# Is science fiction in the doldrums?



## Scifi fan (Nov 30, 2008)

My friend, who owns a specialty science fiction bookstore, says that science fiction is in the doldrums, because there are no new golden age authors to excite the imagination. More importantly, there are no TV or movies in that genre to get a new generation of children interested in the genre. Science fiction was doing well when Star Trek was around, and, with the new release of the Star Wars saga a decade ago, the genre continued to do well. But not now. 

Fantasy, by contrast, is doing well, because of the Harry Potter and Narnia franchises. And the Lord of the Rings trilogy is still going on strong, both in DVD sales and renewed interest in Middle Earth. And production has begun on The Hobbit. 

As for horror, I know nothing about it, but I think Twilight is going strong, and there seems to be some strong stories in print and on TV. But I am totally ignorant about this genre. 

So, is science fiction in the doldrums? Do we need a new set of Asimov's and Heinlein's?


----------



## The Ace (Nov 30, 2008)

It can't hurt.  Science-Fiction has always been a small part of the overall market but, as in all genres, skillful plot and storytelling have given way to mindless violence  and TV tie-ins,

A new generation of authors who know how to construct a decent plotline is good news in anybody's language.


----------



## HareBrain (Nov 30, 2008)

I'll tell you why Sci-fi is in the doldrums and fantasy is doing so well.

* stands up with great big target on his chest *

People have lost hope in the future. There is no vision as there was in the Golden Age. The best anyone can seem to envision now is averting disaster. The myth of endless progress, which sci-fi thrives upon, has collapsed. Consequently we have the increased popularity of fantasy, where life may be hard but the protagonists live in a world which tends to be comfortingly bucolic and rustic (for all its rampaging hordes of monsters) and no one is under threat from carbon emissions or overpopulation.

That's my take. Fire at will.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 30, 2008)

HareBrain: I don't know as I entirely agree with all points of your analysis, but I think it's certainly close to the mark in general. I'd say it also has to do with the lack of worthwhile scientific education in general, the increasingly muddled approach in all the media as well as in schools, and an overall reaction _against_ science -- which they mistakenly blame for many of these woes -- by the populace.

This also, IMO, has to do with the confusion of "sci-fi" with "science fiction", about which much has been said. Though I've brought this essay up before, I do so again, as it seems germane to the current topic:

Harlan Ellison Webderland: Harlan Ellison on Heaven's Gate


----------



## HareBrain (Nov 30, 2008)

j. d. worthington said:


> I'd say it also has to do with the lack of worthwhile scientific education in general, the increasingly muddled approach in all the media as well as in schools, and an overall reaction _against_ science -- which they mistakenly blame for many of these woes -- by the populace.


 
I have no evidential basis on which to state the following, but what the hey, two glasses of Fitou says it's just as valuable without, so here I go.

If there is a reaction against science, I think it's only partly to do with blaming it for the world's anticipated troubles - i think that large parts of the populace have grown increasingly troubled by the way that science has recently discovered so much about the way we work that it appears incompatible with any spiritual belief - and most people, even if they don't believe in a traditional god, are unhappy with the thought that they are entirely a collection of atoms whose every action is driven by an interaction between DNA and experience.

I hadn't previously been aware of the distinction between science fiction and sci-fi, BTW - and I'm glad that the article was not about that western film starring Kris Kristofferson.

I think another "problem" with science fiction (disctinct from sci-fi) is that the primitive parts of us still want exploration and adventure in expansive new landscapes - why else did we colonise pretty much the whole planet? - and science itself seems increasingly unlikely to provide such experiences: FTL travel has come to seem less and less likely, as has the possibility of out getting the enormous sums of money together to finance any kind of space travel, let alone the chances of finding any other creatures worth interacting with in a less than ten-gabazilllion-years of travel radius of our planet.

Science has runs its course. Within ten years people will come to believe they're better off without it - as long as they can keep medicine and online videogames.

* Emergency! * * Glass empty! *


----------



## Lith (Nov 30, 2008)

Part of the problem is that science is no longer a fantasy of its own but a reality; it's lost its romantic, fantastical promise through familiarity.


----------



## Omphalos (Nov 30, 2008)

Can't say as I don't agree with a lot that has been said here, but I think that there is one other phenomenon that is worth talking about.  SF has been flailing around for the last decade-and-a-half or so, looking for a rallying banner around which authors can gather.  Cyberpunk is not dead because authors are still using those tropes in the stories that they write, but it sure is not the unifying force in SF that it once was.  Since the decline of cyberpunk it looks to me like post-human had an aborted start, and steampunk may have had a little boost, but right now there is nothing out there that unifies the genre in the way that cybperpunk did, or the New Wave before it, or the Golden Age, and so on.  

