# Fantasy is alive and well, SF is dying... why?



## Sparrow (Sep 1, 2009)

The Fantasy Genre has been on quite a roll and for some time now, while Science Fiction is all but dead.  I can rattle off a dozen great books I've read in the last ten years, from Neverwhere to Abarat to The Diamond Age(mostly fantasy) to etc... where is the readership for the new Science Fiction?

YA saved Fantasy, will it save Science Fiction?


----------



## clovis-man (Sep 1, 2009)

We're still here. And in some cases those of us who read "the new Science Fiction" are the same chaps who have been reading "the old Science Fiction" all along. There are good as well as poor efforts in both SF & F today. And that has always been the case lo these many years. You pays your money and takes your choice.


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 1, 2009)

I've not read enough of the new sf to be able to judge current quality overall, but I've seen a few things which seemed rather good. And it isn't the first time sf has been said to be dying, or that it has been seen as stagnating, only to have a new movement sweep through and revivify it entirely. The same has been true of fantasy, horror, the mystery and detective fields, etc., etc., etc. All genre fiction, in fact, have such periods of lull and growth. It's in the nature of the beast. I've a strong hunch that this (at worst) is what we're seeing with sf now....


----------



## iansales (Sep 1, 2009)

If SF is dying, someone should tell Gollancz as they just paid 1 millions Pounds Sterling to Alastair Reynolds to write ten sf novels.


----------



## Rodders (Sep 1, 2009)

SF isn't dying, if anything i'd argue that it was getting more mainstream.


----------



## mygoditsraining (Sep 1, 2009)

Tor Editor Patrick Nielsen Hayden On the Future of SF Books - Publishing - io9



> *io9: Thinking science fictionally, what do you see happening to SF publishing over the next few decades? Will we still have novels? How will we read them?*
> 
> PNH: In 1991 or 92, I registered tor.com, and it was originally a gopher server. So I don't know what the technologies will be - I didn't know what 2009 would be like in 1989. I could have vaguely predicted io9, but not 4Chan or internet memes.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sparrow (Sep 1, 2009)

I definitely agree that sf has become more common and "mainstream", thanks to big budget movies, and of course, those dreaded video games.  I'm not talking about mainstream entertainment.  We can argue that sf has never been more accepted and more available than it is today.  But folks aren't buying it in written form, readership is and has been dwindling to almost nothing.

This essay appeared May of 2001, and since then things have only gotten worse.

judithberman.net/sffuture



When was it you last strolled down the sf row at your local Barnes&Noble or Borders?  To find dozens of StarWars and StarTrek variants!  Two creations which made their debut before many readers were even born are still around, one must think, still making money.  When can we call it incest?  No, SF has become the crazy uncle you invite to Thanksgiving Dinner only because you feel guilty, and because you have fond memories of him from a very long time ago.


----------



## Fried Egg (Sep 1, 2009)

Fans of modern SF could quite easiliy rattle off a list of great books they've read in the last ten years I'm sure. Indeed, some say that SF is in a new golden age. 

Readership may be falling but is that indicative of a lack of good books? Not necessarilly. All that really tells us is that SF is exploring themes outside of mainstream interest. Perhaps it is going through an innovative phase? 

Personally, I can't comment, but I would hesitate to declare that SF is dying unless I had read enough recent SF to judge one way or the other.


----------



## Memnoch (Sep 1, 2009)

SF literary boom late 70's/80's = Star Wars. 

Fantasy boom last decade = Lord of the Rings films and Harry Potter (The 10 year olds that read them originally are 18-20 now and are looking for a more grown up read)

It's the movie trends nowadays that dictate alot of new authors direction, so alot the creative talent is being channelled into the fantasy genre, to jump on the band wagon/cash cow. 

Talking of cluttered bookshop shelves. WARHAMMER!!! Sheesh, you can't get to any other books in the Fantasy section without a bookcase full of these. Don't get me wrong I loved Games Workshop in my youth and have a serious soft spot for them, but the saturation level of the books is unreal. I haven't read alot of them, only a handful, yet if it goes down the line of Forgotten Realms for quality then it's a poor representation of the genre we all love.


----------



## Fried Egg (Sep 1, 2009)

Memnoch said:


> SF literary boom late 70's/80's = Star Wars.
> 
> Fantasy boom last decade = Lord of the Rings films and Harry Potter (The 10 year olds that read them originally are 18-20 now and are looking for a more grown up read)
> 
> It's the movie trends nowadays that dictate alot of new authors direction, so alot the creative talent is being channelled into the fantasy genre, to jump on the band wagon/cash cow.


I disagree with this view. The SF film industry is doing quite well at the moment with many block busters and have been for a while. That isn't translating into large numbers of literary SF. Nor do I think that the current success of literary fantasy has much to do with the LOTR and Harry Potter movies. I know many people who have read both series merely because they liked the films but haven't read anything else in the genre. They simply assume that these are probably the best the genre has to offer. 

Readers of SF were already in decline when Star Wars came out and I don't think the films had much impact on literary SF generally. What was it that J.D. once said? Something about Hollywood being 30 years behind written SF.


----------



## mosaix (Sep 1, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> ...while Science Fiction is all but dead...



Can't agree.


----------



## Rodders (Sep 1, 2009)

Does anyone have any sales figures? I read somewhere (back in the 90s) that SF and it's associated genres accounted for 14% of book sales.


----------



## Sparrow (Sep 1, 2009)

Rodders, book sales are notoriously hard to find and when found, are very unreliable or just plain bogus.  One thing is for certain, if this is a "golden age" of sf, then we wouldn't want to find out what the dark ages are like.  Book sales have been way down across the board for ten years now, and we have to be honest, that trend is unlikely to change.
If not for the _Fantasy_ part of SF & Fantasy I imagine Science Fiction would have been off the map altogether.

I know of nobody in my circle of friends who still reads science fiction, fantasy yes, sf no.  It's not as if there isn't wonderfully done sf, it's out there all right, but it's not attracting a very big audience.  I wish the current doldrums were part of the natural course of things, unfortunately I think this time around the doldrums are far more profound.


----------



## clovis-man (Sep 1, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> I know of nobody in my circle of friends who still reads science fiction, fantasy yes, sf no.  It's not as if there isn't wonderfully done sf, it's out there all right, but it's not attracting a very big audience.  I wish the current doldrums were part of the natural course of things, unfortunately I think this time around the doldrums are far more profound.



No disrespect intended here, but I don't think anecdotal information is the key to determining the viability of SF currently. As you point out, it's possible sales may not be either (although some figures would be interesting). However, just going on the quality of published work out there, I don't see reason for alarm. We have authors like Reynolds, Banks, Hamilton, Asher, Baxter, Bear, Cherryh (to name only a few) who have produced (and continue to produce) excellent work.

Sometimes I think we may fall victim to factionalism within our own fan base. It's the old "Hurray for our side" syndrome. Fantasy aficionados disdaining SF fans & vice versa. If you are a fantasy reader, you may see the universe just through that "filter". If you have no use for SF, you may not feel it really exists in any meaningful way.

I enjoy some fantasy, but readily admit that SF is first and foremost for me. This brings with it a real ignorance of a lot that is good in the fantasy world, I'm sure. But since I only have time to read so much, I tend not to be open to proseletyzing either. My loss, perhaps, but I do recognize that there is a viable genre out there.


----------



## Connavar (Sep 1, 2009)

Hollywood doesnt prove anything, last year SF films dominated hollywood BO with Films like Wall-E,Transformers,superhero,Day Earth Stood Stil and many more.   There was an article that said "Sci-fi" in Hollywood have never dominated as much as now.  

Still that wont change the fact that fantasy,crime sell a couple times more than SF. Don't overrate Hollywood impact.

Still SF books can still do better than before in sales.  There are certain types of SF that becomes best-sellers.   The quality of books hasn't changed much either.

So the fact younger people read more fantasy cause of their fav fantasy movies don't mean anything but the fact SF in Hollywood are never based on famous SF books.


----------



## clovis-man (Sep 1, 2009)

Not authoritative, but perhaps suggestive:

http://pimpmynovel.blogspot.com/2009/08/genre-specific-sales-part-1-of-8.html

Pimp My Novel: Genre-Specific Sales, Part 4 of 8: Science Fiction


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Sep 1, 2009)

I'd have to say almost the opposite is true. While SF may not have a large jump recently, true, old-fashioned fantasy is dying. When was LOTR originally written? Forty years ago or more?

I can't remember the last time I saw a new-as in, copyright of THIS DECADE, fantasy novel that didn't take place in the "real world". Incarnations of Immortality and things like that....I remember seeing one book that took place during WWII, and the only "fantasy" thing about it seemed to be gnomes helping out the Allied forces. 

But no, now there's Harry Potter and stuff like that. Can't authors create their own worlds with their own laws and rules anymore?


----------



## Ursa major (Sep 1, 2009)

Manarion said:


> I remember seeing one book that took place during WWII, and the only "fantasy" thing about it seemed to be gnomes helping out the Allied forces.


 
And they would be in the Gnome Guard.... 


I doubt, say, Bas-Lag could be considered to be a real-world setting, so there are at least three modern fantasy books written in the last decade: *Perdido Street Station*, *The Scar*, *The Iron Council*.


.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Sep 1, 2009)

Well, apparenty those aren't available anywhere around here. 

But honestly, taking a look at Harry Potter....a fantasy series that takes place in London? 


At least Tolkein and other old time authors had their own worlds, pleasantly devoid of any technology beyond Medieval/Feudal ages.....


