4 ms·
What i found most insightful is the "monotous death" he says SF is at risk of settling into. All the brilliant SF's reputation is overshadowed by the pulp works
by proemeth 17y ago
What i found most insightful is the "monotous death" he says SF is at risk of settling into. All the brilliant SF's reputation is overshadowed by the pulp works with tasteless covers, and people tend to think of SF as children's books, not serious (if you compare it to "classic" litterature). We need more works like Bradbury's, that are in themselves brilliant litterature (look at the prose in Fahrenheit 451!) as well as SF.
- JoeAltmaier 17y agoScience fiction is different than regular fiction, in that it has (surprise) science in it. Ray Bradbury is far from real science fiction.
- tsally 17y agoThis isn't correct. Science fiction routinely has elements that violate the laws of physics and nature as we know them today. Having actual science is in most cases a disqualifier (there is some SF that sticks to science, but that's hardly the norm). If your imagination is required for the work to make sense, it's probably not science.
- nihilocrat 17y agoIf I had a dime for every science fiction story with super-realistic spaceflight yet also with completely unexplained "ansible" technology that allows instantaneous communication with anyone in the universe....
- ericd 17y agoAnd good on Enders Game for trying to fill it in with ansible tech.
- proemeth 17y agoThe Martian Chronicles is SF, maybe not Hard SF, but SF. That's where the limit between SF and fantastic is blury, but in that regard Dick is sometimes more fantasy, or not so science (consider Time Out of Joint for instance, probable inspiration for the Truman Show).
- eru 17y agoDick said something like his works could be called "paranoid fiction". (With some parallels to Lovecraft's works.)
- dhyasama 17y agoPerhaps I'm splitting semantic hairs, but what is "regular" fiction? Science fiction is a subset of fiction, but it is fiction nonetheless. If a novel is set in 18th Century Europe is it then not "regular" fiction? Is it "only" historical fiction? Only "European" fiction?
- jerf 17y ago"Science fiction books" are a subset of "fiction books". "Fiction" is a radically constrained subset of "science fiction". One of the reasons I enjoy science fiction so much is that in the hands of a master, it has much more possibility to be truly powerful and good literature than the genres that limit themselves. Like any other ingredient, it can either make the dish or ruin it, but the ingredient should not be judged by the ruined dishes people make with it. (Example: I recommend A Deepness in the Sky for an interesting literary treatment on slavery that goes well beyond "Slavery is bad, mm'kay?" and with relevance well beyond the usual historical issues. Try it in non-sci-fi and it would either fail or be silly.)
- tsally 17y agoI've found the success of a work Science Fiction as a work of literature is closely correlated to how far removed it is from present day society. Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World are both fairly close to society today, as far as Science Fiction goes. Richard Powers has had great success writing about things like virtual reality (Plowing the Dark) and artificial intelligence (Galatea 2.2), but his works are even closer to present day than Bradbury or Huxley. The Foundation Series, while not quite on Powers's level, are still incredible books that might just belong in the class of real literature. I don't think it will ever get there though because its world isn't coupled closely enough with the one we know.
- MrRage 17y agoVonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five is a sci-fi story that's also considered real literature. It's mostly set in the 20th century. I don't like terms like "real literature". I would say the Foundation series despite its weaknesses is worth reading for anyone who wants to be well rounded in his/her book choices.
- tsally 17y agoI don't like the term "real literature" either. I'm using it colloquially to mean works that have some combination of the following: * Taught by mainstream college professors * Well received by mainstream literary critics * Winner of a notable, mainstream literary award * Will be found on the desk of a character in several movies to indicate the character is of above average intelligence
- MrRage 17y ago> Will be found on the desk of a character in several movies to indicate the character is of above average intelligence I guess that's why I'm hesitant to use term like "real literature". I'm very picky about what I read, that is I tend to stick to books like those you described. On the other hand I don't like to appear that I read those books just so I can name drop or look smart when someone sees my bookshelf.
- 17y ago
- eru 17y agoBradbury isn't my favourite author. I like the pulp-style of Dick much more. Who cares that SF is not deemed `serious' classic literature?
- jacobolus 17y agoI think the previous poster is suggesting that Dick is serious. The “pulp” he's talking about would be stuff like endless Star Trek-like novels full of humanoid aliens, grand good-versus-evil plans to destroy the galaxy thwarted by plucky young protagonists, and uninspired plots, characters, and themes. The classically derided “sci-fi” (“skiffy”), as compared to “real” SF like Dick’s work.
- eru 17y agoOh, ok. But that's more a failure of labelling. Most romantic novels for women are (at least) equally bad (and also printed on pulp). That doesn't devalue the best. Interestingly, I find that Dick tends to borrow from the pulp stuff a lot. He's a pulp writer--but he distills the best out of it.