One thing that comes up, when discussing the decline of the F&SF print mags, is whether or not F & SF as genre(s) are just too dang swamped by their own history? Such that editors and writers who have been around a long, long time, necessarily pass over lots of otherwise good fiction in pursuit of the dwindling amount of "new" material that is so exotic or otherwise "off the wall" that it satisfies editorial demand for freshness, while leaving a majority of potential readers out in the cold.

Personally, I fear that F&SF are in danger of becoming "ships in bottles", in that they become so freighted by their own published past that they become essentially inaccessible to a broad readership, and new writers find it impossible to break in because new writers cannot possibly a) read all that has gone before and are always in danger of b) re-writing something someone else already wrote.

Sometimes it seems like we're already there, because the #1 thing that always comes up when editors in the field talk about what they're buying, it's VOICE. Not subject. Not even style, per se. Not content. Just VOICE. Being able to tell basically the same thing, just in your own VOICE or in a manner that is somehow "new" for the editor in question.

Maybe this is just a part of a larger problem with Western literature et al? As I see the VOICE thing come up endlessly on other web discussions about mainstream fiction. Editors seem desperate for new VOICE and will pay mad sums for VOICE-heavy authors, even if the authors put out books which the ordinary reader might find lame, boring, incomprehensible, or otherwise hard to take. Because the plot sucks. Or the structure sucks. Or the author is trying to be deliberately sensational or inflammatory.

And I personally find the thought of F & SF (and Western literature as a whole) reduced to games of VOICE, to be a depressing thought indeed.

I do admire the Potter books and their author for being one of the few *NEW* vehicles (New meaning, not LotR and not Star Wars) to bring kids and YA to the F & SF fold. Problem is, lots of Potter readers begin and END with Potter. Some of them will branch off into other F & SF but not as many as might be possible if more F & SF were generally accessible for younger readers.

Or at least that is my OPINION. I could be wrong. I hope I am wrong?

Maybe the problem is that the stories most of us write can't necessarily become billion dollar empires with movies, toys, Halloween costumes, and lunch boxes, so only small non-paying markets are even willing to take a chance on the emerging writer. And how accessible are those small mags to the uninformed public?

But back to the point of your thread, the golden age of F & SF is over, IMO. The heroes, the baddies, the magic and spaceships may be perceived as cliche, even by the editors of the genre, and most stories as rip-offs of an earlier classic, especially by editors of the genre. This is a tragic thing for me to ponder. For who has time to read everything that's been done to know what to avoid? I've already forsworn everything Tolkienish, a good move, I'm sure. But how weird do my stories have to become to be salable? Can't I just write about people for people?

quote:

---

Can't I just write about people for people?

---

This is a great point. I like to write in the sci-fi genre (I have urges toward fantasy sometimes, but not quite there yet) because I like taking an idea of something today and imagining what it would be like if this key technology were available, or if that portion of space travel were well-established. What kinds of social situations would you find yourself in on a colony spaceship? What kinds of problems would you have if your best friend could turn green? The what-ifs are what's so compelling to me.

I agree that VOICE has a lot to do with it, I think those authors who have managed to identify and hang onto their voice, not letting themselves edit the heck out of it on rewrites but staying true to that manner in which they meant to tell a story, they have a higher chance of success.

I do think the Potter books fit into a category of excellent authorial voice. That plus the approachable idea - a kid who doesn't know he's actually a wizard. What kid at age 11 hasn't wished his parents were someone else, he lived somewhere else, he had secret powers that would get him out of homework or chores? That idea has incredible appeal.

I think the Twilight books (full disclosure - haven't read them yet, though have browsed them much and spent many hours discussing them with fans) have a little something different, though again I think voice plays a big role. In the Twilight series, as I understand it, the primary story is a love story, a romance. I don't know how many boys are reading Twilight, but literally every mom I know who reads (I'm a mom, my whole social network is comprised of moms) has read the books and gushes about them. While they're popular, they haven't hit the numbers of Harry Potter, and I have a feeling it's because the story has more appeal to one gender than the other.

ANYWAY - back to the point, though...I'm with you, Brad - I wish we could convince those who control the reins of publishing in the SF/F market to put out some more mainstream stuff, action/adventure, mystery, good plots, lots of storytelling details that draw the reader in. I was a young woman reading sci fi when literally nobody I knew read in the genre, and I ached for reading material that dealt with the mundane daily stuff I dealt with in school, but in a fantastic way. HP did it for fantasy/wizards, but nothing has gotten close to that for space (Ender's Game is an arguable point, but it's a war story, IMHO, which is it's own sub-sub-genre. Yes, I'm splitting hairs, LOL)

I do think a lot of what I see in the SF magazines these days (when I read them) is rather impenetrable to anybody not well versed in the field---I mean, since "Star Trek" and "Star Wars," a lot of what the field used to do is familiar, but a lot still isn't (say, for example, the "have slipstick will travel" type of story one sees (mostly) in Analog---so scientifically techinical they're often impossible to follow.)

