Brian Niemeier posits Science Fiction and Fantasy as a dialectic psyop.
My own opinion's the opposite: hard Science Fiction distinctly differs
from soft Science Fantasy.
Niemeier may know best, beings he's more involved in SF than me. Regardless of our opposing opinions on SF's dialectic, we share the same sentiment in regards to van Vogt. Here's one example excerpted from Niemeier's essay:
When The World of Null-A hit, readers were electrified.
Here was a writer who could marry breathless pulp
storytelling with genuinely novel speculative frameworks.
Van Vogt’s nonlinear plotting and dream logic enthralled
fans ... and threatened critics. Knight dismissed Van
Vogt as incoherent.
Niemeier in turn more-or-less dismisses Knight as a control freak.
Niemeier's full essay is available at:
<https://brianniemeier.substack.com/p/why-science-fiction-and-fantasy-are-ae2>
--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. veritas _|_ telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. liberabit |
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' vos |
My own opinion's the opposite: hard Science Fiction distinctly differs
from soft Science Fantasy.
Don wrote:
My own opinion's the opposite: hard Science Fiction distinctly differs
from soft Science Fantasy.
I think that there is a lot of truth in Brian Niemeyer's essay. But I'm
still not in full agreement with it.
If one admits that the _detective story_ is a genre, and not merely a setting, then I think the same needs to be done for fantasy and science fiction.
Unlike the individual whose opinions on science fiction formed the
starting point for his essay, while I can enjoy some hard SF stories, I
tend to regard that literary form as one that occupies a narrow niche, bordering on the "technothriller".
Most science fiction is soft, using things like time machines anf
especially FTL spacecraft, in order to be set far enough in the future or
to be otherwise far enough removed from everyday reality to handle the
kind of themes that are the lifeblood of science fiction.
Is it a good story is of course one of the most important questions. But reader preferences usually also involve genre, which is only natural.
What I tend to think should take precedence over the distinction between
hard and soft sf, which in itself, I agree, is relatively minor, is if a science fiction story... makes you think. As opposed to being a Western
with ray guns.
Even "makes you think" isn't precise enough, because "makes you think
about what" has to be asked. A real Western, or a science-fiction Western
in disguise, can both make you think about the injustices faced by
indigenous peoples.
Some kinds of ideas, though, can only be raised through the medium of
science fiction, and it's only by addressing those that a work can be
great science fiction, as opposed to possibly being great literature
within the science fiction genre.
Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
---|---|
Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
Users: | 14 |
Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
Uptime: | 190:28:15 |
Calls: | 178 |
Files: | 21,502 |
Messages: | 79,922 |