Science fiction is dead, long live science fiction!

[D_Davis]

The sci-fi blog, IO9, has a post declaring that science fiction is dead.

I especially like the reason in bold.

5 Reasons to stop reading science fiction

Science Fiction: 5 Reasons To Stop Reading Science Fiction

Science fiction is doomed! The genre is a toothless wreck, praying to overdose on its pain meds, says a gang of critics. (Actually, they're only talking about the books, and only the books shelved under "science fiction.") The reasons why SF is obsolete or pointless or dead depend on which rant you read. But here are the main ones:

* SF is now real life. "We are at last living in an SF scenario," Brian Aldiss said in a recent London Times interview. The article went on to paraphrase: "A collapsing environment, a hyperconnected world, suicide bombers, perpetual surveillance, the discovery of other solar systems, novel pathogens, tourists in space, children drugged with behaviour controllers - it's all coming true at last." It's like SF is a laundry list of predictions, and we've ticked them all off. What about colonizing Mars, though? Why do only the sucky predictions have to come true?
* It's been colonized by mainstream literature. Authors like Cormac McCarthy and Kazuo Ishiguro have stolen away our precious science fictional heritage and re-branded it as literary fiction. The literary establishment lavishes attention on these appropriating works, but ignore speculative fiction that has similar themes. And somehow, this will cause SF to wither into irrelevance.
* It's turned into pure fantasy. People get off on the "sense of wonder" in science fiction, says Bookslut's Paul Kincaid. Think of SF as a cosmic crack dealer. But over time, the wonder has gotten bigger and bigger, and authors have given up on trying to provide a rational explanation for it. So the science has become magic, and the SF has become just another kind of fantasy.
* The fanbase is ancient. "The literature of youthful, forward-looking openness... is graying," laments David Brin. At conventions, you see more retirees in scooters than kids. Is it because teh kids are too busy playing video games? Or is it that those older readers have created an impenetrable fan culture and a genre that caters to their finnicky needs? Either way, this demographic trend spells trouble in the long term.
* Rackspace is shrinking. Science fiction books are doing well as trade paperbacks (the bigger kind) but are in danger of losing their prominence as mass market paperbacks (the pocket kind), says Tom Doherty, publisher of Tor Books. That means fewer impulse buys at airports and drug stores, which convert new readers to SF.

This blog likes to stir the pot, but I tend to agree with most of this. Even as a huge sci-fi fan, most of the stuff I read is at least 20 years old - most of it is closer to 40 or 50 years old.

I think a certain kind of science fiction has already died, and more is to follow.


But then there is also this great essay:

Roger Luckhurst- The Many Deaths of Science Fiction: A Polemic

How many times can a genre die? How often can the death sentence be passed down, and when do repeated stays of execution cease being moments of salvation and become instead sadistic toying with the condemned?


SF is dying; but then SF has always been dying, it has been dying from the very moment of its constitution. Birth and death become transposable: if Gernsback’s pulp genericism produces the "ghetto" and the pogrom of systematic starvation for some, he also names the genre and gives birth to it for others. If the pulps eventually give us the "Golden Age," its passing is death for some and re-birth for others. If the New Wave is the life-saving injection, it is also a spiked drug, a perversion, and the onset of a long degeneration towards inevitable death. If the 1970s is a twilight, a long terminal lingering, the feminists come to the rescue. But then the feminists are also partially responsible, Charles Platt argues, for issuing one final vicious twist of the knife. And what of cyberpunk? Dead before it was even born—or rather dead because it was named. "Requiem for the Cyberpunks" aims to finally kill the label (5). And what now? Christina Sedgewick asks "Can Science Fiction Survive in Postmodern, Megacorporate America?" A new decline, or rather a circling back: SF dying because of its re-commercialization. This is also the thrust of Charles Platt’s claim that "we find ourselves wedded to a form that was once provocative and stimulating but is now crippled, corrupt, mentally retarded, and dying for lack of intensive care" (45).

[iansales]

Try reading some recent sf, and you'll see that io9 is talking out of its collective arse. Stuff published last year like... well, just look at the BSFA Awards shortlist.

[pyan]

Well, I wouldn't have put it quite like that, Ian, but I agree.
I've been reading SF for the last 40 years, and I've lost count of the number of times I've read that it's a dead or dying genre....

[D_Davis]

Originally Posted by pyan

I've been reading SF for the last 40 years, and I've lost count of the number of times I've read that it's a dead or dying genre....

Exactly.

[D_Davis]

Originally Posted by iansales

Try reading some recent sf, and you'll see that io9 is talking out of its collective arse. Stuff published last year like... well, just look at the BSFA Awards shortlist.

They are just compiling arguments made by sci-fi authors and critics.

For some reason, the URLs linking to the other articles and quotes got lost in the quote. Check the original posting on the blog to see them.

[iansales]

They're misrepresenting and distorting comments made by others. Or rather, they're drawing a false conclusion from comments made by others.

[D_Davis]

Originally Posted by iansales

They're misrepresenting and distorting comments made by others. Or rather, they're drawing a false conclusion from comments made by others.

Could be, but the quotes still raise a lot of interesting questions.

I am not prepared to dismiss what they are saying, even if the quptes are taken out of context, because there is some merit to every point.

As to the bold point...

