Always like hearing I'm a discerning reader, thanks Steve. I've gotten an impression lately, not sure how accurate it is, that there's a lot more energy in contemporary horror writing than in science fiction.
My suspicion is that this is the case, although I'll be honest and say I'm not really reading much in that area at the moment, though I am becoming increasingly tempted- there are lots of new names whose books are being presented in non-traditional ways in terms of not looking like Horror titles, but their jacket blurbs always mention it- and you are a discerning reader, my friend, always a pleasure to listen to your videos. Be well.
I virtually never read any new books as there are far far too many old ones to catch up on! Love concrete island too! That and Crash are the only ones I have read but have a couple of Ballards on my TBR Shelf!
Nice one Stephen. This has bothered me for years. I once assumed there was great new stuff out there, but that I hadn’t bothered looking in the right places. I’m in my 30s and am rarely drawn to SF from this century. It seems that to find ‘new’ ideas we have to constantly go back in time. It’s not just happening with SF. Look at Hollywood now. Mark Fisher was onto something..Capitalist realism renders new ideas dangerous..reliance on a system that will break if they stop spoon feeding the masses the steady stream of derivative sludge. It’s not nourishing, but just enough to keep us alive. The sludge must flow.
Absolutely. Think of the moment in 'Nineteen Eighty-Four', when O'Brien suggests a toast to Winston and Julia, to the future or the past- and Winston replies 'the past,'. "The past is more important," O'Brien replies....here we are, in the age of Newspeak, when people think they are so wise by focusing on 'the new', not understanding that people have done this from the dawn of the Modern...
You asked the question, "Why new?" I suppose that's because that is what we are fed. Last time I was in our local bookstore, I noticed that there was precious little classic lit on the shelves: No Dickens, no Hemingway, no Tolstoy, etc. The lack was even more true in the SF/Fantasy section (I must say that given reader preference here today there was next to no SF at all in that section, just fantasy lit that borders on YA fiction, in my opinion). I suspect this is the case because our local bookstore is a chain franchise. We do have a used bookstore, but I rarely ever browse there (the selection is invariably acidic, moldering, dogeared copies that I'd rather not have on my shelves). What does a chain franchise sell? What is being published presently - and what sells presently. I do still purchase SF, but not as often as I once did. And when I do it is often authors from a bygone age. New authors do not inspire as much as past authors did. New SF seems more focused on existential angst and less on "what if."
Yes, the current trend is for Fantasy, written by female authors, aimed predominantly at female readers, bith having recently 'matured' out of YA (in theory, though as you say, it's pretty much the same except for more sex and violence). The sales in this area have changed SFF in bookselling and publishing more than anything I can think of in my 40 years in the industry. In my experience and looking with a critical eye, Indie bookshops are not that different to chains in what they stock-what is in demand. Where chain stores can win is on scale and size- the larger ones naturally have bigger ranges and you're just as likely to find surprises in these as you will in an indie. I actually don't think current SF is that existential: the New Wave of the 1960s was a lot more so, with its focus on existence preceding essence and man being thrown into a contingent universe where he had killed God. There is some of this, yes, in contemporary SF, but there is a lot more about Identity Politics and Intersectionality, the 'what about my community?' angle - when of course SF started tackling this big time in the 1960s. A writer like Becky Chambers just does 'Friends' in space and as you say, where's the What If? It's still key to good SF. Thanks for your comment.
Speaking on the need to stay current, since childhood if I discovered a new band I always have the need to go immediately to the back catalog and the same with an author I like. I guess I love seeing the journey and growth.
I don't think you need to stay current, but that's just me- I think over a lifetime of reading I've developed an understanding of the historical context writing and publishing are happening in and when they're in a fallow period. I agree about examining the back catalogue though, it's a must do.
Steve you always deliver quality. You hit it on head, we live in a mediocre age with average movie stars, average pop singers and average SF. We can only hope for the future.
I've been on a old SF reading fest this past month. Tower of Glass - Silverberg Slaughterhouse 5 - Vonnegut The Forever War - Haldeman Doomsday Morning - CL Moore And about to start Wasp - Eric Frank Russell Never heard of him before thought I'd give it a try
'Wasp' is tight but routine adventure fiction but worth reading. Hope you enjoyed all the others, great books, though the Moore is not her at her best.
SF back then as a boy & teen growing up in post-war Britain with rationing, winter smog and ice on the insides of your bedroom in winter - so I read SF that provided me with 'fantastic futures' & wonderous technology that would see humanity propelled into astounding futures ways of life - but also offer cautionary tales of repressive servitude. Reading a mixture of US comics, the Fantasy and Science Fiction Magazine and a number of mostly British SF writers. Thought provoking alien encounters & strange societies. And not just space being conquered but time also. Basically, SF was so far from my everyday life. However, whatever one thinks about life today - there is technology everywhere - the Internet, Space Telescopes, Moores' Law increasing computing, AI, exotic materials like graphene etc. etc. Perhaps it's know wonder that younger readers find Fantasy a more stimulating 'mind space' - after all they their watches, phones & PCs play such a part in their work-a-day world. Even NASAs launches don't get the mass viewing they used to. PS Loving a streaming series called 'For All Mankind' on alternate history of space exploration.
Yes, the fact that we now 'live in the future' is another factor in SF retreating backward in development to the still-distant 'space fantasy' -as PKD called it- of Space Opera etc. For me, I find the excitement in the line between what used to be definitively SF and definitively not SF being rubbed out or confronted- which is why Ballrd (who was doing this by the early 70s) is such an important figure for me. I think if young readers find Fanyasy a more stimulating 'mind space', they are merely Cosplaying in their heads- at least with SF when we were young, we had a Gernsbackian belief in the future -that although dangerous, it offered up possibilities. Ballard said 'The future will be boring,' and in many ways, he was right...
Stephen, great commentary as always. I love this kind of stuff when you take the time to put it together so I just wanna let you know that I really appreciate it because it gets me thinking deeply about my own SF writing. I am currently reading the Ray Nayler book, I’m about 50 pages in. And I am enjoying it because I think quite honestly I want to enjoy it because it’s such a great idea for a story. While the reviews are great, I must admit that I have not heard anybody personally say a positive thing about the book, with one exception. But that exception is a man who has amazing taste in science-fiction, and always has very well considered opinions, so I keep that in mind as I read the story. “The Mountain In the Sea,” was passed over for a Hugo nod. I think much of the reason SF has come to this point is because those in control of its current commercial and editorial direction and processes are a monoculture with no tolerance for deviance from their values. Perhaps that was true in the 60s and 70s, too? I’d imagine so. Sense of wonder and the paradigm shifting “new” have lost the battle for reader attention for now. But it makes me wonder, is no one writing it, or is it simply being ignored by those who would publish it? Also, SF has always been a malleable genre. It has long had a political divide. And the big, ugly schism of 2008 to 10 did damage, or spurred regrowth, depending how you feel about polar shifts in a beloved genre.
Thanks for your trenchant comments, Jack. Is it there? I don't know...certainly no-one is publishing it. Next year, we may find out as I have plans to edit an anthology of radical SF...but time, money etc...we'll see.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal will that anthology be accepting new works, or do you plan to use reprints? I’m obviously asking because if there’s going to be a call for submissions, I plan to get in line.
I absolutely love your channel!! I share the same tastes in SF literature with you. I'm a writer myself and I find that I always have connected most with likes of Ballard, Dick, Delaney, Ellison, Sterling, Gibson, etc. I very much appreciate your insights!
as a 41 year old guy who mainly reads old sci fi books but also a few newer ones my thoughts on it are that we already live in the dystopian future many old sci fi books envisioned. reality has almost catched up the the wildest sci fi dreams like ai, mind reading, genetic engineering and stuff. and it gets harder and harder for todays writers to envision something groundbreakingly new. because all the groundbreaking stuff was already invented in the sci fi books of the past. and we are already living in the other sci fi dystopia that was envisioned.
Yes, it is harder to envision the New, I have said this many times in previous videos. Several people here have also said about how we are now living in the future, again, something I've said elsewhere- these are sound reasons why the old stuff remains fresh, I think.
"Anyway, someone else who's dead." Oh my god, man, that was hilarious. Too funny. Good video. when I started watching and you mentioned the Booker, I was going to suggest you read The Unconsoled, but you are on top of that already.
In recent years I have tried to find some new authors who measure up to my favourites . But sadly I have failed. Not that I haven’t enjoyed books by newer authors . Just not consistently and as you spoke about in the last episode why does everything have to be in trilogy’s . Tchaikovsky , Hamilton , Reynolds ! I have enjoyed some of their work House of suns I thought was brilliant .But I have found myself returning to older authors again and finding lots of classics that I had previously missed . Made some major discoveries largely due to your channel which has been an absolute goldmine and a total pleasure to watch . Thanks for the ridiculously large TBR Stephen 🫡ps Have you read Metronome by Tom Watson yet? Much appreciated as always.
Not read 'Metronome', though I have looked it over. Yes, even authors with talent get sucked into these endless commercially contrived sequences- as you say, why the trilogy all the time? Because if it works, publishers are happy and milk it. Rarely makes for good SF, though...thanks for the compliment too.
Bravo! I'm currently in a C. L. Moore, Henry Kuttner binge, and boy do they push all my SF buttons. This is thanks to your videos. I've entered my local bookshop, and I do not recognize any of the authors in it's miniscule SF section. So yes, I go back to the writers who charged me up way back when. And yes, I'm an old guy like you, but I'm not very impressed by contemporary writers. I also think that rereading is a necessary exercise to impede the threat of dementia 😆.
I love re-reading. Sometimes you fall in love all over again, sometimes you realise you've changed, or that other reading over the years has shown you that book or writer isn't as great as you thought. Moore and Kuttner were innovators, unlike most writing today...thanks as ever, Daniel!
Nearly fell off me couch when I saw that copy of Concrete Island 😮 I have a few of Ballards books, nothing rare really, but not that particular title. Sounds great. Lovely copy.
Search Ballard on my channel and you'll fall through your floor: I have tons of rare JGB firsts, mostly signed by the great man- who I knew, met only once, but we kept in touch- and I used to write for 'Deep Ends', the annual JGB tribute anthology. One of my idols!
Always appreciate your recommendations, and my TBR is getting ridiculously long. I read The Mountain in the Sea last year. It will be interesting to hear what you think of it. I enjoyed it as it held several tropes I particularly like but I did not find it fresh just interesting, and it kept me engaged. I'm currently taking on "The Best of Cordwainer Smith" collection. I'm not usually so much for short stories but I keep hearing his name come up so thought this would be a great entry point.
Smith tales some getting used to but is very rewarding. His strangeness is a reminder that SF is supposed to be odd, that the future will not be like the present- reading him is like coming across a book of historical folktales that has fallen through a timeloop into the present. I will talk about the Nayler here when I read it. Go steady with that TBR!
Good God, OB, you are so spot on. The available shelf space in the marketplace (speaking figuratively and literally) is owned by certain entities that are remiss in giving the audience a sought-after product, i.e., good SF. I know all too well why this is and won't sully myself or anyone else by explaining it, those who get it need no explanation. That said, I really like the Nightfall Diaries idea, it resonates. I have the US PB (...Other Stories) from Fawcett Crest, Greenwich, CT, USA and treasure it. You do us all a great service, Stephen, sharing your remarkable insight. I just wish that in this case, you were wrong! But alas, contemporary SF is by far no longer just that. Would that it weren't. Cheers!
Thanks Barrie- delighted to see that an ol' timer like you, who has been with the channel for ages through thick and thin is still loving the backlist. Much appreciated.
I pretty much guessed what was to come in this video, Steve, because you and I swing from the same trapeze I think. I always think of SF as an umbrella genre that shelters numerous sub-genres. Some of those sub-genres, in the past, mirrored what was going on in the world. In the 1950s there was a lot of "reds under the bed" paranoia, and that's identifiable in many of the SF novels of that period. Similarly, there was a fear of nuclear war, which led to a whole spate of disaster novels. The space race, beginning with the Russians, led to a burgeoning of interplanetary and intergalactic fiction, which had been present in SF for many years of course, but it blossomed for a while from the late 1950s and is blossoming again now that we have another space race. It seems to me that good SF thrives on discomfort and uncertainty in our lives. For many years we've lived bland, comfortable, vanilla lives, in a pretty bland world, without much in the way of real threat, so there's been little to engender the variety in SF we both like, and we end up with bland books we choose not to read. The other thing is ... what constitutes old SF? To someone in their early forties it will be Banks, the likes of Kuttner, Moore, Wyndham etc, will be prehistoric.
Yes, I agree: the failure of writers to come to terms with what needs exploring now is an issue- but is there, as you suggest, much to explore that's genuinely fresh? And as for the old, well, it's perspective and age as you say. Maybe I'll start arguing for the Space Opera Renaissance of Banks and after that was the moment when SF became Contemporary...
I think there's plenty to write about, had those who consider themselves writers the eyes to see and the minds to realise. Instead they're content to rework yesterday's ideas mostly in inferior ways. There should, for example, be a plethora of novels about a climate change wrecked world, the new disaster novels, there are a few, I've read a couple, mostly I'll conceived because of lack of research. Where are the serious novels about AI, the really speculative tales, or about the future of transportation in a post carbon fuel world... electric cars won't solve everything, or about food production... well, you get the idea,. Themes are many, but it's easier to write yet another hackneyed space opera or tale about dragons and wizards.
I do not read many contemporary books -- SF or lit fic -- unless they happen to be from older guard writers who have a long body of work already. It's rare that I read something from a newer, more up-and-coming writer. Very little that comes out actually sounds interesting to me and the few I have read have generally left me disappointed. I think the last "new" SF book I've read in the past few years is Andy Weir's Project Hail Mary and that was only because my wife wanted us to read it together. I did not hate it but I also did not understand why it is so universally praised. I read it less than two years ago and have already forgotten most of it. I prefer to let time's filter do much of the work for me. If a book is still being read and acclaimed at least a decade or two after it was written, then there's usually a good reason for that. Obviously, most of the stuff that comes out is forgettable. Only the true gems stand the test of time. I also have a working theory that over the past few decades, the best story tellers have moved from writing books to making TV shows (and films though films are sort of going through the same issues as books in terms of a lack of quality). If we're talking about engrossing narratives and mind-expanding works of art, I have had more success finding them in TV/film over the past couple of decades than in books.
I don't think you're wrong: I often say it's good to be behind the curve, as often quality will out in time. I'd also say that TV has gone through some series changes since 'The Sopranos' and 'The Wire', though there is still a lot of dross and that burst of creativity now seems to me to be bleeding out for the last few years. So much fiction writing now is bland, for an audience which wants 'readability' i.e. prose lacking in any kind of flavour or sinew. Alex Garland and Jed Mercurio are two examples of writers who have moved into film/TV and done well. I'll admit to never having watched Mercurio's TV series, but I loved his second and third novels, but like Garland, he's abandoned prose fiction. Garland's 'Devs' is the best SF TV series I've seen in a very long time, I felt and 'Men' was an interesting film to say the least- though I'd have liked a stronger resolution and I regularly pick up and re-read sections of 'The Beach'. His work on the screenplay for 'Never Le Me Go' was excellent too. Andy Weir? Originally self-published, one of the few who did this and crossed over. A book for people who have never read Charles Logan's 'Shipwreck' and Joanna Russ' 'We WHo Are About To...'. If I'm going to read a Robinsonade now, centuries after the form was born, I want it to twist things a little...
I finally gave up on SF a year or so ago. I realized that I wasn't finding any new stuff appealing, and the old stuff didn't appeal to me either. I've read 75+ books this year, I'm not missing SF. I took Goodreads' 2023 Best Books list for contemporary SF, fantasy and romantasy, and treated the number of ratings, and months on market in place of sales umbers and compared each of the 20 book samples. Fantasy alone had 2 1/2 times the number ratings per month (and presumably the sales) of SF. Roll "romantasy" into the mix and it's 4 to 1. I didn't include YA Fantasy, but then there's no YA SF to speak of. It's a fantasy world these days.
I entirely sympathise with anyone giving up SF, I have done it myself in the past. There is very little going on now and while I don't use Goodreads at all, those figures do reflect what I've been seeing in my work as a bookseller for some years and it's grown more intense in the last year. SF is in real danger of dying out now or at least becoming a very minority interest.
I don’t necessarily believe that a newer version of something which has been done before is of any less value - if it’s done well, great! - but if my local Waterstones is anything to go by, SF is either new and shiny or classic. As a reader - and a browser - I’d like to see what’s good, what’s interesting; what the booksellers are reading and have read. I want their expertise, which is why we all come to your channel. Too often I have a conversation with a bookseller who’s only read Tchaikovsky and Martine and Leckie (not that I have anything against these authors), but hasn’t heard of Priest or Roberts or Delaney or Allan, etc. And I know you can’t stock (or read!) everything. But I wonder if a start would be to stop diluting SF with fantasy, and to stop diluting SF and fantasy with YA and comics. It’s as if fiction is either serious literary Booker-fodder, or hidden at the back of the store in the ‘you’ll grow out it’ section. Imagine if publishers and stores took SF seriously!
I've mentioned a number of times here how I used to keep SF and Fantasy as separate sections and that I believe it should be the industry standard. Also, your point about the 'newer version' - well, that's fine, but it's just a variation on a theme, which is is ok, yes, but it's far harder to originate a concept in the first place than merely reboot it and that's key to SF, which relies on innovation and the New, 'the Novum' to cast the bucket of water in our face and wake us up. SF that doesn't aspire to do this is Craft, not Art, no matter how well executed technically. Clearly, this gets harder to do as time goes on, but it does underline the problem- SF used to be revolutionary and evolutionary and now it's wondering where to go. ...and yes, imagine if publishers and bookshops took the genre seriously: in a video entitled 'My Science Fiction' I talk about how I've been working on this for decades and how it's an uphill struggle. And readers have to play their part- if they allow themselves to be fobbed off with the lowest common denominator by buying and reading it, businesses will keep selling it. Next video- thursday night- is about expectations. Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
Since I watch your videos usually late at night, I am enjoying this new Nightfall series (nice nod to Isaac btw). I watched the existential SF video (i think) and totally agree that the definition is not understood by that chap. It's not a bad idea for a video though - The Man in the Maze and Tiger! Tiger! strike me as possible candidates for that particular canon.
Yeah, it is a good idea for an SF video, but sadly as you say, he doesn't know what he's talking about- 'Tiger! Tiger!' and 'Man in the Maze' are two of the first books I thought of when I considered tackling this topic, as Existentialism in mainstream fiction is one of my big things. Colin Wilson once wrote a book called 'Science Fiction As Existentialism', an essay, which was pretty good. I'll be doing one, maybe two more Nightfall Diaries, then my partner will be home and dominating the living room...LOL
As a fellow habitual contrarian, I find few contemporary SF writers worth investing in ( intellectually and financially ) for a blizzard of reasons. I enjoyed Nayler's MOUNTAINS as it evokes the imagery of GHOST IN THE SHELL manga/anime, but it's rare to find something published within ten years. However, I heavily seek out SF in translation from the Global South or Asia ( like Djuna's COUNTERWEIGHT and Joss's SUPER EXTRA GRANDE) because I want to hear, see, and read what MOST of the world is thinking, wanting, and hoping through SF.
I'll admit I keep shying away from Asian SF, largely because of a bad experience with Cixin Liu - who either is a terrible writer, is poorly translated or is politically oppressed (though this doesn't usually translate into having style frowned on by authorities), though of course I've read SF by Mishima and Abe, who fit into a broader Modernist conception. Because 'World SF' is so loaded currently with the virtue signalling of Identity Politicals under the 'diversity' and 'inclusion' banners, I find I can't currently gain enough objectivity to get these trends out of my head before I try reading more Asian SF- I will do so, but I do think that SF owes so much to the Enlightenment and the Western Tradition in its pioneering development in the wake of these that, like virtually all SF after the 1980s, it can only hope to comment on contemporary culture through a political lens. But I will conquer this prejudice, though I'll add that the attempts of DAW in the 1970s to get people reading European SF (German, French, Scandinavian) wasn't a huge success- some Iron Curtain writers got through (Lem, the Strugatskys), but then again they are part of the Modernist tradition so were in luck there....good thoughts, though.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Steve, I absolutely hear you. Over the past ten years, I've suffered through haranguing novels thinly disguised as SF. And you're right, SF in translation remains a hard nut to crack for readers and publishers. For me Lem's work, the Strugatskys catalog, and Bugalkov's FATAL EGGS, are top-tier SF pantheon for numerous intellectual and philosophical reasons. I could go on and on...but I don't want to bore the community or yourself.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal its quite possible Cixin Liu was badly translated, but as a reader of Chinese, Chinese style in general is a lot more obtuse and longwinded than modern English. Paragraph long sentences are not uncommon.
@@jumpingjohnflash I'm aware of this as I've read Ken Liu's notes on his translations of Chinese SF. However, despite him pointing out that part of the translator's art is to reproduce as faithfully as possible national characteristics in the writing (let's call them that), I've read hundreds of books in translation that nonetheless scan beautifully in English while rendering a good idea of what the writer's style is. For example, my reading of Italian Crime Fiction in translation- which is around 30-40 books- tells me that Carofglio is the most 'mainstream literary', while Carlotto owes much to classic Hardboiled, then De Cataldo tends toward the tabloid at times. Liu's prose, translated as it is, strongly indicates a writer for whom conveyance of ideas stands far higher over style and elegance- some of the syntax (particularly repetition of words close together in sentences and paragraphs) in 'The Three Body Problem' confirms for me that this is not a writer with advanced literary graces. Ken Liu could have improved the prose for readers of English with some omissions of unnecessary 'ands' and replacing them with commas, for example.
Recently I can across an sf short story magazine called Shoreline of Infinity. Reminds me a bit of New Worlds. Just read a story in that called "Oh Baby Teeth Johnny With Your Radiant Grin, Let’s Unroll on Moonlight and Gin" by Cat Hellisen which I thought was superb. I think you can find the text online. There's also a story in that issue written from the pov of a cybernetically enhanced seagull set in Glasgow. Dust Baby by Alix E. Harrow published in a now defunct magazine called Shimmer was also very very good imo. So I think there is some really good new stuff being written, it's just not evenly distributed.
I recently picked up a nice copy of Trillion Year Spree. I did wonder as I finished it, having watched many of your videos, if Aldiss was still alive and was tasked with 'bringing the book up to date' just how many pages he'd have to eke out.
I don't think he'd have to ad many. It's worth reading Adam Roberts' history of SF, which is more up to date and has some fascinating ideas in it...but that's Adam, his always full of ideas...
I've never heard the craft vs. art framing. Although, I' have heard a lot recently the content vs. works framing which is perhaps more accurate in terms of where we are now in the early 21st century. In novels and films, "works" offer deep, lasting artistic and cultural value, while "content" is more formulaic, catering to trends without enduring impact. The digital era highlights this distinction, as true artistic works are rarer in a sea of transient content.
It's virtually the same thing - 'content' (if done well) is craft. 'Works' are inspired and stand aside, so are art, simple as that. And yes, now it's easier to produce the well-crafted, something that appears great on the surface but ultimately lacks depth. That's a subtext of this channel- although I like doing stuff that is visually impressive, I lack the tech, the time and -in some cases- the craft, so I focus on doing what I want, which I hope is artful. That'e another usage of 'content' - while there are many youtube channels that are well crafted technically, they lack content in terms of weight and substance.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Good point. However, I'd like to add another perspective: that of the viewer, reader, or consumer. If they increasingly adopt a content-driven mindset in everything they consume, the creator's level of craft and work ethos might become irrelevant. The outcome will be the same. All of us engaged in the digital world are having our tastes and expectations reshaped by the unprecedented consumption of content, whether we realize it or not.
I've been riding the surf ahead of this wave for decades- I've been disenchanted with it for almost thirty years. Now, it seems, people are catching up and realising that what they're getting is not good enough!
@@outlawbookselleroriginal You've had your finger on the pulse for longer than most of us have been breathing, which is exactly why we come here. Hope you are well.
@@unstopitable I am still struggling, but we'll see. I am aiming cut my output and rest/read more, but I have time to shoot currently, so am milking that. January though, will be down time...thanks for your concern.
I love Concrete Island, it was my first Ballard book and it is completely engrossing. The premise is audacious and I don't think anyone else could pull it off. The way Ballard writes about the rapid personal degeneration or de-civilisation of his protagonist feels so inexorable and logical - as it does in High-Rise, but it's actually more believable in Concrete Island. I recently read Empire of the Sun, which is a brilliant piece of writing and fascinating insight into the psychology of its child protagonist and the various affluent British people imprisoned by the Japanese in WWII. But I did think it was a bit long, Ballard seems to be better with shorter novels.
I've read 'Concrete' at least three times and feel it is fabulously underrated. 'Empire' does feel long, but as it's disguised autobiography, it explains a lot. If I were to name one long work by Ballard and one short one, I'd go with 'Crash' and "The Drowned Giant".
Just finished Seveneves by Neal Stephenson c2015. My favourite contemporary SF read this year. Hard SF, big sprawling tale with some fascinating ideas. Probably second favourite would be The This by Adam Roberts c2022. Only read one SF novel from 2023 and it went off the rails after about 100 pages.
People do seem to be enjoying 'Seveneves' as far as I can tell - Stephenson is prolific and very clever, but I always find him longwinded- but I've not given up on him yet. I thought 'The This' was excellent- I reviewed it in hardcover when it was first published (don't know if you ever saw that video). Adam had produced almost two dozen SF novels, most worth reading at the least, many brilliant. He's an iconoclast and a traditionalist at the same time, a dizzying mix.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Really didn't get on with Seveneves. It's an engineering porn thought experiment spun off the "just go with it" first line. Still, less mindless than Roland Emmerich's "Moonfall" I suppose although about the same lack of affect.
@@theprofessor5253 It takes quite a lot to get me into Stephenson mood, though I hosted him for an event once, we went to the pub afterward, really pleasant interesting guy.
I don’t think of books as new or old. It’s either new to me or I’ve read it (or DNF’d) already. I’ve occasionally read contemporary SF but my definition of contemporary dates back to the ‘90s LOL. Presently, I’m reading The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson, which is interesting. Also reading The Unsleeping Eye by DG Compton from 1974.
I imagined you've seen my D G Compton videos- big hero of mine. My definition of contemporary dates back to the 90s too, as I've said in other videos: 'Modern' ended in the 1980s, culturally, and what we have now is Postmodernism, 'the endlessly contemporary'. I think that when most people use 'Modern', they mean contemporary, but have no conception of 'Modern' as a cultural time (see my video on 'Why The Modern Sf You're Reading Isn't Modern'). I have 'Diamond Age' on my vast re-reads list.
No, Chris, you read four popular contemporary novels- Modern ended in the late 1980s, as I always say. Which Adrian T did you enjoy? 'Dogs of War' perhaps? No? Read it, it's his best.
I can only mention Lavie Tidhar (again). He seems to have re-found his mojo with Neom. He's published by PS, who I know you are aware of, and I think they do quality stuff, even if I can't afford to support them like I should.
I was discussing Tidhar yesterday with two SF writers I know- I think he writes really well, but I grew tired of his constant referencing of other SF 'Black Gods' Kiss', entitled after a C L Moore story, 'Central Station', which also constantly references Moore. 'Martian Sands' (is that the title?) which tries too hard to reference Dick. I'll admit I've not read him for a while, but I wish he'd stop doing all this Postmodernist stuff and step away from Recursive SF. I liked 'Osama' a lot, although I felt it could have gone further- but maybe I will try him again, though I keep looking at his books- and I read his World SF anthology- and he also continually harps on about Identity Politics issues, which get way too much coverage in the genre as it is. Sorry to moan! What have you read by him recently?
@outlawbookselleroriginal Neom & the Lunacy Commission (a novella collection, mostly crime). Yes, it's post-modern & referential. Show me a modern author who isn't! If you're going to ride on the backs of giants, at least be honest about it. It's good to see you've given him a go. As I've often said, if everyone liked the same thing, the world would be boring AF. He's the only modern SF writer I can stomach. His prose is above average, and he is prolific and evolving. His books are different (and the right length). Yes, he wrote a trilogy (Bookman series) early on to appease publishers, but he stopped as soon as he could. His work with the world SF anthologies is worthy, but not why I read him.
@@brettrobson5739 You have a point, many reference, but not quite so indulgently- it is some years since I read him (I read 'Osama' when it first came out), so we'll see. I was looking at his recent novel in a bookshop only 2 days ago, funnily enough. Tell me, have you read Adam Roberts, Chris Beckett and Dave Hutchinson- they are my main contemporary guys I stick with these days.
It’s so funny you say this because I have never read “contemporary” SF because I’m too cheap to pay for a new book. In the last few years the only new book I’ve bought was “This Is How You Lose The Time War” which was an okay book but terrible SF, so I’ve gone back to only buying vintage.
Immediate reaction to title: I am a particular person. Maybe also peculiar but particular for this point. I have been very happy spending my time going back in SF to read the classics you recommend. As for current or newly published science fiction I am grumpy and simply demand more like Adrian Tchaikovsky, and Andy Weir. I love the martian and project hail mary; but I also do find those books both fall into somewhat safe Current Science Fiction. We need to demand more. Now!!!!! Stop buying garbage. I have branched out into Algernon Blackwood and another Folk Horror Anthology for XMAS to me. End of vid: I just go in fiction where my heart leads. but always back to science fiction. Thanks for your videos!!!
I feel the same: there is stuff around now which is readable, but it is safe and breaks no new ground. The only contemporary SF writers I read by default are Priest, Harrison, Gibson (but they are all good old guys I've been reading for forty years), Dave Hutchinson, Adam Roberts, Chris Beckett and Nina Allan. A few others grab me from time to time, but mostly I read one book by a new author, often think 'fine, but not good enough when I know I only have time for authors who still surprise me..'
@@outlawbookselleroriginal I feel like in terms of plot, character development, readability, and world building newly published science fiction all follows the same recipe intakes from the same region of ingredients. It's tasty but one can get tired of just plain old salt and pepper. And always thanks for your recommendations. que bad Van Halen Where Have All the Good Times Gone
Whats your take on China Mieville? For me City and the City was a sock remover. embassy Town a close second his others perhaps a bit overlong not sure if CATC would be SF your thoughts? Also last years Booker winner seven moons of Maali Almeida, worth a peek, is it SF prob not but a must read. Loving the late night reflections. Thanks for what you do.
Mieville I consider 'M John Harrison' lite and he doesn't really do it for me, though he is talented. 'The City and The City' is probably my favourite of his, but there are many I haven't read. He was behind the curve for me, but he's clearly a sound guy and I am planning to read some of his recent work, which I haven't got around to. A similar book to 'City' is Dave Hutchinson's later 'Europe In Autumn', but instead of working from the mittel-European harrison/kafka style attempt, Hutch goes in a different prose direction that works very well- try it.
Thank you so much for the Hutchinson recommendation Il definitely try it. I get what you mean about M john Harrison lite re CM. As both are recent for me I'm not nearly as well versed as thee. Read in my teens an just picked up SF again in recent years after an enforced retirement due to health. Having a whale of a time reading the back history. Absolutely fascinating How about you writing the story you want to read? Thanks again Steve you've really opened the Gate for me.
While there are probably a lot of different market forces that pushed away the older kind of science fiction that many of us loved, I think the biggest factor is the fading away of the centrality of the science fiction magazines. That is where writers used to have to prove them self first, and come to understand the tradition of science fiction that they were working in. By the late 1980s and into the 90s, the readership of those magazines dropped way off and the whole sense of a tradition and progression in the field was lost. Young writers who only have read big fat trilogies and start writing the same don't go through the process of becoming a part of that core sf tradition.
Of course. I know a number of SF writers under 40 whose actual reading in SF before certain dates is incredibly limited, illustrating exactly what you've said. Since 'Star Wars' the genre has been even more screen-dominant and with the growth of videogames and the internet, the writing as primary influence has been swept into an even more obscure corner than it was originally...
I think new SF is better than old SF. But then I also prefer the term sci fi. Plus I think it would be great if this channel had streams where you rank the Marvel superhero films and discuss them in a shallow, fickle way. ‘Outlaw Airhead Clickbait Bookseller’. ONLY JOKING. Great video, ‘technology is speeding, culture is slowing down’ resonates.
Unconsoled is such a strange book, like a dream sequence where youre always late for something and never get there. I found it quite unsettling. I did like Klara and the Sun have you tried that?
No, not yet. I am going to read it soon as I like Ish, but I do get big misgivings about 'literary' writers doing AI books as usually, they don't know the Genre SF ones and end up covering the same ground. I'm hoping to be pleasantly surprised, as I love his prose.
More recent stuff I've found good have been things like Martha Well's Murderbot series, Becky Chamber's Wayfairer's books or anything by Ernest Cline or Andy Weir. Cline is a bit pop and derivative but at least fun. Neal Stephenson is always good but it's hard to call his recent books sci-fi in the rockets and rayguns sense as they've more speculative fiction. Charles Stross had a decent run of scifi for a while until he dipped more into his Laundry Files and Merchant Princes fantasy series.
I like Stross, but as you say, the series things of late have not appealed. Philip K Dick would say that Chambers isn't actually writing SF- and I partially agree, as all she seems to be is write 'Friends' in space- there are no innovative ideas or paradigm shifts. I read the first five Murderbot books ages back and DNF'd the fifth one, as it was padded out to novel length just for the sake of it. They were Mind Candy to meet and despite her skill, they develop very little so they went on my sell pile- they very much aim for an adolescent market that revels in the teen self-pity we all go through (sometimes unfounded) that today it's fashionable to see as 'neurodivergent' (with no censure aimed at those who genuinely are). I'd like to see her turn those skills to something more ambitious. Cline and Weir don't even get across the start line for me, they're simply not sophisticated or writerly enough. I talk about why I don't use 'Speculative Fiction' as a term in an upcoming video, do check it out- it'll be coming soon. Stephenson is pretty much always SF, I'd suggest thinking a little bit more broadly about what the genre is - rockets and rayguns are what you see on screens, SF books have been way ahead of that for many decades, as I'm sure you know. I'm aware I've responded critically to many of your mentions here, but I mean to be positive- I'd suggest looking at the work of Adam Roberts, Chris Beckett, Dave Hutchinson, Tom Toner and Stark Holborn for some fresh jollies.
I'm also a collector of "vintage" SF/F and appreciate the classics as well as the fun old relics, but I have to disagree that there's a problem with contemporary SF. Have you read Nophek Gloss by Essa Hansen, or highly regarded novels like Klara and the Sun or Sea of Tranquility? Serious SF is in good hands!
I've glanced over the former and decided it was not for me- and the writers who praise it confirmed for me that it almost certainly will not be to my taste. 'Highly regarded' - by whom? That's a pertinent question. I've read the Mandel and while she can tell a story, she's no great shakes in my opinion as a stylist or originator. I like Ishiguro- and am at times passionate about his work, as you'll see in an upcoming video about one of his books and while I intend to read 'Klara...' I always have misgivings about writers from outside Genre SF producing AI books- they usually have not read the obvious Asimov things, PKD's pertinent books, Silverberg's 'Tower of Glass' or Sladek's satirical robot books or Chris Beckett's searing 'The Holy Machine', which set the 21st century standard in this area for me. My suspicion is that 'Klara...'will be like Speilberg's take ('A.I.') on Aldiss' "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" instead of the amibiguity of PKD- but I am intending to read it despite misgivings.
I may be in the minority especially being a female but I prefer the older science fiction. To me there is a sense of exploration and wonder as we didn’t really know what was on the Moon or Mars. The imagination to think of things that are actually a reality now really causes me to pause at times. I like a good military science fiction but I am not into space opera with little plot in my opinion.
Depends on your age, I guess, but if you are under 30 and reading SF published before 2000, you are an uncommon species indeed. In my job as a bookseller I encounter very few female readers who are looking backward, the vast majority of them having only discovered SFF in the last decade. Good for you!
steve, another great video, and one close to my heart as i feel similar. in fact i often think all the books i love would probably never be published today as they are so politically incorrect or subversive, against the narrative of today. I walk into a bookshop and search through all genres as like you i am open to anything that is interesting and all the novels are sort of woke unimaginative and lack that certain dangerous provocation that makes a novel interesting. A lot of the new sci fi is all based around climate change and gender identity which is okay when ursula k le guin wrote about it in the old days and when ballard wrote about it, but now these ideas are written in a predictable, well trodden way, shoving the agenda down the readers throat rather than just telling an interesting story. the last new book i read was i'n ascension' and although the writing was beautiful and there were moments i felt we were going to go somewhere new, it sort of ended up disappointing me. where are the grand space operas, the books that fuck with your mind, the novels that give you dreams and nightmares at the same time, where are the inventive imaginations that have no limits? i think alastair reynolds is the only worthy hard sci fi writer at the moment, although i like peter f hamilton but most of the time now i just read old classics, pkd, william gibson, burroughs and ballard, anything that breaks the mould. i did read a great fantasy series which is very rare for me and i probably won't do it again, that was 'prince of nothing' by scott r baker which i recommend.
I entirely understand what you mean. 'In Ascension' was OK, but I ultimately feel it was trying to have its cake and eat it in that (1) it was clearly an attempt to get a mainstream 'literary' audience to buying into a classic Big Dumb Object narrative while (2) going further than his previous works in terms of a yearning for commercial success by being more accessible to read than his previous book, the remarkable 'Gathering Evidence', which was genuinely eye-opening while tying in with a current obsession in British literary slipstream, which is about things being damp, organic and growing (I talk about this in several other videos over the last few months. Yep, climate change and gender identity are nothing new in SF, which is another reason why I too rail against the contemporary over-use of these themes in current F publishing. Of course, SF publishing is currently dominated by female authors who -quite frankly- seem to have read very little SF and as a result they are retreading old ground their precursors did so much better in the 1960s and 1970s (I think Joanna Russ would roll her eyes at many of them). The question is this: what are contemporary authors bringing to SF that is new? I have to say, however, that I personally don't regard Hamilton and Reynolds as major contributors to the evolution of SF -nice guys that they both are, which i can confirm from meeting and talking to both- and I'd point you to M John Harrison's challenging Kefahuchi Tract trilogy for Space Opera that opens strange doors (also, watch my interview with him on the channel for illumination of these). I have posted several videos here that bemoan the gear-grinding, running down state of SF since the early 90s, partially explaining this in relation to Modernism and Hauntology: all the arts are suffering from a cultural slowdown and SF is no exception. I keep looking for mouldbreaking material and aim to speak about it here, so keep watching as I try and find the best new stuff while revisiting past titles that slide under many radars. Thanks for watching, much appreciated.
This is what comic book fans have been doing for awhile now. With few exceptions a lot of the comics are catered towards people who don't buy them, and the people who do buy them have now stopped buying them, preferring manga which I've never tried. The problem is the best stories probably never get to the public because they're not promoted and you never hear about them. Harry Potter was the biggest selling series of all time and that was turned down by literally every publishing company until the last one, and he only published after his granddaughter convinced him too!
It seems (correct me if I’m wrong) the publishing industry doesn’t typically go for original stories but take the safe route mostly, for the reason that risks can be costly.
@@JeansiByxan That's true, but the reason I mentioned "Harry Potter" is because it was literally the biggest selling series, but if it had been self published J.K Rowling would've been lucky to sell more than 5000 copies! I believe it's very likely that the best books ever written are already out there, but we've never heard of them. Advertising is important!
The best books ever written are out there- and this is one reason why this channel exists. Marketing and advertising is everything. But it would have been better for literature had Rowling not had the breaks - all she did was meld the classic school story with LeGuin's Earthsea and Diana Wynner Jones (but with far less style) and this has led to the growth of YA and the infantilising of what remains of Sword & Sorcery. Sad but true...
@@outlawbookselleroriginal I understand what you're saying. The point I'm making though is that the public went mad for the series, it was hugely successful. Whether it was the best thing ever written isn't my point, my point is that a series that will capture the market like that and get children reading nearly never got published. I do believe it's possible that there are other works that could be popular with the public if only the public knew that they existed.
You're quite right -- 'the new' is just a gimmick - the commodification of desire (or something) as the Situationists opined -- & so why bother with nouveau SF when there's so much vintage gold?
Elitist contrarian! I couldn't possibly comment. 😂 I read a Paul McAuley recently, Beyond the Burn Line. Quite good. Sock removing? Probably not. I did enjoy Nayler's book. Again, interesting rather than mind blowing. Nearly everything I've read this year has been "old", or earlier this century. Not explicitly for lack of the new, more a case of me exploring the genre in all its glory. Take care. Jon 📚🚀👽🤖👍
Hello mate. I like McAuley now and then when I'm in the mood, though I'll admit I hated him when he first started publishing in 'Interzone' - but re-reading his early stories last year, I felt many of them were great and that I only didn't enjoy the ones where the subject matter seemed generic. And that's the thing, to get the genre in all its glory, you have to go with the old stuff. Great to hear from you as ever, Jon.
I want SF about truly alternative realities and universes, interesting non humanoid aliens with character, more exciting satire and humor of the Pratchet, Dick and Adams variety, cubic planets made of water boasting geometrical sea creatures with a penchant for intergalactic cheese markets, new gods that dont look like Zuess or Marvel characters but rather enjoy playing in the afterlife, colors that rebel in huge swarms against black and white butterflies that smell like margarine...cant find them so started writing my own! 😊
I do not think Sci Fi is the same genre it was, the name is purely marketing on recognition. The closest feeling you can get to New Wave science fiction right now is in the horror and weird lit genres. In Tender is the Flesh I noticed it does have the same beats you would find in an Atwood or Orwell. But that's spec fic clearly. The space opera and space centric setting is mostly dead or devoid of good writing. If not for Tchaikovsky I would say it was. The Murderbot takeover of the genre is not doing any favors though, I recognize it for the same schlock dialog I read in other 90s pulp. The Mountain in the Sea is very good. I've also heard great things about Titanium Noir. I think it's just difficult to find good new releases because we haven't had the benefit of time and readers to sift through them just yet.
I read 'Titanium Noir' earlier this year and reviewed it here. It's dreadful- the dialogue is sloppy and fake snappy and it's nothing but a crime novel that wants to be SF- shame , as some of its conceits were interesting and I could imagine a PKD or Silverberg doing a grand job of it. There is still some Fiction that is like New Wave- and almost all of it is being published as mainstream fiction. Writers like Adam Roberts, M T Hill, Chris Beckett and Dave Hutchinson are producing NW friendly prose.
I think the answer to "where is the excitement?" is there just isn't any. Could just be the people I associate with but people seem to have no enthusiasm or optimism for the future and in that kind of climate maybe people are less inclined to create exciting futures with fascinating technology that solves our problems. Sorry if that's depressing.
No, I think it's a valid point and obviously age and perspective contribute to this. Interestingly, your 'exciting futures with fascinating technology that solves our problems' indicates Utopian SF, which is very uncommon, as Utopias tend toward the static and consequently lack conflict and therefore have no drama, the essence of storytelling- if you watch my recent video about the Utopian fiction of Mack Reynolds, this stuff comes up. When I can get back into writing- next year, I hope-one of my ideas (two actually) are Utopian ones...but then of course one person's Utopia is another's Dystopia....
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Thanks for the response! Good luck with your writing if you end up getting back into it! I'll go back and check out the Mack Reynolds video.
Thank you for the Dave Hutchinson recommendation Which I have now read. Great read really funny in parts especially the first third which goes at quite a clip. My only disappointment was at the end or near the end Finished it feeling a bit cheated. i kind of guessed there was a trans dimensional thing going on but really would have liked a few more dips into it along the way rather than the last five pages or so. But fair enough a cliff hanger for book 2 is ok. Having said all that I loved it. Really good fun. If you're into literary stuff have you tried the new Nobel prize winner Jon Fosse? Not genre SF but the tiny " A Shining" has some interesting elements at 48 pages its a wee gem imo You've certainly increased my Tbr pile and I am sure yours is taller than mine Stay well See you next year
Yes, I was looking at the Jon Fosse the other day in work, I will probably try it out as it did grab me. Fractured Europe grows in resonance in the second and third volumes, you'll find, so stick with it. Working in a bookshop means a TBR that towers above the mind like a veritable Babel, it never ends....
