I watched the TV series The Secret of Crickley Hall – last episode
last night – and though I enjoyed it I couldn’t really engage with it. I got
the same feeling watching it as I got from watching Woman in Black, which is
that though it was entertaining I could not suspend disbelief. When I was
younger I could watch this sort of stuff and feel a little bit spooked – two
that spring to mind are The Haunting (the original version) and The Entity –
but my opinions about the supernatural have hardened over the years and now I
simply cannot believe in ghosts. The films and the fiction haven’t really got
any worse, if anything some have got better, but I have changed.
By this route I come to those who keep launching assaults on
science fiction. I’d call it self-flagellation because often these people are ‘in’
the SF world, but for the fact that many of those attacking don’t actually
write the stuff. Science fiction is dying or dead, it’s no longer relevant
because of the accelerated pace of technological change (how could it not be
more relevant?), and the latest one ‘science fiction is exhausted’ - based on some Best SF collections so generalizing from the specific and ignoring Sturgeon's Law.
Moving on to the stuff about it being relevant in the rapidly
changing world: How can someone read recent books like Windup Girl or Quantum
Thief and dismiss them as irrelevant? Who says a requisite of SF is that it has
to be relevant? The job of a writer is first to write books and then to sell them.
The main requisite of the latter is to make them entertaining, and for them to
be that, for an SF reader, requires a good story that can suspend disbelief,
world building, the zing of technology and science and that essential
sensawunda.
Now let’s go back to ‘science fiction is dying, or dead’
(yawn). I’ve been here before with this
here,
here and
here but the neatest way of putting this in perspective is
via a link provided by Gary Farber in response to my, "I'm betting there was some
plonker declaring the death of SF the moment Sputnik beeped or just after Neil
Armstrong stepped onto the Moon."
Who Killed Science Fiction? won the Hugo Award for Best
Fanzine in 1961. The Fifties were rife with talk about the death of science
fiction, and Earl Kemp's symposia of so many sf pros and prominent fans summed
it all up.
If science fiction was dead back in the 50s and 60s, why does it
still seem so mobile now? If it was dying back then why isn’t it dead now? And
really, science fiction is nowhere as near as exhausted as the perpetual
wanking on about its decline.
Let’s have a little list: Iain M Banks, Alastair Reynolds,
Peter F Hamilton, Adam Roberts, Ted Chiang, C J Cherryh, Peter Watts, Gary
Gibson, Jon Courtenay Grimwood, Ken McLeod, Neil Gaiman, Paolo Bacigalupi, Jeff
Noon, Kim Stanley Robinson, Greg Egan, Hannu Rajaniemi, Stephen Baxter, Sheri
S. Tepper, Elizabeth Bear, Paul J. McAuley, Ian McDonald Greg Bear, David Brin, Orson Scott Card, Cory
Doctorow, John Meaney, John Scalzi, Kristine Kathryn Rusch … I could go on. Now,
as far as I know these are all still alive (though I don’t keep up with my
Ansible obituaries) and are still producing stuff people want to read. Whether
or not they are exhausted I don’t know, whether or not the fiction they produce
is dying, exhausted or dead I leave to you to decide.
All these attacks on science fiction are utterly subjective and ultimately pointless because, in the
end, they tell us more about the one writing than the fiction they are writing
about (much like many reviews). Perhaps they loved science fiction once and
could suspend disbelief, and now, just like me watching Crickley Hall, it simply
is not pressing the right buttons any more. Maybe they have changed.
Because you feel you have read it all before doesn’t mean
others have and equally, just because you might have become more discerning and sophisticated doesn’t
mean others are. Just because you are suffering ennui and have lost the
credulity and optimism of youth doesn’t mean others have. Just because you are
inured to wonder, and can no longer find that vital sensawunda, doesn’t mean it
has disappeared, dried up, been exhausted.
Maybe the next time somebody feels the urge to write
something about the terminal decline of SF, they should consider that the 'crisis' is in the eyes that behold, and take a long hard look
at themselves first.