Re: Turning away from hard SF
Stuart Houghton
@odak26.prod.google.com:
> [repost from rec.arts.sf.written]
>
> Is it just me, or is the last generation of hard SF writers subtly
> distancing itself from hard SF in favour of techno-thrillers, or even
> giving up on the science bit altogether?
>
> The case for the prosecution:
<snippety-snip>
The only thing that will make a publisher stick religiously to genre
conventions is the thought that it may be more profitable to do so.
Publishers want to sell books, not fly the Hard SF (or Horror, or Alt-
history or anything else) flag.
>
> Michael Marshall Smith dropped his last name and became a crime
> thriller writer.
I don't think he has 'become' a crime/thriller writer - he just wanted to
write a thriller and used a transparent pseudonym. I haven't heard any
suggestion that he has now washed his hands of SF.
>
> If it is happening, is it because of publisher pressure to write
> crossover hits? Or is the shift to very near future settings just a
> reaction to the current high rate of technological change, especially
> in computers and telecoms?
Nah - I think it is just 'technothrillers are popular, lets make
technothrillers or things that look like technothrillers enough to get them
off the shelves'
--
Stuart Houghton
blog:http://rippingyarns.blogspot.com/
book reviews:http://asciimonkey.blogspot.com/
David Chapman
> David Brin's Kiln People - marketed in Britain as "Kil'n People"
> (implying *Killing* people) with a thrillerish cover.
From what I hear, the book was retitled for the US market rather than the
UK.
--
Twelve points to ... SLOVENIA!
Christopher B. Wright
book of his I ever read was "The Practice Effect," which was... well,
not hard SF. :)
For my part, I'd be quite happy to see hard SF be taken down a few
notches. Not that I have anything against the books themselves -- I've
enjoyed the stuff I've read -- but in the admittedly small circles
I've been in it seems that there's a bias against those "silly ray gun
stories," and it makes me kind of sad. It seemed that once upon a time
it wasn't considered such a bad thing for a writer of SF to imagine
the impossible -- faster than light travel, biologically impossible
aliens, strange and completely unscientific alien worlds -- and I miss
that. The "why not" factor in those stories are part of the fun.
When I started reading fiction "seriously," I read Science Fiction
almost exclusively -- Asimov, Heinlein, Niven, Pournelle,
Niven/Pournelle, and a lot of authors I can't remember who wrote maybe
one or two books and that was it. I drifted over to fantasy not
because I got turned off by the books I was reading, but because of
the *essays* I'd read by SF writers about writing good SF. One of the
essays I remember was written by Ben Bova (when he was editor of
Analog -- my father had about a billion back issues when I was in high
school). In it, he chastized the "unscientific" SF writers as not
taking their profession seriously. In another he ridiculed the movie
Star Wars as being the worst thing ever to happen to the genre, which
I thought was taking the movie way too damn seriously.
Anyway, for all I know it was never really like that and I just
happened to pick up eight or nine essays in a row from a snobbish
minority that no-one ever listened to... but I felt insulted by the
idea that many of the books I'd read and enjoyed were somehow shameful
to the profession. Better to start reading a genre where you can write
about whatever the hell you want -- from a musician who is
accidentally summoned to a strange magical world (they were looking
for an engineer), to hobbits and rings, to an engineer who is
accidentally summoned to a strange, magical, and very Catholic world
(and eventually summons Maxwell's Demon), to a post-apocalyptic world
where magic reigns and science is slowly being rediscovered, to Harold
Shea. And, er, talking cats, mice, rabbits, and what have you.
I'd find it encouraging if the world of Science Fiction would loosen
up a bit in that direction. Though, as I said, maybe it was never
really that stuffy to begin with.
Christopher B. Wright (wri...@ubersoft.net)
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
Edward Young
Dan Goodman
> [repost from rec.arts.sf.written]
>
> Is it just me, or is the last generation of hard SF writers subtly
> distancing itself from hard SF in favour of techno-thrillers, or even
> giving up on the science bit altogether?
In my opinion, there has been _one_ solid hard SF writer -- that is, one
writer whose work has almost all been hard SF: Hal Clement.
For me, hard sf means 1) the science and technology is reasonably
accurate, or is extrapolation which won't make all experts upchuck; 2)
the story stands or falls on this -- if it turns out that the author had
it all wrong _as of the then-current state of knowledge- the story
doesn't work.
> The case for the prosecution:
>
> Greg Bear's last two books - the thrillerish Vitals, and Dead Lines,
> with its conceit about a phone that can call the dead. Haven't read the
> latter, but the premise sounds like the setup for a high concept action
> movie.
Quick check: The Internet Speculative Fiction Data Base lists Greg as
having written in seven series. I would count only three of those as
hard SF. "Songs of Earth and Power" is fantasy. Star Trek isn't hard by
any reasonable standard, or by most unreasonably loose standards. Man-
Kzin Wars -- Known Space fails the accuracy test; Niven really, really,
really got behavioral biology wrong. The Foundation series is based on
pseudoscience.
--
Dan Goodman
Journal http://dsgood.blogspot.com or
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsgood/
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
R. L.
wrote:
>[repost from rec.arts.sf.written]
>
>Is it just me, or is the last generation of hard SF writers subtly
>distancing itself from hard SF in favour of techno-thrillers, or even
>giving up on the science bit altogether?
/snip examples/
>Now, I'm not necessarily saying this shift is a bad thing. And don't
>ask me to explain how I distinguish hard SF and the technothriller -
>but it's got something to do with a shift to near-future settings and a
>greater emphasis on extrapolating implications of current technology,
>rather than inventing new ones. And maybe taking less knowledge for
>granted in the reader. Has anyone else noticed this, or is it all in my
>mind?
I noticed Niven shifting about the time of OATH OF FEALTY. Dunno what
he's done since, as I stopped reading him then. :-( I think he said he
was getting a lot more money.
R.L.
--
RL at houseboatonthestyx
Shelly
>"Ben Henley" <ben.h...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ccgkj0$po5
>@odak26.prod.google.com:
>
>> [repost from rec.arts.sf.written]
(snip)
>> Michael Marshall Smith dropped his last name and became a crime
>> thriller writer.
>
>I don't think he has 'become' a crime/thriller writer - he just wanted to
>write a thriller and used a transparent pseudonym. I haven't heard any
>suggestion that he has now washed his hands of SF.
>
He wrote about this on his website. When he wrote The Straw Men and it was
published in the UK, another book came out in the US called The Straw Men by
Martin J. Smith (I think I got his name right). So there were listings of The
Straw Men by M. Smith and a lot of people got confused, including me, thinking
M.M. Smith's book was coming out in the US a year before it finally did. So he
ended up deciding to drop the Smith for thrillers due to Martin J. Smith
writing in that genre, and he'd save Michael Marshall Smith for his SF books.
Of course, he wrote The Upright Man sequel to The Straw Men next and I heard a
while back there's a third book planned in the sequence, so I don't know when
he'll get back to SF, but I hope he doesn't take too long. I haven't checked
his website for a while to see if there are updates.
Shelly
http://journals.aol.com/shellys555/CyberChocolate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/prestoimp/
Sea Wasp
> "Ben Henley" <ben.h...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ccgkj0$po5
> @odak26.prod.google.com:
>
>
>>[repost from rec.arts.sf.written]
>>
>>Is it just me, or is the last generation of hard SF writers subtly
>>distancing itself from hard SF in favour of techno-thrillers, or even
>>giving up on the science bit altogether?
>
>
> In my opinion, there has been _one_ solid hard SF writer -- that is, one
> writer whose work has almost all been hard SF: Hal Clement.
>
> For me, hard sf means 1) the science and technology is reasonably
> accurate, or is extrapolation which won't make all experts upchuck; 2)
> the story stands or falls on this -- if it turns out that the author had
> it all wrong _as of the then-current state of knowledge- the story
> doesn't work.
If I go by your 1) criteria, Hal wrote a lot of non-hard SF. Iceworld
and others contain FTL and don't appear to deal with causality issues.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Dan Goodman
> For my part, I'd be quite happy to see hard SF be taken down a few
> notches. Not that I have anything against the books themselves -- I've
> enjoyed the stuff I've read -- but in the admittedly small circles
> I've been in it seems that there's a bias against those "silly ray gun
> stories," and it makes me kind of sad. It seemed that once upon a time
> it wasn't considered such a bad thing for a writer of SF to imagine
> the impossible -- faster than light travel, biologically impossible
> aliens, strange and completely unscientific alien worlds
Ray guns are called lasers now, and I believe they do sometimes turn up
in sf stories.
That aside: hard sf _does_ include faster than light travel. This
merely requires interpreting what is known about physics in a way which
violates common sense, but not the rules. Robert L. Forward, who was a
working physicist, did it in several different ways.
Same with biologically impossible aliens. Hal Clement figured out a way
to have an intelligent virus, and wrote _Needle_.
Poul Anderson came up with scientific explanations for several "strange
and completely unscientific alien worlds."
Hard science isn't a list of "stuff you can't have in your story because
you're a big boy now, and those are for little kids like George Lucas."
Hard science is "If you want that in your story, you'll have to figure
out how to fit it into the rules of science."
Dan Goodman
> Dan Goodman wrote:
>> "Ben Henley" <ben.h...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ccgkj0$po5
>>
>>>Is it just me, or is the last generation of hard SF writers subtly
>>>distancing itself from hard SF in favour of techno-thrillers, or even
>>>giving up on the science bit altogether?
>>
>> In my opinion, there has been _one_ solid hard SF writer -- that is,
>> one writer whose work has almost all been hard SF: Hal Clement.
>>
>> For me, hard sf means 1) the science and technology is reasonably
>> accurate, or is extrapolation which won't make all experts upchuck;
>> 2) the story stands or falls on this -- if it turns out that the
>> author had it all wrong _as of the then-current state of knowledge-
>> the story doesn't work.
>
> If I go by your 1) criteria, Hal wrote a lot of non-hard SF. Iceworld
> and others contain FTL and don't appear to deal with causality issues.
Clement was embarrassed about that, but used FTL because the stories just
wouldn't work without it.
Later, he wrote short stories whose protagonist was a very, very, very
long-lived explorer. I'm not sure whether those stories used FTL.
