Dancing on that Grave in a Red Dress

[silk_noir]

So lately I've been talking with some friends about whether or not SF is dead. Well, for me, that's asking what they think, and then listening. And then I get all firey and pugnacious and slam my onager jawbone in the dirt and say by gum, someone just needs to revive the sucker. (And because I'm half insane, I frequently intimate that Ta-da!

Comments

[mstress_elianor]

I agree with Fionn. I am not excited by hard core science in my brain candy. I work in communications so I get my fill of dry social theory and writing press releases and reading for legal content. Blah. I can do it, but when I am ready to sit down with a good book the genre doesn't matter to me so much as the story line and the characters.

I think more people are gravitating toward fantasy because much of the sci fi comes off as cold and mechanical whereas fantasy is much softer and more accessible. I don't get the zombie thing at all, sorry.

I also agree that no genre really dies. They just fall out of fashion. When I was in high school the fashion in romance novels was Civil War. You almost couldn't find anything else. Now it's regency and paranormal and again you almost can't find anything else. I would give alot for someone to write a decent Revolutionary war era romance!

Lately, I've been reading alternative histories. I just finished 1862 by Connelly I think his name was. What if Great Britain had used the Trent incident to join the civil war on the side of the confederates? Good book and well thought out in scope with a few characters that were fun to follow.

As much as I enjoy my brain candy, however, I do wish we weren't being fed novels that my 8 year old could read. It's not that I want hard core science but I am capable of reading a 600 page novel without falling asleep and I am getting tired of 250 pages and done. What ever happened to the epic story?

[ext_244149]

A historically flawed book, 1862 is. There is no way the British would have intervened in the American Civil War based upon the Trent Affair alone. There were economic and strategic reasons against such a decision.

I enjoy reading alternate histories as well, so long as the premise is sound and plausible. So many of them, like 1862, are not.

I realize that the wording here might imply a terse/critical or perhaps even an attack tone. That is not my intent. My criticism is with 1862, not with the person who read and enjoyed it.

Respects,
S. F. Murphy
On the Outer Marches

[mstress_elianor]

"After several weeks of tension and loose talk of war, the crisis was resolved when the Lincoln administration released the envoys and disavowed Captain Wilkes's actions. No formal apology was issued. Mason and Slidell resumed their voyage to Britain but failed in their goal of achieving diplomatic recognition."

I agree that the situation was unlikely to engage Britain in the conflict, however, as a premise for a book it was relatively plausable. Much better than making something up out of whole cloth.

As for being attacked, nah. Besides, it's not actual history, just brain candy! :o)