The Greatest Science-Fiction novel of all time?

[BAYLOR]

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

David Butlers 1930 film Just Imagine which is set in the year of 1980, was a bit off on its predictions of what that year would be like. It's also a musical.

 

[BAYLOR]

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.

There has been plenty of talk of sending a manned mission to Mars in the next few years. It would take 18 months to get there , explore the place and 18 months back. This would require a rather big space ship that can carry significant supplies of food and water . Then, there is the danger of radiation and how to protect the crew on the way to and from Mars .

 

[Astro Pen]

There has been plenty of talk of sending a manned mission to Mars in the next few years. It would take 18 months to get there , explore the place and 18 months back. This would require a rather big space ship that can carry significant supplies of food and water . Then, there is the danger of radiation and how to protect the crew on the way to and from Mars .

I would say we are likely to send VR robotic interfaces to explore mars but the 10 minute radio delay makes that unviable for direct feedback. However, from the safety of a mars orbiter it could work. Feel you are there via sensory feedback without the radiation and lack of atmosphere consraints.
I have said before though, mars is tiny, not another earth. Venus is a better bet if we can remove much of its atmosphere.

Comparative size of Earth and Mars

 

[Extollager]

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'm fascinated by this -- the possibility that society will have to learn to live with some ineluctable limitations that, at present, many people probably imagine will be overcome because they think it's just a matter of time, effort etc.

So -- what if civilization endures but 200 years from now we are hardly closer to manned exploration of Mars than we are now? What if we have to accept that FTL is never going to happen? What if there is still, as now, absolutely no indication that other planets host life, let alone civilizations?* What if we have not developed any further "mental powers" (telepathy, whatever) than we have now? What if more people live to old age, but people live little longer than they do now? I assume that "time travel" will be no more likely then than it is now.


And so on. A brief definition of (much of) science fiction is that it is "stories about possible futures." I'm interested in a possible future in which these common dreams of the future remained dreams, and perhaps in this future people have been forced to accept that those always were just dreams.

*I wrote a story once in which signals from another planet had been detected, but after the passage of many years it was -- as I suppose would be the case -- no more possible to say what they meant than it was when they were first discovered. In science fiction we always assume there will be a Rosetta Stone or a universal translator or something. Is that actually likely? What if such signals had been discovered 50 years ago, & we still had no idea what they meant?

 

[psikeyhackr]

I'm fascinated by this -- the possibility that society will have to learn to live with some ineluctable limitations that, at present, many people probably imagine will be overcome because they think it's just a matter of time, effort etc.

So -- what if civilization endures but 200 years from now we are hardly closer to manned exploration of Mars than we are now? What if we have to accept that FTL is never going to happen? What if there is still, as now, absolutely no indication that other planets host life, let alone civilizations?*

We have to deal with our socio-economic issues.
Doesn't anyone find it odd that double entry accounting is 700 years old but Western countries do not make it mandatory in the schools? But then 4 years of English literature is required in American high schools?

It is like the peons are supposed to be brainwashed workers with no economic power but the socialists don't seem to notice this miseducation.

Economic Wargames: How the economic model is unsustainable and enslaving.

www.toxicdrums.com

Le Guin's Dispossessed and Hogan's Voyage from Yesteryear provide perspectives on this. Oh yeah, the climate issue must still be addressed.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Colonizing the Moon makes more sense than Mars.

We could control robots on the Moon with operators on Earth without having to send food and oxygen with shifts of operators working 24 hours a day. Could people on Mars do that? Mars is too far for the radio control.

I do not understand why that technological capability is not mentioned a lot more and there is so much PR about Mars.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

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.

100% agree with your first point. There have been very few significant advances in electro-mechanical engineering in the last seventy years or so. I mean, sure, a car now is nicer than its 1950s equivalent. Automation has improved manufacturing. But the fundamentals of the electro-mechanical building blocks have not changed. All improvements have been incremental. Nor do I see any significant change coming up. Everything just gets gradually a little better as the years go by (better batteries, more powerful permanent magnets making motors smaller etc). But nothing truly ground breaking. I actually feel the same way about computer tech, where the most significant breakthroughs were made perhaps 45 years ago. We had microprocessors then and now we have, well, better microprocessors. A modern rocket engine may be incrementally better than the ones Werner Braun was fitting to V2s in 1945, but for proper manned space travel we need fundamental scientific/technological advances (in spite of what Musk might tell you).

Another thing to consider - without getting too political - is the motivation for innovation. Now more than ever, the profit motive is king. Who is going to pay for research and development for, say, a manned Mars mission? In the Cold War era the state may have been motivated to do this, but the trend now is towards smaller government not bigger. So why would I spend time chasing a scientific breakthrough that might be achieved in 40 years time instead of working on a product I could be selling in a couple of years?

The one area where I take issue with you is in the field of biological sciences. Here, I think the ingredients may be in place for some real significant breakthroughs. The profit motive exists alongside some massive recent breakthroughs (you mention genetic engineering) that can surely be built on. I would be willing to make a bet: We discover the secret to immortality before we get to Mars!

 

[Justin Swanton]

I would be willing to make a bet: We discover the secret to immortality before we get to Mars!

You're on. How much?

 

[Pyan]

Can we get back to the intention of the thread, please. Thank you.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Can we get back to the intention of the thread, please. Thank you.

Sorry, yes. Greatest SF novel? Perhaps define 'greatest'.

 

[Extollager]

Yes, please -- let's work on a definition.

A little sercon activity need do Chrons no harm.

Perhaps a twofold discussion would help. (1) What qualities make for greatness in any prose fiction? (2) What additional qualities, if any, are needed for a work to be a great work of science fiction?

There is an enormous amount of firsthand knowledge of sf represented by the membership of Chrons, and many people here write reviews, etc. Constructing an acceptable definition or description of sf greatness might not be easy, but it should be a worthwhile activity if there's a willingness to undertake it.

 

[Justin Swanton]

IMHO there are two principal elements to great literature.

A great novel has at least some or most of the features of quality writing: strong and original storyline, well-delineated characters, solid worldbuilding and a mastery of language. But that's only half of it. A great novel must also be widely appreciated. A lot of people must like it. This widespread appreciation must span several decades at least; it mustn't be a seven day wonder. A badly-written novel that is a momentary best seller isn't great literature (Fifty Shades of Grey anyone?). But a very well-written book that doesn't have a large audience likewise isn't great literature. So Immortelle isn't great. Yet.

 

[Parson]

Parson rush in where angels fear to tread. (err, that sounds wrong!) Anyway:

I believe that in for a novel to be in the running for "The Greatest Science Fiction of all time" there has to be significance in several different areas.

1. It has to have been widely read and discussed and not only in niche communities.

2. It has to have scientific underpinnings.

3. It has to have wide ranging social significance.

4. It has to be seen as significant today and have remained significant for at least a decade prior to the present.

5. It has to have a history of being translated into other languages and being well received there.


*There's likely more but for me these feel pretty essential. So if I use these criteria, my pick of Ender's Game although it is my personal favorite story probably falls short of #3 "wide ranging social significance." I would say Animal Farm falls short of #2 "scientific underpinnings." But a book which I personally could wish was never written Frankenstein, would seem to be in the running. Hunger Games (2008) might just qualify for length of time, but I feel it's short there.

 

[Justin Swanton]

3. It has to have wide ranging social significance.

4. It has to be seen as significant today and have remained significant for at least a decade prior to the present.

What exactly is meant by "social significance" and how is a novel meant to be significant today as it was in the past? "Significance" is a rather subjective term and has been used to trash literature in the past that doesn't accommodate - shall we say - current preoccupations.

 

[Parson]

For me social significance is that the book has something to say to human society in general. Not just a great story, but that there is something that a person can ponder and perhaps decide that they need to change their behavior because of the insights gained. 1984 would be an example of a book with social significance and would certainly be in the running for best of all time.

If we take Orson Scott Card books, while I would say Ender's Game does not have enough of it. Speaker for the Dead although not in the running in other ways for me does have that. For myself I tweaked the way I did sermons because of my internal discussion with that book.

 

[Justin Swanton]

For me social significance is that the book has something to say to human society in general. Not just a great story, but that there is something that a person can ponder and perhaps decide that they need to change their behavior because of the insights gained. 1984 would be an example of a book with social significance and would certainly be in the running for best of all time.

If we take Orson Scott Card books, while I would say Ender's Game does not have enough of it. Speaker for the Dead although not in the running in other ways for me does have that. For myself I tweaked the way I did sermons because of my internal discussion with that book.

Perhaps a novel is good if it gets to the bottom of the human condition which is something that may or may not involve society. Robinson Crusoe and The Pilgrim's Progress are great novels, but social considerations are largely absent from them. I don't think a novel that puts society ahead of the individual is that good. 1984 is great literature because it is all about the effect of a social system on individuals who eventually rebel against the Leviathan and are crushed by it. The City and the Stars, which is all about a social system and not enough about the individuals, is second-rank. IMHO what is most important in an individual is precisely what others cannot see in him and which society doesn't directly affect. Communism, which makes society the be-all and end-all of human existence, gets this radically wrong.

 

[Parson]

Perhaps a novel is good if it gets to the bottom of the human condition which is something that may or may not involve society.

I agree totally about "getting to the bottom of the human condition." But who a person is can only be determined by their relationship to others. I don't believe that there is such a thing as something being truly good for an individual which is not in turn good/helpful for their society. Our life is lived through our relationships, not in spite of them.

 

[Justin Swanton]

I agree totally about "getting to the bottom of the human condition." But who a person is can only be determined by their relationship to others. I don't believe that there is such a thing as something being truly good for an individual which is not in turn good/helpful for their society. Our life is lived through our relationships, not in spite of them.

I would say that a good person manifests his goodness by how he treats the individuals he personally knows. These could be as few as one, like Crusoe's treatment of Man Friday. "Society" I think means something bigger: modern communities that number in the thousands or tens of thousands or millions. We are preoccupied by society because it is now so huge and interconnected, but that doesn't make it more important.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

Parson rush in where angels fear to tread. (err, that sounds wrong!) Anyway:

I believe that in for a novel to be in the running for "The Greatest Science Fiction of all time" there has to be significance in several different areas.

1. It has to have been widely read and discussed and not only in niche communities.

2. It has to have scientific underpinnings.

3. It has to have wide ranging social significance.

4. It has to be seen as significant today and have remained significant for at least a decade prior to the present.

5. It has to have a history of being translated into other languages and being well received there.


*There's likely more but for me these feel pretty essential. So if I use these criteria, my pick of Ender's Game although it is my personal favorite story probably falls short of #3 "wide ranging social significance." I would say Animal Farm falls short of #2 "scientific underpinnings." But a book which I personally could wish was never written Frankenstein, would seem to be in the running. Hunger Games (2008) might just qualify for length of time, but I feel it's short there.

Good list. I would say scientific underpinnings might be required to make it a SF novel, but I don't think they necessarily have to be scientifically valid. For example, the fact that you cannot stitch parts of different people together to make a Frankenstein monster should not detract too much from the novel. I would add a sixth requirement; it has to be a good read (simple but important).

 

[Parson]

"Society" I think means something bigger: modern communities that number in the thousands or tens of thousands or millions. We are preoccupied by society because it is now so huge and interconnected, but that doesn't make it more important.

Here we disagree. I would any collection of humans to be a kind of society. Therefore almost all of us are parts of many different societies. I would say that how our smaller societies are put together and how they go about their business is what begins to effect the larger parts of society.