Slashdot Mirror
A.E. Van Vogt, 1912-2000
Snark Boojum writes "Well, I'm sorry to bring this one in, but it seems A.E.VanVogt died last Wednesday." One of the great science fiction writers of the 1940s, his famous
Slan
inspired a lot of the period's pulp SF. I'm going to try to get to the library to check out The World of Null-A before it gets
slashdotted. Meanwhile, here's a good
site
or
two.
I remember reading somewhere that the question with A.E. Van Vogt's novels was not how good they are, but how they can be so fascinating, intense, and ultimately, influential, despite all their shortcomings. I think that sums the situation up. AEVV was mentally more daring and ready to try with his mind than anyone else around, and that's including the Beat Generation people. That put him in contact with ideas and things that have turned out to be less than hoped (e.g General Semantics), or even downright nefarious (e.g Dianetics). But that's the price to pay for being open-minded and ready to experiment. We all owe Van Vogt a collective thanks for the mass of intense ideas that he acquainted us with. And, what the hell, Korzybski still makes an interesting read.
Ok try the following
Stephen Baxter
David Brin
David Mace (who can name them books)
Iain M Banks (Ok not a tech.)
David Drake
Joe Haldeman
So the old masters go and new ones come along.
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
I would say that it's a little more realistic in terms of what humanity will actually do.
Well, I have to take issue with this. There was a lot of crap back then, but there was a lot of good stuff that is applicable right now. For example, there is the wonderfully satirical "Midas Plague" (Pohl and Kornbluth) in which people are forced to consume in order to keep the economy going. (Or their "Space Merchants", which similarly talks about consumerism. Bester's "Demolished Man" stands up as well right now as it ever did. Much of Heinlein's stuff (especially the early stuff) is as relevent now as it ever was. (His early stuff wasn't "death rays". It was "What would happen if right-wing wackos turned the US into a theocracy" ("If this goes on..."). There was Simak, talking about the social effects of the flight from the city, to the suburbs. Hell, just read "Slan", for god's sakes!
"Reflective spandex" is an artifact of the film industry, not written SF. Try reading some of the old masters. I suspect you'll be surprised.
The cake is a pie
Declining? There's lots of good SF out there still, though Sturgeon's law (sigh...lost him too) still applies.
There's Stephanson, of course (though his last wasn't SF) as well as the SF B's, Bear, Brin and Benford. (Just read Benford's "Cosm", BTW. recommended if you are looking for hard SF.)
Of the old masters, Jack Vance, Frederick Pohl and Poul Anderson are still active and writing. (And up to full caliber.) (Though I suppose Vance is more fantasy usually.)
Then there's Haldeman, and Varley, and Kim Stanley Robinson. About half of Cherryh's stuff is SF. (She's currently doing fantasy, but she recently completed the "Foreigner" series, which was SF.)
There's also Vernor Vinge.
There's plenty of stuff. You just have to learn to sort through the chaff.
The cake is a pie
Also, for some reason, fantasy has been exploding while SF has been declining. I'm not a huge fantasy fan, so this has been really depressing for me.
Is there that much more of a demand for fantasy books rather than good ol' SF?
Maybe it's because its OK to be unoriginal in fantasy (the themes are generally timeless), but how many books about a "ring around the sun" can be done? Perhaps were just running out of stories to tell.
Well this is probably stating the obvious, but I think it's largly because fantasy is easier to write. "Science" has expanded greatly in the years since the so called Golden Age of SF. It's gotten much harder to be a well rounded generalist. A fantasy writer pretty much only has to be self-consistent, mess up a fact in SF and you'll get slaughtered by your readers.
I'm not putting down fantasy writers by any means, I read both, and for me the hard thing is not finding SF but finding readable SF. Publishers demand much higher page counts than they did in the past, probably a consequence of Tolkein's success. But while cool ideas can carry a book thru 2 or sometimes 3 hundred pages, get much over that and I need some character to keep my interest. Sadly most SF writers cant hold a candle to the Fantasy writers when it comes to characterization. There are exceptions of course, but as a rule...
