CCBC-Net Archives
RE: dystopias, SF writers, and science
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Burgess, Francesca <F.Burgess_at_BrooklynPublicLibrary.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:40:22 -0400
Hi all,
I'm usually a lurker on ccbc-net, but feel compelled to chime in on this one.
I've been a science fiction reader since my early teens, and actually started out reading adult science fiction books. I agree with the point Maia made that young science fiction readers of today probably read adult - I certainly did.
I also find it disappointing there there aren't more diverse forms of science fiction represented in children's publishing. I feel optimistic that this is gradually changing -- for example, the emergence of steampunk novels for children and teens is one indicator of this change.
I think the same bar of genre proficiency should apply to both children's and adult science fiction, and that editors of children's science fiction should also be expected to be familiar with recent scientific concepts. Why should the bar be lower for them? To do so is to underestimate children and teens, many of whom are avid readers who will also pick a book apart if the world being described "doesn't make sense", is inconsistent, or indicates that the author and editor's research was sloppy.
Best, Francesca Burgess
Francesca Burgess Children's Materials Selector Office of Materials Selection Brooklyn Public Library 10 Grand Army Plaza Brooklyn, NY 11238 Phone: 718.230.2748 Fax: 718. 230-2097 f.burgess_at_brooklynpubliclibrary.org
________________________________
From: Maia Cheli-Colando
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 6:02 PM To: Greg Leitich Smith; Subscribers of ccbc-net Subject:
dystopias, SF writers, and science
Adult science fiction is usually written by science-fiction readers, and is written for an avid audience that will pick it apart if it doesn't make sense. Does the same bar of genre proficiency apply to children's sf? While an SF editor should have familiarity with recent scientific concepts, does a children's editor usually have the same?
On 8/6/2010 6:42 AM, Greg Leitich Smith wrote:
And that, I think, may be at least part of the reason we don't see much "core science fiction" other than dystopias for YA. Core sci-fi needs more science (other than an inciting apocalyptic incident), and most people writing for children (or adults, for that matter) don't have any more background in science or engineering (or inclination to learn about them) than the rest of the population.
To Lynn's points -- I dislike dystopias, and always have. I remember that so much of what we read in high school was dystopic, whether it was historical or futuristic. I never understood *why* our elders wanted us to read so much bleary depression. I don't think my cohorts were identifying with that material better than I was... I made more of an effort than most, being a reader-geek.
There are so many flavors of science fiction, and I am frustrated that that breadth is not reflected in children's publishing. I expect that most young science fiction readers of today do what we did -- read adult? We defined ourselves within the genre of science fiction rather than by our age. And these days, it seems that adult sf is generally more psychologically appropriate (healthy) for kids than the YA. I'm not trying to slam our field in general, but I'm not happy with the current leaning towards pessimism. I loved Zahrah the Windseeker, and would be delighted to see more playful sf/f like this. Science fiction can be joyful, and it doesn't have to be rigid, as long as you define your world clearly.
From the adult stacks, I would recommend: Julie Czerneda's books - the Species Imperative series and In the Company of Others in particular. Marjorie Bradley Kellogg's older work is fascinating to read with a young person - while some elements are technologically accurate today and some are not, the ideas are situationally and thematically relevant. Her "Harmony" is an ideal read for teens -- themes of maturation, love, idealism, and the expanded world beyond your immediate horizon. Older teens, esp. girls, I would point towards Catherine Wells' Mother Grimm (birth control, sexuality, body and self) and Beyond the Gates, as well as Sherri Tepper's The Fresco. Ursula K. Le Guin's work is generally excellent, particularly The Telling. There were also a number of well written Star Trek books - by Duane, Kagan, etc. Most of these are ten years or so old... which is an interesting point in itself. Czerneda publishes regularly; Tepper has a niche audience; and Le Guin is admired across genres. But when I look on t he store shelves locally, I'm not seeing as much new SF either. Popular science fiction tv is highly dystopic - e.g. Battlestar Galactica, Caprica, Dollhouse. Are we writers having a difficult time imagining a beautiful future? Or is no one confident in publishing/filming those stories?
I just found this within C.J. Cherryh's Bio on amazon: "... I believe in the future: I'm an optimist for good reason---I've studied a lot of
history, in which, yes, there is climate change, and our species has been through it. We've never faced it fully armed with what we now know, and if we play our cards right, we'll use it as a technological springboard and carry on in very interesting ways. I also believe a writer owes a reader a book that has more than general despair to spread about: I write about clever, determined people who don't put up with situations, not for long, anyway: people who find solutions inspire me."
I can't say I am quite as cheerful about global warming, but the idea that we can -- that we must -- spring forward with intelligence and persistence is a trait that has defined most SF. Even amidst all the apocalyptic tales, overall there has traditionally been a faith in the future, and I think we have some obligation to that vision if we wish to succeed as a planet.
Cheers, Maia
Maia Cheli-Colando Arcata, Humboldt Bay, California -- blogging at http://www.littlefolktales.org/wordpress -- -- or drop in on Facebook! --
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:40:22 -0400
Hi all,
I'm usually a lurker on ccbc-net, but feel compelled to chime in on this one.
I've been a science fiction reader since my early teens, and actually started out reading adult science fiction books. I agree with the point Maia made that young science fiction readers of today probably read adult - I certainly did.
I also find it disappointing there there aren't more diverse forms of science fiction represented in children's publishing. I feel optimistic that this is gradually changing -- for example, the emergence of steampunk novels for children and teens is one indicator of this change.
I think the same bar of genre proficiency should apply to both children's and adult science fiction, and that editors of children's science fiction should also be expected to be familiar with recent scientific concepts. Why should the bar be lower for them? To do so is to underestimate children and teens, many of whom are avid readers who will also pick a book apart if the world being described "doesn't make sense", is inconsistent, or indicates that the author and editor's research was sloppy.
Best, Francesca Burgess
Francesca Burgess Children's Materials Selector Office of Materials Selection Brooklyn Public Library 10 Grand Army Plaza Brooklyn, NY 11238 Phone: 718.230.2748 Fax: 718. 230-2097 f.burgess_at_brooklynpubliclibrary.org
________________________________
From: Maia Cheli-Colando
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 6:02 PM To: Greg Leitich Smith; Subscribers of ccbc-net Subject:
dystopias, SF writers, and science
Adult science fiction is usually written by science-fiction readers, and is written for an avid audience that will pick it apart if it doesn't make sense. Does the same bar of genre proficiency apply to children's sf? While an SF editor should have familiarity with recent scientific concepts, does a children's editor usually have the same?
On 8/6/2010 6:42 AM, Greg Leitich Smith wrote:
And that, I think, may be at least part of the reason we don't see much "core science fiction" other than dystopias for YA. Core sci-fi needs more science (other than an inciting apocalyptic incident), and most people writing for children (or adults, for that matter) don't have any more background in science or engineering (or inclination to learn about them) than the rest of the population.
To Lynn's points -- I dislike dystopias, and always have. I remember that so much of what we read in high school was dystopic, whether it was historical or futuristic. I never understood *why* our elders wanted us to read so much bleary depression. I don't think my cohorts were identifying with that material better than I was... I made more of an effort than most, being a reader-geek.
There are so many flavors of science fiction, and I am frustrated that that breadth is not reflected in children's publishing. I expect that most young science fiction readers of today do what we did -- read adult? We defined ourselves within the genre of science fiction rather than by our age. And these days, it seems that adult sf is generally more psychologically appropriate (healthy) for kids than the YA. I'm not trying to slam our field in general, but I'm not happy with the current leaning towards pessimism. I loved Zahrah the Windseeker, and would be delighted to see more playful sf/f like this. Science fiction can be joyful, and it doesn't have to be rigid, as long as you define your world clearly.
From the adult stacks, I would recommend: Julie Czerneda's books - the Species Imperative series and In the Company of Others in particular. Marjorie Bradley Kellogg's older work is fascinating to read with a young person - while some elements are technologically accurate today and some are not, the ideas are situationally and thematically relevant. Her "Harmony" is an ideal read for teens -- themes of maturation, love, idealism, and the expanded world beyond your immediate horizon. Older teens, esp. girls, I would point towards Catherine Wells' Mother Grimm (birth control, sexuality, body and self) and Beyond the Gates, as well as Sherri Tepper's The Fresco. Ursula K. Le Guin's work is generally excellent, particularly The Telling. There were also a number of well written Star Trek books - by Duane, Kagan, etc. Most of these are ten years or so old... which is an interesting point in itself. Czerneda publishes regularly; Tepper has a niche audience; and Le Guin is admired across genres. But when I look on t he store shelves locally, I'm not seeing as much new SF either. Popular science fiction tv is highly dystopic - e.g. Battlestar Galactica, Caprica, Dollhouse. Are we writers having a difficult time imagining a beautiful future? Or is no one confident in publishing/filming those stories?
I just found this within C.J. Cherryh's Bio on amazon: "... I believe in the future: I'm an optimist for good reason---I've studied a lot of
history, in which, yes, there is climate change, and our species has been through it. We've never faced it fully armed with what we now know, and if we play our cards right, we'll use it as a technological springboard and carry on in very interesting ways. I also believe a writer owes a reader a book that has more than general despair to spread about: I write about clever, determined people who don't put up with situations, not for long, anyway: people who find solutions inspire me."
I can't say I am quite as cheerful about global warming, but the idea that we can -- that we must -- spring forward with intelligence and persistence is a trait that has defined most SF. Even amidst all the apocalyptic tales, overall there has traditionally been a faith in the future, and I think we have some obligation to that vision if we wish to succeed as a planet.
Cheers, Maia
Maia Cheli-Colando Arcata, Humboldt Bay, California -- blogging at http://www.littlefolktales.org/wordpress -- -- or drop in on Facebook! --
---Received on Tue 10 Aug 2010 10:40:22 AM CDT
