The Death of Science Fiction (Yet Again).

[Neal Asher]

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



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



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

 

[Interference]

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

 

[chopper]

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

 

[Interference]

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

 

[chopper]

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

 

[Sparrow]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[CyBeR]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pyan]

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

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

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

 

[Sparrow]

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

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

 

[j d worthington]

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

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

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

 

[brsrkrkomdy]

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

 

[Neal Asher]

Perfect illustration of my final point. I posted this little rant on my blog first, and here's a reply from Gary Farber:

Who Killed Science Fiction? won the Hugo Award for Best Fanzine in 1961. The Fifties were rife with talk about the death of science fiction, and Earl Kemp's symposia of so many sf pros and prominent fans summed it all up.

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

Hah!

 

[Contrary Mary]

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

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

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

 

[Interference]

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

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

 

[Sparrow]

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

from that article~... It is our hope. It is our reason for striving, for persisting. This is clearly the truth, for why else would we endeavor so ardently against the tides of our troubled present. Rather than succumb to the outrageous misfortunes cascading down around us perpetrated by the blind masses who have succeeded in destroying the earth, we few have gathered together knowing that our expert dreaming will light the path through any and all such troubles, in the present and in the future to come.

Science fiction is dedicated to this proposition. It is the finest of all lights guiding mankind. Without it, the lantern-lit way would be dark, impenetrable, and we would fall to the wayside.

Sometimes dimly, sometimes in darkness, we all head toward this light. It is nothing less than the light of consciousness calling us forward, bringing out the soul of our times.

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

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

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

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

 

[Connavar]

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

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

 

[Sparrow]

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

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

 

[Rodders]

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

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

 

[Sparrow]

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

 

[iansales]

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