I've never said anything like *this* before!

Thought I'd write a little bit of nonsense about SF this evening. It's a sort of defence; that said, I don't expect to change any minds (let's be real...who ever changed their mind about anything because of something they read on the internet?)

The idea behind this post came from reading the SF Site readers poll of the Best books of 2009. Admittedly, I have no idea how wide the readership of SF Site is, and those polled in readers polls are naturally self-selecting; I also have absolutely no idea what the "average" reader of SF Site is like. However, after the savaging of the Hugo Awards last year (another reader chosen SF award) by Adam Roberts (which I'm inclined to agree with) I was struck by the quality of the books that were in the top ten of the SF Site poll.

Something that I often bemoan is the ghetto that SF tends to find itself in. There is the possibility that some of this is self-imposed, but whilst I accept that not everybody necessarily like SF (and nor should they) I do object to the idea that SF is inherently inferior to so-called literary fiction. This can probably be applied to any genre fiction, but it was SF that I grew up reading so that's my focus. Suffice to say however, whilst I may not be a huge fan of, say crime or romantic fiction, I accept that the very best that those genres have to offer may well prove to be enjoyable reads.

To put it another way, it seems to me that when SF is being judged as poor quality it is based upon the very worst aspects of the genre (poor characterisation, bad plotting, over-reliance on an idea, horrible HORRIBLE book jackets) rather than the very best that SF has to offer. If you compare Sixth Book in Turgid Space Opera Series with, I dunno, The Name of the Rose (change according to preference - I like Eco) then, yeah, genre SF is going to look pretty bad. If you compare the best of lit-fic with the best of SF (or, indeed the worst of each) the distinction in quality will seem less.

The other thing to remember about all this is that many SF tropes make their way into mainstream and socially acceptable literature. Off the top of my head, several books that are accepted as part of the literary canon but include at least some SF tropes are: Nineteen Eighty-Four, The Handmaid's Tale and Brave New World. Atwood is a good example of the problem SF faces, more of her work than just The Handmaid's Tale can be described as SF, but she refuses to acknowledge this, because it would limit the appeal of her work. This, I find unfortunate, because I really like what she does and I find that attitude upsetting.

Sometimes I find myself sympathising with Michael Chabon's idea that he'd like to have a bookshop with only two genres "good" and "crap" (wait a minute...forget the crap). That said, I do like science fiction, as I said, I grew up reading it: genre can, admittedly, be a good filter.

The one thing that I would have to confess to - and I wouldn't ask a non-genre fan to do the same - is that whilst I don't have a lot of tolerance for the truly diabolical, and I love to read quality fiction, is that as a genre fan I am prepared to tolerate some less than great writing. For example, I love Philip K. Dick, but even at his very, very best he wasn't a great writer. I have an appallingly high tolerance for his second-tier stuff...

Anyway, all this rambling nonsense brings me back to the SF Site vote. I hope that this is an indication of what we can expect over the next year in SF awards. The fact that Paul McAuley, Kim Stanley Robinson, Jeff Vandermeer and Adam Roberts all made it in there is good news indeed (they all produced fantastic work in 2009). Iain Banks, I feel is a little below par over the last few novels and Robert Charles Wilson aspires to great stuff, I think, but I'm not totally convinced he makes it there (I'm still reading The Windup Girl, OK so far, and Robert Jordan I don't know. As for Cory Doctorow, I really *want* to like his stuff, but can't quite, sorry! Mieville, the jury is out, but that's a personal taste issue).

Kim Stanley Robertson, Paul McAuley and Adam Roberts especially (Finch was excellent and Vandermeer is a fantastic writer, but I think that it is is a bit too weird (no bad thing) for a major award), whilst they all produce work that is definitely genre, have all written books that I believe would be at ease in the company of any non-genre award. Do their publishers submit these books to the Booker judges? I'd really like to see Yellow Blue Tibia on the short-list. Hell, if historical fiction can win a major literary award, I say it's time for SF to get some mainstream recognition.