Science Fiction that Lasts

[roseembolism]

Here's an interesting tidbit: James Nicoll on his blog pointed out that Fun fact: Andre Norton's first novel is equidistant between us and the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. On mentioning that, a friend pointed out that the interesting thing is her novels are still readable, in a way that many writers from the 1950s and 60s aren't. There's a nuge number of SF novels that have aged very badly; either the novels are built on a scientific fact that's later proven wrong (Niven's "The Coldest Place") or posits a short-term future that hasn't worked out (Harrison's "Make Room!"), and a few, like Norton, Schmitz and the like that survive. So what are some of the characteristics of novels that last the ages?

Here's a couple thoughts:

1. Don't sweat the science: sad to say for a genre with "science" in its name, but if you build your novel around some neat new cutting edge scientific theory or technology, you have a really good chance of it being completely wrong. Norton's science is at the level of "and then they pushed a button; likewise is the space opera science of authors such as Schmitz and Farmer.

2. Make your background concepts universal, not contemporary: Norton deals a lot with backgrounds and character problems that have resonated throughout history: war refugees making a place for themselves, the fall of empires, exploration of new lands. Those writers who wrote about the Soviet-U.S. war continuing into the 21st century, or the massive overpopulation of the 1990s, turned out to not be such universal concepts.

I'm kind of developing a couple other rules, but this is what I have so far. Any thoughts?

Comments

[heron61.livejournal.com]

One of the other issues is that until the last 15-20 years (and even now, characters are far from universal in hard SF), hard SF was mostly notable for not actually having characters, and if the science is disproven, then you have a story with bad science and no characters, which is pretty much by definition not worth reading.

Norton avoided current events & almost completely avoided modern day (for her) settings. She also went for classic plots rather than tricks designed to showcase the latest scientific or technical discovery, and her characterization was considerably better (and considerably more important to the story) than many other SF authors of her day.

It's also interesting to consider another SF author whose work still holds up - Clifford Simak. While some of his novels like The Werewolf Principle are a bit similar to Norton's work, in contrast to Norton much of his work was set in his present or near future - Way Station and All Flesh is Grass being two examples that are still exceedingly worth reading. Already, developments like cellphones and the internet have clearly marked his books as works of an earlier era, but they are also still exceedingly worth reading. Once again, we have classic plots, a focus on characters, and an avoidance of current events beyond more general concerns like the threat of global war (which as I think about it, if a major element of almost all of his novels with a contemporary setting), as well as more general concerns like defeating tyranny.

[mithriltabby]

On not sweating the science, John Scalzi points out:

... even movies with bad science can still inspire the science-minded. Aside from James Kirk, the main characters in Star Trek are a science officer, a linguist, a mathematical wiz kid, a doctor, an engineer and a starship pilot who's good at fencing. Which is to say they're all geeks. If you think real world geeks don't look at that, say I want to live there, and then work to make it happen, you've not been paying attention to all the technical progress of the last few decades.

Even if the science is wrong, the science fiction can still be great fun. Just look at Richard Garfinkel’s Celestial Matters, which is hard sf where the science is Aristotelian.