Trouble with reading older sf works?

[Andols]

Lately I have had a harder time enjoying older works as much as I used to. Am I being spoiled by spending too much time with the new folks? Anyone else have similar problems?

 

[psikeyhackr]

How old is older?

Could you specify the works and why you don't like them anymore or as much?

psik

 

[FitzChivalry]

It might be a cycle, it was for me, there was a time that i lost interest in older SF and read only new stuff. Now though, i find that i enjoy older SF more and more. The same happened with fantasy as well.

 

[owlcroft]

Time passes (which, basically, is its job) . . . .

Science fiction, unlike most fantasy, is prone to becoming dated owing to the science part becoming obsolescent or flat-out obsolete. It is, for example, hard to derive enjoyment from a novel, however perhaps well-done otherwise, that is set on a watery, jungle-like Venus.

In that respect, the sf that is likely to age best is that sf in which the science is not important to the tale, in which it provides a milieu for the characters and action rather than acting as a or the major prop for that action (or, worse, those characters). That is why the sf of, say, Jack Vance ages so wonderful well (or, in a sense, doesn't age at all).

There is also the matter of sheer writerly quality. A lot of writers of the elder days of sf were only passable, but seemed at the time giants in the earth because they strode among dwarfs. Today, even most minor writers have a somewhat better handle on expository prose and natural character, not to speak of the bare essentials of grammar and syntax.

 

[psikeyhackr]

for example, hard to derive enjoyment from a novel, however perhaps well-done otherwise, that is set on a watery, jungle-like Venus....

There is also the matter of sheer writerly quality. A lot of writers of the elder days of sf were only passable, but seemed at the time giants in the earth because they strode among dwarfs. Today, even most minor writers have a somewhat better handle on expository prose and natural character, not to speak of the bare essentials of grammar and syntax.

Now I'm going to have to go back and read Podkayne of Mars. LOL

That Venus business also applies to The Space Merchants but the science isn't what Space Merchants is about. It is about technology used in the advertising industry and ultimately about the economics of the culture.

What is technology currently doing to the economics of our culture and what are we doing to make conscious decisions about that? How many people don't understand enough about technology to figure out if planned obsolescence is actually happening?

http://blog.stayfreemagazine.org/2007/04/are_consumer_pr.html

Just because someone is a good writer doesn't mean they understand what science and technology really do to the culture or do a decent job of projecting the possibilities. I think Mack Reynolds was a lousy writer and Lois M. Bujold is really good. But I like both of their works for somewhat different reasons. I will think about a Reynold's story for longer after reading it than a Bujold story though I may enjoy a Bujold story more while I am reading it.

psik

 

[JunkMonkey]

Science fiction, unlike most fantasy, is prone to becoming dated owing to the science part becoming obsolescent or flat-out obsolete. It is, for example, hard to derive enjoyment from a novel, however perhaps well-done otherwise, that is set on a watery, jungle-like Venus.

Not so. I know England wasn't invaded by Martians in 1898 but that doesn't stop Wells' War of the Worlds being a great read and as far as I can recall there was no totalitarian regime overseeing my every waking minute in 1984 and Orwell's book is still one of the best SF novels.

The one thing SF requires from it's readers, possibly more than any other literary form, is imagination. Surely, when presented with a watery Venus or an ancient civilization on Mars, we have the ability to imagine a universe in which these things could happen.

A lot of writers of the elder days of sf were only passable, but seemed at the time giants in the earth because they strode among dwarfs. Today, even most minor writers have a somewhat better handle on expository prose and natural character, not to speak of the bare essentials of grammar and syntax.

To quote Isaac Newton: "If I have seen farther it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants"

 

[ChuckReina]

Hokey Dokey

Hi, this is my first post on this forum.

Anyway, something that I notices and love about older scifi IS the fact that the science has become dated and absurd. Something about that I find charming. Anyone else get that warm and fuzzy feeling when they read about Martian cites?

 

[owlcroft]

Not so. I know England wasn't invaded by Martians in 1898 but that doesn't stop Wells' War of the Worlds being a great read and as far as I can recall there was no totalitarian regime overseeing my every waking minute in 1984 and Orwell's book is still one of the best SF novels.

