Paul Kincaid's final statement on whether SF is "exhausted."

[Nerds_feather]

Should be required reading, IMO:

http://ttdlabyrinth.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/what-rough-beast-part-2/

Your thoughts?

 

[James Coote]

Naa, Scifi isn't exhausted, it's just going through a lull, at least by Kincaid's reckoning. He's just mistaken it for something more terminal because he is (apparently) so jaded.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I guess it depends on what you think "exhausted" means, and whether you think it's a temporary or permanent state.

I think, if we take "exhausted" to mean "an irreversible state of collapse marked by a dearth of ideas and vitality," then I'd disagree. But if we take it to mean "a temporary or cyclical state of collapse marked by a dearth of ideas and vitality," then I'd say he's probably right.

Of course it's important to remember he's largely talking about short fiction, and even with that said, there are loads of good stories out there. But the deluge of self-referential, insular and gimmicky fiction we got this past year was a bit much for me to handle, albeit less of a problem that it apparently was for Kincaid.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I think he's a pretentious git.

He thinks sf is 'exhausted' because his personal preferences in regards to 'what sf is, or should be' aren't being met.

To block quote:
"Nevertheless, I approach my readings of science fiction with certain expectations. Over the years, those expectations may have become woollier, but they are still a part of my reading. It was the failure of so many stories to meet those expectations that led to a sense of disappointment that in turn underlay my arguments about the exhaustion of the genre. If I attempt to lay out some of those expectations, you must understand that the list is far from exhaustive and is in no way intended to be taxonomic. I am just trying to explain some of what I expect to get out of a science fiction story."

RE: My personal expectations aren't being met, therefore sf is exhausted. 'What are my personal expectations,' you ask? Can only tell you a few, and the ones I list will be impossible to meet on their face, or self-contradictory.

For example: "One thing I think is important in my response to science fiction is astonishment. I expect to encounter some thing (or things) that I have not encountered before." Yeah, that's a realistic expectation for a guy who chaired the Arthur C. Clarke Award for 20 years. You read that much SF, you're bound to get tired of the thing, sure. But again, to claim the whole genre is exhausted because he's exhausted with the genre is ridiculous.

He goes on and on like that, but that one alone demonstrates the entirely subjective nature of things. It has to be novel to him for it to be satisfying. Granted we all want what we read to be satisfying, but to declare that an entire genre is 'exhausted' because this guy's personal tastes aren't being catered to enough? Honestly this guy sounds like he's got his head stuffed firmly up his own ass. (Imagine, a critic with head-in-ass syndrome.) Reads like a troll from over on SFF World I know who's entirely too full of himself.

EDIT: He even goes on to decry the very argument he's making, to wit: "One variation on this is to pick one or two works of science fiction and say these are really exciting, therefore the whole of science fiction is exciting." So 'some SF is exciting, therefore all SF is exciting' is a bad argument... but 'some SF is bad, therefore all SF is bad' is a good argument?

He's a SF editor with 20 years of major award chairmanship under his belt, he should be familiar with Sturgeon's Law and the basics of logical argument.

 

[iansales]

The pieces were written in response to a review of two best the year anthologies. If those stories are best of the year and he finds them wanting, then it logically follows that the whole genre is wanting.

And given that he's been a sf critic for 20 years, I suspect he knows a bit more about the subject than you do.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

The pieces were written in response to a review of two best the year anthologies. If those stories are best of the year and he finds them wanting, then it logically follows that the whole genre is wanting.

Logical fallacy.

And given that he's been a sf critic for 20 years, I suspect he knows a bit more about the subject than you do.

Logical fallacy.

The collective opinion of these three guys doesn't--and shouldn't be seen to--speak for the whole of the genre and everyone writing or reading in it. Is there no accounting for Kincaid's burnout? After being in the biz so long he's seen it all, or thinks he's seen it all?

 

[iansales]

Logical fallacy.

Er no. The "best of" implies precisely that. The stories were chosen as exemplars of the best the genre has to offer. If they exhibit exhaustion it logically follows stories that are not the best must do also.

Logical fallacy.

The collective opinion of these three guys doesn't--and shouldn't be seen to--speak for the whole of the genre and everyone writing or reading in it. Is there no accounting for Kincaid's burnout? After being in the biz so long he's seen it all, or thinks he's seen it all?

You didn't present an argument, you disparaged his authority and called him "a pretentious git". So again, no logical fallacy. Sneering at critics is anti-intellectualism.

Critics comment on literature, that's what they do. And they do so because they've studied it. You might disagree with his position, but since he's likely to be speaking from a much wider knowledge base he's more likely to be correct. I've been reading sf for nearly 40 years and yes, Kincaid is right, it's getting boring. The same old tropes are being used over and over again, without any thought to, or commentary on, their deployment. You can see it in the year's best anthologies, you can see it on the awards shortlists. Just because Kincaid pointed it out and is a critic that does not make it untrue, no matter how hard you refuse to believe it.

Kincaid also pointed out that this is neither unusual nor unique. What's likely to happen is that some new "movement" will appear and generate some fresh fiction. Then it too will be subsumed into the genre and we'll be "exhausted" again.

 

[The Judge]

Just a note to remind everyone that while we are happy to see strong views aired, we are much less happy when posts become vitriolic. This is one of those threads that could easily deteriorate if people aren't careful, so let's make sure we don't go down that route, please.

 

[James Coote]

What he doesn't really do is explore the reasons why we might have become this way, which would be a much more exciting debate than the simple "is sf exhausted? y/n"

So, working on the premise that new and original ideas come from outside inspiration, here are a few of my ideas why we're in a lull:

The rise of the internet - it's a bit of an echo chamber anyway, and allows people to find exactly what they want, rather than forcing them to explore new ground. As a kid, TV only had 4 channels, so I'd watch all kinds of stuff that I wouldn't have if the choice had been there. But it broadened my horizons no end

Changes in TV - Fictional programs have to be exceptionally well written and have a great premise to win funding away from yet another reality TV show. This means higher (non-reality TV) quality on those that do get through, but less overall variety

Speed of Technological Change - The speed of technological change is accelerating. As a society, we can't mull over a technological innovation or by the time we get used to the idea, things will have already moved on. Instead, we just accept new technology at face value. in other words, we're living in the future, so yesterday's future of space rockets and virtual reality seem less exciting by comparison

Big Bad Boring - The current greatest and most immediate threat to the happiness and prosperity of all is the 'global financial system' - a bland and faceless baddie. Since a lot of scifi is used to make comment on society of the time, the paucity of fertile ground for the imagination in the current geopolitical environment gives authors an anemic crop of ideas to harvest. Also it's increasingly unacceptable to lump whole countries or groups of people together as a common enemy, so you can't really just pull the old trick of replacing foreigners with aliens

Video Games - My first exposure to scifi was through video games, and now I'm a professional video games programmer, whilst writing scifi is just a hobby. With the rise of smart phones, it is now easier than ever to set yourself up with a couple of friends as an 'indie' studio and make your dream scifi game (unlike making a film, which still takes a huge budget and a crew of hundreds).
​

However, there are a few positive changes that should mean more ideas start coming through:

Cultural Travel - People are traveling more and to more exotic destinations. Increasing mobility of the global workforce and the rise of the internet further increase the level of exposure to different cultures

Cheap Art - Art has never been cheaper. For the price of an internet connection, I can hop on the web and spend days browsing through vast libraries of traditional/fine art, digital art, sculpture, architecture and photography. There are a near limitless supply of community-enthusiast curated sites to help me pull out the diamonds from the dross. I can listen to almost any piece of music ever recorded on demand (usually legally and free these days with services like spotify or last.fm)​

 

[iansales]

It may well be that the pool of people who choose the best short stories and nominate them for awards is shrinking and so the stories they choose are tending more to a particular type. And yet, the Hugo had more nominees this year than ever before...

I suspect the answer is that as each individual market shrinks through increasing choice, people start to publish the stuff that will draw eyes and so earn the venue more money. And at the moment, those names who are popular are the ones writing stories which use tropes uncritically.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

an interesting insight.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Er no. The "best of" implies precisely that. The stories were chosen as exemplars of the best the genre has to offer. If they exhibit exhaustion it logically follows stories that are not the best must do also.

Wow. So because the cover says so makes it true? That's... simplistic. I'm not knocking Dozois, but just because he thinks something is good, that doesn't make it so.

You didn't present an argument, you disparaged his authority and called him "a pretentious git". So again, no logical fallacy. Sneering at critics is anti-intellectualism.

I did, a few of them, actually. I didn't disparage his authority, rather I said I think his long years of reading and critiquing SF actually work against him, in the form of his first criterion, re: novelty. I disparaged the man by calling him a "pretentious git" because of his writing style and presenting his subjective opinion as objective fact.

Sneering at critics does them good. Keeps them from thinking they're relevant or important, which they're not. Thinking for oneself is not anti-intellectual, following what a critic says despite it being a long logical fallacy is.

Critics comment on literature, that's what they do. And they do so because they've studied it. You might disagree with his position, but since he's likely to be speaking from a much wider knowledge base he's more likely to be correct.

Agreed. However, "more likely" doesn't mean everything he says is true or right.

I've been reading sf for nearly 40 years and yes, Kincaid is right, it's getting boring. The same old tropes are being used over and over again, without any thought to, or commentary on, their deployment. You can see it in the year's best anthologies, you can see it on the awards shortlists.

And that's the rub. All I'm doing is pointing out that it's entirely subjective. That Kincaid finds it repetitive after 40+ years of professionally reading a genre isn't a revelation, it's a "well, duh" kinda statement. But, his subjective opinion about the matter doesn't translate, at all, to objective reality. Neither does yours, neither does mine. Further, your subjective opinion agreeing with his subjective opinion doesn't make either of them objectively true.

If you take a 13-year-old (the golden age of SF and all that) and sit her down with a decent SF story, she'll be blown away. Sit you or I or Kincaid down to that same story and we'll likely point out how derivative it is, how it's influenced by X or Y, on and on. Does our older, more jaded opinion of the piece change anything about the story objectively? No. Is the younger / newer reader of the genre stupid for not seeing the connections? No. Does out jaded opinion of the piece influence the younger reader's opinion? It shouldn't, not one bit.

Just because Kincaid pointed it out and is a critic that does not make it untrue, no matter how hard you refuse to believe it.

Likewise, his position as a critic doesn't make his opinion true, no matter how much you want to believe it, despite it's logical flaws. That's the appeal to authority.

And speaking of logic... let my try this one on you.

"These dozen computers in front of me are broken, therefore all computers are broken."

Does that sound right to you? It shouldn't, because it's a logical fallacy.

Does that sound familiar to you? It should, because it's part of Kincaid's argument.

I'm not saying he can't have his opinion, or you yours, or me mine. What I'm saying is that they're all just that: opinions. None of them are objective facts, so treating them as such, or talking about them as if they were, is kinda silly.

 

[AE35Unit]

Oh not another doom sayer proclaiming the death of SF. Yawn....

 

[TheTomG]

I do tend to think that creativity has been on the wane as a whole, and would include books with that. Look at movies, where we are seeing what I think of as an insane number of remakes. Take those out, and you're left with an insane number of reboots. Take those out, and you're left with an insane number of sequels.

Where are the new and exciting stories that challenge expectation? I do think there is something of the "appeal to the lowest common denominator" and the cycle described in the article, between artist, distributor and consumer is working (currently) to pull things down. The consumer wants "more of what was so great last time!" and since ultimately they hold the purse strings, the distributors are looking for the same, and so the artists that want to get distributed are lead down that path.

There is a fear of producing something new, as you don't have an immediate target audience, you don't have "safe" numbers where you KNOW people will come and see it because they saw the last one (or read it, or heard it, etc.)

Hopefully we'll see this trend reversed - and for all us writers here, then I guess that would fall to us, to write something new and stick by it until someone somewhere has the guts to publish and promote it

 

[Gary Compton]

There are people in life who do and their are others who don't, but make a career from having a go at others. This guy may be a published author of distinction - I don't know, cos I cant be bothered to Google him.

I also can't be bothered with people who have a go at other writers who try to do something in their lives. Is SF exhausted was the question. I don't think so!!

Millions of people are still enjoying the genre. I'd say go and get a proper job Mr Clever Clogs, or even better - write a SF book that your peers will say is the re-invention of an exhausted genre.

Curse of the beige strike again, I would say

But as the wife says, "I'm more wrong than right."

Back to the home for the totally bewildered

 

[iansales]

Wow. So because the cover says so makes it true? That's... simplistic. I'm not knocking Dozois, but just because he thinks something is good, that doesn't make it so.

That's the perception. It doesn't matter if the anthologies contain the best stories, they're regarded as containing the best stories. People pick them up expecting to find the best stories in them. If they were called Random Stories, it would be a different matter. But they're not.

Sneering at critics does them good. Keeps them from thinking they're relevant or important, which they're not. Thinking for oneself is not anti-intellectual, following what a critic says despite it being a long logical fallacy is.

Critics are important. They comment on the genre. Thinking they're not important is anti-intellectualism.

And speaking of logic... let my try this one on you.

"These dozen computers in front of me are broken, therefore all computers are broken."

Does that sound right to you? It shouldn't, because it's a logical fallacy.

Except that's not what you said. Try this one:

"This is the best meal this restaurant offers? But it's horrible. It seems likely then that all the other meals - which are of professed lesser quality - will also be bad."

That's his argument.

I'm not saying he can't have his opinion, or you yours, or me mine. What I'm saying is that they're all just that: opinions. None of them are objective facts, so treating them as such, or talking about them as if they were, is kinda silly.

Actually, no. Your opinion on sf is not worth as much as Kincaid's, because he has spent decades studying it. Just like I wouldn't ask some a street sweeper for medical advice, but would refer to a doctor. Expertise adds authority to your opinion. Refusing to accept that expertise does not invalidate it, or make yours magically equal.

 

[Connavar]

It may well be that the pool of people who choose the best short stories and nominate them for awards is shrinking and so the stories they choose are tending more to a particular type. And yet, the Hugo had more nominees this year than ever before...

The pool of people who choose the best short stories must be shrinking because its few people like Dozois,Hartwell(sp?) who choose the same authors, same type of SF stories every year. It becomes very incestual. Like Oscar, other awards where the old few names choose their old fav creators.

I dont bother with Best SF of year collections because i look for acclaimed new SF novels. Short story format is not as important,big today in SF. Its not pulp era or Asimov mag, today SF anthologies dont try new ideas,grounds. Best SF is the same 10-15 authors every year....

I see these anthlogies in the library and i think there must be other good short stories than Banks,Reed,McAuley,Gene Wolfe and other known short story SF names.

SF collections have become as commercial mass produced stuff like other big genres.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Where are the new and exciting stories that challenge expectation? I do think there is something of the "appeal to the lowest common denominator" and the cycle described in the article, between artist, distributor and consumer is working (currently) to pull things down. The consumer wants "more of what was so great last time!" and since ultimately they hold the purse strings, the distributors are looking for the same, and so the artists that want to get distributed are lead down that path.

That's the dead hand of commerce for you.

 

[iansales]

The pool of people who choose the best short stories must be shrinking because its few people like Dozois,Hartwell(sp?) who choose the same authors, same type of SF stories every year. It becomes very incestual. Like Oscar, other awards where the old few names choose their old fav creators.

This is sadly true, and no doubt part of the problem.

 

[iansales]

Oh, and there are small press anthologies that are good. But they don't get the distribution of the ones published by the major imprints. So very few people know about them.