Discussion on SF Course (started in other thread)

[FraserRonald]

In discussing a science fiction literature course I took at university, I started to get really off topic, so I thought I would start a new thread. The original thread can be found here.

But, this seemed more suited to this forum. Anyone with similar experiences, please join in.

The books we studied (that I remember) included War of the Worlds, the Left Hand of Darkness, A Walk in Woman's Country, Neuromancer and Childhood's End.

No Dune?

Actually, I was quite surprised by that, especially since the Prof clearly stated he had chosen 'genre-altering' works of fiction. I forgot to mention (though my memory has been jogged) Canticle for Liebowitz (sp?)--which I actually never read due to time constraints--and the Sheep Look Up, which surprised me as in interviews, John Brunner always came off--to me--as such a jerk and I was very ready to dislike the book, but instead liked it immensely. Just proved to me once again, not to confuse the creator's private life with the creation (though I still can't listen to Wagner anymore).

There were a couple of other feminist SF titles that we studied that left 0 impression on me so I don't really recall their titles. They weren't bad because they were feminist, but--IIRC--they allowed their agenda to overwhelm their narrative and they completely lost me.

Hate when that happens. It's not exactly limited to feminist themes either... The over-emphasis on environmental issues in Dances with Wolves really made that movie difficult to sit through, and I'm an environmentalist.

It's sad when that happens. It seems to me, as a reader and a writer, that an author's values and beliefs will usually transmit, unconsciously, to the page. It's when there is an agenda that is the problem. I find Frankenstein very heavy-handed, and so I don't really enjoy reading it. By contrast, the Island of Doctor Moreau hides the message in a gripping yarn. There are different levels at which it can be read, and H.G. Wells was smart enough not to bash the reader over the head with it. He trusted that those interested would find the message. Those not interested would get it anyway, without really knowing! I find Joseph Conrad is the master at writing good books that can be read simply for excitement/adventure but that have amazing depth to them.

It would have been a more interesting course if the Prof hadn't been an obstinate prick. "No, that's not what it means, it means . . ." is NOT the way to teach literary interpretation.

Sheesh... There's a difference between "making interpretations" and "learning my interpretations". Now I'm half-glad Dune wasn't in the above list (especially since I feel like I'm getting a new interpretation of several themes every time I read it).

I also took a course in critical reading--or something like that--with the same Prof. It was just as bad. I learned much more from Dr. Eric McCormack, a published author, who started out his 1st year British Literature course with something to the tune of:

"Everything after writing a book is bull$#1t. Reviewing is bull$#1t. Criticism is bull$#1t. And that's what I want out of you: bull$#1t. But good bull$#1t."

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Sorry... You likely noticed I was wrapped up in a few threads, and I assumed that you started the thread in General...

Considering how much I gripe about people that ass/u/me, I'll kick myself in the arse three times after posting.

Actually, I was quite surprised by that, especially since the Prof clearly stated he had chosen 'genre-altering' works of fiction. I forgot to mention (though my memory has been jogged) Canticle for Liebowitz (sp?)--which I actually never read due to time constraints--and the Sheep Look Up, which surprised me as in interviews, John Brunner always came off--to me--as such a jerk and I was very ready to dislike the book, but instead liked it immensely. Just proved to me once again, not to confuse the creator's private life with the creation (though I still can't listen to Wagner anymore).

Hmmm... I'll have to add those to my "to read" list. (I've got a minor back-log that I hope to catch up on when my two oldest kids start school next year).

I think a few "eye openers" for me have been the aforementioned Dune, both in scope of the "setting" as well as the "unspoken" conflict between science (Genetic Engineering via the Ixians), selective breeding (beginning with the Bene Gesseret sisterhood and later taken up by Leto II), natural evolution, and the will of God (although, arguably, natural evolution and the will of God were one and the same, although "mortal choice" remained a wild card).

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and I, Robot* both were stirring. While the former was admittedly more "pulpy", both visited themes of the conscious desires of the "tools" we create in our own image (both physical and mental). The which, 2001: A Space Odyssy fits the same mold, with HAL having a limited conscious but one that must deal with the conflict caused by opposing priorities entered into its programming.

Also, in the other thread, I mentioned The Forever War. That, too me, was a rather drastic eye-opener as well. For the most part, most of the sci-fi I'd read prior to (and actually even since then) have been either you Star Wars/Star Trek shoot-em-ups or your epic political/opera scenarios akin to Dune. The Forever War, on the other hand, came across as something truly unique; it was like Platoon or Full Metal Jacket, being incredibly gritty and harsh (or, as the person who recommended it to me said), "it's the first sci-fi tale that is honest about what war is like."

* Anyone seen the trailer for the upcoming I, Robot release? It doesn't show much of anything, and I'm not sure if the "rock'n'roll" element of the musical presentation is that truly fitting, but I'm certainly hoping it'll be a kewl movie.

It's sad when that happens. It seems to me, as a reader and a writer, that an author's values and beliefs will usually transmit, unconsciously, to the page. It's when there is an agenda that is the problem. I find Frankenstein very heavy-handed, and so I don't really enjoy reading it. By contrast, the Island of Doctor Moreau hides the message in a gripping yarn. There are different levels at which it can be read, and H.G. Wells was smart enough not to bash the reader over the head with it. He trusted that those interested would find the message. Those not interested would get it anyway, without really knowing! I find Joseph Conrad is the master at writing good books that can be read simply for excitement/adventure but that have amazing depth to them.

Ah, yes... Wells was indeed a master of sci-fi. To my knowledge, the only book he wrote that was too "far fetched" to ever be feasible was Journey to the Center of the Earth. On the other hand, atomic warfare, space travel, genetic engineering, submersible sea vessels, and a host of other ideas he presented have all proven to be possible (many of them a part of our daily lives!), while others (such as Time Travel) may not seem feasible yet, but really have not been proven or disproven as possibilities.

On the other hand, the "don't play God" message of Frankenstein is, indeed, a bit heavy-handed in its delivery, although, in all honesty, half of the good doctor's problems were about his actions after creating his monster. At least the screenplay for the last movie version (coupled with Robert DiNero's most excellent performance as the monster) was able to temper that to a degree. In either version, though, you do feel a bit of sympathy for the creature until he starts killing the Doctor's friends and family, after which point he's as damned as his creator.

I also took a course in critical reading--or something like that--with the same Prof. It was just as bad. I learned much more from Dr. Eric McCormack, a published author, who started out his 1st year British Literature course with something to the tune of:

"Everything after writing a book is bull$#1t. Reviewing is bull$#1t. Criticism is bull$#1t. And that's what I want out of you: bull$#1t. But good bull$#1t."

Okay... I love this line of reasoning. Spare me the Google search and list a few titles from him, if you would be so kind. A man with this approach to writing and teaching is worth a chance on my bookshelf.

Now I'm going to go and find out if I can really get my leg to bend the way I promised earlier in this post...

 

[johnsemlak]

It's sad when that happens. It seems to me, as a reader and a writer, that an author's values and beliefs will usually transmit, unconsciously, to the page. It's when there is an agenda that is the problem. I find Frankenstein very heavy-handed, and so I don't really enjoy reading it. By contrast, the Island of Doctor Moreau hides the message in a gripping yarn. There are different levels at which it can be read, and H.G. Wells was smart enough not to bash the reader over the head with it. He trusted that those interested would find the message. Those not interested would get it anyway, without really knowing! I find Joseph Conrad is the master at writing good books that can be read simply for excitement/adventure but that have amazing depth to them.

I can't remember who, but a French author once said he didn't like Uncle Tom's Cabin for criticizing of slavery, by saying "Just depict slavery, that's enough."

 

[FraserRonald]

Sorry... You likely noticed I was wrapped up in a few threads, and I assumed that you started the thread in General...

Considering how much I gripe about people that ass/u/me, I'll kick myself in the arse three times after posting.

No worries. I don't think anyone would have shed a tear had the thread died a silent death. However, since it hasn't:

Hmmm... I'll have to add those to my "to read" list. (I've got a minor back-log that I hope to catch up on when my two oldest kids start school next year).

Well, I've only read the Sheep Look Up, though a Canticle for Liebowitz is supposed to be something special, I can't vouch for that.

I think a few "eye openers" for me have been the aforementioned Dune, both in scope of the "setting" as well as the "unspoken" conflict between science (Genetic Engineering via the Ixians), selective breeding (beginning with the Bene Gesseret sisterhood and later taken up by Leto II), natural evolution, and the will of God (although, arguably, natural evolution and the will of God were one and the same, although "mortal choice" remained a wild card).

And I have to admit to no small surprise when Dune was not included on the course curriculum, given the avowed purpose of the course. And there were certainly a couple of books that I would have removed from the reading list that wouldn't have been missed. Specifically, the books I can't remember!

Intentionally or not, Mr. Herbert really wove a lot into Dune. It's dense with ideas and drama, though very exciting and full of drama. A real work of art.

As I am at lunch at work, I'm going to have to cut this short. More later when I get home.

Take care all!

 

[FraserRonald]

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and I, Robot* both were stirring. While the former was admittedly more "pulpy", both visited themes of the conscious desires of the "tools" we create in our own image (both physical and mental). The which, 2001: A Space Odyssy fits the same mold, with HAL having a limited conscious but one that must deal with the conflict caused by opposing priorities entered into its programming.

I read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep just after Blade Runner came out. I loved the movie--still do--and I was completely blown away. The book was even a bigger spiritual kick to the head, really opening things up for me. I was at an age when the coolness of the movie was what I loved. After reading the book, I saw a whole other level there.

Also, in the other thread, I mentioned The Forever War. That, too me, was a rather drastic eye-opener as well. For the most part, most of the sci-fi I'd read prior to (and actually even since then) have been either you Star Wars/Star Trek shoot-em-ups or your epic political/opera scenarios akin to Dune. The Forever War, on the other hand, came across as something truly unique; it was like Platoon or Full Metal Jacket, being incredibly gritty and harsh (or, as the person who recommended it to me said), "it's the first sci-fi tale that is honest about what war is like."

Perhaps not quite as real or as gritty, but Glen Cook's Dread Empire series really changed the way I looked at fantasy novels, and that continued with the Black Company. Did I mature as a reader or was it the genre that was maturing? I can't really say, but there still seems to be a lot of sophmorish stuff out there.

Being called away from my desk! More later.

 

[Joshua Randall]

One of the most surprising conversations I've ever had took place when I was about 15, at a point in my life when I read nothing -- and I mean nothing -- but sci-fi and fantasy. My mom came into the room and saw what I reading: "Ah, A Canticle for Liebowitz. Great book." We then went on to discuss the story, which she remembered quite well considering how long ago she had read it. (It was published in 1959.) Anyway, after that conversation, I realized that my mom was a lot cooler than I had previously thought.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Let's not forget how the introductory quotations at the beginning of each chapter of Dune drew the reader into the experience of prescience.

 

[FraserRonald]

Hey, I'm actually at home this time. No one to call me away from my desk. Well, my wife, but she wouldn't do anything that evil.

Ah, yes... Wells was indeed a master of sci-fi. To my knowledge, the only book he wrote that was too "far fetched" to ever be feasible was Journey to the Center of the Earth. On the other hand, atomic warfare, space travel, genetic engineering, submersible sea vessels, and a host of other ideas he presented have all proven to be possible (many of them a part of our daily lives!), while others (such as Time Travel) may not seem feasible yet, but really have not been proven or disproven as possibilities.

I believe Journey to the Center of the Earth was Jules Verne. Having only read 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, I have to say that I'm rather unimpressed with Verne. It could, of course, be the translation, but the story just wasn't that inspiring. Much like Last of the Mohicans, I find the movie actually better than the book! I know, I know, blasphemy. I shall perform 20 Hail Kurosawa's to make amends.

As for Wells, one of the things that is important to remember is that he was a socialist, a part of the Fabian Society (along with George Bernard Shaw) and that informed everything he wrote. He wasn't socialist in the modern, mistaken sense of being a communist, but rather he expected that man was inherantly good, that the state had certain duties towards its citizens and that the future--with the rise of technology--could be wonderful. He wasn't one that looked back to the past for the Golden Age, he looked to the future. However, he never forgot about man's weaknesses. Consider the Shape of Things to Come, vivid with both hope and despair. Really fascinating to look back on. It's all the more surprising that he doesn't pontificate on imperialism in War of the Worlds or the class structure that dominated Britain at the time in the Time Machine. Of course, do I mean to say that's what these books are about? Well, no, that's just my interpretation.

On the other hand, the "don't play God" message of Frankenstein is, indeed, a bit heavy-handed in its delivery, although, in all honesty, half of the good doctor's problems were about his actions after creating his monster. At least the screenplay for the last movie version (coupled with Robert DiNero's most excellent performance as the monster) was able to temper that to a degree. In either version, though, you do feel a bit of sympathy for the creature until he starts killing the Doctor's friends and family, after which point he's as damned as his creator.

Yeah, I mean, there was a great lesson and great characters in Frankenstein, I just hate it when an author really belabours a point, beats the reader over the head with it as if to say "In case you are too stupid to see it, this is the point." Graham Greene did the same thing in the Power and the Glory. It's like, "okay, okay, I get it, he's a Christ figure, now get on with the damn story!"

Okay... I love this line of reasoning. Spare me the Google search and list a few titles from him, if you would be so kind. A man with this approach to writing and teaching is worth a chance on my bookshelf.

He's a pretty whacked out writer. Back when I was in university, but after I had finished his courses, he was being acclaimed as one of the originators of a new genre termed "Gothic Sexual." I didn't even want to go near it. He keeps a dream journal and a lot of his stuff comes right from that, which is obvious in his stories. I think his most accessible stuff is in the short story collection Inspecting the Vaults. The eponymous story is really, really atmospheric in a Kafka-esque way. There's also the highly entertaining (in a weird way) but quite odd "Knox Abroad" which has John Knox in Colonial America. Really bizarre. Check out his bio page from the St. Jerome's University website. SJU is a church college affiliated to the Univeristy of Waterloo and its where I was registered. Check out the pic. He was quite popular among the young ladies, though he never acted with impropriety.

Now I'm going to go and find out if I can really get my leg to bend the way I promised earlier in this post...

Please do post the results of this experiment.