What I wonder is when did "they" decide we want 24-hour space shuttle coverage? Do they think we're only interested if there's a chance the thing might fall apart? I mean, the only thing keeping the media focused on the shuttle was the fact that OMG Columbia blew up because of OMG the same foam thing happened to Discovery OMG there's a strange thingy attached that needs to be sawn off... a bit of morbidity? If it bleeds it leads? I'm so tired of high drama in the news (don't even get me started on the what's-her-name Holloway coverage. Save the drama for the writers!
Agree the coverage was over the top. I wanted to listen to Mission Control, not hear the MSNBC anchor constantly reiterate the exact time from landing when Columbia disintegrated as Discovery was approaching that mark.
Public interest is fickle. It's a lot like the coverage of Apollo 13-- their live broadcast from space cancelled because no network would pick it up, and then after the explosion the public was riveted on the rest of the flight. There was huge coverage for the next Apollo mission, but interest again fell off when a safe launch and safe return made many feel that space travel was "routine".
Same thing happened post-Challenger-- widespread coverage of the next mission, and then once again interest dwindled and most people where unaware of the launches & landings.
This is why I am not overly fond of journalists and journalism. The information presented seems to go by fads and not the communication of all the news.
Take the war for example, why do we have to have a daily death toll? Why can't we hear about what's been accomplished or what the next goal is? You know, looking forward instead of focusing on the negatives. (Regardless of how anyone feels about the war in itself). I am afraid of the negative impact of public opinion, that is fully exacerbated by the media everyday, on the returning soldiers. I was a just a kid when Viet Nam ended but I have worked with lots of Viet Nam vets and some of them are still troubled by that war and the negative aftermath.
What is most depressing is thinking of what life could have been like had the several presidents who oversaw Vietnam gone in to win. The template for all subsequent military actions would have been one of expected success, rather than expected (even desired) failure.
Because the respective administrations played politics, and micromanaged the efforts on the ground, and listened to the media and the critics, it overflowed to the veterans. Many of them wonder what they fought for. Well, in the end it seems they fought for politics instead of for liberty from the North Vietnamese.
I miss when people were interested in the Space Program because of the thrill of discovery. I was just thinking about this a little bit ago: What happened to the optimism and wonder expressed in Science Fiction? We were supposed to be looking at flying cars and jetpacks and mars habitation, and now we're considering scrapping the space program?
Perhaps the proliferation of Fantasy over Sci-Fi really does show we are turning inward as a people.
A number of SF authors have been talking about how written SF has lost the "sense of wonder" which is what originally brought us to the genre as readers.
For me, this is why my mix of SF/F reading has tilted heavily to the F side of the scale in recent years, since that's where I'm finding books that I enjoy reading.
I think the success of fantasy has nothing at all to do with how we feel about technology, actually.
Because most of us who read fantasy don't take it to be in any way real or literal. It's a set of metaphors, for inward and outward journeys both, that are particularly flexible and pwoerful, is all.
I'm not talking about technology, but the locale of Space itself. We aren't as interested about seeing what's up there. I'm saying that Fantasy hearkens to more earthy and rustic elements, to simpler times. The fact that it outsells Sci-Fi nearly 2-1 is merely a reflection that we don't care as much about what's over our heads.
The fact that it outsells Sci-Fi nearly 2-1 is merely a reflection that we don't care as much about what's over our heads.
I don't know that it's a case of don't care but rather , for me anyway, a case of SF books can be really boring and dry. Too much science and not enough fiction? I couldn't care less about every nut and bolt of ship design. I'd rather watch SF, I can see the ship's design and not have to read 20 pages at a shot of dry specifications.
I grew up reading Andre Norton. Her style was a softer edged SF, more like Sci-fantasy. Then I discovered true fantasy!
You mention SF being boring and dry, which brings up an important point. We had a good discussion about that here: http://www.livejournal.com/users/arcaedia/66266.html (http://www.livejournal.com/users/arcaedia/66266.html), and I posted that very argument.
My point boiled down to this: That perhaps Sci-Fi lacked the more basic elements of Story.
"jlawrenceperry Perhaps it is the hearkening to a simpler time. Maybe when you couldn't blast your way out of a sticky situation, but instead had to get your hands dirty. I know there's something far more appealing to me about going on a journey on horseback, with naught but your wits and your sword to save you. To sleep out under the stars, roast game over an open fire, and to look your enemy in the eye when you face him. There's that communion with the earth that appeals to many people."
Yes, that is a big part of it. Not to mention what some of the others put into words: Fantasy is a warmer, lusher and more of an earthy kind of thing where as SF is cold ,clinical and sterile (boring and dry).
"I just think a lot of it is generational. Those who were intrigued by space and the stars are older and buying fewer books than the younger, more voracious readers. And the Lord of the Rings films has created a new generation of geek"
Ahem! I am older,(I've got you by nearly 10 yrs) and I AM intrigued by by space and stars but I have always preferred fantasy to SF. I'm old enough to still view SF as the dominant side. I wish we could separate them completely, apples and oranges, with a grey area for the inevitable cross-overs. (Just label the cross-overs so I don't get suckered into believing I'm getting a true fantasy, so disappointing).
Alas, the time commitments of the adults vs the young adults and voraciousness in reading habits.
It's funny, Tolkein seems to me like SF. Dry and dull. Sorry, Perry. I much preferred the movies to the books. It may have had something to do with too many characters (very confused) and too much viewing of big battles. The war thing is dull as ditch water to me. I'm not wild about guns, bullets and laser guns either. Though I am a good shot with rifle and bow. I did enjoy the first three Star Wars flicks, and I'm a huge fan of Star Trek: Original, Next Gen and Deep Space Nine.
I don't think all of Lord of the Rings is exciting, or for that matter very readable. He was, after all, an Oxford Don and a Philologist, not an exciting profession to be sure. He was no novelist, but rather a mythologist.
Give me a story that uses its cool skiffy details as background to a character's journey--in our world or way beyond it--and my interest goes up immensely.
But fantasy isn't about simpler times, at least not if done well. And can be rustic or not, depending on the specific book. And has as its concerns very much the idea of getting beyond one's own life and into the larger world.
It's not concerned with the literal details of the world beyond our own--fantasy works through metaphor, not through extrapolated specifics from our own world. But affinity for fantasy--as reader or writer--definitely doesn't mean a lack of caring about what's over our own heads, in my experience.
And there's the urban fantasies which are quite popular these days, such as SMOKE AND SHADOWS which I just finished, or STAYING DEAD, URBAN SHAMAN, the Harry Dresden series, etc. These aren't rustic settings or simpler times, yet they are still fantasy.
I know there are lots of reasons why people read and enjoy fantasy novels, but I can only speak for myself. As a reader, I like character driven stories. I don't need magic or quests, I'm not looking for FTL drives or quantum theory. I want characters, and these days the genre that most often caters to my tastes is fantasy.
I read for escapism and fantasy takes me completely out of the here and now while SF books seem to me to be an extension of the here and now.
I agree that the 'sense of wonder' factor is lessened for me too. But I wonder if that isn't a symptom of age and education.
I really enjoyed seeing the Mars pix. I am not often aware of what is happening with the space program for the most part. Sometimes it seems as if someone is being a bit stingy with information and the images from space. I am all for better and consistent PR for the space program.
I also wonder why we are still using dinosaur mechanics in our space program. Some of it is relics from the 50's. I know, I know, cost. But is isn't safe or reliable anymore, we can do better than that, we have the technology! grin.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 01:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 01:42 pm (UTC)Public interest is fickle. It's a lot like the coverage of Apollo 13-- their live broadcast from space cancelled because no network would pick it up, and then after the explosion the public was riveted on the rest of the flight. There was huge coverage for the next Apollo mission, but interest again fell off when a safe launch and safe return made many feel that space travel was "routine".
Same thing happened post-Challenger-- widespread coverage of the next mission, and then once again interest dwindled and most people where unaware of the launches & landings.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 02:31 pm (UTC)Take the war for example, why do we have to have a daily death toll? Why can't we hear about what's been accomplished or what the next goal is? You know, looking forward instead of focusing on the negatives. (Regardless of how anyone feels about the war in itself). I am afraid of the negative impact of public opinion, that is fully exacerbated by the media everyday, on the returning soldiers. I was a just a kid when Viet Nam ended but I have worked with lots of Viet Nam vets and some of them are still troubled by that war and the negative aftermath.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 03:25 pm (UTC)Because the respective administrations played politics, and micromanaged the efforts on the ground, and listened to the media and the critics, it overflowed to the veterans. Many of them wonder what they fought for. Well, in the end it seems they fought for politics instead of for liberty from the North Vietnamese.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 03:31 pm (UTC)Perhaps the proliferation of Fantasy over Sci-Fi really does show we are turning inward as a people.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 04:00 pm (UTC)For me, this is why my mix of SF/F reading has tilted heavily to the F side of the scale in recent years, since that's where I'm finding books that I enjoy reading.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 06:14 pm (UTC)After all, after zero (as far as I can recall) nominations before the 21st century, four of the last five Hugo winners have been fantasy novels.
