Sunday, December 28, 2008

Science Fiction going away?

"Despite an avidly reading public, some types of fiction have become less popular and less profitable. As a result, many imprints that once published Science Fiction have disappeared from view."
- Great Authors Online

I've been suspecting this for a while. Even myself... I still consider myself a science fiction fan at heart, but apart from a couple of vaguely disappointing recent Ian M. Banks books, how many SF books have I really read in the past decade? Hardly any. And I'm not sure why.

Even outstanding authors who used to write SF, like William Gibson, Bruce Sterling, and Neal Stephenson, don't do it anymore, they write contemporary fiction, science fact, or historical fiction.

It's not the least puzzling part that fantasy is more popular than ever. (With a certain scarred teenage boy dominating half the market, but still.) I tend to prefer SF. While I do like some of the more off-beat fantasy, I never really took to the princesses-and-dragons stuff which seems to dominate the genre.

Why is this? Is is a change in the public consciousness? Why and how and what?

35 comments:

Bruce said...

I think there are several factors. In the "golden age" of science fiction" (30's-40's) science and technology was seen by many as the way to make a golden future for mankind: look at the 1939 New York World's fair and the role technology had in the "world of tomorrow." By contrast, today, technology and science are seen by many as the bane of mankind, bringing nuclear meltdowns, global warming, pollution etc. Thus, stories that "glorify" science are seen as glorifying a "bad" thing.

As part of this rejection of science, there has been the growth of the idea that various sorts of traditional things are better. People will reject scientifically proven medications as "bad" and take unproven "traditional" cures instead. Belief in magic is stronger than anytime I've ever seen it. Thus, the growth of fantasy fiction and the decline of science fiction.

Finally, there is the simple fact that what used to be science fiction, e.g. space travel, is now just engineering...

Alex said...

Is it because we have passed the "best before" date?

1984
1997 Escape from New York
Space 1999
2001 a Space Odyssey

Every time you crack open an SF novel of "great achievement" there seems to be a date, which is now in the past, or so close in the future that we can see it isn't going to be.

Personally I believe the decline of SF is because we OD'd on the stuff. A big binge in the 50's and 60's, a quiet spell in the 80's and then a hint in the 90's.

I can see in film how the decline has come about. First of all, no one new how to dress the future, then it became very stylized in a way which looks tres passe. The special effect for space flight got better, but some of the ideas seem silly in the face of real space flight, and there is only so wowsy one can make this stuff.

Now the FX have caught up so much that we can not only make people believe in the possibilities of science, but also in the possibilities of magic. Harry Potter films, The 300, Lord of the Rings, they have brought real life to magical beasts. In film it's time to do fantasy. I would say that viewers tend to read what they've seen, but I've watched Fantasy nudge into and now displace a lot of the SF shelves at the bookstore over the last 20 years.

We are through the atomic age, we are now educated, and we now need something new to be our magic. Why not magic.

I am sure there is also a lot of popularizing that has helped too, Tolkein is good, but wordy stuff. likewise with Homer. Now there is pulp fantasy, the essential elements have been found and a plethora of fantasy books have been written.

It also seems that Fantasy has a much wider appeal to women than SF, and there seems to be some of the "boddice ripper" romance element in fantasy fiction. So now we are addressing geeks, guys and women with one genre for the first time.

Are there other genres taking a hit? Now the cold war is over have spy novels taken a back seat?
Now there are 5 CSI derivatives and a plethora of The Bill and NYPD Blue wannabe's out there, the Beeb giving us a new detective every month, are detective novels going away in under a deluge of TV crime?

Sorry, waffling now. Back to John Steed and Venus Smith....

Anonymous said...

Eolake Stobblehouse:

I was born 5 March 1956. I first read Dune by Frank Herbert in 1968 when I was age 12. It was the first thick paperback novel I had read. I was impressed with the kind of detail the author put into that novel. I decided then that I would someday write and get published a science fiction novel with that kind of detail. It took 35 years to finally reach that goal.

Of course, over the years, I've been a fan of science fiction. I once had a vast collection of science fiction novels, and bought a new one to read every week. I agree with your assessment. Something happened to that genre. It shifted to sub-genres of a kind that did not interest me. I discovered the existence of sub-genres as result of becoming a member at NetFlix to rent movies. There I found under the genre of science fiction a number of sub-genres, like Fantasy Science Fiction and Horror Science Fiction, as a couple of examples. It helped me to realize what I like and don't like in science fiction.

Two of my favorite science fiction movies of all time were not big hits at the theaters and with the critics, the 1983 movie Brainstorm, and the 1985 movie Lifeforce. Those two movies, as well as the novel Dune made into a movie, inspired me to write my science fiction novel, which began as a short-story in 1988. Lifeforce was at first misclassified as Horror, instead of accurately being classified as Science Fiction. However, I can accept it being classified as Horror Science Fiction. Normally, I don't like Horror movies, but the British did a good job on Lifeforce. Most especially with French actress Mathilda May being cast as a lifeforce soul-sucking naked female vampire from outer space. They did it with the kind of quality that would be found in a George Lucas or Steven Spielberg movie.

When the SciFi Network http://www.scifi.com first appeared on cable TV, it was the kind of science fiction I like. Then, like the paperback market, it shifted to sub-genres I do not like, so for the most part they lost a viewer for a while. They won me back with shows like Stargate SG-1, but that show ran its course and has been canceled. I believe the SciFi Network has lost touch with reality, what its viewers want, or the viewers have changed in such a way and to such an extent that I am no longer in the majority. I also noticed the commercials changed to products that are clearly for a different audience than I am in. Like one of the Stargate SG-1 Actors said in an interview after the show was canceled, “It is about money. Money first. Entertainment last.” Or similar words. I don't recall the exact quote now. Another actor said, “It is about 90% business—making money, and about 10% entertainment.” The people controlling the market are deciding what is being put out there based on what will bring in the most advertising dollars. I've been offended by some of the commercials, of which the makers obviously have a gross misperception of the kind of people who like science fiction.

One of the problems with science fiction today, I believe, is a lack of new blood, new material. The TV networks, producers of movies, and traditional print publishers keep wanting to do what has already been done. They keep telling the same stories over and over but with different characters and slightly different settings. They believe that what worked before can work again. There are a few exceptions, being some remakes that have done well. Even so, they are afraid to try anything completely new because something new might cost them money instead of make them money and is not worth the risk.

The SciFi Network earlier this year got approval to run repeats of ABC TV's series LOST, four episodes every Monday night on the SciFi Channel. My favorite series on TV, whatever genre or genres it may be classified under. Worth the time to watch it again, and I had missed a few when it was first on ABC TV. Then, earlier this month, SciFi changed the schedule, putting movies on Monday nights, and showing LOST earlier in the day when I could no longer watch it. So it angered me to get cut off like that before the story reached the end-of-season conclusion. It would be like if a library were to make you give back a book before you could finish reading it. There is frustration with networks not being patient enough to keep a series on long enough to grow an audience. I got hooked on LOST after one of the writers was interviewed and explained it all. He said the reason for showing flashbacks to events in the lives of the characters, before they became stranded on the island as result of the jet crashing, is that they were already “lost” within their lives! That really got me, because I could identify with that! That's really what it comes down to, isn't it? I can't see myself in a Fantasy Science Fiction story, meaning I can't identify with those kinds of characters and those settings. But I can see myself being stranded on that island in LOST. I can for the hour of an episode forget about the real world I am living in, and feel like I am right there experiencing it with them!

By the way, Eolake, that is why your method of presenting our other common interest in art is significantly better in quality than anything else out there in the known universe! You know what quality is. You put quality first. It is a great pleasure to imagine visiting such unique locations and encountering such unique people. You are a gifted artist in that realm! Much appreciated! Sorry I've not been a member over there in a long time, due to surviving difficult financial times over here.

Too much of science fiction is told from the viewpoint of The Captain of The Star Ship. Like that. I can't identify with that guy, although I'd like to be that guy! So I wrote my novel from the viewpoint of the main character being an Average Guy ending up in an Extremely Unusual Situation.

