h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

One other thing PSG. If you think I'm not the best person to write this entry, write it yourself. If yours explains better than mine does the meaning and context of the term "hard sf", as used in my entry on Bussard ramjets, I'll change the link in that entry to point at yours. I *absolutely* mean that. This entry is here solely because nothing already in the guide does that one very specific thing I needed. If there had been, I'd have linked to it and saved myself a whole lot of time and a lot of arguing. I knew this entry would get the fans out and chatting, but I *had* to write it, because you can't just toss a term like "hard sf" into a Guide entry and expect everyone to understand it. If you want to stick *your* writing above the parapet, please do. I don't consider myself an authority, just another fan with a keyboard and some spare time.

Here is a list of non-American writers with sf credits who rated an entry in the Encyclopedia Britanica. To be fair, I should point out that the vast majority of writers listed with connections to sf were American.

Some of these writers I had never heard of, others I have read and enjoyed. To have made it to EB, they must have received some significant mention but not necessarily for their sf.

Brian W. Aldiss, C. S. Lewis, J. G. Ballard, Jules Verne, Karel Capek, Aldous Huxley, H. G. Wells, Pierre Boulle, Harry Martinson, Olaf Stapledon, Cyrano De Bergerac (maybe), Douglas Adams, Doris Lessing, Aleksy Tolsoy, Umaru Dembo, Miha Remec, Jorge Luis Borges, Adolfo Bioy Casares, Italo Calvino, Stanislaw Lem, Andrzej Sapkowski, Jacek Natanson, Joanna Chmielewska.

Among those listed, I personally consider Capek, Aldiss, Ballard, Borges, and Martinson to be very significant, each for a different reason.

I know there are others, even in my personal library, but their names do not pop out of my head right now.

Barton

Oops! I left Lem of of the known writers of great significance list.



Shame on me!

Barton

You left Adams off as well.

In all seriousness - and without wishing to seem all crawly - DNA reinvented the use of SF as a medium for comedy. And let's face it: if he hadn't been such an important influence, we probably wouldn't be posting here.

The Prophet

ST was a great movie given that it had to fulfill the need to make money. Those that say it was dumbed down missed the somewhat funny aspects of it. Like the number of clean shaven, Beverley hills 90210 lookalikes that were churned into pulp by the insects and how the human race were actually the agressors n more akin to the nazis then star trek type characters. i thought it was great

Hello again!
Glad to see I have sparked such lively conversation.
Now for the list, I have included fantasy of other worlds as well:
H.G.Wells
Jules Verne
C.S.Lewis [good call Barton]
Mervyn Peake
Tolkein
Sir Athur Conan Doyle
Douglas Adams [naturally]
Rob Grant & Doug Naylor [Together only, more humerous Sci-Fi there]
Neil Gaiman
Robert Perry & Mike Tucker
Kate Orman
Mark Gatiss
Justin Richards
Terry Pratchett [Never actually read him but my brother has and I have seen programmes based on them]

I'll Have a look at the rest and transcribe them later if you like.

My point was to point out that there is a world beyond the borders of America and should be catered for by an entry on Sci-Fi and/or Fantasy

Researcher PSG

p.s. We all have the technological capability of putting a human in space if we needed to.

I think this discussion is getting completely offtopic. It is a Peer Review of an entry about GENREs, and not an index of writers who ever produced a story that somehow may be classified as sf .
I think I will quit this discussion, to get some time to read a good story, whatever its category.
(Hey, there is no smiley for a book, so I will have the next best thing !!)

Hello,

Well, things seem to have gotten a bit heated. Such is the nature of these email-like forums, but I hope people are feeling a bit calmer now. Take a deep breath. Ahh, doesn't that feel good?

Anyway, let me disrupt the calm with a few comments of my own. Hooloovooloo, I think it's an extremely interesting entry, as is evidenced by the exciting level of input here. People are excited and are really into giving you more suggestions. Yes, there are all sorts of way this topic could be expanded, but I don't think they have to be in your entry. It seems to me that the entry itself is fine as is, because it provides a neat axis on which to gauge Sci-fi (like Greek drama has the the so-called "Apollo-Dionysius" opposition). It is by no means the ONLY way to look at a Sci-Fi work, but it really opened up my eyes to a new way of looking at things.

