WIRED wrote:LOL.
The nose-thumbing is nothing new. In the '50s, Robert Heinlein dismissed the term, opting for "speculative fiction." (What fiction isn't?)
An interesting point from the article AB referenced regarding the term.
WIRED wrote:LOL.
The nose-thumbing is nothing new. In the '50s, Robert Heinlein dismissed the term, opting for "speculative fiction." (What fiction isn't?)
minstrel wrote:
Does anyone else remember the "Venus Equilateral" stories? (I'm looking at you, Adam Balm! They might be right up your alley ...)
Anti-Christ wrote:I'd love Turtledove's "WorldWar" series to go to screen. Lizards with machine guns. Come on!
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:It was a 'cos of a this that a the Science, she became a to be seen by a the general public not as a the boon to a the mankind, but as a the horrific force that we alla hadda to fear... a force that unna'checked was a gonna to bring about a the destruction of a the entire planet, no?
Adam Balm wrote:DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:It was a 'cos of a this that a the Science, she became a to be seen by a the general public not as a the boon to a the mankind, but as a the horrific force that we alla hadda to fear... a force that unna'checked was a gonna to bring about a the destruction of a the entire planet, no?
Now are you referring to science or to your own science fiction films?
Oh, and good points all around. Although I'd disagree in that it's not that simple. The first science fiction story ever done was Frankenstein, a story of science as an arguably bad thing. And into the industrial revolution you have plenty of dystopian science fiction inspired by the terrifying mechanisation of the world, often by some of the world's best authors like Jack London. Industrialization brought improved standards of living yes, but also it brought people in from the fields and forced them into the factory. H.G. Wells' four great books (Time Machine, War of the Worlds, Invisible Man and Island of Dr. Moreau) all showed industrialization and technological progress suspiciously and not as a simple 'boon to mankind' but something with the potential to take away ones' humanity. Jules Verne's later stuff had more of this feel, which stands in stark contrast to his earlier optimistic fiction. And in the early 20th century during the surge of pulps like Amazing Stories and Astounding, you also had cautionary tales like Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and films like Fritz Lang's metropolis.
Optimism and pessimism have always been the twin poles of SF. While The Bomb probably did make a big difference in how some people viewed science, I don't think it shares all the blame for people distrusting science. People have always met science with fear and hope, and there's been many times when one has dipped and the other has risen in public consciousness.. If any of that makes any sense at all.
Adam Balm wrote:DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:It was a 'cos of a this that a the Science, she became a to be seen by a the general public not as a the boon to a the mankind, but as a the horrific force that we alla hadda to fear... a force that unna'checked was a gonna to bring about a the destruction of a the entire planet, no?
Now are you referring to science or to your own science fiction films?
Oh, and good points all around. Although I'd disagree in that it's not that simple. The first science fiction story ever done was Frankenstein, a story of science as an arguably bad thing. And into the industrial revolution you have plenty of dystopian science fiction inspired by the terrifying mechanisation of the world, often by some of the world's best authors like Jack London. Industrialization brought improved standards of living yes, but also it brought people in from the fields and forced them into the factory. H.G. Wells' four great books (Time Machine, War of the Worlds, Invisible Man and Island of Dr. Moreau) all showed industrialization and technological progress suspiciously and not as a simple 'boon to mankind' but something with the potential to take away ones' humanity. Jules Verne's later stuff had more of this feel, which stands in stark contrast to his earlier optimistic fiction. And in the early 20th century during the surge of pulps like Amazing Stories and Astounding, you also had cautionary tales like Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and films like Fritz Lang's metropolis.
Optimism and pessimism have always been the twin poles of SF. While The Bomb probably did make a big difference in how some people viewed science, I don't think it shares all the blame for people distrusting science. People have always met science with fear and hope, and there's been many times when one has dipped and the other has risen in public consciousness.. If any of that makes any sense at all.
minstrel wrote:I disagree with Dino that science became unpopular in the 50s. WWII brought about many technological innovations, and the bomb was only one of them. There was also radar, jet aircraft, computers, rockets, and so on. The space race really got going after Sputnik and WOW did that turn on a bunch of young boys like me in the 1960s. Science and technology were very popular in that time.
Robert Silverberg wrote:Historians of science fiction often speak of the years 1939–1942 as "the golden age." But it was more like a false dawn. The real golden age arrived a decade later, and—what is not always true of golden ages—we knew what it was while it was happening.
That earlier golden age was centered entirely in a single magazine, John W. Campbell's Astounding Science Fiction, and the war aborted it in mid-stride. Campbell steered a middle course between the heavy-handed science-oriented stories preferred by the pioneering sf magazine editors Hugo Gernsback and T. O'Conor Sloane and the cheerfully lowbrow adventure fiction favored by pulp editors Ray Palmer and Mort Weisinger. He wanted smoothly written fiction that seriously explored the future of science and technology for an audience of intelligent adult readers—and in the four years of that first golden age he found an extraordinary array of brilliant new writers (and re-energized some older ones) to give him what he wanted: Robert A. Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, Theodore Sturgeon, A. E. van Vogt, Jack Williamson, Clifford D. Simak, L. Sprague de Camp, and many more.
Charlie Jane Anders wrote:We owe a huge debt to Gnome Press, a small start-up science fiction publisher that launched in the wake of World War II and failed because it couldn't pay its authors. As Andrew Liptak explains over in Kirkus Reviews, Gnome made Asimov's I, Robot possible, and gave us the first themed anthology.
Charlie Jane Anders wrote:Henry Kuttner's clever writing had a huge impact on science fiction, and there's never been a better chance to discover his work. A ton of his work has just been reissued by Diversion Books, and we've got an exclusive excerpt from his book The Time Trap, which was just nominated for a Retro Hugo.
Charlie Jane Anders wrote:Not only did Playboy provide a huge audience for science fiction stories during the publishing crash of the late 1950s, but the mag also helped keep short SF mainstream with its focus on “beginnings, middles and ends.” Our own Andrew Liptak explains.
Andrew Liptak wrote:In recent weeks, adult men's magazine Playboy surprised everyone by announcing that they would shift the tone of their magazine by eliminating the nude pictures for which they are famous. The move comes at a time when print magazines are struggling, and with magazines like Playboy finding increasing pressure from free alternatives online. While the magazine is known in particular for its adult content, it’s also a source of rich articles and fiction—including science fiction.
Hugh Hefner founded Playboy in 1953 after working for several years in the magazine industry, including at Esquire. Hefner wanted to create his own lifestyle magazine, one that would appeal to a wider single male audience. With $8,000 raised from investors and family members, he put together the first issue in December of 1953. Upon its release, the first issue sold out quickly.
In 1954, Hefner hired Ray Russell, an author and editor who had written for magazines, to become the magazine’s associate editor and oversee fiction. Both men were interested in science fiction: Russell had published a number of speculative works, and Hefner had been an “avid reader of Weird Tales during the 1940s and had even joined the ‘Weird Tales Club,’ ” as noted in the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Thanks to this mutual interest, the magazine began reprinting science fiction. In January 1954, they published “Bird of Prey,” by John Collier, and then landed a major work by Ray Bradbury: his novel Fahrenheit 451, which was serialized in the March-May 1954 issues. Later that year, stories from William Hope Hodgson, Ray Bradbury, Charles Beaumont, and Charles Schafhauser appeared in the magazine.
In 1956, Hefner brought on A. C. Spectorsky to edit the magazine, and he helped to bring the magazine quality writing and authors. The magazine was quickly becoming a major hit with the American public, and was providing high quality literature and articles alongside pornographic images. Within science fiction circles, the magazine was also proving to be a useful one, as monthly periodicals were beginning to fade away. According to Mike Ashley in his book Transformations: The Story of the Science Fiction Magazines from 1950 to 1970, “Not only did it maintain a high profile for science fiction, it became something of a sanctuary during the lean years that hit at the end of the fifties.” In 1966, Russell left his post as Associate Editor and was replaced by Robie MacAuley. Starting that year, the publication began publishing a number of anthologies, including: The Playboy Book of Science Fiction and Fantasy (1966); Playboy’s Stories of the Sinister and Strange (1969); and The Dead Astronaut; The Fiend; From the "S" File; The Fully Automated Love Life of Henry Keanridge; Last Train to Limbo; Masks; Transit of Earth; and Weird Show, all in 1971.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests