# About the State of the Art in Science Fiction



## moderan (Dec 19, 2012)

What Rough Beast is an attempt to relate some of the problems and solutions to the current state of science fiction (mostly speaks to the written but does nod to other media). The essay has been widely discussed among sf professionals (and the more professional areas of fandom); there are many links within the text (and especially in the introductory material) to the comments by others.
I cannot say I entirely agree with writer Paul Kincaid's conclusions, but his logic seems plausible.
Those of you who read and/or write in the genre may enjoy the discussion. I'm still following some of the links.
Science Fiction began as a literature of ideas. But it has been battened down by the expectations of the public and by the steadily retrogressive nature of popular culture, to the point that I am considering letting my long-running subscriptions drop. I've already stopped my subscription to the SF Book Club as it has become the Faux-Medieval Vampire Suburban Teen Fantasy Book Club, with Occasional Sciency-Fictiony Things.


----------



## Freakconformist (Dec 19, 2012)

Sorry, I did not read all of that, my brain has a hard time absorbing intellectual conversation because I think visually, so I really have to sit down and grit through it if I want to speak intelligently on the subject.

One thing he mentioned that I thought was funny, though, was the statement that aliens and robots aren't science. Well, of course they aren't, they're fictional science. Thus the name. Science. Fiction.

I think the problem with the genre today is that people are trying to limit what can happen in science fiction. Back when H.G. Wells was coming up with the concept literally anything could happen. They were on the brink of the new century, just a hundred years from the new millennium  and people kept on making these impossible things happen. Homes were being lit by glass bulbs, carriages were rolling around without horses to guide them, and people could send a message to the other side of the country in minutes! What would be next, flying men? Day trips to the moon? Anything could happen.

Even up into the '50s and '60s, men from Mars could come down at any minute, and a man could gain super powers from standing too close to a radioactive potato. Then we started applying real science to science fiction. Not that it is a bad thing, science is a fascinating subject. As real science advances though, the restrictions of what can and can not be done get tighter. Lord forbid, you use bad science. 

So, in the last few decades science fiction is experiencing something that it hadn't experienced before the '70s. It's getting recycled. We're seeing the same themes and stories over and over again, being rehashed in every which way to Sunday. From time travel to werewolves. Don't get me wrong, there are still some pretty good movies/books/comics out there, but most of them are just putting a new spin on an idea from 1898 or 1937 or 1963. 

It reminds me of something my Pastor told me when I told him I didn't feel like I was being creative enough. "There are no new ideas, even if it hadn't been done before, it all comes from God. Just write whatever comes to mind."


----------



## moderan (Dec 19, 2012)

That's essentially what part of the argument is. I don't disagree entirely...I do have some semantic issues with your second paragraph, to wit:


> One thing he mentioned that I thought was funny, though, was the  statement that aliens and robots aren't science. Well, of course they  aren't, they're fictional science. Thus the name. Science. Fiction.



That isn't the way I see that. The way it reads to me is that the author is saying that just because the writing has an alien, or a robot, that doesn't necessarily make it scientific. Those archetypes are not literally scientific in and of themselves, though both are derived from science(s).
The tv show Ancient Aliens, for example, has not a scintilla of actual science. It is a complete extrapolation of the extremely ill-thought-out work of Erich von Daniken, which is taken seriously by the same kind of people who believe in the Mayan Calendar. Nevertheless, I find it extremely entertaining. Granted, I laugh AT the commentator-tots rather than with them, but that is my prerogative.
As for the second...you've got some grasp of the timeline of science fiction, but not the whole picture.


> I think the problem with the genre today is that people are trying to  limit what can happen in science fiction. Back when H.G. Wells was  coming up with the concept literally anything could happen. They were on  the brink of the new century, just a hundred years from the new  millennium  and people kept on making these impossible things happen.  Homes were being lit by glass bulbs, carriages were rolling around  without horses to guide them, and people could send a message to the  other side of the country in minutes! What would be next, flying men?  Day trips to the moon? Anything could happen.
> 
> Even up into the '50s and '60s, men from Mars could come down at any  minute, and a man could gain super powers from standing too close to a  radioactive potato. Then we started applying real science to science  fiction. Not that it is a bad thing, science is a fascinating subject.  As real science advances though, the restrictions of what can and can  not be done get tighter. Lord forbid, you use bad science.
> 
> So, in the last few decades science fiction is experiencing something  that it hadn't experienced before the '70s. It's getting recycled. We're  seeing the same themes and stories over and over again, being rehashed  in every which way to Sunday. From time travel to werewolves. Don't get  me wrong, there are still some pretty good movies/books/comics out  there, but most of them are just putting a new spin on an idea from 1898  or 1937 or 1963.


The science in science fiction happened only periodically until the advent of John W. Campbell, Jr., who developed and championed science-intensive fiction, often featuring the trope of hero-as-engineer, and brought to the fore such luminaries as Robert Heinlein, George O. Smith, and Lester del Rey. Analog was revolutionary.
Tony Boucher at The Magazine of fantasy and Science Fiction then tried to up the ante by insisting on extremely literary stories.
Alfred Bester was heard to remark-"Now the writers had to write well, not merely think cute", which he quoted in an essay in one of his best-of collections (Star Light, Star Bright in the UK-Starlight in the US).
The recycling has been constant since the days of Hugo Gernsback.
The determinant isn't what the writers are willing to do, it's what the editors are prepared to accept, given their perception of what the audience wants. I'll grant that "there are no new ideas under the sun", but there are always new avenues of research, and there are plenty of people doing wonderfully exploratory work (Ian Watson and Rudy Rucker come to mind immediately).
And that's based on what's popular, which is really boring rehash of tried-and-true tropes, done for people who can't be bothered to examine history because they feel that their present is superior and their time way too valuable to waste on such rot.
The "don't use bad science" meme comes from the hard sf camp (of which I'm normally a member-I am FOR putting the science back in the fiction), who relentlessly nitpick at the smallest factual error and do things like construct a mathematical treatment of the Ringworld based on the principle of the suspension bridge. The hard sf writers like that kinda stuff-it makes them accessible to their audience, drums up new story ideas for free, and perpetuates their relevance. Those who have little or no scientific education or interest, who are interested in playing with the toys and tropes of the genre as window-dressing for another type of tale, or who want to create some artificial context, they care not for such.
The audience sides with the parties of the second part. People hate science. It's complicated and often full of equations and there are no absolutes other than (most of the time) the speed of light and (a lot of the time) the lowest temperature possible. Everything is qualified and quantified and quantum, and strangeness. There is no superficial charm. It is all protean, ever in flux. Amorphous and continually being added to.
Sorry about the rant, but I wouldn't have posted the OP if I didn't have some strong feelings about the genre. I hate it when people denigrate what to me is the body of work that is the most relevant to our times, no matter what those times be, the literature that quite literally maps our future.


----------



## Freakconformist (Dec 19, 2012)

I agree that science fiction has, and continues, to lead us into bigger, brighter things. Star Trek comes to mind immediately, cell phones, iPad, and virtual reality are a few things inspired by that show. Even teleporters were based off the concept that a person can be broken down into tiny particles (a.k.a. genetic code). New things are being thought of and worked on all the time, and that's amazing!

That said, I'll have to say that I think the story is more important than the science, for me. That's what science-fiction/fantasy is, it stretches reality to make an entertaining story. 

Look at Superman, what is the science behind his ability to fly? He's so strong he can defy gravity? If he was only defying gravity he wouldn't be going anywhere. He would be carried away with the breeze. He would have to be able to propel himself somehow. Since he doesn't swim through the air and he doesn't propel himself with super powerful farts, there is no modern scientific explanation as to how he can fly. There are other characters who have tried use science for the problem of flight, and they're usually just as weak. Some can lighten their density so the can walk on air, though that still the doesn't solve the problem with propulsion. Several Marvel character use telekinesis, which isn't really scientific at all; you might as well say they use magic. I think the best solution I have seen is Magneto, who propels himself along the Earth's magnetic lines. (Can you tell I've read my fair share of comic books?)

To get back to my point, you might say that Superman was created in the '30s by a couple of teenage boys, they didn't know any better. That's the thing, some of our greatest stories come from a time when people didn't feel compelled to limit themselves. Where would we be if a couple of horny young boys hadn't been talking one day and said, "You know what I bet would impress the girls? If we were so super strong we could leap over this building!"? 

As I said, I'm not really sitting down with Scientific American or even a users manual, but that doesn't mean I don't have a rudimentary understanding of basic science. My favorite channels are the Science Channel, History 2, and the Smithsonian Channel (Sy-fy and Nat Geo are up there too.) I'll stick to the laws of physics in my writing, I  want to be plausible, but I'm not against bending them if I want my character to be able to fly. (I do actually have a character with psychic wings, lol.)


----------



## moderan (Dec 19, 2012)

Freakconformist said:


> I agree that science fiction has, and continues, to lead us into bigger, brighter things. Star Trek comes to mind immediately, cell phones, iPad, and virtual reality are a few things inspired by that show. Even teleporters were based off the concept that a person can be broken down into tiny particles (a.k.a. genetic code). New things are being thought of and worked on all the time, and that's amazing!
> 
> That said, I'll have to say that I think the story is more important than the science, for me. That's what science-fiction/fantasy is, it stretches reality to make an entertaining story.
> 
> ...


While I agree that the story is more important than the science, and I don't mind bending things a bit, it isn't "science" fiction if it doesn't contain any actual science or stretches it beyond the realm of reasonable extrapolation. SF is a subgenre of fantasy (as are most forms of "literature" imo)...most of the things you cite are not science fiction but science fantasy, a different genre altogether. That may seem like semantic hairsplitting to you, but it isn't to me. I work in both genres and the division is very clearly delineated.
90% of writing is research, maybe more. To write plausible science fiction takes more than tv-level science.
Martin Cooper invented the cellphone based on some principles that were already in use at AT&T, and had been previous to Star Trek's advent. The "look" of the cell was taken from ST-probably the earliest examples of cellphones were Dick Tracy's watches. 
Virtual reality was a fictional staple long before ST premiered. In fact I can't think of _anything_ Star Trek pioneered-it's an amalgam of Golden Age sf tropes, somewhat dumbed-down for a mass audience.
I'm not saying that you can't write wonderful, memorable stories without science. I'm just saying that such things as Star Wars and the Martian Chronicles aren't _science fiction_-they're fantasy. I suspect that nobody will be shooting off the tops of the crystal towers, ever, and Tattooine is a bad-science version of Arrakis. Luke is Paul Atreides miniaturized and Darth Vader is the illegitimate and uncredited bastard child of Dr. Doom and Darkseid.
Again,


> People hate  science.


----------



## Freakconformist (Dec 19, 2012)

So, what you're saying (if I'm reading you right) is:

Science-fiction should be a fictional story based on real science. Which by today's standard in science would re-define science-fiction from something like Dune, to something more like The Borne Supremacy. (The guy in that movie is "genetically enhanced", isn't he?) I know, not exactly, but closer than anything else I can think of.

What is currently swept up into the general category that is called science-fiction, you would redefine as science-fantasy. 

And thirdly, you just destroyed all my preconceived notions that George Lucas and Ray Bradbury are the greatest things to happen to the genre since steam powered rocket ships. Next thing you're going to tell me is that they didn't write every single episode on a vintage typewriter they inherited from their grand-pappy. (I hope you know I'm kidding. ;P )


----------



## moderan (Dec 19, 2012)

Freakconformist said:


> So, what you're saying (if I'm reading you right) is:
> 
> Science-fiction should be a fictional story based on real science. Which by today's standard in science would re-define science-fiction from something like Dune, to something more like The Borne Supremacy. (The guy in that movie is "genetically enhanced", isn't he?) I know, not exactly, but closer than anything else I can think of.
> 
> ...


Dune is mostly real science. Frank Herbert was a geologist and exhibited an excellent grasp of current sciences in hos other, less-well-known works. He was a Campbell man. "Bourne" as originally written by Robert Ludlum, was pretty close to science fiction. Thrillers often are. By definition, things like "House" should be science fiction, but more often they're fantasy because they contain very little actual scientific content. "Bourne" as filmed, probably not. I fell asleep ten minutes into the first one and never ventured further.
You may get the impression from all of this that I'm an elitist sf snob, and that I hate pop culture. You'd be absolutely correct.
SF was redefined by Star Wars and by del Rey books at about the same time in the late 70s, in order to reach a larger and less discerning audience. Fantasy was permanently scarred at the same time, by the massive sales figures generated by Terry Brooks' execrable and very derivative Sword of Shannara series. After that and Tolkien, nothing would serve but the badly-researched faux-medieval, despite the valiant efforts of longtime sf writer Gordon Dickson and his Dragons and Georges and Robert Holdstock's Mythago Wood and its progeny.
Ray Bradbury was a protege of HP Lovecraft. Stephen King is probably his literary descendant-he bases his stories in the same "early-Mayberry with contemporary twists" setting. That isn't accidental.


----------



## Leyline (Dec 19, 2012)

Freakconformist said:


> So, what you're saying (if I'm reading you right) is:
> 
> Science-fiction should be a fictional story based on real science. Which by today's standard in science would re-define science-fiction from something like Dune, to something more like The Borne Supremacy. (The guy in that movie is "genetically enhanced", isn't he?) I know, not exactly, but closer than anything else I can think of.



It will, almost without fail, come down to personal decision. Even the hardest of hard SF writers -- a guy named Hal Clement -- used the occasional handwave (or, as he called them, 'cheats'), but did so by extrapolating as closely as possible from trends emerging in actual labs and research facilities. One of the better 'real SF' writers of the last couple decades, Alastair Reynolds, actually wrings vast reams of senso'wunder from two aspects of physics that have been seen as the bane of SF from the beginning -- the speed of light limit and time dilation at speeds approaching that of light. One of my personal favorites, Greg Egan, takes cutting-edge particle physics research and builds stories so bizarre from it that they may as well be fantasy. He's considered either 'difficult' or 'boring' by many who weren't weaned on The Damn Good Stuff.

