The Golden Age of SF is usually defined by the tenure of John W. Campbell as editor of Astounding. He demanded literary quality writing and other editors like Horace L. Gold of Galaxy soon followed suit. The pulp era refers usually to pre-Golden Age because it does connote lower quality of writing.
Please stop using the word trope. Tropes are not themes. I wouldn't call the use of a car a trope in media, but I feel like you would. It makes it sound like you haven't really thought about what a trope really is. That was a good bit about Hiroshima though.
I miss the optimism of old sci-fi. It seems like 90% of modern sci-fi is all dystopias in some way. I miss stuff like Clarke's Sands of Mars or 2001: A Space Odyssey, works that say "Look what we can one day achieve". Inspiration is far more important than cautionary tales, and right now with the climate problems and all that, it seems like humanity can use every bit of hope it can get.
I read an article years ago that claimed science was killing SF, by showing us how unlikely or impossible so many classic SF elements are. If we include politics, economics, etc, as science, it seems all the more true today. Essentially, real-world knowledge is culling all the more exciting timelines and leaving only Paolo Bagilucci knock-offs (sorry about the spelling, Paolo). More and more, we see the reasons why we will never get into space beyond major-government publicity stunts... why we will never stop our tribal squabbling without Borg chips in our brains... why any hint of a post-scarcity society will be promptly co-opted by an elite in order to facilitate their status games against some other elite. All signs in the real world keep showing us that we just keep doing the same stupid "glorified chimpanzee" stuff we've been doing for a million years, except with 3D-printed clubs and computer-generated wads of feces to fling at each other. Science fiction inevitably reflects this, unless it willfully turns away from realism and dives into space-opera and comic books.
@@rommdan2716 curiously enough the Martian is already wrong, any near future sci fi story that doesnt include quickly reusable rockets is already outdated which is pretty crazy to think just how fast this change happened
@@stevenscott2136 centuries ago there was no concept of "human rights" and in ancient times slavery was accepted as totally natural. Not to mention that before ww1 war was seen as a glorious thing. Just because we now see the problems of our societies it doesn't mean that we can't solve them.
With Wells' War of the Worlds, saying it is dated in its description of Mars is missing the point that the alien invasion is an allegory for imperialism on Earth. Wells was reacting to the destruction of the Tasmanian aborigines by colonisers dealing out death with guns and other relatively advanced technology.
I can't believe this was missed. Wells even tips his hand to the Allegory in the FIRST CHAPTER of the book. "And before we judge of them too harshly we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals, such as the vanished bison and the dodo, but upon its inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit?" He wanted to show his fellow colonizers what it would be like to be colonised. Perhaps that's the difference between modern and classic sci-fi, today's readers can't recognize allegory anymore.
Well, I think a bit of history is needed here. Sure the Tasmanians were horrible savages, and the colonists would certainly have been justified in eradicating them utterly, but that is NOT what happened. The fact is the Government actually spent colonist tax money to build exclusively for the Tasmanians---on a island reserved JUST FOR THEM--modern homes with indoor plumbing and electricity. NONE of which were ever used as the natives chose to live outside one the island until the last of them died off. Why did they die off? Because with their isolation on the island came the end to one of the ways they reproduced. By raiding other natives and TAKING their females to replenish the shortage due to the high levels of male births. With life on the island came a shortage of women and without women, no offspring.
@@WilAdams Glad to see someone willing to look at both sides and show that victims aren't always that way. History is about showing both sides and learning as much as possible. It's easy to criticize the killer, but few ask what circumstances under which they have chosen to kill. We are all a short step away from becoming both the savage and the slayer.
My introduction to sci/fi was in the early 50’s. One of the most striking things about the genre at that time was its complete miss on computers. There was no way the writers could imagine the transistor or microchips, let alone personal computers and iPhones. The computers were imagined to be bigger, even huge products of the current technology having thousands of tubes and communicating with punched tapes. Only heads of government and a few scientists were allowed access. The total integration of computers into the culture would have seemed too far-fetched to even consider. I do love living in the future.
Personally, this is one of the reasons why I think Dune still holds up to this day. By choosing to remove all "thinking machines" from his novel, Herbert's world doesn't feel like a laughably outdated relic of its time.
The mentality of not being able to "dated language" (wihch is absurd) simply means they wouldn't understand or appreciate science fiction's greatest works anyway. So it's no great loss really.
@@CountBrass Same goes for any genre of literature, imho. Need to be open to different ways of using language to appreciate books of any kind, from any culture and from any era.
I just started listening to the Foundation series audiobooks a month ago, I would call the language in those "timeless", since I honestly wouldn't have guessed that it was written more than half a century ago.
I heard the comment "Science Fiction began in ancient times." I'd be very curious to find out how many people actually read Lucien of Samosata's "A True Story" or Voltaire's "Micromegas" and do they believe that Swift's "Gulliver's Travels" or Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" should be considered Science Fiction. I appreciated your introduction of these concepts and I look forward to viewing more installments.
The only real basis to NOT call them SF is that the science is blatantly wrong. But modern SF includes FTL travel, telekinesis, personality uploading, human-alien crossbreeding, time travel, and many other elements which are either debatable or flat-out wrong. At least Voltaire could claim to not know about the cube-square law for "Micromegas" -- what's our excuse? Every time I try to define what is and isn't SF for a newcomer, I fail. Heck, the SF section at any bookstore I've been in for 20 years has been half composed of Lord of the Rings knockoffs... in the 90's, it was vampire stories. So I think SF is more a state of mind than any particular property of the work itself.
@@stevenscott2136 Scifi is just fantasy with some intent to stay within scientific principles. It doesn't have to be accurate to the time of writing either and the science can be intentionally changed.
The Ramayana, Indian poetry from the 5th century BC, mentions flying machines. Plato's depictions of Atlantis in the 4th century BC are also considered early forms of Sci-Fi for Western culture.
I've been reading science fiction for over 50 years and first read Asimov's YA books in 6th grade...we're talking mid 60s. In my teens, I read EVERYTHING; not much discrimination: classic, contemporary, good, mediocre, you name it. I eventually distilled my preference to soft science, character-driven SF. I read and liked all the Foundation series and much of Asimov but I prefer Anne McCaffrey. ANYWAY. With classic, especially original SF, you just have to fall into the world and go with it. If it is engaging enough, that "suspension of disbelief" is easy. It's when the prose doesn't hook you that you just can't get into it. And that will vary from person to person. As to whether there is anything new, of course there is! Scientists are making new discoveries all the time! Imaginations are constantly expanding! On the other hand, humans are essentially the same no matter what point in time you are examining. Three thousand years ago or tomorrow, no matter what language or culture, people still love, hate, fear, are curious...
Same here. I am 71 and have been reading sci fi since grade school. YA used to be called Juveniles. I tend to like books in the far future that use big ideas. Like Foundation. I never took to fantasy. Even Lord of the Rings, which everyone in college was reading in the 60s, did nothing for me. But there is a genre for every taste.
Top 5 Reasons to Subscribe to Book Odyssey 1. Content - insightful and thought provoking. 2. Production Value - atmospheric music and wonderful imagery. 3. Personality - genuine and authentic. 4. Voice - calming and relaxing. 5. Sci-Fi - Sci-Fi is awesome.
Classical writers were often dreamers who tried to imagine beyond what their knowledge of contemporary science thought was possible. Their’s was a form of fantasy but with technology rather then magic. I believe this was especially true during the golden age with writers such as Verne and Wells. As writers moved into the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s their ideas became more grounded but still carried the fantastical element. I think you hit the nail on the head with the 80’s being the dividing line. Sci-fi quickly started to become what it is today, namely based on current knowledge, theory, and technology and extrapolating what that might produce. You cannot write of Lovecraftian elder gods, or aliens from Mars, or deep sea monsters that dwarf any modern submarine and have it labeled hard sci-fi because we know there’s no such thing. Knowledge has trapped modern writers to the point that they cannot imagine past a world that is not just a bigger version of our own. They cannot dream beyond the veil and imagine the unimaginable. Or at least that’s my theory and as a theory I find it interesting. Does it have merit?
I would argue Peter F. Hamilton, Dan Simmons, the gentleman that wrote the Dark Forest trillogy amongst others still come up with amazingly unique ideas. It's just the scope and exact nature of the speculation that has changed in science fiction even as their pressense has been a constant.
It's still posible you just need to get creative, and hard science fiction has it's own unique flare when a skilled enough writer can wave the limitations of modern science into the story like for example how the Martian was improved by following the known science of the time instead of trying to create some pseudo science solution to the problems that sorround the protagonist (and it's not perfect but really good compared to most stories) Imo i would love a masive hard science space opera, there are enough crazy ideas out there that are still theoreticaly posible to make it work
I think for me it comes down to 3 areas that help me define where a story lies on the classic vs modern line. 1. The plot points Hard vs Soft sciences. 2. Upbeat optimistic feel vs the pessimistic or dark vibe. 3. Length short vs long. My preference would be a Hard sci, optimistic, shorter novel but these days it's length, keep it short, that is the biggest deal for me especially when trying something new.
I think due to how the younger audiences perceive media, keeping it shorter would without dumbing it down would be the best option. We aren't stupid but I have noticed attention spans are shorter than they were in previous generations.
@@mill2712 Dear sir or madam, I am interested in your assertion that attention spans have become shorter in these latter years. I myself do not hold to this theory, although I find that it is a common one, and has been common for quite some time. If you might permit me a counterpoint, I would recommend to you the web cartoon, "XKCD", and in particular, the strip numbered 1227. Respectfully yours, S. P. Roach.
The shift towards character-centric fiction happened around the 80's/90's--I did a survey of point of view in award-winning SF, and it showed a hard shift from "third person omniscient" (narrator as dispassionate observer) to the more character-centric "first person" and "third person limited" (reader experiences everything from one character's point of view.) I'd take issue with the idea that character-centric fiction is inherently "better." It's the *taste* of modern readers to prefer character over plot, setting, themes, ideas, etc. But that doesn't make it inherently better. It's like saying realistic art is better, or chocolate and mint don't belong together, or the Designated Hitter ruins baseball. It has its drawbacks, too. As you pointed out, it's harder to present ideas while keeping a tight page count. (After three seasons of Netflix's Ozark, I still don't understand how their money-laundering works.) And, it also limits what you can do narratively and dramatically. Hitchcock's "the ticking time bomb under the table that the characters are oblivious to" springs to mind--impossible to do in 1st/3rd Limited.
@Steve Bruns _"impossible to do in 1st/3rd Limited."_ Well, not entirely, you _can_ have the character not be as genre savvy as the average reader but that's tricky to pull off, I imagine.
1st/3rd person limited has a lot of untapped dramatic potential, because it inherently obscures information from the reader. One way to do the Hitchcockian ticking time bomb scene would be to invert the trope. Have the character try to blow up a meeting room of mob bosses, but have no way of knowing if they were successful, or if they failed and will be hunted down by said mob, until after the timer expires. Even without the inverted trope, there are many examples of where the reader knows something the character doesn't, often achieved by using multiple different 1st or 3rd person narrators (something done in both Game of Thrones and The Expanse, for instance).
Do readers really prefer this crap or are readers being driven away by it? Think for example of sales of classic science fiction (in the millions) versus 'best sellers' today (often a hundred thousand at best). Or, within the modern market the mostly crappy "Hugo Award" winners (a few exceptions here or there) versus something like a Star Wars novelization. "Character Driven" Oh-Woe-Is-Me, look at the moss on my toes, is not 'science fiction' to me. Science fiction is supposed to be the literature of IDEAS.
@@Vasharan I'm trying something in my own novel where the character doesn't recognizes things that we know about. He describes the stuff or listen to stuff in awe, and I hope my readers get the message while the character don't.
These histories all leave out the early 20th century. Doc EE Smith wrote from 1919 to the mid 1950s. If you are not familiar, I highly recommend. Being a lover of Sci-fi I could not believe how unprepared I was for the Incredible leeps of imagination this author took. The team up of fantastic creatures that could never be filmed ( an apparent no-no for writers who want to do live action screen writing ). Further, The Lensmen Series introduced so many tropes that it could easily be called a Grandfather of 20th Century TV/FILM Sci-Fi. A Galactic police force, faster than light travel, Shields and Trackers, Space Armor, Alien Gods, Planetary scale Spaceships, Hyperspace, Hyper-spacial tubes or Stargates and Mountain Military Bases. Then there is the LENS... it is the Force and the Jedi combined. Why has this man been forgotten?
@@blahblah2788 I am glad. There is so much more. His early work The Skylark of Space 1919, introduced ’The Green System’ where a race of being have green skin and copper based blood. Two Warlike races of one planet could be the Klingon and another planet has a Super Intellectual race that could be the Vulcans. Also, in Galactic Patrol 1925 introduces a race of ghoulish soul sucking aliens that could be the villains from Stargate Atlantis... and in Triplanetary (a prequel to Galactic Patrol) The Nevians live a Water Planet and face Intelligent Fishes and go to war. I could go on for a while... The Sense of Perception gives some races the ability to see into things... this predates Superman’s X-ray Vision. Also the Lensmen are part of a League ... long before Green Lantern and his ring. There are Red Lensmen and Black. It is quite incredible.
