Other than literary merit, science fiction in general enthralled audiences because of its speculation about future wonders. Robots, aliens, space colonization, etc. These elements crop even in the works of authors like Philip K. Dick, authors who hardly had interest in such themes.
I guess what it comes down to is, do we even believe these things are possible anymore or have we resigned ourself to the believe that this is as far as science and technology will progress, hence our lack of wonder at what the future holds?
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Hello, haven't you ever seen a cell phone or a Roomba? Not to mention talking cars? Or cell phones and DVRs? Mmm, DVRs . . . yay. Personally I am still holding out for my house computer that reminds me to go to the dentist and to go excercise. Ahh, house computer . . . you are so beautiful.
I think genetic engineering and armageddon, not to mention plagues and clean energy, are all alive and well. And still quite real. Space colonization is less written about because there are some serious issues with it scientifically, but space stations or moon or Mars colonies are still intriguing.
No no, it's not dead. Just different.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Shows like The 4400, Stargate, and the 3 alien invasions shows from last year I think show how people today are responding more to futuristic ideas in today's setting.
Even in books I'm noticing that trend. Many are taking place today, just a few years in the future, or even in the past.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:Robots, aliens, space colonization, etc
Why aren't these things possible anymore?
We have robots building cars, vacuuming floors, walking on ocean floors, and driving around on the moon.
We have built part of a space station, and the President wants to colonize the Moon.
As far as aliens, well, science is getting ever better at finding planets circling stars. As thier tools and methods get better, we'll likely be able to prove or possibly disprove, that other earth like planets do exist. We are closer to finding Aliens than we were in the Sci Fi Golden Age.
Whats more there are whole new avenues of science to be opened up to fiction with each new discovery or theory. Where in 1950 we had humamoid robots running around making us question what is sentience, what is human, today we have Humanoid Virtual People on the internet that spawn stories and questions about what is sentience, what is humanity.
Heinlein barely touched on the dangers and crimminality of creating clones as spare-parts shops. Today we have that option temptingly close.
I remember hearing an old 1930's radio program (on tape, thank you very much. I'm not that old) where a whole world died because the inhabitants became so addictive to their games they forgot to live. Then I look at the X-Box 360 and I wonder.
Science fiction will be along as long as there is science to let us dream.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Is science fiction dead? Yes, but it will be back in the next movie thanks to a plot device.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
In the next book Science Fiction returns as a cyborg-zombie!
--Enigmatic
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Science Fiction is not dead.
Science Fiction has not changed. The center of Science Fiction is to extrapolate the stuff we do know into the realm of "What if..." So as long as we keep learning, Science Fiction will live on.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Science fiction is hardly dead, IMO. I think it's undergoing the last stage of a status change - from the cheap low-circulation magazine fiction to mainstream hardcover and quality films.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: Is it?
I guess what it comes down to is, do we even believe these things are possible anymore or have we resigned ourself to the believe that this is as far as science and technology will progress, hence our lack of wonder at what the future holds?
I think Sci-fi is dead as "speculative fiction." It becomes interestingly clear, reading back into sci-fi written before the electronic revolution, that people really have no concept of what happens when new technologies not only "enhance" our lives, or change some aspect of our lives, but also reverberate their effects throughout every aspect of our collective being.
I mean, Asimov's idea of a future supercomputer was really more tied up with fantasy than an interest in the way people actually are affect by "futuristic" goings on. His computer is like a genie in a bottle: all you have to do is ask it a challenging question, and it would use the power of the question to increase it's (and your) knowledge. His idea was that we would live in a world that was capable of greater things than individual human beings are capable of- but that hasn't happened. We have held fast to the notion of the individual progressing in all abilities, rather than allowing society to evolve as a whole, sacrificing some traditional values in order to do so. In many ways, I think Asimov underestimated the drawing power of conservatism, and its effect on our lives in this century. (Conservatism, I mean in the loosest sense, to preserve patterns of thought and expression and generally eschew radical seeming changes).
