To all SSC Station occupants
Thank you for the donations over the past year (2024), it is much appreciated. I am still trying to figure out how to migrate the forums to another community software (probably phpbb) but in the meantime I have updated the forum software to the latest version. SSC has been around a while so their is some very long time members here still using the site, thanks for making SSC home and sorry I haven't been as vocal as I should be in the forums I will try to improve my posting frequency.
Thank you again to all of the members that do take the time to donate a little, it helps keep this station functioning on the outer reaches of space.
-D1-
This is essentially a repost from another forum, but interested in what you guys make of it
http://www.nerds-fea...-exhausted.html
http://www.nerds-fea...xhausted_2.html
Since I don't read prolificly, the name dropping can get a bit much, but the basic thrust of the argument is that since science fiction (and genres in general) are self-defined, authors are increasingly sticking to what could be described as 'core' scifi, rather than poking at the fuzzy boundaries, and this is leading to the genre becoming stale and lacking in ideas.
I'm personally inclined to agree, as I've not recently come across anything that I think "wow, that's really pushing the envelope, and it's sci fi"
.
Nowadays I exclusively read sci-fi. At the moment the Horus Heresy saga (Warhammer 40.000).
I read the first ~100 books of Perry Rhodan (German sci-fi) and about 5 or 6 books from Dan Simmons. And hundreds of other sci-fi in the past.
For me they all feel different and most of the lore/universes have pretty much different settings. Although there is often a tendency towards imperialism/dictatorship.
I am not sure what this 'core' sci-fi is, but regarding my life span and all the books that have already been written and that will be written in the future I don't see me being bored or dissappointed anytime soon.
I think it's more the feeling that none of those settings or scenarios are particularly new nor innovative. They may be well written, but at the same time, they are just employing the same old tropes.
I only scanned through that interview, so I won't comment on it.
I will recommend Charles Stross, though - try Singularity Sky.
Somebody got genre-bored and decided that the whole world needs to know about it.
I think Diablo kinda nailed it.
But it woldn't be the first time SciFi reached a sort of exhausted state - and some time has to go by until some new author "reinvents" the genre.
Looking at the diversity of modern scifi I have my doubts it has "reached winter", but I'm not the most profilic of readers and haven't followed the latest books.
In my opinion,no. There are so many really good sci-fi films,games,books. And there are so many ideas waiting for an embodiment!
Only thing I don't like is when some one finds a sweet spot to be in and makes a game, movie or whatever and then the copycats come and try to profit from that success. Sometimes too much of the same thing is bad because it taints the good stuff.
This link may be relevant here: Sturgeons Law
Excerpt from that page:
90% of everything is crud.
This is Sturgeon's Revelation, but common usage has it that this phrase is what is meant when the Law is cited. The actual quote for the Law is, "Nothing is always absolutely so."
This law comes from an observation on Sturgeon's part; when he saw that critics were calling 90% of Sci-Fi crap, he flipped it on them instead and stated that 90% of anything is crap.
Latest Post: G-Rebels Our newest member: Jamesknoms Recent Posts Unread Posts
