My American Lit. instructor just asked me to teach a mini SF seminar to the class next month, as I appear to be the reigning expert on the subject ( ha ha, if only!)
I'm super excited about it. My goal is to introduce the SF genre to the students (as most of them have never read SF before) and to help them understand the characteristics, themes, and all other unique aspects of the SF genre.
I'm supposed to assign the class a couple of short SF stories to read. I think I want the class to read one hard SF story and one New Wave story, just so they can be exposed to both.
For the New Wave story I'm pretty much set on "Repent, Harlequin!" said the Ticktock Man by Harlan Ellison, because it's a great example of the looser post-hard-SF style.
What short story should I use as an example of old school hard SF?? Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Also, if anybody can give me any pointers as to what I should say to the class about "Repent, Harlequin" or about SF in general, I would LOVE it.
I'm reading SO many books right now, trying to gather as much information as I can. Everything's a bit mumbly jumbly in my head right now and I was hoping you all could help me crystalize my game plan a little.
posted
I'm not sure if it would fit "old school hard SF", but it's old atleast Thinking of "Flowers for Algernon", the short story on this case (it was later expanded into a novel too)... Love the story myself, and I always try to get people who hate SF to read it, to get them to understand that good SF is NOT a bunch of people running around with laser guns shooting aliens.
other suggestion would be to go to the REAL old school hard SF and take something from Asimovs old works, one of the Foundation short stories should work
Depends on what you want to accomplish; if you want to get non-believers to get hooked on SF go with Flowers for Algernon, if you just want to show them the best SF has to offer, then definetly Asimov... Or maybe combine the 2 and choose something like "Breedst there a man?" (think it was called that atleast) by Asimov, also one of my favorite stories... always seem to like best the SF that doesn't really depend on the "science fiction" to be a good story...
and of course, you could consider Ender's Game, someone will mention it sooner or later anyway considering where you are asking for advice Posts: 10 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Larry Niven has a good number of hard sf shorts. Neutron Star, the title story in the collection is good. Or "Inconstant Moon", about when the sun either goes nova or has massive flares one night, and makes for a crazy southern Califonia night, with a blazing white moon.
For older stuff, lots of Heinlein's early shorts are classics.
I'll try to think of some others.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, I am partial to Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut. It's a short read, a little heavy handed but kinda good for an 'old school' feel.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hands down, I know what I'd go with. "The Cold Equations" by Tom Godwin is a controversial classic of Hard SF, and you could find a TON of stuff about it all over the net.
If you're looking for a better-known author, I'd go with Asimov--I'd actually go with one of the robot stories from I, Robot, but there are others that would work. "The Life and Times of Multivac." "The Last Question." Things like that.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, "The Cold Equations" is a great story. I remember reading it as a kid and being aghast at the growing sense of doom in it.
Also, it's very sf-y: the main characters are scientists, rocket pilots, etc. Except for the girl...but that's typical sf too.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ckaosblue: ...because it's a great example of the looser post-hard-SF style.
Also, if anybody can give me any pointers as to what I should say to the class about ... about SF in general...
- Ckaos
On the first point, er, hard SF is NOT dead. Arthur C. Clarke is still alive and writing. Niven still writes it. Greg Bear writes it. Ben Bova writes it. Robert J. Sawyer writes it. I write it. Even some guy named Orson Scott Card sometimes writes it.
On the second point, remember that to be science fiction, the story must fall apart by taking away the science part. Emphasise the story. The stories are about people. Ask the students why Star Wars is not science fiction and let them come up with the answer.
Discuss the limitless variety of the genre. For examples, you might try contrasting Larry Niven's "Convergent Series" which involves a demon, but I consider it SF because the plot falls apart without mathematics, with any of Fred Saberhagen's Berserker stories, which pivot on survival against an alien doomsday weapon. Compare that with any of Asimov's robot stories, hinging on the various clever plays on his three laws of robotics. And compare that with David Gerrold's "The Man Who Folded Himself," a masterful toying with implications of making changes during time travel.
Such diverse and masterful stories, and yet none is considered "literature" because it isn't "serious writing."
Yeah, there's nothing at all serious about Niven's "Lucifer's Hammer."
posted
I only read Ender's Game once, and that was when it was first published, but my recollection is that Ender's Game tended more toward hard science fiction than it did science fantasy. Granted, it's not "Rondezvous with Rama," but neither is it "Star Trek."
What will you do if OSC considers your statement a dare?
Posts: 90 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Larry Niven coined the term bolognium for anything that violates how we percieve the real world to work. One piece of bolognium is almost required, two is difficult to make believable, three takes a grand master to pull off, and four moves you from science fiction into science fantasy.
There is no rule that states hard SF cannot be character driven. The wikipedia entry you hyperlinked is absolutely clear about that, and in my opinion, most of the best fiction is character driven. I found Rendezvous with Rama to be rather dull despite the marvelous Rama environment because I didn't really care about the characters. On the other hand, many people could read Lucifer's Hammer and not consider it science fiction.
My intention wasn't to classify the science fiction works of Mr. Card. My point was only that there is no post-hard SF style because there is no post hard-SF era. Both statements imply hard SF is dead. It is far from dead.
Posts: 90 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for defining science fantasy, and bolognium.
quote:Originally posted by Hiroshima: There is no rule that states hard SF cannot be character driven.
My intention wasn't to classify the science fiction works of Mr. Card. My point was only that there is no post-hard SF style because there is no post hard-SF era. Both statements imply hard SF is dead. It is far from dead.
Classifying sf is largely opinion.
I agree that hard sf is not dead. It has matured from it's roots in Golden Age sf and now has much better plots and characters.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What will you do if OSC considers your statement a dare?
Read the result.
Touche. It would be an interesting read if he were to try to do something along the lines of Asimov or Clarke.
Posts: 90 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
