I don't care what others think about my choosing to read science fiction. But, I have always liked reading fantasy when I was really young and I like that genre still. Recently, I've been getting into science fiction and I think that science fiction books are a perfectly fine genre. From my personal experience I don't see why it would be considered nerdy to read science fiction. Is it just the stigma that goes with it?
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
I was considered a nerd back when I only read fantasy an wouldn't science fiction with a 10' pole (thanks EG). I always thought being considered a nerd went along with reading a lot.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not nerdy.
Geeky!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Is it, in fact, considered nerdy by many? Yes. Is it wrong to attach a pejorative meaning to the term when defined in this way? Also yes. The world needs nerdy people Graff. Are you of college age yet? I'm guessing not- because by the time you're in college, your status as a nerd will most likely transform into just another facet of your personality. The Oh So Heavy and Important cultural wars of High School are abandoned in most cases by the time you reach adulthood. Movies like "revenge of the nerds" are silly because in reality, the "nerds" garner all the respect they need from the people that matter to them- the social capital of University education is much different from that of childhood.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
usually yeah.
I'm in my 20's and my peers generally exhibited a strong correlation between "reads sci-fi" and "is a nerd"
in addition, it is my opinion that, at least during my formative literary years, science fiction was the red-headed stepchild of genres, with a much much much lower overall quality and a much higher than average incidence of very sucky titles. If you were the kind of person who would read a star wars extended universe title (or whatever) between classes, yeah, you were mostly guaranteed to be pretty into it because you had to be willing to put up with a lot of chaff.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:star wars extended universe title
If you consider this to be science fiction, then yes, you are definitely a nerd.
Posted by Colonel Graff (Member # 11872) on :
Orincoro , yes I am in college. I am glad that the cultural wars in high school end once you're in college. I'm not really a nerd. I mean I like some nerdy things but I also like other non nerdy things. Just may I ask why is it considered nerdy? I mean science fiction is pretty fun to read.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It is absolutely considered nerdy to read science fiction. A better question is whether being considered nerdy is really a handicap that matters to you.
Posted by Colonel Graff (Member # 11872) on :
Ah.
How would being partially nerdy be considered a handicap?
It's not like I can't talk to other people, or, show proper social skills around other human beings. I've learned how to interact with other people properly when I was primary education. So it's not like I'm socially inept.
I also like other books other than sci-fi books. Do people just consider science fiction books nerdy because science fiction books have a lot of science in them?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Nerdy and cool depend on who you listen to. My social life has evolved to the point where not reading a lot (and preferably fantasy or sci-fi) gets you labelled as "boring" or even "chav." And chavs, I suppose, as cool to each other and think we're a bunch of nerds.
I read speculative fiction, and that's nerdy, but in my world, nerdy is a cool thing to be.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yes, it's nerdy. So what?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Colonel Graff: How would being partially nerdy be considered a handicap?
Social handicaps are very real things and even those who act the most indifferent to popular appeal definitely mold themselves based on the acceptability of their behavior to others.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:star wars extended universe title
If you consider this to be science fiction, then yes, you are definitely a nerd.
the star wars books were science fiction. moreover, they are among the most commonly read science fiction.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Do people just consider science fiction books nerdy because science fiction books have a lot of science in them?
Um....Seriously, Graff, why have you only just discovered books? I'm a little fascinated by your story.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
No, Graff, because they were written by fat pimply bespactacled guys who live in their moms' basement.
Posted by Colonel Graff (Member # 11872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Colonel Graff: How would being partially nerdy be considered a handicap?
Social handicaps are very real things and even those who act the most indifferent to popular appeal definitely mold themselves based on the acceptability of their behavior to others.
How is it a social handicap to like science fiction?
Posted by Colonel Graff (Member # 11872) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Do people just consider science fiction books nerdy because science fiction books have a lot of science in them?
Um....Seriously, Graff, why have you only just discovered books? I'm a little fascinated by your story.
No. I've always been a reader. There have been times when I've been on and off about reading, if, you know what I mean. However, I've only started seriously reading like about two years ago. I just don't understand why sci-fi is considered more nerdy than any other genre of books.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Asking that sort of question here does not help your cause.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:star wars extended universe title
If you consider this to be science fiction, then yes, you are definitely a nerd.
the star wars books were science fiction. moreover, they are among the most commonly read science fiction.
*Laughs at the nerd*
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Why not? I thought that since people here were also into sci-fi, that, I would at least have some insight as to why it's considered nerdy. Maybe it's because of the stereotype that people who like sci-fi stuff are only geeks and just that. I just would like some deeper insight as to why they're considered geeky or nerdy other than "they just are". The sci-fi stuff I've read is pretty fun to read. I don't see why it would be arguable that all sci-fi books should be "nerdy" and just leave it at that and then people shouldn't touch them because of that.
Posted by Colonel Graff (Member # 11872) on :
It doesn't matter. Stereotypes like that have so little actual meaning, especially after high school.
Just be yourself. Like what you like. There's not that much else to it.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
So, I actually just read [u]Nerds: who they are and why we need more of them[/u] which is a psychological look into the stereotype of the nerd. He specifically brings up the points that being a nerd usually involves some sort of extreme focus on something, but that the subject of that focus is important. For example, a fly fisherman who is very involved is not considered a nerd, but someone who is equally involved in D+D would be considered a nerd. The explanation for this that he invokes is that of the macho man versus the sneak. The honorable sword and bow of the samurai versus the western rifle. The parallel is that science, technology, and by association, science fiction, magic, and fantasy are granting an unfair advantage to their practitioners (even though it's only in make-believe). And for that reason, that unconscious sense of the unfair, unnatural, and cowardly ways of using technology, that science fiction is considered nerdy. Or at least that's David Anderegg's position
It's an interesting read. :-p
Posted by Colonel Graff (Member # 11872) on :
That books sounds interesting Starsnuffer. How many pages long is it? I find it unfortunate that a lot of great science fiction literature gets lost because lots of people consider them to be nerdy. I just wish people would get over the stigma.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
The wikipedia explanation is closer to what I meant. Urban Dictionary isn't always very good. Chav is a subculture here, becoming more mainstream, and it's largely based on music and clothing, not arrest records or violence. (They have different words for that.)
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
253 pages, Graff.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Not nerdy.
Geeky!
^^ this.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Not nerdy.
Geeky!
^^ this.
reading is nerdy.
reading sci-fi is geeky.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Of course it's considered nerdy/geeky, but does anyone actually care?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
only dorks care.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Not nerdy.
Geeky!
Second that.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I do, I care!
It's definitely nerdy and I'm darn proud of it!
Seriously, if you like it, and that means other people think you're nerdy - then you're nerdy. It's not like it changes who you already are. I'm pretty nerdy and I tend to be attracted to other people who are pretty nerdy (both for friendships and romantic relationships) and it's totally ok.
Besides, Nerds are yummy!
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
P.S. - Strider, I am NOT a Dork!
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I always assumed science fiction was considered nerdy because, in most people's minds (not mine!), it's nothing but descriptions of gadgets and aliens with awful characterization.
Posted by Colonel Graff (Member # 11872) on :
I always assumed that it was only the people who are obsessed with science fiction are considered nerdy. I like science fiction because of all of the themes that the classics of sci-fi literature have of humanity.
I think there are lots of science fiction books that are good and there are a lot of nerdy type science fiction books, yes. However, the stereotype I used to have of science fiction books was that it was just all about star wars, but, now that I've read a few science fiction books, that stereotype of mine has been erased. I think that science fiction can provide scientists with insight as to how the future is going to be like and that science fiction can be really clever at times.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I always assumed that it was only the people who are obsessed with science fiction are considered nerdy.
No. You can be considered nerdy without having ever cracked the spine of a book.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Colonel Graff: I think that science fiction can provide scientists with insight as to how the future is going to be like and that science fiction can be really clever at times.
I'm asking seriously: Are you a plant of some kind?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Ficus, maybe?
Posted by Colonel Graff (Member # 11872) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I always assumed that it was only the people who are obsessed with science fiction are considered nerdy.
No. You can be considered nerdy without having ever cracked the spine of a book.
Okay, that's true but that's not my point. Why do people have this inherent bias against science fiction? It seems like people just have this dislike for smart or otherworldly things.
