Why is SF so "niche"?

[Hiro Protagonist]

it's a niche?

 

[nickpeirson]

Not flippant. Anything still in print after a hundred years will have no choice but be classic.

Which raises the question, how many books will be in print in 100 years? With the advent of Kindle et al. I'd greatly expect the herd of printed literature to be much thinned after a century.

If this is the case, then the definition of a classic being 'something in print after 100 years', becomes largely extraneous. Any thoughts on how a classic may be defined in a digital world of literature? Popularity is one measure of a works success, however I'm not sure this always equates to classical status?

 

[dask]

Whoever writes the forward to a book still in print after a hundred years will be able to answer that.

 

[Connavar]

Sure SF isnt as big as crime,fantasy but niche and niche. Not like its a small dying genre like western or something.

Myself i read many good genre and non-genre books. I dont care which sells more. I avoid bad crime that tend sell most, find the quality that always sell little.

Just like tv CSI type crap has 15 million viewers in US but the best shows in HBO doesnt have more than a few. Popularity,sales doesnt mean anything at all to me.

As long as there is good SF books coming out every year im fine.

 

[soulsinging]

I had a Humanities prof say pretty much the same thing --- back in 1974. Much of what's being said in this thread reminds me of a shirt I picked up at a World Con a while back: "Reality is for people who can't handle science fiction."

I believe he was right then too. They've said it ever since the creation of tv, and they've been right because things have gotten progressively worse since. Ad and marketing agencies hire so many psych majors and the like for a reason... the human being, for all its complex brain trickery, is still just an animal that can be very easily "trained" for conditioned responses/thinking. And we've been trained from birth for constant stimulation, for almost instantaneous information or responses or gratification.

There's a reason the US leads so-called developed countries in rates of drug abuse, mental illness, suicide, prescription drugs, depression, and basically any other 'disease' that involves mental/emotional factors... we're the most plugged in, most stimulated, and the human brain isn't wired for it (in fact, there's increasing research that shows that tech literally rewires our brain and the way it operates) and we're starting to crack up.

But it's not just the US, and I think part of the result is you're going to see more success for novels that please a brain wired for quick processing of information before moving on (plot-driven thrillers/horror) rather than the slow, meditative immersion in thought that most well-written novels demand. Shorter chapters, frequent changes of scene, minimal characters to slow one down, and a focus on a world that is already familiar and requires little time to fill in any blanks. If you're talking generally about "imaginative" fiction, the most successful kinds are vampires and zombie stuff now... both are figures firmly established in the minds of pop culture and both exist in "our" world in most cases.

 

[RJM Corbet]

I can virtually guarantee that if you post anything longer than a full page here, no-one will read the whole thing. Well, maybe later, when they have time.

People don't really like to read extended text off a screen, not really, unless they're doing research.

The web, now with you tube, is a very instant type of thing. It's an extension of movies and TV to the -- I dare not say 'ultimate' quick fix. I'm not knocking the web. It's great, but it will never replace books. Hopefully it won't.

The screen is a good medium for SFX though.

EDIT: It's a good practice medium, for writers. You have to get your reader's attention. What do you do when there's a power-cut, though ...

 

[RJM Corbet]

EDIT: It's a good practice medium, for writers. You have to get your reader's attention. What do you do when there's a power-cut, though ...

You READ (by candle light -- or clean the garage, or go for a walk) ...

 

[Anne Lyle]

I don't like reading screeds and screeds of text on a forum post, but it's nothing to do with attention span. Forums are a medium for communication, so a long post is like someone who monopolises a conversation - unless what they are saying is brilliant, it quickly makes one's eyes glaze over.

I will happily settle down with an ebook I've bought, on the other hand, because I'm looking for an extended entertainment experience, not rapid communication.

Where they overlap is in critiques - and yes, you do have only a few paragraphs to capture my attention, just like in a bookshop.

 

[woodsman]

Strange, since one of the first sci-fi books includes two characters "everybody" remembers, Frankenstein and his monster.

I think actually most people remember Boris Karloff and think he's called Frankenstein .

On SF - an attitude I've come across; (sadly) is that SF is all little green men, supermassive lasers and space ships, whilst other fiction deals with 'realities' ( ). There appears to be a misconception that SF is frivolous - something for adolescent boys and as such, never touches on anything deeper.
For myself - I find good SF goes deeper than much other fiction. Especially works by Le Guin spring to mind. Because there are no constraints any scenario can be imagined and any topic explored. I always point out that at least one work of SF produced a Nobel Prize .

 

[slack]

There appears to be a misconception that SF is frivolous - something for adolescent boys and as such, never touches on anything deeper.

That perception may be justified in some cases. I've read some science fiction that seems to get lost in the technology, the weaponry, the world itself, and fails to provide a satisfying emotional experience for the reader. The story is neglected, there is no substance, just combat and explosions and flat characters. I see it in film quite often. For every Blade Runner or Moon or Alien, there is a plethora of nonsense like Transformers, the X-men series, etc.

Characters worth believing in, great stories, great themes are the way forward. All the other stuff is just window dressing.

 

[RJM Corbet]

That perception may be justified in some cases. I've read some science fiction that seems to get lost in the technology, the weaponry, the world itself, and fails to provide a satisfying emotional experience for the reader. The story is neglected, there is no substance, just combat and explosions and flat characters. I see it in film quite often. For every Blade Runner or Moon or Alien, there is a plethora of nonsense like Transformers, the X-men series, etc.

Characters worth believing in, great stories, great themes are the way forward. All the other stuff is just window dressing.

Well a great idea can be substance enough, even with two-dimensional characters. 2001 A Space Odyssey?

But I agree that often the only idea is shooting and explosions, etc. It's like pornography in that way: anything will do to hang the action on ...

 

[chrispenycate]

A number of very influential SF stories have a discovery, or a structure, or even the universe itself as protagonist, with human characters merely spear carriers, there to give perspective on the truly important elements. Mind you, numerous thrillers have the situation completely overshadowing the characters, military fiction does not tend to give a balanced, overall view of its heroes and even those few romance works I have read concentrate on the biological similarities of their main actors rather than individual characteristics (although my experience therein is sufficiently limited that I should not make generalisations.

The idea that every story in every genre should be about interpersonal relationships, the proper study of mankind is man (or preferably woman, to be politically correct) does not appeal to me; if the world built is solid enough, and interesting enough, those forties cardboard cutout characters suffice, for me. Of course getting the universe that convincing is a bit harder than interpersonal relationships we learned with mothers milk, and most of the stories written like that will be bad, or at best indifferent. Far easier to compromise and do both the technology and the psychology acceptably well. But if it has none of the science in it, I don't think it should really be classified as SF.

And my observation is that most of the population of the planet don't want to know how things work (or fail to); only the results count. Which indicates SF will be a minority taste until this situation should change. A very determined, clannish minority at that.

 

[Parson]

Chris, well argued, and I believe I agree with you. I have always wanted to know how things worked, especially I wanted to know what made people do the things they do and SF often does that better than any other genre.

 

[Magnus85]

That sounds like a reasonable argument, indeed. If you look at the crime genre, most people are content with the "who did it?", while I always find myself a lot more interested in "why do it?". How the mind works.

I guess that applies a lot to SF in general.

 

[Connavar]

That sounds like a reasonable argument, indeed. If you look at the crime genre, most people are content with the "who did it?", while I always find myself a lot more interested in "why do it?". How the mind works.

I guess that applies a lot to SF in general.

Which is why most of us read SF, human condition, many questions that ask why no matter how scientific,technobabble there is in a novel.


Also why i dont like simple who did it mysteries that tend to be popular today and more noir,psychological crime that tells stories that isnt about who did it.

 

[monsterchic]

That sounds like a reasonable argument, indeed. If you look at the crime genre, most people are content with the "who did it?", while I always find myself a lot more interested in "why do it?". How the mind works.

I agree completely with you. Do you have any recs for some books that explain the why in greater detail?

 

[MartinJH]

I think a lot of people still think of SF as ray gun and alien stories for adolescent boys. I would also imagine that most people’s experience of SF is from mainstream film and TV, and which will just reinforce that impression. I also know people who find SF just too way out to engage with, they’d rather read a story set in more familiar territory.

There also seems to be snobbery at work, with the “literary” set looking down their noses at “genre” fiction – even when they write SF themselves! Crime fiction seems to be something of an exception though, which is odd when you think about it. Funny how it seems perfectly respectable to read books about people being murdered, but not books about imagined worlds. (Not that I’m knocking crime fiction, I’m partial to a bit myself).

Having said that, SF does seem to be getting more of a look in lately in the newspaper literary review sections. There’s the SF exhibition on at the British Library being taken seriously and getting good reviews, and Mervyn Peake’s centenary is getting coverage, and of the current authors China Mieville in particular seems to be cropping a lot with various articles on the subject. It would be great to think that all these things are helping the cause!

Martin