Norman Spinrad: "Bad education is dooming science fiction"

[Deja Q]

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/geekend/?p=594
http://www.futurehi.net/archives/000832.html

He's 100% damn right. The pessimism, the excess drama, the LACK of sci-fi concepts in general, the pessimism... the watering down of any concepts in the name of "making them accessible" - since when is sci-fi supposed to be a mass produced snack like a big mac?! It's always been an acquired taste and people who dilute it for the masses are doing nobody any favors, despite getting rich off of it.

If such people (e.g. Russell T Davies, Ronald D Moore, others) claim to be liberals angry over the dumbing down of society, I'd hope they put some brainpower back into their stories instead of mixing up "sci-fi" with "emotive soap opera".

Though the writer of the techrepublic article has a point. In general, the mainstream direction sci-fi is heading, I don't agree with it and should keep those issues separate... wouldn't be fair. (Keeping the drama and emotive blah along with a complex, harder plot would be very enjoyable and Steven Moffatt (he wrote the "Doctor Who" story "The Girl in the Fireplace") is the type of writer who could probably do it...)

[YankeyMCC]

1. I read his article in Asimov's

I haven't read the links you have to see if there're are different points but I share his concern in the Asimov piece.

I don't think 'mixing up sci-fi with emotive soap opera' is really the problem. There should be strong character development and that includes emotional swings at times...maybe not 'soap-opera' but certainly emotional content. After all no matter what the genre it's still always got to be about the human condition.

I think Moore does a good job of striking the balance for the most part, that's just based on the new BSG stories I don't have a clear enough memory of his Trek stories.

I'm reading the Revelation Space novels now and that certainly qualifies for hard sci-fi and it has a lot of strong characters and emotional content.

I'm more concerned about his point of people not grasping the basic science concepts and even being afraid to try, and even scarier not grasping basic logical sense for consistency and a seeming need for acceptance of magic.

[Deja Q]

2. Neither do I, entirely...

But because wallowing in tear-jerking drama is as much associated with the lack of harder science in sci-fi, it's relatively easy (and understandable) to blame it as well. The "Buffy meets 90210 syndrome" is what I like to call it...

I do agree, emotional content is utterly necessary. But looking at sci-fi from the 1960s and 1970s to now, there's been quite a fundamental shift - from action/adventure/drama to drama/drama/drama. With a hint of action to tease the rest of us, but it doesn't seem like adventure. Especially when the new Doctor Who series can't get away from Earth when it used to all the time.

But putting the sci back into sci-fi, plus an element of logic would be rather... appropriate. I've criticized some of today's popular shows' writers for demanding people accept the crap plots as being "fantasy genre" - this is what should be called "schizophrenic writing" because it's just that. Now older sci-fi isn't innocent of "schizophrenic writing"; the difference is, in the past, more sci-fi actually had some sci in it and were complex. That almost makes them forgivable, because they try. Today's fodder is just mass marketing mush.

Thanks for the "Revelation Space" namedropping. That's on my list of books to buy...

Trek TNG, et al, always wrote people first, technobabble second, hard science third. We usually got empty calories such as "The Masterpiece Society", whereas truer sci-fi pieces (such as "All Good Things", "Time Squared", "Elementary, Dear Data", and others) were few and far between. "All Good Things" also has one little flaw about the creation of the spatial anomaly, but it's easily forgiven and just due the Hugo award accorded it, just as how Harlan Ellison's original script for "The City on the Edge of Forever" also received one. :)

[salvorhardin]

3. I'm right with you and Sprinrad

My youth was so much enhanced by pre-Stranger Heinlein, Asimov, Pohl, Niven, Clarke, Gregory Benford, and a whole host of hard SF authors but it wouldn't have been if I wasn't also receiving a good math and science education. Can you imagine the target market (young teen boys) for Heinlein's Have Spacesuit Will Travel following along with the lengthy discussion on orbital ballistics these days?

And thanks for mentioning Girl In The Fireplace. Best Doctor Who story of all last season! I love, love, love Doctor Who but I want more science in my fiction and less of this new-age spiritual mumbo-jumbo.

[FloridaJudy]

4. Remember Sturgeon's Law?

"90% of everything is sh*t"

I've been reading Science Fiction since I was 8 years old (over 50 years ago), and the vast majority of it has always been crap. Fortunately, I can only remember the Good Stuff - what are now considered the classics. For every Heinlein, Asimov, Bester, Knight, Silverberg, et al, there are scores of authors whose names are now mercifully forgotten. In fact, go back and read some of the very early Heinlein: some of it is so bad it's embarrassing.

There's still an awful lot of Good Stuff being written. Stephenson, Gaiman, Willis and Mieville write witty, literate and thoughtful novels. You probably won't find them on the rack at the local supermarket, but any decent independent book store owner or librarian can point you in the right direction.