Science Fiction Aficionados discussion

He set the planet on fire!

In my mind, he's the first modern SF writer. Other people came first, but they were mostly doing a spin on Gothic horror. And I know Verne came before him, but Wells is just a much more complete package. Kind of like how I know Bill Haley came first, but I like to give Chuck Berry more credit for being the first rock star.

Agree. I think Mary Shelley is often misidentified as the first SF writer, when Frankenstein was squarely in the horror tradition.

The War of the Worlds was decent.
I might read more.

mark wrote: "Agree. I think Mary Shelley is often misidentified as the first SF writer, when Frankenstein was squarely in the horror tradition."

I think you can qualify as a science fiction. I don't see it as horror. Horror, IMHO, needs some supernatural element. The Creature was a creation of man, a creation of science.

Dracula is "squarely in the horror tradition". Frankenstein, it could be argued, has a leg in each camp.

horror does not require the supernatural. for example stories about murder sprees and serial killers written by Jack Ketchum and Richard Layman.

Frankenstein has maybe two sentences of "science" in it - at least when it comes to how the Monster is created. the rest of the time, science is discussed as a philosophy, much like Romantics of Shelley's eras discussed it. more importantly, the Monster is portrayed as a demonic shadow self of the protagonist - a common horror theme. but not a science fictional one. same goes for Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde (although a very different novel of course, as far as style and intention).

Frankenstein is a work of fiction that contains science, so it fits the literal definition. Mentally, though, I draw a line between Wells and the rest of the 19th century, because Wells feels modern in the way science is combined with a recognizable plot structure. Other books, like Frankenstein, would go on a mental bookshelf I label "proto SF" or "technically SF but feels more like gothic."

Verne would go on a shelf alongside The Coming Race that I mentally label "OK, totally SF, but archaically plotted and kind of a chore to read."

mark wrote: "horror does not require the supernatural. for example stories about murder sprees and serial killers written by Jack Ketchum and Richard Layman.

Frankenstein has maybe two sentences of "science" i..."

crime/murder stories are thrillers. not horror.

I love HG Wells, but I think we do a disservice to Verne and Shelley by not calling them science fiction.

Kirsten *Dogs Welcome - People Tolerated" wrote: "crime/murder stories are thrillers. not horror...."

I am not talking about thrillers. I am talking about horror.

here's a definition from my good old buddy Wikipedia:

Horror is a genre of fiction which is intended to, or has the capacity to frighten, scare, disgust, or startle their readers or viewers by inducing feelings of horror and terror.

horror does not require the supernatural to induce feelings of horror or terror.

Phil wrote: "Frankenstein is a work of fiction that contains science, so it fits the literal definition. Mentally, though, I draw a line between Wells and the rest of the 19th century, because Wells feels moder..."

this is an old argument that many people feel strongly about, so I'm not going to push it. but my perspective is that something that merely includes - but does not centralize - science or the future or alternate realities or some sort of speculation is hardly science fiction. Frankenstein fits squarely in the horror tradition but contains little that I see in even Verne or Wells.

mark wrote: "Phil wrote: "Frankenstein is a work of fiction that contains science, so it fits the literal definition. Mentally, though, I draw a line between Wells and the rest of the 19th century, because Well..."

Frankenstein is a comment on Nature run amok after being tampered with by man. At the turn of the 18th to 19th century contemporaneous with the birth of author Shelley, Medicine was about the only experience most people had with science. In parts of the world (including the vast majority of the the European population) medicine was viewed with distrust and fear. It was . . . Magic!

Frankenstein may not be modern SF in any form. With it indeed being horror too, its importance to both genre's as a precursor can't be minimized.

I've always found it convenient to lump it under another open ended topic and that is as a cautionary tale.

A note on Jules Verne. There are many bad translations. There are several of Verne's works translated even in the past 25 years that are poor. There were some versions that were done in the early 20th Century that are fairly decent. Good luck finding them outside of a rare book store or on the shelves of an academic institution.

My mother and some friends wouldn't let me have my own copies of Verne in English until I read them in the original. And the English versions I found in the late 1960's and early 70's (from the 1920s!) were far better than anything I've found since. A number of Romance language specialist translators have continued to hack up Verne assuming they knew where he made breaks for serialization. They didn't and few minutes in any decent French paper/magazine/pulp archive on line or physical will prove that!

Finally Disney got their hands on some of the stories and further polluted the originals. Disney made entertaining films but . . .

You don't have to read Verne in French, it may help, but if the version you are reading doesn't suck you in and keep you reading, look for a different translation!!

