tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19129587.post3659543637813870616..comments2024-01-13T08:49:14.041-08:00Comments on Myrhaf: The Death of Science FictionMyrhafhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16340507405537605164noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19129587.post-27492547034227854472007-03-23T12:50:00.000-07:002007-03-23T12:50:00.000-07:00If you are in despair about realistic, meaningful ...If you are in despair about realistic, meaningful science fiction, please read "A Deepness in the Sky" by Vernor Vinge. In some ways, it reminds me of a Rand novel, but with more violence, in that it is a space based anti totalitarian thriller. You should definitely read this book.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19129587.post-37259952607691354982007-03-03T05:58:00.000-08:002007-03-03T05:58:00.000-08:00Definitely agreed wrt Malcolm Reynolds. Whedon's ...Definitely agreed wrt Malcolm Reynolds. Whedon's writing often leaves a great deal to be desired, but he creates some very romantic characters when the inspiration really strikes him.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10125745545009130612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19129587.post-28354135341598919632007-02-27T07:11:00.000-08:002007-02-27T07:11:00.000-08:00Heinlein is the only consistantly Romantic "seriou...Heinlein is the only consistantly Romantic "serious" Science Fiction author I can think of off the top of my head . . . possibly why he's the Grand Master. I've never really enjoyed any of the other big names from way back (like Asmiov or Harlan Ellison).<BR/><BR/>Maybe I need to go one generation further back to Campbell et al. I haven't read much of their stuff.Jennifer Snowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00039865566870992465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19129587.post-57993428119374362007-02-26T17:04:00.000-08:002007-02-26T17:04:00.000-08:00The last Con I attended was in DC years ago. Ellis...The last Con I attended was in DC years ago. Ellison and Asimov squared off at one event and we saw a rough cut of "A Boy and His Dog" with Don Johnson. Zelazny was the new guy. I've stopped following SF, but wanted to chime in with the observation that mystery/suspense has followed thw same path with naturalism taking oover at the expense of plot and heroes. CSI is the #1 example of this, And look what Clint Eastwood has made of the Western (and everything else he touches). Where does one find romanticism?Thomas Rowlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02936086526966725798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19129587.post-37074468141683158992007-02-26T15:38:00.000-08:002007-02-26T15:38:00.000-08:00I think that when Ayn Rand was older she commented...I think that when Ayn Rand was older she commented that she could not write any more novels because the culture had become so philosophically corrupted that setting heros in modern culture was near impossible. In effect romantic literature would be too unbelievable in a nihilistic culture. <BR/><BR/>With that as a preface, I would think that sci-fi would have held out longer against Naturalism. Its a place where you can place heroes and great drama and not have it ridiculed as "corny." I think to a certain extent that is what happened at least with regards to movie and tv. Star Trek for all its flaws was definitely an example of Romanitic fiction. I think the same can be said of Star Wars although that would be more accurately described as "space fantasy" rather than "science fiction."<BR/><BR/>Today, judging from what I see on television, it seems that there are some elements of romanticism in sci-fi although they are fading fast. Joss Wheedon's Firefly was excellent; highly romantic. The hero Malcom Reynolds was one of the most heroic characters in popular culture in a long time. The StarGate series and Babylon-V have both had their moments. Even the new version of Battlestar Galactica has some gripping moments although I think that the show is fast becoming a naturalist soap opera.<BR/><BR/>Bill ViscontiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19129587.post-47781635922848175612007-02-26T11:46:00.000-08:002007-02-26T11:46:00.000-08:00And who says faster-than-light travel is sheer fan...<I>And who says faster-than-light travel is sheer fantasy? </I><BR/><BR/>Einstein says FTL is sheer fantasy. SF writers are ingenious at coming up with concepts such as hyperspace to get around the limitations of reality as proved in relativity theory, but they're all fantasy.<BR/><BR/><I>I remember some really horrible naturalistic short stories from fifty years ago, and a lot of modern sci-fi (especially in the military sub-genre) is VERY Romantic, not to mention POPULAR.</I><BR/><BR/>Surely, you're not arguing that SF was more naturalistic in 1957, before the New Wave, than it is today. Whatever naturalism there was in the '50s, it was less common in SF then.<BR/><BR/>The Hugo and Nebula Awards have tended to reward naturalism over the years, especially the Nebula, which is one indicator of how things have changed. Magazine fiction is another indicator; it is very much like mainstream short fiction and sales have declined because people don't want to read it.<BR/><BR/>The situation in novels is better than short fiction. It is true that Baen is publishing romantic SF with heroes and plots. This why the intellectuals and critics don't take them seriously and why they're often ignored by the awards. <BR/><BR/>Baen is popular with readers, but the field in general has been losing readers for a long time. One study, done by a bookstore, I believe, suggested that fantasy be separated from science fiction because the latter was a drag on it. The idea frightens science fiction writers and publishers, because right now they're hoping that fantasy readers who have been brought up on Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and D&D will buy the occasional science fiction book.<BR/><BR/>As Norman Spinrad writes in the latest Asimov's:<BR/><BR/>"By now, surely every reader of this column and most people at all interested in the 'genre' know that prose science fiction as opposed to 'SF' is in dire straits. It's being squeezed from one side by the abundance of films, TV shows, video games, and so forth purveying its tropes, images, and thematic material to wider audiences than any book is likely to reach, and on the other by the former fantasy tail that has long since come to wag the 'SF' genre publishing dog.<BR/><BR/>"Writers of science fiction in general who have no real interest in switching to fantasy are struggling to survive as fantasy dominates the lists of SF publishers, the SF racks in the stores, and sales."<BR/><BR/>As for nanotechnology, Spinrad notes in that same article that some of the stuff writers have nanotech do seems to violate the laws of thermodynamics. It ends up being a kind of magic that writers make capable of doing anything -- turning dirt into spaceships is Spinrad's example. I'm not saying that's bad or even that FTL, time travel or telepathy are bad; I'm just saying they're fantasy. I prefer a good story using these concepts to a boring story with realistic science.Myrhafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16340507405537605164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19129587.post-47927782935700121792007-02-26T10:35:00.000-08:002007-02-26T10:35:00.000-08:00It's really tough to identify trends in literature...It's really tough to identify trends in literature like this, and it helps if you provide some examples of works you consider to be characteristic of the genre. I remember some really horrible naturalistic short stories from fifty years ago, and a lot of modern sci-fi (especially in the military sub-genre) is VERY Romantic, not to mention POPULAR.<BR/><BR/>I don't worry too much about whether a given piece of literature is "serious", either, as I find that's a pretty subjective measurement in any case. And who says faster-than-light travel is sheer fantasy? The way the author explains it may be, but it may eventually be possible.<BR/><BR/>Of the sub-genres, I think cyberpunk is the most infected with naturalism (hence why I dislike it the most), but William Gibson, who basically started the genre, is a TERRIBLE naturalist so that's hardly surprising. Military and Nanotechnology (the two other big modern ones) are not so bad, although Nanotechnology is infected with a lot of genetic determinism in many cases.Jennifer Snowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00039865566870992465noreply@blogger.com