The Greatest Classic Sc Fi Writer – Thesis Question, participation appreciated!

[McMurphy]

Whoa, some debate i've started. i've had a bit of bad day, so if i sound off, i apologise now.

Thanks to those who have voted, and thanks to those who made their points diplomatically. J.D as always, your comments are as always a tremendous help and insight.

@ Dr Atomic, Pyanfaruk and Iansales etc: Ok everybody, here is the reason for these candidates. The reason i'm not doing lesser known writers is because my Thesis title is 'How the Real World Effects Mainstream science fiction', in more detail, the influences the general public don't see when they read/watch sci fi. This is the sci fi that the everyday schmo unlike you and i encounter. Ask anyone on the street and they wouldn't necessarily have heard of Philip K. Dick or J. G. Ballard etc. This is why i have chosen to use these writers, as people know their stories from movies and so-forth. Just becuase i have made a poll on a small subject, doesn't mean thats all i'm writing about. i would have imagined the mass of different threads i have posted would have hinted at this! i only wanted a little extra primary research that saved me from standing on the streets handing out questionnaires in the rain... If you all feel happier, banish the poll to the nether regions of where ever threads get deleted to, and we can all have a fresh start.

I guess its my own fault for not making things clear enough. i honestly didn't expect people to be giving me so much advice. i know what i'm doing with my thesis. i have narrowed down my subject matter. i have my chapter titles, i have my secondary research, i have my dissertation tutor, and i have 3 proof readers. i appreciate the concern but i believe i am well on my way. As you all know and seem so keen on reminding me, Sci fi is a vast subject matter. but then, everything is.

[rant]Sorry if my spelling offends people, despite what my names says i am only human! if it offends you, thats my problem not yours, get over it.[/rant]

I have never read any Gernsback, never heard good things about his work. the reason he was there was thanks to the strong suggestion of one of my tutors. This proved him wrong! so thank-you for backing me up.

Apologies again if i sounded off, it was unintended if did. i'm going to bed.

And finally, how many posts do i have to do before i get my own laser?

In that case, good luck with your writing, and thanks for opening a thread rich of possible debates.

 

[Alienweirdo]

Thanks McMurphy, nothing like a good debate every now and then!

Reading my post back, i just wanna say that i do appreciate the advice and the opinions that everyone has put, i hope everyone realises that. You've all been a big help so far.

i guess i needed to get previous post out of my system, i hope theres no hard feelings.

 

[McMurphy]

Thanks McMurphy, nothing like a good debate every now and then!

Reading my post back, i just wanna say that i do appreciate the advice and the opinions that everyone has put, i hope everyone realises that. You've all been a big help so far.

i guess i needed to get previous post out of my system, i hope theres no hard feelings.

None on this end, and I hope you return often to this forum as a source of discussion/debate in the future.

 

[Dr. Atomic]

McMurphy -- you've completely confused me. I think most people don't feel the need to cite Aldiss directly in this discussion because his book, pointing out his points, is available. Whereas no one has written any sort of argument for the works you've cited. This is why I'm asking you to just explain the books, explain your reasoning.

... Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point in these posts. I was under the impression that you were disputing people's assertation that Frankenstein was the first, based on your conclusion that most people say that because they're simply following Aldiss' lead. And, in fact, there are many other works that could vie for the position of first, if people were to look at it all from perspectives other than Aldiss'.

I don't think anyone's disputing that Aldiss' theories only apply if you look at sf in the same manner as Aldiss does. What I question, however, is your assertation that people are accepting Aldiss merely because it's fashioable. I think that people accept Aldiss' arguments because he goes out of his way to explain them. People listen to (well, read) what he has to say, and then come to the conclusion that they agree.

As for this being Euro-centric a viewpoint... well, perhaps it is. But unless someone proposes a better candidate, and then provides some REASONING behind that proposal (which is what I was asking you to do), then why should anyone think differently?

Anyway, I'm not asking you to define science fiction. I'm not looking to trap you. I'm simply looking for some reasoning behind the works you cited, so that I can better undestand where you're coming from.

(I'm giving you the last word, McMurphy, mostly because I'm interested in what you have to say, but also because I don't know what else to say on the subject. Unless you ask me a question, in which case I guess I'll be dragged back in...)

ALIENWEIRDO: I see where you're coming from, but you're still operating from a flawed position. The fact is, with numerous movies based on his work -- Blade Runner, Minority Report, and Total Recall -- and dozens of magazine and newspaper articles written about him, Philip K. Dick is MUCH MORE well known than Hugo Gernsback, a name that even many science fiction fans haven't heard before. The same goes with Clarke and Heinlein.

And as for spelling (since I made the comment)... I was only pointing out the mistake in your spelling of an author's NAME. No small error, especially if you're posting in such a public manner as a poll, on a board concerned with science fiction. I figured you might want to make sure you get it right if you choose to include Wyndham in your thesis.

I still wish you the best of luck. Despite how it may appear, I desperately want to see you pull off a good thesis paper -- it could become a valuable source of research and discussion within science fiction academia. Believe me, AW, these challenges are nothing compared to what you'll get when you have to present your thesis to your advisors, or if you ever choose to publish.

 

[Alienweirdo]

Philip K. Dick is MUCH MORE well known than Hugo Gernsback, a name that even many science fiction fans haven't heard before. The same goes with Clarke and Heinlein.

Ok dude, i'll bare that in mind. i want you to know that i agree with you wholeheartedly, my problem is i value my tutors input, and they blow hot and cold if you catch my drift.

I still wish you the best of luck. Despite how it may appear, I desperately want to see you pull off a good thesis paper -- it could become a valuable source of research and discussion within science fiction academia. Believe me, AW, these challenges are nothing compared to what you'll get when you have to present your thesis to your advisors, or if you ever choose to publish.

thanks dude

How about i try this again in a new thread?

Question: Whether You believe them to be the better at writing stories all about or containing elements of Science fiction, or they are just your favourite, vote for whom you think is the best author, who have written Novel(s) which have now become classics.

HG Wells
HP Lovecraft
Isaac Asimov
Jules Verne
Mary Shelly
John Wyndham
Philip K. Dick
Arther C. Clarke

who have i forgotten... Suggestions?

 

[McMurphy]

I Bring You Fire...First.

McMurphy -- you've completely confused me. I think most people don't feel the need to cite Aldiss directly in this discussion because his book, pointing out his points, is available. Whereas no one has written any sort of argument for the works you've cited. This is why I'm asking you to just explain the books, explain your reasoning.

Whether or not a book or resource in currently available has nothing to do with the need to cite sources. May I stress, that, despite my request, no one has offered up any quotations from the books they have mentioned; thus, supporting their claims. To say, "because his book, pointing out his points, is available" in large font instead of providing a work-cited page in an essay would not be acceptable in other forms of literary discourse since there is a hefty stigma towards quoting without credit to a source OR misquoting claims. As to my argument, I am not claiming that any of my examples are to be regarded as the first example of science fiction; rather, they are possible forms of science fiction that predate Shelley. So, if it is your assertion that there is NO primary sources that state Wojciech Zdarzynski is a piece of science fiction, than I must relate to you that the claim is not only immensely sweeping, but incorrect. In fact, online sites such as this one take the label of science fiction to some of the author's work as common place. I recommend visiting the references linked and the external links section. I doubt, I agree with you, that a book has been written that labels Zdarynski as the first science fiction writer, but that was never my point.

... Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point in these posts. I was under the impression that you were disputing people's assertation that Frankenstein was the first, based on your conclusion that most people say that because they're simply following Aldiss' lead. And, in fact, there are many other works that could vie for the position of first, if people were to look at it all from perspectives other than Aldiss'.

Okay, that makes sense now...sorry it took so long to connect the dots. No, my assertion is not that my dispute is based from a notion that everyone is following Aldiss's lead. I would agree that people are quite capable to form the Shelley opinion independent of his work. The point is that it is subjective that Frankenstein is the first work of science fiction and it is entirely dependant on pre-assigned framework in regards to what is and what is not science fiction. I have also offered the possible notion that an educated opinion has gained incredible momentum due to essays and websites using vague lines such as "many regard her as the first science fiction novelist" (or akin), which work independant on whatever source they are pulling the claim from; thus, in theory, making it less and less reflective of the original claims.

I don't think anyone's disputing that Aldiss' theories only apply if you look at sf in the same manner as Aldiss does.

I disagree. I believe that many have formed the opinion that Frankenstein is the first piece of science fiction independent of ever reading any of Aldiss's theories, and, because of that, they are not inferring the same guidelines. Again, the discussion is not exclusive to Aldiss's theories, despite some people's best efforts to make so during their attempt to legitimize their own viewpoints without providing their own criteria.

What I question, however, is your assertation that people are accepting Aldiss merely because it's fashioable. I think that people accept Aldiss' arguments because he goes out of his way to explain them. People listen to (well, read) what he has to say, and then come to the conclusion that they agree.

I have already stated many times that my point of "fashionable" has nothing to do with Aldiss's work. Please review my posts for further explanation. Also, like stated before, feel free to use a different adjective that "fashionable" for I recant ever using it since some chatters have been unable to see pass the word choice. Obviously, it is a buzz word, and not meant to overshadow the essence of the point being made that the Shelley theories have become more wide spread due to, in my opinion, half recited opinions of others.

As for this being Euro-centric a viewpoint... well, perhaps it is. But unless someone proposes a better candidate, and then provides some REASONING behind that proposal (which is what I was asking you to do), then why should anyone think differently?

Actually, I said ethnocentric, not Euro-centric. Evidence of this is furthered in the fact that the possible examples that predate Shelley that I provided are all of European writers. To showcase one example of the many that could have been given, I believe that Pole's Adventures fall into the science fiction definition that I have posted in the "Science Fiction Definitions" thread within the same board because the adventures depict space travel to the moon using a scientific invention, regardless of how silly it may seem by today's standards and knowledge of the universe.

Anyway, I'm not asking you to define science fiction. I'm not looking to trap you. I'm simply looking for some reasoning behind the works you cited, so that I can better undestand where you're coming from.

They go hand-to-hand, actually. If that is not what you meant or was not your goal, than I apologize, but I see absolutely no way someone could go about defending a piece of literature's inclusion in the Science Fiction genre without noting the person's preceived definement of the genre.

 

[williamjm]

Question: Whether You believe them to be the better at writing stories all about or containing elements of Science fiction, or they are just your favourite, vote for whom you think is the best author, who have written Novel(s) which have now become classics.

HG Wells
HP Lovecraft
Isaac Asimov
Jules Verne
Mary Shelly
John Wyndham
Philip K. Dick
Arther C. Clarke

who have i forgotten... Suggestions?

Frank Herbert deserves at least a mention, I think. He may be primaraily famous for one book, but you could say the same thing about Shelley.

 

[Dr. Atomic]

See... This is why I sometimes hate the internet. I suspect that if McMurphy and I were having a face to face conversation on the subject, we would have reached an understanding of each other's position -- agreement? who knows or cares -- in about five minutes. There's too much room in online discussions for confusion, and too much of the debate is spent just getting to the bottom of each other's points while fighting the delay of non face-to-face communication.

I don't suppose you're anywhere near NYC, McMurphy? It'd be fun to continue this over a pint or two. (Or three or four, at which point the conversation'll get REALLY interesting!) Or if you plan on being at a con in the area (Comic Con at the end of Feb, Luna Con in March, Phil Con next November), drop me a line.

 

[littlemissattitude]

i only wanted a little extra primary research that saved me from standing on the streets handing out questionnaires in the rain...

But, isn't that half the fun of doing a questionnaire? While I didn't do that, when I was doing an independent study in the anthropology of religion I did survey the entire undergrad student body of my university. Of course, there were only somewhere between 900 and 1,000 of them and we had a mailroom where all undergrads had a box so I had an efficient way to distribute the questionnaires...and for students to return them to me. I managed to get a return rate of something like 18 or 20 percent, which isn't too shabby from what I had been led to believe I would get before I did the thing.

All of which is completely off-topic, but I thought you'd appreciate knowing that you aren't the only one around here with actual experience in running a survey. I'm glad you did ask this here, because it is an interesting discussion. I've got nothing to add, really, as so many here are so much more learned...and opinionated...than I am on the beginnings of science fiction. Except to add that I have read Aldiss (albeit years ago) and that I found his defense of Frankenstein as the first science fiction novel to be fairly convincing.

 

[McMurphy]

See... This is why I sometimes hate the internet. I suspect that if McMurphy and I were having a face to face conversation on the subject, we would have reached an understanding of each other's position -- agreement? who knows or cares -- in about five minutes. There's too much room in online discussions for confusion, and too much of the debate is spent just getting to the bottom of each other's points while fighting the delay of non face-to-face communication.

I don't suppose you're anywhere near NYC, McMurphy? It'd be fun to continue this over a pint or two. (Or three or four, at which point the conversation'll get REALLY interesting!) Or if you plan on being at a con in the area (Comic Con at the end of Feb, Luna Con in March, Phil Con next November), drop me a line.

Heh, your big city charm has won me over, and I would be more than willing to meet up at an Irish bar in NYC...I may be there in a few months via work. At the moment, I need to settle for the LA area, but I promise to relate other interesting theories after the fifth pint...like why I firmly believe that all Hollywood actresses are destined to look like Iggy Pop in their old age.

 

[j d worthington]

McMurphy: Part of the problem with people citing Aldiss may be because he does expend an enormous amount of space in that book on this claim. Not only in the initial chapter where he brings it up (a rather lengthy chapter that spends considerable time on this particular novel), but it is heavily peppered throughout the work -- and Trillion Year Spree is a rather large book! As for the claims for Mrs. Shelley, I hope I made it fairly clear that, while I consider her an enormous influence and progenitor of the field, I don't think she belongs as a science fiction writer in our current view of the field. Hers was the bridge between the then-fashionable Gothic tale, the sentimental novel, and the emerging scientific romance. If I did not make that position clear, then I apologize.

AW: as for your new list:

H.G. Wells -- I don't think anyone would deny Wells a high place on any list of sf. He's got more well-known classics in the field than you can shake a stick at -- and well-known enough for most people on the street to be aware of him at least from film adaptations of various works

H.P. Lovecraft -- As I believe I said earlier,though I am a very big fan of HPL, I don't believe he belongs on the list, save tangentially. His intent was never to write science fiction (or scientifiction, or "interplanetary fiction", that last being his own term for it) at all. He may have been taken into the field in retrospect because his work (at least his later work, what he called "a non-supernatural form of cosmic art") is based on a mechanistic view of the universe; but I think any claims for his stories as sf are, while not without some merit, rather tenuous.

Isaac Asimov -- Here we run into problems. Asimov is well-known because of the breadth of his topics, more specifically for his sf, if using the criterion you noted above of it being "mainstream" in the sense of the mass of people (rather than "the mainstream within the genre"). Yet there is no argument that he remains one of the most visible and highly respected figures in the field, and has numerous novels and story collections which are considered classics, from I, Robot and "Nightfall" on.


Jules Verne -- in the same class as Wells, I think. Still read regularly, well-known both from his books and film/tv adaptations of his work, and read far beyond the limits of sf fandom (or even casual readers of sf); and has numerous classics in the genre.

Mary Shelley -- I think I've addressed this one numerous times above. But, if we're going to include her as a genuine writer in the field, rather than one of those whose work was highly influential on but doesn't quite belong (as with such writers as H. Rider Haggard, I'd say; another enormously popular writer, many of whose works are still in print over a century after they were first published, and who has had several film adaptations of at least a handfull of them), then the claim would be not only for Frankenstein but The Last Man and several of her shorter tales (both short stories and novellas such as "The Mortal Immortal").

John Wyndham -- I'm not sure he belongs with "mainstream" here, as most people have probably never heard the name, though they've seen the films of Children of the Damned (The Midwich Cuckoos) or Day of the Triffids. But, again, someone who has numerous classics in the field, including The Chrysalids, The Kraken Wakes, etc.

Philip K. Dick -- Dick definitely belongs on there. He's now had numerous film adaptations, his works are more popular than ever, and he is one of the few writers in the field to write classic novels exploring the themes of epistemology and ontology. Even if only for Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, he is popularly known enough now to merit being on there.

Arthur C. Clarke -- Clarke's name is familiar not only due to the series of books beginning with 2001 and the movie of that title, but also because he's hosted Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World, as well as being cited as one of the creators of the telecommunications satellite.

Now... as for those you've forgotten:

Frank Herbert has already been named. Dune, which is extremely well-known, and, as of God-Emperor of Dune, the series has remained best-sellers in the mainstream as well as sf community.

Robert A. Heinlein -- A well-known figure both in and out of sf (a lot of his material was published in mainstream magazines such as Saturday Evening Post, has numerous classics of the field ... well, let's face it, the better portion of Heinlein's work has been considered classic (as well as controversial) in the sf community since the 1940s; and Stranger in a Strange Land, The Number of the Beast, Friday, Job: A Comedy of Justice, The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, To Sail Beyond the Sunset, and others have all been best-sellers; his juvenile series have remained in print since they began back in the early 1940s, he invented what became Space Cadet on television... Should definitely be on the list.

Rod Serling -- Not only for his creation of (and writing scripts -- and later prose story versions of stories from) The Twilight Zone, which certainly fits in the average person's definition of sf, but because he also co-wrote the screenplay for Planet of the Apes; and he's rather well-known outside the sf community as well.

Richard Matheson -- His novels are well-known outside the sf community, he's had numerous film adaptations of his books (many of which he wrote the scripts for, as well as doing film adaptations of other works, and numerous scripts for television); his novels include I Am Legend and The Shrinking Man.

Those are a few I think I'd put on the list...

 

[iansales]

jd: a couple of points...

Clarke wasn't "one of the creators of the telecommunications satellite". He presented a paper in 1945 to the British Interplanetary Society outlining how geosynchronous satellites would be useful for telelcommunications, and so is credited with inventing the concept.


Wyndham is well known in the UK, more so than PKD... even though PKD has a stronger fan-base in the UK than he he does in the US (many of PKD's novels and short story collections are still in print here). Wyndham, however, is known by non-sf readers, and there have been several television adaptations of his work (although not for a couple of decades).

I don't think Serling comes close to consideration. He's almost wholly associated with a television programme, not the written word. Likewise Herbert, who is chiefly known for a single novel. I think the "greatest writer" should be known for their entire corpus of work.

Having said that, I don't agree that the list should feature only those who are known outside the genre. JK Rowling is the most widely-known writer of fantasy -- does that make here the "greatest"? Of course not. Instead, look at those writers who have enjoyed the longest career in science fiction -- i.e., whose works remained in print the longest...

Wells, Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein thus become obvious candidates (all have novels still in print long after their death (er, except Clarke, who isn't dead)). Despite what I've written above, Herbert is also a candidate -- Dune has remained almost constantly in print for the last 40 years; and have many of the other books in the series. Van Vogt had a long career -- I remember his books in book shops up to the early 1980s. James Blish? Star Trek novelisations aside, I don't think his works remained in print much beyond the late 1970s. Um, how about Edgar Rice Burroughs?

 

[Pyan]

Just to muddy the waters even further:
Clifford D. Simak? Poul Anderson? Bester? Leinster? Sturgeon?

You see, I have a problem with the word "greatest" in the original postulation. By my personal interpretation of the word, you can delete anybody who is remembered for only one or two books/stories: anyonewho only wrote one or two stories in the genre: anyone who isn't famous for books (not TV/film): anyone who is out of print: and anyone who would genenerally not be known by a casual SF reader (pretty nebulous, that one, but I can't express it better).
This would, personally, to 5.

Wells
Verne
Heinlein
Asimov
Clarke

These are the "Greatest" classic SF writers for me - all the rest vary from "Excellent!" to "Who?"

 

[iansales]

Why should we limit ourselves to only those that would be known by people who don't read sf? The "greatest" thus becomes the most populist... which is just plain wrong.

