Why is Science Fiction so unappealing?

Mighty polite of you there Blacksmithn......




:wink:

If it helps, i have a weakness for "sword and socery" fantasy . . . it's genre writing--90% or more of it is crap.

Now, there you go.

I cannot fathom that.

What is the attraction, Set? I have friends who read that avidly, too.

Escapism i suspect, as is likely much the appeal of sci-fi. Good sword and sorcery is hard to find, but it usually appeals because the author has successfully created a diverse and intricate culture. The Forgotten Realms is one such successful venture, with many novels, written by several different authors.

It's not the genre preference I have an issue with, nor is it you in particular, Set. It's the condescending tone that this thread had seemed to have taken. I read all manner of genres, enjoy a part of what I read and dislike other parts. But everybody has their own preference and one is not inherently better than another. In the same vein, all readers of a particular genre are neither better nor worse than readers of another-- or readers as a whole, for that matter.

If you don't care for sci-fi, but like sword & sorcery, that's great. Personally, I like a little of everything except romance novels. I would never presume however that because of my preference in reading material that all readers of romance novels are either middle-aged women who haven't been getting laid or dreamy-eyed adolescent girls who long for it-- in part because attendant with that value judgement comes the pejorative connotation associated with it.

I can see now that i've failed. What is the pejorative with which i could flail you into rage, B?

McGentrix, mysteryman, Ticomayo, take your pick!

seems to me that most writing is of poor quality, regardless of genre, or lack of same. but do you feel that SF has a higher proportion, compared to mainstream fiction? and if you do, do you have any way to quantify your impression?

No, i don't think so. I think it is no better, nor any worse, than other styles of writing. Simple novels which do not fall into any particular genre are often, 90% or more of them crap. I think, though, that science fiction is probably one of the more successful genres, because it appeals to a subject of imagination which resonates with many people, particularly with the young.

I don't know, I've read some powerfully bad mysteries in my time. And don't get me started on Westerns, the apparent homeland of bad authoring.

agree with that 100%. imaginative writing entertains me. i'm no fan of fantasy, especially the multivolume series variety (including Harry Potter), but prefer well-written fantasy to poor SF. both genres require suspension of disbelief, and perhaps some readers are incapable of that. i don't put much stock in the claim that SF anticipates the future, because for every development foreshadowed in SF, there probably is a vastly larger number of prognostications that never come to pass. since people have been dropping names, i consider Ray Bradbury as an exemplar of the literary/artistic possibilities in SF. (incidentally, i'm not sure Bradbury even likes being categorized as an SF writer. certainly, he wrote his share of non-SF)

I enjoy science fiction quite a bit but a lot of it is bad, bad, bad. I think a lot of that comes from deus ex machina. Much like sorcery-type stories, the heroes have their bacon saved all the time by magical, mystical things. No way to transport people to a planet? Invent teleportation! No way to feed people? Invent ultra-food recycling! No way to go beyond the speed of light? Invent time warp or warp bubbles or dilithium crystals! And so it goes. It's like having a wizard to change things as needed, a continuity jump in plotting rather than bringing the reader along in a reasonable and (hopefully) interesting fashion.

What I really enjoy is character development in any genre, and I've found that sci-fi is not the only area where it can be sorely lacking. Star Trek actually does a fairly good job with this but the bad guys can often be villains of the week. Plus there are a lot of jargon explanations which go hand in hand with deus ex machina. E. g. even if something isn't magical, make up some sort of pseudo-scientific explanation for it and voila, instant explanation! It's an intellectual shortcut. Star Trek: The Next Generation used to do this all the time. Writers would put together a script and certain parts would just say "insert technobabble here" and another writer would do a little marginal research and write up some sort of a semi-plausible explanation for whatever.

Some of this also has to do with the audience for a lot of sci-fi -- young men, generally those with a scientific/computers bent. Therefore there's a need to (a) get a lot of technical stuff in and (b) leap to action fairly quickly. So shortcuts are taken all the time. I am well aware that a one thousand page book will not fly with most people, but a little more development would be nice and more of a buildup would make the payoff that much sweeter. The Foundation Trilogy is an interesting (and huge) work, but I don't recall any of the characters, except Arcadia, and I barely remember her. There may also be some push on the part of current writers -- whether intentional or subconscious -- to write up a proto-screenplay in the hopes of interesting a production house. Your vanity press writers may think just that.

Oh, and you want to read some good, short sci-fi, try Murray Leinster or some of Ray Bradbury's short stories. It may help to read some very quick stuff where you won't lose patience with the format.

I think in order to enjoy Science Fiction or Fantasy the reader must have a code of behavior that permits toying with reality.

I know a number of intelligent people of passion and wit who can't believe impossible things before or after breakfast. Their minds are grounded in reality and they do not enjoy flights of fancy.

Then I don't permit my mind to toy with reality. I just cannot get into the outfits and half humans and the tension that builds around these android type-thingies with thier 3 eyes and seven feet, etc. As I said, I know plenty of really smart people who enjoy it. The only time Sci-Fi gets on my nerves is when I meet a groupie who LIVES it. I knew this guy who was a succsssful Sci-Fi illustrator, and man, was he unapproachable.

some people don't like abstract art or atonal music, either, and i know a woman who says jazz makes her physically ill. (now smooth jazz has almost the same effect on me, but that's not jazz.) no arguing about taste, really, but if someone's going to criticize an SF piece, it should be in relation to other SF. incidentally, there's plenty of SF without any aliens or robots, and as far as half-humans goes, SF has nothing on classical mythology.

I've read some of the good writers, as I said before, and while there are no 3 breasted women in them, I still did not enjoy it.

Jespah, a thoughtful explanation. Even the Ray Bradbury, which I would read as a kid, always creeped me out. I'm a Science Fiction failure.

Set,

One of the things I like about Science fiction the the ability to explore offensive ideas outside of the bonds of real society.

Card does a good job with Ender of presenting what is basically a genocide with no value judgement. There are several other very troubling things in this book. I enjoyed the aspect that I could appreciate the drive of the military guys (Graff et. al) with the experience, drive and anger of Ender. The fact that I would probably strongly disagree with the author in real life doesn't take away my enjoyment of the ideas presented in a made up world.

I loved Piers Anthony as a teen (I think most famous for his lighthearted fantasy series Xanth). He wrote a much darker series entitled "Diary of a Space Tyrant" which includes a troubling scene where the protagonist is "induced" to commit rape. This is nothing I would accept in real life or any kind of philosophy. But it raises interesting ideas that I would perhaps only accept in a fake Universe.

Gala, i'm a failure at allegory & symbolism. i'll read a celebrated piece of literature and not get it, and then when i come across the standard interpretation, i go, it's obvious, why didn't i see it?

I can see your point, E_brown. I read Card after i had grown disillusioned with Heinlein, who, by the 1980s, had become a cult figure. After reading Ender's Game and the sequel, i was less than impressed with his writing, and didn't look for any more of his books. Later, i became aware of what i would describe as his crackpot political and social ideas, which left me even less inclined (were the possible) to read his stuff. I have a problem separating an "artist" and their personality from their art. Plenty of artists have been decent people--so i'm never impressed with the argument that being an artists somehow excuses the excesses of the artist. When i realized what a putz Heinlein was, i had no further interest in reading his stuff, even though the Lazarus Long series was become a cult classic with many of my friends. Same for Card . . .