Jo Walton ([info]papersky) wrote,
@ 2007-04-30 09:00:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Mundane SF
You remember the Mundane SF Movement? Geoff Ryman gave a GoH speech about it yesterday at Boreal, and during the question period, I finally got it.

My initial reaction to the manifesto (Wikipedia, with useful links), which stirred up some controversy, was "You'll pry my FTL and aliens out of my cold dead fingers". And that was my initial reaction to Ryman's speech about it -- well, that and a tangential story idea that wouldn't be mundane SF at all.

But then it dawned on me. I'm not saying this as something I believe, I'm saying it to explain what I think Geoff Ryman was saying.

SF is becoming the work of the third artist. The first artist goes out and paints from life. The second artist copies the first artist. The third artist copies the second artist. (I've usually seen this analogy applies to fantasy, with Tolkien as the first artist.) The first artist put things in because there were there, or in the case of SF, because they were new cool speculation. The second artist put them in because they were trying to get close to the first. The third artist put them in because heck, that's what you put in. By the time you get to the third artist, using things like FTL and uploading yourself and aliens isn't speculating or asking "what if", it's playing with furniture in a doll's house. Going back to where we actually are and starting again, with the techniques but not the tropes of the genre, is trying to become a new first artist.

I'm sure that's what Geoff Ryman meant, and what that manifesto meant, and it makes sense even if you don't agree.

There's nothing wrong with entertainment for its own sake. But SF used to be something that made people think, rather than something comforting and familiar. Is SF becoming a genre in the way fantasy and mystery and romance are, where what you're getting is a variation on a theme? Kathy Morrow says for most people, most reading is comfort reading. I don't know if that's true, but it seems to me that the first reading of any SF novel isn't -- shouldn't be -- a comfort read. (Re-reading is different.)

The most interesting responses to all this came from my family. [info]zorinth's immediate example of Mundane SF was Robert Charles Wilson's Spin, a book that would never have occurred to me, or probably to them for that matter, as an example. But it's set on Earth. The science in Spin is definitely not a piece of SF furniture, it's a new "what if". And it's using that "what if" to provide a timescale to do SFnal things like terraform Mars that wouldn't otherwise be realistic. Spin is a really interesting novel to consider in that context. Z says when he said he wanted more books like Spin and Permutation City what he meant was that he wanted more Mundane SF, except he didn't know about it. He asked if he could borrow Air. People talk a lot about getting teenagers to read SF. Maybe this is what they want. (OK, Z's 16 and he's been reading SF all his life. But I think it's relevant anyway, that he had such a strong response to this.)

Then when I reported all this to [info]rysmiel and [info]rezendi after coming home and making dinner, [info]rysmiel pointed out that it was throwing away some babies in the bathwater by considering mature works that deliberately and consciously reference and build on other works of the genre, that are making something new by using one's assumptions about rearranging furniture, which is a very good point.

All the same, I have been worried for some time about the increasing trend for SF to give us futures we can't get to from here. I wrote a piece for the NYRoSF about this, in the context of John Barnes The Sky So Big And Black, and the trend is only increasing since, with the latest example being MacLeod's The Execution Channel. The reason it worries me is that while SF as a genre has always seemed to open out infinite possibilities for the future, this seems to be shutting us off from any thought of reaching it. When people wrote Venus as a swamp when they thought it was, that was a different thing from people doing it now.

I looked at the shelf over [info]rezendi's shoulder and saw two books I'd enjoyed a great deal, David Weber's Off Armageddon Reef and Walter Jon Williams's Dread Empire's Fall series. Both of them are well written terrific reads which have to be seen as rearranging SF furniture. But right next to them were Williams's other books, (which are almost all "make you think" books) and, cheeringly, making me feel more optimistic about the whole genre, last year's Hugo winner, as adored by teenagers, Spin.


(56 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]sartorias
2007-04-30 01:16 pm UTC (link)
You must be getting a smarter and more savvy bunch of teens up there; most of the teens I deal with definitely want tropes. They are specific about the tropes they want (generalizing greatly: girls want vampires, boys want space battles). Spin was not what anyone wanted, even my one indefatigable reader. He liked the idea, but found the people boring, and never finished it, I finally had to ask for it back.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]papersky
2007-04-30 02:21 pm UTC (link)
I just have Zorinth, so it's not exactly a real baseline!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]sartorias, 2007-04-30 02:24 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]randwolf, 2007-04-30 04:46 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]randwolf
2007-04-30 04:50 pm UTC (link)
It's the classic pattern of girl and boy interests, at least in Western European cultures: relationships and combat. I agree with your reader about the characters in Spin; I kept wanting them to do something.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]rysmiel, 2007-04-30 07:04 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: A collapse of the wave function - [info]randwolf, 2007-05-01 12:23 am UTC (Expand)

[info]mrissa
2007-04-30 01:32 pm UTC (link)
On SF and rearranging the dollhouse furniture:

I do want a new dollhouse and not just rearranged furniture in the old one. But I don't want to ban the new dollhouse from having a sofa just because the old one did.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]papersky
2007-04-30 02:02 pm UTC (link)
I can see that. Me too. But take "hyperspace". There's no such thing, yet we know what it is and what it means and how it works and it's a very convenient sofa for telling certain kinds of stories but there's no real referent for it, it's a thing from stories and that's all it is, and it might be good to consider re-examining and re-imagining it.

I haven't decided what I think about this. I'm just really pleased that it actually makes sense and isn't stupid.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]mrissa, 2007-04-30 02:59 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]pnh, 2007-05-02 01:19 pm UTC (Expand)
Hyperspace - [info]cem, 2007-04-30 06:20 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]blzblack
2007-05-01 03:19 am UTC (link)
M'ris, no one's banning people from owning any kind of dollhouse furniture.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]rysmiel, 2007-05-01 02:26 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]agrumer
2007-04-30 01:47 pm UTC (link)
But SF used to be something that made people think, rather than something comforting and familiar. Is SF becoming a genre in the way fantasy and mystery and romance are, where what you're getting is a variation on a theme?

Well, do keep in mind that there has always been crappy clichéd SF. The past wasn't all Bester and Heinlein and PK Dick.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]papersky
2007-04-30 02:08 pm UTC (link)
It wasn't all good, but it couldn't have been cliched before there was enough of it to form a body of reference for cliche.

And from my memory of when I read the entire library shelf of SF from Asimov to Zelazny in 1977 far more of it was looking to a future you could imagine yourself reaching. (You might not want to, considering Canticle for Lebowitz and various dystopias, but...) I think the "you can't get there from here" really is a new thing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]kgbooklog, 2007-04-30 03:08 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]readinggeek451, 2007-04-30 06:42 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]nancylebov
2007-04-30 03:11 pm UTC (link)
Here's another alternative to putting tropes in because they're usually put in--putting them in because you're personally nuts about them. This occurred to me when I was reading Gail Baudino (whatever happened to her?)-- she was obviously fascinated by dragons rather than just including them because heroic fantasy ought to have dragons. I don't know how much Tolkien included fantastic elements because they were there (must reread Shippey!) and how much he included what he loved from literature, but I bet it was more the former than the latter.

This doesn't necessarily lead to the sort of sf [info]zorinth wants, though.

I'm not sure that mundane sf is exactly what he wants, though it might be close to what you want--it did seem to me that mundane sf was a way of getting closer to possibility.

Offhand, I can't think of any "could get there from here" science fiction from Zelazny, but I'm thinking of "The Doors of His Face, The Lamps of His Mouth" and "A Rose for Ecclesiastes". I'd class Zelazny with Bradbury as a make up anything for the sake of the story sort of author. Which stories are you thinking of?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]papersky
2007-04-30 03:47 pm UTC (link)
My first Zelazny was Creatures of Light and Darkness, followed by Doorways in the Sand and Lord of Light in that (alphabetical) order and then Nine Princes in Amber. Which all but the last struck me as futures that didn't exclude the possibility of living to see them, if not in quite the same level of plausibility as 2001 and Space Cadet.

What I want is lots and lots of really good SF. If some of it were hopeful that would be good.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]nancylebov, 2007-04-30 03:55 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]tomscud, 2007-04-30 04:21 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]nancylebov, 2007-04-30 04:29 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]tomscud, 2007-04-30 04:36 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]nancylebov, 2007-04-30 05:27 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]agrumer, 2007-05-01 03:05 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]papersky, 2007-04-30 06:48 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]zsero, 2007-04-30 09:43 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]papersky, 2007-04-30 10:19 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]zsero, 2007-04-30 10:29 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]rysmiel
2007-04-30 03:15 pm UTC (link)
While I think you're quite right about "can't get there from here" becoming more prevalent, I think a non-trivial chunk of that is series or multiple novels set in futures that one could imagine getting to from here at the point where the author started writing them, and I don't think that a future becoming inaccessible due to shifts in the real world necessarily makes it apt to terminate what you are doing with it part way through.

(Reply to this)


[info]kintail
2007-04-30 03:31 pm UTC (link)
I've been a lurker for a while on your journal, really appreciating the thoughtful posts and discussions like this and generally feeling that at this point I can get a lot more out of them by reading quietly than putting my own two-cents into a comment (which would be putting them into a fixed state when I often haven't made up my mind at all on the topic).

But, I had to delurk to thank you so much for posting the Third Artist metaphor. I read about it somewhere, sometime about 15 years ago, and have spent the last decade trying to tell friends about it in my own words, but feeling like I'm falling short and distorting it, and frustrated about ironically not being able to point to the source of the idea. Hunts through my (small, I moved around too much) library and web searches turned up nothing. I'm so glad to see that it does exist, and well explained, even if the original source is unknown. Made my morning!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]papersky
2007-04-30 03:43 pm UTC (link)
I think I first encountered it from Dorothy Heydt on rec.arts.sf.written, years ago, though I didn't cite her because I'm not exactly sure I remember where I first saw it either. I've more often, as I said, seen it applied to fantasy than to SF.

It's probably from something terribly famous that I either haven't read or have read and forgotten.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]pameladean, 2007-04-30 04:43 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]autopope
2007-04-30 03:58 pm UTC (link)
"You can't get there from here" is a bloody good point to bring up.

As an FYI, my next SF novel, "Halting State", was written deliberately to adhere to the mundane SF manifesto in its strictest reading. And you can get there from here, I think. But it taught me several things, and one of the key insights was that writing near future SF is a whole lot harder today than it used to be.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]papersky
2007-04-30 06:54 pm UTC (link)
Why did you do that? For the sonnet-constraint aesthetic?

I agree about near-future being hard. It's always been hard, but it's harder than ever now the certainties of the near-future we grew up with are gone. I remember when the Berlin wall came down thinking "No SF had this! Only The Moon Goddess and the Son! I thought the Cold War was still going to be there in the 26th century!"

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]carandol, 2007-04-30 11:28 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]autopope, 2007-05-05 04:52 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]zsero
2007-04-30 09:45 pm UTC (link)
one of the key insights was that writing near future SF is a whole lot harder today than it used to be.

Not hexapodia?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

A collapse of the wave function
[info]randwolf
2007-04-30 04:44 pm UTC (link)
There's been a narrowing of possibilities, I think; the period 1930-1980 was a very open one in human history, with many possible futures. At this point, we know a lot of what is going to be in the next 100 years, though the order is unclear, and that's not something that could be said in 1950. So the near future is more of a question of looking at details. There are still a lot of far-future possibilities, but most of the easily imagined ones have been explored. Broadly, I would say that sf and fantasy were a literary response to the vastly expanded physical universe which 19th- and 20th- century science showed us. The possibilities, I suppose, are inexhaustible, but our imaginations, perhaps, are more limited.

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

Re: A collapse of the wave function
[info]nancylebov
2007-04-30 05:34 pm UTC (link)
That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure you're right. It's very hard to predict the next weird thing, let alone two or three weird things after that.

Could a really bright person in 1450 have predicted that Europe would find two major continents, and the center of power would shift to one of them?

At this point, the two major constraining resources are fossil fuels and fresh water. I wouldn't want to say that all the important resources have been discovered. Oil was no big deal for almost all of human history.

What do you think is going to happen in the next century?

Imho, one of the big interesting possibilities in intelligence increase-- even a most increase in typical intelligence would lead to a hard-to-predict future.

On the other hand, I can see some shutting down of possibilities going on-- borders becoming less permeable and demands for education getting higher, but I don't know that either is a stable trend.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: A collapse of the wave function - [info]randwolf, 2007-05-02 07:45 am UTC (Expand)
Re: A collapse of the wave function - [info]nancylebov, 2007-05-02 03:51 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: A collapse of the wave function - [info]randwolf, 2007-05-08 08:26 am UTC (Expand)
Re: A collapse of the wave function - [info]agrumer, 2007-05-01 03:11 am UTC (Expand)
Re: A collapse of the wave function - [info]tacithydra, 2007-05-03 03:05 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: A collapse of the wave function - [info]randwolf, 2007-05-08 08:15 am UTC (Expand)

[info]timprov
2007-04-30 08:43 pm UTC (link)
I would say that we've had enough time in SF to observe that the meticulously thought out, plausible stories by and large tend to lose the futurism race to nutty stories. Plausibility in speculation is inherently a form of observer bias, and one we've pretty well proved that we're not very good at matching with reality. I don't see any grouds to assume that we'll be any better at it going forward.

Which is just a roundabout way of saying that lowballing one's estimate of the universe's screwiness is a bad idea.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tacithydra
2007-05-03 02:52 pm UTC (link)
Hm. Just stumbled into this discussion, but I'm wondering if the key to it isn't "you can't get there from here."

Isn't the MSF goal simply to 'reboot' the extrapolation process? Golden age SF made a bunch of extrapolations which seemed like they might be possible at the time. After a while they became tropes. We now know that some of them are not, in fact, possible. But they're still around, because they're part of the furniture now.

MSF reads to me like they're trying to get rid of the faux furniture, and make new extrapolations from what we know today, from all the new possibilities that science has opened up.

Which doesn't really read to me like lowballing estimates - it seems like they're saying we should be starting with a new, up-to-date set of assumptions, and making estimates off those. Highball or lowball.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]mjlayman
2007-04-30 09:52 pm UTC (link)
I have a cold and the recent diagnosis of brain seizures and I started Paul Levinson's The Conscienceness Plague last night which turns out to be immediate-future SF where people who have colds lose a day of memories (I think it's the antibiotic). I considered putting it back and starting something new, but kept reading and am now hooked.

(Reply to this)


[info]mckitterick
2007-05-01 04:55 am UTC (link)
I think your concern about "SF is becoming the work of the third artist" is the same concern every generation of writers feels about the current situation, so perhaps we need not worry over-much. Certainly, as Sturgeon pointed out decades ago, "90% of everything that gets published is crud," and when you're swimming in a cesspool, everything looks like crud.

But SF is still dynamic, creative, and powerful. It is still the best way (in my humble opinion) to tell stories about what it means to be human. The only thing that the mundane SF adherents seem to want to do differently from the rest of us is not rely on ideas that aren't proven. Okay, that's sensible, but it doesn't feel like a new movement in the genre. Maybe I just don't get it (and I'm currently discussing this with [info]blzblack on a parallel post).

I believe SF is all-encompassing. My most-concise definition: It deals with the effects of change on the human condition and extrapolates into the past, future, or distant places.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]pnh
2007-05-02 01:26 pm UTC (link)
"I think your concern about 'SF is becoming the work of the third artist' is the same concern every generation of writers feels about the current situation, so perhaps we need not worry over-much."

I think there's a lot to this. Harold Bloom, white courtesy phone, please.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]glossing
2007-05-01 01:47 pm UTC (link)
it seems to me that the first reading of any SF novel isn't -- shouldn't be -- a comfort read.
The only thing I can do - besides nodding vigorously, which I'm doing - is expand your definition from "any SF novel" to "any piece of fiction".

Thanks for this post. It gives me hope that there are readers and fans looking for something a little different, a little differently-thoughtful.

(Reply to this)

Robinson
[info]al_zorra
2007-05-01 06:19 pm UTC (link)
I've just read Sixty Days and Counting, the third and last installment in the climate change trilogy of Kim Stanley Robinson.

One of the many reasons I admire this work so much is that it is here and now, essentially, and show us how we might be able to get from the global environmental crisis that is here and now and get out of it, and do do in the near future, and thereby preserving a great deal that still remains in the world we are in for the world of our grandchildren.

He also connects all the dots as to why we are in this crisis, and what about that has to change, and why it can change, if there is to be a future.

Not much sf does that, and this has always plagued me, as a reader. Either everything crashes, and we are all gleefully playing Mad Max shooting each other over cans of food and gas, or else, somehow, we've gone past the crash and are now living in a utopian future with the problem of being wiped out by an asteroid. Or aliens. Or A.I.s. Or whatever menace that pleases. But we still have loads of technology and resources. Howz dat?

Love, C.

(Reply to this)


[info]serrana
2007-05-01 10:10 pm UTC (link)
Perhaps tangential, in that I haven't read The Sky So Big and Black, but the last time I was with a Barnes novel it was Gaudeamus, and I thought the entire thing was, to borrow a metaphor, an extended rearrangement of Zelazny and Dick's living rooms.

I quite enjoyed it, despite my concern that various of the characters would shortly perish from testosterone poisoning. It reminded me of my childhood. I figured it was doing the same for the author and that was the whole point.

Of course, lately I demand a lot of escape from my escapism. If I want to read about the future, I pick up the newspaper. We live in the future. This is it, right here: all the mundanity I can stand.

(Reply to this)


[info]imyril
2007-05-02 09:42 am UTC (link)
Reading your take on MSF makes instant sense to me. More, it still feels celebratory: we try this because we want to be renewed, and discover new ways of storytelling (which is always a good thing)...and yes, there's plenty of tripe out there, so going back to first principles as a means of improving standards can't be a bad thing.

I think my difficulty with core MSF is that I don't get that feeling at all from the dogme or from interviews with Geoff Ryman. I don't doubt he's very passionate about it, or that he will/does write excellent fiction from that starting point, but... it feels judgemental, limiting, and carries a strong sense of finger wagging ("dreaming's not gonna do you no good son"). Is it really wrong for SF to be escapist at times?

I wonder though, whether that's because I come from a fantasy rather than sf background. I suppose I prize flights of fancy over getting there from here.

(Reply to this)


(56 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…