|
12/27/2009 2:19:05 PM
|
Neal Asher
Posts 110
|
I just stuck this up on my blog http://theskinner.blogspot.com but thought I might as well copy it here...
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.
|
|
12/27/2009 2:35:18 PM
|
John Thiel
Posts 1961
|
Speaking of De Vries, maybe Peter De Vries could write a good death of science fiction novel following the pattern and format of COMFORT ME WITH APPLES.
--
Surprising Stories has a slush pile.
|
|
12/27/2009 4:02:55 PM
|
philwithbeard
Posts 108
|
I have not read, nor agree with, any article on the Death Of Science Fiction.
From my teenage days, some 50 some years ago now, Science Fiction was considered by the general public as 'post-adolescent Male' reading material. Much like the Western dime novels in my Father's youth in the late 1930's. Anyway, Science Fiction back then, from my current perspective, was very culturally biased to Northern and Western European societies and their derivatives like the USA and Canada. The stories and novel back then just presumed that Western Civilized humans (presumably Caucasian) would go forth and explore the unknown 'finial frontier' and spread colonization with our culture, laws, and democracy. And in quit a few stories, there was a correct and a wrong solution to each and every problem for the hero to solve. One of the basic plot lines was the "coming of age" novels and / or youth becoming accepted member of society. Yada, Yada, Yada.
The Viet Nam war changed a lot of that. Suddenly, character in Science Fiction stories started to have flaws, sex, and became, actually, more human-realistic. However, the majority of the general public would still consider SF to be the realm of the post-adolescent male reading material. Again, lots of "coming of age" type of novels. Also a few stories of what became known as "Teenage Angst" novels about not being accepted as is (even if the protagonist was late 20's or early 30's it was still "teenage") .
About a decade after the publication of the Lord of The Rings, I started to notice more and more fantasy novels about various quests and heroes doing battle with ugly evil creatures. (IIRC, Victorian era concept: ugly, unattractive = untrustworthy or evil intentions.) Of the sword & sorcery or fantasy novels I have read, the majority of the novels were about combating, or opposing, some military force, unjust ruler, or some such protagonist. The story lines were not about establishing trade routes, exchanging cultural ideas, expanding medical knowledge, or seeking mineral rights. But, many fewer plot lines of "coming of age"; many more "Stranger in a Strange Land" type of novels.
In short, I contend that there will always be a market for Science Fiction stories and novels that fills the post-adolescent need for tales of exploration, applied engineering, unlimited potential growth of empires, and cultural exchanging of customs and laws (and the occasional coming of age story.)
I once came across the following concept: in general works of fiction, emotional connection between the reader and the novel's characters is so very critical. It is this emotional connection that makes the reader want to follow the progress of the plot and seek the resolution of the plot's conflict. Without this emotional connection, and the sense of wonder at the surrounding environment the characters inhabit, the reader will quickly loose interest in the novel. But most of you know this already, as this is common knowledge.
It is this emotional connection that I find so lacking in many sword & sorcery novels as I cannot relate to the level of violence and gore that appears as unremarkable and common place by the story's characters. So I don't think there will be a death of SF, but I can envision a reduction in the number Fantasy novels sold in the years to come.
This is getting too long a post, so I will cut it off.
Phil
|
|
12/27/2009 4:28:12 PM
|
Gordon Van Gelder
Posts 186
|
Just as an aside, Peter De Vries died in 1993.
---Gordon V.G.
|
|
12/27/2009 5:07:32 PM
|
silk_noir
Posts 101
|
God, rock, and SF--always rumored to be dead, yet always doing surprisingly well.
|
|
12/27/2009 5:48:26 PM
|
Tom Purdom
Posts 834
|
Neal Asher wrote:
D 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.
There were.
|
|
12/27/2009 5:57:26 PM
|
Fabrice D.
Posts 921
|
The death of SF? Once again?
Tiring......
|
|
12/27/2009 7:10:59 PM
|
Mark Pontin
Posts 937
|
What Tom P. said.
|
|
12/27/2009 7:27:51 PM
|
John Thiel
Posts 1961
|
I hadn't regarded that as relevant.
--
Surprising Stories has a slush pile.
|
|
12/27/2009 7:38:08 PM
|
Bill Moonroe
Posts 4377
|
--
"A thagizer? What's that do? Hey, what's this button for? Uh-oh. Sorry about that, man. It'll grow back, right?"
|
|
12/27/2009 9:35:13 PM
|
Dave_Truesdale
Posts 645
|
Neal Asher wrote: "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."
And Tom Purdom replied: "There were."
To which I add the evidence to both, excerpted from one of my F&SF online columns:
"Anthony Boucher (co-founder of F&SF, with J. Francis McComas), in his introduction to the classic A Treasury of Great Science Fiction , explains it this way (remember that the then USSR had successfully launched Sputnik into orbit on October 4, 1957, and the Space Race had just begun):
"When man entered the Space Age two years ago, the writers and editors of science fiction, who had so long been living in this new age, hoped for a fresh surge of reader interest, an expression of gratitude for accurate prophecy in the past and of interest in the possible accuracy of other, as yet unfulfilled prophecies.
"It seemed a logical enough expectation, but it was a fallacious one. The new readers did not arrive—to some extent, at least, because they were put off by the cry of the press (never happier than when it can claim a miracle and coin a cliché): 'Science has caught up with science fiction!'"
. . . "But facts are impotent against loud and frequent assertion. Readers believe that science has 'caught up'; and somehow the very fact of s.f.'s accurate prophecies turns into a weapon against it, as if a literature of prophecy should become outmoded the instant one of its predictions was fulfilled."
Note that in full context, Boucher was not claiming that SF was a literature of prediction, only that sometimes it turned out that way.
And also in Neal's original post he says: "--my first close encounter with this was discovering a review of Mason’s Rats that was about twice the length of the story itself--" to which I plead guilty, though unrepentant given the circumstances and specific observations. That said, however, I agree totally with the rest of Neal's post without reservation, which a number of my articles, essays, and columns here and there over the years are witness to. And with that said, I must step back a bit and say that the general machinery of writing, reviewing, criticism, and other forms of commentary come with the territory. They always have, and are a valuable part of the overall process. While I agree with Neal on the specifics of his complaint, and the direction in which he observes it going, I must nevertheless defend the overall process which has given rise to it. The machinery of criticism in all of its forms (from the micro to the macro) is crucial and necessary to the health of any artistic enterprise; but the direction it takes from time to time may certainly be called into question as part of that process.
edited by Dave_Truesdale on 12/27/2009
--
"When any category of science fiction has become dull and repetitive, there is always a brilliant story waiting to be written by giving up the assumptions that made the story easy to write." -- Damon Knight
|
|
12/27/2009 11:25:01 PM
|
WPreston
Posts 1275
|
Good post, Dave. Thanks for that one.
--
http://wmpreston.blogspot.com
|
|
12/28/2009 5:27:16 AM
|
Neal Asher
Posts 110
|
Actually Dave, it wasn't your review of Mason's Rats I was refering to, but some lengthy waffle about the deep sociopolitical significance of it all, whilst when I wrote it all I was thinking was, hey, wouldn't it be cool if rats had crossbows!
Regarding you last point. The fact that there are big sprawling debates when this subject arises rather proves that SF is alive and kicking. I guess my real complaint is that the SF world seems unable to shake off a whingeing hypochondria!
One here 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.
http://efanzines.com/EK/eI29/
|
|
12/28/2009 7:23:38 AM
|
bluetyson
Posts 1074
|
You were right, rats with crossbows is cool.
--
Free SF - Not Free SF Megablog | Free SF Reader | Not Free SF Reader | Super Reader - Superhero Prose Fiction | Space Opera Reader
Leigh Brackett (ology) | Laird Barron (ology) | Paolo Bacigalupi (ology) | Greg Egan (ology) | Alastair Reynolds (ology) | Cordwainer Smith (ology) | Charles Stross (ology) | Ted Chiang (ology)
|
|
12/28/2009 7:37:28 AM
|
bluetyson
Posts 1074
|
First issue of Asimov's had something similar, too, I seem to recall.
So - 
--
Free SF - Not Free SF Megablog | Free SF Reader | Not Free SF Reader | Super Reader - Superhero Prose Fiction | Space Opera Reader
Leigh Brackett (ology) | Laird Barron (ology) | Paolo Bacigalupi (ology) | Greg Egan (ology) | Alastair Reynolds (ology) | Cordwainer Smith (ology) | Charles Stross (ology) | Ted Chiang (ology)
|
|
12/28/2009 9:58:39 AM
|
jasonkchapman
Posts 191
|
In a sense, though, SF is constantly dying, as are most other genres. It's because they evolve. If dinosaurs evolved into birds, are dinosaurs dead? Or do they live on in a form more appropriate to the times? If SF is, indeed, "that thing we point to when we use the term", then it's all a matter of aim. What was once a solid little dot to point at has become a thin, amorphous cloud with ill-defined edges.
--
Jason K. Chapman
jasonkchapman.com
|
|
12/28/2009 9:15:46 PM
|
natipal
Posts 617
|
For what it's worth Neal, I googled Mason's Rats reviews and came up with one which seemed to go on and on, about how the story definitely was a subtle communist dig against the establishment, blah, blah, blah, ad sickum, ad on a...SO... after about 6 paragraphs, he suddenly says, "But in all fairness, you know, it didn't REALLY seem that deep a commentary on ... blah, blah, blah, ad sicko, ad on a...." whereby he practically retracted everything that preceded that.
*sigh* Why did he even bother?
I thought the first two were a gas. I haven't bought the book yet. For what it also is worth, I hope you do a whole series like that.
And last week at Barns and Knuckles, I bought an sf book whereupon the clerk asked about what a good science fiction author was to read for novels. So I recommended you and Michael Flynn off hand, and the novel Cowl as one, among a few others. It was late, I was tired, I couldn't think of any other authors though certainly I could have thought of a dozen or more had I had time.
|
|
12/29/2009 10:20:32 AM
|
Bill Moonroe
Posts 4377
|
Science fiction won't die, so much as be consumed by teenaged nymphomanic she-werewolves and vampiresses on the hunt for a shoe store that's open late.
Do the rats with crossbows have any silver tipped bolts?
--
"A thagizer? What's that do? Hey, what's this button for? Uh-oh. Sorry about that, man. It'll grow back, right?"
|
|
12/29/2009 12:36:48 PM
|
jasonkchapman
Posts 191
|
Bill Moonroe wrote:
Science fiction won't die, so much as be consumed by teenaged nymphomanic she-werewolves and vampiresses on the hunt for a shoe store that's open late.
"OMG this siffy stuff is teh c00lz!!11!!1!"
--
Jason K. Chapman
jasonkchapman.com
|
|
12/29/2009 12:55:07 PM
|
StevenLP
Posts 654
|
Someone ought to set up a website listing, in chronological order, all the predictions of the death of SF. So any time someone loudly declares hearing its death rattle we can simply point them in its direction.
|
|
pages:
1 2 |
|---|
