Science fiction depressing trends

[celticdragonfly]

selenite wanted me to post my thoughts on this. I'd prefer to wait until I had a nice leisurely time to think them through and word it all nicely - but I'm about to head out for the weekend, and the time is just not going to happen.

I requested Vernor Vinge's Rainbow's End from the library for him, and he recommended I read it after he was done. I wasn't interested at first, and pointed out that I'd really disliked the previous Vinge books he'd given me, but he said this one was different, so I'm trying it. I'm only partway through.

It did inspire a discussion, though. So far I find the book very depressing. He's describing a relatively near future that I see as reasonably plausible (except for the cars. Pity, because that I'd actually like to see), but very depressing. It reminded me of the story Manna, which also described a near term future I found plausible (and there's the ground for a lot of arguments selenite and I have been having) and very depressing.

I've been reading the Vinge book in bits and pieces, and retreating to other, more enjoyable books in between. (Why, yes, I *am* reading five different books just now. What about it?) And this led me to remember an essay I'd read about the erosion of hard science fiction - I think it may have been Spider Robinson's. IIRC he was complaining that hard science fiction was losing its market, and more and more of the "science fiction" market and shelves was going to fantasy, and why was this? What was wrong? IIRC he seemed to be implying it was all the fault of us awful readers who were unwilling to stretch our brains anymore.

Well, I thought, I think I see the problem. A lot more of science fiction used to be about wonderful exciting futures! Possibly more distant futures, where we conquered problems and did exciting new things! (with lots of exclamation points!) Now it seems a much higher proportion of science fiction is about near futures with depressing worlds, where we have lots of fancy gadgets that just seem to create more problems. Who wants to keep reading about that? You read enough of this stuff, if you're a sensitive imaginative type you'll start lining up to slit your wrists.

Science fiction used to be accused of being "escapist" writing. Now I need to go dive into fantasy and romance to escape from the depression of science fiction.

(caveat - why yes, it could just be that selenite hands me depressing books. If you look at his pre-me music collection, he'll point out himself how depressing it is. But fordprfct sent me to read Manna. And yes, it has a "happy" ending - but the turnover point from dystopia to utopia, IMO, is when the book turned from science fiction to fantasy. I can discuss the details of that later, but I'm out of time now.)

Comments

[joyeuse13.livejournal.com]

Yes, I very much see your point. Realism is fine up to a point, but...you know, if I wanted reality, I'd walk out my front door.

Hey, I'm being a Bujold pusher! I lent Shards and Barrayar to someone I met at contra dance. :D

[estokien.livejournal.com]

I think there are various aspects to this, but here's a thought. In general science fiction is more idea driven and fantasy is more character driven. This means that fantasy is almost always ripe for a sequel or series, but fewer sci-fi books are, and it is the book series that really lock in profits, audience and make the author.

Successful Sci-fi authors these days seem to be doing more character and situational driven stories. Bujold is good example of that. She does great books, but the uniqueness of the Vorkosigan stuff is not in new ideas or speculations, but in setting and characters. Hard Sci-fi is often as much about the mechanics as the characters, and this often seems to translate into single book endeavours.

I do know that the last Sci-Fi book that I read that really made me think was Kiln People by David Brin, and that came out at least a couple of years back.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

Kiln People is an interesting example. Sure, it's all formatted like SF, but the core of it is a fantasy concept--magically making duplicates of people, without any other magic-level tech which would've changed the society. So it's not extrapolation, it's a what-if unrelated to any current technological trends.

It's also an example of the series problem. Brin set up an interesting world and characters, and then totally transformed it into something else. There were little glimpses of other possible uses of the kiln tech--how historical reenactors would use it, forex, but none of them were explored, and Brin trashed the setting to where they can't be explored in a sequel.

A bit surprising, since he'd previously done a successful series (Uplift). I only stopped buying that because he needed an editor with an axe, not because he'd run out of ideas to talk about.

[estokien.livejournal.com]

Well I'm not sure I'd call it fantasy, unless you want to call Cyteen or Pohl's Heechee series fantasy, which also involve making duplicates of people (in radically different ways, of course). Far future stuff always winds up more fantasy than near future stuff, of course. I gather you are saying that the rest of the society didn't seem as far future as the kiln-tech, though, which is not something that bothered me, but I can see where you might think that.

To me this is primarily an extrapolation on AI technology and neuroscience (like in the Heechee series) where it becomes possible to copy one's brainwave patterns into an artificial receptacle and back again. Obviously Kiln People is a prime candidate for the term Speculative Fiction, since it is so heavily a "What If" scenario, and less a pure extrapolation.

My best example for an extrapolation series would be Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series, which was less "What If" and more "Here's how it could happen" which is thought-provoking in a different way. (And the series I recommended Lisa give to her father, as it seemed the perfect series for an SF fan working at JPL on Mars projects. From the indications I got he loved it.)

[joyeuse13.livejournal.com]

I've had this recommended to me recently...now that the recommendation is endorsed, I will be sure and check it out!

[archangelbeth]

Hrm. I suppose I like science-fantasy, myself. And yeah, it's been a while since I've gotten a good one of those. Part of this is that I'm reading less. Sometimes my own characters just eat up my brain.

(I'm hoping to sell to a yaoi-oriented small press, so something science fantasy that I was working on for a lark has become tightly restricted to a few people. I hope it's going to be escapist, though! But they're eating my brain.)

Maybe when fantasy gets tired of the "oh, we're only happy endings!" stigma, we'll get gritty, depressing fantasy -- and lighter, more hopeful SF.

And an Ivan Vorpatril book. I would love an Ivan book.

[joyeuse13.livejournal.com]

Oh, there's gritty, depressing fantasy out there--witness those dreadful Thomas Covenant books by Stephen Donaldson. I've tried to read the first one three times, and can't get past the few 5-6 chapters.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

The depressing-story problem is making it harder for me to find books too. I've heard lots of praise for Charles Stross, but his most recommended book starts with an entire planetary population being wiped out and a threat to destroy another. I doubt the rest of his work is more cheerful, certainly not The Atrocity Archives.

[shadefell.livejournal.com]

When I get my webcomic up and running, you should find it interesting.

It's character-driven sci-fi with cool space ships and technology and new cultural arrangements. Some bad stuff happens in it, but it's overall hopeful and not a dystopia at all.

And I'd like to second the request for an Ivan book. Because <3.

[ndrosen.livejournal.com]

I didn't find Rainbows End unduly depressing. Of course, I like Vernor Vinge's other books, so it may be that our tastes just differ, except when it comes to Bujold. Rainbows End isn't a dystopia, although some of the characters need to use their brains and put their lives on the line to keep it from becoming one, but it isn't a utopia. It depicts a world where scientific and technological advnaces have led to new dangers, but also to real benefits, and new opportunities for creativity, accomplishment, and beauty.

As to fantasy vs. science fiction, hmm. I remember something from Ursula Le Guin's The Lnaguage of the Night, about how the typical non-sf reader will say something contemptuous of "silly escapist literature," and then, if pressed, admit that he doesn't read it because it's too depressing. Then, there's depressing fantasy of different types, like the tragedy of Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword, or the angst of Mercedes Lackey's Arrows of the Queen trilogy.

[joyeuse13.livejournal.com]

Re: Arrows of the Queen: There's a difference bw a story depressing me bc bad things happen in it, and one that depressed me bc the writing is so trite. ;P