@@outlawbookselleroriginal thanks as ever for taking the time to reply I really do appreciate it and your insights. Im going to stay with the Hutchinson series as you suggest. I loved the pace and the humour and the overall theme was brilliant. If he intended to leave the reader desperate for more then he certainly succeeded! I watched your interview with Nina Allan, brilliant stuff what a woman!. now added to my TBR
What about Rob Boffard, a young writer from South Africa. Tracer, Zero-G, Impact, (published by Orbit), et al - have not read his work but would like to know if he is decent
I don't think it's a tragedy that todays SF tries to put a different wrinkle on traditional themes. Either we like it or we don't. But if the reader finds that he likes the older stuff more than the new, he/she is in luck, because virtually all of it is still available. I haven't read much of the newer stuff, because the ones that I did read didn't seem to be about SF, & were overly long - for example, I read James Lovegrove's "The Foreigners" (2000) which was hyped as a Ballardian type of book, & it turned out to be anything but - padded, with decent characterization, but with very little info on the aliens that left you feeling it wasn't SF at all - I'm not saying all contemporary SF is like this, but it did put me off from exploring the contemporary scene much further - anyway I'm still busy enjoying myself as I read through the older SF to waste too much time on recent SF. I still want to read hyped authors like Vandermeer, Tchaikovsky, (I think that's how you spell it) & several others - eventually....but they'll have to wait......maybe that's the problem - SF is supposed to be about new ideas, & how the future deals with them, but it's all been done before - & until today's authors come up with an original idea that becomes a trend & stimulates it's readers, most of today's authors are going to struggle to see themselves getting read....
It's only a tragedy in the sense that it is hard for authors to come up with the New, since so much has been done, but that's the nature of our times. I don't mind the craftsmanship of a new take on old tropes, but I do long for the Protean creativity SF seems to have lost. I too was alarmed to see Lovegrove's name popping up in 'Reports From The Deep End', the Ballard tribute anthology recently published- see the video I shot of the multi-author signing a few days back.
I almost exclusively read classics. Lately I started to get into some contemporary genre prose because of channels like this. But, if no one would read new releases, we wouldn't have writers anymore and the culture would die.
Well obviously if no-one read new books, that would be bad for writing and publishing, but working in the industry, I think there's too much focus on the new and not enough work done to promote backlist. When you say 'Classics', do you mean 'Classic SF', 18th & 19th century novels or 'real' Classics, ancient Greek and Roman works? Thing is, the culture won't 'die' in the sense you mean, as people are so 'onto' new books that publishers and bookshops stay in business. But at times I feel SF is dead- certainly in the way that it was an evolving, revolutionary genre from 1925 to the late 1980s, but then that's the curse of Postmodernism- culture has slowed down, tech has sped up- an SF concept in itself!
@@outlawbookselleroriginal I mean Dostoyevsky, although I have a Tacitus which I have to get into. But the last classic I read recently is Sōseki Natsume. I think he's a classic of Japanese literature. I also got into Silverberg which I knew he was great but in my youth I had the chance to read only a small volume of short stories. And I finally read Frankestein actually pretty recently. Not that impressed, but it's a classic of the genre.
@@onehandslinger1475 I love Dostoevsky, I've deliberately not read 'The Idiot' as it's the only one of his novels I've not read- and it's been over twenty years since I read any, so soon.... Tacitus is great, 'Annals of Imperial Rome', brilliant! Not impressed with 'Frankenstein'?! I'm shocked! But you have to be yourself, that's what counts!
@@outlawbookselleroriginal I'm not of the opinion that everything old is necessarily better, this including films too. I found Frankenstein to be written in an old manner, practically a story told the way anyone would tell a story, covering a lot of facts on a long timeline and so missing details. And it's not the only classic which left me somewhat underwhelmed. I still have to finish The Haunting of Hill House and Treasure Island impressed me more as a graphic comic story which filled me with awe and dread in my childhood, so I had to read the real thing. The Heart of Darkness I found rather strangely written, somewhat confusing, reason for which I read it three times. But, hey, as you can see, I look for the "classics".
Never read him, always meaning too, been selling him since the 1990s. He was recommended to me then by another bookseller who I really didn't get on with and i'll admit his popularity puts me off- I hear so much about bestsellers in my job that i have to wait years to read them to gain any objectivity. When I do read him, a video will appear here.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal it does delight me when you reply thanks for taking the time. I think you might like Murakami but I don't know whether you would call it SF. Weird perhaps. Plenty to criticize lots of people loath him but I think thats more personal than literary, which doesn't interest me. I enjoyed his weird meanderings though and will look forward to hearing what you think. Enjoying the recent vids enormously thanks so much Btw not new but new yo me Geoff Ryman didn't make your 100 must reads but is in the Gollancz Sf masterworks series with The Child Garden, strange book, enjoying that so far Keep well
I'm watching the video again, looks like my thumbs up disappeared or, I neglected to give it on on first viewing. I hope the likes of Emma Newman, Chris Beckett and the like can carry the torch and give the genre boost to attract new readers of all ages. I recently read Gary Budden (Hollow Shores) after watching one of your other vides - really good stuff, love his style and imagination. very relatable This is probably a failure on my part but I don't like much of the artwork on the new covers these days, I just don't know, maybe I'm being too judgmental..
Emma has sadly lost the support of Gollancz, who I feel have failed miserably to sell her work in the UK- she has real talent and deserved a lot more promotion. I hope she gets a new deal soon, as her work was growing in ambition and achievement.
Im 39 and i think theres been a malaise in culture generally for a few years. Everything seems to be just repackaging or apeing a specific style of the past, as opposed to doing something new. I feel trends become tired and dated within weeks instead of years most likely due to social media.
Absolutely. If you can see this at your age, imagine someone like me who is twenty years older. I started to feel this way by the early 90s (and by the mid 80s re music) -watch my video 'Why The Modern SF you are reading isn't Modern' for my reasoning.
That's a very good point and true up to a point, but it is up to artists to go beyond this. I've cited the problems with contemporary culture and how we got here in my videos on Modernism and SF.
Sorry for the long preamble. Well, we are (historically) passing through a period of great flux. The European Socialist countries collapsed because they couldn't solve the contradiction between commodity production and state economic controls and didn't solve the question of how to wield the powers of the state and develop socialist democracy (using the state to ban books critical of the system is a small example of this problem); They finally ended up with a nasty form of state capitalism. Meanwhile, the West has experienced rising inequality, real wages that have been stagnant since 1979, extreme wealth for a very few and a significant loss of industrial well-paying jobs, financial crisis, and a rise in Neo-fascism (Argentina - Yikes!). This is the right time, in the midst of great historical schisms, that SF should begin to take on new forms and ideas and tell us stories of optimism and pessimism and everything in between. But maybe we're a bit too early in our expectations. Perhaps the situation is not yet clear enough for authors. One cannot feel the force of history when one is in free fall. And maybe when Fascism or Democracy or something else begins to win and impose its modes of thought and economic (& perhaps military - limited nuclear war?) muscles, maybe then, will authors have a ground to stand on and begin to be inspired again. And I think we need to raise the question of China. A society that has managed to improve the well-being of its people quite significantly while also creating quite a number of significant problems; I would think that there must be quite a bit of SF writing that is avant garde and is not being translated into western languages; The only thing I can find is: Liu, Ken - Broken stars_ contemporary Chinese science fiction in translation (2019, Head of Zeus), Nian Yu_ Zhao HaiHong_ Regina Kanyu Wang_ Wang JinKang_ Tang Fei - Sinopticon_ A Celebration of Chinese Science Fiction (2021, Rebellion Publishing Ltd), They are on my TBR list.
You may be right that it is too early: but it may also be too late. If you watch my video on Hauntology & Science Fiction - and my related videos on Hauntology and Psychogeography, I reference Mark Fisher;s book 'Capitalist Realism', which I think is essential for anyone looking at why the arts have stagnated. I keep looking at 'Sinopticon' myself. The 'avant garde' SF- if there is any now- is almost certainly being published and packaged as mainstream fiction. It's always been there and there's always a lot of it- but it often suffers from the fact that the writers of such books have no background in Genre SF: but now and then, they do and produce excellent results- Samantha Schweblin's 'Little Eyes', Herve le Tellier's 'The Anomaly' and Tom McCarthy's 'Remainder' are three from recent years I loved.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal I agreed with Fisher's book when it came out back in 2009 but I think the situation has changed and the fracturing of Imperialism has happened; it's just there's no one awake to push it over which a gives us slow and agonizing descent into the abyss - tones of Lovecraft (racism and all) piled on. I'll read the 3 people you've recommended. Illness or not, the quality of your videos are excellent. Stay healthy.
I am not sufficiently proficient in book studies to comment on individual books and eras but its pretty obvious from a human society/cultural aspect that new SF books are, and will become less interesting from here on in; for two main reasons. Quantity: 99%( and increasing) of extant books are not new. So by definition, the pool itself of new books is a mere puddle in the grand scheme Quality: Fact: our society by any definition is becoming more woke, even if not woke enough for some. Of all industries, creative and publishing would be considered one of the most woke areas of society. Free thinking is certainly not encouraged, rather free thinking within certain permissible areas. Anything outside that is “wrong thinking” Dangers of wrong thinking are now more likely to be found out ( social media/ whistleblowing) Wrong thinking is close to being criminalised. Consequences of wrong thinking are greater ( lose your publishing contract, book withdrawn) The publishing industry now selects for this, for a multitude of reasons; and so the above effects are yearly distilled into a more concentrated form on a yearly basis. Trouble is, that originality of ideas comes from outliers, people prepared to think differently. Unfortunately the reverse is happening.
I think you're absolutely right, Mark and have said as much myself in a number of videos, though I have spoke at greater length on what you say in your first paragraph: it is inevitable that once Modernism ended, the vast exposure to the arts that society has enjoyed through the mass media since the birth of mass printing, film and audio recording would allow us to run through vast tracts of novelty until we exhausted it. Publishing has also become more and more of a problem in its innate commercial conservatism, agreed. Again, I see this up close in my job. The publishing industry is in my view too dominated in number by female workers and intersectional over-representation- what some call 'Rebalancing' now feels like revenge - true, white men did dominate all sorts of walks of life for a very, very long time and as a believer in creative, open thinking, we need diversity- but it has to focus on quality of achievement based on equality of opportunity rather than tokenism and unrepresentational agendas. Of course saying these things makes you the worst in the world, these days, but as culture's quality erodes, all will be left the weaker. SF, with its basis in ideas, is being poorly served currently. Thanks for your comment.
The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed, But swoln with wind and the rank mist they draw, Rot inwardly, and foul contagion spread ... Lycidas John Milton
I know that for some strange reason you aren't fond of Ian Macdonald but Hopeland is quite good. In general, I think SF is in a slump. Too much fantasy for starters.
Agreed. But of course Fantasy isn't SF. If there were a way to get it shelved in a different section in bookshops, that would help, I think- but so few people will take up this challenge. I did it in the 1980s and it worked a treat.
Yes, she is skilled. I reviewed one of her novels here about a year ago, was thinking the other day I must read more of her work. She wrote a non-fiction book about mushrooms a while back that did pretty well.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal I saw last night that as well, reminds me of Sofia Samatar's most recent book -White mosque which is history/travelogue of her visiting an old Mennonite village in Uzbekistan. These tie into what you were talking about how writers can get stuck doing what sells well so you never see them branch out to something different. Related to Samatar - I am looking for fantasy like hers which is really focused on fantasy as exploration of the history in terms of how/what things are remembered/recorded - Samuel Delaneys Neveryóna is an older example I have started reading recently. Do you have any suggestions for who else to look up?
Your final picture says it all. You feel about modern SF the same way you feel about modern music. It's all just not PUNK enough. It's all just not GOTH enough. It's all just not STRANGE and DANGEROUS and INTERESTING and CHARACTERFUL and INNOVATIVE enough. You want The Damned and The Sex Pistols and Siouxsie and the Banshees...but people keep trying to fob you off with One Direction and Justin Bieber and Taylor Swift... It's called getting old, I'm afraid. I know, I hate it. I'm 53 - but deep down inside I'm still 18 and dark and windswept and interesting. With hair. That's what you are. Not 'Barefoot in the Head' but 'Black Leather Biker's Jacket with matching Goth crucifix in the Head'...
Yep, it is called getting old, I accepted that a long time ago (but as you say, not great!), however, it is about more than that: the history of culture in the Modern era explains a lot, how we were conditioned by Modernity and the hyperfast acceleration of our exposure to culture in that era and how the limits of innovation and originality reached the audience far, far quicker than they would have done due to the hot mass media. I've felt much the same way about music as I do now since the late 1980s, when I was only in my mid 20s. I've felt the same about SF since I was about 30, so it's not just all ageing, it is borne out by what's happened (or not taken place) in the Endlessly Contemporary- though when one was born is a perspective factor here: I think in very young people, this is proven by the fact that more and more of them are looking back at older SF and music for quality. Good comment, great to hear from you.
I used to love SciFi, writers like William Gibson. At one point, it became Libertarian and military influenced. Now, the trend is lesbian writers promoting they/them, and not knowing much science, which is annoying as well. I wonder if a young Gibson could get a book deal in today's climate.
Well, some SF was libertarian and/or military long before Gibson - of course Baen publish almost nothing else, for example (though I would say that as SF is thought experiment up to a point, it's only natural that political speculation/extrapolation can go all ways) - Heinlein, Rand, obvious examples but there were others if you dig. Yes, Identity Politics is an issue- which I'm always saying on the channel (I have no issues with lesbian SF writers, Joanna Russ was one who started publishing in the 1960s- again, nothing new now- and she was brilliant). My issue with the current crop of 'they must be worthwhile and important if they fit a diversity/intersectional tick box' is this: what counts is how well they write, how innovative they are and can they step beyond the boxes. So many cannot, unfortunately...
Always like hearing I'm a discerning reader, thanks Steve. I've gotten an impression lately, not sure how accurate it is, that there's a lot more energy in contemporary horror writing than in science fiction.
My suspicion is that this is the case, although I'll be honest and say I'm not really reading much in that area at the moment, though I am becoming increasingly tempted- there are lots of new names whose books are being presented in non-traditional ways in terms of not looking like Horror titles, but their jacket blurbs always mention it- and you are a discerning reader, my friend, always a pleasure to listen to your videos. Be well.
I virtually never read any new books as there are far far too many old ones to catch up on! Love concrete island too! That and Crash are the only ones I have read but have a couple of Ballards on my TBR Shelf!
Nice one Stephen. This has bothered me for years. I once assumed there was great new stuff out there, but that I hadn’t bothered looking in the right places. I’m in my 30s and am rarely drawn to SF from this century. It seems that to find ‘new’ ideas we have to constantly go back in time. It’s not just happening with SF. Look at Hollywood now. Mark Fisher was onto something..Capitalist realism renders new ideas dangerous..reliance on a system that will break if they stop spoon feeding the masses the steady stream of derivative sludge. It’s not nourishing, but just enough to keep us alive. The sludge must flow.
Absolutely. Think of the moment in 'Nineteen Eighty-Four', when O'Brien suggests a toast to Winston and Julia, to the future or the past- and Winston replies 'the past,'. "The past is more important," O'Brien replies....here we are, in the age of Newspeak, when people think they are so wise by focusing on 'the new', not understanding that people have done this from the dawn of the Modern...
You asked the question, "Why new?"
