I was really glad to see the second topic, though, because I find the constant drum of folks in science fiction complaining about science fiction to be depressing. I just don't agree with them. When I started reading science fiction in the 60s, there were only a couple of magazines that were available at the news stand (and I didn't discover them until I was in junior high at the end of the decade), and the best I could hope for was a new novel every couple of weeks or so. The library's science fiction section was small enough that I read all of the ones they had and kept up with new purchases. I starved for new stories.
The times have changed. I added this comment to the "Not a damn thing is wrong with SF" topic about why I believe science fiction is in good shape:
- There's more new interesting science fiction in both the long and short form than I can possibly read.
- There are plenty of worthwhile markets that I can submit work to.
- The people whose work I respect are able to sell to prestigious venues.
- New talent is developing and appearing.
- There's lively, interesting and informed debate about all topics within science fiction.
- There are numerous sources for review and critical reaction to published science fiction.
- Although overall circulation numbers of the most prominent science fiction magazines are reflecting the general decline in magazine circulation, new magazines (many in e-format) are appearing regularly.
- Book sales and the appearance of new titles continue to do well.
- More publishers handle science fiction than ever.
- Small press publishers are now providing outlets for single author collections and the niche books that used to be shut out.
If these aren't the measures of a healthy field, I'm not sure what other yardsticks to use.
- Mood:
happy - Music:"My Generation," the Who
Profile
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
jimvanpelt- jimvanpelt
- Web Site
Page Summary
- kmarkhoover : (no subject) [+2]
- (Anonymous) : what is wrong with SF [+1]
- zaraakinae : (no subject) [+0]
- (Anonymous) : thank you [+0]
- (Anonymous) : thank you [+0]
Comments
I don't think that's the fault of SF, but rather a result of all the other things a young person can do today. Let's face it, when I was twelve I could go down to the local water hole and try to catch frogs or read H.G. Wells. There wasn't an Internet or 500 channels of TV or VCRs and DVDs and cell phones and computer games and...well, you get the idea.
But to say there's NOTHING wrong with SF is whistling past the graveyard, imo. It's by no means on life support, but we must pull in more readers and keep them reading and active within the community so the genre can continue to grow. That's just common sense.
My tendency, though, is to believe that readers will still find us in numbers enough to keep the industry afloat. There are always kids who enjoy reading more than television and the other electronic diversions, and those kids will become adults.
No doubt the trend of the last thirty years hasn't looked great. The fan base is graying. There ARE more diversions, but reading is a unique one. Playing an interactive game on the Internet isn't the same experience as opening a book, as any kid who does both will tell you.
So, I agree that we need to do what we can to pull in more readers and to keep them reading. As an English teacher and writer, that's pretty much my day job description.
Edited at 2008-02-29 01:57 pm (UTC)
You and I not only love to read for recreation, we read for pleasure. It's something we learned as youngsters because we had much less demands on our time.
I believe enough readers will find SF and keep the genre afloat. I reject out of hand these Chicken Little warnings that SF is dying and will be erased from the human consciousness. That's just as silly as saying there is nothing wrong with SF. But I would like to look beyond "staying afloat". I want the genre to grow.
Really good thread. I've enjoyed thinking about these topics in new ways you brought up. Thanks. :)
In order for there to be middle ground, the first statement would have to be, "Why does SF stink" or "How has SF gone to hell in a handbasket" or some such thing. Logically, unless nothing is wrong with SF, you can discuss what is wrong with it.
Whether the first topic actually adheres to its own description is outside the subject matter of this comment. 0:)
One odd thing I've noticed about the SF selection in my high school's library is the common copyright dates. They're mostly written by authors such as Wells, Asimov, Heinlein, LeGuin, and are within a decade or so of each other. Nothing is newer than the 90s, if that. The copy of I, Robot I checked out was literally falling apart, while there were four copies of the most popular fantasy novel on the next shelf. I don't know whether this is an indication of the state of SF or just its relative popularity.
I'm not the most avid SF fan, but it is one of my favorite genres, and it is disappointing to admit that even among those few who do read recreationally few would ever be seem with an SF book.
I definitely wouldn't mind learning the titles of a few new SF books, though!