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

[J-Sun]

Thought this was worth reading: Why We Need Big, Bold Science Fiction (Popular Mechanics).

I started to post this in the SFF Lounge but then noticed the follow-on article which lists what the author thinks are 12 Bold, Optimistic Science Fiction Books.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by J-Sun

Thought this was worth reading: Why We Need Big, Bold Science Fiction (Popular Mechanics).

I started to post this in the SFF Lounge but then noticed the follow-on article which lists what the author thinks are 12 Bold, Optimistic Science Fiction Books.

Interesting set there.... This reminds me of a video which has been floating around YouTube lately, and has been mirrored by more people than I can count... a take on part of a speech by Neil deGrasse Tyson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbxX1v_9WzQ

[steve12553]

I got as far as the third sentence in the second paragraph before I saw the truth of what the article was going to say. 50 years ago I was optimistic about the future and inspired by the world of the future presented by by authors like Asimov and Heilein. We were going to see flying cans and trips to Mars and robot butlers and heaven knows what else. When Gene Roddenberry presented his vision of the future a few years later it fit right in.
Many of the advances predicted by Star Trek and the visions of the authors came true. I have my Star Fleet Communicator in the pocket of my bathrobe right now as I sit at my computer. My PADD (tablet) is in the other room. I work in a steel mill that has an incredible amount of automation but noone is going to Mars this week and there is not trip to Alpha Centari planned for next week or even next year.
We are now a money driven culture. We have neither patience nor direction. We like to whine (see comments at the end of any internet new article) and we like to brag and gossip( see Facebook). We do need the direction and inspiration of the great Science Fiction writers (or we need new ones to step up)
No wonder I read so many old books. Once we had hope.

[Kamosis]

I kind of see that in my classes, everytime the subject of a new and a bit controversial theme comes everyone want to point out the possible bad outcomes and don't think about the positive things that can come out of this.

[J-Sun]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

a take on part of a speech by Neil deGrasse Tyson

That was interesting and there's little there to disagree with yet I had a kind of ironic reaction to it, in part. I don't suppose I can say it without offense to Tyson but that's not my objective. I'm just struck by how the 70s had Sagan and these days have Tyson. Kinda like a milder Cronkite to Couric arc.

But thanks for passing it on.

Originally Posted by steve12553

50 years ago I was optimistic about the future and inspired by the world of the future presented by by authors like Asimov and Heilein. We were going to see flying cans and trips to Mars and robot butlers and heaven knows what else. When Gene Roddenberry presented his vision of the future a few years later it fit right in.
Many of the advances predicted by Star Trek and the visions of the authors came true. I have my Star Fleet Communicator in the pocket of my bathrobe right now as I sit at my computer. My PADD (tablet) is in the other room. I work in a steel mill that has an incredible amount of automation but noone is going to Mars this week and there is not trip to Alpha Centari planned for next week or even next year.

That's exactly it. If I had the choice between a rocket and a slide rule on the one hand, and a communicator and Facebook on the other, gimme that slide rule! Insofar as we have anything, we've got all the wrong stuff from the "future". All the dinky things that make the world smaller and easier to track and none of the things that make the universe bigger and more free (and the species more likely to endure).

Originally Posted by Kamosis

I kind of see that in my classes, everytime the subject of a new and a bit controversial theme comes everyone want to point out the possible bad outcomes and don't think about the positive things that can come out of this.

Interesting. There's actually nothing wrong with that to an extent - classic SF has its share of extreme dystopias and being able to have "negative foresight" is an extremely valuable skill to have. But it definitely needs to be counterbalanced with utopian (or, better, simply optimistic and progressive) visions and with positive foresight.

[thatollie]

Was anyone else severely disappointed with the list of Bold SF novels that we should all be emulating?

I'd really like to work up a list of recent novels that are just as bold as (and maybe bolder than) those.

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by thatollie

Was anyone else severely disappointed with the list of Bold SF novels that we should all be emulating?

I'd really like to work up a list of recent novels that are just as bold as (and maybe bolder than) those.

It was a good list at first of strong classic SF and then gung ho military SF books. Bold apparently means bold military action and not bold stories about SF. There are bold recent SF novels you can compare Heinlein and co with.

Good article when its about the kind of dark SF they write today and the more positive science ficton books of yesterday. I can miss books that was about new breakthroughs, new science,new ideas.

[thatollie]

Originally Posted by Connavar

It was a good list at first of strong classic SF and then gung ho military SF books. Bold apparently means bold military action and not bold stories about SF. There are bold recent SF novels you can compare Heinlein and co with.

Good article when its about the kind of dark SF they write today and the more positive science ficton books of yesterday. I can miss books that was about new breakthroughs, new science,new ideas.

It was a good article, but it covers a very narrow portion of a much larger debate.

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.

I believe we had a topic some months ago where someone brought out some figures comparing the number of magazines and anthologies that published SF short stories in the golden age and nowadays. Which is another thing to bear in mind.

All of this stuff just makes me want to do something but I don't know what to do.

[J-Sun]

Originally Posted by thatollie

Was anyone else severely disappointed with the list of Bold SF novels that we should all be emulating?

I'd really like to work up a list of recent novels that are just as bold as (and maybe bolder than) those.

Yeah, I was hoping some people would focus on that, too. I love Asimov, Egan, Heinlein, and Vinge, as well as some Varley but I'm not sure about the particular selections for those authors. I'm also not sure about the rest of the list. (I've only read the Bujold but wouldn't include it and the others don't look right, anyway. )

While there is a collapse of a Galactic Empire involved, the idea of recovering and recovering more quickly seems reasonably optimistic to me and The Foundation Trilogy is even bigger and bolder than I, Robot. Can't really argue with Have Spacesuit -- Will Travel but, while it doesn't suck, I'd replace Rocket Ship Galileo with Starman Jones or something.

I think Permutation City is great but Diaspora is much bolder. For Varley, his Eight Worlds stories would be hard to top (though I haven't read his recent neo-Heinleinian YAs). And Vinge's Zones are much bigger and bolder than Rainbow's End. Even despite an apocalyptic war, you could make a case for The Peace War books overall.

Some of the old space opera like Campbell's The Black Star Passes and Doc Smith's Skylark/Lensman stuff are radically bold and optimistic. Some of van Vogt's supermen would fall under this. Most Campbellian era/style SF is bold and optimistic.

Poul Anderson often falls down on the "optimistic" part but, IIRC, Brain Wave and Tau Zero would pass and are certainly bold. Clarke's The Deep Range is downright utopian and much of his work (though definitely not all) fits.

Forward's Dragon's Egg (aka Rocheworld) and Flight of the Dragonfly and Sheffield's Between the Strokes of Night (small detail of an apocalyptic nuclear war notwithstanding) are almost exactly what I think of when I think we need bold optimistic SF. Man, oh man, do we need more of that.

I recently read Haldeman's Marsbound. It's not necessarily an all-time classic or anything, but it's a lot of fun and certainly bold and, so far, optimistic. That's one of the few truly recent examples I can think of but, along with the Varley mentioned and some Bear, maybe, there has been a mini-renaissance of neo-Heinleinian YAs.

I just wonder why there seems to be a partial equation of "optimism" with "YA". Is it immature and insufficiently cynical and literary to be (or wish to be) optimistic? Also, most (definitely not all) of these authors are into the harder SF and many have libertarian tendencies. Whereas softer SF people and people on the rest of the political spectrum (from a US perspective) tend to be more depressed and focus on the smaller things.

If that would derail the conversation, ignore it, but it occurs to me. But more bold, optimistic examples would definitely be welcome.

[thatollie]

Okay, so I looked up the articles I mentioned earlier.

The first is a SF Signal post by Jason Sanford, in which he wonders why younger readers aren't getting access to more YA SF.
http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/201...ction-readers/

The second is a linked article.
http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/201...tion_has_gone/

and a couple of responses . . .

http://elflands2ndcousin.com/2012/03...ance-of-ya-sf/

http://nerdredefined.wordpress.com/2...ction-readers/

It all makes for fascinating reading.

