I've been publishing fiction a lot longer than Morgan (and if only you knew how much it swells my breast to write that, even though he's about a gazillion percent more successful than I am) but because I got into blogging quite late in the day I think he and I encountered the infighting in science fiction around the same time, and, as you'll remember, I was just as aghast as he was. And still am.
I'd disagree that the crime fans aren't as geeky and techno-savvy as the science fiction ones. I really think he's right: there's a greater sense of content among crime fans. And I think I have an idea why.
I think crime fans know what crime fiction is. They had it figured out years ago. Science fiction fans don't. It's fractured into a landscape of little warring kingdoms battling for supremacy, each with its favoured authors and its vocal camp followers. It's not a genre any more; it's a series of turf wars.

"Before all these boisterous folk started moving in?"

Really now! Hutch, shame on you.

By the way...what is your latest word count on EA?

Dammit, you are boisterous, and I would defend to the death your right to be so.
We are: 67,012. And it hurts.

I'm pretty certain it was Damon Knight who defined sf as follows: "You know what it is when you see it."

That's always struck me as the perfect definition. However, far too many skiffers demand something more explicit. When I was working on The Encyclopedia of SF and Clute and Nichols were debating the issue, I suggested this: "SF is the subdivision of fantasy that panders to the scientific pretensions of its readers and writers." I still think that definition works, too. (Nichols didn't. Clute did, which is where The Encyclopedia of Fantasy in a way originated.)

Yep, I'd go with Damon Knight's definition, too. But that's where the bear trap is. Science fiction is what you perceive it to be. And that opens the doors for the turf wars. Clute's definition does the same thing (and you know I love Clute.) Science fiction has never had properly defined borders, unlike detective fiction. No one has said `This is what it is,' or at least nobody with enough clout. There's always been enough wiggle room - and thank god - for the cyberpunks and the mundanes and the weirds and everyone else. There's never been that doubt in detective fiction, never been a searching for the essence. And that's why detective fiction is the central fiction of our age rather than science fiction. It's gone forward without doubts, with a clear conscience, without people slanging each other off in its wake.

I found "Altered Carbon" to be dull and pointless and never got more than half way through it, so have never read anything else by Richard Morgan. He does rather make sense in that article though.


It occured to me last night, as I looked at a Sunday Herald article in which the journalist was talking about peak oil, that I was moderately inured to future shock because I have read a lot of SF. After reading everything from Aldiss to Macleod to Haldeman to Clarke to Dick to Stross to Le Guin, I feel like I've seen so many possibilities that actually the reality doesn't bother me.

Which is of course what SF is about. I think it is about exploring possibilities of reality, science, society and individuals, in a story, with at least a nod to rigour and structure.
Does that statement make any sense to people. I think it is the equivalent of detective stories "person finds mystery, solves it" theme.

Or to put it shorter, SF is about what if...

What if people were telepathic?

What if there had been world war 3?

What if we managed to invent hyperdrive in 1945?

What if aliens from another dimension popped by and tried to eat our brains?

Hmmm, I wonder if you can sum up all SF plots as "What if.."?
Anyone want to give it a go?

I like the hyperdrive idea. I could do things with that.

No, that makes perfect sense. At least, it sounds like the way I look at science fiction.

Many and fine though his points are, Mr. Morgan has obviously not visited the right mystery boards. The slashing, flaming, backstabbing and wholesale slaughter of sanity and sub-genres on the Dorothy L. list make any half dozen "Wither SF" panels, including those titled "WTF" seem like kiddie tea parties. What makes it even more charming is on Dorothy L, it's ALL personal.
Then there's Romance Writers of America, which goes off the deep end on a regular basis. To take just one instance, about three years ago they tried to vote in a definition of romance that restricted it to one man/one woman, in that order.
To quote Anna Russell, I'm not making this up, you know. LOL
Hugs and grins,
Jean Marie
*who's covered all the genres long enough to know, ain't nobody got green grass on their lawns*

So science fiction isn't unique, then. Okay, thanks for that; I'd presumed, from what little I knew of other genres, that it was something that only happened in science fiction. Actually, like brisingamen, I find that strangely comforting. Although, to be fair to Morgan, the Dorothy L Sayers boards are hardly where you'd expect behaviour like this to go on. Or do I have that wrong?

Edited at 2008-05-01 08:41 pm (UTC)