I did a Google search on my own name, James C. Harwood, and my science fiction novel “HEREafter, Book One: A Mild Case of Death” with my new blog at Blogger.com to see if it is showing up in search results. This morning, I found a new listing in search results, someone having noted me and my blog at a website I'd not heard of before, Planet-x.com.au. And there, I noticed reference to your blog. I of course recognized your name, and your photo, but I was having trouble recalling, at this early hour before the coffee is ready to revive the brain, when and where and under what circumstances we have crossed paths . . . might it be a common interest in a certain kind of art? Ah, yes, there you are! Suddenly I remembered. I never knew you to have an interest in science fiction. You likely didn't know that about me, either. I believe we last exchanged email just before my novel was first published as a trade paperback in May 2003, and much has happened since then.

You are welcome to email me at hereafter1956@gmail.com for anything more appropriate for email rather than blogs.

The http://hereafterebooks.blogspot.com is my main blog website. I recently decided to make Book One available for free, like an ebook, but in blog form, at the http://hereafterbookone.blogspot.com website. Presently, although I could use the money, I'm more interested in getting exposure than in making money off of my writing. Recently, I've become impressed with how Blogger.com has improved with new features and options, so that it is more like a free complete website, rather than just a blog. I've been experimenting with layered story ebooks and the use of internal hyperlinks, trying to break new ground. For example, a reader can click on the name of a character and be taken to the HEREafter Glossarium support blog website to get more information about that character. I converted the “Chapters” of the published paperback version into “Interviews” for the free blog version. I've completed the hyperlinks to the glossarium from Interviews 1 and 2, and so I have 10 more Interviews to install the hyperlinks in. That's what I'm doing the rest of this year.

Happy New Year 2009!

—James C. Harwood, now living in Norman, Oklahoma, USA

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

"Too much of science fiction is told from the viewpoint of The Captain of The Star Ship. Like that. I can't identify with that guy"

Right. William Gibson has said that his main problem now is coming up with fresh bohemian (outsider) characters.

I thought if I were him, I'd make it my challenge to take the worst cliche characters ever, and make them mine.


"By the way, Eolake, that is why your method of presenting our other common interest in art is significantly better in quality than anything else out there in the known universe!"

That's very kind of you. It's a passion.

My superpower is good taste, haha.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

"For example, a reader can click on the name of a character and be taken to the HEREafter Glossarium support blog website to get more information about that character."

Yes. I've long been interested in hyper-linked fiction as a new creative medium. You could create a whole little universe which people could explore. If it was good, I think people could get quite hooked. I think the curiosity factor could be stronger that it is with strictly linear fiction.

Anonymous said...

Eolake:

I forgot to include these YouTube links for the movie trailers of my two favorite state of the ART scifi movies, and the Lifeforce trailer is the uncensored version so brace yourself!

Brainstorm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtwCHfmDQ60

Lifeforce
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blPCRLBUA0M

Enjoy!

--James

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

I bought Lifeforce a few years ago on DVD.
... No, of course it didn't have anything to do with the pretty girls!

Anonymous said...

Enough new blood can't be the problem. There used to be tons of new blood all the time back when there were many different science fiction magazines. Now there are only a few and that's because of declining sales. It could be the inability of science fiction writers to ever really predict anything. I mean, in the Golden Age they had computers of the future using punch cards or really fancy computerish typewriters.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

I don't think that SF is about prediction, for the general public. They simply want an engrossing story, realistic or otherwise.

BlankPhotog said...

Reasons SF has appeared to decline:

1) Proliferation of repetitive SF TV and movies, which are much more popular with kids than when I was a kid.

2) A tougher publishing industry, which is harder to break into, and filled with folks that don't like SF or have any taste.

3) Thousands of amateur writers writing stories in their spare time, not expecting any money for it, and posting them to Flickr... Oh, sorry, that's photos. :) But what about NaNoWriMo.org?

4) Post-modernism, recycling old ideas into rebuilt packages, and mislabeling them for fun and profit.

5) A big driver toward SF was always a yearning for and fear of the future. Now it's more fear of than yearning, and the bloom's off the rose. Who wants to live in a dystopia, and are we going to have any choice in the matter?

Pascal [P-04referent] said...

Don't look at me, to this planetary cycle I still decode all the printed Sci-Fi I can get my grubby tentacles on. Won't halt until I've scanned AT LEAST all the Earthling classics.

Anonymous said...

Eolake:

This is an excellent subject you came up with to post at your blog and ask others to comment on!