[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. ]

"But what’s interesting is that while the general public loves science fiction films, a corresponding love for science fiction literature isn’t seen." And the general public loves films but a corresponding love for literature isn't seen.

I don't buy the insularity argument at all. "All of these are valid points, although a strong case can be made that these descriptions of an insular SF fandom are not as valid as they were a generation ago." And SF is not as popular as it was a generation ago. Via false but instructive syllogism, we get "Insularity makes SF popular" or the opposite of the suggestion. "Many of today’s science fiction novels require a certain level of SF literacy before you can read them." I think that's selling kids short. I started to say that certain things, like Ian McDonald's "The Tear", might qualify as being too abstruse but I doubt even that's true. It's the very whacked out weirdness of SF that a young pliable mind is drawn to and has no trouble with. No, he won't get the references but that's the sort of game old people play anyway. If he's born to be an SF fan, he'll get the gist.

It's this, rather than any insult about maturity, that makes 12 the Golden Age of SF. I think a key element of why you need to snag readers young is that it's probably true that "readers fear difficult or challenging material" - as they get older. You need the plasticity and open-mindedness of childlike wonder. That's why "great" literature is seen as "mature" - it generally deals with people in contemporary or historical circumstances. People tell themselves that wrestling with some Protean work of fiction to squeeze a theme out of it is difficult or challenging but I don't know.

But regarding needing to specifically tailor SF to a YA audience, I tend to doubt it. Most every SF author has turned their hands to YA SF but really only Heinlein and Norton had both great success at YA as a major component of their work, yet also had great success otherwise. Isaac Asimov wrote a set and Arthur C. Clarke wrote one or two (none all that hugely epoch making) and van Vogt officially wrote none, yet they were major authors who sold zillions of books and had legions of fans. Speaking for myself, two of my earliest books were indeed Starman Jones and Islands in the Sky and I loved the latter and liked the former but another two were Norman Spinrad's The Last Hurrah of the Golden Horde and Judith Merrill's Best of the Best. And I loved the former and liked the latter - and they are anything but YA and anything but "easy". I actually pointedly avoided YAs when I was a teen because that was "kid's stuff" and we all know how "grown up" kids are. It's only relatively recently that I've actually read a number of YAs.

Speaking of, I don't know if the author of the second article wanted only recent examples to compare to his own work but Islands in the Sky sounds exactly like what he was looking for in general.

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?

"If we want kids and teenagers to read science fiction, we need to put the story and characters first and the science second. Because what kids care about today is the story, and not the science." Then what the hell's the point of their reading SF at all? We had to destroy the literature to save it. "Science is transparent to kids: they live in a world where digital information surrounds them. They can play an immersive three-dimensional multi-actor game before they ever go to school. The hard science that it takes to make these playthings work is uninteresting: it is taken for granted, just as is the air we breathe." Yeah, because in the 50s TVs grew on trees and jet planes sprouted out of the ground. It's ridiculous that we act like people lived in caves in the 50s and only now have we instantly invented technology. Kids in the 50s grew up immersed in their technology, too. And if the hard science that make these "playthings" like MRI machines and the latest wonder pills work is uninteresting and taken for granted and we put the science second to reinforce any such notion, I hope they enjoy the complete absence of video games and MRIs in the future when everyone's too ignorant to repair, create, or improve anything.

Ahem.

But, that aside, I think that sort of gets onto the main issue. We do need bold and optimistic SF and SF may be largely weakening in that regard, but I think any problems the field of SF has with popularity is just a reflection of a general societal failure regarding the hope and optimism and technology of the Space Age vs. the relative lack of it in the "Information Age". Society puts science second. Why should SF thrive in that environment? But that's no call for SF to give up, but rather to fight harder.

[Grunkins]

Originally Posted by J-Sun

I'm just struck by how the 70s had Sagan and these days have Tyson. Kinda like a milder Cronkite to Couric arc.

Interesting analogy, I think you are on to something. I also mean no disrespect to Tyson whom I do like.

Originally Posted by thatollie

Was anyone else severely disappointed with the list of Bold SF novels that we should all be emulating?

Definitely. And where was Neuromancer?

[dask]

Do we really need another list? Just go out and pick 12 books that look good and give 'em a try. If there are some you don't like, pick out a few more. Thrift stores and yard sales ought to keep one busy for awhile without disintegrating one's wallet.

[Toby Frost]

One of my problems with some older SF is that some books assume that certain problems will just go away. "Religion is silly superstition so people don't do that in the future. Nations are backward and cause wars so we don't have those either. Government is competent and incorruptible because all the crooks have been replaced by computers, robots or the like..."

The problem with this for me is that humans without the religious/spiritual urge, or the sense of nationality/patriotism, or the conflicting morals that come from temptation, are less interesting. Take it far enough any you've got a very optimistic story with chess pieces for characters. I wonder whether it's a coincidence that Dune has such strong characters and recognises that civilisation can regress as well as progress.

That isn't to say that SF ought to be dystopian. I can't see why you couldn't have a very optimistic book about, say, a future society proving itself to be superior to a cult, or nations coming together behind a space programme - an inspiring story of humanity rising above its baser urges.

[J-Sun]

Kinda funny. Thinking about Sagan to Tyson had me fire up the ol' U-tube and watch Sagan's exposition of the Drake equation and, amidst my serious enjoyment, I also had to laugh. More symbolism. Where Tyson vocally tries to take a planet away, Sagan gives us an extra one just in case. Also, the time was more optimistic in that his value for n-sub-e (2) is almost certainly too high. But since we're dealing with huge numbers and wild approximations and that's not the trickiest one, it's okay.

And that led me to the entire first episode of Burke's Connections which seemed apropos to the "King of Elfland's Second Cousin". The entire thing is obviously, of course, well worth watching but the key parts I'd play for "Chris" from the first 10 minute chunk are 0:45 to about 2:00 on "they're there" and, while the NY preface of 2:40-5:20 is fascinating (and snippets are a bit painful), the true beginning is at 5:20 and the key line is at 6:13.

These shows were made in 1978 and the initial story is set in 1965 - the latter not too far from the 50s. Look at those primitives running around in their loincloths without a trace of ubiquitous technology. Such primitive times are "irrelevant" to our modern era.

Anyway - I think I'm done with that now. Regardless of that issue, like I say, the Sagan and Burke stuff (as different as they are) are worth watching by anyone for any reason.

Originally Posted by dask

Do we really need another list? Just go out and pick 12 books that look good and give 'em a try. If there are some you don't like, pick out a few more. Thrift stores and yard sales ought to keep one busy for awhile without disintegrating one's wallet.

Well, it's not just our wallet's that are disintegrating. We are all mortal.

Originally Posted by Toby Frost

One of my problems with some older SF is that some books assume that certain problems will just go away.

I don't know that that's specific to older SF and I think it falls under the "why not rather nothing" query. If certain problems aren't solved, there will be no future in which to tell stories. IOW, if we don't put our eggs in more than one basket, and we don't solve our various maniacal hatreds, and we do keep developing greater physical and biological weaponry, then we're not going to have a future. So if I'm writing a story set in 4000 on a non-Solar planet, certain things have ipso facto been solved or worked around. And, if that's not the direct point of my story, then it's going to be an assumed part of the milieu. If evolved humans are boring (and certain "posthumans" strike me that way, too) then either the writing is unsuccessful or it's just not for the particular reader. But old SF was very well aware that things could regress, too. Heinlein had "Crazy Years" in his Future History, Asimov had an entire Galactic Empire topple into a Dark Age, people like de Camp were very historically aware, etc.

I can't see why you couldn't have a very optimistic book about, say, a future society proving itself to be superior to a cult, or nations coming together behind a space programme - an inspiring story of humanity rising above its baser urges.

Me either - I wish more authors would have at it.