The Death of Science Fiction (Yet Again).

I understand this idea, but a large part of the problem (which even you've pointed out before somewhere) is that the way we teach sciences has shifted away from applied sciences toward theoretical science. Not in the sense of cutting-edge high-level theory -- in the sense of learning the equation and writing it on the test (theory) as opposed to going outside to build a catapult and write a report (applied).

But now we have computer simulations and REALLY CHEAP computers.

http://www.shatters.net/celestia/

http://crocodile-physics.software.informer.com/3.5/

So a netbook with sci-fi e-books and educational software.

Education and technology

A slim netbook-type computer contains your student's daily video lessons about literary symbolism and how to multiply fractions.

Everything he needs for school — books, homework — is inside this electronic backpack. He will watch the lessons at school and sometimes at home until he understands each concept well enough to pass a test that grades itself instantly. Once he passes the test, the teaching program will move him on to the next level.

In the next decade, technology will pick up the pace in reshaping how students learn and teachers teach.

In math and science, a student will discuss lessons with the teacher-facilitator in class, where he'll learn with students who are of all ages but on the same academic level. In English, a struggling student will prefer to chat via instant- messaging with a tutor. School counselors will monitor progress on a statewide data site.

A student may be deep into college-level biology before 15 years of age and into full-time college work before 18. His friends may not be. High-school graduation will start to become an old-fashioned ceremony.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/12/31/20091231predictions-CR.html

Of course I think he is overly optimistic and the forces of tradition will get in the way.

How much do the kids need the school?

psik
 
Using YA sci-fi for teaching Sciences isn't very workable. The information to page quotient is terribly low and in general English teachers are the ones responsible for assigning novels.

Considering the stringent definition of SF some people are advocating, what happens when advances in science make a SF classic outdated....does that book cease to be SF?
 
Using YA sci-fi for teaching Sciences isn't very workable. The information to page quotient is terribly low and in general English teachers are the ones responsible for assigning novels.

I know this is taking us even further off topic, but I'm curious to know how many of you out there ever had an SF book assigned to you as part of a science class?
 
Why would they assign an SF novel in science class? Even something like Greg Egan writes with charts and graphs does not have enough detail for a science class. They get assigned in English class. Most science-loving students are also SF fans, and I suppose a science teacher might reference a novel or film in lecture, but other than that, it would be pretty unlikely.
 
Using YA sci-fi for teaching Sciences isn't very workable.
I know this is taking us even further off topic, but I'm curious to know how many of you out there ever had an SF book assigned to you as part of a science class?

I was reading science fiction for years before I ever got a science class. A nun at my grade school told one of my sisters that , "science and religion don't mix." I found the terms "agnostic" and "atheist" in sci-fi books. I decided I was an agnostic at 12 but said nothing to the nuns.

I am not saying that the science should be explained in a sci-fi book but that correct terminology and concepts can be woven into the science fiction stories. Tao Zero by Poul Anderson does not really EXPLAIN Einsteinian physics. But by the time you finish that book you have a really strong "intuitive" grasp of the effect of near light speed on time which physicists have tested in cyclotrons.

Take the term von Neumann machine. Charles Sheffield uses it in his book Cold as Ice. Almost all computers are von Neumann machines. I worked for IBM for years and never saw the term in any documentation and never heard anyone use it. I didn't even learn it until after I quit IBM. But it turns out that von Neumann worked for IBM as a consultant in the early 50s. Which we peon employees were never told.

So by learning the proper terminology a kid can then use the encyclopedia and now the internet to find the details. All a kid needs is to know the RIGHT STUFF to research to keep from stumbling around in the dark.

If you think I am talking BS about this do an experiment yourself. Go to a bookstore with a big computer section. Check out the books that have titles which indicate that they explain computers. Look up "von Neumann" in the index and see what they say. I have seen $70 books that just mention his name along with Eckart and Mauchley and Charles Babbage and explain nothing. The book publishing business is about making money selling a lot of books not distributing a lot of good, highly concentrated information. If you can find the right books on any particular subject you can probably learn more from 5 books than 100 wrong books. But how do you tell the difference if you don't know the subject?

That is the position all children are in.

The distribution of RELEVANT knowledge affects how society works. Isn't sci-fi about technology affecting society. The internet is the proper terrain for the Global Mind War.

:D :D :D

psik

PS - Have I gone off topic. Is Kat going to spank me again. :eek:
 
Last edited:
Why would they assign an SF novel in science class?

Well, methinks the simplest reason would be to explore a scientific concept through a fictional presentation. Clearly an English teacher isn't going to assign a book for its science content. If the suggestion is that SF can be useful in education, then the logical use for it would be science class, no?

I know it does happen, though it's pretty rare. The closest example in my education was when we watched Innerspace in Grade 9 Science class (we had a pretty laid-back teacher). There was no assignment attached to it or anything, though. And I remember in Grade 6 we read Bruce Coville's My Teacher is an Alien, but the discussion I remember had more to do with social issues than with science (what little science there actually is in those "SF" books).

When we read Clarke's The Star, I recall that someone didn't understand how the explosion of a star could be misinterpreted as the light over Bethlehem, so the science of it was explained. But beyond that, the point of the discussion in class was the socio-religious implication.

Farah Mendelsohn has suggested that there's actually no such thing as a YA science fiction -- that the "science" portion is almost universally irrelevant, revealing the truth that SF is ultimately something more like Social Fiction. Her argument may have changed since 2004, though -- haven't kept up with following it. If that argument bears out, there's anther reason why SF isn't useful for teaching science.
 
I was reading science fiction for years before I ever got a science class. A nun at my grade school told one of my sisters that , "science and religion don't mix." I found the terms "agnostic" and "atheist" in sci-fi books. I decided I was an agnostic at 12 but said nothing to the nuns.

Heheh :) Hence the reason SF can be such a difficult thing to introduce in the classroom. I once suggested that one of my Grade 7 students listen to the band Propagandhi and got an ear full for it. Turns out the parents didn't want to foster the kid's political interests, nor an interest in punk music. And guess who pays my paycheque... :rolleyes:

I am not saying that the science should be explained in a sci-fi book but that correct terminology and concepts can be woven into the science fiction stories.

Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely.

This is much the same argument about "grade-level appropriate vocabulary" in fiction when we teach reading. There are various theories on how reading should be taught, but I personally think that the best thing to do is to use the proper word in the proper place -- it doesn't make any sense to substitute an "easier" word. All that does is promote an incorrect understanding. Many kids (certainly not all) are actually very good at skipping words they don't understand and letting the usage in context fill in the meaning.

Scientific concepts aught to be approached in much the same way. Use the proper terminology and present them (at least reasonably) accurately within an understandable context, and the understanding of the term fills itself in.

It's like Jeopardy -- use the definition to find out the word/term, rather than learn the word/term and add a definition to it. Not every kid flourishes with such a system, so a variety of approaches are necessary. But I prefer the whole concept approach.

The only thing I would add, though, is that with science it can be difficult to be accurate in a fictional presentation since a good portion of science remains theory, where multiple alternative possible explanations exist (of course, you can make the same counter-argument about word choice for vocabulary). We teach chemistry using the standard periodic table of the elements because it aligns with the most prominent theory of chemistry. But, there are numerous other versions of the periodic table, and numerous other theories, all of which are useful in various contexts. When we include "accurate science" terminology in SF stories, on what basis should we use one scientific theory over another? Because it's in the curriculum? Because it's what's prominent?

There's really no good, satisfactory answer to that question -- there are only various personal opinions -- which is yet another reason why SF ain't useful for teaching science.

The book publishing business is about making money selling a lot of books not distributing a lot of good, highly concentrated information.

Bear in mind that many of the big publishers run their education division completely separately from the fiction division. Sometimes you'll see social sciences and humanities cross-over publications (especially in history -- historical fiction paired with history lessons and textbooks).

This is more difficult to do with the hard sciences. A lot of science isn't easily translatable into stories. And a lot of stories suffer when you overemphasize the science.

But most importantly, the publishing industry isn't about pedagogy -- it's about entertainment. And it shouldn't be about pedagogy, IMO. Yes, there should be some pedagogical fiction. And yes, including instruction and information in texts is important. But when it's overdone --being beaten over the head with information -- it completely kills the magic of reading. In my own estimation, it's more important to foster at least a degree of enjoyment in the simple act of reading for pleasure. If we treat children's and YA fiction like it all has to be instructive, then it kills it.

Maybe Kat knows this (or any other publishing types we have lurking about here) -- are there many teaching-fiction publishers? As in, fiction produced with the specific use of teaching in mind? I know Pearson Ed has an imprint for its historical fiction titles, and Scholastic produces/sells curriculum-based fiction. How common are such publishers? And, have you got an idea how many of them specifically work on science-related fiction?

If you can find the right books on any particular subject you can probably learn more from 5 books than 100 wrong books. But how do you tell the difference if you don't know the subject?

That is the position all children are in.

Well said -- furthering the importance making sure we teach kids the skills of how to suss out the validity of information.

---

A final thought, to try and steer this thread back toward the topic:

Assuming that SF, like any other niche interest, goes through cyclical rises and falls in popularity...

Assuming that science and scientific theories rise and fall as they are supported or disproved...

Assuming that an interest in SF fosters scientific imagination...

...to what extent do you think that the presentation of inaccurate science helps to trigger new scientific thought?

In otherwords: given that new discoveries are usually discovered when two things previously thought to be unrelated are shown to be related, to what extent does the pursuit of bad science contribute to the pursuit of good science?

Same old question about the role of SF in science, really... but I've always thought that it's equally as important to learn how to do things wrong as it is to learn how to things right. Seems to me that learning bad information requires you to figure out what makes it bad, thereby helping you figure out what's good.

So when people point at bad science in SF as proof that SF is Dying, maybe that's actually a good thing. Yay for bad science! :D
 
Yes, you're a bit off topic, Psikey, and on your usual rant, but it's related to the thread topic, so no, I'm not going to spank you. :)

Fung -- there is an entire educational publishing industry, which does include fiction, though the chief function of that material is to teach kids how to read, but also uses stories to impart information. That can include science as a subject, though it would be adjunct only and the stories are not necessarily comparable to SF, being mostly exercises. Additionally, youth fiction usually has the dual purpose of exploring developmental issues for young people. There are fictional works for young people that present science concepts, such as the Magic School Bus series. Additionally, in the retail arena, science is the top selling subject of youth non-fiction. Science is not at all absent from youth fiction or the youth market.

More to the point, in psikey's golden age of science teaching and "educating" SF, the literacy rate of the population was far lower than it is now, fewer children completed much schooling, the science knowledge of most of the population was exceedingly low, and SF was a niche fiction market read by only a tiny percentage of the population, predominantly young males, who were widely ridiculed for their interest.

Today, the SF market is much larger and familiar to the general population, who are overall more literate and aware of technology than previous generations, and hard SF is no more marginalized than it was in the past when numerous wild science stories that didn't make any sense were written. There is still the slice of white males dominating the sciences -- and they're still SF fans -- but they've been joined by non-whites and women, who are also often SF fans. Science knowledge is now more specialized -- people in sciences tend to know a more narrow range of information and not as much science history beyond basic school coverage -- in the same way that most people no longer know how to fix their computer controlled cars.

You can certainly make an argument about a generalist society versus a specialized one, but again, it is worth noting that when we had the generalist society, we had only a small educated scientific elite who controlled science development and knew computers in whole or part, and a larger population who had mechanical knowledge -- how to fix appliances, cars, etc., but not a great deal of basic science and computer knowledge. Having a specialist society has plenty of detractions also.

But while science fiction has frequently explored the ideas of generalist versus specialized, social classes, literacy, etc., you'd be very hard pressed to find a correlation between SF or even hard SF and science knowledge in the education system. What we know is that people who like science, technology and computers tend to be also drawn to SF and to find it inspiring, but that they are not necessarily attracted to SF in the same ways and in the same mediums as people were in the past. We know that the attraction to SF is on a much larger, multi-media scale than it was in the past.

All of which, again, does not support the death of SF or hard SF, written or otherwise.
 
KatG~All of which, again, does not support the death of SF or hard SF, written or otherwise.

I'm going to totally disagree.
The movie industry and video game market aside, where science fiction is quite healthy, the literature end of things is almost gone from public view. Ever since moving to Florida ten years ago I've been going to the same large bookstore and seen the sf aisle gradually get smaller and smaller over the years. This last December as I was doing some Christmas shopping I noticed that poetry had now encroached on what is now two-thirds of one half of an aisle of science fiction! If you exclude those damn StarWars, StarTrek, and Halo spinoff novelettes there is hardly anything left.

Why is it Fantasy and YA Fiction is so strong these days while Science Fiction dwindles to nothing?.. it's because the fantasy genre markets to girls and young women. SF has never been able to attract female readers in any numbers and it now finds itself a dying genre in the chain bookstores.
 
It wasn't that long ago that all of SFF only got one half an aisle at the back of the store. And a front table labeled Science Fiction & Fantasy in a chain store, the one that Mark complained about not stocking much science fiction for the holidays? A true rarity if ever back then. I certainly can't remember one existing before 1995.

