Skip to main content

Science Fiction - Glyn Morgan (Ed.) ***

There are two ways to write a non-fiction book on science fiction - for the fans, or for those who don't currently read SF. Being as big science fiction fan I’m not sure I’m the ideal audience for this book, which is very much aimed at persuading those who think they don’t like SF that it’s actually acceptably cool. It's technically an accompaniment to an exhibition at London's Science Museum, though I believe it takes a different and more sophisticated tack.

We get a bit of introduction, including an essay on 'What is science fiction for?' - this only briefly touches on the usual spiel that it's not about predicting the future, and rather sadly never says it's for enjoyment, or getting insights into people and their response to changes in their world and worldview - in fact, it's quite difficult to elicit anything from this rather obscure piece of writing.

Editor Glyn Morgan then divides the SF writing-scape into five areas: people and machines, travelling the cosmos, communication and language, aliens and alienation and somewhat vaguely, anxieties and hopes, which proves to be primarily about nuclear war and climate change. This means there's not much feel of a contiguous structure to the book, which has a multiplicity of authors. Each section darts around in time, trying to get across the message the author of that segment feels is important, rather than the perhaps more enlightening approach of systematically telling us the history of science fiction and how it has developed.

There are certainly some serious gaps here. Although we get an image from Doctor Who (the pictures here, in typical museum style, don't really illustrate the text but give us sometimes relevant, sometimes confusing, imagery that often wastes about three quarters of the space available for text), there is pretty much nothing about time travel, or about the Brandon Sanderson-style military SF that follows in the tradition of Heinlein and was so successfully countered by Joe Haldeman. There is a real problem with the approach, which is driven by the authors' pet topics, rather than what real world SF has been about.

Equally, some big names in science fiction history either get a one line mention or nothing at all - names such as John Wyndham, Ray Bradbury, Fred Pohl, Cyril Kornbluth, Brian Aldiss, Iain M. Banks or Alastair Reynolds. Even Adam Roberts, who should be more to the taste of these authors, only gets a reference to one novel. Instead, I think the person who gets most coverage is 'Sun Ra', apparently an experimental musician and hardly a significant contributor to the SF canon. This reflects a relentless 'right on' attitude, which results, for example, in far too much weight being given to twenty-first century authors.

I presume the way the book seems aimed at a certain segment of potential readership is why it never explores the literary elite's habitual disdain for science fiction. They don't mention that a certain author (who amusingly they label as an SF writer) claimed she didn't write science fiction, as it was limited to 'talking squids from outer space.' Although the contributors rightly celebrate Ursula K. LeGuin, they don't point out that LeGuin commented that the aforementioned author's rejection of SF was 'designed to protect her novels from being relegated to a genre still shunned by hidebound readers, reviewers and prize-awarders.'

Overall then, a nicely produced book, with some interesting material - but distinctly flawed in the balance of content, and in not mentioning the disdain of many in the literary world.

Hardback:   

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

God: the Science, the Evidence - Michel-Yves Bolloré and Olivier Bonnassies ***

This is, to say the least, an oddity, but a fascinating one. A translation of a French bestseller, it aims to put forward an examination of the scientific evidence for the existence of a deity… and various other things, as this is a very oddly structured book (more on that in a moment). In The God Delusion , Richard Dawkins suggested that we should treat the existence of God as a scientific claim, which is exactly what the authors do reasonably well in the main part of the book. They argue that three pieces of scientific evidence in particular are supportive of the existence of a (generic) creator of the universe. These are that the universe had a beginning, the fine tuning of natural constants and the unlikeliness of life.  To support their evidence, Bolloré and Bonnassies give a reasonable introduction to thermodynamics and cosmology. They suggest that the expected heat death of the universe implies a beginning (for good thermodynamic reasons), and rightly give the impression tha...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Infinite Alphabet - Cesar Hidalgo ****

Although taking a very new approach, this book by a physicist working in economics made me nostalgic for the business books of the 1980s. More on why in a moment, but Cesar Hidalgo sets out to explain how it is knowledge - how it is developed, how it is managed and forgotten - that makes the difference between success and failure. When I worked for a corporate in the 1980s I was very taken with Tom Peters' business books such of In Search of Excellence (with Robert Waterman), which described what made it possible for some companies to thrive and become huge while others failed. (It's interesting to look back to see a balance amongst the companies Peters thought were excellent, with successes such as Walmart and Intel, and failures such as Wang and Kodak.) In a similar way, Hidalgo uses case studies of successes and failures for both businesses and countries in making effective use of knowledge to drive economic success. When I read a Tom Peters book I was inspired and fired up...
Post a Comment
Read more

The War on Science - Lawrence Krauss (Ed.) ****

At first glance this might appear to be yet another book on how to deal with climate change deniers and the like, such as How to Talk to a Science Denier.   It is, however, a much more significant book because it addresses the way that universities, government and pressure groups have attempted to undermine the scientific process. Conceptually I would give it five stars, but it's quite heavy going because it's a collection of around 18 essays by different academics, with many going over the same ground, so there is a lot of repetition. Even so, it's an important book. There are a few well-known names here - editor Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker - but also a range of scientists (with a few philosophers) explaining how science is being damaged in academia by unscientific ideas. Many of the issues apply to other disciplines as well, but this is specifically about the impact on science, and particularly important there because of the damage it has been doing...
Post a Comment
Read more