Article on SyFy Channel

[Greg Cox]

You can laugh all you want, but it won't change reality. Reading Jane Austen-- or Nathanial Hawthorne or Shakespeare or revered writer of your choice-- simply does not require the knowledge, imagination and intelligence that SF does. That's just not the way reality works. Just because you can change the spark plugs doesn't mean you can rebuild a transmission.

Okay, I suspect we're all starting to repeat ourselves at this point. You're clearly invested in the idea that sf, and sf readers, are intellectually superior to everything else and I doubt anyone is going to shake you of that idea--even though my mind frankly boggles at the idea of dismissing Shakespeare or Mark Twain as less intelligent or imaginative than science fiction in general . . . .

I can't resist throwing up one more argument, though. BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS is a scifi remake of THE SEVEN SAMURAI. But would anyone really insist that BATTLE is better or more "intelligent" than THE SEVEN SAMURAI (or, for that matter, THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN) just because it's science fiction?

That way madness lies . . ..

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The genesis of the "science fiction readers are intellectually superior" meme is in part because for most of its popular publication history in the U.S. the target audience for prose sf was understood to be adolescent males. I don't know that it's any different now, but at least as late as the 1980s publishers assumed that the core of their sf book-buying audience turned over every three or four years, which largely accounted for the ability of any reasonably good sf writer with an attentive agent to get some of their backlist republished with some regularity (that this doesn't seem to be true any longer - a Heinlein can stay in print now but not, for example, a Ted White - is the only reason I'm guessing that the current audience is perceived as more stable).

Well, if teenage boys in general are somewhat, uh, socially maladroit those of us who had our noses perpetually stuck in a Van Vogt/Vance Ace Double were certainly no less so...and the generation of magazine and book editors who had themselves started out as fans in the 30s and 40s found it nicely effective to reassure and flatter us (and not coincidentally themselves).

The intellectual and cultural weight of a literature pitched to the aesthetic sense and thematic preoccupations of American teenage boys inevitably tends toward the naive and narrow. This explains why the most popular sf tropes and stories by far still revolve around space travel and sdistant supertechnological futures despite the fact that such are the most removed from relatable human experience and that several clutches of sophisticated and interesting writers - the so-called "New Wave," the "cyberpunk movement" - have at various times moved at least a bit beyond that.

James Blish once surveyed the contents of a typical month's sf magazine output with the sorrowful observation that story after story was peopled with starship captains, explorers, Nobel scientists and Galactic senators - all conjured into life by writers and eagerly consumed by readers most of whom had never met even met one of their city aldermen.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Except, of course, in real life, the core SF audience is composed of scientists, teachers, engineers, astronauts et al-- and well-educated laymen-- in addition to the adolescents who will one day grow up to be such.

They may (or in some cases, may not ) be good writers, but they are still mainstream writers. Reading F Scott Fitzgerald simply does not require as much of the reader as Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein et al.

That is utterly absurd. There is ZERO proof to back up such nonsense.

Zero proof-- except for the 20th Century. And, of course, common sense and a basic understanding of what is required of the literary audience. But I've gone over this several times already. If you insist on reducing everything to the lowest common denominator, all I can do is shrug and wish you a pleasant Valley Sunday.

Okay, I suspect we're all starting to repeat ourselves at this point. You're clearly invested in the idea that sf, and sf readers, are intellectually superior to everything else and I doubt anyone is going to shake you of that idea--even though my mind frankly boggles at the idea of dismissing Shakespeare or Mark Twain as less intelligent or imaginative than science fiction in general . . . .

I don't know why. Were either one of them scientists? Did either of them write stories that dealt with the effect on the Human condition of science or applied science or of the extrapolation of science? In short, do any of their stories produce a synergy of the arts and sciences? Both are excellent writers-- and both are excellent genre writers of a sort-- and possibly could have been SF writers if they lived at another time-- and carefully selected individual examples of their work may be superior to carefully selected individual examples of SF-- but it doesn't change the fact that SF requires more of the reader. Just as an appreciation of Shakespeare requires more of the reader than would a random Oprah's Book of the Month.

I can't resist throwing up one more argument, though. BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS is a scifi remake of THE SEVEN SAMURAI. But would anyone really insist that BATTLE is better or more "intelligent" than THE SEVEN SAMURAI (or, for that matter, THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN) just because it's science fiction?

Again, the discussion is literature, not movies or TV. I've never seen BBTS, but as far as I know it is just a B-movie Space Opera based loosely on TSS, so I suspect it's probably not as good-- and not SF at all. A better comparison would be The Tempest and Forbidden Planet.

 

[RoJoHen]

^^ Except, of course, in real life, the core SF audience is composed of scientists, teachers, engineers, astronauts et al-- and well-educated laymen-- in addition to the adolescents who will one day grow up to be such.

It is?

 

[RJDiogenes]

Of course it is. You don't really think random adolescent boys are subscribing to Analog and eagerly awaiting the next Jack McDevitt novel, do you? That would be quite a different planet. I can just imagine the arguments on the school bus: "The Ringworld is unstable!" "You take that back!"

 

[sidious618]

Zero proof-- except for the 20th Century. And, of course, common sense and a basic understanding of what is required of the literary audience. But I've gone over this several times already. If you insist on reducing everything to the lowest common denominator, all I can do is shrug and wish you a pleasant Valley Sunday.

You've not proven anything except that you seem to have some sort of need to believe that what you like somehow makes you better than everyone else. Whether or not scientists read sci-fi is not really at all relevant. If we find that doctors read mostly romance novels does that somehow mean romance novels are the best things ever?

And I've not reduced anything to the lowest common denominator. You've done that with your ridiculous examples.

 

[Greg Cox]

my mind frankly boggles at the idea of dismissing Shakespeare or Mark Twain as less intelligent or imaginative than science fiction in general . . . .

I don't know why. Were either one of them scientists? .

Aha! And here we obviously hit the crux of the matter. You clearly think that scientists and science are inherently superior to any other human endeavor. Take that, you musicians and poets and philosophers and painters and non-sf writers!

Faulkner may have explored the intricacies of the human heart in conflict with itself, and vividly created characters who practically live and breathe on the page, but did he write about the physics of neutron stars? Well, clearly he didn't apply himself properly.

Other authors may write stuff that stirs the heart and imagination, or that craft mere words into works of transcendent beauty, but do computer engineers read them? If not, they're obviously second-rate and wasting whatever talents they might possess.

Don't get me wrong. Science is good. But so is beauty and character and depth of feeling, and humor and horror and the whole breadth of the human condition.

To assume that science is the only fit topic for great writers indicates a profoundly narrow view of what art and entertainment is all about . . . ..

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

...that said, the ghost of John Campbell wholeheartedly approves.

You don't really think random adolescent boys are subscribing to Analog and eagerly awaiting the next Jack McDevitt novel, do you? That would be quite a different planet.

Random? Nah, on the whole they're fairly bright, literate adolescent boys - but boys nonetheless and the evidence of decades of publishing is that most of them are bright enough that they broaden their tastes and discover more nuanced and thoughtful entertainments than a steady diet of sf novels as they mature.

There's actually no evidence at all that the "core sf audience" - the audience that keeps the genre commercially viable year after year - is primarily composed of "scientists, teachers and engineers" as you assert. Some scientists read science fiction. So do some teachers and some engineers. And some prefer mysteries, non-fiction, travel writing, the sports page and/or porn as well. You give the impression of someone who'd find hanging around the cafeteria tables at NIH pretty surprising and possibly shocking. That you think you can cast the above as a plausible rhetorical question certainly suggests an excess of wishful thinking and a shortage of experience.

 

[Greg Cox]

Dare I mention that my own website was set up by a Hungarian romance writer who is much more computer-saavy than I am? And speaks a couple languages to boot?

So much for stereotypes!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I don't know about Hungary but in America women are on the whole more educated than men, holding something like a three-to-two advantage in undergraduate and masters degrees and this year for the first time earning a slightly greater number of doctorates.

Meanwhile the sf reading population remains more male than female.

 

[Australis]

Reading F Scott Fitzgerald simply does not require as much of the reader as Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein et al

I'd suggest that reading Fitzgerald requires a lot of life experience that the average adolescent reader of Asimov, et al, don't have. They may get it later, but I'd also suggest they're different people at different times in their lives.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Reading F Scott Fitzgerald simply does not require as much of the reader as Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein et al

I'd suggest that reading Fitzgerald requires a lot of life experience that the average adolescent reader of Asimov, et al, don't have. They may get it later, but I'd also suggest they're different people at different times in their lives.

This is true. I devoured books and stories by Clarke, Asimov and Heinlein when I was in junior high and high school. No, they're not as demanding as Fitzgerald - and he's not Faulkner much less Dostoevsky.

 

[sidious618]

I hate to even bring this up but am I the only one who is not all that impressed by Asimov? The characters in his books tend to be flat and the prose rather emotionless. Cool story ideas but not much else, I found. Not a popular opinion, though.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

He was often more interested in the story puzzle than anything else. He also eschewed the kinds of physical action, melodrama and violence that were part of the pulp writer's toolkit in the days when he was getting started.

 

[Kegg]

He was often more interested in the story puzzle than anything else.

Pretty much. As a teen I loved his robot stories (because they tended to take his rules, presented a problem, and then tried to figure out what would happen) but found Foundation deathly dull and pedestrian in its writing, Gibson by way of magic.

And nobody with a straight face would ever utter "Great Galloping Galaxies" or "Jumping Jupiter!" as actual exclamations. C'mon now.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And nobody with a straight face would ever utter "Great Galloping Galaxies" or "Jumping Jupiter!" as actual exclamations. C'mon now.

Well, a bright kid pounding the typewriter upstairs from his dad's candy store imagined otherwise.

 

[RoJoHen]

There's actually no evidence at all that the "core sf audience" - the audience that keeps the genre commercially viable year after year - is primarily composed of "scientists, teachers and engineers" as you assert.

Yeah, this was the part that I was interested in, not the adolescent boys. Adults from all walks of life enjoy science fiction, and science fiction fans also like many other genres.

 

[RJDiogenes]

You've not proven anything except that you seem to have some sort of need to believe that what you like somehow makes you better than everyone else.

Not at all. I like a lot of things. However, I'm also not resistant to noting that I have higher standards than most, which is apparently a horrifyingly gauche thing to say in this LCD society. It's as amusing as it is sad that we live in a world where people will happily brag about their bowling scores but cringe with embarrassment at showing any symptoms of a higher intellect.

Whether or not scientists read sci-fi is not really at all relevant. If we find that doctors read mostly romance novels does that somehow mean romance novels are the best things ever?

Not quite sure what you're getting at here....

And I've not reduced anything to the lowest common denominator. You've done that with your ridiculous examples.

...or here.

Aha! And here we obviously hit the crux of the matter. You clearly think that scientists and science are inherently superior to any other human endeavor. Take that, you musicians and poets and philosophers and painters and non-sf writers!

Nope, never said any such thing. I said that SF requires more of the reader, which it does. Sort of like how reading The Odyssey in the original Latin would require more of the reader-- namely, fluency in Latin.

Don't get me wrong. Science is good. But so is beauty and character and depth of feeling, and humor and horror and the whole breadth of the human condition.

Exactly.

To assume that science is the only fit topic for great writers indicates a profoundly narrow view of what art and entertainment is all about . . . ..

It certainly would. Good thing I never said anything remotely resembling that.

Random? Nah, on the whole they're fairly bright, literate adolescent boys

Oh, my-- a chink in the political armor.

- but boys nonetheless and the evidence of decades of publishing is that most of them are bright enough that they broaden their tastes and discover more nuanced and thoughtful entertainments than a steady diet of sf novels as they mature.

Ah, more thoughtful entertainment than that simple-minded SF stuff.

There's actually no evidence at all that the "core sf audience" - the audience that keeps the genre commercially viable year after year - is primarily composed of "scientists, teachers and engineers" as you assert. Some scientists read science fiction. So do some teachers and some engineers. And some prefer mysteries, non-fiction, travel writing, the sports page and/or porn as well. You give the impression of someone who'd find hanging around the cafeteria tables at NIH pretty surprising and possibly shocking. That you think you can cast the above as a plausible rhetorical question certainly suggests an excess of wishful thinking and a shortage of experience.

Hardly. On the other hand, implying that because the core SF audience reads more than just SF means that the core SF audience doesn't exist suggests a lack of rhetorical ability and an excess of political posturing.

Dare I mention that my own website was set up by a Hungarian romance writer who is much more computer-saavy than I am? And speaks a couple languages to boot?

So much for stereotypes!

Uh... okay. And this is relevant because....?

Meanwhile the sf reading population remains more male than female.

