Dead again
Wouldn't you know it? Science fiction is dead again! Or so says Bruno Maddox in this piece posted at the Discover magazine site, which includes a rather contemptuous but not wholly inaccurate description of the SFWA suite at the last Nebs.
I wonder why it is that some people seem to invest such importance in declaring the death or irrelevance of science fiction? Beneath the cynicism and sarcasm is a bit of . . . what? Envy? Fear? In the latest issue of New Scientist, for example, Jeanette Winterson states in a (firewalled) interview that "I hate science fiction," except for when it's written by "good" writers like Jim Crace and Margaret Atwood, then gushes about her forthcoming novel, in which "[a] girl builds a multi-gendered robot, which then kills her parents because it sees them mistreat her, so they both go on the run." But don't call it science fiction!
But I digress.
Maddox's screed sets Verne and Wells in opposition as proponents of what we've come to call hard and soft sf, then points to . . . wait for it . . . Michael Crichton as the poster boy for the failures of modern sf to engage with contemporary science and the world. In the 90s, quoth Maddox, "fiction—all fiction—finally became obsolete as a delivery system for big ideas." Not only that, he writes, but "[t]he world is speeding up . . . and the natural human curiosity that science fiction was invented to meet is increasingly being met by reality."
Well, I'm somewhat more sympathetic to this latter viewpoint, though not to the extent of reading it over the grave of an entire genre.