Is Science Fiction dead?

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

This has even tainted new SF, leaving the general feeling that even the most advanced technologies "probably have something wrong with them, even if we don't know what yet."

That is so true. We no longer accept scientific advances with unvarnished wonder.

[caleb72]

When I grew up, I frowned upon Science Fiction. I just thought it was all about stupid spaceships and who wanted to read about that anyway. So I overdosed on elves and dwarves until they made me sick to my stomach.

Now my fantasy tastes tend towards the steampunk/new weird and I developed a taste for science fiction in the form of cyberpunk - but also realised that space operas are great reads.

I don't know if I'll ever rush to go back to the elves and dwarves though.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that my appreciation for science fiction books (as opposed to movies which I always loved) actually grew as I got older. So it better not be on the wane.

[Penforhire]

There are practical reasons for current skepticism toward breakthroughs. If you work with industrial chemicals over the past 20+ years you've seen the government's safe limits (e.g. Threshold Limit Values and/or Permissible Exposure Levels) change radically for some materials. Same situation for various types of radiation, no more fluoroscopes for fitting shoes in stores or radium watch dials (give me tritium-powered phosphor please!).

Heck, even today nobody can tell us the safe limits or handling for many nanomaterials. There may (I say will) be new health issues arising from carbon nanotube and nanofibers in increasingly common use today. That class of ingredient is going to be tomorrow's asbestos.

[amward]

I have just finished reading "Turing Evolved" by David Kitson: A new science fiction novel, it's very good. So it is still being written.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

That is so true. We no longer accept scientific advances with unvarnished wonder.

And much of SF is designed to be accepted with unvarnished wonder. But in most literature, the elements of science and technology are now being impacted by politics and finance, used foolishly or irresponsibly, dark closets are being opened and downsides are being revealed... you could say we've entered a more adult stage of literature in the 21st century, more gray and gritty, less two-dimensional. Much (certainly not all) of SF isn't keeping up with that adult evolution, either intentionally or unintentionally, and the result is a genre that is considered childish by the majority. It's one of the reasons SF media like the Star Wars and Star Trek franchises do so well, despite Sawyer's obvious denigration.

(Interestingly, SF isn't the only genre to reject modern realism: Romance also distances itself from gray and gritty reality, and receives much of the same criticism as SF; but as its primary subject is considered more adult, it has become more acceptable, though as more of a literary "vice.")

There, I said it (well, I implied it): SF has become a "vice," a form of entertainment that is not well-thought-of by most. And the genre hasn't done much to promote the more adult aspects of itself; we hold conventions, and people dress up in Princess Leia bikinis and Klingon garb, and we just shrug and smile.

Maybe if SF fans spoke to non SF fans more about the technologies that were inspired or shaped by SF; the social mores that were predicted by SF; the human gaffes that were forewarned by SF; and the way our modern lives reflect our SF; maybe then, SF would be more popular and more accepted.

(Then he quietly reached across his desk, grabbed his replica Dr. Who sonic screwdriver, and slipped it into a drawer...)

[mewmartigan]

I think SF is alive and well but I do sometimes have a hard time finding new "hard" SciFi.

One of my favorite authors in "hard" SciFi would have to be Kim Stanley Robinson. I thought his Red/Green/Blue Mars trilogy was amazing along with Antarctica (similar read as the Mars trilogy). I also enjoyed his "Science in the Capital" series although that was more the politics of science as opposed to the actual science.

For Military SciFi, I'm all about David Weber and Honor Harrington. I also have his Safehold series on my Kindle, waiting to be read.

[FatDog]

I think we may be suffering some technical burn-out. The increasing use of computers, cell phones that rival the computing power we used to put men on the moon, digital media, HDTV (First change in the technology in 60 years), 3D televisions, DVR's, etc. We ... (ok, 'me') are having trouble keeping up with technology in our real lives. This makes me less interested in reading about more changes due to science.

Sci Fi is not dead - but I suspect real science catching up is making us less interested in the escape it used to provide.

