Stranger In a Strange Land (1 Viewer)

[Gary Q]

Twaddle.

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: fic·tion
1 a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story b : fictitious literature (as novels or short stories) c : a work of fiction; especially : NOVEL
2 a : an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth b : a useful illusion or pretense.

I think the difference between SF and Fantasy is clear, at least to my mind. SF deals with scientific elements, i.e., space or time travel or living in the future and what that it might entail in the way of, e.g., robots, gadgets, etc. And since it’s fiction, anything is allowed to happen (see definition 2 a, above).

Fantasy, on the other hand, is more about setting and characters, less about science (if at all).

As an example, one director comes to mind who has dabbled in both, Ridley Scott.
His movie, Blade Runner, is quite obviously Science Fiction—deals with androids, futuristic elements, etc. But his movie, Legend, is Fantasy—deals with strange creatures in a strange world.

It seems a bit silly to me to say that Science Fiction has to adhere to contemporary scientific knowledge and rules. That’s sort of counterintuitive to the idea of Science Fiction.
I agree that some ideas may seem too “fantastic,” and may give a reader (or viewer) pause, but one should be careful about the ideas one scoffs.
For example, if you think living on Mars seems implausible, you should read Kurzweil’s, “The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence.”

 

[Jack Briggs]

Good grief, no one here is saying that living on Mars is impossible. It is the sincere hope of many within the SF community that a human outpost on the Red Planet is in the offing. What is impossible, however, is indigenous intelligent life on Mars.

If someone purports to write science fiction yet cares not a whit if his or her work adheres to science as it is understood and "makes stuff up" on the fly without regard to what's scientifically possible (and does not observe internal consistency in the process), then the author's manuscripts will be routinely rejected by the editors at Analog, The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, Asimov's, and Aboriginal Science Fiction as well as the editors of original anthologies.

All this is accepted conventional wisdom within the world of published science fiction.

What would Harlan Ellison think of all this? Considering that he consistently objects to being labeled as a "science-fiction" writer yet depends on the genre for his income, no telling. But he does have strong opinions about the genre, and he has publicly rejected Hollywood's "understanding" of the field routinely.

 

[Edwin-S]

I can see the point J. Briggs is trying to make. Any science fiction writer that tried to write a story today where an oasis of life suddenly was found on the dark side of the moon, would be laughed right out of the genre. Even Science Fiction, which routinely delves into the fantastical, cannot ignore what is known about the universe today. Science fiction writers just can't "make it all up", because they risk being ridiculed if they screw up on basic scientific precepts.....especially by hardcore SF fans. With all due respect to Robert A. Heinlein, writing a story using a lead character who calls Mars home is inane, when it was already well known that Mars was incapable of sustaining indigenous life. If RAH had chosen to use a lead character visiting from some far off corner of the universe, the book probably wouldn't be considered to be so badly dated.

I have to admit I have never been a big fan of Robert A. Heinlein's writing. The only books of his I really liked were "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and "Have Space Suit, Will Travel". I vastly preferred Clarke and Niven's books over Robert Heinlein's books.

 

[David Forbes]

I guarantee you if Grisham or anyone else tried to write a story in which a character fell 20 stories and bounced and offered no explanation at all, even a hokey "sci-fi" one, that it would not get published.

You have to provide some kind of explanation, even if it's complete BS.

Now whether that qualifies something for SF, fantasy, surrealism, mainstream, etc., is another discussion.

 

[Gary Q]

Oh bother, I meant to say, “.coming from Mars…” We all know by now that there was, (is?), in fact, life on Mars, albeit, probably not intelligent life, and with NASA’s focus and groups like the “Mars Society,” it seems likely that there will one day be “more life” on Mars.

But my point was about labeling something Fantasy instead of Science Fiction because you don’t agree with the science.
Yes, I agree that it works better when it makes sense to us as readers but deciding what “adheres to science,” or is “scientifically possible” is a slippery slope.

 

[Phil Florian]

Whenever I hear the words "impossible" come in a discussion where "science" is supposed to be the rule, I giggle (even when I do it myself, thank you Dune comparison). It is "impossible" that the world is round, said some contemporaries of Columbus. Etc. etc. At best, in science, things are extremely improbable, but that is the best you can say. Our definition of life and intelligence is pretty limited (i.e. we have only ourselves as examples) so I think it would be a wonderful piece of sf that deals with other intelligences that don't look and act like us. Orson Scott Card did this wonderfully (to me) in Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead and Xenocide. We had four completely different species that had absolutely nothing in common but were all forms of intelligence. Very nice meditation on the subject. While I agree that life on Mars wouldn't need to look and act like Michael Valentine Smith, to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE for intelligent life to exist or have existed is, well, not scientifically sound.

Again, there is a lot of bias towards the physical sciences that account for physical technology that typically ignores other sciences. Don't know why, but I suppose it is because it is easier to write about some gadget like, oh, a time machine (Timeline) or DNA splicing (Jurrasic Park) than real SF about disability and disease (Butler's "Bloodchild" stories) or the near impossible without too much earthnocentric (can I make up words? Is that fiction?? ).


Phil

 

[Lew Crippen]

It is "impossible" that the world is round, said some contemporaries of Columbus. Etc.

Actually informed, intellectual thought of the day thought that Columbus was in error, not because he thought that the world was round, but because he thought it too small (therefore making it a shorter voyage to the East Indies going west).

The Greeks had calculated the circumference of the world within reasonable accuracy many centuries before Columbus.

 

[Stephen_Dar]

One thing that I think muddies the waters here (people sometimes seem to me to try too hard to constrain things into sets of hard rules) is looking at Heinlein as some sort of measure of SF vs Fantasy. I would make the case that he had an early career of careful science fiction work (the 40s and 50s), and later, for whatever reason, changed over increasingly to fantasy as, I would venture, the immediate possibilities of science fiction seemed to exhaust themselves. Starting with Glory Road in the early 60s (if not sooner), he quickly left all sf trappings behind, if you ask me. That's fine, he left me behind too, but it's not hard for me to see the differences in his work.

I also don't think it's a useful measure to ask whether something would sell today. I mean, take a look at what sells today? What does that prove? That with enough marketing cash, anything will sell. A better question is, how will it be viewed decades from now.

In particular, I loath this guy who made the 6th sense for precisely the reason many here have given that you wouldn't publish the story about the 20 floor fall with a bounce at the end. In his movies, this guy paints a picture, then without warning he informs you at the end that you've been misinformed (sprinkling in a few so called "clues" to ward off criticism of this technique is unconvincing to me), and the reality is something else. Fine, anyone with a camera or a pen can do that if they choose. It's considered extremely poor form, and eventually it will be found out that he's a total hack bereft of original thought, but until then the public is easily fooled into thinking the 6th sense is something exciting and new. My 2 cents.

 

[Ivan Lindenfeld]

So do any of you weenies know if this is going to be a movie soon or not?

This thread wasn't just hijacked, it was annhilated. (sp?)

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Ivan Lindenfeld wrote (post #49):

I'm unclear on your objection. Mr. Shyamalan in no way claims his film is "science fiction", does he? And he's hardly the first filmmaker or fictionalist to make use of misdirection. (I do think the film is overrated, though.)

By the way, I read Stranger in a Strange Land in high school and don't remember much at all about it, except that it was a big disappointment. Sold my copy of the book back to the teacher.

 

[Jack Briggs]

I deplore the fact that it is his best-known work among the non-SF public. As literature, it ... it ... well, forget it.

State-of-the-art Robert Heinlein, the sort of concept-pioneering work for which he is correctly revered? Try Universe. Really, for an entertainment-oriented writer (as opposed to a serious literary author), Heinlein is almost without peer. But because for him "story was everything" (as opposed to metaphor, symbolism, etc.) literary critics come down hard on him.

Yet, so much of what is taken for granted today in SF (in terms of ideas and concepts) owes its existence to RAH.

He may not have been the greatest writer/author of SF, but he certainly is the most influential. The man could have written a grocery list and made it entertaining.

And, yes, Rex is correct: Since it was established by the second or third post in this thread that Stranger is not in the celluloid offing the discussion became open territory.