There's something to what you say about fantasy being unoriginal too but perhaps not in the way you mean. (Most) Fantasy writers dont deliberatly reuse plots and such out of laziness, familiarity and certian themes/moods are an inherent quality of what their readers are looking for. Fantasy is a "comfort" literature to a large degree, which is not to say it cant tackle issues, but a reader expects to be left with a certain type of feeling from the experience. SF doesn't promise that.
SF will never die, it may get harder and harder to write, but unless they kill of everyone who loves a good mind-stretch it'll never go away.
Also, for some reason, fantasy has been exploding while SF has been declining. I'm not a huge fantasy fan, so this has been really depressing for me.
Is there that much more of a demand for fantasy books rather than good ol' SF?
Maybe it's because its OK to be unoriginal in fantasy (the themes are generally timeless), but how many books about a "ring around the sun" can be done? Perhaps were just running out of stories to tell.
--
Yes they got the science right (more or less) but they completely missed the cultural change. They placed a fifties man in a future environment, not a future person. Their future was the future of the white western male.
This not said to be judging. I'm a product of my time, just like they were a product of theirs.
Ever tried Stephen Baxter? There you have a modern sf-writer who gets the science right and avoids the Gibson-ish bleak alleys.
Rest in peace Van Vogt. There will be followers boldly going where... wait a moment, I'm becoming pathetic....
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Personally, I've never heard of Van Gogt, but I'm sure he was a good writer if he had a following.
People were saying how modern writers just aren't the same. That's tough, I think it depends on what you like in writing. Today a lot of people who know only modern literature will think that the older writing is wierd.
Personally, I think the idea of sci-fi has evolved as long as the media has evolved. People say older writing is better because they seemed to have a better grasp of good story and plot, character development. Today, good stories are rated on the pumping adrenaline kind of gripping action. I love good stories, and I'm always impressed when I find a book that accomplishes that kind of immersion and depth, and I've noticed that it seems to be the more real life type novels that do that. I think the sci-fi of old dealt more with expanding humanity, the importance of still recognizing one's self while growing in knowledge. Today, all that matters is that we get the technology, and try to learn as much as possible. But we lose ourselves in the process. Our Reach is exceeding our grasp. We have technologies today that people never would have tohught of long ago. But are we wise enough to handle that responsibility? That's where the good sci-fi writing comes in, IMHO.
A lawsuit by A.E. van Vogt, claiming plagiarism of his 1939 story "Discord in Scarlet" (which he had incorporated in the 1950 novel "Voyage of the Space Beagle"), was settled out of court.
(The suit was with regard to the movie Alien)
"Discord in Scarlet" was a great chapter in Voyage of the Space Beagle, which is my favorite A.E. Van Vogt book. If you've ever read it, you'll understand why he sued! "Discord in Scarlet" is about finding an alien body floating deep in interstellar space, far from anything, but still alive. The alien is a millions-of-years-old survivor of a hyper-advanced civilization, and it is at least as vicious as the alien in "Alien", without all the acid drooling and with the cool ability to walk through walls. It reproduces by grabbing an egg out of it's own chest and passing it into the body of a host, in this case a crew member of the ship that found it. The ensuing battle between the alien and the crew of the ship is a lot more interesting, and clever, I think, than the plot of "Alien", as much as that movie rocked.
A.E. Van Vogt was certainly before my time, but I have fond memories of reading his stories out of my father's collection of Science Fiction, including lots of old back issues of Analog magazine. "Voyage of the Space Beagle" is my favorite Van Vogt book, but Slan is pretty good too, and the Weapon Shops stories are a lot of fun. I'd recommend Van Vogt to nerds everywhere, for a big ol' dose of prime vintage Sci-Fi
-------------------- the list is long. dirac angestung gesept
It was sad to hear this-- I remember sitting up at night in middleschool and high school reading the old sci-fi classics.
We're losing all the old great masters of science fiction. I guess this is inevitable, but modern science fiction just isn't the same.
I think modern writers can learn something from the Great Old Ones. ;) In the Campbell era, there were genuinely new ideas, examination of social issues without being preachy or satirical, great writing and (oddly absent from many modern writers) a great knowledge of science. You can find pieces of that puzzle everywhere now, but the specialization leaves us with few authors who try to be great in everything.
So while we're mourning, and catching up our anthology collections, let's think about where we want science fiction to be going.