Space Opera Fans discussion
Reader Discussions
>
Is Space Adventure on the brink of a renaissance?
How closely is the popularity of space adventure fiction correlated with space being in the news? Would a new "space race" spark a resurgence of the genre?
Perhaps... But I think it also goes the other way around. People don't care all that much about space anymore because there's not a lot of PERSONAL need to go there depicted in popular literature.Take the recently mish-mashed Jupiter Ascending. So much promise, so over-the-top, and yet it sank under the weight of trying to cram too many premises into a sandwich. Same with Prometheus.
It will be the Sci-Fantasy young adult and the sci-fantasy erotica writers who break the barrier first, methinks.
I'm not convinced that the space race had much to do with how popular "Star Wars" grew. Likewise, I don't believe that most "Star Wars" fans were inspired to work for NASA because of those films and books.I think its fantasy premise--the personal stakes--are the main reason for its enduring popularity. I don't see enough of that in more recent space opera fiction.
Less popular space fiction just sort of lacks that.
(And yes, I'm writing the type of epic space adventure series that I wish to see in bookstores.)
Hopefully Space Adventure will take off shortly. I figure that dystopia has to come to the end of its run at some point...I do agree that the 'personal stakes' approach is essential in space adventure. Many people like to see real characters doing real things with real consequences. We like tech too, and psi/magic stuff, but without decent characters who have much at stake, we may well miss the boat on attracting younger readers.
Abby wrote: "I'm not convinced that the space race had much to do with how popular "Star Wars" grew. Likewise, I don't believe that most "Star Wars" fans were inspired to work for NASA because of those films..."I think the space race had a lot to do with it. The Apollo landings arguably inspired 2001: A Space Odyssey and early 1970's space action films like Silent Running and Dark Star. The latter two were clear influences on Star Wars, which itself prompted a new wave of big-budget sci-film films, not least Star Trek: The Motion Picture and its many sequels. I'm sure Star Trek inspired many to get into science and astromechanics.
Current 'New Space Opera' (Reynolds, Hamilton, etc.) tends to be more character focused. But yes, as a writer of space opera, I would dearly love a renaissance in 'space adventure'!
I remember going outside on a clear winter night with my uncle during the early 1970's, who was an elementary school principal, to look south in the hopes of seeing one of the Apollo mission rockets blare into the upper atmosphere (it was a tiny little flash all the way up here in the NorthEast like a shooting star, but I did see it). We would watch the live televised appearances of the astronauts in space. Everything seemed so possible back then ... that if we kept plodding forward, eventually Star Trek would become a reality...Then interest in the space program began to wane because people grew bored with astronauts floating around catching pencils. The rate of new exploration slowed and people grew bored.
Then Star Wars came along and temporarily re-invigorated that interest because it depicted space travel as a done-deal.
Ironically, at that same period of time, elements came into government power and began to gut out the Post-WWII science education funding that made the space race possible in the first place :-( How can kids get interested in science if they aren't learning science in the classroom? There became this mega-disconnect between the concept of swashbuckling through space, and the scientific reality needed to make that possible.
Now some educational departments are waking up and realizing we made a mistake by gutting out our kids science programs. It's coming back from the bottom, from the young people who are now taking S.T.E.M. classes in school. The renaissance will come from them, I think. From the kids who are interested in science rejecting their parents interest in fantasy, parents who, for the most part, kinda skipped all but the most rudimentary science in school.
The two are mutually supportive of one another. Teach kids science. Give them good scientific role models. Make science cool.
Which is why I have a Young Adult Friendly BOTM pick!!!
I love the fact that The Big Bang Theory is so popular. I watched it from when it first aired in UK and never expected a sitcom about science geeks to catch on.
Steph wrote: "I love the fact that The Big Bang Theory is so popular. I watched it from when it first aired in UK and never expected a sitcom about science geeks to catch on."That is my favorite show that is on the air right now! I think it has been renewed for two more seasons!
Is Space Adventure on the brink of a renaissance?Clarke's third law, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.", fits nicely here. I don't really enjoy fantasy as much as works that recognize this basic principle and don't particularly look forward to more works creating giant Deus ex machina as literary devices. Won't go into Midi-chlorians or their figurative interpretations, and I suppose as far as Star Wars goes, they remain unexplained largely fantasy and theological constructs. However, it's not unfathomable that biotic technology could be able to influence forces like gravity, electromagnetics and perhaps even exotic forces not yet understood. The film "The Fifth Element" plays around with this idea as well.
