Although it may be obvious (this being a forum about OSC on his web site), I have to say I've been a long time science fiction reader. For me, this genre in many cases adressed questions that went deep in philosopical matters and moral dilemmas. It wasn't only about laser guns and interstellar travelling, although these themes were often an instrument the author used to be able to "talk" about other things. And I've always loved that. That is why I consider myself closer to the so-called soft-science fiction (Direct translation from spanish. I'm from Barcelona so I hope you'll be indulgent with my english ;-)). I suppose that kind of explains why I am a visitor of this site: OSC is the writer that's been able to touch my heart deeper than any other with his characters and their dilemmas.
All of this should explain my shock when I recently read one of the last interviews made to Stanislaw Lem and he said things like "I gave up reading science fiction in general, because I was unable to "digest" it - mostly because of its total lack of cognitive values". And then he goes on referring to Science Fiction as a "minor" genre. I didn't expect this opinion to come from someone who used to write sci-fi (and was certainly successful). Then some questions came to my mind which I wanted to share with you.
Do you think sci-fi has a "total lack of cognitive values"? Do you see Sci-Fi as a dying genre? Do you think Sci-Fi is not useful anymore? (Have things changed so much? Or better, am i getting too old? ;-))
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I think scifi has a lot of power in that it can discuss most issues. The distance of culture and time and technology allows a different context to explore our modern day values and definitions. Also, it can show things in the extreme. For example, how do you define humanity? This has implications in modern days (racism, human rights, etc) but when discussing modern issues, often gut responses get in the way. Wheras scifi takes you out of that gut response level and can look deeper. (Of course, that falls apart if the author is clearly trying to push a political agenda since it can return you to gut response level). So, I think it is definetly useful. A mirror to society and all that stuff. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I think that Sci-Fi is a dying genre. I haven't been excited by anything in years. Not even from Orson Scott Card. Part of the problem, I think, is that it is too focused on creating whole series of books. It just comes out as repetition after repetition. (Note to OSC: can you please write something original for a change? I want a NEW universe to explore.)
What gets lost in trying to make the next "great book series" is creativity and imagination. Although everything that can be written probably has been written, current sci-fi takes that to the extreme and doesn't even try to say it differently. I feel like I am living in an age of Shannara when Lord of the Rings is dead and gone.
However, I do think there is one problem that has contributed to the decline that authors can't control. We are living in a time when science fiction is mostly reality. There has become a fine line between Clancy and Clark. Both the triumphs and tragedies of modern science has taken away some of the awe and mystery of the scientific future. Too many people see the limitations of human progress and believe sci-fi is stuck in a time period too positive for suspension of disbelief. The days when science can be considered "the hero" are over - and the sci-fi genre for the most part has not caught up to that viewpoint. To be honest, I am not sure how sci-fi authors can adapt.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Two Words:
Dan Simmons.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Deux autres mots, RICHARD SIMMONS
que cet jeu est ammusant!
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
sorry, that was my sister posting. Seriously, there's a lot of dreck in modern sci-fi and Fantasy, with everyone fitting into predetermined archetypes, but there are still a few writers that think outside the box, and give a good story.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:The days when science can be considered "the hero" are over - and the sci-fi genre for the most part has not caught up to that viewpoint.
I'm puzzled by this assertion. I don't see a lot of SF being written today that tries to cast science as "the hero". I'm sure that there is some--the genre is pretty broad, and there is plenty of room in it for a variety of types--but it's not the work I'm reading. What current SF do you read, Occasional, that leads you to this?
[ April 18, 2006, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by oolung (Member # 8995) on :
I think the future is such a broad spectrum it can be filled with many, many original fictional universes Sure, there must be a lot of repetitions, but it's like that with every other genre, don't you think? And yet truly creative works still pop up sometimes...
Just one off-topic comment: where I live, one or two of Lem's short-stories are compulsory reading: having read them in my primary school, I was put off Lem for many years and it's just lately that I've discovered some of his other incredibly witty works. It seems like they really do everything in their power to make children hate good literature...
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I think that Sci-Fi is a dying genre. I haven't been excited by anything in years. Not even from Orson Scott Card. Part of the problem, I think, is that it is too focused on creating whole series of books. It just comes out as repetition after repetition. (Note to OSC: can you please write something original for a change? I want a NEW universe to explore.)
Remember, a lot of the OSC series weren't meant to be as long as they are.
The original Ender series started only because OSC decided that Speaker for the Dead worked best with Ender as the Speaker, and Xenocide and Children of the Mind were intended to be one story but it got too long. I think the Speaker for the Dead introduction says that Xenocide was written because Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead were sold without OSC's knowledge as the first two parts of a trilogy; but OSC has said that some of Xenocide's ideas had been thought of as early as 1978. Then the Shadow series was meant to be a one-book account of the life of Bean but it got too long as well.
Alvin Maker was supposed to be three novels, but it too got too long. Homecoming was planned from the start as a large number of novels (seven, cut down to five).
I think it would be nice to see a new standalone OSC sci-fi novel, but I think it's more important that a new novel feel different from the others than that it be set in a new sci-fi world. But because I figure that every new Ender or Alvin Maker book will refer (even if unintentionally) to all the previous ones, I'm planning on reading them in publication order.
Posted by collissimon (Member # 9346) on :
Hey,
One of the most exciting sci-fi/fantasy/weird(!) books that I read recently was by a guy called China Mieville, who's descriptions blew me away because they felt so alien. If you're interested in giving them a read, I would read Perdido St Station. His second one in the same city relays a lot more of his personal politics, which I found intriguing how he used his political background to colour his work.
I don't think sci-fi is a dying genre, but it is one that continually has to maintain itself and move on, as it keeps pace with scientific developments.
cs
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
I believe Stanislaw Lem was only incidentally a "science fiction" writer, as the science was only incidental to the fiction. In some ways similar to Phil Dick (ironic that) or Tom Disch.
In that regard, science fiction is not a useless or dying genre, it can still serve as a backdrop to create situations in which characters and their interactions can be explored. Indeed, it's very flexible, accomodating everything from depressing existentialism to zombie flicks.
Maybe Star Trek and Star Wars and even Cowboys in Space have run their course, and maybe science fiction still follows Sturgeon's Law... but there's still room for the next Stanislaw Lem.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote:And then he goes on referring to Science Fiction as a "minor" genre.
Not only that -- he refused to be published in the (then) only Polish sci-fi magazine but he did get published in playboy in the later years.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote:where I live, one or two of Lem's short-stories are compulsory reading: having read them in my primary school, I was put off Lem for many years
girl, me too.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by collissimon: Hey,
One of the most exciting sci-fi/fantasy/weird(!) books that I read recently was by a guy called China Mieville, who's descriptions blew me away because they felt so alien. If you're interested in giving them a read, I would read Perdido St Station. cs
_Perdido St. Station_ was excellent. I'd recommend _The Scar_ even more. Same world, but I enjoyed the story more. I wasn't so hot on his latest one, but the first two were fantastic, so I'll let him slide Posted by collissimon (Member # 9346) on :
Hey MightyCow,
It took me a while to get into Iron Council, but I really enjoyed it.
I need to read the Scar, it's on my list!
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Some of the writing in Iron Council was really good, and some of the characters were cool, but overall I just didn't get attached to any of the characters very much. Maybe because they were so emotionally distant from one another, they felt distant from me as well.
Posted by collissimon (Member # 9346) on :
I wonder if that's because the focus wasn't the characters, but the politics behind it. I think it was Mieville's most obvious tie between his 'real world' politics and his fiction.
I'm reading Julian May's Saga of the Exiles at the mo, which though has a few politically incorrect terms, is actually really innovative and well written. It takes a very confident author to hold off any action for a third of a book, and to maintain a genuine ensemble of characters.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Dear Occasional:
All my books are original.
But if you mean you want new worlds to explore, I do my best. Those standalones sell a small fraction of what the series sell, however, so naturally my publisher is more enthusiastic about books that fit into the series.
However, if you will look at my list of published works, I think you will find plenty of standalone novels. Have you read them all? If not, why are you demanding MORE from me when you haven't yet exhausted all the possibilities I've already produced?
And, for what it's worth, I try never to write the same book twice. If you can read Ender, Speaker, Xenocide, and Children of the Mind and imagine that they are just a "series," you really aren't paying attention.
However, I must say that I agree with those who point to a dying sci-fi genre. It's not just because the shelf-space is shrinking. It's because much of what's there is either derivative (please, no more phony Gibson calling itself "cyberpunk"), highly literary (i.e., derivative of the cliches of the academic-literary genre), or so deeply genrified (military sci-fi, for instance) that it has narrowed itself to where I'm no longer interested.
Which is not to say there aren't still terrific writers writing within the genre. The late Octavia Butler was wonderful right to the end; Dan Simmons is a terrific writer (though let's face it, sometimes he is self-indulgent to a fault!); and there are others.
But fantasy is, right now, more productive of truly brilliant new work - though it also has its share of dreck. (what genre doesn't?)
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
But, getting back to Stanislaw Lem, hasn't anybody noticed that he's an elitist snob? in his native country, he was long treated as if he invented literature (rather as Margaret Atwood was treated in Canada) and he believed his own hype. Of course he's above science fiction. he's above everything.
Posted by collissimon (Member # 9346) on :
I wonder if science fiction is seen as a dying genre, because the line dividing genres are blurring, especially between fantasy and sci-fi.
Fantasy is no longer about presenting an idealised environment, often harking back to the past and folk culture. Science Fiction is the engagement with technology/science et al to look forward and create new/alternative environments.
