Space Opera Fans discussion
Reader Discussions
>
Is Space Adventure on the brink of a renaissance?
I dunno ... by today's standards ol' Mick is kinda tame :-)
The Rolling Stones are NOT soft rock?They most definitely are. What constitutes a genre changed with time, and Rolling Stones are definitely soft-rock now.
If you told anyone of my generation (the generation that embraced rock 'n' roll when it first appeared) that the Rolling Stones are not RnR you will get laughed. It is our music and we say they are. Don't forget they are still referred to as the "Greatest Rock and Roll Band"
Greatest Band by what measure? I enjoy Shinedown so much more than Rolling Stones. Greatest Band is like the old people calling themselves Greatest Generation. It means nothing and isn't true.
But if you wanna go there the greatest rock and roll band of all time is any Dave Grohl touches. Foo Fighters is ridiculously amazing and so was Nirvana. Those two proved Grohl is the greatest rock musician of all time, next to Jack White, therefore proving Foo Fighters is the greatest rock and roll band.
While it is possible, in some cases, to portray the use of drugs, violence, etc. in YA novels publishers are reluctant to buy, publish, market, and maintain them. And you for damn sure better make sure that no one enjoys them too much or comes to a good end who delights in forbidden vices.
In young adult, and increasingly in middle grade, nothing is off limits as long as it is written with a young audience in mind. Some kids have sex, drugs, violence, rape, racism, gender identity issues, suicide, death, and more in their lives already and need guidance and coping mechanisms that they can't always get from the adults around them. Other kids are naturally curious and use these books as a safe and private way to broaden their world without having to actually live through dangerous and stressful life experiences. Not all books are meant for all readers, but kids who need these books REALLY need them to be written, published, and available.
That said, we also need fun books filled with wonders of science and imagination. Those are the books I try to write.
And then of course the parents complain because of the availability of these books in varying degrees. Some don't want them used in the classroom but are okay with them being in the library while others object to them being in the school at all.
"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."But why would we really want to "take" them? Both were terrible movies on any level other than that of visual candy: poorly plotted, implausible, and, let's face it, dumb.
On the other hand, Interstellar, or, even tighter, The Europa Report, were excellent--but the latter went almost unnoticed and the former made much less of a splash than expected. People just aren't into the "science" part of "science fiction"--whether from basic scientific illiteracy or simple stupidity is hard to tell. :)
"Call me cynical, but I believe Dune would have been packaged and marketed as YA, had it been published in today's market. (And the head hopping distant POV would have been changed to close 3rd person.)"Also, various ecological and philosophical speculation would have had to be,er, diluted, if not "dumbed down". And it would not have been Dune any more.
But that 'it's them, not us, they must all be stupid' attitude among science fiction writers and genre fans is exactly why, when you try to market anything as science fiction today, people run like hell in the other direction.When a large-scale genre, and an idea, such as science fiction and science, fail to inspire a population, guess what? It's not THEM. It's -us-. Let's own it, guys. It's US who are turning people away. If Bill Nye can make science sexy again, then so can we.
Science has been popularized, to some degree. Otherwise there wouldn't be the "I fucking love science" meme on Facebook, or a sort of cult following for Neil DeGrasse Tyson, or Matt Damon starring in "The Martian," or so many people paying attention to what Elon Musk and Richard Branson are up to. Science (and especially technology) is probably more popular now than at any point in prior history.
The general *understanding* of science and technology is probably the same as it ever was. But I really think its popularity has improved since the early 20th century. People who work in those fields now get a lot of respect. They're no longer stereotyped as wimpy nerds with greasy hair.
"But that 'it's them, not us, they must all be stupid' attitude among science fiction writers and genre fans is exactly why, when you try to market anything as science fiction today, people run like hell in the other direction."You do have a point--but plenty of "hard science fiction" authors are regularly on the bestseller lists--think Clarke, Reynolds, even Baxter (whose literary skills and characterization are close to nil). Or Banks--but he was not entirely "hard", of course.
However, my main point is that without a good grounding in science, few people are going to be interested in hard-sf-like speculations (although an earlier poster pointed out that as the new generation grows up, this may change).
"The general *understanding* of science and technology is probably the same as it ever was."Well, that would be difficult to measure, since science has made enormous advances over even the last two decades or so. Meanwhile, though, in USA (which is THE major market), something like half of the population reject evolutionary biology and some significant number think that AGW is a hoax--so the understanding of science, in this country at least, is rather pathetic. But why take my word for it--look at the recent poll results from Pew: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/09/10... And these are ELEMENTARY questions.
