I'm not really seeing anything new coming out of sci-fi.
Well, the genre itself is constantly evolving, but SF like you're talking about - the ideas, the possiblities for the future, the technology that may come - is (and apologies if this seems self-evident or too obvious to mention) is, I think, based on
existing science in most cases. It might extrapolating possibilities based on current new research (e.g. this bit of research suggests that maybe one day we can do
x and if
x is one day possible then this could theoretically affect society in this way and lead to
y). For example, Dolly the sheep was cloned back in, what, the 1990s, but cloning had been around - in some form or another - in SF before, right? I don't know who to credit for that, but my guess would be someone like Isaac Asimov/Ray Bradbury/Philip K Dick or a peer. And that might have been extrapolated from research at the time, or even a newspaper article or similar. However, although writers of that generation were often grounded in science, they were working with if not a blank canvas in terms of ideas/possibilities then one that only had a corner painted in. They were
first with a lot of things, whether it was twists on alien invasions, psychohistory, or replicants that look like humans. Now the canvas has a lot more paint on it, lots more ideas have been explored and most of the obvious possibilities for the future explored (though as society evolves/collapses more will appear, just - I would think - at a slower rate than previously). Coming up with something new and relatively believable is hard, I guess is my point.
Also fiction has changed since those days. Having a great idea is not a guarantee of publication nor success. To some extent, I think, this may have become less significant as fiction tastes have changed over the decades: people want believable characters, and gripping stories, and big 'splosions, character arcs, moral quandries, etc. The beautifully brief short stories of Bradbury et al that make you think, make you see things from a different perspective, seem to me to be fewer these days. Which isn't to say they aren't there (I probably just haven't seen them), but my gut feeling is that the commercial aspects hold greater sway over publishers these days. With so many competitors (indie presses, self-publishers) and not entirely insignificant costs for publishing and marketing a hardback/paperback, many of the bigger publishers are likely (and may well do - I don't know in this regard) to plump for the one most likely to yield a bigger return (it is after all, a
business) even if that means a truly great story never makes it to the shelves. The idea, as
@Dave said far more eloquently than I, is for the most part subsevient to the writing.
In terms of new big themes, all I'm going to say is - hang onto to your hats, humans - by the prickling on my computers, somethings (yes plural) nuovo bizarro this way comes!
Darn it, I'm hooked now!
I also think that if I knew the next 'big thing' then I wouldn't be telling you. I'd be either inventing it or writing a book about it.
Yeah, exactly. If you invent something Dave, you can totally tell me. I don't have a notepad standing by at all.
Ooh, just thought: did you invent a memory wiper? Maybe you
did tell me about it at LonChron... and then used it!
That would be the coolest outcome of all!
... And maybe Men In Black was written while you were testing it out and hadn't got the kinks ironed out, thus leaving just enough memory for the writer to think
they thought of it.
