Ebook sales are being driven by downmarket genre fiction

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

This line you see repeatedly in these kinds of threads

"If I wanted something that makes me think, I would read a nonfiction book/essay..."

I disagree with this statement. When I was in high school we were reading at one point books from a particular time and one thing that the teacher told us was that the main character was always rich because that was the only way for them to be able to be really free. A job was viewed as a constraint, so the necessity for a job would also be a constraint.

In the case of the current supernatural frenzy the constant elements seem to be a long life and better health along side with all the good guys being (or becoming throughout the story) very accepting of those that are different from them.

[QuantumIguana]

I disagree with the idea that "genre" books don't make you think. Science fiction is loaded with ideas that keep people thinking long after they have finished the book.

[LuvReadin]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I disagree with this statement. When I was in high school we were reading at one point books from a particular time and one thing that the teacher told us was that the main character was always rich because that was the only way for them to be able to be really free. A job was viewed as a constraint, so the necessity for a job would also be a constraint.

In the case of the current supernatural frenzy the constant elements seem to be a long life and better health along side with all the good guys being (or becoming throughout the story) very accepting of those that are different from them.

Quite true. In fact, fiction is often a better reflection of the time in which it was written (assuming it's set in that time, not in the future/past/alternative world), as it draws on culturally recognisable themes, like the use of policeman or whatever as a sort of shorthand, as someone else said above.

In fact, I read an article some time back that said high-school students tend to dislike books set in the 'near past' because certain descriptions (of technology in particular) jar with them. At the time, I sort of rolled my eyes and muttered to myself, but a few months later, I was reading a book in which the crime hinged on the fact that the body was moved during the period in which the finder (a state trooper) took to go away and raise the alarm. And yes, it did jar - my first thought was why didn't she use her mobile phone? It just didn't seem to fit with the book's time. When I looked at the copyright page, I found it was printed in the early 90s (1993, I think), and that sort of reset the book's calendar for me. It does show how much faster technology has changed relative to other societal signposts. It's only 20 years, after all. Same with films - nothing dates them more than the beige computer with the green type scrolling down the screen!

[QuantumIguana]

I could see how novels set in the near past could be jarring, because it is similar enough to the present. We would never expect Long John Silver to use a GPS, but if a book was written just before GPS was available, it forces the reader to think "Oh, yes, GPS wasn't available then." It is an opportunity to think about technological change.

Then there are anachronism of a couple types, one is technology being used in a time period where it couldn't have existed (such as Long John Silver using a GPS) or the failure to recognize when technology has moved on, like tracing a call, which is outdated.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Mainstream SF readers? Maybe not.
But HARDCORE SF readers who are interested in the history and evolution of the genre? There's more of us than most people would realize.

Also, don't underestimate the appeal of even "dated" SF. Especially now that alternate histories are a sub-genre of their own.

And there's no telling what the future will bring in terms of genres and sub-genres. After all, by current standards one could conceivably (retroactively) label Verne as Steampunk.

Maybe... but still, I reread The Foundation Trilogy recently, and couldn't help but find the ideal of going through book tapes in a library very jarring in a not quaint sort of way. Also navigation without the help of computers (i.e., several places where they spent days calculating Hyperspace jumps are mentioned), etc.

Sometimes stuff like that works, sometimes it just seems off.

--
Bill

[MrsJoseph]

Have either of you read the Brainship series by Anne McCaffery? Only the first 3-4 are decent but the technology seems to be holding up pretty well. There are some things that we are on the cusp of...but most of it (from what I remember) was still pretty far away. The series started in the late '70s IIRC.

First book in series: The Ship Who Sang

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Have either of you read the Brainship series by Anne McCaffery? Only the first 3-4 are decent but the technology seems to be holding up pretty well. There are some things that we are on the cusp of...but most of it (from what I remember) was still pretty far away. The series started in the late '70s IIRC.

First book in series: The Ship Who Sang

No I can't say that I have read them. I read a few Anne McCaffery books, they were ok, but they never really inspired me to seek out everything she wrote like Heinlein, Asimov and Clarke did.

Now, I will say, that Dune holds up remarkably well. Inventing a Universe where computer technology is constrained by history makes it feel less dated.

--
Bill

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

No I can't say that I have read them. I read a few Anne McCaffery books, they were ok, but they never really inspired me to seek out everything she wrote like Heinlein, Asimov and Clarke did.