Others posting comments:

Excellent comments! I hope many more people come here and post comments. It is good to have a place like this to interact with other intelligent people, unlike the Writers Net website dominated by trolls who flame everyone to hell and beyond for anything that is not the traditional route.

* * *

THE INTERNET and Science Fiction:

In the world of art, by which I mean pictures from painting and photography, although I'm no expert on the subject and Eolake can comment on this much better than I can... One route is to produce pictures, get an art agent, get the pictures displayed in a gallery to be viewed and sold. Not too unlike the route of a writer producing a manuscript, getting a literary agent, getting it published as a book, and then displayed in bookstores to be sold. Another route, for pictures, has been to display them in a park at an art fair, to be viewed and hopefully sold, and no one can get shut out of that option! Similarly, in the music world, the main route has been to write a song, get an agent, get it recorded, and then displayed to be sold in music stores. Another route, for music, has been to go to a park, play songs for anyone who will listen, and maybe toss a few dollars into the hat, and no one can get shut out of that option! So, why is it so unacceptable for writers to have a similar option? Why does writing have to be such a bloody cutthroat business more about money than about entertainment and the pleasure of providing entertainment in that form? The only difference I can see is how much time must be invested by the person being entertained. Go to a park, look at a picture, a minute or less, unless it is a very high priced picture and then one might want to take more time to consider if it. Go to a park, listen to someone play music and sing, a few minutes, maybe an hour or two, and still not a huge investment in time. But reading a novel usually requires a lot more time, which varies from book to book and from reader to reader. Figure 8 hours. That's a working day. If it is free, of course the reader is going to appreciate that. The traditional market will condemn it, because that is 8 hours the traditional market could have made money from if the reader had bought a book that came from the traditional market. Galleries, music stores, and bookstores; that is the traditional market. Of course they don't want anyone to get anything for free or for a lower price by any nontraditional option. So now there is the Internet, which is like the public park option, except you don't have to leave your home or wait for good weather. No one can get shut out of that option! Any writer can display his work in the Internet park, give it away or sell it directly to the readers. As a reader and a writer I like that. Greater freedom of choice for readers and writers. No idea can be suppressed by the exclusive blue book social club of the traditional route. New blood cannot be shut out. But can new blood bring new ideas? Maybe.

Even so, it does appear science fiction is coming to an end. In the 2010 novel by Arthur C. Clarke, sequel to 2001, a character remarks, “All that we can imagine is probably not half as crazy as the truth.” I believe Clarke was indirectly also referring to science fiction writers, rather than just what the character was referring to in the story. The truth. Reality. Today, some people have concluded that events in real life are more exciting and entertaining than imagined events in any kind of fiction. So is it not just science fiction coming to an end, in part because of the science in real life today and running out of ideas, but rather all kinds of fiction are in decline, to be replaced by real life true stories? Once in a while something really different comes along, so I'm not giving up hope that there can still be something new out there yet to be.

There has been some history revision going on in science fiction, especially when it comes to what is new, and when an original idea was first introduced. I have cable TV. I get Turner Classic Movies. For the first time, not too long ago, I watched the 1935 movie titled The Tunnel. Also known in the United States as The Transatlantic Tunnel. Get this: The 1935 movie was based on the 1913 novel by Bernhard Kellermann. At Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tunnel_(1935_film) [the ) at the end of the link is broken so you have to copy and paste the whole URL with the ) at the end], and at IMDb http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027131/ there is more information. Keep in mind, 1913. I read the novel, but I believe the version I read is the book based on the movie, rather than the original book. So I don't know if what shocked me in the 1935 movie was first in the 1913 novel. Video telephones! Computers that look just like the desk top computers today! Scientists, with their computers linked together to share information while building the tunnel! Oh, what's that called today? The Internet.

So much of what was science fiction is now science fact, and progressing so fast that not even science fiction can keep up with reality. Sometimes, by the time something new reaches the market it has already become obsolete and is about to be replaced by the next new thing. A few months ago, people stood in long lines and paid $500 for some kind of new fancy cell phone. Two months later the price dropped to $200, angering those who spent $500 on it. Now, it is obsolete, and being replaced by something that the maker claims is better. There is no money left to spend on science fiction, after being repeatedly taken by such marketing scam artists, anyway.