Then there's the whole 'Mundane SF', spearheaded by a writer named Geoff Ryman, that discards everything from the possibility of interstellar travel, aliens, alternate worlds, time travel, etc. as 'too speculative' to be 'real SF.' I personally, don't care for it much.

As I said, any debate on the subject will eventually come down to what the writer intends and what the reader expects. I'll stick with a paraphrase from Damon Knight: "I won't define it, but I can point at it.'


----------



## Freakconformist (Dec 19, 2012)

moderan said:


> SF was redefined by Star Wars and by del Rey books at about the same time in the late 70s, in order to reach a larger and less discerning audience. Fantasy was permanently scarred at the same time, by the massive sales figures generated by Terry Brooks' execrable and very derivative Sword of Shannara series. After that and Tolkien, nothing would serve but the badly-researched faux-medieval, despite the valiant efforts of longtime sf writer Gordon Dickson and his Dragons and Georges and Robert Holdstock's Mythago Wood and its progeny.



I won't disagree with you on Terry Brooks, I tried to read one of his stories and I was left scratching my head. I think that's one of the best reasons to keep your world grounded with science, so people know what the heck you're talking about. 

Tolkien, I  have to say, if he played fast and loose with mythology, he's  not the only one. You can't say he didn't put any effort into his books though, seeing as he created, what, five languages for his series? He's has so much detail in his writing you have to whack at it with the hedge clippers at some points. 

I'm not familiar with the other guys you mentioned, but I never got into a lot of pure science science-fiction, I favor the stuff with fantasy elements. I have heard of Gordon Dickson, but I can't remember if I read anything of his.


----------



## moderan (Dec 19, 2012)

I'm not knocking Tolkien at all. He's just there because that was Brooks' reference material. He did some better things later, Brooks that is, but nothing that wasn't clearly derivative (his later stuff echoed the Pinis).
The Dragon and the George is the first of Gordon Dickson's fantasy novels. It and the sequels are excellent, reminiscent of deCamp and Pratt's superlative Enchanter series.
Leyline's exactly right...but I enjoy talking about this stuff. I should think you'd like the Dickson and, if you can find it, the Compleat Enchanter.


----------



## Leyline (Dec 19, 2012)

moderan said:


> Leyline's exactly right...but I enjoy talking about this stuff.



Sure, and so do I. Nothing like a nice session of pointing, to press the metaphor and probably awaken an enraged Knight from his deep slumber beneath the earth. Kate will be so annoyed.


----------



## Freakconformist (Dec 19, 2012)

I appreciate a good intelligent conversation myself. I'm actually the intellectual slob in my family. My sister is a registered "genius", who has probably read all the books your talking about before she was 16, and my brother is the technical wiz, who was taking apart his transformers and making his own robots with legos and Christmas light when he was 10. My mind is more free-form and artistic, so I can't always keep up with their discussions on Quantum Physics and Niche. A good conversation like this helps me to remember that I'm not as dumb as I feel, lol.


----------



## moderan (Dec 19, 2012)

Leyline said:


> Sure, and so do I. Nothing like a nice session of pointing, to press the metaphor and probably awaken an enraged Knight from his deep slumber beneath the earth. Kate will be so annoyed.


She'll have to put up with him all over again, and the sweet birds will sing at the funeral. You crack me up, G.



Freakconformist said:


> I appreciate a good intelligent conversation myself. I'm actually the intellectual slob in my family. My sister is a registered "genius", who has probably read all the books your talking about before she was 16, and my brother is the technical wiz, who was taking apart his transformers and making his own robots with legos and Christmas light when he was 10. My mind is more free-form and artistic, so I can't always keep up with their discussions on Quantum Physics and Niche. A good conversation like this helps me to remember that I'm not as dumb as I feel, lol.



Good for you. Nothing is drier than the conversation at a Mensa meeting (I'm a member). Fans are much more interesting because they have some juice. I used to love going to ChiCon (Chicago science fiction Convention-usually at the Hyatt O'Hare), did that for maybe fifteen years straight. Nothing beats trying to get into a door that's blocked by a dozen Klingons in full battle gear bearing plates of Gakh and careening about like Keystone Kops.
We can do the quantum physics thing or the electronics thing but the talking about what books are fun is far more pleasurable (imo).
The only shame is that we can't do it live in the bar with maybe Larry Niven chiming in but hey! one can indulge if one wishes. I can't type when I'm tipsy anyway. My fine motor control goes out the window. I can speak perfectly well, and can manage to lumber about more or less normally, but typing or playing guitar, no.
The article in the OP is pretty good but who cares.


----------



## Cran (Dec 19, 2012)

moderan said:


> While I agree that the story is more important than the science, and I don't mind bending things a bit, *it isn't "science" fiction if it doesn't contain any actual science* or stretches it beyond the realm of reasonable extrapolation


And because science is not static, it can be further qualified by stating that _science fiction draws upon the science of the day_. 

My favourite example of this is Mary Shelley's _Frankenstein_. Today, many think of it as a horror story, and a rather dated one at that. When it was written, however, it was pure science fiction because it's inspiration, understanding the electrochemical nature of the nervous system, was at the forefront of the science of the day. 



> 90% of writing is research, maybe more. To write plausible science fiction takes more than tv-level science...


That is why the best science fiction writers were also scientists.


----------



## Leyline (Dec 19, 2012)

Cran said:


> And because science is not static, it can be further qualified by stating that _science fiction draws upon the science of the day_.



Well said, and an important observation any time this discussion is undertaken.



> That is why the best science fiction writers were also scientists.



Many, but far from all. One of the best (in pure hard SF terms), Hal Clement, was a high school science teacher. Jack Williamson, who helped to invent the field in its modern form before he ever went to college, was a rancher during that time. Phil Farmer worked at a steel mill until his big break with 'The Lovers' came. R.A. Lafferty, in his own words, was 'an electrician and alcoholic.'  Robert A. Heinlein was a failed Navy careerist who became a jack-of-all-trades before "Life-Line" taught him how to make a living 'avoiding honest work.' Cordwainer Smith was an Asian studies specialist who was also considered an expert on psychological warfare. Alice Sheldon (aka the glorious James Tiptree, Jr.) was a psychologist who never really worked in the field of her doctorate: she was too busy redefining the genre. 

 The only working scientist I can think of from the top of my head who had a sideline in SF writing was (and is) Gregory Benford. But the one thing most of them have in common is that they worked in trades that demanded a knowledge of science, engineering, and staying abreast of current technologies and development in technical fields. As mod said '90% of writing (SF) is research.' They were keeping up with this ongoing research to earn a paycheck. That it also led to them writing some of the finest literature in the SF genre is a fringe benefit that mostly got paid out to fans like me.