It's true that the authors that can interpret zeitgeist and publish their work have a better chance of being influential. The correlation between this influence and invention is interesting to say the least.
I'm interpreting this forum as asking if we are going to have another wave of science fiction dumbing it down to gain a larger audience, like Star Wars. Someone else already pointed out differences from Star Wars and Star Trek. I don't think anyone can truly deny how influential Gene Roddenberry has been in regards to influencing scientists. Star Wars? Yeah, not the same, it's why I haven't read any of their books yet, but I'm going to try to remedy that eventually. I'm hoping that more series like Star Trek will become popular again. Coming series like The Expanse and films like The Martian have a real chance of capturing some young minds and influencing the idea of what could be, instead of pure fantasy.
I'm a fully paid-up optimist about space exploration, and I agree with Rion that the omens are good for science fiction (NOT science fantasy) capturing young minds again! I believe the next big thing is the NEAR(ish) future. The Expanse and The Martian are great examples of gripping fiction that portray futures that could actually happen (well, if we leave out the spooky alien bacteria in Corey's vision) with only a little extrapolation from current technology. The cutting edge of technology is incredibly exciting right now! Inventions in the fields of new materials and fusion energy (yes, it is coming) will make these futures possible, and fiction set in the near future will make them attractive.
Fiction shapes the future ... not the other way around.
Abby wrote: "Fans of "The Wheel of Time" cite its magic system, which is based not on personal conflict, but rather on a postulated synergy in the way males and females think..."I had no idea that was the reasoning behind the magic system. I'm actually glad as that would have ruined the story for me. I enjoyed reading it with having no clue why it was different for both.
Although when my daughter was born the 'men are always stronger than women, and always need a man to do anything big' part annoyed me, and made it so I'll never suggest the series to her. Still enjoyed the series even if a couple of the books were filler and obvious money grabs.
What people seem to be asking for is what I've tried to write all my life, hard SF with intense personal conflict. What I've tried to do is show characters up against not only each other, but hard, unchangeable physical reality. But it's a physical reality they can take advantage of. (Spoiler alert) My space pilots gripe about the problems with artificial gravity- but it's a pseudograv field that finally saves Jane's life. The speed of light is fixed- and gives her the extra five minutes she needs to save the Earth. (End Spoiler)But to me that is the backdrop. The conflicting agendas are the real story. I have characters who are on a mission, and those who don't want to be involved, I have liar, lovers and clowns. I have those who would die for a cause and those who won't.
But I don't have an agent or a publisher who will touch that sort of ting. As one said, "It's beautifully written, but nobody does spaceships any more."
Whaddyamean nobody?
It's on kindle. It's selling slowly.
As one said, "It's beautifully written, but nobody does spaceships any more." And yet this is a best-seller, proving them wrong:
I hope "Red Rising" and others will open the flood-gates for fresh voices in space fantasy.
I'm also a space fantasy author, although my books focus less on space travel and more on peer pressure in a hive mind. I think there's a lot of room in the futuristic fiction arena. We don't need to keep writing the same old same old.
@Abby: I've almost pulled the trigger on Red Rising twice now. Top reason I haven't? Visited the goodreads book page and started reading reviews. In this case it didn't sound like something I'd particularly enjoy. I'm probably wrong and often am.@R. I've been wanting to read some of your science fiction works and was glad to hear you announce that you wanted to write more in the google interview. I don't think that space opera or science fiction has to be necessarily "hard" in the science, if the quality of writing and imagination is exceptional, ex. A Princess of Mars,The Sirens of Titan, both great imaginative fantasy science fiction that were fun reads and good literary examples of how fantasy can be used effectively in the science fiction genre, that I've read so far. I was mostly speaking to my own tastes of late in literature, which are mostly angled towards near future science fiction or works focused on theological/astrological figurative tie ins, in science fiction.
If you're going for what's more popular, I can't believe I'm going to write this after reading that Data-ism: The Revolution Transforming Decision Making, Consumer Behavior, and Almost Everything Else book, but just look at the statistics of science fiction trends pertaining to where the bulk of purchasing readers are if that's important to you. Abby makes a good point with the Red Rising sales. Other YA science fiction like Hunger Games and Divergent have hit pay dirt with the popular dystopian trend of late.
My thoughts are if someone is going to write hard physical science fiction, then it should be well researched based upon the best current science known. If someone wants to write something softer that sways toward fantasy more, then they might just want to focus on how creative and imaginative your world building and characters are. In both cases the quality of writing applies. First case requires a certain level of research, however the better researched doesn't mean the better the writing, ex. Red Mars, which was researched intensively, but wasn't necessary fun to read with all the overly technical descriptive details on the topography of mars, which became trying. The second is pure artistry. As always in the more fantastic approach the art is what's important. Is there such a thing as a perfect combination of the two? I wish I knew. Just finished reading 14, and the fantasy / sci/fi element was jarring and not necessary in a good way. Glad I'm not a writer today, it's got to be tough appeasing the Blogosphere. But of course why even try, the artist I admire most do what they think is great. I have a feeling that is what you do as well and I appreciate it.
I personally feel that only soft sci/fi or space opera have any chance of wide public appeal, because hard sci-fi is boring, too much like real life space exploration: No aliens, no adventure, just empty desert planets and looooooooong waits.Question: Would it even be able to get one of the prestigious awards, and wouldn't the self-proclaimed sci-fi experts not get in line to drag it down and complain about it not being "real" sci-fi like in the ABC days with phiolosophical dryness and scientific correctness?
Niels wrote: "I personally feel that only soft sci/fi or space opera have any chance of wide public appeal, because hard sci-fi is boring, too much like real life space exploration: No aliens, no adventure, just..."I'd take issue with this. "Mission of Gravity" (Hal Clement) is to my mind fully hard. The chemistry and physics is spot on. But Barlennan is one of the most likeable aliens you'll ever meet, and the adventure is edge of the seat stuff.
R. wrote: "The chemistry and physics is spot on."There are some of us that prefer our sci-fi infodumps to NOT get in the way of the story ;)
And I expect that this is true for the upcoming generations that liked to dream away with Harry Potter, and especially for the ipad-genertion that is becoming increasingly tech-ignorant, because everything is too user-friendly
But I'll put that book on my reading-list
Btw. I doubt that dystopia is going to weaken anytime soon, ice-age and hunger-catastrophes approaching: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/...
The whole trick of hard SF is to get the science right, but keep most of it out of the story. I know for example that my spaceships have a slot aerial on the port side, just aft of the airlock. It never appears in a story.
When you consider that the whole point of reading stories is to enjoy them, it's essential that there is a good story to read.Some 'hard' sci-fi has a good story, and some does just seem like an endless info dump. I think space adventure/space opera has a great chance of becoming the next big thing. When you consider how successful Dr Who, SG-1 and Firefly have been on the small screen, there's no reason to think that space adventure in book form can't do the same thing.
I do think that writers need to give the story as much importance as the science, though. You can swing too far in either direction.
My point against hard sci-fi is that if you eliminate the science, it turns into regular mundane fiction, and if you insist on correctness, it get too complicated.What soft sci-fi often does well is maintaining the coolness-factor (spaceships and lasers!) while hand-waving the technical nit-picking away.
But I sense that we're understanding hard sci-fi slightly different. There's a big difference between basing your novel on scientifically possible technology or internally consistent pseudo-science.
One, you have to have a scientific education in order to enjoy and thus will never be more than a cultish sub-genre, the other *may* be enjoyable to some readers *if* the author doesn't spend too much time on his pseudo-science compared to, say, realistic people doing interesting stuff.
It's been a while since I read any of them, but the Foundation series strikes me as a good example of a semi-realistic snoozefest, while the latter parts of the Ender Quitet is a horrible example of endless lecturing about useless pseudo-science.
From the top of my head: Campbell's Lost Fleet books are good examples of how a simple, internally consistent pseudo-science system can create some really interesting space battles that continue to stay fresh because of experimentation and small adjustments in the "game dynamics"
Vinge's Zones of thought series is another interesting example of sci-fi that stay within uncomplicated science, although the whole zone-system is sadly wasted in the first "kids go to Narnia"-fantasy book, the second book is pretty straight-forward sci-fi, and the third one really hit the balance between sci-fi and slow-zone fantasy.