@@StephenRansom47 I cut my teeth on Verne, Wells and 'Doc' Smith..... and 'Doc' was by far the best! Some of his concepts are way up with the best that modern sci-fi has to offer... and I just wish that someone, somewhere would start making films of the Lensman series; we have the capabilities to make them totally believable - but the world seems to have just forgotten them....
@@rebeccaabraham8652 Good Heavens a fan! This was one of my ‘tamer’ rants…. I’ve listen to the series dozens of time now. I still can’t believe how much has been cannibalized from it. My favorite of these rips comes from Stargate… The barber who finds a piece of Ancient tech in Stargate SG1 and the Doc Smith character at the end of First Lensmen…. 😂 this scene also includes a Cat named Thomasina… the book and film came out after… so did Cat From Space. Thieves hate to remember who they robbed.
One of the reasons Dune could get away with such a large word count is that it was not published by a traditional science fiction publishing house. The original publisher of Dune was Chilton!
I use a blend of hard and soft science in my books. by adding the hard science in to the plot it becomes an additional character. It also lends a sense of believability and reality to the setting. sci-fi can be just as realistic and still keep pushing strong character development and stir an emotional response to form a connection to the reader.
Born in 1963, so, I didn't read 'Dune' when it came out, but read 'Neuromancer' the day it was published. I liked your video as an overview to the topic. Here's what I would add: for Classic SF, there was an understood "scientifically-proficient" character archetype. Typically male, often an engineer or scientist, and usually a protagonist, he was universal, saving time and space for the concept and story. Focus was more on idea and plot. When one reads, say, Arthur C. Clarke as a modern reader, if one doesn't grok this, one goes "What? No characterization?" Whereas when one in the 70s read 'Rendezvous with Rama', she plugged in details that were unique to a character but used the archetype as an overall guide. This persisted for years -- for instance, Michael Crichton used a "scientifically-proficient" character in most of his books (for example, 'Jurrasic Park'). It saved on space and utilized more of the reader's imagination; there was little distinctive about a particular SF protagonist past surface features and maybe a gung ho (vs. reserved) approach. In this respect, modern SF is more interesting, but honestly, sometimes modern entities are so caught up in whether people like them, or whether they're straight, or whether their mother or father loved them, they hardly seem capable of using the scientific method. Note how "clean" and efficient Mr. Spock is on TOS. All his dialogue, unless in an episode like 'Amok Time', was to elucidate the scientific subplot. And for Classic SF, the scientific subplot was the reason for the story. I would also make a point about short fiction, for during the Classic Age of SF, all the newest ideas and high concepts generally were tested first in short form. Even the best novels were serialized. Nerdy people such as me in the 70s were mostly interested in innovative concepts, mind-bending technological breakthroughs, etc. Largely, it was the ideas that drew us in. Even Paul in 'Dune' is rather a bland person, if you look at him closely, and Herbert admits he was trying to pen a "dark antihero" anyway who would work destruction in the galaxy. Note how in the beginning of the book, Paul has his ecological filmbooks about the ecology of Arrakis, becoming, early on, the technically-proficient character (albeit a young one). This made him simple to conceive. What we remembered about our reading of 'Dune' was not the characters per se but the sand worms, the folding of space, genetic memory, prescience, & spice-induced drug trips (I exaggerate only a little). Lady Jessica was sexy and smart, but her scant interior life was shown to be as mother and devoted wife first, and only as a side-note, I think, as a witch of an order of priestesses with mystical powers, which was by far more interesting to explore in detail but hard to compress into the short space allotted to her in the big story; but it would be the main thrust of her character if she were written into a modern SF book. Plus we would get a whole lot more about her relationship with her father!
I find that perhaps the focus on "Hard" Science fiction has departed now that science has a better and more detailed understanding. Many "what ifs" get so technical it would be hard to an average reader to follow along. I see a lot more soft or "science fantasy" novels now.
@@IvanIordanov00100 Yes, and that most things are more focused on escapism and we have a better grasp of real technological possibility now so futurism isn't as impressive, from an escapism point of view.
This thoughtful video is just what I needed today. Reflecting on the different modes of science fiction and the eras from which they emerged is often as illuminating as the works themselves, and I’ve rarely seen it done this well.
Sci-fi does eat itself.. but... luckily we can read books written with different lenses. Afrofuturist (think Octavia Butler (who predates the sub-genre) and NK Jemisin) and foreign or immigrant sci-fi offers a very different type of storytelling based on different values and anxieties (think Cixin Liu and Ken Liu (no relation, but they did work together)). I believe cyberpunk also had it's moment of having a different lens, but as computers and the internet became a part of daily life, cyberpunk writing started to feel recycled as well. Comedic sci-fi can poke fun at its own clichés, offering something new (I'm thinking We are Legion - Bobiverse). Great video. Thanks.
The “What if?” question I think we should ask is “What if the author had actually learned to write!”. Looking at some authors: Isaac Asimov wrote like a teenage schoolboy! Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote wonderful prose! OK, he got the science wrong, but what wonderful adventures they had. If you want character development you can’t get much better than Le Guin’s Hanish cycle. The best authors either have the best writing skills or the best ideas. And the truly great authors have both!
100% agree! Asimov is a terrible prose writer. That puts me off his books - not contemporary social mores. Heinlein isn't any better. Form matters too! Not just content.
When giving examples of the (supposed) lack of characterization in classic sci fi you cherry pick the two books that are the most known for not having characterization. They are not good representatives of the overall.
I never judge my old Classic SF novels harshly, I’m certain that give it 60 years, audiences will be disgusted and appalled at the liberal Western world of the early 21st century. It’s just how it is.
I'm very close to sixty years old now and have been reading (and watching) SF since as far back as I can remember. I know I'm not alone in suffering, if that's the right adjective, from the malaise of ''Future Nostalgia'' because I didn't coin the name. I saw 2001 at the cinema on its release when I was 8 years old. To me what I saw was not pretend, but reality (and yes, my Dad has a lot to answer for). SF books had a similar affect. But 99% of those futures never happened. The world didn't get better, just worse. Other worlds seemed to get further away and the Fermi Paradox is still unanswered. We may have CE3K to look forward to or maybe it's the Dark Forest and a hypermissile makes global warming fears redundant. But I still read SF. Why? Because it's the only genre that considers any of these matters and all I can say is thank god these gifted writers keep at it. Thanks for your time. Loved your video. FYI there is a guy running regular reviews of SF novels on a regular basis but he always shouts and it wore me down.
I did some amateur editing for amateur authors on a website, years ago. One submission, oh, very confidently, had the main character see an event, and immediately use his cell phone and spread the news. The problem? The author had written his story around an event in the 1960's and 1970's, when there were no such things as modern cell phones, the internet, and personal computers. I had to write that author and say he needed to do his research if he was going to write about historical events back then. It was a fine idea for a story, but he needed to know what life was like for the time he was writing about. It told me that author had to be younger, or he would've known when the internet and cell phones and so on became a thing, not until the mid-1990's. There were mobile phones in the 1980's, but they were not something you could carry around; they were the size of a brick and about as heavy, or worse, with a cradle in the car and a battery in the trunk. (See Magnum P.I. for an example.) -- Teens can write good fiction, and completely new writers can, but like anyone, they have to develop their writing skills, and for historical stuff, they have to know what they are writing about. But I saw a fw teen first time writers who did some good amateur fiction while I was doing amateur editing back at that old website. (No longer around.)
I think I started reading sci-fi in the pulps in the sixties when I found Doc Savage (scientific detective) reprints on a spinning rack in my local convenience store. My older brother, Alan, introduced me to real sci-fi with THE COLORS OUT OF SPACE. After that I was on my way. From Captain Future to Nemo, from Asimov and Clark to Russell and Herbert, there was no stopping me. I even have a "Texas Ten" list in which I list 12 of my favorite - and more re-read - sci-fi stories. That may be why I ended up writing STNG: Data's Soul. Now, in my sixties myself, I still enjoy re-reading many of the oldies. Thanks for the video. I enjoyed it immensely. Kudos.
I love reading old action pulp books from your time period. It was edgy smut back then. Simpler and more fun times. I still dig new sci fi but sometimes I get tired of all the preachy messages and want some simple fun.
I like your take on using a different outlook when reading golden age SciFi. I am long enough in the tooth that the "Golden Age" was all there was when I started reading SciFi. My tastes have shifted over the years as has my world view. There are some classic books that definitely do not hold up to re-reading (Bradbury, I'm looking at you...). But, If I can find my same mindset when doing a re-read, I find my enjoyment comes right back. And there are some classics that are still superior to any contemporary works, just because of there freshness at the time.
I hate when I read reviews of classic science fiction books where the reviewers use words like misogynism, racism, outdated etc... There are those who bash, for example, "The War of the Worlds", "Martian Chronicles" because we know now that Mars is a dead planet. It makes no sense. We read "The War of the Worlds" because it is a good story. Classic science fiction is so much more fun to read... Modern science fiction is, well, "modern", which means it is heavily loaded with all sorts of political views. For me it is mostly unreadable.
Not to say Older is better, because bothe have their merits, but I feel a lack of Wonder and Horror from modern Sci-Fi which in turn seems to prioritise Action or Dystopic themes. If a Classic story had humans encounter an Alien race, that's a whole ass Alien race there are so many implications we could explore or hilariously ignore. Whereas today it seems modern Sci-Fi skims over that part to get to what importance these aliens have to the plot or themes, if any, sometimes it's just set dressing.
Huge Sci Fi fan and really enjoyed watching your videos to see what pther peoples thoughts are on books I have read or want to read. Thank you for making all thi content. I have a couple of thoughts in resposne to some of the questions you left us with in this video that maybe of interest: 1) Realism / Things that have been disproved e.g.red weeds on Mars For me the realism of probably 75%+ of Sci Fi is already almost certainly unlikely to occur (depressing in many ways for a sci fi fan like me) Firstly is the theory that we will never achieve light speed due to the impossibility of generating the energy requiredto do so; secondly a high possibility that Fermi's paradox is true. Whilst both COULD be incorrect.... at this point in time I dont think many people would stake their house on that bet. This is compounded by the fact very few sci fi books have come true Yet despite this depressing 'knowledge' I am still a huge sci fi fan and this doesnt affect my enjoyment of the genre. For me the pleasure comes from blending things such as an appreciation of the creators imagination, plot, charactors, literary style in a genre that allows the creator to do anything they want to do and not being constrained by mundane every day real life constraints. Books that are more likely to become true are ones that are less grand in their expanse e.g. Red/Green/Blue Mars or Flowers for Alganon, books I loved and appreciated because they are great visions of what COULD happen. Yet I still love my epic intergalactic space operas. Truth isnt essential to appreciation or fun. 2) Tropes are often seen as a negative that is cast unfairly on just sci fi and fantasy, and you quite rightly make a distinction between them and cliches. However I would also add that almost every genre of writing has its tropes. Ultimately Crime, horror, romance, thrillers, spy stories, war stories, even biographies all have common elements that we humans will then use to "put in a box" i.e. trope. What separates these stories is the qualities that make us more emotionally engaed with Story X ahead of Story Y. Better writing style or better charactors are often the big hitters in terms of emotional connection, but in Sci Fi the author has two big advantages in that they can engage an audience with the scale of their vision and or can use some interesting techniques to present the story in a way that seems futuristic or different e.g. how John Brunner uses adverts to show the reader what the world is like in his story Stand on Zanzibar
Please, read the Vorkosigan saga by Lois McMaster Bujold. Since it won a Hugo for best series and several best books. I find it odd that she is rarely mentioned.
Really enjoyed this. I've been reading sci fi for nearly 45 years beginning with with A.E van Voigt "Voyage of the space Beagle" i mostly stick with classic sci fi, but i read an occasional modern story too, most recently "Cloud Atlas" which i read a year or so after seeing the movie.
Dune is largely hypothetical psychology blended with fantasy, philosophy, science fiction and theology and it scavenges various ancient civilisations and combines them to wonderful effect. I think it might be more worthwhile to speak about 'speculative fiction' like Margaret Atwood does.
You might be able to help me. For years I've been trying to track down a sci-fi anthology I read many many years ago in the late 60s early 70s. It came out around the same time as 'Seven Trips Through Time and Space', that includes my favourite sci-fi short 'The Crime and the Glory of Commander Suzdal' by Cordwainer Smith. However, the one I'm trying to find included several short stories that I vaguely remember. One tells the story of two husbands who find themselves in terrible debt, and transport and hibernate themselves into a small container to outwait the debt collectors, only to be discovered by their somewhat annoyed wives. Another is about a guy who can't afford his space transit ticket, and volunteers to be the human exhibit in an alien creatures zoo, to pay his way. Another tells the story of two astronauts who find themselves stranded on an alien planet. They have to traverse a large body of thick mist/fog to reach a distress beacon. The story follows their horrendous journey through the fog, only to finally discover that they could have built a raft and floated across. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you...
