Michael Swanwick’s “The Universe Box”
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
https://pluralistic.net/2026/02/23/the-last-days-of-old-night/#nirvana-or-bust
No one writes short stories like Michael Swanwick, the five-time Hugo-winning master of science fiction. To prove it, you need only pick up The Universe Box, Swanwick's just-published short story collection, a book representing one of the field's greatest writers at the absolute pinnacle of his game:
https://tachyonpublications.com/product/the-universe-box/
Science fiction has a long and honorable history with the short story. Sf is a pulp literature that was born in the pages of magazines specializing in short fiction and serials, and long after other genres had given up the ghost, sf remained steadfastly rooted in short form fiction. There are still, to this day, multiple sf magazines that publish short stories every month, on paper, and pay for it. I started my career as a short story writer, and continue to dabble in the form, but I have mostly moved onto novels.
That's a pretty common trajectory in sf, where – notwithstanding the field's status as a haven for the short story – the reach (and money) come from novels. But sf has always had a cohort of short fiction writers who are staunchly committed to the form: Harlan Ellison, Martha Soukup, Martha Wells, Ray Bradbury, Ted Chiang, James Tiptree Jr, Theodore Sturgeon, and, of course, Michael Swanwick.
It's a little weird, how sf serves as a powerful redoubt for short fiction. After all, sf is a genre in which everything is up for grabs: the reader can't assume anything about the story's setting, its era, the species of its characters. Time can run forwards, backwards, or in a loop. There can be gods and teleporters, faster-than-light drives and superintelligent machines. There can be aliens and space colonies.
All of that has to be established in the story. The most straightforward way to do this is, of course, through exposition. There's a commonplace (and wrong) notion that exposition is bad ("show, don't tell"). It's fairer to say that exposition is hard – dramatization is, well, dramatic, which makes it easier to engage the reader's attention. But great exposition is great and sf is a genre that celebrates exposition, done well:
https://maryrobinettekowal.com/journal/my-favorite-bit/my-favorite-bit-cory-doctorow-talks-about-the-bezzle/
The opposite of exposition is what Jo Walton calls "incluing," "the process of scattering information seamlessly through the text, as opposed to stopping the story to impart the information":
https://web.archive.org/web/20111119145140/http:/papersky.livejournal.com/324603.html
Incluing is a beautiful prose technique, but it makes the reader work. You have to pay close attention to all these subtle clues and build a web of inferences about the kind of world you've been plunged into. Incluing turns a story into a (wonderful and engaging) puzzle. It makes the aesthetic affect of short sf into something that's not so much a reverie as a high-engagement activity, a mystery whose solution is totally unbounded.
