I really enjoy McEwan's work so hearing this from him is kinda disheartening. That's a shame. I've always thought of Sci-Fi as less about the speculative scien

I really enjoy McEwan's work so hearing this from him is kinda disheartening. That's a shame. I've always thought of Sci-Fi as less about the speculative science--the "airlocks" and the "antigravity", as the article would say--and more about what it says about science's interaction with society. Sure a lot of the genre were cheap and cheesy (though I won't hesitate to add, enjoyable) stories from pulp magazines but the best of it is no less capital-L Literature as, say, Shakespeare. I don't see the need for distinction (as McEwan is reported to do in the article) as even these cheap and cheesy stories capture something about the attitude towards science at the time of writing. Heck, Shakespeare is astounding because he wrote for the masses. A lot of the "respectable" genres could trace themselves back to penny serials too.