Spider Robinson And The State Of Science Fiction 854
pcb writes "There is a rather decent
rant in today's Globe & Mail from Spider Robinson (of the
Callahan series fame) regarding the dismal state of science fiction, in
which he laments that the future is not what it used to be. While
attending Torcon 3, the 61st
World SF Convention, he notes that SF readers today seem to prefer the
Tolkienesque fantasies of some forgotten past, rather than the forward-looking works of science and space travel that used to dominate the
genre. Are SF stories from authors like Heinlein, Clarke or Asimov
irrelevant today, as people look into the past to dream rather than the
future? Robinson asks: 'Why are our imaginations retreating from
science and space, and into fantasy?'"
Reality vs. Fantasy (Score:5, Insightful)
I was hoping that the article would bring up the obvious answer, but it didn't quite reach it. The essence of fiction is that it is not real, and "science fiction" is supposed to take the idea a step further -- beyond real, if you like. To the unreachable, beyond what we consider possible.
But in this century, what is beyond possible? Exploring the planets? Been there, done that, got pictures. Exploring other star systems? Totally possible, but the centuries-long timescale makes it simply boring. Time travel? Everybody knows that you'll just end up meeting the Borg before you should, or something.
In other words, perhaps science fiction is suffering from too much science!
On the other hand, fantasy worlds like Tolkien's are completely unreachable, unimaginable in reality. Even given billions of dollars, NASA could not create a race of half-orcs in a deep trench (strategically located below a large dam).
Science is possible... fantasy is impossible. Perhaps that's the problem.
Research vs not researching (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, today's author doesn't want to bother to research what science already understands as background for the story. By going with fantasy (swords and sorcery) they avoid all that work, and still get paid the sa
Re:Research vs not researching (Score:5, Interesting)
I have read every single Asimov book I could find because he never made that mistake. Science is the setting, the characters are the story.
I've been trying desperatly to find some good SciFi to read and I've failed. All too often I feel like the author is trying too hard to explain how all this scientific mumbo jumbo works and not why the character is doing act X and act Y.
So I ended up reading fantasy books, simply because the charcater development is generaly better. I couldn't care less if the fighting takes place with quantum molecular phasing fusion bombs or rusty swords as long as it's justified and I feel like I care about the characters involved.
I think time has nothing to do with it; I don't care if we'll be in space 40 or 40000 years from now or never. We'll certainly never be in the "Forgotten Realms" or in the world of "Richard Rhal". It doesn't have to be "realistic", or "well researched" it just has to make sense. Am I ok with Sci Fi which says 2+2=5? No, not unless it make sense, and if it can make sense and have good characters, I want it.
Maybe I've been spoiled by Asimov and Clarke (Rama was great, even though the ending made me want to puke). Certainly, the world of SciFi sucks right now. It's not because the books describe flying though space in the year 2003. George Orwell wrote 1984 knowing that the time was irrelevant, and its' still a great and fairly popular book because of the character development.
Re:Research vs not researching (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, boy!
Re:Research vs not researching (Score:3, Interesting)
SF authors who still have spaceships but put character ahead of science include Asaro, Moon, and Cherryh. All have some intersting science or engieneering in the Doc Smith tradition, but not as the core of the tale.
Can I think of any male authors? Well, the Cyberpunk sub-genre treats the techno as background, or as McGuffin, with conflicting motivations a major factor. Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series c
Re:Research vs not researching (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy wants to go back to the good old days when Asimov wrote about robots and it was revolutionary. Yeah it was, and then everybody and their mother wrote about robots and suddenly it wasn't so revolutionary anym
Re:Research vs not researching (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Research vs not researching (Score:3, Insightful)
The real problem isn't your readers - it's sci-fi authors who delude themselves into believing they're some kind of prophets. In truth most sci-fi *is* fantasy and the future they paint no more real or useful than any good sword and sorcery novel. If sci-fi authors really held as much of a key to the future as they love to proclaim, they'd be scientists - not writers - and actually help to make that future happen. Sure they sometimes may ma
Re:Research vs not researching (Score:3, Insightful)
My favorites these days are Weber (for the Harrington books), and Bujold (for Vorkosigan books). IMO they're new classics and must reads.
The other side is the fantasy b
Science Fiction Self Defeating (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a reflection of taste that we are moving from the tech driven SF genre into the character driven fantasy world. At least in fantasy, they aren't trying to explain HOW the magic works. They simply use it to get around a peculiar problem, or to leverage the abilities of the protagonist against an otherwise overwhelming foe.
Damn it. I'm starting to sound like Campbell.
Re:Science Fiction Self Defeating (Score:4, Insightful)
Which fantasy world are you on?
Seriously. That horrific overgeneralization is just plain wrong. In both genres, you've got some stories that are character driven, and some that are there to explore how "X" would affect a society... whether "X" is the ability of a select few to conjure fire out of the air, or the technology to travel faster than the speed of light. Whatever.
And, in both genres, some stories have neither interesting characters, nor an interesting "X". Such stories tend to suck.
99% Rule - A summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Older works, however (e.g. Golden Age SF or Renisance portraiture) have had the advantage of seeing the worst of the garbage fall away (Heck, did *you* save the crappy poetry you wrote in 7th grade?). As a result, we tend to forget the garbage that came before it and treat the current crop more critically ("Back in *my* day the music was better..."). It's an ongoing process you can see it today if you turn to any oldies station - more Santana and less Partidge Family. The ratio is definately different than the actual play and sales ratios you saw when the songs were new.
Just something to think about...
Re:99% Rule - Much Rambling :) (Score:4, Insightful)
That said... in its day it seemed fresh and new, and we were so hungry for anything that wasn't Here And Now, that if it more or less smelled like SF, we read it, and *liked* it, and hungered for more. Now -- the space program is old hat and no longer exciting, and hardware SF (and the "new worlds to explore" ideas that go along with it) seems equally old hat and unexciting. Worse, the newly-written hard SF that's come along has struck me as
Over the past few years I've found it's the same with TV as well. Frex, I've already seen every cop show I ever want to, and no matter how "good" a new cop show is, I just can't work up any interest in it. It feels old, tired, and boring, because I've already seen decades worth of it.
