A comment from Johnny:
Uhu... so, execs suck because they hire successful writers and when those writers turn out to be less successful it's because the execs didn't understand them in the first place. Oh, and audiences suck because they want what they want. Is it remotely possible that Dollhouse sucked and that's why the Company and the hoi polloi turned their backs on it? Wheadon is a one hit wonder turned hack. Call it the Lucas syndrome. Or lack of talent. Fine, I'll take that back... the dude gave us Heathers with fangs, good idea. Though it did pave the road to Melrose Place with fangs, not such a good idea. We all know there's only one good vampire show on the air these days, and that show's Kalifornication.
Well, Johnny, instead of just trying to be obstreperous, go back and read the post. I didn't say executives suck. I'm not sure what you were reading, or in which universe you were reading it, but you've misunderstood. Or maybe you're just a Joss Whedon hating troll. I dunno. There are a lot of reasons for Dollhouse's failure, and Whedon hisself addresses many of them. Which I would think would be illuminating for people interested in TeeVee...
I have been enjoying science fiction author Philip Palmer's blog, who recently stepped into the "SF is dying" meme. Here's the
link.
The basic premise is this: Dude #1 (Mark Charan Newton) has come up with four reasons fantasy is more popular than science fiction. And they are:
1) More women than men read books.
2) Culture has caught up with our imagination.
3) Literary fiction is eating up SF.
4) Modern fantasy audiences have grown up on the films of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings.
The problem, it seems to me, is that the science fiction folks have become SO close-minded about what constitutes science fiction (lookin' at you, Charles Stross) that it's become this nerdy invite-only club. And although it's entertaining to make fun of Twilight, a lot of these folks go way too far. If you want new science fiction readers, you probably ought not make vicious fun of other fans.
Obviously, the whole discussion sprang up because of the insane popularity of Twilight and Harry Potter. But the notion that the people who read these books and see the movies are genre fans is erroneous. They're Harry Potter fans, and Twilight fans. Maybe they move onto other stuff but you can't assume that, or else you'd be assuming that people who love Dan Brown books will go on and read other books. If that were true, Tim Powers would be living in a fucking mansion with twenty servants and a private jet.
The rigorous mind-set of some science fiction writers who seem to WANT to pigeon-hole their content is not doing the genre any favors. I realize that one of the commandments of geek is "Thou must form subgroups," but now you're just hurting yourselves. If you want to constantly prove you're the smartest kids in the room, well, fine, but it's gonna cost you.
I have to wonder, though, would science fiction writers moan and complain if some science fiction book became all popular... BUT GOT THE SCIENCE WRONG? Or was poorly written? With lousy characters and lame plots? Or would they be delighted that the audience is responding to it? I would say the former, because they would go, "But there are SO many better writers to read!" Well, same thing in fantasy. Twilight and Harry Potter aren't particularly well written or original. But how often does something truly well written and imaginative gain insane popularity? Science fiction writers are refusing to see this. And it's frustrating, and weird, until you really sit down and think about where it's coming from.
The entire discussion seems to exist so science fiction authors and fans can denigrate fantasy. Jealousy and envy turn to hate and anger, and we all know what happens then. But when you read the back-and-forth you start to find a pattern. As Newton said above, more women read than men. And the extrapolation of that is that more women read fantasy. And the extrapolation of THAT is that more women read fantasy because it has romance in it.
Mr. Palmer says,
Point 1) is a killer: yes, women do read more books, and it seems that by and large they don't read 'blokey' hard SF. (I'm basing this on anecdotal evidence, admittedly - if the publishers know more or different, I'd love to hear it.)
However, I do recall being on a panel at a Sci Fi London event where a female fan asked, sweetly and devastatingly, why SF writers are always so obsessed with 'getting it [the science] right.'
And her words struck me like a body blow. Here was a fan who wanted to be told stories. She didn't want books which taught her all the science she'd so far managed to avoid by not doing physics and chemistry A Levels. And so the whole geeky, anoraky dimension to hard SF was, for her, like a huge Keep Out sign.
And yet! SF - of the hard and space opera variety - is all about concepts and ideas and amazing extrapolations of scientific insights. Like the many-world theory, or the astonishing properties of black holes, or the commonsense -defying theory of quantum physics. These concepts give a backdrop to a world of the extraordinary, where wonderful events can occur as a matter of course. And it is or should be no harder for the lay reader to grasp these concepts than it is for readers of Dan Brown to follow his historical and esoteric digressions.
'Hard' SF , therefore, shouldn't mean SF that's 'hard,' and on which you will be tested by stern faced boffins.
And, personally, though I love the SF of ideas, I get bored when it's gadgety and geeky, all about the machinery (plot and otherwise) and not about the story and the characters.
EXACTLY, and I guarantee you that this is exactly what that female fan was on about. My issue with Stross's bleatings has to do with the insane nerd quotient, that segment that cares much more about spaceship design and star maps than characters and dilemmas. So the female fan, I believe, was responding to what the science fiction fans and writers have been known to say -- "IT'S ALL ABOUT THE SCIENCE, YOU DIM-WITTED FUCKERS!! If you don't understand it, go read your My Little Vampire books." Which they then did, and now science fiction writers are wondering where their readers are.
If this woman had been presented with an Alastair Reynolds book, or a Robert Charles Wilson book, or a John Scalzi book, then she would probably have been happy. She's not stupid for asking the question; the science fiction writers who throw that wall up are stupid for MAKING her ask it.
Look, anyone can understand ANYTHING if it's explained well enough. That doesn't mean things get dumbed down. Instead, the characters have to be well written enough to support the concept and make the reader WANT to understand. But pages and pages of fiction that's all about science, with no plot or character support? Bullshit. I'll just go read a Michio Kaku book, thanks very much. And yes, I can wrap my girl head around the concepts.
Isaac Asimov could explain science and math to "regular folk." Gregory Benford explains scientific possibilities for TIME TRAVEL, for fuck's sake. And you don't have to be a genius to understand it. You just have to be a good enough writer to write it. So, science fiction writers, before you go bemoaning the genre's lack of popularity, maybe you should take a good, hard look in the mirror. You blame the readers, but shouldn't you take some of the blame yourselves?
Palmer says, about Battlestar Galactica:
But why is this show so beloved by female fans? For it is a "blokey" show if ever there was one. It's all about hardware and spaceships - the Vipers, the Battlestars, the Cylon ships. There are even long scenes in the engineering bay in which spaceship mechanics talk about the mechanics of spaceships. There is jargon aplenty. All in all, there is little - very very little - of what one might call "girly" stuff. And yet women love it. They don't just love it, they adore it, in their millions. It's SF! It's Hard SF! Why????
I think there are three reasons.
First, it's bloody good. It's smart, complex, morally ambiguous, and has characters you can engage with, and care about, and be exasperated by. Women fans are smart, just like male fans; they want stories that challenge them, and make them think and feel.
Secondly, it's sexy. Genuinely sexy. It's not the old-fashioned pulp cliched stuff with big-breasted Amazons with no brains; the women in this show are sexy, the men are sexy, and the Cylons (Number 6! be still my beating heart!) are the sexiest of all. And it's sexy in a totally non-sexist way. The beautiful young women in this show are often seen in revealing vests; but the gorgeous young men wear the same uniforms. And the old guys - Admiral Adama and Colonel Tigh - are also seen in the same revealing outfits, and dammit, they may be old and gnarly but they look good.
Thirdly, the women are just like men. They can be vicious. They can be cruel. Kara Thrace (Starbuck) is a swaggering arrogant jock who punches her senior officer and smokes a cigar - and we love her.
My theory is that the show is made a bunch of men who know nothing about women, so they write them just like men. And women, it seems, like that approach - because it's not condescending, and reflects a fundamental truth about our genders: women can, and do, kick ass.
Well. No. The reason the female characters work on Galactica has more to do with the fact that they're written like PEOPLE first. And you know what? So are the male characters. Because the male characters on Galactica can be sensitive and brooding and fragile. Y'know. Like fucking PEOPLE. The women on the show don't work when they're written like women. But hey, now we're talking about TeeVee, where staffs of men are hired to write female characters with nary a female writer in sight. And when they TRY to write women like women and not like people, they fail. Conversely, when ANY writer tries to write men like men and not like people, they also fail.
Stereotyping fiction into different factions leads to the stereotyping of the audience. It seems to me that some science fiction writers WANT to do this. They don't want women reading their books. But I don't want to read anything that isn't well written, so take that as you will. You can have all the research on the planet but if you can't write, an awful lot of people aren't going to give you the time of day.
Mr. Palmer wonders if science fiction writers are going to have to turn to epic fantasy, which he admits is, of course, ridiculous. But open up a bit, guys. Stop being so narrow-minded. There is tremendous work being done in science fiction. Instead of deriding the women who read fantasy, why not make a real effort to find out WHY they like that genre so much? And why not make a play for them? And here's something to think about -- why not, just one time, write a science fiction book with a female protagonist?
Didja ever think maybe THAT has something to do with it?
And then there's this, from Sam J. Lundwall:
“The question of whether a certain story of imagination is a fantasy or a science fiction work would depend upon the device the author uses to explain his projected or unreal world. If he uses the gimmick or device of saying: ‘This is a logical or probable assumption based upon known science, which is going to develop from known science or from investigations of areas not yet quite explored but suspected,’ then one could call it science fiction. But if he asks the reader to suspend his disbelief simply because of the fun of it, in other words, just to say: ‘Here is a fairy tale I’m going to tell you,’ then it is fantasy. It could actually be the same story.”
In other words, "Science fiction is logical, fantasy is made-up and illogical." Science fiction folk seem to have a VERY specific, narrow idea of what constitutes science fiction. They are trying to apply this narrow viewpoint to fantasy as well (witness the assertion all over the interwebs that urban fantasy is paranormal romance). But fantasy, well... there are SO many different ways to go. Fairy tales are just one. Magic realism. Urban fantasy. High fantasy. Contemporary fantasy. Etc. But I personally don't just like one of those sub-genres. I like bits of all of them. Same with science fiction. I like time travel stories, spaceship stories, even future war stories. AS LONG AS YOU FUCKERS WRITE THEM WELL.
So how about we refer to these sub-genres under one umbrella -- speculative fiction. Because at the end of the day, that's what it IS. Everybody's not going to like everything -- I really can't stand high fantasy, for example -- but you have a better chance of getting new readers if you don't alienate them before they've even picked up one of your books.
When we're talking about TeeVee and movies, incidentally, science fiction is actually MORE popular. Star Trek made a ton of money this year. So did Transformers. And unless your show has vampires in it, it's VERY difficult to get a fantasy show off the ground. Partly, I think, because science fiction is perceived as having procedural elements, while fantasy is not. What I like is the emergence of shows that don't have those restrictions. Lost, for example, has science fiction and magic realism elements. The more the networks insist on shows set in a recognizable world, the more opportunity there is to do urban and magic realism. You just have to be CLEVER about it. Science fictionally, there's FlashForward, V, Eureka, Stargate, Sanctuary, Fringe (which also steps into the fantasy world), Warehouse 13 (fantasy elements as well). I'm sure I'm leaving some out...
Anyway, as a woman writing genre on TeeVee, I resent it when arguments are invented seemingly just to bash women. I've really had it with this shit.
Posts