----------



## moderan (Dec 19, 2012)

David Brin, the previously-mentioned Rudy Rucker and Alastair Reynolds are or were scientists while penning fictions. Not that I differ with what you said above, just elaborating. There are more but the top of my head flew off while I was rummaging barefoot in there and has never settled back down.
Cran's example of Frankenstein is one I use often to illustrate the principle. In previous discussions, it was touted as the first real sf novel (I still agree with that interpretation). The other story I point to is The Colour Out of Space, which is about as literal a depiction of nuclear devastation as you'll find this side of John Christopher or Pat Frank.
The problem I have...going back to the premise that started this all off, is that sf is everywhere. Except on the stands where it belongs. People don't understand that, and probably aren't going to. But it isn't going to keep me from longing for the days when I could walk into Walden or Printer's Ink and buy When HARLIE Was One and Stand On Zanzibar and Protector (which I did one day in 1974) and be happy for a week. If you haven't read those, you are hereby reminded that they exist, and that you should have them.
I was pleased to be able to recommend a bunch of books today. I recommended the late great Roger Zelazny to someone and am awaiting the results. I was in a bookstore today. None of his sf work was on the shelves. Larry Niven's N-Space (good collection) was the only hard sf that was there at all.
It gave me a sad.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 19, 2012)

According to Science Fiction from the 1950's 30% of the people on this planet should be cyborgs or full entity artificial intelligence.  I think I have a good idea who a third of the people in this thread might be cyborgs, or am I one?


----------



## moderan (Dec 19, 2012)

I'm not but my username sure is, or is it the other way around?


----------



## Leyline (Dec 19, 2012)

moderan said:


> David Brin, the previously-mentioned Rudy Rucker and Alastair Reynolds are or were scientists while penning fictions. Not that I differ with what you said above, just elaborating.




Oh, sure. I knew there were and are plenty more, but Benford was the only one that drifted up through my not always reliable brain at that moment. I'm not a big fan of Brin, and have never 'seen the fuss' (The only piece of his that I've read and truly loved was his story 'Thor Versus Captain America' -- or vice versa, see previous caveat about brain) but that's neither here nor there. Love Rucker's stuff and his bizarre webzine _Flurb_ is the only 'for-the-love' market I still submit to. 



> The problem I have...going back to the premise that started this all off, is that sf is everywhere. Except on the stands where it belongs. People don't understand that, and probably aren't going to. But it isn't going to keep me from longing for the days when I could walk into Walden or Printer's Ink and buy When HARLIE Was One and Stand On Zanzibar and Protector (which I did one day in 1974) and be happy for a week. If you haven't read those, you are hereby reminded that they exist, and that you should have them.



 There's a bit of light glimmering in that particular tunnel. Von Gelder has claimed that Kindle based subscriptions have recently saved _The Magazine Of Fantasy & Science Fiction_ because even at the much reduced price they're offered for, it's very nearly pure profit for the magazine. And, to be honest, it's the first time I've been able to afford a subscription in years. I keep hoping some brave press will start reissuing classics like you mentioned for ultra-low prices. I'd certainly gift a bunch of young fans who are pretty much clueless about anything pre-2000 if I could do so for 99 cents each! 

BTW, a year or so back, I had the pleasure of giving my battered copy of _Shockwave Rider_ to a new-friend who had read and been blown away by _The Sheep Look Up_. He loved it, of course.



> I was pleased to be able to recommend a bunch of books today. I recommended the late great Roger Zelazny to someone and am awaiting the results. I was in a bookstore today. None of his sf work was on the shelves. Larry Niven's N-Space (good collection) was the only hard sf that was there at all.
> It gave me a sad.



It's depressing. _Lord Of Light_ should be required reading in high schools. And I don't even believe in required reading.


----------



## moderan (Dec 19, 2012)

I actually like Brin's science writing better than his fiction. His fb stuff is very interesting. Rudy Rucker is just too much fun, and really fan-friendly to boot.
I subscribe to F&SF. Have since 1977. Asimov since inception.
Like you, I would gladly commence distributing the stuff. I could get behind pushing Brunner and Ellison and Aldiss and anyone else wonderful that I could think of, and David Gerrold's early work, and George Alec Effinger's everything...(stops to take another dose of bp meds).
Because...because...I want people to feel as I did, the day I found the Tar-Aiym Krang and Hothouse for 50 cents each, and found The Reader's Guide to the Cthulhu Mythos buried under a couple of Omnis in a corner. I freakin' want people to understand that Austin Train is real, and that Arthur Clarke probably had nine billion names himself.
Dammit.


----------



## moderan (Dec 19, 2012)




----------



## Cran (Dec 21, 2012)

Leyline said:


> Well said, and an important observation any time this discussion is undertaken.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You might notice I didn't limit to working scientists, nor to certified scientists. A good science teacher still practices science. Asimov got all the letters, but published few pure research papers - his practicing science was teaching. Clarke was an engineer - a practical scientist in my view. Sheldon/Tiptree also qualifies, even if her degree is one of the so-called "soft" sciences.  Cordwainer Smith, likewise. Heinlein was one of the greatest researchers and theoretical scientists of his age; that he did so for his own pleasure and his writings is not a reason to dismiss it. However, if formal training or professional activity is the requirement:




> Before beginning to write SF, he attended the University of Missouri and the Naval Academy at Annapolis, graduating in 1929...
> 
> After having been discharged from the Navy (as a lieutenant), he studied physics and mathematics at the University of California at Los Angeles...
> 
> During the Second World War, he temporarily abandoned SF and worked on research for high-altitude pressure suits (much like space suits) and radar at the Navy Experimental Air Station in Philadelphia (The same locale where Asimov and de Camp worked--summoned there by Heinlein).



- Carlos Angelo; A Robert A Heinlein Biography  - http://www.wegrokit.com/bio.htm


----------



## moderan (Dec 21, 2012)

Absolutely correct, near as I can tell. Otherwise, how would he conceive of the engineering behind the "Roads" that rolled, or waldoes...or any number of other Heinleinian devices and equipment? It takes serious practical consideration to work that out, and a heckuva lot of engineering acumen to make it seem plausible.
One of the differences in the original, British-led New Wave was that the practitioners had little or no actual scientific training-they were more interested in literary and social exploration, and less in buzzes and beeps. But it didn't take very long before the old guard subsumed those tactics-the Campbell guys could write, period, and Stranger in a Strange Land and Dune are towering accomplishments by guys who really knew their sciences, and didn't mind experimenting.
Leyline is a Heinleinian through and through-you're talking his language.
Almost any sf writer perforce has to keep up with scientific development or seek another field. I do recall PJ Farmer saying that he subscribed to Popular Science in one of the afterwords in DV, and Ellison agreeing. Neither of those cats were known for their engineer-as-hero tales, but they felt the need and the necessity to inform their work with such information.
Fred Pohl, for example, has never been a working scientist, but is an authority on any number of scientific disciplines. Silverberg likewise. And so on...


----------



## Leyline (Dec 21, 2012)

Cran said:


> You might notice I didn't limit to working scientists, nor to certified scientists. A good science teacher still practices science. Asimov got all the letters, but published few pure research papers - his practicing science was teaching. Clarke was an engineer - a practical scientist in my view. Sheldon/Tiptree also qualifies, even if her degree is one of the so-called "soft" sciences.  Cordwainer Smith, likewise. Heinlein was one of the greatest researchers and theoretical scientists of his age; that he did so for his own pleasure and his writings is not a reason to dismiss it. However, if formal training or professional activity is the requirement:
> 
> 
> 
> - Carlos Angelo; A Robert A Heinlein Biography  - A Robert A. Heinlein Biography -- Carlos Angelo



Yes, I know this. And if you'd called him a 'scientist' he'd have responded rudely. 

But fair enough, if you want to define 'scientist' that loosely.


----------



## Cran (Dec 21, 2012)

*moderan* - agreed.



Leyline said:


> Yes, I know this. And if you'd called him a 'scientist' he'd have responded rudely.
> 
> But fair enough, if you want to define 'scientist' that loosely.


Oh, I'm used to people responding rudely. 
If I don't apply that definition, then I could not consider myself a scientist, and I'm not sure what that would do to my work in Australian geoscience, or with the Mars Society Australia, and so on ...


----------



## Leyline (Dec 21, 2012)

Cran said:


> Oh, I'm used to people responding rudely.



If you took my responses as rude, I apologize. They were not intended to be.



> If I don't apply that definition, then I could not consider myself a scientist, and I'm not sure what that would do to my work in Australian geoscience, or with the Mars Society Australia, and so on ...



  Your definition is perfectly valid. But I responded with _my_ applied definition of scientist. And, to respond to your specific language, you said that 'all the best SF writers' were scientists, and I can name dozens of the best who don't even fit your definition. Phillip Farmer, Fritz Lieber, Ursula K. Le Guin, Jack Vance, Barry Malzberg, and on and on and on.

But then we'd simply get into what personal definitions of 'best' are, really. So I'll leave it here.

Best,
-G.


----------



## moderan (Dec 21, 2012)

Pretty sure that Cran was referring to Heinlein responding rudely, G.
And two of your words spurred another thought...because what we're talking about here isn't the practice of science as a profession, but _applied science_ in the service of fictions. One doesn't need to be a specialist in any of the disciplines in order to do that. One just needs the education. That can be gotten in many ways.
I'm no scientist. But I can converse with specialists in xenology, or people studying the Martian surface, more or less on their level, because I've been studying that subject for years (Tucson is great for xenology, areology, and astronomy-so was RIT in western NY). I can do Clement-style worldbuilding, and have done so. I say that not for horn-tooting-this ain't the All About Me show, but just to illustrate that the yutz-off-the-street can do such.


----------



## Leyline (Dec 21, 2012)

moderan said:


> Pretty sure that Cran was referring to Heinlein responding rudely, G.
> And two of your words spurred another thought...because what we're talking about here isn't the practice of science as a profession, but _applied science_ in the service of fictions. One doesn't need to be a specialist in any of the disciplines in order to do that. One just needs the education. That can be gotten in many ways.
> I'm no scientist. But I can converse with specialists in xenology, or people studying the Martian surface, more or less on their level, because I've been studying that subject for years (Tucson is great for xenology, areology, and astronomy-so was RIT in western NY). I can do Clement-style worldbuilding, and have done so. I say that not for horn-tooting-this ain't the All About Me show, but just to illustrate that the yutz-off-the-street can do such.



Oh, that's perfectly valid and I agree. And I have no problem accepting that definition of 'scientist.' To paraphrase Jubal: 'Write it out and I'll sign it.'  But I was simply going off my own definition, and just as a way of continuing the discussion rather than as a way of saying 'You're wrong!' I'm a writer. Words are symbols. Symbols are endlessly interpretable.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 21, 2012)

Is there an unwritten rule that Sci-Fi writers need to piggy back each other's ideas instead of contradicting each other?  For example one writer might describe a golem as a creature created out of clay and brought to life, while another writer might describe a golem as a big ogre like creature?  To me it would just seem to confuse readers.  I've been confused myself.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 21, 2012)

Lewdog said:


> Is there an unwritten rule that Sci-Fi writers need to piggy back each other's ideas instead of contradicting each other?  For example one writer might describe a golem as a creature created out of clay and brought to life, while another writer might describe a golem as a big ogre like creature?  To me it would just seem to confuse readers.  I've been confused myself.



I sure hope there isn't an unwritten rule like that! 

I prefer authors who defy expectations and create their own unique worlds and beings. I don't think readers would get too confused if the author is capable.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 21, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> I sure hope there isn't an unwritten rule like that!
> 
> I prefer authors who defy expectations and create their own unique worlds and beings. I don't think readers would get too confused if the author is capable.




Well it was like Tolkien's idea of orcs and ogres.  They were somewhat different from what I had seen in the past.  In D&D you have assassins, while other places you see rogues.  What's the difference?  This kind of thing happens all the times.  Harpies look like giants fairies to me.


----------



## moderan (Dec 21, 2012)

Leyline said:


> Oh, that's perfectly valid and I agree. And I have no problem accepting that definition of 'scientist.' To paraphrase Jubal: 'Write it out and I'll sign it.'  But I was simply going off my own definition, and just as a way of continuing the discussion rather than as a way of saying 'You're wrong!' I'm a writer. Words are symbols. Symbols are endlessly interpretable.


Indubitably. Much as I said to Garza in another thread, on another subject-there are no absolutes in writing. These very letters we use are symbols. And yes...if we were to find too much common ground, the discussion would end. But without some, we'd have to start with interpreting the smallest of symbols, and my universal translator is in my other pressure suit.



KyleColorado said:


> I sure hope there isn't an unwritten rule like that!
> 
> I prefer authors who defy expectations and create their own unique worlds and beings. I don't think readers would get too confused if the author is capable.



Indeed. That's the whole of it.


Lewdog said:


> Well it was like Tolkien's idea of orcs and ogres.   They were somewhat different from what I had seen in the past.  In  D&D you have assassins, while other places you see rogues.  What's  the difference?  This kind of thing happens all the times.  Harpies look  like giants fairies to me.



There are some conventions, but they're not of that nature in general. FTL is something that most sf writers accept and use, even if the theory doesn't work. There are some concepts that travel about-the ansible (a form of interstellar radio, invented by Ursula LeGuin) turns up a lot. Anti-agathics (James Blish invented that for Cities in Flight-it's a method of extending the human lifespan) are widely used, by that name. But not everyone uses them-sf is a field of mavericks, each with their own interpretation of things (viz this discussion).
Leyline sf is not moderan sf, though we've read many of the same things and subscribe to the same magazines, and even to some philosophies (ask either of us what's wrong with the term Sci-Fi, for example).
There is often some building on of concepts that occurred before...and there's been a lot of shared-world writing, which is both good and bad. There's a built-in audience, often, but sometimes the writers aren't disposed to be terribly imaginative. It depends.
Tolkien's Orcs and whatnot predate most of what we call fantasy. Harpies come from Greek mythology, some of JRR's source material. Mythological trolls are different than Professor Tolkien's, more like his dwarves.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 22, 2012)

I just read a classic Sci-Fi short story last night, "Farewell to the Master" by Harry Bates. It was the inspiration for the films, "The Day the Earth Stood Still."

26 pages long, quick read (took me about twenty minutes), and fun. I also loved seeing the old Sci-Fi Pulp magazine cover it came in. Imagine, twenty cents an issue!  I can't think of anything I can buy nowdays for twenty cents. 






Here's the story:

http://www.unexploredworlds.com/RealPulp/htm/rpulp17.htm

That story was written and published in [strike]1951[/strike] 1940 (!)


----------



## moderan (Dec 22, 2012)

It's a really good story. I have it in the hardback edition of Adventures in Time and Space. Much better than the Keanu Reeves travesty remake.
That whole site is very cool:Real Pulp


----------



## Leyline (Dec 22, 2012)

Kyle, if you're interested in exploring the SF of that era, mod and I can supply you with about 590,000 (glowing, probably overwritten, passionately intense) recommendations. 


Each.


----------



## moderan (Dec 22, 2012)

Start with George Langelaan. Stanley G. Weinbaum. Look up the names Horace Gold and Hugo Gernsback.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 22, 2012)

I have to say that you guys are very well educated on your genre of writing.  I can write some bad poetry, and I know a little about poetry.  I also know some about novelist, but nothing neat as in-depth as you guys.  I would have to almost go as far as to say there might not be anything I know about as well as you guys know Sci-Fi.  Congratulations, you guys have made me feel even worse about myself than I did before reading this thread.


----------



## Leyline (Dec 23, 2012)

Lewdog said:


> I have to say that you guys are very well educated on your genre of writing.  I can write some bad poetry, and I know a little about poetry.  I also know some about novelist, but nothing neat as in-depth as you guys.  I would have to almost go as far as to say there might not be anything I know about as well as you guys know Sci-Fi.  Congratulations, you guys have made me feel even worse about myself than I did before reading this thread.



Well, if it makes you feel any better, I'm a terminally single middle aged dude who lives in the woods in a small plywood shack.

Look on the bright side.


----------



## moderan (Dec 23, 2012)

Lewdog said:


> I have to say that you guys are very well educated on your genre of writing.  I can write some bad poetry, and I know a little about poetry.  I also know some about novelist, but nothing neat as in-depth as you guys.  I would have to almost go as far as to say there might not be anything I know about as well as you guys know Sci-Fi.  Congratulations, you guys have made me feel even worse about myself than I did before reading this thread.


Man...it just means that we have wasted a helluva lotta time with our noses in books. I read really really fast but still...my W/IP in college was @0.5. So you got me there. And I pitched in Omaha in September. Once.
There's this guy I know...he's Finnish. His programming acumen and the depth of knowledge in his field shames me. He's a chemical engineer. I suspect that he thinks in FORTRAN. And that isn't his vocation. He speaks English as well as I do. I can't speak a syllable of Finnish.
It's always like that.
There's always someone.
When I was 22, I was a department head at a fortune 500 company. Married with a kid. I made some bad decisions, and before I knew it, I was divorced. So much for yuppiehood.
I spent most of my 20s and the bulk of my 30s pushing a hack around suburban Chicago and playing bass in bars on the weekends. It wasn't glamorous. I spent the greater part of a decent income on weed and books. 
Intelligent, my a**.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 23, 2012)

moderan said:


> Man...it just means that we have wasted a helluva lotta time with our noses in books. I read really really fast but still...my W/IP in college was @0.5. So you got me there. And I pitched in Omaha in September. Once.
> There's this guy I know...he's Finnish. His programming acumen and the depth of knowledge in his field shames me. He's a chemical engineer. I suspect that he thinks in FORTRAN. And that isn't his vocation. He speaks English as well as I do. I can't speak a syllable of Finnish.
> It's always like that.
> There's always someone.
> ...



Yeah I used to be the most intelligent person in my family, now my cousin went back to college at 40 and is doing stem cell research.  Me on the other hand, went from the top to the bottom.  I was supposed to be a lawyer, doctor, or honestly whatever I wanted to be.  Instead I became a card counter and got greedy and ended up losing a large part of my life.  My health went down hill in many ways and I was eventually homeless.  You would be amazed, honestly.  I hope things to turn around, that's all I can do.  I now have a shelter over my head, food in the fridge, doctors I see, most of the medicine I need, and hopefully soon things will go in the right direction so I can take care of some of my health problems, finish my last very little of my degree, and move on in my life.


----------



## Morkonan (Dec 23, 2012)

moderan said:


> ...I cannot say I entirely agree with writer Paul Kincaid's conclusions, but his logic seems plausible..



Some of it is probably spot-on, but there's something that I think he has glossed over.

We're in the quantum world, today. Advancements in Science take place at a rapid pace, but they're not focused on building rocketships. At least, not directly. Instead, Science is discovering new materials, confirming the existence of new particles, discussing the very real possibility of other dimensions and even questioning our own existence's "reality."

In light of many of Science's current themes, rocketships are quaint and passe'.

Science Fiction is about the impact of Science on human society, even if that human society is alien. Science Fiction requires Science to be present. There has to be some sort of scientifically identifiable thingitybob in it or a story just isn't worthy of the Science Fiction genre. There must be a "Ray Gun" or a "Rocketship" or a "Time Travelling Machine" or some sort of mechanism or scientific knowledge that gives rise to the story elements if a story is to be called "Science Fiction."

Fantasy attributes main plot ideas or story elements to "magic." In other words, some fantastical explanation is given a hand-waving explanation of "It's magic" and little attempt is made to make such things scientifically justifiable, even with wild stretches of Science's imagination. Other dimensions exist and there's a stone bridge that connects them... Why the stone bridge? "It's magic!" Magic is about the "Fantastical" and that is what makes a fantasy story a Fantasy. A fantasy story without magic or fantastic and unexplainable phenomenon or those that do not comply within Science's realm of imagination is, properly, a Fantasy. If it's just a bunch of guys and girls with swords, fighting others with swords, it's an alternative medieval setting.

The melding of the two genres, these days, is inevitable. But, it's not unique. Consider The World of Tiers, by Farmer. An excellent story with fantastical science fiction... Today, Science is not even as removed from Fantasy, in the real world.

If you didn't have mass, you'd explode. All the particles in your body would be forced to travel at the speed of light. There is no exception. You would cease to exist. (Well, unless Science is completely wrong and there is "magic" in the Universe, somewhere. An interesting story could come from that, I think...) However, there are all sorts of anti-gravity contraptions out there, presumably that alter the Higgs Field/Particles in some way. But, Science Fiction generally ignores this, even today, and how are we to accept that? How are we able to accept "Science Fiction", which is supposed to be grounded in Science, giving off hand-waving explanations that are, instead, firmly in the realm of Fantasy? Why don't people in anti-gravity fields explode into a shower of photons? "It's magic!" *

But, we didn't know this yesterday. Only in a few circles was this sort of thing avidly discussed and the public was more concerned with rocketships and trips to the moon. So, they wanted rocketships and didn't want the protagonist exploding into a shower of photons and strange particles, on page one.

Today, we know a lot more and the public is inundated with Pop Science books. Science Fiction fans sometimes pick up these books and actually read them. Others might follow daily Science news sites and their favorite general news sites often have Science and Technology news, as well. So, they get access to information that people didn't have, yesterday. And, much of that possible  "fantastic" Science of the past is now firmly in the realm of the possibly Scientific.

This is what Kincaid is glossing over - Science is becoming Fantastical in its scope of capabilities. A material that could be whatever you wanted it to be is firmly within the realm of Science with it's metamaterials, nanotech and artificial biology. Immortality is a real possibility for mankind. Instead of traveling to the stars, we could download ourselves into artificial worlds or, perhaps, even muck around with the building blocks of our Universe and create our own Universe to explore. What was "Magic" yesterday is the "Science" of today. And, what was the "Science" of yesterday is fast becoming the "Fantasy" of today, as we discover for ourselves that the world is not constructed of the same stuff we used to think it was...

This is key. The fact that Science and Fantasy are switching places as Science advances, as it is designed to do, is what is giving the appearance that Science Fiction and Fantasy as genres are melding together. _They're not_. They can still be separate things, but writers need to do their homework in a much more diligent fashion. The problem is that few writers, and even fewer readers, know the difference and also know enough about the genres to effectively separate them. So, if a writer decides to hand-wave explanations all over the place and ignore Science Fiction's mandate that there must be some sort of Science involved, somewhere, then we're going to get a mislabeled story out of the deal. Frankly, I'm tired of reading Science Fiction written by authors who are willing to insert fantastical explanations for their non-scientific elements. If everyone in the Anti-Gravity field doesn't fly apart at the speed of light, I want to know why. If the author say's "It's Science!", then I'm going to assume they're saying "It's magic."

(*I've done my own hand-waving in regards to assuming certain definitions for "mass" in this post, btw.)


----------



## moderan (Dec 23, 2012)

[ot]Well, I hope so. You're obviously intelligent. The esteem thing, well, that'll change as you accomplish things. Set small goals and all that.
I wanted to go into artificial intelligence as a field. Instead I became an underwriter. Had I known then what I know now, I'd have gone into undertaking. Instead, I killed my programming career.[/ot]
I bought more books today, even though I saw my wife putting my Xmas present in the linen closet (it's a Kindle-I've known for weeks). 
Barry Malzberg's Scop, Bester's The Deceivers, Dickson's Pritcher Mass (all replacement copies) and several volumes of Ray Kurzweil's best. And six books about Martian topography. One about the weird things medicine is made from. Cuz 90% of writing is researching, and about 25% of that is lazing around on the couch reading paperback sf novels on the pretext that I'm researching (thanks, Bob S.)


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 23, 2012)

Science Fiction isn't as useless as you might think.  I watched a show not long ago where they talked about science fiction and James Bond items that were eventually created.  Some engineers admitted talking to Gene Roddenberry trying to work with him on things.


----------



## moderan (Dec 23, 2012)

Morkonan said:


> ...many good things, nipped for space. None of them erroneous in my eyes.
> 
> (*I've done my own hand-waving in regards to assuming certain definitions for "mass" in this post, btw.)


Yeah...and I have my own issues with the deus ex machina aspects of nanotech, AI, and the whole singularity nonsense thing (viz the previous post with the Kurzweil books).
In large part, you're working within the confines of Clarke's Third Law...and it's true. It's very hard to really envision the world of TOMORROW. The further out you go, the less likely that your extrapolations will bear fruit. But to hew to close to the present leaves you vulnerable to getting passed by (f'rinstance, I was writing about global warming in the 1970s-my third pro story was called "Sunburn". In it, I had people wearing circuit-printed costume jewelry, with which they were able to work person-to-person communications.)
I agree entirely. I want science in my sf, or go ahead and call it fantasy. That jewelry is the next step toward jacking right on in, which will probably happen in this decade. It's already being worked on, and what the public gets to see is probably 20 years behind vanguard research. I expect tattoo implanted circuitry is coming too.
But the mass es didn't even understand that the end of the original Total Recall was complete bushwah. And that gives me such a sad-it's why I posted the Sagan quote upthread.



Lewdog said:


> Science Fiction isn't as useless as you might  think.  I watched a show not long ago where they talked about science  fiction and James Bond items that were eventually created.  Some  engineers admitted talking to Gene Roddenberry trying to work with him  on things.


I'm not saying sf is useless. It's the most useful literature we have. It comments on the human condition and helps to shape our future. But lying around stoned reading doesn't get any of that to happen.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 23, 2012)

Interesting fact:  Leonard Nimoy and Rod Serling both went to Antioch College which is a small college in the hippy Ohio city of Yellowsprings.  Dave Chapelle lives on his farm in Yellowsprings.  It is a very cool place that I used to visit a few times per year when I lived in Ohio.  Its next to Clifton Gorge and John Bryan State Park.  Antioch College did close down for a short period of time but did re-open.  



> On May 5, 2011, the chancellor of the Ohio Board of Regents approved the  request by Antioch College to offer Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of  Science degrees. Antioch reopened as an independent four-year college on  October 4, 2011 with 35 students. Every student admitted receives the  Horace Mann Fellowship, which covers the cost of tuition for four years.[SUP][57][/SUP] The college has yet to regain accreditation after its reopening, but is a member of the Great Lakes Colleges Association



If I am eligible for this I might move back to Ohio in the fall and finish my degree there.


----------



## moderan (Dec 23, 2012)

Good factoid. I knew that but I'd bet most folks didn't.
Coincidentally...after signing off from here, I went upstairs and watched "Requiem for a Heavyweight", a stellar Serling teleplay from the early days of tv.
Good luck with that. If I can get the portable converter, it's the U of A for me. I'll need one semester of brushup at the community college.


----------



## Cran (Dec 23, 2012)

contradictions turn up between writers - even between story groups by the same writer - it shouldn't matter as long as each imagined universe is self-consistent.


Leyline - mod interpreted correctly - no harm, no foul


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 23, 2012)

Cran said:


> contradictions turn up between writers - even between story groups by the same writer - it shouldn't matter as long as each imagined universe is self-consistent.
> 
> 
> Leyline - mod interpreted correctly - no harm, no foul



I wonder if sometimes, some writers have to go back and read their own books or stories in order to be consistent with their new works.  It just seems funny to me that someone can come up with such an in depth world in their mind and then later just forget it.


----------



## moderan (Dec 23, 2012)

Cran said:


> contradictions turn up between writers - even  between story groups by the same writer - it shouldn't matter as long as  each imagined universe is self-consistent.


Yes, and yes, and yes...cannot recommend that thought enough. Those that quote "Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" (actually a misquote-what Emerson said was "A foolish _consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds_"), have entirely missed the point.
In a story, in a novel, in a multistory arc...the main thing is the internal logical consistency. You MUST have that stable base from which to work or you'll lose your reader entirely.


Lewdog said:


> I wonder if sometimes, some writers have to go  back and read their own books or stories in order to be consistent with  their new works.  It just seems funny to me that someone can come up  with such an in depth world in their mind and then later just forget  it.


Absolutely. There are a million ways to do it. Index cards, post-its...I plotted out an early novel on huge sheets of butcher paper thumbtacked to my walls. There are going to be some inconsistencies...but one tries to minimize them. If your work is successful, you can do reissues and sell the stuff again.
Remember too that long series are usually plotted far in advance. I have projects planned for four years from now, and am continually making notes toward them, based on what's going on NOW.


----------



## Cran (Dec 23, 2012)

One of the most annoying things for me is coming up with a really good idea for the part I'm working on, then realising I have to go back and alter details at half a dozen points to keep the whole consistent. But then, I remember how I felt as a reader when I've tossed others' stories aside because of the avoidable self-contradictions.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 23, 2012)

_I hope I'm not hi-jacking here, but I thought this was pertinent to the orig. op by-line:

the Wizard of Oz_ was on many times last night. 16 y.o. jr. dislikes it. As we watched a scene in the middle, he began noticing some striking similarities between it and one of his favorites. I'll try to describe: 
_The protagonist and friend(s) are deep into their quest. They have secretly entered the mountainous territory of the Evil one, whose walled fortress is visible. Heavily armed warriors (minions) are marching outside the gates. Everything is in blacks and grays, and the warriors themselves, as they march in unison,  are quite menacing. The protags are scrambling up a bare, rocky, defile(?), attempting to get a better view without being seen. The trail is loose, treacherous and very steep. One of them almost falls. "How are we going to get in?' They (are) almost dicovered, but manage to pass further by donning the enemys' cloths and armour..._

Jr. was a little dismayed. All I could say was that perhaps Mr. Jackson had 'channeled' this scene unconciously from his youth, and that possibly, nobody on set had the 'nads' to point out how closely the scene resembled someone else's famous screenwork.

(I realize these are 'fantasy' but on a more related..)

I remember a similar feeling, when I discovered that much of the 'culture' in _Dune_ by Herbert, was borrowed. I thought it was like some cheap parlour trick pulled off by the Masons. "A-salaam walaikum" indeed.


----------



## moderan (Dec 23, 2012)

Herbert lived amid that culture for years. It was very possibly a labor of love for him to implant it into his novel. He did a much better job of describing the culture than, say, Lovecraft, who referenced it many times when describing the "mad Arab Abdul Alhazred". That firsthand knowledge (from his day job as a geologist), worked much better in terms of verisimilitude than HPL's inferences from The Arabian Nights.
Herbert pulled that trick again and again-he had a keen eye for the customs that define a culture. Take a look sometime at "Under Pressure" in which he predates Das Boot in depicting the claustrophobic atmosphere aboard a sub, or "The Green Brain", which shows some parts of the South American cultures had had also been placed amid.
The sequence you describe occurs in many things. I don't know that Peter Jackson was specifically recalling that. Seems pretty generic. I bet if you go back to Walpole and guys like that, you'd find similar sequences. It's in Tolkien too...when entering Mordor. The "Trojan horse" trope has some of that too.
And, yes, Cran, that's a self-editor's burden.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 23, 2012)

@ mod- I guess the thing for me was How did the idea of 'Mauddib' get to Arakkis? I'm okay with the idea but not the outright borrowing of terms. Same with Tolkien. Did he have to use 'Golem'. Did he think we just wouldn't notice (because the term was borrowed from a culture that  was mostly unknown to outsiders)?


----------



## Leyline (Dec 23, 2012)

Kevin said:


> Jr. was a little dismayed. All I could say was that perhaps Mr. Jackson had 'channeled' this scene unconciously from his youth, and that possibly, nobody on set had the 'nads' to point out how closely the scene resembled someone else's famous screenwork..



Haha. More than likely, no one bothered to point out a rather obvious homage: Jackson is a bone-deep cinephile and loves to quote his favorites. He's been doing it, joyfully, since _Bad Taste_.

In fact, I think the biggest influence on the Trilogy, cinematically, is George Miller's classic _The Road Warrior_ -- a film that no doubt set Jackson's 24 year old heart on fire. Watching it not long ago with my brother we both observed how close in tone and editing structure the Battle Of Helm's Deep and the Tanker Chase are. There's even a beautiful elven archer and Orcs!  After that we went back and re-watched, and found striking parallel after parallel.


----------



## Leyline (Dec 23, 2012)

Kevin said:


> @ mod- I guess the thing for me was How did the idea of 'Mauddib' get to Arakkis?


It was brought by the actual culture when they arrived during Diaspora? The Fremen _are_ the descendants of the culture.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 23, 2012)

Leyline said:


> It was brought by the actual culture when they arrived during Diaspora? The Fremen _are_ the descendants of the culture.


 I must've missed that in the text. I thought that their culture had developed seperately _because_ of their environment, not because some Arabs flew to, and picked out, a desert world.


----------



## Leyline (Dec 23, 2012)

Kevin said:


> I must've missed that in the text. I thought that their culture had developed seperately _because_ of their environment, not because some Arabs flew to, and picked out, a desert world.



Well, it doesn't have to be quite that simple. Much of the _Dune_ series is about cultural adaptation to environment. It could well have been that the elements of Arabic culture amidst those who settled on (or were transported to) Arrakis were simply far better equipped to survive and achieved cultural dominance. It _is_ in the text that every dweller of every planet is human descended. So to think it's actually the remnants of the Arabic culture is, to me, less far-fetched than to think Herbert said 'Hey, none of these geeks will know anything about Arabs. I'll just use elements of their culture and language and hope it slips by.'


----------



## moderan (Dec 23, 2012)

Right...plus there's the fact that, in Herbert's invented history, there had been at least one collapse of civilization prior to the events in the story. So there was a developing-independently-in-a-backwater sort of element to Arrakeen culture also.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 23, 2012)

And here i've been ranting for years.%$#&!  I still thought the rest was great. I recently finished the _Hyperion_ series and thought it was at least as good, though it was written twenty years later.


----------



## moderan (Dec 23, 2012)

Hyperion's good...almost great. I had trouble finishing the second book because of the tacked-on love angle. I didn't identify with the narrator very well...and Endymion made it worse. I'll never forget the Shrike though.


----------



## Leyline (Dec 23, 2012)

Kevin said:


> And here i've been ranting for years.%$#&!




Haha! Well, you gave me the excuse to ramble about SF. So thanks for that. 



> I still thought the rest was great. I recently finished the _Hyperion_ series and thought it was at least as good, though it was written twenty years later.



Yes, indeed. Most of Simmons is terrific. Check out his short fiction if you haven't.


----------



## moderan (Dec 23, 2012)

To my mind, The Lords of the Instrumentality is the only series that stands toe-to-toe with Dune. Jack Vance has made a valiant attempt with his Gaean Reach stuff, and Foster with Humanx...but Herbert (at least up to God Emperor of Dune) is the king.


----------



## moderan (Jan 9, 2013)

Having read through about half of the Humanx Commonwealth stories, I have to amend that. Foster's series is as good as Herbert's, far more consistent in terms of internal logic and style, and still ongoing. It's better-developed than anything this side of Known Space or Revelation Space and Foster's terse Golden Age style is readily accessible to anyone.


----------

