Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Science Fiction > Written > Re: Oldest SF n...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 27 of 158 Topic 21372 of 23005
Post > Topic >>

Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?

by "Dan Goodman" <dsgood@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > May 13, 2008 at 04:24 AM

Steven L. wrote:

> ilya2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > While all SF from 30's, 40's and 50's is dated in obvious ways, it
> > is 1970's SF I find most jarringly dated. One example is John
> > Varley's "Titan". Granted, one dated trope is technological --
> > 7-person space****p arriving at Saturn apparently without a single
> > unmanned probe preceding, -- but what strikes me most is the very
> > "1970's feel" to the book. Free love and widespread drugs. Everyone
> > on board the ****p sleeps with everyone else (in series, not at
> > once) except for two clones who are in an exclusive *****uous
> > lesbian relation****p (that's a mouthful!) -- and *NASA is described
> > as prudish*! Apparently because NASA prefers the above facts not to
> > be known to public. And if you think that streches the belief,
> > cocaine is not only legal, but is allowed on board. I doubt any
> > publisher today would touch such a book with a ten-foot pole for
> > that reason alone.
> > 
> > Greg Benford's "Into the Ocean of Night" was also written in 1970's,
> > takes place in 1999, and to me is equally jarring. Chronic shortages
> > of oil and clean water, famines in India, three-corner marriages
> > taken for granted, etc.
> > 
> > Does anyone else feel the same way?
> 
> Sure.
> SF, by its very nature, tends to be based on *current trends* in
> science and technology and their implications for social trends.  An
> author looks at where society appears to be headed, and then he sort
> of extrapolates that way into the future.

_Tends_ to be, yes -- but not all of it is.  Some writers pick up on
trends which others don't notice (which, of course, may be as illusory
as the Martian canals.)  Some are contrarians.  Some work off their
hopes and/or fears.

 
> For example, in the 1960's, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were in a
> furious "manned space race."  Therefore, many SF stories of that era
> assumed that pace would continue so that by the 21st century, we and
> the Soviets would be well on the way toward manned exploration and
> colonization of the solar system. Which turned out to be wrong.
> 
> Much, maybe most, SF has this theme, "If Present Trends Continue...."
> 
> Unfortunately, present trends do NOT always continue.  Often they
> reverse, sometimes in a sudden crash:  The U.S.-U.S.S.R. "space race"
> did not continue--it ended.  The Cold War and arms race didn't
> continue till World War III broke out--the U.S.S.R. just collapsed
> without firing a shot.  Computers didn't get bigger and bigger,
> requiring liquid helium coolant as some SF writers had assumed;
> instead the silicon chip and microprocessor were invented, and
> computers suddenly got a whole lot smaller and cheaper.  Population
> doesn't continue to exponentiate till we all starve like in "Soylent
> Green"; once a society reaches a certain level of affluence, its
> birth rate can decline even below replacement levels.  And so on.
> 
> SF tends not to deal with sudden reversals or paradigm ****fts like
> this.   First, they're unpredictable.  Second, writing stories about
> a major quantum jump doesn't serve the author's purpose:  During the
> Cold War, the point of writing stories about a future global
> thermonuclear war was to sound an antiwar theme.  What would have
> been the point of writing a story in which the Soviet Union just
> collapses peacefully?  It would have been dismissed as unrealistic
> and pointless--during the Cold War, we couldn't just sit around and
> hope for the Soviet Union to collapse, any more than we could have
> just hoped for a meteorite to hit the Kremlin from outer space.
> 
> SF is notoriously poor at predicting social revolutions.  And yet
> over periods of a century, it's the revolutions, not the slow and
> steady accretion along linear trends, that make history.



-- 
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers." 
Tennessee Williams,  A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://clerkfuturist.wordpress.com
mirror 1:  http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
mirror 2: http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
 




 158 Posts in Topic:
Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
ilya2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-12 13:48:47 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
David Cowie <me@[EMAIL  2008-05-12 20:59:08 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Gene <gene@[EMAIL PROT  2008-05-12 21:44:51 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Mike Schilling&quo  2008-05-12 16:52:06 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Nobody in particula  2008-05-12 17:15:43 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Eric D. Berge <eric _   2008-05-12 17:37:21 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Mike Schilling"  2008-05-12 21:44:05 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Mike Schilling&quo  2008-05-12 18:17:14 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Dan Goodman" &  2008-05-13 00:29:57 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Matthias Warkus <Warku  2008-05-13 19:33:27 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Dan Goodman" &  2008-05-14 05:25:35 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Mike Dworetsky"  2008-05-14 07:38:56 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Dan Goodman" &  2008-05-14 20:26:26 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Howard Brazee <howard@  2008-05-14 20:19:56 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
mvp@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (M  2008-05-16 06:04:29 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Mike Stone <mwstone@[E  2008-05-19 00:44:06 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
David Johnston <david@  2008-05-20 02:31:55 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Steven L." <  2008-05-12 22:27:57 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Gene <gene@[EMAIL PROT  2008-05-13 05:30:07 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Tapio Erola <txr@[EMAI  2008-05-13 13:25:32 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Christopher Adams&q  2008-05-16 07:04:01 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Mike stone" &l  2008-05-12 22:24:36 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Dan Tilque" &l  2008-05-13 09:29:51 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
pedrodias@[EMAIL PROTECTE  2008-05-12 15:56:29 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Dan Goodman" &  2008-05-13 00:28:13 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Steven L." <  2008-05-12 22:15:42 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Dan Goodman" &  2008-05-13 04:24:50 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l  2008-05-13 03:18:23 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Wolfspawn <cr608@[EMAI  2008-05-13 14:12:02 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"John" <john  2008-05-13 17:23:35 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
lal_truckee <lal_truck  2008-05-12 20:54:15 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Dan Goodman" &  2008-05-13 04:28:04 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
nebusj-@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-13 04:13:18 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
jdnicoll@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-13 14:57:41 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
ilya2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-13 05:49:50 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
John Schilling <schill  2008-05-13 19:39:35 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
ilya2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-13 06:11:02 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
wdstarr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-13 20:41:26 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
John Schilling <schill  2008-05-14 11:24:57 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Matthias Warkus <Warku  2008-05-15 00:38:20 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Michael S. Schiffer  2008-05-15 00:27:07 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Dan Goodman" &  2008-05-15 05:40:24 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
John Schilling <schill  2008-05-17 16:24:03 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
tmcd@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (  2008-05-22 19:19:57 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Mike stone" &l  2008-05-23 07:16:10 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Michael S. Schiffer  2008-05-23 14:43:50 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
mvp@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (M  2008-05-29 04:39:43 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Mike Schilling"  2008-05-28 23:27:54 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Mike stone" &l  2008-05-29 09:52:00 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
dbd@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (D  2008-05-29 01:50:42 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Mike Stone <mwstone@[E  2008-05-13 12:20:02 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Dan Tilque" &l  2008-05-14 06:34:28 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Mike stone" &l  2008-05-14 08:01:58 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
urban@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-14 14:55:31 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
ted@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (T  2008-05-14 16:01:20 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Mike stone" &l  2008-05-14 21:40:47 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Gene <gene@[EMAIL PROT  2008-05-14 21:01:52 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Mike stone" &l  2008-05-15 07:30:34 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Howard Brazee <howard@  2008-05-14 20:22:47 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
dbd@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (D  2008-05-14 18:58:05 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Dan Goodman" &  2008-05-15 05:38:19 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
mimus <tinmimus99@[EMA  2008-05-15 15:58:34 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Howard Brazee <howard@  2008-05-15 17:32:43 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Mike stone" &l  2008-05-14 21:59:56 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
John Schilling <schill  2008-05-14 11:24:57 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Matthias Warkus <Warku  2008-05-14 12:51:12 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
netcat <netcat@[EMAIL   2008-05-14 15:00:25 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
crystal@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-14 16:52:03 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
JXStern <JXSternChange  2008-05-14 01:37:01 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Dan Goodman" &  2008-05-14 05:26:19 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
JXStern <JXSternChange  2008-05-14 18:24:46 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"artyw2@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-05-14 06:09:55 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"John" <john  2008-05-15 08:59:28 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
DougL <lampert.doug@[E  2008-05-14 09:55:10 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Gene <gene@[EMAIL PROT  2008-05-14 18:27:25 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Mike stone" &l  2008-05-14 22:16:42 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
William Hyde <wthyde19  2008-05-14 13:53:23 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Mike Stone <mwstone@[E  2008-05-14 14:02:12 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"artyw2@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-05-14 17:12:23 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
