Slashdot Mirror
Spider Robinson And The State Of Science Fiction
pcb writes "There is a rather decent
rant in today's Globe & Mail from Spider Robinson (of the
Callahan series fame) regarding the dismal state of science fiction, in
which he laments that the future is not what it used to be. While
attending Torcon 3, the 61st
World SF Convention, he notes that SF readers today seem to prefer the
Tolkienesque fantasies of some forgotten past, rather than the forward-looking works of science and space travel that used to dominate the
genre. Are SF stories from authors like Heinlein, Clarke or Asimov
irrelevant today, as people look into the past to dream rather than the
future? Robinson asks: 'Why are our imaginations retreating from
science and space, and into fantasy?'"
Tolkien had very anti-technology undertones. He constantly refered to the dark clouds of Mordor, the decimation of the forests in Eisengard. That strikes a note with the post-hippie kids of the 70's and 80's.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Compared to the earlier-mid parts of the 20th century, we see science all around us. Medical breakthroughs, technological innovations, etc.
We used to have to wait decades for great discoveries. Now they theorize and prove within short years. Fantasy brings people into a world that can't exist. Sci-Fi stories may one day be true and aren't as escapist.
Trolling is a art,
I actually like sci-fi alot better when it, at least, slightly adheres to the laws of science. Stupid stuff like made-up elements and lasers that don't obey the laws of light do grate on my nerves.
Recently watched the Cowboy Bebop movie, and I was actually surprised that it was almost 100% possible. I won't spoil the plot... but I finally was glad that I wasn't watching some dumb thing about "norpisum coated armored skeletons with GDH3829K-#7 laser blaster rifles that look like flamethrowers!"
And if this is all irrelevant, it's because I didn't RTFA.
Spellchecked with OOo!
I love sci-fi fantasy, where you have a completely different universe with some sci-fi and some fantasy aspects (i.e. magic).
Dune fits into this, as does Star Wars..
There are other great books as well, although I can't really remember their names.
Any tips?
Will code a sig generator for food
yeah, stephenson's gone to historical fiction and simmons is retreading greek mythology :D greg egan's putting out good work tho!
The traditional Sci-Fi of rocket ships, blaster guns, and aliens may be on decline, but there many new sci-fi (not fantasy) books coming out all the time.
The focus of much of the Sci-Fi these days is on the relationship of the technology to society and the long term effects of the technology on the path of humanity.
Take a look at Vernor Vinge, John Varley, John Wright, Cory Doctorow, John Barnes, Bruce Sterling, Ken MacLeod, and Dan Simmons if you are interested in some recent sci-fi. No elves or magic swords there.
Just because it's not 60s style, libertarian - free love stuff of the past doesn't mean it's not sci-fi.
nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
It's a reflection of taste that we are moving from the tech driven SF genre into the character driven fantasy world. At least in fantasy, they aren't trying to explain HOW the magic works. They simply use it to get around a peculiar problem, or to leverage the abilities of the protagonist against an otherwise overwhelming foe.
Damn it. I'm starting to sound like Campbell.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
I went to a presentation/speaking appointment by Terry Goodkind a few weeks ago, and he mentioned something on the subject. I won't get into his whole philosophical thing here, but he thought that the reason that sci-fi had taken a rear seat to fantasy was "moral clarity". 99% of fantasy out there deals with good vs evil, on a very basic level, whereas sci-fi tends not to as much. It may make social commentary, or pose interesting problems, but very rarely in sci-fi is there an archetypal hero, and that this is something that people really crave in today's society... a person (even if they're fictional) that a reader can admire, and be inspired by.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
That's obviously it. Science fiction used to be fantasy, an esape from reality. Now much science fiction is, arguably, just looking 25, 50, or 100 years ahead of our technological capabilities. It's not that much of an escape from reality... it almost forces you to think where reality is going.
That said, for the most part I've always hated fantasy. Popular stuff like LOTR, Harry Potter. It just rubs me the wrong way. More Harry Potter than LOTR, but they both just sort of bother me. I need *some* link to reality to really get into a story--completely suspending my brain for a movie like LOTR or Harry Potter just doesn't work.
But based on ticket sales I can see I'm in the minoriry.
I think you hit it exactly. The "future" has become mundane. People in the 50s dreamed of robots in our everyday lives. And now we have them, just not *exactly* how they envisioned them. Same with space travel and exploration.
