Is SF dying?

[Rizla]

We're seeing the decline of male solid-fuel and space-opera sci-fiction, not of sci-fiction in general. Look at all the female romance/erotica sci-fi books out. Consider J.D.Robb and Nalini Singh, for example. The genre is widening. And then there is young adult sci-fi which has the produced some of the biggest sellers over the last decade or so.

So it's really a question of defining the genre. Yes, male, solid-fuel/space-opera sci-fi is in decline, and I'm not surprised.Where are the Clarkes and the Asimovs and the Strugatskis? Banks is gone. The only really good author left in the genre I can think of is Robert Charles Wilson. Ready Player One was excellent, so there is the occasional green shoot. The Martian was good, but I'm skeptical the next book will be much (sorry!). People like Christopher Priest innovate, but too quickly vanish into obscurationizm. I've tried people like Hamilton and I found it flat.

Male sci-fi used to contain real vision and hope. The whole apocalypse-style genre was a first nail in the coffin. It's depressing and grey. Male sci-fi I'm seeing now increasingly lacks vision or creativity. I appreciate some people like it, but less and less according to the stats. I think male sci-fi is less popular because the books are no longer as good.

[mbovenka]

Originally Posted by Rizla

So it's really a question of defining the genre. Yes, male, solid-fuel/space-opera sci-fi is in decline, and I'm not surprised.Where are the Clarkes and the Asimovs and the Strugatskis? Banks is gone. The only really good author left in the genre I can think of is Robert Charles Wilson.

Of the Old Masters Larry Niven is still doing what he does best (See Bowl of Heaven & Shipstar.) So are Gregory Benford (idem), David Brin, Stephen Baxter and Charles Sheffield. Or if it has to scratch diamond, Greg Egan. And if you want huge vistas in doorstoppers fat enough for a bank vault, there is always Peter F. Hamilton...

There is 'classic' hard SF enough. There is just more of the rest than there used to be.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Rizla

We're seeing the decline of male solid-fuel and space-opera sci-fiction, not of sci-fiction in general. Look at all the female romance/erotica sci-fi books out. Consider J.D.Robb and Nalini Singh, for example.

Ahh...
Well, strictly speaking, those aren't SF. They are paranormal romance or mystery or urban fantasy or thrillers...
(A lot folks are actually peeved when stores stock them in the SF section.)

There is a pretty clear rule of thumb: if the core of the story is a relationship or a mystery, never mind the trappings, it is not SF. A story is SF if it can only happen because of a "science fictional element". A story about a detective investigating a rape or a murder in the 22nd century is not by itself SF. If the detective is a PSI (The Demolished Man) or an Android (CAVES OF STEEL) then it is SF.

SF can have mysteries and romance but the story has to be built around the ideas, not around the relationship. Or the mystery. Or the gritty tough guy protagonist.

Now, a lot of genre binning is all about marketing, like making the protagonists of a clearly SF or Fantasy story teenagers just to market it as YA, but people do get ticked when the marketing promises rabbit and they get cat. I've seem complaints (valid to me) about people who buy books about intrigue in complex SF or Fantasy societies where the book ends and the only thing that is settled is the H.E.A. of the protagonists and the world building and intrigue only gets lip service.

To the extent that lesser known authors doing "core" SF get marginalized by a flood of "paranormal this or that" they are going to be upset and when they see bad numbers like those PW reports they are going to panic.

Lots of over-reacting drama queens and kings in the SF ranks.

Nonetheless, the increasing acceptance of thin-veneer paranormal as SF does represent a degradation of the market (and availability) for actual SF.

So, as I said, in the OP: maybe there is a kernel of truth to the recurring panics.

SF's appeal is rooted in a very specific outlook and mindset and if society values move away from that outlook and mindset (which, BTW, it is) then SF (as a mainstream publishing business) could actually "die".

Maybe SF going indie is the first step towards going "underground" and becoming a counterculture literature?

The PW report is about bad methodogy applied to worse "data" but I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the matter as just a migration away from tradpub or genre devolution...

[theducks]

SF-Mysteries have been around a lot longer than JD Robb

Azimov
Mack Reynolds
Randall Garrett (Would probably be classified as Fantasy today)

[BearMountainBooks]

Well, if stores are self-reporting that's a problem because the genre is "muddy" so far as any individual defines it. Libraries often shelve them with fantasy and a JD Robb could easily get stuck in there. So some of it is probably genre definition. Some could be lack of specialists/readers. When I worked at the library we had a librarian who specialized in buying sci/fi/fantasy. He retired. He was not replaced by the same expertise. Same could easily be true in bookstores. Bookstores end up with large sections of books that are favored by the people who work there.

I also think indies have hugely impacted the genre. That may be my own bias talking, and I don't read a lot of scifi, but when I do, it's indie or Baen. I tend to shy away from Tor titles because--THEY ARE TOO DANG LONG. Some people love that, me, not so much. Even Baen books can go on and on and not get to the point (for me). I like the character driven books, so I have read Scalzi and enjoyed it and I like Mark Van Name for the same reason. They aren't necessarily "hard" sci fi either. I also read the superhero stuff and the anti-superhero stuff--and as someone said, big publishers were pretty late to that sub genre.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by theducks

SF-Mysteries have been around a lot longer than JD Robb

Azimov
Mack Reynolds
Randall Garrett (Would probably be classified as Fantasy today)

And I wouldn't classify hers as Sci/fi anyway. She has the world building in there, but it isn't really developed past a certain point. Neither are the politics. Her books are a cross between mystery and romance with a sci/fi setting. Not to say they won't show up in sci/fi, but they aren't sci/fi.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by theducks

SF-Mysteries have been around a lot longer than JD Robb

Azimov
Mack Reynolds
Randall Garrett (Would probably be classified as Fantasy today)

Not by women aimed at women.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

And I wouldn't classify hers as Sci/fi anyway. She has the world building in there, but it isn't really developed past a certain point. Neither are the politics. Her books are a cross between mystery and romance with a sci/fi setting. Not to say they won't show up in sci/fi, but they aren't sci/fi.

I disagree. They happen in the future.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Quexos

It is interesting that so much attention comes to my "instance" while so little (actually none so far) to my question. Someone says they will plan a party if a full genre of literature dies and NOBODY seems the least curious as to why?

Because I don't like SF.

[Rizla]

@fjtorres and others. We are getting into a debate about what science-fiction is. Good luck with that

I will say that these other maybe-not-sci-fi genres we are discussing didn't exist in the past, and they are generally written for and read by females. *Dons asbestos*. Personally, I don't mind a bit of love, but not too much. I also hate cloaking devices.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Rizla

I disagree. They happen in the future.

Well, she lists it as the future, but just doing that doesn't make it sci/fi. There's no real basis in science that says the things in the books will happen. But that just makes my point that different readers apply their own opinions on the genre (and there's nothing wrong with that.)

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

There's no real basis in science that says the things in the books will happen.

That's an extremely narrow definition of science-fiction. IMO science-fiction need not be predictive or realistic in its portrayal of technology.

[Antoinekamel]

SF is surpassed by reality.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Rizla

That's an extremely narrow definition of science-fiction. IMO science-fiction need not be predictive or realistic in its portrayal of technology.

That's not my whole definition, but I don't find anything particularly scientific in her books--not saying that is bad, it's just not very science fiction to me. One of my books is somewhat futuristic with lots of gadgets that either exist or probably will someday, but I don't market it as science fiction. Maybe I should, but I don't really think it fits that genre. And again, I'm not poking at your definition. I think it's fine to have various definitions of it.

[DiapDealer]

So the thing that science-fiction used to be isn't as popular as the thing that science-fiction has become? Well duh.

But that's not death. That's dispersion and evolution. That's change. Now there's old-school (new and old old-school) and MORE.

You want to hang on to lines drawn in sand in the '40s & 50s? Then maybe you see decline. I just see the maturation of what was--at best--a one-trick micro-genre into a full-blown genre with room enough for everything under the sun (sf-thriller; medical-sf-thriller; future-horror; from the future, time-traveling, historical, find-the-way-home adventures; closed-room mysteries with fictional future-science plot devices; near-future, slower-than-light-space-travel-influenced political dramas; and dystopian, low-tech eco-warning tragedies).

As soon as I run out of good SF to read, I'll start worrying (and trust me, I like it all--provided it's well-written). But for now, I'm seeing nothing but abundance and choice. I really don't see that changing anytime soon. I may have to occasionally hop the fence to track down the SF that's wandered into the neighbors' pastures, but I don't mind.