Is our reality real? Or is it just another box within a box within a box? Here in the physical world on Earth, we physical beings that are humans have invented computers, the Internet, and virtual reality in which we can interact. In virtual reality we can go anywhere, do anything, even kill each other to death and beyond and it is not a crime because no one really dies. Reported in news not too long ago, there is one lady bringing a lawsuit against her x-husband for hacking into her virtual reality world and killing her character, which in that program cannot be replaced, costing her a lot of time and money invested in it—so she has a case in court for which she can prove real damages. But what if our reality of the physical world is really nothing more than the virtual reality of the spiritual world? Finite physical life on Earth is just a game for spiritual beings in the spiritual universe where life is infinite. The Grand Programmer, who we perceive to be God, does not care about good and evil on Earth, does not care if we kill each other or not, because physical life is not real life. The physical life ends, but no one ever actually dies. The spiritual being playing the physical game simply goes on with his spiritual life in the spiritual universe, or enters another physical game. See Earth and die. Repeatedly. We are all “Just Visiting This Planet” [a 1986 bumper sticker sold at Spencer's Gifts]. Ok, if that is the case, then what does that do to science fiction, as we perceive it today? Well, hopefully, Our Programmer is using good protection while surfing the vast Spiritual Internet, and will not catch a virus, causing the physical universe to crash, causing Earth and all physical life to suddenly cease to exist! But, just in case that happens, I'll go ahead and say, “Hey, guys, it's been nice knowing you here! See you later!”

—James C. Harwood

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

"But what if our reality of the physical world is really nothing more than the virtual reality of the spiritual world?"

I can believe that. I've had dreams at night which were *at least* as real as this world, and in the dream I couldn't prove they were not real. Or not dreams.

Anyway, perhaps SF is over because we now have all the technology we could easily imagine.

I still want more aliens and spaceships though. Very few writers ever did that well.

Anonymous said...

Eolake:

“I can believe that. I've had dreams at night which were *at least* as real as this world, and in the dream I couldn't prove they were not real. Or not dreams.”

Yes, and about dreams...

Edgar Allen Poe's 1849 poem, A Dream Within A Dream
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dream_Within_A_Dream

Alan Parsons Project version of the poem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dream_Within_A_Dream_(song)

The music video with narration by Orson Welles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZyNKrYo9I4&feature=related

—James

Anonymous said...

I don't think that SF is about prediction, for the general public. They simply want an engrossing story, realistic or otherwise.

I'm a huge fan of science fiction and one of the pleasures for me of Golden Age stuff is how wrong they got it. Their inability to predict computers is a big one.

Prediction is a big deal depending on the type of science fiction. The "hard" stuff is about prediction somewhat, although usually small scale prediction. I really like "Cold As Ice" by Charles Sheffield. He didn't really predict anything, but used an idea that's been around for a while - atomic engines for spacecraft. Humans were still limited to the solar system but a way had been found to make a trip to Titan take only weeks.

The type of thing you're talking about is probably more the "space opera" idea. In Star Trek the technology and shit wasn't the big thing, it was the stories and the characters. That's why in TNG they made them walk to the transporter room - so they could have conversations.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Yeah, I love space opera.

I think that SF where the technology is more important than the characters, at least to the reader, is a small minority.

Anonymous said...

How about the Babylon 5 series?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGQ5DSzxsZU
That has been one of my favorite scifi series on TV. It should classify as good space opera. A lot of interesting characters interacting.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Oddly, very few SF films have really captured me, and no TV shows at all, including B5 and Galactica.

Alex said...

Battlestar Galactica

Come on EO, that show was wall to wall totty, at least the miniseries was.

Transatlantic Tunnel
I believe that Harry Harrisons "A Transatlantic Tunnel - Hurrah" was based on the film too. It certainly has many of the details. However it was a long time after seeing the film that I read the Harrison novel.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

"Come on EO, that show was wall to wall totty, at least the miniseries was."

Indeed, and I quite liked the miniseries.

I guess I'm waiting for a show with solid doses of humor imbedded.

Alex said...

I guess I'm waiting for a show with solid doses of humor imbedded.

