Is SF dying?

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by LadyKate

Perhaps it is the maturing of SciFi into mainstream that has it showing as a reduction...

It may rather be the maturing of space travel that has "killed" SciFi, at least as we knew it. Decades ago, there was still the hope that we would be rocketing around the universe in what looked a lot like submarines. Today, we know how difficult and dangerous it is just to get to the nearest planet in person. The thought of intergalactic space travel no longer gets the heart pounding in excitement and anticipation. I think that's why science fiction has been moving away from space travel and more towards the areas where we have been making scientific progress (biology, psychology, nanotechnology,...). Maybe worst of all is the general public's slow turning away from science and it's recent messages of dread rather than hope.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It's not that I think the genre actually is dying...
But between the "the book is too good to be SF" and "SF is just a label" memes the genre *is* in danger of losing its limited but hard won respectability, especially with the increased proliferation of luddites and science illiterates in government and media.

I just don't get where you're coming from at all.

A) I'm not sure SF ever had this "limited but hard won respectability" you're attributing to it.

And B) I'm not sure why it needs to have this "respectability" in order to survive as a genre. Clearly respectability has no bearing on success (or readership) in this day and age.

And C) why would anyone really care if the types of books they enjoy reading are viewed as "respectable" by others?

And finally D) Why the current "anti-science" movement in govt. and media would have any impact whatsoever on the publishing and writing of novels. Books of fiction. It's not like the increase in fundamentalist/evangelical inclinations ever put a dent in Pullman or Rowling or anyone else they chose to rail against. Quite the opposite in fact.

I've had lots of good times in the worlds of SF and it... annoys me... to see the hard work of the good ones devalued by association with sloppy wannabes.

That's silly. Good books can't be devalued by association with bad ones -- any more than a bad movie adaptation can retroactively devalue the great book it was based upon. What you're talking about are outsider perceptions; and not liking those perceptions. But let's face it; the only people who are going to dismiss great works of SF because it was lumped in with "bad" SF are people who didn't really give a damn about SF in the first place.

Seriously, though... given your opinions on the current publishing landscape in general, I'm a little surprised by your attempt to "Special Snowflake" Science Fiction.

This coming form a guy who LOVES Science Fiction: your kind AND all the kinds you choose to exclude from the official snowflake club.

[murg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I'll see your Interstellar and raise you a Luc Besson:

LUCY.

I knew it was bad but...
...wow...
I had to see for myself:
Bad science, bad direction, weird cinematography, no characterization...
Even the car chase fell flat.
(Who screws up a car chase?)

And there wasn't even enough action to make it into Michael Bay mindless amusement territory.

Mindless and emotionless; a whole new category.

I quite liked Lucy. And I'm sure that Scarlett had nothing to do with that...

Lucy was clearly a science based fantasy, and was at least internally consistent.

Interstellar was hard science based, and was not internally consistent. Or externally consistent.

[murg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I just don't get where you're coming from at all.

And finally D) Why the current "anti-science" movement in govt. and media would have any impact whatsoever on the publishing and writing of novels. Books of fiction. It's not like the increase in fundamentalist/evangelical inclinations ever put a dent in Pullman or Rowling or anyone else they chose to rail against. Quite the opposite in fact.

Nothing will pry the hard core fans from SF, except for a lack of good new content.

The general mass public however, will be swayed by trends and fads.

[cpegg]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I'd also add Andre Norton. Who used a male name.

As did James Tiptree, Jr. (Alice Sheldon).

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Sure, but that's not what you said. You said the detective was an android.

Very well then. The detective's partner (valid to call "him" a detective as well) was an android. That make you happy?

Does it count as SciFi now?

There are multiple reasons why Caves of Steel qualifies as SciFi. Enough reasons to make everyone happy according to whichever qualification you would prefer.

thankyouverymuch kthxbai

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Quexos

Nobody forces you to read SF, even if you don't like it, there is no need to plan a party if/when SF dies. It would not be very nice to those who like SF don't you think?

So promise me NOT to plan a party if SF dies alright?

Nobody forces you to attend her party, either. In fact, I personally believe it will be a very small party, possibly held in a basement.

Catlady is perfectly welcome to miss out on all the fun, and die sad and lacking. Or indeed, to have her own interpretation whereby it is we who will die sad at having wasted our lives on pointless nonsensical garbage that rots the brain.

That is what's so fun about having the right to an opinion -- it means we can all believe different things without imposing those beliefs on others - I know some people have a problem with that (and it is usually the ones who get indignant on behalf of some "noble, slighted cause" ).


Who CARES what deluded fools who don't appreciate SciFi think? They cannot stop us from enjoying our books all the livelong day, now can it?


See how easy it is, when we just don't care about others' misinformed critique?
See how easy it is, when we don't get all excited over nothing?

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Nobody forces you to attend her party, either. In fact, I personally believe it will be a very small party, possibly held in a basement.

