Mundane science fiction

Describing the context for the emergence of MSF, Christopher Cokinos cites Chris Nakashima-Brown in noting that a considerable body of science fiction entails fantasies about escape from scientific reality: "the escape from the subtly nihilistic dominion of reason in the post-Enlightenment West, into a generically unbound Jungian Disneyland...”. He argues that in the Golden Age of Science Fiction, stodgy tales of space opera using "bland prose" and "formulas of planetary romances, über-robots, and cold equations" dominated. He also points out that SF writer Thomas Disch has similarly opined that the preference for weak, implausible depictions of science in sci fi is an “American aspect of our “lie-loving” culture” used by readers for escapism, though some Golden Age writers, such as Theodore Sturgeon, Philip José Farmer, and Ray Bradbury did transcend these formulas and developed nuanced characters and stories.[1]

Cokinos goes on to state that in the 1960s, various authors launched science fiction's New Wave, when "stylistic experimentation" in the writing and new topics meant less formulas and cliches. The authors had a profound "skepticism about science and technology", and there was an examination of “inner space” (Ballard), "feminist...critiques, and ecology (Frank Herbert’s Dune).[1] Similarly, BBC TV critic Hugh Montgomery notes that J.G. Ballard believed that the Golden Age’s focus on advanced interstellar spaceships was “clichéd and unilluminating”, preferring to write stories about humans’ “next five minutes” and “near future”, which is “immediately recognisable to us, but invariably with a pretty unpleasant twist or three.” [2]

Ritch Calvin argues that the goals of MSF were predated by sociologist Wayne Brekhus in 2000, who published “A Mundane Manifesto”, calling for “analytically interesting studies of the socially uninteresting.” He argues for a focus on the “mundane” because the “extraordinary draws disproportionate theoretical attention from researchers”, which weakens the development of theory and creates a distorted image of reality. He stated that he hoped that the humanities would also focus on the mundane.[3][4][5] Calvin noted that in 2001, the sci-fi website Futurismic came out against the traditional forms of SF, and instead called for an examination of the impact of scientific discoveries on human society. Futurismic is against all “fantasy, horror, and space opera, as well as off-world SF, distant futures, aliens, alternate histories, and time travel”. Futurismic accepts fiction that is mundane, “post-cyberpunk sf, satirical/gonzo futurism, and realistic near future hard sf.”[6][5]

In 2007 science fiction writer Rudy Rucker, author of the 1983 Transrealist Manifesto, blogged a response to the Mundane Manifesto. Rucker stated that he "prefer[s] to continue searching for ways to be less and less Mundane". He pointed out that alternate universes are "quite popular in modern physics" and stated that perhaps other worlds exist in other dimensions. He noted that fiction writers outside of SF use stories about time travel, so while implausible, it was worth exploring. While Rucker also rejected SF's “escapist” tendencies, and called for transrealism, he argued that elements of SF which MSF advocates reject are “symbolic of archetypal modes of perception” that are needed in SF.[16][5]

In the March 2008 issue of Asimov's Science Fiction magazine, in writer Jim Kelly's ongoing "On the Net" column he agreed with many elements of MSF. At the same time, he wondered, “how was Mundane SF all that different from what had up until then been called hard science fiction?”.[15][17] Kelly states that too many of his favorite works fall outside the tenets of MSF. [5] Both Kelly and Calvin mention the criticism by Ian McDonald, and his fundamental objection, that much good science fiction is being written without any awareness of or need for the manifesto. Niall Harrison argued that Interzone #216's collection of MSF stories does not develop “a convincing case for mundane sf.” [5] Also in 2008, Chris Cokinos described The Mundane Manifesto as anthropocentric. He noted that the concern in MSF about wasting the abundance of Earth is influenced by the "...moral climate that permeates North American and British nature writing", adding that MSF is intended "more as compass than chimera".[1]

In 2009, writer Kate McKinney Maddalena noted that the MSF blog was first used as a forum for debate about the new subgenre and that by 2009, bloggers were identifying MSF from the SF literature, and looking for newly published MSF (“mundane spotting”). Maddelena added that Ryman's naming of MSF "only marks (and encourages) a high point in SF’s social and ecological consciousness and conscience.” [18] Also in 2009, SF writer Claire L. Evans called it a “controversial recent sub-genre”;[19] while stating MSF was a “useful category for an already-existing genre of science fiction". Evans disagreed with MSF in that it was often "the wildest, least likely prognostications that come to pass”. She also criticized Ryman for disrespecting SF’s tradition of creating prophecies, thus influencing real life, which she stated means he “completely misses the point of [science fiction]”.[19]

Commentary on MSF continued in the 2010s. In 2011 a Fantastic Worlds journal critic criticized the “very selective" use of science in MSF and its depressing nature.[20] In 2012, Emmet Byrne and Susannah Schouweiler called MSF the Dogme 95 of science fiction, a reference to a realist Danish film manifesto.[21] In 2013 Linda Nagata noted the relationship between hard science fiction and MSF, but stated, "the term 'mundane' has the 'implication of "boring'? To me, the term is another marketing disaster."[22] Also in 2013, The New Museum's digital art arm Rhizome published Martine Syms' "The Mundane Afrofuturist Manifesto".[23][24] In 2019, Roger Luckhurst, a professor in Modern and Contemporary Literature at Birkbeck, University of London, stated the MSF movement was developed because writers did not want “…to imagine shiny, hard futures [but [rather] give a] sense of sliding from one version of our present into something slightly alienated”.[2]

In 2007 the British sci fi magazine Interzone devoted an issue to the subgenre,[25][5] The 2009 short story collection When It Changed: Science Into Fiction, edited by Ryman, is a collection of mundane science fiction stories, each written by a science fiction author with advice from a scientist, and with an endnote by that scientist explaining the plausibility of the story.[26] In 2015 a reviewer from ‘’Boing Boing’’ called Kim Stanley Robinson’s novel Aurora, a generation ship novel, MSF's "most significant novel”.[27] In 2019 Robert Harris' The Second Sleep was described as the best MSF novel of the year.[28]

Christopher Cokinos in 2008 stated that films such as Gattaca, about a society based on genetic testing and ranking, and Moon, about a lonely mining operation on the Moon, "fit the Mundane Manifesto’s interest in near-future realism, even if they don’t directly deal with the beauties and heartbreaks of the Earth".[1] Other examples Cokinos cited are French filmmaker Chris Marker’s Sans Soleil and the film version of Children of Men, which shows a "heart-wrenching film of a grim, near-future Earth".[1]

In 2019, UK television critic Hugh Montgomery identified MSF television series and films which are set in the near future and which use plausible technologies; his list includes Black Mirror; The Handmaid’s Tale (a dystopian drama set in a totalitarian, misogynist theocracy); Osmosis (about a dating app that requires a bodily implant for users); Years and Years (a family drama set over the next 15 years, in a world facing ecological disasters); and Children of Men.[2]

In Ritch Calvin's opinion, MSF shares “characteristics with cyberpunk, postcyberpunk, and near-future science fiction”. For instance, William Gibson’s novels show a “near future urban” world, while Bruce Sterling’s Schismatrix depicts the impacts of global capitalism.[5]