Jorg wrote: "However, my main point is that without a good grounding in science, few people are going to be interested in hard-sf-like speculations (although an earlier poster pointed out that as the new generation grows up, this may change)."Why? Why do you think anybody besides the existing hard sci-fi readers is interested in "hard-sf-like speculations"?
We live in a world where all companies fight for the consumers' shorter and shorter attention span trying to be Apple and hide the technical stuff behind user-friendly interfaces. A world where toddlers learn to expect instant gratification when pressing an intuitively designed button on an ipad without understandig how stuff works.
It may be a hard one to swallow for sci-fi fans that want a fresh fix of hard technobabble, but the way I see it is that you have to either change sci-fi or lose it.
One possibility is joining the "sci-fi is just a different kind of fantasy world-building"-camp. Or the "YA sci-fi/fantasy is just another way to make schoolyard challenges seem more exotic"-camp.
Or maybe invent a completely new camp? Can we get some more brainstorming going, instead of remeniscing over how wonderful the world was back when the tech-dinosaurs ruled the world and you had to type commands into MS-DOS?
I disagree. There are lots of SF novels that would make great films, with all the action, characterisation and YA appeal you need if handled correctly. David Weber's "Prince Roger" series for instance, or the "Sten" series.Imagine a film treatment of "The Stainless Steel Rat" or one based on the "Polesotechnic League". Or one based on the Bolo novel "Bolo Rising".
"Why do you think anybody besides the existing hard sci-fi readers is interested in "hard-sf-like speculations"Because that's how I and many people I know came to like hard science fiction--by learning science. When I was young, I preferred fantasy; that has changed with education.
Hard science-fiction is speculative--calling it "techno-babble" is entirely missing the point. Techno-babble is NOT hard (Star Trek was, perhaps, slightly "harder" than some other fantasies at the time, but was still essentially a fantasy, and the word "techno-babble" is particularly appropriate in its case). Clement, Clarke, Reynolds--all incorporate well thought-out science in their work, and, to be honest, it is impossible to appreciate them thoroughly without some knowledge fo such science.
Even cyberpunk was, essentially, an offshoot of science fiction, and all the better space opera of today is also pretty "hard" in that sense.
And no nostalgia on my part: the literature keeps evolving, as the new, hard-edged space-operas from Stross to McAuley show. There is nothing wrong with fantasy, but there IS something wrong with "techno-babble" after all.
One last note: "A world where toddlers learn to expect instant gratification when pressing an intuitively designed button on an ipad without understandig how stuff works."
Indeed, that may be the case (although I disagree: there is a resurgent interest in science specifically because KIDS are becoing more interested in learning how all this stuff works, not to mention the need to know it if one wants to have a semi-interesting job).
Regardless, I have no interest in pandering to the Eloi; and would rather spend my time (and have) in teaching them the fun things: as above posters have noted, science IS exciting.
I will ignore the more idiotic comments of the post; I have made plenty in my time.
"Imagine a film treatment of "The Stainless Steel Rat" or one based on the "Polesotechnic League". Or one based on the Bolo novel "Bolo Rising". "Those are great ideas (eeven though I am not a big Laumer fan). Another excellent source woud be CJ Cherryh--Downbelow Station alone would make for awesome mini-series.
"One possibility is joining the "sci-fi is just a different kind of fantasy world-building"-camp"Meh, I am not big on joining camps. The last one I felt relatively interested in was cyberpunk when it was first taking shape in the early 1980's.
We're living in a world where this very week The Martian is #1 on the NYT bestseller list, and has been on the list for 17 weeks. SF, even "hard" SF if you care about that, appears to be doing just fine. Has hard SF ever had a #1 bestseller prior to this week?
"What constitutes a genre changed with time, and Rolling Stones are definitely soft-rock now. "LOL, no, not really: ssoft-rock has some very specific connotations, and Rolling tones are not it. They are certainly not "hard" roock--vut neither are they America or The Eagles. :)
Jorg wrote: "Hard sciecne-fciction is speculative--calling it "techno-babble" is entirely missing the point. Techno-babble is NOT hard (Star Trek was, perhaps, slightly "harder" than some other fantasies at the time, but was still essentially a fantasy, and the word "techno-babble" is particularly appropriate in its case)."I'm using "technobabble" in the sense of "not necessary for the story", "unnecessarily complicated", and/or "perhaps internally consistent but too remote from actual science to be of any relevance" (or simply requiring too much suspension of disbelief).