I see your Simak, Anderson, Bester, Leinster and Sturgeon, and raise you Pohl, Silverberg, Vance and Harry Harrison

Here's a thought: work out the year of first publication of a sf author, and then the last year a work of theirs was in print. Novels only (to make it easier). Order by number of years descending. The top five are your "Greatest Classic SF Writers"...

 

[j d worthington]

Clarke wasn't "one of the creators of the telecommunications satellite". He presented a paper in 1945 to the British Interplanetary Society outlining how geosynchronous satellites would be useful for telelcommunications, and so is credited with inventing the concept.

Yes, I should have been clear on that one. That is what I meant... I just phrased it very badly. My apologies.

I don't think Serling comes close to consideration. He's almost wholly associated with a television programme, not the written word. Likewise Herbert, who is chiefly known for a single novel. I think the "greatest writer" should be known for their entire corpus of work.

Having said that, I don't agree that the list should feature only those who are known outside the genre.

To clarify: I was addressing AW's point of this being "mainstream", made earlier. Not "mainstream sf" but "sf in the mainstream" -- that is, what the average person on the street is likely to be familiar with from the genre. Hence some of these suggestions.

While it is quite true that Serling is much more associated with the television programs he created than with his books, those were enormously popular and quite well written, often adding new dimensions to the stories he'd done on the program... and again, they sold far beyond the sf community (at least, here in the States, I can't speak for other regions). So, using the criteria of "mainstream" given above, and the fact that he did have an impact on the field... I place him in there. Were it just for best sf in written form -- no, I don't think he'd fit.

Van Vogt had a long career -- I remember his books in book shops up to the early 1980s. James Blish? Star Trek novelisations aside, I don't think his works remained in print much beyond the late 1970s. Um, how about Edgar Rice Burroughs?

I don't think Van quite makes it (though I'm rather fond of his work). Too quirky, the style is uneven, and though rather popular within the field, not too well known outside (see above). Blish -- good writer, but again, neither terribly innovative (save, perhaps, for A Case of Conscience and the Cities in Flight stories), and not well known even by a lot of sf afficionados. But if we're going to talk about Blish and Van, we should be listing a lot of others, as well, such as Clifford Simak, Jack Williamson, Alfred Bester (who I do think should perhaps be on there), Theodore Sturgeon (certainly for More Than Human), Walter M. Miller, Jr. (A Canticle for Leibowitz certainly is well known both in and outside the field, and has sold enormously over the years), Fritz Leiber, Cyril Kornbluth, Cordwainer Smith, Frederik Pohl.... all worthy writers, but none have had much of an impact outside the genre as sf writers.

Burroughs, I think, falls outside the idea because his is more strictly adventure stories with little interest in science, rationalist views, etc.; and his career certainly began before 1926 -- back in 1912, with publication of "Under the Moons of Mars" in the old Munsey All-Story Magazine. However, he has remained in print almost continuously, he's well-known outside the sf field (for Tarzan, if nothing else), and he certainly had an influence on several generations of sf readers and writers, so... while I myself wouldn't put him quite there... yes, I think he may be a candidate.

EDIT: Just to help in finding what I'm referring to: see post #39 for AW's specification.

 

[iansales]

To clarify: I was addressing AW's point of this being "mainstream", made earlier. Not "mainstream sf" but "sf in the mainstream" -- that is, what the average person on the street is likely to be familiar with from the genre. Hence some of these suggestions.

Ah, must have missed that. Whoops. Changes the whole tenor of the discussion, doesn't it?

In which case... science fiction is a far larger (in terms of audience) media genre than it is a written genre. So any writer suggested is may well be better known from movie adaptations... Frank Herbert's Dune, Asimov's I Robot, PKD's Total Recall and Blade Runner... except Hollywood has a habit of "disguising" the original source of a film's story (unless it helps with the marketing ).

 

[j d worthington]

Well, ian, to be frank, I was going with that one, when I think it got changed with that later list (though I'm not certain of that, which is why I continued with the earlier approach). So, if the criteria have changed:

Voting for the best out of this list for novels and their importance in the field, or adding ones that may have been left out:

Wells should be high on the list (oddly, I have a bit of trouble with some of Wells' work... his style often doesn't click with me, for some reason)

Lovecraft, again, shouldn't be on this list, anyway.

The others have all written important or influential works in the field (or works that, even if not technically in the field, have had a major impact on it). Best? That's extremely difficult to say. Dick, no... not if we're talking best writing -- he was often a slipshod writer; it's his ideas more than his writing that carry his work. Asimov is alternately very good and about average as a writer. Wyndham is, with rare exceptions, very literate, and a good, solid writer... but not quite brilliant, I'd say. Clarke has done some brilliant things; and has a lot of influential books and ideas to his credit.

But still, Heinlein should be on the list by just about any criteria. And, if he's added to the list, given the criteria (as I understand them), I'd have to probably go with either Wells or Heinlein, with Verne at least giving them a serious run for their money, or in with them... it's too close for me to quite call, I think.

 

[iansales]

@ Dr Atomic, Pyanfaruk and Iansales etc: Ok everybody, here is the reason for these candidates. The reason i'm not doing lesser known writers is because my Thesis title is 'How the Real World Effects Mainstream science fiction', in more detail, the influences the general public don't see when they read/watch sci fi. This is the sci fi that the everyday schmo unlike you and i encounter. Ask anyone on the street and they wouldn't necessarily have heard of Philip K. Dick or J. G. Ballard etc. This is why i have chosen to use these writers, as people know their stories from movies and so-forth. Just becuase i have made a poll on a small subject, doesn't mean thats all i'm writing about. i would have imagined the mass of different threads i have posted would have hinted at this! i only wanted a little extra primary research that saved me from standing on the streets handing out questionnaires in the rain... If you all feel happier, banish the poll to the nether regions of where ever threads get deleted to, and we can all have a fresh start.

You've lost me. You're studying how science fiction has influenced the real world, but assuming that those influences are only by sf writers non-sf readers have heard of? Does not compute. Sf has influenced the real world most through people who call themselves sf fans -- scientists, writers for sf television programmes, etc. People who might have vaguely heard of War of the Worlds and subsequently have influence can hardly be said to have exerted an influence from science fiction...

[rant]Sorry if my spelling offends people, despite what my names says i am only human! if it offends you, thats my problem not yours, get over it.[/rant]

It's not just your problem. If you can't use language properly, how do you expect to communicate? What if you'd written "Pol Andersson"? You could have meant either Poul Anderson or Frederik Pohl. We'd have no way of knowing. End of return rant

 

[Alienweirdo]

You've lost me. You're studying how science fiction has influenced the real world, but assuming that those influences are only by sf writers non-sf readers have heard of? Does not compute. Sf has influenced the real world most through people who call themselves sf fans -- scientists, writers for sf television programmes, etc. People who might have vaguely heard of War of the Worlds and subsequently have influence can hardly be said to have exerted an influence from science fiction...

how do you expect to communicate? What if you'd written "Pol Andersson"? You could have meant either Poul Anderson or Frederik Pohl. We'd have no way of knowing. End of return rant

Noooo nonono, Not how Sci Fi affects the real world, how the Real World affects Sci Fi. Talk about your communication problems!! =P

For the first chapter of my thesis, i am looking at a selection of early Sci fi writers, and possible influences they may have had in writing one of their best known novels(or books or stories or whatever). i appreciate you trying to understand, i'm obviously not as intelligant as everyone else here, so what i have typed and what people see in the sentances can come across as something totally different. i've lost all my grammar school abilities ever since i joined art college =P

After all this though, this poll is now obsolete. i will personally not be requiring anymore from it. hopefully my further questions will be more suited to the forum.

thanks again though everybody =)[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[iansales]

Noooo nonono, Not how Sci Fi affects the real world, how the Real World affects Sci Fi. Talk about your communication problems!! =P

Gah. Me being stupid.

For the first chapter of my thesis, i am looking at a selection of early Sci fi writers, and possible influences they may have had in writing one of their best known novels(or books or stories or whatever). i appreciate you trying to understand, i'm obviously not as intelligant as everyone else here, so what i have typed and what people see in the sentances can come across as something totally different. i've lost all my grammar school abilities ever since i joined art college =P

This is only the first chapter? What exactly is your thesis on?