Reading Final Theory last night reminded me of something Patrick Nielsen Hayden said on a con panel once. The question was raised of why thriller-ish science fiction books don’t do as well as thrillers with a thin SF gloss– basically, “Why doesn’t Greg Bear sell as many books as Michael Crichton?”
Patrick noted that there’s a very different attitude toward the products of science in the two genres. In thrillers, he said, the plot is set in motion by the unleashing of some scientific discovery, and the plot is resolved by destroying or covering up that discovery. In genre science fiction, on the other hand, the discovery is still out there at the end of the book, the world is changed, and things don’t go back to normal. Basically, thrillers see the scientific mcguffin as a menace to be eliminated, while SF sees it as a change to be adapted to.
I’m not sure this explains the sales figures– after all, people don’t generally know the details of the ending before they buy a book– but I thought it was an interesting remark, and pretty accurate given my limited reading of thrillers.
Thoughts? Comments? Counterexamples? Anybody else think we could make a pretty good Worldcon programming track based entirely on things that Patrick has mentioned in passing on panels?
Yeah, Crichton has been rewriting Frankenstein in various forms throughout his career, and I think they do well in part because of there is a tangible fear and distrust of science, along with the idea that “we shouldn’t play god.” And his books follow a simple, compelling story arc:
1) Science let’s genie out of the bottle
2) Genie slaughters lots of people
3) Good guys stuff genie back into the bottle (or kill it)
What I’d like to see more of (or any of, for that matter) are stories where ignorance and superstition are the source of conflict and science is the means to the resolution.
I think it’s fairly simple — the audience that reads thrillers of any ilk is bigger than the sci-fi audience.
after all, people don’t generally know the details of the ending before they buy a book
Well… maybe not the details, but that’s the whole point of genre-based marketing, right? People go into a genre book with expectations for how the plot will shake out. So, as you point out, they may not know *exactly* how a given techno-thriller will end up, but the fact that it *is* a techno-thriller tells them to expect that the technology stuff will be a “threat to be eliminated.” And, if it is a science fiction book, then they can expect that the technology will have a wider-ranging transformative effect.
Now, as to *why* more people (as judged by sales figures) seem drawn to the former paradigm, I could speculate, but I’m not really qualified to do so. (I know, that never stopped anybody on the Internet before, but I ought to do some paying work today…)
I remember when PNH posted about this on Electrolite, and there was a long and interesting discussion. [search, search, search] Ah, the original post is archived here, but it looks as though the comments were lost in or another server meltdown. That’s a shame.
[checks date on PNH’s post — I’ve been reading blogs how long? And remembering individual posts? Scary.]
I think the question of why Crichton is not SF is more interesting if you pair it with the question of why, for example, Ray Bradbury is considered science fiction (and not, say, fantasy or horror). Ultimately, I think that what is or is not considered genre is not determined by the specific characteristics of the work in question, but by the consensus of the individual fan communities.
#1:
Have you read Trigger by Michael P. Kube-McDowell and Arthur C. Clarke? It almost fits that bill. Ignorance (about science) and greed are the source of conflict. Science is, eventually, the means to the resolution.
I wish Kube-McDowell would write more fiction, or at least write faster.
SCI-FI in general requires that the readers actually think about what they are reading. Certainly their are exceptions many of which are very good stories. With techno thrillers the reader is just along for the ride. I read and enjoy both types of stories.
How are we defining technothrillers here? I’ve always considered the category to include a lot of future military/war stories, such as Tom Clancy’s early stuff*.
Do they fit the model, with whatever new weapon or technique being the genie to be rebottled? Are they ever about using new stuff to get rid of old problems? Like using new surveillence tech to deal with insurgency or terrorism?
More generally, are there any technothrillers about using new science or technology to attack old problems?
I’m now recalling Hogan’s The Genesis Machine, but that one was pretty far along to count as a technothriller, IMHO.
Digressing further, where do we file stories which just use some SF device to eliminate some other tech so the author can play with the consequences of doing without them? Things like “make guns not work anymore” or “eliminate all jet aircraft and rockets”.
* I haven’t read his later stuff, I think The Cardinal of the Kremlin was the last one I read.
Digressing further, where do we file stories which just use some SF device to eliminate some other tech so the author can play with the consequences of doing without them? Things like “make guns not work anymore” or “eliminate all jet aircraft and rockets”.
