• io9
  • science
  • overmind
  • kotaku
  • gizmodo
  • Profile logout login

#sciencefiction#popular

io9

Share Cancel
   
Upload an image | Add an image URL
×

logging in
  • FAQ. Include # before tag:
  • #observationdeck,
  • #tips,
  • #calendar,
  • etc.

San Francisco, 4:15 AM
Tue Dec 15
25 posts in the last 24 hours

Team

Tip your editors:

Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |

News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |

Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |

Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |

Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |

Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |

Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |

Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |

More:
io9 on Facebook
follow io9 on Twitter

SUBSCRIBE TO io9 RSS

New: Breaking news and daily top stories via email
1428 Subscribers
io9
  • Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.
    Dsmvwl  Admin  Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×
    Image of Wookie1972 Wookie1972
    12/13/09

    In reply to Urban Fantasy Is A "Gateway Drug." So Does SF Need A Better First High?
    I feel a sense of desperation in all this, sort of a feeling of "barbarians at the gate" with the true sci fi fans fretting about all these fantasy fans muscling them out of the bookstores. But to me it seems obvious why urban fantasy has become so big. Think about it: the first readers of Harry Potter are now in their early to mid 20s. They also grew up with the LOTR movies rather than Stars Trek or Wars. So it's only natural that they would gravitate towards urban fantasy as adult readers.

    What we need is something simple to conceive of but very hard to actually do: a sci-fi Harry Potter. A series geared at young people that grows with the reader and appeals to adults. However, most series aimed at kids are designed to be at only one particular reading level (6-8, 9-12, and teens). Most sci-fi stuff for those levels is tie-in stuff from movies or TV, which usually doesn't translate into reading serious sci-fi.

    Actually, and I realize that this would probably offend many sci-fi fans, but the real gateway, IMHO, would be a good sci-fi manga.
     Reply
    Wookie1972 was starred Wookie1972 was unstarred
    Image of Klebert L. Hall Klebert L. Hall
    12/12/09

    In reply to Urban Fantasy Is A "Gateway Drug." So Does SF Need A Better First High?
    "What's the equivalent "gateway drug" for science fiction?"

    Star Wars.
    -Kle.
     Reply
    Klebert L. Hall was starred Klebert L. Hall was unstarred
    Image of Rasselas Rasselas
    12/12/09

    In reply to Urban Fantasy Is A "Gateway Drug." So Does SF Need A Better First High?
    I don't mean to strike a needlessly cynical tone, but considering the small population of regular readers of anything in the U.S., much less regular readers of fiction, I am inclined to say that the real gateway drug to SFF is the example of parents or one or two good teachers when one is learning to read.
     Reply
    Rasselas was starred Rasselas was unstarred
    Image of Dresan Dresan
    12/11/09

    In reply to Urban Fantasy Is A "Gateway Drug." So Does SF Need A Better First High?
    When talking about a gateway drug, one that gets your attention but doesn't necessarily hook you, you gotta talk about the easy and fun stuff.

    And by easy and fun I mean cartoons. Who doesn't remember Transformers or Robotech, Thundercats or even Dragonball Z (yes, I'm not THAT old)

    From there we move on to books or movies. Star Wars or Arthur C. Clarke are always safe bets.

    Then we move on to the hardcore stuff. In my opinion Greg Bear's 'Eon' is a good choice.
     Reply
    Dresan was starred Dresan was unstarred
    Image of Lassus Lassus
    12/11/09

    In reply to Urban Fantasy Is A "Gateway Drug." So Does SF Need A Better First High?
    If we're talking solely books, I'd simply say Asimov is the true science fiction gateway drug. Period. End of story.

    But even for me, that probably wasn't it - we kids in the 70's had it easy. Seven years old, Star Wars in the theater. Done and done. Hooked for life.

    I'm not sure if movies lead to books as readily any more, but I think all the gateways are visual more than textual.
     Reply
    Lassus was starred Lassus was unstarred
    Image of Chip Overclock Chip Overclock
    12/11/09

    In reply to Urban Fantasy Is A "Gateway Drug." So Does SF Need A Better First High?
    Stross' comment about why you can't write near-future SF reminds me why I like William Gibson's more recent novels: he writes about the present, or even the recent past, but somehow combines intrigue and noir with a viewpoint that isn't so much of the future but a different way of looking at our own present world. (You might argue though that the purpose of much SF is to present a different way of looking at our own present world.)
     Reply
    Chip Overclock was starred Chip Overclock was unstarred
    Image of LittleDragon LittleDragon
    12/11/09

    In reply to Urban Fantasy Is A "Gateway Drug." So Does SF Need A Better First High?
    I love me some literature gateway drugs.
     Reply
    LittleDragon was starred LittleDragon was unstarred
    Image of MonkeyT MonkeyT
    12/11/09

    In reply to Urban Fantasy Is A "Gateway Drug." So Does SF Need A Better First High?
    In a lot of ways, Bond (as well as any techno-thriller) is a gateway drug to science fiction.
     Reply
    MonkeyT was starred MonkeyT was unstarred
    Image of Mathmos Mathmos
    12/11/09

    In reply to Urban Fantasy Is A "Gateway Drug." So Does SF Need A Better First High?
    I read comic books as a child, right up until I happened to look at an issue of Analog on a news stand.
     Reply
    Mathmos was starred Mathmos was unstarred
    Image of Dr Emilio Lizardo Dr Emilio Lizardo
    12/11/09

    In reply to Urban Fantasy Is A "Gateway Drug." So Does SF Need A Better First High?
    Well, LotR was my gateway drug to genre. Then Heinlein juveniles, I Robot and foundation.

    CJA, the problem with your suggestion of "Urban SF" is that the examples you cite - recent Gibson, Stross' "Halting State" are exactly that. Stross is still marginalized as genre and Gibson is now considered literature. If modern day YA SF is anything like the Heinlein juveniles, that's the gateway.
     Reply
    Dr Emilio Lizardo was starred Dr Emilio Lizardo was unstarred
    Image of The Curse of Millhaven The Curse of Millhaven
    12/11/09

    @Dr Emilio Lizardo: Funny, we followed more-or-less the exact same gateway. "Farmer in the Sky" doesn't hold up, but I think it was my first real sci-fi novel.
     Reply
    The Curse of Millhaven was starred The Curse of Millhaven was unstarred
    Image of Dr Emilio Lizardo Dr Emilio Lizardo
    12/11/09

    @The Curse of Millhaven: God, you must be old.
     Reply
    Dr Emilio Lizardo was starred Dr Emilio Lizardo was unstarred
    Image of The Curse of Millhaven The Curse of Millhaven
    12/11/09

    @Dr Emilio Lizardo: Well, it is not like I got it when it was published. It was an old, dog-eared hardback copy that I found in the school library.

    But yeah, I'm old. I think I'll go get a Werther's original and smoke my pipe.
     Reply
    The Curse of Millhaven was starred The Curse of Millhaven was unstarred
    Image of Dr Emilio Lizardo Dr Emilio Lizardo
    12/11/09

    @The Curse of Millhaven: Yeah, me too.
     Reply
    Dr Emilio Lizardo was starred Dr Emilio Lizardo was unstarred
    Image of ManchuCandidate ManchuCandidate
    12/11/09

    In reply to Urban Fantasy Is A "Gateway Drug." So Does SF Need A Better First High?
    I didn't have any gateway SF for my habit. I mainlined with Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein and Smith right away.
     Reply
    Edited by ManchuCandidate at 12/11/09 5:28 PM ManchuCandidate was starred ManchuCandidate was unstarred
    Image of Trystero Trystero
    12/11/09

    In reply to Urban Fantasy Is A "Gateway Drug." So Does SF Need A Better First High?
    I find it interesting that "near-present" and "near-reality" science fiction is no longer regarded as science fiction. It very much seems that something doesn't get marked as science fiction unless it approaches "science fantasy" territory.

    There's an additional problem in that a book is only referred to as sci-fi if its not very good. Have you read Anna Quindlen's introduction for the current paper-back edition of "A Wrinkle in Time"? She says it's not science fiction, but rather "a fiction of science." She basically said that she doesn't like science fiction, but that she doesn't think that "Wrinkle" is science fiction because she likes it.

