It appears a brushfire is heating up amidst science fiction writers over the direction of the genre. Disputes between and among SF fans as to what types of stories and novels fit within the genre and/or deserve recognition are nothing new. Take, for example, the debate over whether J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
The gauntlet was tossed down with The Mundane Manifesto, which arose from a discussion between author Geoff Ryman
- No interstellar travel — travel is limited to within the solar system and is difficult, time consuming and expensive.
- No aliens unless the connection is distant, difficult, tenuous and expensive — and they have no interstellar travel either.
- No Martians, Venusians, etc.
- No alternative universes or parallel worlds.
- No magic or supernatural elements.
- No time travel or teleportation.
The reasoning is based on the theory that such themes neglect the problems facing humanity. "Flying off to Barsoom provides quality entertainment, but fiction has far more unrealized potential if it seeks to challenge us and find solutions to the problems of our planet's survival."
Such a proposal could not, of course, go unchallenged. Ian McDonald, whose River of Gods
It’s not just the Mundane Manifesto is totally unnecessary to produce the type of science-fiction it celebrates (one very very much worth celebrating, and that is due it’s time in the sun), it’s that the genre has a much richer palate of colours. It’s a poor manifesto that would venerate Verne (tech-speculation) but consigns much of H.G. Wells’ core texts to the "bonfire of stupidities" (interplanetary war, aliens, time-travel...). To me, one of the strengths of SF is that it is an allegorical literature: parables and myths of our age. That TV has appropriated and devalued many of them is tribute to their strength, not their weakness. To me, any literature that writes about the future (not all SF does by any means) cannot be realist..., to quote likelihood of a possible future is just hand waving.
What is intriguing about McDonald's position is that River of Gods probably meets the criteria for Mundane Science Fiction. McDonald admits his book "may have accidentally committed MSF."
Article comments
1 - SFC SKI
Sounds like a bit of sour graps or snobbery by a few writers. Their parameters for writing SF are interesting ones if they want to do a shared environment to write stories in.
Personally, I think SF is already varied enough that it defies being put under one very broad category being labelled SF.
2 - Jeremy
If I were to write a SF book would I get flogged by the SF union? Would they take away my writer's guild card? The only thing they can do is hold their snobby elitist noses in the air and scoff at other writers that have made an impact in peoples lives...like Robert Asprin, Orson Scott Card, Douglas Adams, C.S. Lewis and my personal favorite Piers Anthony. None of these are mundane but all of them have made an impact the the way I view the world today...even if it's only to remember where my towel is.
3 - Thomas M. Sipos
I don't read much modern sci-fi (a valid term) because it's been Opraphied. Too much domestic soap opera crap, too much social commentary. No more hard science, no more "sense of wonder," and no more blending of these two elements that Arthur C. Clarke did so well.
4 - gonzo marx
to Thomas,
might i suggest Neal Stephenson, most notably "Snowcrash" and "Diamond Age" in that order..
and Julian May...a 9 book Epic that begins with the misguiding name of "the Many Colored Land"...believe it or not..it IS science fiction, not Fantasy...
this all coming from a devout Heilein fanatic..these two are truly inspired World Builders on par with any of the past Masters...the whole Ender saga, by Orson Scott Card, is another "modern" authors trip inso solid science fiction
sooOOooOOoooOOOoooo many books....
so little Time...
Excelsior!
5 - DrPat
And my two favorite authors, thoroughly involved in the mundane vis their themes, (Sheri Tepper and Connie Willis), would not qualify because their novels use fantasy in the same way that Stephenson uses tech-spec - to illuminate their thematic points.
Fie on MSF, I say! It's a red herring! Cook it on its own bonfire, and eat it with rosemary and lime juice!
6 - Victor Plenty
It's fun to translate into mundane English, from the manifesto's quoted rationale.
Original text:
"Flying off to Barsoom provides quality entertainment, but fiction has far more unrealized potential if it seeks to challenge us and find solutions to the problems of our planet's survival."
Translated into straightforward English:
"We're never going to be best-selling authors, so we might as well try to boost our sales by getting onto some required reading lists in a few social studies classes."
7 - Bennett
Great post, fun comments. Victor, thanks for the chuckle.
Thomas, Arthur Clark and Stephen Baxter's "The Light Of Other Days" was published in 2000. This "modern SF" book knocked my socks off.
Among other hard science concepts, it contains the most vivid rendering of the millions of years it took for the evolution of species.
A great read.
8 - DrPat
There's also Bob Shaw's "Light of Other Days", a short story that often gets short shrift because Shaw wrote so few novels. Interesting that two MSF pieces should have identical titles, and widely differing themes!
9 - gabe chouinard
Mundane SF pretty much fails to take into account that all of these tropes that writers are apparently supposed to eschew are the metaphors that SFF has used to create exactly the sort of social, 'mundane' commentary that they clambor for.
The metaphors make it easier for people to accept and swallow. Sometimes, stepping back or traveling to the Omega Gamma Sector Prime gives us the distance we need to see our world more clearly.