Charlie Stross
as <ben.h...@gmail.com> declared:
> [repost from rec.arts.sf.written]
>
> Is it just me, or is the last generation of hard SF writers subtly
> distancing itself from hard SF in favour of techno-thrillers, or even
> giving up on the science bit altogether?
...
> Paul McCauley's Whole Wide World and White Devils - near-future
> thrillers.
...
> Note that I'm excluding 'new' writers like Charlie Stross and Cory
> Doctorow here. Don't know how they fit in. Stross is definitely hard SF
> in places, whereas in his recent novels Doctorow seems to be writing
> about the future of about two years hence.
Ahem: I sold my first short story to INTERZONE about twelve months after
Paul McAuley sold his first to that same market. Defining me as a "new"
writer is probably a mistake.
And then there are the counter-examples. Vernor Vinge doesn't seem to
have stopped writing hard SF. Neither has Wil McCarthy -- on the
contrary.
More significantly, the existence of "the last generation of hard SF
writers" strikes me as somewhat questionable. It's not a generational
thing, it's a continuous process by which new authors appear steadily
over time. In the past decade I'd point to Karl Schroeder, Linda Nagata,
Tony Daniel, and Al Reynolds, just off the top of my head.
> If it is happening, is it because of publisher pressure to write
> crossover hits?
I haven't seen any such pressure. To the contrary: publishers seem to be
actively wary of genre-crossing.
> Or is the shift to very near future settings just a
> reaction to the current high rate of technological change, especially
> in computers and telecoms?
That's more plausible as an explanation.
-- Charlie
Ben H
after
>Paul McAuley sold his first to that same market. Defining me as a
"new"
>writer is probably a mistake.
Sorry! I know you've been writing for a long time - hence the scare
quotes around 'new'. But you're new to the novel market, which is where
I'd noticed this trend - I should have said that explicitly.
Actually, I think it might not be so much of a trend at all. I e-mailed
Brin and he confirmed (the next day!) that "Kil'n People" was his
original title. And the Michael Marshall Smith name change was
apparently due to another author called Smith with a similarly-titled
book. I was imagining publisher pressure where there was none.
Still want to know what Egan is up to, though.
Jonathan L Cunningham
>>Ahem: I sold my first short story to INTERZONE about twelve months
>after
>>Paul McAuley sold his first to that same market. Defining me as a
>"new"
>>writer is probably a mistake.
>
>Sorry! I know you've been writing for a long time - hence the scare
>quotes around 'new'. But you're new to the novel market, which is where
>I'd noticed this trend - I should have said that explicitly.
Another "new" SF writer in the UK who writes hard (ish) SF is Liz
Williams (who seems to be on a roll at the moment, although not up
to Strossian proportions).
According to the blurb inside "Empire of Bones" (which sounds like
fantasy, or the Cthulhu mythos, but isn't) she has a PhD in philosophy
of science, so she's probably come across a few of the basic
concepts :-).
I'm not sure if some of the hard-SF afficionadoes would call it
hard, because a lot of SF-ness seems to me to be biology, rather
than physics (and it didn't *entirely* convince me).
Is it still hard SF if some readers are unconvinced?
I've also got "The Ghost Sister" which I haven't read yet (*not*
about ghosts, or sisters, but also hard SF, I believe).
What counts as "hard" anyway?
Definition: when arguing about it is more on-topic in rasf.science
than in rasfc. :-)
Jonathan
--
Use jlc at address, not spam.
The Lords of Cosmic Jest, or my ISP, or both are playing
games: I'd *almost* caught up my rasfc backlog and
now they've replaced the newsserver. This is not nice.
Charlie Stross
> Another "new" SF writer in the UK who writes hard (ish) SF is Liz
> Williams (who seems to be on a roll at the moment, although not up
> to Strossian proportions).
I've read all her books but "The Ghost Sister" (including the
forthcoming "Banner of Souls") and I'd have to say, her own
characterization of what she writes as "Science Fantasy" is quite
accurate. Certainly it ain't hard SF in the Greg Egan/Stephen Baxter
mold!
-- Charlie
Reginald Bautista
"Charlie Stross" <cha...@antipope.org> wrote in message
news:bmb8s1-...@antipope.org...
> I've read all her [Liz Williams'] books but "The Ghost Sister" (including
the
> forthcoming "Banner of Souls") and I'd have to say, her own
> characterization of what she writes as "Science Fantasy" is quite
> accurate. Certainly it ain't hard SF in the Greg Egan/Stephen Baxter
> mold!
Which raises again the question posed by Johnathan Cunningham a couple of
days ago. What exactly is "hard" SF?
Here are some answers I've heard in various places:
1. Hard SF is any SF that only contains current science or plausible
extrapolations of current science. This seems like a pretty restrictive
definition to me. It would exclude the majority of what most people
consider to be SF, including almost all of the stuff written by old-school
SF legends like Clarke, Heinlein, and Asimov.
2. Hard SF is any SF that only contains current science or plausible
extrapolations of current science, with the exception that the author is
allowed one or two things currently considered impossible (FTL travel, for
example, or the "Soul Standing Wave" from Brin's _Kiln People_, or --
arguably -- true AI such as Mike from Heinlein's _The Moon is a Harsh
Mistress_, or an alternate historical event like the Allies losing WWII in
Phillip K. Dick's Hugo winner _The Man in the High Castle_), provided that
this impossible thing is treated in a scientifically plausible and
consistent manner. This definition is the one that I like best, as it
allows for the big "What If" questions that I personally love so much. This
definition, by the way, would include works that many don't think of as hard
SF, like Brin's _The Practice Affect_, which has only two impossible things,
the "zievatron" I think it was called, and the reversal of one of the laws
of thermodynamics, but extrapolates the results of those two things in a
fairly rigorous manner. Some would object to _The Practice Affect_ or
Heinlein's _The Rolling Stones_ being called Hard SF because they don't seem
serious enough somehow, but both would qualify under this definition. This
definition is based on one I heard from Dan Minette on a mailing list called
Brin-L, which nominally is a list for discussions of the works of David Brin
but which in practice is a list where fans of Brin (and other similar
authors like Bear, Benford, Vinge, etc.) discuss everything from politics to
economics to general science to music; in the words of a former list member,
"all is Brin." By this definition of hard SF, any SF that isn't "hard"
would really be "science fantasy" as opposed to "science fiction." "Science
Fantasy" would include Star Wars and -- again arguably, at least for some
incarnations of the show -- Star Trek.
3. Hard SF is any SF that is based around one or more scientific ideas, as
opposed to character-based SF. This seems like a particularly weak
definition to me, but I've certainly heard people argue for it.
These are the three definitions I've heard most often for hard SF, YMMV of
course. I guess the other question this raises is, what is SF? SciFi
channel did a poll last year of favorite Science Fiction characters, and the
top ten vote-getters included three or four characters from the TV show
Buffy the Vampire Slayer. That show has a pretty self-consistent set of
rules for how the supernatural world works. Does dealing with the
supernatural automatically exclude something from being SF (not to mention
hard SF) even if the supernatural is shown as having it's own internally
consistent and perhaps even scientifically rigorous logic? What about comic
books? X-Men is based on the idea that unexpected genetic mutations might
have consequences which are not predictable by current science. X-Men might
be called Science Fantasy (much like Star Wars) by most, but does Science
Fantasy fall under the broader banner of Science Fiction, or is it a
separate entity?
And just looking at the "Science" part of SF, some people only consider
physics stories to be valid SF. Since the sciences in Greg Bear's _Darwin's
Radio_ are biology and anthropology, is _Darwin's Radio_ SF? Since the core
scientific idea from Asimov's Foundation series is a sociological idea, does
that mean the Foundation books aren't Science Fiction? Some people would
actually argue that neither of these books are "true" science fiction
because they either aren't about physics or include impossible physics.
To some extent, this discussion reminds me of the music industry. Is a
given band rock, rap, industrial, metal, grunge, alternative, or what? In a
broader sense, it reminds me of discussions from my classical music training
of exactly what is music? Does the score for Forbidden Planet count as
music, even though it's made up mostly of strange electronic sounds that
don't fall into traditional patterns of melody and harmony? Is John Cage's
4'33", where a pianist sits at the piano for 4 minutes and 33 seconds and
plays nothing, a piece of music? According to Cage, 4'33" is an expression
of an idea from India; "In India they say that music is continuous; it only
stops when we turn away and stop paying attention." (quoted at
http://www.azstarnet.com/~solo/4min33se.htm ) Is the music of Nine Inch
Nails really music, when so much of it is recordings of non-musical sounds
used in a musical environment (the term "industrial" music comes from music
that included recordings or digital samples of industrial machinery, often
to be used as part of the percussion for a piece)?
We very often use terms without having real definitions of those terms, or
with each person having their own definition and assuming that everyone
else's definition must be the same. The original post in this thread asked
if current SF writers are moving away from hard SF and towards
techno-thrillers. Depending on how you define hard SF and how you define
techno-thrillers, it is certainly possible for a story to be both. For me,
SF in general has always been about asking What If. That certainly includes
the idea of exploring the consequences of a scientific discovery or
technology, and if those consequences include elements of a thriller (what
is a thriller again, exactly?) then hard SF can certainly also be a
techno-thriller.
Is _Darwin's Radio_ by Greg Bear a techno-thriller? Some people say so. Is
it hard SF? By definition 2 above, it certainly is. It even arguably fits
under definition 3. Given that he based the idea for the book on
"state-of-the-art biological and anthropological research"
(http://www.randomhouse.com/delrey/promo/bear/description.html ), you could
even argue that it fits definition 1 above of hard SF. Is it a thriller?
Well, it includes conspiracies and people running from "the law," so I guess
so. Does it involve technology? Well, technology is certainly used in the
novel to help figure out exactly what is happening. So is _Darwin's Radio_
both a techno-thriller and hard SF?
