Recommending SF to new readers

[Fried Egg]

I was browsing Iansales blog and came across this entry:

It Doesn't Have To Be Right...: Don't Look Back in Awe

In which he says that much (not all) of the SF "classics" are little more than historical documents now and don't stand up by modern day standards and shouldn't be recommended to new readers of SF (paraphrasing).

According to Ian, much classic SF "is no longer relevant, is often written with sensibilities offensive to modern readers, usually has painfully bad prose, and is mostly hard to find because it's out of print." Far better to recommend a modern author such as "Richard Morgan, Alastair Reynolds, Iain M Banks, Ken MacLeod and Stephen Baxter".

Now to some extent, I think Ian is correct. It probably depends on the modern reader's sensibilities. Yes, classic SF comes out of a different time and some modern readers will have trouble relating to it. But on the other hand, a lot of the classics actually come across as fresher, more action packed and more concise than many of their modern counterparts. I've read quite a bit of Bank's SF for instance and I find his work quite variable. Most of it doesn't hold much of a candle to the classics in my opinion.

And couldn't the same be said of any genre, or indeed of any fiction? Writing styles and society's values have changed and some readers will not want to read anything too old, be it SF or not. But to readers of a more open mind, it shouldn't be a problem.

I perhaps come at this from a different perspective than Ian. I didn't read many of the SF classics in my youth. Most of them I'm comming to for the first time right now. Perhaps that's a factor. Re-reading books of your youth is always going to be difficult. I don't like many of the books I enjoyed when I was a teenager (mostly epic fantasy from the late 80's).

But I stand by my belief that many of the SF classics still have much to offer the modern reader even though they won't be to everyone's taste. Perhaps modern authors are more "literary" but older authors concentrated on what is really important to SF; ideas.

EDIT: I wonder whether Ian would hold the same opinions about the classics of other artistic mediums such as film, music and art?

 

[AE35Unit]

Hmmm i must be getting old because I find more delight in the classic sf than the modern stuff,which tends to be all about the Here and Now even if set in a far off galaxy. They're full of trendy words and phrases and neologisms and that puts me off(i read one chapter of Ken McKleod's first book and put it back on the shelf.)

 

[Pyar]

I have to disagree with Ian, so many of the classics still stand up to time in my opinion. The stories they convey are really timeless, and can't really become outdated. I think some of the newer books are trying too hard sometimes because of the competition to be the best, whereas with the classics, authors just wrote because they loved to write. They expressed the ideas that they were interested in. I know that some authors still do that these days. But with the information age has come a lot of more competition and focus on producing books rather than just having a love for the writing and ideas themselves. I think a lot of these classics if released these days instead of long ago would still do remarkably well.

 

[blacknorth]

I think Ian is right up to a point - his choice of the phrase 'historical documents' is spot on. However, he is wrong about Nightfall - I'd recommend it time and again as an entry point for SF. Sure it doesn't have any hard science as we know it, and Asimov is not a prose stylist at that point in his career, but, as a source of beginner's amazement, fledgling wonder that such events can and will happen across the Universe, the story is hard to beat.

I never took the classics as read. For myself I always searched out the literary aspect of any SF story - doing this I found a whole range of authors who may not have been acclaimed at the time of writing, but whose work stands the test of time and intellectual energy. These authors need to be reprinted and rediscovered because they were, in a way, true SF - misunderstood because they were genuinely ahead of their time.

 

[Fried Egg]

Actually I know someone recently who was new to SF (but reads a lot generally) who read "Nightfall" and loved it. I really don't understand Ian's criticisms of that story but I've been there before and am not going to go there again...

 

[AE35Unit]

And the thing that golden age era fiction had was a sense of wonder,something sadly lacking from many new SF! The bits that make younger readers go Wow! Then they discover that its actually rooted in science and thats it,they're hooked! Modern SF has to invent the wow factor because a lot of the stuff that was speculated about has now become reality!

 

[Rodders]

Is that not a symptom of what's wrong with society? Aren't we all geared now to expect more bang for our buck? These blockbusters that come out, i'd watch them once and enjoy them, but theres nothing there. It's all about show. I don't think you can blame SF writers for changing their stories or writing style in order to win over new readers. Besides, i always felt that classic SF is more rooted in speculative wonder whereas modern SF is more cold, hard facts and [as you say] bang. I

like Classic SF, but there's a lot of great modern SF too.

in 30 years time, there will be a new generation of Chrons who will be asking this same question about classic authors such as Iain M. Banks et al.

 

[AE35Unit]

Err a LOT of classic sf is hard cold sf as you put it. Clarke's fiction has always been informed with the latest facts and technology. Same with Asimov and many others of that period. Now Joe Haldeman's Forever War for example is relatively new but he managed to get across that sense of wonder in what is basically a war story set in space. Ian Banks also managed it with the later still 'Consider Phlebas',as does Stephen Baxter. Its just a bit harder these days because the window for cutting edge is now even narrower!

 

[iansales]

You might also be interested in this post and this post and this post. All in some part discuss what it is about classic sf novels that I find so unsatisfactory.

 

[AE35Unit]

Well i can't access those posts apart from the first one but I think you're being overly harsh. I've not read any Doc Smith books but I imagine the Lensman books to be like the old Flash Gordon serials on tv from years ago. Entertaining. Plus I think you need to replace the word 'classic' with the term golden age or early SF. Classic just refers to a status brought about by a period of longevity, remaining popular during that time,and you seem to be referring to a specific period. Todays novels may be classics one day.

 

[iansales]

Why can't you access the second and third links? What error are you getting?

You can imagine the Lensman books however you like, but until you've actually read them you're not really in a position to judge them. I didn't make up the sexism or the stupid slang. They're there in Smith's books.

 

[AE35Unit]

Finally managed to read all the posts-my phone kept timing out,a tmobile thing. Anyway I can't believe not only that you don't consider the Stainless Steel Rat a classic when it clearly is,but also how you rubbish Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama! Its unfair to comment on the characters not being able to get computer time- it was written in 1972! No home computers and no internet! I could say a similar thing about many books when they're looking for information. Today we would just Google,but you can't condemn a novel for the lack of a concept that wasn't conceived at the time!
You then say its ' not a good SF novel' which makes me wonder what you DO consider to be a good example!

 

[iansales]

Ah, okay. I was afraid there was something wrong with the links.

Why is The Stainless Steel Rat so "clearly" a classic? I pointed out in my post why I felt it failed. Explain to me why it is a classic. I'd like to know why you consider it one.

As for Rendezvous with Rama... I pointed out that as a novel, the book failed. It had very little plot, which it failed to resolve. The central premise, Rama, is clever and memorable, but the story structured around it fails to satisfy.

And the computer thing: it's called invention. Science fiction is not about making it up as you go along. Computers had been getting smaller and more powerful for decades. It is too difficult to imagine them getting even smaller and even more powerful? To consider them unchanged from 1972 some 150 years later is a failure of imagination, and I see nothing wrong with pointing that out.

 

[AE35Unit]

As regards Stainless Steel Rat, well Slippery Jim is just a great character that the reader gets to identify with,he's a loveable rogue,an anti hero and I think i'm right in thinking that one could pick this book up at any time and be swept away by it-its timeless. It has staying power. That FOR ME makes a classic. But it is very subjective,others might not like it,but you can't say Its not a classic and thats a fact. Just sounds so superior!
And Rama,well i'd say science fiction is about using the tools around you and adding a bit of speculation. Invention as you mean it is the realm of fantasy I think.

 

[iansales]

Of the Golden Age authors, Clarke I think was the best. He managed rigorous sf and he managed elegiac sf. If his imagination failed him in some respects, it didn't in other areas. But Rendezvous with Rama remains unsatisfactory as a novel.

And there are plenty of lovable rogues in sf. And in mainstream fiction. That's not enough to make The Stainless Steel Rat a classic. Neither is its humour - Bob Shaw's Who Goes Here? is probably funnier but no one considers that a sf classic. And The Stainless Steel Rat is certainly not timeless - everyone smokes in it, the computers all use punched cards, and cameras have film. That immediately dates it.

Only two sorts of books remain timeless - those in which the time of writing is embedded in the story, and those set in no identifiable time. A good example of the first would by anything by Jane Austen - the nature of sf means the story is unlikely to be set at the time of writing; there may well be sf books like this but I can't think of one off the top of my head. A good example of the second would be Dune.

 

[Fried Egg]

The "Lensman" series is on my radar for books I'm looking out for, and so will "Rendezvous with Rama" be if I enjoy the two Clarke novels I currently have.

 

[Fried Egg]

Ian, what about authors like Theodore Sturgeon? Do you rate his work?

 

[iansales]

Not read much Sturgeon. The Dreaming Jewels, which I just remember as being very odd. And Venus Plus X, about which I remember nothing. Those of his short stories I do remember, I seem to recall as being dated but a great deal better written than anything by Asimov or Smith.

 

[Dave]

I agree entirely with what you say about E E Doc Smith and the Lensman series. I could never understand why anyone liked it, but that didn't put me off reading Science Fiction. As a boy I read Clarke and Bradbury and although they were already dated I think they stand up reasonably well even today.

The Stainless Steel Rat is certainly not timeless - everyone smokes in it, the computers all use punched cards, and cameras have film. That immediately dates it.

Since no other genre of fiction is set in the future how could Science Fiction not suffer otherwise.

Only two sorts of books remain timeless - those in which the time of writing is embedded in the story, and those set in no identifiable time. A good example of the first would by anything by Jane Austen - the nature of sf means the story is unlikely to be set at the time of writing; there may well be sf books like this but I can't think of one off the top of my head. A good example of the second would be Dune.

For the first category I'd say Frankenstein, Dracula, some of HG Wells, (but none of Jules Verne). For the second, I can't think of any Hard Science Fiction, but plenty of Fantasy, and anything with an alternative reality such as 'The Man in the High Castle'. I think you might need a third category though - I think that books such as 1984, We, Fahrenheit 451, and A Clockwork Orange get much wrong, but can be utterly forgiven for how much they get exactly correct.

But I also think that people will always prefer contemporary authors (for the contemporary language if nothing else.) Jane Austin may be a great book, but it won't be in the best-sellers list again.

 

[Connavar]

I'm a proof of that you cant generalise about new readers to sf. What dont work today just because you like favorite modern authors more etc.

I hadnt read any sf before 2006 and the book that made me a fan of the genre is Foundation from the early 50s. Some books might not be writing wise perfect but they are timeless . Asimov i have seen after reading many others that he isnt a very good prose writer but really good prose is vastly overrated in sf. I didnt even read much books before. I was one of the many people that thought reading was boring. Something i regret now of course the 20 years i wasted without reading for real.

Classic sf is much easier to recommend to new readers because they are usually 200 tops and they are ideas,stories wise strong.

The only modern sf author new readers i recommended and they read,liked was Richard Morgan. That was only because Altered Carbon had a very Noir,crime hero.


The Stainless Steel Rat is certainly not timeless - everyone smokes in it, the computers all use punched cards, and cameras have film. That immediately dates it.

This part almost made me laugh. I dont mean anything by it but it sounded wierd to me. Dashiell Hammett,Raymond Chandler have mainstream literary acclaim as important American writers of 20th Century literature,and their books are hopeheads,guys that drink,smoke all the time in San Fransico,LA that doesnt exist anymore. Drugstore where you have to go to use the phone.

Come on Ian. Im not talking about Steel Rat book but there are 1000s timeless books about worlds that dont exist anymore. You might as well say Edgar Allan Poe isnt timeless and forgotten.