?

Log in

No account? Create an account
bear by san

March 2017

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
spies mfu goodliest outside napoleon

long past their woodland days

It will probably come as a surprise to nobody, but I love me some science fiction.

But recently, an acquaintance asked "Do you believe in science fiction?" Being in a contrary mood, I answered "no." What I meant, I admitted when pressed, was that I did not believe in the valorization of SF as the literature that's going to somehow save the world.

But then we got into an interesting conversation about what SF is, exactly, and how it feels, and whether it still serves any purpose. Does it serve any purpose?

Well, to that, I say thee yea.

The death of science fiction has been being announced yearly since I can remember, and it hasn't happened yet. It's a niche market--it has been and will be, as near as I can tell, because the joys of good SF are similar to the joys of good mystery: these are stories in which figuring out what is going on is an intrinsic part of the fun, and frankly, puzzles just do not appeal to that many people.

So the way to make SF more mainstream is to take the puzzles out of it--but at that point it stops being SF and starts being Wagon Train to the Stars. Which is fine--I love me a good space opera as much as the next girl (if the next girl is James Tiptree, Jr.)--but it's not what we're talking about here. Likewise, military SF is not really what we're talking about here, because that draws more of its foundation tropes from either Horatio Hornblower or All Quiet on The Western Front, depending on which subcategory of mil-SF we're in.

So there's that. Let's just assume for a minute that what we're talking about in this context is the range of "mainstream" SF, if you can justify using any such term. Fiction that's about sensawunda and testing ideas to destruction, in short.

Jonathan pointed out that modern SF treated quantum mechanics as magic, and it was not doing a good job of giving us futures we can believe in.

This was apparently the quarter in my slot, because it crystallized a lot of things I've been thinking lately.

I believe that SF is a useful and revealing narrative tool. I believe that it has applications no other genre can approach, and one of those applications is the alienation and illumination of aspects of the present that may be too buried in the noise of the world to get a good look at.

SF has always had a poor success rate at predicting the future. Thankfully, predicting the future is not what it's for, or we'd have to cop to being utter failures.

What we are pretty good at, though, is raising awareness of the possibilities, and allowing people to make conscious choices between the extremes. It's hard now to write Engineering In  Spaaaace! SF because that's not science fiction anymore--that's the world as it is. And you have to be pretty creative to find an angle that hasn't been mined. Planetary romances are hard--problematic in this post-Prime-Directive age, where we have a set of conventional wisdom about the evils of colonialism and Honky Saves The Day stories that make Barsoom a tad uncomfortable reading.

Quantum mechanics (and nanotech) do indeed get treated as magic much of the time. This is not new: Larry Niven was doing it before I was born. Rigorously adhering to known science has always been the core of a tiny subset of SF. The rest of the time we've been making shit up like mad--slow glass, psychohistory, positonic brains, time travel, aliens with no souls. (There is an entire small subgenre of Jesuit Vs. Alien stories, f or crying out loud. I blame Blish.)

This does not mean I'm agin super-rigorous SF. Dragon's Egg and Blindsight remain two of my very favorite books.

But hard SF (and not the sort of moderately crunchy SF I have been known to write**) has not been a majority of what's printed for at least fifty years, and before that my knowledge of the genre is too thin for me to state with authority. And even the "hard SF" of my youth had Clarke's Law to guide it--where we have Grey Goo, he had omnipotent aliens. Handwaving quantum mechanics is not significantly different, to my mind, than handwaving enormous psychic monoliths.

The fact is, SF is still looking for a unifying force, and has been since cyberpunk. Mundane SF was an attempt to address this, but I think it failed due to prescriptivism. I don't think we need that unifying force.

The genre is bigger and more diverse than it has ever been. Nnedi Okorafor is writing Zelaznyesque science fantasy; Peter Watts is writing hard SF as crunchy as anything the Golden Age could offer; Caitlin Kiernan is writing planetary romances of a dead mars; Kim Stanley Robinson is writing climatological studies imbedded in adventure novels; Jonathan Lethem is writing concretized metaphor; Ted Chiang is writing jewellike little SF stories that take as their starting-point Biblical myth; Chris Moriarty is writing fast-paced thrillers full of AIs and nifty ideas; Richard K. Morgan is writing political critiques under the trappings of reimagined cyberpunkish realities--and on and on--and it's all science fiction.

That diversity in and of itself is the important thing under development right now. I'm not old, and I am old enough to remember when the African-American SF writers were Samuel R. Delany, Octavia Butler, and Steven Barnes--and I could not have named an Asian one. I remember when there were five or six writers tackling queer/gender issues--and many of them were straight and cisgendered. Now, the arguments are about how to open the genre to more voices and faces.

We have the fourth-generation problem, yes. The genre is not being born any more: it's not an adolescent. It's adult, and established, and a little set in its ways. But the diversity of fandom and prodom at this point is unrivalled, and those perspectives are essential to establishing an ongoing literary conversation. It's true: there is no next big thing. Steampunk is an aesthetic, and one that draws more on fantasy tropes than SF. It's possible to write steampunk SF--Julian Comstock is one such book--but it's not common.

That's your trend, SF. The thing you're looking for is here, has been here for a decade, and is being overlooked. The problem is not that the Red Marses and the Spin States and the Blindsights are not being written. It's that there's a whole bunch of other stuff going on too****.

Which, well. I fail to see as a problem.

There's another issue, about giving us futures we can believe in. I'm afraid that all too often, we're getting futures we do believe in, and they're not very nice. No more Kimball Kinnison frying steaks in space (we believed that? Really?) while his wife does wifely things at home. These days, SF wants to talk about world-ending post-colonial messes to clean up, and having inadequate tools to clean them with. It wants to talk about unprecedented lossed of privacy, targeted advertising, inevitable involuntary changes in our way of life, structuring and privileging families-of-choice--

...oh.

If SFF reflects the zeitgeist (and really, it does, and it always has) then when we express a nostalgia for these older stories, we're expressing also a nostalgia for our own innocence, when it did not behoove us to be aware of the damage our warp drives might be doing to subspace or how the ecological and cultural impact of our space colonies might affect the life on other worlds.

If I were to use SF as a lens to view the world, I would learn all sorts of things about a culture. The economic and fast-forward future preoccupations of the 80's, reflected in cyberpunk, have given way to the fear that there will be no future at all (the Singularity, which might as easily be called the Nerd Deluge as the rapture of the geeks) or the fear that that future will be terrible. (Mr. Bacigalupi, I'm looking at you. And I might as well hold that Ragnarok lens up to my own work, too***.)

The futures we're reflecting now are more ideologically complicated, because the social fabric of fandom itself challenges some of our naive assumptions--a challenging that started decades ago, frankly, and has over the years offered us such answers as Bill the Galactic Hero and "Enemy Mine".

You can't just send a guy to terraform Mars anymore. Now he's got to do an impact survey, and confront the anti-terraforming factions. And maybe encounter a few moral ambiguities along the way.

I'm kind of okay with that, honestly. Everything we do in the world carries a weight of moral ambiguity, even if it's just simply surviving.

These kinds of stories are harder to write, and harder to read, but I feel less like a villain for doing my best to write them, and acknowledge a world full of ambiguities and compromises.


*ob. disclaimer: this post grew out of a twitter conversation with Paolo Bacigalupi, Jonathan Strahan, John Klima, and Caitlin Kiernan. Which of course we didn't think to hashtag.

**this may change, as I am on to a great idea currently and I want to see how crunchy I can get with it.

***funny thing is, that great idea (above) is a Technology Saves The World story. I might be about to write an anti-dystopia.... well, it's always good to change things up, I guess.

****and there has been for forty years, really, to give credit where credit is due

Comments

Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
I am in love with your brain today.
Everything we do in the world carries a weight of moral ambiguity, even if it's just simply surviving.

This, exactly this.
This is just about exactly what I needed to hear today (although "I am airmailing you chocolate", "you've won the lottery!" or "hey we've decided to publish your novel" would also have sufficed.)

I've been feeling a bit lost with what I'm writing and wondering if there's really a place for me in SF, and I needed that reminder that one of the great things about SF is that it has *lots* of different places, all worth exploring. (-:

Thank you.
Hmm.

Just, hmm.

(I think I may respond to this argument, when I finish writing the fourth Laundry novel. It will probably take me an entire book, though.)
I look forward to it.

