Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] NPR top 100 Science Fiction and Fantasy titles poll

Expand Messages
  • Larry Swain
    I m not sure I d define it as Science Fiction either, but on the other hand, I can certainly see why many very likely would. It s setting is in the author s
    Message 1 of 31 , Aug 3, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm not sure I'd define it as Science Fiction either, but on the other hand, I can certainly see why many very likely would.
      It's setting is in the author's future, it involves and in fact the plot turns on technology that did not exist when the author wrote, and the fact that the technology has come to pass in the 60 years since the author wrote does not disqualify the strength of the prognostication (rather like saying that Star Trek isn't science fiction because of the moon landings [ST premiered in 1966, Apollo 11 put us on the moon in 1969] or even because ST postdated the first humans in space).  Yes, that's not all the novel is, and one can argue that it fits other genres (which sometimes cross lines, dystopian literature for example does not always fit neatly into categories), but it seems to me that it fits most definitions of science fiction.
      Larry Swain
      On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:53 -0500, "Darrell A. Martin" <darrellm@...> wrote:

      On 8/3/2011 2:39 PM, Margaret Dean wrote:
      > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Darrell A. Martin<darrellm@...> wrote:
      >> "1984" is an alternate history, or historical fiction. Not SF&F. "Animal
      >> Farm" is in the same categories as "1984", but as a beast fable
      >> qualifies for the list, I suppose.
      > When "1984" was written, it was (dystopian) SF. Nowadays, it might
      > qualify as alternate history, but I don't think that should
      > necessarily bump it out of the SF category.
      > "Animal Farm" is beast-fable, yes, but also well-constructed allegory.
      > CSL thought it a better book than "1984."
      > --Margaret Dean


      Arguing about categories definitely comes under the heading "de gustibus
      non est disputandum". But that won't stop me....

      I just don't see how "1984" qualifies as SF. A near future setting is
      not enough, or the genre begins to lose all useful meaning. Ditto for
      allegory. The combination of the two doesn't do it for me either.

      "Animal Farm" got one of my 10 votes.


      http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin
    • Alana Joli Abbott
      On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Lisa Harrigan
      Message 31 of 31 , Aug 4, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Lisa Harrigan <auntie_m_groups@...> wrote:
        Most of these should not be on a Best of All Time list, because they are
        Brand New, some trilogies have not even had book 3 printed yet, Series.
        How do they get on a Best of All Times List?

        This is a fair point. I do think it's valid to want to include things that are new, so you get the full range of classic to contemporary. But series that aren't completed yet really shouldn't qualify.


        Alana Joli Abbott, Freelance Writer and Editor (http://www.virgilandbeatrice.com)
        Author of Into the Reach and Departure, available at http://tinyurl.com/aja-ebooks
        Columnist, "The Town with Five Main Streets," http://branford.patch.com/columns/the-town-with-five-main-streets
        Contributor to Origins Award winner, Serenity Adventures: http://tinyurl.com/serenity-adventures
        For updates on my writings, join my mailing list at http://groups.google.com/group/alanajoliabbottfans

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.