I’d think that “Flowers for Algernon” could qualify as science fiction. It imagines a scientific possibility that still hasn’t been realized.
I have to ask, what is your defintion of science fiction, or SF, or Sci-Fi? To me, science fiction is any kind of story that looks at ideas that may or may not be possible and explores characters in those situations. Thus such books as The Handmaid’s Tale, Galapagos, Jurassic Park, and others represent, to me, science fiction. I don’t insist on the label being used for any of them, but I get annoyed when people argue that because they’re good books they can’t possibly be science fiction.
I don’t mean that you’ve made that argument, but you’re coming damned close to it. And this is a topic I’m not particularly rational about. :dubious:
Grrrr. I wonder, have you been brought up on Star Wars? That might explain it.
Keyes was not an editor of F&SF, where the story was published. I don’t know if F&SF won the best magazine Hugo that year (or if they even had them back then) but I own most of the magazines published that year, and F&SF was the best and most literate. Do you really think the fans who voted for the Hugo would have voted for a non-sf story?
You are misinterpreting what a Space Western is. As given in an ad on the back cover of the first issue of Galaxy, it is a Western where space terms are substituted for western terms. Blish called it a “call a rabbit a smerp” story. Everything in “Flowers for Algernon” flows from the postulated scientific advance. That is why it is a good sf story.
However, I don’t think that strong characters are required. “The Cold Equations” has been mentioned here as a favorite story, a story with no discernible characters. The pilot is the person who has to make a decision, and the girl is defined solely by being young, cute, and a type who the male readers of Astounding would want to protect. I think it is a good story because it makes real a point (mistakes in space can kill you) that had become a cliche through overuse. But I know this is a subject on which opinions vary wildly.
I’d have to think about it, it’s a bit of a “know it when you see it” situation, really.
I think that would work as a definition of fiction. Whether something is science fiction or fantasy or some other genre would depend on the specifics of the ideas, at least within the context of that definition.
I think it’s largely a matter of the way good fiction is written. There’s not a whole lot in it, most times, to tie it to any one genre. It will pull elements from various categories we’ve created. The very broadness of the stroy is what makes it good. Now, certainly there will be good science fiction that wouldn’t appeal to a reader of, say, cloak-and-dagger mystery novels, and you’d have no trouble calling that science fiction. But I do think you could have just as much trouble classifying a generally good cloak-and-dagger mystery novel (I.E. one that would appeal to a general reader, not just mystery fans) as a generally good SF novel. It doesn’t have anything to do with science fiction.
Star Wars is a Space Western is there ever was one. The villian wears a black hat. Shoot-outs with pistols. Saloons. Run-ins with the Federales.
Yes. I doubt most people would give much thought as to whether the classification was correct (or care, even if they did). They’d just think “Hmmm, did I like this story more than that story?” and vote accordingly.
Why do you keep switching between the Space Western and Flowers for Algernon threads? Surely you don’t have the mistaken impression that I think FfA is a space western?
When was it ever said that strong characters are required?
The Cold Equations is good SF, IMO, because there’s never any discussion over what has to be done. Oh, we found a stowaway. She has to be jettisoned. That’s just life in the 24th-and-a-half century.
Bad science fiction uses characters as vehicles to show off all the cool gadgets they have in the future. The science/technology doesn’t enable the story, it IS the story. And while this can be interesting (and educational, occassionally) if the ideas being explored are sufficiently abstract, it’s just space ships, aliens, and exoskeletal armor… meh. Oh, or nanotech. There’s a Deus ex Machina if I ever saw one.
I can’t see how “Flowers for Algernon” could not be considered SF. Charlie’s operation is a scientific advance, and one which has not yet been made, and it’s essential to the story. When a scientific advance which has not yet been made is essential to a story, that sounds like science fiction to me.
And SF is very flexible, in part I think because there are a lot of things that can go into making an SF story good. An SF story can be driven by characters, as can a story in any genre, and if it’s driven well by characters, it’ll be a good story. But science fiction can also be driven by ideas, and if the ideas are good enough, it can make for a good story even in the absence of good (or any) characters. Of course, it also allows for that rare gem of a story with good characters and good ideas, to make a truly top-notch story.
It’s unfortunate that many of the best SF stories are not regarded by the public at large as being SF. It is, however, fortunate that they’re regarded by the public at large at all. “Flowers for Algernon”, for instance, is good SF, but I think that the fact that it’s good is much more important than the fact that it’s SF.
Finally, I’ll just point out that the Hugos are not restricted to science fiction, but also include fantasy and other forms of speculative fiction. Remember, one of the Harry Potter books won best novel in its year, and I don’t think that anyone would argue that Harry Potter is science fiction.
When “Flowers for Algernon” was published in April of 1959, there was probably not a single person on earth who considered it anything other than a science fiction story. That the Hugo voters in 1960, a tiny, self-selected group of extreme fans attending a convention of fewer than 600 people, could have thought the story anything other than science-fiction is so ahistorical and unaware of the history of fandom that I will charitably refrain from further comment.
We don’t know when 1010011010 first read the story, but it has to be 20 or 30 or more years later.
The real question here, therefore, is what conceivably could have happened in that intervening time that somebody could read the story and not instantly recognize it for what it was?
The first clue we’re given is that the story was read for an English class. Science fiction was not taught in school when I went to high school. (I was never given a single book or story from the second half of the 20th century, in fact.) SF had image problems. It was not considered to be literature. It did not have the classic values of literature: notably fine writing and deep characterization. A few scattered courses in SF were started at the college level in the 1960s, but it took many years for the notion to percolate down to the high school level.
When it did, part of the reason was the thinking that the curriculum had to be made relevant, more modern, and more interesting. Another big part was that SF had become vastly more pervasive in popular culture. Inside the field, the difference between print SF and movie SF was clear; outside the field almost everybody tended to confuse the two. 1010011010 keeps referring to “sci-fi,” which most people inside the field consider to be extremely pejorative, fit for use only for schlock media science fiction. Outside the field, the terms are interchangeable and are evidence for the lack of regard in which science fiction continues to be held.
One of the solutions to this dilemma was the ever-popular “if it’s good, it’s not science fiction” rationale. This has been used regularly for books like 1984 or Brave New World, and was taken up loudly as a cause by writers like Kurt Vonnegut, who recognized, rightly, that SF was “pissed” (his term) on by critics. It just was easier to slip SF into a curriculum if an excuse could be found for not labeling it SF. This was easy to do if there was a noted lack of spaceships in the work.
I’ll give large odds that the English teacher in the class that 1010011010 took never used the words science fiction when talking about “Flowers for Algernon” and never put the work into any kind of a science-fictional framework. Few teachers would have the historic ability to do so in any case, even if they themselves had not been through an academic process in which science fiction was regularly derided and stigmatized.
The revival of movie sci-fi through Star Trek and Star Wars for years was thought by those inside the SF community to foretell a climate in which SF would be taken more seriously. It’s never happened. SF is still the red-headed stepchild of literature. You may see more SF works taught at all levels than when I went to school, but anything is more than nothing. I understand that fewer colleges have SF courses today than 20 years ago, and fewer academic books are being written. More reviews of SF are seen in the major newspapers, admittedly, but the new hot genre is romance after a many-years-long affair with mysteries.
Although SF books of all shapes and kinds and descriptions are being published, and space is no longer a hot issue – although genetic engineering is, though perhaps that’s as non-scientific a subject to be extrapolated on as urology – the recognizable tropes of SF are still spaceships, aliens, and time travel. Movies that are the truest representatives of what print SF is like – The Truman Show, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and Being John Malkovich – are not thought of as science fiction at all.
And you still get people who can say forthrightly that a story about character that doesn’t include spaceships isn’t science fiction. And they’re still wrong. I used to think that this would change. I no longer do. I just can’t stop fighting it.
I suppose The Lottery, by Shirley Jackson… is my fave.
Cartooniverse
“Paycheck” by Philip K. Dick is my favorite. I was unsettled by how the movie butched the story, but when they cast Ben Affleck, I saw it coming.
Oh, and FWIW, I think there is no question that “Star Wars” is Sci-Fi.
Anybody mention Tin Soldier by Joan Vinge yet?
I find J.G Ballard to be one of the few relevant science ficiton writers. He mostly writes of the consequences of 20th century technology.
Out of the short stories that I have read, I would pick:
Chronopolis
Manhole 69
The Overloaded Man
Definitely worth looking into, even for people (like me) who rarely enjoy science fiction.