Paradigm shift?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 04:13 pm (UTC)Because most of us who read fantasy don't take it to be in any way real or literal. It's a set of metaphors, for inward and outward journeys both, that are particularly flexible and pwoerful, is all.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 05:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 05:50 pm (UTC)I don't know that it's a case of don't care but rather , for me anyway, a case of SF books can be really boring and dry. Too much science and not enough fiction? I couldn't care less about every nut and bolt of ship design. I'd rather watch SF, I can see the ship's design and not have to read 20 pages at a shot of dry specifications.
I grew up reading Andre Norton. Her style was a softer edged SF, more like Sci-fantasy. Then I discovered true fantasy!
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 06:44 pm (UTC)My point boiled down to this: That perhaps Sci-Fi lacked the more basic elements of Story.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 07:27 pm (UTC)Arcaedia String
Date: 2005-08-09 07:43 pm (UTC)Perhaps it is the hearkening to a simpler time. Maybe when you couldn't blast your way out of a sticky situation, but instead had to get your hands dirty. I know there's something far more appealing to me about going on a journey on horseback, with naught but your wits and your sword to save you. To sleep out under the stars, roast game over an open fire, and to look your enemy in the eye when you face him. There's that communion with the earth that appeals to many people."
Yes, that is a big part of it. Not to mention what some of the others put into words: Fantasy is a warmer, lusher and more of an earthy kind of thing where as SF is cold ,clinical and sterile (boring and dry).
"I just think a lot of it is generational. Those who were intrigued by space and the stars are older and buying fewer books than the younger, more voracious readers. And the Lord of the Rings films has created a new generation of geek"
Ahem! I am older,(I've got you by nearly 10 yrs) and I AM intrigued by by space and stars but I have always preferred fantasy to SF. I'm old enough to still view SF as the dominant side. I wish we could separate them completely, apples and oranges, with a grey area for the inevitable cross-overs. (Just label the cross-overs so I don't get suckered into believing I'm getting a true fantasy, so disappointing).
Alas, the time commitments of the adults vs the young adults and voraciousness in reading habits.
It's funny, Tolkein seems to me like SF. Dry and dull. Sorry, Perry. I much preferred the movies to the books. It may have had something to do with too many characters (very confused) and too much viewing of big battles. The war thing is dull as ditch water to me. I'm not wild about guns, bullets and laser guns either. Though I am a good shot with rifle and bow. I did enjoy the first three Star Wars flicks, and I'm a huge fan of Star Trek: Original, Next Gen and Deep Space Nine.
Re: Arcaedia String
Date: 2005-08-10 01:03 pm (UTC)I don't think all of Lord of the Rings is exciting, or for that matter very readable. He was, after all, an Oxford Don and a Philologist, not an exciting profession to be sure. He was no novelist, but rather a mythologist.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 07:35 pm (UTC)Give me a story that uses its cool skiffy details as background to a character's journey--in our world or way beyond it--and my interest goes up immensely.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 07:34 pm (UTC)It's not concerned with the literal details of the world beyond our own--fantasy works through metaphor, not through extrapolated specifics from our own world. But affinity for fantasy--as reader or writer--definitely doesn't mean a lack of caring about what's over our own heads, in my experience.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 07:43 pm (UTC)I know there are lots of reasons why people read and enjoy fantasy novels, but I can only speak for myself. As a reader, I like character driven stories. I don't need magic or quests, I'm not looking for FTL drives or quantum theory. I want characters, and these days the genre that most often caters to my tastes is fantasy.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 05:16 pm (UTC)I read for escapism and fantasy takes me completely out of the here and now while SF books seem to me to be an extension of the here and now.
I agree that the 'sense of wonder' factor is lessened for me too. But I wonder if that isn't a symptom of age and education.
I really enjoyed seeing the Mars pix. I am not often aware of what is happening with the space program for the most part. Sometimes it seems as if someone is being a bit stingy with information and the images from space. I am all for better and consistent PR for the space program.
I also wonder why we are still using dinosaur mechanics in our space program. Some of it is relics from the 50's. I know, I know, cost. But is isn't safe or reliable anymore, we can do better than that, we have the technology! grin.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 05:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 05:22 pm (UTC)