Comments on: A Procrustean Approach to Science Fiction

By: Omar E. Vega

Omar E. Vega — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:05:16 +0000

Once upon a time, science was full of fantasy. The phylosophers’ stone, the four elements and Aristotles physics had all to be forced out of racionality, before that branch of human thought could grow and mature.
Today, the same childish playing with fantasy has flood especulative fiction, to the point more serious works can’t be seen above the crowd. It is time some define well what is really especulating with scientific facts, rationality and reality, and what are only childish tales for adults.
Verne would be proud of “mundanes”. I bet.

Omar Vega

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:46:53 +0000

Good entry.

For good mundane Sci-Fi I’ve been hyped about Cory Doctorow’s stuff lately. I don’t know much about him other than internet rumour (he’s more powerful than cthulu, wields a copyright hammer of justice and flying shoes of internet publishing)

I just read Cory Doctorow’s Fiction About An Evil Google (wonder if that link will work) and it falls into the mundane sci-fi category. However, I agree with your premise, that every time you exclude some sort of writing as “not good enough” you miss something potentially great.

By: WhatTheCast? :: Episode 11: The Far Side of Indy 4 in Space!

WhatTheCast? :: Episode 11: The Far Side of Indy 4 in Space! — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:49:02 +0000

[...] Science! Stephen talks about the improbability of space colonization. [...]

By: James Nicoll

James Nicoll — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:52:39 +0000

What makes the Mundane SF worse for me is that the people involved clearly don’t have the basic knowledge to write the stuff. The post-oil, spring-loaded world was just agonizing to finish.

By: Joyous

Joyous — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:48:38 +0000

I’d much rather read a good story than worry about whether it’s “mundane” enough. If the writer can make me *believe* in aliens and FTL travel, they’ve done their job.