Is SF dying?

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Rizla

It's clear why "traditional" sci-fi is becoming irrelevant. Real innovation and quality must emerge outside the "traditional" and incestuous (hugo) sci-fi community.

Any award eventually becomes incestuous or tainted over time.

I think Nancy Fulda is writing some very traditional sci/fi. She only writes short stories, but it's very much in line with the trad themes. One of hers was nominated for one of those sci/fi awards. It's the one with the dance on the front. It was originally published by Baen, I think. Movement? I can't recall the name. Have to look. But she has an anthology out too and it has a lot of traditional mixed in with a couple of fun ones. I'm more the "fun" reader, but her writing is strong regardless of the theme or style she chooses.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by darryl

For the record, I am not eligible to vote for the Hugo's nor have I had anything to do with Sad Puppies other than reading Brad Torgensen's post and the list of books.

Whilst there are plainly racists and misogynists who participated in this Sad Puppy list I very much doubt that all of them fall into one or both of those categories. I do not know what percentage are racists or misogynists, nor indeed do I know what ultimate influence they had on the final list.

You are eligible to vote. Just buy a supporting membership.

I read all Hugo nominated things last year and the biggest problem with the works that were nominated just because they were on the sad puppy list was that most of the work was pretty bad and it pushed out better work.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Any award eventually becomes incestuous or tainted over time.

Really, can you mention 5 of these tainted and incestuous awards.

I really do not agree that the Hugo award is one of them.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by tompe

Really, can you mention 5 of these tainted and incestuous awards.

I really do not agree that the Hugo award is one of them.

I didn't say the Hugo WAS tainted. I said that any of them do become tainted over time because in general, the human race finds a way to bribe, coerce or become exclusive (and thus shut out some group of people). My statement was not meant to attack the Hugo nominations or any other award in particular. It was more a general observation of human behavior.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by tompe

I read all Hugo nominated things last year and the biggest problem with the works that were nominated just because they were on the sad puppy list was that most of the work was pretty bad and it pushed out better work.

Originally Posted by tompe

Really, can you mention 5 of these tainted and incestuous awards.

I really do not agree that the Hugo award is one of them.

Bad works (nominated by influential, other-agenda voting blocs) pushing out better works is pretty-much the definition of tainted and incestuous.

Can't really be helped, though. Not as long as it (and other awards) are run like popularity contests anyway.

Juried awards can be a bit less easily manipulated. But then they run the risk of alienating the common reader by ignoring the more popular titles/authors.

I don't find the Hugos very useful right now myself, but then ... I don't really care if they're useful or not. I can ignore them quite easily. They're a symptom, not an underlying cause of anything. They don't affect whether good SFF gets written or not. They only affect whether an author gets to give a speech at a podium, put a phallic trophy on their shelf (deserved or otherwise), and make some more money on sales.

I don't say that to demean any Hugo-winning authors' accomplishments, or anything, but lets face it: fair, relevant, and utterly unbiased recognition for literary "bestness" is unattainable anyway. All you can do is hope that popular and "good" intersect every now and then.

[Ginwen]

Originally Posted by catsittingstill

I thought _Ancillary Justice_ showed real innovation and quality. Apparently most of the people voting on the Hugos thought so too--and the numbers suggest this includes about 2/3 of the new people brought in by the Sad Puppies and Wheel of Time campaigns (whether with or against in both cases.)

Ancillary Justice had a bit of a demerit before I read it because it wasn't in the packet (I'm petty like that). But thanks to libraries I was able to read all the books (disclaimer: I didn't read ALL of the Wheel of Time, there just wasn't enough time and what I read of it was fine but nothing all that special) and then I had no choice but to vote for it, as it was both good and pretty unique (I enjoyed the Monster Hunter Book as well, just didn't pick it but it was entertaining--the Vox Day story was just awful though).

The value for me of SF awards is that I tend to get locked into my particular authors or types of book, and reading the nominated books gets me to read things I might have missed otherwise. Plus the Hugos is cool because I actually get to vote for them (and this year, I'm even going to be there for them).

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Ginwen

The value for me of SF awards is that I tend to get locked into my particular authors or types of book, and reading the nominated books gets me to read things I might have missed otherwise. Plus the Hugos is cool because I actually get to vote for them (and this year, I'm even going to be there for them).

That's a good way to look at, I think. It's similar to my thought process. I think too many people (readers) tend to use awards as sort sort of validation mechanism: "See! I just KNEW my favorite books were good!" And conversely; "None of the stuff I enjoyed won (or was even nominated)--I'm being oppressed."

Rather than; "Hey look ... here's a few titles/authors I was unaware of that someone somewhere thought was noteworthy. Maybe I'll check some out. Or not."

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

A lot of that old SF had to do with topics that we've long since moved on from. The modern world has a different view of space travel. Some of it is routine, like satellites and robotic science missions. Some of it we've all but given up on, such as manned exploration. The former is not science fiction, it is reality. The latter is as close to unicorns as you can get without abandoning reality altogether,

Uh, no.

