The Future of SF?
I recently found this link over at the lovely SF Signal. It’s an article in the Guardian by Brian Aldiss that discusses where the future of SF is. The article is called “Our Science Fiction Fate” with a caption that reads “The planet’s dire state makes the imaginative leaps of dystopian SF writers redundant”. First off, I don’t know if Aldiss is proposing that Al Gore is correct on his assertions that we, human beings, are screwing up our planet and it’s our fault that things are changing, or that the climate is changing, but the means by which this is happening are up for interpretation. He does posit that there are too many of us here, which is very true. Things are changing on this planet. People like Gore, who may think they are doing something for the betterment of mankind, are the wrong sorts of people to tell us about climate change. Why? Because when we first started listening to people who are hypocrites, we ended up with the skewed and failing governmental system we have today. Regardless, there are changes on this planet and it is ignorant for any of us–being humans–to assume that we know what the hell is going on. We know nothing. None of us have lived through a warming period and our history is nothing but a blip on the Earthen screen. The evidence that is constantly presented is skewed. First it was those saying nothing was happening at all. These were the same people who took all the evidence that supported their argument and ignored anything that suggested otherwise. Then things changed, and we ended up with these Global Warming enthusiasts, people that don’t really know anything about the state of the planet, but ignorantly assume that everything told to them in the 100% truth. The sad thing is that the same narrow minded, oppressive view that their predicessors had is present here in these new world thinkers. There is a lot of evidence to show that the planet is changing, and some evidence to suggest that it has something to do with humans, but in the wake of that is a mountain of evidence that suggests that humans have little influence on the direction of the planet. This evidence is ignored. People assume that it is conservative propaganda when really it is evidence provided by a group of very well minded scientists that are more concerned for the well being of our planet than the Global Warming enthusiasts are. Why? Because they have taken into account that radically changing worldwide policies will have adverse effects on everyone. Wouldn’t you want to be 100% sure before making changes? Imagine this is making the decision to shoot someone because they are evil. If your evidence is 50% that he is evil and 50% that he’s not, would you feel okay shooting him anyway? I fully understand the logic that change needs to occur and I am in no way proposing that we don’t make societal changes. Inevitably we have to make changes because oil is growing thin and we need sources that can easily be replicated and will not disappear. But I also understand that if we’re wrong and we make radical decisions, we could inadvertently destroy millions of lives and have to live with that on our consciences when the truth comes to the front. Now, Aldiss, it seems, is making the argument that science fiction writers have a problem with addressing what he calls ‘global threats’–Global Warming probably being the main thing to consider here–and with recycling ideas. To the first point: I cannot say that I agree with this, but only because I’m not overly familiar with any SF being written that addresses global catastrophes that we believe are around the corner. Certainly movies like The Core and The Day After Tomorrow–one that I refuse to see and one that I thought was rather entertaining–are examples of science fiction in the film industry. I can’t imagine that nobody is writing about Global Warming though. Perhaps what is happening isn’t that people aren’t writing about it, but that people who wouldn’t be considered SF writers are putting out books that are labeled as mainstream rather than SF. If that’s the case, then it’s no wonder we’re not hearing much about it in the SF world. I’ve seen some books that weren’t labeled SF about global catastrophe. So it seems that books on this subject exist, but perhaps not in the frequency that Aldiss would like, or at least not in the manner that Aldiss would agree is definitively SF. The second point: How does one avoid redundancy in any type of fiction, not just SF? When we look at fantasy, for example, there is a great tendency to be redundant because people constantly repeat the same basic things over and over. What makes it good is the writers. Someone can take a story about elves and make it really fascinating. Alternately, someone can write a story about traveling to Mars and do the same. But the argument seems directed towards dystopian redundancies–what I call commonalities. This is very true that dystopian ideals are repeated ad naseum. But this is the nature of SF. Our future seems very bleak, for good reason. Aldiss even points them out–the cold war, nuclear war, etc. When we look at it, we are constantly devising new ways to destroy ourselves, our governments are corrupt and manipulative, wars are being waged that shouldn’t, wars are dehumanized for those with technology, etc. We live in a world that is dystopian, as Aldiss has pointed out. Does this make for redundant SF though? I can’t say that it does, at least not in any different sense than the fact that fantasy is redundant too. The fact is that it’s human. SF simply addresses it a lot. There are still wonderful stories being told with gloriously fascinating futures intermixed. Another question that should be asked is whether people are even interested in other forms of SF.
We Still Have A Long Way To Go!
I was originally going to do this as a video blog, but decided the subject couldn’t wait until I could get the time to actually write down all the main points, find the time to do a video blog, etc. So I’m doing it here. Now, Vandermeer already discussed this over on Clarkesworld, at least to some extent, and I too have talked about it before. I have to agree to some extent that indeed people are rather preoccupied with the idea of speculative fiction being against the mainstream or everything else. That is very true. In reality, specfic is practically mainstream anyway. The books are generally selling very well. Fantasy has exploded, partially thanks to Harry Potter, and while science fiction may not have superb sales, it too is doing very well in the fact that many books are actually being turned into films. Whether these films are of good quality and represent the greatness of the literature they are attempting to portray is an argument for another time.One point, though, that I have to make, and have made, is that despite the popularity of specfic, despite its acceptance by the masses as a valuable form of literature, it is still being fought against by the academia. I will not deny that there are now colleges that teach specfic and neither will I deny that a lot of colleges do offer some courses in the subject. What must be realized, however, is that there are very few colleges that actually offer degrees in the field of specfic–mainly science fiction or fantasy–and of the colleges that offer coursework in the field the genre is not taken seriously at all. I will give you an example:I took a science fiction & fantasy lit course at my previous school, a community college. Now, before one treads upon the quality of community colleges I will make a comparison to UC Santa Cruz, where I am studying now: they are almost exactly the same, with some very minor differences in leniency in the community college. The class, I will admit, was absolutely awesome, but for different reasons than one might think. It was a course that didn’t look at SF & F nearly in the same light as a class studying British lit. In fact, the class was almost like a giant forum for discussion, with minor amounts of reading. There was no reading into the history of SF & F, nor into the history of the authors we were reading. Given that, the course was basically open discussion, which never lent itself to deep analysis or otherwise thorough understanding of the text itself.This is, unfortunately, the model by which many colleges treat specfic, if they deal with the genre at all. Most colleges don’t offer much in the way of studying specfic. This is an issue that has to be rectified if specfic is to be taken seriously in the literary community. More degree programs have to be offered that allow you to focus in the field. Four or five major programs in the world isn’t enough. There is an enormous field of analysis available by studying specfic. Science fiction, for example, is constantly raising questions about our society, our technology, and our species, drawing upon everything from physics to sociology. Just as one could look upon the many literary theories of criticism and draw information from a literary text, so too can you use such things on science fiction, meaning that a school could very well address science fiction texts without having to fully change their way of thinking.While obviously specfic has come a long way in the last fifty years, heck, even in the last twenty, it still has a long way to go. People should stop complaining that specfic isn’t being accepted, because it is, but they should strive, or rather, push, to see specfic involved in teaching students at all levels about literature since specfic is extremely influential in our society–a fact that cannot logically be denied. Despite where it stands now, we still have a long way to go everyone. Let’s get over that next milestone and start claiming victory. For now, realize that we’ve achieved success in one arena.
Don’t Write Speculative Fiction If…
…any of the following things are true. Science Fiction: You can’t handle the idea that your audience is smaller than fantasy and more specific. You think science fiction is retelling Star Wars or Star Trek ad naseum. You believe that FTL travel is logical and implies ‘hard’ science fiction. You think populating all alien planets with human-like, intelligent, spacefaring peoples, but giving them different cultures, is good creature building. You think that sound actually travels through the vacuum of space and so your characters can hear distant explosions through the hull of a ship. You think that info-dumping in science fiction is normal. Alternately, you believe that it’s okay to confuse the reader by using science that most people wouldn’t understand in such a way that the reader still doesn’t get it. You can’t take criticism of your science or of your story itself. You think it’s okay for your main character to be completely awesome and not have flaws. You believe that your family will be completely honest with you about your writing. Alternately, you think your non-writing, non-reading friends can actually give you worldly advice. You are under the impression that future technology will be perfectly beautiful and not be subject to Murphy’s Law. Fantasy: You think your fantasy story is 100% original right down to the very characters within the story. You can’t take criticism of your work, which will be a lot. You think that just because it is fantasy you can make up anything and expect it to be okay. You think that fantasy doesn’t have to be realistic. You think info-dumping fantasy is acceptable writing behavior. You think that your lively culture of little people is not going to be compared to Hobbits. You believe that your story is better than anything Tolkien could ever come up with. You believe Peter Jackson will turn your unpublished novel into a blockbuster movie. You’re under the impression that fantasy is not derivative by nature. You think your main character can be completely awesome and not have flaws. You believe that your family will be completely honest with you about your writing. Alternately, you think your non-writing, non-reading friends can actually give you worldly advice. You believe that your main character doesn’t have to deal with some sort of conflict and instead can go around being happy and not do anything important. What would you guys add?
A Magazine Tryout
This isn’t directly related to my previous post, or to any posts out there on the net about the death of the short story market in speculative fiction. Just so you know. I’ve recently started submitting my work again. I’ve been in a rut for a while as far as submitting goes. I was doing The World in the Satin Bag (which you can find all the links to the semi-edited, experimental form on the right hand side), and that was all I was doing. I didn’t do much other writing. But I’m writing other stuff now. Yes, I am still working on The Spellweaver of Dern, the sequel to The World in the Satin Bag. I really hate that word ‘sequel’ in reference to WISB though. I think I’ll simply call it the ‘other half to an epic’. In any case, I am working on it. Mostly my brain is milling it around in my head. I want to have a better idea of what happens this time around so I can keep focus. I also need to go back to WISB and find all the plot points that I need to close up and figure out if I can do that in one novel or if I will have to do a third. In essence, I know what is ‘going’ to happen in the beginning, but not beyond that.So, I’m writing other stuff, and I have two submissions out as you can see on the side there. In submitting, however, I’m in a bit of a dilemma. I recently subscribed to Analog, and have bought the most recent issues of Neo-Opsis, Shimmer, Andromeda Spaceways, ON Spec, and Apex to give them a try (since I am not familiar with any of them on a personal basis). Analog I expect to like again since I have some 20 years or so worth of back issues going as far back as the early 60’s. I was subscribed once before but when my cancer hit I didn’t have much energy to do anything other than sleep. The others are basically testers. I have high hopes for Shimmer, since I’ve read it is good, and Neo-Opsis sounds interesting. I’ve seen a lot of stuff about Andromeda Spaceways and ON Spec, but Apex I’m somewhat unfamiliar with, though it looks to be of quality.What other magazines are there that I should be reading though? I wanted to test out F&SF and Asimov’s, but their stupid site is so hard to navigate I couldn’t seem to find a place to order the current issue direct in print format. I have problems reading on the computer–real reading I mean. I know I can print stuff out, but I would rather have a real copy in my hands.But what other magazines are out there? What are you reading? What do you recommend? I want to broaden my horizons here and find some new reading experiences in short fiction! (Doesn’t matter if it’s not in the USA. UK, AU, wherever, it’s fine)
Short Stories (another babble about this)
Anyone reading about science fiction right now will undoubtedly have heard about the demise of the short story market. I think of all the forms that science fiction (and fantasy) comes in, the short form is the one that is most likely to die as a viable market. Anthologies and collections will still be around, but the magazine market, I think, is in serious danger of going away. The sad part of this is that the science fiction short has such an amazing history. Some of the first stories in science fiction were short stories! Go back to the days of Astounding, IF, Galaxy, Imaginative Tales, etc. I certainly wasn’t alive when those magazines were initially running, but I am such a sucker for what I would call ‘historical science fiction’, meaning SF that is of historical import to the genre. I even have some twenty years worth of back issues from the early days of Analog to today. I certainly have not read all of them, but I have read a good portion and I love them to death.So, why are subscriptions and sales dropping? Why are the big three dying (Analog, Asimov, and F&SF)?Perhaps some reasons for the demise is that SF & F magazines have problems acquiring works from authors who are big names in the genre, or at least have problems getting truly awe-inspiring work. This is just a judgment based on what I think might be a possible reason, but as I just subscribed to Analog for the second time today I obviously am not 100% clear on how true this is. But I will argue a point about this. These magazines don’t typically pay a lot of money for short stories. Scifiction paid something close to fifty cents (USD) a word when it was in existence, and it was one of the highest paying markets. But Analog and the other three don’t pay nearly that much–though certainly the big three have a lot of prestige attached to them for good reason. Writers who want to pursue writing as a career are less likely to work with short stories simply because it isn’t a market that they can rely on for income. At best, short form markets can supplement income, but not replace it. There are probably a few authors who do survive on shorts (such as Alastair Reynolds who sells books of connected shorts), but most of us aren’t those lucky few. But magazines are like book companies: they rely on sales. When circulation goes down, so too does the money they are pulling in as profit, and as such there is no chance that these magazines would increase how much they pay. It’s a sad paradox really, although I really doubt that the magazines intend to increase payment anyway.Perhaps that reason is only a minor reason. Certainly a lot of the bigger authors who publish books have little interest in short form because they simply do not have the time to ‘waste’. I put emphasis on ‘waste’ because I don’t find writing shorts to be a waste of time. I actually enjoy writing shorts, even if I may not be very good at them. But I’m also not writing several novels a year, so I can fully understand why established authors might not want to spend time on short stories.I think the most pressing matter in the demise of the short story market, however, is that people simply do not know where to find them. The big three are generally easy enough to find if you live in a large city. However, I’ve been to several Borders stores that didn’t have Asimov’s or Analog’s, or even F&SF. In fact, I’ve been to several Borders that had no speculative fiction magazines at all. I don’t know if this is Borders’ issue, or if it is the management of those stores, but it seems to me that if you want sales of the big three, and even some of the smaller magazines that are actually quite good I hear, then you should be making it your mission to make sure they are easy to find. Not everyone who would enjoy reading SF or F shorts knows to go online and go straight to Asimov’s website or to Analog’s. In fact, aside from the big three, it’s really not that simple to find the quality speculative fiction magazines if you don’t know where to look.The fact that even the big three are hard to find is an indicator of what the short story market needs to do: advertise and establish a marketplace presence. How are people supposed to find out about these magazines, give them a look, read them, etc. if they can’t even find them in their favorite newsstand or book store? That’s the problem, they can’t. There are dozens of quality magazines that print quality material, but almost none of them are available to the general public in traditional venues (yes, I know they are on the net, but that’s not a ‘traditional venue’). Most people are not entirely interested in going online to find magazines to subscribe to. So something that magazines need to do is get themselves out there.And what if the big three are not suitable to your tastes? While the big three are certainly in a lot of stores and therefore have more exposure than the other magazines, they also publish a certain type of speculative fiction. As such, they go into the store and don’t see anything to their liking and never buy the magazines that they would be interested in, which unfortunately are not in a lot of stores and very well should be. In short (ha, get the pun?), the magazine market needs to make itself better known.Another thing that might make people more inclined to subscribe is to offer ‘example issues’ online. They could be a few notable stories from last year that, most likely, are not going to be read by people in the
Technophobic SF
I recently was reading this post and it got me thinking about this very subject. What exactly is the allure about technophobic SF? I’m not talking just literature here, but science fiction as a whole. From the Matrix to I, Robot (the book and movie), to even 1984, it seems to be something very common in SF. Why? You’d think that with SF writers predicting vast, amazing futures, there might be more interest in the good side of technology. Certainly we can say that technology has been mostly positive when we look at how it has changed our every day lives. Computers make communicating and researching infinitely easier and faster; the notebook makes bringing that computing goodness with you as easy as lugging around a few extra pounds. Cell phones, despite their downsides, have made our lives complex and simplistic at the same time. Medical technology is constantly changing, advancing, and making our lives ‘better’–though you could probably argue against this.Yet science fiction stories commonly address futures where technology has gone out of control, where technology is ‘evil’. This doesn’t just mean AIs gone bad, robots turning on masters, or any of the many other examples of technology actually turning on mankind, but it also means the use of technology by man against man. Perhaps SF writers are trying to address and issue that we as a society of human beings are not ready to face. Are we as a species willing to accept that at some point our fiddling could turn against us? Sure, building AIs is interesting and definitely a worthwhile adventure, but what happens when we go too far? Genetic engineering is right around the corner in humans. Are we prepared to build supersoldiers or choose how to build our children? Could something like the Matrix happen if we go too far and really play god? These are questions asked and answered by SF writers on a regular basis. There’s good reason, though. Of all the writers out there, SF writers are preoccupied and concerned with the future. And, as much as we might want to deny it, our future is one that will be fraught with conflict. Not just war–which will be enhanced by technology too no doubt–but in our arguments over the ethics of technology. Cloning will become a reality once we realize we cannot stop everyone from doing it. Stem cell research and genetic manipulation are going to open up doorways that should otherwise be closed.There’s nothing wrong with technophobic SF. Not at all. In fact, in a lot of ways, almost all SF is technophobic–by nature it has to be. It’s intentionally technophobic. Perhaps it has to be in a lot of cases, considering the type of future we are inevitably going to have to face anyway. It might seem strange for a SF book to not address the technology of the future, if such a thing is even possible. Taking into account that our future is going to be one filled with great technological achievements, it’s clear that technophobic SF isn’t going anywhere. The futuristic issues that have already been addressed, in some cases ad naseum, are going to become a part of our present reality, and as the future slowly moves in on us, more and more SF writers are going to be addressing those issues more and more. And they’ll all be looking at us at some point going: welcome to the future, and you thought we were just making it all up.