Response to "Should SF Die?"

Over on the Shine Anthology's weblog, editor and writer Jetse de Vries has posted the deliberately provocative essay "Should SF Die?" Jetse covers the full range of issues facing the genre, including a lack of racial and ethnic diversity, how international SF is snubbed by a WASP-dominated genre, a general lack of readers, and a lack of imagination among today's SF writers.

I'm really looking forward to Jetse's new anthology of positive SF, and in general I support his calls for more positive SF. I differ with him in some regards (as I mentioned the other day, instead of placing SF's failures on a lack of positive answers to the world's problems, it is more likely the genre's negative outlook on life turns away readers). Still, I can't fault the goal he's pushing toward.

But his "Should SF Die" rant is simply too much. Yes, all of the issues Jetse addresses must be dealt with. But his words remind me of the mundane manifesto from a few years ago, and how that was also the answer to what ails SF. But then the mundane SF issue of Interzone came and went without any love from readers, and that was that.

The reason mundane SF disappeared quietly into the night is because it was merely an intellectual exercise. People debated the issue, threw angst left and right, dangled their philosophical thoughts proudly, and what happened next? Nothing. Because the stories produced under this manifesto failed to stir readers.

Stories are what matter first and foremost in any writing genre, and no amount of intellectual debate can ever change this. No one sits around bemoaning what is wrong with the fantasy genre, or saying that fantasies could be even more successful if only they were more relevant to today's lives and/or provided the answers people need. Instead, fantasy authors produce the best fantasies they can, and readers either embrace the stories or they don't. If SF wants to have a future, it must do the same. The genre must embrace works by writers from all parts of the world, and embrace new types of stories, and embrace new readers by giving them exciting stories they can't find anywhere else.

I agree it's a problem when SF writers avoid writing about today's issues, and that the imaginations of genre writers are often limited. But the answer isn't more talk about the problem. The answer is for authors to write stories which address these concerns. For editors and publishers to publish stories without regard to a narrow WASP outlook on life. And for we as a genre to put up, or shut the hell up!

If we write exciting SF stories relevant to a multi-cultural and ever-changing world, the readers will come. If we don't, then the genre dies. And no amount of intellectual back and forth will ever change this basic fact.

So I look forward to Jetse's anthology. I hope it contains some great stories. Because if it doesn't, all this debate will have mattered for nothing.

Comments

[Rachel Swirsky]

Cheers.

[Jetse]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Obviously, doing it the other way around — first put out an anthology on a specific theme, then explain what the idea was afterwards — is not very viable. I already had to spend a lot of effort just explaining writers what exactly I was looking for (otherwise it would have been an antho full of happy clappy stories where a single invention instantly changes Earth into paradise), so I might as well keep explaining what I’m aiming for and why.

Also, as evidenced by the many links to debates elsewhere, this is a hot topic in SF circles, and I can either ignore it, and not be very relevant myself, or face it head-on. Not much of a choice if I want to practice what I preach.

FYI, you can already check out several near-future, optimistic SF stories at DayBreak Magazine.

Finally, if story is the be-all and end-all (and I’m not saying it’s not important: it’s of crucial importance. But it’s not the *only* thing) then why bother dressing it up as SF, thriller, mystery, literature, horror, steampunk and what-other-genres-have-you? We might as well call it all fantasy and be done with it.

But I think SF can have a unique approach that justifies its existence. But for that approach to remain unique instead of becoming stale, it needs to change and re-invent itself.

[Fabien Lyraud]

Eh, Jason I apport a non anglosaxon view. I'm french and in France SF is in crisis one decade on two. Because the editors privilegy the on fashion SF style. In the 2000 it's postmodern hard SF with authors like Egan or Reynolds. And the large audience doesn't interest in break with all the genre. The changes must be made in the continuity.
The only way to save SF is the anthropologic one. Human sciences are the future of the genre. The reconciliation between exact science and human science is a necessity. The cultural and civilisational themes could give best stories and novels than hard SF. A currentb of authors in Britain and USA write this kind of SF but no nobody translate them in french. A great part of fandom defends only hard science and people like me who search other kind of SF are disapointed.

[Jason Sanford]

Jetse: You are correct in there being little sense in publishing the anthology before the idea, and you're equally right that this subject--and all the issues you address in your post like racism--are being heavily discussed within the genre right now. And as I said, these are all important issues the genre must deal with.

But while I have only minor differences with your positive SF ideas, I do disagree that SF has to justify its existence. The genre exists when writers write SF stories, and when readers read them. A good level of philosophical debate is healthy, but at some point it becomes excessive--debate for debate's sake.

The other day I asked on Facebook why SF is one of the few genres which obsesses on our genre's coming death. I mean, we've been having this debate in different forms for more than two generations. In response, Nick Mamatas said the reason why is b/c "most other genres lack the Messianic current of SF--lots of (SF) writers really think they are producing Really Heavy Shit, after all." While I often disagree with Mamatas, in this case he is right. And even though there's nothing wrong with writing Really Heavy Shit, we also want to stay grounded in what we're doing. After all, there's a fine line between a wannabe Messiah and a crazy man screaming on a street corner.

[Jason Sanford]

Fabien: Excellent point. For what it's worth, the issues you describe can also be found in the U.S. and other places. I've often been frustrated at how hard it is to find the SF which excites me.

[Rachel Swirsky]

Jetse: I am strongly, personally offended by your intimation that other types of SF are unworthy -- as you might have noticed from my continued comments on this subject. You do realize that telling people who are oppressed that it's illegitimate to write about depressing things is about the same as telling us it's not okay to write from anger. You must realize that your prescriptive approach is condescending as well as problematic. Do you really think you know better how to advance the causes of social justice than black, female, queer, and other kinds of authors of dystopic futures that center on their political realities? Are you a more capable feminist analyst than Marge Piercy -- are you *so* much more capable than she is that you should tell her that she is childish, that her fiction should die?

Your idea remains strong. I aspire to add more optimistic science fiction to my repetoire. I'm a terribly slow writer so it will probably take a few years to trickle through my brain.

But once you try to silence other people's voices... please, Jetse, try to understand that the rest of us are not children. We do not need to be rescued by you. Our positions are not random scattershot unthinking -- they are fully considered. They are just not yours.

[Jeff VanderMeer]

What Rachel said, even though I'm a white male. The general point remains: no matter what your cultural, class, or racial background, every writer should write what's personal to them. Period. The post was too general anyway, lacking in specifics, and was, in my opinion, very close to fostering a strange kind of intolerance, using the mask of referencing World SF as a shield. --JeffV

[Jha]

I keep hearing about this "don't talk about the problem, solve it!" approach. I've yet to see a satisfactory explanation on how not talking about the problem is supposed to help us solve it.

[DH]

I'd love to hear from jha a problem that was ever solved merely by talking. Seems you need a mix of talk and action.

[Jeff VanderMeer]

Ack. I read Jetse's post too fast--that stupid thin column format drives me nuts. There are some very valid points in it, too. More soonish.

[Jetse]

Rachel--

I responded to you on Kenneth Rapp's LiveJournal (http://thesaucernews.livejournal.com/) here: http://thesaucernews.livejournal.com/901966.html , but I'll gladly repost it (and apologies for not keeping up with all the reactions to my post: I try, but I fail).

Here's what I said:

Rachel--

I'm sorry that I wasn't clear enough, but I meant two *separate* things:

1) It's maybe/possibly smart if SF would (try to) be a better representation of society and the world at large;

2) It's maybe/possibly smart if SF would (try to) focus on relevant topics and (try to) be part of the solution, not part of the problem;

Two parallel arguments: I didn't mean to equate (1) with (2); that is: underrepresented groups should write only SF on relevant topics, then they will be accepted in the SF fold, and then SF will thrive (and paradise will arrive...;-).

To clarify: suppose I run a local food store, but--

(1) I only sell food products that are aimed at western customers. In the meantime more and more immigrants, expatriates and their families and children move into my neighbourhood, and my sales dwindle. Maybe/possibly it's wise if I expanded my inventory and tried to cater for the changing demography;

(2) I only sell mass-produced food products, and no locally grown produce, nor organic food products, while demand for those is increasing. Maybe/possibly it's wise if I expanded my inventory with such products, as well;

But that doesn't mean that all immigrants should buy local, organic produce (even if it's nice if they did): it means that I as the *shopkeeper* might consider to use both approaches.

Apologies again if that wasn't clear.

I hope that clears it up a bit.

Also -- I realise this may be a bit much to ask -- why not post your disagreement and anger at my original post on the SHINE blog or at DayBreak Magazine (http://daybreakmagazine.wordpress.com/2009/12/25/should-sf-die/ )? Or email me, as Jeff did? I don't bite, I don't censure posts, and I do try to answer.

[Jetse]

Jeff--

I've been attended by other people who don't like the thin columns on the SHINE blog, so I reposted it at DayBreak Magazine (http://daybreakmagazine.wordpress.com/2009/12/25/should-sf-die/ ) and my personal blog (http://eclipticplane.blogspot.com/2009/12/should-sf-die.html ), for a more Spartan layout.

[Trent Walters]

Jason,

I've been monitoring the talk Mundane SF for several years. What you heard was the angry backlash. People those who speak most loudly. It has actually gained a quiet acceptance. Granted, it's probably a niche within the genre. In my talks with Geoff, I don't think he thought it would actually replace space opera--or any other niche within the field. I read the manifesto as falling within the form of manifesto-writing--serious while making fun of it: the old "young-man's-bluster." And Mundane SF is still going--with Jetse (his own take), in other mags, and in another anthology Geoff did. We can't know what impact it may until we have some distance from it.