Charles Stross has written a short essay with the above title:
They Don't Make Readers Like They Used To
- Thread starter Ursa major
- Start date
beccabear67
Well-Known Member
He seems to equate science fiction with predicting the future more than I think is sensible. To me SF is more centered on some matter of science (a science, any science, not necessarily technological) central to a story.
There are a lot of references to lighter media fare (I like many of these myself, but...), and role-playing games. As a reader I mostly read older works as I usually find them more substantial, more likely to have had unique ideas central to the story, and also more concise (the trilogy-series approach hadn't taken full root). Too many writers have their eye on establishing a franchise/universe, and great though it can be when there is a good one, it also leads away from the science and idea centric stories I value most and remember best. I think I'm the kind if reader "they used to make", but there probably aren't enough like me to support what few new works measure up to the great and good of the past. Also a fifth or sixth run through the tropes of Moore, Brackett, Norton, McCaffery style S&S (never enjoyed Howard), is really to somebody such as myself a kind of third or fourth generation fanfic or even a 'mary sue' exercise... might as well seek out whatever there is by the originators or parts of Dune I might have missed.
It's a long time since I used to scan the SF/F section in bookstores regularly, I quit when almost everything was a commitment to a multi-volume series or an adaptation from some other medium. I felt burned by some things too with the Clarke and Asimov name on them that they hadn't written... the actual author name very small and 'set' in their 'universe', and who needs more Number Of The Beasts.
Lack of a novel story hook/twist is mostly what keeps me gafiated as a reader/buyer on top of the commitment to multiple volumes.
There are a lot of references to lighter media fare (I like many of these myself, but...), and role-playing games. As a reader I mostly read older works as I usually find them more substantial, more likely to have had unique ideas central to the story, and also more concise (the trilogy-series approach hadn't taken full root). Too many writers have their eye on establishing a franchise/universe, and great though it can be when there is a good one, it also leads away from the science and idea centric stories I value most and remember best. I think I'm the kind if reader "they used to make", but there probably aren't enough like me to support what few new works measure up to the great and good of the past. Also a fifth or sixth run through the tropes of Moore, Brackett, Norton, McCaffery style S&S (never enjoyed Howard), is really to somebody such as myself a kind of third or fourth generation fanfic or even a 'mary sue' exercise... might as well seek out whatever there is by the originators or parts of Dune I might have missed.
It's a long time since I used to scan the SF/F section in bookstores regularly, I quit when almost everything was a commitment to a multi-volume series or an adaptation from some other medium. I felt burned by some things too with the Clarke and Asimov name on them that they hadn't written... the actual author name very small and 'set' in their 'universe', and who needs more Number Of The Beasts.
Lack of a novel story hook/twist is mostly what keeps me gafiated as a reader/buyer on top of the commitment to multiple volumes.
Christine Wheelwright
Well-Known Member
Yes, I normally stick to used book shops, but the other day I took a look at the shelves of a major chain bookstore and was shocked. Apart from one new copy of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the SF/Fantasy section (inevitably lumped together) was full of absolute dross (mainly spin-off stories relating do dismal movies or tv shows).
On the encouraging side, I have noticed that it is getting quite hard to pick up classic golden age or new wave SF from used stores. I think there is a significant demand out there, perhaps spurred on by a number of SF enthusiast YouTubers who promote the older authors and their works.
The Big Peat
Darth Buddha
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2016
- Messages
- 3,762
I'm going to quote the paragraph that seems most central to me:
"Anyway: fans raised on interactive media rather than the static printed page or celluloid reel of film invariably argue in their own heads with the official story lines they're handed. And they sometimes write down their alternative takes on the stories--not just happy endings in place of tragedies, or attempts to fix what they perceive as broken plots or world building, but their own stories that try to make sense of the worlds of the imagination they've been presented with. Fans who write fanfic or play games from the original adversary's point of view in hope of getting a happy ending are not fans who accept the author's privileged position as narrator for granted."
I don't see how anyone who's familiar with the New Wave of SFF writers from the 60s and 70s can think that it takes interactive media to create fans who argue with stories. Or, indeed, the spread of genres. The process might be a tad less argumentative, but recreation of interesting ideas in one's own image is how ideas spread. If people aren't writing down their own alternative takes, then there's no genre being born.
Stross goes on to talk about the concept of worldbuilding being fascist. I've seen that argument before from M John Harrison.
None of this is new. It might be more prominent. It's definitely easier to see. But none of this is new.
Also a fundamentally terrifying piece from the comments section on it
"I have heard a Danish author perform a roughly parallel analysis, but coming to, conclusion, that "more and more of my readers do not live in their local reality."
One of the examples she gave, was that she got Nordic readers objecting to details in scenes she had written, set in Nordic language courtrooms, because those readers expected USAnian jurisprudence, procedures and arguments."
Yikes.
"Anyway: fans raised on interactive media rather than the static printed page or celluloid reel of film invariably argue in their own heads with the official story lines they're handed. And they sometimes write down their alternative takes on the stories--not just happy endings in place of tragedies, or attempts to fix what they perceive as broken plots or world building, but their own stories that try to make sense of the worlds of the imagination they've been presented with. Fans who write fanfic or play games from the original adversary's point of view in hope of getting a happy ending are not fans who accept the author's privileged position as narrator for granted."
I don't see how anyone who's familiar with the New Wave of SFF writers from the 60s and 70s can think that it takes interactive media to create fans who argue with stories. Or, indeed, the spread of genres. The process might be a tad less argumentative, but recreation of interesting ideas in one's own image is how ideas spread. If people aren't writing down their own alternative takes, then there's no genre being born.
Stross goes on to talk about the concept of worldbuilding being fascist. I've seen that argument before from M John Harrison.
None of this is new. It might be more prominent. It's definitely easier to see. But none of this is new.
Also a fundamentally terrifying piece from the comments section on it
"I have heard a Danish author perform a roughly parallel analysis, but coming to, conclusion, that "more and more of my readers do not live in their local reality."
One of the examples she gave, was that she got Nordic readers objecting to details in scenes she had written, set in Nordic language courtrooms, because those readers expected USAnian jurisprudence, procedures and arguments."
Yikes.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,400
I think part of the problem is that the realism of our situation has hit home. There are no Martians or Venusians, and there likely never were. We inhabit a planet in the outermost part of the galaxy, and will never visit - or be visited by - the inhabitants of other planets. Science has taught us the impossibility of this, and of many other things.
So, no time machines, wars with other worlds, generational ships travelling across the galaxy or journeys to the centre of our age.
Back in the golden era of SF, everything was possible nothing was off the cards, and science seemed to back up this opinion. Authors were energises by the possibilities, and readers lapped it up, knowing that one day soon it would all happen for real.
Then reality struck.
It's much harder nowadays to read and write about humans travelling to other planets and doing other things that we know are highly improbable (if not impossible). If you write SF that is not backed by science, does it become fantasy?
I think that this is one of the reaaons why fantasy has become so popular; no-one is ever going to disprove it.
So, no time machines, wars with other worlds, generational ships travelling across the galaxy or journeys to the centre of our age.
Back in the golden era of SF, everything was possible nothing was off the cards, and science seemed to back up this opinion. Authors were energises by the possibilities, and readers lapped it up, knowing that one day soon it would all happen for real.
Then reality struck.
It's much harder nowadays to read and write about humans travelling to other planets and doing other things that we know are highly improbable (if not impossible). If you write SF that is not backed by science, does it become fantasy?
I think that this is one of the reaaons why fantasy has become so popular; no-one is ever going to disprove it.
Elckerlyc
"Philosophy will clip an angel's wings."
I don't think the popularity of the today's Fantasy stems from disappointed hardcore SF readers who made a switch. It's mostly a new, younger group of readers who discovered Fantasy after successful TV-series and movies that nodded into that direction; werewolves, vampires, witches and other people with super powers. And Romantasy.
The pure SF-reader is left empty-handed.
The pure SF-reader is left empty-handed.
No more space-opera's. But that's just 1 subgenre of SF. What happened to the other subgenres?
I think Stross is more concerned with a similar problem to the one with which satirists have had to deal over recent years (i.e. reality has been, at the very least, stealing their thunder).
I'm going to make a wild guess: you haven't read either the Laundry Files novels (and short stories) or the novels in the Laundry Files' offshoot, the New Management series.
Elckerlyc
"Philosophy will clip an angel's wings."
Hehe! I have read the Laundry Files, but not the New Management series. The first Laundry File book dates from 20 years ago.
At some point I grew tired of the series.
My point wasn't about the quality of the books (I happen to like them; others are free to differ), but what appears in them.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,400
I wasn't really suggesting that this was the case. More a case that scientic fact today is making it far more dificult to write and read contemporary or near-future SF.
If the contemporary novel you are writing in the 19th Century involves invaders from Mars, a time machine or the reanimation of dead matter, then that is science fiction; scientific knowledge suggests that all three are theoretically possible.
If you are writing the same novels in the 21st Century, and they are scientifically impossible (or extremely implausible) then do they still class as science fiction, or to they wander into the realms of fantasy?
Christine Wheelwright
Well-Known Member
I'm with @paranoid marvin on this one. I think in the 20th Century there was a presumption that we (humanity) would continue to progress into the future, almost infinitely. And that this progress would lead to unimaginable developments (like interstellsar travel). I believe this idea of continous progress was almost unquestioned, with the exception that some speculative apocalyptic event might get in the way.
These days its becoming clearer (well, to me and Paranoid Marvin anyway) that continued progress will be hard to come by. For one thing, we may have been harvesting the low-hanging fruit for the last 100 years or so (electrical engineering, nuclear fission etc). Thats the boring explanation. But perhaps more interrestingly, I'm starting to realise that some gradual (non apocalyptic) regression may be upon us (social, political, organisational, intellectual, emotional). We will see.
These days its becoming clearer (well, to me and Paranoid Marvin anyway) that continued progress will be hard to come by. For one thing, we may have been harvesting the low-hanging fruit for the last 100 years or so (electrical engineering, nuclear fission etc). Thats the boring explanation. But perhaps more interrestingly, I'm starting to realise that some gradual (non apocalyptic) regression may be upon us (social, political, organisational, intellectual, emotional). We will see.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,400
More than 60 years ago, JFK made a speech about going to the Moon. Whatever your religion, race, nationality or political views, it was almost impossible not to be moved by it. Even watching it today more than half a century on, it brings an emotional response, and a pride in being a member of the human race
With men of such vision and with such determination of mind, the uncertainty becomes certainty and the impossible becomes possible.
There seemed to be far more people in the public eye of such calibre back then, and they encouraged us to hope for the best rather than to prepare for the worst.
Perhaps if we had continued in such a vein, we would have colonised the Moon, sent manned missions to Mars and done other great things; not because it was easy, but because it was hard. Because we chose not to prevaricate and postpone, but to dare to do.
With men of such vision and with such determination of mind, the uncertainty becomes certainty and the impossible becomes possible.
There seemed to be far more people in the public eye of such calibre back then, and they encouraged us to hope for the best rather than to prepare for the worst.
Perhaps if we had continued in such a vein, we would have colonised the Moon, sent manned missions to Mars and done other great things; not because it was easy, but because it was hard. Because we chose not to prevaricate and postpone, but to dare to do.
I would think another factor is that decades ago, people who would get riled up about a work would be the special few-most people wouldn't bother to write in to a magazine (btw I was not 'most people').
But these days anyone can send off a message so that means one is sampling all kinds of readers that you normally wouldn't want to hear from.
But on fantasy itself--it has always been popular. Since ancient times. You have some big name works like Gulliver's Travels
Even during bleak periods like 1920s-40s American literature, Steinbeck, Hemingway etc. avoided fantasy but there was still a lot of fantasy being written. The main change is that the biggest publishers were not peddling it to most readers.
A Harry Potter phenomenon would have been impossible 2 decades earlier because publishing wasn't even going to promote such a concept --and adults wouldn't be reading YA fiction if such a category even existed.
There were specialty markets--mystery-thriller-spy--jungle adventure-horror-space opera---the so-called mainstream didn't pay attention to most of it.
Then
Rosemary's Baby
The Godfather
Jaws...
I never understood the Harry Potter "thing." The hype around it was just unbelievable. Wizard schools don't seem very unique to me--I feel as though it was pushed hard in media at a time when they could have full-spectrum dominance. It wasn't like there were many competing things either--it was as if they said this was the only show in town--don't miss it.
But these days anyone can send off a message so that means one is sampling all kinds of readers that you normally wouldn't want to hear from.
But on fantasy itself--it has always been popular. Since ancient times. You have some big name works like Gulliver's Travels
Even during bleak periods like 1920s-40s American literature, Steinbeck, Hemingway etc. avoided fantasy but there was still a lot of fantasy being written. The main change is that the biggest publishers were not peddling it to most readers.
A Harry Potter phenomenon would have been impossible 2 decades earlier because publishing wasn't even going to promote such a concept --and adults wouldn't be reading YA fiction if such a category even existed.
There were specialty markets--mystery-thriller-spy--jungle adventure-horror-space opera---the so-called mainstream didn't pay attention to most of it.
Then
Rosemary's Baby
The Godfather
Jaws...
I never understood the Harry Potter "thing." The hype around it was just unbelievable. Wizard schools don't seem very unique to me--I feel as though it was pushed hard in media at a time when they could have full-spectrum dominance. It wasn't like there were many competing things either--it was as if they said this was the only show in town--don't miss it.
beccabear67
Well-Known Member
I think Harry Potter is great if it gets kids reading and enjoying, I can only assume given the stale seeming (to us experienced readers) ingredients she has a very good prose style, I just never understood adults liking them so much. The number of times this or other teen aimed series like Twilight are clues on Jeopardy these days... but then they have been adding somewhat junky film franchises and not always the best in rap artistes as fodder... style of the times? And heck, I read comic books (little interest in current superheroes though), so I'm no high-brow.
Great points about SF kind of being in the position the old jungle characters like Tarzan or explorer action characters like Allen Quatermain were in earlier... unexplored regions of Africa or lost civilizations in the age of satellites! To do something new with that you'd have to set things well in the past. There are still new scientific discoveries and theories all the time, but perhaps not so eager an audience to explore such an area in fiction as there was when building your own radio or television receiver was the cutting edge and many thought there could be actual canals on Mars?
Great points about SF kind of being in the position the old jungle characters like Tarzan or explorer action characters like Allen Quatermain were in earlier... unexplored regions of Africa or lost civilizations in the age of satellites! To do something new with that you'd have to set things well in the past. There are still new scientific discoveries and theories all the time, but perhaps not so eager an audience to explore such an area in fiction as there was when building your own radio or television receiver was the cutting edge and many thought there could be actual canals on Mars?
It's serviceable, nothing more. I think a lot of adults chose them as comfort reading, and these were probably adults that didn't read much fantasy, so the ingredients didn't feel stale (or even if they did, it was comfort reading so didn't matter). The books were also good at getting younger readers invested in characters and their various relationships (I don't just mean romantic) and this generated a ton of hype.
Elckerlyc
"Philosophy will clip an angel's wings."
Yes, I had that too. All my life relatives showed some disdain to the SFF I was reading. Then all of a sudden they all went into this Potter hype and I went 'Huh?' I never read Harry Potter myself (not a fan of wizardry), but saw the first movie.
It did not change their attitude towards SFF.
I looked at the first book in a book store-read a couple of pages--didn't understand the fuss.
Same with Titanic hype. Was it some kind of MK Ultra group hypnosis experiment? I don't know.
Elckerlyc
"Philosophy will clip an angel's wings."
Yes, but Stross' approach is more Lovecraftian. A distinctly other genre then the series and movies I was referring to, like The Twilight Saga.
Neither are close to the Fantasy (let alone SF) I would enjoy seeing published.
Yes... albeit that most of them are mash-ups with other sub-genres and genres... with the most recent of the New Management books being steeped in (early 19th Century) historical romance, of all things (not something that one might have expected).
It’s no different from any other genre where publishers will go for the easy sales. Find a store with a confident sff buyer (go for an indie - chains get little say over their stock) and you’ll get good stuff. This is my very tiny sf section - lots of classics but some funky new stuff too
Attachments
Similar threads
-
Why Don't I See David Gemmel's Books in US Bookstores Anymore ?
- Started by BAYLOR
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
Don't know what you've got till it's gone. Rookeries- Started by Astro Pen
- Replies: 32
-
Have a magic system. Don't know what to do with it.
- Started by 1bitBoolean
- Replies: 18