It seems pretty explicit about it, although "the past and present of science fiction" might be a better descriptor.

For example, here are quotes where the past:

> Delany came of age at a time when the genre [of science fiction] was indeed characterized by gee-whiz futurism, machismo adventuring, and white, heterosexual heroes.

is contrasted with the present:

> In the contemporary science-fiction scene, Delany’s race and sexuality do not set him apart as starkly as they once did.

EDIT: Actually, I hesitate to presume on the legendary New Yorker proofreaders / fact checkers, but shouldn't it be 'macho' (an adjective), not 'machismo' (a noun), 'adventuring'?

It could be interpreted as a noun-noun compound; "machismo adventuring" would be akin to "cave spelunking" or "ego exploring".

Probably a typo.

The final comments also support the theme: Some of the more conservative authors presently complaining are doing so, Dulaney thinks, because they fear the growing presence of a more diverse community and a wider acceptance of the same. Trends which will continue to grow into the future.

I think this might be attributing too much malice to the author in question though; Larry C seems more like a somewhat thoughtless writer annoyed that his low-brow entertainment books are not considered to have the same merit as Dulaney's stuff, backed up by an echo chamber online community.

Perhaps Larry C. could raise his profile with the New Yorker by joining NAMBLA. I'm sure that it was an innocent oversight on Bebergal's part to omit that detail about Delaney from the piece.

None of the following is a defence (his attitude on NAMBLA is deeply squicky to me); but, as far as I know, Delany (not Delaney) was never a member of NAMBLA. The closest that some quick Googling finds is the famous quote:

> I read the NAMBLA [Bulletin] fairly regularly and I think it is one of the most intelligent discussions of sexuality I've ever found.

Will Shetterly has a conversation with Delany on the subject at http://shetterly.blogspot.com/2014/07/a-conversation-with-sa... .

Re that, see: http://shetterly.blogspot.com/2014/07/a-conversation-with-sa...

An email conversation about NAMBLA and sexuality with Samuel Delaney.

It's not that cryptic. Delany and the author are highlighting the roles of marginalized communities in the genre, how they have changed (or not) over time, and what might change in the future.

I'm gonna sound like a conspiracy nut here, but it seems like a side-channel attack on Gamergate (via Sad Puppies), coupled with the "we're on the right side of history" meme.

I'm not saying I support either of those, but after following them for a while it's hard not to pick up on biased coverage in the media.

What was biased about it?

Upon re-reading, nothing particularly egregious. There is the characterization of Sad Puppies as a movement to push women and nonwhites out of the Hugo Awards, when I believe the motivation is that the participants want their fun sci-fi escapism to be evaluated as such and not by how well it coincides with the Hugo panel's politics.

Of course, the net effect of their effort has been, in practice, to favor white male authors, so the article is accurate at face value. I wouldn't expect the author to go in detail into something only tangentially related, either. It's just bothersome to see every controversy in traditionally geeky hobbies lately reduced to "white male bigots form hate mob," so even a relatively neutral mention feels biased sometimes.

Headlines are too often written prior to the editing process, however one can (at least) find reference to past and future science fiction writers in this late passage:

"“It’s socio-economic,” he said. In 1967, as the only black writer among the Nebula nominees, he didn’t represent the same kind of threat. But Delany believes that, as women and people of color start to have “economic heft,” there is a fear that what is “normal” will cease to enjoy the same position of power."