# Mundane?



## Jon George (Jul 24, 2007)

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 (Jul 24, 2007)

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 (Jul 24, 2007)

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 (Jul 24, 2007)

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 (Jul 24, 2007)

'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 (Jul 24, 2007)

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


----------



## Interference (Jul 24, 2007)

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 (Jul 24, 2007)

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 (Jul 24, 2007)

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 (Jul 24, 2007)

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. 

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 (Jul 24, 2007)

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 (Jul 24, 2007)

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 (Jul 24, 2007)

iansales said:


> 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 (Jul 25, 2007)

iansales said:


> 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 (Jul 25, 2007)

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.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Jul 25, 2007)

Anthony G Williams said:


> 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 (Jul 25, 2007)

Anthony G Williams said:


> 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 (Jul 25, 2007)

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 (Jul 25, 2007)

Neal Asher said:


> ... 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 (Jul 25, 2007)

Neal Asher said:


> 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 (Jul 25, 2007)

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 (Jul 25, 2007)

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 (Jul 25, 2007)

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 (Jul 26, 2007)

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 (Jul 26, 2007)

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 (Jul 26, 2007)

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 (Jul 26, 2007)

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 (Jul 26, 2007)

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 (Jul 26, 2007)

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 (Jul 26, 2007)

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".


----------



## Neal Asher (Jul 26, 2007)

I think it is all, yet again, that portion of the SFF world ashamed of what they do, ashamed of their genre, and who want recognition from the 'mainstream'. Puleease, I don't do that squids in space nonesense, please please notice me, please take me seriously. I've seen far too much of it and it makes me weary. Choosing the label 'Mundane' and then making a statement of policy is an attempt to be clever, but it's not, it's being blinded by self-importance to what dragged readers into the SFF world in the first place and it is painfully pretentious. But by all means let them produce their mundane fiction and let the market decide. I'll meanwhile draw up proposals for my fourth three-book contract of exploding spaceships space opera with a major publisher and keep struggling to supply those other publishers who want my stuff because it sells. Ho hum.


----------



## Ian Whates (Jul 26, 2007)

I love reading _all _types of science fiction. Which does not mean I like all science fiction, not by any means; there's plenty of rubbish and poor SF out there which still manages to get published, somehow... but that's an entirely different thread. 

Neal Asher, who has contributed extensively to this thread, is one of the very best around at writing modern, high-tempo, action-packed space opera-style SF. He delivers entertainment in spades with every book he writes. Geoff Ryman, one of the champions of 'Mundane' SF, writes slower-paced, thoughtful and thought-provoking work, which is invariably admired as much by critics as by his readers.

Me? I enjoy reading them both. Hang labels, sub-genres, movements or any other form of pigeon-hole. A good book is a good book, period.

Sorry, maybe I just suffer from a simplistic world-view.


----------



## iansales (Jul 26, 2007)

If they were ashamed of being sf writers, why would they call it Mundane *SF*? Geoff Ryman is hardly ashamed of being a genre writer - *The Child Garden* is in the SF Masterworks series, after all. And *Interzone *is doing a Mundane SF special next year - the Mundane SF people wouldn't have agreed to that if they were trying to distance themselves from science fiction.

While Mundane SF almost certainly won't have the commercial impact of exploding spaceships space opera, it will in all likelihood create something that will be fed back into the genre and will enrich it. That's what happened with the New Wave and the Movement.
It often seems written sf is becoming too much like media sf - shallow and all special effects. Maybe we need a clarion call like Mundane SF.


----------



## steve12553 (Jul 26, 2007)

I didn't thoroughly read the whole thread, (I need to get to work soon) but _mundane_ merely means grounded or Earth bound. I think the reference is to the setting rather than the quality of the work. It doesn't so much mean ordinary as it means taking place or existing in an ordinary setting. On one hand the meaning is quite accurate and I've really enjoyed certain  _mundane_ works of Science Fiction. On the other hand the word has developed such a bad connotation in recent years _mundane_ Science Fiction would never sell.


----------



## Neal Asher (Jul 26, 2007)

So really, it should be write a good book and let the book sellers do the genre pigeon-holing so readers know which shelf to head for. Those who enjoy Geoff Ryman won't be looking for a 'mundane' label, they'll be looking for the author's name.

As for the New Wave feeding back into the genre and enriching it, that's something many writers of the time disputed and I would dispute now. Odd how well SF magazines sold before the New Wave and how they went into terminal decline during it, of course it was all about costs, wasn't it? Yeah, right.


----------



## HardScienceFan (Jul 26, 2007)

categorizing is for marketing purposes only.
most _*authors*_ don't bother with labels,thank god
according to most labels _*Japan*_ would be
arthouse jazzy avantgarde new romantic pop synth disco crossover fretless 
Weltschmerz world music


----------



## Neal Asher (Jul 26, 2007)

Steve12553, then, doesn't the usage of 'mundane' here display either an ignorance or a contempt of common usage? In fact a cliquey disregard of those who use the word in its more accepted sense?

Anyway, reading up on the New Wave I see that, as I thought, Mundane is not much different. Give it another twenty years and someone will think of the New Mundane. Waves upon waves...


----------



## Who's Wee Dug (Jul 27, 2007)

HardScienceFan said:


> categorizing is for marketing purposes only.
> most _*authors*_ don't bother with labels,thank god
> according to most labels _*Japan*_ would be
> arthouse jazzy avantgarde new romantic pop synth disco crossover fretless
> Weltschmerz world music


*With a bit of headbanging thrown in.*


----------

