Big SF intellectual screwups

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Is that the one in which a nuclear attack propels the hero into a future where dark skinned people had taken control of the world and made whites slaves? He could have made a statement about race relations, but instead decided to imply that blacks, Indians and Chinese would have made worse masters than white people were, and that they were essentially incapable of running a democratic society.

No, in this one a nuclear blast propels the hero, his negro employee (it was written in the 60s), his wife, his son and his daughter and her friend into an alternate universe. They have to survive off of the land, and immediately the wife and son prove their worthlessness. That's ok, because the daughter and her friend both want to sleep with the dad / hero. Son and mother defect to some aliens who turn up, and are imprisoned, and the son castrated for his efforts.

Dad ends up regretfully (because he wants to sleep with her, not because of race) giving his daughter to his negro employee who has turned out to be quite a man, and settles in with her friend who is 20+ years his junior. A pathetic story which reads like pornography without the sex. Yuck!

[JohnT]

Originally posted by St Leo
One of the more famous SF writers once stated that Sci- Fi after all was not really about science, but about people. Does anyone know which one said this?

One of the bad ones. Duh!

Sci-fi that focuses on characterisations misses the point.

That is why Greg Egan's Diaspora and Larry Niven's Ringworld are better reads than Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars even though Red Mars is just as hardcore.

I think I just heard Faulkner turning over in his grave.... Yup.

"Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only one question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat."

I seriously doubt that he would have enjoyed the direction that literature and all "fictional" arts (cinema, theater, TV shows) have taken in the last 40 years. I really don't know if he was referring to SF when he wrote the "When will I blow up" line, but I'm sure that he'd put it in that genre.

Science Fiction (and the same applies to Fantasy as well, but I'm more of a SF fan) is, sadly, is a victim of its own success. From being a doormat on the arts/media scene back in 1950 (when Faulkner said the above) sf/fantasy is now the dominant theme in book sales, movie tickets, and cable TV. For example, take a look at the following link (scroll down a bit) of the top-grossing movies of all time ( http://www.filmsite.org/boxoffice.html ), and you'll see that 6 of the top 10 are fantasy/sf. If you scroll through the entire list, you'll be hard pressed to find a top-100 movie (non-adjusted) that even remotely meets Faulkners criteria for good fiction (Tootsie? Rain Man?).

And the damning thing is, most people who profess to like the genre wouldn't know good science fiction if they saw it. Starship Troopers was a fun movie, ok, but it sure wasn't science fiction. Change the bugs into Nazis, meteorites into A-bombs, and Doogie and Rico into William Holden and Henry Fonda, and you got yourself a standard run-of-the-mill WW2 flick. That's not sci-fi, regardless of how many starships get destroyed, that's just a re-hashing of a movie plot that was old back when your parents were young.

No, good science fiction (Sorry Mr. Faulkner, but here's where you and I digress a bit) has at it's basis not products of the heart but products of the mind, of rationality. Good science fiction is an extrapolative exercise, fiction based upon the "what-if?". If it is not rational in nature, if the story doesn't stand to reason (ala Starship Troopers the movie), then it cannot be truly classed as sci-fi.

But GREAT science fiction deals with both subjects, the mind and the heart. The aforementioned Hyperion is an example of science fiction that succeeds on both counts, as is Sheri Tepper's Grass, Sagan's Contact (the book, not the movie!), the works of Robert Sawyer, Willis's Doomsday Book and Michael Flynn's Firestar. These are the type of books that will sit on your shelves year after year, being re-read time and again because they are worthy not only intellectually, but emotionally.

In short, characterization counts because the problems of the human heart truly do make for the best stories. Sorry, St. Leo.

[JohnT]

By the way, I think the person who said that sf is about people and not about things is Harlan Ellison, the premiere fantasist of the 50s-70s, and a man who has forgotten more about good writing than any of us will ever learn.

[loinburger]

Was he the author of I Have No Mouth But I Must Scream?

[Ethelred]

Yes. That was Harlan. AKA The Mouth that Roared. He is the Science Fiction equivalent of a celebrity. Yes he wrote some good stuff.

Calling him the best fantasist is a bit over the top. He has a lot of awards though. Catch is from my point of view he didn't write stuff that interests me. I like novels and he only wrote three and those early in his career.

He wrote a lot of screenplays though, many short stories. Like the one for Star Trek. The time travel one with Joan Collins as a pacifist in the 30's.