Classic vs modern science fiction

Hi everyone. Today I’m going to be talking about a few of my thoughts on some of the differences between classic and modern science fiction. I'd love to get your thoughts in the comments.
#classicscifi #modernscifi #goldenageofscifi
____________________________________________________________________

MY STUFF
____________________________________________________________________

vvv MORE vvv

MY SCI-FI NOVELS

DELPHINE DESCENDS -
After her family is killed and her homeworld occupied, young Kathreen Martin is sent to the distant world of Furoris for re-education. She will live the rest of her life as a serf – to be bought and sold as a commodity of the Imperial Network.

When her only chance of escape is ruined, a chance mistaken identity offers her a new life as the orphaned daughter of a First-Citizen Senator and heiress to a vast fortune.

She vows to claw her way into power to sit among the worlds’ elite. Then, with her own hands, she will reap bloody vengeance on them all.

But to beat them, she must play their game. And she must play it better than them all.

BLACK MILK -
Prometheus has the chance to bring his wife back from the dead, but doing so will mean the destruction of Earth.

Spanning time, planets and dimensions, Black Milk draws to a climactic point in a post-apocalyptic future, where humanity, stranded with no planet to call home, fights to survive against a post-human digital entity that pursues them through the depths of space.

Five lives separated by aeons are inextricably linked by Prometheus’s actions:

Ystil.3 is an AI unit sent back in time from the distant future to investigate Prometheus’s discovery...

The mysterious Lydia has devoted her life to finding a planet that the last remaining humans can call home…

Tom Jones (he’s a HUGE fan!) is an AI trapped inside a digital subspace, lost and desperate to find his way back to his beloved in real-time…
Dr Norma Stanwyck is a neuroscientist from 24th Century Earth whose personal choices ripple throughout time...

Prometheus must learn the necessity of death or the entire universe will be swallowed by his grief.
____________________________________________________________________
GOODREADS -
____________________________________________________________________

[Sci-FiOdyssey]

Contents

Science fiction | a brief history 01:50
Writing 03:59
Characters 06:02
Publishing 10:14
Concepts 13:14
Classic sci-fi getting it wrong 17:22
Influences 19:22

[HalNordmann]

I miss the optimism of old sci-fi. It seems like 90% of modern sci-fi is all dystopias in some way. I miss stuff like Clarke's Sands of Mars or 2001: A Space Odyssey, works that say "Look what we can one day achieve". Inspiration is far more important than cautionary tales, and right now with the climate problems and all that, it seems like humanity can use every bit of hope it can get.

[mike-williams]

With Wells' War of the Worlds, saying it is dated in its description of Mars is missing the point that the alien invasion is an allegory for imperialism on Earth. Wells was reacting to the destruction of the Tasmanian aborigines by colonisers dealing out death with guns and other relatively advanced technology.

[theresahemminger]

My introduction to sci/fi was in the early 50’s. One of the most striking things about the genre at that time was its complete miss on computers. There was no way the writers could imagine the transistor or microchips, let alone personal computers and iPhones. The computers were imagined to be bigger, even huge products of the current technology having thousands of tubes and communicating with punched tapes. Only heads of government and a few scientists were allowed access. The total integration of computers into the culture would have seemed too far-fetched to even consider. I do love living in the future.

[CountBrass]

If readers are unable to read older literature and cope with the "dated language" they are missing out on science fiction's greatest works.

[annbrookens]

I've been reading science fiction for over 50 years and first read Asimov's YA books in 6th grade...we're talking mid 60s. In my teens, I read EVERYTHING; not much discrimination: classic, contemporary, good, mediocre, you name it. I eventually distilled my preference to soft science, character-driven SF. I read and liked all the Foundation series and much of Asimov but I prefer Anne McCaffrey.
ANYWAY. With classic, especially original SF, you just have to fall into the world and go with it. If it is engaging enough, that "suspension of disbelief" is easy. It's when the prose doesn't hook you that you just can't get into it. And that will vary from person to person. As to whether there is anything new, of course there is! Scientists are making new discoveries all the time! Imaginations are constantly expanding! On the other hand, humans are essentially the same no matter what point in time you are examining. Three thousand years ago or tomorrow, no matter what language or culture, people still love, hate, fear, are curious...

[DavidTSmith-jnbs]

I heard the comment "Science Fiction began in ancient times." I'd be very curious to find out how many people actually read Lucien of Samosata's "A True Story" or Voltaire's "Micromegas" and do they believe that Swift's "Gulliver's Travels" or Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" should be considered Science Fiction. I appreciated your introduction of these concepts and I look forward to viewing more installments.

[flowaroundtherock]

Top 5 Reasons to Subscribe to Book Odyssey
1. Content - insightful and thought provoking.
2. Production Value - atmospheric music and wonderful imagery.
3. Personality - genuine and authentic.
4. Voice - calming and relaxing.
5. Sci-Fi - Sci-Fi is awesome.

[davidplowman]

Classical writers were often dreamers who tried to imagine beyond what their knowledge of contemporary science thought was possible. Their’s was a form of fantasy but with technology rather then magic. I believe this was especially true during the golden age with writers such as Verne and Wells. As writers moved into the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s their ideas became more grounded but still carried the fantastical element.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the 80’s being the dividing line. Sci-fi quickly started to become what it is today, namely based on current knowledge, theory, and technology and extrapolating what that might produce. You cannot write of Lovecraftian elder gods, or aliens from Mars, or deep sea monsters that dwarf any modern submarine and have it labeled hard sci-fi because we know there’s no such thing.

Knowledge has trapped modern writers to the point that they cannot imagine past a world that is not just a bigger version of our own. They cannot dream beyond the veil and imagine the unimaginable.

Or at least that’s my theory and as a theory I find it interesting. Does it have merit?

[majorbrew]

I think for me it comes down to 3 areas that help me define where a story lies on the classic vs modern line.
1. The plot points Hard vs Soft sciences.
2. Upbeat optimistic feel vs the pessimistic or dark vibe.
3. Length short vs long.

My preference would be a Hard sci, optimistic, shorter novel but these days it's length, keep it short, that is the biggest deal for me especially when trying something new.

[stevebruns]

The shift towards character-centric fiction happened around the 80's/90's--I did a survey of point of view in award-winning SF, and it showed a hard shift from "third person omniscient" (narrator as dispassionate observer) to the more character-centric "first person" and "third person limited" (reader experiences everything from one character's point of view.)

I'd take issue with the idea that character-centric fiction is inherently "better." It's the *taste* of modern readers to prefer character over plot, setting, themes, ideas, etc. But that doesn't make it inherently better. It's like saying realistic art is better, or chocolate and mint don't belong together, or the Designated Hitter ruins baseball.

It has its drawbacks, too. As you pointed out, it's harder to present ideas while keeping a tight page count. (After three seasons of Netflix's Ozark, I still don't understand how their money-laundering works.)

And, it also limits what you can do narratively and dramatically. Hitchcock's "the ticking time bomb under the table that the characters are oblivious to" springs to mind--impossible to do in 1st/3rd Limited.

[literatesasquatch]

One of the reasons Dune could get away with such a large word count is that it was not published by a traditional science fiction publishing house. The original publisher of Dune was Chilton!

[ivancruz]

You should rank scifi universes. You make high quality content keep it up!

[bencowles]

I use a blend of hard and soft science in my books. by adding the hard science in to the plot it becomes an additional character. It also lends a sense of believability and reality to the setting. sci-fi can be just as realistic and still keep pushing strong character development and stir an emotional response to form a connection to the reader.