Fantasy, it seems to me (and I should say that I am a follower of fantasy from the outside - I really dont read it too much) is generating significant work in a number of sub-sets, particularly urban and dark fantasy.  

Now there may be a number of reasons for this, some of which I think you guys have hit on already.  But IMHO this is one of the core problems in the genre right now.


----------



## Urien (Nov 30, 2008)

By far the strongest part of SF right now appears to be space opera. Folk seem to like epic, rather than a close focus on a small change in tech and the problems it might bring. Incorporated in much of this space opera is the man-machine-genetic melding which appears to be almost taken for granted. Morgan, Asher, Banks, Reynolds and Hamilton all show similar characteristics.


----------



## Scifi fan (Dec 1, 2008)

The problem with sci fi is that there is just no good story teller who can tell a good story with a sci fi twist. I don't know if Asimov's robot stories have an earlier predecessor in Shaekespaere, but he did know how to intrigue the intellect with his Laws of Robotics. Same with Arthur C. Clarke. Or Robert Heinlein. 

I don't see anyone exciting the general public today.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 1, 2008)

Some good thoughts here -- and yes, I tend to agree that the reaction against science also has to do with it getting closer and closer to describing a universe in which any form of deity is neither necessary nor particularly desirable philosophically.

As for the space opera aspect... I'd put that down to the fact that the popular media have made the mistake of seeing all sf in that light for the past several decades (with some rare exceptions), therefore building that sort of expectation in the broader audience. People who have read sf most of their lives know differently, but the general audience does not. (This also ties in with my plaint about the general dumbing-down of the movie and television audiences via presenting little but colorful, action-fraught pabulum for their fare, but that's a tirade for another time.)

And yes, I also agree that the fact there is no "unifying front" on the horizon plays its part as well. That may, in turn, have to do with the general feeling of malaise and impotence prevalent in so many areas of life today. At least with the New Wave, though they were frequently of a darker, "cautionary tale" cast, there was a genuine feeling of energy, something of a faith that we did have the power to choose which future to follow, and an (admittedly somewhat wry) optimism in the human spirit at the end of the day.

Nowadays, the sf I see that has any sort of optimism seems to almost be reactionary, harking back to the Golden Age vision without the frequent _naiveté_ concerning science so prevalent in that period; a _naiveté_ which was also apparent (in retrospect) when it came to the more extreme forms of socialistic reforms.

However, I do think that an improvement in science education -- not only the facts of science, but an understanding of its nature and relation to our lives -- would make a tremendous difference not only where sf is concerned, but in our views of the world (and our place in it) in general, most likely for the better, as a better understanding of the natural world improves our ability to make better, more realistic decisions without suffering the enormous disillusionment which so often follows on disappointed expectations based on more _un_realistic views....


----------



## Scifi fan (Dec 1, 2008)

I'm not convinced science education is needed for writing good science fiction. I think English literature (or any kind of literature) is more important. There is a debate, notably between Harlan Ellison and Isaac Asimov, as to whether scientific accuracy is needed in writing good science fiction. I think there must be at least some good science, but not all.


----------



## Lobolover (Dec 1, 2008)

Horror is going _strong_?In what country?Here,ive yet to even come across an own horror SHELF,not to mention theres always a _whole _shelf *specificaly *dedicated to Stephen King.From what I heard Joshi thinks about him,and what ive read of his stories summary vise-I DONT wanna read him.But theres either the several milion King boks or the several billion no name space opera science fiction stories with ultra pulp covers to choose from,same goes for fantasy-I dont wanna read LOTR,It may be beter then how its made out to be,but I know whats going on in there at least,and im not interested.I dont wanna read things about "warring armies","half-elves" and "characters not being like the used to be (in the last volume)" all in one book.I have a blurb of exactely one such book in th shelves.

I like SF when it was made,like the Time Machine,I like the old stuff,I DESPISE "shiny spaceships" with character "relationships",being just "thing happen today used with slightly altered background and of no importance or enjoyability".


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 3, 2008)

Scifi fan said:


> I'm not convinced science education is needed for writing good science fiction. I think English literature (or any kind of literature) is more important. There is a debate, notably between Harlan Ellison and Isaac Asimov, as to whether scientific accuracy is needed in writing good science fiction. I think there must be at least some good science, but not all.


 
No, but it is the mindset against scientific understanding that I'm referring to; and a better education in science (especially understanding the methods and philosophy of science) would remove that obstacle. That is something Harlan himself has frequently complained about. The nuts-and-bolts details are one thing; but the general approach of science, where it comes from, how it got where it has, how it relates to the real world, and why it is actually much more effective in understanding the world (and the universe) than the current tendencies toward neo-mysticism... _this_ is necessary for an appreciation of science fiction, as in its basic attitudes it is a very _humanistic_ branch of literature, in either the newer waves or the old.


----------



## QSR Joshua (Dec 3, 2008)

In the doldrums? How do you figure that?

According to IMDB the top ten grossing movies of all time in the US are:

*1.* Titanic (1997) $600,779,824
*2.* The Dark Knight (2008) $530,258,989 
*3.* Star Wars (1977) $460,935,665   *
4.* Shrek 2 (2004) $436,471,036 
*5.* E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) $434,949,459 
*6.* Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) $431,065,444   *
7.* Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) $423,032,628   *
8.* Spider-Man (2002) $403,706,375   *
9.* Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) $380,262,555   *
10.* The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) $377,019,252

When I look at that list I see at least 5 SF films, 6 if you count The Dark Knight. (Yes, like it or not Spider-Man is SF.)

In addition there are a number of TV shows currently in production that have a science fiction theme, this despite the networks attempts to kill them with bad plotting and no support. Also, when I walk into a book store I still marvel at the display space SF gets. I remember the days when it was relegated to the back of the store and I didn't even have to move to see all the titles.


----------



## Scifi fan (Dec 3, 2008)

The superhero genre is doing well, yes, and I agree it is SF. I was referring to the mainstream SF, like go to outer space, travel in time, and so on.  Revenge of the Sith was a blockbuster, but, after that, SF faded away. 

I don't know the numbers, and I thank you for providing it, but Sith was just one movie, and, by itself, couldn't bring any great spark to the SF community. Of course, Sith was OK as a movie, but not that great a story, so there wasn't really any spark to it. 

You made a good point about superheros, bud.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 3, 2008)

There is also a rather large discrepancy between the two media. I'd also point out that the majority of the "sf" films listed are either "sci-fi", adventure films with a fantastic element, or outright fantasy, rather than science fiction....


----------



## Lobolover (Dec 4, 2008)

QSR Joshua said:


> The Dark Knight. (Yes, like it or not _Spider-Man_ is SF.)



Hmm,this......is too easy


----------



## Vladd67 (Dec 4, 2008)

The trouble is a lot of shops seem to think Science fiction has to have the word Star in the title somewhere. Also to thrive it has to lose the geek fanboy obsesive image and let people realise the serious adult storytelling that exists out there. Take for example Iain Banks who has produced his sci fi books under the name Iain M Banks because heaven forbid the readers of his 'normal' books would ever dream of touching a sci fi novel, after all sci fi is just for geeks and freaks it isn't proper literature now is it, rant over going to lie down now


----------



## Scifi fan (Dec 4, 2008)

I think science fiction was respectable when it was commercially successful. The Star Trek: Next Gen era and, following that, the Babylon 5 era were good ones, and there was excitement in the air. Now, there doesn't seem to be anything to excite the imagination. 

Maybe I'm just getting old.


----------



## Parson (Dec 4, 2008)

Good stories and good breaks will make for a resurgence in SF and Scifi and horror et. al. It is good English (for the English speaking world) and superior stories, not science education which will pull SF out of the supposed doldrums. [Which I think might be more in the eye of the beholder than real. Any statistics to back up this thread?]


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 4, 2008)

I don't have statistics _per se_ at hand, but I worked in a specialty sff bookshop and knew the owner for several years before that and, going from the fact that the majority of such have now been driven out of business and what he and others in that field noted:

a) the fantasy and horror far outsold sf for some years past;
b) the remaining business went largely to chain stores, narrowing the selection to much more mainstream items even within the genres;
c) the majority of such chains tend to stock considerably more fantasy than sf in nearly all cities around the US;

put this all together, and it's a pretty good indication that the trend is away from sf into fantasy and other realms less demanding of an understanding of science and the scientific worldview. (And yes, there have been several drawing the corollary between the growth of mysticism and the decline of scientific education and the gradual deterioration of sf for the past two decades or more....)


----------



## Scifi fan (Dec 4, 2008)

I agree with Parsons - good story telling is first and foremost the key to reviving science fiction. Good science is secondary.

