Basically, if you know anything about science fiction, you know there are basically a couple of eras to sf writing. There was the early pre 50's era, with things such as Jules Verne and Frankenstein, the Golden Era, and then the next generation era, that began (I like to think) with the book Dangerous Visions.

Anyway, most of the people from the Golden Era are dead, and the guys like Harleen Ellison from the modern era are getting up there in the years.

And, it seems to me like sci-fi (and fantasy, and horror) just aren't what they use to be. There are a lot of good authors out there, and they make really good books, but as a whole, as a movement, as a collective, is there a void that needs to be filled?

I think so. If you believe the editors and publishers and the critics, EVERYONE in the field is a "talented new voice" or a "tremendous new talent" but really......

it seems to me that the books I tend to read and buy in the field come from people who've been at it a while: Card and a few others who are a little newer than Ellison's generation but not apart of the 90s market.

It seems to me that.. well.. it's been kind of dry out there lately, and everything in the 90s turned into this wishy-washy "What does specultive ficton mean to you?"

Or to put it another way... Who's read books by Card, or Niven, or Ellison, or McCaffery, or Brooks, or Le Guin lately?, raise your hand. Who's a fan of Tanith Lee? Elizabeth Hand? Terry Bisson? Ahh, hands didn't go up so quickly that time...

Maybe it's just a matter of my personal taste, but i was wondering if anyone else here feels that there is a void out there. A sort of directionless hazy that newer writers are running around it, and the old hands won't be around forever.

I just feel like it is past time for a new group of writers to come along and firmly say "This IS Science Fiction. This is Fantasy. This is what it's about." That's the point of view I'm coming from as i'm writing my novel. I know I'm not the best, I'm still gots a lot to learn, but i'm determined to approach storytellings in a new way, or my own way at least, and be firm and have a direction, a compass....

Anybody else know what i'm saying? Dig, cat?

It's inevitable.

I know that you could take a bookshelf of stories from this bi-genre and classify them into a few types of story. I tend to stop reading many books because two things are true: (1) It was written in a mirrored style from another book I had read, and (2) The story didn't have enough going for itself anyway.

Here's an example. I haven't read enough Terry Brooks (and you may even hate me for saying this, I don't like to base an author off his first work) but I thought _The Sword of Shannara_ was a Tolkien rip off. The idea of having the fantasy in the future of the world was unique, though. I'll get around to reading more of his work in the future...

But like I said, the evolution of this bi-genre is inevitable. There are probably a great many writers out there now who have the right ideas. I'll have faith that I can't name any solely on the fact that I am just trying to get through many of the great works at the moment. The best of them are probably in the magazines right now. I ought to expand my literary sources.
 

Just like music from every decade has a different sound, tone, and feel that sets it apart from it's predecessors and progeny, the genre should, and does have that too. Unlike music, these changes don't have to happen every 10 years, like the way that tend to occur in music.

But think back to the 70s and read something from that period and you'll know you're reading something from that era, and then in the 80s cyberpunk exploded and then died...and since then, I don't know, I'm just calling it a void because that's what it feels like to me.

We've seen science fiction and fantasy go very much to the mainstream with things like Xena and the Matrix, and fortunely, we haven't gone down that road, but nevertheless...

I'm not saying it's dead or it's bad or I wish we were back in the "good old days", hehehe... no, I'm looking for a new spirit in the genre.

Like i said... To me, it's like a void, and I'm just wondering if anyone else here feels the same way. Like you said about change, I think there is a change coming, a new era, and I want to be a part of it..

I'd like to hear what you think, especially Kathleen, and Card, if they are reading.
 

Well, one thing I think is that this is the kind of thing we can only see in retrospect.

Another thing I think is that as far as publishing goes, there are sure a lot of tie-in books, which is fun for those who like to read and write them, but depressing for those who are trying to introduce new things.

I also think that a possible new trend may be toward writers coming from more culturally diverse backgrounds and being appreciated by more readers.

Mainly, though, I don't really know. I just try to write my kind of stuff, too, and hope that there are others out there who will want to read it. (I write it because I want to read it, after all.)

 

There is the key to filling the void. Isn't the reader today saying, "Surprise me, thrill me with something I didn't expect"?

[This message has been edited by Joyce (edited March 20, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Joyce (edited March 20, 2001).]
 

For the most part, I think people are lazy, lazy in their reading AND their writing. We want the quick fix now, the instant gratification, so we skimp on the details. The challenge comes from trying to create a story with depth of character, believability in plot (even if it's suspended disbelief), AND enticing without being gimicky.
 

I don't see any reason to bad-mouth gimmickry. A good gimmick can help attract people to your work. It's just that you have to have more than just a gimmick. You need the other elements of character depth, etc. as well.

I consider John Dickson Carr one of the best mystery writers of all time. He's up there with Agatha Christie and Ellery Queen. A lot of JDC's mysteries had a common gimmick: the impossible murder. Somewhere in the beginning of the novel, someone would die in a way that seemed to defy the laws of physics. The most common was a locked room which appeared to have no way in or out for the murderer. In another of his novels, the killer passed over a host of deadly weapons that were lying near the victim in order to use something which was more difficult. Ellery Queen also had one in which the first victim was killed by a mandolin of all things.

Here, the gimmick is something bizarre in the death and the reader reads the story in order to find out what was going on. Gimmicks at work.

This doesn't only work in mysteries, though. Any genre can use a good gimmick to its advantage if the writer is up to the challenge. I'd just guess that most writers aren't.
 

You're right, there's no need to bad mouth gimickry. So pass around the jar and feel free to add a dash. Just make sure it's part of a well seasoned recipie.