Galatea 2.2 by Richard Powers (1995)

I first read Galatea 2.2 by Richard Powers back when it came out in 1995. I still have the first edition hardback (I wonder if it’s worth more now because Powers just won the Pulitzer Prize for his latest novel, The Overstory). I’ve been wishing for decades to hear an audiobook production of Galatea 2.2 and one finally came out in April (4/10/19), probably due to Richard Powers’ recent recognition. Galatea 2.2 is a literary science fiction novel of the highest order, although I doubt Powers or his publishers would want that said about it. And it’s doubtful that most science fiction fans will find it fun reading.

Galatea 2.2 is about a character named Richard Powers who is a writer spending a year in residence at a university named U working with computer scientists. Richard Powers the man attended and taught at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and for a time he was an adjunct member in the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology. Within the story, the character Richard Powers talks about writing books with titles that were the same as the real-life Richard Powers wrote. In fact, it’s very hard not to think of Galatea 2.2 as an autobiographical novel. The only trouble is readers don’t know where the line between fiction and fact lies.

Where Galatea 2.2 becomes serious science fiction is when Richard Powers the character is challenged by computer scientists to help them create a computer program that could pass the Master’s comp in literature, the same one Richard Powers the character and the human passed for their MA.

Is Richard Powers the character an AI version of Richard Powers the writer?

Most science fiction novels just tell us computers and robots are intelligent and sentient. They might do some sleight-of-hand waving and give us a few presto-chango words expecting us readers to believe what they say will be possible in the future. Galatea 2.2 is full of then-current scientific details about human cognition, language, and computer science. Powers the real writer builds up his story slowly while using an allegorical tale of his own life as an analogy to explain the complexity of human intelligence. Galatea 2.2 was written during the heyday of neural nets just as machine learning was taking its first baby steps. Why it’s science fiction is because Powers goes well beyond what science is capable of doing even today.

Galatea 2.2 by Richard Powers audiobook cover 2019

In many ways, Galatea 2.2 is closer to the film Her than Ex Machina because it’s so quiet and dry. The story is far more realistic and serious than most popular science fiction books and movies about sentient machines. This novel is about educating its readers of the real challenges of teaching a machine to understand fiction, but also revealing that humans aren’t the miracles our faiths claim. Often what we call brilliant intellect is a trick of the brain. Time and again Galatea 2.2 points out our own delusions and faults. At one point within the novel, several characters criticize the fictional Richard Powers for writing grim novels, advising him he’d sell more books by being upbeat. Powers the character has to explain that his writing goal is not to entertain them but to see a sense of truth in personal revelations. I assume that’s also true for the flesh and blood Powers writing this book. Galatea 2.2 is also meta-fiction.

Galatea 2.2 has a lot to say in the same way The Handmaid’s Tale and Nineteen Eighty-Four have to say. It uses science fiction techniques for serious speculation. Science fiction fans often feel their genre is a serious matter, but all too often science fiction stories aren’t that serious. Science fiction fans are often insulted when literary writers claim they don’t write science fiction when their novels clearly use science fictional techniques. There is a reason why writers like Margaret Atwood or Ian McEwan avoid the label of science fiction – science fiction isn’t taken seriously by serious readers. The label science fiction is slapped on all kinds of books and is often a marketing sorting category for anything far out and not serious. Sorry fellow SF fans, but we’re seen as kooky.

Now writers within the genre have written books they wanted to be taken seriously. Dune by Frank Herbert and The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin are two. Robert A. Heinlein tried to leave the genre when he wrote Strangers in a Strange Land but never achieved escape velocity. Ray Bradbury and Kurt Vonnegut were able to make their escape, but the man who bellowed the loudest against the label, Harlan Ellison never did.

There are countless novels written by authors who shun the label “science fiction” writer that write perfectly wonderful science fiction novels. For example, The Evolution of Bruno Littlemore by Benjamin Hale. I doubt many people have ever asserted it was science fiction even though the science fiction genre has been writing about uplifted apes for decades.

Few people will call Galatea 2.2 a science fiction novel even though it’s about an AI that becomes self-aware, clearly the territory of science fiction. What’s the difference between a literary science fiction novel and a genre science fiction novel?

Science fiction fans are especially insulted when people claim it’s the quality of writing. And that’s not my answer, but often it’s true. No, my answer is the difference is often due to the level of characterization. My guess is most science fiction fans will feel most of Galatea 2.2 is boring. Genre science fiction tends to be action-oriented. Literary science fiction tends to contain biographical character detail that overwhelms the science fiction elements.

I often tell friends they can spot literary works because they feel like an autobiography when in the first person, and biography when in the third. Probably most science fiction fans will complain that too much of Galatea 2.2 is about Richard Powers and not enough is about Helen, the AI. And that will also be true of Ian McEwan’s new novel, Machines Like Me, where the story is more about Charlie the human and not about Adam the machine. The reason why The Handmaid’s Tale is literary science fiction is that the story is more about Offred than Gilead. Genre science fiction writers would have focused more on the robots or the details of the theocracy using dramatic action and adventure. For contrast, compare with the characterization of Katniss Everdeen and the society of Panem in The Hunger Games.