Most women still get married and change their name, too. This tells us a lot about the inertia of stereotyping. On the other hand, far more women are now involved in the traditionally male sciences these days, and the female SF audience is consequently larger-- which tells us that some progress is being made.

I'd suggest that reading Fitzgerald requires a lot of life experience that the average adolescent reader of Asimov, et al, don't have. They may get it later, but I'd also suggest they're different people at different times in their lives.

F Scott Fitzgerald is probably a bad example to use with that particular argument. But in any case, you're front-loading your assertion. Of course, reading adult literature requires a lot of life experience that adolescents don't have-- that applies to the adult readership of Asimov as well as Fitzgerald.

And nobody with a straight face would ever utter "Great Galloping Galaxies" or "Jumping Jupiter!" as actual exclamations. C'mon now.

Indeed! 'pon my sword, his profanities do not roll trippingly off the tongue as in Shakespeare. Zounds!

Yeah, this was the part that I was interested in, not the adolescent boys. Adults from all walks of life enjoy science fiction, and science fiction fans also like many other genres.

Despite Dennis's attempts to reduce Human society to a bland gray goo, the core SF audience is indeed composed of more intellectual types-- and you'll note I did make mention of well-educated laymen. If you walk along the beach in Summer to take note of the average reading material, you'll be far more likely to find Harlequin Romances and sports-figure biopics than anything by Niven or McDevitt.

 

[Venardhi]

All sci-fi (or fantasy) requires of the reader(or watcher) is a desire for the fantastic. To want something more than reality. Any sci-fi story that can't be told in some variation without the science isn't a good story anyways.

Now, that desire for 'more'- for the fantastic and the next horizon may lead those people to higher education and other intellectual pursuits, but in my experience just as many of them there sci-fi readers just like the the occasional escape to the unfamiliar and exciting and are happy to return to an ordinary, undereducated and perfectly fulfilling life.

Especially intelligent and the highly educated may be more likely to enjoy sci-fi(and more likely to read in general), but that doesn't necessarily work in reverse.

On the topic of SyFy, Farscape and BSG are pretty much the only great shows they ever had a hand in making as far as I see it. I liked First Wave and Sliders back in the day, and watched all sorts of other dreck, but while occasionally promising I think it is safe to say that Sci-Fi/SyFy has always been more or less a 'nothing else on' station.

I would love more sci-fi of the BSG/Firefly/Farscape/Trek sort but I've long accepted it as something to cheer for when it comes unexpectedly rather than wait for eagerly.

 

[Australis]

Of course, reading adult literature requires a lot of life experience that adolescents don't have-- that applies to the adult readership of Asimov as well as Fitzgerald.

Mmm, yeah, but I extrapolated a lot of science from my early SF (and indeed, much later, Neuromancer encouraged ne to get into IT). I'd be hard pressed to extrapolate deeper human understanding as an adolsecent, and especially from those books, that'd be "boring" and get in the way of 'splosions and stuff. The Lensman books, much as I love 'em, are classics for this. I picked up a hell of a lot about gravity and inertia from them, but sure didn't get how to pick up girls. The characterisations and social interactions were so much simpler in those books.

Let's take a different approach, referencing a TV show, Big Bang Theory. It should be asserted that when the guys on BBT go on and on and on about SFTV and comics, they don't seem to be inclined to explore the ongoing story of the human condition, though as most of us know here, good SF has strong and interesting characters with some depth. For a slightly more fantasy version of this, look at some of the chartacters in the Discworld series, even their depths have depths. The only comment they have in that regards borders on K/S. And before toy say anything about clichés, they are nearly always rooted in a truth,

Those guys read all the books and comics when they were young, you can hear it in a lot of lines (admit it, you say to yourself, "I know this stuff!"). So were those guys smart, then they read the stuff, or did they read the stuff then get smart? I'm sorry, there are some guys we all know who could read smart, funny SF 'til the cows came home and they'd never get it. These are the guys, to extend the cliché a little further, who were usually the jocks who stuffed kids like us in our lockers.*

So what is it, chicken or egg? Read then smart, smart then read?

*In Australia, we don't have lockers, and even at school I was built, as the expression goes, like a brick shithouse, so while there was bullying (due to my docile nature) it wasn't as bad as it could have been. We've never really had the jock/geek mentality going on. Well, not when I went to school, could be different now.