coalescent | Troublemaker

Matt Cheney is making trouble at Strange Horizons:

Don't tell anybody, but science fiction no longer exists.

Let me rephrase that, because though the statement is true, it's not entirely accurate. Try this: written science fiction has become two things—a genre and a style; the audience for the former is small and shrinking, while the audience for the latter is large, growing, and doesn't know of its own existence.

You all know that I've said this before. When I'm being fannish, I think I'm primarily being a fan of the genre; the commercially defined, readily identifiable stuff that everyone knows is sf. But more and more, when I think and write about the stuff that I like, I'm thinking and writing about the style, or the mode; the wider uses of the tools that sf allows, that make sf what it is, and why and how they work. I have Ian Macleod's The House of Storms waiting to be read, and I'm looking forward to it a lot, but I'm at least as excited, if not more so, about getting properly stuck into Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go. I like the core stuff (hello! Baxter fan!), but I also want to follow the diaspora, to see what's going on out there.

Cheney concludes on a depressing note:

Today, David Bunch would be rejected by the major SF magazines and published by literary magazines such as Conjunctions and Fence. He would be compared to writers like Thomas Pynchon, David Foster Wallace, and George Saunders, and he would probably win a MacArthur "Genius" Grant. Young, celebrated writers like Matthew Derby and Ben Marcus would acknowledge the debt they owed him. "A science fiction writer?" people would say skeptically when anyone suggested that that was a label Bunch deserved. "No, he just writes about the implications of technology on what it means to be human, creating postmodern fables of alienated identity. That's not science fiction."

No, it's not. Not anymore.

Of course he's overstating the case--there are a good number of writers working in genre sf, particularly in this country, doing interesting things at novel-length, and the magazines, even the major ones like F&SF and SCIFICTION, aren't as straitjacketed as you might think from his column. But at the same time, of course he's got a point. Three genre stories are going into this year's Best American Short Stories, and though all of them are by authors closely associated with the sf community, of the stories themselves one comes from a small-press slipstream anthology, one appeared in Conjunctions, and one showed up online at Salon. SF is out there, and I'm not sure that we're keeping up.

Current Mood: amused (but contemplative)
Current Music: Today (Radio 4)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

ang-grrr.livejournal.com

Mum asked me if I had a copy of Cloud Atlas yesterday because "Griff Rhys Jones quite liked it".

From:

coalescent.livejournal.com

We need a new word for this. It's not futureshock so much as genreshock. :)

Two things I should probably add to the above, which was written in a rush. Firstly, I mentioned BASS, but since my focus was as much fans as pros I might just as well have mentioned the BSFA short fiction list, since none of the stories on there are from the major magazines either (not even Interzone). And that means that secondly, when I say 'we' aren't keeping up, clearly I'm not being entirely accurate. I'm not sure anyone reading this is particularly narrow-minded in their tastes, and (say) Cloud Atlas has certainly been well enough accepted; it's just my sense that, overall, there's a disconnect somewhere along the line.

From:

giantbedsprings.livejournal.com

*points at the Edward Monkton icon*

Yay!

From:

alexmc.livejournal.com

> I have Ian Macleod's The House of Storms waiting to be read,

I have a review copy which I left in the back of my car by accident. Oops.

From:

ninebelow.livejournal.com

Try this: written science fiction has become two things—a genre and a style;

Indeed. Down with genre!

From:

coalescent.livejournal.com

I wonder what happens when the audience for the style does become aware of its own existence. For some reason, I'm thinking Skynet.

From:

immortalradical.livejournal.com

In what possible sense is this 'phenomenon' new?

From:

coalescent.livejournal.com

Did you read the column? :p

The argument is that genre sf is more narrow-minded than it was 25 years ago. Not having been born 25 years ago I find it hard to say either way for sure, and I like I said in the post he's certainly exaggerating, but it doesn't seem an entirely unreasonable assertion.

