our genre is stagnating

[kennychaffin]

Yep, sorry, I knew what I meant to type, but my fingers didn't follow.

 

[DDCOrange]

The differences between now and The Great Depression is that most of the US population was still rural in the 1930s. Also we did not have nearly as much of a car culture with lots of suburbs that would be at least annoying to live in without cars. So I wonder if it could be as bad as people either starving in cities or abandoning cities. The government has had decades of welfare state mentality but Keynes said governments should build up surpluses during good times but they never did it. So now they have super debt that Keynes never imagined but they still either want to talk Keynesianism or blame Keynes.

Another factor is this global warming business. By 2050 it will either be obvious that it has been going on and the idiot denialists will have helped screw the planet by keeping anything from being done or it will be a lot slower or non-existent than many experts expect. Personally, I bet it will get really bad. The transportation industry should be a mess with either no oil or extremely expensive oil. Bio-fuel production could aggravate water and food problems. There should probably be a sharp reduction in meat production and consumption.

On the computer front I have a peculiar attitude. It is not that I think computers won't get more powerful I just think it won't matter for more than 90% of people. I heard users complaining about useless variation in word processing software in 2001. What do people do with Vista and Windows 7 that they couldn't do with XP. Yeah I heard of some improvements but how many of those could have been implemented without changing the operating system? So it is a matter of figuring out how to make GOOD use of the processing power rather than increasing it. So it is back to how much do most people know and how much bad information is spread and believed.

So I wonder if all of the kids could and should revolt, kind of like the 60s, only they should have stuff to REALLY BE MAD ABOUT now. Nitwit adults screwed up the planet and left them with the mess and still won't explain what the hell is going on. Presumably most adults don't know. Too much BS to sort out. Play Angry Birds on your smartphone. That will help solve problems.

psik

Interesting points. I also believe that we are heading for a serious crash mainly because our political leaders (for the most part) are all career politicians who know little or nothing about economics and rely on advisors whose experience is rooted in academia not reality and whose policies will often as not make the problem worse instead of better.

Global warming... well I personally believe it's the most expensive hoax ever perpetrated in all history. I believe this mainly based on the evidence I see with my own eyes. If the alarmists were to be believed in the Nineties when this whole mantra first came out, I should be standing in three feet of seawater right now. Sorry, hasn't happened yet nor is it very likely. Locally temperatures have cooled more than they have heated and I remember much warmer summers in the 60's and 70's when we had triple digit heatwaves for weeks at a time. No longer. Also there has been too much evidence that the alarmists doctor their "proven science" to yield the results they need to "prove" Global Warming. If this theory is so obvious why the need to alter their evidence? Something really stinks here. Why doctor the proof? Hell of alot of reasons, Government Grants, private funding by believers, the fame that the media is so willing to bestow on these lying "heroes". Honestly if all the metrological science available to us is unable to accurately predict tomorrow's weather do we really believe a computer model can predict ten years from now? Fifty years from now? My bet is that 2050 won't be significantly different.

Agree with you on transporation and dwindling fuel supplies. Unless a viable alternate fuel can be found (windmills and solar panels are outrageously inefficient and can only handle about 5% of current needs), our whole culture will undergo some extreme shifts and starvation, particularly in the poorer third world countries will once again rear it's ugly head.

The problem with student protesters is that are not experienced, knowledgeable, or organized enough to be very effective. In the end they wind up being rude, loud, and destructive. Ask any ten of the "Occupy" protesters what they are protesting and you will likely get ten different answers, nine of which are based on opinion instead of fact. Of course there have been exceptions....

OK time to hop off my soapbox!

 

[Loerwyn]

Global warming... well I personally believe it's the most expensive hoax ever perpetrated in all history.

Except for the natural warming/cooling cycles of the planet, of course. They're totally a hoax

 

[Chuffalump]

Global warming... well I personally believe it's the most expensive hoax ever perpetrated in all history. I believe this mainly based on the evidence I see with my own eyes.

Yet if I went by the evidence of MY own eyes I would be certain that global warming IS happening. Personally I don't rely on the evidence of my own eyes. They are frequently unreliable and don't see everything.

As a semi-related on-topic comment..... do political or social beliefs slant reading enjoyment bias? For instance, in the film Avatar, even though the Earth is presumably dying I still don't think we would have the right to destroy the homes and lives of the natives. Even if it meant our own deaths. Are there people who watch this film on the side of military/big business interests? People who would prefer the ending to be a big opencast mine and a couple of natives on a reservation?

So, if there was a temporary glut of new authors with a touchy/feely writing style, would a good old style MilSF fan see the genre as stagnating because there was nothing new for 'him' to read. And would someone who's preferred read is an exploration of character and social change, see this same trend as a giant leap forward?

Just a rambling semi-coherent thought.

 

[kennychaffin]

not rambling at all. and probably at the core of the "perceived" stagnation. and thanks for bringing us back on topic.

 

[DennisC]

Once again, I have to tip my hat to everyone on this forum.... Dear God, ya'll make my brain hurt. This is like being at a convention on the one or two days a week I spend catching up here. I have /never/ seen a group argue with such passion and still maintain the dignity of discussion. Reminds me of the writings of politicians and philosophers at different points in history.

I could waste away in books and here.... oh wait... I am doing so....

Deepest thanks to everyone on this thread. Amazing commentary folks. I can barely keep up. I HOPE there are some aspiring writers out there.

 

[DennisC]

...

As a semi-related on-topic comment..... do political or social beliefs slant reading enjoyment bias? For instance, in the film Avatar, even though the Earth is presumably dying I still don't think we would have the right to destroy the homes and lives of the natives. Even if it meant our own deaths. Are there people who watch this film on the side of military/big business interests? People who would prefer the ending to be a big opencast mine and a couple of natives on a reservation?

...

I could write a book on one of your questions. Any one of them.

Yes, political and social beliefs DO slant enjoyment and can even prevent or encourage someone to read a work. Here I saw some folks complaining about an author because of his political and social beliefs. I don't recall the author though.

A good example for me in this area is Orwell's 1984. I had a strong distrust of government towards the end of High School (and I am in the united state). So that book appealed to me based on a recommendation of the librarian who I had a conversation with about that mistrust of what we were being taught in government run school.

Another example is some of the film about post-nuclear war life. The Day After and quite a few other less successful films were all over the air waves when I was a child in the 1980s.

I have not seen Avatar but I did read the wiki plot summary after I kept seeing the fanatic love of the series. I am not a huge 'save the planet' type of guy so 'green fiction' does not appeal to me at all. I just don't get bent up about it. But others who deeply care about the planet tend to love this sort of stuff. There are even TV channels dedicated to the topic available here.

To go back into English history, the Restoration yielded Restoration Comedies.

And you can certainly turn off readers with a political or social view. Or even choosing one version of history verses another as a setting for stories when there is debate over what really happened.

So, I would deeply agree that an audience's political and social views deeply affect their desire to read certain themed stories.

Now someone explain why zombie stories are so popular. And yes, I love them.

 

[DennisC]

... [snipped an excellent point by Mr. Chuffalump]

So, if there was a temporary glut of new authors with a touchy/feely writing style, would a good old style MilSF fan see the genre as stagnating because there was nothing new for 'him' to read. And would someone who's preferred read is an exploration of character and social change, see this same trend as a giant leap forward?

Just a rambling semi-coherent thought.

You have very well and concisely put together a nice explanation for why some would see the genre as stagnating that has escaped most of us.

This is quite an enlightening thing for me to finally see.

Personally I just go for an entertaining read. But I have put down books at page 30 or 40 when they are just plain offensive with regard to some of my own personal beliefs. I just wouldn't enjoy reading through a book that offends me with every turn of the page.

Some of the best books I have read don't touch on any social or political issues - Princess Bride, Deep Six, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, etc.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Some of the best books I have read don't touch on any social or political issues - Princess Bride, Deep Six, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, etc.

I have never read The Princess Bride but saw the movie. It is hysterically funny. And witty. But it is not science fiction. But it totally blows away Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

But talking about science fiction stagnating kind of implies a direction. If all it is is entertainment then some of it will be entertaining to some people forever if only because young people will encounter story lines that have been used before and before but they just don't know about the previous incarnations which may be superior but dated in some way. Like having characters that smoke cigarettes or are obviously somewhat sexist.

But something other than the entertainment value needs to be the defining characteristic of any supposed stagnation.

I think part of the problem is Star Trek. It made the idea of fast interstellar travel too popular. But in the real world that is either never going to happen or not any time soon so we have lots of young people with heads full of interstellar imaginings. I think finding exo-planets 150 light-years away is cool on one level but on another I say, "So What! We can't get there.".

Maybe we need more intra-system sci-fi. There was a lot more of that percentage wise in the 50s and 60s than now.

psik

 

[Danogzilla]

I have never read The Princess Bride but saw the movie. It is hysterically funny. And witty. But it is not science fiction. But it totally blows away Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

But talking about science fiction stagnating kind of implies a direction. If all it is is entertainment then some of it will be entertaining to some people forever if only because young people will encounter story lines that have been used before and before but they just don't know about the previous incarnations which may be superior but dated in some way. Like having characters that smoke cigarettes or are obviously somewhat sexist.

But something other than the entertainment value needs to be the defining characteristic of any supposed stagnation.

I think part of the problem is Star Trek. It made the idea of fast interstellar travel too popular. But in the real world that is either never going to happen or not any time soon so we have lots of young people with heads full of interstellar imaginings. I think finding exo-planets 150 light-years away is cool on one level but on another I say, "So What! We can't get there.".

Maybe we need more intra-system sci-fi. There was a lot more of that percentage wise in the 50s and 60s than now.

psik

One of the really fun things about Alastair Reynolds is his writing about deep time. He makes the exo-planet 150 light-years away a reasonable place to visit. People living on all different time scales adds a nice texture to his books.

 

[kennychaffin]

I would add that being too conservative (e.g. not allowing faster than light) would actually increase the stagnation.

I recently read Nancy Kress's "Fountains of Light" collection and many of the stories there really are character/relationship stories that only have SF "salted" as background or as a non-integral part of the story. These same stories could have been written as contemporary or historical stories with slight modification. Others in the collection I felt were much more integrated.

 

[DDCOrange]

Well for what it's worth I believe that as long as we imagine, dream, and innovate this genre will never stagnate or die. It may change direction and some of us may not like the changes or think them preposterous but keep in mind that throughout history the people who thought outside of the box led the way in making the impossible happen. There was once a time when circumnavigating the globe was considered "impossible" or breaking the sound barrier was scientifically absolutely "impossible" or even the concept of an internet was deemed "impossible".

More changes are sure to come and it will take new generations of dreamers and forward thinkers to bring them about; and writers to imagine the possible futures from today. As long as they exist, so will Science Fiction.

 

[psikeyhackr]

It's a question of what stuff called science fiction could serve the purpose.

2. WHY SCIENCE FICTION IS "GOOD TO THINK WITH" - SCIENCE FICTION AS 'THOUGHT EXPERIMENT'

Creative forms such as science fiction can offer a wider field, when we are concerned with critiquing and unpacking techno scientific practices, cultures and knowledge. Furthermore, as "cross-cultural" narrative in encounters between the humanities and sciences - this conjunction of disciplines figured by the term science fiction - bears re-examination as a resource for Science Studies, and a potential mediator in science-humanities dialogues which could illuminate the social and cultural meanings and consequences of scientific research(Merrick, 2005, Gough, 2006).

A basic element of science fiction is the challenges and the questioning articulated in its reading process whose necessary and sufficient conditions are the presence and interaction of
estrangement and cognition or cognition effect (Freedman, 2000:16-23). As theoretical models – abstract constructions of subject, of representation – become fleshed out in the particularized worlds of the science fiction imagination, science fiction articulates and explores those models through its narrative experiments and, in the ongoing dialectical relationship between abstraction and concretization science fiction continues to influence the development of the new worlds and the new futures. The mixing of science fictions with science 'facts' and theories serves the immediate function of undermining universal claims to 'truth', and in emphasizing narrativity, it potentially opens up scientific discourses to challenge and interpretation. In this essence, science fiction is called upon as useful space, "reading practice"or "dream laboratory" in which to reflect upon and engage with scientific cultures, practices and knowledges and configures a more productive interaction relation between fictional and theoretical writings on science, especially in the field that opposes the authority of the natural sciences as "crafts for distinguishing between fact and fiction"

http://uoa.academia.edu/Constantine...entifically_and_Politically_Literate_Citizens

psik

 

[DennisC]

PsikeyHacker:

Are you working in literature? Just have to ask b/c of the nature of some of your posts - all good, higher end thought provoking items from obscure web pages out there.

The one you posted points out a lot of what i love about the genre. For instance:

3. SCIENCE FICTION AS LITERARY RESPONSE TO SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES

Yes, yes, yes. Lots of scifi is a response to social or environmental challenges. All sorts of examples exist there. Walk outside and pick up a newspaper and there will be a ton of them right there. The genre is often (but not always) a manifestation of the very best of the human spirit. Other times its a musing of the very worst (darker works with often sad endings).

 

[psikeyhackr]

PsikeyHacker:

Are you working in literature? Just have to ask b/c of the nature of some of your posts - all good, higher end thought provoking items from obscure web pages out there.

No, I just started thinking about the genre in the last few years. It started when I decided to use the Internet to find some good books by authors I did not already know. So I read a lot of reviews and figured I should like at least 3 out of 5 books I selected with lots of good reviews.

NOT!

I liked one of them a little.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Million_Open_Doors

It was somewhat interesting from a social-psychological perspective but it was based on technology that I couldn't give the slightest credence to. But the others were worse even if the technologies weren't as obviously ridiculous. So I was rather annoyed after spending $40 plus tax.

So I figured I might as well read the public domain science fiction in Project Gutenberg. It couldn't be any worse.

So this got me thinking what reading science fiction did for me in grade school. The nuns never used a science book even though they had them sitting on book shelves. My sister told me that a nun said to her that, "science and religion don't mix." The truth is that "thinking and religion don't mix." And for me science fiction delivered a lot of ideas and information that I was not getting from any adults. It actually made science more interesting than the real science teachers that I finally got in high school. It saved me from a really boring grade school experience. But I remember scrimping to save money to buy books after I used up the local library. Now my very first SF book is free on the net, even as an audio book.

Star Surgeon by Alan E. Nourse
http://www.amazon.com/Star-Surgeon-Alan-Nourse/dp/1598180657
http://librivox.org/star-surgeon-by-alan-edward-nourse/
http://www.sffaudio.com/?p=1299

So now kids with smartphones and tablets and netbooks can get this stuff for free. Of course it ain't all good. But it definitely shows technology impacting sociology. But who and how decide what goes into kid's heads. That has always been the problem. The technology just multiplies the possibilities.

So this reminds me of a science fiction short story I read long ago but never forgot. A prolific inventor creates a time machine. So he goes back and visits himself as a child and tells himself what to read and what to not waste time on. So he grows up again and does it again. And then again.. But that time the kid says to hell with it and never becomes an inventor. LOL

But I do wonder what would have happened if I had had adults to give me good advice about what to read and what to not waste time on. With the Internet why shouldn't that be universal. Do some adults want to not spread good information? Are some deliberately spreading bad information or leaving stuff out entirely?

Is this the true POTENTIAL singularity and not AI/transhuman nonsense?

psik

 

[kennychaffin]

Nah, the fact is that people are different. Some embrace the entire experience of life, others are focused on how much science is in SF.

 

[Danogzilla]

Ooooooohhh.

 

[AndrewT]

science fiction is stagnating. i intend to change that. we dont need a hundred bland stories and weak movies with stunning graphics that attempt to compensate for repetitive, one-dimensional storylines. this generation needs an entire new universe to immerse itself in, a star wars for the 2010's, for lack of a better analogy. i am writing just that. i estimate that my first book of the series will be done before end of the year. if something new that not only science fiction but literature enthusiasts will become enamored with peaks your intrest, keep an eye out for my new universe.

Go for it. Change the world.

But what, exactly, will you do different? What do you want to change?

Just saying that stories are bland and movies are weak isn't enough.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Not only is science fiction an idea of tremendous import, but it is to be an important factor in making the world a better place to live in, through educating the public to the possibilities of science and the influence of science on life which, even today, are not appreciated by the man on the street. ... If every man, woman, boy and girl, could be induced to read science fiction right along, there would certainly be a great resulting benefit to the community, in that the educational standards of its people would be raised tremendously. Science fiction would make people happier, give them a broader understanding of the world, make them more tolerant.

— Hugo Gernsback
Editorial, Science Fiction Week (1930). In Gary Westfahl, Hugo Gernsback and the Century of Science Fiction (2007), 166.

Even though Newtonian Physics is not NEW, children still have to learn it.

Hugo Gernsback is simultaneously one of the most revered and despised figures in the history of science fiction. He has been called "the father of science fiction" and the Hugos, the genre's most prestigious awards, are named after him. He was the guest of honor at the 1952 Worldcon. Gernsback’s achievements include founding the first SF magazine, Amazing Stories, naming the genre “scientifiction” (missing the eventual term by a syllable), starting the first reader letter columns, and organizing the first fan organization, the Science Fiction League, which encouraged the spread of fandom and eventually led to fanzines and webzines like Republibot.

Gernsback wanted scientifiction to be a forward thinking genre that educated the public in the tremendous future promised by science and technology. For Gernsback, SF contained a message that taught us that science and technology could create a glorious future and allow problem-solving humans to ameliorate the ills of existence. In the first issue of Amazing Stories, Gernsback defined scientifiction as “a charming romance intermingled with scientific fact and prophetic vision.” Gernsback wanted writers to pad their stories with extensive scientific fact to educate as well entertain their readers. Gernsback believed SF would become the most important genre of modern literature because it was best able to predict and understand scientific and technological change.

Hugo Gernsback and the Invention of the Science Fiction Megatext
http://www.republibot.com/content/hugo-gernsback-and-invention-science-fiction-megatext

psik

 

[Overgeeked]

Yeah, old Hugo did a lot of cool things, but that bit ignores two very important facts.

1. Science fiction--the genre, if not the label--predates Hugo Gernsback.

2. Science fiction is not limited to Hugo Gernsback's conception of it.