I carefully did not say that it is impossible to any longer like such works, or that being historically counter-factual after the facts in question is an insuperable bar. I did say that gross examples of such datedness make it more difficult to savor the work. Note also that the counterexamples you provide are mostly "dated" only in a historical sense, not in a comically extreme scientific sense. We now think life on Mars to be at best microbes, but it does not completely outrage the sensibilities to contemplate an ancient race, perhaps now underground (or whatever workarounds authors have posited); nor is a totalitarian government micro-managing our lives a concept that passing time has rendered implausible (indeed, horribly the reverse).

The one thing SF requires from it's readers, possibly more than any other literary form, is imagination. Surely, when presented with a watery Venus or an ancient civilization on Mars, we have the ability to imagine a universe in which these things could happen.

Of course we do; we just have a pretty hard time imagining it's the one we live in. Again: the bar is not impossibly high, but it's definitely raised when key aspects of the essence of the tale are now risible.

To quote Isaac Newton: "If I have seen farther it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants"

Newton said it, but he was standing on shoulders: John of Salisbury, c. 1150, attributed it to Bernard of Chartres, c. 1100, and not only Newton but Coleridge (and possibly others) used it. (In fact, some consider the remark to have originated in Roman times.)

We are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness of sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size.​

 

[JunkMonkey]

I carefully did not say that it is impossible to any longer like such works, or that being historically counter-factual after the facts in question is an insuperable bar. I did say that gross examples of such datedness make it more difficult to savor the work. Note also that the counterexamples you provide are mostly "dated" only in a historical sense, not in a comically extreme scientific sense. We now think life on Mars to be at best microbes, but it does not completely outrage the sensibilities to contemplate an ancient race, perhaps now underground (or whatever workarounds authors have posited); nor is a totalitarian government micro-managing our lives a concept that passing time has rendered implausible (indeed, horribly the reverse).

I know it's silly* to just throw examples around but The Martian Chronicles by Ray Bradbury is total nonsense by current scientific standards and is one of the most glorious books I know.

What often dates SF books more than the outdated science is the same thing that dates most literature: crappy writing and changing social attitudes. Square-jawed, football-playing, super-scientist playboy heroes with an aged mentors who happen to have helplessly voluptuous daughters lusted after by wily oriental villains add more to the unreadbility levels than any dodgey scientific 'facts' or assumptions that may pop up in the narrative.

Good books endure despite their scientific solecisms. Cavorite is nonsense; The First Men in the Moon is great. The maths behind Verne's giant cannon is far more plausible (to the lay reader) but who reads From the Earth to the Moon these days?




*but fun!

 

[owlcroft]

It seems we agree...

I know it's silly* to just throw examples around but The Martian Chronicles by Ray Bradbury is total nonsense by current scientific standards and is one of the most glorious books I know.

I agree, and take that as validation of my earlier observation:

[T]he sf that is likely to age best is that sf in which the science is not important to the tale, in which it provides a milieu for the characters and action rather than acting as a or the major prop for that action. . . .​

 

[noori noori]

Lately I have had a harder time enjoying older works as much as I used to. Am I being spoiled by spending too much time with the new folks? Anyone else have similar problems?

i have to disagree [for myself..] i love the older SF books. i think maybe something like Dune is showing threadbare, a little. but Niven, Heinlein e.g., [for me..] not !

 

[DDCOrange]

I think that a lot of it depends on the quality of the writing. That's what makes Heinlein so good even if some of his older works are LOL dated in the science department. I know that some purists will disagree but for me is the story and the idea that anything being possible which appeals. There is a lot of freedom in that while other genres tend to box the reader in.

 

[JustaStaffer]

I'm currently reading The Forever War and it was a bit shocking to hear the late 80's being the setting for going to war intergalactically. Other than that I've been super impressed with how well it holds up.

 

[megaphage]

I prefer old SF. If it is well written of course.
Older SF is written from the perspective of the author in his/her time. I have no trouble transporting the whole of my imagined position back to this unique moment in time, the atmosphere, outlook of the era etc.

I relish in imagining this vision of yesterday's tomorrow. It is so much more than nostalgia or amusement at naivety. It doesn't bother me that there wasn't really a nuclear holocaust in 1989, nor that a man in a tweed suit is running around on the moon.

