The Evolution of Science Fiction discussion

A member posted a question in a different thread, that might be better discussed here.

Papaphilly wrote: "My question to all, do you generally like straight reads or the deeper reads when it comes to the genre? ..."

Your thoughts?

For me, both. My favorite authors are the ones that surprise me by doing novel things. But it is also nice to enjoy a simple strait read sometimes.

For me, i tend to read deeper books. There is nothing wrong with a page turner and I certainly can enjoy them very much, but i like the deeper thoughts. Ray Bradbury tought me chase the metaphor and I have never stopped.

I think that deep books can be entertaining and vice versa. I rarely read nowadays any book that is just a straight one, even if the definition might differ. So, I guess let's name straight books this group read during the last 3 years, say. And then discuss if they are truly shallow.

I'm with Ed. I enjoy a combination of both. The "deep" books in general touch me more, but I love a fun-read once in a while just as much. i.e. at the moment I'm reading the light-weight "Elantris" by Sanderson which I appreciate a lot after some great "deeper" books in the last weeks ("Tyll", "The Overstory", "Litte, Big"). I need both.

Oleksandr wrote: "...let's name straight books this group read during the last 3 years, say. And then discuss if they are truly shallow...."

Hmmm. I'm having trouble separating them into those two categories. I'd say "Star Maker" and "Female Man" are both "difficult reads". But many of the others we've read are more in the middle.

Ed wrote: ""Star Maker" and "Female Man" are both "difficult reads""

I agree, they both don't really "flow". However, as a final rule I check my rating for both and the first was 4 star and the second only 2 stars.

Gabi wrote: "I'm with Ed. I enjoy a combination of both. The "deep" books in general touch me more, but I love a fun-read once in a while just as much. i.e. at the moment I'm reading the light-weight "Elantris"..."

I agree. It's all in how the author achieves what he or she set out to achieve. Communication, all forms, is receiver-oriented. In other words, it matters less what you say than how your message is received. Never Let Me Go, the book whose discussion inspired this thread, is often cited as a love-it-or-hate-it type of book. Many readers simply don't receive the message the author tried to send, and I include myself in this group, while other readers consider it sublime. To me, this is not a failure on the part of the author nor is it a shortfall of a given reader, but it is, like the saying goes, a "failure to communicate."

Ed wrote: "Oleksandr wrote: "...let's name straight books this group read during the last 3 years, say. And then discuss if they are truly shallow...."

Hmmm. I'm having trouble separating them into those two..."

I'm also having a little difficulty in determining which books fall in which category. Would "1984" be a deep read because of it's political and social implications? Conversely would "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" be a straight read?

Something can be "deep" in terms of theme: like religion, philosophy, etc.

Or "deep" in terms of non-linear structure, unreliable narrator, reference to other literature, other literary tricks...

I like books that are deep enough to challenge me, except sometimes I'm too tired for that. (When I'm too tired for a challenge, I'll generally turn to stupid youtube videos rather than books, though.)

I prefer books that suck me in. I'd say that usually requires a character I can really get into & understand. After that, it just depends on my mood. Sometimes I just want a fun romp, but other times I really want something to think about. For instance, I kept stopping 1984 just to think about the points Orwell made. Sometimes just a sentence was worth pondering for minutes.

I’m more interested in ideas than characters, so I guess that makes me a “deep” book fan.

Jim wrote: "I'm also having a little difficulty in determining which books fall in which category. Would "1984" be a deep read because of it's political and social implications? Conversely would "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" be a straight read? ..."

it is not always so easy to call certain books. To me a deep read is a book that has two elements, the surface story and the underlying story. It does not have to be a hard read at all. 1984 is certainly a deep read with the allegory of Communist Russia. However, anything by Ray Bradbury is certainly a deep read and yet very easy to enjoy.

Try and think about it this way, deep reads tend to be very metaphorical. So Moby-Dick or, the Whale is perfect example. On the surface it is a story about a whale hunter. It is certainly easy to read only that, but the real story lies underneath with its comments about Victorian American society, homosexuality, and class.

Animal Farm is another classic example. Simple story, but extremely profoundly deep.

I can read just about any SF. It is even worse with TV and movies - you can't believe the trash I can watch.

Science fiction is my true love in literature. It is good for entertainment, action, and serious reading. It is has been like that since I read 2001: A Space Odyssey and Dune over and over again as a teenager.

But I am always delighted when a highly gifted writer decides to scatter sci-fi gems into our genre. I have said it again and again on here: We live in the greatest of times for our genre.

There is literally work being done for every type of reader out there. But I am a bit saddened when folks can't appreciate that.

Papaphilly wrote: "Moby-Dick or, the Whale is perfect example. On the surface it is a story about a whale hunter. It is certainly easy to read only that, but the real story lies underneath with its comments about [stuff] ..."

I agree with that. But it is also very original and unusual in structure, and some may find it hard to read for that reason. There will be a few chapters of story, then a discussion of how to tie knots, then a chapter of story, then a description of types of sails, then some more story, then a chapter about types of whales, then some more story, then a chapter about how to coil a rope, then some more story, then a chapter about how to butcher a whale, etc.... I liked those digressions as well as the story.

One of my favorite theatrical experiences was Laurie Anderson's show based on Moby Dick. She kept that same sort of structure. Tell a little story based on Moby Dick, then play the violin, then some more story, then she sits in a big chair, tell a little more story, then talk about the film version of Moby Dick, etc.

It's been a long time since I suffered through an unabridged version of "Moby Dick", but wasn't the chapter on butchering the whale almost 1/4 of the book? I remember it as being interminable, anyway. When I read an abridged version with the boys (even that was 30 years ago) that was severely cut & I thought the book was far better for it.

Moby-Dick or, the Whale is a tough read. when you read about the butchering, it is much more than just chopping up the whales. There is lots of social commentary. Same goes with the rope and sails etc... sometimes a banana is not a banana....

Not sure where else to put this post...

I just finished The Trial and Death of Socrates (Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo by Plato which was very enjoyable.

In the last part Socrates goes on a long description of how he believes the world and the cosmos and the underworld work. Pure sci-fi! I could not help wondering how many of the classic sci-fi authors were inspired by it. It certainly has a Jules Verne feel to it.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Interesting & a good review, Deborah. I've heard of the book, but never read a translation.

Jim wrote: "Interesting & a good review, Deborah. I've heard of the book, but never read a translation."

Well, it is probably not for everyone. I think the oration in the first three parts was amazing but the real reason I posted it here was the world building: Socrates vision of how the world is a fixed sphere, the islands in the sky/sea/ether and the people that live on them, his extremely detailed description of the whole cosmos. I am just in awe of how MUCH it reads like classic science fiction.

Either this was a major inspiration for a lot of the original writers of the genera OR people have independently invented a lot of the same concepts multiple times. Either way I thought it was very interesting.

Deborah, I highly recommend to you SF/fantasy The Just City by Jo Walton about an attempt to build Plato's utopia with real Socrates there.

Deborah, I've read a few things from Greek philosophers, but they're not for me. I glaze over, so I appreciate it when someone like you points out things of interest. Then I can look up a synopsis. Yours is as good as either of these.
https://www.historydisclosure.com/how...
https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy...

There are science fiction-like ideas in philosophy. Robert Nozicks’s Experience Machine, Bruce Ackerman’s thought experiment of travellers in a spaceship discussing what kind of society they will form when they arrive at their destination, a criticism of utilitarianism by William James which inspired Ursula Le Guin’s story “The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas”. There is philosophical discussion of possible worlds. Philosophy is a branch of fantastic literature.

Oleksandr wrote: "Deborah, I highly recommend to you SF/fantasy The Just City by Jo Walton about an attempt to build Plato's utopia with real Socrates there."

Hm. Now that sounds like a challenging book. Socrates' complete lack of interest in the female gender, combined with his strong intention to go to Hades ASAP.... that could be quite interesting.

Ronald wrote: "There are science fiction-like ideas in philosophy. Robert Nozicks’s Experience Machine, Bruce Ackerman’s thought experiment of travellers in a spaceship discussing what kind of society they will f..."

I have certainly heard about the influence philosophy can have on sc-fi. This was a really exciting experience for me though. In the past I have read 'classic' or 'philosophy' books having heard they were a source for beloved sci fi authors or books. This is the first time I stumbled across a major fantasy theme unexpectedly. It was a 'wow moment for me.

Jim wrote: "Deborah, I've read a few things from Greek philosophers, but they're not for me. I glaze over, so I appreciate it when someone like you points out things of interest. Then I can look up a synopsis...."

Thank you! I am happy when my reviews are of interest or of use to people.
It seems to me that the history discolsure article took the words more than a little out of context. Socrates/Plato did NOT get the astronomy right. Far from it. His version of spheres was more like an onion, with each layer, from the inside out having a society living on it, thinking they were the outer one but in fact with their 'sky' being the floor of the next layer. I feel as though he thought the inner most layers were Hades and the outermost layers those of the gods. But I am not entirely sure. His description of all the rivers and waterways confused me.

Jim wrote: "Deborah, I've read a few things from Greek philosophers, but they're not for me. I glaze over, so I appreciate it when someone like you points out things of interest. Then I can look up a synopsis...."

Phaedo gets the structure much more consistent with the original text, though I would add that Socrates thought the Earth was fixed and unmoving. The Dyson spheres of Ringworld by Larry Niven shared a bit of the structure (I must re-read those ones!) And I think Iain M Banks had a similar world at some stage?

Anyhow, that one was a pretty good summary.