Comments on: Does science fiction have a social function?

By: Paul Raven

Paul Raven — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:12:19 +0000

And reducing the genre to Gernsback’s very limited definition is an insult of equal measure, not to mention staggeringly myopic. I think we just have to agree that we read science fiction for very different reasons.

By: psikeyhackr

psikeyhackr — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 03:08:41 +0000

{{{ The establishment of science fiction as a field separate from other types of fiction dates from April 1926, when American writer and publisher Hugo Gernsback published the initial issue of Amazing Stories, the first English-language science-fiction magazine. Gernsback believed that fiction could be a medium for disseminating scientific information and encouraging young would-be scientists, so he wrote and published stories with this purpose in mind. An early example of his writing, Ralph 124C41+, was serialized in his popular science magazine Modern Electrics in 1911. When Gernsback brought out Amazing Stories in 1926, he named the new genre scientifiction, explaining, ‘By ‘scientifiction’ … I mean the Jules Verne, H. G. Wells, and Edgar Allan Poe type of story—a charming romance intermingled with scientific fact and prophetic vision.’ Gernsback changed the name to science fiction in 1929, when he founded the magazine Science Wonder Stories. }}}
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563123_2/Science_Fiction.html

Giving a Hugo Award for a Harry Potter book was definitely an insult to its namesake.

By: psikeyhackr

psikeyhackr — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:57:07 +0000

{{{ but there has to be a balance; if I want to learn economics, I go read an economics textbook. }}}

You think the textbooks have balance? LOL

The science in the sci-fi books was better in that it put things in perspective. The story painted the BIG PICTURE and showed where the science and technology fit within that picture. The science books did not do that. They went into details about a particular subject far more than the SF book did but it was like knowing how to make a screw and not knowing where it fit into the machine.

The same seems to go for economics though. You can search all of the economics books you want to find how much consumers lose on depreciation of automobiles. GOOD LUCK! That is why I decided to read Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix after I saw the movie. It had a teacher deliberately not teaching for political reasons and I wanted to see if more details were in the book.

My point is that some good SF is better than school and the text books.

For an SF story with economics try:

The Cosmic Computer by H. Beam Piper

But it is integral to the story it is not a lecture on technology and economics.
.

By: Paul Raven

Paul Raven — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:39:51 +0000

The issue is that you can’t make people read what they don’t want to read; and the fact of the matter is that didactic ‘hard’ sf turns all but a select core group of readers right off. I don’t mind some science in with my serving of story, but there has to be a balance; if I want to learn economics, I go read an economics textbook.

By: psikeyhackr

psikeyhackr — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:57:25 +0000

Are the readers and viewers and especially critics failing science fiction? But there can be other factors contributing to that failure. Is the current gloominess the result of mankind failing to see the future for the last 30 years? We focus on the fun stuff and ignore that 700 year old accounting. LOL

Maybe our educational system contains too many Stalinistic personalities.

“Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don’t let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?” — Joseph Stalin

No teacher I had ever suggested reading sci-fi but I learned more because of it than from any teacher. SF can do more than provide an optimistic perspective but it can’t do it if it doesn’t contain REAL SCIENCE. So the people who promote the “just entertainment” perspective are sabotaging the sci-fi and that is what has been lost since the 60’s. There were stories about economics and planned obsolescence then. A misuse of technology by society that could have long term adverse effects. But here we are in a world of almost 7 billion people and our economists say nothing about the planned obsolescence of cars. Galbraith talked about it 10 years before the Moon landing.

Can’t we all do accounting on our computers now? Oh that’s right. The clowns running the schools never suggested we all know adccounting. Global depreciation may be as important as global climate change.

Why read something with no message if there is entertaining stuff with messages. But how do you know before you read the book? If all the critics talk about is entertainment value then how do you filter out the mere candy?