The quality of the literature, combined with a good imagination, should be enough to make it a reality while you are immersed in that individual time and space.

In the same way as regular older fiction, a well written book takes you back to that world and puts you there, makes you understand the characters and what they're experiencing.

 

[Nikita42]

Sometimes reading older works can feel very dated, especially in Sci-fi, but sometimes that's the fun in them. Getting a perspective on what those in the past thought it might be like in the times we live in now. Sometimes it's close, and others, it's very far off.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Some of that old sci-fi was written as a warning and some was just overly optimistic. Years ago I had a conversation with my mother and I asked her, "Does it seem to you that people have gotten more stupid since the 60s?"

Long ago I read Marching Morons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons

Day of the Moron by Henry Beam Piper
http://www.feedbooks.com/book/328/day-of-the-moron

Anything like Fukushima? Build a reactor on the coast where it can be hit by a tsunami.

But now we have this:

BBC Documentary - Stupidity "Full Movie"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDsnCrSfzCQ

We have taken a bunch of wrong turns since the Moon landing. Smart things from the 60s got suppressed and dumb things got promoted but the Laws of Physics do not care.

http://www.spacewesterns.com/articles/105/

So the 21st century may be more like Soylent Green than we want.

Arthur C. Clarke said politicians should read science fiction. But it probably makes more since to have everybody read it instead of Shakespeare. But now we have a cybernetic revolution in our pockets. These smartphones are more powerful than 1980 mainframes.

A friend of mine got a Sensation 4G. I will probably be getting one and junking my Archos PMA400.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/12/htc-sensation-4g-official-1-2ghz-dual-core-qhd-display-and-th/

So what will all of the people around the world be doing with these things besides having phone conversations?

psik

 

[JunkMonkey]

I'll tell you what is hard: re reading as an adult a book that filled you with wonder and awe as a child and realising it's horribly dated and just isn't really very good at all. Recent examples for me have been A Princess of Mars by ERB and Foundation by Asimov. Both dead important books in the history of the genre but they've not stood the test of time.

Psik, I totally agree with you but I think we're just getting old mate. It has always been thus too. I remember reading somewhere (or maybe I dreamt it) that for years the clay tablets written in Linear B, some of the earliest written records we have, were indecipherable mysteries. When Linear B was was finally cracked one of the first things translated was a letter from someone complaining that the youth of the day had no respect for their elders and the world was going to pot*.





*I've no idea if this is true and don't want to spoil a good story by trying to find out. Print the ****ing legend!

 

[psikeyhackr]

I'll tell you what is hard: re reading as an adult a book that filled you with wonder and awe as a child and realising it's horribly dated and just isn't really very good at all. Recent examples for me have been A Princess of Mars by ERB and Foundation by Asimov. Both dead important books in the history of the genre but they've not stood the test of time.

Psik, I totally agree with you but I think we're just getting old mate.

Yes, that is one factor but there is another.

What is a NEW idea?

An idea is NEW the first time a child encounters it. I also think the age at which a person encounters an idea can affect them for the rest of their lives. I learned about atheism and agnosticism from sci-fi books. No adults ever told me. So I decided I was an agnostic at 12 even though I was at a Catholic school. How many sci-fi authors in the 50s knew they were mostly writing for kids and were not trying to be literary.

So even though Foundation may not be to good for 30 year olds it could be very important in its effect on the thinking of 12 years olds. It is indirectly educational. It is like a high tech version of the collapse of the Roman Empire. It could even happen to Western Culture in this century. How many experts are arguing about the effects of Peak Oil and Global Warming and 7 billion people? I loaned Foundation to a man in his 40s and he thought it was good.

The writing in Hyperion is better than Foundation but it contains no ideas relevant to the real world.

Where is the sci-fi story of a society full of smartphones as powerful as 1985 mainframes? What can cheap e-readers and free sci-fi do to the thinking 10 year olds world wide?

THIS CROWDED EARTH By ROBERT BLOCH
http://librivox.org/this-crowded-earth-by-robert-bloch/

That is not far off on population. Our so called schools focus on the European Cultural past with history and literature but that does not help kids understand and make decisions about the future. That is a specialty of science fiction. The future is many unknown possibilities.

psik

 

[JunkMonkey]

Yes, that is one factor but there is another.

What is a NEW idea?

An idea is NEW the first time a child encounters it. I also think the age at which a person encounters an idea can affect them for the rest of their lives. I learned about atheism and agnosticism from sci-fi books. No adults ever told me. So I decided I was an agnostic at 12 even though I was at a Catholic school. How many sci-fi authors in the 50s knew they were mostly writing for kids and were not trying to be literary.

So even though Foundation may not be to good for 30 year olds it could be very important in its effect on the thinking of 12 years olds. It is indirectly educational. It is like a high tech version of the collapse of the Roman Empire. It could even happen to Western Culture in this century. How many experts are arguing about the effects of Peak Oil and Global Warming and 7 billion people? I loaned Foundation to a man in his 40s and he thought it was good.

The writing in Hyperion is better than Foundation but it contains no ideas relevant to the real world.

Where is the sci-fi story of a society full of smartphones as powerful as 1985 mainframes? What can cheap e-readers and free sci-fi do to the thinking 10 year olds world wide?

THIS CROWDED EARTH By ROBERT BLOCH
http://librivox.org/this-crowded-earth-by-robert-bloch/

That is not far off on population. Our so called schools focus on the European Cultural past with history and literature but that does not help kids understand and make decisions about the future. That is a specialty of science fiction. The future is many unknown possibilities.

psik

I'm in my 50s and the (Western) world is now a far far different to the world I grew up in. In many respects we are already living in the future. Technology, and by association science, has, a la Time Travellers*, become become indistinguishable from magic. My kids (9 and 7) look at me in baffled bemusement when I tell them that, when I was a child, television came on only in the afternoons and evenings, in black and white, and in 425 line corduroy-vision. They do not understand when I tell them my first meeting with a computer was my High School's (sole) teletype terminal to the local authority's mainframe somewhere beneath City Hall - and we were advanced and cutting edge for the time. "But... but... how did you do your email, Daddy??" The family were in the newly refurbished Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh a week ago and my eldest thought it was hilarious that one of the first mobiles phones I owned was in a case displaying the history of telephony. (For all I know it was my actual phone too). And talking of phones I bought a new mobile the other week. I wanted exactly the same Smartphone as my wife had bought two months previously, an HTC Wildfire. I was told it was unavailable. It was obsolete. Two Frelling months! When I was a kid it was possible for one man to understand the inner workings of almost any machine and spend a great chunk of their their life working on it. I know someone (my wife's grandfather) who used to service one of these things which was still in service in a Sheffield steel works until the act of actually 'making things' became unfashionable in this country. These days there's no point. Whatever rolls off the production lines will be obsolete in two months?

I want my kids to learn about history. The rate at which the present is turning into an unimaginable future there is no way to prepare for it any more. By the time my kids are my age it may have all gone peak oil and global warming tits up barbarism. A grounding in medieval political history may well be worth a lot more to my selfish genes than a super specialised degree in some obscure twig of quantum mechanics.

Maybe Science Fiction is finished. Maybe there are no new ideas.





*Ib Melchior's 1964 film The Time Travellers beat Arthur C Clarke to that one by 10 years.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I'm in my 50s and the (Western) world is now a far far different to the world I grew up in.

And talking of phones I bought a new mobile the other week. I wanted exactly the same Smartphone as my wife had bought two months previously, an HTC Wildfire. I was told it was unavailable. It was obsolete. Two Frelling months!

LOL I looked up the specs. The Wildfire must have been scheduled to be chopped before your wife bought it. A friend of mine got two MyTouches late last year and a Sensation last month. He is selling a mytouch.

The Wildfire is only 528 MHz. The MyTouch is 1000 MHz and the Sensation is 1.2 GHz DUAL CORE. Considering the cost of the contracts which is where the companies really make their money it is hardly any savings to buy a cheaper phone. My Archos PMA400 is 6 years old. It has a 150 MHz ARM processor. The Sensation is SIXTEEN TIMES as powerful. But it plays Flash video and DIVX and the Archos does not.

But all of these devices are von Neumann machines and that is what we hardly ever hear. We are bombarded with trivial details to memorize. That is why THE RIGHT SCI-FI matters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dg96tefnEU

psik