I often encounter the opinion that science fiction has changed. Is it true? Over my lifetime novels have gotten longer, trilogies and series have become more common, there are more female authors, and the genre has been heavily influenced by fantasy. Before Star Trek in 1966, the world of science fiction seemed tiny, and that TV show brought in millions of new SF fans. Then Star Wars in 1977 brought in tens of millions of new SF fans. (But I’m not sure how much the population of science fiction readers grew.)

But these are all externals. I’m wondering if the essence of science fiction itself has changed. Yes, the writing has gotten better, and the literary world has become more accepting, but do modern readers get something different out of reading science fiction than what I found in the 1960s? Why do I prefer older science fiction? Is it more than just because I imprinted on it when I was young? I’m not the only one who feels this way. Many aging Baby Boomers say they prefer older science fiction too, but so do some young book reviewers.

Over the last forty days I’ve read five novels by Philip K. Dick written between 1959-1963, plus Ammonite by Nicola Griffith and The Player of Games by Iain M. Banks. These aren’t new novels, but newer than what I’m talking about, and they feel different. Over the last year I’ve read such new SFF books as Sea of Rust by C. Robert Cargill, Babel by R. F. Kuang, and The Mountain in the Sea by Ray Nayler. I know this is a small sample, but I’ve also read hundreds of science fiction short stories, both old and new, over the last couple of years.

All I can say is science fiction from the first half of my life (1951-1987) feels much different than the second half (1988-2024). The change started around the time of Star Wars in 1977. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg might be the main factors changing the genre. I confess that I’ve long thought that science fiction ran out of original ideas at some point, and the genre has been living on recycling ever since. But women writers, literary standards, and fantasy radically changed the flavor of science fiction since the 1970s too.

But what if the change in science fiction is due to other factors? Yesterday I watched a video by Bookborn, “Do SFF authors think we are stupid now” that offered two innovative ideas. Bookborn suggests that current science fiction lacks subtlety. She also suggests that newer science fiction requires less critical thinking because newer authors tell their readers what to think rather than letting the readers draw their own conclusions. Bookborn also felt authors wrote about topical problems too obviously. Even with books she likes, presenting viewpoints she agrees with, she felt they were too explicit, lacking subtly. She admits this problem is not measurable and highly subjective.

Bookborn then cites an essay, “The Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes. The essay in long, so I suggest reading Wikipedia’s summary instead, but to give you a quick idea, here’s a quote from the first paragraph at Wikipedia:

"The Death of the Author" (French: La mort de l'auteur) is a 1967 essay by the French literary critic and theorist Roland Barthes (1915–1980). Barthes's essay argues against traditional literary criticism's practice of relying on the intentions and biography of an author to definitively explain the "ultimate meaning" of a text. Instead, the essay emphasizes the primacy of each individual reader's interpretation of the work over any "definitive" meaning intended by the author, a process in which subtle or unnoticed characteristics may be drawn out for new insight.

Bookborn is quite articulate at explaining her position, and her position is more complex than what I’m conveying here, so I recommend clicking on the link above to watch her video. Bookborn goes on to say that current authors hide from their readers because of social media. They fear attacks on what they say so they are overly careful about what they put forth. I had an additional insight. Because modern science fiction is often about elaborate world building, modern authors struggle to be precise so readers will see clearly what they have worked so hard to invent.

In Ammonite by Nicola Griffith and The Player of Games by Iain M. Banks, I was disappointed by the blandness of the author’s voice. And I never felt the presence of Griffith or Banks in their stories. Yes, in both cases their world building is beautifully detailed, but both authors left no mysteries about their stories or their personal views for me to ponder. I have theories to explain this too.

Modern writers prefer a close personal third point of view, or first person, to the older omniscient point of view which is better suited for conveying the author’s voice. I also find that the novels I admire most are ones written by authors I love reading about. Maybe what I love about older science fiction is my connection to the author.

Any science fictional world that’s set far from Earth becomes a fantasy world, and thus far less complex than our reality. Such fictional worlds are far from the infinite complexity of contemporary controversies. Writers can avoid personal philosophy by using allegory. Reading such fantasies means passively consuming what the book describes. Such stories don’t lend themselves to ambiguity and complexity, which makes the reader think. Our reality is infinitely full of shades of gray. Made up fictional worlds tend to be consistently designed because authors want them to be understandable to readers unless you’re Gene Wolfe writing The Book of the New Sun.

The five Philip K. Dick novels were far more compelling and thought provoking than the books by Griffith and Banks. I often try newer science fiction, but they usually come across as merely fun stories. Overall, newer science fiction stories are like going to Disneyland. They dazzle but when the ride is over, are quickly forgotten. I’m still thinking about those Philip K. Dick novels. When nothing else thrills, switching to a Philip K. Dick story will get my mind excited. Why is that? I believe it’s because his Dick’s books are closer to real life, and that makes them ambiguous and mysterious. They offer endless room for speculation. I’m reading another biography of Philip K. Dick, my sixth, I think, because Dick’s novels make me crave understanding.

