# Science Fiction Rut Season?



## Serendipity (Oct 17, 2014)

I had one of those serendipitous moments... basically I now understand why science fiction has got itself into a rut. All the reasoning looks sound and the timing of events fit.

But before I went into it 'in public', I wanted to see what the experts here at Chrons thought.

Is science fiction writing in a rut?

If so, why do you think it is in a rut?

PS I'm not talking about fantasy.


----------



## Parson (Oct 17, 2014)

I would say that S.F. is in a rut, but it is not all in a rut. A lot of those things that are in a rut are because (1) Publishers & the public like predictable sequels. (2) A lot of the believable S.F. scenarios have been done, and often over and over. i.e. the aliens are godlike; the aliens are the personification of evil; the aliens are more or less our equals. (3) a lot of what would have passed for S.F. decades ago, is now advertised as popular novels. *Coma* and *Flowers for Algernon *come immediately to mind.

I do believe that the rise of indie books and ebooks has a real possibility of changing this. If you don't have to have a publisher or (less happily) an editor, then there is the potential of writing some more original stuff. *Wool *by Hugh Howey could not find a traditional publisher until it was an ebook wonder.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 17, 2014)

Cos Asimov, AC Clarke, PK Dick Harry Harrison  etc are dead?
I dunno. Is it in a rut? I used to read more SF (1960s to 1980s) now I seem to read more Fantasy. There is little or none in Cinema or TV, but that's always been true. How much is getting published?


----------



## J-Sun (Oct 17, 2014)

The 800 page young adult trilogy of faux-literary dystopian posthuman ecotastrophe steampunk stuff? No, no rut at all there.

Why? Lots of reasons: all the publishers have been collapsed into a handful of giant entities looking to score with every novel being consistent Product, counterbalanced only by a flood of amateurish indie stuff with little middle ground. All the editors have been doing it a looong time or are not very good. The internet. The lack of interest in short fiction, especially cutting-edge innovative short fiction of actual substance vs, pandering to the critical crowd. Technology in society at large being nothing but a cycle of smaller or bigger phones and tablets and similar crap vs. actual breakthroughs and a commitment to exploration and the future and grand visions. And a generalized weakening in the West leading to a retreat from both the real present and possible futures. Etc. and so on und so weiter.

So what was your epiphany?


----------



## tinkerdan (Oct 18, 2014)

This is not really a new thought. Throughout the decades there have been resurgences of something similar that would go under the headings of Who killed science fiction or is science fiction dead.

http://www.sfwriter.com/rmdeatho.htm
here's one example from 1991
There was a group effort and may have started with this fellow back in 1961:: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Kemp

There was at least one certain gentleman who tried to point the finger at Robert Heinlein-we won't mention names.

It was around the time the trad magazines for SF were in a downturn and of course since that was the push-off spot for most talent it seemed like an imminent death.

Anyway; what you seem to describe sounds more like a reader rut, which I have felt in the past myself on occasion.

It's more a self imposed thing based on the amount of selectivity placed on what the reader perceives as Science Fiction. The tighter the definition for Simon Pure science fiction the more likely it becomes that the reader will run out of the Purest and begin to fall into a rut of few and far betweens that cause a malaise to fall upon the Purists.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 18, 2014)

Serendipity said:


> Is science fiction writing in a rut?



I'm curious - in which way do you think it's in a rut?

Not enough science? Not enough ideas? Not enough characterisation? Not enough focus on story over idea? 

Not enough dinosaurs?


----------



## Mirannan (Oct 18, 2014)

The usual; not enough imagination. Even with today's technology, surprises arise that nobody could have predicted. A couple of random examples:

Segment on the BBC programme "Click" about technology which has a new(ish) art form being followed in London. Essentially, it's an interactive play that has the "audience" running around all over London following clues sent to their smartphones.

Vapouriser shops. As little as 3 years ago, e-cigarettes were almost a medical device; they were also very expensive and needlessly copied the look of real cigarettes, and they weren't all that readily available. Now, there are several shops selling nothing but vapourisers and the liquid to put in them, on every High Street in Britain. And most of the ones in use look nothing like cigarettes, any more. And they're cheap, too.

Notably, AFAIK they are usually called vapourisers rather than e-cigs, too - probably because most of them look nothing like cigarettes.


----------



## Vince W (Oct 18, 2014)

Do you mean rut or just not enough science fiction you relate to?

It may be more a case of the later than the former. I know I don't particularly like the push for YA sf simply because it doesn't appeal to me (I include steampunk in this as well). Not because it is inherently of less quality (although that may be the case). There are still writers who publish sci fi that I do very much enjoy, perhaps not as many as when I was younger, but as J-Sun says the publishing industry doesn't takes the risks it used to. It wants a proven winner every single time.


----------



## tinkerdan (Oct 18, 2014)

If we are really challenging the fiction itself and thereby the authors as far as content then I think that we would have to include a close look at the publishers.  I, unfortunately, also think that we'd have to separate the study from the self-published because of the glut which would tend to increase the tendency in a decline because of uncontrolled writing. Self-publishing would likely inject what could be considered false negatives because of, again, the glut. 

Looking at traditional publishing and the quantity of Science Fiction as being both a factor of what the market will bear and what the publishers can feasibly publish within a year without extending themselves too far we reach that touchy point of why not everything that is well written gets published. Since the publishers are the  ones with the finger on the pulse of the world that reads science fiction one would believe they would know what the market wants and needs and they would be serving the public with those demands. 

This brings us full circle to the reader and so the rut you speak of seems to reside heavily in the reader's arena.

Fear not though because now you can add that layer of self-published and dive in feet first or head first: whatever. Now you can sort through whats there to find what you need to pull you out of your rut.

The problem with great ideas that might be imagined is that they must be accompanied by stellar writing and meticulous character development or it all falls flat. Again this is where the self-published become helpful because if you sort through by great new ideas and try reading some of those you might get a sense as to why some of them haven't been published traditionally; to help you out of your rut. But, for some people, that requires that they start sorting somewhere where they fear treading and some won't want to do so; so my answer to them is that then you are stuck with what the market bears.


----------



## Serendipity (Oct 19, 2014)

Brian Turner said:


> I'm curious - in which way do you think it's in a rut?
> 
> Not enough science? Not enough ideas? Not enough characterisation? Not enough focus on story over idea?
> 
> Not enough dinosaurs?



In a sense it's all of these. There is a lot of science that has not been covered in science fiction, which would lead naturally onto ideas, characterisation (i.e. how people react to the 'new' science and ideas) and story.

As for dinosaurs, are you referring to the Brontosaurus?


----------



## Serendipity (Oct 19, 2014)

Many thanks for all you replies... a lot of you said, and I do agree, that publishers these days tend to publish stories close to what has sold well before. After all, they have to stay in business, and with the recent recession, it's been harder than ever for them. 

But, in my opinion, this is not the whole story. Authors also have to survive. They have a stark choice. Writing full time means giving their market (i.e. the publishers) what they want, which is similar to what is already published. Writing with a day job, which means writers don't have the time to improve their craft or come up with more innovative ideas. Either way, it means the variation for the readers just is not there from the 'professional' publishers.

I know there are a lot of indies these days, but unless a writer has good marketing skills or is extremely lucky, they will not get noticed because of the deluge of indie publications.

There is, again in my opinion, a third factor at play. We have now been in this situation long enough for science fiction cliques of specialism to have built up. They promote (and why not? - it's what they are interested in) and encourage writing in their specialisms. This means writers looking around for something to write tend to be encourage through publicity, competitions, anthology subjects, whatever, to write about certain subjects. 

Looking at the timings in the history of science fiction publishing, it can been seen that one factor encourages another that encourages the original. In other words there is what the engineers call a feedback loop going on here. It's this feedback loop that I would call the rut. 

What do you think about this? Do you agree? If not, what don't you agree with? If you do agree, how do we get out the rut?


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 19, 2014)

Buy the books of all the new SF writers here?

(I'm not published yet so not not yet  )


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 20, 2014)

In a 1990s interview William Gibson called it The Golden Ghetto.

Lots of people who think they can write also believe they can come up with science fiction stories to make money.

So we get drivel like *The Hunger Games*.

Andre Norton could write, but once I got to high school I didn't think very much of her science fiction stories even though she could write better than Mack Reynolds.

What do SF readers want?

psik


----------



## tinkerdan (Oct 20, 2014)

I see what you are saying and agree with the spirit of it but I'm not sure that it all works out that way.



Serendipity said:


> Many thanks for all you replies... a lot of you said, and I do agree, that publishers these days tend to publish stories close to what has sold well before. After all, they have to stay in business, and with the recent recession, it's been harder than ever for them.
> 
> But, in my opinion, this is not the whole story. Authors also have to survive. They have a stark choice. Writing full time means giving their market (i.e. the publishers) what they want, which is similar to what is already published. Writing with a day job, which means writers don't have the time to improve their craft or come up with more innovative ideas. Either way, it means the variation for the readers just is not there from the 'professional' publishers.
> 
> I know there are a lot of indies these days, but unless a writer has good marketing skills or is extremely lucky, they will not get noticed because of the deluge of indie publications.



Let's remove disregard the self published which means I'm asking you to disregard me. Look at the traditional published. There are several very good traditional authors I read that still produce great stuff and some of them still have a day job because they don't make a lot doing this. The important thing in all of this though is that it's not really the great new ideas that the publishers are buying as much as the good writing. If someone writes well and writes about something new, even though it has no trend yet, if the author is established there is a good chance it will be published. Conversely, and this is where I might fall into agreement with you, a newer traditionally published author might be more inclined to write what the agents and publishers suggest is selling. Still, the real limiting factor is that they need to write well.




Serendipity said:


> There is, again in my opinion, a third factor at play. We have now been in this situation long enough for science fiction cliques of specialism to have built up. They promote (and why not? - it's what they are interested in) and encourage writing in their specialisms. This means writers looking around for something to write tend to be encourage through publicity, competitions, anthology subjects, whatever, to write about certain subjects.
> 
> Looking at the timings in the history of science fiction publishing, it can been seen that one factor encourages another that encourages the original. In other words there is what the engineers call a feedback loop going on here. It's this feedback loop that I would call the rut.
> 
> What do you think about this? Do you agree? If not, what don't you agree with? If you do agree, how do we get out the rut?



Writing canned material based on a subject or theme is not limiting the new ideas and innovation. Once again the writing must be good and when someone promotes a theme or anthology they do want it to fit the category-but I can't see how that limits the imagination; in fact it might stimulate it a bit for some authors to fit into this framework their own bit of strangeness. At best what the editors are looking for is a little taste of that author within their theme with an expectation of getting the best out of them both in writing and imaginative creativity. In fact, my guess would be if they all came up with the same old same then some of them would not be making any money off the ordeal as they might not get published.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 20, 2014)

psikeyhackr said:


> So we get drivel like *The Hunger Games*.



What do you look for in a science fiction novel?


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 20, 2014)

Brian Turner said:


> What do you look for in a science fiction novel?


My answer would be the same as in any other fiction genre - good ideas and good writing.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 21, 2014)

Brian Turner said:


> What do you look for in a science fiction novel?



If the author claims it is a "science" fiction story then I want a good story with science/technology interwoven into the story in a significant manner.  Admittedly there are degrees of this and just as tea or coffee can be strong or weak and at some point I do not like it when it is too weak.  I can't really say I have encountered any SF that is too strong just stuff that has a lot of techy words used stupidly but those usually have crappy stories also.

*The Hunger Games* is below my threshold on the strength of the science but I regard the story as pretty shallow also.

As a different example I would say the *Mountains of Mourning* by Lois McMaster Bujold is another story that is weak on the science/technology but it is a really good story in my opinion.  But it exists within the context of the Vorkosigan series so anyone reading the series is aware of more backfround.  Both stories score low with my SF density program but it cannot evaluate the quality of a story but I never claimed or implied that it could.

*Falling Free* if about the hardest SF story that Bujold has written but *Mountains of Mourning* is a better tale.  *Falling Free* seems kind of superficial 50s sci-fi though there is more sex than would usually be in 50s stuff.  I consider *Komarr* to be the best combination of science and story with great characters.  It is interesting in that the entire story depends on the development of some new technology affecting Bujold's version of wormhole physics.  The story delivers the same message as Tom Godwin's *The Cold Equations*, but it is not as stark and in your face because of the longer and more complex plot with more characters.  *Komarr* scores third among Bujold's books with my program but *Brothers in Arms* only beats it because it uses the word 'clone' so much.  Clone triggers the limit counter and is ignored 2/3rds of the time.

But in general I expect 'science' in my sci-fi or it can be a great story but not SF or weak SF.

psik


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Oct 21, 2014)

I guess Sci fi does have it harder as opposed to fantasy...


Though on a personal opinion scale, fantasy is falling as well. The trend for it is now either grimdark or urban, neither of which perks my own interest.


With sci fi we get post apocalyptic. I really think that on mainstream, space-age is just about done. It burst to seeming in the 50s and 60s, following the launch of Sputnik and the U.S.'s moon landing. But we never really returned in such a deep, meaningful manner; we have orbital space stations and satellites, and the only time astronauts or cosmonauts ever head up above the atmosphere is to repair those things. The S in NASA is dead, and there was a time when NASA was the leading agency for space missions. Now it's turned over to the Russians, and considering I don't live in Russia, nor know anybody from Russia, I do not know how well the Russian market for sci fi is.


The public likes what it can relate to, and to what its fears are. People can relate to disease and war because that is what the world experiences. The population have imagination enough to think on scenarios where society collapses due to massive deaths through starvation, sickness, and warfare. Why write about living on Mars? It's never been done before. We don't know how it would go. The population can't imagine that kind of scenario for themselves very well.


