Science Fiction: Gatekeeping, Fandom & Genre Stagnation

Caught this, and I have opinions, which are probably not fair given this guy is doing an informal video talk about his opinions. Here's the reply I left.

I'm going to have to go away and think about this. While a lot of the points raised are worth discussing, I found some of the conclusions weak. For example, Sci-Fi as a term, coined by Forrest J. Ackerman, who arguably was the first high profile SF media fan as opposed to SF literature fan.

I used to rankle at SF being called Sci-Fi or skiffy, but nowadays I don't think it really matters because any negative implications from the term have long been overcome by the ubiquity of SF as a genre. Looking down on the term says more about the person looking down on it than the genre; namely intellectual snobbery.

And that's my problem with gatekeepers for what is essentially something that no longer makes any sense in the world as it is now, as compared to the 1930s, the evolution through the genre from the 1940s and 50s, to the new wave of the sixties and early 70s etc.

I tend to agree that fantasy encompassing sword and sorcery, epic fantasy and the such is not trying to emulate the sense of wonder that SF achieves when at its best. And as you say, revolutionary ideas are different to the evolution of tropes.

However, placing publishing as gatekeepers who are upholding the traditions of the genre doesn't stand up to scrutiny. An equally convincing argument can be made that they've held back the genre because their goals are to make profits, not evolve the genre per se. And, I agree these are not mutually contradictory goals, but the evidence is in product on the shelves.

Also, writers like Kristine Kathryn Rusch are self-published, yet also featured in traditional magazines (she is a Hugo award winner back in the 1990s), and the problem is rather diminishment of publishing from corporate buyouts. If anything one can argue that despite the criticism of self-publishing as being slapdash, this is the only area where a writer can write what they want, rather than write to market.

Of course, I would concede that a large number of self-published writers will write to market, but this has always been the case. It is a feature of capitalism, not a bug. As such, there's room for all fiction to reach the market, but the problem I fear you're actually railing against is how to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

That's a problem that I have no answer to, except that broad sweeping generalizations about self-publishing, and arguing from what one prefers has led to the arguments we see in social media. The vastness of cultural products, their accessibility, and becoming jaded from a glut of books to read only leads to a cul-de-sac of refined taste, and and as such becomes largely inaccessible to the general book reader.

TL;DR: There's room for revolutionary stories and re-framed retelling's of old stories.