Steampunk is primarily a costume and attitude, but so is space opera as she is written. This is less a criticism of good space opera (like Stross’s — but I get the impression that Stross is compulsively Hard-SF). Crystal Spires and Togas is, quite unfortunately, not a dead trope; at least clockwork zeppelins are slightly more novel. Angsting over the death of Space Opera is nostalgizing not only the distant past, but also the time period wherein SF could get away with doing so — when any high fantasy became SF if you set it on another planet, regardless of verisimilitude.

Is space opera dead? Not dead enough. But, to save itself, it should take a cue not from Glasshouse so much as from Singularity Sky: political and social verisimilitude is at least as important as cool gadgets and adherence to known physical laws, and a space opera should have plenty of all of the above to be of interest. SF has historically been a genre ghetto, and for good reason: putting a rocket ship or a robot into a story has made it pass for science fiction for too long, and space opera is the primary offender. Let’s set higher standards for ourselves in all the subgenres of SF, instead of pardoning space opera.

Notwithstanding the difficulty in creating a taxonomy for Spec Fic, let alone engaging in systematics (the relationship between works to each other within said taxonomy) the sense I have been getting from editors the past several years is that they would love to publish more hard SF space opera novels but simply do not get the submissions. Conversely they get loads of fantasy and science-fantasy such as steam punk and so can publish the best that they think will be commercial.

My own personal take, as someone part of a group of scientists into SF, is that over the decades we are living in a western world that is more scientifically literate (notwithstanding intelligent designers, climate change deniers etc) as well as more dependent on science and technology (not that you need to have a science or technology qualification to appreciate science, use the technology or have the fundamentals of science literacy). However there are very few writers who have all of the three abilities needed to produce good hard SF space opera: science literacy, the ability to write good fiction, and the wide-screen scale of imagination. True, two out of three will get you an enjoyable space operatic yarn and even a good episode of Star Trek (wagon train to the stars), but you need all three for a Banksian ‘Culture’ (at the science fantasy end of space opera), or a Reynolds’ ‘Revelation Space’ (middle of the fantasy-hard SF road) epic, or a Peter Watts (hard SF space opera) mind blower. However, as rightly pointed out above (Paul Jessup), there is always new talent emerging and yes, for example, I too have great expectations for Hannu Rajaniemi.

What I am not worried about is this supposed penchant for mundane SF as being the next big thing. Mundane SF has always been with us (just look at the volume of techno-thrillers produced next door) and as far as I can see mundane SF will always throw up its share of notable works. But I simply don’t view there to be some sort of conflict between mundane SF and space opera. I go along with Arthur Clarke’s 2nd law “when a distinguished but elderly scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he says it is impossible, he is probably very wrong.”

If you want your socks blown off check out Science and/or Nature each week. To take just one example (there are many), we do seem closing in on the possibility of developing an ansible (note: this is not the same as FTL). Each paper I see concerning entanglement stability is more promising than the last: van der Sar et al ‘Decoherence-protected quantum gates for a hybrid solid-state spin register’, being one of the latest. And as for the speed of action at a distance we are up to greater than 10,000 times the speed of light (the limit of the apparatus’ experimental error) : see Salart et al ‘Testing the speed of ‘spooky action at a distance’’ more readably summarised by Rudolph ‘The speed of instantly’ all of which have appeared in Nature in recent years. But then mundane SF prophets probably don’t read such science papers despite their self-purported adherence to science… Long live space opera!

In the end, I’m just happy there are such a dizzying array of options for writers and readers in any genre!

In 2001(the movie from the 60′s) people thought that would usher in a dawn of Intelligently Done Sci-Fi Movies. MMmHmmm

Greatness doesn’t grow on trees, and most of what was/is/will be put is BS(Sturgeons law is always in effect)

So it really shouldn’t matter too much to people. As having a fav Genre or Sub Genre should not be a over riding factor. The question is why would one want to read all the zombie or vampire kissy books etc when most are trash.(And so many of them)

There is not enough Great Space Opera books to keep anyone busy for long. As with the other ongoing fads.

Unlike the fabled sword Excalibur. There will be more Great Space Opera Books to rise in the future. And it really doesn’t matter what type or version of it it is. Just how well it is written.

Signed
Cranky Old Ghost of Sturgeon

It’s not unentirely unplausible, mind, but it strains a bit of credulity these days, and so Wide scale space opera HAS lost its luster.

It’s true that steampunk can offer a lot of scope for texturally interesting venues but there’s no reason space opera can’t do so as well.

The objects and scenes of steampunk are often rooted in organic materials and hand-wrought patinas and the reader subconsciously enjoys this. It’s a relief from the monotony of extruded plastic. The best SF is often visual and steampunk revels in the visual.

Also, it seems slightly interesting that the advance of real science actually seems to limit and constrain, not enhance & extend, the scope of fictional science..