Is SF dying?

[Dr. Drib]

Moderator Notice

SECOND MODERATION NOTICE

Move on (re: repetitive accusations) or move out of this thread, please.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

I'm also pretty sure that most dedicated SF readers could point out entire sub-genres that they don't like since it is an extremely broad category that caters to a wide range of tastes.

The quality of most SF literature depends upon the background of the reader. In my case, I get a lot out of stories that speculate about our near future. These are books that ask about the social consequences of things like biotechnology and artificial intelligence. Sometimes they deal with interpersonal relationships, but the scope is usually society. I'm okay with the latter because I frequently think about the consequences of actions on society at large. On the other hand, I don't get very much out of space operas. This doesn't mean that space operas are bad. It simply means that I don't have the background to appreciate them. Simply put, I don't have to tools to derive meaning out of war nor do I find pleasure reading about war. That being said, there are people who can. Why should I dismiss their tastes because of my own shortcomings?

All of this applies to other forms of literature as well. In order to get something out of a book, may it be intellectual or emotional, you have to be equipped to understand it. SF&F are the most obvious cases because they deal with things that do not exist. Yet other forms of literature are no different. To enjoy a book, it helps if you can relate to the protagonist, understand the cultural context, and know the trappings of Literature. (If you ever want to get a chuckle out of high school students who are studying the Great Gatsby, you simply have to say, "Sometimes, just sometimes, grass is green.")

Considering the title of this thread, it was a simple little throwaway comment. It was not a treatise on SF as a genre, or an expression of distaste for anyone who reads SF.

Slightly edited by Alexander Turcic: Please, let's focus on the topic, and not on our emotions. Thanks for your understanding. Cheers, Alex

[Toxaris]

I feel that the 'real' SF has been dying for years. The 'golden years' in the 50's-70's and declining after that. Even there there was already a myriad of different styles and subgenres. Hard-SF (real science playing a major part) is almost gone now. Largely because it seems that writers either lack the actual science knowledge or do not have real visionairy ideas. It seems that SF is more a peg to hang a story on and a lot of writers use SF as synonym for future-placed.
It is more complex than that in my opinion. What about, just an example, the books from Tim Powers like 'The Anubis Gates' or 'Expiration Date'. Is it SF? Horror? Fantasy? Something else? I feel that those also fall under the SF umbrella. For me SF is not only about the 'science' anymore and it was also not the case in the golden years. A lot of good SF books back then had no real science component in them or did not play an important part. Even for books from the great SF writers of the day that was the case. Take for example Jack Vance, Fritz Leiber, Robert A. Heinlein, Philip K. Dick. In a lot of their stories SF is 'just' a setting. The SF paint was applied on a detective novel for example.
If you really drill down to the core, there are only that much types of stories that can be told. The rest is paint to make it more pretty. SF is not so much a genre as paint.

Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of SF/(Urban) Fantasy/etc myself and I will be.

[darryl]

Brad Torgensen has published on his blog his Sad Puppies 3 list of desired nominations for the Hugo's. Personally I haven't read very many of them but will likely now do so. It will be interesting later to compare this list with the list of actual Hugo nominations. I haven't really looked into the matter closely enough to come to an informed optinion about this Sad Puppies campaign.

My own view, as I posted earlier, is that Science Fiction has never been stronger. It has been disparaged and patronised and its death predicted in some circles since I read my first sci-fi story as a young child, and no doubt well before that as well. The ease of self-publishing has in my view produced many many new wonderful books and authors across the board. Also, of course, some terrible ones, but there are ways of avoiding most of these). However, if your method of avoidance is, as some urge, to avoid self-published authors and indies altogather then you may be having a lean time.

https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com...15-hugo-slate/

[DrNefario]

Sabotaging the genre's most prestigious award for political reasons is a great way to ensure the future health of the field.

That was sarcasm, by the way.

I think SF is fine, too. I think it's changing and diversifying because it has to. Science isn't the same as it was in the 50s. And a lot of that 50s stuff would probably count as YA now, which is experiencing massive growth. (Also, quite a bit of it is absolutely terrible. Rose-tinted spectacles are a wonderful thing.) And even then, as I mentioned 8 pages ago, it declined more slowly than almost everything else last year.