The later books in the Ender quintet went overboard with technobabble - it may have been internally consistent, but it was just boring to read 1-2 extra books mainly consisting of Scott Card elaborating on some fictional plotdevices (such as the ansible) and trying to teach the readers how his fictitious universe worked.
I consider the old hard sci-fi fanbase a camp - it's ok to have different preferences, as long as long as people don't try to tout theirs as "the one and only true sci-fi".
The thing is it's not the boring part of science that people like it's progress. They like the idea of moving forward of accomplishing something, this is why movies like the Martian as hard sci-fi gets a lot of hype because it's about solving problems and moving forward and accomplishing something that is tangible and understandable to the common person. Too many hard sci-fi movies are improving knowledge for the sake of knowledge which isn't a tangible benefit and a more nebulous concept, compared to this guy is finding ways to survive alone on mars by himself isn't that cool.
Niels wrote: "Can we get some more brainstorming going, instead of remeniscing over how wonderful the world was back when the tech-dinosaurs ruled the world and you had to type commands into MS-DOS? "I hate to tell you this but most of the networking equipment that keeps the internet going uses a command line to configure. Even Microsoft's server products are increasingly requiring more command line interaction due to complexity that's not practical in a GUI.
Jorg wrote: ""The general *understanding* of science and technology is probably the same as it ever was."Well, that would be difficult to measure, since science has made enormous advances over even the last t..."
The most efficient way to run a government is to keep the masses unknowing. That is easiest done through lack of education.
T.S. wrote: "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..."Totally. I still can't make it through Rendezvous with Rama.
Hard SF should really be exactly like any other kind of storytelling: characters and plot forward. The point of the "Hard" in Hard SF is to lend verisimilitude to the world building, not to substitute technology for plot or character.
It's also important to point out that one man's Hard SF is another man's soft-as-Playdough SF. Some fans demand almost nothing more than currently possible technology. Others accept tech that's been theoretically speculated upon but never built or proven (all the way from mind-machine interfaces to space elevators to certain kinds of FTL drives).
I've seen a lot of lines drawn in the sand from people who claim to know the true meaning of Hard SF. But it's not a homogenous genre, nor one with a universally agreed upon definition (does such a thing even exist where genre is concerned?).
Abby wrote: "I might be a weirdo in that I didn't particularly like the smart-ass narrator in The Martian..."You're not alone. I didn't read the book but it only took me a few pages in the preview on amazon to realize I wasn't going to be able to read it. No interest in it whatsoever.
Abby wrote: "I haven't read The Player of Games, but I wouldn't consider Hyperion to be an accessible read. It's very literary. I enjoyed it, but I can't see masses of teenagers and the general public going f..."Agreed. Hyperion is a very literary, amazing, dense and complex work. It contains a lot of stories in it that on their own might make fairly accessible reads as short stories, but taken as a whole it is a very mature work. You'd have to be an ultra-geek to really get it before college reading levels. It's an astounding work, though, and is right now my gold standard for great SF. It transcends the genre, I think...But on any given day I'd rather be re-reading Philip K. Dick books. It's kind of like with movies: the best movie in the world IMO is Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, but I don't want to watch it every day, week, or month. Once a year's fine.
Oh...and The Player of Games is one that I'm not sure would really be a gateway either. It's a fairly atypical Banks novel and contains a lot of complexity. It didn't seem like even a very good introduction to the Culture series, even though it's a very good book.
The Sirens of Titan was really my gateway into SF. That and the short stories of Vonnegut. But, I'm pretty sure I'm not very typical in my tastes.
Jorg wrote: "Also, various ecological and philosophical speculation would have had to be,er, diluted, if not "dumbed down". And it would not have been Dune any more..."Not to mention that we had a white guy writing a novel where the heroes (Fremen) are heavily based on Bedouin society. The (American) left would be screaming "cultural appropriation!" while the right would be screaming "terrorist lover!"
];>
"Hard SF should really be exactly like any other kind of storytelling: characters and plot forward. The point of the "Hard" in Hard SF is to lend verisimilitude to the world building, not to substitute technology for plot or character."I agree with that completely--but that verisimilitude is of the utmost importance. There is nothing quite as destructive for suspension of disbelief as running into some butchered orbital mechanics in a space adventure (those pesky explosions in space come to mind.... :) ).
Jorg wrote: (those pesky explosions in space come to mind.... :)"Complete with BOOM! and propagating pressure wave.
And there's the simple fact that some readers actually are interested in the scientific details. I love the exploration of ideas. So when I'm reading a book with FTL, I would really appreciate some discussion of how it's achieved because the speculation itself is fascinating to me.
