Is SF dying?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Are we supposed to imagine those worlds existing, or are we supposed to imagine those elements in our world taken to their illogical conclusions? Say the state using entertainment as a form of control (The Hunger Games) or the state manipulating information as a form of control (1984).

I think that depends on if it is considered to be SF or if it is considered something else.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I feel that's the key with Hunger Games. The setting doesn't really even make internal sense, it's just an excuse to have the Hunger Games. I enjoyed all three books, but they're a bit like a blockbuster film, where you come out thinking "hang on..." having been thoroughly entertained by the explosions while you were in there.

Which was why a lot of people when it was published did not consider it to be a particular good SF book. I thought that the first book was OK but I did see its problem.

And I think some people found it unfair that The Hunger game that had these problem got so popular compared to much better and similar books by better authors.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I lean towards liking the dystopias that are crafted to provide a challenge and targets to blow away...with good characterization and usually a mystery to be solved. The ones that drape themselves in bad news (1984) are not for me no matter how valid the lesson being pushed.

The ones I like in that category are generally vilified so you definitely have company.

There is a third, much smaller category (I'm not sure I've seen it used by anybody but S.M. Stirling and Fred Sabergahen) where the milieu is only a dystopia from the reader's point of view; the protagonist is mostly okay with the world around them.

[Fbone]

My favorite dystopian is Planet of the Apes with Logun's Run and Brave New World as honorable mentions. Whether Planet of the Apes is real science fiction I'll let others decide.

My favorite post-apoc is without a doubt Earth Abides.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Fbone

My favorite dystopian is Planet of the Apes with Logun's Run and Brave New World as honorable mentions. Whether Planet of the Apes is real science fiction I'll let others decide.

My favorite post-apoc is without a doubt Earth Abides.

Pierre Boulle's version is.

[fjtorres]

Hmm, I don't quite agree with this one, but his last paragraph does line up with my thinking on trappings vs subject:
https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com...eliable-field/

But we’re pretty deep into the unraveling, and there may not be enough cohesive force to keep SF/F tied together as a whole. The field may simply blow apart entirely, like a supernova. The different pieces spinning off into the universe, leaving a dead neutron core (or even a singularity) in its place. No more identifiable SCIENCE FICTION. Just SF-flavored war fiction, or SF-romance, or SF-mysteries, or Fantasy-flavored cop dramas, etc. The center (as the saying goes) may not hold.

What he seems to be focusing on is Big 5 imprint SF--not indies, where space opera and adventure are increasingly abundant--and print sales more than ebooks. I don't think the subjects he highlights are unnecessarily inappropriate for SF but I do think *how* they are used and how they are presented matters.

On the rest; well, I gave up on the Hugos back in the 90's anyway.
I don't think they are broken as much as meaningless.

Fighting over them is fruitless.

[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.

Lmao. Why 5? Why not 7? Or 3.5? This is standard polemical strategy that politicians like to use to defuse debate.

[Rizla]

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?

I thought the film was poor. But I agree with your point. There are lots of people who still haven't read Harry Potter because they consider themselves above reading children's books. I suppose they are more attached to the idea of reading rather than reading itself. i.e. Ego. Re: the female lead bit, well, I couldn't care less as long as she's not a victim like Hardy's Tess. I like my woman strong (but soft)!

[fjtorres]

Okay, why all the angst over the Hugos, anyway?
It's a popularity contest, no?

Back in the early days it was all about the fans but for a couple decades now it has been all about politicking and corporate marketing and about as reflective of what readers buy as high couture is reflective of work clothes.

In the end, isn't sales ranking the best measure of popularity?

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

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...

Are you saying the first Hunger Games book is drivel? Have you read it?

And they didn't reject "that drivel" because they gave the screenplay an award.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Are you saying the first Hunger Games book is drivel?

In my opinion, yes.

That gives me the right to make fun of your opinion that any person/entity/group that fails to recognize the totallyamazingawesomeness [squee] of The Hunger Games is irrelevant and I guess stupid.


Aren't opinions fun.

And they didn't reject "that drivel" because they gave the screenplay an award.

A screenplay... the inherent drivel-ness of anything that can touch the film industry with its ten-foot pole, goes without saying.

Cutting down a story to its skeleton to stick it on a screen pretty much kills anything, as far as I am concerned. Certain things were not meant to be Moving Pictures, like the whole of the written word for a start.

Again, this is all my opinion, feel free to take that with a grain of salt -- or utter derision, I don't care.

I maintain -- aren't opinions fun.

[Waylander]

Because I don't like SF.

What, so you'd like to get rid a whole literary genre because you don't like it, depriving the many who do like it of something they enjoy? That sounds like censorship to me. I may not like what you read, but I wouldn't want it to disappear completely, and I wouldn't be happy if it did. There's enough for everyone to read, and no need to read SF or whatever if you don't want to.

[eschwartz]

That topic has been hashed to death. No one cares anymore, and no one is going to convince anyone. Feel free to tune out anyone who holds a wildly unpopular opinion, and stop adding fuel to the fire.

kthxbai

[Waylander]

Sorry, I hadn't read through the thread before I posted, so my bad. My point in general still stands though; just because you don't like a certain book/genre, doesn't mean you should want to deprive those who enjoy it of that book/genre. There are so many books/genres that there is enough for everyone to enjoy without getting into unnecessary conflict over what is and what is not good.

[Rev. Bob]

If SF is dying, it's doing a remarkably poor job of it from where I sit.

I read SF, modern/urban fantasy, steampunk (which usually fits into one or the other of those genres), and the occasional superhero book (prose or graphic novel). I usually read about 150 of those books per year, but I had an "off" year in 2014 and barely broke triple digits.

I can't keep up.

As much as I read, I buy even more, just because there's so much neat stuff getting published - from traditional houses and indies alike. I have literal stacks of unread books that I keep meaning to get to, from Star Wars and Star Trek to alternate history, time travel, and an attractive young woman who solves old murders because the victims' ghosts won't leave her alone...and then there are the ebooks. I've got over 940 of those on my Kobo right now, with at least a couple hundred more that I need to process before loading onto it.

Just offhand, I can think of two SF series I'd love to get to - five and six books, respectively - but just haven't carved out the time for. If you go to the reading challenge in my signature and click over to my library, the "now-list" started as the next five books in my queue. That's now over 25. The "shortlist" is a big swath of stuff I can look through whenever I'm not sure what I'm in the mood to read, and there are a lot of "book 1 of at least 3" entries there. (The later books are usually on the bigger "to-read" list.)

My problem isn't finding stuff to read, but finding time to read all the stuff I've got. More than once, I've responded to a book recommendation by noting that I've got a decade's worth of reading material that I already own and know I'm interested in; not only can I afford to pass on something that doesn't hook me, but it's practically a moral imperative that I do so.

I have never had trouble finding fiction that fits whatever reading mood I'm in. Funny, serious, simple, thoughtful, action, philosophy, gadgets, magic, swords, guns - you show me an SF reader who can't find something new to read, and I'll show you someone who either can't use Google (or Goodreads, or Amazon) or has excessively narrow tastes. Either way, I'm always happy to give recommendations.

As for the Sad Puppies - I have no qualms about removing conspiracy-theory nuts from my purchasing decisions, especially when their "solution" is to create their OWN conspiracy to "fix" things. Like I said, I'm drowning in content as it is; the news that Author X is a grade-A jerk just means I no longer have to worry about whether I want to buy his stuff. I'd rather support the authors the Sad Puppies despise - and frankly, they seem to be writing a lot niftier stuff. I've read John Scalzi, Jim Hines, Charles Stross, and others on the SP List Of Evil SJWs. Old Man's War kicked butt, Jig's my kind of goblin, the Laundry Files keep me up at night, and I could go on and on. Thanks to Goodreads, my reading habits since mid-2011 are a matter of public record.

In fact, I'm editing something I'm sure the SPs would call a Horrible SJW Message Book right now. It's a genre-bending gender-bender, too: a contemporary fantasy (clerical magic via Roman gods) that's also a New Adult quest-for-identity (physical transformation results in self-examination) with nontraditional relationships and a ton of explicit sex. Maybe it'll flop when it gets to the virtual shelves - but maybe not. It's just the sort of "idea fiction" I always loved getting from SF, and Heinlein touched on some of the same turf. He just did it with science and a brain transfer instead of an enemy with a grimoire, and his hero was an old rich guy instead of a damaged college kid.

I wonder if the SP crowd would even notice the parallels.

As for my next read, it'll probably be a YA steampunk/fantasy with killer teenage girls, an SF take on Jeeves and Wooster, or a novella about how Dorothy's return made Oz the dystopia it is today. But then, I might go with Saving Mars or Wool instead. You never know with me.