Classic sci fi is brilliant, a= real winow on a time and its vision of the future. Look at all the Japanese corporate stuff in the sci fi (Bladerunner, Neuromancer etc) of the 80s
Recently it's coming full circle. While Ready Player One and Two were rather bad books there are other elements that can be lifted from japanese story making it's way in western science fiction and probably more to come. The digitalized human is one of my favorite and while Alter Carbon did a decent job many anime and manga has explored this concept in much greater detail, and I wouldn't mind if that made it's way here. I know of at least one series that uses this, but I am sure there are more I haven't seen out there and more to come.
I know this video was a year ago but as a reader who is just getting back into the sci-fi genre (only read two major series: Dune and Ender's Game. A few YA trilogies. And Andy Weir books) I found this video very interesting and informative. I would like to point out that not only the length of classic books was a factor, but writing concepts like "show, don't tell" and not using adverbs etc. are modern writing techniques that they wouldn't have even had in the fifties.
If a person feels that way, that they can't handle ideas and thoughts presented in a different way, that they may not be politically correct or sensitive to your way of thinking, then maybe books just aren't for you, especially older books.
Self reflection is more mainstream now. Less ‘man up’ or ‘men don’t cry’ now than yesteryear. Wanting to see the protagonist do well is a form of emotional empathy. Personally I have a hard time getting into books like game of thrones, where characters are decentralized. Even remember getting mad at wheel of time books because the protagonist was only in one chapter in the whole book.
Definitely some solid ideas here. Your work into this analysis is well worth the watch. I have a few more thoughts to add- It's worth noting that though excellent writers in many ways, a number of these authors didn't focus on character, not because they couldn't, but because they simply weren't very good at it. In the same manner that interpersonal relationships can be and often are, far more challenging than any technical career might be, many authors just shunted the tricky business of creating 'real' characters aside, to focus on what was easier- Plot and technology. Frank Herbert's 'Dune' series was a monumental work of worldbuilding, but from 'Dune' to 'Chapterhouse Dune', it was a rare event for me to see any of his characters as real people, doing the things they do & saying the things they say, far future world notwithstanding. I'm not saying there weren't interesting characters, only that they rarely act like believable human beings. Also, as readers, it's incredibly important to realize the cultural mindsets we have *today*, that we are oh so sure are the 'correct and proper' views to have on things, will almost definitely be seen as parochial and outdated in another 40 years. I'm 50 now and had the good luck to pay attention to my parents & grandparents & even luckier that they had worthwhile things to say. Every Generation thinks that the time in which they become sentient embodies how things 'should' be. I guarantee from a wider historical perspective, this is rarely the case.
I recall Asimov saying that he regretted much of his characterization of Susan Calvin, but didn't know any better at the time, because he hadn't started dating yet.
Where is the picture from 7.52 from? It was used in a Latin American edition of Tuf Voyaging and I know it has nothing to do with that book, which always upsets me XD
One of the many things I liked about the Serenity series was that everyone swore in Chinese. Almost everyone did it, but It didn't effect me as swearing a blue streak would, and it subtly acknowledged so much of the universe.
came across one fan theory that they were actually speaking Mandarin the whole time its just that only the non swearing was translated to English for the viewers.
@@mojomike Makes since. 1. (Out of universe): Creators are trying to open up to the Chinese market. 2. (Speculation): In space colonization, I'd assume China would want to be heavily involved or at least not left out in the exploits of the final frontier.
An even better example of something classic that's been superseded, given the references to Asimov, who my personal favorite, is the role of psychic abilities. It was common in stories from the 40-60's not just in Asimov's writing. It's frustrating because I know there wasn't evidence for it then, even if wasn't thoroughly debunked yet. Maybe that's why my favorite book in the Foundation series is the first one, since I don't recall anything in there making aware I was having to accept something nonsensical given current knowledge.
Really interesting. What do you think about the issue of classic sci-fi being in some ways more optimistic vs modern sci-fi being more pessimistic? I feel like that's a topic you didn't touch and is an interesting difference too.
Hmm, yeah I have heard this theory. But I guess it depends what type of classic sci-fi you're reading. I didn't really find books like Ubik, 1984, The Forever War, Stranger in a Strange Land, etc, optimistic. Actually, as I think about it, quite a few come to mind I wouldn't class as optimistic. But then, modern sci-fi could reflect a more pessimistic society as opposed to post war society: climate change... AI uprisings... obesity... loneliness... the internet... declining birth rates... COVID. Shit, quick, tell me a joke.
By comparing some of classic works on SCIFI vs current ones, seems to me the classic works did not (understandably) account for the exponential rate of change on lot of aspects of modern life detonated by digitization, automation, artificial intelligence and most of all, by the internet. All those breakpoints change the world as we now it: globalization seems an unstoppable trend, economy is more inclined to privet investment rather than state-controlled and so companies are the new power instead of monarchies like in Foundation or Dune. Comprehensible, ideas like the communication network on Hyperion are more close to reality, or makes more sense than the Encyclopedia Gallactica, while also the emergence of the Technocore would seem more likely, that a technological utopia like in Dune where machines play not an important role. Of course, modern SCIFI writers had the advantage of living to see these inventions. That makes me wonder: what are the current writers not foretelling, what will be the next disruptive event that could make of our society in the near future, let's say: 500 years from now completely different to what today's novels depict? Say disruption needs not been an unimaginable thing, but something that changes our life in unpredictable ways. Say for example, the current tendency to gender relativism, and advancements in genetics permit newborns without biological sex. And given sometime, we become a species with a single gender. Differences like height and color of the skin are also suppressed to discount for racism or physical advantages. How would that change society, art, and other expressions? What if Religion is totally probed wrong, our origin solved as result of purely physical processes, no God, no Afterlife. Said type of changes could result in a very very different humanity to what we conceive we could become, and lot of things that makes for interesting SCI-FI plots would be quite outdated. I wonder what people from the future would think of the likes of The Expanse, and if reading fantasy books or stories would have significance at all.
I've tended to steer away from Classic scifi and I don't really consider myself even very well read on the popular 'modern' scifi stories either. I just like the oddball and the little quiet gems in the corner ;) great video
Stories & poetry involving the human condition are universal and timeless no matter the genre. Love, death, longing, despair, triumph, defeat, and moral challenges get readers interested. These themes also keep us interested in fictional characters who are strangers at first. "What would I do in his/her place?" If it sings true in your heart, you'll keep reading. Some authors like Heller & Dostoyevski show us characters who consistently make the wrong moral choices every step of the way, and by so doing hold up a mirror and make us consider our own values and choices. It's never too late for a good story well told to change someone's life. These are the stories we remember long after the last page is turned.
Talk about a broad and expansive subject :D I largely agree with your hypothesis. There is a lot of problematic pulp sci Fi tropes--famously Captain Kirk and green women. Notice I don't even know their names. Sci Fi really excels at exploring human conditions versus forces that seem inevitable. Foundation, the expanse, cowboy Bebop do this incredibly. It is exciting to see a new idea or new spin.
I miss the classics back before the alphabet people absorbed the basketball people and ribs. Now everyone is crazy and easily offended. Demolition Man came true!
I still draw some elements from both modern and classic science fiction. The shield of ice used by the spacecraft in Arthur Clarke's "Songs Of A Distant Earth" is an example, or the aliens in Robert Forward's "Dagrons Egg". One of my most favorite novels, which I read in High School was Hal Clement's "Mission Of Gravity". One the major things I look for is how non-human or different are the aliens. That is why I never really enjoyed Star Trek and Star Wars that much because they looked and acted like Earth humans in costumes.
Modern sci-fi authors have delusions of grandeur. Character development is over-emphasized. We do not need the complete childhood in order to follow the story. I think most new writers try to cover short-comings in plot with layers of exposition and "development".
We need to evolve scifi. You are right a lot of modern day Scifi recycle themes. There are a few that break away from the pack by laying new ground. Feed's Newsflesh is good example of this, but with zombies in the mix it probably doesn't get the scifi credit it deserves. Bobiverse series also has some interesting elements involving a man being copied to create an AI clone of that man, but that is sort of a off shoot of what been done in japan fiction since Akira which was inspired by the cyberpunk genre of the west. Keeping the tropes are fine, but writers of genre need to look outside the books to grow.
This is such a great topic. When it comes to classic sci-fi, it's like you said it's the golden age of sci-fi. This golden age really was because we knew so little at that time, that our imagination was king. Like you said about mars from the golden age of sci-fi also holds true with how people thought that Venus would have these dense steamy jungles. Sure today's sci-fi might not hit on a lot of new ideas but what we do often get is more fleshed out characters. I enjoy finding out that today's hero may not be all that perfect or that our villain isn't really that evil at all. This blurring of the lines of good and evil feels more realistic to me in modern sci-fi.
I love all sorts... I love the clinical exploration of Rama and the concept of a reverse-internal-world spaceship, as much as I did the development of John Perry in the Old Man's War series. And I loved reading/watching Original Star Trek as much as I loved reading Redshirts. (Maybe too much Scalzi in these examples... but you get my point)
Whining that classic sci was "sexist" or whatever is stupid, because modern sci fi is also "sexist" against men, pretty much all modern writing and movies are "girls strong and smart" and "men stupid clumsy or evil". Its even more hilarious when you consider that old sci fi feels "outdated" by some standards that we decided we gonna call "modern" even though these ideas are over 100 years old and its possible those ideas lead to the extinction of our species looking at modern birthrates. Who knows maybe the aliens are smarter than us and have a strict patriachical society under supreme monarchy for their survival, or maybe they are insect like species and they have a queen. Seen everything from a human perspective is dumb. "But we havent met any actual aliens species we dont know how they behave" and yet we believe they gonna behave exactly like us with our modern progressive standards, stop me if you heard this, all races living in unity, nothing bad happens, everyone shares everything and dont waste resources and harm the environment and of course we got democracy and a "senate" or space council. What if aliens are incredibly racist and ethnocentric and and their leader is some kind of religious god like creature and their method of survival is swallowing entire worlds for their resources. Why would aliens care about preserving humans? Do you care about preserving germs? No, they are a nuisance and you want them gone. Like you said if you can relate on everything in a sci fi setting, whats is the point? Not everything has to be an allegory for ww2.
Would you please post the sources for the art used in the video, or credit the artists? I specifically would like to know where to find the piece at 13:52.
I appreciate your recognition of the constraints placed on earlier SF owing to the medium and the contemporary society - it echoes some of my own contentions, but I take things a bit farther: first, characters without all of the detail you reference (they didn't get a cookie when they were young) are, in many respects, MORE relatable to a wider range of readers than one whose got all kinds of personal baggage, for the simple reason that very few readers are going to share the same baggage with the character. Why do characters like Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, Professor Quartermass continue to endure over the decades (despite changing audiences)? Because there are fewer details for the reader to get hung up on. Additionally, readers of the pulps were all very familiar with character stereotypes (a lot of people these days criticize these earlier works for "cardboard" characters) so there was little to no need to "waste space and wordage" on detail that it was unnecessary to convey to a reader: we knew what kind of person the Engineer was; we knew what characteristics the "Evil Rival" would have. Third, I've come to believe that one of the changes between "classic" and "Modern" SF is the loss of the "gedanken experiment" mode of writing. Yes, that privileges the science/gadgets over characters (why in the heck do people want to watch the interpersonal, emotional turmoil of other people, don't they have enough in their own lives already?); such fiction was, I think, the true expression of the definition of the genre - positing a technological change and following its development to some conclusion: the tech is going to be used, by people, but the people who use it really hardly matter, do they? The tech will affect EVERYONE - what does it matter how it affects one small handful? Starship Troopers is a good example of a Gedanken Experiment in literature - positing a different form of "franchise" in an otherwise liberal society and seeing where it leads - but BECAUSE readers are focused on "character" these days, the impression of that novel has morphed into accusations of fascism on the part of the characters.
Fun. You make me think about some if the really old stuff like A Princess of Mars which is mostly pure fantasy, but he got the effects of less gravity on Mars about right, at least regarding a visitor from Earth (and in the process invented the first Superman). Otherwise, it's still a dandy adventure story. When I was in eighth grade I made fun of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea supposing land at the North Pole and none at the South Pole. If I simply swapped the poles in my mind the story worked out fine. The Expanse is chock full of old science fiction tropes but builds a believable story about a possible future with them. I've heard that every possible story was written by Shakespeare and everything written after can be considered derivative. Phooey. If the story didn't include situations and other elements we recognized we would have a hard time relating to it. Old science fiction is useful to tell us just how old some of these tropes are and how they were developed in earlier days.