Today, fantasy has reached out to become a broader genre. Authors are using fantastical scales and placing them in backdrops that aren't traditionally 'fantasy'. In so doing, a grey area between what can be considered fantasy, and what science fiction has developed.
Also, fantasy childrens books have become highly marketable once again, with high quality childrens literature, such as Phillip Pullman, Anthony Horowitz and Garth Nix, there is a cross-over effect into adults fantasy, as publishers realise that this market will grow up and progress, and need to progress with them.
Rather than Sci-Fi dying, perhaps it is readjusting?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote: But, getting back to Stanislaw Lem, hasn't anybody noticed that he's an elitist snob? in his native country, he was long treated as if he invented literature (rather as Margaret Atwood was treated in Canada) and he believed his own hype. Of course he's above science fiction. he's above everything.
Wow, you really do have something against Canada, don't you? Atwood was certainly praised as an incredible author (which she is), but we're not that narrow-minded.
As for Sci-fi, collissimon, since it's creation, it has never stopped adjusting and reinventing itself. There have always been writers ready to push themselves farther than the preset standards, ready to cut through the dreck and rehashed writing and create great works.
Posted by Pawel Lotko (Member # 9367) on :
quote:But, getting back to Stanislaw Lem, hasn't anybody noticed that he's an elitist snob? in his native country, he was long treated as if he invented literature (rather as Margaret Atwood was treated in Canada) and he believed his own hype. Of course he's above science fiction. he's above everything.
Actually he was (he died 27 march this year - www.lem.pl - in english too) . But yes I agree with You .More of it - about fiew years ago he became little strange person . He was believe in autodestruction of human kind , he hated internet etc.
Posted by collissimon (Member # 9346) on :
FToaS,
That's the point I was trying to make, sci-fi has shifted over the years, and continues to do so. What I think is new now, is that Fantasy has undergone a reinvention, and become more fluid, which now overlaps with traditional science fiction.
I wonder whether it would be best for sci-fi to redefine itself seperately from fantasy, or whether it should amalgamate and take over the world(!)?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Thre's a simple answer to that question-it should do both! There are plenty enough science fiction and fantasy writers in the world to bridge that gap, while at the same time keeping them distinct.
Is there anything wrong believing in the autodestruction of mankind, or hating the Internet? No. Lem was no elitist snob, he just hated everybody.
Posted by Pawel Lotko (Member # 9367) on :
quote: Is there anything wrong believing in the autodestruction of mankind
I didn't write it clearly . He didn't believe that human kind can survive and certainly will destroy itself . I didn't say that it's something wrong but strange when author of many books (very good books) about future of our kind say something like that . I tried to answer in this way the main question about sf as dying genre . He just became a person with black look in life . And in my opinion sf has a future because there will always be something unknown and something that human want to explore and it will be possible only by imagination of authors of sf .
Sorry for my english , it's not my native Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
I think the error was mine anyway. Yes, science ficton and fantasy can and will continue to evolve. Add to that writers like OSC who blend the two, and we've got some good reading ahead of us. If only there wasn't so much crap writing in those fields.
And Pawel, welcome to the site, by the way.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I stand by my theory of the death of Sci-Fi. Perhaps my last paragraph might be a lot more speculative. It is based on my thinking of a reason why it is so hard to find new sci-fi artists and books of interest. The same authors have been writing the same kinds of books for the last five years. I haven't heard of any new sci-fi writers or novels of note.
In reply to OSC: I have read them all. That is, the ones I wanted to finish. Sorry, but I am not one of those fans who likes everything by the same author just because they wrote. Everything by you I am intersted in has been read.
As far as your series - I agree with you to a point. Each book has been different. There is no disputing the talent you have to keep things fresh. My problem is that no matter how fresh you are, a series does present limitations to creativity. Rules for characters and the world they inhabit have been set by what has come before.
There comes a time, at least for me, when you want to play a new game with completely different rules and players. Perhaps that is why I am more of a fan of your stand alones than your series. If a series goes beyond three novels I move on to something else. For instance, if I didn't recognize a direction your original Ender Series was going with Xenocide, I wouldn't have picked up Children of the Mind. I stopped reading the Dune series after Children of Dune because I had no clue what he was trying to do; making me wonder if he did either. I got bored. That is one of the reasons I have only read two books of the Pre-Ender series (they were stories set after battle school); I had been there before and I like Ender better than Bean.
Your statement about not publishing stand alones because they don't do as well might be a clue why sci-fi is dying. In a market where money matters - speculation is dangerous. Perhaps major market publishers are killng the industry by not opening up to fresh, untried, and speculative artists. Then, when they do have a hit, they seek to keep the same audience coming back for more. If true, than sci-fi might not be dying (we would need market analysis to know that for certain), but creatively stagnant.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)