Science fiction and fantasy often get a bad rap as the genre of Star Wars, Star Trek et al. However, if a person actually reads the literature currently being written in the SF/F genres, they will find a surprising array of social and political commentary that talks not so much about the future as the present. SF/F is the genre of radicalism, in my opinion. To write effective SF/F. a writer needs a keen awareness of the here and now and a willingness to take risks.
In contrast, Norman Spinrad in the SFWA Forum sees SF writers as becoming more conservative as their audience decreases and writing for the graying fannish core, rather than trying to reach out to the rest of the world.
So, SF tropes fill popular culture, and mainstream literary authors (as Spinrad points out) are writing more and more fiction that is fantastic in one way or another. At least some prominent SF authors appear to have moved into this new mainstream, which is more welcoming to nonrealistic fiction. Gibson's most recent novel is cutting edge present, rather than cutting edge future.
As this happens, the SF writers who are left behind in the genre become more and more confused about what they should be writing and where their audience lies.
2 comments:
Doesn't this mean, though, that SF/F has succeeded in developing a generation of readers? If SF/F themes are becoming mainstream, if mainstream readers are willing to stretch more and accept fantastical elements in their fiction more regularly, then yes, the distinction between SF/F and mainstream fiction is breaking down--and by virtue of that, pure SF/F is being watered down into more saleable mainstream versions, perhaps--but doesn't that, in the end, mean that the genre has succeeded in developing an audience?
Above and beyond which, many readers of SF/F have been readers of far more than just SF/F, so if they are finding more out in the mainstream market to fulfill their genre desires, then maybe they don't feel the need to read fiction that is solely, or specifically, focused on that genre. Or maybe our definition of the genre needs to change in order to incorporate a newer, broader understanding of our genre.
I'm not sure how much of problem there is. Apparently some SF writers are pretty distressed, and I think there is no question of the technological change. But I don't know how much harder it is to make a living at SF, or get published.
Post a Comment