It's tragic, but we need more imagination in the population. Looking back on things growing up, and even more modern, recent stuff, I realized some things.


I believe hardly anyone is thinking big enough. Bradbury, for instance, had sci fi that at least mentioned Jupiter and Saturn. More modern, Whedon's show Firefly dealt with elsewhere in this galaxy, but simply mentioned it was impossible to leave it.


Lucas had it right with Star Wars in that kind of sense, I believe. (Though it is being referred to as science fantasy, which I will accept.) In a galaxy far, far away. Roddenberry had Star Trek. But those are all very old series and ideas. Farscape sent the main character to the other end of the universe. That was an idea I felt was something to keep. Sliders, though a rather cheesy show to be honest, dealt with alternate timelines, parallel universes. Again, an idea that could be brought up again. But neither of these last two are relatable enough, it seems...


The bottom line is, without more imagination and intelligence in the population, at all points of the circle, I don't think we're going to get very much further. It's tragic, really.


By the way, that is always something that has gotten to me...why do readers want relatability in what they read and watch?


----------



## Vince W (Oct 21, 2014)

psikeyhackr said:


> *The Hunger Games* is below my threshold on the strength of the science but I regard the story as pretty shallow also.



Well below I'd say. I don't consider these types of books science fiction at all, but rather teenage fantasy. Bad ones at that.



psikeyhackr said:


> But in general I expect 'science' in my sci-fi or it can be a great story but not SF or weak SF.
> 
> psik



I don't require valid theories or any sort of real science (it's nice where there is though), but the trend seems to be to use a fantasy setting with a few sf flourishes. So it hardly qualifies as sf in my book.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 21, 2014)

Karn Maeshalanadae said:


> The S in NASA is dead, and there was a time when NASA was the leading agency for space missions. Now it's turned over to the Russians, and considering I don't live in Russia, nor know anybody from Russia, I do not know how well the Russian market for sci fi is.



I think sci-fi readers need to be REALISTIC in that reality is not science fiction.

Almost all of the rocket stories of the 40s, 50s and 60s implied that getting into space would be a lot cheaper than it turned out to be.  Even so I think NASA should have had robots prospecting the Moon for nearly 10 years by now.  I think any Mars mission is a dumb idea even though I consider Robinson's *Mars* trilogy to be really great.  If there is any life on Mars it has been there for millions of years and will be there for the next 1,000.

Science fiction is not an excuse to be stupid.  It can be a mind expanding thought experiment.

Lois Bujold is quite popular in Russia as far as I can tell.  LOL

http://lavka.lib.ru/bujold/index.htm

I do not know how big the SF market there is compared to the US.

psik


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Oct 21, 2014)

There was plenty of naivety in the rocket era, to be sure. But it was also the golden age of space-age sci fi. I'd say it died out after the sixties, to be replaced more with space station type and less focus on planet landings.


People just aren't interesting in universe exploration as much anymore, or rather, this is a time when new readers aren't, so therefore, publishers and new authors aren't, either. They only want what's happening on Earth.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 21, 2014)

Karn Maeshalanadae said:


> They only want what's happening on Earth.



But they can't comprehend the physics of skyscrapers.

psik


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Oct 21, 2014)

No, perhaps not, but it's still what they desire. Why do you think everything is zombies? 


It's a scenario in the sci fi world I am not too terribly thrilled to see. I'm surprised people have the presence of mind to be able to imagine what the dead rising from their graves would be like.


Even in movies, though, modern alien sci fi just doesn't seem to have any thought put into it. (Okay, so I'm going off of Prometheus here as well as AvP, but hey. They were terrible.)


I hope Interstellar will be a good sci fi movie. I think it will be.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 21, 2014)

psikeyhackr said:


> in general I expect 'science' in my sci-fi



How much science do you actually need? 

An interesting idea that stands out by itself, with no explanation?

Or an interesting idea, that requires a novel to explain why the idea is interesting?

For example, when people talk about Asimov, I see discussion about his ideas, but very little interest in his characters. If you already know the three laws of robotics, then is it really worth bothering to read the Robot series of stories? 

Am simply curious to know your opinion, as I appreciate you come from a more hard-sf interest.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 21, 2014)

Brian Turner said:


> For example, when people talk about Asimov, I see discussion about his ideas, but very little interest in his characters. If you already know the three laws of robotics, then is it really worth bothering to read the Robot series of stories?
> 
> Am simply curious to know your opinion, as I appreciate you come from a more hard-sf interest.



I thought I explained that as well as it can be explained in the post.  I gave examples with *Komarr* and *Mountians of Mourning*.  I do not know if you have read those.

