MWF – In conversation with Kim Stanley Robinson

Sunday 29 August. Kim Stanley Robinson sat calmly at the front of the vast reaches of BMW edge. Lucy Sussex – a longtime supporter of Overland – interviewed Robinson in a freewheeling discussion about his work and opinions. It’s not surprising that that the hall wasn’t full: Robinson was the Guest of Honour at the World Science Fiction Convention a few days later. Many of his fans no doubt planned to catch him there. Still, it’s a pity the session wasn’t better attended, for Robinson is one of the most astute commentators on politics and history. He possesses qualities too rare among novelists; most importantly he thinks deeply about his work; he has an aesthetic and political project. As a result, Robinson is not simply a novelist, but a commentator – a kind of public intellectual that is all too rare. As a radical leftist, Robinson – along with another SF leftist at the festival, China Mieville – has the knack of appearing eminently reasonable, rational, knowledgeable. It is hard to underestimate his value.

Robinson’s career has been one sustained attempt to think about how society might transition from a contemporary capitalism that is destroying the environment and plunging us towards a ‘mass extinction event’ to a utopian post-capitalism. His first three novels – the Orange County trilogy – imagine three future Californias, two dystopias and one utopia. His novel The Years of Rice and Salt imagines how society may have developed had the black plague wiped out western civilization. Thus capitalism develops first in the East. This raised many questions such as, ‘Would there have been colonialism?’ These are the kinds of questions that only science fiction can ask and try to think through. Robinson’s aim, he explained, was to make his work fun as well as educational, as ‘Aristotle asked us to do’.

Robinson has become something of an expert on climate change (his Science in the Capital series imagines that the earth reaches a climate-change tipping point, which forces the world to transition to, once again, a post-capitalist world). Indeed, Robinson is probably the single most important commentator on science within the science fiction community. When others allow themselves to be seduced by technological flights of fancy, Robinson is a sober corrective to these fantasies. His science fiction is both realistic – it asks what is actually possible – and optimistic. As a result, Robinson was a critic of cyberpunk. ‘I didn’t like It,’ he explained, because it was the literary equivalent of the neoliberal dogma that ‘There is No Alternative’. Cyberpunk sought to celebrate and revel in a free market future. For Robinson, optimism is not optional. We need an ‘optimism of the will’ he explains (paraphrasing Gramsci), because ‘to be pessimistic now is to let down our children and generations to come.’

In his latest novel, Galileo’s Dream, Robinson examines the relationship between science and capitalism and, as he explained, relied on Raymond Williams’ concept of a ‘structure of feeling’ to capturing a sense of sixteenth-century consciousness. In this novel, Robinson examines the nature of science as a project to liberate humanity. For him, the traditional left critique of science is a ‘category error.’

The panel covered many topics, but sustained a remarkably high-level discussion. Where other panels are often like coffee chats, Robinson has such a roving intellect that by the end of the hour, there was a sense of profundity. You felt that important subjects had been discussed. This is not to say there was no humour: one of the funniest moments was as Robinson described his response to the McKinsey Global Institute, who asked him to set out a plan to halt climate change. ‘You’ll notice I was quite irritable in that response.’ Not the kind of things you generally explain to the advocates of capitalism, his plan included things such as:

• ‘Dispense with all magical, talismanic phrases such as “free markets” and promote a larger systems analysis that is more empirical, without fundamentalist biases.’
• ‘Encourage all business schools to include foundational classes in ecology, environmental economics, biology, and history.’
• ‘Start programs at these same schools in post-capitalist studies.’

For those who are interested in finding out more about Robinson, I was lucky enough to interview him (with China Mieville) a few years ago for Overland. If you’d like to see him speak, here’s a great talk he recently gave:

Rjurik Davidson

Rjurik Davidson is a writer, editor and speaker. Rjurik’s novel, The Stars Askew was released in 2016. Rjurik is a former associate editor of Overland magazine. He can be found at and tweets as @rjurikdavidson.

More by Rjurik Davidson ›

Overland is a not-for-profit magazine with a proud history of supporting writers, and publishing ideas and voices often excluded from other places.

If you like this piece, or support Overland’s work in general, please subscribe or donate.

Related articles & Essays

Contribute to the conversation

  1. I wish I’d seen that session.
    On the panel with China and Alastair Reynolds, there was some talk about ‘Race Fail’, a recent controversy about racism and sexism in SF. Do you know anything about this, Rjurik?

  2. As far as I can tell, not having read all the debate: it’s about how race is represented in SF. Is it legitimate, if you’re white, to use various other cultures/’races’/ethnicities (specifically in this debate, ‘People of Color’) in your writing. What does this imply? How do you approach it? At the different poles, there’s the ‘It’s fine if it served the story’ side. On the other, the ‘That’s a readymade excuse for racism (and has been in the SF field for some time)’ side. It’s a debate that arises in SF quite regularly and something that writers as a whole have to think about. It seems to me to be related to debates around identity politics (who is ‘allowed’ to speak for whom). And it’s something that Overland readers, I think, would be interested in. Alas, a lot of the details are SF specific and so difficult for the reader to follow. In any case, perhaps it’s something we should engage in (the debate that is) at some point?

      1. I know a bit, or at least some of the people who were involved. The debate centered around a particular female author (I forget precisely who, but can chase it up if you’re interested?), who was white and female, and wrote about black characters and made certain negative stereotypes, and when this was objected to, essentially said that it as her novel and that they were wrong to interpret it the way they did, and that there was no privilege related to their actually being the group under question. The internet subsequently imploded.

        Let me know if you’re interested, I’ll chase it up.

  3. OH MAN I wish I’d known he was there! I worship the guy, he’s a big part of the reason I’m taking a masters in environmental management. I just read Galileo’s Dream, it’s a strange book that’s oddly thought provoking. I love his Mars series, it’s such a vision of where humanity COULD be. If only we’d gotten to Mars this year. 🙁

    Man. Wildly jealous you interviewed him.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.