Related Sections: Books Reviews
Do classic science fiction stories still matter?
Lately there have been some fresh sentiments from younger readers and writers questioning the utility and pleasures to be found in the reading of older science fiction, the classics and canon of the genre, hitherto deemed essential. "The styles are antique, the plots slow and obvious, the ideas outmoded and the cultural assumptions invalid or even distasteful." Is there any merit to these arguments?
First, one might observe that "'Twas ever thus." Readers in the 1960s made fun of pre-Campbellian stories from the 1930s. "'The Revolt of the Pedestrians'?!? *snort* Don't make me laugh!" Every generation looks back 10, 20, 30 years or more and finds old-fogey stories that don't resonate any longer. The cruel and accelerating pace of modern change in literature and the real world practically guarantees this reaction.
SF suffers more than mainstream fiction in this regard, because so much of it offers predictions or intellectual speculations that the real world has a way of dramatically outmoding, rendering the central conceit of certain stories (first moon landings, anyone?) unrealistic in an untenable fashion. But this same problem applies to all art. High-school students rebel against Shakespeare and Henry James and J.D. Salinger for all the reasons given above. This is an eternal truth.
But it seems to me that there is something timeless and immortal in the best storytelling from any era. Once readers make the determination to enjoy an older work, reset their cultural expectations and recalibrate their knowledge base (the hero is not going to be found using a cell phone in a contemporary novel set in 1980), there is still plenty of pleasure and usefulness to be derived from stories that were written, *gasp!*, even before the 19-year-old reader was born!
Otherwise, please explain to me the continuing popularity of Jane Austen and H.P. Lovecraft—often conjoined—among others.
Now, not every "quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore" has aged the same. The years render some totally unreadable. Others retain mere historical interest for the scholar alone. But the best continue to deliver pure entertainment.
Our case study today is the earliest work of Edmond Hamilton, now available in three gorgeous, sumptuous hardcovers, with more installments planned to follow: The Collected Edmond Hamilton, Volumes One and Two (Haffner Press, each $40.00) and The Collected Captain Future, Volume One (Haffner Press, $40.00). These books have been assembled with the scholarship and love typical of Haffner Press, and they contain literally hundreds of thousands of words of pulp reprints. You certainly get sheer volume for your money.
Hamilton's first story appeared in 1926 in Weird Tales, when he was only 21. (He went on to have a solid career right up till his death in 1977.) Influenced by the fantasist A. Merritt, Hamilton quickly evolved to help codify and develop the more rigorous type of science fictional tales involving space travel, aliens, hyper-technology and all the other great tropes utilized today by everyone from George Lucas on down.
The stories in Volume One, The Metal Giants and Others, all involve various enormous dooms that threaten humanity, initiated either by misguided scientists or by evil aliens. As such, they invariably focus on pure pulp heroism and suspense at the expense of intellectual speculation. Yet at the core of each can be found a germ of genuine thought experiment. The speculations on artificial intelligence in the title story resemble musings about the Singularity in a Stross story, for instance. And the standout piece, "The Time-Raider" (1927), because it attempts something different from its mates (dying race from the future assembles army of warriors from every era), reads like A.E. van Vogt near his prime.
The second volume, The Star Stealers, is comprised mainly of a series of stories revolving around "The Interstellar Patrol." This crime-fighting force of the future, which features benevolent aliens of all types as equals with the humans, faces threats that are ramped up cosmically from those in the first book. It's single-minded space opera with the focus on death and destruction rather than federations and exploration.
Because Hamilton was striving to support himself solely on his writing, and because all these stories derive from a mere three-year period, their repetitiveness cannot be denied. Plot structures and MacGuffins repeat from story to story. But on a sentence-by-sentence level, Hamilton is generous, facile, creative and eminently readable. Nothing is ever unclear or awkward. Characterization, while minimalist, is deft. He conjures up outre images by the scores with vivid precision. Consider, just for one, the undersea city in "The Sea Horror" (1929), miles of Lovecraftian buildings with giant slugs perambulating their streets.
The Captain Future volume jumps ahead to the 1940s, when Hamilton was even more polished, and contains four complete novels about that titular hero. They resemble a cross between the early disaster stories and the Interstellar Patrol stories. Captain Future inhabits that most famous of "yesterday's tomorrows," the one in which all nine planets of our solar system are habitable. With his teammates—a robot, an android and a brain in a box—he battles one over-the top bad guy after another.
Your mileage may vary with these tales, especially when they're taken in large doses. But I found them all to be historically informative, well-crafted yarns that still compelled my attention and stoked my delight. Hamilton was a craftsman who never delivered shoddy goods, and he only got better after the foundational stories on proud display here.
One last aside: Hamilton went on to do much important work for DC comics from 1946 to 1966, and the comics-savvy reader will have fun picking out precursors of DC iconography. When a character named Mur Dak addresses a goverment council about the future destruction of their planet ("Crashing Suns," 1928), one will instantly envision Jor-el on Krypton. Surely Siegel and Shuster must have had Hamilton at the back of their minds 10 years later. When altered vibrational frequences allow a villain to become intangible (Captain Future and the Space Emperor, 1940), thoughts of the Flash going through walls will pop up. And when Captain Future is summoned by the authorities with a visible signal from the North Pole, who else but Batman and Commissioner Gordon will come to mind?
By archangel at 9:29 AM ON 10/05/09
I believe that all readers and fans of science fiction should visit the classics...I would have chosen different classics to get them into it...but that's just me.
By dolphin_oracle at 9:37 AM ON 10/05/09
If we look back 10,20,30 years from today, we are not in the 40's, we are 60's and 70's. How can the stories of Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein (my personal favorite) be dismissed. Many of these are timeless. Read "the moon is a harsh mistress" and tell me it doesn't still resonate.
As with any literature, some ages better than others.
By shasplim at 9:57 AM ON 10/05/09
I taught a course in SF in prose and film, so I had the opportunity to introduce my young students to some classic SF texts. They found the classic short stories and novels much more palatable than classic SF films like Metropolis and Forbidden Planet, which they largely dismissed as cheesy and uninvolving.
SF didn't begin in the Golden Age of the 1920s. If I were introducing young readers to the SF canon, I would start with the 19th century pioneers of "scientific romance". H.G. Wells's novels still resonate on all sorts of levels. Jules Verne's predictions feel more antiquated, but his writing style is light and engaging.
By Fury161 at 10:03 AM ON 10/05/09
yes
By Marty B. at 10:24 AM ON 10/05/09
Mathcheck, dolphin, if we go back, 10, 20, 30 years from today we are not in the 60s and 70s, we're in the late 90s, late 80s, and late 70s.
By PALADIN at 10:27 AM ON 10/05/09
Classic Sci-Fi stories are still valid, albiet perhaps not in terms of social or technological relevance.
Were they not; then Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea' would not be revisited with regularity, and reprints of Doc Savage pulp stories would not exist.
Still, the question of 'validity' frankly depends upon the individual tastes of The Reader.. I myself just recently obtained Pupville Press` re-printing of Doc Smith`s 'Skylark Of Space', which originally sow print back in 1928... The story is simplistic, the characters are little more than sketches, and the science is laughable...
But, it was however, an enjoyable read for me, as it had an element of charm for being the original 'space opera', which would lead to Star Trek, Star Wars, etc...
I would not expect 'Skylark Of Space' to please every sci-fi fan, but I got the same pleasure out of it that I get out of looking at an antique car or plane; it is what it is, and you appreciate it for it`s place in the scheme of things, not judge it for failing to apply to a time that it was not created for.
You have to take all things as a Product Of Their Time, and not expect them to be relevant to yours. That is why classic sci-fi IS termed 'Classic'.
By Starmaker at 10:30 AM ON 10/05/09
'If you don't know your past you don't know your future'
I'm 35 and have for the last decade have been slowly reading the classics of sci-fi from Roger Zelazny to Asimov and Heinlen. It has been a wonderful experience. The questions posed, the arguments and the conclusions are as relevant today as they ever were. What if? How do we treat difference?What is life? What is fair? etc etc.
I was a youth once and I didn't know what was good for me back then and I'm glad I saw sense, matured and learnt to respect what these giants of fiction were trying to do. Open our eyes, ears and hearts to a world of wonder.
By MetalPause at 10:57 AM ON 10/05/09
I very ashamed to admit this, but I am 42 and just read Fahrenheit 451 last year. I totally loved it and it encouraged me go out and grab some other SF classics that I had been meaning to read.
By sjc1963 at 10:59 AM ON 10/05/09
Without the old stories what would today's movie-makers remake or reboot???????? There are no new ideas in Hollywood...
By Kevin at 11:20 AM ON 10/05/09
Modern SF started in October 1937, when John Campbell took over Astounding Stories (now Analog). He insisted on good writing that obeyed known science (know known as hard SF), rather than the B.E.M fiction that Hamilton wrote.
Very, very little that preceded Campbell has been considered "classic" for some time now. THe only one that comes to mind is E.E. Smith's "Skylark" series.
Today, the writers that Campbell developed (Heinlein, Asimov, Van Vogt, Herbert, etc) are consider the "classics", not the ones that couldn't make his cut.
By Starmaker at 11:50 AM ON 10/05/09
If anyone is interested there is a brilliant trio of programmes on the history of British Sci Fi called The Martians and Us. Don't forget Ballard, Wyndham, Stapledon et al.
It starts with the real grandaddy of the genre HG Wells, he is the man that gave us the sub genres of sci fi such as alien invasion, time travel etc.
It wasn't just Americans who invented Sci Fi don't you know!!
By divephotog at 12:29 PM ON 10/05/09
I was about 8 (1963 to put it in perspective) and read (with a little difficulty) a book my parents had 'Battle on Mercury'. All of a sudden I was hooked on space,sci-fi, and the like. I did a ton of other things, including shortwave listening, amateur radio, and other tech stuff, but Science Fiction was the main common thread.
I can see where someone picking up that book today would find it a bit droll, and not as well written as many other more recent Science Fiction writings, but I still on occassion pick up the older works, being HG Wells, and the older SF of the 30's and such, to see the amount of insight they had into the progression of tech and society.
Certainly, with the landmark of 2001 having passed, and no Space Station in orbit, nor monolith found, there is little need to look forwards to 2010 and it's events, nor even 2063. But even these novels will be 'old hat' in a few years, but as great a read in 50 years as they were a few years ago I beleive.
Setting the novel so far into a future gives it some extra life probably, as with the Dune series. But even '1984' has the ability to deliver the goods still, and will for years to come.
Truly, I beleive that the best SF is timeless, no matter when it was set, nor when it was written. - kh
By dolphin_oracle at 1:11 PM ON 10/05/09
@Marty B. - obviously as should dbl check the math before clicking submit!
By umbran at 1:23 PM ON 10/05/09
Good science fiction remains relevant, just as any good fiction or story remains relevant - by saying something about people and the human condition, which has not noticibly changed since the creation of the printing press.
By 808_islander at 1:36 PM ON 10/05/09
Unfortunately science fiction to a lot of younger generations means the "Transformers" movie where they willingly "shut my brain off and enjoy explosions and @s$-shots of Megan Fox". They don't realize that pure science fiction employs your mind to connect the reality with what's inconceivable through subtlety, character, story and prose. Not this "I want to be a dumb@ss for two hours and drool at explosions" cr@p they call sci-fi nowadawys.
By Jon at 1:45 PM ON 10/05/09
Neil Gaiman wrote excellently on this subject in an introduction that he did for one particular edition of The Stars My Destination by Alfred Bester (the SF Masterworks edition). In it he put forward the idea that Sci Fi goes out of date more easily than any other genre. 1984, Space 1999, 2001: A Space Odyssey are all obvious examples. Technology can also catch you up; in 2009 you won't be impressed if you read a book set 50 years in the future where people are looking for payphones and have no idea of cellphones. However, certain people can trancend this. I think that HG Wells does, as does Jules Verne. Both of these are still influencing the genre now (a lot of Steampunk owes a heavy debt to them). Bester, as was Gaiman's point, also transcended this obsolesence. Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein are classic but still you frown in places. So it can be done but it's not easy, however, to do. I have to say that in my experience most of the best sci fi was written in the 50s and 60s. If I read an 80s or 90s text I look upon it as contemporary. However, generations after me will probably see it different ly.
By Spinster at 1:58 PM ON 10/05/09
I found that reading the "classics" became very enjoyable once I realized I didn't have to like them.
Dickens and Lovecraft may never be my cup of tea, but I enjoy Austen and Heinlein just as much as P. Wrede and T. Pratchett.
By Mandy at 2:10 PM ON 10/05/09
Of course the classics still matter. They wouldn't be classics if they didn't matter.
War of the Worlds
Fahrenheit 451
The Martian Chronicles
1984
These stories still have meaning today. For a long time I loved and love Walter Tevis' The Man who fell to Earth. That book was first published in 1963. All you need to do is bump up the years of the setting and the cost of living described in the book and you'd think it was written today. the points and purposes of these stories remains valid otherwise they wouldn't be classics at all.
A true classic story is timeless and has meaning no matter when it was written.
By wilcoy at 2:50 PM ON 10/05/09
I'm reading the post apocalyptic novel "Earth Abides" published in 1949 by George R. Stewart right now. Last year I read another post apocalyptic classic "Alas Babylon" 1959 by Pat Frank. Sure some of the phrases and descriptions are outdated but for the most part the stories and the subject are timeless.
By adayl8&a$short at 2:57 PM ON 10/05/09
The titles listed above are from the "Golden Age" of Science Fiction. BTW: The term "SciFi" was not spoken in polite company and it's utterance would get your head knocked off in impolite company.
If you consider the golden age to be classic, then I would have suggested other titles or authors; perhaps anything by Isaac Asimov, Theodore Sturgeon (even a grocery list), Harlen Ellison, C. M. KIornbluth, A. E. Van Vogt and a great many others. These authors are significant because the raised Science Fiction to an art form.
Hamilton is OK I suppose but not the best, not nearly the best.
By nanofiber at 5:41 PM ON 10/05/09
I echo most of the sentiments expressed here. The Martian Chronicles and Foundation series explore ideas that certainly relevant today, for example. Many others, such as the Voyage of the Space Beagle(Evolution of science as a discipline), or the Lensmen (The idea of eugenics and the UBER race of men) series, provide an interesting baraometer with regards to popular culture of the time.
By Nyarlathotep at 6:26 PM ON 10/05/09
The best sci-fi was in the first half of the last century, they not only still matter but they still surpass anything made today.
Olaf Stapledon, Hal Clement, Lovecraft and Arthur C Clarke still beat anything written these days. I'd LOVE to be proven wrong however.
By jbs780 at 7:19 PM ON 10/05/09
I read 'CAPTAIN FUTURE" books as a boy. Enjoyed them tremendously. They are just entertainment, and there is nothing wrong with that. I'd love to see SyFy film some of these and other old pulp fiction stories. They could be great fun!
Captcha failed.
By Doctor at 10:09 PM ON 10/05/09
"Only "Skylark" comes to mind"?
You never read Doc Smith's "Lensmen" books ???
Those would make a fantastic movie series even today !!!
By suteko at 2:50 PM ON 10/06/09
Try to remember that everyone has different taste. I have read and love EE Doc Smith, Ray Bradbury and more modern CJ Cherryh. Good science fiction is truly timeless. Even those that are dated can be easily updated to the modern age. My now high school middle child is reading books I read 30 years ago and loving them. When the books were published means little if they are well written. A Classic will always be a classic. I am so glad that the early works are being reprinted so that my youngest will be able to read them when she can read!
By Aberzombie at 8:12 AM ON 10/07/09
For anyone interested, Paizo Publishing puts out reprints of classic sci-fi and fantasy writing under their Planet Stories label. They put out stuff by Henry Kuttner, C.L.Moore, and Leigh Brackett, Michael Moorcock, Otis Adelbert Kline, and A. Merrit, among others.
By Zee at 5:41 PM ON 10/07/09
I find the bulk of modern scifi books to be boring, overly simplistic and written so a 5th grader can read it.
Classic SciFi was cutting edge, and yes, Heinlein is THE MASTER. Asimov, Clarke, Burroughs, and others are what I still read. 'Modern' writers like Haldeman, Bear, Bova and Hogan are also fantastic reads.
Orson Scott Card? *gag* Enders Game is about the only worthwhile book he's written. 'Earth'? What a horrible, contrived, laughable book that was.
By Presentation at 8:02 AM ON 10/10/09
Lol at "young readers" whining about political correctness. GG
Visit mobile.syfy.com/wire on your mobile device.
Presentation:
Lol at "young readers" whining about political correctness. GG...More »