Dick’s novels were compelling, Ammonite and The Player of Games were not. They aren’t bad, in fact, they’re exceptionally good stories, just not compelling. Dick was obsessed with deciphering reality. He doubted that what we perceive is real. He was horrified by other people, often thinking they were machines, disguised supernatural beings, or illusions of the mind. Paranoia fueled his narratives. Our reality was too complex for Philip K. Dick, and it drove him into insane states of mind trying to figure it out. Every Philip K. Dick novel is another exciting speculative assumption about reality.

Interestingly, Dick doesn’t fit the theory about the author being dead. Yes, his stories are wonderful without knowing anything about Philip K. Dick, but their complexity increases the more you do know about him. I want stories where the authors aren’t dead by Barthes criteria.

By coincidence, both The Player of Games and Time Out of Joint are about game playing. However, the first novel feels contrived. It’s hard to believe. But the second, which is far more fantastic, yet feels very real and believable. Why is that?

I believe the reason I love older science fiction is because it speculates about reality. Whereas newer science fiction is focused on telling a delightful story. Lucas and Spielberg overly inspired newer writers to focus on entertaining the masses.

I loved the Heinlein novels of the 1950s because they speculated about future space travel. That was before NASA showed us what real space travel would be like in the 1960s. Heinlein’s stories honestly tried to speculate about traveling to the Moon or Mars. Space travel in Star Trek, Star Wars, or the Culture novels of Iain M. Banks are really fantasies. Space travel in Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson is somewhat speculative.
Most science fiction isn’t very speculative, even the old stuff. However, novels like Flowers for Algernon or Earth Abides feel far closer to reality. And I’m sure many people will point out that stories by Philip K. Dick are extremely fantastic, yet their characters feel like ordinary real people, and that grounds them.

For all his insanity, Philip K. Dick struggled to understand reality. And I think the reason I admire many older science fiction writers is because they were commenting on reality. I do love entertaining stories, but pure storytelling seldom offers much to think about.

I’m not sure I understand “The Death of the Author” in the same way as Bookborn. It seems to me that classics were written by authors whose personality dominated their fiction. Think about Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Eudora Welty, Ernest Hemingway, Flannery O’Conner, Jack Kerouac, or the science Fiction writers like H. G. Wells, Robert Heinlein, Philip K. Dick, Theodore Sturgeon, Ursula K. Le Guin, Harlan Ellison, Zenna Henderson, Samuel R. Delany, John Brunner, etc. If you want to write a great science fiction novel, I think it must connect with reality. Just think how silly and fantastic Slaughterhouse-Five is, yet Vonnegut points to reality, and that makes it a great novel.

James Wallace Harris, 2/4/24

28 thoughts on “Has Science Fiction Changed?”

  1. I think Delaney description of problems as complex and multiplex covers this. SF has changed, but so have we.

    The factors involved are the novelty of the genre that excited us back in the day has lessened due to time, but we have also aged.

    Then some people seek the novelty through reminiscence, while other people are no longer entertained by stories of the past and want change.

    Mix and match as appropriate and you have the beginnings of an explanation of the feelings the genre engenders. I may be wrong, and YMMV.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. You made me think of something else. I wasn’t exposed to most science fiction concepts until I was 10-12. I think kids today get introduced to all the major science fictional concepts by 4 or 5. Our society is now saturated with science fiction.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    2. I often think that Delany’s theory about simplex, complex, and multiplex is the best thing I ever learned from reading science fiction. And that’s a good analogy for what I’m talking about. There are some great simplex stories. But after a while, we start wanting something more complex. But the ones that really wow us, especially over our lifetime, are the multiplex stories.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  2. Interesting thoughts…. I don’t know if it’s only in sci-fi, but I definitely tend to enjoy most older books more. Whether it’s fantasy or sci-fi or even thrillers and general fiction. Lots of the same old ideas and stories being recycled through “new lenses”. I wasn’t a fan of most of the 2023 Hugos I read either so far and that’s been a trend for me the past few years

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  3. I think you nailed it. Many science fiction authors today tend too much to meet certain expectations of their readers rather than surprising them and guiding their thinking in new directions.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. And I must assume that’s because the writer wants to make a living. You can’t blame them for wanting to produce a bestseller. However, the kind of books I really love to read are written by writers with an inner demon. I don’t think those kinds have ever been particularly common.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  4. Thanks for this thought-provoking piece. One other dimension of the issue, I think, it that by the time 40+ years has passed, the cream of any genre is going to rise to the top. Philip K Dick is a better read today than most contemporary SF writers because he was a genius (even though he was relatively neglected during his lifetime–according to Wikipedia, he only won the Hugo once and never won a Nebula). There was a great deal of crappy fiction in PKD’s day as well, but most of it has been forgotten. After all, Theodore Sturgeon formulated his famous law that “90% of science fiction is crap, but 90% of everything is crap” way back in the 1950s! My hope is that 40 years from now, there will be writers from our time who are still being read and celebrated as geniuses–some of them may be totally unknown to the publishing world today, or so far down on the undercard that they are never considered for Hugos or Nebulae.

