Is SF becoming ashamed of itself?

When I think of Adventure stories, I think of stories like the Belgariad or R.A. Salvatore's Demon Wars series, which are definitely fantasy but also have lots of action. Then again, many fantasy novels have war as a plot and feature lengthy battles. So I guess it depends on your definition of "Adventure."
 
To a large extent I agree. Most work includes elements of everything, but to take some common examples for pidgeon holing:-

Lord of the Rings is Fantasy. It contains a lot of descriptive in comparison to everything else. But when there is action, the pace of the writing speeds up in relation to the rest.

Journey to the Centre of the Earth- I would describe as pure Adventure. For the reader it rolls at an easy pace, never really accelerating or slowing.

You need to step down a little to something like Doc Smiths 'Lensman' series for classic Action writing that leaves you, as a reader, breathless at the end.
 
I do have to disagree about "Journey to the Centre of the Earth" being pure adventure. A lot of the book is talking about the geplogi8c treasures the explorers find. The science for the Dinosaur Valley and everything in it was based on the science of 1870. Almost all of it has been disproven. The last chapter has the professor fretting over how his compass got so screwed up.

Of course it may greatly depend on the translation you read.

ZachWZ
 
Well it is not Fantasy.
It is based upon the science of the real world of the 1870's, when it was written. That the science has been rewritten makes little difference.

It is not an Action novel- There isn't a lot

Which leaves us with three chaps descending into the unknown on a fascinating quest. Sounds like Adventure to me?

Your thoughts, Sir?
 
Oryx and Crake

I'm resurrecting this thread because of a case in point.

I heard Margaret Atwood on BBC Radio 4 yesterday talking about her new book called "Oryx and Crake" (Publisher: Nan A. Talese/Doubleday, 400 pages, $26.)

She is already an prize winning Canadian 'serious' author.

She was at great pains to describe it as a work of speculative fiction rather than it being Science fiction.

Yet "Oryx and Crake" is apocalyptic novel set in a devastated world, where a too-hot sun bakes a landscape of broken buildings, rotting bodies and genetically modified creatures that prowl through the remnants of civilization.

Both the inteviewer and a reviewer Dr Steve Jones thought that it could be described as science fiction, and patently it is science fiction, but obviously Atwood, being a more 'serious' 'respected' author, does not want to be associated with those words, and prefers the term speculative fiction.

Her reason, she claimed, was that nothing in the book is more than an extrapolation of things that are possible today. By that reasoning 'Jurassic Park' would be speculative fiction too.

Obviously, she believes that it will sell more copies if she doesn't describe it as SF.

I thought I might read this sometime, but on-line reviews say that it is very preachy and a little anti-technology. Anyone read it?
 
Would this be the same Margaret Atwood of 'Personnel Management', 'Cats Eye' and 'Handmaids Tale' fame?

I know the former (it was used as part of an OU course). Even for a text book it did not leap high into the bed time reading stakes. Just remember, a 'shovel' is a 'manually actuated mechanical effluent displacer' and you won't go far wrong. ;)

With Handmaids Tale and all the readers she has written to go with it, she should not be a total stranger to Science Fiction. But I think I'd leave it to somebody with A level English lit to say if it is good

I think it boils down to the fact that Science Fiction is not an 'in' buzz phrase for those who want to sound posh and educated.
 
I thought "speclative Fiction" was the term that came up because the Genre of Sci Fi, Fantasy, and Horror kept on interloping.

Case in Point i beleive we're all famillar with these people.

Superman- Alien from a far distant galexcy.
Wonder Woman- Reisident of a mystical island.
Often times those character have shared adventures. Quite on few time they met up with zombies, Demons, Vampires and Warlocks. I thought that is what "speclative fiction" was.

ZachWZ
 
Another problem (to me) appears to be that Sciinece Fiction appears to have become too specialised and dare I say it, dull. One need to be an insomniac to read them at all!

The wodge of paper I am reading at the moment, along with a good many other modern S/F books I have (or have tried to) read recently, appear to have given up on telling any form of story, at least in the first third of the book!
Instead I have been treated to a long technical treatise on how to create a random event with a computer!

What ever happened to the concept of engaging the reader in the first half-dozen pages?
Or is that no longer something they preach at school?
Along with having a clear and proper ending and not bending your index finger when holding a pen. All of which used to be reinforced by the teachers wooden rule when I was there!

Dear Mr Author,
I really DON'T care if our hero IS the illegitimate great-grandson of my wayward PC. I just want something to happen!
Leave all the complicated stuff to the middle and drop it in as factoids or something, if they are needed!
It cannot be for nothing that dime book writers like Clancy, write popular books.
 
That's interesting that you mention Clancy, Ray, because he actually manages to put a lot of scientific detail into his books when it is necessary.

In the Sum of All Fears there are lengthy passages on the method of construction of a nuclear bomb that brings to mind the endless technobabble that Kim Stanley Robinson gave us in his Mars Trilogy (which I liked a lot, but boy there was a lot of stuff I didn't understand in there).

And yet Clancy churns out bestsellers at an alarming rate.

So what are SF writers doing differently? I think they are giving us technobabble that isn't really relevant to our lives in any way. Entire chapters that seem designed to make the reader think that the author must be terribly intelligent to have thought of all these amazing scientific theories.
No pun intended, but I certainly think that this is really alienating the readership. Which is amazing really, when you consider that we live in an age where many of the scientific advances SF authors posit are likely to be just around the corner.


ps - what book are you reading? I think I want to steer clear!
 
The thing about Clancy is that something happens, if not in the first page, then certainly the second. It captures the interest, if not the imagination. It doesn't wait until the middle somewhere.

Not that he is actually writing them now. The last two or three were Ghost written.

As for the book, it is the one I admitted to in the, 'What are you reading now?' thread. Diaspora, by Greg Egan.
 
Yeah, you are right - and the same thing is what got me with the Mars trilogy. There was a lot of boring waffle, but the story itself was gripping when it was actually playing out.
(Do you think Red Rabbit was ghost written? I just finished it, and it didn't seem quite right, but I couldn't put my finger on what was different)

I don't think I have ever actually read any Egan, but he sounds a bit rubbish from your descriptions...
 
Don't know about Red Rabbit, but all the Net Force and Op-Centre books are now ghosted. They admit as much inside the front cover, in very small print!
 
Originally posted by Dave
On the subject of 'Good SF' : Harry Potter is written for children. It is well-written so adults like it too. It has been so successful that children have put away their gameboys and read a book for the first time. Surely, that must be worth an award.

I see the point of the author of the article though, he thinks that comic books, superheros, spacebattles, and junior witches and wizards are causing more people to associate SF with juvenile fiction. And that they will ignore the stories that enlighten us about the human condition, and pose philosophical arguments.

I would say that the kind of books he wants (Hard Science Fiction) are still being written, and that the more children who start out reading Harry Potter, the more will go on to read the stuff with the harder edge when they get older.
Click to expand...
The problem with much of the hard science fiction the writer of the dissertation seems to crave is that it is dreadfully dull. Brin and Egan do produce highly philosphical treatise', but their works are often the mental equivalent of chewing through part cooked marshmallow with rather less taste.

Look at the works of writers like Clarke and Heinlein; sophisticated philosophical plots are mixed with strong and exciting stories.

Science fiction requires the reader (and writer) to possess an actively imaginative and enquiring mind, this neccessarily pushes the whole genre towards youngsters (and young in mind).
 
I think science fiction was easier to write in years gone by because basically thats what it was, fiction. Today at the ever increasing rate that technology is developed, writers find it hard to keep up. Science fiction used to be thrilling because of the unknown factors within it. The flights of fancy that would send you spiralling into a dreamworld. The science of today imunises us from that feeling. We are not thrilled by sci fi as we used to be because we accept the marvels around us and can quite easily predict what things will be like in a few years. They become commonplace to us and as a result sci fi becomes too acceptable, almost mundane.
I feel that if you want to write Sci fi these days you need one of either two things (Or both if youre really good :p )

A good story with good writing

An original idea or angle

I love Sci fi and I love Fantasy as well but fantasy is something which we can never take for granted because unless we do some serious genetic engineering im never gonna go to work on the back of a dragon or unicorn fighting ogres on the way but I may go by hoverbus watching a holographic news reader telling me what I need to know.

Or an anti-grav harness. Wow Id love one of those.....:D
 
I wonder if the claim of S/F is hard to write is becoming an excuse for generally poor stories and writing?

No other genre of writing seems to be suffering quite so badly.
 
I read this on 'Hailing Frequencies #310'. It is another example of what I mean.
from SCIFI Wire

Don't Call Surface Sci Fi

Jay R. Ferguson, who co-stars in NBC's new SF series Surface, told SCI FI Wire that the show has fantastic elements, but that he doesn't think of it as true science fiction. "To me, sci-fi is Star Trek or Star Wars," Ferguson said in an interview. "This is almost like something that could be real. You think of a new species popping up in the ocean, and if you saw that in the headlines of today's paper, you wouldn't be that shocked. It's very, very likely, in fact, that there are several species and several animals that we have yet to see that are in the deep depths of the ocean."

When describing the show, Ferguson feels the term "speculative fiction" is more appropriate than science fiction. "To me, even as a sci-fi fan, speculative fiction sounds so much more interesting," he said. "That gets me more excited, because to me, I think the so-called sci-fi movies that I have enjoyed so much have been the ones that have really made me wonder, 'Wow, that could actually happen.' Those are the ones that I love the most. So for this sci-fi fan, speculative fiction sounds much more exciting."

In Surface, Ferguson plays an expert diver who believes his brother's death was caused by a mysterious sea creature. His storyline makes up one-third of the series, which also stars Lake Bell and Carter Jenkins. "I suppose that while you have Lake's character, that's the brain, and Carter's character, who's kind of the heart, my character is kind of the muscle," Ferguson said. "Everyone in the story is affected in a different way, driven by their own set of circumstances. And my set of circumstances are grown out of, or birthed out of, a hatred and a kind of need for truth and closure from the result of my brother being taken. And that is certainly what drives me to find out what's going on and what, if any, truth there is to be found."

Surface premieres Sept. 19 and will air Mondays at 8 p.m. ET/PT. NBC is owned by NBC Universal, which also owns SCIFI.COM.
Click to expand...
"To me, sci-fi is Star Trek or Star Wars," Ferguson said in an interview. "This is almost like something that could be real."

Hailing Frequencies says:
"Science-fiction," the same genre that has brought us 1984, The Handmaid's Tale, Solaris, Lathe of Heaven, 2001, and Lost, isn't good enough for his show...
Dude. "Like something that could be real" is sci-fi.
Click to expand...
I totally agree, except isn't 'The Handmaid's Tale' another one of Margaret Attwood's Speculative Fictions? :blush:
 
Perhaps we ought to look at the problem from a slightly different angle?

Like it or not, Science Fiction of any flavour is synonymous with names like Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke and the topic of space. Though if most people had read those authors they would find less than half of their works had a space theme.

Now it strikes me that most modern writers are struggling to write a story that is even halfway to achieve both any degree of serious study of morals and humanity while maintaining an entertaining read. So in my humble opinion they can call them anything they like except Science Fiction.

With regard to space, it has to be recognised that it is just not a popular subject any longer, I would go so far as to suggest it isn't a subject at all with most of the population.
As far as manned exploration of space is concerned, man has achieved nothing since the early seventies and the last moon landing. Despite great plans for moonbases and Mars colonies, if anything, we have gone backwards since and shuttles go up and down with all the interest of the corporation omnibus.

Without something to inspire the much dulled public imagination should we be surprised that writers, good, bad and average are trying to find something different to describe their works. Though we might well be doing them a service if we remind them that all the Sci/Fi writers wrote far better and more appropriate 'Speculative Fiction' covering real world concerns in the fifties and sixties and were proud to describe them as Sci/fi?
 
Originally posted by ray gower
...should we be surprised that writers, good, bad and average are trying to find something different to describe their works. Though we might well be doing them a service if we remind them that all the Sci/Fi writers wrote far better and more appropriate 'Speculative Fiction' covering real world concerns in the fifties and sixties and were proud to describe them as Sci/fi?
Click to expand...
I've been making a issue of this precisely because this is the kind of SF I like best. I have always been curious of the future and intersted in future predictions. So, I like those stories that take some fashion or new technology, and then extrapolate the effects upon future technologies and society structures.

Such SF authors predicted spare part surgery and organ stealing, satellite communications, a dysfunctional youth society, robots replacing manpower and making workers redundant, spy cameras, videophones, cloning, human/animal chimeras and genetic engineering, cybernetics and computer/brain interfaces, personal cloaking devices, nanotechnology and much more, all before any of them were technically feasible or credible.

(And maybe SciFi is the wrong word, SF is a much older term. SciFi as a term was only coined in the 1950's and is much more associated with space travel and bug-eyed monsters.) And 'Star Wars' being really 'swords and sorcery' in space is better described by SciFi than SF. I'd disagree on 'Star Trek' and 'Stargate' though.

I do think that there has been an overlapping of genres recently with fantasy being introduced into SF stories. Generally though, when that happens there is a scientific explanation, like a man-made virus causing people to become Zombie/Vampires, or Gods as ancient astronaunts. Sometimes those 'scientific explanations' are a little too wild though and play a little too loose.

There has also been a stream of Superhero movies recently, which are always termed SciFi, but are a completely different genre entirely.

I noticed that Hailing Frequencies used 'Lost' as an example of SF. I've been watching this and to me it is pure Fantasy with a capital 'F'.
The Paraplegic can walk again, Guitars appear in trees, Polar bears in the jungle
I have my own theory on 'Lost', but maybe there is a final explanation of everything that is SF and not Fantasy.
 
To freely re-interpret, re-write and re-invent Genesis:-

1) In the beginning there was the word and that word was Gods and the truth.
2) But many words were written, and many of those were not the Truth. 3) And “Fiction†was begotten to tell the difference between the Truth and non-Truth and Jane Austin could live with Jules Verne in un-Truthful bliss.

4) Yet man created more Fiction and it came to pass that man was confused over his choice of Fiction. 5) And did not Verne have designs on topics above the belt and Austin did not. 6) And Science Fiction was begotten to tell the difference between Fictions and their higher morals.

7) But man was industrious creating words and some Science Fiction was popular and some was less so. 8) And to tell the difference the term SciFi was created to identify the inferior popular Science Fiction from the superior Science Fiction.

9) And man, seeing there was now more space for words, was yet more fruitful bringing forth words. 10) And it was seen that the words must be divided again, for where not some Science Fiction words more truthful than other Science Fiction words?
11) And were not many of these truthfull words being lost behind the great weight of less truthfull words?

12) And it came to pass that “Speculative Fiction†was begotten. 13) And issuers of some words could show that their words were more truthful than other Science Fiction.

And the moral of the chapter?

Well we do rather make a habit of dividing and categorising books (everything else too for that matter). It saves us the trouble of blundering into something that opens the mind further than neccessary.

That the writers have decided to use the term Speculative Fiction rather than Speculative Science Fiction is a cynical three-fold marketing ploy.

First. It divorces it from a generally unpopular adult market- Only weirdos and pimply youths read Science Fiction.

Second. Speculative Science Fiction is too long a term to fall off the tongue in modern parlance. Besides I don't think it would fit in that little square they use on the back of the book for categorising.

And last- Writers want to try and make us think that they are writing something with a whole lot more worldly worth than anything in the Science Fiction range.

As I genre I fear it will catch on, through author repetition if nothing else, so what are they going to call the spin-off from Speculative Fiction?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
W (Found) Sci-fi . people leaving earth colonising different planets and becoming specialised in different things Book Search 2
D Trying to avoid my main lady character becoming a "Mary Sue" Writing Discussion 70
M Is my novel becoming problematic? Writing Discussion 10
LordOfWizards Are we becoming plastic people? Science & Nature 10
T (Found) Becoming Earth's greatest enemy to motivate them to win a war Book Search 7

Similar threads


Back
Top