Has Sci-Fi Run Out of Steam?

Barence writes "Science fiction has long inspired real-world technology, but are the authors of sci-fi stories finally running out of steam? PC Pro has traced the history of sci-fi's influence on real-world technology, from Jules Verne to Snow Crash, but suggests that writers have run out of ideas when it comes to inspiring tomorrow's products. 'Since Snow Crash, no novel has had quite the same impact on the computing world, and you might argue that sci-fi and hi-tech are drifting further apart,' PC Pro claims. Author Charles Stross tells the magazine that he began writing a sci-fi novel in 2005 and 'made some predictions, thinking that in ten years they'd either be laughable or they'd have come true. The weird bit? Most of them came true already, by 2009.'"

PC Pro just needs to read more Sci-Fi

[Anonymous Coward]

They mentioned Vernor Vinge, but only referenced his earlier work. One of his later stories, Rainbow's End, predicts a ubiquitous Augmented Reality, which we're only starting to see gimmick implementations of now.

Plenty mainstream TV shows

[oldhack]

Numb3rs, CSIs, all are a lot more of sci-fi than typical TV shows. I noticed Bones, especially, have sci-fi style humor.

Not enough predictions, try John Scalzi

[Tangential]

Try reading John Scalzi's "Old Man's War" and ponder his fighting man of the future. Lots of tech futurism in that. If that's not enough, try Ian Douglas's "Inheritance Trilogy" He's got worlds of amazing new technology as well. Lots of nanobots, cloning, quantum power taps, consciousness transfers, etc.. in these books.

Re:I think this is a false premise

[commodore64_love]

Yes. Robert Goddard, the father of rocketry, said he was inspired by Jules Verne and other early scientifiction stories.

Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about his a?

Re:Cold fusion is by definition no energy source

[ppc_digger]

"Cold fusion" doesn't mean cold enough to touch, it means cold compared to the sun, somewhere in the range of a modern nuclear reactor.

Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?

[misexistentialist]

I agree with your pluralization, but think dei is OK too http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deus [wiktionary.org]

Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?

[SydShamino]

And that's why I liked last year's Moon [imdb.com].

Maybe it's the publishing side that's the problem

[ThousandStars]

I doubt science fiction has "run out of steam," in terms of authors or imagination any more than science or technology has run out of steam due to a lack of imagination. Rather, I wonder if the science fiction publishing business has either run out of steam or become an active roadblock between writers and readers. It seems that most publishers are trying a play-it-safe approach that demands giving out the same thing over and over again.

This is based partially on what I see in bookstores and partially on my own experience, which I discuss extensively in Science fiction, literature, and the haters [jseliger.com]. It begins:

Why does so little science fiction rise to the standards of literary fiction?

This question arose from two overlapping events. The first came from reading Day of the Triffids (link goes to my post); although I don't remember how I came to the book, someone must've recommended it on a blog or newspaper in compelling enough terms for me to buy it. Its weaknesses, as discussed in the post, brought up science fiction and its relation to the larger book world.

The second event arose from a science fiction novel I wrote called Pearle Transit that I've been submitting to agents. It's based on Conrad's Heart of Darkness--think, on a superficial level, "Heart of Darkness in space." Two replies stand out: one came from an agent who said he found the idea intriguing but that science fiction novels must be at least 100,000 words long and have sequels already started. "Wow," I thought. How many great literary novels have enough narrative force and character drive for sequels? The answer that came immediately to mind was "zero," and after reflection and consultation with friends I still can't find any. Most novels expend all their ideas at once, and to keep going would be like wearing a shirt that fades from too many washes. Even in science fiction, very few if any series maintain their momentum over time; think of how awful the Dune books rapidly became, or Arthur C. Clarke's Rama series. A few novels can make it as multiple-part works, but most of those were conceived of and executed as a single work, like Dan Simmons' Hyperion or Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings (more on those later).

The minimum word count bothers me too. It's not possible for Pearle Transit to be stretched beyond its present size without destroying what makes it coherent and, I hope, good. By its nature it is supposed to be taunt, and much as a 120-pound person cannot be safely made into a 240-pound person, Pearle Transit can't be engorged without making it like the bloated star that sets its opening scene. If the market reality is that such books can't or won't sell, I begin to tie the quality of the science fiction I've read together with the system that produces it.

If the publishing system itself is broken and nothing yet has grown up to take its place (I have no interest in trolling through thousands of terrible novels uploaded to websites in search of a single potential gem, for those of you Internet utopians out there), maybe the source of the genre's troubles isn't where PC Pro places it.

Re:"It's not realistic enough" is the real killer

[commodore64_love]

>>>Back in the old days of Sci Fi, we didn't have everybody and their brother who were "internet experts" on anything and everything.

That's funny because I was just reading an Isaac Asimov book where he published the first letter he ever wrote (from the 1930s). It was criticizing one of the writers in "Amazing" for not telling realistic plots based upon science. Point - Critics have always existed in this genre even in the "dark days" before internet or television. In that case it did result in improved story-telling as the genre moved into the 1940s and 50s

Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?

[selven]

Close, but not quite.

Deus ex machinis
Dei ex machina
Dei ex machinis

You need the ablative case with "ex", which is easy to confuse with the nominative in the singular, but not the plural.

Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?

[Petrushka]

The correct plural form of deus ex machina is deii ex machina, not deus ex machinas. OMG, they dont seem to teach anything in Latin classes these days.

They sure don't! The only Latin plurals that have -ii are the ones where there's already an -i- in the word, like radius => radii.

Deus, as it happens, is one of the very very few irregular nouns in Latin, and the plural [tufts.edu] can be either di or, less often, dei.

In answer to the sibling AC who asked if di ex machina wouldn't imply a whole bunch of gods hanging from a single crane: the answer is no. In Latin that kind of construction is distributive, i.e. the usual implication is that there's one machina for every deus.