“Repent Harlequin!” Said the Tick-Tock Man.
It might be worth quoting the poem by Kingsley Amis here
“SF’s no good, they say until we’re deaf.
But this is good. Then it’s not sf.”
Though I’m not a fan, I just read the stuff, I have hung around enough fans to agree that it is inconceivable that any fan or neofan could not consider FfA science fiction. I’ve read tons of criticism and commentary, and have never seen anyone even considering this notion.
Besides that, all I can say is Hear Hear to Exano’s post.
As mentioned earlier, it wasn’t being read as part of the class. We were given a different reading assignment in the book, I had finished that, and was flipping around reading other things. I’m not sure if Flowers for Algernon has stuck with me because it was the best thing I read, or because that’s what I was reading when the teacher “caught” me and began to accuse me of screwing off.
So, yeah, the teacher never actually said anything at all about Flowers for Algernon (other than saying I shouldn’t be reading it), since that wasn’t part of her lesson plan.
That sort of thing happened to me more than a few times in highschool. They held Saturday School (weekend detention, basically) in the library. Basically, you could do homework (mine was usually already done by that point), read something (no magazines), or stare in space for a couple of hours. Most of my fellow detainees opted to gaze into the middle distance. I read a big fat collection of Ray Bradbury short stories I’d found early on in the year. This really annoyed one particular assistant principal.
On the basis of that memory, I’d like to add Bicentennial Man to the list.
With that, I throw in the towel. While I’m still skeptical about Being John Malkovich, I’m willing to accept the other two as science fiction, though I hadn’t ever thought of them as SF.
So, sure, FfA is SF.
I picked up a Locus Award anthology recently, which I read on the way to work. George R. R. Martin has a story called “The Way of Cross and Dragon”, about a Knight Inquisitor of the One True Interstellar Catholic Church. It’s a very interesting look at religious faith in the vastness of space.
I just learned that Asimov wrote this on the day I was born. (Actually it took him two days, so it’s more accurate to say he finished it on the day I was born.)
O.K. Here are my recommendations.
The Enumeration isn’t important.
1.Faith of our Fathers Philip K. Dick- and much more from this Author
2.I have no Mouth but I must scream Harlan Ellison- a couple of Persons who are involuntary embroiled in a “different” kind of Hackerspace
3.The Last Question Isaac Asimov- You find actually in this Story the Question for the Answer in the third Hitchhiker to the Galaxy Book.
4.The Ultimate City J.G. Ballard-Recovering of New York City in an utopian Future.
5.Turn Off The Sky Ray Nelson-Somehow this Story reminds me of the Pirate Party and Occupy-Movement or vice versa.
Cory Doctorow is a great Newcomer
“All You Zombies” by Robert A Heinlein
At some point in this thread, someone asked how to find these stories. The answer is to check the Internet Speculative Fiction Database:
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi
Here are my twenty favorite science fiction works of less than 25,000 words:
Christopher Anvil “Mind Partner”
J. G. Ballard “The Subliminal Man”
Alfred Bester “Disappearing Act”
F. M. Busby “If This Is Winnetka, You Must Be Judy”
A. J. Deutsch “A Subway Named Mobius”
Philip K. Dick “Faith of Our Fathers”
George Alec Effinger “The Aliens Who Knew, I Mean, Everything”
Harlan Ellison “Jeffty Is Five”
Philip José Farmer “Towards the Beloved City”
Charles Harness “The New Reality”
Robert Heinlein “– All You Zombies –”
Norman Kagan “The Mathenauts”
Daniel Keyes “Flowers for Algernon”
C. M. Kornbluth “The Little Black Bag”
David I. Masson “Traveler’s Rest”
Lewis Padgett (Henry Kuttner and C. L. Moore) “Mimsy Were the Borogoves”
T. L. Sherred “E for Effort”
Howard Waldrop “The Ugly Chickens”
Ian Watson “The Very Slow Time Machine”
Roger Zelazny “A Rose for Ecclesiastes"
I came in to say these. There are quite a few Ray Bradbury tales that might qualify also. In general I’d say the story has to be clever/innovating in concept, or has to be inspiring/uplifting. Extra points for both.
I’d consider Cold Equations to be one of the worst stories ever.
There was also a story about a couple finding out their child was that years “baby new year” and would live out their entire life over the next year that I loved, but have been unable to track down.