The Yiddish Policeman's Union

[kingcheesepants]

Being a fan of sci-fi I picked up the Nebula and Hugo award winning "The Yiddish Policeman's Union" I saw that it's also a detective mystery (another type of book I generally like) and it featured a good amount of Jewish cultural stuff (which I also appreciate) so all in all I had high hopes going into this.

But now 6 chapters in, I have yet to see a single factor that might be considered sci-fi (save for being set in an alternate history which is really stretching the definition to me) the mystery has barely gotten off the ground and the book overall has a much bleaker and more depressing tone than I normally care for.

For those who have read the book does it pick up? Does it actually have sci-fi elements? Did it win all those awards because its one of those serious depressing novels about the human condition that critics seem to love or is there something else to it?

Right now I'm seriously considering returning this and getting something else. I guess when I heard that it was a detective mystery that won those SF awards I was thinking it would be something along the lines of Issac Asimov's Robots and Murder trilogy but with more modern writing and a Jewish perspective. I definitely wasn't expecting a slow, bleak late 20th century noir book about a depressed, divorcee cop in a community that's struggling to keep its head above water in a world that hates them.

[Blackhawk748]

So I read the Wikipedia page and... nope, it appears that it being an Alt History story is the entirety of the Sci Fi elements, which I agree, barely makes it sci fi.

As for the rest? Nope, it seems to keep that level of depressing tone.

Again, just red the Wikipedia page but that's what I'm getting.

[Wintermoot]

Being a fan of sci-fi I picked up the Nebula and Hugo award winning "The Yiddish Policeman's Union" I saw that it's also a detective mystery (another type of book I generally like) and it featured a good amount of Jewish cultural stuff (which I also appreciate) so all in all I had high hopes going into this.

But now 6 chapters in, I have yet to see a single factor that might be considered sci-fi (save for being set in an alternate history which is really stretching the definition to me) the mystery has barely gotten off the ground and the book overall has a much bleaker and more depressing tone than I normally care for.

For those who have read the book does it pick up? Does it actually have sci-fi elements? Did it win all those awards because its one of those serious depressing novels about the human condition that critics seem to love or is there something else to it?

Right now I'm seriously considering returning this and getting something else. I guess when I heard that it was a detective mystery that won those SF awards I was thinking it would be something along the lines of Issac Asimov's Robots and Murder trilogy but with more modern writing and a Jewish perspective. I definitely wasn't expecting a slow, bleak late 20th century noir book about a depressed, divorcee cop in a community that's struggling to keep its head above water in a world that hates them.

This was one of my favorite books I read in the 2000-2010 decade, so I'm not sure if I'm the best person to ask. I would say that the tone of the book isn't going to change over much. It's meant to ape/homage the Noir detective story which are always 'bleak' and 'depressing'.

The only sci fi element is the alternate history element. If you aren't a fan of obscure history, it won't appeal to you. in real life, there was a push in early WWII to establish a jewish colony in Sitka Alaska that was stopped by largely anti-semetic elements. This novel posits that that colony was established and how it affects the downstream history. If there is a weakness, its that the author uses that to change a bunch of unrelated stuff that almost starts becoming wish fulfilment.

Michael Chabon, however, is one of my favorite writers on a pure "how they use the language" level, so I'm biased. Also, this book came out directly after "the Adventures of Kavalier and Clay", which is a FAR superior book you may like better. In many ways, the awards heaped on this book were johnny come lately awards taht should have been heaped on the first. Kind of like when someone wins an oscar for an average movie to make up for losing it on several amazing movies that came before.

[Batcathat]

Michael Chabon, however, is one of my favorite writers on a pure "how they use the language" level, so I'm biased. Also, this book came out directly after "the Adventures of Kavalier and Clay", which is a FAR superior book you may like better.

At the risk of being slightly off topic, I just want to second this recommendation. "The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay" is probably one of my favorite books and while it certainly gets pretty dark at times (the main characters are Jews during the 30s and 40s, after all), I would say it's a pretty upbeat book in general.

[kingcheesepants]

This was one of my favorite books I read in the 2000-2010 decade, so I'm not sure if I'm the best person to ask. I would say that the tone of the book isn't going to change over much. It's meant to ape/homage the Noir detective story which are always 'bleak' and 'depressing'.

The only sci fi element is the alternate history element. If you aren't a fan of obscure history, it won't appeal to you. in real life, there was a push in early WWII to establish a jewish colony in Sitka Alaska that was stopped by largely anti-semetic elements. This novel posits that that colony was established and how it affects the downstream history. If there is a weakness, its that the author uses that to change a bunch of unrelated stuff that almost starts becoming wish fulfilment.

Michael Chabon, however, is one of my favorite writers on a pure "how they use the language" level, so I'm biased. Also, this book came out directly after "the Adventures of Kavalier and Clay", which is a FAR superior book you may like better. In many ways, the awards heaped on this book were johnny come lately awards taht should have been heaped on the first. Kind of like when someone wins an oscar for an average movie to make up for losing it on several amazing movies that came before.

Ah okay, so this one isn't actually sci-fi (alt history by itself is not enough in my estimation to make something sci-fi) and the tone is fairly dour all through and it won awards mostly because people like his use of language and his previous (better) book didn't win awards for whatever reason. I might read it another time when I'm in more of a mood for a serious and somewhat depressing book. I may also check out his previous book too. For now I'll go back to a bit more fast paced and lighter books which I'm more in the mood for now.

On a separate note I'm surprised that the Hugo, Nebula and Locus award givers all thought that simply being alt-history was enough to qualify this book for their sci-fi book awards. It had to compete against things like The Prefect, John Dies at the End, The Last Colony, H-Bomb Girl, and a variety of other actual sci fi books. Now depending on one's tastes you could certainly say that the serious detective story dealing with themes of loss and belonging and what have you is a better book than those others. But I find it hard to swallow that it's a better sci-fi book. Compare it to The Prefect which is also a detective mystery but takes place on a space station and features a rouge AI and robots and other such things as to make it actually a sci-fi book. It may not deal with those big themes as well as the other but it deals with the ideas of what might our future hold and what should our relationship with technology look like and other such sci-fi concerns much better.

[Saph]

I'm afraid "Hugo- and Nebula-award-winning" is not the recommendation it used to be. Back in the 20th century you could pick up pretty much any book with "Hugo Winner" or "Nebula Winner" on the cover and have a better-than-even chance of finding something good. Nowadays you're more likely to find something thoroughly mediocre with poor story and plot that nevertheless won because enough people who pay for a WorldCon membership have decided that it's an Important Work Of Science Fiction (TM) even though they probably couldn't be bothered to finish reading it.

For what it's worth, I write fantasy & science fiction books for a living, and I don't even bother checking the Hugo winner's list any more. If you're looking for new and interesting ideas within the genre, I doubt you'll find them there.

[Rynjin]

When did people decide to start pushing alt history as sci-fi? And why?

It could certainly be considered "speculative fiction" (the same genre as eg. 1984, which is another alt history story), but not sci-fi.

[Wintermoot]

When did people decide to start pushing alt history as sci-fi? And why?

It could certainly be considered "speculative fiction" (the same genre as eg. 1984, which is another alt history story), but not sci-fi.

Where, in the bookstore, does speculative fiction get housed?

The border between genres like sci fi and speculative fiction are broad and porous. You should ask the hugo and nebula award committee what their criteria is. Personally, I wouldn't but any of Michael Chabon's novels in the sci-fi section of the bookstore, but in literature. But because Yiddish Policeman's Union has an alternate history setting and Kavalier and Clay is about two comic book artists and the Golem of Prague, they get cast there.

I'm certainly not upset by the classification myself.

[Rynjin]

Where, in the bookstore, does speculative fiction get housed?

In most good ones, in the "Speculative Fiction" section. It's an extremely popular genre (or was at one point in time), with its own genre conventions and right to exist as its own thing.

[kingcheesepants]

When did people decide to start pushing alt history as sci-fi? And why?

It could certainly be considered "speculative fiction" (the same genre as eg. 1984, which is another alt history story), but not sci-fi.

I strongly suspect that it's because of Philip K. **** and his book the man in the high castle which was an alt history what if the nazis won book. **** was a fairly prolific sci-fi author and I think that this book was given the sci-fi label just because he wrote it, and thereafter other alt history books also got labeled as such.

[Wintermoot]

In most good ones, in the "Speculative Fiction" section. It's an extremely popular genre (or was at one point in time), with its own genre conventions and right to exist as its own thing.

Sure, ok. Well I'm glad you've been to so many good book stores. Sadly, the ones where I've managed to get to might, at the most, have a small shelf abut TO the sci fi section with the speculative fiction segmented out. And most of that shelf is clogged down with terrible "alt history military pr0n" that I can't stand.

Personally, if I was going to be upset, it would be about 'fantasy' and 'sci fi' getting merged into one big pile. I find fantasy to be a far different beast than speculative fiction from sci fi. And Fantasy and Sci Fi have been conglomerated together for far, far longer.

I strongly suspect that it's because of Philip K. **** and his book the man in the high castle which was an alt history what if the nazis won book. **** was a fairly prolific sci-fi author and I think that this book was given the sci-fi label just because he wrote it, and thereafter other alt history books also got labeled as such.

I think there's a sadly strong current of this. An author known for one genre, suddenly writes a novel in a separate genre, and because they don't want to separate the author into two sections, all of their books end up shoved in one or the other. Michael Chabon is a good example of this.

[Rynjin]

That's because frankly a lot of sci-fi really is just fantasy with extra steps. Hard sci-fi has been getting rarer and rarer since Star Wars came out.

I strongly suspect that it's because of Philip K. **** and his book the man in the high castle which was an alt history what if the nazis won book. **** was a fairly prolific sci-fi author and I think that this book was given the sci-fi label just because he wrote it, and thereafter other alt history books also got labeled as such.

Well that's silly, but also sounds exactly like the kind of thing that would happen. I never read the book; the first season of the show was good though.

[The_Snark]

In most good ones, in the "Speculative Fiction" section. It's an extremely popular genre (or was at one point in time), with its own genre conventions and right to exist as its own thing.

If you can find a bookstore with a speculative fiction section in this day and age, I will be pretty impressed. The genre is arguably still popular, but that label is hardly ever used anymore, for a variety of reasons*. You'd have better luck finding a bookstore with separate sections for fantasy and science fiction, and that itself is pretty rare these days unless you're visiting a specialty bookstore.

*Including, but not limited to, "publishers don't market books that way anymore", "the definition is unclear/contested", and "sorting books into sub-genres is hard on bookstore employees who've never read them and have twenty more boxes to unpack and shelve before their shift ends"

[Rynjin]

If you can find a bookstore ... in this day and age, I will be pretty impressed.

TBH this could have just been your post. Liek dis if you cry evry tiem

[Wintermoot]

TBH this could have just been your post. Liek dis if you cry evry tiem

I was content to let you live in your imaginary wonderland of "good" bookstores. If only because I wish I lived there too.

[Blackhawk748]

When did people decide to start pushing alt history as sci-fi? And why?

It could certainly be considered "speculative fiction" (the same genre as eg. 1984, which is another alt history story), but not sci-fi.

Depending on how down to earth the lt History is I might put it as a subcategory of Historical Fiction.

Like, this ain't Napoleon riding a dragon this is "one specific dude died and stuff changed" type stuff.

[PontificatusRex]

Just seeing this thread. Yiddish Policemens' Union is an amazing book, I totally love it and encourage the OP to finish it. No it's not typical action adventure stuff, read it anyway.

