I don’t know about you, but the lines between science fiction and mainstream fiction get blurrier and blurrier for me.  A couple of examples:

  • Karen Joy Fowler’s recently released Wit’s End, seen through the eyes of the interesting folks over at io9: “While there are no aliens here, or artificial intelligences who come to life, Wit’s End manages to skirt the edges of science fiction themes beautifully, hinting at the ways our lives have become the stuff of science fiction without us noticing. “
  • The “Battlestar Galactica” post over at Wired’s “Underwire” blog, discussing Galactica as “an allegory for the American Revolution.”  This just a few weeks after The Economist’s “Lexington” column addressed “The Cult of [John] Adams,” and the reason that David McCullough’s biography and the recent HBO miniseries adapting it are so popular: “Americans are drawn to these men not only for the obvious reason that they founded the country, but because they debated questions that still plague America — from the balance between the Executive and the legislature to the separation of church and state — and they often did so with more intellectual clarity and philosophical depth than today’s politicians.”  So, if I get this right, we love “Battlestar” not just because it’s great storytelling, but also because it provides thorough and thoughtful debate on the key issues facing society, the kind of debate that we’re not getting from our ‘mainstream’ politicians.

Makes sense to me.