The Death of Science Fiction (Yet Again).

[nealasher]

Oh, good grief, there it is again. On Facebook I followed links posted by Jetse de Vries, to yet another essay about the terminal decline of SF. This on top of another article a while back by Mark Charan Newton about ‘why SF is dying and fantasy is the future’ (no vested interest then from this fantasy writer) and lots of articles related to that, and now, if you search with the words ‘science fiction is dying’ you get numerous hits.

I do get heartily sick of all this effort to stick head-up-own-backside to examine one’s navel from the inside. I started reading SFF over thirty years ago, but it wasn’t until I got involved with the small presses, started finding out about organisations like the BSFA and the BFS, and started reading various magazines, that I discovered that SF seems to have a parasite literature attached to it. Whole swathes of self-styled academics pontificate about the meaning of it all, they wank off into deep critical analysis of stories and books – my first close encounter with this was discovering a review of Mason’s Rats that was about twice the length of the story itself – have lengthy discussions about ‘issues’ in SF and speak with all seriousness about gender divides in genre, the lack of representation of homosexuals, the implicit racism in something like Starship Troopers. Really, if you can be bothered to read all through these highly ‘intelligent’ waffles, the only response upon finishing the last line is to point and giggle.

And an old favourite in this rarified atmosphere is ‘the death of SF’ (or fantasy, or the short story, whatever). It surfaces with the almost metronic regularity of a dead fish at the tide line (stirred up, no-doubt, by some ‘new wave'). SF isn't dying, it hasn’t been ill, and frequent terminal diagnoses often see the undertaker clutching a handful of nails and a hammer and scratching his head over an empty coffin. However, discussions about this demise have been resurrecting themselves in only slightly altered form since I first read 'about' SF rather than SF itself. I'm betting there was some plonker declaring the death of SF the moment Sputnik beeped or just after Neil Armstrong stepped onto the Moon. Really, the whole pointless staggering debate needs a nice fat stake driven through its heart.

 

[chitman13]

I read Mark Newton's reasoning behind the fact that SF is in decline compared to fantasy and I can agree with his points. I've yet to read Jetse's take on this (I'll wait until I'm a little more sober) but by the title alone I can answer his question very easily:

Should SF die? No.

Why anyone would want to ask such a ridiculous question is beyond me. SF won't die, it may be behind fantasy for the forseeable future, but it will never die. It's been through a hell of a lot up to now and with strong authors writing stunning SF these days it just isn't going anywhere.

Would Gollancz throw £1 million pounds away on a hard SF writer for ten novels if they though it was dying? Would Tor UK have three of the best space opera writers in the genre today on their books (with one of those just signed a new deal) if they thought things were going the way of the Dodo? I doubt it very much (although I'm very interested in hearing how things go when Peter Hamilton and Neal sign new deals).

Fantasy may be the more popular choice in this day and age, but that doesn't for one moment mean SF is dying, will die or will ever disappear from the shelves in any way, shape or form.

People who say otherwise can take a bath in a steaming pile of monkey crap.

 

[psikeyhackr]

It keeps coming back to life.

We're just going to have to nuke it. It's the only way to be sure.

BOOM!

No, no it's mutated radioactive aliens! We can't stop them!

Activate the ultrasonic refracting disintegrator.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

...I discovered that SF seems to have a parasite literature attached to it. Whole swathes of self-styled academics pontificate about the meaning of it all, they wank off into deep critical analysis of stories and books – my first close encounter with this was discovering a review of Mason’s Rats that was about twice the length of the story itself – have lengthy discussions about ‘issues’ in SF and speak with all seriousness about gender divides in genre, the lack of representation of homosexuals, the implicit racism in something like Starship Troopers. Really, if you can be bothered to read all through these highly ‘intelligent’ waffles, the only response upon finishing the last line is to point and giggle.

I think there is lots of stuff to discuss about science fiction but its death is not one of them.

But I think the Euro-cultural bias is one of the things that is part of it. Obviously a lot of scientific development originated in Western culture. But the laws of physics don't care about Greek or Latin. One thing you learn by osmosis from reading lots of science fiction is that the laws of physics work the same way throughout the universe. At this very moment there could be green aliens with orange polka-dots on the other side of the galaxy manufacturing microprocessors with silicon. The silicon atoms will work exactly the same as ours. But their computers won't say "Intel Inside". At least I hope not. The instruction sets will be different.

Let's face it, Mr. Spock was an Uncle Tom Tom alien.

It was really great in Amok Time when T'Pring explained why she got those two dummies to fight with each other.

A really good sci-fi story ain't about the science it just has science in it.

A science fiction story is a story built around human beings, with a human problem, and a human solution, which would not have happened at all without its scientific content. —Theodore Sturgeon, cited in James Blish, ‘‘Some Propositions’’ (1952)

Theodore Sturgeon wrote Amok Time.

But the meaning is about where we let the science and technology take us. That could be because of stupidity or intelligence. I just learned yesterday that there is a problem with Humboldt squid up and down the west coast, from Chile to California and it is growing. Apparently it is because people have killed off so many sharks. Don't you love shark fin soup? Catch a shark, cut off the fin and throw the shark back into the ocean. It dies of course. Guess what? Not enough predators to keep the Humboldt squid in check.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTXxpKAp7J4

Aliens from the deep are attacking us.

psik

 

[owlcroft]

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. . . .

. . . Whole swathes of self-styled academics pontificate about the meaning of it all, they wank off into deep critical analysis of stories and books . . . . Really, if you can be bothered to read all through these highly ‘intelligent’ waffles, the only response upon finishing the last line is to point and giggle. . . .

Then there are those who, like the author, ensconce themselves on a thunderous crag of omniscience, and with protestations of humility which are either unconvincing or totally absent, assume the obligation of appraisal, commendation, derogation or denunciation of their contemporaries. Still, by and large it is an easier job than digging a ditch.

--Preface to Men of the Oikumene,
Jan Holbert Vaenz LXII​

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

-- Ecclesiastes 1:9​

None of which is to say that critical examination of fiction, or of any particular department in that shop, is necessarily pure assholery; but professional-grade assholery seems to be what academe is all about. But, as the man says, by and large it is an easier job than digging a ditch.

 

[aminge37]

Just because science fiction isn't doing well right now, it doesn't mean that it's dying. The United States' economy isn't doing well right now either, but that doesn't mean that it's dying. Everything happens in cycles. For a long time science fiction was more popular than fantasy. Just because fantasy has surpassed science fiction, it doesn't mean that the entire genre of science fiction is dying.

Also, I think that one of the reasons that fantasy's popularity has been increasing so much recently is that a lot of the urban fantasy books being released now are pretty much soft-core romance novels (and many could probably be considered hard-core). Not only does this mean they appeal to women who typically read romance novels, it also means that they appeal to women who wouldn't be caught dead reading a romance novel, yet still fall for the sappy love-lust stories with terrible plots that most of these books are. And since I'd guess that around 90% of women between the ages of 14 and 35 fall into one of those categories, that equals a lot of book sales.

 

[aminge37]

Would Gollancz throw £1 million pounds away on a hard SF writer for ten novels if they though it was dying? Would Tor UK have three of the best space opera writers in the genre today on their books (with one of those just signed a new deal) if they thought things were going the way of the Dodo? I doubt it very much (although I'm very interested in hearing how things go when Peter Hamilton and Neal sign new deals).

Who are those 3 space opera authors that Tor UK has?

 

[PeterWilliam]

Just guessing, but number one is probably Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space series.

 

[Rulkez]

Who are those 3 space opera authors that Tor UK has?

Asher , Hamilton and Reynolds (maybe even Banks ?)

 

[chitman13]

Tor UK has Peter Hamilton, Neal Asher and Gary Gibson writing some excellent space opera, while Gollancz has Alastair Reynolds tied up for his next 10 novels with that huge signing.

 

[nealasher]

Perfect illustration of my final point. I posted this little rant on my blog first, and here's a reply from Gary Farber:

Who Killed Science Fiction? won the Hugo Award for Best Fanzine in 1961. The Fifties were rife with talk about the death of science fiction, and Earl Kemp's symposia of so many sf pros and prominent fans summed it all up.

http://efanzines.com/EK/eI29/

Hah!

 

[Rulkez]

It doesn't help that Sci-Fi fandom is so fractured , while Sci-Fi as a whole (TV / Gaming / Books / Movies ) is big business and massively popular , there are those within the genre / fandom willing to dismiss massive parts of Sci-Fi culture because it doesn't meet their view of what Sci-Fi is 'meant' to be .

 

[Andols]

It doesn't help that Sci-Fi fandom is so fractured , while Sci-Fi as a whole (TV / Gaming / Books / Movies ) is big business and massively popular , there are those within the genre / fandom willing to dismiss massive parts of Sci-Fi culture because it doesn't meet their view of what Sci-Fi is 'meant' to be .

I think almost every form of entertainment (or art) has that problem. For all the problems that may arise from it, I think it would also bridge gaps by exposing certain forms of sf to people who may not get a chance to experience them otherwise.

 

[Fung Koo]

Neal Asher, my new hero.

One point on the academic discussion, though (given that I, myself, have written just such a thing about Starship Troopers!). Whether it's latent homophobia, implicit racism, whatever -- a large part of the issue with academic criticism versus media criticism is that the point of it is (generally speaking) entirely different. When academic criticism leaks out into the public eye, it invariably gets treated as little different from media criticism, but an extremely pedantic form of it, and so gets identified by some as head-up-arse academic assholery.

Unfortunately, folk forget that all things are not equal. Two mechanics talking about an engine will have a very different discussion than two laypersons talking about the same engine. And when a mechanic talks to that layperson, they will have yet another different discussion. And two aircraft mechanics discussing an automobile engine will have yet another different discussion than the two auto mechanics. And two physicists differently again.

Unfortunately, academic discussions all-too-often get dragged into lay discussions on the subject of SF's health or lack thereof. Usually (in my experience) academic discussions are grossly misrepresented in such arguments. And because most people aren't academics with a background in English Lit and Literary Theory, you get incredibly incomplete readings of those arguments. It's much the same as a reasonably well-educated person with an interest in quantum science discussing quantum computer processing with a quantum-optics scientist.

For whatever reason, academics in the arts aren't generally regarded as experts or specialists by the general public the same way academic scientists are. Instead, they're just regarded as snooty, pompous narcissists. Yet if you ask a physicist or engineer to describe each others professions, there is an understanding that engineers are intended to be experts in the practical use of physics (in all its myriad forms), while academics are experts in idealized theory.

That this same understanding of professionalism doesn't extend to the arts isn't altogether surprising -- the arts are fairly esoteric after all, and art appreciation is heavily subjective. But it is a root cause of so many issues in media about literature, such as the oft-recycling SF is Dying discussion.

Anyway -- I mention this only because I get really tired of people blasting academics. Yes there are doom-and-gloom folk in the academic world, just as there are elsewhere. But for the most part, academics publish papers that are, in so many ways, exactly the same as forum threads. Someone starts the topic off with a researched article on Topic X. Someone posts their researched support or rebuttal, and the discussion branches out. Then subsequent academics enter the conversation. That's all. So when these academic threads get pulled out of context and thrown into another debate they're only indirectly related to, their relevance is utterly lost.

Academia ain't all bad. People could just stand to be more cognisant of what it is and what it's for, and what it isn't and what it shouldn't be used for.

 

[owlcroft]

It's much the same as a reasonably well-educated person with an interest in quantum science discussing quantum computer processing with a quantum-optics scientist.

No: it's not.

Quantum mechanics--science and technology in general--requires for intelligent discussion a deep knowledge of particular fact-based theories, and the mathematics that underlies them. Literary analysis, though it dresses itself up in terminology as abstruse as that of quantum mechanics, and plays tennis with highly convoluted theories, is not much "fact-based". There is simply no equivalence between quantitative and qualitative theory.

That is not a condemnation of literary analysis or criticism: Heaven knows I practice it enough myself. It is a condemnation of a supposed art that hides its often inane, not-very-intelligent work under a nearly impenetrable cloud of terminology with few referents.

Very strongly suggested relevant reading: Chip Morningstar's wonderful little piece "How to Deconstruct Almost Anything--My Postmodern Adventure". Or you could simply read just about anything by R. A. Lafferty.

 

[wwfward]

It doesn't help that Sci-Fi fandom is so fractured , while Sci-Fi as a whole (TV / Gaming / Books / Movies ) is big business and massively popular , there are those within the genre / fandom willing to dismiss massive parts of Sci-Fi culture because it doesn't meet their view of what Sci-Fi is 'meant' to be .

Yeah, I totally agree. To me, fantasy is more fairy tale with magic and the like while science fiction centers on the possible whether it be through ideas, technology, or what not. I'm a fan of both.

 

[owlcroft]

Come back with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear . . . .

Ah, for the good old days when any tale set in a world differing from what we think we know was simply "fantastic fiction". Nowadays "speculative fiction" supposedly means the same, but it has not the ring of the older form.

Or, as Navarth once asked, "Where is its like today?"

 

[psikeyhackr]

It doesn't help that Sci-Fi fandom is so fractured , while Sci-Fi as a whole (TV / Gaming / Books / Movies ) is big business and massively popular , there are those within the genre / fandom willing to dismiss massive parts of Sci-Fi culture because it doesn't meet their view of what Sci-Fi is 'meant' to be .

I don't really get what this is about. I was communicating with a high school English teacher for a while and suggesting some sci-fi books that I thought could interest his students (which also contained some realistic science, of course) and we got along fine for a while. But then he started talking about comic books and I just said I didn't read them and he hands me this, "I thought you were one of US."

WHAT?

Everybody that reads sci-fi novels is supposed to be into comic books too? I got hooked on the game DOOM for about 8 months but now all first person shooters look the same to me just with better resolution.

I the book The Space Merchants pretty much describes what a lot of so called sci-fi is really about now. Some people making money off others with psychological nonsense. In this case the psychological nonsense involves the loosest possible definition of science fiction.

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

Now with all of these netbook and smartbook we now have in real-space-time there comes:

The Cyber-space Merchants

psik

 

[Rulkez]

I don't really get what this is about.

I guess I can say the same, you state you don't get what my post was about , then ramble on without addressing whatever it was about my point you 'Don't get' .

OT : My point was that a lot of these cries of " SCI-FI IZ TEE DEAD" come from within the genre , a lot of these proclamations of death come 'fans' who are disgruntled that what they see as SF diminishing in popularity .

You are case in point , if I read your post on this subject across the various threads correctly , then you need some actual working science , or at least theorem based on real scientific principles for a novel to be considered science fiction . Where as I read science fiction to be entertained (its fiction after all, if I want to learn there is the internet or academic resources available to me) and don't care if the author screws up his physics (or even blatantly ignores existing laws)

Its not real surprise to me that the death of the genre is declared every couple of months , when its fans all have different ideas of what the genre is supposed to be.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I guess I can say the same, you state you don't get what my post was about , then ramble on without addressing whatever it was about my point you 'Don't get' .

I get what your post is about I don't get the idea of this sci-fi groupyism like everybody is supposed to like what everybody else claims is sci-fi. Like that teacher expecting me to care about comic books just because he did.

psik