Bigger, Bolder, Faster, More! (SF/SF books)

[thatollie]

Originally Posted by J-Sun

[Sorry about the length - that just got me on a roll and I didn't realize it. Feel free to skip but, what the heck - I'm posting it. ]

Actually, I'm rather proud to have provoked such a lengthy response.

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by thatollie

I've recently read some good articles criticizing the insular nature of SF. Which argues that a lot of SF requires you to have read other works beforehand to understand the ideas presented. This is pointed to as a reason that SF isn't gaining a young readship.

That is my biggest problem with some recent SF novels, authors i try for the first time. Too many books that depend on knowledge on other works. Science,political babble that makes it hard to engage with recent SF novels. I dont care specially Hard SF or certain SF types,authors. I like the old older SF because they were more about storytelling. I like reading Heinlein for his storytelling ability and not for his Hard SF knowledge just an example.

Of course there are newer authors i feel are like the old ones but i have seen too many novels that are just like other works that i dont know anything about,SF ideas wise. I have seen finally thats the reason i dont read as much recent SF. For example i have missed much of the 80s cyberpunk novels,authors and to read a so called post-cyberpunk book that thinks you have read many books by Gibson,Sterling and co is just too insular.

[thatollie]

The third guy comes close to pissing me off. In dismissing Heinlein, he says "They want good storytelling, tight prose, and most importantly, engaging characterization." Um. Still waiting for something in that that Heinlein isn't all about. And I suppose if the 1950s are irrelevant you'll just never get them to read Robert Louis Stevenson, either, right? Because the 18th century (internally) or 19th century (externally) is 3-5 times as irrelevant, right?

I don't think he called Heinlein a poor storyteller. He just inadvertantly implied it by putting it too close to his statements about Heinlein. Here's the quote.

Let me bust out some – potentially heretical – knowledge here:
Heinlein juveniles are utterly and completely irrelevant in today’s YA marketplace.
I know, I know. We all grew up reading them. And we all love them. But readers below the age of thirty who’ve ever heard of them are few and far between. Tomorrow’s science fiction readers are not interested in whiz bang technology, or in “accessible” science fiction. They want good storytelling, tight prose, and most importantly, engaging characterization. In casual conversations with some of The Professor’s colleagues (who all edit YA and MG for a living, I should add) I once asked if they’d ever heard of Heinlein’s juveniles. The only one who had (and who groaned at my question) was The Professor. Now, some of us might say “Aha!” and point to that as the problem. But it isn’t. Because these same editors publish tons of science fiction. They just don’t call it that: they call it YA or middle-grade.

[J-Sun]

Hm. I see how what you're saying is theoretically possible but it still reads the same way to me. It's not just "too close" - it's sandwiched in between Heinlein comments and sounds integrally related in a "this is what was and, on the other hand, this is what is or should be" with Heinlein being the object lesson. And the part about "We all grew up reading them. And we all love them." sounds about as insincere as possible. Like, "having blown that sunshine, I can safely dismiss him like I really wanted to in the first place".

But it's not primarily the Heinlein thing. Just the whole article went against my grain. I mean, this is one of these things that's tricky for me to say because either extreme comes off wrong. But he's basically saying something towards the effect of, "writers should be hacks with nothing to say - they should just want to do the market research so they can sell people what they want to read". When a skilled writer should have something to say and be able to write it in such a way that people will want to read it. And if what you've got to say is making science and technology appealing to young readers, then do it. And, if not, don't pretend we're talking about YA SF in the first place. So he's got it backwards twice and he's really saying "people should be hacks who suppress science and the problem with YA SF is... well, YA SF - it's not hackwork with science in the backseat. Cuz, y'know, that stuff is popular - there's tons of it". Well, yipee.

What is that? Sweet grapes? Opposite of sour grapes? "I've got this handful of crap but I'm calling it grapes and it's all I really wanted anyway."

That said, I don't mean that you can't write popular stuff and not be a hack. And I'm certainly not saying you shouldn't write stuff that happens to appeal to a lot of people in an innate sense. Just that I think SF and YA SF and whatnot can be valuable things in entertainment, literary, sociological, and other senses and it ain't like you can't learn from Heinlein either as a writer or reader today. Just sounded like a guy trying to make virtues of vices.

[thatollie]

Hm. I see how what you're saying is theoretically possible but it still reads the same way to me. It's not just "too close" - it's sandwiched in between Heinlein comments and sounds integrally related in a "this is what was and, on the other hand, this is what is or should be" with Heinlein being the object lesson. And the part about "We all grew up reading them. And we all love them." sounds about as insincere as possible. Like, "having blown that sunshine, I can safely dismiss him like I really wanted to in the first place".

I believe the impressions that can be drawn from the Heinlein paragraph more likely stem from a lack of attention towards possible misinterpretation. I may politely ask him about this in his comments section in the morning.

Just the whole article went against my grain. I mean, this is one of these things that's tricky for me to say because either extreme comes off wrong. But he's basically saying something towards the effect of, "writers should be hacks with nothing to say - they should just want to do the market research so they can sell people what they want to read". When a skilled writer should have something to say and be able to write it in such a way that people will want to read it. And if what you've got to say is making science and technology appealing to young readers, then do it. And, if not, don't pretend we're talking about YA SF in the first place. So he's got it backwards twice and he's really saying "people should be hacks who suppress science and the problem with YA SF is... well, YA SF - it's not hackwork with science in the backseat. Cuz, y'know, that stuff is popular - there's tons of it". Well, yipee.

Now I think you're being unfair and making unfounded statements. He clearly cares about good storytelling and a cursory check through his archive and blogroll indicates that he cares about SF (though it is less apparent in this article).

[J-Sun]

Originally Posted by thatollie

Now I think you're being unfair and making unfounded statements. He clearly cares about good storytelling and a cursory check through his archive and blogroll indicates that he cares about SF (though it is less apparent in this article).

Maybe "exaggerated" but I wouldn't say "unfounded" - or even "unfair" based on the article alone - but you're very right about what my comments may be overall in the sense that I wasn't interested in doing that cursory check and didn't. I don't know him at all and I apologize if it mischaracterizes him but I wasn't trying to characterize him so much as what that article sounded like to me.

But this definitely has taken a more negative turn than I'd like - I was just conveying my honest reaction to one item but I was hoping for a more general and, well, bold and optimistic thread. And more advocacy of qualifying examples.

[thatollie]

Originally Posted by J-Sun

But this definitely has taken a more negative turn than I'd like - I was just conveying my honest reaction to one item but I was hoping for a more general and, well, bold and optimistic thread. And more advocacy of qualifying examples.

I whole-heartedly agree. Let's get on with the discussion.

EDIT: One last thing before we put the matter to rest. Should I go forward with my plan to ask The King of Elfland's Second Cousin to clarify his statement concerning Heinlein?

[J-Sun]

Originally Posted by thatollie

EDIT: One last thing before we put the matter to rest. Should I go forward with my plan to ask The King of Elfland's Second Cousin to clarify his statement concerning Heinlein?

I leave it entirely up to you.

[thatollie]

Originally Posted by J-Sun

I leave it entirely up to you.

Then I shall go ahead as planned. I do like opinions.

[thatollie]

A very late update, but I was wandering around the discussion archives and came upon this. So, I thought I'd check to see if my original inquiry (which I had forgotten) received a reply and it has. Here's the quote.

Thanks for the comment and for sharing the post with others! I’m happy to clarify, and apologies if my clarification runs a bit long:

Heinlein is a fine storyteller, and I have gotten enormous enjoyment out of his novels and stories over the years, from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress to Have Space Suit, Will Travel. The principle point I was making had less to do with Heinlein in specific, and more to do with the ignorance of large swathes of the “adult” SF community. Though Heinlein is a fine storyteller, his aesthetics, narrative style, and structures come across as dated to a contemporary YA audience. That’s not an indictment of his writing. Shakespeare, Hugo, Dumas, Tolstoy – every one of these writers comes across as dated today. But as a consequence, today’s YA readers are ignorant of Heinlein (since unlike those other authors he is rarely assigned in school), and gravitate towards stories which are structurally, stylistically, and thematically different from Heinlein’s juveniles. And which remain in line with the evolving conventions of the middle-grade and YA genres. This isn’t to say that either Heinlein or contemporary YA is good or bad: I am simply pointing out that reading tastes among YA readers have changed since Heinlein was writing.

