One is that good writing is the surest way to triumph over history. In my post I compare The Space Merchants with 1984, two SF dystopias that came out around about the same time. One is still read today, in fact is a vital part of the political and literary space, while the other is nearly forgotten, even by SF fans (although it got a well-deserved airing as part of the SF Masterworks series). I think it would be wrong to suggest that the thematic content of 1984 is more vital to us than The Space Merchants – the tyranny of commercialisation and consumerism portrayed in The Space Merchants is every bit as telling as Orwell’s Big Brother.

I think the key difference between these works is the depth of characterisation – Winston Smith is a very real person, and his reactions to his circumstances speak to us far more deeply than what happens to the larky hipster Mitch Courtenay in The Space Merchants. So, the difference is in the actual quality of the writing – well-written books are, by and large, better remembered than poorly written ones.

I think that the techno futurist type writers that Gillis holds up as “the modern mellieu of SF writers” almost wilfully ignores what’s really going on in the genre, both within the genre and the way it’s approached by mainstream literary types. These guys – Vinge, Stross, Doctorow etc – represent a tiny fraction of the SF audience, which is more concerned with secondary worlds and, to a lesser extent perhaps, the allegorical/maetaphorical stuff that he claims is on the decline. In fact, mainstream practitioners of SF -Atwood, Will Self, Cormac McCarthy – write pretty much exclusively within this allegorical space.

I expand on all this at great length here: http://philosophicalasides.blogspot.com/2010/01/science-fiction-old-and-new.html

Is it cool to link like that? It seems preferable to just reproducing my screed here!

Are your imaginative powers really so weak that what they call the calculating machine, or how they get around town, or the clothing styles they wear can put you off?

Are yours so weak that the only reason you can imagine for people liking different stuff to you is some sort of mental defect or weakness? Seriously man, I have a lot of respect for some of your arguments, but you really need to stop taking it so personally when people don’t like the same authors as you; you’d find everyone took you a lot more seriously as a result.

No one’s talking about legitimacy here. Try this rule of thumb: unless explicitly declared to the contrary, anyone talking about science fiction’s appeal, style, content or history is expressing a personal preference. No one wants to start a pogrom, come round your house and burn your Asimov collection, OK? If you really want to convince people that your own viewpoint is worth considering, try laying off the insults and get-off-my-lawn crap. You’re in danger of becoming a cartoon of your own nom-de-plume.

Sorry if that was a bit blunt, but hey, it’s 8am on Monday morning and you were near the top of my email queue. To be clear: I’d love to read more comments from you, as you’ve the knowledge and experience of the older end of the genre that I (and many others) don’t have. But I’d appreciate you treating the opinions of others with the respect you feel your own deserve. Cool?

How is it that some can read modern Steampunk – but find AC Doyle too dated? How is it that some can watch LOST, and turn it into a hit, but turn up their noses at Foundation? (Niche? Asimov is a niche?!?)

What the F is wrong with you people? It’s make believe! Sometimes it’s closely controlled and right-now very believable make believe, sometimes it’s wrong that-didn’t-happen make believe and sometimes it’s maybe-kinda make believe and sometimes it’s just-plain-crazy-fun make believe. None of it is any more legitimate than any other, regardless of what era it comes from.

Are your imaginative powers really so weak that what they call the calculating machine, or how they get around town, or the clothing styles they wear can put you off?