Is SF becoming ashamed of itself?

[Dave]

Read this review about the 2002 Clarke Awards nominations:
http://www.locusmag.com/2002/Reviews...rkeAwards.html

Adam Roberts asks what kind of SF do we really want and why is it becoming more mainstream. You need to bear in mind that 'Harry Potter' won the 2001 Award, hardly most peoples idea of a 'Clarke-like' hard SF novel. His assertion is that the SF community may be suffering from "real-world" perceptions of SF as being infantile and/or adolescent and not dealing with real adult problems.

I can't say that any awards ever made me read a book anyway, and I read all kinds of fiction not just SF, I just like good books, but it is still an interesting essay.

[Bayleaf48]

I myself don't think that sci-fi is becoming ashamed of it's self as there's good sci-fi books be it in a series or not coming out all of the time now a days

[Dave]

The question should be "What is SF?"

A number of people have questioned the films in the film forum, they could equally well question the books in the book forum, or some of the major forums themselves.
i.e. Are Harry Potter, Buffy, Angel and LOTR SciFi?

In a strict sence NO. The kind of scifi I like is the pure hard SF. But SF and Fantasy go together, you will always find them together in a bookshop, and even the SciFi channel has no problem showing horror movies. The genre boundaries are very mixed up.

And I also think this place should be for whatever people want it to be.

On the subject of 'Good SF' : Harry Potter is written for children. It is well-written so adults like it too. It has been so successful that children have put away their gameboys and read a book for the first time. Surely, that must be worth an award.

I see the point of the author of the article though, he thinks that comic books, superheros, spacebattles, and junior witches and wizards are causing more people to associate SF with juvenile fiction. And that they will ignore the stories that enlighten us about the human condition, and pose philosophical arguments.

I would say that the kind of books he wants are still being written, and that the more children who start out reading Harry Potter, the more will go on to read the stuff with the harder edge when they get older.

[ray gower]

I think part of the problem is that real Science Fiction, good or bad, is becoming harder to write.

The best Sci-Fi always pushes the envelope of our understanding of the Universe and Science. But we are advancing so fast that what we don't know today, we almost certainly will within the next few years. It is difficult to push something when it is moving as fast as that.

As a point in question. Would you classify Jurrasic Park as Science Fiction, or merely an Action/Adventure?
There is nothing in there that cannot be done today. But not so when it was written, less than ten years ago.
Or perhaps Doyle's 'Lost World'?
Something we know is impossible. But not so when he wrote and published it, less than half of the Amazon Forest had been explored and new species were being discovered there almost every day. Now half of it has been cut down.

Even the works of Wells and Verne only live on in people's minds and bookshelves because they wrote ripping good yarns, they barely qualify as Science Fiction now, though they did when they first appeared. Even the computer in Heinlien's 'The Moon is My Mistress' is looking dated.

About all that is left is Science Fantasy, where physical science rules become disjointed, or just plain ignored. When fantasy is mixed with science, something has to give. Often credibility

[Bayleaf48]

I agree with both of you

[Technomage]

It's just the continual dumbing down of science fiction in order for it to be more palatable to the masses, that's all - plus it enables the publishers to sell heaps more books and make another truck load of money in the process! The true science fiction fan is just not a big enough part of the book buying market for them to be interested in.

[Bayleaf48]

True sci-fi certainly has changed over the years & it's that what is causing it to be dumbed down as people just simply don't see sci-fi like they used to any more

[ZachWZ]

I didn't read the essay. however judging from the posts this is a topic that interests me. Most of the mass market modern Sci Fantasy is dumded down for the masses.

While the works of Wells, ERB, Verne, Doyle, have at least one concept or character that stands out in a philosopic way. The current crop is just to giave the reader they're jollies. Before i'm flame I have to admit they are exceptions.

I say that time is the ultimate judge.

ZachWZ

[Bayleaf48]

That is true as only TIME can tell IF sci-fi's going to be continued to be dumbed or improved

[ivancat]

I think that the biggest problem may be that there are fewer and fewers writers willing to take the time to write science fiction. I know that my publisher, DAW, is having a hard time finding new science fiction authors to put into their production schedule. It is sad, but true, that there are way more fantasy readers out there than science fiction readers. Now I have nothing against fantasy; I read and enjoy fantasy books; I may even write one if inspiration hits. But the fact is, all things being equal, a fantasy book will sell many times more copies than a science fiction book. That translates directly into more money for the authors. In a dollars and cents perspective, it is hard for authors--who are mostly not making very much, and have bills to pay just like everyone else--to argue with the advantages of writing fantasy. Also, I have to say that it is REALLY a lot of work to write a good science fiction. World building, fact checking, etc all take a lot of time. I fear that there are less and less people willing to take the time.

Many authors who are technically writing science fiction, Michael Crichton, etc, try their hardest to not be pinholed in the science fiction "ghetto". They shy away from the science fition label, again to sell more books. Therefore, many of the reading public have no idea they are reading science fiction. As a resident of Los Angeles, I find it a constant irony that many of the top grossing movies of all time are science fiction, yet science fiction is looked on as a "genre" market, which not many of the studio executives understand.

Having said all the above, however, I am arrogant enough to believe that good science fiction can hold its own with the best of all the other genres of writing. I think there will always be a core of good, intelligent science fiction, even if the selection gets a little smaller. And if the general public is too dense to understand the medium we love, then we should just smile politely and wink to one another, and try not to be too apologetic.



Ivan Cat
science fiction writer

[Tabitha]

Originally posted by ivancat
I find it a constant irony that many of the top grossing movies of all time are science fiction, yet science fiction is looked on as a "genre" market, which not many of the studio executives understand.

Interesting points there Ivancat, but this is the one that really stood out for me - an idea that my thoughts have bordered on, but never quite articulated. Look at the top ten grossing movies of all time, by any standards, or even just by year, and often the majority of the films that fill these lists are SF. I find it amazing that people in general (wild generalisation here I know) turn their noses up at the genre, when it pervades every facet of modern 'pop culture', and as you suggest, has almost grown beyond a single 'genre'.

As regards the original question, I wonder have our technological advances started to stagnate, is it harder now to imagine new directions for humanity as a race, or to imagine technology that could be alien in nature for the purposes of a science fiction tale that has not already been imagined?

Having a sophisticated enough understanding of modern science to be able to predict our future via fiction is perhaps a much less common trait than it was fifty years ago.

[Bayleaf48]

Sci-fi is changing slowly all the time as want wasn't once considered to be sci-fi now is & in an odds ort of a way, it is that that is appealing to people

[ray gower]

There are a whole range of good reasons coming up here for the waning of real Science Fiction.

One of the largest problems is that most people have now grown up on a diet of televisual products, whether that is from the daily helping of the local soap or Startrek, the need for patience and imagination has largely disappeared and you need both to read a book and hard sci/fi more than most.

The fact that Science Fiction films have become popular, is not necessarily because the watchers have an interest in Sci/Fi, merely that they have more explosions/outlandish events than most of the competition.

All this has had the knock on effect that the sales of books is in decline. Quite seriously in some areas and is a problem facing publishers. Another is that many publishers describe themselves as being swamped by submissions. Most of which would be unsaleable. Writing is now a popular hobby and there are a lot of really bad writers out there.

Publishers, however, are not entirely blameless in all these problems. Considering book sales have been on the decline for well over twenty years, they have done little to attempt to conteract this trend, except to latch on to the current, 'in flavour' and will rarely attempt to extend it. The result is that from my 1997 Writers Yearbook, I have noticed that well over half of the UK publishers will not accept any submission, or proposal, unless it is from an established writer. Which seems both self defeating and restricting as it is populist.

I hasten to point out. I, personally have never had dealings with a publisher in any shape, or form. Nor do I know DAW. But I am guessing this 'unwillingness' may also be the case in the US as well, at least to some extent. I understand that the latest Clancy was ghosted, which seems a terrible way for a new author to establish himself.

Perhaps we should ask: If JRR Tolkien were to attempt to publish Lord of the Rings now. Could he do it?

I think the answer is. No! It is too risky!

When it was accepted, it was in the comfortable assumption it was going to lose the publisher £1000

[Bayleaf48]

It is sad that sci-fi books aren't doing as well now a days

[Dave]

Originally posted by ray gower
Perhaps we should ask: If JRR Tolkien were to attempt to publish Lord of the Rings now. Could he do it?

I think the answer is. No! It is too risky!

When it was accepted, it was in the comfortable assumption it was going to lose the publisher £1000

That is interesting in the light of JK Rowling's experiences in getting 'Harry Potter' published. Bloomsbury were a publishing house on its way out, now they have become a hot property on the back of HP, yet no one else would publish her at the time.

Also, because as Ivancat said

a fantasy book will sell many times more copies than a science fiction book.

So if Fantasy authors can't get published, Science fiction authors have no hope.

Your comments about the staple diet of TV being the problem are interesting too, because I was just reading something online yesterday (sorry lost the address), but it said that it is all because science fiction is too hard to write -- you have to think up a whole new world, as well as different characters, then explain it all to your audience in detail. Anyone who switches on in the middle (i.e. Babylon 5) has no idea what is going on and switches off. So no story arcs, just episodic television.

Star Trek is about the only show that can be different, but only because it has been around so long that everyone is familiar with the existing terminology -- beam up, phaser, transporter -- but even there we don't get story arcs, except at the end of DS9 (copying B5) and we do get the 'reset button'!

That's why we just get sitcoms, and more sitcoms on TV. It is much easier to have a show about a family with a weird guy/girl in it. They could be from another planet (Third Rock from the Sun, Mork and Mindy) or they could just be from some strange backwater of Earth, or America.