    She points to the presence of multi-layered characters as some kind of proof that it wasn't sci-fi.

    edit: upon re-reading the intro, she isn't that harsh...it just felt that way when I read it the first time.
     Reply
    Edited by Trystero at 12/11/09 5:30 PM Trystero was starred Trystero was unstarred
    Image of Captain_Tripps Captain_Tripps
    12/11/09

    @Trystero: Whether accurate in this instance or not, that seems like a really common theme, both in literature and even more so in film. People, critics, whatever, seem to want to take the good stuff and put it into a different genre, leaving sci fi with only the hokey and outlandish. I had an argument regarding Jurassic Park on this very subject.
     Reply
    Evil Tortie's Mom: R.O.A.C.H. promoted this comment Captain_Tripps was starred Captain_Tripps was unstarred
    Image of Bill-Lee Bill-Lee
    12/11/09

    In reply to Urban Fantasy Is A "Gateway Drug." So Does SF Need A Better First High?
    My gateway drug to literary science fiction were novels set in the Star Wars, and Star Trek universe. These were followed by Douglas Adams, Isaac Asimov, and Robert Heinlein. I had to get my fix of robots, space wars, and aliens.
     Reply
    Bill-Lee was starred Bill-Lee was unstarred
    Image of Bill-Lee Bill-Lee
    12/04/09

    In reply to Is Fantasy The New Literature Of The Future?
    Fantasy is popular today because its always been popular. The first kind of story our stone age ancestors ever told as they huddled around the fire was about the dude who went out, killed a monster, and brought back some boon for the tribe. Is it really such a great leap from the story about a hunter who killed a giant wolf and brought back fire to a story about Sigurd killing the dragon or Percival achieving the Grail? Is there really such distance between Galahad and Frodo?
     Reply
    Bill-Lee was starred Bill-Lee was unstarred
    Image of Dr Emilio Lizardo Dr Emilio Lizardo
    12/04/09

    In reply to Is Fantasy The New Literature Of The Future?
    Maybe it has something to do with the whole "We are living in the future" idea. What William Gibson writes is more about next week than next century now. Many authors may have trouble extrapolating tredns into the future since it is coming much faster than it used to. You can write the same stories in a fantasy setting without worrying about it.

    Of course you could use space opera set 2 galaxies over or 10,000 years in the future for the same effect. Still, it seems that while the SF of the fifties was not only about predicting the future, they seemed to be trying to set many of their stories on an earth 50 or 100 years from. You just don't see nearly as much of that anymore. Maybe 5 years is the new 50?
     Reply
    Dr Emilio Lizardo was starred Dr Emilio Lizardo was unstarred
    Image of Remus Suciu Remus Suciu
    12/04/09

    @Dr Emilio Lizardo: You could calculate that (roughly) by looking at the number of patents filed (as a stand in for ...innovation...) per capita from the 50s to today: the more innovation there is, the closer the future should be.
     Reply
    smirkette promoted this comment Dr Emilio Lizardo approved this comment Remus Suciu was starred Remus Suciu was unstarred
    Image of TemporalSword TemporalSword
    12/04/09

    @Dr Emilio Lizardo: Here's the other thing: when sci-fi hit its golden age in the 50's and 60's, the future seemed so far away, even when it was set in the 80's or 2001 or what have you. We've caught up to that time and people who were alive then can see the difference between what was thought to be and what is. Everyone lives longer now and setting something even 50 years ahead means we'll still be around for it, maybe even 100 years. Setting it 5 years means there's less chance of being wildly wrong or different (as if that's be a bad thing).
     Reply
    Edited by TemporalSword at 12/04/09 8:31 AM TemporalSword was starred TemporalSword was unstarred
    Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

Login

Enter your username and password.

Please enter a username.
Please enter your password.
logging in
Login via Facebook | Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Reset Password

Please enter your email address to have your password reset.

Please enter your email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
requesting password reset

Register

Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.

Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.

Please enter a username.
Please enter a password.
Please confirm your password.
Passwords are not identical.
Please enter a valid email address.
registration sent, waiting for reply

Submit Your Comment

You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.

See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.

Please enter a valid email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
logging in

Login with your Facebook or io9 account.

Sign up here.



  • Archives
  • About
  • Advertising
  • Legal
  • Help
  • Report a Bug
  • FAQ
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.