Also, from a purely literary standpoint, the "Sci-fi/FANTASY" part of "sci-fi/fantasy" is what is killing sci-fi. Let me explain what I mean (which is not, probably, what you think I mean). Sci-fi has always been fantastical. From as far back as Bellamy, Wells, Asimov, sci-fi has depended on fantasy elements to lead readers into interesting new ways of thinking about the worlds sci-fi writers talk about.
For instance: many, many sci-fi worlds have faster-than-light travel or communication, and in most of them, the trick is either never explained, leaving it a mystery to the reader, or it IS explained, but the explanation is itself fantastical. "Warp Drive" for instance, is never really explained in Star Trek, but it is hinted at in a thousand different lines of dialogue. It functions as a kind of background fantasy element, which by remaining ambiguous, is more or less believably applicable to any scenario the writers can dream up. "Subspace," for Star Trek, thus becomes this magical realm where story elements can be created at will, and still remain credible parts of the story because in the story, "subspace" is accepted as an explained (though not to you) phenomenon. This is why "subspace" does so many things: people fall into it, time travel, talk through it, travel through it, get caught in webs of it, puddles of it, rifts, folds, wormholes, beings come out of it, and it opens up windows in other dimensions. Essentially subspace does EVERYTHING and anything the writers want. It's fantasy!
Even in "hard sci-fi" the fantasy elements are simply shrouded by an allusion to their scientific basis. OSC can mention "the delicate balance of impossible forces" that powers starflight in "The Worthing Saga," and that is explanation enough to make it appear to be explained. People would be bored with tiresome explanations of every possible detail of a sci-fi world, unless those descriptions in themselves were masterful tapestries of storytelling. And even then, the basis of the stories would be things that people in those universes found to be mysterious- they would be about fantasies.
So why does marketed fantasy ruin sci-fi (at least for me!)? I think that people who would read sci-fi, and accept the fantasy elements as reasonable cmpromises that allow storytelling, will balk at the writer who simply refuses to base a story in a world that appears to be logical. I am not an expert on fantasy, but I do know that fantasy relies on its share of traditional figures (you have dwarfs and elves instead of martians and time travelers). I think the difference here is that a martian seemed possible to people at one time, while an elf, at least the idea of there being another native born species on Earth, that we have known about for all of history, is difficult to swallow. I chafe at a story that demands that I simply believe that something is possible because it needs to be in the story, but for some reason (when it is done well) I don't mind if a writer makes the details of a supposed technology ambiguous. I can use my imagination to fill in the gaps, while fantasy, though it claims to be entirely immaginative, is less inviting of self-determination on the part of the reader. Though I am not for total self-determination on the part of any reader in any genre, I am against the story that does not invite speculation by making it clear that speculations will do nothing but confuse you later on- because the story has no seeming internal consistency.
This was my big problem with "the Lord of the Rings". I felt that each time I got an idea of a place or a person or a way of life, Tolkien would wantonly mention some other super important factor that I had not known. Even in the movies, I got a frustrating feeling of being jerked around by the logic of the world the story inhabits: it seemed that I could never get a feel for what thing was acceptable in the story, and what not. Think of the oft-sighted problem of the griffins at the end of the last book- why didn't they simply fly the hobbits to Mordor from the beginning? Could this NOT have been arranged? This is the kind of thing a sci-fi story doesn't usually get away with (well, they do, but you notice it less;)). I know someone will have an explanation of why they didn't but that doesn't help me, because the explanation is that there would be no story if they had. Fantasies retroactively destroy themselves by re-casting the laws of their worlds, while sci-fi stories manage to retroactively change the reader's viewpoint, WITHOUT destroying the believability of the story.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Science Fiction is not dead.
Science Fiction has not changed. The center of Science Fiction is to extrapolate the stuff we do know into the realm of "What if..." So as long as we keep learning, Science Fiction will live on.