There is such a thing as scientific curiosity, even in the non-scientist crowd.
Obviously not all SF needs to go into that. But if it's a story intended to be believable and not just Buck Rogers--PEW! PEW! PEW!--then I'm curious.
I'm not a purist by any means. Handwavium is fine by me in most cases. I read pretty much everything in SF from soft SF adventures to hard SF. But the level of technical accuracy and discussion needs to be balanced to fit the kind of story. And it has to be worked so that it doesn't become the primary story.
"I hate to tell you this but most of the networking equipment that keeps the internet going uses a command line to configure"Indeed. I run Linux everywhere and laugh at most of locked-in Apple substandards. :)
"I consider the old hard sci-fi fanbase a camp - it's ok to have different preferences, as long as long as people don't try to tout theirs as "the one and only true sci-fi". "There is no such thing as "one and only true sci-fi" (not to mention that the term "sci-fi" is generally considered slightly derogatory).
But "fantastika" (which is a better term than most) is at its best when it is intelligent and complex; therefore I am puzzled at the promotion of YA literature qua its YA qualities. There are plenty of wonderful YA books, but most of those have many levels of meaning and interpretation that make them of interest to "adults" as well (Earthsea trilogy, anyone?). But I have absolutely no interest in Stephenie Meyer or even Hunger Games--they simply bore me by their flat narrative, preachy morality and unoriginal ontology.
BTW: why do you insist on calling it "old"? As I have already said, much of the better modern space opera has a strong hard-sciencey edge: Stross, McAuley, Reynolds, Benford, Reed...there are plenty of others. Check out Hartwell's "Hard SF Renaissance"--it's full of wonderful examples.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Hard-Renais...
Personally I do not find the term sci-fi derogatory. It was the standard term from about the 30s on (before that SF was called Scienti-fiction (Gernsback's preferred term) shortended to 'stf'. It wasn't until about the sixties when a certain group of fans decided that SF was better because it could mean Speculative Fiction and thus their 'New Wave' stuff wouldn't be mixed up with all that juvenile stuff from an earlier age. of course book stores didn't care about distinctions like that and grouped it all together in the science fiction section.
"Personally I do not find the term sci-fi derogatory."I guess our reactions to the term date us... :) I grew up with science fiction and fantasy from the early 1970's on, when the term "sci-fi" was only used by literary snobs who read Bellow and Roth and thought that science fiction was forever stuck in the pulp genre ghetto--and all that at the time of Ellison, Delany, LeGuin and the rise of the new hard sf and space opera and the likes of Benford, Cherryh, and even more in the field of fantasy.
Can confirm that sci-fi is the perceived default term for sf, at least by me/people my age.
Micah wrote: "Abby wrote: "I might be a weirdo in that I didn't particularly like the smart-ass narrator in The Martian..."You're not alone. I didn't read the book but it only took me a few pages in the previe..."
The Martian is in my Top 5 sci-fi favs of all time. Love that book.
Jorg wrote: ""I consider the old hard sci-fi fanbase a camp - it's ok to have different preferences, as long as long as people don't try to tout theirs as "the one and only true sci-fi". "There is no such thi..."
Sci-fi is derogatory? That's very interesting. Can you expand on that, because that is honestly the first time I have ever heard that.
I remember when I was in junior high and high school back in the 70's, if you told people you were reading a science fiction book they would roll their eyes and say "Why do you read that sci-fi junk?" Then you got teased about endlessly by people who read "real books."
"That's very interesting. Can you expand on that, because that is honestly the first time I have ever heard that. "See link above. But the history is apparently far more complex, and it is nowadays an accepted term. For me, however, the connotations of inferiority and pulpiness will always remain.
"Then you got teased about endlessly by people who read "real books.""And they I showed people like that Dhalgren and they passed out from their inability to grok it. :)
Anna wrote: "It's not THEM. [...] It's US who are turning people away. If Bill Nye can make science sexy again, then so can we."Hear, hear! I gotta agree.
The way I see it, only a percentage of readers will appreciate hard science in fiction--and to me, that is acceptable and okay. A person who has a decent understanding of physics won't necessarily have a decent understanding of group psychology, or artistic merit, or any number of other things. And a masterful professional artist won't necessarily understand physics. People can only specialize so far, and learn so much. We've only got one lifetime in which to learn (as far as we know).
As a writer, if it's important to you to appeal to readers who truly understand scientific principles, then you will reach for that specific audience.
If you consider it more important to reach a mass audience, then you might gloss over the scientific explanations, or seek ways to make them really entertaining. Andy Weir made them entertaining (um, not to me, but to many readers) by having a goofy, plucky narrator.
Personally, I want intelligent readers. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll be scientists, but it does exclude certain types of readers. I've made my peace with that.
"Personally, I want intelligent readers. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll be scientists, but it does exclude certain types of readers. I've made my peace with that."Hear, hear.
And, conversely, I want intelligent authors as well: at least as intelligent as myself, so I can have my brain challenged when reading, whether I agree with their politics/philosophy or not.
Jorg wrote: "I want intelligent authors as well: at least as intelligent as myself, so I can have my brain challenged when reading, whether I agree with their politics/philosophy or not."Same here. I might enjoy a book with a majorly flawed premise, or a main character who makes irrational mistakes, or a formulaic plot--but I never read that author again. The authors I keep coming back to are the ones who earn my respect.
IMO, it's easy to write a formula, or to come up with creative settings or ideas. That's not enough for me to respect the author. They need to deviate from the formula and *still* make it feel unpredictable yet inevitable. They need to come up with creative settings or ideas that are rock-solid even if you spend weeks trying to tear them apart. Like, they need to have spent more than a few days thinking about it.
Jorg wrote: "...and here is something to settle it for all...http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/..."
Mark me down as one old-timer (am I allowed to call myself an old-timer at 60) who quite happily uses the term sci-fi.
I also use the term SF. Doesn't matter to me since they are talking about the same thing, and those who disagree can go to a nice lounge and put on their airs of pretension.
I think the key to science in science fiction is to make it interesting, part of the story, and not simply a massive info dump. It also needs to be understandable, and not overly technical, except in a readable way. I'm a physiotherapist, for example, so my science background is primarily biological and anatomical, with a chunk of pathophysiology chucked in there for good measure. I like biological technobabble (for want of a better word) and enjoy the appropriate treatment of injury, or surgical descriptions. I'm sure other readers would hate those kinds of descriptions.
However, a long winded discussion of vectors and speeds of converging spaceships, done over and over throughout a book, makes me skip to 'the good parts' - the story and the characters.
Each to their own, I suppose, but if sci-fi is to continue as a well read genre, authors and readers need to remember that first and foremost the story has to sing. How we put our science into a story has to enhance that experience, not detract from it.
Leonie wrote: "I think the key to science in science fiction is to make it interesting, part of the story, and not simply a massive info dump. It also needs to be understandable, and not overly technical, excep..."
I agree. Just as we don't describe how the combustion engine works or hydraulic steering every time we write a present day scene in a car, the speculated science should be there but not dwelt upon to an absurd degree.
AndrewP wrote: "I hate to tell you this but most of the networking equipment that keeps the internet going uses a command line to configure. Even Microsoft's server products are increasingly requiring more command line interaction due to complexity that's not practical in a GUI."Er, yes. I'm sitting at my Linux box here doing things on the command line far faster than anything that can be done with a mouse.
V.W. wrote: " Just as we don't describe how the combustion engine works or hydraulic steering every time we write a present day scene in a car"Exactly. However my take on this is that one of the best things about classic SF is that the characters are up against the immovable laws of nature. My entry to SF was reading Tom Godwin's "The Cold Equations" about fifty years ago. (SPOILER) The point is that the laws of physics dictate that in a couple of hours Marylin will die, and no combination of moves by the other characters will save her. If Barton kills her with his blaster or by chucking her out of the airlock her brother will live, if he doesn't both he and her brother will die as well.
That really grabbed me. Out there, in space, it's really life and death because the distances and orbital mechanics dictate that help can't arrive in time.
Of course to get there you need spaceships, possibly FTL drives as well, which means you need some invented science. To my way of thinking that's all right provided the writer does two things. Firstly there is a need to be consistent, things must always work the same way and have the same level of reliability. Suddenly changing something to suit the plot breaks disbelief for me. Secondly detail must only go in if it matters to the characters.
This is something I've tried to achieve in my own writing. For example my FTL drives are normally extremely reliable, but can break if mishandled, and flat out go at about two million times c. But I don't infodump that. The only place the number appears is at one point where Jane is trying to save the lives of two people, and is trying to fine-tune the drive to get more speed. Then it really matters to the character and I hope will matter to the readers.
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)
The Rolling Stones and Billy Joel are Adult Soft-Rock."
Have you even heard the Rolling Stones? They are most definitely NOT soft rock.