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?'"

Comments

Technophobia

[EvilTwinSkippy]

The thing to remember back in Heinlien and Asimov's time was that the sky was the limit. In the following decades we have seen the problems of pure technological solutions: Pollution, social unrest, empty lives filled with useless junk.

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.

He's wrong

[Argyle]

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.

Science Fiction Self Defeating

[EvilTwinSkippy]

I think you hid the nail on the head. How many Sci-Fi stories end up concluding with the low-tech savages beat out the high-tech conquerors? How often is a supercomputer or a golemesque form of life the primary plot device for a story? How often are SF novel filled with popsicle stick characters that are flat compared to the technology the author is describing.

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.

Ideas...

[Anonymous Cow herd]

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.

Re:Reality vs. Fantasy

[cK-Gunslinger]

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. =)

Re:Dream of a better day...

[Lemmy Caution]

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.

We know enough to ruin the dreams

[PotatoHead]

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?

why I believe Sci-Fi is not as popular

[linuxisit]

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....

Magic Vs. Technology

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Indeed, one can't deny that 50 years ago technology and magic were one and the same. Most people couldn't tell you what Newton's 3 laws were, and Einstein's relativity was considered utterly incomprehensible. Most people's understanding of math stopped at arithmetic. A learned man might know algebra. The true wizards of the math world grocked calculis.

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.

Re:Research vs not researching

[FileNotFound]

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.