While a catalogue of notable authors sounds nice, I don't think it's appropriate for this entry. Instead, I feel that perhaps it might be useful for someone to make another entry that lists some of these notable authors, their best works, and their effects and contribution to the field. You could even make several entries (if you wanted to group by American vs. European, or Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Cyberpunk, etc.) out of that. Try using headers and subheaders to make it look nice and flow. But I feel to add that here would make your entry too long, or not really do justice to the authors (yes, I'd know Larry Niven is a sci-fi author, but that's about it).

Also, I personally think the argument over whether Americans or Europeans have had a larger influence in Sci-Fi is not really appropriate here. You won't really convince anyone, it divides the community, and it's just an ugly rehash of the whole "What's Wrong with Americans?" thread nonsense. And I think it's not really a comment of the entry proper, which is what this thread is about.

There you have it. I apologize if I accidentally offended anyone here. I'm amazed at all your knowledge and insight on the topic here. There's enough here to fill several entries over, and that's great.

Yours,
Jake

I'm sorry if it has got heated, but I feel when someone completely disregardes the impact of the whole world outside America, and the fact that truely influential sci-fi authors are evenly distributed, with many in Europe.

I feel that this parochial attitude cannot go uncorrected.

Researcher PSG

I'd already said Aldiss, Verne, Wells, Adams and Lem. Boulle is only famous because of the excellent job Rod Serling (American) did on the screenplay - the book was quite pedestrian. Capek coined a crucial term in one play, but what else is there? But on the other hand Barton I'll give you CS Lewis, JG Ballard, Aldous Huxley. Good calls all.
Now, PSG - you aren't paying attention. Conan Doyle - good call. Other than that, have you read the entry at all? It's about *science fiction*.
It specifically and explicitly excludes fantasy in the mould of Tolkien. You are the only person I have ever heard seriously propose Tolkien as a science fiction writer! Ditto Mervyn Peake and Terry Pratchett (yes, I've read Strata and Dark Side of the Sun, but that's two books from his youth vs. twenty plus fantasy). Rob Grant and Doug Naylor have written Red Dwarf, which, while I love it with a passion and think it's the second best sf ever done in this country, doesn't put them into the ranks of the long list of people in my previous entry. As for the others, they may be very good, but you are surely not proposing that *any one* of them could be mentioned in the same breath as Niven, Herbert, Bradbury, Asimov etc. etc. etc. see
previous list?

You give away your lack of focus in the next paragraph. If you want an entry on, and I quote, "Sci-Fi and/or Fantasy", you'd better write one yourself, because this isn't it. Take your Tolkien, and your Pratchett, and Peake elsewhere sir, because they do not concern us here. This entry is about *science fiction*, and only about science fiction. Read the title, read the entry.

As for the ps - oh please. Technological capability?! We all have the technological capability to build stealth fighters, jetpacks, Disneyland, the Internet, or the Empire State Building. The point is the Americans DID it, and continue to do it. Like it or not, they are the only nation seriously committed to our future in space not just in principle but in practice.

I am a British sf fan, but I don't believe it's possible to construct a COHERENT argument that sticks to the point that says that influential sf authors are evenly distributed. As a literary genre, it was invented in Europe, but the *overwhelming* majority of the quantity, quality and range of sf comes from America. See the list I gave.

PSG, if you want to continue discussing fantasy, please do so in my space, or in the space below the entry *you* write. This entry is about science fiction. Please discuss the entry. Thanks.

It'd be nice if everyone here could try to remember to stay on topic. And if you put a little red furry hat on a snowball, it'll last a long time in hell. *sigh* Take it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F19585?thread=123078 -Xanthia

Hoovooloo,

Please note: I agree with you. This article is about sf and, more specifically, it is about the hard/soft issue.

In the past I have had similar discussions and I have also found myself naturally speaking to the point of science fantasy and why it should be excluded, so it is easy for me to accept your mention of it here.

However, when I tried to think up ideas for a title as you had asked, I found myself wondering if science fantasy belongs in your title.

You do devote some space in your article to that genre but isn't your goal, similar to mine, to exclude it from consideration? Or, do you feel that it truely belongs on the same continuum with hard and soft science fiction.

My thinking is that it does not. And, while it is important to recognize that the genre exists and to state that it does not belong in the discussion, does that mean that it should be in your title as well? Are you really treating with that topic well enough to say that it is part of your article?

