[Mary Shelley's] big idea – and it is the big idea that haunts all SF – was that our imperious ingenuity would backfire horribly.
No. No, no, no. Defining all SF as having the Frankenstein idea is terrible. It only includes a particular form of science fiction-- admittedly, just about all the authors listed by the journalist are from the dystopian side of science fiction. But there are plenty of SF writers who have felt that our ingenuity would be what would save us, where the scientists have been heroes, not Frankensteins. What, so Isaac Asimov isn't an SF writer? Heinlein? Larry Niven? Vernor Vinge?
Calling Philip K. Dick and William Gibson's pessimism "classic" SF with an idea "that haunts all SF" is blatantly untrue. Their pessimistic works, often quite good, were extremely different from the traditional optimistic SF works that proceeded them. Of course, certain reviewers have long argued that only pessimistic works that fear science and feed the Frankenstein idea can have literary merit-- this article seems to be doing the same thing.
This article is not a stirring defense of science fiction.
I fail to understand why a genre is which authors create, populate and animate alternative universes, or our universe under very different circumstances, in an entertaining and/or thought provoking way, requires any defense.
Asimov's robot series has, at least partially, emerged from the realm of science fiction over time. R. Daneel Olivaw has not yet appeared on the scene, but may well not be too far in the future. Many have not yet grasped the humor in the name Honda chose for its robot - Asimo. I wonder if Asimo's programming includes the "Zeroth Law of Robotics"
I have to agree that this is a rather weak defense of Science Fiction. There is a lot of optimistic Science Fiction out there where human ingenuity saves the day. There is also a lot of badly written Science Fiction that is just Westerns with Ray-Guns or Fantasy with Light Swords. But the good stuff is just as good as the good stuff in any other genre.
Good, classical Science Fiction will take a technological or scientific discovery or invention (or several) and show how it affects society. Larry Niven has explored the idea of organ-legging and transplate trade in his books. He also predicted Flash Mobs which I've seen happen in virtual reality environments (alas, we don't have teleport booths, yet). Heinlein's early works are great for adults and teens. His later stuff kind of deteriorated. Philip K. Dicks' works are often strange and mess with your perception of reality. Roger Zelazny's works are just great literature. Etc...
Just British authors? That's like studying Existentialism while excluding French authors. Aside from humorists like Douglas Adams, British SF has been exceptionally gloomy ever since the 1960's. I think it reflects a national loss of nerve.
I think he was limiting himself to just British authors.
Interesting idea but, no, Philip K. Dick was American, William Gibson is American, and Margaret Atwood is Canadian, among others he mentioned.
The problem for the thesis-- that every SF work is haunted by the Frankenstein complex-- is that it just isn't true. In Asimov's case, he self-consciously wrote books specifically to combat the "Frankenstein complex." I suppose you could stretch that into being "haunted" by the idea (thought not without vitiating much of the argument), but there are plenty of SF authors who just assume away the Frankenstein complex without self-consciously being haunted by it.
Terrible article.
No. No, no, no. Defining all SF as having the Frankenstein idea is terrible. It only includes a particular form of science fiction-- admittedly, just about all the authors listed by the journalist are from the dystopian side of science fiction. But there are plenty of SF writers who have felt that our ingenuity would be what would save us, where the scientists have been heroes, not Frankensteins. What, so Isaac Asimov isn't an SF writer? Heinlein? Larry Niven? Vernor Vinge?
Calling Philip K. Dick and William Gibson's pessimism "classic" SF with an idea "that haunts all SF" is blatantly untrue. Their pessimistic works, often quite good, were extremely different from the traditional optimistic SF works that proceeded them. Of course, certain reviewers have long argued that only pessimistic works that fear science and feed the Frankenstein idea can have literary merit-- this article seems to be doing the same thing.
This article is not a stirring defense of science fiction.
This article praise the science fiction of those who are the enemies of the future, who fear change, who fear science.
I fail to understand why a genre is which authors create, populate and animate alternative universes, or our universe under very different circumstances, in an entertaining and/or thought provoking way, requires any defense.
Asimov's robot series has, at least partially, emerged from the realm of science fiction over time. R. Daneel Olivaw has not yet appeared on the scene, but may well not be too far in the future. Many have not yet grasped the humor in the name Honda chose for its robot - Asimo. I wonder if Asimo's programming includes the "Zeroth Law of Robotics"
I don't remember whether R. Daneel Olivaw played an instrument.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071206141647.92lzyqx2&show_article=1
I have to agree that this is a rather weak defense of Science Fiction. There is a lot of optimistic Science Fiction out there where human ingenuity saves the day. There is also a lot of badly written Science Fiction that is just Westerns with Ray-Guns or Fantasy with Light Swords. But the good stuff is just as good as the good stuff in any other genre.
Good, classical Science Fiction will take a technological or scientific discovery or invention (or several) and show how it affects society. Larry Niven has explored the idea of organ-legging and transplate trade in his books. He also predicted Flash Mobs which I've seen happen in virtual reality environments (alas, we don't have teleport booths, yet). Heinlein's early works are great for adults and teens. His later stuff kind of deteriorated. Philip K. Dicks' works are often strange and mess with your perception of reality. Roger Zelazny's works are just great literature. Etc...
EI
If you haven't read any Charles Stross yet, now's the time to start.
I think he was limiting himself to just British authors.
Just British authors? That's like studying Existentialism while excluding French authors. Aside from humorists like Douglas Adams, British SF has been exceptionally gloomy ever since the 1960's. I think it reflects a national loss of nerve.
I think he was limiting himself to just British authors.
Interesting idea but, no, Philip K. Dick was American, William Gibson is American, and Margaret Atwood is Canadian, among others he mentioned.
The problem for the thesis-- that every SF work is haunted by the Frankenstein complex-- is that it just isn't true. In Asimov's case, he self-consciously wrote books specifically to combat the "Frankenstein complex." I suppose you could stretch that into being "haunted" by the idea (thought not without vitiating much of the argument), but there are plenty of SF authors who just assume away the Frankenstein complex without self-consciously being haunted by it.