Decades of SF

[ShannonA]

There's an interesting blog post on "what's going on with SF" that breaks down trends by decade:
http://eleanorarnason.blogspot.com/2008/06/what-is-going-on-with-sf.html

1930s: Doc Smith & the pulps
1940s: Campbell & Astounding
1950s: H.L. Gold and Galaxy, Anthony Boucher and F&SF1960s: The New Wave
1970s: Women writers
1980s: Cyberpunk
1990s: New Space Opera, British writers
2000s: Post-singularity

Agree? Disagree? Other major trends?

[HAL Jr]

That's a pretty accurate summary there,but am a bit unsure about the 2000s entry- post singularity?

[ShannonA]

That was actually a suggestion by one of the readers, as opposed to the original bloggers' listing, but it was the same thought that came to my mind too.

It designates those stories set after a technological singularity has occurred, which is usually a semi-apocalyptic wave of technological increases that end up happening near simultaneously.

[Azrael]

My impression is more simple.

To me it just seems that the sci-fi of the moment is just the current society, with whatever technology that currently drives it being... bigger... and more prevalent.

Add on top of that peoples fears of that same technology or societal change, and there you have it.

When I read SF it always tells me more about the writers current society than it tells me about their views of the future. Which makes sense, the stories that resonate with the experiences of the reader are going to naturally be more popular.

There are, of course, ideas that get adopted. Asimov's three laws of robotics were, for a time, a virtual bible for SF writers. The concept of a technological singularity is likely to be our "idea". Both these examples are ways to address the current fear of technological change. Back in Asimov's time, the idea of powerful robots were scary, but technology was "understandable" and "describable" by the creators, so it was a comforting (and plausible) idea that we would build in safeguards. That is the "obvious" way things will go in the future.

Right now we're living in a world of spam, computer virii, iphones, wireless... technology is increasing rapidly, and there is no one human on this planet who understands how the internet (in entirety) works. We understand *aspects* of it. That's not to say it'll grow out of control, or kill us, but it means that one person can't understand it all. Technology keeps growing, which makes the ability for one person to understand an entire field of advancement even less possible. Our perception of this gap in understanding segues well into stories of a singularity - where technology is advancing so fast that we cannot predict where it'll lead. Our current "theme" is the unknown effects of technology.

That's pretty new. Older SF doesn't have much of this at all. Technology in the older stories pretty much does what it did back then. But better. Spaceships are just a better way of traveling. Robots were servants, advisors, soldiers... but they were *understandable* - they thought like humans. Maybe unimaginative, or super-intelligent, or whatever, but they made sense. SF weapons were normal weapons with a "catch" - a laser gun is basically just a gun. A planet-cracking grenade is just a big grenade.

It interests me that in Stainless Steel Rat stories the planets are either highly law-abiding (because "obviously" law enforcement would get more efficient with better technology, so there won't be any way for criminals to thrive) or completely savage (and the savage planets are mostly low-tech)

We don't seem to get that idea in our SF - we've seen the explosion of the internet help with some crimes, and assist with others.

The list Shannon posted seems to be about right. What interests me more than the stories that were told is *why* those stories were told. Anyone interested in mapping the themes from each decade to real-world events and changes happening at that time?

[Azrael]

It designates those stories set after a technological singularity has occurred, which is usually a semi-apocalyptic wave of technological increases that end up happening near simultaneously.

Random thought: Hasn't the technological singularity already happened? Don't we spend all our time sitting in front of and interacting through computers? Could people a hundred years ago have predicted this?

Technology is increasing at an exponential rate, but aren't we also adapting to the changes at an exponential rate? How would we *know* when we're in a singularity? (and isn't a singularity measured from the point where you start looking forward? So different starting points would have a different singularity point?)

I'm more interested in the immortality event horizon (the point where our medical (or other) technology gets good enough to keep us alive forever) - and that will be a specific point. (maybe)

....
I don't think I'm the only person musing about this. It's probably thoughts like this which change the SF of the generation.
....

</end tangent>

[Azrael]

Another thought...

is SF really a genre? Is Fantasy?

Right now "superhero movies" are popular. I'd strongly argue that (as much as I love them) they are not a "genre"

The genre is "action movie" and the story just happens to be about someone with super powers. Look at movies like "my super ex-girlfriend" or "sky high"
One is a comedy about breaking up with a crazy girl who wants revenge (and has the power to do so) and the other is about a boy who goes to a high school and is trying to fit in, make the girl like him, etc.
Both are pretty standard movies, with the "twist" that there are super powers involved. The story structure is *identical* to hundreds of other movies. In "super ex girlfriend" she could just as easily be the chief of police, CEO of some company, friends with a Mafia Wiseguy etc. and made his life difficult.
With "sky high" ... do I even need to point out all the "guy discovers that the unpopular group are important too, and are true friends" movies?

Is SF really a genre, or just a setting? Are we so obsessed with "action" that we need to split it up "I only like action that has elves", "I only like action that has spaceships"? Do we actually *tell* our action stories differently? (I don't expect the cast of Battlestar to pull out a magic wand, or call on Aslan to save them. Then again, I haven't seen series 3 and 4, and it looked like Rosalind was heading that direction...)

I'd be inclined to consider stories to fall into broader themes, like "cautionary tale" "power corrupts", and leave "SF" or "Fantasy" to be the setting. "Set in a post-apocalyptic world" seems just a meaningful to me as "It's SF"

If that's true, have I just broken things down into "themes" and "settings" and I'm ignoring "genre" altogether?
To me the distinction between "SF" and "non-SF" has always been extremely blurry.
Or maybe when SF was "fringe cult" it was a genre, but now that it's popularly accepted it's branched away and become larger? Much like how "superhero movie" meant "action movie with super powers" - until it became popular enough that people started making other sorts of stories that involved superheroes. Then it lost meaning as a genre?

Am I rambling? If so, ignore me.
If not? Maybe that explains some difficulties in classifying the "way SF has changed" since we're actually talking about ways new genres are being created?

[Joebot]

Another thought...

is SF really a genre? Is Fantasy?



Genres have always largely been artificial. They have more to do with sales and marketing than with the themes that you mentioned. Can you imagine walking into a bookstore divided up by theme? "Excuse me, where's the 'cautionary tale' section?" That might be kinda cool ... but probably a bit messy.

I would argue that genre classifications have more to do with setting the reader's expectations. Genres come pre-packaged with a set of conventions and "rules" that the reader is expecting. If I pick up a bodice-ripper in the romance section, I know what I'm getting. It's comfortable and familiar.

Of course there are always those authors who blur or push those comfortable boundaries. China Mieville is a good example. His stuff is almost impossible to pigeon-hole into a single, convenient genre.

[Azrael]

Genres have always largely been artificial. They have more to do with sales and marketing than with the themes that you mentioned. Can you imagine walking into a bookstore divided up by theme? "Excuse me, where's the 'cautionary tale' section?" That might be kinda cool ... but probably a bit messy.

I would argue that genre classifications have more to do with setting the reader's expectations. Genres come pre-packaged with a set of conventions and "rules" that the reader is expecting. If I pick up a bodice-ripper in the romance section, I know what I'm getting. It's comfortable and familiar.

Of course there are always those authors who blur or push those comfortable boundaries. China Mieville is a good example. His stuff is almost impossible to pigeon-hole into a single, convenient genre.

Exactly what I was trying to say :) But worded more eloquently!

But, since SF is becoming more mainstream, and there is a larger body of work, are we getting to the point where it's not useful for a bookstore to just say SF? Could we get to "Classic SF" "Post-Apocalypse" "Singularity" etc?
I don't think we're there yet, and I'm not sure if it would be necessary.
It seems to me that a warhammer 40k book is so wildly different to "Flowers for Algenon" - I have trouble wrapping my head around them both being in the same section. That doesn't seem to be doing anything meaningful as far as setting my expectations. But then again, I am talking about the outliers, I suppose the vast majority of SF does fall into the "expected" range.

And there's a reason that I pick up a book and read the back. And it's not hard to google for "Classic SF" then look up those authors. Looking at the list above, it's probably just as easy to order SF by the decade in which it's written than coming up with more categories.

I also have to admit that I didn't understand all these categories (maybe I just missed SF of that nature, or maybe I didn't associate it with that name) - what characterizes each of them? "Women writers"?

[ShannonA]

But, since SF is becoming more mainstream, and there is a larger body of work, are we getting to the point where it's not useful for a bookstore to just say SF?

In my house, all the sf/f/h is divided into two sections: good books and mass-market crap. Of course, my mileage may vary from other peoples'.

I also have to admit that I didn't understand all these categories (maybe I just missed SF of that nature, or maybe I didn't associate it with that name) - what characterizes each of them? "Women writers"?

I can't speak for all of them but for the 1970s I can say that it highlights an increased number of female writers, a tendency which stayed strong through the early 1980s.

[Azrael]

I can't speak for all of them but for the 1970s I can say that it highlights an increased number of female writers, a tendency which stayed strong through the early 1980s.

But how did that change the stories themselves?
If I couldn't see the author's name on the cover, what differences would I notice in the SF from that decade?

This discussion made me look up the Stainless Steel rat books - I was surprised to find most of them were written in the 90's... I always thought of them as coming from somewhere around the 50s. I read them during the 90s and even then they felt dated.

[ShannonA]

But how did that change the stories themselves?
If I couldn't see the author's name on the cover, what differences would I notice in the SF from that decade?


On the fantasy side of things, the female authors led pretty directly to the creation of the romantic fantasy genre, which tended to be stories about outcasts looking to become part of society.

In the wider SF genre: I dunno.

[ShannonA]

Here's an interesting addendum (by a different author):
http://heron61.livejournal.com/575341.html

It talks about how the fantasy genre in the US had been largely abandoned prior to the release of Lord of the Rings and what happened in the late 60s and 70s.