CD wrote: "A note on Jules Verne. There are many bad translations. There are several of Verne's works translated even in the past 25 years that are poor. There were some versions that were done in the early 2..."

That's good advice. Some of the things that bug me about Verne- long stretches of voiceless prose, characters with no personality, long scientific descriptions- might come across better in a different translation.

I know it's probably one of the worst translations, but having a character named "Hardwegg" kept me chuckling through Journey to the Center of the Earth.

One difference between Wells and Verne was that Verne insisted that anything he wrote be as scientifically accurate as possible (at least for that time). That is why he never had his heroes land on the moon, he couldn't think of a plausible way to get them off of it. Wells on the other had was quite happy to write stories that simply weren't possible at that time, but which he could give some pseudo-scientific background to (i.e. time travel).
As far as horror goes it does not require the supernatural. H.P. Lovecraft is considered a horror writer yet he was a total unbeliever in the supernatural. Certainly several of his classic works can definitely be considered science fiction.

As I've commented elsewhere, one of the joys of reading in the internet age is finding a book on multiple bookshelves. In the brick and mortar days, Lovecraft, Shelley, and King would all be on the horror shelf. Now they can be on all the shelves that apply.

mark wrote: "Kirsten *Dogs Welcome - People Tolerated" wrote: "crime/murder stories are thrillers. not horror...."

I am not talking about thrillers. I am talking about horror.

here's a definition from my good..."

You were talking about serial killers. They may be disgusting, but they fall under crime thrillers, not horror.

Even if Frankenstein has a lot in common with horror, I still see it as important in the sci-fi vein. There is a long tradition of mad scientists in science fiction. Also, the so-called monster is the victim and the victim is actually the monster.

You were talking about serial killers. They may be disgusting, but they fall under crime thrillers, not horror.

oh my God, Kirsten. I was talking about horror. horror can include serial killers because serial killers inspire horror and terror etc. the inclusion of serial killers does not automatically make something a crime thriller. I know you really feel that that is the case, but I have been a horror fan for decades now and I know that many, many, MANY authors, fans, websites, etc, etc, etc, do not agree that only the supernatural makes something "horror" and that if a book includes a human menace than it is not horror.

but you can keep believing that if you want to! I can't force you to change your perspective, even if I think your perspective is completely wrong and does a lot of disservice to a lot of horror fiction.

and that's the last thing I'm going to say on the topic.

For me, Mary Shelley is unquestionably a science fiction author. The scientific premise of her work rests squarely on the science field then called galvanism, but today called electromyostimulation, a specialty within electrophysiology and used in kinesiology. Sure, Shelley's work can be considered horror as well, but then so can the movie Alien, Predator, and many others. The two genres have often overlapped. Doesn't make Alien, Predator, or Frankenstein any less science fiction.

To say that H.G. Wells is more science fiction-like than Shelley strikes me as a somewhat odd argument to make as well. Wells's science fiction was for Wells an excuse to propagate his social science theories. The hard science was just a vehicle to move his plot, but Wells never lost sight of the socialist theory he was dedicated to expounding. The Time Machine, for example, has the traveler go so many millennia forward that it loses any basis for science and serves as a platform for Wells to criticize the growing division between the leisure and working classes, an argument paralleled in our time by the concern of the growing disparity between the top 1% and the ever growing population below the poverty line in our country, disproportionately children and their single mothers.

mark wrote: "the rest of the time, science is discussed as a philosophy..."

Mark, you may disparage science as philosophy, but there is a growing trend toward discussing science fiction themes as academic subjects. At the University of Delaware, for example, right now a class is being taught about time travel. Philosophy 316, Time Travel, taught by Dr. Richard Hanley for credit. I got my hands on a syllabus recently. Fascinating stuff!

That syllabus would be interesting to see.

I would totally take a class in time travel but I would be nervous about the final exam.

I'd post it, but I don't feel comfortable sharing someone else's intellectual property without permission. The course has three readings. The first one is the professor's collection of materials he titled The Philosophy of Time Travel : A Reader (still in draft form; an anthology of articles and science fiction short stories), Robin Le Poidevin, Travels in Fourth Dimensions: The Enigmas of Space and Time (Oxford UP, 2003), and John Carroll's time travel website: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~carroll/time_tr...

Dan wrote: "To say that H.G. Wells is more science fiction-like than Shelley strikes me as a somewhat odd argument to make as well..."

