Thanks for that ‘tac. I have to admit - begrudgingly - that it’s a good piece. Begrudgingly because my interactions with Ian on the LT SF threads were not always felicitous, so I’m not automatically favorably disposed to him. But he’s right about his central concern, and his grounding in SF history is solid if not admirable.

I would quibble over one sentence, but he probably just phrased his thought poorly: “[size=125]US science fiction should not be a tool to promote the injustices and inequalities of US society. Its worlds should fit its stories.”

For one thing, I don’t think promote is quite the intended word here. Perhaps there’s a secondary sense in which promote means something like “call attention to”, but I think he’s really looking for something like “rue” or “critique”.

More interesting to me is the question of whether it is meaningful to speak about and to classify novels by the nationality of the author, or by their gender. I’m not convinced there is such a thing as “US science fiction”. To me it’s a rather arbitrary lumping.

But I think these are footnotes in a point-well-taken essay. I’m also interested in his final point. It is true that there’s little drama in a utopia, and novels need drama. Some of the best novelists have struggled with this problem . Aldous Huxley in his final novel Island  - a counterpoint to the dystopian Brave New World - comes to mind. How does one write great stories in an exceptionally good society, except by making it less good, or by focusing less on the society? 
please excuse my formatting. I’ve had trouble with this board on mobile devices.[/size]

 

Surtac wrote:

Yes, I think any of recognise, acknowledge, highlight. or demonstrate might be better word choices than promote.

My own occasional past interactions with Sales, usually via Twitter in its early days, were generally harmonious though it was obvious his opinions could be bounded by hard and sharp edges.  In hindsight I concluded he's likely on the spectrum further on from me but not as obviously ASD as my daughters.

I take your point about 'US science fiction' as a grouping.  I'd argue 'US science fiction market' would be a better taxonomy.  I recall an Indian SF author saying he didn't pursue markets outside India because his own home market by itself was big / huge enough to ensure him a comfortable living.  I suspect China might be similar.

Re utopias and drama, didn't Larry Niven say he only wrote one story set in the golden age period of his Known Space future history because it was too boring otherwise?

 

I may be biased, and I know I resist these sorts of generalizations, but I don’t think even “The US market” as applied to SF readers is at all accurate. He was using it to describe some sort of bubble the writers are in regarding future technocorparate dystopias. It was fairly specific. But regardless, it’s not like we consumers located in the “US market” don’t read the good novels you read in Oz. We read Ian McDonald and your sturdy John Birmingham and Banks and Reynolds and Stross and Tchaikovsky and Adam Roberts and one of your very favorites Ken Macleod….and US writers read too - it’s a globalized reading market. Maybe not in India and China, but in the English-speaking (English-reading?) world. I just think this point of view may be Sales' distortion. Which doesn't take away from the main point, but it detaches it from nationality, which I think makes it stronger. I mean does he really want to say something about the US (whigh, being a country, has many flaws and strengths, and currently globally may be seen more for the latter than was the case a half century ago )? Or does he want to say something about releasing the imagination to dream bigger and more freely?

i suspect you are right about Sales, makes sense.

I don’t recall the Niven quote, but it also makes a lot of sense!
 

Surtac wrote:

Ah. Now that makes sense,  When I am thinking 'the 'US market' I am thinking more US publishers than US readers or writers.  Are the writers producing what the publishers want or what their readers want? I suspect its the former..  The real question then is , why?

And how much influence do editors have on shaping product from writers?

 

These are interesting questions, and I certainly don’t know the answers. We’ve talked many times about the incentives for CJC to write more Foreigner books. This saddens me. Writers should write what they are moved to write, but it’s not so simple.

i got the impression that Sales was referring to writers. He didn’t seem to address the role of publishers. And we could all name many many recent SF novels that don’t follow the pattern at issue.