I'm a sci fi fan, by the way, not a fantasy fan. I've never really been into fantasy.


----------



## Connavar (Dec 4, 2008)

SF needs to get bigger atleast sales wise a LOTR sf movie.  Someone that gets a great SF book and creates a great movie that shows the potential of a good SF story and not just another Sci FI adventure/action with any ideas,real good story.  

A modern Blade Runner that isnt a BO failure. 

People might not start reading the genre in masses but it would get more credit in mainstream.  Look at comics.  They were for kids only years ago and now are as mainstream as can be.

But i dont really care as long as SF books surivives enough to be able to get the books.   I didnt become a fan because of any other medium.  I wanted the ideas social,science anything as long its a good story.

It can be a 10 times smaller than Fantasy as long genre bookstores still has place for them in the shelfs.   The shelfs in my bookstore is 60% fantasy and 40% SF.  Thats more than enough.  

Speaking about the golden age talk,the state of current SF sales dont have anything to do with critical appeal.  Most sf books today or of old would be unknown if it was only about sales numbers.


----------



## QSR Joshua (Dec 4, 2008)

Scifi fan said:


> The superhero genre is doing well, yes, and I agree it is SF. I was referring to the mainstream SF, like go to outer space, travel in time, and so on.  Revenge of the Sith was a blockbuster, but, after that, SF faded away.
> 
> I don't know the numbers, and I thank you for providing it, but Sith was just one movie, and, by itself, couldn't bring any great spark to the SF community. Of course, Sith was OK as a movie, but not that great a story, so there wasn't really any spark to it.
> 
> You made a good point about superheros, bud.



Personally I am amazed that the movie did as well as it did. Lucas did more to single handily kill the Star Wars universe than I thought was possible. I waited all those decades for Jar Jar?

Science Fiction goes through cycles like everything else. There have been other good films (by film standards, not necessarily by mine) that have a SF theme that didn;t make the list but did well. Will Smith seems to prefer making SF adventure films so he can go for the FX, and the sequel to Independence Day is coming up. Also, Star Trek should be revitalized with Abrams at the helm, at least as far as popular culture is concerned. He probably won't please the Trekkies, but if the story is good and the action not too over the top I will be content.

We aren't about the popular culture here, we are the cutting edge. SF as a niche was popular with publishers because they could garauntee sales. As there is more competition now than then things don;t work the same, but Sturgeon's Law still applies. Don't let the fact that the 90% is all you are seeing now, the cream is still there.


----------



## Parson (Dec 5, 2008)

j. d. worthington said:


> I don't have statistics _per se_ at hand, but I worked in a specialty sff bookshop and knew the owner for several years before that and, going from the fact that the majority of such have now been driven out of business and what he and others in that field noted:
> 
> a) the fantasy and horror far outsold sf for some years past;
> b) the remaining business went largely to chain stores, narrowing the selection to much more mainstream items even within the genres;
> ...



I do believe that SF etc. is not selling as well as before. But I think that the mom & pop book store is going the same way as the mom and pop hardware store. What they sell and their service is much appreciated by some loyal customers, but the bulk of the customers went to Wal Mart, Target, Barnes & Nobles, Borders, et. al. where the offerings were more homogenized, the setting more corporate, and King Dollar more worshiped. 


I would posit that along with the growth in mysticism which might account for some of the growth in Fantasy there is also the whole "amusing ourselves to death" syndrome. Some of the best SF writers, CJ Cherryth and Alstair Reynolds come immediately to mind, write in a way that makes you engage your brain and think along with them. Not typical entertainment in the mindless sort of way that seems to be in vogue.  Take Reality TV --- PLEASE!!!! ---


----------



## Scifi fan (Dec 5, 2008)

I agree that Wal Mart has destroyed a lot of mom and pop shops, but many of these specialty stores can offer expertise that Wal Mart minimum-wage slaves cannot. In our example, my friend has knowledge of science fiction and of what I enjoy reading - Wal Mart's employees would never have that kind of customer service.


----------



## Saeltari (Dec 5, 2008)

I would posit that sci-fi is still there but currently in an altered state. 

For example, James Rollins comes to mind as what could be termed a 'light' sci-fi author in a way. 

His recent books have pushed the envelope but have a scientific basis, he is considered a thriller writer but I bet he isn't the only one who is treading in the shallows of sci-fi.

And for movies, if a movie comes out that focuses on story and character instead of SFX and blatant stupidity then I think the genre could get a kick in the butt.

The Day the Earth Stood Still is coming out soon and I think that is sci-fi?


----------

