I am having a deeply annoying and bitterly frustrating day, on a broad range of fronts. Phooey.
16 thoughts on “Dang”
We disagree on science fiction. We are supposed to. The strength of the genre has always been a contrast, even a conflict of visions.
You were born later than I was, but I’ll grow up after you. I was a child in a window of science fiction never wider or more enticing. I had books, novels and anthologies, magazines, comic books, including Classics Illustrated, the first great graphic novels, a run of incredible movies, and something revolutionary…television. Not HD wide-screen in glorious color, a seven-inch fuzzy black and white boxy thing—and it was science itself.
My science fiction was fiction INSIDE the science, and in the end, as strong as the science might be, the fiction would overpower it. The fiction won.
Think about it. What science could hope to stand up to Frankenstein’s “monster,†Captain Nemo, the ‘The Invisible Man’ and ‘The Time Traveler, ‘Mr. Savage,’ ‘Winston Smith’ and ‘Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde’?
On the screen, science fared no better. Not against ‘The Thing,’ ‘Klaatu & Gort,’ ‘The Body Snatchers,’ and ‘Them!’
Things were changing and TV was only the Cyclops in an Odyssey of scientific evolution—Sputnik and the Space Race, the coming of computers, jet travel, and the H-Bomb.
By the early 60s, science pulled even with fiction and then sought to surpass it. And when it did, science fiction suffered. No longer fiction INSIDE science–science was being stuffed into fiction until it overpowered it.
The TWILIGHT ZONE and OUTER LIMITS rose above the growing ‘over-scienced’ science fiction because in its classic episodes, the fiction prevailed over the science. What made the original STAR TREK classic was not the technology, but its humanity—fiction over science.
A defining example came in 1968: in PLANET OF THE APES, the fiction won. In 2001, a SPACE ODYSESSY, science triumphed. Not rated by the Science Fiction Book Club as one of the top fifty novels in the last fifty years, APES’ strong fictional spine was judged much below Clarke’s ET monoliths. The only humanity in 2001 was its most memorable character—HAL, a technological icon.
But it more than just the relentless crush of technology in the second half of the 20th Century that led to the dominance of “science over fiction†sf. John W. Campbell had defined science fiction as, “What science fiction editors buy.â€
And so they did. Science fiction, once a genre, became a “community‗written by sf writers, bought by sf editors and published by sf publishers for sf fans.â€
Science had taken over fiction, and in print, thanks to its strict “community†has been in command ever since.
But not on the screen. STAR WARS, TERMINATOR, and BACK TO THE FUTURE proved yet again that when the fiction is stronger than the science, the work draws a crowd. However, when fiction failed these franchises as it did in their sequels, all the CGI in the universe couldn’t help them.
So why has science fiction, especially in print, been in freefall for the past decade? Blame has been laid all around, but none on the sf “community†itself and its editorial mandate for “over-scienced traditonal sf.â€
But isn’t that the sf of this age? Technology has seen unparalleled growth in the last generation. Isn’t it sf’s purpose to address, to confront the disturbing challenges of science in the New Millennium?
So it would seem, but then why are so few bothering to read it? Once the torchbearer in the lead in the Olympian march of literature, why has sf been left behind, its flame barely flickering in a niche market?
The answer is as obvious as it is unthinkable: we are already living in an sf age. Reality has caught up with “over-scienced†sf. Moreover, readers, especially young readers, are being bombarded by technology in all shapes and sizes, prices and functions; they don’t NEED sf to tell them what they think they already know.
Those who try sf do so in search of, not technological theses, but a sliver of themselves and they can’t find it anywhere.
The covers of STARRY RIFT and NEW SPACE OPERA are full-blown indictments on the state of sf: gleaming technology without a glimmer of humanity.
If yours is the future of sf, one wonders if it has one.
Hmm. I don’t know where you read your sf stories Kevin, but there is plenty of sf filled with humanity and very few depict a gleaming shiny future any more….perhaps you’re looking in all the wrong places for your sf…
..or maybe you’re just making the mistake of judging my book by its cover….
Actually, reading SCI-FICTION, while so few others bothered, was typical of the sorry state of sf. Then again, it did have everything, didn’t it? A top editor, highly regarded SFWA contributors, everything but an audience.
“Judging a book by its cover” is the bane of the marketplace. However, when the cover appears as dated as a stagecoach, too many will assume the book is as well.
As this is “traditional sf,” they are probably right.
I disagree about SciFiction. I don’t know the size of its audience, but I liked a lot of what it published.
In five years of SFWeekly, only one letter was posted raving about a SCI-FICTION story and I wrote it.
Of course, the sf “community” LOVED SCI-FICTION as a top paying market for SFWA members who wrote the thing right into the ground.
SF is a business, unfortunately. You either keep readers reading or you don’t.
SCI-FICTION did not.
It had a huge audience, Kevin–just not in the range of a tv audience, which is what NBC wanted from it. We published all kinds of science fiction and fantasy, including many stories of the social consequences of technology–exactly the kind of thing you profess to find missing from today’s sf. Obviously not so.
Jonathan, I’m afraid Kevin here sounds like he’s from Trollsville. He couldn’t even be bothered to post his rant in the right commenting area for your new anthos.
This is NOT about me, but about science fiction.
“Rant,” “Trollsville”?
Spoken like a 20th Century sf editor who will always be one.
Ah, Kevin. I see you object to the fact that some (less than handful) stories of the hundreds I published on SCIFICTION weren’t sf/f.
Fyi, “Guys Day Out” is a horror story as far as I’m concerned and fit as well within the site’s purview as Dellamonica’s “The Spear Carrier,” Christopher Rowe’s “The Voluntary State,” and Maureen McHugh’s “Frankenstein’s Daughter.”
Cutting edge sf? There is no such thing and we never claimed to provide it. But good sf and good fantasy and good horror yes we did and we did.
Clearly Kevin read your ‘Dang’ post, Jonathan, and thought, in his kindness, ‘Time to reach for the shiv, while he’s feeling all low and vulnerable. Ha!’
And then Ellen shows up: “Another target offers itself to my blade! Zzzing!”
Ah, maybe one day he’ll grow up and find some manners. As intractable curmudgeons, we can only hope. :)
If Kevin wants to mouth off about good science fiction, perhaps he should start writing some. Since I’ve never heard his name, I assume he has yet to do so.
Kevin has written science fiction–you can find some in SURPRISING STORIES. I don’t think he’s ranting when he says he likes sf.
Gee, just when this “debate” got interesting, I was cut out.
Maybe I should have opened with 2 + 2 = 5
I think this comment thread is best left closed. It seems to be drifting away from substantive conversation, and towards personal criticism. And, it’s a long, long, long way from anything the original post is about.
We disagree on science fiction. We are supposed to. The strength of the genre has always been a contrast, even a conflict of visions.
You were born later than I was, but I’ll grow up after you. I was a child in a window of science fiction never wider or more enticing. I had books, novels and anthologies, magazines, comic books, including Classics Illustrated, the first great graphic novels, a run of incredible movies, and something revolutionary…television. Not HD wide-screen in glorious color, a seven-inch fuzzy black and white boxy thing—and it was science itself.
My science fiction was fiction INSIDE the science, and in the end, as strong as the science might be, the fiction would overpower it. The fiction won.
Think about it. What science could hope to stand up to Frankenstein’s “monster,†Captain Nemo, the ‘The Invisible Man’ and ‘The Time Traveler, ‘Mr. Savage,’ ‘Winston Smith’ and ‘Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde’?
On the screen, science fared no better. Not against ‘The Thing,’ ‘Klaatu & Gort,’ ‘The Body Snatchers,’ and ‘Them!’
Things were changing and TV was only the Cyclops in an Odyssey of scientific evolution—Sputnik and the Space Race, the coming of computers, jet travel, and the H-Bomb.
By the early 60s, science pulled even with fiction and then sought to surpass it. And when it did, science fiction suffered. No longer fiction INSIDE science–science was being stuffed into fiction until it overpowered it.
The TWILIGHT ZONE and OUTER LIMITS rose above the growing ‘over-scienced’ science fiction because in its classic episodes, the fiction prevailed over the science. What made the original STAR TREK classic was not the technology, but its humanity—fiction over science.
A defining example came in 1968: in PLANET OF THE APES, the fiction won. In 2001, a SPACE ODYSESSY, science triumphed. Not rated by the Science Fiction Book Club as one of the top fifty novels in the last fifty years, APES’ strong fictional spine was judged much below Clarke’s ET monoliths. The only humanity in 2001 was its most memorable character—HAL, a technological icon.
But it more than just the relentless crush of technology in the second half of the 20th Century that led to the dominance of “science over fiction†sf. John W. Campbell had defined science fiction as, “What science fiction editors buy.â€
And so they did. Science fiction, once a genre, became a “community‗written by sf writers, bought by sf editors and published by sf publishers for sf fans.â€
Science had taken over fiction, and in print, thanks to its strict “community†has been in command ever since.
But not on the screen. STAR WARS, TERMINATOR, and BACK TO THE FUTURE proved yet again that when the fiction is stronger than the science, the work draws a crowd. However, when fiction failed these franchises as it did in their sequels, all the CGI in the universe couldn’t help them.
So why has science fiction, especially in print, been in freefall for the past decade? Blame has been laid all around, but none on the sf “community†itself and its editorial mandate for “over-scienced traditonal sf.â€
But isn’t that the sf of this age? Technology has seen unparalleled growth in the last generation. Isn’t it sf’s purpose to address, to confront the disturbing challenges of science in the New Millennium?
So it would seem, but then why are so few bothering to read it? Once the torchbearer in the lead in the Olympian march of literature, why has sf been left behind, its flame barely flickering in a niche market?
The answer is as obvious as it is unthinkable: we are already living in an sf age. Reality has caught up with “over-scienced†sf. Moreover, readers, especially young readers, are being bombarded by technology in all shapes and sizes, prices and functions; they don’t NEED sf to tell them what they think they already know.
Those who try sf do so in search of, not technological theses, but a sliver of themselves and they can’t find it anywhere.
The covers of STARRY RIFT and NEW SPACE OPERA are full-blown indictments on the state of sf: gleaming technology without a glimmer of humanity.
If yours is the future of sf, one wonders if it has one.
Hmm. I don’t know where you read your sf stories Kevin, but there is plenty of sf filled with humanity and very few depict a gleaming shiny future any more….perhaps you’re looking in all the wrong places for your sf…
..or maybe you’re just making the mistake of judging my book by its cover….
Actually, reading SCI-FICTION, while so few others bothered, was typical of the sorry state of sf. Then again, it did have everything, didn’t it? A top editor, highly regarded SFWA contributors, everything but an audience.
“Judging a book by its cover” is the bane of the marketplace. However, when the cover appears as dated as a stagecoach, too many will assume the book is as well.
As this is “traditional sf,” they are probably right.
I disagree about SciFiction. I don’t know the size of its audience, but I liked a lot of what it published.
In five years of SFWeekly, only one letter was posted raving about a SCI-FICTION story and I wrote it.
Of course, the sf “community” LOVED SCI-FICTION as a top paying market for SFWA members who wrote the thing right into the ground.
An example: http://scifidimensions.com/May05/letters.htm
SF is a business, unfortunately. You either keep readers reading or you don’t.
SCI-FICTION did not.
It had a huge audience, Kevin–just not in the range of a tv audience, which is what NBC wanted from it. We published all kinds of science fiction and fantasy, including many stories of the social consequences of technology–exactly the kind of thing you profess to find missing from today’s sf. Obviously not so.
Jonathan, I’m afraid Kevin here sounds like he’s from Trollsville. He couldn’t even be bothered to post his rant in the right commenting area for your new anthos.
This is NOT about me, but about science fiction.
“Rant,” “Trollsville”?
Spoken like a 20th Century sf editor who will always be one.
Ah, Kevin. I see you object to the fact that some (less than handful) stories of the hundreds I published on SCIFICTION weren’t sf/f.
Fyi, “Guys Day Out” is a horror story as far as I’m concerned and fit as well within the site’s purview as Dellamonica’s “The Spear Carrier,” Christopher Rowe’s “The Voluntary State,” and Maureen McHugh’s “Frankenstein’s Daughter.”
Cutting edge sf? There is no such thing and we never claimed to provide it. But good sf and good fantasy and good horror yes we did and we did.
Clearly Kevin read your ‘Dang’ post, Jonathan, and thought, in his kindness, ‘Time to reach for the shiv, while he’s feeling all low and vulnerable. Ha!’
And then Ellen shows up: “Another target offers itself to my blade! Zzzing!”
Ah, maybe one day he’ll grow up and find some manners. As intractable curmudgeons, we can only hope. :)
If Kevin wants to mouth off about good science fiction, perhaps he should start writing some. Since I’ve never heard his name, I assume he has yet to do so.
Kevin has written science fiction–you can find some in SURPRISING STORIES. I don’t think he’s ranting when he says he likes sf.
Gee, just when this “debate” got interesting, I was cut out.
Maybe I should have opened with 2 + 2 = 5
I think this comment thread is best left closed. It seems to be drifting away from substantive conversation, and towards personal criticism. And, it’s a long, long, long way from anything the original post is about.