In Compare that trope I noticed that the modern books had overlaps with multiple older books. Today's writers seem to be writing works that deal with more than one idea where as the older books seem to focus on on one maybe two ideas.
The innovation in tropes is why authors like M. Shelley, A. Asimov, F. Herbert, P. k. Dick, U. Le Guin, and W.Gibson were really important. I would Even placed there the work of C.Liu, with the Dark Forest hypothesis. The innovation in tropes is the hardest to find, but the more exciting to read.
Hyperion 170,000 words. Foundation 70,000 words. You present this as if it's a weakness of Foundation. I think it's a huge strength. Why I prefer classic sci fi.
I think being able to enjoy certain older scifi with such stereotyping and lack of representation has much less to do with objectivity and maturity, and has more to do with to with 2 things: 1. Whether the stereotyping and lack of representation is about you personally as a member of a historically persecuted group. especially if persecution has occurred in your lifetime and to you personally ally in real life. If a book casually subject your own identity (WHO YOU ARE) to attack, and this is a pattern in older books, it just becomes very off-putting. This can be anything from mildy distracting, to exhausting, to enraging to completely isolating, depending on the degree of and manner in which its done. And considering most traditional bigotry still existed/exists in some places and some (hopefully lesser) forms during our own lifetimes, may also remind you or "rub your face in" trauma you were subjected o to in your own lifetime, or still have to deal with. This puts a much greater social and emotional burden on such readers. It's hard to "be objective" when it's personal. 2. Whether it's a good book may make the difference. If the themes are universal enough and it is well written enough, if the story is gripping enough, if the characters are relatable enough,, it may rise above the limitations of its time period, and despite being technically somewhat offensive, it fails to really offend. Often this is because, despite using an offensive term, the author actually treats the minority character with relative complexity and dignity for that time period.
Exactly! I don't want to read books where oppression or exclusion of women happens a lot, either as a focus of the story or just an assumes stable of the book's reality. Which is a shame, because I love the adventure in late 19th/early20th century sci-fi, but as a woman I get tired of the lack of women very quickly. And of the casual racism/colonialism.
The thing about wondering if we're bringing anything new to Scifi or if we're just rehashing the same plots and ideas of the classic age is that you're assuming THEIR ideas were original. If you look at what they wrote (exploring new worlds, advanced races meeting comparatively primitive humans, the creations of man turning on us, etc) you'll see they are all tropes that previously existed in fantasy or even mythology, just with gods, the underworld, fae realms, magic, etc instead of technology. The core ideas being new is almost impossible at this point in human history but presenting them in new and interesting ways is what's important. All of humanity's creations (music, art, literature, science, medicine, engineering, etc) are made building upon what came before, expanding and enhancing it. That's not a bad thing, it's a strength of our species.
I think that the main axis of differences is characters and emotions vs plot and big ideas. I tend to prefer older sci-fi because I rarely care about personal emotions and character developments. But if there's no big idea then I may get bored. And many modern sci-fi books are YA, which I absolutely don't get along with. I've read The Collapsing Empire in 2020 and liked it, but it left no lasting impression. I'll consider reading the rest of this trilogy, but it's a low priority. I have too much classics to catch up with.
That's an interesting take. I have to admit I don't get on with YA either, sci-fi or otherwise. I agree with you on TCE - it left no real lasting impression with me, either, although I generally enjoy Scalzi.
I would say that classic SF relies more on a 'Big Hook', that is usually the central axis of the plot, as a selling point and differentiator. Whether it be 'Desert Planet' (Dune), 'Alien Probe' (Rama), 'Psychohistory' (Foundation), 'Dragons' (Pern), the narrative follows the premise, even if they will often veer wildly from said premise in later sequels (cough Dune/Foundation/Rama). With modern science fiction, the premise and the 'Big Idea' is often much more obscured or nebulous. It is not obvious from the title, cover, or first few pages (or sometimes even books) what the narratives of Long Sun (Wolfe), Blindsight (Watts), Ancillary Justice (Leckie), Hyperion (Simmons), The Expanse (Corey) are or where they will go. That is not to say there aren't modern versions of 'Big Hook' books, like 'Guy Stranded On Mars' (The Martian), 'Sentient Space Probes' (Bobbiverse), 'Patriarchy' (Handmaid's Tale). But I think that modern SF in general tends to be a much more exploratory and experimental process, and a lot of it has to do with both audience expectations and the publishing environment of today. It also helps that modern SF is not gatekept by a small elite of socially conservative editors and publishers that had a firm grip on what writers could and could not write about (cough John Campbell).
I have watched a few of your vids and you seem to have only a limited exposure to classic sci-fi--you reference Asimov and Clarke, but when you say that classic sci-fi did not do a lot of character development. I beg to differ. In books like the Long ARM of Gil Hamilton, the main character is well fleshed out--this is seen very well in the final story 'Patchwork Girl'--as is the main characters in Pat Frank's 'Alas Babylon'. I don't think anyone can honestly say that the alien children in Midwich Cuckoos, by John Wyndham are without personality. Turning to your comparisons it is strange to me that you would choose the books that you did. Especially Ender's Game and the earlier books you linked to it because of things like having an alien enemy. The War of the Worlds--which came long before either of the books you mention, and since War of the Worlds has an alien enemy and so sci-fi--according to your own measure has been 'eating itself' for more than 100 years.
Writers themselves questioned the tropes they had to use, one rather splendid example being WAR OF THE WINGED-MEN by Poul. Anderson ( 1976) which contains all the stock characters non of whom make the expected contribution to the story. I think the problem is that the stories are provided in a language the reader understands, in my case that's English. There is therefore a tendency to see them as an extension of the current world and to apply the cultural norms of the present. That makes no sense as the stories were written in a different culture and they are talking about another different culture but human's are not actually very smart when it comes to things like culture, politics and religion. I did find that having spent my childhood reading every sci fi book in the local library I had no difficulty reading books set in a contemporary but different culture. A lot of those tend to be translations produced because the illustrate the about the cultural differences, which can be illuminating in the 'woke' sense but I am not reading in search of outrage, those which were a story that was embedded in that culture were perfectly readable and enjoyed as stories. To take a trivial example the French have some good crime fiction but the cultural differences make it feel like Sci Fi. You also see this in sci fi itself, one notable example being Stanisław Lem. He embeds his stories in his culture which made them more refreshingly sci-fi than a lot of the American cowboy stories in space stuff or the British 'optimistic disaster' genre (day of the triffids is perhaps the most well known example), he also seemed a lot more comfortable acknowledging humanities flaws. But that's just me and I'm an old duffer.
First book I ever checked out from a library was about the adventures of a stowaway on a spaceship. Made me a lifelong fan of SF. Book was “Space Cat” by Ruthven Todd. Trying to think of a modern example of that theme?
My introduction to SF was the Tom Swift Jr and Tom Corbett Space Cadet books, and John Carter of Mars, then James White's Sector General and Keith Laumer's Retief. I think the lack of characterization in classic works allowed the reader to "fill in the blanks" with their own personalities. This allowed for escapism, where today's readers like to read about well defined, realistic other people.
One thing I have to say is actual scientific discovery has stunted any attempt to write serious hard science fiction in today’s world. When average audiences see things like faster than light travel as a ridiculous concept, artificial gravity as hand-wavy magic nonsense, wormholes, black holes, etc., it severely limits the potential to be taken seriously as an author writing interstellar science fiction anymore. Everything that caused wonder has become mundane. Having said that do you see merit in writing science-fantasy from a literary standpoint? Arguably, Star Wars, Star Trek, even Dune can be seen more as Science-Fantasy than as science-fiction or even as speculative fiction.
So true! I noticed that too when attempting to write hard sci-fi. Everything, but that which already exists in reality or is very obvious to exist in the near future, seems "ludicrous" and "far-fetched" now. :/
If you try writing your next book on a manual typewriter you might get an idea on why books were shorter in the golden age:) You may have overlooked the market for golden age SF -- teenage boys -- which may explain a lot about the type of stories written. I was reading golden age SF as a teenager in the 1960's -- it was great, then. I can't reread most of those stories now. But maybe I wasn't reading the best SF back then. Neither Dune nor the Foundation interested me back then -- or now, for that matter.
Space colonization, ecology or militarism are all very complex themes, with so much to explore and so many possible points of view there's nothing inherently unoriginal or cliche about revisiting them (as long as the writer is actually writing their own book and not just copy-pasting someone else's off course)
As a scifi author myself, the answer I've found for the question of originality is that there is nothing new under the sun. Even groundbreaking works of scifi like Blade Runner, Star Trek, and Dune have a rich heritage of ideas reaching back through older stories, and those to yet older stories, and not all of these older stories are scifi themselves. More often than not, their heritage reaches right back into real life histories and cultures, so that whatever original elements the author brings to the table come from his own understanding of physics, philosophy, science, and the way he sees the real world. The scifi author's duty, then, in addition to just telling a good story, (as all writers must) is to peer closely at older stories, and at the world around him, and make inferences and extrapolations, and see where it leads him. And the degree of honesty and earnestness with which he makes his examinations, and the distance to which he is willing to follow them, will determine how 'original' his story may appear. In my stories I wanted to explore gravity manipulation, and that desire led me on a path of discovery through physics and science, relativity, particle physics and electromagnetism, it led me to the creation of a long list of rules on the behavior of a fictional form of exotic matter, and that led to ships and robots designed to harness it, and from those designs, even more ideas. In my most recent story the following passage appears: "A parting in the clouds allowed them to see Glasstop Island, the city-sized potato-shaped rock floating in the sky. Well, not floating, exactly. More like it had been undergoing the slowest reentry in history, and had been doing so for two years now. Thirteen gravity tugs sat anchored comfortably to its bottom side, converting the massive energy of the asteroid's slow descent into electricity, enough to feed the industry of half the continent. Every hour, on the hour, the tugs would drop a full battery into the ocean below for recovery, and every day, high at noon, massive winches would lift a couple dozens batteries back up." I don't think I've ever seen that idea anywhere before, but when I wrote it, I felt less like I had invented it and more like I had discovered it, because it had followed so logically from things come before. I would not be surprised to open a scifi book one day, even a very old book, and find a world with a power plant on a falling asteroid, because although maybe it isn't as much of a trope as force fields and FTL, it still makes a sort of sense if you go looking for that sense.
Contents
Science fiction | a brief history 01:50
Writing 03:59
Characters 06:02
Publishing 10:14
Concepts 13:14
Classic sci-fi getting it wrong 17:22
Influences 19:22
The Golden Age of SF is usually defined by the tenure of John W. Campbell as editor of Astounding. He demanded literary quality writing and other editors like Horace L. Gold of Galaxy soon followed suit. The pulp era refers usually to pre-Golden Age because it does connote lower quality of writing.
You are lacking objectivity now!
Please stop using the word trope. Tropes are not themes. I wouldn't call the use of a car a trope in media, but I feel like you would. It makes it sound like you haven't really thought about what a trope really is.
That was a good bit about Hiroshima though.
I miss the optimism of old sci-fi. It seems like 90% of modern sci-fi is all dystopias in some way. I miss stuff like Clarke's Sands of Mars or 2001: A Space Odyssey, works that say "Look what we can one day achieve". Inspiration is far more important than cautionary tales, and right now with the climate problems and all that, it seems like humanity can use every bit of hope it can get.
Like The Martian?
I read an article years ago that claimed science was killing SF, by showing us how unlikely or impossible so many classic SF elements are. If we include politics, economics, etc, as science, it seems all the more true today.
Essentially, real-world knowledge is culling all the more exciting timelines and leaving only Paolo Bagilucci knock-offs (sorry about the spelling, Paolo).
More and more, we see the reasons why we will never get into space beyond major-government publicity stunts... why we will never stop our tribal squabbling without Borg chips in our brains... why any hint of a post-scarcity society will be promptly co-opted by an elite in order to facilitate their status games against some other elite.
All signs in the real world keep showing us that we just keep doing the same stupid "glorified chimpanzee" stuff we've been doing for a million years, except with 3D-printed clubs and computer-generated wads of feces to fling at each other. Science fiction inevitably reflects this, unless it willfully turns away from realism and dives into space-opera and comic books.
@@rommdan2716 Exactly! It shows that no matter how bad your situation looks like, scientific knowledge can help you.
@@rommdan2716 curiously enough the Martian is already wrong, any near future sci fi story that doesnt include quickly reusable rockets is already outdated which is pretty crazy to think just how fast this change happened
@@stevenscott2136 centuries ago there was no concept of "human rights" and in ancient times slavery was accepted as totally natural. Not to mention that before ww1 war was seen as a glorious thing. Just because we now see the problems of our societies it doesn't mean that we can't solve them.
