From: mdl@phelixsalt (Michael Lynch)
Subject: Re: Characters I Hate to Love
Reply-To: mdl@phelixsalt (Michael Lynch)
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 14:53:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.084924.4531@bb1t.monsanto.com>, bjgaed@bb1t.monsanto.com writes:
|> [Lengthy argument over attribution of previous posts deleted]
|> 

 [Text Deleted]

|> Sf started out as the 
|> opposite--mainly very simplistic melodramas, with one-dimensional 
|> characters and stories where good prevails.  As the genre has matured
|> the characters have taken on more dimensions, and writers have begun 
|> to explore the darker dimensions of our species.
|> 
|> This is probably due to both the increasing maturity of the sf readers 
|> and the sf writers.  People *do* buy books with flawed characters.  
|> Each vote for this trend costs $4-$5 minimum.  At the same time 
|> writers are maturing in their craft.
|> 
|> I derive these views from my own experience and from my observation of 
|> other people.  Thus they are probably very biased.  I would like to 
|> hear other possible explanations for this trend.
|> 
|> --Electric Monk            (Bruce Gaede); 
|>                             e-mail: bjgaed@ccmail.monsanto.com


Bruce,

Let me add my opinions/biases to yours.  I've been reading science fiction
since the mid-fifties, so I've been a first-hand witness to that evolution
from "simplistic melodramas" to whatever it is that the genre has become.
I submit that the readers and writers have become more sophisticated rather
than more mature.  Science fiction began with the emphasis on science,
and because so many things were new and unknown, writers began with a
blank slate and readers were free to let their imaginations loose.  Nowadays
much of that early speculative "science" has been proved either fact or
fiction.  The facts must now be givens, and writers had better be aware of
these before they put finger to key, otherwise savvy readers will hang
their hides.  So what science fiction has now is essentially a ready-made
framework of real science wherein the writer can spend more time developing
characters and story lines.

The good and evil of forty years ago is not as well defined today.  Heros
have flaws, sometimes serious ones, and there's always someone itching to
point them out to us.  The flaws are a reality, and readers don't want to
be served white-bread, clean-living, altruistic kens and barbies anymore.
We've become wiser, perhaps a little jaded, almost certainly a good deal
more cynical,  and we expect our heros/anti-heros/protagonists/antagonists
to reflect that flawed reality.  If we identify with a less-than-savory
character, perhaps it's because we understand that being human has its
dark side.  Sometimes we're painfully aware of that.

I'm only commenting on science fiction, and I base my opinion on my
experiences and observations only.  I can't comment on or draw any
conclusions about the characters in fantasy stories.  That's a different
genre (yes, it is -- go ahead, turn the flame-throwers on....), and I've
read very little of it.  Most of my experience with fantasy involves pushing
it out of the way so I can find the science fiction. :-)

Mike Lynch
mdl@oscar.bellcore.com

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written