PS: I loved Robert Sawyers books where Dinosaurs grew into dominance and the struggles they had with science vs religion. And his "Flashforward" book is the basis for the recent TV series. (Ok, perhaps a TV series is not literary street-cred, but nobody is taking things I write and turning it into a movie/TV series.)

[stonetools]

Some good hard sf anthology stuff on this Amazon PAGE

I recommend :

The Hard SF Renaissance
The New Space Opera
Mammoth Book of Mind Blowing SF

I expect to catch up with most of the rest eventually.
AS you can see , reports of the death of hard SF are greatly exaggerated.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by FatDog

I think we may be suffering some technical burn-out...

Could be burnout; though technological pervasiveness has often been a major theme in SF. It could be that we're burned out on the themes that have been big over the last few decades, and SF hasn't developed new themes fast enough.

Originally Posted by FatDog

(Ok, perhaps a TV series is not literary street-cred, but nobody is taking things I write and turning it into a movie/TV series.)

Personally, I don't consider movies and TV SF to be "inferior to" literary SF as many people clearly do. They are different mediums, with different demands, and some of the greatest SF has been put on celluloid--as my earlier post illustrated with movies. Some TV examples: Star Trek et al; The Twilight Zone; The Prisoner; Firefly; Farscape; Babylon 5.

For the record, I think some of my novels would make good movies, too. (I've probably said that somewhere before...)

[Penforhire]

Of course the Sify channel gives SF a bad rep, most of the time.

[sabredog]

SF TV viewers (casual and serious) tend to enjoy the Stargate SG1/Atlantis formula and not the modern BSG and dreadful SG: Universe type, with all the inward bickerining and grey unlikeable characters.

That would certainly extend to SF fiction novels as well.

People like to identify good characters and bad characters I guess, though I have read several excellent books where the distinction is slightly blurred.

[dworth]

BSG is wonderful, largely because the characters remain recognisably human and flawed amidst the large scale and space battles of the human/cylon war. There's also very little technobabble.

Star Trek has its moments, but even the bloke who cleans the vending machines on the Enterprise seems to have a Phd in Astrophysics and Always Does The Right Thing. There also doesn't seem to be any problem that can't be solved by reversing the polarity of the plasma conduits and re-routing them via the main deflector dish. Or something.

Babylon 5 was really great. It was hugely ambitious despite the small budget (and occasions of duff acting). It starts off pretty much in the same vein as Star Trek (standalone episodes, alien race of the week) but then the vast overarching plot emerges that leads to interstellar war and all sorts of cool stuff. Again, there a few 'good' or 'bad' characters, just people. The effects were quite revolutionary for the time, being all CGI when every one else was still using models. This allowed them to do huge (and I do mean huge) space battles for very little money.

[OtterBooks]

Hard scifi has been marginalized but steady for a while. Soft SF is alive and well, especially in YA. SF has been declared dead so often that it must be a zombie because it doesn't seem to be going away.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by dworth

BSG is wonderful, largely because the characters remain recognisably human and flawed amidst the large scale and space battles of the human/cylon war. There's also very little technobabble.

Star Trek has its moments, but even the bloke who cleans the vending machines on the Enterprise seems to have a Phd in Astrophysics and Always Does The Right Thing. There also doesn't seem to be any problem that can't be solved by reversing the polarity of the plasma conduits and re-routing them via the main deflector dish. Or something.

Babylon 5 was really great. It was hugely ambitious despite the small budget (and occasions of duff acting). It starts off pretty much in the same vein as Star Trek (standalone episodes, alien race of the week) but then the vast overarching plot emerges that leads to interstellar war and all sorts of cool stuff. Again, there a few 'good' or 'bad' characters, just people. The effects were quite revolutionary for the time, being all CGI when every one else was still using models. This allowed them to do huge (and I do mean huge) space battles for very little money.

Exactly right Dan.

Don't forget the doohickyon particles that popped up from time to time...

B5 set the standard and I believe it has not been matched. A watchable show but characters that were all shades of grey. However the overriding difference between modern BSG/Universe was there was no overflowing gobbets of angst. Universe was 90210 in space. Absolute drivel that has probably killed the SG franchise.

[Penforhire]

What, are you some sort of browncoats? Not even mentioning Firefly!