What makes good sci-fi?

Well, they haven't got spaceships or aliens. How can it be science fiction without spaceships or aliens?

Not to split hairs, but most of what you talked about above is Fantasy and not Science Fiction. They are two different genres with different conventions in them. I frankly think that both only appeal to people who are willing to use their imaginations as adults, or are for some reason more willing to step outside the known world and imagine what another world might look like. It seems to be more a personality issue and a cognitive issue. Genre fiction of any ilk is often a hard sell to literatis anyway; but even when sci-fi or fantasy is literarily (is that a word?) great, it's still has to be a major cultural phenom (e.g., Buffy, or Harry Potter, or LoTR; or in sci-fi, Star Wars) before the literary elite pay attention.

I think that the Buffy writer is right about fantasy as a genre. It historically grows out of hero myths and that has been reinforced in "western' culture because of J. Campbell. But it also has to have all the other aspects of good writing/entertainment: likeable and fleshed-out characters, a story arch that makes sense and appeals to people for some reason, well crafted plot, etc.

kinda ironic, considering how tired i am of Chosen One plots. maybe it was The Matrix sequels that killed it for me

but it's the first time i've heard Dorothy Gale being called a Chosen One. i'm not sure it applies to Peter Parker, either

Luke Skywalker, on the other hand, IS a great example of both Chosen One theme AND commercial appeal

recent polls, though, put Serenity as the most popular sci-fi movie, and Red Dwarf as the most popular sci-fi series. neither of those have a Chosen One motif. is that because the polls were driven by sci-fi fans rather than the general public?

"Stochastic"?

You might have overlooked the statement in Espenson's essay where she refers to the context of the hero: "They're living a life, sometimes a fine one, often a troubled one, but certainly one governed by ordinary rules, when suddenly the curtain is pulled back and a whole new world, or a new set of rules of this world, is revealed."

Paul Atreides might have been the "Chosen One", but growing up as the son of the Duke Leto and his Bene Geseret (I'm not even going to worry about spelling that right)consort seems far from living a normal life.

As for the avoidance of the science fiction label, it appears to be as much a marketing technique as an issue of critical acceptance. Authors like Tom Clancy and Michael Crichton have avoided the science fiction label while many of their are books deal with themes that are a part of science fiction , but I doubt that Cahill would call any of their works a "classic".

At the other end of the spectrum, writers like Eric Blair, Cormac McCarthy, P.D. James, and Walt Mosely have written most of their work in other themes with a detour into science fiction country. In those cases, it can be helpful when their books are lumped together instead of being divided by the arbitrary lines of genre

If by success you mean popular at the box office, then I think nearly all recent science fiction / fantasy cinema that has been successful includes hot women wearing spandex or leather.

Not to split hairs, but most of what you talked about above is Fantasy and not Science Fiction.

dune, brave new world and slaughterhouse five are sf, not fantasy. right?

THE CHOSEN ONE MUST CHOOSE!

Personally, I'm sick of that stuff. Why not just have a somewhat ordinary person in an extraordinary situation? That's one of the things that made Lord of the Rings good. The hobbits were just hobbits, not foreordained Avatars of Righteousness or whatnot.

I also get tired of the same characters over long series. Shuffle them off and get some replacements. One adventure is enough for one lifetime, so quit hogging it and pass the torch to the next generation. It's true that Dune got crappy over time after Paul died, but it wasn't for that reason.

Most pulp sci-fi, fantasy, anime has a "chosen one", successful or not. At best you could say it's necessary but not sufficient, but even then there's a distinction to be made between an extraordinary protagonist in a world of other extraordinary characters, and a jesus narrative like Harry Potter or The Matrix. Part of the reason why Harry Potter works for kids is in Harry being a loser whose relative status is elevated but there are thousands of stories fitting that mould. There's more to the formula than that and culture is fickle. The setting in Harry Potter is just following a trend that places children in control of significant events. In my opinion Heroes is more successful for its characters and "what if" than its overarching story. The language about fate is more of a proxy for responsibility than the way it's used to aggrandize wishful thinking about social status in Harry Potter and adult pulp fantasy.

Of course, puzzling over the formula for success in pop culture is somewhat like puzzling over the success of a coin flipping contest. Or a beauty contest. A lot of it is luck and winner-take-all reinforcement that happens with any popularity contest.

Hisham, I read Espenson's statement about the hero at the beginning of the story living an ordinary life as being an ordinary life in the context of his world. Paul Atreides seems to be typical for a son of a great house during the early chapters of Dune; it's only after the sneak attack on the Atreides and Paul's flight to the desert that "a whole new world" is revealed.

You can make the argument that Paul Atreides was never the chosen one, as he knew that he lacked the courage to carry out the Golden Path--rather, his son Leto, who doesn't morph into the Worm-King until far after most Potterites would lose patience and miss all the fascinating ruminations about single-sex armies, human survival and evolution.

Lynch's movie failed because it was over the top in a decade of many such movies--that later became 'cult' classics. The SciFi channel properly mucked it up, even while given two chances to do it right.

William Gibson, IMHO, seemed to be the likeliest candidate for bringing 'proper SF' to the mainstream, but unfortunately ran into a casting director so infernally stupid that they cast Keanu Reeves in the first movie adaptation of one of his short stories (Johnny Mnemonic).

All of the stuff with Leto was added later. There are plenty of things in the later books that outright contradict information presented in the first novel - Herbert changed his universe as he saw fit, mostly for the purpose of making sales.

Please check out my co-blogger Andrew Rosenblum's review of William Gibson's "Spook Country" in The New York Observer. I haven't read the book but according to Andrew, in this case the facts may be "spookier" than Gibson's fiction.

And Razib, I totally agree with you that Brave New World and Slaughter House Five (and others by Vonnegut) qualify as science fiction. As does Mikhail Bulgakov's "Master and Margarita" in my opinion, the parallel religious / mystical thread notwithstanding.

One of the reasons that I like Susan R. Matthews' Jurisdiction series so much is that her protagonist (one can barely call him a hero) could be anyone stuck in a bureaucracy, including you, Gentle Reader...until the day he decides 'I'm not going to torture for the guv'ment no more'. I used to think that she'd given Andrej Kosciusko his special kink to make him interesting, until I read the words of an Army Interrogator in a Chicago Tribune story a few months back and realized how accurately Ms. Matthews portrayed the human mind's need to make meaning out of a horrific situation. No Chosen One here; just a human being making choices and deciding to live with the consequences. If you've read Joseph Campbell, you'll understand that what is most personal is also most universal. I think the reason Ms. Matthews writing is so powerful is that she reminds the reader that it's all about one's choices, and not so much about being chosen.