An aside on beginnings:
Frankenstein was Gothic fiction and initiated science fiction;
Superman was science fiction and initiated superheroes;
The Time Machine initiated technological time travel and coined the terms, "time machine," "time traveller" and "time travelling" - Twain had written "transposition of epochs";
Heinlein's Future History - see above.
Poul Anderson stands in all of these traditions. Wells-influenced time travel and Heinleinian future histories, obviously. The Sensitive Man, far future psychotechnicians, mutant time travellers and Joel Weatherfield are all super-powered. The Frankenstein question, "Is it right to create human beings?," is re-asked and re-addressed in Anderson's ultimate sf novel, Genesis.
Back to the Big (?) Three. Asimov projected two future sciences, robotics and psychohistory. Clarke pioneered space travel in theory and fiction. His works read like a direct continuation from the then present. This was what we expected would happen in space in the next few years and decades - but it didn't. I read early Clarke a long time ago but he has not stayed with me.
My Big Four are Wells, Heinlein, Blish and Anderson.
4 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I want to comment, but I'm somewhat pressed for time, so just a few hasty remarks.
I agree Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN was a forerunner of science fiction. And I might go so far back as to include Jonathan Swift's GULLIVER'S TRAVELS in that category.
Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, and Olaf Stapledon can rightly be considered the founders of modern SF. And I would give an approving mention of how ERB wrote really good "scientifantasies," a precursor to the stories collected by Asimov in BEFORE THE GOLDEN AGE.
I was never really a fan of Sir Arthur Clarke, but I did read 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and I enjoyed reading two collections of his short stories, such as TALES FROM THE WHITE HART.
Yes, RAH wrote his best stories before STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND began his pathetic decline as a writer. I would urge readers to read not only his Future History stories but also his juveniles and stand alone works like DOUBLE STAR.
Ad astra! Sean
From SM Stirling:
I think Asimov shouldn't be in the three. He was -important- sure enough, but as much for his later non-fiction.
Anderson should be in there!
I think the "Big Three" were classified as such on sales figures alone.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: I agree! And it irks me how I still see so many of Asimov's books in bookstores, but none of Anderson's works.
Paul: Almost certainly!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment