Let's get contemplative!

There is an interesting article up over at Library Journal which has the unfortunately lame title of Sci-Fi 101. Yeah, like that moniker conveys any useful information at all. What the article actually discusses is a focused study giving insight into what draws patrons to the genre of science fiction, as well as what drives them away.

There is a bit too much space devoted to stating the obvious, such as the fact some readers use the term "Sci-Fi" to include fantasy as well as science fiction proper, while others view one sub-genre or another as anathma. Wow. Some SF readers are snobs about fantasy, and vice versa. Big surprise there. Yes, I know the target audience is for those librarians and related folk unfamiliar with even the most basic conventions of the genre, so sue me. The article makes up for the kindergarten approach, however, when it examines the questions of why readers continuously return to the genre, and why some eventually abandon it:

Satisfied readers will keep choosing sf, and a solid strategy may keep a reader turning to the genre even when it is no longer satisfying. The main reason people abandon sf is saturation owing to increased reading experience.

More than any other genre, sci-fi delicately balances between being familiar and being new. Too much "new" is inaccessible. Too much "familiar" fails to provide the desired reading experience. The balancing point is unique for each reader and likely changes over time.

Highly experienced readers may become saturated with sci-fi or a particular sci-fi story type. Once saturated, readers find a story type predictable or no longer experience a sense of "difference." A saturated reader may abandon the story type for a while, or forever. Readers who are switching strategies for book selection within the genre are in a similar position to an emerging reader of sf: they need to learn new strategies for selecting books, to expand their domain knowledge. They may need to rely more on external sources for recommendation, or find new sources. This is a readers' advisory opportunity.

I'm not sure I agree with this assertation in whole, despite the fact that I can see the contention reflected in my reading habits to a significant extent. At one time in my life, I read Big Fat Fantasy voraciously, but other than the Harry Potter books and an occasional re-reading of Lord of the Rings, I avoid the form now. Saturation. Ditto with urban fantasy. The same applies to specific authors. In high school, Arthur C. Clarke was my favorite author, and I devoured everything I could of his. Then, perhaps, I overdosed. It didn't help that books by him, such as 3001 and Rama II just weren't very good. Greg Bear rose to the top of my reading list in college, and I hunted down almost everything he'd ever written, even the out of print books like Strength of Stones. I loved them. Then his work grew more inaccessable to me. Stuff like Queen of Angels was a struggle, and I abandoned Slant halfway through. I backtracked, and read his Star Trek novel, Corona in hopes of finding a simple, intelligent, adventure story. Instead, I found a case study in uninspired writing.

On the other hand, the opposite doesn't necessarily hold true. I read Neville Schute's On the Beach on my own in high school and thought it amazing and brilliant, but never had any inclination to seek out his other work. In college, I read Bones of the Moon by Jonathan Carroll and was amazed, but it's only in the last few years that I've been moved to seek out his other work. Each of his novels prompts the same reaction: "That was very good. But I don't want to read something else by him right now." Ken McCloud's Cassini Division literally had me giddy, flipping pages like mad because I was so engrossed in his story. It was probably my favorite novel of whatever year it came out. But I've yet to read anything else by him, and haven't bought Cosmonaut Keep or any others.

I wonder why I've avoided these writers whose work I've loved? Nearest I can figure, it might be some kind of subconscious risk aversion. Since the first book of theirs I read was so good, other works can't help but disappoint. Silly and illogical, yes. And I'm not convinced that is an accurate reason for my behavior any more than the reasons stated in the article are. But my reading patterns are oddball, no doubt about it.

Now Playing: Emerson, Lake and Palmer Return of the Manticore