What was your first SF read?

[ArthurFrayn]

Hey, Frank Bellamy! He was alllright.

 

[Colonel Worf]

The first science fiction book i read was "Lucky Starr And The Pirates Of The Asteroids" by Paul French. Can anybody guess Mr. French's real name? .That was in 1959 when I was 8 years old.

I read this while I was doing laundry last summer. I remember because some crazy lady came over and started talking to me, trying to get me to help her move out of her apartment because she got shot at by a meth dealer.

 

[ravenlynne]

Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke...I was 12. I read it several times after...loved it.

 

[catsrule1]

This is more of a question and information gathering inquiry...

Hobbit, since you say that there was not the big explosion of scifi in the UK in the 1950's and 1960's, was it in the 70's and 80's? I notice that the books published in the 1950's and 1960's in the US seem to have the first editions in the UK starting in the 1970's, so is that correct?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke...I was 12. I read it several times after...loved it.

That is one of the books that contains a meaningful incident that has always stuck in my mind. It relates to psychology.

As I recall there were two brothers going through that transition and the older one would go to the younger to ask questions. And the book had this comment, "the younger boy had less to UNLEARN."

I consider that statement to be very significant to what goes on in the real world. Putting bad information into kids heads can screw them up for a long time. Some people never get the bad information out.

psik

 

[Hobbit]

This is more of a question and information gathering inquiry...

Hobbit, since you say that there was not the big explosion of scifi in the UK in the 1950's and 1960's, was it in the 70's and 80's? I notice that the books published in the 1950's and 1960's in the US seem to have the first editions in the UK starting in the 1970's, so is that correct?

Perhaps that needs a little qualification. It's not that there wasn't British SF in the 50's, but there certainly wasn't the range of HB's that there were in the US, nor were they were generally authors that we would immediately recognise today. Most authors were British, (Hoyle, Clarke, Carnell) and most HB's were usually for libraries. The PB's were rather pulpy on the whole. (See Patrick Moore for example) and this range of covers.

There were authors in the 60's: John Wyndham is often seen as one of the first big sellers, as too Sir Arthur and Brian Aldiss, I think. Mike Moorcock's were available from Mayflower, which became Granada.

The US writers seemed to happen later, certainly in my experience. Erm, Heinlein was in PB from the New English Library, (Dune too!), Asimov was with Granada/Grafton, Arthur C Clarke with NEL & Pan. There were also the Gollancz yellow covers,, immediately recognisable. And most of these I came across in the mid 70's or early 80's. I'm fairly sure that part of that was to a degree due to the Star Wars influence.

So the simple answer from me is Yes. But do bear in mind that I was brought up in a minor town, far from the urban centres: might not be the same for everyone.

Mark / Hobbit

 

[catsrule1]

Hobbit, thanks for the clarification. I did not start buying new UK editions until the 1980's, so my experience with literature before that is limited as to UK editions. I knew that the Gollancz editions became prolific starting in the 1970's. Of course this may be limited by what authors I collect. I did understand that there were UK editions of scifi before this, both UK authors and UK editions of non-UK authors, but I was asking about the explosive growth aspect. I had not thought of the Star Wars influence on that, you are probably right.

I realize that many of those early UK editions are not readily available, since the lending libraries' copies saw heavy use, and they were often in small print runs. That's why they are so hard to find. I was just wondering if my assessment of the secondary book market for scifi in the UK reflected the actual state of publishing there for those years, and it seems it does. Thanks for the answer.

 

[Hobbit]

No problem, happy to help.

I do remember that for a long time Sf HB were quite hard to get, unless you were a library. My dad had flimsy paperbacks that didn't hang together too well. (It was there I came across the Foundation series and John Campbell) Most of it was PB because I believe it wasn't seen as marketable as HB generally. There were Book Club editions in HB but they were not always easy to get.

Though I guess 2001 & Dune changed that.

The big change was about the time of Donaldson, Terry Brooks and the Silmarillion. That would make it 1977?

Mark / Hobbit

 

[randar23rhenn]

My first Sci Fi was the very beginnings of the post-movie Star Wars book series- The Truce at Bakura

since then I've read 91 star wars books in the main series, and about 20+ of the young adult lit stuff... I love SW books even though I know they generally aren't all that respected in the sci fi community at large. I think they're amazing.

 

[RimWorlder]

That is one of the books that contains a meaningful incident that has always stuck in my mind. It relates to psychology.

As I recall there were two brothers going through that transition and the older one would go to the younger to ask questions. And the book had this comment, "the younger boy had less to UNLEARN."

I consider that statement to be very significant to what goes on in the real world. Putting bad information into kids heads can screw them up for a long time. Some people never get the bad information out.

psik

Interesting, because in many respects Heinliens juveniles was teaching the same lesson, and those books come from roughly the same era. I wonder if that's the element I'm missing in so-called modern SF?

 

[catsrule1]

randar, I realized long ago that my reading of scifi/fantasy is for entertainment and escapism. If I want to read something serious, I'll read nonfiction. I used to be critical of people who just read "trashy romance novels". Then I realized that escapist literature is escapist literature, no matter the genre. It is whatever you enjoy. And while some books may educate the reader as to real science, geography, world affairs, or interpersonal relationships - they are still read to be enjoyed. Enjoy the Star Wars books. I enjoyed the series with the the Empire fighting the aliens who used organic science for all of their technology.

 

[randar23rhenn]

I shall continue to enjoy Star Wars! I'm glad some people out there agree that reading can be for escape, and it doesn't matter what so-called "quality" the literature is, as long as you enjoy it.

 

[Hobbit]

Interesting, because in many respects Heinliens juveniles was teaching the same lesson, and those books come from roughly the same era. I wonder if that's the element I'm missing in so-called modern SF?

Could be, Rim. However it could also be that positivism, that enthusiasm, the thought that there was lots out there for us to explore (and yes, learn from) that we looked forward and ahead to exploration and expansion.

And now we don't.

It's certainly something that I notice when I read (and reread) older SF. Yes, there were terrors - Martians, monsters, and the unknown - but there was a feeling that anything was possible and that we would evolve for the better by getting out there.

Have been very much reminded of this over the last week when rereading some good old Arthur C Clarke.

Oh and randar: can't agree more with what's been said. If you enjoy it, then forget what everyone else thinks. The enjoyment's the thing!

Mark / Hobbit

 

[RimWorlder]

Hobbit,

that's a good take/theory.

I'm reminded of Gerard K. O'Niell (Princeton U) who postulated that there were economic realities that needed to be taken into consideration vis-a-vis establishing ourselves permanently in space. Of course, this was almost all pre-internet, but if I remember correctly, his theory stated that if we weren't earning a direct return (not trickle down like velcro) from space by the mid-80s, we'd lack the financial wherewithal to ever be able to do it.

I also remember some pretty strong counter-arguments to his contentions, but nothing completely damaging. While there are interesting things happening on the space tourism front, I think that the change in SF IS reflective of a change in vision and goals.

I remember the moon landing and how wonderful a feeling it was to be able to step outside, look up into the sky and say to myself, without any sense of unreality, that someday I'd be able to walk up there too.

I remember the Apollo 13 'successful failure'; the entire world was hoping and wishing and praying for thoe astronauts, and I remember the world-wide sigh of relief when they were landed alive. The feeling then was definately - we can do anything, we can conquer any obstacle.

What happened to the need for high adventure in real life?