This is why I love your channel: You have a base line, you have excellent standards, you genuinely care about and have passion for your subject. You are thoughtful, informed and educate your viewer. And on top of that - You are a gentleman. This is why you get my subscription and why I highly value your opinion. Great video, OB 👍
@@outlawbookselleroriginal I’ve finished the entire video and it was absolutely brilliant: you dismantled, defined, and composed fine points using sound reasoning, a very expansive view of the genre and the people involved from conception to consumption; did not leave out historical context or operate out of bias but used your knowledge to inform the present. I award you a perfect debating score! Also, you can’t get rid of me because you’re too valuable for me not to watch. So, there you go! Edit: and you managed to get a few books onto my TBR… You’re definitely a professional at this book business.
Excellent videos 👍 In my opinion there’s more wrapped up in this discussion and reaction than terminology. There’s a trend in some circles these days to dismiss age and experience. Change occurs quicker than ever and tied to that there is a tendency to dismiss experience because “things are just different these days” and “your experience no longer applies”. That’s very unfortunate. There is also a trend to think the worst of “gatekeepers”. In a world where the barriers to entry in so many fields have been removed, gatekeepers are seen as representing the worst of the old ways. Musicians no longer need A&R people, movie makers can create iphone movies, writers can self publish etc. and those are just a few examples of barriers to entry eliminated in the art circles. When so many barriers to entry are removed, one who is happy to share a lifetime of experience can often encounter a reaction of “you can’t tell me what to do”. Tone and communication style have big impact on how information is received. It’s amazing what can be learned by both the experienced and the newcomer when each is respectful of the other’s position and appreciative of what the other can bring to the table. Steve, please keep sharing your joy of SF and experience in the book trade.
I have enjoyed your videos that explain terminology. It helps me figure out how to talk about books in my videos. I discovered sf by finding Tom Swift in the school library around 1970. I then moved on to Jules Verne, H. G. Wells, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Andre Norton, and others.
Thank you for taking the time to unpack these concepts. My intuition leads me to agree with your perspective. I think the disagreement over whether gatekeeping is good or bad boils down to expectations. If one needs the shock of the new for a work to be worth their while, then they may feel like we are currently in a period of diminishing returns. However, many people, even modern gatekeepers, have different (lower?) expectations and criteria from new works, and utilize different metrics to measure what is "good" which has caused a shift in critical standards in general.
Absolutely nailing it! SF is so clearly based around the shock of the new (to borrow the title of Robert Hughes' excellent art book) since it employs a novum to make it SF, by default it needs innovation and this is admittedly problematic in the postmodern age when we've seen it all speed up then slow in around 150 years. Those arguably lower expectations are based in my view on mass-media escapist lowest common denominator SF- PKD said that simple space adventure wasn't SF as it didn't employ the new or cognitively estrange the reader, just comfor them with the familiar, hence endless series and the like of Becky Chambers.
Very interesting opinions as always. Been watching lots of your old content so many great recommendations. Been reading older books things I’ve missed, have read lots of new authors enjoyed lots but find myself gravitating to older stuff . Still learning after nearly 50 years reading sf always open minded about new or old books.
I feel sometimes like an anachronism in these times of "gatekeeper", "woke", "antifa", and other conflated terms that are used to describe complex phenomenon. Here is an example of what we are facing as a generation; recently I was watching the 1948 film adaptation of Hamlet with my 32 year old son. I mentioned that the gist of the play was Hamlet's revenge for the murder of his father by his uncle. My son's response was, "Oh, they got that plot from the movie Lion King." I corrected him by pointing out that he had it backwards. So there are generations coming up who measure everything by the movies or video games they see or play. If they read at all it's because it's connected somehow with a movie, tv series or video game. My point is that we need "gatekeepers" otherwise books like Tyger,Tyger or Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep will be lost in the cacophony of Pop culture and RUclips DIY "scholarship".
The irony of the accessibility of EVERYTHING via the net now without anyone having to work at it like we used to versus the assumption by some people that the contemporary is the gold standard shows us people's general ignorance of historical fact and the weirdness that they haven't noticed they've been tricked by consumer capitalism into believing that everything about them is 'new' when it's just revivalism. This idea of Modernism ending in the 80s, leaving us only the endless contemporary and a return to artisanship rather than the innovation of art in the Modern is central to my beliefs about SF, as you've seen - SF was the ideal vehicle for the Modern (though it caught on late due to its humble genre packaging) and crashed into endless recycling of tropes (with a few exceptions) once the Postmodern took over Cultural Production, marked by the fading of early, authentic cyberpunk. I feel that SF and Rock Music were the ultimate expressions of the Modern and their senescence confirms a return to the age of artisanship and craft : innovation in the arts has run its course. SImon Reynolds' lecture on this 'Everything is a remix' (he argues it's not and I'm with him) is here on YT somewhere, great viewing!
Nicely said, OB. A complex issue, and one which at the end of the day comes down to personal tastes vs personal tastes. I think though, it's a good debate because at least people are talking about a subject near and dear to so many. Cheers.
Just an aside - the Booktuber who inspired this video mentioned his feelings about Forbidden Planet, and how (in this he's like me) he was recently disappointed at the lack of books and comics in a branch of Forbidden Planet, then he realised he was being a grumpy old man (like me) and a bit 'gatekeepery'. He cited how maybe people come into fandom by many different routes now. That's true, but then they always did - anyone who recalls a shop like Forever People in Bristol (extant mid 70s to 1998) will recall it was also stuffed with toys, games and non-book product, though admittedly less than there is now. Is the preponderance of non-book genre Cultural Products in specialist shops a sign of a senescent SF culture among the mass audience now? Upon being offered the position of Manager at an FP store three times some 15 years ago (I had to turn it down for monetary/commuting reasons, sadly), I recommended a younger friend (younger than me by over a decade) as an ideal substitute. This friend increased the volume of books in the store, applied arguably traditional stock profile methods that emphasised legacy titles and backlist and in no time, he had the best book sales in the company - yes, by stocking lots of old stuff, Anecdotally, he alleged to me that the central buyer didn't have the knowledge and he had to push through this gatekeeper to raise the bar - and as I say the sales increased. Also on this point - Serendipity: the internet may be all very well and good and convenient for buying books, but it does not replace the experience of coming across a book you don't know that triggers the impulse to buy. We shop because we used to go out and hunt and gather -that atavistic urge is still there. The net might be convenient, but as the brilliant SF writer Emma Newman wrote in her excellent book 'After Atlas', "With convenience, something was lost." When genre shops destock books, serendipity is but one loss of many...
Got a shock in my recent visit to Dublins FP, all bobbleheads and manga, plus the art in US comics is just dreadful now. And then I realised that I'm a GOM too!
@@GypsyRoSesx There's two ways of looking at it I'd say - he's either sincere (which is fine) or he's taking the 'inclusive virtue signalling' route, saying 'whatever, that's ok, everyone is welcome,' (and of course this is commercially lucrative and in line with current 'inoffensive' orthodoxy and doesn't scare off the masses who might contribute to channel growth and income) but then pulls the rug from beneath this POV by making what some would say is a patronising attitude to mature readers, which reveals a non-inclusive bit of gatekeeping in itself maybe. I don't wish to impugn his integrity, as he is clearly a genuine devotee of great crime fiction and horror (both of which I approve of and I share many of his tastes in Crime particularly), but his words could be interpreted that way. I'm sure he's a nice guy and sincere, really, I just don't buy all of his arguments. Obviously everyone's YT channel has an element of echo chamber - people agree or disagree and that's fine- but the lack of attentiveness to the detail in the responses of some of his audience speaks volumes. The whole 'Lord of the Rings' thing - no, you're not an LOTR fan if you haven't read the books, you're a fan of 'The Lord of the Rings' films by Peter Jackson. It's an important distinction and a bit of rigorous purism tends to help maintain quality in my experience. Good as the films are, they would not exist with Tolkien's primacy as the guy who created the novels - being a pioneer who comes up with something is the tough work, taking it further is easy since so much of the groundwork is already laid, right? Finally, his latest video is about a book by Highsmith that is 'Old, but good' and he addresses the question of why he doesn't like contemporary suspense of the same kind? Maybe he's finding the same thing with suspense that commentators like myself and Bookpilled are re current SF- that not much of it can match the past masters. Why? Maybe it's all been done, which begs the question How Do We Move Things On? Take it easy, Rose and thanks again.
Thanks for the highly informative presentation. The concept of stagnation followed by revolution in SF reminds me of the concept of “Punctuated Equilibrium" proposed by paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. It is the idea that evolution occurs in spurts instead of following the slow, but steady path that Darwin suggested. Long periods of stasis with little activity in terms of extinctions or emergence of new species are interrupted by intermittent bursts of activity. This is due to environment changes. So, for SF there was a period of slow progress from the 1930's to the 1060's, then the culture changed dramatically. The culture is the environment within which SF exists, so when it changed, SF also changed rapidly.
I'm familiar with that concept, but there was steady evolution from the 1930s until the 1980s-every decade saw new growth. If you haven't watched my videos on SF and Hauntology and Modernism, do so, as these make the reasons why SF stopped evolving clearer.
“Gatekeeping” has kept my interest in SF. For years I stepped away from the genre. What scared me away? The trend of these SF books influenced by High Fantasy’s tendency of long series of books the length of phone books. These books have little ideas, stiff writing, and endless bloat. Gatekeeping has allowed me to find all the older books I missed. And the new less marketed decent books I may have missed.
Absolutely. Commercial fantasy publishing has ruined SF publishing increasingly for the last 30 years- it's down to the now meaningless historical connection that once linked US S&S to SF- the days when SF writers did S&S as a sidebar for the Fantasy mags and did it brilliantly. Publishers lumping the two genres, which are quite separate and disparate in philosophical underpinnings (modern versus anachronistic) into one budget and pushing more of the money toward Fantasy, instead of giving it its own budget and letting SF keep its budgets and be developed. You also have the dumbing down of SF due to screens- 'Star Wars' was the tipping point, that and the Fantasy boom started in the same year and has torn down the predominant literary focus that SF had 1950s to mid 1970s. Now, many people come into the genre with expectations of what SF is based on screen media and hacks spoonfeed them the same stuff- who needs endless volumes of 'The Expanse' after all?
One of your best videos, Stephen. I was a little disappointed in the first terminology video because it seemed a bit glib and dismissive but this one is what I've come to expect from watching 100s of your videos: well-argued, deeply researched (a rarity on here) and giving the viewer a lot to chew on, along with some books to buy. I don't agree 100 percent but, like you I expect, prefer this to arguments that don't give me something to wrestle with. Puts me in mind of blogs by your man, a favourite of mine too, Mark Fisher. I would challenge you a little bit about self publishing and the idea The Martian is the exception that proves the rule: many huge hits in SF and Fantasy(especially) came from self publishing in recent years. I can't imagine many of them being your, or my, cup of tea but the fact remains. Also the thorough editing you speak of professionally published books getting is a thing of the past in many cases now, a great shame. I've done my share of freelance writing and nothing improves a writer like a good editor, both the piece itself and future pieces to come. I feel even big publishers are putting out books with tautologies and much worse at a clip, now. Works in translation suffer particularly. My last word on self-publishing is that many of Samuel Delany's books, the recent explicit ones, are self published through Amazon print on demand. Not a gotcha, I feel this actually supports some of your contentions despite chipping away alittle at others. Especially as they have their fair share of errors and look/feel like shit. Speaking of Delany, you may enjoy my video on his Times Square cruising autobio on my channel. (Who doesn't love a plug) As perhaps the only person in Ireland with two copies of Mad Man (just in case), I am in emphatic agreement that Hogg has been covered to death with no context as a shock book. Let's get some discussion of Through The Valley Of The Nest Of Spiders and Shoat Rumblin' going!
See my responses to Ashley Pollard above, as I think many of them are germane to your points. Sorry for posting a brief reply but after a hard day of bookselling and sore feet, I think my reply to Ashley counters many of your points I'd disagree with. Good post, though, you are clearly serious about this, and thats what it's all about, right?
Very eloquently put. I have to say that gate keeping is certainly not the domain of a particular age group. My teenagers are very possessive of Manga, that and Anime have very partisan youth support.
Sure there are some rude people and know it all's out there, but personally I like hearing what an experienced person has to say on stuff they have an almost lifetime of experience with.
This is fascinating. Incidentally, it's interesting that you mention that your books were published by JK Rowling's publisher, because the presenter of the RUclips channel in Q made a flippant remark about JKR's 'transphobia' some time ago (about a year ago now), which I pulled him up on in the comments, asking if he had evidence for this or whether it was lazy, virtue-signalling, and he didn't want to argue his case, nor was he prepared to recant the accusation. I find it quite ironic that people who are ostensibly concerned about 'diversity' and 'inclusivity' - and abhor 'gatekeeping' - are often the most authoritarian when it comes to gatekeeping their own orthodoxy, and happily do so in the absence of any evidence against the people whose viewpoints they seek to deliberately misrepresent. We know by now that when the 'woke' - for want of a better term - plead 'diversity' they are really enforcing a single, acceptable viewpoint that excludes any diversity of thought or expression; and likewise that 'inclusion' is *its* opposite - the exclusion of anything that the cult deems unworthy. This is gatekeeping par excellence; the kind of gatekeeping once practiced behind the iron curtain, or by the Inquisition. It's rich that the language police should be concerned that the 'gatekeeping' of which they accuse others might lead to genre stagnation, when all the evidence is demonstrating that their 'woke' obsession with identity politics is causing just that. There's nothing innovative about including 'marginalised' peoples, for example, if the quality of cultural product is bad, as we are currently witnessing with Disney's Star Wars debacle or with Doctor Who. (And, as you point out, the inclusion of the marginalised in SF goes back a long way, in any case.) Throwing token strong female, black, gay or 'trans' characters at something doesn't automatically make it innovative or good cultural product, and it is precisely *this* kind of gatekeeping that is rapidly leading to genre stagnation. Some of the stories I've heard about woke orthodoxy/gatekeeping leading to the cancellation of otherwise talented 'heretics' within the publishing industry - and the broader arts in general - have been genuinely shocking. It is this that is increasingly responsible for mainstream cultural stagnation. The woke have determined that anything they find 'problematic' is a new kind of Degenerate Art that must be suppressed, dressing up their elitism in progressive colours. They are the firemen in Bradbury's 'Fahrenheit 451'.
Agree with all you say: they don't seem to notice the illogical and fallacious 'house built on sand' nature of their arguments. All Postmodern theories are the same - they show a distrust of 'grand narratives' while writing their own equivalent thereof.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Incidentally, you mentioned sensitivity readers, add to them the insidious gatekeeping employed by library and bookshop staff who hide away books they deem it necessary the great unwashed should not be exposed to. This has happened, as we know, in the case of Helen Joyce's and Graham Linehan's books, for example, in Waterstones. My local independent bookshop simply refuses to stock books they find politically objectionable (while at the same time pushing a great deal of discredited bilge by the likes of X Kendi and various 'trans' celebrities), which is their right, I guess, but if I were to accuse them of 'gatekeeping' or 'bigotry' they would no doubt be astonished.
If you talk about gate keepers, you also need to talk about gate crashers. Campbell was a gate keeper--Boucher, Del Rey, Carr, Dozois, ...most of the great editors were gate keepers as you say. (Critics are disposable: frick'm) Gate keepers represent conservatism, and do us all a great service, but gate crashers are more interesting. If they are able to break the keeper, they have to be great in and of themselves. Ellison was a Gate crasher from 1960 to 1985---who became a gate keeper to his detriment. Crashers are few and far between. Gibson was probably a crasher, though I haven't been able to finish Neuromancer... I think Asimov/Clarke/Heinlein were crashers in 1945 who elevated the genre to some respectability.
I don't disaagree- Ellison really crashed! My point is really that not all gatekeeping is bad. You have to try 'Neuromancer' again ,mate, really. I've read it around 20 times.
This is becoming worrying, I agree with you 100%! Almost! But I'm not going to quibble. The booktuber who inspired this video has, from what you say, overlooked the fact that Gates keep in as well as keep out. You, and I, don't want to exclude anyone, but we do want to keep the diversity of subject matter that came into SF in the 1940s, we can't let knowledge of that diversity escape. The genre is bigger, much, much bigger than the spacefaring fantasies that have grown in popularity with younger readers over the last thirty years. The publication of those fantasies, to the exclusion of the true range of SF are, as you say, the true stagnation.
I think there is a difference between gatekeepers and experts, who could be called gate openers. Publishers are gatekeepers, although self publishing is changing it a bit. If a book isn't published, it is hard for anyone to read it. Bookstores are also a sort of gatekeeper, since they can make it hard to find some books, by not stocking them. But a good critic, or reviewer, or expert bookseller, opens gates. You, for instance, can use your expertise and experience to make good recommendations to people. You can even recommend books you don't like much, if you think they will suit a person
Isn't there a point about explaining and understanding that isn't gatekeeping. Ie most ppl who have in whatever subject it is like to get others involved or interested. I'd go silverberg read face of the waters not his best then read man inthe maze its about taking views and then make ur own.
Just watched the video you refer to, mainly to see what he takes a "gatekeeper" to be. He seems to say a gatekeeper is someone who makes claims of the form "you can't be a true / real fan of x unless y", and this he takes to be bad because it "excludes" people. Oh come on! Pretty much everyone has made claims of this form and it's nothing new or even particularly problematic, at least not most of the time. Whatever happened to agreeing to differ? Growing a backbone? Finding likeminded fans? I guess the claim he is attributing to you is "you can't be a true fan of written science fiction unless you call it sf rather than sci-fi". But you never said that and I don't for one minute believe you think that. Not sure why he thinks you think that either.
Agreed. And yep, I never said that. I just talked about the tone of the terms, how pros have used them historically and wished other Booktubers wouldn't use them, Yep, I was passionate and maybe stung a few people- which was never the intention- but I was sincere, stated clearly it would divide people and decided to speak out about it. Words are powerful things and people are really passionate about them, which is why all of us on both sides of any argument like this love books and that's what counts!
@@dirdirpnume6447 -In haven't watched this film since it was first released- and then I only went to see it because my (admittedly gorgeous girlfriend, lovely lady, who has been a nurse for decades now) wanted to see it. So I won't get this reference sorry!
Very interesting discussion here MR Outlaw. I am firmly in the SF camp but do embrace Sci-Fi lovers as they are helping to popularise the genre and grow the genre which I think was needed. Gatekeeping is a curious phenomenon and I believe not that important due to the plethora of sources of commentary these days. A kind of gatekeeping is the top 10 best of all time lists that are so popular on youtube, you will find typically .... just of the top of my head .... DUNE FOUNDATION PARABLE OF THE SOWER MOTE IN GODS EYE A FIRE UPON THE DEEP FRANKENSTEIN 1984 LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS HYPERION 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY ALL Fantastic books everyone one of them but a "best of" list surely is a personal thing? So for so many lists to have the same books (or very similar picks) - even from very young content makers - could be argued is preventing people from exploring lesser known works. Are these gatekeepers, stagnating diversity and growth?
Yes, hence my stating in my 'best' videos that they are very subjective choices. On your final point, I'd say these lists do prevent looking at other works in some ways, but everyone has to start somewhere. My main aim here was to throw the whole concept of gatekeeping into doubt and highlight the subjectivity involved in it as a concept.
do you have any thoughts on the nature and tone of discussions surrounding literature in the popular online spaces? having recently plunged into booktube and book discords and the like.. i've realized it's very difficult to find actual discussions of the material and the nature/form of the material we all profess to enjoy. it feels almost impossible to have discussions that may even slightly be at odds with the majority opinion at the chance of possible offense they might cause.. thus no interesting conversations seem to take place. it is all very surface level.. summary.. hey look at my new books.. sort of water cooler conversation. i understand why on youtube these sort of things would be popular.. like top 10 lists.. here is my book collection.. but outside of content creation i was a bit taken off guard at the amount of self censorship that seems to be going on. it seems this is more likely a symptom of the times we are in, where a conflicting opinion or narrative is only voiced by trolls (or at least that is the perception), people that are perhaps too emotionally invested, and the bulk of it is accepted to occur on twitter... which is seemingly a cesspool of people yelling "im right.. your immoral" level of discourse. it's like competing ideas aren't allowed to compete in a neutral playing ground that isn't emotionally driven, and all modes of thought are increasingly becoming echochambers of confirmation bias and patting each other on the back. sorry for the tangent.. but it is very frustrating.
I completely sympathise with your views. I don't watch many booktubers as (quite frankly) I'm much older than most of them and having worked in the industry for nearly 40 years, being a published author with a #1 amazon bestseller and having read SF for 50 years, I can learn very little from any of them. Plus my time is given to this channel and reading and work. These days no-one can say anything, which is why you must say it. There is lots of gainsaying, as you say, but little discourse and real argument. That's woke/cancel culture for you- and I'm left wing myself (but economically, not in a politically correct way). Everything is polarised now: people have to stay on one side of a fence and knee-jerk into acceptable reaction postures instead of saying; 'Well, I agree with Jordan Peterson on that, but as he's supposedly right wing, I can't go there.' None of it is very nuanced, sophisticated or intelligent, I feel. It's not good for civilisation when people cannot be rational, objective and evidence -oriented. This channel will remain a serious yet light option for those who want to discuss books without recourse to reaction postures. My only problem with this is that posters interact with me (which is fine) but I wish they'd interact with each other more. I won't do a dischord as I have no time. You're very welcome here!
Gate keeping has nothing at all to do with someone's taste. You've managed to talk all around the subject of gate keeping without ever actually discussing what it truly is.
For aspiring SF writers, what might you suggest doing to move the genre forward? I ask this as someone who would like to write SF and is in the process of becoming more well read in the genre.
Well, that's a tough question. Personally, I feel we need a New Wave of New Wave, where books written and published as SF take more radical approaches in style, content and intent- but this will almost certainly mean commercial failure or at best cult status, so if the writing is more important to you than money, you'd take this route. If you look at the genre now, you'll see the publishing of pure SF is predominantly focused on traditional Space Opera, Identity Politics and the favouring of Female authors and non-white writers. ALL of this is for marketing reasons, largely. Why? Space Opera: this is what most people think of when they think of SF, as their only experience of it is on screens, not as literature. Space Opera is tired and massively over-explored. Most people reading it just want familiar Space Fantasy escapism - that's fine, but it's craft not art and doesn't revolutionise SF. Identity Politics and favoured author identities: I actually think a focus on gender and race is a good subject for SF, as for SF to have metaphoric relevance to the real world, it often has to reflect what is going on in our societies. However, this idea that a focus on these issues is new is nonsense, since these issues started to come into SF big time in the 1960s in the work of writers like LeGuin, Delany and Russ among many others. They were big ideas socially then, but more radical. Now they're the norm. In this way, SF is no different to the fiction ebing published per se, as there's a massive focus on being 'inclusive' and showcasing 'other voices'. As I say, this is fine, but it isn't new. Sadly, it's another relfection of our society in that what publishers are generally doing here is thinking of the money: they are marketing themselves as 'good people' by forefronting Identity Politics narratives. That's what social media is: self-marketing for the individual and marketing for businesses. Although many, many individuals and individual publishers are genuine about inclusivity, a lot of this is cynical too. As an SF writer, I'd be looking at what Identity Politics will actually do to the world in both negative and positive senses: much of it is subjective and unscientific, so will actually do harm in many cases. Any SF writer suggesting this, however, will face manuscript rejection for not being on point and will be labelled 'right wing'. But to be radical, sometimes you have to question that biggest enemy of art, Political Orthodoxy. SF did this in the 50s and 60s and was ahead of society, but is now behind. Ultimately, the innovative period of all arts is pretty much behind us for historical reasons, as my videos on Hauntology and Psychogeography address. The Modern period is over and has been for decades and now, popular arts simply repeat, recycle and pastiche what was done before around 1987. We have basically run out of ideas. Much of the best SF being issued now is published in non-SF packaging. I'd suggest reading books like Tom McCarthy's 'Remainder' as a look at where to go next...best of luck.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal I appreciate the thoughtful response, grim as the message may be. On the bright side, being the star of a cult is on the ole bucket list. And while the well seems dry, as far as innovation goes, I think the challenge of squeezing water from a rock remains interesting. Looking forward to more videos, they help me think through what I want to do in the future. Have a good one!
Well, I can not write fiction in any type of enjoyable manner, maybe due to my writing so many technical reports on system repairs and engineering changes on the job. I took a few writing classes in the 1980s to no avail. But, I would suggest looking at this page, there are many more attempts to define this here: "Perhaps the single most famous example of "sensawunda" in all of science fiction involves a neologism, from the work of A. E. van Vogt (Moskowitz 1974): The word "sevagram" appears only once in the series, as the very last word of 'The Weapon Makers'; in its placing, which seems to open universes to the reader's gaze, and in its resonant mysteriousness, for its precise meaning is unclear, this use of "sevagram" may well stand as the best working demonstration in the whole genre sf of how to impart a sense of wonder.[16]: 1269 " I typed "Science Fiction's attempt to bring back The Sense Of Wonder", in my search engine and this Wikipedia page appeared.
I'm going to have to go away and think about this. While a lot of the points raised are worth discussing, I found some of the conclusions weak. For example, Sci-Fi as a term, coined by Forrest J. Ackerman, who arguably was the first high profile SF media fan as opposed to SF literature fan. I used to rankle at SF being called Sci-Fi or skiffy, but nowadays I don't think it really matters because any negative implications from the term have long been overcome by the ubiquity of SF as a genre. Looking down on the term says more about the person looking down on it than the genre; namely intellectual snobbery. And that's my problem with gatekeepers for what is essentially something that no longer makes any sense in the world as it is now, as compared to the 1930s, the evolution through the genre from the 1940s and 50s, to the new wave of the sixties and early 70s etc. I tend to agree that fantasy encompassing sword and sorcery, epic fantasy and the such is not trying to emulate the sense of wonder that SF achieves when at its best. And as you say, revolutionary ideas are different to the evolution of tropes. However, placing publishing as gatekeepers who are upholding the traditions of the genre doesn't stand up to scrutiny. An equally convincing argument can be made that they've held back the genre because their goals are to make profits, not evolve the genre per se. And, I agree these are not mutually contradictory goals, but the evidence is in product on the shelves. Also, writers like Kristine Kathryn Rusch are self-published, yet also featured in traditional magazines (she is a Hugo award winner back in the 1990s), and the problem is rather diminishment of publishing from corporate buyouts. If anything one can argue that despite the criticism of self-publishing as being slapdash, this is the only area where a writer can write what they want, rather than write to market. Of course, I would concede that a large number of self-published writers will write to market, but this has always been the case. It is a feature of capitalism, not a bug. As such, there's room for all fiction to reach the market, but the problem I fear you're actually railing against is how to sort out the wheat from the chaff. That's a problem that I have no answer to, except that broad sweeping generalizations about self-publishing, and arguing from what one prefers has led to the arguments we see in social media. The vastness of cultural products, there accessibility, and becoming jaded from a glut of books to read only leads to a cul-de-sac of refined and largely inaccessible to the general reader books. TL;DR: There's room for revolutionary stories and re-framed retelling's of old stories.