Again, in the youth market, SF was never very present. It was always a tiny minority, which was often complained about, but SF fans were very centered on the adult market. Fantasy has always dominated the youth market, long before Harry Potter. But right now, there's a growing body of YA SF, some of it selling incredibly well. YA SF is not shrinking as a sub-field, although most of it won't be considered hard SF.

In the adult field, the percentage of the audience which is female has risen dramatically in the last twenty years. I've gotten to see it happen, and it's pretty much night and day. There are also more female SF writers than there were before, and they aren't confined primarily to a feminist SF ghetto. So I can't agree with you that SF has not made significant progress with females. What I can tell you is that females get told a lot about what we are not interested in. We're not interested in games (we make up a lot of the gaming market now,) we're not interested in medicine and science (we make up a lot of all but a few sectors of machismo medicine and science now,) we're not into action movies (and yet the female audience has been responsible for much of the blockbuster audiences for the last fifteen years.) Basically, without the female audience that is supposedly so lukewarm about SF, SF might well be dying now. Because the women keep coming in more numbers. It's, again, the guys who left, and they are leaving all of fiction, even fantasy, not just SF.

As for the field overall, again, it took a hit in the 1990's because all fiction took a hit in the 1990's because of the wholesale market shrinkage and consolidation of booksellers. Fantasy stayed afloat and then in the mid-1990's came Harry Potter and the rapid expansion of the youth market in which fantasy was already dominant. That success helped fantasy expand its adult market too, and the influx of suspense readers into contemporary fantasy helped too. Some of those readers are now drifting over into SF. You may have noticed that SF mystery has been increasing lately.

I think pretty much everyone is in agreement that SF ran into some stumbling blocks in the oughts, or at least was having a slow recovery, most notably a lack of larger hits that lead to attention and film adaptations. But some of that seems to be turning around, and there's a lot of interest in SF. If you constantly measure SF against fantasy, again, you'll be disappointed. But that's not, again, how the fiction market works. The sectors don't compete, they overlap, and SF being tied to fantasy has actually helped it over the years.

Your bookstore is not seeing SF sell well where they are, and so they are stocking less -- or what is also possible, moving a lot of titles to general fiction. My local giant chain has a nice large SF section, but a much smaller romance section. But I'm not assuming from it that romance is dying. You also have to look at what is going in general fiction, and we've got quite a lot of SF there and it's doing well. There seems to be a viewpoint that general fiction SF takes away from the category market, as if there were two SF cities and you can only choose one, but it doesn't work that way.

Recently, we got word that Gary Gibson got a three book SF deal with Tor UK. Kim Stanley Robinson has a new novel, Galileo's Dream, and Connie Willis is back with Blackout, both being heavily promoted in the U.S. anyway by Bantam Spectra. Orbit UK is putting out Michael Cobley. There's more SF horror going on. Tor U.S. is going far future with Tony Gonzales' Eve and the Human Story. Paolo Bacigalupi's The Wind-Up Girl, from rising small press Night Shade Books, is making all the media's Best of the Year lists. These are not death throes so far.

Yes, written SF is nothing in terms of financials or distribution compared to the games and movie markets. But written SF was never comparable to the games and movie markets. It used to be a niche market. For all its success, written fantasy doesn't make as much money as the game and movie markets. And to think that written fiction should is an unrealistic benchmark.

So with all due respect to Mark's front table, and your store, and de Vries' attempts to promote his positivity anthology (which I hope is a great success,) I'm more interested in a wider picture. The whole market has a decline in sales of all fiction because of the recession, except for a slight increase in youth fiction, which includes youth SF, which is growing. The signs in the whole market for SF, including more SF titles on publisher lists than in 2005, do not indicate death. In 2008, before the recession, US sales of SF went up.

I understand that people are going to disagree with me. They've been disagreeing for over fifty years. By that strategy, if they're right and I'm wrong, SF still has another fifty years to go before kicking the bucket. So Neal, you've got time. :)
 
....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.

I'm definitely a fan of Sci-Fi but I didn't realize I had an appetite for fantasy until I read some of C. J. Cherryh--she's written in both genres. She even has a series of books who's main character is using the tools of Sci-Fi but the other characters consider it magic--the Morgaine Saga...
 

Sponsors


We try to keep the forum as free of ads as possible, please consider supporting SFFWorld on Patreon


Your ad here.
Back
Top