SF/Fantasy : masterworks

[KatG]

Hobbit is busy.

It's rather difficult to come up with one masterwork for sf because that genre didn't start like the fantasy genre did. The fantasy genre sprang like Athena from the head of Zeus from the sf imprints, and sales of Tolkein by sf publishers were what cinched the deal. SF, though, emerged from dozens of pulp magazines publishing all sorts of sf stories, with crossover support from comics and later movies, and coalesced slowly into a genre that then, when the audience seemed to be large enough, moved into novels. Still, Verne and Wells did raise the possibility that a large audience might be interested in tales about imagined realities involving science, not magic. And that may have been the main factor in the formation of pulp sf tales. And Asimov's "Foundation" certainly gave sf a big boost. Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" also had some measurable effects as it became a pop culture hot topic at the time.

 

[Hobbit]

Apologies, Hereford - and thank you for my defense, Kat!

It's a difficult one this. Do we need a definition of a 'masterwork'?

As we've said so often before round here, it can be a bit like selecting types of apples.

Are we after a book that has inspired more recent writers, or something which is (fairly instantly) recognisable by those who don't normally read the stuff? Are we after something which (now) involves what may be seen as genre cliches (but was innovative and groundbreaking), or something which is bursting with new ideas or stylistically different? Something which sums up the genre?

And then take into account a reader's personal preferences and tastes?

Not as easy as it sounds!

I think one of the points is that LotR is (for many reasons) so much prevalent in today's culture that it is part of the present consciousness. Even those who have no interest in it are aware (probably mainly through the radio medium or Jackson's films) of the main plot, some of the characters and archetypes etc etc.

It is a lot harder to do in SF.

Brian Aldiss in Trillion Year Spree puts forward a good case for Shelley's Frankenstein; and we can go back to the Iliad, The Odyssey, etc etc.

Hereford put it so well above. For me to give examples of Sf as I would recognise it today, then HG Wells is way up there. That period of The Time Machine, War of the Worlds, The Invisible Man, The Island of Doctor Moreau is way ahead of most of the time. (Of course there's also Jules Verne, Jack london, Arthur Conan Doyle etc etc), but I would suspect that either The Time Machine or War of the Worlds would be ones that others would recognise without an indepth knowledge of the genre. Then again we could also say the same, for example, for Star Wars.... the book not the film.

More recently, then, Dune and the Foundation Trilogy and probably Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, Clarke's 2001 or Ursula K LeGuin's Left Hand of Darkness are probably the most well known, and often come high up on sf-lover's lists.....

But here I have trouble - I personally love the Foundation books, but are they the authors best? There are faults in them, yet they are still loved. Same with Clarke - 2001 is good but IMO he's done better. Would they be recognised by others who don't normally read the stuff? Probably not.

And what of more recent books? William Gibson's Neuromancer has influenced many (if not most) of sf's recent cyber-output, for example, but to put it as 'one of the best' I would find troublesome. What is best?

There's some thoughts for starter's. I'm going to have to go - but will come back later.

Does that help readdress things, Hereford?

Hobbit

 

[Yobmod]

According to the ever useful google, a masterwork is:

An outstanding work of art or craft.
The greatest work, as of an artist.
Something superlative of its kind.

Nothing to suggest the work has to be appreciated by the populace at large, or that it has to be terribly original or influential. Just that it has to be really good.
I would guess that great books are automatically very influential, but that isn't neccesarily true.
Many other arts (or genres of literature) have masterpeices proclaimed, but i doubt even a large minority would have the smallest idea of what many are about. I've only met one person who has read any Kafka for example - does that mean the Metamorphosis is not a masterwork?

 

[Hereford Eye]

Oh, nuts, Hobbit! You just spoil me. I get used to seeing you put things right and when you can't, it's unsettling.
In the nonce, Katherine the Great filled in nicely before you managed to break loose for a few minutes and Yobmob did a great service by reminding us that every writer has a best work. But, Yob old boy, the question was which masterwork jump started sf. Hobbit answered it better than me.

 

[Hobbit]

LOL.... thanks Yobmob for that. I think we'd got that (or were getting to that!). A point is whether we feel we agree with that definition or not. We don't have to, but it's certainly a good start. And yes, as Hereford was saying I was trying to look at key points/jumpstarts as it were.

With that in mind, I've managed to have a look through a book of SF lists I have from 1982 - very useful to dip in and out of!

According to Locus (1975) (voted by Locus readers) the top 10 genre books of all time were:

1. Dune
2. Childhood's End (Arthur C clarke)
3. The Left Hand of Darkness
4. Stranger in a Strange Land
5. A Canticle for Leibowitz (Walter M miller)
6. The Foundation trilogy
7. The Stars My Destination (Alfred Bester)
8. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (RAH)
9. More Than Human (Theodore Sturgeon)
10. Lord of Light (Roger Zelazny)

(LotR was 15th.)

I've deliberately picked 1975 as it discounts most of today's more well known authors, and means that we're looking at books that have been around a while - possibly a sign of a 'classic'. It's not a bad list though - I think all of these are still in print.

Bearing what we've said above, then 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 would be in my list. Throw in some HG Wells.... but what about more recently?

Anything recently?

Neuromancer I've already mentioned....

An Iain M Banks, perhaps? Certainly been influential in UK SF....

Would we suggest Anne McCaffrey? (trying to stir with a very big stick here... )

Hobbit

 

[Yobmod]

If were considering what is most influential on society as a whole, i would add 1984 and Brave New World to that list.
John Brunners The Sheep Look Up was supposedly very influential on environmentalist types (according to the afterword of my copy), but i wouldn't say it was his best book.

Influence within the genre is a different kettle of fish. I think at least one of the cyberpunk types (probably Neuromancer) would have to be included. I'm not a great fan of it, but its had a big effect, apart from creating its own sub-genre. Most new space opera for example seems to have lots more cyberpunk elements (even if its only an internet type system).

And i would also agree that McCaffrey has been influential on SF (but moreso on fantasy maybe?). Before she started there wasn't much cuddly animal SF that i've seen. And the whole genetically/scientifically produced fantasy creatures thing was new (and interesting for the first few books).

I suppose Ian Banks has been influential in getting space opera back into fashion, but IMO he hasn't really done anything exciting enough to make him stand out.

 

[Rob B]

Ah, the Sound Bite Generation strikes again. Dune as a jump start for science fiction? You must be kidding! You are kidding; aren't you? That's as bad as saying the Science Fiction Channel is a good advertisement science fiction. Where is Hobbit or even the grumpy mod Fitz when they are needed?

Grumpy mod Fitz was ignoring this topic since it is one we always seem to go over. Also the original poster hasn't popped back in to really clarify their weak and broad statement.

Either way, in my Science Fiction Literature class years ago, the earliest works we covered were Shelly's Frankenstein and The Time Machine by H.G. Wells. A lot of the themes and foundations of the writers of the genre would later tackle came up in those novels. Playing god, technology, time travel, a decimated future earth, human evolution, etc.. In know it's probably the easy answer to name these two, but to me, they are logical answers.

Throw in Dune for the epic sweep of the story, and Asimov's Foundation as one of the defining "future histories" and you'll soon realize there is more than one defining "masterwork" in sceince fiction.

As for books in the past 15 years, I'd have to piont to Dan Simmons's Hyperion as a stand out and maybe Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash.

 

[Hereford Eye]

Dear Mr. Hobbit:
Since that survey was performed in 1975, am curious to know if the magazine replicated the feat in the 30 years since.
The list they generated has its earliest entries from Sturgeon (early 50s), Bester (1956) and Miller (1959). Left Hand is the newest from 1969 and Dune next at 1965.
Wonder how they phrased the question.
Dune was a hell of a book but its successors have been less so and tend - for me - to diminish the luster from the original. Maintain a copy of Clarke and RAH and Asimov in my lbrary and need to go get Left Hand of Darkness again. Probably need to read Sturgeon again as well. Never did develop a taste for Zelasny.

 

[Hobbit]

Dear Hereford: That's a good question, to which I must admit I don't know the answer to. These days of course such lists are everywhere.

If anyone can see a more recent example in the Locus Archives, please point it out!

Other minor points: Yeah, I was trying to push it with ol' cuddly-McCaffrey. (Notice the big stick! ) However, the author has always maintained that it is Sf rather than Fantasy, even though there are many (possibly including me!) who see it as more fantasy than sf. But we are quibbling over semantics again.

Fitz - yeah, I love Hyperion - and Endymion, and Ilium (so far). I think I'd include them, they're certainly in my favourites.

Frankenstein has been suggested by many (especially Aldiss, as mentioned above) as a keystone, though whilst I see that, can we claim that it is what the 'non-believer'/ newcomer would see as sf? In that position, I would probably see it as horror, rather than sf (though I do see the sf elements!).

As well as 1984, Brave New World, how about Olaf Stapledon's First and Last Men? Clearly influential - Arthur C Clarke for one! The only thing is I think it's rather hard going.