You make some excellent points and you make them well. Here are some rejoinders: Yep, Forry was indeed the first high profile SF media fan, agreed. But he was part of that original fandom of written SF first - as a fan (obviously) and agent. So he came out of written SF into mass media as ed of Famous Monsters. Intellectual snobbery? I can see your point- but as I said, what I (and many other serious pros in the field before me) object to is the dismissive, pejorative, flippant TONE of 'Sci-Fi'. The manner in which many journalists have used it echoes this. What did LeGuin say - 'It makes it sound cheap,'. I'm very passionate about convincing 'the mainstream' that Science Fiction has a place in the Modern canon of literature, so maybe I am a snob, but for a good reason- I'd like people who dismiss 'Sci-Fi' based on what they've seen on screens without reading it - to discover what it has contributed to literature (a lot) and give the genre its due. As many of these people are far bigger literary snobs than I am (remember that forty years experience in bookselling), my usage of the more dignified 'SF' is a Trojan Horse into mainstream - it sounds more serious. If I'm a snob, sue my, my intentions are laudable, I think. I also pointed out that this is the term professionals prefer- even now, anthologies bear the term 'Science Fiction' and 'SF' -but do they ever use 'Sci-Fi' if they are from pro publishers? I think not. Only Merril's series briefly used Sci-Fi as far as I can tell. This fact alone is proof of my assertion that 'SF' is preferred by professionals in the field. Re the 'irrelevance' of SF's evolution now, I'd say the reason SF is in such a poor state when it comes to quality, forward movement and innovation only highlights the relevance of SF's revolutionary history - on top of my feelings that most of the arts have struggled with this since the dawn of the Postmodern era. An awful lot of young SF writers themselves- I know from talking to them- are poorly read in the genre and its history(they came in from an 'SF on Screens' dominated media landscape). They are often amazed how vital and impressive 'old SF' is. And look at a RUclipsr like Bookpilled- he's 25 years younger than me, but finds most contemporary SF unreadable. Re publishers, well, many SF editors employed by publishers were SF writers themselves or magazine editors - Pohl, Moorcock, Lester Del Rey (just three examples) worked as publishers, so while they had their eyes on the monetary prize (especially Del Rey, who gifted us Shannara and look what that did to Fantasy and SF). Pohl and Moorock helped the genre evolve I'd say, while also selling loads of books as writers. One can be an artist and a businessman. Malcom Edwards at Gollancz in the 80s came out of fandom. I'll admit that I'm less familiar with editors' backgrounds now and I'm sure things may have changed. the book trade has become hugely more commercial in my time - I've seen this first hand, again on a virtually daily basis at work. Finally on this - who edited the bestselling anthologies? People like Ellison, Knight, Silverberg- I could go on. Rusch moved into crime and self-publishing because (in the latter case) her work stopped selling. There are dozens of examples of 1990s SF writers whose careers now depend on self-publishing and Print On Demand. Asimov, Heinlein, Herbert are still in print, yet they are more archaic than say Robert Charles Wilson or Elizabeth Hand. I see young people buying Asimov and Herbert EVERY DAY. They don't care that these are old names, they've heard they are the business. Personally, I prefer Tom Disch....I agree though, that with self-publishing, you can write exactly what you want. But Rusch proved herself first as a writer with skill that a pro publisher gave her an advance or ten. She's validated as a pro by this. I'll put money on the idea that many of these former pros would take a contract from a big publisher again instead of continuing to self- publish, though I know of at least one -Scott Bradfield- who says he prefers self-publication. Yes, there's always been self-publishing, but as I said it's much easier now than it's ever been and there's a glut of it. Like I said, if you self-publish, 99.9% of the time, you won't get your work into stock in bookshops (I've turn down self-published books almost every time I've been offered them as a bookseller who buys stock, because they are usually no good, have no marketing budget that allows them to compete in a hugely crowded marketplace and because their distribution status is poor and they are non-returnable if unsold. Good post, though, great to discuss with you, thanks!
@@outlawbookselleroriginal I'll add one caveat. A lot of what you say was true, but is no longer true, which was my main point. Hearkening back to the 1980s, while valid for setting a standard, this was a minimum of 34 and up to 43 years ago. All of which is in the past, and effectively a foreign country. The culling of the mid-list authors of the past is, as I said, down to corporate practices. As for marketing and budgets for same, very little comes from corporate publishing, and those authors I know who are with the big five tell me they have to do their own promotions (caveat mid-list authors). When people like Stephen King start their own publishing business to control their copyright and keep their works in print, I think it speaks volumes about publishing. so, I'm not actually trying to refute anything you say as a description of what was good, only that it is lost.
@@ashley-r-pollard - Yes, publishers expect authors to actively promote, probably more than they did (as they can do this more easily now because of the internet and soc media), but it's always been part of the contract (it's in my contract with my publisher since I signed with them in 2005- Bloomsbury). Yes, much midlist culling is corporate, but it's corporate by definition, since publishing is a business - but now authors are generally on a 'three strikes and you're out,' deal and publishers investing in authors long terma nd letting them build an audience has been decreasing as a phenomenon for a good thirty years, but in this century, it's become a very sharp knife cutting too soon in many cases. I think King is probably thinking of copyright after he's gone -depending on legal arrangements, estates can retain rights and royalties for different periods of time from 50 to 75 to 100 years- I discovered how complex this was when I edited a literary diary in 1998. I suspect SK is aiming to preserve the copyright as long as possible for his heirs. I don't think what I describe is 'lost' in many of my points - though I dof eel there are less editors of experience and real commitment to the genre than there were. Also, my points re print on demand only came into play since the late noughties. A renaissance of the 'old values' - and many of them allowed the very best SF ever to flourish - is still possible. The past of SF is never irrelevant, as it can, could and may create a renaissance, though this is as much down to contemporary creators. I'll admit though that current business approaches in publishing make this harder and harder!
Robert J Sawyer and your point about large books, started from memory by Dune. Also lack of new young readers because of bad science fiction writing. Agree, military science fiction based on the US military/Star Trek is the norm and most are horrible. Also, a lot are graphic in their violent content. I like Peter F Hamilton even though his books are gigantic and Neal Asher's first are good, example Brass Man, though has a lot of graphic violence but his latest has declined. Both are E E Doc Smith in style ie Space Opera. The new Doctor Who books are good.
Gatekeepers? I do wonder about that term. Your video is insightful, I must say. Are you a gatekeeper? I doubt that; except in how you defined the term: as a facilitator to those seeking advice. Certain people have pedigree, after years of experience. But tastes do change, style too; I've watched a few (mostly younger) "RUclipsrs" who are dismissive of older lit, seemingly just because it is "antiquated." Are they justified in that criticism? Maybe. It may be just so: a lot of classic authors cut their teeth in pulp magazines; but, to my mind, anyone being dismissive of those who've spent years appreciating a genera, calling them gatekeepers, tire me these days. If you (the reader, any reader) don't like a particular author, don't read them. There's lots of fish in the sea. If you prefer only "new" fiction, so be it; but I believe you are missing out on a wealth of wonderful fiction. I get a kick out of past visions of the future, personally.
Agreed, David. Those 'haters' (to use a bit of tragic contemporary parlance) who dismiss the 'antiquated' clearly hve no appreciation of context, history and the evolutionary chain in the arts that led to now. Without pioneers, however crude or sparkling, where would we be now? Personally, I think there's been devolution in SF for thirty years with a few exceptions- but then there is always Sturgeon's Law, then and now!
Ummm. Listen...please. I agree 900% with your views in this video. Your credentials about SF are beyond question. And when you say you're not beguiled by contemporary space opera, that gave you more credibilty, because I realised that you weren't a sycophant. If punters question your pedigree, I suggest that you ignore them. ✅☕
Good point and a prominent YTer who does great SF material said this too - you're both right, but I am an 'Outlaw' so at times I have to kick against the pricks. Respect to you!
No offense but I think you are missing the mark here. You are individualizing the problem into the mere act of personal choice, i.e. someone decides to keep someone else out of a group for example. This is not what's going on. The reason is more systemic. Within capitalism profit mediates everything an it is this wider dynamic which wags the dog so to speak. If you would like to discuss this further let me know.
No, I am responding to someone who 'individualized' the problem in another video, citing me as a Gatekeeper. Have you seen that video? This video is fundamentally about undermining the manner in which the term 'Gatekeeper' is used in said video and pointing out alternatives. I see this as about personal interactions, opinion and judgement rather than being 'systemic' (not a term I use, personally, as I think the mass media now allows widesspread critique of capitalism, but then runs the danger of becoming its own grand narrative). No further discussion needed for me, thanks.
This is why I love your channel: You have a base line, you have excellent standards, you genuinely care about and have passion for your subject. You are thoughtful, informed and educate your viewer. And on top of that - You are a gentleman.
This is why you get my subscription and why I highly value your opinion.
Great video, OB 👍
..and you are absolute gem, as ever. I'm glad you're still with me and everyone else here.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal I’ve finished the entire video and it was absolutely brilliant: you dismantled, defined, and composed fine points using sound reasoning, a very expansive view of the genre and the people involved from conception to consumption; did not leave out historical context or operate out of bias but used your knowledge to inform the present. I award you a perfect debating score!
Also, you can’t get rid of me because you’re too valuable for me not to watch. So, there you go!
Edit: and you managed to get a few books onto my TBR… You’re definitely a professional at this book business.
@@GypsyRoSesx Cheers Rose!
A worthy response and an excellent discussion.
Many thanks Michael, very nice to see you posting here, I'm flattered!
Excellent videos 👍 In my opinion there’s more wrapped up in this discussion and reaction than terminology. There’s a trend in some circles these days to dismiss age and experience. Change occurs quicker than ever and tied to that there is a tendency to dismiss experience because “things are just different these days” and “your experience no longer applies”. That’s very unfortunate. There is also a trend to think the worst of “gatekeepers”. In a world where the barriers to entry in so many fields have been removed, gatekeepers are seen as representing the worst of the old ways. Musicians no longer need A&R people, movie makers can create iphone movies, writers can self publish etc. and those are just a few examples of barriers to entry eliminated in the art circles. When so many barriers to entry are removed, one who is happy to share a lifetime of experience can often encounter a reaction of “you can’t tell me what to do”. Tone and communication style have big impact on how information is received. It’s amazing what can be learned by both the experienced and the newcomer when each is respectful of the other’s position and appreciative of what the other can bring to the table.
Steve, please keep sharing your joy of SF and experience in the book trade.
Agreed. Thanks also for your very flattering comments, I'll do what I can!
I have enjoyed your videos that explain terminology. It helps me figure out how to talk about books in my videos. I discovered sf by finding Tom Swift in the school library around 1970. I then moved on to Jules Verne, H. G. Wells, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Andre Norton, and others.
Thanks man, it's my pleasure!
Thank you for taking the time to unpack these concepts. My intuition leads me to agree with your perspective. I think the disagreement over whether gatekeeping is good or bad boils down to expectations. If one needs the shock of the new for a work to be worth their while, then they may feel like we are currently in a period of diminishing returns. However, many people, even modern gatekeepers, have different (lower?) expectations and criteria from new works, and utilize different metrics to measure what is "good" which has caused a shift in critical standards in general.
Absolutely nailing it! SF is so clearly based around the shock of the new (to borrow the title of Robert Hughes' excellent art book) since it employs a novum to make it SF, by default it needs innovation and this is admittedly problematic in the postmodern age when we've seen it all speed up then slow in around 150 years. Those arguably lower expectations are based in my view on mass-media escapist lowest common denominator SF- PKD said that simple space adventure wasn't SF as it didn't employ the new or cognitively estrange the reader, just comfor them with the familiar, hence endless series and the like of Becky Chambers.
Very interesting opinions as always. Been watching lots of your old content so many great recommendations. Been reading older books things I’ve missed, have read lots of new authors enjoyed lots but find myself gravitating to older stuff . Still learning after nearly 50 years reading sf always open minded about new or old books.
I feel sometimes like an anachronism in these times of "gatekeeper", "woke", "antifa", and other conflated terms that are used to describe complex phenomenon. Here is an example of what we are facing as a generation; recently I was watching the 1948 film adaptation of Hamlet with my 32 year old son. I mentioned that the gist of the play was Hamlet's revenge for the murder of his father by his uncle. My son's response was, "Oh, they got that plot from the movie Lion King." I corrected him by pointing out that he had it backwards. So there are generations coming up who measure everything by the movies or video games they see or play. If they read at all it's because it's connected somehow with a movie, tv series or video game. My point is that we need "gatekeepers" otherwise books like Tyger,Tyger or Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep will be lost in the cacophony of Pop culture and RUclips DIY "scholarship".
The irony of the accessibility of EVERYTHING via the net now without anyone having to work at it like we used to versus the assumption by some people that the contemporary is the gold standard shows us people's general ignorance of historical fact and the weirdness that they haven't noticed they've been tricked by consumer capitalism into believing that everything about them is 'new' when it's just revivalism. This idea of Modernism ending in the 80s, leaving us only the endless contemporary and a return to artisanship rather than the innovation of art in the Modern is central to my beliefs about SF, as you've seen - SF was the ideal vehicle for the Modern (though it caught on late due to its humble genre packaging) and crashed into endless recycling of tropes (with a few exceptions) once the Postmodern took over Cultural Production, marked by the fading of early, authentic cyberpunk. I feel that SF and Rock Music were the ultimate expressions of the Modern and their senescence confirms a return to the age of artisanship and craft : innovation in the arts has run its course. SImon Reynolds' lecture on this 'Everything is a remix' (he argues it's not and I'm with him) is here on YT somewhere, great viewing!
Nicely said, OB. A complex issue, and one which at the end of the day comes down to personal tastes vs personal tastes. I think though, it's a good debate because at least people are talking about a subject near and dear to so many. Cheers.
Right on, Rick.
Just an aside - the Booktuber who inspired this video mentioned his feelings about Forbidden Planet, and how (in this he's like me) he was recently disappointed at the lack of books and comics in a branch of Forbidden Planet, then he realised he was being a grumpy old man (like me) and a bit 'gatekeepery'. He cited how maybe people come into fandom by many different routes now. That's true, but then they always did - anyone who recalls a shop like Forever People in Bristol (extant mid 70s to 1998) will recall it was also stuffed with toys, games and non-book product, though admittedly less than there is now. Is the preponderance of non-book genre Cultural Products in specialist shops a sign of a senescent SF culture among the mass audience now? Upon being offered the position of Manager at an FP store three times some 15 years ago (I had to turn it down for monetary/commuting reasons, sadly), I recommended a younger friend (younger than me by over a decade) as an ideal substitute. This friend increased the volume of books in the store, applied arguably traditional stock profile methods that emphasised legacy titles and backlist and in no time, he had the best book sales in the company - yes, by stocking lots of old stuff, Anecdotally, he alleged to me that the central buyer didn't have the knowledge and he had to push through this gatekeeper to raise the bar - and as I say the sales increased. Also on this point - Serendipity: the internet may be all very well and good and convenient for buying books, but it does not replace the experience of coming across a book you don't know that triggers the impulse to buy. We shop because we used to go out and hunt and gather -that atavistic urge is still there. The net might be convenient, but as the brilliant SF writer Emma Newman wrote in her excellent book 'After Atlas', "With convenience, something was lost." When genre shops destock books, serendipity is but one loss of many...
Got a shock in my recent visit to Dublins FP, all bobbleheads and manga, plus the art in US comics is just dreadful now.
And then I realised that I'm a GOM too!
@@markkavanagh7377 Nah, you're just 'discerning', which is a synonym for 'gatekeeper' LOL.
😃
@@GypsyRoSesx There's two ways of looking at it I'd say - he's either sincere (which is fine) or he's taking the 'inclusive virtue signalling' route, saying 'whatever, that's ok, everyone is welcome,' (and of course this is commercially lucrative and in line with current 'inoffensive' orthodoxy and doesn't scare off the masses who might contribute to channel growth and income) but then pulls the rug from beneath this POV by making what some would say is a patronising attitude to mature readers, which reveals a non-inclusive bit of gatekeeping in itself maybe. I don't wish to impugn his integrity, as he is clearly a genuine devotee of great crime fiction and horror (both of which I approve of and I share many of his tastes in Crime particularly), but his words could be interpreted that way. I'm sure he's a nice guy and sincere, really, I just don't buy all of his arguments.
Obviously everyone's YT channel has an element of echo chamber - people agree or disagree and that's fine- but the lack of attentiveness to the detail in the responses of some of his audience speaks volumes. The whole 'Lord of the Rings' thing - no, you're not an LOTR fan if you haven't read the books, you're a fan of 'The Lord of the Rings' films by Peter Jackson. It's an important distinction and a bit of rigorous purism tends to help maintain quality in my experience. Good as the films are, they would not exist with Tolkien's primacy as the guy who created the novels - being a pioneer who comes up with something is the tough work, taking it further is easy since so much of the groundwork is already laid, right? Finally, his latest video is about a book by Highsmith that is 'Old, but good' and he addresses the question of why he doesn't like contemporary suspense of the same kind? Maybe he's finding the same thing with suspense that commentators like myself and Bookpilled are re current SF- that not much of it can match the past masters. Why? Maybe it's all been done, which begs the question How Do We Move Things On?
Take it easy, Rose and thanks again.
I loved this video - but where can I see the video which you are answering here?
Thanks for the highly informative presentation. The concept of stagnation followed by revolution in SF reminds me of the concept of “Punctuated Equilibrium" proposed by paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. It is the idea that evolution occurs in spurts instead of following the slow, but steady path that Darwin suggested. Long periods of stasis with little activity in terms of extinctions or emergence of new species are interrupted by intermittent bursts of activity. This is due to environment changes. So, for SF there was a period of slow progress from the 1930's to the 1060's, then the culture changed dramatically. The culture is the environment within which SF exists, so when it changed, SF also changed rapidly.
I'm familiar with that concept, but there was steady evolution from the 1930s until the 1980s-every decade saw new growth. If you haven't watched my videos on SF and Hauntology and Modernism, do so, as these make the reasons why SF stopped evolving clearer.
Thank you for the discussion here. I don’t agree 100%, but I do 100% appreciate the dialogue.
Many thanks, Joe, you're very kind. If we all agreed all the time, it would be a Dystopian world, right?
“Gatekeeping” has kept my interest in SF. For years I stepped away from the genre. What scared me away? The trend of these SF books influenced by High Fantasy’s tendency of long series of books the length of phone books. These books have little ideas, stiff writing, and endless bloat. Gatekeeping has allowed me to find all the older books I missed. And the new less marketed decent books I may have missed.
