juggling

right, haven't quite felt like doing a coherent/comprehensive blog post in a while (still don't, really) so i thought i'd just throw some ideas out there and use the 'bullit' function for once. i'll call this list 'PKD wrote really good SF (however you read "SF")':

• All SF (or, as others might have it, all 'literature') is really about the present. (?) in truth, it seems to me that this may have more to do with the *process* of writing, and maybe the effect it will have on a particular work in terms of the way it is 'accepted' by society. case in point:
  
• PKD wrote about *our* present. true, his work was based on his experiences of his *own* (in his mind probably writing about his present), but this is in part belied by the fact that the people of his time weren't quite able to see the relevance of his philosophies. (true, marketing plays a role in this as well...PKD refused moves to better market his work, but that's another thing altogether.) offshoot: this has led to the appreciation of PKD *today*, in retrospect, and not in his day. his work may feel 'dated' when read superficially, but the underlying philosophies of his work are more relevant today than they *appeared* to the people of his time; their relevance to our future, of course, remains to be seen, but at this point, given the direction mankind and technology appear to be headed, it seems logical to assume that the relevance will only grow.
  
• PKD's philosophies were, in a way, a reaction to the 'technological optimism' informing his world. note: the same sort of 'reaction to optimism' informs sub-genres such as cyberpunk (reaction to the optimism for the 'information age', the death of which was already imminent at the time of that particular sub-genre's birth--in essence, cyberpunk *was* about the present, the disillusion and suspicion that had already crept into the collective subconscious).
  
• ergo, PKD's work proceeding in this manner (following a present concept/thought pattern through to its conclusions re: his future--our present) epitomized the concept of 'speculation' in fiction. the dude was a prophet.
  
• SF, as a 'genre' (or at least that part of it which is supposedly concerned with such things...see later), ought to be good at the sort of thing PKD did (and 'does'); better, in fact, than any other 'literary field' or 'genre'.
• the movement of SF as 'speculative fiction' is ultimately to either tear down 'genre boundaries' (liberating writers from the marginalizing [and often *stigmatizing*] effect of working 'within' the genre) or 'reappropriate' fiction that, for one reason or another, has been taken out of the 'SF canon' but, with a broader definition, 'belongs' conceptually to the genre.
  
• this movement, while it has its merits, appears to be (whether as part of its intentions or as a kind of subconscious side effect) taking the focus away from what (part of) the genre--in the 'outdated' incarnation of 'science fiction'--was (arguably) all about.

(on a side note, i find it baffling that these concepts of 'marginalization' and 'reappropriation' are such a major concern for SF writers, when other genres [e.g., mystery and crime fic, romance and even, to a certain extent, horror] do not appear *quite* so hung-up on them. well, perhaps not so baffling; these other 'genres' have always enjoyed a relatively broader acceptance, as exemplified by 'bestsellers' lists, despite SF having formidable 'real estate' in the modern bookstore or library.)

which, i suppose, brings me back to ideacentricity--focus on the 'intellectualization' of literature. SF (as 'sci fi') didn't previously need an advocate for ideacentricity--that was one of the things that pigeonholed SF ('sci fi') writers in the first place and so 'marginalized' the genre. 'speculative fiction' is a good title for what the genre is supposed to be capable of (read, imho: what it's supposed to do), but given the application this revised 'SF' terminology is being put to, the word choice doesn't seem quite so appropriate, leading me to agree with Michael Co when he stated in earlier discussions his preference for 'science fiction'.

i realize, of course, that 'spec fic' is meant to be an umbrella term that *includes* science fiction, but the conceptual interchangeability of 'sci fi' and 'spec fic' seems an unfortunate inevitability, given that the term was born of that particular combination of the letters S and F.

right, allow me now, if you will, to make this pretentious statement: even if you advocate 'breaking down the boundaries', keep in mind that 'science fiction' is an integral part of 'speculative fiction', and try to remember what 'science fiction' is all about.

(all this thinking has also lead me to wonder: who among today's writers might be doing what PKD did in his time?)

caveat: i tend to be a moody bastard. take what you will from all that's been said here, but be warned that this is all from the perspective of a *personal aesthetic*...as such, expect no consistency from me when it comes to this sort of thing.

also: should you expect this sort of output from me? hell no. well, not necessarily. i write what i want to write, what i feel like writing at any particular time, keeping no such 'higher ideals' in mind when i do. which i suppose is one reason why my crap has thus far been unpublishable.

apart from the fact that it's all crap, of course. ha.