Of course, first there has to be a story. But then it has to be told in an engaging or entertaining fashion. Voice is about writing prose that's a pleasure to read, that evokes strong images and emotions in unexpected ways, that establishes a relationship between reader, characters and narrator.

That relationship is important. As we said in another thread, names sell, and the voice establishes the relationship between author and reader. A name who not only tells a good story but tells it in an attractive voice is likely to attract readers back with subsequent stories.

There's an element of art and craft to voice too, a way with words, an ability to make them fly off the page and sweep us through galaxies or engulf us in maelstroms.

Voice is to story as style is to clothes, or an automobile--not functionally essential, but vital to the aesthetic sense.

As well as editors, Hatrackers like a good voice. This month in the Ready for Market challenge, the story by JenniferHicks did very well partly because of its voice, which almost everyone remarked upon.

Yes, developing a voice is hard, very hard. That does not mean it's a bad idea, but that it distinguishes an accomplished, fully rounded writer from an average one; in a competitive market there's no room for average.

I agree that consistency is important; it's part of how a "name" sells (I always like Xyz's stories because they're always engaging.) Perhaps part of consistency is always finding a good voice, and that would include giving the character voice when the story so demands.

Just 2c,
Pat

[New Year's resolution: check spelling before hitting Submit Now.]

[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited December 26, 2008).]

[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited December 26, 2008).]

quote:

---

But back to the point of your thread, the golden age of F & SF is over, IMO. The heroes, the baddies, the magic and spaceships may be perceived as cliche, even by the editors of the genre, and most stories as rip-offs of an earlier classic, especially by editors of the genre. This is a tragic thing for me to ponder. For who has time to read everything that's been done to know what to avoid? I've already forsworn everything Tolkienish, a good move, I'm sure. But how weird do my stories have to become to be salable? Can't I just write about people for people?

---

I agree the Golden Age will never return. Then, they were defining the genre together with an audience who know far less of science than we do now, who were happy with moral tales of heroes and villains--and I'm not sure that audience has entirely gone away. Nevertheless, today we want our science to be even more believable than then, and consistent with a larger and growing body of knowledge. We're less naive about science; no longer is science a saviour, a silver bullet. We want more than simple shoot-em-ups and good guys winning over bad guys. And yes, editors do want to avoid cliche. Perhaps one way to do that is to not read all that has gone before (would one write something Tolkeinesque without having read LOTR?) and simply write true to one's milieu and its characters. (I've read a lot of SF but by no means all of it, and that won't stop me writing SF.) I suspect that just "writing about people for people" is a good strategy.

Maybe this comment from Interzone's December 2008 Editorial might help: "SF that ignores our crises -- or focuses on technological fixes -- is an artistic cul-de-sac. Stories need not address our problems directly: they can be set on 21st century Earth or elsewhere in the multiverse; they can involve alien or artificial intelligence; they can explore inner or outer space. But they should be informed by our fears. Great SF entertains and raises consciousness. A narrative need not be reassuring: true hope lies in the transformative power of the imagination, compassion and honesty of writers and their readers."

Cheers,
Pat

Maybe I would have loved this stuff when I was younger, or if I were younger right now...but I'm not, and I'm encountering it now, and I'm harder to please.

(I kinda associate it with moving out of my parents' house and spending a few years making a thin living until I stumbled into the postal service.)

I mentioned, either here or in another thread, I forget, that I had dug up the latest issue of Asimov's. Well, I don't know how many of you read it, or read the first story in the issue---but if that's what they're trying for in terms of what's published by so-called "names," I'd just as soon not bother. It's too dependent on notions of higher mathematic and scientific thought, it features characters I can't possibly care about or take an interest in---and there are better "this is how the world ends" stories out there.

I was trying to say that if you haven't read cliches you're unlikely to write them. But thinking about it, that's probably wrong. LOTR is really a quite standard quest format. And here at Hatrack we see lots of new writers starting stories with characters awakening in strange situations, despite there being few or no stories out there that start that way.

So I'll rescind. I think one does have to be well-read to avoid cliche.

Cheers,
Pat

I've been chewing on that tidbit for some time. In my shadowy moments I snip that that's easy for him to say, a person of strong natural voice and personality.

But in fact, I like the idea that the writing voice is not a lump of clay that I need to shape into a Michelangelo, but instead it is a vine or a tree that I need simply to feed and water correctly for it to blossom.

There's a short Geoffrey Landis piece in Dec 2008 Asimov's. The voice sounds like a kind of interstellar redneck and there are some humungously long sentences, capturing the feel of ineloquent chatter. Not at all as I imagine Landis sounds, and not typical of his story-telling style IIRC.