alias_sqbr: (bookdragon)
[personal profile] alias_sqbr
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 [personal profile] 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!

Date: 2010-05-14 01:18 am (UTC)
hl: Drawing of Ada Lovelace as a young child, reading a Calculus book (Default)
From: [personal profile] hl
This is weird. The sci-fi I read was mostly american (and british? idk, the kid-me never asked provenance), and I really wasn't reading for those reasons at all. It was always about the nature of humanity and society and stuff like that. My favourite writer of sci-fi of all times is probably Ursula K. Le Guin.

Date: 2010-05-14 02:48 am (UTC)
bunny_m: (Ami Geek)
From: [personal profile] bunny_m
It's funny that you should post this, just after I've read and enjoyed a hard SF book. (Red Dust, by Paul McAuley.)

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.

Date: 2010-05-14 02:25 pm (UTC)
jonquil: (Default)
From: [personal profile] jonquil
Unfortunately, a year or so back when Elizabeth Bear was critiqued by a person of color about the problematic portrayal of a character of color in Blood and Iron she slowly exploded, setting off RaceFail 1; she eventually announced that she hadn't meant what she said when she agreed that there were racially problematic elements, but that she was trying to set a good example for other writers. She's not your best choice for "outside the white male American middle class default".

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.


Date: 2010-05-15 05:39 pm (UTC)
jonquil: (Default)
From: [personal profile] jonquil
It's a genune ethical dilemma. I adore Yeats, who inserts some anti-Semitic images into some of my favorite poems.

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.

Date: 2010-05-14 02:58 am (UTC)
softestbullet: Aeryn cupping Pilot's cheek. He has his big eyes closed. (Simoun/ just wait and see us)
From: [personal profile] softestbullet
Like fanfic without the queer or female characters and with less of the character development.

Ha, yes, exactly!

Date: 2010-05-14 08:52 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] logophilos
Ah, let me introduce you to the world of sf romance with gay characters then (the rest of Heather's blog is all about sf/f romance, so plenty of female characters too):

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.)

Date: 2010-05-14 09:50 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] logophilos
"I'm not a big fan of m/m in fanfic or original fiction"

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.

Date: 2010-05-14 11:08 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] logophilos
If I had said, "hey, go look at those links, they're sf stories with gay characters" would that have enticed you to look at them?

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'.]

Date: 2010-05-14 11:27 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] logophilos
There you go. At least my jumping in without introducing myself wasn't a complete washout!

Date: 2010-05-15 02:50 pm (UTC)
msilverstar: alan cumming smiling impishly (dimples)
From: [personal profile] msilverstar
I agree with you in all that. But remember Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap. This includes everything, older science fiction, fantasy, and fanfic.

Date: 2010-05-14 04:42 pm (UTC)
softestbullet: Aeryn cupping Pilot's cheek. He has his big eyes closed. (Simoun/ just wait and see us)
From: [personal profile] softestbullet
Oh, well, yes! I mean, the icon I'm using is from Simoun, a super queer* & female SF anime, for example. I just think that sentence is a great summary of the majority of mainstream original anything.

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.

Date: 2010-05-14 02:11 pm (UTC)
jonquil: (Default)
From: [personal profile] jonquil
Thank you. This is more coherent and more crisply reasoned than mine.

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.

Date: 2010-05-15 05:40 pm (UTC)
jonquil: (Default)
From: [personal profile] jonquil
Heee! Since I bailed on mathematics to do CS (I am a lesser form of life, I know) you comfort me deeply.

Date: 2010-05-15 05:42 pm (UTC)
jonquil: (Default)
From: [personal profile] jonquil
And, I am sorry, I do not find that particular geometric proof particularly lovely. I've *seen* proofs that made me gasp at their elegance. That wasn't one of them.

If you're going to use up page after page on your own esoteric brilliance do Gödel. That one changed the world.

Date: 2010-05-16 02:21 am (UTC)
jonquil: (Default)
From: [personal profile] jonquil
For me, it was strictly logic. The *pure* stuff, dammit. (And algorithms. Algorithms were fun, even if they had the awful taint of utility.)

Date: 2010-05-18 02:46 pm (UTC)
jonquil: (Default)
From: [personal profile] jonquil
if nothing else, logic theorists tend to be cuter than group theorists

I feel this is an important contribution to knowledge and should be expanded into a paper. Possibly for private circulation among prospective graduate students.

Date: 2010-05-15 01:37 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] nojojojo
The way I see it, most science fiction falls into either the "hard science" or the "soft science" camp. (Scare quotes because I think the hard/soft division is BS, but that's another rant for another day.) There is some truly cutting-edge stuff going on in the hard science camp, like post-scarcity SF -- but as you note, this stuff tends to lack even the most basic understanding of sociology (in the form of worldbuilding), psychology (in the form of characterization), and even simple demographics. (Always tends to be set in lily-white, het-norm, age-limited, disability-free, etc., futures.) And there's some truly beautiful sociological, etc., stuff coming out of the soft-science camp, but there's not much tech or sensawunda on that end.

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.

Date: 2010-05-15 04:07 am (UTC)
amaresu: Sapphire and Steel from the opening (Default)
From: [personal profile] amaresu
Here via Metafandom

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.

Date: 2010-05-15 02:35 pm (UTC)
amaresu: Sapphire and Steel from the opening (Default)
From: [personal profile] amaresu
It's such a terrible feeling isn't it?

Date: 2010-05-18 07:24 am (UTC)
fred_mouse: line drawing of sheep coloured in queer flag colours with dream bubble reading 'dreamwidth' (Default)
From: [personal profile] fred_mouse
four "words" for you:

"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.

Date: 2010-05-15 05:48 pm (UTC)
jonquil: (Default)
From: [personal profile] jonquil
Read Kate Griffin's A Madness of Angels. Best book I've read this year. ([profile] nojojo recommends it, too.)

Date: 2010-05-15 07:45 am (UTC)
lastscorpion: (Default)
From: [personal profile] lastscorpion
Tanya Huff (livejournal username="andpuff") has written some cool Sci-Fi futuristic military books; the main character is a woman named Sgt. Kerr. They all have the word "Valor" in the title. There are aliens of various kinds and high-tech fighty stuff and an over-arching mystery sort of a thing. They're the best really science-fictiony profics that I've read for a while.

I totally agree with this post. There's a lot of published stuff that just isn't very good.

Profile

alias_sqbr: the symbol pi on a pretty background (Default)
alias_sqbr

April 2025

S M T W T F S
  12 345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728 2930   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 21st, 2025 06:45 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios