I personally think that the label "Science fiction" gives readers and writers the wrong impression, namely, that the science is an important part of the story. A lesson we learn from much 50's sci-fi is that the science is the part of the story that will date the fastest. Asimov's Foundation was a landmark in sci-fi, but we've learned as readers to plug our ears and go "la la la" when he starts talking about "atomic batteries" in every household item. "Speculative fiction" might be a more accurate label.
The important thing to do with science fiction (and with any fiction, really) is to pose questions about reality, and most especially what it means to be human. There's a reason why people still do Shakespeare plays, after all. The questions he asks still apply to us. This is why the writers I enjoy the most are the ones who don't pay attention to the messy details of science and instead focus on things like plot and character development.
Alfred Bester is an excellent example. He doesn't even *try* to make believable science, but instead cranks the weirdness up to 11 and just runs with it, often to stirring and astonishing conclusions. "The Stars My Destination" and "Psychoshop" are excellent examples of this.
Philip K. Dick is another writer who doesn't worry much about scientific details. Instead, Dick creates unforgettable, brilliantly bizarre characters, turns their world upside-down, and lets us watch them sort out the resulting bedlam. "VALIS" is about as unlike traditional space opera as you can get, but it's one of the best novels I've ever read.
Zelazny is another writer that doesn't get nearly enough props. His writing ekes an eerie beauty out of the strangest things. Most people know the "Amber" series, but his short story collection "The Doors of His Face, the Lamps of His Mouth" gives you a taste of what he can do with everything from post-apocalyptic noir to interplanetary romance to heart-breaking drama.
Vernor Vinge walks a delicate line. His work is space opera, to be sure, but it's wonderfully literary space opera, and he actually gets some of the science right (at least the parts that deal with computers). "A Fire Upon the Deep" is an epic with a scope that makes Star Wars look like, well, a cheesy 70's action movie.
Right. This post became a minor exegisis fairly quickly. Off to bed, then.
Radio stations do this too. I remember a few years back when a local radio station was changing formats, they played MC Hammer's "Can't Touch this" for three days straight. I can't recall if people requested the song after that.:)
Points 1 through 5 are all valid. But there is another point that I think needs to be stated:
6 (or perhaps 1b): The company most likely doesn't care about the consumer. They only see their financial obligation to their shareholders, and don't consider providing quality products and support to be a necessity.
I work technical support for one of the major companies producing SOHO-level networking products. When the top management only cares about shareholders and stock prices, concern for the customer goes out the windows. This particular company only cares about the total percentage of how many calls are answered at the call center, rather than how many customers are satisfied. In an effort to get the techs to answer more calls, the management makes us conform to strict policies, namely Quotas. We have quotas on how manu calls we have to answer in a given day, and how many e-mails we have to answer. We also only have eight minutes to spend on any given call. How many computer problems can you solve in eight minutes? (Especially given the average intelligence of an end user, as noted in point 5).
What is to be done about this? Possibly convince the upper-management PHB types that long-term reputations are more important than short-term profit. I don't know how this can be accomplished. Wealth addiction makes people do crazy things, and I'm pretty sure that most of the PHBs think that if they don't succeed with this company, they can simply start another, selling even lower quality products, and offering less support. Anyway, I wasn't intending this post to become a dissertation, so I will wander off now.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally think that the label "Science fiction" gives readers and writers the wrong impression, namely, that the science is an important part of the story. A lesson we learn from much 50's sci-fi is that the science is the part of the story that will date the fastest. Asimov's Foundation was a landmark in sci-fi, but we've learned as readers to plug our ears and go "la la la" when he starts talking about "atomic batteries" in every household item. "Speculative fiction" might be a more accurate label.
The important thing to do with science fiction (and with any fiction, really) is to pose questions about reality, and most especially what it means to be human. There's a reason why people still do Shakespeare plays, after all. The questions he asks still apply to us. This is why the writers I enjoy the most are the ones who don't pay attention to the messy details of science and instead focus on things like plot and character development.
Alfred Bester is an excellent example. He doesn't even *try* to make believable science, but instead cranks the weirdness up to 11 and just runs with it, often to stirring and astonishing conclusions. "The Stars My Destination" and "Psychoshop" are excellent examples of this.
Philip K. Dick is another writer who doesn't worry much about scientific details. Instead, Dick creates unforgettable, brilliantly bizarre characters, turns their world upside-down, and lets us watch them sort out the resulting bedlam. "VALIS" is about as unlike traditional space opera as you can get, but it's one of the best novels I've ever read.
Zelazny is another writer that doesn't get nearly enough props. His writing ekes an eerie beauty out of the strangest things. Most people know the "Amber" series, but his short story collection "The Doors of His Face, the Lamps of His Mouth" gives you a taste of what he can do with everything from post-apocalyptic noir to interplanetary romance to heart-breaking drama.
Vernor Vinge walks a delicate line. His work is space opera, to be sure, but it's wonderfully literary space opera, and he actually gets some of the science right (at least the parts that deal with computers). "A Fire Upon the Deep" is an epic with a scope that makes Star Wars look like, well, a cheesy 70's action movie.
Right. This post became a minor exegisis fairly quickly. Off to bed, then.
Radio stations do this too. I remember a few years back when a local radio station was changing formats, they played MC Hammer's "Can't Touch this" for three days straight. I can't recall if people requested the song after that. :)
Points 1 through 5 are all valid. But there is another point that I think needs to be stated:
6 (or perhaps 1b): The company most likely doesn't care about the consumer. They only see their financial obligation to their shareholders, and don't consider providing quality products and support to be a necessity.
I work technical support for one of the major companies producing SOHO-level networking products. When the top management only cares about shareholders and stock prices, concern for the customer goes out the windows. This particular company only cares about the total percentage of how many calls are answered at the call center, rather than how many customers are satisfied. In an effort to get the techs to answer more calls, the management makes us conform to strict policies, namely Quotas. We have quotas on how manu calls we have to answer in a given day, and how many e-mails we have to answer. We also only have eight minutes to spend on any given call. How many computer problems can you solve in eight minutes? (Especially given the average intelligence of an end user, as noted in point 5).
What is to be done about this? Possibly convince the upper-management PHB types that long-term reputations are more important than short-term profit. I don't know how this can be accomplished. Wealth addiction makes people do crazy things, and I'm pretty sure that most of the PHBs think that if they don't succeed with this company, they can simply start another, selling even lower quality products, and offering less support. Anyway, I wasn't intending this post to become a dissertation, so I will wander off now.