I'm not going to tell you yes, and I'm not going to tell you no. Most
people who write and/or perform music prefer to just make the music, create
the art, and let others decide how to categorize it. Science Fiction
writers may have a much more scientific leaning than that, and a big part of
science is separating and categorizing items, "putting things is boxes" as
it were. But there is an artistic side also to being an author of any
kind. Most people would agree that creativity is an essential part of all
art, and the best definition I've seen of a creative person is a person who
looks at the same thing that everyone else has looked at, but sees it
differently, or sees something new. Very often, this means "thinking
outside the box," or not letting categories or preconceived notions get in
the way.
This sense of "newness" is certainly compatible with science fiction. So
the initial question of this thread can be translated, "are science fiction
authors doing new things, things that science fiction authors haven't done
so much in the past?" I think the answer to that question is a definitive
yes. Some people would call that progress.
But is it really progress? Is progress a good thing or a bad thing?
That depends on which science fiction author you ask.
Reggie Bautista
Dan Goodman
> "Charlie Stross" <cha...@antipope.org> wrote in message
>
>> I've read all her [Liz Williams'] books but "The Ghost Sister"
>> (including the
>> forthcoming "Banner of Souls") and I'd have to say, her own
>> characterization of what she writes as "Science Fantasy" is quite
>> accurate. Certainly it ain't hard SF in the Greg Egan/Stephen Baxter
>> mold!
>
> Which raises again the question posed by Johnathan Cunningham a couple
> of days ago. What exactly is "hard" SF?
>
> Here are some answers I've heard in various places:
>
> 1. Hard SF is any SF that only contains current science or plausible
> extrapolations of current science. This seems like a pretty
> restrictive definition to me. It would exclude the majority of what
> most people consider to be SF, including almost all of the stuff
> written by old-school SF legends like Clarke, Heinlein, and Asimov.
I see the situation. I don't see the problem.
"Realistic military sf" would exclude the majority of military sf. "Hard
genetics sf" would exclude a whole lot of sf about genetics; perhaps
almost all.
Sea Wasp
> "Reginald Bautista" <rbau...@kc.rr.com> wrote in
>
>
>>"Charlie Stross" <cha...@antipope.org> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>I've read all her [Liz Williams'] books but "The Ghost Sister"
>>>(including the
>>>forthcoming "Banner of Souls") and I'd have to say, her own
>>>characterization of what she writes as "Science Fantasy" is quite
>>>accurate. Certainly it ain't hard SF in the Greg Egan/Stephen Baxter
>>>mold!
>>
>>Which raises again the question posed by Johnathan Cunningham a couple
>>of days ago. What exactly is "hard" SF?
>>
>>Here are some answers I've heard in various places:
>>
>>1. Hard SF is any SF that only contains current science or plausible
>>extrapolations of current science. This seems like a pretty
>>restrictive definition to me. It would exclude the majority of what
>>most people consider to be SF, including almost all of the stuff
>>written by old-school SF legends like Clarke, Heinlein, and Asimov.
>
>
> I see the situation. I don't see the problem.
I don't see it as a problem as long as the "plausible extrapolation"
bit isn't so restrictive as to basically reduce to "these five stories
written over the past 50 years". The latter means that it's a
virtually meaningless concept.
Dan Goodman
No more than "members of the Trinity" is a meaningless concept in
Christian thought.
All it means is that only those five stories belong in that category.
Just as there are only two sf stories which involve coathangers, and
there once were only a very few stories which involved interstellar
travel.
Sea Wasp
If there were multiple other things in Christian thought to which
"members of the Trinity" would be a reasonable subcategorization, that
might be a reasonable statement. As far as I can see, however, there
are not.
Hard SF has been used as a descriptive term for a subdivision of SF
for years. It would be useless in most of the contexts I've heard it
used if it meant something so rare as to be effectively unknown.
David J. Starr
Charles,
I just finished reading my new Popular Science magazine. They speak
very well of you, while decrying the end of science fiction of the
"hard" category.
David J. Starr
David J. Starr
Charles,
David J. Starr
Charles,
David J. Starr
Charles,
David J. Starr
Charles,
David J. Starr
Charles,
Dan Goodman
> Hard SF has been used as a descriptive term for a subdivision of SF
> for years. It would be useless in most of the contexts I've heard it
> used if it meant something so rare as to be effectively unknown.
Speaking for myself: I need a term for the rare stuff -- the category
which includes _Mission of Gravity_ and a few others.
Just as I need a term for elected officials who can be depended on to
stick to their principles -- though I know of only two such in the United
States.
And a term for life of kinds which don't exist on Earth -- though unless
I've missed the very latest science news, there are no known examples
yet.
It would also be nice to have terms for such other categories as:
SF which makes a reasonable attempt to get the science right, aside from
the properties of handwavium; but the writer doesn't work out the math,
or check reference books.
SF which pretends to get the science right.
SF with the look and feel of one of the above categories.
SF written by authors who are on the political right.
SF with wars and other kinds of killing.
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in news:40F1F318...@wizvax.net:
>
>
>> Hard SF has been used as a descriptive term for a subdivision of SF
>>for years. It would be useless in most of the contexts I've heard it
>>used if it meant something so rare as to be effectively unknown.
>
>
> Speaking for myself: I need a term for the rare stuff -- the category
> which includes _Mission of Gravity_ and a few others.
Didn't _Mission of Gravity_ include FTL as a necessary background
item? I don't recall them implying that getting to and from Mesklin
was a multigenerational task. If so, it wouldn't make the
ultra-restrictive definition. It would make the FAR broader "keeps to
within known science, as best as the writer can manage it, with one
allowed MacGuffin that falls outside of known science" definition.
>
> Just as I need a term for elected officials who can be depended on to
> stick to their principles -- though I know of only two such in the United
> States.
"Honest Politician".
>
> And a term for life of kinds which don't exist on Earth -- though unless
> I've missed the very latest science news, there are no known examples
> yet.
>
"It's LIFE, Jim, but not as we know it..."
Xenobios?
> It would also be nice to have terms for such other categories as:
>
> SF which makes a reasonable attempt to get the science right, aside from
> the properties of handwavium; but the writer doesn't work out the math,
> or check reference books.
>
> SF which pretends to get the science right.
>
> SF with the look and feel of one of the above categories.
Categorizing like this is a matter of subcategories, and the debate
about what goes where could be fierce.
Brian M. Scott
<sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in
<news:40F27152...@wizvax.net> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> Dan Goodman wrote:
[...]
>> Just as I need a term for elected officials who can be depended on to
>> stick to their principles -- though I know of only two such in the United
>> States.
> "Honest Politician".
Traditionally that's just one who *stays* bought.
[...]
Brian
GJ Pfeiffer
<sea...@wizvax.net>> wrote:
> Dan Goodman wrote:
>> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in news:40F1F318...@wizvax.net:
>>
>>
>>> Hard SF has been used as a descriptive term for a subdivision of SF
>>>for years. It would be useless in most of the contexts I've heard it
>>>used if it meant something so rare as to be effectively unknown.
>>
>>
>> Speaking for myself: I need a term for the rare stuff -- the category
>> which includes _Mission of Gravity_ and a few others.
>
> Didn't _Mission of Gravity_ include FTL as a necessary background
> item? I don't recall them implying that getting to and from Mesklin
> was a multigenerational task. If so, it wouldn't make the
> ultra-restrictive definition. It would make the FAR broader "keeps to
> within known science, as best as the writer can manage it, with one
> allowed MacGuffin that falls outside of known science" definition.
>
I recall seeing another definition somewhere in which FTL was
grandfathered in as a genre convention exempt from requirements of
scientific accuracy. Which is more restrictive than the version
allowing *any* single MacGuffin.
--
Glenda [formerly known as GJP and MamaG]
Dan Goodman
> Dan Goodman wrote:
>> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in
>>
>>> Hard SF has been used as a descriptive term for a subdivision of SF
>>>for years. It would be useless in most of the contexts I've heard it
>>>used if it meant something so rare as to be effectively unknown.
>>
>>
>> Speaking for myself: I need a term for the rare stuff -- the
>> category which includes _Mission of Gravity_ and a few others.
>
> Didn't _Mission of Gravity_ include FTL as a necessary background
> item? I don't recall them implying that getting to and from Mesklin
> was a multigenerational task. If so, it wouldn't make the
> ultra-restrictive definition. It would make the FAR broader "keeps to
> within known science, as best as the writer can manage it, with one
> allowed MacGuffin that falls outside of known science" definition.
>
I would put it in the narrower category of "as best the writer _who knew
the relevant science and math_, could manage it."
>>
>> Just as I need a term for elected officials who can be depended on to
>> stick to their principles -- though I know of only two such in the
>> United States.
>
> "Honest Politician".
Also defined as "One who stays bought."
Mary K. Kuhner
Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>Same with biologically impossible aliens. Hal Clement figured out a way
>to have an intelligent virus, and wrote _Needle_.
Nitpick: he's not a virus, he's a colonial bacterium. He has cells
of his own, they're just rather smaller than his host's and very loosely
aggregated. There are some real bacteria which behave roughly like this.
An intelligent virus would be a tall order. I'd think it would have
to be an intelligent host+virus combination. (Which I think has
also been done in SF: maybe a Sector General story? The Terran
doctors cured the hosts of the virus and found that the result was
no longer sentient?)
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Dan Goodman
> Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>>Same with biologically impossible aliens. Hal Clement figured out a
>>way to have an intelligent virus, and wrote _Needle_.
>
> Nitpick: he's not a virus, he's a colonial bacterium. He has cells
> of his own, they're just rather smaller than his host's and very
> loosely aggregated. There are some real bacteria which behave roughly
> like this.
Thanks for the correction.
> An intelligent virus would be a tall order. I'd think it would have
> to be an intelligent host+virus combination. (Which I think has also
> been done in SF: maybe a Sector General story? The Terran doctors
> cured the hosts of the virus and found that the result was no longer
> sentient?)
That does sound familiar.
Pat Bowne
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:9lsym3tzftwd$.3jwlsxf1owat$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:09:01 GMT Sea Wasp
> <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in
> <news:40F27152...@wizvax.net> in
> rec.arts.sf.composition:
>
> Traditionally that's just one who *stays* bought.
>
My dad used to quote a judge who said there was nothing dishonest in his
taking bribes, so long as he didn't let them influence his decisions. I
think the more honest politician is the one who *doesn't* stay bought.