SF fans who bemoan the lack of young adult science fiction are speaking out of simple ignorance. There is plenty of young adult science fiction being written and published. It is aesthetically very different from the Heinlein juveniles, in the same way that Vladimir Nabokov is very different from Sinclair Lewis. Anyone who claims that there is no YA SF is factually incorrect. And when they proscribe a “solution” for this non-existent problem (the writing of more Heinlein juveniles) they are ignoring another fact: that tastes and narrative trends (in both YA and adult SF, and literature in general for that matter) have changed since Heinlein’s time.

To say that YA SF doesn’t exist invalidates the work of the countless people writing, editing, selling, and reading it. And the over-played suggestion to write more Heinlein juveniles ignores the changing tastes of YA readership. It is a position of sad ignorance, analogous to the claim that adult SF is dead and suggesting that the solution is to write more Gernsbackian stories. That aesthetic boat, fun as the ride is, has sailed. Some new readers will still get enjoyment out of the old stories, but for the majority (with less catholic tastes) they will be just that: old stories, like Melville, Dickens, or Shakespeare. They might be good, but their audience becomes naturally constrained by popular tastes (consider how many people still read Herodotus).

But for all that, there’s a very simple way for adult SF fans to fix this ignorance, regain some optimism about the future of SF, and potentially find some fun stories: go into their bookstore’s YA section, and pick up some titles.

[J-Sun]

Heinlein is a fine storyteller

He's not my favorite author but, IMO, he's perhaps the best SF storyteller of all time and that's "fine"?

The principle point I was making had less to do with Heinlein in specific, and more to do with the ignorance of large swathes of the “adult” SF community. Though Heinlein is a fine storyteller, his aesthetics, narrative style, and structures come across as dated to a contemporary YA audience. That’s not an indictment of his writing. Shakespeare, Hugo, Dumas, Tolstoy – every one of these writers comes across as dated today. But as a consequence, today’s YA readers are ignorant of Heinlein (since unlike those other authors he is rarely assigned in school), and gravitate towards stories which are structurally, stylistically, and thematically different from Heinlein’s juveniles. And which remain in line with the evolving conventions of the middle-grade and YA genres. This isn’t to say that either Heinlein or contemporary YA is good or bad: I am simply pointing out that reading tastes among YA readers have changed since Heinlein was writing.

Even if we stipulate that Heinlein is not read today, how then can he say "tastes have changed"? If they haven't read Heinlein, then he can't say they don't have a taste for Heinlein. They would have to have read him (and therefore not be ignorant of him) and disliked him for their tastes to have changed. But I grant completely that his principle point was indeed that "current YA SF is great and go get it" but my issue was with the specific example of the "irrelevant" but "fine" Heinlein.

SF fans who bemoan the lack of young adult science fiction are speaking out of simple ignorance.

Interesting that, a paragraph ago, he was admitting "today’s YA readers are ignorant of Heinlein". Ignorance all around! But the ignorance of Heinlein is okay - better than okay, it's a positive good - and the ignorance of today's YA SF must be corrected immediately!

There is plenty of young adult science fiction being written and published. It is aesthetically very different from the Heinlein juveniles, in the same way that Vladimir Nabokov is very different from Sinclair Lewis.

While he did run off the "Shakespeare, Hugo, Dumas, Tolstoy" list, he's here directly comparing today's YA as Nabokov (a cutting edge writer, indeed) to Heinlein's Sinclair Lewis? Again, while Lewis isn't chopped liver, it seems to me that this comparison doesn't exude genuine respect for Heinlein.

They might be good, but their audience becomes naturally constrained by popular tastes (consider how many people still read Herodotus).

That may be one of the problems between us. While not in the original, I do still read Herodotus.

Anyway, we really are thinking at cross-purposes here. He is trying to talk about current YA SF and, however intentionally, is dismissing "old stuff" whereas, as futuristic as I can be, I also believe a historical consciousness is vital and that Heinlein is worthy of a great deal of respect. If he doesn't mean to denigrate Heinlein, fine, but I can't see how he's doing him any favors, either.

Either way, thanks for the update, thatollie.

