The Evolution of Science Fiction discussion

A conversation about Jo Walton's Suck Fairy brought up another interesting link to Young People Read Old SFF, an experiment by SFF reviewer James Nicoll. He got some willing test subjects & had them read old SFF & give their impressions of the stories. The results were sometimes expected, but others were really interesting.

The Menace from Earth was one of my favorite Heinlein short stories. Sure it was a romance, but the idea of flying was just so cool that it overshadowed the girly point of view (I first read this as a young teen & I'm a boy.) & rather mundane plot. Flying is barely mentioned by the reviewers. A couple had real issues with the trouble of 3D modeling & maps since they use it on their cell phones. One was infuriated by society's expectations of the heroine. Most of their gripes were things I never considered back in the day nor even now. Old attitudes, I guess.

The biggest point that struck me is how subtly & oddly SFF can age. Click around on some of the titles & see what surprises you.

This is not that surprizing. Many novels we consider classics wouldn't even be published nowadays. The Time Machine became classics because of the epochs in which they were written. Its interpretation and mixing of class war and evolution would make us laugh today. Likewise, Neuromancer's technology seems outdated.

I wouldn't recommend them to people I'm introducing to sci-fi. I would recommend them to people who are deptly interested in the roots of the genre.

Marc-André wrote: "This is not that surprizing. Many novels we consider classics wouldn't even be published nowadays...."

I agree & I get that. It was why & where they still worked & didn't.

Marc-André wrote: "This is not that surprizing. Many novels we consider classics wouldn't even be published nowadays. The Time Machine became classics because of the epochs in which they were written. Its..."

I disagree. I think the themes used and explored in The Time Machine still are relevant. I don't see how it can even be considered to be laughable. In contrast, I think they are worthy of debate in our own age. Granted, works are directed to the age of the author, but that doesn't mean that the inherent aspects of the themes become irrelevant. There are many newly written works that lack the philosophical core that Wells presented in his science fiction novels.

Haaze wrote: "I disagree. I think the themes used and explored in The Time Machine still are relevant...."

Agreed, they are, but where themes can be independent of time, the delivery isn't. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn came to mind when Marc-Andre mentioned classics that couldn't be published today. I seem to recall an editor saying "Moby Dick" wouldn't make the cut either.

Heinlein's work often gets labeled a misogynistic when he was one of the few authors in his time really trying to empower women. Today it doesn't come off that way judging by the comments of young readers the last couple of times I've been in groups that read Stranger in a Strange Land.

Sometimes sci-fi is way ahead of it's time as well, and only thing like clothing and expressions date it. A Voyage to Arcturus was written in 1920 and is an extremely dream like book which seems out of place in that era. It is very like something Christopher Priest could have written today.

There are big changes in attitudes though, something like Earth Abides could never be written today. It has an unaccepable ending with todays standards.

Haaze wrote: "I disagree. I think the themes used and explored in The Time Machine still are relevant."The themes? Absolutely. Class conflict has never been more current. But as Jim points out, its treatment isn't. It is very naive and the darwinism in it isn't even science.

It is a bit like reading Robinson Crusoe and then reading Friday, or, The Other Island. It is the same story, Robinson stranded on an island, but the treatment and dept do not compare.

I'd love to see a contemporary author re-write The Time Machine.

Marc-André wrote: "I'd love to see a contemporary author re-write The Time Machine. ..."

Not exactly contemporary (1979) but there is Morlock Night which is a steampunk novel based on the ideas from The Time Machine. There was also The Time Ships by Stephen Baxter written as a sequel but it's written in the same style, so not really a re-imagination.

Marc-André wrote: "Haaze wrote: "I disagree. I think the themes used and explored in The Time Machine still are relevant."The themes? Absolutely. Class conflict has never been more current. But as Jim points out, its..."

I think I understand what you mean via the Defoe comparison. :)

I have read all 4 of the Novellas that were nominated for both Hugo and Nebula this year. At least two of them are updatings of classic works to address what are now seen as problems in the originals. The Ballad of Black Tom updates Lovecraft with a different treatment of black characters. The Dream-Quest of Vellitt Boe updates Lovecraft to include women. The other two are also sort-of updatings of conventional stories. A Taste of Honey updates sword-and-sorcery fantasy to include gay and black characters, and Every Heart a Doorway builds on earlier work by imagining what happens to the kids who come back from Narnia or Wonderland, or similar worlds.

"Doorway" is easily my favorite of the bunch.

There must be something in the air right now about authors wanting to re-visit classic works, or else something in the moods of the readers and voters. Interesting also that all four are fantasy rather than SF.

Here is an example of SF becoming true. Uterine replicators a la Lois McMaster Bujold!
http://www.tor.com/2017/04/28/science...

Yeah, clearly the shouldn't be being considered for SF awards.

Neo-classical science fiction reconsiders the Classical motifs of the pre-New Wave era and updates them with Postmodern values and are pastiches to the originals. The finest of them reject the positivism of traditional SF on the basis of current scientific theory. "Aurora" and "Seveneves" are excellent examples.

Gregg wrote: "Yeah, clearly the shouldn't be being considered for SF awards." Both the Hugos and Nebulas are awarded to either SF or Fantasy with no distinction made between the two. But I found it interesting that all 4 of the novellas nominated for both awards were Fantasy this year.

Jo wrote: "Sometimes sci-fi is way ahead of it's time as well, and only thing like clothing and expressions date it. A Voyage to Arcturus was written in 1920 and is an extremely dream like book..."

I've read that book! It just seemed completely out of time to me.

In Solaris, Kelvin has the technology to travel to another planet, yet his library is still composed of paper books. This doesn't bother me one bit. I don't fault Lem for not having predicted e-books. I actually find it kind of amusing when characters have flying cars but still use typewriters.

We mustn't take too literally our image of the science fiction writer as prophet. The sci fi writer projects current trends into the future or formulates a thought experiment and then carries it out, but that doesn't mean he can actually predict every scientific discovery and technological innovation that will occur in the future.

One of the main features of science fiction is that it speculates about perennial concerns: social, political, philosophical, psychological, metaphysical. These are ageless. Even when a book is about futuristic technology, it's usually about the implications of people having these technologies.

Flying cars. these are almost ubiquitous on SF. I want my flying car. Actually, I saw a YouTube video recently about a prototype flying car, a multi-propellor craft, like a giant drone, which one person was riding like a motorcycle. It was fitted with pontoons and was flown over water.

SF never seems to have foreseen the digital camera. Even in the far future, they use film.

My father always wanted a flying car, too. (We watched the Outer Limits together from when I was a baby.) He was a salesman & spent a lot of time on the road. While we were stuck in traffic on the New Jersey turnpike heading into NYC one time, he said they'd never work unless they were computer guided & that it wouldn't be any fun, but we'd kill each other in droves if we could steer them ourselves. We were watching people cut back & forth across lanes to gain an extra car length. It may have been one of the most mature reflections I ever heard from the man. I think that's when he told me about Colossus.

I never thought about digital cameras, but I think you're right, Buck. No cell phones that I recall, either. I think it was Heinlein that had a CEO of a company with an implant that she could communicate to a central computer at her company. She did it by thinking of one letter at a time, spelling out each short sentence.

I can't recall the name of the story & I might be wrong on the author. I'm not even sure it was a female CEO. Something about getting a space ship off Earth & she put everything on the line to do it. Not particularly memorable save for the method of communication since I don't think her assistants had even a portable phone save for a bulky pack phone like the mobile car phones of the 1980s.

I want my flying car to be automatic so I can type on my manual typewriter while I travel.

LOL!

Amen!

Susan wrote: "I want my flying car to be automatic so I can type on my manual typewriter while I travel."

They'd have to be automatic. Otherwise traffic patterns would be chaotic and crashes would be frequent. (Or maybe they could be built to bounce off each other.)

I also hope they will be quiet. Airplanes and helicopters are horribly loud. Manual typewriters are too loud, too!

Jim wrote: "I think it was Heinlein that had a CEO of a company with an implant that she could communicate to a central computer at her company. She did it by thinking of one letter at a time, spelling out each short sentence. "

It's a futuristic version of what we do today. Texting. Telepathic texting.

Susan wrote: "I want my flying car to be automatic so I can type on my manual typewriter while I travel."

I saw an ad recently for a retro keyboard for a tablet. It looked like a typewriter.

Buck wrote: "It's a futuristic version of what we do today. Texting. Telepathic texting."

I hadn't thought of it that way, Buck. You're right!