Now, I will say, that Dune holds up remarkably well. Inventing a Universe where computer technology is constrained by history makes it feel less dated.

--
Bill

To backtrack a little...some of it is hard SF but it's not Asimov. I'm talking purely about the shelf-life of the tech.

Some of it was pretty hard SF (PartnerShip) but I don't have the science background to say how true she stayed to the details.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

To backtrack a little...some of it is hard SF but it's not Asimov. I'm talking purely about the shelf-life of the tech.

Some of it was pretty hard SF (PartnerShip) but I don't have the science background to say how true she stayed to the details.

Well, after googling it... without reading the books, I have to say with modern computers, it is hard to see how a using a human brain in a ship makes more sense than using a well made computer.

--
Bill

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Have either of you read the Brainship series by Anne McCaffery? Only the first 3-4 are decent but the technology seems to be holding up pretty well. There are some things that we are on the cusp of...but most of it (from what I remember) was still pretty far away. The series started in the late '70s IIRC.

First book in series: The Ship Who Sang

Yup.
Like'em a lot. But the first most of all.
The Killashandra stories, too.

One thing to keep in mind about the FOUNDATION Universe is that it is also the ROBOTS universe, but long after the robots worked to effectively excise human computer/robotic tech.
Herbert did much the same with the DUNE Universe.
Other than iRobot, most of the Earth-bound stories in the ROBOTS/FOUNDATION timeline take place far enough in the future they can easily be taking place long after the collapse of our civilization.
Some authors take care to "future-proof" their stories, others don't bother and let the reader reconcile things at will if they care.

And its not just tech issues that can pop up. There's lots of stories floating around that involve a 21st century Soviet Union, among other discordancies.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Well, after googling it... without reading the books, I have to say with modern computers, it is hard to see how a using a human brain in a ship makes more sense than using a well made computer.

--
Bill

The underlying premise in the series is that there is no artificial substitute for human judgement. No True AI.
And, despite the prevalence of AI's in the genre, that is still the state of the art.
So it is not (yet) unreasonable to posit that an organic brain might be a valid solution to the question of fully independent and reliable complex systems.

True AI's have not been proven impossible but neither have they been proven as inevitable.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The underlying premise in the series is that there is no artificial substitute for human judgement. No True AI.
And, despite the prevalence of AI's in the genre, that is still the state of the art.
So it is not (yet) unreasonable to posit that an organic brain might be a valid solution to the question of fully independent and reliable complex systems.

True AI's have not been proven impossible but neither have they been proven as inevitable.

That's what I was going to say, but you said it much, much better!

[QuantumIguana]

Each author is going to have their own take on AI, a diversity of views gives something to think about. I remember a story about robots, and some people didn't like it because these robots didn't follow Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. But they weren't Asimov-type robots, so there was no reasonable expectation that they would follow his laws. There's room for a whole lot of views.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Each author is going to have their own take on AI, a diversity of views gives something to think about. I remember a story about robots, and some people didn't like it because these robots didn't follow Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. But they weren't Asimov-type robots, so there was no reasonable expectation that they would follow his laws. There's room for a whole lot of views.

It would be a sad state of affairs if any particular vision, no matter how compelling, overwhelmed alternative views. Especially in a genre that aims to explore ideas.
One of the better side-effects of the growth of the alternate-history sub-genre is that even counter-factual science has a place under the SF tent. (Witness Steampunk.)
SF is about exploring ideas; even the occssional impossibility can be tolerated. (For the right payoff.)

Reminds me of Doc Smith's Ca. 1960 tweak to SKYLARK OF SPACE to explain away Relativity and the Speed of Light limit; "...it looks like the Theory wasn't entirely right." (Or some such.)

Sometimes the story is fun enough we can wink and nod and move on.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Maybe... but still, I reread The Foundation Trilogy recently, and couldn't help but find the ideal of going through book tapes in a library very jarring in a not quaint sort of way. Also navigation without the help of computers (i.e., several places where they spent days calculating Hyperspace jumps are mentioned), etc.

I guess that it is because I'm not a native English speaker, but it's easy for me to pretend that "tape" doesn't describe what we call a tape but some future version of digitized books. And since I don't use GPS, I don't see a problem with not navigating with the help of computers.