With Wells' War of the Worlds, saying it is dated in its description of Mars is missing the point that the alien invasion is an allegory for imperialism on Earth. Wells was reacting to the destruction of the Tasmanian aborigines by colonisers dealing out death with guns and other relatively advanced technology.
Wow! Glad I didn't know that.
I can't believe this was missed. Wells even tips his hand to the Allegory in the FIRST CHAPTER of the book.
"And before we judge of them too harshly we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals, such as the vanished bison and the dodo, but upon its inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit?"
He wanted to show his fellow colonizers what it would be like to be colonised. Perhaps that's the difference between modern and classic sci-fi, today's readers can't recognize allegory anymore.
Well, I think a bit of history is needed here. Sure the Tasmanians were horrible savages, and the colonists would certainly have been justified in eradicating them utterly, but that is NOT what happened. The fact is the Government actually spent colonist tax money to build exclusively for the Tasmanians---on a island reserved JUST FOR THEM--modern homes with indoor plumbing and electricity. NONE of which were ever used as the natives chose to live outside one the island until the last of them died off. Why did they die off? Because with their isolation on the island came the end to one of the ways they reproduced. By raiding other natives and TAKING their females to replenish the shortage due to the high levels of male births. With life on the island came a shortage of women and without women, no offspring.
@@WilAdams your revisionist history and genocidal philosophy are not welcome
@@WilAdams Glad to see someone willing to look at both sides and show that victims aren't always that way. History is about showing both sides and learning as much as possible. It's easy to criticize the killer, but few ask what circumstances under which they have chosen to kill. We are all a short step away from becoming both the savage and the slayer.
My introduction to sci/fi was in the early 50’s. One of the most striking things about the genre at that time was its complete miss on computers. There was no way the writers could imagine the transistor or microchips, let alone personal computers and iPhones. The computers were imagined to be bigger, even huge products of the current technology having thousands of tubes and communicating with punched tapes. Only heads of government and a few scientists were allowed access. The total integration of computers into the culture would have seemed too far-fetched to even consider. I do love living in the future.
Personally, this is one of the reasons why I think Dune still holds up to this day. By choosing to remove all "thinking machines" from his novel, Herbert's world doesn't feel like a laughably outdated relic of its time.
How old are you?
Damn you’re old.
@@Marklord13 . 82
@@silviogrijalva8801 82
If readers are unable to read older literature and cope with the "dated language" they are missing out on science fiction's greatest works.
The mentality of not being able to "dated language" (wihch is absurd) simply means they wouldn't understand or appreciate science fiction's greatest works anyway. So it's no great loss really.
@@Nemoticon Fair enough!
@@CountBrass Same goes for any genre of literature, imho. Need to be open to different ways of using language to appreciate books of any kind, from any culture and from any era.
Dated language is just an oppertunity to expand ones vocabulary
I just started listening to the Foundation series audiobooks a month ago, I would call the language in those "timeless", since I honestly wouldn't have guessed that it was written more than half a century ago.
I heard the comment "Science Fiction began in ancient times." I'd be very curious to find out how many people actually read Lucien of Samosata's "A True Story" or Voltaire's "Micromegas" and do they believe that Swift's "Gulliver's Travels" or Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" should be considered Science Fiction. I appreciated your introduction of these concepts and I look forward to viewing more installments.
A True Story is political satire, The Ebony Horse is my favorite example of super old science fiction
and Thomas More's Utopia
The only real basis to NOT call them SF is that the science is blatantly wrong. But modern SF includes FTL travel, telekinesis, personality uploading, human-alien crossbreeding, time travel, and many other elements which are either debatable or flat-out wrong.
At least Voltaire could claim to not know about the cube-square law for "Micromegas" -- what's our excuse?
Every time I try to define what is and isn't SF for a newcomer, I fail. Heck, the SF section at any bookstore I've been in for 20 years has been half composed of Lord of the Rings knockoffs... in the 90's, it was vampire stories.
So I think SF is more a state of mind than any particular property of the work itself.
@@stevenscott2136 Scifi is just fantasy with some intent to stay within scientific principles. It doesn't have to be accurate to the time of writing either and the science can be intentionally changed.
The Ramayana, Indian poetry from the 5th century BC, mentions flying machines. Plato's depictions of Atlantis in the 4th century BC are also considered early forms of Sci-Fi for Western culture.
I've been reading science fiction for over 50 years and first read Asimov's YA books in 6th grade...we're talking mid 60s. In my teens, I read EVERYTHING; not much discrimination: classic, contemporary, good, mediocre, you name it. I eventually distilled my preference to soft science, character-driven SF. I read and liked all the Foundation series and much of Asimov but I prefer Anne McCaffrey.
ANYWAY. With classic, especially original SF, you just have to fall into the world and go with it. If it is engaging enough, that "suspension of disbelief" is easy. It's when the prose doesn't hook you that you just can't get into it. And that will vary from person to person. As to whether there is anything new, of course there is! Scientists are making new discoveries all the time! Imaginations are constantly expanding! On the other hand, humans are essentially the same no matter what point in time you are examining. Three thousand years ago or tomorrow, no matter what language or culture, people still love, hate, fear, are curious...
Same here. I am 71 and have been reading sci fi since grade school. YA used to be called Juveniles. I tend to like books in the far future that use big ideas. Like Foundation. I never took to fantasy. Even Lord of the Rings, which everyone in college was reading in the 60s, did nothing for me. But there is a genre for every taste.
Top 5 Reasons to Subscribe to Book Odyssey
1. Content - insightful and thought provoking.
2. Production Value - atmospheric music and wonderful imagery.
3. Personality - genuine and authentic.
4. Voice - calming and relaxing.
5. Sci-Fi - Sci-Fi is awesome.
I just subscribed! Very impressed with this video and another I saw about Dune. I'm going to do a bit of binging now 😃
Classical writers were often dreamers who tried to imagine beyond what their knowledge of contemporary science thought was possible. Their’s was a form of fantasy but with technology rather then magic. I believe this was especially true during the golden age with writers such as Verne and Wells. As writers moved into the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s their ideas became more grounded but still carried the fantastical element.
I think you hit the nail on the head with the 80’s being the dividing line. Sci-fi quickly started to become what it is today, namely based on current knowledge, theory, and technology and extrapolating what that might produce. You cannot write of Lovecraftian elder gods, or aliens from Mars, or deep sea monsters that dwarf any modern submarine and have it labeled hard sci-fi because we know there’s no such thing.
Knowledge has trapped modern writers to the point that they cannot imagine past a world that is not just a bigger version of our own. They cannot dream beyond the veil and imagine the unimaginable.
Or at least that’s my theory and as a theory I find it interesting. Does it have merit?
I would argue Peter F. Hamilton, Dan Simmons, the gentleman that wrote the Dark Forest trillogy amongst others still come up with amazingly unique ideas.
It's just the scope and exact nature of the speculation that has changed in science fiction even as their pressense has been a constant.
@@raymanovich3254 You meant Liu's TBP Trilogy.
Though I am wary of TBP fandom's xenophobia.
It's still posible you just need to get creative, and hard science fiction has it's own unique flare when a skilled enough writer can wave the limitations of modern science into the story like for example how the Martian was improved by following the known science of the time instead of trying to create some pseudo science solution to the problems that sorround the protagonist (and it's not perfect but really good compared to most stories)
Imo i would love a masive hard science space opera, there are enough crazy ideas out there that are still theoreticaly posible to make it work
You should rank scifi universes. You make high quality content keep it up!
Rank on what my dude? It would be apples and oranges.
I think for me it comes down to 3 areas that help me define where a story lies on the classic vs modern line.
1. The plot points Hard vs Soft sciences.
2. Upbeat optimistic feel vs the pessimistic or dark vibe.
3. Length short vs long.
My preference would be a Hard sci, optimistic, shorter novel but these days it's length, keep it short, that is the biggest deal for me especially when trying something new.
I think due to how the younger audiences perceive media, keeping it shorter would without dumbing it down would be the best option. We aren't stupid but I have noticed attention spans are shorter than they were in previous generations.
@@mill2712 Dear sir or madam,
I am interested in your assertion that attention spans have become shorter in these latter years. I myself do not hold to this theory, although I find that it is a common one, and has been common for quite some time. If you might permit me a counterpoint, I would recommend to you the web cartoon, "XKCD", and in particular, the strip numbered 1227.
Respectfully yours,
S. P. Roach.
My novels are all about the 150 - 250 page size, and I love it. High density of ideas per page.
The shift towards character-centric fiction happened around the 80's/90's--I did a survey of point of view in award-winning SF, and it showed a hard shift from "third person omniscient" (narrator as dispassionate observer) to the more character-centric "first person" and "third person limited" (reader experiences everything from one character's point of view.)
I'd take issue with the idea that character-centric fiction is inherently "better." It's the *taste* of modern readers to prefer character over plot, setting, themes, ideas, etc. But that doesn't make it inherently better. It's like saying realistic art is better, or chocolate and mint don't belong together, or the Designated Hitter ruins baseball.
It has its drawbacks, too. As you pointed out, it's harder to present ideas while keeping a tight page count. (After three seasons of Netflix's Ozark, I still don't understand how their money-laundering works.)
And, it also limits what you can do narratively and dramatically. Hitchcock's "the ticking time bomb under the table that the characters are oblivious to" springs to mind--impossible to do in 1st/3rd Limited.
@Steve Bruns _"impossible to do in 1st/3rd Limited."_
Well, not entirely, you _can_ have the character not be as genre savvy as the average reader but that's tricky to pull off, I imagine.
1st/3rd person limited has a lot of untapped dramatic potential, because it inherently obscures information from the reader. One way to do the Hitchcockian ticking time bomb scene would be to invert the trope. Have the character try to blow up a meeting room of mob bosses, but have no way of knowing if they were successful, or if they failed and will be hunted down by said mob, until after the timer expires. Even without the inverted trope, there are many examples of where the reader knows something the character doesn't, often achieved by using multiple different 1st or 3rd person narrators (something done in both Game of Thrones and The Expanse, for instance).
Do readers really prefer this crap or are readers being driven away by it? Think for example of sales of classic science fiction (in the millions) versus 'best sellers' today (often a hundred thousand at best). Or, within the modern market the mostly crappy "Hugo Award" winners (a few exceptions here or there) versus something like a Star Wars novelization. "Character Driven" Oh-Woe-Is-Me, look at the moss on my toes, is not 'science fiction' to me. Science fiction is supposed to be the literature of IDEAS.
Don’t forget to throw in a romance
@@Vasharan I'm trying something in my own novel where the character doesn't recognizes things that we know about. He describes the stuff or listen to stuff in awe, and I hope my readers get the message while the character don't.
love the content you do on this channel, great video as usual!
Thanks 😃
These histories all leave out the early 20th century. Doc EE Smith wrote from 1919 to the mid 1950s. If you are not familiar, I highly recommend. Being a lover of Sci-fi I could not believe how unprepared I was for the Incredible leeps of imagination this author took. The team up of fantastic creatures that could never be filmed ( an apparent no-no for writers who want to do live action screen writing ). Further, The Lensmen Series introduced so many tropes that it could easily be called a Grandfather of 20th Century TV/FILM Sci-Fi. A Galactic police force, faster than light travel, Shields and Trackers, Space Armor, Alien Gods, Planetary scale Spaceships, Hyperspace, Hyper-spacial tubes or Stargates and Mountain Military Bases. Then there is the LENS... it is the Force and the Jedi combined. Why has this man been forgotten?
You have my interest.
@@blahblah2788 I am glad. There is so much more. His early work The Skylark of Space 1919, introduced ’The Green System’ where a race of being have green skin and copper based blood. Two Warlike races of one planet could be the Klingon and another planet has a Super Intellectual race that could be the Vulcans.
Also, in Galactic Patrol 1925 introduces a race of ghoulish soul sucking aliens that could be the villains from Stargate Atlantis... and in Triplanetary (a prequel to Galactic Patrol) The Nevians live a Water Planet and face Intelligent Fishes and go to war.
I could go on for a while...
The Sense of Perception gives some races the ability to see into things... this predates Superman’s X-ray Vision. Also the Lensmen are part of a League ... long before Green Lantern and his ring. There are Red Lensmen and Black. It is quite incredible.
@@StephenRansom47 I cut my teeth on Verne, Wells and 'Doc' Smith..... and 'Doc' was by far the best! Some of his concepts are way up with the best that modern sci-fi has to offer... and I just wish that someone, somewhere would start making films of the Lensman series; we have the capabilities to make them totally believable - but the world seems to have just forgotten them....
@@rebeccaabraham8652 Good Heavens a fan! This was one of my ‘tamer’ rants…. I’ve listen to the series dozens of time now. I still can’t believe how much has been cannibalized from it. My favorite of these rips comes from Stargate… The barber who finds a piece of Ancient tech in Stargate SG1 and the Doc Smith character at the end of First Lensmen…. 😂 this scene also includes a Cat named Thomasina… the book and film came out after… so did Cat From Space. Thieves hate to remember who they robbed.
Tell Prophet about it people should study the history of the genre, especially with Doc.
One of the reasons Dune could get away with such a large word count is that it was not published by a traditional science fiction publishing house. The original publisher of Dune was Chilton!
I use a blend of hard and soft science in my books. by adding the hard science in to the plot it becomes an additional character. It also lends a sense of believability and reality to the setting. sci-fi can be just as realistic and still keep pushing strong character development and stir an emotional response to form a connection to the reader.
Born in 1963, so, I didn't read 'Dune' when it came out, but read 'Neuromancer' the day it was published. I liked your video as an overview to the topic. Here's what I would add: for Classic SF, there was an understood "scientifically-proficient" character archetype. Typically male, often an engineer or scientist, and usually a protagonist, he was universal, saving time and space for the concept and story. Focus was more on idea and plot. When one reads, say, Arthur C. Clarke as a modern reader, if one doesn't grok this, one goes "What? No characterization?" Whereas when one in the 70s read 'Rendezvous with Rama', she plugged in details that were unique to a character but used the archetype as an overall guide. This persisted for years -- for instance, Michael Crichton used a "scientifically-proficient" character in most of his books (for example, 'Jurrasic Park'). It saved on space and utilized more of the reader's imagination; there was little distinctive about a particular SF protagonist past surface features and maybe a gung ho (vs. reserved) approach. In this respect, modern SF is more interesting, but honestly, sometimes modern entities are so caught up in whether people like them, or whether they're straight, or whether their mother or father loved them, they hardly seem capable of using the scientific method. Note how "clean" and efficient Mr. Spock is on TOS. All his dialogue, unless in an episode like 'Amok Time', was to elucidate the scientific subplot. And for Classic SF, the scientific subplot was the reason for the story. I would also make a point about short fiction, for during the Classic Age of SF, all the newest ideas and high concepts generally were tested first in short form. Even the best novels were serialized. Nerdy people such as me in the 70s were mostly interested in innovative concepts, mind-bending technological breakthroughs, etc. Largely, it was the ideas that drew us in. Even Paul in 'Dune' is rather a bland person, if you look at him closely, and Herbert admits he was trying to pen a "dark antihero" anyway who would work destruction in the galaxy. Note how in the beginning of the book, Paul has his ecological filmbooks about the ecology of Arrakis, becoming, early on, the technically-proficient character (albeit a young one). This made him simple to conceive. What we remembered about our reading of 'Dune' was not the characters per se but the sand worms, the folding of space, genetic memory, prescience, & spice-induced drug trips (I exaggerate only a little). Lady Jessica was sexy and smart, but her scant interior life was shown to be as mother and devoted wife first, and only as a side-note, I think, as a witch of an order of priestesses with mystical powers, which was by far more interesting to explore in detail but hard to compress into the short space allotted to her in the big story; but it would be the main thrust of her character if she were written into a modern SF book. Plus we would get a whole lot more about her relationship with her father!
I find that perhaps the focus on "Hard" Science fiction has departed now that science has a better and more detailed understanding. Many "what ifs" get so technical it would be hard to an average reader to follow along. I see a lot more soft or "science fantasy" novels now.
Perhaps the real reason is simply that fewer specialists write science fiction now.
@@IvanIordanov00100 Yes, and that most things are more focused on escapism and we have a better grasp of real technological possibility now so futurism isn't as impressive, from an escapism point of view.
Many of the Golden Age were scientists first and writers second. They were frequently writing to encourage and educate people to become scientists
It's pretty much all science fantasy now, and has been for several decades. Uttely boring and generally lacking much in the way of invention.
Thanks, a most interesting and informative talk.
This thoughtful video is just what I needed today. Reflecting on the different modes of science fiction and the eras from which they emerged is often as illuminating as the works themselves, and I’ve rarely seen it done this well.
Sci-fi does eat itself.. but... luckily we can read books written with different lenses. Afrofuturist (think Octavia Butler (who predates the sub-genre) and NK Jemisin) and foreign or immigrant sci-fi offers a very different type of storytelling based on different values and anxieties (think Cixin Liu and Ken Liu (no relation, but they did work together)). I believe cyberpunk also had it's moment of having a different lens, but as computers and the internet became a part of daily life, cyberpunk writing started to feel recycled as well. Comedic sci-fi can poke fun at its own clichés, offering something new (I'm thinking We are Legion - Bobiverse). Great video. Thanks.
The “What if?” question I think we should ask is “What if the author had actually learned to write!”. Looking at some authors: Isaac Asimov wrote like a teenage schoolboy! Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote wonderful prose! OK, he got the science wrong, but what wonderful adventures they had. If you want character development you can’t get much better than Le Guin’s Hanish cycle. The best authors either have the best writing skills or the best ideas. And the truly great authors have both!
100% agree! Asimov is a terrible prose writer. That puts me off his books - not contemporary social mores.
Heinlein isn't any better. Form matters too! Not just content.
When giving examples of the (supposed) lack of characterization in classic sci fi you cherry pick the two books that are the most known for not having characterization. They are not good representatives of the overall.
I never judge my old Classic SF novels harshly, I’m certain that give it 60 years, audiences will be disgusted and appalled at the liberal Western world of the early 21st century. It’s just how it is.
Ikr, they would think how rude we were in the 20th - 21st century.
But hey, that's how society is.
I'm very close to sixty years old now and have been reading (and watching) SF since as far back as I can remember. I know I'm not alone in suffering, if that's the right adjective, from the malaise of ''Future Nostalgia'' because I didn't coin the name. I saw 2001 at the cinema on its release when I was 8 years old. To me what I saw was not pretend, but reality (and yes, my Dad has a lot to answer for). SF books had a similar affect. But 99% of those futures never happened. The world didn't get better, just worse. Other worlds seemed to get further away and the Fermi Paradox is still unanswered. We may have CE3K to look forward to or maybe it's the Dark Forest and a hypermissile makes global warming fears redundant.
But I still read SF. Why? Because it's the only genre that considers any of these matters and all I can say is thank god these gifted writers keep at it.
Thanks for your time. Loved your video.
FYI there is a guy running regular reviews of SF novels on a regular basis but he always shouts and it wore me down.
I did some amateur editing for amateur authors on a website, years ago. One submission, oh, very confidently, had the main character see an event, and immediately use his cell phone and spread the news. The problem? The author had written his story around an event in the 1960's and 1970's, when there were no such things as modern cell phones, the internet, and personal computers. I had to write that author and say he needed to do his research if he was going to write about historical events back then. It was a fine idea for a story, but he needed to know what life was like for the time he was writing about. It told me that author had to be younger, or he would've known when the internet and cell phones and so on became a thing, not until the mid-1990's. There were mobile phones in the 1980's, but they were not something you could carry around; they were the size of a brick and about as heavy, or worse, with a cradle in the car and a battery in the trunk. (See Magnum P.I. for an example.) -- Teens can write good fiction, and completely new writers can, but like anyone, they have to develop their writing skills, and for historical stuff, they have to know what they are writing about. But I saw a fw teen first time writers who did some good amateur fiction while I was doing amateur editing back at that old website. (No longer around.)
Lol.
Reminds me to when I found a 16th century European noble woman eating potatoes in a novel with a historic setting.
I think I started reading sci-fi in the pulps in the sixties when I found Doc Savage (scientific detective) reprints on a spinning rack in my local convenience store. My older brother, Alan, introduced me to real sci-fi with THE COLORS OUT OF SPACE. After that I was on my way. From Captain Future to Nemo, from Asimov and Clark to Russell and Herbert, there was no stopping me. I even have a "Texas Ten" list in which I list 12 of my favorite - and more re-read - sci-fi stories. That may be why I ended up writing STNG: Data's Soul. Now, in my sixties myself, I still enjoy re-reading many of the oldies.
Thanks for the video. I enjoyed it immensely. Kudos.
I love reading old action pulp books from your time period. It was edgy smut back then. Simpler and more fun times. I still dig new sci fi but sometimes I get tired of all the preachy messages and want some simple fun.
Fantastic video! This channel is gonna be so big by the end of the year.
Thanks 😊
I like your take on using a different outlook when reading golden age SciFi. I am long enough in the tooth that the "Golden Age" was all there was when I started reading SciFi. My tastes have shifted over the years as has my world view. There are some classic books that definitely do not hold up to re-reading (Bradbury, I'm looking at you...). But, If I can find my same mindset when doing a re-read, I find my enjoyment comes right back. And there are some classics that are still superior to any contemporary works, just because of there freshness at the time.
2:15 Um, excuse me, where's Lovecraft?
I hate when I read reviews of classic science fiction books where the reviewers use words like misogynism, racism, outdated etc... There are those who bash, for example, "The War of the Worlds", "Martian Chronicles" because we know now that Mars is a dead planet. It makes no sense. We read "The War of the Worlds" because it is a good story. Classic science fiction is so much more fun to read... Modern science fiction is, well, "modern", which means it is heavily loaded with all sorts of political views. For me it is mostly unreadable.
you're a really good writer, man. good stuff, very helpful.
Wow. Just stumbled over this channel...Where have you been all my life!
Hi! I just met your channel. Sci-Fi is one of the few genres I read (I prefer watch a series). Greetings from Spain.
This was an awesome video idea. so interesting!!
Not to say Older is better, because bothe have their merits, but I feel a lack of Wonder and Horror from modern Sci-Fi which in turn seems to prioritise Action or Dystopic themes.
If a Classic story had humans encounter an Alien race, that's a whole ass Alien race there are so many implications we could explore or hilariously ignore.
Whereas today it seems modern Sci-Fi skims over that part to get to what importance these aliens have to the plot or themes, if any, sometimes it's just set dressing.
Huge Sci Fi fan and really enjoyed watching your videos to see what pther peoples thoughts are on books I have read or want to read. Thank you for making all thi content. I have a couple of thoughts in resposne to some of the questions you left us with in this video that maybe of interest:
1) Realism / Things that have been disproved e.g.red weeds on Mars
For me the realism of probably 75%+ of Sci Fi is already almost certainly unlikely to occur (depressing in many ways for a sci fi fan like me) Firstly is the theory that we will never achieve light speed due to the impossibility of generating the energy requiredto do so; secondly a high possibility that Fermi's paradox is true. Whilst both COULD be incorrect.... at this point in time I dont think many people would stake their house on that bet. This is compounded by the fact very few sci fi books have come true
Yet despite this depressing 'knowledge' I am still a huge sci fi fan and this doesnt affect my enjoyment of the genre. For me the pleasure comes from blending things such as an appreciation of the creators imagination, plot, charactors, literary style in a genre that allows the creator to do anything they want to do and not being constrained by mundane every day real life constraints.
Books that are more likely to become true are ones that are less grand in their expanse e.g. Red/Green/Blue Mars or Flowers for Alganon, books I loved and appreciated because they are great visions of what COULD happen. Yet I still love my epic intergalactic space operas. Truth isnt essential to appreciation or fun.
2) Tropes are often seen as a negative that is cast unfairly on just sci fi and fantasy, and you quite rightly make a distinction between them and cliches. However I would also add that almost every genre of writing has its tropes. Ultimately Crime, horror, romance, thrillers, spy stories, war stories, even biographies all have common elements that we humans will then use to "put in a box" i.e. trope. What separates these stories is the qualities that make us more emotionally engaed with Story X ahead of Story Y. Better writing style or better charactors are often the big hitters in terms of emotional connection, but in Sci Fi the author has two big advantages in that they can engage an audience with the scale of their vision and or can use some interesting techniques to present the story in a way that seems futuristic or different e.g. how John Brunner uses adverts to show the reader what the world is like in his story Stand on Zanzibar
Somewhere between 2010 and 2014 the Hugos ceased to be anything but a participation award. After those dates you should ignore it for your purposes.
Well written essay, thanks for that.
Please, read the Vorkosigan saga by Lois McMaster Bujold. Since it won a Hugo for best series and several best books. I find it odd that she is rarely mentioned.
Amen brother! Great classic hard science fiction with great characters.
Really enjoyed this. I've been reading sci fi for nearly 45 years beginning with with A.E van Voigt "Voyage of the space Beagle" i mostly stick with classic sci fi, but i read an occasional modern story too, most recently "Cloud Atlas" which i read a year or so after seeing the movie.
Dune is largely hypothetical psychology blended with fantasy, philosophy, science fiction and theology and it scavenges various ancient civilisations and combines them to wonderful effect. I think it might be more worthwhile to speak about 'speculative fiction' like Margaret Atwood does.
Dude you need to start a book club where you then analyse it on UA-cam and we all discuss in the comments
Great idea.
@@Sci-FiOdyssey I second this idea. Just found you today!
or a discord server...
You might be able to help me. For years I've been trying to track down a sci-fi anthology I read many many years ago in the late 60s early 70s. It came out around the same time as 'Seven Trips Through Time and Space', that includes my favourite sci-fi short 'The Crime and the Glory of Commander Suzdal' by Cordwainer Smith. However, the one I'm trying to find included several short stories that I vaguely remember. One tells the story of two husbands who find themselves in terrible debt, and transport and hibernate themselves into a small container to outwait the debt collectors, only to be discovered by their somewhat annoyed wives. Another is about a guy who can't afford his space transit ticket, and volunteers to be the human exhibit in an alien creatures zoo, to pay his way. Another tells the story of two astronauts who find themselves stranded on an alien planet. They have to traverse a large body of thick mist/fog to reach a distress beacon. The story follows their horrendous journey through the fog, only to finally discover that they could have built a raft and floated across. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you...
Classic sci fi is brilliant, a= real winow on a time and its vision of the future. Look at all the Japanese corporate stuff in the sci fi (Bladerunner, Neuromancer etc) of the 80s
Recently it's coming full circle. While Ready Player One and Two were rather bad books there are other elements that can be lifted from japanese story making it's way in western science fiction and probably more to come. The digitalized human is one of my favorite and while Alter Carbon did a decent job many anime and manga has explored this concept in much greater detail, and I wouldn't mind if that made it's way here. I know of at least one series that uses this, but I am sure there are more I haven't seen out there and more to come.
I know this video was a year ago but as a reader who is just getting back into the sci-fi genre (only read two major series: Dune and Ender's Game. A few YA trilogies. And Andy Weir books) I found this video very interesting and informative. I would like to point out that not only the length of classic books was a factor, but writing concepts like "show, don't tell" and not using adverbs etc. are modern writing techniques that they wouldn't have even had in the fifties.
If a person feels that way, that they can't handle ideas and thoughts presented in a different way, that they may not be politically correct or sensitive to your way of thinking, then maybe books just aren't for you, especially older books.
Amen!
Possibly cannot handle dealing with people either.
Self reflection is more mainstream now. Less ‘man up’ or ‘men don’t cry’ now than yesteryear. Wanting to see the protagonist do well is a form of emotional empathy.
Personally I have a hard time getting into books like game of thrones, where characters are decentralized. Even remember getting mad at wheel of time books because the protagonist was only in one chapter in the whole book.
awesome video, I really enjoyed watching it
Lots of great points. Thanks for this video.
I am glad you mentioned, The Forever War. It is probably my favourite science fiction book.
Definitely some solid ideas here. Your work into this analysis is well worth the watch. I have a few more thoughts to add-
It's worth noting that though excellent writers in many ways, a number of these authors didn't focus on character, not because they couldn't, but because they simply weren't very good at it. In the same manner that interpersonal relationships can be and often are, far more challenging than any technical career might be, many authors just shunted the tricky business of creating 'real' characters aside, to focus on what was easier- Plot and technology. Frank Herbert's 'Dune' series was a monumental work of worldbuilding, but from 'Dune' to 'Chapterhouse Dune', it was a rare event for me to see any of his characters as real people, doing the things they do & saying the things they say, far future world notwithstanding. I'm not saying there weren't interesting characters, only that they rarely act like believable human beings.
Also, as readers, it's incredibly important to realize the cultural mindsets we have *today*, that we are oh so sure are the 'correct and proper' views to have on things, will almost definitely be seen as parochial and outdated in another 40 years. I'm 50 now and had the good luck to pay attention to my parents & grandparents & even luckier that they had worthwhile things to say. Every Generation thinks that the time in which they become sentient embodies how things 'should' be. I guarantee from a wider historical perspective, this is rarely the case.
I recall Asimov saying that he regretted much of his characterization of Susan Calvin, but didn't know any better at the time, because he hadn't started dating yet.
Where is the picture from 7.52 from? It was used in a Latin American edition of Tuf Voyaging and I know it has nothing to do with that book, which always upsets me XD
One of the many things I liked about the Serenity series was that everyone swore in Chinese. Almost everyone did it, but It didn't effect me as swearing a blue streak would, and it subtly acknowledged so much of the universe.
came across one fan theory that they were actually speaking Mandarin the whole time its just that only the non swearing was translated to English for the viewers.
@@mojomike
Makes since.
1. (Out of universe): Creators are trying to open up to the Chinese market.
2. (Speculation): In space colonization, I'd assume China would want to be heavily involved or at least not left out in the exploits of the final frontier.
An even better example of something classic that's been superseded, given the references to Asimov, who my personal favorite, is the role of psychic abilities. It was common in stories from the 40-60's not just in Asimov's writing. It's frustrating because I know there wasn't evidence for it then, even if wasn't thoroughly debunked yet. Maybe that's why my favorite book in the Foundation series is the first one, since I don't recall anything in there making aware I was having to accept something nonsensical given current knowledge.
I would say it continued to the 70s. It was often assumed that in future psychic abilities would be the norm. It was the time of Uri Geller.
Really interesting. What do you think about the issue of classic sci-fi being in some ways more optimistic vs modern sci-fi being more pessimistic? I feel like that's a topic you didn't touch and is an interesting difference too.
Hmm, yeah I have heard this theory. But I guess it depends what type of classic sci-fi you're reading. I didn't really find books like Ubik, 1984, The Forever War, Stranger in a Strange Land, etc, optimistic. Actually, as I think about it, quite a few come to mind I wouldn't class as optimistic. But then, modern sci-fi could reflect a more pessimistic society as opposed to post war society: climate change... AI uprisings... obesity... loneliness... the internet... declining birth rates... COVID. Shit, quick, tell me a joke.
@@Sci-FiOdyssey How many Eridians do you need to change a light bulb?
None. I doesn't matter to Eridians whether there is a light bulb or not.
I must say I treat older works in the same way - they are works of their time and some things are just a flavor of them.
By comparing some of classic works on SCIFI vs current ones, seems to me the classic works did not (understandably) account for the exponential rate of change on lot of aspects of modern life detonated by digitization, automation, artificial intelligence and most of all, by the internet.
All those breakpoints change the world as we now it: globalization seems an unstoppable trend, economy is more inclined to privet investment rather than state-controlled and so companies are the new power instead of monarchies like in Foundation or Dune.
Comprehensible, ideas like the communication network on Hyperion are more close to reality, or makes more sense than the Encyclopedia Gallactica, while also the emergence of the Technocore would seem more likely, that a technological utopia like in Dune where machines play not an important role.
Of course, modern SCIFI writers had the advantage of living to see these inventions. That makes me wonder: what are the current writers not foretelling, what will be the next disruptive event that could make of our society in the near future, let's say: 500 years from now completely different to what today's novels depict?
Say disruption needs not been an unimaginable thing, but something that changes our life in unpredictable ways.
Say for example, the current tendency to gender relativism, and advancements in genetics permit newborns without biological sex. And given sometime, we become a species with a single gender. Differences like height and color of the skin are also suppressed to discount for racism or physical advantages. How would that change society, art, and other expressions?
What if Religion is totally probed wrong, our origin solved as result of purely physical processes, no God, no Afterlife.
Said type of changes could result in a very very different humanity to what we conceive we could become, and lot of things that makes for interesting SCI-FI plots would be quite outdated.
I wonder what people from the future would think of the likes of The Expanse, and if reading fantasy books or stories would have significance at all.
I've tended to steer away from Classic scifi and I don't really consider myself even very well read on the popular 'modern' scifi stories either. I just like the oddball and the little quiet gems in the corner ;) great video
I'm a big fan of H. Beam Piper. His stories are just so much more positive than lots of modern stories.
Piper's "Time and Time Again" is one of the few stories that make a "Groundhog Day" loop seem like a good thing.
Stories & poetry involving the human condition are universal and timeless no matter the genre. Love, death, longing, despair, triumph, defeat, and moral challenges get readers interested. These themes also keep us interested in fictional characters who are strangers at first. "What would I do in his/her place?" If it sings true in your heart, you'll keep reading.
Some authors like Heller & Dostoyevski show us characters who consistently make the wrong moral choices every step of the way, and by so doing hold up a mirror and make us consider our own values and choices. It's never too late for a good story well told to change someone's life. These are the stories we remember long after the last page is turned.
I'd like to know your thoughts on Hannu Rajaniemi's THE QUANTUM THIEF. I binge on your videos. 🤖🛸Your spot on👌💯
love your videos!
Talk about a broad and expansive subject :D I largely agree with your hypothesis. There is a lot of problematic pulp sci Fi tropes--famously Captain Kirk and green women. Notice I don't even know their names.
Sci Fi really excels at exploring human conditions versus forces that seem inevitable. Foundation, the expanse, cowboy Bebop do this incredibly. It is exciting to see a new idea or new spin.
"The stories in these publications emphisized heroism, adventure and PLOT"
I miss the classics back before the alphabet people absorbed the basketball people and ribs. Now everyone is crazy and easily offended. Demolition Man came true!
I'm sure people swore plenty in the past. It was probably just not considered proper to include it in writing, too much.
I still draw some elements from both modern and classic science fiction. The shield of ice used by the spacecraft in Arthur Clarke's "Songs Of A Distant Earth" is an example, or the aliens in Robert Forward's "Dagrons Egg". One of my most favorite novels, which I read in High School was Hal Clement's "Mission Of Gravity". One the major things I look for is how non-human or different are the aliens. That is why I never really enjoyed Star Trek and Star Wars that much because they looked and acted like Earth humans in costumes.
I reread Mission Of Gravity about a year ago, I was stunned at how well the story still held up after all these years.
Modern sci-fi authors have delusions of grandeur. Character development is over-emphasized. We do not need the complete childhood in order to follow the story. I think most new writers try to cover short-comings in plot with layers of exposition and "development".
Dude, that Apple LED Cinema Display! A man of culture, I see!
We need to evolve scifi. You are right a lot of modern day Scifi recycle themes. There are a few that break away from the pack by laying new ground.
Feed's Newsflesh is good example of this, but with zombies in the mix it probably doesn't get the scifi credit it deserves.
Bobiverse series also has some interesting elements involving a man being copied to create an AI clone of that man, but that is sort of a off shoot of what been done in japan fiction since Akira which was inspired by the cyberpunk genre of the west.
Keeping the tropes are fine, but writers of genre need to look outside the books to grow.
This is such a great topic. When it comes to classic sci-fi, it's like you said it's the golden age of sci-fi. This golden age really was because we knew so little at that time, that our imagination was king. Like you said about mars from the golden age of sci-fi also holds true with how people thought that Venus would have these dense steamy jungles.
Sure today's sci-fi might not hit on a lot of new ideas but what we do often get is more fleshed out characters. I enjoy finding out that today's hero may not be all that perfect or that our villain isn't really that evil at all. This blurring of the lines of good and evil feels more realistic to me in modern sci-fi.
I love all sorts... I love the clinical exploration of Rama and the concept of a reverse-internal-world spaceship, as much as I did the development of John Perry in the Old Man's War series.
And I loved reading/watching Original Star Trek as much as I loved reading Redshirts. (Maybe too much Scalzi in these examples... but you get my point)
Whining that classic sci was "sexist" or whatever is stupid, because modern sci fi is also "sexist" against men, pretty much all modern writing and movies are "girls strong and smart" and "men stupid clumsy or evil". Its even more hilarious when you consider that old sci fi feels "outdated" by some standards that we decided we gonna call "modern" even though these ideas are over 100 years old and its possible those ideas lead to the extinction of our species looking at modern birthrates. Who knows maybe the aliens are smarter than us and have a strict patriachical society under supreme monarchy for their survival, or maybe they are insect like species and they have a queen. Seen everything from a human perspective is dumb. "But we havent met any actual aliens species we dont know how they behave" and yet we believe they gonna behave exactly like us with our modern progressive standards, stop me if you heard this, all races living in unity, nothing bad happens, everyone shares everything and dont waste resources and harm the environment and of course we got democracy and a "senate" or space council. What if aliens are incredibly racist and ethnocentric and and their leader is some kind of religious god like creature and their method of survival is swallowing entire worlds for their resources. Why would aliens care about preserving humans? Do you care about preserving germs? No, they are a nuisance and you want them gone.
Like you said if you can relate on everything in a sci fi setting, whats is the point? Not everything has to be an allegory for ww2.
oh man, aliens not liking to have a zoo of silly humans toing flase wirting and what not for their amusement.
the universe can be very boring.
Would you please post the sources for the art used in the video, or credit the artists? I specifically would like to know where to find the piece at 13:52.
I appreciate your recognition of the constraints placed on earlier SF owing to the medium and the contemporary society - it echoes some of my own contentions, but I take things a bit farther:
first, characters without all of the detail you reference (they didn't get a cookie when they were young) are, in many respects, MORE relatable to a wider range of readers than one whose got all kinds of personal baggage, for the simple reason that very few readers are going to share the same baggage with the character. Why do characters like Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, Professor Quartermass continue to endure over the decades (despite changing audiences)? Because there are fewer details for the reader to get hung up on.
Additionally, readers of the pulps were all very familiar with character stereotypes (a lot of people these days criticize these earlier works for "cardboard" characters) so there was little to no need to "waste space and wordage" on detail that it was unnecessary to convey to a reader: we knew what kind of person the Engineer was; we knew what characteristics the "Evil Rival" would have.
Third, I've come to believe that one of the changes between "classic" and "Modern" SF is the loss of the "gedanken experiment" mode of writing. Yes, that privileges the science/gadgets over characters (why in the heck do people want to watch the interpersonal, emotional turmoil of other people, don't they have enough in their own lives already?); such fiction was, I think, the true expression of the definition of the genre - positing a technological change and following its development to some conclusion: the tech is going to be used, by people, but the people who use it really hardly matter, do they? The tech will affect EVERYONE - what does it matter how it affects one small handful? Starship Troopers is a good example of a Gedanken Experiment in literature - positing a different form of "franchise" in an otherwise liberal society and seeing where it leads - but BECAUSE readers are focused on "character" these days, the impression of that novel has morphed into accusations of fascism on the part of the characters.
You overlooked "This Immortal" By Roger Zelazny. It tied Dune for the hugo In 1966
Damn now I want to read some 50s scifi now!
Please, I haven't seen a good review about "Annihilation" or in general about the Southern Reach Trilogy by Jeff VanderMeer....
Works of modern scify with unique tropes includes works by Neal Stephenson, 'Snowcrash' and 'The Diamond Age' come to mind.
I love Warhammer 40k books. And I will not apologize!
Space Opera at its finest!
21:19 Oh oh i know i know!
what is the answer to life, the universe, and everything?
Fun. You make me think about some if the really old stuff like A Princess of Mars which is mostly pure fantasy, but he got the effects of less gravity on Mars about right, at least regarding a visitor from Earth (and in the process invented the first Superman). Otherwise, it's still a dandy adventure story.
When I was in eighth grade I made fun of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea supposing land at the North Pole and none at the South Pole. If I simply swapped the poles in my mind the story worked out fine.
The Expanse is chock full of old science fiction tropes but builds a believable story about a possible future with them.
I've heard that every possible story was written by Shakespeare and everything written after can be considered derivative. Phooey. If the story didn't include situations and other elements we recognized we would have a hard time relating to it.
Old science fiction is useful to tell us just how old some of these tropes are and how they were developed in earlier days.
In Compare that trope I noticed that the modern books had overlaps with multiple older books. Today's writers seem to be writing works that deal with more than one idea where as the older books seem to focus on on one maybe two ideas.
Great content. Your voice wow so soothing. Congratulation.
Thanks. That's nice to hear 😃
The innovation in tropes is why authors like M. Shelley, A. Asimov, F. Herbert, P. k. Dick, U. Le Guin, and W.Gibson were really important. I would Even placed there the work of C.Liu, with the Dark Forest hypothesis. The innovation in tropes is the hardest to find, but the more exciting to read.
Hyperion 170,000 words. Foundation 70,000 words. You present this as if it's a weakness of Foundation. I think it's a huge strength. Why I prefer classic sci fi.
I need one about mystery, adventure.. and suspense. Perhaps horror.
I think being able to enjoy certain older scifi with such stereotyping and lack of representation has much less to do with objectivity and maturity, and has more to do with to with 2 things:
1. Whether the stereotyping and lack of representation is about you personally as a member of a historically persecuted group. especially if persecution has occurred in your lifetime and to you personally ally in real life. If a book casually subject your own identity (WHO YOU ARE) to attack, and this is a pattern in older books, it just becomes very off-putting. This can be anything from mildy distracting, to exhausting, to enraging to completely isolating, depending on the degree of and manner in which its done. And considering most traditional bigotry still existed/exists in some places and some (hopefully lesser) forms during our own lifetimes, may also remind you or "rub your face in" trauma you were subjected o to in your own lifetime, or still have to deal with.
This puts a much greater social and emotional burden on such readers. It's hard to "be objective" when it's personal.
2. Whether it's a good book may make the difference. If the themes are universal enough and it is well written enough, if the story is gripping enough, if the characters are relatable enough,, it may rise above the limitations of its time period, and despite being technically somewhat offensive, it fails to really offend.
Often this is because, despite using an offensive term, the author actually treats the minority character with relative complexity and dignity for that time period.
Exactly!
I don't want to read books where oppression or exclusion of women happens a lot, either as a focus of the story or just an assumes stable of the book's reality.
Which is a shame, because I love the adventure in late 19th/early20th century sci-fi, but as a woman I get tired of the lack of women very quickly. And of the casual racism/colonialism.
The thing about wondering if we're bringing anything new to Scifi or if we're just rehashing the same plots and ideas of the classic age is that you're assuming THEIR ideas were original. If you look at what they wrote (exploring new worlds, advanced races meeting comparatively primitive humans, the creations of man turning on us, etc) you'll see they are all tropes that previously existed in fantasy or even mythology, just with gods, the underworld, fae realms, magic, etc instead of technology. The core ideas being new is almost impossible at this point in human history but presenting them in new and interesting ways is what's important. All of humanity's creations (music, art, literature, science, medicine, engineering, etc) are made building upon what came before, expanding and enhancing it. That's not a bad thing, it's a strength of our species.
I think that the main axis of differences is characters and emotions vs plot and big ideas. I tend to prefer older sci-fi because I rarely care about personal emotions and character developments. But if there's no big idea then I may get bored. And many modern sci-fi books are YA, which I absolutely don't get along with. I've read The Collapsing Empire in 2020 and liked it, but it left no lasting impression. I'll consider reading the rest of this trilogy, but it's a low priority. I have too much classics to catch up with.
That's an interesting take. I have to admit I don't get on with YA either, sci-fi or otherwise. I agree with you on TCE - it left no real lasting impression with me, either, although I generally enjoy Scalzi.
I would say that classic SF relies more on a 'Big Hook', that is usually the central axis of the plot, as a selling point and differentiator. Whether it be 'Desert Planet' (Dune), 'Alien Probe' (Rama), 'Psychohistory' (Foundation), 'Dragons' (Pern), the narrative follows the premise, even if they will often veer wildly from said premise in later sequels (cough Dune/Foundation/Rama).
With modern science fiction, the premise and the 'Big Idea' is often much more obscured or nebulous. It is not obvious from the title, cover, or first few pages (or sometimes even books) what the narratives of Long Sun (Wolfe), Blindsight (Watts), Ancillary Justice (Leckie), Hyperion (Simmons), The Expanse (Corey) are or where they will go. That is not to say there aren't modern versions of 'Big Hook' books, like 'Guy Stranded On Mars' (The Martian), 'Sentient Space Probes' (Bobbiverse), 'Patriarchy' (Handmaid's Tale). But I think that modern SF in general tends to be a much more exploratory and experimental process, and a lot of it has to do with both audience expectations and the publishing environment of today. It also helps that modern SF is not gatekept by a small elite of socially conservative editors and publishers that had a firm grip on what writers could and could not write about (cough John Campbell).
I have watched a few of your vids and you seem to have only a limited exposure to classic sci-fi--you reference Asimov and Clarke, but when
you say that classic sci-fi did not do a lot of character development. I beg to differ. In books like the Long ARM of Gil Hamilton,
the main character is well fleshed out--this is seen very well in the final story 'Patchwork Girl'--as is the main characters in Pat Frank's 'Alas
Babylon'. I don't think anyone can honestly say that the alien children in Midwich Cuckoos, by John Wyndham are without personality. Turning to your comparisons it is strange to me that you would choose the books that you did. Especially Ender's Game and the earlier books you linked to it because of things like having an alien enemy. The War of the Worlds--which came long before either of the books you mention, and since War of the Worlds has an alien enemy and so sci-fi--according to your own measure has been 'eating itself' for more than 100 years.
Space Opera - have you ever hears of E. E. {Doc] Smith]?
Writers themselves questioned the tropes they had to use, one rather splendid example being WAR OF THE WINGED-MEN by Poul. Anderson ( 1976) which contains all the stock characters non of whom make the expected contribution to the story. I think the problem is that the stories are provided in a language the reader understands, in my case that's English. There is therefore a tendency to see them as an extension of the current world and to apply the cultural norms of the present. That makes no sense as the stories were written in a different culture and they are talking about another different culture but human's are not actually very smart when it comes to things like culture, politics and religion. I did find that having spent my childhood reading every sci fi book in the local library I had no difficulty reading books set in a contemporary but different culture. A lot of those tend to be translations produced because the illustrate the about the cultural differences, which can be illuminating in the 'woke' sense but I am not reading in search of outrage, those which were a story that was embedded in that culture were perfectly readable and enjoyed as stories. To take a trivial example the French have some good crime fiction but the cultural differences make it feel like Sci Fi. You also see this in sci fi itself, one notable example being Stanisław Lem. He embeds his stories in his culture which made them more refreshingly sci-fi than a lot of the American cowboy stories in space stuff or the British 'optimistic disaster' genre (day of the triffids is perhaps the most well known example), he also seemed a lot more comfortable acknowledging humanities flaws. But that's just me and I'm an old duffer.
First book I ever checked out from a library was about the adventures of a stowaway on a spaceship. Made me a lifelong fan of SF. Book was “Space Cat” by Ruthven Todd. Trying to think of a modern example of that theme?
My introduction to SF was the Tom Swift Jr and Tom Corbett Space Cadet books, and John Carter of Mars, then James White's Sector General and Keith Laumer's Retief. I think the lack of characterization in classic works allowed the reader to "fill in the blanks" with their own personalities. This allowed for escapism, where today's readers like to read about well defined, realistic other people.
One thing I have to say is actual scientific discovery has stunted any attempt to write serious hard science fiction in today’s world. When average audiences see things like faster than light travel as a ridiculous concept, artificial gravity as hand-wavy magic nonsense, wormholes, black holes, etc., it severely limits the potential to be taken seriously as an author writing interstellar science fiction anymore. Everything that caused wonder has become mundane.
Having said that do you see merit in writing science-fantasy from a literary standpoint? Arguably, Star Wars, Star Trek, even Dune can be seen more as Science-Fantasy than as science-fiction or even as speculative fiction.
So true!
I noticed that too when attempting to write hard sci-fi.
Everything, but that which already exists in reality or is very obvious to exist in the near future, seems "ludicrous" and "far-fetched" now. :/
If you try writing your next book on a manual typewriter you might get an idea on why books were shorter in the golden age:) You may have overlooked the market for golden age SF -- teenage boys -- which may explain a lot about the type of stories written. I was reading golden age SF as a teenager in the 1960's -- it was great, then. I can't reread most of those stories now. But maybe I wasn't reading the best SF back then. Neither Dune nor the Foundation interested me back then -- or now, for that matter.
Space colonization, ecology or militarism are all very complex themes, with so much to explore and so many possible points of view there's nothing inherently unoriginal or cliche about revisiting them (as long as the writer is actually writing their own book and not just copy-pasting someone else's off course)
As a scifi author myself, the answer I've found for the question of originality is that there is nothing new under the sun. Even groundbreaking works of scifi like Blade Runner, Star Trek, and Dune have a rich heritage of ideas reaching back through older stories, and those to yet older stories, and not all of these older stories are scifi themselves. More often than not, their heritage reaches right back into real life histories and cultures, so that whatever original elements the author brings to the table come from his own understanding of physics, philosophy, science, and the way he sees the real world.
The scifi author's duty, then, in addition to just telling a good story, (as all writers must) is to peer closely at older stories, and at the world around him, and make inferences and extrapolations, and see where it leads him. And the degree of honesty and earnestness with which he makes his examinations, and the distance to which he is willing to follow them, will determine how 'original' his story may appear.
In my stories I wanted to explore gravity manipulation, and that desire led me on a path of discovery through physics and science, relativity, particle physics and electromagnetism, it led me to the creation of a long list of rules on the behavior of a fictional form of exotic matter, and that led to ships and robots designed to harness it, and from those designs, even more ideas. In my most recent story the following passage appears:
"A parting in the clouds allowed them to see Glasstop Island, the city-sized potato-shaped rock floating in the sky. Well, not floating, exactly. More like it had been undergoing the slowest reentry in history, and had been doing so for two years now. Thirteen gravity tugs sat anchored comfortably to its bottom side, converting the massive energy of the asteroid's slow descent into electricity, enough to feed the industry of half the continent. Every hour, on the hour, the tugs would drop a full battery into the ocean below for recovery, and every day, high at noon, massive winches would lift a couple dozens batteries back up."
I don't think I've ever seen that idea anywhere before, but when I wrote it, I felt less like I had invented it and more like I had discovered it, because it had followed so logically from things come before. I would not be surprised to open a scifi book one day, even a very old book, and find a world with a power plant on a falling asteroid, because although maybe it isn't as much of a trope as force fields and FTL, it still makes a sort of sense if you go looking for that sense.