Mundane?

[Anthony G Williams]

Originally Posted by Anthony G Williams

It seems to be writing SF while wearing a straight-jacket.

Ouch - that'll teach me to post while half-asleep in the middle of the night...should be 'strait-jacket', of course. Why does the edit function disappear, mutter, grumble...

[iansales]

Originally Posted by Anthony G Williams

OK, got it now, thanks for the link. I'm tempted to suggest (tongue in cheek) that an alternative name might be 'Boring SF'; that might be a little unkind, but 'Mundane' certainly seems appropriate. It seems to be writing SF while wearing a straight-jacket; in fact, if it's limited to 'believable use of technology and science as it exists at the time the story is written', the problem might not be in defining it in terms of SF, but in distinguishing it from mainstream non-SF.

Like Jon George, I agree with the objective of Mundane SF, but I also agree that restricting what can and cannot be used in a story is not the way to do it. Encouraging people to look beyond action-adventure in space, or refighting World War II / the Napoleonic Wars / the Vietnam War against aliens is definitely something worth aiming for...

[Neal Asher]

This whole idea of creating 'policy statements' for the kind of SF you produce, or intend to produce, or would like others to produce strikes me as incredibly self-import. Another case of swollen ego and writers disappearing up their own backsides. This usually happens when writers start to take themselves far too seriously and feel they must dictate what their readers should want to read - around about the same time they start complaining to their publishers or agents about low sales, because the writers in question have forgotten the golden rule of entertain first and proselytize last, if at all.

[Jon George]

Originally Posted by Neal Asher

... the writers in question have forgotten the golden rule of entertain first and proselytize last, if at all.

Nuff said.

(I did try posting a longer reply, yesterday, but for some reason it had to be moderated.)

[iansales]

Originally Posted by Neal Asher

This whole idea of creating 'policy statements' for the kind of SF you produce, or intend to produce, or would like others to produce strikes me as incredibly self-import. Another case of swollen ego and writers disappearing up their own backsides. This usually happens when writers start to take themselves far too seriously and feel they must dictate what their readers should want to read - around about the same time they start complaining to their publishers or agents about low sales, because the writers in question have forgotten the golden rule of entertain first and proselytize last, if at all.

Well, don't be too critical. Movements with agenda like this gave us both the New Wave and cyberpunk, and both have had a positive effect on the genre. In fact, if you go right back to the genre's beginnings with Hugo Gernsback and Amazing Stories, he believed science fiction should be as much didactic as entertaining.

[Neal Asher]

I have to disagree. Both of those were labels applied after the fact and not pompous declarations of intent. Of course you can be didactic, but not at the cost of being entertaining. And writers should never ever take themselves so seriously. Because they happen to be good at writing fiction doesn't mean their opinion about anything else is worth a damn.

[iansales]

Er, cyberpunk came out of the Movement, and that certainly had a manifesto. The New Wave... well, I wasn't old enough to read then, so I don't know how it was presented :-)

Isn't Mundane SF based on the opinions of a group of writers about writing sf? I'd certainly hope their opinion has value on that subject.

[Moogle]

Excuse me for butting in, but since when has science/speculative fiction ever been considered 'mundane'? Mary Shelley's Frankenstein mundane? H.G. Wells or Jules Verne mundane? Sorry I seem to have forgotten that science fiction has always been about exciting stories rooted in a bit of real world knowledge and then expounded upon, or rather it seems as though these 'mundane writers' have forgotten.

The only reason why Science Fiction is popular today is thanks to the pulps and the B-movies. Mass-market hack work obviously, but it's what the public loves.

[Jon George]

I did promise to Brian – sort of – when I joined this group, that I wouldn’t post after being at the pub, but I am a writer, so I suppose I am a professional liar. I’m heartened by the majority of the responses so far to this thread, and decided to do a totally unscientific straw-poll among the locals by asking them what they thought mundane meant. There were some brilliant dry comments about the state of the pub, the landlady, and of some of the people drinking there, but there was no-one who was aware of its other meaning. When I explained, the general response was initially one of surprise, then a suspicious look, then some expletives expressing what they thought about writers playing such word games. From this limited exercise – but boosted by my experience of life – not one in a thousand people will appreciate such subtlety.

To all of those involved in this Movement – oh, why am I thinking about my bowels at this moment? – I wish you the best.

I strongly suggest you change the name and join the real world where sales are dependent on treating your readers like adults and not playing at being members of intellectual cliques.

[littlemissattitude]

I wandered over and read the wikipedia entry...my first reaction is that it isn't science fiction they are describing, but fiction about science. The two are not the same thing at all, in my opinion. Yes, a particular story might take place in the future, but I also disagree with the folks (not anyone around here necessarily, but some places and some people I talk to) who think that just because a story is set in the future that makes it, by definition, science fiction.

Of course, I'm not that thrilled with the whole naming of subgenres to begin with. I am, of course, familiar with the argument that it helps readers find the kinds of stories they like. I don't think that is necessarily a good thing...what's wrong with picking up something to read that isn't in one of one's pet genres and getting a wider experience of the literature?

Just my two cents' worth, of course.

[pie'oh'pah]

I am always trying to spark the interest of various members of my circle of family and friends with my latest science fiction find. I don't think the label of 'Mundane' would help very much.

Apart from anything else I find the whole Mundane ethos just a bit depressing.

[HardScienceFan]

Quoi?
According to the Mundane Manifesto, mundane science fiction is science fiction which does not make use of interstellar travel or other "common tropes" of the genre.

which themes,then?

[Dexter]

Makes me wonder too. Lets cut out all the fun and exciting stuff and replace it with... real life?I dunno. I guess it does sound mundane. I'd rather read sf.

[Foxbat]

Whatever the meaning or intent of Mundane - simple fact is that somebody looking to read SF for ther first time is likely to look at the title of this sub-genre and say "I don't think I'll bother,"

Why couldn't they called it something like "Extrapolative SF? Of This Earth?
Working Class SF? or Reality SF?" Anything but Mundane.

The truth is, unfortunately, most folk do work on first impressions.

Also, people read and entertain themselves to escape the mundane.

Anyway, that's what I think as I look out from my mundane little world

[iansales]

It's not a sub-genre. It's not a descriptive label. It's a group of writers who have decided that sf has become too fond of special effects. The word "mundane" I suspect was chosen because non-fans are known in fandom as "mundanes".