Comments on: Filter vs Datedness in old science fiction. http://www.lukeburrage.com/blog/archives/352 A place for Luke to share all his stuff. Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:42:05 +0000 hourly 1 By: amylynn1022 http://www.lukeburrage.com/blog/archives/352/comment-page-1#comment-2881 amylynn1022 Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:07:23 +0000 http://www.lukeburrage.com/blog/?p=352#comment-2881 I have an interesting time with the "filter vs. datedness" problem as well. My general observation is that I am more forgiving of dated technology than dated attitudes. I remember reading _Cities in Flight_ and quickly passing over the part where they loaded data into massive computers using magnetic tapes as "well, yeah, it was written fifty years ago." I dealt with the stupid science by just treating as science fantasy, much the way I read Verne or Wells or Burroughs. However, I have not been able to finish either _Stranger In A Strange Land_ or _Stand on Zanzibar_ because the attitudes are so dated--they seem to assume that era of free sex would still be alive and well circa 2000. And frankly, I just found Stranger to be self-indulgent. I am probably going to give Zanzibar another chance though, because while Brunner is off on some of his social assumptions, he does seem to have made a lot of correct guesses regarding what he didn't know to call the Internet. I only just discovered SFBRP and I am listening to them in order--I am about halfway through. I have read _Last and First Men_, but I have not heard Luke's podcast yet. It is a dense book and I concede that its primary value is probably historical rather than literary. (CS Lewis was reacting to it when he wrote his Space Trilogy.) I don't think that it was ever trying to be hard science fiction. I kind of like dense, philosophical literature--provided I don't get the sense that the author is just yanking my chain or being dense for the sake of being dense. But I can't take a steady diet of philosophical lit--science fiction or otherwise. I agree with Stapleton more than Lewis in terms of theology and philosophy but I had a lot more fun reading the Space Trilogy. Lewis's chauvinism aside, the Space Trilogy has held up much better than L&FM. I have an interesting time with the “filter vs. datedness” problem as well. My general observation is that I am more forgiving of dated technology than dated attitudes. I remember reading _Cities in Flight_ and quickly passing over the part where they loaded data into massive computers using magnetic tapes as “well, yeah, it was written fifty years ago.” I dealt with the stupid science by just treating as science fantasy, much the way I read Verne or Wells or Burroughs. However, I have not been able to finish either _Stranger In A Strange Land_ or _Stand on Zanzibar_ because the attitudes are so dated–they seem to assume that era of free sex would still be alive and well circa 2000. And frankly, I just found Stranger to be self-indulgent. I am probably going to give Zanzibar another chance though, because while Brunner is off on some of his social assumptions, he does seem to have made a lot of correct guesses regarding what he didn’t know to call the Internet.

I only just discovered SFBRP and I am listening to them in order–I am about halfway through. I have read _Last and First Men_, but I have not heard Luke’s podcast yet. It is a dense book and I concede that its primary value is probably historical rather than literary. (CS Lewis was reacting to it when he wrote his Space Trilogy.) I don’t think that it was ever trying to be hard science fiction. I kind of like dense, philosophical literature–provided I don’t get the sense that the author is just yanking my chain or being dense for the sake of being dense. But I can’t take a steady diet of philosophical lit–science fiction or otherwise. I agree with Stapleton more than Lewis in terms of theology and philosophy but I had a lot more fun reading the Space Trilogy. Lewis’s chauvinism aside, the Space Trilogy has held up much better than L&FM.

]]> By: Sarah http://www.lukeburrage.com/blog/archives/352/comment-page-1#comment-2420 Sarah Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:18:31 +0000 http://www.lukeburrage.com/blog/?p=352#comment-2420 Interesting! Especially because I love older books -- not usually SF, but John Collier and E.T.A. Hoffman, Kafka and Saki and L. Frank Baum. A lot of times because the fantastical elements seem so unusual to me. But they must not've been very unusual at the time. Actually am stopping by because I saw your latest #notworldcon Tweet, and haven't actually set up a Twitter for myself yet. American Gods is sort of Neil's magnum opus, which means it's weighty and ponderous and a little bit self-indulgent; hard to appreciate unless you already trust the author and enjoy his writing. For an intro to Gaiman, would suggest "Anansi Boys", "Neverwhere" or "Good Omens" (which he co-wrote with Terry Pratchett.) Interesting! Especially because I love older books — not usually SF, but John Collier and E.T.A. Hoffman, Kafka and Saki and L. Frank Baum. A lot of times because the fantastical elements seem so unusual to me. But they must not’ve been very unusual at the time.

Actually am stopping by because I saw your latest #notworldcon Tweet, and haven’t actually set up a Twitter for myself yet. American Gods is sort of Neil’s magnum opus, which means it’s weighty and ponderous and a little bit self-indulgent; hard to appreciate unless you already trust the author and enjoy his writing.

For an intro to Gaiman, would suggest “Anansi Boys”, “Neverwhere” or “Good Omens” (which he co-wrote with Terry Pratchett.)

]]>