 

[Greg_R]

Could someone please explain how recent Hugo award winners fall into the category of sci-fi? I thought the Hugo was for sci-fi writing but look at the recent award winners:

- American Gods by Neil Gaiman
- Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J. K. Rowling
- film version of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (for dramatic presentation)

I would classify all of these under fantasy (there is little to no science involved with any of these novels). Am I missing something? In fairness I've still got 50 pages or so to go with the first book but as of now this book falls squarely in the realm of fantasy / fiction.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

I deplore the fact that it is his best-known work among the non-SF public.

Isn't Starship Troopers the best known among non-fans?

 

[Stephen_Dar]

I'm unclear on your objection. Mr. Shyamalan in no way claims his film is "science fiction", does he?

Sorry, that post of mine rambled a bit. I was commenting on various thoughts people had posted above that. One theme was the "rules" that apply for all fiction (even fantasy fiction, as others have said). I was just pointing out the recent Hollywood trend to (as I see it) throw away the rules, and why I object. I would put Fight Club in the same category, btw; not sci fi, but a major rule breaker. I think my unspoken point there was that rule breaking is easier/tolerated in film sometimes but not so in written fiction, where no visual pleasure is gained by deeply silly rule breaking.

To further that discussion of sci fi vs fantasy, I've always considered a better name for sci fi is "speculative fiction" because the genre essentially takes what we have now and projects into the future to model what things might look like. RAH's early stuff virtually defined this, while his 60s and beyond stuff discarded it and moved into fantasy (in which today's realities are not necessary as a starting point). I think most sci fi readers would agree they can immediately spot the introduction of fantasy elements into an otherwise speculative story.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Starship Troopers was controversial from the get-go, adding to the perception in the early '60s that RAH was a neofascist. It won the Hugo, however.

Stranger, as Stephen says, became a phenomenon in an era when few people outside the SF "fandom" community read legitimate SF. Like the Tolkien trilogy, Stranger was embraced on college campuses and then by the Counterculture. One thing that helped boost the novel's stature outside the SF community was the fact that it had become a Book-of-the-Month Club lead selection, introducing thousands of people to RAH.

And I remember it all too well. And so many SF people were concerned that this was how people were being introduced to RAH.

My personal fave Heinlein novel: The Door Into Summer. I just love it.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I think "The Door Into Summer" was my first taste of RAH.

I tend to view his Lazarus Long novels as big space/sci-fi operas. But I dug his views on love and commitment.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Stranger, as Stephen says, became a phenomenon in an era when few people outside the SF "fandom" community read legitimate SF. Like the Tolkien trilogy, Stranger was embraced on college campuses and then by the Counterculture. One thing that helped boost the novel's stature outside the SF community was the fact that it had become a Book-of-the-Month Club lead selection, introducing thousands of people to RAH.

Very true about the BOM Club Jack—plus the book fit fairly well into the whole ‘sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll’ bit.

I heard a lot of discussions about this book, but not on the whole by SF fans. Or by anyone who had a sound grounding in philosophy.

Another for Door into Summer.

 

[RobertR]

The Door Into Summer. I just love it.

Would the character of Petronius have anything to do with your evaluation, Jack?

 

[Jack Briggs]

Well, little Pete certainly plays a major role in that, Robert! But Daniel Boone Davis, Fredericka, and "Hired Girl" have a lot to do with it too! (And Flexible Frank and Drafting Dan and that couple he met in the nudist camp and on and on and on.)

 

[Stephen_Dar]

I'm actually confused when I hear people describe RAH as a right winger. I only know him through his books, which I started reading in the 80s about 8 or 9 years before he died; I've never been exposed to anything about the man himself other than the little blurb on the inside cover of the books. But, based on his books, he seems to me to have been ultra progressive mostly.

That couple we meet in the nudist camp, for example, in a story written in the 50s was basically there to point out his favorite theme: that you shouldn't judge people or things using traditional standards and preconceived notions. He elaborated on these themes even more in his 60s stuff where he was clearly in love with speculation about alternative future social orders in which traditional monogamy would be rare to nonexistent. This is not the definition of a right winger?? Plus, another favorite theme was rebelling against corrupt existing authority (Between Planets, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress), hardly a right wing stance. And, you could always tell the characters he was mocking in his books because they would be the idiot who, for example, displays obviously bigoted views towards characters who are different, like the Dragons in Between Planets. That always stuck me as a strong indication of very liberal feeling on his part. Thoughts?