Books, books, books

Let me take a moment to rant: I hate stupid people.

Without fail, on a weekly basis, I get a phone call at work that goes like this:
Me: This is John speaking, how can I help you?
Them: Is this the library?
Me: No sir, this is a bookstore.
Them: The phonebook says this is a library.
Me: No, the phonebooks say this is un librairie. That's french for bookstore. This is a bookstore, and you're reading the french section of the phonebook.
Them: So, this isn't a library?
Me: (Silently in my head) GAAAH!!! YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY ILLITERATE IN TWO LANGUAGES!!! WHAT COULD YOU POSSIBLY WANT WITH EITHER A BOOKSTORE OR A LIBRARY!???!!!?? GAHHHH!!!

At this point, I either hang up or my head explodes. This happened at work yesterday, and I'm still angry.

On less spittle-covered commentary, Steve Gilliard's commentary on Hunter S. Thompson's death noted the generally crappy state of modern fiction. Given the crap I have to shelve on a regular basis, I'd agree. Not that there aren't good books out there (far from it) but the stuff that gets the press is not the good fiction. The situation in non-fiction is generally better, but then again the non-fiction market is fundamentally different.

However, I'd like to suggest that the some of the best writing these days is gravitating towards science fiction. I recently finished Market Forces by Richard Morgan. This book is really excellent. Think Mad Max crossed with 1984. However, the commentary within the book is also fascinating. The story deals with globalization, and the ascendance of global corporations. Much of it is inspired by The Lugano Report by Susan George, a fictional report George wrote to demonstrate the logical consequences of modern globalization. In it, George suggests that addicting China to cigarettes is crucial to maintaining the west's dominance - shortening the lifespan of 1.5 billion people adds up. Market Forces is fiction that deals with some very important issues, which was Steve's major complaint with modern fiction.

This is, I would argue, a culmination of a number of trends within our society. Simply put, it is now impossible for fiction to deal with important elements of our place in the world without using elements of science fiction. I've outgrown my Michael Crichton phase, but the man writes about technological issues that we should be thinking more about - biotech and nanotechnology, for example. Marg Atwood may not like the label of SF, but that doesn't change the fact that her most recent book is SF, pure and simple. Nevermind that her best-known book is probably still A Handmaid's Tale, which is just as clearly SF.

Giant corporations gone amok? Genetic engineering? Communications technologies? Sustainable development? Any fiction that is going to deal with these issues - among the most important of our day - is likely to end up at the back of the store, near romance, along with Clarke and Bradbury. Oddly enough though, once an author makes it to the bestseller list, they seem to get de-SFed, where (like both Atwood and Crichton) they get considered "normal" fiction and make it to the front of the store, despite the actual content of their books.

I have no explanation for this, other than the fact that, for no good reason, SF is still considered something of a ghetto for fiction. Odd, considering that since the days of H.G. Wells SF has been dealing with issues important to society. No, not the Martian War Menace. Wells wrote (in his Thing To Come) about strategic bombardment, chemical weaponry, and nuclear energy long before they came to pass.

More than ever, we need to be looking forward. SF is just another way of doing that. Orson Scott Card, before his "I hate gays and peace protesters" phase, used to describe SF as the last form of religious fiction, because it's the only form of fiction that can adequately and honestly explore the mysteries of our existence. Obviously, I disagree with his latest political views. But his point about SF is still a good one.