When I worked at BookPeople employees frequently posted magazine photos, articles and drawings on certain walls--not necessarily just the store cork boards. (The downstairs employee bathroom for example.) Creative people work in that store, and I suspect collage is just one of those things that goes with the territory. It was one of the things I loved about the atmosphere of the store--the free-associative, collaborative art that was the freight elevator and the bathroom. Anyway, one day someone tacked up a photo of Paris Hilton that went with the latest description of her vapid, oh-so-glamourus life of celebrity for the sake of celebrity. At some point, someone wrote the word "Eloi" on it. 

We did work in a bookstore that required its employees to read, after all.

I've stated before that I believe that one of science fiction/fantasy's best traditions is the ability to address sensitive subjects using story. This is one of the main qualities of literature which makes stories timeless--this ability to provoke thought in readers. Mind you, I'm not silly enough to believe that sci-fi can save the world, necessarily directly. However, I do believe that it can spark individuals to think for themselves--to give them practice at thinking much like practicing kung fu conditions the body--and that those individuals (who've practiced their thinking skills) can group together, come up with solutions, and save the world. Science fiction shouldn't provide the solutions. Propaganda is about providing solutions. (No need to think, kiddies. Here's the answer! Don't agree? You're wrong! Here, I'll show you by killing off/ending the world for all who disagree with my point in the story! Get it now?) Propaganda becomes dated. Literature, on the other hand, is an open-ended discussion. It's an interactive process. There's a reason why--when we come to the end of V for Vendetta--the totalitarian regime is over-thrown and then the story stops. Alan Moore doesn't propose an answer, only the problem. It is left to the reader to think of solutions. That part is left blank. Because we have to come up with our own answers, the end result is always fresh.

So, in the special roundtable discussion over at SFSignal with Elizabeth Bear, Bradley P. Beaulieu, Charles Stross, and Rob Ziegler has me thinking because during the discussion, Brad wrote, "Those novels that years ago readers might have been able to remain removed from the political left or right seem to be increasingly pigeon-holed by the fringes of our politics and so written off as propaganda. So while there might have been a time when literature was seen as a place for contemplation, I now wonder whether those days are numbered."

What makes me sad is that any author would say this. I'm with Rob Ziegler and Elizabeth Bear. To quote Rob "Taking the logic of a given value set or cultural behavior and stretching it until it breaks open and we get to see its core components, its relative strengths and absurdities, so that we can measure them for their true worth. Testing ideas to the point of destruction. Exactly."  Yes. That. Exactly. That's what literature is for--well, one of the big reasons.

Anyway, you should read the roundtable for yourself. See what you come up with to fill in the blanks.