Pat
Suzanne A Blom
Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@kingman.gs.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:ccv05c$de8$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
at the moment.
James Nicoll
had an ET symbiont that merged with the main character early on.
If not, clearly I need to going looking for another Nourse.
I only suggest this because WIlson and Nourse do have some
connections: both have (had for Nourse, since he has died) medical
training (both doctors, I think) and they cowrote an article on
medicare in the 1970s, with Nourse taking the 'If life hands you
lemons, make lemonaide' side and Wilson taking the more Libertarian
"Augh! Augh! Augh!" side.
Interestingly enough, at the time of _Soft_ [Tor, sometime
in the 1980s] Wilson was under the impression his pushing of
Libertarianism was subtle. Which I guess compared to Smith and
Schulman it was.
James Nicoll
--
"The keywords for tonight are Caution and Flammable."
Elvis, _Bubba Ho Tep_
GJ Pfeiffer
<Suzanne A Blom <sue...@execpc.com>> wrote:
Star Surgeon
David J. Starr
Dan Goodman wrote:
>
> > Which raises again the question posed by Johnathan Cunningham a couple
> > of days ago. What exactly is "hard" SF?
> >
> > Here are some answers I've heard in various places:
> >
> > 1. Hard SF is any SF that only contains current science or plausible
> > extrapolations of current science. This seems like a pretty
> > restrictive definition to me. It would exclude the majority of what
> > most people consider to be SF, including almost all of the stuff
> > written by old-school SF legends like Clarke, Heinlein, and Asimov.
>
"The idea as hero". Characters struggle to adapt to, or over come, or
come to terms with, an idea, either new technology, new sociology, new
ethics, new politics. new something. The story centers around the
character's struggle to come to terms with the new idea. The idea
needs to be at a minimum plausible, better is scientifically accurate.
We will ignore the scientific problems involved in FTL or time travel
because we need these gizmo's to make the story work. I see the Tom
Clancy novels as hard SF set in the very near future, just a few years
out, whereas the classics are set a generation or more into the future.
Fantasy really starts with Tolkien. Frodo has a quest, but he is not
struggling with a new technology, sociology or politics, looking for a
way to achieve his goal in a strange new environment. It is a different
kind of story.
David J. Starr
Brian M. Scott
<dst...@theworld.com> wrote in
<news:40F33266...@theworld.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> Fantasy really starts with Tolkien.
George MacDonald, 1824-1905.
William Morris, 1834-1896.
Edward John Moreton Drax Plunkett, 18th Lord Dunsany,
1878-1957.
Eric Rucker Eddison, 1882-1945.
(Helen) Hope Mirrlees, 1887-1978.
[...]
Brian
Alter S. Reiss
I'd add H.P. Lovecraft 1890-1937, and Robert E. Howard, 1906-1936, merely
because I find their styles of fantasy personally appealing, but I realize
that you weren't attempting a comprehensive list.
Brooks Moses
Except that the general assumption for why a bought politician doesn't
stay bought is that it's because he's recieved another offer, not
because he's changing his mind for any reasons of his own initiative.
This is not really an improvement in honesty.
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
Brian M. Scott
<alter...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<news:1jrgnn9hp54ot$.xasdyzbtrxua$.d...@40tude.net> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
>> [...]
>> George MacDonald, 1824-1905.
>> William Morris, 1834-1896.
>> Eric Rucker Eddison, 1882-1945.
>> (Helen) Hope Mirrlees, 1887-1978.
Off the top of my head, in fact (except that I used Google
for the dates), and therefore biassed towards my own tastes.
I thought about Lovecraft; if I'd remembered _The Dream
Quest of Unknown Kadath_, I'd probably have included him. I
didn't think of Howard; I suspect that it didn't occur to me
that he was quite that early. Now that you mention him,
though, it occurs to me that Talbot Mundy probably qualifies
with yet another kind of fantasy (and I *just* realized
where Steve Stirling got 'Athelstan(e) King').
Quite a lot, when you get right down to it.
Brian
Jonathan L Cunningham
I have a "Star Surgeon" which is one of the Sector General novels, but
it's by James White.
And yes, I remember the Sector General story which Mary refers to.
Jonathan
--
Use jlc1 at address, not spam.
Niall Harrison
> Which raises again the question posed by Johnathan Cunningham a couple of
> days ago. What exactly is "hard" SF?
>
> Here are some answers I've heard in various places:
>
> 1. Hard SF is any SF that only contains current science or plausible
> extrapolations of current science. This seems like a pretty restrictive
> definition to me.
It is, but I agree with Dan when he says that it's also the only accurate
definition of 'hard science fiction'.
On the other hand, I also recognise a category called 'hard speculative
fiction,' which I would define as 'stories that are rigorous in
their portrayal of and extrapolation from the central idea of the story.'
'Hard science fiction' is a subset of 'hard speculative fiction', being
that set of stories in which the central idea is grounded in real science.
(Actually, though I do think this is quite a useful category, I mostly
came up with it because I wanted a way of calling Ted Chiang a hard SF
writer. :)
Niall
--
Bring that minute back
We never get so close as when the sunward flight begins.
GJ Pfeiffer
Cunningham <Jonathan L Cunningham <sp...@softluck.plus.com>> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 23:30:00 GMT, GJ Pfeiffer
> <DELETEME....@DELETEME.satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <news:10f666v...@corp.supernews.com>, Suzanne A Blom
>><Suzanne A Blom <sue...@execpc.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@kingman.gs.washington.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:ccv05c$de8$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
[...]
>>>> An intelligent virus would be a tall order. I'd think it would have
>>>> to be an intelligent host+virus combination. (Which I think has
>>>> also been done in SF: maybe a Sector General story? The Terran
>>>> doctors cured the hosts of the virus and found that the result was
>>>> no longer sentient?)
>>>>
>>> I believe you're thinking of an Alan E. Nourse novel whose name escapes me
>>> at the moment.
>>
>>Star Surgeon
>
> I have a "Star Surgeon" which is one of the Sector General novels, but
> it's by James White.
Yes, I have copies of both "Star Surgeon"s; the Nourse and the White.
Both are currently in a box (of course!), but I have had the Nourse book
since the mid-60's. The setting is a small medical spacecraft with two
or three young doctors who travel from planet to planet handling medical
crises the local inhabitants can't cope with. They wear clothing
(collars and cuffs?)with colors signifying their specialty. Red for
surgeons; the others I forget except purple for 'lordly' pathologists.
The protagonist is the classic outsider. I forget whether he is an
offshoot variety of human or nonhuman, but he is the first of his people
to have been accepted in the Medical Service, and faces much prejudice.
His people are traders, who all have symbionts/partners/pets which are
small amorphous creatures. These companions are empathic amplifiers, so
the traders can sense what their customers want and even influence the
customers' preferences. Some of his superiors in the Medical Service
are suspicious of this ability, even though they don't quite know how it
works.
Of course he ends up saving the life of his worst opponent; a doctor who
is afraid that if a nonhuman succeeds as a doctor, humans will lose
their advantage. Aha, now I remember the premise - of all the
space-going species, humanity is the only one with advanced medical
science. In every other area, humans are weaker than some other
species.
At one point the protagonist treats a fatal plague on a not previously
known planet. The problem is after his treatment the survivors lose
their intelligence, and the rest of the population becomes hostile.
That's when he figures out the 'plague' is really intelligent, are newly
arrived on this planet, and this particular host species just can't
tolerate them.
GJ Pfeiffer
Well, OK, I don't remember that it is specifically a *virus*, but I do
remember that part of the plot was failing to isolate it by the usual
methods.
Dan Goodman
To complicate things a bit more, Michael Swanwick uses the term "hard
fantasy" to refer to
fantasy which is more original than most.
So I suppose the fantasy equivalent of "hard science" would have to be
called something like "hard magic."
Jonathan L Cunningham
<DELETEME....@DELETEME.satx.rr.com> wrote:
>In article <news:40f3ba60...@usenet.plus.net>, Jonathan L
>Cunningham <Jonathan L Cunningham <sp...@softluck.plus.com>> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 23:30:00 GMT, GJ Pfeiffer
>> <DELETEME....@DELETEME.satx.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <news:10f666v...@corp.supernews.com>, Suzanne A Blom
>>><Suzanne A Blom <sue...@execpc.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@kingman.gs.washington.edu> wrote in message
>>>> news:ccv05c$de8$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>[...]
>>>>> An intelligent virus would be a tall order. I'd think it would have
>>>>> to be an intelligent host+virus combination. (Which I think has
>>>>> also been done in SF: maybe a Sector General story? The Terran
>>>>> doctors cured the hosts of the virus and found that the result was
>>>>> no longer sentient?)
>>>>>
>>>> I believe you're thinking of an Alan E. Nourse novel whose name escapes me
>>>> at the moment.
>>>
>>>Star Surgeon
>>
>> I have a "Star Surgeon" which is one of the Sector General novels, but
>> it's by James White.
>
>Yes, I have copies of both "Star Surgeon"s; the Nourse and the White.
>
>Both are currently in a box (of course!), but I have had the Nourse book
>since the mid-60's. The setting is a small medical spacecraft with two
>The protagonist is the classic outsider. I forget whether he is an
>offshoot variety of human or nonhuman, but he is the first of his people
>to have been accepted in the Medical Service, and faces much prejudice.
>His people are traders, who all have symbionts/partners/pets which are
Hey! I've *read* that. I wonder when?
>At one point the protagonist treats a fatal plague on a not previously
>known planet. The problem is after his treatment the survivors lose
>their intelligence, and the rest of the population becomes hostile.
>That's when he figures out the 'plague' is really intelligent, are newly
>arrived on this planet, and this particular host species just can't
>tolerate them.
I'm fairly sure the Sector General example I'm thinking of fits Mary's
description better: I could summarise the plot[1], but I can't easily
find it: I have at least six Sector General "novels" -- bought when a
whole bunch of them were going cheap in a "remaindered" shop -- and
they don't have a table of contents even though they are more like
collections of short stories. (Novels, or hexologies(?) with more of
a strong progression make it easier to remember *when* something
happened, and so where to look for it.)
