Recently, there has been a debate raging in Sf circles around something called "Mundane SF" - a brave experiment by some writers to produce valid SF stories without resorting to the standard SF tropes of artificial intelligence, interstellar travel, alien intelligence, or alternate universes - instead building their stories using only the real world technology available at the time of writing.
On the face of it, this sounds like an interesting exercise. But because the Mundanistas have presented the idea as some sort of manifesto, it has led to a division among SF writers and fans between those who support it as a new movement, and those who see it as an attack on traditional SF.
As Interzone 216 will be a special "Mundane" issue, I thought I'd take this opportunity to state my own position - which is very simple:
Some of the stories I have written could be classed as "mundane", others as "cyberpunk" or "space opera". And that's what "Mundane SF" is - another setting, another background against which to tell stories.
I find writing "Mundane SF" an interesting exercise, and I wish nothing but success to other writers taking up the challenge. But at the same time, there's no way I'm going to limit myself to exclusively writing "mundane" stories. Why would I? SF offers such a vast panorama of ideas and possibilities, it seems perverse to confine yourself to the here-and-now.
I like "Mundane SF" and I applaud its attempt to create a new branch of SF. I have no doubt that I will write some "mundane" stories. But for me, the canvas is wider and I will continue to go wherever my imagination takes me.
Rather than setting up artificial divisions in the SF community, we should be celebrating its diversity.