The Evolution of Science Fiction discussion

What are you reading now that was published before 1920 or has to do with SF in that time period?

The Last Man by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley is LONG, but I'm 4/5 of the way through it. The first third or more is just setting up the characters in pastoral England that's trying out a republic.

I guess it's shelved as SF because there's an apocalypse & it takes place at the end of the 21st century. It's not very SF, though. The war is one that could have taken place any time in the prior centuries. While there is some travel by balloon, most is by horse. Ships still rely on sails. Being published in 1826, there is no knowledge of germ theory so the plague is basically the Black Plague. I was hoping for more futuristic vision.

I finished The Last Man by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley & gave it 3 stars. It's really way too long & not very good save for the last half of the last volume, but it's obvious influence on apocalyptic novels makes it worth suffering through. Reading just the last volume would probably be enough. I think the characters & all would fall into place quite well. Anyway, you can find my review here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

I started a list some time ago on 19th century science fiction, the first century science fiction existed. Not many people have voted on or visited it. https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/1...

That's quite a comprehensive list. I added The Last Man by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley to it, but have only read a dozen of them. I've tried a few others, but 19th century writing is not my favorite.

Dan wrote: "I started a list some time ago on 19th century science fiction, the first century science fiction existed. Not many people have voted on or visited it. https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/1......"

That is a very nice and useful piece of work, sir. Thank you!

Thank you all. I'm interested in nineteenth century SF more in terms of reading about it than actually reading it myself. Frankly, I suspect many of the books might be not much fun, though I could be wrong about that. The three I have read though which are currently the top three on the list were all pretty decent. Five, four, and three stars respectively were my ratings.

I have just ordered Future Perfect: American Science Fiction of the Nineteenth Century by Howard Bruce Franklin. For such a seminal work in the field that has been around more than half a century I am amazed it has only had 35 GoodBooks readers so far. I am also concerned that his book goes in a direction I disagree with. He seems to want to broaden the definition of science fiction so that more works which really aren't SF can be included. The Hawthorne short stories in particular I have my doubts about. They may be well written and highly entertaining, but neither that nor mentioning a scientist somewhere in them makes the story SF. I'm more interested in going the way the list I started does: find obscure works that have been all but forgotten and which might be absolutely awful, but that unquestionably belong to the SF genre. More than half the books on the list have fewer than a hundred GoodReads ratings, and most of those have fewer than ten, while nine books are unread by anyone on GoodReads (zero ratings).

That's odd. Shelley's The Last Man is now on the list twice, at #5 and #13 currently.

Dan wrote: "That's odd. Shelley's The Last Man is now on the list twice, at #5 and #13 currently."

That is weird. I didn't see it when I first looked through there & I definitely checked for it. I paid special attention to those I'd read. Both editions are starred now. Sorry if I goofed it.

I just went to edit the list, hit the "check for duplicates" link, and received the following feedback: "1 duplicates found and removed". Hopefully, that remedies the problem. I'm surprised the system let you enter the duplicate since your audiobook edition is already combined with the Oxford University Press edition pictured, which it should be since the audio version reads from exactly the same text.

You could have your vote counted, if you like, since it was the one removed, by clicking on the list's #5.

It still shows I voted for it. I wonder if my slow Internet caused the glitch. It's been worse than usual this weekend. Anyway, excellent list.

Dan wrote: "I started a list some time ago on 19th century science fiction, ..."

I added Into the Sun & Other Stories and The Poison Belt. Then I realized that The Poison Belt is after 1900, so I removed my vote, but I'm not sure it disappeared from the list.

You might consider The Dominion of the World 1: The Plutocratic Plot. Published in 1900, but written during the previous year, I think.

For SF pre 1900, it is usually more interesting to me to read about it than to read it.

Yes, Professor Challenger is Doyle's early 1900s' creation. I have seen the Le Rouge work before and eliminated it. I really want to confine the list to works published before 1900.

Into the Sun & Other Stories and its precursor History of the Movement from 1854 to 1890 are wonderful finds! Sam Moskowitz is mentioned frequently by Asimov as his go-to guy for science fiction history. The guy knew everything! Thank you so much for alerting me to the existence of these two books. It is not easy to find pre-1900 true science fiction.