There's a large branch of Science fiction that is pure Alternate History. PKDick's The Man in the High Castle is regarded as one of the best SF books ever written and is alternate history without any other SF elements (except for a brief interlude where a character wanders into our timeline as we know it). Harry Turtledove is best known for his novels featuring a victorious south in the Civil War. Etc Etc.

That said, most of the time you'll see Yiddish Cop Bros in the "Literature" section of the bookstore, not the fantasy/sf section because the critical establishment has decide that Chabon, much like Margaret Atwood and a few others, is a SERIOUS WRITER and therefore belongs with other SERIOUS WRITERS no matter how fantastical their works.

[The_Snark]

There's a large branch of Science fiction that is pure Alternate History. PKDick's The Man in the High Castle is regarded as one of the best SF books ever written and is alternate history without any other SF elements (except for a brief interlude where a character wanders into our timeline as we know it). Harry Turtledove is best known for his novels featuring a victorious south in the Civil War. Etc Etc.

I think a lot of what this thread is wondering is, why is alternate history considered a sub-genre of science fiction even when it has no SF elements? And the answer to that is... firstly, a lot of stuff described as alternate history these days consists of things like Naomi Novik's Temeraire series (dragons in the Napoleonic War), or Scott Westerfeld's Leviathan (WWI but with steampunk and biopunk stuff), or Harry Turtledove's Guns of the South (wherein the South wins the Civil War because of time travelers from the future). Those are considered science fiction (or fantasy) because they have very obvious fantastic elements.

But there are also alternate histories where the divergence is perfectly mundane: Harry Turtledove's other the-South-wins-the-Civil-War series, Robert Harris's Fatherland (exploring the aftermath of a German victory in WW2), and of course The Yiddish Policeman's Union. I don't think that science fiction has an obvious claim to these, myself. And then there are some where the boundaries are less clear-cut - as you point out, The Man in the High Castle is mostly but not completely lacking in fantastic elements, and for another example you could look at Kim Stanley Robinson's Years of Rice and Salt, which uses reincarnation as a framing device but is otherwise mundane.

In practice, the deciding factor is "what else has the author written?" Publishers like being able to market to an author's established readers, and bookstores like being able to shelve all an author's books in the same place. Philip K. Dick is a famous science fiction writer, therefore Man in the High Castle goes in the SF section with the rest of his books. Harry Turtledove and KSR get the same treatment. On the flipside, Robert Harris writes primarily historical fiction and nonfiction history, so he goes in general fiction - same for Chabon.

That's the second part: many alternate history writers are known for writing science fiction and fantasy; therefore, their alternate history books get classified that way regardless of whether they have any fantastic elements. The more this happens, the more people associate alternate history with science fiction/fantasy.

That said, most of the time you'll see Yiddish Cop Bros in the "Literature" section of the bookstore, not the fantasy/sf section because the critical establishment has decide that Chabon, much like Margaret Atwood and a few others, is a SERIOUS WRITER and therefore belongs with other SERIOUS WRITERS no matter how fantastical their works.

While this is a thing that happens sometimes*, I don't think Chabon is a good example. Very few of his books contain fantastic elements; offhand, the only one I can think of is Summerland, which is absolutely fantasy... but it's also a YA novel, and that's one of the few categories that will supersede the desire to keep all an author's books in one place. Even if you consider all alternate history to be SF, that leaves you with a grand total of two SF/F books and a half-dozen historical fiction and modern realist novels.

*Though I think you're vastly overstating the influence of literary critics on what is fundamentally a marketing decision here. I know Margaret Atwood is infamous for disdaining the science fiction label, but she wasn't elevated from the genre shelves by the acclaim of snooty critics; she's filed under Literature because that's how her publisher markets her books. Most other SF/F books you find in the general fiction section are there either because they're classics (H.G. Wells, Jules Verne, Mary Shelley) or because they're practically household names (Michael Crichton, Stephen King, Anne Rice).