The Greatest Science-Fiction novel of all time?

[Toby Frost]

I think the answer is totally subjective.

However, if I really had to choose:

Social/political importance/insight: 1984
Imaginative feat (particularly creating an entirely new society): Dune
Establishing the genre: The War of the Worlds.

 

[Extollager]

I'd have to get pretty serious about working on criteria for identification of greatest, but don't feel like doing so right now. I'd also have to think about how to understand, and how much weight to assign to, "science." Most of us would agree that "science" is not understood very rigorously in some of the great works of "science fiction." Most of those works were not written by people with much scientific training. I don't necessarily see that as a fault in the books, except insofar as science really is claimed to be central and foundational to the imagining that went into the story. But musing along these lines leads me to suggest that, the more seriously we take science when we think about great "science fiction," the more likely we are to focus on relatively near-future works (like 1984, mentioned multiple times already). When we start talking about "science fiction" set a hundred years or a thousand years in the future, the science element is correspondingly diminished. Thus, for example, we casually dismiss the really very serious objections to FTL travel and so on. It really is possible that, even if civilization endures for another 500 years, we will be no nearer to leaving the solar system with vessels bearing human beings. How realistic really are those convenient assumptions that we could get around that by putting people in suspended animation, or launching multi-generation vessels? So, if we are serious about science fiction, we'd better stick to the sciences we have and reasonable (which will probably mean near-future) extrapolations thereof.

 

[Swank]

Is it considered so mainly by fantasy fans, who like it because it in many ways resembles fantasy more than science fiction?

I am not a fantasy fan (for the most part), and see Dune as the speculative equivalent of many hard SF books. To me, great SF is the stuff that takes a premise and does the most wringing that concept out through the plot. Dune starts with humanity presented with some limits and opportunities, and Herbert suggests possibilities from those starting points that shape everything in that world and the abilities of the characters. Fantasy usually has no remit to that sort of process and limitation. Dune is usually compared to Tolkien, but Dune creates a Tolkien-esque world with our reality as the starting point. To some kinds of SF readers, that's very exciting.

 

[BAYLOR]

I am not a fantasy fan (for the most part), and see Dune as the speculative equivalent of many hard SF books. To me, great SF is the stuff that takes a premise and does the most wringing that concept out through the plot. Dune starts with humanity presented with some limits and opportunities, and Herbert suggests possibilities from those starting points that shape everything in that world and the abilities of the characters. Fantasy usually has no remit to that sort of process and limitation. Dune is usually compared to Tolkien, but Dune creates a Tolkien-esque world with our reality as the starting point. To some kinds of SF readers, that's very exciting.

You might find the Science fiction novel The Dragon Never Sleeps by Glen cook to be of interest.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

Thus, for example, we casually dismiss the really very serious objections to FTL travel and so on. It really is possible that, even if civilization endures for another 500 years, we will be no nearer to leaving the solar system with vessels bearing human beings. How realistic really are those convenient assumptions that we could get around that by putting people in suspended animation, or launching multi-generation vessels? So, if we are serious about science fiction, we'd better stick to the sciences we have and reasonable (which will probably mean near-future) extrapolations thereof.

Yes! Exactly! We overestimate our abilities to apply science and engineering to these problems and underestimate the huge advances needed, the massive effort that would be involved and the time it would take. We see this all the time when someone like Musk stands up and spouts off about self-driving taxis or a manned Mars landing. The public laps it up, but it is largely nonsense (at least in the time frames he pushes).

However, I do not agree that this has to have much bearing on the way we write Science Fiction. Firstly we write for entertainment. Is it really necessary to defend the viability of the technology we portray (you could read a text book for that). And if the aim is to study the human condition in the context of the world we portray in our stories (which is my aim anyway), does it really matter if the science has a solid foundation?

 

[Swank]

Yes! Exactly! We overestimate our abilities to apply science and engineering to these problems and underestimate the huge advances needed, the massive effort that would be involved and the time it would take. We see this all the time when someone like Musk stands up and spouts off about self-driving taxis or a manned Mars landing. The public laps it up, but it is largely nonsense (at least in the time frames he pushes).

However, I do not agree that this has to have much bearing on the way we write Science Fiction. Firstly we write for entertainment. Is it really necessary to defend the viability of the technology we portray (you could read a text book for that). And if the aim is to study the human condition in the context of the world we portray in our stories (which is my aim anyway), does it really matter if the science has a solid foundation?

I think that SF is no more than the extrapolation of some concept applied to modify our world. Sometimes it is a real science concept, sometimes it is something so fantastical that there is no reason to presume it could ever happen. The "science" really is the way a finite number of speculations are consistently handled.


Or if it has spaceships. (Not a high bar, I know.)


Anything written by people to be read by people probably satisfies the "human condition" requirement, more or less.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I do not agree that this has to have much bearing on the way we write Science Fiction. Firstly we write for entertainment. Is it really necessary to defend the viability of the technology we portray (you could read a text book for that). And if the aim is to study the human condition in the context of the world we portray in our stories (which is my aim anyway), does it really matter if the science has a solid foundation?

But social science fiction is very important though a lot of SF writers do not consider some possibilities. John Maynard Keynes was writing about a 15-hour workweek for grandchildren back in the 1930s. I think we should have had a 3-day 24 hour workweek by the 90s. But instead we had useless variations in consumer trash increasing GDP.

That is the annoying thing about the Vorkosigan series. It is supposedly set 700 years in the future but it is as though they still have a 20th century workweek. What would society be like with a 3-day workweek?

So many people not understanding technology makes them willing to buy junk. I have not been to an auto show since before the Moon landing.

Try getting an economist to talk about the annual depreciation of automobiles since Sputnik. Knowing hard sciences isn't an excuse to dismiss soft sciences.

 

[Swank]

But social science fiction is very important though a lot of SF writers do not consider some possibilities. John Maynard Keynes was writing about a 15-hour workweek for grandchildren back in the 1930s. I think we should have had a 3-day 24 hour workweek by the 90s. But instead we had useless variations in consumer trash increasing GDP.

So few people read science fiction that I doubt our society could ever call it "important". All sorts of people have society-changing ideas, and putting them in an SF story is probably the least effective way to capitalize on them. Applying them to an experiment or a business can create change - not hiding them in little-read genre fiction.

We like to think that SF is important because it sometimes mirrors reality, but it virtually never causes reality.

 

[BAYLOR]

So few people read science fiction that I doubt our society could ever call it "important". All sorts of people have society-changing ideas, and putting them in an SF story is probably the least effective way to capitalize on them. Applying them to an experiment or a business can create change - not hiding them in little-read genre fiction.

We like to think that SF is important because it sometimes mirrors reality, but it virtually never causes reality.

Have you seen the movies coming out of Hollywood and television and the one Science fiction novel become best sellers ? ? I think Science Science fiction has a far greater presence in the public awareness than you credit it for ?

 

[Swank]

Have you seen the movies coming out of Hollywood and tlevsion and the one Science fiction novel become best sellers ? ? I think Science Science fiction has a far greater presence in the public awareness than you credit it for ?

Yes, and the level of fandom for Avengers, Dune, Total Recall or any other adventure is not the same as an SF concept having a lasting change in society at large. That's what my post was about.

 

[BAYLOR]

Yes, and the level of fandom for Avengers, Dune, Total Recall or any other adventure is not the same as an SF concept having a lasting change in society at large. That's what my post was about.

Okay, Star Trek , inspired engineers to t create some the gadgets , For example , one could ague that the cell phone was loosely inspired by the Star Trek Communicator, The Computer Terminal we spoke and the acting at could have presided the spark of inspiration for the PC.

Science Fiction worker Jack Williamson coined such term terms Genetic Engineering and Terraforming
The first or , one the first reference to Cyborg, ( entity part machine and part organic )can be found in the The Moon Pool By Abraham Merritt a In Merritt' novel The Metal Monster you see concept like Nano technology and Wifi though then are not called by those names.
A Logic Named Joe by Murray Leinster predicts the concept of the Internet.

Films like Star Wars and Silent Running spurred innovations computer and digital effects in movies.

 

[Swank]

Okay, Star Trek , inspired engineers to t create some the gadgets , For example , one could ague that the cell phone was loosely inspired by the Star Trek Communicator, The Computer Terminal we spoke and the acting at could have presided the spark of inspiration for the PC.

Science Fiction worker Jack Williamson coined such term terms Genetic Engineering and Terraforming
The first or , one the first reference to Cyborg, ( entity part machine and part organic )can be found in the The Moon Pool By Abraham Merritt a In Merritt' novel The Metal Monster you see concept like Nano technology and Wifi though then are not called by those names.
A Logic Named Joe by Murray Leinster predicts the concept of the Internet.

Films like Star Wars and Silent Running spurred innovations computer and digital effects in movies.

I can just about guarantee you we would have those things without SF "predicting" them. The cell phone is the obvious result of walkie-talkies. A PC is just the obvious response to the mainframe. Genetic engineering is a term, just like "cyberspace", that have nothing to do with the actual development of gene splicing or the internet. Terraforming isn't real any more than "lightsaber" is. Nanotechnology doesn't yet exist, but it is modeled on biology.

Sticking an idea in a story doesn't cause that idea to come into being, any more than writing it in your diary does. Coining a term isn't inventing the technology that later is labeled with that term. And suggesting that everyone grok a new way doesn't cause the population to discover new levels of consciousness. Fiction largely fails to create reality.

And the innovations that occurred in movie making isn't a product of the SF elements in the movie.


It would certainly be nice if well-meaning SF writers could lead the world out of all the crises we find ourselves in. But Handmaids Tale and any number of environmental SF novels are unfortunately failing to change society's trajectory.

 

[Dave Vicks]

Where are the jet packs,flying cars,food pills and vacation to Mars(Ares)?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Where are the jet packs,flying cars,food pills and vacation to Mars(Ares)?

The Jedi Knights bought up the patents and won't allow their production.

 

[tachyon]

Where are the jet packs,flying cars,food pills and vacation to Mars(Ares)?

It turns out jet packs and flying cars are super difficult, dangerous, and expensive. Human dietary needs are more complicated and diverse, and food is tasty. Mars is super far away and inhospitable.

 

[Parson]

Actually flying cars are about as dangerous as a private plane, and there are some presently on the road (if barely). But what they really are is ruinously expensive. Skeptical? Google pictures of "Flying Cars 2021"

 

[Justin Swanton]

Where are the jet packs,flying cars,food pills and vacation to Mars(Ares)?

All tech walls that were reached decades ago. The fields of technology where we can still make substantial advances are steadily becoming fewer as each reaches its own brick wall, and they make less and less of a physical impact on our lives.

I wouldn't hope for too much from genetic engineering either: it's dangerous in a way that other branches of tech aren't, in that living organisms are inconceivably complex biological structures that we didn't invent and don't begin to fully understand, and tweaking them comes with side effects that can take years to appear. If we want to fiddle with the human body in any significant way we will need centuries or millennia to iron out the bugs.

I prophesy that 2100 will look awfully like 2022 (or it will just look awful). If I'm wrong the people then are free to spit on my grave.

 

[Swank]

I prophesy that 2100 will look awfully like 2022 (or it will just look awful). If I'm wrong the people then are free to spit on my grave.

I would guess 2100 won't look like today because we'll either be in full ecological collapse, or have instituted sweeping changes to infrastructure and work to prevent going off the cliff. Those changes don't require new science, but the application of things we are already considering.

 

[hitmouse]

All tech walls that were reached decades ago. The fields of technology where we can still make substantial advances are steadily becoming fewer as each reaches its own brick wall, and they make less and less of a physical impact on our lives.

I wouldn't hope for too much from genetic engineering either: it's dangerous in a way that other branches of tech aren't, in that living organisms are inconceivably complex biological structures that we didn't invent and don't begin to fully understand, and tweaking them comes with side effects that can take years to appear. If we want to fiddle with the human body in any significant way we will need centuries or millennia to iron out the bugs.

I prophesy that 2100 will look awfully like 2022 (or it will just look awful). If I'm wrong the people then are free to spit on my grave.

Genetically engineered, vat-grown “biological” drugs have made vast, paradigm-shifting changes to many cancer treatments over the last few years, as well as a number of other complex diseases, and we can fairly confidently expect this to continue. The pipeline of new agents is large and diverse.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I chose 2100 for The Autist because it felt quite near, yet also sufficiently far off to allow my imagination to come into play. Myself, I think it'll be worse than 2022...