Basically, what I'm saying here is that there is no longer one pale patriarchal penis people ( (c) Charlie Stross) future, but a scattershot diaspora of multitudinous futures.

I see this as WIN.
You probably know there's not much here I'd take issue with.

So..well said. Carry on.

Edited at 2010-07-03 06:05 pm (UTC)
I think I can stop blogging now. You've said it all.
It's a niche market--it has been and will be, as near as I can tell, because the joys of good SF are similar to the joys of good mystery: these are stories in which figuring out what is going on is an intrinsic part of the fun, and frankly, puzzles just do not appeal to that many people.

Yes. I wonder if that's why the members of my bookgroup are so resolutely opposed to reading SF - the fear of not knowing what's going on, or, the fear of getting it wrong. Maybe the belief that there is "one true reading" and they might not get it is what's putting them off? I'm not sure.

Very interesting to read your thoughts on the genre, especially how reflective it is of the time it is written.
All well and good, even though there were about five words i should have googled, but didn't. As an official old fart, the only SF i look forward to and devour is Connie Willis. So wheres that at? Ten Hugos for one thing.

Not arguing at all. Just saying. There is plenty of room for techno-Sf, it's just that the Singularity is impossible to write about, at least for me. There is so much happening so fast, that I'm standing behind my Hellhound books. It's what i call the Hannibal Lechter problem; writing about beings more advanced that one's self. Not easy. But i still listen to Dylan and think about God.

I'm done now.
Connie Willis is awesome.

And the moderately rigorous but still well-written SF is my favorite stuff, frankly.
Can I show this to my Clarion class? It rocketh exceedingly, and I think it's stuff they need to think about.
Sure. I don't think it's exhaustive, or definitive--I think the takeaway for me is that we're certainly writing on the same topics we always have been, and the sensawunda is still there, but the diversity of voices is greater than it was. And yay for that.
Dragon's Egg Too few people (at least in my circle of friends) remember either that or Starquake.
You are so awesome. I just want to tell you that. Your LJ is as good a read as any literary magazine, and even if the science in your SF isn't hard in the sense you mean here of classic hard SF, the way you treat hypothetical science and physical laws is, on the imaginative level of speculation of possible physical laws of the 1600-1800s that led to our actual science today, than a lot of contemporary hard SF. The way you treat the functioning of probability in Undertow for example reminds me of Goethe's treatment of optics - so imaginative and it holds together. Ditto the treatment of alien life in Chill. So awesome.

Edited at 2010-07-03 07:01 pm (UTC)
Well, with Undertow, I cheated egregiously, in that I used quantum effects on a macro scale.

But you know, it's okay to drink out the bottle as long as we're nice and know better. The purpose of SF, as far as I am concerned, is not to be a textbook but to tell a story.

(The science in Carnival, OTOH, more or less works.)

This Has Been Done Before, Many Times and Earlier Than You Imagine

It's hard now to write Engineering In Spaaaace! SF because that's not science fiction anymore--that's the world as it is.

Really? Right now, the only manned spacecraft and bases we're building are for Earth orbital and suborbital applications; all we're sending to other worlds is unmanned probes. Furthermore, having actually looked into planetology and the challenges of colonizing other worlds, I can tell you that it's not all just undifferentiated "space" ... the difficulties and opportunities differ from world to world.

Planetary romances are hard--problematic in this post-Prime-Directive age, where we have a set of conventional wisdom about the evils of colonialism and Honky Saves The Day stories that make Barsoom a tad uncomfortable reading.

Have you actually read the Barsoom novels? They aren't about that at all -- I think you're confusing them with entirely different stories. Furthermore, I think that the solution to this "problem" is for said readers to stop blindly believing the "conventional wisdom" involved.

Mundane SF was an attempt to address this, but I think it failed due to prescriptivism.

Well, and the fact that it is not only boring but profoundly stupid -- for the Mundane SF future to work you have to assume that progress in several whole fields of technology stops, forever. It covers up this basic logical flaw by playing on the stereotype that "dull = intelligent" in the minds of technologically-uninformed readers.

And even the "hard SF" of my youth had Clarke's Law to guide it--where we have Grey Goo, he had omnipotent aliens. Handwaving quantum mechanics is not significantly different, to my mind, than handwaving enormous psychic monoliths.

