Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Books, Criticism & Writing >

Sci-fi: Are you happy nobody likes it?

Our Lady of The Two Towers

16:29 / 28.06.02

Read me now and tell me if you agree with what he says, that everyone who claims they like their sci-fi small and unpopular is lying through their teeth. Admittedly I don't know the community but I don't think I've ever come acrossthe sci-fi equivelent of the indie music fan who thinks the mark of quality for a band is that no-one likes them.

All right, so I'm paraphrasing him a bit.

And when did we have the meeting to stop calling it science fiction and start calling it speculative? The only advantage I can see to this ghastly New Labour piece of self reinvention is to help all those that think lack of sales comes from being tied to such a 'ghastly' tag as sci-fi. "Science fiction? God no, I don't write that stuff, ghastly illiterate stuff for the lower classes and blacks. No, I write speculative fiction, you may have read my last book? 'The Teflon-Coated Vole Versus the Big-Breasted Amazons from Planet Bondage'? I like to think of it as one of my more philosphical works..."

16:51 / 28.06.02

The "Speculative Fiction" tag does seem like a re-branding exercise to move away from the perceived lack of glamour inherent in the "Science Fiction" label. Frankly, I'm disgusted. Blech.

(and there's nothing wrong with paraphrasing...in fact it's a valuable interaction tool. Sorry, I teach this stuff during the academic year...teacher hat off now.)

The sci-fi fans I know are all for more people reading the stuff. We know we're on to a good thing and want to share. I think that Chouinard's attitude is biased because he sees the sci-fi fan community as a homogenous mass that conforms to the popular stereotypes (all male, all geeky, all lusting after 7 of 9, etc. etc. ad nauseam). The elitist attitude is simply part of the stereotypes that surround the fan-base...

Elijah, Freelance Rabbi

13:33 / 29.06.02

i agree with grey
I push the good stuff on people like a drug dealer in an 80s anti drug add.
"No really, it wont hurt you, come on, try it, you dont want to look like a wuss do you? A little Phillip K Dick never hurt anyone" and so on.
I have ben to my share of conventions, and i can see where someone would generalize the scifi community as a bunch of inside joke, python wuoting, D&D playing men who would rather no one read or watch what they like because they cheapen it. I saw this example at the Ep2 premier, i actually heard someone saying "they should make you take a trivia test before you can buy premier tickets so only the true fans get in opening night"

gentleman loser

20:24 / 29.06.02

I haven't read an such a dumb article about science fiction in ages.

I read science fiction. I also happen to read books about history, art and science, biographies and yes, even regular fiction. I have never been to a science fiction convention of any kind.

Screw this guy for reducing me to a cultural stereotype that, ironically, he's helping to reinforce. I could care less if science fiction ever becomes mainstream. The mainstream has given us a endless wave of mass production crap. This includes science fiction. You can't seem to find much at a chain bookstore that isn't rapidly churned out mass market tie in series or bad novels written by former astronauts or actors who've been on Star Trek. I have to prowl the used bookstores to find the good stuff.

If someone I know that doesn't know anything about science fiction shows an interest, I'm always delighted to point them to some of my personal favorites. I'll even lend them a personal copy. They might like it. They might not. I won't get offended if they don't and I don't feel obligated to push anything on anyone. Science fiction is not for everyone. I don't read romance novels even though I know several people that absolutely adore them.

As for people who are supposedly going to scorn me for what I read: to hell with them. I refuse to waste my time on people like that.

21:31 / 29.06.02

speculative fiction? What the hell is that? Not something I see at the book store. There's the general fiction section, the classics section, the horror section, and the science fiction/fantasy section. No speculative fiction in any bookstores I've been to.

Would I like to see sci-fi become more popular? Sure, I'd love to look over while on the bus or in class and see someone reading a Philip K. Dick novel or hell even something like David Weber's Honor Harrington stuff, but at the same time I cringe at the thought of it becoming mainstream and hacks churning out sequels to books that don't need sequels.

Just leave it alone. People will either read it or they won't.

10:36 / 30.06.02

"People will either read it or they won't"...well, see, at the moment they're not. Or rather, the vast majority of them are not. I wouldn't mind seeing a lot more people read good sci-fi, simply because it will encourage more people along the likes of China Mieville to get published. At the end of the day, the publishers will only print what they think will fly off the shelves, and in the case of sci-fi, most of the production is taken up by anything with a picture of a star trek/star wars/babylon 5/etc character on the front.

Which then reinforces the stereotype when your average consumer walks into the WH Smiths and sees all these series-related paperbacks in the sci-fi section. Maybe it's time the bookshops started subdividing the sci-fi section? One section for series-related, fanboy stuff and one for the more serious work?

12:01 / 30.06.02

More people might read it if people would stop fucking stereotyping sci-fi readers. Not everybody is some sort of fanboy that spends their days arguing about whether the death star or a borg cube would win in a fight. Or better yet, maybe if sci-fi was advertised better. You know, get some of those big displays that Stephen King, Dean Koontz, and all the other general fiction hacks get. Put it in a goddamned positive light. Stick some Dick and Mieville out in the open, instead of letting it rot in the "fanboy section".

Having a "fanboy" section of sci-fi and a "Good" section of sci-fi isn't going to help matters. There isn't enough good sci-fi to make it worthwhile.

12:35 / 30.06.02

I disagree. Take the complete body of work of serious sci-fi that's out there and you'd have a quite impressive display. Considering that right now most sci-fi sections take up only about two shelf units of space anyway (unless you're in one of those enormous high-street book temples) you'd easily get enough good sci-fi together to be able to justify the split between fanboy fiction and the more serious literature.

The works by the "classic" authors alone would take up a huge amount of space (Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, etc) and there's plenty of new authors out there who'd contribute an even greater number of volumes. Yes, more advertising would probably help, especially the P.o.S.-style displays you get for Stephen King and John "My name's printed bigger than the title of the book" Grisham. But to start to wrench the stereotype away from the bespectacled nerd-type reader the easiest (and cost-effective) thing to do would be to differentiate.

13:00 / 30.06.02

The big problem with that is differentiating between the two. Oh sure it's easy to say the Star Wars/Star Trek/Babylon 5 stuff goes into the "fanboy" section, but then you've got stuff by Lois McMaster Bujold, Elizabeth Moon, and David Weber. Where does this stuff fit in It's not exactly in the fanboy domain, but it shouldn't be categorized with the likes of Asimov, Dick, and Mieville either.

Maybe instead of two separate categories like that, there should be a completely new category. It could be called media tie-ins. That would be the perfect place for the Star Trek/Star Wars/Babylon 5 stuff. You could toss the other movie novelizations in there too. That would keep the fanboy stuff out of the decent sci-fi and give science fiction more room, since over half of the shelf space given over to science fiction is Star Trek/Star Wars/ Babylon 5 stuff.

15:23 / 30.06.02

Waterstones already does that.

Hmm... I don't know where to stand on this one really.. do we really need this stark divison between SF and non-SF? or Crime or Horror for that matter.. I think most people with functioning brains these days recognise that pulp/genre books can often be of equal merit to self-consciously literary ones with poncy covers.. "but that way all the crap SF books would get mixed in as well as the good ones!" an opponent would say. "But isn't the General Fiction section full of crap books anyway?" I'd reply. "Hmmm, good point" the opponent probably wouldn't say.

Oddly, there's a local bookshop round here where the SF section is all tie-in shite, and all the quality SF books are mixed in with the general ones, the owner presumably assuming that, well, these books have nice cover designs and are in that slightly-taller-and-more-expensive format and get talked about on Radio 4! They simply can't be that Sci-fi nonsense!

I think if readers who only ever look at general fiction were encouraged to delve into SF, and vice versa of course, everything would be, well, generally nicer all round (and hopefully authors doing really good SF would be able to esablish more of a niche for themselves).

And while I'm at it, I prefer Speculative to Science Fiction! I absolutely hate SF books that are full of science! It's all about the ideas!

Our Lady of The Two Towers

15:53 / 30.06.02

I cant tell if you're being serious, so I'll just say that ALL fiction is full of ideas, even the most stupid, mind-numbing Jackie Collins or Jeffrey Archer piece of shit has an idea. 'Speculative Fiction' is rebranding nonsense. By trying to mean anything it ends up meaning nothing. And any author that would claim to be a 'speculative fiction author' (a concept which defines it's worthlessness I think) is saying they hate and are ashamed by the genre of science fiction. Reclamation is what is needed here. Or maybe we should go all the way and come up with some non-threatening euphemism.
I read 'Lavender' books perhaps?

16:15 / 30.06.02

Hugo Gernsbach would agree. I offer this quote from the page:

There are two essential reasons why science fiction today is at its lowest ebb and generally in such disrepute.

1. The majority of authors in the U.S. do not know science, hence cannot write in the tradition of Jules Verne or H.G. Wells. Those who do know science cannot extrapolate their ideas and plots into the future--they are not gifted with imagination to anticipate what is ahead in 10, 50, or 500 years.

2. Book and magazine publishers are aware of this condition, yet are powerless to change it. Faute de mieux, they accept nearly all the dismal junk that is offered to them, also, because they know the great attraction of science fiction to the starved reader, they label and sell tons of this dreadful drivel as science fiction.

Dishonest? Yes--but it brings in the fast buck!.

Bear in mind this was written in 1964...

I would agree that speculative fiction is more accessible, and more about the ideas, than true science fiction. However, would it serve the perception of the genre better if authors tried to remain within the limits of what is feasible, science-wise, and try to develop a future vision along realistic lines? Part of what made William Gibson's sci-fi so appealing to me was that while it was fantastic, it was still something I could believe would happen. He found mainstream appeal and gave us the widespread use of terms such as cyberspace.

So would a return to the 1920's roots of sci-fi help change the image of the genre? Or are we at the stage where modern technology is so amazing that we need an injection of the fantastic for something to reek of futurism?

The Natural Way

18:53 / 30.06.02

Can't be bothered to read the whole thread, but hasn't the "Speculative Fiction" tag been around for years? It enjoys many similarities with conventional Sci-fi - high concept, theory driven "stories", concerns with futurity and textual experimentation etc. - but, y'know differs in that "By fuck! I'm reading JG Ballard waffle on about today's work-as-leisure culture and the explosive sexy/ultra-violent tendencies it potentially cultivates as we subsume ourselves within a corporate morality that provides little or no outlet for these raging urges...and hijacks/standardises our fantasies borne of same!" as opposed to "Here I am on Earth n! There's a spaceship. Let's talk about becoming Lloigor at the end of time!"

That was a bit crass, I suppose, and the dividing line is very blurry, but it's okay as a general rule. I don't feel comfortable referring to writer's like Ballard and Vonnegut as "Sci-fi" - not because I'm in anyway ashamed of the tag, but because, with most of their recent work, a casual onlooker might get a bit confused when they discovered that Ballard's vision of "Sci-fi" Super-Cannes looks almost identical to many corporate playgrounds springing up today, and nothing like Sirius B.

Can see how wanker's might get hold of the tag and use it as a Jizz tissue, though.

08:02 / 01.07.02

Certainly has. My father was in his university Speculative Fiction Society and that was in the sixties. But I'm afraid it doesn't seem to have meant sci-fi with added Ideas at all - for him at any rate - just lots of dross with added Spaceships (Anne Maccaffrey, etc).

08:33 / 01.07.02

I don't know about the history of the terms, but to my mind Science Fiction suggests everything the genre should get away from - stories where rocket engines are more important than characters - whilst Speculative fiction, though it does sound a bit wanky, suggests everything I like about it - freewheeling imagination, literary experimentation, endless possibility etc.

ONLY NICE THINGS

08:41 / 01.07.02

Would I like to see sci-fi become more popular? Sure, I'd love to look over while on the bus or in class and see someone reading a Philip K. Dick novel or hell even something like David Weber's Honor Harrington stuff, but at the same time I cringe at the thought of it becoming mainstream and hacks churning out sequels to books that don't need sequels.

Yeah, that would be atrocious. Hacks taking over the production of books from dead or knackered writers and using their name to sell a shitload of cheap, pointless slurry to an uncritical audience.

Nightmare scenario. Now, if you'll excuse me, I just have to read "Coffee Klatch of Dune", "the Caves of Steel go Vegas in the Fifth Foundation", and "Gentry Lee salutes the magic and mystery of Arthur C Clarke". Then I might book a holiday in Selfawaria.

11:49 / 01.07.02

this is interesting for several reasons: first of all, the author of the article is the bloke who was talking a load of shite on the 'slash' thread on tta, where so many of us had fun last week. and i read another piece by him which said he loved feeling above the mainstream by knowing there was more to fantasy than reading harry potter.

the term 'speculative fiction' has been around for ages, as has 'imaginative fiction' and 'slipstream' (which is used to describe fiction that crosses boundaries). i think spec. fiction is a more accurate way of describing sf that's not hard science? appealing to the mainstream usually means dumbing down, i.e. watching the matrix instead of reading gibson's neuromancer. from what i know of the sf 'community', it seems pompously looking down on everyone is the order of the day, so i can't see what the problem is in sf being a ghetto.

12:24 / 01.07.02

I think that the widespread use of the term 'speculative fiction' can be traced to Robert Heinlein in the late 1940s, and he always alluded thereafter to the 'speculative' nature of SF. In his essay 'Science Fiction: Its Nature, Faults and Virtues' (1959), he defined science fiction as:

realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method.

17:41 / 06.07.02

Try liking Sci-fi and having boobies! Good luck finding someone to talk to, girls.

17:49 / 06.07.02

What, aren't the unwashed, star wars t-shirt wearing, fanboys good enough to talk to? I'm sure they'd love to talk to someone with boobies. At least once they stopped drooling.

09:33 / 07.07.02

Nightmare scenario. Now, if you'll excuse me, I just have to read "Coffee Klatch of Dune", "the Caves of Steel go Vegas in the Fifth Foundation", and "Gentry Lee salutes the magic and mystery of Arthur C Clarke". Then I might book a holiday in Selfawaria.

Along similar lines, can we take some time to find and hurt those people who keep publishing 'sequels' to Bladerunner?