![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Media Tie-Ins and the Future of SF
Sep. 4th, 2008 09:09 pmSean 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.
( more )
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.( more )
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.