I believe that we will put a human on Mars and colonize the moon/planets. Not in my lifetime, probably, but eventually. Why imagine it? On the other hand, I doubt if any human will roam the countryside with his elf companion, talking to trees and hunting dragons and wizards. Ever.
On a different topic, I must admit that I *love* SK's Dark Tower series (check the nick.) It's got an interesting blend of old, modern, and future. There's something intriguing about chasing a wizard with your heroin-addicted friend, while fighting nuclear-powered giant robots with your sandlewood six-shooters. (And that description is sure to scare any non-readers away for good, yet get a chuckle from some fans. =)
The old space operas posited FTL travel. It was assumed that you could get around your own solar system, but needed some FTL to get to the next one. Well, even the assumption of easy access to local space is proving wrong. It's difficult, expensive and risky to move mass from the surface of the Earth into near orbit and prohibitively expensive to move it further than that. A Mars expedition looks more and more infeasable and the old space themes of colonizing the moon or Mars or mining the asteriods are proving to be just so much wishful thinking.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Part of it is about economic cycles.
We're in a recession. During recessionary periods, nostalgic fantasy dominates the cultural landscape. It was true in the 70's, it was true in the early 90's, and it's true now. During boom cycles, "the future is now" optimism (or "the world is changing too fast" pessimism) has a lot more energy.
Also, the sense of public investment in the future is weaker. The age of space travel as a public-sector funded universal aspiration has been eclipsed by the corporate "if it ain't profitable within 3 years, it's not worth doing" attitude of the present day. There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes, most of us won't be able to afford it.
The main plotline is in two very different worlds, with different scientific technologies and begs the question: would our science be science fiction to these people?
First, we have "our" reality, which takes place in "our" present, more or less, not the distant future. It takes place in a University-run science lab. The other reality is in a parallel Earth, where neanderthals remained dominant and did not evolve into homo sapiens, but managed to gain the ability to reason and grow scientifically. A gateway opens between the worlds, and a neanderthal is thrust into our world.
Yes, it is based on scientific theory and principles, but the idea is interesting. I think this series proves that science fiction does not always have to suffer from too much science. I think that many sci-fi authors just need to not use all the techno-gadgetry a la Star Trek as the main basis of their stories, and instead deal with the human/alien aspect of the characters in telling a story. (Oh, in case anyone was wondering, the 3 books are Hominids and Humans, both out in paperback, and Hybrids, which is now out in hardcover.)
Given that God is infinite, and the Universe is also infinite, would you like some toast?
Think about it a little. We have laws such as the DMCA that basically divide our current tech into little fiefdoms. Innovators are sued, hacking existing tech is quickly becoming a crime, and the existing players encourage passive use of their tech --not understanding.
Many of the ideals that make SF what it is are being marginalized today. Sort of depressing really.
Combine this with our present science and we know enough that reaching another star system will not happen in our lifetimes. Though Mars should --if it doesn't its political, not technical.
Almost smells like a plot to put all the smart ones back underground where they belong so the real business of making money today --right now, can get done...
Maybe I am just being a little too alarmist this morning. I personally enjoy SF and share the view of the author. Maybe nobody is really exploring SF because fantasy is easier or something...
BTW, what is the genre of "The Reality Disfunction" by Peter F. Hamilton? Seems to be SF, but does have some other elements. Any ideas?
Blogging because I can...
Perhaps the direction technology is taking us scares
the hell out of us. The future apparently holds
fewer rights, less privacy, more commercials, etc.
Who wants to fantasize about that???? Not me!!!
Tell me how do we get off this world thats heading
down the toilet?
At least fantasy still provides hope that good can
still prevail against evil. With techonology the
question is which evil state of afairs wins over
some other evil state of afairs. Mind you the
heros may be good vs evil but the world in which
they live still sucks!
Thats my point....
A lot of good sci-fi was written during the depression and WWII.
Computer control systems were almost unheard of, and used only on system of fantastic proportions like Nuclear reactors and weapon targeting systems.
Don't forget that technology was largely credited at the time for winning the war. It also brought an end to many plagues affecting americans: smallpox and polio. 50 years ago was a much different time.
