# The Death of Science Fiction (Yet Again).



## Neal Asher (Dec 27, 2009)

Oh, good grief, there it is again. On Facebook I followed links posted by Jetse de Vries, first to yet another essay about the terminal decline of SF – this one posing the question ‘Should SF Die?’ – then Jetse’s reply in the form of a story. This on top of another article a while back by Mark Charan Newton about ‘why SF is dying and fantasy is the future’ (no vested interest then from this fantasy writer) and lots of articles related to that, and now, if you search with the words ‘science fiction is dying’ you get numerous hits. 



I do get heartily sick of all this effort to stick head-up-own-backside to examine one’s navel from the inside. I started reading SFF over thirty years ago, but it wasn’t until I got involved with the small presses, started finding out about organisations like the BSFA and the BFS, and started reading various magazines, that I discovered that SF seems to have a parasite literature attached to it. Whole swathes of self-styled academics pontificate about the meaning of it all, they wank off into deep critical analysis of stories and books – my first close encounter with this was discovering a review of Mason’s Rats that was about twice the length of the story itself – have lengthy discussions about ‘issues’ in SF and speak with all seriousness about gender divides in genre, the lack of representation of homosexuals, the implicit racism in something like Starship Troopers. Really, if you can be bothered to read all through these highly ‘intelligent’ waffles, the only response upon finishing the last line is to point and giggle.



And an old favourite in this rarified atmosphere is ‘the death of SF’ (or fantasy, or the short story, whatever). It surfaces with the almost metronic regularity of a dead fish at the tide line (stirred up, no-doubt, by some ‘new wave'). SF isn't dying, it hasn’t been ill, and frequent terminal diagnoses often see the undertaker clutching a handful of nails and a hammer and scratching his head over an empty coffin. However, discussions about this demise have been resurrecting themselves in only slightly altered form since I first read 'about' SF rather than SF itself. I'm betting there was some plonker declaring the death of SF the moment Sputnik beeped or just after Neil Armstrong stepped onto the Moon. Really, the whole pointless staggering debate needs a nice fat stake driven through its heart.


----------



## Interference (Dec 27, 2009)

Science fiction will die the day science finds all the answers and tells us what they are.


----------



## chopper (Dec 27, 2009)

is it my imagination or do these theories only ever pop up when their esteemed creators realise, over a lonely xmas dinner, that they aren't actually any good at proper writing?


----------



## Interference (Dec 27, 2009)

Good imagination you've got there, Chopper.  You should write that story


----------



## chopper (Dec 27, 2009)

hang on, i've got another theory to write up first.


----------



## Sparrow (Dec 27, 2009)

Pointless, perhaps... but is the debate valid?.. I think it is.  
And as I don't have a pony in this race I think I can comment free of most prejudices.

Neal, where oh where are the new young readers of Science Fiction?
What was it that attracted you and I to SF in the first place?.. for myself it was the belief that our immediate future was in Space, that we would soon put an American on Mars. That, and it was good adventure stories written with boys in mind.  We've since found out our naivety was extreme, and our expectations unrealistic.  We haven't landed a man on Mars, we will not be colonizing a planet outside our own solar system for another thousand years, if ever, and if recent history teaches us anything, we are not fit to explore the stars nor are we capable of wielding the kind of wizbang technology required for deep space travel. Science Fiction, almost all of it, has been shown to be little more than Fantasy.

I don't wish to hammer SF writers, at least the ones who make up the professional ranks, as in the last ten years I've read some of the best sf ever... better than Asimov, better than Clarke, and way better than Heinlein.  My bone to pick is with the average sf reader of today... the unsophisticated video game playing goofs reading StarWars and StarTrek spinoff novels!  Add to that the many titles featuring Asimov, Clarke, Herbert, Niven, etc... that weren't even written by them, and you get a genre with one foot in the grave, and the other foot in wet cement.

Nostalgia is well and fine but when a full quarter of the SF aisle at big bookstores is taken up by StarWars & StarTrek, and video game knockoffs, then I think it's time to consider another tact.

Something on the subject by Robert J. Sawyer... notice that the article was written some time ago.  Since then things have only gotten worse.

http://www.sfwriter.com/rmdeatho.htm


----------



## CyBeR (Dec 27, 2009)

I've read some 'Star Wars' comics last year and they were insanely well written. I was actually surprised and came back for more at that time. This as a reaction to the remark about the spin-offs up there. 

Sparrow, I disagree with you. But mostly because I believe you're not looking at the whole picture but merely a part of it. And your article actually shows the problem and the fix, and it's actually working as we speak, though you brush it aside so easily. 

I've been reading this whole year only "old" Sci-Fi. Classic stuff and I do believe my experience is still quite limited compared to a lot of you folks here talking (after all, I've only just started reading with fire again)...but truth be told, for the new generation, this Sci-Fi is no longer Space age but merely vanilla. Some works, true, don't age almost at all ('Dune', a best example)...but most of what I've read are so aged and left behind it's not even funny. 
The "FICTION" part is going out and here comes the whole part that involves games and shows and absolutely everything new today. I consider the genre to need these incursions further into the real of the unbelievable, much further than it's been used to go in the past. Yes, brand new readers today eat that up...it's what the whole genre's about after all, no? 
Unbelievable feats? 
Incredible technology humanity may aspire towards one day? 
Coliding head first with the unbelievable and the improbable? 
"If there were people living in a cave, mainstream literature would be writing in striking detail about their lives there. Sci-Fi literature would be writing about the ones trying to find a way out of the cave". 
I may be new...but aren't those the things that the genre is all about? Sure, new stories may not pack the same valor or punch...but we're also living a more cynical age. 

I guess I'm trying to reach a point here and I'm making off with it. 
Let me wrap it up while there's still some logic here. 
Sure, the bookstore is full of crap nowadays and the new reader may be inclined to head for the newest spin-off of his/her favorite game/TV-show because that's what stimulates him most in this day and age. BUT...those same goofballs eventually grow out of that literature...and a percentage of them grow into something else, something more purposeful from the genre. 
You need a hook to get them. Sure, it may not always be pretty but I started reading Sci-Fi by reading "The X-Files" years ago and now I'm enjoying 'The inverted world' by Christopher Priest or the works of John Brunner or whoever I find that's interesting. 

I can't say the genre is dying. Not by lack of readers, that's for sure...I know enough young ones to assess that it won't be the case for a while.


----------



## Pyan (Dec 27, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> Nostalgia is well and fine but when a full quarter of the SF aisle at big bookstores is taken up by StarWars & StarTrek, and video game knockoffs, then I think it's time to consider another tact.



Unfortunately, the major bookstores are driven by the profit motive, and if Star Wars & Star Trek, and video game knockoffs are what sell, there's no incentive to take a chance on a new, untried author, regardless of how good they are.

I blame the situation on the economic squeeze that's put so many small independent shops out of business. If people can't find new authors in Borders, Waterstones, etc, they aint going to buy them - and it's much safer for the big chains to stick to movie spin-offs and the odd Pratchett or vampire romance crap...


----------



## Sparrow (Dec 28, 2009)

Pyan, I totally agree.
Bookstores and the big publishing houses are playing it safe for the sure thing where SF is concerned.  When we consider what's been going on in the field of Fantasy, a willingness to take risks, I think we see the short-sightedness of the SF genre won't work much longer.  StarWars and StarTrek are 30 and 40 years old, two old cows that should be put out to pasture by now.  I tend to blame sf fandom more than I do the publishers and booksellers, because as you've said, it's where the money is, which means it is also where the demand is.  Young people want mindless space opera, so that's what they get.

It's a strange situation SF finds itself in, plenty of movies and video games being made and sold, meanwhile the foundation of the genre has been in slow decline.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 28, 2009)

Speaking of cynicism -- I'm afraid I remain more than a little cynical about the entire "SF is dying" refrain; I've heard it so many times during my own life, seen it in magazines and newspaper articles from long before that point (the earliest actually calling it "science fiction" dates to criticism of Lovecraft's *At the Mountains of Madness* when it was published in _Astounding_, and was rife in the readers' letters column, but under other names -- "scientific romance", etc. -- it seems to have been around as long as the literature has existed). 

I believe I mentioned it before in a similar context, but my experience working in a bookstore showed me that sf sold much better than common wisdom would have one believe -- and I'm not talking just the spin-offs, but original novels by contemporary writers in the field. It didn't sell quite as well as fantasy, but it wasn't off by all _that_ much, either. Granted, this is anecdotal evidence, but so are many opinions offered on this sort of thing. So take it for what it's worth....

Neal: I have to put in a word for critical analyses of sf (and otherwise). There's not only nothing wrong with such, they can be (and often are) positively beneficial in many ways... as long as they are well done, thoughtful, and well-researched. It is when one comes up with the thesis and then imposes it on the material that you start running into serious problems. Seeing this sort of thing in such works as you read them, finding it interesting, and exploring it as a (perhaps) significant theme in the literature is perfectly fine, as long as one remains mindful of the text, and it can add new layers upon which readers may appreciate a work, things they might not otherwise have considered or even been aware of. But for an academic (or critic of any kind) to start proclaiming any branch of literature is "dying" or "dead" is more than a little pontifical and almost bound to be short-sighted and foolish; though various of those branches do go through changes or even periods of stagnation at times....


----------



## brsrkrkomdy (Dec 28, 2009)

*Death of science fiction? Meh. Same old song and dance. You shoulda seen what happened over at the horror front. Some yoyo said the same thing: Horror is dying. They do this for two reasons: 1. They send their stories they wrote which they considered them "masterpieces" only to have their manuscripts returned, rejected. They would assume that whatever genre is very much dead. Nevermind the fact their manuscripts were riddled with grammitical errors, misspellings, illogic, tense disagreements, and other cliche'd writing.*
*2. When they couldn't sell a single solitary novel "self-published" in vanity publishing at some bookstore or even at the online stores, (see reason numero uno), they go to the messageboards out of frustration, to stir up the hornets' nest with a familiar refrain: "Death of Horror! Let's Discuss!" Just so they'd feel good about themselves for being such "geniuses".  Later, a number of posters wise to their antics would usually ignore them. Or point and laugh. *


----------



## Neal Asher (Dec 28, 2009)

Perfect illustration of my final point. I posted this little rant on my blog first, and here's a reply from Gary Farber:
_
Who Killed Science Fiction?_ won the Hugo Award for Best Fanzine in 1961. The Fifties were rife with talk about the death of science fiction, and Earl Kemp's symposia of so many sf pros and prominent fans summed it all up.

eFanzines.com - Earl Kemp: e*I* Vol. 4 No. 6

Hah!


----------



## Contrary Mary (Dec 28, 2009)

I'm with J. D.  I've been hearing about the death of science fiction since I started reading  Sf forty years ago.

Sure, the bookstores have a lot of junk mixed in with the good sf--but that applies to all genres the bookstores stock.  I read mysteries occasionally and some of them are really very formulaic and porrly written--yet no one is, that I know of, regular writing articles on the Death of Mysteries.

Admitted, thought I love Sf, it does not usually have huge mass-market appeal.But I do not ever see the genre dying entirely.  There will alsways be a certain audience that wants Sf.


----------



## Interference (Dec 28, 2009)

Contrary Mary said:


> I'm with J. D. ....



Well, _that's_ not very "contrary" of you, Mary - don't our names mean _anything _anymore??  (something yellow would go well with what you're wearing right now, btw - and try not to pout like that, dear it isn't very flattering ... and is that how you always do that ....)


----------



## Sparrow (Dec 28, 2009)

Yes, Neal, and how do we reckon that essay with shelves stacked high of rehashed StarWars novelettes.  _StarWars_ as guiding light, as savior?..




> from that article~... It is our hope. It is our reason for striving, for persisting. This is clearly the truth, for why else would we endeavor so ardently against the tides of our troubled present. Rather than succumb to the outrageous misfortunes cascading down around us perpetrated by the blind masses who have succeeded in destroying the earth, we few have gathered together knowing that our expert dreaming will light the path through any and all such troubles, in the present and in the future to come.
> 
> Science fiction is dedicated to this proposition. It is the finest of all lights guiding mankind. Without it, the lantern-lit way would be dark, impenetrable, and we would fall to the wayside.
> 
> Sometimes dimly, sometimes in darkness, we all head toward this light. It is nothing less than the light of consciousness calling us forward, bringing out the soul of our times.




Nonsense like this makes me embarrassed to be involved in Science Fiction, if only as a reader. Talk about delusions of grandeur.
Science Fiction, then and now, has never been a good predictor of social trends, and even worse at popular trends.  In fact it's often two strides behind the current intellectual musings of any decade it finds itself in.
Not only does it not predict the future, it tends to corrupt it.  Luckily, because almost nobody reads the stuff there is no ill effect on our culture.  

I recently read over again Asimov's _Foundation_ and was this time struck by how ridiculous the premise was, how nonsensical the technology is, and had to put it down before all my fond remembrances were shattered.  When a main character receives a secret message contained in a little metal sphere, and upon opening it, a strip of ticker tape with words typed on it spills out, all of which must be read before they disappear... then it is time to put the book down.

What I'd like to ask the SF Community...
Science Fiction, where are your balls?

Fantasy has found a pair, why can't SF do the same?


----------



## Connavar (Dec 28, 2009)

I dont care about people who are saying SF is dying and Star Wars spin off dominate the shelf and so on.    The bookstores who has SF are dominated by real SF authors.  The classic authors and contemporary authors like Banks,Hamilton,Neal Asher,Morgan etc

Just because there arent any sf subgenre that top the bestseller list like some fantasy does doesnt mean anything to me.


----------



## Sparrow (Dec 28, 2009)

But the bookstores aren't dominated by those and other excellent sf writers, Connavar, it's the StarWars & StarTrek franchises that are most visible.

I belong to an audiobook club and there are dozens and dozens and dozens of StarWars and StarTrek novels (and lots of fantasy crap too... ie,vampires and LOTR ripoffs), but damned if I'm able to get one of Neal's books in audio form.  Banks and Morgan are available and I've purchased stories written by them and enjoyed them both, but the next tier of writers don't get proper exposure.


----------



## Rodders (Dec 29, 2009)

When i go to the book shop, i don't really see that much Tie in stuff compared to SF&F. Maybe i'm going to the wrong bookshops. I still see plenty of Iain M. Banks, Peter F. Hamilton, Neaal Asher, Richard Morgan, Alastair Reynolds and the like. There are even some classics like Asimove, Clarke, Bradbury and Dick in these shops. Theres enough out there to still give me a choice. Besides, Amazon's going to have a lot of SF. 

Supply and demand is the oldest rule of economics. If the shelves are dominated by Star Wars and Star Trek books, it's because they're selling well. Does it matter in the long run? SF is just as much subject to fads as anyting else. It'll come around again soon. (Perhaps i should feel a little guilty here, as i collect the Star Wars Books. )


----------



## Sparrow (Dec 29, 2009)

Oh and another thing, not mentioned that I can see, Science Fiction doesn't attract the skirts.  The vast majority of girls and women are simply not into SF literature in any way shape or form.  Fantasy get them in waves, SF has never really appealed to young women.


----------



## iansales (Dec 29, 2009)

I don't think sf is dead or even dying, but I do think it's time it changed. See here.


----------



## Fried Egg (Dec 29, 2009)

pyan said:


> Unfortunately, the major bookstores are driven by the profit motive, and if Star Wars & Star Trek, and video game knockoffs are what sell, there's no incentive to take a chance on a new, untried author, regardless of how good they are.
> 
> I blame the situation on the economic squeeze that's put so many small independent shops out of business. If people can't find new authors in Borders, Waterstones, etc, they aint going to buy them - and it's much safer for the big chains to stick to movie spin-offs and the odd Pratchett or vampire romance crap...


I wouldn't say the TV show spin-offs dominate the rest of the SF in any bookshop I've been in. Indeed, they have their own little section (which I'm thankful for) which is a fraction of the size of the rest of the SF/F section. So I don't see what the problem is. 

Yes, most shops are driven by the profit motive, that's why they're still in business. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, they're giving people what they want. 

But so what if "quality" SF is becoming harder and harder to find in bookshops these days as they narrow their range in order to stay in business? Online book retailers have huge selections where you can get pretty much anything in print so it's not like we're being deprived of anything, is it?

You can't blame shops for not taking a chance on a new author, that is ultimately down to the consumer. Consumers may often be reluctant to take a chance on a new author but I doubt that this is a particular affliction of SF nor of our current time.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Dec 29, 2009)

Echoing the points of Fried Egg (and others) I don't see Star Wars etc pushing out other science fiction novels. If anything it may encourage others like Cyber to enter that part of the bookshop and pick something else up as well. Also, as Connavar said some of these novels are well written. Timothy Zahn wrote a very good series of Star Wars novels and I also read his original "Conquerors" series as well as a result. 
To paraphrase someone I met; "There are no bad stories, just bad writers" so you'll have your share of hacks in any profession. Some even sell well and that's just life.

In fact, change "Star Wars" with "Forgotten Realms" or "Dungeons and Dragons" and you could just as easily level the same criticism to fantasy during the 80s.

I'd argue that far from dying, science fiction is undergoing a little bit of a rebirth with lots of new authors getting picked up. I actually think there is more 'drag' to new authors from the large volume of stock carried in shops by the greats like Clarke, Asimov, Dick etc. Great books no doubt, but old books and without new blood and stories injected into any genre it'll suffocate itself and decline.


----------



## Connavar (Dec 29, 2009)

Rodders said:


> When i go to the book shop, i don't really see that much Tie in stuff compared to SF&F. Maybe i'm going to the wrong bookshops. I still see plenty of Iain M. Banks, Peter F. Hamilton, Neaal Asher, Richard Morgan, Alastair Reynolds and the like. There are even some classics like Asimove, Clarke, Bradbury and Dick in these shops. Theres enough out there to still give me a choice. Besides, Amazon's going to have a lot of SF.
> 
> Supply and demand is the oldest rule of economics. If the shelves are dominated by Star Wars and Star Trek books, it's because they're selling well. Does it matter in the long run? SF is just as much subject to fads as anyting else. It'll come around again soon. (Perhaps i should feel a little guilty here, as i collect the Star Wars Books. )



I have seen more alternate history books,shelfs than Tie ins.   Our bookstores sound the same.   I have gone to 5-10 books in town.  The big mainstream shelfs with space only for the classics of PkD and co the best seller of modern writers.   

To specialist genre bookstores that have more SF shelfs.   Sounds our bookshops are the same because of the european connection.


Sparrow is another world books wise in US.   What works on the other side of the atlantic isnt always the same in Europe.   Tie ins might sell 100 times more than best seller SF author doesnt mean SF is dying.....


----------



## Werewoman (Dec 30, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> Oh and another thing, not mentioned that I can see, Science Fiction doesn't attract the skirts. The vast majority of girls and women are simply not into SF literature in any way shape or form. Fantasy get them in waves, SF has never really appealed to young women.


 
That's right. Only us old chicks read Dick.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 30, 2009)

Werewoman said:


> That's right. Only us old chicks read Dick.


 
Though, again from my own experience and correspondence with quite a number of other people, more than Fantasy, Horror draws them in these days.....


----------



## Rodders (Dec 30, 2009)

I've just bought some Star Wars books for the collection. I must say, there was a lot more Vampiric Romance Novels than there were tie ins.


----------



## Interference (Dec 30, 2009)

Maybe because Twilight and Being Human are getting more airtime than Terminator (cancelled due to writers' strike) and -- I can't even think of another TV Sciffy prog ...

It's current fashion.  Come the next Sci Fi blockbuster, the tide will change.


----------



## Rodders (Dec 30, 2009)

Yes. Let us see what Avatar brings us.


----------



## J-WO (Jan 3, 2010)

Hello! I guess this would be as good a place as any to ask. I was wondering if anyone could tell me if there's a 'Death of SF' collection out there that I could buy? Basically a compendium of the best essays/ blogs/ thoughts on the subject from every decade.

And if not, why not, for heavens sakes? 'Death of SF' is a subgenre with a long pedigree and its high time the academic field regarded it. Perhaps the small press could pick up the gauntlet here.


----------



## Sparrow (Jan 3, 2010)

> J-WO~And if not, why not, for heavens sakes? 'Death of SF' is a subgenre with a long pedigree and its high time the academic field regarded it. Perhaps the small press could pick up the gauntlet here.




Except there's no gauntlet to pick up.


I'd love to see an essay on how it is an invention of the late 1970s (StarWars) is still the biggest thing in Science Fiction... only given a run for it's money by a creation from the 1960s (StarTrek).  Wasn't SF suppose to be forward thinking, dynamic, dangerous?

So much for expectations.


----------



## Vladd67 (Jan 3, 2010)

Sparrow said:


> Except there's no gauntlet to pick up.
> 
> 
> I'd love to see an essay on how it is an invention of the late 1970s (StarWars) is still the biggest thing in Science Fiction... only given a run for it's money by a creation from the 1960s (StarTrek).  Wasn't SF suppose to be forward thinking, dynamic, dangerous?
> ...



SF is forward thinking, dynamic, dangerous at times, unfortunately the people who publish books and buy for book shops have to make a profit and it would seem the majority of the paying public are sheep following the herd unwilling to look outside their comfort zone.


----------



## Urien (Jan 3, 2010)

I am willing to try new things; but by definition uncomfortable outside my comfort zone. People don't like to be uncomfortable, I'm not sure that makes them sheep. In addition time is short; work, the internet, families, home life, TV they all compete for attention, consequently when they do wander into a book shop they gravitate to something they believe they know will be a positive use of a scarce commodity, time. 

We on Chrons are experts relative to the bulk of the population; we have an active and knowledgable interest in science fiction and indeed all of speculative fiction. We know more, we are willing to make the time to try something of an exotic speciality within an exotic genre. For the bulk of the population who are inclined only to grab a book they grab what they can see, have heard of, or has broken out of the genre box. A logical choice for a non-expert in a time and money scarce world.

Our judgement could easily be flawed by our very expertise though it's not invalid, after all we can see trends, we can read the numbers. It may well be accurate to say that serious (definition your own) science fiction has declined relative to pop science fiction, however overall the popularity of science fiction might well have increased.

If we include all media: movies, games, books (spin offs and originals), internet, TV and whatever else I've forgotten, science fiction has probably never been stronger. If we discount all media except "serious" books then methodologically we are reducing the data set, this is probably an unsound basis on which to posit an accurate answer.


----------



## J-WO (Jan 3, 2010)

Sparrow said:


> I'd love to see an essay on how it is an invention of the late 1970s (StarWars) is still the biggest thing in Science Fiction... only given a run for it's money by a creation from the 1960s (StarTrek).  Wasn't SF suppose to be forward thinking, dynamic, dangerous?



Yes, that's the kind of thing I mean; essays exactly like that. One hundred pages worth, perfect bound, hardback, fully annotated with an introduction by, say, that Mark Charan Newton fellow.

I've been looking on amazon and, so far, no joy...


----------



## Neal Asher (Jan 4, 2010)

J-WO, I don't think it would be just one book.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Jan 4, 2010)

Star Wars and Star Trek were both for different generations and they appealed to different generations. However, Lucas, being the smart guy that he is, did more Star Wars flicks and purposefully made them appeal to the younger generations, with princesses and jesters and knights, which is why it is still going and Star Trek is not. That and Lucas is an awesome marketer. There will always be people who look to the future and the stars and ask what if......

Science fiction is most assuredly not dead. It is however changing its traditional media. Pre-multimedia days, Sci Fi was mainly in comics, books, and mags, then more into radio (thanks Buck Rogers and HG Wells) and then into the tele. Now, Sci Fi isn't so much on the tele and radio as it is in interactive gaming. I play a LOT of sci fi games because there are a LOT of sci fi games and movies that are most definitely NOT dead. Well except in Doom and Dead Space. I also watch a lot of sci fi movies, which are also not dead, and in _mainstream_ there are a LOT LOT LOT more science fiction movies than fantasy movies. There are a lot more fantasy novel series in literature _in mainstream _than there are science fiction books. 

I don't know why this is. Perhaps because it is a lot more romantic to write about the fantastical world of dragons than to draw up images of dragons (which always look kind of hokey on the tele) and its a lot easier to draw up images of complex machinery and space faring cultures than to write it out for the mainstream audience (who aren't all that bright). 

In my house right now I could easily think of ten to fifteen original sci fi game or movie titles, but not books--and if I took out the Star Wars books and manuals, then its really probably none. I could easily think of ten to fifteen fantasy fiction book titles, but not games or movies (well not any good ones, and certainly not any that weren't books in the first place, hence not original).


----------



## J-WO (Jan 6, 2010)

Neal Asher said:


> J-WO, I don't think it would be just one book.



An entire shelf then, somewhere between the Paranormal romance and the Painful lives sections of Waterstones.


----------



## Rodders (Jan 6, 2010)

I don't see how Science Fiction can be dying. Look at any list of the highest grossing films and SF is a huge player in those lists. Look at these "best" TV series that seem to come out at the end of the year and you'll see a lot of science fiction being represented, whether it be the best family movies or the best TV Show endings, SF plays a massive part. Avatar has just passed the $billion mark and is still going strong.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jan 6, 2010)

Every now and then the prophets of doom come out saying SF is dying. But really its just changing. Just like a rock band it has to change or it will die!


----------



## Vargev (Jan 6, 2010)

Personally i believe that SF isnt dying, and will most likely never die. The reason for this is that for every person who looks up into the stars wondering what if? and if anyone is out there? Then SF will still be around, and SF literature will still be around as there will still be the writers who want to write about it, whether for profit or just for the love of telling a good story.


----------



## Uraeus (Mar 6, 2010)

As long as there are things we do not know about the cosmos, then science fiction will always explain them in story form, hopefully in a way that symbolises modern issues as well.


----------



## Daisy-Boo (Mar 15, 2010)

Werewoman said:


> That's right. Only us old chicks read Dick.


 
*snort*


----------



## Toby Frost (Mar 15, 2010)

I think the "should SF die?" article shot its own foot off early on when it seriously asked whether the majority of SF is racist. What? Since Wells wrote _Dr Moreau_ SF has been grappling with serious and difficult issues - sometimes in troubling ways, and sometimes by troubling people, but to accuse the genre of being anything-ist seems a weak and trendy argument to me. I don't care who writes SF, I care how good it is and whether they get a fair chance to sell it. But this gets us into accusations of quotas, tokenism etc, and this probably isn't the place for that.

I think what we should be wary of is not the disappearance of SF but its dumbing-down into little more than a "look". Although SF backgrounds (or should I say cliches?) are very common in films, games and so on, they are often crudely done. There is a world of difference between _Gears of War _and _The Forever War_, although they look very similar in my mind (granted, they have different functions, but you see the point). 

It is probably no longer possible to make war films like _Where Eagles Dare_ any more, where the enemy are just automata to destroy. This job seems to have fallen to SF. Fine: I don't mind this, but I would be saddened if SF ended up as nothing more than a stupider version of _Starship Troopers_. SF needs to exist for something more than just fulfulling adolescent fantasies of being Teh Best Space Soldier Evah. But does anything else sell especially well? I hope so but I really don't know.

We are always going to need stories that can talk about ideas without being bound to reality. While I really like some modern fantasy I would like to see more people grappling with new worlds and ideas the way China Mieville does (although I'm not a rabid fan).


----------



## Interference (Mar 15, 2010)

There's a place for guilt-free shoot-em-ups in literature and film and really there isn't another medium (other than fantasy) where otherwise stable human beings can revel in the complete destruction of an enemy.  I suspect this is why such sci-fi tales are getting made (I've made mypoint before, several times, about westerns in this context).

I suspect sci-fi is now so mainstream that its demise is a misinterpretation of its assimilation.  There will always be stories of the Human Condition, set in unfamiliar environments with short-hand analogies of human frailty explained through the use of technology or alien ways of thinking (alien, diverse, extreme or odd).  The spirit of sci-fi is therefore and thereby immortal.

And even though I'm an old guy, I haven't wrestled with Dick in a long time


----------



## Toby Frost (Mar 15, 2010)

I agree. 

I should add (I meant this as an edit but since you've posted I'll reply) that I think we should and will see more SF from India and China over the next few decades. I would like to see it, out of pure curiosity. But I don't think a lack of curiosity or wild enthusiasm here indicates that SF is bigoted or anything like that.


----------



## Connavar (Mar 15, 2010)

Shoot them up SF that look hollywood films annoy me alot.   I see them dominate the shelfs.    Nothing against them but the fact there are so many.
Thats why i dont care about SF dominating in film medium.  Its not our vision of SF.  

SF bigoted is such a lie, i was recently reading a 50s SF that had black character,comparing martian,human relations with the race issues of that times.   You read other genres of that time and those issues dont exist.


----------



## J-WO (Mar 15, 2010)

Perhaps the SF death-urge says more about society than the state of SF itself. The space race floundered, we're still a racist/ tribalistic world and we'd rather stare at our own navels than truly sort out the environment. Thus, we turn on science fiction for giving us a vision we never had the guts to live up to.  The dream didn't fail us so much as we failed the dream.

You read a lot of modern criticism these days that snorts derision at old SF's self-importance, the whole 'genre that lights the path to the future' talk. Well I for one like that talk. I miss it; that insanely hopeful mission statement, the arrogant sense of purpose. Maybe Chinese and Indian SF will bring it back again. Hope so, because all this post-postmodernist, deconstructionalist thought in the west only ever seems to detract, never add.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 15, 2010)

J-WO said:


> Perhaps the SF death-urge says more about society than the state of SF itself. The space race floundered, we're still a racist/ tribalistic world and we'd rather stare at our own navels than truly sort out the environment. Thus, we turn on science fiction for giving us a vision we never had the guts to live up to. The dream didn't fail us so much as we failed the dream.
> 
> You read a lot of modern criticism these days that snorts derision at old SF's self-importance, the whole 'genre that lights the path to the future' talk. Well I for one like that talk. I miss it; that insanely hopeful mission statement, the arrogant sense of purpose. Maybe Chinese and Indian SF will bring it back again. Hope so, because all this post-postmodernist, deconstructionalist thought in the west only ever seems to detract, never add.


 
While I agree with the majority of the above (not necessarily philosophically, but emotionally), I have to stand up for those things mentioned at the end. I will agree that, unfortunately, a great deal of the various approaches to these do seem to be picking nits in our navels, but done well, this sort of thing actually adds to the richness and possibilities of both literature (or any of the arts) and literature rather than detract from the same. A fair number of things I've read over the years in the vein of the post-modernist or deconstructionist criticism has enhanced my enjoyment of the works in question -- and, for that matter, literature in general -- to an enormous degree. However poorly some have handled these ideas at base they are as often about recognizing and expanding possibilities as they are anything....


----------



## GrownUp (Mar 21, 2010)

J-WO said:


> Perhaps the SF death-urge says more about society than the state of SF itself. The space race floundered, we're still a racist/ tribalistic world and we'd rather stare at our own navels than truly sort out the environment. Thus, we turn on science fiction for giving us a vision we never had the guts to live up to.  The dream didn't fail us so much as we failed the dream.
> 
> You read a lot of modern criticism these days that snorts derision at old SF's self-importance, the whole 'genre that lights the path to the future' talk. Well I for one like that talk. I miss it; that insanely hopeful mission statement, the arrogant sense of purpose. Maybe Chinese and Indian SF will bring it back again. Hope so, because all this post-postmodernist, deconstructionalist thought in the west only ever seems to detract, never add.



I wish I'd written that. That's good.


----------



## J-WO (Mar 21, 2010)

j. d. worthington said:


> While I agree with the majority of the above (not necessarily philosophically, but emotionally), I have to stand up for those things mentioned at the end. I will agree that, unfortunately, a great deal of the various approaches to these do seem to be picking nits in our navels, but done well, this sort of thing actually adds to the richness and possibilities of both literature (or any of the arts) and literature rather than detract from the same. A fair number of things I've read over the years in the vein of the post-modernist or deconstructionist criticism has enhanced my enjoyment of the works in question -- and, for that matter, literature in general -- to an enormous degree. However poorly some have handled these ideas at base they are as often about recognizing and expanding possibilities as they are anything....



Sorry if I come across a bit venomous about post-modernism et al. My experiences of it have all been negative. I took a joint English degree just after PM had bullyboyed its way into European Universities and was dancing on the ashes of its vanquished foes. If you didn't say its shibboleths you got marked down and if your opinion differed that meant you were part of the old order and to be despised. Since leaving academia I have never encountered such closed-mindedness. Crazy.

Maybe there's quality P-mod critique going on out there, but to me the whole thing seems to be in direct flight from Enlightenment values (and, by extension, Science Fiction) in its belief that everything is of equal worth to the next thing because its all opinion anyhow and that nothing can ever really be ascertained. I could well be oversimplifying here, but thats part of my problem with it- Post Modernism is unassailable not because its walls are strong but because they are slippy. In that respect its more like mysticism than academic thought.

One of its proponents offered that the theory of relativity was inherently patriarchal because it favoured the 'more masculine' light over matter, as if the biological duality of one obscure planet had the slightest relevance to the universe at large. SF should avoid this kind of thing like the Venusian plague.


----------



## Rackon (Apr 5, 2010)

dustinzgirl said:


> Star Wars and Star Trek were both for different generations and they appealed to different generations. However, Lucas, being the smart guy that he is, did more Star Wars flicks and purposefully made them appeal to the younger generations, with princesses and jesters and knights, which is why it is still going and Star Trek is not. That and Lucas is an awesome marketer. There will always be people who look to the future and the stars and ask what if......
> 
> Science fiction is most assuredly not dead. It is however changing its traditional media. Pre-multimedia days, Sci Fi was mainly in comics, books, and mags, then more into radio (thanks Buck Rogers and HG Wells) and then into the tele. Now, Sci Fi isn't so much on the tele and radio as it is in interactive gaming. I play a LOT of sci fi games because there are a LOT of sci fi games and movies that are most definitely NOT dead. Well except in Doom and Dead Space. I also watch a lot of sci fi movies, which are also not dead, and in _mainstream_ there are a LOT LOT LOT more science fiction movies than fantasy movies. There are a lot more fantasy novel series in literature _in mainstream _than there are science fiction books.
> 
> ...


 
Except that Star Trek is still going strong - the 2009 movie was a hit and  reignited interest in the franchise. Even in its heydey - with multiple series on TV, books and games et al - Trek was never the blockbuster SWs was in terms of $$$s. But culturally,  it is everywhere, and the new film has brought new fans to Trek. New books, new games, mags, comics...and a movie sequel.

Even Iain Banks makes Trek references in his latest book, Transition (which is being marketed as SF and by Iain *M* Banks in the US).

Meanwhile, the death of science fiction is premature. It is changing and evolving, as the delivery methods of reading and entertainment are changing and evolving. SF is currently a bigger part of our culture than ever before, especially if one includes TV, gaming and film. Perhaps the people who would have written a book 40 years ago would rather create a film? Like perhaps young Mr. Jones and his movie "Moon"...

It's harder for all quality fiction to get published, not just sf. Authors will continue to be sparked by ideas..."what if"...and their imaginations will run free and give us new works of sf and speculative fiction...the golden age is gone but a new one will arise, if we can recognize it.


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 5, 2010)

J-WO said:


> Sorry if I come across a bit venomous about post-modernism et al. My experiences of it have all been negative. I took a joint English degree just after PM had bullyboyed its way into European Universities and was dancing on the ashes of its vanquished foes. If you didn't say its shibboleths you got marked down and if your opinion differed that meant you were part of the old order and to be despised. Since leaving academia I have never encountered such closed-mindedness. Crazy.
> 
> Maybe there's quality P-mod critique going on out there, but to me the whole thing seems to be in direct flight from Enlightenment values (and, by extension, Science Fiction) in its belief that everything is of equal worth to the next thing because its all opinion anyhow and that nothing can ever really be ascertained. I could well be oversimplifying here, but thats part of my problem with it- Post Modernism is unassailable not because its walls are strong but because they are slippy. In that respect its more like mysticism than academic thought.
> 
> One of its proponents offered that the theory of relativity was inherently patriarchal because it favoured the 'more masculine' light over matter, as if the biological duality of one obscure planet had the slightest relevance to the universe at large. SF should avoid this kind of thing like the Venusian plague.


 
*sigh* Looking over my paragraph to which you responded, I realize just how bloody tired I was at the time... yeesh! the redundancies and solecisms!!!! Oi!

At any rate... yes, I'm not surprised that you had such an experience from academia where this is concerned. Unfortunately, most people who have encountered it have done so through these channels, where post-modernism was held almost in the same regard as a matter of faith in religion... wait, what am I saying? It _was_ held in the same regard... which is _not_ healthy for this mode of critical thought or any other. Derrida's approach to deconstructing language, for example, was taken to the farthest extremes, with ludicrous results. And, of course, there are always those who do take such a tact with any new theory or idea....

But, as I said, there is a substantial residue of writers using these approaches who show what can be done with them in terms of value and genuinely expanding the enjoyment and appreciation of any art form (literature perhaps in particular), and some writers have absorbed and assimilated these ideas as well into their own approach to fiction... not infrequently with brilliant results -- _vide_ a rather fair selection of the New Wave writers, as one set of examples. And some of the critics who use these approaches for the more "literary" aspects of fantastic fiction (as with Donald R. Burleson's deconstructionist essays on Lovecraft) bring to light some fascinating insights which chime in very well with the richness and complexity of the work and the writers' thought as seen by correspondence and the varied types of writing a particular author has produced.

So I can understand your point of view... I'm just glad my brush with the stuff through "official" channels was brief and rather unfocused (the result, I think, of the lecturers themselves not quite understanding the philosophy or thought behind some or all of these critical methods), leaving me largely to discover it on my own... with the result that I at first had a violent reaction of "this is nonsense! utterly nuts!" to a reexamination to a wary acceptance to, eventually, the realization that what I was gaining from my encounters with it actually enhanced my experience of what I was reading many times over. Hence my tendency to "come to the defense" on such matters, as I feel it has been at least as badly represented as history was in education in most cases I've encountered....

Which leads me back to the thread topic, and your final comment. No, I can't agree with that, either. Part of what science fiction has always done is explore the ramifications of different philosophies and worldviews, whether mystical or rationalistic (think of, for example, the underpinnings of Gordy Dickson's Childe cycle, James Blish's *A Case of Conscience*, Walter M. Miller, Jr.'s *A Canticle for Leibowitz*, Mark Clifton and Frank Riley's *They'd Rather Be Right*/*The Immortality Machine*, Frank Herbert's *Dune*, the anthologies *The Day the Sun Stood Still* or *Other Worlds, Other Gods*, several of the tales of Kuttner and Moore, the vast bulk of word by J. G. Ballard, etc., etc., etc.), and certainly this is as valid a philosophy to explore as any other -- and offers an enormous wealth of possible story ideas and contrasting ideologies for alien cultures... or, as with stories featuring a human diaspora, human-descended cultures.

In other words, when used with intelligence and insight, such an approach offers a great deal to, if anything, renew and refresh science fiction (not to mention fantasy)....

Again, it isn't necessarily the theory (or at least many of its major tenets) that is at fault so much as the practice as undertaken by too many mediocre minds and dogmatic devotees.... Ummm... remember "Sturgeon's Revelation"....?


----------



## Scifi fan (Apr 21, 2010)

So long as humanity is around, SF will be around - it's been as old as Shaekespeare's The Tempest, which was the basis for Forbidden Planet.


----------



## J Riff (Apr 22, 2010)

Not so much dead or dying as _dumbed down_.
And we can blame Star Trek and Star Wars. !
 Star Trek is a soap opera. Star Wars resembles 30s pulp fiction, boys adventure stories.
I investigated writing for Star Trek. It's not much different than writing romances. 
 Having said that, the original StarTrek used well-established SciFi authors as often as possible. Problem is, after every episode, Kirk and Co. will be warping happily away as the music plays. Not much suspense there. 
 Everyone reads SciFi now so it's dumbed down, same as horror writing was after everybody started reading King.


----------



## Urien (Apr 22, 2010)

Dumbed down SF exists, so does the more esoteric SF; the best appeals to both a mass and minority audience.

I don't think there is anything wrong with an art form that reaches out to the mass of the population. If we suppose the opposite that SF should only be for afficionados of the deep intellectual questions, then I fear we are just talking to ourselves in an ineffectual clubhouse that touches not the lives of others.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Apr 22, 2010)

The only problem with reaching out to the masses is that, almost inevitably, commercial pressures come into play... which is bad news for literature.


----------



## Urien (Apr 22, 2010)

Stephen,

Not sure it is bad news for literature. Dickens was popular in his day, as were many other writers who might fall into the "literature" category. Of course the question begged is what is literature, (debate until the stars go out).

The law of large numbers might also come into play; yes a lot of what some might consider dross will be produced, but within that will be gems which owing to the viral nature of modern communications are likely to spread.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Apr 23, 2010)

Urien said:


> Stephen,
> 
> Not sure it is bad news for literature. Dickens was popular in his day, as were many other writers who might fall into the "literature" category. Of course the question begged is what is literature, (debate until the stars go out).


 
Er... Tiny Tim?


----------



## thepaladin (Apr 23, 2010)

Bottom line, science fiction (and fantasy) has to have at least a modicum of financial success or it will vanish. There would be die-hard writers who kept writing their stories, but they wouldn't get published. most writers need to be commercially successful to some extent or they couldn't continue to write.

Science fiction is popular right now (even though the majority is possibly "dumbed down") but that makes it possible for the "other" more hard science fiction to exist. It's true most consider Star Wars science fiction (actually more of a fantasy) and measure everything by it. But so long as this makes money, the other can still get published.


----------