Something tells me that Quexos wasn't invited since, rumour has it, that the guest list is restricted to androids and aliens.

Who CARES what deluded fools who don't appreciate SciFi think? They cannot stop us from enjoying our books all the livelong day, now can it?

I suspect that it is the tone of the original post. It is one thing to say, "I don't like SF," and it is quite another to say, "I'll throw a party if it dies." The former is nothing more and nothing less than a person's taste. The latter implies that they will get pleasure when someone else is deprived of something that they enjoy.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Something tells me that Quexos wasn't invited since, rumour has it, that the guest list is restricted to androids and aliens.

I suspect that it is the tone of the original post. It is one thing to say, "I don't like SF," and it is quite another to say, "I'll throw a party if it dies." The former is nothing more and nothing less than a person's taste. The latter implies that they will get pleasure when someone else is deprived of something that they enjoy.

Well, yes -- but I couldn't care less if they get pleasure from it.

In fact, the surest sign that I couldn't possibly care less what they think, is that they would think to think it.

Thus, actually reacting by getting upset about the alleged anticipated party, is entirely counterproductive to my determination to not-care.

I just think we'd all be happier if people would emulate me more... The only thing I derived from that original post by the alleged partier, is a determination to gloss over said partier's posts for (at least) this thread. It was nothing but a crank, so why react?
And I am happier for it (although thinking about it indirectly, by offering guidance to Quexos, may have slightly soiled my ability to ignore it...).

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Nobody forces you to attend her party, either. In fact, I personally believe it will be a very small party, possibly held in a basement.

And whoever's basement is used will be living there in his/her mother's house.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I think Le Guin is a step backwards. I do not like her writing. Her descriptions are long, drawn out, and boring. Plus a lot of her stories have not a lot going for them.

The Left Hand of Darkness is great. That's the only thing by her I've read and liked.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I've had lots of good times in the worlds of SF and it... annoys me... to see the hard work of the good ones devalued by association with sloppy wannabes.

List these devalued good ones, please. Some of us may not have read them and would like to.

Back to the main point of why SF is dying. Perhaps it is more germane to ask where are the new Clarkes, Asimovs, Strugatskis, and Dicks (Philip K., obviously, not the other type. We have lots of those).

It seems to me that the quality of sci-fi has dropped. I remember recently a French author was complaining that English-speaking readers needed to take more notice of French authors. He seemed unable to grasp that the writer must create work that makes readers want to read the work.

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by Rizla

The Left Hand of Darkness is great. That's the only thing by her I've read and liked.

Although I think JSWolf is about as wrong as it's possible to be, Left Hand of Darkness is the only book I've read by Le Guin I didn't much like. Maybe because it was my first, and I didn't know what to expect, but mainly I think I just didn't find it to be a great story.

[LadyKate]

I was just looking at a notification of new books out and started to wonder about the young adult and new adult categories. It seems to me that any novel that does not include sexual romantic scenes becomes young adult lol. The level of reading of many of the so called young adult novels are is not greatly different than that of other novels.

What exactly is it that makes a book young adult or new adult? Is it just a way to say less sexual? or what.

How does a book that is young adult and steampunk which SHOULD be a sub category of SciFi get tagged for purposes of statistics. For that matter where does a book like one of Busby's novels get placed? It's SciFi, Space Opera and romance lol.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by LadyKate

I was just looking at a notification of new books out and started to wonder about the young adult and new adult categories. It seems to me that any novel that does not include sexual romantic scenes becomes young adult lol. The level of reading of many of the so called young adult novels are is not greatly different than that of other novels.

What exactly is it that makes a book young adult or new adult? Is it just a way to say less sexual? or what.

How does a book that is young adult and steampunk which SHOULD be a sub category of SciFi get tagged for purposes of statistics. For that matter where does a book like one of Busby's novels get placed? It's SciFi, Space Opera and romance lol.

The whole New Adult thing started about the time I worked at the library some 12 or so years ago. It was an attempt to separate Young Adult (12 to 15 or 10 to 16) from 18 to 20 or so. According to experts, 18 to 20s weren't reading because they didn't consider themselves Children and YA was associated as such. So it was a marketing attempt to reach the 18 to 20 or 18 to 24 (college age) crowd.

Now, what the industry did with that is decide that it meant you could have sex scenes that were not found in YA or not appropriate for YA and the definition now, even by some authors is, "I can put as much sex in it as I like."

During my years at the library, YA was moved out of the children's section to attract the older kids. It has its own section to this day. New Adult was supposed to be the answer to helping a certain age group find fiction that appealed to them--originally with college type themes and other concerns of that age group--appropriate jobs, emotional issues of that age group, challenges of that age group.

What it SEEMS to mean now (and I was just informed of such by an author on another forum) is that it must have ROMANCE and SEX.

YMMV. I originally used New Adult for the Dragons of Wendal series because I was using the library training I had received. BUT by the industry use, it ain't gonna have enough sex and romance. I do still occasionally market it as YA.