Modern science fiction writers have moved more towards the literary by building up their characters, while literary writers are experimenting more with science fictional techniques in their stories. Two examples of meeting in the middle are The Time Traveler’s Wife by Audrey Niffenegger or The Doomsday Book by Connie Willis. I think both literary and science fiction fans could love each of these stories.

I tend to doubt that most science fiction fans will enjoy Galatea 2.2 but I think they should give it a chance, especially the new audiobook edition, which is wonderfully narrated by David Aaron Baker. It was worth the wait for me.

James Wallace Harris



13 thoughts on “Serious Science Fiction

  1. I disagree that SF as a genre is about Action. Sure, there’s always been adventure and space opera and the popularity shift towards novels, doorstops, and outright fantasy has probably moved things more in that direction, but the SF I grew up on was built on a foundation of short stories that usually featured an Idea. Sometimes speculation, sometimes just a clever twist, but an Idea was usually what gave SF stories that addictive “kick” to the head.


    1. I agree the old short stories were about ideas, which is why I love them. But a lot could happen in one science fiction short story too. I’ve reviewed two lately, “Alien Earth” and “Living Fossil” and both were quite eventful.


  2. I don’t think sf readers are seen as “kooky” nowadays, but are more likely perceived as consumers of shallow, escapist fiction—an equally good reason for serious writers not to want their work there.
    I’ll keep your “autobiography/biography” comment about literary sf in mind the next time I’m reading something I think is supposed to be serious, although straight away I’m not sure how this would apply to, say, something like Bradbury’s ‘The Fireman’ (which is serious but eventful). Or should I not be conflating work of serious intent with literary work?


    1. Have you seen UFOs have made a comeback this week? Have you ever been to a science fiction convention and see all the cosplayers? Or talked with a true believer in downloading minds? The Big Bang Theory was the top sitcom which got a lot of laughs out of the kookiness of science fiction fans. Science fiction seems to be the religion of Geeks.


    2. I don’t think serious fiction and literary fiction are the same, but often there’s overlap. I think of literary fiction as writers using certain writing techniques that can be used in any kind of writing. It’s often the techniques MFA writing professors focus on. These techniques focus on clear writing and details, but they tend to also promote writing about real experiences or at least a sense of real experiences – which is why I say the feeling of biography/autobiography shows up in literary works.


  3. I think that more than a fair number of readers who like SF,also like mainstream fiction.They are serious readers.I think that those who don’t and think of themselves as serious readers,aren’t so knowledgeable about literature as they think they are.I think it can be called a sort of modern philistinism.


    1. I wonder what that percentage is that reads both science fiction and mainstream literature? What would you guess Richard? I tend to think the people who protest the most are only being defensive when attacked. Most science fiction fans read for fun. It hurts when someone says your fun is childish. I don’t worry about my guilty pleasures. I like what I like. I freely admit I like Survivor the reality TV show and Asimov’s Science Fiction magazine. I know they aren’t Shakespeare or James Joyce, but I don’t really enjoy Shakespeare or James Joyce even though I know they are intellectually superior. However, there are times I do enjoy more serious literature. I can’t go as far as Shakespeare or Milton, but I can do Atwood or Orwell. I can even enjoy Shakespeare, Milton, and Joyce in tiny doses, but not for long.

      Right now I’m dividing my time between The Overstory by Richard Powers which just won the Pulitzer Prize and old science fiction short stories from 1949 pulp magazines. The Overstory is absolutely wonderful, but I couldn’t read that kind of book all the time.


      1. Ray Bradbury achieved serious attention by academics a very long time ago so far as I know.J.G. Ballard was noticed by hardened critics for two decades or more before his “The Empire of the Sun” was published and was elevated to mainstream status.People who apparently would rather have been flogged than read the old Ace paperbacks,realise that Philip K. Dick is a great American author,now that his books are housed in The Library of America.It seems there’s just as significant a number of intellectuals who must read SF then,as there’s those that don’t.

        Olaf Stapledon,who never thought of being published in the SF genre,and influenced authors such as Virginia Wolfe,will nowadays probably have his books published only within it’s confines,if at all.I wonder how many people remember or know about him today?Of those who do read him then,I wonder how many are not SF readers?


        1. I meant something like that, or, what percentage of people who read Hugo winning books also read Booker Prize winning books? My guess is the older you are, the wider read you are. But another way of testing it was last summer’s Great American Read on PBS. A handful of SF titles were chosen out of the hundred.

          Liked by 1 person

    1. Sorry, I’m just getting to them. By the way, once you get one comment approved all your other comments are automatically approved, as long as the system remembers you.


      1. It’s alright James,I knew it had to be approved,but didn’t know if it was offensive in some way.


        1. I’m having to approve each of your messages, so it’s treating you different. The only messages I don’t approve are messages that would offend other people. I don’t mind attacks on my ideas.

          Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply to jameswharris Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s