![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I've found myself reading less and less original science fiction books recently, and since being an sf fan is huge part of my identity this has niggled and I've been pondering why. And part of it is that I read less than I used to, and that my tastes have changed as I've gotten older, and that once you read enough of a genre it all starts to look the same. But Science fiction and me captures another big part of it: I fell in love with sf for the exciting new ideas, and most modern sf doesn't have any. (Also: read the comments for recs! :))
I mean I guess there's two enjoyable things about sf: the new ideas and imaginings about the future and science etc, and more shallow escapism and "Yay spaceships and aliens" etc.
But the thing is, if I want aliens and spaceships and escapism without worrying too much about originality, I can read fanfic for Star Trek or Torchwood or whatever. That way I get the escapism without having to learn a bunch of new names for generic sf characters and settings, and the story is more likely to be geared to my tastes eg there may be actual female characters omg. One of the things I really want from fiction is character continuity and development, and fanfic has that more easily built in. The one thing fanfic can't offer is visual storytelling (vids can't create a new narrative very easily, and fancomics are a very small genre) and thus I still enjoy sf tv, movies, games and comics.
So when I read original sf books(*) I expect originality, and I expect cool ideas, either in science or in future extrapolation or something. And I'm just not getting it, it all feels like a rather uncreative pastiche of what's gone before with a slightly modernised technobabble veneer. Like fanfic without the queer or female characters and with less of the character development.
Now with science I must admit my standards are pretty high: I mostly like hard science, and since I have a Phd in computational mathematics my standards for "clever science" are more than you can expect of most people humanities focussed enough to be a competent writer (except Greg Egan :)). Plus the frustration of watching my science career slip through my fingers due to illness has taken some of the fun out of science for me :/
And I think
jonquil is right about the tech: technology has moved very fast recently, and most sf writers lack the creativity to come up with anything as cool as the present let alone cooler.
Ok, so what about originality of character, worldbuilding, future extrapolation etc? Well for me to like these things, I have to believe them, and generally I don't. Sf writers tend not to be fantastic at characterisation or understanding people, not just in terms of clunky dialogue or whatever but in terms of understanding power structures and social forces and thinking about things from outside the white male American middle class default. If your future has everyone fitting heteronormative norms more than they do now, if you've clearly not thought about the consequences of your premise for people who are poor, or disabled, or live in a developing country (or you have, but only in terms of cliche), then I won't believe it and I won't find it interesting.
"Anathem" by Neal Stephenson is a really blatant example of the thinking underlying these works: in this world, knowledge is preserved through the "cycle of civilisations" by monks, and afaict the ONLY knowledge they preserve, and that society needs, is science (specifically hard science), maths, and (single narrative "objective") history, plus some ancient Greek level philosophy. Oh and there's a vague reference to literary criticism. Feminism, post modernism, post colonialism etc, these things don't actually help us understand the world or make a better society, and are unnecessary to both the people of the world of the book and the writer of the book. But as someone with even only a vague understanding of the humanities I sat there thinking "But societies don't work that way! And neither does history!". It was as jarring as the nuclear physics in Iron Man 2 without the distraction of explosions and femslashiness.
Some sf authors manage to have genuinely interesting ideas and/or create the sort of escapism I enjoy: Lois McMaster Bujold (ex fanfic author!), Iain M Banks (mostly, though I'm getting a bit tired of his schtick), Greg Egan, Octavia Butler, Sharon Lee and Steve Miller. But mostly I find I'm happier with fanfic and romance novels. I make occasional forays into the writings of sf writers who don't fit the male white American default with mixed success. EDIT: these are authors who are either currently still writing or have promising looking books I haven't read yet. There's lots of others who have written books I like!
None of this is meant to argue that other people shouldn't like sf, if it's giving you what you want then good for you. I certainly don't suggest fanfic as an alternative for everyone, it just happens to offer more of what I'm after. It's generally as bad as published sf at race, disability, culture and class.
(*)Alas, I don't tend to like original short stories, I've barely gotten used to the characters and they're gone again!
I mean I guess there's two enjoyable things about sf: the new ideas and imaginings about the future and science etc, and more shallow escapism and "Yay spaceships and aliens" etc.
But the thing is, if I want aliens and spaceships and escapism without worrying too much about originality, I can read fanfic for Star Trek or Torchwood or whatever. That way I get the escapism without having to learn a bunch of new names for generic sf characters and settings, and the story is more likely to be geared to my tastes eg there may be actual female characters omg. One of the things I really want from fiction is character continuity and development, and fanfic has that more easily built in. The one thing fanfic can't offer is visual storytelling (vids can't create a new narrative very easily, and fancomics are a very small genre) and thus I still enjoy sf tv, movies, games and comics.
So when I read original sf books(*) I expect originality, and I expect cool ideas, either in science or in future extrapolation or something. And I'm just not getting it, it all feels like a rather uncreative pastiche of what's gone before with a slightly modernised technobabble veneer. Like fanfic without the queer or female characters and with less of the character development.
Now with science I must admit my standards are pretty high: I mostly like hard science, and since I have a Phd in computational mathematics my standards for "clever science" are more than you can expect of most people humanities focussed enough to be a competent writer (except Greg Egan :)). Plus the frustration of watching my science career slip through my fingers due to illness has taken some of the fun out of science for me :/
And I think
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Ok, so what about originality of character, worldbuilding, future extrapolation etc? Well for me to like these things, I have to believe them, and generally I don't. Sf writers tend not to be fantastic at characterisation or understanding people, not just in terms of clunky dialogue or whatever but in terms of understanding power structures and social forces and thinking about things from outside the white male American middle class default. If your future has everyone fitting heteronormative norms more than they do now, if you've clearly not thought about the consequences of your premise for people who are poor, or disabled, or live in a developing country (or you have, but only in terms of cliche), then I won't believe it and I won't find it interesting.
"Anathem" by Neal Stephenson is a really blatant example of the thinking underlying these works: in this world, knowledge is preserved through the "cycle of civilisations" by monks, and afaict the ONLY knowledge they preserve, and that society needs, is science (specifically hard science), maths, and (single narrative "objective") history, plus some ancient Greek level philosophy. Oh and there's a vague reference to literary criticism. Feminism, post modernism, post colonialism etc, these things don't actually help us understand the world or make a better society, and are unnecessary to both the people of the world of the book and the writer of the book. But as someone with even only a vague understanding of the humanities I sat there thinking "But societies don't work that way! And neither does history!". It was as jarring as the nuclear physics in Iron Man 2 without the distraction of explosions and femslashiness.
Some sf authors manage to have genuinely interesting ideas and/or create the sort of escapism I enjoy: Lois McMaster Bujold (ex fanfic author!), Iain M Banks (mostly, though I'm getting a bit tired of his schtick), Greg Egan, Octavia Butler, Sharon Lee and Steve Miller. But mostly I find I'm happier with fanfic and romance novels. I make occasional forays into the writings of sf writers who don't fit the male white American default with mixed success. EDIT: these are authors who are either currently still writing or have promising looking books I haven't read yet. There's lots of others who have written books I like!
None of this is meant to argue that other people shouldn't like sf, if it's giving you what you want then good for you. I certainly don't suggest fanfic as an alternative for everyone, it just happens to offer more of what I'm after. It's generally as bad as published sf at race, disability, culture and class.
(*)Alas, I don't tend to like original short stories, I've barely gotten used to the characters and they're gone again!
no subject
Date: 2010-05-14 01:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-14 03:24 am (UTC)Ursula K LeGuin totally does, I'm just taking a break from her after reading EVERY book by her in my uni's sf club's library a few years ago :)
no subject
Date: 2010-05-14 02:48 am (UTC)Over the past several years I've found myself getting out of reading (epic) Fantasy for very similar reasons that you've listed above. It just all felt very same-old-been-there-seen-that-got-the-tshirt.
If you are looking for SF that is outside the white male American middle class default then I really suggest you try reading a book or three by Elizabeth Bear, and/or some of the British harder SF writers such as Alastair Reynolds and Paul McAuley.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-14 03:28 am (UTC)I will have to check those guys out, thanks! (After reading jonquil's comments I was hoping this post would also get me recs :D)
no subject
Date: 2010-05-14 02:25 pm (UTC)Avalon's Willow wrote one overview.
Avalon's Willow, An Open Letter to Elizabeth Bear
One wonderful product of RaceFail: Deepa D wrote one of the finest and most closely-reasoned essays I've ever seen on LJ on the invisibility of non-American non-white people in SF/fantasy, and how it affects an Indian reader.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 10:04 am (UTC)Most of the criticism I saw of her was of her (admittedly atrocious) behaviour as an individual, I got the impression her actual books were only middling to bad with regards to race, and interesting in other ways. (See also: Lois McMaster Bujold, Neil Gaiman) And I am very conflicted about the ethics of reccing deeply unethical authors whose books are in many respects worthwhile (See also: Orson Scott Card) Still, I think her behaviour was SO bad it's worth bringing up, and it seems plausible that it would be reflected in her books.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 05:39 pm (UTC)That said, the particular book Blood and Iron has a fundamental trope choice that is gravely problematic, and Avalon's Willow lays it out: the powerful black man who is both slave and concubine. She (and others) made a convincing case that it was indeed the Mandingo trope, and a book built around that trope is not a good thing. And Bear didn't treat that criticism with respect.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-17 03:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-14 02:58 am (UTC)Ha, yes, exactly!
no subject
Date: 2010-05-14 08:52 am (UTC)http://www.thegalaxyexpress.net/2009/03/in-beginning-there-was-kirkspock.html
http://www.thegalaxyexpress.net/2009/03/glbt-sf-link-city-free-stories.html
Actually, sf has a lot of queer and strong female characters, and the stuff I love, has strong world building. You just need to look around. (And, er, I've written a bit, < a href="http://logophilos.net/free-original-fiction/">some of it's even free.)
no subject
Date: 2010-05-14 09:12 am (UTC)But once you've found it you then have to find the 10% or whatever that is also what you're interested in from a scifi perspective, well written etc. And I find that harder to do with original sf than fanfiction, though certainly not impossible.
Personally I'm not a big fan of m/m in fanfic or original fiction (I prefer female protagonists, especially for romance. And I don't like porn much in general which afaict most of it is), but it does make me happy to know that m/m original sf exists, what with the way most sf authors are too Manly to have their male characters be anything but totally 100% straight.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-14 09:50 am (UTC)Well, I was specifically replying to the person agreeing with you about the lack of queer characters.
"I don't like porn much in general which afaict most of it is"
Um, I don't write porn. If I did, I'd be a lot more popular. This isn't a generalisation I'm fond of, or agree with, as dismissing m/m - or even het romance - as 'just porn' is another way to belittle womens writing. There is porn, there is erotica, there is erotic romance, there is romance with sex, and there is romance with no sex at all. There is also excellent sf romance (including m/m) with strong world building and good characters.
But hey, if you don't want to look, that's entirely up to you. Please just don't dismiss an entire genre as 'porn' when you don't even read it.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-14 10:52 am (UTC)I had two points I wanted to make in that comment:
a)The existence of sf that suits my tastes doesn't invalidate my point that such sf is hard to find (and I acknowledged it's existence in my post, so I couldn't see much point to you pointing out that it exists)
b) I think it's cool that m/m sf exists even if I am unlikely to read much myself.
I did not in any way mean "porn" as an insult, I was using it as a synonym for erotica as is the norm in fanfic circles. I think erotica and porn are entirely valid genres of creative endeavour. I have even enjoyed some. But on the whole it is not to my taste. (Well, sometimes it is. I'm still figuring that out) And the people I got the impression that m/m fiction was largely erotica from are m/m authors that I know personally. But I am working from a small sample space, and if they're not indicative of the genre then fair enough.
I will happily read any m/m fic original fiction that looks like it will be my sort of thing, in the same way that I have happily read lots of m/m fanfic (and have even written some, sort of). I haven't looked for m/m original fic to try because from my experiences with m/m fanfic it's not a genre that particularly grabs me so I'm happy to wait until I come across a promising sounding rec, and I haven't yet. All the recs for m/m original fic I've seen have boiled down to "If you like m/m slash then you'll love this!", which is offputting for me as someone who tends to prefer het, f/f, gen-with-female-protagonist, and poly-fic-with-women to m/m.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-14 11:08 am (UTC)Because that was why I linked them. Not because they're m/m. I helped Heather put those posts together, and I was trying to get stories that were good s/f that also fitted her romantic remit. The fact that romance with queer characters - or SF with queer character who have a relationship even if the story isn't a classic Romance - all gets labeled m/m is a bit misleading. Some of it is 'original slash' and some of it is no different from other mainstream sf with a relationship component.
