Written by The Lurker | 08 June 2005

Firstly, an admission: I've never been a fan of science fiction – you'll probably notice that as we go.

Okay, I did the spotty teenage stuff of watching Star Trek and I read some books by Heinlein and Asimov, and enjoyed 2001: A Space Odyssey, but the genre isn't for me. So how did I get to be here? Well, I heard about The Specusphere when a colleague mentioned it in the office a few weeks back. He'd previously talked about Visions in glowing terms, and I'd viewed that publication a few times and been mildly impressed by the range of articles on offer.

I was given The Specusphere URL and decided to drop in. It appealed to my sense of adventure, my sense of experimentation, and its definition of what speculative fiction is fired me up a bit. Speculative fiction? What an ugly term! Can't somebody do something about that? And what exactly is it anyway? There doesn't seem to be any agreed definition. Fantastic Queensland define it as:

... all non-factual narrative, in whatever form, that reflects alternative realities in some way. It embraces science fiction, horror, fantasy, and other genres that deal with the possibilities outside normal existence

http://www.fantasticqueensland.com/s_whatIsIt.htm

Like Tom and Jerry?

Anyway, I saw that the editors wanted commentators, reporters and writers so I thought I'd contact the nice Mr Editor and enquire within.

After a few emails (in which the editor appeared to become increasingly exasperated as I bombarded him with questions), we agreed I'd do a series of articles on what email lists talk about. Actually, the by now almost-nasty Mr Editor told me to '— just f****** do something!' (Not his exact words, I might add, but I thought I'd better produce something rather than risk raising his blood pressure with more questions) 'Do what the hell you want,' he said. 'Just don't name names and keep your criticism relevant.'

'But I want to be anonymous,' I said meekly (powdered anthrax in the fan mail envelope didn't appeal). 'You can be,' he muttered into my Inbox.

So, over the last few weeks, I've listened and read and it's with a kind of infantile Schadenfreude that I can report that SF (that's a compromise I can make) email lists have a fair share of sycophants who humbly beg at the feet of American journals. They seem to be still caught up by the cultural cringe, craving recognition from our US masters.

A check of the Vision list archives showed that, not so long ago, they had a series of caterwauls about the lack of representation of Aussies in US magazines. A little later (i.e., as I write), a few seriously chuffed personalities are basking in the recognition bestowed upon them by a US publication.

At the same time, there was hardly a murmur about those who made it to the pages of an Australian publication that rejoices in the wonderful name of Andromeda Spaceways Inflight Magazine.

So, what's so good about US publication? It seems as if it is all a matter of recognition. You get seen in the right places and your writing career chugs up a notch – fifteen minutes of fame isn't just a celluloid dream – it's celebrity status all round. What's next? The Who Weekly for sfers?

I queried Stephen (I was now on first name terms with the editor) about which US SF magazines were the pinnacles of success. One he mentioned was Asimov's. I went out and bought the June issue from a city newsagency.

Well, talk about self-conscious writing! I enjoyed a Silverberg (a name I recognised from my fleeting affair with the genre) article, ostensibly about US wowserism, and a short story about an ice cream van was mildly interesting (if liberally splashed with awful expositional dialogue), but, guys, if this is what Australian writers aspire to then you're looking in the wrong direction! All the stories in Asimov's had a deja vu feel to the writing – it had the same tone, timbre and ambiance as stories from the 50s and 60s.

And they were all about future times. Sorry, Stephen, but your claim that SF is:

... as deeply cut from social realism as any other kind of literature. It does it by encoding the real world into "dream images" and hides reality under a blanket of allegory and symbol.

(A glimpse behind the words – Specusphere archives)

... is just plain hype. If Asimov's is anything to go by, then SF is just what I thought it was: mindlessly bad story telling and writing that is devoid of subtlety and hasn't progressed in 50 years.

Sorry if I'm getting too personal. Sorry if I'm being too critical. But you did want opinions. I won't mind if you don't publish this. I realise you have a clientele to keep happy. (All in all, you're just another brick in the wall. I have no problems with criticism and I'm sure the speculative fiction community doesn't either – ed). So maybe I should give you a plug.

Why are SF writers so hung up on getting US coverage? Why don't you support your local publications? There seems to be a few around for fiction but, from what I gather, they struggle to survive. The Specusphere has some nice ideas, I hope readers stick with it and help it survive. It would be wonderful to have an Aussie equivalent to Locus, something that people want to be seen in. However, I've seen too many journals disappear without trace, and it usually occurs because the 'community' ignores it – someone should let people know that community means pulling together for the common good, not something to use as a stepping stone to fame (or, as it inevitably will be, to a more glorious mediocrity).

I might just go read some Australian SF now – it can't be worse than the US stuff – and I'll keep my eyes open for another chance to comment. Maybe I'll be converted by next time.

< Prev		Next >