Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan
In that sense, SF is not dying; it's becoming more fully integrated into the sub-genres of modern storytelling, to the extent that in many cases it doesn't need to be highlighted or singled out as an element.
|
Absolutely. SF has metastasized in a way that makes it often irrelevant to identify a work as such. Many works in SF settings can be defined more narrowly in terms of their content (YA, superhero, alt history, etc), and more broadly in terms of their appeal (speculative or "genre" as the terms are often used to encompass SF, fantasy and horror, and a fanbase that often likes all of the above, mashed together if at all possible).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan
The subject of the thread is less about understanding SF, and more about understanding SF's place in society. It cannot be denied that there has been a downward shift in public interest in the SF genre, just as there has been a decreasing interest in (or outright hostility towards) science in general.
|
Now see, I would say it's more a matter of the "SF-ness" of a work taking a background role, as you said. Look at something like NYT bestseller
Ready Player One (I think it hit #1 for a bit there). It's undeniably sci-fi, but what drew people in was the cultural relevance, both the '80s fetishism and the commentary on our online interactions. Honestly, I don't think "science fiction" as a label ever had mainstream appeal. A lot of people loved Star Wars without talking about the fact that it was "science fiction." As mentioned earlier in the thread, authors have been dodging the label for almost as long as it has existed.