50 years ago technology WAS magic. Few who used it understood it. Those that made it happen were wizards in labcoats.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
I think one of the problems is that a lot of so-called "science fiction" that deals with science and space is so bad scientifically that it's basically fantasy. If I want escapist fantasy, I prefer the works of Tolkien and similar writers who at least do not attempt to label their works "science" fiction.
... and even pop stuff like Star Trek
If you look at old classic SF, the stories were often really covers for introducing some fascinating new ideas. There have been some recent books that have been just as good, but SF seems to have retreated into such far-out domains as to become fantasy like.
For a sampling of *real* science fiction, consider these:
Anything by Arthur C. Clarke
The Foundation Trilogy by Issac Asimov
Pretty much anything else by Asimov
Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash
Phillip K. Dick's Blade Runner
The real test of true *science fiction* is that at least some of the ideas put forward in terms of science or technologies are at least plausible within currently understood laws of physics. The ultimate test is whether any of these ideas ever end up actually being invented. Illustrative cases include:
Space Travel
Satellites
Nuclear Power
The Internet
Biotech
Little handheld "Spock calling Kirk" comm devices (currently made by Nokia, Motorola, etc.)
etc...
The best SF introduces novel new technological ideas or scientific paradigms within the context of a good (even by literary standards) story.
SF is important in the advance of technology for the same reason that medieval grail stories were important for the maintainence of feudal order. The defining spiritual characteristic of Industrial and post-Englightenment civilization is that we place our ideal kingdoms in the future rather than the past or in some abstract otherwordly realm. This causes us to be industrious and to actually try to realize these dreams rather than just pining for a lost "golden age" that never really was.
Budding science fiction writers: the revolution needs you!
is the projection of a fantasy. In the case of science fiction it is the projection of the present into what we percieve as an alternate, and hopefully better, tomorrow.
For those of us that grew up reading SF in the 50's and 60's that meant a bright future of computing, robots, philosophy, colonies on Mars and all with the ever present possiblility of actually coming into contact with an alien race.
Now we're living in that future and it didn't work out quite the way we imagined it. Not only is Mars virtually dead but so is the Moon. We've had to come to grips with the fact that universe is so vast we aren't actually likely to meet anyone else, possibly ever. Superstition is on the ascendent among the proles and the visions of the future expressed in 1984 and Brave New World turns out to be the most accurate of the predictions. Robots took our jobs, but we aren't allowed to become philosphers unless we wish to starve. The TV watches us.
The projection of the current state into a happy future seems to realistically revolve around clone wars that are likely to be resolved by turning us all into computer controled worker bees earning our "living" by tossing rocks over walls just so we can walk to the other side and toss them back.
Is it any wonder that people would prefer their fantasies to revolve around Liv Tyler's little elf tits?
In the medieval fantasy a the single strong man with a sword we all imagine ourselves to be can change the world.
In the future fantasy the same man is declared to be suffering from a pathological syndrome and is locked away with milk, cookies and bottle of Prozac.
KFG
Science fiction doesn't have to be about science, in fact, IT CANNOT BE ALL SCIENCE. All too often the authors focus on just the scietific aspect and totaly forget about the characters.
I have read every single Asimov book I could find because he never made that mistake. Science is the setting, the characters are the story.
I've been trying desperatly to find some good SciFi to read and I've failed. All too often I feel like the author is trying too hard to explain how all this scientific mumbo jumbo works and not why the character is doing act X and act Y.
So I ended up reading fantasy books, simply because the charcater development is generaly better. I couldn't care less if the fighting takes place with quantum molecular phasing fusion bombs or rusty swords as long as it's justified and I feel like I care about the characters involved.
I think time has nothing to do with it; I don't care if we'll be in space 40 or 40000 years from now or never. We'll certainly never be in the "Forgotten Realms" or in the world of "Richard Rhal". It doesn't have to be "realistic", or "well researched" it just has to make sense. Am I ok with Sci Fi which says 2+2=5? No, not unless it make sense, and if it can make sense and have good characters, I want it.
Maybe I've been spoiled by Asimov and Clarke (Rama was great, even though the ending made me want to puke). Certainly, the world of SciFi sucks right now. It's not because the books describe flying though space in the year 2003. George Orwell wrote 1984 knowing that the time was irrelevant, and its' still a great and fairly popular book because of the character development.
In Soviet Russia, the television watches YOU!
Robinson asks: 'Why are our imaginations retreating from science and space, and into fantasy?'"