Even as we speak, engineers are working on solar sails to be flown into space this year, ion drives are powering deep space probes, a full-on plasma drive is set to be tested on the ISS next year.

Scientists and *engineers* in the US, UK, Russia, and China are looking into a reactionless space drive, space elevators and lunar mining bases are being scoped out, and the physics of warped space for drives is being *tested*.

Deep space travel might have been slowed and stalled by idiot politicians but it is nowhere near being fantasy. Real meaningful work on manned exploration of space continues, luddites notwithstanding.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Uh, no.

Even as we speak, engineers are working on solar sails to be flown into space this year, ion drives are powering deep space probes, a full-on plasma drive is set to be tested on the ISS next year.

Scientists and *engineers* in the US, UK, Russia, and China are looking into a reactionless space drive, space elevators and lunar mining bases are being scoped out, and the physics of warped space for drives is being *tested*.

Deep space travel might have been slowed and stalled by idiot politicians but it is nowhere near being fantasy. Real meaningful work on manned exploration of space continues, luddites notwithstanding.

All the off-planet work seems to involve sending robots out there, not people. People are heavy, fragile, and need food and water and warmth. They also need exercise, and are going to be bombarded with radiation out there. There are just so many hard problems with manned space travel. It's just so much easier with light robots. You don't have to be a luddite to think that us rocketing around the solar system, let alone the galaxy, is a pipe dream. Maybe in the future, people will view our manned space exploration fiction the way we view Heinlein's early novel about the space ship with the math savant doing all the navigational calculations in his head?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by catsittingstill

I thought _Ancillary Justice_ showed real innovation and quality.

I did read this for a local book club and most people liked it as did I.

[JSWolf]

I don't care if a book has won an award or not. I read a book because it interests me.

A good example of why not to read a book just because it's won an award is Cloud Atlas. It won a Man Booker award and is a lousy book.

And one reason SF may look like it's dropping in popularity is because of the miscatigorization of some that should be listed as SF.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by rkomar

All the off-planet work seems to involve sending robots out there, not people. People are heavy, fragile, and need food and water and warmth. They also need exercise, and are going to be bombarded with radiation out there. There are just so many hard problems with manned space travel. It's just so much easier with light robots. You don't have to be a luddite to think that us rocketing around the solar system, let alone the galaxy, is a pipe dream. Maybe in the future, people will view our manned space exploration fiction the way we view Heinlein's early novel about the space ship with the math savant doing all the navigational calculations in his head?

Or maybe Heinlein was right and we get two space ages, the first strangled by luddites and small minds and a second driven by advanced technologies.

All I know is that manned space travel is not dead. Not yet.
Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, China, and even crippled NASA are still working towards deep space manned exploration. Right now. To the tune of tens of billions.

And those aren't paper studies but actual engineering efforts.

Me, I'm putting my money on the combination of VASIMIR plasma drive and compact fusion, both being developed with private funds. But Musk's cheap rockets might get us there, too.

To paraphrase Arthur C Clarke: "when somebody says something is possible, they may be right or they may be wrong. But when they say something is impossible they are almost certainly wrong."

SF is all about looking just beyond the horizon, about "what if's", "if only's" and "if this goes on's". It requires imagination to appreciate and it might be that society evolves away from imagination and a sense of wonder.

But it hasn't yet.

Edit to add latest news:
Manned space travel is such a "fantasy", that the US (finally taking note of chinese plans) is setting down rules for *manned* Lunar Mining operations. At least one US company is already testing the hardware in space.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space...ntures-n299126

[darryl]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Rather than; "Hey look ... here's a few titles/authors I was unaware of that someone somewhere thought was noteworthy. Maybe I'll check some out. Or not."

Very good summation. Personally I'm just looking for any really good books/authors that I may be missing out on. I don't care about the politics or the personalities. And I now have 2 lists of books which "someone somewhere thought was noteworthy". I intend to check out those which I think I may like.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by tompe

Really, can you mention 5 of these tainted and incestuous awards.

I really do not agree that the Hugo award is one of them.

BearmountainBooks didn't say it. I said it. Probably my comments on the Hugo were harsh. I don't know. Very little of what wins the Hugo resonates with me. Maybe that says as much about what sci-fi is being written as it does about what the Hugo selects. But I do have to wonder at the relevance of any sci-fi award that failed to recognize the excellence of the first Hunger Games book.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Rizla

BearmountainBooks didn't say it. I said it. Probably my comments on the Hugo were harsh. I don't know. Very little of what wins the Hugo resonates with me. Maybe that says as much about what sci-fi is being written as it does about what the Hugo selects. But I do have to wonder at the relevance of any sci-fi award that failed to recognize the excellence of the first Hunger Games book.

Opinions, opinions. I very much respect and appreciate their rejection of that drivel.
That too is... [drumroll]... an opinion!

Some people here are almost as bad as wolves...