Your plot outline for the Nourse (which I don't remember at all well,
I must have read it a *long* time ago) reminds me of several other
stories/novels too. But not being Langford I'd have to spend hours
searching my bookshelves to remember titles or authors.
Jonathan
[1] The alien has been away from his/its homeworld so long that
it is experiencing a rejuvenation, which the virus symbiont (acting
as a cure-all medic) has never experienced before in its host. Since
it doesn't know what is happening, it panics and keeps its host
unconscious in an effort to stabilise it. When the Sector General
protagonist [checks: Conway] realises what is happening, he starts
inserting *very* slowly a wooden spike into the alien. This is soft
enough that it's possible for the viral symbiont to protect the
patient, by concentrating to resist it, but in so doing it withdraws
itself from the alien's brain, which allows it to recover
consciousness, establish telepathic communication and all ends well.
Or something like that anyway. I suspect some kind of bacterial
symbiont would have been more plausible, but, hey, it's only a story.
GJ Pfeiffer
Cunningham <Jonathan L Cunningham <sp...@softluck.plus.com>> wrote:
["Star Surgeon"]
>
> Your plot outline for the Nourse (which I don't remember at all well,
> I must have read it a *long* time ago) reminds me of several other
> stories/novels too. But not being Langford I'd have to spend hours
> searching my bookshelves to remember titles or authors.
The reason I remember it so well is that it was one of the few books I
actually owned a copy of when I was about 12 or so (I was otherwise
dependent on persuading my mother to take me to the library). I
probably read it 20 times over a couple of years' time.
GJ Pfeiffer
This strikes the "hey, I think I read that" chord with me, but I can't
place it. It doesn't even resonate with me as being a Sector General
story. (Not doubting you; just don't recognize it myself.)
Pat Bowne
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@visi.com> wrote
>
> To complicate things a bit more, Michael Swanwick uses the term "hard
> fantasy" to refer to
> fantasy which is more original than most.
>
Why 'hard'? In either 'hard sf' or 'hard fantasy'?
Pat
Lucy Kemnitzer
wrote:
In the sense of a hard lead pencil -- precise lines?
Lucy Kemnitzer, still
http://www.baymoon.com/~ritaxis
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ritaxismom
Dan Goodman
news:10f8lqn...@corp.supernews.com:
Probably because "hard" goes along with being more solid.
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
>"Pat Bowne" <pbo...@execpc.com> wrote in
>news:10f8lqn...@corp.supernews.com:
>
>> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@visi.com> wrote
>>>
>>> To complicate things a bit more, Michael Swanwick uses the term "hard
>>> fantasy" to refer to fantasy which is more original than most.
>>
>> Why 'hard'? In either 'hard sf' or 'hard fantasy'?
>
>Probably because "hard" goes along with being more solid.
'Algys Budris once remarked that hard science fiction was not a
subgenre but a flavor, the flavor of "toughness." If hard fantasy has
a flavor, then surely that flavor must be "regret."'
Michael Swanwick, "In the tradition..."
'I was not the first person to derive the term "hard fantasy." Will
Shetterly had earlier employed it in an essay to mean, essentially,
"the good stuff," and I believe others had independently come up with
the term as well. [...] By "hard fantasy" what I meant was primary or
source fantasy, as opposed to secondary or derived work.'
Michael Swanwick, "A Tale of Two Essays", the introduction to _The
Postmodern Archipelago_
And I can always ask him...
vlatko
--
http://www.niribanimeso.org/eng/
http://www.michaelswanwick.com/
at htnet, not hinet
David J. Starr
I'm familiar with some of these writers, but I still feel Tolkien is
the first author to write a fantasy with universal appeal to adults.
The writers you mention, plus L. Frank Baum, appealed to children or to
the readers of fairly narrow genre's. Tolkien caught on with everyone,
to the point where by now it is a significant part of the culture. And
Tolkien serves as the inspiration for innumerable wannabee's writing
simple knock offs to this day.
Tolkien offers heroism, strange landscapes, adventure. To read
Tolkien is to participate vicariously in the quest of the ring. It's a
grand adventure, and most of us have enjoyed it. We admire Aragorn and
Faramir's nobility, Frodo and Sam's courage, Gandalf's wisdom. The
scenery is gorgeous. It is a good read.
Contrast this to "The Mote in God's Eye". The entire book centers
around the meeting of the powerful Empire of Man with the alien
civilization of the Moties. Although Kevin Renner and Roderick Blaine
are reasonable well done protagonists, they really exist to show us the
collision between human and alien cultures. Are the moties good or
evil? Can a solution short of interstellar war be arrived at? We read
the book to see the working out of the human-motie conflict. What
clever diplomatic or technological rabbit can be extracted from the hat
to save the day? This backbone idea, how to co exist with an alien
race, is the true hero of the book.
And to me, that is the difference between fantasy and "hard" SF. Both
genre's can produce highly readable books, but they work differently to
get there.
David J. Starr
Richard Horton
wrote:
> I only suggest this because WIlson and Nourse do have some
>connections: both have (had for Nourse, since he has died) medical
>training (both doctors, I think) and they cowrote an article on
>medicare in the 1970s, with Nourse taking the 'If life hands you
>lemons, make lemonaide' side and Wilson taking the more Libertarian
>"Augh! Augh! Augh!" side.
IIRC, this was a special editorial feature at Analog. Not really a
co-written article, but a sort of dual guest editorial, with both
writers asked to write a piece supporting their side of the issue.
And yes, both Nourse and Wilson were/are M.D.'s.
(Nourse's name is apparently pronounced "Nurse", and apparently he
once worked with a nurse named "Docter", leading to amusing stuff like
intercom calls: "Nurse Docter paging Doctor Nourse".)
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
Dan Goodman
>
>>"Pat Bowne" <pbo...@execpc.com> wrote in
>>
>>>>
>>>> To complicate things a bit more, Michael Swanwick uses the term
>>>> "hard fantasy" to refer to fantasy which is more original than
>>>> most.
>>>
>>> Why 'hard'? In either 'hard sf' or 'hard fantasy'?
>>
>>Probably because "hard" goes along with being more solid.
>
> 'Algys Budris once remarked that hard science fiction was not a
> subgenre but a flavor, the flavor of "toughness."
Algis Budrys has said many wise things. This is not one of them, though
it's not as far out of the category as his contention that there's
absolutely no difference between plotting a short story and plotting a
novel.
> If hard fantasy has
> a flavor, then surely that flavor must be "regret."'
>
> Michael Swanwick, "In the tradition..."
>
> 'I was not the first person to derive the term "hard fantasy." Will
> Shetterly had earlier employed it in an essay to mean, essentially,
> "the good stuff,"
Which I don't consider to be a legitimate usage.
> and I believe others had independently come up with
> the term as well. [...] By "hard fantasy" what I meant was primary or
> source fantasy, as opposed to secondary or derived work.'
>
> Michael Swanwick, "A Tale of Two Essays", the introduction to _The
> Postmodern Archipelago_
>
> And I can always ask him...
Okay -- for what I would call "hard fantasy" if the term was available,
I'm going to use "hard magic."
John W. Kennedy
> If you want to squawk at me about these not being novels, I'm going to
> point out that the novel came into existence around 1800
Novels go back to ancient Rome. The novel as we know it is generally
held to have begun with "Pamela" in 1740.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Sweet, was Christ crucified to create this chat?"
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Dan Goodman
> David J. Starr <dst...@theworld.com> onsendan:
>> I'm familiar with some of these writers, but I still feel Tolkien is
>> the first author to write a fantasy with universal appeal to adults.
>
>:Beowulf:. :Gawain and the Green Knight:. :Orlando Furioso:. :The
> Faerie Queene:. :The Divine Comedy: and :Paradise Lost: you can perhaps
> be excused on the grounds of their being serious theology as wrought.
>
>:A Midsummer Night's Dream:. Pretty much _all_ fables, as per Mother
> Goose and the Brothers Grimm.
None of those qualify, because none of them had fantasy elements.
They have elements which _now_ are considered fantasy, yes.
John W. Kennedy
> o...@uniserve.com wrote in news:slrncfbj2...@grithr.uniserve.com:
>
>
>> David J. Starr <dst...@theworld.com> onsendan:
>>
>>>I'm familiar with some of these writers, but I still feel Tolkien is
>>>the first author to write a fantasy with universal appeal to adults.
>>
>>:Beowulf:. :Gawain and the Green Knight:. :Orlando Furioso:. :The
>>Faerie Queene:. :The Divine Comedy: and :Paradise Lost: you can perhaps
>>be excused on the grounds of their being serious theology as wrought.
>>
>>:A Midsummer Night's Dream:. Pretty much _all_ fables, as per Mother
>>Goose and the Brothers Grimm.
>
>
> None of those qualify, because none of them had fantasy elements.
You're definitely wrong on /Orlando Furioso/, and several others are iffy.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The bright critics assembled in this volume will doubtless show, in
their sophisticated and ingenious new ways, that, just as /Pooh/ is
suffused with humanism, our humanism itself, at this late date, has
become full of /Pooh./"
-- Frederick Crews. "Postmodern Pooh", Preface
Brian M. Scott
wrote in <news:Xns9526D63CBC5...@209.98.13.60>
in rec.arts.sf.composition:
>> David J. Starr <dst...@theworld.com> onsendan:
>>> I'm familiar with some of these writers, but I still feel Tolkien is
>>> the first author to write a fantasy with universal appeal to adults.
>>:Beowulf:. :Gawain and the Green Knight:. :Orlando Furioso:. :The
>> Faerie Queene:. :The Divine Comedy: and :Paradise Lost: you can perhaps
>> be excused on the grounds of their being serious theology as wrought.
>>:A Midsummer Night's Dream:. Pretty much _all_ fables, as per Mother
>> Goose and the Brothers Grimm.
> None of those qualify, because none of them had fantasy elements.
> They have elements which _now_ are considered fantasy, yes.
The fantasy elements of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' were so
when it was written. Ditto 'The Faerie Queene', and I think
'Orlando Furioso'. Hard to say with Dante; he certainly
knew that he wasn't giving a literally correct description,
but I've no idea to what extent he thought that something
like what he was describing was possible.
