Does Science Fiction have an equivalent to Fantasy's LotR as a trend setter?

[Ray McCarthy]

and the legends of Arthur et al in England.

Welsh originally, then England via France!, then there are the earlier Irish ones, a few of which influenced the Welsh ones.

Shelley perhaps

Absolutely. Volta invented battery in 1799, Modern science is established by the time Shelley writes in 1814 or 1815, provoked by the rain and Byron's house party. His daughter is effectively the worlds first computer programmer, (Ada, Lady Lovelace working with Babbage) who must have been conceived about the time Frankenstien's Monster with the first Fictional Scientist and Electricity is written
Jules Verne sees a real submarine (or perhaps a model of it) and inspired to write 20,000 leagues.
The 19th C is undisputedly the start of the modern age with Metal ships, airships, electric batteries, public electric light, hydroelectric and coal - steam Electric power stations, Diesel and petrol cars, telegraph, fax, canning, typewriters, ballpoint pens, mechanical TV, the vacuum pump, neon signs, even the CRT invented in UK and Germany same year (Braun Tube in many countries).
No wonder Shelley, Wells, Verne and others started the SF genre.

EDIT: I think "proper" alternate reality Steampunk should be 1650 to 1800! The true steam era.
The Victorian Era wasn't really any more "steam" than us. A lot of our electricity (Oil, coal, Nuclear) is via steam.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

browse the individual cds

Ghastly website
Life is too short now to be browsing that.
Maybe I'll visit someone with cable. But then I'd STILL have to browse it painfully to discover what is one them.

 

[JaimeRetief]

Ghastly website
Life is too short now to be browsing that.
Maybe I'll visit someone with cable. But then I'd STILL have to browse it painfully to discover what is one them.

Well, from what I've read it is a semi-officially sanctioned one man operation.
I also think that most of Smith's stories should be in the public domain by now, I think that you should also check project Gutenberg.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

check project Gutenberg.

I do, sometimes I even use up my Gutenberg download allowance.

Also
http://www.baenebooks.com/c-1-free-library.aspx

Amazon isn't above reselling material that they probably reformatted from Gutenberg!

 

[JaimeRetief]

I do, sometimes I even use up my Gutenberg download allowance.

Also
http://www.baenebooks.com/c-1-free-library.aspx

Amazon isn't above reselling material that they probably reformatted from Gutenberg!

Amazon or their affiliates?
I have seen several Clark Ashton Smith collections that must be 100% full of Public Domain materials.
However it is not illegal to sell public domain materials IIRC.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Sub £1 Amazon eBooks. Some are certainly also on Gutenberg. Perhaps you get £1 worth of reformatting?

Very many Dead Tree based Publishers add value to Public Domain. You'll see that the new illustrations and layout is (c)

 

[JaimeRetief]

Sub £1 Amazon eBooks. Some are certainly also on Gutenberg. Perhaps you get £1 worth of reformatting?

Very many Dead Tree based Publishers add value to Public Domain. You'll see that the new illustrations and layout is (c)

I was talking about this
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00725WJLY/?tag=brite-21
0.99$ is not osomething that would raise my eyebrows, although I have seen a few pretty decent megapacks with far more current material for that much money, 8 dollars on the other hand...

 

[AndrewT]

Asimov's Foundation series is the closest thing to a LOTR of sci fi that I can think of. But even that is not as defining to the genre because there were a lot of other authors pumping out material at that time. It's not called the golden age of sci fi for nothing.

 

[Cli-Fi]

Just kind of thinking out loud here, but there seems to be to be a major difference in the historical time frames for the two types of literature. Fantasy, to me, seems to have a direct antecedent in the fairy tales that were told throughout the world for the last several thousand years or more; also in things such as the mythology of Greece, and the legends of Arthur et al in England. Science fiction is a much newer type of literature (going back to what, Shelley perhaps? And becoming more widespread through Verne and Wells.).

Tolkien seems to have, in the public's mind, the reputation of being the author who mastered fantasy...he brought it to what many see as its highest level of accomplishment; it was masterfully written by a renowned Shakespearean scholar. TLOTR is an all-time classic and the way to consider it is to consider its influence on the writing of all fantasy that came after it.

Science fiction was perceived as junk literature throughout the first half of the twentieth century (with the exception, perhaps, of only Wells); it was pulp, it was looked down on by almost everyone...authors of most other genres, teachers, parents. It was with works such as Asimov's Foundation series...Heinlein and Clarke's novels...and books such as Dune in the 1960s, that science fiction began to be accepted by a wider audience as a legitimate form of literature. So another way to consider the most successful works of science fiction is to consider what authors and books had the most influence in making science fiction popular, and acceptable to those who before had ridiculed its worth. I guess I'm wondering if, with science fiction, it's not more proper to consider what books influenced other authors to imitate their styles in the attempt to write works that would sell, rather than works that would uplift the genre. From what I've read of the realities of SF in the 1930s through mid 1950s, it was more about quickly churning out masses of words to the pulp magazines to make a few bucks, than it was about writing enduring classics that would change the direction, and reputation, of the field. Maybe I'm saying that the genre isn't old enough yet to have that one certifiably unique masterpiece-of-influence.

I may not have made any sense at all. CC

I don't read a lot, but each of those writers you have mentioned I would have to agree with. As well as Douglas Adams, Jules Verne, and Orson Welles. I think the problem with science fiction VS fantasy is that SF I think is much, much, much, much more broader. Basically anything can fit in it that feels a little bit out of place. In fact, forensic professionals go so far as to say that CSI is science fiction because of how it's portrayed on TV and with all the brainwashed kids that tried to become cops because of seeing those shows. I kid not.

With Fantasy, you already have an established mythology like you said, but I should add that it is a static one. Big Bad Monsters, mythical creatures and talking animals. Plus good looking princes and princesses. It is pretty unchanging using the same simple format and the same characters. With probably the only change for centuries, being Shrek. I am not sure if any books portray ogres in a good light like that. This is part of the reason why I don't really like fantasy. I would say however that LOTR did create the Hobbit and Rowling did an amazing job creating a wizard world.

Since Science Fiction deals partially in science or scientific concepts, it is always changing. As one staple writer is well known for quoting: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke. I think the only way, science fiction could ever have a static mythology. Is when there is no more technological advancements left to be made, but then wouldn't writers just be writing plain old fiction? So science fiction itself is based on a paradox. HA. HA. Which is probably why it took so long for people to get it. It still has a stigma and people only like stuff that other people like. Only true fans of SF go out of their way to look for something else in the genre. This is why it has a hard time lasting on TV in the first place, and why many original science fiction movie ideas don't do well at the box office.

 

[Parson]

I would argue that there is not a "book" or series like LOTR in Fantasy. But there might be an author which brought S.F. into the light of day. I believe that Jules Verne would be that author. "Twenty Thousands Leagues under the Sea" was unequivocally S.F. yet it was a best seller and not considered pulp fiction at any level.

 

[Cli-Fi]

I think it's easy to say that LOTR is the best of fantasy, since with the help of it's movies it has become a house-hold name. Same with Harry Potter or Game of Thrones. I think the only SF that is a House Hold name like that would be Star Wars. And the books came after the movies! But those books aren't house-hold names. It's the movies people know.

So we need to adapt some or all of the works by these authors mentioned into high budgeted TV series or movies so that non-readers can appreciate them as well. If you are looking for a trend-setter ask Hollywood for help. Though, even the Tolkien Estate was none too happy with how the movies turned out, and they want nothing to do with them!

Needless to say, I am really looking forward to the Foundation HBO show being developed, even though I didn't necessarily enjoy the books.

 

[Brian G Turner]

It may be worth noting that fantasy used to be a far smaller market - the exploration of space was a huge theme from the 1950's, but that of exploring the mythical heritage of Europe was barely present. NASA has perhaps been the big inspiration for Western SF.

As has been mentioned in other threads, there were other fantasy writers than Tolkien - Lewis Carroll comes immediately to mind - but the development of the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing system especially helped popularise Tolkien's use of memes. Not least when individual role-playing sessions ended up as the inspiration for various major fantasy novels and series.

Now fantasy is the far larger market, and in the UK at least, publishers have long been looking for treatments beyond the basic traditional memes.

2c.

 

[Toby Frost]

The closest thing I can think of is the film Star Wars, which didn't invent much, but copied from a lot of sources, gave a clear form to a lot of slightly vague ideas and - most of all - had a huge market. Of course, Star Wars is only one part of SF, and to some people it isn't science fiction at all, but to the great majority of people who aren't SF enthusiasts, their image of science fiction probably starts with "stuff like Star Wars".

 

[JaimeRetief]

I would argue that there is not a "book" or series like LOTR in Fantasy. But there might be an author which brought S.F. into the light of day. I believe that Jules Verne would be that author. "Twenty Thousands Leagues under the Sea" was unequivocally S.F. yet it was a best seller and not considered pulp fiction at any level.

Well the Golden Age got started via the Pulp magazines, which might have been influenced quite heavily by Verne and Welles.
I actually recall mentions of of those two in a few articles dealing with pulp era science fiction, and that Cordwainer Smith for example got the idea for his underpeople from Welles' The Island of Doctor Moreau.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

The Island of Doctor Moreau

The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection was formed about two years later, about 1900.

However in general Cordwainer Smith's stories are nothing like Wells or Verne.

to the great majority of people who aren't SF enthusiasts, their image of science fiction probably starts with "stuff like Star Wars".

And Star Trek, though TOS did recycle quite a few ideas from Golden Era SF, the slicker ST: TNG was often more like a soap in space.

 

[JaimeRetief]

The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection was formed about two years later, about 1900.

However in general Cordwainer Smith's stories are nothing like Wells or Verne.

I know, but the influence is there even if Smith's stories are very different IMO.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I can point to a number of influential and well-known works of science fiction, but I just do not think that there is anything with such a profound impact to the genre as Lord of the Rings's impact was on Fantasy.

The Skylark of Space by Edward E. "Doc" Smith was written between 1915 and 1921 while Smith was working on his doctorate. The Skylark of Space is considered to be one of the earliest novels of interstellar travel and the first example of space opera. Originally serialized in 1928 in the magazine Amazing Stories, it was first published in book form in 1946 by the Buffalo Book Co.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skylark_of_Space

But I think by its very nature "science" fiction has to change over time. As science in the real world changes, what people create as science fiction must change. Fantasy is not forced to change by greater understanding of reality.

"Space Opera" was a mostly derogatory term from the beginning. The SF from the 20's and 30's did not seem very good to me even when I first started reading it in the 60's.

psik

 

[JaimeRetief]

But I think by its very nature "science" fiction has to change over time. As science in the real world changes, what people create as science fiction must change. Fantasy is not forced to change by greater understanding of reality.

psik

That is right to a point, however I doubt that many of the New Wave writers were all that concerned with the facts of hard science, Silverberg's Dying Inside, as well as various works by Dick and Ellison, didn't exactly have much to do with the hard sciece of the day.

 

[psikeyhackr]

That is right to a point, however I doubt that many of the New Wave writers were all that concerned with the facts of hard science, Silverberg's Dying Inside, as well as various works by Dick and Ellison, didn't exactly have much to do with the hard sciece of the day.

Exactly, SF is more complicated than fantasy so it cannot be analysed as simply. Psychic phenomenon was accepted as SF when I started reading it. Now some people want to classify that as fantasy. Now the term "space opera" is supposed to be respectable. Does this mean that "science fiction" has been corrupted because so many "writers" want to get in on the money to be made calling watered down techy stuff science fiction. The Hunger Games is called science fiction but the books got a really low scores from my word counting program, barely above fantasy.

psik

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Most SF writers haven't been good on science. Asimov, Clarke, Fred Hoyle etc are exceptions but even they don't worry much about it often.

E E Doc Smith's early craft use Iron as fuel. The most stable Element, dead between lighter ones that can be Fused (starting with Hydrogen) and heaviest natural ones that can be fissioned (Uranium?). Was this a in joke with someone, I can't believe even in 1915 .. 21 that EE Doc Smith didn't know that much physics.

The "Three laws" of Asimov are fictional, philosophic, with no scientific basis. He wrote Chemistry texts and knew a lot of science. He wrote some mystery stories too, and the "three laws" are obviously setting the "robotic" equivalent of the sealed room murder, lets hypothesis robots that can't go wrong and have almost every story about loop holes in the "laws". Yet idiots talk about about them as if they are really real in A. I. field. It was a literary game.

Clarke and Hoyle added as much fantasy as suited them.

True "Hard" SF has always been rare. I don't think either you can accurately score "hardness" by dictionary searches.
How does the "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" fare? It's got fantasy (everything to do with the computer) but some not too crazy SF in it, over all I'd rate it fairly "Hard" SF.

I think the reason some SF dates badly is a lot more complicated that the "science" in them.