OK, I'll bite. I have never argued against Shelley as an SF writer. I would just place her work on the periphery. The philosophy and atmosphere in Frankenstein have more in common with, for example, Dracula or The Picture of Dorian Gray than they do with Dune.

Wells was pursuing a social agenda, true, but (unlike some puppies) that does not contradict my definition of sci fi. Wells' books, especially War of the Worlds, are much more focused on the outcome of scientific ideas. They would make less sense if you said, "because magic," whereas Viktor Frankenstein could easily have been changed to an alchemist without impacting the bulk of the book.

If there is a spectrum with Flowers for Algernon being barely Sci Fi and A Fire Upon the Deep being total Sci Fi, I would put Shelley close to Algernon and Wells right on top on Vinge.

Thanks for the link, which is all I really needed. One series I read years go had an answer to the question of can you visit youself. The answer was no, not without at least one version being utterly destroyed. In fact I think two versions of the same person couldn't exist at the same time period, no matter where they were.

I've always found D. C. Fontana's (another woman science fiction author using her initials) version of time travel likelier (not to mention more fun to read and write about): http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Ye...

In fact, because I saw this Star Trek episode in my childhood, its premise formed part of my set of assumptions about time travel, including that one was unlikely to recognize the different version of oneself upon encounter. What was the series you read years ago that destroyed the other version of self?

Strange how H. G. never addressed this issue in his The Time Machine. The traveler's first jump was a short one back into the past, wasn't it? How did he NOT meet himself?

The series was Agent of T.E.R.R.A. by Larry Maddock. It was one of the rules that you couldn't have two versions of oneself existing at the same time. There were four books in the series but I haven't read the fourth one. More of the books that didn't make it out here when I moved from Ontario.

"mark wrote: "the rest of the time, science is discussed as a philosophy..."

Dan wrote:
Mark, you may disparage science as philosophy,..."

I was not actually disparaging science as philosophy. I'm perplexed as to how you reached that conclusion.

I actually took a science fiction literature course in my freshman year of college. I really enjoyed it, except the name dropping by the professor... "as my friend, the great Brian W. Aldiss, say..." That got so annoying I became prejudiced against Aldiss and have to this date never read one of his books.

I started but couldn't finish Hothouse, but that was decades ago. quite enjoyed The Malacia Tapestry. recently bought Non-Stop and am excited to read it.

Your professor must have been British. Aldiss almost never gets (or ever got) a mention on this side of the pond.

Kirsten *Dogs Welcome - People Tolerated" wrote: "I actually took a science fiction literature course in my freshman year of college. I really enjoyed it, except the name dropping by the professor... "as my friend, the great [author:Brian W. Aldis..."
The college I went to at the University of Toronto had a professor who offered a half-year course on SF. Only problem was it wasn't open to first years and he went on sabbatical for my second year and then didn't offer it when he came back until after I graduated.
And yes name-dropping can be a bit annoying depending on why it is being dropped. Someone I know in another group does it but he is always telling a great story or telling us how he happened to see something to do with baseball. That type I have no problem with. It's the type that is done to impress people that bothers me.

Was HG Wells the first to think of the atom bomb?

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-3336...

Kirsten *Dogs Welcome - People Tolerated" wrote: "Was HG Wells the first to think of the atom bomb?

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-3336..."

I take it you also just watched the PBS rerun called "Uranium: Twisting the Tail".

I don't know if H. G. Wells originated the idea of an atomic bomb first himself. I believe he read the science journals and books of his day and the notion was already present in them, even if not stated quite so starkly. I found the notion of an atomic bomb or at least the release of a great deal of explosive energy, for example, on page 34 of this highly interesting 1904 work, Radio-activity by Frederick Soddy: https://archive.org/stream/radioactiv...

For the first time I am reading a Wells book, I am reading The Time Machine.

Just thinking. I use to have a collection of H. G. Well's works. It included two novels and a bunch of short stories. I never got around to reading the novels, can't even remember which ones they were, but I read all the short fiction. I enjoyed those quite a bit.

Wow! Someone actually talked about H.G. Wells in this discussion! I thought it might be only about Frankenstein and Dracula!

For myself, Wells is more entertaining than Verne, and I like watching his progression from optimism to pessimism as the years went by. At first he thought Science and Progress could lead to world peace with a one-world government. Then WWI happened.

One of H. G. Wells many books is Crux Ansata: An Indictment of the Roman Catholic Church. I had that one when I was living in Ontario but a friend of mine, who was a real Wells fan took it off my hands when I was figuring out what to bring the British Columbia with me.