----------



## Moggle (Sep 2, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> The Fantasy Genre has been on quite a roll and for some time now, while Science Fiction is all but dead.  I can rattle off a dozen great books I've read in the last ten years, from Neverwhere to Abarat to The Diamond Age(mostly fantasy) to etc... where is the readership for the new Science Fiction?
> 
> YA saved Fantasy, will it save Science Fiction?




Well first of all Fantasy encompasses a wide spectrum of storytelling and can reach a wider audience.  Scifi is actually very narrow in comparison.  It's really not even a fair comparison.


----------



## Connavar (Sep 2, 2009)

Manarion said:


> I'd have to say almost the opposite is true. While SF may not have a large jump recently, true, old-fashioned fantasy is dying. When was LOTR originally written? Forty years ago or more?
> 
> I can't remember the last time I saw a new-as in, copyright of THIS DECADE, fantasy novel that didn't take place in the "real world". Incarnations of Immortality and things like that....I remember seeing one book that took place during WWII, and the only "fantasy" thing about it seemed to be gnomes helping out the Allied forces.
> 
> But no, now there's Harry Potter and stuff like that. Can't authors create their own worlds with their own laws and rules anymore?



There are many award winning fantasy that places in the real world.   You might like old fashioned,Tolkien type but fantasy is much more than one type.  

Historical fantasy,urban,contemporary etc there are many that are different by nature.

IMO there is too many that still try to be Tolkien and specially those long book series that dont even try to be original at times.

You just have to be good finding what you like.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Sep 2, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> Rodders, book sales are notoriously hard to find and when found, are very unreliable or just plain bogus. One thing is for certain, if this is a "golden age" of sf, then we wouldn't want to find out what the dark ages are like. Book sales have been way down across the board for ten years now, and we have to be honest, that trend is unlikely to change.
> If not for the _Fantasy_ part of SF & Fantasy I imagine Science Fiction would have been off the map altogether.
> 
> I know of nobody in my circle of friends who still reads science fiction, fantasy yes, sf no. It's not as if there isn't wonderfully done sf, it's out there all right, but it's not attracting a very big audience. I wish the current doldrums were part of the natural course of things, unfortunately I think this time around the doldrums are far more profound.


 
Er I don't mean to nitpick but you start off by saying book sales are notoriously unreliable and then 2 sentences later you are using book sales as a way of measuring sci-fi's decline.

So you say that sci-fi is in the doldrums just because your friends read fantasy and not sci-fi? Is that a bit like saying that your elder daughter is ugly because your youngest is so beautiful? Like them or loath them the financial success of books like the Harry Potter series was always going to lead to publishers seeking to promote similar works which they feel can 'piggy-back' on the crest of the wave and make them money.

Had it been "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of the Cybermen" your friends may be sci-fi readers and fantasy might be 'in the doldrums'. 

At the end of the day it's a matter of taste anyway. Fantasy and sci-fi were both seen as very geeky books as I was growing up and I read both and loved both. Fantasy may be shaking off that image a bit (or maybe not) and becoming more 'acceptable' or maybe it's just easier to access. 

One of the issues with science fiction is that it can occassionally have science in it. People who didn't do so well at science in school may be put off trying to follow speed of light temporal mechanics or bio-neural implants instead of unicorns and trolls. 

Anyway, if the idea is to try and gain more exposure/sales for sci-fi authors then I think it'll always be a little bit less than fantasy but the core readership is usually very loyal so hopefully it all evens out!


----------



## Rodders (Sep 2, 2009)

Surely the poll in this thread would be indicative of whether SF is in decline?


----------



## Fried Egg (Sep 2, 2009)

One possible explanation for the decline in SF readership might be to do with a shift in the public perception of science and our vision of the future. 

I believe that people generally had a far more positive view of science from the 40's to the 60's and faith in it's ability to offer hope and a solution to many of mankind's problems. With science there is almost nothing we cannot achieve. Now it is quite different. Science seems to want to lead us into danger and moral hazard. Everything we do that is man made seems to be working against nature and our long term well being.

I think our view of the future is far more gloomy now. We seem faced with almost certain and imminent environmental catastrophy. OK, we used to have the cold war and the threat of nuclear anhiliation hanging over our heads but there was the feeling that if we could somehow just get through that, the future could be great. Now, whether or not we end up killing each other in wars, environmental collapse will get us anyway, all thanks to our attempts to meddle with nature.

SF has envisaged apocalyptic futures for many years now but at first they seemed liked only scary far fetched nightmares. Increasingly they seem like our innevitable and imminent future that we have little chance of avoiding. Less people want to read about the future because they already believe that the future is most likely to be bleak. Do they want to be reminded of that? It is all very well reading about such future visions when we thought they were mere possibilities, that were avoidable as long as we didn't make the same mistakes.

Personally I think the time will come when we will get a bit more positive, hopeful again. And I think it likely that SF reading would pick up again as a result.


----------



## Scifi fan (Sep 2, 2009)

SF is dying because there are no good stories being told by good story-tellers. But SF will rise again, because fans are making films of their beloved shows, and, eventually, one of them will create his own universe, which will become a success ... and SF will be infused with new life.


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 2, 2009)

Moggle said:


> Well first of all Fantasy encompasses a wide spectrum of storytelling and can reach a wider audience. Scifi is actually very narrow in comparison. It's really not even a fair comparison.


 
Eh? Come again? In what way is sf _as a field_ narrower than fantasy? (I'm not speaking only of the current scene, but science fiction _per se_.) I've been reading both for 46+ years now, and I'm afraid I don't see that at all. Could you explain how you reach that conclusion....?


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Sep 2, 2009)

Connavar said:


> There are many award winning fantasy that places in the real world. You might like old fashioned,Tolkien type but fantasy is much more than one type.
> 
> Historical fantasy,urban,contemporary etc there are many that are different by nature.
> 
> ...


 

Well, yes, but it seems to me like urban is taking over the fantasy scene. 

Like, with me, I steadfastly REFUSE to introduce even the earliest models of guns into my worlds. I keep things at around twelfth century or so.

At least what fantasy is out there still incorporates magic. Otherwise, I honestly believe there'd be absolutely no distinction between it and sci fi, or horror/mystery/suspense.


----------



## Boneman (Sep 5, 2009)

> by Manarion
> _At least what fantasy is out there still incorporates magic. Otherwise, I honestly believe there'd be absolutely no distinction between it and sci fi, or horror/mystery/suspense. _




And I tend towards some agreement of that, and trying to classify the difference between SCiFi and fantasy is impossible, since it depends (as seen here) on one's individualviewpoint. Long may that contine. But, magic in a fantasy can just be an manipulation of energy by means not understood, in SciFi, so the line blurs all the time, in many books. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Manarion* 

 
_I remember seeing one book that took place during WWII, and the only "fantasy" thing about it seemed to be gnomes helping out the Allied forces._



> by Ursa
> _And they would be in the Gnome Guard....
> _




Of course they'd have joined up: National Elf Service.......


----------



## bobbo19 (Sep 8, 2009)

im not sure about you Americans, but there are plenty of British sf authors. Maybe there books have not been released yet in the US and the same is probably happening vice versa across the pond. I would generally say SF is getting more mainstream (District 9 is a SF film and has jsut been realeased.) The videogame and film genre are helping the SF industry grow. As so many other people have said, there are highs and low. I beleive SF is on the up at present.


----------



## Moggle (Sep 10, 2009)

Manarion said:


> I'd have to say almost the opposite is true. While SF may not have a large jump recently, true, old-fashioned fantasy is dying. When was LOTR originally written? Forty years ago or more?
> 
> I can't remember the last time I saw a new-as in, copyright of THIS DECADE, fantasy novel that didn't take place in the "real world". Incarnations of Immortality and things like that....I remember seeing one book that took place during WWII, and the only "fantasy" thing about it seemed to be gnomes helping out the Allied forces.
> 
> But no, now there's Harry Potter and stuff like that. Can't authors create their own worlds with their own laws and rules anymore?



Huh? Are you even aware of what's actually out there?  Ever heard of Wheel of Time, Sword of Truth, Mistborn, Eragon and the gazillion other fantasy titles out there that don't take place in the real world?


----------



## chrispenycate (Sep 11, 2009)

Manarion said:


> Well, yes, but it seems to me like urban is taking over the fantasy scene.
> 
> Like, with me, I steadfastly REFUSE to introduce even the earliest models of guns into my worlds. I keep things at around twelfth century or so.
> 
> At least what fantasy is out there still incorporates magic. Otherwise, I honestly believe there'd be absolutely no distinction between it and sci fi, or horror/mystery/suspense.



Well, the latest episode in my dragon series has them helping build a railway network, and one of the reasons they started co-operating with humans in the first place was the increased effectiveness and portability of firearms.

Still, I suppose I'm a basically SF mentality and can't be expected to respect traditions…


----------



## Bev Stayart (Sep 11, 2009)

SF is part of the larger category of Fantasy.  I don't think SF is dying, just that other aspects of Fantasy are becoming increasingly popular.


----------



## jojajihisc (Sep 11, 2009)

Connavar said:


> So the fact younger people read more fantasy cause of their fav fantasy movies don't mean anything but the fact *SF in Hollywood are never based on famous SF books*.


 
Just to make sure I understand this correctly. Are you saying there are no "Hollywood" movies based on science fiction novels?


----------



## blacknorth (Nov 9, 2009)

As much as I hate to admit it, one only needs to look at the last few issues of Analog to realise that something is seriously wrong in SF. While the quality was always variable, I've never read such a consistent run of stinkers as recently.


----------



## Sparrow (Nov 10, 2009)

It's not only Analog. 
You need not go any further than the latest covers gracing Asimov's to know that hard-edged science fiction is no longer welcomed.


----------



## rojse (Nov 10, 2009)

I think those that prefer fantasy fiction are going to see fantasy as being innovative, whereas those that prefer SF are going to see SF as being innovative.

I've read excellent fantasy stories published in the last decade, and I've read excellent SF stories published in the last decade. For myself, I could point out more excellent SF stories than fantasy stories, but this is only because I am more immersed in SF than fantasy, rather than difference in quality of one field over another. 

In either case (and I believe both assertations are true), it is great time to be a fantasy and SF reader.


----------



## blacknorth (Nov 10, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> It's not only Analog.
> You need not go any further than the latest covers gracing Asimov's to know that hard-edged science fiction is no longer welcomed.



My local store (Easons) won't stock Asimov's, yet they carry Analog, Interzone and even Black Static.

Last month's Analog is the last I'll be buying - the chick-lit (apologies in advance) story about Joan of Arc shouldn't have made it into Woman's Own, never mind Analog. The magazine seems to be apeing drivel like Time Traveller's Wife and Lost In Austen, going for the lowest part of a market which isn't their market anyway - abandoning their permanent audience for a transient one.


----------



## rojse (Nov 10, 2009)

blacknorth said:


> My local store (Easons) won't stock Asimov's, yet they carry Analog, Interzone and even Black Static.
> 
> Last month's Analog is the last I'll be buying - the chick-lit (apologies in advance) story about Joan of Arc shouldn't have made it into Woman's Own, never mind Analog. The magazine seems to be apeing drivel like Time Traveller's Wife and Lost In Austen, going for the lowest part of a market which isn't their market anyway - abandoning their permanent audience for a transient one.


 
You can't base your opinions of an entire genre based on a few magazines. I am sure that someone could find several lagging fantasy magazine, and point out how many stories are cliched and deriviative and about romances involving sparkly vampires.


----------



## Connavar (Nov 11, 2009)

jojajihisc said:


> Just to make sure I understand this correctly. Are you saying there are no "Hollywood" movies based on science fiction novels?



No no I'm saying there is no SF film based on a popular book who became a hit that inspired new readers.   A LOTR for SF.

There are no big films made about Dune and co.

Matrix isn't a popular SF book.   There is only really Blade runner who was a BO failure and later on a classic.

I started reading American comics thanks to the movie Sin City.  Many people does similar things but there are no SF versions that make people read the books and make them sell.


----------



## jojajihisc (Nov 11, 2009)

I'd agree with that. Thanks Connavar.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Nov 11, 2009)

It could just be that SF is going through the down part of a cycle, and some peculiar combination of future events (because future events usually do arrive in peculiar combinations) will spark off a renewed interest.  One freakishly successful book* could do it, too. 

With renewed interest, new authors will emerge, and older ones who have turned to writing fantasy will come back to science fiction.  




*All of our aspiring SF writers should put their minds to writing a freakishly successful book.  I mean, that would be easy enough.  Wouldn't it?


----------



## Connavar (Nov 13, 2009)

I dont really care as long SF is still big enough to have big shelf in the book store.

I see my english specialist book store that even if vampire,urban,epic fantasy has made fantasy bigger the SF shelf is as big as before and they keep refiling with new books of the popular sf writers,new other sf.     I don't have to order Richard Morgan type authors books,they are always refilled.

As long there are enough fans to support the books in the shelf's so i don't have look after sf books like its small,underground fiction i couldn't careless if fantasy was 10 time bigger.

I'm not after prestige between the genres.


----------



## Vargev (Nov 30, 2009)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> *All of our aspiring SF writers should put their minds to writing a freakishly successful book.  I mean, that would be easy enough.  Wouldn't it?



Already on it.


----------



## Sparrow (Nov 30, 2009)

> Teresa ~It could just be that SF is going through the down part of a cycle, and some peculiar combination of future events (because future events usually do arrive in peculiar combinations) will spark off a renewed interest. One freakishly successful book* could do it, too.
> 
> With renewed interest, new authors will emerge, and older ones who have turned to writing fantasy will come back to science fiction.




What Science Fiction has failed to do for a good two decades now, and I don't see an end in sight, is attract the younger set. Harry Potter may have revamped the Fantasy Genre and god forbid it set in motion a series of events that led to all this vampire nonsense, but its time is past and yet Fantasy is still going great guns.  It's the YA crowd that make reading hip again, and they have chosen F over SF.  It might be wizards, might be bloodsuckers, but it sure ain't astronauts and aliens.

Science Fiction survives on video games and big budget movies.


----------



## J-WO (Nov 30, 2009)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> *All of our aspiring SF writers should put their minds to writing a freakishly successful book.  I mean, that would be easy enough.  Wouldn't it?



Erm... I'm writing something that's successfully freakish. Close enough?


----------



## thepaladin (Nov 30, 2009)

I don't really think either genre is "dying" but they do go through cycles where *good* works get harder to find. I went the way with _Relms of Fantasy _that was just mentioned for _Analog. _I finally burned out on stories of tooth faries that ripped out kids teeth and the requsit dozen or so vampire stories. There are still good Science Fiction works out there just as there are Fantasy works. We just need to look for them. Unfortunatly the books the publishers chose to push are not always the ones we'd like to read.


----------



## J-WO (Nov 30, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> Science Fiction survives on video games and big budget movies.



Yup, and very well, too. If you need to borrow a tenner you could do worse than ask the makers of _Halo_*and _Mass Effect_*.

*Who also sell quite a lot of tie-in books, too.


----------



## Sparrow (Dec 1, 2009)

Well, Mr.J-WO, you just keep whistling past the cemetery if you want, and I'll see it for what it is. Nostalgia. If you think SF makes a comeback on the coattails of Halo and StarTrek spin offs, then me thinks, we are in more trouble than I had first imagined.

These remarks are from a professional, and a damn fine one at that...
http://www.sfwriter.com/rmdeatho.htm

Take care to note when the article was written, knowing that things have only gotten worse since then.
Robert J. Sawyer points out, "SF is failing to find significant numbers of new readers".  Hallelujah anyways!


Ten years ago when I moved to the Sunshine State, and often tramped down to the local Books-a-Million in Orange Park on a Saturday afternoon, the SF row was long with both sides of the aisle packed full... now, it is less than half that and to add insult to injury it shares that remaining half aisle with poetry.  What a sight to behold, the works of William Yeats rubbing shoulders with Douglas Adams.  The horror, the horror.

I have a suspicion that one late evening in the not so distant future I'll visit the Books-a-Million only to find a dusty broom closet full of StarWars-StarTrek-Halo novels.  Then, if it's okay with everyone, I'll switch off the light, gently close the door, and declare the death of science fiction.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 1, 2009)

Sorry, Sparrow, but that is sheer hogwash. A literary genre seldom (if ever) "dies". It may lie fallow for a while, but new generations of writers (and readers) always find a way to revive it and give it new -- not infrequently better and more lasting -- life. Good grief, the gothic tale is still with us, both in its original sense and in numerous variations. SF, as a form of modern myth, is at least as viable and able to make a comeback; it just may not fit any of the narrower definitions, or may not resemble what you (or I) are used to thinking of as SF.

As has been noted before, SF has been declared "dead" more times than I can count, and no few of those times have been by professionals, both writers and critics. Once a new branch of storytelling sprouts on the Tree of Tales, it pretty much stays there, though its final growth (if there ever can really be such a thing) may resemble very little its humble beginnings....


----------



## Sparrow (Dec 1, 2009)

But, JD, where are the new readers?

Doesn't any genre need a loyal fan base to survive, a fan base with young energetic support... and money to spend.  And we're not talking about a recent downturn either.  This slide has been going on for two decades now and only seems to be getting worse.  I'm sure the video games and big budget movies will sustain SF indefinitely, but the proud SF as literature heritage is all but gone.

StarWars-StarTrek-Halo, and the rest, are perhaps keeping SF afloat right now, but so too are they dragging it down.


----------



## clovis-man (Dec 1, 2009)

You know, I've been following this thread in desultory fashion. But I have to say that I haven't been personally affected by this "dying" genre. There are plenty of good authors out there producing plenty of material. I'm certainly not running out of things to read.

If there's a bit of a lull, I haven't really noticed it. If there's a burgeoning of fantasy material, that hasn't affected me either. Are there more SF movies out there than ever before? You betcha. But I can live with it. Actually, some of my recent (last couple of decades) reads have looked like good material for a film: everything from some of Reynolds' Revelation Space work to Clarke's Rama. Shoot, looking way back, I'd be happy if a movie was made from *The Dragon In The Sea* by Herbert. Probably none of this will happen, but I can still read.

No worries from this quarter.


----------



## chopper (Dec 1, 2009)

what's wrong with poetry? there's plenty of sf _and_ fantasy-themed poetry kicking around, if you know where to look.


----------



## J-WO (Dec 2, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> Well, Mr.J-WO, you just keep whistling past the cemetery if you want, and I'll see it for what it is.



If I'm whistling its because I'm on my way to Alistair Reynold's million quid celebration party. Its fancy dress and I'm going as the _Time Travellers Wife_-- an SF novel that's just about keeping its head above water.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 2, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> But, JD, where are the new readers?
> 
> Doesn't any genre need a loyal fan base to survive, a fan base with young energetic support... and money to spend. And we're not talking about a recent downturn either. This slide has been going on for two decades now and only seems to be getting worse. I'm sure the video games and big budget movies will sustain SF indefinitely, but the proud SF as literature heritage is all but gone.
> 
> StarWars-StarTrek-Halo, and the rest, are perhaps keeping SF afloat right now, but so too are they dragging it down.


 
Sparrow, I'd say your perspective is far too narrow. Yes, sf is going through a serious slump for now -- it isn't the first time, though. This has happened at least three times in the history of the genre that I'm aware of, and twice during my lifetime. New readers? I see new readers constantly on these boards; I used to see them in the sff-mystery bookstore where I worked; I see them all over the internet discussing their favorite writers, old and new. It's a slump, but that's all it is, even if it lasts several decades. (See my reference to the gothic tale above. That one went through a very long hibernation, yet never really went away; and now seems to be stronger than ever.) 

As I have noted many times before, a big part of this is the ignorance concerning science these days; not just the details, but the scientific perspective, and the scientific method. Yet we are in a period in our development where the necessity of acquiring that is inevitable for our own survival. There has been a reaction against scientific thinking for some time now, due to the effect of knowledge gained on our very perceptions of ourselves and our place in the universe. Partly as a result, fantasy has been going through a considerable resurgence. This, too, is nothing new. The rationalist view of the eighteenth century spawned the gothic novel, which was in part a reaction toward the irrational, mystical, and sublime. Eventually, that evened out into the positivism of the nineteenth century, which managed to often embrace things at which their "rational" forebears would have scoffed -- at least as valid areas for investigation.

Eventually, the Gothic fell prey to its own incestuous development, and it took a very long time for it to recover from that... yet it never really disappeared, but often took strange new forms, resulting in works by writers as diverse as Mary Shelley, Edgar Allan Poe, Ambrose Bierce, F. Marion Crawford, H. G. Wells, and the originators of modern fantasy, such as E. R. Eddison, William Morris, Hope Mirrlees, H. Rider Haggard, and the like. Fantasy isn't as likely to fall prey to such insular activity, as we have a growing number of writers in the field who want to explore wider realms of fantasy than have been predominant in the last few decades.

Science fiction, on the other hand, has shown something of a reactionary trend, going back to its pulpish roots in types of stories and often conceptually, while showing some variability in the quality of writing, from utter dreck to absolutely brilliant. It is going through a prolonged transitional phase -- the longest in its history, I think -- but again we are seeing some growth of new approaches to the stuff, once again blending s and fantasy, but often in ways which have never been done before, and not infrequently producing some stunning material. (This is only one such floriation; there are others, but this is the one I've had most contact with.) In such a transitional phase, it isn't likely to appeal entirely to either the hard-line sf fan, the dilettante, or the fantasy reader who likes a spot of sf now and again... because it is a field undergoing a metamorphosis. What the end result of this particular chrysalis period will be, no one can tell; but that sf will once again find an audience (by simple dint of being just what I said in my earlier post: one of the most viable forms of modern mythopoeia, as it takes in our current understanding of how the universe really works and utilizes it to explore our dreams and longings) I have no doubt. A literature as potentially rich as sf simply doesn't "die", though it may, as I noted, go through a period of lying fallow....

And as for this bit: 



> Doesn't any genre need a loyal fan base to survive, a fan base with young energetic support... and money to spend.


 
No. It does not require "young energetic support", though such certainly can help. It can also harm, by keeping it in a more juvenile, callow state. I think you'll find that, for example, neither the mystery nor the western genres have such, yet they are still very much alive and well... they have just each undergone an enormous number of changes from the stereotype most people have of such, so that even people who read a lot of books which fall into these categories may not realize that is what they are.

What ultimately allows any genre to survive is for it to appeal to both the younger and older, more mature readers with more finely developed taste as well as experience, because that is when it leaves the "genre ghetto" where the fans hold onto it so tightly that they stifle its growth, and becomes a viable literary genre in the larger sense, appealing to afficionadoes and also to casual readers (and, eventually, even to academics). It becomes less of a "club" and more a genuine literary form with some substance. Ultimately, that is what any literary genre needs in order to survive.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 3, 2009)

On a related note to some of my comments above (and elsewhere), this:

YouTube - James Randi Speaks: Carl Sagan

Now, I've not read Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World, but from the excerpts quoted here, I couldn't agree more. I strongly believe that Carl Sagan was spot on here, and this is a building crisis we're facing, which we are still refusing to acknowledge. Eventually things are going to come to a head on this issue, and one or the other (science or superstition) is going to have to go by the board. If it is science, we'll have some problems, but science (and scientific thinking) is also a well-honed tool for solving such problems. If it is superstition, on the other hand, we're in for a world of hurt. Simple solutions to complex problems simply don't work in the long run, and usually introduce a thousand additional problems in their train. Ignorance and lack of critical thinking are our worst enemies, as they allow obfuscation, lies, and deceit to flourish rather than be weeded out as the parasitical behavior they are.

What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Well, as I noted earlier, the increasing reliance on mysticism and superstition has, I think (nor am I alone in this), a great deal to do with the faltering of science fiction in favor of fantasy. Reinstate critical thinking in the honored position it deserves, and you'll see an improvement in sf's popularity and, more importantly, in the quality of sf being written. 

Of course, in comparison to this issue, the fate of sf seems rather picayune in comparison; but one of the things to be gained from literate science fiction is its ability to aid in honing critical thinking and understanding of science and issues it addresses -- issues which affect us all daily, in one way or another; so perhaps it isn't quite as insignificant as it first appears....


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 3, 2009)

Maybe the problem is that science has failed to conquer people's subjective realities (which it was never meant to do, though some people treat it as though it were) and because of this failure, some doubt that it can, or should, rule the objective reality either. The subjective sense that there is, or ought to be, something beyond what science can explain, in terms of gods, spirituality etc -- whether this has its origin in genetics, socialisation or something else -- is too strong in many people to be overridden; the spiritual mind then sees science as the attacker, the enemy, and starts to look for alternatives even in areas where science is the only sensible way of examining things.

I think one possible route out of this might be an acceptance that objective and subjective reality needn't be (by which I mean, shouldn't be expected to be) one and the same. E.g. it is quite possible to imagine that an oak tree has a spirit that looks like an old bearded druid with leaves sticking out of his nose, and to relate to it on that level, while at the same time knowing that objectively and scientifically it has no such thing. Faeries and gods can have a useful purpose in the subjective reality, as long as they don't try to translate themselves into objective reality. On the other hand, objective science shouldn't look down on the subjective as some lesser order of reality just because it can't measure it.

Having now made myself look like a complete whacko, I shall leave.


----------



## Sparrow (Dec 3, 2009)

> JD ~Now, I've not read Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World, but from the excerpts quoted here, I couldn't agree more. I strongly believe that Carl Sagan was spot on here, and this is a building crisis we're facing, which we are still refusing to acknowledge. Eventually things are going to come to a head on this issue, and one or the other (science or superstition) is going to have to go by the board. If it is science, we'll have some problems, but science (and scientific thinking) is also a well-honed tool for solving such problems.




I'll first say I love James Randi... it's been a while since I've seen mention of him so I hope the guy is still around and kicking!.. I used to be a frequent visitor to his foundation site, but in the end I got weary of it as it's a bit of an echo chamber... because I would much rather argue.

I do not believe this is the real contest, Science vs. Superstition, if it were so easy... it is the use and abuse of science by the superstition-minded that is such a danger.  You can correct me if I'm being presumptuous, but I'm guessing we're of like mind that there is no God, and humanity is in a perilous position when so many believe in something that is ultimately powerless. Science is real power, to destroy or create, to damn or to save humanity.  What is so totally out of whack is our relationship to science and how jaded we've all become... perhaps SF has also suffered for the failure of Science to meet our expectations.

What I don't like seeing is when some folks replace one savior for another.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 4, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> I do not believe this is the real contest, Science vs. Superstition, if it were so easy... it is the use and abuse of science by the superstition-minded that is such a danger. You can correct me if I'm being presumptuous, but I'm guessing we're of like mind that there is no God, and humanity is in a perilous position when so many believe in something that is ultimately powerless. Science is real power, to destroy or create, to damn or to save humanity. What is so totally out of whack is our relationship to science and how jaded we've all become... perhaps SF has also suffered for the failure of Science to meet our expectations.
> 
> What I don't like seeing is when some folks replace one savior for another.


 
Without getting too far into territory which has become extremely contentious (and therefore likely to alienate some of the members around here) in general I tend to agree. If you have looked at some of my older posts on the subject, I am _very_ critical of religion and mysticism on these grounds, and even more so toward various superstitions not given the same cachet by our society. I also agree that science itself is our best hope, as it does deal with tackling how reality works regardless of what the adherents of any theories wish to believe; and a better understanding of that cannot help but open more genuinely viable options on our decisions and actions for the future than is the case in relying on these other avenues of "deciphering" reality.

In essence, though, this was exactly my point: we are at a juncture where the relationship of most people to science (_not_ technology, but the science which produces the technology, as well as the science which is simply said attempt to come to grips with how the universe works) has become so dysfunctional that they simply are not able to make informed decisions about most of these matters. This, in turn, spills over (to return to the topic of the thread) into their reaction to a literature which is predicated on the scientific method and critical thinking based on scientific learning.

This is not to refute what I said earlier; science fiction will survive. But the form in which it survives may be so drastically altered that one of the fundamental aspects of what has made the field what it is may be left behind or seriously altered....