[StephenRansom]

These histories all leave out the early 20th century. Doc EE Smith wrote from 1919 to the mid 1950s. If you are not familiar, I highly recommend. Being a lover of Sci-fi I could not believe how unprepared I was for the Incredible leeps of imagination this author took. The team up of fantastic creatures that could never be filmed ( an apparent no-no for writers who want to do live action screen writing ). Further, The Lensmen Series introduced so many tropes that it could easily be called a Grandfather of 20th Century TV/FILM Sci-Fi. A Galactic police force, faster than light travel, Shields and Trackers, Space Armor, Alien Gods, Planetary scale Spaceships, Hyperspace, Hyper-spacial tubes or Stargates and Mountain Military Bases. Then there is the LENS... it is the Force and the Jedi combined. Why has this man been forgotten?

[TearDownGenesis]

I find that perhaps the focus on "Hard" Science fiction has departed now that science has a better and more detailed understanding. Many "what ifs" get so technical it would be hard to an average reader to follow along. I see a lot more soft or "science fantasy" novels now.

[KarloVukosic]

love the content you do on this channel, great video as usual!

[martinstent]

The “What if?” question I think we should ask is “What if the author had actually learned to write!”. Looking at some authors: Isaac Asimov wrote like a teenage schoolboy! Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote wonderful prose! OK, he got the science wrong, but what wonderful adventures they had. If you want character development you can’t get much better than Le Guin’s Hanish cycle. The best authors either have the best writing skills or the best ideas. And the truly great authors have both!

[kmmwriter]

Born in 1963, so, I didn't read 'Dune' when it came out, but read 'Neuromancer' the day it was published. I liked your video as an overview to the topic. Here's what I would add: for Classic SF, there was an understood "scientifically-proficient" character archetype. Typically male, often an engineer or scientist, and usually a protagonist, he was universal, saving time and space for the concept and story. Focus was more on idea and plot. When one reads, say, Arthur C. Clarke as a modern reader, if one doesn't grok this, one goes "What? No characterization?" Whereas when one in the 70s read 'Rendezvous with Rama', she plugged in details that were unique to a character but used the archetype as an overall guide. This persisted for years -- for instance, Michael Crichton used a "scientifically-proficient" character in most of his books (for example, 'Jurrasic Park'). It saved on space and utilized more of the reader's imagination; there was little distinctive about a particular SF protagonist past surface features and maybe a gung ho (vs. reserved) approach. In this respect, modern SF is more interesting, but honestly, sometimes modern entities are so caught up in whether people like them, or whether they're straight, or whether their mother or father loved them, they hardly seem capable of using the scientific method. Note how "clean" and efficient Mr. Spock is on TOS. All his dialogue, unless in an episode like 'Amok Time', was to elucidate the scientific subplot. And for Classic SF, the scientific subplot was the reason for the story. I would also make a point about short fiction, for during the Classic Age of SF, all the newest ideas and high concepts generally were tested first in short form. Even the best novels were serialized. Nerdy people such as me in the 70s were mostly interested in innovative concepts, mind-bending technological breakthroughs, etc. Largely, it was the ideas that drew us in. Even Paul in 'Dune' is rather a bland person, if you look at him closely, and Herbert admits he was trying to pen a "dark antihero" anyway who would work destruction in the galaxy. Note how in the beginning of the book, Paul has his ecological filmbooks about the ecology of Arrakis, becoming, early on, the technically-proficient character (albeit a young one). This made him simple to conceive. What we remembered about our reading of 'Dune' was not the characters per se but the sand worms, the folding of space, genetic memory, prescience, & spice-induced drug trips (I exaggerate only a little). Lady Jessica was sexy and smart, but her scant interior life was shown to be as mother and devoted wife first, and only as a side-note, I think, as a witch of an order of priestesses with mystical powers, which was by far more interesting to explore in detail but hard to compress into the short space allotted to her in the big story; but it would be the main thrust of her character if she were written into a modern SF book. Plus we would get a whole lot more about her relationship with her father!

[ziggurat-builder]

I never judge my old Classic SF novels harshly, I’m certain that give it 60 years, audiences will be disgusted and appalled at the liberal Western world of the early 21st century. It’s just how it is.