[Mangara]

I really enjoyed this article, it was nice to give a context to the older sci-fi written before I was born. I agree that as a society we are less about big ambition and more about personal gain. Money rules. Our advances are big: but on a micro scale. Faster processors, thinner stronger materials and discovery of "god" particles. I think there is a general negativity to life as a species and this is reflected in the stacks of dystopian novels. Hope, for some, is gone.

[Stephen Palmer]

Our scientific development is running way, way ahead of our moral development. No wonder the "science gone mad and bashing humanity" thing is so prevalent in SF.

[thatollie]

Even if we stipulate that Heinlein is not read today, how then can he say "tastes have changed"? If they haven't read Heinlein, then he can't say they don't have a taste for Heinlein. They would have to have read him (and therefore not be ignorant of him) and disliked him for their tastes to have changed. But I grant completely that his principle point was indeed that "current YA SF is great and go get it" but my issue was with the specific example of the "irrelevant" but "fine" Heinlein.

I don't think they need to read Heinlein for him to say that tastes have changed. If the difference between Heinlein's work and current YASF is taken as a given, then it shows that YA readers have chosen to move away from Heinlein style SF.

Interesting that, a paragraph ago, he was admitting "today’s YA readers are ignorant of Heinlein". Ignorance all around! But the ignorance of Heinlein is okay - better than okay, it's a positive good - and the ignorance of today's YA SF must be corrected immediately!

Again, he did not state outright that ignorance of Heinlein was okay. He merely stated that it wasn't as terrible as some of the other articles made it out to be.

That may be one of the problems between us. While not in the original, I do still read Herodotus.

Anyway, we really are thinking at cross-purposes here. He is trying to talk about current YA SF and, however intentionally, is dismissing "old stuff" whereas, as futuristic as I can be, I also believe a historical consciousness is vital and that Heinlein is worthy of a great deal of respect. If he doesn't mean to denigrate Heinlein, fine, but I can't see how he's doing him any favors, either.

You're right but I still find the debate thoroughly enjoyable. But let's try to think purposefully here. What's our purpose in this thread? That would go a long way to helping me out.

[J-Sun]

Originally Posted by thatollie

I don't think they need to read Heinlein for him to say that tastes have changed. If the difference between Heinlein's work and current YASF is taken as a given, then it shows that YA readers have chosen to move away from Heinlein style SF.

I'm not disputing that he may well be right that tastes have changed as a matter of concrete fact[1] but there's no logic in saying that "Young people are ignorant of Heinlein; therefore tastes have changed away from him". That's like saying "Young people are ignorant of chocolate pie and liver; therefore tastes have changed away from them." It'd likely be true for the latter and false for the former but it's an illogical statement for either. Young people can't know whether Heinlein is chocolate pie or liver until they're no longer ignorant of him. If he's correct that people don't read Heinlein (something I dispute in the first place) then he'd be correct that "the tendency to read Heinlein" has dissipated and that modern YA SF is written in a different style from Heinlein (again, something that can be disputed as I've read many reviews of author X's YA book being compared to Heinlein or described (as I did second-hand with Varley) as "neo-Heinleinian"), but he can't logically talk about people having actual tastes in ignorance.

Again, he did not state outright that ignorance of Heinlein was okay. He merely stated that it wasn't as terrible as some of the other articles made it out to be.

No, he's very careful to not state anything like that outright.

You're right but I still find the debate thoroughly enjoyable. But let's try to think purposefully here. What's our purpose in this thread? That would go a long way to helping me out.

Well, the original purpose of the thread (from my point of view) was to point folks to an article, possibly inspire debate on whether SF should be bigger and bolder and, for those who thought so, to start throwing out some titles and authors of big, bold SF. (Personally, that was my main interest - finding out about big, bold, new stuff to read.)

But then you pointed me to articles, in turn, and they were certainly provocative. So then we started talking especially about the new YA SF vs. Heinlein article and that led to a sort of three-cornered debate with one of the corners not actually being on the board. So I guess my point was that I saw the article's main point as being "go read YA SF" which is a fine thing, but using "Heinlein is irrelevant" as a weird way to encourage that and was disputing that whole concept. So I guess that part of the thread, for me, has become "defend Heinlein and point out third corner's illogic". Does that help?

Either way, I'm still very open to people jumping in with recent, big, bold SF titles.

[1] Well, I would if it came to that, but I don't think you even need to settle that one way or the other because of the even earlier problems I mention.