I hated manual typewriters. I didn't learn to touch-type until I got an Atari & played Word Invaders - Space Invaders with letters. It would teach you some letters, like the home row. After some practice, it would take me to a game board where a space ship flew over a city & bombed it with letters. I had to type the letters in order to save the city. Fun!

The best part about manual typewriters was sneaking into my dad's study at night and pressing down all the keys at once really hard. They get all jammed up in the center. Then sneaking out and blaming it on my brother.

LOL! You were a fairly horrible child.
:)

(Weren't we all?)

Bruce wrote: "The best part about manual typewriters was sneaking into my dad's study at night and pressing down all the keys at once really hard. They get all jammed up in the center..."

And the worst part about manual typewriters was changing the ribbons. I should remember that the next time I complain about changing the ink cartridge in my printer.

Susan, I found that when changing ribbons I got more ink on my hands than
I wanted.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but if a SF book is well-written, the focus is not on the technological devices but on the story and the ideas behind the story. Characters with depth help as well.
Of course, if there is a weak plot, no ideas behind the story and cardboard characters, the book quickly becomes dated, if it is even read at all any more.

An awful lot of SF is based on the tech, but I understand what you're saying & agree to some extent. It often helps if the story isn't gadget-happy or too specific about how the marvel is accomplished.

Rosemarie wrote: "Susan, I found that when changing ribbons I got more ink on my hands than
I wanted.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but if a SF book is well-written, the focus is not on the technologi..."

I agree. The ideas is the main theme, even superior to the characters, unless the characters build the ideas and the plot.

Rafael wrote: "I agree. The ideas is the main theme, even superior to the characters, unless the characters build the ideas and the plot."

I also prefer ideas to characters. I think that's why I like Stanislaw Lem and Olaf Stapledon so much.

That is so true. The ideas have to be there first. That is why older SF is still popular.

Indeed.

Jim wrote: "An awful lot of SF is based on the tech, but I understand what you're saying & agree to some extent. It often helps if the story isn't gadget-happy or too specific about how the marvel is accomplis..."

Would you think that fantasy ages better than SF then?

Bruce wrote: "Jim wrote: "An awful lot of SF is based on the tech, but I understand what you're saying & agree to some extent. It often helps if the story isn't gadget-happy or too specific about how the marvel ..."

I find a lot of fantasy that i've read is character driven and so the attitudes age the book. If the fantasy and the world is well written I can overlook it. I don't generally enjoy fantasy books as much as sci-fi though.

Bruce wrote: "Would you think that fantasy ages better than SF then?"

I don't think it's a fair comparison since they have different issues. Both genres face the same changes in society (racism, sexism, etc.) & issues with overdone tropes & themes. I haven't seen any advances in magic nor do I prefer more logic to fantasy magic, but I'm living in an SF world, at least from my perspective as a Baby Boomer. That impacts SF directly.

A lot of the SF I read when I was younger has already passed in time. Older SF books often use the 1990s or early 2000s as the future. Been there, done that, & worn out the tee shirt. The Caves of Steel harmed by out dated technology & I wish Asimove had steered clear of numbers. The world retreated to urban 'caves of steel' in the face of the overwhelming population of 8 billion several thousand years in the future which just doesn't seem likely today.

Or the gadgets have been surpassed by our current technology. That means that gadgets in SF are competing with reality head-to-head. For instance, the lack of ereaders of some sort in a book where they have computers & screens really harms an SF novel now. It wasn't such an obvious oversight several decades ago.

Some SF has come true. I compared the rocket landing in "The First Spaceship On Venus" (1960) with the SpaceX rocket landing. Wow. This was a movie I loved as a kid, but we now know it isn't a jungle planet, either.

I'm not sure I'd say that fantasy ages any better as a genre, though. I'd have to think about that some more. Off hand, I think fantasy might get hurt a little easier by societal changes. Not many want to read just about King Arthur while Guinevere sits patiently at home with her knitting, for instance. Does fantasy tend to focus on people more? That's a gross generalization & I can always think of a lot exceptions to those, but I think it might.

Still, I could only give an opinion on what I've read. Not a fair sample since I've never been attracted by some fantasies due to my own biases & experience. For instance, I tend not to like some heroic fantasies written by women because they don't write good male characters. My wife is just the opposite, but we share more fantasy books in common than we disagree on.

My tastes have changed over the years, too. While I used to be able to read the worst schlock (e.g., the sequels to Jandar Of Callisto) & enjoy it, I can't anymore. I like to think my taste in writing has become more refined, but I could just be fooling myself. I still read a lot of fun garbage just because it's fun.

Fantasy often simply suffers from a lack of rational basis. Still writers like China Mieville are bringing brilliant stories, writing, and socially relevant material to the genre.

Gregg wrote: "Fantasy often simply suffers from a lack of rational basis. ...."

That's always been true of many in both genres & is one of the similar issues both would have in aging. I don't think it addresses Bruce's question, though.

As for particular authors with "brilliant stories, writing, and socially relevant material", that's a matter of taste. I think Mieville's overblown prose is pretentious & boring. IIRC, Perdido Street Station started with a PKD quote & you're a fan. Each to their own.

What is socially relevant today often doesn't age well. There are some perennial or recurring issues, but many lose any meaning or become laughable. I'm reading Catastrophe Planet & the world is ending due to climate change - freezing, though. Quite a few books around 1970 use that since it was a popular hypothesis at the time. Doesn't help the books today, though. I guess that's more science than social, though.

Jim wrote: "Bruce wrote: "Would you think that fantasy ages better than SF then?"

I don't think it's a fair comparison since they have different issues. Both genres face the same changes in society (racism, s..."

Thanks, some interesting thoughts there. I will need to think about it some more also.

That overblown prose is beautiful....

Gregg wrote: "That overblown prose is beautiful...."

To some. I like it if it is used sparingly to accentuate parts of a story, but it's like a diet of candy. Are you familiar with the Hemmingway - Spillane argument? No right answer, just whatever strikes the reader's fancy at the time. If a reader doesn't want to read a book, it's worthless to them.

I prefer an author like Zelazny who limits descriptions to the bare minimum & keeps the story moving. When he needed more, he'd parcel it out in small doses. When he wanted more, he'd use an allusion which helps make his stories rereadable since they can have different flavors. He trusts his reader to have the imagination to fill in any gaps. I appreciate that far more than an author who spends pages describing mundane objects to no real purpose. I consider description for its own sake a waste of time.

I don't see any of Zelazny's books on your shelves here. You should try a few. Let me know if you want any recommendations.

When it comes to China Mieville, I half agree with both Jim and Gregg here, despite the opposing views. My first Mieville novel was Embassytown, and I thought pretty much as Jim does - very pretentious, even when taking into account that it's a novel about language itself. I was very disappointed. But later, I read The City & the City and thoroughly enjoyed it, especially its noir flavouring. It's one of my favourites.

I haven't read Perdido Street Station yet, but its waiting in the wings on my kindle. I suspect that, for me, Mieville's going to be a bit hit-and-miss, but that's okay; I have the same issue with Neil Gaiman's books.

Jim wrote: "I think Mieville's overblown prose is pretentious & boring...."

His prose style varies between books. It is intentionally very ornate in the three books related to Perdido Street. I think it adds a nice flavor, but I can see that it would turn some off, and it can get tiring also for me. (I really got sick of seeing the word "Puissant".) The style is much more plain in "The City and The City" (which is a great book.)

I had a lot of trouble with Embassytown. I love the idea of trying to imagine a truly alien form of language. But that one just totally passed beyond the level of plausibility to me.

Jim wrote: "No right answer, just whatever strikes the reader's fancy at the time...."

Right, it isn't just the book and the reader, time is also part of the equation. A book that you might love at one point in your life could be totally off-putting at another point. I've had plenty of experiences of going back to something I've read before and having a totally different reaction.

Ed wrote: "His prose style varies between books. It is intentionally very ornate in the three books related to Perdido Street. I th..."

That's good to know. I might give 'City' a shot at some point. It's not always fair of me to dislike an author for one or two books, but overall it seems to work out to my benefit. So many books, so little time. No sense wasting it on books I won't like. My TBR pile is overflowing.

I think you should not resist the potential for reading to be an experience beyond the narrative.

The joy of Hemingway is the cleanest of the prose and thank God he created American English and ended the tyranny of British English in our and the world's literature.

But Hemingway is only one version of the reading experience. Poe, Lovecraft, and King just in the horror genre have given us a legacy of descriptive language I certainly would never avoid. Reading I like dining: Everyday is not a hamburger and fries menu.

PS: I read "Lord of Light" decades ago and just ordered "Deus Irae" from my librarian.