On the subject of Isaac Asimov there is lots more to him than the Laws of Robotics.  His *Foundation series* greatly altered my perspective of history.  If you read his biography you will see he considered becoming a historian as a teen.  The story *Nightfall* isn't just about astronomy it is about mass psychology.  The story *Profession* is about education and neuro-physiology even though it is from before cheap computers and MRI scans.  He could envision what would be coming with greater knowledge of the workings of the brain.

Science is not just rockets and electronics.

http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/funtheyhad.html

He wrote 200 years ahead of his time.  I think you are putting me into to narrow a box.

But on the subject of characterization in his works I do not think Asimov was all that good.  But I do not think it is because he could not have been better if he wanted to.  I do not think he regarded that as the point of his stories.  I have had someone tell me that Asimov could not write.  The trouble is that too many "literary people" expect to tell everyone what to read.  It does not take much observation to see that it is science and not literature that has changed the world in the last 100 years and it will not stop.

If I was discussing a work of Asimov's I do not think I would discuss his characters either.  I wonder if he would.

If you care about the characters far more than about the science and ideas, that is fine and that is YOUR business.  Bujold is one of the few authors that has gotten me to be interested in the characters very much.

psik


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 21, 2014)

psikeyhackr said:


> I think you are putting me into to narrow a box.



Apologies, it wasn't intended to sound like a criticism - what I meant is that my reading has narrowed into epic fantasy, so I'm not all that well read on science fiction - especially the more hard-sf where science is a direct feature.

Hence I asked my questions specifically to you because I was genuinely interested in your personal opinion - not least in wondering how it might apply to my own fledgling writing. 

I personally go for mentioning ideas, rather than trying to explain them. I enjoyed _Foundation_ where Hari Seldon was involved as a character - but was never really gripped by the rest of the series.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Oct 21, 2014)

Am I the only one that finds the combination of the word "rut" with "season" provocative?

(If it *is* the rutting season, shouldn't there be a time in the next year when whole litters of new baby ideas are born.)


----------



## Serendipity (Oct 21, 2014)

Foxbat said:


> My answer would be the same as in any other fiction genre - good ideas and good writing.


Sorry, but I know from experience this is not the case... a good idea and good writing is not enough... you have to write about what the choosers want to read as well.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Oct 21, 2014)

Indeed, serendipity, and as I said, all readers seem to want out of sci fi anymore is post-apocalyptic. Particularly zombies.


----------



## Serendipity (Oct 21, 2014)

psikeyhackr said:


> I think sci-fi readers need to be REALISTIC in that reality is not science fiction.
> 
> Almost all of the rocket stories of the 40s, 50s and 60s implied that getting into space would be a lot cheaper than it turned out to be.  Even so I think NASA should have had robots prospecting the Moon for nearly 10 years by now.  I think any Mars mission is a dumb idea even though I consider Robinson's *Mars* trilogy to be really great.  If there is any life on Mars it has been there for millions of years and will be there for the next 1,000.
> 
> ...



Getting into space will get cheaper... Skylon will make it so within ten years.... the Japanese will build a space elevator within 50 years... there may be other interesting technology around the corner that we are as yet unaware of...

The problem with Mars in reality is the lack of protection from radiation. If they can solve that problem, then living on Mars becomes a distinct possibility. When NASA did a study on where to set up a colony, they came up with Callisto - on of the big 4 moons of Jupiter because it was protected by the Jovian magnetosphere whilst not being irradiated badly by Jupiter. 

As for live still existing of Mars - it's a possibility (- wrote a story about how that could be done). But it need not have been there for millions if years if it was brought in by comet or meteorite. 

But certainly agree with you on the science fiction side of things


----------



## Serendipity (Oct 21, 2014)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> Am I the only one that finds the combination of the word "rut" with "season" provocative?
> 
> (If it *is* the rutting season, shouldn't there be a time in the next year when whole litters of new baby ideas are born.)



All I can say is some people like thinking laterally....


----------



## Serendipity (Oct 21, 2014)

Karn Maeshalanadae said:


> Indeed, serendipity, and as I said, all readers seem to want out of sci fi anymore is post-apocalyptic. Particularly zombies.


Hm... readers or publishers?


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Oct 21, 2014)

Both, it would seem. And not only in writing, either. Walking Dead, World War Z, god knows what else is on the horizon.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 21, 2014)

Brian Turner said:


> Apologies, it wasn't intended to sound like a criticism - what I meant is that my reading has narrowed into epic fantasy, so I'm not all that well read on science fiction - especially the more hard-sf where science is a direct feature.
> 
> Hence I asked my questions specifically to you because I was genuinely interested in your personal opinion - not least in wondering how it might apply to my own fledgling writing.



I presume LOTR is epic fantasy but I am not always sure what is and isn't epic.  I read it but after I finished I asked myself, "Why did I do that?"  For me the story was barely good enough to justify the aggravation of reading.  I don't really like reading in and of itself.  So reading is like a -2 experience so a book has to be a +3 at a minimum.

But I can accept that different people have different values.

I would suggest *Komarr* as a point of reference.  Science is not just what we know.  Science is about figuring out what we don't know.  But if we get what we think we know wrong then the results can be disastrous.  That is what *Komarr* is about in addition to interesting side plots.  But most reviews say nothing about the science of the story.  I have read a couple of dozen reviews about it.

There are things about reality that we do not know.  Like the discovery that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing that was determined about 15 years ago.  We don't know why.  Making up names like Dark Matter and Dark Energy is cool but it doesn't explain anything.     So SF can be thought experiments about the unknown but it can communicate the concept of the exploration of the intellectually unknown to people who are not scientists.

psik


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 22, 2014)

Serendipity said:


> Sorry, but I know from experience this is not the case... a good idea and good writing is not enough... you have to write about what the choosers want to read as well.


 
Perhaps this is exactly what's wrong. Are writers afraid to take chances for fear of losing 'the choosers'?
In my opinion, it's like a chef only making hamburgers because that's what will sell the most.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 22, 2014)

Foxbat said:


> Perhaps this is exactly what's wrong. Are writers afraid to take chances for fear of losing 'the choosers'?
> In my opinion, it's like a chef only making hamburgers because that's what will sell the most.



Exactly



> In a 1990s interview William Gibson called it The Golden Ghetto.



*Star Wars* and the *Star Trek* franchise and *Dr. Who* have changed the psychology of the SF market in the last few decades.  Much of what I read about SF seems to be marketing trying to acquire what limited prestige SF had from the Old Days but I get the impression that they really don't care, but say what they think will bring in the bucks.

It would be crass to admit that is the case of course.

psik


----------



## HareBrain (Oct 22, 2014)

Foxbat said:


> Perhaps this is exactly what's wrong. Are writers afraid to take chances for fear of losing 'the choosers'?



Are they afraid to put hundreds or thousands of hours of work into something that risks bombing or not even being published? If they rely on writing for their living, then yes, very likely, unless they're especially driven.

To take your chef analogy, he has to believe he can sell a certain number of whatever he makes just to keep the restaurant going. And he knows burgers will sell, and he knows other chefs who have tried to be more experimental have closed down. Maybe if he sells burgers, at least he can experiment with the seasonings.

Apart from a return to something like the Renaissance system of patronage, I'm not sure how you're going to fix that.

I believe an enormous range of stuff is being written, mostly by people with day-jobs, but that very little variety is being published. Or maybe it's being self-published, but how would we know?


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 22, 2014)

HareBrain said:


> I believe an enormous range of stuff is being written, mostly by people with day-jobs, but that very little variety is being published. Or maybe it's being self-published, but how would we know?



The technology has made it easier to write.  How many wouldn't do it if they had to use a typewriter?

So how do we come up with a fast way to filter through all of the stuff?  I do not know how anyone can write material that they claim is "science" fiction without using "science words".   But that will not analyse plots and characterization.

psik


----------



## Serendipity (Oct 22, 2014)

HareBrain said:


> I believe an enormous range of stuff is being written, mostly by people with day-jobs, but that very little variety is being published. Or maybe it's being self-published, but how would we know?



This is where, just maybe, a revision of the science fiction sub-genres might prove useful. After all the sub-genres are long in the tooth, which may have helped science fiction become 'fossilised'.... new writers are more likely to write to fit the sub-genres when they start out and once having found their niche continue to be write in that niche instead of moving science fiction onward. 

As to what the new set of sub-genres ought to be? 

Let's start with splitting Hard Science Fiction into 

Near future 
Solar System 
Interstellar
Intergalactic
Beyond Galactic
Before anyone argues you can't have intergalactic science fiction, don't forget our Milky Way is due to collide with the Andromeda galaxy in 'illions of years.

As for beyond galactic...


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 22, 2014)

If you have Jump drive and ability to cross the Galaxy, you can go inter-Galactic, maybe take a year of jumps ...

So I'd split Hard SF to
*Future on Earth*
  == Various kinds, i.e. post apocalyptic, Machine ruled single government, near or far future, effect of say a SINGLE invention, more advanced Genetic Engineering and/or Nanotechnology

*Space Travel* (Distance, even intergalactic is a matter of resource and determination)
Possibly Fusion power is "portable" at least at Starship size, but you can imagine Space Travel with Fission Power. Think Nuclear sub + ion drive 
You can have two scenarios (1) There are Aliens. (No-one better than James White_? _or maybe Larry Niven)   (2)We are alone and Colonising Galaxy (Asimov)

Only Sub light travel (i.e. Generation Ships for Interstellar, even with Fission Power only we can do it now, sort of)
Actual Light speed (i.e. no time for travellers, but a 200 light year distant star means for a Round Trip 400 years has passed at Origin)
Trans light speed with variable relativity effects depending on mechanism (Jump gates, Jump drive, Hyperspace, Hyperspace bubbles, perhaps Jump mechanisms only work in Deep space etc etc. Jump mechanisms that need a gadget each end vs ones that don't etc)
*Artificial Intelligence*
  == I think it's fantasy, but people that know less about Computers and Programming think it may be possible. These can be inside or remotely control Mechanical Avatars if you want.

*CyberBiology*
 == Why stop with Six Million Dollar man? If someone completely disabled or very old, perhaps they control a Mechanical Avatar. 

*A story can of course mix and match all four of these so categorising is nearly impossible.*

I'm not sure I believe you can even 100% decide what is "Hard Science Fiction"  no technobabble and lots of science and Tech doesn't make hard SF.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 22, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> *Artificial Intelligence*
> == I think it's fantasy, but people that know less about Computers and Programming think it may be possible. These can be inside or remotely control Mechanical Avatars if you want.



It may not be impossible but I think it will be a much more difficult than is usually implied.

Electronic computers have only existed for 69 years.  Who knows what another 500 years of development will do?

psik


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 22, 2014)

Brian Turner said:


> three laws of robotics, then is it really worth bothering to read the Robot series of stories


The three laws (or four) are really unimportant. The point was having "set up a system" was then to have fun breaking it. Most of the Robot stories are about people's preconceptions. They are also a little like "locked room" detective stories. Asimov wrote some non-SF detective short stories too. So the WHOLE POINT of reading the Robot Stories is to already know the "so called" laws. Which is why they are usually printed at the start, or characters explain them. Another time I'll rant about the Zeroth Law and  and the later Foundation books.


----------



## Serendipity (Oct 24, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> So I'd split Hard SF to
> *Future on Earth
> Space Travel*
> *Artificial Intelligence
> ...



It's an interesting breakdown of hard SF. I would add *Genetics/Biomanipulation* as a 5th subgenre.

Re Space Travel - nuclear fusion is currently anticipated to be available within 20 years as a lorry-sized power plant.

Re Artificial Intelligence - this phrase was coined in 1956 to mean computers emulating the human brain. However, those in the field have long since agreed that the research and results to date have diverged away from this aim to computers being able to store easily accessible knowledge (think bank accounts), evaluate predictions (think weather forecasts) and more precise machine control in more varied conditions (think driverless car).


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 24, 2014)

Serendipity said:


> I would add *Genetics/Biomanipulation* as a 5th subgenre.


I thought I had it as a sub "Future on Earth" thing. Where you can stick in Nanotech too.

Yes I did


Ray McCarthy said:


> *Future on Earth*
> == Various kinds, i.e. post apocalyptic, Machine ruled single government, near or far future, effect of say a SINGLE invention, more advanced Genetic Engineering and/or Nanotechnology



Of course feel free to make Genetics and Nanotech 5th & 6th rather than sub genres of Future Earth.

But really many books won't fit neatly defined sub genre division. I feel I'm beginning to sound like "Thursday Next".


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 24, 2014)

Serendipity said:


> Re Space Travel - nuclear fusion is currently anticipated to be available within 20 years as a lorry-sized power plant.


*That is only the reaction vessel!* It maybe could be 5 to 10 years. As I formerly designed Industrial Controllers for Power stations, I can tell you the heat exchangers, shielding, steam turbine and Generator is very much larger. They do talk about fitting it all inside a C5 sized plane, but that seems slightly unlikely for 100MW. Certainly if you want any cargo.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 24, 2014)

Serendipity said:


> Artificial Intelligence - this phrase was coined in 1956 to mean computers emulating the human brain. However, those in the field have long since agreed that the research and results to date have diverged away from this aim


In fact actually nothing like any reasonable conception of Intelligence. Humpty Dumpty: Words mean whatever I want them to mean. We are MUCH further away from real AI now than it seemed in we were in late 1950s. OTOH, fusion does seem slightly closer.


----------



## Mirannan (Oct 24, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> *That is only the reaction vessel!* It maybe could be 5 to 10 years. As I formerly designed Industrial Controllers for Power stations, I can tell you the heat exchangers, shielding, steam turbine and Generator is very much larger. They do talk about fitting it all inside a C5 sized plane, but that seems slightly unlikely for 100MW. Certainly if you want any cargo.



I know it might seem like a hobbyhorse of mine, but focus fusion appears to be closer to success than any other approach. And, according to publicly available material, the likely minimum size of a unit would be around 5MW - which is about 7000HP, suitable for locomotives and small ships. And the reactor would be about the size of a large fridge and cost about $500,000; this is at the start, and we all know things get cheaper with economies of scale.

The group doing the research appears to need about $1M for proof of concept, and around $50M for development into a working reactor if it pans out. Small change, compared to the tens of billions so far spent on tokamaks.

And finally - The way that focus fusion works (assuming it does) is such that turning a reactor into a reaction engine would be trivially easy. (Most of the energy of the reaction comes out as a fairly tight beam of alpha particles.) Fusion rockets give us the solar system.

All for 50 million dollars. And Bill Gates has spent 500 times that much on trying to solve the problems of Africa.


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 25, 2014)

Where fusion is concerned, I don't really see it making much difference to space travel. Sure it will allow access to greater areas of the solar system but that's about it (unless we build an ark) To go further into space in a manned vehicle we need to open up new areas of science (eg faster than light travel, folding space etc).

To me, the question is not how much energy we can produce or prolong but how we apply that energy.


----------



## Mirannan (Oct 25, 2014)

Foxbat - It's often been said that with chemical propulsion, the best we are ever going to do is cislunar space - and that will remain difficult and expensive. The reason is simply the limit on exhaust velocity, imposed by the limited energy of chemical reactions.

Anything that increases exhaust velocity (and thus decreases reaction mass required for a given delta-v) or eliminates the need for it altogether (beanstalks, solar sails) makes space travel more practical. But here we come to another problem; most of the existing or upcoming high-velocity techniques are low-thrust compared to the mass of the ship. (Ion drives, mass drivers, plasma drives) And this is because they need serious amounts of power, the only sources of which so far are solar panels and fission reactors, both of which are very massive for a given output.

Fusion drives offer the possibility of reasonably high thrust and high exhaust velocity in combination. (I don't think, BTW, that anyone is suggesting a fusion drive would be suitable for launching; the thrust is likely to be a maximum of maybe a tenth of a gravity, and of course there is a significant side-effects problem. Fusion drive exhaust is nasty stuff!)

The only other mooted high-thrust, high-efficiency drive is also nuclear-powered and is probably practical if anyone could get around the counter-intuitiveness. And that's a serious problem; Orion drives are a cool idea, but would you want to be a passenger on a ship that propels itself with nuclear bombs? BTW, ground launch with Orion is probably possible - but I have a strange idea that Greenpeace might object.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 25, 2014)

We can do the Solar system with Fission power. But for anything else Fusion may be needed.

*For the moment*, unless the engineering an materials issues are solved for a space elevator, the only way to get stuff into orbit is chemical. You would only want one emergency launch of Orion drive from ground, ever.

[Edit added bold to existing text]


----------



## Mirannan (Oct 25, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> We can do the Solar system with Fission power. But for anything else Fusion may be needed.
> 
> For the moment, unless the engineering an materials issues are solved for a space elevator, the only way to get stuff into orbit is chemical. You would only want one emergency launch of Orion drive from ground, ever.



Actually, I disagree about the launching part of your post. There are a few other ideas that might work; laser launching and maglev launch from very high altitude are two of the possibilities. (The latter probably involving chains of huge aerostats holding up an EM cannon's rings at maybe 30km up.)


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 25, 2014)

*Maybe some day:*
Laser: very low masses
EM catapult. Definitely fiction today. May never work.  Acceleration probably too great for anything other than components. Getting it high enough so air resistance isn't an issue is a huge problem. Practical for Moon, (See "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress") as there is no atmosphere.
Space Elevator: significant mass and probably will work

I did say *For the moment*
A High Altitude Balloon launch or Aircraft launch actually doesn't save much rocket fuel.

There may be something else we haven't thought of.
Is mining and fabrication of space ships on the Moon practical so we only have to lift people (and initial stuff to start moon base)?


----------



## Serendipity (Oct 25, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> I did say *For the moment*
> A High Altitude Balloon launch or Aircraft launch actually doesn't save much rocket fuel.



Agreed about for the moment in the sense that we don't actually have it ready to take off. But Skylon actually breathes in air to use its oxygen as fuel until it reaches Mach 5.14 (28.5km), before switching to be a rocket. This saves carrying a heck of a lot of fuel. It is due to be available from about 2022 onwards.


----------

