james_nicoll ([info]james_nicoll) wrote,
@ 2005-04-16 15:41:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
One point defines a curve, right?
Since all of Hugo nominated novels this year are written by non-North Americans, I think it's time for a panicky assessment of NorAm SF, with general finger-pointing to follow.

So when exactly did the US [1] stop being fertile soil for real SF? OK, obviously we can't expect a nation more than a generation into fond nostaligia for the 1950s to produce all that many forward thinking SF writers [2] but when _exactly_ was the battle for the future lost? 2000? 1980? Or did the basic assumptions of Campbellian SF spread the seeds of self-destruction?

I eagerly await the angry denials that the American future was in fact lost but answer me this: when was the last time you read a NorAm (Nah, make that "American". Who the hell cares what the Canadians think [4]) SF book set some time in the next hundred years that did not assume civil liberties would be rolled back or lost? Or one set in the same period whose characters were better off than their grandparents?


1: Yeah, there are Canadian SF writers but the publishers are pretty much all in the US and if Canuckian SF writers don't adapt to market realities, they won't get published. In other words, the Canadians are and will remain irrelevant in the grander scheme of things until such time as they develop a globally oriented SF publishing culture [pause for laughter] or they more vigorously exploit British and other markets.

2: Thus the growth of alternate history fiction, which I see now as a cancerous growth on the brain stem of SF. Although it could be a virulent STD in the community of minds. I have not yet made up my mind. Could someone ask the current lot of NorAm AH writers where the burning sensation is?

MilSF needn't be so terribly awful as it is, I think. Looking at the SF writers whose fiction I like, most of them who wrote about military matters wrote about some aspect of the military that they had actual experience with. I therefore propose a special MilSF Award that will enrole the winners in units serving in active warzones, to be awarded authors whose fiction needs more research. This should be presented at the same time as the Mack Reynolds International Experience Award, which will consist of a one way ticket to the glorious Libertarian Utopia of Somalia.

4: Thus nicely removing DOWN AND OUT IN THE MAGIC KINGDOM from consideration....


(52 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]cincinnatus
2005-04-16 08:35 pm UTC (link)
Is it the idea of AH you dislike or just the application? 'Cause I can agree with the latter, it's largely poorly-done and poorly-written, but I think it can be done well. For a while there I was considering, for my final project ("The Plan" as it's known) here at Marlboro trying to write an AH novel, but I think I'll do something else instead. I'm not a great writer but I bet I can do better than what's currently out. The fellows on SHWI do so regularly.

Berard

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Why Alternate History is the anti-christ of Science Fiction
[info]james_nicoll
2005-04-16 08:45 pm UTC (link)
The applications. Obviously AH is just a narrative tool but these days it seems to be used mostly because contemplating the future is so unbearable and a backward-facing subgenre is more comforting. Same reason so much purile fantasy is written, I suppose.

The worst, the absolute worst, AH shit is the "we go back in time and make history happen the way it _should_ have happened! Yay, Us! In a completely contrived scenario, we can win!" What a total wankfest.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: Why Alternate History is the anti-christ of Science Fiction - [info]mishalak, 2005-04-17 08:00 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Why Alternate History is the anti-christ of Science Fiction - (Anonymous), 2005-04-17 12:45 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]timill
2005-04-16 08:46 pm UTC (link)
the last time you read a NorAm SF book set some time in the next hundred years that did not assume civil liberties would be rolled back or lost?

Michael Flynn's "Firestar" et seq, the first of which is copyright 1996.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]james_nicoll
2005-04-16 09:09 pm UTC (link)
Good point. I can't read Flynn at all but that's not the reason.

I suppose THE WRECK OF THE RIVER OF STARS could be taken as evidence that later, things did not go quite as well as they could have but in that timeline's defense, that ship was crewed entirely with self-destructive morons and the fact that a system spanning civilization existed at all without having gone extinct from airlock mishaps and misguided attempts to have sex with fusion generators suggests that the ship was a statistical anomoly.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]timill, 2005-04-16 09:32 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]james_nicoll, 2005-04-16 09:40 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]redbird, 2005-04-16 09:45 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]james_nicoll, 2005-04-16 09:49 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]nancylebov, 2005-04-17 03:10 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]james_nicoll, 2005-04-17 03:38 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]nancylebov, 2005-04-17 10:30 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]james_nicoll, 2005-04-18 02:50 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]timill, 2005-04-16 09:56 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]redbird
2005-04-16 09:13 pm UTC (link)
Given note [4], why should I bother responding to this post?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]james_nicoll
2005-04-16 09:20 pm UTC (link)
But you did respond so you must have had a reason. Pure logic will lead us to it....

You must be aware of my somewhat ill-defined citizenship situation (Although at this point, I could only imagine that the USG would insist that I was an American so that they could strip that citizenship from me and expel me forever. Since I am already in Canada, that seems somewhat pointless, like invading a nation to prevent it from using the WMD it doesn't have).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]redbird, 2005-04-16 09:29 pm UTC (Expand)
A dirty little secret - [info]james_nicoll, 2005-04-16 09:38 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: A dirty little secret - [info]redbird, 2005-04-16 09:42 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: A dirty little secret - [info]james_nicoll, 2005-04-16 09:51 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: A dirty little secret - [info]del_c, 2005-04-18 02:38 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]orzelc
2005-04-16 10:55 pm UTC (link)
when was the last time you read a NorAm (Nah, make that "American". Who the hell cares what the Canadians think [4]) SF book set some time in the next hundred years that did not assume civil liberties would be rolled back or lost? Or one set in the same period whose characters were better off than their grandparents?

Jack McDevitt's various Archeologists in Spaaaaace books might be a counter-example (I don't recall that much about the political scenario, or the date). John Scalzi's Old Man's War is another possible.

I wouldn't call any of them Great Literature, and they're probably not even Great SF, but they're not really depressing, either.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]scalzi
2005-04-17 12:56 am UTC (link)
Nonsense! Mine is the the greatest literature the world has ever known. EVER.

I wouldn't necessarily have nominated OMW, though -- the future earth in which it is set does not in fact have a decrease of civil liberties (or personal circumstances) as they apply to living in the US, but there are other things going on (some of which will be revealed in the sequel, maybe) which would suggest that there's a lot Earthlings are not clued into.

Having said that, Agent to the Stars, which is available online and comes out in book form in July, sees no diminution of rights in the US, but it may not be on point because it's supposed to take place in current time. I do have an upcoming book (The Android's Dream), however, which takes place about 100 years up the timestream and which assumes Americans and others are more or less as free as they are now, and certainly no worse off, even though the earth is now part of a galaxy-spanning federation. I guess I'm just not depressing enough, or something.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]orzelc, 2005-04-17 11:48 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]robertprior, 2005-04-17 02:42 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]rysmiel, 2005-04-18 02:19 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]rosefox
2005-04-17 01:57 am UTC (link)
Where did [3] go?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]timill
2005-04-17 07:32 am UTC (link)
It's been censored. They can do that in Canada...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]james_nicoll, 2005-04-18 03:35 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]nancylebov
2005-04-17 03:13 am UTC (link)
I vaguely remember _Islands in the Net_ as somewhat utopian.IIRC, _Kings of the High Frontier_ was neutral about civil liberties and downright cheerful about new possibilities for space travel.

Who of the non-US writers would you recommend as optimistic about the future?

(Reply to this)


[info]ritaxis
2005-04-17 04:51 am UTC (link)
I don't think the next hundred years or so is a fair limitation. There's people who have a general sense of optimism but think that things might get much worse before they get better.

If you had not had that limitation, I could have given you Melissa Scott, who has some situations with less and some with more freedom and prosperity in the far future, and Cherryh and LeGuin also. And me. If they would come to their sense and publish my novel, I could prove that I in fact am optimistic about our potential.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]james_nicoll
2005-04-17 07:51 pm UTC (link)
You see _Cherryh_ as optimistic?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]ritaxis, 2005-04-17 07:57 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]mishalak
2005-04-17 08:04 am UTC (link)
Aristoi by Walter Jon Williams was a not perfect future (and the nanotech seemed a bit too incredible at times, hate the grey goo senario), but over all a story about humanity succeeding and hope for the future even after a terrible disaster. Not forbiding the too dangerous technology, but trying to figure out how to live with it. And publishing date of 1992.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mishalak
2005-04-17 08:08 am UTC (link)
Drat. Missed the next 100 years in the first go round. I'll try again in a bit after I get over mocking myself.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]wordweaverlynn
2005-04-17 08:06 am UTC (link)
Whar about Neal Stephenson? Are Snowcrash and The Diamond Age not real SF?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mishalak
2005-04-17 08:10 am UTC (link)
I don't know about The Diamond Age, but I would not call Snowcrash a hopeful future. Funny, yes. Hopeful future with civil liberties, no.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]robertprior, 2005-04-17 02:45 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]ritaxis, 2005-04-17 05:08 pm UTC (Expand)
The last time...
[info]seawasp
2005-04-17 01:49 pm UTC (link)
... would have been when I re-read the draft of "Boundary" that me and Eric handed in to Jim. Comes out in February 2006.

I can't say much about other recent SF as I have had almost no time to read anything new for a few years now. :( Or at least, no new SF. I'm the only one in the house that would read the real stuff, and I don't get chances to browse any more.

(Reply to this)


[info]ritaxis
2005-04-17 05:11 pm UTC (link)
I think I understand it all now. It's history. I always say history is a terrible thing. USians were in ascendance in the early 20th century, whether we approved of it or not, and there was an expansiveness and largeness of future in the air. As a nation we're coming to the end of that, and contraction is in the air.

It doesn't have to necessarily lead to pessimism, though.

Is there a way to turn off specific people's user pictures without turning them all off? I am very distressed by animated gifs.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]eub
2005-04-17 05:44 pm UTC (link)
In Firefox you can de-animate all animated images.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]ritaxis, 2005-04-17 07:49 pm UTC (Expand)
Firefox - (Anonymous), 2005-04-17 11:42 pm UTC (Expand)
Two by Bruce Sterling
(Anonymous)
2005-04-17 06:07 pm UTC (link)
_Holy Fire_. (Though it's late 1980s.) That's a very nice late 21st century future. The question of the book is "...maybe _too_ nice?" and the answer is pleasantly ambiguous, but it's clear that pretty much everyone is free-ish and the society is very rich. (One example: transatlantic plane flights cost about as much as a bus ride; they're so cheap that payment is on the honor system.)

Most people have swapped a certain degree of personal freedom in return for access to lifespan-extending medical care, but the book makes it clear that this is not compulsory. Of course, there's the question of whether keeping liberty and giving up 50 or 60 extra years of healthy life is a meaningful choice for most people, but that's something else again.

_Distraction_ (1998) is less utopian, but still pretty upbeat. Most of the book is about politics, and politics is pretty screwed -- the US has become very Latin America-like. But, again, look hard and it's a pretty prosperous future. Even the nomadic dropouts have technology that keeps them out of poverty, and stuff like the "build your own house" tech has obvious applications for wealth creation. Civil liberties don't seem to have been eroded much; Green Huey is a gangster, but it's clear he's an aberration. Oh, and racism as we know it seems to have completely disappeared... except for the protagonist and his "personal history issue".

BTW, do you include Kage Baker in your anathema? Hidden history rather than althist, but still mostly backward looking. What think you?


Doug M.

(Reply to this)

The problem with this is that
[info]bpholden
2005-04-18 09:32 am UTC (link)
James is being slightly sarcastic, but I have been considering it rather seriously.

I know people in the physical sciences, biological sciences and in the computer industry. All of these people are at the cutting edge of the future, developing the ideas and technologies that we will use in 20+ years. Hardly any of them read science fiction, and, if they do, it is mostly the older stuff. American, especially USian science fiction, has no appeal to these people (and non-USian stuff is really hard to get).

Part of it is the wealth of media tie-ins. I have friends who, when they discover my dirty little secret collection of Banks, Brust and Brin, assume that I must watch a lot Star Trek and really liked the movie Independence Day.

So, if I want to really turn their head around, I toss them something more modern than Space Cadet but still a classic. You know, something from the 70's, maybe. At which point they now believe that science fiction is either about alien invasions or some horrid dystopia or ecological disaster. I guess I could give them Peter Watts, that way they think science fiction consists of horrid dystopia's mixed with an ecological disasters.

I think James is right. It seems no coincidence that almost all of
my new stuff is British. They are writing what I want read (sorry Sea Wasp). Brin use to, at least. His older stuff was grand, exciting, and optimistic about the future of mankind, yet he did not take him self too seriously. Who is writing that now? Charlie "Antipope" Stross or Ken Macleod. Must be the beer.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: The problem with this is that
(Anonymous)
2005-04-18 02:54 pm UTC (link)
I have been thinking about assembling a list of quotes from scientists who don't particularly care for written science fiction, who give examples why. Somehow I doubt any of them could be converted by Sea Wasp.

The "science" in science fiction has usually been "engineering applications of science" anyway.

Carlos of "Halfway down the Danube", a blog

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: The problem with this is that
[info]james_nicoll
2005-04-18 03:38 pm UTC (link)
I know people in the physical sciences, biological sciences and in the computer industry. All of these people are at the cutting edge of the future, developing the ideas and technologies that we will use in 20+ years. Hardly any of them read science fiction, and, if they do, it is mostly the older stuff. American, especially USian science fiction, has no appeal to these people (and non-USian stuff is really hard to get).

I think part of the problem is that by and large, SF authors aren't interested in the sciences except as plot enablers. Some fields of science seem to be particularly vulnerable to misuse in SF.

Is it possible for a biologist to read recent SF like DARWINS RADIO or TERRANESIA without buying a pistol and booking a flight to the next Nebula Awards ceremony?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: The problem with this is that - [info]bpholden, 2005-04-19 05:32 am UTC (Expand)
Re: The problem with this is that - (Anonymous), 2005-04-19 08:26 am UTC (Expand)
Re: The problem with this is that
[info]bpholden
2005-04-19 10:18 am UTC (link)
As an experiment, I decided that looking at what audio books were available in science fiction would be a quick way to determine what really sells. Audio books, after all, have production costs not associated with print books. So I went to audible.com and looked.

Apparently, what sells there are media tie-ins, dead authors; Burroughs, Wells, Heinlein, Hubbard, etc., mil SF, Michael Crichton and Orson Scott Card.

I exaggerate, of course, you could find Niven, I found Stephenson on Page 10, and I actually found Jennifer Government which, sandwiched between Card and Hubbard was...uh...striking.

So, the two logical conclusions are either there is a vast publishing conspiracy to not put out anything that does not suck or my tastes are not very representative.

So what Mil SF should I read? I cannot stand Card or Crichton.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(52 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…