    Like

    Reply

    1. That’s what I love doing — discovering forgotten writers who are still worth reading. It does take 10-20 years for the best books to reveal themselves. That’s why I created https://csfquery.com/ . I’m still finding authors from the 1950s-1970s that deserve more attention. I do try to read a certain number of newer books but there are just too many coming out every year to spot the standouts any time soon.

      Like

      Reply

    1. I’ve read The Handmaid’s Tale which I thought was in the same league as Nineteen Eight-Four. And I’ve read her book In Other Worlds about science fiction. I’m hoping to get to Oryx and Crake this year. What are your favorites?

      Like

      Reply

  6. Yeah, original ideas are scarce these days, partly because so many writers have been exploring the relevant possibilities for so long, and partly because the outer boundaries of scientific knowledge are so abstruse that it’s hard to make fiction out of them. A lot of stories rehash old ideas and try to make them interesting with better-drawn characters, more complex plots, more vivid writing, etc. That’s certainly the case with, e.g., Vinge’s A FIRE UPON THE DEEP and Robinson’s Mars books, combinations of homage to predecessors and “but I can do it better” boasts. (And often they can.)  So you have to know what to look for, which is hard given the large volume published these days and the fact that even retired people have other things they want to do with their time.

    I’d suggest you take a look at Peter Watts’s BLINDSIGHT (2006) and China Mieville’s EMBASSYTOWN (2011) and see what you think.

    Like

    Reply

      1. I am, but I don’t. I don’t read a lot of new work, chiefly from lack of time. I used to sort of keep up by reading the best of the year anthologies but that option seems to be fading out.

        Like

        Reply

  7. Maybe SF is now more commercialised and rather than trying to communicate concepts of reality many authors are simply spinning a good yearn. I must have a read of Philip K Dick – it sounds intruging

    Like

    Reply

    1. If you haven’t read Philip K. Dick, I can’t imagine where to start. His most famous novel is Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? which was made into Blade Runner. But that one might be too weird of a starting place. His second most famous novel is The Man in the High Castle. That might be a better starter book. Let me know what you think after reading one of his books.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. With PKD, a great deal of the appreciation is from following the arc. Maybe the best short course, as opposed to a single book, would be TIME OUT OF JOINT (1959), THE THREE STIGMATA OF PALMER ELDRITCH (1964), and VALIS (1980). 

        Like

        Reply

        1. I just reread TIME OUT OF JOINT. It’s very good and has several of Dick’s core elements but I’m not sure it’s gonzo enough to make the right first impression. Do we start PKD newbies on the hardcore Dick right from the start? Or should we begin with a gateway drug first. Should anyone’s first drug experience be LSD?

          VALIS is mild in some ways but very over the edge. THE THREE STIGMATA OF PALMER ELDRITCH is high dose insanity.

          But is DR. BLOODMONEY or MARTIAN TIME-SLIP addictive enough to get someone hooked on PKD?

          Like

        2. Well, that’s the point about TIME OUT OF JOINT–it’s centered around some of PKD’s perennial preoccupations but isn’t too over the top, and is also short and very readable; STIGMATA and VALIS show how Dick’s engagement with those concepts evolved and . . . deepened? Starting with a low dose is often good strategy. 

          Like

  8. Pingback: Has Science Fiction Changed?

  10. This is an interesting take. Being a musician and a fiction lover I can definitely see how across the two artforms genres we live change over time. I agree that at the moment we are seeing genre lines be blurred, and a lot of remixing going on (for lack of a better description). I do think the film and television industry has also ramped up the “entertainment” side of science fiction, so the focus does turn to just ‘being a fun story’ or impressive CGI.

    But like you I love the original works. I’ll admit I have a lot more reading to do in the science fiction genre (it’s on my list) but a friend of mine who is an avid science fiction lover described why he loved SF so much – that the best SF challenges your humanity, ethics, morality and why we are here. It’s bigger than just a “cool” story. There’s a deep questioning going on, and at a high level, I can see how that kind of intention could bring about some pretty incredible works.

    Like

    Reply

  11. Fiction and fraction, particle base reacted, Pcycological, philosophical irrational formulate, equipped is not a thousand miles is dimontional tradition common base think able, but afraid able like beast trouble making characters, is there solution is life .

    Like

    Reply

  12. It was much easier to write science fiction in the early days of the genre. Readers easily accepted what authors were making up, but even then, they were writing speculative fiction according to what they knew, weren’t they?
    Now, advancements in science and the greater availability of knowledge to the masses make what is written more susceptible to scrutiny.
    When I read older science fiction, I put myself in the mind set of someone in that era for greater appreciation of the story.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment