Fri 16 Jul 2010
Mundane Science Fiction: Taking all the Razzle-Dazzle out of the Future?
Posted by Deborah Walker under advice, craft, elements of story, genre, structure
[12] Comments
I’ve been reading a lot of mundane science fiction, lately. I’ve even written a few mundane science fiction stories, although I didn’t realise I was writing in a specific subgenre.
Now, I’ve always been a big science fiction fan, but it wasn’t until I started writing, eighteen months ago, that I became interested in definitions. Before that, I was just interested in a good story. Definitions are important to writers because we think a lot about the mechanics of a story.
Mundane-SF is set in the near future (let’s say the next fifty years), and uses believable technology based on current science. It’s a sub-genre, significant enough to have its own manifesto, and in 2007 Interzone dedicated an issue to mundane stories.
The Mundane SF manifesto was inspired by the ideas of Julian Todd and Trent Walters and founded by Geoff Ryman and others, during Clarion 2002 (Clarion is a prestigious American residential workshop programme for speculative fiction writers).
Considering the current knowledge that we have, there are a number of science fiction theme that cannot be used in mundane science fiction. Wikipedia has a useful list of excluded tropes:
- Interstellar travel and any concept that manages to get around faster than light travel like warp drive and worm holes. So we’re stuck in this solar system.
- Aliens. Even if they did exist, they probably wouldn’t have interstellar travel, so stories about colonization, and galactic wars and empires are out. If they do exist we wouldn’t be able to communicate with alien because it’s likely that the differences between us would be insurmountable.
- Quantum uncertainty certainly exists, but there is no evidence that it affects the macro world, and so it can’t be used as a basis for alternative universe stories.
- No telepathy stories, either.
To sum it up with a rather nice mundane phrase: “the most likely future is one in which we only have ourselves and this planet.”
Geoff Ryan explains the reasons that some science fiction writers were attracted to the constraints of mundane science fiction:
“Mundanity partly came out of impatience with bad science, or with tropes that gave us the SF dream for free. Also it was impatience with the moral role SF was starting to play… as an irrelevant dream of a future that was unlikely to happen. The worry is that SF now sometimes actively prevents us imagining the future.”
You can find mundane science fiction everywhere, particularly in science journals like Nature and Cosmos, which publish a limited amount of fiction. Futurismic (http://futurismic.com/category/fiction/) is a good place to find online mundane science fiction. And Ryman has recently edited an anthology: When It Changed: Science Into Fiction, 2009, which is a collection of mundane science fiction stories written with advice from a scientists, with endnotes discussing the plausibility of the stories.
Personally I write both mundane-science fiction and non-mundane science fiction. I enjoy them both, although my tastes do tend to lean toward the non-mundane stuff. I must admit I like a little razzle-dazzle in my future.
________________________________
Deborah Walker lives in London, with her partner Chris and her two lovely, yet distracting young children.



Flash Fiction Chronicles is listed in the 2010 November/December issue of Writers' Digest as one of the 25 Best Online Consumer Magazine Markets for writers. 
Thank you for this, Deborah – I am a huge fan of the science fiction genre, although less the mundane … most authors I have read picture a pretty bleak near-future.
I will check out the links you provided, and give it another chance.
I you like your sci fi optimistic, you should check out DayBreak Magazine (http://daybreakmagazine.wordpress.com/), Tanya, a collection of near future, positive visions of the future.
Thanks for doing this, Debs. I enjoyed the article. Frankly, I wasn’t aware of Mundane SF as a subgenre, but it surely makes sense.
In the science fiction I write, I try very hard to extend/extrapolate scientific principles for credibility. As a physicist, I could not do otherwise. But I digress.
Good job!
John
I am voting to change the name of banal, of course I meant mundane scifi to, earthly scifi, and I do it reluctantly. At least earthly scifi has some sizzle to it. A better name must exist.
By the way, if you Google “mundane scifi” today, Deborah Walker’s post on ‘Flash Fiction Chronicles’, July 16, 2010, appears on the first screen.
“Hi, I write mundane scifi. What do you do?” “ Me, I write earthly scifi and it rocks. Not only is it mind expanding, but it’s probable, and I’m betting it’s relevant to my children and certainly their children’s children.”
My own scifi philosophy is still betting on infinite time. The rules for earthly (mundane) science apply and are relevant in the short term but in the long view those rules will not apply or be relevant to life.
The statement that quantum mechanical uncertainty and entanglement does not apply to the macro world is just out of date or soon will be.
Deb, yours and John Mannone’s topics were of utmost interest for me. I have been educated concerning something I knew nothing about. Mundane science-fiction is more “my style,” as is urban fantasy, for both writing and reading pleasure. Thanks for an informative and concise read!
John and JAM,
You both might be intereted in Crossed Genre’s Science in my Fiction (http://crossedgenres.com/simf/) zine, bringing the science back into scifi.
I have never heard of mundane science fiction before, so thank you for the lesson. You’d think they could have come up with a better term, though. Mundane = commonplace, dull, tripe. Not words I would associate with science fiction of any kind.
Hello Jennifer, thanks for your comment,
Geoff Ryman explains the choice in an interview conducted by Kit Reed:
Kit says, “What’s mundane about that? It strikes me as completely realistic in the best sense.”
Geoff says, “Well the word Mundane means of the world. So by and large Mundane SF sticks to Earth or the nearby solar system. For example if we can’t get to the stars, aliens can’t get to us. Quantum uncertaintly works only at the micro level. Parallel universes are unlikely. So two years ago, out of Clarion a bunch of young writers decided they wanted to limit themselves to the most likely future. This meant facing up to what we know is coming, dealing with it and imaging good futures that are likely.”
http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/nonfiction/intgr.htm
Thank you for this piece. It explains a lot and helps define some of the sf I’ve been writing. I started out reading rocket-ship adventures decades ago, but always felt there was something more. Yep, mundane sf.
Walt,
Thanks for your comment. Have you been writing mundane scifi?
debs
Hello Jon,
you raise an interesting point. I’ve never been adverse to ‘bad science’ the way some writers are, because I view science through the lens of history. Just think what we believed 500 years ago, just imagine what we will believe in 500 years. Science is a useful tool to view the world, but it’s never claimed to be the truth.
I’m not for or against mundane scifi, by the way.
I think it’s interesting and have read many fine mundane scifi stories. The people who feel passionately about it, I think, believe that scifi has a job to do, beyond entertainment, to impact upon peoples’ lives in a positive way.