Is SF dying?

[Apache]

Originally Posted by theducks

SF-Mysteries have been around a lot longer than JD Robb

Azimov
Mack Reynolds
Randall Garrett (Would probably be classified as Fantasy today)

Also Larry Niven with his Gil the Arm Series.
Apache

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

That's not my whole definition, but I don't find anything particularly scientific in her books--not saying that is bad, it's just not very science fiction to me. One of my books is somewhat futuristic with lots of gadgets that either exist or probably will someday, but I don't market it as science fiction. Maybe I should, but I don't really think it fits that genre. And again, I'm not poking at your definition. I think it's fine to have various definitions of it.

Science-fiction need not be "scientific." Yes, there are those who insist that science-fiction must depict future science, etc, and ideally contain rockets, too. That's hard science-fiction, and IMO an obviously over-narrow definition of the genre.

But yeah, it's whatever we want to define it as. And definitions should never get in the way of good books, or (hopefully) selling them.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Quexos

If you read that post again you will notice that "censorship" was just an example, "instance" is the word I used, the MAIN point being a question when someone seemed to strongly dislike SF hence my curiosity and ensuing question...

It is interesting that so much attention comes to my "instance" while so little (actually none so far) to my question. Someone says they will plan a party if a full genre of literature dies and NOBODY seems the least curious as to why?

I had to choose between understanding this as a serious point, and it simply being in theme with your cross-subforum track record.
Then I had to take into account your User Title.

You being incredibly cranky won out.


Your need to constantly bring up censorship seems to preclude it being "just an example", and your disconnected leap from SF to censorship implies you have a bee up your bonnet about the issue.

And no, I am not in the least curious. Some people are stupid and don't like SFF. Their loss.
I don't suspect them of nefarious plots to rid the world of it, so if they want to posture about celebrating its hopeful demise, kol hakavod.
Fair is fair, because they probably think I am stupid too.


Also, I will happily plan a party when the genres I dismiss as stupid and silly die (probbly never ) -- so it certainly isn't a moral sticking point with me.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Rizla

I disagree. They happen in the future.

They could just as easily happen in the 40's with minor tweaks.

Setting alone does not define genre, and setting a story in the past doesn't make it historical fiction any more than setting it in the future or another planet makes it SF.

Diana Gabaldon's OUTLANDER series features time travel but the stories (and audience) are romance: they're about relationships.

On the other hand, the CONRAD STARGARD series features time travel and thd stories and audience is SF: they're about science and technology's role in world building. The time travel is integral to the story and it is both explained and its consequences are explored.

To the extent that people are willing to accept watered-down faux SF they devalue the discipline and skills that make for good SF. If the real SF gets subsumed in a sea of sloppy wannabes, the genre could truly die out of sheer dilution.

[crane3]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

And I wouldn't classify hers as Sci/fi anyway. She has the world building in there, but it isn't really developed past a certain point. Neither are the politics. Her books are a cross between mystery and romance with a sci/fi setting. Not to say they won't show up in sci/fi, but they aren't sci/fi.

Would Andre Norton & McCaffey be considered "half and half"? or perhaps 1 foot on each part?

[crich70]

It is my understanding that a story is SF if by removing the SF elements the story itself falls apart. For example Asimov's robot stories couldn't survive as stories without the element of positronic robots. You could move the story to the middle ages and make a group of people from another country into slave labor but without Asimov's 3 laws stories like "little lost robot" and "runaround" just wouldn't work.

[DiapDealer]

Nothing alone defines genre. That's why there's always arguments about what is what.

You're free to define what you think makes a story "Science Fiction." But there's no hard and fast "rules" one can point at as definitive, authoritative and/or final on the subject--no matter how much one might want to believe there is. Things (including definitions) change. Mileage varies. So it goes.

Hi ho.

[crane3]

Originally Posted by Rizla

I disagree. They happen in the future.

And Robb does have "gadgets". Like the device that can "pick locks" on combination locks for entry into buildings. Even has monitoring system for buildings for entry to prevent or notify the occupant; perhaps a couple of more items as well.

[crane3]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Nothing alone defines genre. That's why there's always arguments about what is what.

You're free to define what you think makes a story "Science Fiction." But there's no hard and fast "rules" one can point at as definitive, authoritative and/or final on the subject--no matter how much one might want to believe there is. Things (including definitions) change. Mileage varies. So it goes.

Hi ho.

Also brings up another question on whether Sociology & Psychology are considered sciences; is Biology considered a "hard" science?

Me, I just want to enjoy an entertaining book of whatever.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by crane3

Me, I just want to enjoy an entertaining book of whatever.

Surely you nail down which irrelevant genre box it fits into before said enjoyment can proceed!?

In my opinion, the very act of insisting that sci-fi be so narrowly defined is actively contributing to its so-called "decline." Exclusion tends to do that. Who wants to join a club whose rules are so rigid and reactionary?

[Mivo]

It's noteworthy that the allegedly dead Western genre seems to be twitching again with a 7% increase.

Well, it's all cyclical, just like with fashion.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by Mivo

It's noteworthy that the allegedly dead Western genre seems to be twitching again with a 7% increase.

Well, it's all cyclical, just like with fashion.

That's probably because of the 'Cowboys & Aliens' movie. The SF fans moved to westerns.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Mivo

It's noteworthy that the allegedly dead Western genre seems to be twitching again with a 7% increase.

Well, it's all cyclical, just like with fashion.

They said the Western was dead when Kevin Costner decided he wanted to make "Dances with Wolves" and it's been holding its own since I think.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by crane3

Also brings up another question on whether Sociology & Psychology are considered sciences; is Biology considered a "hard" science?

Me, I just want to enjoy an entertaining book of whatever.

Sociological, psychological, biological, anthropological, and even paleontology SF has been done and done well, going back to the 50's. Hard and soft SF isn't just a matter of which science drives the story but also the extent to which it drives it.
(Edit: Even history can serve as the "science" in the fiction, given the right alternate history construct. It's really about the ideas driving the story.)

You can call anything you want "science fiction" (SYFY certainly does) but SF is a literary form with its own established rules, just as poetry and romance and mystery do and good SF adheres to them. A story that lacks the discipline to work within the rules can be a good and entertaining story. It just won't be good SF.

The field is broad enough within its own rules and subgenres that it doesn't need to accept half baked imitations. It takes hard work and discipline to get things right and more often than not when people decry "bad sf" from tradpub or Indies what they are decrying is the violation of those rules.

SF as a field was decried and deprecated for too long for its practitioners and supporters to accept outsiders that can't be bothered to do the job right.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by crich70

They said the Western was dead when Kevin Costner decided he wanted to make "Dances with Wolves" and it's been holding its own since I think.

Westerns always did well in my library--and they couldn't buy more because hardly anyone was writing them. Once again, it was only local indie authors offering product...

Glad to see a bit of a resurgence.