I apologize if I'm thinking about this too much. I've just never understood why people have these stereotypes of things. Maybe there are people who fall under that stereotype but I mean I'm perfectly normal for the most part but I like some abnormal things and I see nothing nerdy about liking sci-fi stuff. Maybe it's that since I like science I don't see a problem with it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
How did you make it through high school, Graff, without coming up with your own answers to these questions?
Posted by Colonel Graff (Member # 11872) on :
I don't see the need for you to hurl a pointless insult at me.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Tom doesn't normally insult people pointlessly. But in this case, he's not really trying to insult you. I think he's actually quite interested in your persona, and he's asked you several times about yourself, because he doesn't get how you arrived at your present mode of thought so late in adolescence. I had the same thought, and I think Tom and I both assumed you must be very young to not have resolved your feelings about these questions already. It's a valid question, because most everyone here (some of them younger than you) don't feel the need to ask these questions. It's okay to ask, but it's surprising that you have.
quote: The wikipedia explanation is closer to what I meant. Urban Dictionary isn't always very good. Chav is a subculture here, becoming more mainstream, and it's largely based on music and clothing, not arrest records or violence. (They have different words for that.)
This is a little confusing to a foreigner who has lived in England. In my experience, there is a ton of enmity towards Chav culture for being degenerate, encouraging teen pregnancy and irresponsibility, wanton violence and amorality. From what I personally witnessed, Chavs were just off-putting, and occasionally anti-social (such as in restaurants or on trains). Some of the things I saw were thoughtless destruction and vandalism of public property, yelling, staring contests with non-chavs, and a lot of strutting around like peacocks. I never had a personal problem with anyone, but I can see how Chav culture wears on people's nerves. What makes you think it is moving towards a greater legitimacy? (I ask out of plain curiosity).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To put it into perspective: imagine you are a regular on a forum dedicated to a specific variety of apple. Someone arrives who posts: "Hey, what does everyone think about apples? I just had an apple the other day, and I think it was really good despite my not liking apples much when I was younger. I know some people think only dorks eat apples. What do you guys think about that? I guess I've only just started thinking about apples."
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yeah, I don;t think Tom meant to be insulting. When he DOES, you'd know it. Honestly he just seemed interested in what you would say. Posted by Colonel Graff (Member # 11872) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: To put it into perspective: imagine you are a regular on a forum dedicated to a specific variety of apple. Someone arrives who posts: "Hey, what does everyone think about apples? I just had an apple the other day, and I think it was really good despite my not liking apples much when I was younger. I know some people think only dorks eat apples. What do you guys think about that? I guess I've only just started thinking about apples."
I see what you're saying. I understand why people think science fiction stuff is nerdy. I however see nothing wrong with people liking to read about science as I believe science is the answer to just about anything. But, my question is, why people got into believing that ANYONE who reads science fiction must be inept, or, socially handicapped and the sorts. Was it all because of starwars and that whole nerd culture thing? If we did without the part of the nerd culture with starwars and startreck I think people would probably see science fiction as less nerdy and more amazing. I just love science fiction because I like how authors can use words to help you picture what other worlds look like, to predict future technology, and, just the fact that science fiction books are much better than sci-fi movies.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
If I understand correctly, Tom's saying you're asking the wrong people. The ones who already know that being "nerdy" (meaning "reading science fiction" here, I guess) is not "wrong". We're not agreeing with you; you're late to the party, and agreeing with us. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Why do people think jocks don't like to read?
Why do people think rich girls are snotty?
Stereotypes are the natural result of our need to categorize and understand. People generalize because it's easier than not doing so. I don't even mean it's laziness, although laziness can prevent questioning stereotypes. It's just the way people are wired to understand others: figure out what bucket they're in.
I'm gonna not read the thread and jump to the obvious conclusion.
Yes, Science fiction is nerdy, all things it leads to is Nerdy, also D&D is nerdy and so to all thing it leads to infact theres a flow chart somewhere.
quote: I believe science is the answer to just about anything.
I'm sure that you took a long logical process to come to this conclusion. Most readers of Science Fiction have done so.
Those that do not read science fiction have other answers to just about everything.
"Love is the answer" says the readers of Romance Novels.
"Success is the answer" says the readers of Biz Books.
"Parties are the answer" says the party queen.
Other answers are Drugs, Sports, Self-reliance, and Faith.
Many of these people can not understand why you waste your time from what they know to be the most important answers, to play with laser guns and aliens. There is a strong escapist element in Science Fiction and they just note that you are escaping, and not advancing in areas they deem important.
If you'd rather read a book than socialize with the beautiful people--you are obviously wrong and must be a nerd. The fact that you are too shy, don't know, or aren't allowed to socialize with the beautiful people won't stop those beautiful people from labeling you a nerd, and blaming you for your nerdishness.
If you'd rather read a book about the power of the future instead of read the Bible and go the Bible discussion class after school, then those who delight in their own piety will label you a "nerd".
If you'd rather read a book about the interaction of cultures than discuss in details members of the opposite gender, than those obsessed with the opposite gender will assume you are a sexless "nerd" with no romance or that the only lust you will find is that of the over-buffed fantasy men or over-developed fantasy women found in the pages of those books.
Its all a matter of perspective.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Tara, are you suggesting we link to this thread in lieu of a wikipedia definition?
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Colonel Graff: Okay, that's true but that's not my point. Why do people have this inherent bias against science fiction? It seems like people just have this dislike for smart or otherworldly things.
I apologize if I'm thinking about this too much. I've just never understood why people have these stereotypes of things. Maybe there are people who fall under that stereotype but I mean I'm perfectly normal for the most part but I like some abnormal things and I see nothing nerdy about liking sci-fi stuff. Maybe it's that since I like science I don't see a problem with it.
Graff, do you really blame those who haven't read science fiction for thinking that those of us who do are nerds/geeks? I mean, are SF conventions not proof positive that the subculture is a little out there? That there are many, many fans (typically adolescent males) who have no lives and have immersed themselves in an alternate reality to compensate for that?
So embrace your innner geek and unashamedly enjoy your SF. If you want to combat the perception, then be normal and let people (only if they express an interest) know why you enjoy the genre and what you think is worthwhile about it.
But like everyone else said, so what, really? If there are people don't want to look past the stereotype to check out the literature, they probably will not be miserable as a result. And if they think you are a nerd for making your own choice, oh well.
Posted by paigereader (Member # 2274) on :
It does seem like the cover art on most sci-fi books (especially 70's snd 80's editions which I have tons of) is soooo nerdy. People see you reading a book with a goofy cover and assume you must be goofy too.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
The covers still look goofy from time to time. Less so for SF and more so for Fantasy, but still. Then again, having seen the covers for romance or spy novels, there's nothing to be ashamed of. Posted by paigereader (Member # 2274) on :
well I thought about that too. I have to read during lunch. If I forget my book, then I'll read a book that someone brought in. It is always some romance/suspence romance cheese-capades... those covers are embarrassing! I'd rather someone think I am a nerd than think a romance novel is a great, mind stimulating read. oh well
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If we did without the part of the nerd culture with starwars and startreck I think people would probably see science fiction as less nerdy and more amazing.
I think all genres tend to be defined in the popular imagination by their most insular and escapist (i.e. adolescent) elements. Westerns have the rugged, individualist loner; noirs have the alcoholic ex-cop; romances have the dashing rake; manga famously has schoolgirls and tentacles.
I think speculative fiction labors under only one prejudice that these other genres don't necessarily face: a number of critics believe that art is less valuable if what it depicts is representational without being representational of the real. What they miss, of course, is that spec-fic is firmly grounded in all sorts of reality; it's just that physical reality is not necessarily one of the touchstones.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: The covers still look goofy from time to time. Less so for SF and more so for Fantasy, but still. Then again, having seen the covers for romance or spy novels, there's nothing to be ashamed of.
I go with Malcolm Gladwell on this one. I will never read OSC's Crystal City.
I have heard nothing about, I don't know if it is good or bad, or whether I would like it, but damn it, I saw a copy in the bookstore, and it looked like Gay erotica. That's it. The book was ruined for me, for life. Someone should have lost his job over that, and frankly, OSC should have sued.
The whole thing about covers just boggles the mind. When tons of research and marketing experience proves that the reception of a book is dependent on a cover that is appealing, and that fits the genre and title appropriately, Tor books has crap like this.
WHY? I'm secure enough in my sexuality to admit that I am not secure enough in my sexuality to tote that book around. I don't care what's in it.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Well, read it at home. But yeah, awful cover, that one.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think speculative fiction labors under only one prejudice that these other genres don't necessarily face: a number of critics believe that art is less valuable if what it depicts is representational without being representational of the real. What they miss, of course, is that spec-fic is firmly grounded in all sorts of reality; it's just that physical reality is not necessarily one of the touchstones.
But the obvious and numerous exceptions to this snobbery make this explanation almost a canard in itself. Farenheit 451, 1984, LOTR, H2G2, 2001, Brave New World, The Time Machine, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Ender's Game, and many more, have all passed into the cannon of required academic reading in American High Schools, or are so widely read as to be regarded separately from the genre for their success. Not to mention all of the tropes that originated or grew up in Spec-fic that are now all but required in all fiction, and elements of most other media.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
People who criticize science fiction for the reasons that Tom pointed out aren't likely to think very highly of the fiction assigned in high school English classes, IMO.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
As frustrating as it is for a reader to be pigeon-holed socially based on their choice of material, I think it is probably much more so for authors to have the quality of their work dismissed prima facie due to their stepping outside the real world. One of the relatively few times I have been in agreement with Mr. Card is with his chagrin over the NYT's decision to move the Harry Potter's to the children's section (on its face this is not a dismissal of the genre, but I interpret it as similarly motivated.)
I like authors like China Mieville who are very pro-genre despite their work being well received by high-literature critics.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Graff, your questions are fine. It never hurts to think about why science fiction has the position is does in the hierarchy of literature.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:One of the relatively few times I have been in agreement with Mr. Card is with his chagrin over the NYT's decision to move the Harry Potter's to the children's section (on its face this is not a dismissal of the genre, but I interpret it as similarly motivated.)
The NYTimes did not decide to mover Harry Potter to the children's section. There was no children's section before Harry Potter, there were just Best Sellers. The children's book list was invented because all three of the top spots on the Best Seller list were Harry Potter books. The children's list was created expressly to clear Harry Potter off the list and make room for "serious" books.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
...like Danielle Steel!
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:One of the relatively few times I have been in agreement with Mr. Card is with his chagrin over the NYT's decision to move the Harry Potter's to the children's section (on its face this is not a dismissal of the genre, but I interpret it as similarly motivated.)
The NYTimes did not decide to mover Harry Potter to the children's section. There was no children's section before Harry Potter, there were just Best Sellers. The children's book list was invented because all three of the top spots on the Best Seller list were Harry Potter books. The children's list was created expressly to clear Harry Potter off the list and make room for "serious" books.
Therefore, they created the children's section, and then moved the Harry Potter's to it...
And it's this urge to distinguish between "serious" and "non-serious" work that I'm criticizing. To move it to the children's list seems to dismiss the fact that it has a large adult readership. Did they provide any commentary on how they classified books (I just briefly checked but did not see it)?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: Did they provide any commentary on how they classified books (I just briefly checked but did not see it)?
Did they need too? The point is that they wanted to move Harry Potter off the list to make room for other books so they created a new category. It wasn't like they independently said, "we need a children's list" and then considered whether or not Harry Potter was a children's book or an adult book. No, thats not even remotely what happened. They said, "We want to get Harry Potter off the list, how can we do that?" And then they said, "Let's create a different list category for Harry Potter, what should we call it, hmmm, how about children's books." Problem solved.
When you boil it down, the question of whether or not Harry Potter belonged on the children's book list is irrelevant. The real issue is why the NYT felt it needed to get Harry Potter off their bestseller list. I will agree that this represents some very strong biases against certain types of books. But it wasn't really about some sort of academic elite, it was about publishers and money and the fact that getting on the NYT list is an important marketing tool for lots of publishers.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Rabbit, do you actually have any evidence that it went down the way you're saying it did? Because to me, there's something reasonable about creating a children's bestseller list when so many of the top sellers are children's books. It actually *is* kind of a problem when you have all the categories lumped together, and such a popular title is in fact crowding out other books that deserve to be on the list, and that (and more importantly) adult readers are interested in seeing.
