Charlie Stross' Diary: Let's put the future behind us

Here's some interesting thoughts on the state of SF from British (since I'm not sure what part of the UK he is from) SF author Charles Stross. If you haven't read his story "The Atrocity Archive" yet you should start now. In the meantime, check this out from the blog on his website.

After coming across a link to this post on Warren Ellis' website I thought that it was something that was worth sharing. I know that a couple of people who read my blog will find it interesting. There are some interesting links in the actual text as well in it's original form on his website.

Let's put the future behind us

There's always a bloody force five hurricane making landfall in the little teacup of a genre that I inhabit. Last year it was the Mundane SF manifesto (short form: they don't believe in having sex standing up because it might lead to dancing using classic science fictional tropes because they might lead to fantasy). This year it's the back to basics thing. When will they learn?

Kristine Kathryn Rusch, who is old and distinguished enough to know better, wrote a critical essay for a book (titled 'Star Wars on Trial') in which she attempted to make the case for the defense, and which was republished in Asimov's SF magazine. She lit a match (thus: 'First, the promised answer: to what extent is current sf writing influenced by Star Wars? The answer is simple: Not enough'), then tossed it in a pool of petrol (and so: 'In order to make my case for that answer, however, I must address #3: Star Wars and the battle for SF readers and shelf space. There is no battle for shelf space because of #6: to what extent does SW define how the general public sees SF or, as I like to call it, the definition of SF') before generously carpet-bombing the area with the reductionist napalm of genre categorization (which sticks to everything like a label, and burns, baby, it burns!).

To try and paraphrase (or parody) her argument: SF is of declining interest (and has declining market share) to the general public because it's not true to its pulpy roots. So let's all go write media tie-in novels, because they attract readers, and if we attract lots of readers, we'll reinvigorate the ghetto. In other words, the past forty-odd year long project of trying to inject some quality into the stuff our dreams are made of is not merely a failure, but counter-productive.

All of this would be messy enough, but she managed to phrase it in such a way that it got right up various noses (That's Paul McAuley and Ian McDonald, in case you don't know them in drag), not to mention the sinuses of large numbers of other hoity-toity folks who think that what they're doing might possibly have some literary merit to it. (Like me.)