This is almost exactly what Asimov said about it. He claimed, modestly, that writing his stories was so easy even he could do it, because all you had to say was: "what if." That part of sci-fi has not changed, but our particular conception of sci-fi, as it relates to the huge amount of material that has been written as "sci-fi" is changing most definitely.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
P.S. There was a thread about this on the other side.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:This was my big problem with "the Lord of the Rings". I felt that each time I got an idea of a place or a person or a way of life, Tolkien would wantonly mention some other super important factor that I had not known. Even in the movies, I got a frustrating feeling of being jerked around by the logic of the world the story inhabits: it seemed that I could never get a feel for what thing was acceptable in the story, and what not. Think of the oft-sighted problem of the griffins at the end of the last book- why didn't they simply fly the hobbits to Mordor from the beginning? Could this NOT have been arranged? This is the kind of thing a sci-fi story doesn't usually get away with (well, they do, but you notice it less;)). I know someone will have an explanation of why they didn't but that doesn't help me, because the explanation is that there would be no story if they had. Fantasies retroactively destroy themselves by re-casting the laws of their worlds, while sci-fi stories manage to retroactively change the reader's viewpoint, WITHOUT destroying the believability of the story.
You have to read the Silmarillion to get all the details of Tolkien's universe. NOTHING is wanton in Tolkien. For example, the Eagles (not griffins btw) are the chief servants of Manwe, King of the Gods in the True West. The Eagles at the final battle are divine interferance: Eucatastophy. A huge moment in Middle-earth history because for thousands of years the Valar (gods) had appeared to have abandoned the world. Even heaven had been removed from the world, so only Elves could find it, sailing into the West.
When the Eagles appear, and when Gollum falls into the Cracks of Doom, it shows that the divine have not abandoned the world. Even Gandalf is revealed as an Angel sent to help us mortals.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
NO! I won't let it be, that and the some 5 million Star Trek, 5+ million Star Wars and who knows how many Battlestar Galactica fans out there. It has just not been as prevelent as before and now days it isn't just all about space. There are shows like Heros, Eureka and The Dead Zone that are about real world scifi stuff.
I miss all the space adventures though, interested to see what the new Star Trek is going to be like also. Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
Sci-fi is not dead. I believe that it is merely evolving at this point and I look forward to what comes out in the future. While I do miss the great space adventures and I really miss Heinlein (though I often felt his characterizations left much to be desired), I think the future holds great things for sci-fi.
On the other hand, while I love Star Trek and always have, I am not necessarily looking forward to the next installment. I have not found the last several ventures to be the same quality as earlier ones. Kat
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
quote:Originally posted by katdog42: Sci-fi is not dead. I believe that it is merely evolving at this point and I look forward to what comes out in the future. While I do miss the great space adventures and I really miss Heinlein (though I often felt his characterizations left much to be desired), I think the future holds great things for sci-fi.
On the other hand, while I love Star Trek and always have, I am not necessarily looking forward to the next installment. I have not found the last several ventures to be the same quality as earlier ones. Kat
Did you like Enterprise? I liked a couple of the TNG movies but they weren't quality like the The Wrath of Kahn. Kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn! gigglesand more giggles Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian:
I guess what it comes down to is, do we even believe these things are possible anymore or have we resigned ourself to the believe that this is as far as science and technology will progress, hence our lack of wonder at what the future holds?
I'm afraid I don't understand where you're coming from. We're getting closer and closer to such things with each passing decade and this is in part due to the way sci-fi inspires people. Why would anyone believe that we've reached our limit when the human race is advancing faster than it ever has! I'm only 22 years old, and even I can marvel at some of the technological advancements that have occurred in just my own life time.
And as for sci-fi itself, being a sci-fi geek is cooler than it's ever been.
Sci-fi dead? Over my dead body!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: You have to read the Silmarillion to get all the details of Tolkien's universe. NOTHING is wanton in Tolkien. For example, the Eagles (not griffins btw) are the chief servants of Manwe, King of the Gods in the True West. The Eagles at the final battle are divine interferance: Eucatastophy. A huge moment in Middle-earth history because for thousands of years the Valar (gods) had appeared to have abandoned the world. Even heaven had been removed from the world, so only Elves could find it, sailing into the West.
When the Eagles appear, and when Gollum falls into the Cracks of Doom, it shows that the divine have not abandoned the world. Even Gandalf is revealed as an Angel sent to help us mortals.
My point is the same. I said I knew someone would give me a reason why it "made sense" in the story, but that explanation certainly doesn't make any kind of sense to me. Sci-fi is also not an in-club of people who read the other book first, so they have the inside information. It is generally more accessible and intuitive. Begin anywhere in any well constructed sci-fi book, and you will find that the narrative is internally self-consistent- it sounds plausible because it remains accessible at all levels. LOTR is not accessible from every chapter, or even every book- or as you point out, even as a series all together, you still need to have read something else first... no thanks.
Plus, the idea that you can create a "logical" progression of events based on mystical goings on and the will of a bunch of gods is in itself hard to accept, at least for me. Again, this IS Tolkien just making the things the way he needs them to be for the story to work. I read his forward to LOTR, and he said he specifically tried to allow the story to evolve naturally according to normal cuase and effect, but frankly I can detect very little trace of that in the story.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
I think that you have more of a stylistic bone to pick with Tolkien, rather than one of genre.
Science fiction always has been, and, I believe, always will be intertwined.
Sci-fi is fantasy in space, with steel and metal rivets. Fantasy is sci-fi without the rivets.
I've never really thought of them as seperate genre, except that cheesy fantasy is a whole lot easier to spot than cheesy sci-fi, at least for me.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon:
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian:
I guess what it comes down to is, do we even believe these things are possible anymore or have we resigned ourself to the believe that this is as far as science and technology will progress, hence our lack of wonder at what the future holds?
I'm afraid I don't understand where you're coming from. We're getting closer and closer to such things with each passing decade and this is in part due to the way sci-fi inspires people. Why would anyone believe that we've reached our limit when the human race is advancing faster than it ever has! I'm only 22 years old, and even I can marvel at some of the technological advancements that have occurred in just my own life time.
And as for sci-fi itself, being a sci-fi geek is cooler than it's ever been.
Sci-fi dead? Over my dead body!
Well actually I thought about the question a long while. I mean, who are the superstars of Science Fiction of today? There are tons and tons of talented writers who simply can't produce compelling science fiction because, imaginatively, the field has been ploughed.
But the question occured to me after skimming a book called "The End of Science" which suggested that the law of diminishing returns applies to science, that all the great discoveries have been made and all that's left is incremental little advances which only shed light on what's already known.
I guess I'm just dissaponted that we don't have flying cars and robots. Wasn't science fiction for the longest while dependant on the faith that such things will come true? And without that speculative nature, isn't it mere fantasy?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006: Sci-fi is fantasy in space, with steel and metal rivets. Fantasy is sci-fi without the rivets.
I've never really thought of them as seperate genre, except that cheesy fantasy is a whole lot easier to spot than cheesy sci-fi, at least for me.
I would argue that the rivets keep the thing together. You don't have a structure, in my opinion, without that. You can think of them however you want, that's anecdotal, but what we can find out about them, about what makes the genres work and evolve in certain ways, clearly shows us that the fantasy element of sci-fi is not the same thing as, for instance, "magical realism" in Toni Morrison novels. Magical realism, the thing that makes fantasy work, depends on magic reality (hence the name) to form the basis of a narrative and the world it inhabits. The fantasy element of sci-fi has a fantastical effect on a realistic world, so that we can see that world evolve in a way not allowed in actual realism. Magical realism preempts all this, and simply bases its rules on different things. Nothing wrong with this, unless you don't care for it, but it IS a different thing. There are very pronounced differences, even in works that try to work in both styles.
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
quote:Originally posted by B34N: Did you like Enterprise? I liked a couple of the TNG movies but they weren't quality like the The Wrath of Kahn. Kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn! gigglesand more giggles
No, I did not care much for Enterprise. It had its moments, but nothing spectacular and I thought it did a bit too much toying with time. I liked TNG and DS9 quite a bit, Voyager was okay, the original six movies (minus 1 and 5) I think are the best that Trek has to offer. As a whole, I love the series, but don't know how much the writers have left in them. Kat
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: You have to read the Silmarillion to get all the details of Tolkien's universe. NOTHING is wanton in Tolkien. For example, the Eagles (not griffins btw) are the chief servants of Manwe, King of the Gods in the True West. The Eagles at the final battle are divine interferance: Eucatastophy. A huge moment in Middle-earth history because for thousands of years the Valar (gods) had appeared to have abandoned the world. Even heaven had been removed from the world, so only Elves could find it, sailing into the West.
When the Eagles appear, and when Gollum falls into the Cracks of Doom, it shows that the divine have not abandoned the world. Even Gandalf is revealed as an Angel sent to help us mortals.
How does the intervention of the Eagles during The Hobbit fit in with this?
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian:
I guess I'm just dissaponted that we don't have flying cars and robots. Wasn't science fiction for the longest while dependant on the faith that such things will come true? And without that speculative nature, isn't it mere fantasy? [/QB]
I guess I just don't share your opinion that no one believes in that sort of thing anymore. In my experience, it's still quite common for people to genuinely believe that there will be human cloning, space colonies, and A.I. some day. The only difference between now and 50 years ago (and I'm only guessing, because I wasn't alive 50 years ago) is that people aren't naive enough to expect all this stuff to come about in the next 40 years or not at all.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Definitely, the speculative nature of the fiction did allow the fantasy to occur. If you were simply inroducing interesting elements without at least building a societal structure which is speculatively plausible, then you were writing fantasy. The magic elements in fantasy are primary parts of the story, while fantastical sci-fi ideas, like "hyperspace," are simply background to react against the human elements. If you are interested in the purely human part of the story being contrasted with the speculative futuristic environments, then you are writing what sci-fi has been for 100 years. Fantasy has always been about the worlds it inhabits, while sci-fi has been about people.
Posted by gums (Member # 9874) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ... while sci-fi has been about people.
Very true!
I think Sci Fi is at the height of its popularity right now, and I fear it will go the way of the old western.
As for whether actual science is going to stop progressing, you need to look at what is driving the progress. I don't see the process coming to a stop unless we hit a logjam in our thinking, needing another Newton or Einstein to break things up.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian:
But the question occured to me after skimming a book called "The End of Science" which suggested that the law of diminishing returns applies to science, that all the great discoveries have been made and all that's left is incremental little advances which only shed light on what's already known.
Something people very, very strongly believed about the dawn on the 20th century... and they were SOO wrong. Everything I have ever read about the history of science has pointed to this trend- people always think they are the end all, but we are most definitely not.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Maybe the reason many people are beginning to believe in the downfall of science fiction is because so much of it is bad. To quote Theodore Sturgeon:
"Ninety percent of science fiction is crap, but that's because ninety percent of everything is crap."
I walk through the SciFi/Fantasy section of any bookstore and see so many books that sound awful. I watch the SciFi channel and am ashamed at how bad some of these shows and movies are. With the popularity of Science Fiction comes all of the riff-raff of serialized novels and television shows, movies that are intended to make money and not be respectful science fiction (Terminator 3, anyone?).
It's only occasionally that I read or watch a work of science fiction that is actually good. When I watched Firefly for the first time, I was elated at the fact that original, respectful, and discussable science fiction was still being produced.
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)