our genre is stagnating

[Pennarin]

Not everyone at SFFWorld is US-based, which means that a) it can take us a while to get what you're saying in the US sometimes, and b) annoys those who are not-US based (I get the emails!).

Global site, and all that - and proud of it! - but it means we tend not to go through that more geographical specific mindset.

What language do Englanders speak? Is it American? (And no, of course I am not that dumb. Just poking fun at the dumb ones.)

 

[kennychaffin]

Can we get back to the Stagnation?

 

[theonefirestorm]

So well said. Every sentence. =)

I recently read an article about 'near future' science fiction that was written in 2008. I'm reading the Greg Mandel series at the moment and it is definitely set in the near future. So was 1984.

What would make for a good, inspirational story? The Potter series, though carefully apolitical, was a huge inspirational success until Rowling ruined it with the unnecessary, "Dumbledore is gay" politicisation.

It will be very hard for anyone to recreate the hysteria that came with Star Wars and Star Trek. The magic that comes with huge successes is not something that can be bottled. To show that, all you have to do is try to answer the question of why a given story became so popular. Take a pick:

Star Wars
Star Trek
Harry Potter
Gulliver's Travels
The Time Machine
Shakespeare
Swiss Family Robinson
Tom Sawyer
Huckleberry Finn
The Lord of the Rings

I can't even begin to take a stab at what made these great. And my own opinion of some of these titles is that they sucked. And I have read/seen all but two of them. But their acceptance and inspiration as great in their own time can't be denied.

In a Philosophy class I was told by my teacher for Huckleberry Finn is considered one of the best books because according to Cultural Relativism what he is doing is wrong.
The book is happening in the South of the Untied States during the time of when slavery was legal.

 

[Nicolas]

The Stagnation, then.

I am not convinced at all that the genre is stagnating. It evolves, sometimes in directions that are not expected (zombies seem to be the flavor-du-jour at the moment) but I do not think that there is no originality and uniqueness left in SF, Fantasy or Horror stories and that everything has been said.

I am convinced, however, that there is a lot of complacency at work at the moment. From the publishers, who want to repeat the latest success and just ask for more of the same, from the readers, who want stories similar or exactly like the ones they know they like (including me: I like space opera. Put a blurb at the back of a book about big ships in space and it's pretty much a guaranteed sale) and from the authors, who, if they want to get published, sometimes have to look at what people are reading and what the publishers are buying.

Add to the mix the fact that the genre (SF, Fantasy, Horror etc... I'll go with C. J. Cherryh here when she says that "We started out one creature. I don't care if 'they' have spots. We're still the same breed of cat")has become massively popular as well as lucrative over the last few decades and has now the potential to reach tens of millions of people (Twilight, Game of Thrones, Dune) and their wallets and it may appear that, as C. Priest put it in his much talked about post demolishing this year's Clarke award shortlist, some in the industry prefer to "play it safe".

There are still, however, a good number of outstanding works published every year and a plethora of classics to (re-)discover.
I wish there could be a stagnation, actually. I would be able to catch up on my "to read" pile.

 

[DennisC]

Dennis, thank you for that. I am confounded by the same questions and continue to try and understand. I don't know what happened or why. One thought is that we are in the U.S.A. finally reaching a new level/stage of our growth as a country. It's certainly not isolated completely to the U.S. and is probably very much related to media, communication, global corporations, population growth and such....that's the best I can offer at the moment.

I also think there is a backlash against science that began with the atomic bomb was fueled by the cold war and it currently fanned by religious fanatics.

I wasn't around for the bomb's invention. But I do recall an anti-intellectualism in the united state in the 1980s. I still haven't found a cause for that one. Fiction seems to do quite well during these moments.

 

[Overgeeked]

I think that what Kyle is possibly trying to say is: When Star Wars first came out it was unlike anything done previously in the movies.

In the movies? No. The Flash Gordon serials were a direct inspiration for the original Star Wars films, Lucas has mentioned this time and again. Hell, the opening crawl is directly taken from those old series. The generation who saw Star Wars originally run in the theater may have never seen the like before, but older generations had.

Besides, Star Wars was a riff on those serials, which were based on comic strips from decades earlier, which were in turn inspired by the likes of Burroughs's John Carter stories and other sword & planet and space opera tales.

Most of the storytelling today doesn't really give you epic heroes and villains. This story was black and white good versus evil and reflects the culture and the time.

Huh? This is demonstrably not true. Many other films at the time had epic characters, black & white morality, etc. And are you really suggesting that these features reflected the times? As in 1977? Spend some time on Wikipedia to see how off that assessment is.

In the world today there is so much ambiguity between good and evil and fewer people are well educated.

Around the world there are more people graduating with college degrees than ever before. I'm sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Chuffalump]

Around the world there are more people graduating with college degrees than ever before.

This may be factually correct (I haven't checked) but, given the rise in the number of college degrees studying Harry Potter, Star Trek or Surfing, to name but a few, it may also be completely meaningless.

I can't see the genre ever truly stagnating. It's a matter of imagination. Some new author comes along and completely changes the goal posts. Look back at Tom Corbett Space Cadet and then forward at anything by Iain M Banks. Who knows how the genre will evolve in the future.

Unless, of course, science actually catches up with SF. Then we're DOOMED........

 

[Danogzilla]

Unless, of course, science actually catches up with SF. Then we're DOOMED........

That's sort of William Gibson's take on things. His latest three books have been snapshots of the present day, written with a SF feel. I like his quote: "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed."

 

[theonefirestorm]

I find the attempt to categorize the genre amusing and unsuccessful.

By SF's very nature it is hard to draw compartments around any classification for any work in the genre. Sure, there are generalities:

Military Sci-Fi
Urban Fantasy
Cyberpunk
Dystopian
Hard Sci-Fi
Space Opera

And I am sure I am missing a few categories.

The types of Sci-Fi each have lines and ties in with some Fantasy and some of the other categories.

I have looked at the arguments in this thread and I have noticed that a lot of folks have their own opinions about what category is what.

The conversation, while never resolvable, has made me think about the way I critically read and my own opinions of what makes up say..... a space oprea. I think space opera and I think the Dune series, Most of Peter Hamilton's work, and Ringworld. But then... what are 2001: A Space Odyssey, 2010: Odyssey Two, 2061: Odyssey Three, and 3001: The Final Odyssey? K. Those are Hard Sci-Fi to me.

I enjoy a vast array of Sci-Fi. And when I finish with one, I will contemplate what I want next. For instance, I am in the mood for the supposed "Mystery Sci-Fi" of the Greg Mandel Trilogy from Hamilton. Its a 'type' of story that I enjoyed with the Jim Butcher's Ghost STory (Dresden Files: Book 7). I started that series in the middle and then decided to go back to Book 1 and give it another shot. I didn't get the way the characters interacted at all. But the way that Mr. Butcher told the story makes him oh, so worthy of a proper shot at my pocketbook.

Just in this post I have mentioned quite a few authors who are just phenomenal and yet have their own little niche.

I am skipping around from one series and back. I like to insert something inbetween Book 1 and Book 2 of whatever I am reading. And it will be something different. Ie. I am doing the Greg Mandel series inbetween my reading of all of the Commonwealth Series from Peter Hamilton.

Do ya'll have dedications to a specific type of Sci-Fi or do you change it up as you finish one book and move on to another?

When I get done with The Dangerous Days of Daniel X I would read next Daniel X Watch the Skies which is also Alien Science Fiction.

 

[DennisC]

Gents: let me just throw in a gentle reminder on two points.

1) Politics (and religion) are such incendiary topics that we tend not to do those at SFFWorld, unless related to the genre. Your example here is borderline, so I've left it, but I thought I'd better point it out before someone steps over.

Deepest apologies if I kicked dirt on a line there. I consciously tried to address the way that a society's political/social landscape can affect the types of science fiction which is enjoyed.

One good example would be Arthur C. Clarke's 2010 with the united state and Russia each at each other's throats while the spacecrews need to work together. And it touched on the spectre of nuclear war as well. Another example would be say the "Creature Attack" science fiction of the 1950s and 1940s. Humanity had little knowledge of some of the planet's geography (ignorance, not stupidity) and so these sort of things were appealing.

 

[Hobbit]

Thanks, Dennis.

Your point's a good one, and the 2010 example equally apt.

It was more of a case of pre-emptive strike on my part, before others decided to take it further.

Sort've connected: currently on a reread (with about 30 years apart) of Heinlein's Sixth Column (aka The Day After Tomorrow) which highlights, in some ways, how far the genre's come since the 1940's.

Tackles, not without difficulty, the issue of race, as an invading force from PanAsia defeats the USA. Not only does the US develop a superweapon that can kill depending on race but, in perhaps a nod to Dianetics/Scientology, the surviving resistance movement create a religion to cover up their subversive activities.

No doubt will appear as a review at some later point.

Mark

 

[Nicolas]

Of relevance to the discussion enters Charles Stross' latest post, as informative and thought provoking as usual.

 

[miahskeeper]

I read the article by Charles Stross and definitely agree with his following statement.

"We people of the SF-reading ghetto have stumbled blinking into the future, and our dirty little secret is that we don't much like it. And so we retreat into the comfort zones of brass goggles and zeppelins (hey, weren't airships big in the 1910s-1930s? Why, then, are they such a powerful signifier for Victorian-era alternate fictions?), of sexy vampire-run nightclubs and starship-riding knights-errant. Opening the pages of a modern near-future SF novel now invites a neck-chillingly cold draft of wind from the world we're trying to escape, rather than a warm narcotic vision of a better place and time."

As Mr. Stross so eloquently stated in his article, we are living in the future of past science fiction visions. I've always thought that a lot of Sci-Fi envisions a dark and depressing future for mankind, while entertaining to read it doesn't represent a world in which I would choose to live. Perhaps the Sci-Fi that will capture peoples hearts and minds will be a future in which we will want to be a part of.

 

[psikeyhackr]

As Mr. Stross so eloquently stated in his article, we are living in the future of past science fiction visions. I've always thought that a lot of Sci-Fi envisions a dark and depressing future for mankind, while entertaining to read it doesn't represent a world in which I would choose to live. Perhaps the Sci-Fi that will capture peoples hearts and minds will be a future in which we will want to be a part of.

