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

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more