Links : The End of Science Fiction as we know it.

This last week has seen a couple of interesting articles appear about the point at which science fiction stops being science fiction.  The first is Paul Kincaid's splendid Bookslut Column on this year's Clarke Awards.  The second is a Deepgenre piece by David Louis Edelman of Infoquake fame.

The first piece examines the Clarke Awards as an arena where the boundary between mainstream and genre fiction is at its thinnest.  Kincaid argues that the narrowing of this boundary is due to the fact that more and more mainstream authors are choosing to use genre tropes and the use of these tropes is generally seen as one way of determining what is and isn't genre.

The second piece complains about how few pieces of SF bother to wonder what the future of SF will be like.  Indeed, while fantasy frequently pops up in futuristic worlds, it is difficult to think of a book about a future world that included a healthy SF scene speaking about some even further future, one based on the assumptions and predictions of that age rather than ours.  Edelman concludes that SF is now struggling to really think about the future, falling instead into a pattern of writing about a more extreme version of the present or a different world so thick with the futuristic ideas of a past age that they might as well be populated with elves and dwarves it's so recursive.

I wonder if there is not a link between these two problems.

The best example of a book that features  problems is William Gibson's Pattern Recognition.  Arguably Gibson's strongest work to date (far more intelligent and challenging so than the childish Neuromancer), Pattern Recognition is an astonishing work because it manages to extract from Gibson's earlier works the very essence of cyberpunk and re-injects it into a more or less contemporary setting.  Pattern Recognition essentially argues that there's no point in writing futuristic cyberpunk any more because the age of cyberpunk is NOW.  In one swift move, Gibson not only suggests that science fiction no longer has a purpose, he also suggests that there is no difference between an SF thriller and a contemporary thriller... there is no genre... no ghetto.

The problem is that Science Fiction, as a genre has evolved.  Over the decades that separate us from the pulps and the early works of SF, generation after generation of author has hammered both at the literary identity of the genre and at the very cornerstones that once defined it.  SF is no longer a genre that guarantees a rocket ship on its cover and it is no longer a genre that can clearly be distinguished from the works of what were once considered mainstream authors.  Anyone now sitting down to write a work of SF has as much freedom as someone sitting down to write a mainstream novel.  The possibilities are endless and this causes a malaise.

In many ways, science fiction is a lot like science itself.  If you consider the philosophy of science, particularly the works of people like Popper and Ayer you'll find attempts to draw lines in the sand and find clear methodological differences between science and pseudo-science.  However, all such attempts to draw a firm line in the sand are doomed to rule out stuff we know is science (such as quantum cosmology or the theory of evolution) or rule in stuff we know to not be science (like astrology or intelligent design).  The difference between science and non-science, if it even makes sense to talk of a difference is not one of epistemology or methodology; it is one of cultural affiliation.  The outer limits of mathematics and physics are science because despite the fact that they step into territory marked "metaphysics" (literally "after physics") by Aristotle they share the values and the ideals of more basic science.

One cannot define science so how can we possibly hope to define science fiction?

I don't think it makes any sense to still speak of Science Fiction being a genre, so diverse are its values, its intentions and its tropes.  Cosmetically something like Stross' Accelerando might be seen as similar to the works of Stephen Baxter but if you look to the values and the purposes behind the books you'll see that while Baxter wants to explore scientific ideas, Stross wants to write books that appeal to a certain geeky demographic.

The state of modern science fiction is, in many ways, reminiscent of the only recent cinematic work of traditional science fiction; Danny Boyle's Sunshine.  Sunshine is a film about the fragility of humanity and the vast, towering, inconceivable indifference of the universe.  The film's final scene perfectly encompasses the idea that there are no rules, we are utterly alone and therefore we are free.  That is the message that needs to be drummed into modern SF writers and fans alike - Anything is possible.  There is no correct way forward, there are no boundaries.  The only thing keeping us in a ghetto are mind forged manacles.

Debates about the future of SF should be seen only as a means of expressing an individual opinion and forging a manifesto to which others might subscribe.  There is no correct way to write SF and anyone who says "this isn't SF" is a dinosaur and a fool.  SF is anything you say it is.

The issue now is, does SF Fandom actually harm the development of SF writing by providing it with an overly static target for which to aim?  Fantasy has barely evolved at all since Tolkien and this is because every Fantasy writer is acutely aware of the likes and dislikes of his audience.

What is the point of SF Fandom?

Comments

[A.R.Yngve]

You asked:
"The issue now is, does SF Fandom actually harm the development of SF writing by providing it with an overly static target for which to aim?"

Well... yes. I have become increasingly aware of the conservatism of SF fans -- how many of them are averse to actually being surprised, shocked, awed, overwhelmed etc. by SF.

When I started reading SF, I loved it precisely because it could pull the rug out from under my feet, tell me that "The future harbors limitless possibilities, some wonderful, some terrifying, often both. Take nothing for granted."

One attitude that ought to be banned in this genre is smugness, the idea that we already know the future because, why, there are no surprises left. It's as foolish as when scientists proclaim that the "Theory Of Everything" is nigh, or when Francis Fukuyama proclaimed "The End Of History" (remember?).

The "Singularity" fad is just another such example of overbearing, cringe-inducing smugness.

The freedom I have as a writer, right now, does not cause me "malaise" at all. I revel in this freedom.

I can use any old tropes -- robots, spaceships, brains-in-a-vat -- right next to new ones, without blushing. Why? Because that's what the real world is like. Medieval-minded Talibans use cell-phones. Creationists use computers. Past, present and future co-exist simultaneously, NOW. Old SF tropes are not discarded, just added to the growing heap.

I think it's an attitude thing. Writers shouldn't try to imagine what the future "will" or "should" be like, but what it might be like. Will, should and might are not the same.