[Quexos]

I think my best memory of Sci-Fi reading is the entire Foundation series by Isaac Asimov, including the later books like Prelude to Foundation and Forward the Foundation.

However I never read the spin-offs by other authors who wrote about the Foundation universe.

[danskmacabre]

As I recently got about 150 SF and Fantasy paperback books for free from someone who wanted to make space in their house, I've sort of gone back to reading paperback books now, although I also have some ebooks on the go at the same time.

I have got quite a few SF and Fantasy ebooks, but often the first book free type deal from new authors and I don't know if my actual purchases are picked up as I get them from Smashwords quite often cheap.

[pegasi&prefects]

I am wary of Sad Puppies because of its allies. As a lesbian in a mixed race family, I have reason to back away from wherever MRAs, #gamergaters and white supremicists gather. Not any comment on the authors and editors nominated, just a habit of personal safety.

[Barty]

Originally Posted by Rizla

SFF by female authors I've enjoyed are:

The Left Hand of Darkness,
The Giver,
Harry Potter,
The City of Embers (well, it started well)
and The Hunger Games.

Notably, none of the above have romance as their center.

My favorite is The Sparrow.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by pegasi&prefects

I am wary of Sad Puppies because of its allies. As a lesbian in a mixed race family, I have reason to back away from wherever MRAs, #gamergaters and white supremicists gather. Not any comment on the authors and editors nominated, just a habit of personal safety.

Any enterprise that includes Vox Day is one I steer clear of. A vile man.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Quexos

I think my best memory of Sci-Fi reading is the entire Foundation series by Isaac Asimov, including the later books like Prelude to Foundation and Forward the Foundation.

However I never read the spin-offs by other authors who wrote about the Foundation universe.

I loved the Foundation series which I first read it as a young teen. I found the whole idea of psycho-history intriguing. But of Asimov's fiction, I was most impressed with his short story Nightfall. What lifts Asimov above many technically better writers is his ideas and the way he develops them.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Any enterprise that includes Vox Day is one I steer clear of. A vile man.

Whilst I understand your sentiments, and have not yet reached my view on Sad Puppies, I would observe that even vile people can have good ideas, be associated with good causes, etc. This is an area where we can not only each form our own judgment but indulge in our favourite hobby whilst doing so. I'm planning to read the nominations which hold any interest for me on both the Hugo nominations list and the Sad Puppies Nomination list which I have not previously read.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by darryl

Whilst I understand your sentiments, and have not yet reached my view on Sad Puppies, I would observe that even vile people can have good ideas, be associated with good causes, etc.

He doesn't, and he's not. He is truly, actively, vile and vicious and bigoted and hateful on an ongoing basis. We're not talking about a line call here. Day/Beale is the bigot about whom bigots say "geez, he's gone way too far."

Read what you want, but awareness of the context is always useful.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by meeera

He doesn't, and he's not. He is truly, actively, vile and vicious and bigoted and hateful on an ongoing basis. We're not talking about a line call here. Day/Beale is the bigot about whom bigots say "geez, he's gone way too far."

Read what you want, but awareness of the context is always useful.

I've only come across him for the first time recently and admittedly know little about him. I am assuming for the sake of this discussion that he is as vile and vicious as he is being painted. But the position some seem to be advocating is very little different from, say, refusing to give money to the Heart Foundation merely because you discover he gave money to it. After all, if he approves of their work enough to give money, surely it must be evil?

[pegasi&prefects]

Yeah. Vox Day isn't just some misunderstood conservative. Leaving aside all the purely sexualised hatred he and his friends spew, I'm not inclined to give my reading dollars to anyone who describes my beautiful, loving, gifted son as "less homo sapiens" than he is.

I don't require that my reading fully matches my principles. I mean, I'm a Quaker, and if I demanded that my reading reflects my beliefs in pacifism and equality... Well, I wouldn't be reading a lot of epic fantasy. But there ARE limits.

Thing is, I read books by white cishet men regularly, if they appeal to me. otoh, you read the comments on Sad Puppy posts, and they are rejoicing at keeping lesbians and trans people off their list, and swapping hints on avoiding accidentally reading something by a woman (beware those sneaky initials!)

It may have started as a mildly laudable attempt to widen the scope of nominated books, but Day's involvement and the agenda of the people who became involved made it clear that it's a politically motivated attempt to vote as a bloc to keep minorities and allies in their place.