Fantasy is getting well into its own rut, as the proliferation of stuff like the Wheel of Time brickset illustrates. I used to read a LOT of fantasy, yet now, if I never see another witch or elf or dragon, it will be too soon.
So what do I read, anyway? about all that's left is character driven stuff, which means mainly Bujold- or Cherryh-style space opera, and George R.R. Martin- or Melanie Rawn-style fantasy.
What's really happened is that I've outgrown event-driven stories, regardless of their venue.
I know I had a point when I started writing this, but I think I left it in the 1930s.
Re:Reality vs. Fantasy (Score:5, Insightful)
I take a different opinion.
Space travel as discussed in science fiction has become something that we no longer hope for in our lifetimes. This was not the case 50 years ago, we thought we would be traveling the stars! Now we know better.
Perhaps this is people reaction to that. Perhaps if people are to be relegated to remote dreams they like the more romantic notions of elves and wizards.
2c.
Magic Vs. Technology (Score:5, Interesting)
Computer control systems were almost unheard of, and used only on system of fantastic proportions like Nuclear reactors and weapon targeting systems.
Don't forget that technology was largely credited at the time for winning the war. It also brought an end to many plagues affecting americans: smallpox and polio. 50 years ago was a much different time.
50 years ago technology WAS magic. Few who used it understood it. Those that made it happen were wizards in labcoats.
Re:Magic Vs. Technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Here we are 50 years later, and nothing has changed...except that 50 years ago almost everyone knew how to spell "calculus". :-/
For most people today, even a toaster is way beyond their comprehension. That problem is getting worse, not better. There is an increasing lack of interest in or respect for learning in general, IMO.
That is all helped right along by our consumer/pop culture, which is far more interested in the travails of the current hot celebrity rather than the latest advances in science. Sad, really.
I think if things continue this way for an extended period, the U.S. will lose it's leadership position in technology. It doesn't help that scientists and technologists have been getting screwed economically for years...
Re:Magic Vs. Technology (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Magic Vs. Technology (Score:5, Insightful)
It's even worse than that...we're in the middle of a politically-correct rewriting of history that will have untold effects. Also, there is an Orwellian twisting of our textbooks that no one seems to recognize as such.
Here in California, there was recently a law passed that will require the replacement of most of the elementary and high school textbooks in the state.
"Founding Fathers" was found to be too sexist - now it must be "Framers" (as in "framers" of the Constitution). Mount Rushmore is too sexist - every President pictured is a man, so it must be banned from all California textbooks. There is a preponderance of DWM (Dead White Men) in the current textbooks, so in the interests of race and gender equality we'll have a female poet replace the Wright Brothers in textbooks from now on. Thomas Edison is another one - no more mention for him, an ethnic example who made a much more minor contribution from society must be used. It is completely sickening.
Oh, also, all mention of fast food and other unhealthy items (such as soda) has been banned from textbooks.
All this textbook replacement is also happening during the worst budget crisis in state history. Nice.
So, aside from whatever lack of decent core curriculum we now have (my son was not taught a science class in fourth grade last year) we have to deal with the consequences of the ill-advised leading the ill-informed. What fun.
Fortunately, I'm headed for another state soon. ;-)
Re:Magic Vs. Technology (Score:5, Insightful)
The real answer (possibly) is
To me, it would seem that most people reading this know a bit about science and technology. The way that we envision the future is a bunch of megacorporations overly worried about not getting enough money. Everybody has a camera strapped to their heads. When they go to the bank, if they stare at the painting on the wall for more than 5 seconds, some money gets deducted from their account and sent to the artist. In this future, the average person is just a sheep for the fleecing by governments and corporations.
In short, we have seen the future. And unless something changes, the future will suck.
Compared to this, a fantasy seems great! If you see a lawyer, cast a fireball spell. And then you go to defeat the great demon of SCO.
Go with that. (Score:3, Insightful)
Would art get better or worse?
Given the lowest common denominator, would we see a lot more porn being presented as "art". It would generate the most payments for the "artist".
What about advertising? If they could measure how long your looked at an ad, what changes would take place on those ads?
Would the market eventually slide into porn? If not, why not? What effect would there be on people if every billboar
Magic Vs. Technology is not the right distinction (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly is different between the FTL technologies which are presumed for much SF, and magic? For that matter things like teleportation and telepathy appear in both SF and fantasy. These phenomena are equally fantastical in either setting when compared to what we know is possible.
I think the difference is that there is a presumed sociological framework in which the effects are acheived in SF. We presume that FTL will be possible because of some kind of technological infrastructure and societal processes that will make the required discoveries possible.
In fantasy, it is psychology that makes the fantastic effect possible. Indeed, I think the big difference between SF and fantasy have to do with their model for how the human mind is enmeshed with the world. In SF, the human mind is effective in the world because of its senses and control of the body's phsyical faculties, combined with the contributions of everyone else. Telekinesis, telepathy etc in an SF world are merely extensions of the mundane senses and facluties. In fantasy, the mind can directly effect the world through the process of magic. It immediately follows that fantasy is about symbolism and SF is about mechanism.
It's a mistake to make value judgements between the types of literature; they both reflect different preoccupations that occur at different times, and no doubt the pendulum will swing the other way. I think the swing towards fantasy is a shift towards psychological rather than sociological preoccupations. We have adapted to and accept technological change as a given. We are less interested in the consequences of change and how we fit into a changed world. Instead, we are more interested in issues of meaning. Tolkien captured this, in a more judgemental way than I would, when he dismissed SF being about "improved means to diminished ends".
Looking at Tolkien's work, the reason for its appeal is crystal clear to me. It's not about escapism; it's about issues of death, hope, courage and responsibility to our brethren. Asimov's works are much more about how a world with robots of near human capabilities might work.
Re:Reality vs. Fantasy You hit it, did you know? (Score:3, Insightful)
IMHO, Scientists today are missing that little bit of fantasty that makes the impossible come true.
Stop telling people it can't be done, all you're doing is discouraging the young from even trying to do what you think (or have been told?) is not possible.
Re:Reality vs. Fantasy (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe that we will put a human on Mars and colonize the moon/planets. Not in my lifetime, probably, but eventually. Why imagine it? On the other hand, I doubt if any human will roam the countryside with his elf companion, talking to trees and hunting dragons and wizards. Ever.
On a different topic, I must admit that I *love* SK's Dark Tower series (check the nick.) It's got an interesting blend of old, modern, and future. There's something intriguing about chasing a wizard with your heroin-addicted friend, while fighting nuclear-powered giant robots with your sandlewood six-shooters. (And that description is sure to scare any non-readers away for good, yet get a chuckle from some fans. =)
Re:Reality vs. Fantasy (Score:4, Insightful)
I think people are discouraged from dreaming about futures that seem to never arrive when we expect them to.
Re:Reality vs. Fantasy (Score:3, Insightful)
The Wright Brothers conquered the air. Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier. But they both had examples to follow, and it was a whole mess of engineering. The Wright Brothers knew that heavier-than-air flight was possible; they only had to watch birds do it. A lot of engineering work built a cont
Re:Reality vs. Fantasy (Score:5, Insightful)
But in this century, what is beyond possible? Exploring the planets? Been there, done that, got pictures.
In other words, perhaps science fiction is suffering from too much science!
Bollocks. Absolute bollocks.
Is it possible to go to the moon for a holiday? To relocate the family to Mars? Is it possible for our children to take orbital field trips? Not at this time. Some people still have the fire to do such things, but the mass culture has discarded these dreams. Because they're boring dreams, you say, within the outer limit of possibility? Bollocks, I repeat. Mankind has a history of grabbing dreams at the edge of what they can see, if they have the bravery to dream at all.
The explorers who mapped North America didn't dampen the fire of those who followed them, they inflamed it. Lewis and Clark proved it was possible to hike to the pacific -- did people then say, 'Oh, as long as they've proven that, we don't have to go.'? No. There was a spirit of exploration back then, and an excitement in dealing with the unknown. Those are things we no longer have. Today exploration is neglected, and mankind fears the unknown more than ever before.
The problem Robinson outlines has a simple explanation, though. As lives become more complicated, people feel nostalgic for simpler times. As the world moves faster, and becomes more dangerous and violent, people are turning to medieval and historical fantasies where life was simple, evil and good were in black-and-white contrast to one another, and the world was more easily understood. People are, in mass, reverting to our cultural childhood, because at the moment our adult culture sucks.
This is a symptom of Future Shock. Nothing more, nothing less. And it'll get worse before it gets better. Some people will handle it, able to adapt to the future as fast as it comes, but the majority of humanity is going to want to go backward as fast as their cowardly feet will take them.
Let me be clear. I would kill, with my bare hands, each and every person reading this post if it meant I could have a chance to go into space. For those with the fire for exploration, the drive is *that* strong. And it's a tragedy that the rest of humanity has lost it. I can only hope that someday they'll find it again.
Re:Reality vs. Fantasy (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry that I expressed my passion in violent terms. Don't know how else to convey it. If you give me a 50/50 chance of surviving a spaceflight, I'm *going*. But we're so timid and risk averse as a society, I would probably not legally be allowed to take that kind of chance. It's frustrating.
Re:Reality vs. Fantasy (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's look at the greats:
Alfred Bester -- A brilliant author and a man who didn't understand all of the science involved in what he was writing, but a damn sight more than most of his readers. His modern day equivalents are the slightly off-genre authors like Ian Banks who write a mix of SF and standard fiction.
Harlan Ellison -- I will refrain from calling Ellison his own modern day equivalent, though the man does still write. Today, I'd poin
Re:Reality vs. Fantasy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Reality vs. Fantasy (Score:3)
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that new classics are fewer between. Sure, the old sci-fi was overly optimistic about a lot of things, but it was also often correct. It raised ethical issues about advances before they happened. Perhaps if more people read/wrote good sci-fi, the cloning debate would be about real issues, and not about fears of "another me".
There ARE writers doing this. Vinge, Sterling, even Stephenson, for example. Looking at modern technology and thinking about "what next?". But such writers are rare, and not getting the attention they should. It's far easier for authors (and audiences) to accept some warmed-over superscience as a plot device for a familiar story rather than challenge common assumptions.
Have you considered what daily life will be like in 20 years? Really? Have you thought how it will affect how you interact with other people, how you'll view things like old age, distance, gender, equality, elitism?
The old sci-fi wasn't WOW just because people thought the science could happen, it was because it brought up concepts that people HADN'T thought about, and they were willing to try.
The blame is two-fold: Crap produced, Crap accepted. If you aren't the writer, engage your brain and read the good stuff. Think about it. Spread the word. If you are the writer, well, don't use cheezy sci-fi as a plot vehicle, write something that means something.
Short Stories (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a collector and reader of old sci-fi. The ~vast majority~ of golden and silver age sci-fi are short stories (usually reprinted from magazines) and short novels. There are, of course, series and serials, but the majority of the works are stand alone stories.
When I walk into a Barnes and Noble, I see two kinds of sci-fi. One is the wall of spin-off series. You know, the hundereds of Star Trek, Star Wars, Battletech, etc. series, which are usually written by many different authors, using the same characters and ideas. There is nothing wrong with this: its fun, and occasionally good stuff comes from it. However, when it dominates the market, there is a lack of new ideas being expressed - which is what brought us to sci-fi in the first place.
On the other side of the aisle, I see the regular sci-fi authors. About a third of the books I see are series. Now, I love a good trilogy, but if you compare a 1000 page trilogy with a thousand pages of short stories, which do you think is going to have more ~ideas~?
At its core, sci-fi is about ideas. Yes, good characters, good plot, good scenery are all nice, but in the end I want to hear something NEW. And I don't care whether it takes you 1000 pages or 10 to tell me. But authors get paid by the page, and publishers get paid by the book.
I wonder if it's not that we have less sci-fi ideas, but that they are padded more these days. Is that the price of popularity?
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Mean while, we got a golden gift in story telling by J.K. Rowling, Hery Potter. She dosen't try to explain why there is an entire quarter of magical shops in the middle of london and no one noticed. "It is a kind of magic", that is th
Technophobia (Score:5, Interesting)
Tolkien had very anti-technology undertones. He constantly refered to the dark clouds of Mordor, the decimation of the forests in Eisengard. That strikes a note with the post-hippie kids of the 70's and 80's.
Re:Technophobia (Score:2)
Mostly I think this is a cyclical thing. Culturally we were deeply into a science-fiction rut, and now we are moving into a fantasy rut. The LOTR
Jack Vance! (Score:5, Informative)
UNBELIEVABLE! Anyone who has read Vance's works, please feel free to tell me your favs as I look forward to reading many more, as I've just finished the last of the aforementioned books. I'll give you a million SVU and a bag of Purples for your efforts! :)
Re:Jack Vance! (Score:2)
Vernor Vinge (Score:3, Insightful)
A Deepness in the Sky
That's all that needs saying.
Re:Vernor Vinge (Score:2)
No, there's something else that needs saying. Those books are very nearly, but not quite, completely unlike readable fiction.
I'm sure there are great, majestic, sweeping ideas in there, but the undefined jargon and lack of anything like sympathetic characters relegates these books to an audience of people that want to read between the lines and see content that isn't actually on the page.
It's all about the chicks (Score:2, Funny)
Re:It's all about the chicks (Score:4, Funny)
'Why are our imaginations retreating ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you watch "the matrix"?
Re:'Why are our imaginations retreating ? (Score:3, Funny)
Did you watch "the matrix"?
No, the question is, did you watch the matrix?
In soviet russia, Matrix watches YOU.
We see it all the time. (Score:3, Interesting)
Compared to the earlier-mid parts of the 20th century, we see science all around us. Medical breakthroughs, technological innovations, etc.
We used to have to wait decades for great discoveries. Now they theorize and prove within short years. Fantasy brings people into a world that can't exist. Sci-Fi stories may one day be true and aren't as escapist.
My favorites (Score:2, Interesting)
Dune fits into this, as does Star Wars..
There are other great books as well, although I can't really remember their names.
Any tips?
Re:My favorites (Score:2, Informative)
He's wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
The focus of much of the Sci-Fi these days is on the relationship of the technology to society and the long term effects of the technology on the path of humanity.
Take a look at Vernor Vinge, John Varley, John Wright, Cory Doctorow, John Barnes, Bruce Sterling, Ken MacLeod, and Dan Simmons if you are interested in some recent sci-fi. No elves or magic swords there.
Just because it's not 60s style, libertarian - free love stuff of the past doesn't mean it's not sci-fi.
Re:He's wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dan Simmons not selling? (Score:3, Interesting)
Claiming the Iliad isn't SF is about the same as claiming that Hyperion wasn't because it was based on Keat's poetry.
Pick up a copy. Best book I've read in at least a year.
Re:He's wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Vernor Vinge -- born in 1944
John Varley -- born in 1947
John Wright -- unable to Google birthdate, but is a *retired* attorney and newspaper editor
Cory Doctorow -- born in 1971
John Barnes -- born in 1957
Bruce Sterling -- born in 1954
Ken MacLeod -- born in 1954
Dan Simmons -- born in 1948
With the exception of the 32-year-old Doctorow, it appears that all these people will never see forty five again. This is the new wave? Is no one in their twenties writing real SF any more? Note that I don't object to the presence of older people--I'm past forty myself. But the total lack of *younger* people is disturbing...
Chris Mattern
Dream of a better day... (Score:2, Insightful)
To a greater degree, that is a fantasy past when times were simple and there was wonder in the universe.
Today the future is gloomy, assuming you will even have a job in the future, and space is empty and far away - no you can't go faster then light, so no space for you!. Noone has to wonder about anything at all, the answers to life the universe and everything are a google search away.
The easter bunny, santa clause, and the
Re:Dream of a better day... (Score:5, Interesting)
We're in a recession. During recessionary periods, nostalgic fantasy dominates the cultural landscape. It was true in the 70's, it was true in the early 90's, and it's true now. During boom cycles, "the future is now" optimism (or "the world is changing too fast" pessimism) has a lot more energy.
Also, the sense of public investment in the future is weaker. The age of space travel as a public-sector funded universal aspiration has been eclipsed by the corporate "if it ain't profitable within 3 years, it's not worth doing" attitude of the present day. There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes, most of us won't be able to afford it.
Three words: Lois McMaster Bujold (Score:5, Informative)
a sample available at.. http://www.baen.com/library/1011250002/1011250002
it's a short story without the space battle-cruisers.. but the rest of her stuff has 'em.. and so much more.
--iamnotayam
Re:Three words: Lois McMaster Bujold (Score:3, Informative)
9FYI, Spider Robinson has had some stuff published by Baen)
Re:Three words: Lois McMaster Bujold (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Three words: Lois McMaster Bujold (Score:3, Informative)
Lord of the rings (Score:2)
There are only so many science base scenarios you can have. Either aliens, end of the world or robots. Its a bit of a generalisation but with fanstasy you can create anything your imagination can concieve
Just my 0.02
Rus
Ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
I find the ideas that the author has are the intriguing people.
Heinlein in "The moon is a Harsh Mistress" exposed me to many ideas I've never thought of before. It also provides a stark contrast to Lord of the Flies and the nature of man.
The Forever war was a blast, what is this world coming to?
Enders game, interesting solutions, and some of the hows. Starship troopers had some interesting political ideas.
Lifeline was yet another interesting expression of a though, and reflection on change.
FWIW Tolkein is just as much about politics and psychology and history of the day as much as any good sci-fi story.
For me, at least... (Score:3, Funny)
They were wrong about flying cars by the year 2000. Once bitten, twice shy.
last original (non-franchise) Sci-Fi work you read (Score:2)
What was the last real original non-franchise piece of Sci-Fi you took up?
In an age of nano-technology and an interconnected networked world, I thought that people like Gibson and Stephenson were the real deal answers to men like Asimoz and Bradbury.
Was I so wrong?
space legos (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, that kind of applies to why I liked scifi over fantasy in general.
Steampunk is an interesting crossover genre, I jsut discovere Steam Trek [steam-trek.com], a mapping of Star Trek onto the "what if the Victorians got space travel" theme.
"The future" as a recent concept (Score:5, Insightful)
If we go back in time say 500 years, things didn't really change all that much from one generation to the next and so there was no concept of "the future" as we have it today. Imaginary images often revolved around religous "places" such as heaven or hell.
In the golden age of science fiction writing, which for most people I think is the 50's and 60's, in the future amazing things seemed possible and there was am optimism that things like space travel, flying cars, robots etc. might actually happen for ordinary people, perhaps even within the lifetime of the young people that read the fiction.
I think we're a bit more cynical nowadays, and thus the future doesn't seem so exciting. We've learnt that things don't change as fast as we would like them to, and the actual changes are mostly quite dull.
Imagine if a 50's science fiction writer had thought of the web. A story about buying a book on Amazon from your cubicle at work (most peoples reality today) somehow doesn't seem as exciting as flying to another planet with a cheeky robot.
Ideas... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ideas... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well said, and I think that's a very good point. But I think it's imporant to note that the appeal of heroic figures is hardly something new or unique to today's society. The problem isn't that society changed, it's that many modern writers decided that there was no room in "serious" writing for childish concepts as good and evil. In doing so they lost their core readership, real people who immediately knew that something very important was missing from these stories.
I began to lose interest in modern SF when the good guys and the bad guys were all replaced by characters who were narcassistic, amoral jerks. And the rest of the world just seemed to be a tedious backdrop constructed purely to justify their nacissitic, amoral jerkiness. Why would I want to read about that?
I don't mean to say that it all must be black-and-white. SF has always had it's share of antiheroes, after all, or characters who were ultimately misguided. But the characters have to appeal to me on some level or I'm not interested.
Re:Ideas... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I find there's generally much more plot diversity in sci-fi than there is in fantasy. If I had a nickel for every lowly apprentice that is secretly the next great wizard/king/warlord, I could retire.
Having said that, your second point is very true... there is a very blurry line (at best) betwe
Nitpicking and ... (Score:2)
The science is too complicated (Score:5, Insightful)
It's much easier to write about a fantasy world that never has, or will, exist. Plus, people have always been fascinated by the concept of "magic".
Amateur Fiction (Score:2)
Compare 3001 (Clarke) to 2001 or 2010. 3001 was a boring, unexciting book. What parts were interesting were so cautionary, they weren't fun to read.
Here's a good site with a few amatuer authors. [eastoftheweb.com]
Fantasy iterated for millenia (Score:2)
Tolkien's works are very heavily based on Norse mythology, as an example, and the ideas there have survived in a meme sense for thousands of years. Similar to a genetic algorithm to find the best stories running since the time of early civilizations.
This is a big competitive advantage for a SF writer to overcome, and in fact, many SF stories are really mythological themes overlaid with "space" stuff as a settin
A clear case of oldfartitis (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two different points here; I'll address each separately.
1. Sales are down. BFD. Just because the slide is a bit longer than average is no reason to panic. Granted, it's a couple of years since I picked up fiction (Lois McMaster Bujold excepted), but Robinson is harping on like there hasn't been a good book in a decade. I'm not the only one who could name six or seven authors who are truly excellent and still writing. Just because sales are down doesn't mean the fiction is there; it just means people are diverting their attention elsewhere. Which brings me to point two...
There is, I suspect, no relation between the increase in media-driven novels and 'proper' ones. People who read Star Trek novels aren't interested in proper SF; I suspect the same holds true for other franchises. If there is a problem with these books, it's that they're included in SF totals, making the SF book industry look healthier than it is.
Robinson's point seems to be that there's a feedback loop between space exploration and SF; I personally have my doubts. I've not doubt whatsoever that SF does indeed foster an interest in space, but is the reverse true? I sort of doubt it.
SF isn't in decline. Quality SF as a percentage of teh total volume of merchandising masquerading as product may be, but so what? Just buy the good stuff, and leave the crap to the trekkies. Or buffyites. Or whatever.
The sky is falling, Spider (Score:5, Insightful)
(Flamebait: And I don't know why he's talking about "his" genre. The Callahan books aren't SF; they're Chicken Soup for the Geek's Soul.)
-Carolyn
Re:The sky is falling, Spider (Score:3, Insightful)
I've tried to read _Red Mars_ twice, and each time I've put it down -- I don't want to read 600 pages worth of Martian politics. If I wanted to read about politics, I'd be taking
Because Space Travel is proving to be impractical (Score:3, Interesting)
We know enough to ruin the dreams (Score:5, Interesting)
Many of the ideals that make SF what it is are being marginalized today. Sort of depressing really.
Combine this with our present science and we know enough that reaching another star system will not happen in our lifetimes. Though Mars should --if it doesn't its political, not technical.
Almost smells like a plot to put all the smart ones back underground where they belong so the real business of making money today --right now, can get done...
Maybe I am just being a little too alarmist this morning. I personally enjoy SF and share the view of the author. Maybe nobody is really exploring SF because fantasy is easier or something...
BTW, what is the genre of "The Reality Disfunction" by Peter F. Hamilton? Seems to be SF, but does have some other elements. Any ideas?
Lowest Common Denominator, Cynicism, and Dystopia (Score:5, Insightful)
1) It is not as though "hard" science-fiction has always had mass appeal. It has always had a specialized genre feeling. What passes for science fiction movies today are generally no more than shoot-em-up's in space. More like futuristic action. This is what appeals to the movie-going audience. "Hard" science fiction is too "hard" (must think...hurts brain) and is probably not profitable.
2) Fantasy pops into the human need for myth. Mythology (not necessarily incorrect or unfactual) exists traditionally in historical and religious traditions, Greek, Norse, Egyptian, Christian, etc. creation myths and such, and with the modern push to explain everything scientifically, a major piece of how people function (i.e. mythology in life) disappears, thus a longing for mythos appears, which fantasy seems to fill better than analytical science fiction.
3) The idea of a "bright, happy, future" seems to be relegated to naivety and a cynical "dystopia" seems to have set in (thus apocalyptic movies, etc), and this view seems to be pushed by many media outlets (i.e. bad news sells). We apparantly will pollute ourselves to death in 50 years, the world will be completely controlled by corporations, etc.
4) Finally, the largest bastion of future hope for science, at least in the US, NASA, has gone from getting a man on the moon in 10 years, to losing orbiters in Mars, as one magazine article put it, on the 30th anniversary of Apollo (paraphrasing) "We want NASA to be a precursor to Starfleet, but they are more like a bad post office."
These several things go to explain the loss of interest in "Golden Age" science fiction
why I believe Sci-Fi is not as popular (Score:4, Interesting)
the hell out of us. The future apparently holds
fewer rights, less privacy, more commercials, etc.
Who wants to fantasize about that???? Not me!!!
Tell me how do we get off this world thats heading
down the toilet?
At least fantasy still provides hope that good can
still prevail against evil. With techonology the
question is which evil state of afairs wins over
some other evil state of afairs. Mind you the
heros may be good vs evil but the world in which
they live still sucks!
Thats my point....
Rose Coloured Glasses (Score:3, Insightful)
If you try and look back over your old SF collection, as I've tried to, you'll find things weren't much better in the "good old" days. The characeristaion was non-existent (try and characterise a single Asimov hero- they were all as bland as STNG characters) - the writing was often childlike and way too simple, or became bogged down in its own cleverness (who has managed to read ther whole Rama series without trying to skip some pages) and the often quoted great classics of SF were often closer to fantasy than hard science - Dune being a good example. There were very few good hard-science SF books, and the problem is not taht there are fewer now, but that they are swamped by the increase in all the other types of books which, let's face it, for a non-scientist as most writers are, aer much easier to churn out!
The problem with sci-fi today.... (Score:3, Informative)
The freshest stuff in sci-fi in the last 20 years is the cyberpunk genre. This is, IMHO, the cutting edge of sci-fi. Set in the near-future, incorporating a lot of today's tech, the stories are not out of touch with today's reality and the genre hasn't been over-exploited (yet). They make for fresh sci-fi worlds but can easily touch on themes and stories that we can relate to.
If you haven't looked into cyberpunk, pick up some books by Bruce Sterling, Neal Stephenson, or William Gibson. Esp. Neuromancer, Diamond Age and Snow Crash. Definately worth your time.
So let me get this straight. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh! The! Irony!
If speculative fiction needs to be saved from anything, it's the Spider Robinsons, Mercedes Lackeys and Piers Anthonys of the world. If they're complaining, that's probably a good sign -- hopefully that people are starting to spend their money on books by authors with actual talent [locusmag.com] rather than the 2,387th entry in the Callahan's Cross-Time Dragonquest for Telepathic Cats series.
a quick calibration of perspective (Score:3, Funny)
1. Death of my father.
2. Hit by taxicab in Philadelphia.
3. Dumped by first girlfriend in junior high school.
4. Held up at gunpoint.
.
.
.
57. Bicycle stolen.
.
.
.
1,294. Embarrassing facial blemish on night of big date.
.
.
.
7,837,129. Recipient of pathetically obvious "so how many books have you published, huh?" flame on slashdot by the author of "Lady Slings the Booze" or, as likely, a fanboy using his name.
Speculative fiction of all kinds (Score:3, Interesting)
For those of us that grew up reading SF in the 50's and 60's that meant a bright future of computing, robots, philosophy, colonies on Mars and all with the ever present possiblility of actually coming into contact with an alien race.
Now we're living in that future and it didn't work out quite the way we imagined it. Not only is Mars virtually dead but so is the Moon. We've had to come to grips with the fact that universe is so vast we aren't actually likely to meet anyone else, possibly ever. Superstition is on the ascendent among the proles and the visions of the future expressed in 1984 and Brave New World turns out to be the most accurate of the predictions. Robots took our jobs, but we aren't allowed to become philosphers unless we wish to starve. The TV watches us.
The projection of the current state into a happy future seems to realistically revolve around clone wars that are likely to be resolved by turning us all into computer controled worker bees earning our "living" by tossing rocks over walls just so we can walk to the other side and toss them back.
Is it any wonder that people would prefer their fantasies to revolve around Liv Tyler's little elf tits?
In the medieval fantasy a the single strong man with a sword we all imagine ourselves to be can change the world.
In the future fantasy the same man is declared to be suffering from a pathological syndrome and is locked away with milk, cookies and bottle of Prozac.
KFG
The end of the future (Score:3, Insightful)
Soon, computing will stall out too. We're nearing the end of optical lithography on flat silicon and the limits of power dissipation. The SIA roadmap says the end comes before 2013. There's no new technology in the pipe likely to replace these technologies. There's no clamor for it, either - the next things expected in computing are the Pentium N+1, Windows N+1, Palm N+1, and cellphone generation N+1. Yawn. It's like waiting for the 1957 Chevy to come out with bigger tailfins.
Outside of biotech, it's hard to find any bright spots.
Sci Fi The Singularity (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure fantasy stories dressed up in science fiction clothing still hold peoples attention, but they aren't really the Science Fiction. But they are what die-hard hard-SF fans like myself derisivly refer to 'Sci Fi' (or 'skiffy' in the SF fan parlence). Moreover what was once Science Fiction in every sense of the phrase is now 'Sci Fi'.
The kind of stories that once filled us with wonder (partly because we could imagine ourselves in them) are now out of reach in reality; whether due to cost or due to the actual science being wrong. Once again, relying on SF Fannish phrasing, the sensawunda is no longer there, so we end up with stories based on implausible or impossible technology where plot points are based around plasma fires in the transporter. No sensawunda, but the special effects are cool.
The other problem with modern SF was first articulated by Vernor Vinge in his paper The Singularity [caltech.edu]: "Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended."
Whether Vinge's Singularity comes to pass as envisioned or not, the core point is certainly valid; at the very least the future, even the near future, is probably going to be unimaginable by anyone living today. Why? Because sometime soon, perhaps not within thirty years but certainly within a century, we are going to have the ability to create intelligences orders of magnitude smarter than we are. It doesn't matter if we enhance human intelligence or create machine intelligence, either way the result is the same. Either way something that is to us as we are to mice is going to be calling the shots.
This scenario is pretty damming to SF; after all most of the familiar tropes of SF go out the window. Rocket ships? Well, they might exist, but we have no idea what they would look like or who would be on them. Alien contact? Hell, the aliens would be right here. Humans colonizing other star systems? Even if humanity survives into this post-human future it will change so as to be unrecognizable to us now anyway. How can you write stories about beings who don't share your basic motivations? (Not that this is impossible, but it certainly demands more from the reader, therefore making the book harder to sell.)
As of now no-one has successfully answered Vinge's question, other than several attempts to dismiss it out of hand. Vinge himself, because he wanted to write space operas, ended up thrusting the problem of ultra-intelligence aside by creating a magic 'slow zone' in the galaxy that limits intelligence to a maximum inside the zone.
However a few writers have tried to honestly deal with the problem of the Singularity by writing a new kind of fiction I refer to as 'Transhuman' SF. Cyberpunk was the progenitor of this SF form with stories set right on the edge of the Singularity. Writers like Greg Bear, Gregory Benford, Kathleen Goonan, John Varley, Ian M. Bainks, Ken MacCleod, Greg Egan, Cory Doctorow and others have written SF set either just over that edge, or millions of years past it. Although the level to which they are honest in their presentation of transhumanism varies greatly, probably because the more you extrapolate the harder it is to make the story coherent and interesting.
Transhuman SF does require much from the reader. Unless the writer constantly stops the action for 'As you know Bob.' sequences to explicate things the reader must have a wide ranging knowledge of genetics,
What Tolkein has, not what Sci-Fi doesn't (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) an Armageddon style battle. Not a Last battle, but a huge, all-out, good-vs-evil battle. I think people are just getting a feeling, though they're looking externally when they should be looking internally.
(2) Lord of the Rings is a fundamentally Catholic work (sorry if I sound to some like I'm not being humble. I'm quoting Tolkein when I say that.) That is, it goes back to orthodox Christianity.
(3) Lord of the Rings is about internal moral struggles.
(4) Lord of the Rings upholds that the right will be victorious.
(5) Lord of the Rings gave birth to whole genres of fiction, storytelling, games, and so on.
Now, #5 explains why it was ready as the work of choice to come into film. But those others all relate to something that is lacking in our society, today, and in our lives, today. And since that lack is destroying us both internally and externally in real life, we make up for it in fantasy.
Contrast that with the 50's, when our major lack was in technology, and our fantasies (for that's what sci-fi really is) played out in that field.
Of course, better than a fantasy that fulfills your feeling of lack, is a reality that makes it right. Which fact should make a lot of people think if maybe the Catholic Church has something after all...
Re:What Tolkein has, not what Sci-Fi doesn't (Score:3, Insightful)
>1) an Armageddon style battle. Not a Last Bttle, but a huge, all-out, good-vs-evil battle. I think people are just getting a feeling, though they're looking externally when they should be looking internally.
>
That is your best observation overall.
>3) Lord of the Rings is about internal moral struggles.
>
Indeed. The focal point of the story is primarily on Fordo and not Aragorn, the externalized hero.
>(4) Lord of the Rings upholds that the right will be victorious.
I th
A different Take on Things (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the panels at TorCon3 was "Has Science Fiction Failed as a Fiction of Science?" The various panellists decided that SF hasn't so failed, and then proceeded to give explanation after explanation of why, in fact, it has. Lets face it, to any sophisticated reader, most SF written today is not written about a possible future, but about what we once thought might be a possible future. Scientific and technological progress has passed by most of today's authors and left them in the dust. Reading even well-written 'SF' like that of Czerneda or Bujold IS reading fantasy and has much the same feel as reading 1930's SF where everything is done with massive vacuum tubes. The story may be well told and the characterization is great, but the setting makes no sense. Where are the AIs? Where are the hugely extended lifetimes? Where is the nanotechnology? Where are the body modifications? Whaere are the ubiquitous microscopic computers? Where is the brain uploading? Where are any number of technologies we are working towards today that don't show up in most contemporary SF? Spider laments that readers prefer Fantasy to SF. Maybe they just prefer that their fantasy be overt.
Now, all is not lost, some authors such as Walter Jon Williams, Charlie Stross, Linda Nagata, Ian M Banks, Greg Egan and others have embraced the new future that is appearing in front of us, but they are the exceptions. Until most SF authors are actually writing about possible futures again, SF will be in an inevitable decline.
Modernism versus post-modernism (Score:4, Insightful)
Why fantasy over science fiction? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it any wonder that people would rather escape into a world in which you could hop on a horse and ride for a day or two to escape from oppressive laws, and where being a corporate drone isn't a viable career option?
Why fantasy? (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, when you look at the sorry state of modern education (here in the United States), at the number of truly innumerate people that don't have a clue what a decimal point means or even understand scientific notation
Empowerment (Score:3, Insightful)
Technology is used by governments and corporations against individuals, and they have no recourse. Why then should they hope for more of it?
I still have dreams of escape, but I know them to be dreams. I have dreams of creating something new and powerful in the way of software, and I think it possible, if unlikely. But how many can even say that much?
Question (Score:3, Interesting)
It has been suggested that we are entering a new 'Dark Ages', of sorts. This is perhaps in response to the fear, rational or not, of what near-future technology may bring - human cloning and a list of other 'scaries'.
What I find very interesting is this: In ages past, man feared nature, because of what he did not know. In this age, man is beginning to fear science, because of what he can know.
On a side note, a question that I'd like to ask, which is somewhat related:
How would you classify works such as OSC's Ender series? Obviously set in the future, but after Ender's Game (and a few pieces here and there in the next 3 books), they are mainly focused on personal, moral, and geopolitical issues, with little or no mention of any technologies or lifestyle changes. Even the 'nets' are simply categorized hub-style Internet groupings. It seems to me that the Ender books set in the near future (as opposed to the 3000-years-ahead future) read more like modern fantasy... almost like what you would get if you took the politics and war-making in the Lord of the Rings, and set them in modern times, while ignoring the rest of the story.
No SF Zone: Navel Gazing in Progress (Score:3, Insightful)
I had never heard that argument but it rings true
Melancholy Elephants (Score:4, Insightful)
The short form is:
1) There are only so many ways of telling a story that people find enjoyable.
2) Copyright extension causes it to be impossible to rework an older form, and, even more corrosively, it becomes difficult to avoid accidental plagerism. (Just consider the effect that SCO is trying to achieve.)
3) So people progressively move to uncluttered fields. But there are only so many forms that are enjoyable.
4) Creative activity slows...and slows...and slows
I don't do the story justice. Find it and read it. It's a sufficient explanation for this, and many other problems.
(I have given other explanations for this problem, and they are also true.)
Re:Melancholy Elephants (Score:3, Insightful)
That would seem to be very broadly dismissive of urban fantasy and magic realism, Mr. Robinson. Charles de Lint, Terri Windling, Emma Bull, Neil Gaiman... simply check the list of World Fantasy Award winners for a decade or so. Better yet, actually read a couple of those books. That Sean Stewart's Galveston has no space stations hardly makes its scope less sweeping--nor its insights less sharp.
With
The Opposite is True (Score:4, Informative)
Let me hasten to add that fantasy isn't sitting still either. Just try anything by Jasper Fforde or China Mieville if you want to be jolted totally out of your usually tracks.
This lament about the death of SF gets repeated every few years. It's less true now than it ever was.
The inevitability of pop culture... (Score:4, Insightful)
It beat Star Trek to death. I know at least 20 sci-fi fans, and none admit to watching 'Enterprise' regularly. Star Wars has been turned into a merchandising machine. "Merchandising! Merchandising! Where the REAL money from the movie is made." - Yogurt.
My advice is just be patient. Pop culture takes obscure stuff, thows it into the mainstream, then dumps it for something new a year or two later. Now Tolkien is all the rage. Just wait, in time people will become tired of that too and eventually new and fresh ideas will come back to Sci-Fi. Or someone will do a "Foundation" movie series that will make LOTR look like a bedtime story.
End of Dream (Score:3, Insightful)
Look just at the way investors think -- if it doesn't pay off in 2 years they are not going to invest. Space exploration takes decades. Let us not kid ourselves -- with the pace of space exploration in the 60s, we could put the man on Mars in a decade and probably start colonizing the Moon in the 2 decades.
The productivity and the wealth of the world are
enought to both solve the world hunger, education and space exploration.
The system encourages people who are best at accumulating capital not to spend it on long term goals. Look just at John Carmack vs. Bill Gates.
John Carmack is a dreamer, hence the X-Prize project involvement -- Bill Gates is not.
The unregulated free market system unfortunately prefers the later.
Most of the very creative people in the world cannot even pursue their creativity because of the economic system.
One Step Beyond (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with doing that now, is that one step beyond is beyond what people *can believe*.
We are faced with the real possibility of physical immortality. People do not believe that.
We are faced with the complete restructuring of the economy and redefinition of the value of the individual due to the development of robots. This problem was first described and dicussed in R.U.R, the book in which the word "robot" was first used as we use it today. But, now it is just one step beyond. Very few people are even aware that the change is coming or how fast it will happen when it does.
We are faced with nanotechnology. The first discussion of the topic happened (AFAIK) in the second half of the 20th century and wasn't seriously dicussed until the late '80s. But, nanotech is already showing up. The majority of people have not yet even heard of nanotechnology.
I could go on and on.
One step beyond is now so far out that most people, even SF fans, can no longer accept it.
About 15 years ago I wrote to complain to the editor of my favorite science fiction magazine because one of the stories was not science fiction. It was about everyday things like a guy using email to interact with other people to solve a problem with a robotic assembly cell.
15 years ago the editor thought my letter was astounding. To him, everything in the story was pure science fiction. Stuff he didn't ecpect to every see.
Stonewolf
Re:have to look for it (Score:5, Insightful)
Sci-fi, as others have stated, is a state of mind. Stephenson's Diamond age is a good example of this. Yes, it has nanotech, but the main focus of the book is on the culutral implications of technology -- which is why it is just a great read, if you want military sci-fi, Ringo's works are quite fun, as well as Weber's.
Aruging semantics makes for such fun.