posted
I don’t want to start out on the wrong foot here, stepping into territory way, way out of my league, but I think its safe to say that science fiction is one of the oldest forms of human storytelling there is. It might not be as old as the romance, ("Alas! As Og looked upon the fair maiden moving through the high grass he knew, then and there, that he would never be at home in the trees so long as she strolled upright upon the ground.") but it’s up there.
Consider: Four or five thousand years ago, telling stories was big business, and what kind of stories were in demand? Explanations. Why isn’t the rainfall constant? Why do we die? Why did my neighbor steal all my grain? These were the deep, mind-bending questions of the day. And with science limited to building mud huts and supporting unprecedented population densities, people had to look a bit beyond the current science of the day.
Now, you might be calling foul right about now. Gilgamesh ain’t science fiction! Well, why not? Gilgamesh is full of alien life forms, undiscovered lands, a quest to beat death; all the ingredients of your modern transhumanist adventure. And it was rigorously accurate to the knowledge of the day. Of course the gods are out there!
1634: A bright guy by the name of Johannes Kepler, who achieved some minor fame by measuring wine casks, publishes a little book called Somnium, about some guy who travels to the Moon and finds it to be inhabited! Crazy! And slightly suspect, but the Church had bigger fish to fry at the time.
Anyway, go forward a bit more and you see stuff like Poe’s Ligeia and The Unparalleled Adventure of one Hans Pfaall. Of course, Poe is one of the first SF critics, too, publishing an article critiquing another balloon to the moon tale that, in his opinion, didn’t quite hold up to the modern understanding.
So, uh, what the heck does this have to do with Star Trek novels? Let’s look at the two men usually acknowledged as the founders of "modern" science fiction, Jules Verne and H.G. Wells. In 1865, (1865! We’re busy fighting over slavery, and this guy is 100 years ahead of us!) Verne wrote From the Earth to the Moon. Now Verne was plugged in to the science of his day like no one else. He was sued by a chemist for character defamation! A very with-it guy, all things considered. 36 years later, Wells publishes his own version, The First Men on the Moon.
The thing is, Verne, shall we say, strongly disapproved of that book, and Wells in general. Wells was just a dabbler, pretending to use science but in reality just writing fantasy. Cavorite? He made it up! The august Frenchman would never stoop to such a level.
And so we’ve got the first conflict between hard and soft SF, or science fiction and science fantasy, or just plain fantasy, or speculative fiction versus that skiffy crap. This internal division continues to heat things up today. Witness the vast amounts of anger and uproar when Harry Potter won a Hugo.
If this was the only issue people who read science fiction had to deal with, then everything would be perfect. The world would be a blissful daydream. It isn’t, of course.
The problem is, as I see it, that no one takes science fiction seriously, and the moment any science fiction is so good people can no longer ignore it, it gets quickly yanked out of the genre. Which of the following books are SF, if any, keeping in mind both the hard and soft, or fantasy and techish categories? Gravity’s Rainbow, Fahrenheit 451, A Scanner Darkly, The Satanic Verses? All of them? None of them?
The answer is that science fiction is in the eye of the beholder. Damon Knight famously remarked that science fiction is whatever you’re pointing at when you’re talking about it. And this is exactly why Star Trek novels are choking the life out of modern science fiction.
Let’s say you like science fiction. You’re passionate about it. Because there is something terribly, terribly wrong with you, you think science fiction actually matters, that art and literature can have some sort of effect on the real world. And so you’ve found all sorts of deeply meaningful things to talk about in brilliantly written books, and you want to share that with the world. But no one will listen to you, because as far as they’re concerned what you like is the worst sort of trash. And the reason for that is obvious when you go down to the mall and walk through the SF section of your local bookstore.
Since about the early 90’s (a somewhat arbitrary but more or less accurate date), "real" science fiction literature, that is, books written about things the authors decided to write about (and which publishers were willing to buy) have been slowly replaced by the media tie-in novel. I’m not about to go off spouting conspiracy theories and claiming the intervention of dark international publishing cabals; it’s the result of the market at work. People want to read about what they see on TV. As far as that goes, I’ve got no value judgments to make. If only that was as far as it went.
My father recently brought the first volume of The Eugenic Wars series, by Greg Cox, back from the library. Being the eager, slightly hypocritical Star Trek fan I am, I was eager to page through it. I was incredibly disappointed. Here was a book written in a style so flat as to be almost indistinguishable from any random selection of words. The book has no real characters, no real plot. In a way, it’s the perfect semiotic work. Move over, Eco. This book is entirely made up of signifiers, but nothing within it is signified. Cox presents his characters solely through references to things the reader is already familiar with. Thus, Gary Seven can’t go a page without tossing out some painfully contrived reference to the Borg, or the Vulcans, or the Klingons, and it is through these alone that we’re supposed to build his character.
I have to believe that, were it not for the Star Trek logo on the cover, this book would be unpublishable.
The Eugenics Wars series is widely praised among fans as being one of the best Trek novels currently published. And so it seems reasonable to assume that it represents the cream of the crop.
The fundamental problem with the media tie-in is this reliance upon reference to the exclusion of everything else. I, or anyone else, can pick up a copy of Dune and like or dislike it solely on its own merits. I don’t need to have seen an entire television series to pick up even the most basic plot and character elements. I don’t even need to know anything about Arabic, or nomadic desert cultures, or ecology. On the other hand, it’s impossible for someone to understand a media tie-in novel without that experience. But when the only thing a book contains is references to ideas outside of it, it becomes impossible for that book to say anything new or meaningful. Media tie-ins can’t be novel, in other words.
If media tie-ins were an isolated phenomena, none of this would be a problem either. People enjoy lots of things that don’t carry any intrinsic value. We don’t need to get rid of cotton candy. But go back to your neighborhood bookstore and consider the ratios. How many independent books are there versus media tie-ins?
The reason why the media tie-in novel is so disastrous to science fiction is, simply, this: When the people inside the genre, that is, the fans, assume that media tie-ins are the SF norm, the people outside the genre have no choice but to concur. Which they have, by and large. And so every science fiction book published has to wage a losing battle against this mountain of opinion that claims that media tie-ins are representative of science fiction and thus the entire genre is garbage, good for a quick read at the beach, but surely not MEANINGFUL or anything. Heavens no.
Science fiction is still struggling with its climb up from the pulps, when fans were so desperate for stories about spaceships and aliens that they would read anything, regardless of quality. Those days are over now, and we’ve got an almost ridiculous wealth of amazingly written science fiction that is approachable by everyone, that is rich in plot and character, that contains ideas to marvel over, ponder, chew up and spit back in altered forms. Or at least we would, if anyone could find them.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I liked the Eugenics Wars because of the frequent references to other pop-culture references too.. I'm not in it for the deep understanding of the universe right now.. otherwise i might not have a CrystalPepsi site, right? I like like my beer cold, my TV loud and my novels campy!
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
i gave up reading that whole post, but as far as i did read, it made a lot of sence with the "years ago they must have told sif-fi stories" and all but is see what your getting at.
-------------------- "Explore New Worlds"
Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
'sif-fi'? structural integrity field fiction? I prefer more esoteric genres myself...
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote: i gave up reading that whole post, but as far as i did read, it made a lot of sence with the "years ago they must have told sif-fi stories" and all but is see what your getting at.
Kind of ironic, considering thats one of the main reasons why media tie-in novels sell so well.
The simple fact is that people don't like having their pre-conceptions challenged, having to think, or in the case of the quote...even pay too much attention to what they're reading. Thats why Star Trek novels do so well, like the latest John Grisham novel...you pretty much always know what to expect. Its the same universe, no major characters will die (without being resurrected), everything will be comfortably bland and politically correct.
Don't believe me? Walk into your local Chapters, Coles, or what not. Around half, or if you're lucky, a third of the Science Fiction shelves will be filled with Star Trek and Star Wars novels. Lets get this over with. There's some enjoyable stuff in there. I've wasted an incredible amount of my life reading this stuff. But most of it is total crap. Don't even get me started with the X-Men/Star Trek cross-over...or the Terminator tie-in book *rolls eyes* Some bookstores even place fantasy novels in the same section.
However, with this massive proliferation of crap, more interesting stuff written by any other science fiction author gets marginalised. Asimov? Maybe five books....most of them written by other authors trying to cash in on his name. Note that Asimov was probably one of the most prolific authors of science fiction. Note that if his stuff is having so much trouble staying on the shelves, imagine what its like for the unknown author to get his stuff on the shelf.
Its just rather annoying that Star Trek and Star Wars dominate science fiction on the shelves (and they're mostly the same now anyways...see Nim Pim's post on a new Star Wars enemy in another thread)
quote: I know it's judgemental, but these people are a perfect blend of the Jem'Hadar, the B5-Shadows and the Species 8472, literally and physically. They come from another galaxy than the SW-one, brand the inhabitants (The New Republic) "infidels" and will now proceed with the usual cleansing.
Sure, its just your inevitable market forces at work....but I'd have to agree with Sol System, it really is rather tragic.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: i gave up reading that whole post, but as far as i did read, it made a lot of sence with the "years ago they must have told sif-fi stories" and all but is see what your getting at.
Kind of ironic, considering thats one of the main reasons why media tie-in novels sell so well.
The simple fact is that people don't like having their pre-conceptions challenged, having to think, or in the case of the quote...even pay too much attention to what they're reading. Thats why Star Trek novels do so well, like the latest John Grisham novel...you pretty much always know what to expect. Its the same universe, no major characters will die (without being resurrected), everything will be comfortably bland and politically correct.
Don't believe me? Walk into your local Chapters, Coles, or what not. Around half, or if you're lucky, a third of the Science Fiction shelves will be filled with Star Trek and Star Wars novels. Lets get this over with. There's some enjoyable stuff in there. I've wasted an incredible amount of my life reading this stuff. But most of it is total crap. Don't even get me started with the X-Men/Star Trek cross-over...or the Terminator tie-in book *rolls eyes* Some bookstores even place fantasy novels in the same section.
However, with this massive proliferation of crap, more interesting stuff written by any other science fiction author gets marginalised. Asimov? Maybe five books....most of them written by other authors trying to cash in on his name. Note that Asimov was probably one of the most prolific authors of science fiction. Note that if his stuff is having so much trouble staying on the shelves, imagine what its like for the unknown author to get his stuff on the shelf.
Its just rather annoying that Star Trek and Star Wars dominate science fiction on the shelves (and they're mostly the same now anyways...see Nim Pim's post on a new Star Wars enemy in another thread)
quote: I know it's judgemental, but these people are a perfect blend of the Jem'Hadar, the B5-Shadows and the Species 8472, literally and physically. They come from another galaxy than the SW-one, brand the inhabitants (The New Republic) "infidels" and will now proceed with the usual cleansing.
Sure, its just your inevitable market forces at work....but I'd have to agree with Sol System, it really is rather tragic.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
This is all quite interesting SOL. I was having a conversation with my daughter the other day and she asked my how I could read so many novels all the time. I said that each one brought me to a different world and I could just lose myself there for a while. She came back with but how can you make up all these characters and keep them straight in your head. I really couldn't give her a good answer I just can( maybe it is from years and years of doing it). She then said that she prefered to read about people and places that she had already seen on TV and that way she didn't have to worry about making the characters up. Perhaps this is part of the problem, people want to read what they are familiar with and don't know how to go beyond this. I was tempted to say too lazy, but I don't think that is the case. My daughter is certainly not lazy and she does read quite a bit. I think it may come from growing up watching too much TV, althought this may not have stunted the reading growth of most true readers, it has caused the fringe readers to have to go to the familiar in order to visualize the story. As I am sure there are more fringe readers than true readers( most of the people I know don't recreationally read at all)and this is what has been influencing the publishing and stalking of books in the stores today. Or I could be full of it.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
There's a part of me that wants to file people who read exclusively said media tie-in novels under "people who don't recreationally read at all." I mean, we apply all these nice little attributes to those who turn off the TV and read a book... activating their imagination, reveling in one of the oldest art forms, etc. etc. But reading formulaic stories involving known characters and settings in back-of-a-napkin-grade prose hardly qualifies as either of the above, no?
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Grokca: I hope your daughter never has to read a Dickens novel, then. Her head would probably explode...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
of course,there isnt a law that says you cant be well read and then still enjoy media tie-in novels also.. if we recall the 'what are you reading now' thread, youd know that besides many of the best new Star Trek titles, im also starting to re-read Fahrenheit 451, and also some short stories by Asimov and Heinlein.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
I read at least as much "literary" SF as I do "tie-in" SF. I see no harm in reading either. There's no law that says people who read Trek books can't like Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, Gaiman, Bear, Forward, Chalker, Lewis, Saberhagen, Niven, Pournelle, Brin, etc. etc. (to name a smattering of the books on my non-Trek shelves.
My local bookstore's SF section is 8 shelves tall by about 9' wide. The bottom 2 shelves are media tie-in. Much of the rest is taken up by Fantasy, which IMHO shouldn't be lumped in with SF (Thus, Gilgamesh and other pre-science-based stories aren't SF)
The Eugenics Wars is most definitely a 'fanwank' book, with its constant references to things (trek and not) that only a long-term pop SF aficionado would get. Whether that detracts from or adds to the enjoyment factor depends greatly upon your POV.
[ April 25, 2002, 12:46: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Incidently, I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't read such books. I do think, personally, that they're not very good. I also think, objectively, that there are specific reasons why media tie-ins are "lesser" works, some of which I pointed out.
I don't really have an answer. I suppose we could say that television is destroying our culture, but I don't really believe that. Do I? No, I like television. A lot. And I'm not even prepared to go so far as to say that reading a book is somehow qualitatively better than watching a show, though I think there are convincing arguments to be made.
In an ideal world, people would be able to read whatever they pleased, and they would have the opportunity to read anything at all. It's that opportunity that I think current market trends are squelching.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Think of Star Trek/Star Wars books as being the McDonalds of the literary world.
About a third of it tastes good, provides quick gratification, without any horrible surprises. And lets face it, everyone has some every once in a while. But its certainly not good for you in the long run...if you have too much.
The problem isn't so much that its there....but its starting to take up entirely too much room on the shelves, making it hard to "discover" interesting material in mainstream bookstores. (which is why I'm starting to frequent used bookstores more often)
To continue the metaphor (simile? dang English class) imagine a world where a third of all food was McDonalds.
Thats the problem with SF, if all people see are media-tie in novels...then of course the general public will think of it as trash.
(Keep in mind, that we're only talking about the small subset of the general population that actually does read.....)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
