Media Tie-Ins and the Future of SF
Sep. 4th, 2008 09:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pameladlloydSean Williams (![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ladnews) posted a notice here about a panel discussion in which he participated on SF Signal: Mind Meld: How Do Media Tie-In Novels Affect SF/F?. I found the various responses very interesting, but I was especially intrigued by Kristine Kathryn Rusch's article of a few years ago, which she linked to in her response.
Rusch makes a distinction between the older generation(s) of science fiction readers, whose reading habits consist of works that rely on a strong knowledge of classic science fiction and fantasy novels, and younger generations who first encountered science fiction through media (lots of different kinds of media) and who may be unfamiliar with the various tropes and ideas found in books that are "buil[t] on ideas found in novels so long out of print that libraries and specialty used bookstores no longer carry them" and which she sees as favored by editors, because those editors are, by and large, from the older generation of readers. In the article she also discusses a divergence in the goals of fantasy, as distinct from science fiction:
Having described this situation, she also discusses the trends in the publication of science fiction, which (at least as of 2004), was shrinking as a marketing genre. (I believe that this figure excludes the various media tie-ins typically found on the same shelves in the bookstore.) She also suggests that fantasy is not having this difficulty when she states: "Fantasy will take care of itself."
So, all of this (i.e., my blithering) is a long-winded way of getting around to a few of the questions raised by these two articles: Is science fiction mired in the past in a way that is preventing new readers from finding it enjoyable and worth reading? Are we, those of us who grew up reading classic science fiction and its subsequent successors, preventing science fiction from changing in ways that will allow it to be more accessible to today's readers? Or, is something else going on, that makes science fiction seem less relevant in today's admittedly high-tech world?
P.S. I've done my best to condense a few of the many ideas in Rusch's lengthy and well-reasoned article into the much shorter context appropriate for a journal entry. If, in the process, I've distorted or misrepresented the concepts she explained, please accept my apologies.
ladnews) posted a notice here about a panel discussion in which he participated on SF Signal: Mind Meld: How Do Media Tie-In Novels Affect SF/F?. I found the various responses very interesting, but I was especially intrigued by Kristine Kathryn Rusch's article of a few years ago, which she linked to in her response.Rusch makes a distinction between the older generation(s) of science fiction readers, whose reading habits consist of works that rely on a strong knowledge of classic science fiction and fantasy novels, and younger generations who first encountered science fiction through media (lots of different kinds of media) and who may be unfamiliar with the various tropes and ideas found in books that are "buil[t] on ideas found in novels so long out of print that libraries and specialty used bookstores no longer carry them" and which she sees as favored by editors, because those editors are, by and large, from the older generation of readers. In the article she also discusses a divergence in the goals of fantasy, as distinct from science fiction:
Fantasy continued its heroic ways, promising—and usually delivering—those uplifting endings, those fascinating worlds, and those excellent (heroic) characters. But science fiction started resembling the literary mainstream. The novels became angst-filled. The protagonists, demoted from their heroic pedestals, lost more than they won. The worlds became as ugly or uglier than our own.
Having described this situation, she also discusses the trends in the publication of science fiction, which (at least as of 2004), was shrinking as a marketing genre. (I believe that this figure excludes the various media tie-ins typically found on the same shelves in the bookstore.) She also suggests that fantasy is not having this difficulty when she states: "Fantasy will take care of itself."
So, all of this (i.e., my blithering) is a long-winded way of getting around to a few of the questions raised by these two articles: Is science fiction mired in the past in a way that is preventing new readers from finding it enjoyable and worth reading? Are we, those of us who grew up reading classic science fiction and its subsequent successors, preventing science fiction from changing in ways that will allow it to be more accessible to today's readers? Or, is something else going on, that makes science fiction seem less relevant in today's admittedly high-tech world?
P.S. I've done my best to condense a few of the many ideas in Rusch's lengthy and well-reasoned article into the much shorter context appropriate for a journal entry. If, in the process, I've distorted or misrepresented the concepts she explained, please accept my apologies.