Wolfe mentioned that Verne wrote a lot of novels, far more than I had thought. Did he say 45? I wonder if all have been translated? Here's his page on Gutenberg:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/autho...
A lot of those are in French, but quite a few I've never heard of in English, too. Anyway, some might be a good addition to your list, Dan.

Eighteen Verne books are listed already, 23% of the list! Many of Gutenberg's 161 listings are foreign language, audio, repeats, or possibly non-genre, but I agree that it's a good idea to check. Thanks for the suggestion.

People keep scoffing at Jules Verne's idea of a cannon shooting a projectile to the Moon as obviously wrong. Is it though? What is a rocket in essence but a series of controlled explosions as gas goes up in flames? The main difference it seems to me is that rather than be a single shot by a cannon that remains on Earth. The rocket is a cannon that is attached to the projectile and goes up into the air with it for explosion after explosion until it is finally allowed to drop back to Earth once its fuel is expended. So Verne left out the attached part. At least he got it right about an explosion being the means of propulsion rather than say electricity or magnetism.

Jim wrote: "Wolfe mentioned that Verne wrote a lot of novels, far more than I had thought. Did he say 45? I wonder if all have been translated? Here's his page on Gutenberg:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/aut..."

I believe that virtually all of Verne's fiction has now been translated, although some of the novels are only available in 19th Century versions that could stand replacing.

Here is a great resource: http://jv.gilead.org.il/evans/VerneTr...

Dan wrote: "People keep scoffing at Jules Verne's idea of a cannon shooting a projectile to the Moon as obviously wrong. Is it though? What is a rocket in essence but a series of controlled explosions as gas g..."

The problem with a cannon as a launch mechanism is the G forces. Humans woudn't survive the sudden acceleration - from 0 to escape velocity in a fraction of a second.

Astronauts normally experience a maximum g-force of around 3gs during a rocket launch. This is equivalent to three times the force of gravity humans are normally exposed to when on Earth but is survivable for the passengers. Astronauts are trained in high g-force, wear g-suits and must be correctly prepared.

https://www.seeker.com/blown-away-by-...

Dan wrote: "Into the Sun & Other Stories and its precursor History of the Movement from 1854 to 1890 are wonderful finds!..."

I didn't include the "History" book, because it is history of the stories, not an anthology. But of course you can choose to include it. Moskovitz did do an anthology that you might like Science Fiction by Gaslight: A History and Anthology of Science Fiction in the Popular Magazines, 1891-1911. Also see A Victorian Science Fiction Reader: Tales from the Gaslight Zone.

Ed wrote: "I didn't include the "History" book, because it is history of the stor..."

I thought it was an anthology. Removed. Thanks.

Dan wrote: "People keep scoffing at Jules Verne's idea of a cannon shooting a projectile to the Moon as obviously wrong. Is it though? What is a rocket in essence but a series of controlled explosions as gas g..."

It's the squishy part that makes them laugh nervously, thousands of gees. Still, it's far better method than Wells' magic metal, dew drops, or marrow.
;)

Patrick wrote: "I believe that virtually all of Verne's fiction has now been translated, although some of the novels are only available in 19th Century versions that could stand replacing.

Here is a great resource: http://jv.gilead.org.il/evans/VerneTr... "

Super! Thanks!

My copy of Future Perfect: American Science Fiction of the Nineteenth Century arrived and it is proving to be fascinating reading.

Franklin's thesis appears to be that many nineteenth century authors, U.S. authors in particular, were almost all writing science fiction throughout the century even if it wasn't being called that. In order to do this he first broadens the definition of science fiction to the following: the literature which, growing with science and technology, evaluates it and relates it meaningfully to the rest of human existence.

What prompted all this nineteenth century science fiction writing was apparently all the stuff being invented all nineteenth century long. The technological changes got writers' imaginations going as they tried to come to terms with all the changes. Franklin goes on to assert, "There was no major nineteenth-century American writer of fiction, and indeed few in the second rank, who did not write some science fiction or at least one utopian romance.

Science fiction writers then include Charles Brockden Brown (spontaneous combustion, superhuman ventriloquism, extraordinary plagues, extreme somnambulism), Washington Irving (time travel), James Fenimore Cooper (unknown polar lands, monkey societies, utopian societies on islands that rise suddenly out of the ocean), William Gilmore Simms (lost continent, mesmerism), Herman Melville (utopian societies, first robot stories), Oliver Wendell Holmes (every fictional piece he wrote was science fiction), Mark Twain (time travel, alternate universes), William Dean Howells (utopias, telepathy, clairvoyance, teleportation), Henry James (time travel), Stephen Crane (manmade life), Mary E. Wilkins Freeman (interdimensional travel), Hawthorne, Poe, Fitz James O'Brien, Edward Bellamy, Jack London, Ambrose Bierce.

Science fiction as a term was first used in England in 1851, which I find interesting because it is the same year chess clocks were first used at tournaments to limit time players could use to consider moves. As early as 1876 an introduction to a collection of William Henry Rhodes' fantasy and science fiction was discussing "science fiction" as a distinctive genre.

Franklin goes on to say that there were no specialized magazines of fantasy and science fiction until the last part of the nineteenth century because there was no need for them. All the major mainstream fiction periodicals (Harper's Monthly, Scribner's, Atlantic Monthly, Cosmopolitan, etc) were already publishing science fiction and fantasy.

What an interesting thesis! I'm going to enjoy reading this book as well as doing my own research to test it out.

He says that in 1966, when the first edition came out, he had to argue for the legitimacy of science fiction as literature. By 1978, there was no need. Science fiction was by then already recognized as "the principal non-realistic imaginative mode of our historical epoch." Is that the case today, I wonder? I don't think so. Fantasy is vying for and probably even tied for the honor of top spot. Who knows? It may even already own it. Harry Potter anyone?

Really interesting, Dan. The way industry & tech exploded during the 19th century makes Franklin's assertion that "There was no major nineteenth-century American writer of fiction, and indeed few in the second rank, who did not write some science fiction or at least one utopian romance." an attractive idea. Judging by such works as Frank Reade, Jr., and His New Steam Man: Or, The Young Inventor's Trip to the Far West he didn't mention authors far enough down the scale, though. Luis Senarens wrote over 400 novels & the one I skimmed was an awful dime novel. Makes the Hardy Boys look like classic literature.

That broader definition of SF gets awfully hazy to me. Both Wolfe & Rabkin used it too, although it doesn't sound as if they took it so far. Neither of them mentioned Rip Van Winkle's time in the fairy mound as SF time travel. (That is the one of Irving's referenced?) It's been too long since I last read it, but I don't recall any science or tech being a theme as it is in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court or in When the Sleeper Wakes. There was only social change in Irving's story, but no tech. I'd say no for Irving's tale & agree to Twain's & Wells' being SF based on my memories.

Interesting on SF being used as a term as far back as 1851. That certainly never came up before anywhere I've read. Where did it appear? I looked up the Rhodes example &, if the Gutenberg volume is the one referenced (It seems like the right one.) I don't agree that the term was actually used.

...His fondness for weaving the problems of science with fiction, which became afterwards so marked a characteristic of his literary efforts, attracted the especial attention of his professors;...

Close, but no cigar, just like Wells' description of his work as 'science romance'. I think it's a quibble when assigning the genre, but it's one used by those who say there was no SF until Gernsback's Amazing in 1926. They say that until the genre is named & separated in the market there can be no intent on the part of the author to write to it. I don't see it as an absolute requirement, though. For instance, Atwood swore Oryx and Crake wasn't SF, but no one agrees with her. (I think she's since changed her mind since it was based on a faulty definition of SF.)

Anyway, it's obvious there's a lot of latitude in the definition of SF & Franklin seems to be exploring it even more deeply than either Wolfe or Rabkin since it's the focus of his book & it was just a part of their lectures. I don't always agree with them, but find the examples interesting. You've got me interested & I found the book on AbeBooks for only $3.64 delivered, so have a copy on the way. Thanks!

I bought the book too because like most used books I found a copy on bookfinder.com for under $5 (including shipping). Usually beats even buying the e-book!

I do agree that he makes the most extravagant claims for science fiction I've ever seen anyone try to make. He even backs them up with convincing-sounding argument, not that I'm completely buying it or about to make additions to the nineteenth century SF list on his say-so, but I am trying to read what he says with an open mind. The book is mostly a really good anthology of great stories written by great authors, but they're stories snooty English professors would disdain as "lesser efforts" because of their overly imaginative use of reality. Thus they aren't heavily anthologized and are even today pretty obscure.

Take Washington Irving, for example. Yes, he claims America's first short story, "Rip Van Winkle" (1819), for science fiction. It's an, no, excuse me, "the archetypal time travel story". Okay, the mechanism used for time travel isn't scientific, and this fact knocks it out of contention for being classified as SF by most of us. But for Franklin that's a minor story plot point. The essence of the story is this guy travels in chronological time and has to deal with the psychological impact of that travel. For Franklin, that's a science fiction issue!

Franklin doesn't reprint "Rip Van Winkle" of course. The story Franklin reprints of Irving's is one I've never heard of before called "The Men of the Moon" (1809), an alien invasion story.

You definitely beat the ebook price, as did I. I really like paper for books like this so I can write notes in them, underline, & put stickies. Audio is often fine too, but it's tough to study a subject that way. With the lectures, there's a study guide, but I have to remember to add notes to them in a separate file. Ebooks fall between the cracks for me.

I'd agree that sleeping through time is the archetype of time travel up to that time. Quite a few fantasy stories used it & I don't think how time travel is achieved is terribly important to the genre of the story. Even when there is a machine, they're often just magic carpets, no real attempt at science. That's OK for me. I don't really need an explanation any more than I need to know how FTL works. If it's explained, great.

It's the theme of the story that's important. The social component is nice, but it can be handled by fantasy just as easily. Industrial age tech out of time, Eloi & Morlocks as evolutionary descendants, gleaming metropolises, & all make the others SF in my opinion. IOW, its the tech &/or scientific principles playing a major role that make it SF to me.

Dan wrote: "The essence of the story [Rip Van Winkle] is this guy travels in chronological time and has to deal with the psychological impact of that travel. For Franklin, that's a science fiction issue!"

I don't know whether I'd personally consider that story SF or not. Same for Rappacini's Daughter. The exact label doesn't matter much to me. I just know that there is some similarity and when stories like that came up in my school days they would grab my attention better than the more realist stories that were the norm in school assignments.

I've also struggled with the notion that "alternate history" stories should be classed as SF, regardless of whether they propose a science-based explanation. A book I'm currently reading, Evaporating Genres: Essays on Fantastic Literature, justifies it this way:

"... the central questions of the best alternate history tales: Is time malleable? Are we living in the wrong history? Do our choices matter? Such questions are among the key reasons readers tend to regard the alternate history tale as a subset of SF -- rather than as fantasy."

I classify alternate history the same way I do time travel for the same reasons.

Some alternate history is more in the science fiction realm than others. H. Beam Piper's alternate history series Paratime seems to me unquestionably science fiction and because of that is the only alternative history I've ever read that I really liked. Most of Turtledove's books on the other hand I have more trouble classifying as science fiction because he usually just posits a historical difference and extrapolates from there. That's interesting when well done, but to my mind not science fiction because there is no one manipulating time or traveling between world versions.

Thank you, Dan. I know what next month's short story is going to be.
:)

Just read The Time Machine. It appeared at my library on the shelf for "New SF" (must be a new edition). I don't know why I've skipped this book for so long. Maybe I felt I already knew the story because it is so old that spoilers are all over the place.

It is true that I knew where the story was going to go, but I still enjoyed reading it. Wells must be a pretty good story-teller.

There is a trend in these early works to have the story told second-hand. In this case the Time Traveller (no other name given) is telling the story to someone (no name given) who is telling the story to us. That allows us to suspend our disbelief and also situates the story in the tradition of traveller's tales where explorers would claim to have seen all kinds of crazy things on their voyages.

It becomes unbelievable to me, though, in that the Time Traveller, having just returned, tired and hungry, is able to tell his tale coherently from start to finish in perfectly composed sentences and paragraphs. Oh well, I'll just go along with it.

At least Wells does not make the mistake of having the Traveller completely understand everything about the future society: "In some of these visions of Utopias and coming times which I have read, there is a vast amount of detail about building, and social arrangements, and so forth. But while such details are easy enough to obtain when the whole world is contained in one's imagination, they are altogether inaccessible to a real traveller amid such realities as I found here." This shows Wells was aware his readers would have known about various Utopia stories and was letting us know that this is a different kind of story.

Not as exciting as reading something more recent. But still enjoyable; not simply a boring historical artifact, as I expect many of those Utopia stories are.

PS: my spell check is mad at me for putting two L's in traveller, but that's how Wells did it and that spelling is preserved in my American edition.

Brits double the "l" in lots of unnecessary places.

Dan wrote: "Brits double the "l" in lots of unnecessary places."

Please tell me that was a joke. Neither British English nor American makes a lick of sense. There doesn't seem to be any rule that doesn't have a dozen common exceptions. Webster's attempt to 'fix' our spelling wasn't a very good one.

There are MANY different spelling conventions between UK and US English.

Oh dear, I thought we were discussing SF books, not spelling. Sorry I brought it up!

I like many of the changes that Noah Webster helped standardize in America. But I like to keep the double-L in traveller. If we have double-L in spelling, and in H.G. Wells, why not traveller?

I like studying languages. And it is very interesting to me to see people try to impose rules and regularity on something that is by nature constantly changing and somewhat chaotic.

Along with the rise of science, there were many attempts to create a more logical language. One very curious book set in the time of H.G. Wells is A Hand-Book of Volapük which is both a novel about the people creating that language, as well as a teaching guide to help you learn the grammar. (Though why would you want to?)

A much more interesting work to me was In the Land of Invented Languages: Esperanto Rock Stars, Klingon Poets, Loglan Lovers, and the Mad Dreamers Who Tried to Build a Perfect Language which details many efforts to build a perfect language. After that, I'm quite sure no such effort could ever succeed.

So, yeah, Noah Webster promoted many of the spelling changes in America. But only some of his recommendations were adopted. People themselves, especially publishers and editors, picked which ones would live.

Pick a word that ends in "l", add a suffix, and if you're British, you probably have double 'l'. If you prize efficiency and economy, you will have but one. "Pavilion" is the most recent example I encountered.

Dan wrote: "Pick a word that ends in "l", add a suffix, and if you're British, you probably have double 'l'. If you prize efficiency and economy, you will have but one. "Pavilion" is the most recent example I ..."

Lollll

As an avid reader, alllbeit British, I find my mind can accommodate both British and American spellllings - provided they're consistent - without getting hung up about it.

Incidentalllllly, I llive in Wales (one 'l') which has its own nationalll lllllllllllanguage in which 'l' and 'll' are two seperate characters of the alphabet and have compllletelyyyy diffffferent sounds (no particulllar reason for mentioning, other than to throwwww it in to the conversation).

Well, SF books are made up of spelling, so it's not too far off course, I suppose.
;)

I've always thought it was obscene how much time we spend learning to deal with all the weird conventions in our language. If there were some reliable rules, it would be so much nicer & would leave a lot more time for studying other things. Instead, we spend our school years struggling with grammar, vocabulary, spelling, & punctuation, but still manage to screw it up regularly. I have a lot of respect for people that learn it as a second language. I've never managed. It's a shame Esperanto never took off. We'd probably communicate better.

English has a lot of flavor, though. Over a million words, many with multiple meanings, homonyms, & all sorts of nifty ways to put it together. Of course, that can lead to some pretty bad miscommunication. I'll never forget when a Scottish girl I was dating said we should go knock up another girl, a good friend of ours. It was pretty funny, eventually.

Did you ever read Babel-17, Ed? I never could get into it, but language is the central theme.

Donna Rae wrote: "I llive in Wales (one 'l') which has its own nationalll lllllllllllanguage in which 'l' and 'll' are two seperate characters of the alphabet..."

That was true also in Spanish until in 1994 they decided "ll" is just two "l" characters.

800,000 years in the future, give or take, when Morlocks and Eloi are around, nobody speaks Welsh and nobody worries about spelling, anyway.

Micromegas by Voltaire, that I just happened to listen to on librivox this afternoon, is interesting re' this conversation. Once the big guy from Sirius meets Earthmen, there's instant understanding. No universal translator, no telepathy, just one language spoken by all.

Of course, Voltaire didn't have access to the conventions of the writing of SF. Lots of other ideas are explored in an interesting manner, in this surprisingly readable story from 1752!

Btw, if the group ever wants to read Gulliver's Travels, with which we can assume Voltaire was familiar, I'm in.

Cheryl wrote: "Btw, if the group ever wants to read Gulliver's Travels, with which we can assume Voltaire was familiar, I'm in."
I'd read that, too.

Yes, I have read Babel-17, but don't remember it well.

Micromegas and Gulliver's Travels are wonderful proto-science fiction works. If you want to go back to the beginning of proto-science fiction, you can start with Sumerian mythology and The Epic of Gilgamesh written more than 4,000 years ago.

People who want to expand the definition of science fiction so far that it no longer distinguishes much of any literary work from any other fail to distinguish between proto-science fiction and science fiction proper.

I do draw a distinction. For me, because proto-science fiction doesn't deal with the science seriously, but uses it for farce and satire effect, it's not true science fiction (any more than I consider Kurt Vonnegut to be). The first work that treats the science seriously, or at least seriously enough for most science fiction historians, is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, written 200 years ago this year. That's why most credit it as the first science fiction work.

A few purists argue science fiction started later (rather than earlier) with H.G. Wells in the 1890s, but that omits Jules Verne, and the other works I mention on the aforementioned list, which are solidly (to the best of my knowledge) science fiction.

Cheryl wrote: "Micromegas by Voltaire, that I just happened to listen to on librivox this afternoon, is interesting re' this conversation. Once the big guy from Sirius meets Earthmen, there's insta..."

I liked it, too. I don't think I'm up to reading Gulliver's Travels again. I read it once years ago & am sure I missed half the fun, found it a slog. I'm sure I'd have really liked it if it wasn't so long & I got more of his jokes, but I'm not familiar enough with the area & period. I think I spent as much time reading about A Modest Proposal as I did on it, but that made it far better.

After a couple of books & lectures about SF, I found that I'd never really understood what Wells was driving at in his books. I got some of the main points, but missed a lot of his finer social criticisms due to ignorance of his motivations & the issues of the times.

Dan wrote: "...A few purists argue science fiction started later..."

And don't forget those who say SF began when Gernsback created the market for it in April 1926. I don't understand how they manage to reconcile that with the stories he published in that first edition (Verne & Poe, IIRC), though.

I don't like the way folks pin the SF label on everything that came after "Frankenstein" when it has even a bit of tech in it. Much of what is labeled as proto-SF is as much or more SF than some of the later stories. Forced pigeon-holes. Yuck. Thankfully we no longer have to limit books to single, physical shelves, but can tag or shelve them with as many as needed.

Jim wrote: "Dan wrote: "...A few purists argue science fiction started later..."

And don't forget those who say SF began when Gernsback created the market for it in April 1926. I don't understand how they man..."

And I suppose some could even argue that The Picture of Dorian Gray is SF because it has the 'what if' and even the 'sense of wonder.' And the mirror isn't 'magic' so it's not fantasy... but I would just as soon not get into a whole SF vs. F debate. ;) Anyway, just an observation.

Dan wrote: "Micromegas and Gulliver's Travels are wonderful proto-science fiction works...."

I don't really care what category(ies) you put it in, but I think I would like to re-read Gulliver's Travels someday, whether with this group or not.

It has fantastical elements, but they are there mainly to serve the purpose of social satire. Since much of what he is satirizing is foreign to me, I wouldn't understand it all. But I know now that parts of it were satires of scientists of the day, especially the "Laputa" section. As I learned from Curiosity: How Science Became Interested in Everything, people of the day considered scientists using telescopes and microscopes to be wasting their time studying things that couldn't possibly matter. I think I'd enjoy that section at least.

Micromegas is a book that sounded interesting to me, but was deadly dull when I actually read it. If I'd read it at the time it came out, my opinion probably would have been different.

Just finished Paris in the Twentieth Century by Jules Verne. Disappointing. You can find my review here.

From your description, it sure wouldn't work well as an adventure story or even as a piece of fiction. Being a lover of nineteenth century French literature in general though, I'd be interested in his opinions of Maupassant, Stendhal, and Hugo. I might just give this a light read. Thanks for sharing.