Re: [mythsoc] NPR top 100 Science Fiction and Fantasy titles poll
- On 8/3/2011 9:52 PM, Larry Swain wrote:
> Well said. To give Darrell a slight break, 1984 has 2 of his 4
> (though he only counts one), making it on his own terms SF. Isuspect he
> would question my inclusion of technology in the book, but in1949, that
> technology was grand stuff and highly speculative, not "mere"extension
> of what was then known.Darrell replies
>>Next, you suspect correctly that I question the inclusion oftechnology in identifying "1984" as SF. The telescreens are merely
televisions with cameras. Over 19,000 TV sets were made in the U.K.
They were commercially available beginning in 1928; "1984" was
published in 1949. (That's longer than from the proposal to create the
WorldWideWeb [sic] to now.) I do not recall anything else important to
story that involves a future technology as a necessary component, but it
been a long time since I last read the book.<<
So flying cars are not science fiction, space ships of any sort are not
science fiction since they are merely extrapolations of various kinds of
vessels we currently use to transverse land, air, and sea; and certainly
regardless of the mechanism fueling such vessels in outer space, that is
merely extrapolation from what we already know. Beings from outer
space? Mere extrapolations of what we already see in our own world,
especially since the vast majority of those outer space beings are
humanoid in form, or insectoid seems to be becoming popular...but
nonetheless they are mere extrapolations from what we already know and
see in the real world. In short, push comes to shove, if we apply your
rule, there is no such thing as science fiction.
The technology to put large screens with cameras all about wasn't
available in 1928, 1938, or 1949. The proposal to create the web was
made in 1990, 21 years ago. The period from 1928 to 1949 is 21 years.
Since Orwell wrote the book in 1948, it is actually less time.
http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own
- 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
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