![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On the Science Fiction Canon
Aug. 19th, 2020 12:50 pmA while back, as part of this year's discussion of the Hugo Awards, John Scalzi expressed his opinion of the canonical literature of science fiction. I generally agree with his assessments, but belatedly have decided to add my two cent's worth.
The canon being referenced is largely stuff written before 1970, which means it's at least 50 years old. Depending on who you talk to, it could go back even further, like stuff from the 1950s and earlier. To be fair, there was a lot of good stuff written back then.
But here's the thing - publishing is a business. Publishers publish stuff they think will sell to the perceived audience. The perceived audience through much of this period was geeky white guys, and so much of the SF published was aimed at pleasing geeky white guys. Thus, hopefully, said geeky white guys would open their wallets and part with some cash.
Speaking as a geeky white guy, there's nothing wrong with being one or with publishers (or other content providers) targeting those tastes. But that is by no means the only perspective nor is it the preferred perspective. What's happened in SF in the past half-century is that the market for SF has expanded. It's not just geeky white guys any more. As a result, the old canon, which is frequently venerated largely because it's old, isn't as appealing any more.
Also, let's be clear here. SF is not Shakespeare. We can enjoy Shakespeare today because a large part of his stories were interpersonal relationships and/or based in his past. SF is the literature of change. It will change because it was always changing.
The canon being referenced is largely stuff written before 1970, which means it's at least 50 years old. Depending on who you talk to, it could go back even further, like stuff from the 1950s and earlier. To be fair, there was a lot of good stuff written back then.
But here's the thing - publishing is a business. Publishers publish stuff they think will sell to the perceived audience. The perceived audience through much of this period was geeky white guys, and so much of the SF published was aimed at pleasing geeky white guys. Thus, hopefully, said geeky white guys would open their wallets and part with some cash.
Speaking as a geeky white guy, there's nothing wrong with being one or with publishers (or other content providers) targeting those tastes. But that is by no means the only perspective nor is it the preferred perspective. What's happened in SF in the past half-century is that the market for SF has expanded. It's not just geeky white guys any more. As a result, the old canon, which is frequently venerated largely because it's old, isn't as appealing any more.
Also, let's be clear here. SF is not Shakespeare. We can enjoy Shakespeare today because a large part of his stories were interpersonal relationships and/or based in his past. SF is the literature of change. It will change because it was always changing.