I think the excitement engendered by recent events in space, as well as the media's reporting potential advances in propulsion and our understanding of areas of theoretical physics, has had an impact. Looking at the popularity of The Martian both as a novel and in terms of the anticipation building for the film, I see more indications that our fascination with space is growing again. However, I think the genuine truth is that all stories, whether they are hard sci-fi, space adventure, space opera (or a blend of all of them) need compelling characters. As Abby said, "Fantasy stories are built from a premise of personal conflict" and I think in many ways, that's where some major sci-fi recent work has failed to live up to expectations. Star Wars was so successful in large part because the characters were so utterly riveting – huge personal conflict, and interpersonal conflict, stretching all the way through to societal conflict and interplanetary conflict. That's where great stories come from, rather than a high concept central premise.
I stumbled upon a hashtag the other day that I'd never heard of before (shame on me): sci-fantasy. In terms of pure adventure, there is a great deal of scope in that sub-genre (if it can be said to be a sub-genre, rather than a fresh slant on existing genres) and I often wonder how much of a cross-over there is between soft sci-fi space opera and sci-fantasy. They are not the same, but there are certainly common elements. Could God's War be classified as space opera? Probably not, maybe it's not even space adventure (none of it takes place in space), but there are certainly space adventure elements to it. And utterly compelling characters. It's certainly not hard sci-fi! If science overtakes character in terms of story importance, I think the overall result will be far less compelling. But if you are going to write hard sci-fi, readers will want accuracy according to current scientific theory – that's the way the genre works and what readers expect. However, it still needn't overcome the story itself.
Lucas wrote: "However, I think the genuine truth is that all stories, whether they are hard sci-fi, space adventure, space opera (or a blend of all of them) need compelling characters. As Abby said, "Fantasy stories are built from a premise of personal conflict" "Exactly. What I've tried to do is build a world that offers exciting possibilities, then set up characters whose agendas are so opposed that conflict is inevitable. To quote: Arthur, I'm going to kill you. This is now personal.
I have a problem with grouping Sci-Fi and Fantasy. I don't think it's wrong, I just think each of them attract a different reader. In my case I love Sci-Fi, but I tend not to read a lot of fantasy. I think Sci-fi is forced to connect back to humanity through the science whereas fantasy has the luxury of imagination.I wrote a blog about this debate a while back.
http://www.rayjayperreault.com/is-it-...
I understand you arguement, but I have been told that Sci-Fi and fantasy often overlap (although I can't think of any specific examples right now).I know that the SFWA covers writers both genres. That is why you see titles in both genres listed as nominees for the Nebula awards each year.
Mod
Similarly, the Darkover series by Marion Zimmer Bradley.
I agree that Hard Sci-Fi attracts a different type of reader than Paranormal Romance. And Technothrillers may attract a different type of reader than Epic Fantasy. But Soft Science Fiction and Fantasy probably do overlap in readership quite a lot. I suspect that people who loved "Mistborn" might also love "Dune" and "Star Wars."I think the line could be redrawn around the different types of fans. Instead of Sci-Fi vs. Fantasy, which is loosely defined and overlaps in a lot of places, maybe it could be Fast-Paced SFF vs. Character-based SFF, or Our Universe SFF vs. Secondary World SFF.
Ray wrote: "I have a problem with grouping Sci-Fi and Fantasy. I don't think it's wrong, I just think each of them attract a different reader. In my case I love Sci-Fi, but I tend not to read a lot of fantasy...."I agree. I think they should be separate. I think they put them together originally because they both were read by the unpopular kids.
Abby wrote: "I agree that Hard Sci-Fi attracts a different type of reader than Paranormal Romance. And Technothrillers may attract a different type of reader than Epic Fantasy. But Soft Science Fiction and Fa..."I agree. I personally don't like technothrillers or cerebral/hard sci-fi. But I don't think fantasy readers are necessarily sci-fi readers or vice versa. I like both but I'm really picky about my fantasy. It seemed to go too far back in the 80s where anybody would write a book featuring fairies and elves and orc or trolls.
I write 'science fiction decorated epic fantasy.' I like my science. I like my magic. It's my world. I'm going to write what I want. The fact some people PAY me to write stories is a nice little bonus, but I started writing because I grew bored with what was out there for me to read. That was just before the indie revolution, though. Now there's all KINDS of exciting new stories.
