Troublemaker

[coalescent]

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.

Comments

The Richard and Judy Effect....

[ang-grrr.livejournal.com]

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

Re: The Richard and Judy Effect....

[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.

[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.

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

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

Indeed. Down with genre!

[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.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

In what possible sense is this 'phenomenon' new?

[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.

[peake.livejournal.com]

Try as I might, I cannot find anything disturbing, threatening or problematic in this idea. So the 'mainstream' is catching on to ideas that we have traditionally considered sf. So sf readers may have to look in a wider range of places to get their fix, and may (*gasp*) encounter some non-sf along the way. So the exclusive sf outlets aren't going to be the be-all and end-all of the genre any more. Wow, what an earth-shatteringly terrifying proposition.

For heavens sake, science fiction has spent an awful long time complaining about being in a ghetto. We can't exactly complain if we're not going to be allowed the safety of the ghetto walls any more.

The worst that can happen - and the death of science fiction has been predicted so many times in almost exactly the same words, so I'm not exactly going to hold my breath this time - is that we may have to change our understanding of what constitutes 'science fiction'. But since 'science fiction' has been notoriously undefinable, maybe it's time we gave up the unequal struggle.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I don't think Cheney's complaining; I think he's cheering, but saying that not enough people are cheering with him. He says it's a deliberate attempt to be provocative on his blog.

But I think he has a point. For instance, where's the rule that says that the magazines can't publish a wider range of material? There isn't one. The best of the year anthologies are, more and more, going to other sources for their stories ... and subscriptions for the major magazines are declining fast, and have been for ten years. Their current strategies don't seem to be working, but (by and large) they're not trying anything new. Why?

But since 'science fiction' has been notoriously undefinable, maybe it's time we gave up the unequal struggle.

But ... but ... I need a label! For my personal identity! If I'm not an sf fan, what am I? ;-)

[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.

[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.

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

If I'm not an sf fan, what am I? ;-)

A lanky streak o' piss?

[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!

[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?

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

True but not helpful. :p

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

I just don't understand your concern. If the SF being printed by the genre is rubbish, that's the genre's fault. It doesn't mean that Cloud Atlas should have been published by PS instead of Sceptre.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I just don't understand your concern. If the SF being printed by the genre is rubbish, that's the genre's fault.

Which I just said! Twice now! Although I don't think it's all rubbish by a long chalk; I just think it's surprising, and a little disappointing, that some of the boldest work is appearing elsewhere. You clearly don't think it matters, which is your right, of course...

(And bad example picking PS--it's a small press, and putting out interesting books that, again, aren't finding a home with the major genre publishers. Short story collections, for instance, have become almost entirely the preserve of the small presses. That's a shame--surely Secret Life or Breathmoss or whatever deserve a mass-market publication! That's all I'm getting at..)

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

But ... but ... I need a label! For my personal identity! If I'm not an sf fan, what am I? ;-)

It's good you've finally admitted to yourself you have this problem - now you can start to do something about it. Is there a 12-Step program for recovering fen? :-p

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

I just think it's surprising, and a little disappointing, that some of the boldest work is appearing elsewhere.

Has a book like Cloud Atlas ever been published from within the SF field? Why would you rather see it published by an SF publisher? You seem comfortable with the idea that Mitchell uses SF rather than seeks to belong to the genre, so why are you surprised neither he nor his agent wants to be published within its limiting boundaries? I used PS very deliberately, precisely because it's a small press putting out books that don't interest many people. Sceptre published Cloud Atlas and (presumably) Mitchell's agent sought them out because they realized here was a book that could appeal to many people. The reason Secret Life is published on a smaller scale is because someone, somewhere has decided it isn't going to be very marketable (they may or may not be right). Now, I could argue that this is because VanderMeer is so obviously part of the 'genre', whilst Cloud Atlas just isn't, but I'd be in danger of getting into a circular argument.

See, are we talking here about content or marketability? Is Secret Life confined to the genre whilst Cloud Atlas sells lots of copies because a) it speaks to the genre rather than to a wider audience or a wider set of preoccupations (my review would perhaps suggest that), or b) some marketing man has erroneously equated 'genre' with 'small audience'?

Re: The Richard and Judy Effect....

[giantbedsprings.livejournal.com]

*points at the Edward Monkton icon*

Yay!

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

It's not surprising, but it's disappointing because it leaves what gets published as 'genre sf' as a stale category. It didn't used to be that way; it doesn't have to be that way. I think, for example, that readers who appreciate Cloud Atlas would appreciate Geoff Ryman's Air; but most of them will never see it, because Air is published as a genre novel.

Maybe Air shouldn't be published as a genre novel. That has advantages. But I'd rather see the genre rehabilitated than abandoned. It can, and I think should, be something more than a marketing category, but at the moment that's not the way things are going.

And the same goes for the magazines. With SCIFICTION I can comfortably say that it publishes some of the best short fiction being published, that you should read it whatever your taste in fiction. I can't say that about most of the other magazines, or at least I can't say it as confidently and consistently.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Remind me nearer the time, and I'll make a banana chocolate chip cake for your birthday :-)

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

It didn't used to be that way

When? 1984 and Brave New World were published outside of the genre; Vonnegut "disowned SF" (Patrick Parrinder) well before Slaughterhouse-5; Attwood's battles against SF you know well; Rushdie's first novel (Grimus) was unashamed science fiction. When were these halcyon days when books of the Cloud Atlas sort were published by science fiction houses?

Maybe Air shouldn't be published as a genre novel.

You have to ask yourself why it is published that way. (Because someone knows that there are a group of people who like stories about technology, and so they get books with technology in them and sell these books to those people. Just as in the 18th century there was a vogue for Germanic romances, and so publishers sold Germanic romances to those people.) You also have to ask yourself why you care so much about the rehabilitation of 'your' genre, when you've always said what you really want is for the 'mainstream' to accept you. But, as this conversation is suggesting, they've always accepted your ideas - just not your arid and unstinting allegiance.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Because someone knows that there are a group of people who like stories about technology, and so they get books with technology in them and sell these books to those people

Air is as much 'a story about technology' as [threads merge!] 1984. Which is to say it's an element, but is hardly the be-all and end-all of the book.

But, as this conversation is suggesting, they've always accepted your ideas

Oh, that's rubbish, and you know it. The contortions reviewers will go through to avoid calling something 'science fiction' remain as absurd but as prevalent as ever. What seems to me different, though it's possible it's just a matter of perspective, is that there are more writers about now who obviously know and respect the material.

I've given up on you ever ordering that Chabon book, by the way, and done it myself. :p

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I'm not so keen on cakes with banana in. Can you just put in extra chocolate? Or ginger. I like ginger. :)