

>>9373196

Already have, mate

>>9374544
what's it called? I'd like to read it.

>>9372923
You are dumb or trolling?
I guess trolling. Still, for those who are interested, check out the New Yorker's Atwood profile this week, which talks about how she prefers to call her works "speculative fiction" rather than sci-fi because everything she writes has some basis in the real world, from which she extrapolates. It's all possible.

>>9372449
>She is the Hillary Clinton of writing

Beautiful.

>>9374780
My diary です、先輩

>>9372449
>Vulgarity ((without purpose))
This complaint is kind of genius if you're referring to when the main character throws stones into the ocean shouting "shit! shit! shit!" because there's nothing he can do. Vulgarity without purpose.

But anon is probably referring to the South Asian child sex slaves....

File: Hank-Hill-upset-gif.gif (468KB, 500x350px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 500x350px

>>9374801
I am referring to the child sex slaves. Describing the throbbing old penises really was unnecessary. But like I said, with purpose - vulgarity is fine (like with the works of Nabakov or de Sade and so forth).

>>9374790

This is what bugs me about Atwood. Most of what's called "Hard" Sci fi fits that premise as well. She's way too smart to be as fucking dumb as she seems when she's talking about science fiction.

>>9374790
"Speculative fiction" is a catchall term for ALL science fiction and fantasy. Fucking Brandon Sanderson writes speculative fiction. Atwood thinks her farts don't stink, but they do.

funny, it isn't working for Harlan Ellison.

is he dead yet? can we raid his place and retrieve the stories for The Last Dangerous Visions that he's been sitting on for forty fucking years?

File: A French woman has her head shaved by the Resistance as a penalty for having consorted with German troops, 1944.jpg (196KB, 1113x1376px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1113x1376px

>>9374790

>Here is a woman so terrified of sf-cooties that she'll happily redefine the entire genre for no other reason than to exclude herself from it.
>— Peter Watts, on Margaret Atwood

>>9374790

So most of science fiction is actually speculative fiction?

>>9372339

Why did women put up with the society in that book?

Do they value their dignity so little?

>>9375242
I would read a short story about a bunch of Anons raiding Harlan Ellison's house. You could make it like some kind of adventure story, where the house is full of booby traps and skeletons.

Then in the end they get to the living room and they find out that Harlan Ellison has made himself a lich, and he promptly kills them all with lightning.

>>9373324
Ah, so at the risk of being blown up, eh?