The tough one for me is Time Machine or War of the Worlds?

Love 'em both!

(And I still like Arthur's idea that 'the best' can be ones that are less well known... any more thoughts on that? )

Hobbit

 

[Hereford Eye]

From personal experience, EE (Doc) Smith hooked me into science fiction with his Lensman series. Must have been all of 10 years old when those books jump-started my half-century plus journey through the field.

 

[KatG]

So basically, we're saying that no, there isn't one work of sf that captures the essence of sf and is the one that everyone thinks of when you mention sf, within and without the fan audience? That sounds about right. If you asked a non-fantasy fan what book they think of when they hear the word fantasy, LOTR is likely to come up. If you ask a non-sf fan what book they think of when they hear the word sf, you're likely to have them say Star Wars. And we clearly can't decide, which seems to me to be a good sign that you couldn't pin it down on one. For all its street cred, and the failed movie and more successful mini-series of it, Dune is relatively unknown to most of the populace, I feel.

But I have to wonder, if you asked the question back in the late 1950's, 1960's, during the Silver Age of sf, before the fantasy genre was created and before LOTR had quite built up its huge cult audience, and when an enormous amount of sf was popping up on television and in movies, would there have been one title instead of ten?

 

[Hereford Eye]

My gut tells me that the answer would have been a magazine, not a novel. For my first introduction to science fiction was reading my brother's copies of Galaxy magazine and then finding Amazing and buying and reading those. With that taste firmly ingrained, the move to paperbacks was easy and natural. If I had to rely on the hard backs in the library, I never would have made it.

 

[Hobbit]

That's a good point. For me in the 1960's, (in the UK), it was novels and story collections from the local and the school library - being almost impossible to get the US magazines where I lived in the UK. Having said that, I did read TV21 evidently from about the age of 3 (that was probably 'looked at the pictures', I think!)

I also think that's a good point made by Kat - surely the fact that we can't choose just one is a good thing? Surely that shows the diverse nature of the genre? Rather than hundreds of Tolkien-variants?

I suspect the answer given in the 1950's, particularly in the US, would've been the Foundation books myself. (Might be worth looking at that Top 10 list again!) However, the story/magazine field was the cutting edge, not the novel - and let's not forget that Foundation is really a set of linked short stories which originally appeared in magazine form. As has already been said above, in the US if you had access to Analog, Amazing Stories and F&SF Magazine, then that was where the new ideas were.

Hobbit

 

[Ravenfire]

Okay, to get my bias out of the way, The Foundation series of books and short stories is one of my all time favorite Sci-Fi series.

Asimov was a very prolific writer, and he had many varied interests, but I think it can be pretty definitively stated that the Foundation books are going to be remembered as his best known books (and in here I'm including his robotic detective novels which Asimov later tied into this series), albeit not by everyone. The trouble is they lack focus and direction. Even Asimov admitted in one of his snippets about the book that they didn't seem to be going anywhere, and he basically had to return to the books later in his life to try to tie them in with the other books he had written, in essence a last inning attempt to tie them all together. It wound up working, but the later books have a much different feel than Foundation and Second Foundation. The Mule character seems out of place when compared with his later characters like Harry Seldon.

Still, I think for scope and breadth, it's got to be a tie between Dune and Foundation for best definitive Sci-Fi work. Perhaps the reason why it seems to be so easy to sum up Tolkien's LoTR as the "definitive" modern work of fantasy is that Science Fiction has a more longer and more prolific history to it, while Fantasy in many ways has always been the younger sibling, always trying to struggle to keep up. IMHO, Robin Hobb is a much more compelling and astounding writer than Tolkien.

Fantasy is much harder to pin down than Sci-Fi, which adds to the mix. Sci-Fi has to involve technology and involve a futuristic society, even though it may take place a "long long time ago in a galazy far far away." Fantasy however, doesn't even have to take place in the past a la Pullman's Dark Materials.

 

[Mugwump]

I think it’s important to approach this question with a good deal of objectivity since it’s all too easy to end up stranded down blind alleys of reasoning.

First we must break it into two parts.

a) What is a “Masterwork”?
b) Has SF produced a Masterwork?

The New Penguin English Dictionary (2001) contains no entry for the word “Masterwork”. Dictionary.com and Merriam Webster online similarly contain no entries for the word. However, both these sites redirect all queries to the definition of “Masterpiece”. In this post I shall assume “Masterpiece” and “Masterwork” are entirely synonymous.

Masterwork noun 1 a work done with extraordinary skill; esp the supreme creation of a type, period or person. 2. a piece of work that qualifies a craftsman as a member of a guild; a test piece.

I think it’s safe to disregard the second definition for the purposes of this discussion. Neither Science Fiction nor Fantasy possesses a guild of “elite” authors dedicated to ensuring the highest standards of excellence within the genre and which only admits new authors who meet strict criteria. An SF author may be voted into the various Halls (note the plurality) of Fame (Hugo, Nebula etc.) by his peers, but no demands are made of him from thereon with respect to quality and he remains “award-winning” regardless of the standard of subsequent work. It could be said that some of the more noteworthy SF magazine editors such as John W. Campbell (Astounding) or David Pringle (Interzone) made noble and ambitious efforts to ensure superior content (Campbell used to vet stories for their “scientific plausibility”), but standards were invariably and understandably flexible in the face of commercial pressures. In truth, there are no standards in Fantasy or Science Fiction other than those applied by the publishers and they are not uniform and almost always linked the perceived marketability of the product.

So we must return to the first definition: A work done with extraordinary skill; esp the supreme creation of a type, period or person.

Again we hit a problem. A skill is a proficiency that is acquired or developed through training or experience. In order to qualify for the genres of Science Fiction or Fantasy (Fiction) an author must, at the very least, convey some creation that does not represent actuality. A historical text can never be Science Fiction. An autobiography can never be Fantasy (regardless of the author’s fantastic embellishments). Of course, Science Fiction and Fantasy are ring-fenced by their own definitions and criteria but these are often vague, contradictory and fiercely disputed. It’s a measure of this confusing situation when a work such as Gene Wolfe’s The Book of the New Sun can be claimed and rejected by critics of both camps. The problems become even more labyrinthine with George Orwell’s 1984 which is celebrated by SF fans to the consternation and incredulity of High Literature adherents who argue, quite reasonably, that Orwell wrote a novel about the horrors of Totalitarianism and Science Fiction was never once in his mind.

It is clear that if we are to progress any further toward an answer we must try to move away from definitions of Science Fiction and Fantasy that are so vague and elusive it’s practically impossible to work toward consensus. The key, I think, lies in the second part of the definition: The supreme creation of a type, period or person.

We can’t do anything with “supreme”, since it is clearly in the eye of the beholder. But “creation of type” is interesting. Type can be switched with “genre” without too much discomfort and whilst “the creation of genre: SF” is devilishly problematic, there is scope for us to drop down into SF sub-genres. Of course, it’s almost impossible to point to any one book and say – this alone created a specific genre (invariably it is the consequence of many works) but we can certainly identify texts that were of paramount importance to the creation of a genre or type.

William Gibson’s Neuromancer with its omnipotent corporations, decaying burghal slums, Machiavellian AIs, retro fashions and lurid, digital vistas, whilst not entirely responsible for the creation of sub-genre Cyberpunk, did most of the spadework.

Ditto H.G. Wells’s The War of the Worlds which is to all intents the prototype Alien Invasion story. And let’s not forget to mention The Invisible Man – Super man (since perverted). John Brunner didn’t exclusively create Environmental SF with Stand on Zanzibar and The Sheep Look Up, but he certainly played a key role.

So, has SF produced a Masterwork?

By my reasoning, all the above (as well as a host of other titles) can be categorised as Science Fiction Masterworks. Their authors helped create paths (sub-genres -> types) for others to work in or across. And if this doesn’t earn the title “supreme work”, I don’t know what can.

As for Kat’s assertion that there is no one work of SF that “captures the essence of SF” – I’m having trouble understanding the reasoning, mainly because the whole argument seems like an exercise in futility. Is there one work that captures the essence of Horror, Crime or Romantic fiction? If I packed a hundred fans of crime novels into a room and asked them whether they thought Raymond Chandler’s The Big Sleep perfectly captures the “essence” of Crime Fiction – would they all agree? Could they even reach consensus about what the “essence” of Crime Fiction is? I doubt it.

Yes, Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings is a prototype Fantasy text, but is the essence of say George R. R. Martin’s Fevre Dream (let us, for the purposes of this discussion, leave aside questions about whether it is Horror fiction or not) captured within it? I’m not so sure.

Also let us not forget that in the period between 1966 and Peter Jackson’s first tentative involvement with The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien was nowhere near as popular as he is today. Granted his books were selling well, but so were Frank Herbert’s. Indeed, during the seventies I recall seeing at least as many copies of Dune on bookshelves as The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings. It’s often easy to forget just how popular Frank Herbert and Dune was in the 60s, 70s and 80s. According to dunenovels.com, 20 million copies of Dune alone have been sold since it was first published, which, whilst less than Rings’ figures, is nothing to cry about. If we journeyed back in Wells’s time machine to 1978, would people be quick to say there is no SF novel that captures the "essence" of SF?

 

[Ravenfire]

Awesome post! I agree with almost everything you said, Mugwump. The trouble with comparing Sci-Fi and Fantasy is that while on a surface level they seem similar, the only similar thing about them is that they present a fictional alternate world requiring stretch of the imagination to reach. I do want to elaborate on a couple of things though.

In truth, there are no standards in Fantasy or Science Fiction other than those applied by the publishers and they are not uniform and almost always linked the perceived marketability of the product.

There are the standards set by the reader as well. When a reader picks up a book of sci-fi, they expect to read about some kind of fantastic notion or idea that doesn't exist in the real world. Ultimately, it's the readers that decide what kind of books publishers will publish, and it's the readers that can either keep a genre locked in a mindset for 20 years or allow it to expand to new reaches. This is why Tolkien's books are so popular - the mass market was ready for a new type of fiction, and his worlds were so well created that Tolkien exploded.

Also let us not forget that in the period between 1966 and Peter Jackson’s first tentative involvement with The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien was nowhere near as popular as he is today. Granted his books were selling well, but so were Frank Herbert’s. Indeed, during the seventies I recall seeing at least as many copies of Dune on bookshelves as The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings. It’s often easy to forget just how popular Frank Herbert and Dune was in the 60s, 70s and 80s. According to dunenovels.com, 20 million copies of Dune alone have been sold since it was first published, which, whilst less than Rings’ figures, is nothing to cry about. If we journeyed back in Wells’s time machine to 1978, would people be quick to say there is no SF novel that captures the "essence" of SF?

Perhaps you've achieved our goal with that paragraph. The term "Masterwork" is elusive and arguable. While I'm sure Tolkien has his detractors as well, they are often drowned out by cheers for his work, and the question is why? Well for one, he was the first British/U.S. fantasy author to be put into mass market. It's no coincidence that he appears on the scene after WW1 with "The Hobbit(1937)." The marriage of mass media and superstars was just beginning. Books were easier than ever to put into the hands of anyone that wanted them, and his iconic text, which promised easy escape and firm definitions of good and evil, were appealing to a huge section of the english speaking world.

Also, while the movies have certainly brought a new interest in "Lord of the Rings," LoTR was long considered the defining book of fantasy before the movies came out. Now that they have been produced, however, all they have done is solidified even more their position at the top of the Fantasy genre. Maybe that's what Dune needs - Peter Jackson to direct movies based on Herbert's masterpiece.

So when searching for the "defining work of science fiction" and using Tolkien's work as basis for that definition, you have to look for broad-based appeal too. Fantasy is easy - swords & sorcery, a defined set of races (elves, orcs, trolls), a medevil-type society. Sci-fi is much harder to lump in because it has so many more venues to draw from. You have cyberpunk, as mentioned so well above, space opera, alternate-reality (Turtledove), and many many different other genres. Picking one book or series of book to hold the "spirit" of all those genres and have mass appeal is a almost impossible task. That's why Dune works so well to fit in that niche, albeit it is not a perfect fit. Perhaps the reason why we don't have one "defining work of Science Fiction" is that it hasn't been written yet because you don't have to debate over whether something is the greatest masterpiece of all time or not, it simply is accepted.

 

[Mugwump]

So when searching for the "defining work of science fiction" and using Tolkien's work as basis for that definition, you have to look for broad-based appeal too. Fantasy is easy - swords & sorcery, a defined set of races (elves, orcs, trolls), a medevil-type society.

But Fantasy isn’t that easy to define. There are plenty of branches of Fantasy (supporting works such as Alice in Wonderland, Gulliver’s Travels, Fevre Dream, His Dark Materials, Dark Tower etc.) that have little in common with, and/or were not prototyped by, The Lord of the Rings.

Re-applying some of the reasoning in this thread, one could argue that Philip K. Dick’s disturbingly paranoid Ubik captures the true essence of SF despite the fact it sits next to, say … Rendezvous With Rama like a cat sits next to a chimpanzee.

The truth is it is foolish to put forward any work of SF or Fantasy and claim it is representative of the entire genre, whose component elements are manifold and stupendously diverse. Drop a level to the various sub-genres (Cyberpunk, Mannerpunk, Alien Invasion, Contemporary Fantasy, Space Opera, Sword and Sorcery etc.) and one has a chance, but even then one leaves oneself wide open to accusations of hypocrisy and contradiction.

 

[KatG]

I didn't say that there wasn't a book that contained the essence of SF, I said I couldn't think of any that seemed to, which is a different thing.

Masterwork can be said to be synonymous with masterpiece, but because it will be impossible for us to agree on what constitutes a masterpiece, I was going on the comparison to LOTR in reference to genre fantasy that was made by the original poster -- a work from which the genre followed and which had become synonymous with the genre and the first or main thing people thought of when you brought up the genre (regardless of actual, subjective "quality" or "skill." And there doesn't seem to be, though I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary, an sf work, either before or after the formation of the official genre by the sf magazines, that has that position.

That Tolkein's LOTR has that position in regards to genre fantasy -- and only genre fantasy, not all fantasy fiction ever published -- was largely a matter of serendipity. If LOTR had not been embraced by sf fans, it is likely that the fantasy genre would still have been created in a few years by sf publishers anyway, as many sf writers were writing fantasy stories under the guise of sf and many children's writers of fantasy were pulling in adult audiences. As it happened, the market for Tolkein was present, sf publishers exploited it and then carried forward, turning Tolkein accidentally into the grandfather of genre fantasy. SF did not develop that way. Now, with the movies of LOTR doing what they did, it is indeed the first work most people think of when they think of fantasy fiction.

SF and fantasy tell stories of imagined realities. In SF, the reality is science-based, the explanation or rationale for the reality comes from science, however slight. In fantasy, the explanation or rationale for the reality comes from magic, the supernatural or is not provided at all. Each "genre" has sub-genres -- loosely defined types of stories that have established fan markets. There are also many works that are technically sf or fantasy, but are published by non-genre publishers for a non-genre audience and so are seen as outside works.

Genre fantasy has a number of sub-genres that are different from the epic fantasy sub-genre, those stories which are similar to Tolkein's work and to ancient legends and fairy tales set in a pre-industrial settings. But Tolkein's LOTR was the flagship that helped launch everything, and the book that non-fans know is important to genre fans. If we absolutely had to pin down an SF title that had anywhere near the same position, I'd probably go with Arthur C. Clarke's "2001" which was a screenplay and hit movie first, then a novel. A lot of non-fans know that one, though I haven't taken a poll on it. Other than that, when you say science fiction, I'm guessing non-fans think Star Wars or Star Trek.

And George R.R. Martin's "Fevre Dream" is sf horror, not fantasy. He has a science rationale for the reality of the story. Horror is our weird cousin, in that it is made up of stories meant to horrify, which can and often do contain fantasy imagined realities, or may use sf imagined realities, or simply scary real realities (rabid dogs, psychokillers and the like.)

 

[Mugwump]

I didn't say that there wasn't a book that contained the essence of SF, I said I couldn't think of any that seemed to, which is a different thing.

Masterwork can be said to be synonymous with masterpiece, but because it will be impossible for us to agree on what constitutes a masterpiece, I was going on the comparison to LOTR in reference to genre fantasy that was made by the original poster -- a work from which the genre followed and which had become synonymous with the genre and the first or main thing people thought of when you brought up the genre (regardless of actual, subjective "quality" or "skill." And there doesn't seem to be, though I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary, an sf work, either before or after the formation of the official genre by the sf magazines, that has that position.

I think it would be very hard to argue Neuromancer isn't to Cyberpunk (or perhaps even Modern SF) what LOTR is to Modern Fantasy.

 

[Pothealer]

Well, I don't know if you want to consider them masterworks, but H.P. Lovecraft was, I think, extremely influential to sci-fi writers. His idea that aliens had powers far beyond the physical realm was vastly different from Wells and Verne. The latter wrote about real sciencey stuff, but Lovecraft took the genre in an entirely different direction, one that most would consider horror. But, it's about aliens, so it isn't.

I think that every time you see a telepath on Star Trek, every time you see a sentinel in the Matrix, when you see any zombie film (and remember, most of those are actually sci-fi, too), every time you read a book where aliens talk to people in dreams, you can thank Lovecraft. You can also give him a big hug for making sci-fi about something entirely different from any science. Would Star Wars be the same if we had lengthy explanation of how a hyperdrive worked? You can thank Lovecraft for that, too. You can even see his influence in the Dune series.