I write sf and fantasy, and all my stories feature gay characters. It makes me a sad panda when someone says they don't get the same satisfaction from original sf as they do from fanfiction because that's what I try to write - stuff as satisfying as I found fanfiction which is where I started off. I'm a long-term sf fan too, and what I try to put in my writing - and what I want in the stories I read and rec to others - is the imagination of trad sf with the emotional depth of fanfiction (and slash).
I don't really have anything else to add - I was just trying to say, 'hey, have you seen these stories?' Because there's not a lot of good stuff, true, but there is a *bit*.
[BTW (and not wanting to derail this convo - while some authors are happy to conflate porn and erotica, and claim the term porn for their own writing, there are plenty of us who don't. Not because we see porn as wrong but because it's not what we write. Porn has very specific requirements and aims, and most 'porny' m/m is sadly pathetic at fulfilling those. So don't be surprised if you strike other authors being defensive if you call what they write 'porn'.]
no subject
Date: 2010-05-14 11:24 am (UTC)I apologise for misreading you, having mostly seen you about during discussions of m/m as a genre that's the lens I was viewing your comment through, but I see that one of your links is much broader than that, and does in fact contain several recs for authors whose works with m/m relationships I really like. And, clicking through, The Lambda sf recs even have some f/f!
no subject
Date: 2010-05-14 11:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 02:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-16 02:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-14 04:42 pm (UTC)But anyway, thank you for the links! *saves*
*It does a wonderful job with the f/f and m/m, but less so with the trans stuff, unfortunately.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-14 02:11 pm (UTC)In particular, you put your finger on something that bothered me about Anathem that I hadn't managed to capture: the "essential knowledge" that the monks preserve is a weird, weird subset reflecting exclusively Stephenson's interests.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 10:13 am (UTC)And the thing is, as someone who has that sort of knowledge I am intimately aware of how much it does not make me some superhuman polymath who can solve any problem (I have trouble finding the on-switch on technology let alone designing the stuff). Plus, and I know this is shallow, but for someone who seems to think that people who understand theoretical mathematics are a purer more advanced form of being his maths really isn't that remarkable :)
That and he has that irritating obsession with geometry as the basis of all maths. Stupid geometers, they think they're soooo specialno subject
Date: 2010-05-15 05:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 05:42 pm (UTC)If you're going to use up page after page on your own esoteric brilliance do Gödel. That one changed the world.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-16 02:20 am (UTC)Also: My partner is a CS major and he pays the bills, so you'll get no scoffing from me :) (And I bailed on physics to do maths)
no subject
Date: 2010-05-16 02:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-18 04:41 am (UTC)if nothing else, logic theorists tend to be cuter than group theorists). But I did it in algorithms instead (of the "practically useful if you're a group theorist, otherwise not so much" variety). So, yes, I get where you're coming from :)no subject
Date: 2010-05-18 02:46 pm (UTC)if nothing else, logic theorists tend to be cuter than group theoristsI feel this is an important contribution to knowledge and should be expanded into a paper. Possibly for private circulation among prospective graduate students.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 01:37 am (UTC)So maybe what you're calling for is a kind of fusion science fiction, which ignores the hard/soft divide and goes with just plain science. But I think that might be difficult to achieve because it requires science to shed the hard/soft division, and that's unlikely to happen while that division is pinned so closely to gender, culture, class, etc. So as long as science fiction apes science itself, I suspect it will ape science's flaws too.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 10:15 am (UTC)Exactly!
But I think that might be difficult to achieve because it requires science to shed the hard/soft division, and that's unlikely to happen while that division is pinned so closely to gender, culture, class, etc. So as long as science fiction apes science itself, I suspect it will ape science's flaws too.
Having come through the hard science academia machine myself while also being a member of mainstream sf fandom...yeah :/
no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 04:07 am (UTC)I've all but stopped reading SF lately. I even have some unread books that I picked up on recommendation sitting about two feet away from me. I just tend to get really bored with what I've picked up over the last few years. I've been having the same problem with High Fantasy. Which is probably why I'm almost exclusively reading urban fantasy lately.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 10:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 02:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-16 02:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-18 07:24 am (UTC)"Shambling towards Hiroshima" FTW!!!!
Also, I'd like to suggest Nina Kiriki Hoffman as a fantasy/spec fic type writer that has fabulous female characters who interact believably with each other and with male characters, without ever losing agency, or feminity.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-21 03:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 05:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 07:45 am (UTC)I totally agree with this post. There's a lot of published stuff that just isn't very good.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-16 02:13 am (UTC)