Red Dwarf
Firefly
The Avengers (post '65)
Futurama
Tripping the Rift
Cowboy Bebop

What about Dan Dare? (1990's radio series based on the 1950's incarnation of DD from the original Eagle, not based on the 80's reincarnation.)

I don't even want to think about "Home Boys In Outer Space", or was that Boyz?


angloce

Anonymous said...

I guess I'm waiting for a show with solid doses of humor imbedded.

What about Firefly? It had humour and it was a cool space opera. Didn't catch on, though, I guess. I haven't seen the movie. Looked too actiony for my taste.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Firefly the movie was OK.
I have the TV show lined up.

I didn't care for Red Dwarf, what I've seen.
Hyperdrive is pretty good, though.

Futurama, right. I like that. I have all the recent films.

Rift I don't know. Cowboy Bebop did not catch me.

Alex said...

I prefer Firefly over Serenity. The film had to re-tell the whole story arc for all those none Browncoats out there.

I wish I could remember the original radio promo for Firefly, it was about 20 seconds of dialogue between Zoe, Mal and Wash, and it was laugh out loud funny. The first episode aired (Train Job) interested me, but it was only really the last 2 minutes which said "different". Mal made swift survival judgments that set him apart from the Picards and Kirks of the world. Train Job suffered from being rushed into the first episode after the pilot was withheld. When I finally saw the pilot episode (also titled Serenity) I saw it didn't have the pace to catch me, it was typical build the characters TV intro, which I prefer to go without. First day at a new job/school/whatever you are in the deepend, and that adds to the fun of it.

We've been touting Firefly for a while. One day EO will either get it or not. Despite it's cancelled status on the networks it actually has a growing audience. The number of comments you see about people seeing one or two episodes at a friends house, then they rush out to get the boxed set.

EO, one final argument for Firefly - read Orson Scott Cards essay about Firefly in the book "Serenity Found" (the library should have it).

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Ouch, you lost me now, Scott Card is a Bush supporter...

OK, actually I have upgraded the urgency of Firefly on my rental list now.

Alex said...

Sorry, I thought the SF works of OSC had piqued your interest in the past.

He dismissed FF in it's early days, and was only introduced to it recently. It's interesting to see a heavy weight moralistic SF veteran comment favourably on something Whedonesque.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

I can see that.

I read two Ender books, and three Alvin Maker books, and sort of lost interest.

It seems many hard-SF writers are basically fascists, who support war as a legit instrument of change.

Anonymous said...

For good humor in science fiction, my kind of humor anyway, I recommend the Spider Robinson novels, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_Robinson

Especially the “Callahan's” series:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_Robinson#The_Callahan.27s_Series

Starting with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callahan%27s_Crosstime_Saloon

Excerpt from a review:
“Spider Robinson is, perhaps, best known for the humor of the Callahan series.”

One of Robert A. Heinlein's novels Variable Star was unfinished when he died, so...
“Authorized by Heinlein's estate to complete the story, award-winning author Robinson has captured the late Grand Master storyteller's essential spirit while adding his own unique brand of lyrical prose and warm humor. A mandatory purchase for all sf collections.”

From Amazon.com:
“Callahan's Place is the neighborhood tavern to all of time and space, where the regulars are anything but. Pull up a chair, grab a glass of your favorite, and listen to the stories spun by time travelers, cybernetic aliens, telepaths...and a bunch of regular folks on a mission to save the world, one customer at a time.”

Spider interviewed about the subject of humor:
http://januarymagazine.com/profiles/spiderrobinson3.html#2

The author's official website:
http://www.spiderrobinson.com/

Alex said...

If it's novels with humour - Harry Harrison's original "Bill the Galactic Hero" is great fun. Anyone who likes Adams and Pratchett will probably like this as well.

20 years after the original they started a series of Bill novels. They lacked the essential punch of the original.

I also like "The Technicolor Time Machine".

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

I read Bill many years ago.

I also read (the first?) Callahan collection. I l like it in principle, but much of the humor seems to be long, complex puns, and that is not my cup of tea.

The thing about the spaceman in the mirrorball, by the way? Took me half an hour, but I solved it.

Anonymous said...

Some factors seem to be the loss of markets for writers to start out in as SF writers, the increasingly common inclusion of so much SF within the nongenre Fiction section in both libraries and stores (and I suspect much increased publication of SF simply as fiction) so SF doesn't stand out as a genre the way it used to and the increased price of books and magazines relative to wages over the last decades. The last certainly doesn't only hurt genre fiction but I believe it hurts SF more than fiction per se.

When looking at the library, bookshops or magazine retailers (a much diminished resource) it's harder to look for SF by genre than in the past. The cost of paperbacks and magazines relative to the take home portion of an hour's pay at the minimum wage has changed drastically in the last 50 years making them far less affordable which I believe has had a very adverse effect on SF and many or most other genres. When an hour's take home pay might buy 4-6 books or magazines for those at the low end of the wage scale diverse reading was much more affordable and attractive than now when an hour's take home pay may not even be enough to buy a single book or magazine.

Anonymous said...

Pantomine Horse:

I agree. It is certainly true in my case, now almost age 53. About 22 years ago, my routine was to buy one paperback novel and two magazines every week out of my weekly paycheck [when I was living in Wichita, Kansas, USA]. About 12 years ago, it decreased to one paperback and one or two magazines per month. Also, I noticed in book stores the science fiction section was merged with the fantasy section, and then decreased in size.

A similar thing happened at Blockbuster Movies when they began to reorganize after shifting from VCR to DVD and jacked up the price.

Beyond that, there is also the impact of the Internet and electronic publishing. Now, it is very rare for me to go to a book store and buy anything. The last time I bought a SF novel in a book store was here in Norman, Oklahoma, in August 2008. Before that, I bought a few in 2007 via Amazon.com --the 6 Dune prequel novels in paperback.

The Internet has just about totally killed print magazine and newspaper sales. I regularly bought various SF magazines in the past. I subscribed Maxim magazine for a different reason. I bought the Sunday newspaper to get the weekly TV guide in print, but the Internet version is free and it is much more accurate and up-to-date.

The publisher of my SF novel in paperback, located in England, is trying to get it listed at Amazon.com to boost sales. Meantime, I've just started to experiment with blog fiction, a blog novel version like an ebook for free but asking for donations. Like musicians who set up in a public park to perform their music and songs for free but put out a hat for donations. The Internet is my public park, PayPal.com my hat, and my SF blog novel is my performance. This fits the times we live in. If a reader does not like the SF story, then no harm done because it did not cost a dime. If a reader likes it, but cannot afford to donate, then it is my gift of entertainment to help ease difficult times. If a reader likes it and can donate a dollar or more, then it is much appreciated.

--James C. Harwood
http://hereafterbookone.blogspot.com

Jason Horn said...

In 1940 the concept of world-wide communication through a small portable device was fantastic.

In 2009 I hate my cellphone.

Anonymous said...

I very enthusiastically agree with Jason Horn's observation. In 1974 at age 18 when I got my first apartment and first phone, all I had to do was go downtown to the phone company, pick one up for free, show my ID, get a new phone number, and pay only $8 at the end of each month. When they went to touchtone, it was to make things easier and reduce cost, but just the opposit is what happened. You know what is involved today. Every phone company I've done business with today has ripped me off in one way or another, usually via hidden legal fine print doubletalk or bait and switch scams. People walk and drive around with cell phones as if they are part of their anatomy, constantly talking. What could so many people constantly be talking about? It distracts from driving and from work. I get calls only at the most inconvenient times. When I call others then I often end up playing phone tag. You never know who else on the other end is listening in. I now hate all phones and all phone companies. I keep one only for emergencies or when there is no other communication alternative. I prefer to talk in person, or send email. By comparison, I love email, especially because it is so convenient, and for me it is free - I use gmail - my landlord includes electric and cable TV and Broadband Internet in the rent payment for my apartment. But of course in 2009 my apartment rent is about four times higher than it was in 1974. Maybe civilization needs a System Restore like on the computers - to go back to a time before everything got screwed up. Click on System Restore and go back to 1974. Or, go back to 65 million BC and prevent the asteroid impact that killed off the dinosaurs. I'm beginning to like some of the mad scientist scenarios that James Bond stopped. Earth and its humans need a new beginning. I'm not opposed to technology, just its abuse and all the scams that come with it.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

"What could so many people constantly be talking about?"

Couldn't agree more. It has to be "nothing". It must be an addiction.