I often look at two authors to illustrate the arbitrary nature of genre classification:

Alan Lightman and Rudy Rucker.

Both of these authors are experts in their fields: Rucker in the field of theoretical mathematics and computer science, and Lightman in the field of physics. Both were professors at prestigious schools and both have done a great deal of good in their chosen fields.

They also both write science fiction speculating on real world topics related to their fields of expertise.

However, because Lightman writes in a more serious tone than Rucker, he is shelved in the general fiction section and is often given more mainstream attention than Rucker, an author who is far more gonzo in his approach.

So even though these authors share a similar professional background, and even though they write about similar topics, because of their different styles and the different ways they approach their subjects, they are are shelved in different sections and thus marketed to a different audience.

Personally, I love the heck out of both, but I find the genre distinction made between the two to be ridiculous.

But who, if either, would benefit more from a switch? Would Rucker fare better in the general fiction section, or would Lightman fare better in the sci-fi section, or is it perfectly okay the way it is?

I am not making a judgment call here, just pointing out the arbitrary way in which some books of categorized and marketed.


In this example science fiction isn't dead in terms of conventions and tropes, but the idea of what people think of as science fiction has changed because authors like Lightman have infiltrated the ranks of general fiction.

[Lith]

The fanbase is ancient. "The literature of youthful, forward-looking openness... is graying," laments David Brin. At conventions, you see more retirees in scooters than kids. Is it because the kids are too busy playing video games?

Yes. That and the anime invasion. SF's not dead though, just transformed.

Reasons 2 and 3 work particularly well together. And when did science fiction quit being pure fantasy? And how can you be too serious (i.e. "literary") and too fantastical at the same time?

But hey, it's not like SF is the western. Look at the shelves in the stores (provided you live in a region that even has a westerns rack)- over half of them are reprints of dead authors. And the library shelves are mostly dedicated to them in large print versions, because they're almost only read by old people. But since there are a lot more possibilities with SF, it will reform itself into something new.

It's sorta like declaring rock dead.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by D_Davis

So even though these authors share a similar professional background, and even though they write about similar topics, because of their different styles and the different ways they approach their subjects, they are are shelved in different sections and thus marketed to a different audience.

But this is true of so many genres. For example, there is "Romance" and there are "serious" and "literary" books that deal with love and relationships. The subject is only one aspect amongst many that we use to decide whether we'd like to read a book or not.

Any glimpse at the various things argued over in this forum, "story versus world-building" being one (although, of course, nothing is that black and white, so to speak), should let anyone see the wide variety of things that attract the readers here.

[dustinzgirl]

I think science fiction has become more visual entertainment, but thats just a progression as our society progresses, shouldn't science fiction progress also? I mean, we can do so much more visually than we ever could before, its opened up a whole new world for sci fi fans. I don't think that literary sci fi is dead, but that it has changed forms. Thats just natural though, and its not just sci fi, there's a lot more movies than new books getting media attention because people don't really buy books as much as they used to. This is kind of a gap space for bibliophiles now, but I think that as our world changes, so does our entertainment. You know, fiction, even early science fiction about turning lead to gold and such, used to be passed down in verbal tales. Most people couldn't read. Then the printing press was invented, and they could get more books to more people. Then we invented the television, and our stories could be seen. Then we invented the Internet, and with that came the need for INSTANT entertainment to the masses. I don't think this is bad for sci fi, and there will always be the old school writers, but I do think that to survive, sci fi has to do what it was intended to do---challenge our perceptions.

[Connavar]

It's been colonized by mainstream literature. Authors like Cormac McCarthy and Kazuo Ishiguro have stolen away our precious science fictional heritage and re-branded it as literary fiction.


I agree with some of that only cause i have read lame critics hailing Cormac McCarthy's book like he was the greatest SF author of alltime. Saying stupid like he took a meaningless genre and made it intellegent......

The same people i read qoutes of them dissing Michael Chabon for sinking low to genre fiction like SF. They didnt say sinking low but smartass words that meant the same...


The only thing else from the link that isnt BS is that and the literature fiction criticts are stupid for acting snobs about genre fiction.


SF is dead cause we live in a SF world ??

I doubt there are humans who live in solar station today like in CJ. Cherryh's Downbelow Station

[andrew.v.spencer]

Heard it before; every third computer game is sci fi. Many of the bigest movies in history are sci fi. Yep, dead as doornails.

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by andrew.v.spencer

Heard it before; every third computer game is sci fi. Many of the bigest movies in history are sci fi. Yep, dead as doornails.

Well said !

Hollywood sci fi might not be great and thought provoking as the books but atleast there are more new SF movies than many other genres.


Heck as lame as Jumper look it tops international box office cause its SF and not cause Hayden is a great actor

[D_Davis]

The western has been dying for decades also.

It seems like every year we get a new film that is a "love letter to a dying genre."

[pyan]

Originally Posted by Connavar

The only thing else from the link that isnt BS is that and the literature fiction critics are stupid for acting snobs about genre fiction.

Always have been, Conn...read the average Sunday newspaper review section, and there may be one of a new Pratchett, or J.K.Rowling, but that's all, as a rule.
Never mind that books by Brooks or Butcher will sell many thousands, they're not "proper" fiction, so will be passed over in favour of a review of a gritty story about growing up in poverty in the city slums, or something, that may sell a couple of thousand copies, but is more "relevant"....