Absolutely. Commercial fantasy publishing has ruined SF publishing increasingly for the last 30 years- it's down to the now meaningless historical connection that once linked US S&S to SF- the days when SF writers did S&S as a sidebar for the Fantasy mags and did it brilliantly. Publishers lumping the two genres, which are quite separate and disparate in philosophical underpinnings (modern versus anachronistic) into one budget and pushing more of the money toward Fantasy, instead of giving it its own budget and letting SF keep its budgets and be developed. You also have the dumbing down of SF due to screens- 'Star Wars' was the tipping point, that and the Fantasy boom started in the same year and has torn down the predominant literary focus that SF had 1950s to mid 1970s. Now, many people come into the genre with expectations of what SF is based on screen media and hacks spoonfeed them the same stuff- who needs endless volumes of 'The Expanse' after all?
One of your best videos, Stephen. I was a little disappointed in the first terminology video because it seemed a bit glib and dismissive but this one is what I've come to expect from watching 100s of your videos: well-argued, deeply researched (a rarity on here) and giving the viewer a lot to chew on, along with some books to buy. I don't agree 100 percent but, like you I expect, prefer this to arguments that don't give me something to wrestle with. Puts me in mind of blogs by your man, a favourite of mine too, Mark Fisher.
I would challenge you a little bit about self publishing and the idea The Martian is the exception that proves the rule: many huge hits in SF and Fantasy(especially) came from self publishing in recent years. I can't imagine many of them being your, or my, cup of tea but the fact remains. Also the thorough editing you speak of professionally published books getting is a thing of the past in many cases now, a great shame. I've done my share of freelance writing and nothing improves a writer like a good editor, both the piece itself and future pieces to come. I feel even big publishers are putting out books with tautologies and much worse at a clip, now. Works in translation suffer particularly.
My last word on self-publishing is that many of Samuel Delany's books, the recent explicit ones, are self published through Amazon print on demand. Not a gotcha, I feel this actually supports some of your contentions despite chipping away alittle at others. Especially as they have their fair share of errors and look/feel like shit.
Speaking of Delany, you may enjoy my video on his Times Square cruising autobio on my channel. (Who doesn't love a plug) As perhaps the only person in Ireland with two copies of Mad Man (just in case), I am in emphatic agreement that Hogg has been covered to death with no context as a shock book. Let's get some discussion of Through The Valley Of The Nest Of Spiders and Shoat Rumblin' going!
See my responses to Ashley Pollard above, as I think many of them are germane to your points. Sorry for posting a brief reply but after a hard day of bookselling and sore feet, I think my reply to Ashley counters many of your points I'd disagree with. Good post, though, you are clearly serious about this, and thats what it's all about, right?
Very eloquently put. I have to say that gate keeping is certainly not the domain of a particular age group. My teenagers are very possessive of Manga, that and Anime have very partisan youth support.
I'm sure you're right. To me, the idea works both ways, it's a Janus-faced thing.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal You are right of course. I suppose most easily debatable points are.
I like that without some distaste there won't be any taste.
Like music without dissonance isn't very interesting.
Sure there are some rude people and know it all's out there, but personally I like hearing what an experienced person has to say on stuff they have an almost lifetime of experience with.
Agree or disagree, it should be heard out, right Ford? You're clearly a cool frood who knows where his towel is...
@@outlawbookselleroriginal It's been so long since I read Hitchhiker's that I had to look up the meaning of 'Frood'.
This is fascinating. Incidentally, it's interesting that you mention that your books were published by JK Rowling's publisher, because the presenter of the RUclips channel in Q made a flippant remark about JKR's 'transphobia' some time ago (about a year ago now), which I pulled him up on in the comments, asking if he had evidence for this or whether it was lazy, virtue-signalling, and he didn't want to argue his case, nor was he prepared to recant the accusation. I find it quite ironic that people who are ostensibly concerned about 'diversity' and 'inclusivity' - and abhor 'gatekeeping' - are often the most authoritarian when it comes to gatekeeping their own orthodoxy, and happily do so in the absence of any evidence against the people whose viewpoints they seek to deliberately misrepresent. We know by now that when the 'woke' - for want of a better term - plead 'diversity' they are really enforcing a single, acceptable viewpoint that excludes any diversity of thought or expression; and likewise that 'inclusion' is *its* opposite - the exclusion of anything that the cult deems unworthy. This is gatekeeping par excellence; the kind of gatekeeping once practiced behind the iron curtain, or by the Inquisition. It's rich that the language police should be concerned that the 'gatekeeping' of which they accuse others might lead to genre stagnation, when all the evidence is demonstrating that their 'woke' obsession with identity politics is causing just that. There's nothing innovative about including 'marginalised' peoples, for example, if the quality of cultural product is bad, as we are currently witnessing with Disney's Star Wars debacle or with Doctor Who. (And, as you point out, the inclusion of the marginalised in SF goes back a long way, in any case.) Throwing token strong female, black, gay or 'trans' characters at something doesn't automatically make it innovative or good cultural product, and it is precisely *this* kind of gatekeeping that is rapidly leading to genre stagnation. Some of the stories I've heard about woke orthodoxy/gatekeeping leading to the cancellation of otherwise talented 'heretics' within the publishing industry - and the broader arts in general - have been genuinely shocking. It is this that is increasingly responsible for mainstream cultural stagnation. The woke have determined that anything they find 'problematic' is a new kind of Degenerate Art that must be suppressed, dressing up their elitism in progressive colours. They are the firemen in Bradbury's 'Fahrenheit 451'.
Agree with all you say: they don't seem to notice the illogical and fallacious 'house built on sand' nature of their arguments. All Postmodern theories are the same - they show a distrust of 'grand narratives' while writing their own equivalent thereof.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Incidentally, you mentioned sensitivity readers, add to them the insidious gatekeeping employed by library and bookshop staff who hide away books they deem it necessary the great unwashed should not be exposed to. This has happened, as we know, in the case of Helen Joyce's and Graham Linehan's books, for example, in Waterstones. My local independent bookshop simply refuses to stock books they find politically objectionable (while at the same time pushing a great deal of discredited bilge by the likes of X Kendi and various 'trans' celebrities), which is their right, I guess, but if I were to accuse them of 'gatekeeping' or 'bigotry' they would no doubt be astonished.
Thanks Steve
Just catching up
I love these essays I always learn something
Thanks. I'll be doing more like this in the next few weeks.
If you talk about gate keepers, you also need to talk about gate crashers. Campbell was a gate keeper--Boucher, Del Rey, Carr, Dozois, ...most of the great editors were gate keepers as you say. (Critics are disposable: frick'm) Gate keepers represent conservatism, and do us all a great service, but gate crashers are more interesting. If they are able to break the keeper, they have to be great in and of themselves. Ellison was a Gate crasher from 1960 to 1985---who became a gate keeper to his detriment. Crashers are few and far between. Gibson was probably a crasher, though I haven't been able to finish Neuromancer... I think Asimov/Clarke/Heinlein were crashers in 1945 who elevated the genre to some respectability.
I don't disaagree- Ellison really crashed! My point is really that not all gatekeeping is bad. You have to try 'Neuromancer' again ,mate, really. I've read it around 20 times.
I love your video's, they get to the bottom of what you're reviewing and talking about. I like the length. Personally, I'm not a fan of shorts.
Thanks. You clearly like substance not shallowness, like me.
This is becoming worrying, I agree with you 100%! Almost! But I'm not going to quibble.
The booktuber who inspired this video has, from what you say, overlooked the fact that Gates keep in as well as keep out. You, and I, don't want to exclude anyone, but we do want to keep the diversity of subject matter that came into SF in the 1940s, we can't let knowledge of that diversity escape. The genre is bigger, much, much bigger than the spacefaring fantasies that have grown in popularity with younger readers over the last thirty years. The publication of those fantasies, to the exclusion of the true range of SF are, as you say, the true stagnation.
I parrot you in response...cripes, that sounds weird! :-)
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Squaaawwwkkk!
I think there is a difference between gatekeepers and experts, who could be called gate openers.
Publishers are gatekeepers, although self publishing is changing it a bit. If a book isn't published, it is hard for anyone to read it.
Bookstores are also a sort of gatekeeper, since they can make it hard to find some books, by not stocking them.
But a good critic, or reviewer, or expert bookseller, opens gates. You, for instance, can use your expertise and experience to make good recommendations to people. You can even recommend books you don't like much, if you think they will suit a person
Isn't there a point about explaining and understanding that isn't gatekeeping. Ie most ppl who have in whatever subject it is like to get others involved or interested. I'd go silverberg read face of the waters not his best then read man inthe maze its about taking views and then make ur own.
Absolutely. As I say, I was responding to being labelled as a Gatekeeper, but it's a double-edged sword, right? Thanks for yr comment.
Just watched the video you refer to, mainly to see what he takes a "gatekeeper" to be. He seems to say a gatekeeper is someone who makes claims of the form "you can't be a true / real fan of x unless y", and this he takes to be bad because it "excludes" people. Oh come on! Pretty much everyone has made claims of this form and it's nothing new or even particularly problematic, at least not most of the time. Whatever happened to agreeing to differ? Growing a backbone? Finding likeminded fans? I guess the claim he is attributing to you is "you can't be a true fan of written science fiction unless you call it sf rather than sci-fi". But you never said that and I don't for one minute believe you think that. Not sure why he thinks you think that either.
Agreed. And yep, I never said that. I just talked about the tone of the terms, how pros have used them historically and wished other Booktubers wouldn't use them, Yep, I was passionate and maybe stung a few people- which was never the intention- but I was sincere, stated clearly it would divide people and decided to speak out about it. Words are powerful things and people are really passionate about them, which is why all of us on both sides of any argument like this love books and that's what counts!
I refer you to the archetypal 'gatekeeper' whose story was told in Ghostbusters
What about the keymaster??
@@dirdirpnume6447 -In haven't watched this film since it was first released- and then I only went to see it because my (admittedly gorgeous girlfriend, lovely lady, who has been a nurse for decades now) wanted to see it. So I won't get this reference sorry!
Very interesting discussion here MR Outlaw. I am firmly in the SF camp but do embrace Sci-Fi lovers as they are helping to popularise the genre and grow the genre which I think was needed. Gatekeeping is a curious phenomenon and I believe not that important due to the plethora of sources of commentary these days. A kind of gatekeeping is the top 10 best of all time lists that are so popular on youtube, you will find typically .... just of the top of my head ....
DUNE
FOUNDATION
PARABLE OF THE SOWER
MOTE IN GODS EYE
A FIRE UPON THE DEEP
FRANKENSTEIN
1984
LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS
HYPERION
2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY
ALL Fantastic books everyone one of them but a "best of" list surely is a personal thing? So for so many lists to have the same books (or very similar picks) - even from very young content makers - could be argued is preventing people from exploring lesser known works. Are these gatekeepers, stagnating diversity and growth?
Yes, hence my stating in my 'best' videos that they are very subjective choices. On your final point, I'd say these lists do prevent looking at other works in some ways, but everyone has to start somewhere. My main aim here was to throw the whole concept of gatekeeping into doubt and highlight the subjectivity involved in it as a concept.
do you have any thoughts on the nature and tone of discussions surrounding literature in the popular online spaces? having recently plunged into booktube and book discords and the like.. i've realized it's very difficult to find actual discussions of the material and the nature/form of the material we all profess to enjoy. it feels almost impossible to have discussions that may even slightly be at odds with the majority opinion at the chance of possible offense they might cause.. thus no interesting conversations seem to take place. it is all very surface level.. summary.. hey look at my new books.. sort of water cooler conversation. i understand why on youtube these sort of things would be popular.. like top 10 lists.. here is my book collection.. but outside of content creation i was a bit taken off guard at the amount of self censorship that seems to be going on.
it seems this is more likely a symptom of the times we are in, where a conflicting opinion or narrative is only voiced by trolls (or at least that is the perception), people that are perhaps too emotionally invested, and the bulk of it is accepted to occur on twitter... which is seemingly a cesspool of people yelling "im right.. your immoral" level of discourse. it's like competing ideas aren't allowed to compete in a neutral playing ground that isn't emotionally driven, and all modes of thought are increasingly becoming echochambers of confirmation bias and patting each other on the back.
sorry for the tangent.. but it is very frustrating.
I completely sympathise with your views. I don't watch many booktubers as (quite frankly) I'm much older than most of them and having worked in the industry for nearly 40 years, being a published author with a #1 amazon bestseller and having read SF for 50 years, I can learn very little from any of them. Plus my time is given to this channel and reading and work.
These days no-one can say anything, which is why you must say it. There is lots of gainsaying, as you say, but little discourse and real argument. That's woke/cancel culture for you- and I'm left wing myself (but economically, not in a politically correct way). Everything is polarised now: people have to stay on one side of a fence and knee-jerk into acceptable reaction postures instead of saying; 'Well, I agree with Jordan Peterson on that, but as he's supposedly right wing, I can't go there.' None of it is very nuanced, sophisticated or intelligent, I feel. It's not good for civilisation when people cannot be rational, objective and evidence -oriented.
This channel will remain a serious yet light option for those who want to discuss books without recourse to reaction postures. My only problem with this is that posters interact with me (which is fine) but I wish they'd interact with each other more. I won't do a dischord as I have no time. You're very welcome here!
Gate keeping has nothing at all to do with someone's taste. You've managed to talk all around the subject of gate keeping without ever actually discussing what it truly is.
I beg to differ.
For aspiring SF writers, what might you suggest doing to move the genre forward?
I ask this as someone who would like to write SF and is in the process of becoming more well read in the genre.
Well, that's a tough question. Personally, I feel we need a New Wave of New Wave, where books written and published as SF take more radical approaches in style, content and intent- but this will almost certainly mean commercial failure or at best cult status, so if the writing is more important to you than money, you'd take this route. If you look at the genre now, you'll see the publishing of pure SF is predominantly focused on traditional Space Opera, Identity Politics and the favouring of Female authors and non-white writers. ALL of this is for marketing reasons, largely. Why?
Space Opera: this is what most people think of when they think of SF, as their only experience of it is on screens, not as literature. Space Opera is tired and massively over-explored. Most people reading it just want familiar Space Fantasy escapism - that's fine, but it's craft not art and doesn't revolutionise SF.
Identity Politics and favoured author identities: I actually think a focus on gender and race is a good subject for SF, as for SF to have metaphoric relevance to the real world, it often has to reflect what is going on in our societies. However, this idea that a focus on these issues is new is nonsense, since these issues started to come into SF big time in the 1960s in the work of writers like LeGuin, Delany and Russ among many others. They were big ideas socially then, but more radical. Now they're the norm. In this way, SF is no different to the fiction ebing published per se, as there's a massive focus on being 'inclusive' and showcasing 'other voices'. As I say, this is fine, but it isn't new. Sadly, it's another relfection of our society in that what publishers are generally doing here is thinking of the money: they are marketing themselves as 'good people' by forefronting Identity Politics narratives. That's what social media is: self-marketing for the individual and marketing for businesses. Although many, many individuals and individual publishers are genuine about inclusivity, a lot of this is cynical too. As an SF writer, I'd be looking at what Identity Politics will actually do to the world in both negative and positive senses: much of it is subjective and unscientific, so will actually do harm in many cases. Any SF writer suggesting this, however, will face manuscript rejection for not being on point and will be labelled 'right wing'. But to be radical, sometimes you have to question that biggest enemy of art, Political Orthodoxy. SF did this in the 50s and 60s and was ahead of society, but is now behind.
Ultimately, the innovative period of all arts is pretty much behind us for historical reasons, as my videos on Hauntology and Psychogeography address. The Modern period is over and has been for decades and now, popular arts simply repeat, recycle and pastiche what was done before around 1987. We have basically run out of ideas. Much of the best SF being issued now is published in non-SF packaging. I'd suggest reading books like Tom McCarthy's 'Remainder' as a look at where to go next...best of luck.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal I appreciate the thoughtful response, grim as the message may be. On the bright side, being the star of a cult is on the ole bucket list. And while the well seems dry, as far as innovation goes, I think the challenge of squeezing water from a rock remains interesting.
Looking forward to more videos, they help me think through what I want to do in the future. Have a good one!
Well, I can not write fiction in any type of enjoyable manner, maybe due to my writing so many technical reports on system repairs and engineering changes on the job. I took a few writing classes in the 1980s to no avail.
But, I would suggest looking at this page, there are many more attempts to define this here:
"Perhaps the single most famous example of "sensawunda" in all of science fiction involves a neologism, from the work of A. E. van Vogt (Moskowitz 1974):
The word "sevagram" appears only once in the series, as the very last word of 'The Weapon Makers'; in its placing, which seems to open universes to the reader's gaze, and in its resonant mysteriousness, for its precise meaning is unclear, this use of "sevagram" may well stand as the best working demonstration in the whole genre sf of how to impart a sense of wonder.[16]: 1269 "
I typed "Science Fiction's attempt to bring back The Sense Of Wonder", in my search engine and this Wikipedia page appeared.
Stephen, never temper yourself! 😀
I'm going to have to go away and think about this. While a lot of the points raised are worth discussing, I found some of the conclusions weak. For example, Sci-Fi as a term, coined by Forrest J. Ackerman, who arguably was the first high profile SF media fan as opposed to SF literature fan.
I used to rankle at SF being called Sci-Fi or skiffy, but nowadays I don't think it really matters because any negative implications from the term have long been overcome by the ubiquity of SF as a genre. Looking down on the term says more about the person looking down on it than the genre; namely intellectual snobbery.
And that's my problem with gatekeepers for what is essentially something that no longer makes any sense in the world as it is now, as compared to the 1930s, the evolution through the genre from the 1940s and 50s, to the new wave of the sixties and early 70s etc.
I tend to agree that fantasy encompassing sword and sorcery, epic fantasy and the such is not trying to emulate the sense of wonder that SF achieves when at its best. And as you say, revolutionary ideas are different to the evolution of tropes.
However, placing publishing as gatekeepers who are upholding the traditions of the genre doesn't stand up to scrutiny. An equally convincing argument can be made that they've held back the genre because their goals are to make profits, not evolve the genre per se. And, I agree these are not mutually contradictory goals, but the evidence is in product on the shelves.
Also, writers like Kristine Kathryn Rusch are self-published, yet also featured in traditional magazines (she is a Hugo award winner back in the 1990s), and the problem is rather diminishment of publishing from corporate buyouts. If anything one can argue that despite the criticism of self-publishing as being slapdash, this is the only area where a writer can write what they want, rather than write to market.
Of course, I would concede that a large number of self-published writers will write to market, but this has always been the case. It is a feature of capitalism, not a bug. As such, there's room for all fiction to reach the market, but the problem I fear you're actually railing against is how to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
That's a problem that I have no answer to, except that broad sweeping generalizations about self-publishing, and arguing from what one prefers has led to the arguments we see in social media. The vastness of cultural products, there accessibility, and becoming jaded from a glut of books to read only leads to a cul-de-sac of refined and largely inaccessible to the general reader books.
TL;DR: There's room for revolutionary stories and re-framed retelling's of old stories.
You make some excellent points and you make them well. Here are some rejoinders:
Yep, Forry was indeed the first high profile SF media fan, agreed. But he was part of that original fandom of written SF first - as a fan (obviously) and agent. So he came out of written SF into mass media as ed of Famous Monsters.
Intellectual snobbery? I can see your point- but as I said, what I (and many other serious pros in the field before me) object to is the dismissive, pejorative, flippant TONE of 'Sci-Fi'. The manner in which many journalists have used it echoes this. What did LeGuin say - 'It makes it sound cheap,'. I'm very passionate about convincing 'the mainstream' that Science Fiction has a place in the Modern canon of literature, so maybe I am a snob, but for a good reason- I'd like people who dismiss 'Sci-Fi' based on what they've seen on screens without reading it - to discover what it has contributed to literature (a lot) and give the genre its due. As many of these people are far bigger literary snobs than I am (remember that forty years experience in bookselling), my usage of the more dignified 'SF' is a Trojan Horse into mainstream - it sounds more serious. If I'm a snob, sue my, my intentions are laudable, I think. I also pointed out that this is the term professionals prefer- even now, anthologies bear the term 'Science Fiction' and 'SF' -but do they ever use 'Sci-Fi' if they are from pro publishers? I think not. Only Merril's series briefly used Sci-Fi as far as I can tell. This fact alone is proof of my assertion that 'SF' is preferred by professionals in the field.
Re the 'irrelevance' of SF's evolution now, I'd say the reason SF is in such a poor state when it comes to quality, forward movement and innovation only highlights the relevance of SF's revolutionary history - on top of my feelings that most of the arts have struggled with this since the dawn of the Postmodern era. An awful lot of young SF writers themselves- I know from talking to them- are poorly read in the genre and its history(they came in from an 'SF on Screens' dominated media landscape). They are often amazed how vital and impressive 'old SF' is. And look at a RUclipsr like Bookpilled- he's 25 years younger than me, but finds most contemporary SF unreadable.
Re publishers, well, many SF editors employed by publishers were SF writers themselves or magazine editors - Pohl, Moorcock, Lester Del Rey (just three examples) worked as publishers, so while they had their eyes on the monetary prize (especially Del Rey, who gifted us Shannara and look what that did to Fantasy and SF). Pohl and Moorock helped the genre evolve I'd say, while also selling loads of books as writers. One can be an artist and a businessman. Malcom Edwards at Gollancz in the 80s came out of fandom. I'll admit that I'm less familiar with editors' backgrounds now and I'm sure things may have changed. the book trade has become hugely more commercial in my time - I've seen this first hand, again on a virtually daily basis at work. Finally on this - who edited the bestselling anthologies? People like Ellison, Knight, Silverberg- I could go on.
Rusch moved into crime and self-publishing because (in the latter case) her work stopped selling. There are dozens of examples of 1990s SF writers whose careers now depend on self-publishing and Print On Demand. Asimov, Heinlein, Herbert are still in print, yet they are more archaic than say Robert Charles Wilson or Elizabeth Hand. I see young people buying Asimov and Herbert EVERY DAY. They don't care that these are old names, they've heard they are the business. Personally, I prefer Tom Disch....I agree though, that with self-publishing, you can write exactly what you want. But Rusch proved herself first as a writer with skill that a pro publisher gave her an advance or ten. She's validated as a pro by this. I'll put money on the idea that many of these former pros would take a contract from a big publisher again instead of continuing to self- publish, though I know of at least one -Scott Bradfield- who says he prefers self-publication.
Yes, there's always been self-publishing, but as I said it's much easier now than it's ever been and there's a glut of it. Like I said, if you self-publish, 99.9% of the time, you won't get your work into stock in bookshops (I've turn down self-published books almost every time I've been offered them as a bookseller who buys stock, because they are usually no good, have no marketing budget that allows them to compete in a hugely crowded marketplace and because their distribution status is poor and they are non-returnable if unsold.
Good post, though, great to discuss with you, thanks!
@@outlawbookselleroriginal I'll add one caveat. A lot of what you say was true, but is no longer true, which was my main point.
Hearkening back to the 1980s, while valid for setting a standard, this was a minimum of 34 and up to 43 years ago. All of which is in the past, and effectively a foreign country.
The culling of the mid-list authors of the past is, as I said, down to corporate practices. As for marketing and budgets for same, very little comes from corporate publishing, and those authors I know who are with the big five tell me they have to do their own promotions (caveat mid-list authors).
When people like Stephen King start their own publishing business to control their copyright and keep their works in print, I think it speaks volumes about publishing.
so, I'm not actually trying to refute anything you say as a description of what was good, only that it is lost.
@@ashley-r-pollard - Yes, publishers expect authors to actively promote, probably more than they did (as they can do this more easily now because of the internet and soc media), but it's always been part of the contract (it's in my contract with my publisher since I signed with them in 2005- Bloomsbury). Yes, much midlist culling is corporate, but it's corporate by definition, since publishing is a business - but now authors are generally on a 'three strikes and you're out,' deal and publishers investing in authors long terma nd letting them build an audience has been decreasing as a phenomenon for a good thirty years, but in this century, it's become a very sharp knife cutting too soon in many cases.
I think King is probably thinking of copyright after he's gone -depending on legal arrangements, estates can retain rights and royalties for different periods of time from 50 to 75 to 100 years- I discovered how complex this was when I edited a literary diary in 1998. I suspect SK is aiming to preserve the copyright as long as possible for his heirs.
I don't think what I describe is 'lost' in many of my points - though I dof eel there are less editors of experience and real commitment to the genre than there were. Also, my points re print on demand only came into play since the late noughties.
A renaissance of the 'old values' - and many of them allowed the very best SF ever to flourish - is still possible. The past of SF is never irrelevant, as it can, could and may create a renaissance, though this is as much down to contemporary creators. I'll admit though that current business approaches in publishing make this harder and harder!
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Agreed. Current business approaches certainly makes things harder.
Nice chat.
@@ashley-r-pollard -Thanks Ashley, it's good to sharpen one's thinking with fellow devotees!
You're my gatekeeper Steve
Robert J Sawyer and your point about large books, started from memory by Dune. Also lack of new young readers because of bad science fiction writing. Agree, military science fiction based on the US military/Star Trek is the norm and most are horrible. Also, a lot are graphic in their violent content. I like Peter F Hamilton even though his books are gigantic and Neal Asher's first are good, example Brass Man, though has a lot of graphic violence but his latest has declined. Both are E E Doc Smith in style ie Space Opera. The new Doctor Who books are good.
Gatekeepers? I do wonder about that term. Your video is insightful, I must say.
Are you a gatekeeper? I doubt that; except in how you defined the term: as a facilitator to those seeking advice. Certain people have pedigree, after years of experience. But tastes do change, style too; I've watched a few (mostly younger) "RUclipsrs" who are dismissive of older lit, seemingly just because it is "antiquated." Are they justified in that criticism? Maybe. It may be just so: a lot of classic authors cut their teeth in pulp magazines; but, to my mind, anyone being dismissive of those who've spent years appreciating a genera, calling them gatekeepers, tire me these days. If you (the reader, any reader) don't like a particular author, don't read them. There's lots of fish in the sea. If you prefer only "new" fiction, so be it; but I believe you are missing out on a wealth of wonderful fiction. I get a kick out of past visions of the future, personally.
Agreed, David. Those 'haters' (to use a bit of tragic contemporary parlance) who dismiss the 'antiquated' clearly hve no appreciation of context, history and the evolutionary chain in the arts that led to now. Without pioneers, however crude or sparkling, where would we be now? Personally, I think there's been devolution in SF for thirty years with a few exceptions- but then there is always Sturgeon's Law, then and now!
Ummm. Listen...please. I agree 900% with your views in this video. Your credentials about SF are beyond question. And when you say you're not beguiled by contemporary space opera, that gave you more credibilty, because I realised that you weren't a sycophant. If punters question your pedigree, I suggest that you ignore them. ✅☕
Good point and a prominent YTer who does great SF material said this too - you're both right, but I am an 'Outlaw' so at times I have to kick against the pricks. Respect to you!
No offense but I think you are missing the mark here. You are individualizing the problem into the mere act of personal choice, i.e. someone decides to keep someone else out of a group for example. This is not what's going on. The reason is more systemic. Within capitalism profit mediates everything an it is this wider dynamic which wags the dog so to speak. If you would like to discuss this further let me know.
No, I am responding to someone who 'individualized' the problem in another video, citing me as a Gatekeeper. Have you seen that video? This video is fundamentally about undermining the manner in which the term 'Gatekeeper' is used in said video and pointing out alternatives.
I see this as about personal interactions, opinion and judgement rather than being 'systemic' (not a term I use, personally, as I think the mass media now allows widesspread critique of capitalism, but then runs the danger of becoming its own grand narrative). No further discussion needed for me, thanks.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal ok. Maybe things are different in Europe because there is very little criticism regarding capitalism over the pond in USA.
@@Drforbin941 There is plenty over here, my friend! Thanks for your interesting POV!
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Yeah well, America is out of control. All right wing fanatics here.
@@Drforbin941 oh yea if only we had more communist publishers lol 🙄