Is SF dying?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by crich70

They said the Western was dead when Kevin Costner decided he wanted to make "Dances with Wolves" and it's been holding its own since I think.

BLAZING SADDLES killed the western, at least in movies.
SILVERADO brought it back to life, but comatose.
Since then we've gotten a few great efforts to revive it (DANCES, UNFORGIVEN, 3:10 TO YUMA...) but the core values of the western don't seem to carry much weight with current culture, which is what I'm wondering might lie ahead for SF.

SF is about ideas, not the trappings around those ideas.
And too much of what poses as SciFi these days has a veneer of the field on the outside but is hollow on the inside.

[DiapDealer]

You need to relax. SF is a genre, not a badge conferred by adhering to imaginary rules. If we stop strangling it with dogmatic principles, maybe it won't die.

[pegasi&prefects]

I understand how you feel, in a way, fjtorres. I was raised on hard SF. I also remember what felt like to do a search for fantasy on my library ebook catalogue and for the first time get nothing but paranormal romance. But I agree with DiapDealer.

A genre isn't about core values and rules; there has to be room for change, for expansion, even for meaning drift. The common sense meaning of SF, away from hard core fandom, certainly has room for multigenre works with emphases other than the tech and world building. If it's set in the future, well, then, it goes on the SF shelf, and that's okay.

And, you know, in comparison to the books I read as a teenager, there's actually a chance of well developed female characters who seem like actual women and not fantasies from a man locked in a closet all his life, these days. And characters of colour, and ones who aren't cishet. There is definitely a very bright side to the Pink SF that Day's commenters deride (while talking up their own "unashamedly White Nationalist" soon-to-be blockbuster Blue SF.)

Variety is good. It might make it a little harder to find what you want, but this isn't a zero sum game.

[arjaybe]

When people used to ask, "Do you like Science Fiction?" I used to be able to say, "Yes." Now I have to say, "I like some of it." It's not a useful genre (not as, anyway) for me any more. I have to filter out the stuff with magic and monsters that gets lumped in with it. To me, a detective story has to have detecting. A mystery has to have mystery. And science fiction has to feature science. I'm even more picky in that I want the science to be plausible, based on known principles and reasonable extrapolations. If someone waves a flammerjator that magically solves a problem, I begin to lose interest.

Still, I don't mind if the genre mutates. It's just a label on a "shelf."

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by pegasi&prefects

I understand how you feel, in a way, fjtorres. I was raised on hard SF. I also remember what felt like to do a search for fantasy on my library ebook catalogue and for the first time get nothing but paranormal romance. But I agree with DiapDealer.

A genre isn't about core values and rules; there has to be room for change, for expansion, even for meaning drift. The common sense meaning of SF, away from hard core fandom, certainly has room for multigenre works with emphases other than the tech and world building. If it's set in the future, well, then, it goes on the SF shelf, and that's okay.

And, you know, in comparison to the books I read as a teenager, there's actually a chance of well developed female characters who seem like actual women and not fantasies from a man locked in a closet all his life, these days. And characters of colour, and ones who aren't cishet. There is definitely a very bright side to the Pink SF that Day's commenters deride (while talking up their own "unashamedly White Nationalist" soon-to-be blockbuster Blue SF.)

Variety is good. It might make it a little harder to find what you want, but this isn't a zero sum game.

There were always women writing sci-fi and some very good stuff at that. Elizabeth Moon comes to mind as one I read when I was young. David Webber was writing the Honor Harrington series with a clever female lead since way back when. Sure, there are dominant male names, but the type of fiction one prefers has always been hard to find. I even read sci/fi romance when I was growing up--it was out there. It just wasn't as common as the Harlequin standards. With the internet, it's easier to find the kind of books you like.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

BLAZING SADDLES killed the western, at least in movies.
SILVERADO brought it back to life, but comatose.
Since then we've gotten a few great efforts to revive it (DANCES, UNFORGIVEN, 3:10 TO YUMA...) but the core values of the western don't seem to carry much weight with current culture, which is what I'm wondering might lie ahead for SF.

SF is about ideas, not the trappings around those ideas.
And too much of what poses as SciFi these days has a veneer of the field on the outside but is hollow on the inside.

Blazing gave Westerns a hot foot
Robin Hood MIT gave medieval outlaws a new occupation

I will admit to being a Mel Brooks fan

I hated SF movies that Hollywood ignored the basic rules of physics or practicality

Free (dripping) water, stuff hanging in the tanker ship in Alien
Lights in the Helmet visor Battlestar G
Billowing dust in Space 1999

[darryl]

For me, genre is useful for one thing and one thing only. It helps in selecting books to read. Or, to be more precise, it is one thing which helps in bringing what may as well be an infinite choice down to a manageable level. I am far more likely to find something I like to read in some genres rather than others. I'm not that interested in definitions of what is and is not Sci-Fi. The borderline between Sci-Fi and Fantasy has apparently proven so difficult to define that they are usually lumped in together. Which in my opinion is a shame, since I would prefer not to wade through a million sword and sorcery series when I am looking for very different books. Not that I have anything against Fantasy. I've read and enjoyed plenty of it over the years, and still read the occasional fantasy books. It's just not a genre that I want to read right now.

[pegasi&prefects]

I am not a huge Honor Harrington fan, I'm afraid.

I did use to read Women's Press SF books thanks to the local Women's Studies Resource Centre. But I maintain that there is more diversity out there than before, and far more accessibly, which is exactly why Day and his minions are shrieking about the sky falling and SF being killed by women and people of colour.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

There were always women writing sci-fi and some very good stuff at that. Elizabeth Moon comes to mind as one I read when I was young. David Webber was writing the Honor Harrington series with a clever female lead since way back when. Sure, there are dominant male names, but the type of fiction one prefers has always been hard to find. I even read sci/fi romance when I was growing up--it was out there. It just wasn't as common as the Harlequin standards. With the internet, it's easier to find the kind of books you like.

Don't forget Leigh Brackett and C. L. Moore. Wikipedia also lists Sophie Wenzel Ellis, Clare Winger Harris, Greye La Spina, Lilith Lorraine. Francis F. Stevens, Leslie F. Stone and Everil Worrell among other early writers of SF and Fantasy.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by 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.

When I go to the library, I see J.D. Robb in the mystery section. I do think one issue is when there are multiple genre's in one book. This means there's a good chance of misclassification or missing a classification. The In Death series sells very well. But uf it's not included in the SF classification, then SF numbers suffer.

Indies without an ISBN number can be a problem as they are not tracked. So even if they sell very well, they don't get counted.

[Rizla]

SFF by female authors I've enjoyed are:

The Left Hand of Darkness,
The Giver,
Harry Potter,
The City of Embers (well, it started well)
and The Hunger Games.

Notably, none of the above have romance as their center.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

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.

The detective in The Caves of Steel is human. So it's not sci-fi? It's a detective story incidentally set in a world with robots? The same with the Naked Sun.

And what about Nalini Singh? I suppose that would be pigeon-holed as paranormal romance, mainly cos it's romance oriented and set in a world significantly not like the real world.

[murg]

Originally Posted by theducks

I hated SF movies that Hollywood ignored the basic rules of physics or practicality

Free (dripping) water, stuff hanging in the tanker ship in Alien
Lights in the Helmet visor Battlestar G
Billowing dust in Space 1999

All of Interstellar...

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by crich70

Don't forget Leigh Brackett and C. L. Moore. Wikipedia also lists Sophie Wenzel Ellis, Clare Winger Harris, Greye La Spina, Lilith Lorraine. Francis F. Stevens, Leslie F. Stone and Everil Worrell among other early writers of SF and Fantasy.

So that's two people anyone has heard of, one of whom chose to use initials to disguise her gender. Not really making a case. I'd also add Andre Norton. Who used a male name.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

So that's two people anyone has heard of, one of whom chose to use initials to disguise her gender. Not really making a case. I'd also add Andre Norton. Who used a male name.

A lot of males would not have knowingly started reading SF written by female authors during the years they were starting their writing careers.
Apache