Perhaps not the best example because there’s a lot more to it, but Dune has this scenario squared. Fighting men, whether Imperial Sardaukar or in the armies of the Great Houses, employ shields which have the effect of making all projectile weapons useless. But you can’t use such shields on most of Arrakis because the effect which makes them work causes every sandworm within an unspecified but large radius to attack the shield. Thus one army surprises another by using cannons.
I believe the main difference is the suspension of disbelief required for sci-fi is much higher than thrillers, generally. A thriller in which the world isn’t noticeably changed is easer for the average reader to “believe.” It’s more challenging to read science fiction in which paradigms are shifted and balances of power are overturned.
The sales figures follow the simple fact that the general audience of readers doesn’t like to be challenged too much – an adventure that doesn’t require a complete flip-flop of how they think of the world is easier to enjoy.
My other theory is that thrillers stem from a largely reactionary mindset: “science is a potent magic that can be used for great evil OR good, thus we have to keep it bottled up.” People who don’t generally understand the process and philosophy of science attribute all sorts of powers to it; the thriller is about the hero who makes sure that the bad men don’t turn a string of mathematical symbols into an army of communist robots, or something.
I think it was Paul di Filippo who called the techno thriller “science fiction’s sexier younger sister” — but I cannot see what is so much sexier about the mad scientist and science as menace than the opening of new possibilities.
But it is interesting that much of the hot new science fiction is set in alternative present day worlds, or in near future, and often with some thriller elements.
Is it a trap of the genre conventions that makes Final Theory a story about dangerous scientists? It seems like the author really likes science, and he did himself request stories of non-mad science workers.
Maybe its because the average thriller paperback is lot less annoying to read than average sci-fi: first thrillers are easier to write (you dont have to be very original to produce a man-on-the-run or mutant-eating-hapless-victims story) and second, sci-fi is a dying genre: to many, sci-fi feels both dated and juvenile (and the cheezy art on the paperback cover is also more off-putting than with thrillers)so there is this aversion to pick a sci-fi book at the bookstand. Most people nowadays do not believe that we can travel to other planets or have encounters with aliens. And UFO sightings are down.
Captain Button, you’re looking for Fred Saberhagen’s Empire of the East series, which are prequels to his Book of Swords series. Nuclear war averted in progress: bombs in flight are rendered inert, bombs in the process of exploding turned into demons, nuclear and other high tech weaponry rendered harmless in order to prevent the US and the Soviet Union from scorching the earth.
I took an entire semester-long literature course on SF with this guy. Any ‘rule of thumb’ such as you’ve proposed here (SF leaves the genie out of the bottle, thrillers don’t) will leave huge holes where works that are clearly both thriller and SF don’t fit. Furthermore, are we limiting ourselves to the Novel or are we to include other works such as film? Where would the original Alien fit in? Clearly it’s not just a thriller, given that it more or less permanently altered depictions of spacecraft in film (oh, and the genie didn’t stay in the bottle, either).
If we’re to stick with the novel, then let’s briefly consider Miller’s Canticle for Leibowitz. Hugo winner. Clearly SF, genie clearly stays out of the bottle. Not thriller, but has never been out of print since 1961. By every sensible measure a huge hit. I’m sure there are landfills full of thrillers that didn’t sell their first run, too. If we were really going to be scientific about this wouldn’t we need to pester some publishers for sales figures? Surely some student could turn this into a thesis….
Speaking of Michael Crichton, what is up with that guy and his militant jihad against environmentalism? It reminds me, PZ Meyers of Pharyngula and like-minded would serve the public better by concentrating fire more on the junk-anti-“junk”-science crowd (more truly damaging) than picking on fundies etc. (more “fun” but less and less relevant, especially now that religious folk are recently on to being used by the Right, are getting more eco-minded (ref. Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton pitching together to do something about global warming) etc. BTW Chad, you’re not on that anti-religion tirade but it would do lots of good to offer more skeptical anti-skeptic probing.
I remember that panel. As in the Electrolite post someone linked to upthread, I was quoting Oliver Morton; the insight isn’t original to me.
Re: #15.
It’s a pity if the commeents have sublimed away.
But I’m pretty sure that David Brin weighed in on why Crichton is not really a Science Fiction author. Brin denies that Crichton is a colleague, but admits that he’s a “force of nature.”
I admit that I’d prefer to have Brin briefing the President of the US. Perhaps in the next administration…