The Evolution of Popular Literature

Discussion: part 1

by Kevin Ahearn

BWS:

“It is change, continuing change, inevitable change, that is the dominant factor in society today,” wrote Isaac Asimov more than 25 years ago. “No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be.”

DC Comics listened to Asimov. The company, according to the New York Times, “is in the midst of a major effort to revitalize the company’s fabled superheroes for the 21st century and better connect with today’s readers. The undertaking, which began in 2002, has involved a critical look at DC’s characters — from Aquaman and Batman to Zatanna — and developing story lines that sometimes have heroes engage in decidedly unheroic deeds.”

“This is not just an editorial risk; it’s a company risk,” said DC. “One of the goals is to hold on to a more sophisticated readership. Our characters were created in the 1940’s and 50’s and 60’s. There’s a lot of elements where we’ve had a disconnect with the reader base of today. [Readers] are more savvy, and they’re looking for more complexity and more depth... Our audience is much smarter, much more sophisticated, and not necessarily because it’s older. A 12-year-old 20 years ago and a 12-year-old today are reading at very different levels. That’s just the way it is.”

“Everything has to evolve.”

Indeed. Hollywood’s been evolving all along. Whatever one’s opinion is of the many remakes and “re-imaginings,” filmmakers knew going in that old stories had to be made to appear new if they had any chance of succeeding.

The TV people know all about evolution. Say what you want about Enterprise, Night Stalker and Battlestar Galaxative, serious effort was put into all to bring them up to date to attract audiences.

Ironically, those seemingly oblivious to Asimov’s credo are science fiction editors and publishers. The proof is in the numbers which have fallen to a fraction of what they had been during Isaac’s generation. Moreover, week after week after week, SFW [Science Fiction Weekly] and other sf websites give sterling reviews to sf novels that could have been published word for word twenty years ago.

Last week the first ever Quill Awards were given to writers based on reader popularity. Rowlings’ Harry Potter has sold more than 300 million books. No “science fiction writer” was mentioned. What used to be a viable genre has evolved into a stigma — book publishers, film makers and TV producers flee from “science fiction” — newly defined as a guarantee to lose money.

Do not misunderstand me. “Quality of writing” is a non-issue. There are those who will write this column proclaiming how “good” and how much they “liked” this sf novel or that sf writer. “Subjective opinion” is also irrelevant. Publishing is about selling books. It’s the numbers, folks and sf’s numbers continue to diminish.

Quill award-winner Bob Dylan defined the 60’s with “The times they are a-changin’.” Sf publishing has not. Should sf publishing evolve and finally enter the 21st Century? To quote Dylan yet again: “When you ain’t got nuthin’, you got nuthin’ to lose.”

Proceed to Discussion: part 2...