ilya2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-15 05:27:08 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Bill Snyder <bsnyder@[  2008-05-15 08:08:09 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
jdnicoll@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-15 14:30:40 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
DougL <lampert.doug@[E  2008-05-15 07:38:16 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
wdstarr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-15 21:59:36 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Graham Woodland <gray@  2008-05-17 16:17:22 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
tmcd@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (  2008-05-22 18:58:02 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Kurt Busiek <kurt@[EMA  2008-05-22 12:07:44 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"John" <john  2008-05-23 12:59:41 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
pmfan57 <jwragusa@[EMA  2008-05-15 08:19:02 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Mike Stone <mwstone@[E  2008-05-15 23:36:47 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Matthias Warkus <Warku  2008-05-16 10:10:25 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l  2008-05-23 16:26:41 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Gene <gene@[EMAIL PROT  2008-05-23 21:08:55 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
ted@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (T  2008-05-23 21:11:36 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Kurt Busiek <kurt@[EMA  2008-05-23 14:28:45 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
cgoodin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-26 20:17:24 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Steve Coltrin <spcoltr  2008-05-27 07:56:49 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Mike Stone <mwstone@[E  2008-05-16 00:12:07 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Howard Brazee <howard@  2008-05-16 06:01:58 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
David Johnston <david@  2008-05-16 15:44:14 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Christopher Adams&q  2008-05-19 01:58:22 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Howard Brazee <howard@  2008-05-19 19:32:36 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Mike Stone <mwstone@[E  2008-05-16 01:15:05 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Mike Stone <mwstone@[E  2008-05-16 01:37:49 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
William Hyde <wthyde19  2008-05-16 10:10:28 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
DougL <lampert.doug@[E  2008-05-22 18:39:12 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Gene <gene@[EMAIL PROT  2008-05-23 02:00:57 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"rick++" <ri  2008-05-23 10:37:59 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
throopw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-23 18:55:02 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Quadibloc <jsavard@[EM  2008-05-29 06:05:34 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Thomas Lindgren <*****  2008-06-01 15:02:46 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Quadibloc <jsavard@[EM  2008-05-29 06:06:17 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Mike stone" &l  2008-05-31 07:30:03 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Mike Schilling"  2008-05-30 23:43:52 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Matthias Warkus <Warku  2008-06-01 21:07:16 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Peter Huebner <no.one@  2008-06-02 11:07:21 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Quadibloc <jsavard@[EM  2008-05-29 06:11:04 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Quadibloc <jsavard@[EM  2008-05-29 06:12:24 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
ted@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (T  2008-05-29 14:33:22 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
acwheele@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-29 21:38:52 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
jdnicoll@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-30 03:43:56 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Michael S. Schiffer  2008-05-30 13:49:44 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
mchary@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-30 18:44:46 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
wdstarr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-30 23:16:21 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
goldfarb@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-31 10:03:57 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Mike Schilling"  2008-05-31 07:59:40 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
jdnicoll@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-31 15:30:41 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Michael S. Schiffer  2008-05-31 15:42:39 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Quadibloc <jsavard@[EM  2008-05-29 06:22:20 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
P. Taine <user@[EMAIL   2008-05-29 13:59:34 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
douglas winston <dougl  2008-05-29 11:24:31 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Mike Schilling&quo  2008-05-29 09:10:40 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Andrew Plotkin <erkyra  2008-05-29 16:31:36 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
chrisb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-29 15:10:51 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
nance@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-30 13:08:29 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Howard Brazee <howard@  2008-05-29 17:12:56 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
acwheele@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-29 21:38:52 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Peter Huebner <no.one@  2008-06-02 11:16:02 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Christopher Adams&q  2008-06-02 02:34:51 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Christopher Adams&q  2008-06-02 02:39:34 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Quadibloc <jsavard@[EM  2008-05-29 06:25:06 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l  2008-05-29 11:43:05 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Dan Goodman" &  2008-05-29 18:02:50 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Mike stone" &l  2008-05-31 07:38:19 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
wdstarr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-29 18:43:35 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Taki Kogoma <quirk@[EM  2008-05-29 18:51:09 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Quadibloc <jsavard@[EM  2008-05-29 06:33:35 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
William Hyde <wthyde19  2008-05-29 09:30:54 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
jdnicoll@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-29 16:50:07 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Aaron Denney <wnoise@[  2008-05-29 17:53:08 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
throopw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-29 21:21:23 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Gene <gene@[EMAIL PROT  2008-05-29 22:33:01 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Robert A. Woodward&  2008-05-29 22:24:23 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"Paul Ian Harman&quo  2008-05-30 18:23:31 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
Kurt Busiek <kurt@[EMA  2008-05-29 22:05:06 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
William Hyde <wthyde19  2008-05-30 12:00:24 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
William Hyde <wthyde19  2008-05-31 13:10:32 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
"ppint. at pplay&quo  2008-06-01 22:55:33 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Wed Dec 3 1:48:13 CST 2008.