Meanwhile, the cultural currency of sf is higher than it's been before. Oryx and Crake and Cloud Atlas and Never Let Me Go and The Time-Traveler's Wife and Fortress of Solitude and the McSweeny's anthologies--yes, there have been mainstream writers playing with sf's toys forever, but not, I think, with such a high degree of critical and commercial success as in the last five or so, and certainly not with such approval from within the genre. The 'mainstream writer does sf badly because they don't know the field' cliche isn't dead, but it's pretty badly wounded.

From:

peake.livejournal.com

The argument is that genre sf is more narrow-minded than it was 25 years ago.

Nonsense. If you consider 'genre sf' to be the sort of dyed-in-the-wool heartland of sf, then it is probably less narrow-minded now than it has ever been before.

The reaction of 'genre sf' to the modernisms of the British New Wave is in stark contrast to the way that even 'genre sf' has embraced certain tropes and manners of postmodernism.

As to: The 'mainstream writer does sf badly because they don't know the field' cliche isn't dead, but it's pretty badly wounded that's a different issue. That's not a question of openness, of approval within the genre, or anything else, it is simply a matter of how well or badly the traditional devices of sf are used. There are now and there have always been 'mainstream' writers who use sf well, just as there are now and have always been genre writers who use the tools of their own genre badly. The fact that David Mitchell uses the devices of science fiction well is, at least in part, down to the fact that he is very familiar with the genre; the fact that Philip Roth uses the devices of alternate history badly (in an otherwise excellent book) is down to the fact that he is not familiar with the genre, and therefore is unaware of how much he can trust his audience to pick up on the clues in his work.

From:

coalescent.livejournal.com

Nonsense. If you consider 'genre sf' to be the sort of dyed-in-the-wool heartland of sf, then it is probably less narrow-minded now than it has ever been before.

In terms of what can be published, maybe. In terms of what's being widely read? I'm not at all sure. Look at the Hugos--always a popularity contest, sure, but for some reason before about 1980 'popular' and 'good' and 'interesting' seemed to conicide more years than not. Maybe the absolute best novels weren't winning, but very good novels certainly were. Since then, I would say the award's track record is ... less admirable.

There are now and there have always been 'mainstream' writers who use sf well, just as there are now and have always been genre writers who use the tools of their own genre badly.

Sure. But again, my perception is that the proportions have changed, and that there are now more coming in from outside and doing it well than there used to be. Though I guess I have to defer to you if you tell me that just ain't so!

From:

immortalradical.livejournal.com

The argument is that genre sf is more narrow-minded than it was 25 years ago [...] and certainly not with such approval from within the genre.

That's a remarkably self-contradictory argument - is it Harrison's or Cheney's? Either way, it suggests more about the 'genre' than it does about the 'mainstream', and its assumption that genre elements have been adopted wholesale suddenly and inexplicably by 'mainstream' fictions rests, I think, more on the moribundity of genre sf - and the fan's need to therefore find works to interest them elsewhere - than it does fact.

If you look at the crop of exciting writers who came to maturity in the mid-80s, for instance - the Wintersons, Rushdies and Barneseseses (and the Ishiguros) - then you find them using 'speculative/fantasical/whatever' ideas, too. Winterson's The Passion, Rushdie's Shame (and, yes, Midnight's Children), Barnes's A History of the World in 10.5 Chapters all to once extent or another featured passages with a sensawunda. Attwood's been plying her trade for years before Oryx and Crake, as you well know.

I'm not sure what you or Cheney imagine 'mainstream' fiction to have been in the Dark Times, but Virginia Woolf had immortals and Iris Murdoch had sea monsters long before Niffenegger wrote a mawkish love story. If Cheney is anywhere near the right tree, the theory he posits has far more to do with what's going in within the SF field than it is what is going on outside it.

From:

coalescent.livejournal.com

Either way, it suggests more about the 'genre' than it does about the 'mainstream',

Well, yes. That's what I said. This stuff, which many people agree is good and interesting, is not getting published as genre. Why not?

Something is rotten, you might say. So how do you fix it? Can you make conservative magazines more daring again? Or should you just abandon the whole edifice?

Troublemaker

Expand Cut Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit