Another question. We've been giving fantasy a bit of short shrift this term. The recent poll showed that your interests in fantasy are pretty broad, across a variety of sub-genres (heroic, wizardry, epic, etc.) Do you think the influences on fantasy development are different from the influeces on sci fi development?
Check out this Wilson and Alroy site on fantasy genres, by the way.
Here's a really typical example of the pulp age "brass bra babe" and "bug eyed monster" (usually shorthanded BBB and BEM) cover:
. Sci fi or fantasy? Both? Maybe all we can tell is that then, like now, sex (and sexism) sells.
20 comments:
One thing that my group came up with during our group discussion was that for the science fiction of the past (i.e. Frankenstein), most of the context was focused in a present time, where as current day science fiction seems to be more focused on futuristic ideas. We decided that this change in science fiction time chronology is because of what technology was available at the time, and how people viewed the possibilities of improvements to the technology.
With the mention of the poll, I realized that I haven't been voting in the polls lately. I probably forget to do them because they are located on the bottom of the page.
As for the development of fantasy compared to the develpoment of science fiction... I think that Fantasy gets more attention and various directions of topics because of probably the influence of mythology, and the need to have a place to escape to when reality doesn't satisfy us as much.
The Pulp Age "brass bra babe" reminds me of Pris talking with Isidore in Androids about the science fiction books she had read that were written before the colonization on Mars, and she mentions how people used to think that Venus was a jungle planet with women in breast plates.
Christine, the good news is that I moved the poll way up this week, so hopefully everyone will easily see it.
Don't forget NOVA tomorrow night (Tues) everyone, although I'm disappointed that NOVA is mixing its metaphors. Alien does not equal hobbit. I know we'r doing science fiction and fantasy, but The Hobbit was not science fiction. What I think is cool, though, is that one again a writer (Tolkein) has been prescient, which leads me back to thinking about Raquel's idea that we are literally writing our future (what a Twilight Zone episode that could be).
Christine, your last comment makes me laugh! Definitely, science fiction writers are aware of their heritage. I bet Dick had a great laugh as he thought up that line.
What do you all think about the idea of science fiction being set it the past? (some current sci fi is). Does that cheapen it?
I have never read a sci-fi book that was set in the past. However, i don't think it would cheapen the genre as long as the plot was riveting and the characters believable. I think it would be a fresh take on the genre. I don't think I have ever heard of any sci-fi book like that, unless it was set in the past after the main character used his/her time machine to get to the past...hmmmm
I agree with Brittany that I've never read a science fiction book that's been set in the past. Pretty much the only ones that come even close to it is, as Brittany says, the character somehow managing to time travel back in time. Though sometimes it doesn't always have to be with a time machine. In the TV series Journeyman (now cancelled), the character had an ability that allows him to time travel (though sometimes not when he wants to). And on the TV series Life On Mars, the character time travels to 1973 after being hit by a car.
Steampunk is a type of scifi, isn't it? That's set in the victorian age (I think?), but with crazy technology.
And that movie "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" was set in the 1930's
I'm pretty sure historical science fiction is a valid subgenre of scifi.
Sci fi development is more of the science based theme obviously. but the theme of fantasy is based mostly on imagination and does not need to have any connections to our way of life.
And the past tense science fiction genre may exist but in a very small amount because the majority of science fiction has to be in the future unless the creator is planning to change the past.
Oh my gosh...read Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle. He's one of the granddaddies of cyberpunk, which makes the Baroque Cycle even more ironic (he just keeps blowing apart expectations for the genre). It's a trilogy, and it's set in the 1600s. You've got to be committed to get through it, though...it's looong.
Steampunk can fit into eaither sci fi or fantasy, James, depending on how the story is constructed. Great example, by the way :)
I would have to say that Watchmen is definitly historical scifi, as it was published in 1986 AND WAS SET IN 1985 WITH THE ATERNATE HISTORY OF OUR WINNING VIETNAM, NIXON BEING PRESIDENT FOR A THIRD TERM, AND SUPERHEROES BEING OUTLAWED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE TWO GOVERNMENT SUPERHEROES tHE cOMEDIAN AND dR. mANHATTEN.
I think it's funny people saying they've never heard of a scifi set in the past--everyone has: STAR WARS
"A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away"
exaactly
Anyways, scifi can be set in the past so long as the ideas/theories are fresh.
When we were talking about cyberpunk "Ghost in the Shell" (which inspired the matrix btw) totally came to mind.
part of what my group and myself thought was that earlier science ficition works focused more and medical marvels and less on the gadgets. Which makes sense for the fact that they didnt have electricity in the exent that we do, and the body was still a big mystery to the people of that time.
We also had the thought of in most science fiction works you kind find a satire. Almost always on social communities and and people.
I think fantasy has such a broad spectrum because its not held back by scientific limits like scifi is. Scifi is meant to push the technical limits, but some things just won't work out believably.
In fantasy anything goes and it doesn't have to make sense. That's why people love reading it because it doesn't have to be believable and sometimes we just want to escape the realistic.
Terran, great example with Star Wars! I hadn't thought of that. I always think of Star Wars as futuristic, but if it's another galaxy (maybe another universe), long ago and far away, anything goes.
Violet, that idea of fantasy not having the same constrictions as science fiction is insightful. The idea in fantasy is that it probably isn't possible anyway, so that really opens up the doors. And we see a lot of mythological motifs in fantasy; these old archetypes (quests, beings with special powers, the struggle between good and evil, etc.) help to drive the story forward.
By the way, for those who were busy talking when I was describing the NOVA program :) , I was saying that I thought it was very interesting how, not just in Flores but all over the world, we have these stories of the "little people." They are very much part of folklore, and they have found their way into fantasy: elves, dwarves, hobbits, goblins (although sometimes goblins in fantasy are huge), etc. The hominin discovered on Flores (homo floresiensis) dates most recently to 12,000 years ago, which means it would have been contemperaneous with homo sapiens -- in other words, those folklore stories and fantasy creatures may well have sprung from what Jung calls the "collective unconscious," or, to put it another way, ancient memories of what appear to be our co-evolutionary cousins.
That discovery really is proving some of our "science" to be "fiction" by the way. So far, the specimens do not appear to be pathological ones. Therefore, the discovery of a small brained, small statured hominin surrounded by complex stone tools (which only large brained hominins are "supposed to" be able to make)may well force scientists to abandon several of their theories about the origin of humans. Check out these Nature links on the story of homo floresiensis ...and yetis...
I guess you are right about Star Wars, but like Nancy, I too always viewed as a futuristic. In a way, it's like the past for that universe, but futuristic for us.
I like what Scully said, a long time ago means a long time ago, and new ideas are still new ideas, Anything can go in a galaxy far away.
Yeah i always viewed star wars as futuristic. Oh well *shrugs*
lol that's the ironic oxymoronic part of Star Wars just because it takes place in the "past" doesn't mean it isn't "futuristic" the ideas are still fresh. Like Kissa-hime said: "it's the past for that universe, but the future for ours."
I think that the science fiction genre has a tendency to see a possible future and many of the ideas that authors come up with come to pass in some way.
I believe that science fiction, whether it is set in the past or not does not necessarily matter. However it is a little confusing because the author is saying that the story could happen with the technology that we have today. The movie Sky Captain and The World of Tomorrow that James talked about is a movie that shows a completely different world with more technology than our present day world even though it is set in the past. So I think it is less of a picture of what the world could and more of a world that the author wanted the past to be like. Also I don't think that it takes away from the validity of it being a sci-fi, but it is a different view on where an author can take their stories.
fyi for tomorrow everybody, if you could split into three teams when I start my presentation that would be appreciated, also the categories will be dragons, robots, famous scifi tv quotes, (I'll explain that mor in class) authors by series, and scifi characters played by ..., in that category you must name the actor or actress who played the role, also in authors by series I'll give the series the author wrote and you have to identify the author and to get everyone involved you will rotate players so everyone has a chance to answer a question
Prepare for fun, Bryson
hey bryson the game was fun today, too bad we didnt have more time for it.
Post a Comment