Brian
David Friedman
Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
> o...@uniserve.com wrote in news:slrncfbj2...@grithr.uniserve.com:
>
> > David J. Starr <dst...@theworld.com> onsendan:
> >> I'm familiar with some of these writers, but I still feel Tolkien is
> >> the first author to write a fantasy with universal appeal to adults.
> >
> >:Beowulf:. :Gawain and the Green Knight:. :Orlando Furioso:. :The
> > Faerie Queene:. :The Divine Comedy: and :Paradise Lost: you can perhaps
> > be excused on the grounds of their being serious theology as wrought.
> >
> >:A Midsummer Night's Dream:. Pretty much _all_ fables, as per Mother
> > Goose and the Brothers Grimm.
>
> None of those qualify, because none of them had fantasy elements.
>
> They have elements which _now_ are considered fantasy, yes.
You think Ariosto's contemporaries believed in forests spotted with
magic fountains whose drink made you lose your memory, or fall in love
with the first thing you saw, or hate however you loved the most? People
mounted on flying beasts?
--
Remove NOSPAM to email
Also remove .invalid
www.daviddfriedman.com
Brian M. Scott
<dst...@theworld.com> wrote in
<news:40F5C2BD...@theworld.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> George MacDonald, 1824-1905.
>>>> William Morris, 1834-1896.
>>>> Eric Rucker Eddison, 1882-1945.
>>>> (Helen) Hope Mirrlees, 1887-1978.
But he didn't. Even back in the 60s, when LotR first became
very popular, and even among people who generally liked
sf/f, I knew people who thought that it was poorly done, and
of course there are lots of adults who have no use for
fantasy, period. There are (or have been) people in this
group who have never read it, or who tried and couldn't get
through it, or who read it but didn't like it. I'll buy
'wide popular appeal', but not 'universal appeal', even with
some allowance for hyperbole.
> The writers you mention, plus L. Frank Baum, appealed to children or to
> the readers of fairly narrow genre's.
I don't believe that this is entirely correct. There wasn't
really a genre audience for the ones whom I originally
listed. Neither was there one for two whom I missed, James
Branch Cabell and Thorne Smith, both of whom were
(deservedly) quite popular. Nor was there an established
alternate history genre for Leslie Barringer's outstanding
(but sadly obscure) Neustrian trilogy (_Gerfalcon_, _Joris
of the Rock_, and _Shy Leopardess_).
> Tolkien caught on with everyone,
> to the point where by now it is a significant part of the culture. And
> Tolkien serves as the inspiration for innumerable wannabee's writing
> simple knock offs to this day.
These are very different claims from 'Fantasy really starts
with Tolkien', though.
> Tolkien offers heroism, strange landscapes, adventure.
And he had many predecessors in doing so. One that I don't
think has been mentioned yet is Mallory, and more generally
the Matter of Britain.
> To read
> Tolkien is to participate vicariously in the quest of the ring. It's a
> grand adventure, and most of us have enjoyed it. We admire Aragorn and
> Faramir's nobility, Frodo and Sam's courage, Gandalf's wisdom. The
> scenery is gorgeous. It is a good read.
> Contrast this to "The Mote in God's Eye". The entire book centers
> around the meeting of the powerful Empire of Man with the alien
> civilization of the Moties. Although Kevin Renner and Roderick Blaine
> are reasonable well done protagonists, they really exist to show us the
> collision between human and alien cultures. Are the moties good or
> evil? Can a solution short of interstellar war be arrived at? We read
> the book to see the working out of the human-motie conflict. What
> clever diplomatic or technological rabbit can be extracted from the hat
> to save the day? This backbone idea, how to co exist with an alien
> race, is the true hero of the book.
> And to me, that is the difference between fantasy and "hard" SF. Both
> genre's can produce highly readable books, but they work differently to
> get there.
You seem to be suggesting that in hard sf the people are
*necessarily* subordinated to an idea; I don't buy this for
a moment.
You also seem to be identifying fantasy with one particular
type of fantasy. One of the main attractions of the Lord
Darcy stories, for instance, is finding out what magical
rabbit can be extracted from the hat, or what mundane rabbit
is giving the appearance of being magical. (Not to mention
Niven's own 'The Magic Goes Away'.) Marc Brandel's _The Man
Who Loved Women_ is a modern romp with a bittersweet ending.
I can't even begin to characterize Thomas Burnett Swann's
tales drawing on classical mythology, but they're yet
another kettle of fish. And there are yet other types.
Brian
Dan Goodman
> Dan Goodman wrote:
>
>> o...@uniserve.com wrote in
>>
>>> David J. Starr <dst...@theworld.com> onsendan:
>>>
>>>>I'm familiar with some of these writers, but I still feel Tolkien is
>>>>the first author to write a fantasy with universal appeal to adults.
>>>
>>>:Beowulf:. :Gawain and the Green Knight:. :Orlando Furioso:. :The
>>>Faerie Queene:. :The Divine Comedy: and :Paradise Lost: you can
>>>perhaps be excused on the grounds of their being serious theology as
>>>wrought.
>>>
>>>:A Midsummer Night's Dream:. Pretty much _all_ fables, as per Mother
>>>Goose and the Brothers Grimm.
>>
>> None of those qualify, because none of them had fantasy elements.
>
> You're definitely wrong on /Orlando Furioso/, and several others are
> iffy.
What elements in Orlando Furioso were considered fantasy at the time?
Dan Goodman
> John W. Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> onsendan:
>> Dan Goodman wrote:
>>> o...@uniserve.com wrote in
>>>> David J. Starr <dst...@theworld.com> onsendan:
>>>>>I'm familiar with some of these writers, but I still feel Tolkien
>>>>>is the first author to write a fantasy with universal appeal to
>>>>>adults.
>>>>
>>>>:Beowulf:. :Gawain and the Green Knight:. :Orlando Furioso:. :The
>>>>Faerie Queene:. :The Divine Comedy: and :Paradise Lost: you can
>>>>perhaps be excused on the grounds of their being serious theology as
>>>>wrought.
>>>>
>>>>:A Midsummer Night's Dream:. Pretty much _all_ fables, as per
>>>>:Mother
>>>>Goose and the Brothers Grimm.
>>>
>>> None of those qualify, because none of them had fantasy elements.
>>
>> You're definitely wrong on /Orlando Furioso/, and several others are
>> iffy.
>
> Strange swamp dwelling creatures that speak, and wish to devour men;
> fire breathing dragons; ancient, pervasive magic; swimming seven days
> in the sea, strangling sea-serpents. A giant who can cut off his
> head, put it under his arm, and walk off whistling. I'm not even
> going to _try_ to summarize the fantastical elements in :Orlando
> Furioso:. Magic, giants, the Fair Folk, King Arthur of myth and
> legend, not dark ages sweat and leather; Britomartis, and other
> personified virtues; a quest of massive scope.
>
> What, precisely, do you regard as fantasy elements?
For present purposes, what would have been considered fantasy _at that
time and place_.
> It's not like anyone hearing :Beowulf: expected to ever meet a dragon,
> or any of the get of Grendel.
Readers of William F. Buckley's fiction don't expect to spend a torrid
night with the Queen of England. Most readers of certain "biblically
based" fiction don't expect to meet the Antichrist in person.
Dan Goodman
> On 15 Jul 2004 02:03:52 GMT Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com>
>
>> o...@uniserve.com wrote in
>> news:slrncfbj2...@grithr.uniserve.com:
>
>>> David J. Starr <dst...@theworld.com> onsendan:
>
>>>> I'm familiar with some of these writers, but I still feel Tolkien
>>>> is the first author to write a fantasy with universal appeal to
>>>> adults.
>
>>>:Beowulf:. :Gawain and the Green Knight:. :Orlando Furioso:. :The
>>> Faerie Queene:. :The Divine Comedy: and :Paradise Lost: you can
>>> perhaps be excused on the grounds of their being serious theology as
>>> wrought.
>
>>>:A Midsummer Night's Dream:. Pretty much _all_ fables, as per Mother
>>> Goose and the Brothers Grimm.
>
>> None of those qualify, because none of them had fantasy elements.
>
>> They have elements which _now_ are considered fantasy, yes.
>
> The fantasy elements of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' were so when it
> was written.
Maybe. There were people in the British Isles who believed in fairies
at least as late as the 1930s.
> Ditto 'The Faerie Queene', and I think 'Orlando Furioso'. Hard to say
> with Dante; he certainly knew that he wasn't giving a literally
> correct description, but I've no idea to what extent he thought that
> something like what he was describing was possible.
--
Brian M. Scott
wrote in <news:Xns9527138F47B...@209.98.13.60>
in rec.arts.sf.composition:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
[...]
> Maybe. There were people in the British Isles who believed in fairies
> at least as late as the 1930s.
Hell, there probably are today. The point is that there
were many ca.1600 who recognized Puck's magical antics as
fantastic.
[...]
Brian
Julian Flood
<o...@uniserve.com> wrote
>[no-one] has _ever_ suggested that :The Worm Oroboros: is suitable for
> children.
<distant mutter> they can have my copy if they want. Thin paper, fairly
absorbant. I'm sure they can find a use for it.
JF
Eric Jarvis
> On 15 Jul 2004 06:55:37 GMT Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com>
> wrote in <news:Xns9527138F47B...@209.98.13.60>
> in rec.arts.sf.composition:
>
> > "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Maybe. There were people in the British Isles who believed in fairies
> > at least as late as the 1930s.
>
> Hell, there probably are today. The point is that there
> were many ca.1600 who recognized Puck's magical antics as
> fantastic.
>
Without any doubt one of those was W. Shakespeare Esq.
The Tempest and Dream were clearly written as fantasies. Others amongst
his plays have some fantasy elements in them, but on those two the
fantastic is crucial to the plot structure, and in a very carefully
thought out way. Both plays have a clear delineation of what is supposed
to be seen as realistic and what is supposed to be taken as fantasy.
I have strong sense that in the end this discussion will boil down to
whether or not one accepts a definition of fantasy that is "derived from
or including elements from Tolkien".
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Charlie Stross
as <dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> declared:
>> >:A Midsummer Night's Dream:. Pretty much _all_ fables, as per Mother
>> > Goose and the Brothers Grimm.
>>
>> None of those qualify, because none of them had fantasy elements.
>>
>> They have elements which _now_ are considered fantasy, yes.
>
> You think Ariosto's contemporaries believed in forests spotted with
> magic fountains whose drink made you lose your memory, or fall in love
> with the first thing you saw, or hate however you loved the most? People
> mounted on flying beasts?
Julian Jaynes did. (Or at least he played it for the gallery -- and came
up with a hypothesis to explain it.)
Come to think of it, that gives me an idea for a story (and no, no
bicameral minds need apply ...)
-- Charlie
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
<jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>o...@uniserve.com wrote:
>> If you want to squawk at me about these not being novels, I'm going to
>> point out that the novel came into existence around 1800
>
>Novels go back to ancient Rome. The novel as we know it is generally
>held to have begun with "Pamela" in 1740.
Er, no.
Or possibly in English.
Cervantes's _Don Quixote_ is the first novel in the modern sense.
Before that, you had picaresque novels which were more of fix-ups than
novels.
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
>Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote in
>> On 14 Jul 2004 03:37:28 GMT, Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Pat Bowne" <pbo...@execpc.com> wrote in
>>>
>>>> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@visi.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> To complicate things a bit more, Michael Swanwick uses the term
>>>>> "hard fantasy" to refer to fantasy which is more original than
>>>>> most.
>>>>
>>>> Why 'hard'? In either 'hard sf' or 'hard fantasy'?
>>>
>>>Probably because "hard" goes along with being more solid.
>>
>> 'Algys Budris once remarked that hard science fiction was not a
>> subgenre but a flavor, the flavor of "toughness."
>
>Algis Budrys has said many wise things. This is not one of them, though
>it's not as far out of the category as his contention that there's
>absolutely no difference between plotting a short story and plotting a
>novel.
I think it was more of a rhetorical device on Michael's part than an
intent of serious use.
>> If hard fantasy has
>> a flavor, then surely that flavor must be "regret."'
>>
>> Michael Swanwick, "In the tradition..."
>>
>> 'I was not the first person to derive the term "hard fantasy." Will
>> Shetterly had earlier employed it in an essay to mean, essentially,
>> "the good stuff,"
>
>Which I don't consider to be a legitimate usage.
But which is not at all different from Damon Knight's "SF is what I
point my finger to..." So, for that purpose, it serves.
Although I agree that both of the definitions are too vague to be
really useful.
>> and I believe others had independently come up with
>> the term as well. [...] By "hard fantasy" what I meant was primary or
>> source fantasy, as opposed to secondary or derived work.'
>>
>> Michael Swanwick, "A Tale of Two Essays", the introduction to _The
>> Postmodern Archipelago_
>>
>> And I can always ask him...
>
>Okay -- for what I would call "hard fantasy" if the term was available,
>I'm going to use "hard magic."
The unfortunate thing with both terms is the parallel with "hard
science fiction."
We all know, or "know," that hard SF is SF with firm scientific rules,
FTL flight notwithstanding. After all, it's fiction.
With Hard Fantasy, or Hard Magic, what is hard? Or, what is more
solid? I cannot find anything readily available. Except the quality of
writing. But then, we are back to Shetterly's usage.
There's still something niggling at the back of my mind, though. If
you remember that long-ago discussion on rasfw, about fantasy with
industry - that is, the books where magic was used for mass
production. *That* would imply a set of hard and fast rules.
But there is a small number of such books, AFAIK. Pratchett, in bits
and pieces; Michael's own _Iron Dragon's Daughter_; Pullman, I think;
posibly Williams's _Metropolitan_ and _City on Fire_...
Pat Bowne
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@visi.com> wrote
>
> Maybe. There were people in the British Isles who believed in fairies
> at least as late as the 1930s.
There are still people who believe in fairies. This seems like a criterion
so stringent as to be unusable.
Pat
John W. Kennedy
> What elements in Orlando Furioso were considered fantasy at the time?
The hippogriff is the most obvious.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract,
Man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams. "Bors to Elayne: On the King's Coins"
John W. Kennedy
> Maybe. There were people in the British Isles who believed in fairies
> at least as late as the 1930s.
There are people in the US who believe in fairies to this day. And
that's not even counting the millions who mean "fairies" but say "angels".
Pat Bowne
"Vlatko Juric-Kokic" <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote
>
> The unfortunate thing with both terms is the parallel with "hard
> science fiction."
>
> We all know, or "know," that hard SF is SF with firm scientific rules,
> FTL flight notwithstanding. After all, it's fiction.
>
> With Hard Fantasy, or Hard Magic, what is hard? Or, what is more
> solid? I cannot find anything readily available. Except the quality of
> writing. But then, we are back to Shetterly's usage.
Well, I think there is a difference. One author whose books I rather like
has the habit of setting up a problem and then letting her characters
discover at the last minute that they have the magical talents to solve it,
or having them make contact with a previously uninvolved goddess who heals
them, and so on. I'd call this 'soft' fantasy, because its magic doesn't
seem to follow even its own rules -- but the purpose of the books is
obviously not to work out what can happen in a system of magic, but to
create a fairy-tale feel and allow the reader to enjoy the heroes' winning.
At the opposite end I'd put things like D&D, where you literally need rule
books and the appeal is at least partly the detailed system therein.
Pat
John W. Kennedy
> Or Cavell's :Jurgen:, which was a best seller in its day.
And the first tales of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser long antedate the
publication of "The Lord of the Rings", too.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne
of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts"
-- J. Michael Straczynski. "Babylon 5", "Ceremonies of Light and Dark"
R. L.
<cha...@antipope.org> wrote:
>Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
>as <dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> declared:
>
>>> >:A Midsummer Night's Dream:. Pretty much _all_ fables, as per Mother
>>> > Goose and the Brothers Grimm.
>>>
>>> None of those qualify, because none of them had fantasy elements.
>>>
>>> They have elements which _now_ are considered fantasy, yes.
>>
>> You think Ariosto's contemporaries believed in forests spotted with
>> magic fountains whose drink made you lose your memory, or fall in love
>> with the first thing you saw, or hate however you loved the most? People
>> mounted on flying beasts?
>
>Julian Jaynes did. (Or at least he played it for the gallery -- and came
>up with a hypothesis to explain it.)
I thought Jaynes's shift was supposed to have happened pre-historically.
Would his bi-cameral state have had such a thing as fiction at all?
R.L.
--
RL at houseboatonthestyx
Dan Goodman
> On 15 Jul 2004 06:55:37 GMT Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com>
>
>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>> Maybe. There were people in the British Isles who believed in fairies
>> at least as late as the 1930s.
>
> Hell, there probably are today. The point is that there
> were many ca.1600 who recognized Puck's magical antics as
> fantastic.
What were the percentages among the people Shakespeare was writing for?
Dan Goodman
That's not what Knight said. It was more like "Science fiction is what
we mean when we point to it."
Very definitely _we_ rather than _I_.
So, for that purpose, it serves.
Not really. At least, not if it's possible to say "This is good, but
it's not fantasy." Or if there is anyone who disagrees with Will
Shetterly on which is the good stuff.
> Although I agree that both of the definitions are too vague to be
> really useful.
>
>>> and I believe others had independently come up with
>>> the term as well. [...] By "hard fantasy" what I meant was primary
>>> or source fantasy, as opposed to secondary or derived work.'
>>>
>>> Michael Swanwick, "A Tale of Two Essays", the introduction to _The
>>> Postmodern Archipelago_
>>>
>>> And I can always ask him...
>>
>>Okay -- for what I would call "hard fantasy" if the term was
>>available, I'm going to use "hard magic."
>
> The unfortunate thing with both terms is the parallel with "hard
> science fiction."
>
> We all know, or "know," that hard SF is SF with firm scientific rules,
> FTL flight notwithstanding. After all, it's fiction.
>
> With Hard Fantasy, or Hard Magic, what is hard?
Hard Magic: adherence to the known laws and rules of magic.
Specifically, whatever variety of magic (practiced in our world, either
in the present or in the past) the author uses.
> Or, what is more
> solid? I cannot find anything readily available. Except the quality of
> writing. But then, we are back to Shetterly's usage.
>
> There's still something niggling at the back of my mind, though. If
> you remember that long-ago discussion on rasfw, about fantasy with
> industry - that is, the books where magic was used for mass
> production. *That* would imply a set of hard and fast rules.
>
> But there is a small number of such books, AFAIK. Pratchett, in bits
> and pieces; Michael's own _Iron Dragon's Daughter_; Pullman, I think;
> posibly Williams's _Metropolitan_ and _City on Fire_...
Dan Goodman
> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@visi.com> wrote
Relevant questions: 1) Did the author believe? 2) Did the
readers/audience believe -- at least, a majority of them?
Brian M. Scott
wrote in <news:Xns9527891F98A...@209.98.13.60>
in rec.arts.sf.composition:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On 15 Jul 2004 06:55:37 GMT Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com>
>>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>> Maybe. There were people in the British Isles who believed in fairies
>>> at least as late as the 1930s.
>> Hell, there probably are today. The point is that there
>> were many ca.1600 who recognized Puck's magical antics as
>> fantastic.
> What were the percentages among the people Shakespeare was writing for?
I have no idea how one would go about making a soled
estimate, but my guess would be 'quite substantial'. To be
honest, I'm a bit surprised that this is at all contentious.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<see...@nospams.coms> wrote in
<news:uoedf0ptcsapvql6e...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 13:48:09 +0100, Charlie Stross
> <cha...@antipope.org> wrote:
>>Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
>>as <dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> declared:
[...]
>>> You think Ariosto's contemporaries believed in forests spotted with
>>> magic fountains whose drink made you lose your memory, or fall in love
>>> with the first thing you saw, or hate however you loved the most? People
>>> mounted on flying beasts?
>>Julian Jaynes did. (Or at least he played it for the gallery -- and came
>>up with a hypothesis to explain it.)
> I thought Jaynes's shift was supposed to have happened pre-historically.
Not quite; he put the Sumerians, Old Kingdom Egyptians, and
Mycenaeans before the shift.
> Would his bi-cameral state have had such a thing as fiction at all?
Brian
Brian Henderson
<dst...@theworld.com> wrote:
> I'm familiar with some of these writers, but I still feel Tolkien is
>the first author to write a fantasy with universal appeal to adults.
Tolkien doesn't have universal appeal to adults. Many people, myself
included, enjoyed LOTR when we were kids, but now... simply can't read
it anymore. To be honest, I don't find Tolkien to be all that great
of a writer these days. Fantastic plotter, certainly, but his writing
style leaves me entirely cold.
Richard Horton
<vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:02:00 GMT, "John W. Kennedy"
><jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>o...@uniserve.com wrote:
>>> If you want to squawk at me about these not being novels, I'm going to
>>> point out that the novel came into existence around 1800
>>
>>Novels go back to ancient Rome. The novel as we know it is generally
>>held to have begun with "Pamela" in 1740.
>
>Er, no.
>
>Or possibly in English.
>
>Cervantes's _Don Quixote_ is the first novel in the modern sense.
>Before that, you had picaresque novels which were more of fix-ups than
>novels.
This is all controversial and ends up sounding like arguments about
the definition of science fiction. But John's not wrong, or if
anything just a bit too definite. The novel is at least "often", if
not necessarily "generally", held to begin with _Pamela_. Even in
English there are candidates that predate _Pamela_ -- _Robinson
Crusoe_ perhaps most obviously, but also _Gulliver's Travels_ (and
_Moll Flanders_).
Yes, _Don Quixote_ is often cited as the first "novel in the modern
sense". But it is episodic -- and anyway what to make of Part II? And
what about _The Tale of Genji_?
Any serious critic should cite Don Q and Robinson C and so on, and
then explain why he's choosing _Pamela_ after all ... and I think most
do. (And, to be sure, many go ahead and plump for Don Q -- or earlier
picaresques -- or Genji.) I don't have a dog in this hunt -- _Don
Quixote_ seems a sensible answer to me -- but it's not absurd to stick
with _Pamela_.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
David Friedman
Brian Henderson <BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote:
While it still leaves me in awe.
David Friedman
Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:02:00 GMT, "John W. Kennedy"
> <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >o...@uniserve.com wrote:
> >> If you want to squawk at me about these not being novels, I'm going to
> >> point out that the novel came into existence around 1800
> >
> >Novels go back to ancient Rome. The novel as we know it is generally
> >held to have begun with "Pamela" in 1740.
>
> Er, no.
>
> Or possibly in English.
>
> Cervantes's _Don Quixote_ is the first novel in the modern sense.
> Before that, you had picaresque novels which were more of fix-ups than
> novels.
Why aren't the Icelandic sagas novels? Genji Monogatari?
John W. Kennedy
> Yes, _Don Quixote_ is often cited as the first "novel in the modern
> sense". But it is episodic
...including the technical sense of "episodic", such as the episodes of
Cardenio and The One Who Was Too Curious For His Own Good.
--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.html
John W. Kennedy
> Any serious critic should cite Don Q and Robinson C and so on, and
> then explain why he's choosing _Pamela_ after all ...
(continuing after a late-night dash to two train stations)
As a matter of history, /Pamela/ matters in a way that /Don Quixote/
doesn't. /Don Quixote/ is /sui generis/ -- a great piece of work, far
greater than /Pamela/ in many ways, but ultimately sterile. /Pamela/,
/Clarissa/, and /Sir Charles Grandison/, on the other hand, for all of
Richardson's tendency to be prolix and sententious, trapped the
lightning; no one had managed to capture character in that way since
Shakespeare; no one would do it again until Jane Austen. Fielding
started out by poking fun at Richardson in /Shamela/ and /Joseph
Andrews/, but by /Amelia/ he had, knowingly or not, become Richardson's
disciple. /Sir Charles Grandison/ was Jane Austen's favorite novel.
Immerse yourself in the world of pre-1740 English prose fiction; Aphra
Behn -- and I love Aphra Behn -- makes a good starting point. Then read
/Pamela/. It's like Dorothy stepping through the door into Technicolor.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The bright critics assembled in this volume will doubtless show, in
their sophisticated and ingenious new ways, that, just as /Pooh/ is
suffused with humanism, our humanism itself, at this late date, has
become full of /Pooh./"
-- Frederick Crews. "Postmodern Pooh", Preface
John W. Kennedy
> Why aren't the Icelandic sagas novels?
If all prose narratives were novels, the word "novel" wouldn't exist. I
wouldn't call the Pseudo-Map Cycle a novel, either.
> Genji Monogatari?
I've never been able to get into that one -- it always reads to me like
so much porn with the "good stuff" left out, and I end by putting the
book down only a few chapters in, saying, "When is this so-called 'hero'
going to find something to do with his life besides seducing women he
doesn't even know?" (That's not a criticism, it's a confession;
Murasaki fans who reply to tell me how wonderful "Genji" is are Missing
the Point.)
But as a matter of literary history, I'd say that it probably does count
as a novel, but from an independent cultural stream, neither influenced
by (say) "The Golden Ass" or influencing (say) "Pride and Prejudice",
and therefore not directly pertinent.
--
John W. Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction together; but it is
about as perceptive as classing the works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W.
W. Jacobs together as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"
Zeborah
> Yes, _Don Quixote_ is often cited as the first "novel in the modern
> sense". But it is episodic -- and anyway what to make of Part II? And
> what about _The Tale of Genji_?
If you don't count _Don Quixote_ (which I haven't read so can't argue
for), then you can at least count _La Princesse de Cleves_, which was
published 1678. The closest to episodic it gets (and it's not close) is
when someone tells the protag a story which gives her extra insight into
the moral dilemma she's facing. And that moral dilemma stays the same
throughout the novel: it's a simple love triangle, in which a number of
events (arising from the characters' desires, decisions, and mistakes)
build up on a clear curve of tension to a final confrontation which
validates all that came before.
(John Kennedy talks in other posts about the influence of a novel being
important. I'm fairly sure I could talk about the influence of
_Princesse_, though it'd take a little research first. Without
research, I know that the book was much discussed in its time, and the
question of its authorship was a great debate; the correct author was
indeed guessed at, and she (as well as some of the other contenders in
public opinion) was in a position to be influential -- Rochefoucauld,
who wrote the famous maxims, was her close friend; Mme de Sevigne, very
famous for her wit, was another. There was a lot of literature in the
air.)
I haven't read _Genji_, either, though my impression of what I've read
about it is that it's somewhat episodic in nature itself. There's a few
Chinese novels that I know even less about, however.
Whatever else was the first novel, _Pamela_ wasn't it.
ObTrivia: Richardson started writing _Pamela_ as a cat-vacuuming
project when he was working on a letter-writing guide.
Zeborah
David Friedman
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> David Friedman wrote:
> > Why aren't the Icelandic sagas novels?
>
> If all prose narratives were novels, the word "novel" wouldn't exist. I
> wouldn't call the Pseudo-Map Cycle a novel, either.
What features of a novel are missing from Njalsaga, and Egilsaga, and
Laxdaelasaga but present in Pamela and Don Quijote?
David Goldfarb
Richard Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
[what's the first novel?]
>what about _The Tale of Genji_?
_Genji_ is a fixup. No two ways about it. The author even got tired
of writing about one protagonist partway through, and switched to
writing about another set of characters. (Related ones in the same
world, to be sure.) The only reason I can see that anyone would call
_Genji_ a novel is that they don't have the word "fixup" to use.
--
David Goldfarb <*>|"Anything that can be destroyed by the truth
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | should be."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- P. C. Hodgell, _Seeker's Mask_
Erol K. Bayburt
>
>Why aren't the Icelandic sagas novels? Genji Monogatari?
As first, I read that as an example of an Icelandic saga: "Genji Monogadottir"
--
Erol K. Bayburt
Ero...@aol.com
Lucy Kemnitzer
That's a damned good question. What makes a novel a novel?
But the sagas are definitely not fix-ups: they're not episodic
picaresques: they're not folktales. They've got authorship: they've
got unity, and narrative drive, and dialectic, and the growth of
characters, and central problems, and everything else I can imagine a
novel needing. You can even chart their tension in that strange way
that the other English teachers have been doing lately. You could
chart their theme and motif thingies too.
Lucy Kemnitzer, still
http://www.baymoon.com/~ritaxis
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ritaxismom
Lucy Kemnitzer
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <nUIJc.404$Iz2.1...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> David Friedman wrote:
>> > Why aren't the Icelandic sagas novels?
>>
>> If all prose narratives were novels, the word "novel" wouldn't exist. I
>> wouldn't call the Pseudo-Map Cycle a novel, either.
>
>What features of a novel are missing from Njalsaga, and Egilsaga, and
>Laxdaelasaga but present in Pamela and Don Quijote?
Having been read by the people who talk about what a novel is?
I can't honestly think of anything else.
Tim S
wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:02:00 GMT, "John W. Kennedy"
> <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> o...@uniserve.com wrote:
>>> If you want to squawk at me about these not being novels, I'm going to
>>> point out that the novel came into existence around 1800
>>
>> Novels go back to ancient Rome. The novel as we know it is generally
>> held to have begun with "Pamela" in 1740.
>
> Er, no.
>
> Or possibly in English.
>
> Cervantes's _Don Quixote_ is the first novel in the modern sense.
> Before that, you had picaresque novels which were more of fix-ups than
> novels.
But _Don Quixote_ is kind of the archetypal picaresque novel...
Tim
Lucy Kemnitzer
No, the difference between _Don Quixote_ and a picaresque is real,
though it is incremental: the difference has to do with the
consistency and development of the characters, which is over and above
the episodes.
But I didn't get that until this conversation.
John W. Kennedy
> In article <nUIJc.404$Iz2.1...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>David Friedman wrote:
>>
>>>Why aren't the Icelandic sagas novels?
>>
>>If all prose narratives were novels, the word "novel" wouldn't exist. I
>>wouldn't call the Pseudo-Map Cycle a novel, either.
>
>
> What features of a novel are missing from Njalsaga, and Egilsaga, and
> Laxdaelasaga but present in Pamela and Don Quijote?
The characters' "fingerprints".
--
John W. Kennedy
"...if you had to fall in love with someone who was evil, I can see why
it was her."
-- "Alias"