I suppose that's because that is what we are fed. Last time I was in our local bookstore, I noticed that there was precious little classic lit on the shelves: No Dickens, no Hemingway, no Tolstoy, etc. The lack was even more true in the SF/Fantasy section (I must say that given reader preference here today there was next to no SF at all in that section, just fantasy lit that borders on YA fiction, in my opinion). I suspect this is the case because our local bookstore is a chain franchise. We do have a used bookstore, but I rarely ever browse there (the selection is invariably acidic, moldering, dogeared copies that I'd rather not have on my shelves). What does a chain franchise sell? What is being published presently - and what sells presently.
I do still purchase SF, but not as often as I once did. And when I do it is often authors from a bygone age. New authors do not inspire as much as past authors did. New SF seems more focused on existential angst and less on "what if."
Yes, the current trend is for Fantasy, written by female authors, aimed predominantly at female readers, bith having recently 'matured' out of YA (in theory, though as you say, it's pretty much the same except for more sex and violence). The sales in this area have changed SFF in bookselling and publishing more than anything I can think of in my 40 years in the industry.
In my experience and looking with a critical eye, Indie bookshops are not that different to chains in what they stock-what is in demand. Where chain stores can win is on scale and size- the larger ones naturally have bigger ranges and you're just as likely to find surprises in these as you will in an indie.
I actually don't think current SF is that existential: the New Wave of the 1960s was a lot more so, with its focus on existence preceding essence and man being thrown into a contingent universe where he had killed God. There is some of this, yes, in contemporary SF, but there is a lot more about Identity Politics and Intersectionality, the 'what about my community?' angle - when of course SF started tackling this big time in the 1960s. A writer like Becky Chambers just does 'Friends' in space and as you say, where's the What If? It's still key to good SF. Thanks for your comment.
Speaking on the need to stay current, since childhood if I discovered a new band I always have the need to go immediately to the back catalog and the same with an author I like. I guess I love seeing the journey and growth.
I don't think you need to stay current, but that's just me- I think over a lifetime of reading I've developed an understanding of the historical context writing and publishing are happening in and when they're in a fallow period. I agree about examining the back catalogue though, it's a must do.
Steve you always deliver quality. You hit it on head, we live in a mediocre age with average movie stars, average pop singers and average SF. We can only hope for the future.
You're very kind, I'm flattered. You're right too, hope is all we have....
I've been on a old SF reading fest this past month.
Tower of Glass - Silverberg
Slaughterhouse 5 - Vonnegut
The Forever War - Haldeman
Doomsday Morning - CL Moore
And about to start
Wasp - Eric Frank Russell
Never heard of him before thought I'd give it a try
'Wasp' is tight but routine adventure fiction but worth reading. Hope you enjoyed all the others, great books, though the Moore is not her at her best.
also just got a Next of Kin by Russell sphere because of the Foss cover art
Wasp is a good fun book. As the OB says
SF back then as a boy & teen growing up in post-war Britain with rationing, winter smog and ice on the insides of your bedroom in winter - so I read SF that provided me with 'fantastic futures' & wonderous technology that would see humanity propelled into astounding futures ways of life - but also offer cautionary tales of repressive servitude. Reading a mixture of US comics, the Fantasy and Science Fiction Magazine and a number of mostly British SF writers. Thought provoking alien encounters & strange societies. And not just space being conquered but time also. Basically, SF was so far from my everyday life. However, whatever one thinks about life today - there is technology everywhere - the Internet, Space Telescopes, Moores' Law increasing computing, AI, exotic materials like graphene etc. etc. Perhaps it's know wonder that younger readers find Fantasy a more stimulating 'mind space' - after all they their watches, phones & PCs play such a part in their work-a-day world. Even NASAs launches don't get the mass viewing they used to. PS Loving a streaming series called 'For All Mankind' on alternate history of space exploration.
Yes, the fact that we now 'live in the future' is another factor in SF retreating backward in development to the still-distant 'space fantasy' -as PKD called it- of Space Opera etc. For me, I find the excitement in the line between what used to be definitively SF and definitively not SF being rubbed out or confronted- which is why Ballrd (who was doing this by the early 70s) is such an important figure for me. I think if young readers find Fanyasy a more stimulating 'mind space', they are merely Cosplaying in their heads- at least with SF when we were young, we had a Gernsbackian belief in the future -that although dangerous, it offered up possibilities. Ballard said 'The future will be boring,' and in many ways, he was right...
Stephen, great commentary as always. I love this kind of stuff when you take the time to put it together so I just wanna let you know that I really appreciate it because it gets me thinking deeply about my own SF writing.
I am currently reading the Ray Nayler book, I’m about 50 pages in. And I am enjoying it because I think quite honestly I want to enjoy it because it’s such a great idea for a story.
While the reviews are great, I must admit that I have not heard anybody personally say a positive thing about the book, with one exception. But that exception is a man who has amazing taste in science-fiction, and always has very well considered opinions, so I keep that in mind as I read the story. “The Mountain In the Sea,” was passed over for a Hugo nod.
I think much of the reason SF has come to this point is because those in control of its current commercial and editorial direction and processes are a monoculture with no tolerance for deviance from their values. Perhaps that was true in the 60s and 70s, too? I’d imagine so. Sense of wonder and the paradigm shifting “new” have lost the battle for reader attention for now. But it makes me wonder, is no one writing it, or is it simply being ignored by those who would publish it?
Also, SF has always been a malleable genre. It has long had a political divide. And the big, ugly schism of 2008 to 10 did damage, or spurred regrowth, depending how you feel about polar shifts in a beloved genre.
Thanks for your trenchant comments, Jack. Is it there? I don't know...certainly no-one is publishing it. Next year, we may find out as I have plans to edit an anthology of radical SF...but time, money etc...we'll see.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal will that anthology be accepting new works, or do you plan to use reprints? I’m obviously asking because if there’s going to be a call for submissions, I plan to get in line.
I absolutely love your channel!! I share the same tastes in SF literature with you. I'm a writer myself and I find that I always have connected most with likes of Ballard, Dick, Delaney, Ellison, Sterling, Gibson, etc. I very much appreciate your insights!
Delighted to hear that someone with similar tastes appreciates the channel, thanks very much!
as a 41 year old guy who mainly reads old sci fi books but also a few newer ones my thoughts on it are that we already live in the dystopian future many old sci fi books envisioned.
reality has almost catched up the the wildest sci fi dreams like ai, mind reading, genetic engineering and stuff.
and it gets harder and harder for todays writers to envision something groundbreakingly new. because all the groundbreaking stuff was already invented in the sci fi books of the past. and we are already living in the other sci fi dystopia that was envisioned.
Yes, it is harder to envision the New, I have said this many times in previous videos. Several people here have also said about how we are now living in the future, again, something I've said elsewhere- these are sound reasons why the old stuff remains fresh, I think.
"Anyway, someone else who's dead." Oh my god, man, that was hilarious. Too funny. Good video. when I started watching and you mentioned the Booker, I was going to suggest you read The Unconsoled, but you are on top of that already.
You betcha!
In recent years I have tried to find some new authors who measure up to my favourites . But sadly I have failed. Not that I haven’t enjoyed books by newer authors . Just not consistently and as you spoke about in the last episode why does everything have to be in trilogy’s . Tchaikovsky , Hamilton , Reynolds ! I have enjoyed some of their work House of suns I thought was brilliant .But I have found myself returning to older authors again and finding lots of classics that I had previously missed . Made some major discoveries largely due to your channel which has been an absolute goldmine and a total pleasure to watch . Thanks for the ridiculously large TBR Stephen 🫡ps Have you read Metronome by Tom Watson yet? Much appreciated as always.
Not read 'Metronome', though I have looked it over. Yes, even authors with talent get sucked into these endless commercially contrived sequences- as you say, why the trilogy all the time? Because if it works, publishers are happy and milk it. Rarely makes for good SF, though...thanks for the compliment too.
Bravo! I'm currently in a C. L. Moore, Henry Kuttner binge, and boy do they push all my SF buttons. This is thanks to your videos. I've entered my local bookshop, and I do not recognize any of the authors in it's miniscule SF section. So yes, I go back to the writers who charged me up way back when. And yes, I'm an old guy like you, but I'm not very impressed by contemporary writers. I also think that rereading is a necessary exercise to impede the threat of dementia 😆.
I love re-reading. Sometimes you fall in love all over again, sometimes you realise you've changed, or that other reading over the years has shown you that book or writer isn't as great as you thought. Moore and Kuttner were innovators, unlike most writing today...thanks as ever, Daniel!
Kuttner was great fun, as was Eric Frank Russell, and Sturgeon. Different from each other, but very human SF.
Nearly fell off me couch when I saw that copy of Concrete Island 😮 I have a few of Ballards books, nothing rare really, but not that particular title. Sounds great. Lovely copy.
Search Ballard on my channel and you'll fall through your floor: I have tons of rare JGB firsts, mostly signed by the great man- who I knew, met only once, but we kept in touch- and I used to write for 'Deep Ends', the annual JGB tribute anthology. One of my idols!
Always appreciate your recommendations, and my TBR is getting ridiculously long. I read The Mountain in the Sea last year. It will be interesting to hear what you think of it. I enjoyed it as it held several tropes I particularly like but I did not find it fresh just interesting, and it kept me engaged. I'm currently taking on "The Best of Cordwainer Smith" collection. I'm not usually so much for short stories but I keep hearing his name come up so thought this would be a great entry point.
Smith tales some getting used to but is very rewarding. His strangeness is a reminder that SF is supposed to be odd, that the future will not be like the present- reading him is like coming across a book of historical folktales that has fallen through a timeloop into the present. I will talk about the Nayler here when I read it. Go steady with that TBR!
Good God, OB, you are so spot on. The available shelf space in the marketplace (speaking figuratively and literally) is owned by certain entities that are remiss in giving the audience a sought-after product, i.e., good SF. I know all too well why this is and won't sully myself or anyone else by explaining it, those who get it need no explanation. That said, I really like the Nightfall Diaries idea, it resonates. I have the US PB (...Other Stories) from Fawcett Crest, Greenwich, CT, USA and treasure it. You do us all a great service, Stephen, sharing your remarkable insight. I just wish that in this case, you were wrong! But alas, contemporary SF is by far no longer just that. Would that it weren't. Cheers!
I know. It's depressing. I am going to try and do something positive soon! You take care, my friend.
This was a great watch. Cheers.
Thanks Barrie- delighted to see that an ol' timer like you, who has been with the channel for ages through thick and thin is still loving the backlist. Much appreciated.
I pretty much guessed what was to come in this video, Steve, because you and I swing from the same trapeze I think.
I always think of SF as an umbrella genre that shelters numerous sub-genres. Some of those sub-genres, in the past, mirrored what was going on in the world. In the 1950s there was a lot of "reds under the bed" paranoia, and that's identifiable in many of the SF novels of that period. Similarly, there was a fear of nuclear war, which led to a whole spate of disaster novels. The space race, beginning with the Russians, led to a burgeoning of interplanetary and intergalactic fiction, which had been present in SF for many years of course, but it blossomed for a while from the late 1950s and is blossoming again now that we have another space race. It seems to me that good SF thrives on discomfort and uncertainty in our lives. For many years we've lived bland, comfortable, vanilla lives, in a pretty bland world, without much in the way of real threat, so there's been little to engender the variety in SF we both like, and we end up with bland books we choose not to read.
The other thing is ... what constitutes old SF? To someone in their early forties it will be Banks, the likes of Kuttner, Moore, Wyndham etc, will be prehistoric.
Yes, I agree: the failure of writers to come to terms with what needs exploring now is an issue- but is there, as you suggest, much to explore that's genuinely fresh? And as for the old, well, it's perspective and age as you say. Maybe I'll start arguing for the Space Opera Renaissance of Banks and after that was the moment when SF became Contemporary...
I think there's plenty to write about, had those who consider themselves writers the eyes to see and the minds to realise. Instead they're content to rework yesterday's ideas mostly in inferior ways. There should, for example, be a plethora of novels about a climate change wrecked world, the new disaster novels, there are a few, I've read a couple, mostly I'll conceived because of lack of research. Where are the serious novels about AI, the really speculative tales, or about the future of transportation in a post carbon fuel world... electric cars won't solve everything, or about food production... well, you get the idea,. Themes are many, but it's easier to write yet another hackneyed space opera or tale about dragons and wizards.
I do not read many contemporary books -- SF or lit fic -- unless they happen to be from older guard writers who have a long body of work already. It's rare that I read something from a newer, more up-and-coming writer. Very little that comes out actually sounds interesting to me and the few I have read have generally left me disappointed. I think the last "new" SF book I've read in the past few years is Andy Weir's Project Hail Mary and that was only because my wife wanted us to read it together. I did not hate it but I also did not understand why it is so universally praised. I read it less than two years ago and have already forgotten most of it.
I prefer to let time's filter do much of the work for me. If a book is still being read and acclaimed at least a decade or two after it was written, then there's usually a good reason for that. Obviously, most of the stuff that comes out is forgettable. Only the true gems stand the test of time. I also have a working theory that over the past few decades, the best story tellers have moved from writing books to making TV shows (and films though films are sort of going through the same issues as books in terms of a lack of quality). If we're talking about engrossing narratives and mind-expanding works of art, I have had more success finding them in TV/film over the past couple of decades than in books.
I don't think you're wrong: I often say it's good to be behind the curve, as often quality will out in time. I'd also say that TV has gone through some series changes since 'The Sopranos' and 'The Wire', though there is still a lot of dross and that burst of creativity now seems to me to be bleeding out for the last few years. So much fiction writing now is bland, for an audience which wants 'readability' i.e. prose lacking in any kind of flavour or sinew.
Alex Garland and Jed Mercurio are two examples of writers who have moved into film/TV and done well. I'll admit to never having watched Mercurio's TV series, but I loved his second and third novels, but like Garland, he's abandoned prose fiction. Garland's 'Devs' is the best SF TV series I've seen in a very long time, I felt and 'Men' was an interesting film to say the least- though I'd have liked a stronger resolution and I regularly pick up and re-read sections of 'The Beach'. His work on the screenplay for 'Never Le Me Go' was excellent too.
Andy Weir? Originally self-published, one of the few who did this and crossed over. A book for people who have never read Charles Logan's 'Shipwreck' and Joanna Russ' 'We WHo Are About To...'. If I'm going to read a Robinsonade now, centuries after the form was born, I want it to twist things a little...
I finally gave up on SF a year or so ago. I realized that I wasn't finding any new stuff appealing, and the old stuff didn't appeal to me either. I've read 75+ books this year, I'm not missing SF.
I took Goodreads' 2023 Best Books list for contemporary SF, fantasy and romantasy, and treated the number of ratings, and months on market in place of sales umbers and compared each of the 20 book samples. Fantasy alone had 2 1/2 times the number ratings per month (and presumably the sales) of SF. Roll "romantasy" into the mix and it's 4 to 1. I didn't include YA Fantasy, but then there's no YA SF to speak of. It's a fantasy world these days.
I entirely sympathise with anyone giving up SF, I have done it myself in the past. There is very little going on now and while I don't use Goodreads at all, those figures do reflect what I've been seeing in my work as a bookseller for some years and it's grown more intense in the last year. SF is in real danger of dying out now or at least becoming a very minority interest.
I don’t necessarily believe that a newer version of something which has been done before is of any less value - if it’s done well, great! - but if my local Waterstones is anything to go by, SF is either new and shiny or classic. As a reader - and a browser - I’d like to see what’s good, what’s interesting; what the booksellers are reading and have read. I want their expertise, which is why we all come to your channel. Too often I have a conversation with a bookseller who’s only read Tchaikovsky and Martine and Leckie (not that I have anything against these authors), but hasn’t heard of Priest or Roberts or Delaney or Allan, etc.
And I know you can’t stock (or read!) everything. But I wonder if a start would be to stop diluting SF with fantasy, and to stop diluting SF and fantasy with YA and comics. It’s as if fiction is either serious literary Booker-fodder, or hidden at the back of the store in the ‘you’ll grow out it’ section. Imagine if publishers and stores took SF seriously!
I've mentioned a number of times here how I used to keep SF and Fantasy as separate sections and that I believe it should be the industry standard. Also, your point about the 'newer version' - well, that's fine, but it's just a variation on a theme, which is is ok, yes, but it's far harder to originate a concept in the first place than merely reboot it and that's key to SF, which relies on innovation and the New, 'the Novum' to cast the bucket of water in our face and wake us up. SF that doesn't aspire to do this is Craft, not Art, no matter how well executed technically. Clearly, this gets harder to do as time goes on, but it does underline the problem- SF used to be revolutionary and evolutionary and now it's wondering where to go.
...and yes, imagine if publishers and bookshops took the genre seriously: in a video entitled 'My Science Fiction' I talk about how I've been working on this for decades and how it's an uphill struggle. And readers have to play their part- if they allow themselves to be fobbed off with the lowest common denominator by buying and reading it, businesses will keep selling it. Next video- thursday night- is about expectations. Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
Since I watch your videos usually late at night, I am enjoying this new Nightfall series (nice nod to Isaac btw). I watched the existential SF video (i think) and totally agree that the definition is not understood by that chap. It's not a bad idea for a video though - The Man in the Maze and Tiger! Tiger! strike me as possible candidates for that particular canon.
Yeah, it is a good idea for an SF video, but sadly as you say, he doesn't know what he's talking about- 'Tiger! Tiger!' and 'Man in the Maze' are two of the first books I thought of when I considered tackling this topic, as Existentialism in mainstream fiction is one of my big things. Colin Wilson once wrote a book called 'Science Fiction As Existentialism', an essay, which was pretty good. I'll be doing one, maybe two more Nightfall Diaries, then my partner will be home and dominating the living room...LOL
As a fellow habitual contrarian, I find few contemporary SF writers worth investing in ( intellectually and financially ) for a blizzard of reasons. I enjoyed Nayler's MOUNTAINS as it evokes the imagery of GHOST IN THE SHELL manga/anime, but it's rare to find something published within ten years. However, I heavily seek out SF in translation from the Global South or Asia ( like Djuna's COUNTERWEIGHT and Joss's SUPER EXTRA GRANDE) because I want to hear, see, and read what MOST of the world is thinking, wanting, and hoping through SF.
I'll admit I keep shying away from Asian SF, largely because of a bad experience with Cixin Liu - who either is a terrible writer, is poorly translated or is politically oppressed (though this doesn't usually translate into having style frowned on by authorities), though of course I've read SF by Mishima and Abe, who fit into a broader Modernist conception. Because 'World SF' is so loaded currently with the virtue signalling of Identity Politicals under the 'diversity' and 'inclusion' banners, I find I can't currently gain enough objectivity to get these trends out of my head before I try reading more Asian SF- I will do so, but I do think that SF owes so much to the Enlightenment and the Western Tradition in its pioneering development in the wake of these that, like virtually all SF after the 1980s, it can only hope to comment on contemporary culture through a political lens. But I will conquer this prejudice, though I'll add that the attempts of DAW in the 1970s to get people reading European SF (German, French, Scandinavian) wasn't a huge success- some Iron Curtain writers got through (Lem, the Strugatskys), but then again they are part of the Modernist tradition so were in luck there....good thoughts, though.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Steve, I absolutely hear you. Over the past ten years, I've suffered through haranguing novels thinly disguised as SF. And you're right, SF in translation remains a hard nut to crack for readers and publishers. For me Lem's work, the Strugatskys catalog, and Bugalkov's FATAL EGGS, are top-tier SF pantheon for numerous intellectual and philosophical reasons. I could go on and on...but I don't want to bore the community or yourself.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal its quite possible Cixin Liu was badly translated, but as a reader of Chinese, Chinese style in general is a lot more obtuse and longwinded than modern English. Paragraph long sentences are not uncommon.
@@jumpingjohnflash I'm aware of this as I've read Ken Liu's notes on his translations of Chinese SF. However, despite him pointing out that part of the translator's art is to reproduce as faithfully as possible national characteristics in the writing (let's call them that), I've read hundreds of books in translation that nonetheless scan beautifully in English while rendering a good idea of what the writer's style is. For example, my reading of Italian Crime Fiction in translation- which is around 30-40 books- tells me that Carofglio is the most 'mainstream literary', while Carlotto owes much to classic Hardboiled, then De Cataldo tends toward the tabloid at times. Liu's prose, translated as it is, strongly indicates a writer for whom conveyance of ideas stands far higher over style and elegance- some of the syntax (particularly repetition of words close together in sentences and paragraphs) in 'The Three Body Problem' confirms for me that this is not a writer with advanced literary graces. Ken Liu could have improved the prose for readers of English with some omissions of unnecessary 'ands' and replacing them with commas, for example.
Recently I can across an sf short story magazine called Shoreline of Infinity. Reminds me a bit of New Worlds. Just read a story in that called "Oh Baby Teeth Johnny With Your Radiant Grin, Let’s Unroll on Moonlight and Gin" by Cat Hellisen which I thought was superb. I think you can find the text online. There's also a story in that issue written from the pov of a cybernetically enhanced seagull set in Glasgow. Dust Baby by Alix E. Harrow published in a now defunct magazine called Shimmer was also very very good imo. So I think there is some really good new stuff being written, it's just not evenly distributed.
There's always a bit out there of course- I have heard of 'Shoreline of Infinity'. The seagull story sounds interesting too...
I recently picked up a nice copy of Trillion Year Spree. I did wonder as I finished it, having watched many of your videos, if Aldiss was still alive and was tasked with 'bringing the book up to date' just how many pages he'd have to eke out.
I don't think he'd have to ad many. It's worth reading Adam Roberts' history of SF, which is more up to date and has some fascinating ideas in it...but that's Adam, his always full of ideas...
I've never heard the craft vs. art framing. Although, I' have heard a lot recently the content vs. works framing which is perhaps more accurate in terms of where we are now in the early 21st century. In novels and films, "works" offer deep, lasting artistic and cultural value, while "content" is more formulaic, catering to trends without enduring impact. The digital era highlights this distinction, as true artistic works are rarer in a sea of transient content.
It's virtually the same thing - 'content' (if done well) is craft. 'Works' are inspired and stand aside, so are art, simple as that. And yes, now it's easier to produce the well-crafted, something that appears great on the surface but ultimately lacks depth. That's a subtext of this channel- although I like doing stuff that is visually impressive, I lack the tech, the time and -in some cases- the craft, so I focus on doing what I want, which I hope is artful. That'e another usage of 'content' - while there are many youtube channels that are well crafted technically, they lack content in terms of weight and substance.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Good point. However, I'd like to add another perspective: that of the viewer, reader, or consumer. If they increasingly adopt a content-driven mindset in everything they consume, the creator's level of craft and work ethos might become irrelevant. The outcome will be the same. All of us engaged in the digital world are having our tastes and expectations reshaped by the unprecedented consumption of content, whether we realize it or not.
Really curious about that Gene Wolfe book. Since I'm a really big fan of the book of the new sun.
You are definitely tapping into the zeitgeist when you express this mounting dissatisfaction with modern SF.
I've been riding the surf ahead of this wave for decades- I've been disenchanted with it for almost thirty years. Now, it seems, people are catching up and realising that what they're getting is not good enough!
@@outlawbookselleroriginal You've had your finger on the pulse for longer than most of us have been breathing, which is exactly why we come here. Hope you are well.
@@unstopitable I am still struggling, but we'll see. I am aiming cut my output and rest/read more, but I have time to shoot currently, so am milking that. January though, will be down time...thanks for your concern.
I love Concrete Island, it was my first Ballard book and it is completely engrossing. The premise is audacious and I don't think anyone else could pull it off. The way Ballard writes about the rapid personal degeneration or de-civilisation of his protagonist feels so inexorable and logical - as it does in High-Rise, but it's actually more believable in Concrete Island.
I recently read Empire of the Sun, which is a brilliant piece of writing and fascinating insight into the psychology of its child protagonist and the various affluent British people imprisoned by the Japanese in WWII. But I did think it was a bit long, Ballard seems to be better with shorter novels.
I've read 'Concrete' at least three times and feel it is fabulously underrated. 'Empire' does feel long, but as it's disguised autobiography, it explains a lot. If I were to name one long work by Ballard and one short one, I'd go with 'Crash' and "The Drowned Giant".
I totally agree with you.
Just finished Seveneves by Neal Stephenson c2015. My favourite contemporary SF read this year. Hard SF, big sprawling tale with some fascinating ideas. Probably second favourite would be The This by Adam Roberts c2022. Only read one SF novel from 2023 and it went off the rails after about 100 pages.
People do seem to be enjoying 'Seveneves' as far as I can tell - Stephenson is prolific and very clever, but I always find him longwinded- but I've not given up on him yet. I thought 'The This' was excellent- I reviewed it in hardcover when it was first published (don't know if you ever saw that video). Adam had produced almost two dozen SF novels, most worth reading at the least, many brilliant. He's an iconoclast and a traditionalist at the same time, a dizzying mix.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Really didn't get on with Seveneves. It's an engineering porn thought experiment spun off the "just go with it" first line. Still, less mindless than Roland Emmerich's "Moonfall" I suppose although about the same lack of affect.
@@theprofessor5253 It takes quite a lot to get me into Stephenson mood, though I hosted him for an event once, we went to the pub afterward, really pleasant interesting guy.
I don’t think of books as new or old. It’s either new to me or I’ve read it (or DNF’d) already.
I’ve occasionally read contemporary SF but my definition of contemporary dates back to the ‘90s LOL. Presently, I’m reading The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson, which is interesting. Also reading The Unsleeping Eye by DG Compton from 1974.
I imagined you've seen my D G Compton videos- big hero of mine. My definition of contemporary dates back to the 90s too, as I've said in other videos: 'Modern' ended in the 1980s, culturally, and what we have now is Postmodernism, 'the endlessly contemporary'. I think that when most people use 'Modern', they mean contemporary, but have no conception of 'Modern' as a cultural time (see my video on 'Why The Modern Sf You're Reading Isn't Modern'). I have 'Diamond Age' on my vast re-reads list.
Clans of the alphane moon is amongst my fave PKD
Yes, an underrated novel, read it many times.
I read four popular modem SF novels in the last couple years, and I DNFd two of them. The only one I finished (and truly enjoyed) was a Tchaikovsky.
Tchaikovsky is great. Margaret Atwood with Oryx and Crake, Nick Harkaway, and Tade Thompson.
No, Chris, you read four popular contemporary novels- Modern ended in the late 1980s, as I always say. Which Adrian T did you enjoy? 'Dogs of War' perhaps? No? Read it, it's his best.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Children of Time.
@@JamesWalker-ky5yrI read and enjoyed Harkaway’s Gnomon but felt it dragged on a bit. Can you recommend any of his other books?
@@ralphmarrone3130 The Gone Away World
I can only mention Lavie Tidhar (again). He seems to have re-found his mojo with Neom. He's published by PS, who I know you are aware of, and I think they do quality stuff, even if I can't afford to support them like I should.
I was discussing Tidhar yesterday with two SF writers I know- I think he writes really well, but I grew tired of his constant referencing of other SF 'Black Gods' Kiss', entitled after a C L Moore story, 'Central Station', which also constantly references Moore. 'Martian Sands' (is that the title?) which tries too hard to reference Dick. I'll admit I've not read him for a while, but I wish he'd stop doing all this Postmodernist stuff and step away from Recursive SF. I liked 'Osama' a lot, although I felt it could have gone further- but maybe I will try him again, though I keep looking at his books- and I read his World SF anthology- and he also continually harps on about Identity Politics issues, which get way too much coverage in the genre as it is. Sorry to moan! What have you read by him recently?
@outlawbookselleroriginal Neom & the Lunacy Commission (a novella collection, mostly crime). Yes, it's post-modern & referential. Show me a modern author who isn't! If you're going to ride on the backs of giants, at least be honest about it.
It's good to see you've given him a go. As I've often said, if everyone liked the same thing, the world would be boring AF. He's the only modern SF writer I can stomach. His prose is above average, and he is prolific and evolving. His books are different (and the right length). Yes, he wrote a trilogy (Bookman series) early on to appease publishers, but he stopped as soon as he could.
His work with the world SF anthologies is worthy, but not why I read him.
@@brettrobson5739 You have a point, many reference, but not quite so indulgently- it is some years since I read him (I read 'Osama' when it first came out), so we'll see. I was looking at his recent novel in a bookshop only 2 days ago, funnily enough. Tell me, have you read Adam Roberts, Chris Beckett and Dave Hutchinson- they are my main contemporary guys I stick with these days.
It’s so funny you say this because I have never read “contemporary” SF because I’m too cheap to pay for a new book.
In the last few years the only new book I’ve bought was “This Is How You Lose The Time War” which was an okay book but terrible SF, so I’ve gone back to only buying vintage.
Immediate reaction to title: I am a particular person. Maybe also peculiar but particular for this point. I have been very happy spending my time going back in SF to read the classics you recommend. As for current or newly published science fiction I am grumpy and simply demand more like Adrian Tchaikovsky, and Andy Weir. I love the martian and project hail mary; but I also do find those books both fall into somewhat safe Current Science Fiction. We need to demand more. Now!!!!! Stop buying garbage. I have branched out into Algernon Blackwood and another Folk Horror Anthology for XMAS to me. End of vid: I just go in fiction where my heart leads. but always back to science fiction. Thanks for your videos!!!
I feel the same: there is stuff around now which is readable, but it is safe and breaks no new ground. The only contemporary SF writers I read by default are Priest, Harrison, Gibson (but they are all good old guys I've been reading for forty years), Dave Hutchinson, Adam Roberts, Chris Beckett and Nina Allan. A few others grab me from time to time, but mostly I read one book by a new author, often think 'fine, but not good enough when I know I only have time for authors who still surprise me..'
@@outlawbookselleroriginal I feel like in terms of plot, character development, readability, and world building newly published science fiction all follows the same recipe intakes from the same region of ingredients. It's tasty but one can get tired of just plain old salt and pepper. And always thanks for your recommendations. que bad Van Halen Where Have All the Good Times Gone
Whats your take on China Mieville? For me City and the City was a sock remover. embassy Town a close second his others perhaps a bit overlong not sure if CATC would be SF your thoughts?
Also last years Booker winner seven moons of Maali Almeida, worth a peek, is it SF prob not but a must read.
Loving the late night reflections. Thanks for what you do.
Mieville I consider 'M John Harrison' lite and he doesn't really do it for me, though he is talented. 'The City and The City' is probably my favourite of his, but there are many I haven't read. He was behind the curve for me, but he's clearly a sound guy and I am planning to read some of his recent work, which I haven't got around to. A similar book to 'City' is Dave Hutchinson's later 'Europe In Autumn', but instead of working from the mittel-European harrison/kafka style attempt, Hutch goes in a different prose direction that works very well- try it.
Thank you so much for the Hutchinson recommendation Il definitely try it. I get what you mean about M john Harrison lite re CM. As both are recent for me I'm not nearly as well versed as thee. Read in my teens an just picked up SF again in recent years after an enforced retirement due to health. Having a whale of a time reading the back history. Absolutely fascinating
How about you writing the story you want to read? Thanks again Steve you've really opened the Gate for me.
@@severian1916 Always a pleasure!
While there are probably a lot of different market forces that pushed away the older kind of science fiction that many of us loved, I think the biggest factor is the fading away of the centrality of the science fiction magazines. That is where writers used to have to prove them self first, and come to understand the tradition of science fiction that they were working in. By the late 1980s and into the 90s, the readership of those magazines dropped way off and the whole sense of a tradition and progression in the field was lost. Young writers who only have read big fat trilogies and start writing the same don't go through the process of becoming a part of that core sf tradition.
Of course. I know a number of SF writers under 40 whose actual reading in SF before certain dates is incredibly limited, illustrating exactly what you've said. Since 'Star Wars' the genre has been even more screen-dominant and with the growth of videogames and the internet, the writing as primary influence has been swept into an even more obscure corner than it was originally...
I think new SF is better than old SF. But then I also prefer the term sci fi. Plus I think it would be great if this channel had streams where you rank the Marvel superhero films and discuss them in a shallow, fickle way. ‘Outlaw Airhead Clickbait Bookseller’. ONLY JOKING. Great video, ‘technology is speeding, culture is slowing down’ resonates.
I think you should write a satirical novel, you're well on the way there, LOL. Thanks for this :-)
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
Unconsoled is such a strange book, like a dream sequence where youre always late for something and never get there. I found it quite unsettling. I did like Klara and the Sun have you tried that?
No, not yet. I am going to read it soon as I like Ish, but I do get big misgivings about 'literary' writers doing AI books as usually, they don't know the Genre SF ones and end up covering the same ground. I'm hoping to be pleasantly surprised, as I love his prose.
More recent stuff I've found good have been things like Martha Well's Murderbot series, Becky Chamber's Wayfairer's books or anything by Ernest Cline or Andy Weir. Cline is a bit pop and derivative but at least fun. Neal Stephenson is always good but it's hard to call his recent books sci-fi in the rockets and rayguns sense as they've more speculative fiction. Charles Stross had a decent run of scifi for a while until he dipped more into his Laundry Files and Merchant Princes fantasy series.
I like Stross, but as you say, the series things of late have not appealed. Philip K Dick would say that Chambers isn't actually writing SF- and I partially agree, as all she seems to be is write 'Friends' in space- there are no innovative ideas or paradigm shifts. I read the first five Murderbot books ages back and DNF'd the fifth one, as it was padded out to novel length just for the sake of it. They were Mind Candy to meet and despite her skill, they develop very little so they went on my sell pile- they very much aim for an adolescent market that revels in the teen self-pity we all go through (sometimes unfounded) that today it's fashionable to see as 'neurodivergent' (with no censure aimed at those who genuinely are). I'd like to see her turn those skills to something more ambitious.
Cline and Weir don't even get across the start line for me, they're simply not sophisticated or writerly enough. I talk about why I don't use 'Speculative Fiction' as a term in an upcoming video, do check it out- it'll be coming soon. Stephenson is pretty much always SF, I'd suggest thinking a little bit more broadly about what the genre is - rockets and rayguns are what you see on screens, SF books have been way ahead of that for many decades, as I'm sure you know.
I'm aware I've responded critically to many of your mentions here, but I mean to be positive- I'd suggest looking at the work of Adam Roberts, Chris Beckett, Dave Hutchinson, Tom Toner and Stark Holborn for some fresh jollies.
I'm also a collector of "vintage" SF/F and appreciate the classics as well as the fun old relics, but I have to disagree that there's a problem with contemporary SF. Have you read Nophek Gloss by Essa Hansen, or highly regarded novels like Klara and the Sun or Sea of Tranquility? Serious SF is in good hands!
I've glanced over the former and decided it was not for me- and the writers who praise it confirmed for me that it almost certainly will not be to my taste. 'Highly regarded' - by whom? That's a pertinent question. I've read the Mandel and while she can tell a story, she's no great shakes in my opinion as a stylist or originator. I like Ishiguro- and am at times passionate about his work, as you'll see in an upcoming video about one of his books and while I intend to read 'Klara...' I always have misgivings about writers from outside Genre SF producing AI books- they usually have not read the obvious Asimov things, PKD's pertinent books, Silverberg's 'Tower of Glass' or Sladek's satirical robot books or Chris Beckett's searing 'The Holy Machine', which set the 21st century standard in this area for me. My suspicion is that 'Klara...'will be like Speilberg's take ('A.I.') on Aldiss' "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" instead of the amibiguity of PKD- but I am intending to read it despite misgivings.
I may be in the minority especially being a female but I prefer the older science fiction. To me there is a sense of exploration and wonder as we didn’t really know what was on the Moon or Mars. The imagination to think of things that are actually a reality now really causes me to pause at times. I like a good military science fiction but I am not into space opera with little plot in my opinion.
Depends on your age, I guess, but if you are under 30 and reading SF published before 2000, you are an uncommon species indeed. In my job as a bookseller I encounter very few female readers who are looking backward, the vast majority of them having only discovered SFF in the last decade. Good for you!
steve, another great video, and one close to my heart as i feel similar. in fact i often think all the books i love would probably never be published today as they are so politically incorrect or subversive, against the narrative of today. I walk into a bookshop and search through all genres as like you i am open to anything that is interesting and all the novels are sort of woke unimaginative and lack that certain dangerous provocation that makes a novel interesting. A lot of the new sci fi is all based around climate change and gender identity which is okay when ursula k le guin wrote about it in the old days and when ballard wrote about it, but now these ideas are written in a predictable, well trodden way, shoving the agenda down the readers throat rather than just telling an interesting story. the last new book i read was i'n ascension' and although the writing was beautiful and there were moments i felt we were going to go somewhere new, it sort of ended up disappointing me. where are the grand space operas, the books that fuck with your mind, the novels that give you dreams and nightmares at the same time, where are the inventive imaginations that have no limits? i think alastair reynolds is the only worthy hard sci fi writer at the moment, although i like peter f hamilton but most of the time now i just read old classics, pkd, william gibson, burroughs and ballard, anything that breaks the mould. i did read a great fantasy series which is very rare for me and i probably won't do it again, that was 'prince of nothing' by scott r baker which i recommend.
I entirely understand what you mean. 'In Ascension' was OK, but I ultimately feel it was trying to have its cake and eat it in that (1) it was clearly an attempt to get a mainstream 'literary' audience to buying into a classic Big Dumb Object narrative while (2) going further than his previous works in terms of a yearning for commercial success by being more accessible to read than his previous book, the remarkable 'Gathering Evidence', which was genuinely eye-opening while tying in with a current obsession in British literary slipstream, which is about things being damp, organic and growing (I talk about this in several other videos over the last few months.
Yep, climate change and gender identity are nothing new in SF, which is another reason why I too rail against the contemporary over-use of these themes in current F publishing. Of course, SF publishing is currently dominated by female authors who -quite frankly- seem to have read very little SF and as a result they are retreading old ground their precursors did so much better in the 1960s and 1970s (I think Joanna Russ would roll her eyes at many of them). The question is this: what are contemporary authors bringing to SF that is new?
I have to say, however, that I personally don't regard Hamilton and Reynolds as major contributors to the evolution of SF -nice guys that they both are, which i can confirm from meeting and talking to both- and I'd point you to M John Harrison's challenging Kefahuchi Tract trilogy for Space Opera that opens strange doors (also, watch my interview with him on the channel for illumination of these).
I have posted several videos here that bemoan the gear-grinding, running down state of SF since the early 90s, partially explaining this in relation to Modernism and Hauntology: all the arts are suffering from a cultural slowdown and SF is no exception.
I keep looking for mouldbreaking material and aim to speak about it here, so keep watching as I try and find the best new stuff while revisiting past titles that slide under many radars. Thanks for watching, much appreciated.
This is what comic book fans have been doing for awhile now. With few exceptions a lot of the comics are catered towards people who don't buy them, and the people who do buy them have now stopped buying them, preferring manga which I've never tried.
The problem is the best stories probably never get to the public because they're not promoted and you never hear about them. Harry Potter was the biggest selling series of all time and that was turned down by literally every publishing company until the last one, and he only published after his granddaughter convinced him too!
It seems (correct me if I’m wrong) the publishing industry doesn’t typically go for original stories but take the safe route mostly, for the reason that risks can be costly.
@@JeansiByxan That's true, but the reason I mentioned "Harry Potter" is because it was literally the biggest selling series, but if it had been self published J.K Rowling would've been lucky to sell more than 5000 copies! I believe it's very likely that the best books ever written are already out there, but we've never heard of them. Advertising is important!
The best books ever written are out there- and this is one reason why this channel exists. Marketing and advertising is everything. But it would have been better for literature had Rowling not had the breaks - all she did was meld the classic school story with LeGuin's Earthsea and Diana Wynner Jones (but with far less style) and this has led to the growth of YA and the infantilising of what remains of Sword & Sorcery. Sad but true...
@@outlawbookselleroriginal I understand what you're saying. The point I'm making though is that the public went mad for the series, it was hugely successful. Whether it was the best thing ever written isn't my point, my point is that a series that will capture the market like that and get children reading nearly never got published. I do believe it's possible that there are other works that could be popular with the public if only the public knew that they existed.
@@thehound9638 of course
You're quite right -- 'the new' is just a gimmick - the commodification of desire (or something) as the Situationists opined -- & so why bother with nouveau SF when there's so much vintage gold?
There is a body of evidence to support this theory, as we increasingly find....
Banks put me off SF but now PKD has got me interested again.. Long live avant,garde SF
@@AlienBigCat23 Banks is enough to put anyone off....
Elitist contrarian! I couldn't possibly comment. 😂
I read a Paul McAuley recently, Beyond the Burn Line. Quite good. Sock removing? Probably not. I did enjoy Nayler's book. Again, interesting rather than mind blowing. Nearly everything I've read this year has been "old", or earlier this century. Not explicitly for lack of the new, more a case of me exploring the genre in all its glory. Take care.
Jon 📚🚀👽🤖👍
Hello mate. I like McAuley now and then when I'm in the mood, though I'll admit I hated him when he first started publishing in 'Interzone' - but re-reading his early stories last year, I felt many of them were great and that I only didn't enjoy the ones where the subject matter seemed generic. And that's the thing, to get the genre in all its glory, you have to go with the old stuff. Great to hear from you as ever, Jon.
I want SF about truly alternative realities and universes, interesting non humanoid aliens with character, more exciting satire and humor of the Pratchet, Dick and Adams variety, cubic planets made of water boasting geometrical sea creatures with a penchant for intergalactic cheese markets, new gods that dont look like Zuess or Marvel characters but rather enjoy playing in the afterlife, colors that rebel in huge swarms against black and white butterflies that smell like margarine...cant find them so started writing my own! 😊
I do not think Sci Fi is the same genre it was, the name is purely marketing on recognition. The closest feeling you can get to New Wave science fiction right now is in the horror and weird lit genres. In Tender is the Flesh I noticed it does have the same beats you would find in an Atwood or Orwell. But that's spec fic clearly. The space opera and space centric setting is mostly dead or devoid of good writing. If not for Tchaikovsky I would say it was. The Murderbot takeover of the genre is not doing any favors though, I recognize it for the same schlock dialog I read in other 90s pulp.
The Mountain in the Sea is very good. I've also heard great things about Titanium Noir. I think it's just difficult to find good new releases because we haven't had the benefit of time and readers to sift through them just yet.
I read 'Titanium Noir' earlier this year and reviewed it here. It's dreadful- the dialogue is sloppy and fake snappy and it's nothing but a crime novel that wants to be SF- shame , as some of its conceits were interesting and I could imagine a PKD or Silverberg doing a grand job of it.
There is still some Fiction that is like New Wave- and almost all of it is being published as mainstream fiction. Writers like Adam Roberts, M T Hill, Chris Beckett and Dave Hutchinson are producing NW friendly prose.
I think the answer to "where is the excitement?" is there just isn't any. Could just be the people I associate with but people seem to have no enthusiasm or optimism for the future and in that kind of climate maybe people are less inclined to create exciting futures with fascinating technology that solves our problems. Sorry if that's depressing.
No, I think it's a valid point and obviously age and perspective contribute to this. Interestingly, your 'exciting futures with fascinating technology that solves our problems' indicates Utopian SF, which is very uncommon, as Utopias tend toward the static and consequently lack conflict and therefore have no drama, the essence of storytelling- if you watch my recent video about the Utopian fiction of Mack Reynolds, this stuff comes up. When I can get back into writing- next year, I hope-one of my ideas (two actually) are Utopian ones...but then of course one person's Utopia is another's Dystopia....
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Thanks for the response! Good luck with your writing if you end up getting back into it! I'll go back and check out the Mack Reynolds video.
@@geraldderekson8571 Yeah, 2024 is when I begin to fight back through prose fiction!
Thank you for the Dave Hutchinson recommendation Which I have now read. Great read really funny in parts especially the first third which goes at quite a clip. My only disappointment was at the end or near the end
Finished it feeling a bit cheated. i kind of guessed there was a trans dimensional thing going on but really would have liked a few more dips into it along the way rather than the last five pages or so. But fair enough a cliff hanger for book 2 is ok. Having said all that I loved it. Really good fun.
If you're into literary stuff have you tried the new Nobel prize winner Jon Fosse? Not genre SF but the tiny " A Shining" has some interesting elements at 48 pages its a wee gem imo
You've certainly increased my Tbr pile and I am sure yours is taller than mine
Stay well
See you next year
Yes, I was looking at the Jon Fosse the other day in work, I will probably try it out as it did grab me. Fractured Europe grows in resonance in the second and third volumes, you'll find, so stick with it. Working in a bookshop means a TBR that towers above the mind like a veritable Babel, it never ends....
@@outlawbookselleroriginal thanks as ever for taking the time to reply I really do appreciate it and your insights. Im going to stay with the Hutchinson series as you suggest. I loved the pace and the humour and the overall theme was brilliant. If he intended to leave the reader desperate for more then he certainly succeeded! I watched your interview with Nina Allan, brilliant stuff what a woman!.
now added to my TBR
What about Rob Boffard, a young writer from South Africa. Tracer, Zero-G, Impact, (published by Orbit), et al - have not read his work but would like to know if he is decent
Not read him, I'm afraid.
I'm just reading Eric Frank Russell's "Wasp", for the umpteenth time!
I don't think it's a tragedy that todays SF tries to put a different wrinkle on traditional themes. Either we like it or we don't.
But if the reader finds that he likes the older stuff more than the new, he/she is in luck, because virtually all of it is still available.
I haven't read much of the newer stuff, because the ones that I did read didn't seem to be about SF, & were overly long - for example, I read James Lovegrove's "The Foreigners" (2000) which was hyped as a Ballardian type of book, & it turned out to be anything but - padded, with decent characterization, but with very little info on the aliens that left you feeling it wasn't SF at all - I'm not saying all contemporary SF is like this, but it did put me off from exploring the contemporary scene much further - anyway I'm still busy enjoying myself as I read through the older SF to waste too much time on recent SF.
I still want to read hyped authors like Vandermeer, Tchaikovsky, (I think that's how you spell it) & several others - eventually....but they'll have to wait......maybe that's the problem - SF is supposed to be about new ideas, & how the future deals with them, but it's all been done before - & until today's authors come up with an original idea that becomes a trend & stimulates it's readers, most of today's authors are going to struggle to see themselves getting read....
It's only a tragedy in the sense that it is hard for authors to come up with the New, since so much has been done, but that's the nature of our times. I don't mind the craftsmanship of a new take on old tropes, but I do long for the Protean creativity SF seems to have lost. I too was alarmed to see Lovegrove's name popping up in 'Reports From The Deep End', the Ballard tribute anthology recently published- see the video I shot of the multi-author signing a few days back.
I almost exclusively read classics. Lately I started to get into some contemporary genre prose because of channels like this. But, if no one would read new releases, we wouldn't have writers anymore and the culture would die.
Well obviously if no-one read new books, that would be bad for writing and publishing, but working in the industry, I think there's too much focus on the new and not enough work done to promote backlist. When you say 'Classics', do you mean 'Classic SF', 18th & 19th century novels or 'real' Classics, ancient Greek and Roman works?
Thing is, the culture won't 'die' in the sense you mean, as people are so 'onto' new books that publishers and bookshops stay in business. But at times I feel SF is dead- certainly in the way that it was an evolving, revolutionary genre from 1925 to the late 1980s, but then that's the curse of Postmodernism- culture has slowed down, tech has sped up- an SF concept in itself!
@@outlawbookselleroriginal I mean Dostoyevsky, although I have a Tacitus which I have to get into. But the last classic I read recently is Sōseki Natsume. I think he's a classic of Japanese literature. I also got into Silverberg which I knew he was great but in my youth I had the chance to read only a small volume of short stories. And I finally read Frankestein actually pretty recently. Not that impressed, but it's a classic of the genre.
@@onehandslinger1475 I love Dostoevsky, I've deliberately not read 'The Idiot' as it's the only one of his novels I've not read- and it's been over twenty years since I read any, so soon.... Tacitus is great, 'Annals of Imperial Rome', brilliant! Not impressed with 'Frankenstein'?! I'm shocked! But you have to be yourself, that's what counts!
@@outlawbookselleroriginal I'm not of the opinion that everything old is necessarily better, this including films too. I found Frankenstein to be written in an old manner, practically a story told the way anyone would tell a story, covering a lot of facts on a long timeline and so missing details. And it's not the only classic which left me somewhat underwhelmed. I still have to finish The Haunting of Hill House and Treasure Island impressed me more as a graphic comic story which filled me with awe and dread in my childhood, so I had to read the real thing. The Heart of Darkness I found rather strangely written, somewhat confusing, reason for which I read it three times. But, hey, as you can see, I look for the "classics".
Whats your take on Murakami? 1Q84 for example
Never read him, always meaning too, been selling him since the 1990s. He was recommended to me then by another bookseller who I really didn't get on with and i'll admit his popularity puts me off- I hear so much about bestsellers in my job that i have to wait years to read them to gain any objectivity. When I do read him, a video will appear here.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal it does delight me when you reply thanks for taking the time. I think you might like Murakami but I don't know whether you would call it SF. Weird perhaps. Plenty to criticize lots of people loath him but I think thats more personal than literary, which doesn't interest me. I enjoyed his weird meanderings though and will look forward to hearing what you think.
Enjoying the recent vids enormously thanks so much
Btw not new but new yo me Geoff Ryman didn't make your 100 must reads but is in the Gollancz Sf masterworks series with The Child Garden, strange book, enjoying that so far
Keep well
@@severian1916 Yeah I like Ryman, met him once, lovely guy, great writer.
I'm watching the video again, looks like my thumbs up disappeared or, I neglected to give it on on first viewing.
I hope the likes of Emma Newman, Chris Beckett and the like can carry the torch and give the genre boost to attract new readers of all ages.
I recently read Gary Budden (Hollow Shores) after watching one of your other vides - really good stuff, love his style and imagination. very relatable
This is probably a failure on my part but I don't like much of the artwork on the new covers these days, I just don't know, maybe I'm being too judgmental..
Emma has sadly lost the support of Gollancz, who I feel have failed miserably to sell her work in the UK- she has real talent and deserved a lot more promotion. I hope she gets a new deal soon, as her work was growing in ambition and achievement.
Im 39 and i think theres been a malaise in culture generally for a few years. Everything seems to be just repackaging or apeing a specific style of the past, as opposed to doing something new.
I feel trends become tired and dated within weeks instead of years most likely due to social media.
Absolutely. If you can see this at your age, imagine someone like me who is twenty years older. I started to feel this way by the early 90s (and by the mid 80s re music) -watch my video 'Why The Modern SF you are reading isn't Modern' for my reasoning.
The malaise isn’t in SF, it is in the society/culture, reflected in SF.
That's a very good point and true up to a point, but it is up to artists to go beyond this. I've cited the problems with contemporary culture and how we got here in my videos on Modernism and SF.
just bought Stolen Faces for 9 quid,
Good shout.
Sorry for the long preamble.
Well, we are (historically) passing through a period of great flux. The European Socialist countries collapsed because they couldn't solve the contradiction between commodity production and state economic controls and didn't solve the question of how to wield the powers of the state and develop socialist democracy (using the state to ban books critical of the system is a small example of this problem); They finally ended up with a nasty form of state capitalism.
Meanwhile, the West has experienced rising inequality, real wages that have been stagnant since 1979, extreme wealth for a very few and a significant loss of industrial well-paying jobs, financial crisis, and a rise in Neo-fascism (Argentina - Yikes!).
This is the right time, in the midst of great historical schisms, that SF should begin to take on new forms and ideas and tell us stories of optimism and pessimism and everything in between. But maybe we're a bit too early in our expectations. Perhaps the situation is not yet clear enough for authors. One cannot feel the force of history when one is in free fall. And maybe when Fascism or Democracy or something else begins to win and impose its modes of thought and economic (& perhaps military - limited nuclear war?) muscles, maybe then, will authors have a ground to stand on and begin to be inspired again.
And I think we need to raise the question of China. A society that has managed to improve the well-being of its people quite significantly while also creating quite a number of significant problems; I would think that there must be quite a bit of SF writing that is avant garde and is not being translated into western languages; The only thing I can find is:
Liu, Ken - Broken stars_ contemporary Chinese science fiction in translation (2019, Head of Zeus),
Nian Yu_ Zhao HaiHong_ Regina Kanyu Wang_ Wang JinKang_ Tang Fei - Sinopticon_ A Celebration of Chinese Science Fiction (2021, Rebellion Publishing Ltd),
They are on my TBR list.
You may be right that it is too early: but it may also be too late. If you watch my video on Hauntology & Science Fiction - and my related videos on Hauntology and Psychogeography, I reference Mark Fisher;s book 'Capitalist Realism', which I think is essential for anyone looking at why the arts have stagnated.
I keep looking at 'Sinopticon' myself. The 'avant garde' SF- if there is any now- is almost certainly being published and packaged as mainstream fiction. It's always been there and there's always a lot of it- but it often suffers from the fact that the writers of such books have no background in Genre SF: but now and then, they do and produce excellent results- Samantha Schweblin's 'Little Eyes', Herve le Tellier's 'The Anomaly' and Tom McCarthy's 'Remainder' are three from recent years I loved.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal I agreed with Fisher's book when it came out back in 2009 but I think the situation has changed and the fracturing of Imperialism has happened; it's just there's no one awake to push it over which a gives us slow and agonizing descent into the abyss - tones of Lovecraft (racism and all) piled on. I'll read the 3 people you've recommended. Illness or not, the quality of your videos are excellent. Stay healthy.
Hi I'm curious who is the person at the end of the video ?
That's me in 1985.
I am not sufficiently proficient in book studies to comment on individual books and eras but its pretty obvious from a human society/cultural aspect that new SF books are, and will become less interesting from here on in; for two main reasons.
Quantity: 99%( and increasing) of extant books are not new. So by definition, the pool itself of new books is a mere puddle in the grand scheme
Quality:
Fact: our society by any definition is becoming more woke, even if not woke enough for some.
Of all industries, creative and publishing would be considered one of the most woke areas of society.
Free thinking is certainly not encouraged, rather free thinking within certain permissible areas. Anything outside that is “wrong thinking”
Dangers of wrong thinking are now more likely to be found out ( social media/ whistleblowing)
Wrong thinking is close to being criminalised.
Consequences of wrong thinking are greater ( lose your publishing contract, book withdrawn)
The publishing industry now selects for this, for a multitude of reasons; and so the above effects are yearly distilled into a more concentrated form on a yearly basis.
Trouble is, that originality of ideas comes from outliers, people prepared to think differently. Unfortunately the reverse is happening.
I think you're absolutely right, Mark and have said as much myself in a number of videos, though I have spoke at greater length on what you say in your first paragraph: it is inevitable that once Modernism ended, the vast exposure to the arts that society has enjoyed through the mass media since the birth of mass printing, film and audio recording would allow us to run through vast tracts of novelty until we exhausted it.
Publishing has also become more and more of a problem in its innate commercial conservatism, agreed. Again, I see this up close in my job. The publishing industry is in my view too dominated in number by female workers and intersectional over-representation- what some call 'Rebalancing' now feels like revenge - true, white men did dominate all sorts of walks of life for a very, very long time and as a believer in creative, open thinking, we need diversity- but it has to focus on quality of achievement based on equality of opportunity rather than tokenism and unrepresentational agendas. Of course saying these things makes you the worst in the world, these days, but as culture's quality erodes, all will be left the weaker.
SF, with its basis in ideas, is being poorly served currently. Thanks for your comment.
Appreciate your honesty; you have obviously given the issue considerable thought. Agree with every word!@@outlawbookselleroriginal
The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed,
But swoln with wind and the rank mist they draw,
Rot inwardly, and foul contagion spread ...
Lycidas John Milton
I stopped at Harlan Ellison.
Seems reasonable!
Cage of Souls by Adrian Tchaikovsky
What about it? Got it, read it. It's OK.
Yep, new SF can be summarized as mostly wars, robots, dystopean post war survival crap, and new attempts by women to get into SF...
I know that for some strange reason you aren't fond of Ian Macdonald but Hopeland is quite good. In general, I think SF is in a slump. Too much fantasy for starters.
Agreed. But of course Fantasy isn't SF. If there were a way to get it shelved in a different section in bookshops, that would help, I think- but so few people will take up this challenge. I did it in the 1980s and it worked a treat.
No very new and not alot published - Aliyah Whitely recent writer I keep an eye out for
Yes, she is skilled. I reviewed one of her novels here about a year ago, was thinking the other day I must read more of her work. She wrote a non-fiction book about mushrooms a while back that did pretty well.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal I saw last night that as well, reminds me of Sofia Samatar's most recent book -White mosque which is history/travelogue of her visiting an old Mennonite village in Uzbekistan. These tie into what you were talking about how writers can get stuck doing what sells well so you never see them branch out to something different.
Related to Samatar - I am looking for fantasy like hers which is really focused on fantasy as exploration of the history in terms of how/what things are remembered/recorded - Samuel Delaneys Neveryóna is an older example I have started reading recently. Do you have any suggestions for who else to look up?
I gave up with modern sci-fi a good few years back. Same old tropes and styles. Half of the stuff being released has been very weak.
You said it.
Your final picture says it all. You feel about modern SF the same way you feel about modern music. It's all just not PUNK enough. It's all just not GOTH enough. It's all just not STRANGE and DANGEROUS and INTERESTING and CHARACTERFUL and INNOVATIVE enough. You want The Damned and The Sex Pistols and Siouxsie and the Banshees...but people keep trying to fob you off with One Direction and Justin Bieber and Taylor Swift...
It's called getting old, I'm afraid. I know, I hate it. I'm 53 - but deep down inside I'm still 18 and dark and windswept and interesting. With hair.
That's what you are. Not 'Barefoot in the Head' but 'Black Leather Biker's Jacket with matching Goth crucifix in the Head'...
Yep, it is called getting old, I accepted that a long time ago (but as you say, not great!), however, it is about more than that: the history of culture in the Modern era explains a lot, how we were conditioned by Modernity and the hyperfast acceleration of our exposure to culture in that era and how the limits of innovation and originality reached the audience far, far quicker than they would have done due to the hot mass media. I've felt much the same way about music as I do now since the late 1980s, when I was only in my mid 20s. I've felt the same about SF since I was about 30, so it's not just all ageing, it is borne out by what's happened (or not taken place) in the Endlessly Contemporary- though when one was born is a perspective factor here: I think in very young people, this is proven by the fact that more and more of them are looking back at older SF and music for quality. Good comment, great to hear from you.
I used to love SciFi, writers like William Gibson. At one point, it became Libertarian and military influenced. Now, the trend is lesbian writers promoting they/them, and not knowing much science, which is annoying as well. I wonder if a young Gibson could get a book deal in today's climate.
Well, some SF was libertarian and/or military long before Gibson - of course Baen publish almost nothing else, for example (though I would say that as SF is thought experiment up to a point, it's only natural that political speculation/extrapolation can go all ways) - Heinlein, Rand, obvious examples but there were others if you dig. Yes, Identity Politics is an issue- which I'm always saying on the channel (I have no issues with lesbian SF writers, Joanna Russ was one who started publishing in the 1960s- again, nothing new now- and she was brilliant). My issue with the current crop of 'they must be worthwhile and important if they fit a diversity/intersectional tick box' is this: what counts is how well they write, how innovative they are and can they step beyond the boxes. So many cannot, unfortunately...
@@outlawbookselleroriginal True. I'll check out Joanna Russ, thanks.