HareBrain: The problem is that such an individual, subjective reality is a lesser reality in many ways, because it is based on false premises and sheer wishful thinking or mysticism. Now, there's nothing wrong with a certain degree of mystical feeling or an appreciation of the numinous; but when one feels that this is on a par with the model of reality we have based on a long, slow, painful accumulation of accurate, testable, factual data... then there is no alternative, if one is to honestly assess the situation, but to say that they are stuffed full of wild blueberry muffins. A private reality certainly has its place; but it cannot trump the real thing. Reality (with a capital R) has a nasty tendency to bite when you ignore it too long or too consistently, and it has _very_ big teeth....


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 4, 2009)

j. d. worthington said:


> HareBrain: The problem is that such an individual, subjective reality is a lesser reality in many ways, because it is based on false premises and sheer wishful thinking or mysticism. Now, there's nothing wrong with a certain degree of mystical feeling or an appreciation of the numinous; but when one feels that this is on a par with the model of reality we have based on a long, slow, painful accumulation of accurate, testable, factual data... then there is no alternative, if one is to honestly assess the situation, but to say that they are stuffed full of wild blueberry muffins. A private reality certainly has its place; but it cannot trump the real thing. Reality (with a capital R) has a nasty tendency to bite when you ignore it too long or too consistently, and it has _very_ big teeth....


 
I didn't say they were on a par with each other. I don't even think they should be compared; it would be like comparing water and fire. They are not compatible, and the problems you've pointed to might be partly because people believe there should be one model of reality that covers both the internal and external, and that the two should match exactly.

And of course the scientific model of reality should hold for the external, objective world. But I think the world would benefit from both (a) people not trying to impose their personal realities on objective reality (without applying the scientific testing process) and (b) science not judging as inferior the internal reality, which is nothing to do with it.


----------



## J-WO (Dec 4, 2009)

j. d. worthington said:


> What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Well, as I noted earlier, the increasing reliance on mysticism and superstition has, I think (nor am I alone in this), a great deal to do with the faltering of science fiction in favor of fantasy. Reinstate critical thinking in the honored position it deserves, and you'll see an improvement in sf's popularity and, more importantly, in the quality of sf being written.



This is phenomenon I've been suspecting for a while but haven't really voiced. Things are a lot more polarized these days--Your modern breed of SF authors (In my experience) don't play around with stuff like the I ching as Dick _et al_ did back in the past. As far as I can ascertain, writers like Banks, Stross, Scalzi and Macleod are pretty much in the rationalist, aetheist/ agnostic camp. All my hardline SF reader buddies are similarly minded. Would this have been the case two decades past?

While the fantasy contingent has its many rationalists (You, Sparrow, being a good example, of course) one of my F-reading mates worships the Viking pantheon and another believes in nature spirits.

Now I'm not questioning the validity of either side, as I'm aware that will insult many visitors here. I'm merely pointing out that there does seem to be an increasing theological division going on in genre, reflecting the 'Dawkinsy' (Damn I wish I had a better word for this!) zeitgeist in western culture generally. 

This is all personal observation, of course. I might well be wrong and I'll be happy for anyone to tell me so. Its the sort of thing I'd like to test in a poll/ survey but I never do due to the consternation it might cause.


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 4, 2009)

J-WO said:


> While the fantasy contingent has its many rationalists (You, Sparrow, being a good example, of course) one of my F-reading mates worships the Viking pantheon and another believes in nature spirits.


 
Do they believe these Viking gods/fairies to have any objective reality? Have they come to some accommodation with the scientific viewpoint, or is there a grey area of ultimate vagueness where this is concerned?



> Now I'm not questioning the validity of either side, as I'm aware that will insult many visitors here.


 
Anyone insulted by having their validity of their position* (non-aggressively) questioned needs to get over it. I'd go so far as to say that a general, society-wide reluctance to question the validity of another's position because they might feel insulted is dangerous.

*edit: their position on the external world


----------



## Sparrow (Dec 4, 2009)

> J-WO ~Now I'm not questioning the validity of either side, as I'm aware that will insult many visitors here. I'm merely pointing out that there does seem to be an increasing theological division going on in genre, reflecting the 'Dawkinsy' (Damn I wish I had a better word for this!) zeitgeist in western culture generally.
> 
> This is all personal observation, of course. I might well be wrong and I'll be happy for anyone to tell me so. Its the sort of thing I'd like to test in a poll/ survey but I never do due to the consternation it might cause.




Putting geopolitical divides aside, SF readership is in steep decline across the board.
SF literature is now in direct competition with video games and Hollywood, and therefore the SF community better think of another delivery method.  Why can't books be fashioned differently?.. imagine picking up a novel and opening to the first page and a voice greets you, asks you what you're in the mood for.  _The Diamond Age or, A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer_ does this and much more. If you were able to turn a book into an interactive multimedia experience beyond games and movies, similar to Neal Stephenson's invention, then we're back in business.

Returning to pulp-age SF and rehashing StarTrek ten ways to Sunday hasn't worked, perhaps it's time to turn the book on its ear.


----------



## blacknorth (Dec 5, 2009)

J-WO said:


> This is phenomenon I've been suspecting for a while but haven't really voiced. Things are a lot more polarized these days--Your modern breed of SF authors (In my experience) don't play around with stuff like the I ching as Dick _et al_ did back in the past. As far as I can ascertain, writers like Banks, Stross, Scalzi and Macleod are pretty much in the rationalist, aetheist/ agnostic camp. All my hardline SF reader buddies are similarly minded. Would this have been the case two decades past?



J-WO, between this and Sparrow's observation about science failing to deliver, I sense something I can agree with - at the very least, the beginnings of an explanation.

I think the current slump in SF goes a little deeper than previous form. I'm a science fiction nut, but you'd be hard-pressed to get me to read anything by Banks or Reynolds or Stross. And I think the reason for this is that, while they have open minds and imaginations, they're exploring a 'Dawkinsy' universe. It feels pretty cold and pretty empty to me.

Add to this a general perception that science is too often the tool of Government and corporate interests and one can see how a certain disillusion may have crept in. Among my peers there's a general perception that science represents the planet destroying, unlimited growth model so beloved of the ultra-right. And at the other extreme, there's a perception that fantasy is supportive of nature and 'super-nature' - probably because it's so frequently pre-industrial and magical. They're absurd generalisations, of course, but it's difficult to argue the point for SF without saying, oh, go back 40 years and read something by LP Davies. I certainly wouldn't point them in the direction of any of our current big authors.

And there remains the fact that 40 years on from the moon landings, the next step still seems very far away. All of the hope of promise of early science and early SF seems to be have been transformed into the quest to build cheap laptops by the million. Whereas fantasy is willing to engage with almost anything and has even moved into an industrial phase - a fact which interests me a great deal and may yet steal me away from SF.

Is it possible for a sense of wonder to become jaded?

Hell, it's 3am.


----------



## dask (Dec 5, 2009)

blacknorth said:


> Is it possible for a sense of wonder to become jaded?


 
I'm hesitant to say yes but don't read too many Doc Smith books in a row. Space 'em out or get spaced-out.


----------



## J-WO (Dec 5, 2009)

HareBrain said:


> Do they believe these Viking gods/fairies to have any objective reality? Have they come to some accommodation with the scientific viewpoint, or is there a grey area of ultimate vagueness where this is concerned?


Grey area, definitely. I wouldn't think any of them would deny evolution, say, or that the Earth goes around the Sun. But they'd probably argue that some mystical hand pushed over the first evolutionary domino, or that the Earth and the Sun are doing what they do because its a family business.


----------



## J-WO (Dec 5, 2009)

blacknorth said:


> I think the current slump in SF goes a little deeper than previous form. I'm a science fiction nut, but you'd be hard-pressed to get me to read anything by Banks or Reynolds or Stross. And I think the reason for this is that, while they have open minds and imaginations, they're exploring a 'Dawkinsy' universe. It feels pretty cold and pretty empty to me.



I love all that stuff. You know, I once had a girlfriend who believed in fairies--no kidding here--and one day I told her how we and everything around us is made from long dead stars and that when we die we'll be part of stars once more. I thought she'd love that fact. Instead she told me I was being ridiculous and to stop lying to her.
I'm not sure why I've mentioned this tale, but it always makes me smile to think of it.  To me, the 'Dawkinsy' universe is utterly beautiful. And best of all its real; how cool is that?  And there's so much room to it. Takes all sorts, I s'pose...

In the UK we're very lucky (aside from the tooth decay, of course); we've got Banks, Reynolds, Stross and so many others, real groundbreakers and storytellers williing to dance with both narrative and the universe. To be honest, from our happy little island's viewpoint its difficult to see where this SF decay outlook is coming from. We're on form. Last year, genre took 14% of all fiction sales in Britain- and Fantasy couldn't claim the Lion's share at all. 50/ 50, tops.
And India and China seem to be rising to the challenge.

Much as I hate to say this, maybe the thread should be 'why's SF dying in the US?' and that's a shame because we're talking about the nation that made it what it is, that gave SF its crazy, rock'n' roll adolesence. A friend of mine is particularly cruel on this subject, he says he won't touch US SF anymore because its caught up in 'humping the Heinlein dream'. Nasty viewpoint, but a pinch of truth there. Scalzi and Bujold are great storytellers but... I don't know.   




> Add to this a general perception that science is too often the tool of Government and corporate interests and one can see how a certain disillusion may have crept in. Among my peers there's a general perception that science represents the planet destroying, unlimited growth model so beloved of the ultra-right.



You could swap 'science' for 'religion' in that paragraph and you have the view of most my peer group, to be honest. Its science that's putting the environmental breaks on this planet (Though, admittedly, it did help build the crazy, downhill hot rod in the first place)


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 5, 2009)

Thinking of my own friends, their preference for SF/fantasy seems to follow whether they have a more scientific, "materialist" outlook, or a more "mystical" one.

My belief is that whether you're a scientist or mystic is pretty much hard-wired, much like sexuality, and just as unlikely to change. Mystics believe in pseudo-science because of an innate, overriding feeling that there must be "something else". A pure scientist just doesn't understand this: all he can say about it is that it must be weak-mindedness or wishful thinking. But I don't think you can ever get rid of this gut feeling. With an intelligent mystic, you can disprove (or demonstrate the extreme unlikelihood of) all the stuff like crop circles and alien abductions, but he will eventually retreat back to an idea such as that the whole universe is a manifestation of cosmic consciousness, to which science has no answer. A mystic who has no recourse to such a theory might easily rebel against science altogether, or choose to ignore it, because it is much easier to do this than to go against the gut instinct that the universe is not purely material. This, I believe, is partly why you have people willing to embrace Creationism, etc.

I know this thread started out as being about two branches of fiction, but it's already widened to cover the science/religion split. I'll come back to what I said before, and hopefully say it better this time. If I sound like a nutcase monomaniac, too bad. The way our culture has concentrated on objective or scientific reality has devalued inner or psychological reality, to the point where if the inner reality doesn't match the outer, the person is held to be suffering from some kind of sickness. But it is only really sickness when a person's inner reality is _used as the basis for interacting with the objective reality_. Both realities are mental constructs, but a person's construct of the objective world should match the one that science has demonstrated to be true. The inner reality needn't match - but the person should be able to differentiate them and realise which is more appropriate at a particular time. He should accept that as far as the objective world is concerned, any inner reality that differs is a game of "let's pretend"; but this has perfect validity within its own field, and is capable of satisfying the demands of the "mystic-gene" without conflicting with science's primacy in the outer, objective world.

Maybe it is wishful thinking, but I believe part of the current science/religion polarisation could be helped if it were recognised that one's inner-world and outer-world realities can validly be different, and that each has its own place.


----------



## blacknorth (Dec 5, 2009)

dask said:


> I'm hesitant to say yes but don't read too many Doc Smith books in a row. Space 'em out or get spaced-out.



heh-heh.

I fell asleep thinking about this topic and woke up this morning with an analogy in my head.

We've probably all read Pohl's wonderful story _The Gold At Starbow's End_? Well, it's almost as though what's happening with the kids on the spaceship, with their I-Ching and Mandarin poetry, and the fact they're shooting towards a fairytale star, is like modern fantasy. But what's happening back on corrupt, collapsing, corporate Earth is modern SF.

It's not quite there, but it bears thinking about.


----------



## Vargev (Dec 5, 2009)

Personally being an aspiring author myself, i believe that SF has too often looked backwards to the writings of Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke et al. While all three were undoubtedly great writers in their time, and pretty much laid the foundations for what SF should be, however SF is all about looking forwards, to the future, and what wonders that may bring. 

So I believe that it will take something "ballsy" something that doesnt play by the usual rules of SF, and doesnt try to mimick the three writers i have just mentioned and instead comes up with something new, and totally original. That will grab the reader by the "balls" and never let go until the end, only then will the reader think wow, and then through word of mouth pass on recommendations of the novel to others, as well as the usual advertising methods, and so on.

This is what i have tried to do in my novels anyway.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Dec 5, 2009)

I can resolve the whole problem:

Fairies are real.
Interstellar space travel is not.


----------



## Sparrow (Dec 5, 2009)

> J-WO ~I'm not sure why I've mentioned this tale, but it always makes me smile to think of it. To me, the 'Dawkinsy' universe is utterly beautiful. And best of all its real; how cool is that? And there's so much room to it. Takes all sorts, I s'pose...




Darwin's Universe (as I prefer to call it), utterly beautiful, and harsh.

There may be no other life for a hundred light years in every direction, but here we are, kicking ass.  Why that doesn't amaze people is beyond my reckoning.  Making Gods to make it all the more miraculous is a waste of precious time.

Perhaps SF is going through a cycle where it drops the romantic bullsh@t and folks aren't quite up to the task.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 6, 2009)

HareBrain: I'm afraid I don't agree with you there. There are numerous similar "natural bents" which have proven amenable to change, should the person have a desire to make the effort. That is where the rub comes in.

As for the "Dawkinsey"/Darwinian universe (also known as reality) -- that's just it: that universe is much grander, more mysterious, and more fascinating than any model of the universe which has come before... it just doesn't wear an exaggerated version of a human face any longer. And that, I think, is the sticking point for people making that change. They want _comfort_, not reality. They're looking for a security blanket; something the real universe doesn't seem inclined to supply. There is also the fact that a genuinely clear view of the real universe tends to deflate the human ego rather drastically, reducing not only us or our planet, but our entire solar system, to a minuscule speck in a vastness beyond comprehension. Such makes it increasingly unlikely that: a) there was ever a conscious Creator of such a universe; and b) that the creator of such a universe would concern him/her/itself overly with any single species -- certainly to the point of making the entire fate of everything depend on our behavior in certain areas (often having to do with subtilizations of our reproductive system, funnily enough); or c) that the entire history of the human race is anything more than very brief flicker in the immense pageantry of the birth, growth, and eventual extinction of life likely taking place in numerous parts of the universe. Many people simply can't deal with being reduced to something not significantly more important than an amoeba, or the idea that there is nothing out there looking out for us; our fate, if it is anyone's hands (a questionable idea to begin with), is in ours alone. That scares people.

Which, to tie this in with the whole sff thing, brings up one of the more famous quotes on such a topic, from the opening of HPL's "The Call of Cthulhu":



> The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.


----------



## con (Dec 6, 2009)

science fiction is less fashionable than fantasy.sf is seen as something nerdy and undesirable.even in childhood fantasy tales are more popular.how many children read harry potter twilght and that intrest continues fantasy is the obvious option.it is impossible in recent decades to avoid the sterotype that sf is for lack of a better word "ick".also in the less hardcore books it has limited room for expansion and innovation .a premise which does not effect fantasy.


----------



## J-WO (Dec 6, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> Perhaps SF is going through a cycle where it drops the romantic bullsh@t and folks aren't quite up to the task.



You may very well have hit the nail on the head.

*JD*- I still love that quote; its the sound of a new age of horror writing being ushered in. Though, just now, for some reason I pictured Homer Simpson reading it and going- '_Mmm_, new dark age...'


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 6, 2009)

j. d. worthington said:


> HareBrain: I'm afraid I don't agree with you there. There are numerous similar "natural bents" which have proven amenable to change, should the person have a desire to make the effort.


 
With respect, JD, you think anyone is going to _want _to crush his instinct that the universe is meaningful in favour of the proposition that it isn't? I can't see any way of bringing about that "desire to make the effort" that doesn't involve brainwashing or repression.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 6, 2009)

HareBrain said:


> With respect, JD, you think anyone is going to _want _to crush his instinct that the universe is meaningful in favour of the proposition that it isn't? I can't see any way of bringing about that "desire to make the effort" that doesn't involve brainwashing or repression.


 
Oh, we either will eventually do so, or we won't survive. Reality has a nasty habit of catching up with you, and if you ignore it long enough, it has very big teeth. And, as a species, I think we've just about run come to the end of our tether on this one. We may have a few centuries left to adjust, but we'd damn' well better start making the adjustment if we wish to survive. We can't go back without (at the very least) decimating the population; and things are only going to continue getting more complex and requiring more and more scientifically and critically informed thinking in order to continue.

I'd say the pressure to survive will eventually overcome most people's repulsion... but I could be wrong.


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 6, 2009)

But I think that's a false dichotomy. I see no *inherent* contradiction between someone having a mystical inner-reality and a scientific world-reality. Possessing the former needn't stop someone having the most scientifically and critically informed word-view around.

Of course, such people at present are vanishingly rare. But it might be that the antipathy towards (or wilfull ignorance of) science by some "genetic mystics" could be eroded by a greater sophistication in thought about objective/subjective realities, when each is appropriate, and when each is inappropriate - none of which would deny science anything.

Anyway, whether anyone agrees or not, this is the first time I've tried to get these thoughts in order, and it's been an interesting experience.


----------



## blacknorth (Dec 6, 2009)

Sorry, I always thought worship of the unknown cut both ways. The problem is the worship, not the unknown.

I am an atheist. But I regard all my reading and learning as an attempt to reserve judgement. As the years pass, the only part of me that measurably grows is self-awareness about my own ignorance. I could never tell another human being that God does not exist, or that ghosts are a figment, or that magic is wishful thinking; in the same way that I could never claim the science we have developed till now has the universe down pat. Or ever will have.

And this is my only thought about the current downturn in SF - that modern SF has closed its mind, while the practitioners of the Golden Age and the New Wave (especially) seemed rather more open. In my favourite science fiction, I always find a fusion of characterisation and technology which turns mystical becauses it induces undertanding or epiphany.

Physics feels and acts like a set of laws imposed from without. We learn them, we possibly learn to work with them, we may learn to control them. The process has developed its own mythology and fiction. But the homegrown, essentially human-derived mythology of fantasy and the supernatural is very pleasing in many ways. Nor is it imposed from without. Nor is it worthless. It strikes me as a very human response to the Dawkins set of guesses. 

And to me they are guesses because Dawkins has never been to Tau Ceti in the same way I have never seen a ghost.


----------



## Sparrow (Dec 6, 2009)

> blacknorth ~And this is my only thought about the current downturn in SF - that modern SF has closed its mind, while the practitioners of the Golden Age and the New Wave (especially) seemed rather more open. In my favourite science fiction, I always find a fusion of characterisation and technology which turns mystical becauses it induces undertanding or epiphany.




But if these writers have come to grips with a Universe that is free from supernatural intervention, and that belief is derived from a wealth of scientific-geological-anthropological-and many other scientific disciplines, it's not close-mindedness that they relate this reality in their fiction. They understand as much as we might like to brew science and the supernatural together, the resulting concoction is wholely incompatible.  The God we've come to know in the Judeo-Christian sense cannot coexist with Darwin's findings.  And while our romantic side would like there to be a world beyond this one, where justice prevails and all things equal out, it is not supported by scientific data.

These writers are only doing what comes naturally to them, boldly incorporating their SF into a dumb Universe; a universe that is without any guidance whatsoever, and that has no shared romantic sentiments for our continual survival.

I understand where you and others are coming from when you find some comfort in the mingling of science and the supernatural.  What has folks like me worried is when the supernatural is overlayed on top of science, and in many quarters it blots it out completely.

I think we humans are very egotistical in this regard, that we can create our own shared reality, one that is essentially unreal.


----------



## blacknorth (Dec 6, 2009)

Yes,, Sparrow, I agree. But there are more things in heaven and earth...

A favoured scenario: an alien spacecraft visits the Earth in the year 2350 for a cultural exchange. They say - we are most interested in studying your superstitions, your mythology, your death rituals... and we say, oh, we did away with all that crap in the 21st century - not rational enough.


----------



## The Judge (Dec 6, 2009)

blacknorth said:


> Yes,, Sparrow, I agree. But there are more things in heaven and earth...



Since Hamlet deploys the 'more things' philosophy after he has seen and spoken to a ghost, and shortly before he goes bonkers, I'm not sure how valid it is as a reasoned argument... 

J


----------



## blacknorth (Dec 6, 2009)

The Judge said:


> Since Hamlet deploys the 'more things' philosophy after he has seen and spoken to a ghost, and shortly before he goes bonkers, I'm not sure how valid it is as a reasoned argument...
> 
> J



lol, your Honour - it is _not_ a reasoned argument - it is an appeal, an exhortation, it's research and development, it's open-ended, open-minded insight.

Gura slan an scealai.


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 6, 2009)

A colonel at the breakfast table deploys the "more things" line when discussing ghosts with Michael Hordern's professor in the 1968 film of "Whistle and I'll Come to You". Hordern's professor returns with "There are more things in philosophy than are dreamt of in Heaven and Earth". Which seems pretty clever, until he goes insane after being molested by a bedsheet. Let those nay-sayers beware!


----------



## The Judge (Dec 7, 2009)

HareBrain said:


> ... he goes insane *after being molested by a bedsheet*.



The mind boggles...

J

PS Does anyone know what blacknorth said?  My erse is a little rusty... (any man -- or bear -- who makes any kind of pun out of that will receive formal Judicial Disapproval)


----------



## Sparrow (Dec 7, 2009)

_May the bearer of the news be safe_


I think Smokey the Bear, not Ursa, said it.


Go mbeannaí Dia duit


----------



## blacknorth (Dec 7, 2009)

That's a pretty topical translation, your honour, I'm willing to let it stand.

Harebrain - I appreciate the reference. Seriously, for me, what was frightening was not the sheet (never the sheet) but Michael Hordern's extraordinary response.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 7, 2009)

HareBrain said:


> But I think that's a false dichotomy. I see no *inherent* contradiction between someone having a mystical inner-reality and a scientific world-reality. Possessing the former needn't stop someone having the most scientifically and critically informed word-view around.
> 
> Of course, such people at present are vanishingly rare. But it might be that the antipathy towards (or wilfull ignorance of) science by some "genetic mystics" could be eroded by a greater sophistication in thought about objective/subjective realities, when each is appropriate, and when each is inappropriate - none of which would deny science anything.
> 
> Anyway, whether anyone agrees or not, this is the first time I've tried to get these thoughts in order, and it's been an interesting experience.


 
No, there isn't a contradiction on that level; they are actually both very important parts of the human psyche, and inevitable results of our evolutionary development. The problem, however, comes when the mystical overcomes the ability to accept solid evidence in favor of something which is either not supported by any save the most shaky evidence, or flies outright in the fact of all the evidence which we have ever accrued. The emotional tendency to appreciate the numinous is something which enriches life, but taken as a way to make decisions about what is the genuine nature of reality or not it is a recipe for disaster.

blacknorth: no, we will never find all the answers, that is quite correct. But this is no reason to accept things which contradict what we _have_ found out about how the universe works, unless they have some very good supporting evidence behind them.



blacknorth said:


> And to me they are guesses because Dawkins has never been to Tau Ceti in the same way I have never seen a ghost.


 
But they_ aren't_ guesses; a guess does not depend on evidence (or is made in reaction to very little, often misleading, evidence). They are models of the world and the universe around us based on verifiable, testable, repeatable results of experiment and evidence-gathering. When something is so finely honed that it can make the sort of accurate predictions that, say, quantum theory makes, then that is a very long way from a guess, and is much more likely to be an accurate model of the fundamental workings of the universe than any ideas which evolved in earlier periods in humanity's history, when we had neither the tools nor the experience to gather information on anything approaching this degree of precision.



blacknorth said:


> Harebrain - I appreciate the reference. Seriously, for me, what was frightening was not the sheet (never the sheet) but Michael Hordern's extraordinary response.


 
Mmmm... the problem for me here is, that they didn't present that which would make such a reaction considerably more reasonable (after all, the sheet moving in such a fashion could be someone hoaxing him) -- the fact that it presented "a _face of crumpled linen_", as James put it....

Now, before moving onto the next bit, I'd like to state (for those who aren't aware) that I have a large proportion of the mystic in my own emotional makeup, and can well appreciate all the subtleties and overtones that can add to life; otherwise, I doubt I would be the avid reader of weird fiction that I am, nor favor the type of weird fiction I do, which is concerned at least as much with awe, wonder, the sublime, and the numinous, as it is with evoking fear per se. My problem with the whole mystical thing is as stated above. On no other level do I have any complaints, nor do I feel it is something we need to get rid of.

Now, on that topic... here's a bit of strangeness: after posting those earlier comments, this morning before leaving for work, I was reading an essay by Prof. Dirk W. Mosig (now Yōzan Dirk W. Mosig), "Lovecraft: The Dissonance Factor in Imaginative Literature", in his *Mosig at Last: A Psychologist Looks at H. P. Lovecraft*. I've had this book on my shelves for some time, but not yet read it. Yet this morning, I came across the following (pardon the length, but I think you'll see why I include it):



> Although Lovecraft was obviously ahead of his time, his insights into the detrimental effects of new knowledge have not been entirely unique.[...] As [Leon] Festinger [author of A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance] points out, when two ideas are in a state of dissonance there will be pressure for one or both of them to change; when an item of information clashes with our beliefs, we can minimize the importance of the datum in question, distort the information, deny its existence, or we can change our belief. But beliefs die hard, particularly beliefs to which we have become firmly committed, and even more so if the commitment has been one that was made without sufficient justification. It is often easier to reject the dissonant information, to ridicule and downplay its importance or its validity, or to reduce the dissonance by seeking the social support of others who agree with us. There is security in numbers; the more there are who will agree with us, the less we are likely to opt for the other avenue of dissonance reduction, namely the discarding of obsolete beliefs and the acceptance of a new vision of reality. Lovecraft indeed seems to question whether most people, if not all, are _able_ to accept a highly dissonant vision of reality without "going mad from the revelation." Naturally if the threatened belief is trivial or unimportant it can be given up quite readily; but this is hardly the case with ideas which are central or critical in our existence, such as the belief in the meaninglessness of our lives and the existence of a purpose in the universe (although our acquiring such beliefs is merely the result of the accident of birth plus a process of social conditioning). Rather than discard such pivotal ideas, most peole are likely to opt for other avenues of dissonance-reduction, including insanity.
> 
> It would seem that regrettably Lovecraft was not too pessimistic in predicting the coming of a new dark age, if we regard as trends towar the latter the current and frantic fads and obsessions with security-inducing superstitions and supportive beliefs -- the renewed interest in astrology, the occult, religion, witchcraft, chemical dependencies, the paranormal, and the countless cults springing up everywhere -- all the psychological props and crutches providing cognitive _consonance_. We have all seen the sorry spectacle of masses of "believers" clinging desperately to assorted explanatory fictions and doctrines, and practicing a myriad of safety-fostering rituals.[...] Tragedies such as the People's Temple incident in Guyana and the Rancho Santa Fe case in San Diego have robbed us of the soothing and self-deceptive assumption that all such trends are essentialy harmless. An objective observer might be amused to notice how we try to reduce our own dissonance by attempting to isolate such tragic events and by providing countless "explanations" for the mass suicides. One is startled to realize that if the trend continues, the new dark age envisioned by Lovecraft (himself a scientific rationalist) may be here much sooner than he expected, and one might soberly add that although such a new era could provide safety and cognitive consonance for the masses through some level of psychological conformity, its horrors are liikely to pale those of the Middle Ages and of Lovecraft's nightmares combined.
> 
> But perhaps it is not too late yet to reverse the trend, and there is reason for hope. Certainly theories such as that of cognitive dissonance are encouraging signs, for they provide us with consistent frameworks to understand human behavior, and can serve as springboards to attempt to modify or influnce the actions of man -- perhaps the new dark age can still be averted. However insidious, automatic, or unconscious the operation of dissonance-reduction mechanisms, our awareness of their action in shaping our decisions, perceptions, and behaviors cannot but help to enhance our chances to control the direction of such changes.


-- pp. 91-93​ 
Which, essentially, is what I am arguing for here: a better understanding of the genuine knowledge about the universe enhances our abilities to make informed decisions which interact with the existing realities, rather than our wishes or hopes of what those realitie may be; and science fiction itself can be a very good tool for introducing such concepts to people in an entertaining, thought-provoking manner via using what we have learned about the universe -- as well as familiarizing people with the practice of the scientific method and critical thinking -- via dramatic storytelling and creation of modern, mythic interpretations of events.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Dec 7, 2009)

The references to personal worldviews and genre preferences here are fascinating to me because as a lifelong atheist (we actually do exist), I've found myself frequently drawn to works by writers like GK Chesterton, Gene Wolfe, Cordwainer Smith, Rusell Kirk, RA Lafferty and several others who seem to have been deeply religious and to include some form of religious apologia or parable in many of their works. I'm usually conscious of this - and sometimes annoyed or impatient, esp. when Chesterton makes one of his somewhat lame digs at atheists (like many theists, he is convinced we have a god-shaped hole in our souls; a natural belief if you believe in souls at all, I suppose) or Wolfe seems to telling a tale that is predicated largely on the notion of salvation or atonement (The Urth Of The New Sun). And yet I find that their faith somehow gives more gravitas to their tales, especially when these are tales with a horrific elements, because they have a more immediate sense of evil than many a wishy-washy festive season believer or washed-out agnostic. 

But the same gravitas can be found in writers who have a strong conviction of some kind without being theists; Lovecraft, of course, and the nihilist Ligotti. While I have my reservations about Mieville's Marxism (although less so than if he had characterised himself as a Communist rather than a Marxist) it does add a conceptual weight to some of his works. 

I suppose that like the estimable Mr. Worthington, there are mystical aspects to my psyche which govern my aesthetic choices, while in practical matters I act on reason (in so far as a flawed human creature actually can).


----------



## The Judge (Dec 7, 2009)

I'm not remotely as qualified as j.d. to comment on either the original thread question or the very interesting detour the thread is making at the moment.  Reading the Lovecroft extract, though, reminded me of a piece of research I read about how much weight people give to evidence.  Basically, a non-smoker will assess scientific evidence about the dangers of smoking as being highly credible without requiring more; a smoker will not - he will question it, look to see if he can ascribe hidden motives to the scientists, do everything but believe it readily.  This, of course, isn't necessarily a bad thing, because the evidence may be flawed, or the researchers may have been funded by rabid anti-smokers and have skewed their findings accordingly.  But ultimately the smokers won't believe it without a great deal of hammering home because it is not in their interests -- as they see it -- to do so.  The good news is, some of them do listen eventually.

J


----------



## J-WO (Dec 7, 2009)

_Dawkins On Tau Ceti _would be an amazing title for a vintage SF novel. A free smilie to anyone who knocks up a cover for it!!!


----------



## Urien (Dec 7, 2009)

It is very hard to be an intellectual blank canvas, especially north of about 35 years old. 

What TJ said about smokers is generally true: Humans are strong supporters of what they want to be true. Once an opinion or behaviour is established and fixed it is almost impossible to change that opinion or behaviour. It is part of you, a person will ignore evidence that contradicts their opinion or behaviour pattern; this is known as a disconfirmation bias. They will also seek out and exaggerate the importance of evidence that supports their existing opinion and behaviour patterns; this is known as a confirmation bias.

These patterns are deeply ingrained, an assault upon them will (at a conscious or sub-conscious level) be seen as an attack upon the individual. This is why most people become distressed if their behaviour/opinions are repeatedly challenged (no matter how politely).

Every day one moves to support one's own self-image (opinion/behaviour set). A simple example is what papers do you read? In the UK if you're left wing it's probable you read the Guardian, thus predominantly reinforcing your pre-existing opinions and reasoning, if right wing it's likely you read the Telegraph, thus reinforcing existing opinions. We seek out what reinforces who we already are, and avoid that which challenges it. Of course there are exceptions, but to change a deeply held opinion in middle age typically involves a traumatic break with your past life experience.

Quite how this moves through to entertainment preferences, books, games, TV; I don't know and haven't read a great deal of research on the subject.


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 7, 2009)

This stuff about cognitive dissonance, smoker's blindness and confirmation bias all reminds me of something I've thought for a long time, that one of the best ways forward for the human race would be to make psychology a compulsory educational subject. It can only be beneficial for people to become conscious of how they subconsciously work. If they are aware that they operate under a confirmation bias, it might be a start in getting them to question whether it's right for them to do so.


----------



## Sparrow (Dec 7, 2009)

Psychology without Philosophy would be rather useless, in my opinion.  Teach an understanding of the mind and then teach them how to think critically or at the very least give them the basics.

At anyrate, the parents groups and religious groups (usually one in the same) here in America, would come out of the woodwork protesting the inclusion of Philosophy into a high school curriculum.  They would demand "equal time" to teach the kiddies their end of philosophy.


----------



## blacknorth (Dec 7, 2009)

Oh well.

I think we forget sometimes just how dark it is for some people, how long their journey out of the darkness is, and how much of it they may bring with them, knowing or unknowing. The romantic in me wishes to believe that such a journey, made with the best of intentions, is as epic as a voyage to the stars, but social mobility and FTL drives are in short supply of late.


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 7, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> Psychology without Philosophy would be rather useless, in my opinion. Teach an understanding of the mind and then teach them how to think critically or at the very least give them the basics.


 
I agree, at least the critical-thinking and logic bits of philosophy. I also think the basics of neuroscience should be part of the psychology cirriculum.



> At anyrate, the parents groups and religious groups (usually one in the same) here in America, would come out of the woodwork protesting the inclusion of Philosophy into a high school curriculum. They would demand "equal time" to teach the kiddies their end of philosophy.


 
Sadly, I agree there too. Though I'm not sure it need be much of a problem. If the critical thinking/logic was well-enough taught, it should easily overpower the irrationality of the other side (well, OK, that's not taking into account the comfort-factor, and the external socialisation operating on the students).

One possible disadvantage I've thought of for teaching much psychology is that it eventually erodes the concept of free will, which is probably necessary for the smooth-ish running of society.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 8, 2009)

On that last point -- not necessarily. Along with the evidences against free wll in the usually accepted sense, are guidelines for making informed choices which offset the more disastrous aspects, such as relieving people of the idea that they aren't morally responsible for their actions. It's a complicated issue in dealing with how the human mind works, but the two really aren't incompatible.

As far as teaching philosophy -- I'd be for such but yes, it would meet tremendous resistance as a course in philosophy. Critical thinking, however, does not need to be a part of such a course, but can be included in almost any course, from home economics to sports to the sciences to English Lit. Critical thinking applies to just about any field you choose to mention, and therefore any field can benefit from having this included as part of the curriculum.


----------



## blacknorth (Dec 8, 2009)

Erm, sorry, it took my feeble brain about a day to process a reply, probably because it's turned so cold and wet here in the land of contractor druids.



j. d. worthington said:


> But they_ aren't_ guesses; a guess does not depend on evidence (or is made in reaction to very little, often misleading, evidence). They are models of the world and the universe around us based on verifiable, testable, repeatable results of experiment and evidence-gathering. When something is so finely honed that it can make the sort of accurate predictions that, say, quantum theory makes, then that is a very long way from a guess, and is much more likely to be an accurate model of the fundamental workings of the universe than any ideas which evolved in earlier periods in humanity's history, when we had neither the tools nor the experience to gather information on anything approaching this degree of precision.



JD - I would need to be a pretty poor reader of science fiction not to have picked up some knowledge of how science operates when evolving theories and models and proving them and so on. What I am mostly talking about, and what I should have made clearer - apologies for that - is the fiction. The weird and numinous, of which you speak, often operates largely at the proving stage, where the possibility of doubt, of the unexpected and the dramatic and the horrific, exists. If there's still 0.1 percent of a possibility of doubt remaining, then you'll find me there as a reader. To a certain extent, you'll find me there as a person too, and, to my mind, a lot of 20th century scence fiction is there. And this is where I go back to the original question of the thread - so long as science continues to prove in the manner of a joyous iconoclast, it may well be damaging the scope of its fictional arm. Whole sub-genres may have to be reclassified - it was remarked in another thread that if Faster Than Light travel is proven to be impossible then surely all SF books using it as a premise become Fantasy - its suddenly about as useful as dwarves and elves. Of course, I don't believe that for a moment, because these books are speculating about possibilities and have their place as scientific mythology regardless of proving. But I would extend the same courtesy to the weird, so long as it is frameworked by, yes, a cognitive dissonance (which is very similar to Harebrain's posts earlier).



j. d. worthington said:


> Mmmm... the problem for me here is, that they didn't present that which would make such a reaction considerably more reasonable (after all, the sheet moving in such a fashion could be someone hoaxing him) -- the fact that it presented "a _face of crumpled linen_", as James put it....



Here's something I found interesting. Years later Hordern performed a reading of the CS Lewis novel The Last Battle - when it came to the moment when Ginger the Cat enters the shed and is terrified into reverting to a dumb animal, I was forcibly struck the similarities, both in performance and theme.

Anyhow, that's all - I should quit now before I get the urge to transport any more scientists to distant stars. I can do it, y'know.


----------

