What if science fiction were a brand owned by the company “the science fiction writers”? How well could you say that they managed that brand? What mistakes are they making, if any? A lot, it seems:
1. The company readily admits that the competition have a superior product.
Science fiction writers wants science fiction to as respected as “literary” fiction, but admits that much of sf is bad.
2. Another competitor stole the brand name and used it for an inferior product.
Hollywood adapted science fiction for the film media, but threw out most of what makes science fiction meaningful.
3. There is very little awareness of the product’s one advantage over similar products.
Science fiction is uniquely suited for describing changes in society and exploring new ideas.
4. There is no agreement on that the product actually is.
Every writer has his or her own definition of science fiction, and often disagrees about what is and what is not sf.
5. Several large groups of customers have bad reputations.
The nerds, the geeks, the conspiracy theorists, adherents of strange religions all read sf.
6. Brand includes products with no clear relation to main product other than having the same manufacturer.
Writers of sf often writes fantasy and some of them think that it’s the same genre. Alternate history is a sf subgenre.
The bad branding is probably the reason wry science fiction have limited commercial success. But on the other hand …
1. It is good that science fiction writers tries to live up to the high standards that most “literary” fiction have. The general level of writing skill in science fiction have improved a lot over the past eight decades.
2. Not all science fiction movies are bad, and those who like science fiction in movies may become fans of science fiction in books.
3. You don’t have to understand the whole complexity to enjoy science fiction. Sometimes a spaceship is just a spaceship and exiting to read about without any metaphors.
4. Which means that there is a lot of experimentation with the genre going on, and that it’s a genre that still evolves.
5. What can you do about prejudice or the fact that the distance between an open and a crazy mind is probably shorter than between a dull and an open mind?
6. Most science fiction fans likes fantasy and vice versa. It is probably a necessity for many sf writers to write fantasy to be able to earn a living by writing.
So what can be done about the bad branding? Some suggestions:
A. Tell people what’s good about science fiction, not what’s bad. Show the good stuff when you recommend books to read, when you make a movie or when you write a book.
B. Insist that science fiction is a different form mainsteam fiction, “literary” fiction, fantasy etc., but keep an open mind towards mixing genres and experiments.
C. Don’t let people get away with prejudice. Science fiction is for everyone, not just a few subcultures. But like everything else, a bit of work may be required to understand it.
I seldom leave a response, but after looking at through a
ton of comments here Flasch
Maybe “science fiction” is a brand, but it is managed by a syndicate and without a board, apart from certain members of staff who has established and joined certain clubs and societies – mostly in their sparetime or in fits of surplus energy. But even though they have a fairly good claim to knowing the brand, they don’t own it.
That’s one thing, but if it may be me allowed, let me expand the metaphor while it is still alive: for even if we name science fiction a brand, that doesn’t say much in modern marketing. Think LEGO! You know the brand, you know who owns it – but what is the product? Toys, you say! Well, that’s not incorrect, anyway. OTOH – it’s not all: “toys” for whom? Children! Yes – children from zero years of age to 99! And: computergames, games, clothing, funparks – please continue. And it is all branded. It’s all LEGO. And it have even incorporated other “brands”, like – for instance – StarWars and Harry Potter, to such a degree that the kiddo’s wish for “Harry Potter”-gifts next birthday needs some clarification (since Harry, too, comes in many “colours” – so to speak).
I’ve almost killed your metaphor, but I need to do an autopsy, since I’m convinced that science fiction certainly IS a brand, in the same vain as LEGO is a brand. Only difference is, that the LEGO-brand is owned (in more than one way) and the SCIENCE FICTION-brand is not. Hence one (you, me, everybody) have to lean one’s sore head to the ugly fact, that every item, every product so labelled, is habeas corpus. Trouble is, everyone’s a critic – even those with little knowledge or insight, even literary morons who view litterature as “nothing good has happened since Shakespeare”. And we have to make a reproche – calling The Good Doctor to witness – and quote him: against stupidity “The Gods Themselves”………, since even The Poet dealt in fantastic matters, as did Hans Christian Andersen, as did E.A. Poe, as did…..
Science Fiction isn’t an orphan in litterature, “she” is a part of litterature, and I don’t believe that even Hollywood, Disneyland or Dagbladet Politiken would be able to make away with “her”. But they could – of cause – rape and mutilate her. And it will forever be our duty to revive her by the paths you’ve scetched out.
And thank you
ps: – hvorfor skriver “vi” på engelsk?
Måske jeg skulle have defineret hvad “firmaet” er her. Jeg ser det som den gruppe af forfattere der har valgt at skrive i genren science fiction og at udvikle den genre. Hollywood, spilindustrien o.s.v. tilføjer sjældent noget nyt til genren – det er det jeg mener med punkt 2 – de kan opfattes som et andet firma der har hugget ideerne. Selvfølgelig betaler de for det som direkte er baseret på bøger, men også film som ikke direkte bygger på bøger, trækker jo på en tradition som en lang række science fiction-forfattere har opbygget.
Men det er så hvordan landet ligger, og der tror jeg det bliver liggende. Det vi kan gøre, er at lade være med ligefrem at bakke “fjenden” op. Man må gerne nævne noget andet end de gamle travere, hvis man skal anbefale en ikke-fan noget science fiction, man må gerne have den mening at science fiction kan noget andre genrer ikke kan, hvis man kan undgå at blive for fan-atisk med det, og man må gerne sige folk imod, hvis de siger at science fiction er noget bras. Det er 90% af alle ting der er noget bras, ikke kun science fiction, og det er ikke det som er bras, der er interessant at tale om, men de gode ting. Så gør dig klart hvilke bøger der er gode og hvordan du kan argumentere for at de er gode.
Hvorfor engelsk? Det er en tekst jeg har haft liggende et stykke tid, som jeg af en eller anden grund skrev på engelsk. Jeg var gået i gang med at oversætte den til dansk, men tog mig selv i at lave noget overflødigt arbejde – vi forstår jo alle engelsk her til lands.
Det er også rigtigt. Og i virkeligheden burde dette fortsættes over en kop øl, idet problematikken har en del forgreninger, også selvom perspektivet er klart. Dog tror jeg ikke Harlan Ellison vil give dig ret i, at “de” altid betaler – men han griber jo også til stålet (eller sagsanlægget) såsnart noget bare ligner noget, han kunne have haft tænkt på. Men han er inde på noget, desuagtet.
Robin Engelhart har, i sin ikke altfor dybdeborende, men alligevel meget interessante, “Kloner Og Stjernekrig” en god forklaring på den ret triste Hollywood-standard, som efter hukommelsen er noget med at for at få folk til at komme i biffen og se SF, så skal der være nogle gode specialeffekter – sådan nogle koster penge, så for at sikre tilgangen må historien ikke være for indviklet. På den anden side kan man nævne film som “Primer”, “Moon” og “District 9” (og jeg tænker hér på, hvad man skal anbefale, når/hvis man ikke lige finder “Prometheus” eller “Avatar” repræsentative). Omvendt er jeg da heller ikke så fokuseret på patentet, at jeg ikke ville invitere “The Truman Show”, “Endless Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind” eller “Groundhog Day” indenfor i klubben. Vi behøver derfor – i virkeligheden – ikke afsværge os de dér blockbusters. Vi kan med ro i sjælen nøjes med at anbefale noget bedre – netop fordi “patentet” – “definitionen” (heck: brandet) – science fiction ikke er ejet af nogen. Og: – ville vi gerne have det anderledes?
Men det er helt klart at hyldes dem, som hyldes bør – og derfor er jeg (per-son-ligt) stor tilhænger af det jeg andetsteds har kaldt “inspirations-arkæologi”, præcis for at kunne argumentere for det (genre-) historiske, eller som du kalder det: – de forfattere der har skrevet i og udviklet genren.
Og hvor vil jeg hen med det? Cirka det samme sted som du vil (tror jeg nok), men for mig er det ikke vigtigt om “Battlestar Galactica”, “Øjne Bag Stjernerne” eller “Plan 9 From Outer Space” er science fiction (for det er det). Men er det godt? Og hvorfor ikke?
Til sammenligning kan man jo tage “Hjemmets” fortsatte krimi-feullieton og sammenligne den med Dashiell Hammet eller Sjøval&Wahløø (eller Simenon, gu’bevares). Det er jo præcis udgangspunktet for at dokumentere (som du skriver) at 90%…osv. – Pointen er, at vi ikke starter med at gå canossa-gang på genrens vegne, men øjeblikkeligt differentierer shit fra chanel, med ordene “ja, det er science fiction – men det er møg-science fiction!”, ligesom der vel er forskel på Bill&Ben og så på “Little Big Man”, selvom begge dele er western.
Og som dusiger, vi er nok nødt til at leve med, at det i kronernes (eller dollarens) uhellige navn er muligt at kolportere tomme kalorier. Jeg tror bare det er bedre at lade det leve (eller dø) i fred, fordi vi bruger alt for meget energi på at gå imod det – energi der kunne bruges mere konstruktivt. For selvom Hollywood-maskinen kører i højt gear og eksploiterer hvad den kan, og selvom jeg af et godt hjerte har mistillid til at kapitalinteresser eller profit-jagt skulle kunne bibringe mig og mit liv noget positivt, så tvivler jeg på at produktet har særlig lang levetid hos “kunden”, så lidt som midnatsfyrværkeriet i Tivoli. Det ser farligt flot ud – og så går vi hjem.
Min pointe er, at jeg tror vi kæmper mod spøgelser og som Xerxes pisker havet for stormen ved Salamis. Men hvad ved jeg.