The aliens in Childhood's End and in the 2001 series weren't "omnipotent." Just very, very powerful. He gave enough hints that one had a fair idea of how their science worked.

No more Kimball Kinnison frying steaks in space (we believed that? Really?) ...

What about "space" makes "frying steaks" impossible? It does imply that one has gravity (or a good air circulation system) and a heat source, and that one wishes to eat a fried steak, but I don't see what's improbable about such a situation. In fact, given all the other things "Doc" Smith postulated (such as inertialess drives and a Secret History of the Universe with two rival aeons-old alien races, I'm surprised that you woud consider fried steaks somehow destructive of the verisimilitude.

... while his wife does wifely things at home.

Um, you mean being the Red Lensman, ambassador to the Lyranian Matriarchy, and mother of the Children of the Lens? Um, sure, I guess, for certain values of "wifely things," since she is in fact Kim's wife ...

These days, SF wants to talk about world-ending post-colonial messes to clean up, and having inadequate tools to clean them with.

Yes, as opposed to nice cosy futures such as resource exhaustion, environmental degradation and racial extinction (Last and First Men, 1930), or annihilating atomic wars (any number of stories from 1945 on).

It wants to talk about unprecedented losses of privacy, targeted advertising, inevitable involuntary changes in our way of life,

So, basically, you've read nothing that Kornbluth and Pohl wrote in the 1950's? Because almost every story they wrote was on just those topics, and they inspired plenty of other writers to follow in their footsteps.

... structuring and privileging families-of-choice--

That phrase is almost incomprehensible to me, but if you mean "the decline of a liberal democracy or republic into an aristocratic feudal or imperial society," I direct you to almost every one of Poul Anderson's and Jerry Pournelle's stories, the key ones of which were written from the 1950's - 80's in the case of Anderson and from the 1970's - 1990's in the case of Pournelle.





Re: This Has Been Done Before, Many Times and Earlier Than You Imagine

You appear to be taking issue with a point I was not making. Thank you for your comment, though.
which is why in my SF&F book group we go with something old, something new, and some other decisions. The Genre is full of amazing books, and you shouldnt stop with just One.

When your brain gets to the right consistancy of crunchy, will it attract teh Zombies?

Singularities, Ambiguity or Not

The economic and fast-forward future preoccupations of the 80's, reflected in cyberpunk, have given way to the fear that there will be no future at all (the Singularity, which might as easily be called the Nerd Deluge as the rapture of the geeks) ...

Why would an Information Singularity necessarily mean "no future at all," any more than would the Energy/Transport Singularity predicted by the science fiction of the 1950's? Yes, it could mean the extinction of all life capable of higher emotions and its replacement by cold, navel-gazing supercomputers, as in Poul Anderson's "Maurai and Kith" and "Harvest of Stars" universes, but then the Energy/Transport Singularity could have also led to planet- and star-smashing superweapons which would have, well, smashed our planet and star.

And why would you feel like a "villain" for presenting a morally unambigious situation? Situations in reality may be morally ambigious to varying degrees -- there is no law of Nature which says that there can't be a good guy or a bad guy in any given situation.

Oh, and Technology usually does Save the Day, for humanity. We evolved with tools in our hands. It's our specialty.

Re: Singularities, Ambiguity or Not

Again, I think you're reading a lot into my argument that simply isn't there.

If I were to use SF as a lens to view the world, I would learn all sorts of things about a culture. The economic and fast-forward future preoccupations of the 80's, reflected in cyberpunk, have given way to the fear that there will be no future at all (the Singularity, which might as easily be called the Nerd Deluge as the rapture of the geeks) or the fear that that future will be terrible.

Yes.

I'm thinking that this might be part of the reason that fantasy as a genre has grown in readership over the last couple decades while SF readership has remained - if not static, then not a large growth area.

Mythologising the past is one of the functions which fantasy performs, I think. And the fewer certainties - at least, fewer optimistic certainties - which a society holds about their future, the more we engage in mythologising the past (not that humanity has ever actually stopped doing that), and the less we actually like looking at that future.

(Generalising wildly, of course.)

But anyway.
The most popular sort of fantasy these days seems to be about mythologizing the present.
Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>