SF on the Front Lines
Apologies for the site going stale. Life interferes. I had a car to fix up for sale, then a motorcycle–farewell beautifyl green Beamer–and renovations to finish off.
David Hartwell has declared the golden age of science fiction is twelve. If so, SF has yet to find its comback road.
We’re looking at schools for our oldest who will be entering either Kindergarten or first grade depending upon whether we can triumph over an insensitive administration. The school we visited today was having the standard Scholastic Book Fair. Over 700 items for sale, from early readers through YA material.
How many SF titles do you think were on the shelves? And how many SF related titles were on the shelves?
Fantasy was well represented even beyond J. K Rowling and knockoffs. Horror also made a proud stand beyond R. L Stine and the "Goosebumps" series. But there were no SF titles.
Zip.
Zilch.
Nada.
Heck, the spy/thriller genre was better represented. There were two Tom Clancy styled thrillers. One featured a boy saving the world from a disaffected Russian sub commander.
It goes beyond the absence of fiction. I could find only two SF/advanced technology related titles. One on ISS, the international space station, and another on the future of space exploration. First, it breaks my heart. Second, it worries me. Yes, its adults selecting what will be presented, but I assume they’re fairly responsive to their audience. One first glance, this looks to me like an audience that is divorced from science, technology, and the burn to explore both the world around them and the Universe far away.
A culture and a people afraid of technology and distanced from it are destined to become victims of it, not controllers or knowlegeable users.
Best regards,
Alan
May 12th, 2004 at 7:44 am
In an amazing bit of serendipity, Matthew Cheney was also discussing this:
http://mumpsimus.blogspot.com/2004/05/sf-for-kids.html
Trent
May 16th, 2004 at 7:46 pm
A. Lattimore "A culture and a people afraid of technology and distanced from it are destined to become victims of it, not controllers or knowlegeable users."
I have a different question. Are kids afraid of technology, or is it so transparent to them that they don’t question it? I suspect both problems exist, perhaps even simultaneously for some kids.
Dawn J-L
May 18th, 2004 at 12:23 am
Dawn -
Good to see you one the boards!
Blankety blank. I thought I could get awy with just raising the questions, and leave it to readers wiser than myself to guide us through thoughtful discourse towards a hopefully productive resolution. Alas, to be called on to address mine own issue.
Do I think young people of today are comfortable with the technology of today, more so than folks 30 years their senior? Tough call. People of my parents generation have been slow to adopt technology such as the personal computer, but a huge majority have. On the other hand, the novel uses of text messages on cell phones or phone cams are largely driven by the under 30 crowd. Over all, I’d give the edge to folks under 30.
Do I think young people of today are more comfortable with technological change overall? When the next cool device is introduced when they’re 60, will they adopt it rapidly or with the same hesitation my grandparents might have reagrded the personal computer? My answer starts out "people are people." I’d expect them to be about as hesitant to adopt radical change.
But that acceptance is also culturally determined. I live in a part of the country where scientific curiosity must be replaced with belief, science is entirely suspect, Darwin is synonymous with evil, and technology, as the fruit of science, must be carefully watched and regulated. Those aspects, such as weapons research, that support God’s plan are acceptable. Those that tranfer authority and responsibility to the individual, such as gene mapping, must be suppressed.
So I am concerned the children of today will be comfortable with many elements of technology that fill the lower rungs of a consumer society but will be encouraged to be ignorant or suspicious of technology at large.
My revised question would be: are wonder and curiosity about the world at large–that need for children and young adults to understand our Universe at a fundamental level–endangered? Does SF have a responsibility to promote a questing mind and respond to the need for exploration?
Best regards,
Alan
May 18th, 2004 at 12:25 am
Trent -
Thanks!
Alan
May 18th, 2004 at 11:30 am
I certainly agree that the question is complicated and the problems vary with the socio-economic contexts.
Speaking in overly general cultural terms, I guess I’m wondering if SF is less "interesting" to contemporary young writers and readers than other storytelling modes because SF traditionally romanticizes science/technology — even in its dystopic forms– and science and technology have become too mundane to the general population to be thought provoking. I think that perception is extremely problematic, but I pose it as one possible part of why there is less SF — particulary for the juvenile and YA markets.
Here’s some more food for provcative thought
You are a parent. What questions or problems do your children ask that you think could be explored via SF stories?
–Dawn J-L
May 21st, 2004 at 3:51 pm
It was science fiction fan Pete Graham who first said "The golden age of science fiction is twelve."
Writers, of course, are more objective. It’s probably sheer coincidence that, for example, Jonathan Lethem and William Gibson happened to be in their teens during what they consider the golden age of sf to have been.
—
Dan Goodman
May 21st, 2004 at 11:28 pm
I think there was a study in the last year or so that suggested people who read SF as young adults are no more likely to become scientists than average. (IIRC, they were more likely than average to be readers later in life and they wre more knowledgeable, generally, about science and technology.) I’ll query the IAFA newsgroup and see if anyone else can produce a link to the study.
But it might hull my argument "reading SF will promote comfort with science and technology" below the waterline.
Best regards,
Alan
May 22nd, 2004 at 12:08 am
It seems to me that if the frontiers of technology, as presented in SF, become static we’ll have a real problem with younger readers. If the vision of the future projected by the SF of today hasn’t moved beyond the original depcitions of cyber punk, yes, we’ll get lapped by the change wave. When the audience is interested in cutting edge science and technology, I don’t see Tom Swift and his Giant Robot (1954) holding down the fort as well as reprints of Nancy Drew.
If we call it the future but it looks like today, I can see how it might not attract modern, young readers. And it also isn’t going to meet my concern about introducing the next generation to unknowable, alien futures.
The only contemporary YA/SF I have read recently is Mortal Engines. It’s an enjoyable, rewarding read. If you like Pullman’s His Dark Materials Trilogy, I would expect you to enjoy Engines. From my perspective, that’s exactly the problem. Philip Reeve has solved the problem of prognostication by working in a degenerate world. As readable and enjoyable as it is, this story has more flavor of a fantasy with technological trappings than a real SF story.
But it seems to me that SF ought to be able to provide visions of the future and technology that are sufficiently sophisticated as to represent 2050 with some degree of wonder and realism, where the technology is as advanced from the kids of today as the technology presented in SF of the 1950’s was advanced from the kids who lived in the 1950’s.
Best regards,
Alan Lattimore