Anna wrote: "I write 'science fiction decorated epic fantasy.' I like my science. I like my magic. It's my world. [...] I started writing because I grew bored with what was out there for me to read. That was just before the indie revolution, though. Now there's all KINDS of exciting new stories."Like!
Anna wrote: "I write 'science fiction decorated epic fantasy.' I like my science. I like my magic. It's my world. I'm going to write what I want. The fact some people PAY me to write stories is a nice littl..."Yes! It's my world, so I can do whatever I like inside it :) Love this Anna!
Abby wrote: "This is from a guest post I wrote. General audiences praise "Star Wars" as a great space epic, with magic powers and high stakes. But that story is more than forty years old. While space stories ..."
I am going to have to disagree with you.
People aren't starving for any sort of genre. If they were starving for Space Adventure, then people would buy the current Space Adventure books like they buy YA.
I think the current success of YA has possibly left you scratching your head in puzzlement. Books are like movies and music. Each type of entertainment media is cyclical, so what is popular right now will lose popularity eventually to be replaced by something that used to be popular.
People aren't starved for any one particular genre/type in books, movies or music. They merely follow the mass of people in front of them, and when the big publishers see a waning interest in the current popular genre, they change gears to another genre and that becomes popular.
If you're searching for a reason to write a Space Adventure with magic (Fortune's Pawn did a good job with that), don't make the reason that you think this particular genre will get popular because Disney is going to market the shit out of Star Wars. Make the reason because you want to write the book.
If you want to write the book, and the writing is engaging, and the characters are memorable, you'll sell copies. It really doesn't matter what genre you write in. If you write well enough, you'll sell lots of books regardless of your story's premise.
Abby wrote: "As one said, "It's beautifully written, but nobody does spaceships any more." And yet this is a best-seller, proving them wrong:
I hope "Red Rising" and others ..."
Terrible book
I don't think that the YA trend is a trend in that it will change in 5 years to something else. I think it’s simply the logical consequence of the development we see in many other markets. Companies recognized children as financially strong consumers. If children had no money there would be no YA market AT ALL.
I think YA novels got popular because of simple demographics. The generation reading them (the young adults at least) are what we typically call millennials these days, but before they acquired that sobriquet demographers referred to them as the "baby boom echo" generation. They are the children of the baby boom. Greatly attenuated thanks to the introduction of safe and effective modern family planning techniques there is still a perceptible 'blip' in English speaking demographics.
I think books like Harry Potter, Twilight, The Hunger Games and various derivatives just focused the public spotlight more on books written for the YA market, adults began to favour them too, more authors were attracted to the success of those books (Veronica Roth, after the success of The Hunger Games, for example). I think the "genre" was always there (albeit I wonder if it actually was a genre in itself, and more reasonably called a sub-genre of the various genres it can fulfil). It just got noticed more, and therefore attracted a greater volume of readers, then authors.Secondly, with the popularity of electronic tablet devices and ereaders, I think more and more younger readers began to read electronically too, perhaps seeing it as more convenient than carrying about lots of books. Perhaps they were less entrenched in the "paperback book" culture than older readers were.
There was an article in the Guardian a while back that I think encapsulates a lot of what is being discussed here. The author, Damian Walter, argued that science fiction novels are struggling because of increased competition from other mediums.I have to agree. As a Gen X'er I've consumed tons of sci-fi movies, TV shows, video games and even some comic books. When I started reading novels I enjoyed many of the classics but didn't really enjoy many of the recent ones because they didn't seem all that special. They seemed like the boring, prose version of my favorite movies. Why bother when I can just watch the movie?
Here is a quote from the article:
"But science fiction novels can hold their own against computer-generated spectacle. Not by being more spectacular, but by being better written. It’s at the most basic level of words and sentences that the sci-fi novel must do battle for its continued existence. Many of the greats of science fiction, like Issac Asimov and Arthur C Clarke, faced so little competition for the imagination of their audience that they could get away with the clunky writing style that SF became famous for."
I agree for the most part. I think recent space opera novels try to follow in the footsteps of the classics but the market has changed. The world has changed. Technology is now a powerful influence in our lives and is constantly changing in comparison to say the 1950s or 60s. Fancy new tech or aliens won't hold our attention any more. The story and characters matter more now.
The perfect example of this is Margaret Atwood and her recent MaddAddam novels. They have a depth that you can't get from a movie or TV show. I would say the novel Dune has also proved superior in prose over the other mediums.
Article is here:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/book...
The YA genre will never go away, I'm sure as reading comprehension increases in younger ages, due to changes in how children are taught, YA genre books will be consumed in greater numbers.However, there is a cyclical nature with every medium.
When I was in middle school and high school I was obsessed with music charts (I'm still obsessed with music). I only listened to hard rock and would look at the Billboard charts in the newspaper every Sunday or Monday, I forget the day. At first I didn't catch on to what I saw, I just saw different songs move up the chart.
Over years I noticed a trend to the chart. Rap music would dominate the charts for months, and then up came country, and then months later up came pop, with rock music getting a say every now and then. It took me years to figure out that I was watching the cycle of trends play out.
Books do move much more slowly than music, even movies. Movies seem to be dominated by a certain genre for a good decade, with books hanging on for slightly more time.
YA's time in the spotlight will move on and eventually come back. What will be the next genre that moves into the spotlight every book critic, reviewer, and casual reader rave about? I'm not entirely sure, but techno-thriller stands a good chance as we move closer to phones mimicking what the populace thinks of as real AI. It'll come down to a book that can capture the attention and imagination of the 'one book a year' readers, though, not necessarily a book that is a literary marvel.
I really do not think space adventure or something else not close to reality will take off. Not to say you can't earn a killing at writing it. If you write good enough, and get lucky, you can be the next Neal Stephenson, John Scalzi, William Gibson.
Just don't count on a far flung genre becoming mainstream because of some satellites and rockets sent up into the sky and movies marketed by mega-corporations.
I think YA's popular because it's primarily about story, and that's something that will never change. If you think back, books that we'd now class as YA have always been popular. This was the subject of a NSW Writers Centre speculative fiction festival I was at recently. Some of the points made were about the story strength inherent in YA literature, the fact that teens are not easily fooled in terms of story, and that the themes are eternal, and are often about big picture stakes.
I'd disagree that space adventure can't take off - anything can take off given the best kind of writing.
Of course another reason YA is popular is that the simpler word choice, sentence structure and plot lines means that people who's literacy is more marginal can actually read the book.
Of course another reason YA is popular is that the simpler word choice, sentence structure and plot lines means that people who's literacy is more marginal can actually read the book.
Star Wars had personal conflict. Star Trek played on familiar characters. The reason hard SF gets a bad rap is because the story, when done badly, seems to be an excuse to pontificate on whatever new theory or discovery tickles the writers fancy. It's like a Science Channel program wrapped in a story. The average person who reads wants to identify with someone in that story. It's lovely you found a new way to go faster than light. Why should I care if the people doing it are uninteresting?
I agree T.S.A lot of hard SF novels are documentaries hidden behind a paper-thin story. Characters and plot lack any dynamism. I think some authors could get away with this in the Golden Age but not any more.
That is the question every author must aspire to answer for the reader: "why should I care" about the technology or future scenario in your novel?
It's possible to do hard SF badly, letting the tech take over from the characters, in the same way that it's possible to do fantasy badly by being heavily inconsistent and using magic as an excuse for failures of logic.The point is that it's also possible to do both very well. To my mind good fantasy and good SF have a lot in common, they both take the reader well outside normal life so that they can turn back and see it for what it is.
Personally I prefer SF. The rigid discipline of staying within the laws of physics, even if we allow for new consistent discoveries is red meat and strong beer, the hardness of the stone which delights the sculptor.
There are two other reasons. Firstly it's very easy to raise the stakes. Do you want to get your character lost in a forest which could be searched in a month, or on another planet somewhere in the galaxy, where finding the planet, let alone the character, could take millennia? Or as Jane said, "There is no prospect of my being rescued unless I do it myself."
Secondly the basics of the sciences are pretty well known. The effects of cyanide, high-voltage electricity or radioactivity are part of the reader's mindset before we start. That means we can set problems and create hazards that the reader has some chance of solving.
There's nothing new or particularly SF about this. Virgil's Hercules uses a polished shield to kill the Medusa without risking looking at her. Shakespeare's Shylock finds something in the small print that allows him to kill Antonio. Portia traps him into insisting that law trumps justice, then finds something in the same small print that means Shylock must die.
R. wrote: "It's possible to do hard SF badly, letting the tech take over from the characters, in the same way that it's possible to do fantasy badly by being heavily inconsistent and using magic as an excuse..."Very well said R.!
I mostly stay away from fantasy because of the deus ex machine vibes I get when the author couldn’t make his logic work, but hey, MAGIC! and it’s all fine. To me it is the beauty of a story if all fits together logically in the end, no matter how complex it was, see Hyperion 1-2.
That’s a very good example, being lost. Vernor Vinge's Zones of Thought captures that feeling really well. You're enslaved in space in the middle of nowhere, what do you do? What you don't do is talk to an insect that talks to an eagle that rescues you (I'm looking at you Gandalf!). Always seemed too simple and random to me.
I'm going to check out your books now. ;)
R., I agree. Some of the strengths of Sci-Fi over Fantasy are:
- Higher stakes possible
- The rules of science/tech allow the reader a chance to solve problems before or along with the characters, disabling any deus ex machina solutions.
On the other hand, some of the strengths of having magic in a novel:
- Invented magic system is possible, placing limits or rules on characters that create interesting power dynamics and interpersonal relationships.
- Power imbalances between characters are more believable. If the power comes from technology, then anyone can theoretically have it.
I like the above possibilities of magic and of Sci-Fi technology, so I threw all of it into my epic series (which is not released yet).
I suspect that Dune and Star Wars were so successful, in part, because they played to those strengths.
Tom Clancy had the same problem with his political thrillers. It worked in The Hunt for Red October because he was telling a really suspenseful tale (that a lot of SO writers would do well to mimic) and his heavy handed tech had a sort of "Gee, whiz, this is cool!" vibe. His later work had me screaming (embarrassing when you scream at a book) "GET TO THE POINT ALREADY!" Not space opera or hard SF, but the basics are there.
Space Opera Fans
Books mentioned in this topic
Trial by Fire (other topics)The Windup Girl (other topics)
The City & the City (other topics)
The Martian (other topics)
Where the Ships Die (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
William C. Dietz (other topics)Susan Kaye Quinn (other topics)
Marion Zimmer Bradley (other topics)
General audiences praise "Star Wars" as a great space epic, with magic powers and high stakes. But that story is more than forty years old. While space stories populate video-game franchises, manga, anime, and TV/film, they're less popular in literature. Few people can name a living author who dominates the Space Adventure sub-genre (Space Opera and Space Fantasy). The "Vorkosigan saga" is beloved, but not on the same global scale as "Harry Potter."
Fantasy has historically outsold Sci-Fi, and I believe it's due to a dichotomous approach to story premise. Fantasy stories are built from a premise of personal conflict. For example: What if you need to conquer your inner darkness in order to save everyone you love? Another example: What if you're expected to go insane and become a tyrant in order to save the world?
By contrast, Sci-Fi builds stories around postulations. For example: What if dangerous dinosaurs could be bioengineered? Another example: What if global poverty ended because of nanotech replicators?
Some Sci-Fi is full of personal conflict, and some Fantasy is full of big ideas, but they consistently differ at the premise level. Audiences seem enchanted when a story combines a personal premise--common in Fantasy--with the machinery of Sci-Fi. "Star Wars," "Dune," and "Wool" are built that way.
Likewise, some of the most beloved Fantasy epics use a generous helping of big ideas in their premise. Fans of "The Wheel of Time" cite its magic system, which is based not on personal conflict, but rather on a postulated synergy in the way males and females think. In that respect, a healthy chunk of its premise is Sci-Fi.
I think general readers are starving for more Fantasy premises with Sci-Fi trappings, and vice versa. Space Adventure is fertile ground for such stories. It's only a matter of time before a new "Star Wars" makes a big enough splash in the public zeitgeist to open the floodgates. Horror used to be a dying genre, until Stephen King showed up. Few readers noticed Techno-thrillers before Michael Crichton. Middle Grade and Young Adult Fantasy used to lag far behind other types of Fantasy, until J.K. Rowling began her author career.
A lot of aspiring writers are excitedly working on Space Adventure novels that combine magic and technology. None have gained an astronomical fan following . . . yet. To quote from Scott Sigler's GFL series: The only variable is time.