I think we're a little more cynical than we used to be. Corporate and government abuses are wider-published, the gap between the rich and poor is steadily increasing, and although we've made amazing progress in computing power, the promised future of days past never arrived (e.g. "Dude, where's my flying car?") Why should we not be depressed about the future?
This isn't about the cynicism in my generation. It's about the driving ideas behind the sci-fi genre which now seem cliched and cheesy:
* Cheap, available space travel?
* Space trade/space pirates?
* Sexy aliens?
* Apocalyptic mad-max futures with cybernetic implants and laser weapons?
* Terraforming planets?
* Cyborgs?
* Space mining?
It's all rubbish.
I used to read a lot of Sci-Fi (e.g., Ursula K. Le Guin, Octavia E. Butler, Heinlein, Orson Scott Card, etc.), but frankly, I'd be embarassed to buy any of those novels today. These days I'm into Tom Robbins' novels and the Illuminatus Trilogy. At least they have fresh ideas, believable characters, and good writing.
One of the problems we face today in writing 'real' Science Fiction is our understanding of science itself. In the golden age of SF you could write about rockets to Mars built in their back yards and piloted by guys with slide rules and you weren't far off from what was known to be possible. Nowdays we have the capability to actually do it and we know you can't build it in your backyard. In fact we know that the cost is far more than a jaded populace is willing to support right now.
Sure fantasy stories dressed up in science fiction clothing still hold peoples attention, but they aren't really the Science Fiction. But they are what die-hard hard-SF fans like myself derisivly refer to 'Sci Fi' (or 'skiffy' in the SF fan parlence). Moreover what was once Science Fiction in every sense of the phrase is now 'Sci Fi'.
The kind of stories that once filled us with wonder (partly because we could imagine ourselves in them) are now out of reach in reality; whether due to cost or due to the actual science being wrong. Once again, relying on SF Fannish phrasing, the sensawunda is no longer there, so we end up with stories based on implausible or impossible technology where plot points are based around plasma fires in the transporter. No sensawunda, but the special effects are cool.
The other problem with modern SF was first articulated by Vernor Vinge in his paper The Singularity: "Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended."
Whether Vinge's Singularity comes to pass as envisioned or not, the core point is certainly valid; at the very least the future, even the near future, is probably going to be unimaginable by anyone living today. Why? Because sometime soon, perhaps not within thirty years but certainly within a century, we are going to have the ability to create intelligences orders of magnitude smarter than we are. It doesn't matter if we enhance human intelligence or create machine intelligence, either way the result is the same. Either way something that is to us as we are to mice is going to be calling the shots.
This scenario is pretty damming to SF; after all most of the familiar tropes of SF go out the window. Rocket ships? Well, they might exist, but we have no idea what they would look like or who would be on them. Alien contact? Hell, the aliens would be right here. Humans colonizing other star systems? Even if humanity survives into this post-human future it will change so as to be unrecognizable to us now anyway. How can you write stories about beings who don't share your basic motivations? (Not that this is impossible, but it certainly demands more from the reader, therefore making the book harder to sell.)
As of now no-one has successfully answered Vinge's question, other than several attempts to dismiss it out of hand. Vinge himself, because he wanted to write space operas, ended up thrusting the problem of ultra-intelligence aside by creating a magic 'slow zone' in the galaxy that limits intelligence to a maximum inside the zone.
However a few writers have tried to honestly deal with the problem of the Singularity by writing a new kind of fiction I refer to as 'Transhuman' SF. Cyberpunk was the progenitor of this SF form with stories set right on the edge of the Singularity. Writers like Greg Bear, Gregory Benford, Kathleen Goonan, John Varley, Ian M. Bainks, Ken MacCleod, Greg Egan, Cory Doctorow and others have written SF set either just over that edge, or millions of years past it. Although the level to which they are honest in their presentation of transhumanism varies greatly, probably because the more you extrapolate the harder it is to make the story coherent and interesting.
Transhuman SF does require much from the reader. Unless the writer constantly stops the action for 'As you know Bob.' sequences to explicate things the reader must have a wide ranging knowledge of genetics,
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
Claiming the Iliad isn't SF is about the same as claiming that Hyperion wasn't because it was based on Keat's poetry.
Pick up a copy. Best book I've read in at least a year.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
SF authors who still have spaceships but put character ahead of science include Asaro, Moon, and Cherryh. All have some intersting science or engieneering in the Doc Smith tradition, but not as the core of the tale.
Can I think of any male authors? Well, the Cyberpunk sub-genre treats the techno as background, or as McGuffin, with conflicting motivations a major factor. Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series certainly features the terraforming technology and the extrapolated Marsology ... but has strong characters with twisting motivations. His Orange County "trilogy" is three different futures, the main character common to all three is the geography and pre-history of O.C.; the Green agenda's speculative tech is present, but the characters are vivid as well. Baxter's Space:(X) "trilogy" is on the scope of 2001 or Harry Selden, in the style of Stan's Mars, with the "3 alternates" conceit of Stans' O.C., with the continuity being 3 alternate twistings of a specific person by history, opportunity, and fate.
Funny Spider Robinson should complain about this though. The Callahan's stories fall under Clarke's Law; the Future Beings who drop into the Cross-Time Saloon might as well be magicians from Myth Adventures.
You can't see the forest through the trees. It's not the poloticians or the school boards that are going to save the future. Shouldn't it be us, the technologists? If not us, then who?
Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose.
I find it surprising that Robinson says, "They no longer instinctively lust to go to space." He is rather limiting the scope of Science Fiction, and not suprisingly, his pessamistic view eliminates some good material. Jurassic Park anyone? Definitely SF, but with an emphasis on biology, instead of space travel. Who states that SF is only to be Space Fiction? Nonetheless, I found JP the book rather entertaining, even though I found the movie of the stuff that results from the use of infra-sonic weapons on humans.
/. ground.
Perhaps the sub-genre of space fiction is dwindling because it's been beaten into the ground. After all, it's been popular (among SF writers) since the 1930s.
Also, social trends seem to be making the current crop of young SF writers a conduit to pump out politically-correct, socialist dogma. Outside of the institutions of the far-left academia, it isn't that appealing, (okay, so SF never was appealing to a broad range of readers.) But from ST:TNG onward, I've been hearing the same ideals about the future, or how we will live. I find no variety in the major SF picture or published franchises, (with the exception of that Canadian show with the flying bug -- which was more fantasy than science.) I picked up a book by the highly-recommended Orson Scott Card, only to put it down after the tedium of reading through his carefully constructed descriptions fitting tightly with the current politically-correct views. It was hideous. It made me want to puke. Likewise, the current crop of SF shows are all remarkably similar. I won't go into further detail, since I will be treading on holy
Maybe another factor is that it is difficult to keep up with the science, in order to take it a step further into the realm of fiction. Authors who don't understand the science behind it are universally ridiculed by those in the know, (e.g. William Gibson.) General goofiness and gelatinous aliens aren't accepted as serious elements of a story. If you have a chance, read some of the stuff published in the old Galaxy serials. Most of it was goofy, but it lacked the rigid PC worldview present in today's SF literature, so it was fun.
The migration to fantasy is probably a reaction to the fact that creativity in SF has been traded for continuity with academic future ideals. Fantasy, still having a little wiggle-room left (although a lot of it rips off Tolkein), lets the writer and reader wander a little, without need for scientific validity.
I mean, honestly, look at how the SW franchise deteriorated. It was once a fun mix of fantasy, where the majority of it was contrived during production. Now it is as interesting as a 10,000 page report from some government agency. It seems as though fans of the franchise care more about the details of the various "mecha," and social order, than they do story telling. Nearly every SW fan is an accountant of the minor details of the Star Wars universe. It's like the most important part of the SW experience was collecting and organizing the action figures and playsets.
One of the panels at TorCon3 was "Has Science Fiction Failed as a Fiction of Science?" The various panellists decided that SF hasn't so failed, and then proceeded to give explanation after explanation of why, in fact, it has. Lets face it, to any sophisticated reader, most SF written today is not written about a possible future, but about what we once thought might be a possible future. Scientific and technological progress has passed by most of today's authors and left them in the dust. Reading even well-written 'SF' like that of Czerneda or Bujold IS reading fantasy and has much the same feel as reading 1930's SF where everything is done with massive vacuum tubes. The story may be well told and the characterization is great, but the setting makes no sense. Where are the AIs? Where are the hugely extended lifetimes? Where is the nanotechnology? Where are the body modifications? Whaere are the ubiquitous microscopic computers? Where is the brain uploading? Where are any number of technologies we are working towards today that don't show up in most contemporary SF? Spider laments that readers prefer Fantasy to SF. Maybe they just prefer that their fantasy be overt.
Now, all is not lost, some authors such as Walter Jon Williams, Charlie Stross, Linda Nagata, Ian M Banks, Greg Egan and others have embraced the new future that is appearing in front of us, but they are the exceptions. Until most SF authors are actually writing about possible futures again, SF will be in an inevitable decline.
Science is the setting, the characters are the story.
No. If science is only the setting then it's the same old story that we have in every other genre. If so then what's the point of science fiction? Decor? I'm sorry but, as you said, what is important in a novel is characters. Decor is irrelevant.
For me, science fiction is about what our lives will be in the future. Its about what science will do to our lives. It's about what we'll become, what will be our moral values. This is why I love science fiction : it shows me what I could have been, what I would believe in, if I was living in a technologicaly more advance society.
Rama was great, even though the ending made me want to puke
I don't know if you're talking about the ending of the first novel or the ending of the serie (I never read the other books) but I think Rendez-vous with Rama was utterly boring except for the ending which was one of the best I ever read.
How many sci-fi stories predicted a return to ignorance and fear? The politically approach to technology being taught today, coupled with media sensationalism, is merely helping lead us in that direction.
So, once again, science fiction may have successfully predicted the future. We are well on the way to beooming a planet of anti-technology (and hence anti-science) masses with a small, "elite" group trying to forge ahead. (Those in each group aren't always the nice little stereotypes some folks want them to be, either.)
I hope I'm wrong. But I'm not holding my breath.
[I'm a techno-geek who loves sci-fi *and* fantasy!]
I've noticed that a lot of friends of mine that have never read a SF book in their lives are big fans of things like Star Trek NG and Star Wars.
If you look at the SF section of any bookshop, you can see this reflected in what is being stocked, about 25% SF by popular SF authors like Dick and Asimov, 25% fantasy (I think because it's not popular enough to justify it's own section), and 50% SF 'lite' (tv and film tie-ins).
The good news is the SF section is now bigger, and I suspect a lot more popular than it's ever been.
The bad news is that most of the books stocked are not for readers actualy interested in SF.
I post, therefore I am!
I've noticed that our entire society leans more toward fantasy, mysticism, and mythology, lately. Reality, or possible future realities, is becoming rare in any form of mass media. Even 'Reality TV' is horribly far from reality.
It has been suggested that we are entering a new 'Dark Ages', of sorts. This is perhaps in response to the fear, rational or not, of what near-future technology may bring - human cloning and a list of other 'scaries'.
What I find very interesting is this: In ages past, man feared nature, because of what he did not know. In this age, man is beginning to fear science, because of what he can know.
On a side note, a question that I'd like to ask, which is somewhat related:
How would you classify works such as OSC's Ender series? Obviously set in the future, but after Ender's Game (and a few pieces here and there in the next 3 books), they are mainly focused on personal, moral, and geopolitical issues, with little or no mention of any technologies or lifestyle changes. Even the 'nets' are simply categorized hub-style Internet groupings. It seems to me that the Ender books set in the near future (as opposed to the 3000-years-ahead future) read more like modern fantasy... almost like what you would get if you took the politics and war-making in the Lord of the Rings, and set them in modern times, while ignoring the rest of the story.
"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
The most interesting scifi In run into these days is more inward looking than outward looking. I think we're closer to altering ourt own nature (through genetic engineering and stuff) than we are to exploring the stars. Ted Chiang has done some great short stories about the interesting possibilities of enhancing yourself. What would it really be like to be superintelligent, or be able to have direct control of your brain?
Of course, fantasy isn't what it used to be either. My personal favorite author right now is Jonathan Lethem, who wrote in the sci-fi/fantasy domain for a while, but has moved towards more inward examinations of freakishness. Instead of the freakish world, the freakish self. Motherless Brooklyn is a great example.
Though pure escapism doesn't interest me as much as good writing, and good questions explored through storytelling. So maybe it's just me.
'In knowledge is power, in wisdom humility.'
Actually Robinson is right but for the wrong reasons. Basically the future he's speaking of was pretty much a WASP SF future. Go back and read the SF novels of the 40's,50's and early 60's and tell me just how a African American or a Hispanic Kid growing up could relate to them. Basically if you weren't white the future in those novels sucked.
As for why Fantasy has replaced "Hard SF", the answer is simpler still. We have seen the future and it pretty much sucks big time.
I'm not sure I see where you or Spider are coming from here....
:-)
Let's look at the greats:
Alfred Bester -- A brilliant author and a man who didn't understand all of the science involved in what he was writing, but a damn sight more than most of his readers. His modern day equivalents are the slightly off-genre authors like Ian Banks who write a mix of SF and standard fiction.
Harlan Ellison -- I will refrain from calling Ellison his own modern day equivalent, though the man does still write. Today, I'd point you to the likes of Warren Ellis whose work is mostly in comics. Ellis has produced works of science fiction (Orbital) as well as the standard comics hero genres (Authority) and done both with grace and insight worthy of the old-guard SF authors. He also writes an SF comic series called Transmetropolitan which I point out only for the ironic fact that the main character is named "Spider"....
Robert Heinlein -- This prolific author was always hard to pin down, but I think his best work has been carried on by the likes of Lois McMaster Bujold, for the older work. I don't see a lot of authors treading in the places that Heinlein went in his later years, but perhaps we're all the better for that....
Arthur C. Clarke -- Clarke was important to SF because the engineers (and engineering enthusiasts) of the 50s and 60s could respect his work and accept the idea that he would put their hopes, dreams and fears into writing. Today, I think Neil Stephenson has been doing that just as well, but there are certainly others.
Philip K. Dick -- Dick was a master of the cautionary sureal, be it spiritual or scientific. I see authors like Jonathan Letham as filling that space today.
Isaac Asimov -- A hard one here. Asimov had so many faces. Vernor Vinge is the professor-turned-author face, and he does a wonderful job of it. But beyond that, I'm not sure who writes the "The Gods Themselves" or "Foundation" sorts of books these days....
My point is that these folks aren't gone, there's just been a changing of the guard. The old-guard don't always see the new guard as "equal" to their legacy, but I think they are.
There may be less non-sharecropper SF these days, but even the sharecroppers (like Peter David) can be brilliant at times, just like the pulp authors who got trapped in some painful ghetto genre (read Ellison's "Rumble" somtime).
1: The genre is swamped with juvenile series books!
Sorry, the genre has always been swamped with juvenile series books. The name Captain Future mean anything to you? The problem is not the volume of low end material that's being published, the problem is that there doesn't seem to be much of a high end. The question is why.
2: Authors are too interested in setting at the expense of character! ... they were ok, but they weren't in even remotely the same league as Proust or Dickens).
If anything, I'd say it was the opposite. Characters in SF, even the good stuff, have rarely been well developed. This is perfectly appropriate: SF writers have to spend a much higer percentage of words sketching in the background landscape than do mainstream writers. Consequently they tend to rely more on character "types" than do their mainstream counterparts. The problem is that SF writers are expected to present more well-rounded characters than they were in the past, with the result that we get a lot of tacked on sentimentality that really adds nothing to the stories. (And don't try to tell me that classic sf writers like Asimov, Heinlein & Clarke had great characters
3. Science has caught up with SF! ... ... which is to say that science has tended to kill off genre conventions faster than it replaced them.
There's probably some truth to this, in the sense that science has made it harder for us to project our fantasies on to the future in ways that make dramatic sense.
4. It's all been done!
Not strictly true, but it's probably safe to say that most of the low hanging fruit has been picked. It's a lot harder to come up with anything original now than it was back when nothing had been written yet.
5. People are a lot more pessimistic about technology now. SF is all about optimism! ... until those commies got there first with Sputnik. DDT was great for getting rid of those pesky insects ... and birds too, as Rachel Carson pointed out in Silent Spring (early 60s). None of which stopped a whole lot of great sf from being written during those decades, much of it far from the rah-rah gung ho optimism one might find in, say, the collected works of E.E. "Doc" Smith.
People have always had a love/hate relationship with technology. Yeah, the atom bomb hastened the end of WWII, but it also led to an arms race that a whole lot of people figured would probably result in the end of the world. Space travel was a pleasant fantasy
Here's my suggestion as to why good written sf has been in decline lately.
Economics: The Thor Power Tools decision essentially killed the careers of many mid-list authors. Most of the interesting sf writers were mid-list authors. Follow the money ...
Optical Networks, VOIP, Wireless everywhere, Virtual Reality, CAVE environments, Nanotechnology, Custom Laser Eye Surgery, Robotic Surgery, Fuel Cells, Micro-Turbines, Efficient CPUs...
Onward to the Aether Sphere!
1) dead right....but I'm afraid that with a VERY few exceptions, science fiction movies have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with written science fiction, which is what I was discussing. Two different things. It's like the difference between reality TV and James Joyce's ULYSSES. They both claim the same subject...but one is lying. 2) ...but science fiction IS fantasy. It is simply the kind of fantasy that does not believe history ended with the Industrial Revolution, which does not convulsively repudiate science and technology, which acknowledges other, perhaps life-bearing worlds. It is that fantasy which is not afraid of knowledge, not suspicious of intellect. In most heroic fantasy, the hero (as Larry Niven astutely pointed out) is the swordsman: an ignoramus. In sf, the hero is more likely to be the wizard, who at least went to school. Myth should reflect truth. If our myths have no connection with reality, they become harmful, psychotic dreams.
Ignorance really is death. Time for myth to realize that.
3) Yeah, yeah, yeah. We had that bullshit in my day, too. We called it Nuclear Winter. The Russian Threat. Before that it was the Axis Menace. There are ALWAYS morons screaming that it's all hopeless and we're doomed...because if true, it's OKAY to be lazy and irresponsible. Bo-ring....
4) Voting NASA a fifty-cent budget (and you did, you did, you all DID) and then criticizing its cheap two-dollar performance is as fair as cutting off a man's feet and then calling him Shorty. It's as fair as stacking the deck against black people and then criticizing their behavior--or legally forbidding gays to form stable families and then blasting their promiscuity.
You will GET a "precursor to Starfleet"...the very SECOND you tell your elected representatives that you're willing to kick their asses out of office if you DON'T get it, and damned quick! You got the moon by dumb luck: if you want the rest, then PAY FOR IT.
As Robert Heinlein said, TANSTAAFL. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
"The real problem is, you readers are buying so much CRAP you've given publishers the impression that the LAST THING YOU WANT is thoughtful character-driven science fiction. "
Unfortunately, I have to agree. Most of the people I know who are "SF Fans" have never read, for example, JG Ballard. They have never read "A Clockwork Orange." Some have read Bester, which is good. Some even watch the old Star Trek, which had some excellent stories. But most "Star Trek" fans of today grew up on the rot that was ST:TNG," and loved it. I don't think I have seen a single thought-provoking episode of TNG. If the 24th century is that boring, I don't think I want it....
Anyways, to be good science fiction, I am not convinced the story has to be character-driven. Most is, but I can't conclude that it HAS to be. Take for example, "The Garden of Time." The characters aren't deeply developed- they stand for ideals, and are almost stereotypical in their shallowness. Character is not developed here, ideas are- and it's a good science fiction story.
Anyways, for a couple of SF writers that I found interesting- D. Alexander Smith and Richard Paul Russo. Russo's "Ship of Fools" is an excellent book, except the ending wasn't done all that well. Not bad- just could have been better. What are your opinions of these writers, Slashdot peoples?
I really dig Asimov, not a big fan of Clark. But as far as what you expect from sci-fi what about someone like Stanislaw Lem? I read a lot but I'm not super hip to the strict genre definitions and crap like that but it seems like there's a strong surrealist element in sci-fi that I personally dig.
Actually, a great deal of what we call classic science-fiction is merely societal commentary tricked out with some plausible-at-the-time science projection. The best Heinlein ("The Man Who Sold the Moon", "Waldo", THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS) is about political and philosophical ideas, not science.
There are plenty of writers still working in this vein. Neal Stephenson's DIAMOND AGE comes to mind, as does Varley's RED THUNDER, and almost anything Ken Mcleod writes.
However, one very big difference exists. There is almost no market for short stories now, but in the "Golden Age" writers had oodles of outlets. This allowed them to experiment with ideas and styles, and polish their writing while making some small amount of money. Now the pulp outlets like Asimov's and Analog have pitifully small circulation, and many other pulp outlets no longer exist. Even in the "slick" magazine world, outlets for short fiction are almost non-existent. My guess is that this will restrict young writers a great deal; they will be sucked into writing things like television scripts instead.