That is a very curious statement.

Ray Bradbury said this:

I don’t try to predict the future. I try to prevent it.

I recently read Bujold's Cryoburn for the third time. The first time I read it I was not too impressed. It was not bad it was somewhat entertaining but not as good as Diplomatic Immunity which was not as good as Komarr or A Civil Campaign.

But if you think about it it is a retelling of what is happening in the world today. It is about technology changing society because of what millions of people have decided to do with it. But what they do has enabled corporations to rip off millions of them, some more than others. But it also has children who have no power getting caught up in the gears when they do not have a clue about what is going on.

Sorry, but it is not an exciting, escapist story. But it has REALISM. You just have to think about it to see the REALISM.

And that is what a lot of this so called sci-fi is not about. It is not about THINKING. Yeah, we have computers everywhere and people with computer science degrees who can't explain electricity.

Welcome to the future:

http://www.element14.com/community/groups/raspberry-pi

http://www.radioshack.com/uc/index..../pages/Arduino.html&noBc=true&camp=PPC:Google

Too many people want to just treat science fiction as entertainment but don't want to learn anything from it and see how it is relevant to real life. Arthur C. Clarke said politicians should read science fiction. Do you think he was joking? But then people say really good sci-fi like Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy is boring. But this is exciting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqBfZ6vXPS8

psik

 

[Overgeeked]

Too many people want to just treat science fiction as entertainment but don't want to learn anything from it and see how it is relevant to real life. Arthur C. Clarke said politicians should read science fiction. Do you think he was joking? But then people say really good sci-fi like Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy is boring.

I've always been confused by the argument or thought that a genre--any genre--is one, and only one, thing. SF is more than just educational or enlightening; it's more than just entertaining escapism. Good SF is more than both of those combined. Hell, really good SF is both of those with a heaping dose of characterization, plot, subtext, theme, engaging dialog, evocative description, and a dozen other writerly things.

What's entertaining or good to one reader is crap for another, even within SF. And a single work can be "really good SF" but still be a dull read. They're not mutually exclusive.

 

[psikeyhackr]

What's entertaining or good to one reader is crap for another, even within SF. And a single work can be "really good SF" but still be a dull read. They're not mutually exclusive.

But you left out mentioning the comparison to reality.

The computers and cars don't care if we understand them or not. Ever seen two women with two cars and jumper cables and one car with a dead battery and they don't have a clue how to get the second car started?

I am not just talking about evaluation within the delusion of science fiction or quality of writing. I have listened to a Trekkie talk about science being hard. (as in difficult to understand) Maybe he should watch Lost in Space instead. LOL

The technology is not going to stop getting more complicated it's been doing that significantly since World War II. There are no ifs, there are no ands, there are no buts. That is the way it IS! If some people don't like sci-fi that helps them keep up they can be left talking about characterization and world building and satire or whatever.

What is this STAGNATING business about? Stagnating relative to what?

Suppose the human side of sci-fi ideas are used up. Whether you apply the Frankenstein concept to computers of genetic engineering or nanotechnology it is still the Frankenstein concept even though the technologies are different. So is that a form of stagnation?

psik

 

[theonefirestorm]

I read the article by Charles Stross and definitely agree with his following statement.



As Mr. Stross so eloquently stated in his article, we are living in the future of past science fiction visions. I've always thought that a lot of Sci-Fi envisions a dark and depressing future for mankind, while entertaining to read it doesn't represent a world in which I would choose to live. Perhaps the Sci-Fi that will capture peoples hearts and minds will be a future in which we will want to be a part of.

I Robot I recall this was not made only for entertainment.

 

[KatG]

Ever seen two women with two cars and jumper cables and one car with a dead battery and they don't have a clue how to get the second car started?

No, but I've seen two men have no clue how to do it. Meanwhile, my sister, in the early stages of labor, changed the brake pads on her SUV so that she would be able to drive to the hospital safely to have my oldest niece.

If there is any stagnation in SF stories, it's maybe not so much the science aspects, but the inability of many SF writers to imagine people are different in the future from the social stereotypes they grew up with.

 

[kennychaffin]

No, but I've seen two men have no clue how to do it. Meanwhile, my sister, in the early stages of labor, changed the brake pads on her SUV so that she would be able to drive to the hospital safely to have my oldest niece.

If there is any stagnation in SF stories, it's maybe not so much the science aspects, but the inability of many SF writers to imagine people are different in the future from the social stereotypes they grew up with.

Love it!

The problem with the men is they'll bull ahead and explode the batteries out of ignorance.

P.S. she probably knew how to do that from reading Sci-Fi, right?

 

[theonefirestorm]

No, but I've seen two men have no clue how to do it. Meanwhile, my sister, in the early stages of labor, changed the brake pads on her SUV so that she would be able to drive to the hospital safely to have my oldest niece.

If there is any stagnation in SF stories, it's maybe not so much the science aspects, but the inability of many SF writers to imagine people are different in the future from the social stereotypes they grew up with.

Inability as in they refuse to because they don't want a change for the story?