wongie t1_j9y8ew3 wrote
You simply went in with wrong assumptions and expectations of sci fi as a genre, it's one that is more thoroughly rooted in its ideas than for its literary merit. If you're getting into fantasy and want to look at it's roots you can go back to milestone titles like Lord of the Rings that itself builds on themes and archetypes that go back centuries and millennia. This isn't so with sci fi where it's core is rooted more in its technological themes so generally its a genre constrained by time seeing as the industrial revolution was only a few centuries ago.
Foundation is part of the Golden Age sci fi starting around the cusp of the start of WW2 onwards, an era of unprecedented technological development. Major sci fi works of this era aren't known for producing much of literary merit, in part because many works were published piecemeal in magazines over the course of many years, they aren't cohesive novels in themselves as you are reading them today. What makes works from the likes of Asimov stand the test of time as a piece of sci-fi is simply that his generation were the first to reflect on this post war political climate where technology was being seeing as the driving force of societal development and prosperity so became key milestone works within the genre.
If you seriously want to get into sci fi it's probably better you read modern titles and work yourself backwards rather than chronologically unless you're prepared to do a bit of background reading to understand the climate of when particular works were written. Likewise with other milestone titles like Dune, the sci fi equivalent of LoTR; it's hardly good literature itself either but it's a milestone title because it reformulates the scale and depth of themes that sci fi is capable of being relative to its contemporaries that were being published that were still coming off quite pulpy.
If you would prefer something of more literary merit, I suggest you drop the classics and pick up The Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe written in the 80s; a sci fi tetralogy, starting with the Shadow of the Torturer, that is actually known for its literary merit.
Burnsidhe t1_j9y9jf2 wrote
If they do, they'll probably be back complaining that the Book of the New Sun is fantasy, not sci-fi, thus missing the point.
bhbhbhhh t1_j9ynvpz wrote
> generation were the first to reflect on this post war political climate where technology was being seeing as the driving force of societal development and prosperity so became key milestone works within the genre.
I would say this is highly inaccurate, given that the same could be said of Verne and Wells.
wongie t1_j9yx24p wrote
You are right, a more correct phrasing would be that generation was arguably the more or, imo, most significant.
Kryptin OP t1_j9yacv3 wrote
>You simply went in with wrong assumptions and expectations of sci fi as a genre, it's one that is more thoroughly rooted in its ideas than for its literary ability.
I did not know about this. I thought the primary purpose of fiction is to entertain, grabbing the reader with conflict and character depth. Everything else comes second. Foundation misses the bar in this regard. I like the ideas it explored like psychohistory, but I find that they could've been better developed and employed to tell a more engaging story than what we got in Foundation.
>Foundation is part of the Golden Age sci fi starting around the cusp of the start of WW2 onwards, an era of unprecedented technological development.
If you say so, I wonder what you think of Jules Verne and works like Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea. It's not a perfect work, but still ahead of Foundation in my opinion. I think the Golden Age began with Jules Vernes era of Sci Fi. And works like Foundation, feels like a regression rather than progress from the previous era.
hitch00 t1_j9yg8zx wrote
If you think the “primary” purposes of fiction are entertainment and character development, your view is far too undeveloped and myopic to put you in a position to make the sorts of pronouncements in your post. You have a lot to learn. The “character driven” stuff is good but it is a slice of one kind of fiction. You don’t have to like it, but please don’t judge it by this incorrect thinking.
flareblitz91 t1_j9yf6zi wrote
You think literatures primary purpose is to entertain? I disagree entirely.
sbsw66 t1_ja0ybuu wrote
me reading no longer human: how the FUCK did he miss the point of literature THIS BADLY?!
NoPerformance5952 t1_j9ymb5d wrote
The Jungle has entered the chat
A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich has entered the chat
Many works of literature are absolutely not there to do something as paltry as "to entertain". You having "fun" reading The Color Purple or The Bluest Eye?
Algernon_Asimov t1_j9ys5j3 wrote
> I think the Golden Age began with Jules Vernes era of Sci Fi.
You don't get to redefine the genre of science fiction all by yourself. It's generally accepted that the Golden Age of science fiction began in July 1939, when John W Campbell became editor of 'Astounding Stories'.
masakothehumorless t1_j9yfokf wrote
There are some sci-fi that are written as novels, but there are some that are written as "alternate future". Much like Black Mirror they imagine a particular technology or event, and attempt to extrapolate what would happen to society based on that. When telling a horror/dystopian story, short-form works fine as there are any number of ways things can go wrong. When telling a hopeful story, as many of the alternate future works try to be, more time has to be spent on how the pitfalls of dystopia were avoided, the struggles and horrors overcame, etc. I think of Foundation as a parallel to the alternate history books, where they imagine something like, "What if Napoleon never invaded Russia?" and extrapolate from there. Such a story can't be told over one person's lifetime in any meaningful way, the effects are too far-reaching. I don't think anyone who is truly honest with themselves will disagree that portions of Foundation are boring. But Foundation isn't remarkable for the pacing or prose, but for the ideas it introduces and the scope of it's narrative. Comparing to Jules Verne or H.G. Wells is fairly appropriate, as they all were enthralled by the possibilities of human ingenuity and dazzled by the brightness of the future they saw. It's true the older writers wrote better stories, but that doesn't take away from the ambition Asimov had to try to share his vision entire. Doubtless if Wells had written further novels to explore how humans became the Eloi and Morlocks as well as what happened to the nations of his day, or even what else was happening elsewhere in that future time, portions of that would have dragged a bit as well.
ReadyProposal t1_j9zrqwt wrote
How on Earth can you pretend to be "a writer" and somehow also not know that your "definition" of fiction is staggeringly limited and ignorant?
wongie t1_j9yeqxj wrote
The purpose of fiction can be for a lot of things beyond just entertainment especially how you view it. Plenty of my favourite works are ones I wouldn't even call entertaining myself but which I appreciate their thematic elements or commentary that they provide. Coincidentally you mention Verne and when contrasted with Wells you find that even back then, when it was known as scientific romance before sci fi became an established genre, you could see differences in story telling and their emphasis on entertainment or making some sort of moral commentary. If you continue to read sci fi you may find a work that you didn't necessarily enjoy reading but which the themes or elements alone will strike an accord with you.
My translation of Verne's work like 20k made for a more fun read than Foundation, certainly, but I still prefer Asimov simply because the post-war world is an era I'm more familiar with so have a better appreciation for the elements and issues he explores beyond Foundation, more so with I, Robot, and the context to which they were written compared than the stuff from the 19th century.
And, while you have an appreciation for Verne that's shared with a lot of other readers, the Golden Age as a moniker is generally a well established period to be from the late 1930s to the mid century where there was an explosion of authors so you can rightly praise Verne but sci fi readers wouldn't generally acknowledge the mid 19th century to be a golden age, let alone The Golden Age, because, as mentioned, sci fi wasn't even an established or recognised genre at that point and beyond big names like Verne and Wells you don't see a profusion of writers expanding the genre to the degree you see in from the late 30s.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments