While Dr. Runte admits to these being over-generalizations, he suggests that they do “identify broad trends” and it is his choice of observations that I wish to remark on.

While I agree that Canadian SF writers appear to have produced more science fiction with an environmental focus, I don’t agree with Dr. Runte’s generalization about the “typical [hubristic] American hero” in American SF during that time period. In fact, some of the most potent criticisms on “American” expansionism and technological progress were written by American science fiction authors. Ray Bradbury’s Martian Chronicles was a powerful metaphor that explored the colonialist exploitation of an environment (in this case Mars). I can think of several works by Asimov, Heinlein, Herbert, Butler, Kingsolver. LeGuin and Silverberg—to mention just a few—that also do not support Runte’s assertion. These aren’t just outliers.

I agree, that we differ, but not in the way Dr. Runte suggests. Firstly, I don’t identity with his definition of the Canadian science fiction writer. I don’t read or write about bungling average protagonists, who “hang on” as they reconcile their “national inferiority complex” (which I don’t agree with) while someone else has the adventure, journeys through obstacles, and changes.

Perhaps, where Canadian science fiction stands out most from the works by our southern neighbours lies more in our diversity and tolerance than in our focus, per se. And this, ironically, also relates to our northern climate and the importance of sense of place to our culture and identity. From Gotlieb to Atwood and Hargreaves to Sawyer, Canada’s tolerance for form, subject, and style have helped blur the line between genre fiction and literary fiction.