![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was going through a list of the top 100 science fiction books of the 20th Century, and realized that I've read many of them, or other works by the authors on the list and I started to wonder.
What is it about Science Fiction that makes it so stigmatized?
All of the books on that list are thought-provoking. Many are written with a finesse that is completely lost on the contemporary serial novelist. Is there a ton of science fiction out there that I haven't read that is abyssmally bad? Is the average reader incapable of fathoming the concepts that are presented? What is it that makes sci-fi so inaccessible?
What is it about Science Fiction that makes it so stigmatized?
All of the books on that list are thought-provoking. Many are written with a finesse that is completely lost on the contemporary serial novelist. Is there a ton of science fiction out there that I haven't read that is abyssmally bad? Is the average reader incapable of fathoming the concepts that are presented? What is it that makes sci-fi so inaccessible?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
I don't fully get it.
From:
no subject
I wonder if;
1) the science fiction genre as a whole hasn't been eclipsed by it's film cousins - ie: I wonder whether or not when people think of sci fi as a general genre of story telling they don't automatically default to what's on TV or film (since it's easier to relate to in many ways).
Since most of the DEMONSTRABLE sci fi geeks tend to be spawned from the visual media I wonder if the print part of the genre is being made to answer for what the film part does and spawns.
While other genres do have their geeks, (I hate that word) I think sci-fi's are more over the top - more flashy and noticeable. They draw more fire and it's 'more okay' to put them down openly. Thus I wonder if people make that association.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Sci-fi doesn't go out of its way to explain itself to the audience. There is so much assumed knowledge when it comes to sci-fi that isn't present in other genres. Picking up a Bear/Benford/Pohl book and you don't know what a Dyson Sphere is? You'll be lost by the end of the third chapter.
In my experience, the sci-fi crowd views themselves as a community, rather than a genre, and they're not.
There's mention above of the libraries not stocking sci-fi during the 80s, but that wasn't the case in my experience. I did all my reading through libraries, and during the 80s, sci-fi was the only genre I read. I also don't agree that sci-fi doesn't get academic or public recognition; I see documentaries pushed out on a regular basis about the impact that sci-fi has had on space technology, or how star trek changed the world, or how the cell phone was inspired by Asimov, or what-have-you. I don't see documentaries about how Dune or The Gunslinger affected mass culture.
There's also the fact that, more than any other genre, sci-fi is a boys club -- and books are consumed by women in a higher proportion than television, movies, or any other creative medium.
Foundation is quite possibly the greatest sci-fi series ever written, but the women in it are generally treated like property, or idiots, and the same is true of most books from golden age authors. 'Stranger in a Strange Land' is the big groundbreaking book in sci-fi for gender roles, but it's still a book which claims most rape victims were kinda asking for it.
Sci-fi is my favourite genre, but I don't think sci-fi is stigmatized. I think it's insular, navel-gazing, and hasn't climbed out of the 40s, because the 40s were so good to it. The last generation of popular sci-fi writers (Stephenson, etc) are the only ones who've started pushing character development to new places within the genre.
From:
no subject
That makes a lot of sense. Sci-Fi is a genre that tells a lot of its story through 'toys', and as Waterspyder and I have opined at each other on numerous occasions gadgetry is not what TENDS to interest ladies.
When one gender is left to its own devices in literature for too long it tends to get funny ideas about the nature of the other gender. Not to mention that in AC Clarke, Asimov, Bradbury and Heinlein's heyday it was still very much a 'Man's World'.
I know in my favorite book - Starship Troopers - women are placed upon pedestals, and pretty much left there. It's an older attitude that seeks to bombard women with the status of jewel in the hopes that all the flattery will outweigh the rest of male behaviour towards them at the time.
Some good points about insularity of concepts in the book too. Hadn't thought of that.
From:
no subject
There's also the fact that, more than any other genre, sci-fi is a boys club -- and books are consumed by women in a higher proportion than television, movies, or any other creative medium.
Foundation is quite possibly the greatest sci-fi series ever written, but the women in it are generally treated like property, or idiots, and the same is true of most books from golden age authors. 'Stranger in a Strange Land' is the big groundbreaking book in sci-fi for gender roles, but it's still a book which claims most rape victims were kinda asking for it.
Sci-fi is my favourite genre, but I don't think sci-fi is stigmatized. I think it's insular, navel-gazing, and hasn't climbed out of the 40s, because the 40s were so good to it. The last generation of popular sci-fi writers (Stephenson, etc) are the only ones who've started pushing character development to new places within the genre.
I have trouble believing that the foundation series is any more sexist than other books from the 40s and 50s. As to Stranger in a Strange Land, it seems pretty in line with books from it's era.
Claiming that science fiction hasn't climbed out of the 40s by referring to a book series started in the 40s doesn't make sense to me.
From:
no subject
In any case, my point isn't that books were sexist fifty years ago, my point is that sci-fi has not produced the significantly progressive works every other genre has in the last fifty years to explain, provide context for, and replace them.
From:
no subject
Stranger in a Strange Land took a sexist character, from a sexist universe, deliberately because most of the readers at the time were sexist and needed someone to identify with, and presented an alternate viewpoint.
As to things not progressing, the fact that something like Hominids can be written without people making much comment shows that it has.
From:
no subject
What I'm saying is that in my experience, science-fiction alienates female readers (for a variety of reasons) far, far more than any other genre does. Part of it is gender roles. Part of it is technobabble. Part of it is an assumed language, and part of it is the fact there are so few female authors that there aren't a terribly high number of well-developed female characters.
From:
no subject