Talking cabbages and the special room
I see sf it is no longer talking squids in space but talking cabbages from planet X that now define sf. If not in your book you're right in there with Margaret Atwood and writing literary fiction ( http://news.ansible.co.uk/a267.html ) Note to self. Put talking cabbage in next book. Hmm RBV was science fiction, if saurkraut counts as cabbage. I don't know if the infamous flatulogenisis of brassicas counts as 'talking' to Miz Atwood,(it is similar in quality and bouquet to the dialogue in certain un-named non-science fiction) but it's as close as I've seen for a while in sf. Perhaps she should occassionally read some sf written after 1930.
I am delighted too to discover why the sf offering in bookstores has steadily shrunk to invisibility - according Booker judge John Mullan (as befits a professor of English
at University College London) ringingly affirmed his sf ignorance and
'said that he "was not aware of science fiction," arguing that science
fiction has become a "self-enclosed world". / "When I was 18 it was a
genre as accepted as other genres," he said, but now "it is in a special
room in book shops, bought by a special kind of person who has special
weird things they go to and meet each other." (_Guardian_, 18 September).
Anyone discovering the route to these special rooms, please let me know. Likewise anyone who recalls when last sf was as accepted as other genres. It'd help me to estimate when Mullan was 18. My own guess is around when Jules Verne was first published.
Mind you it is curious to note, that as nearly always, it's the Guardian - the left wing UK paper that seems to love to hate sf. Now I'm the sort of individual who likes to read both left and right slanted newspapers, as I believe the truth is probably somewhere betwixt, and thinks John Campbell a great man for publishing Mack Reynolds. SF historically, and always should IMO, at least question the limits - both of science and society. It is in its nature anti-authoritarian. Therein lies one of the great virtues of sf - because it does think the unthinkable, and historically did so to both left of mainstream and right and sometimes out the middle. To my mind sf has become increasingly PC in the last years and only crossing 'acceptable bounds' rather than breaking new ground. Often the 'bold new' seems blase and passe (It is difficult. Drugs? that was rebellious in 1960. BDSM? - that was really weird to write about in 1970 (Gor et al), now nearly as obligatory as the gratuitous sex scene. Feminism? Between Le Guin and Spinrad - not much left. I expect bestiality (with a condom -PC required) next ;-) and pedophilia - not rape-rape (thanks Whoopi) next.) And it's generally within left-wing acceptibility limits from 95% of publishers. I don't have a problem with _some_ of that, but where are the right wing? Where are the anarchists? Where are the barking-mad party (my personal favorites) Where are the non-PC religious sf books (Stasheff for eg was quite popular once)? Being rebel by nature I wonder why the drivers of the genre are trying so hard to cosy up to the very people who denigrate them at every turn. Personally, my reaction would be to publish more left(outside the PC pale)/right/anarchist/barking mad/liberterian/non-PC religious books and do anything but try to conform - seeing as 1)there is no pleasing them anyway 2)seeing as trying to please has seen market share fall 3)seeing as the anti-authoritarian questioning nature of sf made it and still attracts many of us.
And of course especially to buy more Barking Mad books by me ;-). With talking cabbages. The special room needs stock.
I am delighted too to discover why the sf offering in bookstores has steadily shrunk to invisibility - according Booker judge John Mullan (as befits a professor of English
at University College London) ringingly affirmed his sf ignorance and
'said that he "was not aware of science fiction," arguing that science
fiction has become a "self-enclosed world". / "When I was 18 it was a
genre as accepted as other genres," he said, but now "it is in a special
room in book shops, bought by a special kind of person who has special
weird things they go to and meet each other." (_Guardian_, 18 September).
Anyone discovering the route to these special rooms, please let me know. Likewise anyone who recalls when last sf was as accepted as other genres. It'd help me to estimate when Mullan was 18. My own guess is around when Jules Verne was first published.
Mind you it is curious to note, that as nearly always, it's the Guardian - the left wing UK paper that seems to love to hate sf. Now I'm the sort of individual who likes to read both left and right slanted newspapers, as I believe the truth is probably somewhere betwixt, and thinks John Campbell a great man for publishing Mack Reynolds. SF historically, and always should IMO, at least question the limits - both of science and society. It is in its nature anti-authoritarian. Therein lies one of the great virtues of sf - because it does think the unthinkable, and historically did so to both left of mainstream and right and sometimes out the middle. To my mind sf has become increasingly PC in the last years and only crossing 'acceptable bounds' rather than breaking new ground. Often the 'bold new' seems blase and passe (It is difficult. Drugs? that was rebellious in 1960. BDSM? - that was really weird to write about in 1970 (Gor et al), now nearly as obligatory as the gratuitous sex scene. Feminism? Between Le Guin and Spinrad - not much left. I expect bestiality (with a condom -PC required) next ;-) and pedophilia - not rape-rape (thanks Whoopi) next.) And it's generally within left-wing acceptibility limits from 95% of publishers. I don't have a problem with _some_ of that, but where are the right wing? Where are the anarchists? Where are the barking-mad party (my personal favorites) Where are the non-PC religious sf books (Stasheff for eg was quite popular once)? Being rebel by nature I wonder why the drivers of the genre are trying so hard to cosy up to the very people who denigrate them at every turn. Personally, my reaction would be to publish more left(outside the PC pale)/right/anarchist/barking mad/liberterian/non-PC religious books and do anything but try to conform - seeing as 1)there is no pleasing them anyway 2)seeing as trying to please has seen market share fall 3)seeing as the anti-authoritarian questioning nature of sf made it and still attracts many of us.
And of course especially to buy more Barking Mad books by me ;-). With talking cabbages. The special room needs stock.