Well, artistic formalism is exactly what we're about--for a good number of reasons, most of which are political/philosophical which is why someone has to sign on to be Mundane. I'll elaborate on the blog later this weekend. I've got to go visit family for the weekend. The following page on the site probably answers some of your questions (we even critiqued ourselves long before we showed the manifesto outside the group):
http://www.mundanesf.com/default.asp?id=11&mnu=11
A teaser:
"Why does Hawking refer to the classics of SF as 'space westerns?' How did the nom de plume of fiction about science come to mean fiction not about science? Who hasn't heard reporters question a scientist if such-and-such theory were real or science fiction? "
The site indirectly answers some of the points Charles Stross raised, i.e. at what date is Mundane SF null and void. If you grab the philosophy first, then you can see how we're less interested predicting the future than getting people to face some of the difficult aspects of our future (Earth, for instance, will probably be affected by global warming 500+ years from now, depending upon who's figuring the climate system). At the same time, we want people to get excited about what science and technology are already projected to do rather make wild guesses about time travel.
If you look at our manifesto, you'll see we've left a clause open to write whatever speculative fiction we want, but then it won't be Mundane. Again, the key point is the philosophy of why we're rejecting the tropes. Of course, some are free not to want to read or write any other kind of SF. Lots more wiggle room.
Take care.
But, Patrick, I don't think you mean that. Would you say that Robert Frost, because he insisted on playing with the net up, didn't/can't do art? (If you don't care for Frost, maybe I can think up someone else.) Can Hard SF not be art? Mundane SF is no different than Hard SF except more inclusive on subject matter while more stingy on tropes.
Besides, though it has been a few years, I think you have a general understanding of where I stand on art.
Your old Clarion student,
Trent
Patrick,
I'm in 100% agreement.
(In fact, you've even tempted me to write: "Slaughter the bastards!" but I'll restrain my blood-letting impulses.)
Hi, Patrick,
"The temptation is to remark 'don't sprain your shoulder patting yourself on the back.' But that's a bit too mean. "
In my experience of "real life" as opposed to "theoretical life," defending the unpopular is not automatically viewed as a good thing. Perhaps you are right that some of the unpopular should not be defended. The comment was meant to explain that my response may be best viewed as a gut reaction instead of a defence of at all costs--"if I can understand them" being the operative phrase.
Regarding the pressure people put on you as human beings due to your editorial positions, no additional pressure was meant. I happen to enjoy literary discourse over other kinds. I appreciate y'all's political dedication as well, which I follow, but I am a little more conflicted and slip into literary discourse more easily.
If you guys do decide to quit the biz and become florists or cement-mixers or even a lowly research technicians like myself, I'll still mosey over here for literary chats. In fact, a group of us cement-mixers spend much time chatting about literary matters all over the spectrum at s1ngularity.blogspot.com, but it waxes and wanes. Very little political chatter, however.
Hope the illness has finished its course and your immune systems are better fortified. Take care.
I always find your blogs worth reading, btw. It's great to have the insight of an editor. We probably don't thank you enough, so multiple thank-yous for not only posting them but also responding. You put a human face on publishing, and I'm sorry that people sometimes take advantage of that for abuse.
The letter to you did sound condescending, and the resultant impulse is wholly understandable. After all, Yngve wrote difficult material to swallow without raising hackles as he himself acknowledged, but I do think it's worthwhile to try to peer through the veil to see if he had made a point worth considering, and I thought he had. But maybe I was reading into his comments.
Although he "was deliberately provoking a reaction," I don't think he meant to offend any particular person, for he wrote:
"Good points, all. I'm preaching to the choir. :)"
However, I have a tendency to try to understand the unpopular and--if I can understand--to stick up for them.
I was going to post about Yngve but, when I finished, figured it belonged Patrick's thread.
Take care.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2005 | 3 |
| 2004 | 6 |
| 2003 | 3 |
Total: 12 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Trent Walters:
Show all comments by Trent Walters.