The Golden Age of Science Fiction is Now
From a Readercon 15 panel discussion.
An impressive line up–Hal Clement, Ellen Datlow; David G. Hartwell; Farah Mendlesohn (editor of the “Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction” and judge for the Arthur C. Clarke Award); Shane Tourtellotte (nominated for 2000 John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer), moderated by Paul Di Filippo–to discuss the quality of SF now and then.
Which, surprisingly enough, rapidly turned into a non-issue. I was expecting vigorous disagreement–the champions of the establishment defending the quality of ages past against the advocates of a new SF. Instead, Ellen lead off with a stunning list of top rank authors who are publishing kick-ass work today. Octavia Butler, Lucius Shepard are the only names that I can remember right now. After a brief assessement of the characteristics of “Golden Age” SF–idea heavy, plot driver, characterization need not apply– it was no contest. The overwhelming agreement was the Golden Age of SF is now. We have some of best SF writers who have ever lived at the top of their game. Ellen also noted that more new writers are being published all the time.
I have to say it was a relief to be reminded that some of the best work ever is being written now. I get tired of all the gloom and doom. But I also noticed that all of the great names I recognized on Ellen’s list are in their 50’s. There may be high quality work produced, but there’s no depth to the field. Where are the young writers to take up the torch? (Note the names which I recognized are a self-selected list. The names that I didn’t recognize could easily have belonged to young writers with whom I am not yet familiar. However, my recollection is that I recognized almost every name on her list.)
I was also relieved that Ellen noted the prominence of new writers entering the field. She observes that far from being a repository for “Big Names,” the major magazines–SciFiction, Asimov’s, Analog and F&SF–are accepting more work from new writers than ever before, and that work is of higher quality.
But it has been my observation that new writers in Analog are showing up in their early 40’s. Back in the 1970’s, you broke into the field in your early 20’s. It wasn’t unusual to see a byline of someone who was 22 and occasionally there was someone under 18.
Not only has the age of entrance advanced, but the reasons for “more new writers” are predominantly economic. The established writers can’t afford to write short SF or fantasy. That’s the real reason you don’t see as much work from the “Big Names” any more.
So I definitely left the panel with a strong sense of cognitive dissonance: we are supposedly in the Golden Age of SF, except there are no young writers, no young readers, the content is focused on the interests of a narrow age range and the field can’t pay a living wage. I guess that still makes it a Golden Age to some. But not for me.
September 3rd, 2003 at 3:49 pm
The comment makes sense to me, now 34, and long time science fiction fan: what are the childs reading on science fiction rigth now, where is their voice?
Axel
http://zaxl16.blogspot.com/
September 13th, 2003 at 10:30 pm
Spider Robinson posted a rant a few days back about this very topic.,
And now Mark Oakley has published a response
Which isn’t so much of a refutation as an agreement.
December 4th, 2003 at 1:23 am
The article has been moved to the archives, check about halfway down the page or search on Spider Robinson’s name.
First, I have to disagree with Mark on the purpose of stories and story telling. I think the original teller of the Odyssey would be rather surprised to learn the purpose of stories is to “explore and share ideas.” Far and away, the purpose of stories and story telling is to entertain.
The example of romance books as a chance for women to learn all they can about romance? I have difficulty making that reach, but to each his own. Rather, I would assert that SF is one of the few literatures where “exploring and sharing new ideas” is a dominant theme.
I’m also having great difficulty with his underlying premise that science fiction is about exploring “all the possibilities of science and technology.” Exploring the possibilities of science and technology is the province of science writers, think-tanks and R&D departments. Science fiction, if you will, might be an exploration of the effects of technology on individuals, relationships and culture.
While I agree that the party has moved into the kitchen, that current culture has become comfortable with a SFnal future, I would like to point out that the “future” that everyone is comfortable with is represented by a technology level that was imagined by the field at least two decades ago. Further, we are comfortable with the technology–the cells phones and $150 laser printers. We aren’t yet comfortable with the implications of that technology–the cell phone tells your government and your local K-mart where you’ve been visiting.
Finally, I find myself disagreeing with Mark’s premise that science fiction has been rendered irrelevant because
we have arrived at “the Future.” We have arrived at a future, which might be “The Future” for someone in their 80’s. For someone who hasn’t cracked 20 yet, this “future” is more like the past–”so twentieth century.”
Until we succeed in putting the brakes on this runaway beast called technological innovation, which I am not sure is even desirable, there will still be a need to extend our gaze into the fog of the future and guess at what we might find there. As Ash, from the original Alien movies says, “You have my sympathies.”