Perhaps it would be better to simply exclude science fantasy from your title. Otherwise, it seems to me, you have an equal obligation to establish the fiction/fantasy continuum (assuming that it is a continuum and not two mutually exclusive categories.) From what you have written, it seems that that was not your intention when you started and leaving it out of the title frees you from any obligation in that direction.

Whereas, putting it into your title would seem to obligate you to deal with the fiction/fantsy issue in more detail than you have.

Just my opinions and my suggestions, consistent, I think, with what I have already written. I, personally, think the content of your article is fine as is. And this discussion is now more about making it more so with the proper choice of a title.

All of this is pointless, if I have misunderstood your intent.

Barton

aha - Barton uses the same definition of "Science Fantasy" as me, it would appear. Check out http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F70616?thread=122408 , post 1. Martin - not alone! :)

The Prophet,

I have a vast amount of admiration for DNA's work and I am currently re-reading it specifically because I want to set his work against my memory of him and the times.

However, you are quite mistaken to think that DNA invented the use of comedy in sf and having said that he did you have slighted many fine writers. I don't like to use superlatives in an area where taste and personal preference are the ruling factors, but I will say that DNA was one of the finest examples of writers using humour in science fiction that I have ever encountered and that I personally rank his work as not only incredibly entertaining but highly significant.

I did not put him on my quick little short list, simply because it was quick and little. All of the name I listed were people who showed up in the electronic Encyclopedia Britannica connected with sf in such a way that a simple search could find them. I was foolish to attach more importance to one name than that of another.

I was responding to a request for non-American writers and that's where I should have left it. I, personally, feel that to sort writers by country of origin might be interesting and indicative of cultural influences but it has no significance beyond that.

Please excuse me, if you feel I have slighted DNA, it was not intentional.

Barton

Sorry if I was unclear. I ddin't mean DNA invented SF comedy, but he did have a huge impact on its progress. Perhaps more importantly - and I can't believe I didn't mention before - he took _radio_ SF forward - if you will - lightyears.

I just thought it was odd that you had him in your list of authors, but missed him off the significance list.

The Prophet.

Lucinda,

Maybe I do and maybe I don't.

What I stated here was that I see a distinction and that distinction involves finding a definition. My point is that that distinction is not at the center of his thesis and thus does not merit being part of his title.

Barton

The Prophet,

With that clarification then, my apology stands. I should not have added that second list. My intent was simply to suggest that Hoovooloo should consider those writers as significant, it never crossed my mind that anyone here at h2g2 in a discussion such as this would not have already considered DNA.

This is one of the problems of speaking in generalities. But, this article is about a useful generalization, so misunderstandings are almost inevitable and must be dealt with. I did not mean to add more fuel to the wrong fire and should not have done so.

Barton

I know I risk a restart, but it is 2001. Where is Arthur C. Clarke? At a rendevous with Rama?

I thought that I'd made it clear in the entry that as far as that entry is concerned, the "science" bit means "technology". "Science fantasy" = fantastic story, technological setting, e.g. Star Wars, Hitchhikers etc.
"Fantasy", on the other hand (NO science here), is the whole Tolkien, Pratchett, dragons, wizards, MAGIC thing, a DIFFERENT genre. It's different enough that Waterstones put all the science fiction together, and all the fantasy SOMEWHERE ELSE (admittedly the shelf next door - the part of the shop I always go to first and personally think of as "anorak corner").
Is this so unclear that I need to rewrite the entry?

Sorry about my posting of my list I thought we had wondered into fantasy as well. So ignore Tolkein, Peak, etc.

Now on the grounding of Science Fiction, there was a whole series on the subject of British Sci-Fi, great volumus books, I mearly havent read them and so cannot quote anything.

Now I worry that I am under-read on the subject, but I still feel the world cannot be ignored.

On the subject of the others I listed that did Sci-Fi, I have been compelled to steam through their books with as much eagerness and expansive interest as Wells, Verne, and Connan Doyle, and so I rate them highly. The reason I have read them is I felt compelled to, as I have no pretensions.

And on the reason I may be under-read in your selected sci-fi is because I got out a book of examples of a many different Sci-fi novels, and I chose the ones that interested me, not the ones others said was good.

Again I state that the area of personal taste cannot exclude contenants, as someone somewhere would choose it over your choice.

I now bow out of this conversation as I don't think I am being as useful as I might.

Researcher PSG