James Gunn Targets Sci-Fi Apathy

Remember when science fiction was all shiny and new, and everyone loved it because it was "cool"?

Neither do I.

But there are those who say that sci-fi is now in a bit of a morass -- a James Carter-esque malaise, if you will -- compared to a presumed "Golden Age" of the past.

I, personally, don't remember that "Golden Age". But I do agree that SF may need a bit of polishing.

In a recent article, the relatively broad appeal of books derived from Star Wars and Star Trek was contrasted with other forms of science fiction which presumably present literary values that franchised books lack. Personally, I'm not sure I buy that.

(Excerpt)

Gunn is director of the Center for the Study of Science Fiction, an academic program at the University of Kansas that he started in 1982 as an extension of his writers' workshops and courses he taught for teachers looking to add science fiction to their lesson plans.

(End of Excerpt)

And who could object to that?To be sure, there seems to be a paucity of Asimovs out there. But what is wrong with Ursula LeGuin, for example?And the popularity of Ender's Game and its sequels speaks to a certain hunger for compelling science fiction.

Is it not possible that the popularity of Trek-style books actually serve as an gateway to other, "more serious" science fiction? And what is so terrible about franchised books, anyway?

I think that the case can be made that science fiction needs to be nurtured, and I applaud Mr. Gunn's efforts in that regard. But in decrying the lack of "good" science fiction, let us not forget that science fiction was never really cool to begin with.

And perhaps that's the real shame that affects the genre today.

Source.