I think a more important question is "what do you consider modern science fiction". Between Frankenstein and Dune classics such as War of the Worlds, Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 451 and Asimov's Foundation trilogy had already been published and the whole Golden age of science fiction took place before Dune came out, so I'm not exactly sure what genre IronSlayer is referring to here.
I think a more important question is "what do you consider modern science fiction". Between Frankenstein and Dune classics such as War of the Worlds, Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 451 and Asimov's Foundation trilogy had already been published and the whole Golden age of science fiction took place before Dune came out, so I'm not exactly sure what genre IronSlayer is referring to here.
Well, neither "1984" nor "Brave New World" is science fiction, especially the former.
However, you're right; I was massively over-simplifying. Just as important as what you listed are probably Jules Vernes' science fiction works like "Journey to the Center of the Earth" or "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea", too. However, I see "Dune" it as having a greater influence on sci-fi works of the last 40 years than anything else listed above. Virtually no modern science fiction novel resembles "Fahrenheit 451" to any appreciable capacity, even though it's a great book.
But a massive number of modern sci-fi works I've read have a very clear link to "Dune". As such, I consider the most pioneering out of all those writings.
Well, neither "1984" nor "Brave New World" is science fiction, especially the former.
If you seriously think this then you are using some very non-standard definition of science fiction. Both books are clearly science fiction according to almost any widely accepted definition (although science fiction is hard to define). Peter Swirski, who is a prominent figure in sci-fi literature research, has used both of these books as examples of dystopian science fiction in his lectures.
Virtually no modern science fiction novel resembles "Fahrenheit 451" to any appreciable capacity
Is this another oversimplification?
But a massive number of modern sci-fi works I've read have a very clear link to "Dune".
Well, neither "1984" nor "Brave New World" is science fiction, especially the former.
If you seriously think this then you are using some very non-standard definition of science fiction. Both books are clearly science fiction according to almost any widely accepted definition (although science fiction is hard to define). Peter Swirski, who is a prominent figure in sci-fi literature research, has used both of these books as examples of dystopian science fiction in his lectures.
"Brave New World" has a few quasi sci-fi elements but they are mostly irrelevant/tangential to the main point of the work. But "1984" is a science fiction work? Really? Name me a single element of that work that remotely deals with science anything?
"1984" is one of my favorite books of all time, one of the greatest masterpieces of the 20th century, but just because it was writing about the future doesn't automatically make it "sci-fi" in my lexicon.
Kyrismys wrote:
Virtually no modern science fiction novel resembles "Fahrenheit 451" to any appreciable capacity
Is this another oversimplification?
No, why would it be? If you disagree, tell me some works that you felt have been influenced by Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451"?
You can even argue that it's a better book than "Dune", but it wasn't as influential for later writers.
Kyrismys wrote:
In what way, could you elaborate?
In the sense that it introduced a brand-new, strange, foreign world, with a large variety of unique characteristics, races, creatures, and individual characters.
That sounds like it would be true for any number of early sci-fi works, but think about it closely.
Most science fiction books before "Dune" were either connected to Earth and/or human civilization, so they were using an already established world. Or, if it was about exploring some foreign planet then it would typically only focus on a small part of that world. It wouldn't be unique and all-encompassing; it would essentially be "normal humans like us living on another planet...with one or two quirks!" (Murray Leinster's work is a good example)
Compare that to "Dune". However, since the time that "Dune" was published, a lot more writers have written really in-depth stories about completely bizarre, foreign worlds.
Hence, I consider the work an enormous influence on the genre.
"Brave New World" has a few quasi sci-fi elements but they are mostly irrelevant/tangential to the main point of the work. But "1984" is a science fiction work? Really? Name me a single element of that work that remotely deals with science anything?
Actually, dealing with science isn't what makes a novel science fiction. Darko Suvin, who spent most of the 70s trying to define science fiction came up with this definition in 1972 (before he came up with his famous concept of the novum): "science fiction - a literary genre whose necessary and sufficient conditions are the presence and interaction of estrangement and cognition, and whose main formal device is an imaginative framework alternative to the author's empirical environment." Simplifying a bit, he means that anything that takes place in a setting that's different from what we know or new to us, but is still plausible and could exist in a logical universe that obeys the same rules as ours can be regarded as science fiction. It's not a perfect definition and it's a bit outdated (for example Swirski has pointed out that this would make H.G. Wells' The Time Machiine fantasy instead of science fiction because of the proven impossibility of time travel) but I think it's a defintion that most scholars and non-scholars accept. Many other definitions of science fiction also don't make direct references to science.
That being said, at least one scientific invetion in 1984 comes to mind, namely the TVs that everyone had in their homes. It's been over ten years since I've read the book but I seem to remember that the TV was compulsory for everyone, and it acted as a receiver as well as a transmitter that could pick up everything that went on in the house (or room?). It was used by the thought police to monitor everyone around the clock.
Kyrsimys wrote:
Virtually no modern science fiction novel resembles "Fahrenheit 451" to any appreciable capacity
Is this another oversimplification?
No, why would it be? If you disagree, tell me some works that you felt have been influenced by Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451"?
I don't disagree per se. What I mean by oversimplification is that Fahrenheit 451 is such a classic that its effect on literature has been much more fundamental than just inspiring similar novels. All modern novels (and comics, movies etc.) dealing with censorship and especially self-censorship, the degeneration of the human race because of media and television and modern society repeating its mistakes owe Fahrenheit 451 a great deal. Books like Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451 and 1984 have become important symbols even in mainstream societal discussion and have even influenced people who haven't read the books. What I'm trying to get at is that the books have shaped the world in which later sci-fi novels were written. That being said I'm sure there are modern books like F451 out there (just based on the sheer number of books published each year) but no, I haven't read any that could directly be likened to F451.
IronSlayer wrote:
Stuff about Dune
I see your point, especially the part about whole planets and factions being involved. I haven't read enough sci-fi to be able to confirm or refute what you're saying, so I'll take your word for it. Thanks for the explanation.
Personally I have never been at all interested in sci-fi that isn't connected to our contemporary society. For me the allure of sci-fi has always been the "this could actually happen" factor and the investigation of consequences of things that aren't even that implausible. That's what makes it science fiction for me, not the setting or the science.
Well, ultimately, you can define sci-fi however you like. However, under the definition you cited by Suvin "and whose main formal device is an imaginative framework alternative to the author's empirical environment., we are left with the conclusion that the genres of alternative history and even plain old historical fiction are really sci-fi!
After all, I would argue the civilization and society from a foreign land hundreds of years ago is plenty "alternative to the author's empirical environment". So is Robert Graves' "I Cladius" and "Cladius the God" science fiction? Not if you asked most people!
A further problem is that it doesn't make much distinction between fantasy and science fiction. I know you mentioned something about fantasy not being possible in reality as the distinguishing trait, but it's not contained in Suvin's definition.
But even if it were, not only have you shown that "The Time Machine" is supposedly fantasy instead of science fiction, but you've also shown that possibly the most famous science fiction writer ever, Jules Verne, was really a fantasy author!
And you've also shown that the most science fiction work ever, the novel that started the entire genre, "Frankenstein", is fantasy too!
Suffice to say, there seems to be a lot of contradiction and bizarre conclusions derived from such a definition.
Kyrsymis wrote:
That being said, at least one scientific invetion in 1984 comes to mind, namely the TVs that everyone had in their homes. It's been over ten years since I've read the book but I seem to remember that the TV was compulsory for everyone, and it acted as a receiver as well as a transmitter that could pick up everything that went on in the house (or room?). It was used by the thought police to monitor everyone around the clock.
Indeed, you remember correctly, although such technology already existed on a more primitive scale in the 1940s.
It's actually hinted that the Thought Police has a way to read and learn a citizen's thoughts, as they know each citizen's innermost fear. I guess you can loosely claim that's a sci-fi element of sorts, although their technology for doing so is never touched upon.
Still, by that definition, any amount of fiction is "sci-fi", since there is frequently something in a book that one wouldn't ordinarily encounter anywhere in our world.
Kyrsimys wrote:
Personally I have never been at all interested in sci-fi that isn't connected to our contemporary society. For me the allure of sci-fi has always been the "this could actually happen" factor and the investigation of consequences of things that aren't even that implausible. That's what makes it science fiction for me, not the setting or the science.
I tend to agree, but I think "Dune" has that going for it, too.
And anyways, there are far more kernels of thought on our human society and reality in a Terry Pratchett Discworld novel than there were in 90% of the Golden Age of Sci-Fi stories of a futuristic Earth I've encountered.
moozooh wrote:
Isn't the (more or less) recent movie Equilibrium basically a mixture of F451 and 1984?
I meant modern sci-fi books, not movies, but yeah, it's a mixture of the two plots. (Probably more Fahrenheit 451 than anything else) However, if you've haven't seen it, don't be under the appreciation that it's particularly deep or intellectual. It's not. Rather, it's a straightforward action flick that only briefly touches, in the most shallow of manners, on the overarching plots of those two books.
Well, ultimately, you can define sci-fi however you like. However, under the definition you cited by Suvin "and whose main formal device is an imaginative framework alternative to the author's empirical environment., we are left with the conclusion that the genres of alternative history and even plain old historical fiction are really sci-fi!
I believe alternate history is indeed often considered a sub-genre of science fiction. As for historical fiction, I don't really see what would make it science fiction if the story and historical facts are based on reality. The setting isn't imaginative or alternative if such a setting has actually existed. I'm pretty sure that's what Suvin meant, anyway.
A further problem is that it doesn't make much distinction between fantasy and science fiction. I know you mentioned something about fantasy not being possible in reality as the distinguishing trait, but it's not contained in Suvin's definition.
I think the part about cognition is supposed to sort of take that into account. He changed his definition in 1979 to "SF is distinguished by the narrative dominance or hegemony of a fictional "novum" validated by cognitive logic." In this definition the cognitive and logical aspects have been highlighted to distinguish sci-fi from fantasy. But as I said, these definitions have their flaws and according to Swirski no watertight definition has yet been established.
Well, ultimately, you can define sci-fi however you like. However, under the definition you cited by Suvin "and whose main formal device is an imaginative framework alternative to the author's empirical environment., we are left with the conclusion that the genres of alternative history and even plain old historical fiction are really sci-fi!
I believe alternate history is indeed often considered a sub-genre of science fiction. As for historical fiction, I don't really see what would make it science fiction if the story and historical facts are based on reality. The setting isn't imaginative or alternative if such a setting has actually existed. I'm pretty sure that's what Suvin meant, anyway.
According to the definition you cited, the "imaginative framework" only has to be "alternative to the author's empirical environment".
Hence, whether it's based on reality or not is irrelevant. If the author has no first-hand experience with it, it still counts as science fiction, per your definition. Robert Graves, a professor in 20th century Britain writing about Rome 2,000 years ago certainly qualifies.
However, I've never before heard anyone refer to either "I, Claudius" or "Claudius the God" as works of science fiction! Or any similar historical fiction, for that matter.
A further problem is that it doesn't make much distinction between fantasy and science fiction. I know you mentioned something about fantasy not being possible in reality as the distinguishing trait, but it's not contained in Suvin's definition.
I think the part about cognition is supposed to sort of take that into account. He changed his definition in 1979 to "SF is distinguished by the narrative dominance or hegemony of a fictional "novum" validated by cognitive logic." In this definition the cognitive and logical aspects have been highlighted to distinguish sci-fi from fantasy. But as I said, these definitions have their flaws and according to Swirski no watertight definition has yet been established.
I was always under the impression that science fiction had to do with an imagined type or application of science that is central to the book's narrative. Seems like a straightforward definition that works for almost all cases.
Joined: 5/13/2009
Posts: 700
Location: suffern, ny
Just Finished the Maltese Falcon. ITs great. There is a bit of a difference between the book in the movie, but by the time you notice you have already been sucked in.
[19:16] <scrimpy> silly portuguese
[19:16] <scrimpy> it's like spanish, only less cool
Just Finished the Maltese Falcon. ITs great. There is a bit of a difference between the book in the movie, but by the time you notice you have already been sucked in.
Actually, I'm curious about that; did you like the movie?
Joined: 5/13/2009
Posts: 700
Location: suffern, ny
I loved the movie. the book is really good, and the movie is a pretty close adaption. Obviously the book adds more but all in all its still a good novel. its not like many of the typical English detective novels. So be prepared for something different.
[19:16] <scrimpy> silly portuguese
[19:16] <scrimpy> it's like spanish, only less cool
Joined: 8/6/2006
Posts: 784
Location: Connecticut, USA
funnyhair wrote:
I know it has been recommended before, But i would like to add A game of thrones to the list. Its Great And I am loving it!
I flew through the first two books and then crashed hard about halfway through A Storm of Swords... I feel Martin limited each character to a single main problem he or she needs to overcome, and stretched each one's single problem through the whole book. As a direct result, each chapter typically features a character striving towards his or her goal, but inevitably faces a minor or major setback. This got tiresome a little more than halfway through. The only character that still seems fresh is Dany, and she's probably the reason I'll eventually finish reading the books.
I do believe that each character's story will get better, but like I said Martin is dragging their trials on for too long. At least his foreshadowing hints that each character will get more interesting.
Joined: 5/13/2009
Posts: 700
Location: suffern, ny
ElectroSpecter wrote:
funnyhair wrote:
I know it has been recommended before, But i would like to add A game of thrones to the list. Its Great And I am loving it!
I flew through the first two books and then crashed hard about halfway through A Storm of Swords... I feel Martin limited each character to a single main problem he or she needs to overcome, and stretched each one's single problem through the whole book. As a direct result, each chapter typically features a character striving towards his or her goal, but inevitably faces a minor or major setback. This got tiresome a little more than halfway through. The only character that still seems fresh is Dany, and she's probably the reason I'll eventually finish reading the books.
I do believe that each character's story will get better, but like I said Martin is dragging their trials on for too long. At least his foreshadowing hints that each character will get more interesting.
I have heard that 3+4 slow down a bit, but five picks up. There were only supposed to be three books though. It seems Martin could get some more out of the series which is good, because it is a good series
[19:16] <scrimpy> silly portuguese
[19:16] <scrimpy> it's like spanish, only less cool
Joined: 8/6/2006
Posts: 784
Location: Connecticut, USA
It seems I stopped reading at the wrong time. The middle of the book does slow down, but it really picks up after that and has this inertia through to the end. Now I need the fourth book...
Joined: 5/13/2009
Posts: 700
Location: suffern, ny
I just finished ENDER'S SHADOW by Orson Scott Card. I am surprised there are not more reccomendation for the Ender's game series. Ender's shadow is not a sequel but the point of view of another character. It is a goodie.
[19:16] <scrimpy> silly portuguese
[19:16] <scrimpy> it's like spanish, only less cool
Like every other math and science nerd on the planet, I read and loved "Ender's Game" as an adolescent.
However, I was so disappointed in "Speaker for the Dead" that I never even finished it. I've heard good things from a few other friends about "Ender's Shadow", though. Perhaps I will check it out.
