Mundane?

[Jon George]

I have to vent some anger here about a ‘development’ in SF.

Some time ago, I belatedly got my finger out and joined the BSFA, who kindly sent me some back issues of their magazines. One of which had articles about a new branch of SF that had been named as Mundane. I thought it was a joke. Now, let me be very clear here, my beef isn’t with the idea (everything roughly within the bounds of physics and biology as we know it), as it provides for a wonderfully terrifying platform for the proposition that we may all actually be stuck here in our little bit of space and thus might be tempted to take more care of it. No, my spleen is vexed by the stupid name. I am restricted by the rules of this forum from using the words I want to describe how I feel, but I can tell you they are mostly Anglo-Saxon in origin. Why? Here’s a conversation that I can easily envisage:

“Hi, Bert, what’s that you’re reading?”
“The latest Mundane science fiction.”
Pregnant pause.
“Mundane? Oh, well, good for you. To be honest, I must admit that I like my books to be a little bit interesting.”
Ha, thinks Bert smugly as his friend walks away, there’s someone else who’s not in the know. He can’t be a true SF fan if he doesn’t know what Mundane is all about.

And this isn’t just me. I regularly – every Wednesday – drink with a friend that knows which issues of Spiderman the flick-book images come from in the beginning of the films, another that has a frightening in-depth knowledge of Doctor Who, and yet another is a Star trek fan. They all think such a name is idiotic.

Using Mundane as a description for a subgenre of SF is an example of clique mentality that makes me want to spit. I even detect a slight whiff of deliberate antagonism just for the sake of it – which is even worse. If the SF is going to be limited to this bit of the universe, why didn’t the instigators of this name choose something more accessible like Sol Science Fiction? At least then it could be abbreviated to SSF.

[Foxbat]

It does seem a bit silly and somewhat clique-ish. I'd have thought they wanted to spread the word a bit to a wider audience and not limit themselves at being the only ones sniggering at their (not very funny) attempt at humour.

[Nesacat]

Does seem very limiting especially given the connotations that word has come to have.

I think they are doing themselves a disservice if they mean to draw more people into the genre.

[Joel007]

I just wouldn't refer to it as mundane. How about normal? standard? realistic? Who makes up the genres anyway? It should boil down to a general consensus rather than an individual's decision.

[Ian Whates]

'Mundane SF' is actually a term that has been around for a while -- Geoff Ryman being one of its champions. In fact, an edition of Interzone is being planned for next year dedicated to 'Mundane SF', and Geoff is involved in editing it.

Whilst I agree this is not perhaps the most exciting label, it is firmly established and unlikely to change. When I first heard the term 'Space Opera' I detested it, since it conjured up on the one hand images of robust Valkyrie-like women singing their hearts out and on the other depressing, repetitious TV soaps. Neither were images I tended to associate with SF.

Now, of course, I hear 'Space Opera' and think nothing of it. I suspect it'll be the same with 'Mundane': if the label sticks around for long enough, we'll all get used to the word and simply accept it.

[iansales]

In fandom, non-fans are referred to as "mundanes". I suspect the name was chosen from that as a joke.

[Interference]

Mundane: of or pertaining to this world or earth as contrasted with heaven.

I know you probably realise this, though some contributors might not immediately make that connection, so I though it bore repetition. I know the word has other connotations, but so do a lot of words. Some creatively-minded folk often like to try and remind readers of a word's origins and I think this is just one more example.

In the end, many words lose or transform their meanings. Frankly, the prospect of it makes me feel quite gay.

[Dexter]

Intersesting. I've never heard of this subgenre. Seems to be the polar opposite of space opera, doesn't it? Mundane SF is a tad unfortunate, IMO, as it lacks a bit of the charm of, say, cyberpunk.

Anyone willing to recommend a good mundane story?

[Anthony G Williams]

I've not come across the term before, but if it describes SF which is limited to known science then I've seen that described as "hard SF". So that would presumably include space travel - but only slower-than-light, by a means of propulsion which is theoretically possible today. Or does it mean something different?

[Jon George]

So, mundane also means ‘of this world’. I now feel like an intellectual muppet with the vocabulary of an artichoke. Suitably abashed, I hope my feelings of inferiority in regard to the people with a broader grasp of English than I who devised this subgenre – and gave it such a clever name – will get some satisfaction from depressing me. Of course, it does only seem to reinforce my initial interpretation that such a subgenre will develop into an incredible clique. I too, occasionally lament the loss of original meaning to words (try saying you have sympathies for Anarchism and see the response), but I think that presumably knowing that such confusion would undoubtedly occur, means the instigators should have the decency to feel a little shame.

[size=4][font=Times New Roman]Ian: I have been aware of Interzone’s intention to devote an entire issue to Mundane fiction for some time – it’s the reason I don’t intend to renew my subscription. I just don’t want that particular copy dropping through my post-box, even though its true meaning has been explained here to me. (I detest the term that much.) And I had the same response to yours when I first heard about space opera. I still have it.

[manephelien]

Good question. Can't say I'm overly fond of the term myself, although it's certainly descriptive. Down on earth, or if we're lucky including the solar system, as opposed to up in the sky/galaxy/universe.

I guess a lot of techno-thrillers such as those written by Clive Cussler and Dan Brown (Digital Fortress, Deception Point) might qualify? They've usually only slightly advanced tech progress, but are set more or less in the era they're written in. I'm not saying these books are necessarily good, however.

[iansales]

I think most of you have misunderstood what Mundane SF is. It's not a sub-genre, it's not a descriptive label for a type of science fiction or techno-thriller. It's a Movement. Like the New Wave was. This wikipedia article lays out its aims quite well, but what its proponents are essentially saying is that we're concentrating on the furniture to such an extent that we've forgotten what sf is really about. We've turned it into an action-adventure genre tricked out with sfx. So let's put away the toys, the rocketships & rayguns, and trying writing stuff that actually does what sf is supposed to do.

[Jon George]

Originally Posted by iansales

I think most of you have misunderstood what Mundane SF is ... let's put away the toys, the rocketships & rayguns, and trying writing stuff that actually does what sf is supposed to do.

I've only misunderstood the double meaning of the name. I think the aims are excellent - it''s just a stupid name.

[Anthony G Williams]

Originally Posted by iansales

I think most of you have misunderstood what Mundane SF is. It's not a sub-genre, it's not a descriptive label for a type of science fiction or techno-thriller. It's a Movement. Like the New Wave was. This wikipedia article lays out its aims quite well, but what its proponents are essentially saying is that we're concentrating on the furniture to such an extent that we've forgotten what sf is really about. We've turned it into an action-adventure genre tricked out with sfx. So let's put away the toys, the rocketships & rayguns, and trying writing stuff that actually does what sf is supposed to do.

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.

I can see that there might be a market for such material, but I would be alarmed if it became a dominant force in SF. The novel which first drew me into SF - and which I regard as one of the all-time classics - is Bester's The Stars My Destination. The Wiki definition of Mundane SF would appear to exclude that as 'not what SF is really about' (as you put it), so I don't think much of the new movement.

[Dexter]

I've checked out the helpful link and I've a somewhat better grasp, but to be sure:

Would I be right in saying Mundane science fiction is a non-speculative form of science fiction?

This thread has been most enlightening. Very cool.