It's a free press. They have many reasons for doing what they did. Part of that was providing a product that people wanted. When SO MANY books are selling, especially when they are books geared towards children, you do need a way to filter through the list and figure out what you want listed, and where. If fantasy titles started topping the lists tomorrow and crowding out all the other fair, they'd do the same thing, and I wouldn't blame them. As long as those best sellers are being represented somewhere, I don't care. And really, since when did little Harry Potter need anyone to leap to his defense? This happened because the series was already immensely popular. Give others a chance- I think the bestseller list should have term limits anyway.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: This happened because the series was already immensely popular. Give others a chance- I think the bestseller list should have term limits anyway.
When Titanic was top of the box office for so long, should they have made a 'long, boring romance' list and moved it over there to give others a chance to be no. 1?
I agree with Rabbit's point that the shift of the HP books was not motivated by any literary elitism. Nonetheless, I do think that doing so gives those who want to dismiss it unnecessary legitimacy. Also, I think that bestseller lists really should be bestseller lists and reflect what is being sold, not help people sell books.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The box office is a lot smaller than the bestseller's list. There is also the detail that the box office listings only last as long as the film is in theaters. Books stay in book stores. Bad analogy. Reductio Ad DiCaprio.
Well, then, I think a lot of books would be on the bestseller's list perpetually for no reason. Different printings of religious books, textbooks, etc. There are a lot of things that don't need listing.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well, then, I think a lot of books would be on the bestseller's list perpetually for no reason. Different printings of religious books, textbooks, etc.
The NYT has long has separate lists for those. (Either the nonfiction or the advice/misc.)
Did you bother to read the links I provided?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It's been 5 minutes, give me a break. It's late here.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
But arguing your point in spite of evidence to the contrary you have time for?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
How have 71 posts gone by without anyone using the words 'selection bias'?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: The box office is a lot smaller than the bestseller's list. There is also the detail that the box office listings only last as long as the film is in theaters. Books stay in book stores. Bad analogy.
Movies are rarely (if ever) removed from theaters while prominently ranked in the box office.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: How have 71 posts gone by without anyone using the words 'selection bias'?
We knew you would want to, and we saved that post for you.
You're welcome!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I agree with Rabbit's point that the shift of the HP books was not motivated by any literary elitism.
I did not mean to imply that there wasn't any literary elitism involved. I said it definitely reflected strong biases against certain kinds of books, definitely elitism was involved. My point was that elitism wasn't the sole or primary motivation.
I'm fairly confident that if the exact same circumstances had existed but that the top three books on the list were by the Nobel Prize winning author V.S. Naipaul, they would not have created a special list for Nobel Laureates or Caribbean authors, they would have told the publishers to suck it up.
Of course the chances of that ever happening are virtually zero so I feel very safe in making the totally untestable prediction.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
I'm a bit sorry that I mentioned the H-P NYT listings thing, as it's not really relevant to the more interesting genre/pigeon hole thing (I like to point out when I agree with Mr. Card so it doesn't seem like I only bash him). Did anyone read Simmons' take on it? For nothing else, it's a good read.
Edited for clarity: Simmons' take on genres etc, not H-P NYT listings.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: The box office is a lot smaller than the bestseller's list. There is also the detail that the box office listings only last as long as the film is in theaters. Books stay in book stores. Bad analogy.
Movies are rarely (if ever) removed from theaters while prominently ranked in the box office.
Your point being? The Box Office returns are a listing of ticket sales for all films, nationwide- whatever makes money, stays in the theater. You don't need the listings for that- the companies decide. Books are different. There are a lot more of them, and they stay in the stores if they sell well (which includes those that are off the list, or were never on it). I highly doubt HP sales were affected by the change up on the bestseller list.
Rivka, I read the links, and now remember having seen them the first go-round. The NYT article backs what we've both said, and the salon article reads like a whiny pity party for the best selling books of all time. Honestly, the "outrage" of being denied another 20 months in someone's privately held listing, and the honor of having your favorite books series all on the list at once doesn't scream "Bias! Bias! Bias!"
As for who defines the books... how bouts the editors of the list? It is *their* list right? If you don't like it, don't buy it. If the list loses credibility, there are others. Let the market sort this out.
You already know my attitude towards this, but we're talking about people who are taking it for granted that they *will be* on one of the lists. That has to ring a little hollow for people who are hoping and praying to make the lower echelon of the list for a week or two. The list doesn't measure quality, after all, and when a major publishing house is gathering the financial and marketing capital to drop an atomic bomb of book sales for the 4th time in a row, excuse me if I don't weep at their fall from the Bestseller's list. There are many better books that don't get that kind of chance.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: How have 71 posts gone by without anyone using the words 'selection bias'?
We knew you would want to, and we saved that post for you.
You're welcome!
You guys are so thoughtful! Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Your point being? The Box Office returns are a listing of ticket sales for all films, nationwide- whatever makes money, stays in the theater. You don't need the listings for that- the companies decide. Books are different. There are a lot more of them, and they stay in the stores if they sell well (which includes those that are off the list, or were never on it). I highly doubt HP sales were affected by the change up on the bestseller list.
I was responding to this:
quote: There is also the detail that the box office listings only last as long as the film is in theaters.
This is not a substantive criticism of the analogy because films don't generally leave the theaters until they are not prominent in the listings.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yes, it is a substantive criticism. The market for movie releases in theaters is very short term- a movie can make most of its money in a few weeks, and then the venue changes. It doesn't account for the total income of a film, because films can and do sell after being in the theater. Book sales just aren't like that. It's a bad analogy. In fact, most forms of media have very different life cycles, and they are not often comparable to each other.
Just because films don't leave the theaters until they are not prominent in listings is not important. They move into other venues. With books, the best seller list does not account for all sales, and many books can be financially successful without making it into best seller lists. You can't say that about movies- if a movie costs 100M to make, it has to place well in the listings just to break even. Books don't have the same kind of overhead, and the marketplace is vastly larger (even though it has a lower profile).
Really, just drop the comparison- it's only confusing, and less than useful.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Drop that comparison and put your metaphors where I can see them! I've got a pun and I'm not afraid to use it!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Don't make me go Godwin on your ass.
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
Um, I think I may actually be equipped to answer the original question, since I assumed anyone who read SciFi or Fantasy were clearly big fat geeks well into my college years (maybe I shouldn't be admitting this here...)
I took a SciFi/Fantasy class from Card at SVU, specifically because I knew that I was very prejudiced against the genres, and that was the first time I'd actually read and considered anything like them since I was a child.
In that class, Card had a rant--I mean, lecture--on how Speculative Fiction was one of few living, breathing forms of narrative in contemporary culture. His premise was that their absence from all "You should read this so you'll be smarter" lists means that Speculative Fiction titles have to actually be good to gain readers. People only read them if they genuinely want to.
I think that's mostly right-ish, and I think that it has a lot to do with why SciFi and Fantasy readers get so much flack.
I'm a nanny for two little girls, and I let them listen to all kinds of music on my phone. Their recent favorite is "Popular" from Wicked, and they asked me what makes someone popular? How is it different from having a lot of friends? I told them that part of the problem in the play is that to be "cool" you can't care too much about anything, which means the characters have to choose between doing what's right and being nonchalant.
I think these genres are read by people who really love them, and in high school, you aren't supposed to really love anything real. You can like things that clearly don't mean anything, like clothes or cars or certain brands of sneakers, but not anything real. To care about something real, you have to show part of who you really are, and the least cool thing you can do is to make a declaration of self before everyone else has any idea who they are.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
To recap: the analogy came up when you argued that the best seller list should have term limits, and I pointed out that there is no term limit on the box office and brought up the example of Titanic. My reasons for making my comment were the following: the box office numbers provides a measure of how many people have seen a movie, the bestseller list reflects weekly sales data and so is a measure of how many people have bought a book. In both cases, being featured prominently is a good thing and used in subsequent advertising for the book or movie. Clearly there was no outcry to retire Titanic.This was the extent of the analogy. You claimed it was a bad analogy. Let's focus the discussion on the narrow question of whether there is something about the book lists that make term limits reasonable that does not apply to the box office. You gave the following arguments: 1)"The box office is a lot smaller than the bestseller's list." -- relevance? If anything you would think a short list would be more likely to retire excessively long holdovers as the space is more limited. 2)"There is also the detail that the box office listings only last as long as the film is in theaters." -- I've already addressed this. As movies normally leave the list prior to being pulled from theaters, I'm not sure how this is relevant. 3) "Books stay in book stores" -- movies stay in theaters as long as they are prominent in the box office. If a book is not on the best seller list, then, whether or not it is still being sold, it is not pertinent to the discussion.
I will briefly note again that the context of my analogy was narrow. If you choose to pursue this (and I hope not because I don't think this is worth your time or mine), please focus on the issue of retiring books/movies, not broad reasons for why the lists aren't isomorphic.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Stereotypes are the natural result of our need to categorize and understand. People generalize because it's easier than not doing so.
This is what Dawkins, in The Ancestor's Tale, calls "the tyranny of the discontinuous mind".
Oh, crap. I just quoted a science book.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Look, the analogy is hopeless because the situation of a single blockbuster on a relatively small list of national releases is not comparable to the situation of 4 best sellers on a list of a hundred books (not sure of the length here).
To follow each of your points, I'll clarify myself, and see if it doesn't change your mind.
The box office is one list- I think this was partly my point. Total sales for theaters, period. If a movie isn't in theaters, it isn't on the list at all. This is important in that theater space is extremely limited in comparison with book space, which can account for a hugely wider selection. There are other lists that account for store and online sales. Book sales get a set of lists. Now, it doesn't take me beating you over the head with the fact, for you to get that in a nation of 12 screen movie theaters, what is selling best is the ONLY thing in the theater. If it doesn't sell, it's out, and something else is right behind it. Books have a slower turn around. You don't have to read a book or buy it at a specific time. There are more locations, there are more types of book stores, and there are many ways to buy books. In book stores, steady sales are almost just as good as large buy-outs, because the same number of books are sold, with a minimal (in comparison with theaters) overhead cost for the delay in sales. You can show a film 100 times and get an average of 10 viewers per showing, and be a failure. Or you can sell 10 books a day for 100 days, out of a print of 1,000, and have sold out.
Aside from all of that, the listing of a film's box office has no effect on other films "getting on the list." The problem would be retiring the films *from the theater.* But if those films are making money, new films may not get a shot. So Titanic could be listed or not, the fact was that it was monopolizing theaters for over a year. As soon as films don't make money, they are dropped, and so they drop off the list. Artificially dropping Titanic from the list wouldn't have helped other films, but dropping it from the theater would have.
So what I'm saying is, that dropping HP from the main list *is* kind of like taking it out of the theater. Only in the world of books, you can build it its OWN THEATER. The book world is far less binary than that of film.
The comparison between movies and books is poor also because movies are much larger commercial enterprises. When considering the smaller books, its possible to come across a book that realizes success based on a very small relative investment. At one point, HP was this, and now it's a huge enterprise. Just from the standpoint of a human being who loves books, if we stand by and allow sales lists to help feed such a cycle, until the publishing industry is as fair-weather and play-it-safe as the movie industry, just to assure their books can be properly advertised and sold and marketed to get onto the list, in order that they might continue to sell, then we're doing ourselves a disservice as a reading public.
The movie industry latched itself onto that win or lose cycle a long time ago, and that's really why comparing the two camps tells you nothing more than you already know.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
Seriously, the book Nerds is so applicable to this thread it's ridiculous. (Regarding the transformation throughout highschool toward embracing difference and self-identity and losing (moreso, but not completely) the stereotyping, cliques, and unconscious social brawl of middleschool)
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Stereotypes are the natural result of our need to categorize and understand. People generalize because it's easier than not doing so.
This is what Dawkins, in The Ancestor's Tale, calls "the tyranny of the discontinuous mind".
Oh, crap. I just quoted a science book.
You nerd.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I would rather be a Nerd than a Mundane.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: manga famously has schoolgirls and tentacles.
Manga is not a genre. It's a medium.
It can contain pretty much any genre, just like other types of comics. The only difference is the country of origin.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Honestly he just seemed interested in what you would say. ![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)