![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alias_sqbrI'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 thinkjonquil 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
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!
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)