Is SF dying?

[crane3]

SF&F is dying! at least when looking at the public library in my area; the shelves for SF&F is about less than 1/4 of what it contained.

But I did notice that there are more ebooks in SF&F available than before & that many of the older books are now on Overdrive & seems to be expanding more so.

Perhaps someone at the library decided that since it is "science" fiction the users should be using an ereader/tablet to read books?

[DiapDealer]

"For less than the cost of a cup of coffee per day, you too, can help ease the suffering of a dying genre. Won't you please help?"

[xg4bx]

I think it's because we're living science "fiction". One text message has more memory than the computer used to put men on the moon, we're talking about floating cities on Venus, sending missions to Europa, mining asteroids, we have 3D printers that are revolutionizing medicine, computers are helping the blind see, etc. I think people just don't see a need for it when we live in a world of scientific wonders. My dad is in his 60s and was always a genre reader and his face lights up when we talk about what's going on.

[GeoffR]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

I think it's because we're living science "fiction". One text message has more memory than the computer used to put men on the moon, we're talking about floating cities on Venus, sending missions to Europa, mining asteroids, we have 3D printers that are revolutionizing medicine, computers are helping the blind see, etc. I think people just don't see a need for it when we live in a world of scientific wonders. My dad is in his 60s and was always a genre reader and his face lights up when we talk about what's going on.

Scientific wonders are only wonders for a short time, then they become commonplace and SF is needed to speculate about the next wonder. I don't think new discoveries reduce the amount that is still to be discovered, instead they help us see how much more still lies undiscovered, allowing more speculation and providing more fuel for SF.

Edit: Also, SF is not limited by new scientific discoveries. If science says the Moon is not made from green cheese, that doesn't stop SF speculating about what would happen if it was. In fact discoveries of limits actually increases the scope for speculation. Knowing that ordinary matter can't be acelerated beyond the speed of light allows SF to speculate both on the consequences of that limit, and on what it would be like if that limit didn't exist.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by GeoffR

Scientific wonders are only wonders for a short time, then they become commonplace and SF is needed to speculate about the next wonder. I don't think new discoveries reduce the amount that is still to be discovered, instead they help us see how much more still lies undiscovered, allowing more speculation and providing more fuel for SF.

Edit: Also, SF is not limited by new scientific discoveries. If science says the Moon is not made from green cheese, that doesn't stop SF speculating about what would happen if it was. In fact discoveries of limits actually increases the scope for speculation. Knowing that ordinary matter can't be acelerated beyond the speed of light allows SF to speculate both on the consequences of that limit, and on what it would be like if that limit didn't exist.

Agreed on both counts.
SF has never been just about the trappings and themes (rockets, aliens, whatever) it is about using fiction to explore ideas and concepts using a rationalist outlook. Alternate history is as much SF as Space Opera, social analysis is as valid a topic as tech speculation. All that matters is the writing and the ideas.

Not that there is much chance that tech or hard science will outstrip the best writers. The more we learn about how the world works, the broader the vistas before us. Its a lot like climbing a mountain: the higher you go, the better the view of past, present, and future.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

SF has never been just about the trappings and themes (rockets, aliens, whatever)

Sure it it has. Quite often it has. Since its inception in fact. And still is. Wishing that it wasn't just about that has never made it come true. Nor will it. Nor does being "just about that" demean any authors who've written stuff that happened to transcend the trappings and themes that made it SF to begin with.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

it is about using fiction to explore ideas and concepts using a rationalist outlook.

In your (and some like-minded others) non-authoritative opinion only.

What you're describing is what you consider to be your kind of SF. And there's nothing wrong with that. It just doesn't kick anyone else's kind of SF out of the clubhouse.

[pegasi&prefects]

Originally Posted by Rizla

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.

It might be the tainted by teenage girls effect. I know a coworker was intending to see the first film before he found out that, ew, it was a YA book with a female protagonist.

What can you do?

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by pegasi&prefects

It might be the tainted by teenage girls effect. I know a coworker was intending to see the first film before he found out that, ew, it was a YA book with a female protagonist.

What can you do?

That, and I think it's fairly rare for books that have sold extremely well to win a Hugo. I could be wrong about that, but it seems that way to me. And there's nothing wrong with trying to elevate books no one has heard of, assuming they are deserving books.

But when I worked at the library, I gave a few previous Hugo winners a shot. Meh. Not my thing.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pegasi&prefects

It might be the tainted by teenage girls effect. I know a coworker was intending to see the first film before he found out that, ew, it was a YA book with a female protagonist.

What can you do?

Well, in this case, be thankful for the last-minute warning.

---

I am pretty sure though, that the problem is not that The Hunger Games is a YA book that happens to have a female protagonist. There are lots of YA books with a female protagonist, and they don't tend to be any better or worse than the drivel or otherwise available with male protagonists -- the problem is that YA in general is overloaded with stereotypically-YA books.
The Hunger Games is IMHO one of them (though I admit to being heavily biased against dystopian-as-a-genre).

Oh, well -- that is opinions for you.

If The Hunger Games was really as good as some people make out over here, I am sure it would've been selected ... and then people can feel vindicated for having read it, or not as the case may be, because I couldn't really care less what other people think I should think.

The Hugo is all opinions anyway, and I have no qualms about rejecting their opinions as utter drivel anytime I specifically agree with their choices.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by 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.

I really recommend Cloud Atlas. A brilliantly good book.

[theducks]

What/why is it that people select books solely for these criteria?
Must have Male Villon and Female hero (or the flip)
Must be Adults only main characters.
Only books with Blue Fish
or any other 'only' criteria

I don't think in all the years I have been reading of ever (not) selecting a book because the Hero was Female, The Author was Female, the publisher was not one of the big 5.
I do tend to buy Genere (SF or Fantasy)

I do understand certain 'Avoids' that violate religion or moral beliefs

But WHY so rigid a selection criteria?

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by theducks

What/why is it that people select books solely for these criteria?
Must have Male Villon and Female hero (or the flip)
Must be Adults only main characters.
Only books with Blue Fish
or any other 'only' criteria

I don't think in all the years I have been reading of ever (not) selecting a book because the Hero was Female, The Author was Female, the publisher was not one of the big 5.
I do tend to buy Genere (SF or Fantasy)

I do understand certain 'Avoids' that violate religion or moral beliefs

But WHY so rigid a selection criteria?

No idea. I had no idea it existed until I did a poll of my cozy group and so many of them said they didn't like to read books by male authors or with male protagonists. I did know that fantasy/sci-fi had a rep of editors not buying women heroes/writing and supposedly of male readers not wanting to read it. But I didn't know the reverse was true. We did an experiment on the same forum where a couple of us suggested books we really loved by male authors or that had male protags. A couple of the ladies gave them a half-hearted try...

I never really notice UNLESS something in the book makes me look. (For a new author. Obviously, if I've read the author before, I'm familiar enough with him/her.) The other day I was sampling a book and that author happened to have used initials. I read the first scene and stopped dead to go look up the author name (because I was reading on my kindle and hadn't paid attention.) I scrolled down on Amazon and found it was a male writer, writing a cozy. Ah. That explained the scene more clearly to me because I was having trouble figuring out why ANY author would depict the female doing what she was doing. That a male was writing the description helped clarify...but it annoyed me because then I had to stop and wonder about the entire passage.

There are MANY male authors who can and do write excellent female characters. I'm not picky about my characters or my authors. But if I notice something amiss, that's probably just bad writing.

[eschwartz]

Dunno, I just tend to avoid the ones that are too stereotypically formulaic.

Oh, and I absolutely loathe dystopian books.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

That, and I think it's fairly rare for books that have sold extremely well to win a Hugo. I could be wrong about that, but it seems that way to me. And there's nothing wrong with trying to elevate books no one has heard of, assuming they are deserving books.

But when I worked at the library, I gave a few previous Hugo winners a shot. Meh. Not my thing.

I don't know what your tastes are, but since 2000, the best novel winners included Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, The Yiddish Policeman's Union, The Graveyard Book, and Redshirts, all of which made the NYT bestsellers list.

I think a lot of the winners sold well within the genre readership because most of the winners had a fair amount of buzz in my SF circles before winning.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by tompe

I really recommend Cloud Atlas. A brilliantly good book.

It's a great bird cage liner. It's crap. It's not worth the time to find out how bad it is. It's something to be ignored. It's something that deserves to win the golden turkey award for being so bad.